Good morning everyone. We'll open the meeting for the Cook County Board of Commissioners regular meeting on this uh Tuesday, May 27th at 8:30 a.m. We begin our meeting with the pledge. Please rise.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Are there any adjustments to the agenda?
Madam Chair, I'd ask that we could add um three items under auditor. First one would be a a quote from Labota for grading on the Hovland site and the second would be wetland
credits for the Hovland site and the third would be wetland credits for the Grand Marray site for for the transfer station. These are all for the transfer station. Okay. So we'll do that under uh so eight C D and E.
Okay. C, D, and E. Yeah. Okay. And I've sent the information out by email to all the commissioners. Okay. Thank you. Anything else? Uh, Madam Chair, I make a motion to approve the agenda as amended.
All in favor? Point of point of order. I'll support. Okay. Motion to approve. Okay. At this time, we do have uh a few minutes for public comment if
anyone would like to step up to the microphone, write in their name and address and so forth, and I'll give you about five minutes. Okay. I don't know if I need the microphone. I can talk pretty loudly, so I'll just kind of need it for the recording. Oh, okay. Yeah. Is that
picking me up? There we go. All right. Uh good morning. My name is Riley Barnhart. I am the government affairs director for the Lake Superior Area Realtors Association. Uh we serve around 800 members from northern Wisconsin all the way up to northern Minnesota and we work every day uh with our members to
help people find homes in the communities that they love. I'm here today to speak in support of agenda item 7D, the proposed residential open space overlay district. Cook County and our region more broadly is facing an urgent housing shortage. There's a growing gap
between the number of people who want to live and work here and the numbers of of homes that are available for them to do so. This proposal is a direct response to that challenge. The ROSO creates a path for modest increases in residential density, but only in targeted areas and
only when paired with meaningful open space preservation. It strikes the right balance between protecting the character and natural beauty of Cook County while helping us address a core community need housing for working families. By allowing increased density in the FAR 2 and FAR3 zones, we're creating more
opportunities for year-round residents to build homes without compromising the environment. As realtors, we believe that the housing opportunities are foundational to healthy communities. The ROSO is a smart, forward-thinking solution that protects what Cook County what makes Cook County special while
addressing one of its greatest long-term challenges. We respectfully urge you to adopt the proposed amendment and move forward with this vital policy. Thank you. and please sign in. Yep. Thank you. All righty. Thank you. Good morning. Uh my name is Ron
Wizakauski. I live in Hovland. Um I live on Stonegate Road in Hovland. And it's come to our attention now there residents that live on Stonegate that the county is considering not maintaining the road in the future and turning it essentially into a driveway.
Uh, and for those of you who aren't familiar with Stonegate, it's a public road for about 4/10en of a mile, then turns into a private road, uh, which I believe is at least 4/10 like it's probably more than that. The public portion of the road at
the moment has three full-time residents and another five seasonal uh, cabins. However, the private portion, which is only accessible through the public portion, has another uh four full-time
residents and I believe probably a dozen part-time residents. And I don't refer to them as seasonal because they use the those homes all year round, just off and on. They're not full-time. So, my point is that the road gets a lot more traffic
than any driveway I've ever seen. And I'm cons I'm thinking that uh the county is kind of pulling a bait and switch here. Uh you put the county road in, you allowed people to build on it to uh they spent good money uh upgrading
their properties and then at the last minute you say, "Well, it's not long no longer a county road." Uh now we've watched our property taxes increase at some pretty steep rates in the last few years and our reward for paying those taxes is to receive fewer
services. That doesn't seem right. It's not only unfair but it's unwarranted especially with the when there doesn't seem to be any fiscal restraint in in the county spending. So, all I'm asking is that uh before you make a decision on that, I'd like all of
you to go out there and see what you're really looking at. Uh and uh that's really all I have. Thank you. Did you sign in, please? I did. Yes. Thank you. Anyone else wish to come forward? Then we'll close the uh public
comment other than did any of the commissioners receive any comments you would wish to share? All right. Thank you. Moving on to the consent agenda. We have claims. We have the minutes from uh May 13th. Um, the
appointment of Amy Buggie to the budget and facility advisory committee, the hire of Andrew Halpo, the hire of Cody Johnson, the hire of Alisa Lundy, approved for the hire of Michael
Crusso, approval of hire of Peter Jensen, approval of retirement of Mitch Everson, which would become effective December 12th, and a temporary liquor license application. Would anyone like to pull anything? Commissioner Gamble.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to pull item C and item G, please, for discussion. C and G. Okay, we'll put that toward the end of our uh meeting, which would
be probably right after auditor Brady. Um, thank you. Unless you have any other suggestions. What about human resources? G could go into human resources. I think G what could go into human resources. Oh yes. Okay. G for there and C for um after
Brady before the um budget review. Thank you. Anything else? Okay. Then motion to approve. Madam Chair, make a motion to approve the consent agenda as amended. Support. All
in favor? I I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes. Next item is um number four, the LEC expansion preid date update. I'll come forward and and um
we'll move on hopefully with a a great uh expansion that we've been working so many years to have uh happen. Good morning. I'm uh Dean Johnson with Johnson Wilson Constructors. Um an
update on the project is we did a plan flip last week in detail for many hours. It's uh we anticipate anticipate uh bidding documents to be available either the end of this week or mid the following week. So within a week and a
half. And what we are looking for today is approval to move forward with public bidding on the LEAC project. Any questions or comments on how we've been progressing? Commissioner Sullivan, I'd like to just uh comment that it's
really been a a wonderful effort. um Dean, not only having you at those meetings, but uh members of the BKV group. Uh Commissioner White and I have attended uh those meetings as well and it was a very lengthy, very thorough review last week. Um followed by the
open house in the evening. Um so I want to commend you for your work and feel it's a really good team effort and that there's great communication between all partners. And with that, I would make a motion to approve the LEC expansion pre-bid
approval. I'll support that. Any questions or further comments? Commissioner Gamble. Thank you, Madam Chair. um some of these projects that have been around for a while and that we've been exploring and we've looked at various things over the years relative to
different responsibilities that we have within in the county. Law enforcement certainly being one of them. And um I think it's important just for the public to understand that in projects like this that that uh this project has has been
um a slow go because of the thoughtfulness involved in putting the plan together. It's been responsive to certainly law enforcement. It's been responsive to awareness on the broader scale of law enforcement and u it's been
responsive to community wherever we can make changes that demonstrate both provision for what we need in this area as well as fiscal responsibility. So it's never easy to spend money when there's a lack of it. That's the big
challenge that's constantly coming before government and not government alone. But I think it's important to state that this process has been a process that been very deliberate and informed on multiple levels and and uh that's what we would hope as decision
makers that we would see that information comes forward and that the public has an opportunity to participate in the open house. It would have been nice to see more people showing up for that, but the weather has changed and we're glad to get out of our cabin. So that might contribute to it. But uh I do
I too want to just say that uh this is a process that's been well informed and disciplined. So thank you. Any other comments or questions? We have a motion and a second. All in favor? I oppose. Same
sign. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. We're looking forward to the next step on the process. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I miss your Mountain Dew. That's Henry. He retired now. Oh. Oh, yeah. Okay. That's right. But he has a very good replacement.
He does, David. Item number five is MIS approval of a encryption device. Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioners, um, I usually make Rowan do the ones where I ask for money and I usually bring the ones forward where I'm bringing you money. Um, so this is a
little bit different than what I usually do. So, I brought show and tell as well. Um, uh, per the item in your, uh, in your packet there, um, the state has made changes to the standards governing how we manage our encryption keys. Um,
for a little background, uh, all of the radios that we have have different capabilities for encrypting or keeping u keeping a channel closed to outside listeners. um the state is going to be changing the standard for which they do that
encryption and um even though our present encrypter this is our present encrypter it's basically like a large Palm Pilot um that Motorola produced and this was exceptionally expensive when we bought it too many years ago. Um this
still has most of the capabilities of what we need. However, it is no longer supported and um and there's no battery life in it. And so, for example, when I I had to program a new squad um last week and when I did that, I had to pull the squad into the garage so that I
could plug this in so that I could actually do the the work of encrypting. Um that's a use usability issue. The other issue is that the state has has mandated that we start moving away from the 4000s and the 3000s and get into the newest and supported um technology. Part
of that is because we want to make sure that our encrypted keys are staying as safe as they possibly can um with new technology to protect them in here. And also because um we're going to be changing that standard. we're going to be going from a
um a a the standing level of encryption that we've had to the federal level um for safety and that uh it requires more space. It requires a a better device. So, with that said, um bring the the request for the purchase of the KVL
5000. Um the the price from that, the state bid pricing on that is $7,749.50. So, I'll stand for any questions. Well, it looks like it was purchased um 11 years ago. May maybe it's time to update. Yeah. And you I mean, you could
look at the the technology that this is made from and it it definitely screams of 11 or 12 years ago. Yes. And is the uh amount in the budget? Yes. Uh we have budgeted for this. We we knew this was coming for the last couple of years. Um when Motorola stopped supporting this
device in 2023, um the state started kind of poking the counties and saying, "Hey, guess what? You need to replace that thing." And um just in the last year, they really were pushing harder on it. And so we we budgeted the amount for this. Yes.
Good. Thank you. Questions or comments? Commissioner White, what's the amount? Curiosity. So ballpark for the new one. For the new one, it's $7,749.50. 50 cents. This one, I think when we bought it was probably in the five grand
range. So, you know, as far as inflation is concerned, is probably relatively on par um with what the original cost was. Thanks, Gamble. Thank you, Madam Chair. Jay, with technology changing, uh a lot
of us get frustrated because it seems like technology is designed for obsolescence. And um my question is for the users is uh when these changes come up and you look at them, do you have that sense of frustration or does this make sense? We live a little bit in a
bubble in the radio world because if you look at the technologies that we're using largely for the radio world, it's all like early 1900s technology, but it still works and it still is one of the only things that we can really control ourselves. And the state's armor system
is one of those systems that is under complete control by the by Mandot and and and us. We have a we have a stake in it. Rowan and I both are system administrators. We can go into the system. We can see what's happening. We can correct things and it's a really
unique system in that way. The obsolescence part is a huge part of our conversations right now as far as the radio system itself because we're having conversations about satellite. We're having conversations about cell as cell proliferation gets pretty close to what
we have for the armor system. However, the encryption is one of the things that doesn't really change because the the encrypted channels that we have in our radios are only our law enforcement and they're only for sensitive information
andor information that could result in bodily harm to the to the to the deputies. And so as far as I'm concerned, that is like we can't mess with that. And to the day that that we discontinue the system, we need to continue supporting the encryption. And
so so that that's largely what it is. The the the armor system does not have a sunset date. Um there have been conversations about what the upgrades and what the changes to the system can be and how much that would cost. um and how can we get, you know, these other resources to kind of play together with
the armor system in a safe way. Um but there's there's no sunset. So I I do believe that investing this money now will give us at least another life cycle out of the equipment. Um and you know, fingers crossed that Motorola doesn't say, "Oh, well this one is old, too.
Let's discontinue this and do another one that you have to spend eight grand on." Um but uh but for right now, there are no plans to do that. So, I think the encryption is one of those funny little islands in the radio world where um as long as you can support the
latest encryption type that you're good to go and so that's that's where we're where we're going with it. Yeah, thank you for the explanation. That's a good question. Any other comments or questions? Then I'll hear a motion to
approve the purchase of KVL 5000 encryption device. So move support. Any further questions or comments? All in favor? I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you
very much. Land services coming up next. Kentucky maintenance. Maintenance. Is this a revised? That's wasn't Oh, it it's revised. That's a revised one, I guess. Oh, I guess I missed that. So,
who's next? Maintenance. Mhm. I didn't get the memo on that. Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioners, Brook. Um, today I wanted to see if we could get approval for a boiler replacement project that I've been working on for
quite some time here in the courthouse. So, it went out to public notice and for sealed bids. Uh, we only received one one bid from AW Kettle. I contacted our local contractor, walked
him through the project to see if I could solicit a bid um from county and they were not interested. The project was a little larger than they could handle. So, we have Kettle already in the building working on the basement
expansion project and they were the only ones who gave us the bid for the boiler replacement. So, we estimated at 300,000 and their bid came in at $271,425. Questions or comments? just that this is
part of the C CIP funds that were already planned for this Yeah. replacement. The bids we issued last year bonds and it's good but Mhm. you say 420,000
200 200 Thank you. 271. Thank you. It was the CIP. We have more money in it in the CIP bond, but because they went for replacing three boilers and two hot water heaters, and now with efficiency and turndown rates of the new boilers, we're going to go with two boilers and
one hot water heater because efficiency is better and capacities can can handle it. So, the bid was very good under 300,000, right? Mhm. Commissioner Gamble. Thank you, Madam Chair. Brooke,
when you get uh bids in, it's it's a matter of sort of proving your numbers. When you don't get a bid in, do you use any resource at all that gives you a general idea where you think you should be? I mean, granted, when you when you are telling, you know, presenting to us
that you want the authorization to go out and look at it, you have to give us a general ballpark. So, you must be basing it on something. But to tell whether or not we're paying a premium because of where we're located or whether this is considered good in that
context, that's my question. Well, generally I I contact RM Cotton, who is the the uh distributor for the Erico Benchmark boilers, get the price on that. They get a little better price than than they quote me. So, and then we
can just do a calculation on labor plus plus plus a percentage to come up here. And it just kind of it fell in line really closely with what um I forget the acronym, but the engineers who set up the CIP
um put forth in their funding because they did they used duth labor plus I think 10%. Yeah. And as a followup, Madam Chair, the um so in in this process, if you are looking at a project and you're looking at something needs to
be purchased and you have a general idea and you're hoping you can come out on the good side of this and then when you get your figures in, you can look at it and say, "Oh man, we're taking this on the chin." Or that falls in line with what my expectation is, so I feel good
about that. basically bottom line good about the stewardship of something we have to do but we want to be fiscally responsible about it and so we get a sense of that when we go through this process and we see the numbers and we say I'm glad it came in as that it came in. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Kettle came in
aggressive with their pricing there. Like I said, they're currently working on the basement remodel and I know they're going to be aggressively bidding the LEC expansion. Yeah. And with this boiler replacement, we speced it out. So, we're going to do airco benchmarks here and air code benchmarks for the
boiler replacement at the le so we'll have parts on hand and and you know for future savings. Yeah. Thanks for the context. Yeah. Any other comments or questions? And so was the reduction from two to one
watt hot two to one w water hot uh hot water heaters uh the original intention or is this um a change from right the the CIP because if we budgeted
300,000 for two but now we're just getting well yeah we were over 300,000 for the two hot water heaters and three boiler replacements so we brought that down to two boilers and one hot water heater. And that the one hot water heater just came from engineering. When
the engineer came here to calculate load, we went through the whole building, calculated all the all the bathrooms, all the small faucets we have in offices and they must have designed it before for 100% redundancy, which we're not a
hospital. We're not an LEC. We don't need 100% redundancy. We can if something were to happen to the hot water heater, we can deal with with that for a short amount of time while the while the one we'll put in would get repaired. So, we're and then the three down to two is more of an efficiency.
Yeah. Well, it's just because the new boilers are the new larger boilers are like a 20 to1 turndown and they're a condensing boiler where we currently have two 80% efficiency non-condensing boilers and one small condensing boiler to handle reheats in the summer. Mhm.
But now with a 21 20 to1 turndown, we can run one boiler and they'll modulate all the way down to handle our our small loads in the summer and our big loads in the winter. Thank you. That makes sense. Okay, Commissioner Gamble. Thank you,
Madam Chair. Uh approve the uh make a motion to approve the the bid for the two boilers and the water heater connected to the replacement project. Support. Any further questions or comments? All in favor? I I oppose. Same
sign. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you for all your work. Yeah. Okay. I think I can move on now to land services talking about septic inspection proposal. Okay. All right. Good morning, Madame
Chair, Commissioners, Administrator Rogers. This is a continuation basically of a of a program, the Lake Shore SEPTA compliance program that we initiated back in 2000. Um, and fortunately um the uh this is this is fully funded. Um we
had been paying uh and understandably so most of the counties in the Lake Superior watershed. Um and we had been paying most of our attention to that. If if any of you recall, we did take a pause uh in that program to get caught up on enforcement uh issues because uh
we were kind of uh running into a a victim of our own success and getting all of those systems uh inspected and getting the water quality uh cleaned up from coming from uh any of the failing systems and such. And uh as such we we had used the you know different types of
grant uh funding that was available to us uh largely through the one wershed one plan lake superior north superior uh watershed uh for that. And now this particular goround is being funded through the rainy river uh watershed.
And so we actually have funds uh fully funded to be able to conduct the uh all of the inspections on Birch and Lon Lakes uh from this year through uh next year. Um after receiving uh notification of those funds, we we
actually went out and and uh put set out RFPs, requests for proposals. We did receive one back. Um, and that's typical of the last number of uh times that we have gone through this process. We get one uh inspector that's out of county
that generally has come in and done pretty much, you know, the vast majority of all the inspections when we're going through this particular program. Um, and the that uh to answer that that question from before, the bid is uh measurate with with all of the
previous bids. So it's it's very uh similar to the bids uh that we had uh going through this process before in the last few uh rounds and it also with the funding that we have available uh we did this during the last goround and we can
employ this in this goound is we uh did a basically a cost share for the property owners for the tank pumping in and of itself because that's an added expense since we're unilaterally kind of imposing these inspections on property owners. uh we felt that it's it's appropriate to do a little cost share
with that tank pumping and so we do have enough sufficient funds for that. Uh there's no impact on the budget. It's a it's actually a net plus to the budget. Um and there is no cash match to that. And so uh we would just like to uh
request that you go ahead and u uh approve the the uh proposal the signing of the agreement with the contractor. Questions? Commissioner Sullivan. Um I just want to say as a member of the Rainy River Vermilion River One Wershed
One Plan, it's exciting to have our funds contribute to lakes that are at the end of the Gunflint Trail. Um recently we've had lakes that are kind of um midcount and so it's really nice to tap into that other watershed and
provide some protection. So, I'd like to make a motion to accept the proposal submitted by Jeff Crosby for the inspection of septic systems on Lon and Birch Lake as part of the Lakeshore Septic Compliance Program. Support. Any further questions or
comments? All in favor? I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Tim. Thank you very much. We're going to have a discussion about interim use permit. Takes two of you this time.
Good morning, commissioners. Good morning. The first item I have for you is a recommendation from the Cook County Planning Commission at their May 14th meeting for the Grant and Christina Hopky interim use permit. It's for a two-year interimuse permit for the use of an RV travel trailer at the property
at Seagull Outfitters. They're the new owners of that outfitter that property transfer finalized during this interim use permit process. The public comment period was had no written comments and no verbal comments. So, no concerns from the public. Uh the interim use permit is
needed because recreational vehicles are not a permitted nor a conditional use listed in the RCR zone district, the resort commercial residential zone district. So that's why we went with this route and the RV will be used for the family during their time at Seagull
Outfitters as they work to transition up here. So again, two years there were some conditions listed with the approval. Uh one of them is that the intermuse permit does not transfer with the property and then general compliance uh with our other regulations and kind
of a clarification about the type of RV that's uh this permit allows. and I'm happy to answer any questions. There's a unanimous recommendation for approval from the planning commission. Any questions or comments?
Then I'll hear a motion. I'm sorry, you said two years for the IUP. Mhm. Thank you. Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve the the um Hopky IUP with sorry with with the conditions provided by the planning commission and
I'll support. Any further questions or comments? All in favor? I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. The next interim use permit that was heard before the planning commission at the May 14th meeting was the Labota
interim use permit. This was a renewal of an existing interim use permit for a hot mix asphalt plant for up to 100 days per calendar year on the Arrowhead Trail. the public comment period. We had to go quite a ways out to get to the 10 maximum or 10 minimum notification
people because the area is so remote in that location. We did receive one written comment that was in support of the application and there were no verbal comments. Yulan Brothers and Mr. Loto were present to answer questions at the planning commission. Uh the planning
commission also uh voted unanimously to recommend approval of this interim use permit. The original conditions of the first interim use permit were what are included in these recommended conditions of approval with the addition of condition number 15 that includes the
IUP doesn't transfer with the property. So, it stays with this property owner and should it change hands uh through a property transfer that the new owner would need to reapply for this permit. Any questions? I'm sorry. Isn't that the standard? No. Well, interuse permits,
uh, they need some some trigger for when they need to be renewed. So, it's sometimes a timeline, sometimes it's property transfer. Thank you. Uh, I'd like to make a motion to approve the Labota interim use permit, uh,
renewal with the conditions from the planning commission. Let's support. Any further questions or comments? All in favor? I oppose. same sign. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you on that.
Thank you. And then the third item I have for you, I did prepare some slides so that the viewing public and yourselves can kind of see the final language. So this is the proposed amendments to the Cook County zoning and subdivision ordinances.
Um, we held the public hearing for this on May 14th and I will get into that in just a moment while Jana helps our technology catch up. Um, as you may recall, I gave you a committee of the whole presentation back in April and uh,
since then there's been a few modifications that we'll talk about. Thanks. It's okay. Um, I can always keep talking, so I'll just keep talking. Um, okay, it's fine. Um, so when I gave you
the committee of the whole presentation in April, I was really focused on this new overlay district combined with the open space subdivision. That that was one thing I really presented to you on. I just want to make a note and clarify for you that these amendments do encompass a few more additions to the
subdivision ordinance itself. So I will clarify some of that in greater detail for you uh in this overview. I began this process well really it started a year or two ago with a conversation with Jason Hail the former H director where Tim Director Nelson and myself sat down
with Mr. Hail and talked about what can our office do to talk about housing in Cook County? Is there something in our regulations that is overburdensome that's not really, you know, meeting the needs? And so that's where some of these extra provisions I mentioned in the subdivision ordinance are being
modified. We're in response to um previous director Hail's uh feedback for us. I'll just advance the slides. Okay, that's all right. Thanks, Jana. That's just great. Yep. So the Yeah, the stakeholder engagement it it really all
this started probably in 2023 2024. Uh and then in January we really focused on this overspace open space overlay district. Sorry these commissioner meetings after a long weekend are kind of rough. Um so so the overlay district
was was the method that we honed in on in a way that we can address this residential housing discussion. I had earlier versions of these uh revisions that were sent out to different stakeholders to get a lot of feedback right away and that's how these the
current language got formed. With that said, um the planning commission had that work session in April. Then I brought the specific ROSO proposal to you at your April cow. Then I gave an H presentation shortly after that. uh WTIP
was very helpful in doing anformational interview and conveying that information out to the public. So I extend my gratitude to Kristen Wisnooki very much for uh being patient with me as we talked through and thought about how to discuss this with the public. And that information I think was linked also to the county website. So there's a lot of
interconnection to try to help people understand this for anyone that was interested. Also, Kirk Oberg with our MIS department. I have to give him a shout out, too, because he is a whiz kid when it comes to the GIS. It's Kyle. Kyle. Kyle. Oh my gosh. Okay, thank you.
Kyle Oberg, I told you I spent too much time on the water this weekend. Um, so Kyle Oberg was incredibly helpful with getting that interactive map that displays the the concept of the eligibility areas. So, that was a good tool out to the public as well. We
finally got the legal notice out on April 25th and we gave a presentation to area realtors as well as Schroeder Township and then we held that public hearing at the planning commission. So this is the the finish line in this long process. Jenna, you can change the
slide. So there's Kyle Oberg's great work there. So all of the yellow dots that you see on this map are kind of the areas that are potentially meeting the eligibility criteria. the I won't convey all the different colors, but the yellow dots
are what you can kind of hone in on. So, these are the areas that we would expect if this is approved that we would be seeing applications for, you know, these types of subdivisions if people feel that they wanted to move forward with this. Again, we're focused on county,
township, or state roads outside of a thousand feet from lakes. Uh, and then the far two and FAR three zone districts, which naturally are usually in those locations anyway. Next slide. The purposes of these amendments were to support
residential development through flexible zoning. So, the flexible zoning is that overlay district concept. It's it's really highly controlled. It would be a sightby-sight uh review to see whether or not a property is suitable for this overlay district. It's to encourage open space preservation alongside new
housing. So that 50% open space preservation standard that's a part of all these Roso district proposals. Streamline the subdivision and development approval processes. As you'll see in the subdivision ordinance, we've relocated where certain levels of
expectation are in the permitting process. This is to say that we don't want developers to invest too much money in the process before they know that they're going to be moving forward with things. And then align community values with housing needs. So keeping that open space subdivision, but also really
focusing on residential uses in these areas as we move forward. Overall summary, the zoning ordinance just this is the overview of all of these ordinance amendments here. So the we have the zoning ordinance that has this new o overlay district, the
Roso overlay district and then the subdivision ordinance that amends the open space subdivision standards. An open space subdivision is a type of subdivision where 50% of the land is held in like common ownership or just undeveloped conditions. And that's where
we're proposing the two times residential density bonus for Rose overlay districts as mentioned in the zoning ordinance. and then revisions to the platting requirements, the PUB standards, and clarifying developers agreements. The final recommendation
from the planning commission, just to give you a heads up and cut to the chase, is that the planning commission unanimously recommended approval. I had provided them three addendums going into the planning commission meeting, and I'll highlight what those addendums were, as well as a clarification to a
terminology uh thing. And then um the next step is here today. for the zoning ordinance. This is the language that's being proposed to be added. I did highlight two things on this slide for attention. This is primarily the same as it has been
through all of these discussions. The only things that's changed is that we added the term bunk house into permitted uses because I didn't want to unintentionally prohibit like a yurt from being used. uh you're technically could be thought of as a bunk house
depending on how it's being developed and then a clarification the maximum impous service lot coverage. So those are these are the only changes that have been made to this so far along the route that we've been taking and then the subdivision ordinance amendments. The major change that's happened to this
since I presented to you at the cow meeting was the addition of number 18. I did indicate to you during the cow meeting that I was uh pondering how to incorporate something about wildfire um at least recognition and discussion in the platting process for all plats in
the county. And so that is the proposal for wildfire resilience plan. Uh our emergency manager Mike Keeport was kind enough to attend our planning commission meeting and speak in support of this. He indicated that this would be a very helpful tool in supporting our firewise
program, but also thinking ahead as we have a lot of spruce budworm. We're seeing a lot of our balsom forest uh dying off and spruce forest being uh stressed. And so considering the wildfire risk of a property before the development happens can help us have a
conversation with a developer to see if there should be some mitigation standards so we're not just putting up houses in uh fireprone areas. And then here's the fire risk uh slide. Mr. Keepart mentioned that this
community wildfire protection plan is anticipated to be updated in the next couple of years. It's a little outdated right now, but it's still a helpful tool at least for starting that discussion to identify which areas may be of higher risk than others. Here's what was addendum two.
And so this is for all final plats. This was just a revision really um of the language that had been originally proposed provided by our environmental health officer Mitch Iverson. J slide here is the language that's in the
open space subdivision. And just a note, we still have normal open space subdivision standards where you're maintaining that residential density. We don't have to do the two times density for the Roso district. So, if somebody wants to create a normal open space subdivision, it doesn't have to be tied
to the zoning ordinance with that more restrictive zoning use requirement. But this clarifies that you can have that greater than normal lot density if you have already been approved to be in the zoning overlay
district. Here's a language that's a part of the two times bonus density. And this is something that's kind of modified too since I presented at the cow. My original proposal was a one and a half times residential density bonus and I was kind of trying to get feelers
out for if we wanted to try to go up to two times. And I think that's an important thing for decision makers to keep in mind is that this is just the ceiling. It doesn't have to allow two times. If the property doesn't seem like a good place to have two times bonus density, but maybe one and a half bonus
density seems reasonable, then that's that's an allowance. So this is just to convey that you can get up to two times the residential lot density. Neva, Madam Chair, if I could ask a question on that point. Is is there a criteria that is
used to make that determination? In other words, in that context, it's going to come before, you know, the board to make a determination as to what is recommended in that regard. So there should be some criteria that makes that determination. So it doesn't appear to
be subjective based upon developer. Yep. Yes. Great question. Our prop our department often finds the land kind of drives suitability. So if it's a property that has a lot of wetlands and the developers this this would be determined at the preliminary plat stage. So you first do the overlay
reszone and then you move forward to preliminary plat. And that's where the rubber meets the road for the concept of the layout. And so if the lot sizes or the structure sizes are too large to really accommodate that two times, the developer would have to make a choice whether to downscale, you know, the demands of the landscape either through
the sizes of the structures or through the numbers. Um, so it would be a technical feedback. So our office would review what they're proposing, look at the septic sites that are being proposed. We often find that septic is the limiting factor and we can't really get around that. That's why these
combined cluster systems might be a way to alleviate that stress um just through a little bit more efficient use of the utilities. So the long-winded answer, short answer is staff feedback I think will help develop or decision makers know whether or not it's suitable for
reaching that maximum two times density bonus through our recommendations. All right. Thank you. And as I kind of alluded to, the overall concept of these are really first understanding the property. So you have
40, 60, 80 acres. First you have to understand what the landscape has to offer. We often say in our office all of the easy to develop land has already been developed in Cook County. We're left with a lot of wetlands, a lot of ledge rock outcroppings, a lot of steep slopes on the land that hasn't been
developed yet. So, first understanding what are those limiting factors on the landscape and then design the community around that. So, put that in the 50% open space so you're not being forced to have wetland credit purchases or something like that. Um, and then cluster your houses together, share the
septic if it's possible, and then have some space for the community uh growth. You know, either community garden or solar panels or something like that are eligible in the remaining areas. Back to the ordinance language. As you can see, I break every rule about
PowerPoint presentations. Um, this is addendum number three that was included to the present to the planning commission. We're adding language to something that already exists in our subdivision ordinance. There's a developers agreement that's currently one language long, one one sentence long
in in our current ordinance. And so, we wanted to put in clarification for developers and for staff to understand what a developer agreement could include. This is putting us both on the same page so that when the county board approves a preliminary plot, then our
our staff and our attorney's office and the developer can work on the agreement. And it's at the county's discretion what's in this agreement. And this would go with the final plat approval so that the county board can see, okay, we see right here that these were the
conditions of approval. This is what the developer says they're going to do. here's the agreement that's outlining what the plan is for putting that together. If there's any financial assurance required for any public um impact, so like if there's a turn lane that's needed or something like that, um
this would be this would be the language that we can use to craft what that developers agreement looks like with the public comments received for this. Um this list does not include a lot of phone calls that I've had with people. Frankly, I've had a lot a lot of
conversations, but the written comments or verbal comments at the public meeting. Uh, all the black one, black text was what was received in written comment form for the planning commission's consideration. A lot of them are in support. There are some that have concerns about the impact their neighborhood. You know, how is this
going to affect me? Where will this happen? Those sort of things. And to each of those, I want to remind people that this is something that someone's going to opt into for the Roso district. So again, this isn't just happening all over the place. This isn't a blanket change to our zoning. Uh be highly sight
specific and also there's two public hearings uh involved with the Roso district development. So first would be the reszone public hearing to see whether or not this is even a suitable location and then the second part would be the preliminary plat where neighbors would be able to see the actual layout
of the lots and where the development is being proposed. So through that process, we can talk about visual screening from the road or making sure if houses are clustered next to the neighboring property that we've got something in there that's not, you know, negatively affecting the neighbor.
And then the Oh, back one real quick. The blue text, it's okay. The blue text is the verbal comments provided at the public comment period during the planning commission meeting. and those were largely in support uh and recognizing that whether or not maybe the market demands won't make this
happen immediately as far as residential development, but this is at least paving a path forward for developers to try to run the numbers and see if it makes sense to pursue this route. There was some planning commission discussion had we talked
about multi-unit housing, uh road access, public open space. um the public open space discussion. There's current language saying that in these open space subdivisions where you have that 50% of the property held in common ownership or just held in undeveloped states, uh it
may be used by the general public and the word may is really key in that discussion. That language currently exists in our subdivision ordinance, but it caught people's attention during this process. And to that, I want to point out that it's not a requirement. These open spaces don't have to be used by the public. Uh but if you had something like
the Superior Hiking Trail going through that open space, then it creates the opportunity that it may be used by the public and that could be a fairly nice um layout for things. We talked about remote development feasibility. So there's a recognition of like where are
these is it really suitable for this to happen up the arrowhead trail really far up the trail and there's a discussion as to whether or not that's even feasible. you know, you're more likely to develop things closer to development hubs, but then there's also a recognition that maybe the land is cheaper further out
and that is suitable. So, it kind of left us as far as I don't know if it's really going to happen. And I, you know, we're just going to kind of have to see. And I would also point out that we can amend ordinances over time. So, if we move forward and we find some of these numbers aren't making sense, there is
the opportunity to amend if we're seeing something really problematic, just as we are with some of these other ordinance provisions here. Um and then the discussion also from the planning commission just kind of emphasized the importance of um the public process
itself. So with this Roso district as I just mentioned is two times two opportunities for the public to comment. So this is a pretty transparent uh process as far as the public having an opportunity. one of these isn't going to pop up in somebody's backyard without them having at least two letters from
our office being sent to their house over a period of time. As well as I anticipate a fair amount of chatter among the neighbors and again last slide. So final recommendation was a unanimous recommendation for approval or adoption
from the planning commission which does include the three addendum and the clarification of the language as is provided in these slides. um for the final proposal. Thanks, Jana. Thank you. Comments or questions? Commissioner Gamble. Thank you, Madam
Chair. Thank you, Neva, for your work on on this and looking through the documents that were provided to us prior to this meeting and at the meeting as well with the commissioners as a whole. uh the information that went in to inform this and there's a lot of comment
that came in that refined you know where we're going with this. I think the umbrella thing is that we're looking for creative ways to create housing without compromising our commitment to our community and our our environment. Um, I think anything that that we can do that
en enables contractors to thoughtfully build opportunities for housing is is good. This is evidence of that. uh we want to be sure that when we get our fingers as agencies into things that
we're not encumbering processes and I think to the extent that we can demonstrate that we're enabling through thoughtful process that is inclusive of people's comments and concerns that refine what the final ordinance ends up being and the protective measures that
are put in place so the people have a voice after the policy is enacted. So whatever we can do to enable and not encumber, I think that would demonstrate a commitment to what we say we want, but
sometimes we don't create avenues to allow that. So thank you. So when I think of the communities we already have, Mink Ranch Road and Flyby and Stonegate and all that, that's my vision of what you're presenting. Is
that correct? I have some I have a few comments from people wanting to know about putting in a septic system with a group of people. Does that change the septic ordinance or requirement or how does that work? A community system.
Yeah. So that would work for this. It doesn't have to be a part of it. So that is a part of our septic ordinance and it does outline requirements for that. Um during the preliminary plat process is when the site evaluation for the septic would be reviewed as far as where are
suitable soils to put in a septic system and then it would be expected that the houses would be located reasonably to make sense around that part of things. But again it doesn't have to be a part of things. So we've seen combinations where you put five of the houses on a shared system and then two other houses
have their own systems because there's flexibility. Um, remember where I said like all of the crummy land is kind of what we have left to develop in large tracks in some cases. So, there might be a case where the wetlands are located in this property. That makes sense that your landscape has two upper dryland
areas. So, the developer says, I want to put two two acre parcels over here and put five, you know, halfacre parcels over here or something. So, it's incredibly flexible. The goal was not to un unintentionally exclude things. So
that's where I say, you know, tuck in our back pocket that maybe modifications will be needed down the road. But um our general ordinances already with the septic ordinance are already very comprehensive in requiring you know septic designs and whatnot.
Yeah, if I could just jump in too and and re reiterate the fact that really it is the septics that has limited physically the the ability for the amount of development. So this this level of flexibility that we're throwing in there only opens a door for further
analysis to be able to see if it can most all of the development over the last decades um people will initially come in with a thought of I want to put in this many and then over the uh this many units and then over the course of
an analysis and going through the the state uh septic um rules and design processes uh it it it it realized is ultimately that it's it's much less or much fewer uh actual units than what can be because of the fact that the good
land has been kind of taken up and and we don't have a lot of good land and and even if you do get um uh combined systems or community systems, those can be very difficult as as well in terms of uh putting in all the the pump and lift stations and the placement and the the
amount of area that is needed. uh we've seen developments that have um gone through the initial process and the initial platting and such and then when it comes to the actual placement of a system they find even struggling to do
that. So, uh it just is important that that that is kind of the biggest limiting factor in that and and not encumbering our our rules that you know the state rules uh are employed for septic system provisions, but it's really the condition of the land that
that governs all that. Well, I'm thinking about like the 40 acres up above um Kramer Road. Well, that's more than half a mile, you know, in approximately how the development would be. So in your estimation with all the yellow dots that you had on the map,
what is your estimation as possibilities for some community development like that? Well, on the Kramer road, the Kramer Road would be eligible to have development within a half mile of Kramer
Road. Um, one of the early discussion points of a potential example location was actually working with Mary Van Doran in Schroeder. she had applied to reszone her property to allow higher residential density and she kind of just wanted the single family residential the R1 zone
district uh up further up the Kramer road and I was like well Mary that uh doesn't doesn't quite quite work with the zoning pattern that we have and here are the reasons and so that invited this discussion of what could this look like and I I it's been really wonderful working with her I mentioned her specifically because she came to our public comment so I hope she's
comfortable with me mentioning it now um but yeah I was kind of looking at her specific case so she had 30 acres up the Kramer road and her neighbors also kind of recognize a little neighborhood feeling up there. So, um it's hard to kind of brainstorm because the market is
so complex up here and that's not really what our office does. We're not we're not the market people, but we want to be sure that our zoning and our subdivision ordinances allow allow the developers to know what could be possible and let them run the numbers. I've heard people give
examples, you know, up in my neighborhood on Maple Hill, uh there's someone who is looking at these and he's he's not a big-time developer, but he's a guy who's like, I just realized I like to build houses and I've got 30 acres uh just off the Gunflint Trail in Maple Hill area. Maybe I can put up like some
yurts and some like rustic houses and have a bunk or a have a bath house set up. And maybe that's not the type of housing that everybody would want, but in Cook County, I think uh I think about my demographic, working professionals with kids, might be attracted to something that's a little bit more
rustic, but has that community feeling. I think there's a lot of room for creativity with this. And ultimately, the market's going to drive what actually gets developed and what can actually happen. What I like about this is that when I talk with developers, they say it's just a numbers game. you know, I can get a much simpler project
working on a larger project on Lake Superior, somebody's second at home. It's a lot more simple, but I don't it's not that I don't want to build houses. It's just that finance-wise, I'm running a business. And so, I think allowing this two times bonus density is our kind
of olive branch of developers of say, hey, maybe this is a way for you to kind of make the numbers work and make this a part of your business as well. Thank you, Commissioner Gamble. Thank you, Madam Chair. Hopefully, this will
um provide not the additional opportunity for housing, but it also is a provision for affordability. And that's we mentioned that during our cow meeting that hopefully that translate
the economics of this to more affordable housing. So, those two components, that's what we'd hope for. And with that, I would make a motion to uh approve the adoption of the proposed amendments to the Cook County Zoning Ordinance number 37 and subdivision
ordinance number 50. Support, comments. Uh um so we've clearly gotten a lot of feedback and a lot of discussions and back and forth through all that. Are there still unresolved concerns, do you feel? Not that I know of. I've modified and
tinkered with this a lot. I think we're just going to have to see when people bring projects forward. If we find something in this language is really a limiting factor, we can look at it. There's things that we have wiggle room on in our local controls, but
there's things we don't have flexibility and like the septic is something that we don't have flexibility and that's still going to be something. But overall, I think I think there'll be extra work needed for clarifying the wildfire protection plan and I'll be working with
Paramount Planning um with kind of creating that form and looking at what that looks like. So, it's it's not intended to be more burdensome than it needs to be. Some sites it won't mean anything, but that will be a learning curve to see what that conversation looks like. And so, I guess specifically
there were concerns about exceptions for for wetlands and and rivers as far as the setbacks were concerned. also just that um concern from Chris Skilled and I think you maybe talked through that with him and so that maybe um was resolved but for all those concerns that were brought you were able to go back and
forth and talk through that with the with the concerned person and yeah there there were written comments those people didn't call me back to clarify their written comments but I did try to address their comments in the planning commission narrative so there were some confusions about Shorland like you
mentioned um I ultimately feel this is way more protective of shoreland areas than just our normal zoning would be. And so I think we could clarify that if people wanted to reach out and talk about that more. Um and yeah, with Mr. Skeldom, that's where addendum number three came in. So the original language
that was publicly noticed was a mandatory. Um, but this is the language softened a little bit and said may at the county's discretion is the is the current language and the very current language right now before these adoptions say that the developers
agreement may be implemented. It doesn't say at the county's discretion. So this just clarifies that the county will decide ultimately the developers agreement and what needs to be in it, but it does need to be a part of a discussion with the developer itself. So, I think to answer your question most directly, the wildfire protection plan
and the d developers agreement are probably going to be the two things that need to be sused out a little bit in the actual implementation of it. I appreciate that. Yeah. And just uh my my impression of the intention of the ordinance was to um try to proactively address some of
the concerns that were brought forward. So, I'm glad that there was some back and forth to kind of clear that up. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Gamble. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I think ultimately whatever we're doing, if we can demonstrate that we've operated in good faith with we'll call
it collective common sense, uh that that's how we move forward. And uh if if we have an agenda outside of good faith, then uh we might be suspect. And we learn as we go, but our intention is to operate in good faith and uh to
demonstrate that. So it's a transparent process. Okay, commission. Last thing, let's just bravo and thank you. Thank you. Thank you for all your work. So, we have a motion in a second. Any other comments or questions? All in favor? I oppose.
Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Take another long weekend. Thank you. Good job. So, Allison is going to come before us with um a couple of items and then one big item. So I
think maybe we could if it's okay with Allison uh we'll do the memorandum of understanding and then we have C and G here also uh from the agenda and then we'll take a break because then we're going into some
heavy thinking. Okay. So um C was the uh point of Amy Boogie. I'm not in charge of that. No, it was the hire of Michael. Yes. So I think G correct the consent agent item that would fall under HR.
Correct. Okay. Yeah. Okay. All right. So you can start with the memorandum. Oh, okay. Okay. Sorry, I thought we were starting with G. Sorry. It is was a long weeks. All right. So the first item now that I
understand it to be theou that we'll discuss. Um so this is more uh this is being brought uh oh wow yes it is early. Um this is being brought to you for approval. Um this lays out in writing
confirms the treatment of uh viva contributions for one of our three bargaining units. Uh so this pertains to ls. So, kind of going back um and explaining kind of what led up to this, um the three unions went into
negotiations at the end of 2024. Uh the contract that was then approved and created is for a 2-year period 2025 to 2026. One of the items that was discussed amongst all three uh
units and thus subsequently incorporated into two of the three bargaining agreements uh is the reflection of an increase in the county's viva contributions to employees that are enrolled in one of our two health plans.
So, currently in the past, or I should say prior to January 1st of 2025, the county would contribute $100 per month up to $1,200 per year uh in VIBA contributions. Think of it like a health savings account, but the county only contributes to it uh for staff. But
during the negotiations, it was bargained at agreed upon that that would increase in 2025 to $125 per month, equating to $1,500 per year. And then another increase going into 2026, $150 per month, which would equate to $1,800
per year. So, that language and that increase over the 2-year time frame was incorporated in writing in the CC CCA and the 49ers contract. um but only the increase for 2025 made it into the written agreement. So this is just again
putting in writing reaffirming what was agreed upon that als me members will get that increase in 2025 currently getting and then in 2026 reflecting that amount. Okay. Questions or comments? Commissioner Gamble. Thank you Madam
Chair Allison. Um, do we have documentation that that shows this other than just verbal discussion? In other words, if if the intent was that it was going to be included so that it'd be agreeable
across all bargaining units. Um, if that can be supported in in language that we have in in our notes or whatever else. Otherwise, you would think that when you're drafting collective bargaining agreements that you're dotting your eyes
and crossing your tees and making sure that everything is inclusive. Um, if if the language exists in documentation to so support that this is the intention, what we're doing right now is putting it in a legal document to be included in
that collective bargaining agreement. So my question is, do we have something that supports the intention that reinforces this document? I would imagine so. Uh, as an individual who is not part of the negotiation
process and I don't retain those notes, um, that would be something that we'd have to look into. Um, I've been communicating with Dan Wilson who is the representative with Lals and then we have got our two stewards over at the uh sheriff's
department who are our representatives again with LS. And so just in my communications that that I would imagine they would be able to produce something with those notes or if we can find um maybe if James had had notes. Um, I did
notice though, um, when the there's a lot of factors going I'm trying to sort how I want to say this in my head. So, when the bargaining agreements were brought to the board for
approval, James had already left the organization. And so there was a lot and because of his sudden departure, there was a lot kind of left to figure out and pick up in in ensuring that the draft contracts being brought to the board
were accurate and reflective of what was agreed upon. So I know Rowan was trying to do some of that in coordination. Again, trying to figure out the pieces of the puzzle. Um, one of the things that's typically included and was included on the three bargaining units,
uh, when it was put into the board agenda is that James would draft and I think James tried to kind of finish up some of this work prior to leaving. He would draft kind of a memo and that included the bullet points of what was
changed in the bargaining agreements. And I noticed on the LLS it even says vivba for 2025 increases to this for 2026 it it increases to this. So it looks like there was intention but the language was missed. But in terms of
finding say documentation I'm I'm sure that we would be able to dive into that. And also historically we we try to maintain consistency and benefits across all bargaining units
even for employees that are not represented. So it sounds like when they were going through the bargaining process like COLA started off at two and a half for some units and then it was changed because a different unit went to 2.75. So there's also kind of that
practice of we don't want to create a a different benefit for one union uh one union uh and one unit and set of employees than what other units and employees are being treated. So that all kind of supports theou in that sense as
well that this provides that consistent practice that that we've typically done. And madam chair and Allison, thank you for the explanation at it. Basically, it comes down to intent. If it were an after the fact thing when they're looking in to the point of the value of
consistency across bargaining units, that was one of the values we identified because we we wanted that consistency um within our ability to pay. Um and so given the circumstances, that's understandable. It's all about the
intention and of course we have that value for uniformity. So, I just wanted to make sure that um that it was supported by that intention and if it's can be documented, then we're doing our due diligence. But given the circumstance, it's understandable some
things could get lost in the cracks. Thank you. And in the my communications with Dan Wilson to get to thisou, he stated during the negotiations that that increase for 2025 and then subsequently for 2026 was identified and verbally agreed upon. It just that language
clarification just had not made it into the written draft. Thank you. Final approved version. And I'd like to confirm Commissioner Mills and I were the negotiators for and that was the confirm what you said that
to keep this um equitable through all bargaining units for all employees. So that was discussed and that was the approval. It was a another very um
non-contentious bargaining experience. So, attorney Peterson. Um thank you, Madam Chair. I would also just echo um the statements earlier that in the it appears as though the minutes from
November 12th um 2024 which predates my time shows that administrator um at the time who I don't know who that was um it does Watkins administrator Watkins did
highlight um some of the or the changes in the new labor agreement including um the viva increases in 2025 to 1500 and 1,800 in 2026.
Thank you. Make a motion to approve theou with also. Any further questions or comments? All in favor? I oppose. Same sign. Motions passes unanimously. So then we'll just do one more item and
that's G. Commissioner Gamble pulled uh to discuss the approval hire of Michael Crusoe, the human services generalist, human resources. Human resource. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, Allison, we we touched on this in one of our
personnel committee meetings and then I did not make the last meeting to my grin and uh uh so I didn't know if there was any further discussion on that. my my only thought um relative to this and and
I made a number of calls to different counties to ask them about their human resource department and staffing and and I'd get comments from people said, "Man, I don't know how you could do it alone." Um kind of things. Um and I was just trying to find support to understand it
in in context given the increased staffing that we see. Uh the other thing, the reason that I pulled it is is because um uh in view of the uncertainty that we're seeing, we're seeing filling in a lot of these things that come up
the public look at and says, "Oh my goodness, we're hiring. We're hiring. We're hiring. How can we be hiring in this climate?" And u these are positions that are filling positions that have been vacant for a while. That can be true, too. But some organizations, in
other words, filling vacancies. But some organizations just freeze because of the uncertainty. And we talk to department heads because we want to be empathetic and understand in view of can we continue until we are a little more certain about the financial base to
support these positions. And in a case where we're creating a new position that was talked about and put in the budget for this year and it's been delayed because of certain you know things then um still it it the reason I bring it up
is that when we talk about the uncertainty we talk about the fiscal side of things that fund these positions. uh where is the evidence that shows that we as a board are aware of that in our
decision making because it it appears that we're continued to going on as normal even if we put it in a budget for 2025 that 2025 thought process is completely different than our 2026
thought process and I'm just saying this might be something that we should wait and see while we clear up some of that uncertainty because we're adding another layer to an already cumbersome layer when it comes to that. So that's that's
my thought. There needs to be the evidence of what we talk about translates to our decisions and it's not saying that the individual is is not the right individual and that you don't need the help. It just it just it's a it's a
challenging time and I I I I need to see the connection. Yes. M Yes. Um, I would just like to say that I think this this position is very warranted. Um, and the reason that I believe it's warranted, first of all,
the person who is currently doing a lot of this work is retiring. So, this provides a little bit of overlap for training. Um, but second of all, I think uh we've reduced uh HR in this organization to something very
transactional. you know it's just hiring and exit interviews and onboarding and offboarding and um a lot of the issues that we have I think uh bigger issues systemic issues are related to the fact that we haven't treated HR uh in a
strategic way made sure policies are in place um made sure that we have proper training programs all of those kinds of things so having this position in general would help with things like our retention um which uh I think she can focus on
things that affect retention and some of that is really about policy and about the way and process the way we do things because I think sometimes people don't feel supported adequately. So being able to to free up our HR a little bit to
support those kinds of issues is will help us in in times when things are difficult to retain people. And so I I believe it's a uh is helpful to address some of the things you're talking about and it's it's not I mean it's it's an
overlap now but it's it's you know it's already kind of in in what we have so financially. Commissioner Gamble. Yeah. Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you Reena. And I think we've had some discussion about that and and and I agree with you. I
think foundationally and and in my canvasing different HR departments, that's that's the point. If we're if we're busy shuffling papers, we can't get to the foundational things that creates culture and our human resource department is that. And I think if we
look at the resumeumés and go through the shared values things in our applicants for county administrator, you will you will see the evidence of that in in their language. That was another component is that the county
administrator coming on board, you know, looking at the organization and and what's best fit. But I if in after we had the discussion the personnel and uh you look directly at me and ask me because you know I'm reticent on the
hiring end of things but I don't do it just to be a cog in the wheel. I do it because I want us to evaluate the need for certain positions and how we are efficient in how we operate. But when it comes to the foundational things as far as
culture, I agree, we rely heavily on human resource uh to be able to help create that culture because many people leave because they don't feel valued, heard, or supported. And if if we honestly understand some of the
reasons why the change over whatever then we can address that in a in a meaningful way which in the long run should you know be an advantage for us. So I I struggle on the on the where we find oursel right now simply because
we're looking at the leadership coming in which I hopefully would share this discernment that sees the value of freeing you up to be able to contribute to policies and things that make staff
feel valued. I I feel that's hugely important. I think it's just a generic throw out to say with the uncertainty, we got to look and if we're going to prioritize dollars, I'd be the first to say that it should go here. But I I think we just
need to be aware. We can't keep hiring when we're losing revenue to support those positions. They need to it needs to be a very thoughtful, intentional thing that demonstrates to department heads we're listening. We're not closing our eyes to it, but but we need to find
ways to do more with less. So, having said that, I'll I'll make a motion to support it. And and again, right after we talked about it, I did call several counties and and uh there was strong support for the need. It just let's build a framework in which you can
accomplish what we hope for. So, I make a motion to support the hire. Second that. Any further questions or comments? All in favor? I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. Thank
you. Okay. So, we're going to pause now. We'll come back and start with the county administrator hiring process. So, we'll take about a 10-minute break. Okay. Right. We'll resume our meeting now and starting with um Allison Plameumber who
is going to go over the uh county administrator hiring process. Yes, we are ready for the next steps. Um, pretty shortly here I'm going to hand it over to Pat Melvin who we have joining us by a phone to walk us through the next steps in actually scoring and ranking
our semi-finalist to determine who we'd like to interview. Uh, Pat, are you there? Good morning, Madame Chair, commissioners, and staff. Good morning. Good morning. Morning.
I just wanted to start out. I apologize. I've got uh a cold that I've come down with. So, uh please let me know if I'm not speaking out loud enough or if there's any problem with uh with my communication. Okay. Just to give you
kind of an update on where we're at. We had a total of uh 26 applicants in our second round for the county administrator position. That compares with what we had in the first round. We had 41 applicants. Uh we did have 26 uh
applicants. Of those I uh elected to move or advance to you 10. Of those 10 we have had two applicants that have withdrawn. Uh one because he was
electing to pursue uh an elected office and the second one just had a change in situation. So um we are looking at eight applicants uh today uh and I think they're all uh qualified to varying
degrees and I think the task upon us is for you to you know based on the information that has been provided the video interview the work personality index the core values assessment
uh and their cover letter and resume and their information disclosure. We are looking at this point uh in the process of narrowing that down to four or five that you would like to invite in for an interview.
So, uh just to uh uh give you a we what we're looking to do here this morning is to narrow that down to four and five, but then also to talk after that about the process and what you
would like to uh see scheduled for interviews. We have targeted June 16th for interviews. So, I hope that everybody has that date reserved on their calendar. And uh yeah, after we determine who you would like to invite
in, we can determine how that will be structured if we do it the same as we did last time. Or I think we probably would be wise to maybe change a few things up. and I have chatted uh with uh
uh Rowan, Reena, Allison uh after the last recruitment and we have some suggestions that might make it flow a little better. So uh the first issue at hand is of course to look at the aid applicant and uh if you would
please you know share your thoughts. What I have done similar to last time is I have a spreadsheet and what I tend to do is I tend to if it's your top choice I give that person five points. If it's
your second choice, I give that person four points and typically go through that with the board members, each giving me their individual preferences. And through that, it helps kind of filter which candidates are
getting the most um uh are most desired by the board members. Certainly, this is not intended to restrict you or or push you into a decision, but sometimes it just helps. In some cases, you may have
a commissioner who's unable to select uh three candidates or or they're limited and they only see three candidates uh versus four or five, you know, then that kind of muddies the numbers a little
bit. But uh I would certainly welcome some discussion and then if individuals would like to give me their preferences, I can put that into my spreadsheet and I can let you know where we stand after everybody has some input.
Okay. Does anybody have any questions or comments about the process as it starts? Nope. Okay. Well, I guess we'll just probably we can start with Commissioner Sullivan and she can um give you the numbers that she has chosen. Okay, Pat,
I'll um start uh list my top five candidates. First choice is number seven, 2 1 4 and 8.
Okay. 7 2 1 4 and 8. Correct. Okay, I meet you, Commissioner Selvin. Commissioner Gamble, you want to go next? Okay. My ranking it would be uh number
one is five and number two is three and number three is two. um in the first go round when I look at
the individuals that I would consider for interview I I limited that uh given the way that you're scoring these if if we go through with our top five so that your numerical scoring works
uh I will continue um my uh number four would be six And my number five would be four. Thank you, Commissioner Gamble.
Hi, Pat. This is Commissioner Mills. My uh numbers were 57462. Commissioner White. Thank you, Commissioner Mills. My numbers. Uh, Commissioner White, my numbers are
two, three, four, and um, wait, that was backwards. Let's do this again. Start all over. 3 2 4
3 2 4 Okay. And then seven. Eight. What is the last one we have now? Six. Eight. Then number eight. The last one. And I couldn't come
up with the fifth. Okay. Could you repeat those, please? 3 2 4 8 Thank you, Commissioner White.
Then I'll round it up. The last five for me are the number two, five, one, three, and six. Did Did you have I'm sorry. Could you
repeat those again, Commissioner Stoley? Two, five, one, three, and six. [Music] Thank you.
That's the end. Tabulate. So based on our tabulations, we are looking at candidate one having a total of
six, candidate two having 17, candidate three having 11, candidate Four having nine. Candidate five having 14. Candidate
six having five. Candidate seven having nine and candidate 8 having three. So would you repeat one? How many there?
Candidate one had six. Okay. Thank you. Yes. I have a question. I have different scoring. Did Commissioner Gamble did Did you rank number the first
candidate as your first pick? Uh my my first pick is candidate five. Oh, my numbers are way off. Okay. And my second is candidate three. Okay. What? Commissioner Gamble. Um, yes. Your
second candidate was Commissioner 3. So I have 53264. Yep. Okay. Okay. 53. So, Commissioner Gamble, your third choice was Commission was candidate six.
No. And my third choice was candidate two. Two. Okay. Yes. Okay. Nope. That's what I had. Thank you. So based on that information, we can maybe start having some discussion.
There were obviously two candidates, candidates two and candidate five, which scored very high, 17 and 14. And then you had three candidates that were either nine or 11
points. You you had candidate number three with 11 points. You had candidates four and seven both with nine points.
And then the next lowest after that drops off to six, five, and three. So if you were looking to invite five in, you know, discussion would probably
be nine, the two nines, the 11, the 14, and the 17. And so to be clear, what I have that as is 2, 5, 3, 4, and 7.
Yeah. Okay. Correct. Okay. Correct. Yes. Thank you. [Applause] Feel free to have further discussion. Just please keep in mind reference to candidates by numbers. Mr. Gamble. Yeah. Thank you, Madam
Chair. Um when I uh look at um how the scoring came out on commissioner selections here.
Um, we have uh candidates that are far-flung that we're looking, you know, potentially, in other words, because they're on our our list. Um, my my recommendation, this is just my thoughts, I I would take the three
highest and bring them in. If we did that, we would be covering first choice by each commissioner except for the initial. And uh so last time when we had this discussion, we looked at and we
said, well, we've included everybody's first choice. And then the discussion was for individuals that had a first choice that wasn't in there, do we want to respect that and include them in it? So that's part of our discussion. From
my perspective, looking at the candidates and how it's scored out and given the distance, um I would um for some of these candidates, my recommendation would be that we would
um go with the three top scores. That would be my my opinion and eliminate the nines. I I I I would I think I would rather devote more time to fleshing out, if you want to use that
terminology, the three top scoring than to have more with less time devoted and energy and mental capacity. I think we we mine out of the three top ones. It's not
numbers. That's my opinion. How does everybody feel about that, Commissioner Mill? Well, um that wouldn't include uh Commissioner Sullivan's first pick. That's correct. And um uh with our recent history uh and
candidates dropping out and things not working out, I think it would behoove us to go for all five and and see what happens there. Um it uh we haven't had great luck with candidates dropping out and so just kind
of hedging our hedging our butt there. Um I understand the uh space it takes uh financial mental um to to do more but um I don't want to post a third time.
I would agree. I I I'm in favor of that statement. Just saying what what what's not to post. Oh yeah. Okay. If we have to we have to but I don't want to have to. Yeah. Yeah. Commission. Um I think it
would Commissioner Sullivan's first choice needs to get a hearing. I believe if she felt that was who did and her first choice did not was not among the top three in the rating system and I
find the rating system a little suspect still from last time too subjective and so I would like to hear uh even though um I don't know I just think that that might not be it's respectful I don't know. It's um
we did that the last time around. We included uh I think it was Commissioner Gamble's first choice. That wasn't Or did we? Oh, we never did. No, it I'm I'm saying it was a discussion. I don't think that that first choice was amongst
that's the final candidate that we had in the two that we interviewed. So, but but the concept about if respecting a commissioner's first choice if we want to be inclusive and that's how we want to proceed, I I would respect that. I
just saying when we're looking at at overall costs and it's not about numbers. It is about respect and it is about substantive candidates that we have time to go through as opposed just
going through the motions. I think we're a little bit gun. because we had some fallout uh last time. We want to be sure we have enough in the in the pool. But I would not allow that to drive my decision. I I would uh I would still try
to keep it at at the four myself, but that's just my opinion. I'm one of five. And I would say regarding candidate seven that in addition to um that person being my top choice, it was also another
commissioner's second [Applause] choice. And as far as candidate four is concerned, that was in four commissioners top five. Right. So it's it's very easy to justify you know I think the pool of five. Yeah. Yeah,
that's fine. So, what do we need? We need a motion here to uh invite uh or invite the top five. I'll make the motion to invite top five for interviews. I'll second that. Any other
comments or I have a question, Pat. Do we know candidate? Well, I guess we don't want to say that. I was just going to say I I don't know and I might have missed it as far as where that candidate is located, but that's something I can
find out. Yeah, I just don't know if that's something we can consider. That's why I'm saying we don't want to we don't want to talk about it. Any other questions or comments? We have a motion on the floor that we would accept the top five.
Okay. All in favor? I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously to accept the top five. All right. Thank you. You're welcome. Appreciate I know it's a
difficult uh uh discussion, but I appreciate you working through that. The next item I just wanted to kind of share a few uh uh observations. Obviously you as board members have been through this
once before so you've you're familiar with the process and I would certainly open it up to any observations about how we can do the next interview uh better. And I just wanted to share uh some of
the ob observations that came from a a brief meeting that uh um several staff and myself had as to how we could make it a better process. I'll just quickly go through some of those items and please feel free to
share your thoughts and if you have any different thoughts, I certainly welcome those because this is your interview process and I want you to feel that you're getting good information about the candidates and are able to make a determination as who's going to be a
good long-term fit for Cook County. So, a few things that we identified last time around uh was that there was a little bit of a breakdown because uh obviously we only had two candidates,
but the second candidate um you know, I think walked in the hallway and did not come into the boardroom while we were interviewing the first candidate. I think one of the things that this group came up with is
that we would initially want individuals to report possibly to administration or someplace else so that they're not coming into the boardroom during another candidates's interview. That was something that we just kind of
overlooked. We only had two candidates. it worked itself out but something that we should take I think uh measures to make sure that doesn't happen now as we're looking at more candidates. So we would have them initially report someplace else and then it would be uh
myself or somebody from the boardroom who would then go and basically escort the candidate in at the time that we're ready for them. Um that's one point. Another point is to allow maybe more time in between interviews. I think and
maybe you can confirm this commissioners, you know, we were on a a time slot. We didn't allow much time in between interviews and maybe some of you commissioners felt, you know, stick to the script and that you weren't able to
ask more follow-up questions. Certainly follow-up questions are encouraged. Sometimes applicants don't provide a response to the question and it's nice to be able to go back and say yes thank you for that but can you specifically address you know a certain
point. So allowing more time in between interviews was thought to be something that would be helpful. also providing questions whether it be you know 10 minutes ahead of time when they report to
administration providing the questions and then also having it possibly at the interview table um so that individuals you know if they lose track or something they have a piece of paper they can see the question that's being asked. uh it
really is not anything that should be secretive and and it may just help some individuals in terms of their interview skills to be able to see those questions. Um, another point was to ensure that the
video is not live but that it's played at a later time so that you know candidates who have later interviews are not able to find out what those questions are and have an advantage over the the ones who have interviews first.
So, a delay uh the replay of the of those interviews at a later time. And then lastly was a suggestion to have more scenario questions in the interview to really kind of get a feel of how does a person think, how do they
rationalize, how are they going to, you know, act as Cook County administrator. So, those are just five things that uh uh Rowan, Reena, Allison, and I came up with to improve the process. I would
welcome your discussion if you agree with it or if you don't, or if you have any additional thoughts on how we could make the process smoother having been through it once already. Thank you. Well, having five candidates with an
hour each and we start at 8:00, it's going to be, you know, a long day without feeling rushed in between. So, do you feel an hour is long enough or should it be like 45 minutes? But then taking into
consideration the fact that there could be follow-up questions or things that we might want to revisit during the questioning time. How do you feel about the timing of this? Commissioner Mills, I I um Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I am
comfortable with all of the suggestions. Um, I have cons I think an hour should be plenty. I I think there should be follow-up questions. Um, one of my concerns is
um uh re regarding the live stream is just having staff uh access uh to it in in a timely manner. Um I I thought that was extremely helpful for our conversation after the fact. Um, and so I want to
make sure we have that avenue and and just give enough time for that um, and for staff to talk together uh, about about the candidates. Um, the other concern I had was just as far as the questioning and the and the follow-up
questions are concerned, I I think it's important that we keep them as questions rather than our own thoughts. um and and um and viewpoints. So, um you know, as as long
as we're disciplined in that, um I'm I'm pretty comfortable with all the all the suggestions you made. Um Pat. Okay. Thank you. We we based on what I'm hearing I I think we would probably
um reduce the number of questions to allow a little more followup. Um you know I think that might be something worthwhile. Good madam chair. Okay. The other thought I had is um
you know I again I I think follow-up questions are important. Um, yeah. And the the the the previous interviews I personally didn't see a need for more followup, but if other commissioners do have that need, I want that I want that
incorporated. So, um, but yeah, reducing the number of questions, that makes sense, too. I think to make the um transition into the first interviewer would be um I could bring them in or administrator
Reena could bring them in and then allow I don't know five minutes in between each one with you know where the other ones are circulating. So, what is the best plan for having five in the
community and then they know that at, you know, 9:010 they're going to be up here. So, is it just So, Pat, you need to kind of help us with figuring out the um smoothness of all of the um five candidates coming into the courthouse.
Sure. Yeah. No, I I I think allowing a little more time in between interviews uh would be beneficial and uh um that way we don't feel rushed and and uh you know allowing a little more time. Not
that everybody has to take more time, but just having that flexibility. Mhm. Um so you'll kind of portion that out for us then so we know and they need to know too. Yeah. So Pat, if this is uh
Commissioner Sullivan, if we did um came in at 8:00 and um met as a group and then invited our first candidate, one at 8:30, one at 10:00, one at 11:30 and maybe um then a halfhour break
in there and we had a candidate at 1:30 and at 3. That would give time for all of our candidates to have a good full hour. It would give time in between for any um thoughts that we might um want to put down on paper. Um it would extend
time for followup and it would give us an opportunity to complete by the end of the day so we could do it all in one day. Attorney Peterson. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to make sure I have the date right. Is this June 16th? Yes. That is also a regularly
scheduled court day. So, just to be aware that there may be security at the front. Oh, I was in in justest I was going to suggest we ask um Sheriff Elias to do the escort, but maybe that's
might be here anyway. Yeah. Well, that time frame I think seems reasonable. Did you get all those times, Pat? I did. Yes. Thank you. So then I'm I'm assuming that we are again going to have the management the
management team will the following day on Tuesday June 17th will there be a board meeting in the morning similar to what we did last time where the a member of the management team will be able to
address the commissioners with thoughts on the candidates. Is that how you'd like to do it, Madam Chair? Yeah, I I think it worked well. And then the the uh input from the
community was also something that we fielded so that we had our staff, our community and commissioners impressions. The other thing is that the questions, if we're looking at the timing and the
nature of the questions, we want to make sure that those questions are are meaty uh and worded in such a way that they draw out responses that inform us. So I think the process of identifying which
questions get asked is going to need to be a refinement process that we go through as a board here. Yeah. What I plan to do is uh following our our discussion here today in the next day or two I will get those questions
out to you to evaluate revise accordingly and uh we'll have those nailed down for the interviews. So June 17th is also public health and human services and a committee of the whole. It's committee of the whole
committee of the whole too. So yeah, we'll need to we'll need to post for a special meeting but Mhm. Right. We'll be here. Right. So, is there anything else that the board uh obviously um the five candidates were going to
have we're still going to have the reimbursement policy? I think it was for um mileage for hotel meals and mileage. Um with our previous recruitment, obviously now we've got
some individuals who are coming from let me just take a look here. Um well need needless to say airlines may be involved and we did talk about that last time. Um, and and I thought we said
a dollar amount associated with with it all as well. I just don't recall that number. Is it? That's what I thought. Something,000. Yeah. I'm sorry. 2,000. 2,000 up to a,000. 1,000 last time. Y
I'm sorry. What was that? Well, well, we were whispering. Yeah. Uh, we're all recalling it was up to $1,000 reimbursement, including airfare, mileage, car rental, or hotel. Yeah.
Book early. Attorney Peterson, did you have something? Um, thank you, Madam Chair. I just have as a practical matter if the link is going to be shared. Is that something Pat that you were anticipating would be shared at the end of the business day on Monday so that the Matt
members could review? Yeah, excuse me. I I was just going to check and see if we could live stream it internally just to certain email addresses. I think we could probably I would agree with that do that. I'm going to check that out. See if we can. I don't know if I will
look into that but because of the entire board is present I don't know whether if it is available online if it can or maybe it would be seen as an intranet so it's not really yeah I'm not sure yeah it would just be they would be able to
watch it I think there's a way to do that perfect but we'll check that out we we would still allow uh residents if they chose is to come and you know be present parti not participate but observe they can certainly come to the
courthouse and observe the interviews if they would like um but yeah I'm not sure how the live stream how that would play out yeah and I am no lawyer uh but but my understanding open meeting law is that
it we are not obligated to live stream anything it's just and the board's intention to be as transparent as we can and um and to to give more opportunities. So, um I think maybe that's where you're wondering just what
the obligations are once you do des decide to stream availability in that regard, but if it's on an intra net, I believe that Commissioner Gamble. Thank you, Madam Chair. I I would say again if we look at
intent, our intent is is to be sensitive to our interviewees as far as respecting. So that's what we're trying to protect. The other thing is I think if we wait till the end of the date is for staff to have to make a
determination and give it back to us that that doesn't make sense. So our intent in good faith is to provide opportunity for our staff to be able to live stream it and if if it's legally and you know technology wise possible to
do it that I think accomplishes what we want right respect the interviewees and respect our staff to have time to consider in regard to the public participation here in the room they did have a um list of um guiding questions
too that they were filling out that we then would need time to look at that too. We certainly appreciated all of the participation. It was a very very healthy exercise and whatever we can do to protect that that we certainly want
to do that. Okay, Pat, where Yes, Camille. One other thought, and again, this is maybe getting too in the weed and too techy, but I believe you can rather than have it live, you can just have it delay an hour or something like that. So that um but I'll let you I'll let you. Yeah, it
would still with as many hours as involved, we'd still hit somebody as far as potential candidate being able to Gotcha. Y Okay. Anything else to add for Pat's consideration? or ours.
Any other Yeah. Anything else? Any other questions, Pat? No, I I'm assuming that everything will will go similar to how it did uh uh previously and yeah, if any questions arise, I will certainly uh share that with staff that will bring it
up. So, no, I very much appreciate your time this morning, commissioners, and uh look forward to reaching out to the cans to let them know the update and uh interviewing uh five individuals on the 16th. So, okay, thanks so much. Thank
you for your time. Get better, feel better. Thanks much. Have a great week. You too. Thanks. Thanks. Bye. Bye. Bye. Okay. Thank you,
Allison. Moving on to item eight. So, uh, Brady, we did have a um request from Commissioner Gamble for the hiring process of working on a committee, specifically um the budget and P and the budget
and finance, the process of that. Commissioner Gamble, was that what you were asking? Oh, he pulled an item. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah. I I just think it's it's uh advisable. Uh I I do believe I haven't
actually clicked on it to look and see on the county's website when it says committees and you know that uh the community can volunteer to participate on that if all openings are listed on that. That's one thing. The other thing
in our districts as commissioners, if we have an opening, in this case on the budget committee and facilities committee, we would make it known to our constituents. I think it would be good to just draft draft a policy that would say uh when we have an opening that we
will say here's a window of time. if you're interested uh respond by such and such a time and then uh whomever is going to look at it could be members of the committee that that application applicants would come before
and then they would make a determination and get back to the individual. I I think it would build some structure to it. In some cases in that period of time you got one person and that's that's what you have. In other case you might have three or four. So, I think it'd be
good for the committee to just look at it and make a recommendation. So, when it comes to the board, it's a recommendation coming from the board from that committee. Okay. So, then I don't think it's complicated. I I think it just I think
it's just a discipline when we have it would be a consistent way for us to respond to those because I know um other groups do make a recommendation to the board. Yeah. And it really only comes up when it happens. Sure. Which it just happened. Yeah. And I put out a plea and
Yeah. got a response. So, is there any further questions on that? Commissioner Mills? I'm just curious about the the window. Um um that applies if there are applicants and otherwise it's until filled until filled or what what's the intention
there? because oftentimes the window comes and goes. Yeah. With no applicants. And so I'm just wondering Well, yeah. I mean, does it look like bakers become choosers if we extend the window? But I I think they're just that's something you discuss when you're
defining the policy. If you say until filled, then that means it's sort of leaving it open and how you going to cut it off. I think it's best to say a window. The window may be extended if we don't get applicants, but I think it needs to be within the window. Okay.
Yeah. Thank you. So, who who uh wants to draft that does? Yeah. So, the question that I have um we have a lot of committees. Yes. Um are there certain ones are these just
advisory committees or are these what are we I thought we were talking about advisory committees. Those are very different than all the other right. All right. I just want and I'd be happy to help work on citizen. Yeah. citizen, you know, people that volunteer know that they're well, there there are a number
of committees. So, I just want to make sure that um you know, we unders I understood the scope of it, right? Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you for the discussion. And madam chair, I'll make a motion to approve appointment to the budget facilities committee recommended
candidate and I will second that. Any further discussion or comments? All in favor? I I motion passes unanimously. Okay. All right. Brady's going to dig down into some facts and figures here. Uh
Madam Chair, if I we could skip to the uh wetland credits and maybe we can look at both of them because uh uh Mitch is here in case you have any question about that specifically. He's involved in all of
these. Mhm. So the the two requests from Dustin Hans and North Northshore Waste, these are on these properties. Grand Marray, it's for both of the transfer sites. And in Hovindland, uh was required that they purchase uh
wetland credits for the work being done. And as you could see from the email, uh both of the credits were purchased from uh Stan Bouch. Um and I'll leave it to questions and
anything uh Mitch might have to say. Commissioner G. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Mitch, what's uh wetland credits going for nowadays? Um so this price that they're paying is $1.25 per square foot. The I the average
price I mean it's a market market driven you know economy but generally around $2 per square foot. So getting a pretty good deal. Um, additionally, just for your information, um, the Army Corps of Engineers judge that neither of these
projects requires credits that are federally recognized. So, in wetland banks, generally, you have credits that are both federally and state recognized. U, Mr. Bouch has a a pretty good
availability of credits that are only state recognized. So, this project is viable for that use, which kind of dictates that the price is a little bit better. And and as a follow-up question, um do we have a policy that defines when
wetland credits are needed, whether we buy locally or buy at the best price? The state process dictates that within the wetland conservation act rules. Um generally we have to seek credits
within our bank service area first which is you know we're in bank service area one along the north shore here. Um but yes I mean that process dictates that we have to seek within that area first. Is Aken County within that district? No.
Okay. Bank service area one essentially is kind of the the Lake Superior North. Okay. Thank you. And any further questions or comments? Yeah. Other go ahead. I was just going
to say so we're looking for a motion for the um to approve the payment of these wetland credits. Yeah. For both Hovinda and Grammar. Yeah. You want it as one motion for both? It individual. I think it can
be for both long as it's stated uh both sides. Commissioner Sal. So, Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion that we approve um the payment for wetland credits for both the Grand Marray and for the Hovindland
site. Support. Any further questions or comments? All in favor? I oppose same sign. Motion C passes unanimously. Okay, we'll go back to the Lakota quote. Yeah, the other add-on was the uh
the quote for the grading at the Hovland site uh by Labota. And in this case uh they received we received only one uh
quote and for [Music] 146,000 and he is asking for an initial payment by owner for 42,000 in order to get started. And
I see Brooke is here and he can answer some questions regarding that. Any questions? Not sure what answers I've got, but yeah, maybe if you want to just give us a little bit of an overview from your perspective. Um, uh, Dustin kind of
briefed me on it and basically just about the only bidder that could work with our timeline. I was willing to bid on that one. Where does this amount fit within our our uh, it's Labotas who did the
original bidding for the budget. So, yeah, it fits right in there. Good. Yeah. And this is part of that estimate of about 275,000 for the hole in site. And the major part of that is the groundwork. Yep. Mhm.
Basically the rest of it is fencing. Yeah. Plus the fencing. Yep. Okay. Commissioner G. Maybe late in the game, but is that fencing considered bearproof? Yeah, it
will be tall and um Yes. Okay. Yep. Otherwise, maintenance is I understand it. I don't think anything's maintenance has to go out there. I think it's bear resistant maybe. I don't think the fence even is. I think we're going to be locking every container.
Thank you. Beyond bear resistance, are there any other questions or comments? I could hear a motion. And if you Yeah, if you make the motion, I'd ask that you um authorize um Brooke as our maintenance facilities
director to sign the agreement with them with review by the county attorney. Got that? I'll make that motion. It's okay. Support. Any further questions or comments?
All in favor? I oppose same sign. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Brooke. And you fellas, too. Okay, Brady. Okay, now we want to talk some budgeting here. So, first quarter
budget to actual report. Uh, as usual, there's not a lot to report in the first quarter because you don't really get a fair look at your budget, but it would point out any anomalies or maybe some trends. Right now, the it's 25% of the
year. Obviously, 13% of budgeted revenues. Um, this is mostly because of lack of our big federal payments. They're not spread out. We haven't received any of that yet. Um, well, I take that back. We got some uh the
substitute for the secure rural schools that smaller ball we've received that but that's uh what we've gotten so far. We should get the rest of it this week actually or at least the BWCA we should get historically we should get that this week and then the regular BWCA should
come in June. So the second quarter uh usually we catch up on revenues on expense side we're a little below uh 25% we're at 21% part of that's just probably the mild winter typically utilities and snow plowing push us
closer to the 25% and I've given you that summary of our budgeted departments with some of the uh explanation of the higher items and I'll just go through those quickly.
Uh, Department 41, General Finance Administration revenues are very high. Again, this is the interest rates that uh, 3 years in a row are staying up above expected. So, we're still at about 4.23. We're at 5 1.5 to six two years
ago. So, it's dropping, but very slowly. Um, our general insurance expense, we pay all of that in January. So, that always looks high. uh it their charges to public health human services higher than budgeted and that's
basically based on staff primarily up there. Um and they paid the annual office 365 that phone cost in February. Push their numbers up a little bit. Uh sheriff's response unit their insurance
costs in January. um E911 the professional fees they call it the higher ground radio recording MACT system uh I'd ask um Jay to come in
if you wanted an explanation of that but um uh in the radio department this is the AT&T tower fee uh in revenues was paid in January push those revenues up
for score that revenue is down. No state grant money received yet. Should get the first amount uh in the next month or so for emergency services. Expenses are low because uh professional services weren't needed uh for the 20 the
conference. Um community center the building use fees are at 49% of budget. So people were using that building a lot this winter. um YMCA the revenue is high because we
get the city's contribution uh early in the one time and extension uh the quarter one MOA uh memorandum of understanding uh for the director's pay wasn't paid until
April. Um Rowan purchased two copiers under the photocopy expense. um and 2023 BWCA was paid in May. So again, I
just spoke about this. Um we included on here uh the BWCA money because it's so large even though uh the payment we receive in May is actually last year's money. So we included here because it would uh skew the numbers too much. And
other than that, it looks normal. And I'd ask if there were any questions. Commissioner Gamble. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Brady, um I appreciate all the reports. My first inclination is take those reports, you know, that
you've had annually and and do comparisons. It it's it's difficult which I know the challenge that you have to face with monies coming at what time of year and how they get applied so that we reflect things as they are as opposed to how they come into us. Um but still
encumbered by the structure of it. Uh you're not seeing any significant trends. if there was something that we didn't anticipate that wasn't, you know, covered under bonding dollars or set aside dollars that we're seeing an
increase on. Uh I would assume because we've had some positions that haven't been filled from a staffing standpoint that we're seeing some of the advantage of that that uh will kick in, you know, once those positions are filled. However, they were budgeted for. Yeah.
But um when it comes to the budgeting process, when we're looking at some of these things and evaluating, some of those dollars might uh play out differently depending upon how we proceed. So I guess the the question is all the years that you've
been in in the position there and looking at things as we see it right now at this point in time uh no significant trend that we should be aware of that we need to try to mitigate. No, just positive trend. The interest, I mean,
that's a two-edged sword, but uh we'll take the positive of the uh the interest revenue. Um even though it seems to go along with inflation and higher cost generally, but yeah, we'll take the little bit of benefit we can get. So, yeah. Thank you.
Then I I just ask for uh approval of the report, Commissioner Sullivan. So, I'd like to make a motion to accept the first quarter 2025 general fund budget report. Support. Any further questions? Commissioner? Yeah, just for the comparisons, uh, it's in here, but just
want to point that out. Uh, explicitly in quarter 1 of 2024, uh, our revenues were at 18%, our expenses were at 22% and so the levy use was at 29%. This year for 2025, it's uh, 13,
21, and 30. So, small variation but pretty similar from last year. Any other comments or questions? All in favor? I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. And the last item is the budget
calendar. Just asking to revise that calendar. Um, we send this out to at the end of May. The revised calendar would set the deadline for EDA,
HR, soil and water and other non-county entity entities until the end of June just to recognize that these are separate entities and they need to develop budgets and bring them to their own boards prior to coming here. And I just think we don't need that
information that quickly. And uh it gives them a lot of them have a board meeting in June where they would be they they're waiting as we are often for the same kinds of information. Yes, they could speed something up with their board, but they like to get better
information to give us a better budget. So it just gives them a little time to meet with their own boards. [Music] Commissioner Mills. So, so we have two items highlighted there in that budget calendar. It's uh uh May 23rd for the
preliminary department requests and then June 27th previously. Those other the EDA, HR, SWCD, all those others were part of that. They were part of the original May 23rd. May 23rd. Okay. Yeah. and it pushes some of them might be able
to make it but some it pushes them particularly there are organizations that have new directors uh three of those groups do and so um it certainly will help um new hires to do a better job of budgeting
I'd make a motion to approve the revised budget calendar support any further questions or comments All in favor? I opposed. Same sign. Motion passes unanimously.
Thank you on all of that. Brady, a lot of figuring out for sure, but it's good to get a actual report this time of year. So, we're going to move on to uh any administrator updates.
Um, thank you u Madam Chair. Um, I'd just like to give a few updates. Uh, first on some of our capital projects that are underway. Um, the Hovindland transfer station, I think, now that uh we'll probably start uh we'll start
seeing work happen on that right away and we're still hopeful to get that open uh later in July and um I think it'll be a welcome addition uh to that that community. Um the on the Grammar
Transfer Station, we got a second round of bids. Um some of them were high. So we've been putting the screws to the contractors a little bit, the contractor, uh Johnson Wilson, uh contract manager, and they have been
working with people to get those back down. We'll have a good idea. You know, I've told them there isn't any more money, so you have to work within this budget. So they've been sharpening their pencils and um reducing things. So we'll have a updated report on that on
Wednesday. But um I let them know you got to you got to build this building for this amount of money. So um there are things they can do and uh changes they're making. I can give you an example. One idea was they had a propane powered like washing for washing the
trucks and by changing that to an electric one they were able to get rid of gas lines and a propane tank and it was a cheaper uh thing. So that made like $100,000 difference just doing that one thing. So there are things that they
can do and that they are actively working on. So hopefully by the next time we meet I can they'll be started there. We're waiting to get started until we know for sure that we're within budget. So, that's where we're at. Yeah, we got a strong sense that these are not
uh going to be shortcomings to how the the building operates. Yeah. It's not like the value engineer we've seen at other times. The I think they know exactly what they're right. They convinced me they really know what they're doing right on this. Brady and I
met them too. Yes, Chair Reena. Um, yeah, when it gets to this point, sort of to Bit's comment that, um, we hired somebody to be have oversight for us, right? And we provide our own discipline
in that regard. So, when it's a matter of cutting, it's not like, you know, those that are going to do the work go back and say, well, let's just use the inferior this or that, the other thing. Because we're protecting the integrity of what we set out to. Yeah. We're just trying to find ways to reduce costs that
don't compromise that. Right. Right. Yes. So, I'm I'm pretty confident they're going to be able to get that back down. Um the meeting we had with them a week ago, they um already had a lot of ideas. So, good. Um they're
working with the engineers and we're trying to be tough. Yeah, they're being tough, but they're very cautious. Yes. To um trying to get it right. that that came out real strong. Yep. Yep. So hopefully I'll have some more information on that for you maybe by the
end of the week. Um the basement renovation is going forward. Um if you come and sit in my office, you will hear the, you know, saws and concrete cutters and hammering down there. It's very
interesting. trying to do a teams meeting, but um it's it's moving along and I think we're still good for the first week of July to move staff down there. We had a meeting uh Rowan and Brooke and Alice McIntyre and I had a meeting last week to talk about what the
shuffle looks like in terms of having minimum impact but being able to use the space that'll be opened up. So, a lot of things move moving parts right now, but I feel like like uh that's on schedule and they're doing a good job. Um, Commissioner White has a question. Um,
how many um, personnel will be down there? I mean, how many offices or It's two offices like closed offices. So, I think like Grace Granager and, uh, Allison uh, plumber will be down there and then I think there are six cubicles.
Okay. So, yeah. Um, let's see. the L le expansion, they'll go out for bid as uh as Dean mentioned later this week. And so we'll once they had those bids in, they'll start ordering things
and we'll we'll see that happen too. They're still looking to have that closed in u before winter so they can do the inside work. um the June committee of the whole I was planning it's it's looks like it's filling up um if we use that morning to
do the math team to come and give us feedback on the interviews and I think visit Cook County comes and does their annual report so those two were on there for sure I was also planning to have a presentation on expense revenue and demographic information for the Y been
working with Alex the director of the Y on that if that meeting gets it's too busy. I'll just move it to I'll either do it the board meeting before or the board meeting after. But I am working on that information for you so that you have an accurate picture um of where we
are currently with the Y. Um let's see what else. Um, I was texting with Rowan here and he said we can do like a private one, but he said, you know, we can share the link with who we want to share it with, but they could
they could share that link with somebody else if they wanted to. So, I I think that's a minimal risk and I think we could do that to keep our MAD team uh informed. Um, I doubt they'd be sharing it with candidates. So, that would be
the main thing we would be worried about. I think if that's okay, we'll proceed with that. As long as we're clear on directions, so they can't say we didn't tell them, which again, we, you know, respect that they understand why we're doing what we're doing and we're trying to make it available to
them, right? Just under these parameters, right? And uh just last but not least, a reminder that on June 17th, that's going to be a busy week. Um is the county board of appeals and equalization. That's um at 6:00 6:00 to 7 in the
evening. Um that it doesn't require the full board, but it does require a quorum. And I'm understand that Brady is can be part of that quorum. So you guys may want to decide who can be there, who whatever. But it could be a short
meeting. People need to make an appointment for that meeting. Can't just show up. So, um, that's what Bob told me anyway. So, um, it could be very short. So, I just wanted to make sure you all had that on your calendar. It wasn't on mine, so I'm
mentioning it mentioning it to you. And that's all I have. What time do you have for that? It's at 67. Yeah. Or six, I think. Yeah. The reason I ask is that um the next day the um district meeting for the counties will be down in um Two
Harbors and there's an event the night before. Okay. So, we'll have to decide who wants to do that. I just gave you a heads up on that. I I have EDA at um 4:00. So, that's 4 to 5:30. Um so, I should be able to make the six o'clock
if that's helpful for anyone. Yeah. And I'm planning to be there. So, Okay. Okay. Typically, we've all been at appeals and equalization. So, yeah, it's not a problem. And it's good to be aware what you're hearing. Okay, that's that's all I have unless you have
questions for me. Um, oh, I I did want to say one thing. Um, I I would have to say that being in this position, one of the advantages I get to see is um the quality of um the directors you have in
this organization. I think about Brooke sitting here today and talking about how he looked at the boilers and was able to make a good decision, not just repeat it, but make a good decision based on, you know, taking in information. Um, I,
you know, have long, of course, think that the MIS department does a good job, but Jay's explanation was really good on that, um, on his encryption today. Um, last week Plowman's uh um presentation
was just really helpful and informative and I think Allison did a great job at answering questions on that as well. Um, Robbie, I can't say enough about Robbie. Um, and he just the way he approaches his job is just and the way he
communicates with the community. And good lord, what would we do without Brady? I mean really in terms of the way he just has such a steady hand on the budget. Also got to spend a lot of quality time with um Jean lately who got thrown into the deep end of the pool.
It's a hard job and I just really appreciate the way she works and the way she communicates. So I know I'm leaving a few people out. Of course I can't do my job at all without Janna. But you've got a great math team going forward. Just I just Matt I that was redundant.
you've got a great management team going forward and um I just I just uh hope you'll continue to support them the way you have. So that's amen to that. Commissioner Gamble. Yeah. Thank you for
noting that regarding Brady. You're spending your evenings right now writing the uh auditor treasure bible so that uh we will have that in our possession. All the head knowledge concise translated to a document. No,
I'm actually I'm working with Rowan for a a download. Oh. Oh, he's going to plug you in. Cutting edge technology. We might try a chip in his head. Easy. So, we're going to see you down at the beach plugged in and they're going to be downloading and you'll be eating
almonds. Yeah. All right. Well, thank you. And recognizing and appreciating what people do is hugely important. And I there's more. I could go on there. I just think it's just Oh, and Neva. Oh my goodness. She's just
amazing, right? And you know, the assessor, all of them. I I just can't say enough about the team you have in place. Thank you for your report. Moving on. Are there any um commissioner reports or meeting updates you'd like to share? Commissioner Sullivan. Surely.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, first of all, the Cook County Historical Society has been busy working with soil and water to plant trees. You'll recall that a lot of trees were taken um from the property around uh the Chipoa City
Church. And so that has been replanted and they are also in the midst of planning their 100th anniversary. So, more to come on that. Um, airport advisory commission is busy working on a budget. Um, they had a couple of items they were waiting from the federal
government on um, before they could fill in those light items. So, um, we appreciate um, having little time to get that recommended budget in. Um, busy in the emergency management area. Um, already we've started to give out go
bags. We've distributed about a hundred and um lots of lake association meetings and town halls to come. Personnel committee is um busy working on uh charter and um Allison is going to be putting together a document
that she will share with members of those committee and they that they'll be able to give feedback um prior to our next meeting so that we can be really efficient with our time. HRA has been active. Um they are approved to work on
uh or with I should say Norah Scogan with the ITR on another application and hoping that then they can turn that application in this summer and it would be acted on in the fall and are also working on the Borberg project pending um the planning commission city of Grand
Marray planning commission approval of that project. Um BKV did a great job with our open house and we're waiting to get some PDFs from them so that um the information that was on the posters that was shared at the open house can be
shared with the general public. We can put something on our website and Todd Ford will help to get that out to our community. And um for AMC, I attended a very lengthy solid waste meeting last Friday and
we're working forward with trying to get tours of different types of facilities and find out how regionally can we can work together with with our waste issues. And then lastly, this afternoon will be an evacuation event um midtrail
up through fire hall number one and the Gunflint Trail by Volunteer Fire Department annually evacuates or does a a mock evacuation for about 200 residences. So that will be going on and we hope there's no actual real emergency
during that time. If so, we will deal with it. Um but expect to see a lot of um emergency vehicles out and about near trail today. Thank you. Anybody else? Um I would just like to report from the
Northshore Forest Collaborative. Um information that they gave out. one was a little a little uh dismaying in that uh if I heard what they said correctly, but the Nature Conservancy
um lost their funding and their office is closed or the department is closed. Um their USDA dollars are leaving. So, um,
and it was a $5 million grant that's no longer there. And there were, they're probably gone, but the, uh, through the uh, collaborative, they were giving out thousands of white
pine sap or not saplings, seedlings. Not what are they called? Seedlings. Seedlings. Uh they were free up at the community center and they had given out thousands all along the shore and had run out before they two harbor ran out. Two harbors ran out before they got to
us and we're requesting more. There are a few boxes that are still up there. I was up there over the weekend. So there's about four boxes remaining because um I will contact them. and they were going to take them back down the shore. But I know from, excuse me, from
one of the uh uh outfitters up the trail, one of the lodges, they were coming and standing there deciding whether or not they could take a whole box. Last year they had uh they had planted 600 and they didn't want to take
any away from anybody else. So they just took the partial box. So, I will let I will let them know if they're not paying attention to this that the seedlings are there that come and get them. Yeah, I would recommend calling the community center beforehand. Like I say, there
were about four boxes that were there, but just to make sure, right? Uh I was impressed. The uh person that was there said that last year he planted 600 in one day. Obviously, he's much younger like in his
20s or 30s, so he has it done. That was Thank you, Commissioner Gamble. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Just to note, the U National Association of Counties budgeting course will begin tomorrow. It's a fiveweek course and uh
it'll run for five five weeks. So, I'm interested to see what uh we can learn from that course. It's um in looking at the roster of attendance, there are counties that have
multiple staff and positions. So you can look and you'll see that this state you know county has got number of people and uh so um whatever reason they chose to pick us and allow us to
participate up here where we are again I appreciate the opportunity. I'll share further as we go along. Last week we had our Arrowhead um regional or Arrowhead area get together and they're all concerned of course
about budgeting and then legislature going back into special session. So um maybe we'll hear more at the district meeting some updates on that. But um it was a lengthy lengthy discussion about being able to pivot and you know be
aware as we all are to how we're going to deal with some vast uh cutings perhaps and then no health committee will meet um next Wednesday. other than that commission. Yeah. only update I would have or the I shouldn't say the
only the biggest update I want to share is at our last meeting um I had mentioned that we had a um a finalist for the EDA's TAC harbor um strategic planning and I can now um share that
that um uh firm is Stantech who has also worked out in Oak Park Heights if you're familiar with uh the that area and and the process they've gone through uh uh gentleman came out of retirement to work on this project specifically because of
the unique nature and just the the potential scope of it. Um, so a very strong team that they're bringing to the table and and um just to give some more perspective on on the scope of this project, the current assessed value of
the Tac Harbor property is $2.162 million and that's about $60,000 a year in taxes that we get. And so because of it being shut down, the value changes and we will not be receiving that. And there is kind of that off-ramping uh
dollars that that's provided um to try to help uh in these transition years, but um it's a real big deal. Uh in my opinion, it's a huge opportunity for our for our community. Um we'll just see where where things go.
Um the first stages of of uh the process is mostly going to be uh his historical uh data collection, environmental data collection and um and just looking at what kind of restrictions there are um so that
when uh public engagement starts uh the broader public engagement starts that um the the restrictions can be communicated just so we're not talking about everything under the sun. there's certain things that could work and there's things that maybe could not
work. So, um and just one of those big factors is of course natural gas. Um if we're looking for any substantial industrial um uh redevelopment, which Minnesota Power has looked at for years and has not been able to find a
redeveloper, and that's why the EDA is is involved now. Um it's largely because of the lack of natural gas there. And um so um yeah, they'll be they they are familiar with our community. They they
know our community values. They know um uh what our strengths and weaknesses are and and they're they're looking to learn more about those too. So um we we expressed wanting to diversify our economy and we also uh talked about working with our strengths. Um, so we'll
see. We'll see what that process entails, but um, we talked about not going for that public engagement till after the summer season. Um, seems like there's a lot of people that are pretty busy all during the summer and so that'll give Stantech the the time they need to to try to gather things and then
we can really launch that that uh, engagement um, phase. So, um, pretty pretty excited. Um and of course we had representation from uh Schroeder Township, Bruce Martinson was was involved in this decision and and you
know Schroeder Township and Bruce as well has been very involved. I'm sure you as well Jenny have been very involved in in the the past um visioning. So um but um yeah the name of the consultant again Stantech. Stantech.
Stantech. S T A N T E C. Okay. And uh it's a large company and one of the questions when we did the interview was, well, how you know how many you have people in Minnesota? How many? And they're like, well, we got about 150
people in Minnesota. So, it's a national company. And yeah, still a substantial uh presence in the Midwest here. Cool. Oh, I will remind people that this Thursday at 10:00 we have the ribbon
cutting of the Gi Trail parking at the base of Ski Hill Road. Nice. Okay. Anything else? We have upcoming coming meetings like this afternoon at 3:00 we have a zoom with the budget and f and
facilities advisory committee and um we have um several other meetings. We have correspondence memos, the Cook County lodging tax comparison through February. And then we have a letter of appreciation from the uh Shorter Area
Historical Society. And there being no further business, I will ask for a journal. So move support. All in favor? I. Thank you everybody. This business is being conducted. It has
to be