Good morning everyone. I will call the Cook County Board of Commissioners regular meeting to order on this day, Tuesday, March 24th, 2006. And uh we'll begin uh with the pledge. >> 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? >> Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion
to approve the agenda. >> Support. >> All in favor? >> I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. At this time, we offer a public comment period for folks to come and and um
share with us some ideas that they have. And I look out in the audience. I don't see anyone that wants to come forward. So um we will pass on that. Has any um the commissioners received any comments?
No. Okay. All righty. Thank you. Moving on to the consent agendum agenda items for um approval as a whole. We have claims the minutes from March 10th uh
2026 meetings and then a ratification of Lake Superior Popular River Water District director elections. Does anyone care to pull anything? Commissioner Sullivan. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to pull
item C, please. Okay. And if we could deal with that right after uh voting on the other items, I would appreciate it and I think um former attorney Hickin would appreciate that as well. >> Okay, >> I'll make a motion to approve the
consent agenda as amended. >> Okay, I'll support. >> All in favor? >> Oppos? Same sign. So, we'll move into the um Popular River Water District um elections. And we have Molly on the
line. Good morning, Molly. >> Good morning, commissioners. It's nice to be in the room with you all again. >> Yes, it is. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um Go ahead. One of the questions I had, I reviewed the current law, the the water district
statute and I understand that directors um who are elected are water users based on their classification and water usage. Um, but one of the questions I had was related to the 1854 treaty. And um, the
1854 treaty, as we all know, protects hunting and fishing rights as well as use of the seated territory. And I wondered if there has been any discussion about um, potential representation um, by our tribal communities on this
watershed. Maybe something like a non- voting position or something of that nature. Thank you for the question, Commissioner Sullivan. Um, so the Hopler River Lake Superior Water
District is a utility district uh not unlike some of the um the governmental service districts that the board has been discussing of late or like a septic district. It's a very defined geographic
um space in which the neighborhood has uh essentially created a unit a subunit of government to um invest in utility
infrastructure and distribute it to solely the property owners within that geographically defined district. Um, is there, you know, I really appreciate this question. Of course, I had not thought
about it before your question, Commissioner Sullivan, and I think it is something we need to think about uh for this specific action in front of the board today. I I'm not sure that there would have been um an opportunity Well,
of course, there's always an opportunity to consult with the tribe, but the statute really doesn't allow for a director to be elected outside of these very strict definitions of water users. Um the other thing about the Lake
Superior Poppy River Water District is that it is a public entity. It's a municipal corporation. not unlike the county board in which any discussions that the directors have uh need to be within a public meeting. So
because we haven't had a public meeting in quite some time, this isn't something we've had the opportunity to discuss. However, we uh have published notice of a public meeting and we're going to restart public meetings on a monthly
basis beginning on 31st. And I'll commit to you that I'll bring this issue up when we meet on the 31st. Our first priority is to accommodate the request
of the municipal golf course, the um that the EDA has to add them into the water infrastructure for irrigation purposes. Um but we will certainly discuss uh whether we want to uh and should include
consultation with the tribe for future projects. >> Well, thank you very much. I appreciate that. And uh given that, I'd like to make a motion to approve the resol resolution for the ratification of the Lake Superior Popular River Watershed
Director Elections. >> Support. Any further questions or comments? All in favor? >> I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. >> Thank you, Molly, for giving that
background to us and um we will appreciate your getting together later um with the um board with the uh board of the um district at US. >> Thank you, Chair Stoley and commissioners.
Have a good day. >> You too. >> Thank you. >> On our agenda at um 9:00 a.m. we do have a public hearing. So um and we do have some items here that are going to be longer discussed than the time that we
have right now. If you don't mind, board, I would like to just move ahead and maybe Brady could just take up his part of our discussion here to amend the credit card policy. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. So, this this is
a request by the recorders office to have a credit card assigned to their office. They're one of the few that have not taken that step yet. And we've done it for I think virtually every other office as you can see in the
uh policy where they're all listed. And this allows as it does other departments, it allows them to more easily track uh their credit card because they'll get a statement separate for their expenses. And it it helps us too because otherwise all departments
were using the general uh card and then in in those days when we started then we would have to pass those bills around department by department and get approval on each one um by each department which slowed it down and typically we got late fees uh because
somebody wasn't in to approve them. Now we've kind of gone to the limit and there everybody has cards. We've not had any issues with our credit cards to date, but we are going to look at the policy um and try to look at see where
we can tighten some things up. But um it it's helped streamline uh the pol the uh the use uh and spending and our spending is not high on
those cards. I think uh I looked in regard to your question, Commissioner Gamble about 380,000 a year on those cards. The big items uh are it largely because they make all their equipment purchases
um through credit cards because that's what their uh vendors require. So um and most of the other use small items and travel. >> Yeah, thank you madam chair and thank you Brady for that information as a
question I was going to follow up with with you um just with the credit card use as as a county that if we have no benefit attached to it uh we might look at it. I mean based upon the number that you gave if you have if we had a credit card that had a a rebate or a cashback
basis uh some of them are tiered so you get higher percentage but minimum of 2% back on on anything that then 380,000400,000 that we'd spend a year at least it would be a revenue source. So right now we're
using a card that has no benefit other than convenience. >> It actually it does. >> Okay. Um and uh what we're using it for is our monthly uh greet and treat items. That's part of it. >> Oh, so you are getting All right.
>> Those are all the those are all the items. Uh >> okay. I was un unaware of that when I had >> I didn't remember that. I had to ask Bev and she said yes. >> Okay. >> And uh we we going to look at what other options. I mean if we don't want to use it for that maybe there's a catch.
>> True. the the fact is it's an opportunity and as long as we're advant you know using that opportunity that's yeah thank you >> madam chair I'd like to make a motion to uh approve amend the credit card policy um and to add a card for the recorder's
office >> in support >> any further questions or comments all in favor I >> opposed same sign motion passes unanimously Thank you on that. Well, I think since Neva is here, maybe I'll call Neva up
for a discussion on um some conditional use permit. >> Good morning, Madame Chair and board. Last what what day of the month is it? Uh let's see. Lost track of time. Uh at
our last planning commission meeting, we'll just start there. Uh there was one conditional use permit that was heard before the planning commission. It was from Martha and Eric Williams. They would like to create a home business on their property off Highway 61 to uh
convert what is a current accessory structure into a hot yoga studio. Uh be kind of like by appointment for clients. It wouldn't really be a walk-in type thing. Uh so home business is elicited conditional use in the single family residential zone district. We received
no written correspondence uh or well actually we did receive two written correspondents during the written comment period and no in-person verbal comments. The written comments expressed concerns about signage and lighting and parking and the planning commission addressed a lot of those uh topics and
placed conditions on the uh recommended approval. The listed conditions recommended for approval are the same listed in the staff's narrative as well as the potential findings that the planning commission had. Um, one notable feature of this property is it is a substandard lot. Uh, so we just kind of
discussed the fact that they're converting a current structure into the home business is preferable rather than adding more buildings and impervious surface to the property. Overall, the planning commission felt like this was a a really uh well suited use of the
property. Uh home businesses are listed in the Cook County Land use guide plan, especially for this area of the county as a way to help residents uh achieve their goals. And it was a unanimous recommendation for approval from the planning commission. >> Okay.
Thank you on that. Any questions or comments from anyone? Commissioner Sullivan. Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the resolution for the conditional use permit for the home business at 1545 East Highway 61, zone single family residential within the
Northshore Management Zone. >> Support. >> Any questions or comments? >> Oh, Mure Nea, it looking through reading through the letters and then the narrative, it sounds like all of the concerns were addressed.
>> I believe so. >> Based on the conditions. Yeah, thank you. >> I guess my question would be um the hot yoga classes. I'm not sure what that means more than cold. >> Yeah, it's a great question. Uh one thing I learned through this application
process is that hot yoga has very specific HVAC requirements and humidity management for the building. And the applicants have operated this type of business uh where they lived previously. So, they're very familiar with the utilities needed. And so, um, part of
the reason for the conditional use permit is it protects that property, right? Um, as they make the investments to upgrade that building pretty significantly, it sounds like to create that high humidity, high heat. I believe there's health benefits associated with um, why one would do hot yoga versus
cold yoga. I don't think cold yoga is a thing yet. >> Oh, I think it is now. >> It's coming. >> Okay. Well, thank you for that. We have a motion in a second. Any further comments or questions? All in favor? >> I >> oppose. Same sign. Motion passes
unanimously. >> Thank you. >> Thank you on that. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Well, short of doing a little dance, I'm not sure if we uh want to proceed with the um >> Superior National. Maybe
>> we could start with we will start with the superior national and um but understand that at 9:00 a.m. we'll just take a pause because we have a public hearing. Okay. So you can come forward. >> Good morning.
>> Good morning. I'll turn it over to administrator Treble. >> All right. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for being here. Um, Peter Clisshold and Mark Shackleton are here to talk about um the EDA loan. So, this is back on the agenda um as at our last
board meeting. Um there was a board agenda item to approve a loan for the EDA using 200,000 from the county reserve fund. And we're here um because that motion and approval was made pending the approval of the draft the draft loan agreement. So we now have the
draft loan agreement um in the agenda packet. Um and I'll turn it over to the EDA. >> Great. Thank you. Uh yes, on the 24th of February, this body approved and moved forward with with the loan pending the approval of of that loan agreement. uh
loan agreement was provided to to the county to uh county attorney and treasurer and administrator. So I think next step is to discuss and ultimately approve the loan agreement as submitted.
>> Commissioner Sullivan. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. One of the things I um really um thought a lot about was at what interest rate we should um be taking a look at. The Federal Reserve rate has varied from 3.5
to 3.75. Treasury yields were up to 4.2. And so I think that 4% just hits kind of a sweet spot for us. And so I really like that interest rate. I think it's very reasonable. >> Commissioner Gamble.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, Brady, do you know I know it's been a while since we made any loans through the revolving loan, but do you know what the rate would be set at at revolving loan? >> I I don't know off hand. >> Okay. >> Um, it's the 10-year T bond and then
it's either one or one and a half% above that. Yeah. >> Depending on what it's infrastructure, it's 1% above that. Um, I could take a quick look. >> Yeah, if you wouldn't mind checking that. The reason I I bring that up is
that if if we are making loans um just consistency so that uh if if the public were to question why we set it at what rate, we want to be sure that our position is well uh informed and consistent so that it doesn't look like
we're making decisions that are subjective in nature. I mean obviously that is a component of decision-m but but I think the consistency is is one one element. The other thing that that uh since we had that discussion in the
motion was made to proceed with uh the $200,000 loan coming from our reserve fund is the um uh awareness of uh the mechanics lean. And I'm not too sure how much you are familiar with with that um
given there's you know multiple layers to uh to this. Um but the questions that that I have uh with that awareness is um uh and having some discussion on that
with um our uh housing authority that uh this is this is more of a a leverage thing connected to a punch list. So once you complete a building um you go through and if you have a punch list then those that have provided the
construction are going to uh take a look at that list and there seems to be some push back and negotiating. So consequently uh one one player is trying to use the leverage of the contract that says we want things at the level of our
expectation for construction and the other is we want to get paid and so they file a lean. Uh the reason that that's important to understand the context is that if a mechanics lean is put on a property and um it's it's something that
uh would demonstrate a certain measure of risk relative to pledging the dollars that come from a payback from an entity which is our understanding that if there is a lean then we would not be in the first position relative to that payback.
So the questions that follow for me on that is the total amount of monies that uh the EDA is owed by uh Gunflint view and if a bank is evaluating loan worthiness they would be looking at you
know your your total assets and then they'd look at how much you're asking and there would be a proportion that they'd say we're comfortable with but it wouldn't be the necessarily the total amount. So that was one question is is the request coming from the EDA the
$200,000 equal to the amount that you're anticipating from Gunflint View. That's one question. >> Uh yeah, the loan is for $200,000. So we would be expecting all of that back from Gunflint View. >> Okay. So in its entirety, the request is
equal to the amount that we're anticipating that it'll come be paid back. And when we're evaluating risk um relative to taxpayer dollars, we're looking at this in the context because of the mechanics lean. What's the nature of that lean and what's the likelihood
that things get resolved and that the lean would be lifted uh prior to the distribution of the $200,000? And maybe that's something we can't answer. Yeah, keep in mind that the repayment from Gunflint View can occur anytime
between September of 26 and September of 27. Uh, and so when the mechanics lean gets resolved is is difficult for me to to project the uh owner of Gunflint Views expecting that this might go to
arbitration or or mediation. This might take some time. Uh, I've come to learn a little bit more about mechanics leans than I than I knew a couple of weeks ago. They're although they're not common, they're also arguably not rare. And as you point out, this is uh tied to a punch list item uh
from the general contractor. What I've also come to learn, it's not a reflection of either the liquidity or the solveny of of Gunflint View. They're currently enjoying an occupancy rate of 94%. There's no record of according to the owner of bankruptcy, loan default.
They're in good standing with the state of Minnesota, with the city of Grammaray. And they've been quite transparent. In fact, they they provided to me a bank statement for the month of February of 2026 from National Bank of Commerce in Superior, Wisconsin. The
beginning balance of of this account is $477,000. At the end of February, it was $54,000. This is not of course a complete financial picture of Conflint view, but it certainly demonstrates to me a high degree of liquidity and it uh although I
have to admit the the uh you know the revealing of the mechanics is a little alarming to me as well. The further we dug into this I think those concerns have been assuaged. >> Thank you. And madam chair uh a followup. So uh
obviously our our stewardship responsibility fiscally with taxpayer dollars is to understand the context in which this money is is made. So there can be uh an incentive to want to uh transfer ownership of the golf course
and our um energies to see that happen might overlook some of the fiscal responsibility relative to the risk given the fact that we have an entity that has this mechanics lean. So understanding the mechanics lean in the context of it in a situation where we're
a cash flow issue and liquidity would be different than it when it's a punch list and two entities are trying to negotiate an outcome. Um the other thing I would say is that um
uh in the proposed loan agreement um this this does get a little bit more complicated because of the uh the relative nature of the family of governance in Cook County, meaning the
EDA, the county and whatever. And so anything that we do, uh, given your budget is predicated on taxpayer dollars under the umbrella of the county, um, it it makes it less, um, it's not as
easy, uh, when you see anything that we do is actually shooting ourselves in the foot, so to speak, when when we add additional accountability to an entity that ultimately we're responsible for anyway. But I think from the standpoint
of practice, best practice and building integrity in this document given that you came before us and requested that the ma the loan be made um with the understanding that the collateral would be the payback from monies that you
would get from gunland view. I I would recommend that we would add an additional point to this and um that would be uh under security. it's which is point 4. I would recommend 0.5 which is sole recourse. And the language in
that uh point would be the borrower further agrees that its sole recourse for repayment of this obligation shall be the specific collateral pledged under this agreement. Under no circumstances shall the borrower expect future counter
reserve funds or future levy dollars to be used to repay the loan. So what this is is it's an assurance that what you have brought to us is the terms under which the monies would be granted that we are just underscoring that but
clarifying in a document that um that that accountability and and that that course of action will be followed. Um this is where I say understanding that in the context of of the fact that you are under the umbrella of the county
when budget comes in or whatever. Um it it um it it complicates it, but it but it is restating back with clarity in the document an agreement that gets signed that the intention is to retire this
with the collateral as stated by you with the understanding that we want to protect taxpayers moving forward so that it doesn't fall on them. what we anticipated and in view of some of the issues that that are present that it
that might change. The reason I say that is that historically if we look at at um enterprise in this community that uh when those that propose different things come before us they say this is how
it'll get paid and it doesn't happen. And if you look at the 4.5 million that was invested in the golf course at that point in time in my term as a commissioner, we went through three drafts of a of a legal document to protect taxpayers, which is my sole in
um intention at the time in negotiating that with Scott and others that we protect taxpayers. uh as a result of that the the monies that have been paid to retire that those bonds has been through the the 1% and so
without that contingency in there it it could very well have come back to taxpayers and say where are we going to come up with the money so I'm I'm learning from our experience and I'm trying to propose that um that we we
honor what we say we're doing and it's reflected in a document to make it very clear. So, >> Attorney Peterson. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to back up a minute to get to where we're at right now. So, um, as was already stated, the loan was approved pending
review of the actual document, which came in later. As I was reviewing that document, I did go to the recorder's office. That's when the mechanics lean was uncovered. Um the loan agreement itself is fairly simple but it does pledge as um
security. It would be an unperfected security interest but pledges as security this payment. Now I think what we're hearing and I think what the board agreed before is that this is a sound investment because it's it likely can be
repaid repaid whether or not that um payment is made. So whether or not the $200,000 payment is made um because it may come before that. So I think there's a few things as you as
you talk about risk here. the secure the priority of the um payment whether it's a punch list or whether it is liquidity of Gunflint View itself is not affected by whether it's you know
I'm trying to say this the right way the the priority of the mechanics lean comes above this $200,000 payment whether or not it's a punch list or whether it's liquidity of Gunflint View bottom of the list on that. Um that
stated as the board already agreed, this is, you know, a good investment and this is the way that you wanted to go um in order to have this sale go forward of Superior National. Um, then to your issue as you know adding that paragraph
five, I'm not sure I would advise having the board limit where that payment comes from because you as the board can always in the future um reject any request for additional levy or additional tax funds.
And if you're saying it in this document that the sole recourse will be this $200,000 payment, we don't know what's going to happen with that mechanics lean. We don't know whether this um payment actually may be made ahead of in
advance of that payment. So I don't know that the board would want to limit that when the board already has discretion to deny that request in the future. >> Mr. Gamble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for
your response. Um I I would say that um as I stated that when the EDA came before us, they came before and said here's what we would like and here's what we propose we're going to do to retire that money
that you forward out of our reserve fund, the 200,000. uh it became we became aware of a mechanics lean relative to the issue of the of the document whether it sees the mechanics lean or not it's still as a bank if I were a financial institution I
would be evaluating risk and when you have a mechanics lean um basically mechanics lean which is mean that we're in the last position that is significant that's significant when you're looking at that we've been in other financial situ
situations where Brady has explained to us our position on these and we have to take that into consideration when we make a decision. Making a significant loan to an organization that intends to repay it with funds generated from an entity holding mechanics lean on the property is exceptionally risky and in
many scenarios considered a high risk subordinated or unsecured position. So we're looking at it. What does matter is in our discussion saying that if it's a punch list as opposed to liquidity that's a significant thing to be aware
of in evaluating risk. So um I I am saying that um uh it it should be and and a an agreement any document that is a binding agreement should stipulate clearly what intention is so that both
parties know and I've said many times in position as a commissioner that at the point of negotiating what the relationship will be that is a respectful time to be clear on intention and if we don't do that. This county has been burned many times because we want
something and we don't define the basis under which we get that something and it falls back on usually levy. So I'm just saying in in a discussion that I think underscoring that the intention is in our evaluation and looking at the
context of the mechanics lean is we still think that this is viable because that mechanics lean is tied to a punch list. um and we look at the liquidity and we see financially if I'm evaluating that that I don't think that the
likelihood we wouldn't get that $200,000 is going to happen. But I still want it clear that um if for whatever reason because there have been a lot of fer reasons that have changed the dynamics of what happens that that we underscore
the intention in this. What I have said up front is it gets complicated because it's an entity that's under our umbrella. But I think for the community, we want to know that that this decision and this agreement is going to be defined clearly so that taxpayers don't
say, "Oh, here we go again." >> Well, and maybe the response is just um I think it's just semantics at this point. So rather than saying you um your sole recourse will be through this $200,000 payment that is due to the EDA,
we can just have an agreement maybe or the proposal would be you agree not to come back in the future and ask for levy dollars in this. That way we're not limiting where those funds come from if we're able to get paid sooner. >> I would agree with I would agree with that. In other words, the sole recourse.
It just it just you know how it is contracts get interpreted interpreted and um um and so we say if if we're just saying that they're telling us that we're going to pay this back with these this funding source and we're just
saying okay we agree with that. We're evaluating risk relative to that and we're saying we will affirm that in the document that says this is the case. We we sit in a position that should Gunflint View choose to pay
in a lump sum that we've identified in here that that payment will be made so that the EDA doesn't say, "Well, gee, we got this money. We don't have to pay it till 2027, so let's just" and then find out they use it on something else. So, we've got language in there that protects that because we're saying
should you get it all at once, you would retire this debt. And I'm just saying um that uh maybe that language should not be a sole recourse in nature but it should be something that it is understood that
repayment will come uh from the collateral. Uh we won't we're not limiting other avenues but in it is under no circumstance shall the borrower da da da relative to debt. If it's said that and we're not limiting their ability to pay back. If somebody says,
"Hey, we want to give you a lot of money." And they they choose to use that, we don't want to limit that. So, I I would agree through the discussion that sole recourse. We don't want to limit their methods, but it's certainly under no circumstances should be tied back to tax dollars,
>> right? And I would defer to the EDA on the acceptability of that language to them, but I think that is far less limiting to the board >> and to the county. >> Yeah, if I may on that point, and it's a good point. um uh section 3 payment terms B
actually I think already speaks to that and and maybe to people's satisfaction or or not in any case um if if a revised loan agreement that reflects these discussions can be could be sent to us we can make sure our council's across it
and I think we can get there >> take a while so I don't do you want to >> I'll just keep going we discussion I don't want >> sorry everyone we're But um many things the EDA is saying trust us.
We've been here before. A punch list is not just minor things necessarily. What is the amount of the lean for >> $257,000? >> That's not a small amount of money that some contractor is owed
and they're talking about going to arbitration or mediation or something like that. So a lean is not something that a contractor puts on when they don't get paid within the two weeks or the month or whatever the original agreement was. So there's something
going on here and that they did not that that was not disclosed to whomever should have oversight of the views finances that it took our attorney to find it. Uh that's not a real um
trusting trust building situation. Um leans happen when there's disputes over the quality of the work, quality of the the workmanship, the materials, the how it was done. I mean, I know this and I
know when you go to a lean situation and then you bring in the attorneys and it can go for quite a while even if it can go for quite a while. So, I am not at all comforted by the fact that if
that the EDA says, well, they say that we'll do it. Trust us, we'll do this. This is not a sound financial decision. If we were a bank, we would we would require that lean to be cleared before
any money would be given out to them. And we owe the taxpayers that that assurance that assurance that they are not going to be on the hook again. I mean the numbers might all look really good at this moment in time. We might be
told that the numbers look really good and yet things happen. And so as we are the fiduciary here, we are in charge of keeping track. We are entrusted with making sound financial decisions for our
taxpayers who have been on the hook in past pro product projects. So just because it's a punch list doesn't need mean it's insignificant. A punch list could mean that it could mean that
you need to um get the locks on the windows. It could mean that um the door is the wrong size or in the wrong place or or whatever it might be. But this is a significant amount of money. And it's it if it were $10, I would still say no.
If there's a lean and we were not informed about that until we made the effort with our attorney, thank you very much for finding this. then we're being played intentionally or not and that is not what we are here for. We
are here to protect taxpayers. So >> that's it. >> Administrator Treble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um so I I also want to point out that if we don't move forward with this with the EDA, there's a risk in the golf course not being
sold. And so then there will be additional costs as we continue to be responsible and own the golf course. So I just want to make sure that that's part of the discussion as well. I think what I'm hearing from the board is that there might be interest in looking at
this loan agreement again and adding additional language about um what would be the recourse if if the EDA did not receive the 200,000 from Gunf. So with that, I'm curious if that's the next
step for us is to go back to the table with the EDA, add some additional language regarding repayment in the event that they don't receive the 200 from the view and if that's an option. >> Madam Chair, I would suggest out of
respect for the timing that we have that we uh table this discussion and follow it after the public hearing. But I do think that is something we should discuss further. Um and I have some questions but I again out of respect of
our timing I say we table this discussion till after a public hearing. >> And attorney Peterson would you be able to help us with some language? >> Yes madam chair. >> Okay. So, um, at this moment, we're going to pause and, uh, have our public
hearing, which is on, um, classifying tax forfeooted lands. The, um, assessor, Bob Thompson, has listed some properties here, and it's just a matter of looking them over and see if there's any action,
classification, reclass, um, to these parcels. Good morning. Good morning. Uh thank you madam chair and the commissioners. Um so today we are doing a uh classification meeting. This is not your property tax
classification. This is a classification of tax forfeited lands. Uh the first step in offering lands for sale. There are a couple of other uh resolutions in the agenda item. one for the property in Tafty which the EDA has requested for
affordable housing project HR sorry HR not EDA um and then uh there are two properties that are in the list for the classification that I will be asking the board to authorize the auditor to sell or offer for sale to
only adjacent property owners because they um are substandard lots that don't meet the the requirements for building. So, um I don't know. We can we can dive right in. I I attached um information in here for uh the public to review these
parcels that are going to be classified today. And I think the first step would be to offer um public comment on this. Is that right? >> So, I don't know if there was any members of the public that had planned to speak this this morning. Is it
>> anyone in the public who wish to speak to these items? >> Mark. >> Yes, sir. Would please come forward and we'll have you sign in there by the microphone, please. Oh, maybe it's not.
>> Good morning. My name is Barry Johansson and I'm uh a member of the HOA that owns or holds one of these properties that uh are seeing to be reclassified. I'm here just basically to understand the process but also to offer my support. Uh our HOA has been supporting
this property for a number of years which has put a financial burden on all the members. Uh it's not doing the county any good sitting there unoccupied. Uh and we're a relatively small group. 11 member association. Our basic purpose
is to keep the road open. So loss of one lot really did have a large impact on the rest of our membership. So I'm here to support the the change in the sale of that that piece of property. >> And did you sign in there? Thank you. Thank you for coming and supporting it.
That's great. Thank you, Gary. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> All right. So um that property I believe is the one in Toffee on the Lavo Ridge. Yes. >> Okay. And there is a uh a lean filed against that property for unpaid HOA
dues that would come out of our um dispersement of of when this property is sold. The county is allowed to keep up to 25% to cover the unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest and things like this. So, um I'll uh I'll have Brady look into that and and get the
up-to-date numbers um after this meeting if if everything goes through. Um but the first uh order of business is the classification piece of this. Um unless there's any questions from the board. You know, this is rather routine. In other counties, they typically do this
shortly after after the forefeiter. In Cook County, we just we don't get a whole lot of forefeitures and we've had kind of a little bit of a inventory building up. But um this is going to be at least my first classification meeting um to start and and process these tax
forfeit inventory parcels that we have. I do know um a number of parcels were classified back in like 2019 with the previous land commissioner Lisa Kerr. Uh but we are just going through to cross our tees and do our eyes to make sure that that we've got these classified as
non-conservation before bringing them to uh auction or sale. Um the resolution for the classification is the
21st page of what I had attached. Um it starts off at the top classification of tax forfeit lands in Cook County. So this lists the seven parcels that we're uh asking to classify as as non-conservation today.
Okay. Questions or comments for Bob? >> Madam Chair, is it time to close the public hearing then? >> Close the >> Yes. >> Close the hearing. >> Hearing none. We'll close the hearing session. And um how do you want to proceed?
Commissioner Sullivan. Madame Chair, I'd like to make a motion um to approve the resolution to make these parcels non-conservation >> support. Commissioner Gabble.
>> Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. So, um have you had just curious, have you had any inquiries on these or anything? Uh, in other words, what was the impetus for you to start doing this just because we were building up and we need to do something or because
Jeff over here said, "Hey, we'd like to get this land, so let's do something about it or whatever." But just curious if we've had any inquiries. It's it's a little bit of all of that. So, since we put out the public notice of this meeting, I haven't had really a lot of outreach. I've had maybe a couple of calls and emails. Um certainly a couple
of these properties over the last four or five years I've been receiving calls and interest about um you know these parcels have high potential for development. There's not a lot of land available in Cook County. So there there has been the occasional person reaching
out to either me or Brady and asking you know when is the county going to do something with that. Um I have kind of been asked by the board over the last few years to to try and get this ball rolling. And um this first group includes six parcels that are part of the Tyler settlement. That's the class
action uh settlement for tax forfeitures and um Penipin County. So six of them are are fall under that category where these parcels we have to make our a good faith effort to sell. Um, and you know, the the funds, the revenues that are
received in those sales are directed uh 75% to the Minnesota Management and Budget Office um to pay out that class action settlement and the other remaining funds we can use to to make the county whole on unpaid taxes, penalties, and interests. Um, there's
one parcel in here that actually forfeited prior to Tyler and that parcel is one that I was able to go through and, you know, it didn't meet the highway department's needs. It didn't meet the the needs that, you know, I spoke with Nean Land Services about, you
know, what zoning districts they're looking for for that residential overlay district. And it just, this one doesn't have any question about it. It has access. It's a 20 acre parcel, so it it's in a zoning district where it couldn't be subdivided out. Um, so it
just came to the top of the list of, you know, this is one that the county could could pursue a sale. And uh the revenues for this one are allocated differently. These are allocated under the 28208, which uh that's the tax forfeit aortionment that goes to, you know,
city, county, state or not state, city and county and school. and uh the county um can delegate or determine where they want those funds to go for the portions that they receive. Uh there is a statutory requirement that you know a
certain amount goes to um the school district. This is an unorganized taxing district or it's an unorganized township. So that portion stays to the county and eventually it trickles down to where the county um and auditor determine what to do with those funds.
they would typically go into a tax forfeit fund um uh balance to continue the tax forfeit operations and pay the land commissioner staff. So um you know in other counties like I say they're they're doing these sales a few times a
year. They have much healthier budgets in that tax forfeit account. I know Brady does have some funds in that account currently. Um but that uh that parcel is different than the other six where they they fall into that Tyler settlement.
>> Continue. >> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Bob, for that. Um Brady's referenced that in our budget discussions, some monies that are in that fund. Um just to be clear on this and for the public that tax forfeited properties that sell that
that revenue is defined by statute as to how it gets allocated. But I think as a board it's important for us to understand that this is a mechanism that is another funding source that if we're active on it in the context of what the statute provides that uh it it frees up
some dollars. So I think we should just put a bookmark in there and know that as we go into this budget depending upon how we see that. But it's another one of those buckets that we evaluate and uh this certainly helps to fill that bucket
up a bit hopefully. So, thank you. >> So, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? >> Thank you for your work on it. >> Yes. Thank you. All in favor? >> I opposed. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously.
>> All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I do expect to uh bring more groups of parcels. you know, we'll we'll go through these checklists with the other departments in the county and uh if if it comes to the point where they look like the best option for them is getting them sold and put back into the tax
roles, we'll bring them through in groups of, you know, six to 10, something like that. Um so, next I have the uh request from the H for the parcel in Tafty. This is adjacent to the Birch
um Birch Grove um existing project. And I don't know if Jeff has anything to >> um the only thing I would add is that I do have a letter here of support from the town Toy Township itself for the uh for the acquisition of this property for
additional housing in that Birch Grove school neighborhood. Um, you know, I think when we look at our housing study that we did back in 2022, it shows that we still need to have a relatively large number of single family homes to keep up with what the needs are for Cook County for workforce housing and and the demand
for housing in our in our communities across the county. And so, um, this will help us help fit that need slowly but surely as we get to that magic number that we need to have for workforce housing in Cook County.
So, I have a question in terms of how do you get the word out again about the property being available? >> Yeah. So, we are deliberating what we're going to do right now. I had some preliminary conversations with Jeff Corey uh last week when I was down at the capital uh for St. Louis County days
and Cook County Lake County days as well. And um you know uh there's some potential for this to become um a land trust and provide some opportunity for some relatively lower um uh housing purchase pricing
>> and which I think would be attractive for this area as well. Um and then there's some other opportunities too. We could do a request for proposals and see what we gather for for interested developers who are interested in building. Um, at the end of the day, our goal is to have a target build date of
somewhere in the early part of 2027, so about a year out from today. And so, we're still looking to get all of our ducks in a row so we can get back to the table and start building and framing houses. >> It's a beautiful piece of land right behind the school, walkable to
everything in toy. So, you know, good luck and pursue it again. >> Thank you, >> Commissioner Gamble. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh it would be interesting to know and we've had some of this demographic
information come before you know the board as well as through the HA but when we're talking about housing it is who who is looking for housing and the categories that I think we can look at
are uh if if we saw that our population was increasing significantly uh then it would be because more people are moving here and we need housing for people to move here. We have seen some testimonial relative to the school and
and maybe the hospital and others where because we have housing now we're filling positions. So there is that new you know influx of individuals but that's minimal. I think in Cook County given the fact we're second of the 87 counties within the state as to our
retirement age population. There are many people that are downsizing from what they have lived in that are looking for housing that is appropriate for where they are in life and that's a that's a big market. Um the other would
be the uh second home population and that's a completely different type of construction. So when we look at those different categories, I think we're trying to position oursel in something again that is we don't use the word
affordable anymore. We say obtainable, which whatever that means. But um u I I I think that's important to understand when we are moving forward in recommending certain kinds of housing. Our overlay was something to create affordability
um because of economies of scale. But I um I think uh when it came to the um the bluff uh decision to try to protect that acreage up in the bluff, the concern there was second home and uh so when
we're making this decision, it certainly is part of the discussion out of the HR is who's our target audience and where's our real need exist. So right >> yeah, good points. Okay.
>> Um, Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to request for the state conveyance of federal land exchange uh, lands held in trust for Cook County and other local taxing districts. >> Support. >> Any further questions or comments? All in favor?
>> I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you on that. >> All right. Thank you, Madam Chair and commissioners. And then last um resolution that I have on the agenda here uh is is the last two pages. This is simply um a request to authorize the
auditor to pursue those adjacent owner sales for the two parcels that are substandard and and inaccessible. Um the statute is 28201 subdivision 7A. And even though these parcels do fall into the Tyler settlement period when
they are substandard lots, um the settlement carved out an option to uh so just so that the county doesn't create headaches for itself and and you know the land services office by selling a substandard parcel. >> Okay.
>> Make a motion to authorize Cook County auditor to pursue adjacent land owner sales under Minnesota 282.01 subdivision 7A. support. >> Okay. Any further questions or comments? All in favor?
>> I >> oppose. Same sign. Motion pass unanimously. There again, thanks for all your work. >> Thank you all. Yep. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, we do. So, we're going to go back and resume our discussion on the sale of
Superior National. We kind of ended the discussion with maybe perhaps having a a different um language to it and um Attorney Peterson said she would work on that. Um Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I would
just say in regard to that revisiting the agreement that um if a bank were to make this loan under these circumstances, it would be considered a high-risisk transaction. It would require intense underwriting and specific protective measures such as verifying the validity of the mechanics
lean and obtaining a subordination agreement. The transaction is complex because it involves a clouded title and the property that is the source of repayment funds already has a legal claim against it. So I think in in the
context of that um as uh you know our attorney has expressed that it's a very simple document. And in fact, when I got the packet and I was looking and I got that and so I was expecting to scroll, you see you got 125 pages in the packet. How
many are taken up by that legal document? And it was basically two pages, but one was a signature page. So I think our stewardship responsibility from the fiscal standpoint is to make sure that is a document that is clear working in partnership with the EDA to
make sure that we can move forward on this. I think one question that I would ask is uh in the discussions uh to the extent that they're happening with the prospective buyer, how much is that individual aware and how much is that in
individual demonstrating both the patience and understanding in us going through this process? >> Yeah. Yeah. Brady and his team have been uh in my view remarkably patient uh to date. Uh we're looking now though at a potential closing you know into the
summer into the months in which Brady would expect to be uh generating revenue. So how long that patience uh remains in place I suppose is an open question but to your question uh to date uh quite patient understanding I think upfront that he was buying this uh
business this property from from a public entity and that there were going to be complications involved with it. >> Okay. And I just wanted to clarify for the public a mechanic's lean often when a contractor signs to do work for somebody
the their contract with the owner uh lays out the payment schedule and there will be a retainage at the end of 3% 5% 10% that until the owner reviews and assesses all of the workmanship done
those last funds are not released. And so it's not that door handles were wrong and they're holding back that amount of money. It's just that all of the other work was done, but the contractor will not be getting that final percentage. So
that's where the lean why the lean amount would be so large significance which doesn't it's the same thing. If I if we were a bank, we would not approve this loan
with with a lean on it. >> Commissioner Gavl. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so when if you were to walk into a financial institution and request this money, um, depending upon the
relationship and the history with the with that financial institution, you would work together to try to find out how you can make this happen with them balancing their fiscal responsibility and you getting your money. Um the the other issue that we have here that we're aware of is that we
have this this um we're trying to pick a term that to be kind here but we have this uh entity that has drained financially. You look at if we back in you know 2017
whatever invested 4.5 million and here we're selling something for less than half that uh for all the monies that have gone into that. Um so all those component parts this decision needs to be made with an awareness and um I I
think before we leave this discussion it should be clear to our attorney then just exactly what we want to do that would change the language in this regard. I think that in our initial discussion when you brought this before us, I was trying to and I didn't do a
very good job of saying that is there something that in in the the escrow that could be done knowing that you got a buyer that wants to buy if money is set aside that could be assigned to try to bring up to compliance those issues that needed to be brought up and then that
would be reduced from the final sale. Um, part of the complication is that historically we know that operations at the golf course during this time of year need to be floated and so we're looking at cash flow to be able to fund those and that's a a fuzzy area relative to
seeing things that actually get done like you know in in the in the septic and other other things. But um the other thing that was suggested is that there $200,000 that are levy dollars that was part of the EDA's budget that could go
to help businesses if if we said that we want to try to mitigate some of the risk by taking a portion and buying down that obligation. In fact, if in fact the risk relative to gunfront view dollars pledged that we would reduce that risk.
This is much like a bank would be having this discussion saying if you could do this and do this we would be more comfortable moving forward and then we would give you the money kind of thing. So I'm thinking we're having that discussion just to understand how do we
measure risk and how do we you know be fiscally responsible here and uh what is the language we want to include to be sure that we are clear on expectation moving forward. And a bank would require if they were to
go through with this, they would require additional collateral like put up your vehicles or put up your forklift or something and we'll go through with this now >> and or they would say that either ask for less >> because we're we're trying to balance
our risk. So that's why I'm saying that there's other ways to reduce the ass because we have other mechanisms. But um and and the intent isn't the intent isn't to encumber the process. The intent is to make sure that we're
being good stewards of what's entrusted to us. So, how do we get this done? Following best practices and minimizing risk and demonstrating to the public that they put us in a position to make decisions that are well informed and
we're trying to do that. >> So, what I'm hearing is that we would table this and Attorney Peterson would come up with a language that would be agreeable which then wouldn't be uh before the board until April 14th. Madam Chair, I just want to be clear too
that um when we have that discussion, what I'm what I'm able to do in the confines of the situation that we're actually in is to clarify some of the payments and some of the expectations going forward. that I can't actually
mitigate the the risk is the risk and it exists and I can't conceive of a any situation where heft would subordinate their mechanics lean to any payment that is due to us. The actual payment due to the EDA is not a secured payment. So,
it's not anything that we can attach to. Um, we're not we haven't asked for personal guarantees or personal notes on this loan, anything like that. So, the risk exists in and of itself, but what I can do is work with language to clarify
how that payment will be made and what requests will not come before the board on behalf of the EDA in the future. >> Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Um, yes, I think communications because we're we're trying to clarify and not
make assumptions. Um, and so in the communications that we're asking relative to that mechanics lean, it says, "Why is this mechanic lean there?" Cuz it showed up. And then we understand it. It's because it's it's a punch list and we're going back and forth. Now it's
going to go to mediation supposedly. And and so we need to just get the information that helps to inform the degree of risk. And um in the discussion as to the point that I was putting in there that we're trying not to let this
come back in the back of the taxpayer that we want language in there that that is clear that this is the case which means that that what informs your recommendation and ask to us is is well positioned so that we're trying to like
I say reduce risk and often times we have things come before us and we ask questions questions and those questions haven't been answered and we're saying that's sort of fundamental to us making a decision whether or not we're going to allocate the dollars. So, anything that we can do that refineses the information
that we have moving forward with the intent of minimizing risk, assuring payment and getting the golf course sold and appeasing the buyer, you know, see what we can do in that regard. Whatever we can answer for you specifically. Now,
from my standpoint, I just I would like to have more clarity on where we're at. For instance, if it's going to to a mediation, has there been a date set and and what's based upon our experience? What do we think we know as as to the
outcome? It's it's obvious that it's not a cash flow issue and that they're trying to do for appearanc's sake something to delay the realities. It is just an issue of wanting to make sure that the contractors are providing what in fact expectation we're paying the
dollars were and they aren't going to make their final payment until those things are brought up to speed. So to the degree that that's doable or not, I think it'd be good to see whatever we can find out in that regard. Mhm. Commissioner White. >> And since the EDA believes this this is
not an issue, the EDA could we have they have $200,000 when the money comes from the view as it will then the EDA could repay themselves and meanwhile $200,000 will finish out
the the uh the deal for the for the uh property sale. If indeed it's not not a risk, then EDA has the money. >> The EDA has the money because
>> we gave them $200,000. >> Well, yeah, but part of that's pledged. And this is why I'm saying if you can buy down the request that if the $200,000 that was in your budget to help businesses, if if some of that's pledged, then it's
like, well, we've already made a commitment that regard. But let's just say that there there's a $100,000 there that we still have that is levy dollars. If that $100,000 paid down the risk, then the $200,000
that you're expecting from Gunflint View, really we only need to get half of that to settle your ask. So that's why I'm saying looking at ways that mitigate risk and still try to be empathetic to, you know, all of the things that are
going on in decision- making. But >> well, because we definitely want to sell that golf course. >> Yeah. Yeah. There's no question that we we want to but we don't want to be foolish and irresponsible in in selling it and finding out oh my goodness we should ask this question. Commissioner
G. Uh currently our need is 155 as of just yesterday when I looked at the cash flow issue. So we are going to need $155,000 before close. So that's where we're at right now. >> Can you say that last part of we are going to >> we're going to need about $155,000 right
now. as I looked at it yesterday, that's what our need is going to be at close. >> Yeah. So, when you came to us initially, you know, on the on the things that needed to be brought up to for compliance, we were projecting a cost that was 150,000 of actual
>> that that was to be safe, >> right? That we're talking I'm talking the cash flow needs for the golf course to get us to the date of closing. And right now, it looks like we need 155 is what we're going to need regardless of the $90,000 shortage. we're going to have at close. So,
>> so that's I'm sorry, that includes the $90,000. >> You're talking about the operations, >> the operations and the the negative 90 at clos. >> So, let me ask this question. Uh when you look at your budget that came before the board and was approved, 200,000 that went in there for business,
>> um that that $155,000 need is is not looking at using any of those funds that were designated. >> We have about $113,000 left in that business development fund. We already granted out 87 plus of that.
>> Okay. Those are those are grants that were granted not for operations. >> Correct. Yeah. Yeah. Well, um, one thing I would say because you came in and when you put the whole budget before, so the request for the
200,000, you you had budget those two things uh at 150% of what you anticipated. If if we know clearly what needs to be done and we have a quote and given where
we're at right now and things are thawing theoretically and we'd have a quote that was um set that isn't going to fluctuate and then you have a little 10% whatever contingency. Maybe we could get a quote
that would be more finite so that that additional 50% it would get that dollar down. Do you understand what I'm saying? >> Yeah, I was looking into that earlier, too. Uh um Mike, who's managing the golf course for us right now and is kind of the lead person on those those costs, uh
let me know that yesterday uh they're looking at $175,000 for the for the irrigation question, possibly more. We had budgeted 230 that's in in the escrow account. So that's the the 50% increase. So there's a chance, you know, that it
comes under the 230, right? Um, but we're not going to know that for another month, 6 weeks, and then the septic system is not really going to be looked at until the ground thaws. So, we're not going to have that number either. >> Yeah. >> Poor close. >> Yeah. I mean, it'd be helpful if possible. >> It would be helpful. And
>> it would it would be helpful if we had refined numbers moving, you know, as close. >> We have a better number in about a week. He's he's going down to Luth to meet with the engineering person this in the next couple days. So, maybe there's a better number coming back. >> Yeah. Soon we come back on this with
what we've discussed if if we can answer any of those questions or whatever. Just again >> we'll have two better numbers. We'll have a better number on cash flow next week and we'll have a better number probably on the irrigation costs. >> Yeah. So you are you comfortable coming back to the board with
>> It looks like that's what we're doing. >> Yeah. I mean understanding you know whatever we may get right >> more snow and whatever who knows but >> but but I think given this conversation >> we don't want to come back to the next meeting and not move to any >> I would Yes. I'd rather there be
conclusion. Yes. >> Yeah. >> Including on the agreement itself. We should be able to utilize that time to draft changes have the EDA's council uh review those changes. We can get to one voice to the to the next meeting in addition to these business discussions.
Thank you. Appreciate the conversation. >> Attorney Peterson. >> Um, thank you, Madam Chair. Just my question is, um, what that does to your timeline if that looking at that April 14th date? >> Well, I think the right of first refusal is already kicked off, so we're waiting for that. I don't know if this
>> and that could be between 90 days and something less than 90 days. Following that, we've got 60 days to to close. >> So, that gives a >> It could be so for a special 150 days. doesn't seem to me like a special need.
>> I mean, we're I mean, our we have enough cash to keep the golf course going until about the first week or so of May is when we're going to need >> Thank you, Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh so I would
make a motion that we table issu issue and uh that we would get uh get additional information from the EDA and that our attorney would revisit the agreement based upon our discussion. >> Okay, I'll second that. Any further
comments or questions? Commissioner Mills? Yeah, when I saw this item in the agenda, um, and just, uh, I'm sorry I didn't coordinate more with you, Peter, but I I reached out, um, because I had similar questions, uh, about what's going on here. And so I reached out to
both Jeff Brand of the HR, and this wasn't his project, but thought he might have some insight, and he said, "Yes, indeed. This is not a clean record or or you know, there's a lean there. that's not clean.
I also reached out to Jason Hail whose project this was and uh and he is still working with the developer on other projects down the shore. So you can take that as suspicion with uh conflict of
interest or just um reassurance that he believes the developer is worth working with. Um he uh said that currently they have a construction loan.
They need to refinance to have a regular mortgage. >> Um it's going to be uh valued much higher than I think 10 million or I can't remember the number. Uh similar numbers with what's in the bank. He's very comfortable with that. They also
have set aside dollars for this lean just in case. He said uh the risk is there but you can't get any closer to zero in his opinion because
uh the issue between the GC the general contractor and the owner is that the general contractor is asking for uh payment and they said okay show us the invoices and there are no invoices and
so his understanding is it's going to go to mediation and be boop boop done. There's no there's no case here. So, uh that I thought was very uh comforting
and uh and so the risk does exist and I appreciate the discussion and looking into it because absolutely we want to we want to understand what what we're facing here. Um, but the fact that it's
almost unsubstantiated makes me think like whatever. Um, not too worried about it. But, um, the also the fact it's 94% occupancy is really great. And, um, it was also worth noting
the owner is no long they won't be working with this GC again, general contractor again. and also local contractors had issue with the general contractor. So, um it's a pretty I think
strong case for the the owner. Um, and yeah, but I think it if if there needs to be clarity on what the payment terms are or the security, I'm I'm fine with that as long as it doesn't >> stop or hold up the process, which
doesn't sound like it's possible. If the right of first refusal is quick, then that could hold the thing up. >> Then we'll close then we'll need to close in 60 days, >> right? >> And those funds would need to be put into escrow at closing. >> Yeah.
So, I thought it might be useful just for us, and we've spent maybe enough time on this, but I thought it might be useful for us just to walk through some of the scenarios. What's what's the worst case scenario, what's um, you know, what's the most likely scenario, and what's the best scenario?
And and just see what that looked like. Um, I I guess I don't have enough perspective to know what the worst case scenario is. Um but um but I just thought it might be a good exercise for the board to think that through. >> Well, thank you for looking the
background and all of that information, too. We need to reach out and as they say, dig around. Yeah. >> And find anything that would be helpful or things to seriously consider. >> Commissioner Gamble. >> Yeah. Thank you. Thank you,
Commissioner, for the information. Um, I'd call Jeff and this is rather convoluted, you know, multiple players in this, but anybody that can help inform and get perspective that that's good information. And and I think just foundationally, the most important thing
to take away from this is that um we are working in partnership to try to accomplish what we all hope for. And uh sometimes that's a that's a a complicated process, but uh we have to revisit why we're doing what we're doing. And we're cultivating
relationships we hope that are are stronger and uh equipped to do difficult things because we are willing to wrestle with things. And so multiple players and certainly the public is is um is at the
forefront of that and understanding that we're trying to do this right. So, I appreciate the time and the conversation and and hopefully we can have things come together so that we can speak to all of the concerns that have been raised and with our administrator too.
You know, what's the risk if you're looking at risk? Worst case scenario is that the the monies that would pay back the loan don't happen. That's the worst case scenario. Likelihood is what we're trying to measure. So, thank you, >> Minister Travel. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just add
that we do have a work session scheduled for April 3rd. So if we are able to resolve this before the 3rd, we could perhaps schedule a special meeting at the sometime during the third and address it. Then I think it would be
helpful to hear from the EDA. Um what happens with the first right of refusal? If you do hear back and we need to try to expedite this and get this done by the third, I think that might be an option. >> Okay. So, we have a motion, a second to table
this with further information. Any further questions or comments? All in favor? >> I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes >> unanimously. Thank you for your work now and we'll work together in the future.
>> Okay. So, we're going to shift gears and talk about a Otus Culver replacement. And before you sit down, Robbie, I have a a constituent letter to you. >> Oh, should I? >> Yeah, you can come and get it. You're up
and easier than I am. >> Usually you're here early in the morning, but it's like, okay, now I have to nab him. >> Yeah, guys got me jumping all over the county this morning. So, >> he just >> um >> Oh, thank you. >> Yes. So, in front of you and and these
are the same different they're the same um um bonding things we've talked about in the past with bridge replacements. This is a very similar agreement um to the ones that Mandot sends us. And so, uh this summer we're going to be replacing a box culvert. We're going to be well, we're going to be installing a
box culvert. We're going to be replacing an existing undersized culvert um across Otis Creek. So, that's part of our Arrowhead Trail project that we recently awarded few weeks ago, I think, at this point in time. Um, and so this bonding, uh, we we ended up being able to secure
bonding for it, which is great. Uh, so it's about half of the cost of the box culvert itself. Uh, so it's a little over $170,000. And so then the item in front of you is hopefully approving the agreement and passing a resolution to accept that
money. Um, does anybody have any questions? >> Any questions or comments? It's well laid out here. >> Thank you. >> I'll uh make a motion to approve the uh agreement to accept the bridge bond
replacement program grant funds. >> Support. I have a motion and a second. Any further questions or comments? All in favor? >> I opposed. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. >> Thank you very much. >> Thanks, Robbie.
So, next we're going to have a technology use and retention policy. A little update on that. >> Good morning everyone. >> Morning. >> Madam Chair, commissioners, today we
have three separate policies for you to consider for approval. uh they are the mobile device policy, the acceptable use policy and a data retention policy. The mobile device policy and acceptable use
policy are updated versions of existing policies and the data retention is a new policy that sort of lays the the groundwork and framework for larger data retention processes going forward. Um it made sense to do these all at the same
time. I usually wouldn't throw three policies all at once. Um, but they had components of them in each other and it needed to be kind of cleaned up and also represent a lot of the changes that we've made around technology and the practices. Some of the old language that
had to do with email retention was prior to cloud and doesn't address the cloud storage that we lean on so heavily. So, there's a lot of different reasons why we made uh wanted to make the change. Timing was another one. Um, these policies have been uh the Matt team had
the chance to review these policies and prior to that they were informed by conversations with administrator Treble and also uh County Attorney Peterson and um kind of collectively um they
establish minimum expectations and standards for uh the use of county technology resources obviously mobile devices um and the retention and deletion of electronic communications. Uh so
kind of go through some of the general implications of each policy and then open it up for questions. The mobile device policy again it's been updated from the existing version and priority
to reflect changes in how MIS manages mobile devices in coordination with county leadership and department uh supervisors but also uh to change the language to improve the long-term applicability of
the policy itself. So um to the long-term applicability, we we pulled out language that is specific to software or tools um that we used where when you change that now you need to update the policy. Um specific dollar values as well as uh related to
reimbursement. We try to cap it in a way that makes sense so again that that policy will age well without needing to continually update it and and not need to do so much maintenance on the policies that we have. to the coordination piece. Um, each department
that we have is is different and has different needs. So, they're uh different levels of security risks associated with the data that they they handle and different needs for that. And so the the policy is intentionally
written in a way that allows us to be flexible enough between county leadership, department leadership and MIS to balance, you know, the risk associated with having devices on mobile data and practices um while still
remaining flexible enough to um you know create some cost effective efficiency for those individual departments. And so that's really the intent behind the way that the mobile device policy is written. Uh our acceptable use policy has been updated to provide clear
expectations for the appropriate use of county provided technology resources. Um but emphasis on county purchased data storage that was kind of ambiguous in the last um policy and the use of county email and the transition to.gov gov that
we're we've done and continue to move through here. Um, also really provides a a timely opportunity for the establishment of this clarification. Right. All staff need to change their county email everywhere anyways. And so making it clear that in the acceptable
use policy using county email for personal accounts is not what we want to see. Um, it's a good time to do that. You have to update the pol you have to update the email anyway. And if you by chance have it on any personal accounts,
um you know, Gmail and all the other ones are free and this is a great opportunity to to make that change. And the reason why is it I mean it exposes us to unnecessary amount of risk. And so when you have a personal service um and that
service is compromised for whatever reason um now that county email and maybe a password that somebody reuses or something like that is exposed unnecessarily. So a lot of different reasons why but that's that's at the heart of um changing the acceptable use
policy. And then our uh retention policy, it's as I mentioned a a framework and a foundation for larger larger data retention policies going forward. Um we're putting in kind of default or baseline
timelines for when email teams uh one drive shareepoint the cloud storage that I mentioned uh will be uh deleted automatically without making changes and we're building the tools uh to allow uh
staff to each department and staff to retain things as they they need to whether as makes oper operational sense for them. They need these emails for you know clarification and things or or are required legally. Certain different departments have different retention
requirements for um different types of data that they handle. But it's important for us to have some sort of retention policy and and kind of drive uh people to be active and and try to
clean up the data for a lot of reasons. And I'll just quickly go through some of those. And so it ensuring that we have retention records in a policy means that those records are going to be required for time frames uh that they're needed
to be and disposed of appropriately. Uh they improve our data management reducing clutter making information easier to find lowers our storage costs. Um they also reduce the operational burden associated with data risk or data requests. Right? So if you have that
data and it's requested, you have to provide it whether you actually need that data or not or it's relevant. Um they finally they limit risk by minimizing unnecessary data exposure and ensuring outdated or sensitive uh data
isn't retained longer than it needs to be. So for all of those reasons, it's important that we start working towards kind of an organizationwide uh retention process and policies. And this policy, as I mentioned, is just kind of the first step in making sure
that there's some defaults put in place and and then MIS intends to um well, you back up. The recommendation in conversations with administrator Treble and Attorney Peterson were that should this policy be approved, um we'll have a
six-month transition period. And during that period, MIS is going to be providing a lot of documentation on how you can retain different pieces of uh data in your email in SharePoint in the uh impacted areas. And we'll be hosting
Q&A sessions and then also just sort of generally be available to meet with staff on as a needed basis so that you know we're not going to put anybody in a bad spot on this. And we're driving this, right? So it's it's us. There's no deadline or requirement. We think 6 months is appropriate, but as we get
into it, if that turns out to be >> six years, >> no, definitely not not that. >> But it we're we can be flexible on this and so um yeah, I think we're we're in a good spot to do this and it makes a lot
of sense. >> Administrator DO. >> Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Rowan. Um the only thing that I would add is um in in regards to the retention policy just to make sure that the board is aware this is a best practice for counties is to ensure that you have a
retention policy. So I'm excited that we're at this place of moving forward with bringing this before you. >> Any questions? Commissioner White, >> does this uh um also cover the retention on YouTube of of board meetings and
everything else? >> It does. It does not. And so again, this is um the beginning of larger data retention processes and this policy is limited in scope to email, teams, sharepoint, one drive. Uh but the intent
as we go along as we get make this transition and get comfortable with it, we will uh prioritize other services and amend the policy and and add processes to uh meet the same ends on on other
sets of data that we have. >> Okay, Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Rowan. Um question I have is um with these changes in in policy and as administrator Treble has expressed that
these are best practices which is always a feather in our cap. So um to the extent from your department and the uh county overall does this make your job easier or more complicated? I mean
clarification is important but some important but sometimes the additional um babysitting that is included it it can be a bit overwhelming. So the question just from your perspective in looking at this how does this how do you
respond to that? >> It's a good question. I appreciate it. I I think um it is an it will be an added level of work for us especially initially within that six-month period. right? We're we're having to figure out how to
develop these processes that make sense for so many different departments that have all those different needs and requirements and use cases related to data. Um we'll be doing those Q&As. We'll be spending one-on-one time with staff. You know, it's a new thing trying to teach them different ways to potentially manage their email and and
how they do things um differently than uh they do now. And I think there will be a level of added work long term as well. But to do this um minimizes risk and overall burden for the whole organization. And
so we see value in it there that once we get to the point where we're no longer keeping I mean every email for the last 20 years or we're not deleting anything that ever gets created in Teams or SharePoint and the risk that that exposes us to from just
accidental to um again the burden of data request having to provide all that information. data requests, you know, they're not always made in a way that is sensitive to the work that it might create for the agency that they're
requesting the data to. And so if somebody says, you know, I as an example, I need I'd like to see every email that Sheriff Elias has ever wrote. Well, he's been here for a long time and there's potentially sensitive data in
there that's going to need to be redacted. And so somebody needs to go through all that and do that. And so that's that's just, you know, as an example of where the operational burden can really be um painful for the organization. Commissioner Mills,
>> I was just wondering on that note if we might want to look into um developing um a policy or better procedures to help with data requests to help maybe
um educate. Maybe not, but just try to filter help the requester uh requesty person making the request. help them uh filter what they're really looking for, you know, if that can help
us as well as the public. >> Yeah, I definitely think there's there's room for that. And I think a fair amount of that happens now, as long as it's an individual person actually making a request, but a lot of these requests come from just companies seeking data.
And once the request is made, >> you have to fulfill it. And if there's not room for a lot of back and forth, >> then it's still on us. And so I think for us why it's best practice as as administrator Treble said to just, you know, keep what you're required to keep
and and keep what you need to keep to be operationally efficient. Um, and put some tools and processes in the place that help you eliminate what you don't need to be carrying. And it's cost-saving as well, of course. >> Minister, >> thank you, Madam Chair. And and to add
to that, thank you, Rowan. Um, I would also add that, um, some counties after they implement a policy like this will then create different procedures for how employees have to save their data as well, so that when you do receive a data
request, it's a lot simpler to respond to said request. So I do think this is the first step in this and that we can work with the directors and the department heads on you know how do we want to make sure that we're maintaining our data um that helps us to respond um
in the best way that we can for both the the person requesting the data but also from our perspective so that we're not spending a lot of unnecessary time because right now like Rowan mentioned we we are at risk >> um as we've received requests because of
the way that we are storing this data. >> Commissioner G. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. So, relative to, you know, Commissioner Mill's comment about trying to help those that are inquiring so that we can,
you know, fine-tune the ask. Um, that's a a delicate balance so that it doesn't look like we're not, you know, forthcoming. But um but on the other hand trying to create efficiencies and and this is why you know I don't as many
AMC or any other books or things that are thrown at us relative to the issue of trust once trust relationship it it certainly helps you know grease the shoe in many regards because people understand we're trying to work to provide what's necessary. My question is
um while we're establishing a policy that identifies timeline for maintaining information uh there must be an archival nature to what we do have some place that has everything but um uh managing
that in a way so that we we keep our historical context but we also don't encumber the system with too much data. >> Yeah. And so, you know, the the kind of the rough plan that we've we've mapped out and what the policy supports is that
those decisions are going to be made by the data owners themselves. So, each department essentially owns the data that they're responsible for, that they save, that they have. And within this six-month period, um, you know, we're going to provide that educational
material, host those Q&A sessions, and work with them on individual basis as we need to to make sure that they're able to save what they need to save and archive what they need to archive. And and it's not until then and when we feel comfortable that, you know, we've we've
met that threshold. And again, there's no no timeline being dictated to us. This is on our own timeline that we will then actually, you know, implement this, turn it on as to as to speak, where this rolling three-year uh clock on emails,
anything that hasn't been archived will automatically go away. When an employee is separated from the organization, any data that they owned that a supervisor hasn't moved over, again, same time frame eventually will will go away on its own.
Commissioner Mills >> and you know my lens is just how I use technology right so it's I don't know how all staff is going to be and I know one drive and sharepoint is probably much uh has much higher use with staff
than than with me I archive everything just in my inbox and so uh that's going to be something to go through I guess here now finally uh but uh I was just curious about like one drive and sharepoint like how do those
um uh how do they get out of control size-wise? >> Sure. Um first I'll say I'm I'm guilty of that as well. Um I really like being able to search and find emails received or sent,
you know, 10 or more years ago, >> right? Um, but you know, as the example that we gave before, you can see how that could potentially be a problem for the organization. And so, >> making sure that, you know, we build in processes that work for ourselves and that we educate staff on how to how to
do that and so that you're keeping what you actually need. You're not keeping what you don't need. Um and there'll be a little bit you know some things that maybe would have nice to been have might get lost in this process but at the overall benefit to the organization it's
not going to be something that's detrimental to >> to us in a major way. the one drive um a lot of different ways people have um varying uh file uh saving practices and
structure um and you know whether it's something is duplicated or synced or I need to have this here and it's just not cleaned up or you know I had every intention of really cleaning this up and now you know I'm I'm leaving the
organization those types of things where you know we see a significant amount of duplicate data or data that um you know potentially we don't need to be paying to store and back up and keep copies of.
>> Thank you. That's really helpful. >> Any further comments or questions? Commissioner Sal, >> I'd like to make a motion to approve the uh mobile device acceptable use and the data retention policies. >> I'll support that.
>> Thank you. Any further comments or questions? All in favor? >> I opposed. Same sign. >> Motion passes unanimously. >> Thank you. >> Thank you on that. So next we're going to have a briefing on cyber security but uh because of the
nature of this information to be presented we're going to uh be going into a close session which is allowed under Minnesota statute 13D.05 subdivision 3. So at this time we will
um have a motion to close. Mr. >> Gar make a motion that we close the session for discussion of cyber security >> support. All in favor? I >> thank you very much. get going. We should do something like
we're back. Okay. Um we're back from our close session. So I'll make I'll have a motion to open our >> motion to Yeah. >> reconvene >> support. Okay. Support. >> All in favor? I >> I opposed.
>> Okay. So, we're back and moving on uh with our agenda and we'll move on to um administrator updates. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have two one update and one question for all of you. Um my update is related to the EDA. So, they
the EDA has approved the appointment of Lucas Wakefield as the new executive director. Um this was approved on March 3rd. He will start in this role on April 13th. Lucas has extensive EDA and public experience and currently resides in Baiji. He'll be relocating to Cook
County in the upcoming months. So, just wanted to make sure the board was aware of that. >> Okay, great. My second um item is a question for all of you. Um, as you know, we um dusted off our our CIP, our
capital improvement plan, and um the board had approved a contract to move forward with updating that plan. And we had um the architects come to Cook County and they um toured the the facility here, the courthouse. Um and so
now we're moving forward with upcoming meetings. So we have seven meetings that will be taking place to look at that plan to refine that plan and then ultimately to bring forward a presentation to the board. So the reason
that I'm bringing this up today is that I'm I'm hoping that I could get two commissioners to volunteer to be part of that committee as we move forward. We did look back at our operational meeting um back in I can't remember if it's December or January. I think the first
the first Tuesday in January perhaps or something like that. But we did review that recording to see >> um if we had asked for assignments for this committee and we did not. >> So it would be a new committee that we're starting um and I'm looking for
two volunteers. We did have two commissioners that were here when we did the walkth through. Um that was Commissioner White and Commissioner Sullivan. Um, and so I just open it up to all of you. >> Well, I'd be interested if but if somebody else wanted wanted to, I would
understand. >> I guess for me given the number committees that I'm on, I mean, I' I'd be interested. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, sounds good. The other thing I would say in regard to that is um
when when an outside firm comes in and does an evaluation uh understanding that evaluation in context is important. I think when we look at some of our facilities, I mean you can look at a facility and you could say, gee, you should do this, you should do this, you you should do this, but I
think they need to understand it in the context of how we use those facilities and and then prioritizing our limited dollars relative to whatever. If it's stewardship of a facility that is going to cost us big dollars, we have to make a decision. Do we want to continue with
that or do we want to upgrade and avoid additional expense? But a lot of times things can get sold >> and in our context we need to understand context >> and and for this um because I wasn't
here David you were and so were you and so was she uh when the original um contract was written for the to have the assessment done done of all the facilities. Um, is that in writing
someplace as to what their directions, what was in place for them to >> give us? I mean, I'm curious about what was >> communicated to them, what we were looking for. >> Yeah, we can certainly look for that
final contract >> for the money amount or anything, but just what was the scope of services? So yes, I mean I'm I'm assuming that was in the original document so I can look back and find that. And then the scope is
also in um in this update that they're doing for us as well. So I can send both of those documents to the two commissioners that have volunteered to be part of the committee so that you've got that information going into our meetings. Okay. We we also had uh a
presentation that was done uh back in 2015 16. >> It it would be interesting >> with a different group. >> Yeah. It'd be interesting though to look at what their findings were and what they were saying from the standpoint of where we're at now when what their
recommendations were back there. It'd just be an interesting comparison. And one other thing is that the public would like to have more opportunities like from the last time. I know we did here in the courthouse, but maybe another
week later because people came in and got were bombarded with this information and then they got to think about it and then just to have an opportunity not that it would change things but it's just I don't know what will come to their minds
as they don't either. So that's all >> and that's something we would certainly be discussing as as a committee to talk about what does public outreach look like for this project? How do we make sure that we're um soliciting input and feedback as we move forward? Absolutely.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you on that report. Moving on to commissioner report meetings updates. I'll just bring up a couple things. Um a reminder that um ARDC is uh having a listening session. Josh
Bergstroen is doing that. He started coming around to the different counties. So he'll be coming here to Cook County on April 7th at 10 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and meeting at the um Grand Marray City Council chambers. So, I'm hoping we can
have a robust discussion on the >> well ARDC. Um, there were a number of us that showed up for a meeting with the ARDC. It had been put into our calendars, including the the principal and somebody drove in from Schroeder and it was cancelled and three of us never
got notification that it was cancelled. Mhm. >> I mean, we had good conversations in the middle of the street, the three of us, but um >> I'd like to not have to drive in for some meeting that doesn't exist. >> I can say we got the information and we did send it to WTIP.
>> Well, that doesn't help if you're not listening to >> TI, >> but I am I am aware that they received the information and did >> put the correction. >> It was kind of a quick turnaround. Yeah. >> Due to situations. Well, I assume there was some valid reason for that. It
wasn't a personal attack on the >> superintendent and >> Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And then we're moving along with ARDC um having um applications through DDA for
the uh financial director and for the ARDC director. And the uh word went out on Monday for people to respond. regionally all over the upper Midwest. So, we're working on that.
Okay. And that's my report right now. Anybody else meetings, updates? >> I I was going to ask Commissioner Gamble if you're able to go to Grand Portage for parks and trails or unable. I have
>> I was anticipating it, but I am participating in this leadership uh AMC. >> Oh, right. Right. >> Yeah. So because that if it were like the budget and finance was afterward but no I I did have it on my schedule but
then when this schedule I I would not be able to. But thanks for asking. >> Commissioner Sullivan. >> Thank you Madam Chair. um had an opportunity to um meet as part of the Boundary Waters collaborative recently and we're continuing to talk about
permits and reservations, motorized permits for the day and um are preparing a report that will include some recommendations coming forward in uh May. Cook County Coalition of Lake Associations met and they gave steering
committee updates, talked about water sampling, get the lead out and they're working on legislative engagement, community outreach and connection and also partnerships throughout the county. um HA met and Commissioner Gamble, you
may want to add something, but we talked a little bit about the heights and there was a nice affordability analysis um that they're looking at and uh so the H will be working with um the investors in the Heights to try to work out um some
ways that they can even create more opportunities for people to get some financial assistance. um highway advisory met and commissioner White and I were there and Dwayne Hill, Levi Brown, we had folks from Mandot and it was really wonderful to have them
there. Uh they are actually writing a letter of support for our Gunflint Trail project and that will be sent to uh Representative Stabber's office along with other um letters that are being collected currently.
Cook County Historical Society met and um just it was a regular meeting, but they indicated they've filled one of their internship positions for the summer and a part-time position as well. Airport advisory. Um we're still Brady
waiting on the truck. Um a lot of red tape connected with um getting that truck, but we're almost to the finish line. >> It's approved. >> Yep, it's approved. So, >> grand screen ridden. So, >> yeah. So, anyway, hopefully within the next few days, um, we can return the
truck to the highway department that we've been borrowing and have our own truck there. But now we have a new item. Um, the heaters are not working properly for the off- peak electric. We were notified by Arrowhead Electric and so
we've had an electrician go up there, but we're going to have some expenditures. The heaters are old. They're over 20 years old anyway. So, um anyway, some unanticipated expenditures will be coming forward from that group.
Um and let's see, one other thing is uh we did meet as community leadership earlier in the month and talked about our legislative priorities. I think things are going well for all of us at the capital and um
our next meeting will be in May at ISD 166 and the topic will be childcare. >> Okay. Commission Gamble. >> Yes. Just following up on additional information related to the heights and the HR meeting that um the
representatives for the investment group came in and what the demographic information was was what medium income is and what price points were for rents and um um
looking at ways to try to create uh funding to be able to subsidize the rents. set where the rate is and I I think in our discussions with the H and just in in the community looking at affordability
that um if we're building facilities that we are setting a price point that repays investors uh or whatever it might be just let's just say the cost of building something and where the price point needs to be for that rent. If
we're finding that the majority of the people given our financial demographics can't afford it, then we have to find creative ways to try to subsidize in order to pay the rent that we're requiring. And that's that's problematic. Um if if we I know we're
looking at attempting to try to build a trust fund that and we've had um uh with Cascade Rentals. They have voluntarily taken part of the uh a search charge that they charge on their rentals to
contribute to the HR to help with funding. And we've got $200,000 that has come because of that initiative. But what it says that when we're looking at decisions that we're making at affordability within our community and we look at the percentage of people that
are on fixed incomes, their ability to continue to live here is predicated on affordability. And so this is just another indication that we need to understand where we're at and to make things affordable for the diversity that
exists within our community. So, >> okay. Anyone else? Commissioner Sullivan, >> I I failed to um just share that yesterday there was an AMC legislative update and um one of the things that
seems to be um moving forward a bit in the legislature is the modernization that we talked about when we visited the Capitol. And one of the real fascinating things that was done yesterday is they compared our use in
let's say public health and human services with our DOS system to another state where they had an upto-date system and case workers could handle three times as many cases. So even
though there is an investment that the state of Minnesota needs to make, the payback is going to be quite quick and quite dramatic. Um so I thought that was a really interesting statistic. And then um there was really good news with
bonding. They felt there was uh real likelihood that there would be $1.2 billion available for bonding. So that leads us in um I guess uh leaves us with a good feeling regarding our request for the Gunflint Trail for our
transportation needs. And then um they talked a little bit about solid waste. I know Tim Nelson participated in the meeting yesterday and there um will likelihood be funding that will um come from the producers of batteries which are causing
fires in our transfer stations. that is very likely to pass this year. Hearings are occurring this week on that. So, I just wanted to share those three quick updates. >> Commissioner, yes, go ahead. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. And and I'll add
to that and just share that last week I did spend some time down at the capital. Um it was St. Louis County days and I think we've kind of um added Cook County and Lake County to that as well. Um it's something that the city and uh visit Cook County have been doing for several
years and so I attended with them this year and we had an opportunity to talk about the gunflint trail project as well as the wastewater treatment facility and the Gigami trail. So we met with our representative and our senator and we met with a couple other folks while we
were there and it was another great opportunity to advocate for Cook County. >> Thank you for doing that. Commissioner Gamble. >> Yeah, thank you. Just to add to the reinforce the comment Commissioner Sullivan made relative to modernization
of our public health system moving forward a bit that the proposal is that we would try to figure out the nature of the problem and by 2030 we would get an answer >> and 2030 >> that is not acceptable. I think I think
we know we have a problem and I think we can learn from places that are more efficient that we can respond. But when I saw that proposal that says, "Yeah, okay, we hear you. Modernization is important. So, we'll start asking some questions and by 2030 we'll know what we
need to do, >> right?" >> Yeah. >> Not encouraging, that's for sure. So, one last thing, I'm going to ask you for some homework. So, we are going to um host the district meeting here in Cook
County on June 17th. So, between now and let's say in another week or 10 days, maybe a week at the most because Jan is worried about getting back for a response. Please email administrator Treble and myself your suggestions where to meet. We've been in Portage, we've
been in Grand Marray, and we've been in the West End. So, where do you think for accommodations? How do we want to show off our building projects um here in the area, the West End? Um just uh be creative and let us
know and then we'll discuss it. >> And do we know how many people will be attending approximately how big of a space we need, Jana? >> Oh, that's >> Well, usually it's nine different um counties. >> Counties. Okay. >> And you can have up to 75 people.
>> Okay. between >> might not hurt to inquire and find out what historically I mean in the last few years what not co but >> an answer >> okay yeah I have information when Suzanne at AMC emailed us um uh looking
for a space that can accommodate approximately 30 people classroom style that has a screen and preferably Wi-Fi um yeah because I think they'll be you know if we can figure out a space, you know, they'll be making the arrangements
and stuff like that. But that's the information that she provided. >> We've had, of course, Grand Portage has a lot of room. We've had it at Up Yonder. We've had it at the folk school. We've had it at the West End at Ludson. So, I think we have accommodations. Just
deciding where. >> What day of the week? >> Yeah, >> it's the middle of the week, June 17th. >> Wednesday. What I can do is I'll send an email right now to com to all of you commissioners and copy Kristen reminding you to get back to Jenny and Kristen,
but with the the date the time frame that they're looking at again, she's just reached out to us about a space for the meeting and then um once we figure that out um and if we can help with you know reserving that space then they will
go ahead and um figure out the rest of the details including like lodging accom accommodations and stuff like that. So, >> yeah. And and typically there's um I mean the format for these is that the evening before the actual meeting there's an activity or something that
scheduled and then the meeting in the morning. >> Good till noon. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. That's your homework. >> Okay. Um let's see. We have um upcoming meetings to note. We
have a cancellation of the budget and facility advisory committee this afternoon. Um starting Wednesday, some of us will be in Nisah for a leadership workshop and uh our next um official
um board meeting will be already in um April. So we're moving along April 14th. Moving along, we also have correspondence memos in here on HR board report on staffing changes. Anything
else anybody needs to mention? Otherwise, no further business. We are adjourned. >> Thanks everyone. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And just a reminder, I won't be here on the 14th. >> Oh, where you going to go this time? See
my son.