thank you uh good morning everyone i'd like to call this uh regular meeting of the Cook County Board of Commissioners to order on this Tuesday April 22nd at 8:30 a.m please rise for the pledge of allegiance 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 today
hearing or seeing none oh I would like to um say since we have a uh public hearing at 9 Mhm if we could maybe uh move uh item let's see what is that item number
seven seven in there um into that space because it's a short item yeah okay that sounds great we'll move item seven up before item four anything else Commissioner Gamble mr chair I'd make a motion to approve
the agenda as amended thank you Commissioner Gamble we have support thank you Commissioner Sullivan motion support any further discussion hearing or seeing none all those in favor i opposed motion passes unanimously thank you
um let's move on to uh public comment period this is an opportunity from uh anyone in the public wishing to speak before the board please address the board and uh we generally keep um comments limited to 5 minutes is there
anyone who would like to make public comment this morning and please just um sign in and Yeah well as I'm signing in um I will state my name amy Jane
Wolfford Cook County uh resident since 1989 Forest Service employee for 34 years um and I live on the old ski hill property i built a place there in um 1994 i bought land in 1994 and
eventually built my home there small home um moved in in 2000 it was a stairstep process and I worked very hard on it um but the reason I'm here is I've been involved with the old ski hill
property since 1997 um I've heard different discussions on it there have been different people on the board etc etc and um I'm here because um I'm real concerned
about the uh the John Chief property and um the development uh that could go on if if you uh allow him access on the old ski hill road um now I don't want you to think that it's I'm thinking nimi not in
my backyard i'm not um I'm a natural resource sources biologist at heart i know about water resources i know about um you know erosion control and I and I also recognize that he needs access to his property but there was also a
discussion on giving him trading him and that hasn't happened and I'm just scratching my head as to why that hasn't happened yet if indeed that's what the board wants to do um and then taking it a step further I um am and a nature
lover i do hug my trees but um that you you've got a gem there on that hillside in this county and I grew up in southern Minnesota where as you know it's been denuted because of farmland
for various reasons i understand that it's a toxic environment down there and when I talk to my friends and family when I go to southern Minnesota New Alm to be exact they just love Grand Marray and it's not because of the Boundary Waters they love the town and looking up
at that hillside now I'm probably getting a little um carried away with that comment but you have a real gem with that hillside and there was a scar that was left on that hillside from Matt Garrett Schlagger and I know Matt very well and
I don't want to see any more scars on that hillside and I recognize the importance of increasing the tax base in this county but you've got to also recognize that we have limited land to develop and um we're never going to get
to where we want to get in this county that's the way I see it as far as paying for everything um I'm kind of rambling right now but um I was hoping some of my uh friends were going to support me today but I was told that this was a silent meeting that I I
mean not so much silent but like I couldn't comment so I'm not really that prepared but anyway that's where I'm at right now so I'll be quiet now and write down my phone number here so well thank you anyway thank you for letting me comment so thank you Amy
is there anyone else who would like to make public comment this morning then I'll close public comment and uh we'll move on to the consent agenda is there any uh which includes our claims minutes uh resignation of
Alex Esser um approve voluntary transfer of Alyssa Shusherba to the highway clerk appointment Pete Mott to the revolving loaden fund committee is there any item a commissioner would like to pull to discuss further then is there a motion to approve the
consent i'll move thank you Commissioner White we have a motion is there support support thank you Commissioner Seldon motion in support any further discussion there hearing or seeing none all those in favor i I opposed motion passes unanimously thank you
so that moves us on to item seven which is actually 3.5 uh MIS we have uh approval to purchase a server good morning morning morning
per policy uh capital purchases over $5,000 uh come back for the board even when they're approved in the budget and this is the case here with this one so this is a regular replacement of a Dell server and it is been budgeted for and
the requesting purchase price is 5,950 so just over 67 and it is in addition to regular replacement the regular replacement schedule that we have for servers uh we rotate them every 5 years
five year life cycle um it moves us forward in our server consolidation process and so through moving virtual machines off of other ones and putting them onto this server just moving data around from different servers um this will actually
be taking the place of two servers and so the total number of servers that we'll be budgeting for uh will go down again this year and that trend continues year-over-year as we push more things to the cloud we still have a need for um
on-prem data and this is just a continuation of both the regular replacement schedule but also the trend towards server consolidation and reducing the the total number of servers that we have here on prem in the county that's pretty much it i'd stand
for questions if there are any thank you any questions for Ron commissioner Gimple thank you Mr chair rowan I'm I'm sort of amazed you couldn't find a provider that you could negotiate that price below the 5,000 so
you wouldn't be subject to the board well our uh our budgeted price for servers has been uh 5,800 a year um per unit five servers so we're allocating that much money every year on
a five-year rotation and as you can see it's uh it's held pretty accurate the quote that we got from Dell is still only you know roughly $150 over and with Dell I mean it's kind of the the specs that we need and the
unit that we want and so you know within $150 of the of the budgeted prices Dell's a pretty big company to nickel and dime with for an individual server mr chair I make a motion to approve the purchase of the Dell Power Edge server
at the quoted price of $5,9507 thank you Commissioner Campbell there's a motion is there support i'll second that motion thank you Commissioner Svin motion and support any further discussion there appreciate the continued uh consolidation and efficiencies and and
the good work you do thank you uh all those in favor i opposed motion passes unanimously thank you um if you want to state it for just a sec I think um Sure commissioner Gamble was Yeah we couldn't let you go
uh get away uh without recognizing your service so if you kindly step forward here we'd like to say thank you oh boy trying to catch you unawares but uh you did uhoh
so I was in on it yeah uh we've had uh conversations about kind of the geese just for the public and those that are attending here and and there's a lot of things that we we learn from nature and and uh and so u given
those conversations and given the significance of um the characteristics of what nature teaches us and what we can learn and how we serve people um we'd like to recognize your service um
presented to Rowan Watkins April 22nd 2025 with deep appreciation for service above and beyond the call of the wild cook County Minnesota intern county administrator October 2024 through March
2025 thank you for your leadership you have done more than lead you have inspired and in that context of Canada geese the metaphor should a Canada goose become
injured and fall from the formation there are those who will drop back to assist demonstrating their strong commitment and willingness to help in time of need and Rowan if you'd like to come
and rip actually you can just take that corner over there i think lift your paper up like to present you with this in recognition and then also over there on
the corner there is a card for staff for your appreciation thank you very much thank you very much Rowan appreciate it very much appreciate it in the back here is a uh a sleeve that has information about the artist he
lived to be 100 years old recognized for his artwork especially when it came to birds and waterfall he's an artist that grew up in Iowa he's been recognized uh uh for many many things over the years
and um uh certainly um his his story is a story that's in inspiring as well so the history of of the painting this is a limited edition signed uh painting that was done by him
and watercolor and then there's the copy of the recognition that's back there as well so thank you very much thank you everyone thank you thank you Rowan thank you thank you so you're welcome
thank you thank you beautiful thank you very much thanks it's beautiful that's a nice painting so thank you Commissioner Gamble that was very touching and very appropriate and much appreciated yeah thank you appreciate everybody's expression and
participation in in that well even with the adjustment to the agenda we still have um solid 15 minutes here before a public hearing the highway should we highway okay uh let's let's
move on to the highway department it's jumping to item six on our agenda first one is 6A authorization to purchase replacement compact track loader good morning morning morning we'll go
fast well 15 minutes we got a lot uh actually I'll let Matt talk about uh the skid steer yeah so everyone's u familiar with our replacement schedule uh next on the list is a compact track loader um we had budgeted $114,000
uh to replace it uh quote came in at $111,000 uh it's on a 15-year replacement schedule so u it's due for replacement now and uh yeah entertain any questions about this purchase or the replacement schedule in general any questions
commissioner Gamble yeah thank you Mr chair so my only question is in looking at it and just helping us to under understand when you look at the deluxe cab the deluxe cab and what that includes price comparison to the basic
cab yeah um certain certain items uh are fairly I mean part of it's just marketing um but for heavy machinery in particular it's not like you have a thousand different options uh this is just pretty standard options on on this
particular machine okay thank you any other questions any motions i'll make the motion to approve the uh skid steer thank you Commissioner White we have a motion is there support support thank you Commissioner Sullivan
motion and support any further discussion hearing or seeing none all those in favor i I opposed motion passes unanimously thank you on to item B is calcium chloride yeah uh so this is one
of our annual contracts we have for calcium chloride uh this will be the second year first year officially but second year that we've really been more diligent about establishing what roads we put them on uh so if you remember we have a calcium chloride policy now and that's what we follow uh the costs with
that particular material you know we're escalating to a point where we just couldn't keep up with it to do all of our roads uh and so that's where we started to scale back and so the low bidder on this one was Envir um our budget was 200,000 so you can see we're coming in what is that
$125 under budget which is great uh so does anybody have any questions about that commissioner Sullivan what are you going to do with that $125 i don't know treat another 10 feet mr chair I'd like to make a motion to
award the contract to Environ Services LLC for $199,875 for the application of $125,000 gallons of liquid calcium chloride on county roads thank you Commissioner Sullivan we have a motion as their support support thank you Commissioner
Gamble motion and support any further discussion please maybe um in our phone conversation yesterday it'd be beneficial for the public to understand how that's actually applied in other words what we do and what we get for
that amount of money sure uh so you know we can double check the policy but that determines which roads and so we look at traffic count road geometry that type of stuff uh as far as how it gets applied if you can all picture a big tinkerer truck basically the bigger the better in your mind and that has a sprayer on the
back basically so it's got a bunch of nozzles on the back and that just slowly drives down a road and that applies the solution to the road um in a perfect world we would get out there and grade the road uh which we try and do on most of our roads spray it and then we'd actually come back and keep turning that
over a few times um so we do our best with that we're not able to do it a lot but what we do is at least put a cap on there and so that helps not only with the road stability but also you know keeps the dust down a lot of people think of this as dust control uh which is one small part of it so just big
tanker truck spare on the back we also have one of our staff follow that truck to you know um change the application rate if we need to depending on what road we're on adjust the width as well right yeah so you know maybe if it's a
less busy road that width narrows down so we know we kind of hit the middle of the road if it's a busier road you know it might widen out a bit and obviously this is only on gravel roads and a reminder too that it's not just dust control it also holds the road together so as roads um get more and more traffic
uh calcium chloride actually keeps the road a more solid um road yeah and Mr chair as a followup to that just that for the public that we're not just buying a product we're buying the
application and if we were to try to purchase the equipment to do that it would it wouldn't make sense at all so when we look at that figure it's it's a service that's provided that we monitor and that's what's included in that cost right yeah we Yeah we do not have the
equipment uh to to to do that so we could incorporate it into the plan if you guys would like us to uh but I'm imagining No yeah thank you good imagination yeah any other
questions any motions i already made the motion i'm sorry thank you for keeping me on that was further discussion uh all those in favor I I opposed casses unanimously uh thank you
moving on to uh 6C is the aggregate stockpile wonderful so this is our gravel crushing contract and so this year it was Luch Dickinson's our budget for this was $150,000 and so this came in at $144,000 so under budget again which is
great um we'll be crushing 18,000 cubic yards of class one and I believe this year it's West End and East End correct yep irish Creek Pit up off the Airhead trail and then Dog Tired Pit off the Stville Trail right uh so any questions
looks like not any motions this time well I'll make a motion to approve to award the contract to Lewis Roo in Suns for 144,000 for crushing 18,000 cubic
yards thank you Commissioner White is there support support thank you Commissioner Campbell any further discussion hearing or seeing none all those in favor i I opposed motion passes unanimously there
as well commissioner please uh just this is a question that was asked by me of me and I said uh you should get the answer from the engineer and so I'm going to ask you now okay is sand nothing more than ground up little stones in the
simplest of terms yes but we can have a bigger conversation about sand if you want maybe another time so the so the question was why don't we just grind up our stones ah uh it's more complicated than that this the simple Short answer I think for now is
there's sand in the county it's just dirty and and opening a wash plant is incredibly expensive there's the short answer good enough thank you you're welcome thank you everybody thank you still Yeah geez Louise are still ahead
here um let's see uh that looks small there maybe let's uh let's see how far uh let's jump i'm sorry
oh okay um if it's all right with the board I'd like to hit item 5D that's the auditor budget calendar that it's possible that that's a longer discussion oh okay well I'll take it
back then um it's up to the board but you've been reading my mind yeah yeah well then we'll we'll we'll we'll not tackle that right now uh we'll move on to um what's a short one here possibly
human services if if Allison um is available it sounds like she might be on her way or maybe just available um otherwise all the other discussion items vehicles look that could be sure should we shoot for that brooke would
you like that's going to be a long That's going to be long oh psych sorry that's going to be a long one i'll let Brook get by that quick how about if we take a break well Ellison's on her way and um it's about a one minute walk so this is where we should have that that
background the Jeopardy music hi Alison thank you come on up yeah yeah come on down so um watching upstairs and I'm like I could be quick hopefully if you want to come down well apologies for the disjointed meeting here um for
everyone's awareness uh we're on item 11 human resources and there's just one item the approval of job description and job grade updates take it away please good morning i kind of ran down the stairs i'll take a breath i know there's like
the like the little lag um good morning um so we continue our we're almost done almost done with our job description review process so um out of the four remaining positions uh to review two of them um are bringing brought forth to
you today so the two positions that have gone through the whole process and we have some recommended changes include the executive administrative assistant um this would be the executive administrative assistant for the administrator's office there's also a similarly named role for public health
human services uh this position uh includes an updated job description and a recommended change in job grade from a 140 to a 160 uh the other position includes uh our sheriff's technician position over
in the sheriff's department so I'll give a little more background on this one so the changes for this one include uh updated job description uh but actually we're creating um instead of revising one job description which is currently
the kind of the structure of the sheriff's technician is we're actually creating a career ladder and we're going to split kind of the one position into a one and a two and this is at the re recommendation of DDA um and also supported by our sheriff's department
and our sheriff Pat Elias um so we currently have two individuals filling the role of a sheriff's technician with um he was approved on the consent agenda with one of them um eventually transitioning out and we'll have to recruit so given the years of experience
with the current incumbents and the tasks and functions that they're able to accomplish and do that is only because they've been in that role for several years now we're going to have to recruit for that position i'll post it later um if we approve the job description if we
recruit and bring someone into that position most often we're not going to find someone that's going to be able to actually complete all of the duties of say a normal sheriff's technician based on what our current staff are able to do so by creating a one and a two the two
can reflect the current capabilities experience that have accumulated with the current staff but we would bring in recruit most likely fill a one position so they don't have many of the same level of responsibilities level of authority um but they would learn and
eventually can can transition to that two position so that seemed like a very appropriate move for this position so we're creating a sheriff's technician 1 and two both job descriptions are uh included the sheriff's technician one
would remain where it's currently graded at a 160 and given the the higher level of duties with a sheriff's technician 2 that grade would move from a 160 to a 170 all right yeah please and just for the
listening public could you just do a brief what what does a a sheriff's technician do just just like No no just two or three of the little things that they do do they bring the coffee in the morning do they start the car for the sheriff do
they Yeah I don't believe they do any of that at least that's not incorporated into their job description um so they do So they do I'm going to look at the job descriptions too um so they do a lot of
the administrative background um work and processing for the department um so they do work with citations search warrants um reporting uh uh excuse me processing recording civil process
papers so I think they work closely with you know all the processes that eventually feed into the work that the attorney's office does um you know they assist the deputies the investigator and all of their uh work they do um help
resolve uh set up technical features software programs that they have to maintain um they do work with uh permit to carry uh permit to acquire and transfer firearm applications and permits uh various agencies in terms of
record searches um evidencekeeping um so they do they do a lot of um there's a lot of work it's pretty complex from what I understand and it's a very unique position so when we have
uh DDA reviewing the descriptions there's not always going to be those apples and apples comparisons between other counties and this is one of those like apples to oranges situations is that our sheriff's technician positions are very unique to Cook County and are
comparable to other roles where there may be multiple people and those tasks are separated between multiple people in other organizations thank you you're very welcome more than enough any any other questions for Allison
any motions mr chair I'd like to recommend the approval of the job description updates um to both the executive administrative assistant and the sheriff's technician one and two along with the great changes thank you Commissioner Sullen we have a motion is
there support well I'll support thank you Commissioner White we have a motion in support any further discussion m I know we got like 30 seconds here oh no there's no rush we we just can't start before um Okay um Yeah
and when when it's come to the job uh classification and the updates and this is good to always make sure that the job that a person is doing matches what they're doing so that it there's a basis for directing that individuals uh work
on behalf of the county um there's two components to it and the two components is the uh is the job description update and the other is the um study that was
done relative to pay grade and that and the premise upon which value is determined is where I have my my question on all of these that are coming before the board and um I think if if we are rightly positioned relative to how
we determine value and then couple that with the job description that that's that's good and that's responsible in in the area of how we define the roles and responsibilities and pay for our staff um I'm going I'm going to support
support this but when I when these come before me at least in my representation the people and the discussions I have with constituents it is it is the premise under which value has been determined that is the hangup in this
for me and for many that have expressed that concern relative to value so just that's my comment okay thank you have a motion in support any further comments all those in
favor i uh opposed motion passes unanimously thank you Alison have a great day thanks for running down all right so now it is past uh it's it's 9:02 so that means we can start our
scheduled 9:00 a.m public hearing in this hearing is um uh let's see I'll just read it off the agenda to provide an opportunity for the public to express their views on the issuance of general obligation solid waste revenue bonds series
2025B the process of which will be used to finance the construction of a solid waste facility located solid waste facilities located at 75 Elias Mill Road in Grammaray Minnesota 198 trail toy Minnesota and 6023 Northward Hole
Oldland Minnesota and um I guess uh I'd like to introduce Mr bruce Kimmel here from Ellers our financial consultants and really appreciate you being here and and in person no less uh it's great to see you and
uh uh I can I can hand uh hand it over to you for um any further introduction of the information and then we can have public comment if there's any thank you Mr chair and commissioners it's good to be back up thanks for melting the snow before I came
um basically there's not a whole lot more to say about this public hearing your bond attorneys at Fryburgger Buchanan took a look specifically at this proposed uh project the transfer station as well as the other improvements to solid waste facilities
they took a look at the nature of the lease agreement that you're uh entering into with Northshore and also the solid waste fees uh and assessments that will be collected as part of your new system and determined that this is all a
bonafide very legitimate use of bonding tax exempt bonding but that in their reading of the federal tax law just the nature of that lease arrangement with Northshore again nothing wrong with it or unourred but they felt more comfortable um
putting the tax exemption on these bonds if you went through the process of having this public hearing to declare the improvements the projects as exempt facilities so it's just due to a quirk in the federal tax law again there's nothing wrong or of concern but you know
their job is to uh declare two things to the bond holders one that the bonds are valid obligations of Cook County and the second is that the interest that they earn that investors earn on these bonds is going to be exempt from federal and state taxation at least until the the um
federal government changes that which hopefully they will not um and so uh they take that responsibility very seriously and you know they're great at what they do um so we certainly saw no no reason to object to taking this
additional step just to make sure that you're in the clear as it relates to tax exemption and we appreciate that we want to be super duper careful and um and also provide uh the public for another opportunity to to speak to this issue um and we've we've put a lot of work into
this and a lot of discussion um so it's it's been long long in the coming but um always open to to more feedback so um is there anyone from the public who who would like to give um some comment on on this issue is there and I'm going to call it
three times because that's what we do uh is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this issue is there anyone in the public who would like to comment on this issue hearing or seeing no one I would close
the public hearing and open it up for commissioners discussion commissioner Gamble yeah thank you Mr chair thank you for the background on that um is it a fair question to ask when it comes to attractiveness of bonds and
investments how the tax exemption tends to influence the benefit back to us given the fact that the earnings on the interest is exempt from federal and state tax how that compares with an investment that doesn't provide that
benefit mr chair and Commissioner Gamble great question um tax exemption is really an underpinning for municipal finance and it has been for many years um there's you know several different flavors of tax exemption and taxes and
bonds one are the bonds that counties cities school districts townships sell for capital facilities vehicles computers things of that nature and that's certainly what Cook County has bonded for in the past and is looking to bond for here there's also taxes on
bonding to benefit hospitals uh universities other nonprofit organizations and even some for-profit activity those are called private activity bonds under a large umbrella um and all of this is meant to stimulate
investment in core infrastructure and institutions that we find value here in in America um right now if you had to sell these bonds on a taxable basis either the solid waste bonds or the the
jail and law enforcement center bonds your interest rates would probably be about 1 and a.5% higher than they are what we're projecting here for taxes and bonds so it really makes a material difference and that spread can increase
as interest rates go up um because there's more relative value of having that tax exemption um with with higher rates than with lower rates where that spread decreases somewhat um so fortunately uh in the
months since Congress announced that it's looking seriously at repealing tax exemption organizations like NATO and the National League of Cities and the Government Finance Officers Association and other public uh groups have been
very effective in uh explaining to Congress why tax exemption makes such a difference and really if they got rid of it you would be paying higher interest costs and then the taxpayers would be paying higher interest costs right so
it's it's really not saving any any money is just transferring the burden um and so what we're hearing now is that the risk to municipalities has largely well not largely it looks like it is easing although I will not be surprised
if Congress as part of this uh budget and tax bill does ding the ability of universities and hospitals and other institutions to issue tax exempt i I could see that being kind of a a middle ground there while still protecting
municipalities yeah as a followup thank you for that explanation the um um in in the experience of looking at uh entities that do invest in these types of bonds and how much of that um is a
motivation based upon more of a support for the the nature of what the bond monies are going to be used for so in other words a person says "Well I really support this." So it's not just a financial return but it's also my
contribution to something that I I want to get behind so that's the one question and the other question in the present market uh whether you whether you feel that that uh it's attractive or not where we are whether we find this point
in time in in supporting this measure whether we will see it's if you say for instance this is not the best at times to be having to do it but you have to do it or this is pretty favorable that would be the second part of that question great great question so
uh Mr chair and commissioners the attractiveness of bonds really has three components one is the tax exemption and so your ability to earn at a higher effective yield as as compared to taxable investments um a
second is the really the safety and security of municipal bonds you know the default rate on bonds much less geo bonds which are the highest creditworthiness is next to nil and really any defaults that we see in
Minnesota much less the country are on more speculative MUN bonds for things like sports domes and golf courses and things of that nature not you know for jails and law enforcement centers and transfer stations um and then the third component is what you alluded to there
are investors that really feel um an affinity for investing in infrastructure and the core business of government and so those are all I think factors for both institutional investors like banks insurance companies other um companies
that buy mun bonds but also for retail investors or individuals as we you know we call individual investors retail investors um so uh I think I think you're right that there are that's a a piece of things um as to the current
market conditions even with the run of well there's two parts to that story um you know for many many years we were in an extremely low interest rate environment and the county has certainly benefited from that with past issuances borrowing
at 1 and 2% interest rates just you know I think Brady still probably marvels at seeing those those bond schedules and the the low interest rates and coupons on on your existing debt in the last several years rates have gone up and
that's no surprise to anyone you know we've seen rates go up for individuals and businesses as well but MUN bond rates have not gone up as much as as commercial rates have and part of the reason for that is still that safety and security of MUN bonds people want to buy
those investments another part is there's just not enough supply out there new issues being brought to market to meet the demand because MUN bonds are always maturing right they're always uh always getting paid off and people that
want and basically need to buy mun bonds for their portfolios are left with inadequate supply to refill the bucket so that helps to keep interest rates lower than they otherwise would be because they're willing to take lower interest rates than they might otherwise if there were
lots and lots of bonds being sold in the market um so up to a month or two ago that was kind of the state of the world rates had gone up but were pretty stable and were less than they otherwise would be and I think a lot of issuers have been pleasantly surprised by the rates they
were getting um in that environment more recently we've had a lot of turmoil and volatility about tariffs and uh other world and national events and inflation what's happening with that and so investors have been
kind of all over the place with the what kind of interest rates they're they're looking for on all sorts of investments including municipal bonds and we've seen those rates be volatile especially last week yes was last week
yes last week it things have changed so much i'm having a hard time keeping track of of when when this was uh maybe it was two weeks ago but in any case rates have calmed down again in the relative absence of chaos
once uh the administration pulled back on on some of those tariffs people took a breath and said "Okay we can start investing in mun bonds again and we know what kind of interest rates we're looking for." One thing I'm very happy about with these bond issues for Cook County is
that we're actually not selling or if you approve going forward we're not looking to sell these bonds until the beginning of of June not around the corner so this gives us more time to see what happens in the market and to um
assess if in our opinion as your fiduciary if it makes sense to go forward if we see more volatility throughout May and into June I'll be the first one to call Reena and and Brady and say "We need to take a pause here can we find some way to cash flow these
projects with county resources until we get to a more stable bond environment?" Because I don't want the county selling into a really chaotic market but so far in the week or so since the upheaval in
the markets um the signs are pretty positive and you know we'll we'll hope for continued kind of normalization so we we keep a really close eye on it we do have um uh clients that are in the market many clients in
the market every week and we can look at those sale results and compare them to our estimates for you and say "Okay are these basically tracking with what we expect do we need to change course or make any modifications?" They appreciate the explanations very clear and thorough
and they appreciate the oversight uh relative to monitoring you know where the market is relative to our best interest so thank you we would we expect I mean from what you've seen so far that the the municipal bonds are a little
less volatile than than other issues yes yeah they well a week or two ago they they were very volatile and we had a lot of heartburn um because investors and underwriters and all those folks just hate
uncertainty right that's like kryptonite for them is uncertainty so we're not out of the woods with that but hopefully if we have some calming continued calming that will continue to have benefits for mun bonds yeah
any other questions for Bruce so Mr chair um have have you closed the public hearing forgive me i have closed the public hearing yep we're not commissioner comments and questions and discussion um a couple of pre-sale reports i can go through some of the
highle details on both bond issues if you'd like um and then you could take up the resolutions uh on those bond issues but I'm happy to answer more questions before we get into that as well yeah and uh do we want to I mean separate them out and maybe just do that for first the
solid waste and Sure that'd be great that'd be great okay so the solid waste bonds uh Mr taran Commissioners are actually the the proposed 25B bonds in an estimated
principal amount of $6.2 million and and I believe you have the pre-sale report in your packets is that right okay and so um many of you have seen this form of report before the purpose of this is really just to lay out the plan of finance for each bond issue and give you
the key details and give you an opportunity to raise any questions concerns suggestions for changes before we get too far down the road in preparing the official statement um going through the credit rating process and then soliciting the bids on the
bonds because once we solicit those bids um you know we can tweak some things on the date of sale but basically we're looking for the board at that point to award the bonds to the winning bidder it would cause a lot of heartache if you decided at the sale date to say "No
we're we're actually going to take a pass." Um so it it's much better to have this kind of pre-sale discussion make sure that you're comfortable with the plan of finance ahead of time so that um we can go forward and know that you're you're comfortable and confident with
the with the plan um for each of these projects and by projects I mean I know that solid waste is actually multiple projects but I'm I'm sort of referring to the the the mains um transfer facility
um as the project so we're looking here um with the solid waste bonds to sell the bonds over a term of 27 years in total that's really going to be a 25-year repayment term with a little bit of uh ramping up in interest only
uh on the front end due to the the plan of construction and the fact that you'll start collecting these spe uh solid waste assessments in the next fiscal year so with the way you know bond payments work we kind of needed a little bit of lead time there but the bonds
will be repaid in February of 28 through 52 uh you will have interest payments starting next February 1 of 26 and the bonds will be subject to prepayment or refinancing if interest rates are better at that point uh at on uh February 1st
of 2035 or any date thereafter and some of these terms and conditions will be similar with the jail and law enforcement bonds as well um these bonds will be non t will be nonbq uh tax exempt obligations what that means is
because you're issuing more than $10 million in this calendar year there's one little little uh spiff in terms of the federal tax law that we're not able to take and that's called bank qualification please know that that's kind of a misnomer banks can buy banks
do buy nonBQ bonds all the time this doesn't really uh reduce the market for your bonds in any way shape or form it's just one provision in the tax code that we're not able to um use and in today's
market actually for probably the better part of the last seven or eight years the benefit of BQ has diminished um because for a variety of reasons banks don't um have to pay as many as much tax
as they used to uh one key thing I wanted to raise for both bond issues is state credit enhancement uh you already have an excellent excellent credit rating uh but uh because state law allows you to
uh apply the state's credit rating of AAA on top of your own for these specific types of projects we definitely think you should do that it costs a whopping $500 to apply for state credit enhancement and given the size and
duration of these bond issues um both would certainly benefit from having the state's AAA on top of your double A rating so that's really great and um it just helps to broaden the the
marketplace for these bonds a little bit and again is a really nominal cost to the county to access that i'll I'll just make a comment the pre-sale report is not on the board pack but look at your email it's attached
there right now if you look you'll see it okay i don't have my computer here but Oh sorry uh we will be doing a competitive bond sale uh as you have in many times in the past this is really the best way to get
as many competitive bids as possible and given your very strong credit rating and the fact that that rating will be wrapped with the state's AAA um we know that you'll get multiple really strong bids uh for both of these bond issues uh
here and you can see also that uh they've they've put off the the principal payment for a short while and you can see that on that report and that's so that we we did not put the
um rates and charges as a special assessment on for this year it goes on until next year so we'll be collecting that all during next year so this allows us to make those payments with what we received um and then have it build up
for the full payments later on so that's right and um I would note also then just scrolling ahead um that just to reiterate the timeline we're here today for the pre-sale discussion we
will work with uh county staff on preparing the official statement having the credit rating call sometime the week of May 19th distributing the official statement to the market right after Memorial Day and then taking bids on your behalf on
Monday June 9th and coming back to you on June 10th for the award um and you'd be receiving the bond proceeds on this issue as well as the jail bonds jail and law enforcement bonds uh right around July
2nd do you have any questions about the solid waste financing how it relates to the fees and charges etc mr relative to the uh state's credit rating
and uh the benefit of that for the small cost relatively 500 bucks um if the cost is as small as it is you would think that everybody would just do that as as an assurance or value added so to speak
so when investors look at it they're looking at it from the standpoint they check the boxes and they look at our credit rating and they say "Okay this is so whenever you're analyzing your investment you're going through and checking the box and measuring benefit
versus risk." And so when you when you apply for the state credit rating and they look at that box given the fact that it's so accessible because of its low price point you would think that that would be a sort of a tongue-in-cheek thing yeah good question
Mr chair and Commissioner Gamble um it's actually I should have been more clear on this not all county financings can access this and not and very few city financings can access this state credit enhancement i believe most school
district financings can I I don't really do school finance it's its own animal um but so like for instance if you were uh making improvements to this building that would not qualify for state credit enhancement um it's really
limited to things like jails law enforcement centers solid waste facilities and and a small handful of other purposes and on the city side it can actually only be used for utility related financing not for general purposes
whatsoever um so it's it's my understanding that investors really look both at that state credit enhancement and the underlying county rating so we would want to still get that county rating so they really know gee Cook County has its act
together it's double A which is really excellent especially for a small county like yours um and then the the state credit enhancement is just really seen as an extra set of suspenders and knowing that if for some
reason the wheels fell off the state the state would would step in and make those bond payments on time and in full yeah so there is real value added to that that's substance thank you yep i don't think we have any other questions at this point okay
um should we go ahead and um talk about the uh law enforcement or maybe we should take action on the first one take action on that on that resolution for solid ways i think that would be appropriate all right yeah so um any any commissioner solid mr mr chair I'd like to make a motion to
approve by resolution the issuance and providing for the sale of general obligation solid waste bonds in the maximum principal amount of 6,250,000 to finance the construction of the new solid waste facilities in Grand Murray toy and Holand
thank you we have motion from Commissioner Sullivan support from Commissioner Gamble and please and one slight correction the spelling of Marray and Grand Marray with that correction it's in paragraph one of the resolution somebody doesn't know their
French um I copied the same mistake into the leading to this so yes it's very consistent yeah thank you uh I'm I'm assuming that amendment
is supported okay uh any any discussion on this any rather any more discussion on this hearing or saying none all those in favor i I opposed motion passes
unanimously okay thank you great so moving on to um the jail bonds here yeah thank you Mr chair and commissioners so um I imagine there may be a few more questions about the jail bonds than there were for solid waste because solid waste is really
designed as Brady just alluded to to be sort of a self-contained self-supporting organism you know we've looked at those rates and charges um what's likely to be generated you have some time to to build that that system up and those revenues
up before you start making payments and we really wanted to rightsize the debt service on those bonds to the revenues that will be generated through the solid waste system the jail bonds and by jail bonds I really mean jail and law enforcement
center are of course going to be repaid with general county funds general property taxes and have to be part of you know your larger budget discussions right and and your financial management planning that we've done with you for a number of years and will continue to do
and so on so um that's just one key distinction that said these are both general obligation bonds right so no matter what the source of repayment you're pledging your full faith and credit to repaying the bonds and this bond issue is estimated to have a
principal amount of $6.4 million and it's designed to fund approximately $6.25 $25 million of costs towards the new portion of the jail law enforcement center i have to give credit again to our friends at Fryburgger to really look
very carefully at state law and determined that these bonds are best suited to the the expansion of the jail and law enforcement center um based on their very uh clear or specific reading
of state law as it relates to these bonds and you'll be using some previous bond proceeds from it was last year yeah the 2024 CIP bonds thank you to do some of the renovation work in the existing
jail law enforcement center so it's a great plan of finance to use some uh revenues that are already on hand and then to really target the new bonds to the new portion of the jail and law enforcement center and it really fit um
we wanted to try to do all of the jail le work at the same time as as the new was going on and we have the CIP bonds that we issued last year we just have to adjust some of the use of that we were we didn't anticipate that we would use
that much on the law enforcement center we'd be doing more on this building but this is where we want to put our efforts anyway so it just it fits yep it really did um and uh so that was great
clarification we feel very confident in in going forward on on this on this bonding authority um there are a couple statutory tests that are relative to or related to selling bonds that will be paid back with property taxes you clear
both of those uh hurdles with flying colors i I would note that sometimes we get questions um about well how much debt can you issue right that um is subject to the debt limit and right now
your debt limit in total um based on current property values is about $87 million and you have about $9 million of debt that's subject to the limit your sales tax debt for instance is not subject to the limit because it's being paid with sales tax dollars same with
your transportation sales tax uh related debt so if you take 87 million minus 9 million you have 72 or 78 million of capacity um so you're you have a long way to go before you start bumping up against the statutory capacity in
addition there is another test related to jail bonds in particular and you're also very far underneath that debt limit uh this bond issue is being proposed for a total term of 21 years with a 20-year
repayment term within that 21 years and we're also suggesting that these bonds be prepayable in 2035 or any date thereafter so um I know that seems like a long way away but it comes faster than
you think and uh and uh I'm sure Brady will still be here in 2035 right 202 we don't know what condition but we know he'll be here is Is my turn tied to all the bond debt
issues i think you co-sign it don't you uh Mr chair and Commissioners I would just note again a lot of this material is similar to the other pre-sale report about credit enhancement the county's rating competitive bond sale one thing I would note in advance of the
June sale assuming that that date holds is that we actually expect to receive something called a premium on both bond issues which means that investors are paying you more than the face value of the bonds in order to have a higher
coupon rate or face interest rate long story short the yield you pay is still going to be based on market conditions and the creditworthiness of these bonds but but investors like to have these higher coupons um and as a
result of that you get more money and we you decide we would work with you whether you want to keep any of that premium or downsize the bond issue and still net the same amount um and so that'll be discussions that we'll have
with your team just to confirm and reconfirm the county's wishes as to any premium that we receive and it's possible for instance that you would have a bond issue let's say you you decide you only need and want the 6.25 million for this project
we could very easily have a bond final bond amount that's less than 6.25 million but you still net the same amount you still net the same amount due to that premium that's added that additional cash that the winning bidder is providing we calculate all that along
with interest rates and other things in determining which which bidder has the best overall bid but I just wanted to um remind you you've seen this before but I wanted to remind you that you might have a kind of goofy looking bond issue of less than the amount that you're
actually generating for the project thank you any any questions on on this uh bond for Bruce all right any motions on this bond oh I'm Commissioner Gamble thank you yeah
yeah i was going to make make a motion okay so a motion to approve by resolution the issuance of general obligation county jail bonds in the maximum principal amount of 6,400,000 to finance the construction of the county's jail facilities and to pay
the costs associated with the issuance of the bonds thank you Commissioner Gamble we have a motion is there support support thank you Commissioner Sullivan we have a motion and support any further further discussion hearing or seeing none all
those in favor i I opposed motion passes unanimously thank you thank you thank you one last thing I will say again just to reiterate is we will be in touch with your team as
we monitor market conditions and if um we advise you to postpone the sale we will let you know that a good week ahead of time um so uh that will be I'm sure brought to your attention in the board
packet and there won't be any surprises but otherwise expect to see me or my colleague Dan Tinter here uh in early June so sounds great thank you Bruce thank you thank you appreciate your being here personally thanks Bruce thanks Bruce
well very good we're uh we're on uh the auditor's item here section five um down to 5C is now uh the transfer station construction
bids and um yeah so we've received some of those bids for material labor concrete and pre-cast um by we I mean our
construction manager Johnson Wilson and He as you can see his not to exceed contract pages and then down below that you can see the uh bid bids
that they are proposing that we approved today uh number one the site work package with KTM Paving with the labor for 982300 and the materials at
409700 uh bid number two the concrete package with Northern Concrete for 931,000 labor 796,500 materials uh bid three the pre-cast
package Fabcon pre-cast labor 641-245 and materials 438093 now on the steel supply and the steel install
um they would like to rebid for the labor and both parts of the steel install the um but for the bid for steel supply that bid
487931 the um as they explained they're rejecting the steel erection bid because they expect to receive one more competitive bid so they want to wait for that and the price should come down on the steel supply the
bidder JRK is low most of the time on commercial projects around our area we feel that awarding them the bid is best that's on that steel supply it hopefully allows uh them to stave off any tariff issues and gets the delivery and budget
concerns addressed um asked how many bids were received the site work they received C3 bids for the building concrete they received three bids they received two pre-cast concrete bids and just the one bid on steel
supply and one on steel erection that they'd like to rebid so and when I asked how did this compare to their expectations and what they budgeted uh there were some ups and
downs the bottom line is a 46 uh,,210 below what they expected the site work package was significantly below $372,000 the concrete um was up 268,000 the
pre-cast below by 189,602 and the steel supply below by 4146 so great mostly yeah given the the environment you would have expected that
they'd be generally over and to come in at at all under um it probably indicates that the supplies were in the pipeline somewhere and they'd already they were either here in the United States i think
we don't you probably know more about that from talking to them um I really just what you said okay i mean I think we we knew the tariffs are coming and they're going to start affecting it but the the material is probably already
here and so um it's to our advantage to have gotten this in when we did yeah and that's Northshore Waste has been working with them for quite a while and that um and as they grew more assurance they probably secured the or found people who
had secured that supply okay Commissioner White um how do we go forward without having any actual numbers for labor on installation i mean you said we're they're waiting for another so so that's
only for the steel yes that they're waiting on that um so the groundwork you know can go ahead and begin that has that's probably a month from now okay um this is this constitutes what about 60%
of the total um cost of the project so there will be some other bids as well like electrical and so plumbing so maybe this is jumping ahead but when we're going to the contract and this is going to be a guaranteed bid how can they
offer a guaranteed bid with missing numbers that's that's legal pro i mean without full full information right we should not be approve we should not be agreeing to I I understand change orders
that's but we can't start with a zero in place well I don't I my understanding which is give us weak I'll say at best um is that
this is only tying us to these numbers and because The other one was rejected i mean that's what's that's what's out there right we're not tying us to zero we're tying us to we don't know yet yes it's it's not the whole
project this is this is just to secure the bids that we're aware of now there's more to come so and so when the contract has a final has that number they will do their adjustments to make certain they
fall in under that number i understand totally understand the volatility of materials but labor should be it should be a a number that can be identified it will be it will be soon yeah it's just that they
wanted a second bid on that yeah and the and the and the materials don't necessarily come with the labor from you know they're different companies so one can give us uh a material price because they're not installing it for example so
then at another point we'll this will be coming back to us and we will approve it will oh yeah all of that will come back every single This is just what they know today and they think we should go ahead and approve it they they feel good about it because they're guaranteeing I understand the reason you would want to
approve these now is because approving them later might make them go up because of the tariffs so got that part okay uh Commissioner Gamble did you have something you want to add yeah thank you Mr chair yeah I I appreciate the the
question Commissioner White uh it's a cons concern that I have i mean if you're following best practice relative to approving something that you want to know it entirety given the the firm that we're working with they're going to advise us as to what's normal and
customary and recommended based upon our best interest which means that we lock in these these bids now if we find them acceptable but as stated when you look at the broader picture there's multiple
things that we'll be looking at still in that context to answer your question I would say it is the seeing the bigger picture the umbrella what are we looking at and as these pieces come in do they fall underneath that umbrella and are we
comfortable with that if if we are only looking at in a measured context not including all of the elements we could end up with something we had no idea because we didn't see the bigger picture and put these incremental
decisions in context so um I I would agree if if I were asking the question of of you know the firm we're working with and Brady and his experience it was is this from a best practices are we being good stewards of this as we go
along and and if it's something that is speaking to where we need to see response on the part of decision makers in moving forward so from a timeline standpoint we aren't holding anything up we weigh that we weigh you know what's
normal and customary when it comes to incremental approving an overall bid and I would just say that you know if Brady is is comfortable given this is something that we've done in the past and if the firm that we're dealing with
is saying this is normal and customary and it's to your best advantage to approve this so we can lock these in and they to their credit when they looked at the labor on the steel said we think this is high and it's always better to
have competitive bids comparable so that you have something to make a decision on as opposed to just having to accept the one so I I think those things you know are are good to recognize
so it still begs the question for me curiosity how they came up with a guaranteed final price without all the numbers at their disposal and I do thank them for being
good stewards of our money for on that i think that's why we hire them is based upon their experience they're able to project some things and as we just heard in the discussions on the bonding that whoever we're trusting for their counsel
it is their experience that helps inform us in making those decisions so that's the benefit I would say there but I would agree in principle it just seems like if we don't have all the numbers how can we approve it but we're going to get numbers and we're trusting the council that comes from the organization
the firms we work with to advise us accordingly and so coming back here we are approving no amounts for the labor for this pre-cast steel and that will have to come back to us at another time because they're recommending they believe we can do better
understood and I would say that the estimates that they initially came up with were based on extremely detailed plans and already conversations with vendors you know on on current market prices and you know they're just their
experience on building things like this so I feel like they built in some buffers in those things and that and as well as contingency so you know as we move ahead these were the these were the scariest pieces steel and the pre-cast
sure so some the other things I think you know are going to be okay i mean I feel these were these were the highest risk pieces yes the labor less so but still there um Dustin was there something you wanted
to add or No I was just going to answer some questions so uh as Reena had alluded to A couple of months ago um when we were working our way through the planning process they had suggested that we really take a look at these big pieces
the things that could be affected by uh tariffs or anything that's going on like that so this was called the early bid package um they were all the high dollar items as well but we sent this early bid package out to make sure we were going
to be able to hit that budget number that we had been talking about um I don't have the numbers in front of me i think Brady can probably answer this i think this was about 5 million or between 5 and 6 million of the total cost of the
project um and there's going to be I think about 13 or 14 more packages that will be looking to get approved some of them are very small you know 20 $25,000 um the only two big parts of the project
left are mechanical and electrical um and they feel pretty confident about the numbers that they've budgeted for for that in regards to the steel erection or the labor for that um the bid that they got they were not happy with um I think
they had budgeted somewhere between $150 and $200,000 for that that package and it came back at just under a half a million dollars um and they thought that by putting the package back out and getting some interest from other vendors um with that
part of the package that they could dramatically bring that number down um so they elected to reject the labor um and and rebid that and you know just one more thing for context um because this is a county
project and materials are taxexempt and labor isn't um that's why you're getting two two packages for everything um material being taxexempt labor not being taxexempt so um of those 14 packages
that we have um I don't know how much of it's going to be labor but there could be 20 or 24 more packages labor and material so with you putting on saying that that they had anticipated 150 to
200,000 so that was their estimate viable estimate but their what came in was significantly more than I I understand that by giving me that number I understand what number they were using
so I just Yeah yeah and and um when we did go through the budgeting process um over the winter all of these things have I don't want to say necessarily gone out for bid but they've we've gone to companies and
said "Hey we got this project can you throw some numbers at it?" Mhm um so the difference that we're seeing in that labor package doesn't align with our expectations from what we received before um and that's why Johnson Wilson
um elected to to turn down that bid and and rebid so I think they're doing their due diligence on behalf of the county in this project by rejecting that bid so does that answer the questions yes thank you okay please yeah thank you Mr
chair sounds like commissioners are going to have to take a workshop on how to erect steel structures right you're all welcome to come out with your welders and your hammers save a little money uh so I guess a good um comparison would be when we do our annual budget we
have multiple components of that annual budget but we still have an umbrella that says this is what we're shooting for now we look at it and we approve them incrementally so but without knowing the big picture it's very hard to see how the pieces fit so and I think
we saw that just in the other numbers that we received um you know there were some people that were very high i think the the concrete bid maybe ranged as much as a million dollars um between the low bid and the
high bid um and the same thing with the the the ground package as well um so we don't know that the one bid that we got was just hey it's a high bid if we get it we get it kind of a thing um and that's why we elected to to put that bid
back up sure thank you any other questions or discussion here mr chair I'd like to make a motion to approve the material and labor maximum price bids for the site work concrete
package and the pre-cast package and steel supply with the exception of the labor thank you Commissioner Sullivan we have a motion as their support we have a motion as their support yeah I support thank you Commissioner
Campbell we have a motion and support any further discussion here can we just identify absolutely um we have um all of them or the total just the total okay the total for labor at this
point is uh 2,741,994 the materials which is tax exempt uh right now is 2,131,684 thanks Commissioner Gav yeah and I think it'd be good to clarify for the public as well that uh these bids coming in are
under what we were anticipating which is a good thing and the other thing is that the motions that and the the things that we have done as a board previous to finance this have been approved as we're moving forward so we've approved the
method of financing we've got the bids and they came in under expectation except for the labor and so now we're moving forward with accepting those bids understanding that the financing has been approved through previous action by
this board thank you any other discussion all right hearing or seeing none all those in favor i opposed motion passes unanimously thank you Dustin
thank you all right and now for our supposed long conversation here Brady we've got a budget calendar thank you Mr chair so thank you thank you Bruce what you see in the packet is uh is our
budget calendar similar to what you've seen um year after year uh we did change this a few years ago to start earlier about two months earlier so again we'll start in April to get a some departments
a head start um see what they uh bring in and then have a final uh submission by June 28th and then start with public hearings or public meetings with the large departments public health
human services the highway department the overall general fund the approval of a preliminary budget in September September 10th would be our goal has to be done by the 30th and then truth and
taxation with the notices going out and then truth and taxation meetings somewhere between November 25th and December 27th has to happen before the final budget and then we expect or our goal would be to have that uh approval
of the final levy on December 10th giving ourselves the rest of the month if we can't complete that at that time so this is just our standard uh budget calendar but I expect with um the volatility in the markets with
our bondings with uh other potential large changes that this could be uh a larger discussion before the board it won't all happen today but uh we'll be having a
meeting of the budget facilities advisory committee later this afternoon and that will probably be the largest part of that meeting I expect today and uh so forth
so I'm expecting the um you know board may have some questions now on uh on you know how would you how would you like to move forward from this standard model
mr campbell thank you Mr chair thank you Brady um yeah I appreciate bringing the the outline and um for the the board to consider my recommendation would be that given things that you've talked about
volatility when everything something changes in the marketplace we're dealing with pill we're looking at our revenue resources I think the board going in as a projection should have a general idea coming from you as to what you see
the effects of change on and what you know we've been experiencing relative to our revenue sources what we might be looking at and so I I think to any extent that a department can inform us on some things that they see as to how
change has impacted things i think we should know that prior to setting out and asking departments to work on the budget uh and what I mean by that is that if you look at the schedule that's proposed we're p basically putting that
out right now and say work on your budget i think that this as a decision board given a responsibility of representation on behalf of the community we should give a directive and the directive should be informed based
upon revenues projected best estimate and anything else that we might experience departmentally that could inform the board to shape that direction so we would give a direction and then that direction would be included in what
goes out to department heads if that makes sense i think that I think that we should inform that as opposed to just saying it's time to do your budget do your budget what we have learned and what we know about things that we're experiencing both on the state and the
federal level and changes and our when we looked and said how come we've got this money here it's because we got a greater return on our investments that we had before we should know what those projections look like which might be very difficult but at least we've asked the question so my request would be that
we as a board would get some information and set direction before that goes out and say do your budget do it with this understanding the understanding that they have that they're going to tell us no because the collective understanding uh that comes
from being informed on the revenue side and the expense side informs us to give a direction but we get that information from the departments no it it's still you you need to set a direction we might want to go in and saying given what we know this
is this is our recommendation look at your budget through this lens and uh we've done we've done this before at least my first term we did we went in and said this is this is the test before you as opposed to just
open-ended on budget i'm not really clear i think what you're saying is we want you you're expecting us to want to cut the budget based on potential revenue shortfalls um but it's all potential there are some that we know but the
departments will incorporate that into their budgeting process not not unless it's a directive they have to if they are if they are receiving less revenue that has to be incorporated in their budget well it it it would be but it's underscored by the people that are going
to approve the budget that you're saying that that that direction comes in and often you'll you'll have management that says looking at things and this is where we're saying give us the information so that we can make an informed decision based upon what you perceive but then
that comes as a direction from the board to the departments with that collective overview that you're looking at not departmentally independently what they do but what we do with all of that information collectively and sending a directive to everybody
yeah i um And so how would that affect the calendar well it just means that we would we would have to have we would have to have that directive based upon the information that we review and it would affect it meaning that it doesn't the calendar says that I think it goes
out tomorrow doesn't it something like that that would be the plan but um I think this is going to happen probably in stages of knowledge one of them would be the the state cuts for example and some of them are direct some
departments will know human services will know have some knowledge they already have some knowledge a few of the other departments that have some knowledge of what's to be cut but those were in the governor's proposal we don't know what the legislature is going to
end up with so I see this as um you know this is what we know and don't know and we'll have stages of this we don't know everything about the federal cuts for sure that that could be all year we haven't even received our um our large
BWCA PEL payment and I've I've seen an email that leads me to think it might not be what was uh approved on the reappraisal last year but I don't know i have no information on that i've sent out multiple emails and have not received anything back on that for
example so I'm just saying there's going to be a lot of not knowing um it seems to me the directive is given what we don't know primarily um the a cautious you know but
um how you want to tackle this I guess is the do you want to delay the first letter um I'm not sure that that will for most departments my department uh recorders
some of them um those big issues in individual departments aren't necessarily they're going to beffect ffected by the larger issue if the county doesn't have as much PILT you know we're not going to be able
to have a larger level or levy for example um so I'm I'm not sure if delay of that step because nothing that they put out to us is set in stone they're just giving us a right that's just their
request and then we that's when we give the directive is kind of right and the larger directives may and maybe that's the the letter that goes out that says there may be um limits put on on hiring next year there may be uh we we do have
some base within our budget for example we've already negotiated the cost of living for 2026 is 2.75 for all of the unions so unless you renegotiate that set we know our health insurance
uh we don't know it but we've used a standard of a 10% and uh recently it was 9.95 and or 7.6 or and sometimes it's much larger so that's a fairly standard and we have no reason to
change that but I mean these are some of the base and uh salaries are the biggest part of our um let's say general levy other than bonding and highway projects but other than those it's by far the
largest part of our budget and please so the directive could be a real a real cautionary direction directive saying we we really would like
to have a levy that's at 3% and because of the but do your best i mean 3%'s quite low but I still haven't figured out this evaluation i've been the uh if my
property has increased in price and the levy is still the same then why would I not be paying more in uh property taxes so anyway I've been through this a few times and I still don't get it and so
um interim Reena has tried and Bob has tried and I just need to have it more times i just don't understand the math so um so if our prop which indeed our property values are all increasing
significantly because of market value that's how our property taxes or property values go up um then if last year we did 4% of say very elemental if my property was
$100,000 last year and I pay 4% on that but this year my property is 200,000 and I pay 4% that would be I'd be paying double the amount so it should be I I'm really confused
about this whole thing so I just think that we should caution department departments to try to be aware that our some of our funding sources that we have been able to kind of count on in the
past might really be not there this time around so otherwise that that's what I'm just thinking yeah and I think department heads are very aware of of the the hurdles that we'll be facing and the state and
the country are facing and um but I think it it is wise to ask for a very uh conservative and cautious budget and we have a excuse me but we have a responsibility to we can assume they will be wanting to do that but they have
a passion for their services they provide and we just need to give that reminder that Sure think about what we might have to do you might have to do yep yep absolutely reena you had something i'm just wondering if perhaps
this is a good topic for the budget advisory group um to maybe have it have a a good discussion about you know basic assumptions that um would be you know useful for department heads when they're
thinking about their budget like for instance an assumption might be um you know what what are your key services what are you know how are how um if you I'm trying to think of a good assumption I'm sorry but some something
that that um helps inform or guidelines really for them um to think about when they're doing this I mean to me um the budget should be looked at through a lens of service services and you know there are mandatory services and there
are nice to have services and there's level of services And those are the those are the places that we can adjust um some of those services are tied to grants some of them are are county funded some of them are you know
combinations of funding and so understanding how how something is funded understanding what's mandatory understanding how that's delivered you know where can you make adjustments so it's a it's a it's a deeper dive I think
um to to really understand all those components and not just say well 5% off the top or whatever but to understand where you can make those adjustments and and do that and I wonder if that's the kind of a discussion to get some kind of
high level assumptions or guidelines from that community group that has commissioners on it as well and Brady sits on that might be a starting place to come back and make recommendations to the board that um could then be communicated to uh yeah so we could I'd
respond one moment please my biggest concern is that I don't see how this fits into the budget calendar i think the sooner we get requests in and out the more we can
have these conversations um but to say that we shouldn't have department heads begin to uh look at their budgets and budget goals that's kind of what we need we need that to happen so we can be
better informed to to to see where just those things that you identified as the the mandated services versus uh the non-mandated services are and um I I think it it's spot on to have that cautious um directive um but I don't
know that we need to change the calendar that's where I'm confused and if that can be cleared up for me I'm sorry i just Commissioner Campbell wanted to speak and I bet him off so if No no commissioner I've been deferring because I wanted to respond but she's been waiting i just agree with you i think
the calendar is a separate issue i think we worked on moving this calendar earlier and I think of all things we need this earlier calendar this year because we have a lot on our plate the department heads are very aware of the
state budget and what's been proposed and we won't know till later in May and maybe even after that we also know we have a lot of federal issues our department heads are aware of that i think we need to move forward and approve this calendar now
commissioner G yeah to Reena's comments I I I agree and that's basically what I'm what I'm asking and and it it would be like if we say we're going to set off on a journey and if we don't determine which road
we're going to take to get there it might take a lot longer and so the balance for me I'm aware Brady's opening comment was we've moved this up in the process which is a good thing because we need more time devoted and sometimes we
see we're dealing with last minute you don't want urgency to be making your decisions and so I I think we need to be more informed is my point and I would say if I were a department head I would it's it's like give me a job description
if I get hired let me know what I'm supposed to do and I and we aren't excluding them and their experience and their information and informing the process we're saying let us know upfront without delaying so that we push you back in the corner and say now they're
asking to do this and we it's tough enough as it is but I do believe that we should give some clear direction based upon what it is and to just make a generic statement that be cautious i don't I don't think that that that in
itself is as clear direction as like if I get a job description it says well just do stuff that needs to be done in your department tell me tell me what it is that know is best it's but that's why I say in the front to the things you're talking I'm saying to defer it to the
budget committee advisory committee to bring to the board with a recommendation that gets incorporated into the calendar then there's an awareness and it's set up with a structure that reinforces direction that's important but if it comes to here without
compromising you know the the timeline on on this but I think if we move forward without a process that is clearly identified and informed I think we're going to be ruminating ruminating ruminating and then department I wish I would have known this on the front end
well I mean I I feel like this is a very clearly defined process and we've gone through it i mean this isn't the only thing that's new here is the uncertainty of federal state funding and and we're all aware of that
uncertainty our department heads are all aware of that uncertainty you don't think they're aware of this uncertainty no no I'm not saying they're not aware i just say what business does not give direction what business does not give direction based upon an analysis of where we are at and it's our
responsibility to give that direction as decision makers not because we know it all it's worth saying give us the components and if it comes to a an advisory committee that's tasked with that with coming a recommendation there's multiple cases where we have
recommendations coming from somebody who's chewed on it so that it's better for us to digest but I think we need that integrity that's this isn't anything new though this is how it this is how we do it or I mean no I I like I don't understand the conflict is what
I'm saying like the conflict is is that the directive right now we just we approved this budget calendar it's going to say start working on your budget yes mhm yeah gather the information and then they'll bring it to us and then we can have those discussions about what No but then they're going to be doing work that
that now we're going to start to to uh on the front end identify as opposed to on the front end give me some direction if you hire me in a job and say this is the job what do you need here's a job description up here give me the deal we just asked the question here about what
is it that that the technical and the highway department does that's definition to expectation and I'm saying we need we not just say do the budget we want definition more clarity just say be cautious i was going to say kind of two things
can be true at once sure um I think you know we are approving a calendar and a calendar is a process you know when a when a when a department head starts a budget they start by populating it with the information probably that they used
last year um and then I think I mean that's that's a process that that takes a little bit of time some of them get started right away some of them will wait till the deadline right um but I think then you know we
can move ahead like with the advisory group and start formulating some assumptions that can be added to this process while they're doing this because they're going to be looking at that and gathering those numbers and adjusting them before the first time the board
sees it anyway so these two things can I think exist in parallel and and keep the process moving um because it may take a couple of meetings with the advisory group to come to some even understanding the first time you mention it to them
they're going to look at me like uh what are you talking about so it there's a process of of callulling that out and I think you can add this information in layers and as May proceeds um we're going to have more information
as well to add to that process when I did my budget you know there was a starting point and then you know I brought in more current information and kept culling it till I got to my final budget so there's I think I think the point of we can get started on the
calendar but then we can add this other information as it's getting refined is is doable as well but I think I think to your point commissioner um adding this information adding some assumptions adding uh some ability to to filter that
information given the current environment is a helpful directive but we it may take us a little bit to get to that information we don't want to delay the whole process because it'll it'll cause problems on the other end yeah and
to your point I mean and the two things is trying to achieve what what we're hoping to do and and the the push here seems to be we don't want to delay this process when the other is we want we want a a clear directive so that department head
said we don't know whether we're coming or going here i mean there can be a general consensus but I think the more clarifying it's why we've invested as much money as we have into job descriptions because we want clarity but when we do that we don't exclude department heads from informing so that
that reflects what they actually do and I think when it comes to budget that that we need to do that but that directive from decision makers needs to come with recommendation from whomever so I'm not trying I'm not trying to use
a process that belabors i'm trying to use a process that builds integrity and clear direction so that we feel we know what we're doing sure i and I completely agree with you but I'm thinking that these things can kind of be
layered through the process yeah um but I I I absolutely agree with you that that there's a different lens that needs to be applied uh right now because of the uncertainty of of the environment the bigger environment and I do believe
our calendar um addresses that if you look up until May 16th it says administrator and auditor discuss budget goals with departments that's precisely the work that you'll be doing and that May 16th date is on there because of
when our legislature ends and makes decisions and we may have other adjustments federal in nature but I I think it's a great idea to have the budget and facilities advisory committee come up with you know some ideas some
guard rails if you will um for budgeting but I think the calendar already addresses that that information will be shared with our department leaders commissioner White so in years past did the facilities uh did the
budget and facilities did that group uh share information or did they discuss with the and give to the uh commissioners andor the department heads their recommendations i mean did they do that in the past or is it the fact that we're
trying to do both this year like this is I think what uh the administrator suggested has great value and it should be a way to really assess um that we don't have duplication that
we have efficiency and where where do the dollars come from and what type of a schedule do the numbers come or not come as it were so we're trying to do both in one year and I believe to give for commissioners to
give a good directive with a more more specific directive we need to have that committee dig in to it also and it does not mean that nobody can nobody as in department heads have to do
nothing until you know they can they can they can do things and uh and when the time comes and we we follow this as closely as possible um we just have to dig in and really do
what we need to do and and I just sort of feel like this is like the start of a more streamlined we're going to get this maybe I'm too hopeful maybe maybe I'm blood sugar levels going but anyway
um I I agree that the I feel like as a commissioner we should give some directive but I don't feel at this point right now that we have enough except a cautionary tale that don't assume anything that happened
in the past will happen this year and of course it's always been we don't know what the state is going to be able to do because there's chaos everywhere right so I can I I can't speak to what always happens on the budget advisory committee
but five years ago you know I'm on a five-year rotation for this administrative internal thing but um but uh when when when uh I did it before right and me and Brady were like on this parallel path together we we actually
had the advis the finance advisory the budget advisory group work on policies so like for instance they worked on a policy um about fund balance and they made recommendations back to the board so this is a similar kind of idea you
know um to have that advisory group work on on you know really advice here's what we see in the community and here's here's some assumptions that we're making about this budget process and make those recommendations back to this
body um and and to consider how we might want to communicate with Yeah and depending with Matt depending on what those uh advice from the budget advisory committee would be it maybe should come back here before it goes out right to
department heads definitely yeah so it wouldn't go from this afternoon out to department heads but I think the first message if you go ahead with the calendar as is the first message is that you're going to be you're going to be
aware of the the changing our market our budget market um and information and you're going to be you have to be flexible you may see directives coming later and you may have to change what you put in your first budget just so
that that's what they'll need to be aware of right now right but the and the change is likely um given what we don't know at the moment mr svin Mr mr chair I'd like to make a
motion to approve the 2026 budget calendar outlaying the timing and steps leading to an approved budget and levy and also direct the budget and facilities advisory committee to make recommendations to this board
we have a motion as their support mr um I would I would support the motion if we included in that motion that uh our auditor treasure would include the language that he just spoke to us in that director to staff just generically
yes absolutely i'd make an amendment to my motion okay we have a motion and support from Commissioner Gamble thank you any further discussion hearing or saying none all those in favor i opposed motion passes
unanimously thank you for the discussion thank you yes well Apologies we'll take a You know I say five minutes but I bet it'll be 10 minutes let's take a break thank you thank you
so I said 10 minutes it's been 14 so that tracks um welcome back everyone uh we're going to restart our uh regular meeting and it's Tuesday April 22nd and now it is
10:38 a.m so on our agenda we've um kind of bounced around a little bit um but we are through item five auditor we are through item six highway we are through item seven MIS and now we're on to maintenance with fleet vehicles
um I bet you Brooke you want to take a front seat here thank you thank you Mr commissioner and you beta good morning well as we discussed in committee of the whole last week um there's a need for
vehicles to get the fleet back up to our minimum numbers that we had before um I've discussed some different options that we can go through uh the state
purchasing site i went through them um they are not offering much of a discount we're doing basically it's a MSRP so they're asking $31,974 the rental was also an option we could have gone through um and if we
rented the cost on that was8 $1,850 per month so we would do a four or five month basis and again that I don't feel that's a viable option as well because we would have a lot of logist logistics to deal with and then also we won't have any equity at the end
and we'd be spending the same amount so what I'm asking for today is approval of one of three different lease/finance options um and we have them broken down to a $10,000
down $5,000 down or zero down respectively and the the total hit the current balance in the vehicle fund is correct
me if I'm wrong Brady $33,000$13 $133,000 and we have the options that would the options that would come down to if we did a a 10,000 down down payment with
taxes license 7 months of payments uh with a per vehicle for per vehicle of 17,000 we're looking at total hit to 2025 of $17,000 and then in 2026 that figure
would drop to $40,716 with a 5,000 per vehicle down payment that would be a total hit to the to the vehicle fund of $82,343 and then the continued for 2026
would be $47,984 and if we do the zero down payment the total hit this year would be $57,000 and then the 2026 hit would be $55,252 and what we found getting uh Brooke
excuse me um so what you're talking about when you talk about the price Y um that's for six that's for six vehicles we've I've I've just dropped it down to what we need for the fleet okay um we're
going to keep running the van the the 99 van um the custodial crew's been running that and it's it's currently operating if that should have a catastrophic failure um I talked to Reena about it i can get a topper for the back of one of
our pickups and it we can we can make it work for us the the van was expensive and I think our department can make it work with the current van or the current vehicles we have so I'm just trying to get the ask that we get on a daily basis for vehicles to get that fleet back up
to where it needs to be so that's why the numbers have dropped slightly because the ban was expensive please um and just just for those people that were not listening in to our committee of the whole could you explain
which departments on a regular basis uh use those vehicles and how many like how many for public health and human services and and uh we don't have an excess of vehicles right the short-term needs is the assessor uses two generally
land services two soil and water two maintenance three public health and her human services has two radio communications has one and then it's the fleet where we get the daily ask for
so how many vehicles do we actually own at the or have under our care including anything leased if we have any and I know some of them are like really old yeah yeah um currently I mean historically it was it was 17 now we're
down to 14 um one of our one of our trucks was had a motor go out on it and we we decided not to replace it and get rid of it uh one was totaled out and then we also donated another vehicle to the airport as a courtesy vehicle
thanks and so in the past let's say 2014 we had revenues in the vehicle fund of $81,000 and that was at a reimbursement
rate of 0.56 which comes out to be we got reimbursed for $140,000 miles that year which in today's funds at the 70 would be $98,000
um last year 2024 10 years later with the age on our vehicles and people not enjoying driving them much at all our revenue dropped to 50,000 which at a 68
reimbursement rate is only 75,000 miles and last year the personal vehicle reimbursement was $76,695 so people drove 113,000 miles in their personal vehicles last year
because of the aging fleet and the the loss of vehicles so I mean when it comes down to it if we can get back to the revenues of 2018 2015 all the way up to 2019 at the
current reimbursement rate of 70 cents a mile we would have a revenue in the $105,000 i mean yeah around 105 98 to $105,000 into the reimbursement fund so
if we take our 55,000 or 47 I mean the vehicle fund can handle it without any influx of cash from the levy or anything else it will sustain itself our vehicle cost per year
if we go with 10,000 down is 6,780 a year which equals about 13,000 miles to be reimbursed into the into the vehicle fund which when I'm speaking
with other counties they always see you know anywhere from a 20 to 30% increase in their use of vehicles when you get a new vehicle so it is I'm assuming you know with a lot of good
information from other maintenance directors and fleet managers we will be able to sustain this without any any influx of cash from the levy or anywhere else commissioner Campbell thank you thank you uh Brooke for the information
um I'd like clarification on what you said initially yep um you're talking about six vehicles and then you said you referenced seven months did I mishar that seven remaining months on this budget
well if you Oh well you're talking about the seven months remaining on on on this on this year this year okay all right yes yeah okay so you're your projection what I'm looking at is the question is uh when we look at our total cost for
the commitment uh of the new vehicles which is the request before us today yes coupled with what our annual cost for existing fleet maintenance whatever else now you've got your total cost and you project that out over the term of the
lease and then you look at the revenues that we're projecting and we're saying that presently and you look historically at what we're generating based upon we charge out at the going federal rate for mileage each year and so we take the
total number of miles driven using both county vehicles and personal vehicles and that gives us that final revenue number so we look at our expenditures which include maintenance
and cost of vehicles and then we look at the revenue source to fund that expense what we're trying to do is we're trying to say can we fund that through the mechanism that we've set up that does not impact in any way levy dollars and
we're making some assumption although we can look at our historical perspective we're making some assumption that with newer vehicles we would see more use of county vehicles over personal vehicles because our reinbursement fund funded
through county vehicles at 70 cents a mile compared to personal personal is higher than counties so if we did a projection that said if we had a 10% increase in county vehicles over personal we would see this and if we had
a 20% because we're making the assumption or we've heard it that people don't like driving the old vehicles we have so they drive their vehicles or because they want to run an errand when they're gone someplace and if our policy says within reason if your errands in
Colorado we won't allow that but if it's you know somewhere in the vicinity we would allow that so whatever policy is will define what expectation is relative to revenue and I think as as the board our intent is can you show me through the numbers and
anticipated revenue generation that this decision will be funded through the mechanism we put in place to fund it yes yes i believe so i mean along with some with some policy need to write some policies I
discussed with Reena um there's kind of a it's already a policy that if a fleet vehicle is available you're supposed to take a fleet vehicle a lot of people like to take their personal vehicles because if
they're running to Duth you know it's a it's to run errands as well and take care of other things that you always we're always running to DUTH for um but a lot of counties I've spoken to are paying a half reimbursement rate
on per on use of your personal vehicle if you'd like to do other things other than your meeting and it's it's on an honor system but um many of the counties I've spoke to have good success with that where they're like "No I'm going to take my own i'll take the either a
one-way trip or a half reimbursement because it still makes sense for me because I need to you know go to Costco go to Walmart go go to the places we need to go to where we living where we live." And I guess I would say in my personal experience if I if I drive to a
meeting that's in duth if I look at my odometer and I see what it is from here to there and I write that down then I just simply double that and anything that I do beyond that isn't calculated in because I'm getting there to get
there if that's normally what it is so I just take what it is to get there and then two times that is the fair fair rate anything I do beyond that it's not Yeah it's just something to encourage people to drive county vehicles so the
so the the vehicle fund gets reimbursed and it doesn't cost you know because the 70 cents is is going to the vehicle fund or it's going to you personally yeah and us as fleet managers would prefer us getting that that 70 cents a mile so we can maintain
our vehicles buy new vehicles and everything else that goes along with with that revenue that we need to manage our fleet yeah and Mr chair just one final comment here is that uh um I think good information to
inform our decisions is is important and in this case if if the actuals that we look at given our experience between county vehicles and the personal use vehicles and the projections that we're
trying to reasonably make based upon consulting other counties in this regard that u we're not coming up with a tongue and cheek thing to sell this we're coming up with solid numbers that in good faith inform this decision which I
appreciate yeah yeah i mean I'm looking at if we get back to the to the earlier levels i mean we're we're at 150,000 miles at 70 that would bring $105,000 into the vehicle fund and my expenses
plus the cost of the lease would only be depending on what we do you know 85 to95,000 on out of that 105 so I'm I'm back in gaining $10,000 a year instead
of losing 10 to 15 pretty um so I'm wondering you you you had three numbers there yeah for uh 10,000 down or 5,000 down or zero down um I'm wondering if there's a
recommendation you have there i my tendency is to be very riskadversive and given the age and the repair rate of those other vehicles that it would not be 10,000 for sure yeah that would be Yeah um but but I would even say on this
first round um even zero but I I think that's a matter of discussion but but for me you know you how many you know we just watch these repair rates going up and up and you don't want to have not have enough money there to take care of
that existing fleet that's still um in in in the queue right now yeah and I would feel comfortable with even the even the 5,000 down that's it's a hit total this year of well 30,000 to
the vehicle fund right off the bat but that still leaves me with $100,000 and then we could you know that's plenty of money to work with i mean I've got one vehicle down right now they're trying to find a gas tank for i mean there's we're we're hurting so I
need to get this call in soon they're also anticipating a $6,000 per vehicle increase that could happen in the next few months so kind of time is of the essence with this one so I'm hoping I've got all the information so you guys can make a
informed decision mr gl yeah thank you Mr chair so just understanding the numbers you initially gave to us that if you look at the 10,000 down and you said that was 107,000 plus in 26 it's 40,000 that's that's a total of
$147,000 if you go to the 5,000 with what you said 2526 that's $130,000 if you go with the zero down that's 57 and 55 that's 112,000 so the difference between if I'm just looking at dollars if the numbers you give us are being
interpreted correctly the zero down is 20,000 less than the 5,000 and 35,000 less than the 10,000 it seems to be opposite of what usually is the case when you're buying a car if you pay down
you know you can you have a less less cost but in this case the zero makes most sense financially if I'm understanding the figures the way you represented them yes it yes i mean it's not a complete
hit to the to the vehicle fund in that dollar amount though because we will be making money off of those vehicles during that time but yes that is that is the actual numbers it's 107 plus the 40 and 82 plus the 47 and
then 57 this year plus a 55 and and I would be willing to make a motion based upon the information that you provided for us which I appreciate that we would go with the with the zero because it's the cheapest yeah yeah no I I I agree i would go that would be my recommendation
as well is to go with the zero yeah so our our intention is to try to provide what we need at the at the least cost right and the other component for the public is that with this lease we the
maintenance is included in the lease which is huge when you look at the cost of maintenance that we are trying to do y and the nice thing with the or have to do Yeah the nice thing with the included maintenance is as well that since the sheriff's department currently uses
Enterprise to lease all of their squad cars both Steves and Ty and Auto Lodge are both signed up already with Enterprise so we we can do our maintenance locally right so Mr chair to um in response to the information that's
provided to us that justifies uh this and does not have an impact on on the levy in in theory based upon the figures we're looking at i would recommend the purchase of six new small AWDs SUVs and selling the four other vehicles any idea
what we might anticipate and how do we sell vehicles do we use a middleman or do we do it no I mean Enterprise would love to sell us for sell them for us but then they want to charge 500 per vehicle i'm We've done sealed bids is my understanding in the past or we could use a state auction site all right i
know Deb's a big fan of the state auction site i refute that no state auction site has all sorts of cool stuff and people read it all sorts of people people buy stuff too don't they yeah they do
i concur with your recommendation as well Commissioner Gamble is is there a motion you made a motion oh I only heard recommendation i'm sorry is there support support okay thank we have a motion and support any further discussion there all those in favor i opposed thanks
Brook for the motion passes unanimously thank you you can check that off your list after you make that order yep thank you thank you thank you uh moving on to item nine here assessor we have chief parcel sawtooth master plan and thank
you everybody for for being here this morning appreciate it bob do you want to do an introduction for um the item here yes uh thank you um chair and commissioners so you know we're here to continue our discussion on
the the sheath parcel that is up adjacent to the Sawtooth Bluffs we do have Mr chief and his attorney present so that uh the board can conversate and ask some questions and and hopefully we have a better idea of where this is going to go before the end of the
meeting so um since our committee of the whole meeting I did reach out to the Minnesota Land Trust and talk with Pat Collins they are are still interested in and on board with you know proceeding with that original plan that we had talked about i think it's listed as
option A on the on the board um paperwork so you know really I think that it's it's it would be into the hands of of Mr chief if the board um decided that that was the direction that they wanted to go uh to work it out with
the the folks at the Minnesota Land Trust and and bring this back at another date to um you know do all of the the resolutions and paperwork to get that moving forward well thank you and thank you both for being here this morning we've been
talking about you but not with you and it's it's always um uh helpful to have you part of the conversation so um have a fair amount of background here but um don't know where the board would
like to to take the conversation if there's some immediate questions or if you want to lay things out a little bit for us that could be helpful too let me lay things out for the record anybody listening online I'm Tyson Smith i'm John's attorney i have a package of documents here for you my view is if
you're going to talk about a document it's easier to have it in front of you much of this has already been provided to you in your prior agenda materials but some of it has longd so two things I want to do today one is um present the county board with an
offer from John for how he proposes to proceed but before I get there I watched the last two committee of the whole meetings in preparation for this and I have to say I am concerned that you are being asked to make a decision based on some inaccurate and incomplete
information as well as some really terribly flawed legal advice so I want to start with that there was a long discussion about the right of John to use the platted streets for utilities and you were told he doesn't have a
utility easement that's not a little bit wrong that's black and white wrong i could probably talk for 20 minutes about the history of easement development in Minnesota i'm not going to do that i'll give you two simple examples one is before you it's that order page one of that packet if you go to page 11 I've
highlighted the language that's relevant when we talk about the scope of use of an easement ultimately what we're concerned about is what does the easement say you have the right to do this one says three things free use ingress and egress and just so we're all
clear free means without restriction the only caveat on that is if your use would interfere with someone else's right to ingress or egress you can't do that i.e you can't build a gate but can you install utilities absolutely within the scope of free use no question about it
the second example I would give you is more pragmatic pearson Mson's is an addition to the city of Grand Marray these are city streets if you are bored in your free time tonight and you want to read David Meyers's deputy examiner report to
the court as to why he believed we had this easement right uh you'll see an analysis there briefly about how the language of dedication in this old you know early 1900s plat is identical to the village plat dedication so I essentially what I'm saying here is I
think the PUC down in Grand Marray would be surprised to learn the county doesn't think it has the right to install water sewer power fiber telecommunications lines in the city street easement area because absolutely it does i I really urge you not to go down the road of
trying to prevent John from installing utilities in that easement corridor if that's where we go the reason why I say that you have eminent domain authority you have the right to take property rights but if you do you have to pay for it and that's not where this this case
should go there's two very I think good for the county outcomes here and we're asking you to pick between them uh second point I have had some concerns not just on this file but on files generally about the arguments that I make to the
county and then the recitation of those arguments for your review and this email is an example so if you review it you might note that I seem a touch frustrated and it is I am when I'm writing this it's all about the value that's being presented to us by Mr
thompson for the potential acquisition of this property by the county and he presented a comp grade with four comps and this is me telling him the reasons why I I just don't think these are appropriate uh they seem to me to be very adversarial frankly in the private practice if I see
someone someone comes to me and says you know I want to I want to use 80 acres up at the end of the Caribou Trail that's truly landlocked has no lake view as a comparable for something on the Sawtooth Bluff which is right next to Donald Graham Ray with a panoramic lake view that's an indication to me that that
person doesn't really want to make a deal that's okay it just means we need to go pursue other avenues if we are in such different camps as to valuation we're talking with Sandy Hoff to get an updated market analysis right now I'm if
you're not aware we've completed the subdivision there are now eight 10acre lots that's the last page of this is the current GIS map print out see what they look like they're simple but simple here I think is best we're being advised that the
listing price for those is in the low 200s and if you look at the sales on Coyote Ridge on County Road 7 on Burst Drive that's absolutely where the market is right now for Lake View property in Cook County 10 years ago when I moved
back I would have laughed at you if you said that's what it would sell for but I'm not laughing now and neither is anybody else in this town given how much property values have gone up and the reason particularly for land like this it's not it's not supernatural there just isn't any of it left if you look at
the platbook and want to see undeveloped property in the vicinity of Grand Marray we don't have anymore and the people that are interested in paying $200,000 for a lot they're the same folks that are hiring me to write a construction contract for a simple $5 million build
that's that's the type of money that is interested in this property that's the demographic that cares and so when we talk about well you know our development cost to build a road I know we've got old numbers in there in the low 150s rough estimate now 300s for a road to
city spec with with uh fiber and power coming along that easement corridor that's what that's what John's analysis is when he's trying to decide what to do with his property this you all know this case started 10 years ago i've been on it for
the last five he has always wanted to pursue a transfer of this property to the public but he also wants to get his money back i know you talked about the price he paid last time we know what that is he's got development costs and he'd like to make a little on
it uh I told you that we'd give you an option one of those two is for the county to buy it we don't care where the money comes from if it's a combination of county state federal land trust some other funding source I'm not aware of but the number he's willing to buy to
sell to you for right now is 475,000 that is a big difference from what we expect he will get from the market if he's selling these at two and a quarter a pop times 8 that math is simple if you don't want to spend the
money and I there's arguments that are very reasonable on all sides of this i get it that's acceptable but if we're not in a purchase conversation we should be talking about a development conversation because I don't like where the Platt Street is for the purpose of the construction of that access road and
that's if you want to look at the next page it's the map of Cook County this is a map I got from by way of Scott at the highway department years ago of what the county roads and toe roads were in 1939 and I've highlighted the road that is the
existing access road quote unquote that we're talking about my view as a developer's attorney and also as a landowner's attorney opposing development is always that the best place to put a road is where there already is one because you know if
someone was using hand tools to build a road in 1930 that's probably going to be the least disruptive or simplest route to get from A to B i I heard Commissioner Mills I heard you talking about you know proposing an alternative route that would be closer to the north side of the property and to
be less impactful on the Saki Bluff Park if you look at the last second to last page which is that survey that you've had before or I should call it a drafting survey actually it's not signed yet the reason you can't really go north of that yellow line if you walk that is
that is a fen or bog or it's it's a tremendous wetland and I'm willing to bet that that yellow line represents the top of an escer or a bluff that's holding all that water back and sending it east and west you can't build north of that it it would be it would be
terribly foolish both from an environmental standpoint as well as a well as just a road building cost standpoint so in your in your box of decisions one is John's willing to sell this i I forgot to mention he's willing to sell
or finance that 475 price too he'll give you a contract you can tie up the property take three years to figure out how you're going to pay for it whether that's on terms whatever that's the step he's willing to make to make sure this stays in county hands
but if that's not what we're talking about because the board decides it's not a good use of money or it's not appropriate or we have not enough we have not enough private property in our tax basis in county already and we need to add to it and this development if approved would I don't know round numbers figure 2 million house times
eight that's simple math that's a big addition to our county tax base uh if we're not talking about that we're talking about moving the road my perspective again is if I look at the hillside I see two types of improvements
i see the power line that runs to the radio towers everybody can see that because that runs perpendicular to the elevation lines big big observable impact alternatively if I look at there's a new house by the Thompson
family maybe it's on the hillside you can see the house you can't see their driveway the reason you can't see their driveway is it runs parallel to the grade and is hidden by the trees on all sides the yellow route is what we'd prefer that's hidden because it's running essentially parallel to the
grade the blue route which is where we have our right to construct under titanium order is not that will be visible and to my view is quite a bit more damaging because we're making these big left and right hand corners at those intersections of the streets at the bottom of steep slope hills that's a
that's an expensive road to build it's not impossible i think you heard from Mitch Travis last time that it's you know it's not great but it's doable i agree but I really think if you want to see this land stay in private
hands considering an exchange whereby we agree to release our right to the platted easements you can have them we don't want them just give us an ingress egress right over that existing tote road we'll build our road there and
start selling lots so happy to answer any questions you don't file for a while i'm trying to summarize just what I think is relevant and necessary for you going forward but we're an open book if you want to know it we know it we'll tell you thank you Commissioner Campbell
mr mr chair do you think it be advisable to have a a response to put some things in you know juxtapose as as to you know if Bob were to speak do you do you think that'd be advantageous or do you think
in other words it would it would give context as basically a response for the board and then we'd ask questions based upon that perspective or do we want to just ask questions and then Bob can talk well I'd rather not have it be a back
and forth as far as I think this I think that um but if you have some more context that that you would like to add beyond what what we talked about the committee the whole I I'd gladly welcome that um and then and then certainly I I
hope that we have questions to ask both um Tyson and Mr sheie uh as well as assessor Thompson so is there is there anything you you would like to add Bob i guess I just want to respond to the the comparable you know the the the
suggestion that the comparables that I chose might might not have they were adversarial in Tyson's words what what I did and I made it clear in that meeting was that I just swapped the comparables out and continued to use the the same adjustments that the appraiser used in
the sheath appraisal so it was really just a matter of comparable one versus the other and I know that um Mr uh Tyson had had indicated that um the property up on County Road 7 doesn't have a lake view i actually live across the street i've lived across the street from that
property for about 6 years and up on the hillside there is a a pretty good view even at the bottom of the driveway there's a seasonal view so I do just want to respond with with those two comments about the selection of the comp grid that I put together um as far as the two options that have
been laid out I think that uh I I kind of expected that those would be the two options that that were um most desired by the by Mr chief so you know I'm I'm happy to answer more questions you know regarding the the the committee the
whole discussion regarding the utility the the ability to put utilities across those public dedications um that was a conversation that our former interimm administrator had with Arrowhead Electric and they said we don't have any uh information of
easements across those properties at this point we would have to see documentation that would that would make us okay with putting in electrical easements so that's where that comment came from and I do believe you know we we had kind of left it that this would take more interpretation by the county
attorney at that time thank you Commissioner Gamble thank you Bob and and thank you and I appreciate the conversation i think it said it in the committee to hold too i appreciate John's forbearance through this because it was something I was dealing with as a
commissioner in my first term and so when it came up I went "You got to be kidding me you mean we're still dealing with that?" Um but uh uh I think we're dealing with it in the context of um that should be pointed out
your your willingness to try to work together for a win-win you know resolve and that doesn't always happen so that should be noted relative to wanting to be formed on informed on our end of things relative to what it can and
cannot be done in our committee of whole that if we ask the provider and the provider actually said themselves from our understanding and you've clarified that based upon the rule of law and we are elected basically to uphold
ordinance rule of law and make decisions in the context of what we know to be true based upon on the rule of law and its application which is defined by precedent so uh that's helpful in making a decision i think what this all boils down to over the period of time that
we've dealt with this is uh as it relates right now if there were properties that could be swapped out that felt that it was you know be good for both parties then we would look at doing that and that's been explored um
right now the what's before us is an opportunity to pursue either outright purchase um some combination with the uh conservative the using the land
conservation program um and uh John in our brief conversation during our break 14-minute break we uh talked about the fact that uh the position of uh uh commissioner is is a lot more complicated now than it used to be and
um and so here we are with mixed messages one is that the community and public comment and and uh feedback is don't touch that hill it's sacred let it be what it is we've got a lot of sacred land in Cook County is is land that the
government owns that we basically have no control over and we have very few as pointed out parcels that we can generate revenue from those parcels that we do have that are government-owned land that are about
92% those parcels they're debating whether or not they want to meet their in good faith commitment on gen giving this county revenue to operate because so much of the land belongs to government and so when we look at it and we say well what land do we have
available that we can generate revenue if we have undeveloped land that is ours to make a determination on that could generate revenue at this price point of house if you want to look at through just that lens this is an opportunity to
um mitigate some of the levy impact by having more people share the load that's if you want to look at it from that standpoint if you want to look at it from the aesthetic standpoint and say "Let's take this off the potential
revenue generating just so we can visually see that and do what is attractive to people because there's no development that's in conflict with two things that we're entrusted to try to protect the aesthetic and what draws
people here and trying to generate revenue so we have to prioritize based upon what we feel is most valuable to us as a as a county that's sort of what what I I see this as if we do the if we
take the conservatory um approach to it we have financial obligation that we have to assume relative to the maintenance of that property as I understand it um so if you want to boil it right down I
think it just it's a decision of do we want to contribute to our our our foundation of revenue or do we want to contribute to the aesthetic that's what it comes down to and if we say can we find a a middle
ground that allows both of those things i think if we take a decision that says no development we need to understand we just took something else off there that is a potential revenue source for us and we don't have very many of them we don't have very many so it's a it's a decision
you know we're caught between two forces that are pushing us one way or the other what are we going to do about it and we've got an individual that's been very patient in trying to find a way out of this uh and and if we as a board can't make a decision so he can move forward
then under the rule of law he can move forward in the context of what the provision of the rule of law provides so that's my thought okay Commissioner White so this seems to be a sense of position situation is what
do we value do we value the environment this is a unique piece of of geography that there might be more pieces i mean yeah there are more bluffs than there are more in the county but when we're
talking about revenue for the county there we need that but um our uh NEVA just presented uh a possibility for cluster housing for
for in increasing housing with the same amount of the same amount of land that we already have so once something is developed it is developed i mean and it is gone and
there will be people there are people everybody wants to come to Cook County we have the natural beauty we have all sorts of things but they will people will come with the means to buy whatever
they want wherever they want at any price there are people like that and I'm sure of it and it's not a reflection on the quality of the person or anything like that but it's just the
fact that our land is becoming increasingly uh cost prohibitive for a single person to buy land we've got that but we have that bluff which for decades has been
recognized by and there have been county meetings on this community meetings on this as being pretty unique and pretty important and aesthetics matter i mean otherwise we could just
pave a whole lot of whole lot of uh existing land and we could I don't know we need more we should do a parking ramp we'd have more parking space and I mean we could do all sorts of things but but once we land is developed it is
developed and particularly something so obvious so beautiful who wouldn't want to have that I get that but I believe we need to we are entrusted to help take
care of community our community's natural resources we'll find out figure out how to build houses other ways but to build it on that prime piece of property and I so appreciate your
willingness to be patient through all the years and uh you're not um that you're not gung-ho on just developing it i just can't thank you enough for that so I
just whatever he needs that we have control over that property i think that's that's not that's not the way you negotiate i get that but I believe we need and it could change with a new board going down the going down into
history here or go going down into the future but at this moment in time I am adamantly opposed to to development on that hill so I have nothing more to say
thank you Commissioner Gamble thank you and and I I think it's important to you know to express what we feel we represent relative to constituent um I I think if if we well very difficult to do
but if we take the emotion out of out of uh decision making and we just put things down and you're looking at it from an evaluation standpoint the facts of the matter are we have very little that we can develop if if I'm a hardware store and I only have so many square
feet I'm going to look at trying to put in items that are give me the best return on my stock my investment uh what I mean the stock the stuff that I inventory and I sell if I make more money selling this I'm going to use the
limited square feet to do that so it it comes down into into the black and white is saying if we if we do the layover the in innovative way of making our parcels grouped that is with the intent the focus is trying to create affordable
housing which means that the in that you can make the assumption that those are going to be lower priced properties and therefore generate less revenue then when you take prime and you say "Wow
using the hardware analogy I can I can put this in my store and I can get a whole lot more for that for something that we we need." So I'm just saying in black and white the decision comes down to do we do we serve revenue base or do
we serve aesthetic that's what it comes down to so we just have to make that decision and and the if if we say let's purchase for $475,000 where does that money come from if it comes from the people that are burdened right now with too much on
their shoulders trying to fund things that we do we make decisions then it's a double whammy it's it's we're going to take taxpayer dollars to buy something that is going to actually contribute to their financial you know
responsibility and not alleviate the cost of running government and so that that's something that needs to be pointed out if we do that it's it's a double take on it and if if we had somebody come up and say I really
believe in the aesthetic and I am willing I am willing to buy that land which then if we own it I don't know the basis under which we could we aren't going to pay tax on it if we own it and so it's it's going to go off the roll
which is what 800 some $816 a year I think that's generated by that property but what it could generate you know that's what you need to look at is just black and white not emotional black and white but if somebody came up and said "It means enough let's start a GoFundMe
online and let's generate the money and see if we can't raise that money we'll buy it take it off there and protect without it costing." Although the projectable potential for revenue is not calculated into that then that might be a way of of trying to alleviate the
burden of having taxpayer dollars that are paying money right now have to buy something that's going to take revenue potential to alleviate burden on levy commissioner White so we're talking about change i mean the culture of this county has been changing for a long time
really changing and so people that have lived here for a long time they don't move here so they can be surrounded by or be um some people would like to move here and and the reality of actually being
able to afford to build here and to live here is a little different than what what is imagined but even if you had one person who said "I will buy this and I will make certain that it doesn't get
developed everybody dies." And the descendants of that person who bought it will say "Hey Uncle Phil said that this was supposed to we're not going to we're not going to I like it this how it is." And
then the um his descendants say you know times are hard where I live down here and wherever I live Alabama or wherever it may be i um think we ought to sell we can make a whole lot of money there are
no guarantees but at this moment in time we as elected officials have an opportunity to help hold on to a really and get and I'm not being emotional about this there's I live in the middle of the woods it's a beautiful county
there are bluffs everywhere along the shoreline when you drive on it but this is one that many people recognize as a component of the landscape of of Grand Marray and of of
what you grew up with now yes we had a ski hill on there at one time but a south facing ski slope is kind of hard to keep snow on way back when so um but at this moment in
time we will find money i mean if we're going to do a GoFundMe maybe people would if you throw that out there GoFundMe for the county to own it i don't know but I just think once it is sold to a re to a
developer it's gone it is gone and there's a lot of other property that people could buy that have spectacular view views of the county go east of town there you're up there you're not on the
lake but there are actually properties on the lake shore east of town that are available to be purchased also uh Commissioner Campbell yeah thank you Mr chair thank you Commissioner B um I I
wasn't suggesting that that somebody although it's an alternative somebody buy it and own it i'm suggesting if if a donator or a benefactor wanted to come up and give the money to county to buy it that's what I'm saying because I agree with you that that somebody else buys it that and there's places in
Wisconsin with beautiful pines or whatever and then it was bequeathed to kids and next week all those trees you are cut down and people are going "Oh my goodness we thought that'd be there forever." So that's a reality but when you're weighing you know things you're
looking at it if it's the only recourse you take that risk it's measured risk and but in the case where it's it's a donation because people yes we believe in it so GoFundMe says all you people that believe it then let's find something that can do that that that
ensures that that land stays with the county the only thing about that is is with very little land it's taking something else away from a very small inventory but if we feel that that's valuable and you you understand the
aesthetic of it from a tourist attraction standpoint benefits a few but not not the whole so um and and yet you know as we had in public comment this morning that's somebody that's been here somebody that works in forestry and it's sacred to them so it it has benefits
certainly here so and when excuse me one last statement and then I'm done are we going to have infinite growth we cannot grow forever people cannot continue to live think they're going to move here and get to own a
piece of property there's only so much property so much and we don't have a big density i get that and we never will but at some point we'll max out i have no idea what that amount would be but I don't believe
that Bluff is here exclusively for the tourists it is it is an integral part of this county and has been well forever so I'm done now commissioner Seldon yeah
I um really agree with you Commissioner White i think this is a a very important place in Cook County the bluff and as you talked about u Miss Maxwell's overlay design and um the fact that we
have other ways we can develop and that is for affordable housing does not bring in as much tax dollar to the county but one of the key components of Miss Maxwell's plan is the importance of green space that 50% of all of those
parcels remain in green space and I think green space is important to the people who have lived here for many years i also think it's important for the people that are here today and for people that will come here in in the future maybe not for the eight people
that would purchase those 10 acre parcels but I think for many many others it is a very very valuable thing yeah please i'm sorry no not at all but community we need to talk about
community and there are many second homes very expensive second homes that taxes are paid on and the people who own those properties don't come here they don't
visit they don't live here i mean I know there is one place east of town that in 10 years of plowing the driveway so Komao oil could get in never once was there any evidence that anyone had ever
been in that place big beautiful place and the person was from out of state and that is not how you might have big expensive homes but do you what type of just like the um uh when we have
the when we have the vacation rentals and now we have houses that sit empty and you don't have regular residents that live there all the time that impacts community and community has more value than I mean we'll figure it out
how to I mean and it might not be nice might be very difficult but I believe who are the people that will will what will their incentive be to be integrated into the community once
they build something like truly part of the community and that worries me commissioner Mills I have a few follow-up points that might be helpful yeah well um before we get there I too want to uh echo what Commissioner was white is just the gratitude for and your
patience for the process your intentions for uh community use or or public public use and um I I had a couple questions if that's okay before you you respond Tyson um it
um so I I um I lean towards wanting to get it into public hands as well um there's no way we can afford $475,000 that's I mean I guess if there's a GoFundMe or something but just the reality of our budget talks and the
state of affairs at both the state and federally it's going to be difficult um in in the coming years to to make um our services whole um I understand that with the preferred easement the conservation easement would
have a higher value but even with that the conservation easement will not provide the $475,000 um I I guess I was wondering if you have explored and and you know you don't want to waste your time so maybe you haven't
yet but if you've explored other countyowned properties with anything in mind for some kind of land swap and I know that's not your first preference by any means but I'm just trying to figure out ways to accomplish what we're all trying
to what we're all mostly trying to accomplish i think there's there's a couple things we can say about this and go ahead yes start start from the back land swap was on the table a while ago it has it popped its head up every now and again the issue is if we have such a
fundamental disagreement on value it it just doesn't make sense to us to come to the table when it feels as I said like a real adversarial approach to what the value is as to the design it's a no well
David u uh you know I've been through the exchange thing you know for a long long time in in multiple different ways um and I did take a look at the uh the current uh tax forfeited parcels that
Bob provided you know I I I was open-minded to it i I I just don't think that it's it's there tyson points out you know one particular you know big difference um and the suitability of it
and you know even the main reason why uh you know Betty Schultz in particular was a very uh sensitive reluctant to get involved in exchanges is simply the time and the difficulty in it it it may be well well
beyond just us you know as a group state is has to be involved in this I I did do an exchange you know because I had done one I didn't think that it was quite so bad but uh it's not that easy I mean the
DNR just goes through every department and they all have to so it's not easy I I think you know we've got uh you know a pretty clear choice here Um you know I understand about the money that's why
you know I was open to you know scaling it out over a period of time kind of you know figure it out you know I I also uh was well aware of you know just reading the local paper
uh you know in recent years how much monies had been coming down from federal state and so forth and you add an article in the paper and Brady always has uh you know a review of of different things terms of pockets of money some of
which you know pennies from heaven now that was a year or two ago and now we've got a new administration in Washington which uh you know may put that money in jeopardy i'm not sure but
um that was not an impediment to me in terms of where the money might come from you know for for the county you know $100,000 is not trivial amount of money
but you know in the big scope and in looking at it over a period of time and taking into account what you've said Dev you know about the overall community
impact when we talked about this Gary 10 years ago in 2013 I came before the the council asked for an easement well there were at least a half a dozen you know writeins Amy Wilart
uh maybe Carol Pratt uh Sue Abrahams people up on Old Skiill Road so this is a this is a big much bigger issue than you
know well it is it's development or not development and and that is a big issue and I've been mulling this you know for years and it's part of the reason why I didn't go
cartw because that would have been just you know it would have pit private land that would have been the first choice bring you know the county would say well we have to go non- tax forfeited parcel to go private those
parcels impacted would be just in an uproar and so um I I think that uh you all as a group have to come to grips with what Bob is talking
about bob's the assessor you know he's the county employee it's almost like you have to you know respond to to what he's saying but at the same time I think you
have to put your independent hat on one of the reasons why in fact the principal reason why we did the subdivision you all can take a look at a 10acre parcel you can just read the paper there's all kinds of 10acre
parcels around you can form your own opinion as to whether or not a parcel is worth X or Y but an 80 acre parcel that's not so easy to do just just think about that that parcel up there on
Sawtooth Bluff it's 2800 and uh 2680 ft so it's two quarters side by side the one that Bob used as uh the comparable is only 1320 ft in order to get the other 1320 to be
equal he has to climb that that hill maybe you can do it but it costs money that's just another reason why the the appraisal which was done is very problematic and it's the
only one among these three that has any credibility at all it this fills up a piece of paper which you guys were shown a couple of meetings ago at the committee of the whole as if it's a an appraisal
this this is not helpful because it sets up a context for you that shows a value of 120,000 and and I'm coming to you and saying "Well gee it's a bargain at 475 how's
that?" So you know you have to determine where the credibility is on this and I think you've all been around well enough to know what values are and and what has happened in you know the last say since
the pandemic since 2021 you know is it fair to say that that a lot up there is worth $200,000 the appraiser that I happen to hire says yes you know we we think so
and so you know the county Gary and I Gary was the one that actually phrased the the the term win-win he said you know we ought to think about this in a win-win context
just to qualify that I never I never came up with that i used it i bowed it i bowed it in the context of let's say my interface you know with the commissioners the county and so forth you were the first one it was words out
of your mouth so um the win-win so the county in my opinion wins with a much discounted price terms of you know I could go ahead
and develop up there make a lot more money so you know out of my pocket it's a big discount from the county's perspective you might say "Hey that doesn't sound like much of a discount i that's for you to decide from my
perspective I've sort of won maybe you could say won because the legal access is already there we're not talking about legal access here the legal process much to my surprise turns out this old plaid
exists." I mean that is a surprising development but in any event um and you know there's also you might say some let's
say community joy in facilitating something like this and of course the park you know was developed uh that idea and it it fit there there was a a fit in that so
that's it i need to follow up on financing component i touched on this briefly i want to say it now your commissioner Mills your point that the county just doesn't have the money we understand that recognize that that's why we propose seller financing you sign a contract for deed you've got time to
figure it out if you can't get it done well you lose what you paid which is nothing and if you can get it done when the contract is up the money's there the propertyy's yours it gives you what you want and gives you time to figure out how you can do it satisfying everybody's
goals thank you yeah and um at some point and for some maybe sooner than later the valuation is is is critical to this discussion for me not as much um it
it is absolutely a factor but we have to decide what we're aiming for and and then when we decide that how might we be able to make that happen and so that's why I was trying to look at all the options uh you know and it doesn't have to be just one it could be all three it
could be uh land exchange uh conservation easement and money you know it there's there's lots of different ways to I think try to approach this and Again valuation absolutely will be important but it's just not where my mind is at right now and I could be an
outlier so that's that but Commissioner Gamble you have something yeah thank you Mr chair just to um underscore the importance of the conversation so many issues you know that that that that we deal with and having a conversation with people that are
informed and and and also just uh to recognize that that in our zoning department we entrust responsibility to an individual to represent you know our best interests in the context of the rule of law and what state statute says
which you can appreciate um and so he's he's our representative and um uh we we weigh in decisions based upon the information we get we ask to go back and take a look at it couple of things I
I'll note here is that that uh we're in discussions multiple arrowhead counties well state counties and and throughout the federal government uh the uh counties that are discussing the issue
of payment in lie of taxes and when we look at it at the state level with the Tai Blacknik the issue of payment in lie of taxes that's federal that's federal that federal Yeah yeah but when we have those discussions
it is a debate about what are you evaluating it at what are you using for your numbers and we just want it to be a fair and sometimes when it comes to that in other examples like in relations employee relations we have policies in
place that say we'll go to arbitration in other words let's bring in somebody that's credible and do an evaluation in good faith that we find out what we think the fair market value is of this and uh in present day economy so that
that would be an option if I don't know if if the funding mechanism if our county attorney knows anything relative to whether or not we as a county can use a funding source an online funding source
not like a GoFundMe yeah see so so those things other than if we don't use something like that and we were to just say if there's that many people out there that care about the bluff are you willing to you know if to the extent that we can in the context of the
provision of rural law as a county entity to take revenues to be able to fund this there are um uh don't want to get it on the spot but the there are um definitely
restrictions and prohibitions against the way that a government entity can seek donations um from a p from the public even for specific use so I can give you a more thorough and comprehensive answer on that but in short probably no is the answer okay and
thank you for that if if an individual out there said "Boy you know we're gonna we're going to take this and we're going to be that and then we'll just come and make that donation," they they wouldn't be prohibited from doing that because it's their intent to do that they could
in fact buy the land and then give the land to the county in other words what we're saying is we're not saying "Let's circumvent the rule of law we need to follow practices that demonstrate integrity but that doesn't mean that there can't be a discussion to find out
how can we in the context of the provision of the rule of law and still accomplish what we're trying to do which is multiaceted not create tax burden with money we don't have but where can we generate these monies if we look at a payment plan then it's still the money
has to come somewhere but it's it's a provision to us that we might not be able to get elsewhere we're bonding and doing so many things where it's money we got to manage all of this um but
the and and when you set your price John on on this and if you look at it if we said well we're talking about everything this is just an open discussion respectful um if if there's any tax advantage and you've probably been through this that that uh where a
portion of that could be written off uh through proper channels so where we're looking at how do we do all of this to find that win-win situation where we it seems that it's pretty obvious that we want to protect that bluff so that's we've made that our top priority our
priority isn't generating revenue it's protecting that bluff there can be some residual ripple effect of protecting the bluff that comes back in dollars but I'm talking about development for high-end houses so if the board says we want to
protect it we've sort of reached that conclusion uh based upon conversation now how do we get there how do we get there to find that win-win and still try to pract so that's a conversation I' I' I'd
like to see us say if we want to say that in good faith our intent is amongst all the option is to want to own that we want to own it as a county so we can control it and not put in anybody else's hands just how do we do that if that's
the consensus of the board then I think we need to move forward with in good faith the intent of purchasing it how can we do conservation need it's a good idea i confess I got tired of banging my head against the wall with the land trust when they said this is our appraisal
we're absolutely not going to show it to you but here are the comps we used but again it just were not realistic to the market as we see transact every day there are other conservation organizations the county is under
chapter 87 I think authorized to be the holder of the conservation easement as a public entity there's a lot of ways to get this problem solved we're happy to work with you to make it happen we're happy to give you time and and bind our hands from selling it to anybody else so
you can do it but my observation is we've pushed as hard as we can with the stakeholders and they're tired of talking to us they don't want to hear from us anymore i worked really hard this is two years ago to push the county to step into our shoes a little bit and
push back on the land trust and say "Hey folks you know what Tyson's saying about your appraisal really has some validity based on what we know and what every broker in Cook County will tell you." Um but we had a wall so I guess what I'm saying is maybe it's time to pass the
torch if you want to figure it out we'd love to help you yeah uh I I'd just like to comment uh about the Minnesota Land Trust um and and this is uh kind of a a a sore point uh with me
and uh so I I I'll avoid a lot of the the backdrop but I guess the the thing that came to the head uh bothered me
is the appraisal so when you approach the Minnesota Land Trust they say there's going to be an appraisal yeah what I expected was that I would be provided a copy of the appraisal and I'd be able to review it maybe I'd go out
and actually even take a look at some of the comparables you know that were in it it's not the case the Minnesota Land Trust does not provide a written appraisal to the land
owner i didn't find that out until I received this is what they give you a piece of paper describes where the location is and it says a before value which is what you would look at the property you know just
as it is and then an after value and they they that after is defined as what it would be after the restrictions that are defined in the conservation easement i had almost
nothing in the conservation easement tim Tim is uh well aware of it also anyway that's an after value and then the difference is this valued of rights acquired the Minnesota Land Trust came
up with 165,000 as a before value the after value was 71,000 which meant that the development rights was 94,000 so that's what Minnesota Land Trust has said we're willing to pay to
you now I went to there's a lot of personnel issues uh involved uh also but I went to Pat and said uh so can you tell me a little bit about the
comps not really no he said all I can tell you is the section that the that the uh comparable was in two of the comparables were in section
five west Sugarloaf Cove the border you'd go to your grocery shopping in Silver Lake Silver Bay one of them was three east one of them was pretty good actually uh not too
far from here east of town that one incidentally had a a transaction date in early 2020 kind of before the the movement in
price so when I when I realized that this was not a an appraisal that I was comfortable with at all
uh I basically I was very abrupt and and direct with Pat about how I felt it was an unethical process in that they go they control the entire appraisal
process say here's what we think it's worth you take it or leave it and you know we've talked to you a little bit about well you know it was here you know in a certain but there's not any depth of of description about it and and he
was second place anyway to the appraiser so uh I was very very upset about that and and told him so so that essentially was the primary reason why I I let it drop
now as a few months rolled on um I wrote him an email i wrote Pat Collins back bob has seen it tim has seen it i ought to give it to you guys also it was a request for a second
appraisal because the judgment by determining the plat up there now there's free public access through the tax forfeited parcels to the property now to me that seemed
like a pretty significant event because the arrangement that we had signed with the county originally with the conservation easement and all was for you know a an acknowledgement of
access not like a you know fully dedicated public road so I went back to Pat and you know I said uh would you do a reappraisal and I even got John
Overberholtzer John Oberh Holtzer who's a realtor out in uh uh Toy uh he's on the board and I sat down with him and uh actually gave him this email also and uh
he went to Chris Larson who is the uh the head of the Minnesota Land Trust no they they were not uh you know they're they're just doing what they're doing
now when uh I've met with Tim and and Mitch and some of the others and Bob I said you know it's easy for a person in a organization like the
Minnesota Land Trust to say we have our rules and you know this guy he's he's just one guy you know we're not going to bend for this and um so you know I said you know Bob or
somebody and and it may well be some kind of a communication from you we feel that a reappraisal is warranted and you know you know request
that on behalf of the reasons much like Deb you have articulated essentially a community um you know and posterity message uh that uh you know this is something
that you know we'd like to you know put before you uh as a funding source okay call it that but as a cooperative and and that's in essence what I was saying in this email that this is it's even it's kind of
broader than just Cook County because the entire state of Minnesota looks at Grand Marray and that bluff as a sense of identity so um
the the Minnesota Land Trust was created by the voice of the people that Lassard Sams thing every county you're probably well aware of this approved it again uh to fund you know that that
source of funding $94,000 for that bluff is isn't you know I mean it's but the point is they could easily easily have an appraisal that would be much more significant
and balancing some contribution from the county you know with with that as a funding source there is a there is a common purpose there between Cook County and the Minnesota Land Trust which
is it it's well it's obvious I think to all of us in my opinion it's it's a it's different but it's much more significant than the Lake Superior um 25
acres that was just set up as a scientific area there and several hundred,000 that uh Minnesota Land Trust did for that you know this happens to be a hill now that was you know right next to
Lake Superior it's a fan and has scient you know you could make a lot of cases that those are very comparable kinds of of uh properties for the benefit of the public so I guess
what I'm saying is um through the right voice and channel Bob was one but Bob did not put the question the way I would have bob said and Bob you should say
what you said but what you told me if I'm paraphrasing right he just said "Are you interested in continuing to do the min the uh uh you know the conservation easement with John Sheffie?" And they
said "Well okay i want and proposed a completely new appraisal based on different facts and circumstances which are totally different not totally
different when when the when Cook County granted the easement in December of 2000 2020 there was access there now there's been this court judgment
there's a plat of roads up there that's a completely different set of Okay so um I I'm just saying that there is justification to request a uh you know
another appraisal and to me I think that's very important how that is done whether it's done through the chair or uh you know that's you know up to you to decide but chair has no power it's all board so yeah well so what year was that
appraisal done 2020 was the appraisal yeah 2020 uh the the date of uh the Minnesota Land Trust appraisal was March 2022
2022 okay and so I was just wondering if there's a time limit on the appraisal if at a certain point No it's forever oh okay um that'd be up to the And I appreciate the 94,000 because in my mind then we're not talking 475,000 we're talking
375,000ish you know so that's just how my mind works and and so I appreciate that that insight and yeah it sounds like another appraisal could be warranted u but there's no guarantees um that appraisal was presumably with the
the straight you know not the preferred or there's been some confusion about access i've I've been told that they appraised it as though it it had access but the it just doesn't seem to me like anybody really listened or agreed to
that until we had the court order and of course there hasn't been an appraisal since then right right okay bob Bob was there something did I see a signal you wanted to say anything or No yeah i I guess there were a few things I just wanted to follow up um Mr chief is right in the conversation that I had with Pat
i did not push for a new appraisal i did ask if they had reconsidered the value after the Hanky Judge Hanky's ruling on the access and he said that no and um to to in his own words he said they are not
budging on their valuation of the property so you know I get it that there has been time that has gone past and certainly there's been some market appreciation you know when I look at the appraisal that I have that was actually paid for and contracted by Mr chief it's
not the land trust appraisal even that uses older comparables than you know what I had put into my comp grid um I I do think I have a suggestion because I'm not sure that the the board hasn't
indicated to me that they've made a a decision on this yet but what if I so I think and I'm totally in agreement that if those parcels were sold off with access they'd be 200,000 plus there's no doubt in my mind so you know 1.6 6 million but that's assuming
access to each parcel you know I know that in this appraisal I looked at it only is is giving a rough estimate of cutting in access to the edge of the parcel i don't believe it goes to the end because that would be over a mile long i think an appropriate step would
be a to have a contractor give a bid for a road along their preferred access route and a contractor to give a bid along the streets and alleyways the difference in those two values to me is
the value of this preferred access route it's probably slightly less because obviously if it comes out to be a wash then you know what's the point of getting a preferred access route i do think that the development will be cheaper along the preferred route because it is pre-developed that's kind
of overgrown and it would just be a matter of kind of getting back in there and bringing it up to today's standards whereas this streets and alleyways is obviously going to traverse you know land that hasn't been disturbed in many years probably since they logged it years and years and years
ago so that would be one suggestion is let's find out what the access will actually cost to build right now what we have is a rough estimate from uh a range of 20 to $35 and they said "We're going to estimate the road construction cost
at $30 a foot and going x number of feet." And that's where I think there's truly maybe room to to improve upon the actual number of what a contractor is willing to put on paper that they would go in and develop those roads for
so then then the board would have a good idea of you know what's the value of this parcel with the access because right now it's two different opinion three different opinions actually with the Minnesota Land Trust um and I think that the knowing what the cost of those roads would be would really be useful to
this board and also another suggestion I have is if it's flagged off up there I know at one point there was some flagging done by a surveyor i think it's worthwhile for some of us to go up there and take a peek at it let's let's walk these streets and alleyways let's walk this preferred route and let's get a feel for
what that what that impact would be um you know from what I'm hearing is that you know without without the Minnesota land trust reconsidering the value and and doing an appraisal that Mr chief sees is more favorable that's just not going to be an option so really what we're talking about is either purchasing
it or granting that preferred easement which they're indicating will have less impact on the sawtooth bluffs if we do go the route of of giving that preferred access easement and we're not getting the the land in exchange with the with
the conservation easement i think we have to go back to 28204 Minnesota statute 28204 where that easement would have to be paid for because it's public land mr gamble thank you Mr chair thank you Bob
um a couple of things observation given the discussion it seems that the will of the board is that we want to preserve that land that takes the development issue out of it so the only thing
relative to access and easement and cost is in connection with the evaluation because it's not something we want to do evaluation for the land trust which evaluation for the land trust that's right which they don't want to redo
unless we ask for it maybe as a board yeah and this is just me speaking for myself i'm following y but I don't want to go the land trust route okay and the reason they don't want to go the land trust route is it puts a burden on the county we have we have to comply with
the requirements that they put in place which means that that we have to maintain that if am I wrong on that if you read the conservation easement the requirement of maintenance number one is obligated by the land trust and two to the extent that the county is obligated
to maintain the fee we're talking about clearing trails once a decade it's a nominal expense i don't think maintenance in a conservation easement should be of any concern to the board because it just isn't there okay and I and I appreciate you know putting that in context but when I read the agreement
there it we as a county become responsible based upon what they define for us if the reality of that as opposed to looking at the big words is that it just means this whatever the other component of it in our decision-m which
we haven't discussed of but we're mindful of is whether or not this park development is something that that proceeds or not but I I would say I mean I would say that if the board is in
agreement and to try to move this forward that uh and this is for discussion but I would be willing to make a motion saying that is our intent in other words if we're going to put substance to what our conversation has been that we want to purchase it and if
if we are not comfortable with the appraisal this price that we would hire an individual that we mutually agree to to do an appraisal that's where this context of access and everything else
would come into it we could do that if we're more comfortable or we could just say we make a motion with a known fact of 475 that that's the purchase price and if we want to do it in conjunction with a land trust as part of the source and
put it out there anybody want the community wants to do whatever it just in good faith we would make a motion saying that it's our intent to purchase it how we do that from this point on is yet to be determined but we we want you
to know this is the direction that closes the door on what's going to happen and and then we just got to figure out how we're going to do it but but the point is is that if if we're not going to explore anything else other than just let's preserve it then let's
do that in the context that protects us moving forward without any obligation that's why I think the straightforward just purchase and be done with it all right yeah my understanding of I mean we've had the DNR come give a presentation on the land trust and my
understanding is and it sounds like you maybe have had a different experience but a collaborative process where you say this is what I want to allow for the land and there are restrictions but you can log it in a land trust but you have to define that when you set up the trust
or you can have it for you know other agriculture you know there's there are many different ways to to so I don't find that overly restrict rictive but I could be naive there certainly inexperienced if I were just prioritating best case scenario is if we make the decision we're going to buy it
and that's what it seems we want to we want to own it we want to protect it that's the consensus then we we conclude that now what do we do if we're going to buy it number one would just to be buy it outright number two option would be
to enter into agreement with the land trust that that would be where I'd be coming from yeah and my you know I like that my fear is that we're gonna make this declaration and uh and then we'll just
drag drag uh Mr chief along for you know longer than he deserves and so we could put a a time a timeline on that yeah yes commissioner White couple of things a scientific and natural area designation
how does that happen i have no idea because I know that through our property or where we east end of the county there's 40 or 80 acres it's a scientific and natural area and you can build nothing through there though i mean you
can walk through there but you can't cut trails you can't and it just sits there and has sat there for the last 40 years you know but what is I don't I just know that is some way to protect property but
I don't know what Deb I think it's a a little higher level than just a conservation easement the DNR comes in they sort of pre-select and identify it's not that they initiate it
but you know private but there is the collaboration there and it's uh It has similarities but in the in the conservation easement and David you know you're exactly right it can go the whole gamut this conservation
easement which I presume would be unchanged but I'm actually open to if the county and if the park wanted to do something else but they've reviewed it and and they're comfortable with it they've already accepted it actually the joint park has as as an addendum to the
to their part property um but uh uh I I lost my train of thought there but the SNA is the Yeah well it has to be a significant maybe endangered a very unique parcel and that's how it's
classified to have those so you know if if you want to change it but um this is as as flexible and open essentially and consistent with the park as it as it can be you can't really I I suppose you
could say you can't go in and hike on it but the intention was to connect to the Superior Hiking Trail and campsite you know few campsites that that's all that's all it is please go ahead
we have some really cool smart marketing people in this county don't we let's market market the bluff ask for the greater United States community to come and help
protect help us buy this bluff it's only $475,000 i mean we need help and that undeniably it is a piece of real estate that you will not find in a lot of different places and I was just
thinking about decades ago having gone to Montana and done whatever and then it would have been 30 years after that one trip going past I don't remember where we were but um visiting colleges out there and that what used to
be mountainsides there was nothing but lights just development everywhere and there's no going back you know I I mean their their land it and they're building up the mountain side
you could see that so uh I believe we have marketing people in this county visit Cook County they can market all sorts of people and put it on Carol 11 News get get the TV stations up here here's a here's an opportunity
we'll everyone can buy a square foot of the bluff like we did when we got a new Everyone can buy a brick you can just say pick it out this is your piece of the bluff and for $25 you can own a piece
of real estate i think I think attorney Peterson said we actually actually can't do that uh we can't solicit you know we can't ask for we can't ask for that but a community member can do it on the of their own valition which is what um
commissioner gamble was was was implying and I do like the directness of it as far as our intentions are concerned I think it seems like to your point we're at a consensus it's just how to one other thing I wanted to add and we've spent a lot of time here and it's it's
uh it's important 10 years incremental Has it been that long this morning uh is uh you know with the the um the Sawtooth Bluff master plan uh of the
regional park significance all that that's a very long process uh however um and I think there's potentially 1.2 million for a project you can use that money to buy land for the project and so
that's an option but it's a long process and so that speaks to my fear that we're going to just drag along and trying to figure out how to do this but I I just want to put that in the back pocket that's why I proposed the contract because it's got an end date it's yours
until then yeah yeah commissioner thank you Mr chair again I appreciate the conversation um let me ask John um how much time given the fact you've been so
gracious with us how much time would you give us let's just say that that under discussion and and the direction that we go and any action that we would take if we said our commitment is to purchase it how we do that we don't know if we're comfortable with the 475 and you're
comfortable with the 475 there's no tax benefit you probably used up every tax benefit you can and any influence on that pricing um that uh how much time are you comfortable allowing us to determine how we're going to pay for it
if we make a motion that our intent is to buy it we just don't know how we're going to pay for it yeah well Gary yeah these are uh inherently um fraught for extension extension extension time uh I think
Tyson had mentioned that you know towards the end of the year you know into the fall um you know I think that would give an adequate amount of time for you guys us you know I I know uh maybe parks but but you know with
respect to the park I don't think that this needs to be held directly next to the park in terms of anything that's going on with that uh this this can be completely separate and you know if the county acquires it and adds it to the park fantastic you know
and I think it just it's an awareness on our part that's why it's brought up I I would say you know say December 1st okay uh so the question before the board then as I see it is that if if we are under
the impression given the feedback we've had the discussion we've had and the the length of this discussion over multiple years that if if we believe that the right decision is that we need to purchase it then I would recommend that that we would
make emotion in good faith to purchase the property and that we would have this timeline till December 1st to determine how we're going to pay for it given the fact that you're comfortable with it the only other component I mentioned
previous is the component of price if we're comfortable with the price and given the fact that that we have an individual that we employ to try to figure that out but if we were to defer and say "Let's get another appraisal to determine your price." This has nothing
to do with development or anything else if we as a board say 475 that's 4,75 people that gave $10 would pay for it if we went with the 25 that cuts that more than half my point is that I think
there is in partnership with an outside entity that has come before us and people that are saying we want to protect it put your money where your mouth is and help so that we make a decision that does not impact taxpayers it in it just impacts those people that
say that this is valuable and then we come up with that money or combination of the land trust however that is but I would be willing to make a motion with the understanding that we have in good faith that the board uh is in agreement
to purchase the property and we would have until December 1st to determine how we're going to pay for it so So to be clear you said you're willing to make a motion is that the motion or is Yeah okay well and I'm just I'm just getting a a
pre-mptive you know if I'm willing to make the mo I'll make the motion i will make the motion that that the board given our discussion and the communications that we've received from the community we want to protect that
we want to protect the buff so I make a motion we purchase it at the listed price and we have until December 1st to determine how we're going to pay for it how's that for responsible governance all right there there's a motion on the table is there support
i just should we have the addition is the is the possibility of a uh um contract for deed would be on the table yet too i mean that would be the how it how you do how it's offered for sale i'll second that motion okay we have a
motion in support further discussion commissioner Sullivan you've been waiting very patiently sorry so this is um just discussion but as we were talking I looked up about scientific natural areas and it protects land through techniques including acquisition lease or donation conservation eidsments
or agreements with other units of government and assistance with tax incentives there are six criteria diversity and quality of plant communities occurrence or habitat of rare species parcel size location and
connectivity to other protected land potential for long-term management and enhancement and factors such as threat of development so it might fit there too very good got to December to figure it out yep now the other the other thing I
want to discuss is you said the listed price uh what does that mean is that the asking price or is that the arbitration sort of thing you're talking about here and because you know the party that's invested interest in this has said to us 475,000
400 so the asking price 475 the asking price however you want to use the term adjective to qualify that but John if if 475 that's the price that's what he's asking us at so the motion is that the board is supporting
the purchase of this property with all the input that has informed this decision at $475 with an $475,000 i was just trying to catch him off guard the uh that the uh that we have till
December 1st to determine how we're going to do that um um and so um I'm comfortable with a motion uh with our intention to purchase i think that for as far as
stewardship's concerned and governance we should give that third party you know valuation um rather than just saying okay 475 done deal you know that I don't I don't know that that's the the way we should do
that comment but yeah so you know chief does have an appraisal that he had contracted and then the end result on that is assuming 690,000 I think with access yes Bob that but we've had another appraisal done okay and and the
development costs are much higher than $30 a foot for the road you know that Well old numbers so my my advice to the board is just that we we need to do put some um steps in place to make sure that we're you know using the taxpayer
dollars in the right way or you know if it's not taxpayer dollars but coming to a purchase price that makes sense uh whether it be another appraisal that we mutually agree to or you know getting an actual bid for the development cost of the road i think that's a key component
when I look at that old appraisal haven't seen the new one but I I do think that um just the the purchase price and the value component there needs to be a little bit more attention to in my opinion and are are you willing
to are you open to that third party appraisal i mean you've had your appraisal we've had our appraiser um there's not many left that are able to do it bill Clemens would probably be about the only one that knows the market because John's retired um well maybe
John would do it he is kind of taking files in his doage i I would be open to that's all that's all I was asking thank you Commissioner Gabble yeah thank you um yeah and the development thing
relates to the appraisal in fairness the development has to be looked at it but given where we're headed with this theoretically that's not something that is going to relate to us in the final decision it does when it comes to
assessment to include that because it's an eitheror choice here and you have to evaluate on the basis of this one choice would include development then you better look at it at its value relative to that given the fact that we're looking at getting this land right now
if there's agreement to bring in an agreed to appraiser to make an appraisal if I were in your position I would say I'm willing to do that if the countyy's willing to accept the findings of that
appraisal and if the appraisal comes at 690 now our price is 690 so we sort of need to know where we're at but given what we've looked at on that my feel for the cost of the appraisal and for the price that you put it
at if I were in your position protecting myself I'd say the board needs to realize if we're going to do this appraisal then that will be your price and we we have that risk that's my sense of it and we've got something now that sort of qualifies that do we not there
is some room for a summary evaluation that simply confirms that yes this is not an outlier price it's within the realm of reason that would shorten up the cost of that appraisal because you're probably looking at two or three grand for a third party appraisal from
anybody that's going to do work up here the problem just if you're not aware is we don't have any appraisers left they're all getting old and retiring and this is a very unique market that takes an awful lot of study if you watch the hearings on the condemnation cases for Highway 61 one of the reasons why the
state of Minnesota got beat up so badly on their last and best offers when I say that the final offers were sometimes as much as a thousand% greater than what the state offered because their appraisers didn't know the market they're all from the cities they don't understand the uniqueness of the
Northshore and the local the local commissioners who did said you if you don't know what you're doing you shouldn't be practicing up here that's our problem we don't have any praisers left i I will mention John
Vegan so uh Tim is aware that uh John was involved in this from the beginning he I used as an expert on conservation easements i really wasn't an expert in it i wanted him as an informed voice to
talk to Molly and though pardon you might have a conflict because of working for the land trust in the past well you know I Yeah that's not I don't Yeah you might brady knows uh uh John Vegan and
uh you could with a very quick phone call determine whether he'd be wanting to do it or not so it could be very quick are are are you open to amending the motion to not including a price at this time
like I think this December 1st deadline is um very generous yeah and and reasonable you know let let me comment on on Gary's uh presumption it's extremely important and very insightful and generous
actually on your part Gary um I have said kind of from the beginning on this Michael this goes back to Jay Keith and Jeff Cwell and all and all I said you know I I'm not trying to squeeze the last you know blood uh drop
out of this this thing and so you know I'm I'm saying to you you know you don't have to feel at risk that if that appraisal comes in and I if you set the premise that it's the highest and best use it's going to come in over 475 i
mean our appraisal we used a present value spread out over four years of time and it's like 7 to 800,000 so that's about as conservative a an approach to the appraisal as you can get
they're discounting out you know four years assuming the parcels aren't sold to it you know for a two per year over the four-year period and discounting it at 9% i mean yeah so and and we can share a
copy of this with you on once it's done and it it's it's almost done and and that might short circuit the thing for you maybe it's enough for you i don't know but it's it's using current comps you guys you know the county you
go to some of these places and render your own judgment you know on some of this too i I I think that you're and Bob's point of trying to have an independent and doing your stewardship is is valid and how you go
about that maybe it's this maybe it's something else you know some kind of a summary appraisal it's for you to decide but thank you thank you John um so often our decisions are are driven by an awareness
that uh if we don't pass this now prices are only get worse and so we use that as an influence in our decision making let's do it while we can and um I I don't think I don't think based upon
what we know and I I mean I don't know if Tim has anything to weigh in on this or not he's shaking his head no so I thought that was a nod that was like a Tim has an unusual way of saying yes but uh uh anyway what I would say is that um
we have to fear and make a decision and and certainly the input that comes from the department that's entrusted with this responsibility of evaluation that it gets pushed here and there by a number of different agencies and entities uh what your recommendation has
to bear influence on us i I'm I'm of a mindset if if it seems respectful you know Bob I'm of a mindset to hold to my motion and if it's not supported that it could be rewarded there's two things to
be mindful of do we think that the price is going to go down and what will that contribute to time which is another thing that always influences our decision so I'm not saying let's not rush this at this point in time without
looking at the history but but I believe that uh the 475 and if the funding mechanisms which is not going to be a burden that is a commitment that is inferred in the motion and could be stated there is not this is not going to
be on the backs of the taxpayer that uh that we can make this believing that we're comfortable with the 475 right now and so that my motion would stand that that uh we would uh we I make a
motion that we purchase the property at 475 with December as being the date at which we have to figure out how we're going to pay for it well we we do have a motion and support um I I don't think I can support that um
I I think I I I'm not comfortable with setting the price um I I also have a hard time understanding how the the the the taxpayer would not have an incumbrance here there there I mean
already there is um just through our time our our um our professionals times um it's it's true i I want to leave things as open i I think our direction is clear but I don't I I beyond that I think there's
still a lot that we need to to figure out but um but well well the there's recognizing that there there's cost invested because our time in this but moving forward stating that our intent is not to do this through
levy dollars m if I were sitting out there and I were saying "Do you believe what just happened the county is going to purchase this that could generate some revenue moving forward in tax base and they're going to do it out of our pocket how can that happen?" And I'm
saying "No we need to we need to find that middle ground." That is the win-winwin situation where we're saying our intent is to do this because of the values that have been communicated to us and we feel as a board and that's what we're supporting we're also we've been g
graciously given time to figure out how we're going to pay for it but our intent in this is not to do it through the levy it is to find some creative ways and I believe that people who've been speaking in support of this believe it that they'll go out and they'll turn the soil
to generate the revenues to be able to do this that may be in conver con combination with a land trust but um if if uh if we move forward with a motion that says pending a new appraisal then
we need to define that new appraisal and how it affects us will that new appraisal be that we are willing to accept whatever that appraisal is and if it's $690,000 that's our new price or are we
going to say let's do this for us to reassure that that we're good stewards and we have a gracious land owner that says even if it comes in at 690 I'll still stay at my 475 if I know that then we'll go through the motion to ensure
that we're good stewards but on his back i I think I think Mr chief has communicated that he's comfortable with um that risk and it does not want to put the county at risk so you're saying the 475 would hold then I would amend my
motion certainly because there's no risk it's just a matter of stewardship and we appreciate your graciousness in that regard so my motion is the board moves to purchase the property pending an appraisal that will reassure we're good
stewards of this in setting the price and that Mr chief has guaranteed that we would pay that 475 and we have till December 1st to make that decision as to how we will pay for it if you're comfortable with the language of that so
the motion has been amended is there support for the amendment mute back yes all right thank you all right motion support have we had any discussion yet i I just want to ask one quick question about uh are we going to
specify who pays for the appraisal i mean I would say we need to order this thing immediately because it it could be pushing up against December 1st for an appraisal like that how much well I mean $5,000 is what I thought that was the
the kind of estimated cost for an appraisal of that magnitude right i also wanted to bring up another point that in my comp grid comp number four that property was purchased by an an association of neighbors who didn't
want a asphalt plant so it's very similar to like what you're suggesting is that you all these people down here that are going to have to look at it unless somebody steps up to pay for it that's what's going to happen and that's what exactly what happened in that compour on the grid that I had uh up the
car trail you need 475 people with $1,000 yeah I I I because of the timing and because of the additional cost and because it's going to end up where it's at anyway the one thing is is the stewardship
responsibility which I appreciate it just building credibility into it but given where we've and what we've done and the the the thing we're up against which is time and the additional cost which I think should be ours I I'm comfortable i am personally
comfortable with the intent of paying the 475 purchasing the property with December uh December 1st December 31st let's make it the first because we need some money make it November 1st uh
December 1st yeah well so what what would you like to stay in that regard december 1st all right december 1st yeah to figure out how we're going to pay for it and and I would bypass the uh and and to the community I'm certainly willing
to ask any questions but given the information we have and the outcome as it would be it's an additional cost that builds in the integrity which I'm always for but if the end result is the 475 anyway the big question is do we think it's worth
475 and we can ask that well no we can't because if I make a motion it passes then we don't ask that question we can wonder but I don't know so so we've got is that another amendment to back this no I I'm just saying based upon that new information I'm inclined to want to go
back to the original but Genie has something to say um I just want to clarify because it keeps getting referred to as a sale to the county and I just want to make it clear that if the finding is that as I believe it will be um the county cannot say set up a
GoFundMe or something the county can also not then legally and forcibly contract with a third party to solicit donations for what the county couldn't do so I'm not saying there's not a solution and I mean I think that Mr chief and councel are here today saying that they're willing to work with the
county and to take time so we have time to explore the options and that could be you know the equivalent result but I just want to say that it may not be a a purchase in the yeah that that's a good point that's a good point Mr chair I I the amendment I think based upon that
information should be that uh as a board I propose that the the intent is that it's not the county that the but that the land will be purchased at the asking price of
$475,000 and that we have until December 1st to determine how we're going to pay for it but taking out the language says that the county will purchase it because it could be purchased by an outside entity that would then deed it to the
county so the motion is that we we agree that the land will be purchased at $475,000 with a December 1st determination as to how we will pay for
it how it will be paid for so um that that's an amendment again um to go back to 475 but to strike the county as the purchaser um is there support for that amendment
i'll support okay and further discussion on that i don't think attorney Peter and correct me if I'm wrong i don't think attorney Peterson's uh point was I think the point was to be cautious and and what our expectations are as far as how we can get money i don't necessarily
think it was that we should leave it open-ended that it isn't the county purchasing and is that I think she was saying that the county if we put in there the county then I'm and we might not be the purchaser so it does open it up to options to explore that excludes the
language in the motion which says it's the county purchasing and it might not be that's why it pulled the county the intent is to purchase at the for but it doesn't define us as being the purchaser and that's why that the language is not we indicating us but it
I mean so we're making a motion that your property might be purchased like that doesn't here's Here's the reality it's enough to keep it off the market so when I get phone call we get I want to be clear about this i get inquiries about this land what's going on we know you're John's attorney and the answer is well
we're working with the county to to facilitate an acquisition there i will keep saying that until December 1 thank you the county will facilitate the purchase whatever whatever you want it's a letter of intent which is non-binding it's an agreement between two people who really don't have an agreement neither
of them are in the position to have an agreement it doesn't matter but it's enough for us to see that you're going to help us find a funding source to make this happen we probably don't need a motion for that matter technically yes it's time well yeah technically although after 10
years you want to know whether there's any substance of the words that are being used right okay or right now i So so uh again I'm not comfortable supporting the 475 i think we should have uh um another appraiser but
um but the current motion is uh 475 uh that somebody will buy it um by December 1st or figure that out we'll figure out how to Okay those in favor i
opposed may motion passes 3 to one um thank you very much for your time i I think you understand my dissenting vote and I don't need to it's I appreciate where where that descent originated so and thank you Bob thank
you all the investment in that i think we need more than 14 minute break my next meeting is almost again thank you from the bottom of somebody turn the remaining vote i didn't even bring mine i left and I know where they is going to say you
forgot your water so yeah yeah yeah so you have to follow that yeah i I wasn't intending to think of all sorts of ways of fundraising i used to do I didn't we can take a when we got a new
library we sold it brick by brick i mean for 10 bucks you could have a brick through the old library yes please Jenna we'll take a fiveminut break all right I'll make a motion we're ready yet we're back again uh this is the regular meeting of the Cook County Board
of Commissioners Tuesday April 22nd 2025 and now it's 12:56 p.m we're now on to um Whoops I scrolled too far item 10 land services northshore waste hovland transfer station conditional use
permit good day good afternoon commissioners thank you for your time uh the item for you is the Hovindland transfer station conditional use permit this application was heard before the planning commission for the public hearing earlier this month and we
received no written correspondence when we did the public noticing for this application there was one individual present for the public hearing who primarily had concerns as to the location of where the transfer station was going to be built out and its proximity to the fire station tank we
discussed that that was not going to be an issue and then they had no other concerns the planning commission reviewed the proposed findings i should also add that the chair did disclose that he may have a conflict of interest so he did not vote however he did facilitate the planning commission meeting as the chair um and provided
some insight into some tree removal type questions with his familiarity of the site overall the planning commission felt that this was a good addition to the area the lack of negative comments uh seemed that the Holand community was in support of this buildout and this is
a part of the Northshore Waste larger uh waste plan for the county is kind of a hub and spoke model where the Grand Marray site is the primary site and then there would be sites in Hov and Tafty to be um bringing materials to the Grand Marray site and then sorted and sent out
of the county and with that there's some conditions included in your report um four conditions of approval primarily indicating uh conformity with other state and federal requirements this is a permit by rule facility so when we're talking about conditional use permits
they do transfer with a property and so we want to be clear about quantifying that use as to how much growth would be needed before it's otherwise considered so that permit by rule kind of quantifies the site naturally so with that said I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have this was a
unanimous recommendation for approval by the planning commission with those conditions thank you another um we've we've been talking about this for a while so I can't imagine there are questions but please if there are um we should address those now do you have any
questions Commissioner Campbell no it sounds pretty straightforward to me thank you i was just going to say I was at the planning commission meeting thought the discussion was very thoughtful um there was some concern about tree screening and those trees
have spruce budworm anyway um I don't think it'll be an issue um with any construction that's being done on the site um so I would make a motion to approve the resolution with the conditions recommended by the Cook
County Planning Commission for the CUP for a permit by rule transfer station for municipal solid waste recyclable materials and demolition waste at 6023 North Road in Hopland thank you Commissioner Svin we had a motion is there support i'll support that thank
you Commissioner White motion and support any further discussion there hearing or saying none all those in favor i opposed motion passes unanimously thank you thank you thanks for waiting yeah yeah it's nice to see
you sitting back there gives comfort uh moving on to item 12 now attorney the first item is the mutual release and settlement agreement with RSNH um thank you Commissioner i think
probably the members of the board are more familiar with the work that was done um than I am this predates my time but there was work um 10 11 years ago done by RSNH pursuant to master agreements that were um existing at the
time there were concerns over how the work was done and some um grant concerns there was a letter sent to RSNH back in 2020 and a number of tolling agreements
um while the parties tried to reach agreement the board had previously approved a settlement number and then this is just the accompanying mutual release it's limited in scope to the claims that were addressed in the letter
um also states that you know there are no known other issues at this time um but it is limited in scope to the claims addressed in that 2020 letter my understanding is that payment
will be made forth with if the board approves this thank you any questions for attorney Peterson commissioner Gattle yeah thank you Mr chair genie under 6 which is the real estate
taxes can you clarify uh it says that the leaser shall remain responsible for all assessed land and building value taxes um if we're jumping ahead to Northshore waste I can address that i did I jumped
ahead no no yes we're still in the mutual am I in the wrong yeah yeah this is I I looked at here we're on this one here yeah this is the ground lease for sure waste is are we not dealing with ground lease we moved this one out of
the um the wrong one okay i'm sorry if if I just looked it here i thought we were dealing with the ground out of the consent agenda okay sorry yeah i'm sorry all right my apologies then oh no worries okay it's just a question I had relative to that particular document so
upcoming question there any other questions for attorney Peterson regarding the uh RSNH agreement set doesn't look like it is there a motion commissioner Mr chair I'd like to make a motion to approve the mutual release and settlement agreement with
RSNH thank you Commissioner Seldon we have a motion is there support i'll support thank you Commissioner White we have a motion in support any further discussion here long in coming and appreciate your work
on this even though um it predates your your your tenure but that's what it is thank you very happy to put this behind us brady is there anything you wanted to say are we toasting or anything or No it's just it's nice to have it over
we're not made to hold but Right it's uh waited a long time for it so okay all those in favor i I opposed motion passes unanimously thank you moving on to item B is the Northshore
Waste Brown lease agreement attorney Peterson um thank you Commissioner so this would be the actual ground lease agreement in order for the county to lease the real estate owned by Northshore Waste upon which the transfer
station will be built and then leased back to Northshore Waste um to manage that's the general overview if you have any questions I'm happy to address commissioner Gamble thank you Mr chair thank you for getting me on the
right page here the uh yeah the question just was under the real estate point there is that the leaser shall remain responsible for all assessed land and building value taxes correct so that Northshore waste as a
property owner would be responsible for the land taxes and then accepted from that um would be anything attributed to the actual transfer facility so the the building to be
built if that is assessed any taxes and we don't anticipate that it would be but if it were Northshore Waste is saying we're not responsible for those those taxes because that is in essence a county building that they're just running the transfer station out of
right and that's that's where my question came in is that uh it was just looking at and saying that if if in fact the building is ours then in the language it's saying that the building value
taxes is it because for the least premises that the lease sir which is Northshore yeah and it says it that they shall remain responsible for all cessed land and building value
taxes and I would have understood it to mean only the land but not the buildings because we own the building if in the event that they need um small structures or buildings outuildings have been contemplated so if you have a little pay station or something else so it's
independent of the building that we own okay and that's where the clarification thank you appreciate that Commissioner Gamble thank you Attorney Peterson any other questions any motions commissioner Sullivan mr chair I'd like to make a motion to approve the ground lease as leasey from Lesor Northshore
Waste to facilitate construction and operation of solid waste transfer station thank you Commissioner Svin we have a motion as our support commissioner Gamble supports thank you very much further discussion lots of ins and outs it's a long time in coming thank you all very
much for for working on this um all those in favor i I uh opposed motion passes unanimously thank you uh moving on to item C is the construction management contract for the
transfer station um are you going to hang out with me you are almost out of here um so this would be the management agreements pretty much boilerplate for these larger um projects one thing to note would be
that I think we got it in here that um the approvals would be made by both um Dustin Hansen as president for Northshore Waste and Brook Lassard for the county and that's important so that the um building gets constructed in a
way that is um beneficial to the county but also that Mr hansen knowing the business of Northshore Waste and being there for the day-to-day operations um will also have input on that commissioner White I have a question
about um change orders um it's in this document I believe um who verifies the um change orders like the cost um like material cost increase is it Dustin or is it the county that
reviews or just sees that there's a sees the receipts for increase in costs both are required to receive notice commissioner Campbell yeah thank you thank you Commissioner when I looked at the language in some of
these contracts and you see that that uh with the exception of additional cost this is the quote with the exception of additional costs that come because of change orders or whatever to the extent that we've done our due diligence and we planned these things out we've anticipated the best we can because as
we know contractors look for the change order and uh we we want to try to prevent that that's all on the planning process that determines whether that happens or not and I I think you know with the combination of the stewardship and working in this project that we've
tried to eliminate any of that vulnerability moving forward not that there aren't some things you incur but if it's on their part not our part because we decided we want to change a wall or something then uh that's good stewardship moving
forward so I I agree with that and that's what came to mind to me is that that caveat is always there and it it's a place where we're really vulnerable unless we've done good planning on the front end so yeah I think that's a I
think that's a a good question um just moving forward something that you know the people that have been involved should probably have a conversation about you know we hope that there are no change orders um I think the understanding with the the architect and the the contractor is you know they'll
send stuff for me i can confirm that the work got done i send it to Brooke brooke kind of confirms that as well and then that would go off to Brady for payment um but if we are in the situation where there there are some needs for changes I guess how that that gets addressed um
but maybe that's something we can meet as a group and and bring that back to the board if if something changes and Mr sometimes when you're looking at a building like this and it's something new to us the what we do as a service is not new to us but in this facility
that's new to us and so when we talk with other entities that are building have built similar to us we learn from them what would you have done different what did you find out you ran into and those things help inform that decision so we we make more knowledgeable or
informed decisions in the planning process sure all right any other questions or any motions make a move uh a motion to approve the construction management agreement materials and labor equipment with
Johnson Wilson Contractors A thank you thank you we have a motion and support of Commissioner Gamble and Commissioner Selvin respectively any further discussion here hearing or seeing none all those in favor i oppose motion passes unanimously thank
you thanks Dustin thank you you can go back and dry up your parking lot that moves us on to administrator uh administrator updates all right commissioners it's been a long day so
I'll try to be succinct um couple things first I um forwarded to you last week um an update about the administrator search um and as of last Thursday which would have been nine days into the process we
had received 10 applicants and uh Pat had identified five of those as very wellqualified including one who uh has local ties so I think you know we're going to be this will be open for
another few weeks so this is a it's a good start um we had also had he had also sent some uh ideas about uh suggested questions things he's starting to kind of throw out there as a way to
maybe get at uh some of the other the other qualities that we've discussed around values and the way people work with each other and I'm not sure what the best way to to do that is um I think when you know there's some
certain level of risk to um having that in a open discussion and agreeing to what the questions are going to be um because candidates listen and can prepare in a different way so I I don't know how you'd like me to proceed i mean
I guess um if you send me your individual questions or comments I can aggregate those and send them to Pat and he can keep sending them back for us to review and we can we can do that um you let me know how you want to do
that yeah thank you yeah as I as I mentioned before this the questions um uh in in previous experience in dealing with hiring county administrator we were constantly reviewing our questions to make sure
that the things that that we identified were important to us that our questions mined that information out so that our evaluation was based upon things that we identified whether came through you know the input that comes from staff or the community or our own personal experience
um I think Commissioner Sullivan you forwarded some questions and uh I forwarded some suggested uh written screening questions uh one thing that's new here is uh at least you know from my previous experience we did we did video
uh interviews um but uh there was some more work that was that prefaced that and in the situation where you had applied we had a questionnaire that they filled out that questionnaire once we scored that questionnaire then we determined who we were going to do on
video conferencing then following that then we brought in for the final interview with candidates and um I think we should look at the questions that if if we're going to use the video interviewing that what questions would
we want to ask there and then what questions would we ask our finalists and if those were submitted each of us wanted to submit those that there would be that refinement process the way it happened for us is with the the uh and and I'm not following it because that's
the way we did it's I see merit in how we did it because we were constantly re-evaluating whether we had the right questions to ask and um so I I would say that um again we just say well here's the new list what do you think and then
the commissioner say well I I don't know that we need to ask this one or I think we should add this one kind of thing and we can go back to the things we've identified that we think are important that we're trying to mine out in this process so initially I think that those screening questions that come in if
we're going to do it through the video conferencing he has five if five six whatever it is I don't know how and maybe this was sent to us but I don't know how they are presented to the candidates in other words if if he's saying here's
some questions you each had this much of time and this is how you go about doing it I I don't know that I've seen what he's saying as a directive to them but I would like to see each of us as commissioners just sit in and we're going to find that there's going to be some overlap but then that's sort of a
consensus that this is important and I think that's why we we say yeah definitely this so I'd like to see us forward questions to you and then we come up with a refined list okay yeah I feel really comfortable with that as well
um given the fact that before I know I've communicated through Commissioner Storyley and um through former interim administrator Watkins and I felt it was very effective pat did a great job of um looking at at input and and coming up
with things and so I think Commissioner Gamble you're right on that we can submit things as commissioners and feel very confident that it'll be reviewed and evaluated yeah and just for further perspective on how the the questions are presented to candidates with the video interviews
they are given one at a time um they have one minute to read and think about and then the recording starts okay um and so it's not a whole lot of time and then once that's done they can move on to the next one so fairly intense i
think that process then in other words if you understand the context in which questions are going to be answered there are some questions that we would want more time devoted to than questions that we ask that you only have a minute to
respond so that should influence what we select for this and what we select for that absolutely yeah and that that does reinforce for me the idea that we don't necessarily want to publicize what the questions are going to be in advance for
for part think on their feet i I this is a a job where often you are in the position of having to respond quickly to something and so somebody having a lot of information beforehand
Yeah can certainly skew skew their response yeah so um yeah and do we want to say when we want to see those by you know um sure i can I can check in with him to say when Yeah when you need those i
would say sooner rather than later because I think I'll send them to Pat he'll probably send me a response back and I'll want you all to to review that so maybe if you check with him and then just send us an email reiterating what we've agreed to okay in this timeline
okay i can certainly do that um and so then those questions would still be public then right i don't think I don't think so if it comes through the you know if it's facilitated whatever then okay we're not
the directive going to be back and forth between this is not a serial conversation you just send it to me okay and I'll send it to him and then he'll send the you know the the questions back out so there's not like a back and forth we'll
do it we'll do it by way of breadcrumbs very good okay i don't want to make Jean nervous in terms of any kind of public meeting violations or anything like that okay so um real quickly on the CIP
updates um BKV mentioned the possibility and they've talked about this before about holding a public open house on May 22nd um Henry will be here that day uh at the board meeting um what they had
proposed was maybe setting up several stations that might have sample materials like for exterior interiors they would have detailed maps or detailed plans that people could look at they might have other ones about the
budget or the process and that people could work through that um what what I I guess what I'm asking for today is do you think there's still value in that for the public um it's approved or we're moving on so I should go ahead and
schedule that with them yes yeah yeah mr chair please if at all possible i mean anything that we if we that we do if we could connect it to value so I I I would think in that
presentation all of the you know hands-on things but I think why are we doing this why am I looking at this because it's connected to the value what we've created in this facility that is servicing the community right so if we could have that some way identified that
would be obvious whether on a placard on an easel or something all of this connects to this is the value created in the effort we're doing i think that would add benefit okay i will mention that to Henry good and it's
uh um doing that i'll say I have one last thing um back when I was in this seat before in one of my fiveyear you know interim yeah stints um every five years one of the things that we we had a
real problem with was our providing good janitorial services at the Y um we were we were having trouble like hiring somebody that was there at night that was unsupervised we ended up having lots of overtime there and when I sat down and figured it out we were paying about1
$160,000 a year to provide for substandard janitorial services at the Y um so during that time what we did is we worked with the school and they had put together um a contract with us kind of a
joint powers agreement where uh where the school hired an extra person to be on their team and then they they that person was available all during the day so if somebody came in and broke a bottle of something or spilled something or a toilet backed up there was somebody
right there in the same building to do that and then at the end of the day when the when Tom's Tom Nelson's team would come through and clean um they would his whole team would be you know as they move through the building would be there and the facility was getting one good
cleaning a day um the the the school it was an advantage for them because they had an extra person there during the day and we the way the contract was is that we were paying around 90,000 a year which was
the cost of that extra employee so we were saving a lot of money and the school had benefit and the the quality of the service went way up um which everybody was happy about and somehow in the last few years that contract went away but um they lost the
employee yeah they lost the employee and I think there were some personality things that might have been going on i'm not sure but um Brooke is kind of in a similar spot again he's got one person on contract that's doing that at night level of
service is questionable there's no one supervising this person so we're not really sure if they're there full-time or whatever so um Tom Nelson the school's uh maintenance person approached Brooke and said "We're
willing to pick this up again." Um and we'll do it and I c talked to Chris Lindholm and Chris said "We'll do it for the same price we were doing it five years ago." we just do it at the same same level just pick up the same contract and do that i think there's an
opportunity for us again to get to get this service done at a at the same price or a lower cost than we currently are at a higher level of service um so what I wanted to know is if you all are in favor of me pursuing this and bringing
this having Jean re review the the previous contract see if there needs to be any changes to it and bring it back to you mr g thank you Mr chair originally the the agreement the contract agreement was that um that the
janitorial services would be provided by the Y the school whatever and then we found out that they basically came and said "We really can't do this." And then it fell on Brian and then so Brian was going "What?" And then we and we had the
the financial uh context in which to evaluate how much we were contributing towards cost overall at the Y and so when it came and said well we should hire a person then I said if those monies come out of those that commitment
and not add on we'll do that so this has been an ongoing issue relative to managing cost and managing to what we get for it uh in a presentation that would come before the board for decision- making i would like to see um
I would I would like to identify some of the points that you just said the pros and the cons if you want to look at it that way but you say this is the cost savings and and we reduce so that the con the the pro is we're reducing that
cost and we're getting this service not trying to complicate it but trying to synthesize it into something that informing us as well as the community why we're doing what we're doing right yeah if I could see that I would Right i
would appreciate it okay i'm happy for me yeah sure i'm happy to do that okay okay well I will um send um Gan I'll send you over a copy of the previous contract in I think we can I was I was
surprised they weren't going to raise the price at all from 5 years ago and I believe it's actually uh less expensive than our current contract with the contractor we're using so yeah and that's why looking at those comparables
is Yeah absolutely i would have to say because Molly and I worked a lot on the Y contract trying to clean it up that was one of the worst contracts I'd ever seen but there's some pieces of that that were just locked into page numbers no
never mind anyway but we we did clean it up quite a bit but it's it's there's still some things that I wish the county wouldn't have agreed to a long time ago that's really kind of all I all I have
um I would say this is my fourth week and I'm still here so um and it's I think going pretty well so far so appreciate your support go home play your guitar and mellow out and then come back for another round yeah i have a a budget meeting this afternoon
so Oh yeah that's right yeah that's right and there's a parks and trails tonight so that's what I've got thank you we are now on to employee concerns commissioner concerns commissioner reports meeting updates anybody have commissioner sen certainly um so
recently the H met and um talked a little bit about the heights i believe I had mentioned earlier that there they were trying to find a place to locate all the modular units that are um going to be part of that 36 unit apartment
complex they were trying at the airport faa approval is very difficult to get for something like that uh they have found another location they're actually using the Tom Tobotus site across the road um so that has been taken care of
by the H um also um they um took action on the parcel that this county board conveyed to the H back in uh January so that Hamilton Habitat can uh build several cluster homes around um
the area that's just north of the ballpark so that is in the works cook County Coalition of Lakes Association met and um had a very lively discussion regarding some of the um bills that are
before the legislature um I attended the AMC solid waste committee we had 15 commissioners and 18 staff from transfer stations and solid waste systems throughout Minnesota meet and we talked about the role of resource recovery in a
solid waste management system and um of particular interest is the fact that we're going to be able to tour one of those facilities at our policy committee meeting uh which is in September in Alexandria so we'll be reviewing and
visiting the Pope Douglas Joint Powers Solid Waste Facility and then um there was a great deal of discussion about the concerns related to lithium batteries that are showing up in our waist stream um that is something that we really need to
educate our public about because there have been multiple fires in Minnesota as a result of that um so we want to make sure that that is uh something that we again educate our public about and then lastly or almost lastly
Cook County Historical Society has filled all of their vacancies if you recall they have four employees they lost three and all three of those have been filled so we're very very excited to be up and running um with both a
manager and the JHP gallery manager as well and then lastly the airport advisory commission has three individuals uh Rodney Roy Mike Gizki and Tyler Howell who are at the Minnesota airports conference starting this evening they'll be there um for two and
a half days uh one thing that is very interesting is this has always been a conference where the FAA has been there we had hoped for discussion about our master plan and um due to changes at the federal level the FAA is not allowed to
attend that conference so there will be no members of the FAA there there will be people from MIDOT Aeronautics but that was really a shock to us and then for your calendars another May date May 12th is going to be here in this room
our open house for the airport master plan from 5 to 7:00 p.m it is an open house where you'll be wandering about um all of our tables will be pushed off to the side there will be 15 different easels showing different aspects of the
master plan and getting feedback and um an opportunity to respond to questions that the public may have but uh we are advertising that in social media and also in our local newspapers and again May 12th it is a Monday from 5 to 700
p.m i suggest you purchase Balsome Gliders as handouts little nostalgia there you go that's a good idea i like those they're fun any other um reports or meetings i
do have an issue not meeting so much but I've received a I personally received a miss a letter from the AEOA requesting um that they're seeking funding from the counties uh for the a new building for
the AEOA's regional hub it's for a new building and they were asking from Cook County oh of course I can't find it quickly irrelevant oh it's last year last year we were and we did not pay
anything last year but last year we were requested to send them $31,56 and to support the services that they provide in Cook County we did not send them anything this year they are
asking for a 24 25% reduction of 23,292 to support the new building and the hub um for the AEOA uh I conferred with Reena i didn't
know what to do um I had a meeting with them it seemed like more than what one commission but I did explain to um the person that at this point um Cook County hasn't met about this but
we do not have uh the funding at this point and there's no budgeted funding and we're not budgeted for this so I said no but then I then they said "We would really welcome an opportunity to
come up and speak to your board at any time to talk about what AEOA does." So to that end I would like to get back to them if we want to extend an invitation for them we're not going to pay them but
extend an invitation for them to come to Cook County to meet with the board uh we get a lot in the county from the meals for the through the hub and the transportation and those are the big
things that we get from from them from this county so u how does everyone feel about an invitation to them yeah that'd be great scott Sahoric has has been before the board before and and given a presentation um I think at that
time he was not the executive director but he was um in charge of housing yeah and now and was would this be at the committee of the whole it could be in a regular board meeting too i think be either one i mean if you got a late board meeting yeah i was
going to say I mean I think that's a good thing but we can also um just read their annual report and it can it really summarizes what what they do but maybe not for Cook County specifically when I said on that they had a a separate county report that they could hand out
and distribute but I think what they were looking for was the personal interactions oh sure yeah well that'd be great and they'll come here yeah yeah i can I can do that on a committee the whole if you think that's more appropriate so please go ahead yeah yeah
i was going to say a lot of organizations that you know we participate with but if they're going to come in it should be tailored specifically to Cook County as Commissioner Mill said because we can look at it in the broad sense but let's just say the job core we've had
discussions about job core i want to I want to see where that translates to us as Cook County not your broad you know benefit to the Arrowhead region sure and so when it comes to Cook County if they could come and show and actually support it with numbers let's say how many meals
you know how many miles and whatever else and certainly uh at at Harborview with an elder population I mean their transport is there all the time it's it's it's a lifeline to to the community so there's
real value there but if they can tailor it to us tangible to us that would be helpful and the meals uh the meals on wheels yeah which would be good as well huge deal anything that that AOA is related you know to our county it would
be great so So Mina do you want to extend this invitation or I'll find out when would be when I'm happy to do that but can you send me who I should be extending it to scott yeah ju just also I just want to
point out pretty sure the AOA's budget is larger than Cook Countyy's um and St louis County is Oh d they're double it at least double it yeah and so it's it's really hard it the services are extremely important but it's really hard
for us to throw some pennies at them and maybe it's just the gesture um but but it's a lot of pennies for us it's a lot of pennies for us as I'm saying it but for them it's just like and so the impact for us giving to them you know it's just like it I have a
gives me pause are you referring to the fact of what they're asking relative to what we get what they're asking relative to what we have yeah yeah yeah and just qualify that yeah we just did not say that there certainly isn't benefit here just our
ability to Absolutely absolutely commissioner Sal maybe I was thinking maybe what you meant was the impact to us to give them that much money right has a much smaller impact to them receiving it because their budget is Exactly that's exactly which is not
ignoring the value it's just the reality and I would also wonder if this isn't the type of thing that might go under if if we finalize a discretionary funding policy it seems like this aligns with some of our goals in our health
improvement plan and that it would align with that process very well which would go through public health and human services um and requires that they make an application just like other organizations yeah that would probably be the most
appropriate at this point the only funding we would have available for Yeah yeah to that point I would say um that uh like organizations you know I triple orb or if it's K Johnson or any other funding
organization their board make a decision on how much based upon their you know investments and everything else they're going to allocate that funding year in grants and so we should look at it in
that context which means that every grant that comes we don't necessarily give it no matter where it falls under it's a matter of prioritizing based upon what we have that year based upon submissions and then responding
commissioner and then however if they were they were directed to the public health and human services they'll be in competition with the with the hub which has like this much money and they have like this much money and so that
organization or or the group of individuals that's evaluating that would need to look at that and that is part of the paper that you submit with your application so they see what is your operating budget percentages this is the
umbrella under which the hub functions i mean it's not to say that you couldn't it was a suggestion that it might meet the criteria any organization that meets a criteria under that context is going to be in competition but if they do a
better job than others then that's where it's at it's not saying it has to be there but it it seems like it aligns do you know um I had heard that Head Start was ending do you It may be yes
and so that's under AOA and such a huge part of their Yep their work um I was just I was just scrolling through some of the last packet I received from them and just trying to get a grip on all of that and I think in that regard because it
it's it's a it's a step back and saying we're going to put a hold on things until we evaluate the effectiveness and then move forward with those we think are most effective and and so I don't I don't think that decisions are being made overall as
to this is written off it's just we need to stop and we need to evaluate and I think when you look at the state relative to its budget if if we see things especially in the air of of human need human resource uh public health
human services that that sometimes decisions are made here and you think "Oh my goodness the impact on people over here how can you be cutting your budget back with its impact here and yet shifting your money over here?" And
that's why values ideology these kinds of things you'll see that that happen we just and in our role it's a matter of us evaluating and it's like you say Reena it's all about services and what we can
afford to do and what we can do effectively yeah and prioritizing them which are the ones that are going to have the most impact and by that I mean the most people and the most impact on their lives you know it's going to be a time when we have to look really look
hard at the well this is a really good idea and it would be a nice thing to do i mean we're going to have to look at those things really hard and and the other thing when we're looking at options in that regard is where we can partnership or where we have duplication of effort that could be more directed
and u when I talked to other commissioners you know before I said what do you do about this that's we had to give that up a long time ago why it's a matter of priorities we just can't fund everything we just have to have our criteria evaluate right with a discipline
i agree and um uh AUA has a lot of services that aren't necessarily in Cook County as well and um you know they try to do the home services as much as they can here they run into um obstacles though because of
our property values um and so there's an impression you know there there's a there's a I think a comprehensive understanding at the higher levels in AOA but there's also an impression that Cook County is very wealthy and that we can we have the money to you know to
spend 200,000 exactly we do have a lot of wealth we also have a lot of um disadvantaged people that and those those demographics are you can look at them and you can understand how we are comparably and say this is something we have to address and I always say when we're talking about community you can't
use the word community unless you understand what that word means which means that you have a diversity that comes in demographic both in age in in the amount of money we have and interest and family structure i mean so we if we
are trying to serve with inclusivity we need to recognize community means there's diversity within our community and we can't serve some at the expense of others so Wait what yeah we can that's what we're doing
i I know but I mean it's a charge in front of you uh oh uh any other uh meetings okay uh catch them at the Oh yeah probably this is not our last chance here no
last week but we'll do that okay i was going to say otherwise oh it's really exciting though well we can do it another time i you're supposed to set us up by just saying there's some meetings I went to you can't wait to hear what I got to say but I'm waiting i'm waiting to say it
well I mean I don't want to lose the thread here it's You won't okay okay um that moves us on to uh meetings to note budget and facilities advisory committee is today at 3 via Zoom uh parks and trails committee is today at 5
both here as well as Zoom uh firewise is the 24th Zoom soil and water is the 1st at noon here uh PHS advisory council is uh May 6th via Zoom community leadership
committee May 8th um at city hall that's at 5:30 uh uh and then our regular meeting is next or Tuesday May 13th at 8:30 a.m there's some memos there lodging tax comparison as well as sales tax
comparison uh anything else anyone needs to share and then we're adjourned thank you