Mhm. Well, they think we are >> according to the comments. >> Oh, I'll take it somewhere. All right. All right. Good morning, everyone. Let's stand for the pledge. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Oh, that was >> all right. So, do we have any additions,
subtractions, corrections to the agenda? I don't have any. >> I do not either. >> I don't have any. >> All right. So, I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda. Um page three.
Um on number two under highway motion second to approve resolution blah blah blah gravel tax transfer. And the word help in there kind of struck me as a little bit to help finance to to offset to fin just to finance
>> just to find just to finance the word help in there >> it's uh >> help finance cas >> page page uh >> page three >> right here the word help >> just >> I think so >> okay >> um and then under sheriff on the same
page um I think celbrite um unlock subscription I think it should maybe be a little bit >> more specific >> about it's a cell phone unlocking. >> Yeah. >> subscription for investig investigative
purposes, >> you know. So, it's a it's a cell it's that's what it is. It just explain that to us a little bit more. Um and then number three, page 304 under planning and zoning. The first first bullet motion second to occur with planning and zoning commission recommendation for Sunny's Dock and Lyft
LLC. Um I think then after that request condition use permit oper to include storage in addition to return plan in the addition to return storage. I think with the stipu instead of in in addition to
return to planning commission request additional storage building if needed. It should probably with stipulation that because it was a >> it was a it was a stipulation. >> Yeah. that if they wanted to do anything else then it so I wrote it with stipulation that any change or improvements must be apply for another
conditional use permit. That's what it was. It wasn't just go back to plan zoning. It was to they have to go back for another application. >> Yep. >> Yep. Correct. >> And that was it. >> I had that highlight. Um does anybody else have any other
>> I had one under page three of four. The H Heartland Trail. Um it's not the I I think we should may be more specific on what the study was for. It was for getting to it was for uh from Dun Locks
to Bucks Mills. It doesn't it just says final, you know what I mean? Studies complete in the Vector County website. Final H Heartland Trail study routed. Final H Heartland Trail routing study done or study update. It's not the fi It's not the final study. It's the only It was just
the study for the possibility of going that to Bucks Mills. >> It was the Yeah. How do you word that? It was It was the >> Hartland Trail routing study to determine >> best route. >> Maybe it was just the report of the
Heartland for Bucks Mills to >> Yeah. Okay. There you go. >> The final report. >> The final report. Yeah. >> Something like that. >> Okay. Because it sounds like the all the studies are done. the final the final report for the TR and maybe mention the segment and
>> yeah I think so >> does anybody else have any things for the minutes all right hearing none I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes >> I will approve >> motion by Phil do we have a second >> second >> second by Barry any further discussion
okay all in favor signify by saying I motion carries >> all right consent agenda do we have any items that Anybody would like to pull from the consent agenda? >> No. But I don't know if you read the consent agenda under sheriff's under the correctional healthcare.
>> Yeah, >> we we discussed at length at committee and it says a 7% increase. So we're there was confusion confusion on that and I think um sheriff did you ever clarify that that seven when they mentioned 7% for next year. >> That is a
>> what is that? That's just an anticipation to prepare for and they said the same language the year before and now it's two and a half. So it's >> it's kind of goofy cuz we were confused on that. So but um I just want to note that if anyone read that it does look a little bit confusing. So um I'll make a
motion to approve the consent agenda. >> So we have a motion by Barry. Do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> All right. So we have a second by Erica. Do we have any more discussion? Okay. All in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Motion carries. >> All right. Commissioner's open forum.
>> Yes. >> Morning. >> Morning. >> Morning. >> Anybody? >> Uh, I just came down this morning to introduce two of our newer attorneys. Um, both at different stages of their career, but both equally important to the work we do. So, I'm going to give
them the two chairs and let them speak briefly. Good morning. Uh, my name is Lily Krum. I started in the county attorney's office mid August. I took the bar this past summer. So, I'm the very beginning of my career, but I had the opportunity
to intern here for my two summers of law school. So, glad to be back and excited to be in this new role. >> Welcome. Did you pass the bar? >> I did. >> I'm still here. >> Where did you go to school? >> I went to UND.
>> Okay. >> Okay, cool. Well, well, thank you for >> Good morning. Uh my name is Chris Meyers. Uh I started uh this is my fourth day, but I've been a prosecutor for the last
28 years. Uh both state and federal prosecutor. I'm uh I'm from Fargo. uh graduated high school at Fargo North, attended NDSU Drake University Law School in De Moine, and then uh landed at uh the Klay County Attorney's Office
and US Attorney's Office and I was a BCI agent actually before uh those. Uh so I'm excited to serve um uh the citizens of the county and and uh it's been a warm welcome so far. um met
various people in various departments and I think it'll be fun. So thank you. >> Welcome. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you for welcome to Becker County. Yeah. Thank you. >> Y >> I just want to welcome you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you for >> I got
to meet you. >> Thank you. >> Guess not. >> Guess not. Yes. >> Thanksgiving. >> I can't afford a turkey. They're way up in >> Go to Charlie's.
>> Go hit one in the road. >> Charlie. Isn't Charlie's giving free Thanksgiving dinner? >> Free Thanksgiving dinner at Charlie's. >> All fall. >> Now they're gone. >> They don't taste real good in there. The wild ones don't >> actually the breast if you just eat the only breast. Smoke them. Smoke them and breast cuz the breast is pretty dark.
Kind of like >> All right, we uh we'll move on to reports and correspondence. Who would like to go first? >> Um it was a slow report week for me. I only had human services and everything
on human services is um on the agenda other than our partnership for health contract which we will be talking about um I I believe Friday. >> Yeah. >> Or Monday, I don't remember. >> Um and then that'll come forward to the board. >> And then we just had our EDA housing um
subcommittee last Friday. We met with MMCDC to um have further discussions on our housing contract and we will be bringing that recommendation to EDA on Thursday. >> That's all I had.
>> Turn um Phil and I had um discussions with zoning yesterday about blight properties. um why we're, you know, we're really kind of struggling how to what definitions and how to how to move forward with this. Um because there's probably not good end results in some of
the worst cases in the county, but we are um there's some there are some that are in the process of being addressed now. Um, we're going to form a committee and and Erica, hopefully you will be addressed to that because I think there's some in all of our districts that, you know, maybe, you know, I don't, you know, we're not looking I
think the the line is we're not going to, you know, just because there's a complaint on someone that we don't want to get in the middle of neighbors complaining on neighbors and and but there are some serious ones in the county that we want to address. Um, and I probably I I don't know how many there
are, but so the committee will be cons consist consistent with Sheriff Glander. Um, uh, planning zoning, Kyle Varberg, the commissioner in that district will will be in there. Human services will be available for, um, and Carrie will be,
um, one of the one of the attendees. Um, and then Steve Skoo with environmental. So, there's some, we're going to try to we're going to offer help. um but most of the extreme cases might might not be willing to accept any help. There might be but there might be some services that
we can direct them to. So we're and we're trying to develop a um kind of a scoring or a questionnaire that will help us identify what's concerning and why why this one would elevate. But we want to make sure we're not out harassing individuals that just
don't keep their yard like the neighbor wants to wants it kept, you know. So, we don't want that cuz that's uh while we might not like it, it's the individual's right to >> to >> I think the other thing to take into consideration also is just the environmental concerns. You know, I'm
thinking spec the one quite bad one in my district is right on the river. >> Yeah. >> So, >> and I and I think another thing that we do I mean it it's it's silly to say, but um is it screening from the neighbors? So,
it's the neighborhood concern of of how the neighbors are affected by this, too. Um, so if it's if nobody sees it, you know, if it's if they have 50 acres and it's in the middle and it's surrounded by pine trees, I mean, be if it's not endangering anyone, I mean, then it's a
different story than if it's right next to the property line of ajoining neighbor with no screening. So that was um it's it's difficult because nobody wants to infringe on others property rights rights but um there gets to be a point where something has to be done.
Philly anything to add to that? It's county attorney was there you know advising on some of the questions we had. So um it was a good meeting. We It's a difficult topic because there's no good answers. Um there's no good
answers on it. It's mostly some, you know, a lot of them have mental health issues and don't want want any assistance. Um, Richard, I'll have to hit NRM. I'm going to check my notes. We had an NRM meeting or
>> I don't have anything on it. Did we have one? >> I'm checking my calendar. >> No. >> Oh, we had courthouse. >> It was on Veterans Day and we didn't do it. >> Okay. Okay. any >> um are you done? >> Yes. Well, I am for right now. I have to
check. I I meant courthouse. So, >> yeah, we had courthouse, but that was taken care of with the introduction of our new attorneys. >> Yes. >> Single item. >> Mr. Chair, I just had what Barry had with the ordinance review and he covered
it very well. Um just a couple things I wanted to hand out. Um, these are, you know, we're doing that construction demolition regional study. This is what is there right now. I just thought that might be interesting to you. That's what we're trying to re reconform. I guess
that was one thing. Um, the other thing is uh Richard and I at our last uh environmental meeting, we're going to do a a mattress recycling event um in December. Yes, there is one word spelled wrong on here. You guys are getting these copies. It's already been corrected.
Um notice it right away. >> And and this uh we're just trying to clean up the the garbage a little bit after electronics. We did really well at the electronics. We've made a few subtle changes. We're going to do this in the spring. We'd like to do something different. So this is just what's going
to be happening. So I just want to make you all aware of that. Um one interesting article in the paper that really caught my attention and Barry, I thought you might appreciate this. Minnesota counties, cities, and schools, your local things. The proposed proposed
tax levy in all of Minnesota, $1 billion >> for local government entities. Billion dollars. Yes. Increase. Now, that's not just counties. That's not our 87 counties. That's the counties, the cities, and the schools. >> Townships, too.
>> Local. Yeah. Townships would be included in that, too. $1 billion dollar of tax increase for local entities. I thought that was just a lot. Um but and and the article was on unfunded mandates and how that you used to get
funding federally and state. It's being pushed. They're saying you got to do it still. So how do you pay for it is the question. It's being pushed down to us. I just >> I think Matt Hildigard from AMC was part of that. >> He was quoted in the in the article. Um uh we went our road tour. That was
really nice to see a couple uh things over Lake Park. Uh West Lake Drive. We uh did that. And um we stopped at Sunnide. I'm I'm glad we could do that because I've never been in there before. >> Um >> did you guys miss me? >> We did very much.
>> Yeah. Yeah. We That's all we could talk about. Erica was >> sure Erica was here. >> I didn't realize you weren't there. >> And just uh one followup from previous meetings. I've been asking for fair board number meetings or someone to come in and present from the fair board from the summer and I've asked a couple times and that just doesn't happen.
>> We have it at board meeting on Monday. >> Y and I brought that up the last one too. >> Perfect. And then last meeting uh Barry brought something up with with the EDA and tourism. You said you have your meeting next week >> this Thursday. >> Yeah. >> Ask them about that. >> Well, I just saw something else. I mean
they're on they're advertising >> Ottertale County. >> Yeah. Ottertale County. something pops up on Facebook, you know, because you get those ads that pop up in between. They have one there. Come and visit Ottertale and they're very they're very >> aggressive hunting one like all through deer hunting. They posted >> they post their big bucks.
>> Mhm. >> And congratulate the hunters. >> Yep. >> I had one standing in in my this morning behind a tree. >> I don't know why. >> It knows it's safe. >> I don't know. They're never there, but it's a buck. And I'm like, >> "Yeah." And I I couldn't get out of my
driveway. Mr. Chair, that's all I had. >> Yeah, I will bring that up on >> Thursday. Thank you. >> Or Monday. >> No, the EDA. >> Oh, the EDA. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But we'll bring up we'll bring it up again to come to the board on >> Yep. that fair board. She's talking to
EDA talking fair. >> I just had human services with Erica. That's all I had. And >> I'm just going to say it. Erica, remember >> this UKare agreement and Medicare and and then this adult foster care. So,
they're going to reduce their budget levy by 102,000. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> And these they re worked really hard. Remember, they did a lot of work to move things around and so that's >> that's what we say. It's a welloiled machine over there. >> It is. And it
>> so I I just had to say that, but that's that's >> Yeah. So, that was that was I forgot about that. That was very good news for us to hear. And hopefully we'll see that next week at our budget session. and we'll be able to include that in
decreasing our living hopefully. >> I just had a couple. So I had his the historical society. Um just a reminder I talked about it last I think last time about the historical society but this uh June 19th and 20th at the fairgrounds they're having a lumberjack festival. So
just a little bit about that. So all remember if you ever watched it on TV or been to one where they do the hot sawing and they do the log chopping and stuff. So they're going to do that and it's going to be I think it's going to be done what the one day it's going to be three times a day. Three times they're going to perform that and it takes about
30 to 40 minutes I think they said and then on this one and then on the other day they're going to do two times I think. So Friday I think it's a Friday and Saturday so it'll be two and three time two. So anyway they're it's actually it sounds like a pretty cool event and it could be a good fundraiser for the museum too. So, and then the
last thing is they they do have that butterfly odyssey exhibit that started October 4th. It'll run to April 4th. Um, and then and then and then Becky Mitchell also talked to the Pelican Watershed and they're interested in maybe sponsoring a portion of that
exhibit. And we got the exhibit really really cheap because they didn't have any place to put to to put it. So they gave us a really cheap price and then they got basically got it for free for the whole winter because >> there was no uh they didn't have a place to store it. So we're kind of ex we're exhibiting it and
>> they charge them for storage. >> Yeah. I I No, I did ask that. She says no, they're giving it to us for free. Well, that's why they're doing it. Yeah. >> Is there any live butterflies? >> No, it's a So it's an interactive. They're I mean they're kind of live. It's an interactive. So you you you you
go in there and it's like a like a it's in you can ask a question or punch in questions and you can push buttons and it'll show all the butterflies and what they and and the process of how are made produced and grow and there's different kinds. So it is actually pretty cool.
It's an interactive site or interactive >> cocoons. >> Yeah. Yeah. There's there's no >> they have little human cocoons you can crawl. >> I I'll be honest with you. I have not seen it yet, but I think there's a bunch of models in there, too, of stuff that happened. So, it's I guess it's pretty
cool and it's a big deal. But I know probably less than you do. All right. I was on the road tour, too. Um, what's the name? What's the road that goes from Forest Hills to >> uh 230? >> 230. That Yeah, that I think that's going to be a cool project to get that
paved. That'll >> Well, there's some steps to do that. the township hopefully is um you know we have numer we had numerous applications for the grant >> local road improvement program >> and if and if they get that then then we
look at transferring that into a >> county road and remember that's the township line there's four township >> there's four townships involved in that yeah so that's why that that's why I thought it was kind of interesting how we could get all those places to work together and we also found out that the sand they're selling the sand so you can
>> Oh yeah >> yeah we drove by Well, remember the new company bought it. >> Oh, that's right. Yeah. Yeah. You found out who? >> It wasn't It was me. It was Barry. >> No, I thought it was Richard. >> Um >> I don't remember who said it, but
>> yeah, one of our guys from Highway. >> Yeah. Yeah, Brian said it. Yeah, Brian said. Yeah. >> And found out Yeah. that we could buy sand there again. So, yeah. >> And then, uh I also had the Lakes Country Service Co-op meeting uh board meeting. And so we had two board members
that were part of the Minnesota Education Policy Fellowship. So what that is is a professional development group or organization for it's a professional development program for adults that work in government, education, nonprofits or or uh some sort
of youth development. So anyway, they were able to go to um Washington DC and be because Washington DC because the uh Institute for Educational Leadership, which is a nonprofit organization that is based in
Washington DC, they kind of run this this uh fellowship uh professional development and they got to meet with legislators from the Senate and the House um about you know how government works.
how the funding process goes to this and this and this and they also had a interesting thing I found one interesting thing is there's a study that they did on how I better get my glasses on they found they found that that people that go to college
they don't always match their majors like they they get so like for example well this isn't matching a major but let's say a teacher go a person that's going to be a teacher goes to a private college, they're going to spend three times more money when they could go to a
public institution or a state university and and spend less money. So, they've have they have data on all this information and how going to a two-year school or maybe learning a trade in a one-year situation, those people may not in the long run uh have a highest higher
salary, but they're going to make more money right away and they're going to make more money more money fast. I saw a study on that for for RNs versus doctors and the RNs start making >> pretty good money right away >> and less debt and the doctors who have to go to more schooling make a bigger
salary but it takes them longer to get debt. So if they start investing that if an RN starts investing right away, they can make as much as the doctor. You know, if you I mean there's many many variables. >> There's there's many variables. So it was just it was just interesting how the
the the legislators really use that data to determine some of the funding. So it's it's it's I mean there's obviously many intrical parts. >> I think the biggest thing is the student make sure they have a passion and and want to do what they're going into
school for. I mean that that's the key whether >> we've we've known that information. >> Oh yeah. We've known that >> but we haven't had any studies to tell us that. >> We haven't we haven't we haven't had an official study to tell us that. >> That's why I >> Oh, we know. >> Yeah, >> for sure.
>> No, we we and and I and be honest with you in Detroit Lakes High School they they have the academy model and they are trying to get people to take class. They some of the kids will take classes during college classes during school hurting high school and then so it doesn't cost as much when they go or
they start learning a trade or they go work somewhere and get credit for you know get high school credit for it. So yeah there's a lot of there's a lot of that going on now. So does anybody else have any else for reports and scores on? >> Um just a couple things. Um we have our
township meeting on Thursday. I have a Laurel meeting up in Mored so I probably won't make it. if you can express my sentiment that I um had another meeting and I can I could probably make it back for the half back Ben, but um >> I'll I'll be there and I'll tell them
you didn't care. >> Mr. Chair, I'll be there. >> We need to hustle it up because the bills are planned >> and uh just to and every everyone's going to AMC this year, correct? >> Richard, >> can we ride together? >> Yes, sure.
>> Do we want to ride together? We want to we want to be as happy as we >> let's coordinate that later. >> We can sing songs. >> I'll sing. >> Fine. >> I tell you I'll tell you a little a
quick story. >> One time we went down my two friends and his one's fiance went down to the cities for something over the weekend and I sang 99 bottles of beer in the wall all the way back and they were ready to kill me. So if you be careful what you ask or >> we're in college. >> That's probably why you have two
friends. Yeah, they don't have I don't have them anymore after that trip. But um if we're at appointments, I would like to make a couple appointments. >> Yep. >> Um I'd like to appoint Ellis Peterson to the um >> Are we within our timeline that to make
that appointment? >> You know, >> it's been advertised. I had it open to be um brought back on the December 16th. >> I'll I'll wait with that one, but I would like to um >> to give it a month. Yeah, I would like to for the Terry I'd like to appoint
Terry Khil to the library board to um to fill Ben Grimsley's unexpired term. >> A motion that's a motion motion. So we have a motion by Barry and a second by Erica. Do we have any more discussion? >> Excuse me. Is that effective
immediately? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> To fill to fill Ben Grimsley's uh expired term. >> His term that he >> remainder of his term >> remainder of his term. Okay. >> Thank you. That's the language I was. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, do we have a motion and second? Do we have any more discussion? Okay. All in favor signify by saying I.
>> I. I. >> Right. Motion carries. >> Do you have any more uh appointments? >> All right. Let's move on to our county administrator report. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I like the rest
of you didn't uh been uh focused mostly on uh budget meetings um as well as our implementation of our new um payroll and HR system. And so our first payroll on that system will run
not this payday this week but the following uh payday. So that'll be our first run on uh payroll. And as you all know, if you did your open enrollment, we're on the on the new system. So, it's rolling uh fast and furious and the and the staff here in uh administration as
well as in the auditor treasurer's office have put in lots and lots of time. It's daily meetings. It's daily um meeting with with staff from Paycom and and just ongoing additional work on top of their regular duties. So, um, it
seems as though we're getting we are making lots of headway and getting kind of towards the end. So, that's been a lot of time and effort and I've sat on a lot of those meetings as well. Um, on top of that, um, Commissioner Hansen and I have been
diligently involved with our uh, leadership training, which we have found has been about an hour and a half of homework every day. >> Every day. >> Pretty much. >> Oh my. Wow. So that's >> Dang, I wish I'd have signed up. >> So with those three,
>> I asked for my money back after the first week. Seriously, I did because I could see it was going to be so much work. >> It's been a lot of work >> fighting through it. >> So hence that's been my focus uh for the last few weeks here. Um so that's really all I have uh to report on. Uh a
reminder obviously Thursday we have our township meeting. We have our board work session next >> Tuesday. >> Next Tuesday. Um, >> we're going to do that at highway. >> Um, I have it for here. >> Okay. >> Here in the boardroom. And I'll make sure that we've got it noticed for I believe that's how we noticed it for the
boardroom. >> Yep. It's all on them. >> Yes. So, we have a running list of of topics for for that uh work session. Um, I had a a meeting up at our college uh with Carrie. I got called up there just to talk about uh potential future
planning or lack thereof, however you want to say it, with a college. their enrollment is way down um and just what they're looking at for for future and uh so that was an interesting discussion about potentially what may happen um in
2027 with the building andor the college. So um that might be a that'll be a future discussion that we can certainly have if we have a need for additional space if if the college is uh deciding that they'll no longer continue.
Um So, um, and I I can I'll bring more information too to our our budget work session. Um, so the college bas basically is if they do close, they have the potential to look at having that go back to a government entity. So, um, I
know several entities have been approached whether or not they're interested in additional space, but that would be um, looking out to probably 2027. Um the last thing I have on my list is the resolution 2F. This is I um had uh
briefly uh spoke about this our last during our last meeting. It was a request out of Sherburn County for other counties to consider passing a resolution urging the repeal of uh Minnesota's moratorum on solar on
nuclear energy, excuse me. Um and so I did use their draft resolution. I know last meeting we did have some discussion or there was some suggestion that perhaps the language in as far as
joining the Minnesota Nuclear Energy Alliance that we may not want to do that. So hence um in here I did that particular uh therefore as it's resolved I did put that I don't it didn't come across in
red in your packet but it did oh did it? Okay. Okay. My copy did not >> you know and I I was going to bring that up too. I I in full support of asking the state to repeal this but even the last couple par paragraphs are I'm like
I I'm not I don't know what all that means yet. I mean, I I just I would just like a very simple we support repealing the the moratorum. >> Um, >> we'll get to it, right? >> Yeah. I I'm just not sure. I mean, the
last >> Yeah. The urges the Minnesota governor state legislator. >> Yeah. The last two I saw that >> I just wasn't I didn't I didn't I don't fully understand um it's on the next page on this on this one, but so I don't fully understand what the implications would be at this
point. So I'm like I'm not ready to I'm ready to say you know we support the repeal of the moratorum but more than that I I would like more information to what what um you know the safe storage of welcomes earnest consideration of Sherburn County for sighting of such new
nuclear power. I mean I'm like uh I I don't know they I would have to hear some more information to to say I support Sherburn County doing something. I I >> I'm just not aware of it. I don't know what they're asking there. So >> yeah, >> um that's my concern. I certainly support
>> asking the state to repeal the mortorium and then there's but there's lots in there's some of that in here where it's like um I need to know what this means. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I would agree with you Barry. >> So would you like me to bring it back and or would you like me to remove that or what what direction would you like to
>> Mr. Chair? I mean I I don't quite agree with that Barry. I I think we should support uh another township now or another another county Sherborn County. Um, I I read that and I I didn't come up with any of that stuff, uh, any of those
those questions, I guess. Um, I know you said we're supporting it at the county level through AMC. >> I don't know why we wouldn't. >> The AMC supports the repeal of the moratorium. >> Yeah, correct. >> This language in here is gets more
specific to something that Sherburn County is doing. Um, and I don't know what that is. I support nuclear energy. I don't care what they're doing. >> Well, we got to repeal the moratorum first and then that discussion can
ensue. >> It's clean energy. I don't know why we're not doing it. >> That's the waste that that's consumed. >> I got room to store some of that stuff. >> I think you have. I just wonder if we if we want we recommend to repeal the
moratorum and then if they want additional support for something that they're doing >> we can do another >> bank side of this is that >> bring us the addition additional information for what they're doing >> I would agree with that I I I think it's
that we this resolution should state that we are in favor of re Minnesota repealing the moratorum and then any other information specifically to the Sherburn County or or the or the other information should be could be
another resolution if this does get repealed. We're going to support them doing that which >> I mean ju just to clarify AMC is supporting the repeal of it. >> Correct. >> Right. >> Like they haven't mentioned any >> anything else. >> But but we have to do this first before
we do to the ne move to the next thing. Barry, I'm looking at that. I mean, you you want to know where they're going to do safe storage, right? I mean, I I mean, they're talking about safe storage, power facilities, >> know any of that yet. >> They they have a plan to they have been
approached to expand their facility. So, >> that's where this is being driven from. >> Um, I don't know enough about that to support or not support that. I mean, I I >> Okay, >> that's where I mean, I want to I just have to learn more if I'm going to support a project. You can't I just
don't want to support a resolution saying now I support that. Well, you support it then. It's like, well, I didn't realize I supported it in this resolution. So, I would I would support going all the way, you know, down to the red and say, therefore, Becker County supports the repeal of the 30-year
moratorum instead of the red and then eliminate the last two. And we can come back and support that later. >> Maybe a little more work on it than Carrie. Is that what we're >> I don't care if not doesn't matter to me. I well I I understand the direction.
I mean if you want me to reward this I can certainly >> I just say just eliminate the last three portions starting with the one in red and then in that instead of what's in red just say now therefore be it resolved Becker County supports the repeal of the >> nuclear moratorium on nuclear power.
>> Yep. >> And just general okay >> I mean it's just a little bit more general and and if there's specifics later that we want to support a county or a state we can certainly do that. >> Okay. And I can certainly modify it to that if you would like. >> And so I'll make a motion to
>> Well, we're not there yet, right? We're still in county reports or we are we there? >> This is under administrator. >> It's under administrator. It's it's a resolution 2F. >> Um I'd make a motion to approve resolution 2F um with with this with the
rewardage of the last three paragraphs or elimination of the last three be it further resolved. um reading in the place of the red just that Becker County supports the repeal of the mor of the moratorum in place of the last three.
>> I'll second that. >> So we have a motion by >> and if there's any wordage in there, minor m wordage in the document that Carrie wants to alter because of what our feelings are. I mean what the intent is. I think that should be allowed then too. >> Okay. Is that good with you? All right.
So we have a motion and a little bit and a second. Okay. >> Do we have any more discussion? Okay. All in favor signify by saying I. I. All right. Motion carries. >> Mr. Chair, who seconded that? >> Uh, Phil seconded. Motion by Barry Phil, second by Phil. >> Thank you. >> And Mr. Mr. Chair, just to Carrie, going
back to the paycom thing. I mean, I know Tiara and Amanda have put in Yman's work on that. So, thank you to both of them for that. Let's pass that along. And I know it's been an arduous process. I think they're listening. So, okay. So, well, thank you. I recognize the emails and the pitfalls and they had to make a
lot of corrections, probably extra hours. So, thank you for for doing that >> and and also the payroll um and the auditor's office. They've been working diligently, too. So, Tanya, Zach, >> and thank you for reaching out to commissioners that need special help in
their benefits enrollment. >> Yeah, they did help me. >> They helped me too with either that or not get it. I I would like they came in and they helped me and they have been working very hard on that. >> It it should be in that it should be in that system that when you want to
increase your HSA for family, it should be figured in there and you shouldn't have to do paperwork for that. I mean because I had to do a special paperwork addendum to increase to a family maximum >> and that you shouldn't have to do that should be a lot >> well and I think well I think the reason
for that is because a lot of entities don't really allow that. Becker County is unique in that to allow for the family contribution if you're only taking out a single policy. >> So we um it's a way to have some safeguards in place. Yes. But it's
there's there is a check a safeguard on the $1,000. It won't allow you to add a thousand for you know the catch up unless you're >> age wise >> and adequate age. So I think you know there's program the programmers can
modify that I think to to do that but check a box you your your spouse is not is eligible and not accepting any at her work. I should work on that. my spouse could take out of her own pay. >> Yeah, but it's easier. I would have one. So
anyway, yeah, thanks. That was that's a lot of work. >> All right. Is there any anything else, Carrie? Or >> um that's all I have. Thank you. >> Okay. So, let's move on. Is um >> we're ahead of schedule. >> We're ahead of schedule. Is >> we are >> What is ahead? I don't know. I don't
know that you can um >> go through you go on. Yeah, >> Kyle needs >> number two. So, I know you we have to wait till that time, I would assume. >> Yep. Cuz don't we have an uh >> Mary's got something? >> Yep. >> Uh >> oh. I had actually asked
for the agenda item to be added. You have already adopted an ordinance for cannabis growing, but I've been being contacted by offsell liquor establishments for um selling
>> THC >> THC drinks and edibles and I told them to check with the state. The state made them pull their product because Minnesota statute 342.22 22 says, "Before making any retail sales to
customers, a a registration must be filed with the city, county, or township in which the establishment is located. We have had most of the townships turn over their authority. These uh separate
businesses that have requested are in the purview of those who have turned over their control to the county. We need to set a public hearing. We have to publish 10 days before the meeting. So my request is we set a public hearing
for December 2nd that would give us time to publish this Saturday to adopt the registration and fee schedule. We have a draft application. Basically, it's going to follow Minnesota statute, but we have to adopt
or the board has to adopt or amend what they've already enacted for these businesses to be able to operate in Becker County. >> Do we when when we adopt this process then, do they do they have to individually come to the board and have
that approved or is it if we adopt the policy, you can just sign off? And I think that's a question you probably want to check cuz I don't I mean I would just assume do it a blanket >> countywide that the auditor's office can issue those instead of >> Is that similar for liquor license?
>> Well, yeah, but the liquor license we have to approve. I'm wondering if we have to approve every one of these THC >> sales. I can check with uh >> but checking with Brian. >> It'd be just as soon to >> right >> blanket it so you we don't have to >> Kyle. Come on up Kyle. You're on.
>> Well, I Are we ahead of schedule? I don't know if we can take the retaining wall one before 9:20. >> We're just talking cannabis registrations. >> Talk cannabis that all good. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I I just uh asked about the
setting a hearing to do the registration forms for December 2nd and so that we can set a fee schedule. >> I Let's see here. I think we did decide. So it' go to the newspaper then tomorrow. So that'd be 1, two, three.
>> Yep. That's 10 days. >> Okay. >> Yep. If the board wishes to we have to have a public hearing to adopt this or amend the existing ordinance. >> I am Yeah, >> we have to do something. >> Yes, absolutely. >> Yeah. >> Our businesses are
>> So do you need a you need a No, just put >> Mr. Chair, Mayor Kyle, we had talked about this and we said we're all set. So we we're all set to go to the public hearing or we're all set because we talked about this rules setbacks and stuff, didn't we? A few months ago, >> but what we didn't have is or what we
weren't considering is this low potency hemp that's been >> this is different. >> Yeah, it's been legal. It's been in stores long before cannabis. >> The gummies and these drinks >> things different
things from hemp and you deprive things from cannabis. What our ordinance is in place right now is is just cannabis. >> So there's been this low potency hemp stuff for years. >> Yeah. >> So the cannabis thing, all the setbacks
and things from schools and parks and stuff that we we did >> separate >> that's okay. I thought this was the same thing. I did not even know that. >> Okay. So this is a separate >> this has been this just he >> and I think Kyle's mentioned it's like is that or someone mentioned at our meetings is that >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. carry. It's like there's this sales are going on everywhere, >> right? >> TH, you know, the ham product. >> So, you would probably look be looking at something like that that's permissible instead of conditional. >> Well, that's that's exactly what I was saying. It's like because that's
something we don't want to come back before the board on every application, >> the slow potency stuff. Um because that's been again, it's been in stores for years. >> Yeah. So we can we can blanket the county as this is a permissible sale and not even have a >> that's I would suggest.
>> But do we do we have a registration fee? Is that what this is? >> Yes. >> We have to set a >> establish one and what that registration fee would um cover would be the compliance check that we're going to be required to do. >> Yeah. >> The county is
>> Yeah. Just like tobacco >> is if it was if these sales I mean they happen to I mean Walmart and I mean doesn't everyone carry that low potency THC? >> Yeah. I >> I mean can't we can't we just say it is allowable in Becker County because it's
been been going on for the last >> right >> five 10 years already. >> Yeah. I I definitely think >> Yeah. I think what you'd say is that's permissible >> and not required and does not require a special license or or application. Does Minnesota statute require
>> requires a registration with the county in which well the cities are doing it. The stories you're talking about are in the city limits and the city's regulating that. But a county it just says may issue a registration where the city or county has provided consent
before making retail sales to customers or patients. I'm reading Minnesota statute 342.22. A cannabis micro business, cannabis mess business, cannabis retailer, medical cannabis, combination business or low potency hemp edible retailer must
register with the city, county or township in which the retail establishment is located. >> So most of them that we have are in the city and the city is doing that, right? This is >> But these people are contacting us from the townships out our county off sale
liquor license businesses that want to be able to do this legally and some did have it on their shelves and the state pulled it because they said the county had not registered them. >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. >> Um so with this I we really I think just
need to modify what we have and set our registration fees. Now, I know the state does maximum fees >> and we can certainly set them at that rate or less than that, but modifying that and having a registration process, that's really the step that we're missing and and that's really what Kyle
is speaking >> and that's what we'll do on the second. >> Correct. >> Have the public hearing. >> You could have the public hearing and do that on the second. >> You have a preference. >> We don't we don't need a motion to have the public hearing. >> You have to set You have to make >> We have a motion to set it for the second >> public hearing. Well, it'll be in the paper, right? We don't need a motion. You'll just put it in the paper that
there will be a public >> But you have to formalize it. do have to formally set a public hearing. >> All right. So, I'll entertain a motion to set a public hearing for the low potency, but cannabis on December 2nd. >> At what time? >> At what? At what time? >> 10:30. >> 10:30. >> 10:30. >> I think that late. I don't know if
you're going to go if we'll go that late. >> That's could be. >> Should we do it right away? >> 9:30. 9:30. >> 9:30. >> I would suggest >> if we have a short meeting, I don't want to have 9 or 9. >> I can wait. Right. Yep. So, do we have a motion to set the
public hearing at 9:30 on December 2nd for the low potency registration? >> So, moved. >> So, we have a motion by Erica. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second by Barry. Do we have any more discussion? >> Yeah. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> All right. Motion carries.
>> Mr. Chair, just for clarification, registration for cannabis. Are you looking to >> low potency? >> Low, but you're doing it specific for that, correct? >> Right. So, and it it there would be not just a registration fee. It would be
an ordinance because we're going to make low potency permissible. >> Okay? >> But we still have to establish a registration fee for it to do those compliance checks and things like that. So, if you wanted to sell it in the county, it's permissible. You don't come
to us. Um, but you're going to pay an annual fee for us to do those >> compian. What is the requirement on the county then? All right. To do a compliance check. >> What I mean what are what are those requirements? Is it once a year? Is it I mean is it age requirement? Is it
setback requirement? >> It's an age you you hire or not hire but you have to have a >> age verification. Right now the deputies do the tobacco compliance. So I'm guessing it would be the same thing. It just says shall conduct compliance checks of every organization
with the retail registration and it I'm just looking you're check looking for age verification is there >> uh >> for the low potency is there a there's an age limit on that? Yes. 21.
>> And is there a display or or area that has to be sold? Is there a setback on on it? Like can you sell it at Can you sell it at >> I believe it has to be in some type of case or restricted area like it I don't think it can just sit right by the cash
reg. >> I think it has to be behind kind of like how tobacco is. Right. >> Can you sell it at like a gas station or is it >> It's like not like a op sale. >> You have to get the license like >> Yeah. >> Flea market.
>> Mr. Chair, um >> Kyle, I I know you guys can't answer some of these questions. I guess I believe and I know it's brand new, so I'm not I'm not blaming you guys, but I I just feel uncomfortable having a public hearing and voting on something that we don't have complete and clear
information on. Can you before December 2nd provide some information? Remember the remember the who was the person that came in from Klay County that was very >> Yeah, I have contact. >> Yeah, he I think it was a guy. Yeah, he was very good at really knew a lot of
this or >> he convinced me he did anyway. >> Um but um >> human service >> just provide a little of that before the next meeting so we can read up on it a little bit. I >> okay >> I >> because I'm uncertain on a lot of
>> we're all I think we're probably all in the same boat within we don't get a lot of guidance. I mean and >> do they have a model uh can they've set a fee schedule. Do they have a model ordinance? Does does the cannabis office or whatever have something like that? >> I think they do have some models that we
could use. Well, what we we've looked at Ottaban Township or the city of Ottabban and what they did is they made low potency hemp permissible. >> So they have it like in the Ottoman liquor store. Do they have it there? >> Yeah. Seven sisters have it. That Seven That's how this came up is Seven Sisters
licensed. >> Something happened with it. >> So it's already for sale in town here. >> Yeah, it does. Yeah. >> Well, then it's called Delta 9. A lot of the stuff I mean it's it's >> Yeah. >> Low potency. >> Yeah. And it's been it's been for sale
for a long time. I've heard about it. I didn't know if it was here or not. Yeah. >> So, the only issue we have is the townships that don't have a res that have deferred to us. That's the only ones we have an issue, >> right? Is over 90% of them. I guess my question is this sample registration fee
we have covers more than low potency. Are you saying this hearing is only to discuss low potency? >> No, it would be both. >> Okay. >> Because we can send you this draft policy for your review. These are state set fees for everything from this cannabis retailer to micro business,
mezo business, combination business. >> I just want to make sure our motion to set the public hearing was for low potency hemp and cannabis ordinance discussion and feeds. >> We got to add that to our mot. So >> that was what it was. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. That's what everyone agrees
that it was and that that's what it was or I'm not sure. >> All right. Thank you. >> So are we good? >> Yep. I think you have >> Mr. Chair, perhaps it might be helpful. I can certainly get together with Kyle and I there seems to be some questions and maybe we can put together some
information and send it out to the board. >> Did we >> I would appreciate that, >> Peggy. We voted on that. Right. >> You did. >> Okay. Because Erica just asked me and I didn't know. >> All right. Thank you, Mary. And Kyle, do you want to go on to Did you say you
want to go to Blight Properties first? >> BL Properties. It's not on the agenda. >> Oh, it's not on the agenda. >> Do you want to go um wait till 9:20 when it's on the agenda for the retaining wall? >> Take a break >> or not? >> It's a We probably better wait. Just Yeah. All right, we'll wait. All right,
we're going to take a break till 9:20. meeting. All right. So, next we have our zoning ordinance amendment for retaining walls. >> Okay. So, there's a memo there. Essentially, myself and Commissioner
Hansen, Ed Clem from SWCD, and Roger Hemphill from the DNR met um after your last board meeting just to discuss and go over potential process for retaining walls. After speaking with both of them, um I guess the vibe was kind of that
they they were not really that interested in in continuing the process of how we were doing it before they would go out and make a recommendation to the planning commission then ultimately you. So kind of what we settled on is that anything under 2 ft for retaining wall would be approved
administratively. Anything two to four feet would have an engineered review and anything over four feet would have an engineered plan or landscape architect plan. Um obviously that engineer review
um would constitute us retaining an engineer um and obviously there'll be a cost burden there. So looking at that we could set um a fee of four walls. Um, that'd be kind of a shot in the dark
because not sure what that retaining wall fee review would be. You know, it'd probably be a case by case. So then the other consideration would just be passing that entire review fee on to the applicant, I think, is probably the best
thing. Um, >> Mr. Chair, and and as we were talking this mean, we were trying to make it cost effective for the for the person doing the project. We just we didn't want them to run away from it because it was too expensive. But we we also want
to make sure that we've got good product being put out there for retaining walls that they're not just throwing it together. So, but we were trying to be close. >> No railroad tie. >> What's that? >> No railroad ties. >> No railroad ties. Hopefully, there's no more railroad ties. >> There's a few.
>> They're still out there. You're right. And then anything above four feet, you know, you need to you need to get an engineered plan. So what we'd have to do is I I guess the question here is that we were going to bring back the board was this engineer
review from 2 to four feet. Um do we retain that and try do we do an RFP for an engineer to come in and review these projects and then try to offset >> a nominal cost? What is it now? 500 maybe 56 $700 something like that. Is
that what we're thinking Kyle? >> That's what we were thinking. Yeah. >> Yeah. Um to to offset that cost or do we do something else? >> You know what we were saying there is so
there's this there isn't a cost increase but right now they're going to um the planning commission and paying that fee for conditional use permit was which was $326. So, >> and they would no longer have to do that. >> They would no longer have to do that.
Um, we'd increase that fee somewhat, but then there'd be an engineer involved. >> And that fee would cover the engineer cost. >> Well, we're speculating at $5 to $600 right now, you know, per application. Yeah, >> that's why I was saying. And we and you know what? We could we could go for an
RFP and then speaking with an engineer say hey if you know give them a couple examples of walls we have and say okay what would what would the fee have been on this one and then I could better >> okay >> but right now we charge 320 for the
conditional use for the conditional use permit >> Mr. Chair, another question. Uh, a little bit different on letter D on the retaining retaining wall setbacks. Um, are we addressing on the side on the side property lines?
Are is that a concern? >> We're not. And specifically the reason we're not is often times I've seen retaining walls used for storm water management on side property lines where they will instead of that slope to your
neighbor you'll create some elevation there and the water is actually being retained more. Um so that's the specific reason why they're not. So is there language that we state in there that these retaining walls cannot add dc increase drainage to your
neighbor property? >> We have that language right now for land alterations itself. It certainly could be added to this >> because I mean I think that's one of our problems in the county is when a one lot is improved they're pushing their water onto joining property owner. Um
>> yeah we don't want that. No, >> retaining walls are, you know, should be designed to retain that water and filter it down and put it towards the water, the lake. So, >> yeah. And if they do that, they're actually a good thing. In a lot of places, retaining walls have been really good.
>> It's like an iceberg that they're good. They're good to slow water down. So, >> so, but each one of these people has to have a land alteration permit. Correct. >> Yes. >> So, and it is covered in there the the drainage to your neighbors,
>> right? But I mean we can certainly add I that's a cover all that's no problem. >> Okay. >> So a lot of the discussions was okay above 2 feet do we just require them to have an engineered plan? Well we wanted to my interpretation was we wanted to make it a little easier for a a
retaining wall from 2 to 4 feet. About 4t you know 4T that's that that gets to be pretty significant. that that was kind of the thought process and we did we we considered cost because we we didn't want to be prohibitive to have a
$10,000 engineering fee. So that two to four that's where that came from. You know we didn't discuss the side and that's that's that's really important too. the side lots. Um, we didn't consider that wasn't top of mind, but that is important.
>> I think stating in there that the with using retaining walls, they must in any project you can't increase you should not increase cannot increase um runoff water to adjoining properties. >> I'll add that. >> Yep. Do we do we also need to um just in
the letter from the DNR, if I'm understanding the letter, the approval of letter from the DNR, are they saying that we need to have that language in there about um the proposed retaining wall shall be
regulated by the following provided that the project includes work at or below that that one through four that we deleted. Let me pull up his letter >> because he it just says however we make the following recommendations to the language and it says that and I so I
don't know what if if that means that we need to include that section 8 retaining walls the four conditions cuz I'm guessing that needs to be in there in order for the DNR to approve it. >> Well, what he told us at the meeting is
that right now we're above and beyond their language with what we have proposed. Um, >> right. We're more restrictive than the model policy for the state. >> So those are just simply as it states
recommendations. You can consider them. Um, one of the number two where it says that structures are used only to correct a document existing erosion problem and not for aesthetic reasons is something that we did discuss among our amongst
ourselves there where a retaining wall is not only used for that currently. Um, a lot of times they are used for somewhat of a use of property where you're making a somewhat level area to maybe sit near the beach or something
like that. Um so limiting it to existing erosion problems only is pretty restrictive. Um and I guess number one is for our office is quite obvious that we can't approve anything beneath beneath the ordinary
high water mark. >> I think the key to a lot of those if it's sitting area it should it should not be a negative on the water quality. I mean I think that's if it can be a neutral you know so it's not >> right so that's just basically where
that that review comes in by that engineer saying hey that this is being constructed properly that it's not um in an increase in any erosion or anything like that >> I just had one question Kyle under
letter C or the second sentence there where it says the plan shall be reviewed and approved by to the Becker County Planning and Zoning Engineer. Do we want to use the word approved or does the Cuz if it's over 4T, it does it has to come go back to the planning commission and then the board. Is that correct or
>> No, but I think it should be approved by >> Okay. >> engineer. Okay. Is it an engineering administration? >> Okay. >> So, that that engineer is a contracted service is what you're >> Okay. That's okay. And we're trying to cover the cost of that engineer from 2
to 4 ft retaining walls >> by that. That was the thought. >> And the 4 foot one, they would >> they got to get they got to get their own engineer and come up with a plan. >> We contacted an engineering firm to >> No. >> So that's my question. They got to get
they got to get their own, but it says that we're going to have the >> via the zoning by Right. So Yukon you you'd have them and they pay for them. >> So two to four feet. Yep. >> They're going to submit a plan to us. >> Yep. >> Our retained engineer reviews it, says,
"I don't see any problems. Proceed >> over 4 ft." They have a plan from an engineer. Oftent times the the the folks who make the product for the wall, the block, they have engineers on staff a lot of the times. Okay. >> They'll supply that plan. Then our
retained engineer again would say >> review it. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. My question in the two to four is what happens if it's their plan is significant and it costs more for us to review and deny and change it then I mean >> then that's where the there was
basically two options outlined there. You could do a fixed fee or you could just you could pass those fees on >> as long as we have a route to >> right >> to do that. I mean I don't want to spend $2,000 for $500 fee. >> I think it should be actual cost. >> Yeah. Just pass.
>> Yeah. Okay. cuz sometime maybe it's less I don't you know >> that's fine >> if it's a local engineer I maybe it will be maybe it'll be out of Fargo I'm not sure but if it's a local engineer and he drives to Floyd Lake and he says yeah no problem maybe it be less than 500 I don't you know what I mean >> yeah cuz engineers are cheap
>> right but come out I tell you what it won't be less than 500 bucks >> but we do want that engineer stamp of approval >> right that's um Mr. Chair Kyle, uh, you know, Barry, Commissioner Nelson bringing up the
storm water issue. Will, if we put that in there, which I think we should, will that conform with ourou with the Pelican River wershed district and the cornrock? Will that will all conform? We'll all be okay with that. >> Okay. Okay. So, we do we have any more
discussion there? Do we or do we ready for a motion? Did we we agreed that the cost would be >> passed through in some in some form? >> Yeah, >> we have or how but just that this is a cost neutral
>> and we need to send out an RFP. >> Yes. >> Board engineer engineering, >> you know, we want to make it open to anybody, but obviously someone with some lake has done some work around the lake. would be super beneficial
>> in the RFP. I think we should also um take in consideration travel expense if if someone out of the area is doing it that there you know we want to know that what travel expenses would be. So say if someone from Fargo if they're going to charge us mileage every time that's a negative in my opinion
>> and someone in DL they can it's a lot might be cheaper. So >> that would probably be part of the RFP Kyle. >> Yep. You want a motion, >> Kyle? >> Yeah, please. >> I I'll make the motion. Oh, unless you
want to. >> You made it. Second. And what is your motion? >> That's what I was. So you want to have uh >> motion to approve the retaining wall >> as presented with the addition of the wordage of
>> the set of the property. >> Well, can't >> neighboring, >> right? >> How do you want it worded on the same as our other wordage for runoff can't adversely affect the joining property? >> That's a storm water that the storm water be addressed on site.
We want to >> and that and that any additional or additional reviews in the two to four level would be passed on to the >> applicant. That's what we talked about here. Yeah. >> And and on the four all of them actually were the 4 foot one too.
>> 4 foot definitely would be >> I just had two more things I just thought of. Bill, you mentioned uh in a in a text a few weeks ago about increasing that distance between tiered walls. Did you remember that? >> Yes. >> Did you want to further discuss that?
>> Um, so yeah, we thought about the ways people could try to get around the rules. If you have a twoft wall and then go back a foot and go another two-ft wall and, you know, we didn't want that to happen
rather than just have a 4ft wall so they could get approved administratively for twoft walls. Um, so we had talked about the distance in between the walls. >> So that's three times the height. >> Well, it's two times right now. Uh, and
I would like to go three times that. And I was thinking of a 3 to one slope. Is that >> It should say three right now. >> It says three. It says three. >> Three right now. >> So three times >> the height distance times three. You got to go back. >> Yes. So if you have a So if you have a
3-ft wall, you'd have to go 9 ft 1 inch to be considered, you know, if if you have 3 foot and then 3T not to be considered one wall, it'd have to be beyond 9 ft apart. >> Okay. Is and the question, Kyle, was uh
is that a significant amount of distance? Is I mean, you see the walls. I don't know. That seems like >> Well, we go more than that. We have one one being constructed right now. Um or it's in the process. Um and when when I
spoke with the contractor about that, you know, about what we'd be considering today, and he was looking at a 4T wall, 4ft wall, and I said, "You'd have to go back 12 to do another one and not be considered one wall." And he's like, "That ain't." >> So, I mean, that right there deterred
him. So, I mean, >> everything quite a bit already. Well, three times whatever. >> That's quite a bit. >> If you got five feet, you're talking 15, you know, that's from me. >> If you get five feet, you're everything's engineered anyway. I mean, >> right,
>> I think you get up to that size. >> I can't picture in my head. Is three foot or times three for the height of wall? Is that enough? >> Well, what we considered, I mean, we talked about it at the advisory committee. We were at two and then I think we went to three.
>> We went to three. Okay, that's what it was. >> I think yeah, >> three is plenty. Three. Three is that's that's >> we can sit here and debate it all day and in every situation, every property is going to be a little bit different. You know, it's like, well, it would be better here. You know, it's it's
>> it's tough to mass, you know, every property is unique and >> yeah, don't make it too hard for >> motion. It's almost time. >> So, as written. So that >> but should that you know I'm thinking now that's not part of the two to four.
Should it be in the two to four that >> times three thing? >> Well that's where you were most concerned about it. >> So probably >> Okay. >> So then we do we have to amend your motion to add it to the two to four. Yeah. Or included in the motion.
>> That's what that's what our motion included. Is that correct Phil? >> Yes. >> I just have one more thing for conversation. I thought of um do you want this to apply across the board anywhere on someone's property or
specifically to a shore impact zone or bluff impact zone? So for instance, let's say somebody lives in Spruce Grove Township and they're 5 miles from a lake and flat. >> It's not in riperian. I don't think we have a concern if someone wants to be able to walk out basement and put a
riper wall. >> Yeah, I agree. Yeah, >> I thought we were just I mean water quality I mean is what we're >> So I have retaining walls because I have a walk out basement but I'm >> want to do 300 ft from >> specific to riparian >> I would say
>> or like yours yours is a >> I'm riparian but I'm 300 feet from the water >> right so that's that's an example that um >> so first tier this applies to first tier or sec first and second tier maybe of riperian what's ripe What is the
setback? >> I consider the first tier 267 ft >> on all lakes. >> Yes. >> On general GD RDN environment. So do we want just in first tier first
tier? >> We couldn't do we couldn't do shore impact zone. That's that's 1,000 ft, right? >> No. Shore impact zone is 50 feet. >> 50 feet, isn't it? Yeah. on a RD lake. It's 33 feet on a GD and >> 75 >> 75 on a
>> we used to do shore impact zone. >> But so basically I was I mean yours is a good example. You said quite a ways back from Lake >> 267. That's quite a ways. >> Yeah. It shouldn't be more than that. >> It doesn't have to be any more than that. >> So
>> because our our concern is water quality, >> right? >> Mr. Chair Kyle, would you repeat my motion? Peggy will >> good luck with that. I would say the motion reads um >> so I said this is what I >> as as written so far and
>> as presented and you um you can't increase run up with the zoning properties but you want to mirror what's in the zoning whatever >> the land alteration >> how the language of the land alteration >> and the engineering cost of the pass through y >> for the two for the two to four
>> and and the four >> and the distance between the walls >> times three >> times three which is which is what it currently is >> including in two to include that in two to four. And then now we want to say that this only applies to tier one
>> whatever the >> Can we use a word besides tier because we've already used is that the way that's worded tier 267? I I haven't even heard of that. Tier one what? >> That's I don't know. It was an arbitrary
number established. 267 ft there. They used to have first, second, and third tier. Now we have first and second tier for certain types of development. You have three times three types of tiers for natural environment lakes. But they're just they're really just I mean
267 not feet I don't think was some scientific number. It was just >> lucky number. >> I don't want to mix up this tier with the the >> I mean you could do 300 ft. That would probably be >> Yeah. Do do 300 ft. You got it covered.
>> Pick a number. >> 300. That's a long ways. I mean, it's 100 yards. >> That's a long ways. >> That's a long way. 100 yards away. >> 100 yards from the lake. >> Yeah. >> If if this is attached to your house, maybe that's another exclusion. If I
mean, if it's attached to your house to and that's not the same as retaining walls down by the lake. I mean, if it's attached to a house for a >> for a walk out, >> walk out basement. Walk out. Good example. That could be closer than 300 ft very easily.
>> I mean, if it's I don't know an attachment on the house. I mean, >> Kyle, will you repeat what you wrote down? What we're going to >> Maybe that should just be a different different, you know, under a building per on a site permit if retaining walls are allowed within on I don't know.
>> It could be incidental to that. >> Um, right. So, just right. I just have some quick notes, Commissioner Anom, but I have um a storm water note. Um Yep. >> So, we cannot increase runoff from property to neighboring properties. I
have to add that height requirement to the 2 to 4ft walls. >> I have uh this applying to walls within 300 ft from a okay >> lake or I'm going to say lake or river.
And then I would have an exclusion for um walls incidental to a structure or dwelling. I could I don't know. >> Plus the times three distance. We want that in there. Or is that already in there? We just wouldn't change anything.
>> I have that. Yeah, I have that add to uh to that height. >> Okay. Y >> um what about costs? Should that be addressed in here too from the two to four the pass through cost
>> should it also be on the >> I think when >> over four too >> I think so we'd have probably an ordinance to establish that fee so once we have that RFP in place I think I would bring a resolution establishing that fee at that time
would that make sense I think so. Yes. Because we'll have to do an RFP anyway. And you'll >> do you have to do an RFP for each one or can you have a RFP contract one >> for one engineer? >> It's Yeah, it's tough to have to say the price now when we have no idea. >> It'd be like our surveyor is like kind
of on >> when we need them. Then I would say the only thing is is that um Carrie and I are working on one that's controversial right now. Um I do believe they're going to be going through an
engineered plan and in the meantime between that and this RFP I would probably get two numbers from a an engineer and pick the lower of the cost to review. But that one needs to be solved before sooner than later.
So, I just got one more thing to maybe add to your motion. You said that the in the engineering fee is covered in the over 4 foot because they hire an engineer, but it still has to go to the Becker County Planning and Zoning Engineer. That's that's contracted. So, that fee >> to review that. Yeah.
>> To review. >> Yeah, we want that. >> We need ane somebody was to bring in some big wall. I would like >> It's already approved by their engineer though, right? but not our county engineer. I >> still think there probably should be some review of that.
>> If if a if a plan comes in by a an engineer and county review, it's not they're just going to see it's been stamped and they're going to go, "Yeah, it's it's got the stamp. It looks I mean, it shouldn't take much at all for a >> No, but just at least just a
>> verification. It's it's a approved plan. >> That's I mean, I think you're doing that at the watershed, you know. I I think for anything I think >> we did >> they were they're looking at it at least I mean they're not going through the whole process of engineering it so that cost is not there they're looking at it
and saying yeah okay this is >> okay I didn't know that date yeah >> so is do we have that what you said is in our current motion >> so >> the engineer fee for >> it is it is in it is in letter C
>> but the fee part of it isn't. So, we have to decide if that's going to be part of the motion where they're going to pay that fee for that county contracted engineer to look at it. >> Yes. >> Yes. So, that we'd have to add that to the motion.
>> Yeah, that's fine. It's fine. >> Okay. Do we have anything else to amend the motion? So, we have a we have a motion and a second. We have a motion by Phil and a second by Barry. Do we have any more discussion? Okay. Okay. All in
favor signify by saying I. >> I. All right I. Motion carries. >> Do we have any other anything for the good of the order? >> We can't. It's not on the agenda. >> I know. We're we're adjourned. >> Okay. >> 9:47.