--------- motion carried citizens to be heard do we have any citizens to be heard on items not on the agenda today u Mr chair my understanding is as I shared last week there's a gentleman that wished to speak to the board in talking with court security i believe
that he may be here uh but isn't present in the in the room right now all right let's um let's move on to the Oh okay is this might be our gentleman uh we are under citizens
comments citizens comments do we have anybody who wishes to be heard if you want to come up if you want to come up to the podium and state your name please uh good morning uh Julian Gilbert from Glendon
good morning uh so this is in regards to the um property that White Earth Casino is looking to uh build a casino on and they're looking to ask the commissioners to put the property into trust which will exempt it from sales tax and
property tax in regards to that um if you take example the Bagley location they opened up in 2017 uh that generates about $1 million in revenue a year which would then give roughly 68,000 in sales tax and 288,000
in property tax if my math is correct um and I think the commissioners should uh take a look at this is a business they're running and should be treated as such and there should be a direct economic impact to the community if they wish to build there and would like help
from the uh commissioners or the county um for example that money could be allocated to the H Heartland Trail which is looking to be built through Klay County which would then be a direct um impact or good impact to the citizens of Klay County um I'm also requesting
that the commissioners request a environmental impact study um to be done before um they look at you look at uh exempting them putting the property into trust and also uh please take a look at
the current economic point of unemployment in Klay County which currently is at three 3.1% last November it was at 1.6% so you have to have a market where there's a viable uh job force available uh the
other thing to consider is that the Bagley position currently runs with 40 full-time employees and and the rest are made up by part-time employees so the question needs to be raised at what um what economic impact it would have on the job
force if they were if they were to build in that location the other the other thing to consider would be a traffic study um up at the Bagley location there was a hit and run which caused a fatality from the casino about two years after it opened and uh as recently as
2025 of this year there was incident of DUI um or intoxicated driving in the parking lot causing damage to vehicles so I would ask that a traffic study be done and the second thing to look at is to make sure that all the paperwork and um
correct paperwork and procedures are followed uh because they did attempt to open up a location in Ottertale County and that failed due to improper paperwork filing and also opposition from the residents so I ask that the if
it's possible to put a 90-day um window out there for residents of Klay County to come forward to give their opinions of the uh build that's it well thank you you you've gi some good thoughts there and good questions
to be asked and I'm sure all those are going to be um asked and we're going to be expecting answers it's my understanding that White Earth uh is planning on being here a week from today that's that's my understanding that that
we've heard from them they'll be here um other than that we know as much as you know right now and so until we uh hear from them and we'll be able to ask some of these questions and some we'll have to just do our own research on as well yep and I'll send you um I was I did I
did have notes typed up to hand out but I left them at home my apologies but I can email a copy to your email copies to you guys very good all right well thank you for being here oh Commissioner Mojo thank you uh thank you for your time today and testimony i just want to clarify that it's the ability to place
the land in the trust is not within the county commission's purview correct that is correct uh Mr chair Commissioner Mojo thank you okay thank you thank you all right do we have any other citizens to be heard on items not on the agenda
seeing none we will move on to the approval of bills and vouchers we'll offer approval to pay the bills and vouchers mr chair second motion by Commissioner Mojo second by Commissioner Bear any further discussion on the motion any further
discussion seeing none all in favor signify by saying I i i oppos the same sign motion carried next we have the minutes from April 1st a move to approve second a motion by
Commissioner Krabanov second by Commissioner Ebinger any further discussion any further discussion all in favor signify by saying I i oppose the same sign motion carried our next item is the Klay County
Tobacco Ordinance Discussion steve are you going to lead this off thank you Mr chair i can uh yeah I can tee this off here this morning uh just the board certainly where on March 18th uh there was a public hearing held in regards to consideration considering
amending the Klay County tobacco ordinance you had the opportunity to hear both in person and written testimony uh uh in in regards to that ordinance uh and based on the the amount of information that was shared with you this board asked to uh have a delay in
making a decision until a later date uh and so uh you've uh indicated that you had have now had enough time to digest the information uh and uh we're here today to to discuss uh the findings of or the thoughts that you had based on
based on that information uh just for the board's direction I have had a conversation with Mr melton uh and in conferring uh with our with our discussion uh any decision made today would be could be a final would be a final decision if accepted based on
based on the public hearing that you had previously held uh if if your no action was taken the current ordinance would would remain in in fact intact and it would follow basic basically the information that you guys have followed
as far as implementation uh in June 1st 2025 unless otherwise noted with that I'd yield for for your comments thank you Steve as noted um we currently do have a a ordinance on this that was passed in December of 2024
um a request was made to have an additional hearing on that which was held as you explained and at this point in time um today's agenda is a discussion amongst the board um to
determine if they are satisfied with the ordinance as it is or if they care to amend it um or whatever and as stated um if there is action that would either way the ordinance uh there will be an ordinance
in force unless there'd be a motion to not have one at all which I don't anticipate that being the case um so um but but we did we also did have um the board took separate action after that
that delayed the implementation of that ordinance until June 1st i know that you mentioned and our county attorney said if if we don't choose another date it becomes effective today is that correct Brian right i think just to make sure I
mean the public hearing that you had complies with public hearing to address and it it's talking about notice of intention that there's you we published and and put in there there's a stating the subject matter and general purpose of reviewing the ordinance and so now
choosing whatever you choose to do i mean if you choose to amend it like you said Commissioner Campbell I mean if you chose to abolish it I mean that's an action you can take from this you've had the public hearing so whatever action you take could or would go into effect
today if if you choose to amend in any way otherwise if nothing occurs the current ordinance would remain in effect all right all right with that we're open it up for discussion amongst board m
yeah Mr chair yes if it helps with the discussion to help us get started um I just like to make a motion that we uphold and keep the current ordinance as it's written second we have a motion and a second any
further discussion any further discussion seeing none roll call vote please commissioner Kabanov yes commissioner Mojo no commissioner Campbell no commissioner Bayer no commissioner
Ebinger yes that motion fails all right so um further discussion commissioner Bear i'd like to make a motion to abolish the whole tobacco ordinance we have a motion to abolish the entire
ordinance is there a second is there a second is there a second lack of a second that motion fails then Mr chair I'd like to make a motion to amend the tobacco ordinance in
section 7 C to strike that language from the ordinance right page 37 thanks to get the page number i'll second the motion mr chair I sorry
um okay so we do have a motion and a second Commissioner Kavanagh okay so to speak to that obviously um uh I agree with the first part trying to get all the the our new ordinance in li law in line
with other factors that have come through state law and federal law since the other ordinance was made however taking out number C would take out all flavored products which to me almost sounds like the one that didn't re uh
the motion that didn't receive the second uh I want to go back to all the testimony that was uh taken um we were here all uh for both the hearings uh we had 27 people testify
there could have been more but we didn't want to be repeating on that testimony the whole issue here is about flavors it's about kid products uh which would include uh as it's uh
written um it would include vaping products and it would um include nicotine pouches and with the detriment to brain development that is scientifically known and
experienced um these are the two problem areas I and I really want these to u I I hope that these stay in play uh again we've heard from we had 26 verbal
testimonies medical professionals public health we had college students talking about that continuing continuing of uh nicotine addiction two superintendants the problems uh that vaping and nick
nick pouches create and uh with that that's pretty much where I'll end it for now thank you commissioner Abinger yeah just to concur with um Commissioner Krabangh we've had
two public hearings for this overwhelmingly people that came forward were opposed to the flavored tobacco products and nicotine pouches uh the reason being with with the nicotine pouches which are prevalent
even in middle schools according to the school superintendent we had here uh they're find them stuck under lunch tables uh these things contain I don't remember four to eight the equivalent of four to eight cigarettes we are programming adolescent
children to addiction with these products if it tastes like tobacco I guess that would meet the adult market for this but these things are being specifically marketed to
children to get them addicted i had I I smoked at 16 and it took me years to get get off my pack and a half a day habit is what it eventually grew up to i had Steve McQueen and John Wayne convincing
me to smoke as you were cool that was back in the 60s and 70s we had gotten past that but now through social media through advertising from tobacco we've got products that are that taste like candy that are being
used to get the next generation addicted um and overwhelmingly what we heard and from the people we want to we want to hear it from parents students school
superintendants we're health officials we're hearing that these are not desirable items to have out there the the requirement that they be at least 21 at the point of marketing you talk to anybody in the school kids are getting flavored vapes and they're getting
flavored nicotine pouches somewhere and the bottom line is if they if they aren't marketed they're not going to get these kids i think this is a reasonable ordinance nobody's gone out of business in the city of Morehead and they've had a similar ordinance for some
time now and nobody brought merchants in here to say that they were they were losing their businesses because of it so I think it's a prudent and respectful ordinance to protect our kids from a product that's harmful and we'll dict them for life
any other comments one comment Mr chair i believe right now you have to be 21 to buy them so that is an adult in the eyes of the government this stuff is legal in the state of Minnesota this is legal in the federal government's eyes and I believe it should be legal in the state
in Klay County to be sold mr mojo thank you Mr chair i um wasn't able to attend in person the last hearing i did uh participate virtually from St paul and did have the opportunity to not only listen to the testimony on that day but the other
hearings that this board has had um yeah I think when it comes down to the consistent concerns uh the loudest probably most prominent concern tended to revolve around uh vaping the liquid component being uh far
more potent the ability for it to be um other substances or elicit drugs to be um dissolved into that liquid um you know and and I have children that attend a college but also a high school and so
um talking with them and their peers about the most prevalent component that they're seeing certainly vaping uh seems to be the trendy issue uh that poses the most um health concerns at this point in in regards to addiction so uh that's why
I'm uh you know happy to support what the motion is by uh you know specifically targeting that point because of the inability to really guarantee what that uh substance is in there uh I will also concur i you know I think uh what's frustrating to me is
this is really um uh in my eyes not going to make a difference because of the fact that we are a border city that um you know this is an accessible uh far less cheaper option on the North Dakota side that is not that far away from uh
us i'll also say that we uh do a lot with our partners across the river in regards to flood mitigation and transportation and dispatch and all in homelessness and so um you know unless this is more of a targeted effort holistically I I'm not exactly sure that
we're going to see the results that we're wanting i do hear the concerns which is why I'm uh happy to be flexible today with this but uh you know it these are legal products and unfortunately if we don't have adults
who can legally purchase these items stepping up to not provide to underage children we are not going to see uh a difference unfortunately all right um I wrote down a couple notes here
uh I certainly agree that the testimony that we had was overwhelmingly in support of of this policy um at the same point in time the testimony was overwhelmingly
regarding vaping it's almost everyone they brought up vaping was was the main concern it's not to say that they didn't have concerns about the other things but that was the over overwhelming um it's my understanding
that this policy applies to currently I think it's 11 entities in Klay County that would that this applies to um it's not like those 11 entities are um providing all of the vaping and
tobacco products that our citizens residents whether legal or illegal using are obtaining from those places um something that really concerns me and it was even addressed by I believe one
of our schoolboard u superintendent was that vaping is easily accessible vaping products are easily accessible over the internet that's that's that really concerns me that that that is an option for
them um my I also have a concern that this is the first time Klay County in my time on the board has ever basically banned illegal product that goes to what Commissioner Bear is saying
um the legalizing of all these products every food and beverage product that we have every drug and alcohol we have or all those standards are set by the state and federal government not by
county commissions um I really have some concerns about when we start um as a as a board banning um legal products uh it it becomes an easy standard for somebody who might not like
what's being done in a community because then all they all they need to have is three votes instead of having something legisl legislatively done at the state and state and federal level where all those rules are
made so I so I really I really struggle with that you know we talk about you know and the incentive how the uh commissioner Aber talked about how they're enticing kids now with flavor flavoring and we heard that we heard that and I don't disagree with it we
also have other products that are enticing adults to use other products think of all of the craft beer flavorings that we have all of the selzers and all of those types of things that are flavored and you know somebody
having too much of those isn't good for you either and it can create addiction so so at what at what point are county boards going to be the ones who determine what's the next group that's going to come in here you know in the first public hearing I brought up
the fact that and I think all of us on this board had with the exception of Commissioner Bearer because wasn't on here at the time all of us were reached out by somebody who wanted our county board to determine when life begins i I I I raised that issue for a
reason when I when I said it it's because if they can't get something done at the federal and state level they'll try to do it at a local level and and is is do we do we want that is that is that what we want county boards to
become and I don't think it is um you know all of these people that came in here rightfully so i didn't hear one of them though say we're going to the state of Minnesota asking them to do this
statewide i didn't hear any of them say we need to we need to be on the federal government we need to be on our legislators to change these things the easy way is to go to a county board all you got to do is count to three you can have it
done and so I do struggle with that a lot i And again it's it's not this i mean you look at heart disease one of the main reasons for heart disease is too much salt so what's next are we going to have
somebody come in here and say we should be we should be banning salt because it's bad for your heart i This is I mean I'm just expressing where this could lead to uh you know if if you're going to allow individual types of products to
be done at a county board level uh but when it you know I'm going to kind of eat my own words a little bit here because at the same point in time I I do um I do think we need to keep in our recently drafted ordinance the issue
regarding vaping and the reason I say that is a it's a much newer product and the testimony that I've heard is that those vaping products can be manipulated they can be manipulated to have fentanyl
added to them that is just something we can't let happen so to the best of our ability I mean I that's and that's like Commissioner Mosel I'm I'm real I'm willing to concede that that should stay there it's it's something that's so new you know what I remember in my high
school days you walk into the bathroom at noon time and the bathrooms would be full of smoke kids smoking i'm seeing kids heads nodding yes they they know it they they had the same thing happen but you didn't you don't you didn't have all this vaping stuff going on
um yeah so and then you know and there there's other good things that have that have been done in regards to tobacco compliing where it can be used that's that is that is certainly a a a public
you know something that city councils and county commissioners can and should do and that's making sure that it isn't done you know uh in public areas where it can impede on somebody else's health
so you know so from that standpoint I you know this is I don't take this lightly i I I don't think any of us take it lightly but um you I I think of those college kids that were up here saying "Well boy you just need to do this and do this." And
and um you might have a different set of college students wanting us to ban something else next that's illegal product and I I I just I'm very nervous about what precedents we're setting when we start to do those types of things so
those are my comments and um I am going to support uh I obviously I didn't support the total abolishing of it but I will support uh Commissioner Bear's motion as it stands right now um eliminating C m chair could I could I
amend my motion as long as the second follows it can I be a start date of June 1st okay uh let's see did you second okay is that does that meet with first and second okay so so the uh amend basic the motion
would be to um remove item C uh 7 C remove 7 C from the current ordinance section 7 section 7 C yeah section 7 C
with an effective date of June 1 and so my question becomes um you know we we've talked about we've talked about uh allowing our um maybe a a
question would be does it is that give sufficient time to just let all of those current license would who would be involved with this give them ample time i a point just for clarification if 7C passes that would
uh relieve any uh sanctions against flavored vapes they they'll be they'll be perfectly legal no no vapes are vapes are D they're in D okay so when they say flavored products
no person shall sell or offer for sale any flavored product doesn't say smoking product it doesn't say vaping product i just want to make sure that we don't have a uh a conflict there my my understanding of it and maybe I can be
corrected but D talks about liquid is vapes right um liquid would be what is used to refill your vapes but this one if you if you follow down to like the third sentence unless it's in a child resistance packaging this is actually part of the state law that was passed
specifically to make sure that vaping products would be in a childproof package um it would not actually remove flavored vapes from the market what would the liquid packaging it would you're you're identifying liquid in D
correct so and only as the packaging but if you purchase a vape that's a packaging correct but it wouldn't it would because you can buy vapes separately from from the liquid itself so it wouldn't um I
see where you're going but it hasn't everywhere else in the state this is state law and they're still selling vapes what could be done um if I may offer is C could be amended to just say no person shall sell or offer sell any flavored
electronic delivery devices which would take care of the flavored vapes at that point in time according to our definitions and our ordinance and I and I think that's been that's been the intent of what we want is is that yeah I I will concede on the nicotine pouches
although I think flavored ones It's candy to a baby but I you know it the primary thing we're concerned about are flavored vapes and as long as we get language that's that clearly will
prohibit those I'll concede on nicotine pouches so yeah and I I guess thank you for the clar and that's why I was kind of hoping we could have more discussion before we had motions made because then we could have resolved this um yeah because I was under this
understanding that D dealt with vapes so uh D would stay keep its current language and can can you repeat what you proposed if so so to go to to combine page nine where we have our flavored
products and page three um in the definitions where electronic delivery device is used as a definition it says any product containing or delivering nicotine lobilia or any other substance so that would cover any drugs that might be put into one whether natural or synthetic that would cover the v all the
vaping product flavored vaping products intended for human consumption so that combined with our definition on page 9 of C if it said no person shall sell or offer for sale any flavored electronic delivery device period cut the rest of
it and then you would you would get exactly what you're looking for only flavored vaping devices would be covered all right let's let's Mr chair one question to staff would that also prohibit the sales of THC vapes
it would it could be argued that yes it could um there is a uh a separate ordinance for retail of THC products that could be used to combine with this to make sure that that was covered if
that was the intent mr chair Commissioner Abra on that issue there's going to be a separate ordinance that's we're working on right now that we're going to have to have in fairly short order and specifically that should be
addressed within the cannabis uh retail ordinance that we're going to be looking at here in the coming weeks um we wouldn't need to rely on this if that's addressed in the cannabis uh sale ordinance so so that so that we don't
wouldn't have and and again this this I like this kind of so to avoid any conflict because right right now even you yourself said there could be conflict yes right now with what we have right now and what we might have in our cannabis ordinance
and if you wrote them separately then then so here here would be an example if we said today um the commissioners wanted to um restrict the sale of flavored vaping nicotine products and then we passed a cannabis uh retail
ordinance that did not cover flavored THC vaping and said that that was okay then we could have owners in here saying "Well why can they sell this but we can't sell that?" Um and and that is something very good to ask a question because right now on the market there
are products that have nicotine and THC and you can just switch a button and flip them back and forth or get both in your vape at the same time which which area within the current ordinance were you just talking about Commissioner Bar when you asked that
question it' be page 31 of our packet section three electronic delivery devices so that's just under definitions would if chair I'd like to ask staff a question yes for C instead of striking it all the way out if we if the motion
would be to prohibit the sales of flavored nicotine liquids would that cover vapes or how that that could work we the reason why we have such a long definition and I realize it may look burdensome is to
cover there's so many different weird things that happen inside the vaping market um and so that's why we have this so in a nutshell yes but it could when I would go out and do compliance checks it could open up questions like well does
this actually fit here um we noticed um we actually had to help Morehead um with their ordinance because we found out that um uh store owners thought that uh synthetic nicotine was going to be something that would be just fine to be sold whereas at the federal level it
says no that actually is still included um so it I I would just you could do that i would definitely urge to stay within our definitions because that makes us bulletproof um with people trying to um ask questions about you
know what was the actual intent well I I do I do I do like this proposed uh language and see as it is but I still think we need to somehow address the potential confusion yes that could be
with the THC yes right you could write that in there so excluding THC products or or did you want to include them or exclude them i don't want to ban THC vapes okay i
don't okay then if you don't include the those words then it's not covered so can I just really quickly we did not have we did not have that as part of the testimony for all of the public hearings that was not something that we included so my understanding is that's not
something we can just add lib into when we've not advertised to the public that we are having discussions but I but I I do think you know as Commissioner Eberinger talked about there probably is going to be some some sort of uh regulation or stipulations that we're
going to have to do through an ordinance regarding um cannabis right correct and so when that comes that addressed within that and then at that point in time we can make sure that there's no conflicting language between that and and this correct does that Commissioner
Bear does that sound reasonable all right so until Yes m Mr chair just to clarify in the conversations that that that you mentioned Commissioner Everger are you anticipating that that ordinance would be brought before this commission before the June 1st deadline
i believe we can do that yes um just look at um Miss McCay and Yes yeah just just to create I don't I don't I don't know that that June 1st deadline would apply to this anyway because those
entities probably won't be the ones who are going to be selling cannabis so so that that deadline issue probably would not pertain to them anyway correct m if we do look at currently what the projected date of licensing and that was
in in the forum this morning I believe or day before right or yesterday we're looking at licenses coming out in May so we'll we'll need to be prepared with the THC ordinance in fairly short order uh
and licensing requires that the merchants know what the what the ground rules are so we'll need to have that prepared and that was a point of discussion I've had with public health yeah i I strongly uh support let's keep THC where it belongs in the cannabis
rule i my opinion can you talk your mind yes i um I agree i want them separate um but we've had a discussion i I mean I just offer that we'll work on that cannabis ordinance next and move it
forward as quickly as we can given time i agree with um Commissioner Mojo we need that public feedback and I think that's the proper way to do it so is there a motion on the floor right now yeah so so I was just going to it's
going to kind of clarify what that current motion is the current motion is is to um the motion was to original motion was to abol or to uh remove uh section 7 C from the ordinance and then
that a motion was with a friendly amendment was to change the language in 7C to read uh flavored products no person shall sell or offer for sale in person or by
delivery any electronic delivery device devices of nicotine containing flavored tobacco is that Yeah okay and that and with a start date of June 1st with a start date of June 1st
and that was the new that was the amendment that's the amended well it was a friendly amendment that was done just just to make sure I don't think that's actually occurred Mr chair just I I think currently the just the abolishment of C is what's out there there's discussion of that i don't think you've
actually had a motion with a second on the record i I don't I don't believe that's happened so I think to make that official if that's going to happen and just to clarify you said flavored liquid and I think we're talking liquid complet
right flavored and unflavored and I don't know what the actual one we Okay I got to go back so didn't we So we originally voted on on his motion to abolish C we voted on that yep and then and then didn't you make another motion there was lack of a second so it died it
died from lack of a second to abolish the whole thing right then I made a motion to Strike C the language is C completely jenny second that I made amendment to start at June 1st okay and now I'll make another I seconded that amendment for June 1st
june 1st so then I'll make a second amendment instead of striking C we remove the words flavored products no well no patron shall sell or offer for sale any flavored products excluding
Well we'd strike strike that but then add what did I write here can we just withdraw the first motion yeah me all right I'll withdraw my first motion all right I'll withdraw that we have a motion is withdrawn my 4 leader is
rolling in her grave and I I'm not really a fan of friendly amendments under Robert's rules of order but all right okay no it's we're starting clean if I could make a suggestion let's defer to staff on what I think we know we all
know where we want to go with this and that's to eliminate flavored vapes right now the THC issue can be addressed in the upcoming ordinance what does staff recommend to me for us
to meet the objective of eliminating flavored vapes that are the problem in school do we need to address it as nicotine do we need simply say uh flavored liquids used in an electronic device as defined by what what what is
going to work in this if I could make just a quick question for Commissioner Mojo um you had mentioned all fla were you wanting all vapes included or were you wanting flavored uh vapes to be covered
based on what I'm hearing from you the liquid is easily changed based on what can be inserted in it correct correct yes and so I think that that would be an all-encompassing okay right i mean if I'm listening to what you're hearing yes
so with that as an idea what you could strike C or change C instead of saying flavored products it could just say no person shall sell or offer for sale any electronic delivery device using our
definition that would then cover all all vaping products it would not cover THC though because that would be that would be in in the realm of cannabis because we have a state statute that way would that cover would that cover sale of the
vape liquid if it was exclusive of the device itself yes absolutely okay so I'd like to make motion what he just said okay i'd like to secondhand motion and and it is it's close to what I gave you
Kevin take out the exclude mental apart and just read the top line so the so your motion your current motion that you just did is no uh under C y in section seven right would read no person shall
sell or offer for sale in person or by delivery any electronic delivery devices as a flavored product right electronic device I thought he I thought if he suggested removing that if you dropped the last three words there any
flavored product then it would cover all vapes This Commissioner Mojo has made a suggestion that is actually better for the kids in the county it would then step beyond flavored vapes it would actually cover all vaping products flavored or unflavored yeah I certainly support that
with a start date of June 1st so okay so let me clarify so so your motion is section 7 C no person shall sell or offer for sale in person or by delivery any
electronic delivery devices period that is my motion with an effective date of June 1st and a second on that okay we have a motion and a second any further discussion on that motion i believe this is a good compromise
chair right i am gratified that we got to make sausage in front of everybody this is how democracies are supposed to work this is this is being transparent let me tell you all right any further discussion on the
motion commissioner Mojo thank you this is the discussion that probably should have happened at a board level before we push ordinances like this through so I'm encouraging us to have uh this type of uh encompassing discussion in regards to the cannabis piece i am um I'm hopeful
that this uh makes a difference um you know I'll I'll lean into what you say here but um I'm also just maybe also a suggestion this county just opened a uh amazing substance use withdrawal management facility and we have not even
had discussion at this board even close to the discussion that we've had regarding this about the work that they do there the education in the community to the clients they serve um it is a state-of-the-art facility that we've not even talked about and so I just want to
caution all of us that we need to lift up the efforts in a lot of different arenas in regards to keeping our communities safe thank you yeah well I you know I you know when this was first done in December of 2024
my frustration was is we had none of this dialogue we had none of this dialogue and we put something in and uh being able to have this dialogue is important i think it's um you know and I'm going to look at our
our county administrator when we look at future ordinance that we probably make sure that we um that we have this these open and transparent discussions um on potential changes to ordinance or new ordinances and I and I expect the same
to happen when we do our uh ordinance on cannabis i think it's uh good for the public input and I think the sometimes the people who might be um advocating for something u might also learn that there's other important components to
why we do things and don't do things um so with that we do have a motion mr chair if I I could add just and that's why Steve and I talked and I just want to make sure that the board knew you know under the the statute and the allowance I mean this this is what's supposed to happen it does sometimes it
happens in a maybe an easier way that we all have worked through a a workg group or something else where it's very transparent very clear that we need an ordinance to do something and it's it's a simple matter and get it passed and we have it written out in this case we
didn't have it written out because there is debate that needs to happen and and needs to occur and that's a good thing and so um as we talked about the the statute allows for that we don't have to publish an ordinance and say this is what's pre-ordained and now you must vote on it you have the ability to look
at it discuss it argue about it and then come up with something and so I think that's a good thing that is what's allowed under the statute and what we're doing here today so great thank you Brian any further comments on the motion any further comments on the motion
seeing none roll call vote please commissioner Kraov yes commissioner Mojo yes commissioner Campbell yes commissioner Bayer no commissioner Ebinger yes motion carries we have a change to our ordinance tobacco
ordinance back June 1st thank you thank you Commission all right Kathy McCay morning Kathy and Rory good morning Mr chair and commissioners we are requesting
um approval of two grant um applications i did provide a a brief description of those grants as well as the implementation timeline um and then the cost to impact we also have um with if
these two grants are are fully funded um and we receive those it would require hiring one FTE uh grant manager for that um for the two grants so the the hire
would not be a request until the grant funds hopefully will receive both of those if you would like some additional information on on those grants Rory can certainly give you a little more detail than what the brief description is
maybe we can Commissioner Mojo has Thank you uh I have a question in regards to uh hiring a grant manager would the grant manager only facilitate this grant the two the two grants correct right but your department currently receives
several grants is is it in statute per the awardee of this these two grants that it has to have their own grant manager or could you ever combine and have a a general grant manager oversee implementation of
those other grants each of our grants um have full-time people that are required to just cover those grants so they wouldn't have any capacity to cover these at all these are pretty pretty large grants and for a long period of time so it would require one FTE for
just these two so their time is 100% only on the grants grant funded managed the only specific grants identified yes correct these two yes commissioner Bear have these grants been secured from MDH
no this is approval to apply for these grants and we will do we know when the award time frame is it's a pretty short window um the the first grant the one that's called the super grant substance use prevention
education recovery we would know by the end of April and the uh communities that care would be by the middle of May with both with a June 1st start so if I could So if I could ask so the the um motion that's been requested here
would be to uh submit the grant applications and to fund a one full-time grant manager uh you know wouldn't wouldn't the appropriate thing right now just to be to approve filing for the grants and then uh based on uh those grants being
approved then we could um do that additional part about the manager because right now if we approve a the FTE right now um we're basically saying that we're going to hire that whether we get the grant or not um correction Mr chair the correction is to
hire only if we receive the two grants okay that's not in our document sorry that was my intent we would not hire someone unless we received um confirmation of both two grants so if you would prefer that I come back once
those grants if they are secured so under our typical process in public health when we when we apply for a grant you you get approval from the board to apply for a grant and then if if the award is granted does the county board
then have to uh approve of that as well or is it just become automatic where that's automatically approved right we we have so many grants and contracts you typically will get um at the beginning of the year um the I'm not sure how many
um all our contracts and grants for approval at the beginning of the year so yes that would be approved so there's the approval process there's there's the there's the request for the grant that's approved by the board and then if the grant is approved at the state level
then it comes back where we then approve that the acceptance of that grant or don't we no okay all right well um question yes commissioner mojo thank you uh so in
looking at this um MDH is the awardee for that um in your discussion statewide um just my question is in regards to the grant because they over they um encompass a couple bianiums at the legislature and given the dis discussion
that we've heard about at the state there's just sweeping cuts to what these are and so how are we one are we for sure that this this fund these funds have been allocated and two um what happens in the end of May if they're
Um Mr chair and Commissioner Mojo um the state has um um they've confirmed that they don't anticipate a cut in these or they would not be offering that option what we're seeing at the state level is
when federal funds are being cut uh then potentially there's some cuts at MDH so this would be just state funds but I guess that goes to my question i mean there's enormous cuts that we're seeing at the federal
level are we not also anticipating cuts here um locally are you talking about commission i guess these these are um Minnesota Department of Health grants yep right right and you know I just sat sat through hours of testimony in St paul on Wednesday about all of the
grants that are being reduced for the next bianium and so um are these are the have these been earmarked for just ongoing years yes Mr chair and Commissioner Mojo yes
the MDH the conversations with MDH is um that they they aren't anticipating um potential cuts there's going to be cuts but not necessarily in this area so hopefully that answers your question they are not anticipating they would not
offer this this funding option at this time if they anticipated that the cuts would be happening in this area and then my final question I think Steve has something when is the deadline for the application the deadline is this week for the CTC
and the super grant okay right mr larson Mr chair thank you uh I think that there's great opportunity here for uh uh for the the board to consider i think one of the things that to to your point it sounds like there's several concerns uh there are two grants here and the one
position that they would be looking would be assuming the need would be if both grants were filled uh and so to the board's board's uh uh board's uh concerns maybe addressing the application process and then asking Corey Kathy and Rory to come back in the
event that they get both of them uh to make that request with some additional information in in the in the uh in the situation where maybe they only get one one grant maybe one a full full-time position would be warranted and so right that was my
in the grants we intend to apply include a 0.5 FTE for each okay that's part of the application yes all right what's the board's wishes mr chair Mr i would move that uh we approve the
submission of grant applications for both these grants and tenatively approve a.5 employee uh for each of them upon the approval of the grant
right we have a motion is there a second okay we have a second motion by Commissioner Ever second by Commissioner Krabnoff any further discussion commissioner Mojo uh personally I would approve um I'm just more in favor of applying for the grants right now
because I think that if you're if we're approving a 0.5 for each grant that might be um that one might not be encompassing if you do want just one person i think it could be read that it's half and half um and so I I just um
given the uncertainty would prefer to go the application route now and then address the the funding of the manager uh per the approval but um certainly I'm only one person mr sure thanks does just to staff um
does that if we withheld the approval of the hiring of the new employee would that inhibit you guys in any way or is it a problem if you wait till the grants approved um it um Mr chair and Commissioner um
Evinger um that that's kind of the intent um that there might be a crunch if we have to put an application out and and go through that approval process um because it starts June 1st so we if we
know something um in the next month it's easier but trying to find someone that can manage that sometimes can take a while to find the grant manager so it it gives us an opportunity to maybe apply a little bit sooner or put the application
out um for uh FTE now uh given the fact that um you know we have other grant managers who may choose to move to this these two if we get them we'd have to backfill so we'd have that um option as
well okay i would include the back fill in my motion if Yeah but just to clarify nobody's going to be hired until we know we have the grants absolutely not okay commissioner yeah just to follow up
uh I agree with that i uh would support that so which each half position is contingent upon successful grant being acquired in the line set and we have a way out
well it's my based on what I am hearing here um the grant application each grant application includes the understanding that the county will hire a 0.5 full-time position to to manage the
commissioner we have to include that in the application so you know so as part of our as part of our request for in that application we're saying that we will do that you know so I I I think that
language is is probably appropriate in an ideal word world I'd like to um make sure that we have the grant in place before we hire somebody and I think that's your intent here right not to go out and hire somebody till we've gotten word that the grant has been approved
commissioner we don't have funding for it if we don't get the grant so we we wouldn't be able to good point or your permission i Mr chair I I think the history of um public health is we would never hire
someone before we had funding that's a good thing okay any further discussion on the motion just a clarification uh the communities that care it looks like that ends May 31st 2030 not June 30th 2030
what What was that again the Well on the implementation time it's just a month off oh on the communities that care on the ending of it yep so okay it's May 31st all right so we have a motion and a second any further discussion seeing
none all in favor signify by saying I i oppose the same i motion carried all right thank okay thank you Kathy thank you Rory um just real briefly I I know we've have our social service people patiently
waiting here i'm just wondering if it would be all right if we could uh just take in item number six real quickly we have somebody here i don't think I don't think ours is going to take very long and that'll allow you uh time to so why don't you come on up here let's uh let's
move on to item number six and that is a request approved to sign a letter of support for the river communications federal broadband equity access and development speed grant application and provide $5,000 in ARPA funds all right
good morning good morning Mr chairman thank you for that time and and uh thank you if this works better for you to to bump me ahead i much appreciate it thank you for your time this morning uh I'm going to start off with a little bit of apology if this is a
little bit more chaotic on this situation than what you're used to with Red River Communications um we are applying for a bead grant you may have heard that it's a national funding um it is being administered by the Minnesota
Deed Office in in in uh collaboration with the NTIA specifically what I'm here to speak about this morning if you're familiar we have an existing project going on north of Holly
this encompasses approximately 17 locations north of Holly following some traditional telephone exchange boundaries is what it is there's about 17 locations that were excluded out of that last broadband grant that you
accepted we are applying for this grant and we are including this area in that the one thing about this grant that I'm working on is we are also applying for some locations down in Traverse County so uh it is all in one
application um I spoke with uh with Steve very briefly this has been very chaotic from getting onto your schedule and agenda and possibly maybe not getting everything communicated correctly which will fall on my
shoulders not Steve's but we had hoped to have a resolution passed i believe that is in your packet as well as a memorandum of understanding and a letter of support um the other discussion that was
had was basically to get as many points as we can on these kind of grants any kind of monetary donation donation or contribution is what I should say from from you all as a government entity usually helps the
reason for my choosing $5,000 is just it is only 17 locations you know in the past we had another grant where you guys had actually committed 25 to $30,000 not sure whether those funds are even still around but I wouldn't feel
comfortable taking too much of that in regards to what this would actually be fixing for a problem does my brief description make sense to you Mr chairman perfect it's perfect for me so I'll have my colleagues up here think if they have any questions mr bear I have
questions so this map here is what you're looking for for letter support correct those 17 locations in that that's I'm assuming that's your district am I okay so you're very familiar it goes up almost kind of comes to a point
there getting close to hitter correct I know most of these people personally that this would perfect thank you my question to you is have you gone and talked to these people that live there that see even if they want this
um sir we have not we are in the process of selling the other grant which which this this entity has given our support in prior to you having your seat on there and we have 50% of those people already subscribed waiting for service
when it is we just do not have time typically we do look for letters of support we know that the only broadband service that people really have access to is one something of a cellular network called 5G or another provider
has a what we call a pointto multi-point be mid-continent communications and and some of those services work well for their needs others don't in the future our perspective is in order to thrive as a family working education or what have
you a fiber optic connection is what's going to be needed in the future there there's also Starlink up in that area that people Starlink is a low earth orbiting satellite thing yep yep all right any other questions
can I just I don't quite understand Mr chair the ARPA funds where those come from yeah so um in our in our past these are all things that are typically approved through the ARPA committee and those are those are federal funds that
came came through us and I believe in a previous application that uh Red River Communications had brought before us ARPA did approve up to $30,000 um for another grant application that
was done which at that time I guess was Not successful that one was not successful that was specifically a bordertoborder application completely administered by Minnesota deed office since then we have received a federal grant under USDA that is for what we
call rural comtock and rural sabin areas south of here and there was a contribution and and just to just to give you a little bit of of history if you will and and Klay County stature I I visited with Steve about this and stuff
in some of those grant applications there are other counties closer to the metro area or what have you that are just able to provide a lot more dollars we've had very good conversation with this commission those always look favorably when the local government
entity is able to put up some dollars so as as Chairman Campbell had had indicated at that time this commission was was great through their ARPA uh committee and that was a$25 to $30,000 commitment at the same time that was nearly a $7 million build yeah i you
know and um so that that $30,000 was is is still out there in ARPA dollars that's been designated for for a previous project but it but this project to you know and Steve reached out to me and u art I have
to say that our ARPA committee has not met on this issue but um it's it's my understanding or my opinion that that this would still qualify um for that some of that $30,000 it's basically the
same thing just a different area within the county that would be providing broadband service for so you know so again I hope that answers your question in terms of the funding so there would be
um we would just be taking 5,000 of that original 30,000 and applying it towards this new grant application Steve you have anything else you want to I note you did very well explaining that thank you Mr chair right thank you can I Thank you Mr chair
thanks for the questions uh Commissioner Bear on this um the spirit of the ARPA and CARES Act um funds were really to um identify some of the issues that were identified with COVID in regards to our community um certainly when a lot of
things went online it became very apparent that there were um gapping holes in in accessibility for broadband throughout a lot of different spaces in the county and so um just because the ARPA committee did not specifically meet on this um because those funds weren't
allocated from the last goound this certainly fits within what the vision of this board was is to help in any way knowing that we didn't have the reserves to um spearhead projects like this but having companies come forward like this to um find some sort of leverage buyin
to help you with the grants and the points uh with um with that I think is important i think it it's also important to note that uh residents are not required to sign on to these um these projects uh I I think a lot of times
people maybe just aren't aware they're just okay understanding that you have less than amazing accessibility for that and so um once it is in place if we're successful with this I think that um we'll find a lot of folks want to sign
into it i think part of the discussion that we have um with the economic development lens for Klay County is how do we uh make nominal changes or drastic changes to make Klay County a uh moreospitable place for folks to live uh
work remotely if that's the case or uh insert businesses into Klay County and I think given the map and the expansion of the broadband access in Klay County I'm really excited about the economic opportunities that a project like this would um uh create for the county so
again Tom we've had lots of discussions on this thanks for bringing it forward i know in regards to grants it is a a crazy cycle and so I appreciate you working with uh Steve uh to get this done uh you certainly have my support all right any other comments questions
for Tom seeing none what's the board's wishes we're looking at a um a request to approve a letter of support for Red River Communications Federal Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Bead Grant
application and provide $5,000 in ARPA funding if the grant is um accepted mr chair can I ask what would the resolution number be this is a just a letter of support this isn't a resolution there's a resolution
in there i don't Yeah we Mr chair Commissioner Mojo did talk to Tom prior to that again I just want to reiterate your comments Commissioner Mojo the quick turnaround uh that that has happened in almost all the grant
applications that Red River has worked with us on has not been uh the the uh inability to get information has not been on Red River's ability it's been there needing to act as quickly to to meet deadlines and so the resolution was
not part of our initial discussion it was just a letter of support so you're not looking for uh in talking with Tom prior to the meeting it sound like the letter of support would be sufficient for the grant if we can get the letter of support be greatly appreciated i understand the protocol
and not having the correct things on the agenda that's that that is on us and the timetables that we've been executing on so no worries mr chair if I might then um make a motion to approve a letter of support for Red River Communications their federal broadband equity access
and deployment bead grant application also providing um uh contribution of $5,000 of ARPA funding to the grant application i will second that chair we have a motion and a second and just to clarify those that $5,000 will be
awarded as part of it if the grant is accepted correct only if the grant is accepted that is correct clarifying that all right we have a motion in a second uh any further discussion seeing none all in favor signify by saying I i the same sign
motion carry tom you I signed it already that's how perfect perfect i I I assume Steve will step step around and grab that for me one other quick update on the on what we call the North Holly project it has been bid and we are ready to start we are waiting on the state
historical and preservation office to get get some things taken care of with there uh Commissioner Bayer I believe I hope I pronounced that correctly would love to get together with you offline make sure you're you're up to speed on all the things we have going there and thank you for your support maybe all
right thanks that'd be appreciated all right board are we are we good or do we need a five minute break or we do three minute break three minute break all right Quinn and folks we're uh we're running a little bit late um that'll
for him what's it what's the new time all right we're back in session here and our next item is the annual update for social services or financial and child support fraud and collection division and I'm assuming Quinn you're going to
start this off i'll kick it away um I'm sure you moved us to the end so there was as much time as humanly possible to hear what we had to say a little disappointed we lost our audience but thank you thank you so much you have the whole world watching you online that's perfect that's right thank Thank you
very much uh Mr chair and commissioners yes we are here today uh to wrap up our social services uh departmental update uh we're going to start with our financial services uh which is Karen and Michaela and then move on to Sandy's unit child support fraud and collections uh I will keep my mouth shut and kick it
over to them so good morning you can go to the next slide so just to start off I'll just do a brief introduction for everybody um as you can see listed on the slide here here are the programs that our unit offers and services uh under cash grant
programs we have MIP DWP GA housing support and RCA um SNAP of course child care assistance we do several emergency assistance programs uh and then we have multiple health care programs long-term
care programs and then county burials so a lot going into the income maintenance department and you can go ahead and go to the next slide and following that um Karen is the supervisor for those programs that you see listed beneath her
and then I'm the supervisor for the healthcare long-term care programs and then you can see our staffing breakdown under that all right and then I will kick it off with the um 2024 federal poverty
guidelines um the level is based on modified adjusted gross income which is essentially your income before taxes and not your net income this would include all income sources such as salaries interest and social security these
figures are based on the 2024 federal poverty guidelines or the FPG which are used to determine eligibility for various programs such as Medicaid SNAP and cash and one of our main family programs is
MIP uh Minnesota Family Investment Program um we are very we like our um abbreviations so and you can see in 2024 it
was slightly up from 23 um MIP normally it doesn't eb and flow too much um it receives the annual tanniff block grant from the federal government which is used to fund MIP and other programs
assisting low-income families minnesota also contributes state funds to support MIP uh the MIP consolidated fund has an allocation formula that determines how funds are distributed to counties and tribes based on factors such as their historic spending base and their share
of MIP and diversionary work program case loads counties could also be awarded additional funding based on their performance if a county rates above the range of expected performance you could earn a bonus equal to 2 and a
half% of the initial allocation uh the unused MIP funds don't roll over to the next calendar year unfortunately uh and the allocation is usually determined in July or August another one of our family
programs is our DWP um this is also a program that uh was only one higher this year than or in 2024 than last year uh this program is funded with a combination of
state funds and federal the TANF funds the temporary assistance for needy families is what TANIF means mip and DWP grants are administrated administered by counties and tribes uh the initial goal of DWP was to
stabilize income so families would not need to apply for broader benefits such as MIP but the state of Minnesota is discontinuing the DWP program in 2026 because some experts and lawmakers believe it isn't achieving the goals of
helping families find work to achieve financial stability so they are considering uh alternative approaches when they apply for cash assistance they will go right to the MIP program instead of the DWP which
they currently do now if eligible yes yes Commissioner B how's that program worked in Klay County with those 16 15 16 um in speaking with the eligibility workers it is they're divided
um normally what happens is they are on the DWP program for three months and most of them do transition to the MIT program so it's it's not as successful as we would like it to be um
DWP they they're on the program and their income doesn't count so if they do get a job it's kind of designed to they get the DWP funding plus their paycheck mhm um hoping that they can
build up funding so that they can become stable uh they've found that that is not working the way that they wanted it to so that's kind of the reason that they're going away from that program and then we have our child care
uh there are two different um areas of child care one is MIP and then the other is our basic sliding fee program is funded with county state and federal funds that include the federal child care and development fund and the
TANF fund not all families who meet eligibility requirements under this program receive benefits because funding is capped at a specific amount each year counties administer the child care assistance program state law determines
the maximum rates the program will pay to the providers maximum rates paid to providers under the child care assistance program may not cover the full cost of care because they're not based on the current market rates minnesota has one of the lowest reimbursement rates in the county in the
country for providers and then our emergency assistance you guys are going to get sick of me talking uh we have our family emergency assistance which is our EA funds um emergency assistance is for people who
have children in the home under the age of 21 family EA is funded through a portion of our MIP consolidated fund this is designed for families with low incomes experiencing household emergencies such as evictions foreclosures utility shut offs or other
household emergencies to help resolve uh the 12 month gap they're eligible every 12 months and they can't get it sooner than that um applicants must meet income guidelines to qualify and
like I said you can only receive it one time in a 12-month period and now we are going to go to our adult programs uh the adult cash program is our general assistance which is a state program uh it helps people without
children pay for basic needs provides money to people who can't work enough to support themselves and whose income and resources are very low ga is funded solely by state general fund dollars with no federal funding involved the asset limit for this program is $10,000
per person and it um has increased a little bit in 2024 and um this is mainly we've seen um a lot because of our homeless
population and another adult cash program is our Minnesota Supplemental Assistance or MSA uh the state of Minnesota knows you need a certain amount of money each month to pay for your basic needs this amount is called MSA assistance most people who get SEP
supplemental security income or SSI qualify for MSA the gross income limit for MSA is $2,91 per month for an individual and $5,800 a month for eligible couples the
amount of the MSA assistance standard that an individual receives depends on their living situation and then our housing grant uh formerly GRH housing support program is a state funded program that provides an income supplement to help seniors and adults
with disabilities cover room and board costs the program helps individuals with low incomes who have disabilities or are seniors to pay for housing and food state of Minnesota pays providers on behalf of the beneficiaries as of July 1st 2024 the program pays up to
$1,170 per month in group settings and $1,220 per month in community settings for housing and food costs and this amount is going up again this July just wanted to add on the housing support a a lot of you commissioners are familiar with this program um due to the
conversations we had regarding Churches United back in November and December uh happy to report we had a meeting yesterday where those numbers of churches have increased uh they have 19 total housing support beds at Micah's Mission and they're up to 12 of 19 so making some good progress on that
all right and then emergency assistance for our adults um EGA is 100% state funded the state determines the total allocation of for EGA based on state law and the agency's
average share of past EGA expenses so if we don't spend it we lose it counties can spend beyond their state allocation using their own funds but additional spending must come from county sources so we watch this fund
very close so we don't overspend applicants must have a current net income under 200% of the federal poverty guideline for the previous year and not have received EGA within 12 months of the application date
and now SNAP our uh federal program the money for SNAP benefits comes from federal funds program is administered by the USDA and states like Minnesota are responsible for implementing the program and ensuring it's delivered effectively to their
communities in Minnesota SNAP is administered at the county level snap benefits are issued through electronic benefit cards or EBT which can be used like a debit card to purchase food at authorized real retailers the DCYF Department of
Children Youth and Families overseas SNAP in Minnesota and provides information and resources for the programs a little fun fact that I found in the month of December 2024 Klay County had
3,717 active SNAP cases which served 7,74 residents which equals 1,297,312 in food that was purchased mainly in this county or retailers from our county so putting back into the
economy SNAP benefits the economy by stimulating local and national economic activity through increased spending on food and other essentials creating jobs and acting as a stabilizer during economic downturns and then this slide I just
have some benefits of our economy i won't read everything um the one thing at the bottom I want to point out every snap dollar that households redeem expands the economy about
$154 the food purchased also puts money directly in the pockets of farmers and distributors who in turn can then afford goods services and food for themselves so if you remember from the fun fact on the previous slide the total SNAP received by residents of Klay County
just in the month of December was 1,297,312 and I'm a numbers person so if we take the $154 by that number we end up with1,997,86040 in an expansion to the economy for just that month thanks
Karen so healthc care programs in Minnesota and across the country are a hot topic right now and I'm going to speak with you about specifically our Klay County cases so as you can see in 2024 we had a very small dip to our
active healthc care cases we did anticipate this as um you can see the the COVID bell right um so as we're unwinding from all of the COVID waiverss and things like that we're seeing the cases dip just a little bit not as much
as we may have anticipated or liked um from a workload standpoint just because more people are moving to the county more people are eligible for um health care benefits and so our case numbers are are stabilizing um at this
rate um little bit it's okay you can go back a little bit about our workload in particular um our CA our case workers do an incredible job across the state in comparable counties of our size the
ratio of cases to workers about 650 here in Klay County with our current staffing we're at about a thousand cases per worker so they're working very hard every day to serve our community um and as far as families versus adults we're
about 5050 split on our health care benefits um something that I did want to highlight too that's really exciting that's currently happening in our unit with our healthcare workers is Klay County Healthcare Team was identified as one of the top four performing in the
state on a certain um certain aspect of our cases and so we're actually a pilot county for an exciting new program related to healthcare renewals we're right in the middle of it right now we've been doing it for a couple months it's going very well and we're just really honored to be a part of that
project and looking forward to seeing it to completion and helping improve things across the state for everyone so I just wanted to lift up our team there they're doing a wonderful job with that project all right and then next up is our long-term care program and this is something that we anticipate growing and
continue to grow across Klay County with more people being eligible um maybe moving to the area things like that in the United States um seven people turn 65 every minute so that's a pretty
impactful number and this is going to directly go on the shoulders of our long-term care team so they have a lot on their plate they do the health care benefits they also do the SNAP the cash really any programs in our income maintenance unit for individuals over 65
or in a long-term care facility um very full plates there um they actually climbed some last year they were 5% of our healthcare cases and this year they're actually 11 so that really speaks to the rising need
in this population and where we kind of are projecting that that workload to continue to go uh when we are thinking about income maintenance programs in Klay County and then just kind of elaborating on that right now so the team on our
long-term care program they there are three of them and right now they're about 350 to 380 cases per worker ideally we would like to see that more closer to 200 or a little under per worker so very full plates right now and
so when we think about long-term needs for our unit um this is I would say one of the top priorities on on my radar for sure is how can we support this program and how can we help alleviate our current workers um they do I kind of
listed here we have significant number of facilities in Klay County um assisted living settings and then also if clients can't get into a local facility because they are booked then they may be placed elsewhere in the state and we would still service that um because they
started with us and and we know them and their authorized representative may be here just easier to work with the the family that way and then also they communicate with so many people every day everyone from clients to lawyers to funeral homes to um social workers at
hospitals i mean they're always they're very indepth in the work that they do and the amount of um digging and verifications that go into an application so just wanted to highlight our long-term care program today um it's
definitely on the forefront as we're working on planning for for our unit and then uh speaking of things that we're working on county burials as well um we are currently Quinn Karen and myself are in the middle of researching
and analyzing and kind of doing you know cost analysis on our county burials we are seeing the cost rising and so we'd like to see okay what where do we go from here what are other counties in our state doing what are border you know
maybe in North Dakota doing how can we remain cost-effective and just be good stewards of our tax dollars here so just know we are working on re digging into this and seeing how we can be more better spending with our dollars
maybe and that's what I have for you guys any questions thank you okay wonderful all right back to me i just want to highlight how hard our eligibility workers have been working um we are extremely proud of
them like Michaela said um one of the four counties in the state that are doing this pilot project um in 2024 they processed two 20 237,166 forms
um that is everything coming in from the applications to payubs update forms return mail um it's it's been crazy and then a little day in the life we have 29
eligibility workers and when we break that down it's 8,178 documents per year per worker um 259 251 working days is about 33
documents a day they also have seen 8,915 in office appointments and those are just the people coming in the office they mainly have phone interviews and that doesn't include the ones that they talk to on the phone they have their
daily tasks that they are responsible to do every day so they are working hard to make sure the citizens of Klay County get the benefits that they need i just have to chime in here right before we jump over to Sandy when as you all know my purview was in child
protection before I took this role so I actually knew very little about first floor all I knew is that every time we called down there you helped us like you're talking about every time we talked to you you got us the answers that we needed when I truly learned the amount of data entry and processing that was occurring down there I was actually
pretty floored and taken away and when I when I compare that with the accuracy and the performance measures that we have I am equally as floored to see with that much data entry with 237,000 forms how few mistakes are made
and so I think that's a testament to the training the onboarding and just the team culture that we have down on first floor and I am just absolutely excited and thrilled to have two supervisors here to run that unit and all the eligibility workers that do what they do it's pretty astounding can I make one
more comment yeah go ahead um one more thing um in going with how excited we are supporting Michaela she has been nominated to president of our MA office group uh the Minnesota Association of
Financial Assistant Supervisors so she is the president for the whole state of Minnesota um supporting Klay County so I think that is a very stellar um accomplishment thank you i'm very
proud of her congratulations congratulations and with that I'll kick it over to Sandy alrighty now we're gonna talk about my favorite unit in the whole county oh come on they're awesome so I
supervise three different areas child support welfare fraud and collections so starting with fraud we have two full-time investigators and we handle two different types of investigations um for the county we do the FBI or
front-end investigations and those are intended to prevent a grant from their units in going out in error um and then we also do criminal investigations which are the backend so the money has already gone to somebody
and we've discovered after the fact that they were not entitled to that um that money or that benefit and so we then work with the county attorney's office to um look at trying to get some of that
money back um the majority of our referrals come from an eligibility worker and most of those referrals are for household composition unreported income or employment and verification of residency we also do things like looking
at returned mail to try and figure out if maybe somebody's no longer living or somebody is no longer residing in Minnesota um we also can look at EBT usage to see if they're being used out of state on a regular basis and we get referrals from
the state tip line and also from the child support unit um some statistics here um I did leave some of the older stuff in just so you can kind of see how COVID impacted what we could do in welfare
fraud for a few years uh the top grid is regarding criminal referrals so you can see at the bottom in 2019 um kind of the kickstart of the end of COVID we had 21 criminal criminal
referrals that year eight convictions um one administrative disqualification hearing and had overpayments allocated at $89,942 progressively those overpayments are reducing up until we hit
2024 uh the overpayment totals are still low but that's due to CO again um some of our biggest cases deal with the medical and as of June 1st of 2023 we
now have to get a court order to try and and collect that medical it used to be that we would refer it to the county attorney's office once they got involved that person rather than getting a criminal conviction would start paying
that down and we can't do that anymore so we still have to calculate the amount that we feel was paid out in error but we have to get a court order and we're just starting to do that now um so that's a lot more work for the
investigators and it also has a big impact on Brian's unit in um having to do more work in in that area um so we we did get more criminal referrals sent in in 2024 and hopefully
we'll see that progress as as we go into 2025 i believe we already have six or eight sent over so far this year um in FBI area we
uh go with direct savings so somebody applies we look at the application and think it doesn't look quite right um we start looking at it and say "Yep this person really doesn't qualify because of whatever factor it was that they're
working or they've got the other parent in the home or that who is working that type of thing." And um so we get direct savings of they could have been entitled to receive $700 in public assistance
they're not entitled to that and so we look at that as a direct savings and then it looks at three times that amount for the cost avoidance because generally it would take about three months before some of our automated processes would
catch up where we might get a flag that somebody is working or something like that um so we're we're doing really well at keeping right around three days for an investigation to be completed that helps
um eligibility workers in processing applications where they're not having to hold it for a long period of time to make any determinations there um for funding for this program
um the FBI program is a mandated program by the state and it's funded by the state so um up through state fiscal year 2025 we've been receiving $125,000 to fund 1.25 full-time
equivalent and then the balance of that program has been paid um by the county with 50% federal financial participation dollars so it's good program stops money from going out brings some money back in
and is a small part of county budget for funding moving on to county collections we have two uh full-time collection officers and they work on collecting outstanding debt that's owed to the county or various programs within
social services um these positions are also eligible for 50% FFP and they work with public assistance overp payments and we receive incentives for those collections uh we
do foster care placement reimbursement probate medical assistance recovery county burial uh collections detox highway department and environmental health or some of the other departments like
environmental health um they do their own collection first and generally it comes to us if they're unsuccessful so not a lot there anymore but still something that we do work on um collection officers have a wide
variety of duties um they're just kind of all over the place with what they work on the biggest thing and the thing that takes their most the most time is a state recovery um and enforcing probate cases and these are cases where the county has a preferred preferred claim
for medical assistance um people over the age of 55 if they're on medical assistance their estate and assets can be assigned back to the state upon their death or the death of a spouse if the spouse is still living
um in these um cases it's very time consuming um it's processing a lot of documents dealing with attorneys family members uh funeral homes um so that really takes a huge chunk of their time
they also work with county burial reconciliation and recovery of assets so somebody might apply for a county burial in the income or in the financial services division there's a change there and um we can see on the application
that they might have had $500 in a checking account or something like that we would then work to collect that back to help pay for the funeral service um we collect balances on public assistance cases for overpayments we do skip
tracing trying to locate people which can be very challenging because many of these people are low income and um so that that can be difficult to do we file um for revenue recapture on
overdue debts for anybody who might get a Minnesota tax return and then they also do several functions for child support which would be buckle swabs um driver's license suspension cases and facilitating judgment
renewals statistics wise um I pulled in 2023 and 24 and we did this a little different this time for you so it was a lot of work for um Deianne in the auditor's office so I just went with two years worth
but you can see that these two people bring a lot of money in in 2023 it was uh over a million dollars 2024 944,000 out of that um we have to pay
money back to the state for their share and that can also go some of it to federal for the federal programs but the county share was 173,000 and then county departments was 155,000 so these two collections
officers brought in $328,670 to the county last year okay and then I included statutory requirements for why counties have to have collections officers and work to collect these funds back in child support services we have
six child support officers and six child support aids federally we are required to provide services to locate parents established parentage established court orders that include in Minnesota basic
support medical support and child care reimbursement and the three of those together are considered to be a child support obligation we enforce court orders for support we review and modify court orders for support we cooperate with
other states and countries when one parent doesn't reside in Minnesota and we need their assistance to work case or they need ours and we collect and process payments funding for the child support area we receive federal financial
participation at 66% and that is based on statewide performance in five different areas we are required to focus on paternity establishment current support collected establishment of court orders
collections on arars and program cost effectiveness so revenues to our program then in 2024 we got federal financial participation and federal and state incentives totaling one 1
million500 plus dollars in 2024 we collected just in Clay or four Klay County cases 7,699,928 um the vast majority of that goes towards current support but we're also collecting towards age balances on
cases where somebody has fallen behind in their obligations on average we had 2,411 cases in Klay County our expenditures were 2,245,000 for every dollar we spent we
collected $343 over 90% of our cases are not receiving a cash grant and that's important because the money that we're collecting for current support then goes directly to the families to help support those kids money also is passed through in a public
assistance case um and then that's taken off of their grants in three months later something like that um a unique thing for Klay County is that about a third of our case load is interstate either we're asking another
state to enforce for us or they're asking us and that really has a big impact on our ability to collect support in a lot of cases and it also impacts our current collection numbers um because we just don't have that control
um we in Minnesota focus on getting correct orders so modifications are considered on a very regular basis we could enter an order one month and two months later have a request to look at it again and we do other states have
different rules and um they don't look at it um more than once every three years or have very limited ways of doing this and that makes it so that sometimes when they're asking us to enforce their order their
order is uninforceable the person might be receiving public assistance of some type we can't do anything about that and so we're really struggling with our current collections as you'll see on our next slide um for federal performance
measures um we do really well in paternity establishment order established um arars collections and cost effectiveness we do struggle on current collections we've been 72 73% for years
we just can't get that number to budge we've been trying to analyze what that might be and we finally kind of went to we believe it's the interstate cases because we have that lower control and Klay County has a much higher interstate
case load um included funding and statutory requirements for this area it's uh mandated federally through title 4D of the Social Security Act so a lot of times you hear child support referred to
as the the 4D program um and then in Minnesota we're set up as a partnership with the state where the state um oversees the program and the counties administer it so some of the changes and challenges in
for my unit um in 2024 was um moving from DHS to DCYF um that move ended up changing a lot of our statute numbers which has been a really big deal um both at the state and
at the county level um and in the child support area we're continuing to look at our program trying to get with the times and be with how people deal with life today um we're hoping to be able to accept credit card
payments in the next couple of months um up until now we have never been able to do that and I think that hurts us in a lot of ways um we've also had changes that allow a worker to be more mindful minnesota went to being very automated
that if you met these criteria this was going to happen as an enforcement remedy and it hurt a lot of people and we're recognizing that now and we're moving into more being more thoughtful in a lot of those processes because we realize
working with people is going to get them to comply with um what they need to do um better than just that very author authoritarian um work in collections um we contacted the
state about death notices um we get a a daily report on deaths in Minnesota but we're in that unique position where our hospitals are in North Dakota we usually would find out pretty quickly but by getting this notice from them um we
should be able to find out within a day or so and um we were going to do it just for Klay County but we approached the state they like the idea and so they're now looking into doing that statewide um one of the things in our collections unit is I just received uh
notice of retirement from one of my collections officers so Quinn and I will be back to visit you next week um to hopefully fill that position um in the fraud unit we've lost almost 39 years of experience since January of
2024 with an a retirement and then another investigator moving to DHS just in February of this year um so now I have one person who's been there for a year and a brand new person and they are both doing awesome so we are really in
good shape even with that change um and looking at in 2024 we completed the highest number of FBI investigations we've ever had in one year so I think that area is doing really well and we're doing so well that um the state upon
review of how Klay County is doing they have increased our grant from 125,000 to 189,000 starting with state fiscal year 2026 so we'll have that for the next two years so again a lot of you know Sandy you've
you've met Sandy she's been here her experience really can't even be captured in words um I I need to extend my personal thanks to to Sandy as well being my office neighbor right across the hallway and the guidance and support that she's given me really with with learning her program area as well and
just to reiterate what she said the even though we've lost such a significant amount of years of experience it's been really um heartening to see really Travis you know Travis in that role he's one of our fraud investigators just really pick up that torch or uh Jim and
Adam left it and do such good work um and we're hoping that Ally who's our new new hireer in that uh in that position is going to do the exact same thing she seems to be a real go-getter so um greatly appreciate Sy's leadership in her unit well there's a little institutional knowledge there little bit
little bit it's almost as if the loss of it was completely handled by what Sandy does absolutely any questions Mr chair Commissioner any questions well as we've said before another great update from from all of you and thank you for being here today
and um yeah we're thankful for the work that you do appreciate your time thank you all right now we'll move up to item move to item number five a request approval of riparian aid fund distribution plan we're gonna have Darren
Yeah the reports are coming next they are the best aren't they all right um well thanks for having me uh in my new role here taking over the seven departments I've also taken on the
the buffer committee which was completely new to me and um so the we've had a couple uh meetings so far and a little background information is that uh the legislation was uh made in
2015 at the state to provide funds to counties uh based on the new buffer laws that went into effect and so since 2017 Klay County has been receiving about
$160,000 a year and over that time our current balance is $832,771.73 and so the not the last one but the one before meeting that we had we've thought well what are we going to do with this money um the state statute
doesn't really identify specific things that the money is has to be used for i think it was kind of initially made so that if there was legal challenges and all of that to the buffer age it was providing some
support to the counties to consider those things and uh and so going forward we thought we shouldn't probably just have $832,000 sitting out there without some plan to spend it so the the last board
meeting we met and uh Commissioner Mojo and Commissioner Bearer were also at that meeting um along with Matt Jacobson Mark Sloan uh Jill Murray Kevin Cassenberg from the soil and water Gabe and and Tony both from soil and water um
we came up with five categories that we could probably allocate this money to that would still meet the intent of what the state was intending this money to be used for so the first thing was to uh allocate $150,000 to soil and water
conservation and that would be for continuing monitoring of eros erosion control um buying necessary supplies to um help in their fight against
um land land issues and erosion issues and water issues um the second the second uh category that we were looking at was to keep $100,000 in the legal reserve in case we
did need to have that i think since we've got started getting this money we haven't had hardly any if if any uh legal um cost associated with the buffer zone legislation um and so that would be u held in
reserve to anticipate any legal requirements that we may have um and then the third category was uh county-owned land maintenance uh putting away about 300,000 for that uh and allocating
300,000 for that and that would be targeted for future projects um contingencies um I got information from our planning and zoning director that uh the county Klay County currently owns uh approximately 260 acres of uh
repairarian land and so going forward that would be for weed control mowing seeding potential needs uh tied the FM area diversion project i don't know what exactly those might be but um that money could be put towards something that came
up unanticipated uh possibly the fourth area is the West Central Regional Wershed District which if you recall you did approve already $78,000 in the repairing aid money to go and they uh
are working with uh Pulk Norman and and Clay counties to bring uh clean water treatment uh water to the rural areas of those three counties and I think you're all pretty much aware of of that project
as well um so allocating 150,000 for that and last but not least would be 133,000 for imagery and mapping uh if you recall back in January you did approve a three-year contract for that
came out to about $133 or $44,333 per year and what this provides is a 3D highdefinition aerial photography of Klay County which can also be used with uh with the citizens
and also with our other departments can u planning and zoning uh assessor highway department all of those departments can also benefit from that uh imagery and so with that being said um I
I mentioned earlier that the funds from the state there is a lot of flexibility there's not a lot of definition on exactly what these funds could be used for and um with that being
said we I believe uh that the board would still have to approve some of this before we go you know spending all of this and if the board wants to put any restrictions on you know what type of
projects would the would the these uh categories have to come back to the board to ask permission to spend that money so with that being said I will open it up for questions commissioner Moshel thank you Darren you did a really great job with that that
was know from the HR world to now environment natural learning things all over the place here great work uh thank you for that um just kind of a backstory if you recall the Minnesota buffer law that I believe was 2017 2018 roundabout there um was the requirement that there
was a a vegetative buffer u if you will of up to 50 ft on on waterways um ditches lakes streams those components um they were uh challenging to implement uh Commissioner Kavanagh was on the S SWCD at that time and we really worked
with the SWCD as well as the watershed in Barnesville to make sure there was an implementation of that compliance of that uh throughout the time I think this board has been really cautious about how to allocate the funds for that to maintain the integrity of how the funds
were uh supposed to be uh spent and so there was some um money held aside in case there was some future litigation costs that um needed to come out of that um looking to uh how we should best
implement these funds i really appreciate we've had several meetings at that buffer committee and Commissioner Gross was there before Commissioner Bearer on on what makes the most sense utilizing the funds given um to kind of help the integrity of groundwater
resources and we really feel that this recommendation does a couple things one it it maintains that the SWCD has the uh funds available for continued seed planting mitigation in that component if needed um signage uh if you've ever
drone drove out in the country sometimes you'll see big swaths into the buffer uh where tractors are maybe turning and so that unintended consequence of encroachment tends to happen so there is a a continual receding that needs to happen there and and really felt that
given the structure at the SWCD they have the opportunity to do that local landowner outreach to that so um think that that allows them the opportunity to do that understanding that there still are funds coming through that uh the county can uh earmark if we want and and
knowing that uh the county um own land that you identified there are some continued costs that the highway department and planning and zoning and even um solid waste have in regards to managing those county-owned properties and and the management of those properties often
because they're uh around rivers or waterways we bought out because of uh flood mitigation there are some components that making sure that those are are maintained well to help the groundwater in that capacity uh we we still are trying to figure out what the
future of uh the operations and maintenance for those county owned lands uh that will be affected with the MCCJPA diversion property wanting to make sure there's funds available to uh keep the promises that we've said to those townships and communities down there uh
and even up north I guess um and then two knowing the commitment that this board has with the West Central Regional Watershed District knowing that we've already allocated a certain amount of funds and that uh likely given the growth and excitement of what that project looks like there should be uh
some more additional funds that uh likely will need to come out of that eararking that for that uh um need and then to the imagery piece really goes to the earlier component that I talked about making sure that there's not encroachment on the buffers uh a
cost-effective way is to utilize uh item five for that um you know if if I think it's important that this board knows any uh any allocations we're just allocating the funds from the main amount i think it's important to identify that and two
any additional expenditures will need to come to this board uh that was a discussion that we wanted to allow the board to still have the opportunity to provide insight and input on that before funds uh get diverted um and then two as funds come in we'll have the opportunity
to talk a little bit about um where we want those to uh go the wersheds are currently doing this i've talked to several commissioners throughout the state klay County maintained that right in 2018 to have the ability to kind of
help with implementation some counties have completely signed it off to other departments um but we can stand for any questions if you have feedback or concern commissioner Bear was there commissioner Mayar I was also there at that committee meeting i think J uh
Commissioner Monjo did a perfect job explaining that with Darren as well i don't have anything other to add other than we will re should be receiving another 160,000 this year and so far that money hasn't been taken away from us from the state legislature so
continually going forward we we should still be receiving that those funds and there's a um just a little bit of a clarification out of that 160,000 um 53,771 goes to the Buffalo Red River water district as well yeah just to um
make comments when the when the buffer regulations were being discussed at the state level there was really concerns amongst the counties about potential lawsuits and those types of things and what would happen and you know so I think you know when we start talking
about oh boy there's $833,000 sitting in account some of that was purposefully done because it took a while for that to be implemented and we needed to make sure that we had the ability to deal with those litigation things that the counties were concerned
about uh the fact of the matter that we haven't had to use those funds for that the credit goes to the SWCD the watershed and our planning department uh here in Klay County that things have been done really in a in a good way that our land owners have really participated
in a positive way and so I I do like the fact that the um you know this buffer committee has met and has come forward with these suggestions to basically set aside these funds i think it's the appropriate thing
to do uh it's kind of to me it just kind of fairly distributes those anticipated future costs and I think it's a a good recommendation okay anybody else yes
Commissioner Kraboff thank you uh Commissioner um I totally agree just as already said just um being around when this first started out I think this all these five categories are
very worthy totally makes sense and uh to your point um um Kevin we didn't know at that time you know on the lawsuits and that I mean a lot of people were very very unhappy right and it was a land grab all kinds
of different words were used and uh you know we maintained the course and the integrity of what it was meant for and and and this is just absolutely showing uh what a good job a well done job of studying Clay County so strongly support
the the five buckets if you will and and again we can always adjust so so um Darren is it is it the um is it the group's wishes that we we adopt some sort of a motion here that
designates these into these five categories is that is that what I would think so i mean just to identify these five categories with the amounts listed there's a motion commissioner Mojo thank you Mr chair part of the discussion at the uh committee level was to work with
Lori to deem what was the most appropriate uh you know bucket of of account or line item on that so we were able to track where that is and how it's spent and so these fund allocations to each of these
prior to dollars being spent they would still come before the board for discussion i think that's the intent yes all right so I'm looking for guidance on a motion that could go towards to help Lori and establishing these allocations
mr mr chair I'll make a motion to approve the distribution plan as highlighted of the repairarian aid funds and presented today i will second that we have a motion by Commissioner Mojo second by Commissioner Bear any further discussion seeing none all in favor signify by
saying I i oppose the same sign motion carried thank you Darren for your presentation mr chair I only have one more clarification as discussed in the committee um the item under number five uh currently the
board had already allocated using the funds uh we talked about um if payable for the entire amount was available did we talk that today we haven't talked uh no I'll have to ask Mark okay all right but the board has already approved the
whole 133,000 and so we discussed if it made sense to send that full upfront payment or not so maybe you can work with Steve I'll All right move on to committee reports commissioner Bearer would you like to
start today sure on Tuesday last Tuesday we had the buffer committee which we addressed just now what happened there then on Wednesday it was I had a wild
rice watershed district committee where they approved six projects and tabled five and returned two other permits we had discussion about the citizens committee that was that met uh two weeks prior to
this meeting and we discussed about the property that the wild rice wershed owns and they're going to look into seeing what options are with that property and then that's pretty much what was all discussed up there and then on
Thursday I was at the SWCD board meeting with Commissioner Krabangh where we discussed well they uh they approved five wind windbreak farmstead windbreaks
and three water sediment control basin plans in the district and we also discussed about the tree orders so the tree orders should be coming today I believe and they sold about 10,000 trees right give or take
about that and then coming next week would be Earth Day in the annual pollinator pint night at the Junkyard Brewing from 4 to 8 you are all invited to attend that and that's pretty much all that was discussed there
mr krabangh can also Commissioner Kenoff can also add to that if he wishes but that was all my committees for last week all right thank you Commissioner Abier thank you uh last week on Wednesday the 9th I remotely attended Northwest
Emergency Communication Board meeting uh joint meeting with with the RACK as well main reason we we called the meeting early uh to discuss getting grant funding submissions in
um for the uh school mapping grant that is out and we're going to enter into a partnership with the Metro Central um emergency communication board since
they have the staff and a lot of us don't uh they've offered to oversee the grant and get the submissions in but they needed commitment from each region on how many schools they wanted to have committed so we've got that uh count
underway to get it to the uh Metro Central by the May 16th date uh just looking at Klay County Gabe Tweeton and um City Morehead their fire department has done a really good job all our
schools have been contacted and all of them have committed this program will provide data we'll need a system in in the PAPs and the radio centers that can use that data but it'll give
a map where in a call can come in and within basically a footprint of the school it'll show where the caller is and it'll give responding emergency services the entrance to go to and the
directions to wherever the call is coming is going to be invaluable not just in in uh active shooter incidents but in medical emergencies and disturbances and a lot of things and we will have all of our schools in this
county mapped out and the data ready to be put into a system with the dispatch center to where calls can be zeroed in on like that it's it's going to be a really good system and we will get our share of the state funding to get that
initiated there may be costs later down the road to get the software that would actually enable the Red River Regional Dispatch Center to use that data but uh this is a great first step uh Thursday on the 10th I attended
the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon meeting um we did have uh a fair amount of conversation about the uh white earth possible uh use of the land that they purchased uh they everybody was well
aware of the 22nd meeting that's planned here uh a lot of the uh gaming charitable gaming that goes through for the BFW and the other veterans groups uh they have concerns about the impact that a casino would have on the funding so
they will probably be actively participating we did have report from Kurt Cannon uh he uh reminded us that 4:26 through 52 is Vietnam Veterans Week and everybody who has uh friend relative
or loved one who served in Vietnam keep that in mind and thank them during that period of time uh we also uh Kurt indicated he is busy uh Wilin and Becker they have pending uh
VSOs uh for those uh two counties but at this up to this point they've been um open kurt's been trying to help out as he can and now the new hires will need to be certified and he's going to assist with that but as usual Kurt's doing his
his best to to address the needs of the veterans not just here but in those counties um later that day I had a meeting with the executive committee at Lake Agon Lake Agassy Regional Library we are in
negotiations with the city of Morehead to try and determine a rent for the space we'll be using in the new library community center we will have about 9% of the space in that library
uh that that Lake Agassy personnel will be occupying we've set some funds aside to get offices equipped and furnishings in them um they've given us an offer we have counter offered on that and
hopefully uh we'll be able to come to an agreement um and even later in that day I remotely attended the treatment court initiative advisory committee which I'm part of representing AMC
uh the judicial uh courts uh state judicial court um team is oversees that and we are AMC is represented by me i'm appointed on that we uh gave a preliminary approval
to Howard County for DWI court uh and preapproval for Clearwater County to uh set up a DWI court we discussed several different uh parts of the strategic planning uh
committee's report that's been put in they've established priorities for treatment courts that we think are going to be sound and it'll go to a vote when they get the final drafts completed um on Friday the 11th I attended the
joint mayoral and county proclamation for United Den homeless uh committee that's being put together uh it was great press conference uh Chander Esling Chandler Esling Eslinger should be able to pronounce that it's
very close to uh is a head of the homeless coalition u she presented along with uh Taylor Severson with United Way we had all the mayors uh we had Commissioner Viddle from Cass County and myself from Clay um
this is going to be a good collaboration of partnerships in this look forward to working with them they are going to become getting us together to identify personnel and other individuals that need to serve on this
um later that day I attended Senator Clolobisher's press conference um over at Swing Barrel uh that was a interesting presentation and uh she addressed some of the issues that we're
looking at with the current tariff legislation or current terrorist ter tariff uh executive orders there's no legislation on it at this point uh Monday the 14th I attended a meeting
with Commissioner Kavanagh and I with some of the staff at public health we discuss the tobacco ordinance and upcoming needs and and establishing a cannabis ordinance and that completes my report thank you Commissioner Kavanagh
thank you Mr chair uh so on Thursday the uh 10th uh as Commissioner Bear has already reported I was part of the Klay County SWCD board meeting i just want to mention one other thing that
um uh he didn't mention and that just went it was part of the treasury report that uh the final payment was made for the Stony Creek project that was uh done so well on 11th Street going down to the
uh uh tributary of the red and anyway if you get a chance sometime drive by it it's excellent work um the grass is all put into place and uh without the heavy rains and flooding i they felt uh everything is done and and that project
uh to the contractor was paid in full on uh Friday the the 11th we had our small group PTR PRTF uh group and I'm going to defer mostly comments here to Commissioner Mojo as uh she was
reporting back from her work in St call and then we have a tour upcoming that her and I will be part of on Thursday with Senator Murphy and representing Frederick uh on the juvenile center but more in particular on that one showing
transformation of the PRTF as we could be in our unsecured unit today um then yesterday I um I I spent time in the morning with Quinn uh going through um learning more a deeper dive into the
social service department and much of um I had a little preview of what we heard today and certainly the reporting we've had over the last couple weeks from the department and um u huge budget uh huge staff and a lot of good work do being
done very very well so uh congratulations to all that group um the afternoon um Commissioner Ever already mentioned a short visit with um the Department of Health and involving tobacco and the can upcoming cannabis
ordinance and then last night I was at the uh Buffalo Red River Wershed District monthly meeting um one permit was gone through uh that having to do with the development over at the M Center Mall they'd reviewed the project
for the runoff and every um uh which really goes into existing infrastructure into the red and that was approved by the board and then also um upcoming work um there was a fact of finding to be
done on ditch nine which is coming is excuse me uh uh on the round with the roundabout on highway 52 and road 12 and so that day nine um uh there was a um Houston
main did a report of findings uh was part of that permit process and he found no negative effects to that ditch so that that goes part of the planning with the uh for that road change and and then
also along with that now that the report is done the findings there'll be a public hearing on that May 12th and that'll be down in uh at the uh uh district uh office in Barnesville and that'll be taking place at uh 6
o'clock um yeah that was the main points of the um uh from that meeting that concludes my report thank you Commissioner Mojo thank you last week on Tuesday I had a discussion with administrator Larson and
Commissioner Campbell referencing legislative uh finance in regards to a clarification asked from DNR on the HA has mitigation applications so we're in the process of working that through that afternoon I also had the buffer
program uh quarterly committee meeting that we referenced in the discussion earlier the evening of April 8th I travel to St paul to provide testimony at 8:15 on Wednesday at the um the capital or not capital sorry uh
Senate House uh human finance committee meeting i apologize uh great opportunity to speak to the needs of Klay County in regards to the inclusion of our PRTF uh startup funding in the omnimous vehicle that was acted on uh that day um also
that day the Senate had also included our project in that their omnimous bill so attended the testimony on that had key conversations with uh legislators on strategy moving our um our asks forward
i will say there still remains substantial cost shifts to counties in those packages uh in many cases they're actually worse the House um omnimous bill is particularly worse uh for counties in that uh I've talked to administrator Larson a little bit about
how we prepare what for what those cost shifts will be uh if there is no change to that assuming there's no change to what the county program aid will be uh we're looking at almost 10% shift to counties in regards to what that would be on our levy uh and so you know I know
you're having discussions upcoming with staff departments on what uh the budget cycle will look like what proposals will look like um you know we've had years on this board in my amount of time serving here where there need there needed to be
lean years as we looked forward to um uh what uh impacts to levies could be and I I will say the outlook for what this budget cycle is probably the most dire than I've ever seen in my time here uh so we just we need to be um really frugal in regards to moving forward with
that if uh nothing changes at the state you know I think I've said before AMC is providing us a really great platform to uh reach out to the legislators now with the break uh it's even more important to have those discussions but um yeah just
kind of some feedback in that uh and I also provided in my testimony what those cost shifts would mean for Klay County so we'll see what uh what comes out of that but exciting that our project was included in both omnimous
bills the uh so that was on the 9th on the 11th uh had a large scale of meetings we met their flood mitigation check-in with the city of Morehead uh the chamber and Klay County in regards to some clarification in the
work and how we advocate at the state for the uh projects to move forward we had a 10:15 checkup with um our PRTF non-secure detention team uh planning for a tour with the legislative
representation that will be in uh town this Thursday out of that meeting at 9:30 we um are having conversations uh we will be meeting with Governor Walls this week to discuss the scope of the diversion project on the Minnesota side
the components that need to be completed to protect our residents uh both within uh cities but also in the rural areas so looking forward to that opportunity i also attended the uh press conference that Senator Clolobashar had in town i appreciate the uh chance for her to
visit a small business in Klay County she spoke of the dire needs for egg i'll I'll reiterate uh one we need a farm bill and uh there's some pretty substantial issues that will affect our farming community as well that um we
need some more advocacy with and then at 1:00 um I attended the research committee meeting for AMC that was the first opportunity to meet now that I'm chair of that committee we discussed what the research um vision is for the next year talked a lot about how we can
uh leverage resources to communicate with counties as um they're facing the issues that I highlighted earlier in my report and um then yesterday again we had a check-in on the planning for the flood mitigation project uh pulling
together funds not funds pulling together uh the data from the funds that Klay County the watershed and the city have um acquired and spent on projects on the Minnesota side so that we can um continue to tell that story in our other
committees and I think that concludes my reports thank you on u let's see Friday April or excuse me Thursday April 10th I did attend the annual uh audit entrance
meeting with the state auditor's office regarding uh the upcoming um audit for Klay County um that meeting went well i think there's there's three areas that uh will be required to um audit uh and
that would be the child support services uh the co 19 fund and then medical assistance program or the three areas that are will have an emphasis on those areas as required um by the state
statute on uh let's see pardon me my calendar on Friday April 11th I did attend the um through the you know chamber public policy group that were working on uh
legislative issues as it pertains to flood mitigation so we had conversations uh that day in preparation for a meeting with Governor Walls uh we did the same thing happened again yesterday uh we did have um
another meeting on that and in planning and preparations and uh going over documents that will be presented um on behalf of um our different entities and that concludes my report
for the week there's more of those meetings coming up this week but Steve uh thank you Mr chair uh last Tuesday participated in the buffer program quarterly committee meeting that's been addressed also on the eth or 9th participate in county management again
we spoke uh on the 2026 budget uh legislation and the impacts uh to uh both the overall budget and individual departments uh we also spoke on our risk management program updates uh and heard
an update from HR uh on the 9th again worked with Commissioner Campbell Commissioner Mojo on some diversion legislation uh on the 10th or 10th I met with Sheriff Empt on a series of issues with the sheriff's department um that
afternoon I met with uh Darren and also Mark Sloan uh with Mary Philippy and Paul Laney uh they are going to be presenting at our intergovernmental retreat here in two weeks and so we went over the uh the agenda for the day
finalizing that um on the 11th uh and 12th participated in the flood mitigation check-ins that have been addressed uh also the PRTF uh PRTF discussion in the upcoming tour on Thursday uh 11th I also met with
Commissioner Krabanhoff on a series of issues uh and uh 14th uh met with Joe uh on a series of issues both office space family service center capital improve improvement plan um and uh those things
will be coming forward in our committee soon also just a note uh today this week is National Public Safety Telecommunications Week uh want to just recognize the great work that our dispatchers do at the Red River Regional Dispatch Center over in Fargo uh and
then just lastly I just want to acknowledge that today is going to be Jackie's uh well she'll be here again from time to time but her last meeting on a consistent basis with the uh some of the changes with the communications department and uh the work that that's needed through our economic development
we continue to make some shifts and so next week that Sarah is going to be uh sitting in that spot uh but wanted to thank Jackie for all the work that she's done uh and will continue to do for us moving forward so thank you
Darren i thought you were going to Brian next you caught me off guard um Tuesday April 8th I uh celebrated my birthday with wine women in song that was exciting bless the women the song and the wine um also that
day I attended the buffer committee meeting which has already been discussed and acted upon today um Wednesday April 9th I attended the manager meeting which Steve just covered uh worked on some tweaking some of the forms that we have out there right now and I also worked on
the 2026 risk assessment for MCIT on Thursday April 10th uh continued work on the 2026 risk assessment which was uh submitted yesterday uh I listened to a paid leave webinar by DED and also sat
in on a call with our presenters uh for the county retreat which Steve also uh mentioned uh Friday April 11th uh continued work on the county code with Mark Sloan M Jacobson and Kent Severson i think we're making some progress there
going through that line by line basically and uh then uh continued work on the uh 2026 payroll estimate for MCIT yesterday worked on some HR issues since Anna was gone last week and
yesterday so thank God she's back today so and that's all I have thank you Brian hey Mr chair I just wanted to highlight one uh item in regard to restorative justice i know this board's been a strong supporter of restorative justice uh throughout and and over the last
three years we've had uh Lucas out of our office working that um uh the referrals that have come in just for the 2024 2025 we've had 125 diversions but we had a 50% increase in prevention
cases meaning cases that are coming before there's any type of ticket or any other court action that kind of thing um but Tara Cystead the principal from Horizon East had reached out to Michelle in our office and she just highlighted some numbers and so sometimes I think
it's hard to quantify some things sometimes but I think when you look at she provided just uh reduced numbers of physical altercations uh within uh Horizon East over the last three years uh 2022 to 2023 uh there
were 63 uh physical altercations 2023 to 2024 51 21 and now this year and I know the school year is not quite over but 2024 to 2025 we were down to 30 uh so you've seen a 50% decrease um and an
increase in those prevention cases and and not that that's all associated that there's a lot of great work that's done there in the schools with uh being in the hallways everything else uh by teachers and other people but I think uh uh having restorative justice in the
school has definitely been a benefit and I think we're seeing some of those results now so just thought I'd highlight those those numbers that I just got i did ask her to see if we could get any other schools uh numbers available to us uh for that kind of thing just I know that's just the
horizon u but it but that's a very encouraging number to see and just uh to let Brian know I I was part of the group that looked at restorative justice on the grants that we've applied for Michelle Lucas you've
got a remarkable team there so remarkable that the head Restorative Justice for the State was one of the speakers we had at the legislative AMC meeting and he singled us out and he came up to me before his presentation
and said that we we were without a doubt the premier county in our community group that was there that day um in in the presentation so you've got good people there and we're really lucky to have them
yeah we certainly have supported restorative justice for many years in Klay County and we'll we'll continue to do that I'm sure so Darren um I just got word from Mark that we are allowed to um pay the whole um imagery aerial in one
payment for the three years so I know Commissioner Mojo had a question on that right Jackie um nothing to report on but um I'll miss seeing everybody on
Tuesdays but obviously I'll still be in the office so I'll be seeing you then but excited to work on some more communications um items so I'm sure we'll still still see you here from time to time but thank you for your work Jackie anything else we need to cover
today seeing none we are adjourned Part: 2
body turned their got their packet on Saturday okay i never did get my planning and zoning but yeah you weren't the only one you weren't the only one who didn't get it so weird because they were sent in the same
same exact time i don't feel special then maybe that's not good um so hopefully everybody has a chance to uh read through the packet and if so we'll look for a motion to approve the
agenda make a motion motion by Leo second by Dennis all those in favor say I i opposed motion is carried can you turn Joe off this up here yeah i can see if we can you don't want
to watch yourself give me one sec i don't think he knows what's there and here is the expert joe you know not Joel joe joe Biden oh Joe Biden okay um continuing on uh look for a
motion to approve the minutes from March 18th so move second motion by Tim second by Dennis any discussion hearing none all those in favor say I i
opposed motion is carried i'd like to look for a motion to approve uh open the public hearing for Olsam formerly known as aggregate motion
second motion by Leo second by Tim any discussion hearing none all those in favor say I i opposed public hearing is open take it away Matt yeah thank you Mr chair so the applicant is seeking approval of a variance to operate a
gravel mine within the north property line setback shared with parcel ID 11.007.3700 um on parcel ID 11.018.0260 in the part of fractional west half the west half section 18 township 141 north range 44 Goose
Prairie Township i sound louder than I normally do you're good that's fine all right well as long as I'm not blowing anyone away oh maybe it's a good thing then all right so as I had uh said
before this is a request to to allow for um mining in this north property setback highlighted in yellow here uh the parcel to the north is um also has a permit for a gravel mine and that's um owned by uh
Jeffrey and Connie Mortonson and Mr mortonson has provided uh written consent uh to mine up to the property line uh the applicant provided practical difficulties that they would lose access to valuable aggregate materials that are present within the setback
uh in our code as it stands um it's a structure structure storage of excavated materials and excavation edge shall be set back 100 ft from any uh adjoining property line uh this parcel is zoned
agricultural general and resource protection aggregate and same for all the parcels around it it's primarily used for agriculture uh they're currently operating under a conditional use permit um that was granted in 2010 there have been multiple variances to
the road rightway setback uh as well as other property line setbacks and then a residential setback that that residence is no longer there anymore though um some natural resources considerations so this is considered to be prime farmland once this uh mining is complete
though the plan is to to return it to agricultural uh use um as far as wetlands there really aren't any as identified by the National Wetland Inventory in the mining area um and this
is an area that has a high to limited potential for gravel this request as related to the goals and objectives of our comprehensive plan um we have a goal to recognize the importance of aggregate resources Klay County in the region and to implement
policies and standards to ensure sound stewardship of aggregate resources and natural biotic resources and really the variance process for this particular type of request um is really in recognition that aggregate deposits don't follow property lines and things
like that and so this provides a means to access those deposits uh we also have an objective to consider the cumulative impacts of existing nearby mining operations for new or expanding operations on the environment egglands residential areas and transportation infra infrastructure
um this uh type of variance request also requires written consent from the adjacent land owner which essentially protects the the rights of those property owners from encroachment uh I should note too that um in our Klay County land development um and
subdivision ordinance update which is nearing completion um that the the draft proposed draft um does away with a need for a variance for this specific type of request and instead um would require
just that written consent and having that uh filed with the with the planning department so this could be the potentially could be the last variance request of this um type that that this board will ever hear
any questions for me at all is there any concern or how long is that letter from Jeff valid it's coming up three years is that do is it is he in favor of
this to infinity and beyond or I think well that I am not sure of but if you were to get a variance it would run essentially in perpetuity
so one of the other things I know that the the township had expressed um I won't say concern um but an interest in is with these three gravel pits kind of right here we
got um one to the east one to the north and then the the subject pit that we're hearing about tonight um there is a desire to see reclamation kind of be coordinated just because so the grades all somewhat match each other and you
don't have these basically well 100 foot 200t high walls in between each each pit essentially so there's that that this type of variance would alleviate that reclamation concern as
well any other questions yeah I have nothing would the applicant like to come up and speak if so please state your name for the record and
uh my name is Sheree Eertson i'm in the environment environment and land department with wholesome and so yeah we're I'm here with Chris Forest our operations manager and Nicole Ramich also of our environmental department so just want to thank you for hearing our requests and thank you Matt for your
description we're open to any questions that you may have i have a question are you intending as you have in years past doing the processing um on the bottom of the pit down low which would reduce noise
to neighbors yes that would be the that would be the idea okay thank you um is there anybody in the audience that wish would wish anybody else with aggregate would like to speak to or to
speak about this is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this if so please i'm Shelley Stegan from the Gooseberry Township Board and we're very much want this because we
don't want these walls for land owners have to deal with since there's three pits and um aggregate is one of the best of our three pits for operators because they are very much follow the rules and
Gooseberry has an ordinance which they've been provided and we've um met last Tuesday met everything so we're very much wanting this thank you
is there anyone else in the audience that wish would wish to speak for or against one more time anyone in the audience that wishes to speak for or against hearing none look for a motion to close the public hearing make a motion second motion by Leo second by
Dennis all those in favor say I opposed public hearing is closed okay paperwork now we will go through the findings of fact is granting the variance in harmony
with the general purposes and intent of the Klay County Land Development Code yes is the requested variance consistent with the Klay County Comprehensive Land Use Plan yes does the applicant establish that there
are practical difficulties in complying with the strict letter of the Klay County Land Development Code yes do exceptional or extraordinary circumstances ex exist that apply to the property in question and that do not
generally apply to other properties in the same zone or presinity resulting from lot size shape topography or any other circumstances over which the owners of the property have no control or influence
yes would the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Klay County Land Development Code deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance
yes is the variance being granted the minimum variance that would alleviate the practical difficulty yes does the variance request meet all below criteria no variance should be shall be
granted where any of the following conditions are not met adequate sewer sewage systems or water supply capabilities can be provided yes plight of the land owner or hardship
is not due to circumstances they created yes the variance would not allow a use that is not already allowed in the zoning district yes the essential character of the locality
would not be altered or there would not be a significant adverse effect on surrounding properties yes there would not be a significant adverse effect on public health or safety yes
the variance does not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to owners of other lands structures or buildings in the same district yes okay
are there any additions or corrections or conditions additional conditions that the board would like to see i mean that property is high there i mean I totally agree with the with the water situation jeff is right to the
north is to the east and aggregates to the west um okay um hearing nothing additional would look for a motion to approve or reject the
variance to accept a motion made by Leo seconded by Tim to approve the variance all those in favor say I opposed motion is carried variance is
granted okay thank you everyone any unfinished business Mr jacobson uh no unfinished business Mr chair how about new business couple of things so first the planning commission is going
to hold hopefully their final public hearing on our land development ordinance and the the goal of that that'll happen tonight the goal is to make a recommendation to the board um for enactment and
um so the board has indicated they maybe want to have a couple meetings on that that would probably likely occur sometime in May and then the other any questions for me on that um the only other thing I have is
that on April 28th there's that that county land use training um that I'm plan on attending and so depending on what our agenda looks like for May I basically hope to come out of that with some ideas for doing just some more
continuing education at our next meeting okay and that's all I have Mr chair anyone else have anything additional to bring up so look for a motion to adjurnn motion made by Tim seconded by Dennis to
adjourn the meeting any discussion hearing none all those in favor say I i opposed motion is carried your meeting is closed thanks everyone email motion by Laura second
i approve so moved second motion by second second by I audience online audience online audience so move second motion by Dave
All right thank you Mr chair and just a reminder to everyone to make sure your mics are on um for the recording and and YouTube thank you um so the applicant is seeking an interim use permit to continue operation of a gravel mine on parcel ID 1.018.0260
0260 and part of the fractional west half of fresh of the west half section 18 township 141 range 44 Goose Prairie Township so this is located uh about 4 miles north of Casad 26 it's
on the east side of of CASA 33 just before Felton Creek uh current uses on the property are crop land and gravel mining they uh were granted a conditional use permit for a 30 acre mine in
2010 and so they're seeking a 39 acre intermuse permit um essentially to expand that existing mine from 30 acres to 39 acres uh they have been granted a variance um to mine into the north property line setback at the board of
adjustment meeting prior to this this meeting they also have variances to mine the east property line setback and then the CASA 33 road right ofway setback so on this parcel um pretty low topographic relief uh depth to water
table is about 42 feet so think there's any mining that's going to be happening into the water table property is prime farmland but would be turned to an agricultural use uh post mining gravel potential uh ranges from high to li
limited and there aren't any wetlands uh according to the national wetland inventory in the the mining area so the plan is to essentially square up the existing footprint um only opening up about new nine acres
stripping and stockpiling top soil and then processing the material and then hauling out south on south 33 to 26 that'd be the primary Paul route uh and then for reclamation they'd be looking to slope into the interior to prevent prevent runoff um from exiting
the property and also looking to kind of match the grades up on this east side with the the mine here and then on the north side with the mine just to the north here would be turn to return to egg use uh the estimated cost of
reclamation be $2,500 an an acre an acre uh just some considerations for this request because um the 30 acre portion of the mine has a conditional use permit it's my recommendation that the interim use permit conditions match the
conditional use permit to the extent practical um just because the granting of an interimuse permit does not revoke a conditional use permit a conditional use permit is a r land right so it runs with the land um we do not no longer
grant conditional use permits for gravel mining operations which is hence the need to come for an interim use permit for this request and then the operator would need to adhere to any of the Goose Prairie Township permit conditions as
well and we did receive comments from Goose Prairie Township don't have an issue with the request that other than that they'll work with the operator um regarding Saturday hauling and no other public comment was received so for these conditions I'll start with
the first eight um the big difference being that this would have an expiration date uh 10 years um CUP's conditional use permits don't have expiration dates uh the other change would be to
um propose 39 acres as opposed to to the 30 uh and then also a reclamation bond for those 39 acres and I'm we should probably or us should consider adding that at $2,500 per acre to
that uh the only other change from the conditional use permit um would be just clarifying what a noise produc producing operation is um crushing screening and washing essentially would be a noise producing
operation and so these are essentially the same um uh conditions as what's on their current conditional use permit i know there's been uh a um we put more consistency on hours
of operation um with interim use permits and typically that being 7 to 7 in this case that would be probably pretty tricky to enforce because they already have a permit that allows them to go from 6:00 a.m to 7:00 p.m so be hard to deviate from that um be tricky to
enforce those hours any questions for me at all just say we haven't had any complaints at all since I've been here out of this pit thank you Matt would the applicant care
to come up and introduce yourself and speak to the project please hi my name is Sheree Eertson i'm the environment and land manager out of the Morehead office here for Wholesome i have here with me tonight Chris Forest our operations manager for the aggregate
division and also Nicole Ramy in the environmental department so just want to thank you all for your time tonight listening and um for your explanation Matt so we're welcome to answer any questions anyone has hearing none thank you is there anyone in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against i'm Shelley Stigen i am a supervisor for Gooseberry Township we've met with the company um they met with us as a board on Tuesday we went over our ordinance we've never
had a problem with aggregate so we are expecting zero problems and basically we see it as just a cleanup to finish off that chunk of ground so we are have no problems with it thank you anybody have any questions
for her regarding township thank you anyone else in the audience wish to speak for or against this project anyone in the else in the audience wish to speak for or
against one last time anyone in the audience wish to speak for or against this permit hearing none look for a motion to close the public hearing motion second motion by Josh second by
Kurt Shervin any discussion hearing none all those in favor say I i opposed motion is carried public hearing is closed everyone it's time for the findings fact effective use in granting an
interimm use permit the planning commission shall consider the effect of the proposed use upon the health safety morals and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands existing and anticipated land uses
traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets and land and the effect on agricultural usage and values of property and scenic views in the surrounding areas and the effect of proposed use on existing comprehensive
plans use and enjoyment of other property the use the interimm use will not be injurous to the use and enjoyment of other property in immediate vicinity for the purpose already permitted and not substantially diminish or impair
property values within the immediate vicinity development of surrounding property the establishment of the interimm use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for uses
predominant in the area utilities access roads drainage off- streetet parking and loading spaces adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide utilities access roads drainage off- streetet parking and
loading spaces nuis nuisance conditions adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor fumes dust noise vibration water pollution and soil in erosion so that none of these
will constitute a nuisance and to control lighted signs or other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result burden on public services the use will not create an excessive burden on
parks schools streets water supply sanitary sewers and storm sewers and other public facilities or utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area compatibility the use will be
sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent agriculturally zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to agricultural use of said
land appearance of structure and sight the structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties relationship to overall needs the use is in the opinion of the planning
commission reasonably related to the overall needs of the district and to the existing land use in the case of flood plane areas the proof that the location is necessary for facility operation and that alternative sites not susceptible
to flooding are not available consistency with ordinance the use is consistent with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed
use conflict with comprehensive plans the use is not in conflict with the comprehensive plan if any of the township city or county traffic hazards congestion in the flood plane areas the use will not cause
traffic hazard congestion or congestion in flood plane areas as access during flooding for ordinary and emergency vehicles existing businesses existing businesses nearby will not be adversely
affected because of curtailment of customer trade but brought about by the intrusion of noise glare or general unsightliness um anybody have any comments or corrections to the conditions that
staff has provided for us um I do recommend that we do do to 10 what you just did to match the cup so and um Mr chair just thoughts about
the reclamation bond specifying the amount or $2500 an acre is that a typical amount for other operations yeah I would say it's typical ranges from,000 to
4,000 typically i would say hearing no other comments or questions look for a motion to approve or deny i'll make that motion to approve with the conditions 1 through 13 i'll second motion been made by Curtis Stubs
and seconded by Ashley any further discussion hearing yes don't we typically ask the applicants if they're fine with Yeah yeah yes Mr chair i would ask if the applicants are because this is an
interim use permit if they're agreeable to the conditions one through 13 yep thanks yes and they are uh all those in favor say I opposed motion is carried interimm use
is granted okay next thank you next order of business is a request for an after the fact conditional use permit for Sarah and
Robert Edwards look for a motion to open the public hearing motion to open second motion made by Laura seconded by Sebastian to open the meeting all those in favor say I i opposed
public hearing is now open thank you Matt thank you Mr chair yep this is a request for an uh after the fact conditional use permit for agricultural service establishment uh an equestrian center and so they're seeking a cup to
continue the operation of the the Red River Equestrian Center it's been in operation since 2017 they provide individual group riding lessons camps birthday parties and equin assisted psychotherapy to riders of all ages um they also provide indoor and outdoor
boarding service services uh not sure how many are boarded at any given time um at the property uh one thing too I should note is before this I believe this was a nonprofit uh equestrian center um so they're located the
southwest 10 acres of the southwest corridor they're right on the on the corner of um 50th Street North and 120th Avenue um north it appears that uses on the property are located outside the extents of the property lines uh I don't believe
that this is just looking at historic records and historic imagery it seems like that's been the case on this property for at least 30 years um and so the applicant purchased this property in 2017 um but it looks like this has been
an ongoing thing for for several several years and so um not going to run through all the standards for an egg service establishment uh this one does meet all of the um the standards um we haven't received any comment from
Morgan Township or the public on this um but because there is an established history of the use of the property outside that legally described boundaries uh the applicant land owner should probably work with the adjacent land owner if they haven't already to rectify any and all property line
discrepancies we're Klay County we don't get into um we're not responsible for any property line ambiguities or anything like that um but if this is granted the use permit would apply to only that property that's legally described and identified by that
parcel uh in our comprehensive and transportation plan the goals and objectives that relate to this request is we have a goal category of community and resilience uh to promote personal community health for all residents um thinking here is that Red River
Equestrian Center provides horse boarding and offers individual lessons birthday parties and camps and the horses are also used for mental well-being and therapeutic purposes uh we have a goal to encourage commercial industrial development that is in harmony with the egg and rural character
of Klay County and to avoid or mitigate against commercial or industrial development that increases the potential for land use conflicts with rural residential or egg uses uh they've been in operation since 2017 and prior to its establishment um the property was used by a nonprofit
uh for equestrian activities we have not received any complaints about the operation of this center any questions for me at all um so it is not currently a nonprofit and you said that it was a
different nonprof prior it was a nonprofit that operated it is a nonprofit is it okay i mean that's what I'm asking is I I do not i'll let the applicant answer that yep chair and Matt I'm a little confused on the uh
legal property lines and what they've been using we don't get involved with legal amount but are what we're going to approve is only allowed on the legal description right yes so what happens when they're using does it matter that
you're using unless they if they get it all figured out I guess it's fine but uh what happens if if they just continue as it has been yeah I think that that that would be a um essentially
a what's the word I'm looking for um civil it would have to play out civily there would have to be a civil process to to that and if the property lines were to change and encompass the entire
um area that's being used then this permit would still stand with that but it's kind of one of those it's an interesting thing where just if you look back at all the historic aerial imagery it's been like this since at least the 80s okay
and I mean some of the trees on there you can see they're they're old so okay anyone else have any questions for Matt hearing none would the applicant care to come up and speak introduce yourself please
hello I'm Robert Edwards here i'm me and my wife live at the property and run the horse facility at the site i'm here to answer questions if they come up are you a forprofit or nonprofit currently uh any extra dollars
that do come into the property basically just go into maintenance and repairs of the property so it's not actually paying bills but it is doing repairs and maintenance okay so are you a legal Minnesota nonprofit a 401c3 or 3C or
whatever it is the accountant takes the I don't think it's registered as a nonforprofit but the accountant has to put in profit and losses okay i don't know that it makes any
difference i am special rules for a nonprofit as far as we're concerned anyway would No Mr chair that's correct there aren't any yep okay okay uh how many horses do you normally run average uh average is probably around
26 on the property at a time so it's gone as high as 31 and as low as 20 so 12 I think you're it said you have 12 so you have half in and half out
uh indoor outdoor yes uh most of them are outdoor we do have indoor corrals or stalls they're not used very often other than for feeding and then the horses typically go back outside
okay um what do you do what's your manure management uh in the spring it's piled up in the individual corrals and then throughout the summer it is moved to a composting
area which is behind the silver quan set it's on a concrete pad and it composts there for summer and usually I create two separate piles and then the following year it is spread either by
uh individuals who choose to come get it on their own will or we spread some on the property or it goes to a farmer's field if they will allow it okay that was all I had
for Mr edwards anybody else i just have a another qu is there a limit with 10 acres is are they okay with the animal units on 10 acres um for a egg service establishment yeah they would meet they would meet our
requirements for that okay thank you anybody else in the audience wish to speak for or against this permit anyone else in the audience or online wish to speak for or
against anyone in the audience or online wish to speak for or against hearing none i look for a motion to close the public hearing so moved second motion by Ashley seconded by Laura to close the public hearing all
those in favor say I i opposed public hearing is closed for the findings of fact effective use in granting a conditional use permit the planning commission shall consider the effect of the proposed use upon the
health safety morals and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands existing and anticipated land uses traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets and land and the effect on agricultural
usage and values of property and scenic views in the surrounding areas and the effect of the proposed use on existing comprehensive plans use and enjoyment of other property the use will not be injurous to
the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for purpose purpose already permitted and not substantially diminish or impair property values within the immediate vicinity development of surrounding
property establishment of the use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area utilities access roads drainage
off- streetet parking and loading spaces adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide utilities access roads drainage and off- streetet parking and loading spaces nuisance conditions adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or
control offensive odor fumes dust noise vibration water pollution and soil erosion erosion so that none of these will constitute a nuisance and a control lighted signs or other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to the
neighboring properties will result the use will not create an excessive burden on parks schools streets water supply sanitary sewers storm sewers and other public facilities or utilities
which serve or are proposed to serve the area compatibility the use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent agriculturally zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be
no deterrence to agricultural use of said land appearance of structure and sight the structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties the appearance
of relationship to overall needs the use is in the opinion of the planning commission reasonably related to the overall needs of the district and to the existing land use in the case of floodplane areas the proof that the location is
necessary for facility operation and that alternative sites not susceptible to flooding are not available consistency with ordinance the use is consistent with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the
zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use conflict with comprehensive plans the use is not in conflict with the comprehensive plan if any of the township city or
county traffic hazards congestion in the flood plane area the use will not cause traffic hazards condition or congestion in flood plane areas as access during flooding for ordinary and emergency
vehicles existing businesses existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected because of the curtailment of customer trade brought about by intrusion of noise glare or general unsightliness
matt and staff have conditions one through four anybody have any comments or changes or Dave chair and Matt um said there's no nuisent nuisance complaints since it's been operating but has there
been any comment for this public hearing that you received uh Mr chair and Mr stiken there's not been any comment yeah and then the fourth uh condition of the signage are they meeting the signage uh standards as of now that I would I am
not sure of i'd have to check on that they'll they'll be aware of the standards correct that's it and Mr chair just one thought to consider too since you mentioned u
manure management if you want want to address that as a condition at all or if anyone what he's doing is what they're currently doing is the right way to do it they're taking away from the buildings and doing it on a with a slab
and um places out there that just keep making the mountain bigger does that fall under number one at all or is that more related to underground
water and sewer systems manure situation um that would be Mr chair and Mr i can um more related to it's typically addressed as like a separate condition um that the and the condition that we
see in oversight on my part might be your condition might say to that the um applicant uh must provide a manure management plan to the the planning office essentially okay and I I think
that I would like to have a condition five something which states what they are currently are doing and that they need to keep keep up with that a plan would that follow best practices sort of a situation yep i think it'd be
important to have Yeah we would receive the plan and then confer with like our county feed lot officer um and just to basically get his or her blessing on it so because there is a I believe there is
a ordinance or something in the county code that it can't be piled for more than a year we have for feed lots we have rules but this is a little different situation are
small enough yep good hearing hearing no other comments or questions look for a motion to approve or deny the conditional use permit with conditions 1 through five move to approve second motion by
Sebastian seconded by Brad to approve the conditional use permit mr chair yes is the applicant fine with the This is a conditional use permit so a little different don't have to ask that for a conditional use permit yep all those in favor say I i opposed
permit is granted thank you everyone okay next item on the agenda is Mr severson is looking to reszone look for a motion to open the public hearing
motion to open the public hearing second motion by Josh seconded by Laura to open the public hearing all those in favor say I i opposed motion is carried lead the way Matt all right so the applicant is petitioning to reszone
a property at 14566 130th Street South Barnesville Minnesota 56514 parcel ID 02.017.03 01 part of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter section 17 township 137 range 46 West
Barnesville Township from agricultural general to highway commercial might be best to here so this is uh way in the southern part of the county southeast of Baker um and then south of uh Highway 52 it's on the east side of County State Highway 21
uh the zoning district right now is just agricultural general and the request is to reszone from egg general to highway commercial some information about the property the current land use is industrial residential that's essentially its tax
classification um residence right here uh industrial right here um there's about just under 20,000 square feet of industrial buildings and one um one residence uh no wetlands on the property and so
the highway commercial standards um meeting the minimum lot size yard requirements uh front yard regulations rear yard depth would be able would meet all of those requirements um so the the business has
started as a well it started as a cabinet business then there was permitted as a home occupation uh has um they're up to about 31 employees they have plans for future expansion uh and then the owner also intends to move
the residents from the property so this is a case of a business that has gotten very very successful and experienced a lot of growth um business country classic cabinets uh they make they make cabinets and um and other woodworking
type things so um it's basically outgrown the st the home occupation where it's almost like the residence is now the accessory use on the property and the business is the
principal use and I think the uh Mr severson recognizing that is looking to move his residence off the property uh and just maintain that as the the site of of his business um we haven't received any comment from
the township uh we did receive a comment from the Barnesville Economic Development Authority Executive Director Karen Lowour and she was in support of this resoning uh how this relates to our comprehensive plan we do have a goal to
encourage commercial industrial development that is in harmony with the egg and rural character of Klay County uh the business it did start as a home occupation and the buildings do resemble resemble other agricultural structures in the area uh we have an objective to
promote value added egg commercial industrial development and egg service center areas and along transportation corridors and hubs this um is not a welltraveled highway compared to other state aid highways in the county um but
this is a business that would add value along a transportation corridor um and then we have a objective to avoid or excuse me mitigate against commercial and industrial development that increases potential for land use conflicts with rural residential and egg uses and so there are two residential
properties within half mile in either direction um of this resoning and many of the adjacent nearby properties are agricultural so and I can actually bring this up to So again this is essentially the
property where we propose that resoning any questions for me at all mr chair Matt um part that you got boarded off there that's the only parcel we're talking about for industrial
slash slash uh business yep it would just be this now refresh my memory on because spot zoning isn't allowed per se would this be considered spot zoning that's a good question um in my opinion
whole like we did in north side of Dworth there that light and highway commercial but that's just not just the two lots they were dealing with that particular day yeah a big area this is just dealing with one one location yeah i would I would say
that this would not be considered spot zoning because um it it would ma match with the goals and objectives of our comprehensive plan now if this was on like a minimum maintenance road somewhere or even a gravel road would
not recommend reszoning to highway commercial um if it doesn't have the infrastructure to support it um but because we have a an objective in our comprehensive plan that says we want to promote um commercial and industrial development along transportation
corridors and hubs in the county i think this would this would meet that essentially what would be the advantage changing to this or have getting a variance for what they want to accomplish because you would not be able
to get a variance to a use essentially so the intention is to move the residence off of the property um and once the residence is off you can't have a home occupation anymore because there's no there's no home so this is
this would have to be basically for this business to continue it would have to be reszoned to a uh to a commercial zoning district obviously you thought about it but So you're comfortable I would say spot zoning this piece of property yeah and I Yeah and
again with spot zoning it's there's no it's it can be pretty fuzzy and very Now if there was like a residential subdivisions completely surrounding this property and you were looking to reszone it from like residential to commercial that you might
have a stronger case for for spot zoning but in this this instance no I don't I don't think that this would would fall under that category any other questions mr chair
thank you sorry I'm late but um I had another meeting but in regards to I mean I know we don't talk about grandfathering in but usually a spot zoning happens kind of on the the beginning end of something not with an existing business that had been has been
there for Yeah that's correct that's correct yep thank you anyone have anything further for Matt hearing nothing would the applicant care to come up please state your name for
the record and speak your piece uh I'm Derek Severson i own and operate Country Class of Cabinets um yeah we're just looking to keep expanding the the big reason that this came up is I'm unable to build any more buildings
currently where I'm at and we are looking to keep expanding little by little as we can um and it's getting to be tough to live where 31 people come to your house every day so but Okay so you're in intending on literally
moving the house then yes yep so I do work with a home mover who would come and move the house yep how many you looking at adding increasing from your current 31 employees to Yeah so I purchased this
company in uh it's been at this location since 1990 it's been a business in Klay County since ' 87 um I bought it in 2014 and at that time we had two full-time employees and two part-time employees so we've steadily grown i don't think it's
going to slow down so I mean I don't have a dream of having 100 employees but thank you for providing good jobs in in this you know non non-metro area anybody else have
questions for Derek thank you anyone anyone in the audience or online wish to speak for or against good evening i'm Karen Lowour i'm the e executive director of the Barnesville Economic Development Authority um our
economic development authority um works to support business development in the Barnesville School District so Mr severson's property is within that that district area and as such I'm here in
full support of what Mr severson is uh asking of the commission uh I had the pleasure of working with the original owner of Country Classic Cabinets uh who was also a hard worker um since we were
able to transition from that ownership to Mr severson's ownership uh there has been extensive growth this is true economic development because what country classic cabinets is doing is
bringing revenue into the county from areas outside of Klay County and that is the definition of economic development our economic board of directors uh has a very robust business retention and
expansion project and as such we support businesses in the Barnesville school district helping them to to expand and retain uh their employees we're very fortunate to have Country Classic
Cabinets as one of the largest employers in the Barnesville School District uh they bring not only employees to their place of business but they bring with them children supporting our school district in keeping our community strong
and vibrant the reinvestment of dollars in expanding the business not only creates a revenue stream for Klay County but supports other businesses within the county as as well so uh on behalf of the
Barnesville Economic Development Board of Directors we would respectfully ask that the planning commission consider Mr severson's uh request for reszoning thank you have any questions for
Karen anybody else in the audience please come forward and state your name please chuck Anderson supervisor for Barnesel Township we're just we're supporting Derek on this issue so as far as the
township's for it so thank you yep anybody else in the audience or online wish to speak for or against anyone else in the audience or online wish to speak for or against anyone else in the audience or
online wish to speak for or against hearing none look for a motion to close the public hearing so moved second by Ashley seconded by Kurt Sherban all those in favor say I i post
public hearing is closed effective use in granting a zoning district amendment the planning commission shall consider the effect of the proposed use upon the health safety morals and general welfare of occupants
of surrounding lands existing and anticipated land uses traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets and land and the effect on agricultural usage in values of property and scenic view in
the surrounding areas and the effect of the proposed use on existing comprehensive plans burden on public utilities the development authorized by the resoning will not create an excessive burden on any public
facilities or utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area related to overall needs the reasonzoning is reasonably related to the overall needs of the county and to the existing land
use consistency with ordinance the reasonzoning is consistent with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant seeks classification conflict with
comprehensive plan the reasonzoning is not in conflict with the comprehensive plans of any township city county or county land use plan prematurely stimulate public investment in in utilities the reasoning
will will not either individually or cumulatively stimulate premature public investment in the facilities and utilities described in subsection D.2 2a of this anybody have any comments
or things to add josh is smiling over there uh I was in a leadership development program in Barnesville about a year ago and we toured the facilities at the time um he's got a really intentional expansion
plan they you were working on a building at the time I believe uh to connect your buildings it was a little bit crowded with the residents and 30 of us coming and parking there for the uh tour of the facilities but um I believe the facility is uh in keeping with the character of
the area and uh uh I think reszoning does make sense what their plan is and I would I mean we've got Barnesville Barnesville Township we've got other officials here that are 100% behind this
so um Mr chair uh if there aren't any other comments or questions from the other planning commissioners do you just want to go through one uh recommendation that staff would recommend approving this request uh one little thing would
be just because there is a residence on the property and residential uses aren't permitted in the highway commercial zoning district the recommendation would be that the resoning wouldn't happen until the residence is removed so even though you approve it it wouldn't be approved on adoption and be basically uh
approved when that residence is removed from from the property and so this is this a situation where we would recommend this for approval and the yes commissioners would do the literal yes that um I do have a recommended
motion but my computer froze let's try this again there it is move to I'll make that motion to re recommend the approval of reszoning subject property from agriculture general to
highway commercial upon removal of the residents to the Klay County Board of Commissioners i'll second that curtis Stubstead i'll second that second by Jenny any further discussion hearing none all those in
favor say I i opposed motion [Music] passes thank you everyone next thing on the list is uh public hearing um hopefully our final
one for this board of the Bay County Land Development Subdivision ordinance for a motion to open the public hearing motion to open second motion by Laura
seconded by Ashley to open the public hearing all those in favor say I i opposed public hearing is open matt thank you Mr chair so yes this is hopefully the uh final public hearing
uh ordinance update before the planning commission i know we've had quite a few uh going all the way back to uh August of 2023 um and I know that the intention was to to um go through this process at
our last meeting um just got some couple things that needed to be addressed beforehand so I do want to give you an update on those and where those are at um so just to start off there's kind of
three three big things one is the um uh a substantial part of our our ordinance update pertain to the shoreland section of the ordinance uh and so as part of that the the DNR needs to
provide approval of of the updates that were made and our and our shoreland ordinance we did on Friday get our conditional approval letter for the shoreland section of the ordinance mainly two things that we have to change that are missing that we have to just add in that are in the in the state
rules um also the uh chapter six the subdivision regulations and the administration and procedures uh chapters they were revised based on um both a review of the Klay County attorney and then uh our outside uh
legal counsel who provided some um review of those two chapters uh and then the final thing would be that the or the state cannabis rules they were approved by an administ administrative law judge last week uh and then they were just
published in the state registar this month uh yesterday and so I've had a chance to kind of look at the I've been they haven't changed much since um the draft rules were originally proposed I think back in January uh but before we
go through um I do want to between now and and when the board of commissioners hear this would like to just look at our um cannabis section uh of the ordinance one more time and and make sure there aren't any surprises with the with the rules
that were just published and so the next steps um would be to recommend to the county board for enactment uh and then just cleaning up doing any formatting and copy editing um
to it as needed not making any substantial changes just um just any just making sure it reads well uh there aren't any weird gaps or spaces anywhere or anything fun like that um does and did anyone I just want to
also take the opportunity for if anyone has any com final comments or questions or points of clarification or concerns at all about what has been drafted take that as a good sign so okay well I just want to really
thank you all for your review of this and and all of your work and to thank our our study review committee for all their their work on this and those who served on this and then and then staff as well um it's been a two-year process
to this month essentially uh but it was quite a major overhaul of of a very lengthy ordinance and um a lot of things to update and I think we're I I'd stand by kind of what what
the this update um and I think that it will um serve the county well moving forward okay i don't know if there's any We didn't receive any public comments for this as well
motion to take this to the county commissioners i think we just need to close the public hearing and then Yep anybody else have any any more questions comments the process hearing none look for a motion to close
the public hearing so moved second motion by Brad microphone it's green who seconded i and and second by Laura all those in favor say I i opposed
public hearing is closed so our next order of business is to send this to the county commissioners would like the honors i can do that i'll move to recommend the enactment of the Klay County Land
Development and Subdivision ordinance to the Klay County Board of Commissioners motion by Ashley second second by Dave Stiken all those in any further discussion hearing none all those in favor say I i i
opposed on to the commissioners yay jenny next u update of planning and zoning violations anything to speak to um looking at extractive use permit
condition violations currently have 11 out there that we're working on um a lot of most of them are relates to setbacks um setbacks or uh needing to update state permit permits those are kind of the two big ones um
so you know of the 70 plus active pits we have it's sitting pretty good for this time of year and just two home occupation use permits um that will need to be resolved
here so you'll probably see those coming before you in the coming months thank you anybody else any any questions for Matt regarding okay one thing um that the uh board of commissioners did request of me is to
just uh pull some of my neighboring counties just to see kind of what their um violations levels are um just so we can have some comparative data and I've reached out to a couple and just looking to get more information for uh mainly
surrounding counties but then also counties that would be similar in size to us as well so hopefully we'll have that I can bring that to you as well when I have all that information compiled okay thank you
the the general consensus has has been that it's um there's been a increase in the past three years kind of across the board well and we've been forced to take
some actions here on several operators ourselves so okay well hopefully it's we can get things resolved before permits get taken away mr chair Matt do you feel that's common
among among the other counties that you're going to talk to the increase or are you going to find that out that's the general consensus that I've received back from when I've originally reached out you have any explanation on why that
is the case uh I don't know just curious i mean everybody's got a story okay thank you moving on to unfinished business no unfinished business Mr chair
how about new and exciting business um nothing new and exciting to report unless anyone else has anything well I'd like to officially welcome Josh to our board thank you Mr chair nice to
have you anyone have anything else they feel drawn to bring up hearing nothing look for a motion to adjurnn motion by Dave second second by Kurt Shervin all those in favor say I i
opposed meeting is adjourned thank you everyone