Good morning. Welcome to the Crowing County Board of Commissioners regular meeting. Um will you please join me for the pledge of allegiance and a moment of silence. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. First item on the agenda is open forum. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak about something that is
not on the agenda? Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak to something that not not on the agenda? Okay. Okay. The second thing is recognition of the farm crowing county farm family of
the year for 2026. >> Good morning, commissioners. Uh Tony Hansen, regional director with the University of Minnesota Extension. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today just to share a few remarks regarding our farm family of the year for 2026.
Just a little refresher for all of you. Uh since 1979, the University of Minnesota's farm family recognition program has honored families across the state who represent the very best of agriculture. These families don't just work the land, but they drive innovation, champion stewardship, and
anchor our local communities. The long-standing program is a proud partnership between the University of Minnesota Extension, the College of Food and Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences, and our College of Veterinary Medicine. As well in Crowing County, our
extension committee considers nominees every year for this recognition program. The committee members seek to recognize families that are active and engaged in their communities and that represent the wide array of different farming operations that we have throughout
Crowing County. This year, the extension committee selected the Kahi family of Fort Ripley as the 2026 Crowing County Farm family of the year. I'd like to share a little bit about the family's farm operation and their history.
The Kahi family is a third and fourth generation dairy farm near Fort Ripley. They raise corn and alalfa which are used to feed their herd of registered holen cows. Their farm recently updated technology to include three automatic milking stalls, two manure collectors,
and an automatic feed pusher. Emily and Daniel Kahi operate the farm full-time. Their children, Claire, Gianna, Marcella, Adelaide, and Rosalia, all help with fieldwork, chores, and cleaning. Daniel's parents, Bruce and Rosanne, are also still involved with
the operation. Daniel and Emily are members of the National Holene Association, the Minnesota Farm Bureau, and the St. Matias Catholic Church. Their children are members of the Daget Brook 4H club, the Brainard FFA chapter, and the Dairy Princess program through
the county's American Dairy Association. The extension committee typically asks for the farm family of the year to be recognized at the growing county fair. And so we are on track to do that on Thursday, August 6th, agriculture day of the county fair. And so we'll
participate in that recognition ceremony at 11 am in the memorial gardens. I'll also be working to invite them to a future board meeting so we can have them here as well to to recognize them for their advancement over time. Um I'd like to personally thank the Kahi family as
they were kind enough to host us for our June extension committee meeting and we received a tour of their farming operation which was extremely impressive. And so with that, I'd just like to ask you all in congratulating the Kohi family as our 2026 farm family of the year.
>> Any questions? Commissioners? >> Madam Chair, just a comment from me. The the Kahi family is um of course down in the best commissioner district in the whole county in southern Crowing County. I'm not in five.
>> But, you know, this this this this makes me think back to I I don't know if I was 14 or 15. And I had a little I I I don't know. It's kind of a flashback. I had a little trail 70 and I can remember going over and it was Milo Buer and it was
Bruce and Roseanne Kahi. The kids were just tiny and I was over there working, picking rocks and bailing hay and and so I've known the family my entire life. And I got to tell you, you couldn't find better downto- earthth people than Bruce
and Roseanne. And now Dan and Emily are are leading in their footsteps of just being leaders in their community at our church, St. Matias Catholic Church. And um in the community when I was
milking cows there was 160 dairy farms in Crowing County and I'm pretty sure there's only two and Kahis are one of them and I think Schlaggels I pretty sure they're still farming. There's only two dairy farms left in Crowing County. So the the farm family farms have kind
of gone away and it's kind of sad but um it's it's gone to more of the larger farms. So, but I just want to recognize them, too. You you stated a lot of things that they're doing and they're just they're just really good people and so it was certainly a good choice on
this. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Tony. >> Review and approve the minutes of the July 14th board meeting. >> Madam Chair, I'll make a motion.
>> Second. Motion by Commissioner Barrow, second by Commissioner Coring. Is there any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? >> I >> opposed. Motion carries. >> Review and approve the agenda. >> No changes, Madam Chair.
>> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Agenda. >> Motion by Commissioner Coring, second by Commissioner Lee. All those in favor? >> I I opposed. Motion carries. consent agenda.
>> Just uh before before a motion, just a question to county administrator. I know we uh the funeral burial policy that doesn't take effect until 2027. I see the heads going. Yes. That is correct. That okay, that's all I wanted
to know. With that, if there's no other questions, I would move the approval of the consent agenda. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. A motion by Commissioner Coring, second by Commissioner Lubkkey. Is there any other discussion?
Hearing none. All those in favor? >> I I >> opposed. Motion carries. Public hearing. >> Madame Chair, I would so move that we open the public hearing at 9:08
a.m. for the to amend the water surface use ordinance. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Motion by Commissioner Coring, second by Commissioner Barrows. All those in favor? >> I opposed. Motion carries.
The hearing is open. Um, does anyone want to speak to it or do we >> Do you want Madam Chair, Commissioners, would you like to have staff overview before you hear public testimony? >> Sounds like a good idea. Steph, would you like to give an overview please for
the board? >> I can. >> Madame Chair, members of the board, >> the water surface use ordinance has been in effect since um the early 2000s. Um that has been in effect, as I indicated, the sheriff's department
receives um complaints typically through um land services when there are issues between property owners. I think there's an average between probably 50 to 60 per year. Most of them resolve with law enforcement just going and speaking with
the neighbors. We have had issues um with property owners believing and the majority of them do believe that the sheriff's department based on the language is somehow able to go in and remove docks because it indicates that
the enforcement is done by the sheriff's department. Excuse me. right now. Um besides I think Ottertale County um in my checking of um
water surface ordinances throughout the state with the exception of the Twin Cities. I believe that Crowing County is one of only besides Ottertale um having a dock ordinance with the specificity that we do have. No other
counties and I'm saying that very loosely based on the understanding that I have looked at. I've looked at St. Louis County, looked at Max, Aken, Morrison, Cass County. Nothing to this specificity. Some have, for example, a
10- foot setback from the property line, but nothing with respect to requiring the non-riarian riparian issues that we have in our specificity. Um, especially when you consider C County and all of our surrounding um
lakes or counties. One of the things I think that becomes a very large issue is G is Gull Lake. So we have G Lake that is in both Cass County and Crowing County. So you have
enforcement of a dock ordinance on only part of a lake. So you have owners that are across the lake who don't have any requirements for a dock ordinance and others that do. So there
is a issue with respect to selective or different enforcements. Um we also have issues that um we talk about only a riparian property
owner u may place a dock that puts an owner on the county with respect to proving who is a riparian property owner or not. Um, unfortunately the county attorney's office, which would have to
prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, if there are questions, and many times there are questions as to who owns a piece of property, the county does not make decisions with respect to who owns property. That is for a court to decide.
Um, if there are questions, that is something that would be a civil issue between property owners. We would not be doing that. Um, if there are questions, the county makes decisions with respect to who or what taxes are going to be
assessed based on the information that's been provided to the assessor's office. We do not use that and that would not be sufficient for us to say we can charge somebody with a criminal case.
And we are, if we were to try and do that, we would be looking at civil litigation to then prove a criminal case. So you would be having our office do a criminal or civil litigation to then try and prove a misdemeanor
offense. Even then, we wouldn't have the ability to then move someone's dock or remove a dock. How would we do something? because the majority of the time it's someone's dock is on my property
or someone wants their dock removed or someone else's dock removed. Um the vehicle for this is how do we get someone's dock out of someone else's property? You can use trespassing.
Um, there are other avenues that can be done besides what this ordinance does. And as I indicated, the majority of lakes and counties do not have a dock ordinance. I think only in the
Twin Cities, and those cities may have some. I did not look at those, but specifically doc ordinances where those regulations that we have listed, this is not something that is used throughout the state of Minnesota. The only other
one I found was in Ottertale County. Any questions? >> You want those now? >> Okay, sure. Madam Chair, uh Stephanie, um what in my homework and looking at it and since the district I serve probably has more docks in it than any other
district. Um in looking at it, there are counties that don't do it as an ordinance like we do, but they have it in their zonings in in the in the land in the land use and zoning part of it instead of having it in this. And I see the cumbersome of this because it becomes a criminal. It's really a civil
problem and it becomes coming to your court becomes a you know a criminal problem. So I see a problem with that. I do have a challenge with the fact that if we if we get it out of there and take it out of there. I have a problem with the repairarian rights of the property owner. You know if they if they have a
and and Paul has it down there on South Long Lake where you have some people that just own a path down to the lake. You know that they have and it might be owned by 10 property owners. What says they can't take that 15 foot path down to the lake, put a dock out there and go out 10 15 feet because it's public water
and go 50 feet on each side of that 15 ft and and encumber the line of sight of the other repairarian property owners. You know, have a dock, you know, my dock goes out 25 ft. They put a dock out 50 feet and then go 50 ft this way. And
now, you know, I I can still ne navigate around that dock to get out in the lake, but now I put that dock and put boats right in front of their line of sight out of their out of their place. What do we have that we can put in place that would eliminate that? Because by taking this out of here, you have nothing.
>> Well, and that is a public roadway. What what you're talking about with respect to the issues on that road is that you're talking about public access through a road. So you're talking >> this is a dock.
>> If you can let me fully explain. So with respect to what's going on on Paradise Beach Road where Mr. Poring is talking about the people that isn't deed access where you're talking those are roads.
>> Oh okay. Okay. >> That have access to a lake like any other public quote access. So you're talking about there's a public access. It might not be a DNR public access but
any other public access on any road to any lake. How do others deal with that? It's not something that is done anywhere else. That isn't going to be solved
by this. And I'll use the example up in Breezy Point where they have 50 foot lots and a person puts a dock out on that 50-ft lot and then decides to put another dock on the end of that dock, puts a 100 foot going to the left or to the right of that dock encumbering the
the line of sight for those people. What ordinance do we have or anything to prohibit that? And that right now that is something where we have to look at is there can somebody still get to navigable water >> and that becomes subjective
>> and that is an issue that can be dealt with in a civil issue. The question is how are we you know these are the extremes that you're talking about and so do we keep an ordinance because of
one or two outliers that occur >> and and the thing is is by taking this out are you telling people do whatever you want to do right now because we don't have anything else other than this correct >> well >> we don't have anything in land services
at all that does anything with this correct Gary We just have some arena language in our our ordinance person >> because we do have part of our ordinances that we just went through. Part of that does have some stuff in regards to what you can do on your shoreline. Okay. Would docks be part of
what you could do on your shoreline? Because once you put a dock on the shoreline, it becomes part of that property. >> Apparently, we don't regulate. >> Gary, can you come up to the microphone, please? Good morning, Madame Chair and commissioners. Uh, currently in the land
use ordinance, we just have a marina section basically that says you can't operate for commercial purposes from a residential um lot, let's say. Um, but if uh somebody put a a dock as soon as they're um across the ordinary high water mark of that lake, we don't
regulate the dock. we would go to the DNR or we would refer to the sheriff's office, >> right? Because of this ordinance that's in place, the the counties that don't have >> this ordinance and you like you said, I think you stated it well was Ottertale and US I think are the only two. The
other ones that don't, they have it in their in in I think St. Louis County and I think Aken County and stuff have it in their not as an ordinance, but they have it in their in their um zoning where they where they regulate some kind.
>> I'm not aware. I I didn't research any of that. But so I mean I am I'm okay with this being out of here because of the criminal thing, but I just don't want to not have something there to help those people that have the repairarian rights
to be able to um view their shoreland and we don't have any ordinance in place to keep that from happening. >> Madam Chair, >> yes. >> Gary, don't go too far because I'm I don't have a question right now, but I'm going to have some questions probably
later on. But um apparently back in 2002 when the county board at that time and obviously I wasn't here, none of us were here. Obviously there was an issue that the county board felt there was a need for
something. I I'm going to listen to the comments in this public hearing today, but I with the the constituent concerns that I've had over the years, especially down on the lake that I live on with these
public roads where you have one person putting their personal dock down there. What about the other 10 people that live next to them and they want to put a dock down there? It's only a 10-ft rideway. They don't What if they want to put it down there?
So, so, so there has to be some governing mechanism. I I don't like government, but I there has to be some kind of governing mechanism. To me, it's the same thing. I Well, maybe it's not the same thing, but I look at the the um
the short-term rental ordinance. What if we just said, "This is just too cumbersome. It we we just can't enforce this. Let's just have it be a civil matter." So, if somebody's having a big party next door, I guess we got to go to a judge. I I don't know. Maybe it's not
similar, but it seems similar to me. We could probably get rid of a lot of ordinances and make our lives a lot simpler and just pass it on to the courts. Well, the courts, I don't know, the courts seem like they're all clogged up and they they're
so damn slow that they can't really get anything done either. So, I'm sure the judges don't like that comment, but that's that's the truth. So anyway, I'm just going to listen to the comments and um but I I'm going to have some questions for you, Gary, after
I hear the the public what the public has to say on this. Thanks, Madam Chair. >> Commissioner Lovekkey, do you have the information as to what part of the land use ordinance in Aken deals with dogs? I didn't I did not find it in there, but they when I looked and again I did the AI search and then I started looking,
but I know they've got to be do something and I think it goes back to Paul what Commissioner Cory mentioned. There's got to be something in there because this county didn't put it in there because everything was going fine and for 20 years it's been being used as an ordinance. And I'm not saying this is
the best form to do it to protect people's property rights, but I don't want to not have something coming into place to do that. And maybe that's where I'm at that that you know, just to say, oh, it's a problem and let's just get rid of it and we'll just go back to the
Wild Wild West. And I'm sure there was something happening back 20ome years ago where this board felt that something needed to be done to protect people's repairing rights on their on their property. And I'm not saying this is the best one to do it, but this is what's been in place so far. But I would like
to come up with something that would work and that I think should be part of the uh uh planning commission and and land use that we have ordinances for. That's all I have. I we should get to
the public hearing, I suppose. Okay. Um, Daniel Gustoson. >> Uh, Chair Fran and uh, board members, my name is Dan Gustoson. I live in Weisetta, Minnesota. I'm a 612 tour as they say up here. So, I apologize in advance for that. Um, I own property in
Dearwood Township. I don't know if you can I don't know if you can see this plat, but you're going to you're going to do four plats today. I saw on your agenda. And it's my position that the county does actually in fact determine property rights. You do so when you plat things and when the
county recorder records things. And it's just because somebody comes along and claims verbally or with some other piece of paper that's not entitled to be recorded that they have an interest in property doesn't mean that it's so and
that's the statute of frauds. That's what I mean if we allow what has been occurring in my situation and I can't I can't tell you what's happening in my situation in three minutes and I would appreciate a phone call uh with each and every one of you
to discuss this because it is it's complex. It's more than 3 minutes. So, um, in my case, the platter who signed and notorized the plat is claiming rights to the lake that he doesn't have on his
plat. And the county board chair has signed this and the auditor has signed this and the surve county surveyor has signed this. And what what do these pieces of paper mean when you come before the county and
request a plat if it doesn't mean what it means when you go ask for a copy of it from the county recorder? This is your land use ordinance. I'm going to look at the definitions for just a second because Miss Shook continues to tell me that the county
can't determine boundaries, but here's a plat map with boundaries. Here's a plat map with boundaries on it and shirt and shirt lake boundaries on it. a plat, a map or drawing conforming to Minnesota State Statutes 505 and 515,
which graphically delineates the boundaries and dimensions of land parcels for the purpose of identification and record or title. In my case, I've filed a complaint with um the sheriff's department and Brad and Eric have been absolutely fantastic to
work with, by the way. uh they have gone over and above and what has happened is the county attorney's office continues to insist that this is a civil matter. It's not a civil matter. This individual Jim RDE is placing a dock into public
water. The state owns the lake bed. Here's my abstract of title. It's not been impacted by anything. Here's the county employees emailing back and forth asking if I if my title has
changed and they say yes. That means they're actively defying the county board plat approval. I I could go on, but I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this. And I also think it's premature to make this decision without input from the public,
without reviewing what occurred in 2000 and 2004 when they installed this. And you should be asking the sheriff what he wants in my opinion. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who
wants to speak? Please come to the microphone and state your name and address. Hi, my name is Joe Ranoer. My wife and I live at 1 9522 Love Lake Road. Um, I've been dealing with something similar where my
neighbor has his docks on my repairing rights. The county attorney's office has been very difficult to to work with. Um the sheriff's been out a couple times and same thing Dan said, uh Eric and um Brad have been fantastic uh with with
working, but but um the county attorney's office has been difficult. John, I agree 100% with you and Paul. I don't think we can eliminate that ordinance um because then there's no way of doing it. Exactly, John, what you said. It allows somebody to take their
dock and bring it out and bring it over. And the if it's going to be a civil matter, that's something that what do you what do you sue for? I mean, you're suing for obstruction of I mean, you have to have some damages from a civil standpoint to be able to sue. You can't just sue for, you know, their their
docks on my property. One of the suggestions I had was um and Stephanie, you mentioned there's 50 to 60 of, you know, kind of these minor things a year. Most of them get settled because we currently have the ordinance written the way that it is. My guess is only a very
few of them reach the point where you've got an actual dispute going forth. If the sheriff comes out, knocks on your door, says, "Hey, you've got your docks on here." Most of that gets corrected. If it doesn't, there should be a mechanism which the um county surveyor
comes out and he draws a map or says, "Here's what the ordinance says." is the ordinance says you are on this person's property. Gives that to the sheriff. The sheriff then comes out and says you're on the property and if you don't there's criminal um ramifications for that.
That's probably going to solve the you know the next 99% of those issues. There's only going to be one or two very small issues where the land owner is stubborn and says, "Nope, I don't believe the sheriff. I don't believe your surveyor. Let's let's go." And in that case, we should write that
ordinance in such a way where where the county attorney's office has some teeth to be able to go in and do it. My current neighbor has seven docks out there. He's got boat slips that he's currently renting out to people and he's got two boat lifts and a jet ski on my
repairing rights. So, I think taking this out of the ordinance just to make it easy. I think I was talking to a pretty smart guy the other day and he said, "Are we going to take down a um you know a speed limit sign on a road because we don't know how to enforce the
speed on that?" And just it's the same thing here. We'll have people that'll you know take their dock and bring it out and bring it across people's property and there's there's absolutely nothing. If on the the case with um uh South Long Lake, if you made a five- foot buffer required and let's say they
have a 10-ft easement, that would eliminate that issue, you know, and once again, if the county sheriff comes out and says, "Hey guys, you're on the property here." That's probably going to take care of 90 98% of those. And then and and if for some reason the countyy's
concerned with bearing the cost of the county surveyor, I've even suggested to Eric, I'll pay for that. I'll pay for the surveyor to come out, which in my case I did. I actually had the county surveyor come out, KLD, and they put stakes on the on the on my property and
I can sight down and I can see exactly. I mean, Eric's been out there, Brad's been out there. Um, you know, you can see exactly that those are on um clearly on on my repairing rights. But for a year plus, I've been dealing with this and I can't get any any traction to it
because the county attorney's office has determined that um they know better than the sheriff and the um and the county surveyor and those those those are not on on my property. So, they're just letting me deal with it and I don't know how to deal with it. So, is there any
questions for me or >> Thank you. >> Thank you for being here. >> Thank you very much, >> Joe. >> If I could respond to Mr. Ranweiler. Madam Chair, I I think with respect to Mr. Ranweiler,
our office has spoken with Mr. Raneer with respect to the situation that he is in. Um the statute does not fit unfortunately because the property owner is a business. Um and
we have you know we are reviewing the case under the civil remedy. He has been told that. Um and there are you know so he has been advised that something will be happening through a civil
remedy. Um and he has been advised of that multiple times. Um, I can't really go into it any further, but he has been advised of that. >> Madam Chair, that doesn't make any sense to me because the the supposedly it's a
business next door. The repairarian rights don't come into play. >> So, I I actually was just out there a couple of days ago and I walked around there. It's all a residential area.
And if that's if that's a business, I think we need to talk to Gary then and that needs to be zoned commercial or something. And so the water surface ordinance
is a criminal violation. with the criminal violation. We could have deputy Thesing go out there and give the owner, we could give the business a ticket. >> I can't put the business in jail.
I could find the business. I can't force the business to take a dock out. What how are we going to get the docks out? What avenue does the county have to move
the docks to move those sorry to to do what's necessary. It is a business. Um even if it was a person you know those are the issues that we come about. Um
whereas going the civil route because um there is an issue with respect to um it is a business in a in a residential area essentially. I I don't want to give the
case away but we have a different avenue to work and deal with the situation with Mr. Ranileer to be able to get this resolved and deal with what's going on
with Mr. Raneer situation without the water surface ordinance. >> That this is where I have a Madam Chair, I have a a little problem with the judicial system. It's everything's a big secret. It's almost like this is a secret. Now, if that guy is running a a
commercial business next door, I don't know why that's secret or what you're doing is secret. It that doesn't make any sense to me. >> It's not what he's >> If you're going to go after him, that's public. This is This is This is We're
all public. >> He's operating a marina. >> Yeah. >> It's illegal. We can go after him civily because it's a violation of the land use ordinance. >> Okay. Chair, if you would uh entertain a a comment from the peanut gallery.
>> Three minutes. >> Thank you. I happen to be good friends with the prosecuting attorney in Weisetta and they deal with LLC's and that kind of thing on a regular basis. Weisetta Bay is one of the largest and
most expensive areas in the entire upper Midwest and properties are held in LLC's and the prosecuting attorney is fully capable and aware of how to bring both a criminal and a civil action and the
county attorney I'd be happy to make a referral uh for the county attorney to the prosecuting attorney in Weisetta so that they can overcome this uh challenge that they're describing. One one other comment related to um
how far uh you have to look for surface water use ordinances. By the way, let's remember that the legislature empowers the county to to put into place surface water ordinances with 86B 205
and the White Bear Conservation District and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District have surface water use ordinances in place, have authorized dock use areas in place, have diagrams, and have extensive knowledge and could
be a resource for crowing County Land Services and the County Attorney's Office and the sheriff. And you have lots of friends in the business if you look around and ask for help. You don't need to you don't need to be um
operating without the knowledge. And there are lots of people that are willing to help you, myself included. And I happen to I happen to have studied repairarian rights more than just about anybody in the whole state because I bought a 5- foot wide parcel on Medicine
Lake in Plymouth and they tried to use the accessory structure rule in public water which is a land use rule to block my dock use for the neighbors who didn't want to buy the parcel when it was for
sale. So feel free to call me. I'm happy to help. I'm happy to connect your attorney with my prosecuting attorney buddy. I We're willing to This is not adversarial with the county. We're trying to help you e
educate you, land services, surface water ordinances, the the whole nine yards. So anyway, thank you, Madam Chair. It doesn't look like there's anybody else to here to speak to the Can I ask You want to keep the
public hearing open and I can ask some questions, some more questions or you want to close the public hearing? >> Close the public hearing and we can still have Gary address us. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> You're going to close the public? Yeah. >> Yeah. Madam Chair, I would move to close the public hearing uh that to to amend
the water surface use ordinance. >> I'll second it. >> Motion by Commissioner Carring, second by Commissioner Lee. All those in favor? >> I >> opposed. Motion carries. >> So, Madam Chair, to further the conversation, I guess a question for
Gary. Uh, you know, obviously I have a lot of confidence in Gary. I have a lot of confidence in Chris Pence. You in your land services, you cover a lot of ordinances. I don't know what percentage it would be for the county. I
would assume that you were intimately involved with the change of this ordinance and and your input was asked for. Am I right? Uh we had a meeting uh Madame Chair, Commissioner Coring, we had a meeting with uh Brad Thesing. We
started to look at some different ordinance uh language for uh the sheriff's office and then um that was it for us. We haven't been asked for any other thing. >> That's that's unfortunate.
I actually, you know, I'm kind of um I'm in a quand quandry, John, because you and I are in agreement, which normally we're not. No, >> you know, it isn't matter, uh, Commissioner Coring, where we're in agreement a lot. It's about people's rights. No, I know. It's about and and
that's where we're in agreement on people rights. >> Yeah. >> And and their right to enjoy and use their property. The the to sit there and say this this ordinance is a problem and let's just throw it away. Yeah. >> We haven't fixed the problem. we haven't we haven't put something in place that's
that's going to be better than what's there because I I have to agree that it's got to be cumbersome for for the um for the county attorney's office and the sheriff's department to chase around these kind of things because the there's just a lot of loose ends and I think
Brad could attest to that because he's probably the one who goes out and sees most of them >> and and it it's repairarian rights I think are are important if you're going to have If you're going to pay the amount of money that people pay in taxes in this county to have that 100 foot on
the lake, uh I don't think they want to look at the neighbors dock coming in front of their place and having boats sitting on it and and look across there. And I don't know what tool we have in our toolbox to make that better. If this one isn't it, let's find something else.
But I'm hesitant about throwing away the one we have if we don't have something else to put in place. And Madam Chair, I'm I will say I'm in agreement with Commissioner Lobkkey. I I don't I'm I'm If this comes up for a vote today, I'm I'm not going to be in favor of repealing anything. I think that this
needs to be worked on. Um you know, this whole thing of that it's a civil matter. I I don't agree with that. I believe the county has a role. You know, in the 14 years I've or a little over 14 years of being here, I've had a lot of people contact me and it's
specifically South Long Lake. This this issue just keeps perpetuating itself and perpetuating itself. I don't exactly know what the answer is, but I, you know, I'm just wondering, this is a suggestion. I'm just wondering if if we
have if the county board kind of tasked Gary and Chris Pence and his wonderful staff to maybe come up with some kind of maybe they can come up with some kind of an idea of of how we address these things.
I you know, Gary gets pretty darn good compliance with his ordinances, you know, and that's all we're trying to do is we're just trying to make sure this county doesn't turn into a, you know, a bad county. And and as
far as that's concerned, I get really kind of wore out with saying, well, Morrison doesn't do it and Aken doesn't do it, and this one doesn't. I I don't care what they're doing. I'm not the county commissioner for those counties.
I'm the county commissioner for here. I'm answerable to the public that voted me in and they're asking that we take help to take care of these problems that is difficult for them to take care
of, you know, and just to to throw this away. If if we're going to get rid of this, then I think we should get rid of the short-term rental ordinance and just say if you got a problem with somebody uh doing something next to you, just just go to court. Go to court on that.
So, I don't know, Gary, do you think that you could maybe if we ask you to come up with some kind of an ideas and throw it around, do you think you could possibly do that or what do you what do you I guess I guess I'm looking for your opinion on this. Sure,
Madame Chair, Commissioner Coring, um, you know, we're here to help. We, um, we get a lot of compliance. I like to hear that in its current form, if they get 50 60 complaints and 50 of them are resolved, that's a win in our our our
department. I It sounds very successful. I don't know what the effort though that the sheriff's office has to take or the attorney's office, but it does seem like maybe there's extremes that have brought this into light to get rid of it, but the masses seems like from what I'm hearing is actually solved. So maybe it
isn't too big of a lift to figure out these maybe remaining issues to um have it work for some of these other issues. But yeah, we can dig in if you want us to roll up our sleeves and and bring you a recommendation if that's what you guys so want us to do.
>> Madam Chair, if I may, I think there are three options available in front of you today. One would be to adopt the recommendations that the county attorney's office is bringing forward, which would amend the ordinance as has been suggested. The second would be to do nothing, leave it exactly as it is
currently with the same enforcement as what is listed in the water surface use ordinance. And the third would be to direct staff to look at ways we could perhaps either change the language, the location of what the language is,
whether it be in the land use ordinance or whether it be in the water surface use ordinance. Maybe charge staff with taking a deeper dive looking for a recommendation and coming back with another recommendation at that point in time. So those are the three options that I see before you.
And and madam chair to the county administrator what do you think Deb do you think that we uh would a motion be appropriate or a consensus or what what are you thinking? >> I think if you would like to go with option three I think a a motion to instruct staff to work to come up with
another solution and bring it back before you again. Great. >> Madam Chair, a couple things on this. I I you guys have both have covered about all of it, but um to your point about this moving
it to staff, I think that needs to include probably um Sergeant Thesing from the sheriff's department and someone from the county attorney's office to work with it because we're talking about the, you know, 1% of this issue that we're dealing with that is a
problem. We need to have everybody on the same page for the enforcement side of it. um because that's what we're talking about is the 1% of the problem, not the not the whole problem. So, >> Madam Chair, Commissioner Lee, I would agree with that. And when I say send it
back to staff, I mean all the staff. So, it would be folks from all of our areas to work together on this. Mhm. >> And and Madam Chair, and that could possibly be having that ordinance be be in Gary and Chris's land use ordinance,
figuring out something there. And then when a call comes in, Gary and his staff would be trying to address it and rather than having it go to the sheriff's office right away. >> Madam Chair, Commissioner Coring. Yes. I I would suggest that the the review
would be where's the right ordinance for this to live? Which you know which ordinance that we have is the right location for it. Even if it's within the land use ordinance, is there a portion of enforcement that the sheriff's office continues to participate in? What does it look like? How would we manage the
enforcement side of things from the county attorney's office? What would be the right way to look at how we would address this? Madam Chair, I just want to add one thing question that didn't get answered for me. Um, and I asked it through staff a couple different ways yesterday and I
got two different answers. So, with regard to Mr. Raniler's point, if currently the way our ordinance is, if there has to be a survey done, is that falling on the on the county's dime? >> It is.
>> Okay. >> Where does it say that? Does it say that in the ordinance? >> There is part of the ordinance talks about, excuse me, um that it's just it doesn't specifically say it's at our cost, but it falls on us and
um Gary's department. >> We're not paying no more to do, >> right? >> I don't I don't I don't buy that, >> Madam Chair. Um, we did change the ordinance uh when it dealt with repairing lots. If anybody wanted a building permit or do anything on a
repairing lot, we put that that the owner of that repairing lot needs to have a certified survey. So, I can see by by putting it back to review and looking at those things. Those all can be looked at it. We don't need to discuss it up here. I think we have adequate staff and comparable staff to
be able to do that. So, no, >> the public hearing is closer. So, >> but that would be that would come up with the cost of, for example, us having to prove that someone is a non-reparing
owner, which is one of the elements of the offense for a water surface ordinance violation. >> Thanks, >> I didn't mean to put you on the spot. I guess >> I have no water in my district, so
not sure how to answer this. >> You're still a commissioner. >> Um, I would be in favor of of putting it back and having a staff take a look at it. I agree with Miss Shook though that the currently the responsibility would fall on us because we're trying to prove
that somebody is doing something wrong. So, it is a county expense whether we like that answer or not. So, at this point though, I think that uh we should send it back to the staff, have them do a thorough review, and then bring it
back. It may or may not change, but I think we should take a more thorough look at it and include all three of those departments to make sure that we uh look at everything possible in the around the state.
So I almost I I almost envision something if somebody comes forward, you know, that that there's Gary and his staff or the the people that put this together would put something together. And if the first thing would be that these people have to come back with a
licensed survey that's the first step in this process of them of Gary and his staff trying to resolve things. I I would >> and madam chair I think it's it needs to be noted that it's not that we don't want to be able to do things. I mean the
law you know the law is the law and we have to there are limitations and the last thing we want to do is not follow. Um and there's also budgets and money and we
have to look at how that is done. So, >> Madame Chair, we'll make a motion to table this for further staff review and we can come back in. >> Madam Chair, may I clarify? Commissioner
Lee, do you want to actually table the action to amend the ordinance or would you like to simply just direct staff to come back with a different solution? >> To direct staff to come back with a different solution. >> I just wanted to clarify. So, thank you. >> I Madam Chair, for clarification, is
there a timeline for that? What's your idea with? >> Madam Chair, I would not unless there is a pressing reason why we would need to have something addressed, I would not put a timeline on it. I would suggest that it will take some time for us to review and get to what a good workable
solution would be. So unless any of you feel that there is a urgent need to have something very very quickly, I would suggest that you give the staff time to work through what the process looks like. And then, madame chair, I would also suggest that when when there is
um a skeleton of what what maybe some changes that might work, I think a committee the whole to run it by the county commissioners and then also to run it by the planning and zoning commission to see just get all the input that we can I think would make total
sense. >> I will second that motion. Well, I think you made the motion, right? >> He did. >> Unless there was any >> We did not have a second yet. >> Okay, >> I'll second that. >> We have a motion by Commissioner Lee, second by Commissioner Lubkkey. All those in favor? >> I
>> I >> opposed. Motion carries. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> In my situation, what I would ask, and I don't know if this board can do anything with it, is I am more than willing to pay for a
repairing rights survey. Um, but I'd like it to be from the county surveyor so that it has some weight. And I would request that once that is done that the um survey is given to my neighbor through the sheriff's department. If there's nothing that that county um can
can do to enforce it because they either don't know how or they're unwilling to, whichever, um then I can at least take that as a civil matter. But it's got some weight behind it if it and and there's a good possibility that if the sheriff brings an actual survey with my repairing rights being violated that my
neighbor will just comply and this will go away. And obviously if he doesn't, I'm willing to handle it, this particular one, civily just because I want to get it done. So that's my ask. I don't know if you can direct that, but I'm willing to pay for the survey. I just want the county sheriff to deliver it. >> Thank you,
>> Madam Chair. I would suggest that Mr. Raniler needs to work with staff to discuss those things. That's not an action that would come before the county board for that purpose. >> Yeah. >> All right. The public hearing is over. Um, next thing on the agenda is the Adne
Exchange Holding Company. >> Hey, Madame Chair, commissioners, we have four items for your consideration uh today. Uh, the first one being a preliminary plat for Adne Lake uh conservancy first edition uh for parcel
number 60320512 located in section 32 of Fairfield Township. This request is a conservation design preliminary plaque consisting of four lots and one outlot. If you go to the map Yeah. on page 63, uh you will
see the location of the property. Um it's on the north side of Adney there. Yep. And then um blown up piece there, you'll see a lot of wetlands on on that on that property. Uh the county board approved a preliminary plat of Adne Lake Conservancy on July 14th uh 2028. This
is a replplat of lot two. Uh the planning commission board of adjustment held a public hearing July 16th uh and made a recommendation to um uh the board of commissioners to approve the preliminary plat of Adne Lake
Conservancy first edition. Uh the PCBOA developed the findings of fact found on page 106 and 107 of the board's um packet. Um and for your consideration as well. Uh the planning commission also approved a conditional use permit uh
July 16th to allow the conservation design plat a variance was approved as well to allow a 20 foot wide corridor and um basically uh it's required to have a 50-ft corridor. In this case they
felt um by granting the variance it lessened the impact to the wetlands uh to get down to lot four. Um they also clarified conditions on that 20ft corridor is um uh no motorized
vehicles can be used to access the little peninsula there um in the plat. So uh based on the application submitted staff packet public comments and the findings of fact it is recommended to approve the preliminary plat of Adne Lake Conservancy first edition. Uh staff
has reviewed the file and concur with the recommendation from the planning commission board of adjustment and I'm here to answer any questions. >> Madam Chair, is this the same owner that brought this forward what two weeks ago or a month ago? >> Yep.
>> So why why didn't he bring it forth then? Instead of going one and two, why didn't he just bring five lots at that point? >> Uh to split that property. lot one didn't he didn't want it to be part of
this other piece and per our ordinance you must plat any repairarian lot so they needed to do a plat to get the process going just say oh you can break off that one chunk >> without a plat so that's what we why we had to do that
>> and I'm looking through this I'm trying to I don't see the the map somebody else can point me to it but how are these lots going to be divided and actually buildable. >> Yep. So on page
just got to find it here. >> I don't have a page number. Oh, there it is. Perfect. So you have um lots one, two, three, and four. All of the rest of this is going to be lot five or basically an outlot. >> Oh, I see. >> Uh and they all are buildable size. And
then the access to it is this 20 foot corridor here with Oh, is a little red one. Not sorry. >> Need the green. >> We need the green. Look out. Don't burn somebody's eyes out. >> The lots one, two, uh, three, and four.
The rest of that being the outlot five. Um, and they're getting there with this 20 foot corridor road down. And then their beach. They'll have a one dock here with each one gets a dock slip. The alternative that they could have
done would do 100 foot lots through here um with multiple docks. >> Gary, when you say, excuse me, Madam Chair, Gary, when you say they could have done, they just could have done it or they would have had to come in front of the planning commission and get it approved.
>> This would have had been a plat because it's on it's a repairarian uh piece of property. So, >> they just couldn't have done it. They still would they would had to go through a whole procedure. had to come through to get it um platted a different way if they wanted to. Yes,
>> Madam Chair, if I might, Gary, who's going to enforce the fact that there's no motorized vehicles on that >> any Yeah. With any of those conditions on these, we're the first point of contact to try to compel compliance.
So, our sheriff's deputies will be out there if they're side by sides, 4x4s, whatever, heading down that road. >> Uh, typically the sheriff won't go out on a violation like this. An extreme case or they say somebody
takes a lawn mower and tries to mow that path down there. They could say that's motorized vehicle. We would go out there uh with one of our environmental services specialist say that's not allowed. Please don't h let that happen again. If it does, um, we would then have a conversation with the county
attorney on what our next steps would be if they're going to violate the conditions of the plat. Some of them are challenging. I won't I I know where you're at on that. >> And then if they get nasty, then he's got to call the sheriff. And
>> yeah, >> I don't know. I guess my my thought on this is that I was okay with it when it was split into the two because I could see the one building site that was viable, but there's a lot of low in there. I've
fished that lake. I know that area quite well, and we talk about sewers and the well and how they're going to co-ingle. I don't I don't know that I agree with this >> there discussion. >> Okay. Can we have a motion? >> Real real quick. One more question.
Gary, is he going to do STRs on here? I have been told there has been advertisement for a short-term rental at this location. >> And I know and I think we all have experienced the problems that take place with STRs. >> We we
>> not necessarily the owner's problem. I mean fault, but the people they rent to cause problems. >> This is a sensitive area. Y so I have a hard time supporting this also be just because of the
running that type of business in there. I think it's almost uninforceable and I I think there will be problems. >> But when it comes to short-term rental, Madame Chair, Commissioner Barrows, uh we do have a short-term rental ordinance. We had 30 complaints last
year, resolved all of them. Madam Chair, just for process, you you either need to approve the preliminary plat or deny the preliminary plat. If you choose to deny the preliminary plat, I believe you need to have findings for why you're denying. Correct. >> That is correct.
>> Can we let him speak? Please, >> address. >> State your name and address. >> Yeah, Tony Becker. Uh 18835 Marie Lane, Crosby, Minnesota. This is uh this is my property. Um available for any questions
if you may have questions for myself. >> Mr. Becker, if you're doing short-term rentals there, how will you control that the behavior of these individuals that come? Because we've had an experience where there's an awful lot of particularly males who cause more
problems and damage to property. >> Yeah, of course. Uh so this property is is real special to us. Uh just to start off, my wife and I used to have a property on this lake uh about six, seven years ago. We always fell in love
with this property. Uh it's very large. It's 40 acres total and uh as was stated before, we split off nine on the left side. Uh I'm a conservationist myself, outdoorsman, uh outdoor enthusiast. So my my job my job for this property is to
protect it and protect it forever. That's my intention. The reason I split it into four on the right side is uh one one property for my my wife and I, which is lot three. Uh that house is currently being constructed. We have we have obtained a permit for that. Uh lot four,
two, and one are for our three daughters. So what we intend to do longterm is to move to this property uh forever, retire here, and uh build out a a kind of a guest cottage for each one of our daughters. It's always been a dream of mine to do that ever since I
was a young kid. Um I love hunting. I love fishing. I fished on this lake many times as well on the previous property that we had here. So the intention of this and the reason we have the large very large common area uh I think it's around 85 to 90% of that right side is
all common area protected preserved uh we're working with Prairie Restorations and the Minnesota DNR forestry to reg rejuvenate that area 9 acres of that was farmed previously uh and we're regenerating that as well with respect to the short-term rentals uh you know in
order to afford this uh type of a property. Uh we would like to gently rent it out in addition to our personal family use. Uh my parents live in Niswah, Minnesota. Uh my sister and her husband live in St. Cloud. We would do a lot of family gatherings here as well.
So that's our intention of it. As far as managing the short-term rentals, uh we are uh in agreement with uh um uh it's a book, the BLA, it's called uh Woodsto Water. They're professional management company.
what we would do on this property and our intention is to lot three which is under construction right now that's a five-bedroom house and lot four uh right now uh we're working with Chris Pence and his team uh to develop that that that would be a a three bed two bath uh
little cottage uh we would rent those two out and that's it. Uh we did talk to Chris and his team and there were some concerns over the short-term rental for for obvious reasons. Uh I've been around them myself and with living on this lake
uh for a while uh I I'm very aware of the issues they can cause and I'm also aware of the the good things they can do right for the community uh local businesses and that uh we believe that with working with a profession professional company uh they will have a
very tight leash uh on ordinances and and rules regulations around these and we have full confidence that they can control that. Uh if there were uh I would be open to putting a limit as far as how many short-term rentals we could have on this property to alleviate that
concern. I know that there's multiple lots here and there is some concern over hey they're going to put short-term rentals on all of them. Uh you know obviously it's a residential owner's right to have short-term rentals in this county. Uh that being said, my true
intention and to honor that intention is to preserve this. And what I would do is I would remove that short-term rental from lot one and lot two uh if that would be of concern to the board. Any further questions? I'm available.
>> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. >> Yes. >> Sure. Tell me how you're planning on uh laying these out with a sewer and a well. >> Yeah. So, uh, number four and number three, we've sent in a, uh, preliminary
or approved septic design, uh, to Chris and his team at the land services. Uh, three and four are actually connected by one sewer. Uh, the septic system is, you can kind of see it laid out there in number three.
Uh, so this is the drain field right here. You can see a couple lines of primary and alternate drain field. Uh this building here uh will be uh brought to that drain field and number four will also be brought up to that drain field. Again, with conservation in mind, we
wanted to get that away from the lake as far as possible. Uh this building right here is uh 120 ft off of this uh wetland right here, which is considered part of the lake. Although this is all wetland, there is flow from the lake into here.
So, we're 120 ft off of that. Uh, it's about 3 400 feet off of this shoreline that building is. And this building would be about 120 ft or a little greater off of the shoreline there. So, this uh drain field, if I were to
approximate, would probably be about 4 to 500 feet off the shoreline. Although I have not measured it, I would approximate it's around there somewhere. So, uh, so that's what we have in mind for for that location. And then lot one and two are I believe around 700 ft off
the shoreline and they also have a primary and secondary identified for the ordinance. Gary, our our uh our staff is their staff has been out there and looked at this and they they feel those locations
are high enough to not be a problem. >> Madam Chair, Commissioner Lee. Uh yes. And madam chair, the planning commission moved this on unanimously. Is that correct? >> Yep. >> Okay. >> They did do an on-site. >> They did do it on site
>> as well. >> Madam Chair, if there's no other questions, I'll make the motion to approve. >> We have a second. >> I'll second that. We have a motion by Commissioner Baros, second by Commissioner Coring. All those
in favor? >> I opposed. Motion carries. >> You can make one more 5sec comment just to alleviate some concerns over that existing road. It is an existing road,
20 foot wide road. It's been there. It was actually approved by the board about 50 years ago. Thank you. >> Okay. Next item. >> Madam Madam Chair, the next request is for a preliminary plat of Gobbler Storage Edition for parcel number
73240513 located in section 24 of Lake Edward Township. This request is to approve a preliminary plat consisting of 12 lots and two outlots. If you go to the map on the 142 um the packet, I always get the numbers
wrong. I don't know how we do, but that's right. 144. Oh, I gotcha. Um you'll see that the property is located on the east side of County Road 3 uh near um Clow Stamping. Um the plat is um well, it's on 145. I
hope hope I got the page number right. Um, anybody familiar with County Road 3? This will be just south of the old turkey barns on three there. Uh, the planning commission public uh planning commission board of adjustment held a public hearing on July 16th uh 2026 and
made a a recommendation of the board to approve the preliminary plat of gobbler storage edition. Uh, the PCBOA developed the findings on fa fact found on pages 195 and 196 of the board's packet for consideration as well. Uh the PCBOA also
approved a conditional use permit on July 16th to allow for the construction of commercial storage buildings. A variance was also approved um to allow a 50-foot setback to the east property line where 100 ft was required to
residential zoning. Based on the application submitted, staff packet public comments and the findings of fact, it is recommended to approve the preliminary plat of gobbler storage edition. Um, staff concur with that recommendation and I'm here to answer any questions.
>> Go ahead. >> Madam Chair, I'll make the motion to approve the preliminary plat for gobbler storage edition. >> Nope. >> I I'll second that and then comment.
Oh, >> you want to talk about this? >> Yes. Well, what Tim wanted to talk about. Debbie, would you be able to throw this up underneath the This came in late, but we can talk about it now, but why I
wasn't going to is I just want to remind the board this is preliminary. What we're going to talk about here is actually going to be on the final plan, which we will talk about if you approve the preliminary at the final. But there's been some concern on the access
from the access of County Road 3. So, uh, Tim, uh, had got a call and and worked with, um, I think it's Mr. Cullen to the north, uh, to make sure that it's clear that, um, the property boundary is right
here and want to make sure that it's shown on the plat how to get into this storage park. Um, so on it's not on your preliminary that you approve today, but it will be something that gets cleaned up if it comes back for final plat. So,
it's not really for consideration today, but I think that's why you're you wanted to bring it up. >> So, so then, Madam Chair, the county engineer and the county highway department would be okay with that and if that's included. Correct. >> Yes. I wasn't sure if it was going to uh
if we needed to or talk about it here. So, just reinforce that it does need to be part of the final plan. Mr. Cullin come for I met with him yesterday. He was at the planning uh commission meeting and it is documented in here that he does have some concerns about
going right onto his that that exits right out onto the private his private property. There's no way showing that that plat is going to have their sole access without accessing his property. He's running a business up there too and things like that. So as long as that
it's uh in the PAG clear that it must be considered for the final plat I'm fine. That's all I really wanted to raise awareness. >> Perfect. >> Jim, Tim, before you run off, is who maintains that approach? Is that a county uh culvert?
>> Actually, the there is no culvert in there. This is a county approach. It's purposely on the on the property line and the shared axis like we're managing them some of the other ones. And um it's just not constructed that way. Um the property pin is right in the middle of
the approach, but this this is a private roadway into Mr. Cullinine's property and this will also be a private driveway. >> Okay. >> Uh just really center the access so uh there's not that encroachment in the future and the adjacent property owner
has brought that forward. Um and some things that other things we got to work through in terms of drainage. So >> almost seems like a civil issue. Madam Chair, I couldn't help myself. >> Madam Chair, just a question for as long as we got the two experts up there. So, uh, Rick Adams chose to own this
property. I think he has that cell tower that was there that was put in there. So, when he put that in there, did he have access to that cell tower? How did he get access to that? Did he have an easement from or something from the landowner to get in there?
>> Well, there is an easement that runs basically back around this way. uh where he was accessing that cell tower um since that cell cell tower was built >> was there first. Yeah, that's just >> that goes out this that goes out this way and kind of loops back around out to
three. Now what he'll do is put in a driveway here to get access here. They probably could come this way too if they wanted to using that easement. But >> well, I was just wondering because if that cell tower was there, they had to have access to it somehow. That had to
be legal and and proper. So, this is just improving it for the storage park that will be there. >> Thank you. That's all I had. >> Okay. Any other questions? Hearing none. Uh, we have a motion by
Commissioner Barrow, second by Commissioner Coring. All those in favor? >> I >> opposed. Motion carries. Pelican Beach. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. The next request is for the final plat of uh Pelican Beach Preserve for parcel number
73040571 located in section 4, Lake Edward Township. All requirements have been met for final plat and we recommend approval as submitted. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Just as a note on this one, there was an appeal filed on the
conditional use permit that's already been approved on this property uh July 20th. um for the re resort conversion. Uh the applicants have been informed. Um you know that case will proceed. Um we discussed with Stephanie over in the
attorney's office that we don't see no reason to deny the final plat. Uh but if the conditional use permit is overturned that the plat would be vacated. Um and that could take up to north of a year maybe or more uh to get that resolved.
Just as an FYI to the board when you're considering approval or not, >> Madame Chair, if we approve it today, does that allow that person to do whatever he needs to or they want to do there? And then if it comes up and gets
vacated, then whatever he did is >> I mean that's I I don't know how to ask ask that question. Madame Chair, um Commissioner Lovekkey, if if it's approved today and um they decide to um sell pieces of property
and it gets overturned on appeal that is something that >> civil it would be a civil issue. Um >> okay. >> And that would be um it's a buyer beware, >> right? So, um, that isn't something that
it comes down to us. Um, but the plat would then be vacated. So, it they've been notified and told that it's an appeal that we have. We can approve it. The county has the right to approve it, but
it's their decision. They wanted to go forward. Um, but it's not an issue for us. >> Followup question then. If so, if we leave it preliminary, can that person still sell those lots? >> We would have to deny it today.
>> So, there's two choices. You either deny the final plat or you approve the final plat today. And >> I would assume that if we deny it today, then it's done forever, not just till after the appeal is over. >> They would have to come back after the appeal is done.
>> They'd have to start over. Mhm. Madam Chair, but just a a reminder, the appeal is not on the plat, right? The appeal is being filed on the conditional use permit. So the the appeal doesn't have anything to do with the plat, which is why the final plat is still before you today.
>> I didn't I didn't catch that. So glad you're here. >> Madam Chair, if there are no other questions, I'll make the motion to approve the final plat of the Pelican Beach Reserve. Do we have a second?
>> I'll second it. >> Motion by Commissioner Barrow, second by Commissioner Lee. All those in favor? >> I >> opposed. Motion carries. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. The final request is for the final plat of an lake
acres for parcel number 591604 located in section 16 of Bay Lake Township. All requires have all requirements have been met for final plat and we recommend approval as submitted. >> Here for any questions.
>> Are there any questions? >> I forgot on this one. Did the township have any comments about this? Not on I know they did in the preliminary or didn't have any in the preliminary but nothing on the final. Was there?
>> Forgot to look. Apologize. No, I don't see any. >> There are no comments from the township. >> All right, that's all I've got. >> Okay. Can I have a motion? >> I'll make the motion to approve. >> Second.
>> I'll second that motion, Madam Chair. >> Motion by uh Commissioner Lee, second by Commissioner Lubkkey. All those in favor? >> I motion carries. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> County Sheriff Good morning, Madam Chair, commissioners. Um, I don't really have anything for you today. Um, we have the uh county fair coming up. So, what I'll be out there from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. every day, Tuesday through
Saturday. So, if you guys want to come out and say hi, get a picture with me, please feel free to do that. I'd love to have you out there. >> Political take any questions. No, with that comment, I'll say this. So, if you're going to be there from 10 to 10, that means we'll finally get a
full day out of you. >> They know how bad that one hurt. That's why they're laughing. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> county. >> I have nothing unless you have some uh
questions for me. Seeing none, county administrator. >> Madam chair, the first item today I have a report from the senior management team. We did meet yesterday and as you can imagine this time of the year all we talked about was the budget. So we are continuing to work through that process
and you will get the updated version of the 2027 budget from us at your next budget committee meeting. The second item I have before you today is the Brainer Lakes Regional Airport
Ordinance Amendment. Um, if you I'm sure as you all recall in 1946, the city of Brainard and Crowing County worked together to establish a joint airport authority and there have been several amendments to that ordinance
over the intervening years. The gist of the ordinance is that you agree to jointly operate and maintain the airport and the original language required a 50% cost share from each entity. It also included a basically a
50% representation on the airport commission from each entity. There have been numerous conversations over the years as far as if the 50/50 cost share is the appropriate way for that operation to be maintained given the tax
ability or the capacity of the county versus the capacity of the city of Brainard. At their meeting on July 6th, the Brainer City Council adopted basically a new ordinance that supersedes the previous ordinance that
was in place. This is following several years, I would say, of discussion with staff that has kind of resulted in a recommendation of how the airport could be looked at at a different way. And essentially the new provision would
establish a financial contribution and airport commission composition that would occur through a three-year phased in approach. Phase one, which would be effective January 1 of 2027, would require a 75%
25% split on the financial contributions with the county absorbing 75% of the levy and the city absorbing 25% of the levy. Along with that, it would require the composition of the airport commission to change to having instead
of three reps from the city and three reps from the county. The county would have four members, the city would have two. The county's four appointees would include three lay appointees and one county commissioner. The city's two appointees would be one city council
member and one lay person. Phase two of this, which would be effective January 1 of 2028, would change the financial contribution to 80% levy by the county, 20% by the city, and
would also change the commission membership to include five representatives from Crowing County, including two county commissioners, and one member who would be appointed by the city council, which would be a city council member. The final phase would go
into effect January 1 of 2029 and that would change the final contribution from the financial side of things to 85% from the county and 15% from the city. The staff committees that were meeting to kind of review this looked at several
different app several different data points if you will when it came to the financial contributions. It included some tax capacity. It included populations. It included total values. It included many many different data points. And the discussion was it should
be reviewed every 3 years to make sure that this same contribution is still the appropriate way for that to be looked at. So the ordinance specifies also one additional thing that the financial contribution does not affect the ownership side of the airport. Both the
city and the county would remain 50/50 partners in the ownership of the airport. And it also notes that the county's financial the levy from the county does not get applied to the city of Brainard residents which is what the
existing agreement that is in place right now. The county's portion is not applied to the city since they are currently already contributing to that. So because this is a city council ordinance and with the city of Brainard being a charter city, they have their own requirements of things that they
have to go through. They have done their um due diligence, if you will, and done the approval of their ordinance. The action before you today would be to concur with Briner City Ordinance 1605. >> Madam Chair, Madam Chair,
I guess I've got a you know, I know that we've went over this before, but uh of course you know me, a question did pop into my head. I know that in years previous we did have uh bonds. We borrowed the city and the county
borrowed and those bonds were completely out of debt which is a wonderful thing. But I guess the question that I have for you, Deb, is what happens if some future board, I don't see it happening now, but what if some future board, maybe they need a uh
the airport needs a new runway or a different runway and they look at bonding. How does that bonding thing is it the 8020 then or don't you or isn't that addressed in here? Madam Chair, Commissioner Coring, that is not part of what this discussion
would entail. The bonds, because the ownership is 50/50, you know, in in reality, the bonds would be 50/50 as part of that. This is the operating levy, which is separate from the debt levy. Debt levy has always been separated out in the airport side of things anyway. So, if there were to be
debt issued for the airport, the discussion would have to be had as to how that debt would be repaid. >> Okay, good. Okay, go ahead, Steve. our discussion. U Madame Chair, um you know, we're going from we were at 50 and I can't remember
it was last year, year before it was a 50/50 partnership and we put in ourund what was 50,000 or something like that and the city of Brainer put in what a thousand >> correct >> that differential is that ever going to get corrected or is that something for the airport commission to discuss?
>> Madam Chair, that commissioner Lubkkey that's the airport commission who has to address what that situation is. The establishment of the airport commission means the airport commission runs the day-to-day operations. The city of Briner did increase their appropriation for 2026. So it was right sized again
their 50/50 split this year. Um the airport commission did choose to use fund balance to cover the the the shortfall from the previous year. >> Okay. Okay. I didn't know if it was something that would come to us. >> It would not be part of any there's no retroactiveness involved in this. And
Madam Chair, if I might, just for clarification for Commissioner Lupkkey, there is a provision in there that was not there previously to address those kind of situations, whether the county does it or whether the city does it and tries to um
underfund their responsibility. So there is a mechanism now in this ordinance to address that and that was an important piece that we placed in there so that we don't have those kind of situations again. >> Thank you.
>> We can't get that money back. >> No. >> No. And how about that money from up north? That little town up there. Can we get that money back, too? >> Sorry, John. No, you don't have to be sorry. I know you just couldn't help yourself. That's what it is.
>> Madam Chair, if there are no more sensible remarks or questions, concerns, I would make the motion to concur with the Brainard City ordinance number 16005. >> Second. >> Motion by Commissioner Barrow, second by Commissioner Coring. All those in favor?
>> I opposed. Motion carries. >> Madam Chair, that's all I have for you today, unless anyone has questions of me. >> Any additional business? um not to not to be outdone by Commissioner Barrows, but you know, he's always
pointing out that there's a lot of important days and I so I got on my handy dandy phone here and I see that August 1st, August 1st nationally is recognized as girlfriends day, meaning
that that day is where boys celebrate their girlfriends. Not a lot of boys know this, but let me tell you, the girls do. So, >> I didn't have you out. >> As a married man, I think I will will not recognize that day this year.
>> Okay. >> I don't think my wife would appreciate that. >> All right. Go ahead, >> Madam Chair. I know I know Commissioner Barrows likes to go last, so I better interrupt him quick. So, I just uh sitting here thinking about something and I figured I better make a clarification since uh there's people at
home watching this and uh down the road they may watch this in the future, but Sheriff Clang and I have known each other for 30ome years and uh we banter back and forth quite a bit and my uh statement a minute ago was just returning fire on something that I received about a month ago. So, it was
all in good jazz just to remember that. So, >> I thought you were dead serious, Commissioner. Not everybody. Not every see people like you, they just assume the worst. >> I I don't have anything really big except to say go out and enjoy the
county fair. Um, apparently there's pictures available if people want to have them taken with certain individuals. >> Does he have a cutout? Is that what it is? It's a cutout out there, isn't it? >> Oh, don't give him any ideas. >> And if there's nothing else, Madam
Chair, I'll make the motion to adjurnn. >> Second. Motion by Commissioner Barrow, second by Commissioner Coring. All those in favor? >> I I >> opposed. Motion carries.