This transcript is from a meeting of the **Cottage Grove Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission**. Based on the context provided and the dialogue, the speakers include **Zac Dockter** (Parks and Recreation Director), **Councilmember Tony Kumada** (City Council Liaison), a staff member named **Molly**, and various Commissioners (including **Commissioner Waterman**, **Commissioner Olsen**, and **Commissioner Deb**). [00:00] **Chair**: Okay, calling the December 11 meeting of the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission to order. The mission of the Cottage Grove Parks and Recreation Commission is to create and promote policies, programs, and places that enable active living for a more vibrant community. Let's get started with a roll call. [00:25] **Zac Dockter**: Thank you. Okay. [00:38] **Chair**: Has everyone had the opportunity to review the agenda? Any questions or comments on the agenda? Okay, then I'm looking for a motion to approve. [00:45] **Commissioner**: Motion to approve the agenda. [00:47] **Commissioner**: Thank you, second. [00:49] **Chair**: All right, those in favor, aye. [00:51] **Commissioners**: Aye. [00:52] **Chair**: Opposed? Okay, motion carries, agenda is approved. Have we had an opportunity to review the minutes? Okay, questions or comments on the minutes? [01:05] **Commissioner**: Motion to approve the minutes. [01:07] **Commissioner**: Okay, thank you. Second. [01:09] **Commissioner**: Second. [01:10] **Chair**: All right, those in favor, aye. [01:12] **Commissioners**: Aye. [01:13] **Chair**: Those opposed? Okay, motion carries, minutes are approved. Any open forum tonight? It does not look like it. Then we'll go over to Molly for our presentation on winter programs and events. [01:26] **Molly**: Good evening, Parks Commission. We just wanted to come tonight to give you a brief update on upcoming winter programs and events happening here still in Cottage Grove. We just ended kind of our last winter thing yesterday with the holiday train, but we still have our holiday lights home tour going on. It's not too late to still add your house to the stop that's available on a web link on the city's website. From there, it creates a map that you can travel then throughout Cottage Grove looking at houses that have been decorated. The map does start here at City Hall so everybody gets to see our big chair out front and the tree lit here as your starting point for the evening. We just like to remind everybody that Park and Rec—we're pretty seasonal in our offices. So parks stay open, trails are open. Skating rinks... get into that in a minute. Same with sledding hills, cross-country skiing, and snowshoes. All of those are kind of delayed at this point, but we'll still be getting there. So our winter warming houses include ice skating and sledding. You can see the facilities listed there. They're open seven days a week once we have enough ice built by our parks department. We have not started any rinks yet; we need some consistent colder weather. If in between now and rinks are ready, if we do get a considerable amount of snow, we will open warming houses that have sledding hills at them so that residents can get out and utilize those warming houses when they're out sledding. Still to be determined is Glacial Valley; we're waiting on a few more supplies to be delivered and installed at that new park before we are able to determine if we are putting in a rink this year. So watch social media, feel free to give us a call in the office if you're looking for more information. Our tentative schedule for warming houses to open—the day after Christmas—we are not going to meet that goal just quite yet. So we don't even have an estimated time yet, but to be determined. We are holding winter break programming similar to our supervised playgrounds for four days at Peter Thompson Park during winter break. All of those days are currently full. I think maybe Tuesday has a few openings still, but the other days are full. So we anticipate 40 kids there each day playing outside games, crafts, just kind of having fun. It's fun to see everybody we haven't seen since break, and we have a bunch of staff back from the summer, so it's always kind of a fun four days to reconnect and regroup. Snowshoe rentals again are on hold. We need a minimum of one foot of snow on the ground to kind of make those trails ready to go. Brad is working on that in our department. He is planning still on utilizing Mississippi Dunes Park for the snowshoes still this winter. Kind of depending on the weather, we may have to change that, but that is the goal as of right now. This was new to us last year; this is our trailer that we use for kayaks in the summer and then we kind of modify it—you can see in the picture that plywood in the back—to fit snowshoes. So each rental locker includes two pairs of snowshoes. There are no poles included, so if you want your own, feel free to bring those. It's a great chance—you rent them online, you get an access code just like the kayaks. Glacial Valley—we were talking about it before the meeting—is, I'd say, we're like 95% of the way there. We have a few things still to be put in and installed there, but Glacial Valley is something to keep in mind if you're looking for a great rental spot this summer. Rentals at Glacial Valley include the use of the kitchen area, tables, chairs, AV equipment. Rental times just like our other facilities are 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. We have established rental costs for Glacial Valley: $450 for residents or $550 for non-residents. Permits do open, I think, the second week in February for all of our sites, and Glacial Valley will be included in that. So here's a look at our opening day details. Now that I mentioned we've finished holiday train, we're done with kind of our 2023 programs, we really start delving into 2024 getting everything set. We are very strategic on how things are posted and when things open so that we can give 100% customer service on everything as we do it. This takes us hours to figure out when we're doing what, when and where. So Highway 61 Hockey Camp will be back again; that opens for registration January 17th. We are offering our second season of Grizzly 3v3 hockey. February 6th, like I mentioned, park reservations open for the summer. Those can still only be done by calling us in the office. So we typically have all hands on deck at 8:00 a.m. and go strong for about four hours that morning. I'll back up—Highway 61 fills typically in about 15 minutes, all online, but then it's a lot of like "side hustle" to kind of get it organized. 3v3 hockey should be a little bit slower registration process. Summer supervised playgrounds is February 13th. Last year that only took about an hour to fill. We are adding Glacial Valley as a site this year. As of right now, we are still planning on 40 kids there. We're going to kind of see what that looks like; we initially thought 50 kids at Glacial Valley, but I think we may pair it back for the first year and go 40 kids. So that will be our fifth site for the summer. February 28th, Pickleball Club opens for registration, and that's going to be a process. So that'll be Pickleball Club people from last year, residents, non-residents... everybody's going to have about 72 hours to kind of get their club membership. I believe we're kind of set on 300 people in the club this year. The club then will get you times to play pickleball during Pickleball Club times at Glacial Valley. I believe by March, Brad is planning on coming in kind of giving a pickleball update at that point. And then March 15th, all of our other summer programs will open for registration. So that's kind of where we're at right now. We're kind of done with our like we say "boots on the ground" work and we're now just going to sit back and start kind of organizing and trying to remember what went well last year as we planned for this year. So I'm happy to answer any questions on how things went the last few weeks or going forward. I can answer any questions that you guys might have, or if there's none, that's good too. Thank you guys. [05:25] **Chair**: Right, thanks Molly. [05:28] **Zac Dockter**: Okay, our first action item tonight is related to the Mississippi Dunes Park naming. Thank you, Chair, members of the Commission. "Mississippi Dunes Reserve" is the current name we're using for that property, the former Mississippi Dunes Golf Course, where we have the 20 acres of passive recreational space and then we're also going to be adding the additional 10 to 19 acres for recreational space there. I think the Commission is very familiar with the site; you've reviewed this item, I believe, at three commission meetings. So I've added some additional information. As the process has gone on, the list has gotten a little bit longer for potential park names. But as always, at this point, following the park naming policy, the Commission can make a recommendation to Council. Council makes the final—would approve the final naming—at their discretion. So at this point, there's a list of names. You can make a recommendation to the Council, or we can table the topic to another meeting yet. So I will turn it over to the Chair. [06:35] **Chair**: I like that we have several names to choose from at this point, but I did want to share some input from Commissioner Crabtree, who's not able to be here tonight. She has a strong preference for getting some more community input and was interested to know if we could try and get something on one of our social media pages or something to try and generate some more interest in getting community input on a name. Otherwise, also avoid names related to previous owners—just trying to have a fresh start and a real positive kind of influence from the name for this area. Does anyone have strong feelings about a name that's already on our list or other comments they want to share? [07:06] **Commissioner**: Hi, yeah. So Commissioner Crabtree had mentioned this at our previous meeting—I saw on the movie of the meeting—so I didn't know if you'd had a chance to talk to the communications folks on our behalf or not, Zac? [07:22] **Zac Dockter**: We have not. So if we get that direction from the Commission, we would be able to do that, but we have not dialogued on that yet. At the last meeting, the direction was just to table it for further conversation, so we left it at that. [07:38] **Chair**: And basically what Commissioner Crabtree said is kind of how I feel. I feel like this is the most important park naming that has come up since I've been a member of this Commission, and I didn't really like the names we had. So I just kind of brainstormed and added a few, but I don't have a name that I really, really love. I kind of liked the idea of Grey Cloud Channel Park as reflecting kind of the body of water that we're connecting to, or something simple like Mississippi River Park just to highlight that's our river access point. It's been on our agenda for a while, so I'm kind of itching to start to narrow things down, especially since we're going to be having snowshoe rental and starting to have programming on the spot. I think it would be nice if we could get closer to selecting a name, but I'm open to taking more time if that is more comfortable for everyone. [08:15] **Councilmember Tony Kumada**: So Commissioner Crabtree, when she's thinking about getting community input, would she be wanting to put like this list out there to have people vote, or would she be wanting to solicit "name your park" kind of input? I would suggest that you guys are representative of the community, and that's why you guys were selected to be on the Parks and Rec board. My fear with... have you guys been following the flag selection process for the State of Minnesota? It's gotten a little kind of bogged down. I would fear that something similar might happen, or we'd get people that are not maybe being genuine or serious in their naming suggestions. So I would maybe caution us from wanting to go that route. Given the experience we have with naming, I think some of the best park names that we have are either commemorative in terms of the location or the history of the park, or they're memorial and we're honoring somebody either involved with the property from the past or somebody who is significant in the community. Just kind of as you guys are brainstorming for ideas, those are the names that really kind of land and seem to work. But yeah, I would caution us from putting this out to the greater community for fear that it might bog down the process and make it harder, not easier, on you guys. [08:56] **Commissioner Deb**: Chair, if I could, I'd just like to respectfully disagree with Councilmember Kumada. It seems to me very odd that we would not want input from the folks that actually own this park—the citizens of our city. I think the fact that it's controversial is all the more reason to involve the citizens in the process. Thank you. [09:15] **Chair**: So it seems like we don't have a name to put forward at this time. Is that...? [09:20] **Commissioner Deb**: Well, I put forward about ten, so I've done some work. My neighbor said we should call it "Park on the Hill Park." [09:25] **Commissioner**: Well, we want to... maybe would it be helpful to narrow it down a little bit? I don't know, just to kind of like move the process forward? [09:33] **Chair**: I think that's a good idea as a starting point since we've been kind of stuck on this item. [09:34] **Zac Dockter**: And Chair, if you would like, you could move this agenda item to a workshop where you can actually do some silent ballots—we could do that too. But you wouldn't be able to take any action tonight; you'd still have to bring it back to the next meeting. So that's an option too if you don't want to try to bog down the meeting in this situation. But just offering alternatives, because if we push it to another meeting to try and make a selection, then that's in February, which still needs to be approved by Council. So it's pushing us kind of further and further into activity season, and I think it would be nice to have a name so that when we are promoting programs, we're referring to a consistent place rather than a previous name for a property, especially if it doesn't have a positive feeling for some of our community members. [10:35] **Chair**: Maybe we could try to look at if there are things we could eliminate from the list to help us focus a little bit more. Like Deb suggested, if we tried to move references to "Dunes"—if that's something that's comfortable for folks—that would take out like Mississippi Dunes Park, Dunes Landing, Dunes Park. Is Mississippi Landing... was that a reference to the previous property too, or is "Landing" separate? [11:00] **Zac Dockter**: That one came from Commissioner Olsen. [11:03] **Chair**: Okay. I'm not as familiar with the course property, so I don't know what connections might be there. [11:06] **Zac Dockter**: I apologize, Chair. That actually came from the housing development that's proposed. The current housing development that's proposed on the site is the neighborhood is entitled "Mississippi Dunes Landing," or at least it was. That can always change, but that was on their original proposal. I've also seen Mississippi Landing; that's why those two are on there, number two and number three. But "Mississippi Dunes" specifically is the only thing related to the golf course itself; these other names aren't connected to that. Well, Chair, members of the Commission, there was a... the owner's name was "Doc." That was the name he was referenced as. There was a restaurant—the bar and grill at the clubhouse—was called "Doc's Landing." [12:00] **Commissioner Deb**: I would just offer that to me, "Landing," while it's used a lot—I don't like Mississippi Landing alone—it does say that this is where the land meets the water. And the city owns this spot where the land meets the water. That's kind of attractive to me. [12:15] **Chair**: Okay. So we want to keep Mississippi Landing in consideration for possible names. Commissioner Crabtree had also mentioned a strong preference for the "Grey Cloud Channel" name from the list that we had created. So that's two: Mississippi Landing and Grey Cloud Channel. Is there another name that sticks out to anyone that they want to make sure we continue to consider? [12:40] **Commissioner**: I kind of like the "First Cottage Grove Mayor." Again, kind of going along with naming a park after an important citizen in the community. It takes away from the river and the land itself, but I like the idea of possibly naming it the Harold Kern Camp Park. [13:00] **Chair**: I like that name. All right, so that's three instead of 14, so that feels like a step in the right direction. Do we feel comfortable on trying to narrow down one at this point, or do you guys want more time to consider and try and get input somehow? [13:12] **Commissioner**: Possibly more time, or try and narrow down further from three. [13:17] **Commissioner Deb**: I am not in the least bit interested in being rushed in this. But that's just me. And then secondly, I still hold out hope that we might ask our fellow citizens what their thoughts are. [13:25] **Chair**: I agree that we need to come up with something before we do programming, just so that's consistent, and as we go forward with programming it's not like, "Wait, I thought it was at a different park last time." Just for ease of use, I guess. And we have programming starting in February, so if we hold off to the next meeting, then we probably wouldn't be able to name something until March. Is that... [13:46] **Zac Dockter**: Chair, members of the Commission, another meeting is not going to set us off course with the recognition of the park name. So if you feel like another meeting is necessary, I wouldn't hesitate to do that. And we don't have any... I mean, it's the snowshoe... [14:04] **Chair**: And who knows? [14:05] **Zac Dockter**: Yeah, the popularity of the snowshoe program isn't really through the roof at this point anyways. [14:10] **Chair**: We've got grass still. [14:13] **Zac Dockter**: Yeah. [14:14] **Chair**: Okay, so it seems like we want to hold this for at least one more meeting to continue discussion in February. Can we try and focus on the three names: Mississippi Landing, Grey Cloud Channel, or the Harold Kern Camp Park? Does that feel comfortable to try and focus on those three unless we have additional suggestions? [14:30] **Commissioner Deb**: Well, I was just going to—I kind of like the "Dunes Landing in Cottage Grove." Now, I worry that Commissioner Crabtree may object to the word "Dunes," however, the Grey Cloud Dunes Natural and Scientific Area is just adjacent, you know, just downriver from that park. And while we're deciding to build houses where the dunes actually are, the park name "Dunes" is consistent throughout the community, I believe. So I don't know. Like I said, I don't love any of the names, but it feels like we should have at least one with "Dunes" in there because that's a pretty special thing what happened there—all that sand came from the island up onto the hill or on the riverbank when it was a lot bigger river. [15:15] **Chair**: Okay, so we're not ready to let go of Dunes Landing yet. [15:18] **Commissioner Deb**: Well, or Dunes Park on the Mississippi River. I feel like while it has been on the agenda a lot, the first two meetings there was not much discussion. And because of the letter I wrote last meeting, there wasn't much. So while it's been on the agenda, we haven't devoted a whole lot of time to a pretty significant park in my view. [15:38] **Chair**: I like Director Dockter's suggestion of a workshop. We might be able to hash things out a little bit easier. I don't know, that feels helpful to me. Can we plan for that? [15:48] **Zac Dockter**: Well, what I would recommend is you actually amend the agenda and make this a workshop, and just after this meeting, we can workshop. And once again, you can't take formal action on it, but you could narrow the list, expand the list, give some direction on how you'd like to see us gather feedback from the community if that's something you're desiring. [16:04] **Chair**: All right. I'll motion that we amend the agenda to add a workshop tonight to work on this some more. [16:08] **Commissioner**: Second. [16:10] **Chair**: All right. Do we need additional discussion about amending the agenda? Okay. Those in favor? [16:15] **Commissioners**: Aye. [16:16] **Chair**: Those opposed? All right, motion carries. We've amended the agenda and we'll talk about this later. Okay, next up we have the Kingston Park Building concept design. [16:25] **Zac Dockter**: Thank you, Chair, members of the Commission. As you may recall at the last meeting, we had the big boards and we invited a lot of stakeholders that were intimately involved with Kingston Park, whether they're event coordinators or sports athletic program facilitators or whatever it might be. We invited those folks to look at some preliminary concept designs of the new Kingston Park Building. We hired Ortell Architects. Some pretty good designs, we think. Just a little bit of background: the primary goals—there were six primary goals given by Council in a workshop before we started the concept design planning. Those goals were: to significantly increase restroom capacity, retain and/or grow the picnic sheltering space, add a large programming room, add storage space for events, add a serving kitchen/concession space, and then create a unique exterior design that's different from our current park buildings. A lot of our park buildings have a similar exterior design, and they wanted to see something different. So those were good direction, very clear direction, and I think you'll see that in the designs that are proposed. Those designs are in your [packet] as well as the site plan and the floor plan. At this point, I am looking for fee—oh, I should mention that in that stakeholder meeting prior to the last commission meeting, the main recommendations we had were to expand this kitchen serving window and then thoroughly review the power supply and logistics for all the events. That's something that would take place more in the actual building design process as opposed to the concept design, but we can certainly do that. So with that, I'm looking for direction on the Kingston Park Building concept plans. Based on the direction from the Commission, we would bring that feedback and direction to the City Council, I believe it's at the January 3rd City Council meeting. There is no... this is an unbudgeted project right now, so it's up to the City Council in terms of schedule and final project budget. That was something they'd be discussing in their workshop. [18:40] **Chair**: I was pleased to see people in attendance when we had the opportunity for folks to come and review the designs. It was really neat to hear just kind of general feedback. It seemed positive—liking the concept, imagining different ways to use the space. So that was really nice. We did talk a little bit about the pillar thing that says "Kingston Park" out on the side. I don't think I like that. It's kind of cool if it could light up, but it seems inconsistent with the cool rocks that we have at every other park all over the city. So I don't know how y'all feel about that, but I don't like it. The building itself, though, I think looks really cool. [19:15] **Commissioner Waterman**: I agree. I think the sign kind of looks like a subway stop or something, but I like the building as well. So these are all pictures of the same design, correct? [19:24] **Zac Dockter**: Correct. [19:25] **Commissioner Waterman**: I like that the building can be lit up in different colors; I think that's a really nice feature. This looks like a much larger building than the existing building. Is it going to fit in that same basic area, or will there be any impact to the playground set next to it? Will that have to be moved? [19:38] **Zac Dockter**: Commissioner Waterman, that's a good question. I thought the one site plan on the big board that we displayed at the last meeting—I apologize—it actually depicted the existing building on there. I thought this one did, but I see it doesn't... unless I'm just not seeing it. But no, it's not that much wider, but it's definitely longer. But it does not require us to do anything with the playground or the courts or the trail to the west. We would be tying into the trail to the west with a concrete patio. Potentially the end of the parking lot might get reconfigured to make that a drop-off area and a little more convenient for handicap accessibility, but really there's no impact on any of the surrounding areas. We'd obviously lose the garden in front, but you can see we're replacing that with some other landscaping. We lose a little bit of space on the backside between the courts and the current building, but that's just right now a park light there and grass. [20:30] **Chair**: The way that we have the flagstones in that front garden at Kingston now—I see lots of people hopping from stone to stone. That's really fun. If we could find a way to keep that in some aspect of the perimeter work, that's just nice to see people of all ages engaging in that movement. It's just very inviting. Any other directions we want to include or suggestions for Council as they review these concept designs? [20:55] **Commissioner Olsen**: No, I don't have any. We talked about it last week, right? We talked about the pillar and it being a climbing feature. Is there going to be enough storage for the picnic tables? There looks like a lot of picnic tables... or where do you put those in the winter, I guess I should ask? [21:11] **Zac Dockter**: Commissioner Olsen, they just stay out. So we would not be storing the picnic tables. [21:17] **Commissioner Olsen**: Oh yeah, they're mostly covered. I didn't know that. [21:20] **Commissioner**: Well, I really like the building. I think it looks great. [21:23] **Chair**: Do you need a formal action on our comments? [21:26] **Zac Dockter**: I would like a recommendation, and I can try to summarize it for you if you'd like. The recommendation would be to accept the Kingston Park Building concept design with consideration for eliminating or redesigning the front entry sign and keeping a flagstone path in the front entry landscaping. And the community concerns about the size of the serving window and the power logistics—that would also be included for Council. [21:54] **Chair**: Yes, please include that. I'd be happy to make that motion. [21:58] **Commissioner**: Second. [22:00] **Chair**: Those in favor, aye. [22:01] **Commissioners**: Aye. [22:02] **Chair**: Those opposed? Okay, motion carries for the recommendations that Zac summarized. Got it. Okay, and then next we have the E-Recreational Equipment education messaging. [22:15] **Zac Dockter**: Thank you, Chair, members of the Commission. Another item that's been in front of you a few times—I believe this is the third time you've seen it. First was a joint commission meeting where we reviewed it at the tail end of the joint workshop with the Public Services Commission, and then we reviewed some potential sign options at the November meeting. I took the feedback from the last commission meeting and we tried to make those signs a little more personalized. Now, there are five signs here. I believe we don't need to use all five signs; we don't need to use any of these five signs. We are still in the development stage, so I'm looking for feedback from the Commission—or if there's one or two you want to start with, or if you think all five are good. You can see they could be used in different areas. But really, again, just engaging the Commission in the conversation to make sure that... the direction was to allow multi-use types of ebikes with pedestrians on our trails. So how best do we educate the public on doing that? I'm trying to engage with the Commission on the best way to do that. Signs, social media postings—we could put them in our newsletter, maps, and other things. So it's not just about signs, but you get the picture. I'll turn it back over to the Chair for discussion. [23:40] **Chair**: I really liked three and five. I like five, the last one, with the addition probably to add maybe... if we are going to have a speed limit, maybe add the speed limit onto the last sign. [23:55] **Commissioner**: I like three and five as well. I don't necessarily think the speed limit has to be on there, just because most people... it's kind of nice too, though. It's like "Slow Down" because it also... while it's a bike and it's energized, maybe people that are on regular bikes, if they're going too fast, or pedestrians, might also take it into account. I didn't catch that last part, I'm sorry... I said I like that number five with the "Slow Down" because while it's for an ebike, it also just kind of has a bike. So someone that might be on a regular bike may take that into account as well when they're around people walking or running. This is number five, right? [24:40] **Zac Dockter**: Yes, want to make sure we're all on the same page. I shuffle papers a lot. [24:45] **Commissioner**: And three was "Share the Trail." I think that's the other one with the giant bikes... the giant bikes and the Lego man. I think I have them in the right order. [24:55] **Commissioner Deb**: I actually like number two as well, except I would remove the word "Please." [25:01] **Chair**: What's wrong with "Please"? [25:03] **Commissioner Deb**: Pardon? [25:04] **Chair**: What's wrong with "Please"? Is it too many words to read? [25:06] **Commissioner Deb**: Well, no, seriously. Like, if there's too many words, people won't even pay attention. Fewer words is better in my opinion because you're going to be going... not 20, but 15 miles an hour. But I just think you should be told to self-monitor your speed, not requested. The rule says you're not supposed to go over 15 miles an hour, not "Please don't go over 15." It says "Don't go over 15." [25:30] **Commissioner Olsen**: I thought at the last meeting we talked about making them funny or more funny. [25:35] **Commissioner Deb**: Those are the ones that we also... [25:37] **Zac Dockter**: Commissioner Olsen, are you going after my sense of humor here tonight? [25:40] **Commissioner Olsen**: I'm not saying it's not there, but... [25:42] **Zac Dockter**: "Please"... no, it's not "Hey you, check your speed." So I thought that's where we were going. But these are all great. I mean, they're quick—you read it while going 17 miles an hour and see it. [25:55] **Chair**: Maybe we could save the "Please" and the humor for the social media stuff, and these could be just kind of brief, direct information pieces. Where would they go? The signs... like, would we have them on all of the trails? Are there certain areas where we're seeing more ebikes that we should have more reminders about speed? [26:15] **Zac Dockter**: Chair, members of the Commission, I think we would just be strategic. Obviously our most-used recreational trail systems like Hamlet Park, Woodridge Park, areas like that... Community parks for sure. Any transportation trail, so 80th Street, Jamaica... 70th Street is owned by the County, so I'm not sure we could put it there. Cottage Grove Trailway Corridor, things like that. We wouldn't want to have "sign litter" either, so we'd want to be strategic. Do you want just one, do you think? Or do we want a couple of them—different designs? Or do you think one design is going to be more effective? [26:55] **Commissioner**: Members of the Commission, I think multiple signs is fine. I think anything that... whatever brings people's attention to the fact to be safe is fine. And we're looking for comment on general... you know, we picked a different color so that hopefully it sticks out from other typical signage. But if you don't like that color, if you don't like... I mean, we have thick skin on this. If there's anything you don't like, images or whatever—this is all myself and our Administrative Assistant at Public Works trying to kind of play with it and come up with something. [27:25] **Chair**: I actually, if I could share, I kind of like the color because it made me look at it and go, "Now that's going to be noticeable," because there's nothing else out there like that that I know of on our trails. So I liked that you went with a unique color. The only one that says "No Electric Scooters" is that first one, and I have seen a number of electric scooters on the trails. So I think if that's something that we feel strongly about and would be enforcing, that might need to be included or at least more visible. [27:55] **Commissioner**: Did I miss that? Like, why aren't electric scooters in the ordinances that we got to read? [28:00] **Zac Dockter**: They're different. [28:02] **Chair**: Different, okay. [28:03] **Zac Dockter**: So if I may, Chair, the state law... they don't allow—we were kind of following the state trail rules. They don't allow electric scooters. I got the impression in our Joint Commission meeting that we were going to allow them, so really the only reason this sign is here is because one of the signs the Commission recommended at the last meeting had that. So we just included it. That could be removed. [28:30] **Chair**: Well, maybe let's not include that part if that's not something we're real excited about. I kind of liked the pilot program thing because there was that one example that we looked at that helped you kind of gauge your speed as a cyclist. Because one of the other things that came up in that Joint Commission meeting was how do you know how fast you're going? Because most of our bikes don't have speedometers. And so we saw that sample of, you know, "Ride from this sign to this sign, and if you can count to 10 before you get there, then your speed's okay," or something like that. I don't know if that's right, but just to help people build some awareness about how fast they're really going. Is that something we think would be helpful, or would anybody really do that? [29:10] **Zac Dockter**: Chair, I could tell you that we talked about that sign—that was one of the signs recommended by the Commission. The reason we didn't put it in here is just after talking about it, we didn't think signage was the best way to do it. We thought maybe it was going to be something that we actually put on the trail—a line, maybe. If we're... and I think it's worth trying, but it's something where we can maybe put a line on a trail, have a painted area, and then figure out... but it'd be more of a like a pilot program of something just to try it out and see if people actually take notice of it or not. Because when we were reading the signage, it was just... there were so many words on it. It was like, by the time you go past that thing, there's no way you're going to know. There's no way you're going to know what you're doing; you're just going to go, "What was that sign telling me to do and tell me to count seconds? But what does it mean?" [30:00] **Commissioner Waterman**: I think it would mostly be used for racing, honestly. That was the other part of the conversation. I wonder if that would be helpful, or just... what do you think? Well, I think most people who are going really fast actually have a speedometer on their bike. I mean, I used to be a road biker and I would always have a speedometer on my bike so I know how fast I'm going. Generally, people who are going slower probably aren't going to those higher level speeds. That's kind of how I think about it. And I know like those really classy electric bikes they have, I think they're required by law to have the speedometer on them. It's just the two lower classes. I'm not 100% sure. And I don't know if because... necessarily it wouldn't be a pilot project because we are planning to continue moving forward to allow the electric bikes and have a speed limit of 15, right? [30:52] **Zac Dockter**: Correct. [30:53] **Chair**: Okay. So it's not something that once we have these signs, we're not really planning on changing what the protocol is on the trails, is that correct? [31:01] **Zac Dockter**: Correct. [31:02] **Chair**: Okay, cool. Thank you. All right, so we like three and five, right? [31:08] **Commissioner**: I was going to suggest... could we consider combining three with five? Putting the graphics from three—the electric bike, the pedal bike, and the pedestrian—on five, replacing the electric bike because it's only showing the one graphic. Because we talk about pedestrians having the right of way, we also have the bike issue. [31:25] **Zac Dockter**: Would you replace the word "Slow Down" with "Share the Trail," or would you like to see "Slow Down, Share the Trail"? [31:32] **Commissioner**: The latter. "Slow Down, Share the Trail," and then put the three graphics on this one. That would be my suggestion. [31:38] **Zac Dockter**: We can bring that back as an option too. [31:42] **Commissioner Olsen**: And number two without "Please." [31:44] **Commissioner**: Now, at the last commission, the suggestion was to be friendly. [31:48] **Chair**: Commissioner Olsen wasn't here to hear that part. But that was part of the discussion, so we can leave "Please." It doesn't matter that much to me, but then I would go then and say I prefer number four: "Speed Limit 15" and "Trail Speed." I don't know, either way, I think getting the 15 miles per hour out there is important. Some of the signs need to say that, and number five does not. And then we're already making it more crowded. [32:15] **Commissioner Olsen**: We could combine two and four pretty easy. So let me summarize what I think I'm hearing: combine two and four with two as the primary sign but using the speed limit image from number four. Keep sign three and keep sign five, and then also add one that combines three and five. Does that sound reasonable? [32:38] **Commissioners**: Sounds reasonable. [32:40] **Zac Dockter**: And I'll bring it back. The good thing is it's December, so we have time. We can bring it back and take one more look at it and give some direction and go from there. Again, I don't... different signage just tells the story in a different way, hopefully. And hopefully people start to read the signs, and if one catches their attention, that's good. [33:00] **Chair**: And will they be permanent signs or will they be like the little leash reminders that we get to move places where people need reminding? [33:05] **Zac Dockter**: Permanent. Okay. [33:07] **Chair**: Do you need a motion for that or...? [33:09] **Zac Dockter**: It is an action item, so I think so... I got it. Since we're not taking final action, I'll just come back with the revisions. [33:15] **Chair**: Wonderful. All right, so next we have an action update on the community garden. [33:21] **Zac Dockter**: None tonight, sorry. The community garden was a good discussion last meeting. I've had multiple follow-ups with the community garden volunteer group. They had originally submitted a proposal to be reviewed at this meeting, but at the last second had pulled back. We're looking at a different site; it's the site right across from Public Works, actually, where there used to be a house there. There's an open lot that the city owns; there was a house there and there was a former small motor shop too. But in the site review, there was some information with the Pollution Control Agency because it was a former automobile repair shop. The Pollution Control Agency automatically goes in there, interviews the soils and conditions, and makes sure that there's nothing toxic in there. It did pass all the PCA testing as far as we can tell when you look into the "What's in my neighborhood" app on their website. But the volunteers wanted to take a little bit more time; they did send a soil sample into the University of Minnesota so that they can just kind of look at everything that's going on with that site. So they hit a little bit of a pause right before the meeting, and so that's why I moved it back down to just an action update. But they're still moving forward; they're still excited to come to Cottage Grove. It's just a matter of finding the right site at this point. They do expect to be at the February meeting to present the final proposal, and including all the... they've already addressed all the things that the Commission has asked for in terms of what you wanted the proposal to include. So that looked really good; it's just a matter of finding the right site at this point. [35:05] **Commissioner**: Was there a reason why Meadow Grass didn't work after all? [35:10] **Zac Dockter**: So the site down at Public Works would offer that community garden to be at least triple, maybe even quadruple in size. So after a lot of opportunity for growth, it's a site that we're just mowing right now, so it's kind of a wasted effort. There's a better way to use that property. Meadow Grass was pretty tight, didn't have access to water. This other site has real easy access to water as well. It's obviously much more easy for us to maintain because it's already across the road; we could drive our tractor across the road, till it up as much as we need to. So there's just a lot of advantages to it. But I want to allow them to at least take the time and study their concerns with the potential soil contamination. [35:55] **Commissioner Olsen**: Chair, if I could... seeing as I wasn't able to attend the last meeting, I just want to express my excitement over this and support of our efforts to help them get this started. I think it'd be a really nice addition to our community. Thank you. [36:12] **Chair**: All right. Any donation acknowledgements? [36:15] **Zac Dockter**: I do have one, Chair. The automatic external defibrillators, those Save Stations. If you recall, the Save Station we put at Woodridge Park through the Teddy's Heart Foundation—the gentleman that died at Woodridge Park May of 2022—his family's foundation has put in a few Save Stations: one at Woodridge Park, one at HealthEast Sports Center at Woodbury, and then recently we just installed the one at Glacial Valley Park. And then the Athletic Association also got on board—our Cottage Grove Athletic Association got on board—with purchasing six additional units. So now those are all up and running. So we have Save Stations at Lamar Park, Highlands Park, Hamlet Park (which has two because there's the two complexes there, the North and the South), Woodridge Park, Glacial Valley Park, Lamar Park. And then we actually have two additional AED units that'll be stored at the Cottage Grove Athletic Association—the batting cages at Cottage Grove Middle School, and then also on the other side of the middle school is their primary football complex. They'll have one in their equipment building there too. And if you get a chance, there was a great presentation on Cottage Grove being a heart-healthy community... I think it was called that... all the different ways and means we're trying to go about becoming a heart-healthy community. That was a pretty cool presentation at the last Council meeting too. And these AED and Save Stations are a big part of that too. So very appreciative—that's probably over $60,000 in donations towards that cost. Pretty impressive, and thanks to everybody that was involved with that. [38:12] **Chair**: Wonderful, thanks for that update. Okay, and then next we have staff reports and educational material, and included in our packet was an update from the ice arena. [38:22] **Zac Dockter**: Yep, submitting for your review, answer any questions you might have. [38:26] **Chair**: Right. Next we have Commission comments. Okay, if there are none tonight, we can move on to Council comments. [38:40] **Councilmember Tony Kumada**: Thank you, Commissioner. So just a little bit of a recap on our last two meetings. Big news is we did move forward with the Local Option Sales Tax or "LOST" application with the state. So that'll be on November's ballot for voter approval, and if it's passed, that will fund some projects that I think Zac's pretty excited about. And then we also did authorize a service agreement for the purchase and installation of playground equipment at Nah Park playground. So I think parks-wise, those are the two biggest things. We also brought on a new council member—Monique Garza was sworn in at our last meeting and she'll be serving as our new fifth person on the panel. We're really excited to have her. I think those are kind of the big highlights for Council the last few meetings, and I'll stand for any questions you guys might have. [39:45] **Commissioner Deb**: I actually have one, Tony. I recently read an article about social workers not exactly embedded in the Woodbury Police Department, but participating on calls where a therapist might be helpful. The article I read, it was really impressive, and I thought it was really a good thing for that community. Washington County is really supportive of it as well, and I just wondered if any conversations had been started yet with the City of Cottage Grove police force so that we might have the advantage of those folks as well? [40:15] **Councilmember Tony Kumada**: Well, I know from my extensive conversations with Public Safety Director Kerner that Cottage Grove strives to be on kind of the leading edge in terms of community policing. I do know that our officers, as well as Woodbury's and I think most of Washington County as far as the Sheriff's Department goes, undergoes a lot more training on an annual basis than what is required. We also have officers in our department that work on different community task forces with Washington County... joint services agreements between Woodbury, Washington County, Newport, and so on. So we have kind of consolidated groups of officers who respond to specific types of calls. I don't know that we have any dedicated social workers at this time, but that is a conversation I'd like to bring up with Director Kerner to see if there's a space where we can incorporate that. I do know that our officers undergo specific de-escalation training and techniques and crisis management. So I think we are covering that space, but maybe not with a dedicated social worker. But I'm interested to see what his take is on Woodbury's development. You know, our police chief and Woodbury's police chief work together—we share the HERO Center—so whatever Woodbury is doing, that's probably already a concept that's in the works. But as far as implementation, I don't know a timeline on that. Short question, long answer, but yeah, as we strive to be one of the more sought-after policing agencies in the metro to work for, those are things that are always top of mind for us. Any other questions? Well, thank you again for your guys' time, and I look forward to seeing how the naming workshop goes. [41:50] **Chair**: Okay, with the rest of the agenda complete, if there aren't further questions or comments, we can go ahead and adjourn to workshop. I'd like to make a motion to adjourn the meeting. [42:02] **Zac Dockter**: Actually, Chair, we won't actually adjourn; we'll just go to a workshop off-camera. It'll be a workshop open to the public, and then we'll adjourn after the meeting. [42:10] **Chair**: Sorry, I should have clarified that before. Then we'll go to workshop. Thank you.