Morning everyone. >> I will call the Cook County Board of Commissioners regular meeting to order. On this day, Tuesday, December 2nd, 2025, we begin our meeting with the pledge. Please rise. >> I pledge allegiance 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. Are there any adjustments to the agenda? >> I'll hear a motion to approve.
>> Madam chair, I make a motion to approve the agenda as presented. >> I'll support. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> oppose. Same sign. At this time, we have uh a little bit of time for public comment. And um if you have some
comments, you can please come up to the front by the microphone, sign in, and I will give you five minutes for your comments. Anyone in the audience wishing to do that, please come forward. Good morning.
>> Morning. >> Um, I wish to address uh Sawtooth Bluffs and that where that's going. Uh there are some questions that I would like to see hear some answers for that I think
might help everyone get a picture about where where this might be going. Uh my first question is who is this planning for? Who is Sawtooth Bluffs for? Um at one point Commissioner Mills thank you
said that this is for the user groups that live and work here. I'm wondering is that still true or have we been replaced by tourists? Who do you commissioners represent?
The people who live, work, and elected you or the tourism industry? What or who is your biggest asset in this industry of tourists? Is it the money they drop?
or the people who serve them, providing what they can to make their encounter in Cook County as you advertise. All the great things you promise cannot
happen without people to operate them. And right now, I don't know of anyone who's doing a bangup job of keeping the working people here. Consider your own difficulties. Look at your county employees. How many resignations and rehires do you have
every month? You celebrate one, two, and three years of employment. Like that's a real milestone. That's just getting their feet wet. There's no guarantee they're going to be here. Our businesses struggle to have regular
hours, many of them short-handed. Is this a healthy picture of employment for this community? Even the smallest development is going to require people. What efforts are you making to solve
that issue? A local workforce is our future. If you do no more than advertise and promote what we have today, the county will continue to attract people. Always has. That is the natural beauty that exists.
Here is the natural beauty that exists that few places have. Aren't we lucky? We do not need to be a Disneyland that is constantly adding new attractions to get you to come back.
Those who come come for what is. In one year, we went from 1.2 2 million to 1.3 million tourists. How many more do you need?
Will there ever be enough? Let's take a look at the RFP, the request for proposal. The direction given is all toward a regional designation. In other words, tourists.
On September 23rd, a report was given to the board from Mitch of Parks and Trails and it says to adopt a plan that reflects the community vision and qualifies the property for legacy funding from the
state. Well, isn't Minnesota proud of what it's doing right now with billion dollars worth of theft? There are several questions that have not Oops. It also says that um Parks and Trails
has prioritized this project because of the $30,000 the commissioners put into the budget. So now you have another choice, commissioners. you can rep prioritize this project and put it into the future
giving some consideration as to what is truly wanted in the best interests of the public that you represent. How are you going to get the feedback that you want from a broad range of people? Well, one tool would be that survey that I thought I saw in the
agenda for today. Let's go back to the language in the RFP. Um there is something called scope of work. Now this is what you're telling these people that you want them to bid or give you information on. And the
words that you use like in item D says determine the community's interest in camping facilities. Da da da operating a higher volume campground versus a handful of dispersed walk-in campsites.
Guess where your priority is there. Item E says, "Determine amenities, programs, facilities that would benefit residents and visitors equally." H I think the people who live and work
here should have a priority over somebody who's coming to visit for a week. Consider ways this park could be configured to support by filling needs in child care, environmental education, athletics, da da da da da. Um, this this
whole thing is telling these people exactly what you want for the end result. Is that what you want? You want to tell them what you want for the end result and they'll give you exactly what you're asking them for. Prepare and present a master plan
for the fitting the criteria for regionally significant selection process. This whole regional designation seems to be the god that you're working toward. It is the item that you want. You want
regional designation. You don't really care what anybody else says or where this goes. That is your peace. That's what you want. And everything that being done seems to be striving pu pushing us in that direction.
HKG gave you um a set of information and they gave you what you needed to have, what you asked for because you told them what you wanted in the end. Where is the comm where is the community, the public's input? This is a
10-year-old plan. Where is our input to say maybe this was not what we need right now? >> Arvis, I'll give you another minute. >> Thank you. things change. Finally, um let's take a look at the
three options that you've been presented with. All of them, all of them go towards regional designation. How about looking at option number four, which is to leave it as it is. Remember the aesthetic preservation that
someone addressed a long time ago. How about option number five, which says do the same thing as two harbors. Two harbors did. They connected with a nature conserancy to permanently protect a very large piece of property.
Have we exhausted all possibilities? Probably not. But could we at least be sure of what we do next before we have done something that we cannot undo? >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
Are there any comments from um the board that they need to read? >> Madame Chair, I have a comment to read and um would you like me to wait till after our next speaker here? >> Morning. >> My name is Ron Wizakauski. I'm from
Holdman. Um, I I just found out about this project a few weeks ago and I was just uh just have a few short comments and uh one of them is uh that piece of land is probably not changed since the glaciers melted and I was wondering why
now. And I was also wondering uh what uh what would happen if we don't do anything? I mean we don't have to do anything. Is that isn't that correct? And some of the proposals that I've seen
uh are just I mean they're going to cost money for sure and the taxpayers are going to get stuck again but uh a few simple paths through that area would be
sufficient I think for people around here. Harvest mentioned the nature's the the area's beauty, the natural beauty, and I think that's why people come here. We don't need any more uh we don't need any more attractions. The
attraction is this area. So, uh that's really about all I had to say. I just uh it's just a few comments. So, thank you. >> I'm hoping you'll think about that. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Anyone else for public comment? and I'll turn it over to Commissioner
Sullivan. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I have um a piece to read that comes from the Secretary Treasurer of the Voyager Point Homeowners Association at 110 Voyagers Point. It's the desire of Voyagers Point
Homeowners Association to maintain the status quo and continue the Voyagers Point Subordinate Governmental Service District. to clarify our position for the record. Voyager Point Road is a public road, not a private one. County roads exist that show Voyagers Point
Road was accepted by the county in 1960 and dedicated to public use, but the property owners have always paid for road maintenance. The formation of the SGSD was a compromise between the county and property owners to ensure the road was properly maintained and all
homeowners contributed to its maintenance. The HOA or POA system is not a good alternative. The Voyager Point Homeowners Association subordinate governmental service district was initiated by efforts of its property owners to attain road equity by
requiring all properties that benefit from a maintained road to pay for it. Eliminating RSGSD would place a disproportionate financial burden on those property owners who would pay voluntarily. Voyager Point Homeowners Association is recognized by the state
of Minnesota as an assumed name only, not a legal entity or HOA with the authority to enforce payment from neighbors for road maintenance. To become an HOA, the consent of all owners and their mortgages would be required. Many Voyager Point owners are not in
favor of creating one. SGSDs pay the county for services provided. Pursuant to the statute and existing county policy, all charges for services expended by the three county departments and the cost to those departments should be costneutral as they are reimbursed by
the homeowners. The county receives an administrative fee to manage contracts. Subordinate governmental service districts also create funded employment opportunities for the county. Dissolving SGSDs will decrease the tax base for all. The proposal fails to provide the
board and the public with perspective on the financial consequences for the county as its taxpayers if the SGSDs are dissolved. Termination of these will depress property values and areas served. The results in an upward re uh
redistribution of the county budget and other taxing districts levies including the hospital and school district across all taxpayers. The Voyagers Point Homeowners Association is in compliance with county SGSD requirements. We feel we have been
a model example of how to properly partner with the county for road maintenance. We've complied with the county's requirements since our SGSD was formed and accepted by the county in 1992. Specifically, Voyager Point Homeowners Association has maintained one point of
contact for communication of road related issues and has always paid our tax levy for road maintenance costs. The Voyager Point Homeowners Association and the county mutually understand the boundar boundaries of our road and the scope of work is clear. The relationship
between the levy, county administration, and good contractors has resulted in highquality, well-maintained, safe roads for the community as a whole. Rather than dissolve, improve. We find nothing in the proposal to indicate compliance with the committee of the holes
directive at the August meeting to consider internal process improvements to reduce unnecessary time demands of this program on staff. We are willing to work with the county to make whatever changes are necessary to the SGSD policy to make it more efficacious for the
county to successfully manage these ongoing. >> Thank you. Anyone else? Administrator Treble. >> Thank you. I have two letters to read and the first one is from the Northwoods Child Care from the owner of the
Northwoods Childcare. It says, um, "Dear Cook County Board of Commissioners, as you make the final decision for the wage enhancement support for Cook County Childcare Providers, I'd like for you all to take a moment to listen to what we have to say regarding the situation, how it may affect our businesses and
child care providers in Cook County. Childare wage enhance enhancements are essential to keeping my doors open, and continuing to serve the families who rely on me. These enhancements allow for me to pay myself a livable wage without breaking the bank of the families in my
care. I am the backbone of my program and I provide the safe, stable, nurturing care our community depends on. Without competitive wages, I simply cannot keep my doors open because I will not be able to pay myself a wage that will be suitable for my own family. When
wage enhancements disappear, programs face closures, reduced classroom availability, longer weight lists, and disruptions that directly affect working families. But when they remain in place, programs are able to maintain stable staffing, meet licensing requirements,
and offer consistent highquality care that supports children's development and allows parents to stay in the workforce. Keeping these wage enhancements is not just about supporting child care providers. It is about protecting the stability and well-being of our entire
community. Without them, many programs like mine will struggle to stay open. With them, we continue doing what we do best, caring for children, supporting families, and strengthening our community every day. Thank you, Hunter McLaren, the owner operator at
Northwoods Childare. And I have a second letter and this is from it's regarding child care um the childcare enhancement program as well and it's from 3 6 7 8 9 10 different child care providers in the county and
it says dear Cook County Board of Commissioners as you approach making the final determinations as you set the FY2026 levy we want to take a moment to remind you of the benefits you have provided to child care in Cook County thanks to your wage enhancement program
that was initiated back in 2023. You have helped build strong foundations for local childcare providers. It's no secret that local daycarees are in a predict predicament with low enrollment of preschoolers since the addition of the three-year-old preschool program and
is at ISD 166. Preschoolers make up over half of the enrollment in our daycarees. Students who would have attended our child carees uh child care now attend preschool at a sliding uh fee rate, a rate that we cannot compete with. Since
this addition to our community, we are left with caring for a smaller age group of children when there is a high demand for infant care but not enough spots to fill that demand. All while still leaving our rosters half empty. As you can imagine, with only half a roster, it
makes it very challenging to pay staff, pay bills, and make a living. We feel it's very critical for the community and commissioners to understand the hard work and the tremendous skill that goes into child care and the important piece child care plays in keeping our
community functioning. Even with the generosity of wage enhancement as an extra bonus, it has been a struggle to keep people in this profession. Cooperation Station has experienced several closures and near closures throughout its existence as just one
example of these struggles. The wage enhancement has made a huge difference to all the daycarees in Cook County. The wage enhancement has been proof of your commitment to addressing the childcare crisis. We hope you continue to see the significance of wage enhancement. the signific sign
significance wage enhancement has made to all of us. But know this is only one small step in addressing the childare crisis in our county. A community that values child care is also a community that will keep young families in the area and continue to draw young families
to the area. What is more important than giving our youngest members of the community a place where they are safe and can thrive? It speaks volumes that Cook County is willing to invest in childare. We hope you continue to see the value in child care and we encourage you to meet and visit with child care
providers to really get an understanding of the struggles of this industry. Attached, we have provided for you a reference on how our rosters are built so that you can see where the gaps in child care are. And all of the commissioners have that chart in front of them.
And on that chart, it states that license sizes are mandated by the state of Minnesota. any changes to the roster size must be pre-approved by the the county licenser. Most inhome um childc carees in Cook County are operating at a C1 license and it's at the discretion of
the provider if they want to accept infants in their program. A provider can opt out of taking infants and only take toddlers and up if that's what they're comfortable with doing. So this was um submitted to us by the cooperation station director, the cooperation
station board members and the Y director as well as Northwoods child care and stepup childcare. Thank you for your comments. I want the public to understand that when they request um comment to be read that we acknowledge that to have time.
Okay. So we're going to >> No. U moving on to the consent agenda. >> There was a late coming for public comment, but she got here in time. Could she speak? >> We've had public comment. >> Jamie,
>> we've had public comment. We're done. Moving on to claims. We have in our claims, we have the emergency management performance chart. >> Wrong way. I believe that since we have a community
person who is here when we just finished reading from those that could not attend and we say that we want to hear from uh our community. We want transparency and we value what people have to say because
we have a person who slid in during the reading. I think it's it's inappropriate for us to not allow that person. That's my opinion. I'm not the the board chair. >> Thank you, Commissioner White. We have public comment at 8:30. I will
go ahead and let you speak for five minutes. >> Last thing from >> 8:30. We have our public comment. Ray, >> you know, Ray, we have public comment at 8:30. >> Pardon me. Our public comment is at 8:30. Okay. I'll let you go ahead and
speak for 5 minutes. I thought there would be more people speaking this morning and hurried as soon as I could. I'm sorry that I was not here at 8:30. I'm Ray Peel from Looten
and just am hoping that no levy will be set before Brady is able to offer what can be
offset from the reserve fund in order to lower that over 7% cent levy and because Sawtooth Mountain, excuse
me, certainly would involve the residents who live there were they notified that this will be on the agenda today.
We've had them speak out in the past apparently. It's unfortunate that they're not here. I'm wondering about this Satuth Mountain development. We have Pinquish Mountain,
our mountain bike trails, we have our beautiful Gigami trails. when we are spending so much money in our county, I would sure urge that
before any decision is made and what about a survey that is 10 years old. Is that a current survey? What about the HR survey that when it was understood
it's 10 years old, it's too old. We need another survey. 10 years. There's an awful lot that has happened here and certainly one of those things is the cost keeps going up up up
for our people. So please before any decision is made, I would sure urge you be in communication with those Sawtooth Mountain residents and think about for whom is this being
planned? Is this for local taxpayers who are picking up the bill? So, thank you, Jenny, very much for allowing me to speak. >> Step over and please sign in for our public record. >> You bet. >> Thank you, Ray.
Okay, I'll start over with the consent agendum items. We have claims emergency management performance grant. Approve the hire of Aaron Shelter as um engineering technician one. Approve extension of outofclass appointment for
Plowman Digim. Resignation of Neil Patterson. Reappoint of Nina Mccloon to the Cook County Extension Committee. And that concludes um the um agenda. Does anyone wish to pull anything?
Commissioner White, >> uh, EMS, um, I would just have a more fuller conversation about it for the public at some point. >> Okay. So, we will pull B and put it. Um,
we can put it right now since Mike is here. >> Commissioner White has some questions for you. Thank you, Mike. >> Good morning, uh, uh, board members, community members.
Um, the emergency management performance grant, uh, has been around for for quite a number of years. It unfortunately like a lot of other grants is uh dwindling. I looked back in records uh back in the
let's say 20 years ago it was over $30,000. It's now down to as you can see from your paperwork down to um $13,011. And I already have 2025s that's very similar. I think it's I think it's
$13,022. Um that that grant is a federal grant that comes through the state that is divided up among the 87 counties. Uh the tribes and the cities of the first
class. It's based on population. So with our population, that's why our number is so very low. It also comes with grant duties. Um I'm required to attend four um HSEN HSEM homeland
security and emergency management quarterly meetings in person. Uh one HSM conference. Um, I have to keep my emergency operations plan updated and reviewed by you on a 4-year basis and
others on the other three years. Um, I will say just for your information by attending those meetings and travel even though it's not our money, it's grant money that cuts almost a quarter
of that grant. There's also grant reporting. Um, I would say if I was to remain here for another three or four years and it got under $10,000, I would ask my supervisor to say this is
not worth this small amount of money at at some point. Right now, it's it's still doable. Um, but uh any any questions about the grant? >> Commissioner White? Um, so what I'm hearing is or surmising is that the
value of meeting with others quarterly is beneficial enough to support taking these grant dollars and doing the work. >> Yes. Oh, for sure. And the conference itself, um, I mean, even for a seasoned
emergency manager, the conference still brings something back to Cook County that I can use for our community members to keep us prepared for emergencies. So, the answer to your question is very much yes. Yeah. >> And could you give us an example of some
idea that came back with you or something that you were able to share and implement? >> Sure. like our we associated with the with HSM is also the association of Minnesota Emergency Managers of which I
am a board member on that association. I re I represent region two um um we have a board meeting this week as a matter of fact. So between HSM trainings that
bring to me that I bring to you, um, uh, AM also put together an elected officials handbook that we are hoping this month to have updated that I will get all of you in front of me. Um, so
you will have fresher information as to your role uh, during a local disaster emergency. Uh furthermore with that HSCM also offers in-person training for for board
of commissioner member for elected officials is the is the technical term and they are willing to come up here and uh and and bring training. Uh that training however is a full 8 hour day. It is broken down into modules. So, we
could have them up here and do the first four one morning or afternoon. Uh, wait a few months and have them come back up if that's something that you all would be interested in. >> Okay. Now, I have a follow-up question. >> Sure.
>> Which you are on a roll, but what does HSCM mean? >> HSCM is Homeland Security and Emergency Management. >> Thank you. And this H in this um
uh EMPG, this emergency management performance grant money is federal money as I say and a lot of that money. Basically what HSCM does is they get that money from the federal government.
They keep half of it to run some of their operations and the other well it's not really 50/50. I think it's about 6040 now. Um that's why it's lessening. Um and then the rest is distributed to
the other counties, tribes, and cities. So, >> thanks. >> Yeah. >> And I would be interested in an 8 hour training. >> Okay, we can talk that through. >> Okay, Commissioner Gav. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mike.
Appreciate the overview on that. Um touching on all important points I think that both public and elected commissioners should be mindful of. Uh we have suggested it be valuable for us as commissioners uh to take a look at
the um committees that we sit on and the benefit of those committees. Um there are are funding mechanisms that are available to uh staff um and departments that help um with the operations and in
some case what's asked of us uh that evaluation of is the funding justified relative to the investment of time and energy. and uh an honest assessment of that is is is important as it addresses stewardship responsibility with
different departments and and we as as commissioners. So in some cases we apply ourselves to things that there is no funding. It is reliant totally on on levy dollars, meaning taxpayers are paying for commissioners or departments
to participate in these and the evidence of the value on the return of that investment is hugely important at and given your overview um uh your awareness of that uh you you address that which I
I appreciate. uh sometimes we just get into the rhythm of things and we don't do that evaluation and um I I think uh it's commendable when we take a look at things from the standpoint of what is the value and in some cases there are
dollars that are held up to us that those dollars shouldn't be what drives decisions it should be the value to our community and the investment of our time based upon an assessment of priorities so um I appreciate you noting that in
your overview of this? >> For sure, >> Commissioner White. >> And one more thing, there's often the question, well, what do we need an emergency manager for? Like, you know, got a house fire leave, something like
that. But having participated in and um like the crossing borders um which we did with Canada a month or so ago when the weather was warmer um and then the different there's even national
that I'm sure I'm not compensated for this but just to know more about the network of emergency management the one the last one I listened to they were the discussion was about uh There was a mock drill about a nuclear emergency.
Like honestly, I never thought about a nuclear emergency. I thought about not being able to get out because there's too much snow. But so the value of the emergency program, I believe, we don't understand
because it runs smoothly and there are emergencies. We're all set when there's an emergency for and for emergencies we don't even consider. So, and so I agree with you, Commissioner. Um, Gamble, we
as I as a commissioner should not be paid for participating in these things and I as a I do not expect to do that. I I attend some of these things or go online and listen um because I want to
know feel I need to know better more to do a better job. That's all. >> Okay, Mike. >> Commissioner White is speaking of a exercise that the state of Michigan did with our Canadian partners. It was it
took two and a half years to plan it and it was a 7day exercise that involved over 1,200 people. Um uh uh just for just one last thing um
we by state statute and chapter 12 every county in the state of Minnesota is required to have an emergency manager. >> Thank you Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you Madam Chair. I'd make a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented. >> Support.
>> All in favor? >> I >> oppose. Same sign. Motion passes. Thank you again. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Item number four is land services, the parks and trails commission. So we'll have a review of all that from Mitch
Travis. >> Morning. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam, >> um I reviewing all of that feels kind of like a lot, but I'll do my best. Um so, as you all are aware, kind of in in our um committee, the whole meeting that we
held back in October now, I believe, I kind of highlighted the history of of Sawtooth Bluffs and all the things that have been related to it. Um kind of what it boils down to is in 2016, you know, the the commissioners of Cook County um adopted the Cook County Comprehensive
Trails Plan. Uh this included Sawtooth Bluffs as a primary trail hub within that plan. Um uh subsequently they uh appointed the um parks and trails commission as well as hired the parks and trails coordinator back in 2016.
Um after a couple years of planning in 2018 they formed the Sawtooth Bluffs master plan. This was a collaborative effort between Cook County and Grand Marray. So, it's important to remember that the the county as a whole cannot decide what the entirety of that bluff
looks like at the end of the day. We can only look at our portion of the property. And so, you know, this has to be a collaborative effort between Grand Marray and Cook County if we want to preserve the hillside. Um, yeah. So, at the end of the day, you
know, in the fall of 2018, the Sawtooth Bluffs plan was adopted by the board of commissioners here with Cook County as well as um the city of Grand Marray. So, that's the plan we're operating off of. That's the plan we're tasked with implementing as the Cook County um parks
and trails commission. Um and then in 2025, um the this board put Sawtooth Bluffs Planning as a budget item. So, that's kind of been our main charge this year is to find a way to to do what we were tasked with doing at the beginning
of the year. Um, again, I just want to highlight this RFP doesn't commit us to anything. Uh, it's just allowing us to proceed with engaging with some planning firms. That does include a lot of public engagement. Um, this board can suggest
ways for us to engage with the public if they would like. Um, and then at any point in the project, we have the opportunity as a board to and a community to evaluate various components of the project for whether or not they fit within the scope of the plan. Um, and as Ray said, you know, we do
understand that we need more information. We need to do more surveys. And this is kind of what we're asking you to do is allow us to proceed with engaging with an uh a landscape architecture firm to assist us in planning with what we want to do here. um so that we have more information that
we can then bring forth to the public and seek more input on it, give them a more informed decision. So um with that, I think I'd just kind of pause and wait to hear you guys. Go ahead.
>> I just would like to really quickly touch on a couple things. Um the whole thing about doing nothing is not actually doing nothing. The plan in it is in existence. The plan has been adopted. So if you do nothing, you actually leave it open. The charge for the plan is to promote. The board has
already decided that is what the plan is. So if somebody a user group comes to the board with that, there is a document that is adopted by the board that says yes, this is the plan. We have adopted this. So doing nothing is not actually doing nothing. It is keeping the door open for those things that are
identified in the plan to keep on going. which is why we wanted to further that public discussion by doing this public process through the RFP. Um, and just to really quick touch on that that whole thing, who's it for? Uh, frankly, a a lot of things like if you get the Ridge
Riders snowmobile club, they'll they have put in for grants for uh maintenance for for trails for their um snowmobile trails and stuff like that, but they don't keep it closed to just their their user group. they are a local user group but it is open for everybody
to use it. So the way that those things work is that the local groups will go ahead and um petition for grants and things which is part of the reasons for the designation regional designation is to get further funding for these user groups to be able to do that. The local
groups generally get the grants. We act as uh fiscal agents for that for those grants. Um, but they're not restricted to uh public use. And so that just kind of answers that question. Yes, they are basically by and large local. Um, but
they are available as in pin and cushion or everything else open to everybody else to be able to use. So just thought I'd throw that out there. >> Administrator Treble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, thank you both Tim and Mitch and for the community that provided feedback as well. Um I
just wanted to mention that we have had a number of discussions around this and as staff and as the administrator we chose to bring this forward today with different options because we heard feedback about the RFP and so obviously moving forward with the RFP is still an
option as as is moving forward with um HGK but or HKG I'm sorry. Um and then we also added an option which is basically the board advis us on the next steps because as Tim and Mitch have mentioned
um the the plan was adopted in 2018 and so we are moving forward as directed by the board given the decisions that have been made. So we are certainly open to ensuring that more information is collected from the community as we move
forward. As Mitch mentioned, um the RFP was modified was modified to include and make sure that we have the opportunity for surveys and community engagement. Um but we're really looking for advice on um and a direction from the board on
what we should do as we move forward. >> Comments or questions? Mr. G. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. At Brady, I'd ask a question. We've had this discussion in our uh budget negotiations relative to um PILT funds and things that are designated for resate uh for
recreation and um can you uh remind the board and the public uh the amount of money that is and this might be unfair just coming off the sleeve here but the amount of money that is in that fund
presently and moving forward some of those monies are coming from tax forfeited properties as well that get designated for recreation. Is that a correct state? >> Yes, historically it's come from tax forfeit sales and from a portion of the
state in lie of tax uh the 35,000 that you're allowed to spend for anything that the board has designated for recreation since as long as I've been here. >> Right. Um I'll have to look at Oh, you have it.
>> Thank you, Ann. Thank you. >> She's here. >> Um so that's the state in Lou. The total the state in L is 172. That's the environmental trust. Let's
see. And and my question pertains to the issue of of um uh concerned about the the board that made a decision relative to setting aside 30,000 in the 2025 budget to pursue uh um an alliance, you
know, and a request for a proposal and uh the additional monies potentially could come from that funding source. My question is is that moving forward uh concerned about losing that $30,000 as
it designated in the 2025 budget um to try to address the the the budget and looking at uh how we can trim our levy and yet not great angst and concern about monies to be able to fund this is
looking at that fund to see the available monies that could be used as I understand it. Um I mean we're looking at roughly $50 $60,000 updated uh if we were to move forward on this request for
proposal to and so I'm just saying what do we have in there that we could be mindful of to address this issue of funding. >> Yeah, just we have 172,000 currently in that parks and wreck fund. We also have
other funds as we've I laid out at that meeting. Um environmental trust funds, the interest earnings. Sure. >> And other you know sources that are potential. We'd have to look we want to use them as close to the
>> statutory guidance as possible. But the parks and wreck for sure and sometimes uh depending on what it is, it could be the environmental funds, it could be some other funds, but >> for sure. And that's uh that 35,000 if you choose to keep it in that purpose is
continuous you know until the state changes. Sure. >> And so what we're saying is we have a funding source and when it comes to budget and allocation of dollars anything as was just addressed by Mike with emergency management if there's
money that comes from grants and we use those monies related to emergency management. If there are monies that come that help public health, human services or any other area, much of our highway comes from monies that granted state or federal for infrastructure. And
in this regard, relative to recreational things which parks and trails, um we have a funding source. If we use the funding source that is designated by statute or any other governing
regulatory agency then um what we are doing in our stewardship responsibility is trying to mitigate the impact of expenditures that directly affect levy which is taxpayer dollars. So in looking
at this um the 30,000 or 35 30,000 that was set aside that was uh a motion passed by previous board that put in the 2025 budget but those dollars were not
from this fund. those dollars were associated with levy and my recommendation is is that to alleviate the angst, hey, we have this money and we don't want to lose it. I I would not want the the budget issue to drive a
decision. I would like to be mindful of the fact we could take this from a funding force source that does not impact levy and uh be mindful of that. The other is, and coming out of uh the town hall
meeting that Commissioner White and and you and Tim attended, uh we appreciated that conversation and I think you would agree that the majority of that conversation focused on mountain bike trails. And so if we were to survey the community and ask the community what it
is that we wanted in that subgroup during that uh town hall meeting, it was pretty evident that mountain biking is something that we would we would like. It it would help with with school and programming. It would help with uh our
local organizations that focus on mountain biking and things. Um I think my whole thing in in reviewing uh the request for proposal and reviewing reviewing the regional uh status
the best practices that which simply means this is what we do to get where we want to go to identify these things that this should be public informed and back in 2018 when it was public informed if you take the information and this came up in the
town all that if if we say what would you like the public input that came in as a result of that survey way back then which I reviewed online that many people said we would like to have frisbee golf we'd like camping we'd like RV we would
like an interpretive center we'd like to build a building where people could come up and da da da we'd like campsites and with some of these things that get proposed if we follow through then they fall into a category where they fall under requirements that the state puts that's in place. So many campsites are
going to need restrooms. And so, uh, we need to understand all of the components that are part of what we, you know, choose to do. So, if we say the public has spoken and this is what we want, we have all of
those. Which voice is the voice that gets the priority that says we will build a building? We will build climbing wall. And I think, you know, you'd reference it. you if you had gone in with former commissioner um Frank Moan and had looked at whether or not a
climbing option was even there. These are the analysis that go into addressing the realities of what can we and can we not do. I think um part of the public comment this morning and part of what was identified in in
the packet information that we received as board members here is that there should be a balanced or equal um addressing equal need relative to local and and tourists. And I think if
you look at your February 2025 survey monkey uh survey that you did that the the result of that survey indicate that um when you asked the question about are you supportive of
allocating local resources such as taxes or public funds to develop the regional park. full-time residents. There were 38% that said, "Yeah, I'm comfortable with, you know, devoting taxes, public funds to
that." 49% said no. And unsure was 13%. If you ask frequent visitors, you've got 76% of them saying, "Yeah, I don't have any problem with you spending local monies."
and uh and those that say no are 3% where I don't know why where they're getting their basis for that response. Um un understanding um understanding uh this issue of what does the community
want. I think the people that contribute the money to it which are the taxpayers um they have a a vested interest and certainly that's what we want to address. You highlighted in red in the packet that's included that's available
to public online and for board members that this involvement in public that the public informs this direction to decision is important and um it's it is underscored in multiple um from the
state standpoint from the regional park committee and I talked to them directly. It's it's uh underscored in what do you do for a request for proposal and the public input. The question is where does that happen? Does that happen to determine what we want as a community
that we're willing to financially back or does it come as a commitment that now we find out what we want? Uh to those that would say we've already asked the public. Um, as you mentioned, you know, this was
done uh the 2018 um Commissioner uh Sullivan and myself sit on the housing uh resource board and in our last meeting there was on the agenda
a proposal that we do a study to update our housing needs. And the comments that came from uh the commissioners on that board were um if our data is a decade plus old, I just
think 10 years is too long for updating data. And um so if we're going to be current and understand where we're at with what has transpired in 10 years, we should revisit this. My encouragement would be that that we would find out
for all of those that contribute monies towards this. That means people that are here locally that pay taxes, people here that have second homes or whatever, they pay taxes that these people who have a vested interest that in this financially
would be able to inform our decision. and um I as an elected representative am willing to support what the community wants because I represent the community. So that's that's my position. Um as you
know uh Commissioner Sulliv and I uh sit on the uh preserve the bluff and u so we've had these two entities. One is preserve the bluff, keep it as it is, and the other is is the sawtooth bluff, you know, master plan and trying to get
the two groups together to see where we have shared values. And I think that's that's important that that communication needs to needs to take place. I think we can find things that are are compatible in that regard that lends a a um a
louder voice to this thing overall. But I think we need to explore what it is that where we find that compatibility. So my my recommendation is is that that we would not move forward with a request
for proposal at this time, but that we would look at how we might be able to use some of these monies to hear the voice of our community and have a more refined direction and then move forward. If we move
forward at this point, we're making an assumption based on old information. And I think let's get current information. And that's why I recommended the uh the survey and and certainly parks and trails, um land service, whomever to
refine that the nature of those questions to answer the fundamental question. what we would like to see happen with that property after a 2016 2018 visit. Uh to revisit that before we
would move forward. That would be my my recommendation and whatever comes out of that finding I think that would be current information that could drive the decision with the understanding that we do have a resource that is not totally tax reliant. The other thing I have
found in my service in this to this community is that oftentimes we have funding sources like the regional parks and development that um begin projects but it falls on the community to support that project. And I
think any feasibility study needs to reflect that uh view perspective that shows we can build it but can we maintain it and who will pay the cost to maintain it and I know we have a number of volunteer
organizations timber reference snow bill club but we've got mountain biking we've got hiking trails and but we should we should lock in to have an understanding and not make assumptions and so I I think rightly ordering ing the information to drive direction that is
current would be advisable. The other thing I would say is that the regional park uh their whole tension and when they evaluate um the applications that come in is if there's regional significance meaning
that it has value to the region not just to the local community. That's one of the basis of the criteria that they use. So we we need to understand that if if we say this is what our community wants and is solely focused on the community,
the committee that views reviews these applications based upon designating regional status is going to look at is it attractive within the region because that's why we want these legacy dollars to do things that have broader than just
the local community. Understanding all that is important I think. So, I appreciate the time for the discussion. >> My question would be um what response since we're joined with um the city council have you had from them? Have you
met with them? Input from them? >> Um I mean all things that we've discussed have all been speculative obviously. um in speaking with you know the mayor and with uh city administrator they have kind of been in a holding pattern while the county is kind of
determining which you know how they're going to move forward. Um we have had kind of loose commitments of like once you guys decide which you know firm you want to engage with we as a city council will then determine what
our involvement will be. Um I mean kind of in terms of monetary involvement I mean in the past in planning with Sawtooth Bluffs I mean it was a 50/50 collaboration and the city spent a 50% the county spent 50% as well as we got a
portion uh uh from Lake Superior Coastal Star grant to to do the initial planning with ARDC. So I would imagine a fairly similar arrangement but obviously I have no guarantees on that. So So, whatever we whatever we said today, then they'll
go ahead and and basically um support us with with that. >> Well, what you're hearing, >> they endorsed HKGI. >> Mhm. Great. >> Okay. Did you have a comment, Commissioner Mills? >> Just that. >> Just that. Okay. Commissioner White.
>> Uh Tim, you said we have to keep going because this is in place. We have this this I can read this. Um the plan the plan is in place. It's been voted on. Can we resend the plan? I mean
it's I feel like this is pushing and I mean this is driving this the discussions and um to our attorney. Can we resend the plant? Un somebody might know undo a
past board decision. We can second guess every board decision, but >> I'm sure we can. >> But it has to come from the side that passed it. >> What would that be? I mean, >> it's strange if it's way way old, but unless I'm
>> There are also time constraints on that as far as it happening at the next >> um meeting, you know, prior to any action being taken on it. >> I don't have it in front of me. I can certainly get that up. >> So there's there's no going back and
saying we don't want to we just even though not all the commissioners still exist and >> I mean I think we can but I I don't know time constraints though. >> Um if it's a like a motion to reconsider that's something that has some time
constraints. If you're asking for new action on something that has not had um that the board hasn't proceeded with active steps toward that yet, there may be ways to move around that. But if it's a motion for reconsideration, there are
some time constraints around that. >> Madam Chair, >> yes. >> Yeah. And Commissioner White, if if I could, it it is kind of like uh uh we can the book the board and can and does change uh the the ordinances all the
time. So that's that's adopted by the board of commissioners. It's done. But if and and so yes, I do believe this this board can resend uh a plan that's out there. Um, but I think they would have to go through a public hearing and the and the whole uh point of this is to
get that this step is just to get that information that public information that Commissioner Gamble is talking about and I just have to ask uh the question as well since we are actually in December now. So if we don't do it now and we put a survey out before to know if we want
to actually have public input or comment through a public engagement process, is that kicking the can into 26 and then all of a sudden in 26 we come back with an RFP. If the survey came back and said, "Oh yeah, we support this." And the board would say, "Oh, I'm sorry.
That was 25 money. You don't get that money now." And so we don't have those funds uh available to us then. So, uh, just have to ask and make sure that if if we do do this pause and do a survey, which can be included in this RFP process as well, cuz like like, uh, Mr.
Travis said, it just doesn't commit us to anything after after a full public engagement process, which would include a survey of of everybody involved, uh, and actual public meetings and such like that. Um, then we would come back for a
decision uh, on that uh, process. So, Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, just to clarify aware of this what what I think hopefully what we're trying to do in good faith is is encourage a
process that in that includes the community that is updated and current and that it looks at what has changed and is mindful of the commitment that has been made relative to the dollars. And that's why the previous discussion to say that we have a funding source
that is available. If the line item in the budget is driving a decision, I think it's wrongly placed as far as priority. If the concern about losing money is that, oh my goodness, now we had some momentum. Now it seemed like we've lost it. That that's why I'm
saying that that that funding source that is not levy dependent is a funding source that we can tap into. My question is is that I think and and you can say that if we say that a request for a proposal doesn't commit us to anything
what it is doing it is moving in a direction and I think after 10 years since 2018 if you look at that plan what elements of those plans has a community said that they're willing to do that's why in this proposed survey it's saying
what is it you'd like to see coming out of the town hall Definitely mountain biking was was the topic that predominated the discussion and so I'm just saying do we want to see the bluff developed and if so what would you like
to see this is current information that is data that's provided to us that going for an RFP we have given some direction to mind this out it's also following with the recommendation that comes from the regional park status and how we move
forward in defining what it is we as a community want. So that's my two points is current information define what we want. We don't need to spend $50 to $60,000 and then find out maybe we're headed in
the wrong direction. If this is what we the community would like to see and we've clearly defined what we'd like to do, we fleshed that out now through this request for proposal that partners with an organization can help us on that
path. And I think we need to ask a fundamental question that has updated since 2018. >> Administrator Trouble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. So, two um two comments I want to make. The first one is regarding the funding and we've
already had some discussions about shifting that to the PILT funy funding with Brady. And so I think whether that comes out of this year's budget or next year's budget, um that's not as much of an issue to me because we've already had those discussions about being able to
leverage the PILT so that it's not coming out of the levy. So um and Brady, correct me if I'm wrong. >> No, that that funding is still there. So that that um to me just is is kind of a non-issue at this point. The um it
seems to me that the question really is are we comfortable collecting community data and information through a survey process in the RFP or do we feel strongly that that should happen before
the RFP is issued? because either way, what we're saying is that we want to collect information from the community to make sure that we have feedback on what happens um with the bluff in terms of what what activities and what um what recreational activities are allowed
through that. So I my question for the board is are you comfortable getting that information through the RFP or do you feel that we need to pause the effort to collect that information now before we move forward with the RFP because we like you mentioned Commissioner Gamble we did highlight
that in red um to make sure that people were aware that that is part of the RFP in the process. >> Commissioner Sullivan. >> Thank you Madam Chair. Um we've had this discussion for a long time and I um
really feel strongly that utilizing HKG um would be an opportunity for us to get information. It's a trusted organization. The city of Grand Marray um is very comfortable with that. But um so what I'm going to do is make a motion
that we employ HKG and utilize their um existing bid to move forward, but that we pay for it through PILT money and that we include a survey and in-person community engagement
>> support. Any further discussion, >> Commissioner White? So we would ask the consultants to find out what our community people want. >> And we also have it that they are
drawing up. I mean, we look at this list and there's a climbing wall in there and there were um there was a speaker at the town hall a month or so ago in Kovville, a community person who had said or maybe
Mitch remembers who oh, he's right behind us there who they've actually tried and the it's not you're not going to climb that. And so to have that on the list will um it will it will uh
it shouldn't be on the list because it's not a possibility. So that would just uh not liquidate it would just let's just do the number of options that are really possible you know. So climbing wall is not >> So you're saying you'd like to eliminate
some of the topics? Well, just the climbing wall for sure because it was it was stated that this is we have the wrong rock up there in Cook County. Commissioner Mills. >> Yeah, I agree. The rock isn't right. But I mean, who knows if if the community decides they want an actual facility.
You can have an indoor climbing wall. So, that's something. But I don't know that that's what the community is going to want, but you know, >> maybe they do. So, what's the harm in in asking? You know, I think I think we should really focus on uh the scope here. establish and manage a planning
process framework that fosters successful public involvement and endeavors to create a recreation area master plan supported by uh the Cook County and Grammaray communities. So, anything that's created is supposed to be supported by Cook County and Grammaray communities. That's just a and
it goes on. B affirm, amend, and update the plan. It's an old plan, so it needs to reflect the priorities and values of Cook County. So that would be updating it to current. Um so we need to gather that information and then revisit the
plan uh the map uh revisions uh additional mapping. You know it's it's all just updating basically and then determining what the community wants. And this is I think exactly what we should be doing. Um and that's why I supported Commissioner Sullivan's >> but with PEL funds.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And that is an excellent point. That's an excellent point. I agree with that 100%. >> Further comments? Commissioner Gamble. >> Yes. Thanks, Madam Chair. So, there's a huge assumption that is that is uh I mean the history is maybe
driving the assumption that this is what the community wants, so let's move forward. I I think that to try to assuage some of the concern that the community isn't involved that we're saying well the request for proposal if we
you know partner with a consultant firm that certainly community involvement will be there we're we'll pay $50 to $60,000 even though it's coming from PIL fund those funds could be used in anything that's uh recreational in fact those
funds could be used for a survey of all taxpayers which have vested interests that define what it is we want. So going into a relationship with the consultant, we say this is what the community has said as opposed to entrusting all that
responsibility to them to do it. In in response to your question, my recommendation is a pause so that we put first things first relative to moving forward with an expenditure of significant dollars. That's that's just
saying if the public wants this, then let's move forward and let's use those funds and then let's hire somebody. I think that that looking at um uh competitive bids is part of fiscal responsibility. If the city says, "Well,
we like them. We use them, so you use them." Take that as part of the information. But if we're going to put a request for proposal out there, let's find out and let's evaluate. >> Well, it was half the price that the city paid, you know, because the city used them. They have the background.
They have the background data. And so that's that's a huge advantage for this firm and that's I think fiscally responsible because otherwise you're going to double the cost. >> I I I would agree if in fact that that is true. >> It >> Yeah, >> it is. >> Well,
we put out a request for proposal other than just asking them. >> Uh we haven't issued a request for proposal. That's what we're >> I understand that. But but your basis when you had them come in with something, you requested something of them. >> Yep. We requested not request from anybody else.
>> No, I mean again it was this was when we engaged with HKGI it was after discussing this with uh city administrator you know they suggested that we have something kind of concrete to propose to them is like hey here's what it might cost us to get across the
finish line with the greater Minnesota regional parks and trails >> regional designation process. And if I can clarify, I think what's being stated is that because they're familiar with Grand Marray, the amount of work that they would have to do just to understand
the dynamics of of the location is less. And so their bid um was less due to not having to do that background work because they're already familiar with the location. >> I I would agree. I would agree with that. It it makes sense, >> right? Yeah. I think too just to to
speak a little bit further on that is you know yes they have familiarity with the area two they were successful in achieving regional designation with the wreck park with the city so I mean a couple of feathers in their hat and two just to speak to the timeline issue yes you know part of our urgency was in
regards to the $30,000 budgeted in 2025 but I think it's also important to recognize that greater Minnesota is not going to sit there forever and wait for us to make a decision on this is they they have informed me that they are considering all these projects that they have been that have been sitting on their docket for you know upwards of
eight years and what what do they want to do with them and they have I mean in no uncertain terms informed me that they would like to see us you know proceeding and engaging with a firm because I mean in their experience in dealing with all of greater Minnesota uh Joe Chapowski
who's the um coordinator for greater Minnesota I mean informed me that he's not seen a grassroots effort in kind of getting some of these older projects up and running again, you know, and it would it would be a good indicator to them that, hey, we are in good faith proceeding by hiring a firm and proceeding with
planning. Thank you. >> Yeah. And and I would say that Greater Parks and Trails since the legacy funding has been put in place, anybody that puts in a credible application will be considered. And so my point is is
that if if we did not move forward right now with the sense that we're going to lose our opportunity, our opportunity exists as long as that funding source exists, as long as we have a credible application. And in my discussions with them, it's it's not an an issue that we
lose our opportunity because you only get to come before them once. You can come anytime that you have a credible application that is submitted. And and my my whole point is that that to to revisit this with more clarity and focus
before we would engage somebody to do the work that we should do on the front end with information that should be updated. That that's that's my whole premise.
>> Um so the survey doing it locally before before Often the question is asked, "You're hiring another consultant. Can't you do the work?" So here's my question. If um who on staff, would it be Travis?
Mitch Travis, who would be creating the survey and then bulk mailing and doing all of that who and being paid for with Pilt funding to do that? I mean I mean I don't who who locally would put all of
that together to find out what our local people taxpayers or even non-local taxpayers who would actually be doing the work to put that together. >> So I can speak to that and that would be staff. So we would have to determine if
if who has capacity. I mean M Mitch would certainly be a part of it. Um but uh he also works part-time for the the parks and trails. So um so we would just have to determine what that would look like. We haven't had those discussions because our hope um was that the that
work would happen as part of the work with the consultants um through the RFP or um through this um this firm that we've been discussing HKG. Um but it would certainly be staff. >> Commissioner Gamble.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. So uh the survey the nature of the questions that are asked understanding what it is we want to know moving forward that can be compiled and drafted internally. uh their organizations. If you look at what
the um uh referendum for the school, that mailing that went out, if we if we actually just duplicated that, that is asking the public, what do you want? And and so it's it's not something that is
uh not been done before and not something that I've managed surveys in the past. I've worked with credible survey organizations throughout the country in my previous positions. And so this is not something that is daunting. It's just a matter of what is the
vehicle that you want to use? What are the questions you want to ask? And uh how will the information inform you in moving forward? And uh so we've got we have lists that would be available. Obviously, the school when it did what
it did, they they use a list that identifies all of those that have the right to be able to lend their voice to the decision. So, that if if we were to pause it, that would be my recommendation is that that
uh parks and trails and and uh the board and whomever else would define the nature of the questions we want to ask before we move forward. And if the community says this is what we'd like to see as a a broad statement moving
forward, the the question is do do we want to preserve the aesthetic or do we want to see the development? That is the basic fundamental question which two organizations are working at right now with preserve the bluff and then
sawtooth bluff development. I think as a community the word community itself implies that we come together and try to understand where we find the common ground so that we can do something that protects the interests of our community as a whole. We should update that ask
that information now and there's a means of being able to do that and to fund it through the parks inter through the money that comes from pill. Commissioner Sullivan. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to make certain that we're clear that just because we are um looking at a potential
um development that it does not mean we're going to ruin the aesthetics. If you think about pin cushion, there's trails all over and it does not damage the viewshed at all. And so, I just want to make sure that we're really clear on that when we're talking about white uh walking paths, biking paths. Um that is
not something that would damage the viewshed. We have a motion and a second. The motion is that we hire HKG with uh the money coming from an extra fund that we have in PILT. So before I
ask for a vote, does anybody else have any comments? Commissioner G. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it. Um and and to Commissioner Sullivan's point, I understand that relative to how do we find that compatibility with the aesthetic and and certainly, you know,
the the mountain biking issue and the hiking trails. But if you look at the plan and the plan, you know, that that is before us is a plan that includes potential for buildings for campsites, which means lights. So the resolution
from the city to supporting dark skies and people that support the plan through their lens don't want to see these things. All of those things if we developed everything that was identified in that plan there would be some people that would be disillusioned by it. So my
point is yes, I agree there are things that we can do to protect both sides, but we should let the community inform that because right now what we've been informed there there's conflict with all of those things that are in the present plan. And if we go with whomever as a
consultant say, "Here's our plan. Update it." >> Huh? >> Update it. Here's our plan. Please update it with comedian input. >> Yeah. And this is why I'm saying let's let's know what the community wants before we spend $60,000 no matter where
it comes from. That's my recommendation. So, >> and to Commissioner Sullivan, the one difference with Pin Cushion is has a lovely huge parking lot and the road is there to get people to that parking lot
and we don't have that. It's not existing. It's that >> it's not existing there. So, so to have more people accessing that area will impact those residents will impact the road will I mean the aesthetics from the
from where if you don't live right there it'll be fine but if you live there >> well the the plan is the road below >> not up top. >> Yeah. So people will be walking up >> or >> there there was a plan to build an access area kind of starting below kind
of where the dog park is creating a parking area there. >> Yep. >> But it's all speculative, right? Like there's this is not concrete. >> So we can >> Okay, I'm going to call for a vote. We have a motion in a second. All in favor?
>> I oppose. Same sign. I >> motion passes with two eyes's and two nazs. Thank you very much. And as you can see, we have a lot of opinions. So, I'm really hoping that we'll be consulted also in terms of how we see
the vision, too. So, thank you for your work. >> Thank you, commissioners. >> You're welcome. >> Okie do. Um item five is um I'll turn that over to uh our attorney. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um this is a
request to recommend consent um to the appointment of special county attorney for the limited purposes of review and potential prosecution related to >> Can you speak up into the microphone because when I go to listen to this, I'll never hear. >> Is that better? >> It's better here.
>> Okay, great. Um so this is a a referral from law enforcement to an outside agency for investigation which is um something that is done when there is a potential conflict and then similarly we
are referring out for prosectorial decision um because of the same conflict. someone. >> Uh, Madam Chair, I'd make a motion to um appoint uh or consent to appoint the special count county attorney for
limited purpose of review and potential prosecution related to ICR2500568. >> I'll support. We have a motion and a second. Any questions or comments? All in favor? >> I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Now we have um update from the administrator Treble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. The first update I have is just a reminder that we have the truth and taxation this evening at 6:00 p.m. in this room. So, just a
reminder for the community. Um the second update is we are conducting our second round um of PHS director interviews this week. So, I know that um you know, we we have been keeping the community informed and the board
informed on what's happening with that position. So, just wanted folks to know that um we do have our second round this week. Megan, >> second round of second round. >> Second round of second round. Thank you, Commissioner Mills. Yes, we did not make a hiring decision during the first um
the first round and so we reposted the position and we had our first round of interviews for that second round and now we have our second round. So, thank you for that clarification. Um the last update is I wanted to make sure the community is aware that the
work on the parking lot at the LEC that we had previously communicated out um regarding has been delayed due to the weather. So, we are planning on um issuing a press release later today. Um and we'll make sure that the community is aware of that. But for those
listening and for our commissioners, just wanted to make sure you were aware that that is as delayed and probably not a surprise to anyone given the recent weather. That's all I have today. Thank you. >> Thank you. Moving on to commissioner report meeting
updates. Does anyone have anything to share? It just uh was in Duth yesterday for the annual CHB uh meeting and those meetings are typically uh not as much information like the the the
blurb from the the doctor and and more just a celebration of the accomplishments um from the past year recognizing staff and um and it was just a a good experience. Um, of course there's a lot of tough uh
financial um uh situations with uh federal grants. Um, but so far things um are looking good through uh 2026 with the 2026 budget. um also attended virtually just
briefly the energy transition advisory um council um that's down in uh I believe it's Sherburn County um most of it was virtual um and just uh trying to
keep our our finger on the pulse of what's going on with those federal grants and the other other communities that have gone through the energy transitions. Um, and this is related to Takenite Harbor. Um, and and that's why we're a part of that. So, >> but nothing I didn't have anything to
report further from that at this point. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Anyone else? I will just give a brief update. Um, at ARDC they have their senior link and because of the Medicaid situation, they are overwhelmed with
phone calls and we did ask for some dollar support from the state because they're leaving after eight hours and there's still many people online asking questions. So, um, they're doing as best the job as they can to hire a few more
people to cover more phone calls. this time of year we will settle down but this time of year is really a a strain on everybody there. >> Anything else? Well, uh, and just in response to the I didn't think of it before, but the, um, emergency
management training regarding nuclear um, now in through the general government committee, of course, there's a lot of talk about the nuclear and why the moratorium is put in place and so it when you first mentioned it at a previous meeting, I was thinking like
nuclear war, but which would also be an emergency, but it it it maybe is hope I hopefully none of it, but I could see uh why that might be a relevant topic now with more discussions about nuclear facilities, which I'm learning more
about. And um so far, I haven't seen any uh they talk about technological improvements uh with the waste. And so far, I haven't seen any successful projects in the United States along
that. I know in Europe they have some that are using different grades of uh nuclear. Um and then of course the Navy has been doing it for 75 years. Um but I think that's just 75 year technology still just in a different scale. So still learning lots about that and we'll
have another general government uh committee uh meeting on Wednesday. >> Okay. Commissioner Sullivan. Um, on that same note, the natural resources and environment committee for AMC is also looking at this issue of of uh nuclear
and we'll be discussing it our at our annual meeting uh which is coming up next week. Um, I did have an opportunity to um watch a program on television over the Thanksgiving holiday about nuclear energy being created in Europe. and it
was a really well done piece and it focused on Scandinavian countries. Denmark was um highlighted as well and um technology has really changed. Um so I'm sure that we will learn more next week on our policy committees
>> which was what was it? >> It was a PBS special. >> Okay. Anything else? >> Commissioner, >> I just have a question for Commissioner Gamble Sullivan. the uh save the bluff. I heard I think I heard at the town hall
meeting that they have succeeded in in acquiring the necessary funding to purchase that parcel. Is that true? And if so, when does that move forward and become
>> there are things in the works? Um, and there has um no not been a final signed purchase agreement, but things are in the works. >> And the the uh seller is still holding and waiting because we've passed the
deadline. >> Correct. I actually inquired with the December um first date kind of looming and everything is good. So the preserve the bluff is working with Mr. chief >> and that for the public because there were a lot of con there were a lot of
people that uh have asked about that because of their presentations at the committee of the whole how they were doing >> right and I I am certain they will have some kind of public communication but it's not within our charge to provide
that communication >> Mr. Yeah, >> I would I would add that um the um where the process is at is that um they've had donators which are willing to contribute the funds. The fund have
been raised. Uh the question is and we've talked about this many times through the this course of of pursuing how we might be able to purchase this property. um not for-p profofit status given the timeline applying for not for-profit
status was was an issue, but um given all of the things that we've looked at and the the opportunities we've had for grant monies and just general public, you know, asking for donations that the money um has been raised, they are
applying for not forprofit status. Attorneys are involved so that it's moving forward. I've had a conversation with Mr. Sheie and so in good faith the intent is that u the donors will be able to get the benefit of making the
donation uh to make the purchase and that as long as the intent is there and that the attorneys are working on it. It it it is projected that this will all happen and that the not for-profit status will
exist and that donors will get that benefit and the property then would be purchased and then donated to the county uh with the idea that u there would be some stipulation as to non-development
and that there might be some uh uh requirement to working with uh uh conservation to keep it undeveloped. So, but the fact that the attorneys are involved at this point, it's sort of running on automatic pilot. So,
>> thank you. >> Okay. Thank you for all the updates. The upcoming meetings, um we do have this evening at 6:00, truth and taxation. Auditor Powers has presented a great um PowerPoint for us to uh go over and we
will be recorded so that those folks who aren't able to be here can still um participate and see our uh meeting. Then starting on Sunday, we're going to be down at the AMC conference in Bloomington uh for those of us who are
able to go. And just an update on our regular board commission meeting, which I think probably will be our last one, which is Tuesday, December 16th. The time is different. We start at 10:30 on that. And then this must be just kind
of a repeat of all the different um committees, but um we have budget and facility on Tuesday, December 23rd. I don't think we probably want to participate since we've already set our levy by then. And uh anyway, that just
popped out at me. Um recognition of uh December staff anniversaries. Leah Leonard from public health and human services, two years. Mark Buckman, law enforcement center, three years. Neva Maxwell, land services, four years.
Diana Lenquist, um land services, 12 years. Lisa Sorley, Highway Department, 17 years. Ben Hellberg, Law Enforcement Center, 21 years. And uh Lindseay Milky, Law Enforcement Center, 21 years. And being
no other um business, we are adjourned. >> Thank you everyone.