Good morning everyone. Welcome to the committee of the whole work session. Um I'll call this to order on Tuesday, October 21st, 2025. On our agenda, we have the minutes from the previous month. Also on the agenda
is the Cook County Historical Society budget request, Sawtooth Bluffs discussion, 2026 budget discussion, and then um for information only, we have our 2026 Cook County priorities
for the legislative session. And then also in our packet are the minutes of the standing uh committees as information. The airport advisory commission which has um presented their master final plan. And we also have the budget and facilities advisory committee
minutes and the highway advisory committee uh which was uh cancelled in September. So welcome everyone. We will um start with our first item on the agenda which is um the Cook County
Historical Society budget request. Comm administrator Treble, would you like to introduce them? >> Absolutely. So, welcome and thank you for being here. Um I know you had reached out to me and requested to present your budget request. So, I will turn it over to you, Margaret Hstrom and
Katherine. And I apologize I don't know your last name. James. James. Nice to meet you and thank you. Go ahead. >> Thank you. Um I am the president of the board of the Cook County Historical Society.
La last month we celebrated our 100th anniversary and it was a delightful event. We held it at the North House. We raised some funds and mostly
everyone there had a really good time. So, I appreciate the opportunity to um talk to you today. In celebrating our centennial, we weren't just celebrating the fact that we've been around for a hundred years.
We were celebrating a 100red years of contributions primarily by volunteers of thousands and thousands of hours of taking care of our sites.
and helping keep the museum and the Johnson Heritage Post and the Chipua City Church and Bali's blacksmith shop and the Niji open and available for people to visit,
to learn from, and to enjoy whether they are visitors to Cook County or uh our own residents. and there was a lot to celebrate there.
During the past year, we've been through a very important transition. We have a new director, Katherine James. We have a new museums and collections manager, Annie Burish. And we have hired
a new manager for the Johnson Heritage Post, Victoria Luwendowski. For the first time in our history, we have staff who have professional training and advanced degrees in
historic preservation in uh museum studies. And I can tell you this is a wonderful change. I know we have had hardworking staff in
the past who've done their very best and many volunteers who've worked on complicated challenges like restoring and caring for the Chipua City Church or restoring the Niji
among other things. We um our our budget request focuses on the history museum, one of two county-owned sites that we operate for the historical society
operates for the county. Um, and our five sites, as I've mentioned, are the Johnson Heritage Post, the Chipoa City Church, the Fishing Tug Nichi, Bali's blacksmith shop, and the
museum. The latter of two, which are um uh operated for the county by the historical society. Uh in our request we are asking for
79,000 and something. It's an increase. It is an increase from our previous uh requests over several years of $72,000.
And I understand and appreciate given all the constraints on the budget that this is not a good time to come forward asking for an increase. Um
but it's absolutely necessary for us to go beyond keeping the doors open which without staff and volunteers we would be completely unable to do but also this
transition where like many many many other notfor-profit organizations that have relied on volunteers years for a lot of the work in the past. Some who like the late
Elanor Waja or the late Bob Pratt would put in 20 hours a week sitting at the desk at the museum welcoming visitors. We've tried very very hard to recruit visitors and we're I mean recruit uh
people to help us and we have a small but very energetic and enthusiastic set of volunteers. We're still trying to build that, but I think we are increasingly recognizing that the
days of running an operation of our size and scale cannot be done depending on volunteers. We um also I will say in the past and especially the the previous year uh with
our staff turnover have experienced staff burnout and that is something that we absolutely um do not want to see happen in spite and and I will also add that
our request covers 0% of the operating costs for Valley's blacksmith shop, which we would love to have more programming on. We've done some things to clean up the site outside.
We've moved a picnic table there. We're trying to make it an attractive place for people to gather even when we can't have it open. and um but we would like to have more
programming there. As far as the museum goes, there was a time not too long ago when our our um budget request to the county covered 100% of the operating costs of the
museum. with even with this increase that we're requesting now, it will cover 65% of the operating costs. Um I have in but I I just add one other
thing. We adopted a strategic plan in 2023 or 24 that has gone into effect this year and it lays out our priorities for the next five years. One of the issues we've
had is when you're trying to do too much with too little, you spread resources so thin that nothing ever gets done. And so we have set priorities for our work
with the hopes that we can complete some projects that will allow more access, better interpretation, more visitors to visit, and in the long
run lower the costs uh for us to maintain these sites. In particular, our top priority as far as historic preservation goes is the Chipua City Church.
We um we we have a goal to complete that restoration by 2028. This year, we submitted a pre-application to the Legacy Fund for historical and cultural resources
for $35,000. We have set aside $300,000 from our uh legislative appropriation that we received for the Chipoa City Church. And
our hope was that those two things together plus some internal contributions for time would cover the costs of the restoration. Unfortunately,
it was put out for a pre-bed and we received only one bid and it was for over $1 million. and we decided it wasn't prudent for us to go forward knowing that we would not
have the funds to complete the project. We will be reapplying next year and the following year. We will split the project into two phases
and um hopefully be able to ask for slightly more each time. But we also will be raising going out to foundations and private donors to raise the money so that we have a good match and we can go
forward with the project um in a way where we're more assured of a favorable outcome. Um, I provided some we provided some
estimates and updates on what we had put into our formal request. Um we our museum and gallery and church visitation increased by nearly 18% this
year over the previous year when we were open all year round. So, so far this year from May through uh October or September 15th, I guess that's the latest data we had.
>> We had already we already were 18% over the previous entire year. And this year with staff, we plan to keep the museum open all year, not every day, but uh and
and you know recognizing that that the uh tourist season has become more extended, but also that the museum
is for our local residents as well. And there are lots of ideas we have about providing more to the local community, including assistance. I mean, including some new exhibits. They haven't changed in a long
time. That takes creativity and innovation and effort to draw people into the the museum. Um, and let's see,
we respond to research requests. We had 78 last year. And I just want to say that these are not just casual things. People coming along with questions of curiosity. They support our mission and in particular
our mission of disseminating knowledge about the history of Cook County. Um, and we assisted six authors who are currently have or are currently working on books, his books about Cook County.
We usually have um, uh, events where the authors come when they get their new book out and they have been increasingly well attended. Um, and but we also help people find
practical things. So, we um helped the city hall find historic images for uh of the city hall. We are helping the south of the border cafe find some historic images that they want to reproduce and
put up inside their in in inside their uh cafe. And um we help people who are coming to find out about their roots. They're looking for information about their families and who the people they
descended from and what life was like in Cook County in the past. And um while that may not demonstrate a practical impact, it is incredibly meaningful to people when
they can discover where they came from, who their ancestors were or learn more about them. you know, as as a as a uh grandchild of a long ago settler, as we
like to say, they didn't tell us all the good stories. So, we have to dig them up somehow. Um, and then we we provide a lot of services. We host field sites from all
of the schools. We hosted the World Press Institute, journalists. We used to um actually coordinate that program, but it was and and I think in part with
our strategic planning and our focusing, we um handed that off to Cook County Higher Education because it was a bit of mission drift, but we still present the visiting journalists with an overview and opportunities to visit our sites and
and and learn about um our history. Uh, in preparation for the George Morian exhibit that has just recently opened at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, we received a frantic reference request from the curator and the editor of the
exhibit catalog and they were searching for an article about the logging of the last virgin timber along the US Canadian border in Grand Portage. They had the wrong title of the article. They had the
wrong date of the article, but we found it and um and they were delighted and they do acknowledge us and thank us for helping them with that. So, um, we also
had we had, uh, four summer youth volunteers who I think both learned a lot and really enjoyed themselves working with our collections to the point where
uh, two of them, Briea and Matey, were how I don't know what how old they are, like 12 maybe. They moved all the way up to being able to sit at the desk and greet visitors by the end of the summer, which was wonderful to see. And uh one
college student as well who is interested in going into archives. Um I mentioned our uh pre-application to for the um the Chipua City Church, but we're going we're not going to be
deterred. We're going to carry on. We're going to be determined to do this. Um, we have a budget which was provided to you I guess just yesterday um that covers our costs and um you know
we get a lot of our funds from donations, grants, revenue. We are looking at all of those operations trying to make them as efficient as possible. We're reaching out for new members. Um, and we're doing everything
we can, but and we we really appreciate what the county has done for us. Um, and I hope the county appreciates what we are doing for Cook County, its residents, and its visitors,
and can find a way to um to uh fill our discretionary budget request. And it's interesting, it's called discretionary, but to us, history is not discretionary. It doesn't stop coming.
We can't turn the lights out and walk away from a 135 year old structure and expect it to just stay standing. Um, and more, you know, people are constantly creating new history and more history
and um, and it's gotten much more expensive to do the work we do. um the historic preservation to do it up to standards and professionally is very very
expensive. I mean, we anticipated after very thorough review uh histo a a historic structure survey and the um development of construction drawings for the Chipoa City Church
expected about $700,000 and as I said our only bid was 300 plus thousand dollars more than that because are um three of four of our sites, three of
our sites, I'm sorry, Bali's blacksmith shop, the uh lightkeeper house and museum, and the Chipua City Church are all listed on the National Register of Historic Places. We are bound by complying with the
Secretary of Interior's standards for historic preservation, which constrains what we can do, but perhaps more importantly requires us to do it in a professional and proper way so that these investments
have the greatest impact possible and um and are done in such a way that they have uh very very longterm uh lif span not as long as the
structures but um their investments for the present and the future and I think that's all I have to say. Do you have anything to add Katherine? >> Um just quickly thank you Margaret. I
think uh you've uh touched on most of our our work that we do. Um, all I had to add, I'd love to share an experience that I had this past weekend at the museum because I think it really
encapsulates the best of what we do and why it is so important to keep our museums open. I was sitting at the front desk at our museum so our museum manager could have
a lunch break. And this little boy who had been wandering around the museum with his family for several hours finally emerged back at the front and wanted to uh buy a book. Now this child
was maybe about 9 10 years old and the book he wanted to buy was very much what I would think of as a grown-up book. So right away my interest was peaked. What is going on here? This is a book about shipwrecks. And this child proceeds to tell me as he
hands over his his little wad of allowance money how much he loves shipwrecks. He thinks it's fascinating. And he says, "Well, I don't like that the ships go down, but I think it's really cool when when we get to look at artifacts and learn about the stories of
those of those people and learn about the power of the lake." and he's using really big words and really big language. And uh this this child I I am so excited by his excitement. I say to
his parents, if you all have a few minutes, I would love to show you something we just found in our basement. And they're like, "Oh, yes." So, I went back and I got our museum manager and I said, "Annie, I am so
sorry for interrupting your lunch, but we have a young man here who is really really fascinated by shipwrecks." And as some context, as as Margaret has has explained, we've been going through this transition period of new staff and one
of our big projects is examining everything in our collection, finding out what's there, >> tracking down all the paperwork attached to it. And we came across some stuff related to the America that is not on display.
And I said, Annie, I'd love to show this young man what we just found. and she jumped right up and we we had our own private exhibit for this kid and his family. And if you could see the
sparks that were flying as his little imagination lit up and his parents were talking at pointing at us and seeing, you see, there are folks who do this for a living. They they help tell stories. They help
save these things. And isn't that cool? You could do something like this. It's like, "Yeah, I could." And it was the best merger of sparking imagination of of inspiring someone to maybe maybe
pursue a a career in history or museums or underwater archaeology. Um, but really just that connection of understanding how big the world is and letting this kid hold in his hands
uh a a pop bottle that still had the pop in it from 1928 when that boat went down. >> He was ecstatic. He got more than his money's worth for that book. I can tell you that. Um but that was just such a magical
moment uh with uh being able to share that museum moment with that child and watch his imagination grow and all the pieces came together. The volunteers who had helped process that collection originally. Um the the preservation to
keep that those artifacts intact. um this whole journey of this object that went into that moment. Um and that is why we are asking for your help to keep our doors open as much as possible to open the doors at our other sites so
that we can have more of those magic aha moments uh in a time when there's so much uncertainty. um to be able to spark as much light and magic as we can and really give kids uh
the kids of today something to daydream about for tomorrow and just have fun. We all need fun. So that's my spiel. Thank you. That's a great story. Thank you for putting us together for the past that
you've been, the present, and the future that you want to see happen. And thank you for your budget. As you know, we get submissions from all the departments from all the important areas of course and um we will certainly take this into
consideration. I'll take a few minutes to open it up if anyone has any questions. Commissioner White, >> few years back, you received a $700,000 grant for an for the construction of an archival building or or means to to um
do a better job of preservation of the artifacts that you have. And I was and I do know that you came before the board at one point. It was the same time when the board was searching for additional spaces. And I was just wondering uh how you ever came
out with that, what you ever did. >> Okay. Um we received $700,000 in a special appropriation in lie of what was originally a bonding
request to build a separate archival storage facility in the business park. after a flood in 2016, I think a second one in 2017 at the museum which damaged our collections
and required relocation of many of them. The board at that time approved uh a purchase of a lot in the Cedar Grove business park and a considerable
expenditure to develop um the partial drawings for such a facility. Uh I joined the board in 2022
and as someone who has uh well I have I have a PhD in history and I've spent my entire career working with archives preservation, historic preservation, etc. Um
it was quite it was apparent to me that this was not the right solution. The um among other things the site has drainage issues, storm water issues.
It's just not the place to put a storage facility. And equally importantly, there was no thought given to how people would actually use this building. It was let's take all the stuff, stuff it in a wear a
$1.2 million warehouse up there. We had no staffing. We had no place for people to use the collections. and subsequently um and I will say the grant it wasn't a
grant it was a it was an allocation and an appropriation and it had no specific purpose attached to it. Um we have set us we have set aside as I said we we
decided to set aside $300,000 of that for the Chipoa City Church. We have spent pieces of it on um a number of other immediate needs for repairs and I don't know exactly where the
balance of that stands, but we want to use those funds effectively. And spending $700,000 on a $1.2 2 million storage facility
would not be that subsequently um and we appreciate very much support from the county. There has been mitigation done on in in the lower level of the um of the museum
to hopefully prevent any flood of that sort until we can develop a satisfactory solution. And I am of the opinion that
if possible, we need to find re find existing space either in our existing facilities or in very close proximity to them and retrofit it for the kind of storage
environments we need which are varied. Um part of the problem as well with that storage warehouse was um rather than taking the very specific kinds of temperature and humidity ranges
which are different for colored film and glass negatives and metal objects and archival documents. They took the entire range and just said, "Oh, it has to be between 50 and 80." Well, no, it can't be between 50
and 80. That's the worst thing for some, you know, materials and the worst thing on the other end for others. So um so and then as Katherine has mentioned our project you know the we've already
dug into a project to really get a handle on exactly what we have so that we can make an educated decision about exactly what we need for uh
control storage. >> Just curiosity. Yeah. No. And it's a very good question. >> Not plotting anymore. >> Yeah. It's a very good question. Um and you know, um I don't feel totally comfortable from a professional
point of view about having things where we have them. Um, but I also, as someone with a lot of administrative experience, don't feel comfortable running out and spending
million a million plus dollars on a solution that isn't going to serve anybody's needs. >> I'll hear one more comment or question. >> Yeah. So, just so we understand um the ask, it looks like there's $75,000
in the budget request and that's an increase. Um was it from $71,000 in 2024, but then I didn't see I couldn't find 2025. >> You're looking at you're I think you're
looking at the update the budget our budget. >> Yeah. um that is an estimate that but what we did request was $79, >> okay, >> 720 or something like that. So this is
this is for our purposes for our own budget planning. Mhm. >> And um you know we one of the issues in our strategic plan was could we work with the county
to have a more predictable budget >> because our our fiscal year starts um >> onve November 1st >> but we don't know what our allocation
from the county is going to be until you January. >> January. >> So we're off and we have to make our best guess. >> Yeah. >> And so that number was was it 71,000 last year? >> Yes. And the previous year and the
previous year I don't know I don't know how long it's been since we asked for an increase but quite a while. >> Maybe. >> Yes. >> Okay. So one more question. You mentioned the 700,000. So some of that has been allocated for the Chipoa city.
Um but you mentioned that that that um doesn't have specific ways in which you need to use those funds. So could you use them for operations operating expenses? >> We have used a few of them.
>> Okay. But only under duress >> because you know it sounds like a lot of money but you know it can just we we to to to
meet the goals of our strategic plan. We have to have those funds available as matches for grant requests as uh you know sometimes emergency
filling in and so we are extremely reluctant to spend any of those funds on operating expenses. >> Okay. Thank you so much for coming before us >> and that's why we use this committee of
the whole to hear stories out in the community and then as a board then we will discuss it in the future. >> Well, thank you. >> Thank you >> and thanks for all your past support. >> Next item on our agenda is discussion on
the Sawtooth Bluffs area and I want to thank everybody who was involved in that. It's quite a presentation and uh going way back to 2005. I had to jog my memory on that part. So we're
going way back and we're coming now to the future. So um administrator Treble, would you like to introduce that? >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um yes. So you're correct. There were a lot of items u materials added to the agenda for this particular
discussion. And just to remind um the public that this was we had um we had an item on the last or actually it was two board meetings ago on the agenda to approve an RFP for the Sawtooth Bluff.
Um we pulled u making a decision that day from the agenda and decided to come back to committee of the whole um so that we had some time and opportunity to answer some questions um and concerns that were raised during that discussion. And so this is as a result of that. And
so we have materials from both our land services team um and two of our commissioners, Commissioner Sullivan and Commissioner Gamble added to the agenda as well. And so with that um go ahead Tim. >> Okay. Well, I I don't want to cut you
off uh administrator. >> Yeah. So, so with that, my thought for this discussion is to hand it over to land services to walk through their presentation, but then also have an opportunity for our two commissioners that provided materials as well to walk through that if that's okay with you.
Perfect. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you, Madam Commissioner, administrator, commissioners. Uh good morning to you all. Uh just want to reiterate the fact that uh yes indeed the last time that we had sat before you uh was to go ahead and request just to
go out on uh an RFP that uh would actually cost the county a whopping 0 and0 and commit the county to nothing. Um we are actually looking for the RFP after
you know we talked about the date of 2005. This has actually been in kind of discussions for nearly three decades. Um this particular piece of property up the hill. And so uh we are uh from the parks and trails uh commission standpoint um
working basically off of the plan that had been adopted by this board of commissioners. um notwithstanding uh an impromptu uh and informal survey that had been sent out that I think kind of created a little bit of distraction um as as
opposed to uh narrowing the specifics. But the the the whole intent of the RFP is to continue with the adopted plan uh that this board uh has uh adopted. Um, and the RFP is intended to get that
information uh to us that would give us a more uh complete and rounded uh discussion in terms of how much the cost of uh additional uh plans would be uh to finish the plan to get it to the point
of regional designation. We had realized that the initial plan that had been completed did not bring us to that level of regional designation. We saw that the city of Grand Marray also experienced that same uh issue and did have to go out and get a consulting firm to make uh
their plan so that it was in suitable condition for regional designation. The intent of the plan is not for the county to spend its own uh funds, but to help facilitate for user groups and uh those things to be able to obtain um area kind
of grants uh that are out there and not to utilize u local resources for that. Um but we felt that um again as this has been a uh kind of decadesl long open and
very public uh process that we wanted that uh additional last remaining piece of information to have I think a better conversation in front of this board of commissioners that would have all of the information that we would need uh with
regards to the full cost of what getting that plan to the level of the regional designation would be and what the plan would look like with regards to the public participation uh level going forward. Uh obviously any plan uh going forward that would uh
bring us to that point of re regional designation would include uh a pretty major portion of it with regards to uh public involvement and input and everything as well. So what our intent was in coming to the port this last time
was to kind of get authorization to go out on that RFP which again would cost nothing and would commit us to nothing. We would get that information back uh from the consultings, any any of those that would uh have uh that would submit
a proposal and uh then be able to evaluate and then come back to this board to have we believe a more further robust discussion in terms of the actual path uh moving forward and having those
facts of the cost and what the plan uh or the path to uh get to that plan would look like. So, that's just putting it into context, understanding that um you have a pretty full agenda here looking at it with regards to budgets and
everything like that. And if you saw the information that even we had just put together, um we could spend three hours on on the PowerPoint that's going through. It's pretty pretty beefy uh that's in there and starts with the old ski hill plan um and and such. uh but
we'll just let it uh to you guys to kind of dictate to how much time you want to spend on on this. But that is really our our only goal is is to go out to just get the RFP so we can have a more further robust conversation with all the
facts in front of us instead of partial ones. >> Thank you. So I I had asked you to put together all of that information somewhat for my benefit so that I could see like where this started in the history of this project. So I just want
to make sure that I'm understanding one piece correctly as I reviewed it last night. And that's that the RFP would outline what are the what are the operational costs for the different options >> as you move forward. And so at this point, we don't have the ability to
determine what that split would be with the city and the county or to deter determine the full operational costs until we have that assessment done. So then we have the information to have those further discussions. Is that accurate? >> That is correct. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Yeah. I mean just to add a little bit to that too. I mean we we also don't exactly know what we want you know so it would just kind of again engage us with the public process. Again if you look at for example my um proposal from HKGI
that we received um that is built in there that public engagement is built into that process. So again, it's just it's not it's not saying we're going to start. It's saying we're going to engage in the last round of, you know, public engagement and planning after 30 years
of planning, you know. So, um, just kind of again, you know, bringing it forward, having another conversation and kind of nailing down what exactly we need and want. So, thank you. >> Okay. How does everyone feel about
what um Tim just proposed as far as an RFP? >> Well, personally, I really like the HKGI option because of the history working with the city. I think they're really solid um firm and just talking with Dave
Turstige who is engaged um with them to help them get through that process. it seems like a a a good fit and considering their cost estimate was half of which what the city paid. Um I think there's a huge advantage there in that
they have that experience with our community and some of the ins and outs. Um and I appreciate the the pros and cons in our in our presentation with um you know doing the RFP versus not. And
um there is certainly potential uh theoretically that it could be a better price with an uh an RFP, but I'd be very surprised just knowing the history and what they already have gathered. Um but uh doesn't mean it's not possible. It's
just pretty pretty pretty uh I think it's pretty likely it'd be a higher cost than HKGI. So that gives me gives me more confidence in them. Yes. >> Do we have a time frame on all this decision making? I'm thinking like
December or something. >> Um, sorry to jump in. So, I mean, one one slide I think that was kind of important to highlight is um, Greater Minnesota is kind of going through their
files of, you know, their their regional parks, potential regional parks. And I did in uh correspond with Joe Chapowski who's the coordinator for greater Minnesota. He said that actually before the end of the year they intend to kind of bring up all of these potential parks
and kind of identify where they are at and potentially I don't exactly know what that means but um you know it could mean that we lose our opportunity to do something on with the legacy dollars that are potentially v you know there.
Go ahead Tim. and and certainly to as as that direct tors then the answer to the question would be we would want that information or the RFP information if we do go out for that uh and be able to come back to the board in December for uh to have really this discussion in a
more robust fashion with all of the facts on the table >> to kind of to back up to what Commissioner Mills was saying too I recognize on my slide it was kind of blocked by my pros and cons list but if you kind of look at it I I mean it we do
have developing a public engagement plan in there you know meet meetings with stakeholders as part of it. Um additionally you know in phase two you know working with the city to former joint powers board summarize the input that we received from phase one. um you
know address all of those concerns between aesthetics uh environmental concerns and then you know kind of work towards that final master planning process and you know as Joe mentioned in his email he he has a lot of experience
with doing this all over the state um and has you know seen grassroots efforts and he's seen efforts working with consulting firms and he said that he has an not experienced a project that's this dormant be revitalized in the grassroots
effort. And he said as again being able to go to the commission and say uh Grand Marray and Cook County are working together on a joint powers plan. They've hired a consultant would go a long way in identifying how they want to, you
know, doggeear this project. you know whether or not they want to put it to bed or you know if we want to show them that we are still eager to continue. >> Yes, Tim. >> And that being said, Madam Chair and commissioners, that this particular step
that we would be taking is not making that decision right now. We would have to have that other discussion. That other discussion, the board of commissioners may say me, we don't want to do any of this. Um, but it's good to have that discussion with all of that correct and accurate and up-to-date
information in front of us so that we can make that best informed uh decision and we believe that that would be able to be accomplished in December. >> Okay. Travis >> at the latest. >> Great. Commissioner Commission V. And so
those dollars with the HKG they would um for public input do they put a dollar amount on I mean do they specify public input as being essential to the next
step forward or >> well they would identify it as one of the steps as far as attaching a dollar to it and that that's what we're looking for is for them to come back with an overall kind of sense of what that would cost and then that would then put the
the onus on us to have the discussion with the city to say okay you know what is your level of interest what is our level of interest we can do public uh engagement things and we have in each of the steps that we've done this regardless if it was the um the old ski
hill plan or the um comprehensive uh land use guide plan we've talked about it we've had public meetings and public discourse. We've had public uh meetings and discourse with uh the comprehensive trails plan and also with the uh
Sawtooth Bluff's comprehensive plan all before they were adopted by this board of commissioners. So, we could do that as well then. And would that would that uh agency give a um look at what the ongoing cost would be
if if a if this were developed to have campsites and trails? What would the these are all estimates? What would the cost be for maintenance of the trails and for cleanup and what what is that
expense? would they come up with some and it's all everything changes all the time. So >> right is >> that's that's kind of I mean in that slide that Janna showed that was the intent is like we need to show not only ourselves between our joint powers agreement with the city we need to
understand who's going to take the responsibility. Um but then like in order to receive that regional designation from greater Minnesota we need to show them that like this is how we're going to operate and maintain it. This is going to be our budgetary cost. this is going to be staff time. You know, these are the things that we need
to identify. So, yes. Um, but you know, to answer your question a little more, depending on how robust we want to make the public engagement process, that may dictate price a little bit too. Like if we want to have if we want to re-evaluate what they've proposed to us and and do more time, more meetings,
that that could incur additional costs, you know, because it's all issue of time. So, >> I apologize for not um being able to attend the discussion when it was brought before the board. Um I had the COVID um but I watched and it just
sounded like there's a lot of questions um from commissioners. So, I just want to make sure that the questions are getting answered. Uh and I don't know if there are more questions or if at this point you've been able to have conversations on the sides or or where things are at there. Me, too. And thank
you, Commissioner Mills. And though I'm not a commissioner, and I know that was directed towards the the commissioners getting their questions answered, I know that there was a lot of emphasis uh kind of placed on that informal and an impromptu survey that had been sent out and that was not a part of the official
plan that had been discussed at the parks and trails and Mitch put that together and put it out and sometimes we just do that. that was not intended to be an official step in terms of of moving forward with this. And in fact, the moving forward in this is what is
like outlined in the Sawtooth Bluffs plan and the comprehensive trails plan as those action items are identified in there in moving forward. So the actions that we take in wanting to do this RFP is already based in those plans that are
adopted by this board of commissioners. So I I and the only reason I say that is that I we we we don't have to put a lot of weight in that that survey that we've recognized some of those questions are, you know, kind of sketchy or more difficult to answer and some can be, you
know, interpreted this way or that way or whatever. So >> yeah, I think the my memory was the parks and trails commission was just looking for a gauge because it had been long enough since any discussion had happened. and that's like, hey, let's just get some feelers out there and see where things are at and how much more communication needs to happen and all
that. So, appreciate that work. Sorry that it's led to confusion. Uh, well, yeah. No, I I appreciate that, Commissioner Mills. You know, it it was precisely that. You know, I think just to kind of give a timeline on 2025, you know, we understood that at the end of December that we were going to have this
money budgeted for Sawtooth Plus planning. you know, so right at that meeting, we decided, okay, we're going to do a meeting every month instead of once every two months like we usually do because we want to come up with, you know, a barometer of what the public's feeling. So, February, we, you know,
drew up the survey. I presented it to the parks and trails commission. We we put it out the subsequent month. Um, got a really good amount of response and that kind of showed us, yes, the public still does have an appetite for it. Then, you know, that's kind of what we used to identify that we wanted to
proceed, you know, with with going forward. >> Any other questions or comments? >> Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I think foundational to this whole thing is is actually finding out what the
local citizens want. That that's foundational to the whole thing. The simple thing for me is it is if if you look at the key steps to take before sending out an RFP,
you need to clarify your goals. You need to determine your scope. You need to establish budget and you need to engage stakeholders. If you look at in your presentation, which I appreciated, that if you look at the outline plan for
the development of the old ski hill, it says that these are basic things that we need to consider contribute to and not distract from the quality of life of residents of Grammar and Cook County in general. That is a foundational
statement that came out when this plan began to be looked at. Another point was involve only small public investment yet provide significant addition to the features that encourage long stayovers by visitors. What does that say? That
identifies a target group. That is not local citizens. If you look at the EDA mission statement, broaden the county's physical attractiveness and whatever is deemed to be in the best interest
of the general welfare of Cook County citizens. it and the economic impact study that was done in the Gok County that focus is an investments must be made to make Cook County competitive with competing
tourist destinations. Restoring vitality to the tourism economy is critically important to the overall well-being of the county. research implies that recreation and
tourism development contributes to rural well-being. If you want to look at Cook County with all the recognition we have, with all the participation we have, our problem is not tourism attraction. Our problem
is managing tourism. My wife and I watched a documentary the other day on Portugal and the term that was used was controlled tourism. I thought, now that's a term that's interesting.
We need to find a balance in our county that protects the well-being of the people that have lived here, especially generational families. And if we say that tourism will continue to be the economy's driving force, a healthier
tourist economy is necessary for a healthier county economy. We need to stabilize the tourist economy. In one of our joint meetings a few months ago, tourism director said, "We
don't need resources for people to come and tell us what to do when it comes to tourism because we know how to do tourism. We do. Is that who we are serving? And so if we look at what we've said and what is represented in your document there, our issue is not that we
need more tourists. And if you say that our economic survival is dependent upon tourism, do you want to know the survival of the people in this county that cannot survive because of tourism? Because tourism has its plus and it has
its minus sides. The plus is that yes it can profit a few. It can make us feel good that people love to come to where we are. We are blessed with a natural beauty that is given to us as a community that makes this place attractive.
But you can also look at the price of homes, the lack of homes. You can look at the price of commodity. You can look at available space for people that live here that don't come down during the tourist season. And so who are we
choosing to serve? So my point is I can have an opinion. You can have opinion. I'm not elected to vote my opinion. I'm elected to represent the people that put their trust in me to represent their best interest. And so what I am saying
very simply, and I'll back up and and preface it by saying this, at the point that the preserve the bluff came up as a result of Mr. chief saying, "Here's 80 acres." In my first term as a commissioner, we
were dealing with this. 10 years later, we're dealing with it. What to do with that 80 acres? And so for the those that Commissioner Sterling, I don't believe you were there during that discussion, but when John came before the board, the
discussion was, "So, what are we going to do? We either make a contribution to our tax base. I'm an opinion we need to because we have very little property that we can generate revenue to lessen the financial burden on the people that
are paying the tax. Now, if you look at at the fiscal disparity situation the way it is aligned right now, we're putting more burden on the basic taxpayer because our businesses are not contributing. They're paying, but it's
not going to us. And so that puts more burden on our taxpayers. So um when the decision in that meeting and they made the motion, it was let's make a decision. It's been over 10 years. This
gentleman has worked with us. So if if we're not going to make a contribution to tax base by allowing this property to be developed, then we're going to make a decision based upon aesthetic. We want to protect
that bluff and that's the commitment. But in making that motion, I said there's no way I will spend taxpayer dollars to buy that property because taxpayers can look in and say I want somebody to help share my bills. So
let's develop up there. But the consensus of the board was we want to protect the aesthetic. So then it's up to a group to res resourceful in order to do that. So my point is is that my decision was based upon a consensus. It
wasn't what I would have done because I would have made a contribution to tax base because we need that tax base especially when payment l of taxes is very fragile in our economy. So why do I say that? I say that it
comes to another point here where I'm saying I'm elected to represent the best interest of the people in our community. Not the loudest voice, not the special interest groups. I've had enough experience as commissioner to know that special interest groups and loudest voice tend to drive a lot of decisions
and they cobble together some things to warrant what they do and they push past the public voice. That's not how you build trust relationships. All I'm saying, ask the people whose lives will be affected by this decision, and if
they're for it, I will support it 100%. It's an investment that if we do a mailings, we just did a mailing on the school referendum, 3,000 some people that pay taxes in this county, that live in this county, whose lives are impact
by the decisions we support. Ask them. Ask them. Do a credible study. Don't do a study that limits the findings that get skewed because we have an elderly population, the highest in the state out of 87 counties that don't voice their
opinions through a computer. And so we could do a study. I have a representative nature of the question very simple that'll tell us what should we do to send out a referendum.
We should engage stakeholders. These are all of the best practices that should be followed. We haven't we haven't done that. We're It seems that by saying that a referendum cost us nothing. Yes, we
can ask we can do window shopping and look at something, but we're not going to buy it. The statement we tend to hear is that we need to move this forward. And I agree. Let's move it forward, but
let's respect the people whose lives are impacted by this. If they in fact want this, if we understand what cost is. We're saying here that $30,000 that is that is levy money. That 30,000 if we
take additional money up to the projected $50,000 to do a do a study on this. Um those dollars are are not direct impact on the taxpayer, but
what we're doing is we're incrementally making the snowball bigger so that the people who are impacted by this just get rolled over because the momentum, well, we're in it this far. Oh, we've got this way, we got that. All I'm saying is
let's do a survey of the people whose lives will be affected. If it's a question, we have no trails, we have no camping, we have no activities, we have no things that people can get out and enjoy nature in our county, that would
be a statement that we'd be very hard to make. And I am saying let's find out what the people want. If they want it, I as an elected representative of those people will support. If they don't want it, then let's focus our energy and our
resource on things that we can serve this community. We are not elected to serve the tourists. And I am not disparaging tourism. I'm saying, and it's been proved throughout the world, there needs to be a healthy balance in
order to protect the interest of our community. So, >> do you think the survey that you put together reached the most amount of people in Cook County as residents? >> That impromptu informal one that that had been sucked out in the spring. No, I
don't I don't think that that was adequate that that to fulfill this. However, I do think that that uh Commissioner Gamble brings up a very good point. And I know that um even when I first got here, I was able to read
some books about communities say like in Colorado that are completely, you know, overtaken and overrun with tourism and such. So it is very important and very key to be able to manage the tourism thing. Um but one thing that I think and
I think we can we can do this at the same time. I I I'm not sure that um fragmenting it into different processes uh would be maybe as effective as incorporating that into this one process. So we can impact the request
for proposals. It's not a referendum. The the uh RFP is a request for proposals to include a portion on that public engagement to specifically look at managing the tourism and what it would cost and how we could do that and
how people would feel about that and be able to address that in the same process instead of having this process and then maybe that process and whatever. I I believe it would be very effective to actually incorporate that all into into one and again go back to say that we get
proposals back. We can always uh adjust or negotiate those proposals and then we would know what kind of funds we're actually talking about. We can sit here and guess what these funds are. But it's a I I think it it does all of us a good value to actually know what those actual
funds would be and then be able to talk with any of the proposals that that submit that out. >> Commissioner Miller. >> Yeah. I just I I wanted to back up a bit because um you know some of the references uh of that old ski hill
that's from 1997. So that's not where the parks and trails commission was coming from. And then um the go team is from 2012 also. That's not where the parks and trails commission is coming from. Like at no point, well I shouldn't say at no point.
Tourism is not what the parks and trails commission is aiming at. This is for the user groups that live and work here. Um tourism came into play, I'd say, because uh the idea is like sure that'd be
great. How are we going to pay for it? And so it's like, well, there's always ongoing costs. Maybe there could be some campsites for revenue or something. It was just an idea. It wasn't like we need to build this for campsites. That's not It was just like, how can we get some kind of sustainable uh revenue to do
this? And I'm sure there's other ways, even just a a little box for donations or whatever at the trail heads. But, um, I just want to be clear that that's the aim of the parks and trails commission is for people who live and work here.
It's not for visitors. Um we we respect uh what what tourism brings to our community and and that economy, but um really this location is um basically in town
and there aren't uh that many opportunities within walking distance of town um to to to do that. I see people walking on the roads often and that's great. Um, but I think hopefully we all understand that walking on a forest path
is much better for um our mental health and our physical health and walking on a road with Jake breaking or whatever, you know. Um, and so it it's it's never been, at least as long as I've been um working with the parks and trails commission that this is going to be a
large development. It's always been kind of that s smaller scale. Um, but we wanted to include all the ideas that had been presented before and there were some other ideas for making a larger campground or whatever, but that's never been um the I'd say the take of the
parks and trails commission. So, I just want to be clear on that because it seems like there's confusion of what the aim is and and what we've heard from the community and um the whole thing has been a public process since I don't know the last iteration. um when David Demer
was here. Um I guess that would would have been when you were in office. So that was a public process and we're just one step at a time. You know, it's not that we have to push it through, but um but I think there really is interest for for that kind of um softer recreation.
>> Travis, >> yeah, I just kind of wanted to try to address some of that as well. I mean, you know, to try to identify the goals and the scope of the project. I mean to me the goals are you know to achieve that regional designation with with greater Minnesota with the budget that
the board has provided for us thankfully. Um you know and we recognize that Cook County citizens are as much stakeholders as all of like the user groups would be m maintaining the various trails that may or may not get built. you know, and
as as Dave said, you know, within I mean, back when Amy Wilford pres presented to the EDA back in 2004, you know, that's where they tried to work on a consensus as to what would be amunable uses of the property and with the idea
that aesthetic preservation was one of the chief among them, you know, recognizing also that well, there needs to be some amenities, you know, and there was talks of, you know, a a trade village with the folk school and as well with uh Cook County Higher Education
and, you know, lower on the hillside and not presenting kind of that big aesthetic change up further on the hillside. So, I mean, even since, you know, 1997 when it first came out, that was kind of what the the public outcry over, you know, developing this into a a
plat or, you know, a resort or something like that. you know, we got immediate feedback about that and you know, in that subsequent five years before Amy presented to the EDA, you know, they were working on developing that consensus. And so I think it just shows
we have a long history of like we have considered the public opinion in this. And two in you know in managing some of the the conflict we have with tourism creating some amenities within
you know reach of um higher population density. You know we need to have that ability for people to kind of get out of our hair go do something so that you're not always downtown. you know, that would kind of help to manage a little bit of that conflict. Um, and then, yeah, I mean, we can certainly include
mailings in the RFP process. If we wanted to do that, we could include that in the process. And if and if the $30,000 is an issue with the board and we don't have the funds for it, we in the past when we did some of these this
work with ARDC, we didn't go through an RFP process to engage with them. we just hired them, you know, and so um and with when we did that, we we paid them with funds out of the payment of in
le of taxes fund with the parks and wreck uh fund. So, um, and additionally, like I'm concerned if we don't make a decision on this. One, like we lose an opportunity with greater Minnesota, but
two, we don't know what might happen. If we don't propose a solution, you know, if we can't get a consensus as to what to do with it, I think it we just lose an opportunity. Um, and then finally, I mean, Dan, would you be able to bring up that image like from
the end of my slides like at the very end like some of the pictures that I have >> going right here. So, I mean, you can see this is the hillside we're dealing with right now. You can see the water tower right there in the center with the towers at
the top. I took this last week. What's also going on in that picture is one of the largest construction projects in the county right now. Gunflint Trail is getting revitalized up that hillside. So, what we're proposing at even if we do proceed with an RFP, the most we'd be
talking about are some 3ft to 6 foot wide trails on the hillside. You know, it's we're not looking to denude the hillside of vegetation. We're going to continue to have it as that aesthetic hillside. and if we if the ship sails on the greater Minnesota process, we're
kind of left back at square one as to what we're going to do with it. So that's my concern and I think that's the concern of the parks and trails commission too. So >> thank you. >> Just to reiterate the fact that the request for proposals only comes back with proposals. It doesn't commit us to
anything. We would still have to come back to the parks and trails commission to the board of commissioners to pursue anything. And the whole point was to work with the user groups for them to be able to propose and them to be able to secure uh financing through whatever
grants that are opened up more favorably through the regional designation that our role would really only be fiscal agent for not the use of public or local resources. So, we've had the presentation. We're not able to vote, but in order to move
forward, we would need to hear from you at our next county board meeting, which is already into November. >> Correct. So, um I think we'll have to wait for the that presentation to do the RLF.
It's too bad ARDC can't come forward now um because they are so good about supporting people with trails and maybe they can in the future. Who knows? But um yes, Commissioner, >> quick question. What happens if we don't get the designation? >> I think we start at square one and
that's kind of where >> the land just sits there >> potentially. Yep. >> And people will have to walk up pin cushion and they'll have to go to Onion River and they'll have to go to any high spot along the shore that
they can access. I guess >> the the fact that um if we don't get regional designation and that that's a goal simply because it opens up grant funding for uh our local user groups to be able to use that that funds for that.
That's what the whole point of regional designation is. It doesn't lock the property down that nobody can use it. People can use it. I.e. The greatest example of that is the dog park. We don't have regional designation. The dog park wanted to proceed with the use of
that. That was included in our Sawtooth Bluffs plan. They took it to the uh parks and trails commission. We said yes, why not? It's a great idea. They moved it forward. We had a blessing from the commissioner, board of commissioners. They brought it. They brought it to the city. The city said
yes. And they're using that. they just don't have the funding or didn't get the funding through any of the grants that would have been able to have been open to them through the Greater Minnesota Parks and Trails Commission. Just to address that real quick, like um you
know, if if we really are looking to seek the financial or to lessen the financial burden on Cook County taxpayers, allowing land to sit there unused um seems kind of in not in the best interest of the county. it it we could be using this to
generate revenue. Uh we could preserve it still with having some few trails going through the property and offset some of that financial burden on county taxpayers. >> Administrator Treble, did you have a comment? >> Um my only comment was just that we
wanted to make sure that we had this opportunity for discussion to see if we could address any questions or concerns. We're moving this forward because that's what the commissioners voted on and asked us asked us essentially to do. So, we plan to bring this forward next month
for a decision, but if there's any additional information that's needed, if there's any concerns that we can help to address, we're happy to do that. So, please let us know what you need from us. >> One thing I think is important, too, is that you have um discussion with the city so that we understand, is this a
joint power? Is this something that we're going to work together on? because I think that's that's important part of this whole plan. So, thank you. >> I think the one of the main points that the city would like to see is the actual RF the proposals that do come in for the
financial cost which would uh kind of modify what that what that discussion would look like. So then I presume we are invited back next month. >> So thank you again for all of that. We'll look forward to having you at our board meeting next month.
>> Yep. Madam Chair, Commissioner Gamblehead. >> Oh, sorry. >> Yeah, thank you. I appreciate it. Um I one of the the reason that I referenced the things because it was part of the presentation which is basically foundational to our understanding of why this is moving the
direction it is. That's why I referenced those comments and those things. I think we all I mean it's it's very important for us to be foundational in stating what intent is and that is both what what an RFB you need to state intent and
it's the same thing with greater Minneapolis or Minnesota minnesota with the parks and trails if you look at their outline for what should be followed if you follow best practices in that regard we're not we're not doing that and and if the statement is do nothing and risk
an uncertain future I suggest we ask those who will be most impacted the community what we as commissioners should support on their behalf. If the citizens of the community wish to truly preserve the bluff, then we have to the contrary not risked an
uncertain future. Rather, we have committed to a social contract regarding the way we choose to interact with the land, choosing to showcase its unique beauty, thereby fueling a sense of well-being and protecting it for future
generations. So, it is not a decision that leaves with an uncertain future. It is a decision that says that this community values the aesthetic and wants to preserve it because it creates a sense of well-being for us. And that is
a very tangible real thing that can be de demonstrated uh around the world where there are special places that keep us unique. So thank you for the discussion. >> Thank you for all of your input. Tim, >> if I could just have one last kind of
comment if I I know everybody wants one last comment. um is that uh this it's it's one of the things that we obviously uh governments are always uh kind of criticized for is planning and never really doing anything and such like
that. Uh well, one of the things that we we do have an adopted plan that was an exceedingly public process and no matter what we do, we always update our comprehensive land use guide plan. we update these plans. And so we just want to make sure that we're not
disenfranchising those people that really engaged and put in all of their time and all of the public and the residents and everybody at that time when this board including people at this table voted to adopt the plan that we have in place and that's what we're going with.
>> Thank you very much. Commissioner, can I add one more comment? And that's I should have mentioned this earlier, >> but I I do want to mention that we are following best practices. The I think the question is if we're following them before the RFP is issued or if we're
getting some of that information that's outlined in the best practices during the RFP. So, for example, like you mentioned, what is the split between the city and the county? We can't develop a budget for that until we have those numbers and then we can bring it forward
to the city to have discussions about how are we going to split the cost. And so I just want to acknowledge um Commissioner Gamble's concerns about about the best practices and say that we we are trying to do due diligence to follow those but it's a question of when
and how we can follow those. So we can have further discussion about that. But I just wanted to add from my perspective, I looked through all of those and we are trying to follow them to the best of our ability before the RFP and the ones that we can't then as they've spoken about they would be
followed during the process of the um the the the assessment. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. No, we will move on then to our next item which is the 2026 um budget discussion.
Administrator Treble. >> Yes, Madam Chair. I would just like to make a comment so for the public, they don't think I'm being rude, but I have jury duty in a few minutes and we'll be leaving. So I just wanted to make certain people didn't feel like I was walking out on an important
>> I would have acknowledged that that you are just walking out on us. >> Thanks for the reminder. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. So the next item is the 2026 budget. And so we um one of
the things that um Brady did was ask the department directors to provide a summary of what has changed from last year to this year in their um in their particular budget. So we took that information and tried to summarize it and provide you with with some
additional information. So the two documents that we have attached to the agenda are the same. It's just a different format. Um one is the side by side summary with the expenses, revenue, um the net levy, the um FTEES, and then notes about what has changed over the
last year. And then the second one is just again summarized um differently. So a couple things I want to mention is I know for PHS we did not have the FTEES. I did confirm with Plowman um yesterday
that it is um 35 FTEES. So we have that number now as well. Um and again the rest of the information is just what has changed over the last year. The other thing I wanted to mention is um Rowan had pointed this out
is under the MIS under their numbers. Let me find them here. they um they do have additional revenue that comes in, but it goes into a reserve account that they use for their infrastructure. So, their revenue
number is actually larger, but it doesn't go into their base budget. It goes into a separate um line item that they use for infrastructure. So, just wanted to make note of that. And then the last thing I wanted to mention before I just turn it over to everyone for discussion is Brady and I have
talked about timeline for the budget discussions. And so we wanted to bring it here um to talk about what additional information do you need and want to have, what additional conversations do we need and want. Um but we basically have two more meetings before we need to
make a final decision. So we have the November 12th um board meeting and then we're kind of holding December 2nd as another option if we need to have additional discussion with a final dec um decision needing to be made on December 16th. So that's our timeline.
We still have a October 28th meeting too, right? >> Yeah. >> Okay, >> that counts. >> We Yes, absolutely. I think our thought was to try to get it the discussions done during those three meetings, but
yes, we have that meeting as well. But Brady, what what do you want to add? >> Anything else? And for me, the key is to is to find out what you need to help make the decision. We've got reams of
information. Um, how can we put that together to help you? >> Well, I'll let you know just to to respond to that. I appreciate the willingness. I think that the more that uh that we are informed the better. I
think that um while this provides uh one approach uh the documents that we're looking at today, it is only sitting at a very narrow part of the table to view. I think that uh when you are are dealing
with budget that you you need to look at at trends and at least in my experience when I look at trends I can see significant changes which then raises the opportunity to ask questions as why are we seeing a significant change in
what our typical budget you know has been in this particular department and then when you have that discussion with the department head the department that will tell you well that's because of this. But there have to be indicators and the indicators are going to be an
evaluation of the the trends over a period of time and when we have these discussions you you might come back and say well that's because of this and now the narrative informs so we understand and I think what we need is we need to
know that kind of detail that informs changes in what we have normally seen. The other thing is when we see changes outside of the context of what we normally do in operations, talking about
state or federal government changes, we need to know what are the rama ramifications of that that we have to adjust our budget accordingly. We have to make adjustments. If somebody else that's part of the players in the
game are making adjustments, life cannot go on the way it has. It has to we have to make a response to any change like that. And that is a difficult thing because it's an uncertain thing that is always waiting for a final definite
resolve. And when we have things that are questionable relative to where our status is on payment in lie of taxes, when we have questions with the responsible share that comes from the state on helping us in public health, human services, those things are the
things that would identify the challenges we're facing that are introduced this year that might not have been our bud part of our budget process last year. So I don't know if that makes any sense but for me when I look at this I will look at I will look at the the
variables and I can go back and look at variables that precede this the 2024 and then it helps me understand you know and then I can ask a question based upon that observation. So, >> but I I'd be happy to give you, you
know, a very simple >> I think bulleted outline is saying this is what would be really helpful for me. >> And I think most departments they do that when they're putting those numbers together, >> but they're not providing you with a spreadsheet to answer those.
>> Yeah. And that's what I for me what's most important is the narrative >> that that that supports the the the proposal. And uh the other thing I would say in view of uh just looking at this from from the you know
how I would sift through this information I don't think that we're in a year where we can afford to be adding additional staff or creating uh from part-time to full-time. There has to be a real significant
justification to do that just as in all of the requests that come that are, you know, discretionary funds. Boy, there's going to have to be some solid basis to do that in the in the fiscal year that that we're looking at. And it's not
trying to be a wet blanket on things. It's just trying to be fiscally responsible and acknowledging the realities we're dealing with in this budget cycle. So to Gary's point, and I don't want to put Brady on the hot seat, but already
explains here that he has previously said to us it's really important to have a shared position in the recorder office. And then they've been going through the payroll system. So right there it says this is what they're
requesting because of what their needs are in the auditor's office. you know the assessor is saying tai blatnic appraisal the work done there personnel and we all are facing the insurance increases with um public you
know our insurance so that u that that's what bounces off to me we already have an explanation in a couple of the offices commissioner mills >> thank you yeah and uh to commissioner to commissioner gamble's point um uh having the trends or seeing that
longer longer term picture like I really appreciate all this information I know was requested. Um I personally really like last year's process and and the year before that and so I was able to compare every year's uh
general uh expenditure and revenue and actual and budgeted and all that just so I could see that broader uh timeline and see see where where these changes happen. And then typically there's an uh you know down at the bottom in red you
give an explanation of what's changed and how and that's the same information here just in a different format. So um I don't know if that's >> Yeah. So we've got >> ownorous >> the the first report that came out Gary's got it here >> in writing. Yeah.
>> Of course it's not >> it's a limitation of our system. It's not a long-term trend. It's >> it gives perspective though some perspective. Yeah. >> Mhm. >> But is that the type of >> Yeah, that's what helps >> a longer trend.
>> Well, I mean, uh, you get you get into a mess when it gets into like the co dollars because that that doesn't really show anything, but much like yeah, just that first that's the format I prefer to it gives me perspective, but it might not be right for everyone. So,
>> that's what I like as well and and feel it the last couple years have been very very helpful. Is that like >> the same format? Yeah. As was last year, >> it was the first one that went out, but >> Yep. >> Is that like a three-year look back or what? >> What is it?
>> Well, I think because of co, you know, >> Mr. Be's point, it skews everything. So, it's really >> doesn't it's not helpful. I mean, because there has to be too much narrative to explain why this is and why that. But but the point is is that that
if you if you look I'm just saying that if I wanted to look precoid any unusual circumstance that affects the norm is it has to be set aside because it'll confuse you. But I but I think that the more we understand things, if we said
that the that the point in time when the state mandated that we had to hire so many more public health human services individuals, boom, that's when you look at you say, why in the world are we projecting this? Well, because it's a mandate. We've got
that now coming up with the paid family leave and stuff. We got mandates. So what you do is you look at your budget and you're going to say I mean from my perspective is that what what's fixed what's fixed that we have no control over unless we want to go to the
legislature someplace and tell them hey this isn't right but we're seeing that the offputting of budget constraints that happen at the state and federal level are getting supplanted on our local population and that's a problem if it's if it matters there need to be a
partnership in sharing those costs And so anyway, I'm saying yes, take the co out of it, but I I wouldn't mind, you know, looking at at the precoid, but I it's, you know, you're you're the auditor
treasur. So your recommendation and when I look at budget practices and the course that I took, I'm just saying give me evidence, give me information and give me uh you know something that can uh reinforce and inform my decision when
it comes to my stewardship responsibility relative to taxpayer dollars. And I would say in my first budget experience as a commissioner that there would just sort of a put a an increase in come and the department would say here it is and then you'd ask
a question and it's like oh now they have to explain it. I was surprised that that that process was as shallow as it was but anyway. >> Yeah. I feel like in recent years we've had a little more narrative that Yeah. I don't know if Brady provided it or if the department heads provided to Brady
and then it was passed on but it was similar to that but then at the end it would give this is why for each significant change and some of them weren't even significant and there was a reason but what I what I wanted to ask was um do we have a dollar amount impact
from the state and federal okay >> so it's all just projections and >> it's projections the the things we're most afraid of that came out in the spring didn't happen Uh the governor's proposals were um >> shut down. >> Could have been hard.
>> Mhm. >> And they didn't the legislature didn't approve. The ones that affected us >> we could identify that a big cut to our payment of taxes for example. >> Sure. >> Didn't happen. >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, and so what I have
been hearing uh from AMC is that this next year isn't when we're going to feel the the dollar amount. It's the following year that we're exactly and so >> if we can prepare for that would be really nice. Uh but we have to know what
we're preparing for and to what extent and so >> think prepared by >> voting on our levy. >> Yeah. >> That's the only way we can prepare for next year. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Gamma. >> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. The other
thing that'd be beneficial if if you feel it's appropriate at this point in the process is to ask department heads if there were one area that you might be able to cut, one area that you might be able to reduce some of the expenditures
in your department, what would it be? Give us an option to understand working with you asking so that you inform us. >> What would that area be? So, you're basically asking for a prioritization. >> Yeah. Yeah. basically I mean when they
look at their budget overall knowing you know what it is and everything else I just where would it be if I if I had to ask you where would where would you and that's going to be based upon their priorities and what they know >> and and also we should ask them where
would they increase if they could increase in one area >> an area that they felt that they had to cut back that they would rather not have but they did it. No, just say that, you know, we're projecting a hardship, but what if we're projecting uh, you know, a
progressive surge or or whatever there is funding like where would they grow and develop? What what impacts would that where are they not where they want to be yet? Um, if we're looking at the the one side, I think we should look at the other side, too, just to get an idea of
>> um the spread. Commissioner White. >> So Brady sent us all um September 9th there was this um we all got this Janice. This is what you're looking for, right? This is 24.
>> Yep. Exactly. That's what I like. >> Yeah. >> So I don't like I appreciate this because it especially as requested and it's a good narrative, but when it comes down to um >> and it would be just the bottom lines me not broken out. This is like the
extension program and there's like uh 15 different categories of expenditures. So it would just be for the bottom line for tracking from 24 what was approved it was uh can't read that is 96,400
and in 24 the actual was this and then in 25 and then >> yeah for me I don't need to know each department's printing costs. Um it's more the bottom line and then what the narrative is about that for me. I got >> administer. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. So, one question
about the one area to cut is oftentimes organizations when they're asked what would you cut, they're given a percentage. So, I guess that's my question is do you want us to prepare like if each department had to cut by 5%. What would that look like? Or do you
want an overall what's one thing that you would cut for your department? My response to that and I I think early on in my first term I said you know to greedy that going into the budget process I'd like to request that
departments cut their budget by 5%. And my comment was not that I expect that we as a board will prove that I want to see the process. I'd like them to go through that experience. So, I'm just saying at that
point it was a figure. I would say at this point just ask it. For some 5% it might be whoa and for others it not just ask them not a percentage but just say if you could cut where would that be? Yeah. Thanks. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Uh I guess I'm curious
>> that's from my standpoint. >> Yeah. So in the in the NICO budgeting class, do they suggest that like just ask departments where to cut? because it seems like it's not the best use of their time if
we're not going to do it or if it's not real or you know like it just seems like um an exercise that isn't as productive as we might need people to be. >> Well, not to confuse which I can do that my comment to Brady that it and it was
in response to the question percentage. I said initially I had said present because I wanted to see how departments would respond to that but just ignoring that comment it uh it is a
a discipline which you're looking at when you're saying that I if if if we find that it's lean and we need to cut where would you do that we're not telling you what to do we're asking you because it's your department and
whatever to say that what what what the course is is is basically there needs to be evidence-based decisionm when it comes to allegation of dollars >> and we need the evidence and we need the rationale that supports the evidence and
so when you say I mean in a business or whatever you can have a department come in and say or CEO come in and say boy there's a downturn in our revenues this year so I need department heads to take a look, sharpen your pencil, go in there, take a look,
and come back and give us your rationale. So, yes, it's part of a discipline and and I'm not doing it like my previous comment to have them go through an exercise without an intent. It's just saying when we get to it, we better get to the end of this budget and
find that our process is not reflective of a board that has the ability to spend reserve dollars to lower levy. We need to roll up our sleeves and demonstrate that we have invested thought and in reducing
dollars. And if we come back and say it's not low enough or whatever, then where would you do that? >> So that's >> I think it's going to be hard to find evidence on where to cut if the need is there. Like that's what I'm not understanding. >> It's a matter of prioritizing when you
that's why I think overall what we should be looking at is we should step back. Obviously not this year, but step back and find out what we in governance are overall responsible for. What are what's mandated? What is because we
choose to and when we look at let's just say discretionary dollars there are other counties when I talk to them I say do you contribute to this? Oh no, why not? It's not a matter that we don't recognize there's value there. It's a matter of priorities. And I'm just saying >> at some point in time you you've got to
step back and rethink how you approach things because we can't do everything. >> That's one of the things I really love about our community is that we are investing in non-mandated things and I think it makes us a lot stronger, but we can't always do that. That's for sure.
Right. um the coming years. One of my concerns is just we've got a lot of departments that aren't necessarily directly impacted by the federal cuts. And so if we're asking all those departments to prioritize what they would cut when there aren't going to be federal or state cuts coming down, it's
again it seems like um not the most productive. >> Yeah. But if you look at public health, human services financial today. >> Yep. If you look at the individual ones, you're going to see ups and downs based upon that department. >> But the combination of the whole
>> the family of the services provided. Bottom line, it came out okay. That's because there's variables that exist there. So we don't want to operate like silos when it comes to budget. We want to have recognition and empathy for and it's like we see when we have
cooperating counties when the airport says we've got allocation this year or highway department but we don't need it so why don't you take it and then when we need it we'll get it we have to work in cooperation in that >> commissioner Sullivan before I go I would just like to say if if we can
focus on what are the functions of government those are our priorities >> and then beyond there what we can do I would also suggest If we look at um as an organization a percentage cut to
consider having our department heads use a forced matrix to help them identify what they would eliminate and that can be a very useful tool. I use that personally when I look at our overall budget but I think it could be transferred to
>> utilization by department heads. So what we have presented here is what's coming from the department heads from the department >> from auditor all of that >> yes >> attorney's office so that's what we have this year but your point and to
commissioner Sullivan is next year we need to think about all of these >> actually yes right you have that too yes >> just a history question my recollection is way back when when I sat on the community center board of trust ustes
Diane Booth one year um my recollection was that she was tasked with cutting 2% out of her and not not growing more than 2% in her budget for that year. Did that
is that just my memory or that's how I interpreted what she was telling us? But she had to she had to submit her um she had to submit her budget to the to the to the board and she had been told do
not increase it more than 2% this year. Now I don't know how any of that would have happened with insurance and all of that. Those are out of her control. >> I don't remember that specifically but >> after the 2001 recession
>> no this would have been >> Yeah. I could believe that because the there were uh state levy limits and huge state cuts to funding etc. That board would
have uh done that as not an exercise but as um this is where we're this is where we're going right now in reaction. >> So I believe that when when did you think that would >> be back in the 80s I believe >> 80s or early >> you don't remember? I've been around.
You've been around that long. >> I don't remember that. >> It'd be the It would be the 80s, early 90s maybe. >> I believe that in the early 90s >> and I think the directive can be that
just looking at the way things are. re on the revenue side we are decreasing this amount which means that our budget I mean we've got some places where we can maybe compensate but I mean this is a generic conversation but knowing that you can say our budget needs to be down
by 3%. I don't care how you get there, but overall our bottom line needs to be 3% less. And and departmentally, I'll I'll leave it to you to work on how we're going to do it, which is what we saw in our public health human services
finance report today that there were variables, but when you gay down to the bottom, it it was what it was. So to Commissioner Mills's point, it it just we we leave it up to the expertise and knowledge, the experience that exists in our departments, but overall we've got
to see that budget go down. But but I would the problem with making it a formalic thing is is that for some it it affects them a lot harder than it does over here. So, but anyway, >> Commissioner, >> well, I appreciate the information.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I I think it's a good idea to go through this and have the departments each identify um, you know, what what would a decrease look like and what would be cut. But I also think that it's really important to remember that there are most of what we
do is mandated. So, we can't cut certain services. And so if we are cutting in those areas, it's going to decrease services that we provide to the community, increase weight times for certain things. So, so we can do this to provide the information, but I really want to be mindful of the fact that so
much of what we do um is mandated. And so I also think there are, as you mentioned, Commissioner, there are a lot of things that we do to support the community. Those are non-mandated. And so we we need to look at both, but be
mindful that first as as a county, our first priority needs to be ensuring that we're providing the services um to the people in the community which are mandated by law. So just something to be to be mindful as we bring this information forward. So a matter of time
and so forth here because we have another event going on. Um, if you want more input, let Brady know so that he can prepare for our next three meetings and um, move forward with that.
Um, our next item is legislative priorities and I would say we have a good listing started here. um we can pursue that conversation since we came back from our district meeting and probably add some more things to it if that's agreeable to administrator treble
and um and also the fact that she and I will be meeting um in regards to our legislative uh group that's coming um in November up at Charlie's restaurant and we want to have a good slate of
>> good and um constructive um priorities to discuss them there. Again, we're going to have a short period of time that we can do that, but we would need input from you and that is based on what we already have here. So, and if I could
add, um, this list was compiled by input from the department directors. I asked all of them to send me their legislative priorities. So, that's the first page of the list. the second page just that last part where it says association of Minnesota counties. Um this was the the
Association of Minnesota Counties discussion that we had um in Duth last week where um the region regional um counties all um voted on priorities that AMC had pulled together. And so I wanted
to make sure that everybody had the first district's um top five priorities from that discussion. So that's the only thing I would add. >> Okay. With that, any final concerns or comments? >> Just Madam Chair, I appreciate it. Um, I
think that the prioritization when when we identify for ourselves and of course with the regional through AMC and on the federal level all of these things identifying priorities when those priorities align with our priorities and
that collective voice is more influential that's a that's a good thing. So it this process is very good. Okay, being no further business, um we are adjourned. Okay, >> thank you and thank you all.
>> Thank you. >> We are >> Somebody's coming. They're waiting to come in here. Really weird.