By Robert Williams

Editor

If you ask the residents of Toad Lake Township if they are interested in Becker County’s Toad Mountain Regional Park proposal the answer is a resounding “no.”

The property that is proposed to become Toad Mountain Regional Park is 253-acres and encompasses two parcels on a scenic and minimally developed lake located midway between Detroit Lakes and Park Rapids on County Road 34. The property has over 920-feet of shoreline on Toad Lake and has one of the tallest points in all of Becker County, providing stunning views of the surrounding countryside.

Becker County intends to develop the property into a regional park that will provide public access to the lake and the peak, which was also stated as a desire of the current owners.

There were approximately 30 residents in attendance at a special Toad Lake Township meeting on Monday, Aug. 5. Also joining was District 1 Commissioner Erica Jepson, who did her best to describe the project impartially, answer questions and report feedback back to the commissioners, who met the next morning.

No decisions were made at Tuesday’s commissioners meeting. Environmental Services Administrator Steve Skoog submitted a siteline plan and the county is mailing out a survey to go along with four planned meetings with the public at the site and around the county.

Monday’s township meeting was also to gain public input. Chairperson Randy Wurst announced prior to comments that the board was already against the project and reiterated that a number of times throughout the discussion.

Wurst gave a description of the two parcels of the property, 134-acre parcel with lakefront zoned agriculture with an estimated market value of $942,000 and the mountain minus the ranch house and buildings, 119-acres zoned commercial, valued at $320,000 for a total of $1.26 million.

Trust for Land (TPL) approached Becker County last September about acquiring the land. Funding for the purchase would be sought out in the form of state and federal grants.

Initial comments, begun by resident Roxanne Zick, centered around the wear on the gravel roads in the area and what is going to happen to area resident’s taxes if the sale goes through.

“Our taxes are going to go up because the county is not getting any money,” she said.

Wurst concurred stating the yearly revenue received by the township would diminish.

Multiple speakers asked about road conditions, safety, and described how bad dust control is currently.

A meeting between the county, township officials and a few residents was held on Tuesday, July 17, at the proposed property. Many of the residents, particularly those on the west side of the lake were not made aware of the meeting and Zick noted her frustration in not being able to attend.

Jepson noted the meeting was made last minute and explained that future meetings are being held prior to the next meeting of the commissioners on Tuesday, Aug. 20 for public input.

Some residents at Monday’s meeting were in the dark on what the project was. Much of the project is undetermined as a master plan needs to be completed to answer many of those questions.

The county’s Recreational Advisory Committee (RAC) reviewed and scored seven requests for proposals back on July 9 and recommended the Becker County Board award the contract proposal to SRF Consulting at the proposed costs of $54,935 to complete the master plan.

Both the board and residents are against paying for the plan and many feel the process is being done backwards in that the seller should be paying for a master plan to propose the project to the county. The alleged appraisal of the property that the county is willing to pay, $2.5 million, also came under scrutiny.

“We are still in the very beginning stages of it,” said Jepson. “The $2.5 million that it is being appraised at will be purchased with grant dollars. It will not be purchased with county tax dollars.”

Jepson explained the master plan needs to be completed to open up the property for grants, especially the Greater Minnesota Regional Parks and Trail Commission (GMRPTC), which also provides regional park status, along with grants from Community Forest and Natural & Scenic Areas. Later in the meeting, she did state she believes the $2.5 million is too much, but also recognized the uniqueness of the property.

“The county would not purchase the mountain unless those grants were secured,” Jepson said.

Another expense is the holding of the property by Trust for Land while the grants are being applied for, which could be as many as 10 months. The county would be paying interest on the purchase price for those 10 months, which would equate to $200,000, according to Jepson.

The board was going to vote on paying the $54,000 for the master plan in July, but feedback at that meeting from area residents stalled the vote.

Jepson was one of the commissioners who wanted to hear more input from the public.

“Once we spend the $54,000, I feel like we’re doing it; we’re kind of past the point of getting feedback on whether or not we want it,” she said. “The master plan will get feedback on what to do with it, but not necessarily if we want it.”

Jepson left Monday’s meeting with a roomful of, “We don’t want it.”

Former County Commissioner Larry Knutson made a point that the county would have “pulled the trigger” on the master plan if it was not for the residents who spoke up.

“They’re putting the cart before the horse,” he said. 

Some concern was made about the property being on the market if not turned into a park, but multiple attendees noted it has been on the market for years. 

That conversation circled around a group consensus that the area residents do not want to see the mountain residentially developed either.

“What’s more intrusive? Some kind of a park theme or if you have development on the whole hill?” said John Randall.

Other county amenities were brought up, like Maplelag Resort, Detroit Mountain, six public beaches that already exist in the county, Wannigan Regional Park in Frazee and the new park being developed near Park Rapids. The point was to question the need of the park with so many other places to do similar things.

The consensus to preserve the property was one that got a favorable response from the group. Scott Simpson spoke on preserving the mountain and not including the lakeshore.

Larry Hanson, whose family homesteaded on the base of the mountain and owns half-a-mile of property adjacent to Toad Mountain, gave a history of what he called “the destroying of the mountain.”

“Many of you probably aren’t old enough to remember what the mountain used to look like,” he said. “If there was a choice between the mountain being preserved, as is, and having a housing/real estate development saving it would be a lot better.”

Hanson added a caveat to his statement.

“Put the damn mountain back to the way it was,” he said. “If it was returned back to its original condition, I would be all for it.”

Biologist Willis Mattson was one of the last to speak to the group. 

Mattson spoke on a past biological survey that was done on his nearby property across from the parcels in question and its high value when it comes to biodiversity.

“That property and the surrounding property had some of the highest biodiversity on it for value as nature,” he said. “It’s second only to the value you find in biodiversity in Itasca State Park. So even though it has been scarred, and Chuck Erickson and his buddy who was going to make a ski hill up there, did permanently scar the place, the biodiversity is still intact.”

Mattson’s suggestion is to preserve the property without it being developed into a park. Having a public land trust buy it, but use grants that do demand it be used as a high-use park.

“It could be used for the nature that’s there,” Mattson said.

Mattson proposed working with Jepson and the county on a nature preserve without intensifying the use of the lakeshore or the mountain.

“It has some possibilities of having the best of both worlds,” he said.

Mattson got immediate support from Roger Ball.

“The man makes a lot of sense,” Ball said. “He really does. Developers, I don’t think want it, but I think he really has the idea. Let’s save it for everybody.”

Preserving the property was definitely the consensus of the residents who attended the meeting. There was no vote on that idea, but an unofficial vote was held on the Regional Park county plan and when a show of hands was asked for, it was met by all hands in the room.