Good morning. Um, let's call the order. >> Okay, >> try that again. >> Okay, good morning. Let's call the committee of the whole to order. First thing on the agenda is ordinance update with Chris Pence. Good morning, Madam Chair and
commissioners. Uh what you have before you today is a a draft update of the land use ordinance. Um if you'll notice at your desk desks, I put a couple documents for you that we might find handy. One looks like this. It's got
some looks like packer colors. Maybe I should think of a different color scheme, but uh it just occurred to me that maybe this looks like a Packer fan, which I am not. But uh uh this is a summary of the changes to the ordinance um that we're working on right now. The the get the the ordinance changes that
are in in the yellow highlight are more of a policy change and the ones that are in green are just more of a housekeeping change that um are in significant policy. So I just wanted to provide that. And then I also have a document here that will just kind of give a
proposed sum a proposed timeline that we could potentially um implement as we walk through this um ordinance update. Um so just as a reminder um we did recently do an ordinance update that was approved uh here at the county board on
back in December of 2025. the um the big three changes that we made during that uh timeline or during that uh approval would have been deleting the shared capital resorts um out of the out of the ordinance. We had to make some significant updates to our septic system
ordinance article 37 to be in compliance with Minnesota pollution control agency standards and then we also made some changes to um some of our shoreline vegetation standards when uh folks would apply for a shoreline alteration permit. So those are kind of the three big buckets that we made some amendments to
uh last year. And then uh what initiated this current ordinance update was a discussion um that our office has had with a solar developer that looking to develop a larger solar um opportunity in the county. And so uh as we looked at
the ordinance, we realized that we didn't really have any um in anything in the ordinance particularly related to renewable energy. We have a we had a small area that talked a little bit about what could be done as far as a residential use at you know at your home but when we're talking more of these
larger commercial opportunities um we didn't have an ordinance update for that. So that was um the really the key driver of um what this ordinance update is about that's before you today. Um, while we're at it, um, when Gary and I
had some discussions, we, uh, always are trying to find ways that we think we can, um, improve and make the ordinance better. Um, in addition to that renewable energy article. So, um, and we'll go into some details, but another So, there's really three three keys that we're be really focusing on with this
update. One is renewable energy um, article and then um, talking about our sensitive shoreline district and um, proposing to delete that as a as a zoning district. And then to um update the vegetation standards that we have, we currently have a strong and rapid
assessment model that we use for vegetation standards. And um we'll talk about a proposal that we think makes it more streamlined and and simple for um for folks to use. So um the first thing that uh just going to hit on would be the sensitive shoreline um district. So,
that is a that is a a zoning district that's our land use um district that the county put in place back in 2010. Uh what it is is a um it is a district that will be designated by the county board in areas where um the board deems the
the shoreline of a lake to be considered more sensitive than um maybe a general lake classification. We have our general development and our recreational development classifications. And uh what that sensitive shoreline did is that the the DNR has done a study on
large lakes in the state of Minnesota and then been identified what they felt were um areas that were sensitive shoreline that might not um meet the might be more sensitive than a than a um a lake classification such as general development or recreational development. So like on a say for example on
Whitefish Lake, it's it could be some smaller bays that might have more of a of a um more of a characteristics of a natural environment lake versus a general development or a recreational development lake. And so what would happen is that if the board felt that that sensitive shoreline was was
significant and needed to higher protections would be that um you could reclassify that to the sensitive shoreline and that would mean any future development on those lots would have to meet natural environment standards. So right now on a general development lake, you'd be looking at a um lot size
requirements of 30,000 ft 3 3/4 of an acre, 100 ft wide with a 75 ft step back. If we are to uh change this to um to a sensitive shoreline district zoning on that parcel, it would have to meet natural environment standards for any future lot subdivisions, which would be
um closer to 2 acres and 150 foot um setback. Uh that has never been implemented in the county. We've never used sensitive shoreline. It's never been proposed. And so it's been going on, like I said, 2010. So it's been going on 16 years. Hasn't been um hasn't
been utilized. I did reach out to Cass County because this they had um that that idea since their shoreline came from Cass County back in 2010. Uh and they repealed their or they called it resource protection up in Cass County, but they repealed that in 2020 or 2021.
So Cass has also eliminated that section from their ordinance because it just they didn't find that it was something that um really applied as much to what they thought when they first initially put into place and that was back when John Sumpion was consulting with us on the ordinance. He had just retired from
Cass County and so that was kind of the um how that came to be in our ordinance. So that's something that we're proposing to just eliminate that section and no longer have that sensitive shoreline district. Uh the other the next one I want to talk real quick about vegetation standards.
So uh the county regulates vegetation in three different ways. Um the first way we regulate vegetation is that for those lots that are undeveloped and um haven't been u modified as far as vegetation removal on the shoreline. We we limit uh
we we don't allow um extensive vegetative clearing in shore impact zone one. That's the first half of the setback from a lake. So, say you're on a on like a Pelican Lake, that's going to be 37 ft away from the lake. You can't remove vegetation in that um clear cutting except for your shoreline wreck
area, which is 30% of the shoreline that we had talked about um when we had made that ordinance amendment back in December. And so, that's the that's one way that we regulate vegetation. The second way we regulate vegetation is by if you come in and get a shor alteration permit and you want to create that
shoreline recreational use area. At the meeting in December, the board approved that there has to be a buffer of 10 feet on a general development lake and a recreational development lake and then 25 ft on a natural environment lake. And so um that's the second way that we regulate vegetation on our shorelines
within crowing. The third way is that if you're impervious surface is a reminder that impervious surface is is that um parts of a piece of property that don't let the water soak in when it rains. So, we're talking driveways, rooftops, sidewalks, uh anything that's a hard surface that doesn't allow it. Once you
hit 20% or more, you have to do a uh have a vegetative buffer on your property as well to get a permit. And what we do with that 20% is that we have in the ordinance is called the rapid assessment model. It is uh something that uh we put together with the DNR
back in 2010 to try to go out and assess what vegetation existing on a piece of property. And then um based on that assessment would determine the width of how much of a buffer that they would need to come back from their shoreline. Um that has um been we've had some
issues with contractors and and property owners who feel that there's some subjective aspects of that and that it is not as objective as maybe we had hoped it would have been when it was initially developed. And so what we're proposing to do is when we look at the
10 ft for a GD lake, 10 ft for an RD lake, and 25 for natural environment lake, just to have that same standard for those lots that are over 20% impervious. We're just trying to standardize that so that we're not having different standards for different um ways that we decide to evaluate the
amount of shoreline vegetation required on that. So this would this will make it, I think, much easier for staff to administer when working with our customers. And I think it'll be much easier for our customers to be able to understand the expectations of I'm on a general development lake. I know if I want to get this permit, I'm going to
have to have a 10-ft buffer down by the shoreline. So, it's really just meant to try and make that a simpler um way of of making that determination versus having this model that we've been using that um I think can be confusing and and sometimes not always clear for for the
public to understand. So, um, so that's the second part of the of the three that we're looking to make some updates to. And then the third would be just that renewable energy article, >> Chris. So, on that, so, uh, back to this buffer thing, you know, that buffer
thing that we talked about last time. I didn't like it. What what is this? What how how does this compare to that buffer thing that I was not in favor of last time? Is this if you build a house
now, you are required, doesn't matter what lake you're on to have a 10-ft buffer? I I guess I'm not following. >> Yep. Sure. Absolutely. Thanks for the question. Uh so the ordinance that the ordinance when it was updated back in 2010 had provisions as far as what would need to happen on the property depending
on the amount of impervious coverage. So if you um have a lot that's 15% if you have impervious coverage on your lot that exceeds 15%. You need to do a storm water plan when you need to have a plan to to manage the runoff on that on your property before it goes into the lake. If you hit 20%
impervious on your lot, that's when it would kick in that shoreline buffer. And what the the process that we have now to determine what amount of buffer you'd have to have if you have that high impervious on your lot was based on this rapid assessment model. What we're proposing is to do away with that rapid
assessment model and go with what you approved back in December for that number. So it'll it'll it'll just simplify the the number so that folks will know what is it, what buffer do I have to have? have it just be dependent on your lake classification. It won't be dependent on having to have this rapid
assessment filled out by staff and then have to have that, you know, um discussion about what percent of your property is covered with certain amount of vegetation. So, it's just meant to simplify the process and frankly it's a it's putting into practice what you approved back in December for all the
vegetative buffer standards we have so we don't have different standards for different um different types of permit requests. Is there is there scientific evidence that proves that having a buffer or you
know or the water not running in the lake or river more quickly? What what's the scientific evidence that that proves that that's a problem? >> Yeah, that that's a great question. So the the first thing that a buffer does on a shoreline is it it uh native
vegetation when you have these buffers has a really deep root base and so it it really holds the soil in place and it it really eliminates erosion. If you have just a say a lawn to the lake um the average root depth in that might be a half an inch where there might you know
you you'll have um the root depth of some of these native species that go well over a foot. So it really holds the soil in place on these shoreline and that's good for two reasons. One is when the water comes off the property and is running down towards the lake, it stops erosion, but it also helps prevent ice
dam from when you have wave action and ice dam in the spring and the summer from disrupting and and um having that shoreline go away. So, we have a lot of people who will call and say, "I've lost a lot of shoreline. I've lost three feet of shoreline." And you go look at what they've got is they've got basically mowed grass right down to the water's
edge. And what that does is when you have that little bit of that minimal amount of vegetation, eventually um erosion happens and you do lose that shoreline. There's also scientific studies out there that show that dependent that if you have these shoreline buffers, it does slow the water down when it runs off and it gives
the water a chance to soak into the ground before just running straight sheet into the water or into the lake and you know into that uh public water. So there's definitely the the science out there that really supports the um the the value of having that and the value to water quality. The the problem
I think that we run into is that um some folks don't always see it as being attractive and it looks nicer to have a have a mowed, you know, lawn down to the lake versus having some of that buffer along the shoreline. And if we go back to our comprehensive
plan and we go back to our comprehensive watershed plans, every one of those watershed plans and that we adopted into our comprehensive plan does say that it's a priority for the county to get vegetation um restored on shorelines and to protect shoreline vegetation that we
currently have. Um, as far as that, so the the state has been doing studies and they're finding that we're losing um these native shoreline um across the state on a account of 1 to 2% every 10 years. Uh and so there's a a push at the state level now to to try to figure out
how to work with land owners on helping them to understand the value of of what a native buffer can provide as far as water quality and uh and the value that it would bring to um property values, frankly, by keeping uh water. If you look at the studies that have done
between water quality and property values, um they're they're very closely tied. The cleaner the water, the higher property values you have compared to the water that's not as clean, the property values aren't as aren't as high. >> Okay. >> So, this is this is really just taking
what you approved um back in December and making it for all across the board. So, just making it more consistent and easier for uh folks to take and to implement on their shorelines. Okay, thank you. >> Um the last piece to talk about which is
probably the more significant piece is just the renewable energy article. Um this is going to be in uh if we look in the ordinance. I don't think we need to bring it up on this up on the screen, but I'll just kind of walk through it. It's going to be in article um 42. And
what we're going to be what this article does is it puts into place regulation for solar energy and for wind energy both for both commercial and for residential uses. Um, one of the the thing the things that's probably the most important for us to
talk about is what is it that the county regulates and where does the state step in for regulations. So, for example, for solar, um, the ordinance that we're proposing today allows the county to regulate up to 50 megawws. uh the state has permitting over over the 50. The state has control over that for a wind
energy. Uh the five megawatt is the amount that the county can regulate. Then over 5 megawatt is when the state steps in and you have to get your permit through the state to do that. Um so for example like a solar if you had um when I the the research that I did showed
that the average um like for a solar um solar project one megawatt is about 6 acres. So, you know, if you had somebody that would come in that wanted to do a 10 megawatt um um proposal, they'd be looking to cover approximately 60 acres
with uh with that. Um we have we have proposals in if you if you look in the it's in the land use tables. Um and maybe you do want to pull that one up. I don't know. Is that possible? We're looking it's on page I think it's on page 50.
Um yep. And we'll just scroll down just a little bit. There we go. Right there. Perfect. Thank you. Uh and so you'll see when you're looking up there, what we're proposing that these generally would be an interim use permit, which is if you remember that is very similar to a conditional use permit. It just allows the county to
put timing situations in. So maybe if you approve an interim use permit for a certain activity, allows you to have a sunset date where this is good for a 5-year window or it's also could be tied to ownership. So, if the property sells, the next person coming in has to um
reapply to get that same permit. So, it's it's tied to ownership. Um and you'll see on the left side there, we've got um microex, which would be more um small micro and non-commercial. You're looking at those smaller ones that are going to be more residential use. And
then you have your commercial wex um which is going to be for somebody want to come in and do more of a of a larger scale um project. We have a meteorological towers which would be basically these are towers that get put up when people need to use that information for like being able to determine weather patterns and I get to
get that information. We would regulate large solar small solar and then there's a photovoltaic meter. That's a that's something that is used when you're looking at doing the solar to determine the amount of the intensity of the sun. Uh and then uh we also have then standards for because when you collect
the energy it has to be stored into a into a into a battery system. So we have regulations for that as well. You can kind of see where what the proposal would be that uh for the most part uh we're not proposing any of the larger scale projects to be um within the
shoreland district 1,000 ft to a lake 300 ft to a river stream. Um, it's going to be more in the egg and in that rural residential and commercial and the industrial areas is where we're proposing for these projects to be located. >> Hey Chris.
>> Yeah. So, this is maybe a question for Gary. It's kind of a hypothetical just that popped into my head. So, let's say hypothetically we did have a 60 acre uh you know uh oh solar
>> solar Gary, how how would you handle that as far as taxing that or value or h or or even if somebody put up a windmill? >> Sure. How how or or wind generation? H
how would you go about putting a value on that? I think you have to, don't you? >> Oh, yeah. Yeah, it'll still be valued. We're going to value it like if that solar or wind wasn't there. Um and the
rest of that is um you know they get a production tax from the state of Minnesota uh from the electricity that's generated and then the guidance from the department of revenue is we will value it. So like if it's farmland we'll still value it as farmland.
Um and so the the classification and the value typically wouldn't change on those types of properties. >> Oh okay. Okay. Madam chair. So Gary, the property owner would still pay the property taxes based on the property
usage and correct and value of that. The company who is generating the power whether it be through the solar, wind, whatever it might be, pays the production tax which the county gets to keep. I believe it's 60%. >> I think so. >> And the city or township gets 40% of
what that production tax amount is. So when you have a a property where it is generating commercial value for these types of energy systems, there are two different types of taxes that are being levied and collected for that type of
system. >> That was helpful. I appreciate that. Gary, before you run off, um Madam Chair, uh so if these are um would they be taxed commercially or would they be taxed egg if we're on a 60 acre?
>> Yep. Uh they'd be taxed agricultural. >> Okay. >> Unless the property was commercial in nature already. So if the array is on top of a commercial building, it's still going to be charged as commercial. If the array is in the middle of a field that was previously classified
agriculture and is still considered agriculture, it's going to be classified and taxed agriculture. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Um, so unless there's any real questions, I would I don't think we need to maybe get in the into the weeds on
the actual, you know, depth of the ordinance itself. there's some information there that you know um you can review where we've got setbacks and and you know where um those sort of performance standards would take into place but um what I'm proposing today and if you look at this we have a memo
that I've put together that kind of has a timeline uh we would start that comment period u that we have for all ordinances will be starting today through April 17th uh we end up we the plan will be to go to the planning commission on April 16th of the work session just to we'll work through the
planning commission board of adjustment with the details of the ordinance update. We'd have a public hearing on the 21st of May uh for the planning commission board of adjustment and then we would come back here on June 16th for committee the whole and give you an update on kind of where we're at and what what uh what the recommendation was
with then coming to the board on June 23rd for a for a final decision. That's correct. >> So Chris, the the by statute, we're required to run this by uh the appointed planning and zoning commission. Is that
correct? >> Correct. Yeah, it is. Since it is a amendment to the land use ordinance, uh the planning commission reviews it and hold a public hearing and then makes a recommendation to the county board for final decision at that point to approve
or deny or modify as the board sees fit. Chris, could you tell me a little bit about what's the difference between a large solar and a small solar? >> Yep. Yep. Exactly. So, a large solar is like if you look at a a small solar, it's it's it's uh looking at um I had
that flagged cuz I knew that was going to come up. All right. So, a a large solar is going to be something that's got 40 kilowatts or more. So basically under 40 kilowatts is basically a residential type use. So what we're what we're saying is that
when you get into that large solar, it's going to be anything over um that large scale or that that small residential use. There are some counties that have more of like a grading scale that say they allow a certain that they might allow one megawatt with with a permit
depending on its location. And um at least for this time for at this point I felt it was more we'd want to have more. I just don't think because as we mentioned one megawatt would be six acres and I'm not sure that it's a good idea that all a sudden somebody wakes up
tomorrow morning and next thing you know they've got six acres of solar next to them and didn't have a chance to be made aware of provide the input. So that's kind of why we picked went with that number to to make sure that I think we're still making sure that we're notifying people and having the proper reviews of these things before they get
approved. >> Any other questions? >> No other questions from me. Thanks, Madam Chair. >> Thank you. Thank you, Chris. >> Thank you. >> Next on the agenda is landfill fund balance update with Tom
Good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. Here to talk about the landfill once again and some leeate and then get into fund balances and and fee schedules. Um, so just for those that may be unfamiliar, leech is any water that we collect at the landfill that has
come in contact with garbage. So whether that's rain, snow melt or anything else, um if somebody throws away some liquid, it ends up as leech and we collect that and uh store it in the leech collection ponds. You can see them up up there on the map. Those are the dark uh
rectangles that you can see on the map. And then the uh spray fields is just to the south. So, I thought it'd be a good uh to give just a little bit of history on the landfill and how the landfill came about and and how the Lee 8 system works with the landfill and kind of how we get to where we're at today. So, the
uh the Crowing County Landfill first opened in 1974. Um this was an unlined facility, the first one was, and we accepted garbage in that facility up until 1991. Um in '91, we closed that facility and opened up a new set of cells. Uh that
first landfill is still on this site. We just moved to a little different area. Uh so Minnesota statute 1158.46 requires that all counties have a comprehensive solid waste management plan which focuses on waste reduction, recycling, and ultimately disposal if
needed. Uh when the first landfill opened in ' 74, um it was a way that the county could keep all of its environmental liability within Crowing County. Um some of our neighbors neighboring counties opted to go a little different route than us where they opened some transfer stations and
then disposed of their waste outside of Crowing County. Um that was not uh not our direction. We wanted to keep everything here in Crowing County. And as we fast forward to 2026 today, we see some lower rates um because we have this infrastructure built in Crowing County.
um the environmental protection and landfill technology uh you know really expanded of course from 74 to 91 and now into 2026. Um the current area where we dispose of garbage is a series of cells and they are constructed with a
baseliner and collection pipes. So I mentioned that first cell was unlined. Um now today we add a liner, we add collection pipes, we're collecting that leeate so we can um we can process that efficiently. Um so like like I mentioned as as rain water and snowmill comes in
contact with the waste leech is generated it picks up the contaminates contamination that is found within the garbage um and prevents it from entering directly into the groundwater. Uh our landfill operator works hard to reduce the amount of lee that we generate every year. Lee is very expensive to manage
and deal with um and can be harmful to the environment if not uh treated and collected properly. And usually we generate anywhere from 3 to 10 million gallons of leech eight depending on how much open face we have, how big the cell is, and how much mother nature provides us in in rain water and snow melt. Um,
as we uh construct new landfill cells and open larger areas, we try to close off those areas that are full. And so in 2026, um, you guys heard a little bit about this, but we're placing a raincoat over cells three and four and some final cover as well. Uh what we're trying to do there is trying to prevent the amount
of water that gets in in the garbage and collects lee. Um so all environmental protections uh for the landfill and and waste collection um are controlled under state rules um and are detailed in a permit that we get issued by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency. Um the permit covers everything from how much waste we can store in a particular cell, the protection of groundwater from contamination down to um the hours of operations for a landfill. Uh the county's landfill operator ensures that we follow all those policies and
procedures that are in our permit. Um our largest source of environmental liability at the landfill comes from that leech. Um, currently right now we're we're using a a chemical process where um the landfill operator lowers and raises pH to remove some of the um
what they're called VOCC's. Um, and then they're also adding uh oxygen into the lee through diffusers to um volatilize some of those off into the atmosphere before they get into the groundwater. Um once that process is finished, they they
take that treated leech and they apply it on to the spray field that I mentioned um through a series of irrigation kind of like you'd see at a wastewater treatment plant. And then uh the plants that are out in that field um do their processes and then obviously the soil further filters that leech
before it actually gets into the groundwater um and is is cleaner. Um fast forward to the fall of 2023 here. Um, the county submitted its per permit application to the MPCA. Um, in 2024, the county received a letter from the
MPCA indicating that we have to find a solution for PAS. We've probably all heard of PAS by now. That's that wonderful stuff that, uh, makes your food not stick to the pans and was in Scotch-Brite. Um, and so, uh, that was that was 2024. Um, you know, that letter
basically said that we had 5 years to figure out a solution to get rid of all PAS in our water before we land apply. Uh, we're one of, I think, five counties that land applies Lee. The rest goes to wastewater treatment FL treatment facilities. They've got their own regulations coming up about PAS and
we're all kind of struggling to find a or hurrying to find a solution. Um, so we can uh we can treat this. Um, ultimately at the end of the day, we are passive receivers. We're not out there generating or making PAS. It's coming in in the garbage that we collect. So, um
you've heard some some things that we've done out of the landfill to try to, you know, have pilot studies to to figure out how to get rid of that. Um that PAS were we're were one of many that are trying to do that work. Um as of today, we we still actually don't have a permit
from MPCA. Like I said, we applied in 2023. Uh in June of 2025, we did receive a response back from the PCA. Um it was 110 responses that the county needed to address and we've been working ever since to try to address those concerns and comments that the PCA have. Um we
met with them many times and we were able to res um resolve almost all of them except for one that significantly impacts how we handle leech. Um so in our previous permit that we had with TCA we were allowed to land apply up to 16 pounds per acre of boron. So after we do
our treatment processes that our land flop operator does, we take a water sample and then we test um how much of each different element chemical metal is in that water and we can determine how many pounds or or parts per million parts per billion are in that. And so
one of those was boron. Um we were allowed to apply 16 pounds uh per acre. It's a boron is a naturally occurring element. Um it's often applied by farmers to you know increase plant health and growth. Uh in 2025 we land applied 6.9 pounds per acre. Um and you
can find boron in things that we get like insulation, cleaning products, drywall, borax for instance. Um so we use a system of monitoring wells at the county. Uh they're scattered around the site and we routinely test the water to
see what is in the water, see if we have issues so we can respond. Um because ultimately our our goal is we don't want to pollute the water. We live here. we all drink the water. We want to make sure that we're being good stewards of the environment. Um we have been seeing some uh exceedence in the intervention
limits for boron. Um and so because of that in our new permit, the MPCA is going to require that we only land to fly 4 pounds per acre per year. Um it's important to note that in Minnesota that the Minnesota Department of Health regulates um what's called health risk
limits or hurls and risk assessment advice. Um, basically a hurl is is a a known limit that starts to cause harm to humans. Uh, an RAA or risk assessment advice is something that they're uncertain of, but they think it
might. And so, uh, boron actually doesn't have a hurl. Boron has a hurl or an RAA. And so um it's it's just a little interesting that uh um we were given you know five years to try to
figure out um how to manage PAS but um the MPC is not willing to do that for us for boron. So uh we look we look forward and uh you know they're going to limit this this 4 pounds per acre of boron for 2026 and
like I mentioned last year we were at 6.9. Um basically this means uh it's a reduction in the amount of leeate that we can apply to our land app field. Um and so as a result we have to start hauling some leech eight. This is a this
is definitely a change than our normal processes. Um we talked about a little bit uh about solid waste but we currently have a vendor uh lined up and we have a contract with the city of St. Cloud where they will accept our leech. Um if we look at some of our 2025
numbers uh and compare them to this year, we're looking at approximately 4 million gallons that we're going to have to haul in 2026 and it's going to be right around a half million dollars. Um in the meantime, we are taking some additional steps to, you know, reduce the amount of leech we collect. We
talked about the rain coat, we talked about the final cover. Um, we're also going to try to start working on smaller working faces. So that way, you know, the amount of water that hits that landfill, we want to as much of it as possible to go off into storm water where that gets managed differently
versus the leech eight. So trying to do some things in our end um that can uh help reduce leech, but in in turn we are opening a new cell in 2027, cell six. So um that's kind of where we're at today. If if you can go to the next slide, please Amber. Um this is some of our uh
this is our fund balance. So the the landfill um has had a um target of about uh no less than $2 million to account for stuff like this. Um so this is kind of where we're at today. Um you can see that uh that that blue line that cash
and your balance um it has some pretty crazy dips and waves to it. Uh a lot of that is because um constructing a cell is very expensive. Um so in uh in 26 and 27 we have about a $5 million um expenditure to reduce some of the ponds
and construct uh cell uh six and then in 2028 we also have some leech um stuff that we're planning for. And then as you look forward through 2033 2038 you start to get new cells and that's kind of where you see that that eb and flow. And so what we've tried to do is is try to
have our fund balance not go below 2 million. And that's um that's just through slow and steady rate increases throughout the years. And so if if we fast forward to the next slide, we see what happens if if we have to add um a half half million dollar hit every year.
Um we dip below that $2 million fund balance really quickly. Um you can see that that blue line is is, you know, almost getting into the into the red as you call it in in 2023. So um we're not proposing anything for 2026 at this point. And if you can go one more slide,
please Amber. Um, for 2027, um, we are looking at an additional increase of a of a a quarter for a cubic yard of demo and 50 cents um, per ton for compacted MSW. And you can see that um, it uh,
it's it looks better. It doesn't look great still. Uh we we hope that we can find a way to work with the PCA or try to find something where we maybe can pull pull more of the boron out of the leech before we get to have to haul. Um and we can land apply more leeate. But
uh this is kind of where we're at today. And I think Gary's behind me. So I just wanted to help clarify for the board. If we go back one slide, Amber, that green line you can see we're proposing an increase every year pretty much. Um and we instead of not having
any increases for five or six years, the thought uh four or five years ago were were to add smaller increases year after year. So folks, their garbage haulers don't have to, you know, add uh double
their um basically their bill. Uh just to reinforce or clarify, when you see all these dips and and rises, um how the landfill works is we open up a cell, we start collecting garbage, and we
basically start saving money to get ready to build the next cell in five or six years. when that cell um needs to be built, you will see um our expenses go way up and our cash flow go way down uh because we need to expend a bunch of
that money every five six years depending on how much garbage. So that's why you see raises and dips and we do try to keep a floor there of about 2 million. So if we just keep our current path on this slide about 2033 we'll be
in the red out at the landfill. So we have some time. We don't have to do anything if we don't want to. So while we propose these, if you go to then back to the next slide again, um this is in addition to the proposals that we had
talked about um that we set for 26 and we've projected this out for 10 years. If uh the MPCA will not move off of this restriction about boron and we have to haul, you know, that much leeate, we need to add that additional 50 cents on
the compacted and an additional 25 cents on the demo on the per yard. And you can see that that green line actually increases a little bit and then you can kind of see how the fund the funds um our cash flow basically is a lot healthier that way. So, it's a little
bit steeper increase that we're going to have to do in the future um with this uh this change, but it's happening fairly quick. We're going to have to actually do it. We're going to start this spring. Uh they've basically told us they as an MPCA, they've drawn a line in the sand
and said no more with uh no more than four pounds of boron. We've had numerous numerous um meetings with them trying to help us understand why why that number, but that's where we're at. just wanted to help with with um how that graph
there's a lot going on there. >> So just a comment from me, Madam Chair. So So to Gary, Tom, Deb, and the county board, I guess what I and I I believe I had this discussion when we had solid waste committee and actually we talked
about this a little bit at personnel yesterday. If we're going to be if if we're going to be consistently spending $500,000 to truck that leade down to St. Cloud, I guess I would like to have us look at
what would it cost for us to have the the equipment to do that? Would it would it make sense for us to have another employee for that? Would a partnership work with the city of Brainard? If you've ever, if people have ever noticed, uh, I think in the spring and
maybe in the fall, the city of Brainard hauls their sludge out to the the TC farm and other other farms out there and spreads that out. they have that uh truck with a big um tanker and I don't
know I'm just brainstorming would a you know a partnership with them of using that to haul our leech aid when they're not doing their um sludge hauling if that would work. I don't know. I guess
I'd just like to look into it cuz trucking is expensive. Can we do it cheaper on our end? And I guess I' I'd like us to maybe look at that. Deb, do you have any comment? Because I know we talked about this yesterday in personnel as far as the uh
the master electrician and and we Gary, we talked about the the uh what we're doing with the uh surveyor. Um you know, we're we're contracting that out. Is that is it a better bargain for the
taxpayers? So that was the discussion, madam chair, board members, that we had yesterday, if you recall, around the idea of evaluating when it makes sense for us to hire employees and buy equipment to do it ourselves versus to contract something out and have it done
through a service agreement. Gary and I have had some conversations around that with this particular item as well. Um, do you want to speak a little bit to that, Gary? >> Sure, absolutely. I I will start with uh we have reached out to uh Brainer Public Utilities
uh to have a further conversation on if uh they're able and of course willing to uh accept any of our leech. Um we had taken bioolids from them in the past. One time uh unfortunately the stuff
that's in that isn't very good for our leeate. So, um it's their bioolids also have the same stuff that we're fighting, the POS borons. Uh and so it it's um it's a challenge for us. Not to say
maybe we can still it would be great if we could use um them, but if we can't currently we we do have a S St. Cloud. When it comes to a potential hire of of uh an employee, um I think it's a case by case. you
know, we had a county surveyor here for um you know, a few decades. Um when we decided to do a contract with them, I'll just say um was one my opinion here of course is one of the best things we did in land services. Um
those kind of professional services, I'm not a surveyor. I have nobody on staff that could, you know, other than that you'd have to have all your trust like we've done for years and a county surveyor. But when you're it's just a trust you you have to basically take them at the word. Suppose you have to do the same thing like with county engineer
and stuff like that I suppose. But I will say that um with this contract um we get I almost want to say twice the amount of uh result for not half but probably three quarters of what we were paying a few years ago. So, it's been a
great bargain and investment for the taxpayers of this uh community in that just in that one. Um, if uh we when we start trucking, of course, we'll start with this contract. We'll look at, you know, what a wage and benefit would be
versus what a contract is. And if if it made sense to hire somebody because we're not going to be trucking leech every day and there's other things that maybe we could have them do. It just would have to fit. But sometimes there just isn't a good fit. Um if that makes
sense. Um but we'll definitely look into all of that as we as we go down this this road. >> Well, a half a million dollars is a lot you know that's a lot of money every year. So, and then and then and then I don't know if this if that sounds like a hairrained or crazy idea, you know, I
the city of Brainard, they don't use their that semi with the tanker on there. I don't know. Could could that be a some kind of a partnership with us where we we can use that tanker when they're not using it to haul our leech
aid down to St. Cloud? I don't know. just a just trying to brainstorm trying to figure out ways to to do it for less to save the taxpayers the money. >> I I know we're not City of Brainard Commissioner.
Can I just They have a big tanker. Why do they have it if they don't use it? >> Yes, they use it, Gary, in the spring and I believe they use it in the fall to haul the uh the sludge. They call it sludge. >> Oh, that's what they're hauling their sludge in.
>> GPU stuff. Yeah, they're hauling that out there. And then they've got uh they used to call it a terriator, but I think they went to a tractor with a it's really kind of a tanker that farmers use to spread liquid manure. And so they're
really in essence doing got a tractor and they they haul it out there with this this tanker truck and and then they pump it into that tractor and and and tank spreader and then they spread that on the field and then of course they're
they're soil testing all the time. So they move to different fields all the time. They're not putting it in the same spot. So anyway, but they only use that I I think they're only using it like in the spring and and uh and in the fall. I I don't I don't know, but I guess it was
just something that an idea that popped into my head if that thing is sitting there idle and somehow we could have a partnership with them. I know we we do do have a partnership with them on on on their snow plowing on their HVAC and and
so I think where we can work together with other government agencies I think that's probably a good idea. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> Yeah. The other thing to point out too um is uh only about half of that um half million dollars is actually for
trucking. The other half is for fees we pay St. cloud and then our our trucking contractor is is looking at about four to six loads per day um starting here once things warm up. So, um it it may be more than just one employee. They're they're going to bring some trucks in
here and and uh just we collect leech it all year round and so we you know in the springtime we have a lot that we need to get rid of. >> Okay. >> Really quickly, too. >> Wow. Okay. >> Madam Chair, there's a couple questions. Do you know what is St. Cloud doing is
it once they get it? >> Uh it is my understanding that they mix it in with the waste water they receive and then they um put it in the Mississippi. >> So the just you and I have talked about this before. I just want to say it again
because I want everybody to hear it. Our process that we use to eliminate, not eliminate but reduce our PA fast creates a natural chemical called boron that is good for our environment and the
state of Minnesota is not happy that we're creating more than the natural level of that. Is that correct? >> So boron and PAS are are two different things. Um we've looked at some PAS removal systems. Um the boron is just
coming from the waste. It's they're they're two separate things. Um it it's just the amount of uh amount of boron that we're land applying. So they're they're two different. >> Yeah. It's not produced off of our treatment. It it's just it's all in there. We just have higher levels of
boron than they want us to have when we apply it. Even though um like this P facets, they're giving us five years to figure out. They're giving us no years to figure out to try to get the boron under control. So we send the boron down to wastewater treatment with
the PAS. And my understanding, of course, the MPCA, we're under the landfill arm. Wastewater treatment's a different section of the MPCA. So they have different overseers, but it's the same department. So they have different regulations. And not a wastewater treatment plant
guy, but uh what I understand is they have the same struggles we have with POS. So the thing is if they get our POS, they treat it and can't get rid of it. It ends up in the Mississippi. But boron is naturally occurring.
>> That's my that was my point is I struggle with that because >> farmers are using it every day in their agriculture and >> borax and cleaning chemicals and so forth. and why this is suddenly a
problem is irritating to me, I guess. But that's all I've got. Thank you. >> And Madam Chair, Gary, how many times have we had conversations with the MPCA around this issue? >> Oh, jeepers. Um, you guys can help me out on that. It's
been quite a few, >> including some formal appeals and the the process to try to ask for an extension and all the things that go into play with this particular issue. So, we didn't just accept them saying, "Oh, you got to start getting you can
only do four four pounds. You got to get rid of it." It that's didn't just happen overnight where that was the case. We've been having these ongoing conversations. These appeals have been made. We have exhausted every avenue that we have
essentially to try to get because you're exactly right, Commissioner Lee, the the efforts that we're going through to clean the water, to clean the leech before we apply it, all of those efforts have been identified and noted and not
good enough apparently. >> Yeah. Um, >> one one thing. I'm glad you said that cuz that's these are things that we've talked about many times before and I just I bring it up because I want to make sure our community understands how
how far in front our staff is of the entire state really and things that we've done to help our environment and help our county. And it's costing our residents less than pretty much every other county in the state. And
um now to have something like this is just it's ridiculous. So Gary, >> yeah, it it back to earlier what Tom was speaking to reiterate this to help folks understand if PAS is known as
potentially harmful to the the our health. Um but boron isn't at that same level. They're giving us five years to figure out the worst thing and they're not on the other. That's where we're just like just trying to put it out there so folks understand what we've
been trying to work with the um MPCA. So our last um you can say appealer response is well okay we're not going to argue about the the levels of the boron. Just give us the same amount of time and we'll figure that out with the POS. Give us a little bit more time to figure it
out. And the answer was no. Any more questions? >> No more questions here. Thank you. >> All right. Well, thank you very much. >> Thank you for your time. >> Okay, Camp Ripley.
Good morning, Madam Chair, commissioners and board members. Colonel Troy Frink, garrison commander of Camp Ripley. I'm going to leave the Minnesota National Guard annual report
uh with the team for your review at your leisure. And then today is really just uh a quick update as it relates to things that are going on at Camp Ripley. So
um going through some slides here, our mission statement has not changed. Our focus remains to be on our community partners and neighbors that surround Camp Ripley. A few changes in some leadership. Uh so
Major General Shawn Mankey remains the agitant general for the state of Minnesota. Um he is Governor Wall's right-hand man when it comes to uh military forces. Uh Command Sergeant Major Jason Rost had just recently
replaced uh Command Chief, Master Sergeant Lisa Ericson, which was Air Force. Um and she retired. So now Jason is our command sergeant major enlisted leader for Minnesota. Moving on to the
division, both of these gentlemen have also uh swapped out. So, Brigadier General Joe Shy has replaced uh Major General Charles Keer and he has gone on to other assignments uh within the states. And then Command Sergeant Major
Mark Dempsey has replaced Command Sergeant Major Matthew Ericson, which also retired. And then Camp Ripley's leadership. Right. So there's me as the garrison commander. I will be rotating out here this fall as well. Uh so I will be uh
heading into retirement. And then my command sergeant major Ryan Hoffstead just recently retired. And command sergeant major Chad Turner has taken over for him. He was supposed to be with me today but we had to kind of split duties here a little bit with some
things going on at camp. Uh moving on, looking at some of the economic impact that Camp Ripley brings to the area about $137 million and it's kind of broken out in different categories uh there. Um
there is a significant amount of things that we do in terms of uh I think our biggest increase this year was really falls into the construction aspect of what we're doing on Camp Ripley. Um, so that's really been something that's uh
kind of exploded for us uh in terms of building new buildings, new barracks for soldiers, uh different remodels across the across the installation uh to bring things up to a modern capacity.
Our location hasn't changed. We're smack dab right in the middle of Minnesota. Uh we don't plan on going anywhere. So, uh, we, uh, continue to be very proud of the 18 mi of the Mississippi River, uh, the most undisturbed, uh, stretch of the
Mississippi River on the Camp Ripley side, of course. Um, so we're pretty proud of the fact there. And then obviously some of our our weapons ranges and things. We're going to look at some of our uh, modernization as it relates to that as well. Uh, some of the
training requirements are going to change. So, we have to change some of the weapons ranges to accommodate the qualification standards. Some of our accomplishments, uh, I'll just draw your attention to the second bullet on the slide. Uh, Camp Ripley in
2024, um, was the third busiest training center across the nation. In 2025, we were the second busiest training installation across the nation. We are
now in 2026. I am very hopeful that we'll be able to reach uh number one which would be a feather in our hat of course but nonetheless we remain extremely busy throughout the year uh
doing whether it's military training whether it's uh law enforcement training uh or any kind of state agency kind of training and we'll get into some of the partners here in a little bit but as you can see I did talk about some of the construction construction. All of these
things are still in progress and and ongoing. Uh the big one is at the top, area 5. Uh that is a complex uh basically a two battalion set complex. Uh that will house two battalions of
soldiers uh throughout the year. So not just summertime, not just wintertime, year round. So we're pretty proud of that fact of being able to go year round. Uh the museum update is also part of the construction plan. Um these uh this is
going really well for us uh on schedule. Uh talking to the museum board members. Um they are planning to do kind of what is called a a soft opening uh probably sometime in July. We won't be really
ready by then, but it'll be by invite only. And then the grand opening is still scheduled for September of 2026. So looking forward to opening those doors to the public. Uh it is uh I've gotten a few sneak peeks along the way.
Uh it is going to be quite amazing uh to walk through uh some of the schedule training. This is really kind of uh the meat and potatoes of the briefing or the update. Uh you'll see April, May, and June. We're going to have probably a lot of
booming and banging uh going on during those months with the artillery units coming through. uh that booming and banging will continue uh through July, August and September, but just different weapon systems, tanks and Bradley's and
different things like that will be running through multiple uh tables and lanes uh to meet their qualifications um to be ready. So that is currently kind of our schedule moving into 2026.
Um, also we do like to communicate when we do prescribed burns on Camp Ripley, which is really something that is uh takes care of our environment, takes care of uh a lot of different things as it relates to military training um in terms of our firereaks and all of these
different things that we consider. Um, but this will all come out on social media. We'll advertise it. We'll make sure uh obviously weather conditions make a big difference when we do this. Uh so sometimes you might hear something on the radio, you might see something on
the Camp Ripley Facebook page. Uh but just be aware that we are planning to do these things and then when you see the plumes of smoke and you're you're not calling the fire department and um scaring everybody. So it's just just us.
Um some of the community outreach uh that we do on an annual basis. Uh these are kind of reoccurring things that uh Camp Ripley employees participate in uh willfully. It's not mandatory by any means. This is just us um being good
neighbors I think. So uh the environmental program I touched on uh our environmental team. Uh they are award-winning. Up on the left hand side is a lot of their partnerships and and relationships that they that they have in play. And then on the top right
is really all of the awards uh this team has won over the last decade um for the work that they're doing constantly on Camp Ripley and in the area. And then obviously some wildlife things and then the Sentinel landscaping funding and our
collaboration uh with uh soil and water uh with Morrison County primarily. This is our rep program or formerly known as the ACUB program about a little over 40,000 acres enrolled uh by Wolfful land owners around the area to really
build that that buffer zone around Camp Ripley so we don't get as many noise complaints and uh things like that. But that's every installation across the nation tries to achieve these kinds of uh buffers if you will. And we use the
repy program or the formerly known as the ACUP program uh to be able to do that. Here is our state partners that I talked about. Uh obviously the Minnesota DNR, the Minnesota State Patrol have a
permanent residence or uh showing on Camp Ripley. They actually have offices in the emergency management building uh that we have on Camp Ripley. Uh we did recently uh had to say goodbye to Homeland Security. They did also have uh
office space. Um for some reason they moved back to Minneapolis and and are focused on uh uh their operations in Minneapolis. So um at the end of the day they're always welcome back. Um but our partnership and our relationship with
the state agencies is phenomenal. We do the state patrol and the DNRmies. We do snow plow training for the state. Um we just really kind of if we can support we are trying to get to yes in terms of what we can provide for resources for
our state partners. And then obviously if anybody within Crowing County knows of any veterans or family members of veterans that are struggling uh having issues, there are a number um of resources available uh to
those veterans and family members. These are some of the points of contact. I did not go to the right slide or did I jump? I apologize. Okay. civil authorities. This process has not changed. So if the sheriff
needed help uh within Crowing County, he would have to call HSM. HSEM then gets in touch with the governor's office. The governor issues an executive order which then allows the National Guard to help uh Crowing County Sheriff to do whatever
that may be. So just some typical uh missions that we get assigned to. Uh recently obviously we have been in Minneapolis again this winter uh supporting some of those activities uh as it related to uh some of the uh protesting
and then again veterans uh family members of veterans. These are some of the points of contact and the resources available on Camp Ripley uh to all of those folks. Um, so again, if you know somebody, have them reach out to these folks and they will they will be
certainly to help. And then obviously the safety brief or the final thing I show every year, uh, this is something that is real. uh if you're on Camp Ripley, you come across something like that, we ask you to, you know, obviously get a hold of our uh director of public safety and our range
control uh staff. if it's off of Camp Ripley, uh, which recently we did have, uh, a call, uh, within Crowing County where we deployed the 148th, uh, EOD team out of Duth to a residence, uh, to
basically recover what was, uh, considered an old Vietnam era hand grenade. So, um, it does happen. it's out there and our team is ready to to support in
whatever uh ways we can when it comes to unexploded ordinance. So that concludes my update. If there's questions, if there's dialogue,
I'll I'll certainly entertain. >> Any questions? >> No questions. I'll just say thank you for all you guys do for us and uh we talked briefly before but uh you guys are great neighbors and appreciate having you there. So, >> thank you, Commissioner.
>> Yes, and thank you for coming. >> I'll have a great day. >> You too. Thank you so much. >> Yep. >> Madam Chair, that's all we have for you today. Although, I do see that our new airport manager, Jennifer Roach, is in the audience. I don't know if Jennifer
wants to say a couple words or >> I can just say good morning. Um, sorry for my cough spell there and interrupting the meeting. Um, yes. So, I started about 3 weeks ago at the airport and uh very very busy learning, watching
and and observing what's going on. uh really excited to be a part of the community in Crowing County and working with the city of Brainard as well to keep the airport uh going in the direction it's going which seems to be an upward trend. So looking forward to working closely with all of you and uh I
just wanted to come out and see what this meeting was about. I look forward to presenting I think in June or so uh where we're at with the airport, give you an update and uh I'll be back then for sure. Any questions for me? >> No. Thank you for coming.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. >> All we have, Madam Chair, >> meetings adjourned.