--------- All right, good morning everybody. It's 8:30. We'll call this morning's meeting of the Klay County Board of Commissioners to order for Tuesday, June 3. Our first item will be the approval of the agenda. I'll make a motion to approve the agenda. Second. A motion by Commissioner
Bear, second by Commissioner Gamber. Any further discussion on the motion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. I oppose the same sign. Motion carried. Next, we have an employee
recognition. Gregory Gregory, hey, Greg, good morning. This is um and to grateful recognition for your 15 years of dedicated service to Klay County. Yes, that's and then uh Jill
Kir. So Steve is going to talk you up a little. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh as mentioned, these were some words that Jill put together here. Greg's commitment on working is working with integrity, professional professionalism, and has made a significant contribution
to our department. He puts people first, finds solutions, and shows up every day with a purpose. We appreciate your willingness to go above and beyond, especially during the challenging months of the assessment calendar. Your dedication to Klay County is truly appreciated and for me you make a mean
chili. So thank you. Thank you for your all your hard work. Thank [Applause] you. Citizens to be heard. Do we have any sentence to be heard this morning on items not on the
agenda? Any sentence to be heard? All right. Anything online, Steve? Nothing, Mr. Chair. All right. We'll then move into approval of payments of bills and vouchers. Move to approve. We have a motion by Commissioner
Krabanov, second by Commissioner Bayer. Any further discussion on the motion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. I oppose the same sign. Motion carried. Approval of
minutes from May 20th. I'll offer approval to of the minutes. Second. Have a motion by Commissioner Mojo. Second by Commissioner Ebinger. Any further discussion on the motion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor
signify by saying I. I. I. oppose the same sign. Motion carried. All right. Then we have the just uh we'll move into the direction on submitting the 2025
capital bonding funds. Steve, good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chair, commissioners. Uh, as this board knows, uh, we've had, uh, several years now of of working closely, uh, with, uh, with the state legislature and looking for funding, uh, for both, uh, flood
mitigation dollars, uh, money for our PRTF non-secured detention project, uh, and also some work uh, with uh, our water district with Pulk and Norman County. uh due to uh our engagement uh in in the request for funding, we missed
the deadline uh for the Minnesota Management and Budget uh bonding tour process. Uh that happens every two years. Uh and those applications are due uh by June 13th of this year with final edits edits due by October 17th. And so,
uh, with that, I know that this board generally takes a look at its legislative priorities, uh, in the fall. Uh, and having said that, um, we're looking here today for some direction. Uh, we have until again June 13th to fill out this documentation. We have
done it in the past previously midcycle. Uh, but, uh, as this board has talked in great detail, uh, when when the rubber meets the road, unless unless you've been on the bonding tour, it gets to be fairly challenging, uh, to to get get funding. And so, uh, with that, I would
look for your, uh, your direction, uh, on how you would like to me to move forward with, uh, with any potential, uh, bonding requests. I'm going to look to my right to start with here and see if Commissioner Mojo has anything to say. Thank you. I
appreciate it. Uh, well, the our board is, as noted, has been quite active in this and, uh, making sure that we get the documents in order to get on the tour. uh is one thing. You know, I I don't think it's any surprise what our
priorities will continue to be with those three projects that you highlighted. Um you know, we'll we'll make the applications and if for some reason the legislature comes through with a 1.2 billion bonding package this cycle, which they won't, but if they do,
we can always change it. But, uh again, it's true. I mean, they're not going to come up with money, but um uh then we can always, you know, withdraw those applications. I think what we were wanting to do is make sure we had a full board discussion on it. Not only um the
flood uh mitigation piece, but the nonsecure request. Uh, one thing that um, Commissioner Campbell and I have been part of dialogue with the city of Morehead in the chamber is in regards to how we we um, you know, summarize who's
making the application for the flood mitigation piece, which which parts are we making one joint ask in the past, which was the um, direction of the legislature. Now we're getting a direction to split those asks up, which we can certainly do, but I think that
was part of what the dialogue needed to be here. Um, if we want to stay in the vein of water or flood mitigation, we do need to figure out who's making the application on for the Buffalo Red projects, is it are we doing it on the MCC JPA? You know, I think that's more
of an internal dialogue in the next couple weeks. Uh, but just making sure this board gives a nod what those priorities are. So, yes, go ahead. If I may grab it off. So, if we did that uh that discussion
you're waiting to have, can we still do that prior to this deadline on the 13th? Well, I think we could probably do it do it now. I guess it that's that's part of what the dialogue needs to be. You know, I if I might, you know, the requirements
for they've always had standing requirements for what local match needs to be for these projects. And so that's been where there's kind of been a challenging gray area. Uh so if we are making one enormous ask 60.4 million as
we are, Morehead's already made their overmatch for their part of it. And so we did have funds identified for part of it, but as you know, they'll only matt fund up to 50% of the entire ask. So
then it makes more sense to maybe have smaller asks that they can just start chipping away at projects. Uh that's kind of what the trend of some of these larger watershed asks have been. Um so if you'd you know parcel down what the
Klay County specific projects would be, that's what this application would be. Make sense? Yeah. So, so certainly in our application, we we would want to include the um diversion funds. We'd want to
include the PRTF slash um nonsecure project. And we also would want to um I don't know that we're going to be an applicant, but somehow footnote the West Central Regional Water Project because
that's a multi-county thing. And I think if I understand it correctly, I think last time that was submitted through Norman County. That's correct. So that'll probably happen. But I, you know, so probably in terms of the formal request, probably not listed, but
somehow we got to make sure that we support that uh request. In terms of the diversion um diversion ask, you know, I I think that is something that came out of
recently which is a little bit different than in the past and that is the fact that now they do want those things sorted out by entity. Um, so Morhead will continue to ask for their 16 million or whatever it is for their remaining work and Klay County
will have to um I suppose a submission would have to include the comtock work because that bid won't even be done till July 1st and this application needs to be done before that. So we would have to include that
full amount into so you know because we haven't received any funding but and in addition to that I do believe it's my understanding that the Buffalo Red Board uh did not want to be
the ones asking the legislature for funds. So, um, because it is outside the city limits of Morehead, we should include that as part of our ask because those are critical components beating the, uh,
Wolverton project and and the Georgetown project. So, you know, so I think it's I think it's critical that we would we would then include that in our application piece, which in a way it was last time because the total was
60.3 60.4 4 million 16 million was within the city of Morhead and the remainder was rural Klay County which and that did include the Buffalo Red projects. But um I think whatever application that we do to get on the tour should include those. Our
application should include the Buffalo Red River wershed district projects and yeah and that was actually the purpose of my question how we would break that down and and the way you just described it. uh to me totally makes sense. Yeah.
Well, that's you know and I and I it's hard to it's hard to ask for less because there you know our commitment is to try to you know with this project winding down in time we're we're probably not going to have multi- bianiums to to get it funded. I was even
thinking to even maybe get a even a more snippet of the money. One of the things we've never asked for are land acquisition costs that are going on in Klay County. And land acquisition costs can also be part of a project. You know, so I don't know if
we, you know, when when right now they're saying that the maximum you're going to get is 50% of your ask. And are we really asking for everything that we need and leaving out the land acquisitions? because there's still several million dollars in land
acquisition still out there that need to be done. I don't know, Commissioner Mojo, what your thoughts are on that. But but it seems to me that if they're going to give 50%, you know, 50% of higher numbers more money, you know, and
then most they'll do is say no like they always do. Well, yeah. I I think what your comments make sense. I agree with the comments. I do want to note that we can make final edits up to the middle of October. So you can
always change that and and and rightfully and and even by the time but I I don't know if that's something that we could reach out to um the lands committee on on the diversion authority and and try to see
what remaining dollars are left on the ant that are anticipated for land acquisitions in Klay County. uh we should get that number. But as as we all know, every month that the MCC JPA board meets, you know, we're
approving more and more of those dollars. So every month that to total number is going to go down. So what we ask for in June, by the time the bonding cycle rolls around, you know, three quarters that might already once it's paid for, then
we can't ask for it, you know. So, but at least at least getting it in there and it'll show that there's significant dollars being spent on the Minnesota side, which I think is important for for the state to recognize as well.
Mr. Chair, yes, Commissioner, just in in structuring this and this is a question probably for you and Steve work Jenny's worked enough on this to to where uh she's probably got a good idea, too. Do we want to continue to include the $16
million ask for Morehead? We will not. We will not. We the request has been for for the entities to do those separately. That's good. So, Morehead will still be doing their $16 million ask and we will do our own for everything outside. Anything that's been that we've spent or
that the diversion authority has spent on Minnesota projects in Clay County, can that be counted towards our 50% or is the ship sailed on? not not once it's been spent. I mean, we can remind them of, you know, because I think that we what we did tell them even in this last go around that there's that the
diversion authority has already spent over $35 million on land acquisitions in Minnesota that's been paid for by diversion authority dollars, you know. So, so when the state says they're only going to pay 50% of stuff, I think I think it was important for them to know
that there's been a significant investment on the part of the diversion authority uh already in this. Um, no. So, I think we I think we would keep those separate, but we also got to keep in mind that within within our agree JPA agreement,
it's our responsibility to still support the city's effort in in lobbying for their needs as well as lobbying for our own needs. So, you know, that's that's the way the language states in the JPA. So we want
to make sure that we we follow that um that agreement that we have with the diversion authority. So anything else that has going to Ebinger's point there? Should we add that 16 million in because it is part of
Klay County? This I think I think the discussion amongst the legislators and even the city the city intends to apply on their own. 6 million. That's the that's the late and that that was the discussion we've had at our Friday morning meetings
that we have with the chamber. And I think that's that's been part part of that is u Morhead has an overmatch that was uh secured uh through sewer fees. Is that what that was? No, that's not yours. Um but so they have an overmatch
on their components. So that it was starting to get a little hairy in regards to how clearly that was identified. Uh and making sure that they don't lose what that overmatch was. Uh and then also again we we are in lock step with them. We meet weekly if not
two to three times a week with them and and how we we push these things forward. And and the reality is however the legislature wants these things packaged is how the legislature wants them packaged. And that's why we were separate a couple years ago. That's why
we we moved to a one bill. That's what they wanted. They want the all-in number what that is. And now they saw what the all-in number was to finish it. They got scared and now they want it separate again. So, you know, we'll we'll do however we need to to get uh the request
forward. Um and then too, um I think with the watershed piece, we have to include the watershed as part of the ask because as an outside entity, we can't ask or submit a request for a project
that's not even in Klay County's jurisdiction. That's why we have to have the Buffalo Red as part of that for the Wolverton project specifically. Yeah. So, Steve, I I don't know. Maybe um I I I don't know that I don't think it would be in our best interest to be
adding any additional things to our request because you if you start asking too much get any of it. Um but I think those are those still remain our priorities. I think that I think that it's a concurrence on the board that those would be our priorities.
um in you know in addition to I think you know we'll be supportive of the West Central Regional Water and I I believe last year their ask was 9.9 million. I I'm not they'll probably even up that again a little bit for
inflationary reasons for the next two but we won't have that on our application but we we need to be ready to support that as well. And then Steve, I don't know if maybe because this has to be in by June 13th. I'm wondering on the diversion piece if you could just
relist basically our same ask, but maybe include a land acing land acquisition line item for us to and we can take a look at that on June 10th. Sure. Is that okay? And because that would give us time. Yeah. Maybe we could have a pre
preliminary application ready with those numbers and then we'll have to see. I don't know how many millions are left in land acquisition, but sure. Yeah, Mr. Chair, commissioners, in this past year, we reached out to Jacobs to get all all the updated information and so I'll
coordinate with them and representatives from diversion authority to get the most updated information and and yeah, we might have to even update those numbers because those are those numbers were based on previous year's costs. So, so we might have to actually make some
adjustments to those. There's a there's a new the state has put out a new a new process to apply uh for for the capital or the excuse me the MMB document funds. Uh and so there's a training session this afternoon uh that I'll be
participating in to find out sounds like the layout's a little bit different than what it was in previous years, but hopefully it'll be very similar to the information that we already have. Mr. Is there anything else um from your standpoint that we haven't covered here
or are you uh No, I think I I if if it would be possible just to get a motion that you that this board supports both submitting both for for the non-secured attention PRTF and flood mitigation funding would be appreciated. I move to approve that statement. All
right. Second both those motion by Commissioner Kov, second by Commissioner Mojo to include the flood mitigation and the PRTF nonsecure juvenile center projects as our project priorities for bonding.
Can I just have a comment? Yes. Thank you. I I just want to preface this. This these applications take a lot of staff time and a lot of the work we scrambled to get done on very short notice during the session. And so Steve has really
done a phenomenal job of getting all of that package together for application. And so I appreciate this board one for the continuation of it because we really um we have all the data together. We but it will still take a a pretty good amount of time in the next week and a half for Steve to pull together. So
thanks to you and the team. I know it's a team effort um for pulling all that together. Thank you. All right. So we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by
saying I. I. Oppose. The same sign. Car. Thanks, Steve. Thank you. All right. Next, we have our committee reports in county ministry update discussions. Commissioner Mojo, would
you care to start? Perfect. Uh last Tuesday I attended the Minnesota Rural Counties uh session update. Um if that what did they did, Commissioner Bear, did they say that
they were just living in purgatory at the capital? I think that's how they identified what the final couple weeks of session were. Uh it's it was it's really hard to get a pulse on what exactly is happening. Not all of the work groups were meeting publicly. So it
was kind of hard for uh to get a good recap on what is exactly happening there. Uh in regards to taxes, there were some good things and there were some not so good things. Uh it's sounding like the uh LGA CPA cuts um
have at least been reduced in the latest offer, but again um I'm not betting on what comes out of session. Uh the next day I tried to attend the Prairie Lakes uh solid waste meeting. Uh but Commissioner Campbell
can report on that. We had some technical difficulties. I didn't have technical difficulties. cuz I just wasn't included. I used the word we. Oh yeah. Uh then Friday again uh attended the flood mitigation update with the chamber and city of Morhead. Thanks to
you for your prior action uh just in moving those projects towards funding. Uh I know it's a huge team effort. So appreciate that. Yesterday I traveled to Wabasha County to attend one of the district meetings for AMC. I also
attended the metricog executive committee meeting. We did a a approved a request for travel and just a brief update on the 2050
MTP and UPWP updates. Uh we did talk a little bit about um steps and uh grades. There's some compression issues going on over there. So uh encourage the director to work
with West Fargo who does their HR just to maybe identify some of those pieces. And then there was some discussion on the retirement IRA plan that currently is offered. um wanting to maybe switch
as West Fargo had done. So, uh Ben will be working with um West Fargo to bring forward any um ideas to see if we can uh streamline that process. And then Friday or Saturday rather, I attended Breakfast on
the Farm in Holly. It's just a really great opportunity. uh one, there's so many donors throughout the county and region that have donated to that, but really a great opportunity for all of Klay County together. That concludes my reports. Thank you. Before I move on, I
just want to um recognize Commissioner Mojo. She has put her name in the hat to run for AMC U office. Um, that's it's quite of a it's an awful lot of extra work and I think I can speak on behalf
of our board that we're proud of you for being able to put your name on the line for that job and you know that you'll bring an awful lot of important things and and certainly a critical message from rural Minnesota um that also is
very important. So, um, just want to congratulate you on on that and, uh, we'll be rooting for you and I think we get eight votes in December, so we better make sure all of our votes are there. All right. All right. So, Ezra, do you want to go
next, please? On the 27th, I also attended the M MRC online and it was an update on the legislature that working groups have been assigned and yeah, they're working behind closed doors. Not much. Mrs. Mojo
already reported on that. Not much is happening that we know about, but they claim a lot of bills are getting close to the finish line. We'll see what happens. If they call special session in the next week or week after that, we'll find out. And then on the 28th, I
attended the West Central Regional Regional Water District Board work session where we had workshops on how water access charges and reserve policy decisions and rate design and estab
establishments system for how to how to bill everybody that would buy water from the system, how to make it even and fair. And then on Monday, we had the West Regional Water District Board meeting in H Hallstead where I did duck
out early, but we had a update on what happened that previous Wednesday. And we also had final surveys done, an update on the final surveys. And the legislation legislative update
was also the same as the MRC. Wait and see. And then last night I went to uh Georgetown's uh city hall meeting where we got anou agreed to be signed with for the
West Central Regional Water District for them to get on board with that district so they can be in the planning stages. And that is all my reports just rural water pretty much. Thank you Commissioner Bear. Commissioner Abier. Thank you. Uh, last
week on Tuesday the 27th, I attended the Red River Regional Dispatch Center Board of Authority meeting. Um, we passed a motion to u pursue a contract with first due for
records management system for the fire department or for the fire uh agencies within the dispatch center. Uh this would replace one uh that's currently under use uh uh from Tyler Technologies. They're going out of business or they're
going out of that line of business. They'll no longer support the software. Uh that did pass for uh them to go ahead and uh pursue the new system. Uh we are going to make some changes to our joint
powers agreement to allow uh gener uh gener generic excuse me hard word to say generic uh reference to these systems so that they can be replaced. We're not locked into language in our JPA to go
with one specific vendor. We'll just keep it open so that vendors could be changed without violating or having to change JPA. Uh also, uh Dave, that will that will have to come back to all board all boards to true that change. We'll be
bringing it in. It's not a thing that's going to impact on cost or anything else. It's just the the uh applicable use of JPA without having to bring it back in and change it every time. So, we'll get one that's that generalizes the the document.
Um, also passed a motion to uh replace uh U UPS batteries. There's been a mistake from the vendor and we're going to they've they've replaced the batteries that were not due for replacement and didn't replace the ones that were. Uh long story short, they're
going to discount that to where at the bottom line it all breaks even and they're going to replace the ones that need to be replaced. Uh also in the director report, we were told that they're going to start a new um on ETH console within
the dispatch center and that'll be manned from or staffed from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. every day. That's already in place. Yep. So, that's going to put us in a position to where uh Klay County has more focused, the rural Klay County
outside of Morehead has more focused attention from one of the operators in there, which is going to be beneficial to us. And the new dis or new facility is on schedule to be open in October.
There's going to be a uh a transition between the old facility which is going to be maintained by the triple RDC as a backup location. Uh but they'll be transitioning with one console at a time into the new facility to make sure
everything runs well and that we don't shut something down that we can't we aren't sure can be replaced. So, we're looking forward to that. Um, on Wednesday the 29th, I attended the the
uh CAPLP Clay County Council on Aging meeting. Uh, we're we have a new aging advocate, Flint Divine, will be starting there. uh she is bringing new ideas in and she's going to work full-time at
exploring ways to educate connect with seniors in our senior community. Had a rural uh route update as we know there's a bus system a bus that we uh partially support out in the rural areas. It's
getting a little more use. They've got new flyers in Spanish, Kurdish, and Somali uh that they can circulate as well. I think that's probably going to be useful particularly within the Morehead Dworth area. Uh the new uh new system or the uh
transport service uh for seniors from rural areas, the DMV detox center is starting and that's at 300 p.m. Um at this point there's free transportation, I'm sorry, to the DMV
and detox. Uh there'll be Walmart and Dworth every Monday except holidays from 8 am to 3A 3 pm. So that's uh in place at this point. And again, we're seeing more use of that. I remember when they
came forward with their funding renewal last time they were here, they said they were going to try and get more miles on the bus, and that seems to be happening. Uh the VA tax site update uh this year during tax season services will be
provided to seniors. Um it'll be at the Yum Pump Center on some days. They're also going to be at Serenvi Assisted Living, Even Tide, Hog Estate, Sharp View, River Heights, and they're going to coordinate a day in Holly uh to work
with seniors at North Side Apartments. And that completes my report. All right. Thank you. Um, are is the bid opening done now? Yes. Okay. Could I show 9:05 or 3
minutes early? But all right, let's let's um suspend with our committee reports and let's get your bid openings. Uh, and what we have on our agenda is we have bid opening for SAP 014599-106. Good morning, Justin. Good morning. So, yes, this is for the
township bridge removal in Elmwood Township. This is one that we've been working on for quite a while. So, we're glad to get this one completed. Um, just as a note being that this is a bridge removal project, there is no cost to the
township town bridge fund covered. Um, we did receive five bids on this project. The engineers estimate was $27,415. The first bid we received was from Eminem Contractors LLC. Their bid
was $262,5000. $262,500 and0. The next bid we received was from Comtock Construction Incorporated. Their bid was $233,4000. $233,4000.
[Music] The next bid was from Midwest Contracting LLC. Their bid was $218,433.15. $218,433.15. The next bid was from Gladen Construction Incorporated. Their bid was
$192,15660. $192,15660. And then the final bid we received was from Dennis Drews Incorporated. Their bid was $127,722. $127,722. That's uh quite a difference. Yeah. Um, just as a note, I did talk to Dennis
Drews during the bid process and it was something he was comfortable fitting in this year and he did mention that a lot of contractors are looking for work. So, he did anticipate that this was going to be a very competitive bid. So, I don't have any we have worked
with dentists in the past and they've done really good work for us. So, I have no reservations in awarding the bid to them. And these funds all come from state bridge town bridge or down town bridge funds. Yeah. Yep. Okay.
Yes, commissioner. This is just a removal of a bridge, not replacement of a bridge. Correct. Removal and then also constructing a culde-sac at the end just for a turnaround for our plows and the school bus. With that, Mr. Chair, I'll make a
motion to approve Dennis Drews with low bid of $127,722. Contingent upon no errors in the bids. I'll second the motion. Have a motion by Commissioner Bear, second by Commissioner Mojo. All in or excuse me, any further discussion on the motion? Commissioner Mojo. Well, I I think we've
opened a couple bids and it seems like for once something seems to be going quite favorable in regards to that. So hopeful that can prove true for the other projects that we have. Um, you know, it's probably too early to say if there's any additional funds left in
what we've got budgeted, if we could apply them to any of our smaller outlying projects. I know you're you're constantly thinking about that, how we have if we have any additional pieces in that. But, um, you know, hopefully it it proves true for the rest of the season.
It's a a sigh of relief because it's been kind of wild for a couple years. Definitely. So hopeful. Thank you. All right. And I think maybe that's a that's a topic uh Commissioner Mojo raises that we can maybe put on a
highway tracking meeting to review what projects we've awarded and and Yep. because I think in most instances we've been under your estimates. Um so we can maybe look at what else we might be able to get done with those dollars. Any
further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Oppose the same sign. Motion carried. Thank you, Justin. Thank you. All right, we'll go back to our committee reports. We'll finish up.
U Commissioner Kavanagh. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh so on Wednesday the 28th, I had a historical cultural society uh our monthly board meeting. um business uh reports were given. Uh the
main thing and most time was spent uh again replacing our uh uh executive director Marine uh Johnson who will be retiring in July. Anyway, we uh have been on this search for quite a few
months, over a hundred applications, got it down to 15, and at this morning, we had our final three. And we did uh take time on those resumes and they had our personal interviews and we came with one we made an offer with and I can't tell
you who that is yet today, but maybe next week. But uh it was uh we were well received in the number of people of quality people looking at this place to do this job. It's uh speaks to the
success of the museum. Uh that was the main part of that meeting. The next night we had our annual meeting and that was at the mumps 60 some people attended. Uh there again uh our meeting
was open short business meeting. I gave a year in treasures board. Uh we did have nomination. We had new or excuse me some outgoing board members. Um John Hes, Jenna Kaylee, and Diane Ray Williams. Diane had been on for a long
time. Um and then we had nominations for new people coming in and uh uh nominated and and elected were u mimidity um Amidi excuse me uh C uh from Morehead, Kathy
Misner from uh Holly, Martanon uh from Morehead, uh Jamon Cruz from Holly, and then seeking his third and final term was Jim Stein who has been on for quite some time also. So,
um, and then to end that evening, we had the Klay County Heritage Award given to Carol Ingelhart. He's been a long-term professor, retired historian over at Concordia. He's wrote a couple books using the Klay County Archives in uh,
really intensely along with a retired archavist Mark Peele. He wrote a couple books. uh one I'd mentioned before that he released uh what a year ago maybe about Randolph Probesfield family and that was a good one. Then he also did a
book uh which I had gotten maybe 10 years ago and that was about Fargo Morehead being the gateway to the railroad of the west and anyway so he did he spoke for oh gosh it was close to an hour 45 minutes and uh really
articulated his writings and his work. So, thank you to uh Carol for all that and to the um historical and cultural society for what they do. Um so that was Wednesday, Thursday, Friday I had uh
with the community a action partners LP uh we had an executive board meeting. Um, it was a deep dive into our association with the Minnesota Head Start Association and the value of that membership and uh uh nothing to report
any decision at at this time but um just looking at um our association with that and then how it works with our state board uh with CAPLP. Um and that's my report. Thank you. All right. on uh
Wednesday the May 27th or excuse me, May 28th. Um I better start with the 27th. I did also attend the Red River Regional Dispatch Center. Commissioner Ebinger
has given a good report on that. I don't really have anything to add other than uh I would like to um get a message to all of our um local small city partners uh in the recent developments with
dispatch and the fact that they are now staffing eight councils from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. for a for quite some time that was a real concern. I think for a while there I think those the number of councils that have been uh fully staffed at one time might have been
five and you know and I think there were some concerns about um how quickly response times were to calls and certainly with these numbers those numbers should improve and I just think it would be good for us to send a
message out to them that that that is that's a a change to the positive that's recently been done. That's the only that I just, you know, I don't know, Steve, if you could maybe send something out to them on on behalf of
that happening. Then on on the uh 28th on on my way to per P per P per P per P per P per P per P per P per P per P perm for the solid waste meeting um I was on the phone with the West Center Regional Water going through what Commissioner Bear was talking about and and trying to
establish the the process for what it would cost for an individual to be part of that system. And it's a it's a long process. Uh, and I there's been a lot of really really good work done on that and I
think we'll we'll be able to give you a more in-depth report here in the near future. Then I would and then I would I did attend the Prairie Lakes meeting and I do apologize to Commissioner Mojo but apparently the staffing people there
didn't see that there were people in the waiting list to enter team. So, so I and apologies uh to that regard and I they felt really bad about it after the fact. So, and they in their defense they said they didn't see anybody there. I think
what had happened is there's two standing meetings and so all of us the five of us were in the other meeting. Oh, it's fine. Okay. Okay. And then so um and really everything else the the report uh everything went really well. When we go
to ask for the director's report when they said there's nothing to report that means things are going good. Um we did receive a um ash processing video where ash is now being used on a project. I've I've asked for those
videos to be uh shown at the next SWAC meeting and um hopefully maybe the next time Corey comes to this board we can see that too because it is pretty impressive that um when you when you look at all the
efforts that are done in terms of recycling to even try to find another use just for the ash that's used from burning the the waste going to our roads. That's a quite quite an accomplishment. We did have a little bit
of a discussion on open meeting laws. One of the things that we need need clarification on there's been some changes and I do know that for example all of our member counties uh on Prairie Lake solid waste are all so district 4
for AMC and you know because we're all going to be that that we all meet um I think we forget to realize that maybe that needs to be posted even though even though that AMC meeting is posted it's posted
but it's not posted for the um Prairie Lakes board. And so I asked that that that be done be on the safe side. So then on on um yesterday uh we had two meetings with West Central in the
morning. Uh Commissioner Bear covered covered that. I want to report that uh Per Pearly, Neilville, Climax, Felton, Borup, and then as of last night, Georgetown have all signed on now as communities interested in the service.
Um I I'm not sure where Kragnus is going to go, if that's going to end up being part of that deal, if there's going to be future discussions with maybe that being extended from Morhead. You know, we'll have to have those conversations with Morhead in the future and see what what area they want to
um be able to serve in a rural capacity. Everything else uh is going well there. [Music] Um, we did pass an U memorandum of understanding with East Central Regional
Water. um moving forward and I think that we need that needed to be done because of the uh change in sizing of the scope of the piping that would be done from that
new dairy facility in on on the North Dakota side and then because they would have to they would have to upgrade that size pipe to handle our needs and so they wanted some sort of an MOU to that regard. So, we did approve
thatou. And then last night, I attended with Commissioner Bear. We attended the Georgetown meeting to talk to them more about give them some updates and they had some questions and they they seem to be really interested in and u I think
they're looking forward to having a water supply in Georgetown like many others are. That concludes my report. Steve, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh last t last Tuesday I participated also in the rural Minnesota rural counties meeting that's
been uh well addressed. Uh that afternoon I met with Anna on a series of HR issues. Uh on the 28th participated in the water district financial policy meeting again just to reiterate the great work that Steven Slick and Lucas
Faith have been doing and in preparing uh preparing our uh board uh to make the necessary decisions. Uh on the 28th also met with Brian Melton on a series of county legal issues. I met with Anna again and Quinn uh on some
organizational chart thoughts uh from Quinn in social services. Uh that afternoon I met with uh with representatives from the city of Morehead and Dworth in regards to the White Earth Nation. uh we are going to
uh we put together a kind of the start of a framework for some things from a committee standpoint to talk about and we'll be having our first committee meeting next Tuesday or excuse me next Monday uh uh moving forward there. Uh yesterday I participated in the water district board that again has been well
covered. I also met with Kimberly. Um she's going to be coming to the board here within the coming weeks. As you recall, SE SE4 and five uh several years ago had just a slight shift. Uh and while that worked out great for uh great
for the diversion project, it created some challenges for the recorders office. And so, um, she has been working closely with AE2s and trying to clean up, uh, the legal descriptions and ultimately we'll have some affidavits, uh, for you, uh, to clear up the plat so
in the future when, uh, the partners that weren't here as part of the the planning process, uh, are gone that they'll be it'll be clear for for any sales in the future. Um just a couple just up updates uh on the budgets. Transportation uh omnibus
bill appears to have gone through reached out with to Justin uh and also to AMC from an impact standpoint. Um some of the things of the cuts that did are taking places over the next two bianiums bianiums are going to limit uh
have limited impact on Klay County programs. Of course, without if there's no bonding bill, uh, bridge bonds will certainly be impact impacted. Also talked with Quinn in regards to the human service budget agreement. Uh, based on what we know at this point,
many of the uh, cost shifts that this board fought uh, fought against and brought forward to our local representatives and senators were not implemented in the in the agreement. there were several uh that are in quint in the process of of processing that,
but we're looking at tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands versus millions. So, uh a a good good piece there. And did just want to follow up that the the conversation from Commissioner Campbell earlier in Commissioner Mojo, I did speak with her uh just from from a uh budgeting
standpoint. Uh she did come to me earlier in this process. Uh there is some travel or quite a bit of travel that's going to come with this position uh should she be elected. Uh and uh for this for this uh period of time, the funding for all the transportation is uh is coming from Commissioner Mojo.
There's no county dollars that are attached to that. So uh and that concludes my report. Thank you, Steve. Darren, back behind that podium. Yes, I'm I'm hiding back here. Um, I'm going to start off with a public
service announcement that uh we have uh two accounts with the Minnesota State Retirement System and the uh healthcare savings plan that the state runs and from June 14th to July 1st um they are going to be transitioning their
recordeping services from Empower Empower Retirement to Voya Financial. So during that time, uh, June 14th to July 1st, there's going to be a blackout period. So, um, just wanted to let everybody know that. I'm sure Anna will will send out a more detailed
notification to all the, uh, employees, but wanted to get that out there as well. Um, let's see. On, uh, 527, I went over the, uh, performance measurements program with Anna. She's going to be coming bringing that to the board here
this month. That has to be turned in by July 1st. That's a annual thing that I've usually brought to the board. Um, on the 28th, I had a meeting with the sheriff, chief, deputy, jail administrator, and HR director on the, uh, continuing Department of Labor
investigation that we've been going on. Um, that's been kind of a pain, but, uh, we continue to provide them the information that they want. Uh, on the 28th, I also had a meeting with Anna regarding some personnel issues. on the
29th and 30th was more uh work on the uh DO case and also uh working on some performance evaluations and then uh yesterday working on uh some more performance evaluations and the uh a
little bit on the uh 2026 budget. That's my report. Right. Thank you, Darren. Sarah Sarah, do you have anything for us? All right. All right. We will take a fivem minute break and then we'll come back for a public hearing on our land development ordinance. I apologize we're running a little bit late but uh we'll
take five minutes. All right. All right. We are back in session. Our next item is the public hearing for the Klay County Land Development Ordinance Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to open the public hearing. Thank you. Second
motion by Commissioner Mojo, second by Commissioner Bear. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. I. Oppose the same sign. Motion carried. The public hearing is now open. Good morning, Matt. Welcome.
Good morning, Mr. Chair and commissioners. So, after uh a little over two years of work on this, I'm finally bringing this to the to the board for uh formal consideration uh the Klay County Land Development Ordinance, zoning and subdivision regulations. Uh
so what I'm going to do uh this morning is just kind of walk through the purpose and intent of our development code uh or our development ordinance. I give a little history and then um highlight some of the notable uh changes from um
our previous uh uh or our current uh land development ordinance. So really the purpose and intent of of this land development ordinance is to promote the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. Uh provide for adequate light, air and water,
provide for safety from fire, flood and other dangers, prevent undue concentration of population, preserve property values, preserve prime egg land, facilitate the provision of adequate public facilities, and preserve and enhance the quality of surface and groundwater. Uh, and continuing on from
that, how how that works is to promote orderly aesthetic development in a logical sequence of development in unincorporate areas of the county. Klay County zoning regulations are intended to reduce potential land use conflicts by separating or buffering incompatible land uses, thereby pro promoting public
health, safety, and welfare, and enhancing the county's tax base. Klay County finds that it is in the best interest of the public to provide for the wise subdivision use and development of the lands of the county and the statute there is statutory authorization
uh for zoning. Zoning is a is a um power that is given by the legislature through uh uh MN statutes 394. Um also 103F and 103G and then shoreland uh rule 6120. So for Klay County,
um a little bit of zoning history. So in 1965, that is when uh the county decided that countywide zoning was needed and an ordinance was enacted. Uh this was mainly done um just to with the rec recognition of the importance of
agriculture to the county and preserving um the rural character of the county as well as um the prime farmland productive soils that we have are are blessed with in in in Klay County. Uh in 1972 we
enacted a shoreland zoning. Uh shoreland rules were adopted in or shorland the shoreland management act was adopted in 1969 in Minnesota and then rules were developed for counties in 1970. And for most counties in Minnesota, this was the
first um taste of any kind of zoning um that they ever had for for counties. Uh and some till this day do not have countywide zoning. They only have um shoreland zoning in their counties and that's required.
Yes. And in 1974 we had our flood first flood plan regulations that were enacted. Uh in 1980 our zoning subdivision shoreline and flood plane were kind of combined into one development code. Uh there was another up major update in 1993. Uh in 2001 it
was codified into the overall county code. Uh in 2005 there was another major update which established uh some new zoning districts and and different zoning map. And then in 2012 there was another major update to flood plane
regulations. Since then there have been other small amendments here and there that's pretty common. Um and you know you've seen a number of them here in the past few years as well. Um but 2012 was kind of the last big major one until this 2025 update. Uh this commenced in
April of 2023. Really the idea was um to follow up with the um the adoption of the 2045 Klay County comprehensive and transportation plan. Really the the ordinance land development ordinance is
the tool for imple tool for implementing that plan uh with regards to land use and and development. and also just to bring our code up to modern to modernize in a bit uh to accommodate and account for some new development trends that are
happening um and making sure that that that those are addressed. The planning commission held uh monthly public hearings well virtually for every meeting from July 2023 through uh April of 2025. We did have an online public
input survey which garnered some responses as well. And then in April 25 at their meeting, the planning commission did recommend the board for uh adoption. And so what I'd like to do now um is just go through some notable updates to each of of the chapters. Uh
please if you have any questions for me, stop me along the way. Um and we'll just start with chapter 1. I think one of the big things with chapter one with chapter 8-1 in the introductory provisions it defines what development is and what development
isn't according to the county um one thing that um came up with in our study review committee that worked on this uh and then also in the planning commission is um some permit exemptions uh for smaller accessory structures. So, if you
are, you know, have a um a a shed that you got from home home depot or Menard's or something, you wouldn't and it was a certain square footage, you wouldn't need a a um a building permit for that. You would still need to meet the um all of our setbacks, but you wouldn't have to go
through that that process. Uh we also um included what used to be a separate chapter um for non-conforming uses and structures. And one thing that our non-conforming uses and structures did not have is these residential real estate exemptions for non-conformity
nonconformities. And the main thing there being if you're uh if you have a residential property or a seasonal um residential property, recreational property, uh if something if a building or c your lake cabin or something is
destroyed completely, you can um actually rebuild it where where it stood exactly. You can replace it. We did not have that in our in our we don't have that provision in our current code.
So that's just for for this residential real estate. Stoping. What is the square footage for a small accessory structure? So we determined 144 ft if it's on a foundation and 400 square f feet if it's
not on a foundation. Uh for our base districts, we have uh agricultural general, which covers the majority of our county. um agricultural service center which would be like our um roll logs and downers um uh and then
our highway commercial and limited highway commercial zoning districts. Um so in this chapter uh essentially clarifying residential density in the agricultural general districts as eight residential dwellings per quarter or two per quarter quarter. um differentiating
between the types of subdivisions, what a standard subdivision might be versus a cluster subdivision. Uh the main difference being there that a standard subdivision might be on an existing road um where a cluster subdivision would use an internal road. Um and then also we
replaced conditional use major subdivisions with agricultural natural resource subdivisions. And th those those numbers, Matt, haven't really changed much since 2012, right? Those have not. No. Nope. Uh and then in the egg service
center just uh there's a a 5% lot coverage limit for accessory structures. A lot of our um uh lots in like a downer or a rollog are smaller and that's kind of a difficult thing to accommodate. Uh
especially for um if you can meet all the setback requirements but not this um 5% lot coverage limit. And then also just clarifying about highway commercial and limited highway commercial zoning districts. Just citing on public rightaways or on adjacent uh that are
adjacent to a county or state roadway system. Uh in our flood ha our our chapter 8-3 covers our flood hazard districts. Um really what we did here was just a comprehensive update just to match um the most recent state flood
plane rules and the federal national uh flood insurance program regulations. Uh the state has really nice flood plane model ordinance and we just use that. Uh and also now we um this is the first instance of our uh development ordinance
including uh pictures. So, we do have some illustrations in there to make things a little bit easier. I always need an illustration. Yes. Is your mic
on? Uh in regard to the uh uh the flood ordinance or flood plane, does the state model uh differentiate much from the FEMA maps or I'm just asking mainly for reasons of
flood insurance be it private or or public. You know, I think the main thing that the state requires um is they for example of this for their regulatory flood protection elevation is they require an additional foot of of
freeboard. Um so it would be your base flood elevation. Um you have to go a foot beyond whatever that is. Yeah. So that difference would be more to meet our B building codes. Is that more than it would? Yeah. Meet meet
the states. Yep. And then also what's interesting or what's unique about the Red River Valley um is in most areas uh of the country you if you are in a flood plane you can't have a basement. Um in the Red River Valley there is a
residential basement exception. So that is also included in there as well. Yeah. Good. It just has to be floodproofed. Yep. Yep. Okay. Thank you. Um for our shoreland districts, we also did a comprehensive update that's based
on um the state of Minnesota model shoreland ordinance. Um we did make a few exceptions with uh uh intended to protect sensitive water features from overdevelopment, but then also allowing for some more commercial development on
non-retiparian areas were practical. the state um does allow some flexibility in in shoreland rules. And if you're if you're doing something a little more um if you have higher standards in one area, you can have some lower standards
in in other areas. And and so that's kind of what we've done there. But I think overwhelmingly um from our public input survey and then also from our planning commission, there's just been a strong desire for our shoreland ordinance and to match
what the state um shoreland rules are. One question here. Yes, commissioner. On page 51 of the ordinance, it talks about rivers. Yep. It does not mention the wild rice. Is that a tributary stream or is that just
Oh, the south branch of the wild rice. Yes, that is a tributary stream. So, our our agricultural and urban rivers in Klay County would be parts of the Red River would be considered an urban river. Um the rest of it would be agricultural and then the the Buffalo
River would be a agricultural river class as well. And then everything else is tributary. Yep. All right. So, our chapter five covers our resource protection districts. Um resource protection districts, we have three different o these are overlay
districts. So, they overlay our base zoning districts. And really um um what they're intended to do is to protect uh our sensitive resources and then our natural resources as well. Uh so our aggregate resources protecting
them from overdevelopment um building over the top of of um significant aggregate or quality aggre aggregate deposits. Our bio our resource protection biological zoning district. Um that's really protecting some the
high quality um natural resources that we have in the county uh that provide some ecosystem services uh um for the county as well as some significant recreational opportunities for for people. People do travel quite far and
wide to see some of our um specifically our native prairies. Uh and then also uh our wellhead protection district. We have this um kind of along the east side of of Morehead and Dworth that goes down
to the Wilin County line and just uh I think 22 26 county casad 26 um that protects the Buffalo aquifer from um incompatible development and there is also wellhead protection on the east side of Barnesville as well to protect
their um their wellfields. We did receive some comments um on our wellhead protection se uh section that I do want to address briefly. Um and what I'll do is um we received
these comments from Morehead Public Service. Um you should all have those comments in front of you. Uh I essentially addressed these comments um and I want to thank them for more public service for for providing them. Um one
of their first comments I can just walk through them was um our development standards um for commercial uses connected to utilities. Um currently what it says is to that we allow commercial uses within the resource
protection wellhead protection district to be connected to um public sewage treatment and water supply systems if such systems are needed. Uh the MPS had requested that we remove the if such systems are needed just because
um uh they didn't want to open up contamination uh exposure in desired commercial development plans. Well, what that actually means um is if such systems are needed is if you need if you have a commercial use that needs a
septic that needs sewer and water, you would still need to connect to um in the in the wellhead protection district, you would still need to connect to public sewage treatment and water supply systems. If you have a commercial use that doesn't require that and it is
allowed as a conditional use um commercial cold storage being a prime example of that then that then you don't need that. So that's the clarification there. Um I recommend keeping it as it is. Uh the next um comment that they
have was just when you say recommend keeping as is keeping with the uh if such systems are needed keeping that language. Okay. Uh the the next comment they had was about um above ground tanks a
containment system. Um they requested discussion on a maximum size of above ground tanks to limit risk if spills occur. Um I don't really have a good idea of what a maximum size would be. So I'm not entirely ready to discuss that.
Um what I would note is that um later on there is a uh provision that we do need to do need to add back in about hazardous materials being the bulk storage of hazardous material shall be prohibited within Mr. Yes. Can I just ask for clarification on this? When
we're talking above ground storage, excuse me, uh above ground tanks, the chemical storage tank or chemical totes, are those technically included in an above ground storage?
It would essentially be a um typically with an above ground tank it would be just like a um the most common would be like a um petroleum tank. But are we based on it as it's written would chemical totes that
farmers use be incorporated in that above ground or because they're a transportable unit is it not included? I would say that they're not not included. Right. Perfect. Thanks. One uh recommendation we had moving on
was to um with fertilizer use um we did have a provision in our we do have a provision in our standard in our current code that says if you're using a phosphorus based fertilizer garden or lawn fertilizer that that be prohibited. That is not really enforcable um
impossible to enforce. uh MPS provided some example language of if we were to include it. Um just to modify it to say that the application use fertilizer shall be conducted in a way to adhere to best use practices as determined by the product manufacturer. Any excessive
application of f fertilizer above the aquifer is highly discouraged. I'm totally comfortable with that language and leaving that in there as well. Um, and part of part of recently what happened with the buffer zones that that
that actually has helped a lot of this too, hasn't it? In terms of runoff. Yes. Yep. I think that's that's helped an awful lot in with some of these concerns. Yep. Yep. Keeps it keeps it from getting into the ditch systems that get to the end up getting to the river.
Yep. Yeah. Yes. Grab. So just with both those questions I have I want to make sure we're clear about egg uses in particular. I mean some of the the volumes used these days above ground and
their use they're getting pretty large and with the size of equipment and I um if there are going to be some types of limitations which I don't I wouldn't be really in favor of um I just want to
make sure They're well defined. So there's no question about that. Either that or egg uses be exempt. But yeah, Mr. Chair and Commissioner Krabenhoff, the the original intention was for lawn and garden fertilizers. Um, and I I don't think
what we're asking for is that there's any limitation that you just follow the best use practices as determined by the product manufacturer. And I'm fine with that. Right. Agreed. I just I don't want to create something that is going to be an issue
for existing farm practice. Yeah. Nope. I don't think that that would impact that at all. And that's not something that I think we could enforce either. Uh the the hazardous materials, bulk storage of hazardous materials shall be prohibited within the resource
protection wellhead protection overlay district. Um that's something that's currently in there now. Um I think it should stay in there. Uh and then underground storage tanks, new underground tanks shall be prohibited within the resource protection wellhead overlay district. That's something that should be also included in there now.
And then aggregate mining um expansion of existing aggregate mining operations and permitting of new aggregate mining operations shall be prohibited in the resource protection wellhead protection overlay district. We had originally proposed removing that just because in our if you go to our our land use table
um and you were to look at extractive uses like aggregate mining um that clearly says that that is not allowed in this zoning district. Um NPS is requesting that that goes goes back in. Um so it would be in two locations
essentially. Um just for clarification there. Uh could I ask a clarification piece? Yep. So like the Benedict pit, right? How would not, you know, I know we can't use individuals specifically, but
because that is within that district, how would that limit that? So one of the reasons why I wanted to remove expansion of existing aggregate mining operations um is because with something like the Benedict
pit, they would essentially have to stop. they couldn't expand anymore. Um there is case law out there that's specifically for aggregate extraction that has ruled that you that's you cannot do that
essentially cannot limit cannot limit cannot existing gravel operations that are pre-ordinance um we they would have to they would be able to continue to expand only to the property lines. they wouldn't be able to expand to a new new property or anything
like that, but we wouldn't be able to limit that. So, essentially, this has been in our code for a number of years and it's just never been enforced because it's not enforceable. Isn't um don't we also have some requirements though about um in the
case of the Benedict pit is just as an example, isn't there a isn't there like a levy around it? Yes. And that and that's part of the whole process of keeping contamination from entering, right? Yep. Correct. Yep. And that part
that part um we do have the ability to require that uh for that one in particular because there was on part of that pit for an expansion pre um adoption of the wellhead protection, there was a conditional use permit um
that that did require that. Yes. Okay. Yep. So, if they wanted to expand in that area, um they could they could they could do that, but there might be that requirement that they could do it under their
existing Yeah. conditional use permit essentially. Yeah. Which would still have the burn. Yeah. Yeah. Yep. Okay. And then um also just adding just based on on these two um specifically the um hazardous materials and
underground storage tanks just adding a a a definition for hazardous materials. Um and this is a basically a very broad definition because um OSHA, the EPA um they all have different
definitions. Department of Transportation of Hazardous Materials. This is this one is used by um what's called the Haz whopper. The um it's a group that does like um hazardous materials um spill training. Um they produce these
um chemical safety data sheets and things like that. Um so it is a accepted um probably the best definition that we have for for hazardous materials. Just adding that in there to the definitions.
Any questions on the definitions of hazardous materials? Right. So, Mr. Chair, with these just these um proposed revisions based on the comments, I would just recommend that that we just include them as part of
this. Okay. So you said to include them, but in earlier on in item number two here of the um page regarding commercial uses connected to utilities um with the exception of that
we currently have we currently have if such systems are needed you want to keep that language. Correct. And there's been a recommendation to remove it. There's been a com there's been a comment to remove it. A comment to remove it. Yes. Yeah. Yep. and I would recommend that we keep it. Okay. So, so all of these
things that are being changed, you're good with all of them with the exception of that one. Correct. Okay. Just wanted to clarify. Yep. Correct. So, on this handout here, these would be the changes you'd be recommending in Correct. Yep. Keeping everything else the same.
Keeping everything else the same. Yep. Mr. Chair. Yes. Commissioner, I just want to go back to six quick. The bulk storage of hazardous materials. curious. Um, you know, understand there are some residences in that overlay district. Um,
if someone has more than one propane tank, propane is hazardous material. Would that affect them? No. So, when you talk bulk, it's more than what? That's my question. What do you call bulk? What's bulk?
Is that a thousand gallons or is that bulk would be essentially where you have a a grouping of several um containers that are large and it's your purpose is not it's not an accessory
use. It's a principal use. You're storing chemicals. You're having trucks come fill up on those on those chemicals or gas or what patrol propane or whatever it might be. um and then um distributing it to or transporting it to another location. Have Have we gone up
and down that district and counted how many of these are already on top of this? I have not. No. No. I mean, a lot of farmers have 20,000galon bulk tanks that they bring semis in to fill road diesel or farm diesel.
What's that? That just be one tank or mult It'd be two different tanks. I mean, so they can take a semi-load of fuel in and then disperse that out to their equipment when they're working. I think that the intention of this is
more for like um non- egg uses and that could be clarified. I mean, I I think it should before we make a recommendation on that one at least. Or airplane fuel. I mean, yeah, airplane. I mean, there's Yeah, you knew I was going to say that. I always say
it, but I mean the Morhead airport has airpl. So for like a hazardous material, I don't think petroleum would would fall under that definition. But propane I mean propane is Yeah. I mean propane is
also people have you know a semi-load propane tank sometimes sitting in their yard to Sure. And if if it's if it can't there be an exception for egg per egg uses? Yes. Yep.
I mean, those people have to be able to operate. They, you know, and they they require they require that product for Yeah. And I think we need to be thinking of the future here because farms are getting bigger. You know, the farm techniques
are becoming different and again trying to abide by best practices. I get that. But at the same time if um I just think grain drying all the all the above some of those things are getting larger and I
would call them clearly egg not commercial it's egg business of course so I don't know if we need a clear definition of that or have a understanding of that but u Mr. Mr. Chair and Commissioners, would this be
acceptable? What are we looking at? Um, non-aggricultural. How does how's that affect the Morhead airport? That just being in the city of Morehead. Um, it would not be it wouldn't affect
it at all, but it's within the district. It's it is not within the wellhead protection zoning district because it's in the city. So if if there's a crop duster that has
planes on this district, they could classify egg if they have a airplane fuel sitting note. That'd be agricultural. Yeah. And I don't think we do right now. The
one north of it, but that's off to the Yep. It's to the the west. West. Yeah. West. All right. I I I I just I I think you can safely store hazardous material if it's done
properly. That's my concern. If we're trying to believe above ground, I think you safely store hazardous material. It doesn't matter what the size of it is. I don't know if we even need but but I
think but I think you need to pay attention to what the purpose is. You know, if the purpose of them is, you know, is for egg, I think that's that's something that we need. But what what if somebody wants to do something that's non-ag that's new? Yeah, that's that's
why I think you can safely store that above ground. And and Mr. chair and and uh Commissioner Bear, I think really of all the when the wellhead protection district was created, I think the
hazardous material storage and the underground storage tanks were kind of the two biggest things. Um I get the underground for that district that that I get because that you don't know if that's if it's leaking or not.
Yep. Yep. Nowadays with double line tanks and moes around your tanks, you can catch a leak very quickly of hazardous material that I think for for egg egg use. I think it's really to really the point I think
with bulk storage is um like a some sort of pipeline or petroleum distribution center or something like that. And that's kind of the intent there. But if you're if you're a an farm operation
um or a crop duster, I don't think the intent is to to basically with that yeah, the advancements in in safety as well. So, I'm I'm good. And those are with that change at Yeah. at at a certain size too, those these storage
tanks become regulated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as well. Um, essentially they don't require they don't um have a permit for them necessarily unless they're really really bit large. Um, but they do require just
um notification of where they're where they are and then just those um spill prevention um pieces as well. Matt, just going to number if we're done with that one, just going back to number
eight for a minute. So, I I thought you had I thought you had mentioned something that that we're not allowed to um prevent somebody from expanding a mining operation.
Um yeah, if it's with within it's basically just a series of of case law um as that goes back to I think the 1950s um that essentially says that but that's just limited to to within a certain property or property lines. Um this this
would essentially cover kind of the argument that you could make that a mining operation could make if they wanted to expand to a new different property or something like that. That would cover that would cover. So as long as they stay within their current boundaries, that expansion can
occur. Yep. Yep. That's and that's acceptable. Yep. Within that language. Yep. It has been for since 2005. So Mhm. Yep. Provided that there's the conditional uses that are put on it. Yep.
Right. So do you want us to make a motion on this? Well, let's Well, we we're well, we got Yeah, we got to wait till we close the hearing before we do any motions anyway. But I think we need to finish going through this and then um allow the public to comment and Sure.
So, and Matt, do you have more you want to go through or you Yes. Yep. Um just another thing with the uh resource protection biological district. Um there are residential properties that are lots
of record. um that are within entirely within this district um where there's a you need to be there's a setback for residences from biologically significant areas um which is kind of difficult to
um actually maintain. Um so the we did add some flexibility there for those properties. Uh the urban expansion district, so that's our tier one and tier 2 did go through this pretty extensively with the cities of Morehead
and Dworth. Um we there were some um uh references to urban overlay plats which is not a a thing. It's not a definition anywhere. So we got rid of those. Um, and then there was some inconsistencies with septic use and some
different standards there. Um, and what was allowed and and what was not allowed for new lots for existing um lots of record. Um, if you need to replace your septic, obviously that's this would just be for for new lots as well. Uh, and then for our landing field
district, um, we do have the joint airport zoning ordinances with the cities of uh, Morehead and Holly. Uh Barnesville is still part of the uh we don't have a joint airport zoning ordinance with them yet. So they're kind of still covered under our county
zoning. Um so what we did with the here is we just added some references to those joint airport zoning ordinances and kept everything else the same. Uh just briefly. So back to Barnesville with that. Is there some point that they
would want to have their own ordinance rather than the county? I that I am not entirely sure of. I think it might have to do with if there's any planned expansions of the airport in the future, then they would probably want to have a joint ordinance.
Um what the what our landing field ordinance does is it's just regulating the land use around the airport that's within the county and not within the the city. Okay. So we did uh for chapter 8 uh use regulations. This is probably the
chapter that um gets the most use and had the most attention. Um, we did make some significant updates to the use table, just modernizing uses, allowing for more com compatible commercial and industrial uses, um, as well as accessory dwelling unit uses. Uh, adding
the provision that if you have an accessory use, typically you would need a principal use on that property, too. Um, but could be converted to a principal use by conditional use permit. did make some changes to animal feed lot regulations to better align with just
the Minnesota feed lot rules. Um defining animal feed lots as 10 plus uh animal units. Also just adding some more information about setbacks from wells and septics and all that other things. Um agro tourism added that as a new use. Um added temporary um agricultural
employee housing as a new use. We did add some general requirements for commercial industrial uses, mainly site plan requirements. Um updated our wind and solar energy system regulations to match them um better match the model wind and solar ordinances. Um so there
are a lot more kind of that's this is an area where the technology is changing constantly. Um so being the most up-to-date as possible uh is really important. Um, and I know that we'll probably, this is one we'll be changing in the future. I know Minnesota's
working on a battery storage um, model ordinance right now that should be ready in the next couple years and then that would I would like to include that in in the future. Um, we did add accessory dwelling units as a buy use. Um, did update our home occupation standards.
Uh, did update regulations for farm animals on residential lots. Uh right now you have to have two acres to have a chicken. Um whereas you could live in uh Morehead and have six six. So 12. Yeah,
exactly. So just uh up updated that. Um did get a comment uh about or have had a couple comments actually about roosters if the Klay County would ever ban roosters. Um, I didn't think that that
would be Just wanted to get your take on that. You got to identify a rooster first. Yeah. R roosters in dense residential neighborhoods or denser residential neighborhoods. Um, like
[Laughter] what that's I will say that's tricky. So if you raise meat birds, would that then exempt you from raising rooster meat birds that are butchered in? No, you got toidents. Yeah. Are you going to identify that a rooster when it's a meat bird? Yeah, that would I just thought
that would be kind of tricky as well. Okay. Enforceable wouldn't be enforced. And then outdoor vehicle storage limits just increasing that modestly from two to four. Um we have gone through this uh on on
that increase from two to four on storage. Do they still have to be licensed and operable? If they're licensed, road roadw worthy and insured. Um there's no limit. This would be for the inoperable ones and you can't store parts. Um, I've actually talked to we've
had a number of counties in our um Minnesota Association of CL County Planning and Zoning Administrators District. Um, a lot of counties have just essentially stopped enforcing junk vehicle ordinances. Uh, one of the main reasons for why they've stopped is
because um, it's really hard to do and it takes up a lot of time and there's some new newer legislation that you can't just bring a junk vehicle to a scrapard now without a title. And so some people are have lots of cars
without titles and bringing them to a scrapyard is impossible. You got to get them crushed essentially. Yeah. So, Matt, um, for lack of better words, I'm going to call it road art. I'm noticing along I94 more and more
smaller things. We have one in Clay County. And um uh and of course I there's part of me that thinks it's really cool and yet at the same time I want to make sure it's consistent to
other people that have junk cars. Part them in one place and how do you define between what's junk and what's art and you know what I mean. I do. So let's go on 94. Yep. one, you
know, and I think it's really cool what he's done over the years. I go further out of our county. And I mean, I'm definitely seeing more around the um sock center area and what used to be
one, now I see three or four. And I'm just kind of asking how would we look at that in Lake County? Um right now just appreciating it the artistic endeavor. Okay. Um but yeah,
that's one too that's been around for a long long time. Um and yeah, kind of hard to it's a tricky one. Well, and I don't uh personally I don't know that I want to limit that idea. Yeah. I I think
there's something about tourism that's popular. you know, art's art, but h how do we or don't we concern ourselves with that until we have a problem with that? I think it would be more if you're looking at like something that's the the
proliferation of um like an automobile junkyard or a scrapyard. Um and I think that that distinction can be made pretty clearly. Yeah. Yeah. So, not being critical, I'm being open.
All right, we got four more to get through here. Yes. So I'll just you know our table has I just want to highlight that our use table has expanded um just to include more uses
um and trying trying to it's can't be um all-encompassing I think but we're trying to to to hit some of the main one main common uses that we see um that that are coming into into the county um
as well as some up and cominging ones as Well, and so um next chapter 8 n just basic development standards. So one thing that's new here is creating a comprehensive density lot standards setback requirements table
for like your one-stop shop for that. Um setbacks remaining the same. They've been the setbacks from roads for example have been the same since 19 uh 65. They have not changed. Um, one one um potential change or one change would
be changing the egg service center zoning district set road set back from 90 to 125. That'd be through like a rusted or a downer or a roll log. Um, just bringing those setbacks, making them a little less restrictive just because some of the lot sizes again are
so small and typically the speed limits in those are about 30 miles per hour. So, um, so with that too, um, they kind of have more of a I guess setbacks would
better match like our our subdivision. Yep. And so that's what this table looks like. Um, chapters 10, chapter 10 is our subdivision regulations. We just updated for consistency with uh MN statutes 505
which is the subdivisions and then 515 which is common interest communities and then just expanding our we right now require township approval for new roads. Um each township has to sign off on the plat. So um township approval being
required for subdivisions. There's also um state statute that says if your township has a planning and zoning planning commission, they have to approve it anyway. Um and then administration and procedures. This one was probably one of the most complicated and difficult
chapters to work through. Um what we did here is just clarification of all the roles and duties of the zoning administrator, board of commissioners, board of adjustment, planning commission. Um the process for conditional use permit, interim use permits, variance process and standards
for review of those. Um with example conditional interim use permit um if you've ever watched a planning commission me read meeting reading there's lots of review criteria right now I think we've reduced that by like six so there's only eight now um and then just administrative use permits and
development permits as well. Um there's also been some clarification on the appeals process for county decisions. Um with conditional use permits and interim use permit appeals um as opposed to going to the to the board, they'd be
appealed just to either district court or the appellet appeals court of appeals. Um that's just more in line with um counties who assign their planning commission the role of granting those permits. um that's the process they
follow. If you're a county that has the planning commission as a recommending body and then the use permits go to the the board, um they would follow a different that different process. And then we did added a section for environmental review. We had an old
environmental review section in our 2001 code um and just updated that to make sure that that was up to date and put that in our development code as well. And then updated our violations, penalties, and enforcement section. We didn't put anything. We we started out
putting some specific um procedures and policies for enforcement in terms of penalties and and things like that. and we had an outside attorney review this entire chapter as well as our subdivision chapter and she said no don't do that um
keep it what you want to do is set up a framework um so that um you as a board can adopt policies an enforcement policy or or an administrative penalties and procedures policy. Uh and then other than that um
we've just really made sure uh to expand our rules and definitions. So the definitions contained within the ordinance u making sure that that is as comprehensive and upto-date as possible. So with that I will yield for any questions. All right. Any additional
questions from the board? Right. We'll move on to public. Any public comment? Anybody care to comment? if you want to come to the podium and state your name. And
well, my name is Scott Manthy and uh by county resident and I have land um and other buildings and things in the within the county. Most of my most of all my real estate properties are within Klay
County to be honest with you. Um, and uh, just looking at when I I had one piece of property that I bought with the intent to eventually develop it and uh, subdivided
into houses. Uh, bought it because it was close to Tar Road and three-phase power. Couple requirements to that are needed to do a subdivision. It's right next to current subdivision as well. And uh when I stopped into the office um
there's discussion that the number of units for subdivision was being limited from 16 per quarter to eight per quarter. Um, but upon further review, I with Matt, I uh found out that there's
other opportunities if you have a large enough piece of land to dedicate and make make more uh units on that on those larger pieces of land. And I just think it's important in general when you're looking at
subdivision um that you kind of let the economics and environment drive the value of that. Um cuz I think when we looked at the 2012
comprehensive plan for the county, it talked about rural growth being needed and it wasn't there. And uh the properties I've purchased I've looked at and considered both the economic a value and the the
subdivision value. And so whether it be me or my children down the road, if the subdivision value becomes significantly greater than the U egg value, that that'd be able to be
recognized and used and not hindered on that side of things where it makes sense. and uh and then also one of the properties is adjacent to the city of Morehead and uh you know looking at
trying to be proactive and helping the communities within your the county grow, not try and hinder that. and uh really kind of agreed with the comprehensive plan back in 2012 where myself and my
children, we look for properties that have more size because we're from an egg background. I currently farm, grew up a farm kid, but do like neighbors and the the camaraderie and social that that
environment that that adds. uh my kids want a large property outside of a community and but yet another separate community within that. And so to me, I think we really got to watch so we don't
put too many restrictions on because I think the more you restrict the number of units that can be done or increase the land size per lot with the land values being up and increasing the land size from an acre to
an acre and a half, all of a sudden the costs go up for our next generations. I know my my children, you know, if they look at the lots that are currently available around the Holly area, I mean, they're up significantly, but part of it
is because they're larger lots, more land, more underlying value within that creates a higher price tag and it almost pushes them out from being able to afford some of those things. And um so I I will hope that we're conscious of
those things as we're looking at the ordinances. Well, I appreciate your comment. I I want to go back. I I was heavily involved with that 2012 major u modification. One of the one of the issues that was really concerning to a lot of people in rural areas was the
inability to be able to uh expand residential properties. And I'm going to I'm going to give you a good example of of today's day and age. Commissioner Mojo has four kids and her four kids will probably go up and they'll go to college. But you know what? But you know
what they'll never do is they'll never lose that rural character that they grew up in. And it seems they always wanted to come back to that. And it, you know, back before 2012, we had that happening
in Klay County. We had we had kids who grew up one way and thought, "Okay, we're going to challenge the world." And all of a sudden, they realize, "Boy, you know what? I really like the way I grew up and that's where I want to be. that's where I want to make my home. And so we
did expand that um for that purpose because what we were finding out then is these kids that Commissioner Mo might be a perfect example of if she couldn't if she couldn't get in a rural area here, she'd go across the river or they'd go across the river and get something
because they could do it there. But there's nothing more important that the Klay County needs to be always thinking about is our homegrown kids and where they might want to come back to and and settle their roots. One of the one
of the things things that we do also have to be somewhat careful of though is you know that we don't do too much um jumping of developments that when the current infrastructure can't handle it. And when I say that, I'm
talking about the ability to have have good water and and the ability to have septic systems that and and those do have an impact on what sizes properties need to be to be able to adequately do those. You can't I you know, and I speak
from an experience in in Oakport Township where we had developments that were put on halfacre lots and the septic systems couldn't handle it. We had I lived in a development with 80 some homes and I' I'd go in my backyard and to mow my lawn and I'd
be I'd be on a wave because the ground was just saturated. So So you know, so there's things that we have to always be able to protect too in that regard. But I do appreciate your comments on it and I do think we need to be able to understand
that there's a um there's a significant interest in our own raised families in coming back to rural Klay County. Correct. Paul, if you don't mind, just a
question. Is there something that's occurring that's really in this that's really bothered you specific to me in general just the decrease in the numbers of of units per quarter you know I think there's areas where it
makes sense to have houses you have houses where you already have houses you have houses where there's a tar road there's power I mean those are basic tenants that you need you need fiber optic you need all those things and so to me it doesn't makes sense to go out
in the boonies middle of nowhere down a narrow dirt trail and have a 80 unit subdivision, you know, but to me if you're on a tar road, you're on a three-phase power, you've got highspeed internet right there, those all basic tenants that you need right now, the
septic systems can be adjusted with the new style mound systems. I mean, compared to what they did in the old days, you dug a trench, you put some rock in there, and that was your septic system. Now you spend instead of $6,000 to put in a system, you spend $20,000 because you're hauling in most of your
your drainage bed on top of the existing soil you already have. So, I mean, there's been significant changes in the last 20 years that allow a higher density and uh andor the ability, not the density, but just the ability to do
it in a in a different soil type. And so letting the letting the economics worry about the protection of farmland versus development land, the economics will determine that. And but I I do think
restricting the size of the lots to be bigger ends up creating higher costs for all our next generation to come in because there's less desire to do it. Because if you have to take out a $9,000 piece of land to to do it, 1 acre is
9,000. Now you're at uh you know 9* 1.5, you're 135. So now all of a sudden there's less desire to do a split because you have more you don't have as much incentive or potential. But and so that really kind of is what I'm looking
at and considering. and and not just for myself, but for my kids, cuz I have a 25-year-old, a 21-year-old, and a 19-year-old, and they all want to be in Klay County. And uh I want to try and give them opportunity to be there as well as other others as well, you know,
not just I mean, if you look at the subdivision that was just done a few years ago up on number nine there, I don't remember the name of it, but um around Borgans's there, and I mean, that's going to be beautiful. They're starting to build and fill it fill it out. It's going to be a beautiful place
to raise a family, you know, and uh so to me, I I caution the balance there. Thank you. I have one question for Matt. Yeah. For for the lot size, minimum lot size. We did bring that down, right? I
mean, that used to be a two acres. So, Mr. Chair and Commissioner Bear, it is an acre and a half, but if you're going to do an egg or a natural resource subdivision, we did bring it down to an acre. And with the density bonuses and things like that, you could get well over the
16 that we currently have. Thank you. Any other comments? Public service. Sure. Come on up. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, my name is Mark Pritchard. I'm the water plant manager for Morhead Public Service. I wanted to say thank you to the
commission for considering our comments that we had submitted. I thought there was good discussion uh through different uh viewpoints for how to make sure that for example a industries and farmers uh continue unimpeded in the work that they need to do to keep their their operations running. So I thought that
was good discussion this morning. Uh wanted to say a quick thank you to uh planning director Jacobson for bringing our comments to the meeting this morning and I think that with the discussion about the definitions to be added and a few other things. Um I think that uh this will really help Morehead public service continue on with their wellhead
protection plan. So I think that uh the the items that we discussed I think they're all reasonable. I think that with some definitions to be added we'll be in good shape. So thank you very much for your time this morning. Yeah. and you know and obviously you know we take interest in in protecting our aquifers
as well. I I um I think really the only the only thing that probably is being left out of your recommendation is that one very small little um if such if such systems are needed language. I think um our planning director said that should
stay in, but other than that, I think uh and and then the proposed changes on the was it the hazard m or underground tanks? Hazard materials. Hazardous materials. Hazardous materials. Yep. And I I think I think we should have your concerns covered. I
believe so. Yes. And I do also believe that the if such systems are needed is reasonable to leave out. it does provide for things like cold storage items that were discussed to be able to have a use out there which is important too. So, uh for the hazardous materials items, uh one thing to keep in mind too, just as a
a general note, is uh from MPS's perspective, things like industrial solvents could be a good thing to add to that list, not just petroleum based items. So, cleaning items are a lot of times fairly toxic to water from a perspective of clarity and quality. So
that's one thing to keep in mind from the hazardous materials, not to try to limit it to petroleum based products per se, but it could be industrial solvents or cleaning materials or or things like that. So those are really the the only other items that I had come to mind. But otherwise, thank you again for the
discussion this morning. Great. Thank you. Any other comments? Any other comments? Did we have this open online, Steve, for comments? Uh, Mr. Chair, people would have the would have had the ability to uh be
online, but no one needed to ask. Right. All right. Seeing no other comments, is there a motion to close the hearing? So moved. Second. Motion by Commissioner Ebinger, second by Commissioner Kabnoff to close the hearing. Any further
discussion on the motion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. I oppose. Same sign. Motion carried. And Matt, are you looking for
um a final decision on this board today? Is that what you're hopeful of? So, Mr. Chair, I know that when we had our our work working group meeting, you had expressed a desire to have potentially two meetings about this. Um do want to keep that option on on on the table for
you. But in the event that that you feel like feel comfortable with um with where we're at with the ordinance also on to to give you the opportunity as well um today if you were to to make a final decision uh on adoption. Well, I you know I and again I
I think early on the idea was is to just judging based on the amount of um people interested or having comments on where we're at with the language as it's been uh posted. Uh, we've had an
we've been doing this for two years and I guess I guess I'm comfortable I is the only change that we're looking at is the modifications that Matt
presented today is that or just that language the non agriculture and that and that's it other than that You know, I I guess if that's if that's the case, I don't, you know, I don't think we're required to have additional hearings.
[Music] Um, I think there are still things this still allows for certain things. The planning commission still has the abilities to do things that they have always done in terms of conditional use abilities and those types of things. We're not nothing of that nature has
been taken away. Um, I want to take this time to um, thank all the people that were involved over the last two years. We had we had council members from v various councils throughout the city. We've had representation from uh, multiple
citizens from all over Klay County that have been involved with this. uh the planning commission uh has painstakingly gone through this process and in dealing with this o over uh quite some time and I think it's of
their opinion that the draft that was presented today um even without the little final decisions being made today to modify uh the planning commission was kind of in agreement that
the the ordinance is good as written. Unless unless the board unless the board has um additional thoughts on having more meetings on this, I I'd be open to
um action today. Commissioner, I have just one comment. When I was the on the planning and zoning committee, we did have public hearings every month on this. So, I think we've had plenty of public hearings. I don't think we need to drag
this out any longer. I think we can make a decision today on it. I'm just waiting for your All right. Then I'll then I'll make a motion to adopt ordinance 2025-5, amendment of the Klay County Land Development Ordinance, zoning and subdivision
regulations with these four add-ons and with the def definition of hazardous materials. And this would be section what? 8- six uh title 8 to be codified as
title 8. Okay. All right. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second by Commissioner Ebinger and further discussion. Just clarification. Yep. So I want under hazardous materials though I want that I'd like that word nonaggricultural.
Yes. To be added with that to be added. What Matt had on the screen not on our paper. All right. Are we all under the same understanding of the the modifications made today to the presentation? Right. Any further discussion? Ju just
to remind everybody once we approve this it is old and it will be changed. So always subject to change. Always subject to change. It is. We do have the capacity now that's online to where that's a much simpler process than it
was before. Any further discussion? Commissioner um Mosho, excuse me. Thank you. I also uh Matt, thank you so much for the work on this. This really has been a process early on. We wanted to make sure that the public had ample opportunity to weigh in on this. We wanted to really be
responsive to the issues that we're seeing in the community, certainly not only with jur other jurisdictions, but with residents as well. I I also want to comment that I think our planning department has been as flexible as possible when you are when proposals
come forward um in regards to the subdivision piece. Uh I I take those wholeheartedly. I think it's really important to allow for um folks to live in our community that not only want to live in the city but also want to live in a a rural area. So, um, making sure
that we're responsive to what the the questions and comments and concerns there are, too. Uh, buying and owning property is expensive, and sometimes having a smaller, uh, subdivision lots available make it more feasible for folks to buy in. Obviously, there's
larger opportunities, too. But um hopeful that we can continue the nature of collaboriveness that um really has you've kind of lived by and and uh when issues come forward, we're quick to to edit that because there will be issues
as Commissioner Bar uh identified that will um make us need to look at something and maybe amend something. But really happy with the work and the product that we have today. So I'm happy to support it. I I my final comment, you know, again, it's
um the modifications I think that were done in 2012, I think really uh represented important changes that were needed for families in Klay County who want to live in in rural areas. I think that was established. What we did today is we've cleaned that up a little bit.
You know, maybe changing lot sizes and some of those types of things. But um um we also got to remember um Klay County is an agricultural county and the the farmland agricultural land that we have
in Klay County is very very precious and valuable and uh we we can't lose sight of that that uh that is that is still uh the primary engine that drives Klay County and and having eggling then we
know we when You talk about when you talk about a development, you might have a development that wants to pop up, but you might have all the farmers all around there saying, "I don't really like this and I was here first, you know." So you so you have you you do have to you still have to weigh all of
those things that that where you have to treat the people who were there first with some sort of, you know, respect. And um and I and I I think our ordinance tries to do that. So, all right. Any further discussion? Uh,
roll call vote, please. Sarah, you're on the spot. Commissioner Kenoff, yes. Commissioner Mojo, hi. Commissioner Campbell, yes. Commissioner Bear, I. Commissioner Ebinger, I. Yeah. Motion carries unanimous, please. Thank you for your work on this, Matt. I really
appreciate it. And thank you to everybody else. And send a message back to the planning commission. Thank you for a job well done. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, thank you commissioners. Thank you for all your support in this process. Um, really appreciate it. Could not have done it with without your your
support and backing. Um, also want to just thank the study review committee for their hard work um in making sure getting this this draft through uh the process. And then uh Rita and Erica uh from our uh uh planning department as well. I really want to thank Erica. um
she put a lot of very critical second eye uh and had a lot of very thoughtful uh of suggestions and and revisions and and input on on this. So I really really appreciate all of her hard work. And then of course the the guy who was the primary author of it, uh Dave Sweeney
from SRF, just want to thank him for his his work, his his team as well. Yes. Yeah, they did a very nice job in helping coordinate it all. Very nice. Absolutely. So thank you. All right. All right. Thank you. Yes. Uh anything else? Uh
okay. All right. That concludes our meeting. So we are journed. Part: 2
All right, good morning everybody. It's 8:30. We'll call this morning's meeting of the Klay County Board of Commissioners to order for Tuesday, June 3rd. Our first item will be the approval of the agenda. I'll make a motion to approve the agenda. Second. A motion by Commissioner
Bear, second by Commissioner Gamber. Any further discussion on the motion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. I. Oppose the same sign. Motion carried. Next, we have an employee
recognition. Gregory. Gregory. Hey, Greg. Good morning. This is um and grateful recognition for your 15 years of dedicated service to Klay County. Yes, that's and then uh Jill Kir. So
Steve is going to talk you up a little. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh as mentioned, these were some words that Jill put together here. Greg's commitment on working is working with integrity, professional professionalism, and has made a significant contribution to our department. He puts people first, finds
solutions, and shows up every day with a purpose. We appreciate your willingness to go above and beyond, especially during the challenging months of the assessment calendar. Your dedication to Klay County is truly appreciated. And for me, you make a mean chili. So, thank you. Thank you for your all your hard
work. Thank you. Citizens to be heard. Do we have any citizens to be heard this morning on items not on the agenda? Any citizens to be heard? All right. Anything online, Steve? Nothing, Mr. Chair. All right. We'll then move into approval of
payments of bills and vouchers. Move to approve. Second. We have a motion by Commissioner Kabanov, second by Commissioner Bayer. Any further discussion on the motion? Any further
discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I I oppose the same sign. Motion carried. Approval of minutes from May 20th. I'll offer approval to of the minutes. Second. We have a motion by Commissioner Mojo,
second by Commissioner Ebinger. Any further discussion on the motion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Oppose the same sign. Motion
carried. All right. Then we have the uh we'll move into the direction on submitting the 2025 capital bonding funds. Steve, good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chair, commissioners. Uh, as this board
knows, uh, we've had, uh, several years now of of working closely, uh, with, uh, with the state legislature and looking for funding, uh, for both, uh, flood mitigation dollars, uh, money for our PRTF non-secure detention project, uh,
and also some work, uh, with, uh, our water district with Poke and Norman County. uh due to uh our engagement uh in in the request for funding, we missed the deadline uh for the Minnesota Management and Budget uh bonding tour
process. Uh that happens every two years. Uh and those applications are due uh by June 13th of this year with final edits edits due by October 17th. And so, uh, with that, I know that this board generally takes a look at its
legislative priorities, uh, in the fall. Uh, and having said that, um, we're looking here today for some direction. Uh, we have until again June 13th to fill out this documentation. We have done it in the past previously, uh, midcycle. Uh, but, uh, as this board has
talked in great detail, uh, when when the rubber meets the road, unless unless you've been on the bonding tour, it gets to be fairly challenging, uh, to to get get funding. And so, uh, with that, I would look for your, uh, your direction, uh, on how you would like to me to move
forward with, uh, with any potential, uh, bonding requests. I'm going to look to my right to start with here and see if Commissioner Mojo has anything to say. Thank you. I appreciate it. Uh, well, the our board
is, as noted, has been quite active in this and, uh, making sure that we get the documents in order to get on the tour. uh is one thing. You know, I I don't think it's any surprise what our priorities will continue to be with those three projects that you
highlighted. Um you know, we'll we'll make the applications and if for some reason the legislature comes through with a 1.2 billion bonding package this cycle, which they won't, but if they do, we can always change it. But, uh again, it's true. they're not going to come up
with money, but um uh then we can always, you know, withdraw those applications. I think what we were wanting to do is make sure we had a full board discussion on it. Not only um the flood uh mitigation piece, but the
nonsecure request. Uh, one thing that um, Commissioner Campbell and I have been part of dialogue with the city of Morehead in the chamber is in regards to how we we um, you know, summarize who's making the application for the flood mitigation piece, which which parts are
we making one joint ask in the past, which was the um, direction of the legislature. Now we're getting a direction to split those asks up, which we can certainly do, but I think that was part of what the dialogue needed to be here. Um, if we want to stay in the
vein of water or flood mitigation, we do need to figure out who's making the application on for the Buffalo Red projects, is it are we doing it on the MCCJPA? I think that's more of an internal dialogue in the next couple weeks. Uh, but just making sure this
board gives a nod what those priorities are. So, yes, go ahead. If I may grab an office, so if we did that uh that discussion you're waiting to have, can we still do that prior to this deadline on the 13th? Well, I think we could
probably do it do it now. I guess it that's that's part of what the dialogue needs to be. You know, I if I might, you know, the requirements for they've always had standing requirements for what local match needs to be for these
projects. And so that's been where there's kind of been a challenging gray area. Uh so if we are making one enormous ask 60.4 million as we are, Morehead's already made their overmatch for their part of it. And so we did have
funds identified for part of it, but as you know, they'll only matt fund up to 50% of the entire ask. So then it makes more sense to maybe have smaller asks that they can just start chipping away at projects. Uh that's kind of what the
trend of some of these larger watershed asks have been. Um so if you'd, you know, parcel down what the Klay County specific projects would be, that's what this application would be. Make sense?
Yeah. So, so certainly in our application, we we would want to include the um diversion funds. We'd want to include the PRTF slash um nonsecure
project. And we also would want to um I don't know that we're going to be an applicant, but somehow footnote the West Central Regional Water Project because that's a multi-county thing. And I think if I understand it correctly, I think last time that was submitted through
Norman County. That's correct. So that'll probably happen. But I, you know, so probably in terms of the formal request, probably not listed, but somehow we got to make sure that we support that
uh request. In terms of the diversion um diversion ask, you know, I I think that is something that came out of recently which is a little bit different than in the past and that is the fact that now they do want those things
sorted out by entity. Um, so Morid will continue to ask for their 16 million or whatever it is for their remaining work and Klay County will have to um I suppose a submission would have to
include the comtock work because that bid won't even be done till July 1st and this application needs to be done before that. So we would have to include that full amount into so you know because we haven't
received any funding but and in addition to that I do believe it's my understanding that the Buffalo Red Board uh did not want to be the ones asking the legislature for funds.
So, um, because it is outside the city limits of Morehead, we should include that as part of our ask because those are critical components beating the, uh, Wolverton project and and the Georgetown project. So, you know, so I think it's I
think it's critical that we would we would then include that in our application piece, which in a way it was last time because the total was 60.3 60.4 4 million 16 million was within the city of Morhead and the remainder was rural Klay County which
and that did include the Buffalo Red projects. But um I think whatever application that we do to get on the tour should include those. Our application should include the Buffalo Red River wershed district projects and
yeah and that was actually the purpose of my question how we would write that down and and the way you just described it. uh to me totally makes sense. Yeah. Well, that's you know and I and I it's hard to it's hard to ask for less
because there you know our commitment is to try to you know with this project winding down in time we're we're probably not going to have multi- bianiums to to get it funded. I was even thinking to even maybe get a even a more snippet of the money. One of the things
we've never asked for are land acquisition costs that are going on in Klay County. And land acquisition costs can also be part of a project, you know. So, I don't know if we, you know, when when right now they're saying that the maximum you're going to get is 50% of your
ask. And are we really asking for everything that we need and leaving out the land acquisitions? because there's still several million dollars in land acquisition still out there that need to be done. I don't know, Commissioner Mojo, what your thoughts are on that.
But but it seems to me that if they're going to give 50%, you know, 50% of higher numbers more money, you know, and then most they'll do is say no like they always do. Well, yeah, I I think what your comments
make sense. I agree with the comments. I do want to note that we can make final edits up to the middle of October. So you can always change that and and and rightfully and and even by the time but I I don't know if that's something
that we could reach out to um the lands committee on on the diversion authority and and try to see what remaining dollars are left on the that are anticipated for land acquisitions in Klay County.
uh we should get that number but as as we all know every month that the MCC JPA board meets you know we're approving more and more of those dollars so every month that to total number is going to go down so what we ask for in June by
the time the bonding cycle rolls around you know three/4ers that might already once it's paid for then we can't ask for it you know so but at least at least getting it in there and it it'll show know that there's significant dollars being spent on the Minnesota
side which I think is important for for the state to recognize as well. Mr. Chair, yes, Commissioner, just in in structuring this and this is a question probably for you and Steve Jenny's worked enough on this to
to where uh she's probably got a good idea too. Do we want to continue to include the $16 million ask for more ed? We will not. We will not. We the request has been for for the entities to do those separately. That's good. So,
Morehead will still be doing their $16 million ask and we will do our own for everything outside. Anything that's been that we've spent or that the diversion authority has spent on Minnesota projects in Clay County, can that be counted towards our 50% or is the ship
sailed on tech? Not not once it's been spent. I mean, we can remind them of, you know, because I think that we what we did tell them even in this last go around that there's that the diversion authority has already spent over $35 million on land acquisitions in Minnesota that's been paid for by
diversion authority dollars, you know. So, so when the state says they're only going to pay 50% of stuff, I think I think it was important for them to know that there's been a significant investment on the part of the diversion authority uh already in this.
Um, no. So, I think we I think we would keep those separate, but we also got to keep in mind that within within our agree JPA agreement, it's our responsibility to still support the city's
effort in in lobbying for their needs as well as lobbying for our own needs. So, you know, that's that's the way the language states in the JPA. So we want to make sure that we we follow that
um that agreement that we have with the diversion authority. So anything else that has going to Ebinger's point there? Should we add that 16 million in because it is part of Klay County? This I think I think the
discussion amongst the legislators and even the city the city intends to apply on their own 16 million. That's the that's the late and that that was the discussion we've had at our Friday morning meetings that we have with the chamber and I think that's that's been part part of
that is u Morhead has an overmatch that was uh secured uh through sewer fees. Is that what that was? No, that's not yours. Um but so they have an overmatch on their components. So they it was starting to get a little hairy in regards to how clearly that was
identified. Uh and making sure that they don't lose what that overmatch was. Uh and then also again we we are in lock step with them. We meet weekly if not two to three times a week with them and and how we we push these things forward.
And and the reality is however the legislature wants these things packaged is how the legislature wants them packaged. And that's why we were separate a couple years ago. That's why we we moved to a one bill. That's what they wanted. They want the all-in number
what that is. And now they saw what the all-in number was to finish it. They got scared and now they want it separate again. So, you know, we'll we'll do however we need to to get uh the request forward. Um and then too, um I think
with the watershed piece, we have to include the watershed as part of the ask because as an outside entity, we can't ask or submit a request for a project that's not even in Klay County's jurisdiction. That's why we have to have
the Buffalo Red as part of that for the Wolverton project specifically. Yeah. So, Steve, I I don't know. Maybe um I I I don't know that I don't think it would be in our best interest to be adding any additional things to our request because you if you start asking
too much and you get any of it. Um but I think those are those still remain our priorities. I think that I think that it's a concurrence on the board that those would be our priorities. um in you know in addition to I think you know we'll be supportive of
the West Central Regional Water and I I believe last year their ask was 9.9 million. I I'm not they'll probably even up that again a little bit for inflationary reasons for the next ask two but we won't have that on our application but we we need to be ready
to support that as well. And then Steve, I don't know if maybe because this has to be in by June 13th, I'm wondering on the diversion piece if you could just relist basically our same ask, but maybe include a land acing land acquisition
line item for us to and we can take a look at that on June 10th. Sure. Is that okay? And because that would give us time. Yeah. Maybe we could have a pre preliminary application ready with those numbers and then we'll have to see. I don't know how many millions are left in
land acquisition, but sure. Yeah, Mr. Chair, commissioners, in this past year, we reached out to Jacobs to get all all the updated information and so I'll coordinate with them and representatives from the diversion authority to get the most updated information and and yeah,
we might have to even update those numbers because those are those numbers were based on previous year's costs. So, so we might have to actually make some adjustments to those. There's a there's a new the state has put out a new a new process to apply uh for for the capital
or excuse me the MMB document funds. Uh and so there's a training session this afternoon uh that I'll be participating in to find out. Sounds like the layout's a little bit different than what it was in previous years, but hopefully it'll be very similar to the information that
we already have. Mr. Is there anything else um from your standpoint that we haven't covered here or are you uh No, I think I I if if it would be possible just to get a motion that you that this board supports both
submitting both for for the non-secured attention PRTF and flood mitigation funding would be appreciated. I move to approve that statement. All right. Second both those motion by Commissioner Kraov, second by Commissioner Mojo to include the flood
mitigation and the PRTF nonsecure juvenile center projects as our project priorities for bonding. Can I just have a comment? Yes. Thank you. I I just want to preface this. This these applications take a lot of staff
time and a lot of the work we scrambled to get done on very short notice during the session. And so Steve has really done a phenomenal job of getting all of that package together for application. And so I appreciate this board one for the continuation of it because we really
um we have all the data together. We but it will still take a a pretty good amount of time in the next week and a half for Steve to pull together. So thanks to you and the team. I know it's a team effort um for pulling all that together. Thank you. All right. So we have a motion and
a second. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. I. Oppose. The same sign. Car. Thanks, Steve. Thank you. All right. Next, we have our committee
reports in county administrative update discussions. Commissioner Mojo, would you care to start? Perfect. Uh last Tuesday I attended the Minnesota Rural Counties uh session update.
Um if that what did they did, Commissioner Bear, did they say that they were just living in purgatory at the capital? I think that's how they identified what the final couple weeks of session were. Uh it's it was it's really hard to get a pulse on what exactly is happening. Not all of the
work groups were meeting publicly. So it was kind of hard for uh to get a good recap on what is exactly happening there. Uh in regards to taxes, there were some good things and there were some not so good things. Uh it's sounding like the uh LGA CPA cuts um
have at least been reduced in the latest offer, but again um I'm not betting on what comes out of session. Uh the next day I tried to attend the Prairie Lakes uh solid waste meeting. Uh but Commissioner Campbell
can report on that. We had some technical difficulties. I didn't have technical difficulties. cuz I just wasn't included. I used the word we. Oh yeah. Uh then Friday again uh attended the flood mitigation update with the chamber and city of Morhead. Thanks to
you for your prior action uh just in moving those projects towards funding. Uh I know it's a huge team effort. So appreciate that. Yesterday I traveled to Wabasha County to attend one of the district meetings for AMC. I also
attended the metricog executive committee meeting. We did a a approved a request for travel
and just a brief update on the 2050 MTP and UPWP updates. Uh we did talk a little bit about um steps and uh grades. There's some compression issues going on over there.
So uh encourage the director to work with West Fargo who does their HR just to maybe identify some of those pieces. And then there was some discussion on the retirement IRA plan that currently
is offered. um wanting to maybe switch as West Fargo had done. So, uh Ben will be working with um West Fargo to bring forward any um ideas to see if we can uh streamline
that process. And then Friday or Saturday rather, I attended Breakfast on the Farm in Holly. It's just a really great opportunity. Uh, one, there's so many donors throughout the county and region that have donated to that, but really a great opportunity for all of
Klay County together. That concludes my reports. Thank you. Before I move on, I just want to um recognize Commissioner Mojo. She has put her name in the hat to run for AMC U office. Um, that's it's quite of a it's an awful lot of extra
work and I think I can speak on behalf of our board that we're proud of you for being able to put your name on the line for that job and you know that you'll bring an awful lot of important things and and certainly a critical message
from rural Minnesota um that also is very important. So, um, just want to congratulate you on on that and, uh, we'll be rooting for you and I think we get eight votes in December, so we better make sure all of our votes
are there. All right. All right. So, Ezra, do you want to go next, please? On the 27th, I also attended the M MRC online and it was an update on the legislature that working groups have been assigned and yeah, they're working
behind closed doors. Not much. Mrs. Mojo already reported on that. Not much is happening that we know about, but they claim a lot of bills are getting close to the finish line. We'll see what happens. If they call special session in the next week or week after that, we'll
find out. And then on the 28th, I attended the West Central Regional Regional Water District Board work session where we had workshops on how water access charges and reserve policy decisions and rate
design and estab establishments system for how to how to bill everybody that would buy water from the system, how to make it even and fair. And then on Monday, we had the West Regional Water District Board
meeting in Holstead where I did duck out early, but we had a update on what happened that previous Wednesday. And we also had a final surveys done, an update on the final surveys.
And the legislation legislative update was also the same as the MRC. Wait and see. And then last night I went to uh Georgetown's uh city hall meeting where we got
anou agreed to be signed with for the West Central Regional Water District for them to get on board with that district so they can be in the planning stages. And that is all my reports just rural water pretty much.
Thank you Commissioner Bear. Commissioner Abier. Thank you. Uh, last week on Tuesday the 27th, I attended the Red River Regional Dispatch Center Board of Authority meeting. Um, we passed a motion to
u pursue a contract with first due for records management system for the fire department or for the fire uh agencies within the dispatch center. Uh this would replace one uh that's currently under use uh uh from Tyler Technologies.
They're going out of business or they're going out of that line of business. They'll no longer support the software. Uh that did pass for uh them to go ahead and uh pursue the new system. Uh we are going to make some changes to our joint
powers agreement to allow uh gener uh gener generic excuse me hard word to say generic uh reference to these systems so that they can be replaced. We're not locked into language in our JPA to go
with one specific vendor. We'll just keep it open so that vendors could be changed without violating or having to change JPA. Uh also, uh Dave, that will that will have to come back to all board all boards to true that change. We'll be
bringing it in. It's not a thing that's going to impact on cost or anything else. It's just the the uh applicable use of JPA without having to bring it back in and change it every time. So, we'll get one that's that generalizes the the document.
Um, also passed a motion to uh replace uh U UPS batteries. There's been a mistake from the vendor and we're going to they've replaced the batteries that were not due for replacement and didn't replace the ones that were. Uh
long story short, they're going to discount that to where at the bottom line it all breaks even and they're going to replace the ones that need to be replaced. Uh also in the director report, we were told that they're going
to start a new um on ETH console within the dispatch center and that'll be manned from or staffed from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. every day. That's already in place. Yep. So, that's going to put
us in a position to where uh Klay County has more focused, the rural Klay County outside of Morehead has more focused attention from one of the operators in there, which is going to be beneficial to us. And the new dis or new
facility is on schedule to be open in October. There's going to be a uh a transition between the old facility which is going to be maintained by the triple RDC as a backup location. Uh but they'll be
transitioning with one console at a time into the new facility to make sure everything runs well and that we don't shut something down that we can't we aren't sure can be replaced. So, we're looking forward to that. Um, on Wednesday the 29th, I attended
the the uh CAPLP Clay County Council on Aging meeting. Uh, we're we have a new aging advocate, Flint Divine. We'll be starting there. uh she is bringing new ideas in and
she's going to work full-time at exploring ways to educate connect with seniors in our senior community. Had a rural uh route update as we know there's a bus system a bus that we uh partially
support out in the rural areas. It's getting a little more use. They've got new flyers in Spanish, Kurdish, and Somali uh that they can circulate as well. I think that's probably going to be useful particularly within the Morehead Dworth
area. Uh the new uh new system or the uh transport service uh for seniors from rural areas, the DMV detox center is starting and that's at 300 p.m. Um at this point there's free
transportation, I'm sorry, to the DMV and detox. Uh there'll be Walmart and Dworth every Monday except holidays from 8 am to 3A 3 pm. So that's uh in place at this point. And again, we're seeing
more use of that. I remember when they came forward with their funding renewal last time they were here, they said they were going to try and get more miles on the bus, and that seems to be happening. Uh the VA tax site update uh this year
during tax season services will be provided to seniors. Um it'll be at the Yum Pump Center on some days. They're also going to be at Serenity Assisted Living, Even Tide, Hog Estate, Sharp View, River Heights, and they're going
to coordinate a day in Holly uh to work with seniors at North Side Apartments. And that completes my report. All right. Thank you. Um, are the is the bid opening
done now? Yes. Okay. Could I show 9:05 or 3 minutes early? But all right, let's let's um suspend with our committee reports and let's get your bid openings. Uh, and what we have on our agenda is we
have bid opening for SAP 014599-106. Good morning, Justin. Good morning. So, yes, this is for the township bridge removal in Elmwood Township. This is one that we've been working on for quite a while. So, we're glad to get this one completed. Um, just as a note, being that this is a bridge
removal project, there is no cost to the township town bridge fund covered. Um, we did receive five bids on this project. The engineers estimate was $27,415. The first bid we received was
from Eminem Contractors LLC. Their bid was $262,5000. $262,5000. The next bid we received was from Comtock Construction Incorporated. Their bid was $233,4000. [Music]
$233,4000. The next bid was from Midwest Contracting LLC. Their bid was $218,433.15. $218,433.15. The next bid was from Gladen Construction Incorporated. Their bid was $192,15660.
$192,15660. And then the final bid we received was from Dennis Drews Incorporated. Their bid was $127,722. $127,722. That's uh quite a difference. Yeah. Um just as a note, I did talk to Dennis Drews during the bid process and it was
something he was comfortable fitting in this year and he did mention that a lot of contractors are looking for work. So, he did anticipate that this was going to be a very competitive bid. So, I don't have any We have worked with Dennis Drews in the past and
they've done really good work for us. So, I have no reservations in awarding the bid to them. And these funds all come from state bridge town bridge or down town bridge funds. Yeah. Yep. Okay. Yes, Commissioner Mayor. This is just a
removal of a bridge, not replacement of a bridge. Correct. removal and then also constructing a culde-sac at the end just for a turnaround for our plows and the school bus. With that, Mr. Chair, I'll make a
motion to approve Dennis Drews with low bid of $127,722 contingent upon no errors in the bids. I'll second the motion. Have a motion by Commissioner Bear, second by Commissioner Mojo. All in or excuse me, any further discussion on the motion? Commissioner Mojo. Well, I I think we've
opened a couple bids and it seems like for once something seems to be going quite favorable in regards to that. So hopeful that can prove true for the other projects that we have. Um, you know, it's probably too early to say if there's any additional funds left in
what we've got budgeted, if we could apply them to any of our smaller outlying projects. I know you're you're constantly thinking about that how we have if we have any additional pieces in that, but um, you know, hopefully it it proves true for the rest of the season.
It's a a sigh of relief because it's been kind of wild for a couple years. Definitely. So hopeful. Thank you. All right. And and I think maybe that's a that's a topic uh Commissioner Mojo raises that we can maybe put on a
highway tracking meeting to review what projects we've awarded and and Yep. because I think in most of those instances we've been under your estimates. Um so we can maybe look at what else we might be able to get done with those dollars. Any further
discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. I I oppose the same sign. Motion carried. Thank you, Justin. Thank you. All right, we'll go back to our committee reports. We'll finish up.
U Commissioner Kavanagh. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh so on Wednesday the 28th, I had a historical cultural society uh our monthly board meeting. Um business uh reports were given. uh the
main thing and most time is spent uh again replacing our uh executive director Marine uh Johnson who will be retiring in July. Anyway, we uh have been on this search for quite a few
months, over a hundred applications, got it down to 15, and at this morning we had our final three and we did uh take time on those resumes and they had our personal interviews and we came with one we made an offer with and I can't tell
you who that is yet today, but maybe next week. But uh it was uh we were well received in the number of people of quality people looking at this place to do this job. It's uh speaks to the
success of the museum. Uh that was the main part of that meeting. The next night we had our annual meeting and that was at the MCMPS 60 some people attended. Uh there again uh our meeting
was open short business meeting. I gave a year in treasuries board. Uh we did have nomination. We had new or excuse me some outgoing board members. Um John Hes, Jenna Kaylee, and Diane Ray Williams. Diane had been on for a long
time. Um and then we had nominations for new people coming in and uh uh nominated and elect and elected were u camidi um Amidi excuse me uh C uh from Morehead,
Kathy Misner from uh Holly, Mart Castan uh from Morehead, uh Jamon Cruz from Holly, and then um seeking his third and final term was Jim Stein who has been on for quite some time also. So, um, and
then to end that evening, we had the Klay County Heritage Award given to Carol Ingelhart. He's been a long-term professor, retired historian over at Concordia. He's wrote a couple books using the Klay County Archives in uh,
really intensely along with retired archavist Mark Peele. He wrote a couple books. uh one I'd mentioned before that he released uh what a year ago maybe about Randolph Probesfield family and that was a good one. Then he also did a
book uh which I had gotten maybe 10 years ago and that was about Fargo Morehead being the gateway to the railroad of the west and anyway so he did he spoke for oh gosh it was close to an hour 45 minutes and uh really
articulated his writings and his work. So, thank you to uh Carol for all that and to the um historical and cultural society for what they do. Um so that was Wednesday, Thursday, Friday I had uh
with the community a action partners LP uh we had an executive board meeting. Um, it was a deep dive into our association with the Minnesota Head Start Association and the value of that membership and uh uh nothing to report
any decision at at this time but um just looking at um our association with that and then how it works with our state board uh with CAPP. Um and that's my report. Thank you. All right. on uh
Wednesday the May 27th or excuse me, May 28th. Um I better start with the 27th. I did also attend the Red River Regional Dispatch Center. Commissioner Ebinger
has given a good report on that. I don't really have anything to add other than uh I would like to um get a message to all of our um local small city partners uh in the recent developments with
dispatch and the fact that they are now staffing eight councils from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. for a for quite some time that was a real concern. I think for a while there I think those the number of councils that have been uh fully staffed at one time might have been
five and you know and I think there were some concerns about um how quickly response times were to calls and certainly with these numbers those numbers should improve and I just think it would be good for us to send a
message out to them that that that is that's a a change to the positive that's recently been on that's the that I just you know I don't know Steve if you could maybe send something out to them on on behalf of
that um happening then on on the 28th on on my way to per P per PM for the solid waste meeting um I was on the phone with the west center regional water going through what commissioner bearer was
talking about and and trying to establish the um the process for u what it would cost for an individual to be part of that system and it's a it's a long process uh and I there's been a lot of really
really good work done on that and I think we'll we'll be able to give you a more in-depth report here in the near future. Then I would and then I would I did attend the Prairie Lakes meeting and I do apologize to Commissioner Mojo but
apparently the staffing people there didn't see that there were people in the waiting list to enter team. So so I and apologies uh to that regard and I they felt really bad about it after the fact. So and they in their defense they said
they didn't see anybody there. I think what had happened is there's two standing meetings and so all of us the five of us were in the other meeting. Oh, it's fine. Okay. Okay. And then so um and really everything else the report uh everything
went really well. When we go to ask for the director's report when they said there's nothing to report that means things are going good. Um, we did receive a um, ash processing video where ash is now being used on a
project. I've I've asked for those videos to be uh, shown at the next SWAC meeting. And um hopefully maybe the next time Corey comes to this board, we can see that too because it is pretty impressive that
um when you when you look at all the efforts that are done in terms of recycling to even try to find another use just for the ash that's used from burning the the waste going to our roads, that's a quite quite an
accomplishment. We did have a little bit of a discussion on open meeting laws. One of the things that we need need clarification on there's been some changes and I do know that for example all of our member counties uh on Prairie
Lake solid waste are all so district 4 for AMC and you know because we're all going to be that that we all meet um I think we forget to realize that maybe that needs to be posted even though even
though that AMC meeting is posted it's posted but it's not posted for the um Prairie Lakes board and so I asked that that that be done just be on the safe side. So then on on um yesterday uh we had two
meetings with West Central in the morning. Uh Commissioner Bear covered covered that. I want to report that uh Per Pearly, Neilville, Climax, Filton, Borup, and then as of last night, Georgetown have all signed on now as
communities interested in the service. Um I I'm not sure where Kragnus is going to go, if that's going to end up being part of that deal, if there's going to be future discussions with maybe that being extended from Morhead. You know, we'll have to have those conversations
with Morhead in the future and see what what area they want to um be able to serve in a rural capacity. Everything else uh is going well there. [Music] Um, we did pass an a memorandum of
understanding with East Central Regional Water. um moving forward and I think that we need that needed to be done because of the uh change in sizing of the scope of
the piping that would be done from that new dairy facility in on on the North Dakota side and then because they would have to they would have to upgrade that size pipe to handle our needs and so they wanted some sort of an MOU to that
regard. So, we did approve thatou and then last night I attended with Commissioner Bear. We attended the Georgetown meeting to talk to them more about and give them some updates and they had some questions and they they seem to be really interested in and u I
think they're looking forward to having a water supply in Georgetown like many others are. That concludes my report. Steve, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh last t last Tuesday I participated also in the rural Minnesota rural counties meeting that's
been uh well addressed. Uh that afternoon I met with Anna on a series of HR issues. Uh on the 28th participated in the water district financial policy meeting again just to reiterate the great work that Steven Slick and Lucas
Faith have been doing and in preparing uh preparing our uh board uh to make the necessary decisions. Uh on the 28th also met with Brian Melton on a series of county legal issues. I met with Anna again and Quinn uh on some
organizational chart thoughts uh from Quinn in social services. Uh that afternoon I met with uh with representatives from the city of Morehead and Dworth in regards to the White Earth Nation. uh we are going to
uh we put together a kind of the start of a framework for some things from a committee standpoint to talk about and we'll be having our first committee meeting next Tuesday or excuse me next Monday. Uh uh moving forward there. Uh yesterday I participated in the water district board that again has been well
covered. I also met with Kimberly um she's going to be coming to the board here within the coming weeks. you recall SE SE4 and five uh several years ago had just a slight shift uh and while that worked out great for uh great for the
diversion project that created some challenges for the recorders office and so um she has been working closely with AE2s and trying to clean up uh the legal descriptions and ultimately we'll have some affidavits uh for you uh to clear
up the plat so in the future when uh the partners that weren't here as part of the the planning process uh are gone that they'll be it'll be clear for for any sales into the future. Um just a couple just up updates uh on
the budgets. Transportation uh omnibus bill appears to have gone through reached out with to Justin uh and also to AMC from an impact standpoint. Um some of the things of the cuts that did are taking places over the next two
bianiums bianiums are going to limit uh have limited impact on Klay County programs. of course without if there's no bonding bill bridge bonds will certainly be impact impacted. Also talked with Quinn in regards to the human service budget agreement. Uh based
on what we know at this point, many of the uh cost shifts that this board fought uh fought against and brought forward to our local representatives and senators were not implemented in the in the agreement. There were several uh
that are in quint in the process of of processing that, but we're looking at tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands versus millions. So, uh a a good good piece there. And did just want to follow up that the the conversation from Commissioner Campbell earlier in Commissioner Mojo, I did speak with her
uh just from from a uh budgeting standpoint. Uh she did come to me earlier in this process. Uh there is some travel or quite a bit of travel that's going to come with this position uh should she be elected. Uh and uh for this for this uh period of time the funding for all the transportation is uh
is coming from Commissioner Mojo. There's no county dollars that are attached to that. So uh and that concludes my report. Thank you. Steve Darren back behind that podium. Yes, I'm I'm hiding back here.
Um, I'm going to start off with a public service announcement that uh we have uh two accounts with the Minnesota State Retirement System and the uh healthcare savings plan that the state runs and from June 14th to July 1st um they are
going to be transitioning their recordeping services from Empower Empower Retirement to Voya Financial. So during that time, uh, June 14th to July 1st, there's going to be a blackout period. So, um, just wanted to let everybody know that. I'm sure Anna will
will send out a more detailed notification to all the, uh, employees, but wanted to get that out there as well. Um, let's see. On, uh, 527, I went over the, uh, performance measurements program with Anna. She's going to be
coming bringing that to the board here this month. That has to be turned in by July 1st. That's an annual thing that I've usually brought to the board. Um, on the 28th, I had a meeting with the sheriff, chief, deputy, jail administration, and HR director on the,
uh, continuing Department of Labor investigation that we've been going on. Um, that's been kind of a pain, but, uh, we continue to provide them the information that they want. Uh, on the 28th, I also had a meeting with Anna
regarding some personnel issues. on the 29th and 30th was more uh work on the uh DO case and also uh working on some performance evaluations and then uh
yesterday working on uh some more performance evaluations and the uh a little bit on the uh 2026 budget. That's my report. Right. Thank you, Darren. Sarah Sarah, do you have anything for us? All right. All right. We will take a fivem minute break and then we'll come back for a public hearing on our land
development ordinance. I apologize we're running a little bit late but uh take five minutes All right. All right. We are back in session. Our next item is the public hearing for the Klay County Land Development Ordinance, Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Chair, I'll
make a motion to open the public hearing. Thank you. Second. Motion by Commissioner Mojo, second by Commissioner Bear. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. I oppose the same sign. Motion
carried. The public hearing is now open. Good morning, Matt. Welcome. Good morning, Mr. Chair and commissioners. So, after uh a little over two years of work on this, finally bringing this to the to the board for uh formal
consideration uh the Klay County Land Development Ordinance, zoning, and subdivision regulations. Uh so what I'm going to do uh this morning is just kind of walk through the purpose and intent of our development code uh or our development ordinance, give a little
history, and then um highlight some of the notable uh changes from um our previous uh uh or our current uh land development ordinance. So really the purpose and intent of of this land development ordinance is to
promote the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. Uh provide for adequate light, air and water, provide for safety from fire, flood and other dangers. Prevent undue concentration of population, preserve property values, preserve prime egg land, facilitate the provision of
adequate public facilities, and preserve and enhance the quality of surface and groundwater. Uh and continuing on from that, how how that works is to promote orderly aesthetic development in a logical sequence of development in unincorporate areas of the county. Klay County zoning regulations are intended
to reduce potential land use conflicts by separating or buffering incompatible land uses, thereby pro promoting public health, safety, and welfare and enhancing the county's tax base. Klay County finds that it is in the best interest of the public to provide for the wise subdivision use and development
of the lands of the county and the statute there is statutory authorization uh for zoning. Zoning is a is a um power that is given by the legislature through uh uh MN statutes 394. Um also 103F and
103G and then shoreland uh rule 6120. So for Klay County, um a little bit of zoning history. So in 1965, that is when uh the county decided that countywide zoning was needed and an ordinance was enacted. Uh this was
mainly done um just to with the rec recognition of the importance of agriculture to the county and preserving um the rural character of the county as well as um the prime farmland productive soils that we have are are blessed with
in in in Klay County. Uh in 1972 we enacted a shoreland zoning. uh shoreland rules were adopted in or shorland the shoreland management act was adopted in 1969 in Minnesota and then rules were developed for counties in 1970 and for
most counties in Minnesota. This was the first um taste of any kind of zoning um that they ever had for for counties. Uh and some till this day do not have countywide zoning. They only have um shoreland zoning in their counties and
that's required. Yes. And in 1974, we had our flood first flood plane regulations that were enacted. Uh in 1980, our zoning, subdivision, shoreline, and flood plane were kind of combined into one development code. Uh there was another
up major update in 1993. Uh in 2001, it was codified into the overall county code. Uh in 2005 there was another major update which established uh some new zoning districts and and different zoning map. And then in 2012 there was
another major update to flood plane regulations. Since then there have been other small amendments here and there that's pretty common. Um and you know you've seen a number of them here in the past few years as well. Um but 2012 was kind of the last big major one until
this 2025 update. Uh this commenced in April of 2023. Really the idea was um to follow up with the um the adoption of the 2045 Klay County comprehensive and transportation plan. Really the the
ordinance land development ordinance is the tool for imple tool for implementing that plan uh with regards to land use and and development. and also just to bring our code up to modern to modernize
in a bit uh to accommodate and account for some new development trends that are happening um and making sure that that that those are addressed. The planning commission held uh monthly public hearings well virtually for every meeting from July 2023 through uh April
of 2025. We did have an online public input survey which garnered some responses as well. And then in April 25 at their meeting, the planning commission did recommend the board for uh adoption. And so what I'd like to do now um is just go through some notable
updates to each of of the chapters. Uh please, if you have any questions for me, stop me along the way. Um and we'll just start with chapter 1. I think one of the big things with chapter one with chapter 8-1 in the
introductory provisions it defines what development is and what development isn't according to the county. Um one thing that um came up with in our study review committee that worked on this uh and then also in the planning commission is um some permit exemptions uh for
smaller accessory structures. So, if you are, you know, have a um a a shed that you got from home Home Depot or Menard's or something, you wouldn't and it was a certain square footage, you wouldn't need a a um a building permit for that. You'd still
need to meet the um all of our setbacks, but you wouldn't have to go through that that process. Uh we also um included what used to be a separate chapter um for non-conforming uses and structures. And one thing that our non-conforming uses and structures did
not have is these residential real estate exemptions for nonconformity nonconformities. And the main thing there being if you're uh if you have a residential property or a seasonal um residential property, recreational property, uh if something if a building
or c your lake cabin or something is destroyed completely, you can um actually rebuild it where where it stood exactly. You can replace it. We did not have that in our in our we don't have
that provision in our current code. So that's just for for those residential real estate. Stoping. What is the square footage for a small accessory structure? So we determined 144 square ft if it's on a
foundation and 400 square f feet if it's not on a foundation. Uh for our base districts, we have uh agricultural general, which covers the majority of our county. um agricultural service center which would be like our um roll logs and downers. Um
uh and then our highway commercial and limited highway commercial zoning districts. Um so in this chapter uh essentially clarifying residential density in the agricultural general districts as eight residential dwellings per quarter or two per quarter quarter.
um differentiating between the types of subdivisions, what a standard subdivision might be versus a cluster subdivision. Uh the main difference being there that a standard subdivision might be on an existing road um where a cluster subdivision would use an internal road. Um and then also we
replaced conditional use major subdivisions with agricultural natural resource subdivisions. And th those those numbers, Matt, haven't really changed much since 2012, right? Those have not. No. Nope. Uh and then in the egg service center
just uh there's a a 5% lot coverage limit for accessory structures. A lot of our um uh lots in like a downer or a rollog are smaller and that's kind of a difficult thing to accommodate uh especially for um if you can meet all
the setback requirements but not this um 5% lot coverage limit. And then also just clarifying about highway commercial and limited highway commercial zoning districts. Just citing on public rightaways or on adjacent uh that are
adjacent to a county or state roadway system. Uh in our flood ha our our chapter 8-3 covers our flood hazard districts. Um really what we did here was just a comprehensive update just to match um the most recent state flood
plane rules and the federal national uh flood insurance program regulations. Uh the state has really nice flood plane model ordinance and we just use that. Uh and also now we um this is the first instance of our uh development ordinance
including uh pictures. So, we do have some illustrations in there to make things a little bit easier. I always need an illustration. Yes. Is your mic on?
Uh in regard to the uh uh the flood ordinance or flood plane, does the state model uh differentiate much from the FEMA maps or I'm just asking mainly for reasons of
flood insurance be it private or or public. You know, I think the main thing that the state requires um is they for example this for their regulatory flood protection elevation is they require an
additional foot of of freeboard. Um so it would be your base flood elevation. Um you have to go a foot beyond whatever that is. Y so that difference would be more to meet our B building codes. Is
that more than it would? Yeah, it' be meet meet the states. Yep. And then also what's interesting or what's unique about the Red River Valley um is in most areas uh of the country you if you are in a flood plane you can't have a basement. Um in the Red River Valley
there is a residential basement exception. So that is also included in there as well. Yeah. Good. It just has to be floodproofed. Yep. Yep. Okay. Thank you. Um for our shoreland districts, we also did a comprehensive update that's based
on um the state of Minnesota model shoreland ordinance. Um we did make a few exceptions with uh uh intended to protect sensitive water features from overdevelopment, but then also allowing for some more commercial development on
non-retiparian areas were practical. the state um does allow some flexibility in in shoreland rules and if you're if you're doing something a little more um if you have higher standards in one area, you can have some lower standards
in in other areas and and so that's kind of what we've done there. But I think overwhelmingly um from our public input survey and then also from our planning commission, there's just been a strong desire for our shoreland ordinance and to match
what the state um shoreland rules are. One question here. Yes, Commissioner. On page 51 of the ordinance, it talks about rivers. Yep. It does not mention the wild rice. Is that a tributary stream or is that just
Oh, the south branch of the wild rice. Yes, that is a tributary stream. So, our our agricultural and urban rivers in Klay County would be parts of the Red River would be considered an urban river. Um the rest of it would be agricultural and then the the Buffalo
River would be a agricultural river class as well and then everything else is tributary. Yep. All right. So, our chapter five covers our resource protection districts. Um resource protection districts, we have three different o these are overlay
districts. So, they overlay our base zoning districts. And really um um what they're intended to do is to protect uh our sensitive resources and then our natural resources as well. Uh so our aggregate resources protecting
them from overdevelopment um building over the top of of um significant aggregate or quality aggre aggregate deposits. our bi our resource protection biological zoning district. Um that's really protecting some the
high quality um natural resources that we have in the county uh that provide some ecosystem services uh um for the county as well as some significant recreational opportunities for for people. People do travel quite far and
wide to see some of our um specifically our native prairies. Uh and then also uh our wellhead protection district, we have this um kind of along the east side of of Morehead and Dworth that goes down
to the Wilin County line and just uh I think 22 26 county casad 26. Um that protects the Buffalo aquifer from um incompatible development and there is also wellhead protection on the east side of Barnesville as well to protect
their um their wellfields. We did receive some comments um on our wellhead protection se uh section that I do want to address briefly. Um and what I'll do is um we received
these comments from Morehead Public Service. Um you should all have those comments in front of you. Uh I essentially addressed these comments um and I want to thank them for public service for for providing them. Um one
of their first comments I can just walk through them was um our development standards um for commercial uses connected to utilities. Um currently what it says is to that we allow commercial uses within the resource
protection wellhead protection district to be connected to um public sewage treatment and water supply systems if such systems are needed. Uh the MPS had requested that we remove the if such systems are needed just because
um uh they didn't want to open up contamination uh exposure in desired commercial development plans. Well, what that actually means um is if such systems are needed is if you need if you have a commercial use that needs a
septic that needs sewer and water, you would still need to connect to um in the in the wellhead protection district, you would still need to connect to public sewage treatment and water supply systems. If you have a commercial use that doesn't require that and it is
allowed as a conditional use um commercial cold storage being a prime example of that then that then you don't need that. So that's the clarification there. Um I recommend keeping it as it is. Uh the next um comment that they
have was just when you say recommend keeping as is keeping with the uh if such systems are needed keeping that language. Okay. Uh the the next comment they had was about um above ground tanks a
containment system. Um they requested discussion on a maximum size of above ground tanks to limit risk if spills occur. Um I don't really have a good idea of what a maximum size would be. So I'm not entirely ready to discuss that.
Um what I would note is that um later on there is a uh provision that we do need to do need to add back in about hazardous materials being the bulk storage of hazardous material shall be prohibited within Mr. Yes. Can I just ask for clarification on this? When
we're talking above ground storage, excuse me, uh, above ground tanks, the chemical storage tank or chemical totes, are those technically included in an above ground storage?
It would essentially be a um, typically with an above ground tank, it would be just like a um, the most common would be like a um, petroleum tank. But are we based on it as it's written, would chemical totes that
farmers use be incorporated in that above ground or because they're a transportable unit, is it not included? I would say that they're not not included. Right. Perfect. Thanks. One uh recommendation we had moving on
was to um with fertilizer use. Um, we did have a provision in our we do have a provision in our standard in our current code that says if you're using a phosphorus based fertilizer, garden or lawn fertilizer that that be prohibited. That is not really enforcable um
impossible to enforce. uh MPS provided some example language of if we were to include it. Um just to modify it to say that the application use fertilizer shall be conducted in a way to adhere to best use practices as determined by the product manufacturer. Any excessive
application of f fertilizer above the aquifer is highly discouraged. I'm totally comfortable with that language and leaving that in there as well. Um, and part of part of recently what happened with the buffer zones that that
that actually has helped a lot of this too, hasn't it? In terms of runoff. Yes. Yep. I think that's that's helped an awful lot and with some of these concerns. Yep. Yep. Keeps it keeps it from getting into the ditch systems that get to the end up getting to the river.
Yep. Yes. Grab. So just with both those questions I have I want to make sure we're clear about egg uses in particular. I mean some of the the volumes used these days above ground and
their use they're getting pretty large and with the size of equipment and I um if there are going to be some types of limitations which I don't I wouldn't be really in favor of um I just want to
make sure They're well defined. So there's no question about that. Either that or egg uses be exempt. But yeah, Mr. Chair and Commissioner Krabenhoff, the the original intention was for lawn and garden fertilizers. Um, and I I don't think
what we're asking for is that there's any limitation that you just follow the best use practices as determined by the product manufacturer. And I'm fine with that. Right. Agreed. I just I don't want to create something that is going to be an issue
for existing farm practice. Yeah. No, I don't think that that would impact that at all. And that's not something that I think we could enforce either. Uh the the hazardous materials, bulk storage of hazardous materials shall be prohibited within the resource
protection, wellhead protection overlay district. Um that's something that's currently in there now. Um I think it should stay in there. Uh and then underground storage tanks, new underground tanks shall be prohibited within the resource protection wellhead overlay district. That's something that should be also included in there. Now,
and then aggregate mining, um expansion of existing aggregate mining operations and permitting of new aggregate mining operations shall be prohibited in the resource protection wellhead protection overlay district. We had originally proposed removing that just because in our if you go to our our land use table
um and you were to look at extractive uses like aggregate mining um that clearly says that that is not allowed in this zoning district. Um MPS is requesting that that goes goes back in. Um so it would be in two locations
essentially. Um just for clarification there. Uh could I ask a clarification piece? Yep. So like the Benedict pit, right? How would not, you know, I know we can't use individuals specifically, but
because that is within that district, how would that limit that? So one of the reasons why I wanted to remove expansion of existing aggregate mining operations um is because with something like the Benedict
Pit, they would essentially have to stop. they couldn't expand anymore. Um there is case law out there that's specifically for aggregate extraction that has ruled that you that's you cannot do that
essentially cannot limit it cannot limit cannot existing gravel operations that are pre-ordinance um we they would have to they would be able to continue to expand only to the property lines they wouldn't be able to expand to a new new property or anything
like that but we wouldn't be able to limit that. So essentially this has been in our code for a number of years and it's just never been enforced because it's not enforceable. Isn't um don't we also have some requirements though about um in the case
of the Benedict pit is just as an example isn't there isn't there like a levy around it? Yes. And that and that's part of the whole process of keeping contamination from entering right. Yep. Correct. Yep. And that part that part um
we do have the ability to require that uh for that one in particular because there was on part of that pit for an expansion pre um adoption of the wellhead protection. There was a conditional use permit um
that that did require that. Yes. Okay. Yep. So if they wanted to expand in that area, um they could they could they could do that, but there might be that requirement that they could do it under their
existing Yeah. conditional use permit essentially. Yeah. Which would still have the burn. Yep. Yeah. Yep. Okay. And then um also just adding just based on on these two um specifically the um hazardous materials and
underground storage tanks just adding a a a definition for hazardous materials. Um and this is a basically a very broad definition because um OSHA, the EPA um they all have different
definitions. Department of Transportation of Hazardous Materials. This is this one is used by um what's called the Haz whopper. The um it's a group that does like um hazardous materials um spill training. Um they produce these
um chemical safety data sheets and things like that. Um so it is a accepted um probably the best definition that we have for for hazardous materials. Just adding that in there to the definitions.
Any questions on the definitions of hazardous materials? Right. So, Mr. Chair, with these just these um proposed revisions based on the comments, I would just recommend that that we just include them as part of
this. Okay. So you said to include them, but in earlier on in item number two here of the um page regarding commercial uses connected to utilities um with the exception of that
we currently have we currently have if such systems are needed you want to keep that language. Correct. And there's been a recommendation to remove it. There's been a com there's been a comment to remove it. A comment to remove it. Yes. Yeah. Yep. and I would recommend that we keep it. Okay. So, so all of these
things that are being changed, you're good with all of them with the exception of that one. Correct. Okay. Just wanted to clarify. Yep. Correct. So, on this handout here, these would be the changes you'd be recommending in correct. Yep. Keeping everything else the same.
Keeping everything else the same. Yep. Mr. Chair. Yes. Commissioner, I just want to go back to six quick. The bulk storage of hazardous materials. curious. Um, you know, understand there are some residences in that overlay district. Um,
if someone has more than one propane tank, propane is hazardous material. Would that affect them? No. So, when you talk bulk, it's more than what? That's my question. What do you call bulk? What's bulk? What would be a
thousand gallons or is that bulk would be essentially where you have a a grouping of several um containers that are large and it's your purpose is not it's not an accessory use. It's a principal use. You're
storing chemicals. You're having trucks come fill up on those on those chemicals or gas or patrol propane or whatever it might be. um and then um distributing it to or transporting it to another location. Have Have we gone up and down that district and counted how many of
these are already on top of this? I have not. No. No. I mean, a lot of farmers have 20,000galon bulk tanks that they bring semis in to fill road diesel or farm diesel. What's that? That just be one tank or
mult It'd be two different tanks. I mean, so they can take a semi- load of fuel in and then disperse that out to their equipment when they're working. I think that the intention of this is more for like um non- egg uses and that
could be clarified. I mean, I I think it should before we make a recommendation on that one at least. Or airplane field. I mean, yeah, airplane. I mean, there's Yeah, you knew I was going to say that. I always say it, but I mean the Morhead airport, it
has airplanes sitting right on it. So for like a hazardous material, I don't think petroleum would would fall under that definition. But propane I mean propane is Yeah. I mean propane is also people have you know a semi-load
propane tank sometimes sitting in their yard to Sure. And if if it's if it can't there be an exception for egg per egg uses? Yes. Yep. I mean those people have to be able to
operate. They you know and they they require they require that product for Yeah. And I think we need to be thinking of the future here because farms are getting bigger. You know the farm techniques are
becoming different and again trying to abide by best practices. I get that. But at the same time if um I just think rain drying all the all the above some of those things are getting larger and I
would call them clearly egg not commercial it's egg business of course so I don't know if we need a clearer definition of that or have a pure understanding of that but u Mr. Mr. Chair and Commissioners, would this be
acceptable? What are we looking at? Um, non-aggricultural. How does how does that affect the Morhead airport? That just being in the city of Morehead. Um, it would not be it wouldn't affect
it at all, but it's within the district. It's it is not within the wellhead protection zoning district because it's in the city. So if if there's a crop duster that has
planes on this district, they could classify egg. If they have a airplane fuel sitting note, that' be agricultural. Yeah. And I don't think we do right now. The
one north of it, but that's off to the Yep. It's to the the west. West. Yeah. West. All right. I I I I just I I think you can safely store hazardous material if it's done
properly. That's my concern. If we're trying to believe above ground, I think you safely store hazardous material. Doesn't matter what the size of it is. I don't know if we even need But I But I
think but I think you need to pay attention to what the purpose is. you know, if the purpose of them is, you know, is for egg, I think that's that's something that But what if somebody wants to do something that's non- egg that's new? Yeah, that's that's why I
think you can safely store that above ground. Yeah. And and Mr. chair and and uh Commissioner Bear, I think really of all the when the wellhead protection district was created, I think the
hazardous material storage and the underground storage tanks were kind of the two biggest things. Um I get the underground for that district that that I get because that you don't know if that's if it's leaking or not.
Yep. Yep. Nowadays with double line tanks and moes around your tanks, you can catch a leak very quickly of hazardous material that I think for for egg egg use. I think it's really to really the point I think
with bulk storage is um like a some sort of pipeline or petroleum distribution center or something like that. And that's kind of the intent there. But if you're if you're a an farm operation
um or a crop duster, I don't think the intent is to to basically with that Yeah. the advancements in in safety as well. So, I'm I'm good. And those are with that change at Yeah. at at a certain size too, those these storage
tanks become regulated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as well. Um, essentially they don't require they don't um have a permit for them necessarily unless they're really really bit large. Um, but they do require just
um notification of where they're where they are and then just those um spill prevention um pieces as well. Matt, just going to number if we're done with that one. Just going back to number
eight for a minute. So, I I thought you had I thought you had mentioned something that that we're not allowed to um prevent somebody from expanding a mining operation.
Um yeah, if it's within it's basically just a series of of case law um as that goes back to I think the 1950s um that essentially says that but that's just limited to to within a certain property or property lines. Um this this
would essentially cover kind of the argument that you could make that a mining operation could make if they wanted to expand to a new different property or something like that. That would cover that would cover. So as long as they stay within their current boundaries, that expansion can
occur. Yep. Yep. That's and that's acceptable. Yep. Within that language. Yep. It has been for since 2005. So Mhm. Yep. Provided that there's the conditional uses that are put on it. Yep.
Right. So do you want us to make a motion on this? Well, let's Well, we we're well, we got Yeah, we got to wait till we close the hearing before we do any motions anyway. But I think we need to finish going through this and then um allow the public to comment and Sure.
So, and Matt, do you have more you want to go through or you Yes. Yep. Um just another thing with the uh resource protection biological district. Um there are residential properties that are lots of record um that are within entirely
within this district um where there's a you need to be there's a setback for residences from biologically significant areas um which is kind of difficult to um actually maintain. Um, so the we did
add some flexibility there for those properties. Uh, the urban expansion district, so that's our tier one and tier 2 did go through this pretty extensively with the cities of Morehead and Dworth. Um, we there were some
um, uh, references to urban overlay plats, which is not a a thing. It's not a definition anywhere. So, we got rid of those. Um, and then there was some inconsistencies with septic use and some different standards there. Um, and what was allowed and and what was not allowed
for new lots for existing um lots of record. Um, if you need to replace your septic, obviously that's this would just be for for new lots as well. Uh and then for our landing field district, um we do have the joint airport zoning ordinances with the
cities of uh Morehead and Holly. Uh Barnesville is still part of the we don't have a joint airport zoning ordinance with them yet. So they're kind of still covered under our county zoning. Um so what we did with the here is we just added some references to those joint airport zoning ordinances
and kept everything else the same. Hi. Yeah, just briefly. So, back to Barnesville with that. Is there some point that they would want to have their own ordinance rather than the county?
I that I am not entirely sure of. I think it might have to do with if there's any planned expansions of the airport in the future, then they would probably want to have a joint ordinance. Um what the what our landing field ordinance does is it's just regulating
the land use around the airport that's within the county and not within the the city. Okay. So we did uh for chapter 8 uh use regulations. This is probably the chapter that um gets the most use and had the most attention. Um, we did make
some significant updates to the use table, just modernizing uses, allowing for more coma compatible commercial and industrial uses, um, as well as accessory dwelling unit uses. Uh, adding the provision that if you have an accessory use, typically you would need
a principal use on that property, too. Um, but could be converted to a principal use by conditional use permit. Did make some changes to animal feed lot regulations to better align with just the Minnesota feed lot rules. um defining animal feed lots as 10 plus uh
animal units. Also just adding some more information about setbacks from wells and septics and all that other things. Um agro tourism added that as a new use. Um added temporary um agricultural employee housing as a new use. We did add some general
requirements for commercial industrial uses mainly site plan requirements. um updated our wind and solar energy system regulations to match them um better match the model wind and solar ordinances. Um so they're a lot more kind of that's this is an area where the
technology is changing constantly. Um so being the most upto-date as possible uh is really important. Um and I know that we'll probably this is one we'll be changing in the future. I know Minnesota is working on a battery storage um model
ordinance right now that should be ready in the next couple of years and then we that would I would like to include that in in the future. Um we did add accessory dwelling units as a buy use. Um did update our home occupation standards. Uh did update regulations for
farm animals on residential lots. Uh right now you have to have two acres to have a chicken. Um whereas you could live in uh Morehead and have six. Six. So, 1.12. Yeah, exactly. So, just uh up updated
that. Um did get a comment uh about or have had a couple comments actually about roosters if the Klay County would ever ban roosters. Um I didn't think that that would be Just wanted to get your take on that. You got to identify a
rooster first. Yeah. Roo roosters in dense residential neighborhoods or denser residential neighborhoods. Um Lak's like [Laughter]
what that's I will say that's tricky. So if you raise meat birds would that then exempt you from raising rooster meat birds that are butchered in Yeah. You got toidents. Yeah. You can identify that a rooster when it's a meat bird. Yeah. That would I just thought that
would be kind of tricky as well. Okay. Enforceable wouldn't be enforced. And then outdoor vehicle storage limits just increasing that modestly from two to four. Um we have gone through this uh on on
that increase from two to four on storage. Do they still have to be licensed and operable? If they're licensed, road roadw worthy and insured, um there's no limit. This would be for the inoperable ones and you can't store parts. Um, I've actually talked to we've
had a number of counties in our um Minnesota Association of CL County Planning and Zoning Administrators District. Um, a lot of counties have just essentially stopped enforcing junk vehicle ordinances. Uh, one of the main reasons for why they've stopped is
because um, it's really hard to do and it takes up a lot of time and there's some new newer legislation that you can't just bring a junk vehicle to a scrapyard now without a title. And so some people are have lots of cars
without titles and bringing them to a scrapyard is impossible. You got to get them crushed essentially. Yeah. So, Matt, um, for lack of better words, I'm going to call it road art. I'm noticing along I 94 more and more
smaller things. We have one in Clay County. And um uh and of course I there's part of me that thinks it's really cool and yet at the same time I want to make sure it's consistent to
other people that have junk cars. Part them in one place and how do you define between what's junk and what's art and you know what I mean. I do. So let's go on 94. Yep. along the
you know and I think it's really cool what he's done over the years. I go further out of our county and I mean I'm definitely seeing more around the um sock center area and what used to be
one now I see three or four and I'm just kind of asking how would we look at that in county um right now just appreciating the artistic endeavor. Okay. Um but yeah, that's one too that's been around for a
long long time. Um and yeah, kind of hard to it's a tricky one. Well, and I don't uh personally I don't know that I want to limit that idea. Yeah. I I think there's something about tourism that's
popular. you know, art's art, but h how do we or don't we concern ourselves with that until we have a problem with that? I think it would be more if you're looking at like something that's the the proliferation of um like an automobile
junkyard or a scrapyard. Um and I think that that distinction can be made pretty clearly. Yeah. Yeah. So, not being critical, I'm being open. All right, we got four more to get
through here. Yes. So I'll just you know our table has I just want to highlight that our use table has expanded um just to include more uses um
and trying trying to it's it can't be um all-encompassing I think but we're trying to to to hit some of the main one main common uses that we see um that that are coming into into the county um as well as some up and cominging ones as
Well, and so um next chapter 8 n just basic development standards. So one thing that's new here is creating a comprehensive density lot standards setback requirements table for like your one-stop shop for that. Um
setbacks remaining the same. They've been the setbacks from roads for example have been the same since 19 uh 65. They have not changed. Um, one one um potential change or one change would be changing the egg service center
zoning district set road set back from 90 to 125. That'd be through like a rusted or a downer or a roll log. Um, just bringing those setbacks, making them a little less restrictive just because some of the lot sizes again are
so small and typically the speed limits in those are about 30 miles per hour. So, um, so with that too, um, they kind of have more of a I guess setbacks would
better match like our our subdivision. Yep. And so that's what this table looks like. Um, chapters 10, chapter 10 is our subdivision regulations. We just updated for consistency with uh MN statutes 505
which is the subdivisions and then 515 which is common interest communities and then just expanding our we right now require township approval for new roads. Um each township has to sign off on the plat. So um township approval being
required for subdivisions. There's also um state statute that says if your township has a planning and zoning planning commission, they have to approve it anyway. Um and then administration and procedures. This one was probably one of the most complicated and difficult
chapters to work through. Um what we did here is just clarification of all the roles and duties of the zoning administrator, board of commissioners, board of adjustment, planning commission. Um the process for conditional use permit, interim use permits, variance process and standards
for review of those. Um with example conditional interim use permit um if you've ever watched a planning commission me read meeting reading there's lots of review criteria right now I think we've reduced that by like six so there's only eight now um and then just administrative use
permits and development permits as well. Um there's also been some clarification on the appeals process for county decisions. Um with conditional use permits and interim use permit appeals um as opposed to going to the to the board, they'd be appealed just to either
district court or the appellet appeals court of appeals. That's just more in line with um counties who assign their planning commission the role of granting those permits. um that's the process they
follow. If you're a county that has the planning commission as a recommending body and then the use permits go to the the board, um they would follow a different that different process. And then we did added a section for environmental review. We had an old
environmental review section in our 2001 code um and just updated that to make sure that that was up to date and put that in our development code as well. And then updated our violations, penalties, and enforcement section. We didn't put anything. We we started out
putting some specific um procedures and policies for enforcement in terms of penalties and and things like that. and we had an outside attorney review this entire chapter as well as our subdivision chapter and she said no don't do that.
Um keep it what you want to do is set up a framework um so that um you as a board can adopt policies an enforcement policy or or an administrative penalties and procedures policy. Uh and then other than that um
we've just really made sure uh to expand our rules and definitions. So the definitions contained within the ordinance u making sure that that is as comprehensive and upto-date as possible. So with that I will yield for any questions. All right. Any additional
questions from the board? Right. We'll move on to public. Any public comment? Anybody care to comment? if you want to come up to the podium and state your name. And
Hello, my name is Scott Manthy and uh by county resident and I have land um and other buildings and things in the within the county. Most of my most of all my real estate properties are within Klay
County to be honest with you. Um, and uh, just looking at when I I had one piece of property that I bought with the intent to eventually develop it and uh, subdivided
into houses. Uh, bought it because it was close to Tar Road and three-phase power. Couple requirements to that are needed to do a subdivision and it's right next to current subdivision as well. And uh when I stopped into the
office um there's discussion that the number of units for subdivision was being limited from 16 per quarter to eight per quarter. Um but upon further review I with Matt I uh found out that
there's other opportunities if you have a large enough piece of land to dedicate and make make more uh units on that on those larger pieces of land. And I just think it's important in general when you're looking at
subdivision um that you kind of let the economics and environment drive the value of that. Um cuz I think when we looked at the 2012
comprehensive plan for the county, it talked about rural growth being needed and it wasn't there. And u the properties I've purchased I've looked at and considered both the economic egg value and the the
subdivision value. And so whether it be me or my children down the road, if the subdivision value becomes significantly greater than the uh egg value, that that'd be able to be
recognized and used and not hindered on that side of things where it makes sense. and uh and then also one of the properties is adjacent to the city of Morehead and uh you know looking at
trying to be proactive and helping the communities within your the county grow, not try and hinder that. and uh really kind of agreed with the comprehensive plan back in 2012 where myself and my
children, we look for properties that have more size because we're from an egg background. I currently farm, grew up a farm kid, but do like neighbors and the the camaraderie and social that that
environment that that adds. uh my kids want a large property outside of a community and but yet another separate community within that. And so to me, I think we really got to watch so we don't
put too many restrictions on because I think the more you restrict the number of units that can be done or increase the land size per lot with the land values being up and increasing the land size from an acre to
an acre and a half, all of a sudden the costs go up for our next generations. I know my my children, you know, if they look at the lots that are currently available around the Holly area. I mean, they're up significantly, but part of it
is because they're larger lots, more land, more underlying value within that creates a higher price tag and it almost pushes them out from being able to afford some of those things. And um so I I will hope that we're conscious of
those things as we're looking at the ordinances. Well, I appreciate your comment. I I want to go back. I I was heavily involved with that 2012 major u modification. One of the one of the issues that was really concerning to a lot of people in rural areas was the
inability to be able to uh expand residential properties. And I'm going to I'm going to give you a good example of of today's day and age. Commissioner Mojo has four kids. And her four kids will probably go up and they'll go to college. But you know what? But you know
what they'll never do is they'll never lose that rural character that they grew up in. And it seems they always wanted to come back to that. And it, you know, back before 2012, we had that happening
in Klay County. We had we had kids who grew up one way and thought, "Okay, we're going to challenge the world." And all of a sudden, they realize, "Boy, you know what? I really like the way I grew up and that's where I want to be. that's where I want to make my home. And so we
did expand that um for that purpose because what we were finding out then is these kids that Commissioner Mo might be a perfect example of if she couldn't if she couldn't get in a rural area here, she'd go across the river or they'd go across the river and get something
because they could do it there. But there's nothing more important that the Klay County needs to be always thinking about is our homegrown kids and where they might want to come back to and and settle their roots. One of the one of
the things things that we do also have to be somewhat careful of though is you know that we don't do too much um jumping of developments that when the current infrastructure can't handle it and when I say that I'm
talking about the ability to have have good water and and the ability to have septic systems that and and those do have an impact on what sizes properties need to to be able to adequately do those. You
can't I you know, and I speak from an experience in in Oakport Township where we had developments that were put on halfacre lots and the septic systems couldn't handle it. We had I lived in a development with 80 some homes and I' I'd go in my backyard and to mow my lawn
and I'd be I'd be on a wave because the ground was just saturated. So, so you know, so there's things that we have to always be able to protect too in that regard. But I do appreciate your comments on it and I do
think we need to be able to understand that there's a um there's a significant interest in our own raised families in coming back to rural Klay County. Correct.
Paul, if you don't mind, just a question. Is there something that's occurring that's really in this that's really bothering you specific to me in general just the decrease in the numbers of of units per quarter you
know I think there's areas where it makes sense to have houses you have houses where you already have houses you have houses where there's a tar road there's power I mean those are basic tenants that you need you need fiber optic you need all those things and so to me it doesn't makes sense to go out
in the boonies middle of nowhere down a narrow dirt trail and have a 80 unit subdivision, you know, but to me if you're on a tar road, you're on a three-phase power, you've got highspeed internet right there. Those all basic tenants that you need right now, the
septic systems can be adjusted with the new style mound systems. I mean, compared to what they did in the old days, you dug a trench, you put some rock in there, and that was your septic system. Now you spend instead of $6,000 to put in a system, you spend $20,000 because you're hauling in most of your
your drainage bed on top of the existing soil you already have. So, I mean, there's been significant changes in the last 20 years that allow a higher density and uh andor the ability, not the density, but just the ability to do
it in a in a different soil type. And so letting the letting the economics worry about the protection of farmland versus development land, the economics will determine that. And but I I do think
restricting the size of the lots to be bigger ends up creating higher costs for all our next generation to come in because there's less desire to do it. Because if you have to take out a $9,000 piece of land to to do it, 1 acre is
9,000. Now you're at uh you know 9* 1.5, you're 135. So now all of a sudden there's less desire to do a split because you have more you don't have as much incentive or potential. But and so that really kind of is what I'm looking
at and considering. and and not just for myself, but for my kids, cuz I have a 25-year-old, a 21-year-old, and a 19-year-old, and they all want to be in Klay County. And uh I want to try and give them opportunity to be there as well as other others as well, you know,
not just I mean, if you look at the subdivision that was just done a few years ago up on number nine there, I don't remember the name of it, but um around Borgans's there, and I mean, that's going to be beautiful. They're starting to build and fill it fill it out. It's going to be a beautiful place
to raise a family, you know, and uh so to me, I I caution the balance there. Thank you. I have one question for Matt. Yeah. For for the lot size, minimum lot size. We did bring that down, right? I
mean, that used to be a two acres. So, Mr. Chair and Commissioner Bear, it is an acre and a half, but if you're going to do an egg or a natural resource subdivision, we did bring it down to an acre. And with the density bonuses and things like that, you could get well over the
16 that we currently have. Thank you. Any other comments? Public service. Sure. Come on up. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, my name is Mark Pritchard. I'm the water plant manager for Morhead public service. I wanted to say thank you to the
commission for considering our comments that we had submitted. I thought there was good discussion uh through different uh viewpoints for how to make sure that for example a industries and farmers uh continue unimpeded in the work that they need to do to keep their their operations running. So I thought that
was good discussion this morning. Uh wanted to say a quick thank you to uh planning director Jacobson for bringing our comments to the meeting this morning and I think that with the discussion about the definitions to be added and a few other things. Um I think that uh this will really help Morehead public service continue on with their wellhead
protection plan. So I think that uh the the items that we discussed I think they're all reasonable. I think that with some definitions to be added we'll be in good shape. So thank you very much for your time this morning. Yeah. And and obviously, you know, we take interest in in protecting our aquifers
as well. I I um I think really the only the only thing that probably is being left out of your recommendation is that one very small little if such systems are needed language. I think um our planning
director said that should stay in, but other than that I think uh and the and then the proposed changes on the was it the hazard m or underground tanks? Hazard materials. Hazardous materials. Hazardous materials. Y and I I think I think we
should have your concerns covered. I believe so. Yes. And I do also believe that the if such systems are needed is reasonable to leave out. It does provide for things like cold storage items that were discussed to be able to have a use out there which is important too. So,
uh, for the hazardous materials items, uh, one thing to keep in mind too, just as a a general note, is, uh, from MPS's perspective, things like industrial solvents could be a good thing to add to that list, not just petroleum based items. So, cleaning items are a lot of
times fairly toxic to water from a perspective of clarity and and quality. So that's one thing to keep in mind from the hazardous materials, not to try to limit it to petroleum based products per se, but it could be industrial solvents or cleaning materials or or things like that. So those are really the the only
other items that I had come to mind, but otherwise, thank you again for the discussion this morning. All right. Thank you. Any other comments? Any other comments? Did we have this open online, Steve, for comments?
Uh, Mr. Chair, people would have the would have had the ability to uh be online, but no one did ask. Right. All right. Seeing no other comments, is there a motion to close the hearing?
So moved. Second. Motion by Commissioner Ebinger, second by Commissioner Kabnov to close the hearing. Any further discussion on the motion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. I. Oppose. Same sign. Motion
carried. And Matt, are you looking for um a final decision on this board today? Is that what you're hopeful of? So, Mr. Chair, I know that when we had our our work working group meeting, you had expressed a desire to have potentially two meetings about this. Um do want to
keep that option on on on the table for you. But in the event that that you feel like feel comfortable with um with where we're at with the ordinance also on to to give you the opportunity as well um today if you were to to make a final decision uh on adoption.
Well, I you know I and again I I think early on the idea was is to just judging based on the amount of um people interested or having comments on where we're at with the language as it's been uh posted. Uh, we've had an
we've been doing this for two years and I guess I guess I'm comfortable I is the only change that we're looking at is the modifications that Matt presented today. Is
that or Yep. just that language they're not agriculture and that and that's it other than that right you know I I guess if that's if that's the case I don't you know I don't think we're required to have additional hearings [Music]
um I think there are still things this still allows for certain things the planning commission still has the abilities to do things that they have always done in terms of conditional use abilities and those types of things we're not nothing of that nature has been taken way. Um, I want to take this
time to um, thank all the people that were involved over the last two years. We had we had council members from v various councils throughout the city. We've had representation from uh, multiple citizens from all over Klay County that
have been involved with this. uh the planning commission uh has painstakingly gone through this process and in dealing with this o over uh quite some time and I think it's of their opinion that the draft that was
presented today um even without the little final decisions being made today to modify uh the planning commission was kind of in agreement that the ordinance is good as
written. Unless unless the board unless the board has um additional thoughts on having more meetings on this, I I'd be open to um action today. Commissioner, I have just one
comment. When I was the on the planning and zoning committee, we did have public hearings every month on this. So, I think we've had plenty of public hearings. I don't think we need to drag this out any longer. I think we can make a decision today on it.
I'm just waiting for your All right. Then I'll then I'll make a motion to adopt ordinance 2025-5, amendment of the Klay County Land Development Ordinance, zoning and subdivision regulations with
these four add-ons and with the def definition of hazardous materials. And this would be section what 8- six uh title eight to be codified as title eight. Okay. All right. We have a motion. Is there a
second? Second by commissioner Ebinger. And further discussion just clarification. Yep. So I want under hazardous materials though I want that I'd like that word nonaggricultural. Yes. To be added with that to be added. Yeah. What Matt had on the screen not on
our paper. All right. Are we all under the same understanding of the the modifications made today to the presentation? Right. Any further discussion? Ju just to remind everybody once we approve this, it is old and it
will be changed. So, always subject to change. Always subject to change. It is. We do have the capacity now that's online to where that's a much simpler process than it was before. Any further discussion? Commissioner um
Mo, excuse me. Thank you. I also uh Matt, thank you so much for the work on this. This really has been a process early on. We wanted to make sure that the public had ample opportunity to weigh in on this. We wanted to really be responsive to the issues that we're seeing in the community certainly not
only with jur other jurisdictions but with residents as well. I I also want to comment that I think our planning department has been as flexible as possible when you are when proposals come forward um in regards to the subdivision piece. Uh I I take those
wholeheartedly. I think it's really important to allow for um folks to live in our community that not only want to live in the city but also want to live in a a rural area. So um making sure that we're responsive to what the the questions and comments and concerns
there are too. Uh buying and owning property is expensive and sometimes having a smaller uh subdivision lots available make it more feasible for folks to buy in. Obviously, there's larger opportunities, too. But, um
hopeful that we can continue the nature of collaboriveness that um really has you've kind of lived by and and uh when issues come forward, we're quick to to edit that because there will be issues as Commissioner Bear uh identified that
will um make us need to look at something and maybe amend something. But really happy with the work and the product that we have today. So, I'm happy to support it. I I my final comment, you know, again, it's um the modifications I think that were
done in 2012, I think really uh represented important changes that were needed for families in Klay County who want to live in in rural areas. I think that was established. What we did today is we've cleaned that up a little bit. you know, maybe changing lot sizes and
some of those types of things, but um we also got to remember um Klay County is an agricultural county and the the farmland agricultural land that we have in Klay County is very very
precious and valuable and uh we c we can't lose sight of that that uh that is that is still uh the primary engine that drives Klay County and and having Egglang. Then we know we when we talk
about when you talk about a development, you might have a development that wants to pop up, but you might have all the farmers all around there saying, "I don't really like this and I was here first, you know." So you so you have you you do have to you still have to weigh
all of those things that that where you have to treat the people who were there first with some sort of, you know, respect. And um and I and I I think our ordinance tries to do that. So all right, any further discussion? Uh
roll call vote, please. Sarah, you're on the spot. Commissioner Kavanagh, yes. Commissioner Mojo, hi. Commissioner Campbell, yes. Commissioner Bear, I. Commissioner Ebinger, I. Yeah, motion carries unanimously. Thank you for your work on this, Matt. I really appreciate
it. And thank you to everybody else. and send a message back to the planning commission. Thank you for a job well done. Yeah, thank you Mr. Chair and um thank you commissioners. Thank you for all your support in this process. Um really appreciate it. Could not have done it with it without your your support and backing. Um also want to
just thank the study review committee for their hard work um in making sure getting this this draft through uh the process. And then uh Rita and Erica uh from our uh uh planning department as well. I really want to thank Erica. um she put a lot of very critical second
eye uh and had a lot of very thoughtful uh of suggestions and and revisions and and input on on this. So I really really appreciate all of her hard work. And then of course the the guy who was the primary author of it uh Dave Sweeney from SRF. Just want to thank him for his
his work his his team as well. Yes. Yeah. They did a very nice job in helping coordinate it all. Very nice. Absolutely. So thank you. All right. All right. Thank you. Yes. Anything else? Uh, okay. All right. That concludes our
meeting. So, we are adjourned.