Good morning everyone. I will call the Cook County Board of Commissioner regular meeting to order. On this day, uh, Tuesday, May 26th, at 8:30 a.m., 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? >> Oh, I'm sorry. Um, Madam Chair, I would
ask to pull the um grant from the Arrowhead Regional Arts Center from the consent agenda. >> Okay. So, that's item C. Let's put that because we have folks here. Let's put that under um item four before we or um
highway before we go into the highway. Okay. Thank you on that. Anything else? Commissioner Sullivan. >> Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the agenda as amended. support. >> All in favor? >> I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes
unanimously. Moving on to um item number four, we have a a uh introduction to our Minnesota regional DNR director, administrator trouble.
>> Thank you. Um Madam Chair, are we moving past public comment and doing that later? >> Oh, sorry. Do you want to do that first? >> Yeah, we'll do that. >> Okay. Do we have anyone here for public comment today? >> Okay. I do have two items. >> Okay.
>> All right. So, the first one um is from or it states to the board. My name is Charles Perin. I own a cabin on Binagami Lake. I'm writing about the proposed expansion of the Humphrey Gravel Pit. The application describes a much larger operation. It includes washing,
screening, loading, and other equipment. I've heard the pit in the past during limited work. This proposal is different. It would be a larger It would be larger and more constant. The new owner, Matthew Construction Company, operates pits across Wisconsin,
Minnesota, and Michigan. The plan would roughly double the size of the pit. It points to steady ongoing use. The requested hours are up to 13 hours a day, 6 days a week with possible winter operations if weather allows.
That level of activity activity would create continuous noise. It would affect my ability to use and enjoy my cabin. Sound carries across Binagami Lake. There is nothing to stop it. Even distant activity can be clearly heard at my property. I ask the board to consider
the following. reduce operating hours and days, especially during August. Require meaningful noise mitigation, including a substantial sound barrier at the edge of pit expansions. Set clear limits to help prevent long-term continuous noise impacts on my property.
The application does not include an end date. This operation could likely continue for decades. Without stronger conditions, it will last it will create lasting impacts and reduce the use and the enjoyment of my property. I also want to not note that over the years,
the lake has attracted many more canoists and fishermen who enjoy the lake because it is relatively so close to town and because it is so quiet and tranquil. I respectfully ask that the board adopt limits and require effective mitigation to prevent undue hardship on
my use, enjoyment, and value of my property. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Charles Perin. Parcel ID 53-2200-13000. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I have one more. >> Dear commissioners, my name is Susan um
Schubert and my family has had a cabin on Ben &i Lake for 60 years. I'm writing to respectfully ask that you consider including some reasonable mitigation measures as the old Humphrey gravel pit starts back up. Also, that you consider continuing to require an annual report
in compliance visits. My husband and I have spent the last four years renovating our cabin for retirement with on with work ongoing. It means a great deal to us. We hope to spend that time enjoying the quiet and the setting that brought my family here in the first place. It is difficult to think about
that being replaced by steady industrial noise for most of the day into the early evening hours, especially with no clear end date. Based on experiences in the past, we can hear the gravel pit at our cabin. I've written to land services over the years about the noise. What used to be occasional now looks like it
will become much more consistent and long lasting. With the growing need and demand for gravel in this area, it's reasonable to expect activity will increase and continue consistently over time. The new owner Matthew Construction of out of Wisconsin operates gravel pits
across the region. Their pit expansion request would bring the operation closer to Binagami Lake and the noise closer to our cabin. The application includes multiple washing stations which were previously permitted but never installed. This operation will generate continuous industrial sound, vibrating
screens, crushers, washers, and pumps layered with truck traffic and backup alarms. Even when equipment is located at the bottom of the pit, the sound carries. As you likely know, low frequency noise travels long distances and can bend over and around BMS. Once
the sound reaches the lake less than half a mile away, it travels straight across the water to our our cabin with little reduction. There is simply nothing in between to block it. I've shared maps and information with land service with the land services commission which you should also have
that explains and shows how the sound travels. At a recent land services meeting, it was mentioned that only one concern had been submitted ours. This is a straightforward there is a straightforward reason for this. Most of the other nearby properties are shielded by higher ground near the airport, while
our cabin sits directly in line with the sound. There are only two cabins on this natural environment classified lake. The second one was built in 2016. These newer owners have likely never heard the Humphrey gravel pit operations and have
not experienced the same level of impact that we have. We are not asking you to deny the proposal. We're asking for some balance so that the noise does not um significantly impact our ability to use and enjoy our cabin, especially during the summer months. Adjusting the hours
of operation during peak season, limiting or avoiding weekend work during that time, and using strategic stockpiling of materials for summer use would all help reduce the impact. At least one additional higherm closer to the shoreline or the edge of the
expanded pit would also help. My family has been part of this community for 60 years. We have paid taxes here and purposely hired and supported only local businesses for our work over the decades. We simply ask that our concerns be taken seriously and that thoughtful mitigation is included as you consider
this proposal. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Susan Schubert, 319 Pine Mountain. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Thank you. Anyone else receive comments? Okay, then we will move on to um an
introduction to the Minnesota DNR regional director. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> All right, so I welcome uh Clarissa Spicer. She's the new regional director of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Um and she happened to be
fairly close to Grand Marray, so offered to come and um introduce herself and provide an update for all of us. So I'll turn it over to you. >> Okay. Good morning. Thank you. >> Good morning. >> My name is Clarissa Spicer. I'm the Northeast Regional Director. I live and work in Grand Rapids, Minnesota at the
regional headquarters there. I replace uh Shelley Patton, who you may have met previously. She is my predecessor as the Northeast Regional Director. And prior to that, I was the um assistant regional manager for the division of forestry. So, my background is in forestry and I'm learning a lot about the other divisions
in the DNR, which is what brings me here to talk to you today, simply to introduce myself and refresh you on what the DNR does in Cook County. So, we have seven divisions in the DNR. And I've included um some of the highlights about the different types of work each of
those divisions do in your packets. And those divisions include parks and trails, which is of course very important up here with the state parks and ways. We have forestry. Um they're in charge of forest management as well as fire suppression for the state. We
have the division of lands and minerals, fisheries, ecological and water resources, um wildlife as well as our operation services division. In your packet, you'll see a map too that describes and shows some of the land that the state owns up here. Um
there's obviously a lot of other federal land as well, so a lot of publicly owned land up here. Cook County is very unique in that you have the highest percent gross domestic product coming from outdoor recreation. So, it's a really unique and beautiful place up here. It's
an honor um to serve in this area. I represent all seven divisions and that's something really unique about my position and how I might be of use to you as the county board. Um I represent all seven divisions and I can be your connection to those folks. So, if you
look in your packet, you'll see my information below the map, as well as the information for several other key players, the leaders in each division to this local community. So, if you're looking for somebody from the DNR, that's a great reference for you. There's also lots of information on the
internet. Like I mentioned, there's four state parks and three state waist ways in Cook County, as well as 28 public water accesses managed by the Minnesota DNR, over 200 miles of Grantade snowmobile trails. We have 38 aquatic management areas. That's very unique and
special to this area. Fisheries are extremely important up here. There's eight wildlife management areas and three state forests. So, we do a lot of work up here and I don't have anything specific. Um I don't have a specific issue for you here this morning, but
rather simply to introduce myself so that when something does come up, you've got a face with the name. So, please don't hesitate to reach out by email, by phone, or um I'm happy to come up anytime if you'd like a visit. >> If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Otherwise,
>> thank you for your work. I was looking at all your snapshot projects. And um do you have a significant cutback in uh workers or how is your office able to do some of these things which I think are really great in our area?
>> We do a lot of contract work. We don't have very many employees up here which you may have noticed compared to other counties there's only the one DNR office other than the state parks of course but there's the one park or the one office here in Grand Marray rather with forestry and fisheries represented we
also have a new moose researcher who's housed there but you're right we get a lot of work done without a lot of employees and I think that's kind of the nature of government work right we're always operating on a shoestring doing the best we can I think what's really advantageous for us is that The folks who work for the Minnesota DNR are very
passionate about what they do. They're here because they love the work and they love the area. Um, and serving the community and natural resources is is our pleasure. >> Great. Any questions or comments? Commissioner Gamble.
>> Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, thank you, Clarissa, for showing up and introducing yourself. Um, as far as the county up here being on the the border of Canada and uh amongst the Arrowhead counties, uh definitely a beautiful
region, the issues that um we're constantly contending with, one of the biggest is of course payment in lie of taxes and uh that's something that um continuing to try to negotiate uh both
an understanding and best application of practice and intent when payment in le of taxes. was originated. >> But I know uh on this board and many of the boards that we sit on that uh because 92% of our properties are
government properties, we don't have the tax base that other counties do of the 87 counties in our state and therefore payment in lie of taxes is a significant issue for us. And when it comes to budget, we're always looking at u what's
happening in that front because again it's it's one of the revenue sources that that uh is very important to us in making you know budgetary decisions. So uh just appreciate the the partnership and trying to find what is consistent
with best practices and what ensures that that commitment is one that continues. >> Yeah, thank you for that. That is really important and a a new part of my my job that I'm beginning to understand is the payment in lie of taxes. You'll see at the top of your handout that um this
year we'll be making a a pill payment of $589,000 to the county and that represents the previous year's assessment. So that's something that I'm acutely aware of too and I'm happy to have these open conversations with you about your concerns and ours between state and
county how we can cooperate to make sure that everybody's values and needs and and um commitments are understood. >> And madam chair as a followup when we discuss this uh there's always this delicate balance of what do we say and
what do we not say because we're trying to you know protect the relationship and and the funding is critical to us. But I think um uh respectful partnership conversations are integral to the ability to make sure that we're we are
partnering and understanding both sides of the issue so that uh this important funding source for us continues. So thank you. >> Agreed. Thank you >> Mr. Sullivan. >> Thank you Madam Chair. Uh Clarissa question. You mentioned we have the
highest uh GDP in the area of outdoor recreation. Do you happen to know a dollar amount for that? >> I have it in my backpack. I'll grab it for you. >> All right. That would be great. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. The other thing,
and I mentioned to you before the meeting, Clarissa, is just appreciate your willingness to come out and devote some time to uh speak with Mark Spindler on the maple syruping issue. It's something we've been following as a community. And uh again, they're an
important part of our community and it's been longstanding. Um as we discussed previous to the meeting, there are some issues that when leadership changes, we become aware of and then we need to address those issues. But the commitment
to understand and to show up personally and and try to cultivate a healthy relationship and being able to reach resolution is important. So I thank you for that. >> Yeah, you're welcome. It was really I came up last um gosh it must have been last summer. I remember Mark and Melinda
had tomatoes in their garden so it must have been August or so. Um but meeting with them in person was truly one of the highlights of my summer to get to see their operation and how they're using state land um you know in a sustainable way to to harvest maple sap and and
produce maple syrup. So, it's always a um a pleasure to come up here and to work with the with the folks that are using the land and the the state land specifically. >> Thank you. >> Mhm. >> Okay. All right. Thank you very much. >> Thank you.
>> So, from the um consent agenda, we've pulled item C and we're going to address that now before the highway presentation. Um and I will turn that over to um Attorney Peterson to discuss uh why we pulled it. Thank you, Madam
Chair. Um, nothing controversial about the grant itself, just the fact that Minnesota statute 46503 requires that grants and donations be accepted by resolution on 2/3 vote, majority vote. Um, and that the specific
purpose be designated in that resolution. So, I've drafted a resolution to that effect. I didn't have time to circulate it before, but um, I can print it off after. >> Okay. So questions or comments on this? Commissioner Gamble.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. So just to be clear that um procedurally we we need to have a resolution to accept this >> and uh so we'll be doing that at a future meeting and then the resolution will be presented so it's available to the public prior to that meeting.
>> I do have the resolution today and I'm happy to read it into the record if that's acceptable or to have >> it. So if it's acceptable procedurally in the timeline or whatever to accept it, I'm comfortable with that. But that's why I wanted the clarification. >> Thank you. I do I just have laid out the
recitals um you know setting forth what the community center does for the community. um some general information about the mission of the Arrowhead Regional Arts Council and then the fact that um this would be an award of $5,000 and then the the resolution itself is
now therefore be it resolved that the Cook County Board of Commissioners does by resolution adopted pursuant to Minnesota statute section 465.03 03 and pursuant to a 2/3 majority vote accept such grant of $5,000 um to be used for a
videography/photography project. >> Okay, Commissioner Gamble. >> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Jeanie. Um, so I'd make a motion to approve uh acceptance by resolution of the grant funds in the amount of $5,000 from the Arrowhead Regional Arts Council
for the Cook County Community Center for a photography videography project. >> Support. >> Okay. Any further questions or comments? All in favor? >> I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes
unanimously. Thank you for doing that. >> Thank you, madam. these little details that we need to cross our tees and dot our eyes, don't we? Okay. So, then we'll move on to highway department with some information about all the good stuff
happening there. >> All the good things. That's right. Good morning. >> Good morning, Madam Chair. Um, did >> I just wanted to mention are we going to um take a look at our other consent agenda items? >> Oh, well, we can back up on that.
>> All right. Okay. >> Just to note what we approved. >> Yeah. Just to note. >> Yeah. >> So the con the other consent agenda items are with my paperwork in front of me. We
had u the claims uh the minutes of the regular meeting from May 12th. Um we approve or to uh we have an application for the toy fireworks display for the annual liquor tobacco license application toy fourth of July special
road use permit and the sawtooth stage mountain bike race special road use permit. Commissioner Sullivan. >> Madam chair I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent agenda as amended. >> All support. All in favor? I I
>> oppose. Motion passes unanimously. Now we've cleaned up that work. Let's see what you can do. >> Yeah. Let's see what we got. Uh good morning. Uh so a couple of things. First is awarding the summer maintenance contracts for our subordinate uh
districts, our SGSDs. Um pretty straightforward. We've been doing this. We're the fiscal administrators for this program. Does anybody have any questions about that? Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I I would just ask um the committee that we formed
relative to this issue, how's how's that going? >> Great. We've had one meeting. Um we're taking it one step at a time. So, the first meeting uh went really well is just basically introductions, making sure that we all, you know, we're going to see each other in the stores. We're going to talk about some sensitive
things. Uh, and then we went over the charter and we really just understood what the purpose of that group was. Um, it wasn't to say, you know, we're not the deciding group on whether these districts stay or not. You, you all are. And so what we, you know, really
established was just that foundation of we're here to problem solve. Something being hard is not an excuse. We're going to come up with solutions to things. And so, yeah, it was fantastic. >> Yeah, thank you for that update. With that, I guess I'd make a motion the high uh for the highway department uh to
award contracts to the following low bidders. Mike Rose um use the language in the request for the motion. I guess we had in our meeting the other day, we can paraphrase as long as the
language exists. So, I make a motion to approve as stated in our agenda. >> Support. Any further questions or comments? All in favor? >> I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. >> Wonderful. Um, and then the last thing,
it's something I haven't brought here before. I don't know if we've ever done it up here. Um, but there are, believe it or not, rules that we generally have to follow when we do construction. And so within those rules is basically, you know, you based on a certain traffic
count, you have to make the road a certain width. The ditch has to be so deep. Um, and what that allows us to do is just create uniformity not across not only across our Cook County system, but across the entire local system in the state of Minnesota. And so that's your
county state aid highway system. And so there's a project that we're working on right now on CASA 6, county road 6, um, if you're familiar with where that is, right off of 7. Um, there's three three crossings that we're going to be replacing. Uh, I think it's next summer.
Um, and one of those crossings is very very close to a curve in the road. And so, yes. And so, if we want to make that curve follow the rules, uh, it really increases the cost of the project. The impacts to the property owners in there.
It's a very hilly area through there. So, the cuts we would have to do are are quite it's a lot. Um, and so really the deviation that we're looking for is to kind of just keep the road as is, not meet this standard. Um, and what I need from that is a resolution from the board
because then I have to go to a variance committee after this to say, you know, locally we support this. Here's why. Here's why we can't meet these rules. And then that committee ultimately decides whether or not we're allowed to do that or not. And so that that's what
this is. Um, I'm happy to chat more if you really want to get into chapter 8820 of state aid design standards, but open to questions. >> Jenny, so we have a lot of hills in all of our roads, >> believe it or not. >> Believe it or not, is this the only hill
they want to be concerned about? >> Well, so it's not so much the hill as it is the curve. >> And so the curve is very sharp for what um the rules dictate it should be. So, if I remember right, I think we need to meet like a 40 mph design standard. Ours
currently meets a 25. And so, you know, when I look back, you know, we can look back at 10 years of accident history. There's nothing there. You know, we haven't had any accidents there. Um, you know, it's signed, so we do have, you know, I don't think it's chevrons, but I think we have the big yellow arrow. So,
you know, it's a known entity. Um, but it's it's if we were to soften that curve, we would have to purchase a lot more rightway from the homeowner. We would have to then because of the hill, it turns into a lot of excavating. Um, and it just it really increases the cost
and and everything in here. It almost make the reason I'm here is it makes it borderline prohibitive to do the project and meet these standards. So, what's nice though is we can deviate. We can get a variance for those very reasons. Not because I just don't want to and it's hard. It's because there are these
external reasons as to why. >> Okay. Commissioner White, just one little thing. Would you explain to the public CASAW? >> Oh, County State aid highway. And so CSH, any of the roads 1 through 23 are CASSA. We get money from the state every
single year to do construction on those roads. >> Thank you. >> Very welcome. Any further questions or comments? Commissioner Sullivan. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I'm very familiar with the area that you're
talking about and as long as you go 25 miles an hour, especially when it's slippery or icy, it's good. And so, you know, maybe one of the things that um will happen um if we approve this request for a variance um is that we would add some additional signage with
those speed limits for those that are not so familiar with the conditions there. >> Okay, Mr. Sullivan. >> Given that, I would make a motion to approve the resolution requesting a variance from Minnesota state aid design
standards for SAP 016602. >> I support. >> Any further questions or comments? All in favor? I opposed. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. >> Thank you all. >> Good luck on that. >> Yes.
Moving on to item number six. Um, Gunflint Noah Station lease agreement. Good morning. >> Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the commission. Uh, so this uh this item is a long time coming. Something that I've been working
on for for a year, year and a half, uh, going back and forth with the National Weather Service. I wrote into the uh into the item a brief description and history of the National Weather Station that's up located at uh the Gunflint Tower and we finally got there. And so
the contract has been vetted by uh County Attorney Peterson and um and we made some little changes here and there about liability and and access. Um, but I do believe that this is ready ready to go and I stand for any questions you have about the station itself, about how
the continuing operation would go. Um, but it should be pretty straightforward. We're basically handing it back to the National Weather Service. We guarantee them access for maintenance on their equipment. They're going to replace all the equipment with new equipment that uh that will be um more reliable than the
stuff that they have in there right now. and um and it'll serve a wider area. >> So, that's where we're at. >> One quick question. >> One quick question. How long has uh that been there? How long have we been getting information from that from Noah
>> from from at that at that location? >> So, that location um was put in in in the year 2000, I believe, because of the 1999 blowdown. So, um, Sheriff Wart at the time was, uh, he was pretty perturbed that there was no warning sign
or warning signal available to anybody out in the boundary waters. Um, and of course, it was, you know, his sheriff's office that had to um, manage a lot of recovery and a lot of uh, a lot of other damage um, reports and there was uh, no
way to get information out to people in that situation. And so so he approached the National Weather Service. They said, "Nah, we don't need a we don't need a station there." He said, "No, we need a station here." And so he said, "Fine, I'll just do it myself." And um and I'm
sure Rowan can talk a little bit about how hard it was to keep that station running when it was our responsibility. This is not what we do. Um and we would always have partnerships with the National Weather Service to be able to replace equipment. and now it's their
responsibility and so they will have uh their own access and they will be able to maintain it themselves >> and I think that was a very good educational piece for the public. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, >> Commissioner G.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you Jay for the narrative that informs our decision on this when we were looking through our 300 some page packet and uh >> what's another paragraph right >> yeah but uh I always appreciate uh
narrative that helps us get perspective so with that um I'd approve the vetted uh national weather service Noah lease agreement for the gunflint weather station >> you made that as a res as
Okay, Commissioner Sol. >> And I'll second that motion. >> Motion in a second. Anybody else for comments or questions? All in favor? >> I >> oppose. Same sign. Motion passed unanimously. >> Okay, moving on. Um, so on the next
item, the the US Forest Service road permits. So I have the second one right here, and I don't know what the process would be if I can distribute this to you to review. um now or if we have to put this on a later agenda because it did not make the cut. I did I just received
it from the from the Forest Service today. Thoughts? >> I don't know. >> Is it different than what we have in our pack? >> It's literally word for word exactly the same. It just has a different tower address on it.
So, what do you think? >> And that's not because we moved the tower. >> No, no, no. This is >> Yeah. over the weekend. Okay. >> So, we So, we have the documentation and the information.
>> We've had it. So, we're not just >> Yep. It's exactly the same, just a different tower address. >> I feel very comfortable with that. Maybe for the public, um, you'd want to read through that address change. >> Yeah. So, um the only differences that we have on this is the uh the the ranger
district for the forest which it which would change from Gunflint for the bogus one that you have to toy for the um for the ranger district here uh for the honeymoon tower and it is uh the description of the restricted roads that
are that are impacted would be the honeymoon tower road 2 mi of road located 2.3 miles from the sawill trail on the honeymoon trail. So it's, you know, if you've ever ridden down the honeymoon, it's that little spur that pops off.
>> Madam Chair, >> yes, good. >> Do you have copies for everyone with you? Would you >> mind handing those out and then one to Janna too in case the community members present want to view it as well? Thank you. >> So I printed five. So I got one for all
of you guys and then one. >> Thank you. Can I look at it quick? Where is the change? >> Right here. >> Yep. It's just item two. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you, >> Madam Chair. So, for clarification, what
appears on our agenda under item B? >> Mhm. Um, and Jay, is that language in that motion then to change to be specific to the honeymoon tower
>> or is is the mo is the language in the motion that you're requesting from commissioners in item B? >> I'm requesting for approval of both. So that probably would >> Yeah, >> it would probably be best to handle them
separately. And I just maybe for context for both the public and just everybody here, what we're doing is we have two largecale tower replacement projects coming this year, both at Honeymoon and Bogus in partnership with the state. And we've talked about that in the past before. Recently, we also formalized a
process that we have in MIS and in partnership with the highway department for maintaining tower access roads that are not county-owned roads. And just essentially that's documenting what we already do. The policy was that, you know, when there's a road that we don't
have the road authority over, we're going to reach out in partnership with the highway department to make sure that we can access those towers and that, you know, labor and things are something that, you know, we're in the past been willing to provide, but we always try to
partner with the road authority agency and often times they've been available or willing to provide materials and things like that. And so this is this is us formalizing in action that policy knowing that we have these two big tower
projects that are going to need more road maintenance to access those two individual towers. And so we're just looking to come through and submit the formalized paperwork with the Forest Service that we need to access each of those towers and potentially do some
maintenance on the road while before and after the construction. Commissioner Sullivan. >> Madame Chair, I uh think we should address these separately. So, I'd like to make a motion to approve the um permit for Forest Road 140G, the Bogus
Lake Road, 80 miles from Trout Lake Road to the Bogus Lake Tower. >> Okay. Is there a second? Are you a second? >> Yeah, I support that. >> And you have a comment? Then I would just ask um that um in the situation you
made a a a comment Rowan about um our policy is to support access to all of these towers. Um do we have motions that support the towers that are not we're not addressing today or is this something that we're just saying a
motion to support the generic policy that applies to all towers that we have? Yeah. So the latter, this is us going through the process that we've laid out in the tower access policy. The tower
access policy was written because we have a handful of towers that are on roads that we don't control to get access to. And so if it's not, you know, a private road or a county road and we don't have the ability, it's not maintained by our highway department
normally, it made sense that we were doing enough of this where, you know, to use an example, it with the DNR being in here, right? We would call the one station that she referenced to get approval to do some maintenance on the tower road out in Hovand. That's a DNR
forestry road. That's a minimum maintenance road. And the policy that was written that you're asking covers all of those situations where whether it's uh Grand Portage owns the road to Mount Ma or it's the Forest Service that
owns the roads in these case, the policy is written to make sure that we're getting the approval that we need to from the road authority and that we're doing what we can to work in partnership with them so that, you know, just because there's a tower there, we're not bearing the full burden of maintaining a
road all the And so in a lot of these cases, like I stated, they're they've been willing, the road authority has been willing to provide material and then we've come out and brought it up to a standard where the policy actually specifies access to a four-wheel drive
vehicle. So we're not doing ditching, we're not doing culverts, we're not doing any of that. We're just making it so that we can access these towers because they're critical for public safety and other emergency communication services. And so, Madam Chair, as a followup, thank you, Rowan.
We have a policy that's been approved. It just we're bringing permits relative to specific towers as they come up. >> Yes. Correct. >> To reinforce that policy. Exactly. And so, Commissioner Sullivan has made uh a motion which uh we have a second to
related to the one tower and now we're going to make another notion. So when motion so when the instant comes up that we need to have that permit in place then we will individually approve that
to a policy that we've already approved it just reinforcing that. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> So we had the motion on the bogus lake. The next one would be the honeymoon. >> Well, first we need to take a vote. >> Okay. So we had a motion and a second.
Any questions or comments on that? All in favor? >> I oppose. Same sign. Motion passed unanimously. And we'll move on to the honeymoon trail access. Commissioner Sullivan. >> Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion
to approve the Honeymoon Tower Road, which is 210 of a mile of road located 2.3 miles from the Sawill Trail on the Honeymoon Trail. >> Sport. Any questions or comments on that? >> All in favor? I I oppose. Same sign.
Motion passed unanimously. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. The class lesson. >> We got to explain stuff. >> Item number seven is we're going to hear from the uh recorder's office. >> Good morning.
>> Morning. Morning. So before we move to our first agenda item, I would like you to know that our examiner Scott Smith has retired and um the court has appointed buyers herin as our examiner of titles. Buyers is here
um with us today and um he has been one of our deputy examiners for approximately 18 years. and David Meyers will um continue to be our deputy examiner. So, we have two types of property in Cook County. Abstract is the most common
form of title found in the United States. An abstract of title is a condensed history of all deeds, mortgages, and other documents relating to a particular piece of land which affect the title. An abstract is evidence of title.
Torrance is a system for registration under land which upon the landowner's application the court may after appropriate proceedings direct the issuance of a certificate of title. Any leans or encumbrances that have
recorded have been recorded are referenced on the certificate. When ownership of the property changes, the old certificate of title will be cancelled and a new certificate will be issued in the name of the new owner. The certificate of title is kept in the
office of the registar of titles. The certificate of title is the title. In Minnesota, the county recorder is the registar of titles and the registar is an arm of the district court and under its control. The registar registar works
closely with the examiner of titles who is appointed by the court and an an advisor of the registar of titles. Currently in Cook County we offer only judicial registration and a certificate of title governed by Minnesota statute
chapter 508. There is another option available certificate of possessory title also known as CPT which is an administrative form of registration and is governed by
Minnesota statute chapter 508A. This is an application process that goes through the examiner of title and once approved the examiner CPT directive creates a certificate of possessory title where the certificate
will sit in possessory state for 5 years. While here the owner is still entitled to all the same protections as a certificate of title holder. Upon expiration of the 5-year period, the CPT ripens to have the same effect as a
judicial registration. Registration of possessory title is generally less expensive and can be completed more quickly than a judicial registration. The process does not involve the court and requires no publication or personal
service of notice of the registration other than by mail. This type of registration is only intended for uncontested titles when part of the owner's land is already registered. The double recording of documents becomes unnecessary.
The owner desires protection against adverse possession or judgments against someone with the same or similar name. development or sale of the land is anticipated and the owner's desires and the owner desires the certainty of
registered title. Owners wish to simplify the records of their land ownership and end the necessity of maintaining abstracts. An attorney from another county recently shared an example with me. He explained some time ago during this title process
a legal description was mistakenly changed from east to west. The error was finally discovered during a recent transfer. The CPT process took about 60 days and costs less than $2,500. By comparison, a quiet title action
would have cost more than $6,000 after publication, court costs, attorney fees, and other expenses and likely would have taken four months or more. The CPT process can save land over significant time and money in
correcting minor issues. CPTs are not a new concept. They have been around since 1982 with Henipin County issuing the first one in 1990. Several counties across Minnesota are now issuing CPTs as well. Given the
increase in increase and requests we have been receiving and the cost-saving measures to land owners, I am seeking your approval to move forward on CPTs. >> Well, interesting interesting information. Should we all be applying for this? Um, you know, we
all have a title to our home. I think in some areas people are trying to say your home is for sale and then they get into a lot of trouble with that. But is this something that we all should think about? >> Possibly. And maybe buyers could answer
that question better than I can. >> This is a gives another option for land owners when they have we'll call them academic problems with the title to their property. And it's a process to reduce the cost uh associated with fixing those types of things. It's not
an immediate fix. It takes about five years. Should everyone do it? No, not necessarily. If you have a a technical problem with your legal description that's disclosed, it's an easier and more cost-effective way to fix it. >> Uh Holly explained the difference
between abstract and torren property. Torren's property is just abstract property that went through a court process to fix something wrong with it. And at the end of it, you end up with what looks like a car title. So the benefit of it is you have this nice
little package of this is what I own and this is what affects my property. The drawback is that there's an enhanced level of formality with Torren's property both to get the property from abstract torren and also in in
transferring Torrren's property. It's a little more technical and that's I'm required because of that technicality. So to tie things together, I'm here today because I'm the one who helps move those things through. Now that can be to the general public
who doesn't deal in abstract or torren property or have any idea what that is. Um it can be frustrating to deal with because it can be expensive if there are technical problems. So this is really a benefit uh to land owners all over as
just another option to be able to um fix things that are incorrect. Um, and as Holly mentioned, the certificate of possessory title process is one that is codified by state statute, but it's up to each county to decide whether or not they want to adopt
it. Um, and it's before you guys to have this as another option for the land owners in Cook County. >> Commissioner Sullivan, I mean, Commissioner Gamble. >> No, I didn't have my hand up. >> Oh, didn't you?
>> No. Mr. Gamble, >> I'll defer to administrator >> administrator. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Are there any risks to moving forward with this process? >> I see none. Uh when uh Holly mentioned
it's administrative process. You file, you put notice in the real estate record, and then there's a 5-year period where people could object to it. So, it's, you know, the world belongs to those who show up. So, um, this is a nice, it's not an immediate fix, like I mentioned, but in Cook County, um, a lot
of people either want to sell or buy property and they don't just flip it. They hold on to it. So, if you have some time, this is a nice feature to be able to say, "Okay, I don't need this fixed today, but I know, you know, 5, 10 years, 20 years from now, I'll know
it'll be fixed when I go to sell." So, I see zero risk. >> I I agree, Mr. gamble. >> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, um, is it not true that, uh, Torrance title
when it comes to selling property is more attractive because it's gone through that process. In other words, I guess in in my history, it's been like if you got Torrance title, that's sort of reassurance on the title relative to a potential
buyer. >> Yeah. Um, it can be. There can be problems with Torrance property just like there can be with abstract. There was large parts of Cook County that were changed from abstract to Torrance property a long time ago >> when surveying techniques were not as
precise as they are today. >> So a lot of the older Torrren titles still have problems with them >> and the process to fix a Torren's title >> Yeah. >> is mildly painful. >> Yeah. >> You know. >> Yeah. And and Madam Chair, I I would say
in my looking at this that the CBT process is better if your title is completely uncontested and you just want a faster, cheaper, non-judicial way to convert your abstract land to the torrent system. It operates entirely through an administrative review by the
examiner of titles and does not require court appearances. So, it um it's something that facilitates a process. It just makes it less costly and a lot quicker. And as you said in your your narrative, Lake County recently adopted
it. And uh it's a provision that certainly I I would agree with. And having said that, I would approve the recorder register of titles office to implement the certificate of processor title process in Cook County.
Commissioner again >> support. >> We have a motion and a second. >> Any further questions or comments? >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> um motion passes unanimously on that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Nice to see everybody. >> Good to see you.
>> Thank you. >> Okay, moving on to our second agenda item. Um is what Jenny was talking about um a little bit ago. um property fraud.
Um we are asking to be able to implement um document alerts into our um recording program. Um so property fraud, also referred to as deed fraud or house stealing, is a form of white collar crime in which
individuals fraudulently record documents against a property in an attempt to claim ownership for financial gain. While such incidents are uncommon, they can have serious consequences for property owners. To help safeguard taxpayers property, we would like to
offer document alerts, a free notification service available to Cook County property owners. By enrolling in the program, property owners would receive an automated email whenever a document is recorded in our office under their name, legal
description, and or parcel number. Upon receiving an alert, they can review the recording and determine whether it is legitimate or whether further action may be necessary. There is no charge to enroll or receive email document alerts. Document images
may be viewed through ID do market for a subscription fee or property owners may request a copy of the document at no cost by calling, emailing or stopping by our office. To obtain a copy, they would need to provide the document number listed in
the alert. Enrollment is not automatic. They would need to register using their own computer or device and must have a valid email address in order to receive notifications. Although document alerts cannot prevent fraudulent activity, the service acts as
an early warning system that allows property owners to take appropriate action if they believe fraudulent activity may have occurred. If approved, we will notify the public through the county website andformational brochures available at our office, including
instructions on how to enroll in the program. >> If I may, sorry for stepping out earlier. This is a significant issue. >> We're seeing attempts at fraud, that is someone purporting to sell property that
they don't actually own, uh, weekly. So, we haven't seen it in Cook County as much, but it is happening in all the surrounding counties and all the surrounding states. So, if anyone has seen the TV shows or the TV ads for
title lock or something like that, um, that's what this seeks to address is you bought property and someone else purports to be you to sell and get the proceeds of the sale. And this is real and it's happening constantly. This is a very nice feature that will help people.
There are other features coming out to try and protect the general public against this because this >> really uh attacks um you know public records and and the faith people have that the public records are correct. So I'd strongly encourage that this be
adopted and it was really nice that Holly picked this up and uh and added as a feature. So >> this has been reported maybe over the last 3 four years in the tribune and other news sources that um it is
becoming quite a situational problem and um no it hasn't come here yet but we probably will be next so it is a concern. Commissioner Sullivan, >> thank you so much. Well, I really appreciate you bringing this forward. I think it's really important. I also
think it's important enough we um make sure that we're in a very broad way reaching out to property owners and whether that be um in addition to your office and and um something on the website um spending the money to send
out a letter or um having some kind of public information release. I think we need to really share the information with our public. >> I agree. Commissioner Gamble. >> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank
you for your reinforcing and making us aware. Um, one question I would have is the information that the landowner provides to the county, information that we have uh available to us in some way. Um, what
what I'm getting at is is concern about concerns that require us to provide more information that's p personal information to a government entity. And so what I'm saying is it's a here's the
concern. We can help you to try to mitigate, you know, the exposure to this concern if you provide this information to us. And if that information that we're providing as a land owner is information that is usually readily acceptable or something, it's just
legitimacy and comfort level on the public's part providing additional information to protect themsel. That's my question. >> Um, so the concern being are they providing information above and beyond what would normally be provided in a
regular real estate transaction? >> Um, yeah. In other words, when you're giving giving a government entity additional personal information about yourself under the umbrella of protecting you. >> And I am just saying for those that
might ask that question, we want to try to >> address it so that they know this this is a legitimate this is how the information is used and this is this is uh something that uh I wouldn't have any question about. >> I believe the only additional information that's not already provided
would be an email address. because we are you submit a lot of private information when anytime you buy or sell real estate and in Minnesota at least it is fairly readily available unfortunately other states really
restrict access to that information um but it's if you dig deep enough a lot of it is uh available but it all goes to the state of Minnesota so >> yeah yeah and as a followup madam chair that the
that's the heart of the question which is it's it's available there anyway other than your email and that's probably what makes us more vulnerable than some states because that information is available if you dig for it. >> It is. Yep. >> Yeah. Thank you.
>> And this is something that they would voluntarily sign up for. It isn't a requirement for each landowner to do this. It's only if they want to do it. >> Yeah, I understand that. I just I just alleviate concerns about giving
information that information is there anyway other than your email and that's that's just addressing that component of a decision to com you know receive the benefit. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> And just to clarify too the information that is provided is not something that
is dictated at the county level. So it's all state. So it's not like we are saying we are giving more information than any other county. This is what every county in the state does. Yeah, >> other states handle that information differently. >> Um, in the other states that I've operated in, this feature is one that is
utilized pretty regularly and people tend to like it. I used it uh when when I was in Montana and I thought it was a very nice feature. >> Yeah, thank you. >> I see that the onetime fee of $4,500. Who's that paid to?
>> That would be to Tyler Technologies who our recording program is through. There are um recording software >> company. >> Okay. And then a 600 fee annually for to keep it up. >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> Which we do have money in our technology fund to cover this. >> Okay. >> Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. When we're in the budget process, we're always talking about your department and dollars there to see if we can't get some of them. And so it's nice to have an application that
uh is directly related to the department. With that, I would make a motion to recommend the approval of the document alerts. >> I'll support that. >> Have a motion and a second. Any further questions or comments? All in favor? >> I
>> I >> oppose. Motion passes unanimously. >> Thank you so much. Thanks, Holly, for updating. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. So, next we'll move on to um land services who's going to have a few
things to discuss with us. >> Good morning. Good morning. The first item I have for you is an interim use permit submitted by PT and Pets. Um it's for a recreational vehicle, an RV, which has been in place since 2019. Uh through what staff
previously had issued for recreational permit, um recreational vehicle permits administratively. Uh when they came forward to renew that interim use permit, it came to our staff's attention that in the zone district that that property is in, the general commercial, recreational vehicles are not actually a
permitted use. And so we have to go through this process to give our staff the administrative authority to reissue that interim use permit or the RV permit. Um so the planning commission held the public hearing last uh May
something. I don't have the date in front of me. I'm sorry. Um and they recommended approval. Um there were some conditions set with that and um I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. How was the recreational vehicle used?
>> It's used um for the prior operator of Putt and Pets for them to come and stay in that seasonally. So, it's not an employee um rental unit. It's just for them to come and stay intermittently throughout the summer. >> A place for the goats to take a a break.
I know. No, the goats don't stay in the RV, I don't think. >> Any questions or comments? Commissioner Sullivan. >> Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve a resolution for the 5-year IUP to allow the permanent seasonal use
of one recreational vehicle in the general commercial zone district at 2014 West Highway 61. >> And I'll support that. Any further questions or comments? All in favor? >> I opposed. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously.
>> Thank you. The second item uh is a amendment to a conditional use permit submitted by WTTC Land Management Company. Um Northland Construct Constructors as a part of that
larger business. Um this is to amend the existing conditional use permits for two areas of the mining operation. So the first is to expand the open pit area from 10 to 15 acres and the other part is for a wash plant as a part of the
conditional use permit. Um this gravel pit has been permitted since 1996 and has undergone several amendments over time um which is summarized in the staff narrative for the planning commission. Um during uh the originally it was permitted for 5 acres, then it got an
amendment to open up to 10 acres and so now it's an amendment again to open up to 15 acres. And uh in one of in the original 1996 permit, the wash plant operations were recognized for potential future use through an amendment process
when the applicant brought forward um the appropriate technical information. Uh, Northland Constructors has been operating in that pit um, under the previous owners, George and Cheryl Humphrey. And in 2020, there was an interim use permit for a wash plant operation for a specific highway
project. Um, but that was just a one-year interim use permit. So, Northland would like to have that wash plant as a conditional use permit. Um the planning commission held the public hearing for this application uh earlier this month and there were um as
previously mentioned during your public comments here uh there was one letter of opposition submitted by Miss Pin Schultz. Um and then there were a couple of comments in favor of the pit recognizing the need for the materials. Um from staff's perspective, this pit is
surrounded by public land. Um but there is a lot of wetland surrounding it. So there's not a lot of topography beyond the pit screening um any noise from Benagami Lake. The pit itself is about a half mile from Benagami Lake on its western shoreline uh and about one mile
from the Schultz properties um that uh you received your public comments on today. Um the planning commission talked about a variety of different aspects of this pit which I tried to summarize in my board report for you. Uh they did address the hours of operation and if
they wanted to do more restrictive hours of operation and the planning commission felt that what they proposed in these conditions was satisfactory. Um primarily in part due to our short construction season and the high demand for these materials. Um but in in just for reference when we run into these
cases where um a recommendation is made by the planning commission and before the board you may want something else evaluated. Traditionally the board has made a recommendation to send this back to the planning commission to further evaluate certain aspects of the application. But I want to be really
clear that the public comment period has closed and a public hearing was held um before the planning commission. So, if this did go back to the planning commission, we would not be accepting any further comments from the public. It would be reviewing the record that we've received so far and um you know, addressing any concerns that the board
may have. So um with that what staff have done uh with this staff report um in this application proposal because of all the amendments over time we try to consolidate all of the recommendations or conditions that have been set in previous approvals and bring them all
nested into one approval so everything is really clear um and expectations with the contractor. Um I understand that there was a restoration plan historically with a pit. So, I want to be clear that um it's not as though that was neglected. Uh we just don't have
that on record. Um so, there was much discussion before the planning commission about the benefit of getting a clear, um restoration plan with the current operators, Northland constructors, um as being a pretty significant benefit through this review process. And this pit, um I'll just
finish is uh in the same annual review process as all other gravel pits that have permits in Cook County. Uh we do not reissue conditional use permits. They're a property right once they've been granted. But we do as staff administratively review all the gravel pits through our annual gravel pit
review process. So if you've um read stuff about the reissuance of a permit or about the staff review, that's what that's in reference to. >> So are they asking um to continue the work there? They're working there right now.
>> I don't know if they've started their construction season. And it depends on if they've got projects in the area typically. So pits will go vacant, you know, until there's a specific project that they might need the materials for. Um but yeah, it currently has a conditional use permit to be open for 10 acres.
>> 10 years. Okay. So um I went through this with um a gravel pit request on Kramer Road. And um the people who live there probably I would say would be up to a couple three miles away from the potential pit. um it wasn't used. Uh it
was going to be excavated. The person had property rights to do that. Um they still haven't done anything with it. So the neighbors are happy about that. But you know it it you try to weigh both sides. We need the gravel. >> But you also need to understand the
folks who live by it. this morning. We had a couple of comments um read this morning and um so it's kind of a balance between trying to keep the construction work going with gravel and then to understand the neighbors and and we did
um limit the hours down there. That's how we agreed on that was limit the hours when they open it up. >> Commissioner Sullivan. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so I've had an opportunity to um visit and I'm pretty knowledgeable not only about the
gravel pit but the properties on Benagami that have been referenced and I'm familiar with the pit because I actually got gravel there myself. I went out with Jed Smith a few years ago and um picked out some rock for my property. And I've also visited the Pine Mountain
Road property uh 319 that was referenced and actually recommended a construction company to do the remodeling of that property um and the addition of a couple of buildings. And so due to the proximity of the lake um and I've been
there fishing and part of the loon watch program there um I'm real familiar with the lake as well. And so I've reflected on this a great deal after listening to the discussion at the planning commission. Um their concerns were about noise and hours of operation, but they
weren't discussed real thoroughly. Um the primary focus and I was really glad to see that they focused on the reclamation and restoration and the financial asurances considerations. And um so then we met for that legal
land use training a week ago and there was discussion there for those of us that were in our attendance. Um and it brought up the fact that it is possible for a an IUP or a CUP to have
different operations and different hours for each of those operations. So pertinent to that, um I did a little research and found that there are some Minnesota ordinances and other counties and um local governments that do have
different kinds of procedures for different operations. And so given that new information um I think about in the materials that we read first of all um condition six where um we talk a little bit about noise and I know that NEVA has
the ability to measure sound she has a device that will do that so that's something we could look at and consider related to Minnesota rule 7030 and then condition 12 according to my research could be split
into two parts. Um kind of condition 12 a excavation, loading and hauling. And you could have hours of operation Monday through Friday and then something different on Saturday. And then as already written in there, no operations
on Sunday or legal holidays. Um, and condition B could be related to crushing, screening, and washing, which could be Monday through Friday, maybe some different hours, and then um limited or restricted on Saturday,
Sunday, or holiday operations. And like all gravel pits, there is an annual review. But I thought about this a lot because I live near a gravel pit. And I hear that backup beeping. Um, and I think about the distance I am from that
gravel pit and knowing that some of that sound will come across the water, which is a little different than something that we've dealt with before, um, might cause us to to send this back to the planning commission to, um, reconsider some of the conditions. just again like
Commissioner Stoley mentioned to balance operational needs our need for gravel but reasonable mitigation with some of the sound impacts. So that is my thought. >> Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you Madam Chair. Uh thank you Commissioner Sullivan. Those are good
points. And um given uh I for clarification the uh the letters that were read by administrator this morning. Um if you referenced in your introduction to this uh that public comment period and
anything that was voiced that public comment period has closed. Was that statement uh a statement in response to the letters read this morning? >> That statements specifically in reference if this is to get sent back to
the planning commission. To be really clear that the planning commission is not going to receive future public comments. Um how to approach the comments received this morning. My recommendation would be to see if there's anything substantive that is different than what the planning
commission discussed already. Um, in cases like this with this process, um, the county board can still accept, um, pertinent information that might be different than what the planning commission might have known about, and then it would be appropriate for, uh,
the board to see if that necessitates it being sent back to the planning commission for further discussion. One thing I want to point out is that the applicant isn't here and that they weren't notified that there might be additional public comments received to their request today. And so just procedurally speaking, we do want to
ensure fairness in this process and transparency. >> Yeah, thank you um for that. Um I was looking through the conditions which you you referenced to see things that address the concerns that were raised this morning. And um uh there's a lot in
the packet, but uh 152, I think page 152 is is one that shows the the land. And if if that has the land as orange on on this visual that we're looking at. And my question
is is that the additional acres, where where are we seeing those acres added on to the existing part parcel? Is it towards the lake? >> Yes. Yeah. So the additional five acres is towards the lake. >> That's what I interpret to be why I
wanted to clarify that. So it it would seem and you know trying to read through the the the narrative to understand this that the issues that are raised this morning, hours of operation uh sound across lake uh trying to find a um
uh a thoughtful mitigation for some of these you know issues relative to sound. um a term limit and the you did reference in the conditions that an annual compliance visit is something
that is is in place. Um, this is property that is transferring from uh one owner to a new owner and the new owner is an owner that is out outstate. And I I would assume that when
the commission is looking at this, we would be looking at the company that is now the new owner and their reputation and their best practices relative to addressing these these issues. Um,
from my standpoint, uh, I would agree with, uh, Commissioner Sullivan that I think it should go back, uh, to address these things, uh, taking a a deeper dive into the issues to see if we can't find that thoughtful, uh, balance, as you
know, Commissioner Stley off also referenced. And um in anything that we're doing uh we're guided by policy and practice and we're also trying to cultivate community that
is mindful of any concerns and addresses those and make sure that that businesses ownership is clear on expectation as to you know how we will move forward on
this. So, I um I I would support uh referring it back and I would hope be open to hearing, you know, your response to that. Something else to put on the calendar for you. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate
your comments, Commissioner Gamble. I think procedurally there's no issue with bringing this back to the planning commission. The planning commission's next meeting will be in early June and so this would potentially come back to you at the end of June. Um I think given the content that you want the planning
commission to discuss will be very helpful in this process. Um you know one thing that we talk about with land owners in our office is that um people don't have a right to silence on their property. Um there is inherent noises that happen in rural areas of the
county. This property is in the F1 zone district and in the F1 zone district, a dog kennel is a permitted use. So replace a permitted gravel pit with hours of operation with a dog kennel that has lots and lots of dogs barking during meal time. Uh that also would
generate noise and that would be a permitted property right for that person. So there is inherently in the F1 zone district a general understanding that noise is going to be generated as a property right with certain types of activities. Um, so I just want to be really clear about that is that I don't think it's reasonable to set
expectations that the property owners on Benagami Lake may always experience silence. Um, and I don't think that's what they're asking for, just to be clear. But I just also want to be clear that there's going to be some amount of noise that'll get generated. And also how much noise is reasonable. We typically set the Minnesota state noise
standards as kind of our benchmark of what we expect businesses to be meeting. And um it I would be rather surprised if this property um property owners on Benagami Lake were exceeding were experiencing noise from this pit exceeding those standards given the
amount of distance. Um so what is you know trying to meet that compromise and that middle ground I think is maybe where I want a little bit more feedback. um at this point um you know recognizing the holidays or the
hours of operations you know we could further discuss that if the wash plant wants to be revisited as an interim use permit doesn't need to be a conditional use permit um sometimes that interim use permit process is helpful as a experiential period of time for property owners to
see what an activity is like you know prove a interim use permit for two years um and maybe a project will come up that will, you know, need that type of activity within that 2-year time span. Um, you know, there's those are the types of considerations, I guess, that
we want to be clear about of what you'd like the planning commission to further discuss. >> Commissioner Sullivan. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I really appreciate you bringing up, you know, the idea of an IUP and, um, separating out some of the the different
activities. And I was actually in my head kind of thinking maybe even a three-year because it takes time to make all of this operational. Um so I would say um that from my standpoint for the planning commission to look at the
opportunity for an interim use permit and to separate out in their conditions excavation, loading and hauling in one bucket and crushing, screening and washing in the other bucket. And then you look at your days of operation and hours of operation according to that. I
think also that um is something I'm thinking about also in a broader sense. Not that it impacts this, it's this is very specific, but that we have our aggregate mapping coming up and we may find in the future that we're going to
have more gravel pits close to streams, close to water, and we need to be thinking ahead. so that we're prepared um to do that appropriate balance as Commissioner Storyly said to get the balance between you know that that quiet
and solitude we want but the absolute need for gravel and there's going to be noise um we know that but it's just making sure it's reasonable Gamble >> the wetlands that have been defined are they
wetlands looking at the lake. I haven't been on the the lake to see if that wetland is in the 5 acres that's closest to the lake. In other words, well, we have setbacks and things that if if that's solid property, solid land, and consists of no wetlands that goes right
up to the edge of the lake, there's a setback requirement, I think, that would try to protect the lake and how this operation would be. If there's wetlands there, then it's it's reinforced by the fact that they can't disturb the wetlands. But that's one one question I
would have with the interimm use permit. Uh as a company, I would be looking at my total investment in dollars. If it's not a lot of investment, then um I have no problem with that. But if I'm going to have to major make a major investment in something that I
have no guarantee it'll be long-term, I might rethink it. In the gravel industry, that might not be a big issue because it's equipment that's transferable. The other the other question I would have is this is a long-standing company that um they might
be able to address voluntarily some of the issues to try to m mitigate the sound. And so if if you do it on a on a on the basis of talking about it and seeing what might you be able to do to address some of these things, that's what contributes to the community aspect
of these decisions. It's not just compliance with policy and practices. It is also awareness to try to see if we can't, not because we're obligated, but because we want to cultivate, you know, good relationships. So, that would be
some of my thoughts. >> Commissioner Sullivan. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um either Neva or um our county attorney Peterson might be able to ask answer this. Um in Minnesota, an interim use permit, if I'm correct, can go anywhere from one to
five years. I don't have the time off. >> It can go any It could go further than that. Okay. Often an intermuse permit would have a condition that states that it is null upon transfer of the property. >> So it could say just with a property owner too, which could be for a much
longer period of time. >> All right. I just wanted to ask that given Commissioner Gamble's question about the business interests and costs that they're putting forward to keep that in mind. >> Commissioner Gamble. >> Yeah. Thank you. Um the other thing is is that with the with the followup the
inspection thing which is already built in there and has been discussed by the planning commission that uh with the interm use permit once we determine all of the components of what we're agreeing to then being able to follow up on that
and make sure to build integrity and accountability into this that it it says to the business that what we have the conditions under which we're allowing this are being met and it says to the community the conditions that are identified in this agreement are being
complied with that just that's that's a good way of doing business. So I would say clearly defining that and and giving the the business an opportunity to address how it might be able to do this and demonstrate how it's done in the past given their history would be a good
thing. Mhm. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I would just say also in def um in deference to the decision that the planning commission made and in deference to the um business owner, just that the criteria that the
commission is limited to is um the the specific criteria that has been set out. And so while we're always concerned about the other land owners and residents in the area, if that is the overriding purpose, then that's something that needs to ultimately be changed within the criteria that they're
addressing. >> Administrator trouble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um the the only addition that I have is just I think it's important when this is discussed at the planning commission to also identify the risks with any additional changes.
So, for example, if the hours are changed, what is the risk to the county if we don't have access to the resources during that time frame? So, I just want to make sure that as they discuss this, they're talking about all the other, you know, risks and considerations and
bringing that forward as well. >> Mr. Gamble. >> Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, well, I I think that's it's an important element of it. I I would say that um identifying all those components on all
sides of the issue. I mean, as a as a county and what we provide by way of governance and in our and our policies, uh what we're accountable to to the state or any other regulatory agency in this situation, uh looking at the community and um
looking at creating opportunity and looking at addressing need. One question I have is what we talk about um sand is different than gravel and maybe what we're finding is that getting washed
sand when we do our septic work is an issue and it costs us because we have to bring it in because we don't have anybody that does that and this isn't addressing that issue because we're dealing with gravel here. We're not dealing with sand. Is that correct? >> There's a variety of materials that come
out of this pit. So, with the screeners, they can go through all the aggregate materials and um separate it out by size. I don't know if they get sand clean enough um for sewer sand here, but that's part of what the wash washing operations, I believe, would be for. Um
we do have a couple of pits in the county that do create sand adequate for septic systems. Um so, not all of the sand from the county um is imported, so to say. >> Yeah. So what's your comfort level if if
that's a fair question? Um I I from my standpoint I think Commissioner Sullivan has expressed I think going back and just reviewing this I think um when we deal with situations like this we're
dealing with the immediate and and um concerns that we're maybe overlooking and not aware of should be brought to our attention in making a recommendation. Um but I I also think in the bigger picture that it that it shows that that we are a listening body who's
who seeks to try to find ways to find that balance and that's that's why I think this is would be an investment in that commitment to do that as a governing body. So >> may madam chair just to address those
questions. Thank you madam chair commissioner gamble. Um, I think I've heard a lot of helpful comments before you. Um, I just want to kind of reiterate as far as our process with conditional use permits that it's really important that the public participates at the planning commission level. Um,
one of the two comments that you received today was received at the planning commission, but one of the two wasn't. Um and when folks um try to come to the board to intervene in the process at that point um and then send this back
to the planning commission to kind of get a second bite at the apple so to say. It does create additional work for our office and additional work for the planning commission when they could participate fully at the planning commission level. So I would encourage us to have further discussions in the future if we can tighten down our
procedure with how we want to handle this. Of course, we absolutely want to encourage public dialogue, but there is a reason that we have this very linear process built into this for fairness. Um, with the different comments that I've heard, uh, I might be helpful if I could summarize a few of the items. Um,
Commissioner Gamble, I heard you ask about wetlands, and I might be able to address that now. Um, Cook Countyy's wetland specialist, Mitch. Travis did review this um application and in this expansion I hadn't mentioned was previously applied for back in 2022 and also recommended for approval then and
in both circumstances um our wetland specialist did not feel that additional um groundwater monitoring would be needed for this site based off of the characteristics of the landscape and the wetland locations. So our office doesn't have a concern from a technical perspective about impacts to wetlands.
um for that point. Um the as far as from the business perspective, I think that might be one helpful component of sending this back to the planning commission to talk with the business about how different hours of operations for different types of activities may impact their operations. Um we don't
want to accidentally set a condition that significantly impacts the ability for the business to actually do the operation that they're applying for. So that's where being able to discuss with the applicant, that's a very valuable opportunity for the planning commission in this process. Um, and then
Commissioner Gamble, you asked a question about the interim use permit. Um, and I think that's a good point that that can be a really helpful part of sending this back to the planning commission. Um, obviously the expansion of 15 acres can't really be an interim use permit. Um, but the washing operations could more easily be
considered as an interim use permit. And I've kind of heard three years floated about. Um what would be helpful for me in bringing this back to the planning commission would just kind of bulletointed considerations that the board may want uh the planning commission to discuss and that's what I've heard is um the potential
exploration of shifting the washing operations to an interim use permit. I have not heard any concern about the expansion to 15 acres. So please correct me if I'm wrong. And then also to separate out condition number 12 into an A and a B um based off of those different categories with discussion
with the operator um applicant about whether those different sets of um hours of operations for different types of activities would work okay for their operations. Um, and then I also heard a qu a point about consideration to the risk to the county about um more
restrictive hours for those uses and for further discussion as to whether or not that may be a consideration. Um, so please definitely add to that. >> When um this type of project takes place in the planning, do those folks receive
a letter ahead of time to indicate that um you have a chance to um have your opinion at the meeting? >> Yes, the adjacent property owners. So, yep. Um we send out a public notice to at least everybody within a quarter mile or at least 10 property owners. In this
case, it definitely went beyond that quarter mile because this property is surrounded by public land. Um, so yes, these property owners, I believe, were included in the public comment. And like I mentioned before, one of the two did provide her comments to the planning commission. >> Commissioner Sullivan.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, just to kind of reiterate, the comments that we heard today, I don't think impact our decision in relationship to sending something back to the planning commission. I look at my training and I want to thank Neva
for the the um land use training that we received last week and um that gave me an opportunity to look at things in a little different light but I think we do need to focus on what was at the public hearing what was presented and what's in our packet today.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Neva, the only addition that I I think we heard um from the public comment and from um the commissioners today is just if there are any other noise mitigation strategies that we could leverage. I appreciate that. Yes, thank you. I will um add to that that there was a
request in one of the written comments submitted to the planning commission about noise mitigation to explore using different technologies. And the planning commission and staff felt that um the different technologies proposed may not create a very safe or as safe work environment as the traditional beepers.
Um yeah, so we can further discuss that with the applicant to see what options they may have for ideas for that. Mr. Sullivan, >> thank you, Neva, for bringing that up. Um, I too looked into the the different
kinds of um backup beepers and tried to research that a little bit. And all I will tell you is gravel pits are very very dangerous. And we want that loud noise to be able to protect people who are working in those pits. So, I I do want to say that even though I live
across the street from a pit and the noise bothers me, it's important to have those safety measures. >> So, I would um make a motion to send this back to the planning commission with the items that we have reviewed here today with >> support that.
>> Any further questions or comments? Commissioner Gamble, >> can you uh well relative to to the letters you referenced that one letter was received, you know, so the P planning commission could look at that. Um I would say that the two letters were
identical, although the placement in their composition were different points in the letter, but the the issues were still similar. Often times we'll we'll see a form letter that comes out in mass from an interested party. I think what we have to be careful to and I think to
the administrator's point is that that um we have a process in place. People are welcome to participate in that process. They're encouraged to participate in that process. We don't want decisions that go through processes that are followed to be circumvented by
an onslaught of letters. This is not considered an onslaught that that causes to have misgivings. We have to trust the process. But I do believe and and I've referenced many times that I really appreciate the work of the planning
commission because they inform our decisions at this level. But those issues that were addressed, I could not find things specific that made me comfortable in supporting this. So on that basis, not trying to
to create a behavior that says all you have to do is flood the commissioners with letters last minute and they'll they'll walk. No, it just it has to be based upon the criteria that drives us in our decision making. Another question I have is what is the setback
requirement given that this 5 acres is borders the lake? In other words, it's going to be right on the lake. So, what is a setback requirement for operations? >> Thank you, Madam Chair, Commissioner Gamble. Those are um very helpful points. I would say uh distance-wise,
the eastern property line of this parcel is at least a half a mile from the western shorelines of Benagami Lake and one mile away from the private property owners on the eastern side, the far side of Benagami Lake. So, this property, the
gravel pit itself is um pretty far from the lake. Uh it's just a lot of wetlands between where the gravel pit and the lake is. There's just not a lot of elevation um to kind of do some of that natural sound barrier. Um there are
wetlands on the north side of this parcel and there's I believe a 50-ft setback requirement from the boundary of the wetlands for the pit itself. Um does that answer your >> Yeah. and and we I mean we have these
policies and requirements in place to protect you know water and and other other elements when we make these decisions. So all of those things are reinforcing those concerns that get addressed relative to the the lake
itself and the environment. But um I I guess my my last question then would be are you clear on the issues that have been raised that going back through this process that they can be addressed. >> Mhm. >> All right. Thank you. >> If I may just bullet point I got down to
three items. Um the exploration of sound with condition number 12 breaking out into an A and a B. working with the contractor, the applicant to explore what sound mitigation measures they may have available that they can provide to the planning commission that could be integrated into the conditions as well
as explore shifting the wash plant to a three-year interim use permit. >> Hours of operation did you say? >> Yep, that was the first one I >> Thank you. I appreciate the discussion. >> So, we have a motion and a second. Any
further conversation, questions? All in favor? >> I >> oppos. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. >> Thank you. >> At this point, because the next two items will require quite a bit of concentration and discussion. I would
like to take a 10-minute break. >> Madam Chair, >> could I could I ask that we move uh to the revolving loan fund application? Ruth Sorrow from uh the art colony has been here all morning. >> Oh. >> And perhaps we could >> Okay.
>> address that. >> We can do that. >> Mr. Gamble. >> Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh this is uh uh a request that's come before the revolving loan committee and uh we
discussed this and then we had an interview as well and um uh and so it's it's coming with recommendation from committee. >> Yeah, we met last week. Uh the art colony is requesting 75,000 revolving
loan for the purchase of Ella's inn. Uh this is subject to completion of a bank loan, a second position mortgage on that property, completion of the promisary note loan agreement, final uh approval of documents by the county attorney.
This is uh Ellis is located right below the old traditional art colony property. uh they'd use it to provide lodgings to those taking classes to artisan residents but also to private general rentals when they don't need it for
their uh operations. Um bank closing is planned for May 29th. So the revolving loan fund committee voted unanimous unanimously to support this request and ROF is here if you have any questions.
>> Okay, questions or comments? here. Yes. Commissioner Campbell. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I would make a motion uh to approve a um a loan to the Grambury Art Colony for $75,000 for the purchase of Ella's Inn subject
to completion of a bank loan, a second position mortgage on this subject property, completion of promisary note and loan agreement, and final approval of documents by the county attorney. support. >> Any further questions or comments?
All in favor? I >> I oppose. Same sign. Motion. Motion passes unanimously. >> Thank you for sitting in. >> Thank you. >> We'll now take a 10-minute break. We We are resumed and uh we're moving on to
our uh next item with land services. Go ahead. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. The next item I have is a reszone request provided by Lucky Soul Holdings LLC. This is to reszone one of two parcels that makes up
the property of Soulbach and Resort. This parcel is 1.72 acres and is currently zoned single family residential even though um there's part of the infrastructure and use activities of Soulbach and Resort on this parcel. So the applicant would like to request
to have this parcel reszone to resort commercial residential which would match the zoning of the other parcel of Soulbach and Resort. With this request, we did a public comment uh public hearing that was held before the planning commission on May
13th. There were written comments submitted on the conditional use permit. That's the next item on your agenda, but we didn't receive any written comments regarding the reszone request. during the public hearing. There were two individuals who spoke during the public
hearing and expressed support of the reszone request and the planning commission held a discussion point um talked about a lot of different site considerations and how the you infrastructure and utilities of Soul
Bachan Resort are on this single family residential. So functionally speaking it is a part of the resort and unanimously recommended approval. In your packets are draft findings of the reszone. And as a reminder with reszones, we don't have conditions of approval. It's just a
binary approve or deny uh type of request. I'm trying to visualize this. So if you're standing in front of the resort, the lodge, and the motel, this would be to the east.
>> If Yes. Yep. So if you're standing on Highway 61 looking at Lake Superior, the left side of the property where the Jonas house and one of their septic mountains is located is in the single family residential zone to parcel. >> So it's between Luden Resort and the
next resort. >> Yes. I don't remember what the >> I don't Yeah. Okay. Doesn't seem like a lot of land there. >> It's 1.72 acres, so it's a pretty small parcel. Uh but together the two parcels do make five acres which is the minimum
lot area of the RCR zone district. So effectively reszoning this would help the next parcel next door be conforming once the two parcels are combined into one. >> Commissioner Sullivan. >> Thank you Madam Chair. I thought it was just a a good um healthy discussion at
the planning commission and um seems very reasonable. And with that, I'd like to make a motion to approve the resolution for the reszone of 1.72 acres from single family residential to resort commercial residential on par 5193150.
>> Support. >> Any further questions or comments? All in favor? >> I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously there. >> Thank you. And the last item I have for you is a conditional use permit request
for both of the parcels that make up Soulbach and Resort. There is currently a process uh going through to transfer ownership to Lucky Soul Holdings, who's the applicant for this request. And this request is a
conditional use permit for a commercial planned unit development, which is effectively the process to convert the existing resort into fractional ownership of the units. This is a process that's outlined in the Cook
County subdivision ordinance and also recognized in the Cook County zoning ordinance. The subdivision ordinance outlines the resort conversion process. So essentially we're looking at this one large parcel and we're trying to identify how the existing infrastructure
and utilities and units are laid out and what it would take to shift those units into single ownership where every unit has its own parcel ID and can transfer ownership individually and with that where nonconformities may exist. It's a lot easier to develop land
when it's vacant and we're just building it. But when we have these old resorts, often we find that there's existing things that don't conform to our standards. And so this process is to go through and look at the existing resort and identify what areas may need to be
addressed in order to plat out and subdivide the land. We do find um just conceptually speaking that this is an air process that helps these mom and pop resorts uh get the value of their land
and be able to sell it to someone. It's a lot more difficult to find a buyer for one large resort these days. So, this is a process that's in place to kind of help the economics of the current property owners is my general understanding. With this, um, the planning commission
held the public hearing earlier this month at the same time as the reszone request. Now, I'll note that the reszone that you just approved now makes both of these parcels RCR, resort commercial residential, which is a listed conditional use um, list in their
conditional use the commercial planned unit development. So, this does get a little bit technical in some of the jargon, but that's what I want to make clear is now that both of these parcels are RCR zoned, commercial plan unit developments are listed conditional use. So, that's where we go through this
process to evaluate the findings and conditions. And if the applicant is meeting all of those standards, we really need to try to find what conditions we set to mitigate the concerns. And in order to deny a request like this, there would need to be a really a substantial concern uh with the
compatibility and the findings. So that's I just want to kind of start off with the framework of the zoning and where this activity is relative to all of that. We held the public hearing. This notice area was for a quarter mile area. Uh we did receive a letter that was concerned
and opposed to their request, a written comment uh with concern to how this might change the character of the area and it might make more intensive feelings along that corridor of the character of that uh corridor of Highway
61. Overall, the request and what's in this conditional use permit is conceptual at this point. So another like step back big picture thing about this proposal is that to do a resort conversion there's several steps that are needed. So first it's the conditional use permit. Right now we are
just looking conceptually to see can what's being proposed meet the ordinance standards. Is the density allowable? Are there concerns with nonconformities? The conditional use permit is where we set conditions for the areas that we have concern about and then those conditions
get integrated into the platting process. That would be the second step to do a preliminary plat where we actually see a plat map with each of those resort units in a separate unit ownership configuration and what shared utilities might exist to address whether or not those shared utilities can
sustain the proposed development. After in the preliminary plan is also a public hearing. So the public would have another opportunity to comment and weigh in on the preliminary plat. Really the rubber meets the road with the preliminary plat stage for technical information. After the preliminary plat
is the final plat. The final plat is not a public hearing. Uh we're not receiving public comments, but it is a public meeting that reviews the final plat and make sure that everything that was addressed during the conditional use permit and the preliminary plat everything before then got integrated into the final plat. So that's the road
map for what the resort conversion process includes. During the planning commission meeting, they discussed um a lot of different aspects of this request. The planning commission overall felt optimistic. I
would say um there was a lot of enthusiasm to see um an entity willing to put investment into this property and tried to you know make the business model work for what the industry is
right now and they felt that the applicant addressed a lot of their concerns at this point as I mentioned before everything is very conceptual so the amount of density proposed we don't know that that can actually be met until we actually see a septic designer
demonstrate that the septic system can meet that capacity. So I would say what you see in this application with the expansion um is um you know it it is aspirational if the infrastructure cannot sustain that and it's not feasible ultimately if the
infrastructure cannot sustain that and that's made really clear to the applicant through this application process. I think that's the long and the short of it. Just big picture-wise, um they're looking at phase development. So, a lot of the shoreline units are looking to
get some interior remodeling. They're planning on taking down the motel and replacing that with six units and then adding an additional seven units. Overall, there would be no more than 23 units in total. The lodge itself has three units. So that was a you might
have noticed if you really read through the packet clearly um we have a table in there that doesn't quite recognize those three units in the lodge. So there's an amendment to change that total number of units and with that our staff did our best to identify all the non-conformities and integrate those into the conditions but it's the
preliminary plat stage where we really see whether these projects are feasible. I I can't um over uh phrase that enough for you um in that. So, the planning commission did unanimously recommend approval of this request with several conditions and findings in your pocket.
I >> think the day of the mom and pop resorts are coming to an end. There was an article in the Sunday paper about the very thing that's happening in other parts of the state where um folks retire and um the new folks want to have a
broader view and a more upto-date view of what people want and um so it's here it's here in Cook County. Now I live about a mile from Soulbach and it's part of my soul because we have so many meetings at the lodge and um not that
that's going to change but it's just the vision of seeing how that will change is u you know something that we all have to deal with change is kind of interesting to deal with even though it's your neighbor commissioner Sullivan. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, in thinking about
Soulbachan and and potential um partial or seasonal ownership, I think to um other properties in the county that have gone that route and um in particular in Tafty and that has been
very very successful. I was impressed with the discussion that the planning commission had. It was a very long discussion. Um the meeting was over well over two hours. Um but I think that they brought up a lot of good questions. Um
the examination of septic and well water flow. Um there are a lot of aspects that they are looking very carefully at and and talked about and I'm I'm just really appreciative of the time and effort that the applicant has taken and the
conversations the applicant has had with David How the former owner. um and to look at that new vision. So, I'm uh very supportive of this. Um >> Commissioner Gamble, >> thank you, Madam Chair.
I I would say that um um I I appreciate the the sequential process that gets to the hoped for end and um it
brings the the scrutiny to our discussion is a long discussion but sometimes we need to commit to that investment of time to be sure that we're good stewards of the opportunities they
have brought before us. And um I would say that uh again the the sequential nature of how we go about uh approving these things or not approving and brings credibility to that process which is
hugely important. And so I I I commend again the planning commission on their on their work on these things and it certainly informs us and I appreciate your your narrative on the front end. The other thing we look at is um when we
talk about our our shared values as a county and decisions that we make that align with those. One certainly is is our tax base, property tax base. And while while it doesn't take priority
over environmental issues in some case and proximities relative to buildout neighborhoods and things, um it it is a component that encompasses all of the things we take in consideration when making a decision like this. So that
that's that's a good thing. With that, I I would make a motion to approve the resolution for the conditional use permit to allow a commercial planned unit development for resort conversion in accordance with the provisions of the Cook County subdivision ordinance section 710 and the Cook County zoning
ordinance section 417B9. >> I'll support that. >> We have a motion in the second. Any further questions or comments? All in favor? >> I >> oppose. Same sign. Motion pass unanimously. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. We'll move over to auditor revolving loan fund application. >> And that did that. >> You did that. Oh, sorry. >> So, ne next item is to set the is a request to set a public hearing date for
a subordinate service district change. Um, the motion would be to set a hearing date and time to hear comments regarding a proposed expansion of the Rose Bush Hill Subordinate Service District. The
current property owners in Rosebush Hill District would like to expand the district to include an additional 11 properties. The road section currently being serviced would not be affected by this change. The size of the district that benefits from the services would be
enlarged. The property owners currently in the district are part of the ongoing discussions of subordinate service district and are aware that no decisions have been made on the future of these service districts.
And the the requesttor of this is uh back in uh I believe in Florida. So, he's not here today to discuss this. Um, I believe you have a map seeing where the proposed
uh changes are. So, I'd just wait for questions. >> How soon would you need to have the meeting? >> Um, I think they'd like it as quick as possible, but um, which would be the next meeting? >> June 9th.
>> June 9th. might have a comment. And >> does that work with you getting into the newspaper >> foundation board meeting? It does. >> All right. >> So, I'd like to make a motion, Madame Chair, that we um establish the public hearing for Tuesday, June 9th at 9:00
a.m. >> I support that. Any questions or comments? We have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. Okay.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. The last item I have is uh first quarter general fund budget review. And as you can see, understand the first
quarter um it is 25% of the budget. So that's basically what you're looking for and the summary right now is 15% of our revenues have come in. Um, as of the
date of this making of the report, we've spent 20% of our revenues. Um, so our net cost is right at the uh 25% at this moment. Usually not a lot of information in the first quarter because a lot of
our big revenues do not come in until after March. And a lot of our expenses again are driven later in the year. A lot of our grants come in later. So, I've made some uh pointed out some of
the larger uh discrepancies from the 25% and tried to answer them. Um I won't go through each one of those unless you have questions. >> Commissioner Gamble. >> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you,
Brady. I I guess you know in reviewing this, I appreciate again your your comments that you provide to help us understand when we look at figures and then say what do those figures tell us? You provide a narrative that helps explain that. I guess from the
standpoint of monitoring a budget first quarter that uh looking at uh the comparables where we were you know in 2025 where we are now that's a comfort level so to speak. I think the most important thing is is the fact that that
uh the financial information is provided so we can analyze it and that we're aware of things that we didn't anticipate or things that are changing significantly that that this is a representation of what our our we'll call it lived
experience is right now. But as as we go into the 2027 budget, we we look at this and we look at our our trends over time and we look at what's changing in the marketplace that affects what we do in
2027. So this is one of those components that's important for us to be mindful of to see what we projected and how we're doing in that regard. But the component that's the unknown is shifts in revenue. Yeah. and what's happening which is
important in how we look at how we balance services we choose to provide and the resources we have to be able to do that. So I appreciate the report. Yeah. And the the second quarter uh provides um it makes a a giant leap in in reviewing because a lot of the
revenues come in. Expenses should be pretty close. >> Yeah. >> To the to the expected and uh but this gives you an update if there's anything really unusual going on. And and let's just say that that if uh a funding
source changes the way it >> allocates dollars that we might look at this report and say, "Oh my goodness, compared to, you know, the the second quarter, we're really off." And then you'd say, "Well, that's because because
they they no longer provide those funds at this point in time." So, it's those kinds of things so that when we see significant change, there's an explanation where that is. And often times when we're trying to make projections, we can't do it because we don't have our final revenues. They come
in after the fact and it makes it difficult. Then we have to go based upon our projections based upon what we know historically in this regard. >> Yeah. So, if there aren't any other question, I just ask that the board uh approve
receiving this report and accepting it. >> Commissioner Sullivan. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to make a motion to accept the report um for the quarter 1 of 2026 general fund budget. >> Support.
>> Any questions or comments? All in favor? >> I oppose. Same sign. Motion passed unanimously. Next will be um report from administrator treble and the toy transfer station. Thank you madam chair.
So we have the construction contract for the tafty transfer station as the next agenda item. And so we're asking to approve the construction contract between Labota graating and Cook County for the work at the transfer station in toy. This is very similar um actually
almost identical to the work that uh was conducted in Hovland. Um I will mention that our county attorney has reviewed the contract and does have some changes that we need to make to the contract. So we're asking for this recommendation upon review by our county attorney. I
also have Director Brooke Lassard from our facilities team here as well as Dustin Hansen from Northshore Waste um who can answer any questions. uh the estimate attached is approximately 93,000 and then again you'll see the
draft construction contract that needs uh again some updating by our county attorney. Um and with that I'll see if Gene wants to walk through some of the changes to the contract. >> Um sure with permission, Madam Chair. Thank you. Um so the changes again um as
administrator Treble just stated this is the form that was used for the Holand Transport Station. Um the changes for the Tati transfer station would include that the invoices um just for practical um assistance to
the auditor's office that those would be made no more frequently than monthly and paid within 30 days of receipt um as I don't think it's possible to turn it around in 10 days. Um there is some wording changes around paragraph five
having to do with unforeseen conditions in that um the contractor is certifying or warranteeing that he um is familiar with the area is familiar with Cook County has done excavation work and the type of work contemplated in this
agreement um within the the county and so that it's a little bit of an expansion um as far as being unforesee reasonably unforeseeable circumstances that may arise and lead to change orders. Additionally, it doesn't require
that the parties um agree to any change orders if there are unforeseen conditions. Um so that they they would have we would have to agree basically. Um it does have a notice requirement so that the contractor would notify the
county within one business day of such unexpected or unanticipated costs. and that work will not proceed unless the county accepts that change order then you know save for emergency weather conditions where the the project would
be damaged. Um, see, paragraph 7 expands um the conformity requirement to be not just building codes and laws, but all
statutes, rules, regulations. Paragraph 8 includes a reasonleness limitation to attorney's fees. Um, and it changes the method by which the
contractor can return to the site to retrieve materials that have not been paid for in the event that the contract is terminated. It just states that rather than having a license, the contractor will make reasonable arrangements with the county to enter
the property and that the county cannot unreasonably withhold that permission. there is no lean and foreclosure option because it is government property. Um and then there is provision for
attorney's fees also to be collected by the county in the event of default by the contractor and um removal then of paragraph 9 as well since there is no lean and foreclosure
option. Madam Chair, I'm also noticing on the first sentence we need to update the address of the property. Um, as mentioned, this was the contract that we used for Hovland and it still states that address. So, we'll update that for
TDI as well. >> If I can, I would just note um for everyone's knowledge that Dustin Hansen is here and he's already spoken with a contractor who has agreed to these proposed changes.
Okay, >> Commissioner Gamble. >> Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for that. Those are important points and I think that that scrutiny especially with workload sometimes we think we've got a template and we use that template
but we don't apply it based upon what we've learned through experience and what we learn through just the grapevine of things that should be built into contracts for integrity and and I I I've said that uh when you're negotiating a
contract that is the time to make sure that we're protecting the citizens of the county and putting language so that we don't have surprises because often times we're excited about moving forward on things and then when we do have a surprise we have no recourse. So I
really appreciate the integrity of the adding these components. A question I would ask is, is there anything that we've learned from u our previous experience out in Hovland that sort of fine-tuned this uh because we we have
that experience to inform this contract >> just in regards to the contract? >> Yeah. Yeah. In other words, I I because it's an expenditure of money to do something that we we did up there. What have we learned from there that might have refined it somewhat here? figure if
that's a reasonable question. >> I don't know that there was a lot to the contract. I appreciate uh Jeanie's work putting it putting the putting it through the ringer to make sure that that uh we made the changes that were needed. Um she was working pretty late
last night getting it done and she finished it during the meeting today. So I appreciate that everything's ready to go. >> Yeah. >> Um you know in regards to the transfer stations, I think there are some things that we learned out in in Hovland um that we're going to make some changes in Tafty. Um, one of the big things is
we've learned that opening a 16 foot gate in 40 mph winds doesn't work fantastic. So, in the new one, you know, we made some changes where the gates roll and things like that. But all in all, I think the the residents of Hovind, you know, appreciate what has
been done out there and I hope that in Toffee it's the same as well. So, >> and this all falls within what we projected in our our budget to >> Absolutely. Yep. Yep. It's the same exact number that there was when when we went for bonding. So,
>> couple of comments that people appreciate the fact we can still put our trash and our, you know, limited space um in behind where they um normally would drive in in front of the county building, county maintenance building. >> Yeah. So, the highway department was
kind enough to to let us use part of their parking lot to set up a temporary transfer station um which would be directly behind the current transfer station when we when we do the construction. Um so, today is actually the last day that the toffee transfer station will be open. Um everything
should by this afternoon should start being ripped down. Uh the building is going to be starting to be worked on tomorrow. Uh porous slab and we're going to try to get it done as quickly as possible. Our goal is a completion date around July 1st. Um, you know, there's a
lot of circumstances, weather and so on and so forth you can't necessarily um always count on, but uh July 1st is our our tenative completion date. >> What happens to the little house that I worked so hard on getting there? That's
a great question and I think uh >> somebody else probably I think answer that. >> Yeah, Nea put out an email to us in the highway department and uh Okay, >> we could always use extra storage. So, we're going to take it and probably move it up by the old search and rescue building and utilize it for storage up
there. >> Okay. Work so hard to get a building besides a tent. >> Can we have a little history on that? Because what little building? >> Um I I'm not that famili familiar with it. It happened uh I believe 2 years
ago. They um Tim purchased a small prefab storage unit and they did some insulation, some some electrical outfitting and put a little space heater in it and it was uh put out there for the for the attendant. Okay. >> That works there. So, >> it was for Brody to sit in, you know,
when the weather was bad. And it's I don't know what it's 6 by 8. 6 by 10. >> I think it's a little bigger than that. >> Like 8 by 12, maybe 10 by 12. Yeah. It's just a portable like you see on skids, you know, for sale in front of the home center or something like that. Something like that.
>> One of those prefab ones. Yep. >> Thanks. >> The next one will be a lot bigger as you know. >> Oh, much bigger. >> And then we rent it out for uh short-term overnights. >> VR rentals. >> That's a good idea.
>> We're keeping it on the down low, though. >> Oh, good. >> So, Madame Chair, I need to publicly publicly state that I've made a mistake. And actually that first address is for the contractor, not for the location. So it is accurate and I'm sure attorney
Peterson noticed that, but I just want to state that as well. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Commissioner Sullivan. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to make a motion to approve the construction contract between LOD grading and Cook County, Minnesota for the Cook County
Transfer Station at the Tafty site with the changes that county attorney Peterson just provided. >> And I will second that. Any further questions or comments? All in favor? I >> I same sign. Motion passes unanimously.
Go for it. Okay. So now we'll move on to administrator updates. Um actually madam chair I have one more agenda item which is the proposal for professional services at the courthouse. Okay. Okay. So, this um is to approve the proposal
for professional services for the Cook County Courthouse building programming, security improvements, and feasibility study um submitted on behalf of Architect Advantage and BKV team. Um I want to go back a little bit and explain
the history of this project. So several years ago, um, we worked with BKV and with Architect Advantage to do a programming study of the courthouse and we looked at making some changes to the
space for security reasons, but also because we needed additional space for staffing for PHS. So at that time there was a proposal that perhaps we build an additional building um by the community center and also again make some security
changes and updates to this facility. That was back in 2023 and 2024 is my understanding um during some of the time that Rowan Watkins our MIS director was the interim administrator. So he's here as well to walk through this agenda
item. After that, when I started in my role, um this board suggested that we dust off that prior study and look at it again because we had made some changes to this courthouse. We put some space in the uh basement, remodeled some space,
so we had additional space for staff, and with some changes that have happened at PHS, we no longer believe that we will have the increases to staffing that we did at the time that that study was done. So, a few months ago, I brought forward a proposal from BKV and
Architect Advantage to dust off that study and to look at it again and make some changes. In discussion with them and with some of the individuals on our team, Brooke, Rowan, Brady, and myself, and with some of our commissioners,
um we met with them several times and talked about the needs for this for the courthouse. Um, so let me just look at my notes here and make sure I'm not missing anything. Um, so based on that, we decided that we thought there was a better approach and
that approach is looking at this space to see if we can continue to house everyone within the courthouse, not build an additional building, but instead remodel this space to fit everyone. We also um met with the court. We met with the judge and some of um
district administrative team to look at what was in that prior study and upon review determined that we didn't need as much space as what was previously believed to be needed. Some of that is because court hearings have been changed to a lot of hearings are now
presumptively remote and so they're not in person and so the judge and the judge team are not here as often. Um, we also didn't believe we needed, for an example, two holding cells, but instead moving to one holding cell. So, we were able to make some changes to that prior
study. So, with those changes and those shifts, um, Architect Advantage came back with an updated um, look at at what it would cost to do a complete remodel of this building. Um, and so that's what you have attached
in your packet is the proposal for professional services to look at can we remodel this court courthouse um and not move forward with asking for an additional building. Um the other piece that we also need to consider is the deferred maintenance for the
courthouse. And so keeping that in mind too, we asked for the proposal um to see what it would what the cost would be. So, um, the cost, let me scroll down to the total cost is $47,500.
And with that, um, they will take the information that they've collected through the previous meetings that they've had with staff and with our commissioners. Um and then they will come on site and we will host a workshop where we meet with all of the department
directors um to hear about their operational needs and their their their wants and their needs for their court space or their building space. And so we would have six different teams. Um and we're looking at perhaps if this is
approved today moving forward with this on June 8th. Um and then from that the information they will put together an updated plan for us. Uh we would have them come before this board to provide a project update sometime in July or
August and then we would hold a final workshop to finalize the diagrams for pricing. So our final deliverable would be the final feasibility study and that we're hoping to get completed sometime around
September or October. So it's a it's a significant shift to what I had previously brought forward to all of you. Um the team including myself that has been working on this believe that this is the right approach to not
look at building an additional building but to see if we can um have our needs met within this current space. Uh with that there's a second piece um attached to your documents which is uh Brooke will have to explain this a little bit
more but it's a CD scan of the building to help them with the study um to make sure that at they're looking at the integrity of the space while they move forward with the study. So that is an estimated total of $13,910.
So, I'll pause there if that's okay, Madame Chair, and ask if Brooke or Rowan have anything to add. Is that all right, Madam Chair? >> Okay, I'll I'll start, Rowan. Um, I just
wanted to touch base on the LiDAR scan for the the 13,910. That was a request by BKV and it's a new style scan where they scan every single room and then they can get ex they can pull exact dimensions off of it. You
know where light switches are, window dimensions and it'll save us thousands of dollars from them sending architectural texts up and doing it the oldfashioned way with tape measures and everything like that. So that's the new kind of the new way they're doing is with the LAR scan. and we found a a
small company out of uh Superior, Wisconsin. And I had a I had both BKV and CRBPS um both engineering firms we've been kind of working with look at the estimate and both of them said it was very well priced and would save us thousands of dollars upon having them
come up and do the the measurements themselves. >> I guess I just reemphasized the the why, right? We administrator Treble mentioned the deferred maintenance that we have at this building. And so when you have that amount of work that needs to be done
within a facility, having the conversation about are there additional security needs that need to be met that haven't been met previously, are there space needs, improvements that should be met while we have that kind of disruption and are making that kind of investment in in this facility? And I
think that really what informs a lot of the conversations that Brooke and I and administrator Treble have had about the layout of this building and whether or not, you know, we have the ability to to house people here. And of course, the costs. I mean, when we're looking at
proposals for additional county buildings, um the upfront and the long-term costs are something that really stand out. uh as part of our 27 budgeting process that we're in right now, we're going to be looking at adding
the infrastructure just on the IT side for the changes that we made to this building for the basement and significant changes in our budgeting for the expansion of the law enforcement center. And you know, those are ongoing costs that we're going to have in place
because of added building capacity. And so when you're and and I know Brooke thinks the same way about maintenance and maintaining buildings. And so when you're looking at the potential of um another county building, a large county building, if there's a way to meet those
security and space needs within this facility while uh addressing deferred maintenance that needs to be done anyways, um that's something that made a lot of sense to to me. Anyway, >> Madam Chair, if I might just add one more item, which is the security needs
are significant in this building. Um, we are not up to best practices and standards in a lot of ways. And so those are issues that we need to address regardless of this study. So, it's the deferred maintenance, it's the security needs. Um, like Rowan mentioned, the
more buildings we have, the more cost there is for the county. And so if we can contain staff within this space and remodel it, I think long term, it's going to be a much more fiscally responsible option for us.
>> Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I I appreciate the the background information on this. I a question that uh maybe has been considered. Certainly we've looked at different things and
this has been bouncing back and forth. Um and out of respect and appreciation for administrator treble coming in and trying to get a handle on this is that um let's just say that that we say yeah this seems to be the right solution uh
to our personnel needs and the safety needs and other issues. Um, and so we do it and then a year later we're saying, "Oh my goodness, we really do need a new building and we've invested all that money in it." I am not I'm not one to
propose that that is what we should do is build a new building. But I I do say in the process of evaluating we need to be sure that what informs this direction is
um thought into context beyond just the the the immediate. I would say that and I'm I'm not I'm only bringing it up from the public standpoint that our decision we've looked at this and it is well informed and we believe with what we
know right now and what we project for the future this is a solution that demonstrates meeting need and fiscal responsibility. >> Yeah, if I may respond, Madam Chair, and thank you Commissioner Gamble. That's why we are conducting or hoping
to conduct the workshop because I don't have all the answers. Um, and I don't um I don't pretend to. I want to make sure that we're really collecting data and information from the directors on what the current needs are and what the
future needs are for their teams. And then from that information, we'll get recommendations from the architects. So, if they say based on the information that we've collected from everyone, this is only going to meet your county's needs for the next 10 years um or 15
years, then that's not a viable option for us. Um in the preliminary discussions that we've had with them, they do believe that this is likely the right approach. Um but that's why we go through this process of really collecting data to verify
>> before we would bring it forward to you. continue. >> Thank you. And as to the uh coming in and and doing the work that we're going to pay 139 for >> that uh it it it's a cost-saving measure
and it it becomes more of a finite element of the process that defines space accurately. So it is that's that's well worth it. Um, and as we go through this over years of time in in
experience, we find there's new ways of doing this that is more efficient, more exacting, and it cuts cost. So, that's a a good element. The one question I would have is that um, so the 47,500 for the study in the 139 that comes out
to 61,410. Where is that coming from? >> I would envision it coming from the building fund. Okay. And um so the other thing that would be an interesting thing although it's work is
when we've looked at the deferred maintenance on this building it would be nice to know what that number projected is not inflated but projected on what we were looking and I know that we were deferring some of these things because
of budgetary issues but they still exist and and so just knowing that number would be helpful too. So when we come out with our recommendation moving forward, we say we would had to pay this anyway. Now we're addressing both need
for space security issues and modernization and all of those things. So it ends up being more of a win-winwin as opposed to Yeah. >> Yep. And and if we go this route, it will it'll we'll go through the study and if the space works out and
everything, we want to move forward with it. Then we'll send it off to the engineers that will then re-engineer all of our HVAC and plumbing and electrical. And that will be an additional cost to get the engineers involved. And then that's when we will incorporate our
deferred maintenance list that is currently sits at, you know, $9 million for this building. >> Yeah. and see what kind of cost savings we can get with incorporating it in into the uh the remodel.
And the other the other thing would be it's it's a lot of stuff but if it's synthesized that from the standpoint of the public being able to understand you know >> y >> this moving component um looking at what we would invest in
building a new building and we'd looked at expanding the community center. We looked at, you know, when the transportation if that changes over that down there, you know, recycling, how that would be. And so, um, you just want to come out with the end of saying, boy,
they did a really good job of walking through this and, um, and making a fiscally responsible decision. So, how much do we have in the building fund? >> Do you know? >> I thought you might ask. 1,435. >> All right.
Thank you. Madam Chair, one one more thing that I should mention is when we met with um the six district court staff, um we did find out that they were successful in um
in getting some funding from the legislature for security improvements to court facilities. So, we've already mentioned we would like to be on the list to make sure that we're notified when those grant opportunities arise so that we can apply for some funding. It's it's not a s in terms of a building
project. It's not a significant source of funding, but it is something. So, we are looking at, you know, what what options do we have for resources as we move forward? >> Good. >> Okay.
Any other thoughts? >> I lost Commissioner Gamble. >> Do we want this as uh one motion to approve both elements? >> Yep. Yes, please. >> Yeah. I would I would make that motion and uh look forward to the discussions
uh that we have with our departments to make sure that uh the direction we go reflects their input. So >> for sure. >> So move uh to make a motion to approve the 47,500
and the 13910 for the scanning. >> Mr. Sullivan >> support. We have a motion and a second. Any further questions or comments? >> I remember the comment. I appreciate the fact that you that you put out put
forward that when the engineers are become involved that there will be an additional cost. So we have a heads up that that we're not being >> there will not be a perception of being scammed. >> Right. Right. And I will again just reiterate that in the times that I
interacted with the BKV group, I don't get any uh shady feelings from them at all. So I think we're in good hands. >> Okay. Commissioner G. >> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Brady, what funds our building fund?
>> The number number 12. >> What funds it? Yeah. >> Oh, what funds it? Uh the levy. >> The the levy. Yeah, we've built that up over the years. Um, >> okay. >> We started putting some funds aside. We called them uh capital improvement plan, but we were spending them down.
>> Uh, I'm talking a few years ago. >> Yeah. >> That that we we gave up at that moment calling it the capital improvement plan for the future because we were spending it. But now we've taken care of a lot of those problems that were coming up year after year after year. So, we may be
maybe this is the year we start a a long-term capital improvement fund. >> Okay. >> And is there policy that informs that contribution as it relates to the levy? >> Uh you mean in the past? Yeah. That
there was there's anticipated costs and then there's been we we've lined it up. We've called it capital improvement plan, but we couldn't we couldn't sustain it. But I think now we probably can't. So you're going to see that as a
line item and uh and you'll see it as probably a separate fund unless unless enough things come up like this that we start emptying it again. >> Um which was happening year after year. >> It it just be interesting to see how how
we fund that. I mean, we've talked in some cases about funding if we develop a policy that's a percentage of whatever or not, which can >> get you in trouble when you commit to a percentage. But I I think there needs to be the discipline of contribution. Yeah.
And you know, in in my past experience in a not for-profit organization, because you don't file taxes, you don't have a depreciation line item, but you still need to treat your budget with the understanding you got to replace the capital.
>> Yeah. Where that would come from would be our long-term financial plan. And we started that, we've done that a couple of times with Ellers. And you kind of got to get to some stability to have that be something you can really look at
and count on. But our our plans have changed dramatically over the years. >> So it's just it's never come to a anything that's stable enough to say this is what we need each year. We've started throwing >> a couple hundred thousand a year towards
it and uh and it's and we've cut back. So like this year I think it was uh 200,000 total. We just called it building fund >> uh for 2026, >> but I think we'll separate it again for 2027. At least start building up that
fund, but we're not really going to know until um have a good idea of what what are long-term buildings. >> Yeah. >> Um you know, until we get farther down on that plan and have a better sense of that. >> Yeah. >> It isn't like, you know, all the
equipment you need for highway and then it's just planning it out. We don't know a lot of that. >> It'd be interesting. >> And we don't know the source and sorry the like the revenue source that we've been counting on for a number of years with some of these larger plans was the 1% sales tax. >> Yeah.
>> Um because of the way that was written, we could continue to generate those funds and save them and use them and that was a big part of our uh capital improvement plan. Um but depending on what we do here, what we do at the courthouse, you may actually have other
uses for that. And so it's another huge part of that plan that's kind of in flux. >> Yeah. >> And I think that it'd be it'd be important to for us to have that discussion to look at in that big context to say what are the funding mechanisms because it's a reality. But
the more that we can be creative and and not make it totally levy dependent or it would be beneficial. But we should understand that and maybe understand from, you know, other other counties how they approach that so that we can
>> define that more clearly for us moving forward. But yeah, I appreciate the discussion. >> Trouble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Commissioner Gamble. And that just to add to what Brady has has already stated is we have had some preliminary discussions about that 1% sales tax and
could that perhaps be used for this and might require legislative change um given the language for that. But those are things that we're we're looking into as we move forward as well. >> Yeah. And and Madam Chair and I I think that the legislature would be open to
that because it's nothing that they have to come up with money for. They're just allowing us. >> So, I I do believe that that is a a good strategy, but >> because they like to say yes to something, >> right?
>> We'll see when the new ones arrive. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Anything else on this? Otherwise, thank you. We >> We need a motion. Oh, sorry. >> Thank you. We'll have a motion. >> We have a motion.
>> We need a motion. We have a motion and a second. So we just need that. >> Okay. Any further questions? No. >> All in favor? >> I oppose. Same sign. Motion passed unanimously. There you go. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Continue. All right. Thank you, Madam
Chair. And speaking of the legislature for my update, I wanted to um ensure that all of you are aware as well as anyone who is uh listening from the community that we had a pretty successful legislative session. we were able to secure $1 million for the
Gunflint Trail Transportation Project. Um, and so we're excited about that and now really focused on our federal funding as we move forward. Um, the city of Grand Marray was able to secure 1.9 million for the wastewater treatment
facility. So, it wasn't their full ask, but they were successful in securing some funds. So, that's a that's great news for us as a county and for them um at the city. And then um AMC, the Association of Minnesota Counties, has been pushing um forward or was pushing
forward several different um policy changes and they sent us an update and we've talked about several of them during this meeting during these meetings in the past, but one of them is the technology system modernization for our public health and human services.
and an uh $90 million total package was approved to be spread over uh the bienium with ongoing appropriations. So that's a big win uh for the state in terms of public health and human services. They also created a health and human services systems modernization
fund which will focus on the short and long term including a mechanism to use surplus dollars to return new dollars to the fund. They also created a human service advisory council with AMC, the association of Minnesota counties and um
MAXA which is the Minnesota association of county social service administrators as members and a legislative commission on modernization with the requirement for many agencies to consult the advisory council prior to spending
funds. So in this area this has been such a big need for public health and human services. It's a big win for us. Um they also approved uh $10 million approximately $10 million for counties in a new one-time administrative fund to
offset the SNAP administrative requirements under HR1. Um and there are a couple other um items that were moved forward to assist in the health and human services area as well. Uh they were not successful in all of their asks
but did make significant progress this year. So, wanted to make sure that you were all aware of that. And then, uh, just to provide a really quick update on our building projects, the Grand Marray transfer station, we're hoping to complete that project the end of June or
beginning of July. Um, so that continues to move forward very nicely and we are working on a date for a ribbon cutting. So, I hope to get that to you. Were uh reaching out with Senator to Senator Hoschild and Representative Scraba to see if they can attend as well. So once we have dates from them, I'll move
forward with getting a date for all of you. And then the law enforcement center work continues to go very smoothly. The sheetrock is going up. So that's a exciting uh very exciting next step for that facility. Uh no concerns whatsoever with our building projects. Again,
everything is moving forward very nicely. >> That's it for today. >> I recommend it not be a ribbon cutting, but a garbage bag cutting. something good idea >> thematic. >> It'd be novel.
>> Thank you, Administrator Treble. We can move on to commissioner reports, meetings, updates. >> Commissioner White, do you have >> We did the legal training. >> U Commissioner Sullivan and um Commissioner Gamble were there
>> and Commissioner Mills >> and Commissioner Mills and um that was helpful. That was good. A little tedious, but yeah, that was the biggie for me for that last time. Everyone went someplace
for summer. I don't know where. >> Yeah. Okay. Commissioner Gamble. >> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just I have a request. I' I'd like to suggest that the EDA attend our June 9th board meeting with an update on the sale of the golf course use of loan funds to
date and any update on the Gunflint View lean loan payment. I think u in in making the loan that it's it's just good to have that follow through and that update. So, we're following that.
Commissioner Gamble, did you want to talk about the HA meeting? >> That's right. You >> all right? >> I used up my words today. >> So, um, at the H meeting, um, they discussed the budgeting for 2027,
talked about, um, costs for Red Path to do their audit, and, um, just the need for the housing trust fund, um, and what a difference that can potentially make for Cook County. We had a Cook County Coalition of Lake Association meeting
and there was a discussion um Patty Kratic Lev led regarding water sampling and how they're working with soil and water. There's not the resources in soil and water to do what they've done previously, but there's a lot of training on individual lakes um to do
the monitoring and then bring them here for pickup. So a common pickup site and then they had breakout groups related to water quality, AIS mitigation, um get the lead out and surface water uh uses.
Then we had our Cook County Historical Society meeting last week and one of the concerns um which uh director Brooke Lassard was um made aware of as additional issues with shingles blowing off when we have some of these really
high winds. um they have continued to have issues and they're really concerned about some of their collections and potential water damage. So, I know he's on top of that and is working um with Rhino Roofing and with GAF, who was the
manufacturer of the shingles um to try to come to a conclusion on that. And then we had our airport advisory commission last week. Um, we got an update from the Minnesota airports conference and we had talked a little bit about the FAA had planned nationwide
to remove all the RCOs, which are those little remote communications buildings by rural airports and they said they were going to discontinue all of them and the Mandoterics went to bat for us and all other rural airports. They will
not be eliminating them in rural Minnesota. Um, we also talked about our upcoming budget and CIP and so our engineers will be working with Brady and with Brooke on June 5th, spending a whole day potentially together to kind of hammer
out that um, budget and CIP. And then lastly, we talked a little bit about the potential of solar panels at the airport. This was brought up four or five years ago by Arrowhead Electric, but we are seeing that as airports are remodeling that um solar panels are
being put in sometimes over parking areas, sometimes on hillsides. Um so we'll probably um go back to Arrowhead Electric and talk again about what is the potential, what are their needs for the future. might the airport property
be able to be helpful in meeting our energy needs? And then to also see how that incorporates into our um master plan for the airport because we do know we're going to need a lot of um electric battery storage and potentially could
operate the um airport off of solar panels. So, we'll see where that discussion goes. and then um had an opportunity to to uh tour the transfer station and look at all the work that's being done there and
just really excited for the ribbon cutting and this is going to be so good for our community. I'm just thrilled at the work. And lastly, um, today, if you're up the Gunflint Trail and you see a lot of emergency vehicles, it is the Gunflint Trail Volunteer Fire Department
annual mock evacuation, and they'll be evacuating um, homes and cabins in the Lon Lake and Round Lake area. Um, I'll be up there at five o'clock at uh the fireh hall number two to look at the initial work that's being done and then
listen to kind of the um feedback that's given once everybody returns. But it's a good time of year to remind property owners and cabin owners who are returning um that this is an important activity. Um they need to be prepared.
So with that, that's all I have. >> Thank you. Um last week I attended uh as I have the arrowhead um county meeting. We meet from September through May and one of the decisions we made was that um John
Angaro is retiring as our lobbyist >> and so we aren't going to go forth with any other lobbyist other than if there's an individual issue. Um, a couple of the, uh, board members know of some people who would do a part-time one
issue lobbying for us. So, that's the route we're going to go now. >> And so, we'll save lobbying fees. It's about 2,000 a month. So, we'll be saving that money. >> And, um, you know, just going forth um, like we discussed, there'll probably be several new senators and representatives
that will need to be up to speed. hopefully not in our district. Uh but we'll need to be up to speed with what's going on in northern Minnesota. So that's where we are with that. Um Saturday I attended the Caribou Lake Association meeting and um they are just
so diligent in trying to get rid of the rusty crayfish. They'll probably never get rid of it, but um they're doing a lot of uh individual projects with their netting baskets going down by the end of the dock. You bring those up and then
how do you what do you do with those after that? Well, you put them in a bag, put them in a freezer for three days and that kills the rusty gray fish. So, or you have a feast. Either way, you know, I've never tasted one. I don't know. I
assume I assume that they are um deep fried and they taste crunchy and you don't even know you're eating a bug maybe. Um and then they also had some discussions about evacuation, you know, uh for folks that
live up there and uh some firewise um discussions. So I thought maybe later on their next meeting is Labor Day weekend and maybe I can have more information just for them to um be um aware and and
kind of reassured that they'll be taken care of. We have plans in the county. Emergency management always had plans, just that they kind of felt left out because they didn't know what they were. So, >> we'll go we'll go over that in Labor Day weekend. >> Okay. Yes.
>> And we get a count on how many cray rusty crayfish that's that they gathered this year. M last year when they brought in the professional company to do that, they took out 1,300 lb of crayfish
>> and individually um he really didn't have any specific number because everybody around the lake is you know doing it. But >> yeah, that's a lot. And you know, one fellow is doing some research on lobster. How do you keep lobster from going where they shouldn't be going,
like out in Maine and northeastern part of United States? And it's a sound thing, acoustical sound that keeps them from keeping on their journey. >> So, he's talking to the DNR about that because you can't put a concrete barrier
at Bisby Creek and you can't put screens and all of that, but sound >> and the apparatus would have whatever this decimal sound is. um the actual piece would be on land. Then there would be something going into this little
creek. It's not very wide. >> And um so he's pursuing that. And you know, I don't know if rusty crayfish have ears or if they only go by the tentacles or whatever it is, but uh maybe by the September meeting we'll
have a better report on it. But you know, you do what you can do in terms of people cooperating on getting rid of as much as you can. >> Commissioner Gamble. >> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. I I hear that washing gravels tend to deter the
proliferation of rusty crabs. >> Yeah. So, next we'll hear about that. >> That's another good thing we didn't note. The other thing I'd say John Anger who you know has been serving the the RC for years, he's the administrator for the Northern Counties coalition. So I
think you know he still has that as >> has that on his on his plate. Um, and the other thing relative to solar panels, if and I'm sure many people have, if you've been up to the Thunder Bay airport, they >> they significantly have a lot of solar
panels that that they use. But and I can remember years ago when ARC, the Arrowhead Regional Corrections, was looking at using solar panels, and I recommend they talk to the people in Thunder Bay because they definitely have a field of them. But, uh, yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. The other thing that that we may or may not be aware of is that there was a proposal in the state to bring some of the accountability and the the u under the uh public health and human services
uh into the state and uh I don't think that there's an appetite for it but I think there's a just an awareness of that as we're looking at it and and how we would see that. I think it's like governance at the local level is the best thing. There are many things that
we would like um state or federal governments to do on our behalf. But uh I think that the accountability and the services rendered are best at the local level and and not trying to bring them in in house like that. But if
you want to allocate those dollars to the counties who do a better job, I would recommend that. So, >> with our upcoming meetings to note, our next um board of commissioner regular meeting is Tuesday, June 9th at 8:30.
And then we have a correspondence memo from the HR board on staffing changes. We have um by the month here we have a couple of new hires, Margaret Martin and land service specialists um which was started uh in um April. Then we have
Christian Wisenki in planning and zoning administrator. Uh she'll start um in uh June. I believe probably it's June 12 one there. >> June 1st. >> And then we have seasonal temporary hires just for the summer. So the AIS
watercraft inspectors are going to be out there working. Wy Thompson, Leroy Johnson, Nina Mccclure, and Sheay Johnson. Also, we have mowers, uh, Aaron Peterson and Brian Gallagher and a highway shop intern, Kaia Ericson. And
then we also do have a resignation from behavioral health services uh, clinical manager Sarah Dzwick uh, which was effective 511. And there be no other business, we are adjourned. So, we're meeting here at