All right, let's I'll call the Stewing County Board of Commissioners regular meeting for December 30th, 2025 to order. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance and a moment of silence, please. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. First of all, thank you for your patience. We'll try to speak loud so everybody can hear us. Amber, if you'll call the roll call, please. >> Commissioner Coring,
>> here. >> Love here. >> Commissioner Baros here. >> Commissioner Franine here. >> Commissioner Lee >> here. Number two on our agenda is the open forum. Is there anyone here who would like to speak on a matter other than
what's on our printed agenda? Anyone that would like to speak during open forum? Last call. Thank you. We'll move on to number three to review and approve the minutes from December 16, 2025. Motion by Commissioner Franine.
>> Second by Commissioner Lee. Roll call, please. Commissioner Coring >> I love Keith. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Franine. >> Commissioner Lee. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Barrows. >> Hi. That motion passes. We'll move on to number four. Review of today's agenda.
Any additions, corrections? >> Mr. Chair, we're going to pull item 7.1 from today's agenda. >> Scratch. Motion by Commissioner Benzene. Second by Lukey. Second by Commissioner Lupkkey. Roll call. >> Commissioner Lee.
>> Commissioner Coring. >> I. >> Lkkey. >> I. >> Commissioner Franine. Commissioner Barrows. >> I. That motion passes. Number five is our consent agenda. Motion by Commissioner Lee to accept the consent agenda. >> Second. Second.
>> Commissioner Franine. Roll call. >> Commissioner Franine. Commissioner Lee. Commissioner Coring >> I love I >> Commissioner Barrows >> I that motion passes item number six 6.1 is the establishment of the 2026 county
absent fee ball >> good morning Mr. Chair and commissioners, you stated 6.1 is for the establishment of the Crowing County Absentee ballot board. And front of you, you'll have a resolution just complying with Minnesota
statute 203B.121 subdivision one as the county board has the authority to establish the absentee ballot board. And what we're asking for is uh the role of the board is to bring uniformity to the processing of accepting and rejecting returned
absentee ballots to Crow Wayne County. And uh we have a list of election officials and deputy auditors in the administrative services director office. Secondly, use as ballot board
members and asking for approval of a resolution board for the process of absentee ballots. Any questions or concerns for juror?
>> Motion by Commissioner Franine. Second by Commissioner Loveky. Roll call. >> Commissioner Lovekkey. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Franine. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Lee. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Coring. >> Hi. Barrows. >> I that motion passes. Thank you, Jory.
Mr. Chair and commissioners, uh, under Minnesota statute 204 C.31, subdivision 1, here to you are to establish a canvas board to canvas the results of the elections in 2026. Currently, at this time, we have the
primary election and the general election. As of now, no special elections. So, We need two men who are not on the ballot in 2026, which leaves us with Commissioner Lee and Commissioner Cory
to serve as canvas board members. You guys uh the board will appoint members to this canvas board. So, it makes your decision fairly easy. So, is this a my appointee my appointees or we vote on?
It's a board vote. So, board motion to appoint Commissioner Commissioner Fran makes the motion to approve and I will second that motion. Commission seconds that motion. Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Coring,
>> I love >> I. >> Commissioner Franine. Commissioner Lee. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Barrows. >> I. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Real quickly, is everybody able to hear
your If you can't hear, just let me know. Yes. and we'll talk louder. So, all right. Thank you. We'll move on to number eight, land services. >> Morning, Chris.
>> Good morning. >> Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the board. We have five items for your consideration this morning. The first request is for a land use map amendment for partial number 712566 located in section 12 of the North Lake
Township. The request is to amend the land use map of rural residential 5 to residential 2.5 involving approximately 34 acres. Um and looks like we might have able to get the our packet up. Um if I don't are you able to see your
packet at your Okay. Well, um if you would scroll down to um page 109 of your packet. >> Which one? >> Can we go to 109? >> Yeah, let's actually let's do one. Let's go to 110 first. That'll help. So, this
is the location of the request. Um this is in No Township. And uh right, we've got the the parcel sitting right here and is currently zoned the blue just for um to understand the colors on the map. The areas that are in blue are real
residential five. Area that you see here, this boundary, this this lighter blue is the shoreland district. Area that you see here in yellow is the rural residential 2.5. Um the area that's in green would be our agricultural forestry. This brown would be the rural
residential 10. And this hashed here would be tax forfeited land. And so if we can go back now to 10. Yep. Go here. Zoom in. So you see we got Noki Lake Road here. This is the partial that they're requesting to reszone from R
five to down to 2.5 uh zoning. Um we did get a comment from the township on this. They were not in support of the request, but the planning commission did hold a public hearing on this on December 18th and made a unans recommendation to the board to approve the land use map
amendment for partial 7812 0566 residential 5 to residential 2.5 involving approximately 34 acres. The plan commission board of adjustment developed the finding a fact for you found on pages 115 through 116 for your consideration based on the application
submitted staff packet public comments and finding a fact is recommended by the planning commission board of adjustment to approve the land use map amendment has be happy to answer any questions questions for commissioner >> Lee
Township you said was not there a reason why >> yeah they they were um they felt that the density in that area was was too much. They um were concerned about what what what if they pl the property, what would that look like? And um and so
there were just some concerns about those are the basic concerns that the township had. We're just kind of the unknowns about what might happen to if it were to change from five to 2.5. >> Okay. >> Is there a copy of that letter in this
packet? Um, >> I don't see that. I don't see it in there. >> I don't have I I don't know if I have that with me today either. So, they did uh it was something that they did send in um
before the meeting. So, the planning commission was aware of the commission didn't see the letter. >> They did. They did see the letter. They did. Yep, they did. Okay. So, it should be in our packet, correct? It >> It sure should be. Okay. I don't see it might have it might not
have dated. So apologize for that. Letter was received on December 16th in our office. >> Any other questions? Commissioner Toring. Anything? >> Mr. Chairman, no questions from me. Thank you. recommendation is to support.
Look for a motion. Commissioner Lee makes a motion to support. >> Second by Commissioner Franzine. Roll. >> Commissioner Franine. Commissioner Lee. >> Hi, >> Commissioner Coring.
>> Hi. >> Love Keith. >> Hi, >> Commissioner Barrows. >> Hi. >> The motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 8.2. >> The next request is for a land use map amendment for parcel number 992606
located in section 26 of first assessment an organized township. The request is to amend the land use map from railroad district one shorland district to commercial involving approximately 2.26 26 acres. We go to the map on page one key one.
Back up. There we go. So, here's the the parcel in question is the triangle here just for um to identify kind of where we're at. Wise Road here. You've got Kyro 20 or Riverside to the west. You got Ky
Road three here comes up on the up on the east side. The colors, just for everybody, as a reminder again, the area that's in blue is the Shorland district. The area that's in brown is our rural residential one. This area up here, this kind of this pinkish color is our
commercial. This off over in this direction, our rural residential one. As a reminder, again, the areas that have color would be the the tax force land. Uh Mr. Chair, that just I'd like to share some history on this file with the board. Um, an application to change the
glory of this property from residential to commercial 2, which included an auto body appearance was denied by the county board on March 22nd of 1983. >> When was that? >> March 22nd of 1983.
>> Yeah, we can't hear them. >> Okay, I'll start over from uh I'll start with with just going back to what I just mentioned. So, uh, there is some history on this file that I would like to share. Um, an application to change the zoning on this property from residential to commercial two to include an auto body
repair business was denied by the county board on March 22nd of 1983. And then another application to change zoning from residential to commercial one was denied by the county board on January 6th of 19 January 6th of 1998. So there have been two two requests in
the past to change zoning from a residential classification to a classification. Both have been denied by the board. Um the planning commission did hold a public hearing in December 18th and a 3:1 recommendation to the board to approve the land use map
amendment for parcel 9926 from one in shorland to commercial involving approximately 2.26 acres. The dissenting commission member does not >> go down. Pretend like you're yelling at me. Okay, >> I'll do my best. Use your outside.
>> Yeah. >> The dissenting commission member did not feel that the land use map amendment aligned with the current county comprehensive plan that was re that was adopted by the board in August of 2024. The planning commission did provide finding a fact page on pages 126 to 127
of the packet based on the application submitted and um packet and the information. It is recommended by the planning commission to approve the landings map amendment on a 3 to1 vote. I'd be happy to answer any questions questions.
Um here um do you have any was there any public comment at your n >> was not there was nobody here or there was no public comment >> nobody attended >> weren't there letters that aren't in the
>> we'll get to you in a minute >> we did send out we did mail notice um all not the letters were sent out according to statute and ordinance so we did we did mail out the notice and it's also published in the paper um and so I understand that, you know, sometimes the
mail sometimes doesn't get where it needs to get sometimes as quickly as we hope. Um, and I know there was some questions about um why was an application submitted during this time frame with with it being around the holidays this time of year. We accept
application on a monthly basis for different requests including you know land use map amendments, variances, conditional use permits and uh and so provided they can meet the deadline to apply and provided and then we have a meeting is the third Thursday of every month in this in this room here starting
at 3 p.m. And so that would have been on December 18th. And so, um, it's it's at the applicant's discretion as to when they choose to apply or when they choose, you know, to not apply for for any other request that they can ask for. >> Okay. Before we
>> chairman, >> um, commissioner, I thought I would go to public comments first. Would are you okay with that? >> Yes. >> Okay. So before we go on, going to ask anyone who would like to speak to come
up and speak at the microphone for three minutes on anything that a previous speaker hasn't said to us. So I don't want repetition and we'll be here for hours and if you have something unique you would like to hear it, I will first
start as the developer here. Nobody here and I'll start with with you. If you'll state your name and your address Peterson address is 10613 Gilbert Shores Drive which is over by
that I'm representing also some property owners in my my my neighborhood. I wanted to point out first of all that we all several of us sent in emails regarding this to the zoning department
for that meeting. We weren't able to attend. We were in disagreement with them passing it and uh we were still in disagreement with it being passed for the following reasons. As you can see, it's very close to
Lake Gilbert there. That is a water runoff area. The ditch that runs along Riverside in front of that property runs along Wise Road and drains water from that area all the way down into Lake Gilbert.
Secondly, as he's pointed out, County Road 3 runs along parallels to Riverside Drive. That is a very getting to be a busy road and there's a lot of lights come down there. Now, if you thought about putting
any trees in between these two properties in that area there. That would be great. Uh if you take out the trees that are there, that's green space that's wasted. It hasn't been used in over believe it's been since the '9s,
sometime when the house was that was there was burnt down. So, I've lived my address for 26 years. It's always been a nice green space. One thing we could use is more.
So in that respect, we don't see any benefit to having a commercial lot built there. And I would kind of recommend that if anything, the county board think about purchasing the property and keeping it a green space
and adding more trees in between. Right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a quick question. Do we have Are those emails were those emails sent before the meeting? >> So any anytime we get comments about the
application, if we receive them a week before the meeting or more, we include them in the packet. If they come after the week, so we we put the packet up on the website one week before the meeting. Any emails that we get after as far as comments, those emails are provided to the planning commission um every day
they come in. So at the end of the day, we send out whatever comments we get in. And so there's a forward on the budget commission and to the outcome. >> We don't have any here. That was just I didn't see any >> and Chris at the meeting I believe it
was said that there were five letters that were sent in. >> I believe that's what Yeah. Yeah. >> All right. Anyone else who would like to speak? Sir Kudson. Name and address, please.
>> Good morning, Jim and Sue Kudson. 7453 Rivers Trail. It's down at the end of Evate Road. I hope you all didn't have any coal in your socking last week. First, this application is spot zoning. I've been a commercial real commercial
and residential real estate broker for over 32 years now retired and most of my sales have been raided in Baxter and unorganized territory. So, I speak from knowledge. This is spot zoning. It's the worst kind of zoning as it benefits one
person to the dis disadvantage of many of the many. You can Google that definition. There's no mention in this application or questions from the planning commission of any environmental concerns. This is not served this area
by city water or sewer or storm sewer. The impervious surface square footage of any commercial project will be huge. This runoff will have to go somewhere. Is an EAW, environmental assessment worksheet, may be required.
Where is the need for this zoning? Nobody that I've talked to has any additional needs to continue living comfortably in unorganized territory. We've all enjoyed this area without the intrusion of commercial businesses. This
is what has attracted most of us to this area. Our 1997 original comprehensive plan for unorganized territory said no commercial zoning along County Road 3 and Wise Road. I served on that committee. If the county approves this
freezoning and in two or three years the wheels at the highway department start turning, a roundabout is now forecasted for that corner. The county taxpayers will then have to pay commercial land value to the property owner for the rightway that'll be required for that
roundabout. If it remains residential, the county saves a lot of money for that same land. We've lived in an unorganized territory since 1991. And I my personal opinion in contrast to
the developer there is another highest and best use not just commercial that would be residential rental. A duplex or triplex would fit comfortably into that property would take a septic on a well and not have an intrusion on all the
residents in the neighborhood. Finally, any commercial project would give off light pollution to nearby homes. It would have sound pollution with large vehicles coming and going at all hours. When it's dark out, headlights from vehicles would be
flashing back and forth into the nearby homes. It would also most likely require left turn lane in from the north and right turn lane from the south at some point in time. None of this is compatible with the surrounding homes, families, and residents of of the
unorganized territory. I had a quick review of the application and I disagree with staff whom I respect. Briefly, the application asked the question, will the reclassification be detrimental to use or property in the
immediate vicinity? And the answer was no. >> The minutes are up. The >> answer to that is yes. >> Thank you. Anyone else? Morning, commissioners. Um, my name is Amy
Nutland. I live on 10573 Gilbert Shores Drive. Um, and then I just want because I, you know, about hearing, I do believe, um, it was stated that nobody attended the December 18th meeting. Um, I don't think anybody did in person.
However, our neighbors who were on their honeymoon, they did. That's right. Um, Yep. communicate uh via team or >> we have one on teams. That's right. >> Yeah. >> All right. Um so good morning commissioners. Thank you for my opportunity. Um I oppose the reszoning
of property from residential to commercial. There are simply too many unknowns uh roundabouts planned in 2029 and the unknown portion of this property will be used for that construction. Until the construction is complete, I think any decision about commercial zoning based on assumptions and not real
data. Uh this property is tucked between Gilbert Lake. Commercial development here would cause negative environmental impacts. Um in addition, commercial traffic would route um most likely to reroute on Riverside Drive, creating congestion, safety hazards for families
in a residential area. Approving this now could worsen the traffic and safety issues that have been that haven't been fully studied. The timing also raises concerns to property that's undeveloped since 1998. And this request appears financially
motivated rather than communitydriven zoning decisions should not allow long-term planning or should allow or should follow long-term planning not speculation. I respectfully ask for to vote no until the roundabouts complete
and um in tax. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Need an address, please. >> Hello, Matt Carlard, 16236 Firstwood Lane on Gilbert Lake. Um, I have here a
page that I would like to give you guys to to look at if you want. It's page five from the Gilbert Lake implementation plan. Um in 22 23 Aken Crowing Morrison and Todd
counties partner develop a one wershed one plan for the Mississippi River Brainer wershed which this falls within um I think the key key thing here and the reason I'm sharing that map is that this this parcel is within um the
immediate drainage area around Gilbert Lake being that the runoff would run into the lake. Um, and I'm not going to restate the previous points, but reszoning this parcel would allow for a gas station, which seems like the most likely use uh in this in this location.
This would cause significant petroleum and sulfide runoff. Um, the lake already has high sulfide levels. Um, and in in fact, in this Gilbert Lake implementation plan, uh, the goal is to enhance the water quality of Gilbert Lake. It's because it's an at risk lake.
Um, so this would not only increase those sulfide levels, but it would also add the add increase petroleum runoff into the lake. Um, so I'm I'm I'm wondering, it sounds like there hasn't been an environmental review. Would that be part of this process? Should that be
part of this process? Um, it in my opinion, it seems like it's a a hasty decision to allow this uh to be commercially reszoned without a a significant environmental review. So, I'm I'm uh urging you to vote no on this resoning. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Anyone else? >> Uh Paula Personsons and Mark Persons, we live at 1032 Island Drive. We own two pieces of property on Gilbert Lake. We're looking at this. We would vote ask you to vote no on this. I think you
understand the environmental impact of it. There is also a small piece a small pond that nobody's mentioned from Gilbert Lake across the road from Gilbert Lake and I'm wondering if that's
within 200 feet which is something for shoreland. We have to look at the environmental impact. Another thing that hasn't been brought up, I don't know, it's in the city of Brainard. I had mentioned in the emails that I sent to
everyone that it was part the city is considering taking a park out of Brainard that I thought was part of across from the uh the old uh paper mill. And actually, it's Gustoson Park that is they're
looking at turning that into residential rather than commercial. Now, this is 2.2 miles away. It's already residential. Why would you take residential away from and turn it into commercial and then turn around two miles away and change it
the other way around? Yes, you have city of Brainard and you have the unorganized territory, but let's work together and look to the future. So, I would ask you to look at the environmental impact, look at what they're doing to the neighborhood, listen to your
constituents, and vote no on this. >> Before I go on with this audience, I want to see if there's anybody online who would like to speak. >> We have a live team's feed. I do have a number of people on there. Nobody's asking to speak.
>> Not that I am able to see. No. >> Okay. We go back to this audience. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? >> Hello. >> My name is Mark Hagstrom. I live at 11 or 16112 Birchwood Lane. That's on
Gilbert Lake as well. Um, I read a great article in the paper that Chris Pence uh talked to you folks about shoreland development and we're concerned about our waters. Well, this is shoreland uh according to your map here. And so
why would we change shoreland to commercial? Well, they'd be held to the same stringent u regulations regarding dirt moving and impervious surfaces and the like. So, it seems to me quite a stretch to move something from shoreland to residential.
I'll also add that this was proposed before and I believe it was 2002. It came up at the Gilbert Lake Association meeting and unanimously the Gilbert Lake Association voted against this. Our meeting is coming up this spring. I can guarantee you it will be another
unanimous vote against this. Thank you. You else. Go ahead. >> Good morning. Morning. Good morning. My name is Bob Brown. You remember Bob to
yell at me. Only >> Yeah. My name is Bob Brown. I live on the uh west side of Gilbert Lake. I moved there in 1986. Uh prior to coming here, I went to the DNR
and try to see I I wanted to live on a lake. I said, "Where should I live?" I met Tim Bastra from the fisheries department and Tim said, "You want to live on Gilbert Lake?" I said, "Why?" There's a jelly, the clearest light in
the area in the Brainard Lakes area. Anyway, I bought a house west side of that summer, you know, to protect that gem. I started the lake association.
Since that time, a lot of things have changed been because of the location of Gilbert Lake. It seems like it's always under assault. We've had many, many issues. We've been here many times throughout the years.
Wise Road was reconstructed a number of years ago. When the road was reconstructed, there was a deep ditch placed on the east side of the road that drains directly down to a beehive and to a culvert that drains directly
into the lake. It's kind of like the drain in your sink. Well, that seemed pretty benign, but at that time there were farm fields north of Wise Road and tremendous amount of water drain. I took videos of it years ago. You could not stand in front of
that colder in the spring. It would have blown you away. That's how much water comes in the lake. And the phosphorus levels were over a thousand which was tremendously high and that was a concern at the time. We addressed the board at that time.
A lot of things changed. Riverside Drive was also reconstructed and I think the county did a tremendous job and then that turned out really well. Some things don't change though. One thing that doesn't change is that periodically that small piece of land
always comes up to be resone commercial. Why is that a problem for the lake? Well, it's a problem for the lake is because that creates and people have said tremendous amount of impervious surface area. There's nowhere the water
can go except into that ditch down to that beehive culver directly into the lake. If you think about it, is that going to be good for the lake? Well, it can't be. And if they make no
matter what you make there at one time somebody was going to make a house there and we came here and we were for that we thought ah that'll solve the problem. We just have one house we can the lake can absorb that run.
The runoff from a commercial property is entirely different. Think of the fuel that could come to that lake. We run out the fossil fuels. Oil and water don't mix. That's a huge problem for us.
That's a I know I'm That's a gem. We need to protect that gym. We don't want to lose it. All right. Thank you. Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. I'm I am actually the
property owner. I didn't hear you asked earlier. property owners here. You're welcome to come up and speak. >> I'm uh Mike Harvig uh 4650 hemlock lane people lakes. Um, I've owned the property for about 27
years and uh I guess I when I first bought it, it was uh um had a burn down house on it and uh part of our agreement at the time was previous owner we clean it up and uh and
bring it back to grade because uh I didn't want it looking like that. Um, currently it's zoned residential. It's one of it's uh sitting on the highest traffic uh count county road in
the county is my understanding. Um it's a major one of two major intersections. The other one is uh north of Mayorfield where the new roundabout was put in. Um, majority of you can't really see on
here, but my understanding is majority of the highway frontage on three from uh, Weiss Road up through north of Marfield uh, has been zoned commercial and there is a lot of commercial
activity along along that area and uh, we've looked at it. It just doesn't make sense to have residential where we're at. It's surrounded up on all sides by county roads and uh you
know I've sat on it for a lot of years trying to think what you know what's the best use had other projects going on. We we built the American Lodge and Suites in Jenkins. I've got a town home development south of Peekquat on Highway
371. Um, you know, we'd like to see something go there that fit the area, but it uh there there's no definite plans at this point. You know, looking at maybe partners or
whatever, but uh we just learned in October, probably like everybody else, that there's a roundabout going in there. So, um, we're kind of just sitting tight and working. The county's met with us on it trying to determine
how that's going to be designed. You know, with um we think with with the slower traffic with a roundabout, it's safer intersection and uh safer for
development there. But uh we don't have any definite plans. It's probably out several years now with the roundabout construction and um we'd like to you know just request it be
reszone because it cannot we don't feel it can be used safely as residential and I don't think anybody want a house sitting in between three three county roads there uh with one of them being
the highest traffic roads in the county >> after three minutes. >> Okay, that's all I have to say. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Chair, members of the board, Don Ryan. I live at 16146 Lane in unorganized territory. Feels really weird to be on this side of the table
like that. Um, couple of things. I don't know that residential is the best use for that property either, but if it is, we have a lack of affordable housing in Cing County. Always Francine, if you remember about five years ago, I think it was we bought we
you approved buying the nature conservation buying the Don Samberg property so that then the DNR would buy it from them. So we prevented development along the uh CH channel going from Gilbert 2 to Gilbert 3. So we
it's this continuing to improve and maintain Y over Lake is not a new concept this board. You're well into that. Um I and I'm not dissing staff at all. It's not an issue for today, but when something comes up on the watershed like this, and I counseledled you on
this when I was the county attorney, you need more than just the statuto notice. You got to at least let the plague association know, not legally, but I think just to be fair, you need more people to know about it, particularly at that time of the year. So that as you
can see, there's a lot of people opposed. If you don't know, I didn't find out about this till Friday, but I would have been at that planning commission meeting. Um, so that's not an issue for today, but I just thought I should raise that. Um, there are two other gas stations in the convenience
stores. um one just before the bridge and one just in airfield. The need is not there for commercial development. Plus, when that roundabout goes in, it's just not Wise Road, Riverside Drive, and County Three. You go just up a little
bit and there's another road that comes right in there that that roundabout's going to impact just before Memorial Cemetery. You go just uh a little south of Wise Road, there's a residential private road that goes back into the development there. You have no place to go. These houses are right on county
roads. This is the only piece of land you're going to be able to go into. I don't know what the highway rightway is, but I've blocked that piece of property before. It's not very big anyway. If you take half of it, there's no way you're going to build anything on. Highest use in my opinion that come to acquire this,
maintain it for additional road work in the future and then put a burm or something on the far south end of it to prevent any runoff going that way. or maybe all are one out will go into a holy cell there which will prevent water from going into the build. It's hard when you do one out of closing
arguments. Um, and consistent with all of the compliments. I'm not going to repeat Commissioner Barrows, there's a reason it was denied twice in there was tens decades and decades of work to how do we
develop unorganized territory. That even goes to when we won't take roads over because they're not wide enough because we didn't weren't thinking about that back in the days. We have to think forward, not what they're going. And no, no disrespect, Mr. He. He's bought property. He's a developer. He wants to
develop, right? I still think the buy this 20 years ago or whatever it was last time it was denied. I thought the conversation was that we were going to acquire that for maintaining for purposes. We didn't. I apologize. I know.
Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Chair. All right, I'm going to bring it back up to the board. Commissioner Lucky and then Chris question. >> When we have these things come in front of us, Chris, it would really also be
nice to make sure that we have all the documentation in these packs because we have to make our decision. We don't we are always next door neighbors to them and we have to make these decisions. Sometimes it's based upon the information. I did listen to the whole
uh planning commission board of just meeting. I listened to that and I heard the family there that was uh on their honeymoon and calling in. So I it was kind of unusual that nothing else was in this packet. So I would appreciate if that would be done more uh diligently and have it in there for us to make our
decisions. We have all the facts. Thank you. So, Commissioner Coring, I apologize, but Commissioner Franzine would like to speak first, and it's her district, so I'm going to allow that. >> I would really like to say that I have
never had this many um people get a hold of me about something. I had emails, I had phone calls, I even have texts. And I would really like to thank everyone for being so kind. I mean nobody said
you have to do this and you know they they've allowed me to make my own decision that gave reasons why I should make the decision I'm going to make. Um we revised the comp plan and it was
approved in August of 24. The future uh land use map was approved as part of the plan. There was no plan for commercial um zoning in this area. This property is classified as rural residential one and
it is surrounded by rural residential one. Due to the fact that there is no commercial land close to this parcel, this would be considered spot zoning. The property is in the Shorland district. This property drains into Gilbert Lake. contaminants from a gas
station. And a gas station was mentioned um at the planning and zoning meeting. So that's where I got that from. The contaminants from a gas station would quickly travel into Gilbert Lake. There's a direct correlation between water quality and land value. So
allowing more contaminants into Gilbert Lake could depreciate the properties on the um there are concerns about traffic generation and access to the property the roundabout and um I will let the others people speak
before I make my motion. >> Mr. Cory. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh I'm sorry to say that Jim Kudson stole all my thunder. So, I will be voting I just to let the county board know. I will be voting no
on this. Uh I think it's I think Chris, you've got some findings of fact here. Uh we just spent thousands and thousands of dollars on a comprehensive plan. We didn't change this to commercial. I look back at the county boards of 1983 and
1998 denying a um a commercial application for this. I do believe this is spot zoning and so I will I will not be supporting this um uh recommendation from the planning and zoning commission.
Thank you. >> Other commissioners commissioner Lee. >> So I guess the the speak >> the main thing that uh stands out to me is that this is smack dab in a
residential and shoreline area. Um, I don't believe it fits to change it. I think it needs to stay the way it is right now. It's a residential zoning. So, I also understand the concerns of the water runoff.
I think that people have forgotten is it also um as it seeps into the ground, it can go 360 and it could actually reach the river from where it's at too if it was to become a gas station. Many uses for commercial property. testimony spoken.
So, just want to add that point to it. Um, yeah, I'm not in favor of it. >> Mr. Liy, anything else? Um, the only thing I'd add is, you know, we do believe in individual people's property rights and and Mr. Aruk has had this
property for 27 years as residential. Bought it as residential. Um, and and I think it needs to stay residential. Um, I think maybe the uh county should have maybe looked at it a little bit more because we are doing a lot of roundabouts in that roundabout in that
intersection. I don't know what that's going to require. I don't think our engineers have even a preliminary plan yet for what that roundabout looks like, but uh I I'm I'm going to vote on this. >> So, I have a couple concerns myself here
on questions number four and five on the finding of facts sheet that we have. And so my concern was was this. The number four question says, will the reclassification be detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of
the subject property? And I don't know how the planning board came up with it. But when I look at their answer that's on this sheet, it doesn't address whether it's going to be detrimental or not detrimental. It doesn't address that specifically. It
tells me what the properties are classified around it, but it doesn't address the question. That's one of my concerns is that we be very succinct in what we say, how we answer some of these questions. Question number five says, does the
reclassification promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the public? Again, it talks only about the classification of properties around it. It does not address the question and therefore I have questions about whether or not this was properly vetted out in
my opinion. And with that I will look for a motion to approve or deny. >> Motion to deny the reselling. >> I have a motion to second by Commissioner Cory. Roll call. Um excuse me. >> Can I make one comment, Mr. Chair? Yes, sir.
>> So what I'm hearing is up for the denial. And so with that request, you're rejecting the findings that are in the packet that were put together by the planning commission and you give the findings. I just want to summarize those quick so that we have that on the record as to and make sure that's what make sure what I heard is what you wanted me
to hear. So I get that. >> So the what I heard you say was that we have a revised comp plan from August of 2024 with the featured land use map and there was no plan for commercial zoning when that plan was adopted. You are considering this to be spot zoning. This should remain in a residential use
because it is located in residential strong area surrounded by those typical uses. There's concerns over um potential commercial uses down the road wherever could come on as far as generating impervious and petroleum contaminants going to Gilbert. This could potentially
lower property values in the area. you have concerns about traffic generation and I think that's kind of what is there anything else that >> future it's already on the promise for the uh roundabout >> round okay okay
because I will I'll put this together into a finite fact and get that over to the county administrator's office so it'll it'll complete the file for this >> you have anything you need >> I think I have everything I need >> roll call please >> commissioner lovekkey >> hi >> commissioner Franczine >> hi >> commissioner Lee
Hi, >> Commissioner Floring. >> Hi, >> Baros. >> I motion passes. Thank you very much. I will say this seen this many people from the faded come to one of our meetings. So, >> thank you very much.
All right. Number 8.3. Don't have to explain the negatives. better than Okay. >> All right. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. The next request for a land use map amendment for parcel number 900200500
located in section 20 of St. Matias College. The request is to amend the land use map from agricultural for residential 10 involving approximately 40 acres. Uh can we go down to the zoning map? There we go. So again, as I mentioned,
this is in St. Matias Township. Uh the we good? Okay. >> Yeah. Okay. Sorry. >> So it's it's you've got uh um South Poring Road here. We have 20th Street, Fifth Avenue 122. And the request is
that you can see the blue here is the 5 acre zoning here. Um it's this parcel here is currently zoned as the agricultural forest street right now, which has a minimum lot size of 35 acres. And what what he's what they're requesting to do is to change that to
the R10 though R5 is in the area. Uh he would look to create 10acre lots with that request. Uh the plan commission did hold a public hearing on us on December 18th and made a recommendation to the board to approve the land use map amendment for parcel number 90200500
from agricultural 14 central 10 involving approximately 40 acres. Uh the plan commission did develop the finding a fact found on pages 137 138 for your consideration as well based on the application submitted staff packet comments and the finding of fact recommended by the planning commission
auto adjustment to approve the land use map as submitted happy to answer any questions we did not get any comments from the township on this request question >> Mr. Chairman >> Mr. Chairman, I would move the adoption of the land use map amendment for the
Julie or Jeffrey and Julia D. Roger request. >> Second. >> Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Coring. Second by Commissioner Franzine. >> I just had I had a question. U the the blue is the blue five acre. >> Yes.
>> And they're looking at taking it going just 10 acres in there. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> I just want to have that clear. >> Yes. >> Call please. Commissioner Coring >> I love >> I >> Commissioner Franzine >> Commissioner Lee >> Hi >> Commissioner Barros
>> I that motionless thank you very much we'll move to 8.4 hearing and Raymond Jill >> thank you Mr. Mr. Chair, the next request is for the plunary plat of Turtle Bay for parcel number 77010540 which is located in section one of
Mission Township. The requested to prove a conventional design plunary plat consisting of two lots. The total size of the parcel of poor subdividing is approximately 5.5 acres. The plat is located on Adne Lake which is classified general development. If you go to the
map on page 142, let's go up to the Yep. Let's go to the survey there. So, uh, what they're proposing to do, you've got Adne Lake Road here. This is lot one here in this area here, and this will be lot two to be serviced by this turtle
grade trail be what will be the access to get to both lots. Um, the planning commission held a public hearing on this and made a recommendation to the board to approve plat of Turtle Bay. The the planning commission did develop a finding effect found on page 151 and 152
of the packet based on the application submitted staff packet public comments and the finding of fact is recommended to approve the land use map amendment as submitted. The plant does meet all the ordinance requirements for lot size lot with two septic sites. Just wanted to make a note um that Mission Township has
adopted an ordinance regulating subdivisions as well and so there's concurrent approval process with uh Mission Township. the packet. Uh there's a resolution from Mission Township dated December 8th approving the flat as well. And that uh resolution information for
the township was on page 153 to 156. Questions question. I would look for a motion to approve. Commissioner Lee makes a motion to >> Commissioner Lumpkkey makes a second.
Roll call, please. Commissioner Lee. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Coring. >> Hi. >> LKY. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Franine. Commissioner Barrows. >> Hi. >> That motion passes. Thank you, Chris. We move on to 8.5 and use amendment ordinance amendment.
>> All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for that. Just want to give a quick summary of the process as to where we have been on this and and where we're at today. So, um, an amendment to the ordinance was initiated at a whole meeting on October 21st of 2025 and and the board
authorized a 30-day comment period that went from October 21st to November 21st. During that comment period, we received a total of nine comments and they are included in the packet. A letter was received from the DNR providing conditional approval of the ordinance for the shoreland related items. Um, we
also have information from the MPCA related to the septic ordinance items that we needed to update which was a line share of the changes on this. Um, as I mentioned at the committee the whole meeting last week, um, we added it based on after the we put the ordinance
out for comment. The MPCA did come back and gave us um, five additional um, basically administrative changes for clarity for some things that we just needed to have to meet the minimum requirements of their model ordinance that they have. Also wanted to point out that um we also had to make a change to
article 15 to make sure that we're referencing the correct statute related to commercial cannabis use. Um so the planning commission did hold a public hearing on December 18th and they made a recommendation to the county board to approve the ordinance as submitted with
a couple recommendations that they wanted the board to consider. One was when you look at article 11.20 E0 about the section referring to buffering requirements for certain types of permits. They wanted to use the term
no maintenance buffer instead of a vegetative buffer as we have a definition for that in the ordinance. That was their one recommendation. They did support the the idea of the shoreline buffer requirements for permits that require
shorter liberation in this area and that beach area. As we've discussed, um they did um they did rec recognize that um the buffer width for a recreational development and general development might be a little bit much for 25 ft. And so, um, based on that conversation
and and from the staff, uh, recommendation, um, if with going with the with the buffering requirements for those, I'd recommend going with the 10- foot, uh, for a general development of our recreational development lakes and maintain that 25 foot on the natural
environment lakes. And I think that would accomplish what we're hoping to do, which is try to get more vegetation on our shorelines, which we think will help with water quality in the long run for Crowing County. questions. >> So, Mr. Chair, >> go ahead.
>> So, so just so I understand, you know, I was opposed to this 25 foot. So, so you're adjusting it right now. You're you're recommending after consultation, you're recommending going down to 10, right?
>> Yes. Uh yes, that would be that's exactly >> okay. I can support I was going to vote no on this whole package, but uh now that you've adjusted that, I will be voting for this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> Mr. Lucky, um just clarification on that 1128B as as there was testimony in there in regards to natural environment lakes to leave them alone. Is that is are we changing natural environment lakes because according to what you were putting in here, you were putting
natural environment lakes under the same thing as general development recreational development lakes, >> right? And so if I could just clarify um that standard are for lakes are for properties on lakes for um that have that are basically never been altered.
It's a lot that's completely vegetated. There's no structures on it. It's never been built on. Um for right now the way that way we have it set up for our GD and our RD lakes we protect shore impact zone one which is half of the setback. So for a GD lake that would be 37 and a2
ft for reparation belt would be 50 feet and for natural 25 ft because we have a separate standard for John Develment lakes but are you are you this change you're looking at doing is it going to change how we look at natural environment sites? It's going to
strengthen. It'll strengthen >> strengthen it by going to a 10 foot or you're not going to a 10 foot. >> So, so and so think about the the 10 10 25 recommendation are for for lots that have been completely developed. Um
they've been that way for many years. They've got, you know, a situation or what what should I >> and >> correct? >> So, you are putting it on. >> Correct. Absolutely. is that 25 foot. But so I think the benefit to this is
that if somebody comes in today and they've got a a piece of property that has never been built on and they've got trees right down to the water's edge. Um with our current ordinance, you'd only need to maintain 25 ft of that. With this change, you need to maintain 75 ft of that because that's the shore and
zone for natural carbon. So this is going to strengthen those lots that never been built on. And we're still going to have that 25 foot buffer for those lots that have been built on. They don't have that buffer in place if they apply for a permit. Only a permit would trigger that the 25 foot buffer on
natural environment if they wanted to get a permit. >> And and one of the other things that was in here that was that was brought up at that meeting was was when you talk about the word vegetation and you also talk about no maintenance. No maintenance could be a set of hostas all the way down to the lake.
>> Yeah. And again, so I to differentiate. So the no maintenance is a situation where they they've been mowing grass down the water's edge for 50 years and it's an improvement in that situation to say we just would like you to stop mowing down there and get some native
vegetation by your shoreline. The other situation somebody's got a lot that's never been cleared, never been touched. That's going to be the requirements of trees and shrubs and you can be limited clearing. you can't that's so it clarifies this will help clarify the requirements for what you can do in a
natural environment lake that hasn't been disturbed and built on versus one that has so this strengthens this proposal will strengthen those those that park still I mean I still have a thing in my head that says that that we're not I mean the natural environment
lakes that we have in the area are the pristine ones that are there that haven't been touched >> and by changing that standard you know we can't do much with the general development R RD lakes that are already done. Some of those were done long before we've had ordinances in place to to look at changing the natural
environment lakes and backing them up and and right now I still haven't got in my head yet that we're not backing up on natural environment lakes and reaffirming the fact that they have not catching something that >> I'm trying to put a real rough drawing
together. >> You're gonna do a map for me. So current so this this top piece is our vegetated property that have never been disturbed. That's our current ordinance the way it would be right now. So they came in and said I want to get a permit to build on
this. If you're a general development lake, we would protect the first 37 and a half ft away from the lake. If you're a recreational development lake, we protect the first 50t away from the lake. If you're a natural environment lake, we protect the 25. We would we only they'd only be required to protect 25 ft of natural.
If we go to if we change the order that's been proposed. That's the second drawing which is really high-tech. I mean I really get it. I did it sitting in the audience as I was trying to figure this out. Um to present so on general development again 37 and a2 recreational 50t natural environment 75
ft. So we're protecting instead of 25 ft we're protecting 75 ft. And then if we go down to existing where it's it's like you said it's been there for pre-ordinance. It's been there for 50 years on the GD lake and already lake we're going to ask them to stop 10 ft away from the back the natural
environment length we're going to say 25 ft. So that accomplishes both both of the I think is >> the word no maintenance and what's you know natural natural shoreline wouldn't have to the shoreline because no
maintenance means you don't have no maintenance doesn't apply to this doesn't apply to the currently vegetated with the trees does not apply to that it only applies in situation where all the trees have been removed everything has been done and it's it was a legal non-conformity it's been it wasn't done
if it was done illegally these standards would apply. We would make them restore as we talked about at the meeting last week. Right? >> What this is saying is that they've already got everything removed out. They want to do some work on their shoreline. This would say stop mowing the vegetation back 25 ft. I've talked with
um with DNR staff about this. They're pretty excited. They think this is going to be a massive improvement over what we have. >> I mean, we still allow the person to have their area that they can act like what is it 25%? Is it point what is it >> 30% 30%
lot and the remaining 70% now we're saying 25 ft back just on the natural environment links be 25 GD >> so I'm sure that I cannot be sure I just I'm just I'm just worried that the fact that we're going to degrade our
natural environment lakes because it's about the only thing we got that haven't been have things done with it. We can't bring it back. And you're saying, >> chairman, >> just a minute. Go ahead. No, that's okay. Paul can speak.
>> Motion to adopt the uh 8.5 land use ordinance amendment. >> Second. >> I have a motion by Commissioner Corish to land use ordinance amendment. And I have a second by Commissioner Fran.
Sure. >> Do this for just a second only because I've got questions on this. Chris, you and I have talked about this. I just want it explained in my terms. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, I have 100 ft of shoreline for
this system. 100 ft of short. Okay. And the 10 ft we're talking about is from the shoreline towards the road or the house. Correct. Okay. And then anything that's currently been
permitted is all grandfathered in. Nothing changes with anything anywhere else. Correct. Correct. >> Roll. >> Commissioner Franine. Commissioner Lee. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Coring. >> Hi. >> Loveki. >> No.
>> Commissioner Baros. >> Hi. That motion passes. Thank you very much. M chair transportation services agreement both remember this is the only time you get
to yell so it's not but today we bring in front of you request for approval to move forward a newbased service for our medical examiner's One second. We have a 9.1 which is trans. >> You're out of order.
>> Yeah, it's all the same. >> Andy, you got to talk a little louder for me. >> Okay. >> I was confused about when I saw the two lines on there, too. I was didn't know what you were talking about because quite honestly, this is a transportation service agreement for the Nicholas
office. So this is our transportation service for them. I I don't know why there's two. I >> The first one is showing as with regret bus service for transportation of an inmate in the event of an evacuation
from the Crowin County Jail. >> Yes. Thanks for being here on that one. Uh I get all that. I'm not sure because we have that one as Troy and Ron as presenting. >> I wanted to talk about that. That's
that's on that's 9.1 correct. >> Sorry about that. I didn't understand what that was to me. It meant the same thing. I didn't I couldn't see the I tried to pull up your agenda the single packet and it wasn't showing up online. I couldn't see that.
regards to the bus transport for emergency situations where we have to evacuate the jail. We're looking at bringing those inmates to correct that the purpose of that agreement with bus service to utilize them in case of emergency where we have
to bring our inmates to another facility while our building needs to be evacuated. We have had verbal agreements with Riker for many years. uh part of the the coupe plan that uh Clayton Bark has been working on is getting this in writing so that if leadership changes or
something happens we we have an actual contract. >> So the contract and there's a cost that goes with that. Correct. >> There is a cost if the service is used. We are not we're not paying a retainer or there's there is there's only cost if we use the service.
>> Okay. And is this agreement then it increasing that if we use that service or or how? >> Well, right now we would we would just be at the whim of whatever they want to charge us because we don't have an agreement, >> right? >> Um so they would say, "Yep, we have the buses. We could be there at this time
and they would just charge us. This just locks in what that rate would be. >> Mr. Chair, bills. I have not seen the agreement person. >> The facility under on the agreement listed here under 3.1, the facility
agrees to pay contractor at the rate of $90 per hour with a $590 minimum. >> Okay. But we do have a rate up there. >> Yes. >> Any other questions? M >> just one.
Uh, I thought it was was it three or two? >> Mr. Chairman, >> should we uh have this come up at the next county board meeting? It seems like unprepared for this one. >> It just doesn't have an end date.
>> Yeah, I don't see one. >> 4.1 I think it says for two years. >> There it is. 4.1. >> Motion by Commissioner Lupkey to approve. >> I have a second. >> A second. >> Second by Commissioner Lee. Roll call. >> Commissioner Lubkkey.
>> I. >> Commissioner Franine. >> Commissioner Lee. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Coring. >> Hi. >> Barrows. >> Hi. Thank you very much. Now we'll get to >> I appreciate that. >> So back to what I originally was
speaking about in regards to the medical examiners transport services. As you well aware this year the contractor that we currently work with had retired and sold his business off to another vendor. That contract ended. We have a stop gap against till January one. So we sent out
RFPs and I asked my office uh lieutenant Craig Kassenberg to head up that RFP process. he can fill you in what we discovered and the direction we'd like to go. So RFP went out on 1113 and it closed on 1212. We received two
proposals. Uh we received a proposal from Klein Transport which uh was who we are currently using and we also received a proposal from Harding Helpers. Um, we evaluated on
qualification and experience, quality and reliability of proposed services, per transport fee or overall cost effectiveness, references and performance history, compliance with insurance, legal and ethical standards. Evaluation results following evaluation process. Client transport received the
highest overall score. Clients transport scored particularly strong in the area's qualifications, experience, quality, and reliability of service and reference performance history. As the current provider of medical examiner transport services for Crowing County, clients transport has demonstrated consistent
reliable performance, familiarity with county procedures, and effective coordination with law enforcement and medical examiner staff. Their established service history, reduced operational risk, and provided continuity of service. While both proposals met requirements of RP, it was determined that client transports
demonstrated performance, reliability, and experience that provide the best overall value to Crowing County. Considering all evaluation criteria collected cost consideration, sheriff's office reviewed the proposed per transport fees as part of the overall cost
effectiveness criterion. While cost was an important consideration, it was evaluated in relation to service quality, reliability, and performance history. Client transports proposed pricing was determined to be reasonable and suitable given their proven ability in to deliver consistent and reliable
services. Based on the evaluation results and the criteria outlined in the RFP, the Crowing Company recommends a warning medical examiner transport service contract to client transport as a vendor providing the best overall value to Crow. >> Questions?
>> Yes, >> Mr. Frenzy. >> I would like to know what the transport fee was. You mentioned it, but you don't. >> Yes. So, what was proposed by client transport was $800 and it has been that price for at least the last 10 years has
not changed. Uh, and the proposed uh by Harding Helpers was $750 for transit. >> Other questions? >> Question. On average, how many times are they getting used to each? >> On average per year, uh, right now we're
at 58 transports. That is not including December. So around probably 65 would probably be the estimate here. >> There's no other questions or concerns. I would ask for a motion.
I will make a motion to approve. Commissioner Lukey makes the motion to approve. You have something in place. >> Second by Commissioner Lee. Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Coring. >> I. >> Commissioner Lupkkey. >> I. >> Commissioner Franine.
>> Commissioner Lee. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Baros. >> Hi. That motion passes. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. And did you have any additional questions for the sheriff or myself? >> Probably the last couple days. Uh that surpris
you have a lot of room in the jail for coming out New York or not. >> We do. We do. We still do. >> We starting to check the ice depth for the extravaganza. >> I have not. I don't know if recently.
The sheriff needs to be out there for that. Oh, yes. >> I'll tell him you said that. >> Yeah, I'm sure he'll hear it. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Number 10, human services. Welcome.
>> Then resources, not human services. >> Human services human. >> Excuse me. Good morning, Mr. Chair and commissioners. Excuse my voice today. I'll try to be loud, but it's not always easy. Um, I'm here today to look for
authorization to enter into a labor agreement with ASME. Ask me is our union that covers approximately 89 employees and covers multiple departments including administrative services which is IT extension and finance our land
services department county attorney's office the sheriff's office records and the jail admin team and then the highway department as well. The agreement continues with our market aligned pay plan to ensure we continue to pay market competitive wages um with range
increases each year and that's the the minimum and maximum and how that moves on that. It provides a general adjustment as well as a meeting expectations increase and advancing crowing county incentive pay as well. the ASME group is on the county
insurance plans. Um, as well with that, the key recognition in our agreement with ASME for this contract period is moving the clothing allowance from an annual payment to a monthly payment. that helps the employees have the money each month if
they needed to replace some clothing as well as administratively makes it easier on our payroll department to administer as well. We also have the Minnesota paid leave language in the contract. This is the new paid leave that we are required by state statute to provide to employees
and we did get the 5050 premium split um allowing employees to use PTO to remain whole as they aren't paid 100% through the paid leave. can use PTO to get up to that 100% but cannot exceed it. It will run concurrently with other leave such
as FMLA and parenting leave. And we are also removing the short-term disability benefit and making that a voluntary benefit for employees that would benefit from having that short-term disability. We are the probationary period. We're
going to have the ability to extend it by three months twice. uh offering the deferred comp match and incorporate uhou into the contract. Our lead worker has been an ongoing year after year and so instead of continuing
it as anou, we'll be incorporating it directly into the contract and just continued language cleanup and then it is a three-year contract. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. >> Questions?
With no questions, I am looking to authorize for authorization to enter into a labor agreement between Crowing County and ASME local union number 689A effective January 1st, 2026 through December 31st, 2028. And the chair, HR
manager, and county administrator are authorized to sign set agreements. >> I would look for a motion to approve. So motion by Commissioner Lupy. Second by Commissioner Lee. >> Commissioner,
>> sorry, Commissioner Lee. >> Commissioner Coring. >> I love Key. >> Hi, >> Commissioner Franzine. Commissioner Barrows. >> Hi. That motion passes. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Attorney.
>> Good morning, commissioners. The talk is unable to be here today, but I am more than happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you for being here and clarifying that open meeting law so that we could move forward with this meeting. So, thank you very much. >> No problem.
>> If nothing else, we'll move on to the county administrator. >> Mr. Chair, I have two for you today. First will be citizen committee appointments. So, in your packet, we have this listing and the parties highlighted in yellow have come up for
reappointment and have wished to be reappointed to their positions. And that's just an appointment by you >> make those appointments. Okay. >> I also would like to Mr. Hickstead >> has said he does not want to continue on the ENRAC committee and so I will
appoint Kevin Jagger to that one. >> Okay. I will make note of that and get him added. >> And then we should have on our next agenda also the two appointees to the airport commission will be up. I know
I've talked to Neil Bratney and he's willing to continue to serve at the board because that's a board decision. Like to reappoint him and uh oh, Daryl Palmer is the other one. So I have not spoken with him. >> Okay. So we're that meeting and I'd like
to have both those on there because we have our first commission meeting two days later. >> Sounds good. >> Like to have on that. >> Okay. >> Be on that in that. >> Sounds good. I will make note of that and wait for word on Mr. Palmer. And then the second does require board
action. This will be appointments uh to the Serpent Lake Serpent Lake Sanitary Sewer District board of directors. Both Michael Workman of Cailluna and Eric Hegland of Iron were voted in by
that district for their cities. And we just have to confirm that or you just have to confirm that. >> We need a motion from >> Yep. >> Commissioner Lee makes a motion to approve. I'll second that. Second by Commissioner Loveky. Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Lovekkey.
>> I. >> Commissioner Cranzine. Commissioner Lee. Commissioner Coring. >> Hi. >> Baros. >> Hi. That passes. >> That's all I have for you today. >> Additional business. Any additional
business from anybody? Happy new year everybody. Thank you very much for your patience today. All the all the other people left. I couldn't thank them but thank you for hanging in with us. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn.
>> Motion by Commissioner Franzine. Second. Commissioner Lovekkey. Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Franine. Commissioner Lee. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Coring. >> Hi. >> Love. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Barrows. >> Hi. and