Good morning everyone. I will call the Cook County Board of Commissioners regular meeting to order on this day, Tuesday, February 24th at 8:34. We begin our meeting with the pledge. Please rise. >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Are there any adjustments to the agenda? >> I'll hear a motion to approve.
>> Make a motion to approve the agenda. >> All support. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I post. Same sign. At this time we um we have public comment period where um the opportunity for the citizens to appear
before the board um with their concerns as I look out into the audience. Is there anyone who would like to appear? Seeing no one uh publicly then I'll turn to any of the uh public comment from the commissioners. Commissioner Sullivan. >> Thank you Madam Chair. I do have a
letter that I received from the Cook County Coalition of Lake Associations board members and I provided a copy for all our commissioners and those here on the dis um but I'll read it for the public. Dear Cook County Commissioners, the Cook County Coalition of Lake
Association Board representing 21 Lake Road property owner associations throughout Cook County has been studying the threat to human health, wildlife, the environment, and the region's economy posed by copper nickel sulfide mining. KA's focus on this is promoting
responsible lake and shoreline management practices with the goal of preserving water quality, healthy shorelands, and wildlife habitat. Copper nickel mining in proximity to the Rainy River and the Lake Superior watersheds raises several troubling concerns we
would like to share with you. Water pollution from toxic runoff. Two proposed copper copper nickel sulfide mines new range seeking to mine the polyat site near Hoy lakes Minnesota and Twin Metals near Elely Minnesota risk contaminating waters in Cook County and
permanently polluting the Boundary Waters canoe area. These two mine projects and the larger future New Range mine project on the Msaba deposit site would contaminate the Rainy River and Lake Superior watersheds that serve as major sources of drinking water for
residents of Cook County. If these mines open, they would likely produce acid mine drainage and cause irreparable harm to downstream waters. Irreversible damage to the environment. Every sulfide mine in a water- richch environment has polluted surface and/or groundwater with
acid mine drainage and or toxic metals. In addition, sulfide ore mining in northern Minnesota would increase mercury contamination of fish. The Twin Metals Foreign Parent Company, Antifogasta, claims a long-standing commitment to sustainability, safety,
social responsibility, and environmental protection. Yet, this company has a long history of catastrophic waste spills and corruption. Actions speak louder than words. Negative economic impacts. Cook Countyy's economy is heavily dependent
upon wilderness-based tourism and the draw of living in a natural environment. Despoiling the waters and shorelands would have a devastating impact upon the economy and would dramatically reduce property values and livability in the county. Because we believe that it is
our responsibility to leave a legacy of clean water and a healthy environment for future generations. It's the position of the COLA board members that lawmakers, governmental entities, and corporations should abide by public law 95495 designating the Boundary Waters Canoe
Area Wilderness, establishing the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Mining Protection Area, and for other purposes, and that every effort should be taken to prevent the development of copper, nickel, sulfide mining in northern Minnesota. With the recent passage of House Resolution 140
repealing protections from mining on federal lands, it's more important than ever for local leaders to step up and voice their opposition to allowing copper nickel mining in the Rainy River and Lake Superior headwaters region. We hope you will join us in opposing copper
nickel mining in our region and protect Cook County's waters, shorelands, and wildlife from this threat. with gratitude for your leadership in Cook County, the Cook County Coalition of Lake Associations board members. >> Thank you. Anyone else?
And we'll move on to the um consent agendum items. We have claims the minutes from February 10th meeting. Um, Grand Marray Arts Festival special road use permit, 2026 Luden 99er special road
use permit and 2026 Wolf Bike Packing Race Special Road Use Permit. Would anyone like to pull anything? Hearing none, Commissioner Sullivan. >> Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent agenda as
written. supporting. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. So, our first item up now this morning is to have a discussion with the
Superior National Sale, which I'll turn that over to administrator Treble. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, this is a followup to a discussion that we had a few weeks ago, a presentation from Peter and Mark who are here today um to talk about um and provide information
regarding the Superior National Golf Course sale um and they presented to the board on February 10th and we asked them to bring back options to cover the cash flow shortage. So, I'll turn it over to the two of you. Thank you for being here today. >> Great. Thank you. Good morning.
Uh I've got a deck to share. I believe that'll be projected. I'll get started as soon as I see it. There. There we go. Again, thank you. This is, as Kristen mentioned, a follow-up to our meeting here on February the 10th.
And a few items that I'll cover, I thought I'd step back and take a bit of a wider view on on how we got here to date. The first item is a is a timeline. We'll uh review a recap of the golf course study that was completed in the
summer of 2024. We'll recap uh the negotiation of the sale uh and then the purpose for this conversation more specifically a followup on our February 10th meeting and then simply get into some next steps.
So the timeline to date as I as I say we'll go back to the summer of of 2024 and we'll start with u the superior national at Luden study a plan for the future which we reviewed with county commissioners at the time and I believe
was included in the materials for uh for today's meeting. Uh following that, uh the EDA pursued from from this body, uh the u the approval to go ahead and and pursue a sale. That was in November of
of 2024. Uh immediately following that, we went into request for quote mode on looking for for a selling agent. We landed on SVN Northco and then that at the beginning of 2025 kicked off the the
marketing of the property itself. deeper into 2025, we got into negotiations and and offers uh and then ultimately executed a letter of intent and entered a due diligence period which is where we remain to this date. So it's
a high level overview of the last couple of years on on how we got here. I mentioned the the golf course study. It's quite detailed, but I've tried to recap some key points on on this slide. It was published in July of 2024 and the
main purpose was to address concerns about the ongoing viability and understand options for for future operations in the future of the golf course itself. And there were five pathways laid out in that study. One was essentially to do nothing, no change. Uh
the next one was to hire a third party to operate the golf course. Uh next up, seek uh additional county contributions on on an annual basis to operate the golf course and properly capitalize it to means that uh it
deserves, transfer ownership to Cook County. And lastly, go ahead and sell Superior National, which is obviously the the path that we chose. And we did so really with the with the best interests of the county and importantly of its taxpayers uh in mind. And the key
rationale behind that decision was a recognition that the costs to effectively operate Superior National uh far exceed what the EDA, the county, and importantly its taxpayers would be would be willing to support. You know, at that time there was a projected 5-year
capital expenditure requirement north of $2 million. Some of that we've now seen in reality uh required additional labor increases on an annual basis over $300,000. If we were to go down the route of third party management, another
$170,000 on top of that. So, as you can see, both the the annual expenditures uh from a labor standpoint as well as the expected uh capital improvements over a period of time uh were not insignificant. So it
made in our view the decision although uh you know painful from an emotional standpoint to give up such a beautiful property, the importance of keeping it vulnerable and uh functioning here in Cook County for both the residents and the visitors in a properly capitalized
way led us to the conclusion that selling it was the way to go. So with that uh the marketing and negotiation, uh including ourselves and SVN Northco, there were over 50 inquiries into the golf course property. Uh but to be fair,
about 12 deep dives, those folks that wanted to visit it in person, study the financials, uh etc. We received three offers, and those offers ranged between 1.5 million and 1.8 million. We
countered two of them based on their ability in our view to successfully operate the golf course at 185 and Brady Hatcher as we now know uh accepted that offer. Taking us then to more specifically the
followup from our February 10th meeting where we discussed uh four study items. uh renegotiate with the buyer uh utilize revolving loan fund secured with that gunflint view receivable that the EDA holds uh contained within the EDA budget
entirely. uh and our original proposal that is to again leverage the Gunflint view receivable uh but use a Cook County bridge loan for that period between now and uh Sep no later than September of
2027 when that Gunflint View uh receivable comes due. So starting with the re renegotiation with the buyer, we've we've scored these from a viability standpoint and and this uh we have consensed on scores quite low. We
currently have an agreement with the buyer to sell a full functioning golf course for 1.85 million. It's not currently a full functioning golf course, opening up renegotiations in our view and the view of Fred Dutterer. Uh
might result in not only a lower selling price, but the buyer throwing up his hands in exasperation and walking. This one is one that we strongly recommend not pursuing. We did look at the revolving loan fund and that was actually quite attractive
at first, but uh as it turns out uh the statute that supports the revolving loan fund itself negates the ability for the EDA or the HA for that matter to access any of those funds. So unfortunately that one uh is off the table.
Uh containing within the EDA budget, this one we're uh scoring with medium viability. Uh there's currently $100,000 of unencumbered uh funds uh for the rather from the small business development grant fund program for 2026.
We've got three review cycles for the grant program. One is currently underway. Uh that one is uh funded at $100,000 and then there's two for the remainder of uh 2026 each at $50,000. So those funds we view as as unencumbered.
So, this would get us part of the way to filling that $200,000 uh gap without impacting that first trench, which I as I say is already underway. And then our uh our what we believe to be the most viable um way forward is
what we proposed on the on the 10th of February. And that is to structure a bridge loan with uh with the county uh secured with that Gunflint View loan that will be paid back to us and then in turn paid back to you as early as
September of 2026 and no later than September of 2027. taking us then to uh to next steps. So, we'll finalize what we want to do on these on these options, the financial solution with Cook County. We'll then be able in a position to execute a purchase
agreement with some confidence that we can get to the closing properly. Uh the EDA is obligated to uh have a public notice and uh a public meeting on the subject of the sale of the golf course that kicks off that 90day right of first
refusal with the Nelson family, which in all honesty might be less than 90 days, but they'll be provided up to 90 days to to answer us on that. Uh which will then get us to closing and following that the completion of that necessary irrigation
and septic work. So, thank you. >> Thank you for putting all this rearranging together for us to consider and I'll open this up for discussion. >> Commissioner Gamble.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. according to your next steps, the progression shows that the uh bringing the property up to compliance or you know so that it's an operating golf course that that that follows the sale
of the property. So if I if I look at it in your next steps, it's sort of at the end of the process and yet it sounds in our discussions that the intent is based upon the buyer saying, "I need to have a fully functional golf course." That that
would be brought up and once that meets that requirement, then the deal would be closed and we'd move on. So I'm I'm a little bit confused as to the progression in your next step why we would bring it up to compliance at that point because
it it looks like it's in his hands and ownership and now we're going to meet the compliant requirement. So if you could elaborate on that. >> Sure. Uh in large measure it's the uh it's the climate here in that the the work necessary is going to happen in the
late spring and and early summer when it when it can happen. those monies would be put into escrow so that we're obligated to bring it up to compliance. Yes, after closing, but obligated to do so with with real money in an escrow account. And regarding that escrow
account, as you might recall those figures, it totals $500,000. That's 150% of our current visibility to what these uh actions will actually cost. And that's conservative. uh but none of us like to be surprised by by bad news on
the on the financial side but we should recognize that it's there's some padding in that in that figure. Okay. So the um obviously the the language that defines and clarifies what will happen and that escrow money is is all put in place with
good intention to make sure that we're doing our due diligence and meeting that obligation in the context of what we know to be true based upon estimates that that we have at this point in time. The other question would be that the estimates relative to septic and
irrigation that if you get EP estimates and then those contractors or providers say that price will be good through this period of time as opposed to revisiting this and finding out whoa it's changed in the interm. So that that's a
question. The other thing is that most of us understand the concept to bring a septic system up, you know, to code, but the irrigation uh the irrigation at the $230,000. Can you explain what that entails?
>> Yeah, from a from a layman's uh standpoint, it entails uh no longer relying on the pump system that's bringing water up from Lake Superior, which as I understand it is only running at about a 40% efficiency currently. and rather hooking into the water system uh
there at uh at Ludson, >> putting the water in >> uh connecting the the golf course to the the the water system there at Ludson. >> The Luden ski resort. >> The ski resort has a water district and
the the the golf course will tap into the ski hills water district and become a member of the water district. >> Okay. If I if I look at the the history of the trip relative to monies that have been advanced to whether the township or the golf course force directly at the
EDA that uh I think there have been five distributions since 2013 uh that area and under the under the majority of those they all speak to the issue of irrigation. And so my question is is that if if we
have requested monies to deal with the irrigation issue over all these years and ILRB has granted funds, how is this different when we use the term irrigation relative to those monies specified to
deal with irrigation issues? And I understand given the complex that it's a large complex. So there's multiple things that could be irrigation. It can be, you know, watering the greens and and so but when we look at this, we see
the word irrigation. When I look at the grants, five over the course of those years, I see irrigation. How does this differ from monies that would have been applied to that? I see. >> Peter. >> Yeah, please. If I might, former board
member Howard heads. Um the the when the monies came from IT RB for the the water district for loots and mountains, uh it was anticipated that irrigation would become an issue at the golf course and was mentioned in the the
list of things that could happen in that grant. Um, as Peter mentioned, you know, the water intake for the irrigation for the golf course has silted over the years and has now they can only run it at 40% because you can't
water can't sit through the gravel. So the proposal is to tie the wet well system for the irrigation of the golf course and and feed from the wet well of the ski hill
system and and that the skill system would there'd be some piping involving that would take from the the Luden Mountains wet well and feed the wet well to the irrigation system and then the irrigation piping from that area by the
lake will continue up and feed the irrigation system as it is now. So the interconnect um I've looked at the engineering report at the question earlier that uh you know how do we know that that's an accurate uh um estimate
it it looks solid. It doesn't look super complicated. Uh I think the numbers there are sufficient and you know it's uh and that will totally solve the deficiency that we have there. So that's a little background on that. So that I think what you're reading in the old
grants was the the anticipated tying in of the irrigation to the Luchen Mountains water district. >> Madam Chair, um I can add >> the the bills that I saw go by because a
lot of the money was county money there. Uh, I didn't see the ITB grants specifically cuz they went through Ludson, but the other funding did and Midwest did um I can't remember exactly how much, probably over $300,000 of
irrigation work, but that was to the system on the course itself, not the hookup. What I saw was system work, the new piping and the, you know, the shower, the heads and all that kind of stuff. So I think that's the the main work that they were doing on irrigation.
I don't know about the ITIB specifically, but >> thank you Ry and Howard. I in in the question and and those that are stewardship of those dollars uh designated for irrigation,
my point is that in looking at the history of that, if in fact the hookup was part of the request for those dollars from RB and it didn't happen, then that would be a a question that gets raised. though the the
um it it speaks to the integrity of if I ask for dollars are those dollars in fact accomplishing what has been requested and in talking to IT RB because of the timeline on some of this
some of it they have records because they don't keep records necessarily that far back but it was to my point that if if the irrigation ask at this point in time was something that had been specified to be done back then and it wasn't accomplished. I just want to
verify that that the response I I think you know in my memory of the that whole situation is you know roots and mountains needed because uh of the low water levels in the popular river and they they you may know for years they took water out of the popular river for
their snow making. there was a couple really low years and they didn't have sufficient water uh in the Papa River and drawing a lot more water out would impact fisheries and things like that. So the the justification for the large expenditure for that water line up the
mountain, one of them was, you know, we could possibly use that same system, not the energy necessarily, but the same system because now you've got intake from the lake wet well system, pretty robust piping and all that. And and also
part of that system is a is a water portable water district up at the mountain because they, you know, they work on wells. Now, those wells aren't always sufficient to to meet the needs of the infrastructure up there. So, there was anticipated that
the water water district would include whatever housing accommodation there's up there and eventually build that uh into that water system. But, you know, that hasn't happened yet either. But um you know the main expenditure of that pipeline was just the the wet well the
piping system the pumps and and all that infrastructure to put it in you know totally dwarfs the interconnect we're looking at now. >> Thank you. Um madam chair and the um
as commissioners we attended u the AMC conferences which they have and at the conference in December uh one of the presenters had uh made a comment which I underlined and made a note on it's ask the questions that need to be asked and uh so respectfully that's why I'm asking
the questions just for clarification and so both the public and commissioners are informed as to the history and the context in which this request is being made. You mentioned the escrow account relative to um setting aside money to
complete the work to bring it up. Um how how come that an option that is not listed and we didn't discuss in the previous meeting that if if money's that were used as escrow and by a
well-intentioned buyer committed to make the purchase that if those if monies were set aside in that purchase price to fund the improvements so that the price of the property would be reduced by the amount of money we're projecting its
cost to bring it up to compliance. If that money is becomes the escrow money or in good faith deposit and both parties clearly define intention, that money could be used with a reduced
price at no interest and accomplish the same thing. It's just another another mechanism for funding if you follow me. Yeah, I'm I'm not sure I do. I'm I'm focused on 1.85 for a fully functioning golf course. Uh
so that's that's 1.85 at closing and what we need to to bring to closing to get that second piece which is fully functioning golf course. Correct. But but if if uh in the negotiations and discussions, it's a matter of saying for us to be able to do that is this. we do
not have the cash flow. And if if your intention in good faith is to purchase, could we not reduce that purchase price by the amount it's going to cost us to make these improvements and then that money would be reduce the purchase
price, but your funding mechanism would come from the proceeds um that would be set aside. So in other words, we're we're getting the money because we reduce that purchase price and it it
ends up being escrow that is put against that purchase price. It just it's just another option that looks at it from the standpoint of we're looking for funding. What are options? And one of them would be to reduce the asking price and by
that amount. But um >> excuse me. I don't think it would change the net amount. We'd still be a minus 90 at close irregardless. If you reduce the the asking price by 500. So now it's a 1.35 sale. And then
we no longer need the 500,000 escore. You're just moving 500,000 from one from A to B. It doesn't change the net number. The net number is still a minus 90 at closing. >> Okay. >> I understand it. >> All right. The other thing have has there been any preliminary draft as to
what the document would look by look like if in fact the money came from the county's reserve fund. Has there been any preliminary draft as to the detail the terms specifics related to that?
>> I can speak to that and not at this time. Um that's something that we would need our county attorney to work on. Um and I have not seen a draft yet. Okay. Well, I I would suggest that um that uh if if this is how we move
forward, taking money from the county's reserve fund that those terms um in principle be discussed so that what we do with the county attorney and as commissioners that those are clearly
defined and that they aren't ambiguous. everything is straightforward and understood by anybody that would look at the document so that we cover our bases and make sure that we're being good steward of taxpayer dollars. >> Yeah, couldn't agree more. As I've
reminded administrator Kristen, you know, we're on we're on the same team here and so I think the terms can be quite uh quite clear and and executable. So, no issue there whatsoever. >> Yeah. And just being cleareyed about
this whole process is not uh a statement of opposition. It's a statement of stewardship responsibility of taxpayer dollars. >> And um agreed. >> So I I I uh as I said when you made your presentation previously on the 10th, I I
couldn't uh affirm more um emphatically that we need to get out of the golf course business. It's just how we go about this and uh we want to be sure that that we are good stewards. So, thank you for the time.
>> Um I guess I kind of I'm looking at um just the equipment and once you get the two systems with the golf course and the ski hill merged as a one watering system, does anything have to be replaced? Has that been considered in the money? Uh, I
know probably I don't know if anybody went through the whole system. When I'm there, it's like they're watering on this tent and they're watering over the here. They don't water all at once because everything needs a little bit at a different time. So, equipment viability and has anybody looked into
does that have to be replaced at any time? >> Yeah, my understanding is that part of the study uh that was undertaken in the in the fall uh included overall capacity of of the water system itself. So my understanding is that has been taken into account.
>> Okay. It's just the hookup between the two systems for the water. Okay. Any other comments? Commissioner White. >> I just have a question for posterity and for the history that is do is the document do you have a three- ring
binder documenting the life of the golf course? the excuse me the the grants that the grants that were pursued and where the money went you know just so um it's
a historical I mean it's it's part of the history now of Cook County and so do is there a written or online somewhere um documentation of we got grant funding from the ITRB this year and then this
year because that would be of interest to to current people but to the going forward >> students sitting in the classroom. I don't know. But it would just be good to have that because no one here will be
here in 20 years, >> maybe one to remember to remember, let alone remember specifics. And so I was wondering if you have that information detailed and compiled for future reference.
>> No, it's a good question. Uh much of the information, if not all of it, exists at the EDA office, but I can't overpromise and tell you that it's in one clean three- ring binder that's been compiled, but I think that's a terrific suggestion. I've seen I've seen much of the history in the various files down
the road. >> I don't have a three- ring binder, but I do go way back to the original one and 33 years ago when it was first formed. >> Wow. >> Yeah. >> You weren't here 33 years ago. >> I was here. Yes, I was. Not a chair. No, >> thank you.
>> Administrator Treble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. And regarding the financial piece of your question, um, it's my understanding the EDA has had an audit every year. Correct me if I'm wrong. Um, but we would maintain that documentation as well and have that
both at the county and the EDA. >> I think that study had quite a lot of information, too. So, that's that's a very good compilation, I I think, but maybe not all of it. So, >> well, I'm not going to read it, whatever you put together, but I'm just thinking it's a good idea
>> to have that. I mean, there's value in that. >> Yeah, >> it's good night reading. >> Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. The other thing to be mindful of is that that the money coming out of our reserve fund that if
if we're getting four to 5% on that that we're talking somewhere between 15 to $20,000 based upon the earnings that come from that type of investment. So looking at what the interest rate would be on this
$200,000 just being mindful if if um when we set rate that we're really taking money that's been earning us revenue out of that fund. So
over 22 months. The other the other thing when you put that uh uh schedule in I think September 26th through the 27th >> that um >> is this coordinated with payments that
are you you are getting from Gunflint View or is it a balloon type thing where when you get that money then you make payments. How would that be? And that's something that should be addressed in the terms of the document. >> Sure. We're getting a balloon payment at 4% interest. >> And and is that the balloon payment
coming during that time period or is there a set date? >> It's that one 12-month window of opportunity for the developer to refinance the project and then use those proceeds to pay us off at 4% interest rate. >> Okay. >> So, we just don't know what the timing of that is. I think they're watching the
bank rates is probably what's going to happen. >> Yeah. And and how it affects us as decision makers is that when we look at our reserve fund, if that money is obligated then and we look at our percentage where we want to keep it and what we did like last year and using it
to draw down the levy, we we need to know where we're at on that as available dollars. So, thank you, >> Commissioner Sullivan. Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion um to use $200,000
from Cook County Reserves to bridge the funding gap for the golf course. >> Uh support. >> Any further comments or questions? Commissioner White, did you have anything >> not related to this question?
>> Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Brady, any idea what we would set that rate at interest? Um, we could set it at what our money market
is earning. That's where most of our funds are and that's that's in the neighborhood of 4% right now. The same interest rate you guys are looking at. It's probably a little bit less. >> Okay. And so, thank you. I and just from
the standpoint of public's awareness that if if we take money from our reserve fund, which is basically taxpayer money that we've accumulated and we um have been earning interest on it, if we set it at the rate that we've been earning that interest, then our
stewardship of those dollars, I think that that would be acceptable. So just just to restate um as commissioners we're entrusted with responsibility in making decisions. Our decision should be reflective of the
communities that we serve. So it is not a personal opinion. It is not personal disagreeance. It is it is stewardship responsibility and asking questions and making sure that we are good stewards of what we've been entrusted with. So if if
as a commissioner I was elected to make decisions based upon my personal opinions and my personal biases, I would be in trouble or I should be in trouble. But uh given the responsibility that come as a commissioner, those decisions need to be vetted and commissioners need
to be informed in making decisions. There are a lot of issues that um uh I have had with the proposal that have come from the EDA. I've been part of that in my previous term and u the history hasn't hasn't been a good one.
That's that's an honest assessment and there as I said in the meeting in February 10th part of my frustration with this is that we cannot continue to bail out. We cannot continue uh to use taxpayer dollars when there hasn't been
good decisions that have been made. And we can look at the golf course at the point that the expansion was going to bring in additional revenue and yet the $160,000 to retire retire those um tax abatement bonds has been coming from our
lodging tax. So we can't we can't be sold something that doesn't deliver on its promises. And without that accountability, it gets really frustrating. But the conflict here is that accountability, integrity with trying to
unload something and do it in a way that is the least impactful to our taxpayers. So the the learning lesson from this for me is a standpoint that I don't support this. The the wanting to facilitate
unloading a responsibility that's been an albatross to us. There's been benefit that people have appreciated but it's been at a cost and uh the business park would be another example of there it's at a cost and so when we are told something will
be successful and it won't impage impact the the levy and it doesn't happen that accountability needs that accountability that's why my I would lack the support for this because of that principle but
because I would like to see this happen and make it happen responsibly on behalf of taxpayers, then I will support the motion. But I want that understood. It's a conflict. But I don't represent my opinion. I
represent what's been entrusted relative to stewardship of taxpayer dollars. Thank you. >> Um Brady, clarification. What is the interest on the money market right now? >> It's I don't know exactly. We're It's around four. It might be just slightly under >> four.
>> So, and I would request that, you know, we make the motion to include um upon uh final agreement contract, loan agreement. >> Mr. Sullivan, and I'm happy to amend my
motion. >> I'll support that amendment. >> Okay. Um further comments, >> Madam Chair, just to say that the the specific terms and the language of that being clear and straightforward that the the board that document needs to come
before us as I'm assuming it would so that we can go over that when the monies were asked for the expansion back in 2013 when it took three times to draft a document to get it right so that it wasn't ambiguous and that it protected taxpayers. So that's an important
element of this in putting my support forward is that we have a clear document. >> I have a motion by Sullivan and a support by Mills. Any further comments? I'll call for a vote. No further comments. All in favor?
>> I >> oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you for reviewing everything again and administrator treble with working with them. Thank you so much. >> I have a question not from just it's about the EDA.
>> Okay. >> I think it would be good if we could have a discussion about the EDA sometime. Um because my understanding is the EDA was created specifically for the golf course and when the golf course was
no longer a responsibility of the EDA the EDA was to dissolve. So times have changed and I I don't know where we're you know I just would like to have a discussion about that. So and that all comes before probably
before Howard too. So, it's in the very beginning. It's not personal, but taxpayer dollars. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay, we're going to move on to um the
highway. Now, we have authorization to purchase a Mac tandem axle plow truck. Good morning. >> Good morning, everyone. >> Morning. You're going to have to deal with me talking about equipment. Matt is in
sunnier places at the moment. So, um, they are yellow and they come with wheels. So, no. Uh, >> I've seen those. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's us. Little moose on the side. >> No. So, yeah. But the the first thing we'll talk about um is approve a
scheduled purchase or purchase of a Mac tandem plow truck for three little over $366,000. Um I'll just read the summary so everybody and anyone that's watching can hear it. Um our tandem plow trucks are on a 14-year replacement schedule. Uh
four trucks have been approved and ordered since 2023. Two of those trucks will arrive in March and the other two in September of 26. We ordered trucks two at a time based on law long lead times uh industrywide that's been an issue. Uh and we've talked about that
here and in highway committee on and off. Uh but since then uh we're caught back up which is nice. So we're going to go back to just doing one every single year. Um we budgeted the purchase of one tandem in 2027 per our uh approved highway equipment replacement schedule.
Order will be placed this year for delivery and payment in the first quarter of 27. price of chassis and plow equipment reflect the current state bid contracts. If you remember, we buy all of our things off of the state bid. Um what was interesting is Matt had is uh put together some numbers over the last
5 years or so and um the price has increased about 28% um over those five years. So it was a big spike after COVID which we've talked about and everybody knows you name the thing it's more expensive post that. We're seeing it come back down to just kind of a I'll
call it a normal inflationary level, which is nice. Um, and so ordering in tandem now ensures that we can stay on schedule and guard against future price increases. Uh, we are going to sell once we get the new truck, we'll sell the one we're replacing. Obviously, we use that min bid website which allows anybody in
the state uh to bid on it. Um, and I think we'll get we're hoping around 30 or $40,000 for that. So, any questions? questions or comments about that? Commissioner G. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. So, just so
we're clear that uh the ask is because of the timelines in order to fulfill uh an order. Um we're putting this order in, we need permission to be able to do that, but it'll be part of the 2027 budget. Yes. So, we're not spending 2026
dollars that we didn't plan on. It just given the nature of fulfilling orders, we need to move ahead. >> Y >> and it's making the assumption that the plan that we've been working by the commissioners have been comfortable with because we haven't set our 2027 budget,
>> right? >> But it is a plan that we can anticipate on how it's fulfilled >> 100%. Yep. >> With uh with that, I would make a motion to support the purchase. >> Support. >> Have a motion and a second.
Any further questions? All in favor? I >> oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. >> Thank you very much, Chair. >> And Commissioner White has a question. >> Yes. >> Not a question. It's a statement. You're getting more than a truck. What's coming
on the truck? I see a toll master, dump box, plow, wing, and spreader. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. I mean, and >> don't assume that everybody knows that. >> Sorry. Yes, we are getting a fully outfitted plow truck. Yes, that is yellow. That's it. Heated seats, surround sound, >> obviously. >> Seat belts.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Two seat belts. >> Two seats. >> And a break. >> And a break. One break. >> Good. >> Well, thank you. Uh let's see. Next thing here. So, we're going to do a couple project awards if you guys are okay with that. Um rare that we have uh
awards coming in lower than we thought they would be. That's kind of nice. This is a weird conversation to have. Um, but the first one we'll talk about is Chicago Bay Road. Uh, so over there on the east end, um, we ended up receiving three bids, which is fantastic. Um, our
estimate was just over 600,000 and our low bid is just under 500,000. Um, so I'm not going to complain about that one bit. Um, Brothers has done work up here with us in the past. They're wonderful to work with, so we're pretty excited about that. Um, is there any questions about that particular project?
funding is from our transportation sales tax account. That's that half cent thing that we had passed back in 2018 2019. Um I think those funds for these types of neighborhood roads are kind of the intent of it. That's my opinion on that. So yeah,
>> Commissioner Mills, >> are you able to identify the the difference the discrepancy with estimate versus bid? >> Oh, sure. Um I I haven't dug into it quite yet. I know, you know, generally what we look at with our projects is we'll take state average and and
increase it about 30 40%. And so I can dig into it more and see. Yeah. Yep. Um I think a lot of it too is, you know, timing. We got things out on time this year, which was fantastic. Um it could be how busy everybody is as well, you know, willing and then also proximity.
Um you know, Yuland, if I remember right, is working out of Labot's pit which is right there on the east end. So your trucking costs are a lot lower then. So that helps a lot too. Commissioner G. >> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, uh, when you come before us, usually on
these projects, um, we find that, uh, it's the bids are coming in higher than what we project. And I'm just wondering if the methodology is being consistent here or if you know that commissioners like to see it drop underneath. And so,
>> we are we are not artill artificially inflating estimates. >> Thank you for that. if that's what we're alluding to. No, no, no, no. >> If you get back and you say, "Hey, Matt, you know what? I think we ought to start up a little bit." No, >> just had to ask.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I'd like to make a motion to award the contract to Yulan Brothers for $498,700,000. >> Support. >> Any further questions or comments? All in favor? I
>> oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. >> Thank you very much. Uh the second project we'll talk about is kind of in tandem with this one. Uh it's the Arrowhead Trail project. Uh it also includes a box culvert that's going to go uh where Otis Creek is right there.
That's a flooding issue that we've experienced over the years. And so we're going to upsize that into a box. Again, very similar situation here. Our estimate was just over 2.2. low bid is just under 2.1. Um, I'd say that's pretty on the money, which is which is
great. Um, funding for this one comes from our annual state aid allocation that we get from um, Mindot. And then I actually was just told the other day we're actually going to get a little bit of bridge bonding um, which we weren't guaranteed before. So that's another
$170ish,000 to go towards the bridge. So I'll take that. Um, any questions with this one? I'll make a motion uh to approve award SAP 016-616-00008 to Yulan Brothers
>> support. Any further questions or comments? All in favor? >> I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. >> Wonderful. And then the the third thing I'll add with those is since it's come up in conversation a lot, part of those projects buried in there is re
resurfacing uh the north road, that little chunk of the north road there. So that is getting done. It's not explicitly called out in these. We are waiting to have our contractor and then we'll issue a a change order to make sure that that gets incorporated. So just as a heads up. >> Yes, >> Commissioner White,
>> I would like to thank you for saying that out loud. >> You're very welcome. I could I could read your >> the vibes are going commissioner G. >> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh I also appreciate the fact that when you are putting these forward in the packet that
you're indicating whether or not these are levy dependent or whether money where the money is coming from and uh that that's helpful. So, um whether the public is reading the packet or not, uh these um these projects and and in a
large to a large degree because of your resourcefulness and your focusing on it, you're you're bringing a lot of dollars in which helps our infrastructure. So, I appreciate you that you note that in the packet. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. And then the last thing that
I'm sure will be a very short conversation is our uh discussion about subordinate districts, putting together a working group. Um I thought that we had a great uh committee of the whole discussion about that. Really trying to see what this group would look like,
what its purpose is. Um, and so I think at the last committee of the whole, we were kind of Kristen and I, administrator Treble and I were tasked putting together a charter um, of some kind just to really say, you know, here's what we'd like to see as far as membership, what's the purpose of the group, what's the format, um, who's
doing what, um, kind of rules and how the thing will operate. And so I'd be curious. I don't want to read the whole thing. I can if you want, but uh, no. Okay. But maybe at a high level, I think, you know, really the purpose is, you know,
we we've we've identified issues on kind of the behind the curtain side of things. And there's um, you know, potential issues on the delivery side of things. And really what the purpose of this group was or I think what the purpose of this group should be isn't to
recommend either keeping or dissolving subordinate districts. It's problem solving. It's bringing together, you know, representatives from each of the districts, um, as well as folks that aren't in districts. So, if you're on a private road or an HOA or POA, something like that, um, you know, to to bring
everyone into a room together, kind of just lay out all the problems and start ticking them off. There's no wrong idea. If an idea is hiring three people, that's the idea. And then we bring that to the board for consideration then. Um, I think, yeah, I don't know. Does
anybody have anything they Yeah. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just like to um highlight one piece of it which which is at the committee of the whole we had talked about the membership of this workg group and we had originally only proposed I think it was
three SGSD representatives. We have changed that per the discussion at committee of the whole um so that there is we do have in this uh this draft or this recommendation one representative from each one of the SGSDs. So I just want to make sure that everyone noticed
that in the document as well. >> Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you for your work work on this and I I think um it's it's important to to mention the fact that uh this process
since we first addressed it in the committee of the whole that we can see how we have um brought in the community to help inform you know direction and where we go on this. So this is this is
a good example of of our response to you know community uh concerns and and building a format and a structure that allows those voices that have our stakeholders to be part of this. So I appreciate the clearly defined structure
uh moving forward and uh I would make a a motion to approve the working group charter for the subordinate government districts >> support All in favor? >> I I >> I guess my comment would be um about
when would you want to start this? >> Well, I I think this is step number one. This >> wonderful. And so then what we'll do is um put together we wanted to put together a survey as well to send out to the liaison to then either distribute to their you know do distribute to their
districts um and really start gathering what their additional issues are because we have a list. Um, I think I have Commissioner Sullivan's notes from the And if you guys have any notes, please pass them along. And so that starts the list. Um, I have, you know, everything that we've put together kind of on the
the back end, you know, the the issues we've identified, not just with the highway department, but the auditor's office and MIS as well. Um, and so if there's anything else, that is kind of going to be the starting point. And then we'll have that survey to see if there's anything else to get in there. And so
really it'll just depend on how quickly we can assemble kind of representatives from each district. I mean I don't envision anything starting. The earliest would be like April. Um cuz it's going to take a minute to get this stuff together. Um and then also find a time
that is going to work. Um you know the intent with this just to you know I don't want to do it on like a Wednesday at 7:00 at night. You know I could see yeah I could see you know something maybe towards the end of the day. you know, if it's a 3 to four, 3 to 5 o'clock time frame,
something like that. Um because then even if people have to work that want to be a part of this group, you know, it's not interrupting your entire workday. Um so, but we we'll figure that out as we get going. So, I wouldn't envision anything sooner than sooner than than April. >> Well, probably at this time it'd be
appropriate for two commissioners who would want to work on this so we have that addition. Commissioner Sullivan. >> Um, I would, as you know, be happy to serve on this uh group. I also want to thank you for the timeline you put six months to a year. I think back to our
Passion Pit Committee a few years ago. It was really important to have a timeline to guide and to plan for decision- making and recommendations. Um, so I really appreciate that and I think it's a very realistic time frame. >> I hope so.
>> Commissioner Gamble. Yeah, thank you madam chair. I think at our discussion of committee whole that uh given the distributions of committees whatever that it was suggested that I I would serve as uh on that committee as well as one representative commissioner. The one
thing I'd recommend is that um from your perspective certainly just generically writing down every aspect that we would you know the stones are going to turn over in in this process certainly the legal which is part of what we've
learned >> and uh so just putting down all the generic things and then anybody else >> too so that we have identified you know the outline of what we're going to address. >> Mhm. >> Yep. Yeah. >> Okay. So, we have
>> who's on the highway advisory. >> Commissioner White is the lead on that and I'm the alternate. >> Yeah. I thought you were on the um the safe >> safe streets for all. Nice memory. >> Yeah. But I didn't remember you being on
the SGSD disc. Well, it in the cow it was brought up because I had suggested that highway we should just keep everything that's highway highway and then it was said well given the uh but that might be that's a different
that was a different subject we're talking about. >> Yeah, that was >> yeah yeah >> that was having to do with the intersections and >> Yes. >> Yeah. That's what that was >> the town the town focused. So >> yes, >> correct. My my memory was that it was
Commissioner White >> and Sullivan and that's consistent with okay >> the recommendation that >> okay >> because of the knowledge and the awareness in that regard. So I agree >> and I'm closer for them to reach out and
>> touch me. Commissioner go offro if needed. >> Commissioner White sure glad I asked. Okay. Anything else on there, Robbie? >> Uh, I don't think so. I think more to come. So, I appreciate it. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Got Roads to plow.
>> Yeah. >> Where's M? >> Anyway, >> so we're going to move on to some resoning requests um >> with um Neva Maxwell. Good morning. >> Good morning, Madam Chair.
Commissioners, the Cook County Planning Commission met on February 11th, and the first item uh before you from that meeting is a reszone request submitted by Howard Hedstrom. Currently, there is a parcel just north of Hedstrom's Lumber
that is privately owned uh directly abuing federal land that is owned light industrial. uh since it's changed ownership about 2012 into private ownership um from Headstrom's Lumber into Mr. Headstrom's property. Uh it is
now being requested to be reszoned F3. There's never been a history of light industrial use on this property and it's more so I think a reflection of changed changing needs in the community looking for more residential developments rather than industrial development. Um, from a
zoning perspective, this is an area with mixed residential use, right next to the lumber mill that has not caused any disturbances or nuisance complaints into our office. I think people are, if they know what they're buying land next to, they tend to accept that that is the character of the area. Uh, Mr.
Headstrom's been really transparent that his next plan is to move forward to a standard uh plat process to potentially create about seven uh residential 5 acre or more lot sizes which would be compatible with the F3 zone district. So from a zoning perspective, this is a
request to change the zoning from a more intensive light industrial use to a less intensive F3 zoning that um is right next to what the land is zoned to the north. So, it was a unanimous recommendation by the planning commission. There were no written
comments or verbal comments at the public hearing and the planning commission felt that this would be a good way to put the land to better use than sitting vacant. The only characteristic of the property that's a little complex is that there is a public water course between the Gunflint Trail
to the building areas and so that will require a little work with the DNR for permitting. Um, but from a ecological standpoint, this will be a little bit more favorable to that stream from a land use perspective than the light industrial potential zoning. And I'm happy to answer any questions. And Mr.
Hstrom's obviously here as well. >> Questions or comments? Commissioner Sullivan. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I've had an opportunity since this is in my district to speak with constituents who are very pleased that this um has the potential to become um far three land where we can
add some housing. It is immediately off the Gunflint Trail. Um, and Mr. Hedstrom has agreed to work with the DNR um to provide access to the seven or more lots that could potentially be created. Um, so I can just say from the neighborhood
perspective, um, people really appreciate that and are glad to look at the opportunity for more housing. >> Okay. Commissioner Mills, >> does FAR three is that Roso can be allowed in FAR three? >> It could be. >> Okay.
>> Any further comments or questions? >> Commissioner Sullivan. Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the resolution for the reszone of the 39.83 acres of light industrial district to FAR 3 on parcel ID 532344100
>> support. >> Any further comments or questions? All in favor? >> I I same sign. Motion passes unanimously. >> Thank you very much. That was >> Thank you. Thanks Howard.
The next item, Madame Chair and board, is uh the vertical bridge cell tower conditional use permit amendment. Uh the agent for the application is here, Mike Bick. Um the planning commission did hold a public hearing for this
amendment. is essentially um broadly speaking a request to change the location of the cell tower on the same parcel from the original location um due to wetlands being present that uh prohibited streamline permitting for that original
location. Um there was a lot of discussion at the planning commission and ultimately the planning commission uh voted 52 to recommend denial to this amendment request. And the nuance to this is that the planning commission felt that by recommending denial this would make the permitting pathway to the
original location more feasible because they're showing that they're meeting efforts to avoid wetland impacts. So, um, state wetland regulations require that you first try to avoid wetland impacts or at least minimize them before you get authorized to do those wetland
impacts. And so, this conditional use permit request to fully avoid wetland impacts was an attempt to meet those state wetland regulation requirements to try to avoid those impacts. the planning commission felt that this new location that does fully well largely minimize
wetland impacts uh was too close to two residential structures that uh it was within 1,000 ft of residential structures. So there was also a corresponding variance request before the board of adjustment. The board of adjustment unanimously recommended denial of that variance. They felt that
it was too close uh to those residential structures as well. So, this puts the applicant in the position to potentially look at alternative locations on the property. Um, it's important to note that the original conditional use permit is in effect. That's not changed through
this process. This was just a request to change the location of the cell tower. Um, and so just yesterday, I received a written request by the applicant to withdraw this conditional use permit amendment. And I believe Mr. Bick is here and he would like to address the board with a few words. Madam Chair,
>> thank you. questions or comments? Commissioner Gav. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh I appreciated u the deliberation and the discussion that was had in in the process of
evaluating this and um um I I often say that there's a lot of decisions that get made emotionally based upon assumptions and whatever else and uh it's important that our structure defines how we go about saying yay or nay on things and um
when we establish policy or laws, statute, regulation, that directs those decisions. It's important that we comply with that and that we're not quick to change intent that was provided by that structure. So
when I look at this um it it is um it is it is well thought through. I think the people that expressed their concerns those concerns were addressed. there were multiple things that would have to change based upon our responsibility to be protective of those
things that are important. And so I I would support the recommendation moving forward understanding that there's options to address this as provided under you know the policy that that exists. So, I would support uh the um
motion recommended the denial of the amendment of the conditional use permit 20248 cup and allow the applicant to proceed to identify an alternative site in accordance with the state wetland
conservation act. Madame Chair, I want to make note that we have a request for withdrawal >> before you be >> prior to uh a motion to deny. I would I would request that you honor
that. >> Oh, so we have a motion right now. >> He's asking for the withdrawal. >> So I have to deal with the motion right now. So >> we don't have a second. So
>> understood. >> We have a motion and a second. Then we can have conversation. >> We don't need though a second. >> If if if at this point I can withdraw the the motion for that discussion to entertain. >> Okay. We'll withdraw the motion in a
second. >> Yeah. There wasn't a second, so I withdraw my initial motion. Yeah. >> Yes. Go ahead, sir. >> Uh I just wanted to be very brief. Um, as Miss Maxwell had mentioned, we went through the process. Um, at the at the time we had reapplied for or applied for
the uh conditionies permit amendment, we were having issues with the wetlands and therefore we we needed to go through the process. Unfortunately, you know, as was stated, there was some opposition um due to proximity to residential structures
and therefore the board of adjustment unanimously denied it it the the actual variance request from the the separation. So essentially the the conditional use permit cannot move forward at this point because we don't have the variances in place. And just to
be a little bit cleaner, we decided that it's appropriate to withdraw. Um, as Miss Maxwell had mentioned, by going through the process, that gave us the the ability to talk with the state about the wetlands credits because the the one
item that we we lacked was uh the requirement to look at alternative lo uh options. And so by going through the process, we have effectively uh explored that option. So, um, we're going to be working with staff on getting the
building permit, um, to to move forward with the original location, although you there is still the the very very slim likelihood that we could be back again, you know, if it doesn't work out. But, I believe we've met the the standards we
need to. So, uh, we're going to be looking very hard at getting, uh, the permits started. Um, but more importantly, I just want to say what a wonderful staff you have. Um, we've been working with Miss Maxwell and, uh, Mr. Travis for a good part of over a year
now, trying to get everything through and squar it up. And they've always been very cordial and very quick to answer the phone or an email to keep things going. And that's been uh, really, really important. And I just want to say how much I appreciate them.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. So, by the denial that would allow you to go ahead and do further research and all that. So, that's where we're at. Commissioner >> Mills, I think we don't even need to do anything is is what?
>> Yeah. >> So, at this point, >> right? Yes. I can confirm, Madame Chair, that we got the request in writing, which is what we need to satisfy the withdrawal. >> Okay. Okay. Y >> Thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you so much. Look at the snow out there.
>> Okay, moving on. Yeah, >> thank you, Madam Chair. The last item I have before you are proposed amendments to the Cook County zoning ordinance. You may recall of May of last year, the county adopted the residential open space overlay zone district. is an
effort to try to incentivize developers to do open space or clustered residential development by getting a bonus lot creation allowance. Essentially, you get to make more residential lots if you meet certain standards. Uh following that adoption,
the Cook County HR director and myself held a few uh meetings throughout the county, Hovland, Kville. We went up the trail uh over to Schroeder and in this room, and we held community conversations, kind of a I wouldn't call it exactly a town hall. less formal than
that, but listening sessions, opportunities to educate people and help them understand what this new overlay district is and hear from them as well of what their thoughts might be. Uh, and through those discussions, one thing that we heard was concern about how this
decision would be made. Where are these reson going to occur? um you know, how are you going to decide if a Roso district should be adopted uh near town or up at the tip of the arrowhead trail? And so if we consider what our current
uh reszone criteria are, like Mr. headstrong today, his reszone criteria. The type of questions that a reszone is asking is trying to get at the heart of whether or not there's been a mistake to the zoning ordinance or to the zoning map uh to correct a mistake or if
there's been substantial changes in the community um such as a comprehensive plan that drives the need to update your zoning map. Uh we don't have an updated comprehensive map uh plan. Our last land use guide plan was done in 2016. Uh so it is on my radar to uh try to address
that and get our community a new planning document. But until then um what we have is this Roso district that's a little bit more malleable. We've got these eligibility criteria that's set in the ordinance. That's the part where it's the certain zone districts F2 or 3 uh nonshorland or
within a half mile of a public road. So we kind of queried out. We said these are the locations that we think Roso is going to be eligible just at a starting point. But then there's this idea of just because you're eligible might not mean the property is suitable. And so the heart of this ordinance amendment is
to try to give you guys and the planning commission tools, the set of questions that you might want to ask when someone comes forward for one of these reszone requests so that you and the applicants and the members of the public can all look at the same set of questions and
try to figure out what does suitable mean for a Rosa reszone. Intellectually, intuitively, I think we kind of get it. If you have 40 acres of wetlands, probably not suitable for high dense residential development. Or if you're way at the tip of the Arrowhead Trail,
very far away from services, probably not the best location for residential development. So, some of these questions are trying to get at the heart of those sort of things to think about. We first so in in bringing this out there, you know, we held those community meetings. These are kind of what got my brain
churning about wanting to give you better tools for having these discussions and making um clear factual decisions. If one gets reszoned and one doesn't, what are the findings you would want to support that decision? Uh we put together these draft findings in the
fall of last year and I presented them I believe at the October or November planning commission meeting just informally to run this idea past them and that they greenlighted um us to move forward for a public notice. This was published in the paper. I also went on
to WTIP and did an interview to try to get some information out to the community. I I didn't receive any formal written correspondence. I've heard positive remarks. um generally speaking um and one written comment letter too late so I didn't get to submit it but uh
so I haven't heard any strong concerns you know we we are kind of inventing a new tool with this overlay district so I think it's just going to take a little while for people to kind of understand it and understand the potential and also for the market to catch up for it to actually work out you know in the
business side of things um so the planning commission held the public hearing for this on February 11th as well uh there were no members of the public present to speak on that and uh they generally agreed that this was going to be a helpful set of questions
to ask and to try to give them tools and again this is the extra kind of requirements the criteria um find to give you findings when people are requesting a reason. So the applicant would answer these questions and then the decision makers would review those
questions and see whether or not that makes sense for this um and it wouldn't apply to reszones like the light industrial to F3. These questions just wouldn't apply to that. It's still the normal reason questions for all other reasons. It's just specific to this
overlay district. So >> thank you. When you think that our county is already owned by 92 or 93% that state, we don't have a lot of land to deal with. I know when I drive around in the West End, it's like, well, maybe there's a pocket here. So, it's good to
review after 10 years >> and actually get some facts down and >> some movement at least that can be can be worked on. Any questions or comments? >> Commissioner Sullivan. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to thank Miss Maxwell for the good work
that she's done with the planning commission and seeking out public input um through WTIP conversations over many months and also with uh visiting various areas of the county. But I think this um really is a great summary of all the
questions and concerns that came up and all the discussions. And with that, I'd like to make a motion to recommend that the um proposed amendment for the Cook County zoning ordinance regarding the residential open space overlay district
be approved. >> Support. >> Any further questions or comments? All in favor? I >> I >> opposed. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Have a nice day. >> Does anyone need a break?
Okay, we'll take an 8 minute break and then go turn the car Okay, we'll resume our meeting after a little bit of a break to check things outside and inside. So, we'll move on to um the um approval work shift for
maintenance department by Ellison. Good morning. Hi, good morning everyone. Morning. >> All right. Um, so today, this is kind of a unique item. We haven't had something like this to present to you all before. Um, but between myself and we've got the director of facilities, Brook Lassard,
with us as well, um, presenting approval for some weekend work, uh, weekend work shifts for, uh, some staff on our maintenance, um, within our maintenance department. So, what arose is um we've
had staff um over the last decade plus that have cleaned um the other facilities, more specifically the law enforcement center on the weekends, Saturdays and Sundays. and that staff member um now no longer works with with
Cook County and so looking to continue the cleaning services and housekeeping um specifically at that facility over the weekends um as needed. But per the Cook County Employees Association labor agreement um which is included in the
agenda item, it does state in uh article six of section one regarding hours of work that four members of CCEA which would be the uh impacted employees that the normal workday shall be a shift of eight work hours uh plus the unpaid
lunch Monday through Friday provided that the normal work hours for some positions may vary when approved. approved by the county board. So, hence that's why we're bringing it forth uh looking for board approval to approve the potential for weekend work shifts. It's not a guarantee, but we're just
kind of sorting through the what the different options are. Um so, to have the approval for the situations that there is a need uh for uh say custodial staff to be present at the law enforcement center on the weekends.
So is the law enforcement center pretty much given, but if something else needs to have repair or work like the Y or whatever, then they have to decide how that comes and >> potentially and but that would allow
Brooke to have the the option to be able to call in staff depending on what the need is uh with approval of having those staff work on the weekends because it would fall outside of the normal work shift as identified. Okay. >> It kind of covers anything emergency
related as well, but >> it's, you know, a lot of things happen on Saturdays and Sundays, >> like propane tanks going empty. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And so we we could also mention too, and I don't know. Sorry, Chris, your hands
up. Um, so we don't know if this approval has ever been done in the I was reading your mind. Um, that's one of my talents. Um, we don't know if this approval has ever been brought forth to the board before. Um, the paper records are obviously very difficult to search.
So, we figured just in case, let's make sure going forward that we have approval when there is a need for specifically the maintenance department staff to to work outside those normal Monday through Friday shifts. >> Commissioner White, do they get uh
currently time and a half or comp time? if if it when it happens. >> I mean, historically, it was just straight time because the shifts were decided to work on a Saturday and Sunday or just a Saturday. So, they were just taking off a a Tuesday and a Friday or
something like that. So, historically, it was just straight time. >> Okay. >> And I can add to that, thank you, Madam Chair, that we would follow the provisions of the contract, okay, >> for payment for those hours. Okay, >> Commissioner Gamble.
>> Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. So, that that would be my question. What's the provision of the contract related to those hours? Because um my understanding in what you were saying is that when we looked at this, we weren't consistent in practice necessarily or
something changed that meant we needed to revisit this. And so if we revisit it and you have a discussion in administrating staff and saying this week we've got something an event or this going on or whatever and so why don't you take these days off but it's
still at the at the b base rate that that would make sense if what this does is it it creates a situation now where we're going to be paying time and a half uh then that would that would be problematic. >> Yes. >> Right. So >> I mean on an emergency basis sometimes
that's unavoidable. Yeah, >> but if we were actually going to schedule a shift, it would not it would not be time and a half at this point. >> It would be scheduled to flex basically flex schedule. So if there was a foreseeable scheduling situation where
staff were scheduled to work on the weekends, then there would be an expectation they would not be working hours during the week because we do want to avoid the uh acrruel of overtime or um compensation time.
>> Right? So this is just making sure that our our documents are consistent with our practice and it is it should have no effect on on wage other than it did in the past if it was emergency situation. >> Thank you.
>> Correct. Yep. >> Any further questions or comments? Uh, I'll make a motion for uh approval for Saturday and Sunday work shifts uh for the maintenance department staff when housekeeping at county facilities
is needed on weekends. >> Have a motion in a second. Any further questions or comments? All in favor? >> I >> I >> post same sign. Motion passes unanimously. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
Okay, moving on then. Okay, so my other item is related to a policy update. Um, just for context, too. So, the new policy is attached in the agenda, which maybe you've had the chance to review. I also printed out copies of what the
current policy looks like that I wanted to share with you all because I think it's a good reference point of um what changes are being made. So I just highlighted the section in our Christian.
>> Sure. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So policy work. The policy work that I've been kind of tackling. Uh the next policy up is our outofclass policy.
So that is what I'm presenting for uh to you today. Um so what I provided you that little highlighted section is out of our current um employee handbook/personnel policies um when we talk about changes of employment status.
So um our current outofclass appointments policy is literally like three sentences long. So it's very vague. Um uh doesn't encompass um uh how we could apply this situation in a
multip multitude of different circumstances when people are taking on roles and responsibilities outside of their current job. Um the current policy is really limiting to if someone is working basically um temporarily taking on duties of a position that is assigned
a higher grade. Um but we have several situations even some current employees in the in the role where if we have say a vacancy or someone is on a extended leave of absence that at some point we do have to have someone taking on a
majority of those responsibilities to ensure that coverage. However, if the roles and responsibilities of the temporary job are at a equal grade or a lesser grade, we have not been able to
provide any additional compensation to pay them for basically taking on maybe another part-time up to another full-time job in addition to the job that they're already doing. So, um, having those situations, especially over the last year or so, has really kind of
prompted this to be a priority in in reviewing it and getting it updated. So, going through just the process of doing a draft and then presenting it to the various committees. It's gone to the personnel committee, I think, like three
times. It's been kind of an ongoing review process. uh Matt, the advisory team, department heads, has had an opportunity to review it. We've also sent it to our external HR counsel um because our county attorney's office is a little at max capacity right now. So, we've been
utilizing our external HR counsel um in employment law to review our policies as well and she has given her feedback and stamp of approval as we move forward. So, what I present to you today is what we're proposing as the revised outofclass appointments policy. So, as
you can see, when you compare the two, it's quite a bit more hefty um in terms of just more clarification, which is something that we run into our old policies. With three sentences, it leaves a lot left to be kind of interpreted or potentially
misinterpreted, right? And in terms of um equitable, fair treatment across the board, like it's really important to have some pretty uh comprehensive policies. um not to be so specific because obviously we can't account for every every specific situation in which
this outofclass appointment policy will apply, but we definitely needed more than three sentences worth. I'm wondering when I read this um what comes to mind is um the fact that we now have family paid leave and so people are
already stepping in to take other people's places. Does that have a role here or not? Um, I mean, not necessarily, but this could be a subsequent impact. Um if we
are experiencing someone who is out on leave for one of the reasons that's covered by Minnesota paid leave, um there could be a potential that we do need depending on that length of absence that we do need someone to step in and cover um some of those roles and
responsibilities at which point potentially maybe this then would now apply. Um again for anyone who's taking on roles and responsibilities in a completely different job regardless of the grade. >> Okay. Thank you on that commissioner I mean administrator treble.
>> Thank you madam chair. The the only other piece that I would like to add is that I think this is um costneutral because most of the time when we've had this situation at least in my 6 months time here um it has been that they're
filling in for a position that's vacant. So, we have vacancy savings for those positions. And this is a more, in my opinion, viable solution than bringing in a temporary employee to fill that that work while we're trying to figure out if we're going to replace that
employee and and post the position or what our next steps will be. So, I just want to make that point as well because I anticipate I'll get that question about cost. >> Thank you on that, Commissioner G. >> Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you
for that. uh additional information. I think that uh your point, Commissioner Stley, is that uh how we're going to see the ripple effect of that is is something that we need to monitor. And with that, I would suggest uh that when
we do our quarterly reports that we would reflect how this has financially affected us and if we're saying that we see it as being neutral, we'll we'll see that. But when we implement something that's new in policy based upon our
lived experience, uh we we can make assumptions as to what we think will happen. But I think monitoring it would be a good thing. So if we get that quarterly report, the other thing that's beneficial I think is is when we see the amount of overtime that we're expending
and and those two things are important because at the point that overtime exceeds the price of an additional person that uh we need to look at that. So the evaluation should be in the context of monitoring you know how this
policy is working out. Yeah, >> administrator treble. >> Thank you. And I'll take this opportunity to just mention the overtime. Um we we do run um a report that shows us what the overtime is. It's something that I've been asking from our
payroll specialist the last few months to monitor that and to see where we're at. And we do have some areas that have had a high level of overtime. And so I'm working with those departments on is that use necessary? You know, can we make changes? do we need to hire if we
have some vacancies and how can we bring those costs down. So that is something that we're monitoring >> and and on that that line these things I I appreciate that but when you look at all of these things when we go to the budget process >> you you want to look at your overtime
you want to look at positions that are working out of class um you want to look at um you know can we be better stewards that's the question's always been asked about if department heads when they assign does it really have to be done on
this day where it's pay and a half or whatever because those are areas that if we shore them up because we're evaluating them, we can we can save some dollars. So, we have a focus on what we're called to do, but we want to be
sure that we're managing that fiscally responsibly. So, those are good things to be aware of. >> Anything else, Commissioner Mill? >> I just wanted to also point out this, you know, will not eliminate
burnout, but a fairer compensation will help mitigate somewhat. So, >> I applaud the efforts and the thought given in into this because that's very expensive.
>> Absolutely. >> Any further comments or questions? Then I'll hear a motion. I'll make a motion to uh approve the out ofclass appointment personnel policy as attached.
>> I'll support. >> Okay. With no further questions or comments, I'll call for a vote. All in favor? >> I >> oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. And I have to write this down so that when I sign the paper,
we've officially done this for Allison. >> Thank you so much. >> All righty. Thank you. >> Okay, Brady, you have some general fund budget review for us. >> Yeah, Madam Chair, this is the 2025
quarter 4. Actually, it's fully year budget review. Um it the report shows budgets that require levy. We have a few exceptions in here. The board is in the past has wanted to see E911 even though it's not a levy. Um
and so there are a few like that in there. But overall at 100% of the year we have we're showing 118% of budgeted revenue. expenses are at 101%
of budgeted. So the net cost with that extra revenue is 85%. So um it's good news for our fund balance. This is modified acrruel so it has most of the adjustments but of course under it when the addit occurs
there are more adjustments but this is the obvious ones. Um I'll go through a few of the um items, the larger items and but please stop if you have any questions or if you want to go back and visit some of them.
Um the general finance department 041 the revenues again third year running is the high interest rates uh historically high interest rates. is still around uh 4%. So, we're way over budget on our
interest revenue. You also see a high expense there and that's because we're running that um Tachinite Harbor grant through this department and so we've made some payments to Stant Tech and we'll get
that money back um as we apply for reimbursement in the elections department. You see a high revenue account. This is typical because we had an election um in 2024, but we don't collect the
revenues until later in 2025 from the town, the the city, the hospital, and the school, etc. Um, courthouse operations. Actually, I'll mention both courthouse
operations and YMCA operations because this is our our building maintenance um and supplies primarily in those two departments because they take care of all our uh buildings in 110 except for
YMCA. We separate that out. But they're all being hit. This is the uh the example of how inflation is hitting us um and probably everybody around the country because uh Brook says we're not using more but the costs are higher for
uh utilities much higher than what we budgeted and for supplies and for a lot of the professional service costs in both of those departments and radio communications. s you see o
overages in revenue and expenses and that's uh the armor grant that's running through that department. So there's revenues coming in from um the return from some of the fire departments that are paying the uh the
match portion and then the expenses are paying for the armor and we'll be getting uh the rest of that back in grant reimbursements. So the the otherwise that budget is uh fairly normal other than that grant.
Um and I those are the large items that I'll mention. I'll just uh I've I've made notes on several of them that are or many of them that are significantly over or under which I pretty much define
as 5%. And uh but if you have questions on any of those uh please ask and otherwise I'd ask for uh approval of the review. But >> I just have one little question about the recorders
revenue is exceeding the budget by 195 97%. Yeah, they they receive since this law change when their recording fees took a huge jump years ago around the state.
It's a state change. They make this technology fee within their department and uh they they don't spend all of it. Um that fund is building up, but it only has one use. So, um, you know, at some
point they'll have to make, uh, you know, large changes in there. They'll have the funding for that or maybe there'll be a law change sometime in the meantime. But in and let's look at other programs just in as as an example. um
AIS, uh we were funded by that state grant way over what we spent, but now we're getting to the point where we're spending it as our program has expanded. E91 was the same way because it was a
statewide program. Everybody got the same formula whether they needed it or not. We built up money for years and years and years. Uh but now the costs of the technology that we use for E911, we we're spending
uh a lot of it now. So this could be the same. We'll see. >> Yes. Go ahead, >> Madam Chair. Brady, isn't I'm trying to remember what those funds were set aside for this year, but I thought it was either Beacon or Eve recording that we were going to be leveraging some of those technology funds.
>> Yeah. Uh there's two funds. So I don't recall which one was going to do this. So we may spend some of it. There's there's two breakouts of that recording fee. One of them is right in the department uh 100 recorder. The other is
an entirely separate department because it has no levy is there's no operations in that. It's just the buildup of another they're two different kinds of technology. um fees that they get. Both of them we get more than we uh have used. Now we're
we're using the 101, this separate one. We've used that down for um pictometry and and other things. Um, so that one we're making full use of the one within
the department and I I can come back to you on be I don't recall if we're using beacon out of that one, but I'll make a note of that. >> Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, what is the uh limitation on the monies
that the recorder has that we're building up a fund, but we can only use it for one thing? Yeah, it's it is for the recorder function um and it's for equipment software. It's both of them are technology related, >> right?
>> And it's the recording function. So in the 101 fund >> which is a little broader. We've made use of that because um pictometry uh helps the recorder and it helps the uh
the assessor and all these things in the >> let's say the um land records area helps the recording process. So that's why we've expanded that. the one that is specific to the recorder's office.
That's the one that we're not spending uh because it's not broad enough to use for pictometry and some of these other things. >> That's something that I think should be looked at and then talking to other counties to see if they're in similar situations. I mean, if it's a disparity
between large counties, small counties, and we're benefiting from the additional revenue, but when we can't use it, doesn't make much sense. So that it might be that that's something that could be addressed at the legislature to create options that are interrelated
relative to the funding source. >> You're right. They wouldn't I don't think they would make an adjustment for us. But if there's a number of counties that are >> that they're just the money's there, but where our hands are tied >> and we don't want to spend money just to spend it because it's there. That's not really the way it should go about it.
The other thing I would note is that uh fellow commissioners that looking at this and seeing in this report the proportion of that uh the budget that is levy dependent and and I think when we're talking about our prioritizing
when we look at what we're entrusted with overall as governance uh that um you you look at how much it costs and if we're saying well it is a huge service and a priority priority and we've got some matrix that evaluates
that then it's warranted. But a place to start is saying how much how much is this is levy dependent and if you were to ask taxpayers how they want their money spent where would we be see the priority. Another
thing that um was um part of the uh notes from that EMC December was uh who in your community needs to be seen or heard and understood and I think that's a huge thing when we're evaluating
allocation of dollars and make a motion to support the fourth quarter report. So report Have a motion and a second. Any further questions or comments? All in favor? >> I I
>> oppos. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you on that, Brady. Okay, moving on then for the letter of support for GGTA uh capital investment request. Um, I'm
on the Getami trail um committee and um Michelle, the director Michelle Pearson asked if we could um write a letter of support to finish off part of the trail there in Luden. And so that's what you're reading here. And um we hope that
future work on the trail will continue. It's just a matter of um piece by piece adding to the trail and getting more money allocated. And we always um include that when we talk to our legislators too about don't forget us up
here and they don't. >> And so here's to the question. Three ring binder available on the whole history of like the Ichigami trail. I mean it's >> you got you got it. We'll have to meet sometime and have several hours about reminding binders.
>> No, I it's just a historical. It's somewhere I >> I hear much about it and I'm >> I know. >> Uh it's being tenacious. >> Goes back to Overstar. >> Yeah. >> Oh yeah. >> Probably you're anxious waiting for it
to come up your way. >> You got a good highway. >> Any question? Okay, Commissioner Gav. Uh thank you, Madam Chair. This was something that was discussed at the Northeast Transportation recent meeting that we had that uh funding was there
and indicated the stretches that were going to be completed and so it certainly would support the resolution of support on behalf of >> Is that a motion? >> Yeah, support >> cobbled together with Yeah.
>> Okay. I hear a motion and a second on the Gigami Trail request. Um all in favor I >> oppos. Same sign. >> Motion passes unanimously there. Okay. So now we'll move on to um
a request for emergency grant for the airport was just included a little while ago. >> Yes. Yes. Continue with that. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. So we just added this yesterday because this is a an emergency um request. Uh we have had
a situation at the airport where the truck that was being used by the Grand Marray Cook County Airport for plowing and diesel fueling had the engine seize up. So we had um an emergency situation and so um engineer Hos uh Commissioner
Sullivan and myself Rodney from the airport and I believe that was it. >> That was it. uh met to discuss the situation and we our temporary solution is the highway department um has been assisting with providing a truck. Um
meanwhile um we have also been working on requesting emergency assistance from the state for the purchase of a new truck. >> And so there is an emergency equipment grant that provides for a 7030 cost split. So the county would be responsible for 30% of the total cost.
We have an estimate of approximately $60,000 for the truck. Um the state has contacted the airport to notify them that they have that we would be approved for the grant upon receipt of the quote and board approval. So I know Commissioner Sullivan and Brady have a
lot more information than I do about this, but that's kind of the high level overview of where we're at, but I would per your permission I would turn it over to them. >> Commissioner Sullivan, >> I believe Commissioner White had something. Is this just the truck or the truck in a new plow while you're at it?
>> I'll address that. >> Okay. >> All right. So, um, couple of Friday nights ago, we got an urgent message, um, from our airport manager indicating that, um, he wanted to make sure that
engineer H and others at the highway department, um, would note that he had his personal vehicle and was filling up 5gallon gasoline cans in the back of his truck and running back and forth from the airport down to um, where you get your
diesel. to be able to run a plow truck and all the equipment to remove snow on the runway. It was insane. And so, um, Kristen was very gracious to set up a meeting and engineer H came
and, um, it resulted in us borrowing a truck that they do use for refueling and so we have it on a temporary basis. Um, but it has allowed us to plow the airport and to keep um everything
operating smoothly. In the meantime time, Brady and our airport manager both wrote emergency letters um because there was a meeting in in about 48 hours after this happened, which would be the time
that they were granting emergency funds and we would have to wait another month. So anyway, Brady wrote a great letter. Um Rodney wrote a great letter and we found out yesterday we got approved for the emergency grant, but only with the
approval of this board. >> Um Bri, maybe you want to talk a little bit about the letter you wrote and your conversations. Well, the yeah, the letter just described the situation which made it clear the the driving back
and forth um and trying to get another vehicle um a a temporary vehicle and an older vehicle that would the one from the highway would not be able to stand up for any period of time. Looking at the condition of it, it's not designed
for that. And also um looking at the vehicle that needed to be fixed, it's a it's a long-term fix. Um uh some there are two places. One couldn't even get it in for, you know,
probably a month for this kind of work. And Rodney could potentially fix it himself if he had time. Um but it's an older vehicle now. For this type of work, it's really this is hard hard labor. um plowing the airport and
carrying the gas, etc. Short-term trips, etc. Um it's time for them to have and if he could fix the other one over his long-term schedule, he could do it up there a lot cheaper with his other help there, he thinks. And then that could
sit there as a as a backup because this is going to happen again. Uh and winter's like this. So, >> and the just to give you an idea, the the truck that is being purchased, 60,000 sounds like not a whole lot for a brand new truck, but again, it's being
purchased through Mandot Aeronautics and the FAA in coordination with them. And um it will have a hitch on it and the adapter so that we can take the plow off the old truck and put it on the new truck. And then over time, the engine
will get replaced in the old truck and there will be a backup because there's no backup equipment at all at the airport. I want you to think about the snowfall we had last week and think about running back and forth with little gas cans. It's crazy. So, um it's
wonderful that we got the grant and um that's why we are here today to ask for your approval. Right. >> I would say they should have gotten more gas cans. But two, um, what's the vehicle? What year and make? >> It's a brand new.
>> The one that's being replaced, the one that went down. >> Oh, I can't remember off the top of my head. >> 1907. >> No, >> it's about 20 years 20ome years old. And the other great piece is that engineer H is going to help us get on an equipment
schedule for replacement and so he is going to come and work with a subcommittee of the airport advisory group. Um and we will do that in late March. >> Commissioner Gav. >> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Um so the grant is uh based upon a 7030. So the 18,000 that that we contribute, is that coming out of something that we have in funds or is that something that is also an emergency? It Yeah, I'm not sure. There's uh there's 90,000 capital
in the uh airport fund for this year. So uh depending on the other project, it uh it may stay within budget, it may not. But uh I'll have to see how that grant >> usually when when there's an emergency you're trying to deal with the things
that are the immediate and so the the long range doesn't get looked at. But >> just from the standpoint of how it affects you know budget and the conversation usually is well we have money in here we were hoping to be this but we'll delay that and we'll take that so it doesn't
>> there's some repair money in the budget and so some of that will come out of the repair budget. Okay. >> Yeah. There's a longer term issue with the airport too with uh this goes way back. You probably don't want to talk about today, but with that uh issue with
RSNH, uh we literally lost $560,000 of federal grants. We spent that did not get reimbursed. We did get 345,000 back in the settlement
>> uh in May of 2025, but the airport airport fund is take has taken that hit. >> We haven't the board hasn't looked at that because we've been waiting for what's the resolution. We're not going to take any action until we get a maybe
we'll get a full resolution. Well, we got a partial, but that fund um we should consider making that fund whole. um it has been uh negative in our audit for years since that incident and we
don't levy to make that up because we're waiting for the resolution. Well, now we've got the resolution. We need to talk about that during budget time this year, I think. >> And I I would imagine that we're exploring any revenue opportunities that we might have. I mean again
Robbie in in his work is looking for outside dollars whenever he can you try to you know accomplish things and if we're doing that in combination but dealing with the realities you're dealing with the realities. So
thank you. >> Any further questions or comments? I'd like to make a motion to approve the airport's request for the emergency equipment grant for the purchase of the new truck. >> I'll support.
>> Any further questions or comments? >> All in favor? >> I >> oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you on bringing that up to us because it's definitely an emergency >> and the 7030 is >> very helpful. Yeah. Thank you. All
right. Thank you, Ann. Okay. Um, administrator updates. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have one update today, and that's that we have a leadership training scheduled for Friday. And the morning is going to be for our managers, supervisors, and
directors. Um, and so we have a group of of about 30 that will be in this room. Um, led by John Lockhorst, who is a leadership and, uh, coaching um, trainer. And um so we're really excited about that. And then as you all know in the afternoon we'll be spending time
with all of you um with him as well and and um learning about your leadership profiles and how we can work together effectively as a team. So um really excited about that event. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Madam Chair, >> I just wanted to share I'm a networker in case anyone was wondering. Ah >> I was surprised. And moving on then to commissioner reports and meeting updates. I'll I'll begin with my report. A couple weeks
ago, um Commissioner Mills and myself met with the administrator for the um six-month probationary period. Uh in mid January, we uh had evaluations that were sent out by HR to employees, and they
were eight performance areas. And within those areas there were multiple criteria for rating um each of these areas such as exceeds spect expect expectations meets expectations
um evaluator has no basis for the judgment uh and then plus there was a comment field they could add on to those. So from the professional knowledge to leadership of high personal standards and integrity respondents gave
a value of exceeds expectations. There are clear strengths of exceeding expectations with administrator treble in the area of communication, planning and innovation. A self-awareness and willingness to seek consultation where needed which suggests
competence and humility. a great combination for long-term effectiveness. With interim Rogers helping open the door to a far-reaching community, administrator Treble began her journey in Cook County, reaching out to all the
departments, we as commissioners and from Grand Portage to all parts of the county. As her journey begins, she seeks out partners to collaborate with the government agencies local, state, and nationwide.
Commissioner Administrator Treble operates on facts and data which helps in planning and innovations. She's um concisive in considering all areas but allows space for conversation and a change in the path given new
information to accomplish all this above. She has put in many long hours and we do encourage her to take some time here and there to take a breath. We submit that as our sixmonth probation. Thank you very much for you.
>> Okay. >> Where's cake? >> We ate it all. >> We should have had a half a cake. >> Last trails meeting you had a piece of cake. We didn't have any cake. >> We'll have a whole cake in a year.
>> Um I'll just continue on a little bit. I was able to help out Commissioner White and attended a virtual AEOA, you know, and it's really interesting to go to other uh boards and commissions and committees. >> Uh I was really amazed at all the money
in and out and all the grants and all the areas. I have a little idea because I also serve on the home consortium board. >> Okay. >> And but that's only a small little part reporting there. So, I've, you know, I really enjoyed the enjoyed the meeting.
There was a lot of um because they hadn't met in the new year, so there was a lot of appointments and all that, but I really enjoyed that. And then uh we did have our um Arrowhead um committee um meet and we're looking forward to
going down to uh St. Paul and and being part of um the legislative um aspect of it. And um I also had ADA a ARDC all these acronyms um a very good meeting uh
we're dealing with um the replacement of our financial director and also of our ARDC director. So we're going through >> two different areas. Yeah. Yeah. >> So there's been a lot of um phone conversations and uh Zoom meetings um on
top of everything else. So but we're getting it sorted out. Okay. Anyone else want to >> give a review? Yeah. Um, I uh wanted to share that I had um former commissioner
Frank Juwel reach out to me asking uh for my individual support um on signing a letter um addressing the um the federal legislation regarding the
mining ban lifting and I wanted to bring it to the full board to talk about and just um I don't like using my position um individually. I think it's a lot better to work as a board and make decisions as
a board. Um but I wanted to talk with the board about how we should approach this, if we want to approach this um and just kind of work through that. Um, I think he also reached out Commissioner Sullivan and there was there was a
letter a resolution and I wasn't uh comfortable bringing that to the board at this point. I thought it's better to talk through things first and and then based on that discussion bringing the resolution forward if if we
found it appropriate. So, um, that's about, well, there's more, but on that topic, that's about all I got. And so, um, your trouble, >> thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Commissioner Mills. I'll just add to that um I reached out to our lobbyist um
just to ask about the status of this legislation. And um just so the community is aware, uh the resolution has been transmitted to the Senate. There's no floor vote has been formally scheduled, but timing does remain fluid and could move very quickly. So I think the timing of this
discussion is is is good. >> And and so part of part of my question is like what is our role here, right? Like should we be commenting on this? Should should we be acting as a board? We could do it individually if we wanted to. That's within our rights, but I just
thought it would be better to to talk about it at large. Well, just as we heard from Commissioner Sullivan with the coalition, you know, that's one group in in the county. Commissioner Gamble. >> Yeah, I appreciate uh bringing it to to
the board. The um uh there's the always the issue at hand and then there's the the broader picture. We we've discussed that relative to some of the policy things that we're looking at on our our town halls. Uh probably, you know, information things. I think uh if we're
approached as individuals that that um uh we don't speak on behalf of the whole board which we understand but we clarify by saying uh you know my individual this is speaking as an individual but certainly not on behalf of the board
>> and and um I think knowing how that is stated so that it doesn't uh infer that it's board support is is an important important thing I I don't think that that we should be handcuffed in in the context of not being able to
individually express support, but it's in our role as an individual and not as a commissioner. >> All right. Well, >> so that's that's what I'm hearing that we will do it in individually. >> Well, um that's what I was going to ask is that it's I I appreciate that
perspective is just do we want as a board to dive into this is another question, I Well, I mean, from my standpoint, I think you have a discussion and you you look at the the pros and the cons of it and uh we you know, you you noted that your networking
uh profile is something where we're trying to find out how we work together in this regard. And I think anything that we do needs to be from that perspective so that we don't end up being a bunch of vigilantes independent
>> and because we've got authority to do so because it is what we're trying to do in team building and things is is uh is work to to be one voice. But but on the other hand, it doesn't mean that who we are as individuals can't speak, but we
need to clarify that this is me speaking as an individual. Yeah. And so I think we should have the discussion. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I've received inquiries and had discussions with constituents on this topic. I want you
to think about District 4, the Gunflint Trail, the number of outfitters that are along the trail and businesses. And I've talked about this when I've been bagging my groceries, when I've been pumping gas, when I was buying some greeting
cards downtown uh last week, and also over a period of months, I've attended meetings and received emails from leaders both um from Friends of the Boundary Waters, um Save the Boundary Waters, backcountry hunters and anglers,
um and a couple of local gunflint businesses and um you know the boundary waters can be looked upon as a very partisan issue. Um the lens I'm trying to look at and what I think Cola did
very well is talk about it through health concerns um and and looking at our public lands just like we would look at the Grand Canyon or Zion National Park or maybe Yellowstone. Um, but it's really about clean drinking
water. It's also about our local economy. And so I feel as a commissioner for district 4 that I've had a lot of input and I'm curious to find out from other commissioners what input you've
had from your constituents and businesses. Well, I I haven't had any specific input uh about this, but I know uh the the my circles and community and
what their thoughts are on it. um in general um >> so I don't you know I can't speak to right here right now but but I think generally uh district 3 and and our community I think a county generally
really values uh our environment and has really strong concerns about this type of project or these types of projects and the potential impacts that you know nobody wants but it could happen. Um and there is I guess there are examples
where it has happened and so there's there's uh a fear and um and I understand you know sitting sitting just a few meetings on the the end club you know the the real need in St. Louis County
for something and and um so just trying to to understand that and balance it. But um I would be comfortable signing signing this uh just as an individual. Um I don't like waving the commissioner title because it does ask for that. Um
it doesn't say that you're representing the county, but just having that there like Commissioner Gambo is saying it kind of implies that. Um, so >> Commissioner Gamble. >> Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I I end
club it is an issue. It was in my first term. I mean that and this is why I appreciate that because the diversity of opinion and and the wanting to look at I think in your evaluation data driven uh
information is is important. So um um in an earlier comment today that uh we're not elected to uh pursue things that are our biases and our opinions. We're elected to evaluate that data and look
at things in the context and and listen to the voices. I haven't I haven't had anybody approach me on on the issue. I get an awful lot of information on the issue and uh we in recent years used to
discuss it considerably. Um but um yeah I mean it's like I say it's dealing with the immediate but stepping back and looking at it in the broader context to know how we proceed. >> And N club is northern county's land use
board and it's a number of counties. It's not just Cook County. So, uh, having been on that board for a year, their perspectives or their >> are a lot different than Cook Counties. >> I mean, and so, uh, it's good to hear
both sides. >> Um, but then I have a question. Uh has anyone approached I'm sure they must have um uh Grand Portage uh sovereign nation for their input on this because
I'm sure if they haven't already they I mean they have been fighting this fight >> in opposition. So, >> so, >> well, as a former outfitter, it really pains me to think that we're going to be
fighting um another situation that will um make our waters less safe and for the community and for jobs and for all of that. So, I um I know that the outfitters that I have in the West End
certainly support not having any more mining, but they haven't directly indicated that, but >> Right. >> Yeah. Commissioner Sullivan. Um just to provide a little history um number of
years back um former commissioner Frank Mo brought this forward to this board and a motion was made to oppose copper nickel sulfide mining near the Boundary Waters and there was not a second to
that motion. It died. Um, and I remember at the time I took notes on discussion and then talked to community members about that. And one aspect of of that decision was that county commissioners
are nonpartisan. And some people do look at this issue as a partisan issue. Again, I try to frame it through clean water and through economic opportunities in our community. But there is some institutional risk that was discussed um
because counties typically don't make decisions on things that are not under their purview. And so that was one of the notes from a number of years ago. Um and then we also need to think about
the counties that we work with in a variety of organizations where we are unified. Um whether it's St. Lewis Lake and Cook or whether it's through Enlub. Um, and the kinds of grants that we
apply for that could be impacted by taking a position on this. Um, it can jeopardize some of our relationships. So, that needs to be something that we think about. And um
so I think it's what I'm hearing from this group is there is concern about this issue but um maybe as individuals we would want to speak um regarding our views um but I'm not
hearing a consensus from the board for a resolution. Is that accurate >> would be from my perspective? >> Um, >> I didn't hear I guess I didn't. It's not clear to me. You're saying there's >> I didn't hear anyone
support that commit >> to support that we would have a >> a resolution of some type from the No. >> Did you hear that, Commissioner Mills? Um, uh,
I'm confused. You You didn't hear support for a resolution, >> right? You brought up >> Oh, >> no. That's I I still don't know. I mean, I what I'm gathering from our uh discussion is uh where our values are,
but then there's the values of our partners, and there is a conflict there. And so >> well some of the partners >> no definitely definitely conflict I mean a dis >> disagreement
>> different but um this board is not to be political we are not democrats independents republicans socialist communist let's pick some other ones >> anarchist
>> but anyway we are just here for the for the good of our citizens and uh so I agree with you commissioners uh Mills that if I'm asked I am always
very clear that I am speaking only as one person >> and I am will not put my commissioner title on something if it's in >> if I am speaking as an individual I am
speaking as an individual. I do not speak for the board, in which case I would use the title, but >> and everyone would know >> what what was >> right. >> Commissioner Gav, >> thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the conversation. I think it's sort of
nitty-gritty conversations that uh strengthen us as a board. Um, I would say that um, uh, in evaluating uh, things like this, and I appreciate your comments, Commissioner Sullivan, that um, we don't want to cower,
>> right? >> Uh, we we want to be sure that we're we're um, we're upholding the things that we value. We talk about our values and um in defining those values and I said this before when we did it with our first county administrator and he said
we need to define our values and and it's going to be reflective of who we are how we act what we do what we say what we support what we don't support and I my response was you understand once we clearly identify our values that the community has a right to hold us
accountable to that so it is good to have a broad perspective that understands do we live our values and uh it doesn't mean that that we're going to cower because we we're afraid of being accountable. It just means that we need
to be able to clearly identify why we make our decisions and it's based upon multiple factors. Cultivating relationship is important. Sometimes you're in a position to be the lead and to do something but you choose not to because you realize it's an opportunity
to nurture relationship. So I think perspective is very important. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I guess and how I'm trying to better understand this too is kind of about roles and and where is our place
and what um what we have purview over or not. you know, like there were um at a second amendment um there was a lot of second amendment um discussion not too long
ago. Um is that's not really in county purview, right? So, should we be commenting on that? Should we make resolutions for that? Uh you could, you know, have a similar argument if someone said, "Hey, there's going to be a change in um
reproduct women's reproductive health." Like, is that a place for the county board to be? You know, it's it gets it gets very uh big and so it doesn't seem like this should be a county board.
>> I would and I would say it'd be a good topic for an ANC workshop. >> Yeah, >> it would. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. >> Because we we should understand that what is the role of a commissioner? And a lot of times when people are put in it, they think that now I'm empowered to, you know, voice my opinion and
whatever else. And we realize we become stewards. We're entrusted. We're not empowered and and so it's it's it's important, but it's a good discussion. >> Commissioner Sullivan. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I wrote down something that I took from my
commissioner 101 training a number of years ago at AMC. Nonpartisan county commissioners are often advised not to take official positions on such issues, particularly if an issue sits at the intersection of federal authority, state
regulation, and depolitical polarization. >> So, you have to understand the wisdom in that. >> Yeah. I also um am cautious. I've heard a lot from my constituents.
The four of you have not. >> And that tells me something. Well, >> I um uh uh a lot of my uh constituents I would
say maybe uh we understand each other a large extent and so they maybe don't feel the need to express that. But I don't think it's the case that they understand our roles. Uh I think it's more the case uh yeah just
putting food on the table or you know just more of the the basics needing needing that. So I think they would be supportive of protecting our our our resources but um
I what I'm trying to say is just because I haven't heard it doesn't mean it's the value isn't there. Uh, but I don't think I'm limiting my exposure. >> Commissioner White. >> Well, and I would say what I have heard
is like this sense of doom. I mean, the Boundary Waters is sitting there and look at the powers that be that are re that are stripping all environmental protections that there are. I mean, this was >> a year ago, two years ago. It's only a
matter of time. It's only a matter of time when all of those resources, minerals, everything in the boundary waters, somebody's going to get in, you know, it's like, which is pretty depressing, but uh
>> and why protect it at all, right? I mean, like there is a reason to protect it and now Yeah. >> But it doesn't matter because you could make money on it now. But now we're going to be getting into political. But anyway, so I have heard but there's no one that has reached out because their
livelihoods are connected directly directly. I have heard from Grand Portage not directly but on this issue because of values for their culture. The wild rice is a huge one. Clean water is >> like this is clean water is paramount.
So um in that respect but not nobody's livelihoods are directly impacted. So >> well I appreciate the conversation and thank you Commissioner Rails for bringing it up and
>> yeah I really appreciate the conversation too. Um it yeah I guess what Commissioner Stley was hearing was signing on individually might be the way to go and um >> was it surprising to hear from former
commissioner Frank Juel >> uh you know it's not the first time he's reached out as a former commissioner so >> he's keeping his fingers >> yeah it wasn't him but yeah >> he uh he he really enjoys this area,
too. So, yeah, >> I haven't seen him, I guess, since he's been, but yeah, I've heard from him a couple times. >> Okay. So, we'll just >> each one of us will do what we think is appropriate >> without a title. Okay. >> Without a title. >> Well, and that's the that I guess that's
worth bringing up too. Thank you for saying that. Um, looking at the the letter, it's elected officials sign on is what it says. And this letter is addressed to Majority Leader Thun and um Minority Leader Schumer. And um as you
go to the bottom, it says elected official title and full name, district, state. I'm authorized to sign for myself or for my member. And if it's for your member, then it's if you're staff, then you're you're who you're signing for.
So, um, that's part of why it feels >> direct. >> Yeah. It it feels >> less than appropriate. >> If it if it were a uh petition for individuals to sign on would be
different because they're looking for the credibility that comes with an elected official that you're trying to, >> you know, make the association and that these are authoritative voices
>> were more important. >> Yeah. Who is the letter from? >> Well, the request from >> um it is um well, I don't know if there's a what what the actual group is, but the the
first sentence or paragraph is on behalf of the undersigned elected officials and constituents, we respectfully urge you to vote no on House Joint Resolution 140. And that letter is um a common letter among friends of the Boundary
Waters, Save the Boundary Waters, backcountry anglers and hunters, all of those groups. >> Okay. Well, and so that was that >> pretty much an agenda item. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Apologize. Maybe I should have asked to have it put on the agenda. I
just didn't Yeah. I didn't want to take take action on it. I just thought discussion Um >> well, it is a timely topic. As Commissioner White said, our environment is really getting um squeezed and so I think it's good to have that discussion
now in February because more things are going to come up over the next year. So, thank you uh for bringing that up. >> Sure. Yeah. Okay. >> Thanks for the opportunity. Um other updates um uh we have extended an offer for our um
new EDA director and um we'll hear back by noon noon on Friday is is the deal there. So fingers crossed a very qualified candidate very excited um very strong. So, um it's it's a difficult
it was it was the the final decision was um it's just really interesting and it was a much different process this time. So, happy about that. And then um um oh, there was another update I wanted to
share, but I'll pass for now and come back to it if it comes to me. Sorry, >> Commissioner White. Well, I just have a really short one. It was the Northshore Management Board and they are continuing to diligently slog through
uh updating their their their manual, their operating instructions thing, their policies. And so uh another couple of months they'll have it. But that was primarily the the whole meeting again.
It did. It was it was EDA. My my other one was EDA related as well and it was just about um the grant program and continue to refine that and the criteria and the process and then the appetite now um
it it was already there before but also spurred based on the revol the potential of using the revolving loan fund to look at that a bit more. Um, I think I shared I've heard feedback on just um uh some difficulties
um or reluctance to use that from from individuals and businesses. Um and so um I'm hoping we can we can do more of a deep dive there. I'm not saying I'm I'm leading that by any way by any by any means, but I'm I'm very supportive of
looking at that and trying to help help get better utilization of that and um and make our our whole economic development package uh um stronger. That was the only >> Okay. >> And then we got some snow
>> and then we did >> and we're getting more. >> Anyone else any updates? you. >> What about you, Miss? >> I did. I updated >> first. I'll defer to public health human
services in the interest of time. >> Commissioner Sullivan. >> All right. I have a few. Um first of all we had our local emergency preparedness which I did speak to at um public health and human services but um for the public
that is listening to this meeting um we did a tabletop activity where we um opened a warming shelter and we had two scenarios. one which was just for a short-term, you know, part of a day and then another where there was an overnight opportunity and we talked
about activation criteria, location, accessibility, making sure there were backup generators and places were ADA compliant, making sure um emergency ex exits and entryways were clear of snow.
talked about uh you utilizing PHS staff and coordinating medical and health resources, food and water. Um but it was really a wonderful opportunity to take a look at all the different aspects that it takes to open a warming shelter
and with the snow that came last week, it was perfect timing to discuss that. Um then we had the Cook County Coalition of Lake Association meetings. Um the letter that we received today as a result of a position paper that they
wrote. If you'll recall, they had um posed several questions to Senator Hoschild and Representative Scraba had a position paper that they wrote um based on that um mining close to the Boundary Waters. The um BKV group met and both um
Commissioner White and I attended that. We're starting to um look again at our capital improvement plan and uh this is the first time we've met without Henry Pittner since his retirement. And so we did walk through the entire courthouse.
I think um administered her trouble had an opportunity to see and hear some of the things that we had discussed previously. So it helped her to get up to speed as we look forward to um a new plan. and the Cook County Historical Society
met um completely by Zoom because it was during our snowstorm recently and they have added some positions. They have increased hours in their community engagement position. They've um really felt that they've been able to, you
know, tackle some aspects related to membership and to their 100th year um celebration last year in in good order because of um that position. So, they've increased the hours a bit and then they've added two part-time seasonal positions. They're kind of looking for
teachers um or maybe interns. Um and it is to increase the number of hours that are available at the blacksmith shop and at Chipua City Church and also at the museum. They have volunteers that work, but they're also looking for some um part-time seasonal
staff to help them through their busy season. and uh airport advisory. You heard all about that already. Um H did meet uh last Wednesday. And um Commissioner Gamble is really familiar with one of
the topics that I wanted to share with you, but um we had the DUTH HR or um DUTH um meet with us to talk about that waiting list that we have for people. and the housing choice vouchure program
is funded through HUD through annual federal um appropriations and um that federal funding has not kept pace with rising costs. It's been delayed and what has resulted is that we're kind of uh
everybody's waiting and we have no way to really fill some of the position or the apartments that are available. Um, Commissioner Gamble has said and shared with us before that there are 22 that are available um at the Harborview. And anything else that
you'd want to share? >> Thank you. I uh just to clarify, the agreement in change of ownership relative to Harborview Apartments stipulated that for the funding that was being provided uh through HA and other
means that they would commit to 22 subsidized apartments out of a potential 30 apartments. >> Right? out of those 22 because we uh were pretty much full at the time of the transition in the property that we have
26 of those apartments that are subsidized through the voucher program. And those that are making application at this point uh understanding that the waiting list now is a com combination of
Lake Cook and St. Louisis County, that waiting list now is two years out. In our 16 years uh managing the facility, if we had somebody call and we had something available, we could get him in right away. >> Uh because we had local control and
that's why I had brought it up at the HR meeting. Right now with that two-year and with the funding issue, um H Duth has instructed that uh they aren't taking anybody to go on waiting list. So the last three moveins have been individuals that say, "Well, I want to
be in there, so I'll pay market rent." >> And so that's that's where we're at. And the encouragement was to see that if if we somehow could be able to manage that weight list independent of of Duth. Um
and because the H and Cook County and Lake County are smaller, we've deferred to the administration through Duth, but there's that comes with some some challenges. So, >> and then also at the meeting, um we
talked about uh making sure people are clear that HUD vouchers are not good for some of the living situations we have in Cook County. if you don't have electricity or running water, which is pretty common, um you can't use a HUD
voucher for rental of a property like that. So, we just want to make sure that the public is aware of that. And very last thing, um we had a safety committee meeting yesterday and one of the things that's being worked on is a workplace
violence policy. that's a another policy that we're missing and um so we will continue on our adventure to get caught up and be covered with appropriate policies. >> Thank you on that. Commissioner White, just a question. So, Commissioner
Gamble, so um the people that are receiving vouchers now, how is there any guarantee that this money will continue into the future for them?
>> Uh based upon the funding that was put in place that uh that should continue. In other words, um there's a period of time we have annual reertifications which come up in July, which is the the
date that the property transitioned and um you make uh notification as owner whether or not you're continued with HUD or whether you're going to go independent and go market rate only. That commit was made a year ago and so that that's a period of time that that
funding is guaranteed. So, um, the, uh, the owner did negotiate enhanced vouchers, which are different than regular vouchers, which meant that the difference between the rate that was paid under section 8 subsidy and the rate they're paying now was minusc. It
was all four to $6 difference. So, what that did is it it raised the market rate, but it brought the subsidy through the enhanced voucher. So it really had very little financial impact on those that are in the program. The problem moving forward
is that when people make application uh that it'll be a voucher and it's not the negotiated enhanced voucher. So the difference between what the voucher provides and what the market rate is is is going to be different. So, um, those
that are grandfathered in as of July of last year, they can continue to benefit from from the enhanced voucher, but any new individual would just get the voucher. I know that's all convoluted, but welcome to HUD. So, uh, anyway, but
that's this situation is right now that people are are assured that this will continue for a period of years. And I I think I had looked at that and addressed that with the attendants to let them know that period of time. >> So, how many how many
>> vacancies are there? >> Uh there's only one vacancy. >> Okay. >> There's only one vacancy. Our last three have been individuals because of the weight list that have moved in. >> Yeah. >> Under market rent. >> And that one uh vacancy, we we've had
three individuals that have looked at that. And uh if you see paint or anything else, it's because I'm trying to get that ready to for somebody. >> And if somebody doesn't want to move in March 1st, that's fine with me because I got other things I needed to.
Thank you. >> Any other reports? >> Okay. So, we have in our upcoming meetings um next week um March 4th and 5th, we'll be down at the AMC legislative
conference where we'll be able to meet with our fellow constituents and go up to the hill and meet with um a senator and representative. And then our next regular board meeting will be here um Tuesday, March 10th. We
have our correspondence uh memos, HR board uh report on staffing changes. We have the sales tax comparison through December of 2025. And we also have the meeting notes from the Cook County Historical Society. And there yes,
>> you you can finish that statement, but then I would >> that's the end of my report. >> Okay. And I would just say relative to the AMC legislative conference, uh at our uh committee of the whole meeting, we had presented to us a packet that we
as commissioners can present to representatives. And uh in thinking about that um uh the messaging um it's often said that there's an awful lot of noise out there and how do you differentiate when you're just one voice
amongst that that uh crowd of of individuals that'll be going to legislators. And so I thought in a presentation pack if if we could single out our voice uniquely maybe we would get um more more attention and and so
what I had had uh talked to Kristen about is that um I um I'd be willing to put together a packet as opposed to using a a school folio. Um, and this is this is not the color, but this is what
you would be calling as a just a a it's like a a mockup to give you an idea. And so, um, what this would be is, um, a self-contained piece. And the cover,
the cover is this brown. It's a dark brown. And then there's an inside page which is a cream. So you've got the dark brown cover and then the inside page cream.
>> How that works out is that the the brown is is the moose and then the moose would be cut out. >> So you're seeing the dark brown >> the moose and it's printed black on that. So it's a subtle understatement
but carries the character of our county. And then the inside page which is the cream you would have that contrast and then carry the visual and then the the copy on that says
um for that intro uh those we entrust to represent us cannot be our voice if they are unaware of our local needs and priorities. Effective rep representation requires a continuous flow of communication between elected officials
and the people they represent, helping to ensure decisions align with identified local needs and priorities. That's the intro and then it goes to our 2026 legislative priorities as advised
by our consultant representative that if we did bullet points it makes it a quick read. Um, part of the the discussion at at this point is that we have a bullet point and
then we have legislative priorities that are fleshed out a little bit more. And then um we have individual pages that address some of these which we saw like the one that had to do with the
gunflight trail from the highway department. And then we had some other from um land services. And in formatting it, I would say you have your intro, you've got your priorities,
and you can have an appendix with a page that if they want to deep dive a little bit more into the topic, they would go to the appendix, which is key to this. So I can do the quick read, but I could also have additional information. And then our administrator's contact
information is is here if they want to get any additional information. So it's it's a matter of saying do we like that concept and um in formatting how do we how do we want to approach that? I would
say everything that is identified in the list of 2026 priorities we should have a corresponding appendix item. We do not have that although I think we could get it so that there
would be something further >> and >> if that's what we want to do. >> We do have one pagers from each one of the departments that they created um in response to a request before the legislative lunchon in October. So we already we have that information. I
think we could easily add it to an appendex for each one of the bullet topics like you you have the first one public health and human services. The first appendix would then be the two-pager that they created for us. So I think we have the information. We would
want to likely format it the same. Um so we would need to make those changes. But I I do think we have the information you're >> Okay. Cuz Janet did send me what she had, but I didn't have everything. Yep. and and I would just format it. If you just give me the information, I'll format it so that it's consistent as far
as it it shows. But so that's I guess at this point. So, Commissioner Gamble, here's the setting. We're in a tiny room with Lake
and Cook in St. Louis County. So, we decided a few years ago, yes, we needed to just hand them our requests, maybe bring up something, one little point that might be important. Otherwise, um, we're just kind of a jolly little group
in Senator Hoschild's room. Then we go down to the Capitol cafeteria and we find a corner somewhere because the new legislative building isn't ready yet. So, we put on our ear muffs and we have a little conversation with him. So, do
you have something for Representative Scraba, too, or do you want this packet to go to both? >> It' be both. In other words, for those that represent us, what this is is as opposed to the folder with the inserts in it. It's trying to rise above and and
do something that says, "Well, they put some thought into this. >> It's memorable." And that's what's important. Yeah, >> we were told with the folders when we started those a few years ago, we were the only one of the 87 counties that did it and they remembered it and asked about it year after year and this will
be memorable. >> So, do you do you think it can be ready by Friday that I could paint? >> Well, that's what I'm hoping between painting and whatever else. So, >> especially with the bows, especially with the moose. >> Um, where there's a will, there's a way. And I've sort of in my life have done
that. But, uh, >> okay. So if I get the information, what I would do, >> I would format it >> and then uh I'd submit submit it and if it has approval, >> you know, contingent upon review,
>> then uh it would be ready, hoping to have it, then it would be ready on Monday. >> Oh, okay. >> I would just add that our lobbyists had requested that we have two handouts. the gunflint trail handout that we already have and a one-pager. So, in addition to
that, >> I would still like to have a stack of those. >> Yeah. >> That we can have prepared to hand out if needed while we're over at the capital and throughout session. I love this idea. I think it is memorable like you mentioned. I think the picture is
amazing. Um, but also just in response to their request, I also think we should have those one one pagers as well. Okay. So, so I understand as far as direction goes that if we have the one
pages in in in my trying to make a document that is self-contained that the appendixes are the one pages that tie intore. >> If if what you're saying is that we want to have a piece but we want to have individual pieces also then I think our
messages get a bit uh confused. It it it'd be best if you just had one piece. Everything's self-contained in it. That that would be my my recommendation. Otherwise, you're your your voice gets diluted by the
number of pieces that you're handing out. So the question is what's our intent? Our intent is to get the information, but how it gets facilitated is what I would say. >> And it would be the same information. So basically it would be one of the one pagers that you have in the appendix,
>> but I just want to have a few available for conversation um independently. >> Independently if we need them that's all I'm saying. >> I see. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I appreciate the clarification, but whatever. >> Yeah. And I think the purpose of that is because beyond our senator and
representative uh lobbyists will be trying to target others and so they just want on maybe one issue, you know, like they're on the transportation committee or whatever. But and and um I love the I love the graphic and I think that'd be very memorable. I think it would get lost on a dark brown.
>> Well, it will, but it's that's why I say it's it's subtle. It's under it's understated. >> You got to really want it. Well, >> I just I think that's beautiful as is. Just that black on white line art. I mean, you won't forget that. That's gorgeous. >> Yeah. The challenge is when you're not
in the cities where all the paper houses are because as a designer, I go to the paper houses. I have my templates. I pick things out. I can look. I know exact I can run a test thing on stuff. So I have to I order remotely and and the biggest challenge is just calling
which I put a call in yesterday so that I can expedite you know the paper thing but >> yeah it's a it's a discussion that I understand your point is you you want the contrast so it's there otherwise it's it's completely lost but the
understated is more sophisticated than you know whatever >> but don't you think your your creation will be a keeper It'll be put in a drawer and we'll say, "Well, look at this." I mean, >> oh yeah. >> I mean, this is like Yeah. Because they
can refer to it. >> What happens is it's like I mean, what you're hoping for is that the word of mouth >> brings mileage to your presentation >> because you like to say, "Boy, did you see what?" And then people say, "Oh,"
and they want to look at. So, your messaging >> gets duplicated because of the carrier. Dan. Um, Commissioner Campbell, I just wanted to say, yeah, what you've come up with is really beautiful and thoughtful,
and I think if you're able to to um get it produced that it could be something that we continue to use and update um, you know, into the future. like it
>> again because you've got you know like uh the idea of a cover page or an appendix and then supporting documentation and then every time a legislative session comes up where we need these you just you know plug in the new information and stuff um you know
maybe update it but I I think it is a really thoughtful approach. >> Thank you. and and it it falls in the category of branding and it's how do you want to be reflected and you contribute to your brand on on everything. It's what you say, what you do, how you
appear, whatever. So, >> yeah. >> So, it matches my moose dress. >> So, yeah, that's true. Yeah. Well, we we'll all buy moose dresses. >> I'll just add one more thing is that I'm willing to um work with you to
put this together. You know, I again I appreciate your initiative and again think about, you know, is this something that we can just moving forward continue to use and update if and when needed, you know, as a good tool. >> So my understanding we wanted 20 copies
of this. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Well, and that's it. I mean the moose the this this will be hand cut normally when you're doing a a quantity you're you have a die cut and it it's
it's run a press you know if if you do it but but in in my career and ask my adult kids now um how many things they've glued stapled cut and pasted over the years but anyway so as long as
I I can get the information that you're referencing I'll take a look at it and put it together. So, >> and I won't I won't be there. I I think it's again gorgeous. Um a uh in my my opinion is and you know, throw
it away if you want. Uh is just I would just leave it that image right there without the hand cut. Just that image I think is striking enough. And the the words are are are in that first page are powerful, but they're almost getting
preachy. And so I think the graphic is really the eyecatcher. Just bam and then >> leave it there and then do whatever other formatting or whatever. Um just because uh that's what we're trying to do is just
catch them, right? And those bullets are really good. Um and I agree with the words. I mean it's of course it's it's accurate, but it it just tone and uh and what our what we're what we're trying to to do, you know. Um, it's just communicate our priorities.
>> Well, I think I mean I think it just it's underscored. It's just reminding a lot of times people remind us, you know, what our position is if you're just saying those we entrust to represent us cannot be our voice if they don't know what our priority is. That's why we're
putting this out there. You can say effective representation if you take that second paragraph out, just leave the first one. But it requires continual flow of information. That's what we're saying. We're just undistoring and reminding. But uh you know,
>> okay, I'm not going to be there. So, >> yeah, >> I think it's I think it's wonderful. >> Yeah. >> So, if you can let me know when it's ready. >> Yeah. Let you know. >> Yes. >> I can offer if it's um if it's not ready until Monday, I can pick up the packages
and bring them with me um to AMC. >> We're not going there till the second day anyway. Okay. Correct. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you for the discussion. >> There being no further business, we are adjourned. >> Thank you all. >> It's beautiful.
>> Thank you. >> No, it um >> So, that's a talent of yours. >> Yeah. Did you draw that, Carrie? >> Pardon? >> Did you draw that? >> No. No, I I didn't. I didn't. I would like to see.