You ready? >> Good morning. Welcome to the county board meeting. Would you please join me for the pledge of allegiance and a moment of silence? I'll help you upgrade of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One
nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Amen. Okay. The first thing on our agenda is recognition of retiring employee Tina. >> Okay. Commissioner Coring
>> here. >> Commissioner Lovekkey >> here. >> Commissioner Baros >> here. Commissioner Franine >> here. >> Commissioner Lee >> here. >> Okay. Next thing is recognition of retiring employee Hina Iberowski
>> after 26 years. There's perfect. Madam Chair, County Board, today we get to honor and celebrate Tina, someone who has given more than 27 years, I will note 28 years in June had she stuck
around, of her talents, her patience, and her crafting skills with Crowing County Community Services. Tina has dedicated her career to serving our residents and supporting our staff with unwavering kindness, professionalism, and compassion. Tina has been a steady
and positive for force for both our staff and our residents. She's the kind of person who makes tough days smoother, complicated processes simpler, and busy offices feel just a little more human. If something needed to get done, Tina
need knew how to do it, knew who to call, or somehow magically made it happen before anyone else even realized there was a problem. Tina, your dedication and kindness have made Crowing County a better place. We're incredibly grateful for all you've poured into the organization. And while
we're very happy for you, we do reserve the right to call you with questions at least for the first couple months, years, if that's okay, of your retirement. So, congratulations to Tina. We wish you all the joy, rest, and adventures that the next chapter brings. You've absolutely earned it.
>> Did you want to speak? >> Probably can't outdo that. So, we uh yeah, we didn't coordinate very well this morning. Tammy Luick uh been able had the pleasure of supervising Tina for the last I think about three years now and I've worked alongside her for the last um 15 16 years now. And um yeah, I
don't really have a lot more to say, but I did want to I want to give some recognition. I her team is here in the back as well as guys stand up the ones that are they don't get to come to board very often. So, I want to give them some recognition. And these are our financial workers with our um adult team and um
our long-term care team. So, I just want to give them recognition, too. And it shows how much they care about you. And um and these were some of the things that they said. Um they described Tina as someone who is engaging, a great mentor, truly listens. Others shared
that Tina is clear with direction and communicates changes well. She involves the team in decisions that affect our work assignments and workflow. Another colleague noted, "Tina doesn't just do her job, she genuinely sees and cares for the people we serve." I think Tina has done such an excellent job shaping
the culture that we've been working to create at community services. She she does that all the time. She's she's just very kind. Um I think Cara mentioned she's crafty. Um most holiday holidays you received a homemade card from Tina and I'm going to really miss those.
>> We're not going to get we're not going to get those. >> Hopefully we do. And then just outside of her work, Tina brings the same warmth and passion to her personal life. She enjoys gardening, crafting, traveling, spending time with her family and friends, activities that reflect her
creativity, her curiosity, and her generous spirit. Tina, your presence will be deeply missed. Thank you for the many years of dedicated service, your kindness, the positive impact that you've made on so many lives. We wish you joy, adventure, and a welldeserved relaxation in this next chapter.
Congratulations on your retirement. I'll just say I'll just say that it's been um truly an adventure for the last several years or all of my years here working here. Never thought when I walked in the door um
long ago to uh start my career here and support staff that I would be where I am today. So, thank you. >> Thank you. RIGHT over that to you. Thank you for your service
to Congratulations on your retirement. Thank you. >> Want to look here first. Okay, next thing on the agenda is open forum. Michael Dval,
please come to the microphone. State your name and address for the records. We have a time limit of three minutes. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Mike Duval. Um, I'm here to um express my concern about
the sustainability of the uh intergovernmental agreements uh with the county sheriff's office that in part had been represented as a means of uh closing an operating budget shortfall for our county jail after Cass County
had withdrawn. Um 20 or so years ago, um a predecessor predecessor county board debated building a new uh county government complex over here that we and that was a very public process. And in
fact, my son um at that time was a uh a youth uh member of a citizen input committee that was formed by that uh that board at the time. And uh now you know these many years later uh part of that complex specifically the jail uh is
not financially serving the county needs as originally envisioned. Um this board today in your silence has left the sheriff in that difficult position of figuring out how to solve that financial problem. And uh clearly
not everyone agrees with um his current solution. um and he's sustained quite a bit of um public criticism as a result of that. Um and and it's my my perspective that it's time for the
county board to uh declare where it stands and and what its priorities are on this particular issue. I think you owe it to your constituents and especially I think you owe it to the sheriff um to be clear about where the county should be on on these uh
agreements uh with the federal government. And I ask you to formally add um board discussion and action on 287g agreements to your next county board agenda. Thank you for the time to speak with you.
Thank you, >> Camille Lang. Camille Lang. Uh, my address is 14526 Nok Hall Road, Brainard. Uh, commissioners, thank you for hearing me. I also have concerns with the 287G
agreement. Um, I think there are a lot of financial and legal concerns with it, but as a family practice doctor and a mom, I want to talk a little more about just the um effect that I think it can have on our community's health and
safety. Um, one of my concerns that I I'm not I'm not hearing a lot of prior discussion about is that I think currently we have a group of law enforcement officers who do a good job and have worked really hard to build rapport so that our kids and community
members feel safe going to them when they're in danger. Um, I'm concerned that this is going to invite uh increased ICE presence in our community. And I think ICE really kind of meets the stereotype of like villainous authority
with their wearing masks and basically act first, ask questions later. Um, apart from wanting wanting my kids to feel like they can go to authority when they need it and not be afraid of them, I worry about the trauma that this causes for people. I mean, we know there
are arrests that happen for immigrants that are here legally and don't have warrants out for their arrest. And this creates a lot of trauma, not just for the individual, but for everyone witnessing it, for their families, especially for their kids. And in my
work, I see trauma a lot. And I can tell you that the the strain that this puts on our mental health resources and our social resources is significant. And so I worry about increasing that, especially if we have beds that we need to fill and we're kind of promoting
increased arrests. Um, and then finally, I just worry about the fact that our law enforcement officers are are there for a reason right now. They're keeping us safe. And I think if we start pulling them away to do other roles that aren't necessarily part of their defined job,
who's going to do what they're supposed to be doing? I'm not claiming to be an expert on this. Maybe we have plenty of of manpower to do that. Um, but I think we need to have some public discussion about what the real implications are in
terms of the benefits we're getting and and what risks we're taking and what what we're sacrificing to do this. So, my ask is that we put reconsideration of the 287g agreement on public agenda for discussion. Thank you.
Next, Robert Grant. >> Robert Grant, 7589 County Road 13 Nisa. I just I've dealt with Mindot, but they kind of blew it off. But the stoplight at 371 and 13 by Schaers, that turn
light signal is not on long enough to even get one car through. It turns on and before you even get halfway through the interchange, it shuts off. And I didn't get any results. I've contacted Mindot four times and they said everything's fine. I think it needs to
be a little bit extended. And then I wanted to thank you guys for being transparent from past dealings with you. You are very transparent and upfront and honest and I really appreciated that because where I came from in southern
Minnesota. It they the county board didn't listen to the people and I do feel that you guys do listen to what the people have to say. And in closing, I support the sheriff in all his dealings. So, I think he's doing the right thing.
So, thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay, >> Madam Chair. >> Next on the agenda is review and approval of the minutes for um March 10th.
>> Madame Chair. >> Yes, >> Madam Chair. on that the last speaker up there. Could you direct Deb uh Ericson or Tim Bray to contact the uh DOT if
he's not getting any relief on that? I think we need to reach out. >> Madame Chair, Commissioner Coring, I already made a note to talk with Tim about that. Yes. >> Okay, perfect. Thank you, Deb. >> Okay. Do you want to make a motion to
approve the minutes of the last meeting? I so move to approve the minutes of the last meeting uh 31026. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner Coring, second by Commissioner Lee. All
those in favor. >> Commissioner Coring >> I. >> Commissioner Lipkkey >> I. >> Commissioner Baros >> I. >> Commissioner Lee >> I. >> Commissioner Franzine >> I. Motion carries. I need a motion to um accept the amended
minutes of the February 10th, 2026 regular county board meeting. >> Motion to approve. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Second. Coring. >> I have a um motion by Commissioner Barrow, second by Commissioner Coring. All those in favor?
>> Commissioner Lee >> I. >> Commissioner Coring >> I. >> Commissioner Lupkey >> I. >> Commissioner Barrows. >> I. >> Commissioner Franine. I motion carries. Review and approval of today's agenda.
>> Madame Chair, Commissioner Baros has asked has received a request from Brainer Public Utilities with regard to a resolution of support for some grant funding and he would like to have that placed under additional business if you're okay with that. >> I am okay with that, but I spoke with
him this morning and he would like to move it up. Um, he is about to get onto a plane. You can take that now if you'd like to handle that action right now. >> That would be fine. >> So, if you want to approve the agenda, we'll put it on as agenda item 5.1
right before consent. >> I make a motion to approve the agenda with that amendment. >> I'll second it. >> Um motion by Commissioner Leky, second by Commissioner Lee. >> Commissioner Barrows. I
>> Commissioner Lee. I >> Commissioner Coring >> I. >> Commissioner Lkkey >> I. >> Commissioner Franine >> I. Motion carries. Uh, Commissioner Barrows. Would you like to speak? >> Yes. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. This is a request that came from BPU
Director Paul Sandy. And what he's requesting is there's a needed upgrade to the uh Brainer Public Utilities plant that sits just into the border of Baxter, but it's a a uh proposal by
Brainer and Baxter. Coordinating efforts to get this grant. It's a $10 million grant. The timeline for it is this Friday, and that's the reason for bringing this forward today without additional notice to each of the commission members. So, I appreciate the
opportunity to put this out there. They'll be addressing it. They missed the opportunity with Congressman Stalber's office for the funding in the in the House, but they have this opportunity in the Senate. So, they'll be reaching out to Senator Senator Smith
and Clolobashar. And this is a need that we're looking at the U plant out there. And it's getting close to the end of its useful life. There are now additional um requirements that are being put on by MPCA.
We need to ensure that this plant continues to meet those requirements, but also moves us into the future and whatever development takes place. Um I know we have annexation on the on the on the uh agenda today but in the future
and not necessarily with this board but additional you know future boards there will be I guess questions or or requirements to move access to the uh greater public utilities plant further out. And I so
move this resolution between Brainard and Baxter. >> Do we have a second? >> Do we have a second? >> Madam Chair, >> Madam Chair for >> Yes. P. >> Madam >> Commissioner Cory.
>> Yeah. Uh I I would second that. And then uh Madam Chair, I would have a question for Commissioner Barrows. All right. >> Uh, Commissioner Barrows, is this uh this is a re resolution. We're supporting it. We're not the Crowing
County is not going to be the fis fiscal agent for for this uh $10 million if it if it happens. Correct. >> That's correct. Uh >> okay. I the city of Brain of Briner will be the fiscal host for it through the
public utilities organization. So, thank you for the question and the clarification, >> but Madame Chair and then Commissioner Barrows. So, we in essence the county board is lending their support to this project because obviously all the citizens of Baxter and all the citizens
of Brainard who uh reap the benefit of this facility, they are Crowing County residents. So, as the county board, we're lending our support to those citizens. Is that correct? >> That's correct. And as you might you might as you note Commissioner Coring,
>> Brainard and and Baxter represent somewhere between 25 and 30% of the population in Crowing County. So very dense and I I don't think we can MPCA is going to live let us live without upgrading this plant at some point. So
if we can tap into federal dollars, I think that that's an opportunity we should take and I appreciate the support. Originally, it was a a personal ask of me and then uh Mr. Sandy wanted it on a letter head. To me, that engages the other four of you commissioners. So,
that's why I'm bringing it forward as a uh motion for the support of all of us, >> Madame Chair. >> Yes, >> Madame Chair. So, this this uh just just if you'll indulge me, one more thing. you know, at the Solid Waste Committee
level, you know, the uh Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is now going to be requiring that we haul our leech aid. We cannot take care of our leech aid out at the landfill. We're actually going to be trucking that to the wastewater
treatment in St. Cloud. So this actually gives me hope that if there's a possibility that this facility for Brainer Baxter can be upgraded there could be a good possibility that we could take our leech aid to this facility and and actually it would be a
savings for the taxpayers. So so I I'm I'm I'm in full support of this resolution. >> Thank you. Does anyone else >> Yeah, Madam Chair, the only thing that I have concern about I don't have anything in front of me in regards to this resolution. a copy of it or any
paperwork in front of it. >> Well, I didn't know that. I didn't know if I was special or something, but but I usually like to have something in front of me before we make a a resolution. Um because without that, it could be whatever we make the resolution here and
somebody gives us a document. I I'm kind of uh pnikity that way. I would like to see the document in front of me. >> Madam Chair, Commissioner Lubkey, to your point, this would actually be not a resolution. This is would be a motion that would authorize a letter of support
from the county board basically. And Amber is working on getting what I have here on the screen up on the screen for you hopefully. Um, basically it is yeah uh would be
authorizing a letter of support that would basically say the county board of commissioners is in support of Brainer Public Utilities efforts and supports the grant funding. uh authorization that they have put be placed before you. So it's not an actual resolution. It's a
motion that would authorize the chair to sign a letter of support. >> Okay. >> To both Senator Smith and Senator Clolobashar. >> Yeah. I just want to make the point that I really appreciate if we have the information. So, okay. Thank you. I normally don't vote yes on anything
where I don't have anything in front of me, but I had a conversation with Commissioner Barrows earlier and um $10 million will really help and it's something that we're going to have to do which will fall on the taxpayers if we don't get this.
>> Very true. >> You have a motion to second, right? >> Yeah. I have a motion by uh Commissioner Barrow, second by Commissioner Coring. Is there any more discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? >> Commissioner Coring >> I. >> Commissioner Lee
>> I. >> Commissioner Lupkkey >> I. >> Commissioner Barrows >> I. >> Commissioner Franine >> I. Motion carries. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Consent agenda. Madame Chair, I have a couple questions
on a few of the items on the consent agenda I would like to address. And that's 67, 68, and 6.9. It's I was not able to be here at the county the whole meeting. So, if it was discussed then I didn't I wasn't part of
that discussion. So, >> okay, we'll pull those and we'll we'll discuss those right after we approve the consent agenda. Okay. Madame Chair. >> Yes. Do you have >> Couldn't we just discuss them? Couldn't
we just discuss those and and if he is the commissioner is satisfied with the discussion, then we could vote on it as a whole item? >> Sure. I'm fine with that too. >> Okay. Okay. >> So, let's discuss.
>> Let's discuss. Um is there anybody here that can represent the um in far as the tax forfeite appointment? Is anybody Is there anybody here from >> Gary? Do you want to touch on that? >> I think it was written by Jessica, but
>> yeah. >> And she is online it looks like too. >> Hey, good morning. I believe Jessica's online. Uh she did um write the aortionment this year. There wasn't um a lot of aortionment after expenses. I don't have it in front of me. If we want
to pull it up, I can walk you through it. And it's hard to jump between my screen and my notes with this one here right now. I'm learning how to do that. But next next item, the one where you have the actual apartment of the 25 taxes
there. >> That one there. Yep. >> Yep. That one there. So just to ask the question, is that normal? I mean that that's $3,800 and some thousand that we've collected in tax in sales off of tax forfeited lands.
>> That is um timber revenue and the sale of forfeited property. >> It's both in there because it's it says tax forfeited surplus. Yep. >> And it doesn't say timber sales. So I didn't know if that was both or just one. So >> about a million of it is timber. The rest of it is land that we sold. >> Is that a normal number? Is that
something we've normally see? It seems like a to me it seems like a big number even though I'd seen it before. >> This is we're usually around two 2.5 million. Uh so this year was an elevated uh number. >> Okay. >> We had a couple of properties that were over a million dollars that pushed us up
quite a bit. >> And explain to me then why we are aortioning it if if that's money that the county got in. Why are we aortioning it to to other jurisdictions? And and why is it is there a certain number that we aortion or is it only a certain amount or how is that done?
>> So uh by statute annually anything that is remaining in the tax forfeited aortionment account needs to be uh aortioned. Um and how it works is uh basically 20% goes to our recreation account. uh 40% uh basically to the uh
general account uh and then the the remaining 20% um is going to be or I'm sorry and then another uh uh I believe it's 50% of the 100% goes to our CIP and then uh 20% to the cities and that's
where the timber or the land was sold. So um typically we've been running around a $50 to $100,000 a portionment. It's um after all expenses are paid. So depending on the level of expenses in
the given year, uh the aortionment one time we had over a million dollars aortionment. We didn't have a lot of expenses. In the last three, four, five years. We've had a lot of expenses to um you say modernize some of our equipment. Um uh we've also um acquired some
different properties uh um moving forward. Uh so there hasn't been a lot of aortionment but 96,000 in aortionments right around the average in the last say five years. >> Yeah. Um the other thing is those tax forfeited revenues we do use those for
their if I'm not mistaken for our parks and is that that's where we're using getting that money and using that for that parks and our timber sales. >> It basically uh pays all the expenses in our forestry department. Uh so we we
manage over hundred it's about 106,000 acres now for timber and recreation and so you know we have foresters on staff all the equipment um and uh with that and then we also do all the maintenance of our parks. Um, so the great thing about this program is we're one of the
few counties in the state that can offer that kind of uh park system and recreation and nobody in the in the county pays a dime for out of a adorum property tax. >> Yeah, it's it's not a levy amount. It's
still it's still the uh citizens tax dollars. It's just that we've we've aortioned or decided as a board that we're going to use it for our parks and the things that make our county beautiful. So, >> yeah, I would say it's definitely public money. I wouldn't call it tax money, but it's definitely public money.
>> Public money. Correct. Okay. That was that was all I had for that. It was just it seemed like a number that kind of really jumped out at me as far as a big number. >> Sure. >> Now, on to uh ditch 13. And I'm learning a lot more about ditches when you sit on the AMC uh environmental natural
resources committee, but we I think have just one ditch, ditch 13. >> We've got >> Madam Chair, Commissioner Lupkey. >> I don't think Gary is the >> he's not the ditch. >> He's not the ditch expert, so we'll let him get away from that. >> It's Tim Bray and I don't >> It's Tim Br and Tim is not here. However, I can answer questions that you
might have. >> The um it shows that in here that we're we're moving money from the 30 lakes watershed. It looks like in 2017 it approved transfer of funds from the 30 lakes wershed uh to the ditch 13 fund and then it shows the expansions for the
ditch 13 fund. Um, how much money is been moved from the 30 is there any money left in the 30 lakes wershed or >> Madam Chair, Commissioner Lubkkey? No. That the 30 lakes wershed essentially disbanded if you will. So the dollars
that used to be appropriated to the 30 lakes wershed were appropriated into the were transferred to the ditch 13 fund. Okay. >> While we only have one active ditch in Crowing County, there are a lot of inactive ditches at this point in time.
>> Um, ditch 13 is the only one that currently has an active levy assessment, an act an active assessment or any active uh maintenance efforts that are occurring there. when it was decided in 2017 that 30 lakes wershed would disband
and those dollars would be transferred to the ditch 13 fund that all occurred at one time. So this is just a little bit of the history of what had have been done in this fund in previous years. There's been no further allocations to
30 Lakes wershed. There's been no other changes to that aspect of it from 2015 2017 currently forward. Now in how much money is sitting in that fund that was moved over then in 2017 is there you
know because once you run out of that money where are you going to get the money to maintenance? >> So there is a levy there is an assessment a special assessment that is assessed levied against all of the property owners in along the ditch. So that is a process that went through back in 2020 2015
>> to reestablish the assessment onto ditch 13. That's where the annual dollar amount comes from. And the dollar amount of necessary need is looked at every year. And it's one of the things that we've actually started to look at a
little bit closer because it's costing us, it looks like approximately $3,300 annually to maintain that fund. And we're maybe bringing in a little bit more than what is needed in that account. So, if you recall, the levy assessment for 2026
was actually reduced. The special assessment amount was reduced for 2026. So, we're looking at what's the right balance of what that assessment amount needs to be. And depending on with any ditch, the the issue with a ditch assessment is that it is determined by
the benefit that each property owner receives. So some parcels might have a might have an assessment of 57, some might have an assessment of $500. It just kind of determined by the original
determination of what that parcel was. And if you can imagine, I believe ditch 13 was established in 1920 something. Those parcels in some cases have been developed and split multiple multiple times. the value or the the determination of the um the benefit of
that parcel starts and stays with that first original assessment of that parcel and it's just been curved down down down down. So parcels that haven't been developed or shrunk, they still have a large assessment, ones who maybe might have a higher valuation or better
property value are still only paying a smaller amount of what that assessment might be. >> But the people on that ditch are the ones who are actually paying >> people on that ditch are the ones who are actually paying rent. And I'm just really glad that we only have one active ditch in this county because listening to other commissioners, it can be a real
nest. >> Yes. >> Okay. That's that helped me with that. >> I guess that raised one question for me. Uh the 30 Lake um water district is does this zero that out then or is there still money trickling? >> There is no money in 30 lakes wershed. Okay. There's no money that goes to them
at all. They don't even exist anymore. And if if you don't mind, Madam Chair, I've got the last question. The 6.9, which is an application for cancellation of forfeite. Um, the notes I have, I noticed the date and
this is kind of old. How is it how is it just coming to us now? It looks like it was some I mean way back in 2001. So, I'd like you to kind of explain that if you don't mind, Gary. >> Sure. Um, madam chair, commissioners, real quick on 30 uh uh lakes wershed, there is a uh fund balance out there
that we use at uh soil and water conservation district does do water sampling on an annual basis for I think it's 16 or 17 uh lakes. So um that is going to be in perpetuity basically is is u what we're doing with that. So we
do have a fund there. So there is a little bit of activity with 30 water but it has been disbanded as a as a wershed. Is there funny funds going in there? >> No. No. >> Okay. So, how how much money is actually sitting there if you've got um you were taking some of the ditch money out and
then you're you're >> I didn't want to confuse I shouldn't have maybe but I just um what it is is it does I can't remember how much I don't have but it does uh acrue interest every year >> and but and they are I can't remember
the numbers about $4,000 a year that it is losing money but we've with the cost of the sampling and how much money is in there that we think it's going to be a long time before it's actually depleted and not be able to do that for that area of the county.
>> Could I just ask what is the balance in it right now? Do we have any idea? >> Uh we do have I just don't have it with me currently. >> Okay. I I would I'll follow up with the effort. >> I appreciate that. Just have an idea. >> Okay. >> Yeah. U sorry. So, uh, this cancellation here, we continue to comb, uh, we have a
tax forfeited list with, um, hundreds and hundreds of properties on it. Uh, these two and we continue to offer the ones that we believe are not, uh, in the public's interest to hold, uh, on public auction. So, uh, continue to comb
through that. These had some interesting um classifications on them as road and pulling them up I I'd asked staff to do some more research on these why they were existed or why they forfeit. So in 2001 uh these were this plat went on uh
if you go up 371 and where 371 furniture is there's I think it's Indigo Road shoots back to the left and what these two parcels are are basically that road. Uh so when that was platted, this forfeite should have never happened back in 2001. It should have been part of our
we have a road uh layer that um if it's dedicated to the public, it just kind of goes in there and those parcels uh would have been dissolved. And that's what we're trying to do now except for we need to cancel the forfeite so we can move forward and get rid of these two parcels. >> So what you're saying is maybe it should
have been a dedicated road but it like a prescriptive easement. Well, no. It's it's underlying ownership to the public uh moving forward and it should have never been created as these two parcels should have just been dissolved back in 2002
>> when it come when it when they were forfeited. >> And how do you catch that? We have an internal process and you know when we have um nothing better to do commissioner is uh we we try to get to these when we when we can but we have a list of these um problem parcels that we
try to tackle every year when uh when we can get to them. >> Okay. >> Madam Chair, Commissioner, one of the things we've talked about for decades is our data is as good as the data that we have in front of us at the time that we have it. And as we get more advanced and
more sop sophisticated tools for these types of things, we discover these types of issues that occur. So the cleanup list will continue as more and more technology and better knowledge, better data becomes available to us. Yeah, I I
see this is something and I'm involved in a lot of stuff where they talk about AI being used, you know, where you, you know, some formula, some way of looking at it to at least bring it out so you can at least look at it and have eyes look at it, you know. >> Yeah, we have a known list of things we
need to tackle. It's a resource and, you know, pro problem is what it is. But >> okay, that's all I had. Thank you for clarifying that for me. Madam Chair, do you have a Madame Chair, do you have a a motion on the consent agenda? >> Not yet.
>> Uh I so move the adoption of the consent agenda. >> Okay. Do we have second? >> I will second that motion. Thank you. >> Okay. Motion by Commissioner Coring, second by Commissioner Lubkkey. Is there any more discussion?
>> Hearing none. >> Commissioner Lovekkey >> I. >> Commissioner Barrows. >> I. Commissioner Lee >> I. >> Commissioner Coring >> I. >> Commissioner Franine >> I. Motion carries.
>> Okay. We're on to unorganized territory. >> Madam Chair, you'll notice this is a kind of new category on your agenda that you probably haven't seen before as unorganized territory. We've talked many times about how for the first assessment district and the second assessment district, those two unorganized
territories, you as the county board are charged with the statutory responsibilities of the township board. However, a lot of the action that is done for these unorganized territories is not specifically related to the county's budget or to the county actions
of themselves. So, I thought for clarification purposes, it would be an easier way of identifying which items are fad and sad related versus which items are county related. So, if you're all okay with continuing this process, if we have items that are unorganized
territory in nature where you are essentially performing those duties of a township board, we'll list them under that heading on the agenda. The first item before you today is a request for first responder coverage change in
second assessment. And Jessica Lieutenant Turner, if she would be kind enough to kind of give you a little overview of this topic. Hello. Um, so this is it all things got re reorganized with the armor
installation in what 2014 for our county and at that time. >> Yes. >> Can you can you tell us what armor is just for folks who may not know? >> So armor being our radio system that we use throughout the state of Minnesota and for our county. So in 2014, we went
from the analog system to the digital system, which is armor gives us interoperability throughout the state. And my predecessors, and I'm not sure cuz those were my predecessors at that time, decided to reorganize first responder groupings
within our county. So prior to Armor, Ross Lake first responders were their own response group. They currently maintain their own EMSR, EMSRB, I get that acronym wrong, but their lensure, whatever, to be first responder group.
So, they're legitimate. I have their paperwork. And when that change happened, Ross Lake first responders got kind of put together with zone 4. So zone 4 now includes Crosby, Dearwood,
Ross Lake, and that kind of whole area of zone 4 first responders. So what Ross Lake has been asking for in the last few years is to break back off out of zone 4 response area. It has been approved by zone 4. Tom
Nixon is the one that's in charge of zone 4 first responders and Wendy that's in charge of Ross Lake and on has a member on their board from what I understand has approved to be pulled back out. Really there's no cost incurred for us. We have a little bit of change in land
services to change our ESN or service numbers for that. Some change in our CAD. Um, and in that request, they're also asking to cover second assessment, and it does make sense. I spoke with both groups.
Both groups are on board because second assessment is on the north side of the river. So, for proximity and getting across the river, it's really hard for Dearwood first responders across Crosby responders in that zone 4 area to get there. And they're really not getting
there from what I understand. So what they're looking for is that support because part of our protocols to change anything is whatever township that those changes occur in have to approve it. And since it's second assessment, that's what I'm here representing today that
you'll support Ross Lake covering section two that of un unorganized. So, Madam Chair, the action before you today is to authorize the chair to sign the letter that's on the screen authorizing approving the request for Ross Lake first responders to provide
coverage for the second assessment district. >> Madam Chair, I'll make a motion to approve the first responder coverage of the second assessment district to be provided by Ross Lake Fire uh excuse me, Ross Lake first responders. >> Madam Chair, I'll second that motion.
>> I have a motion from from Commissioner Lee, second from Commissioner Lebkey. Is there any discussion hearing? None. Commissioner Coring >> I. >> Commissioner Loveky >> I. >> Commissioner Barrows >> I. >> Commissioner Lee >> I.
>> Commissioner Franzine >> I. Motion carries. >> Thank you madam chair. The second item before you is the 2027 fire assessment calculations for the first assessment district. Fire services for the FAD are provided by the Briner Fire Department
and annually the city recalculates what the following year's costs will be for each municipality that they cover. You might remember that most townships set their levy for the following year at their annual meeting in March, which is different than what the first and second
assessments do because as unorganized territories, those levies are set in your budget resolutions in September and December. But this information is provided to all the townships by the beginning of March so that they can utilize that for their annual meeting and their levy set. So recently the fire
advisory board met and the city of Briner provided the updated information for the 2027 assessment year. The there are basically four factors that the city uses to determine each municipality share of the total cost for the year. The first is the average number of calls
for service over the last 5 years except for car accidents. This equates to about 30% of the formula. The second is the population of the district which is another 30% of the formula. The third is the total market value of the buildings
excluding taxexempt properties which is another 30%. And then the last 10% is the market value of those taxexempt buildings. You might recall that tax exempt properties are only revalued once every six years. So that has allocated a smaller portion of what this assessment
formula is. If you show us the chart, Amber, uh right uh yeah, right there. Um you can see on this chart that the Fed had breakdown in the four categories of Let's go one more screen. Can you flip that one because it's all on this page?
Yeah. Um the average number of runs over the last 5 years in the fad is 62.2. The 2024 population was 6,66 which is the most current estimate that the state demographer has. The total market value
of buildings minus the taxexempt parcels is 884,21 884,21,282. And the total market value of the taxexempt properties is 12,197,500. This essentially equates that the FAD is
responsible for 16.03434% of the total fire contract. And you can see at the top of the chart here that the fire service budget used for calculation has a total of 1.4 million about 1.45 million. So the funding share
for the fad is $233,128 for the 2027 levy year. This is essentially a $6,900 increase over 2026 or a 3.05% increase. You can see where the different you can see the different
entities that are covered by this fire service contract and how the FAD stacks up here. Uh we've talked before that the first assessment district if it was an organized municipality would be the third largest municipality in the county behind Brainard and Baxter and that's referenced and reflected in this
information as well. There's no action that you need to do here. You'll be this is a part of the contract agreement that we have annually we adopt this information but this is just for your information and the dollar amount that will be used as we start the 2027 budget process for the FAD.
The second assessment fire district is contracted through the city of Aken. That is done on a five-year contract and that's approximately $2,100 per year. You just approved that contract last year. So there's no new information that's coming before you at this time for that. You'll see that again in about
four more years. Happy to answer any questions if any of you have them. Otherwise, this was just for your information. >> Madam Chair, a question for Deb. Um, so we the first assessment district uses only Brainer fire. >> Correct. >> Okay. So there is not
>> NISWA does not cover No, this is all one district. >> Does not cover any of it. >> That is correct. >> I'm kind of familiar with this because they did a uh fire district up in the area where I live and and they put them together and they did this whole formula like they do every year. So I'm familiar with the formula. So Okay. Thank you.
And over the years since I've been a commissioner, we have had discussions about using Niswah >> because it'd be closer to some of our >> Yes. >> So, >> any other questions on that item?
Uh the next uh 7.3 and 7.4 are annual transfers that are done for the first and second assessment district. These are costs that are incurred by county staff to deliver services, highway services to the FAD and SAD annually. Historically, we've had these fund
transfers come before you on an annual basis. And however, in recent discussions with the finance director, we noted we also have the authorization to conduct these fund balances that you include as part of the budget resolutions. So, it's a little bit of redundancy where you're taking action twice to do essentially the same thing.
In the future, we will probably combine and consolidate that to only be done as part of the budget resolution. But because these items are before you today, we are asking for your approval on these two items. And if unless you have concerns or issues or would like to continue to see it, this would just be
inclusive of the authorization that's necessary in the budget resolutions every December. For the first assessment district, the total cost is $130,58727. And for the second assessment district,
the total cost that's associated here is uh $7,68746. >> You need a motion to approve those two authorizations. Please, you can do them as one. >> Okay. I'll make a motion to approve both as listed.
>> And I will second that motion to approve both. John Lin, >> I have a motion by Commissioner uh Lee, a second by Commissioner Lubkkey. Is there any discussion? >> Yes, there is. Command, Madame Chair, um I looked back through the records and
back in 2017 is what I could find where there was actually a real um making it I think equitable. So, just wanting to make sure it's equitable that, you know, we are spending county dollars on a an assessment district. They have a levy
>> and just wanting to make sure that that our costs that we're incurring at the county because if it was a township, we would just bill a township for it. >> And and just wanting to make sure that that we keep that >> separate. >> Separate. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> You're exactly right, Commissioner
Lupkkey. Madam Chair, uh, one of the things that the finance director, Ms. Malikica and I talked about is is there a way for us to directly allocate these costs to the FAD and the SAD at the time of the expense being incurred versus having to do the transfer. We do make
sure that we are tracking every these these dollar amounts reference the time that is actually being spent. So every one of our engineers, every one of our maintenance workers, every one of our administration staff in the highway department, they're tracking under a cost accounting process. They have to
account for every minute of their time in everything that they do. So those projects that are being done for the FAD and the SAD are being tracked directly and that's what these fund transfers. So yes, to make sure it's equitable, we are making sure that we are 100% whole on that. One of the things we've discussed
is is it time to look at directly allocating those dollars at the time that they're incurred or is it still better to capture it all together and do one annual transfer at the end. But it is something that we are very very aware of and make sure that it occurs. >> Yeah. because it would be it wouldn't be
right for Gail Lake Township to be paying county taxes for something being done in a pseudo township. >> Correct. >> Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Just wanted to clarify that. >> Any more discussion?
Hearing none. Commissioner Lee >> I. >> Commissioner Coring >> I. >> Commissioner Lupkkey >> I. >> Commissioner Franine. >> I. And Madam Chair, just for the let the record show, Commissioner Barrows did have to leave the meeting. Okay.
>> Thank you. >> Final item for unorganized territory, Madam Chair, is the Briner orderly annexation agreement. At a prior committee of the whole meeting, you heard from city of Brainard staff regarding a proposal for a joint resolution for orderly annexation in the
first assessment district. The city council did adopt the orderly annexation resolution at their meeting on March 2nd on a 4 to3 vote and it is before you now for your consideration. As you heard me mention at the previous committee of the whole meeting, there are basically three ways that annexation
can occur. The first is a joint resolution establishing an orderly annexation process. Both the city and the county would have to agree to the process and both would need to adopt a resolution approving the orderly annexation. Brainard has already adopted
their resolution and this is the request that is before you today. This is the process that is currently at play here. Sometimes this is known as the cooperative method or the cooperative uh process for annexation and it essentially sets the terms from when and
how annexation will occur. The second way that annexation can occur is by city ordinance. This is allowed when property owners petition the city. So oftent times someone will ask to be annexed into the city if they want to receive some type of city services. This
is also a process that the city can use for some of those island properties, if you will, that are maybe completely surrounded by city properties in other areas. This is more common when the property owners want to receive services and be annexed, but it is an opportunity that
is available for the city to use for those island properties as well. And the third way is what's known as a contested annexation, which requires a hearing before the office of administrative hearings. In this type of process, the city can initiate
annexation by submitting a resolution or if 20% or 100 property owners suggest or petition the council to begin annexation processes, that also can trigger this particular process. The Office of
Administrative Hearings then conducts a hearing and the administrative law judge evaluates the statutory factors for annexation. So some of those factors include things like population, projected population growth, natural terrain and topography
including watersheds, soil conditions, rivers, lakes, bluffs, contig continuity of the properties, the pattern of development including planning and intended land uses, transportation networks including proposed highway or
road plans, existing services including soil and water and or water and sewer. fire ratings, law enforcement, street maintenance and recreational facilities, existing or potential environmental problems, plans by the enexing
municipality for providing needed and enhanced services in the area in a cost-effective and feasible manner within a reasonably expected time frame. And there are a host of other things that are inclusive as well. After hearing about the hearing or hearing
both sides, the ALJ then approves, denies, or modifies the annexation request. So, with all that said, because you have a request for an a joint resolution for orderly annexation before you, you basically have three options for this
particular agenda item. You can adopt the city's joint resolution, which would allow the city to proceed with the annexation process at some point in the future. Based on their plan, some of the areas that are currently surrounded by city property would be annexed in the
near future and others would be annexed at a later date as infrastructure and services are expanded to those areas. The second item you have, you could potentially pass a motion declining to adopt the joint resolution. This would signify that you are not in agreement
with the orderly annexation and it would prohibit the city from using that particular process for annexation. The third thing is you could take no action. That's effectively the same as option number two. There would be no joint resolution and the city would not be able to use the orderly annexation
process. If you go for options two or three today, that does not mean that the city does not have options for annexation and does not mean that they would not ultimately continue with their annexation process. It only means that you are not agreeing to the cooperative
method or the joint process under the orderly annexation statute. The city still has the authority to initiate annexation proceedings in the area under any of the other means that the statute allows. Ultimately, in annexation matters, the city has the authority and
the process and holds more power than the townships do when it comes to annexation under statute. I do want to be clear to folks in the audience and to those who are watching at home that the ultimate authority for annexation decisions lies with the city, not with
the county. Any action that the county takes today is specific to the resolution for orderly annexation that the city has brought before you at this point in time. I would look for whatever action you would choose to consider in this particular instance or I would be happy
to answer any questions that you may have. Madame Chair, I do have a couple questions. Um, I have some history with this as being a mayor of Jenkins and we had some annexation issues on both sides of it. Um, so the yes, if we did it
would incur cost. We it it says in their agreement that we would share the cost of whatever it would take to do this. I mean the legal cost to do that. Um, if we decline it, do we end up in a suit? If if is there any suit that the city
can put against us because we declined it? >> Madam Chair, I would defer to the county attorney in that regard. >> No, today the only issue before you is whether or not you agree with a proposed joint resolution. If you don't agree today, there is no appeal process that
would come from that >> come from that. Okay. >> As Miss Ericson indicated, then the city would have other avenues to seek this annexation, but there would be no appellet remedy. if you don't agree with this resolution today. >> And then the third one is no action. And I'm familiar with that. Um in a township
that uh uh they they just did no action. >> And then it put the burden totally on us as the city if we wanted to go any further. We had no you know the the township had no action. Correct. You know they said no opinion and so there was no action. The third one, the the the reason I think about that one a
little bit is is we are going to have this in front of us in in first assessment district like we have here. We're going to have it somewhere down the road with other communities, whether that be Baxter, whether that be Niswah. Um looking at going south, I look at no
action saying that it's up to the city. If they want to do that, then they do that. As far as us, we're going to, you know, we can't get in a fight with them on it. I don't I don't think that would work, you know, you know, getting saying that no, we want to keep them as an unorated territory. They really should
be a township, you know, because I think they would get the best governance as a township. As you know, in Minnesota, this is the largest the largest unorganized territory with population. The closest other one is Cooching County and they don't even have any townships,
right? >> They just have cities. So, I've done my homework on it. Madam Chair, Commissioner Lubkkey, just for one point of clarification. This has nothing to do with the FAD organizing as a township there. There's there's no action. There's no piece of that of what that is
involved here. There's so there's no if you take no action or if you don't do anything or if you approve it or deny it or any of those above doesn't change the makeup of the fat. It's still going to be in unorganized territory. If you go
back 45, oh ma'am, probably closer to 50 years now was the last time there was a vote on whether or not the first assessment district should organize as a township and it was soundly defeated at that point in time. I think there's been two votes in the past where they've gone to the residents of that district to see
if they wanted to organize as a township and that has not occurred. This annexation process has absolutely nothing to do with that aspect. Just for clarification on that, >> I appreciate that. I appreciate that. So, >> okay.
Um, this isn't a public hearing, but I'm going to allow people to speak if you choose. Um, each person will be able to speak one time and there'll be a limit of three minutes. So, is does anyone wish to come forward?
This we'll talk after this with >> No, this is about >> What are the blame right there? >> Yeah. No, that that's not >> this is for annexation. Are you going to speak about annexation? >> They should have said a public hearing.
>> Yeah. No, it's for the annexation and we'll get up and then we'll we'll talk with >> you. Yep. Jim Le, >> that ain't going to work. >> It ain't going to work. >> Okay. They won't listen to me anyway.
>> They'll we'll take your bowl this time. >> Please state your name and address for the record. >> Good morning. Uh my name is Richard Schmidt. >> Says up there in Justice Coral just like the prayer of the pledge of allegiance. That's not fair.
>> I can interrupt. >> Good morning. My name is Richard Schmidt. Uh, I live in the unorganized, excuse me, unorganized territory that has been mentioned off of car drive. Um, I would like to reiterate the fact that annexation is not just a boundary
change. It is a permanent shift in governance taxation in which we're informed our taxes will double. Infrastructure and community identity are affected. Under Minnesota law,
annexation must serve the best interest of the affected area and demonstrate that municipal governance is necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare. Under Minnesota statute
414.0325, this burden has not been met. This is state law and cannot be dismissed or ignored. When the 2003 Riverside project was sold to the public, property owners at that
time were told that involuntary annexation would never happen. And I just can't believe uh in what Miss Ericson had stated in the second option that
the city is supposed to be providing some kind of a uh information about how much is this going to cost us. The hookup charge is $17,220 at this point. And that doesn't include any other lines that have to be run. I
can't even get an answer whether if they run the line in on car drive which butts up against my property uh and is a junction with uh river arches. If if it stops there, I have to
pay for another 300 ft of line, which could cost me anywhere from 15 to $20,000 more. uh it makes no sense to to annex this property. Uh and I really hope the board
understands what kind of a uh financial burden it creates for the people living in this unorganized territory. Thank you. >> As previously stated, uh I'm Eric Pula. I live at 15137 Riverside Drive.
As was previously stated, there was previous agreements in 2003. There's a lot of other things that have been brought up with car drive. They're basically hanging a scarlet letter A on these properties for annexation without a known valuation to put on these. If they wanted to sell or do something, it
would affect them. In my case, I'm a northern I'm the southern border property of unorganized territory. The way this plays out, I'm too far off of Riverside Drive to hook up. I have an easement to Riverside Drive. I'm 640 ft
from there. So, I'm not going to hook up to City Center Water. There's nothing they're bringing to the table for me to justify a doubling of my taxes. They cannot tell me why I need to pay $10,000 for their services when they're just rebottling the air and selling it back
to me for twice as much. So, I'm the southern border. they might want to try and call me an island, but they created an island just northwest of me. Also, they allowed property. So, they're treating citizens differently in order to annex them in to their properties. So, if you look at my property, if you
walk it, which I don't think many of them have done, they've just done their paper push. Um, again, I'm on the north southern boundary of unorganized territory. To my northwest is property similar to mine. North of me are properties similar to mine. And at this time, there is nothing about this that
benefits my property. It's a they're going to basically take my tax dollars or have the ability to double my taxes and then take that revenue away from unorganized territory and the services they provide. They don't even maintain the county road that I access and they're not planning to take that on
at this point. So, for a lot of different reasons that have been brought up in the past and at the county meet or at the city meeting that they're ignoring um I just however this goes if if one thing in point there this is a tax grab in my case. They purely
simply want to grab tax dollars on this. And I'm hope you vote it down, force them to go contested or do some other means because I don't think they have the justification to really go forward with it at this point. Thank you.
>> There anyone else who wishes to speak? Good morning, chairman and council members um or commission members. My name is Ken Mimck. I have property at 15857 Ashman Road. I just want to make sure you all were in receipt of a letter that my son Lane put together for all of
you. Hopefully, you got that. Unfortunately, he had a unexpected trip to the ER with his son, so he can't be here this morning. Um, but I think that there's a couple things that were said in in options two and three. And I had the opportunity to talk to Jesse a little bit uh yesterday. Um,
it looks like my understanding is there's sort of two different situations here. One is the the Riverside Drive area which already has services and things in the road and then there's the Ashman Road which would be called a
utility extension piece which does not currently have utilities there. And there's a different cost structure is my understanding if the utility is already there and hooking up versus uh a process where we've got a road that doesn't have any of this yet in it and
the bearing of the cost is is two different situations because now on the on the um the Ashman road piece the property owners and I think one of the keys that Miss Ericson mentioned was um the process where the property owners
have petitioned to be annexed. I don't think that there are any of the property owners in either one of these districts that are asking to be annexed. So, it's a little bit of a different situation. There are significant costs on the Ashman Road project that we don't know.
We still don't know at this time. So, the discussion that that we've had is that well, at some time in the future, those will become known. Well, I I ask that you you either take no action or take the second option at this point until we get the information so that we
know, as one of the other gentlemen said, we don't know what this is going to cost us as property owners. And there should be a means to tell us that there should be some way to say, "Hey, a lift station, which most of the properties are below those roads and will probably
require some form of lift station, whether it's a joint one or or individual property owners, but if we don't even know what those cost, we don't know what it cost to repave the road. We don't know what it cost and the assessment would be to put new curb gutter up. So, we're just asking as as
the unorganized folks for you to either take either deny it or take no action so that we have time to really gather what is this information, what is it going to mean to us as property owners. So, thank
you for your time, attention. >> Anyone else? Rick, there's a a woman coming up. >> There's a woman coming up. She was up before you were. >> Hi, my name is Del Rose Carson. I live
at the very end of River Arches and our property is a little unique to everyone else because we our elevation is right down on river on the Mississippi River banks. And for us to have to be a next and have
these facilities made available to us, you would have to probably have to have two lift stations and maybe a grinder. I don't know. It comes straight down and across what I call a fog a frog pond,
but it's a nice pond. and then into our area. And to do that, we would definitely have to if we're paying these expenses, we would need to to take another mortgage
on our house. We're both retired and um we are also in the in the Mississippi um or the the federal I think it's the federal flood plane district. So, we're
required to have federal flood insurance if we have um uh any amount against the property like like being um um borrowing money.
The last time we paid was $3,300 for one year to FEMA to stay in their property to to be on their insurance program, which we would be required to do if we have to take out a loan on this
property. So, um, and then I'm understanding our property taxes would double. we would have to pay to have our current septic system which has worked perfectly
uh to be covered up or whatever legally done and also the well. So what I'm saying is like we would have to move because we can't afford this. So I would appreciate your consideration for just leaving us down by the riverbank. We're
perfectly happy the way we are. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Rick. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, my name is Rick Scogan. I'm a resident of I'm a proud uh unorganized territorian, I guess you'd call me, uh, at the north
end of the county, uh, excuse me, north end of the first assessment district. And and I think that these folks don't want to be annexed. I know I don't want to be annexed.
Commissioner Lupkkey brought it up that that uh this issue will probably be in front of you again and again and again. Uh it was about maybe 10 or 12 years ago uh that Nisa tried to enex the area that
I live in and I live from here to that American flag away from the city limits of Niswah and we fought it and for the time being we're victorious. I would suggest,
and I have no power to do that, but I have would still suggest that the county take action number two and deny this annexation simply as a message to the city of Brainard that and to the city of Nisah and to the city of Baxter, all
three of them, uh, and possibly Marfield on the east side, that the proud unorganized territorians are happy with the situation we have now. We have decent roads. We have decent police protection. We have decent uh fire
protection. And we don't have the need to uh to see fit that we should be uh taken in by another city or or uh uh not a township but another city. And we really don't want to organize. I
understand that. We're we're happy being the largest in the state and we'd like to stay that way. So thanks for listening. >> Thank you. >> Thank you Rick. Is there anyone else? Richard Burton, 7801 Lone Oak Road. I live in Crowing Township, a township
that has suffered a little bit of property loss through the city of Brainard's antics. I've also worked around Brainard and Crowing County all of my life, but not for much longer. Um, as some of you have stated, you don't
know the real costs of this project. You also don't know the real costs of what's going to cost you after they leave. The grass is replanted, the road is repaved, and the costs continue on of your pump station, the pump stations that are
going to transfer your sewage and everything that comes along with that. The maintenance doesn't stop when the last truck leaves the construction site. the cost will continue on and on. And if you're downhill from one of those pumping stations and there's a failure
and the check valves have somebody's underwear stuck in it, everybody else's sewage uphill ends up in your basement. You're not alone at that point. You get everybody else's refues. Along with that, this city has not
operated within their own taxing limits for about 40 years. They're on local government aid. That's what keeps Brainard alive is LGA. I call it small town heroin because once you're hooked on it, you can't get yourself back off of it. They designed their budgets and their staffing.
>> Madam Chair, the discussion here is annexation, not the actions of the city of Brainard. >> Point well taken. I if I lived in that area of unorganized township, I would fight this tooth and nail. And I urge you folks to look out for the benefit of the people that haven't caused you any
problem, but pay their taxes. Thank you. >> You is there anyone else who wishes to speak? Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? Is there anyone else who wishes to
speak? Okay. Um, Madam Chair, >> yes. >> Discussion from from us. >> Yes. Discussion from the commissioners. >> I just want to start out by saying I
understand why Brainard wants to do this and why it's a benefit for them and their residents to do it. Um, however, I don't see it as a benefit to the residents that they're trying to annex in. I think it's only going to
um put the financial burden on on them. Uh not long ago, the city of Crosby um had ambitions to annex part of Dearwood Township and they after discussing it sent a
letter to the Dearwood Township and asked for a meeting with all the residents that would be affected and wanted to hear their input and did so and it was an overwhelming crowd that showed up and not a single one was in favor of it happening. they took that
back to their council meeting and discussed it and realized that that was not the right decision to make. Um I'm I'm appreciative of the way Crosby handled that situation and the residents of Dearwood Township are very
appreciative of it and it's actually made the relationship better because of that. But um one of the arguments that I heard through this process was about the sewer and the well the environmental argument that uh this would be better for the
residents. Um you know I think about every other house that we have that's on the Mississippi River and on every body of water around here that have their own wells and their own sewers. you know, this this argument is not a
valid argument in my opinion. Um, that's like saying that everybody else in the county should follow suit then at that point. And these um these wells are all functioning properly, sewers are functioning properly. If it ever gets to a point where they run out of space to
put a new sewer in the event that there's fails, you know, then they can ask the city to uh hook up to them. Um, so I don't think that's a valid argument. And from the public service
side of things, I don't think there's a township or even an area within a township that's closer to the sheriff's department than this area of first assessment. Um, same with fire department. They've already got a a
contract with Brainard Fire and they're probably the closest township to Brainard Fire. So I don't think they're adding any value to the residents by um by annexing them them with regard to public service. The roads are already um
maintained by highway department and some of it's maintained by the city of Brainer now as well. But it's not adding any value to them either. So I um I would not support motion number one and I would prefer mo uh option number two.
>> Right, >> Madam Chair? Yes, >> Madam Chair, I'll just let you know I'm ready to vote. >> Okay. Um, I'm going to hand the gavl over to the vice chair. Since this is in my district, even
though the entire board is the town board, I want to make sure that the people know that I heard them. Um, I have had all kinds of contact, phone
calls, emails, texts, all kinds of of contact with people in this district and not one of them wanted this. So, I am going to make a motion, not the one in the packet. I'm going to make a motion for a resolution to deny the orderly
annexation of certain areas within Crowing County to the city of Brainard pursuant to Minnesota statutes 414.0325. And then in our packet, there's an exhibit A on page 183 and an exhibit pa
um B on pages 184 through 210 that show the areas and give the descriptions of the land. So, if I could get a second, >> Madam Chair or Mr. Chairman, I would second that motion.
>> We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? >> Okay. Ask for a roll call. >> Commissioner Coring >> I. >> Commissioner Lubkkey >> I. >> Commissioner Lee >> I. >> Commissioner Franine.
>> I. Motion carries. I guess you say that. >> Motion carries. >> Yeah. >> You gonna hand it back to her now or not? >> Thank you very much. Okay. Next on the agenda is County Sheriff.
>> Good morning. I don't have anything for you today, but if you had any questions, I'd certainly be happy to answer any any concerns or anything like that. Outstanding. We must be doing a good job. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> How many attorney?
>> Good morning, Madam Chair, commissioners. I also don't have anything for you today, but I'd be happy to answer any questions you have of me. >> Thank you for being here. >> City admin county. >> Madam Chair, I do have a couple more things for you today. Um really the only thing I have is the senior management
team report. We met yesterday for the first time in a few weeks which was nice to get together and have some conversations again. Uh one of the items that we talked about is that somehow it's already almost the end of the first quarter of 2026. Time flies when you're having fun and we spent quite a bit of
time talking about the refinements that we made to our performance management process over the course of the last year to be implemented in 2026. The focus that we wanted to make sure is that we continue to ensure that quality timely discussions and content continue
to occur. The success of the system really will hinge on our ability to continue to do quality performance management sus per performance management work. So we had a lot of discussion around this process as we come closer to that first check-in this year with our staff and supervisors.
We also had conversation around the fact that there is a new statute that went into effect this year that requires any grant agreements that county enters into to be posted to our website. Um this is I believe the purpose of this is to
increase the transparency and where's the funding coming from that county municipalities and counties are are dealing with. We had a significant discussion on how we would deliver this requirement uh to make sure that we have a way to begin to pull all that data
together to put it out on our website. One of the things that we discussed was that there are some state agencies like DHS who have already started to put that information out available on their website and rather than recreate the wheel, we'll be looking at ways that we can link to those agreements when it's
the same agreement that we have. So, we'll be looking at how we can do that. Um, how we capture some of those other agreements that we have and how we display them on our website. More to come on this as we get more familiarized with this and start to get it all information together. I will just note
that this is for any contracts that were executed after January 14th, I believe it was, of 2026. So, you'll start to see something like that occur, and we will make sure that we share that landing page with you when we do have that all available.
Um, as has been the case at most of our recent meetings, we had quite a quite a rigorous discussion around the paid family leave and some of the impacts that it is having with our staff. Um, as far as to make sure that we are showing our coverage needs, that we are managing
all of that process and what that looks like. Uh, we do know that it is significant amount of time that is being put into that. What we did hear is that not every county or every agency that went with the same private plan that we went with is seeing the same level of
use. The good thing is we have a cap rate lock for 2027. So we have a two-year rate lock and we did find out that we're in a pool of all the folks who went with integrity with the MetLife program to help smooth that experience in future renewal years as well. So that
was nice to hear also. And then finally, we talked about ways that we can tell our story in the community. What are some opportunities that staff can take advantage of that might exist for our staff to engage with the community and share the story of Crowing County? Is it a lunch and learn at the library or at
the center or maybe it is the Nisa Lions Club or some other ways that we can get out into the community and tell the story whether that be a particular topic or just the overall general information. Um, this is one of the project assignments that our public information
officer is working on for this year. So, if any of you have any ideas or ways that you would like to see us engage with the community and share the story of the county, please feel free to reach out to Darcy or myself and we'd be happy to get those into the mix as well. That
is all I have for you, Madam Chair, unless anyone has any questions. I'd be happy to answer them. Madam Chair, you bring up a really good point about getting getting out out there, you know, because I live up in a northern area and and sharing what the county does because first thing is I had
to learn what the county does. >> Yep. >> Even though I'd been in the county since 73, I had to learn what the county does and I think that's really important. I know there's been some talk in my area with a a mayor or so up there that would like to see the cities have a a group
discussion with the county like like it's being done with the townships and some way of forming that to be just anformational thing and get the mayors that would like to get together because some of the mayors haven't served for very many years and don't know what the county does and where where the guard
rails are and I think it would be really good and it would really help with transparency and really help with that we're all on the same mission. We're all trying to serve people better. Um, so I I'm glad you're u brought that up. I'm glad senior management team seems to be looking forward to doing that.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Um, next is a close session. >> Madame Chair, Madam Chair, we do have a uh we do need to move into close session
pursuant to Minnesota statute 13D.03 03 for labor negotiation strategy. This is with our deputies. LS I had to think for a second which one we were talking about today, but it's with our LS deputies. So, we
will just recess quickly here while we get set up for the close session. >> Madam Chair, we need a motion to move into close session, please, before >> John. >> Commissioner >> Commissioner Li just wait. Madame Chair, >> I'll make the motion to move into close
session. >> I have second. >> Do I have a second? >> You have a second by Commissioner Lupkkey. >> Madam Chair, we need roll call, please. >> We need quiet in here.
>> Commissioner Lee, >> I. >> Commissioner Coring, >> I >> Commissioner Loveky, >> I. Commissioner Franine. >> I motion carries. >> Thank you. Now you can pause. Okay. Good morning, Madam Chair and
commissioners. I'm here today with a tentative agreement with the labor law enforcement labor services local 14 representing our deputies and investigators. This group represents 36 employees and
it includes our um Do you want to put the PowerPoint back up there, please? It includes our security and dep our security and wreck deputies, our investigators, and our patrol deputies. The agreement includes moving 100% to
our market aligned pay plan with the range increases in 26 27 and 28 of 33 and 2.75% the general adjustment meeting expectations increase and also the new advancing crowing county incentive. This
group is on the crowing county pay plans or crowing county health plans as well. Some of the key recognitions for the agreement includes our Minnesota paid leave language, which includes a 50/50 premium split, using PTO, so they can
remain whole as paid leave does not pay 100% of their wages. Um, paid leave will run concurrently with our other leaves such as FMLA and parenting leave. It's removing our short-term disability plan and removing our PTO donation program.
Other items include the use of the full PTO app acrual table, which we anticipate will help us in the recruitment process, increasing the healthcare savings plan from $25 per month to $35 per month. Uh uniform
allowance annually of $1,080 that will be paid divided by 12 and paid out monthly, which will help us administratively um with paying that monthly versus annually. The shift differential increased to a dollar per hour including all hours on
the weekend as well. And this was our final group to move to that dollar an hour shift diff. K9 officer pay of 30 minutes of overtime each day which is required by the Fair Labor Standards Act that we do pay for K9 maintenance for
our K9 officers. FTO pay of two hours of straight time pay per day that they are actively engaged in FTO training with our new hires and new recruits. Um, it in the agreement also includes
language about no wage adjustments following the expiration of the contract and a deferred comp match as well of $100 up to $100 per month in 2026 and then $50 a month starting in January of 2027.
And then as with any agreement that we continue to do some language clarification and cleanup and we did um agree to a three-year contract in addition to moving to our new Crowing County pay plan. The agreement also um
includes the starting salary defining the starting salary for each year of the contract and it is higher than what the minimum salary is of the pay grade. Uh it'll include for our deputies investigators a market adjustment of $3,000 in January of 26 and then
applying the new pay plan and $2,000 market adjustment in 27 and then applying the pay plan. It's also allowing the max salary for all three of the con all three years of the contract to be the max salary of what the 2028 pay grade reflects. And then our
security and recck deputies will receive the market adjustment of $1,000 in 26 and in 27 and then the application of the pay plan. If there are no questions, I'm looking for authorization to enter into a labor
agreement between Crowing County and Law Enforcement Labor Services Local number 14 effective January 1st, 2026 through December 31st, 2028. and the chair, human resources manager, and con administrator are authorized to sign set agreements.
>> I'll make a motion to approve. I will second that motion. Approve our labor contract with local 14. >> Okay. I have a motion from Commissioner Lee, a second from Commissioner Lubkkey. All those in favor? >> Commissioner Lubkkey, >> I.
>> Commissioner Lee, >> I. >> Commissioner Coring, >> I. Commissioner Franine. >> I motion carries. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> You >> nice work, >> Madam Chair. That is all we have for you today.
>> Okay. Um >> motion to adjourn. >> Gary got back to us and and there's $102,000. Yeah. $102,000 in the 30 lakes watershed balance. >> So it'll be it'll be adequate for quite
a while. Five to75 to $7,000 payout per year for water testing. >> Good. >> Madame Chair, just one question. I'm I'm sure you know something I don't, but I'm looking at a 12.1 >> 12.1.
>> Yeah, human resources. >> That's what we just did. That was okay. >> Labor agreement action was >> Okay. Well, >> oh, sorry. I'm >> You had the close session to hear it and then you had to come into open session to approve it. I was thinking we had a human resources >> no
>> uh contract as well. >> No, that's what you did. >> Yep. >> You can't get >> so a motion to adjurnn would be in order. Madam chair, >> I think >> and Paul made Paul made the motion. >> Motion >> and I will second that motion. >> Okay,
>> we agree Paul. >> Motion by Commissioner Coring, second by Commissioner Lubkkey. >> We're still we're still >> We're still in a meeting yet here, Sheriff. Commissioner Coring >> I. >> Commissioner Loveky >> I.