Good morning everyone. Welcome to our Cook County Board of Commissioners regular meeting on this day, Tuesday, December 16th at 10:32. We begin our meeting with the pledge. U please rise.
I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Just a couple items to cover. This is
our last meeting for 20 25 and um at between uh noon and 12:30 we're going to take a break for lunch and come back. We have a little bit of a revised agenda as you all can see and uh everything that's
highlighted has been reconfigured and um we'll proceed with this agenda as we u move on with the meeting. So, we've made the adjustments to the agenda, but does anybody have anything else? Yes. Agenda, >> Madam Chair, with um knowledge and
approval by HR Director Plameumber, I would move to strike item 9C. 9C um right revocation of the two personnel policies. Okay, we'll strike that. Thank you. Thank you.
Um and M madam chair I had a um it's it's not fully formed yet but um just a little discussion I guess if it's okay with Brady to put it under the auditors section and this is in regards to um
late taxes um and and the penalties associated there. Um, so it can be, >> like I said, it's it's it's not a fully >> Do you want that before the budget and levy discussion? >> I think so. I think that would make sense.
>> Okay. So, the item would be discussing late taxes. >> Yeah. And particularly um uh the uh basically a late penalty waiver. >> Okay.
I'm going to try connecting to Kristen again. >> Hi, this is Kristen. >> Hi, Kristen. Welcome. >> Hi, Janice. Thank you. >> Good morning, Kristen. We're beginning our meeting and we're making different adjustments. So, I think we're good now.
Okay. Any But is there anything else for adjusting? >> I'll make a motion to approve the agenda >> as amended. >> And I'll second that. >> Okay. We had a motion and a second. All in favor?
>> I opposed. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously on that. At this time we we open up for a public comment period. Uh is there anyone in the audience who would have a comment to come before the board?
I don't see any at this time. And um do any of the commissioners have any comments? Okay. Then we'll move on to the consent agenda items which consist of the claims. um our past minutes for the uh November
25th meeting and um December 2nd meeting. We have a 2026 Lrand uh Dun Nord um approval, Minnesota State Patrol lease, 20267
snowmobile and OV grant. And then we have a donation that we added this morning from Cathedral of the Pines from to the sheriff's office. We have a um a donation from the uh school district club. We have an
approval for promotion of Connor Ingram to maintenance worker three. Approve a motion by for Mark Buckman as dispatch jail administrator. Correct. um and promotion and approval
of Ben Hailberg, appoint Joan Smith to Community Center board and the Northeast Emergency Communication Board. Uh approval there. Um anything that anyone like to pull?
Commissioner Gamma. >> Madam Chair, thank you. I I would make a motion to approve the consent agenda as a whole as presented. >> I'll support Any further questions? All in favor? >> I >> oppose. Same sign.
>> So, we'll continue with presentations, but at 10:45, we will need to break for um a public hearing in regards to fee changes requested by the recorders office. So, in the meantime, we have a few
minutes here to um move on. to move on to Huh. Well, >> would it be veteran services presentation? >> I'm missing a paper here. >> Yeah. Item five is the recordings office request approval of new judicial
security fees. >> Right. >> I don't know where you are. Well, in between waiting for Yes. the recorder's office. >> Well, good morning. >> Good morning.
And so we are here this morning um to request the approval um for a $75 fee each for the judicial security real property notice, the consent to share private data notice, and the consent to
release private data filing. And these are all forms that will go into effect January 1st due to the new Judicial Security Act. >> Commissioner Sullivan. >> Um question. Should not we um have that
item after the public hearing? >> It it you could they could present it. You could have the hearing >> and then make a motion. Okay. >> Either way. >> Okay. agenda might be st like I think one of
the pages got flipped. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Staple agenda. I apologize. >> So it's it's there. It's just on the back side of another page. >> Mhm. >> Um so yeah. Um can you explain a little bit more about the ins and outs and and
how this affects um your office and then customers? >> Yep. So, um, what they will need to do is file a real property notice with our office and that will start the masking of the property
and then we'll also need to notify the other departments um involved that will also need to mask the information in their departments. So, it is going to be a little bit time consuming for everybody. Um, and it's
not just new documents coming in. We have to mask documents that are already recorded. So, it's going to take a little bit of work on everyone's part to make sure that we are um doing our due diligence
to make sure that these properties are protected. >> Okay. >> Can I'm sorry, >> I'm naive. Can can you explain ma the masking process too or um I mean it seems significant if we have to go
backwards as well. >> Yep. So they are setting our software provider is setting up in our computer a process that will okay >> um privatize certain documents. >> Okay. >> Um that will not be viewable to the public. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. Well then, excuse me. >> That begs the question, has it been a problem that every every document filed is public? >> I mean, has I I I'm so unaware of what
So, this is just for judges that are um able to apply for this security. Okay. At this time, there has been talk that other groups will be probably um included in the future, but as of right
now, it's just the judges. >> Okay. >> And they're >> Yeah. >> Spouse and children. >> Administrator trouble. >> Sorry. >> That's okay. >> All right. If I can jump in just real
quickly and just add a little more to the why behind this. So there has been some proposed federal legislation around creating a judicial security center because of um in the past judges uh harm that has been brought to judges is um at
the courthouse as well as at their homes. And so the state of Minnesota u moved forward with this new uh legislation to ensure that their personal information and real property records are protected. So I just wanted to make sure that the why behind this was clear. Yeah.
>> Um, and so that's our starting place. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Kristen. >> Commissioner Mills, >> thank you. Um, and maybe the rest of the board has heard a little bit about this, too, but the there is potential for uh elected positions. There have been
concerns around that, too. So, >> this is uh addressing the immediate concern and kind of the immediate violence that we've uh that that has happened. But um but the conversation will probably continue and um just
pretty interesting but sad but um but I I see the I see the the need as well there how important it is. >> Commissioner Gamble. >> Yeah, thank you. So yeah, I appreciate the the why component of this. So basically what we're seeing out of out
of experience is is the need to put in place something that protects um at this point a certain group relative to access to information. And so we're we're in response to that going to move forward
to comply and we're assigning a fee because of the work involved in having to comply. >> Correct. Yeah. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> And so only the judges would have to pay $75 fee. >> Yes. >> Yeah.
>> And was is that a appropriate cost >> that um was suggested by statute, the $75 fee. And um there's going to be three different forms. It'll be the real
property notice, which is the notice that they will have to file with our office to start the masking of their property. And then um if if they like were to refinance the property or um sell the property, they
would have to give us consent to release data to like a title company, a mortgage facility, um different things like that. So, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, given
your experience in the department, how often do you think this is going to happen that that you're going to have a request? So, in other words, how this impacts the department. You said it invol it's going to involve time to do it. Do we have any idea the incidents in
which we have those requests? I'm not really sure how many judges own property in Cook County. They could have cabins or, you know, seasonal properties up here. >> Um so I don't know how many of these we're going to get in.
>> Yeah. But it's something that um I feel in the future we're going to have more groups coming forward with this um type of process um which will require I feel a lot more um applicants.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> Commissioner Mills. >> And yeah, this is new, right? And so we're going to learn >> a lot and and we can adjust fees again if necessary next year. Um so um appreciate you bringing this forward.
>> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions or comments? >> I think it would be time to move forward with our public hearing and then come back um for a vote. >> Okay, we're right at 10:45. We need them to
stay. >> Okay. So, we're going to move forward with the public hearing then. And um not that you want to start all over again, but um just review what you said. >> Okay.
So, we are here today to um request the approval of a $75 fee for the Judicial Security Act that goes into effect on January 1st. And this is um protection
for um the judges and their spouses and children that um they would apply to our office to have their properties masked um and privatized. And this would require um all required
departments like auditor's office, assessor, GIS, land services to mask all the information um pertaining to this individual or individuals. So, it's going to be a little bit more
added work to each department to make sure that um everyone's doing their due diligence to make sure that what needs to be privatized is private. >> Okay. We will be learning along the way.
That's for sure. Commissioner Gamble. >> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. just uh for clarification uh how it works right now. Um if this if the responsibility for compliance rests with your department
then uh my question pertains to where where are we vulnerable if everybody understands the departments that have involvement in compliance with this that if it goes through your department that we wouldn't have any vulnerability because the department the way we used
to do things would have just provided the information not knowing now that it's and you know put in a in a classification to withhold that information. So if you understand my question >> I think so and even though the process
is starting with our office all offices involved have just as much responsibility to make sure that they are masking the information in their office that needs to be masked. >> Okay. Thank you.
Any other questions or comments? >> So to your question, sounds like there's a fair amount of vulnerability. Um I mean if you relate it to it and just like every person who uses it, you know, as a as a potential uh
penetration and um and so just training, right, is going to be a huge part of >> ensuring our our compliance >> and madam chair and and thank you for that. And my point was that if it if it originates at your department, the
request that those that other departments that are involved, whatever that might be, that because it's going through your department, you have the oversight relative to minimize any risk. So it's not like somebody would go to a different department and request this
information and and then just give it not knowing the compliance requirement because it has to go through your office, >> right? And we have had um a department meeting with everyone who will be involved in this process. >> Yes.
>> And we are going to have another meeting um soon to finalize everyone's workflow and how we are going to distribute this form to each department once it comes in to make sure everyone is that is
involved gets a copy of it. and as a state defined uh consequences for non-compliance in an incident where maybe we didn't, you know, comply with the full order, so to speak.
>> Um there would be some liability. I'm not sure what the statute I would have to look in the statute to see what that says. >> Yeah. >> But yes, there would be some liability. Yeah. Madam Chair, I'd like to move to close
the public hearing. Okay. >> There's no public to hear. >> Right. There a second. >> I support. >> Okay. We're closing the um public hearing on the new judicial security
fees. >> Go ahead. >> Go ahead. >> Not it. Commissioner Gamble. >> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Mills. So, I would make a motion to approve the new judicial
security fees. >> Support. >> Any further questions or comments? All in favor? >> I I >> oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you for your work for bringing this
I'll just make a comment right now that um we'll move forward for the next six and seven, but Jeff Brand is here and um what he has to bring up will be also commenting with from um administrator treble. So um I won't keep you till the
end because you're here, your time is valuable. So uh but right now I'm going to invite the veteran services to come forward. Karen. >> Okay. >> And she has given us a handout and she is here to uh give us a information only.
>> All right. Good morning, good afternoon everybody. >> Good morning. >> Uh this is all going to beformational. The packet that you have is one that I had um typed up specifically uh for Commissioner White. She had asked me some questions. So, I'm going to go a
little bit more in depth, but that's just kind of a a a just a a quick summary um of all the fun things I get to do in my day. So, me as um the veteran service officer, my main duty is to advise,
counsel, assist, and support Cook County veterans. and this includes the Grand Portage Reservation and their families in obtaining veteran benefits through local, state, and federal programs and to act as an
advocate on their behalf or direct and refer them to other authorized agencies or providers as needed. um a lot of the a lot of the different agencies here in the county I work with um we do a back and forth of referrals
which has worked um excellent. Uh I've probably used every office here between MIS um and the attorney's office um not recently but I have. So, uh, I have a really good working relationship with,
uh, the people here in the offices in the county. Currently, Cook County, um, is estimated to have 7 378 veterans living here in Cook County. Of those 378,
74 are Grand Portage band members, 345 are male with 33 females, and 175 of our veterans served in the Vietnam War. That's almost half of the veterans in this county. Um, yes, it's a very large
population. Um, so everybody knows here and the audience because this does come up at times is I am not a VA employee. I'm a county employee and our county also has
a tribal VSO and that individual is state employed and to remember I do work with all veterans in Cook County. Now, the main reason that a veteran's going to come to me is going to be for
what we call our VA disability compensation. These basically are a monthly tax-free payment for injuries or illnesses connect to service. They can be physical or mental.
This would include someone coming in for a new disability claim, increased ratings, second conditions, appeals, and then dependency claims. What I have to do first for them is I
have to confirm that they are eligible for for these programs. So they have to have served on active duty, active duty for training or inactive duty training. They need to have a current disability.
And I also need evidence of this disability. So then once we get that taken care of, it's time to start gathering all of our information, which can be very time consuming. So evidence that is needed to send off
with these packets will be service treatment records um that could show any any injuries, illnesses, complaints during service. uh all their medical record all the medical records whether it's VA or private
nexus evidence which will tie everything together which is the medical opinion uh stating these conditions are service connected and related um nexuses are can be very difficult to get they're time
consuming and not all doctors are willing to do this so I have in the past and currently I will do the nexus letter and then I will present it to the physician who I have talked to ask them
if it's okay if you could read this and if you agree with it if you would sign it so far I have I have had no problems with that and uh it has been a godsend um with some of our physicians here that are willing to do that it's uh not
something that you see every day um along with that lay statements ments, statements from family, friends, if they're still uh in touch with their former uh veteran friends, statements from them, and then most importantly, a
DD214, which is the discharge papers. Once we do that, we will sign I will have the veteran sign what we call an intent to file. This locks in the effective date of a claim, which could come in as far as
being back pay. Um, just because we filed it today does not mean I'm going to get an answer for anything the next day. These processes can take anywhere from, let's say, a couple weeks to months. Um so we want to make sure the
veteran gets everything that they are um awarded and that's why we do the intent to file. We want to make sure that you know this is the month this is the year that they will look as the original date of claim.
So then um and that also gives us a year to submit the claim which is important. Um, it's not always easy to get a hold of records. Sometimes you need almost that full year to try and gather everything. So, it's it's nice that you
have that time to really build a solid case so they will not come back and deny it and then we do the repeat again. Um so then when we're doing the um claim
uh we submit the claim then the VA will review uh and gather their evidence. Then the if the um if the veteran is going to need a uh physical or a medical
opinion, the VA sets up what they call compensation and pension exams. And these are not done by the VA. They used to be, but they are not anymore. They're done by independent contractors. And for
Cook County, uh pretty much everybody goes down to Duth. uh they may go to superior but um it they don't go any usually don't go any further than duth and they will get paid um mileage for that also.
So then the examiner um will evaluate and the severity and the possible connection of what they're claiming. So it's a very important that obviously that the veteran attends the appointments.
Uh then once you're waiting and it could be a week, it could be months. Um when you're waiting for that decision, that's the that's the hard part. You know, everybody wants, you know, wants to know right away and I want to know right away. Um but it's it's it's a matter of
uh time if it's your turn in the line or not. So whether or not your condition is denied, we will get a form stating that. The disability ratings uh those numbers range from zero to 100
and every body part has their own number and how severe will increase it. Uh it's it's it's very interesting. There's a lot of different factors that can you know make your claim go up in
percentage-wise disability rating or stay stagnant. And this is monthly what they will get. The first of the month is when we receive our compensation payments and they are not tax they are they are
they are not t you you don't have to pay taxes on these which is really nice. Um a very a lot of people uh this uh has been life-changing for them. Um, if we get a get the claim uh decision back and
we disagree with what they have to say, we have a year from that date to come back with new evidence to try and get the claim pushed through. So that could either be supplemental, which is like the new evidence, they have higher level
reviews, which is no new evidence and somebody there will just look over it. And then there's the board of veterans appeals a judge reviews. I have only had one of the uh board of veterans appeals. Otherwise, it's normally supplemental.
So then um this is an ongoing process with each individual veteran. Once we do that and they get their rating, I'm not done with them. I I can be working with them for forever basically how longever they're here. Um, there's the
possibility to file for increasing their ratings, any secondary conditions, and any other new claims that may come up. And it's important to know that I am not paid. The veteran does not pay me.
I'm pay my payment. It comes from the county. I'm an employee. So, this is all free help. And there are a lot of people, businesses out there that are not. And it's Veterans need to be aware of what who they're dealing with and the
fact that there are plenty of us VSOs in the state of Minnesota that will help you for free. So with this fun process of uh doing the claims approximately 50% of my time is dedicate dedicated to the claims process
and research uh research into the different body parts um what could be related to one another um with any of their doctor diagnosis. Um right now um a big thing is toxic exposure. Um that
has that has been a very time consuming when you're trying to connect something when it wasn't during wartime. Even if it was during wartime it doesn't mean that it is already out
there saying presumptively yes. they're conceding that this toxin is associated with this particular illness or disease. So, that one um that one is uh a a hard one to do. Um but it is possible.
Uh as far as meeting my veterans, I can meet them in the office. I can go to their home. I've gone to the hospital, uh the care center, wherever they are comfortable is where I will meet them. And then also um just because my hours
in the office say 8 to 4 doesn't mean I will not answer my work cell after hours and weekends which I have and have been doing quite frequently. So now just a quick list of federal
benefits. There's the VA health care that veterans can get. There's VA pensions which are needbased education benefits, VA home loan benefits,
survivor and dependency benefits, special monthly compensation, and then for some state and local benefits that I also will help out with would be property tax relief. There is a property tax exemption or reductions for
disabled veterans and their surviving spouses. Uh state homes, the veteran home, Silver Bay and others around the state, uh I will help get their applications in and then if they need anything else for me, I will also take care of
uh vehicle and transportation benefits. This is something new within the last couple years is there is now a reduced free vehicle for registrating registration of a vehicle. Uh there's disabled veteran license plates and
driver's license fee waivers. Also, state of Minnesota has hunting and fishing licenses either reduced or possibly uh free for their lifetime. And then finally,
um, I have doing I've been doing some outreach and community coordination. And my goals here for the next year are to increase my presence in the community. And I have just started to have talks with individuals about
homelessness here in the county and what we can do. Uh, transportation is a huge problem and not just for veterans. We have there's me the there has been um more uh individuals in our county that have been coming to me with mental
health issues. I start I've already started to partner with Care Partners um and they want me to start helping out with some of their lunch and learns um and I'm more than happy to. And um I also would like to try to start some support groups for veterans. we
don't have the Legion here anymore and there's really no place for everybody to gather. Um so it's important that there is a safe place for veterans to connect with one another and I would really like to be able to start um getting some of
those types of meetings together. Um not everybody wants to be a part of uh the American Legion, those kinds of things. So, um, that is, uh, one of my one of the things I'm really hoping to be able to do. Uh, some some dollars, some numbers
here. So, the US Department of Veterans Affairs, the GDX report, um, is the geographic distribution of VA expenditures and this is for 2024. So, as we I said earlier, we have a
estimated 378 veterans. those that have participated and received monies for education and vocational rehab. Uh almost 33,000 medical care. Uh right now it says we
are they are spending approximately 1,338,665 compensation and pension. This includes any of our widows or widowers that are receiving monies along with the veterans here in the county. Right now that says
we have 2 million $1,519, excuse me, with the total benefits um for the year being $3,659,458. Um, also my office receives every year a grant from the Minnesota Department of
Veterans Affairs and the amount that I receive correlates directly with the amount with the number of veterans in our county and it's been the same I would have to say for quite some time. I receive uh $7,500
um every year and those are monies that um are to be used for homelessness, uh suicide prevention, uh direct aid, um to the veterans if they should need something, uh medical mileage reimbursement for those who do not get
it from the VA because they do not have the qualifying percentage. Uh I also will help with that. Um, and that is pretty much about all I have right now. Um,
you're always welcome to come to my office, ask specific questions or if somebody needs help to let me know. Um, and I will do my best to u make sure that something is done. Um, any questions? Well, thank you for that very very
interesting um presentation, especially the numbers. I guess we we kind of get lost with the numbers of people in the county, both men and women. and 378 for our little county is >> is a very actually a very big number uh
proportionate um to the our like you said uh what we how many people are here and also the fact that we have you know uh I did not realize also until I did this that we have 78 uh band members also >> so um and that's added to that number um
and like I said um I probably have worked with at least um a quarter of those veterans up So, um, just because they're with they have a they have their own tribal veteran officer doesn't mean I cannot help them. And I can and I have also
helped others out of state. Um, sometimes they don't feel comfortable with certain people. I have people that I've worked with here and that's a family member. Um, and I'm not restricted as far as, you know, I have to work in Minnesota or I have to work
in this county. I can help any veteran. questions or comments? Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the detailed presentation and thank you, Commissioner White, for asking the question. Um, I was leazison on to the veterans office in my first term as
commissioner. At that time, it was a part-time position. Um, and it was also during that time that the state had changed its requirement relative to veteran service officers, meaning that we had one veteran service officer. And
um, then that officer had to make a decision whether they wanted to serve the county or Grand Portage. And the individual chose Grand Portage and so then we had to have our own officer. Um it would be interesting uh to look
statistically at uh and I appreciated the comment because some of the questions that were coming to my mind in your presentation relative to how much time do you spend you know filling out paperwork and stuff you know for casework uh load and um
uh when we look in public health human services the amount of time that we spend given the software that we use to put in casework load stuff is crazy and um so anything that where we can find efficiencies in doing that but
understanding how much your time is devoted to that casework processing is important. The other thing I would say is that um putting forth a a request that is well informed ensures that the veteran
is more likely to receive the benefit. And if if what we submit hasn't been thoroughly um documented and researched, then that tends to uh have an effect on whether or
not the benefit is going to be there. So I appreciate getting it right the first time to ensure that the benefit is there for the veteran service officer. It would be interesting to take the amount of money that the department that we as
a county overall between the Grand Portage and Cook County veteran service officers. If you take that total amount of money that we're investing in that provision for our county, divide it into the number of people served, divided by
the benefits distributed, we would see in in some cases we say we make decisions based upon how much it costs to invest in an employee and we see the benefit because of that
additional provision of staffing. to acquire available monies. So how that relates here is when the public looks at the veteran services officers, the number of veterans that we have, the amount of money to provide the service,
and the return on that investment, all of those things help give perspective to the value of veteran services officer. Um it I would um I would I'd also like to know
in your experience in the position what you have seen and change in accessibility and responsiveness from the veterans service department. >> Um well I will have been doing this job now for almost four years coming up in
February 7th. um which I will need to be reappointed to. But honestly, it just kind of it there's no rhyme or reason. Things were taking so long about 6 months ago and now all of a sudden
things are taking less than a month and personally I would have thought of the complete opposite. Um, so I have no clue what has changed, if it's something the state of Minnesota is doing, but there there really is no rhyme or reason. I've
had, you know, unfortunately people in the past have waited months, six months, um, a year. Um, I worked with a veteran now for um before I came in, but um we finally got him approved and it took
five years. Um and the and the law judge, he's the one who saw the law judge and they denied it too, but um able to get what we what I call that most uh coveted piece of evidence, which is a nexus letter. And
that nexus letter from that doctor sealed it. Um, so I've been trying it, you know, to do that more for our veterans if it's not a clear-cut case. Um, and like I said before, I have been very lucky that I
have doctors here that are willing to do that. And it really does make a huge difference. And and then it does, you know, cuts back on that repeat. They get, you know, denied. I'm going to have to rework it. And it just it frees me up then to work with the next person. Um,
and like I said, I will I will do the nexus letter. Doctors have enough going on and if I'm able to provide something to them to make something go faster and they're in agreeance with uh it it it helps a lot.
>> Yeah. And as a followup, Madam Chair, the um I think response is related to the value we placed on the user group. So, if we look at our veterans um as as valuable, I mean, we say we're we're a
country of the free because of the brave and and our veterans have have served and and put themselves at risk on behalf of the citizens of this country. And if we value veterans, then our response to that is going to be reflective on how
much we value our veterans. And um if we find that we have problems in those areas where we say something but we don't do something, that's where we need to advocate to make sure that our words match our actions when it comes to meeting the needs of veterans. I think
the other thing that's a component that exists in any department is the trust factor. The more that we are responsive and accessible to people and we work on their behalf and they see your commitment to do that, the more it validates the fact that um this
department seeks to serve and meet the needs of veterans and we do that genuinely, honestly, and aggressively. And we build that trust relationship which then um again validates validates our commitment
our and our words. So, um, having a father that was a veteran and advocating on his behalf and working with that veteran services departments, um, a large of a large part of our success is depend upon who we have in the position.
So, I appreciate your your service and I appreciate uh the detail of the information that you presented to us. The other thing I would say is that $7,500 figure has not changed since the inception of this position. And um you
know we we as commissioners are often voting on things that are mandated that are not funded. And to the extent that we value and see the importance of something, there should be dollars dedicated and those dollars should change. the criteria that defines that
should change to again reflect the value we place on that particular user group. >> Any other questions or comments? >> Commissioner Mills, >> just wanted to express my gratitude for the the work that you do and the services you provide and the passion you
bring to it. Um, >> thank you. >> Really appreciate you. >> Oh, I I love my job. >> Well, thank you so much for the presentation. >> Yeah, you're welcome. And like I said before, if you have questions, concerns, anything at all, please, you know, stop
by and see me. My door is always open and I'll talk your ear off. >> Thank you. Have a good day. >> Thank you. You, too. >> Administrator Treble, are you with us? >> I am, Chair. I'm think I'm going to go
ahead and and skip over to um your section 11 only in regards to Jeff Brand who's traveled many hours to get here and um we're going to preede him ahead of everybody else for right now. So Jeff, you want to step up to the
microphone and administer Treble, do you have an introduction here? >> Sure to um Commissioner. Um, basically I just wanted to let everyone know that Jess is here to present on um or bring forward an updated property description
for a parcel that they are hoping to provide to Habitat um Hamilton Habitat for affordable housing. So, I'll just turn it over to Jeff. >> Good morning, everyone. Hope you're warm and not so frosty like it is outside. It looks actually pretty nice. Um u so I'm
really happy to be here today to talk about something that you may have uh remembered if you go back to January of this year. Um there was a conversation about giving a parcel of land through conveyance through the HR to Hamilton Habitat for the purposes of building
some more housing at the affordable level in our community. Um, and when the survey happened, there was a time of transition, uh, both at the HR, but also at the attorney's office. And so when the when the surveyor went through the
process of surveying, they did their level best to kind of guess where they wanted that southern border of that property to be. And they selected within the confines of the Town Ditch, also known as Nature Boy Creek. And that was
to maximize space and also give an opportunity if so be that the area needed to have some sort of a retention pond created because of runoff. Um that there would be an outlet if it overflowed. It would go into the creek
or the town ditch, however you want to call it, or how you classify it and um and the water would continue to keep going down to Lake Superior and everything would be fine. Um but um when the HR had a conversation about this in April when we had the up at bat so to
speak to convey that property to um the Hamilton Habitat through a public meeting um uh city administrator Roth kind of came up to us and said beforehand, please don't give away half of that area of land that also is where
the water kind of runs off through the community. And so that gave us a little bit of pause. We did continue to go through with the the actions in the meeting, but um then we start kind of in the background in the last couple of months, we've been having meetings with um the county uh highway engineer with
the city of Grand Marray and what we came up to was having uh the opportunity for what we have before you here today. So basically what we're going to do is we're going to convey that property Sands Nature Boy Creek/Town Ditch and
that will allow us to actually conduct the final conveyance. Um we'll have to have a public meeting again through the H in January which is fine. We'll get that in the newspaper well in advance. But by by approving this action today, this will allow us to do that. And then
sometime in, you know, the end of January, first part of February, we'll actually be able to do the conveyance uh final uh finally with Hamilton Habitat so they can start looking at construction. Um do you have any questions for me about this?
>> And Madame Chair, can I jump in real quick and just add some additional context? >> Yes, go ahead. So, I just wanted to let the board members know as well that I did run this by our assessor's office, our highway department, um, and land services as well, and they did not express any
concerns. >> Okay. >> You agree, Bob? >> I agree. >> Commissioner Sullivan. Well, having been um extremely familiar with this property over a period of time, I would like to u
make a motion to approve the revised properties description so that the HA can convey the parcel to Hamilton Habitat. >> I support. >> Any further questions or comments? All in favor? >> I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes
unanimously. >> Thank you very much. >> There you go. Okay, >> Madam Chair, we do have one more item for Jeff Brand under the assessor. >> Go ahead. >> Okay. Um, would you like to start or would you like since it's kind of >> Maybe you should start.
>> Yeah, I have no problem. Thank you. Um so uh Jeff approached about the there's a parcel that we had received in the um land exchange with the forest service back in 2019 um as part of an a second or third phase
of the um Birch Terrace. Is it Birch Terrace? >> Birch Grove. >> Birch Grove um housing project they had already been kind of working on and and looking at this as an opportunity for future um affordable housing sites. So, um, from my perspective, the the first
thing we have to do on this is set a public hearing, um, at least 60 to 90 days out so that, uh, the public can weigh in on, um, the board's intent if that's what they choose to do with this property. We did run this property, um, by the DNR with their aggregate resource
mapping program and, um, they basically came back and said, you know, there's a slight potential for some sand on the north side of the parcel, but nothing significant. So um that process we we tried to expedite the process of the aggregate resource to look at that because it was kind of one of the things
that we had thought maybe that parcel had some potential being that it was next to another uh gravel pit. So we did that. Um none of the other departments have expressed an interest in this parcel to this point. So, um I guess the
next step would be to uh I think we need to get something I I don't know how formal it is. The the statute reads that, you know, there has to be somewhat of a plan in writing to to create affordable housing, but that's the extent of the the language in the
statute. So, I think if if Jeff has more to contribute to that, um the only thing that I would contribute is that we do currently have a contiguous parcel just behind Birch Grove School of 29 acres that we received from Tafty Township uh for the
purposes specifically of building housing. Uh we we had previously entered into an agreement that extended to five different um extensions of that agreement uh for the purposes of housing building. We as the H kind of took a
step back and said we're going to actually kind of re-evaluate who we work with and what we're going to do forward on that part part that uh parcel. But realistically the goal is still the same. We want affordable housing in that community for the purposes of the West
End. Um that was uh something that was really important to commissioners and the public, but also really important to our um housing study that we have that we conducted back in 2022 saying that we
need about you know 150 to 160 brand new single family housing units in Cook County. And so, um, that, uh, 29 acres that we have is somewhat, um, um, compromised, I suppose you could call
it, because of wetlands by about half. And then, of course, we've also got some easements with Birch Grove School. The goal is still to plan a development. We're looking as an HR at um moving oursel towards working with a new
partner or an RFP or something close to that with 2027 in mind for construction. And um in that same vein of thinking, we're thinking of this parcel is definitely a phase two of that project to build more housing. Um, in the past
construction in what we currently own looked to be about between 16 and 22 housing units. If we had that extra 64 acres into a phase two, we looking at a lot more housing, a lot more brand new neighbors and a lot new, you know,
families and people that work and live here in our in our county on that west end will give them opportunity. And so this will definitely be something that I will work with um Assessor Thompson to make sure that we have a plan in place and by but we do have a plan. Um I I can
tell you that all of us are kind of thinking the same thing when we have our meetings and we have the discussions. We're looking at more housing. 2027 will be the new date and going forward. >> It is a really um good asset. Um, Tufty
Township received the additional land a few years after the land was acquired behind the school and it was like, "Oh, this is really a bonus. It has a access." So, um, I guess if you wait long enough,
>> things open up and and the township waited and they waited because they didn't have a plan right away, but they're very thoughtful in what they do. And so, um, when I attend the meetings, they're very hopeful that all of this will be approved in the future. I do see
that the public, um, meeting will be after February 14th. Okay. >> Commissioner S, >> I would just like to say by adding additional acreage, um, it gives us a much greater opportunity to get a developer interested in the project. And
that is, uh, something we've discussed at the H for a long time. Yeah. Commissioner Mills >> outside of wheelhouses probably. But when I start saying these larger acreages and more and more housing, it
makes me think of wastewater treatment and what's that threshold like if we're going to do anything big, you kind of need that infrastructure. So, um, not to say this shouldn't happen until there's that plan. But it does make me think along those lines like if we're going bigger, we better start thinking bigger
then. Um but >> that's why we have to work harder with our legislators >> and especially our bonding tour folks to understand. >> Yep. Yep. And we've got it R um >> to help too and I know they do a lot of
great work on this front. So but um >> that's that's some real dollars. >> Any further questions or comments? Yes, Jeff. And one uh one thought in that thinking um when we add I believe it's 25 units is the threshold we'll have to
do an environmental assessment as well that' be something simple that we do online and work with the department of natural resources to do because that's within the lake superior watershed itself we'll make sure that we also are addressing uh proper management of the sewage. We want to make sure that this
is successful and um hopefully in the future we'll be having some conversations about that very soon. >> Great. Commissioner Gamble. >> Yeah, thank you Madam Chair. from the HR standpoint addressing need and looking at opportunity and
evaluating properties that are available and I know it's discussions in our meetings but uh the feasibility of those property meeting that need and um uh doing it um so that it's cost effective.
I I think that the um uh the HA board in in looking at these things is looking at it from the long-term perspective and the opportunities that you reference you know phase one phase two kind of thing and uh when these opportunities come up
we want to take advantage but we have to have that that discernment and insight that is looking at how we meet need and do it in a way that um uh is is coste effective And that's where um
taking advantage and acting on these opportunities with that kind of assessment and due diligence is is is is great. It should say to the community that we're constantly mindful of what we're attempting to try to do here and here's an opportunity. So, let's take advantage of it. It's not meeting need without that
thought and that to address the issue well well relative to the environmental impact of of any decision that we we make. So >> absolutely. >> Okay. Anything else?
>> So what is needed right now? >> So thank you uh Madame Chair and Commissioner Mills. So, this actually kind of ties into my other item I have on the agenda, and that is to set a public hearing date for um public input on the potential um sale of of tax
forfeit lands. It would be the classification as non-conservation or conservation. Um that February date is basically, you know, 60 days from today. So, that we have to go past that. I was looking at my calendar and I think that you know March either meeting in March I
know those meeting dates haven't been scheduled until your January 6 organizational meeting. Um but we could you know target either the second meeting in March or either meeting in April. That would give Brady and I enough time to get the public notice out
um to meet that 60-day requirement. Um I don't know if Brady has any thoughts on that and it would say if we put this public hearing at uh the second meeting in March >> after the lands classified as non-conservation
are determined to be eligible for sale. We would then have a 30-day notice minimum 30-day notice to um public the to make public the auction or the way we're going to sell the properties. And then I think there's a 30-day bid period. So we would be looking at at the
earliest, you know, 60 days after the classification to sell properties. As far as the conveyance, I think that conveyance could happen as soon as the board took action in March for the H parcel. >> So that could be possibly March 9th.
Second, that's the first Tuesday. The sec or you take saying the second >> 23rd. >> So either one of those would meet that 60-day requirement. Uh, I do know I'm on vacation until I'm out March 8th. So, that would be my first day back from vacation. I think we could still be
prepared for that meeting or we would look towards March the later meeting in March. >> The 20 23rd >> 24th. >> Yeah. Is it the 24th? >> Tuesday the 24th. >> I think the 24th would give you a little >> flex in there as opposed to pushing it. So,
>> I just wanted to ask Administrator Treble if you had any um input regarding scheduling. Um I think March uh 24th that was just mentioned would work. >> Okay. >> Uh
so so Madam Chair, I'd make a motion to set a public hearing for March 24th relative to the property issues that are being discussed. >> Time to define it. >> Um >> 9:00. >> You want to say 9:00? Yeah. I'll
>> support Okay. We have a motion to set the public hearing on March 24th at 9:00. Okay. And do we need a second? >> Yep. Yep. I support. >> Okay. Yes.
>> Yeah. I'm wondering, do we want to define in that motion the specific property so it's not just sitting >> a public hearing? It's a public hearing related to and then So, I I um the only ones that I know we
could list in this would be the the the parcels that were part of the Tyler settlement, which there are two parcels in that group of six that we've determined are not buildable. They're they're they're substandard lots. They don't have access, physical access. So,
those parcels we will be looking to withdraw from sale under 282. Um the other four parcels will have to go forward. Uh it's part of the Tyler settlement. We have to make our best effort to sell those. >> I was thinking we would throw some additional parcels on and I'm going to
go through some of the parcels that were forfeited prior to the Tyler settlement and include them uh as part of our discussion for the end of March. >> And so would it be proper to say in the motion that uh the public hearing is set relative to the tax forfeited parcels on
the west end? >> No. No. >> No. I think I think all we need to do today is just set that public hearing and we don't need to list the parcels until that meeting. >> Okay. Just so that there's language that identifies the nature of the public hearing.
>> Yeah, it's a public hearing to classify tax forfeit language. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Any further questions or comments? I'll call for a vote. All in favor? >> I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you. Great
job. Okay. So, going to move on and have Rowan Watkins come before us talking about the first one is Cook County Tower Access Policy. >> Good morning. >> Morning. >> Good morning.
So, this is really just looking to formalize uh an existing process that we've had in place for a long time related to how we access uh public safety communication towers that are not uh on county roads.
So, we're not the road authority of the road that we need to access to. And like I said, it's a long-standing partnership that we've had with those individual unique road authorities, whether it's the Forest Service, the DNR, Grand Portage, uh, and the highway department.
And so, as an example of things that we've done in the past was there's a road that we can't get access to. It's the maintenance standard for the authority, governing authority, state DNR, is a minimum maintenance standard. They don't have funds allocated. They're not ready to do the work on that road.
But because it's important to us to be able to access that equipment and infrastructure that provides public safety communications, it's it's how we page out firefighters and ambulance services in the middle of the night. It's the radio communications that our sheriff's office, firefighters,
ambulance, search and rescue, highway department, arrowhead electric, schools, you name it, they all rely on this equipment and infrastructure. Uh and so it's important that we're able to access it. And so in that example, the partnerships that we've had in the past is we work with the highway department
who again also uses it the system um to maybe take some material from the high or the DNR that they have available and lay it down or make minor improvements so that we can actually get to the tower, drive a truck up there. And so
this policy just defines that scope, what we will do, what we won't do, the permission that we get from the road authority, and really just tries to lay clear kind of the scope of work and to make sure that um you know this practice that we've had in place for a long time
is formalized so that internally if there's ever a change at the MIS position or or highway department positions, you know, we know what we're doing. Um, but also that we could point to external partners of the other road authorities and say, you know,
historically this is this is where we're limited. We're not doing ditching or doing culverts or anything like that. We're just making sure that we can get Jay and a four-wheel drive pickup truck up to the tower site so that we can keep things running. And so that's the the intent and the
scope of the policy. If there's any questions on the specific language in the policy or uh concerns that you might have, I'd be happy to go through them with you. Otherwise, we're just looking for approval of this policy. >> Questions or comments? Commissioner Sullivan? >> I'd just like to um indicate that we had
a very lengthy discussion at the highway advisory um meeting last month. Commissioner White was there also and um thorough support from the highway department and really glad that we're formalizing what we do. It's very important. And with that, I'd like to
make a motion to approve the resolution for the Cook County Tower Policy. support. >> Any further questions or comments? Commissioner Mills? >> Yeah, I just um uh want to bring up that this is a new policy and we're going to be having
larger policy discussions uh about old policies and updating policies and so um you know just looking for input again from administrator treble if you've got any any comments there or concerns or or strategy. Thank you, Commissioner Mills. And and I
fully support this policy, and I did talk with Rowan about adding um some language to the beginning of the policy to make it consistent in terms of look and feel as we move forward with the rest of the policies. And as you mentioned um just for all the the
commissioners to be aware of in the community as well is we are looking at all of our policies um with the help of our HR team and um have a plan as we move forward to ensure that we're updating policies as needed that we have all the policies that we need as a as a
county and then also putting them on a schedule for uh for looking at them in the future and and revamping them as necessary. So there will be more information on that coming in the future. >> Thank you. >> Thank you on that, Commissioner Gamble.
>> Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair, and and Kristen. I I would um just underscore uh your clarification on items on the agenda to give us the legal perspective.
And um just the awareness and and perspective like I say that you bring to these things is is greatly appreciated. It it brings integrity to our policies and each of us look at them from a practical outworking standpoint but to
look at it and have a legal perspective uh just builds integrity into that. So when I read your uh clarification and further information uh on agenda items um I was really encouraged to see that
we have that that added value in this perspective. So thank you very much. >> Thank you Commissioner Gamblin. I'm certainly leaning on our Tony attorney and her team um for those aspects as we move forward. So that's really helpful as well. >> Yeah.
>> Thank you, G. Any further comments or questions? All in favor? >> I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. >> Right. Thank you. The next item that we have is two agreements uh for
our uh four-year cycle of high resolution imagery or pictometry. These are the the flyovers that we do. Uh and this program has been in place since 2009. And it's one of the most important shared resources that we have uh in the organization. The imagery is used daily
for property assessment, project planning, design, um environmental review, emergency response. It's really what informs our GIS data development, public mapping, and it saves staff time, reduces field visits, and gives us a
consistent countywide data set for informed decision making. And the first agreement is the Eagle View's new master service agreement which gives us uh upgraded 2-in and 6 in imagery. That's the resolution size for the imaging that
we'll be looking at and transitions us to their new cloud platform. And this historically has always been a single agreement, but because of the changes that they made on their end, there's now a second agreement that's required to continue
our corridor imagery. And that's the imagery, the additional imagery that we capture along county roads, utilities, and key key shoreline areas. And we need both of those agreements in place to maintain the complete coverage that we've had over the cycles of this
project. And um we need to get both agreements going by the end of the year to stay on schedule. So our our schedule is west and 26, north end of the county and 27, east and 28, and then south and
29. And then we have a year off where we renegotiate the contract again. And that aligns with the quintile assessments that the assessors do. So they're getting updated imagery and information as they go out and do their assessments. So, a lot of lot of added value in
staying on schedule. Uh, financially, historically, uh, these costs have been taken out of the recorders unallocated fund. And this is the first time where we're looking at that there's not enough funding in the recorder allocated fund to do that. So, this is a little bit of
a a shift here financially. The total cost of the five-year agreement is $179,766 with the payments spread out through 26 through 29. You you pay for each flight, four flights, so four years. The first
year in 2026, we've talked about with with Holly and Brady that uh it could be fully covered by tax forfeit funds. And then uh in addition to that, the recorders office unallocated fund which has supported this program previous
cycles still can contribute at a minimum 15,000 a year or a flight. So there's um additional funds there. So in 27 28 and 29 that's another 45,000 off the off the total and
that leaves uh roughly $93,14 that would need to be budgeted for. And so our plan and we wanted to give it to you in the most um kind of conservative way that we're worst case scenario in terms of levy impact would be that MIS
would be looking to budget for the differences there which would be a little over 19,000 in 27 40,000 in 28 and 35 in 29. Um, but as we build each year's
budget, we're going to continue to evaluate the funding sources and coordinate with other agencies and partners to try to bring those costs down. And so, um, Arrowhead Electric, uh, uh, they've contributed,
uh, roughly 10,000 per flight every year for access to select imagery. Um, so that's another 40,000 off the total of the project. That's not factored into the numbers that I presented here. We haven't formalized that agreement yet, but we fully anticipate that to happen
again as well. Um, the unallocated fund is populated by fees and so there's a chance that there's more funds available and the 15,000 I referenced is there might be more there available that we could draw from.
And then lastly, the um the Recorders Technology Fund is another source that we'll be looking at in 27 to see if there's funding available and appropriate to bring the impact of levy down. And we think there is. That's a pretty healthy account. If you'll remember, that's the account that we
talked about using just recently for the upgrade to the property inquiry and tax payment system. And so if that applies and there's funding there, that's a another option we have available to us to bring that number down. Um, and the the other thing I should add to is we're
we are waiting for I was hoping to get it back from them, but on the corridor agreement, we're wanting a a slight language change from them to get rid of the language that said they had the ability to distribute and modify our GIS data. And so I guess the request today
would be approval of the master service agreement and approval of the um corridor agreement pending those language changes. >> That I would stand for questions.
>> Thank you for that good report. A lot of things coming up in the next four or five years. Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you, Rowan. Um, I I appreciate your mindfulness of the the impact, you know, moving forward
as as far as levy funding. So, just to clarify, be sure I understood you that uh this funding in the past has always come from from source. So, it's never been levy dependent. >> Exactly. It's it's never been >> And so now we're looking at exposure
about $90,000 that we levy dependent. But as you have, you know, articulated, you said you're going to look everywhere you can to try to find money so that there wouldn't be that levy impact. And I and I appreciate that that mindfulness
and resourcefulness. Um, I think moving forward when we're dealing with with budgets and within departments that funding sources that we have and new funding sources, especially those that like come from PILT or or other if if
within those funding sources there's clarity as to how they can be applied, it would be good to have an outline that identifies all of those so that when we're doing budget, commissioners are mindful of these funding sources in
alignment uh so that we can minimize impact of things uh relative to the levy. So just to underscore I appreciate that when you approached this that you're looking at this from the standpoint of its impact
on the community from a funding standpoint and to see if there are mechanisms that can help reduce that levy impact. So >> yeah, and I I just would restate that I mean the numbers that we presented which could end up in the MIS budget in 2728
and 29 are worst case scenario and I fully expect those numbers to come down significantly. I think you know with >> Arrowhead Electric's contribution as well as the other funding sources that I mentioned I expect those numbers to come down quite a bit >> and the the first flyovers did come out
of Levy. it uh it spread out to various departments, but that was that was the first time >> in 2009. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> The very first one. >> Okay. >> And we started looking at other sources. >> Right. Thank you, >> Commissioner G.
>> Yeah. Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the Cook County Pictometry and EV cloud MSA agreements. >> I'll support. Any further questions or comments? Commissioner Mills. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um just looking
at the annual payments and there's a little fluctuation there and I was just kind of like oh why is that? But then going down looking at what they charge there's fluctuation there. Is that kind of what you're following is just >> it it is and it's also the the area
right so certain areas that they cover result in more flight time and that's the biggest difference you're going to see in cost. So, if we're asking them to do a large quintile that the assessor's office is responsible for, um, and just the shape of it, you know, where they need to fly back and forth more times
than maybe they need to in another area. So, >> so you're not just randomly picking numbers? >> Not not this time? No. >> Thank you. Sivan, >> I just uh like to suggest that we amend um our motion and second to make sure
that we're indicating that the corridor agreement is done pending language changes that Rowan recommended. >> Yeah. >> I approve. >> You approve? >> Yeah. The amended.
>> Okay. With the new amendment change on this motion. Any other questions? I'll ask for a vote. All in favor? >> I I >> oppose the same sign. Thank you very much, Rowan. >> Thank you. Thank you.
>> So, next up, we're going to hear from Allison Plameumber in the uh human resource area. And I would say, Allison, don't hurry because when you're finished, then we'll break for lunch. >> I was just curious. I was like, oh no,
are they going to break? Then we can come back refreshed. I'm >> like the new Tim Nelson. I get the break. >> All right. Um Okay. So, first item that I have on the board, uh is a resolution
to adopt uh two personnel policies. Um so, let me find. Okay. So, with the implementation of Minnesota paid leave, which will become effective January 1st of 2026, there was a requirement for us to take a look at our current personnel
policies in addition to creating a new policy that will be for for that implementation of the paid leave program. So, for although there are more policies that we're reviewing and I'll bring more in in January, the two kind of immediate ones are on the board
agenda for today. So, the resolution addresses the creation and adoption of the new of the county's new Minnesota paid leave policy. Uh, that policy really just is reflective of the language that's included in the state statute, Minnesota statute 268B.
Um, and then just uh some of those few um kind of considerations that were up to the county to decide how we wanted to implement um if we wanted to do one thing or not another. we had some leeway in the statute. Um, and those things,
most of those things were identified in those that were approved at the last meeting uh for the three bargaining agreements. Um, however, so this is the countywide the overall policy for that imple implementation of that program.
And then because of the new paid leave program, we also reviewed our paid time off policy or I should say our paid leave policy. Um, and one of the big changes that I'm recommending in that policy today is the name change. Um,
because even just talking about it, we've talked about these policies at our personnel committee and it gets confusing talking about the new paid leave program, the new Minnesota paid leave program and then we're referring to our paid leave. Um, so to try to help eliminate some of that confusion going
forward when we're referencing the different benefits and the programs, uh, the policy reflects a name change to paid time off or a lot of people already use PTO. Uh, we refer to it, so we're just making it official. Um, really the
there aren't any other changes, uh, revisions to the paid time off policy. Uh, there's just a little more meat. Um, there were pieces missing that there's now language in the policy that matches
past practice but was not written down into the policy. Um, and one of those things that I can think of off bat is uh consecutive years of service when we look at longevity and the the increase in acrruals that the PTO acrruel
increases based on your continuous years of service. Not if you work, leave, come back, leave, come back. It's not that accumulated time of service. >> Questions or comments? >> Sounds like a good acronym. >> PTO PTO.
>> MNPL. >> And I would like to point out it is PTO in the agenda. It says P O T. This is not our cannabis reference. This is paid time off. >> I thought it was paid off time.
PTO. I know. It's like the one spot that the the letters got reversed. I don't know. >> Feel like those eyes just skip over those things. I thought >> I wasn't going to point that out. >> I did it for a little levity. It's been a long day. >> I looked at it this morning and I was
like, are you kidding? I didn't catch that. >> So, given that, I would um >> The actual policy says PTO. >> Oh, okay. Well, given that, I would like to um make a motion to by resolution um
approve the paid time off PTO and Minnesota paid leave personnel policies. >> Support. >> Any further questions or humorous comments? I'll call for a vote. All in favor?
>> I post same sign motion passes unanimously. >> Um Oh gosh, that was funny. Okay. Um the the next item um this is a resolution establishing a holiday. Um this is a
very unique situation. Um and this was raised by um county administrator Kristen. Um we were in sitting in a personnel committee last month and we were talking about our different policies and what we looking
what we're looking at revising and it was mentioned or the attention brought to the fact that um there's been confusion around Christmas Eve and the practice of previously um I'll kind of
get to the background of how things have changed but either closing the courthouse house previously at noon or now it's a full day, but it's not an actual declared recognized paid holiday for staff. And why that the attention to
that was brought to light is that that's in contradiction to what's required in state statute that per Minnesota statute 373.052 052 that county offices may be closed for business on holidays
established by the county board pursuant to contract with certified uh employee bargaining units or by resolution. So we have 11 recognized paid holidays. Either they're recognized federally or we've established them here with the county by
resolution. um those meet the requirement to allow business offices to be closed legally per statute. However, Christmas Eve doesn't necessarily meet those requirements because we're closing the
building, but it's not a holiday. staff have had to use their either paid leave or now PTO um to either take the day off or they could work and not have the interruptions by the public or potentially other staff. So given the
fact that this um this situation occurred less than a month ago and less than a month before the anticipation of of closing for Christmas Eve, we had to come up with a solution to legally be able to offer
that closure in accordance with it being in the CCEA bargaining unit agreement. Um, so the kind of temporary solution that we landed on was actually establishing it as a holiday, recognizing it as a county
paid holiday for 2025. And then that will lend us time to be able to meet with uh mainly CCA. Um, and I know Steph and Jay are behind me uh representing that union here today. uh but to allow us time to kind of work through what
that would look like in 2026 because we'd still be under the current contract in 2026 and then what that would look like potentially in the next negotiations. >> Okay. Appreciate the fact that you're workable, you know, that you work with it. And Administrator Treble, did you
have anything to add? Um, thank you, Commissioner Storyley and um, care. I I think Allison did an excellent job of walking through the issue at hand. And the only thing I would add is is just to reaffirm what
she has said that given this conversation started approximately a month ago, we wanted to make sure that we were providing um the opportunity for staff to move forward in the way that they had anticipated um
in pursuant to the contracts and um and not force them to come into the office with such short notice. So we wanted to make sure that for this year we make this accommodation and then like Allison has mentioned for next year this will be
part of our negotiation discussions. >> Okay. Thank you Commissioner White. So, does that mean that this year the employees will be paid for taking the time off or will they have to
use their PTO to not come on and come to work on Christmas Eve day? >> So, if it's approved and designated as a paid county holiday, it would be paid by the county. It would be like any of the other holidays that are paid out. staff
would not be required to utilize their personal PTO to cover that day off. >> And com Commissioner White, if I can jump in here, the reason for that that that would be a paid holiday for them is that's how we can be in compliance with
the statute. >> Okay, Mr. G. >> Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Uh my my only question would be is there anything that is uh mandated in statute or whatever on the federal or state level limiting the number of paid holidays
that you can have in a year. It just up to a board to make a resolution whatever to adopt it as a paid holiday. So there's no limitation. >> No limitation. >> In some cases in in employment agreements, you've got so many paid holidays and if you want to change which
date you want to choose, you can do that. But you have to stay within the parameters. But there's no parameters. So >> correct. Yeah. Like you see a lot of like floating holidays now that are being incorporated into contracts. We don't have that. But yeah, there's there's no limitation. You know, a lot of organizations recognize the federal
holidays, but then in addition to, you know, we can add extras like the day after Thanksgiving. We have that one and and not uh you know, indigenous people's day for example. >> Thank you. I just want to make a motion to approve
uh all three resolutions um for CCA LS and the 49ers. >> I will second that. Any further comments or questions? I'll call for a vote. All in favor? >> I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes
unanimously. >> Just consider it a stocking stuffer. >> Oh yeah, >> that's very nice. Yeah, the staff will appreciate that. >> Okay, we're right on time.
We said we were going to break at noon and we're pretty close. >> Bravo. Bravo. >> So, at this time, um, we're going to take a lunch break and be back in a half hour, which would mean, um, we just said before 12:30. So, around 12:30. Okay,
thank you. >> And I will log off and someone will call me back at 12:30. Is that correct? >> Sounds great. >> Okay, thanks everybody. Yeah. Okay, good afternoon. We're back um at our
board meeting and now we're going to be uh getting down to some real nitty-gritty here on discussing our levy and so forth. But I think I will ask Brady to go ahead. Let's do the designation of the polling places and then we'll have that out of the way.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. So, this is asking you to designate our polling places for the 2026 elections. And this year, we're asking to change one of the polling places. We haven't
done that for a long, long time. So, we'd like to use Grand Marray City Hall Council Chambers for the Grand Marray East uh polling place. and the the rest are the same as uh as they've been uh
the community center for Granbury West and then the uh county auditor's office is the polling place for everything else. But the recent improvements to city hall council chambers made this a viable option. Um
since uh 1998 when the courthouse edition was completed um we've been using the commissioner's room in the courthouse but since that time it's become more difficult to manage elections here >> as you we've filled out all the spaces here. We've cut up rooms into smaller
pieces and for uh mail ballot elections where you have to spread out >> and uh and alphabetize all those envelopes etc. it's get it gets more difficult and uh so this will free up some room for us here to manage elections easier.
So I'm asking for approval by resolution >> as you can see >> and how will the the folks will have some information well ahead of time that those in the >> Yes, we have to right we have to uh publicize that in certain ways and we'll
follow statute to do that. This gives us a lot of time. Do >> you have a time unless we have any kind of special elections? >> Yeah, unless there's a special election, we may um we may not use it for a special election, but >> uh this would be planned for the state
elections, the primary in August and the general election in uh November. City's happy with that. >> Yeah. Yeah. there. I don't know if it's exactly mandatory, but it's um at least in statute it's in
highly encouraged that all you know municipal facilities that you know that are available for elections and it's for city residents too. So, >> any questions or comments, Commissioner Mills?
>> Um this sounds great. Thank you. Um, I'm just a little curious. So, pre precincts 1 through 4, 78, 8A, 8b, 9 through 12, those are all um largely male. Uh, >> yeah, they're they're male unless
someone has, you know, asked for an absentee ballot, but even absentees, the polling place there is the courthouse, the auditor's office. >> And so, I was just noticing it's all together. Um, is it, you know, best to
keep uh five and six separate? Um, is is that is that sometimes I hear people being confused >> of which side of Grand Marray they're on and I have to go here instead of here, you know, and so I was just wondering, >> might it be feasible, maybe not now, but
in in the future to to combine or is it important that we keep those separate? It's no, you can combine uh polling places, but um in a heavy election, we like to keep the the the size down, but
>> but when they vote in person, that might be viable, but >> the spaces aren't that large, neither one of them >> um at at peak times. So, we we'd evaluate that. But that's a good that's a good thought.
>> Commissioner Sullivan. >> Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve by resolution the designation of polling places for use in any election held in Cook County beginning in 2026. >> Support. >> Any further questions or comments?
All in favor? >> I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. >> Yeah, Madame Chair. So, this uh came up at the last meeting, but uh county commissioners, if they're going to make a change to your your salary or
prediums, it for next year, it has to happen this year. So, um that's by statute and state auditors encourage us to do this by resolution even if there are no changes, just to document it
well. And I've put in the packet uh resolution and uh this is just last year's resolution. So it shows 2024 and it shows that you made an increase of 2.6%
based on the CPI for Midwest urban consumers. And now it's uh it's up to you to make a decision either at this meeting or you could call a special meeting if you
can't come to agreement at this one. >> I think in our discussions in the past year or so we've looked at the CIP and um just see what >> capital improvement plan >> CPI >> consumer price index
>> CPI. Yes. And that seemed to be kind of a fair way of looking at things. Does anybody have any other ideas? >> I I just looked it up. Um, you know, and um, you know, 2.99% you know
>> um, three is typically what is reported. Yeah. Um, so if it's at 3% that's about 33,000 commission >> right right now we have just to for
background as a placeholder um I put in the 2.75 that all the staff had >> as an increase just as a placeholder so that whatever decision you make it if it's less it'll be a cut
>> if it's more it won't be much of difference from what's there now. So, >> I think one of the reasons that we started the discussion was we looked in the past um salaries and so forth and there had not been any updating for over eight years.
>> So, we um that's why we had the discussion last couple years. >> Yeah. The the base salary hadn't changed from 2003 through 2021. It was >> 19 years >> 22 394 for that 19-year period and then
you've made the small changes the one larger change we did a CPI and a 3600 but other than that it's been a a cola um or cost of living CPI. >> Commissioner Gamble.
>> Thank you Madam Chair. in um bargaining our union contracts um and I don't know if this is still the case but with our three unions then whatever was determined with those that
the the staff the other staff we just tied it to whatever we bargained. Mhm. >> So, and what is what is that classification of employee that is not in the union groups? What do we refer that to as >> Oh, uh non-union.
>> Okay. >> Un unrepresented. >> That's what we're still saying as the non-union. So, is it and it used to be that the the policy was that if we negotiated the union contracts, we just take the non-union and apply that. >> That's been the practice for quite a
while, >> right? And and so if you look at the last negotiation, what what then did the non-UN uh agreement that we based upon our practice, what did that end up being percentage- wise?
>> This the same as the union 2.75. >> Okay. And so if you look at u what the uh consumer I looked at it last night, right? That's 2.8. And if you look at
what social security is projected for 2026, that's 2.8. And um uh there was some discussion about uh uh I received, you know, correspondence from
citizen just saying that if the rate that a commissioner would get is higher than the rate that's negotiated, that didn't seem to be, you know, something's acceptable. my moving forward if if the board said we should do what
we do for the non-union and just make it whatever that ends up being you you could do that from my standpoint just personally I I I would given given the financial situation that
we're that we're looking at I would I would not recommend and an increase. I think you run into problems when you have what 18 years. >> Mhm. >> Where you do nothing but um I think uh by example
uh to departments when we're talking about boy look at the challenges that we have trying to do more with less kind of thing. I'm I would be comfortable not making an an increase. Um, but that's my perspective on it is just to say that
maybe we should just tie it to the non-union moving forward and then it's consistent and it it seems to be what's good for the goose is good for the gander. But >> I would support that. >> Yeah. So would I.
>> Yeah. >> More comments. >> Agreeable. >> Madam Madame Chair, if I can make one comment. >> Yes. Um, I just I I did some research on um small, medium, and large counties and what their commissioner salaries are as
well. And I would say that we're we're pretty low in comparison. There are a couple counties that are around the same rate as what we're at, but overall, I would say we're definitely at the lower end. So, I just wanted to share that
information as well. Thank you, >> Commissioner Mills. >> I appreciate you looking into that administrator trouble, and I'd like to have more conversations about that next year. >> And yeah, when we've looked at it in the
past, you you you do need to look at what the prediums are >> to factor that in. >> Some some don't have pdeiums. I don't know. I don't have much background on that, but I know in the past there were some that didn't or didn't have as much
as we did. So, >> correct, >> Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I I did a comparative study on uh commissioners uh wage in pdium uh in comparable counties
and um uh I think in when we were in our uh commissioner White and myself we posed the question at the ARC with St. Louis commissioners and St. Lewis commissioner's response was that they're
about the same whether you get a salary or whether you get a pdeium or not which in that particular case they really aren't but uh um in in my findings in looking at things when you look at at the the costs um and I and I looked at
it this year too if if we were to go to a set salary which is a predictable thing you know when you set it that's what it's going to be which would be based upon what we're finding in our average budget over the years relative to PDMS. So the board could make a
decision and to Commissioner Mills comment, you know, if we were to look at this, you could look at it and say, do we want to just set a salary that's a constant? Um, as opposed to the variable that comes with PDMS and uh that's
something that could could be looked at. Um but anyway, >> yeah, I don't know about constant. I think we have to review it. Um because things change. >> Sure. But what I'm referring to in the constant is is not setting it and letting it right. I'm saying that the
policy would be that we would become a a county that that pays a set salary that gets evaluated and not salary plus predium. That's what I'm saying suggesting. We could look at that. I think it would vary though too quite
widely depending upon how much travel we do. Well, travel is uh >> well, that's pdeium. >> Travel is independent of pdium, >> but um just just looking the other thing that that if you were to have a set salary, what assurances have you put in
place that commissioners participate at the level, you know, that is is required. So, to Commissioner Mills point, I I think it's good multiple things that we just evaluate. It's always good to step back and take a look at and then see have we set it up the
best way. What are the positives and what are the, you know, the negatives of any evaluation. So, >> Commissioner Sullivan. >> Um, thank you, Madam Chair. I I would agree that looking at it regularly is important to do annually. Um I would say
if we in the future were to consider a salary that it's very important that we look at the commissioner assignments and um it's it's not just about travel. Travel is part of it because travel is something that's required for our AMC
policy committees. Um but in addition to um looking at um our assignments, thinking about how regularly they meet, what kind of a time commitment it is, that type of thing. But I would suggest that if we move to a salary in the future, we look annually at balancing
those commissioner assignments. >> I I would agree. But again, to Commissioner Neil's point, it's like everything. We should we should take some time and and look at these things. And we uh we've got a number of things that have sort of we just sort of let it
ride and it it runs on the rhythm that we're we're used to and and we haven't evaluated. And um the comment was made I think I forget which agenda item it was today but we haven't revisited this since 2021.
>> Well if you want to look at our contract relationships with the city when it comes to law enforcement things like that >> it's been not 2021 it's been >> if you want to talk 18 20 years whatever and >> that's just not realistic. So I think we
operate in good faith with common sense which just says we should revisit these things and make sure that they're fairly aligned. >> Okay. >> One other data point I wanted to point out that I
appreciate Brady including in this item is just the median income in Cook County uh is estimated at 54,000. I'm really curious really I mean the the site is listed there but I'm really just curious about where we can dig into that more
but I'm I'm excited to have a more thorough conversation in the next year just about >> all of it. I'm not sure I like the idea of just having a salary. I think having the PDM is um is is a great uh
accountability tool uh slash motivator um to be involved and um and just I want to thank um the commissioners that have taken on more um when Commissioner Sullivan and Commissioner Johnson were looking at our assignments and the
distribution of that um it wasn't very equal and I've really personally noticed um uh a better ability to do the job when it's more evenly distributed. So, I just appreciate the the work that
commissioners have been doing. >> Commissioner Sullivan. Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve by resolution the county commissioner salaries and pdiums for 2026 with a 2.75 increase
>> to align with our employees. >> Yep. Support >> and pdeiums to remain the same. >> And pdeiums to remain the same. That is correct. >> Any further questions or comments? Commissioner, >> when did when did PDMS a start and
change? I have to look at that. >> Okay. >> I think George Washington. >> Yeah, that was something I Yeah. >> I mean, we've kind of talked about it before, but we haven't. And we certainly need to add that in conversation, but I don't feel clipped to
>> split that uh whether you did it locally. >> Oh, yeah. >> Or drove out of the county >> and then it morphed into But if you had multiple meetings locally, >> Yeah. equivalents to one meeting in Duth things like that and it ended up with
what we have now. >> No. >> Okay, I'll ask one more time. Any further questions or comments before I ask for a vote? Okay, I'll ask for a vote then. All in favor? >> I
>> oppose. Same sign. >> Motion passes four to one. Thank you for the conversation to be addressed definitely in the future. >> So now, Commissioner Mills, did you want to talk about the late tax penalty waiver? We didn't talk about where that
was going to occur. >> Sorry. Okay, Madam Chair. >> Yeah. Um, thank you. Um, and so this came to my attention and Brady's got way more context than I do. Um but it came
to my attention from um property owner in district 3 um who um had a number of disruptions in their life uh including the passing of a spouse and then apparently a close friend who had a
medical emergency and uh was late on property taxes and um was surprised at a having a late fee. Um, and their argument was that I've
paid property taxes on time for 10 years or I don't know if it's longer. Um, why can't Cook County just have the same system as uh Ramsey County? And I think they kind of went back and forth with
Brady and Brady said, "Well, it's it's a board decision to have that kind of system. It's not it's not in in a department's purview." Um, and uh, I was under through my conversation, I was under the impression that it was
automatic. Um, but looking into it more, Ramsey County has a a request form that you fill out and it's uh pretty beige like one time only penalty waiver
and there's all it needs is the property ID, owner of the property, owner/taxpayer mailing address, city, state, zip, uh, address, name and address of party requesting the waiver, role of the company if that's applicable, and then
property address. Um, now my understanding through Brady is there's, you know, three to three to 400 late tax, you know, payers. And so just
managing that is a thing. And so, um, you know, to Brady's point, there should be some sort of documentation or something kind of qualifying that. But >> can I I could elaborate a little bit. So, the the board approved a policy a
few years ago >> and policy this is late payment or penalties and this is in the current year and I think that's what this request was. >> I think so. Once it gets to delinquent, there's different state rules. Yeah, that's where it's
>> um >> hardcore, >> not as easy to change. But the policy says hardship due to documented tragedy or casualty. Examples are life-threatening medical condition, death of property owner or immediate family member, making the position of
the penalty unjust. The other one is claims of lost check accompanied by copy of the dated stop payment order with the claimants's bank if a payment is lost or in the mail or if the taxpayer presents positive proof such as a copy of the
check register certified check or other means of payment and for the hardship that they document document meaning like you have something from the medical facility from the clinic from the doctor that this actually occurred and the and
so forth. So, and I think if this is the same one I remember talking to and I said that isn't and uh you know if you could submit that information you know I'll take a look at it. I don't know if it was an immediate family member which
is what's in the policy but uh if it was an you know immediate family member and they had some documentation but they didn't want to provide that. it was like, you know, bothered them to have to do that. So, >> yeah. And I think we're talking with the same individual property owner and
>> and um and they're pretty upset about it. Not about the money, but just the the principle of it. And um >> you know, the Ramsey County one does not require any documentation. And um I don't think that's unreasonable to
require some documentation. Um but um this individual asked me to bring it before the board and make this request to see if we're willing to change the policy. I said it'd be very uh out of the ordinary for us to either a do a one-off or b change a policy like this
without a really deep dive. And we have a number of policies on the docket to review. And so I didn't give them um great hope, but I wanted to start the conversation and at least present it before the board um to make you aware of of
our current policy as well as potential other policies. So um I guess that's as as far as I need to go with it right now, but um I guess I guess the individual wanted me to advocate for not having that late late fee and I don't
know that I can do that. um in good in good faith. I I think we need to have a strong strong policy. So, >> Commissioner Gamble, >> thank you, Madam Chair. I I appreciate the conversation. I I think it's
important to um underscore that that our policy is uh is not driven by looking for revenue sources. We would rather have the taxes paid on time.
And if you don't have a policy that holds accountability, then you're going to run into this problem and you're going to have to be babysitting it. On the other hand, the human component of it is something that we certainly would want to demonstrate.
So compassion in circumstances where it's we want to demonstrate that that we're very human. Um I think it's important to have have a policy. So for my clarification, do we have a policy? Now if we did, then it seems this
individual would just, you know, appeal based upon policy. >> I just I read from the policy that was approved. >> That's what I I wanted to clarify. So it's in place. Does that policy require >> Yeah, it does. It requires substantiating.
>> Yeah. And and so in this case, it seems that the individual is saying we should have a policy like that. >> I think the individual is asking for a policy that does not require documentation. >> Documentation. >> Oh, yeah. I would not be oppo I would be
opposed to that. >> I I think that uh um >> it is a it is a one-time thing, >> you know, a one-time waiver and you could according to this, you can't have done it in the last 10 years. >> Yeah. But still, I feel like there
should be some documentation. But yeah, this this person um sounded offended at the idea and I didn't fully understand. >> Well, you know, here's the thing. I often refer to the fact that we see the outward appearance, but we don't
know know the motivation. >> And I'm saying I think that the board's policy is is a motivation to combine accountability with compassion. M >> and the provision is there but to substantiate to avoid fraud or abuse of
policy I think that there needs to be documentation and if an individual needs some assistance in understanding how to achieve that we're certainly willing to do that. So I think we can bend over but I think without the accountability it opens us up and and that that's
problematic. So respectfully, I would just say I think our policy is in place and if there's anything that we can tweak, but I would not >> and I think that it might be >> Go ahead. Um that offended that you
wouldn't that we wouldn't just believe the person. I mean just in whatever as Commissioner Gamble said, we see the outside and we don't know all the turmoil or whatever else is going on. But how confidential is that information? I that's my question. Like
if someone were to walk it in and show Brady and he'll go, >> "Yes, applies." And does that have to stay on >> record someplace or it just >> not in not per the policy? >> So it could just be shown to someone
with the authority to say yes and then take your documentation home and it's done. It's not something that would become public. Um Bob Thompson has joined us. So Bob and >> the other Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I did
miss the beginning of the conversation, but it sounds like we're talking about an abatement, a potential abatement. >> This is the abatement of late penalties or interest, not property taxes. >> Okay. >> And this is this is the at the end of the the abatement policy that was
approved a few years ago. So this is just the current year. >> Yeah. >> Penalty. So we do have in our policy the the requirement of a hardship um for going back more than current year taxes. We have had it in the past where they'll
provide information to satisfy you know proving that there is a hardship but um we don't bring that information to the board. We to protect that information from the public. Um also if this is a homestead Brady and I do have the authority to just approve that abatement
without going to the board. So that is potentially an option if I don't know if this property is a homestead or not, but >> I'm not sure. I don't think so. I can't remember anymore. >> So the decision rests with your department. >> So at first any abatement that comes
before us, Brady and I have to approve it. If it is a homestead and they're only asking for current year taxes, then Brady and I can just administratively approve that without board approval. That's in our policy. Anything outside of a homestead or beyond the current year would require board approval. We
did discuss potentially setting a $10,000 administrative um amount, but actually the board discussed it and they wanted to continue to bring those abatements >> without disclosure of the individual. >> Yes. Yes. And that's >> before the board. >> Yep. So the abatement it would disclose
the property. >> Uh it wouldn't disclose what the hardship was. I mean, there's there's all kinds of different hardships that we we feel would qualify. Um, basically, if any hardship that has prevented this individual from either appealing or paying those taxes,
>> what's your sense of the policy as it stands? >> Well, we did revise it. I actually revised that with Attorney Hick and I think it was in 2023, maybe. So we we we went through it with a fine tooth comb and I feel like the policy fits kind of
what our needs are for that policy, it protects it. So like you say, you know, if if if we get claims, they have to be somewhat substantiated and that this isn't just a route to avoid paying a penalty or interest. >> And what problems would you see if if we were to say that there doesn't have to
be any verification that somebody just asks? >> Well, it could potentially open up the door for abuse. And that's why we we try to verify it to some extent. And you know, like I said, there's there's a there's a lot of varieties of extent. You know, if somebody was um in in
impatient treatment or some something along the lines where they were not able to receive mail or they were not able to, you know, even caretaking for a loved one that that could potentially qualify. It's something that Brady and I would meet. And if it really became a question of of uh does it meet the
hardship, we would probably consult with the county attorney. The other the other aspect is uh depending if it's you know a documented hardship obviously but um you know uh they're late for various reasons
the male etc. um you've got three to 500 other people who have had the exact same thing and it's it it's a matter of fairness at some point if someone you know comes forward but uh I feel
like you you've got to go and give that same information and offer to the rest who've had the same issue. >> Mr. Gamble. >> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um
I I would just say generically that this is a good conversation on issues that come to have this conversation and and involve the people that are you know involved in it in the administration. This is this is good. We we need more of these kinds of conversations to help inform I would say the policy not having
read the policy that it might be beneficial not only to address the letter of the law relative to policy but the heart of the matter which is the combination of why why we've done it this way which can give um a narrative
to the the human component of it. So I you don't want policies to be lengthy but that but I think that in writing policy there it should be addressed both from the letter of the law as well as the the intent behind it so that people
have an appreciation that we look at it both from mind and heart so to speak. I think that'd be beneficial. So like I say sometimes we're you're looking for new ways to charge. Jeremy, do we not feel like that in this society that everybody's looking for a way to get
your money and everything that goes on and it just gets wearing and we don't want to be set in that charact category. We're we want to be seen in a in a category of stewardship or responsibility and compliance but the
evidence of our compassion and humanity and if that's there then then I think we can stand behind that confidently. Yeah. And again, I really appreciate the the board's discussion. I appreciate you Bob dropping in and Brady more
perspective there. And um yeah, I just wanted to to do do uh do right for a property owner and bring this forward. I did kind of set it up knowing that hey, there's probably not going to be it would be very unusual for us to take action on this right now and recognizing
it's the last meeting of the year and blah blah blah. So, thank you all. >> Commissioner Sullivan, >> I just recommend that we take a look at this in the normal evolution of our policies and um think all the conversation today was really valuable
and kind of helps to frame the policy that we currently do have. >> Yeah, definitely agree. Anything else while Bob is here? And madam chair, I would just also like to add that um you know I'm certain that
that Brady and Bob would be willing to have a conversation with this individual as well. I wasn't certain if that has happened at this point. So if there's interest in that um you know we could certainly facilitate a discussion. >> They Yeah, they've Thank you. Um they
have reached out and then >> yes >> didn't like that and then reached out to me. >> Okay, thank you for your input. Thanks, Bob. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Was there anything else on the side that anybody wanted to bring up?
Okay. So, getting into our discussion of our levy and our future here, futuregoing 2026, futuregoing 2027. We've received a multitude of
information information from department heads. Brady has passed on questions that people have asked and um if you used a spreadsheet, I hope you had a pencil with an eraser
because it's constantly changing. So, I will ask Brady to kind of lead us into um perhaps one of our final discussions here. >> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just threw this
together, so it's not online. It's just a you've seen almost all of this information, but I just thought I would summarize a little bit. enough.
Um, first of all, you know, we approved a proposed levy on September 9th, 13,780. That was 7.57 over fiscal year 2025. And that included
our 2.5% cost of living, the 11.8% an 8% health insurance increase. The payments for the 2024 capital improvement bonds, the 2025 jail bonds, maintenance equipment for snow plowing, capital reserves for community center assets,
shared position for auditor and recorders office, new family paid leave program, and we had a significant increase in our liability and work comp insurance and other various increases. These are the these are the larger ones.
And then various it's already changed since I put this in, but various in adjustments since September uh brought the levy increase down now to 6.36. It says 79 on here. Um,
and just to remind that last year we used 307,000 of our 2.157 million of BWCA reappraisal reserves to offset levy increases
and 1.6 6 million of those were shown being used in the preliminary budget and levy, which is a significant hit to that. Um, the balance of the American Rescue
Plan funds are included in the proposed 2026 budget. There are 300 and some thousand left of that $3 million uh that we got over those three years. Um, and that's really going to go
towards those first bond payments in 2026, but that that money will be gone. And then what I just handed out now, and you can't see this, Chris, um,
is just showing the maximum levy that we could approve, which is the 7.57% that we had in September. Uh, and we could use we could do that make with the adjustments we've made, we
could reduce our fund balance uh to 1,444800 or we could let the if we made no other changes today. I'm not assuming we won't make any other changes, but with what we have now, we're down to a 6.36%
increase using that initial 1.6 million that I put in as a placeholder, so to speak. Um, reasons to think about using less fund balance are our interest rates are falling.
our interest revenues exceeded a million and a half in 2023 and 2024. That was a significant offset to expenses and those rates have dropped more than one and a half or 1.5% since that peak
and they're expected to keep falling. So those revenues aren't going to be around like that unless something turns around. Um the federal revenues from the American Rescue Plan were first received in 21 and the last of it will be spent early in 26. So those total revenues
exceeded 3 million and generated significant part of that interest. Some of that money was also used to reduce levy. The other aspect the full effects of the federal legislation that happened this year won't be known
until later this year. you know, Medicaid and SNAP and other effects that I may not be aware of. And you always have unknowns with construction projects. We think we have a handle on that, but uh name me one that doesn't
have a few surprises, but hopefully not. Um reasons to take those adjustments and any other cuts and reduce the levy is the impact of inflation on taxpayers. It's hit them hard for the last few
years and it continues. And another one is to avoid ups and downs in the levy. Um there can be many more, but these are just some thoughts I had. I I finished this at noon, but anyway.
So then I just show some those uh our full budgets with the use full use of that 1.6 6 million fund balance and maybe letting that go down a little and leaving the maximum levy at 7.57
and um I think I'll leave it to discussion questions. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, we have a really difficult decision, not only today, but in 2027.
And recently, as we attended the Minnesota Association of Counties annual meeting, um, we talked a lot about the budget at the state level. And when our state legislators passed their budget earlier this year, they did so in a
really challenging environment. And since then, um, more information has come out from the federal government. I went to a session where, um, you know, you can see this at a distance, but it shows like transportation funding from
the feds and how that's impacting northeastern Minnesota, our region. And then I went to a session that talked about the supplemental nutrition assistance program, SNAP, and thinking about that our f federal
reduction is going to go from 50% down to 25%, which means states and counties are going to be liable for 75% of the costs of that program. And then Medicaid down the line is going to have impacts. We don't know exactly
what those are. are those are the unknowns that auditor treasurer Powers talks about. But as I'm thinking about this year's budget, I'm thinking also a lot about 2027 and trying to look at that bigger picture as we make our decision today.
And so I just want the public to know in particular that that we are aware that it's it's about today, but it's also about what's coming around the corner. And we're keeping that in mind as we make our decisions today.
Commission Mill. >> Yeah, speaking of around the corner, um, you know, if we didn't use any of our fund balance and we had our current budget, you know, it would it would add an additional 10% or more than 10%. Um,
and so we'd be talking about 17% levy or a 16% levy. Um, well, I guess just 16, right? Well, regardless, much higher. And so, we're not going to have this
fund balance to do that for years and years and years. We have about two years left, maybe maybe three. Um, and so, you know, in past years with our past levies, um, you know, we we kept it lower knowing that we're going to have
to make this transition away from using fund balance. And so um the sooner we can do that I feel the better. Um but uh we don't have to do it.
We can use more fund balance. Um it's just I would I would much prefer using less fund balance and incorporating these costs into the levy as I think it's it's a more accurate representation.
That being said, um I'm also, you know, fully intending to bring some kind of relief to taxpayers, especially those that we hear about who are getting taxed out of their homes. Um and so I'm hoping that we can find some kind of um
extension of uh the the homestead tax exclusions um that we can operate as a county with our substantial fund balance. um just to really bring that relief to the people who really need it because we also need to recognize not
everyone needs it. There's you know I remember there was a couple a couple years ago there was uh someone who came and argued their property value down from 1.5 million to 1.2 too. And I was kind of like, boohoo, you know. Um,
clearly you guys can you guys have the means. Um, and it's, you know, I I think we need to really keep our eye on the prize with who who we're affecting and how. And, um, and so just looking next year, the more
fund balance we cannot use, the easier it'll be to incorporate these costs. But um not going to die on a hill here. >> Madam Chair, if I can offer some comments too. >> Yes, go ahead.
>> So I just want to um add to what Brady had mentioned about the unknowns going into the next few years. I'm really worried about that after AMC and after um what I've learned in my my time here at the county. I think there's a lot of
unknowns going into 26 and 27. And I would I would recommend that we keep as much fund balance as we possibly can in anticipation of some of those increased costs. So I think although the levy could be reduced to the 6.36
um I think it should remain at the 7.57 and then decrease the amount of fund balance that we use in addition to any other cut cuts that might be made um decreasing um that from the fund balance. And then the other thing that I just want to remind everyone of is that
the preliminary um levy average across the state was 8.1. Um so we we don't know at this time where everyone is landing on their um their final levies, but I just wanted to remind everyone that that was the average. >> Thank you.
>> Right. All those figures are coming and going. If we look at the five uh 7.57 um we would have an extra 200,000 by not using fund balance. I mean that would go
someplace planning for 27. Commissioner White. Well, I'm about to make no friends, but how about if we uh we talked about our discretionary funds and you know, instead of kicking the can down the road, the road stops now. And
we when we approved for the historical society, we said this might change. There are this is not set in stone. This we might change it. And so, how about if we just say I'm sorry.
I'm very sorry, but we are we can't do this now. And so, yes, I know it's now I can't think of them, but anyway, it's like other places have their other grant sources, funding sources. The
county can't support everybody. We can't we can't do that. And so in your own home when times are tough and even though you used to always do this or you used to feel okay about dipping into your savings to go to Florida for a
vacation, but not now. And what are we not going to spend money on? Like we can't. We just can't. We just have to hold tight. And so I am suggesting that we pull back that discretionary funding,
zero it out. And I'm my apologies, but life is hard and our taxpayers I we are responsible to our taxpayers who cannot foot the bill for everything that we want. But and I have found in thinking
about all these different programs, I realized that my guiding what I care the most about are the people in this county programming like Yeah. Like we put a lot of money into subsidizing
child care, but those are our kids, those are our families, those are people, those are people that directly, it's the health of our community. And it's same with the veterans. People say, "Whoa, why do we have to have a
full-time veterans person?" Well, it's about our people that live here. And so that's the direction I'm going like I we we need to cut some programming that we have always had or had for a long time and now you just can't do it
anymore. We just can't. And I agree with whomever said perhaps our administrator that we should hold on to our uh fund balance as much as we can because harder times are coming. much
harder times are coming. >> Mr. Sullivan, >> did you have comments? >> I did. Um, thank you, Madam Chair. So, I have thought about this long and hard. Um, sitting a few years back on the budget and facilities advisory
committee, we attempted to create a policy that would create some guard rails around both non-mandated and discretionary funding. um people had difficulty coming to an agreement
because they didn't want to make the hard decisions and I do think that we need a policy around non-mandated mandated and discretionary funding. The people that applied for those funds uh this past year attended uh a meeting
with public health and human services back in June and then in July had all of their grant applications turned in and they were re reviewed and if you look at um and I know we all have the 2026
public health fund recommendations there was a total of $282,000 651 1 requested and the recommendation was for $150,000. I think the public health and human
services group did a great job of looking at the criteria, narrowing it down and making recommendations and in fact um some of the groups did not even receive funding who had requested funding.
I think to say no to the funding at this point would create a lot of animosity in our com community. I don't think it would be really fair to those organizations to say two weeks from now
you're on your own. Your budget has to change. And so I would go with the recommendations that were made by public health and human services, but suggest that the first thing we need to do at our maybe second meeting in January is
start to work on a policy that addresses these. And um there's been research done um through um Minnesota revenue. All these things are legal that are being done. They're done by other counties but
done by some counties not by others. Given the future that we have in 2027 and beyond, I think we have to have a policy and we have to communicate clearly to all our organizations that it
is um unlikely that they would receive funding given what we know is going down the pike. that we may still have grant applications but that we um have again some guard rails. Commission,
>> we did tell them tell everyone that this might change >> like this is >> that is correct. >> And I know that the pattern has been it's always you bet you're going to get this but >> I know that it seems pretty abrupt
for everybody, but so does what the federal government has taken away from states and counties. >> I agree. >> There was no Oh my goodness. we're not or SNAP or anything Medicaid what's coming down, you know. So, and then the other thing
that I was thinking about and I know this was a decision that was made and I and I will give credit to those that were reviewing the grant applications and in their opinion, these were the the best candidates to receive some funding and
it could not have been easy. But this is a responsibility that the commissioners we are responsible for for public dollars. And I have heard a number of community people not happy with what why
some of the recipients of these monies got money when other places didn't. And so to the policy discussion, yes, but right now we cannot we can't keep being the good guy that we're oh so touchyfey and
they'll do it for us. These are the taxpayer dollars and those are the people that we need to consider all the time. >> If that um would be reduced to nothing, what would that mean?
>> Where would go withund and some thousand We reduce the levy by $150,000 >> almost little over 1%. >> So everyone would everyone in the county would you know >> pay what what's >> right now 5.19
versus 6.36 >> but I mean like dollars for average household >> or median household or whatever. >> You got that formula? >> I don't have that for you. But it's nominal. >> It's nal >> and it would devastate say the hub.
>> Um I I I in good conscience just because the feds did it. I think it's immoral. Not because the feds did, but what the feds did I think is immoral. So I can't I can't lean on that. But um yeah, >> Commissioner Gamble.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. In my first term, this was a hot issue as well, and we kept talking about it and talking about it. I held a town hall and I said to the and we had a significant showing.
If people ask for your money, what question do you want to ask them? And they gave a response. I took all of the responses that I got and put together an application. And that application went out to the and
they would have to say, "What area of the community are you serving in your organization?" And then we had some historical questions that we'd asked to find out their resourcefulness. What percentage of their revenue did they generate and how much is dependent on
what we're giving them annually? In our first meeting after we went through that process, the chair asked the board, "So, how do you like this?" And one of our board members said, "It forces me to have to look at the financials,
not the emotional." In the course that I took in May of this year, Nico course on evidence-based budgeting, here's some of the challenges in our very first meeting. Comments from
participants by way of introduction. This is uh a county in Milwaukee. The majority of our services are mandated. 80% of our services are mandated. And we are only allowed by state law to be able to raise our property taxes
by 1% annually. There is a challenge to have to do the hard work and the discipline that is involved in budgeting. We would be better off as opposed to allowing the way we do things. And this is another
another things um in the in the comments. Um the challenge is to get people to understand that we are only going to be able to do what we can afford to do. We want to make databased decisions in an effort to
maximize outcomes. We find we are not prioritizing our decisions based on real data. It's the old adage, doing the same thing over and over again expecting a better result. Much of the information we get for budgeting provides little evidence that
it will work. To affect outcomes, you need to affect the dollars. Priority should be given to evidence-based results. Evidence-based spending means using evidence and data
analysis to decide how to spend money effectively. How do we get all of our departments to use this principle? We hope to support you in the budget process of the principle of wanting to change the way you are doing things. At
the recent AMC conference, every uh workshop or uh choice that you could make on what to attend, I attended everything relative to budgeting. One of them was budgeting. This is clear gov. U
budgeting is hard. Higher scrutiny than ever before in the past three years. Outdated systems make it harder. It's time consuming. Need to be more transparent. People have a hard time interpreting financial documents. It's a political document, meaning that it it
says and demonstrates the choices you make, what you value. And we would we would be served well if we did zerobased budgeting. Meaning we take a look and we've talked about this in some respects where we say we need to look at the
total of governance in our county. We need to find out what is mandated and then from there based upon our values identified values which is informed through public input as well as departments and representative commissioners.
uh we need to inform the process so that we uh use the evidence and the tangible things to be able to dermine our budget. So if we did zerobased budget we would build from the ground up look at what we
have look what we want to do and then find out if we can do it and if we did that there would be discipline. What we do right now is we look at our budget the past year and we do some tweaking or whatever. And I don't mean to be disrespectful or discount the hard work
that departments put in, but I'm just saying that our process leads to where we are today. And the point that Brady brought the outline to us on budget process to today the only primary discussion and you can correct me on
this if I'm wrong but given my five years of participating in budget process we are constantly discussing how to solve our budget issues with the reserve fund. And when when we said, "What would
departments suggest if we were to roll up our sleeves and look at where we maybe could save some money?" It was referred to as an as an exercise without an outcome to be used to inform decisions to make hard decisions. We have to make hard decisions and we're
not willing to do it. The question that was posed in our first exercise coming out of the the NICO budgeting class was you need to answer next week's class. What are the sticky points in your
budget process? My response allowing assumptions and emotions to drive the process. We need the discipline that brings to this process an evaluation. We should be having departments come in in our cow
meetings so that every department comes in and we have the discussion just like we had on a an issue that is relative to whether we find somebody because they paid late. I mean there's discussions that we have that are great open discussions and we need to have those
discussions so that we wrestle and understand and empathize with our departments on the real issues that they're tasked with but the limitations of our finances and um it the question is how does your county
make decisions about what to fund and what to cut when a decision is taken in the budget process is it clear Why? And what does your budget process do well? What about your budget process is is frustrating and how confident are you
that the programs your county funds are working? We we should be having these discussions if as an example the sheriff's department is wanting to spend $340,000
on uh a technology support. Um, in my discussion with our sheriff, if he set aside in this budget $120,000 this year to go towards that and then and asking the question, well, how do we all allocate that? If that's a five-year
contract, do we pay that upfront? No, we pay $74,000 a year. So, there's just one item. If our obligation for 2026 budget is $74,000 and granted there are other things that
fall into that category under technology and talking with Brady about this but if we if we say okay so what's we look at the trends and we can see where we've been in our history on that you add that in with the 74,000
we we might we might be at at 90 that's $30,000 savings there if We talk and we say, "Well, we don't need to have this person fill this position and that's going to save us and this person here and we manage that in our employees in
our hiring and retiring and it saves us 60,000." If our response is to say, "Well, we could save 60,000 here." Your combination now is is getting close to 1%. And and yet if the department says, "Well, I don't need to spend that money,
but I want to put it in a reserve." This is a luxury that that our community doesn't have for those that don't have the money to take from their savings that have been drained down and they don't have extra money that they can put in to build it up because the taxes
continue to escalate. And when we say community, we need to have empathy for the diff the diversity that exists not only in age within our county, but within the financial means within our county, the education within our county, the interest in our county, our empathy
and ability to be mindful of the that diversity will reflect in our budget. That's why this document becomes political because it represents what we choose to value and how we respond to a community that entrusts us with the responsibility to be good stewards of
their dollars. This year alone with the projects that we agreed we need as a community. We've added significant dollars in our bonding. That is new money pressure on our levy >> when we negotiate our union contracts.
That is new money. When the government throws in another benefit that's mandated, that is new money. When we look at the uh the child care subsidy, that money was funded with money that wasn't levy dependent. It is levy
dependent this year. So we've got $250,000 there that is now totally levy dependent. We have EDA that had money that came out of the COVID funding, $200,000 in money that we give away as
opposed to a revolving loan that I sit on that committee this year and I sat on it previously and I said this before. We would meet very often to take legislative money that funded that account to help these businesses come alongside.
Now, I have not met once in 2025 with revolving loan, but that $200,000 is gone and that money that was funded elsewhere is this year totally levy dependent. How much can we
keep putting on the taxpayer to say, "We like this. We stretched our appetite. We want to continue it on your back." If you look at the subsidy that goes for the child education, that amount of money based upon 2,80
hours annually funds 29 positions at 12,000 some a year. Now you ask the taxpayer 12,000 that's about 13,000 for 29 people that taxpayers are subsidizing. We do not have an
obligation to create jobs that are paid by taxpayers. We have an obligation to meet needs, child care being one of them. But if the state puts in place some things that address that need that make it competitive people that are trying to keep their doors open, that
our obligation isn't to try to keep the doors open. It is to meet the child care need. And we have not had these discussions. and the train is all a sudden screeching to a halt on this date, our last date, we say for this
year. And all of the cars are just button up and we just push oursel forward because we're rushed. And that's why in the beginning of this when the outline was given saying, I'm not comfortable with just a sheet of paper that tells us what to do. We need to do
what we need to do. And when we had a cow meeting, we were in and out of that meeting before. could hardly take a breath on the issue. And and I there's significant work that went in to try to understand this. And when I did it in my first term, I would go to each
department. I'd say, "What do you think?" I'm not here as a commissioner because I'm an elected official to mandate and tell you what to do. I'm here to understand the environment in which you lead and to help inform me so that I can be a good steward of limited
dollars. How often do we hear we need to do more with less? And yet when we have our discussions, it's how much fund balance should we take? How much should we do this? That has become the crutch for the lack of doing our due diligence,
rolling up our sleeves, wrestling with the realities, and making decisions. I I Thank you, Commissioner. Madam Chair, um you know, we're we're in a process >> and the process is a lot needs to be
looked at, but what we have on the table right now is discretionary. Do we go with it or do we not? That's the >> My recommendation is we have a whole meeting. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I largely like to stay out of business discussions. Um,
but when I see the potential for it to affect mandated services, I feel like I need to at least address that risk. And I heard administrator Treble speaking to the significant number of unknowns in 2026 and 2027. Today alone, we had the
recorder's office talking about the change in the laws um and the the amount of work that they're going to be required to do in the next year. Certainly the $75 fee is not going to cover that. Um, in my office alone, you
can really never anticipate litigation, prosecution costs that may be significant in the upcoming year. Um, so there may be expenses that um arise that are unanticipated as well
that need to be carefully considered. I agree with that and I certainly understand that and in our departments this is this is why we entrust those responsibility to good people, capable people that that use their their
not only their their competencies but their their values to work through these hard things and I don't think I mean the public and certainly as commissioners representing the public I don't think our expectation should be unrealist
istic understanding of what we don't know but I think wisdom says that what we don't know we need to plan for this is why the discussion relative to making sure that our fund balance is there if we look at the fund balance what drives
the policy on fund balance is that we need to have in place something if something really hit the fan that we could continue but over and above that if we have a significant fund balance then we can use some of that to alleviate some of the burden of the levy
on our taxpayers. When we look at some of these non-mandated and we have organizations that have significant investments and money in their fund balance and yet they're asking the taxpayer to put money up, that's that's not right. And the community has a right to say that you've been setting money
aside and you've got significant fund balance here. If we can come back with a narrative that is is well positioned and understood that says this is why we think we need to set a little bit more aside because of the unknowns that we can't predict and when the landscape
change we need to be mindful of that that's our responsibility and certainly in respect to our department heads we want to we want to know that this a board of directors said we like what you're doing what can we do for you my
response was understand the envirment environment in which you've asked me to lead and that's what we are asked to do. We as commissioners don't come in here with an agenda to make it difficult for our departments. We come in here to partnership and being good stewards of
what we've been entrusted with. And I I would just like to see more due diligence in this process because year after year it it ends up being more we get we get a new pocket of money and we create new things and that money goes
away and we've stretched our appetite and we want to continue with those new things when the taxpayer says wait a minute now you're putting this on my back. How about asking me if you read a letter that comes from child care services that says unless I get subsidy I will not have a living wage to exist
in this county. You want to know how many letters we get from taxpayers that say unless you guys let us up for air we're going to have to move out of this county. >> So >> yes >> just want to point out 70% of our taxes
are from people who don't live here. So when we're cutting taxes, that's who benefits. The services that we provide are almost all for our citizens. And so I want to make sure we're finding that balance. And I agree with a lot. I also disagree with a lot and find a lot of it
offensive because I think we do have good conversations and you know it takes a little while to get caught up from what you weren't part of since 12 years ago or whatever. >> I can appreciate that. But this process this year,
>> well, the com the tone and the conversation that I'm hearing are nearly identical to your first term. And um you know, you imply that the hard decision is saying no, but frankly, I think it's
much harder to raise the levy because that's what's impacting people. I couldn't agree disagree with you more given the fact that that this process is is uh >> So you think it's easy to raise a levy and hard to >> No, no. I'm just saying that that
process you you can say outcomes in process and some people are all processoriented without a focus on outcome and some people just want an outcome and ignore process and I'm saying our process is faulty. That's what I'm saying.
I'd argue the the outcome is also faulty. We live in a faulty world and we're trying to improve it and we are improving processes. We've gone through three administrators since I've been here and all this change and co we're just getting our feet under us. We're building something stronger. Yeah. >> Um I I'm very proud of the work that's
being done and um I fully support it and um >> given the discussion with department heads, I I think that there there's certainly significant uh savings that we can find to reduce this without letting the uh
the reserve fund be the tool that we use to do budgeting. >> No. Yeah, I agree. Yeah, we're not that's what I'm saying. I'm trying to get away from that reserve fund usage. Um I think this discussion probably is going a little understanding commissioner Gamble's point. We need to
move forward. So the question has been discretionary. Do we accept it or not? Then we can move forward. Are we going to accept the discretionary? Commissioner Sullivan. So, um I
personally am in favor of um the reductions that public health and human services put on their discretionary grants. Um again, they went from $282,000 down to $150,000. Some organizations um did not receive
any funding. I'd also like to remind people that we have gone through a process in recent years. I can only speak to the last five. But then in that discretionary funding, we eliminated the Northshore Music Association, the Art Colony, the Grand Marray Playhouse, uh
the Gunflint Hills Golf. Um so a number of groups have come off that because we have established criteria. And if we want to think about that criteria, the only um things that are considered for our public health fund
are any requests that align with the goals of our Cook County Community Health Assessment. And that would include affordable housing, mental health resources, affordable quality child care, transportation options, affordable healthy foods, and physical
health services. So those align with our goals. >> Well articulated, Madam Chair. I would I would want to include them because those are real community needs. Um and we're trying to make our community healthier. Um,
also why I want to try to get some sign kind of relief in there because um, I understand I mean I assume my taxes are probably at least five times higher than everyone else's and um, I feel that pain. >> I think this was a year like
Commissioner Mills said we we've been in transition with the administrator situation. We've done well with discovering what departments have what. Brady has uh updated us with uh uh their decisions along the way. Um we
have been in touch with um the different organizations and I think that um one of the things that I um appreciate with um administer trouble is that u we need strategic planning and we have done that in the
past because we knew right now our buildings need help and one of the biggest helps is we're going to have the um building addition onto the law enforcement a building that has been there for 30 years
really cannot move forward with what they need to have for a facility. So strategic planning, Commissioner Gamble's assessment of where we have been and where we need to go isn't put off till
kingdom come. It's going to be evaluated next year and uh administrator trouble is going to help us with that. Commissioner White, >> I'm really looking forward to our new administrator helping us through all of this. Having this being the second year
of for me for this budget last year, it just felt being it was it was more like, okay, rubber stamp it. I know that's not true for you for I'm not accusing anyone of rubber
stamping but it was just there was no dis in-depth discussion this year I find oh there's a lot more but there are so many more questions going back to what I've asked what are the values of each of the commissioners here how are we
guided individually for making decisions like do we feel like uh having fancy fancy vehicles is the number one priority so we all look good. This is not true. So
I'm just making something up. Or do we really care about feeding people, making certain that those in this community who are struggling for whatever reason that we help to help them through to get to better times or at least not be dead
from starvation or whatever is our people. We need to focus on the people that live in this community and every program that we have. We have public health and human services. We have um and yes, I know when I said the discretionary and that's
the hub, we didn't promise anything. And I know and I really like all of the efforts of the hub, but there are people in this community that have always stepped forward. And my god, we need a more
people to step forward. They can't just say well the county and I agree with you we we should hold on to our FUD and balance and this is going to be really painful and uh another position that I think we should look at and this is
probably not the time today but we have the agriculture specialists and that we have one in the three4s people and kind of dread seeing Robbie Thursday morning at the highway department, but
um that's almost $200,000 for two individuals and that's on the levy. That that's my understanding. And so that's that's it. And Commissioner Sterley said, "Well, it's only a h
100,000." Well, every every dime, every $10,000 of less expense goes toward without without sacrificing the quality of life here is important and and it
counts, but um I don't believe we should just we'll discuss this next year. It's real easy to keep talking about it next year, next year. This is the year. This is like let's start and I think we've done a really good a better job
than my last year. This is all I can speak to. I know how it how it's done differently in like if you're in the school district. I know that. But this is the county. We have wonderful department heads that we count
on and I don't I don't question that our department heads are the experts in their departments. But as a as a whole organization, we all together need to worry about this. And
we didn't start this mess. It started I mean this all of a sudden funding is like chopped off. We can thank the federal level for that. But we have to deal with it. And I believe we have the intelligence and the compassion and the
determination to do a good job for everybody in this county and it's going to hurt. No one's going to be happy about it. But that's what compromise is about. No one is happy. We all give and take and
that's just how it is. And I don't like it either. So, if we keep the levy at 7.57, that would still include um what has already been appropriated from public health and we'd use a little bit of the fund balance.
>> You agree, Brady, that that would be >> Yeah, that's in that's in the >> it's in the budget and levy right now. >> The use of fund balance would be 1,44,800. That's is still a very significant >> amount of money
>> amount of money especially in relation to our fund balance but um that's as high as or that's as low as that's as high as our levy can bring us um with the budget that's been presented
>> unless we cut more. >> Yeah. >> Unless we cut >> Madam Chair, can I make a few comments about what's been provided so far? >> Yes, please. So, I want to touch on um the strategic plan and guiding principles and the budget process moving forward, which I
know is is separate than what we're dealing with today, but I think it's an important topic for us to discuss in the future. Um the guiding principles can be and and should be updated when we do the strategic plan. And I think the strategic plan once that's updated,
that's certainly connected to the the future budget because you're prioritizing what you believe needs to happen for the county. Um, I think we can also over the next year look at the non-mandated levies and the discretionary funding and like
Commissioner Sullivan said, we can work on the discretionary funding policy. We do have the budget and facilities community that can play a more active role as we move forward with bringing forward recommendations to the board on how we want to proceed in the future as
well. So, I just want to touch on some of the things that Commissioner Gamble had mentioned and Commissioner Sullivan and Commissioner White um about the future. I think for this year, it's it's harder to make cuts to some of the requests without having specific
criteria in place. Um, I mean, I certainly know this is up this is a commissioner decision regarding how we want to proceed, but I I would prefer um having some time to put those those
checklists and criteria in place to make sure that we're evaluating all of the funding requests against the guiding principles against the strategic plan and making a more strategic decision about how how we leverage that as we move forward. Thank you for those comments.
Um, well, we've had a good discussion and uh I am going to make a motion that we set our levy at 7.57. >> Uh, support >> further discussion.
don't mean to drag this out, but it was just something during our truth and taxation presentation that that got me thinking about the the homestead tax credit. And um you had an explanation in there a little bit more about how that worked. And so um my
understanding is sorry >> no you're you're thinking >> I'm thinking of two things. There's there's a kachenite homestead credit and then there's the uh market value exclusion that are both homestead. >> Okay.
>> I don't know which one you're >> I don't know that I know either. Okay. >> Um but I think it was the market value exclusion I think. Okay. And so how that works is right now it's set to like $90,000 and >> it peaks at 95,000
of that's >> that's the value of a a home. >> That's the market value >> and uh initially it was at 76,000 but that was >> 30 years ago >> or longer. So they did make an adjustment but it's not it's not
remotely the adjustment that you would make given the change in values. >> Mhm. Um so it's not having the same effect that for why they put it in place. >> Yeah. >> Um >> so my um thought uh brainstorm spitball
is to have a county program that brings it up to the median home price instead of 90,000 and what impact or how how would that be logistically feasible? What would that cost? I don't think um
property taxes are by state statute and I don't I don't think we can make a change like that. Um I mean I guess what yeah I'm thank you for that. Um >> we can advocate for it.
>> Yeah. I was talking to Bruce Kimmel a little bit and he seemed to think there could be some >> oh >> some room there, but I appreciate it it possibly not being possible. Um, but I was just trying to think about the impacts of that if it were possible. Um, and and what that would mean that'd be a
crazy calculation, but um, I'm just trying to gain some kind of perspective on some options we can have in the future. And so it's not just always like the future, the future, the future, just what can we work towards? Um because if we cut say we cut all the um
discretionary okay well that's one year what do we do next year you know these problems are every year that the costs are always going up and so I'm looking to change a system so we have a system in place that can provide for future needs and and and future increases and
costs and um if we just cut like say we cut a department well to Commissioner Gamble's um point about all the departments cut 5% %. Okay. Well, that's one year. Like, do you do the same thing the next year and do you do the same thing the next year? No, it's it's just
kind of uh you look for opportunities and I appreciate that and it's been identified in our budget, but it only gets you so far. So, if you can change that system, I think there's a lot more potential for a lot more benefit. Um, but you know,
>> Commissioner Gavl, >> every year is different because you can't, you know, to attorney's point, we we don't know. There's unknowns and and so yeah, you c you can't
you can't make a system that's predictable because it changes. If one year you have to cut five, how many, if you want to know how many counties out of the thousands of counties that exist in the United States of America this year told department heads, you need to
freeze your budget. No more hiring. No more you're going to have to deal with what we dealt with here. That was this year's context. If you think this year's context is difficult, wait till next year. And if we haven't learned the
disciplines in this exercise, when it gets harder, that's why you start small and you build up so that you've exercised those muscles that can make the hard decisions. We're having a discussion today that should have happened a month into this process. And
that's my frustration is that we get to a point when we've been allocated plenty of time, but we've done very little with it. I don't say that disrespectfully, but in talking to peers and talking and taking classes and listening, Wright
County, one of the the work sessions I went to at the AMC, Wright County asked their employees, "What could we do for you?" They said, "We would like leadership training and mentoring." And Wright County established a leadership
institute in order to train their staff. It was voluntary. If you want to come and be trained and mentored, then we will provide this opportunity in response to your request to us. We had a presenter from I think Ramsey County who
is a training specialist in human resource. And I asked her, "Are you part-time or full-time?" She says, "I'm full-time." And I said, "So is it mandatory that all of these particular areas which talks about emotional
intelligence and on and on and on that people have to participate?" No, it's entirely voluntary. But what it is, it is foundational in that organizations understand we need to build the foundation on which these difficult
tasks can be handled in a responsible way. Wright County with their leadership training. You'd say, "Well, Right County, they're a bigger county. They got more resources than we have." You want to know in their two, three years that they've had this
program implement implemented, how much money they've spent? $176. What does that say? That says resourcefulness. We find ways of doing things that don't require taxpayer money. And that's why when evaluating
the non-mandated, I appreciate seeing an organization that does its resourcefulness and works hard at contributing to what they believe in. It's like as commissioners when the state or federal government comes to us and says, "Here's another mandated
program and guess what? We're not going to give you any money, but we believe in it." When organizations believe in what they're doing and they generate through their resourcefulness revenues to do it, then the community is more likely to want to come alongside, we will
partnership with that value. But when we have organizations that are dependent on our money, if they don't, they don't get it, they have to shutter their doors. We're we can't do this. Counties that have said no to nonfunded
uh to uh organizations that are not required have said that as a matter of policy because they realize that they go along in other services and other areas demand more and more of our our resource of time and money. We cannot afford to do
it. And so yes, policies can get implemented because it's an evaluation that is honest and it can be very difficult and challenging but it is done as a discipline. So it's going to change every year and our decisions need to be
made in the context of the changing world around us. And if we started with a zero base, we would start every year understanding it's new. what's the context of this year that'll inform us relative to our
revenues and and the things that we choose to put value on that translates to dollars. So I I um I certainly
do not want to convey to the frustration of this process disrespect for fellow commissioners nor disrespect for our department heads. I'm just saddened that that um we have
not applied ourselves to the extent that we should and if if we need to have I mean for me I went to AMC and I said if you want to have a workshop have a workshop of evidencebased budgeting because and the other thing I said to
AMC if you want to have workshops and you're always asking for subjects I would say do best practices by department. We need to learn these things and we need to see it as I said to you know our county administrator this needs to be positioned as an
opportunity to rise to the opport the occasion and see it as as an a challenge that is energizing not to be something that's discouraging or a put down. It's we have an obligation and we are privileged to be entrusted with that
responsibly today to do the best that we can to demonstrate our willingness to provide the services we can afford to pay as a community and to be good steward of taxpayer dollars. So uh hard discision dis uh discussions
can be uncomfortable but they are room for growth and positive growth when we have a foundation that recognizes the need for mutual respect and regard. >> In the beginning of the year Grady gives us a calendar and the calendar indicates
that by July 1st we start looking at the department heads. They came before us. They gave us their um numbers. They said this is this is where we can work with. This is where we have
to cut this. So they have given us over the last five months their um evaluation for us to consider. So we have on the table right now a motion to ex accept the 7.57
levy. I have a second. I'm going to ask for a vote unless there's any more conversation. Commissioner Sullivan. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, as we take this vote, um, I just want to let my fellow commissioners know and the public
that I believe we do need to establish policies that include spending guard rails, that we need to demonstrate a priority on our budget related to mandated services and the functions of government. And
when we think about the functions of government, it's local administration, health and human services, social services, property assessment and taxation, public safety, land use planning and zoning, elections, infrastructure maintenance, and judicial
functions. And so I would like to throw out those categories to make sure as we move forward regardless of what happens with this vote that we are thinking about establishing policies that focus on those mandated services and the
functions of government. >> Commissioner White, >> good idea. And we'll start in January on the policies >> and we will meet and we should meet we should have it planned somewhere inserted. So every month or
every every meeting we talk about it all five of us all five of us and really share the information with the public but really have time to think about it starting in end of January
>> and I and I would recommend um that this not only be a discussion with the county commissioners but that we get public input. I think that budget and facilities advisory commission, we have a representative, a citizen from each of the five districts should also be
heavily involved with this. >> And Madam Chair, if I can respond. >> Yes, please. >> Um I I agree with that approach with one caveat. I think that um in order to truly leverage the um the budget and
facilities advisory committee, we might need to bring something to the board either quarterly or bimonthly so that that committee has the opportunity to do some of the work that needs to be brought forward to the board. So I think I can work on a a schedule of what this
could potentially look like and bring that to a board meeting in January so that we can discuss what the plan will be. >> Thank you. Thank you on that. That was my very thought for sure. >> Yes. >> Okay. One last time. Any more discussion?
>> I'm going to call >> just a question. >> Okay. >> So, I take it that there's not a big appetite for a special meeting to do this again. I mean to to have further discussion to No. Okay.
>> Well, >> I mean, we've had a special meeting for this like >> Yeah. And I'm not, it's not clear what we got from that. Um, you know, I think we need more structure and a system if
we're going to really tackle things in those policy guard rails. Otherwise, we're just going to talk again for an hour or two or whatever. You know, doesn't seem like or I mean, what if something could come out of it? I'm very open. But >> well, one thing that can get out of it
is a better understanding of uh of perception of the different issues and how I mean there are different the nuances and then we all hear from our constituents and on what they're
thinking are good or bad on these different things and it's all about transparency but it's a huge educational need that we have all of us have including including our taxpayers who have for years
kind of blown us off because they felt like they've been blown off. And I speak to this as being one of the taxpayers who for years it's like the county government will do whatever they want. I believe that is changing. I believe that that that
uh that taxpayers are not afraid or have more of an expectation to be responded to when they of course I blew it with the West End. My apologies again, but that they were their issues will be
listened to and addressed by the county board. And in just my short stay here, I see that there are things changing. I I do see that we're working in that direction. My grocery store for
almost now 50% county and 50% food purchase. We're we're getting it down. I don't spend more time on county discussions in the aisles and then just buying my food because people are listening otherwise and they also I
believe from the ones that I talked to appreciate the fact that this board is trying to be more responsive than their perception which I will call them on it. A lot of us, a lot of taxpayers aren't
really paying attention until something goes ary just like everything like we as humans do in our lives. It's all good till it's not. So I think conversation is a good thing. >> So I believe what you're suggesting is
what >> administrator trouble is saying the public input will be available when we start this process. >> I sure hope so. Yes. >> Okay. You agree? >> I agree with Yes. I Okay. Yes. Administrator trouble. Yes. Thank you, >> Commissioner Gamble.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair, and I I appreciate the conversation. What I would say, education goes two ways. So, often times we think the public would understand if they were just educated. But I think that the public would say, the commissioners would understand if they were just educated. And that's why
that public informed decision that everybody needs to be part of that process. And the more that we build that integrity into the process, the more that that we will have a a community. And uh uh the other thing I would say
and I've often said this just knowing relationships that that it is piece by piece that a puzzle is put together and you get a picture then of what that relationship is by the little things. It is the little things that define the
whole. And in our relationships in working with department heads and in working together fellow commissioners that our relationship the little by little we want to build a foundation that is that is solid. It is not it is
not predicated on a need for compliance nor is it predicated on a need for everybody agreeing and seeing things the same. That's why the diversity builds strength. But hopefully it is pred predicated on a mutual trust and respect
so that we never question where we're coming from. So that the the things that disset and our discomfortment discom uncomfortable that they don't destroy the relationship. The relationship needs to
be on a foundation of the right things mutual trust and respect so that we work well together. And it is the difficult things that help challenge us and refine that relationship so that it is stronger. So I would just like to have
these discussions more honest discussions earlier in the process. And if you say where we are in in the process I have page after page after page of analysis of what we
learned from our departments and things. We have never discussed it. And that that to me is why I say our process is flawed. And we're going to end up with this frustr frustration every year and
wrestling and then falling back on our reserves to settle it for us. >> I thought we went through it. I thought we went through that. >> No, we didn't. We didn't because I met with uh Kristen Kristen on it and
Kristen said, "Well, this is good. Where were you going to use it?" I says, "I'm going to use it in the cow meeting, but it got all shut down and we didn't have any discussion." So, it's not falsifying. I'm just saying that these are things that when it was done in my first term and we would meet the board
got wore out looking at nickels and dimes and it was just like we should just focus on the big picture not the nickels and dimes but the nickels and dimes add up and then end up influencing where we're at. So that's >> but I I remember distinctly talking
about the exercise and what the you know what you called recommendations from >> Yeah. But but these are all the recommendations and we didn't even get to the recommendations because it would said that that was an exercise but it wasn't to be applied and so if I talked to department head like we let's say we
did have a discussion relative to uh the money set aside for the boundary waters if we were going to do our own study collectively between the counties and whether that's something that's feasible or not. And so unless we have the discussion and mind out the realities of
that, it might not we might not have to put $28,000 in there when it might be a legislative fix. And when our major county that tends to drive this is St. Louis County and they they aren't impacted like Lake and Cook are. So,
and and I had a discussion with, you know, uh Bob yesterday just saying we need to be proactive from the standpoint of 2028 is the next assessment and we want to be sure that there's integrity in that. And when we met with the DNR at AMC, I just said, you know, to them that
governance is at at the foundation. It's operating in good faith with common sense. And it's not common sense when you think that the value of the property and best use is timber when we got lakeshore. So this is I'm saying these discussions, you know, mine out the
realities. But it isn't it isn't an elected official telling a department what to do. It's asking a department, help me to find ways in which we might be able to save some money that doesn't make it difficult in your position. And that's why I'm saying I I haven't seen
the evidence of a lot of that discussion where we can we can figure that out. So when it came to the comment about the EDA and the $200,000 that's now entirely levy dependent, the response is well, we're looking at merging those. There is
no further discussion in that regard. So we got to find out if there are solutions in ways that aren't levy dependent. Let's find that out. But we need to have those discussions. And that's that's my point about it would be good and we can talk about
this, you know, moving into next year and certainly our new county administrator I think is who is fully equipped to be able to do this and this is why I say she's foundational and we've seen that evidence in her position since she's been here that the integrity
of the process and the spirit in which it's being delivered builds confidence and I think it builds confidence to the community and I think it'll build solidarity in our respect in how we operate as commissioners as well. So I look forward to that.
>> I think we all do for sure. So I'm going to call for the third time vote on setting the levy at five 7.57. I'll call the vote now. All in favor? >> I >> I >> opposed.
Passes four to one. Thank you all for the discussion and to administrator treble working with her in the new year and uh setting some precedents involving the public and um working
working together um for the betterment of our community and our county. Thank you all. So, Administrator Treble, do you have any updates? >> Madam, >> I do, Madam Chair. Thank you. Go ahead, Commissioner Mills.
>> Uh, we there's still just um item 11B um before we get to your updates. >> Oh, correct. Thank you. Um okay, so item 11B and Jean, our county um attorney, please jump in here at any time as well since you you did draft this resolution
for us. Um I this item was brought to us by Peter Cliffhold, who is our EDA board president. um and wanted to make a change to the way in which the county um the Cook County appointee to the board, the EDA
board is selected. And so the proposed language that they brought forward to us is that four board members from within Cook County and outside Grand Marray consideration by the Cook County Commissioners regarding the four county appointments and documentation via motion or resolution is requested. So
essentially what they're proposing is that when Cook County has an appointee to the board, that person should be selected from outside of Grand Marray. Um because the EDA board does have three board members that are already selected from within Grand Marray. So like I
mentioned, Gan has worked on a resolution for the board. Um and it essentially states, "Be it resolved that Cook County in the interest of promoting geographic diversity among the commissioners of the joint EDA shall afford weight and and consideration to candidates residing outside of the city
limits of Grand Marray." Um so that is the proposal brought forward to you today. Um Peter was not able to be here and so I added it to my updates um in the interest of of moving it forward. And I know that Commissioner Mills is on the EDA uh board as well. So, please add
any add anything as well as our uh county attorney. >> Um thank you. Yeah. And um the EDA is in, you know, this is basically how the EDA is operated, but um it came up that hey, this is actually not clearly
defined. And so it's one of those things where we're, you know, trying to clarify policy and and make things more specific. I know at in general we have a hard time filling all of the um board and committee positions. Um uh the EDA
has had that challenge in the past. Um and so, you know, I'm a little cautious about restricting things too much, but this um affords uh weight and consideration. So I um I'm I'm comfortable with it and
and it's in the spirit of what the EDA was was thinking too. >> Administer attorney Peterson. >> Thank you, Chair Stoley. I just wanted to make it clear that nothing in the resolution changes the establishing um law. So that the county there actually
is no restriction in that requiring that the city appoint from within the city limits or that the county appoint from without the city limits. Um I could not find the city policy. I understand there is one that they only appoint from the
city, but as Commissioner Mills noted, if you have a difficult time filling the seats anyhow, it may be a concern, but um this does make it clear that it's just a a consideration and that due weight is given to those candidates. >> Okay, Commissioner Sullivan.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. um having participated in discussions related to this in prior years, I'm really happy to see this um come forward. And given that, I would like to make a motion to adopt the resolution memorializing board preference for geographical preference
for county appointed commissioners to Cook County Grand Marray Joint Economic Development Authority or EDA who reside outside the city limits of Grand Marray. >> Support. Any further questions or comments?
All in favor? >> I oppose. Same sign. Motions passes unanimously. Any other updates? Um, administrator treble. >> Yes, I do, Madam Chair. Thank you. Just some very brief updates. Um, but I did
want to mention I also attended the AMC conference and I attended many sessions that were in the public health and human services realm. um because we had a number of staff that were able to attend from different areas, but we didn't have anyone from PHS. So, I attended those.
I'm sharing the information from that with Plowman and Grace. Um but a lot of unknowns as we move into the next year with how um several different uh federal and state policies and um statutes are going to impact us as we move forward.
So something that we're definitely uh keeping on top of so that we have the information we need to fully implement the new programs and and that we have the understanding of how it's going to impact us fiscally. Um I also attended several leadership trainings. I attended
the right county training that Commissioner Gamble mentioned and was very excited about what they had implemented. um and something that I have already started some conversations with our HR team on and in and ways that we can bring some of what they've done into Cook County. So, I'm excited about
continuing to explore that option with our leadership team and with our HR team here. Um, also wanted to mention that our building projects, I know I've been trying to give updates at our board meetings about the status of um, the LEC and the transfer station projects.
They're both moving forward very well. The weather of course has made things a little more challenging, but no concerns to date. So, just wanted to mention briefly that those continue to move forward. Um, I also wanted to mention uh a shout out to the executive director of
the YMCA. Alex Guggawa is uh transitioning out. His last day here in Cook County is on the 23rd of December. He is remaining with um with the YMCA in a different capacity. And I just wanted
to publicly thank him for the work that he has done. He has been a great leader for us at the Y and within Cook County. we are working with his supervisor on the transition plan. We have a meeting on the 26th to learn more. So, we'll continue to stay on top of that as well.
And then the last item I have is just a a heads up that we continue to work with our lobbyist. Um for the public members that are listening, we passed um a contract to work with a lobbying firm a couple months ago with our highway department. And so, we've had several
meetings with our lobbyist and other individuals. We've met with uh Senator D um Jeff Insky. Uh he is the deputy minority leader and um we've also met with several staff from the governor's office. And we are moving forward
potentially with a bill that will assist us in securing funds to repair the last 10 miles of the gunsled trail. So, we've got um we will have future discussions about our um our legislative requests for this upcoming year, but this is a
good starting point for us. So, I just wanted to mention those items. Thank you. >> Thank you. Yes, AMC was um well attended and um a lot of great um workshops to go to for sure up. Um how about any
commissioner reports, meeting reports? Commissioner Sullivan. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, one of the things um that we talked about at Soil and Water recently was that the Attorney General's office has established a clean
water task force statewide. Neva Maxwell sits on that task force. So, we are very well represented in northeastern Minnesota with her participation. and a number of our community members, members of the Cook County Coalition of Lake Associations,
um, weighed in and sent letters for their public hearing last week, and I understand that went very well. So, I just want to thank all those people who contributed, uh, to that task force. Also, um, have attended a couple of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness
collaborative meetings. If you'll recall, uh, the fall in-person meeting was cancelled because of the federal shutdown. So, we've had a makeup meeting and one other yesterday and are planning to reschedu an in-person meeting for
2026. Um, in reference to our meeting with the governor's office last Friday, and Commissioner Storyley was part of that conversation, I'll just distribute a summary of uh the information that we shared with the governor's office
related to the needs of the Gunflint Trail in terms of improving that last 10 miles of roadway. It is uh really a very important piece that we work on related to public safety and uh so anyway, we'll continue to work on that.
And then at AMC, I had an opportunity to attend the tribal forum and wanted to announce to um those members of the Grand Portage community as well as everyone here in Cook County that Tim Sumner, who has been the leader of our
tribal forum for the last 10 years, um has resigned. We have new leadership, but he is taking his skills and expertise to NAO. So, he will be working at a federal level. um had an opportunity to attend um a lot
of different types of sessions on SNAP, Medicaid, solid waste where they're actually exploring use of combusters to medicate PAS. So that was very interesting and also a program that I'll be talking to superintendent Lynholm
about about rural graduates and what are some pathways we can create within the high school s system to prevent them from leaving the county. Lots of our high school people go away for college and trade school and the percentage that return to our rural communities is quite
small. And so there were some strategies that were shared by other communities about how they are promoting promoting programs to help keep those students in their communities and contributing uh as well. And then uh lastly, yesterday,
Auditor Powers Tre or Auditor Powers uh attended with me the 5010 aeronautics meeting related to our airport. We reviewed the inspection that occurred this summer, talked about all of the improvements that we have made. um have
a few small items that we have to order like stickers and wind socks that aren't faded um to make sure that we are up to date and doing our best for the safety and our community at the airport. Um and with that, is there another commissioner that would like to share?
>> You go ahead. >> Good. I I was just going to make a a comment. We we Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Commissioner. Um, we had received an email from Kristen relative to any thoughts and impressions coming from the AMC and and I I think that's
good especially for the investment the committee makes and sending staff down there and participating that that coming back with the things that that uh impressed us, the things that we learned. And uh it would be good if we could have a processing time to be able to figure out how do we make these
things applicable practically in our own communities. And the real benefit of these sessions from learning and connecting with peers is is taking that information back and looking at how it might relate practically in our community. So I just I I underscore that
from the evaluation standpoint of the sessions that we attended. >> Yeah. The only thing I wanted to update is, you know, I brought up the nuclear power issue before and my opinion it's unfortunate that it passed the way that
it did. Um it the AMC platform had already been um to repeal the moratorum and so the amendment was to repeal it and promote it uh promote small nuclear
reactors, modular reactors, sorry. And the promoting the promotion of it I thought was way over the top. Um, not that it's going to go anywhere and the county that was proposing it knows this, but they're trying to make a statement and and all that. I'm just disappointed
that we're taking AMC resources to get on this road. The big impetus, and I'm sure you're going to be hearing more and more and more about it in the news, um, is data centers. They need power. I mean, our grid needs power anyways because of electrical conversion. Uh, but now the data centers are just going
bananas with power. And so, um, that's my understanding. And so, the two conversations were kind of going parallel, but they're connected. And, um, I did a deep dive into nuclear power. And, um, there is, you know, a
lot of potential and it's exciting and, you know, anytime there's an issue we hear about it and you can, you know, that's three times, right? So and there are many many many more nuclear facilities and so uh it is a safe
technology and there's a lot of fear around it but it's again once that waste is created it's like forever waste and so with some of the efficiencies now they can use I think 94 or 96% of the material so it's way less waste
but it's still forever waste and learned a little bit about this is outside of the committee but um learned about there's different uh radiation types. Some are airborne, some are waterborne, and some just are in the land. And so it depends on what your fuel source is. Um
so yeah, buckle up there. But um it uh my argument there was, you know, they're touting Gen 3 and Gen 4 generators or or reactors, and they're saying the technology is new, and it's it's all very similar. It's just a different way of cooling it and transmitting the power
or like collecting the power and and shutting it down. Um, so it's still a similar process, but what I was saying we should really be advocating advocating for is nuclear fusion, which won't have waste and it's still a ways off, but they're making incredible
strides and they're using plasma as basically that medium to transfer the heat and uh it's it's kind of mind-blowing, but um they said, "Oh, yeah, yeah, we want that, too." too. And I was like, well, if you're promoting the other stuff, how much of your energy is going to go to that thing that has no
waste? But anyways, that was disappointing. Um, got a got a lot of good feedback from it. >> Um, even even though um it was a pretty overwhelming pass. There was a minority report though that we handed off to the executive committee and and so that was
appreciated too. But >> that's all I wanted to to share. >> Commissioner Sullivan. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, just to respond and add on to what Commissioner Mills spoke about the um, amendment just so that the public is clear on it. It
reads, "AMC supports repealing the prohibition on building nuclear energy facilities and promoting the permitting and development of small modular reactors, micro reactors, and viable generation 4 and five technologies. And
I had an opportunity um to speak with a nuclear engineer about this who indicated that absolutely there shouldn't be a data center built without some type of nuclear power for it so that it is not on the grid and on the
backs of uh people that are currently paying for electrical service. I also talked to former commissioner Spalison who worked in a nuclear plant and he talked about the importance of um you know building nuclear energy facilities
but he did also bring up the issue that Commissioner Mills mentioned nuclear waste. That is still something that we need to be looking at. Um, in my discussion in the natural resources and environment committee when we brought up the issue of waste
and educating the public about the process as well as the waste, um, the comment was made, we'll put all of the waste in Sherburn County. Um, and um, so yeah, I got a chuckle out of that too.
>> Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. just relative to nuclear waste that it has been proven in our experience given when we've had problems is that manure is a uh a method
to reclaim soil that has been exposed to nuclear waste and Chernobyl taught us that and so there are things through organisms that that come naturally that can help >> on a large scale or whatever what is the best thing it is something that we do
know about being able to reclaim given exposure to nuclear. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Fungi are I guess the >> Mhm. >> the magic organism now for >> any other reports. >> No, we do not.
>> Okay. >> I just was remembering that I have to pick up on our grandchildren at 3:30. >> Okay. Um, I'll just mention one um, workshop that I went to in great appreciation for the human resource department.
>> I mean, the list just goes on and on and Allison is doing a fabulous job here, especially with the whole family paid leave right now that's been put on their table. So, in the future when she maybe
asks us to think about help, I think she'll have a litany of what she needs help with. But anyway, that was mind-boggling. So, with that, u we'll move on to um upcoming meetings to note, which is the
only one. We have a new organizational meeting next year, Tuesday, January 6th at 8:30. We also in our packet have correspondence memos. Uh the lodging tax
comparison through um September and the lodging tax comparison through October of 25. And with no other business in our agenda, we are adjourned. Thank you all. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you everybody. >> Thank you very much Kristen. >> Be well.