going live you. >> Good morning. I will call the uh Cook County Board of Commissioners regular meeting to order on this day, Tuesday, October 28th, 2025. And we begin our meeting with the pledge. Please rise.
I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Oh, you
at this um time we do um offer a few minutes for the public to come and and express their concerns. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to do that? So, while she's coming up to the microphone, are there any adjustments to
the agenda? >> I'll hear a motion to approve. >> So, move support. All >> in favor? I >> oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. Good morning. >> Good morning. >> Morning. >> State your name, please.
>> Oh, Arvis Thompson Kovville. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um, couple things this morning for you. one, I would like to um speak to the referendum for the school.
Um I realize that you're not in a decision to make in a position to make any decisions about that one way or the other, but uh I have some thoughts that I thought I'd like to get out there. Chris Lindholm was here a couple weeks ago into that. If what's driving you uh to vote yes on
the school referendum, is it the ACA, the outdoor living space? Those project costs are under $700,000. A small fraction of the 6.5 million that
will become taxpayer liability under the current referendum. If academics was ever a concern, there is plenty of money in that 6.5 to also improve that need. [Applause]
But you need to send the school board um and the superintendent back to the drawing board to put out new priorities. Are you proud of our poor scores? Is that the next issue that will be
taken up and put on the voters after this referendum is or isn't passed. 700,000 from 6.5 million leaves a lot more than what it would take to get our education improved
and do the other pieces. We taxpayers could improve all three areas ACA, outdoor education, reading, writing, arithmetic at a far less cost than 6.5 million and feel that something
significant has been accomplished. Something of a greater significant at a much smaller cost. Right now, $4 under this referendum does not buy us a better education.
But $4 as a levy uh for these three specifics could buy an exceptional academic program and the ACA and outdoor learning. Uh but athletics has a higher priority.
Is there a plan to deal with academics? What does that cost? When will the school board ask for that? How do they intend to pay for those improvements? add them to our school levy next year or is there a plan to take AC to tackle
academics at all? Will we have a beautiful field to hold graduation ceremonies on and graduates who struggle to read and write? My other thought was about the bluffs. You have repeatedly said, "An RFP costs
us nothing." Does that mean everyone involved, all staff, commissioners, the public are volunteering their time? What is the expectation of those doing the RFP?
Are they also giving away their skills? What are they going to get out of it? There's an interesting line in the directions to the RFP people proposing that says the commissioners are not to
be contacted for any questions. I don't quite understand that. I wish somebody would explain that. Is there no difference in a set of guidelines for the RFP between a lowkey hiking trail with gravel parking lot or
campsites, trails, outhouse with paved parking or full development? Early on, we were told this project was for the locals. Dave made a statement that this is for
the user groups that live and work here. Well, let's figure out who those user groups are. Is it young families, school children, singles 30 to 50 who are providing services as clerks and lawyers,
the over 65, retired who are still working, are veterans. A user group is not the mountain biking or hiking club or the tourists. At least in my definition of what you're seem to be saying here.
As Dave said, aesthetic preservation has been a goal since 1997 and 2004. How does aesthetic preservation fit with Mitch's idea that this development would get people out of our
hair, out of downtown? or Tim's statement that regional designation will open up grant funding for local user groups to be able to use the funds. I think we have a definition conflict
here. What or who is a local user group? It seems that the idea of who you believe should be served isn't clear to the powers that are orchestrating this project.
So even if the local residents say leave it alone, will you listen? Consider this. Since 1948 and the ski hill, there has been a plan off and on. We are no closer today than 77 years ago
to develop the hill. Could the message be, "Leave me alone. Thank you. Have any of the re commissioners received any comments? Thank you. Moving on to the consent
agenda which has claims um minutes from our last meeting um to accept a donation from the booster club and to approve the retirement from Kathy Pulley. Does anyone wish to pull
anything? Madam chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent agenda. >> Support. All in favor? >> I. >> I. >> Motion passes. We are going to make a change. Um we do have a closed session
and I checked with attorney Peterson and she um will have to come and go. So um we're going to move the closed meeting to under um number 10 um item D toward the end of our meeting. Moving on to a presentation. Oh, and
there she is already with soil and water. Good morning. >> Good morning. Um hello. It's good to see you all. I am Elena Hansel, uh district manager and watershed planner. So, I um thought I would come I try to come annually and just update you on what the
conservation district has been up to. A little reminder who we are and then I thought I would update you on our budget for 2026. I know I was here last year and updating you on 2025 is with uh many things. We've had a lot of changes and the door continually is um revolving
around um a lot of continuing changes. So, I thought I would provide you just with a brief update and maybe not too brief because I can get chatty, but feel free to ask questions and let me know um what more you'd like to know. So, I'll give you a 2025 update of some of our
accomplishments first. And I first want to thank the county for the support that you continue to give us. We have office space. We're able to use vehicles. Um, and we just appreciate our service agreement because it helps to keep our doors open now more than ever just with these changing times. So,
thank you. Uh, just starting that off. We all really really appreciate it. And we like working closely too with our partners. the proximity helps us to work closely with um the county offices that we work with. So this is really helpful. So who do we have for our team? Um so I
am the district manager in the watershed planner. I often get the question I've been with the district since 2011 but I've only been district manager not that whole time. I don't know how long. Sorry I don't pay attention to that but a few years now. I'm always learning though. Um I started as the watershed the water
planner um with the district. Anne Pollson is our financial administrator. Stephen Janice and Max Topinson are both conservation technicians. Amanda Weeberg is our aquatic invasive supervisor. And then in the summer we do hire seasonal employees sometimes for projects that we
need. This past summer it was just for aquatic invasive species in boat inspectors. Um and then we have a five member elected board of supervisors. So Stan Tall, Greg Westigard, Amber Humphrey, Cindy Oberg Howser, and then
uh Greg Gasteki. So they represent the land and the water and not the people. So when you look at our map, it's different than the county commissioner's map for the the elected um borders. So first project example is that we it
was a big project in the making. We did a collaborative project with the Cook County Highway Department. So when the bridge is now going in, but when that culvert got removed and we we heard wind of it, we said, "Hey, can we can we work with you highway department and see if we can fix those banks?" Because what
happened is that culvert that was placed there was too small and was causing high velocity and sheer stress on those banks downstream. So we were able to collaborate over the last couple years with the highway department and our project has resulted in and these are estimated numbers but in 21 tons per
year of sediment reduction just in the little bit that we did 227 linear feet. So 4.25 miles upstream of the project is now connected with the bottom part on the little devil's track. And the great part was even with machines in the
water, we all saw trout swimming around in in our project area. And right after our part portion was done, we saw trout just standing there from me to you. So it was really exciting to see that we were creating this habitat and that the fish were were going to thrive. Um we also wanted to provide increased climate
resiliency. So we have a lot more shrubs and plants planted along the entire way. I compliment the highway department. They're putting often if you look under bridges, you just see sheer gravel, you know, they did vegetation down there. There's plants now there hoping that they'll thrive. There's trees. So, it
was a great collaborative effort. Um, it did take three different funding sources because the price became a little higher than expected and we had to also cover staff time. And it's been over 3 years in the making for this project. It actually will not be completed fully until next year. We're going to do some
more vegetation management to help with stabilizing those banks, making sure everything's is good and secure. So, what does it look like? Um, you can see the top right hand corner is what it looked like prior to the project going in. That was the This is one bank. We
did three banks. That's the main bank that you could see if you were ever um going over the highway. You could sometimes see it in this, I don't know, different times of year when there wasn't leaves. And then on the bottom you can see what we did was we created root wads which is similar what we did to what we did in the flute reed river.
So it creates habitat and then there's layers of soil and and brush and live stakes and and different layers to help it grow and keep things intact. And then there's uh vegetation planted over that. So a lot of trees and then on that hillside and that's what all our banks
were made up of. And then beyond that we did some instream work. So the the there's we just did instream work. We'll leave it at that. It's quite complex, but we were pretty excited and the the project turned out really well. Another project that we worked on this
year is the village ditch. And you can say, well, you know, it looks okay, but what happens is um due to the development upstream of this area with the business part going in and a lot of other developments changing the hydraology of the area. And so this is and I don't have the exact numbers or
still running numbers of how much sediment loading, but it was a priority within the one wershed, one plan. And so it's taken a couple years to get to this point, but what we did was we came in and changed the slope of the bank. Yes, we took down the vegetation, but a lot of it was dying anyways. And so it's
been reveated and the channel that was coming in, which is on the left, is un you can see it's cutting down. So it's going to continue to cut down if we weren't there. where it was causing a lot of erosion and just channels throughout the forest and the area which can become a problem over time
especially with our changing rain events and precipitation. So what we did was just create one channel um and so that water then it's directed and that banks are going to be more armored. This tributary goes straight into Lake Superior. It doesn't have anywhere for all the sediment to go and that sediment
is naturally will end up in Lake Superior but we don't need to increase that by all the um changes we've made as humans. So trying to put it back to having some more stability and that was that project. Um we did a lot of education outreach. We did forestry workshops with Cook
County Extension Shoreline restoration project on a private land owner. We did over 500 plants. In fact was so well I just met with somebody yesterday. Excited to try to get more of these going for next year. Um some more hands-on education outreach. We did a Sinoacteria workshop. If you haven't
heard, Devil's Track is is still in a bloom right now. Um, I'm getting pictures every week. Um, so we're really trying to figure out what we're going to do next year and how we can work with our county land services and public health and human services to help inform the public uh about this and what can we
do on the landscape because it's a problem. Um, the have the syobacteria. The workshop is on our website if you'd like to see it. We did a lot of youth education outreach working a lot with the schools. Uh we do monthly up WTIP updates and then there's a lot of other
opportunities. Quick overview uh we because I like to kind of show some of the numbers. We engaged with over 25 citizen volunteers through our water monitoring program this summer. We monitored 16 streams and nine lakes and that was intense. It's like every week. Um so it's a lot of
staff time. Uh throughout the year we have 14 monitors, people monitoring the precipitation across the county that we work with, provided over 25 uh land owners with technical assistance and this is in addition to those few big projects that we had. So this is a lot
of work. Um we collaborate a lot with our partners to service a lot of additional land owners. Um like the Northshore Forest Collaborative, we do woodwalks with folks. We installed a variety of conservation projects with land owners. So we do kashia projects. um hosted three youth exchange instead
of two. We got to have three this summer and they helped do beach monitoring. Uh we monitor 12 beaches in Cook County for E.coli every Monday. AIS Amanda just is through the roof busy and I know she's provided you with updates. Um we do collaboration with our partners, future
project planning that's always in the works. uh worked with our partners to complete a a lakes, pure, and north landscape stewardship plan. That's a priority in looking at forestry impacts and water quality. If a uh we want to keep our wersheds around 75% forested to
maintain good water quality. So, what this does is it it parcels it out and looks at the priorities. um can look at yeah looks at the priorities and then helps us determine where to work and if a land owner is a priority helps us to help get additional funding to help maybe mitigate some spruce breadworm
treatment and reveation and climate resiliency. And then we did a lot of other accomplishments that I haven't mentioned. So any questions? Is that okay if I ask madame chair any questions about 2025? So
>> any questions so far? >> Okay. So, I'm going to move on to 2026. Yes, I have a dark ominous cloud because that's sometimes what it feels like right now. Thought it was kind of funny um in the office. So, a little humor here. Um but for whenever we do our budget, our budget is a little bit
different, I know, than um other places. We don't have our exact wages. We do billable rates for all of our grants. We work off of, you know, 15 20 grants a year. >> They all have different requirements. I don't normally have the the full hourly rate done until the end of the year because we have to factor in so many
different things, but I always try to give a very close as I can general estimate. Um, several grants are now no longer secure due to federal funding sources. Um, so we're just going to kind of wait and see. If we receive them, it will be great and we're just juggling as
is many people trying to figure out how we go forward. Um, we always estimate our county allocation because we understand that budgets change. And so again, what's in here is all estimated for that. And then we, just so you know, if you're looking at our budgets and looking at our numbers, we are the
fiscal agent for the Lakes Pure North One Wershed One Plan. So we're like the bank, I kind of like to say. So we um do all the administration for it. We keep track of the partners and so that is awarded around a million dollars every bienium. But that doesn't mean that we're getting
a million dollars. Sometimes we get $200,000 and all our partners are getting all the other funding for their projects. We are just the pass through. So keeping that in mind, if you're looking at our budget, it it may look like it's really high, but realize that
it's not our funding. It's it's shared across the partners. So a few other things to keep in mind. Um, I always like to remind people, well, you guys, you're writing grants, great, but we're only allowed to charge 10 to 20% of our time to those grants.
As our wages go up, our wages, our hourly rates also include health insurance and everything else. So, as those go up, that means we charge less hours to the grants. That means we have to find more grants to supplement the time because it takes a lot of time to do these projects. So, we we're kind of,
you know, we want to keep our staff paid well, but it's always that coin of what do we do? um if we can't cover the cost of staff time because projects often take a couple years then we're always looking for more grants and more resources and then that we often work off of 15 grants annually. Um I'm the
the sole grant writer right now and so we have you we're writing grants, we're reporting on grants and that takes an enormous amount of time beyond doing all of our other work. So just keeping that in mind when people hear the word grants that it's it seems to be easy and it's it's not. It's a lot of extra work
behind the scenes. So, we're at our our funding sources. We have the Cook County funding, which we appreciate. We have some state funding, which includes some stable funding, federal funding, and then this year, unfortunately, 2026, we're going to start tapping into our general fund. Um,
we're grateful that we have it, but we just can't cover our expenses in 2026 through funding, through grants anymore. So, what does it look like if we do the breakdown? Sorry, that bottom is very tiny. Um but the blue is our fund balance. So we're going to be drawing
23% of our budget will be coming out of our fund balance this year. Um 10% is from the county. We have state funding is 45% and then um the other 20 I might be saying these backwards. Sorry. Then we have the other part which is our
federal funding. Over the years people ask well how has it changed? And so this is just a graph of looking at how it's changed. Again, sorry for the very little squares, but you can kind of see um the bottom is kind of our base funding there that we get from our local fund. That's the
state funding or the county funds. And then we get our state base funding that has decreased for 2026 by 45,000 over 45,000. It's around $60,000 for 2026. Um, and I should mention that when I discuss our budget, I'm also not
discussing the aquatic invasive species. That's a separate budget. Um, and we'll leave it at that. So, if you have more questions, I can go into that. And then you can see our federal funding. And you know, the question is always like, well, why is it all over the place? Well, it's again, we're project based. So, if we
have a really expensive project, you know, Devil's Track was one of those, our our money is going to go way up. And you know, we're spending a lot of money to the contractors with a little bit to staff time. So, it fluctuates based on what our workload is.
And that purple is our general fund. So, let's put that in there. So, this is kind of what our budget looks like um for next year. It's as close as I could get it. And so, our county, we're estimating we'll get 80,000. Our federal grants have gone down drastically to
around 93,000. Again, I don't know these our solid numbers until I do my final reporting at the end of the year. Um, our state funding that includes our Lakes Pure North funding. That's what we pull from that bank account of Lakes Pure North Federal for lack of terms um
to pay for staff time and any projects we need to do for 2026. And then we also we get billable rates, so we're tapping into that, which normally would go into our general fund. So, we're tapping around 175,000 out of our general fund. Um it leaves us still with another we
are required by state to have around 6 months um of pay for uh saved up. So we'll be dipping into that and this will cover this will eat some of that up. So yeah um and our total budget then is around $772,999.
So we try to allocate that and balance it throughout the year each year. Um I often also get the question of well what does it look like? What's your deficit? What has the county provided? So this you can see back to 2014 the changes that we've had um in security
and I won't go line by line but you can see we've increased in staff. We've maintained staff and in 2026 um again 2025 was a lucrative year. We had a lot more state funds coming in, more federal funds coming in. um we didn't spend it willy-nilly because if anybody knows on
grants you have to track every single minute of every single day. So we have to provide that to the state often and to our granters. But we have a larger deficit in 2026 just increased costs and less funding. So we that's partially where we're going into our general fund
is to cover personnel time. So what are we going to work on in 2026? Um, we have funding secured to do education outreach. Uh, we're going to monitor the cross river at the end of the gunflint tail trail. Continue to provide tech technical assistance to land owners. We have some funding. We
get about $12,000 to do cost share projects with land owners. We hopefully will get some more through one water plan. And then we have some allocated funding. It's federal funding, so it's not fully secured yet, but it's uh to work with the school and the school forest. So, those we have secured. We
have shovel ready projects. We have a large, this is just a very small um window, but we have a lot of projects waiting for funding and looking for funding. We have a couple boat landings um that we're working on. We've got engineered plans. We're just waiting for
money. Um we have a resort uh that we're working with a boat landing that's a federal and a private partner. Again, looking for waiting for the federal government and then also waiting for funding. Popular River Sediment Reduction is looking at in the 2022 flood, there were a number of banks that
got washed out and um they're just they're really changing. So, we're hoping to get in there and do some work and just stabilize some of those banks a little bit and we've been working closely with Looten with that. Um East Bay, we had a large project, coastal
program project with all 12 land owners um to try to look at how to mitigate flooding in that area. Um but just even backing up and just looking at like what are what can we do? What can we help with all of that? How do we mitigate some of that? Um due to changes, we
don't know where that project's at, but it's it's ready. Um if things can move forward, we have that to to look at a study for that. Storm water. We have a a somebody doing a housing development that's been asking for help and they're following all the rules and it's fantastic. Instead of coming a month before the project goes in, they've been
talking to us for a couple years. So we're hopeful. We have engineers coming up to be able to help them with their housing development. Um, and then we have other projects that we're still being flushed out. So, that's that's a window into our 2026 project workload. Um, again, depending on funding.
We have a lot of partners that we work with, which we're so thankful for. We have Cook County. We work a lot with land services and with the highway department. We are working with Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippoa. Um, that's been a really positive relationship. We are starting um this next month to work with them and the
state and the NPCA and talk about water quality and getting our standards to match and looking at our projects and and working closely closer together throughout the watershed um to see what we can do to get on the same page and and make sure we're all reaching the same goals. uh Northshore Forest
Collaborative, the Forest Service, uh Natural Resource Conservation Service, Cook County Lake Associations, Arrowhead Forestry Partnership, uh other conservation districts, the DNR extension. So, our list is extensive of partners and we're grateful for them because it we're all going for the same
goal and we have a really good group of people up on the Northshore to work with. So, with that, do you have any questions? I just want to give you a general overview. I can uh answer questions hopefully and go into more detail >> as always. Thank you so much for the
information and guidance from your department too. >> Thank you. >> Any questions or comments? >> I have one question. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. You mentioned that the some of the grant funding has been cut. Are you still seeing opportunities for future grants or has that been cut as well?
>> Yeah, we are not seeing that. Yes. So, some of the I'll start with the state level. So the state level we had our S SWCD aid was cut. Our natural resource block grant for water planning was cut and those are not expected to increase. The state we used to be able to apply
for competitive grants through the board of water and soil resources. That is no longer available to us at the federal level. Um it seems to vary daytoday. I I don't we don't know the long-term impacts. We have, for example, we have funding
that's through the EPA that is for um the Little Devils or sorry, the Devil's Track wershed and some of the surrounding ones. It was a 10-year plan that we had gone through. We were supposed to have funding for 10 years. At this point, it seems it varies monthly to monthly if I get notification
if it's dropped, if it's not dropped. And the hard part is is the state has secured for those of us along Lake Superior um $190,000 for a couple years every couple years to match all these federal grants because a lot of them are one to one. So now as we lose these federal grants, we've now
lost that pot of match. So 2027 is going to look different. Um but yeah, so it's no, we're not seeing new opportunities arise. We're we're peacemealing $10,000 grants at a time, which is what I'm writing for, which is painful. and was spending 20 hours a, you know, writing
for a $10,000 grant. So, >> Commissioner Mills, >> thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Elena. Um, so dipping into the fund balance and we have to keep it at 60%. >> They like us to keep it for 6 months of personal time. Yeah. >> Uh, do we have to then replenish that or
>> Well, it'd be nice if we could bar, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, when I I guess my understanding is when the district first started it was, you know, 124,000. So the fact that we have 6 months now is over I don't know how long you know 15 20 years has been great. Um previous
district managers have done a phenomenal job building that up and taking opportunities to do that and so we've all just kept building off of each other's work and yeah. Yeah. Eventually we will but right now we just do what we can. >> Yeah. So that's what I was wondering is
in 2027 do we have to have that made up or >> we won't be able to make it up. 2027 we will probably deplete it. Mhm. >> I mean, that's the reality. And my board is very aware of this. We've discussed the impacts, the long-term impacts of staffing, and we'll make hard decisions, but right now, we're going to try to
stay positive and keep moving forward. >> Mhm. >> So, when uh So, yeah, that's required by the state, right? >> It's required, recommended. Yeah. Recommended. I'm not sure what the right language is. Okay. >> But we we try to keep it as a requirement. you know, it's
>> I was just wondering timing wise when >> it's recommended or required to get that back. >> Yeah. Um they don't have those sideboards on it because it just is not because districts aren't um stably funded across the state. We are all peacemealing or we say we're shaking the
couch cushions as we get together. So yeah. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Commissioner Gamble. >> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the concise overview. >> Yes. And um I was wondering when you're talking with your peers in other
counties if um there's talk about exploring where maybe there's grant opportunities that we haven't had to look at and they might be leaning themselves because everybody's moving that direction. But I'm just wondering if there's any conversation relative to
exploring new funding opportunities in avenues that we haven't in the past. We we do we have manager meetings frequently and there aren't any. Yeah. So we we also collaborate as much as we can. Like the Arrowhead Forestry Partnership is six districts to share two or three foresters that come out and
train staff. And so we try to share the work as much as we can is kind of what what our method is right now. You know, if we do education outreach, it's all right, can you bring people up? Let's see what we can do. And so we just we just try to share the work at this point and and do what we can. Yep.
>> Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Thanks so much for bringing us up to speed along with you. >> Yep. Thank you for your time and thank you for your support. >> Thank you. >> Next, we'll move on to the highway
department, which has several different topics, which is usual for Robbie. >> Which is usual. Good morning, everybody. >> Good morning. Morning. Uh, I just want to give a shout out to our Cooksw SWCD. They are great partners to have in the
area. And I'm not just saying that because Elena's standing here. Uh, but no, they're great technical experts and partners to have. She mentioned that little Devil Track project. And it was really cool to see. I think we saw an otter or whatever the smaller ones are already swimming through there, the trout. So, it is really cool to see. Um,
it helps us get a lot of grants as well, uh, having that partnership. So, shout out to the SWCD. Um, all right. Anyways, yeah, we have a few things to talk about and all of them are very expensive and so we're I'll preface with that. Uh first thing is we're looking to close
out uh two projects uh with some final payments. The first one uh is the timber bridge uh and road realignment we did up in Grand Portage. uh if you remember that uh that was installing a new timber bridge on Grand Portage Creek uh to take
traffic off of the old alignment off of the historic stone bridge uh and that will remain as a walking path and it'll basically preserve that bridge better. Um the final payment for this you can see on here we had some cost increases. If you remember, we are talking there
was some conversations with the DNR uh and the band at the time that caused us to make the bridge longer. And so that's basically why you see this large increase compared to what our initial contract was. Um and so does anybody
have any questions on this one? >> Well, how much of this is levy money and how much have you secured from elsewhere? So, I believe, let's see, if I look at this, um, if I remember right, I believe half of the bridge was bridge bonds, and so it's about $700,000.
The rest of it, uh, was state aid money. And then $17,000, if I remember right, is TST money. And so $17,000, I guess, you know, would come, well, it's not levy money technically. So, from our TST account.
And so if you remember what that is, that's that half cent transportation sales tax where everybody that comes to the county pays pays into that. So no levy money technically. >> Okay. I will ask the same question for each of these. That's just for public. >> Absolutely.
>> No. >> Commissioner G. >> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. So Robbie, um the occurrence uh on the the refabrication here >> that was because into the project the DNR came in and said you have to comply
with something. Is that correct? >> Yeah. So it's like you know when when you're trying to look at something and and cover all your bases and then there's a surprise that comes up. >> Yeah. And Yes. And so what was interesting is being kind of caught in
the middle of a a DNR jurisdiction debate uh with the band at that point in time. And so generally when we do a county project that's a bridge project uh public waters there's a general public waters permit. It's about 100 bucks. I do it on every project. Super easy. Takes 10 minutes. Generally what
we do is okay. Uh the the discre the issue here was the DNR asserting jurisdiction on tribal land. And so the being our partners up there in Grand Portage, we were supportive of our partners if you remember that and said I don't know anything about tribal you
know sovereign you know as far as you know permitting is concerned in that regard. So we stuck by them. Uh the end result the end result though was you know we thought we could get out of the permit by making the bridge longer. That's why we did that. um the DNR still asserted themselves and then if you
remember there was a conversation uh with uh administrator Yorkie at the time and then attorney Hickin about um basically trying to figure out how we got a cease and desist from the DNR unless we did the permit and so then there was a conversation about okay we
do the permit the band will not recognize it and then the project can move on. So that was fun. Thank you. Yes. You're welcome. Yeah, about as nice as I can say all that. >> Yeah, I mean it obviously you try to do
you know what you what you're trained to do and what you're aware of and what comes new on the horizon and you deal with all of that and then still some of these surprises come up. It just >> that's why the explanation just helps under puts it in context. So thank you. >> You're very welcome.
>> Commissioner Sullivan. Madame Chair, I'd like to make a motion to accept the work as complete on the Grand Portage Timber and approve the final payment in the amount of $35,96044 to Redstone. >> I'll support. >> Any further questions or comments? All
in favor? >> I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. >> Thank you very much. Uh the next project, similar similar vibe, trying to close out a final payment um or make a final payment to close out the project. Uh if you remember, we had talked about
we've been talking about building a new heated garage up at the highway department for for many a moon. Um the initial cost of that project came in uh just under $2.5 million. Um, upon construction, obviously, there's a lot
of rock where we live up here, so we hit all of that rock. And so, the big change order that you see on here in the large increase is because of that. And so, the final cost for that building again came in at just just under $3 million. Um, to answer Commissioner White's question
preemptively here, um, that this project is funded through the levy, uh, partially. And so, uh, with a with a building, uh, we're able to to use our state aid allocation in part. And so, what we can do is there's a ratio we do
about the miles we have that are state aid versus that aren't. What that leads us to is I can pay for 59% of a building with state aid money. The other 41% has to come from somewhere else. Um, and so that 41% comes from our undesated fund balance that we have at the highway
department. We also use that to help uh our reimburseable uh grants. And so it's really important that we keep that as high as we can as you can imagine like a year like this year where you know million dollars a month is coming in and out of our office to do construction. And so but we can also use it to
obviously it's it's cash and so we can use that towards uh funding a building like this. And so yes, part of this would have come from the levy. >> Uh does anybody have any questions? Just playing devil's advocate, >> why do you need a heated garage when so
many of us don't even have a garage? >> That is a fair point. Um, we provide services on 300 miles of road and then some in this county. We operate a fleet that is worth north of $10 million. That is all taxpayer funded. I would assume that we would want to preserve and
protect those assets for as long as humanly possible. So having a heated facility like that is going to be the way to do it. Um equipment has gotten bigger and bigger over the years. That's another thing that we're running into. Uh the global building, our our main
heated garage is where we typically store and have for many many years uh stored all of our tandemss and our two graders. As that equipment gets larger and larger, it was turning into a game of Tetris to get everything out of there. Uh and we were storing things
outdoors. uh and that was actually having an impact on the equipment. And so that's where when we were working through this process, it was right at the beginning of the the C the county CIP process. Um that's where we identified, you know, originally we were going to do a new cold storage building
as we began talking more. Um you know, we we identified that a new heated storage would do us a lot better. Uh and I I believe it has. We've been able to move things out of the global to make it more uh efficient in there as far as storing other equipment as well. Um,
also we've been able to move a whole bunch of pickup trucks out of the second bay uh in our workshop. And so we can actually use our workshop for work now instead of just pickup storage. Um, and so that's been very beneficial. So I I would say it's the reliability of
service. you know, when we get calls at 4:00 in the morning to come plow out everybody's roads, you know, we can't have that equipment sitting outside. You just can't. Everybody knows if it's diesel, you know, you get things that gel up. You have hydraulic lines, you know, blah blah blah. So, um I hope does
that answer your question? >> Yes. Wonderful. >> Yes, it does. Thank you. >> You're welcome, >> Commissioner G. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh Robbie, when um and it's certainly not just unique to the highway
department in this regard, but uh in our county when we're doing construction, excavation, whatever, we sort of know what we're dealing with relative to the topography. >> And um it would it would be nice. I think this
is a general statement overall on any construction that is undertaken. If we were to look at it understanding that likelihood of running into rock and having to build that into our expectation for cost that there would be
a contingencies that so that we and as the public overall anticipate something that's based upon the reality and the learned experience that we've had in this area. So that we're we're coming in and either saying it wasn't what we anticipated or it was as we anticipated
and built in as a contingency or whatever. So it would just knowing that it seems like if we had those somehow built in there so it's not coming back and say gee we ran on the rock we didn't know we were going to run the rock >> right and that and that's a hard one
too. We've talked about that on other projects where do we just automatically put in a rock excavation line item whether we whether we've confirmed it's there or not. Um you know the hard thing with that is you run into potentially you know the the how people bid it. Um
and saying well if people are assuming there's rock they're going to say well it's 100 bucks a cubic yard >> but if there not any data to back it up then someone else is going to bid a dollar a yard. But then if we do run into, you know, so it can it can potentially flip biders around. Um it
can also be I understand what the point we're trying to get at, but it can also be misleading if we start saying, well, there may or may not be rock. We're not sure. And so does that artificially increase our price as well. Um I think with this one, just because of the extent of the, you know, the utilities,
this is plumbed in, you know, this is hooked up to city water. That's why this cost was so high. Um, you know, if you think of where the building is now, we had to connect it all the way. It's not just to right to the back of my office. There's a fire hydrant over by the bus barn. So, it's actually a pretty far
connection that we had to do back there. And so, um, no, it's a good point. And we do, you know, there's always a little bit of contingency we work into a final cost estimate of, you know, maybe it's 5% on there just to try and, you know, account for anything. But, um, you know,
I'm not I'm not surprised that this is there. I guess it's just how it came out in the end. So, but it's a good point. >> Yeah. And and as a followup, I mean, when you're looking for bids or whatever and somebody builds bids it in there, whether they encounter or don't
encounter, unless the language is drafted correctly, that this is what we told you and we just made more money because it wasn't what we anticipated. So basically it's just it's just being aware of it, trying to build it in there and still follow best practices so we're
good stewards of the money. That's Yep. >> basically the points. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. >> White the uh So you're Did we do the excavation on that one? So when you get an outside contractor coming to do that,
I'm sure they have a a caveat or a line in their contract that says this is our bid, but should we encounter boulders, whatever or whatever we they're always covered. So
>> yeah, there's there's that becomes a negotiable at that point on on our projects. A lot of times it's TNM, so time and materials. um what we have available to us is you know I can look at state average I can look at old projects we've done and so I have a good sense of you know generally when we
encounter rocks up here if you're talking the rock excavation line item itself you know we hover around that $90 to $100 a yard and so what does that mean with this this actually came in at $60 or $70 a yard so when I saw that and that's what they had proposed I was like
in my opinion we're getting a deal like this is a big change don't get me wrong but it was substantially less than what we typically pay um on our on our big you know on our larger road projects. So um yeah, when we have change orders or stuff like this come up there there is
generally you know space to negotiate a little bit there. Um sometimes you're going to have to pay a premium because it's something after the fact as opposed to something that was in the bid. Um but uh yeah, you're right. >> Continue. So, is there a danger that
these subcontractors are un under bidding knowing that they'll get to come back and do the they're going to find rocks? And so, >> it depends. Um, you know, if we get a bid and it's $10 on a, you know, $12 million project, we can flag that and go
no, no, no. Um, that's we do have that. So, there's that conversation with, you know, what we're statutoily allowed to do with low bid requirements. If there is something like that that's like that's very wrong. Um, you know, then we have the opportunity to address that with something like
this, you know, when we went through the exercise with our construction manager and the initial bid, you know, and we're sitting there, all right, this should, you know, we got bids and it's $2.5 million building, we're comparing to other places and we're going, "Yeah, this tracks, this makes sense." Um, so I don't think we were I don't think we
were undercut. We're not getting like, you know, uh, uh, unqualified contractors or anything like that. That's a good question. >> Commissioner Gamble. >> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to mo make a motion to the accept the work the highway storage building is complete and approved final payment in
the amount of $52,94252 to Rice Lake Construction Group >> support. Any further comments or questions? All in favor? I >> oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Um so
we'll move on to a a different project that I want to do. Uh so um as we talk about a lot the importance of grant funding up here in order to do the projects uh that need to get done basically. So whether we talk about bridge bonds uh you know it's
allocations from the state or in this case you know you have state funded uh grants competitive grants uh that we can apply for. And so this is one we've been successful for successful with in the past on two occasions. One uh was I think it was $835,000
through this program to do Fifth Avenue West here. And then another one we got another one and a half million to do the 92s uh on the Gun Flint next year. And so this again similar program uh similar project also on the Gun Flint, but what we're talking about is the N10 miles of
the gunflint. Now, um I every application that's come up that's been available so far, I've been trying to apply for. Uh so we have a lot of applications sitting out there to hopefully get some funding to do this and that'll actually tie into what we'll talk about next. Um but one of the parts
of this project uh is um you know resurfacing the road, improving parts of the road that have deteriorated a lot if you're familiar with it. Uh and then there are I think it's uh 16 culverts that need to be replaced on there and several of them need to be upsized
actually. So at a preliminary level I think we've identified four of them. Um two could probably turn into bridges. So something at least 10 ft wide. Um and right now the estimate on that one I'm looking at 2028 construction. And we're
hovering around, you know, $1 million. It'll probably be 40 by the time it rolls around, but um hopefully we get lots of money to do it. So, anyways, I'm looking for hopefully a a support resolution from from you all uh to pursue this funding. >> Commissioner Salman,
>> thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I've heard a lot about this project from my constituents and I have been talking about it with our highway department for years and I would like to recommend supporting the highway department's grant application to the local road
improvement program for $1.5 million to go towards preserving accessibility to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness on the Gunflint Trail Scenic Byway Project. >> Supported. >> Any further questions or comments? Commissioner Mills. Um, thank you madam chair and thank you Robbie. Instead of
16 culverts, have you thought about just one big one? >> You know, do a big fly over. >> I mean, just make it to Elely at that point. Yeah. >> Commissioner G. >> Yeah. Thank you, ma'am. M madam chair. U Robbie, what's the criteria you use in
making a determination whether enlarge the size of the covert or go to a bridge? In other words, is there something that informs that decision that >> absolutely >> knowledge is the financial and the work involvement? >> How much time do you get? Um, so the the
short answer and this is what we've we've done on a lot of our project projects is if you think of a a stream and it's 30 ft wide and I'm picking on this because we just did it here on the little devil track. Stream is 30 ft wide. We put in many many moons ago uh a
10-ft wide culvert. So you can imagine what that does. If you think of the thumb over the fire hose effect, same thing. And you can see that as Elena had pointed out downstream, you end up with a lot of that erosion that's happening because when you get these high water events, the water's coming out real
quick. Um, and so really that determination, you can kind of just go look. Honestly, there's not much. You can get really into the weeds with it. Start pulling survey information and stuff, but a lot of these crossings, if you just go look at them, you can see if there's a tiny culvert, but the stream's
really wide. Oh, that should be bigger. Um, and so the, you know, that's kind of step one. Uh, step two is you can really get into like the geomorphic design requirements. How deep is the stream? What type of flow is it? It, you know, is it a, I think the differences are like a B channel or a D channel. I'd
have to get a book to remind myself what those are. So, um, I apologize for not having that, but those are two places to start. And then as far as a bridge, a bridge is kind of a a broad term. And so the state defines a bridge as anything that spans 10 feet or more in length.
And so that could still be a box covert like we do on the Sawill Trail, like we did, you know, recently on Junko. We've done a lot of those where technically it's a bridge, which means I can go after state bridge bonding for that, which is great. Um, but it's a box culvert. And so, um, the difference then
is, you know, so then you have box culvert versus now when you start to talk about like beam spans or something like that. really you're just looking at the geography of the area. Um, again the little little devil track I think is a great example where you know we opted for a bridge a beam span in that case
because the gunflint was 20 feet above the stream and so I felt like I didn't want to put all that fill material back in. Even if we put in three or four box culverts say to make that span and you know the little devil track could flow a little more naturally in my opinion
you're still putting stuff back in the stream and I don't want to do that. And so you know that's a case where the geography then and kind of the alignment of the road are going to dictate whether you put in you know what type of structure goes in there. So that preliminary analysis happens after the hydraulics are done. So they'll run a
hydraulic analysis um run a bunch of different storm events. You've probably heard things like a 100redyear storm event and those are becoming more frequently uh more frequent than a 100red years. Those are more like a 70year now. Uh you hear of a 500year event. And so those are the standards we
try and meet. uh is that so I think that was short that okay >> yeah as a followup to that so let's just say you know if you're looking at and you do your evaluation and then you also have in the back of the mind the awareness that we could go after bridge funding if we do this I would imagine
when you submit that request for bridge funding that the state is or whoever the agency is is going to look at it and see if it meets the criteria that warrants the bridge funding >> 100% yeah and so that is you know and that's something they look out for a um is you know especially when you have
a lot of undersized culverts and we're seeing that a lot too and so it's a conversation I'm having a lot with our district one mindot counterparts is that is we actually have to submit the hydraulics for review because you know if the hy if the analysis comes back and say well you know it's a currently a
5-ft pipe you know the hydraulics say you can do it with an eight well if it's an 8ft pipe I can't get state funding therefore that's lo local dollars but if I say well I want to make it and and then I can get state funding. That starts to raise some flags. Um there's
also issues too when you oversize something. That can be an issue. And so you really just want to you let the data guide it and you just say here's what you know the the models are telling me. Um and and that's what you follow. >> I appreciate the statement. Let the data drive it. Thank you. >> You're very welcome.
>> Thanks for the conversation. >> Question Mr. White. >> So why are all of these has the amount of water changed? I mean, why are all these culverts so undized these days? >> That is a big question. Um, yeah, so
increased precipitation events, that's a very real thing. Um, and whether I guess I'll just say it, whether you believe it or not, it's happening. Um, and so we see it in construction, we see it in the data, you can see it in the people that are the hydraulic, you know, technical
experts saying these hundred-year events aren't a 100red-year events anymore. They're shorter than that. that's causing us to upsize things. Um, on the other side, honestly, it's cheaper to put in smaller things. And so, depending the availability of funds, um, you know, it's a heck of a lot cheaper to put in,
you know, two or three-in, you know, aluminum pipes as opposed to maybe one big box culvert, um, or a beam type of bridge. And so, that's where we see that difference is that. >> Okay, >> there you go. >> We have a motion and a second. I'll call
a vote unless there's any other comments or questions. So, all in favor? >> I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. >> Wonderful. Thank you. >> Before you begin the next one, I would have to say that this is the most unusual thing to look into that that
Robbiey's going to present to us. I don't believe we've ever had any >> requests before. >> Yes. Um, so yeah, before you uh you know, we talk about we work with consultants a lot. Most of the time those consultants are, you know,
designers. Um, so they're designing a bridge or designing a project for us. Um, generally that cost as well. You know, it depends the project, but if we're doing a box culvert, you know, that could cost us about $50,000 to get the design done. You know, if it's a bridge like the one we did in Hovindland
a couple years ago there, um, you know, that was almost $70,000. It depends the firm, depends the project. So just to give you an idea of scope and scale in this case, but what we have in front of us here is the result uh of a recent uh trip I took actually. So I was out in DC
recently, a couple weeks, probably a month ago now, um for a flyin event uh sponsored by the transportation alliance. And so the transportation alliance is a a lobbying firm or a lobbying group uh that uh works down in St. Paul and then also out in DC to
support transportation initiatives, not just with me and my counterparts, but also with, you know, rail, transit, uh, you name it, walkability, anything, anything related to moving people about, they support. And so, uh, I hadn't been out to one of those before. I had heard from my counterparts that it was a great
event to partake in and just see. So, okay, let's go check it out. And, you know, made a pamphlet as one does, right? support Cook County, support a project in particular, and the one I was championing at the time was the N10 miles of the gunfoot. Basically going
there to ask for congressional support with this project. We need help. This is a big project. As I said, 10 112 million, 40 by the time it comes. Um, but you know, piecing together these little grants here and there, a million bucks here, a million dollars there, um,
is not just difficult, but sometimes it just becomes impossible to do. you can't. There's not enough opportunities out there. And so, you know, this to me is the opportunity to say, "All right, let's cut out the competitive grants. Let's cut out all the stipulations we generally have to meet. We're going to go there and say, "Hey, we're Cook
County. We are your playground in Minnesota. We support a million people a year. Um, you know, to that come up here and recreate that those of us that also live here. We need help with our infrastructure." And so, I had a chance to meet with uh Senator Clolobashar and her staff,
Senator Smith and her staff. uh Congressman Stabber and his staff and actually snuck one in with Representative Emmer as well uh and his staff. And what was fascinating being there is it wasn't just me. It was me and a few of my counterparts and and they had um a lobbying firm with them.
And so I have my little laminated pamphlet. They have lobbyists. Uh it felt like I was bringing a toothbrush to a gunfight. Um I told Commissioner Gamble that the other day. Yeah. Uh honestly though, um it it was fascinating to see them though.
they did appreciate that it was laminated and it had a moose on it. So that's the feedback I got. Um but no, it was a really really eye opening experience. Um there's I to me it really opened my eyes to there's levels to this. I'm proud of the work we've done
over the last 5 years to secure you know we're north of $17 million in new funding. That's awesome. I am could not be over the moon about that. talking to my counterparts though and and the the help and the effort that these you know firms put in. I go, "How much do you
think these people, you know, these these consultants have brought in for you?" And that number ranged from 50 million to 80 million um over the course of a few years. And I was like, "Oh." So I, you know, there's, like I said, there's levels to this. It's it's we're
not being excluded from anything. We're just not sitting at the table. Um it and it was really interesting to hear the scenarios where you know um you know these pe these folks for example at Lark and Hoffman would be sitting in a committee meeting and then you know uh
the elected officials would be like oh wait you represent such and such county give them a call we have an extra 30 million do they still need it and so you're going I can't be in St. Paul every day. I can't be in DC every day. But that's what these folks do is they live and breathe that every day. They're
talking to not just the people that represent Cook County, but they're talking to the people on the transportation committees, on the budget committees. They're the ones that allocate the money that determine which projects go forward and don't. And so I I think this is something where this is another level. This is the next level to
that of if we want to do these bigger projects, if we want to get this type of work done. And so the three projects we had talked about was again the N10 mi of the gunflint. I need to think of a shorter name for it. It just sounded good. Uh but then uh the other ones we
had brought up was Broadway and Wisconsin Avenue. Um that's starting to be on the forefront of my mind of needing to get done. Uh and that'll be a big project. And then also paving the arrowhead up to up to Irish Creek. Um, and so those are three projects that I specifically mentioned as I think worth
the effort to go through to try and secure funding. And so with those, I mean, you're looking $40 to $50 million in construction costs. And that doesn't exist in these local road improvement grants. It doesn't exist in these federal lands access program grants. And
so I think this is the avenue to do that. Um, and so I've been talking a lot. So, does anybody have any questions about that? >> Commissioner Mills. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Robbie. So, uh, when you're saying your counterparts, you're saying other county, correct, >> engineers
>> and from our region or from >> uh there have been a couple. So, yeah, I was at that particular day I was with Chicago County. Um, but then I had opportunity, you know, like obviously I've talked to almost everybody. So, I know like Sterns County has utilized this. I've talked to people, you know, Candy Ohigh County. So, kind of all over
the place and I'd say, you know, almost varying sizes as well. Obviously, nobody's going to be as small as we are. Um, but I think we're in a unique position where, you know, like I said, we are Minnesota's playground. And so, yes, we have, you know, a small population and yes, our infrastructure
and our miles and all of that isn't huge, but it needs to get maintained cuz, you know, that million people a year that we know comes up here. Um, not to mention our own safety up here on infrastructure needs to needs help and I think this is the way to do it.
>> Administrator Treble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Robbie. Um, a question for you around um the other engineers that you've talked to, have you discussed at all partnering with them on a joint contract? So the when I had had a chance to meet with and
what I appreciated too with Lark and Hoffman was them being very upfront to make sure that this actually was going to be worth not only our time and effort but their time and effort. Um and so something they hit on was they don't represent more than one county in a
congressional district because then you start competing with each other, right? So in this case they were upfront. You know Chicago County is technically in our congressional district. um but could probably not be more opposite of what we are. And so we felt like in that case,
you know, you know, it'd be different if they were representing, you know, St. Louis County or something like that. Um but in this case, we felt those were opposite enough where there's not going to be, you know, it's kind of a different conversation in that case. Does that answer your question? >> It does. Thank you,
>> Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um given this is as uh Commissioner Stoley said that this is something new for us to be looking at >> uh in our conversation yesterday relative to expenditures that we use for
consultants and you said that consultants are primarily um hired to do design. So if we were looking at uh what we're spending right now in this particular area, it it may or may not be fair to
make the comparison relative to what we're spending on consultants because primarily the role that we hire them is in the design phase. I would say because it's new and because there are questions that would help commissioners to support this more informed um it it would be
nice if it would go to the committee of the whole and we would have this discussion that the comparison what are other counties do what are counties that have uh used this um and what their experience has been as to the revenues they've been able to generate because
they have that single voice representing them that is knowledgeable is available and is present and is working on these things with a focus as opposed to us getting at it as we can. The other thing is is that if we look at alternative uh
how would we tackle these major projects if we did it bit by bit in other words some of these things might have been done in the past things were obviously different but in a discussion that we'd have in committee of the whole we'd be able to address some of these things
that would reinforce the recommendation when I looked at this and I saw that there's saying let's start you know 1st November December I'm thinking well Maybe I mean November, December tend to be less productive months because of the holiday season, but if you look at the
recommendation when it comes to lobbying and positioning and timeline for budgeting and when this needs to come before legislative groups, it makes sense that that if Larkin Hoffman is the one that's going to facilitate this for
us, that they would come in and ask the questions, know what it is we're looking at, get the details so that their lobbying efforts will be well informed in position which tends to impress legislators when they know what they're doing. So,
um I guess when I look at that timetable recommendation that you you should tackle these things in in January, early spring and when you look at the legislative sessions and and the recesses when these people are
accessible to be talked to, we'd want to have our ducks in a row before we we do that, which speaks to the issue of timing on this, which is November, December. >> Correct. So um I guess um
another component I would say is that while this is a practice and there are a number of different companies, legal firms, whatever lobbying firms that can do this, it's it's two things. Is this the approach we should be taking
given what we're looking at? And the other is who should do it for us? And um I would say in my experience with Lark and Hoffman that they they have been considered the gold standard. So I think we would have the right people doing it for us. And I think that given what
we're looking at that it's the right approach. Often times when things come before the board, it is presented on the basis as far as its value that um this investment will have this return. And if we can show that return
and we're measuring that in our experience, then that says to the community and we as representatives of the community this was a good decision. So that could be reinforced through the experience of other counties and we would know that through discussion that
would come into committee whole where we have opportunity to do that. I guess my question is whether or not the timing of this would allow us to to have that discussion that would reinforce the recommendation or whether
>> you know we we come to a decision now too often decisions that come to us as a tactical approach that we have no time you just need to do it right >> is uncomfortable so I guess that's what I throw out is would we be able to have you know you provide more information so
that this commitment can be substantiated with an informed decision. >> Totally. And I think I can do that right now if that's okay. Uh so yeah, um I I definitely don't bring things like this lightly. Um I know the dollar amount. I know what we're talking about right now.
Um I think what I compare it to is the time I spend on securing grant funding and what that has yielded. And then I say, okay, here's the next level to this is here's people in the room with our elected officials every single day. And
that potential return is now, you know, like I said, you're talking4 to $50 million worth of projects for, you know, an investment of, you know, in this case, this contract is, you know, it would total $300,000 over, you know, three years. Um I think to the you know
the point you brought up too um about you know what have other counties seen uh like I had mentioned before when I had talked uh to one of my counterparts and you know the point that that this he directly attributed this firm to bringing in close to $80 million um to
that county to do work um screamed volumes to me and that's why I'm here today uh for that. I know when I've talked to other counterparts, while I don't have those specific dollar amounts because I wasn't with them, but as we've talked at different conferences and meetings, um you know, it's something
that that I'm learning more and more seems to be if you want to get these big things done, that's the way to do it. Um if we didn't do it, we would stay the same course. Um and I'll give you a little tidbit of information after I say this. you know, we're looking close to,
you know, it's upwards of a million dollars per mile of road up here to do construction. We get $2.1 million or I'm sorry, $2.5 million a year uh from the state to do construction. So you can start to kind of piece some things
together even if I keep getting grants and even if that stuff keeps happening um you know it it's infinite work and it's going to be infinite work even if we go down kind of this this avenue with Ark and Hoffman where there's just there's a lot to maintain. Um there were
years years where we did one project per year um and that got us way way way behind. Um, the last time, and we had talked about this yesterday, the last time the end of the gunfint was paved was 1990, uh, and it cost a whopping
$372,000. Um, so that equates to about $46,500 per mile. I would love that. Um, and so our our allocation at the time was for construction was $984,000.
Okay, so 46,500 per mile, we got 984,000. It's awesome. So in 2028, we're projecting this as a $12 million project, a million per mile. My allocation is $2.5 million. So that
construction inflation is just over 2,000% since 1990. Uh my allocation inflation is 154%. So you can kind of see the huge difference in why it's it's increasingly difficult to maintain our
infrastructure up here without pursuing these unique funding sources. Um yeah, go ahead. Yes. >> Yeah, Madam Chair, just follow up. Excuse me. If um the contractual arrangement with Lark
and Hoffman is a three-year commitment, >> in talking with your peers, if that three-year commitment, it'd be interesting to know how many have renewed that they found that the benefit is is such that they continue to renew that benefit. And that's just trying to understand why is there the three-year
commitment? If if the three-year commitment is up and running, if you look at that three years, when do we begin to see results in that time period? So, the question is when do we see results within that three-year time period likelihood? And the other is how
many renewed because they found it to be so beneficial when so when I was out there and again talking talking with folks, it sounds like when you pursue, you know, at this point it's called congressionally delegated spending. It's an earmark. Let's just make it plain English at this point in time. Um, it
can take several applications and so that's why you see a three-year contract. And when I was talking with Lark and Hoffman, they confirmed that. Um, again, nothing is guaranteed. But I think I think at that point in time, we would have a really good sense, and I'll be the first one to pull the plug if we
don't see a light at the end of the tunnel because then that's just a waste of money. Um but but it's in the similar vein you know you think back to when we pursued um that raise grant and we hired a consultant to help us with that as well. Um, so that was one specific grant and then one spec, you know, a couple of
consultants that we, you know, we paid, um, I think we paid close to $100,000 there to go after $25 million and that was a one-off. And so now what we're proposing is, you know, $100,000 to pursue potentially 40 or $50 million um
or 300, sorry, 300,000 total. Um, >> so I think I I think it is something where I know that return hasn't happened yet. Um, I think with these projects, I think we would have a really good idea and we would know that at the end of
this contract whether this is working or it's not working. Um, and then back to the drawing board after that. And so it's a risk. Um, not denying that at all. Um, you know, there is no guarantee with this. And obviously, you know, we're talking federal money at that
point in time. And so that has its own uncertainties as well, uh, especially right now. And, uh, yeah. So, I I don't have a hard yes, we're guaranteed $40 million with this one. Um, but I know we definitely aren't
guaranteed it uh if we stay the same course. >> And the second part of that is, excuse me, is the issue of how many have >> once experienced this have continued with this. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, yeah, my understanding
was is we're going to propose these three projects and then we're going to put emphasis on one. And so, we're kind of just putting stuff in the hopper of saying, hey, you know, elected officials, here's three things in Cook County we are going to focus on over the next however many years, but we really want to emphasize, you know, getting the
end of the trail done. And so, that's that's the focus is that one. Um, and if funding happens for all three, great. But even if it only happens for one, say we get $10 million or something like that from the feds and from the state, maybe there's a combination. Um, you
know, we're paying $300,000 to get $10 million. I would argue that return on investment is still very good um as far as effort and time spent. And it also too, you know, part of this isn't just me working with um these folks. It's it's bringing you all in too. they are
coming up here meeting everybody um and getting a sense of what is our what are our priorities uh for Cook County and for for the infrastructure up there. >> Thank you. >> But what I'm hearing is that um we would like to have a presentation at committee the whole is that what I'm hearing
>> Commission Mills? >> Well, I I don't know what more information there is. Um it would just be more discussion. So if we want to discuss more, we can do it there or we can do it here still. But uh sometimes it's helpful to have time to digest and
think things through. So >> I'm thinking in regards to our budget. >> Oh, I can. May I speak to that? >> Yeah. >> Wonderful. Um so these these uh services are already in our budget. And so we have consultant fees built into our budget. We have a local project fund
right now. We uh I believe it's $310,500 every single year that goes from the levy into our project fund. And so what I would propose is peeling off $100,000 of that to help pay for this. So this isn't a new it's a uh what do I want to
say? It's not a new expense. It's not a new lineup like we already have it built in there. Um so it wouldn't be anything new asks for per se new additions if that >> $100,000 each year for three years. >> Correct. >> So that would be in your budget.
>> Correct. Already is. Yep. >> Yes. Commissioner White, >> there's advantage to sitting right next to her. Sorry. Um, of course I said that and I missed what I was going to say. Um, if Okay,
somebody else has to go. I just totally gone. Oh, >> you had to come. >> So, I can say that I have been following the work at the end of the gunflint for several years. I know the work that has gone into the grants, the consultants that we've worked with, and I also know
the condition of that road. And it's not just about tourists. It's about our loggers. It's about our residents. It's about our ambulances going down there. The road is terrible. It needs work. And this investment is really important to
our community in many ways, as are the other projects. And with that, um, I understand it's an investment. It's a risky investment, but I think it's a wise investment for our community. I think it's timesensitive.
Legislation is really important, and getting good lobbyists is really critical to being successful. So, with that, I would like to recommend authorizing um us to actually um go into a contract
for $100,000 for three years with Lark and Hoffman to represent our county in respect to both state and federal lobbying services. >> Just to qualify that the the BO should it's $100,000 per year for three years. >> Correct.
>> Yeah. Support. >> Any further questions or comments? Well, my my one question was if it were to go to the committee of the whole and we have this budget, how much time would a and and a Commissioner Mills
statement, it it's helpful to have a little space to really think about this. So, but we can't we can't cut our time short on discussing the budget that drum beat is and so
>> you would know would that interfere with would that continue to give us enough time to do budget discussions. >> So, I can answer that in two ways. Yes, I think we would still have time because Robbie has provided a lot of information
today. we can collect additional information to provide that day, but I don't think it would be time intensive. Um, and and I don't believe it would impact the the budget conversation. I also looked at the calendar and if if the commissioners do want this to go to
committee of the whole, um, we would need to bring it on November 18th and then back to the next board meeting, which is November 25th. It might push back. Um the timeline that Robbie has presented starts in November. Um and the
first deliverable is November and December. Um working with the the board gathering information. So it might push that back by 30 days. Is that accurate, Robbie? >> Yeah, I I would be worried about you know the when I had met with them about a month or a couple of weeks ago um you
know they were emphasizing that that timing is important and so you know that's why I brought this. Now normally I would say yes you know committee of the whole um I know there's not one in December. I think what's difficult is I also know in the committee of the whole in November uh that we are already
bringing another thing that is going to be a big topic with our subordinate districts and that'll be its own yeah its own its own conversation. Um, but yeah, I I just know getting getting our foot in early, being first in line, getting this done and settled, and
having time to talk to our electeds, um, and getting them familiar with Cook County. You know, this isn't something that's going to happen overnight. Um, you know, it's going to take time and and and I understand the trepidation and, you know, the the risk here and what we're talking about. So, um, obviously I would prefer if we move
forward with it, but >> So, Commissioner White, we've had a motion and a second. I just have one quick, but I just want to confirm that that money $100,000 a year is already Yes. >> in your budget. It's been there. It's not a new item. So, it's there.
>> I'm splitting it off of something else. So, yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> That answers your question. That's what I was going to say. The money is already there and there. >> I wanted I wanted to make certain it was heard. Oh, yeah. Everywhere. >> That's fair. >> Okay. Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to clarify
that money though the the origins of that money is that money that is coming from money that is part of a levy that's contributing to that. So yes it is levy dollars that have created that fund. So that should be clarified. >> Oh yeah. The other thing I would say is
that from the community standpoint, elected officials making informed decisions and having the that commitment to be informed is is important. This has come to us now with
the decision that is a significant decision. all of the things that are are driving this recommendation can be validated and certainly are important. So this is a methodology that's come re recommendation. It just I I'm
uncomfortable with the fact that the timing of it hasn't allowed for establishing the credibility of our being informed as an elective group. That that's my my u my position. But in in looking at lobbing
and when you start and everything else and the need to get up and running in order to get in there, the early outreach key timing strategies start your lobbing efforts as early as possible and ideally in January. If
we're going to be ready for January, we're going to need November, December in order to be able to do that. So in looking at all of these things that uh in researching that the timing is right, the sensitivity is right. It just the
process I'd be more comfortable had we had more of that discussion. You've been able to answer questions directly and um intentionally. So it's not like we're fuzzy here. It's it you're direct in your response. So, having said all of
that, I I I support it, but I am uncomfortable that we haven't had more time. >> I hear you. And and this was something too when it ca when it came up, we did put it at the top of our highway committee. Um, and so that's and that was a big reason I I brought it here was I did have a chance to kind of, you
know, springboard it there. Um, and so I know Commissioner Sullivan and Commissioner White were part of that conversation and that the general sense from that group was overwhelmingly positive as well. And so that's where I felt comfortable coming straight here um to have this discussion. And again,
yeah, I don't have time to be fuzzy if I'm being honest. It's too much to remember sometimes. So, um but yeah, normally I I yeah, I would wholeheartedly agree coming to a committee of the whole to to chat some more, you know, especially if there was questions I couldn't answer. Um but I think to your point, I think I think
we've I feel like we've covered >> any any questions that have come up. >> Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you again, Robbie. Um, >> yeah, huge factor for me is already having that part of our budget. It is heavy dollars, but just the fact that we're not increasing the budget by 100,000 each, you know, that that's a
huge factor for me. So, thank you for clarifying that. Um, another question I had earlier and I think uh you maybe didn't directly answer it but we talked about it and I appreciate all that is just you know the role this firm would have versus our
other efforts say at AMC's transportation committee uh and just what's the best path how can we best leverage our resources and and so I really appreciate the anecdotes that you you shared um just about what you saw in action in Washington.
>> Um, and that helps me understand things a lot more, too. So, thank you. >> Um, >> the other thing I just wanted to point out, I don't need to point it out to you, uh, is that, uh, you know, we've been budgeting, um, for a new position
at the highway department and new equipment because there are more demands and and more roads and more responsibilities. Um, and so we've been trying to plan for that and and engineer H knows exactly how difficult it is to
add that um into the budget. And so just knowing your awareness of all the challenges that we're facing um and and your knowledge of uh the the paths forward, I I have a lot of trust and
faith in your strategy in leveraging our resources. Um, and so, um, after hearing more about the firm and and your experiences and and the budget impacts, I think it's it's a really wise move.
Um, initially I was >> very very skeptical. Fair. Um, but um, yeah, after talking it through today, I feel I feel excited, frankly, a little nervous uh, because it's a risk. There's no guarantee, but >> if if we can get some of these dollars
um any amount over 300,000 in my mind, but >> but yes, if we could get 40 to 50, I mean, all that being said, Chicago County's >> projects are presumably bigger, too, and more plentiful. And so, you know, it's all about just
>> scale. Exactly. >> Um but I, you know, we could use a lot of help on that front. So yes, >> Commissioner White, >> normally it I mean I'm still about process and as we all know this is this is again exactly what we don't want is
to have it now vote right now because we have to. However, I'm going to catch it on this one. Um because I had the I have been at the highway department where there was full discussion about this and many questions
asked. And then I also understand how the uh chamber and the hospital they all have lobbyists and by their uh conversations about the success with the lobbyists in helping to get needed
dollars to pay for projects that those entities are doing. I support this but darn it all. Everyone has got to change this process because I voted no on things that I wanted. But the process
it I have to be I I am only speaking about myself. Um, I have to be able to justify my vote to my constituents to to and to assure them that my vote
was based on a good understanding and I think it's good value for our taxpayers. That said, I support this also. So, >> so I'm going to call a vote. We have a motion and a second. I will call a vote unless there's any other comments.
Commissioner Gamble. Yeah, I just I appreciate the conversation. I understand the awkwardness. I identify with uh >> Commissioner White uh on process and and we are the people that will drive that process uh if if we create a process
that that builds the proper you know >> process. >> Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. And so but in this discussion what we have said is we have a challenge. We have a challenge that that our highway, you know, department engineer has identified
and how we're going to meet that process that your your experienced and and interaction with your peers has informed an opportunity for us. The the company that we would contract with is highly credible and recognized. So all of the
component parts seem to be right. It's just the process is the only element here. And we would just encourage when these come before us that we could change the process. Our our intent to do that isn't to try to elongate these processes and create problems. Is trying
to build integrity and show that we as representatives have the opportunity to be informed to support these decision especially when it involves significant taxpayer dollars. So that's the last thing I'd say. >> So I have a motion and a second. I will ask for a vote. All in favor? I
>> I >> oppose. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you all. I appreciate the conversation. >> Thank you too. >> One statement. Don't do this again. Give us more time. >> Yes. >> Yeah. It's three years. >> Yeah. Three.
>> No, I mean just >> I appreciate >> if you can just imagine water flow trying to go through a narrow culvert. >> It creates too much. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. I have to close the pass. Go ahead.
>> Switching topics, Rowan is going to come before us and talk about payment systems and um property information. [Music] >> Good morning everyone. >> Morning.
Madam chair, commissioners, as the information included in the board packet states, uh today we have a recommendation from several departments. MIS, land services, the assessors, the auditors, and the recorders office are all recommending a transition from our
existing property inquiry and tax payment system to the Beacon property information and tax payment system as outlined in the three-year included three-year service agreement. uh these departments are the major stakeholder
groups in the organization. I'd say the other major stakeholder group for this system and these services is the public. They're the the primary users. And as you can see from the specific departmental benefits listed in the agenda material, each department has
their own set of benefits that improve workflow, um increase efficiencies, and improve the public's experience in just terms of ease of use and transparency in the the data that's presented to them. Um to highlight or summarize without
reading all of those listed benefits, I'd draw attention to just a few. Um, this is a a moderate integrated platform. So, this is a it combines property tax information, property information, tax information, and GIS data in one secure cloud-based uh system
that's accessible to both the public uh and staff. It's improved access. So, it's a very userfriendly uh portal for viewing property information, maps, and tax payments. And the idea behind that is or
valued is that is reducing frequent inquiries that our staff get. And so, you know, because that puts that information front and center in a really easy to find and uh easily accessible format, it reduces the amount of questions and um that staff are having
to answer. and speeds up the time that citizens and the public are able to get that information. It's also going to enhance efficiency and accuracy throughout the organization. So, this new system in comparison to the existing one reduces uh manual data entry and
reconciliation of data across departments and just ensuring more consistent and up-to-date information. And it'll also improve department collaboration. So, strengthening data sharing and the workflow between all those departments. again the the assessor's office, the auditor's office,
recorder, MIS and land services. And then big for us focal for MIS, it reduces the IT and security burden and it eliminates the need for an onprem uh system and lowers security uh and
support risks. And so if you go to our current portal now on the upper left hand of the corner, you'll see it says not secure. There little warning up there. this will change and eliminate that. I can talk more in detail about that. Um, but it also from the support side, our current vendor has been great.
They they work well, but it's not a formal contract. So, it's just time and materials. And with a system that is as critical as this, it's there's add a lot of value added from my perspective in having those roles and responsibilities and response times and things like that defined in a more formal agreement. And
we don't have that now. And this would put that in place. And then lastly, it's a really responsible fiscal approach. I think it's uh fully funded through existing recorders office technology fees. So this is not levy dollars. Those are fees
that we collect through transactions in the recorder office. Those are not fees that we get to set. So it's it's money that comes in and then it's restricted on how we can use those funds. And I think it's probably fair to say that up until this point, this in particular
fund, this technology fund has been underutilized. And so there's there's funds available to us to use for a project like this. And again, what we can use those funds on is limited and defined in in state statute, I believe.
And so we're we have funds that we haven't been able to use. here's a good project that really adds a lot of benefit to the organization as well as to the public and we have an identified funding source that doesn't impact the levy and and really we want to take
advantage of it's the responsible thing to do to take advantage of those those funds. Um this has been a a partnership with all the other departments and Holly's here, Stephanie's here, Bob's here. uh if there's kind of more specific about the departmental impact
questions but again before turning it over to questions I would just say it it reduces risk from an IT support perspective it brings this critical service to a higher standard in from security it eliminates the need for on-prem hosting again so that lowers our
infrastructure cost and is more in line with the server consolidation strategy that I've talked to you all about before in in our annual reports it eliminates inefficiencies again related to manual data entry and reconciliation of data across
departments and it's a better product for the public for the people that use it for the people that we serve and it does all this without adding to the levy or utilize by utilizing existing funds that we have available.
So with that I'll open it up to questions >> questions or comments. Commissioner Gamble. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Rowan. Um, sounds like on the points it's a win-win win-win win-win. Uh, overall, my only question was if if
the monies that we're using to fund this was displacing where they were allocated elsewhere, but because those are restricted funds and it doesn't sound like that's happening, then that's another win. So, it just seems like a no-brainer. But part of that confidence
comes in the well presented request. So >> it it does and I I appreciate the the the statement and making the point. I think before having the conversation with the other department heads um you know this is something that we were looking at adding into our budget as
something that we think it still makes sense to do to fund and we would have a different conversation kind of about that and and the value added there. I think it's still at the rate of what it is, it's worth funding that way, but because we have this, like you say, it's
a win-winwin, kind of a no-brainer. Um myself and and Auditor Powers and Holly, we had a conversation kind of going back looking at historical how much money are these funds bringing in and to kind of give us good confidence that moving
towards this isn't going to deplete this or in 2 years or 3 years or after this we're going to have to come back and say well you know now we move to this and we're going to have to push these costs to the levy. And so it's it's roughly 10 to 11,000 a year once we move into
the regular uh support service contract after the transition. And Brady or Holly can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think the numbers that we looked at over the last several years going back maybe five or six years uh ranged between
bringing in 22 to 18,000. And so we felt pretty confident that, you know, we would have to lose more than half of the fees that are coming in to this fund for it to really get to the point where we'd need to start looking at other funding sources to to fund this new project
system. >> Yeah. >> And we're over 250,000 currently. So, >> right. So, the fund has >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to um just support what Rowan has stated today. I fully support this project. I
think it will help us, like he mentioned, from a security standpoint as well as a process standpoint. Thank you. >> Okay, >> I just took a little bit of time to play around with other counties um that has
have it and um it I mean I'll have to relearn things, right? It's very similar. Uh, and I'm happy with the other system, but hearing staff want to change. I mean, I I get it. So, I appreciate that. Um,
one of the fun um items that uh another I guess this is Sherburn County included was a a child care finder uh on their on their mapping or ditching or noxious weeds and all that. So there's always great uh opportunities um with with better technology and just really
appreciate your responsiveness here. >> I appreciate it and I think you know your comments highlight a nice other point about moving to this system that it positions us well to add on other features and services within this platform going forward. And so that's a
lot of the conversations that we had that this, you know, initial move to this system is kind of just kind of the basics to get us into this new system. But it puts us in a position going forward to have conversations about does it make sense? Is there added value in
doing something like that? And we have such a wealth of GIS data and map data and information that we can leverage in those ways that this could be a really great format, public facing format to roll those types of things into. And so it puts us in a position to be able to
better do that and better leverage the existing GIS data sets that we already have. >> Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Make a motion to approve the three-year professional services agreement with Schneider uh Geospatial LLC for the Beacon Services
that include the development of a publicly accessible web-based property information portal featuring land assessment, taxation, CA, and digital map data utilizing existing real estate and GIS data sets. It'd be nice if we
could actually take motions like that and make them simpler. So, It's important. >> There's a motion and a second. Any further questions or comments? All in favor? >> I I >> I thank you for your work.
>> Thank you very much. >> Passes unanimously. >> Thank you for all of your work working together. >> Thank you. >> All righty. We have a new monitor coming for you. >> Now we have another >> I don't Yeah. >> implementation in the uh recorder's
office we want to hear about. Welcome, Holly, and your assistant. >> Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, board members. >> So, we are here today to request your approval for the recorders office to move forward with the implementation of
electronic recording, also known as e-recording. In 2005, when the Minnesota legislature increased the recording fees for real estate documents from 1950 to $46, the intent was that these additional
funds would be used primarily to support the transition to electronic recording. Then in 2008, pursuant to Minnesota statute 507.0945, 0945. The legislature established standards to
implement the electronic recording of land records statewide. Currently, Cook County remains the only county in Minnesota that has not yet implemented e-recording. Implementing e-recording will provide numeral numerous benefits for both the
county and our constituents. It'll reduce paper usage, mailing costs, counter fees, staff time. Um, enables electronic payment of recording fees. Shorten the gap between
the closing and recording dates. Provides um rapid notice of rejected documents, eliminates the risk of lost documents during the recording process, and these are just to name a few. The way the process works is an e document
submitter such as a title company, real estate attorney, or financial institution uploads their documents through a trusted submitter who then um securely transmits them to the county for recording. It's important
to note that we will continue to accept paper documents at the counter and by mail. E-recording simply adds an additional, more efficient option for document submission. There is no ongoing cost to the county
for this service, only a one-time setup fee of $2,600, which we already have an account in place for this. It will not affect our budget. We receive several calls each month from companies asking how they can submit
documents electronically because e-recording has become the standard practice across Minnesota. Many organizations now rely exclusively on this method. We believe implementing e-recording will be a welcome and much needed improvement
for both the public and our office operations. and I'll open it for any questions that you might have. >> Thank you. Could you describe to the public exactly what kind of documents do you provide >> like titles? Do you do birth
certificates? >> Uh we do um any real estate document recordings and then we also do vital records but the vital records will be a separate >> will be separate from this e-recording. Okay. But we do birth certificates,
death certificates, we process marriage licenses, um deed records as far as deeds, mortgages, leans, um satisfactions, those types of >> gambit there. >> Yes.
>> Questions or comments? >> Commissioner Sullivan. >> Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Um, Holly and Stephanie, I'd just like to thank you so much for bringing this forward. Oftentimes, we're really proud when Cook County is a little bit different than other counties, but I am
really excited after a couple of decades that um this is happening. And so, I want to thank you for again bringing this forward and helping us uh enter the electronic age. >> Commissioner Gamble.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. I just had a question in in the um proposal that's before us. It says that uh a reduced costs um I'm just wondering if you've actually
looked at that from the standpoint of any projection and what that might actually look like. uh there's con the convenience element there's coming online with what the standard is but then when the comment as to reduce costs I'm just wondering if there's any
projection on how that translates >> um as far as numbers go I don't have any numbers but it'll reduce um postage we won't be mailing big packets back to um our constituents
um it's going to reduce time because we're not going to be scanning all these is big documents that come into our office. Um different things like that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, Holly, for
bringing this forward. Um just looking at the map that's in our in our packet. You know, we've got Cook County with nothing and then um what would that be? 84 counties with no deeds and then
there's two counties with deeds enabled. And I don't know enough to know what that what what we want to do or what we're going to do. Are we going to have deeds enabled or are we not or Okay, >> we are planning to do all documents. >> Okay. >> Yes. We figured if we're going to
>> So we'll still we'll still stand out. >> We're going to do what we want to go all in and do everything. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any further comments or questions? Commissioner Sullivan. >> Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion
to request resolution approval for implementing e-recording in Cook County. >> Support. >> Any further comments or questions? All in favor? I >> oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimous or all. Thank you so much.
>> Thank you. human resources. We have Allison plumber coming before us with a job description and a grade update information. >> Good morning. >> Good morning. >> Uh so today on the agenda I do have uh
an updated job description along with an increased job grade to present to you. Um so we are not in a normal uh ongoing maintenance cycle. However, there are instances in which potentially a job description uh someone a current
employee has taken on new roles, responsibilities and tasks in the job description should be updated to reflect that and go through that typical review process with DDA. And so this is an example of that where the land services technician uh responsibilities tasks has
changed since the last time it went through the job description review process which was early 2024. I worked with the current incumbent along with the land services director to revise and update that job description. we sent it to DDA to go through that
review process and uh therefore attached to the agenda item is that revised description and in reviewing the job grade after the updates have been made that job has been scored looking at an increase in the current job grade from a
140 to a 150. >> Any questions or comments? like to make a motion to approve the job description and job grade as presented. >> Support. Any further questions or comments? Commissioner G. >> Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.
Um Allison, since I since my first term in the personnel committee and how the personnel committee operated back then and and a clear understanding of our our system for grading and determining jobs and scoring and therefore wage and since
I've been a commissioner this term, uh there's been an awful lot of activity in in this particular area. and um uh the departure from the the internal evaluation and the participation as
opposed to recommendations is coming from an outside source. Um I' I've just been I've been uncomfortable with it and the decisions that drive these decisions that drive everything up. you said that the last time we looked at this is 2024
and uh we're we're in 2025 and if we if we continue on this scale uh annually that I think that it's it's good to evaluate to make sure that people job description as far as expectations especially when people come
in they know what our expectations are that that is well informed and that comes through discussions with department heads but Um, uh, this is a a cyclical thing that if if we look at it from a budget standpoint, uh, it's it certainly is accelerating our our costs
relative to personnel. And um I in doing some comparison things uh just knowing where we're at, it just seems like we're more open-ended than the the responsibility that comes in making sure that we're rightly positioned relative
to where we are as a county. So, um we've we've had a lot of these come before us and and uh we're revisiting it. you know, if the last time it was looked at as 2024, now it's 2025. There are a lot of things that we should be
looking at here that fall into the area of of, you know, human resource and in our evaluations, in our equipping our our staff and um exit interviews. I mean, there's just a lot of things that
would help to contribute to a culture and a workplace that uh that don't necessarily have to translate to this. So that's that's just my my comment. So >> can I add a comment to that? >> Sure. >> I think um
yes, in in doing our due diligence in working with staff to ensure that their job descriptions are accurate and up to date. Yeah, there are going to be instances where sometimes that does change the rating and the ranking and subsequently a change in the job grade
for the descriptions. Um, and that's something we don't know upfront. I mean, I think we're doing our due diligence to make sure that we progressively evolve and update those descriptions, I think, in a fairness to those employees, which I think then
contributes to the positive culture that we are also working towards. So, yeah, unfortunately, I do I completely understand your point about the budgetary impacts and that is something to be mindful of. Um but sometimes just doing the part of us to keep those job
classifications and descriptions updated, we do have that kind of consequence afterwards. It is minute um um kind of when you look at what the change is um as well. I just want to put that in that it doesn't necessarily equate to hundreds or thousands of
dollars. I mean, in some sense it could be 50 cents or more, and I understand that that adds up over time. Um, but it's also important to be fair and consistent with all employees. um and to make sure that everyone goes
through is afforded the same process and the third party is more equipped, more experienced in the processes of understanding the um comparable counties that were used in the initial
compensation study. And I know you've had questions about those um that process. Um but we use that third party because of I would say again that experience and that um that is their
that is their sole function and focus with the organization with DDA. That that is not something that I would bring a level of experience or accuracy to if we were to do that internally. So, I think that also lends to the again the
culture of making sure that we have a um an entity, an unbiased third party being able to do those reviews on behalf of our staff. >> Commissioner White, >> Commissioner Gamble, if you need to follow up.
>> Yeah, thank you, Commissioner Wade. Madam Chair, so we just came out, Commissioner Wade and myself came out of a discussion with Arrowhead Regional Corrections relative to the issue of U compensation study and the firm that
they use they have um and this was a significant discussion. Uh just all the component parts that go into negotiating contracts and and wages and all these things. and the company that they use,
if if they included counties that were significantly different than our county, that system had a an automatic adjustment that compensated so that it
wouldn't skew things out of line. And I was impressed with that. I talked to the the people afterwards to find out who that firm was because all of these things are based upon um points that you you establish. And if
you if I can use an example and I'll do this quickly. Shackleton. If anybody knows anything about Shackleton and his polar exploration, that the point that they were stranded and that they were looking to try to save the lives of all of those men, they had to send a point
that was out at this whale island that was several miles out into the ocean. The person that used the criteria to determine whether they were going to hit that island, if they were off just a little bit, they would have missed it. And so my point is that the basis on
which you set direction is going to either send you the right direction or the not direction. And that's why I think some of the limiters and the things that compensate for how we arrive at our our base points are hugely important. And that's that's why I keep going back to just the principles that
drive the decision making and how that affects our budget. So >> Mr. way. >> Uh, and the question I have I would I was asked by a constituent and it's a good question for and I think it had to do with the public health and human
services where there's a requirement for training this would do we when we hire and someone and if they are not qualified for the job in that they don't
have the required lensure or uh numbers of uh amount of time spent in the field to be able to do the job and we hire them. Are they hired at a lower hourly
per hour amount per hour or do they start at at the at the full amount? And so we're not actually in this was a question. So, we we have someone on staff who doesn't really know what
they're doing and that's kind of harsh, but they don't have the experience andor they don't have the training and or they don't have the education, but yet they are still paid the same amount as a person with that information. So, does
everyone when they're hired, they all start at whatever the grade is regardless of how much they are really uh able to fill the position right now? >> Um, well, I guess it would depend on the position. I mean, if you're referring to
public health human services positions, there are more strict requirements that have to be met because those are mandated by the law and state statute. So typically if someone does not meet the minimum qualifications, they would start at a lower step. So if you take a
look at our pay table, we do have what's called a step zero. Uh most often we kind of ignore that column except for rare instances where someone is coming in more of like a trainee status and that would be the situation where someone has not met the minimum
requirements for the job. like say they're working towards a bachelor's degree, they have not yet obtained it. Um we've done that for the highway department where someone is still going through their CDL training and they have an expected date to actually take the final exam in which then they will have
that certification that's required that we will often then start someone off at that step zero. Otherwise, most often individuals that meet those minimum requirements, again, very dependent on the job and the department, will start at least a what we call a step one on
our pay table. And for those individuals that come in um kind of with much more experience, education, um that's when we look at offering starting them at a higher step for what they can already bring into the job. >> Okay, that explains it. Thank you.
>> Yeah. >> Administrative trouble. >> Thank you. And I can also add that since my time here, I've also been asking Allison to provide information to me as new hires come in so that I can review and make sure that what we're offering
them is equitable to their experience um and expertise and also equitable in terms of other people within their their department. So we do have um a screening process for that. Um, I also want to touch on hiring people who are not
qualified for the role or for the work. Our goal is to hire people that are qualified for the role in the work. And so, if we have someone who doesn't have the necessary qualifications, um, like Allison had mentioned, we would ensure that they take the training
courses that are necessary to get them into being within um, uh, have the qualifications for that role. So I just want to make sure that the public hears that >> um so that that we are clear that we are only bringing people on board who have the skills to do the work.
>> So we have a motion and a second. Any further questions or comments? >> All in favor? >> I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you so much, Alison. Just a reminder, we're moving the um
board close meeting um after Brady's um discussion with us. So, move on Brady with cash availability review. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to bring this up. It's been a while. Uh new commissioners,
although Gary has heard this in some fashion before. Um so this is a review of some county funds that are restricted by uh state the state as to the use and then uh I
give you the current balance in those funds. Now the first first type are of restricted revenues here are the tax forfeit funds. Uh when these funds are exhausted, this is uh probably the end of those
funds because of a new state law that requires that we can recover uh taxes that were owed on forfeited properties and any costs that we've had to deal with those properties, etc., and the cost of the sale, etc. But other than
that, the money, the excess money goes back to the uh property owner. So the the three types here are the these are all laid out in in statute as to the
percentage that you could use these these funds. First, it goes to the cost. The cost of the sale, the cost of any uh uh bringing the property if it's if you have a building or something up the salailable and you can put some into
what's called um an unorganized fund. This is unorganized terriia, the portion of which would have accured to a township, but where we don't have a township where it's located. Now, these funds, we've used them in the past uh
for things like the Northern Lights search and rescue unit up the trail, purchasing land from Headstrom Lumber, things like that. It's a it's a fairly small uh fund and the balance uh right now as of September is 29,832.
Um then we have the forest development funds. This is something where up to 30% of the funds could be used for forest development on tax forfeited land and dedicated memorial forests to be expended under the supervision of the
county board. Well, we don't have forest that we manage and so we've used other uses as close to this as we could find for the land. We used to have to go through to the department of revenue or
the uh and ask them can we use this for these purposes. Uh Ted Mawn did that a lot back when we had a lot of these funds in the early 2000s. The law changed since then and they they got tired of making those decisions and they
moved it back to the county board to make the best judgment they can uh even though we don't have force to manage. So we've used it in the past. It really created our GIS uh project uh and function in the county. It started it.
Uh we' used it for a biomass feasibility study years ago. We've done the surveys in Hovland. This was the county cost for those uh administration of those survey areas. Um other land projects and purchases. So the balance in that fund as of September
is 81,610. And yeah, if I can ask you Brady. >> Sure. >> So the understanding under the forest development funds that um if in your narrative to us here it says we do not manage county forest or memorial forest.
So therefore this money this 81,000 that's in there right now. What's the criteria that determines what the board can do with that? >> There is no further criteria other than the statement. I've actually quoted the statement from the statute. Um
it says to use it for forest development, but the ex the example from the past is we got authority from the state to use it for related land type projects and I just listed some of those. So it's it's one of those really
gray murky areas in the law. They've never gone back to change um the law itself, but they they gave us this these examples of how we could use it and it's up to us to continue to use it as close
as we can to those stated uses. So, it's land. We've used it for land related purposes as close as we can. >> Okay. >> And that's the best you can do with this. So it would it be safe to say that if the board were standing in a forest making this motion that we could spend
it? So so I mean we we I think we've tried hard to keep it two projects that were related in some fashion and that's the best that you can do with this. >> Um I think people have gone back to try
to change these laws with the state but uh to no avail. But, uh, one example of what you might use it for now is that, um, we will run out of our administrative fundings for Firewise,
>> okay? >> In about the the next 3 to four months, and that's because we've been using the the federal title three funds for a number of years. We typically collect anywhere from 25 to 30 35 even. uh many
years in the past. It's gone down recently. This year we received 11,000 and that's gone to fund the fireways coordinator position and things like the pit maintenance um which fits the the fireways purpose
of title three funding. But uh an alternative and I think it fits as well as anything we can find the purpose of this statute. we could use those funds next year as needed. Um would get us through a year or two for example. Yeah,
Madam Chair, as a as a followup to that, u in previous uh budgeting in in my previous term, it asked the question, are there any pockets of money that we might be able to That's why I brought it. >> And and so I appreciate the information and and if as we go through this
continuing budget process, if you can remind us when we get into areas that that's helpful. Thank you. And then the the third area here is uh county parks or recreation area. So the statute says the county board may
annually by resolution set aside no more than 20% this is of tax forfeit receipts remaining to be used for acquisition and maintenance of county parks or recreation areas and then defined in statute further to be expended under the supervision of the county board. So
these have been used um I should come back if you want to know specific projects. I mean this goes back many decades of parks and recreation uses uses throughout the county. Um and the way the board has used this is in
conjunction with the next one which is the state in lie of taxes. Uh there's 35,000 in our state in le we get over 400,000 now. There's 35,000 that is to be distributed to the general fund for any purpose. That's the
statement in the statute. Well, the county board since since that started, they've used this without a stated policy, but they've used this in conjunction with the tax forfeited parks and wreck money. In fact, it goes into
the same department going back about four decades uh to be used and co-mingled with the tax forfeit funds in department 523 and that combined balance right now is 172,000
uh 655. Uh that only has a a standing balance only in the recent years. Uh up till four or five years ago uh those funds were regularly depleted. We use them for a number of things related to parks and
recreation. Again, we don't necessarily have exactly what's stated um in uh statute to spend these on, but we do the best we can with them. And uh right now, this is the fund that the parks and
trails I've talked to them about this several times, but that's the 30,000 that they're talking about for an RFP. This is the funding that we're talking about for that. In the past, we used this more recently. The uh project up at
Hovland, Deb, at the town hall. >> Oh, yes. >> The pavilion and the outdoor, all of that was from this fund. Uh um we used it for school for the uh
community education. Uh so it was the Yeah. the summer community education recreation parts of the school here and the one in Tafty. So these are some of the more let's say some of the recent there's hundreds of others but just to
give you an idea. >> Okay. And we haven't tried, we haven't really looked at it hard in recent years, which is why it's built up. But parks, uh, the parks and trails department is a is an obvious source if
you wanted to, you know, make a regular, um, use of these funds. And the other thing is you don't have to use the 35,000 for that at all. You could simply use it to reduce the levy. It's just the precedent has been to use
it for parks in the past. I don't expect you to uh absorb all of it, but uh you may have other thoughts and and questions on use of it later. Um just for today, I think unless you have specific questions, I'll move on to the
next one. Something called forest road access funds. It's an unrefunded gas tax to maintain county forest roads, which we generally don't, but it's a small amount of uh gas tax that is annually
transferred to counties over the state for management and maintenance of uh forest roads. We used them once back uh in recent years. This is in 2001. I call those recent years. Um 15,000. It really
helped kick off the pictometry uh project. It was a part of that funding initially. Right now we've got about 31,000 there. Uh over the years it's taken in about 1,500 a year and now it's up to 26 to 2,800 uh on that gas
tax. So there's a little bit of funding there. Uh Robbie may find a use for it. So, and the last one is something called the environmental trust fund. This this was a one-time event. Uh uh our land
commissioner at the time uh Ted Mawn uh did a land exchange with the state and then sold this these lakeshore properties under spec this specific statute where they said you cannot spend the principal. So, that is in a
permanent fund. You'll find that every year in our audit. It can't be touched, but it earns revenue uh interest and it's based on what we earn every year. So, we allocate a portion of that to that and those funds can be spent on for
environmental purposes and improvement of natural resources. Again, uh there's a lot of uh leeway as to how to use that. We've used them uh kind of sparingly. Uh, we created a geologic atlas of Cook County. We here did not,
but um it was through um I think that was through our GIS uh program. We've used it for emergency signage in the forest areas and geographic location coordinates along
forest trails, a county septic system, management equipment, and other land purchases that I would have to research to tell you what those were about. Anyway, that fund has $379,012 and we should talk with our um soil and
water and our environmental health and you know anything environmental related has all of these when you ask um geez are we crossing a line there we've not
been looked at by any state agency for any of these funding, but it's part of the job of the auditor. It could be the state auditor that looked at these over the many decades, and now we've got Red Path doing it. they it it's their job to
look and see. But um if there was something uh let's say very a miss because they generally don't have the time to go into these kind of policy details, but if they saw something, that's where you would typically see it
unless one of these state agencies decided to go out and do their own audits. So you're really basically on your own. It's kind of an honor system and we've I think we've met we've tried to meet that as well as we could over the years. So,
and if there aren't any questions, um the >> Commissioner Gamble. >> Yeah, thank you. Um so just you know looking at this um funding like the the the uh the last one that you referred to
that has this balance of 379,000 that uh that principle can't be touched but the earnings the interest earnings from that we can apply. Yes. Uh so my question is with all of these funding balances that you have identified which
accumulate to approximately 700,000 that if if they are invested if we can invest them as an option and we got you know 5% return I don't know what our return general return has been you know in the
last couple years you said it's been higher but you know we we'd be getting you know around 34 $35,000 from interest that would add to budget to spend. >> Yeah. And we have to accumulate interest on this and we and this one in
particular has increased a lot in the last few years because of those interest rates. >> Yeah. >> Um and you don't have to uh you know invest longterm to get good interest rates. For about two or three years our interest was uh 5 and a half to to even
up to 6%. So that one is in particular has taken a big jump because of the size of that principle and the interest uh the interest itself that fund earns interest. So
>> the other the other thing under the county parks and recreation under the state statute that is listed there that that state statute said the key provisions of that statute. One is on on planning on the recreation side. Counties conduct surveys to determine
park needs and develop general plans for a county park system. If you were to take 20% of that, which is allowable, you'd be looking at $5,966 um that could be used. >> Yeah. The 20% is how the the original
money from a forfeit sale. So, first it goes to the cost of the sale, goes to the land commissioner, >> and then you can put uh 30% into the timber of that balance, 20% up to 20% into parks, and now you're down to 50%
of it, and then it goes uh 40% to the county directly, 40% to the school, and then 20% can go to a town or a city or an organized wherever that land is located. >> Yeah. >> So, that's how it's been split up. >> Yeah. And so all of that is part of the
20%. >> Okay. >> So it's all available. >> But again under the provisions of the statute that it it it could be used basically to conduct a survey. >> Yeah. Sure. >> Thank you. Uh the next item is a MDOT uh grant
agreement. So, this is for the the uh work on the taxi lane. And as I said to the committee yesterday, you're going to see a lot of these now because uh the FAA has now required that if there's design, and
there's always design and construction on any project, separate grants. So you'll see the application for design. You'll see the application for the construction. Then you'll see um the final agreements for design and the
final agreements for the construction. And you'll see the grants. You'll see a federal grant for each side. You'll see a state grant often for each side. So you're going to see these over and over again. So this is for a port. This is for the design portion of the airport taxi lane construction. And this is
Mindot's portion of that. So it's a small amount 12,979. But as part of that, they also manage the grant for the federal government. So um we need we need to do this agreement for the money and for their management
of the whole grant process. So, >> um, Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the mind grant agreement for the airport taxi line reconstruction as presented. >> And I would wholeheartedly support that.
>> Have a motion and a second. >> And I also apologize for all this stuff that's going to come because of the master plan. As Brady said, you're going to see a lot of this. >> Any further questions or comments? All in favor? I
>> oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. >> And the last one just came up. This was uh kind of a timing issue for fees and this is for low um
and the the committee has been meeting um to digest all the the state laws and the changes this year. and they just became aware of the local part of this uh recently and the the statute says
they're there's they're starting to approve some of these businesses including these low hemp low potency now and when they approve them when they meaning license them they then have to register with the county and they they
have to stop selling if they don't also register with the county. So, we have to be ready for them to register and uh it could happen any day. We just have a few of these that are already sell. These are the businesses we're concerned about that are already selling right now. And
uh so that they're able to continue doing that. And so this is just to set a public hearing to consider the fee charges. And the maximum fee you can charge for these low potency uh retailers is $125. And the
recommendation of the committee is that we set that for 125, but we have to have a public hearing first. So, um I think we could uh if we get that into the newspaper quickly, we can do that uh in November. Uh do you have a
recommendation? >> Well, I don't know if we can if they'll accept it today, but if uh if I can get an ad in today, we might get it this week and you have to give 10 days. Otherwise, it's safer to to set it for
the 28th of November. >> So, our next meeting would be um November 12th. >> Yeah. So, it would be the 26th and 12th, 1926. Yeah. >> I I believe there's 20 businesses
currently selling low potency in Cook County. >> How many uh in the city? Do you do you have a list? How many in the city and how many? >> I'm just looking at the state's map, but um in the city is four. >> Why is it?
>> Yeah. And the city is doing the same thing >> because they'll have the same issue. >> Six of the city. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Gamble. >> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, we're talking posting in the news Herald. >> Yeah. And I think you can you could do that if if we approve that. So if if we
do it and it means it's going to be posted this week, we could have it >> for >> November 12th. >> Yeah. So I would make a motion I'd make a motion predicated on the fact that it gets posted, but it should it's Tuesday that it be and it what time
>> uh >> by five I believe. >> Oh, I'd say for the for the uh public hearing. >> Yeah, it's Wednesday. >> Oh, because of Veterans Day. Oh, Veterans Day. >> I know that's the case for like news and media.
>> Yeah, I'm not sure right now. >> Yeah, I would say let's >> let's try it and then if it isn't, we'll come back and >> if if not, let's do this. Let's um if you're willing to amend the motion um recommend that we um submit it for a
public hearing on Wednesday the 12th and if we're unable to um get that in that then we go for Tuesday the 25th. >> Oh, that's right. Because of that. Yeah. >> Yeah. Because of Veterans Day. >> Yeah, that makes sense. >> Okay. So, we have a motion that's been
amended for two dates. November 12th or the 27th? >> 25th. >> 25th. Okay. Did you say a time about uh >> should we just do 9:00? >> 9 a.m. in case it's a short meeting. >> Mhm. >> So 9:00 a.m. >> I'll support that.
>> Wednesday the 12th. Okay. >> Okay. >> Oh >> yeah. >> And the more I zoomed in, the more dots you'd see. So it looks like there's 11 in Grand Marray. I I didn't zoom in in the other area. >> You're not looking at fields. >> Looking at what? >> Fields. >> Fields. Yeah. Of cannabis.
>> There's 11 fields of cannabis. Okay. >> Wow. >> No, that's just >> that's a total completely false and a joke. >> Those are the meth labs. >> Too soon. >> Okay. So, we have a motion and a second on these dates.
>> Any further comments or questions? All in favor? >> I >> oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. So, we're at a point in our meeting now where upon the um direction of attorney
Peterson that we uh close this meeting as permitted by the Minnesota statute section 13D.05 05 subdivision 3B to address a disputed Upper Midwest athletic construction work
at the tennis courts at the address of 2011 West Fifth Street in Grand Marray which discussion is subject to attorney client privilege. This session will not be electronically pursuant by Minnesota statute section 13D.05
subdivision 1D. So I have a motion to adjourn this meeting. So moved >> support. All in favor? >> I oppose. Same sign. And we will then um continue our meeting in uh the other room.
Good morning everyone. We'll resume we're back from our meeting and we will resume our board meeting. A motion to open. >> So moved. Support. >> All in favor? >> I. And um so we'll have a U review from um
Attorney Peterson. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh during the close session, we discussed some um work that was performed by Upper Midwest Athletic Construction in relation to the tennis court surface near the YMCA. Um
the work is subject to a dispute and that uh statute of limitations on the work is subject to a tolling agreement or the dispute rather is subject to a tolling agreement that runs as of October 31st. So that was the subject of
our discussion. >> Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Sullivan. Madame Chair, I'd like to make a motion to extend or develop a new tolly agreement and if not pursue litigation to address the disputed upper Midwest athletic construction work at the tennis
courts at 2011 West Fifth Street here in Grand Marray. All >> support. All in favor? >> I >> oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Moving on to
administrator updates. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have just a few very brief updates. Um the first one is regarding the Tafty transfer station. Um just wanted everyone to know that we are hoping to start some work at that station in November, mostly around the
fencing at the station. The goal is to start um the rest of the work in the spring and hope to have it ready at the end of the summer. So, um, I had mentioned, I think it was at the last board meeting that we were holding off until the spring and I wanted to, uh,
fix that statement and make sure that the public is aware, um, that we are moving forward with that. Um, I also wanted to mention that we have the groundbreaking today at the law enforcement center. Um, and that we're continuing to work on the law enforcement center. We're hoping to pour
some footings within the next few weeks. So that continues to move forward um and is moving forward very nicely. And then lastly um I wanted to provide an update on um on food assistance. Um as everyone
is aware um SNAP might be um um not available in November. And so we are working on a local food drive here at the courthouse. And so our PHS team has um been working on that and we hope to release more information tomorrow that will include information about the food
drive that we will have here at the courthouse, information about how PHS is able to assist all of those who are impacted by the government shutdown and the SNAP um shutdown, information about how to donate here at the courthouse. Um
and we will be accepting food items. Um, we're looking at, um, also monetary donations and food cards as well. We're compiling all of the information from the community resources so that we can share that as well. And I know um, local media has been sharing that. It's been
out on Facebook. Um, and so just want to make sure that our community is supported during this time. And that's all I have. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, commissioner reports, any meeting updates um to uh tell us about
>> commission? >> Uh uh not an update at this point, but I just had a question about um something uh engineer Har had said um before leaving was just that we're going to be talking about the subordinate service districts at the committee the whole in November and I was just wondering to
what extent or what what more um are we talking about? I've had some um interested um residents um calling and wanting to be more involved in um the messaging that I shared with them is it's not going to be until next next
year um into the early part of next year and so just hearing about that kind of you know >> caught me off guard. Yes, I can respond to that. And um at the last committee of the whole when engineer Hos had brought the discussion forward, we had talked
about if any changes were made, there would be plenty of time for the community um to be able to respond to that as well as listening sessions and other other steps. And so the intent is is to continue in that discussion so
that um if there are changes made, we've already agreed to continue plowing um for this winter, but then next winter in order to have a decision before that time frame, we would need to bring it forward um before next spring. And so
that's the intent. However, if the board would like um to pause that discussion and have it at a later date, we can certainly do that. But that was the reasoning behind it was to make sure that you know if we were kind of moving backwards from that timeline we would
need to bring it forward soon. >> I appreciate that and that makes sense. I I have no uh desire to pause it. I think um the more we can talk about it the better and really try try to find some solutions. But um I'll just I'll let people know I
guess. >> Okay. >> I would agree. Yeah. >> Commissioner Sullivan. >> Thank you Madam Chair. Um and just in relationship to the subordinate governmental service districts, um I have had lots of inquiries. um actually have met with groups and one thing I
think that is important is that we have some type of letter that goes out to all of those subordinate service districts so that they are all aware of timelines, discussions, dates that these are um going to be on our agendas um so that
they have an opportunity to respond and ask questions as well. >> Commissioner Gamble. >> Yeah. The other thing which we've touched on but it bears repeating is that uh pending decisions that are made that as a board we're we're not going to
leave those individuals out. We're we'll have recommendations. This is what we do. These are options or whatever else. So our commitment to support is certainly there but from the financial standpoint and recommendations coming from our highway department we we obviously need to be open to
understanding that. So >> attorney Peterson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, just in following up with Commissioner Mills, the the timing piece also, so if the if the decision of the board ultimately is to withdraw these um
districts, then the there also needs to be published notice between 3 and 6 months prior to resolution. So, that timing piece will be paramount and getting the notice out to those districts. >> Thank you on that. Anything
else for updating, Commissioner Sullivan? >> Yes. Um, I'd like to just provide some updates related to the airport. Um, if you recall back almost a year and a half ago, the um, MPCA found a violation up
at the airport and we have been actively pursuing making that correction. Um, and finally, ODY, which is the company that we contracted with, did complete that work at our fuel farm. So, that is done and I've asked that our airport manager
um share photographs with our county administrator because it was the county administrator previously who had been informed about this violation. So, expect that you will be receiving photographs and some information. Um also, um our full master plan is in the
hands of all of you. um that was distributed at committee all the whole. So I apologize for the length of that document over 450 pages, but it is important that um we have that information that it's available to the public at well as well. And then related
to the airport, there will be a needed change on their um web page that they have on our county website. In 2026, the FAA is moving um to make changes related to
weight limits on pavement. And this is why these pavement discussions are so important. Right now there are weight limits. They are listed on the website. It is going to go to a PCR, a pavement condition ratio. Don't ask me the
science behind that. But we will be having to change what is on our uh web page for the airport in 2026. So we are working with RSNH to get the correct language and then we'll provide that. So our website is updated. Um also um
number of us were in Duth last week for both the tribal forum that's a statewide forum um that is run through AMC and also our district meetings. Um we have received a lot of updates and um summaries that are on the AMC website.
So if you were not in attendance, I would strongly encourage you to look at slides and um look at all the information that is there. And lastly, speaking of AMC, they had a webinar last week related to SNAP and also um other
impacts of federal budget reductions. They have put all of those slides out. I've sent them to our county administrator and she can include them with the minutes of this meeting so that everybody including members of the public would have that up-to-date information.
Uh lastly, the seagull SAG area property owners association has very been very concerned about a permit that they have um with Northshore waste and how they pick up their waste and
primarily the road that goes into the area where they pick up their waste up uh the Gunflint Trail uh towards the very end. And so last Thursday there was a meeting held with all the parties with the exception of the US Forest Service
because um the land specialist that we normally work with is on furlow. But we are working to address that issue and as soon as the government um is back and working that land specialist will work with us to make sure that we come to an
appropriate conclusion and resolution for their issue. Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Um I will just briefly mention that um we now have um a um really good resource
from Niko, which just recently um designated the Great Lakes Regional Forum part of Niko Counties 365. And um this happened over the summer. Um there was a uh Zoom meeting this past
week and the reason that they're forming this group is out of concern for our Great Lakes. And in fact um what are the needs for the data centers which now we already know that there's one proposed for Duth mineral mining and agriculture
in the Great Lakes basin. So, um, I'll be joining them over the next few months just to see if this is something that we really want to be concerned about and that I would officially join in the future. But right now, I'll just see where they're going to go with all of
that. I'm also a part of the uh, um, Northshore uh, Climate Resilience Committee also. So, putting those two together, I think, is an important topic to keep track of. Commissioner Sullivan >> and and just um I really appreciate you
getting engaged with that because AMC is also combining our um natural resources and environment policy committee and the general government committee to look specifically at amendments for our
legislative priorities related to data centers, nuclear energy and solid waste management districts. So it really ties in that with very nicely. So, let's keep in close contact on that. >> Yeah. Thank you. And just a reminder, next um Thursday, November 6th, we have
our legislative meeting up at Charlie's starting at noon. Those of you that were with us at the district meeting know some of the priorities that I read. But in the meantime, if you think of other things, let um our administrator know or
myself. and I'll be meeting um administrator Treble and I'll be meeting with Linda to get this all organized in terms of how we're going to approach um Hoschild and um Representative Scraba so
that um we have our little bit of time that we can present these things. So get those requests to us and we'll be meeting shortly to get this um that particular day organized. >> Excuse me. Anything else for committees?
I'll move on then. Just a reminder to us and to the public that um our next meeting day is a little bit off because Veterans Day is on a Tuesday which would have been our normal day. So we are going to be meeting on Wednesday, November 12th be our next board meeting.
And with um no other business, a reminder we're going up to the LEC for um a little ceremony there. And um I will have there's no other business. So I'll have a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved.
>> Support. >> All in favor? I >> I >> oppose. Same sign. Thank you everyone.