Good morning. >> Get in there. >> I will call the Cook County Board of Commissioners regular meeting to order on this day um Tuesday, April 14th, >> um at 8:30 a.m. 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?
>> Like to make a motion to approve the agenda. >> Support. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> oppos. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. At this time, we do offer um a few uh minutes for anybody in the public who
would like to come forth and um tell us what they are concerned about. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to do that? I see no one in the audience, so I will ask the commissioners if they've received comments. Commissioner Sullivan. Thank you, Madam Chair. I
would like to read a um email that was sent to all of us um to be read at our April 3rd meeting. That was a special meeting of the Cook County Board of Commissioners and we did not have public comment for that special meeting. Hello commissioners and county
administrator Kristen Treble Halersma. I see that at the special board meeting of the Cook County Board of Commissioners, a vote will be taken to approve the $200,000 loan to the EDA. And I'm very disappointed with some of the details that have been discovered. And I would like to share my thoughts with all of
you. At the last commissioner's board meeting, it was announced that a mechanic's lean on the gunflint view was discovered by county attorney Peterson and that this was placed in November 2025 by the construction firm. It sounds like the chairman of the EDA, Peter
Clizold, had just found out about this in the past several weeks. Did Cook County HR director Jeff Bran know about this lean? Who is privy to this information? And should it have been shared? I'm also wondering why the EDA borrowed $200,000 to the Gunflint View.
I was surprised to learn about this loan and wondered if the EDA has the authority to grant loans such as they did given the fact that Cook County funds the EDA through our tax levy. I also wondered why the EDA didn't pause the second half of their business development granting funding and use
that $100,000 towards the amount they will be short until getting their loan repaid by the Gunflint view. This is not the way the EDA should be operating. And I agree with Commissioner White who stated at a recent county board meeting that the board should schedule a meeting with the EDA to discuss their
operations. I have a huge problem that after all of the money the EDA has thrown at Superior National Golf Course in the decades they have been operating that they will be approximately $90,000 in the red when they complete the sale. If they knew that the irrigation system
was not operating as it should and that the septic system would also need an inspection before the sale, why weren't those details addressed before a selling price was decided on? I know that the sale involves an escrow amount for that, but that doesn't guarantee that the
actual costs might be more than what was set aside. Thanks for listening to my thoughts and I would appreciate if my letter could be read aloud at the meeting. I truly hope that this sale happening at the golf course, the county board and the EDA can learn from mistakes that were made with taxpayers
money. Sincerely, Cheryl Humphrey Grand Marray. >> Has anyone else received comments? >> No. >> Okay. Thank you. Moving on to item number three, the consent agenda. Um in this um agenda we do have our claims,
our minutes from the commissioner special meeting on April 3rd, the uh commissioner regular meeting on March 24th. Uh permit for a raffle for the Gunfent Lake Property Owners Association, a seasonal liquor license
renewal, appoint Neva Maxwell as AMC voting uh delegate. Would anyone like to pull anything? Motion to approve. >> Support. >> Support. >> All in favor? I >> I oppos. Same sign. So this morning we
have a public meeting at 9:30. So I don't like to interrupt a uh presentation. Um so let's move quickly into the highway and I think Robbie can move along pretty good and explain to us what's happening. >> I hope I hope I can. >> Good morning everybody.
>> Morning. >> All right. Few things today. uh first one, a very exciting one. Uh the last project we have for 2026, um is hopefully going to be awarded, but I was very happy with the price that came in. Uh and how that compared to what we
thought it was. Um obviously concerns all the time with price up here and the cost of living up here and doing business up here. And so to see this award come in, um or to see this low bid come in made me very happy. Um, as a reminder, this is a awarding for the
Gunflint 92's construction project. And so, this is going to reconstruct the Gunflint Trail between County Road 92 East and County Road 92 West, just past Midtrail. Um, and we'll do that this summer. Um, we were awarded uh $1.5
million in local road improvement funds, which is great. Um that's a competitive state uh state funded grant and so uh we have that going towards it and then the rest of it will come from our state aid allocation. So does anybody have any questions?
>> Commissioner Sullivan. >> Thank you Madam Chair. I would anxiously like to um recommend awarding the contract to the low bidder KGM contractors for $3,677,00048655 >> support. >> Any questions or comments?
>> I know that all the people up the trail are thrilled about this as well as many of our visitors. I'll ask for a vote then. All in favor? >> I opposed. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously.
>> Wonderful. Uh, next I think we have, what do we have? Gravel crushing. Uh, and so this something we do every single year. Um, you can see we actually had quite a few biders. Uh, normally we don't get this many, so that was kind of exciting. Um, and we typically budget
right around $150,000 if I remember correctly, um, for crushing. And so this year we're going to crush 15,000 cubic yards of class one. Um, does anybody have any questions? >> I'm amazed that we still have good gravel to crush.
>> We'll be okay for >> We'll be okay. Okay. Commissioner Gamble. >> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. I make a motion to award the contract to the low bidder Lewis Luth Luth. >> Yes. >> Close enough. and sends for 141,000 for
crushing 15,000 cubic yards of class one aggregate. >> Support. >> All in favor? >> I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously there too. >> Wonderful. And then the last thing we can talk about is calcium chloride. Um
again, another budgeted annual contract that we do. Um, if you'll remember a couple years ago, we actually put together a chloride policy because that unit cost kept going up and up and up and up and up and we can't keep up with that. And so, um, we kind of capped it at right around $200,000.
Um, which then made us really look at which roads we treat. And so that's kind of helped really narrow the scope and focus our work on on not trying to do everything, but hitting it where we can while trying to maintain the budget. So, um, what was nice with this is Knife Knife River came in right under our
budget. Uh, so we'll do 120,000 gallons, uh, at just over $195,000. Does anybody have any questions? >> Commissioner Gamble. >> Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Robbie. My question is when when we read
uh uh it it speaks of uh applying >> the product it does that mean that the quote is for them to actually provide and apply it? >> Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So yeah. So they'll come out. We do a short truck and a long truck. Long truck for long roads, short
truck for tighter, narrower roads. Um but then yeah, they come out. They're the ones that spray it. What we do is we have someone on our staff follow along basically and then have them on the radio all day talking about um you know >> doing it wrong, doing it wrong. >> Yeah, basically. Yeah, just that. That's
all we do. Um no, but you know, adjusting the width that they spray it and so then also making sure we're not just like spraying it into the ditch or spray, you know, like, okay, stop here at this point in the road, that type of thing. So, they do apply it. Yes. >> Has the highway always department always
contracted out? Oh, yeah. >> For the application, >> correct? Oh, interesting. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, they have we don't have like tinkers. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> We could budget that. >> No, no, no. That's okay. I just >> That's the first I was aware that we weren't applying it. I thought we were
buying it. >> I thought you were out there with a backpack and >> on the back of the pickup. >> Yeah. We're just kind of sprinkling it. >> Yeah. >> And most of the uh gravel roads will all have some kind of application. >> Mo Yeah. So, if you remember that policy, I think we capped it at I want
to say 100 vehicles per day. And then we do make exceptions in that policy. You know, if it's a like a long straight road, for example, I think North Road is a wonderful example of that where it doesn't meet that 100 vehicle per day criteria, but we know that's a long straight road. So, we do treat that
then. Um, but there, you know, gives us a little leeway in the policy while also not treating roads with, you know, five cars per day on it, that type of thing. So, we do try and hit most. um it is less than we've historically done. Um but that's just a function of the cost.
>> So, >> and if we have a rainy summer, that means probably you won't have to do it as much. >> Well, yeah, that's the other nice thing. If we have a rainy or even a normal summer of rain, then everything can set up really, really well. And so, even still doing this application, then
everything sets up really nice, which is awesome. Um so, fingers crossed for that. >> Fingers crossed. >> Yes. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> Commissioner Sullivan. >> Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to award the contract to the low bidder,
Knife River, for $195,240 for the application of 120,000 gallons of liquid calcium chloride on Common Roads. >> Support. >> All in favor? >> I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously.
>> Thank you all very much. >> Thank you. >> Thanks for >> moving on. We're going to um talk with uh Brooke about some maintenance. Come forward. Good morning, Brooke. >> Morning. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Commissioners kind of had to scramble to get up. I was watching it. I'm like, "Oh, we're going to move quickly." Okay. Um which one was first on the agenda? >> Office project. >> So, I had that um that was a request uh
by Brady and his team. uh for election compliance. I had a bid a while ago with Gartner Construction and it was quite a large bid, close to $50,000. So, we kind of put it on the back burner. Um but then when we had guard when we had
Johnson Wilson in town and they have carpenters already in town and everything kind of on site, we rebid it with them and came in less than 50%. You know, was $20,600. So after the conversation with Brady, we decided to
go forward with that one and see >> what everybody thinks about that >> and Brady can kind of explain the process and why we're doing this. >> So we've we've been asking uh maintenance for years if we could uh expand the front window or create two
windows. It's really for election season when you've got we're the polling place for 12 of our 14 precincts and for all mail balloting, absentee balloting. So, it gets busy for a short period of time. And you want to separate the the regular
work, taxes, um deeds, passports, etc. from the election work, people are registering and voting, etc. Uh it's been difficult finding a method to get that extra window up there. It's pretty tight. And we thought talking
with Brooke, we could potentially just use that little al cove right outside of uh our doorway. It's on the outside wall there. It's an unused space. And just put a window. It's an open doorway, but he would put a window in it and then
just open it. Adriana could sit there. So part of it is this business with elections that's gone on for years. But this year, um, what really pushed us to ask again is a new law that's going in
effect in 2026 called early voting. Uh, and we have to to do this. They've been doing direct balloting for a couple of years. We're small. We decided not to do that, but now we have no choice. So, this will start 19 days out from the primary and
from the general election. So anybody can come in and actually vote their ballot in a machine and the machine has to be uh monitored. It has to be within our site. We have to oversee the process. We have no idea how uh popular
it's going to be. We expect maybe not real popular in the beginning of that 19-day period, but more and more as you get close. So the options are to set up. You could hire an election judge to sit there and monitor that machine or this
was another option we could have looking at where you can put a machine in that open area um by having it at that al cove uh Adrianic or whoever is at that point can watch and m can stay at work
doing their job and if somebody comes in to vote then they'd be available to watch and oversee the process. That's the reason for the recourse. >> Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Brady, in our discussion uh on facilities recently
and looking at all of that, how does this fit into the long term? >> I have no idea. So, that's the that's the rub right now. >> Yeah. and with with how we're seeing that long term. Um if and Brooke if you know if you have
anything that you can >> you know add to this but I would just say that ideally it would fit into a long term. The fact that it's not 50 and it's 20,000 now helps mitigate some of that expense
related. Um but if you look at options with that in mind long-term if the short term really in order to make this happens is something that we have to expend those dollars then we have to but that would that would be my concern is >> yeah we're I mean we're hoping to work
it into the long term as well but the long term again is kind of unknown and and could end up being a very large number that we may not go forward with or may happen in three four five years. >> Yeah. So, it's it's I kind of look at it
more as a short-term fix because of compliance issues that he has that Brady and his team have to deal with with the elections. And that's where the 50,000 was like, well, this is kind of ridiculous. Um, just to we'll we'll try and figure something else out, but then
when it came in at 20, it is a expensive possible short-term fix, but I still see it being more longer term and running through a few elections. >> Yeah. And Madam Chair and Brooke, if the um I mean given conversations relative
to long-term that it's it's more how we align departments and whether that has a a function with that realignment. Um but as long as you know we understand that
we we're having discussions and how would this fit in and how much money is that and the priority at this point is the compliance issue and how we're going to facilitate that. Uh the other question I guess I'd have for Brady is that uh with the voting machine in the
al cove outside of the window if some there isn't anything in the compliance requirement that says where that machine needs to be placed and under what circumstances if you understand what I'm saying >> right. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It's not that >> specific
>> specific. It doesn't say you know behind a locked door. It doesn't say, but they have to have the same um let's say privacy and ability to do it as they would in any polling place when they're
voting. So, we're going to have to place it so that other business isn't going to impact them with the voting. >> Yeah. >> So, it can't be like right next to the window, right in our office where we're going back and forth. It would have to
be it still has to be in a separate location. We can manage that in that open area. >> Yeah. >> Um to be separate from business. >> Yeah. Well, I I I certainly, you know, support um it just that connection long
term and the fact that we've halfed that that bid to do it. >> Yeah. >> Helps helps that. But yeah, the plan is we're still going to the that lobby is is uh still going to be there in the initial planning for the for the CIP. Yeah.
>> And the master plan and windows in that general location. So, it very well could end up being we utilize these two windows. >> Um even if it's not Brady utilizing them, somebody else. >> That's what I would hope. >> That's what we're hoping. Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I I appreciate, you know,
connecting the the thought in the long term as well as the short term. With that, I'd make a motion to support the office project for election compliance. >> Support. Any further questions or comments? >> All in favor? >> I I
>> oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously on that. >> Thank you. >> Okay, then you can move on. >> Yeah. And next we have the um the toolkat uh that we we discussed during budget season. Uh the initial bids I got
from Bobcat of Duth and that was came in closer to the $100,000 mark. It was 96 almost 97,000. So I budgeted 100 just in case of increases and stuff going into the new year. Uh but then I utilize the
state bid site. So, it comes through Bobcat of Duth and that's where we get it and that's where we get it serviced, but it comes out of Ducson corporate with the state negotiated bid price and that's what brings it down to the $83,992.
Significant savings just going through the state bid site. >> Questions? Commissioner Gamble? >> Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. So, Brooke, um, have we had a Bobcat like this before? >> No, we have not. Yeah. And and this is primarily an investment uh for snow
removal. >> Snow removal. And we can use it for a lot of summer stuff as well that we'll pay McMillan and other contractors to do. We'll use it for a lot of our first plan is to use it for some gardening, some planters up at the community
center, and that for so dirt work in the in the uh summer. um the bike ramps and other items that we sometimes have to get other people to help us move. >> The school has the exact tool kit and we've borrowed theirs a few times. Tom
was nice enough to let us borrow theirs. Um so we got to utilize it and realize how handy and helpful it could be in our day-to-day. >> Yeah. Where will it be housed? >> It'll be housed up at the old search and rescue. >> Okay. And um so in looking at this um
often times we pay for outside contractors and individuals to provide service to us and at the at the point that we're weighing that as opposed to taking it inside >> it can be a long-term >> both convenience and savings. So >> Yep. Yep.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. >> I'll make a motion to approve the purchase of Bobcat UW56 toolkat. support. >> Any further questions or comments? All in favor? I
>> opposed. Same sign. Motion passed unanimously. Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Chair and Commissioner. >> Next on our item number seven, um equipment grant. Brady will fill us in. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. This you've heard about this before. This is the
emergency uh grant we applied for for the airport there. Uh so this would be approval by resolution to enter into an equipment grant agreement. It's number 1062882 with Minnesota Department of
Transportation for the purchase of a 2026 Ford F250 pickup and it's for use in snow plowing and fuel transport. And just to remind again, the current pickup used by the airport suffered severe damage a few
weeks ago, including a broken piston valve and bent connecting rods. And the pickup is essential for the close cleanup work um around the airport uh around the buildings and the other equipment. And it's also crucial for
delivering diesel fuel to the entire fleet of airport maintenance equipment. Um they go to town and pick up uh through in the tank now. And then uh this has a mounted fuel tank uh where a
rod was going down with cans to empty to fill and then empty. Um the repairs on that piece of equipment are still weeks away. So the emergency equipment grant requested by the airport has been approved. It's a 70% cost split. So 70%
by the state, 30% by the county. The quoted cost from Northstar Ford was $49,580. There was an additional 3500 for the plow mount and they were offering a rebate of exactly that much. At the same time,
>> uh the state rules disallowed some of the options that came with the unit. So the end result is a state grant of 34,05150 with the county responsible for 15,528. Um the airport rod, they intend to fix the old pickup themselves and then keep
it as a backup, which makes sense. um because it was difficult to find a backup in town and even the highway has an old unit that can't do everything that this pickup can do. So that also makes sense.
So I'll wait for questions. >> Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair Brady. Um so what fund is that the 15,000 coming out of >> it'll come from the airport. They right now they've got a a capital >> fund
>> and uh we still have to um I think I'll come back at another meeting. I think we need to make that um fund whole because we were not funded back in 2016 for a grant
um where it was disallowed by the federal government and we've been waiting for uh a lawsuit with RSNH to conclude and then we finally got a payment but it's a partial payment. It was maybe 2/3 of the actual cost. So
that fund had a positive balance for that event and I think we should look at making that fund whole again. um as the responsibility was RSNH. Um, and
>> Madam Chair, as a followup to that, then when you say make the fund whole, >> you're not saying replace the what 15,000 14 15,000. You're saying that whatever that fund was. >> The fund itself would handle this with what was in there. It had a fund balance
from years ago when the highway did the project. That's part of the reason >> um up by the new airport. >> Yeah. And right away money uh from the federal government went to the airport and it supplied them with a good fund balance for things like this.
>> Yeah. >> But then that went away with that uh the lack of funding. We lost 565,000 of federal funding. >> Yeah. >> On two projects up there because of a mistake. >> Yeah. >> That uh our design team. >> That's not a good story that one.
>> Yeah. and we got about, if I remember right, about 345,000 back in the settlement. >> So, they're still short a considerable amount. >> Yeah. >> In that fun. We just haven't had that discussion yet. >> Are we allowed to have a vehicle that new up there?
>> Uh, we should that that vehicle is uh is has hard duty. >> Commissioner Sullivan, >> just to um share that vehicle that broke down was over 20 years old. It's amazing given the hard work it does up at the airport that it has lasted that long and
I'm really happy that we have an opportunity here to have even an old but a backup vehicle. And again, I want to thank the Cook County Highway Department for allowing us to be able to have our airport open during this time where we did not have a pickup truck.
>> Um, very critical for emergency services, um, for lifelight, all kinds of things. So, um, with that, I would like to make a motion to approve by resolution and enter into an equipment grant agreement number 1062882
with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the purchase of a 2026 Ford F-250 pickup for airport use in snow plowing and refueling. >> Support. >> Any further questions or comments? All in favor?
>> I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. Moving on to rural schools title three. >> So th this is kind of a long story. So last year um the federal government hadn't approved uh secure real schools.
That's something that has to be reapproved periodically and they'll approve it for two years or one year or three year. Um but they hadn't reapproved it then. So then it fell back to an old method of funding and we did get some funding and we allocated that
and it was much less than what we all budgeted and then I heard uh within couple of months that the federal government had again reapproved and this is for last year's um and so that's what
this funding is is actually the difference had it all been approved last year this is the difference because we got some last year and this is the rest of it. So this is actually for uh last
year's grant and uh so on March 23rd we received 231,95843 from the state and this has changed too. They don't provide any information. We used to get uh we used to get a check in an envelope with explanation what this
is. Then we used to get an electronic payment and you might get an email or a letter uh at sometime close to the payment and this year we didn't get anything but a blip on our uh bank account that with this amount of money it says SRS2.
So uh I surmised what it's for. >> Is it? >> Huh? >> They give you crypto? >> No, I don't think so. Anyway, I've made I made some phone calls and I finally got an answer back. Got a a confirmation. Anyway, that's that's the change in how things operate now. So
anyway, under the same allocation, um 85% is split between highway and school and then 8% goes directly to resource advisory council. We never see that. And 7% is allocated to title three. Title three is the one that needs
something some specific rules around it. So that's what this is all about is the uh title three part that can be used for firewise and it can be used for emergency services in the forest service. And given that we're we ran out
of this funding for firewise and we're using uh some of our tax forfeit uh reserve funds are asking that we use all of this for firewise this year so that we can uh go back. We're probably we may
need both of these sources of funds. So for firewise this year we will get an additional um title three of 17,649 and we have to u I'm sorry. So then anyway the notice is that uh we have to
have a 45day uh waiting period. after giving notice, someone could give comment and we can't use the funds until after 45 days of publishing this notice. >> Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Brady, so when
um we contract basically for Firewise and uh so we don't have a a county position, right? >> We just contract out uh since we began that. And um my question, it's a discussion beyond the motion before us
today, but the uh uh when we look at those revenues and and we look at the Firewise coordinator, just examples between Carlton County and Lake County and St. Louis County, all of them handled it differently as far as its alignment, some with soil and water and
some with emergency management services. I'm I'm just wondering if the provision would be there if we would if it makes any sense uh that um with our environmental director if the duties of
Firewise would align with some of those duties and to help in funding that position. That's just a discussion that I wouldn't mind bookmarking to have a conversation on. in the land services. Is that what you're thinking?
>> No, the environmental is with the um highway department >> that environment. >> Yeah. And and given the fact in in looking at that, I just see it's handled different ways and it it it can be based upon alignment what makes sense. If you're talking about environment and
you're talking about various aspect of it, certainly the firewise component could could be but it just it's just a a discussion that might looking at at how we align roles and responsibilities and we allocate dollars and where dollars
come to us that could be funded by outside sources to levy that this has always been funded either through our this rural schools or through our tax forfeited fund funding, but um >> when you look at the position that's the
environmental specialist position, that is levy dependent. So that's why I'm just saying >> it's something >> it would yeah, it would take discussions with Robbie for sure. And uh >> um careful handling with um right now
it's it's uh the bookkeeping is easy because that's all that person does for us and that it would take some careful >> Yeah. um handling that. >> Yeah. >> You know to show the work that's being done to for the title three. >> Sure.
>> That gets monitored very closely by our audit team to and the state auditors prior. So >> Sure. >> Yeah. I appreciate the conversation. With that, I make a motion uh to approve the notice for publication of for the allocation and use of the fiscal year
2024 secure rural schools title 3 funds. support. >> Any further questions or comments? All in favor? I >> oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. >> Thank you on that. Brady can move on to
parking lot contract. >> So, this is familiar. Uh we've had a contract with the Voyager Canoe Outfitters to manage our SAG landing lots for a number of years now.
um probably in that 15year area. And uh the the difference now is that there is for the last two years really is that there's just one lot that we're managing. Our lot we used to lease a second one off of Moose Pond Drive and
uh the Forest Service is now operating that themselves. So this is just for SE Lake parking lot one for the 2026 season. Voyager Canoe Outfitters agrees to provide the services for the county parking area, including the maintenance
of the restrooms, the monitoring of the lots for proper use, the issuing of permits, collecting of fees at a cost of $300 per week during the season when it's open. So, from sometime in May when it's open until generally early October.
and the fees that we collect um more than pay for the cost of the contract. Um yeah, I think that's pretty much it. So,
>> I'll make a motion to approve the agreement with Voyager >> support. Any questions or comments? All in favor? >> I oppose. same sign. Motion passes unanimously.
>> Uh the last item I have is a uh revolving loan request for East Bay Holding Company LLC. Um, so this would be to approve by motion a loan to East Bay Holding Company for
construction of a bath house facility at an amount not to exceed 250,000 conditional and final bank commitment. Other funding source commitments, interest at market rates, a term of 20
years, collateral consisting on second position on business real estate, personal guarantee of the owners, and on condition of the county attorney approval, satisfactory completion of all borrower docu documents. So, the
committee met last week with the applicants on uh April 8th to discuss the loan request. So, it's to construct a new modern bath house facility on the existing business property which is on
the uh on East Bay um given the name and uh it operates alongside the original red sauna's locker room and lounge and I call that original because we have um a
loan with these applicants already. They're operating a sauna on that same area. And that's the red sauna, the locker room, and the lounge. So, the existing loan is current on payments. It
was a I think a $65,000 loan. The uh committee approved the new request on a vote of 54. None opposed. The committee discussed the RLF guideline that states no loan will be approved that would result in more than $250,000
aggregate outstanding loan to a common owner. So the the new loan will be the $250,000 less the balance of the existing loan at the time the proceeds are paid. If it was today, it would be somewhere in the
neighborhood of 197 between 197 and 198,000 based on that. uh loan payment. So that's the basics and Gary was at the meeting. So >> um I'm just curious about the term bath
house facility. Um there was a big article in the paper that Duth has one of the last bathous that people can enter. And I don't know this is different than a sauna. Is that the way you interpret it >> there? Yeah. I I have never been in a
bath house. I'm not entirely certain of what that is, but I know they wanted bigger facilities there. Their their demand, they say, is high and increasing and for larger groups, >> okay, >> and so forth. Um, the credit union was
persuaded and I think our committee um was pretty supportive also. I'll let Gary speak to this also. >> Commissioner Gamble. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I appreciate the fact that this uh request came before the loan committee and after 15 months of
being on the loan committee and this term, we finally had a reason to meet. So, uh everybody was sharp and ready to evaluate and it was good discussion and um the um uh the basis under which the
revolving loan makes uh loans like this is up to a maximum of 250. So the existing loan that exists with East Bay at this point is subtracted which is what Brady is saying. So, uh, the other thing I think that's important for the
public to be aware of that the the oversight and fiscal responsibility of the committee and evaluating this and other financial parties is has been uh very rigorous and uh as a result, the history of this loan fund that initially was funded through the legislature has
been a a real value to our community and we've had uh very good u results as far as the entities that do borrow paying back the monies. So with that, I would approve a loan to the East Bay Holding Company LLC for construction of the Bath
House facility at an amount not to exceed 250,000 conditional on final bank commitment other funding source commitments with interest at market rates for a term of 20 years with collateral consisting of a second position on business real estate
personal guarantees of the owners and on the condition of attorney approval of satisfactory completion of all borrower documents >> support. >> And just to read their description, I
think it's it's probably more the size. Um they said it will feature a large event sauna with lake views, steam room, walk-in cold plunge pool, hot and warm pools, relaxation lounge, shower and
locker amenities. Um and >> and madam chair certainly if we'd like to get an overview the parties are here so they could give us a little overview if we'd like to understand that but >> well we have a motion in a second. Do
you want to have further conversation? >> Not me. >> Okay. We have a motion in a second. All in favor? >> I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. >> Thanks guys. Okay. >> All right. We still have some time. So,
let's move on to the letter that we have um before us from the U. Forest Service and after 30 years they really want to kind of upgrade things and have a new perspective and they have sent out um
requests for um suggestions and so forth and they're just asking um do we want to be part of the collaborative uh discussion on it. So, I see a nod right there. >> I I would be very interested in participating in that. >> Yeah. Right. Commissioner Gamble.
>> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, what do we know up to this point? I think that there was an attempt to address this in 2024 >> with the same outline as public involvement and and counties and other interested parties. Mhm.
>> Um and um uh if like many things that are uh drafted in government, there is a revisiting cycle in which you have to come back to it and discuss and and just see that everything is current relates.
Um and so I'm assuming this 30 30 year thing is not necessarily a cycle because that's so long. It's just it hasn't been dealt with and we feel we should because things are changing and it would be interested um to the county's involvement in this. It would be
interesting to understand context so that we can inform the process meaning that if if the issue of motorized you know vehicles uh boats and uh towing if we're finding that the de demographics of those using it and the need for
towing them so they don't have quite as much of a journey whatever it is uh the campsite degradation issue is certainly an issue but um given the significant um resource this is to our county. Certainly, our involvement is something
that's not questionable and we appreciate the fact that they're allowing us to have a voice in the process. Mhm. >> Commissioner Sullivan, >> I would uh Madame Chair and fellow commissioners in the public, um just like to explain that this is much like what I'm attending, the Boundary Waters
um canoe area wilderness collaborative, the discussions that are going on and again it's an opportunity to have a voice to make recommendations um but we are not decision makers. All right. But I think um continuing to have
this opportunity to be one of the many partners that is involved is really important to our county um from an economic standpoint as well as um you know just looking at the health of our environment. >> Right. And I think um we haven't really
heard from them uh from the public input that usually goes on for several months >> and so we wait to hear that. But would you like to then send a letter to um Tom Hall to indicate that we'll we will be on board with them and and uh offer our
suggestions and look at the direction that they're going right now. >> Absolutely. >> And then express the appreciation for the invite. >> Yeah. Okay. We'll work on that. So, right now we could go um
and discuss any um meetings or any reports or any updates that anyone would have. Commissioner Sullivan. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh recently had an opportunity uh to attend a meeting in Elely for the rainy headarters Vermillion River, one watershed, one
plan. And um just so people are aware, I've been president um serving in that capacity for the last couple years. I am now serving as secretary of that organization. We passed the hat on to North St. Louis County um for leadership
there, but we will be meeting quarterly. Um at the meeting, we talked about a number of things. Um, one of the discussions off the agenda was really about some of the boat wrap legislation that uh was passed in the Minnesota
legislature in 2025 and takes effect this spring. And it's really a boat wrap stewardship uh law to reduce uh landfill waste and increase recycling of the plastics that are used. And producers are the ones that are um going to be
paying for some of those costs. Um, I had a chance to attend our soil and water conservation district monthly meeting, did a lot of budget updates and then attended um a meeting online
for our airport. And as you know, I've talked a lot about electric air mobility over the last year, and we had a discussion about the implications for general aviation at airports like ours. And there have been 27 sites that have
been selected for the first phase of um electric mobility for aircraft. We are not one of the 27, but we will probably be in that second phase. Um the implications are really a gamecher for flight schools such as we have with
Sawtooth aviation and the electric aircraft allow for lower operating costs, reduce maintenance requirements and make the training more affordable and accessible. And think about students flying in a completely quiet zero emission aircraft
that they plug in overnight instead of fueling at the pumps. That's part of the future of the Cook County Airport. And uh these aircraft are um being built right now, but they will not actually be in service for a few years. So that
first group of 27 airports will have equipment and uh we will follow after that. But cargo and medical transport are the strong candidates for early adoption and that's why we will be part of phase two. And the aircraft are
designed for short hall routes under 300 miles which is quite common in northern Minnesota and electric aircraft are particularly well suited for that. So um it will lower energy costs and um increase our ability to operate from our
airport whether it be for package delivery or for medical transport. So search and rescue all kinds of things. So, um, really interesting, um, things to come. And then, um, this week we've had a
Gunflint Trail Scenic Byway and Cook County Coalition of Lake Association meetings. And one of the things I did do is request letters of support for our Gunflint Trail project from those organizations, just so all of you are aware. and we're recommending that those
letters would be of support be sent to um members of the House and Senate um in terms of their capital investment committees. And um the last thing I'd like to talk
about is what's been happening in the US Forest Service in terms of closing research facilities. It appears we're losing the Grand Rapids research facility and also Elely and that is going to have a significant impact for
Cook County. um Forest Service research in those two places have conducted studies on boreal forest on petlands lakes and um they've really focused on the amount of mercury in water and how
that impacts water quality forest regeneration after forest fires and um wildlife habitat and biodiversity. So, um, this is science that's used by our land managers that direct our timber harvests here in Cook County and forest
health and pest response from spruce budworm. So, there's going to be um, you know, a lot of changes and we don't know exactly what all those changes will be, but um, just in summary, it reduces our long-term research here.
um there's less support for forest management decisions that are being made and loss of federal jobs related to those research facilities. So, I just want people to be aware of that. It really weakens some of our partnerships.
So, I will continue to follow that and uh report to the board on that. >> Thank you on your reports. Anyone else? Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. question for Commissioner Sullivan. Um if we look at you know research I mean obviously
keeping a breast of information that affects a large portion of our county and if that gets transferred to a regional or how that's going to be handled in the in the future. But um we often talk about governance at the local level and information at the local level
is beneficial because it it it isn't um information that is too generic and not specific to us. So that that is an important element but appreciate you're monitoring that. Um most of the commissioners attended the um Arrowhead
Regional Development uh meeting that was held recently and uh we were given an opportunity to address um things that within our our county that uh we felt we needed to focus on and it just
consistently came up that housing was the issue and um uh Commissioner Mills comment was we've addressed that uh but um it continues to be a real challenge for us and and the
issue is is affordability and the nature of the housing based upon our demographics. Uh part of the impetus for this meeting is that uh in order to receive funding, federal funds, uh there needs to be the discipline of having a
meeting that identifies real need and then that information uh is used in in um making requests for funding so that we'd have funding to address need in our area. a summary of the discussion that
was held on on multiple levels is will be coming back to us so that we would have that and I'm sure we would hear more about the specifics. Um uh the other is the um
uh the title of of the committee is courthouse security. how that's but that's grown to be more generic and we touched on it somewhat in this morning's meeting about facilities and for commissioners that have um uh sat on
this board. There's been many directions as to how we're going to address need relative to staffing and departments and we've looked at building new facilities. we've looked at adding on to the community center and uh the focus in our discussions uh recently has been that we
had hired an architecture that we've been working with just to consider our alternatives and the focus at this point is to look at how we might use unused space in a building this courthouse that was built several years ago and be more
efficient stewards of that space. And so it was a very good discussion, very informative and um I think for the public just knowing that um we're trying to look at uh creative um resourceful
ways of managing our our need for departments and staff as opposed to you know building new buildings which then we have to maintain on top of what we already have to maintain. So I felt it was very substantive discussion and
something that obviously we'll be hearing more of. >> Thank you. >> Any other reports? >> Sure. Um, Madam Chair, um, since our last meeting, uh, uh, the first one, um, Administrator Treble touched on at our special meeting, and that was the Y
oversight committee, um, reforming that group with the new director, Amanda Hand, and, um, um, kind of get some cohesion there and discussion, um, and it eventually kind of all led to, um, uh, looking at contracts again and and
refamiliarizing ourselves there and, um, and getting into some of the nitty-gritty about insurance and and requirements and and that sort of thing, but it's a great discussion just so people can get back on the same page. Um, also um I missed the food access
council which was the first one after the announcement of um the closure of Ruby's Pantry and so there was good discussion and to be a tip um coverage of that. Um the reason I missed I was at the labor management committee um with uh with the rest of the that team and um
that was another good meeting um which may be the last one because we'll stop that during negotiations and um we'll be entering negotiations with all three unions here. Um I think our first meeting is
later. It's been bounced around. So, it's >> Yeah. The 29th 29th, 21st. Yeah, >> it's it'll be coming up. Um and so that'll be exciting. Um but it was good good discussion there. Just um having the business
agents from the the the different unions um is really helpful to get their perspectives on what's going on around the state and and what what some good practices are for labor management committees and and what we want to do and how we want to communicate and and how we want to communicate with the public about about
all that too. Um let's see. Um, Northwood's Food Project met um and um um one of the things I shared with them is I'll be applying um for a grant for a
composting project that's through the state that's through the feds um and that's due tomorrow and so we'll see what what's happened there. But I've gotten a good number or letter of support from different Northshore waste um um Krishna Warhid up in Grand Portage
um different business um businesses around the county including the the co-op and um some restaurants um and so I'm hopeful with that and we'll see what happens once if that's awarded then it gets real right then you
have to um really dig in. So, but uh not investing too much time in that until that that comes to fruition or if it does. Um I was invited to a sustainability discussion at the Folk School um hosted by the Folk School and
it was really um a listening session asking community members if they saw opportunities for the Folk School to do more or how um they can better support the community in a sustainability push. since the closure of um CclP, it leaves
a gap in our community um that higher ed is doing a good amount to try to pick up, but there's there's certainly other gaps there and that was kind of referenced repeatedly throughout the meeting. It's like, boy, if CIP was around, then you know, that would be a good avenue. But
>> Commissioner Mills, a quick question. Did they talk at all about um giving energy audits to members of the community? I know I've had multiple requests in recent months and that was a service that CC Club used to provide and
um where do community members go for an energy audit? >> Yeah. Um I think it was brought up but the question kind of is is what is what is a local nonprofit schools craft craft school's role right like they can be they can lead by
example but should they be doing these audits? So, they're having an it done and they want to share that and share how they had that done with other businesses and kind of, you know, spread the word that way. Um, and of course, Higher Ed has resources along that
route, too. So, it was there was a lot discussed. Uh, and yes, that was that was touched on a little bit. Um, the city was there as well. And so, just hearing about incentives or disincentives and and um different options. Um, soil and water was there
and that was great. They had some really good suggestions for both the campus as well as the rest of the city. Um, you know, our the city zoning ordinance allows building from property line to property line. Um, and that leaves, you
know, potential no trees, right? And so, um, that can really affect, um, the aesthetics, that can affect the temperature of downtown, um, >> water runoff. >> Yeah. Everything. It's really It's Exactly. Yeah. and we have the the slope
with all pavement coming down into the harbor and um so there was just more talk around that and I think there's >> uh I think there was good reception and I think that um they recognized uh some
good possibilities there. So all all around it was it was great to to be invited to that. >> Thank you Commissioner Mills. It's now 9:30. >> Nope. >> I'll continue with my report later. So, at um 9:30 this morning, we're going to have a public uh hearing on Cook County
fee schedules. The public hearing will be held pursuant to MS 373.41 to consider changes by the Cook County fee schedule. The fee schedule may charge fees for services provided by any county office, official, department,
court, or employee. The county board after a public hearing shall establish the amounts of the fees to be charged for the services unless a statue has specifically specified the amount. So I will now open the uh public hearing and
um Brady can uh assist. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I think we'll let uh Neva speak to if she'd come forward and speak to the two fees that
uh that they're requesting to change at land services. the f first one for uh changes to multiple septic system inspections and then this the second one a general
change to uh for the ROSO which you're familiar with. >> Good morning. >> Good morning. So, I asked our environmental health officer, Jesse Johnson, to join us this morning. Uh, in case of some of your
questions go beyond my technical aptitude for some of the septic inspection questions, but uh, just to start off with for the septic inspections, I wanted to give you a little bit of context to what this process is, why it even exists, why it's even on our fee schedule. Uh so the Cook
County Environmental Health Officer has the opportunity to offer septic inspections on private properties if land owners request it. It is not something that is necessarily required that he does that work. Uh a private inspector can do this work. So I just
wanted to make that really clear that this is kind of a voluntary um option for the county to do the inspection. someone could go out and have a private septic inspector if they have the credentials to do that inspection for them. Uh so that's just a first off is that there is an alternative to this bee
line item. It is not a requirement that the county does that inspection. Uh an inspection itself is triggered uh when a prop a septic system does not have a current valid certificate of compliance. So let's say it's been 15 years since
the septic was either installed or last inspected. And if the property owner is applying for a land use permit and they live within the shorland area of a lake, that will trigger the compliance inspection. So, we have certain triggers based off of how long it's been since a
septic was inspected and also where the property is located that's triggering these compliance inspections. And then we also have the lakeshore compliance inspection program where we go lake by lake and focus on doing the inspection of the whole lake to make sure everybody
is up to uh current standards for that. Um so that that's kind of how we do our inspection program. Stepping back as far as what the state requires. The state requires that the county have a form of a septic inspection program and then the county uh figures out based off of their
own county needs how they set those triggers for the inspections. Uh so when I was working formerly at Lake County, that county had a point of sale inspection. So, if a property went up for sale and it again, that same example, it had been 15 years since the
septic was last inspected, that would trigger an inspection before the property could be sold or property money had to go into escrow. Um, it got a little messy sometimes, but that that was kind of their trigger point. So, they did not have a lakeshore compliance inspection program. Um, so there's
there's certain thresholds that we have to have. And so we do our method through the land use permit in shoreland areas as well as the lakes shore septic compliance inspection program. I guess lastly what a compliance inspection is and Jesse can speak much more to this
point but it can range from being a more straightforward process to being a very long technical lengthy process. So we are verifying two things. We're verifying that the current septic system is pro being protective of groundwater. So sometimes we have these old inground
trench systems where the soils actually weren't good enough and we don't have enough what we call vertical separation. So where the effluent, the liquid leaving the tank and going into the treatment area, it's not high enough to kind of provide that space for all the bacteria and microbes to do their thing
before that effluent gets down into the groundwater. So that would be one reason for failure is that it's not protecting groundwater. The other one is that it would be an imminent health to public safety. um yeah, imminent threat to public health and safety. And so that's the other standard where if you have a
cracked tank, sometimes these septic tanks have cracked lids and that's a very significant danger. Kids, animals can fall into those and be extremely dangerous. Uh the other is like electrical components. If the electrical components going into the septic tank and the pump are faulty, that's a safety
issue. as well as surfacing effluent, say a straight pipe going right out of the tank um into surface waters or if the mound is leaking, if that system is getting too much pressure and too much stuff is getting pushed through it all the time, if it hasn't been maintained well, um anything surfacing, that's
imminent threat to public health because that water hasn't been treated before it's clean. So, that's kind of what the inspection itself looks like. Um that process itself often requires a lot of paperwork. We need Jesse needs to find the old paperwork from when that septic was first installed. And so when we have
these multiple systems on one property, that paperwork often gets super messy based off of how this has been done historically. Um, and the time needed is is equal. It's based off of per system. Regardless if there's five systems on
one property or one system on a property, that property that has five systems will take five times as long to do the inspections as a system as a property that has one septic system on the property. So there it is it's not a scaled like it gets more efficient per system on the property. If anything, it
increases in complexity. So um the goal with our fee schedule, you know, former land services director Tim Nelson would always say that uh there's been a variety of boards in Cook County over time. Some have wanted us to have no fees and some of us have wanted to have our fees based off of the actual amount
of that it costs to have to do the work. And so we try to meet somewhere in the middle. We try to have our fees be somehow proportional to the work that is offered uh through this. So um that's kind of our goal with this is to amend
this line item so that it is a flat fee per system regardless if it's multiple systems on a property or if it's just one septic system on a property. uh we believe that will make it more proportional to the amount of work that's being done. Um and then that's
kind of my my lead into this. Uh but if you have specific questions about septic compliance inspections, Jesse's here. But again, I think the main point is that again that whole inspection process, although we set the triggers of when the inspection is needed, someone can go out and have a private inspector
do that work. So I just wanted to kind of make sure that is clear. >> Questions or comments? Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Diva. Um, I guess uh we do not have any public here to address this issue. Have we
received any correspondence or has there been any calls or anything coming from individuals on this? >> I have not heard anything. No. >> Okay. Um, sometimes people are busy and they don't know it and then when it comes something that is
>> relevant to them, it's like, well, when did this happen? But uh I think the the two points are is that you always want to look on on the why and the why here is to to have a healthy environment to protect the environment and many septic
systems had tanks that had no bottoms and those no are no longer compliant. So, um, our our focus here is is to protect the environment and, you know, keep, uh, our water clean and and safe
and there's processes and things and that, uh, help contribute to that. So, compliance um, with that focus is important. How that gets done, the county has to look at it from its stewardship and the time involved and the money involved. And
through our lived experience, we're finding that it take just as much time. So when you have multiple septic systems, that fee should apply to each system given the work invested in it. So um that's that's a reality. The other
key point which you've alluded to twice is the fact that this is an option. Should you choose to um find somebody to do this to be in compliance because one of those flags have come up relative to a trigger, then uh if you use the
county, here's the basis. And if you want to go out and find competitive bids to meet that compliance requirement, you're certainly welcome to do so. >> Is there a distinction between the properties on the lake? Is that automatically checked or is that the
same system? Is this people call you or do you do a wide range of north of the shore inspections automatically for the lakeshore compliance inspection program? So that's a program that we've been going um based off of grant
funding. So if we have available funds to fund that process, then the grant is paying for those compliance inspections. um correct that this fee wouldn't apply to people who are in the Lakeshore compliance inspection program. That's why we kind of it's in a way, you know,
they're getting a free compliance inspection uh based off of the grant. Um but if there's a failure, then they would be needing to do that remediial work. >> Does how often would something like that happen on the shoreline? >> A failure?
>> No. How often do the inspections happen? Every five years, two years? Uh so we're going lake by lake. So right now for example we're doing Lon and Birch Lakes uh because we got funding
through the Rainy River headwatered. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> But not Lake Superior North Rainy River. Yeah. So these one wershed one plans have been how we've been funding that recently. Uh we did the stretch uh along Highway 60 along Lake Superior and we
made it as far as >> Grand Marray. Grand Marray. Yep. >> And then we will eventually be working from Grand Marray up to uh the reservation line. >> Mhm. >> That's where we would stop. >> Okay. Again, once we have more grant funds to continue that program, we've we
have found that um we have to kind of pace this out because the amount of non-compliance that gets found takes some time to work with those property owners to get that fixed. So, we don't want to have too much of a backlog where we can't provide that support. >> Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Gamble. >> Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, in my first term, it was significant number of inspections and we sort of prioritized, you know, based upon the lake and
basically it just saying that we've been given money to make sure that that um as we live in in this environment that we're protecting it. And certainly one of the issues is is the water quality issue both when you dig a well and when
you have your wastewater and how you treat that waste water so that you're not you know creating unsafe scenarios and of course the vulnerability increases when you get close to lake water. So um we're fortunate to have the money. the administration of that has
been a challenge because there's so many failed systems. And so this isn't an intent like a gotcha thing. It just a commitment as a community to protect the quality of our environment which we hear multiple times in multiple scenarios.
And so uh it's part of our stewardship responsibility and enabling our ability to live here. So, um, that's that's the wise and how we approach this. Uh, as we've stated over
and over again, you, the landowner, have the option to determine how you're going to bring your system up to compliance. So, >> so we're having this discussion and as we go through these items after the public comment period, then we will come
back and address this and by motion support. Yeah. Okay, thank you on that one. And then um we have moving on to um
the next item from Brady. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. So, the fee change the auditor's office is requesting is for the SAG Lake parking permit. Um, we've had a permit
fee there, uh, for since I've been here. Uh, for probably the last 12 to 15 years, that fee has been, this is the annual permit, has been $75. So now we're asking to change it to 80 for two reasons. One, the longevity
without the change. And number two, that the Forest Service is now operating the other lot on Moose uh Moose Pond Drive. And they've announced that that's the fee that they are charging is $80. And
it makes sense that ours would be the same and not uh have any confusion between the two since it we're overdue for changing that fee based on uh cost of living. So combination questions or comments on that? No.
The last item, you're still here. >> Yes, Neva. Thank you. Uh, as I've been working with different project proposers and developers, it's occurred to me that I created a process that does have additional zoning regulations, which
incurs additional fees. And so I wanted to find an avenue that we could reasonably amend our fee structure so we're not penalizing people for creating residential properties with the residential open space overlay district. Um I thought through different ways to achieve this. And I think what makes the
most sense is that we just do a 50% reduction in the reszone application fee as well as the platting fees. And then after that point once the lots are created it is still all the normal fees that any normal parcel would have. um kind of two reasons. So the the reszone
step here into the overlay district is an additional administrative hurdle for developers and so that 600 bucks upfront to something that they may not know if they'll get. Um, and so I think proposing a $300 fee instead will help
make especially in these early years as people may dip their toes into this kind of new process uh maybe build a little goodwill but also not penalize people for trying this new uh program that we've created. And then with the
platting fees, this makes a lot of sense and I am embarrassed that it took me so long to think about it, but frankly, uh, our platting fees are based off of the number of lots you're creating. And so if we're creating the residential open space overlay district to create two times the number of residential lots,
that is two times the individual lot fee. So it's typically a base fee. I think it's like $725 or something. And then I think it's $56 per a lot on top of that. So if someone wants to create 14 or 20 lots um you
know that adds up. So again it's not huge but I think it is at least recognizing that it's not our goal to be punitive in in people trying to create residential lots through this process and that we're just trying to mitigate
the financial the additional administrative costs that are incurred through this process that we created while still working with our current fee structure. Okay, questions. Commissioner Mills, >> thank you. That makes good sense. Um,
though I fear that people won't recognize the 50% reduction like it's still going to be a thing, right? So, >> is there a way that we can say it was you have to pay this, but it's 50% of
what it was or or something? I mean, >> I'm just trying to think that through. It's still going to cost something. >> Yeah, I think on our on our fee schedule itself, so like on the reszone application, um there will be a fee line
item that says Roso Reszone $300 versus typical reszone $600. >> Okay. >> Um and then you know the plat fee we administratively have to figure out anyway because >> our computer program isn't quite savvy enough to figure that. Um, and so we would just make it really clear to
people like this is a reduction and and you know developers are usually trying to add up all these costs before they even initiate a process. So I have a lot of opportunities to talk with them and kind of indicate like oh by the way 50% the cost of the reszone and platting fees for this process. So
>> great. Thank you >> Commissioner G. >> Thank you Madam Chair. Um I I would agree with Commissioner Mills. It's well reasoned and as we moved into this I mean we're looking for creative ways and alternative ways to to meet housing
needs and um we don't we don't want our fee schedule and some of the other things uh to encumber what we're setting out to do. That's why I say it's it's well reasoned in how we address every aspect of this in order to make it
happen. I've had it commented to me too that uh if you want development we need to get the county out of the pocketbooks of developers and to the extent that we can demonstrate we do that in good faith without abdigating our financial stewardship responsibility I think
that's a that's a good thing. >> Okay. So this is um the end of our um public hearing and I will close the public hearing. Thank you, Neva. >> Thank you. >> And then we'll have a discussion on um these three different topics.
Commissioner Gamble, >> I was going to make a motion, but if we want to have a discussion, certainly we can have a discussion. >> We'll close it first. >> Yeah, you just closed it. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> All right. Thank you. >> So, I would make a a motion to accept
the fee changes uh that I proposed before us. One is to modify the current fee structure from changing charging $500 for the first septic system compliance inspection on the property and $200 for each additional system to be $500 for each septic system
compliance on the property. Also to approve by motion the change uh the annual fee for the SAG lake parking permit to $80 and to modify the current fee structure to allow a 50% reduction in permit fees related to Rosa reszoning
and subsequent Roso platting fees >> support. All in favor I >> opposed same sign. Motion passes unanimously. Okay, so we're continuing on with commissioner reports. Um,
I just received yesterday a notice about climate change uh happening a week from tonight and that's from Deanna from ARDC at Studio 21. Sounds like bring the family. There's kids activities. So, um,
I'll have to see. I have other meetings going on. So, I'll have to divide myself. Not physically, but hopefully not. Then, um, last week I attended the Northshore Forest Collaborative at Wolf Ridge and, um, we
had a really interesting presentation about fires in the past, fires uh, both within United States and then fires within um, Cook County. And uh interesting photo that was acquired by
um the presenter on uh four women in um Grand Portage who were doing prescribed burns. That's how they dealt with um their land. >> And um I thought it was an interesting point of that's what we're all trying to
do is prescribe burns. And even in my own yard, I'm thinking, well, the weather's okay today. could I burn just this little part of the lawn because I want it to regenerate. And so that was discussed too about the forestry
um having troubles with the um wind and with the areas as to what to um burn. Then the discussion got down to the highway 61 corridor and all of us who live on it. And it was a very lively
discussion and actually I think it has promoted another discussion about being more collaborative on how we do that and then how we reveate trees and shrubs for the climate change
that's already happening. So um that was um like I say a very lively discussion on our future here on the Northshore. And then um district one meeting um Suzanne Palm is handing handling that at
ARDC. I gave a couple suggestions and um so we'll see what happens with our meeting then that'll happen in June. Um so to the regional development meeting that we had last week that's going to be presented um this Thursday
at ARDC commission meeting which includes a broader um group of people and um so I'll be anxious. I believe that was going to end um the traveling around. We were one of the last three counties I believe to have this
presentation. So hopefully we'll have a good summary and kind of see where we want to go with that. Um I have an arrowhead um meeting on uh Wednesday evening. So be a busy couple days coming up. Does anybody have anything else
they'd like to report on? Commissioner Sullivan. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I would just like to give some thanks to Assessor Thompson. He presented yesterday for the Association of Minnesota Counties virtual lunch and learn. Did a really great job on appeals
and equalization and shared a PowerPoint statewide. There were commissioners from from all over the state of Minnesota in attendance and uh he just did an excellent job. So I want to make sure that um our staff as well as our community is aware of the contributions
he makes statewide. >> Yeah. >> Great. Oh, I I had two other um meetings I wanted to share. One was um the benefits and wellness committee. The reason I wanted to share this specifically is because there was a benefits um survey
put out um to all staff and um to try to um un better understand what their what what staff would like. Would they like um you know fewer benefits with the same cost? Would they like you know the same
benefits with a higher cost? with the you know all those different permutations and combinations because costs of benefits continue to rise significantly. Um and uh the way uh our benefits
packages are created is we basically have a custom package that we can create, but it goes through um Northeast Minnesota Health Consortium and um and and then there are limitations because we use Medicica and they have a specific
format and that sort of thing. But it was really I thought it was really interesting to look at um the different options and the different packages and what those costs could be. And um I think it's really important to um give choices to
employees. Uh some employees want the you know catastrophic insurance insurance only that they don't want you know high higher premiums. some employees want the full monty um and um and have a family or a larger family
that can you know participate as well and and of course and there's people in between and there's both the embedded plan and the non-mbedded plan and so there's lots of different options there what I found it particularly interesting is
the I thought minimal cost difference in the very highest like benefit to have uh the lowest premium with zero co-pay. It It's a I think it would be a
larger cost to the county certainly. Um but for um because it's the the the split. Um but for employees it was I thought something nominal um like a $100
um per per month to have um a deductible that was half as much. And so it seemed like a no-brainer that if you're planning to use your health insurance, if you're planning expecting to meet your deductible, if you do that on the regular basis, then it would make sense
to pay for that. Um but we'll see. we can't make these packages until later on in the year when um uh you know it's open enrollment time or just before that or something like that. So um because that's when health
insurance companies lay out their costs and what plans are available. But it's a really uh good discussion and I I really appreciate all the employees that filled out the survey. And um after I think kind of we go through this process,
there's also the other side of wellness and and looking for a wellness survey and what programs um or or opportunities are there to to promote more wellness uh within the organization. So that was a a
really great discussion. Then after that I went to the highway department for the biochar demonstration and that was very interesting, very simple really. Um, the other biochar uh implements that I've seen have been a lot like higher tech
and and have a motor and a conveyor belt and, you know, a blower and all this stuff. And this was basically just a large burn barrel um that had an opening almost like a solo stove, but you're not trying to feed it oxygen. You're trying
to create an envelope that traps it and and kind of controls that burn. So, that was that was pretty pretty neat. And I I intended to go back at the end just to see how the breakdown was, but um I got caught up and was not able to do that, but that had a really good turnout. A lot of great people there. Um a lot of
similar faces that were at the folks school the previous night, so that was kind of funny. But um but yeah, I was happy that um that demonstration was was uh at the highway department and so just really appreciated uh Tia um arranging that and organizing that. um
different system than what the invasive weeds would be um using too. So that was also neat to see just the different uh options or um uses for for that old technology. So
that was all that I wanted to. Thank you. >> Okay. Anybody else remember anything? Commissioner M chair, I just quickly mentioned I I had to bring a load over to Northshore Way. So Dustin gave me a tour of the the new facility. A lot of
cement lot a lot of cement. But uh I think as a as a county our size to have a facility like that is is going to be amazing. and and of course what led to that was the
fact that uh we just have so much refuge that needed to be treated and we weren't in compliance after the MBC came up and did the review. So, this is a definitely a great response to that that need. And
I I know that um with tax statements coming out that there's probably been a lot of comments that commissioners have fielded relative to what's this and how equity how equitable is the distribution of that cost relative to a business and
an individual and multiple lots. And um I think that's maybe something we're going to want to look at as we move forward in the context of what we're able to do just because we did have much discussion but our intent was to make it equitable.
Right. And to the folks who called me, I just said, you know, we had to start somewhere. And so it's not cast in stone, literally. And we'll have future discussion, especially someone who owns three pieces of land, but there's nothing producing any waste. Yeah.
>> It's just empty land. >> Yeah. And and that's understandable. And we did wrestle with this. And I did say at the time that if you look at the cost of the recycle center right now, the amount that it was being subsidized at the time that we had that discussion per taxpayer on a median price home was $87
annually. >> Yeah. >> And so, uh, how we address the recycling center is is going to be a key issue, >> uh, to try to mitigate overall costs for both waste and recycling. >> Right.
Oh, I did have one more thing I forgot. Um um well, and I guess piggybacking on Commissioner Gamble's just that last comment, Northshore Waste is is also uh aware of the cost of recycling and so
their intention is to, you know, work with us and how to do that. Um but it's just going to be >> and that's a discussion we we we need to have. Um, and when I when I say that, I mean an honest discussion. The reality is when you look at at how we're
managing recycling right now and the realities of recycling and constantly we're hearing that this can be, this can't be. Now we don't do magazines. Now we don't do this. We can't do this. Whatever. 90% of plastics go into landfill. They actually aren't recycled.
>> Yep. >> And so we have a perception that we're doing something good, but the reality is whatever. And we're sorting it here where really the cost savings when you look at the amount of money that $87 that's being subsidized now per taxpayer
uh just bringing it down and let them deal with it down there to try to create efficiencies and still achieve what is in reality achievable. >> Y so 100%. Um well the thing that I really wanted to share though that I didn't was uh
although I I appreciate that conversation in the future conversations are very important uh is uh our new EDA director Lucas Wakefield started uh yesterday and so I will be um uh introducing him to county staff here um
in the I believe this this this week hopefully. um just kind of informally walking around and saying hey and introductions and giving him a feel and that sort of thing. He's I think he's getting a lot of that um from uh other other community members as well. But
just wanted to give you a heads up that um >> he's around and uh excited we're excited to have him and uh um just an incredibly uh uh talented and um I'd say experienced individual for for the position. So feel
really fortunate. >> Great. Okay, then we'll move on to upcoming meetings to note. Our next U board of commissioners regular meeting will be Tuesday, April 28th in the commissioner
room. We have some correspondence memos from the BWCA plan amendment cooperating agency invite. And then we have the lodging tax comparison through January,
excuse me, of 26. We also now have recognition of staff for the April staff anniversaries. Abigail Prom from environmental technician, one year. Andrea Par Smith and maintenance, one year. Robert
Nelson, PHS, one year. Michael Koig, Recycling Center, two years. Janet Cookilla Burka has been with us three years. >> Does it feel like three years?
>> Or a lifetime. >> Probably some days. Um Diana Mitriova, Attorney's Office, four years. Matt Olsen, Highway Department, four years. Kirk Oberg with
MIS 19 years. Bev Wokei from auditor's office 21 years. And Steven Buts from highway department 31 years. And there be no further business, we are adjourned.