Victoria City Council reviews designs for Huntersbrook and Marsh Hollow parks, directs staff to pursue both

The Victoria City Council reviewed design concepts for two neighborhood parks and directed staff to move forward with design and bidding work for both Huntersbrook and Marsh Hollow, Assistant City Manager Alyssa Nelson said.

"We do have in the 2026 budget $750,000 for the entire park project," Nelson told the Council, noting the two designs presented by ISG together were estimated at roughly $800,000 to $1.2 million depending on the chosen elements and site work. Nelson said public engagement on the projects began in 2025 and the Parks and Recreation Committee prioritized playgrounds, trails and unique features such as a pump bike track at Huntersbrook.

The council’s discussion centered on how to deliver valuable amenities within the budget. Huntersbrook, roughly 5.5 acres, was presented with a multiuse sports court, a roughly 4,000-square-foot playground (staff recommended lower-cost wood-fiber surfacing over poured-in-place for cost reasons), trail connectivity and a proposed pump track that would leverage existing topography. Marsh Hollow sits about 0.4 mile away, contains about 1.5 acres of protected woodland and was presented with embankment play features, a natural sledding hill, trails, and optional community-garden beds.

Council members raised tradeoffs between creating distinct, complementary parks and duplicating expensive elements in two nearby sites. "If we are choosing to do one versus the other, I would lean towards the Marsh Hollow Park," Council Member Roberts said, citing its distinctive embankment play and natural features. Other council members proposed making the parks complementary by age or activity — for example, prioritizing equipment for younger children at one site and sport or pump-track features at the other.

Council and staff also discussed access and parking: Huntersbrook’s concept included about 16 parking stalls, while Marsh Hollow has no formal on-site parking and would rely largely on on-street bump-out spaces. Accessibility concerns framed part of the debate: Nelson confirmed required accessibility standards would be met, but said poured-in-place surfacing (more accessible) is more costly than wood-fiber mulch.

On liability questions, the City’s attorney explained the state’s recreational-use immunity gives local governments substantial protection for public recreational facilities, with limited exceptions for known, unreasonable hazards. "Recreational use immunity in Minnesota is very, very strong for cities," the attorney said.

On funding, Nelson told the Council that after committing the $750,000 allocation the park-dedication fund would likely retain roughly $750,000 to $800,000, leaving capacity for future park work or phased construction. Several council members urged using park-dedication fees for the construction work — those fees are restricted by statute to park acquisition and development rather than ongoing maintenance.

Nelson summarized staff’s next steps: "We will be looking at construction continuing as normal. We're going to look at doing both of these parks within 2026," she said, and added that because of the fall construction season some work could extend into spring 2027. She said staff had asked ISG to begin required design paperwork and that an agreement and authorization to proceed to bidding will be returned to Council at its next meeting on May 11.

Council did not take a formal, final vote on a phased approach at the meeting; rather, members gave direction to staff to pursue both parks with attention to right-sizing elements and to return with contract authorization and budget details at the May 11 meeting.