Good morning county to order please. >> Commissioner Coring >> here. >> Commissioner Lovekkey >> present. >> Commissioner Bars >> here. >> Commissioner Ramsey >> here. >> Commissioner Lee
>> here. >> Good. >> Well, good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chair and commissioners. Um Jason McCoy. I'm here with um IT Director Sean Strong from the city of Brainard to present an opportunity for us to broadcast our
board meetings um on the Brainer community channel. This right now our board meetings are stored on YouTube, but this would also allow it on public television. um it would be no cost to the county and Sean can give a little bit bit more
background on what they're doing and how they've been doing it for the past handful of years 20 >> 20 years. So to get everyone the same speed um I'll just kind of go through where we where we've been and where we're at. Uh 20 years ago the city of
Brainard started the cable channel through the high school and Lakes Media Collaborative. It ran for about 15 years until 2019, I think it was, when both the high school and the city hall got remodeled. So, all the head-end equipment got taken out and the channel ceased to exist for a couple years. And
at that time, we were just streaming to YouTube for a couple years during the pandemic. In fact, we were in this room for like a year or so, I think, using your stuff. in mid22, so three years ago, we partnered with the Central Lakes College
to uh revive the cable channel. Um, and the city, I should back up, the city collects a franchise fee from cable subscribers in the city of Brainard. It's 5% a year, turns out to be about $120,000, half of which goes to our general fund and half of which goes to pay for this
cable channel. We take that money and hand it straight over to CLC and say and and say please operate our cable channel. So they get all of that half of the money about 60 grand and that pays for the connections between city hall and CLC and part of their staff time and everything else. Um
so we've been back on the air for about three and a half years now I guess. Um we typically stream all city meetings live. Um the college staff comes over to all of our meetings which are evening meet most of them are evening meetings.
Uh operates the whole thing for us. So there's no uh labor involved for city staff which is lovely. Um and then we rebroadcast those meetings throughout the day. There's 10 12 meetings rebroadcasting for the twoe gap between the meetings or a month gap between the
meetings. So we have 24 hours a day on a cable channel. Lots of capacity. Well, I shouldn't say that because I don't want too many other meetings out there. But I've approached I emailed the county and emailed the school district and said, you know, we could sure broadcast your meetings in a time slot on a regular basis as a service to the cable
subscribers, which obviously city of Briner's looking out for the city of the residents, but I think the cable territories go cover most of Crowing County as far as I know. So Charter and Spectrum or sorry Spectrum and CTC cover a good swath of
central Minnesota. So I think a good chunk of Crowing County would see these meetings too in addition to the city meetings and the school district meetings. So um and I guess one thing I'd say is ours would not be live on that. It would be a pre-recorded. So after you guys have your meeting, we would download that, get that over to
Sean or CLC and then they would just upload it to their cable channel and it would fall into one of the open time slots um that they have available. Y. >> So it' be exactly what we put on YouTube at this point in time. >> Yes. >> No cost to us. >> Correct. >> Correct.
>> Just a service to the charter or the uh whatever you call your group. >> Spectrum and CTC subscribers. >> Okay. >> On the cable side. Yeah. >> Any discussion? >> Mr. Chair, >> Commissioner Lubkkey.
Um, we will also still have it on YouTube also. >> Correct. Yes. Nothing nothing would change there. We'd still keep continuing doing what we're doing. It would just be after the fact we' download that that meeting and upload it to the cable channel and for it to fall into one of
their time slots. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Y >> So Debbie, if you can tell us what's the next step in this process. There's no action that's needed from you to know a formal action that would be needed to do so. Basically, this was just to kind of
gauge the the appetite of the board if this is something that you are interested in pursuing. Jason and Sean would work together to get done what needs to get done and we would add that rotation onto that cable access channel. >> I'll just weigh in and say I don't see a downside to this. So, I would support
it. >> I would too. >> I'm absolutely interested in doing it. Well, >> I think you have your direction. >> All right, we'll we'll move forward on that. >> Probably get started in January, I would guess. >> Sounds perfect. >> Awesome. Thank you guys. Thank you, Sean. >> Thank you.
>> Next up, Gary and Chris. >> Sorry, Chris. >> Good morning. Next up is Chris, not Gary. >> He's always back there. Uh just wanted to uh give you an update on where we're at with the uh with the ordinance revision process. Um
seems I missed one of my documents, but that's okay. Uh so the we had a uh so just to maybe a recap to go back to um looking at where we're at. Uh we started uh this process back in October with here at the committee of the whole. We
went through the 30-day comment period that started October 21st, went to November 21st. We ended up um it says nine comments, but one person had three. So, we actually have seven comments, but one person had a few extra comments. So, we had seven total comments that we
received. And uh um and then we got some information from the DNR. They gave us a conditional approval letter. Uh we also had some more coordination with MPCA. they had we had to make a few um administrative changes to our septic side of the ordinance. Um and then we
also found uh when I was looking through article 15, I was I was on the Office of Cannabis Management website and found out that they had the wrong reference for um for a piece of statute that had to be in there and and so we need to fix that as well while we're at it. It was
it was actually in the OCM. It was in their um their model ordinance and so we pulled it in. we just use their model ordinance and so OCM now is going to be changing their model ordinance to show that counties have to use 394 and a city or town has to use 462 um for that part of the statute. So
that's going to get changed um at the OCM level. But um we had a public hearing on um last Thursday before the planning commission, the board of adjustment. Uh we had a couple folks there um that provided some testimony um
wanted to make sure that we weren't um reducing or um lessening the restrictions or lessening the requirements for vegetation on our natural environment lakes. And uh and those the two that made the testimony, they were the only ones. And then um uh
the board um considered and had some conversation amongst themselves and they made a recommendation to the county board to um adopt the ordinance as it was um written as it was amended to the county board. They wanted to make one
change though. We have a current definition. We have we use a current terminology of of we use the term vegetated buffer and we don't have a definition for that. And so the board uh the plan commission board of adjustment requested we would use the term no maintenance buffer which we have a
definition for that in the ordinance. So we know what that means. Basically it means to not no maintenance buffer means that whatever width depth back from the lake. It means you agree to maintain that to no lower than an 8 in height um is how we kind of term that. And so that
was their recommendation. But they also um understood that there might be some discussion about is 25 ft the right number. And so um part of their discussion um mentioned that they would under they would be um
how do I want to say it not okay with but they they understand that maybe there might be a little bit of a of a smaller buffer maybe on our recreational development and our general development lakes and you know we had talked about what that might look like and there was some discussion you know maybe 10 ft wouldn't be the right buffer on our GD
lakes but they were really want to make sure that a 25 ft buffer was what we had on the natural environment lakes. Uh and so um that was the recommendation that they brought back to um to the board for your consideration. If it's okay, I just want to take a step back and just do a
couple of just a um more of a a reminder of currently what do we have in the ordinance as far as buffer requirements because the idea of having buffer or you know requiring buffers on shoreline is not new to our ordinance. Uh we currently if you have a situation right now where you're a lot owner and you
live on the lake and you want to come get a permit and you're over 20% impervious you're over that 20% hard cover you're going to have to put a buffer on your shoreline. If you come in and you apply for a variance and uh the board of adjustment in their role there
as a PCBOa as a as a board of adjustment um they will typically require a buffer in those situations because you're building closer to the lake and so they would have a buffer there. So, the idea of a of requiring buffers is not this is not a new concept for the county. And I think it's important to point out that
when we're looking at this slice or this part of the buffer, this would only apply to those folks that are applying for a permit and they're coming in for a shoreline recreational use area. And that shoreline recreational use area is basically where you're going to clear um and basically have a spot 30% of your
shoreline where you're going to be able to put things like a beach or maybe you're going to put like a um maybe you want to put like your water accessory structure. Those areas where you're going to be using that part of the shoreline. And what this does is it basically just says the remaining 70% of that shoreline, we want that to be um
put into a buffer. So, if you've already got a beach, you know, you've already, so if you say if you're on, you know, Pelican and White Fish, you already got that great beach and you're not coming in for a permit, you're not going to be asked to do this. It's only going to be for those folks that are asking for a permit to really intensively remove
vegetation on 30% of your shoreline. We're just saying the 70%, you know, we'd like that to be remain in more of a natural buffer and not be mowed down straight to the water's edge. Um, and I think Yes. >> And that goes with the property though. I mean if if >> correct >> person sells it they still get to have
whatever is present that that requirement would would transfer. >> Okay. >> And I think that you know there's always the question why why does this matter? Why is this important? And so, um, one reason that it's really, I think, important for this is that, um, we've adopted comprehensive watershed
management plans across the county for our three major wersheds, um, our four major wersheds. And every one of those, um, has a goal of wanting to restore natural vegetation, our shorelines across the lakes within the county. So, that's, you know, one of that's and
that's in our comprehensive plan for the county. That's one of our goals. Um and then the second one is that um I've been asked to sit on a committee across the state that the DNR has been putting on about um um consideration of how our natural shorelines in the state are are
are doing basically and I've been asked to represent counties on that committee and the DNR has been doing some studies and they're finding that we're losing you know quite a bit of our native our natural shoreline to the tune of about 1% every every 10 years give or take. Um and so um
because of those um you know things that we've been involved in and things that we've adopted that was the reason kind of the purpose behind the idea why this um ordinance and and having some requirements for buffers in some very strict situations and very limited. It
doesn't it's not going to apply to everybody. um you're not we're not going to come to people today and say you have to do a buffer now and and uh um if they're not coming to us for a certain type of a permit. So it's it's limited in scope, but I do think in the long run it would make a difference to maintain
and and you know help with the overall water quality of of the lakes within Crowing County. >> Questions? >> Mr. Chair, >> uh Commissioner Lee was first. >> Go ahead. You can go. That's fine. >> Oh, I'm sorry I didn't hear him. Go ahead. Go ahead, Commissioner.
>> Uh, so just so I want to make sure I'm on the same page. All existing um the way if they're already built and have it mowed to the shore, that would stay the same. Any new construction these would apply to. Correct. >> Correct. Okay.
>> Yeah. Correct. >> Thank you, >> Commissioner Lkey. Um, and that only applies to GD and, uh, general government recreational lakes, correct? >> Uh, uh, if we're talking about the the buffer in 11.20
that, uh, that the one we're introducing, that would require the buffer on GD, RD, and natural environment lakes. But doesn't isn't that already required on natural environment lakes by the uh ordinance that we have for natural environment lakes that you don't disturb
that. >> So what we have right now is a standard for our GD and our RD lakes that we um we require them to basically can't intensively clear cut and remove vegetation in shore impact zone one of
of the of a GD and an RD lake. So for a GD lake, that'd be 37 1/2 ft. For a recreational development lake, that'd be 50 ft. Uh and then we have a separate standard for a natural environment lake, which requires a 25 ft buffer. Um with with it with it now, but it doesn't it's
it's not the the the language isn't written such that we could require them to restore that if it's mowed down to the water's edge. Um and so that's why I I think it's important that um if we're going to want to really hand you know
work with these um folks on natural environment lakes um if we incorporate that into the GD and the RD standard that we have where we're we're we're managing shore impact zone one that would require a 75 ft buffer than on a natural environment lake for those lakes
that um haven't had their vegetation removed and uh and so having that in place I think is is more restrictive on a natural environment length than our current ordinance requires now. And if we adopt that section that uh that 11.20
where we're going to have the the restoration work, it would um maintain I would recommend that it would maintain at least a minimum of a 25 ft buffer for those natural environment lakes that have already mowed down to the water's edge. they would maintain that 25 ft buffer as you mentioned uh Commissioner Lubkey, but I do think um at the same
time it may make sense maybe to reduce that buffer from a 25 ft down to 10T for a for GD and the RD lakes. >> Um the only the only thing that I concerns me and I because I've run into it already um in my little time that I've been here is you buy a lot you buy
a on a natural environment lake, you go in there and you just mow it all down. You're not even looking for a permit. you just come in and mow it all down because you think you can because it's your property. Now you u you you've already gone past that impact zone. You've already gone down to the lake and
now you find that out. What do you have? Do you have a recourse to say come back and put those trees back, put put back that brush, whatever is down there, or you just say just put in some other native species, plants, and we'll call it good. Uh, that's a great question and
I think if you remember that situation we had last summer up on um up on the whitefish chain where we had um some folks uh clear cut right down and and so you know we required them to get a um a vegetation plan um done by a
professional which included planting trees, shrubs and the ground cover and we also required them to place a financial assurance in place to make sure that that work was completed um to the tune of about $50,000. So, um, we absolutely have the ability and we do
when people decide to remove that short that vegetation on the shoreline, we do have the ability to go back and make them restored and not just like you said restore it to just a bunch of, you know, maybe some grass, but to restore it back where we get the trees and the shrubs and the understory, the brush as you mentioned to come back. So, absolutely,
we have the we have that ability in the ordinance for that restoration in those situations. >> Yeah. my my main concern and and it was pretty much ever since you put this in was the fact that um you know if we go back 20 or 30 years ago there's some ordinances that we we wish we would have
been maybe a little tighter on that that now it's too late. Um I don't want to set anything up with our natural environment lakes because they are such an integral part of protecting our water quality of all the lakes by making sure that they're maintained well and they're kept in a natural environment area that
we step backwards at all. And that would be my only concern about this that we we I I agree on the general development lakes. If we can do anything we can to get people to have more vegetation in the shoreline area versus the rip wrap versus what they have. If we can get them to start going that way, that's
fine. But most of those lakes are already done. Right now we have the natural environment lakes that haven't had that impact on it yet. And I don't want to have any kind of ordinance in place that's going to push us backwards in that area because uh right now we're pretty much done with the general development lakes. All that property is
pretty much gone and it'll just be people re redoing it. Right now we do have some uh some pretty tracks of natural environment lakes that have not had any uh I don't know if you want to call it improvements, but haven't had any just
uh anybody disturbing them yet. and I would like to do everything I can to maintain that quality. That's my statement on that. And as far as your 7080 rule, on that 7080, don't we have the 7080 rule? And all we have to do that's just making sure we meet
all the MPCA and and stuff requirements. Is there any more that we have to do on that other than just uh go through it and and check mark those areas that we haven't got it right and fix it? >> Right. No, that's for when we're doing 70 this the septic side of it. They do have a provision um cuz there's 7080
through 783. There's actually four rules part of that and one of them is that requires a a local ordinance and there's a few things that they require there to be in the local ordinance and that's what MPCA staff because we adopted our ordinance for septic probably in 20
2014 2015. So it's been about 10 years and we haven't made any modifications to it since this point. And so they they've made some changes to their model ordinance. Um and then so they they identified a couple of those issues in our ordinance that need to be cleaned up and fixed. So that's 780 is more of just
a cleanup and then um administratively than it is really a change in in policy. >> Um just one other question u Mr. Chair if you don't mind on that no maintenance uh that concerns me a little bit. No maintenance is what if I go in there and I brush down to the lake and now you
come back and say you shouldn't have done that. You're going to have to leave this alone. That doesn't mean some of that woody plants and stuff are going to come up back up in there. Is that mean you you have to restore it then back to what what the pre condition was? >> So So I I think we have to remember
we're talking two different things here that we're trying to accomplish. So the first one that we're trying to accomplish is that the first part of 11.20 20 really is working with those properties that have as you mentioned not disturbed the vegetation and and that and so um situation where
somebody's on a natural environment lake and they come in and they they say they cut down all the vegetation cut down all the trees the understory we would treat that just like we did that property up on White Fish way they would have to restore that back to what it was with the tree cover and the brush and the understory but let's say we've got a
situation where somebody's got a natural environment lake that maybe um they had a lot there and it's been there for 50 years and they've been mowing it to the water's edge and now they decide they want to put a little beach in. This will give us the opportunity to require them to do a 25- ft um no maintenance buffer.
It may not be get it back to maybe the the woody the you know the trees and the shrub like you mentioned. Um but it would at least get us back to the point of where we're having that native vegetation on that shoreline which is going to slow that water down and and try to contain and collect some of those pollutants before they run into the
water. So they're two separate things I think that we're dealing with in the ordinance right now. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. >> Go ahead. >> Yeah, I just uh I have not changed my position on this. I I'm not I'm not
supporting this. I'm not voting for it. I in my mind I I think it's kind of an overreach and um I'm not going to I'm not going to go for it. That's it. Okay. So, will this come to us on the
>> next next Tuesday's meeting? >> Next week. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Is there time for two more items just to give you a couple updates? >> Go ahead. >> Uh, one update and um >> so much fun to add this. We actually have received a uh call from uh somebody
who wants to do a wind or like do like a solar farm in Crowin County. It's the And so we don't have anything in our ordinance right now that deals with how would you handle a solar farm or a wind farm. Um we have piece in the ordinance about if you want to do it for your personal property as an accessory
structure. And so um we will need to amend the ordinance this winter to include the section. >> Sorry when he told me last week I'm like again >> we're all in the same boat. Um but uh so I've been doing some research already and talking to some other
counties who have ordinances in place that we can use as models to be able to um to be able to use. So it should not be too hard to use that as a as a plug into our we have a section already on solar and wind, but it's just more for personal use than it is for those bigger
bigger farms. And so um I have spoke with the with the applicant who's interested in doing it. Um, and depending on their timing and how long it takes to get this done if they were to come in and maybe, you know, give us an application today, I would probably be coming back to you and saying we
might need to put a moratorum in place until we get that ordinance up and running so that then we have a set of guidelines upon which to to which to follow that. So, um, just a kind of a heads up that that's that that's coming down the pike that we need to add something to ordinance as far as dealing
with solar and wind. Well, should we be be considering a moratorum at this point to give you time to >> I don't think so. I I think as I've talked with the applicant, I think they're understanding the situation that we're in and so they're they have some time and so I think that if we could work on getting that ordinance up and
going, you know, first quarter of 2026, I think that uh um that would fit their timing just fine to be able to get the project in and done. So, >> Mr. just from a process standpoint of things, we wouldn't put a moratorum in place on something that we don't have an
application or a, you know, a reason to do so. So, as long as Chris has had the communication with the applicant, kind of knowing what his timeline is, knowing that we do need to include something in our ordinance that we will need to work through that amendment process, he's already working on what needs to occur
for that. So, I think we can avoid the moratorum part by being proactive in getting the amendment done as quickly as we can. And then the last item is just Oh, we have a question. No, >> go ahead, >> Mr. Chair. So, uh, just explain this to
me. So, okay. So, we don't have anything in the ordinance pertaining to that. So, then somebody wants to do that. They come, they talk to you, you say, "Well, we don't have any anything." So, then that means they can't do it, right? >> Well, there's two there's two ways to
look at that. one is that they could, you know, you could argue it's not in the ordinance, so it's a prohibited use. Um, but at the same time, we're not allowed to outright prohibit any use within the county. So, I think we're we would be susceptible to a lawsuit and um I think we would um be at risk of them
getting a judgment, be able to locate that solar farm where they want to um and uh without any sort of regulatory oversight from the county. So I think without having an it'd be it's the same idea with um say adult uses you know we
are not allowed to out you know outright ban adult uses within the county and if we tried to do that we we we' we'd get sued and we would lose on that because we can't just ban a use. We have to determine where is the most appropriate spot for that to be and without having that in the ordinance we would be very susceptible to a lawsuit if we just said
if somebody made an application and we denied it. we would we would get sued on that and we would uh I don't think we'd prevail on that. >> So then uh if we had an ordinance and we had a moratorum that means that then we
wouldn't accept any applications for solar farms. Correct. >> Correct. It would mean yet we would take a timeout and uh we would um put the effort in to get the ordinance updated so that we'd have the regulations in place when they did apply. >> Yeah. Well, I'll just let the the rest
of the board members know that I'm, you know, as this moves forward. Um, as of right now, I don't know that I would be supportive of of u I I just I don't like solar farms. I don't I think it it ruins
the landscape. I think about the moratorum that we have and Crowing County has had for years and years on billboards. I I I feel like it's kind of the same thing. It just kind of it ruins the aesthetics of Crowing County that people
expect when they're coming up here and vacationing. And if you ever travel from Brainer down to the cities and you go by some of these solar places, these solar farms, they're gobbling up this beautiful farmland and um
they're just they're they're not as efficient as you might think they would be. So, I as of right now, unless somebody can convince me otherwise, I I'm not going to support solar farms or an ordinance going along with that
period. >> I think there's another issue too, Commissioner. That's the how they get taxed and they they keep them under so many is it kilowatts or whatever their measurement tool is >> by megawws. megawatts, then they they get taxed at one rate. If they go over
that and it's commercial rate and but they can divide properties to make sure they don't go over it and they get that lower tax rate. That's we know in central Minnesota, Sherburn County and those counties are dealing with that issue at this point and I think AMC is
going to be addressing that the upcoming legislative session. So, >> okay. >> Uh the third item that I have is just um >> before we go on, Mr. Chair, >> go ahead. um you know, in order to uh not put us behind the eightball, maybe maybe we should consider a moratorum so
it gives us the time to do the homework to have the ordinance in place before we have an application coming on board instead of reacting to an application that comes on board and figure out how we can make an ordinance to fit that application. So, I'm just going to throw it out there. I I'm not much into
moratoriums, but I'm also not much into trying to backpedal because we have something in front of us and have to deal with it. I'd rather deal with it ahead of time. >> And I, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Lubkkey, I think that is what staff is working on right now is dealing with it ahead of time before we actually get an
application before us. Um, putting the moratorum in doesn't really have any impact if you don't have an application in front of you at this point in time. Basically, it would just say no applications to be will be considered. But staff are
already working on what those regulations might need to be in that regard. If we were to get an application that came in today, tomorrow, next week, whatever it might be, you could take the action at that time to put the moratorium in place. But to put the moratorum in place, then put the
amendments in, then take the moratorum off, there's just a a snowball that kind of goes into play here. I think the fact that we have the heads up or that we have the alert that this is going to be moving forward, that staff is working on what that ordinance, what those
amendments should look like or potentially could look like, I think puts you in the right position without having to take any action at this time. I think we accomplish things much better if we have the ordinance in place
when the application comes in. And that's what you're proposing here, Chris. So, >> exactly. >> I think uh >> and I think it's important for the board to consider what you would like the regulations to look like. What would you like the permitted uses to look like in
regard to solar farms versus being reactionary to an application that might be in front of you? If you wait and do something until you get an application, sometimes then it's more reactionary in that regard that you're trying to either allow or prevent based on what that
particular application might say. If we take the action to put regulations in place now before we have anything in front of us, then it's more well planful in that regard. Yep. And I think the performance standards seem pretty consistent across ordinances. It's just
really the question is where would they be located and what would be the process of permitting depending on size and and those sorts of things. So I've looked at Sterns County, I've looked at Murray County, I've looked at Douglas County and and I'm just trying to get a flavor for how some of those county how they
handle that. And um and definitely I think there there a little bit of contention with them. um for sure and uh and so you know we want to make sure that the rules we have are clear and consistent and and understandable and can be implemented you know and and and that so
>> real quick you know we have a solar field out at the airport and I'm not sure how that got developed if you're when we're talking about ordinances and that >> yeah so I think when when things happen on the airport I think because that was county city um you know airport out
there didn't really we didn't have any The airport commission is the planning and zoning commission for all that property. >> Okay. >> Yep. Yeah. So that's why we Thanks. >> And this this this request would be on would be on private property. So then that's when the the regatory would be
would be needed to make sure it's, you know, done properly, I guess. So >> Okay. >> The last item I had, Mr. Chair, just real quick was that, you know, you received an email from the DNR uh last week talking about the doing a public waters inventory update. And so the
legislature uh in 2024 required the DNR to basically do a um public waters inventory of every county in the state. They the goal is to get that completed by 2032. Um, and so the public water inventory was uh was completed by the
DNR back in the 70s which really identified what are the public waters um across the state of Minnesota and what uh so this is not a complete rebuild or they're not starting over but the what they're what the uh the statute asked the DNR to look at was did they miss any
designated trout streams within a county and then uh there were water courses that were removed from the public waters inventory back in 2017 by commissioner's order. Um, and they want those to be re-evaluated to make sure that they should should they or should they not be in the um in the public waters
inventory. And then there's also public there's public water and there's public water wetlands. And so they're going to do another review of the public water wetlands to make sure that they meet statutory criteria because for a for say a city or a town, it's considered a a regulated lake if it's 10 acres or more
and for the county it's 25 acres. And so, and I've talked with the DNR staff. Uh, we had a meeting um recently with them and um we've had the DNR look at our regulated waters twice as we've done ordinance revisions. So, I'm pretty confident that there won't be any significant changes, but uh they're
going to be doing a review. They would be if you're interested, they'd be happy to come and have a conversation and do a presentation at a county board meeting or committee the whole if you're interested. Um there's going to be public outreach meetings where they're going to be holding some open house opportunities for folks to come in and have conversations and and that and
there'll be comment periods when they if they decide to change things in that. But um they'd be happy to come and just give you an update if you would be interested. So >> anyone interested? >> I guess not. >> Okay. Sounds very good.
>> Thank you. Thank you very much. >> One thing before you run off, Chris, just to get back to the um wind and solar thing. If we're looking at an ordinance for that, do we need to be looking at uh this data center stuff, too?
It's on my list of things to think about that, you know, I I think at a minimum we if we do this ordinance update, I think we should add a definition of a data center and we should decide what zoning district we want it to be located in, which I would just I think we
industrial would be I think where we'd want to have it located. But, you know, as far as the performance standards and stuff, I I you know, I don't know what's really out there as far as how that's since it's so new. But I do think at least putting something in the ordinance says this is at least where they would
be located if they wanted to come and and have that discussion with the county would and what type of a permit they would have to get. >> One thing to think about, Mr. Chair, commissioners, with regard to data centers, you know, there is a lot of water need with a data center. In most
cases, they're going to be located in a city that's going to be on a municipal water service. I don't know that it is quite as as advantageous to do it on a private well type of situation. And remember, we're putting ordinances in
place for areas of the county that we manage land use for. So any of those things that might happen within the city limits of one of our municipalities would be at the jurisdiction of those individual cities who do their own planning and zoning. we'd only be looking at putting restrictions or
putting provisions in place for those areas where we do provide that service. So, that's just one thing to kind of keep in mind there. I know Chris and I have talked about it a little bit and I know AMC is also working on some stuff around data centers as well, but it is one of those things that that's the slight difference there where we might
be hearing from some of our municipalities that are more concerned about putting some those some of those provisions in place just because of the resource need that's required for that. How do we know that? So they put it in a city that they
aren't impacting the aquafer that outside the jurisdiction of the city is being impacted. >> So um if depending so that would be the determination the city to make based on their what they have as far as their um water supply and how much water they
generate and use per day. So the cities will be the ones to determine that. Ultimately it's a DNR. So the DNR is responsible for we look at water quantity. Department of Health is water quality for groundwater. Okay. >> And so um so let's say you're on a well and you're going to use more than 10,000
gallons of water a day or a million gallons in a year. You have to get a water appropriation from the DNR to allow you to to draw that water up out of that well. when you're on city water, um the city's going to have to have that discussion with the DNR as well because technically, you know, when you're
depending on where you get your water source from, either from the ground or usually from a from a river, but depending on how much more water you would take up would would require a different, you know, permit needed from, you know, DNR for those sorts of things. So, that would be again the DNR is
responsible for making sure we have a we don't have issues with water quantity. >> Okay. Thank you. Interesting world. >> Yes, it is. >> Thank you very much. >> Did you have something, >> Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair,
>> Commissioner Lupkkey. >> Um, so here we're talking about putting an ordinance in place for a data center, even though we haven't had an application. >> No. >> Correct. >> No, we're not looking at adding anything to the ordinance with regard to data centers at this point. This is just a a
a data point, if you will, that Chris has on his radar of things that he's looking into. But we're not looking at making any adjustments at this point. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Gary. >> Uh just real quick back to the buffers.
Um just wanted to be clear on currently is the PCBOa recommended 25 ft on RDG and NE. Um I I have spoke to um couple. Is there is that what you want to bring
forward or do you guys want to see 10 10 and 25? Does that make it a little more appealing? I heard we heard from Commissioner Coring that he's a no. Just wanted to I don't know if you guys caught that or not when Chris was
explaining that, but you know, you do have that option. I mean, it's a big change. So 25 ft versus 10, you know, it's going to consume a lot more of their, let's say, backyard, but would that be more appealing to see how this
works for you or something to consider? Just wanted to make sure you guys were That's a big uh That's a big one. >> I guess I'll just say that I I'm not uh I'm not sure how I feel about all of it
as a as an outdoorsman. And I'd rather see more buffers, but I'm also I'm kind of torn because people I still feel people have a right to use their property they want the way they want to. So I'm I guess I need to look at a
little closer before I would tell you my thoughts there. But >> and I'll stop over for more discussion too and better understanding from for me >> and then all I had then is merry Christmas.
>> Likewise. Merry Christmas. >> That's all we have for today, Mr. Chair. >> I think we're ajourned. >> Thank you, >> Chris. Chris.