Okay. >> Good morning everyone. We are at the committee the whole work session um supporting community through quality public service. Uh call the meeting to order this morning at about 9:39
on Tuesday, November 18th. So we have a lot of things going on right now. we have the committee the whole and when we're finished with that then we'll go on um discussing our uh budget for the county. So I will let you know that when we're done with committee the whole
we'll take a break so that we can move around a little bit and have our whatever we need and then come back in you know five to eight minutes to open the uh budget meeting. So today our work session um agenda our minutes are from
the previous month of October. Uh presentations today is a vacation rental program update. Uh we have a subordinate government service district discussion and then um finally we'll have our uh 2026 budget discussion. Also in our
packet we have the standing committees information report from the airport advisory commission. the budget and facilities advisory committee and the highway advisory committee also from October. So, first on our agenda, we
have Andrew Beavers who's going to um update on the vacation rental program, which I dug in all of my paperwork. I've got paperwork back to 2022. >> Yeah. Yeah. That was right towards the end of the last uh committee
uh gathering, I think. Yeah. So, >> yeah. So, I was reading through some of my scribbles and a lot has changed since then. Sure has. >> So, I invite you to uh please fill us in. >> Yeah. Perfect. Well, I think I'm actually just gonna pop over to the
laptop. Uh because >> Yep, you got it. Because I have some media. Uh so when I took over Oh, sure. Thank you.
So, I uh officially took the position, I believe, in September of 23. And uh I was originally tasked uh to sort of solidify the program and transition the program away from the
third-party monitoring licensing service that we had been using, Granicus. Um might have had a different name before it was Granicus, but it went through a kind of a number of tech sales, right? So, um, in late 2023, I with the help of
Diane Linquist, uh, Diana Linquist, uh, we built out the e, uh, permitting portion to have all of the registration inhouse to Cook County, which in effect, uh, created closer, uh, data points for us folks in
the uh, in in the county and also um, eliminated that extra cost of having a a third party software. ware uh scraping system. Uh so uh we started that and in 2024 and so my numbers
are based on the starting in 2023 um because those are the numbers I was closest to. We do have numbers previous to that. Uh they're in a different format than uh my preferred format, but
that's you know personal preference. And so, uh, I kind of, uh, built these out just to give you a threeear span because those are the the ones that I was closest to. So, um, the Cook County vacation rentals, uh, as you can see, in
2023, we had 327, um, 24, 359, 25, 372, our current year. Uh, percentage changes on those. Again, I didn't use what the 22 number was to
create a a a growth number. I started with uh 2023 and in 2024 we had a 9.8% gain. uh some interesting facts about that uh 9% gain is as I took over the
program and being much closer to the data and having previous knowledge as uh business development manager for a vacation rental program prior to my employment here. Uh I was able to gain
about 15 uh vacation rentals that were operating without proper licensing. So that is probably the biggest uh reason for that increase. And then in 2025 we see what I would say is like the new
vacation rentals that have come to market. And so that number is 3.6%. The uh vacation rental license revenue um it's gone through a number of changes. Right. When we originally started it was $200. That stuck until I
think 2023 or 22. Um and then it went up to $400. Uh and then just last year we increased it to 600 uh per year. And so obviously those numbers are going to uh
increase with that. And again you can see that that change yearover-year. um with that small increase in 2024 really relative to some some newer vacation rental licenses and then uh the
2025 the big increase because of that effectively 50% increase in the vacation rental licenses. So um as you can see there uh it's a it's a pretty healthy program.
This is just a uh sort of a glimpse into the after uh after the-act enforcement um finding vacation rentals that are operating without a license. Uh initiating that enforcement activity, reaching out, you know, building the
case, so to speak, to show that we have proof that you did rent um and now it's time to gain compliance, right? And so this is uh just an example of uh I guess like you can see the trend that the
enforcements have gone down. Um and I think that is directly related to our closer relation to the program uh versus using a a third-party system. Um this little pie chart here uh this
will uh is is a placeholder. Uh but um in a couple minutes I'll show you something neat that we're doing in collaboration with MIS and Kyle Oberg. Um those are the percentage of rentals in area. Um kind of just a pie chart.
Obviously uh I think everyone knows that the vast majority of those are centralized on the west end of the county. Um there are still as we can see uh Devil Track uh 4% Gunflint 6%
Grand Marray and East kind of lump those together as um as a an area because at the time of creating this that was the best I had available to me. So >> I didn't realize it was like all West
app. >> Oh yeah. Uh roughly like 65% of all vacation rentals are in Commissioner Stoley's district. >> Yes. >> Yeah. That's uh that's significant. >> Yeah. And so
as part of what we are doing here, one of the original reasons that uh Jenny asked me to uh come today was that
uh there was some concern about uh service numbers, emergency numbers, and the availability to the guests in these vacation rentals. And well, I think most reputable vacation rental companies create booklets of area information, not
only for these types of things, but for tourism, restaurants, hours, the like. Uh uh I created this uh page that uh is a living breathing document can be updated at any time but gives a great uh
one glance uh sort offormational phone numbers that is currently on our vacation rental page for the Cook County website and uh will also be uh attached in my emails that I am confirming and
communicating with for the renewal season which is coming up uh very soon. >> Any uh questions at this point, >> administrator treble? >> Yes. >> Question about when you send that out? Um will you have instructions on what
you expect them to do with that data? Yeah, you know, uh, so essentially I I send out a number of communications leading up to and then in the renewal period. Um, and so anytime I add something like last year, uh,
information about the increase in vacation rental fees, um, I would accompany that with instructions. So, it' be an attachment to their to the the mass email and let them know that this is expected to to be uh in your rental
unit. >> Um >> we do have some more questions. >> Oh, sure. Yes. >> Um 65% on the west end. So, is that for all of the different management of the uh time shares? >> Yeah. Yeah. And so, you know, the the
vacation rental numbers are are very specific to units requiring vacation rental licenses, right? So, again, the West End has a a lot of resort units that are managed
by the resort itself. And per our vacation rental ordinance, those are not required to have uh license through the county because they're on-site management. uh they are more heavily weighted there, but once we get into to
Grand Ray, there are some resort condo style units uh away from there. But I would still say yes, the vast majority either the uh privately rented or the resort managed are are all kind of uh
heavily weighted on that West End. >> Okay, >> Commissioner Sullivan. Um, another question and and just um primarily so commissioner is aware, one of the questions I frequently get from areas where there are vacation rentals um I'll
cite Voyager Point as a as an example and I've talked with Andrew at length about this is that there's concern sometimes that there are too many vacation rentals in one area compared to the number of um second homes or
yearround residences of of property owners. And so at some point, I think when the vacation rental committee comes together again, there might be an opportunity for people to talk about density and what might be appropriate in a particular area. um if that's
something to look at for a change in the future. But we do have these areas like the west end but then clustered double track lake voyager point um where there are large numbers of vacation rental properties interspersed with um
yearround residences. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I think that's a great transition to uh some of the mapping that I have done with our MIS department. So we have just give me one
second. We have uh essentially three maps that uh that we work with here. there's a map that is built for a public facing that
you know uh we could roll out at any time you know and maybe if there's uh interest we can just say like let's get that on there now it's fully ready it's fully updated um and then I have internal maps which have a little more
data uh that is obviously just for county use. >> Oops. >> And those maps are extremely helpful. I've used those at lake association meetings and find that they're really
helpful in the discussions that we have. Um so I think um MAS has done a terrific job of um gathering information and putting it together to make it useful for all of us. >> Well, this is
awkward. >> Yeah. So, it's super awkward. Okay. Well, it worked yesterday. >> Um, I I think it's your username. It's It should be a Baver. >> Oh, not the not the full email.
>> No, but it's >> okay. Yeah, different. Perfect. Thank you. Oh, it's Look at how wonderful it is having. >> Yeah. Go team. >> Thank you so much. I appreciate that. That was awkward. Yeah. Stressed out. Okay. Now we're back in. >> No stress. Stress.
>> Okay. So, here is an example of what would be the public facing map, right? So, those are vacation rentals in Cook County, right? And so, you know, since uh Commissioner Sullivan mentioned
mentioned the Voyager Point, we can get kind of close there. It's a little cumbersome, but in effect, you can zoom in to
where vacation rentals are. Right within each of those, it shows, you know, is it standalone? This also has some additional um resources that um haven't been used yet uh specifically
because of data entry right now. You'd have to enter in the the property values and all of those things um individually. And so my goal for this has been just to uh
really try and make sure that we're comprehensive and updated into uh an accurate reflection of what we have licensed in the county. And so like I said, this would be the the forward- facing um map which uh would would could
be available to the public to to access. And I think there could be some some benefit to that. I have always encouraged folks to uh reach out to me if they have concerns about vacation rentals. Um I've taken a couple calls uh about people who are like, "Hey, these
people are renting." And uh to date, I I've never had one that wasn't fully licensed. Um that doesn't mean they're not still out there, but much like uh land use enforcement, uh we do much better when we have the community
collaborating. And so I always encourage people to say if you think this is a vacation rental or you're concerned that they're not licensed, uh, contact me directly and and you'll get an answer very quickly.
Okay. So, knowing you guys are busy, I'll just give a quick quick little show on this one. Should pop up. This is the dashboard that is on my uh
front-facing uh dashboard, right? So, it shows a lot of data, right? Resort versus standalone um uh licensed unlicensed units. You know, those are some active enforcement cases that I have. Um those of course
wouldn't be shown on the public facing map. Um but uh you know it's it's a constant struggle and and and you're always just looking out. I would say by and large we have 95 97%
um uh compliance rate which is very very high. Uh but you know, we don't make assumptions that they're doing it on purpose, but uh there there always are people that need to be at the very least reminded that the Cook County vacation rental ordinance exists and in order to
rent short-term rentals in Cook County, you need a license. So, this is uh by and large very similar to that previous map. This is the one that uh Kyle and I have been working on. Um,
oh, not that one. Yes, it is. So, uh, this one here, uh, breaks down the vacation rentals, uh, in commissioner district. Um, I thought this would be useful, uh, for the commissioners at
large. Um, and uh, given uh, Kyle's expertise, uh, we were able to get this into a sort of, uh, beta testing format. So, while the data is still good there, there's still a few little kinks that we need to work on. And uh this will also
have some additional functionality of linking the PID directly to our e-ermitting system to instantly verify that they have the vacation rental license.
Um and so that's kind of the history of the maps there. And I guess finally, these are just some of my vacation rental breakout data just to kind of
show you my process uh for um my process for keeping data and uh using that to create these reports or or or just understand what's happening
with vacation rentals. So, all the approved licenses will live here. Occasionally, we'll get notes of folks that say they're not going to rent next year or that they are returning to resort management. That happened.
There's a few of those when we increase the uh fees. Um, this is an interesting one too because on surface value we approve I think last year I approved 388 vacation rental licenses or excuse me
2025 we've approved 388. That number is really close to 400, right? But in 2025, these are the 24 numbers, we had 13 units that sold and
needed to be rellicensed. So, it's important to use not only the face value data, but then also understand that 13 of those licenses are not new licenses. They're not new vacation rentals. They are just being rellicensed because our
program requires any transfer uh or any sale requires a new license. Um, you don't get to continue on until next year with that. So um I've got those broken out into you know the easiest way to to
parse this data is using PIDs and so Schroer to elutes and uh it gives you an idea of each of those PIDs which is just maybe a little more granular look than the commissioner district uh stuff. So, uh, we have that
for 24 and 25. Um, any questions, thoughts? Yeah. Uh, Commissioner Gamble. >> Oh, sorry. I suppose I I should let you do that. Um
so you answered some of the questions I had relative to um the uh once you have a vacation rental unit. >> Mhm. >> That the effect of the fee on participation >> and usually when fee becomes something
that people have to think about they look in the context of the provision of the you know ordinance or whatever way to avoid the fee. >> Sure. And so when you monitor it on that information, you can see how much transitioning as a result of increased
fee. >> The other thing is is that um somebody that thinks this a good idea and gets into it realize what's involved in maintaining that gets out of it. So then we see transition, >> right? And so when we're monitoring this
information to understand how many have begun and the consistency that there's they have longevity and how many are transition when we look at growth and you touched on it growth relative to >> uh that's reflected in the financial
return because of the fees as opposed to growth for real growth right in number of units >> right >> um so uh again just you referenced in your last you know slide to us or point
is the fact that you have this information that helps you to understand the nature of vacation rental and what the trends are. >> Yeah. And uh the other component part of it when you look at 65% being on the west end understanding the context and
why do we see that and it might be because of the you know the ski hill the golf course whatever uh that is influencing that. Um but I I appreciate the fact that that um it's not just managing it it's it's understanding.
>> Yeah. analyzation is I think an important part of this and being so close to that data you it I think it it just suits me to when you're looking at these numbers all the time like you you draw uh conclusions from those numbers
and you you try and be as unbiased and objective as possible right try not to make too many assumptions uh about what you're seeing right it's just the facts right and that's kind of my goal with The other question I would have is that
given your previous experience, how do you see uh our reality here in Cook County relative to what your experience was previously? >> Yeah. Well, I would say that, you know, since this program has been adopted,
kind of funny, I was at Cascade Vacation Rentals when the original adoption of the ordinance was. And so as the owner relations manager and business development manager at that at that company, I was in charge of getting everybody licensed to start off with.
And so, you know, seeing it from the beginning to now, I feel really good about where the county is. I think it it sheds a lot of light on some perceptions of vacation rentals in Cook County.
While those are subjective, right? like how you feel about them uh is is is one thing, but I think what we can say is that it is not the wild west. Uh they're they're not running rampant. Uh we have
I think some pretty good control measures involved and I think we have a a a healthy program uh right now and I think I'm I think that's a really good thing for the county. >> Thank you. So my question to you would
be um we used a word back in 22 as a trigger. >> What would be the trigger that you would say we aren't going to go past this number? >> Right. And so, uh, interestingly enough, I was reading the report from 22, uh, in
the leadup of this meeting. And at that time, uh, at the time of the report, there were 359 identified rentals. And, uh, I think the number used in the report was 10%
uh, a 10% gain of that. So that puts it at 393 uh vacation rentals, which would be the trigger. Um to me, I think that's a good number. Uh at at this point, if we hit that number, I think that's it was set
back then after a lot of discussion and study. Um I think that we should stick with that as our sort of number. Um it's written down. It's good to to follow up on things that are written down, right? And so I would use that as sort of the
number to to trigger that. And in a in an email with uh Commissioner Sullivan, uh I mentioned that based at our current growth rate, I see that happening sometime in 27. And I think if at the end of 26 we're close, uh it may be
worthwhile just to say let's uh just move forward with reconvening in some part, right? Uh does it need to be a 20 person panel this time? I I don't think so because we've got the structure. We we've got the basis. Really what we're
we would be trying to do in in the 27 would be really polish the program and decide where we're going for the next 5 years, 10 years >> and that would be for a moratorum or a let's stop and wait a while. What would >> Well, I guess I would I would leave that
up to uh the decision makers. Uh you know, we would probably have to look at, you know, what that growth looked like leading up to the 393 and you know, uh there could be some sort of balancing
act between if we decide certain rentals should have a moratorum or certain should not. >> And how do you handle unlicensed people? you had three. >> Yep. Yeah. The enforcement activity. So, in a sense, I'm uh you know, looking
through the various um web postings. Uh you know, not really concerned about the the standalone businesses. Uh they well know that, you know, they are required and and those are not the ones you really worry about. Who you worry
about are the individual renters. Um and so uh in a sense it would be identifying a renter either Airbnb, VBO, rent by owner, you know, there's a number of sites that you can look uh through. Um even Google searching place names is uh
another way to to do that. And so if I identify a rental that has an active listing or I also look at reviews and see when the last review was to see like how long ago it's been since there was a rental. Um I
will occasionally like click through to see if I can book a rental. Um and once that's identified then uh the letter goes out. Um, you know, my at least my goal is not to uh charge
after the fact fees for everyone. Again, it comes back to that not making assumptions, right? Like not everybody reads every ordinance. Uh, should they know? Yes. Ignorance is no excuse for the law, but I always give a a redemption period on that first notice.
Most of the time that works. Second notice, the letter states that you're now required to have the after the-act fee, which in this case is $800 in addition to the $600 annual fee. And then I haven't had any that have gone
this far, but you know, we do have the ability to pursue that additional legal action. Um, typically if we are in a situation where that second letter goes out, I then start reaching out to the Minnesota Department of Health because
occasionally the Minnesota Department of Health will have a license, we won't or vice versa. And uh, typically the folks that really want to avoid the county license may be trying to avoid that Minnesota Department of Health license. And so then it becomes a collaborative
effort um, between the Minnesota Department of Health and I. Well, I have really good relationships with the sanitarians who work in this area, uh, Sarah, Ian, and, uh, Cali. Um, so, you know, I'm constantly chatting with them, sending emails about certain properties,
making sure that they are on the up and up. >> Oh, that brings up another question. So, um, so does that, so every property owner that wants to to rent to be part of this, do they have an
inspection that is done by the Minnesota Department of Health? >> Yes. Well, so there there is one caveat to that. There are units in Cook County that are 7-day rentals or they don't have running water. um those rentals
do not require a Minnesota Department of Health license. So, the county uh will allow them to rent. They still have to have the county license. And then depending on the water situation because there's a couple reasons. One, it's you
don't have running water. Or two, you're on a lake draw system. And the Minnesota Department of Health to this point has not licensed lake draw systems. We know that, you know, there there's I wouldn't say a lot, but there are a number of lake draw systems. And so, in those
cases, when you're on a lake draw system, uh the county requires a interior note that uh we put up uh we trust that they put up uh in their house stating that this is not portable water
and the owner is uh supplying drinking water to to them. I think that there may be some opportunity for growth on the county side to do uh interior inspections, basic safety inspections for those um non-MDH homes. But we would
really have to have a thoughtful discussion on uh resource uh time and uh and and how that actually works. you know, given a a 20our uh a
week job. So, um the 7-day rentals do not require an MDH license and thus no interior inspection. All other vacation rentals require an interior MDH inspection. And so, uh, numbers wise,
uh, the 7-day rentals in Cook County right now are about 50. And so that would mean that, uh, what do we got here? That 320
are getting inspections, 50 are not. And those are typical seasonal bunk house style um vacation rentals or like I said those seasonal lake draw water systems. >> Commissioner G. >> Yeah. Thank you.
Question. Do you happen to know of the vacation rentals units how many were built with that intention and how many are residential homes that were purchased and converted? >> Yeah. and I don't have that information.
Um, you know, uh, worked with, uh, Assessor Thompson uh, in in in sort of looking at broad data, but really that would take a a pretty fine tooth review
of building permits and then cross referencing. Were they ever a homestead uh prior to being a vacation rental? It probably could be done, but we haven't gotten that granular as of yet to to really
determine what that looks like. >> You reference uh use the word assumption, right? >> In your pres presentations. Yeah. And there can be, you know, a perception of assumption as a part of the community and answering these questions like, you
know, how we're just >> overgrowing in this particular area and and providing facts that try to address, you know, those that are making assumptions based upon perception. >> Right? So my my point would be that that
when we look at vacation rental when we look at second homes when we look at the effect of these things on a tourist area as to the affordability of housing that's why it becomes an important element to understand the influence of
that because if we look at at that supply demand issue relative to the attractiveness for the tourist market we will see that our median price is way out of line compared to other counties within the state. And so to the extent
that rental that second homes, whatever are >> depleting our residential housing market, that's an important. >> Yeah. And I I could I I do know that second homes uh far outpace short-term
rentals, right? You know, I think this is a an issue you see in a lot of places where tourism is the main economic driver. The reason tourism is so popular here is because it's absolutely beautiful and we have lakes and recreation. And so, you know, that those
sort of amenities and uh you know, the history of Cook County uh lend itself to people wanting to buy vacation homes here, whether or not they choose to short-term rental them. Uh I don't know if that is a direct correlation in that
in that median home price. It may affect uh somewhat but also you know Lake Superior homes like those are that's a that's a very unique uh piece of real estate and those are
going to command much higher prices than uh a county that is strictly residential workforce, right? like they have factories and businesses and and and and the like. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, >> Commissioner Sullivan.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, one of the things as we think about this and um and we're thinking about budget is, you know, what about the cost of licenses and can we increase that? And I had confirmed yesterday with Andrew because
I had been doing some research that our license fee is one of the highest in the state of Minnesota. >> I believe it is the highest annual fee. There's a number of ways that that they license them, but Cook County is the highest annual fee. >> Right. So, I just wanted to make sure
everybody was aware of of that fact as we um have our budget discussion later. And then I also want to thank Andrew for his good work in finding those few non-licensed units. Um couple years back I had people in district 4 that notified
me of of um units that they were concerned that were not uh licensed. Andrew got on top of it and two of them got licensed right away. So um he does his work very well. He's good at investigation. >> Yes. I I enjoy it. Yeah. When a
homeowner sells and they've been licensed and the new owner comes in, does that pass on? >> No. >> They need to get a new one. >> They need to get a new one. Yep. And uh uh like I said, just this year we had uh 13 such units.
Most of those uh turnover units are in Caribou Highlands condos. you know that the resort style where they've decided not to use resort management, but there are homes that were vacation rentals, they're bought by another vacation
rental. And and I would say too that adversely there are homes that were vacation rentals that the people who bought them uh don't want other people in their house and they want it just for themselves, you know, and that's that's something that happens as well. >> Any other questions?
>> Yes. Um, if an owner owns an each property itself is licensed, not the owner because there's, you know, we know there's people that own four or five different buildings different in different sites. >> Sure.
>> So each site is licensed, >> each site and each unit. So, if you have two rentable units on a single parcel required to have two licenses, and that's one of the ordinance changes we we made. We we
really defined that in essentially every zone except the RCR zoning district, we are limited to two units per parcel, irrespective of the size of the parcel. Doesn't mean you can have two duplexes.
You can have two rentals. If you have two duplexes, the other two can't be can't be rented, right? And then the RCR, you're allowed to have three >> means >> uh resort, commercial, residential, >> commissioner,
>> the three sanitarians, are they local? >> No, they are they are all out of duth. So they're they're making trips up and uh and so a lot of what I do in preparation for that, taking those initial phone calls about people wanting to get licensed, what they need to do,
created a worksheet and a helpful handout because some of the things where people think, "Oh, this is a super neat place. It would be great for a rental." Well, the windows don't need egress and you're not going to get licensed or you need to have your well. I guess the other thing, not to take up too much
time, but uh septic compliance. That was the other thing in 2023 that we officially took over is the septic compliance component for all vacation rentals in Cook County. You have to have a compliant septic system in order to get approved for a license. And as part
of that, uh, in the last two years, uh, we have initiated over 40 septic inspections for vacation rental homes that if not for that program, uh, they wouldn't have had to get an inspection, right, unless they pulled a building
permit or whatever. But uh you know I think that really helps us keep an eye on uh you know the vitally important groundwater supply here in Kirk County. To that end, a septic system is built on
the number of bedroom bedroos assuming a an occupancy of >> right. And so what do you do that do then when vacation rentals there the people are willing to like camp inside a nice place and they bring up eight
people or whatever and the system is only built >> two bedrooms and whatever the usage is for that >> right >> and if this is a regular event that happens a couple of things what do the neighbors think about it if there are neighbors
>> and I don't know if you have that answer and two would that require ire an upgrade of their septics. >> I would say it could. So, the Minnesota Department of Health sets the occupancy based on the size of the bedrooms in the
in the uh rental. So, while yes, you probably could bring a a whole posy of 12 people up and you could stack them like cordwood and and that would be bad. I would say those are outlier events as a whole.
That said, our real guard rail is those common or more frequent septic inspections, right? That's going to allow us to verify if the system is still healthy. And so it is something that we're looking at relative to
occupancy, but because the Minnesota Department of Health is in charge of all that interior safety, uh they kind of set that and that's set on the size of the bedrooms and what they can have. We
know that there's additional, you know, you could have a pull out couch or whatever, right? Um, I think most of the time and given our area, uh, we're not your typical frat party destination, uh,
thinking Nashville or Vegas or whatever, right? But we still want to be conscious of that and and I think that was one of the reasons we chose to take over that septic compliances to to keep an eye on that and see if we're noticing a trend
of septic systems failing early uh blown out septic systems the like. And that applies to those those um sites that have pit toilets that are not a um >> so
a vac a vacation rental license would not be approved for a pit toilet. That is a a a nonconforming unit and so we would require them to have a biffy on site or a proper vault.
>> Yep. That would not be a compliant septic system. So, for a matter of time, I'm going to wrap this up just to give you a little background on the county service numbers. I originally went to Mike Keyboard and said, you know, I just visualize myself in different places, and if an emergency comes up other than
911, who would I call? >> Yeah. >> So, Mike and I discussed putting something together like a little magnet thing to put on their refrigerator or wherever. Then I went to Andrew and said, "Here's what Mike and I are talking about." And then we came up with the idea PDF. Yeah. Yeah.
>> So, it'll go out to all the owners. It'll go in their guest book or they could put it on the refrigerator, too. >> Yep. And like I said, it is also available on our main county site as well. So, we're going to going to really try and make sure everybody has access >> right down to auto repair cuz sometimes we get in trouble with our
>> I'll tell you what, you need to know where where to get your tire patched. >> Well, Andrew, thank you so much. If there's any other questions, you know where Andrew is. >> Yeah, I'm I'm always happy to have uh smaller discussions, one-on-one, email. uh please uh use me as a resource. I'm
happy to do it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> So, we're going to uh shift chairs now and go on to our next topic, which is going to be discussion on the subordinate government service districts.
>> On the cord. >> There we go. >> Right. How much space do we have? myself. I had hot pink, but I decided not to. >> All right. >> Okay. Before we start, yes, everybody
here. >> Uh, yeah, we'll engage we'll engage the gallery. Oh, yeah. Yeah, we'll engage the gallery as needed. Um, >> so what I'm going to do, I'm going to do a little preface to this. >> Have at it, please. >> Okay. So, I appreciate you coming before
the committee the whole again. >> Um, we have all received about five concerned folks in the county and I know maybe they're listening or maybe they will in the future. >> Um, I think when we discussed this earlier, it was like, well, we're going
to we're going to talk about it and then we'll take care of everything this winter and then we're going to look at the following winter. And is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. But then when I looked at the timeline, it's like, "Oh my gosh, this is really going fast."
>> It does because there's statutoily we we have to adhere to posting certain things. And so that's why again, the timeline's not permanent. It's just an example of what that looks like. And so that's why as we talk about this, every month that it it proceeds pushes all of
that further and further out into potentially now, you know, another year of going through it. So even even if we left here today and said uh let's wait till January and maybe we'll we'll chat again in January, you know, you can take all those dates and now move them two
months at that point. And so that's it does go it does go fast admittedly, but nothing's decided. We're still here. We're still talking. Um, but I but but first I want to appreciate um or give some appreciation too to the auditor's office and the MIS
uh office as well for helping us put all of this information together because this isn't just the highway department. We're the tail end of this. Sure. We're we're the one that holds the policy. There's a lot of work that happens um to set these up and that is actually an ongoing thing that that doesn't get
captured or doesn't even get known about really with these. Um, so like you had mentioned, this is kind of the second cow. We're bringing some information. I hope everybody has the handouts. If you don't, we have Do you want me to Should I pass these around? We have everything. >> I have everything. >> Okay, let's pass it here. Pass them
around. Grab one if you want. Um, I'm I'm not going to sit here. I'm not going to read the entire packet. There's a lot of information here. One of the things that we we got last time was if we could have a maybe an easier digestible pros and cons. And so we we put that together up front. Um, but but really I I I think
where I want to go with this is is, you know, we're expending we have limited resources, right? We're a county of limited resources and we're expending them on non-county affairs. Um, you know, death by a thousand cuts is a good way to think about it. How many little things do we want to be a part of that
we don't have to be? Uh, it's a capacity issue. It's not a capability. Um, we could plow every road in this county, Forest Service, DNR, private. That's great. But you can imagine what that would do to our level of service is you can watch it go way down. Um, you know,
something that we've talked about a lot and I've heard discussions about even during our budget cycle. Uh, this this is a non-mandated program. We we don't have to do this. No other county does this. Why are we doing this? Um, and and the other thing I wanted to add is I I had some time to pull some information
from the recorder's office. And so, thank you, Holly, for walking me through some things, but um, I spent maybe half an hour digging through some stuff, and I found at least a dozen HOAs and PAS that exist that have existed for as long or longer that have different lengths,
different numbers of people. This program exists without our involvement already. People are doing this in this county. And again, I spent 30 minutes and I found a dozen of them. So, what's that to say? If you actually exhausted a list, how many would come up then to say
that people are doing this already? Why are we involved? Why does the government, why do we have to be involved in this? And so, you know, I understand, you know, I'm empathizing with people where this is going to affect them. It's going to affect maintenance on their roads. I get it. Um, but there are other options that
exist and and it would give these it would give those people a lot more freedom, a lot more choice, uh, and a lot more control over their roads. And we've talked about that at the last time, too. So, I guess my question is just why do we need to be involved? This this exists. This already happens
everywhere in Cook County already. Why why do we need to be doing this? So, that's where I land with it. There's a ton of information here. I'm sure you guys have gotten a lot of information. So, have at it.
>> Commissioner White goes to values >> and what we can afford and we as a we are not what's the cost for people to create an HMO. How much? I mean, I do not know, right? But >> I mean, you're going to have have to get
a lawyer and you're going to have to do all of that and you're going to have to get all the property owners a certain percentage to agree to an HMO. It doesn't automatically >> HOA. >> HOA, sorry, >> that's okay. >> HOA. Um,
>> I don't know how that process works, but it can't be straightforward and easy. I I guess I would counter with if there's that many other people that have figured it out without our assistance. There's clearly a process, but if we need to pull together information to
help people through that process, say here's step one, here's step two. And we've talked about that. If you look at that timeline, there's some additional steps in there about updating the the the property owners resource guide. I just hate the acronym port. Um,
but to have information in there to help people do that, to do just that, to say we're here to help you to set this up, but that road is not our responsibility. This is a private road or or even if it's a forest over the forest service road, that's their responsibility then.
It's not ours. And if I can add to that real quickly, I just want to mention that we we if if the board does choose to not continue to support these, we would want to make sure that we had a plan in place. >> Oh, yeah. >> To assist the community in creating HOAs
or have the support to make the changes that are necessary. >> So, we wouldn't just pull this from folks without making sure there is a solid plan in place. >> Absolutely. >> Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the discussion on this. I I think it's a just generically it's a
healthy thing that decision makers and and departments and and the community that we have a discussion. I think overall we've talked about the fact that we need to step back and we need to take a look at what are we responsible for in governance. What's mandated and what
have we done? But there has been growth. And it's always difficult to take away from something when somebody's had that, >> right? >> So that's a difficult thing. What you try to do is you try to respectfully come alongside and communicate where we're at.
>> We can look at non-band non-mandated and when I talk to other commissioners in other counties said, "Do you do this?" We don't. I said, "Why don't you do it? Don't you care about these?" No, it's a matter of priorities. We just don't have the money to be able to fund everything. And so we're going to wrestle with
things that are going to be difficult. But what we want to see, as to your statement, is we want to see that that we empathize and we're here to support you, but we can't do things the way we did in the past because it's a matter of
priorities and limited resources. >> And um so we use comparables. We we we demonstrate where we're at. we demonstrate the the supporting information that that informs our decisions and that's that's just true
overall. That's stewardship of what we've been entrusted with. So, it's challenging, but I appreciate the conversation and I hope that the community sees that we don't approach this lightly. It's not a matter of the highway department saying we want less work. It's a matter of having to do your
due diligence relative to their limited resources. >> Commissioner Sullivan. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, one of the questions I have for commissioners is how much have you spoken with constituents that are part of subordinate governmental service
districts in your district? What kinds of conversations have you had? Have you gone to their annual meetings? Um, I'm just interested in the level of communication right?
>> None. But what I wanted to say was um things to Commissioner Gamble things have changed. Way back when did the county not mow cemetery lawns everywhere? A lot of them. And we don't anymore. >> Well, it's a I'm not Do you
>> an example? Yes. >> I think it's a that's a wonderful example. I can >> used to do that. But how long does it take to drive from Grand Marray up to Maple Hill >> to to mow the lawn, come back down, whatever it takes. And that was sort of
>> abandoned with because we don't have the personnel. I mean this was a conversation with the last uh director with Brian that it took a lot of time >> and for transporting of equipment and the personnel out there to mow along.
That was an example of where things had to change. Um, I believe we need to have this discussion, but we need to include the community that lives on these roads and that have them or do not have them
or would like to have a subordinate subordinate governmental >> service. I got now I have to now I have to go to the to the acronym to figure out what the words are. You got me backwards. So I think we need to have public
discussion on this and if this if this pushes everything out and we are then committed to another year so be it. But we have a responsibility to give our taxpayers even those that live on the street in town an opportunity to hear
and to to share in this conversation. Mhm. >> I think it's really important as you have said at the advisory committees there are there's at least one eight uh eight there's at least one district that has operated without any interventions
for more than a decade. >> They just hum along. It works really nicely. And primar primary problem now >> is getting contractors who want to do the work. >> That's a it's a great example I think. And one other example I want to bring up
from another county about services, you know, things that might have existed forever and gone away. I think it's Itasca County. Sorry if I'm misspeaking which one. Uh they they used to plow driveways. The county would plow your driveway and they are working. Well, can you imagine?
>> They better. >> But but you know, so you know, it's that type of thing where that's getting phased out now for obvious reasons. Uh but you know, it's it's you're you're trying to figure out what do you have capacity for? you're, you know, to your point, Commissioner Gamble, of everything is important. Yes. But at the
end of the day, we have to ultimately be the ones to choose where are we expending these resources. Um, >> yeah. >> Yes. Commissioner Sullivan. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, one of the things and I really support what Commissioner White said is we need to
notify our communities. Mhm. >> I've had um relationships with my sub subordinate governmental service districts um with the exception of one um for some time. I attend their meetings. Um but I would like to recommend that we have a letter that
comes from all three departments. I think the focus is on the highway department that this is our highway engineer doing this. It's not his decision. This is a recommendation of multiple departments. So I would
recommend we have a letter on county letterhead that comes from all three department directors um indicating the concerns, sharing some of the data. It could be electronic and could go out to the person who is that connection for
the roads with Matt. And then we give people some time to respond. And maybe the idea of putting a QR code on the county website so we could get feedback that way. Um because some of these people are seasonal, so they aren't here to necessarily come to public comment,
but they could have input. And so I I agree that it's important for constituents and not only those that are on a subordinate governmental service district road, but for other community members as well to respond. and I'm face
to face in person get off the that's a way that people feel more comfortable and that really builds community it's not as isolating and it doesn't mean that there's I'm sure there's not going to be any sort of consensus on this but two administrator
troubles >> is that right >> never said that before anyway um to her >> it's not trouble it's trouble Okay, then she's very personal. >> Personal. So anyway, um
>> we need to come up with options and a step by step how one would go about doing that. Personally, in a neighborhood with 12 different property owners off of a line, off of a Oh, it was our driveway.
It's not easy. And even when it starts out good, when property is sold, everything falls apart. Mhm. >> really fast. And then what do you do? >> And because that so that requires I know that I believe it's Stonegate and if
they're listening and if I'm misspeaking this is a positive thing I'm saying. Um that they have it in their homeowners association for that community for that gated community that they they lay out the responsibilities for the road
maintenance. So, >> Commissioner, >> Attorney Peterson. >> Oh, I just was going to follow up on that. Um, and that there we do have at least two local options here between buyers Heron and Tyson Smith if property
owners are looking to reach out to attorneys um about how they would set up a property owner association or homeowner association. There are attorneys in Duth as well. Um while the county can't endorse any particular attorney, there are local options and
people can be proactive about um looking for what their options are and their obligations that way. >> Good. >> Yeah. And just to answer Commissioner Sullivan directly, I have uh had conversations with one
um SGSD in my district, but I've had communications from others from outside my district. The biggest concern that I've been hearing about is the collection of dollars. >> Um, and so, >> well, >> I know there's going to be some maybe
digging into details and what options we might have, but that's the number one I would say. >> And I I guess I would say that gets back to kind of the the crux of the question is these these are non-county roads. So, what is our responsibility
in meddling in neighborhood politics in non-county affairs? And I leave that to you all. >> Yeah. Well, I mean, it's just it's our community. So, if it's private or if it's public, like we still care about our people. And so, that's what I'm saying is like I'm just sharing their
number one concern is dollars. And so, right, >> if that's a real struggle, is there a way for us to accommodate that and maybe alleviate other uh >> difficulties that we have in managing? >> I think there is there could be a layer
to this >> and I don't well, and I'll preface it with I don't think it's a good one, but a layer of this is you remove the highway department's involvement, >> but then everything gets dumped upon the auditor and the MIS offices. And I don't know that we're necessarily solving
anything outside of you hearing from me. So, you know, because there's still I'm sorry. >> Yeah. >> Commissioner, >> one of the big questions on that is um I've looked a little bit on that. I
can't find authority for that kind of activity outside of an SGSD. >> So, >> but can we open question? So, but I mean can we have an SGSD but only collect the dollars
>> that I don't know >> that's the because we have that authority. >> Well, that's what we do. >> Well, we also manage >> the fiscal administrator is the highway department. Yeah. >> Right. So, we do collect the dollars. we're there and there's a little management but you know the that
component the main thing we do is collect the money distribute the money and you know try and try to get contractors to come and do the work you've yeah >> and the other piece I would add to that is if we actually collected all of the
time that we spent on this that it would be a lot more expensive um for these units. So I mean that's another option. However, you know, we would we're still in that place of having to collect the funds and we likely I don't I don't know
if I could guess on this, but I'm guessing that maybe half of the time is collected at this point. >> There's Yeah, I think we did an we did a rough we up the um the setup fees based on a re, you know, recent in the last year or two conversation of trying to capture everyone's time. So, those setup
fees went up. There is there is an annual administration fee that's based on a percentage of their levy take and so that accounts for some of it. I think the issue is is when when issues do come up now that time is not accounted for
and it's not an if it's when every year there's always something. This year has its own trials and tribulations that we are working through. Um but but I think the point you know you know money is one component of it and like I said the forest service has been willing to pay us money to plow their roads. It's not
that it's the capacity. It's the here's another thing that we are responsible for and dealing with that isn't even a cut and dry clear this is an easy thing. These are messy. These are messy messy processes and any type of way to try and
clean it up. It it just it I don't see there's no no clean way to do it. I genuinely don't see it. We live and breathe these, you know, since their inception since I've been here and you're looking at this trying to do the mental gymnastics of how can we make this work? How it makes it work is you
make them county roads and then you say there we're responsible for them now. End of story. But you know what that involves then? hiring staff, hiring buying another truck, you know, that type of stuff where you're just going to you start to see this cost. And I'm not opposed to that. But that's a big
conversation. You know, now you're not just talking about moving a couple of bucks here and there. You're talking 400,000 between a person and a truck on top of now we have to assess all those property owners that live on that road to get that road to a standard because we're not going to take over a trail in
the woods. I'm just being honest. I have no intention of doing that. You guys can decide what you want obviously, but my advice would be to not do that. >> The only the only way that we have come up with to solve all the issues with SGSDs is to make them county roads. You know, because you have inefficiency.
Um uh SGSDs are inherently very inefficient. It's just a a game of phone tag essentially. I'm the go-between. And uh um and then we can't mobilize any of our equipment on them. So, you know,
we're hamstrung essentially. What we're good at doing is mobilizing on roads and fixing them and we can't do that. So, so that there's that point because I recall one one multi- meetings about
one of these districts where the contact person leaves the county for the winter. >> Mhm. and that's the spokesperson but not available to be spoken to. So if
the county were to say we either speak to this person or we contract is null and void right now that I don't know you're dealing with a bunch of people that the only reason they actually might talk to each other
is because for this reason otherwise not that they don't like each other but they don't nah you know doesn't matter but um Yeah, >> Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I I would I
agree with the the letter. Um what I would say is that just process process here is hugely important. And so whatever we can do that demonstrates that that there is an open receptive
transparent process >> is going to be huge because you're dealing with a delicate thing for people that >> just see change as being intimidating. If if a letter is sent then I think relative to the process issue if you if
you identify uh opportunity for public comment we intend to have an opportunity to listen to you >> also here's resources if we have local attorneys to do this or take an operating group I know Rose Bush Lane
>> and we lived there and that was something that they you know handled it if we have one that's working really well. Ask them if they'd be willing, you know, to field questions from those that might wonder how can this work? So,
whatever we can do to demonstrate our genuine intent to help people in this transition and and I I think that process will lend to the integrity of their willingness to empathize with where we're coming
from. But a letter should be a letter that that includes resources and reflects our our identifying with the challenge that this can provide. But here's resources and we're trying to be proactive. I think that'd be beneficial.
>> Okay. And then trouble. >> Thank you. And and we can absolutely do that, but we wanted to bring this here today because of the timeline. So just understand that then the county would likely have to engage another year so that we had time.
>> Go ahead. >> It it depends. And so that's where I think with some of this and I think if I'm sensing things right there's some like is it a town hall or do we just want a QR code public feedback because I think some of that stuff if all you know
if what we're talking about is just an opportunity for feedback. I mean, we can talk with Rowan and company and get something spun up and posted probably, I don't want to speak for you guys, but pretty quick. >> And so, you know, if you leave it up for 30 days, that gets us to December. Now,
we're talking, you know, in January, and there's a couple of board meetings. I don't know that we need another committee of the whole, but a couple of board meetings there where you're saying now we've had 30 plus days of public comment, depending what the mood is. You know, we can handle, you know, a cow in a board
meeting in January. That still sticks with timelines in here. You know, you move everything two months, but it still sticks with the initial conversation about we'll get through this winter with the intention of not doing it next winter and we'd still be okay >> summer potentially
>> or Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> I think it's both. >> Okay. and and and the point is is that >> that I think the more information that we can provide through the mechanisms that you referenced is important because it's I think it's good to be proactive
in informing so that it's coming and now we inform I think provide as much information as we can so that that discussion is channeled in the right direction >> and I think the excuse me the hub would be a great central location I mean it's
large enough to accommodate all sorts of >> for an inperson meeting >> for an in person in person particularly in the winter time because the streets will be plowed might not get there if it's really snowy but you can you know I think it's it make it as easy
as possible but I we have to do more than one way to get information out >> I was just looking at the area in the west end I'd have two Evergreen Road and Murmur But I would want something in the west end separate.
>> Yeah, >> Commissioner Sullivan, >> I was just going to say um you know a a letter from all three departments that goes out, a QR code and some in-person opportunities and then um gather that information, review it the first half of
January and then put it on an agenda for the commissioners to deal with at our last meeting in January. so that whatever the decision may be based on the feedback we get we have enough time to inform to educate constituents
um and be fair. >> Absolutely. >> The feedback I'm getting from um at least the association one association in my district is that it feels like the decisions already made before we're
engaging them. And so um I feel like uh we do need to push this back. We need I don't think we should just send out a letter for in a public notice. I think we need to have targeted meetings with the representatives
together so that we can all talk about it because meeting more than one meeting number one will be venting. >> You guys are taking this away from me. you know, like that's that's just going to be we're going to have to clear through a lot of things. And then meeting number two, we can get more in those details into the numbers, why
we're doing this. Um, and then just try to work through what challenges, barriers they're having, and what solutions there might be. And that just sounds like a really long process, but I I agree with the direction you want to go. I just think it's going to it it requires a longer process. Um much to
Commissioner Gamble's point, >> the the letter though could help people understand why we're having a meeting. >> Yes. >> You don't just want to go to a meeting. You need to have the preface of >> I think the more >> what we're thinking. >> The more that we can communicate, >> the better. And to underscore because if
the feedback is we think you made a decision and you've excluded us from the process, >> we're we're we're trying to be as inclusive as as we can. and and once you cultivate trust, you don't have to go through as many of these things. And
it's difficult when things are taking away. But it it's why we make decisions that are focused on what we're dealing with. But in the bigger context, it's cultivating that relationship. So when it comes to these decisions, they know that our process demonstrates integrity
and inclusivity. >> And to that end, >> we need more numbers. I mean, and I know that Lisa, you've been asked, but and for all the departments, how much time is spent >> really spent like estimate from here to
there? I mean, whatever it is, it's part of your job, but how much time is spent on this mandated service? >> Nonmandated. nonmandated >> or nonmandated service and should we >> what would it cost >> if the county actually picked up all of
these different things? How much for another person? How much for benefits? How much, you know, how much do we need another building for more equipment? Like because we'll have to buy some more equipment perhaps. I don't know. those
that's information that should be there and then uh a decision anyone listening has not been made but the conversation needs to be had because then as taxpayers how much how much can taxpayers bear for
a particular group to have their road >> taken care of and not anothers. I mean >> when we looked at just and this is rough because we don't track it by the half hour like we do other things. I think I think you're going to you know you turn
pennywise pound foolish at a certain point with that this type of thing. Um the the best estimate we could come up with was at least for our department it's about a wash what we intake versus what we spend. And so now it's the effort. So financially there's that component. And as I've said it's not
just that. It's it's it's the capacity. It's the >> the doing other things. >> We're not doing other things. Then I would much rather have Matt and Jesse and and my staff and and Lisa working on things related to our county system.
That needs enough help. um much less us trying to now weigh into neighborhood politics frankly on private roads that again in my opinion I don't think we have any business weighing in on where the government trying to decide who's a
dulyeleed official somewhere when it's just Joe saying this and Tom saying this and okay and you're sitting there spinning your wheels on this going well I got to go grade 60 and decide how much gravel it needs to me that's where we should be spending our time is is that
or sorry >> and also I would really like to speak to the tremendous amount of work that our auditor's office and MIS spend on this. I am familiar a little bit with what for example Courtney Ber does and I can't imagine the workload this creates for
her and I would really want that acknowledged in some of this >> please. Mhm. >> It is a tremendously complex >> task to manage those tax payables. >> I think the other thing that's important to recognize is that we are elected as
commissioners to be representative of our constituents. We have a fiscal responsibility and a commitment to our departments to inform us. And so the fact that departments come to us and inform us that
stewardship responsibility that's entrusted to us means we need to listen to both sides of this and weigh it in the context of our fiscal responsibility and the level of service that we provide. If we look at saying well we
have no options so therefore the highway department needs to do this. Then if if the costs associated that are honest and represented fairly then as decision makers we can look at the options but as you say it's not just
a financial it is a focus on what we're entrusted with. So we as decision makers want to hear and we invite departments to come and inform us. So we're making informed decision and it needs to be evidencebased
not emotionally driven. >> Correct. And also, as I'm jumping in here out of line, um people, maybe not so much anymore because there's been a lot of discussion about this, but people when they buy property,
little 20 acres in the woods, and isn't this nice on a gravel road, and then they find out the countyy's not going to plow it, what do you mean they're not going to plow it? Um years ago we there were some folks we built a house for and they never considered that the two miles
into their one mile driveway was on them to plow >> and it was kind of a wakeup call because Yeah. Like so there's a so the realtors need to be brought in on this too.
>> Yeah. I may speak. >> We started probably in 2018 or so um working with the realators association because we were getting angry phone calls at the highway department >> uh because people were unaware and so
the realators have gotten a lot more proactive in reaching out. They have our actual road list >> so that they know what roads are ours and then if they're unclear, we still get the occasional phone call asking for clarification. It's not perfect by any
means, but we did reach out, as I said, a number of years ago to really foster that educational component. >> We need danger signs on plowed road, >> new signage, administrator trouble.
>> Thank you. I'd just like to add one more comment, which is I know this is a challenging discussion, but we brought this intentionally for the reasons that you mentioned, Commissioner. As the county administrator, I see it as my role to make sure that we're bringing information to make sure that we are
first focusing on our core services for the county and I know that we provide a lot of discretionary funding. I know that we provide a lot of non-mandated services and that's okay, but I think it needs to be reviewed by the board and there need to be intentional decisions
about what we can afford to do. So, I think this is a great um conversation for us to have today. I look forward to the budget conversation which we're going to have next. And this really kind of aligns nicely with with that dis that discussion and future decisions on what
we can afford to do as a county. >> So what I'm hearing is that we'll have a letter >> to go out to inform people especially folks who live a ways away >> for that. of the annual me the the um public meeting
>> would be posted so that if they wanted to come up to join it they could depending upon where we have it >> right I I just want clarification what should this letter say I think >> we keep saying letter an outline and we we we have to have the
components so that that le letter is substantive if we're going to send something out >> and and there's a lot of components we talked about provide resources, provide opportunity for public, you know, discussion around the county and inform
and projected costs and and things. So, there's a lot of components, but I think an outline should be established and then a draft should be reviewed and approved >> prior to sending >> and I'm happy to help and work on that
um if you want any commissioner input. Um, and I would also say again the focus needs to be not just on the highway department, but on all the other departments that are engaged and involved. >> Again, it it when I'm listening to constituents, I'm hearing highway,
highway, highway, and that's not all that it is. >> Madam Chair, it might be advisable if we right now just put the outline of what we'd like to see in that letter so that there's direction. Yes, >> that would be very very helpful because
then we know because I'm kind of I thought I had an idea but it seems like we've jumped around a little bit in in a process and I want to make sure that we have that in there. Is this a letter from commissioners? Is this a letter from our department? you know, like it seems a little or is
this >> and my question is could we um provide information on the town halls >> and have the opportunity to present information at that and keep the letter more general about here's information regarding the town halls. We provide
more information at that time. >> Um and we can also put some information um potentially on our website to make sure that it's accessible. But I wonder if maybe that's the first step since we are going to have the listening session. >> That's good. I think an outline an
outline of what we will be providing right >> which is which is going to be resources >> um you know legal resources um other you know operating entities that have got it under control. I think
that's another component that should be in it. Mhm. >> Uh the dates, the fact that we're covering the county and setting that up so that we're making it convenient and accessible. >> Mhm. >> Um and uh I I think some of the
realities relative to cost and prioritizing and the comparables as to how do other counties do this. I think that's an important thing. >> They don't >> just just as elements, you know what I'm saying? >> Absolutely. So another piece too with
this. So I think I like that. I think that letter can get super thick if we start trying to throw everything in there. I think the idea of a letter saying we're going to have a town hall maybe in two different spots. We can go just a little west of Grand Marray. We can go a little east of Grand Marray. You know, catch
>> in Grand Marray. >> We could do one there. I'll do as many as you. No, >> three sounds like enough. >> You need to be where up the We can see where everything is. There's a lot up the trail. There's a lot west. >> There a lot up the trail, but many of them are seasonal. >> Well, right. And so there's
>> so those people are gone. So that's why I say letter and >> a QR code or some way to electronically capture information from seasonal people >> and they people that are gone can submit. >> Right. Right. >> You know succinctly whatever you know
>> precisely. You had mentioned dates. Are you talking about the timeline that's provided? I I'm saying we should say dates in there so that it's it's giving a heads up as to when we are going to >> So the dates could be like as an example
it'd be like we're going to be on the west end December 5th, we're going to be on the east end December 7th and we'll if we think something and we can look at maybe what we'll do is look at a map of where our districts are >> and try and choose like two spots that are kind of in the middle of all of that
or something and try No, >> you Need a third spot. >> Okay, third spot. >> The only thing in the middle is the town. >> So, something on the east end, >> east and west, or at least as far as >> east, west, and middle. >> Okay, so we'll do three. >> West and north is what I'd recommend. >> Sure. Location to be determined. Uh, but
at that town hall, what is is where and maybe it's an opportunity to talk with those two local folks uh and see if they can't attend and maybe they already have a packet on here's step by step on how to set up an HOA. I I don't think we're under any illusions that people are
going to come here and be like, "Hey, thanks for getting rid of my services. Now I got, you know, like that's not I understand that." And and to the point of, you know, yeah, the first one's just going to be venting. Why? Why are you doing this? Um >> but I think to the point of, you know, it's the same thing in the budget
discussions where you're trying to prioritize what do you want to do and you know, what's a cut look like? And you're going, "Well, I can't do everything." So something's got to give. Um, but anyway, so I think that letter makes that makes a ton of sense. Maybe what we can do is work with us, Brady and Rowan, and every Yeah. And we'll try
and get something drafted. I'll send it to you. That's great. >> Yeah. And then we can just kind of keep it moving. I know it seems fast, but you know, but but I think if we do this letter, the QR code I think is a great idea. Open that up 30 days, 45 days, get input, uh, and then, you know, see if we
still can't kind of hit end of Januaryish, >> depending how things go. um and to see, you know, um and to the point of a decision already being made, >> yeah, we are proposing dissolving these uh but that decision isn't made. This is
our proposal. So, of course, we're leaning that way. I'm not denying that. Um but >> it's our intention. >> Yes, absolutely. But, you know, something could come out. I don't know what, but we'll see. So, okay. >> So, you were you suggested something in December. I'm just going to say we're
gone the 7th through the 10th to AMC. So, right. You know, if you're pushing it out, >> I was just throwing dates out. Yeah. Okay. Yes. We'll work. Just let you know. >> Absolutely. Yeah. I'll see you down there at AMC. >> I think we should have food. >> Think we should have snow cones and dirt dessert. >> No, they're going to throw it. We're
going to get They're going to throw them at us. We do that. >> Yeah, that sounds great. >> I just really think I I respect the desire to get this, you know, tidy. And I like I said, I agree with the
direction that you want to go. >> I am worried about the timeline. >> Sure. >> Um >> because and the right all of them. I mean the there's two different ones and the holiday. Yeah. So there's just there's a lot going on and I'm that doesn't mean
that can't happen, right? >> But I think you know >> I'm hoping um I don't I don't I mean I don't want to drag you guys through another uh season of difficulties, but I really do believe it's going to take some time to get the
back and forth that's going to be required because the emails that I'm hearing is I mean it's kind of like you know countering points to what your list has and then be like see we we need you know it's just it's going to be a back and forth. >> It's not an emergency,
>> right? >> No. >> Right. >> I mean it's not an emergency. So if you have to suffer through which you are not suffering through >> well you're juggling through talk to I think there's no comment. There we go.
>> But but the point is >> out of respect for our people in this county who have successfully navigated and worked with you through these years. it it's the least >> to give everyone conversations and if
you need to do it one if you need to do it one more year >> I'll bring you some chocolate >> thank you >> wow >> administrator >> thank you and I would just add if we do if the timeline is such that we need to do this another year while a decision is
pending um we may have to bring forward some other recommendations on what to do in that time slot which might be collecting all of our time >> um it might be hiring part-time staff to manage this. I'm I'm just throwing stuff out there. I'm not sure what it is, >> but as a team, I think we'd have to
discuss what does this look like to make sure that we can sustain this >> as we move forward. So, I just want to put that out there. >> And I would propose that if we have to extend it that we would look at our administrative fees to encompass the
time that the other two departments are utilizing for these services on an ongoing basis. Mhm. >> I And I I think it's important to identify the two options. One is that you do it and we'll help you figure out how to do
it. >> And then the other is if we continue to do it given these realities. Here's costs based upon real costs of assessment of involvement and time. >> And the other challenging issue is is
having it up to standard to be able to manage it. So, but that that honest you got two options. It's going to be this. We're not pricing it out to discourage you. We're pricing it out to be stewards of taxpayer dollars. >> Those are the two options.
>> And if they say, "We just want you to manage it. We don't want to collect monies. We don't whatever. We just like it for 30 years you plowed and we want you to continue doing that." Here's what it'll cost for. >> Okay. If I may, Madam Chair, the other thing that we haven't talked about
today, and this is really part of the crux of it for Mr. Nest time, is that we have fewer and fewer contractors willing to bid on these, and we have no teeth to really enforce it because Mr. Nest time is trying, especially in the on the
summer maintenance contracts, to work with our contractors to do what they've quoted. They don't have enough staff or time to get it done. He can't alienate them because we will have no one left to bid. >> 10 years ago, we had two, three bids on most of our SGSDs.
>> We beg and plead sometimes to get one on every SGSD. And then >> it's not sometimes, it's every year. We're we're reminding people to put in a bid. we are we email we call because we're not getting the bids and then when
we do they are already stretched so so thin especially on the summer maintenance where we're looking at graveling and grading and repeat services >> that Matt is is left holding a bag that can't be filled for lack of a better phrase
>> they're not getting the services >> they're not getting the services >> the contractors aren't >> and and if he forces the issue >> we're going to lose really one of our two main contractors that bids on almost every lot. >> Right. What was the
>> and and even increasing our services to cover the time isn't going to address those underlying issues. >> That's a good point. >> All good things >> she had Lisa put together. I think it was the last 10 years. >> I looked I grabbed three of them on summer maintenance and from 2014 to 2024
every one of these SGSDs was supposed to have two gradings. One had two gradings, five of 11 years, 455% of the time. Another one had it four of 11 years, 36.36%
of the time. And one had it 55.55%. >> So, so you have this model now where even if you get a bidder 50/50 whether they come out and then we are fielding again the neighborhood politics of why aren't they out? We try
and call, we have no teeth. you try and play nice because you don't want to alienate now the only people that are supposed to be bidding to do the work. And so again, you want to talk broken model, there's no repercussions, right? We we have repercussions where if you do
a construction project for us, right? Oh, we'll find you. We'll, you know, disbar you. There's a not disbar, but like a myriad, you understand a myriad of things you can do there versus with this, there's nothing. You're just sitting there calling people trying to get them to come. And so just
percentages again we talk data you're going 30% 50% of the time these actually work and so again we're left sitting here going we're in this broken system that clearly works for so many other entities HOAs POAS why are we involved
why is the county involved in just these few so anyways okay >> um I and when it comes to the letter I guess we're going to talk more about that or vote on read and all that but I think it should come from administrator treble on behalf of the county board and
yeah I mean highway department auditor um yeah MIS um legal um >> I don't know how many others but everywhere it's touched I think should be you know I guess maybe emergency management as well I don't know >> I mean we don't want to just also throw
everything if Yeah. Yeah, I think we can put it under my name as county administrator and then we can touch on some of the other areas as well. I agree with that approach. >> Yeah. Yeah. I think you need to take the it. So,
>> no, she'll share it with you. >> You share it. All right. Thanks. >> Okay. Is everybody comfortable with our plan? >> Yeah. >> Yes. Okay. More to come. >> Anything else? >> Not off the top of my head. I think this has laid out a good process. Um I think even looking at the timeline we have
even if things progressed accordingly I think you know assuming we're all assuming it keeps going the way we are proposing it to go I think it would still be something that would um not affect next season even if we talk
January even February about you know meetings and stuff. So I think there there's room. It obviously starts to get tighter the further we go. >> Lisa, >> and one of the stipulations in the state policy and our local our state rules and our local policy is that any contract in effect at the time of a potential
dissolution remains in in effect until the end of the season. So winter is covered automatically. It would the the only way the time frame would be impactful would be if we were looking at this in March or April. And so then we would have to let summer contracts,
>> right? >> So that's something to think about. And then potentially what we would have to really think about is what we're going to do about assessments because we you get usually give that information to the auditor's office by mid January. >> And so then would we proceed as though
they were going to have a year of services, do the uh collections in May and November, and then give credits back at the end of the year. I mean those are things that are impactful for the auditor's office in particular.
>> So those are some things that we will probably have to have some discussions about in the coming weeks with auditor powers. >> Last question. Who gets the letter? >> Is it just the is it just the reps? Is it we mail individual addresses?
>> Individuals. >> I think individuals and an electronic copy to your rep. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. >> Just SDF, SGSD. >> So 260 properties. >> Just I'm just letting you 270. I'm just
letting >> I just have to look at your postage budget and see what it says. Minister, >> so I'm going to add something that may not be popular here, but that's one perspective. >> The other perspective are those that might support not providing county
funding for the SGSD. So, how do we make sure that we're collectively getting voices >> from not just the people impacted >> by the SGSDs, but also from the community as a whole? >> So, our local media um you know, looking
at a um a piece of information that would be in the Cook County News Herald that would go out to everyone, maybe the Northshore Journal because that goes to everyone. But thinking of some some ways to reach out to our community broadly.
Um, I guess that's um a part of why I think this timeline is going to be longer is because I think we should start by focusing on the reps of the SGSDs because it's a smaller group. It's manageable. Um, they're supposed to be disseminating information
as well. Um, and then we also have to after or it could be at the same time, but I'm just looking for management. uh expand it to all property owners that have SGSDs as well as the whole public. So this is going to be I think a
heavy process. Um but I think it's really important to cover all that in a systematic approach just to talk through things, work through things because there's there's going to for sure be a lot of push back. It's just how do we navigate that? How do we manage that? How do we communicate that?
>> Minister Treble. So with that, I wonder if the the letter goes to the reps from the districts and then we put in the letter, please provide this to the other members of your SGSD responsibility on them.
>> That's an approach. >> I think it's it's that I think that's the best way to start, but I do think everyone does need to be included. And so after we kind of work through some things with the reps, then we'll have better perspective and we can share more information. I don't know. It just seems
like a a layered and stepped approach. >> Mr. G. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. The question um I know in my first term we were dealing with the same thing just trying to get people that would would do it and and looking at the bids at what they were
coming in. is are there have you ever looked at any entrepreneur anybody that looking at the business that's there and if they were to you know have the equipment and understand it and look there's there's plenty of work for you
to do here um so that we would have somebody that intentionally would commit to this >> I think I think what we've heard from contractors and why they kind of like the program and this is one side and
it's going to well anyways you hear from them you say it's a good program because it it provides work work for contractors right and if there's enough work heck we can hire you start talking about this this wonderful scenario of economic development >> and instead now what we see in the last
year or so is the opposite where now these contracts aren't getting fulfilled and you know so you bid and that's great but you didn't come out to do the work so where was this where's this economic component or is it are you just so busy, which is great, >> but like the infinite amount of work up
here where honestly these can get a little fussy. >> And so, do you want to do that or do you want to, you know, do some things that might be easier? >> Um, >> and there has been a lot of retirements. >> Also true. >> And I think >> and so that's why there's so much work and there aren't a lot of new people
coming up because what does a greater cost? dump trucks, liability insurance, you're going to need to have a special trailer which is taxed and licensed and and so it's not I've got an extra few thousand and let's go, >> right?
>> No, it's a huge investment >> and and to Commissioner Gamble's point like uh there have been younger right um uh contractors entering and they're already swamped, you know. So it's like how many more younger contractors do we
need to target to I think that's what you're getting at. >> Well just younger the opportunity. I mean if you do a feasibility study you say hey here's an opportunity if you're interested in somebody hey I'm willing to invest in the infrastructure in order to be able to >> to do that and contract and and I'll
deliver on it and >> but you'd have to you'd have to know if I'm going to do this what's my return on investment. >> Absolutely. Yeah. Well, and I mean like same with seal coating. There's quite an opportunity for someone to be a seal co. Same with painting stripe. Same with >> IT repair, same with I mean everything
there's opportunity. So I don't know if we want to I I hear what you're saying, but I don't know how. >> Right. >> Well, I just was curious whether to because of all the frustration to kind of if there's >> putting it out there in the context here's an opportunity. I I know we've had, you know, maybe not official
conversation, but you know, anytime we talk or meet with contractors, you know, a lot of them, you know, are, you know, friends or family of our staff or, you know, anybody. I'm just using that as an example where everyone knows about it, but they have so much other work already. They don't need more. And so
now again to Commissioner White's point too about the startup costs on this, you know, I mean we talk about buying new trucks, but I mean you even look at what we sell them for on state bid and 15 years old you're still shelling out $30,000. I mean on an old dump truck and
that's just the dump truck. You're not talking about a grater to do some of this, you know. Um >> so I I think there's so much work up here that it it is it's it's impossible. there's not enough. It's not in I mean it feels like infinity work, you know.
Um but clearly a lot of these other, you know, HOAs and PAS have been doing it just fine for a long long time without us being a part of it. And I'll bring that back full silker. Um where you know they're they're not
having these issues. So >> is that true? Are they not? I haven't heard >> because when I've talked to a few as well when again it gets to the point of they have far more autonomy. Yeah. As an HOA to interact with their contractors, you know, it's more freedom to decide
what you want to do, the choice of what you want to do, the control over how it gets done. They're the ones that can badger at somebody every single day if you want to have at it. We are >> change ups and flexibility. >> It could be. Yes, absolutely. And that's what that does. You take us out of the equation. This is yours to do with as
you please. You don't have to deal with us anymore. Um, yeah. >> Okay. Everybody know the plan. >> Write a letter. >> Just one last thing. Reading through this, it was referenced at our October 29th regular board meeting. I do not
think we uh passed anything there in regards to SGSD. So, I just I read that somewhere in the handout and I don't >> it could have been. So when we when we put this together, what the intent was just to show here's an example of what
dates >> could look like. >> I think it scared some people. >> That's fine. >> But that that's why so the timeline was here's what that actually looks like. So as we start pushing things out now you get an idea of okay now it's not March
now it's going to be you know May. Um but yeah >> so it was a draft type. >> Oh god. Yeah. That's what Yeah. Proposal, proposal, proposal, proposal. That's what all of this is. Yes. Yes. Yes. >> The one thing I would request is that Auditor Powers and our administrator
give us some direction on what we're going to do for assessments for 2026 for these processes ongoing. >> That's an important component for us. >> I think we have to steady as she goes until we change.
>> I need to be told that officially. Yeah, that's fair. >> Okay, thank you everybody. Appreciate it so much to come very much. Appreciate it. So, we're gonna take a break. Yes, we're going to take a 15minute break to reitude ourselves.
I should have brought that bag of Thank you. Welcome back. The second phase of our committee the whole is to uh have a budget discussion. Brady has given us lots of information new and maybe there's something new
something for all of us to digest and go over again and look at and record and make decisions. Uh other than not today, no decision made today, but just to review everything. Brady, do you have
any inputs you'd like to start us with? Well, we were looking at just what are the functions of government? Just kind of a generality. Um local administration. So counties are the local administrative unit
um for the state responsible for implementing enforcing state laws within their jurisdictions, law enforcement, public safety and other various local services. Got health and human services.
We play a crucial role in delivering health and human services to residents. may involve administering programs such as public health services, social services, and other assistance programs and social services. They're our same
department. Uh that includes support for families, children, individuals in need, uh child protection, adoption, foster care, etc. Property assessment and taxation. Counties are typically responsible for assessing for tax
purposes and collecting taxes. Um, and then helping with property tax assistance or relief, public safety, county sheriff's office responsible for enforcement and incorporated areas and additional services such as emergency
management, land use and zoning. uh regulations to regulate guide development of land within the boundaries, issuing permits, planning for infrastructure, ensuring compliance,
uh elections. Counties play a large role in conducting elections. Maintaining voter registration records, overseeing the process, includes managing polling places, counting votes, uh infrastructure maintenance,
maintaining improving local infrastructure, including roads, bridges, other public facilities. Um judicial functions. County governments are connected to the judicial system, maintaining courts, supporting the
justice system, overseeing local law enforcement. So that's some of what we all do as an really an armed branch of the state. And then uh I guess just to summarize,
you know, we had a proposed budget and levy. We had 7.57% is what we proposed. That's what's going to be seen in the property tax statements coming out for TNT. But since
that time, we've made some adjust call them adjustments and no real decisions made. But um reacting to changes, departmental changes, and uh we got our final health insurance costs and we got the uh paid family leave costs. So, we
adjusted those um changes in personnel that we just made changes to the budget for. And the net result of that is a $97,220 reduction in expense and a little bit of additional revenue since the proposed.
So right now we with no changes by the board we we're at sitting at 6.79% with what we'd already proposed to use for fund balance with no change to any of that. So down from 7.57 to 6.79.
Um there may be other adjustments before we get to December but >> okay we'll open for conversation. >> Can I add just Thank you. Um Madam Chair. Can I add a couple things regarding changes that we're discussing as a result of all of the budget exercises
that we've done? So, things that won't immediately happen, but as a result of looking at a 5% cut for the different departments and just different conversations around the budget over the last few months. Um, we are working with the city to relook at the law enforcement contract. um the last time
that was um negotiated, my understanding I believe it was in the um 80s. And so we're looking at updating that contract and hope to have that before the board in the near future. Um we're also looking at some of the um training software that we currently provide to
staff to make sure that we're leveraging those dollars in the most effective and efficient way. And so so that might be something changing in the future. Um, we're also looking at every open position as um, departments have openings. Um, they're bringing that to
HR and then ultimately I'm looking at what are we offering staff and making sure that it's comparable and that we need to fill all those positions. Um, so we're doing that as well. Um, we're also looking at non-client related travel
within PHS as well as other departments, making sure that the travel that we have um is necessary. And then the other change I would mention is it was in the strategic plan to um look at hiring a full-time um PICSS position um public
information coordinator and we are going to keep that at a 0.5 as we move forward. So that's another item that has a positive impact on the budget that we won't be filling that.5. So we have a that position is filled. It's a county
position, but it's half funded by um um the hospital. Thank you. The hospital as well. >> So just to mention some of the things that we are doing. I just want to make sure that the board is aware that we're looking at all of the expenditures. Brady always does. And then as a new administrator, I'm trying to look at it
with fresh eyes to also look at, you know, are there things that we can change um to make sure that we're as cost effective as we possibly can be. >> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for that. One other thing uh that we touched on at the beginning of the year,
but you should put on the the list is evaluate uh all of the boards that commissioners sit on that an evaluation of of uh expectation. I think in the public health human services presentation this morning with the ARP
uh grant funding that that accountability um I know that uh in in my first term we had individuals that were not on staff or elected positions that wanted to know if they sat on board would they be
compensated for participation whether it was you know Minnesota travel bureau whatever and so we drafted a policy but that policy required that there had to be a an accounting, you know, that that made sure that the that the evaluation
as to value was worth the expenditure of funds. So, that's that's something that I think can be reviewed. And uh the other thing any any contracts or memorandums of understanding or agreements that we have like we do have with the city and the sheriff's office.
I don't know if we have one with the highway department at service as well, but we should identify all of these and make sure that we're keeping those current just as a matter of best practice, you know. >> Yes. And if I can speak to that, um, I
have a list of different items that I'm working through with administrator Roth and we wanted to start with the law enforcement contract, but there are a number of services that we provide to the city and so we anticipate just working through that list um, as we move into 2026. >> Yeah.
>> And Commissioner Gamble, to your point about all of our committees and boards and all that, I will be working with Administrator Treble on that, which means I'll be talking to all of you. >> Okay. So, >> and that's kind of an annual thing as we get ready for our organizational meeting
>> um that we review all of those assignments to determine what's good, what's changed, >> um what can we eliminate, what maybe do we need to add, but it's an annual evaluation >> and and with that, if I may, Madam Chair, we we have started a list of
questions that we anticipate asking all the commissioners to get to your point >> um to reflect your question about um does Does it align with our values? Is it high priority? And things like that to try to see are there areas where perhaps we don't need to have a commissioner assigned to that particular
committee. >> And there there can be o overlap with certain certain committees that we sit on. And uh so anyway, >> okay. Any other inputs or questions? I just want to go back to the cash
availability review that Brady provided us at our last meeting and make sure that we are utilizing um 30% of our forest development funds which um would be $24,483.
our state PILT money we can annually annually use 35,000 and our environmental trust fund which is just the interest and I'm not sure how much interest there is on that account. >> Yeah, that's about whatever I put on there. 379 I think.
>> So that is okay. That's >> that's the interest. >> That's the interest. That's what I needed. But I would recommend that we use those funds in a targeted fashion for firewise and soil and water. Um that's what they're designed to be for.
The other thing I think it's important foundationally just to this discussion because it's a moving target as things change and that is that u for every $129,000 reduction in budget contributes to 1%
reduction in levy. >> Mhm. So just understanding that's where that at I think we were looking at it before was a 130ome thousand but with some of the changes it's brought that down to 129. The other thing is is that that affects
you know what bottom line tax is is the uh the tax rate and for every 329,000 uh reduction uh it reduces the tax rate by 1%. So when you look at which is equal to 2.5%
levy reduction. So those two figures affect what tax assessment is. So >> any other thoughts? Minister Trouble >> if if I can respond to Commissioner Sullivan. Um, Commissioner Sullivan
Brady and um, Brooke and I were planning on having a meeting to talk about um, some of the funding, including the cash availability and to ensure that we're leveraging the funding as best as possible. So, we have
not had that meeting yet, but I think to your point, we can discuss the using it for firewise and and soil and water, but Brady is definitely the expert here, so I want to make sure that's accurate. >> Yep. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. For sure, >> Madam Chair. The other thing on that point is is that in having this
discussion with Brady, if we look at the PIP funds that are designated for recreation that um uh we could consider uh two things that come to mind. One is that the community
center has um added an additional 70ome,000 to their replacement on which is recreational things. So we could take that 76,000 and use the funds to fund that and it would
not impact that 76,000 would not impact levy. The other thing is that we talked about is that we could take the park position and we could use $35,000 to defay the cost of that position. So
any monies that we we have that are in existing funds within the context of what's allowable, we should first look at those things to try to mitigate some of the impact. And uh that's certainly
something that would be helpful. >> So just to make sure I understand what you're saying, Commissioner. So you're saying with the PILT funds, look at using that for the the.5 park position and then for the 76,000 out of the community center budget
>> and can we do that for this next fiscal year? >> There's there's no reason we can't. >> Okay. And so so the point is is that within the context of what those funds are allowable and some funds we just keep putting money in and keep putting money in. And in previous budget
discussions that it was part of, we'd always say, are there pockets of money around that we've designated for eight track tapes, which we're not going to be ordering any eight track tapes, right? >> But we could put in something that's similar so that the intent for those
dollars gets applied. And I think that us understanding the context of which these dollars are available to us, let's use those dollars. >> I agree. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I just wanted to make sure I understood, but yeah, I absolutely support that. >> Saying it would be something we could
certainly do. >> Y >> yeah, you just keep in mind that they're not they're not available afterwards. >> Tax forfeit is >> right. They're gone. >> Short term. The >> right >> now the environmental trust fund that continues to make interest revenue.
>> So there's a $500 and some thousand principle that'll be there until end of time or law changes. But yeah. So with that then um I mean the community center that makes sense but with the park position what you're saying is once those funds
we we leverage all of them um then the park position would have to go into the base and that would be a levy position. >> Yeah. And it is right now. >> Yep. So just so the commissioners understand that then we would be asking to put that back into the base in the future. >> Yeah. And and and I think that's a key
point just generically that any funds that are one-time funds, if you use it as an application to, you know, reduce levy impact, do it, but do it with the understanding that this is something that won't be ongoing. and and we have
many things in our budget that are one-time funding that initiated things that are now totally levy dependent which becomes a burden on top of the things that are mandated that so we have to be careful in using those dollars
with that awareness >> and and that's exactly why I asked that question earlier today about the grant funding for that program not I mean I support it and >> from what I heard from Grace was that that funding would be ending. And so I wanted to make sure that she
>> clearly stated that that then >> exactly >> goes into and you're right as we take on more and more of that work then it does impact our ability to do to >> and the problem with that and without an honest discussion and upfront disclosure
is that we get comfortable and and our decisions get influenced not from the fiscal standpoint but from the comfortable standpoint if that makes any sense. So >> yeah, I I guess I'd push back and not say comfort as much as um expectations.
>> Yeah. >> Well, it could be a I would agree to that, you know. >> But um >> because comfortable makes it sound lazy, but what really what we have is values. You know, we have community values that we're supporting >> which has to be weighed which is what
the you know the the whole highway thing is we really need to have a broader discussion which is this evaluation thing of what is it that we are asked to do in service and how many things are under that umbrella that's why the
strategic component of it is a means of discipline measuring that >> the other thing and I don't I don't mean to make a big stink. It's just that's a narrative that I often hear is we start
things that have onetime funding and then we continue with levy and I just am not aware of those costs like what are I hear about them but I never hear the specifics this program did started that way this position started that way it's
just always that there are many of them so I I think when we go through those it'd be really helpful if we can identify that and give perspective on what those are and if they still bring the the values that that we're aiming for. Um but but I haven't seen that yet.
It's just a narrative that I hear often. So >> yeah. >> Yeah. I >> and and with that I had a conversation with PHS because what I've heard is that it's a lot of the public health >> work and um and staff within that department that as a result of co and
what I've what I've what I learned when I sat down with Grace is I think almost every one of those positions it's a it's a variety of different funding so it's not like a a clear 100% of this position is funded through this grant but the
majority of that work is funded. So even if we had onetime funding and and please correct me if I'm wrong here, Brady, but even if we had onetime funding, I think we've been able to continue through extensions or through additional grants, but a lot of that work is currently funded.
>> Yeah. Still still a liability, but it's a narrative that >> right >> has gone be is a is an old narrative that happened before CO even um just >> um an assumption. It it's it's another
lens to to look at though because we've had many situations where uh there's funding and we've come in with this outside funding and we propose something and if we don't clarify that when the funding goes this something goes and
many counties they'll tell you that I mean in your conversations that you need to that's respectful you just need to identify upfront that when that funding goes but if if you could be resource resourceful and and find additional funding to continue it. That's good. But
and seeing that resourceful is the big thing when it comes to non-mandated. I personally like and I think the committee wants to see the resourceful nature of people earning this because there's many people that have just sort of grown comfortable with the funding that's there and they haven't
necessarily been aggressive in generating dollars independently. that comes from interviews in the past with organizations that come in asking for monies. So >> yeah, and so what I'm hearing you say is
organizations that have requested funding. We So PHS for an example, they have a grant process for organizations, a screening process. They have specific criteria. They screen the applications and then they make decisions on the
funding. What I'm hearing you say is we don't have that with the other discretionary funds that we've provided and I know that we're talking or in the past there has been discussion about a discretionary policy that wasn't proposed or wasn't approved. Um and so
what I think I'm hearing you say is that moving towards a process where you have an application, a screening process and make intentional decisions would be helpful. Is that accurate? >> But that's a that's a generic statement. But but I mean I I would question and
Brady provided that information on the history of non-mandated and how we've done it because we've done it done this way and it gets shipped around and things. It comes to the issue of the broader identifying like our discussion with the highway
department. What are we mandated to do? Number one, what are the resources we have? And if we perceive value that make Cook County unique and how we address things, evaluate it, but do it in that context. But we first need to look at not
necessarily what is is the new and the different and exciting. We have to look at things in the context of what are we tasked with doing and and evaluate that honestly. But this is where the evidence-based budget process addresses that.
>> And so if I may respond to that. Um so one of the things that I have found interesting since I've started is I've um looked at for for a county that has the staff the number of staffs that we have. So we have approximately 140 staff
I believe. So looking at the best practices in the HR realm, we're underst staffed. looking at the best practices for our facility management and custodial services, we're underststaffed. So, when we look at our mandated service areas, our core
functions, we're understaffed in a lot of areas. And I haven't done an overall assessment of every department, but just looking at a few of them. We're actually under understaffed. And I I've heard concerns about adding staff or or filling positions. And so I think it's
important um to just say that out loud as well that I mean when you do look at the core services and you look at best practices and data were actually understaffed. >> Yeah. I would do a comparable Commissioner Martinson and myself in our first term did a comparable with with
counties and in in every department and u so that we we had a context to understand that. So, um, I would I would just say that statements as to Commissioner Beiel's comment about I hear this, you know, that that D that we
want to we want to see the concrete that supports that statement. So, >> yeah, >> we talked a little bit about that when we added HR staff. Um, we looked at what expectations are and same with like case
loads for PHS. What is >> and so there's another underst staffing and um square footage of building. I mean that's how you got the facility. So we looked at that a little bit but um >> enough to convince me. >> Yeah.
>> Well, I think Brady's finding that in his office. >> You know, there's more and more things that are happening that you need you need help with. So we didn't face that, you know, 12, 14 years ago. >> Yeah. I mean, things have changed and we
haven't changed that >> staffing in, I don't know, 30 years. But mostly you keep up with technology, but >> Right. >> Uh but even technology takes time. >> Yeah. a lot of things the the front facing
when you make that simpler and better. >> Sometimes it there's more work on the back end and we're finding that and on a lot of our benefits for example you would you wouldn't see that how it hits your bank account. >> Yeah. causes more work to a simple bank
account for things like uh well managing the cash in it and doing bank reconciliations much more complicated than >> 20 30 years ago for example that's a small thing but just one example >> and now we're facing AI replacing people
but that'll be in the future we don't want to replace your staff did you have a comment >> I just wanted to say one of the things I I would hope that we would do um prior right away in 2026 starting in January
is get some policies related to non-mandated funding and discretionary funding. Um I mentioned earlier um when we were off camerara I've started working on some policies but one of the things that the
non-mandated funding um is really looking at services that are not legally required but are considered very valuable or essential to our community like the airport for example. You know how are we going to get firefighters in
here? Um, how are we going to run a sea plane base if we don't have an airport? You know, how are we going to do um medevac? We can do a hot helicopter if it's not foggy, but if we need a plane out at the airport, we've got to have the airport. So, we need to really have
different policies for non-mandated funding and discretionary funding, which is PHS. And I would um hope that we could have a conversation um so that non-mandated funding maybe comes as a recommendation out of budget facilities
advisory committee and that discretionary funding is a recommendation that comes from PHS but that final budgetary decisions rest with us that we have recommendations from those groups.
>> I have a I have a question in the under commissioners. What's the suspense? >> Oh, that it's in statute. Um, just that the commissioners have a suspense account. And
>> what's it used for? >> We have enough suspense without having an account. >> I think we could do away with that. >> You got to wait for it. >> Well, that's it. I mean, because see 24 it's not there. So, >> let's just say that it's it's under statute and and we we better put to have
it. I don't think >> but but uh that that's an area unless it's understood as to why and what we're looking to try to be good stewards of dollars >> right >> if if there is any justification then I'd say we could not this year not do it
>> you could it's it's been left there because often at least in the past maybe not in recent years but well where are we going to find do we have any place uh we can spend that do we have any money not earmarked art for, you know,
cookies. >> Oh, sure. >> Yeah. >> And well, we have a suspense account and we used to spend it regularly. >> It's like a slash account or the kitchen drawer that has everything. >> We don't know how to define what's going to come up. >> How about professional contract services? >> How how would we spend that money in as
in the commissioner? >> Um, I could I'm going to take some of these as questions because I don't think you want to wait for me to do a >> Yeah. Okay. Okay. Cuz I would do a 20 30 year on how that's been spent. >> I think to get
>> in 2024 we spent 6,491 actual. >> Yeah. I mean I can go find those things. >> And in 6,000 or 2025 we >> we approved 6,000 and we're proposing uh you know 6,000 for 2026. I'd like to
understand how was that spent and where are we at yearto date in that account? I'm going to take that down as a question and not try to >> I think it was generally I think it was for um board development um but I don't
know that all of it was um but that was a part of the strategic plan and I think it was maybe whittleled down and then overspending it caused it to grow again. But that's my
>> rough memory. >> Yeah. Just one of the questions that >> yeah there was court administration 2024 actual was 11,823 the 2025
projected was 15,000. My curiosity is what's year to date. It would be interesting to have that. That one's easier because that's those are courtmandated services. Um I forget the terminology
anymore, but uh there's there's certain services that are courtmandated. They could go in the attorney's office, for example. We used to have a court department, so we started we kept using it for those courtmandated services. It's attorney's cost for certain
services. Um, I can get you a list on that, too. But, >> you know, you could move it. It might make it might be simpler if it was right in Jean's department, but >> but it it's not her choice. It's a court
mandate when it happens. >> I don't know if you remember what those are. >> Child protection. >> Child protection is some of >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And Gan, under the law library, you had referenced that there could be a savings
of 44% which I think that translated about $4,200. Yes. >> And that the state was sort of directing saying that some of these resources and accessibility could be done on online. Um and so you know I I appreciated the
input that came from departments further understanding that so we can make decisions as to whether your comfort level you know in regard to those things. I think that would be you know >> there is an online platform right now
that's the Lexus Nexus platform. It's very expensive. It's less expensive than Wesla but it's significantly more expensive than Fastase. I'm not familiar with the fast case platform, but that is a recommendation straight from the law librarian herself. So fairly trustworthy. It would just be a matter
of convening the law library board in order to learn more about it and make that change before the new year. >> Yeah, it it's something coming to our attention that I'd like to pursue, you know, subject to, you know, the the u
comfort level of those that are under that responsibility. But >> the law library is um like significantly underutilized at this point too. So there were also recommendations in that report about how to um have more
publicity or more attention drawn to the library so that it can be a better service to the community. >> It was updated about three three years ago, you know, chairs and availability of both computer and
>> law books. So that part's done. How to create an HOA. So Brady, you in yours under auditor treasure, you talked about um some things that you could do um
the um cutting the outsourcing of TNT. And I mean when you put that in there >> um and then looking at soil and water if
we were to charge them for you know uh some accounting service that we provide. If Soil and Waters grant money is significant and it's it's it'd be one of those situations where you have a fund
that you can apply those dollars is something that makes sense that if we were to look at establishing a charge they as I understand it they have the space rent free that we provide and uh if we were to charge an accounting fee
that would come from monies that they've got that's not putting a burden on them. That would be something I think it'd be worth exploring. >> It it would um I don't know from just very short discussions with Elena, they
have very little move uh ability for any administrative type cost. That's what they come to us for. So just in a you know brief without researching uh her reaction is we got to ask you for a higher levy to cover it
because uh we we use all of the admin if there is administrative in any budgets we use all that >> and they come to us for what's outside of that and uh >> so if if it simply means it's Peter Robbie Paul whatever else then it
doesn't make sense >> but if it but exploring it based upon, you know, you're bringing it to our attention. If that's >> if it makes sense without becoming a burden to them, then that would be an area where we could trade dollars >> and they yeah, we could ask them to look
a little harder on that to see is would that make sense? >> And and I did have that conversation with her because I was curious about it after I saw it in your reduction exercise and it would be a hardship. They have had um they have had fun funding cut over the last few years.
they anticipate additional funding cut and to Brady's point when they apply for a grant >> um a lot of the administrative fees cannot be included in that they're not covered and so okay they wouldn't be able to complete the work that they do in Cook County um it would be a significant challenge for them
>> we have the same problem in firewise um >> there's nothing in the state grants for administrative >> yep >> how how do you feel about the uh the new staff five hours the week.
>> Oh, I don't want to do that. >> But that's I'm telling you what I'd do if you said you're cutting 5%. You know, I'm I'd have to look at everything including um maybe cutting that staff as opposed to
cutting the the current staff um a certain amount in order to reach the 5%. That's really the only way to do it. all travel basically for a year. Uh, a lot of that's really valuable, but if
I had to, that's where I would go for a year. >> And I I would not support that. >> Yeah. >> At all. And I would and I would >> not cut I mean the travel just >> and no one wants to go back in my office to >> um it it's not like that difficult but
like printing the tax statements >> and uh TNT statements doing them in house our equipment really isn't designed for that. You end up you know making problems with your printers and with your folding machines and stuff. They're not made for that kind of
volume. So it just uh you know what is that efficiencies of scale they just do it easier >> outside of it but I tell my staff do you want to take more time off free or you want to do this and they would do it in
order to keep working so it would be the the lesser of two evils is yeah we'll bring it back in house you can keep working and making your salary and that would be true of other things The other thing about the new position with the new position not knowing how
all that works out in the shared position with the auditors or with the recorders department >> that uh making a decision to cut cut that time back not knowing because we haven't had that
lived experience >> right >> could be challenging. But again, just having the discussion based upon things that you brought to our attention. >> For sure. I would want to keep it to reduce the overtime. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. There's a certain amount of
overtime, especially with the audit work we've been doing in the last four years. >> We're doing a lot more of this audit work than we did when we had the state auditors, for example. They never they could never have they never had time to sit with us and explain, well, why did
you make that change? Why did you make that change? What did you what did you do here? What did you do there? And that was part of the discussion with Red Path and they said, "Yes, we'll work if you want to if you want to know that and do more, we'll work with you on that." And we did and we're doing a lot more of
that. And our audit costs with the state auditors were in the mid 90s when we ended with them, 96,000 or so. And right now after um this would be the fourth
year with Red Path, we're up to 60,000. You know, if we added the cost of living onto the state auditors, assuming nothing changed. I mean, we're saving 50,000 a year in our office on that. >> And that's probably shorting it. And if
we can trade that for getting some overtime down, it's it's not only gonna um it won't be a complete wash, I don't think, on the staffing, but um it's >> dollars, you mean? >> In dollars. >> Yeah. >> But then on impro on
>> Yeah. I mean, I've got somebody who's burning out on not taking they're always maxed on their time off because they can't take it. >> No. >> And it's like it's you know, I keep saying, well, it's going to get better. We're going to we're going to get more efficient. >> You're getting more efficient. It's
going to >> And at a certain point, it's uh you just kind of run up against the wall. That's all. >> And with the other side of that position with the recorder's office, we're already paying for a temporary employee for those hours. So, I mean, it's it's
kind of a wash in that way, too. >> Yeah. They they needed they've always needed at least a part-time person there because if two of them are off or six, somebody's got to come and cover it. And if they're, you know, a busy summertime,
uh, sometimes one isn't enough, you got to have somebody to come in, part of that time at least, and two of them, they need to go to a training or something. They want to, they don't want to shut the office down. So would it be fair to say that uh when tasked with
looking at where you'd cut 5% that you you did that dutifully but uh really having you know an honest conversation with you you'd hate to do that for how it impact things. >> Yeah. No, I wouldn't I wouldn't want to
do that. Um >> it would it would be you wouldn't you don't know where it would affect the service. You just have less time. you wouldn't answer phone calls. You wouldn't get back to people as quickly as you do. Um sometimes that's that's
not that bad. But um I think in the long run it would it would affect um it would affect others outside of us, other departments >> and we could have additional staff turnover as a result of it as well because we have staff like Brady said in that department that aren't able to take
their vacation time and that's not not an environment we want to encourage for our staff. >> Okay. Any other thoughts or questions? >> No. >> Is your list done? >> Yeah, I got I got a list. But um so I I
would just go through um on on the assessor um the department proposes moving the monies dedicated to the boundary water appraisal which is 28,350
and uh have been part of that discussion with the counties that are affected by that this year and um part of the problem is is that the DNR sets the parameters in which that appraisal would take place which means they've sort of
coralled you in you know into the uh conclusion that they've come up with that assessment. So there's discussion as to whether it'd be worth making that investment given the fact that you can't do an appraisal by normal
practices. You got to do it the way they do it, which sort of leads you to the end that they are at. >> I think that our efforts are better invested in trying to get legislation that protects us and then moving into the evaluation moving forward to work in
it. So I I think that that given the discussions we had and the things I think that that's an area that we could I would I would agree with that recommendation that we we take a different approach given the limitations
that we have with the DNR setting how we could do it. >> You mean the feds >> the forest service? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Well, yeah. >> Yeah. This is federal help. So >> yeah, >> it's US Forest Service. >> I don't Yeah. I'm not. >> Is that a recommendation that we don't do that?
>> Yeah. Yeah. That we don't that we don't. Uh so here's >> that's the first I've heard of this. >> The department proposes moving the monies dedicated to the 2028 BWCA appraisal under contract services uh to 2027 or encourage state representatives
that they work on a legislative fix that intends to set a floor >> for tight blacknick payments. Uh given the DNR is dictating the methodology used for any appraisal. The outcome in the appraisal may be predetermined. Recommend move removing the 2026 budget
levy reduction of 28,350. Um, >> yeah. Anyway, >> so so to be clear, these 5% reduction exercises are not recommendations from staff. These are not what we want to do.
These are in response to the request for us to come up with a 5% cut. And then like I said, I went through each and every one of them and identified areas where we might be able to make some changes but that weren't a risk to us as a county. This to me is a is a risk to
the county if we weren't. I think that with some of the smaller departments, there's just nowhere to cut. >> So, it's more challenging. And >> I agree with that. But but it's not it's not minimizing the importance of the of the BWCA appraisal.
It's just whether or not this investment at this point in time, I mean, when we had that discussion, we debated whether or not it was worth the investment. And so, we're deliberating whether we want to invest it given the limitations set
by the individual that's making the the entity, government entity that's making the decision. And so, >> that's why I think it it is something that should be evaluated. And when you're looking at your tactical approach, you can say, are we better off
going to a legislative approach than we are an appraisal that is rigged? That >> I I just wanted to make sure that it was clear that these are not staff recommendations. That's that's >> that's what I was confused. You said it was a recommendation. I was like that was the first I heard of it. Last I
heard is we want to save for this because last time we had no leverage. Last time they're like this is our appraisal >> and that's what it is. And now we're like, we want an independent one so we can compare and have something to stand out. >> That's true. But when that decision was made relative to the discussion with all
of the representatives in the counties affected at the most recent meeting this year, >> we're vacasillating on whether it's even worth doing it given the fact that it's rigged. >> Yeah. >> And so that's what we're saying. It might be a and when I say the
department, it's the department that is saying this. If we ask the question, how would you do it? The department is making the recommendation. Here's they're the one that's saying this is where you might do it. In the discussion
with Brady, what we're doing is fleshing out to the extent that that they would support that other than just an exercise that says, "Well, throw it out because it's not going to make any difference anyway." >> If Yeah, I'm speaking for Bob. I'd rather he was here, but I my guess is
he's saying >> if it's an eitheror, >> he says >> that I I would cut that before I cut staff. >> Right. >> Those are those are those are his two choices. I mean, that's that's Yeah, >> I I get the impression that you're
leaning more on the exercise as recommendations than just options. >> Well, let's let's put it this way. Why would we do the exercise if it didn't inform potential decisions? Yeah, options. Yeah, but not recommendations. That's what
>> Well, I don't it doesn't have to be. What I'm saying is that in understanding the understanding of the word recommendation. If we ask a department where would you cut their recommendation is this or you
could say their suggestion but it's coming from the department. It's not us saying you should do this. the department is saying in response to that exercise, this is what I recommend. So, >> perfect.
>> So, we're talking about Is >> here. >> Thank you. So I we're just talking about you know when we looked at whether we deferred or you know the evaluation contribution 28,000 >> when we had that meeting uh in Two
Harbors where you know with the we were vacasillating on whether it would be effective or not given the fact that it seemed like it was rigged. >> Yeah. So St. Louisis County was going to have their attorneys look at it and see, you know, let's say we we did pay for
and have our own appraisal and it said a number something significantly different than what the Forest Service was coming up with. You know, what's the next step of action? Uh if they just say, well, it is what it is, you know, legal recourse. So, St. St. Louis County was looking
into that and I know you know there's been some other efforts to try and write some new legislation right >> in Washington to kind of put a floor on that payment. So I haven't heard anything back from St. Louis County on their their legal opinion or whether or
not they feel that an appraisal would be valuable to us. But uh I can certainly reach out to Julie Marinucci and and see where that landed. >> Yeah. Don't you think in the discussion that we had in uh Silver Bay or wherever that was two harbors that uh there was a
degree of uncertainty as to whether or not it would be worth the investment given the fact that we felt that we were restricted in in what would be normal practice when it comes to an evaluation. And so my point is is that with that uncertainty and and sort of the rigging
of the the way we go about this is that we might be better off trying to encourage legislation and things that that would have a a louder voice than investing monies in something that we
appeared in that discussion was rigged. >> Yeah. So I know you know that was that was exactly what St. County's concern was is, you know, is it is it even worth investing in this when we don't really know >> what is our recourse if if we still are in a disagreement with with two
appraisals. >> Yeah. >> Um I know according to the Forest Service manuals and policies and procedures, there is a process and you know part of that involves looking at two appraisals which you know the last time around we didn't have one. We just kind of
reviewed their appraisal and gave our input and provided some additional information. But I do think that the the county owned or county um commissioned appraisal would have more weight. You know, I think it would be a better
argument than what we came with in 2018. The question of whether or not, you know, how we we we kind of think that that appraisal could be anywhere up to $250,000, $300,000. Um, but you know, that's kind of just
that's that's our best guess is what you know it would involve if you're contracting an appraiser who's also going to be using some additional resources like the um the experts who are familiar with mineral valuations and things like that. it could just get it
could get astronomically expensive and you know if we don't have a guarantee that you know our appraisal would hold up um is it is it worth investment >> and that's where waiting for I mean we have a piece of the puzzle which is St. Louis County, you know, advising, but I
know that was a concern in our discussion as to whether or not it would be worth the investment if in fact we don't have acceptance. And the point is is that if we followed normal practice relative to evaluation and and they would they would commit to
allow us to do that under normal best practice, it would make sense. Uh, but it seems like it's skewed and and unfortunately if if it's, you know, manipulated in that way. That's what I'm just saying. But >> yeah, >> it' be it'd be good to hear back from
St. Louis's. >> So, St. Louis County um asked for copies of some some legal opinions that we had actually received on the 2009 or or it was probably the 90 the 98 appraisal. Um, we had reached out to a law firm out
of Duth and there were some legal opinions about, you know, our objection at that time and so that's what they were going to to review and I'm happy to, you know, provide those to you guys. I I found those in a box down in the basement. So, um, it was a very valuable
find, but I think that, you know, it's it's a good read for in in regards to the discussion you're having here. >> Yeah. Well, I think your awareness and and the discussions that have been part of this and and the advocacy on the part of St. Louis County, I mean, this has
been ongoing that your opinion and assessment on this is, you know, is valuable and informs us on this, but based upon the discussion we had most recent, I just felt that this maybe was something that we were uncertain. And so
that's why that's why I was proposing that maybe we do >> not put this in the 2026 budget. >> I will also reach out to staffers for our senators and find out where that legislation is at. It's been several
weeks before or since I had contact with them. >> The re the appraisals are every um 10 years. So 2028. >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> And we're going into 2026. Can we keep the 27,000 as a placeholder for now until we hear from St. Louis County?
What they're >> We certainly could up until you set the final levy. Uh that could be pulled out. And >> okay. >> Um you know, at the same time, we could also just drop this as a one-time expense. If we if we feel in 2027 that we need to do it,
>> you know, it it could be uh used out of some of the balance we have. Well, and and I think a a we'll call it strategy which is multi-levelled. Which one is the best? And that's where I think that the affected counties are
trying to make that determination. And a piece of the puzzle that we don't have is is the opinion coming back from St. Louis County legal. If we could have that on a timely basis, that would help us to understand that. I will reach out to Julie and in the meantime I'll share
you share with you guys those letters from our previous legal opinions. >> Okay. >> And u you know maybe Jean wants to weigh in on those >> and and and obviously the importance of those dollars to us that $28,000
to bring integrity into that is is money well invested in combination with all the affected counties. So, it's not like we're we're trying to make a short-term decision that affects a long-term huge, you know, benefit to us. But, yeah.
>> Okay. Thank you for doing that. >> Yeah, no problem. I I'll shoot those over. Um I do know that our previous county attorney said that, you know, they wanted to hold those those uh legal opinions close. >> Um just so just so you guys know, in the last goound, we never did share those
with the Forest Service. We kind of held those to to our >> That's good to know. >> Okay. >> Thanks for being available. >> Any other questions, comments about anything? >> Well, um, one thing I have a question
on. I mean, I got multiple questions here, but uh, a significant one and it speaks to the issue you're talking about these things that are funded and you know, where are they? Give me an example. One would be that in the EDA, the EDA had fundings that car that came
through the care provision that initiated, as I understand it, that the loan, not the loan, but the business development. That's $200,000. $200,000 in business development.
In my first term, I sat on the revolving loan committee and we were pretty active since and I that's one of the committees I'm we have not met. Here we are in November. We have not met once and
there's different things that influence that. But as I understand it, and you can maybe clarify this, but we've got a revolving loan that we try to make a competitive rate and help businesses by coming alongside. That
revolving loan fund was established by the legislature. That was the pool of money that we get it paid back and then the interest continues to make it available to help come along businesses. Now you got care funds that came in and
funded $200,000 for the EDA. And the EDA business development makes that money available free of charge, no payback. It's just giving money away. And so the point is that if we had that money that
was established by care funds co and now it's entirely $200,000 levy dependent and we're seeing that our loan thing what would I as a business want free money or to borrow it and that's a
question I have >> so >> yeah it started before um co but it wasn't so big and then co really was the lifeline uh the co funding was the lifeline and because of the impact that had on local businesses, the EDA made a
conscious decision to continue that because it was so um uh it it it leveraged dollars. It was exponential, I guess. And we have uh I think it's St. Kate's business school doing an analysis of exactly what that
is and the dollars gone versus the dollars created and all that. But in the larger conversation, the ADA is hoping to incorporate the revolving loan funds so that we have a myriad and and use it as a package for business development
because you're absolutely right since the uh uh substantial increase in the business development grant fund uh the revolving loan fund has gotten much less use. Um and I'm assuming that's why I
don't know that for sure. And so incorporating that all together is going to allow us to um just better better support uh our businesses and what's most appropriate. Um because some fall into the grant, some would fall into the revolving loans, some would fall into
just traditional lending from a bank. Um, so it's a a time of transition, but >> that's one of those things I'm evaluating, you know, where our limited funds get put that this is this is $200,000 that is entirely levy
dependent. Another area would be the the monies that were that were funding the wage subsidy for child care >> that those those dollars came out of reducing the fund balance in public
health human services but now it's on the agenda entirely levy dependent >> and if you if you look at the u I mean if you if I have a evaluation of looking
at discretionary, you know, funding, whatever. Uh, coming off of this morning's meeting and presentation, public health age friendly community. When you look at all of those things like that, if I want to know who's meeting that need, care
partner certainly is meeting that need. The hub is certainly meeting that need. And so when I when I look at evaluating these words and the things that are presented are are great, but the substance of that comes in where we support organizations that partner to
make age friendly community real. And so if you look at our population and you look at the allocation of dollars, how much are we targeting that is going to a major population within our community? And and for me, I would I would take
more dollars and invest in in the hub because they're creating the social inclusion, the social participation, the transportation, the meals. It's it's they're meeting that criteria that we've identified. We should get behind and
support those things because that's a large demographic. So, um, this is where I think when it comes to fully funding levy dollars, where are we going to put it that has the greatest
impact? And do we know the population that we're serving? >> I think it's both ends. It's the senior citizens. It's the hub and it's the child care. >> And it's the children and the parents who have to pay so much for the child
care and the child care organization have to have a budget too. So I think we have to think of both spectrums and those in the middle. A lot of folks that I visit within the West End, they're just making their living. They're going to work, dropping their child off, and
they have no more room for anything else. So, >> just understand that it's like a position that's created with funded grant money >> that now that grant money is gone and we want to retain the position. You need to know that when it comes to the loans of
the EDA that is 100% led >> the grants. >> Grants. >> You said loans. >> Oh, yeah. That's right. the grant that line item and then with with regard to the subsidy for the child care that is
now 100%. So we're looking at $254,000 that is levy dependent. We also have to look at the fact that now with our LEC and our transfer station that is new monies that affect the levy that we've added on this year. So we're adding an
awful lot on top of on top of insurance at 11.8 and whatever else. And I'm just saying we have to figure out where we're going to prioritize because some of these things were dollars that were there and that's great, but when they go away, we're
asking our community, you better pay for this. >> And that's why I sent the AEOA because you'd mentioned, you know, that you thought that they haven't asked for anything in specific except last year they did, but this year they didn't. So 31,000 last year, >> you know. So
>> and and that was for a building. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> And what do we we don't pay to be a member of the AEOA. >> Yeah. >> Right. We we don't have a like for the Arrowhead Regional >> Corrections. >> Corrections. We pay a fee every year.
>> Yeah. That's gone down 19%. >> Yes. in the last since >> but but we are we receive so many so much money from or so many services from
AEOA that I feel kind of like we should like do something to thank them for being here >> you know >> that's an assessment >> yeah I was just thinking that it'd be really great if we could look at um
prop property property tax rebate programs and what options we could have with that because there are people in our county who can afford a lot >> and there are people in our in our community who can afford nothing. And um I think we can come up with a creative
way to uh meet the needs of our community and um not have the burden so heavy on the underprivileged. And um I don't know how exactly, but it's an
avenue that I think is is really worth exploring because um our needs are ever growing. uh uh many of our population's uh income is never growing >> and so there's a conflict there and it's
going to continue forever unless we get some way to make that balance out. >> Um >> many states are struggling with property taxes. The Tribune has had two big articles about it. Some states are
actually saying no property taxes, it's income tax. you're really jumping from one kettle to the other >> but you know there's very much discontent out >> in the greater >> world >> and it's coming to editorials in the
paper and all that. So >> maybe yeah >> our our bonding for our our new bonding this year plus the bonding that we already have amounts to 7.2 9.72% of levy.
So uh this is why we just we have to if and if we looked at it visually and just saw you know the proportion of all these things contributing to levy if if if
our stewardship response is to use fund balance to reduce costs I think we've we've abdigated our responsibility in trying to manage costs coupled with, you know, looking at fund balance and
still keeping where we need to be to attract good rates and be solvent in case of a, you know, a calamity. But but uh we got we have to make some hard decision. It's going to be based upon the evaluation. I think that's where the
strategic element says what is it we value? Do we know who we serve? Do we know what we have to do? and what are the be nice if we had it but we're dealing with it here and it's it's an uncomfortable process in the highway
department because people have grown accustomed to these things but reality is reality >> and and Robbiey's statement is is a good one you know >> that um we are a county of limited resources and we shouldn't be spending
taxpayer dollars on things we are not responsible for That doesn't mean that we can't as you suggest but it means that our stewardship responsibility is to see things in that context and I appreciate departments that come in and challenge
us to think in that regard. >> I did contact um AMC yesterday. I was trying to see if I could collect some data on what percentage of the budget is discretionary fundings in most counties and they don't have >> they don't have that data. Yeah. But
what um the person I contacted what she told me is that she did believe 15.8% is high. And so not that again not that that's a bad thing but I think it's important to know >> that the number of funds that we
allocate external to our core functions is is high in comparison >> and it's NOS's are you know are an issue and you you look at it and you just see um we just have to we just have to look
at it and it's not comfortable but it but it is something we have to evaluate and and knowing you know what other counties do and stuff is gives us context in that process but as I've said when I've in my first term I'd ask people do you do this they said no and I
said why not is it not because you don't believe in these things or that they have value he said no it's just a matter of priority and it's >> anyway so >> so one of the things that uh um has happened in in my new role is I've had a number of people come to me and say
they've not a number a couple people come to me and say I've I have a request in for funding and what is your process and why was it cut from what I had asked for and I don't have the best way to answer that um and and mostly just
because I haven't been here this is my first time going through the process >> but e even now as we as we go through this process process over the next month. your point about the 200,000 and I know um you know HUD I think I
think the number was 35,000 if I'm not mistaken um in the budget and um >> this payment in l of taxes the state >> no the HUD center >> oh the hub the hub thank you
>> yeah I'm sorry hub >> um you know I think that they were one of the organizations that I think had requested more funding And so what is going to be our process >> as we move forward to make sure is it is it the number that's already in there?
Are we going to go through them one by one or what what is what process are? >> Yeah. My my thought as I look at this is um that we owe it to the organizations
that applied and had received approval through PHS to follow through with that. But I think we need a policy that outlines guard rails when we can have
discretionary funding and when we may not. And it needs to take a look at our overall budget. It needs to look at fund balance and what we know we have to have for fund balance, what is extra and then
prioritizing those things. I do think that when we have funding and people apply that criteria is important and a number of years ago we established that criteria to align with the health
assessment, the community health assessment um and got rid of annual costs to the county that went towards wonderful things but that really weren't our job, >> that were not a function of government.
Um, I think of um the Art Colony. I think of the Northshore Music Association. It was really hard to pull those back >> because historically we've done them. >> But we need to establish criteria and we need to establish a bottom line of what
we're going to have in our budget and that we only provide discretionary funding when we are above that. But I personally feel very uncomfortable this year telling organizations who believe they were getting these funds, "Oh, we're not doing that."
>> Right. >> That's where I'm coming. >> Yeah. And and that's why I asked the question, too, because I think I mean, similar to the conversation we had earlier, if we're not going to fund at the certain level, making sure that organizations have notice that this this
isn't a given. It may not happen next year or the year after um depending on what what the climate the budget forecast and climate is as we move forward. >> Precisely. >> Yeah. >> And did we not though when we it was it was not set in stone. It said
this is what is proposed to be given to these entities. But we have a levy discussions. So you might not get this full amount. And we did state that for this year and I'm not suggesting that we not give out
anything because I mean we said we were going to but going forward to think and yes the the recipients met the criteria but why is the county funding school districts and how
much more money does the taxpayer have to give to the YMCA? Like I mean we're well over I mean it's hundreds of thousands of dollars and it's not discounting the value of the
facility or anything but it's >> there are other I mean yes and I have a real soft spot these days now for the hub but the services and the the how that facility is becoming more and more
central to our community folks. for their health. It's it's like it it shouldn't have to compete with nonprofits. It's because they are providing services
that where else would you get 20 people to sit in a room to get their toes worked on or their feet worked on? Like just try to think of a maybe the basement of the Catholic church. That's pretty big. word, but you know, it has
more value than not more value, it it provides a service and a space that we don't have anywhere else in this county at this moment. And it's only they have once upon a time and I don't know if
anyone has yet Brady found out the reason why they're no longer on the uh levy why they're no longer a line item for the county. >> Well, it used to be a public health function, right? >> Like it was a county function and then
and then that's why they're not is because they're not a county function. I don't know. >> They are 501c3. I don't know why that happened something that counties fund >> but it maybe was a situation like this where they're like we got to cut somewhere and so then I mean I don't know that's just >> yeah it just some of those that fall
under that ph is doesn't seem I don't see the connection there between that entity and public health and human services I mean it's a sort of a stretch on some of those >> oh it's direct all the services I'd say that the hub providers >> No I'm just I'm just saying so schools
and the YMCA and everything else in other words, we can we can rationalize and sort of pull it in there. But if I'm saying if I look at if I look at care partners >> Yeah. >> I'd say yeah, that's definitely >> public health. >> Yeah. >> But I but I don't I don't necessarily
see the school as public health. We can make it public health, but I and and the why I'm saying, well, you say, well, yeah, but how much are we giving? So So that that's I think we should clear that up is we're not giving the why anything. No, I know. But it's a request that's
there. But we we make a decision, we say no. >> We made a decision to say no. But but that's nevertheless it's in there and we have given. >> So I'm just saying >> since we changed it into public health human services and you look who we've
given it to in some cases I find it a stretch the connection between those organizations. And I when we were doing this before, I felt it ended up being that whoever did the best presentation got an analysis of the organization's benefit and fiscal
management. So I had a town hall meeting and asked people, people want your money, what would you like to ask them? And then that created an application process that organizations have to do similar to ILRB and and Lloyd K. And so
then the first time we went through that, the board chair says to the board, "What do you think?" And the and the response from commissioner was, "It forces me to have to look at the financial," which is what we should be doing. What's a viable organization that's resourceful, generates money, and
contributes to its own way. We have organizations that come in say, "Unless we get money, we're going to have to close our doors." But they're dependent on us to keep their doors open. And we have to evaluate, well, what are you doing to keep your doors open? Let's
just take historical society. How come Chickwock, how come they're, you know, one time, one time we gave them money? But, but other than that, now somebody can say, well, they live in a rich district, they got big players,
whatever. But we need to get out there and find ways to help organizations generate. So it's not on the backs of people to have to fund them. That's that's what I would say. So >> and then an we were at the um joint powers or whatever it's called these
days and the mayor stated >> the leadership committee. Yeah. >> Yeah. brought this up about a request being submitted to the city for assistance, financial assistance. and she pointed out that they don't have a
policy and they're not often asked, but they better get a policy >> and they created one and it was passed. >> Yeah. >> And it's about not providing funding for these groups. Um yeah, we can share that
policy with you. It's a very short page. If we develop a policy, it's going to be much broader than that because we have many different kinds of things with non-mandate mandated and um discretionary funding. But I think it's
something to look at and um >> I need to I need to um >> I need to leave. >> Oh, thank you. >> Had a one:00 meeting to >> Yeah. Okay. Anything else? Otherwise, we can direct to the department heads. We can direct to Brady.
>> Where do we go from here, I guess, is my question. >> Um, I I don't have a recommendation. Um, this again being my first time through this process. We we Brady and I had talked about a timeline, but in terms of
next steps, if there's any additional information, I don't really have a recommendation. And I feel like we've given I think we've tried to be creative and thought through everything we can give you in terms of information and I feel like Brady is very very responsive
when we have questions or need amounts or some type of analysis. I found department heads to be really helpful >> and we will get together and all the things that we've talked about on using some of this available cash. Okay, >> we'll be coming back with that. I would
say too, you know, having been as other commissioners have and having been part of this process before, this that this this process has been more information to make decisions on. I think there's more integrity in it. I think we have
certainly a lot more that we can do to demonstrate our stewardship responsibility when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars, but I I do applaud the effort that's been put forward. Um I I would like to eliminate two things. One
is that um we don't have time and we're not we're not um proactive in making sure that we build integrity in the process. In other words, I don't like to say, well, gee, we're backed up against it. We got to make a decision. Eliminate
that. Be more intentional in a process that builds integrity into what we do in the budgeting. And the other is to come to the point where when we have these allocation for uh non-mandated that that we don't say we can't do
anything at this point because we don't want to discourage it that we have said year after year and we've never done anything to change that so that we don't get in a point that we're backed in a corner. In other words, we have to address it if it's an issue. Don't don't
come to the point where we say, "Well, we can't say that now because it'd be too hurtful." Because that's always been our scapegoat when it comes to the stewardship response will be dollars that we maybe don't have. So, I'm just saying we need to look at that. >> So, with those two things, I mean, I
wonder if when we have our Go ahead. >> I want the Hobbit realign item. >> I don't I don't know the amount. um that would suffice for them. Um they would be better able to answer that, but
I would like them to be a line item and I think that maybe we don't even do discretionary. >> Well, you think you have to look at >> the future. We we honor what we have done is absolutely >> I think we need a policy that defines
how something becomes a line item. We cannot say we value this. We have to have criteria >> because if you say it for one, you gota know. >> Yeah. No, I I agree with that. But and I agree with what you're saying because it connects to things that we say and do we
know our community? If you look at 21 what 20.9% of our population is uh elderly population lives alone and how important is socialization? I mean, those things tell you something
about where are we meeting that need. Um, but yeah, and and you can be sure that everybody that applies to U Lloyd K. Johnson or any of these other things, not everybody gets funded. >> Oh, right. And not everybody got funded
that did apply for this. >> And so when people ask, you know, why aren't we funded? And we this is the first year we've actually given out memorial grants on behalf of our daughter and we had a number of applications and I created a matrix that
was a discipline because it can get so emotional and I said I'm not saying take emotion out of it but we need the discipline to go through and then to keep that funding source there. The interest earned on investment is what we will allocate each year otherwise we'll
be done. we can't spend money. We need to have a funding source that's consistent. So, I think that a policy that disciplines us is important. >> So, what what I was going to recommend is when we have and and we need to set the dates for this. So, I'll send an
email out trying to confirm dates for strategic planning day, but I'm also wondering if we have a couple hours and have a work session set aside to plan the next year's budget process, which would include um policy
um and then a timeline. And actually, I don't know that we need a special meeting. We could perhaps use a cow to do this. Um but do that February or March so that we have a timeline ahead of
>> I would I would recommend that I mean Brady yourself whomever uh that we identify everything everything that uh we are doing right now. >> What does that mean? that that means
that uh we've got um the things that you outlined in your overview that you gave us in the email tells departmentally what we're doing. Okay. So then we say what what else are we doing? Well, we have revolving loan that we're doing. We
have the uh uh the funding that's everything that we're funding every every place that dollars are going. We should identify all of those things. We've talked about the fact that when we look at governance, what are those things that are mandated and what are
those things that are discretionary? We should identify everything that we're aware of right now in those two categories. Because that's what we're going to have to do as far as an assessment and then a policy informs how we sift through that.
>> So, if I may real quickly, I see those as as two separate things. So, we've got the we have the funding that we give to other organizations as discretionary and then what I'm hearing you say is the internal operations, what we're doing
that's mandated versus non-mandated >> and that's what you're asking for us to collect. Correct. >> Well, correct. But I see those all everything that we've got our fingers in right now is and it's like the highway department saying here's everything that we do and here's some things that we
shouldn't necessarily be doing. And so I'm saying we need to put it in the context of the whole yes departmentally mandated and those things that aren't mandated. The thing with the mandated is it's telling you what you what you have to do and the other things that we have
chosen to do whether they're internally within our governance or outside with the discretionary and those things >> and we can do that in buckets of work. I think for us to take the time to collect every single thing that we do would be a
huge >> amount of time for staff. >> Um, so we can we can think about how we can collect that and do that, but I'm a little bit worried about expending a ton of >> resources. I'm not looking for a lot of detail. I'm just saying I'm just saying you you could sit down and write down.
That's why I think that a few people would probably have an awareness of that by just sitting. All you do is write the heading. Don't write the particulars of the detail and flesh it out. Just give us the heading. >> Um I just wanted to come back to the policy that the city of Grand Marray
developed and one of the things it says is if the city is going to support any activities by a nonprofit, it will be in the form of a service agreement. So it is a service agreement that is required.
And it is a one-time grant. >> A lot of our obligation is driven by owning the building. >> And that is true. And that's another thing we need to look at. What is the land? What are the buildings that we own and should we own them?
>> Yeah. Agree. >> Because what happens is that that you have people asking for money and another fun thing. >> They they say, "I want to be a line item." because they don't like to have to go all the work to ask for something and not know where they're going to get it. And people when you talk to them
then they say what we need to do is we need to get a building that the county owns because then we got to shoe in. We've got to be careful that >> you know. >> Okay. >> Anyway, >> anything else?
>> All righty. Administrator Trouble has her list. >> I have my list. You have your list. >> It's a collective list. I'll share. >> Thanks everyone so much for your input for the folks who join us now and later.
>> And being no other business, we are adjourned. Thank you. >> Okay. >> And we can leave. Oh, wait. We'll just go across the hall. >> Well, I feel like this is job security because >> it depends upon how you handle it.
>> That's my positive way of Oh my goodness. Oh, we just