What could you say? Good morning everyone. At this time, I'll call the Crowing County Regular Board meeting for November 25th, 2025 to order. If you'll stand for the pledge of allegiance and a moment of silence. >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. All right, if you'll call roll call, please. >> Commissioner,
>> Commissioner Coring, >> here. >> Commissioner Lovekkey >> here. >> Commissioner Baros >> here. >> Commissioner Franzine. >> Commissioner Lee >> here. All right. Thank you. At this time, we'll have open
forum. Is there anyone here who would like to speak on something other than what's on our agenda today? Is there anyone here that would like to speak on anything other than our agenda? Seeing and hearing none, we'll move on from that to number three, which is the
review and approve of the minutes from November 12th, 2025. >> Motion to approve. >> Motion by Commissioner Lubkkey. >> Second by Commissioner Franzine. Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Coring, >> yes. >> Commissioner Lupkey, >> I. Commissioner Franine.
>> I, >> Commissioner Lee. >> I, >> Commissioner Barrows, >> I. That motion passes. Thank you very much. >> We'll move on to number four, which is the review and approve today's agenda. Any additions or corrections? >> No changes, Mr. Chair. Motion to approve. >> Motion by Commissioner Franzine to
approve. >> I'll second. >> Second by Commissioner Lee. Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Lee, >> I. >> Commissioner Coring, >> I. >> Commissioner Loveky, >> I. >> Commissioner Franine, >> I. Commissioner Barers. >> I That motion passes. Thank you. Number
five on our agenda today is the consent agenda. >> Any concerns with that? >> I have uh one question on 5.10. >> You want me to ask that now or? >> Yes, go ahead. >> Um so we have these uh tax forfeited
funds and I don't know who wants to address that from land services. If we don't spend those funds, where do they go? Do they get saved or what happens with those funds when they don't get spent? >> Good morning, commissioners. Uh if we don't spend the funds in the uh tax
forfeited account, uh they get aortioned at the end of the year. Uh 60% basically comes to the county, 20% to the school and 20% to the city or township on which the land or the timber were cut or sold. >> So if we if we spend if we don't spend
100% of it, then the rest of it it gets it doesn't go back to the state. It doesn't stay with us. it gets divvied up amongst the rest of the people in that area that was served. >> 40 40% 40 cents on the dollar would go between the school and uh counter city.
>> So there is no saving it over and over. >> There is no rollover. >> Okay. And that's part of that statute that was written or something back in 71 or 72 if I'm not mistaken. >> Mhm. >> Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. >> Any other concerns? And if not, I would look for a motion to approve the consent
agenda. So moved. >> Motion by Commissioner Franzine. >> Second. >> Second by Commissioner Lee. Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Franine. >> I. >> Commissioner Lee. >> I. >> Commissioner Coring. >> I. >> Commissioner Lkkey. >> I. >> Commissioner Baros.
>> I. That motion passes. We have a public hearing scheduled at 9:05. Click. >> Mr. chair. Perhaps Tom could tell you a little bit about the harvest plan first. He can go over the information with it and then you can open the public hearing portion of it.
>> All right. Good morning, Tom. >> Good morning, Mr. Chair and commissioners. Yes. So, here today to uh discuss the 2026 harvest plan. Um the first item for today is is a public hearing to allow public comment on the proposed harvest
plan. Uh we did meet back in July with the natural resource advisory committee and they recommended approval of the 2026 harvest plan and then the harvest plan was also discussed at the committee the whole meeting in September. Uh annually the county board is asked to approve the harvest plan following a
public hearing today. Uh the uh one-year harvest plan is derived from the forest resources plan and consists of a pool of forest stands which are being considered for a timber harvest before any permit is offered for sale. A detailed field examination is conducted by uh county forestry staff and a management
prescription and timber appraisal are completed for future sale. Some forest stands or portions of the stand may be undesirable for a harvest due to its size, age uh or operability and or its location and in these instances forestry
staff do a reinventory and uh and uh the uh treatment is deferred. The harvest plan consists of a number of timber acres and cover types which are being considered for sale in 2026. And the county administrator's office has notified those on a mailing list who request the information and land
services makes this information available uh within the department and at the burner public library. And with that, I will pause for any questions. >> Any questions? Commissioner Coring? Anything? >> Nothing, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. >> Thank you.
Um, the only question I would have, and I know we have a public hearing coming up, but are the land owners adjacent to where you're doing some of the cutting, are they um, informed or how are they informed that there will be a a thinning or are they informed what type of cutting is going to happen? Because, you
know, it's a little different to come in and do a thinning versus to do a, you know, to do a full final cut. >> Yep. Mr. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Lubkkey, we we do send a property letter um to the adjoining land owners once we've prepared the sale. Um we don't do it ahead of time just because we don't
know exactly if we're going to be harvesting anything or what. We don't know until that forester is on site coming up with a management plan according to the forest resources plan. Once we have that, we'll put it uh put together a nice map that shows where their property is located um adjacent to the the timber sale. And then we'll
include our business card and and there's an opportunity for them to list any concerns they have on that letter. They send it back to us saying, you know, they agree with um where that management line is in relation to their property. And if they don't, then we have we start the conversation of, you know, what what the issue may be. So
they they do have an opportunity to comment before we sell the actual timber sale. >> Yeah. And I know we had that up in the district I serve on 39 and 103, you know, where I got some phone calls, but it wasn't our it was that was DNR school trust land. That was that was a final
cut of I think on that property and I just want to make sure that we're doing on our our side of it our due diligence of making sure we let the adjoining property owners and stuff know that something will be happening there. So, thank you for that. >> Yep. >> That's all I had for questions. >> Any other questions for Go ahead,
Commissioner Corning. >> Yeah, Mr. Chair Tom, maybe you want to uh expand on it a little bit. You know, when we do a uh a timber sale, we don't cut like right up to the very foot of the property owner's line. I I believe
that we always leave a little bit of a buffer there. Uh Tom, am I right? >> Yep, you are correct. So, when staff go out to prepare a timber sale, um we use survey grade equipment, but we are not registered surveyors with the state within the state of Minnesota. Um, so we're using the best possible
information and best possible equipment that we have. Um, but we do uh use a small buffer. We try to stay 6 to 12 feet off of that property line just because there is some room for error there. We're not registered surveyors with the state. So, we do try to ensure
that we're staying on the county lands, but we don't want to incorporate a large buffer um because that's just potential for uh loss revenue for us or or future issues uh down the road. Sometimes people will see these management lines as the property line and so all of a sudden things start to creep a little
bit. So we we try to be as close as possible and when there is issues we will hire a a surveyor to come in and establish that line for us if if we need to. Any other questions for Tom? All right. Thank you, Tom.
It's now 9:08 and I would look for a motion to open the public hearing. So moved. >> Motion by Commissioner Franine. >> I'll second it. >> Second by Commissioner Lee. Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Franine. >> I. Commissioner Lee.
>> I. >> Commissioner Coring. >> I. >> Commissioner Lekkey. >> I. >> Commissioner Barrows. >> I. That motion passes. Public hearing is open. Is there anyone who would like to address the 2026 harvest plan?
Anyone in the audience who would like to address the 2026 harvest plan for Crowing County? Seeing none, I would look for a motion to close the public hearing. >> So moved. >> Motion by Commissioner Franzine. >> I'll second it.
>> Second by Commissioner Lee. Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Coring. >> I. >> Commissioner Lovekkey. >> I. >> Commissioner Franine. >> I. >> Commissioner Lee. >> I. >> Commissioner Barrows. >> I. That motion passes. 6.2 Two on our agenda is the
harvest plan approval. So I would look for a motion to approve the 2026 Crowing County harvest plan. >> Motion to approve. >> Motion by Commissioner Franzine. >> Second. >> Second by Commissioner Lubkkey. Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Lee, >> I. >> Commissioner Coring,
>> I. >> Commissioner Lubkey, >> I. >> Commissioner Franine, >> I. >> Commissioner Baros, >> I. And that motion passes. Thank you, Tom. Appreciate it. Commissioners, Jessica, if you want to come up and give us a little preview of the Mission Lake
LI. >> Sure. >> Good morning, Mr. Chair, commissioners. Uh, today we have before you the public hearing for the mission lead creation. We did hold per policy a pre-etition meeting on August 9th of 2022. Um, a petition was uh completed and turned in
in June of 2025. there was some errors found. So, it was resubmitted on October 7th of 2025 and we reviewed that petition for accuracy. Um, on that petition, there was um 118 of the 218 property owners within the proposed lid
that were in approval of it, which is a 54% which meets our um policy guidelines. Um, and per statute, we must hold a public hearing within 30 days of receiving that petition, and that is what we're here for today. Um and just as a reminder, there is no voting to approve or deny the creation of this um
lid today. It is just purely the public hearing. We'll come back before you on December 16th for that vote. >> Any questions for Jessica? Commissioner Coring, anything? >> Uh Mr. Chairman, thank you. No, no questions at this time.
>> All right. Thank you, Jessica. It's now 9 11 and I would look for a motion to open the public hearing regarding the Mission Lake LI. >> So moved. >> Motion by Commissioner Franzine.
>> A second. >> Second by Commissioner Lee. Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Franine. >> I. >> Commissioner Lee. >> I. >> Commissioner Coring. >> I. >> Commissioner Lupkkey. >> I. >> Commissioner Barers. >> I. The public hearing is now open.
If anybody would like to speak, I would like you to make a line and you can go in that order. So, if you'll just gather up. What I would ask is that don't repeat what the previous speaker said. Let's move along and and have a respectful meeting public hearing here.
So, if you want to go first and then the gentleman in the back will be number two. So, name and address, please. >> Good morning. Um, my name is John Zoy. I'm the president of Mission Lakes Lake Association. Um, I've got a statement here to kind of
frame the the lid for you. Uh, Mission Lakes Association was originally founded in 1987 and for more than 30 years its members along with the DNR Crowing County have studied, tested, and managed with limited resources in an effort to
protect and improve Mission Lakes. Those of us that have lived uh here for decades and in some cases multiple generations have seen a distinct change in the lakes including a decline in water clarity uh algae blooms that start
in June versus late August as in the past and there has been an increase in aquatic vegetation along the shorelines and also extending further out in the lakes. uh in the sum in late summer certain locations are not suitable for
either swimming or boating. Uh therefore the lid goals are to number one manage the invasive species that are in the lake currently. Number two prevent the introduction of new invasive species specifically zebra muscles and starry
stone warp. And third would be to reduce the nutrient levels uh from runoff and erosion to improve the water quality uh and clarity. In the face of declining resources available to us from the county and from
the DNR and increased cost of treatment uh herbicides, voluntary donations from about 45% of Lakeshore owners uh is insufficient to maintain the status quo, let alone provide the resources to make improvements. The creation of a lid will
result in an equal and consistent sharing of the cost of the resources needed to improve Mission Lakes for the benefit of all residents, visitors, and Brainer Lakes tourists. Croing County currently has nine successful lids, each contributing
measurably to AIS control, prevention of new infestations, and long-term lake stewardship. uh lids are a proven and communitydriven and equitable tool for the pro for protecting our waters. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Next, if you'll give us your name and where you live. >> My name is Kevin Schmidt and I live on Upper Mission. We've been there since 1979.
Um I have a contrary opinion to uh what Mr. Zoya just stated um I'm going to be careful here with my notes. The um scientific data that was submitted within the petition
that had an accumulation of 25 years of history shows that 85% of the money that was spent on herbicides and herbicidal treatment was spent on lower mission and the channel. In the 25 years, there was apparently no
mitigation of the invasive species. All mitigation that appeared was a temporary. In those 25 years, $93,514 was spent on upper mission, including the resort area. This is a $35,96
annual average. The LI you propose has a tax being collected of almost $25,000 annually just off of upper mission which I find to be quite far from equitable distribution.
the Minnesota advisor statutes. I'm sure you're familiar with that. The SC SWCD implementation plan responding to the statutes has a protect status
on upper mission which is the best class of water quality that they they can score. On the contrary, lower mission has an impaired status which is the lowest class. Uh I'm stating that based on the two lakes are very different. The
DNR which just recently completed a TW uh 2024 watershed health assessment framework further defines the two lakes. Upper mission is at or above the goals or thresholds for all four levels of
classification. The best you can achieve in this category. Additionally, it shows the water quality and clarity for the last 3 years is the best that it has been since 1975. That's not my opinion. This is right off
of their website and their statistical information. This improvement happens to occur in years when, as Mr. Zoya stated, they were short money and not a lot of treatment was being done. as opposed on the other side, lower
mission. The conditions of this lake, and I quote, have degraded to a point that it cannot support desired outcomes from invasive species treatment. It has failed and fallen below all desired goals in two of the four
classifications. This lake provides only marginal lakes shore at best and and in includes large masses of vegetation. And again to quote our AIS specialists that are also quoted in the LI proposal
information you've got this lake would benefit very little from herbicide treatments. Um from the revisor statutes the petition fails to really support the definition of a problem on upper mission.
In in fact, the DNR and S SWCT statements that we just talked about have us as one of the best lakes in the area. And again, that's upper mission. The appropriateness of boundaries specific to the implementation and feasible solutions part. Upper
mission is not adversely affected by a very poorly defined problem in this LIID proposal. The equitable distribution and levying of costs is ridiculously unfair and clearly has the taxation of upper mission paying for lower missions
problems. The feasibility of the program, the LI proposal never actually defines the program, only talking points. 25 years of the history on these lakes with unlimited financial resources
uh failed to mitigate AIS. Fortunately, the minimal treatments on upper mission referred to as spot treatments in their proposal did not seriously impact the lakes's condition regarding upper mission. I would hate to
see this LI repeat 25 years of history. We've seen this this this uh herbicide treatments now for 25 years. And we've seen it in ' 07, 08, and 09. In the words of the DNR and specifically Wendy
Croll, uh it turned lower mission into a septic tank. Um I've got a lot of other discussion here. I'll stay away from it. I know they've achieved the 50% plus one apparently making this bringing it to this point. I
would ask you the commissioners to seriously consider that this taxation would be unfair and uh as a representative and an owner of properties on upper mission I would appreciate that this would be tabled this LI petition would be tabled.
Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next gentleman please. name and address. >> Hello, my name is Greg Kesler. I live at U 26753 Mission Narrows Lane. Um,
we are we lived in the prop for 10 years. We are for the lead. With the lid, we will help resource to help fight invasive weed problems in both lakes and a better chance get government funding to help our lakes for many years. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Next gentleman name and address. >> Yes. Good morning. My name is Rick Peters and I'm the secretary treasurer of the Crowing Lake Improvement District. Uh, Croing Lake has had a a lid since n 2006,
has been extremely successful in terms of mitigating the influences of aquatic invasive species, improving water quality, and I I hardly support the Mission Lake uh petition as far as forming their own lid. Uh, I should
correct a couple of misinterpretations of what a lid actually is. It's actually a supplement of existing funding. Uh the DNR actually with regulations and so on has a lot of education. They invest a lot of resources into public waters
which is what lids actually are all about. Uh there are actually also are grants out there of which Croing Lake has successfully applied for and been awarded a number of those over the years amounting for thousands of dollars. The county themselves has also supported
public waters uh based upon you know funding through the state for aquatic invasive species inspectors which helps the process quite a bit here. There's also other organizations that step up to the plate as far as improving water quality such as the soil soil and water
conservation districts just next door over here. So again, there's a lot of resources out there for improving local water quality of which the lids only supplement that. That's an important point to make here. And we al also uh
take a look at the fact that water quality is very key to the local economy. Uh it's tourism, its jobs, it's local development. Um you know, I worked for a number of years at the local power
company. I had numerous people coming to my desk over the years talking about just the draw to the Brainer Lakes area and the key to that was water, lakes, rivers and so on. So water quality is one of the big drivers in terms of local
development out here. Uh with that said, I would also take a uh ask the county to look at a little more I guess uh balance in terms of their uh development processes here. uh you need to place a higher qu higher um uh priority on water
quality. Uh I've seen a few examples just locally in our own neighborhood about where the water quality tends to take a a much lesser uh uh viewpoint in terms of local development which of course is raises tax basis and so on. We won't get into that discussion right
now. Uh so with that said I guess I'm not going to take up a lot of time here. I do support the formation of the Mission Lake improvement district. It's a proven uh method of of keeping water quality important uh improved quality there. And I'd like to thank everyone
for your time. Take care. >> Thank you very much, Rick. >> Good morning. >> Good morning. My name is Michelle Ericson. I also live on Upper Mission Lake. Um, my family has lived on Upper Mission Lake for the past 60 years. Um,
I took over my father's property after he passed away after a hundred years. Um, we I am not opposed to a per um necessarily to being taxed for the monies, but I do um being on upper
mission lake, I want to reiterate that they have spent eight times the amount of money on lower mission over the past 25 years based rather than on upper mission. So eight times the amount according to um the proposal or what
numbers were placed in the petition also in the petition and on your um criteria evaluation criteria for establishing a lid number six adequacy of procedures and planning and decision making and public involvement. talks
about conflict and they did bring this up in their petition on the lid that there has been a um and I will find my spot in my note. They did quote that
a thwarted group has prevented or pushed back on the lid. So they've been we've been trying to get the lid since 192122ish. Okay. So 2000. Sorry, I wasn't on the >> Okay. Well, right. 21 is when we first were approached about it and it when
they bring it out and they they came and um John came to my house and talked about it and I went to public they had a couple coffee meetings and I went to those and I had a conflict at that one of those meetings and I had to get out of there and they said, "Oh, just just sign it. It's you know it's going to be a good
thing. It's only going to be for 5 years. We're going to" and it it sounded good. So, I signed. When I went back and looked and read some more information, I'm not saying that the money shouldn't be spread evenly. I think that's a good thing because again, only certain
people. I've been to many organizations. It takes a ton of effort to put this all together and I think they've done their due diligence. But in that I felt pressured and I'm not I would like to know I'm not sure all
the information or that people take the time and the energy to read it and that's why we're having the public hearing to so that we all can get our voice. Um I just would like to know how they plan on resolving some of the conflicts in
the lid itself. Um I think on the petition on one of the last pages it says conflict resolution the lid will implement inclusive procedures. They have been somewhat exclusive in
their meetings. They started having somebody you can't enter the meeting at the lake association unless you actually are a member. So if you're just wanting to learn about it, you weren't allowed in. They have an AR they had a sheriff at each meeting.
So that didn't exactly make you feel like you were welcome. Um, and consider feedback from all stakeholders, including lakeshore owners, seasonal visitors, local businesses, and non-reparing residents. My nephew was on the board. He's not a
land owner. He had a different sing of opinion, and the board voted him off. The association meeting voted him in, but the board voted him off. This then they say that this will include public meetings, opportunities,
written input, advisory working groups. The lid is committed to resolving conflicting interests transparently, equitably, prioritizing public health, environmental protection, and fair cost distribution. I haven't seen that. I didn't know that
when they said that everybody had a right to vote, I wasn't approached probably because I was in that thwarted vocal group about that. that I wasn't for the lid that they actually brought a new petition in o in October.
Um, and I'm not a I'm not always in favor of herbicides being put into the water. I have a very um natural shoreline. I also have reads in front of my property. I only have a 10-ft area that lets me get
out. I don't even get to swim and whatnot. So, and when it says the DNR says that they have to post the placards, they do put a placard in the water, but it's flat like this on the
water. So, there's no way of knowing that they have dumped the herbicides into the water until you actually physically go out there. My I have people who swimming in the lake. I have my dogs that drink from the water. I water my flowers right there from
sometimes from the water. And there's not they Yes, they marked it, but there's no way of knowing. They haven't necessarily notified us ahead of time that they're going to do this. So, thank you for your time. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
>> M Mr. Chairman, >> Commissioner Cory, go ahead. before she leaves. >> Ma'am, >> you know, I just got a question. I I just I don't know if I heard you correctly. >> Did you say that that if that they restrict who can come to
the lake association meeting? >> At times you weren't allowed in the building unless you were a paid member. >> Well, that doesn't make any sense. I I >> I don't know. That's not the way America
works. I I don't I Anyway, I just I want to make sure I heard you correctly. >> I'm sorry there I can't I couldn't hear you. >> So before you go on, Commissioner Coring, please keep the conversations down so we can conduct this meeting respectfully so everybody can hear.
Commissioner Coring, do you want to >> I just wanted to to make sure I heard this speaker correctly to say that that uh that just not anybody can attend the lake association meeting. I've never heard of anything like that. I live on
Lower South Long Lake. Anybody can come to the lake association meeting whether you've paid your dues or not. I've never heard of such a thing. That is not the American way. So I I guess I'm shocked by that comment, but I I appreciate you letting us know that.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. And >> Mr. Chair, just for clarification, the lake association and their activities is not purveyance of what today's hearing is about too. Just so commenters who are making their comments, just make sure that we're sticking to what the discussion is today, which is the
creation of the of the lid, not the activities of the other body. >> Thank you. Next speaker. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Okay. I don't Sorry. My name is Matt Kelly. Uh I do not reside on the lake.
My parents own property. Joseph and Susan Kelly on Ridgewood Drive. Um I don't even know if it's important to you guys or not, but I do have a power of attorney that's notorized from my father to speak on his behalf. He was not able to be here today. Um, just to follow up
the note there, um, I'm bad with names. Paul was asking if any of you want to see that. I know that that we're not here to decide and what I was directed to do by the county and some people who sit on this board is to stick to statute
information and facts. So, I may come back to this, but for those of you who want to see outside center town hall on an easel, membersonly, private meeting in a public building open for public business. Um,
I guess the two maybe three if you want to roll it into three would be within the packet and each of you uh also received in addition. I doubled up on the information that I provided to the board
was two studies that were done and completed. Now whether or not this completed uh number or date reflects when it was actually available to the public, but when it was completed was WHF, which is through the Minnesota DNR,
and this is water health assessment facts. It has both upper and lower mission um in great detail uh on all forms of and maybe more as as you get through it. It's it's rather intuitive and it's very easy to digest.
It's not your typical uh you need a biology degree to decipher the findings. Um very easy. I would say borderline elementary these findings on upper mission per my email which if you haven't read you can defer back to it um
with whatever both links that you have there uh to to review this but uh on upper mission in both studies one is one watershed and I got ahead of myself the other one is one watershed so we've got the Minnesota DNR and then we have
Bowser the bureau bureau of soil uh water, >> land, whatever. Um both of these studies, one completed in uh WA the WHF DNR one was dated 51823
and the one watershed plan uh in between the years 22 and 23. Um all findings put Upper Mission Lake in good health and as Mr. Zoya stated that's been done with uh
limited resources. So I believe it's your job as commissioners to uh find it necessary per uh page seven in lid creations under Crowing County. The word necessary is included in your findings
that you guys need to acknowledge that all resources have been diminished within this lid formation. They've exhausted their efforts through the DNR. They've exhausted their efforts through uh the county. They've exhausted their efforts through Mission Lakes Lake uh
association. Um I could go on for the rest of the afternoon about the association and all of their shortcomings, misconducts, lies, and misinformation. I have all of the evidence right here that would support all the statements that I'm making. some via email through the Minnesota DNR uh
in specific the Crowing uh DNR. But back to my findings and the findings that I think you all need to look at is Upper Mission Lake meets or exceeds all state requirements on all levels with a B or B+ rating telling me and I think all of
you that how could you possibly say that a lid is necessary when all things and all needs are being met. These are two third party uh nonbiased non-conlicting interest who have produced a study. On that note, within their petition, they
want to use uh money allocations and I apologize if some of my verbiage here is is improper or incorrect. This is not my forte. They have in their petition that they want to use some of these resources through the $250 or whatever you guys
all lot for funding to do further research. I want to know what further research could possibly be done outside or above and beyond Bowser or the state of Minnesota DNR. These studies are recent. They're complete. They're
concise and they're very factual. So, as Mr. Schmidt mentioned the lower lake. In all of my findings, I cannot find anything that would indicate that the lower lake is not an impaired body of water and is probably an adequate candidate for a lake improvement
district. However, this is under one blanket and I am here to talk about our two lakes and I want to identify the fact that we have two different lakes that have two very different needs and have a very different uh biological
um set of factors that come into place. One is much deeper and has a far less latoral zone and and one is much shallower and and and is more prone to grow uh aquatic vegetation. um to the fact of the actual treatments and herbicides. That is the only thing
within this structure that has any sort of backing or information that would pertain to herbicidal treatment. That information was provided to you by PLM. Note that PLM does not have any
accreditations in biology, science, or anything otherwise. So the only information that can be applied to this lid through PLM would be the information that would identify the areas infected with each weed that they see as an
invasive which is buying uh and the financial report for the expenses in which uh they loosely supplied. I didn't really see any receipts from PLM giving you guys factual information in terms of what
it's actually cost over the last 2 3 years. It just looked like it was printed into a Microsoft, you know, uh billing or whatever financial report. Um I can tell you how the petition was was
formed and uh the formation of the petition. And I'm going to read you one of our newsletters, which is one of the resources that they use twice a year through the association. To the best of my knowledge, this gets mailed out to all the repairarian owners, not just
association members. Um, I apologize for not having the date on this. It probably is on the front of it, but I've got it taped up here. And this is an example. And again, I feel like this would be per statute. You guys are here to decide
whether or not this is appropriate for the tax people and how the petition is conducted is in fact the county's responsibility to decide if this was done in good faith and uh appropriately. Um to the best of my knowledge I did speak with a person underneath the
commissioner Sarah Soulstrom the DNR this week and had an atlength conversation with him. The DNR is not responsible for this. The state of Minnesota may have written legislature, but it is the county's responsibility to follow statute right now until this lid
is formed. Um, I've had questions for Debbie Ericson. Debbie knows what my questions are and one of them does go unanswered and it is the necessity. I want to know what the, you know, how you guys can form the consensus on necessity or necessary that all means have been
exhausted. But I'm going to cut to to the mission bell winter 2023. And this is what was put in the newsletter to the repairarian owners. Our lakes have aged more quick. And this is in quotation. Our lakes have aged
more quickly in 50 years than they should in a thousand years or more. If you've been on our lakes a long time, you've seen the changes. I recently spoke with our uh our area DNR aquatic species and area invasive species biologists to better understand how our
lakes oh to better understand how to help our lakes. What I heard was alarming in quote our lakes have aged more quickly in 50 years than they should in a thousand years or more. End quote. They explained ongoing excess
nutrients or excuse me the aging this is again in quote the DNR uh aquatic native and invasive specialist the aging process is caused by an ongoing excess nutrients that are in the lakes and cause explosive weed growth and algae blooms. Eventually the dying weed mass
fills in the lake and you have a lake no more dot dot dot only a swamp or wetlands. End of quote. I read that and I feel like that is very much left to interpretation. The way I would interpret that without having knowledge and background in understanding what
what an aging dying lake is, I would say we're in trouble. This is not good. This is bad news. So, I reached out because I had a a I guess a working relationship with Kevin Martini and Tim Plude, aquatic native native plant specialist and invasive
plant specialist at Crowing County. Tim Plud's response, it may it might have been Kevin, but I did not make that statement. Period. It's true that excessive nutrients age legs, but again, they don't provide any
solutions to improve water quality, comma, like a lid is the only magic formula needed to fix a lake. That's Tim's response. So, he never made that quote, never made that statement. He doesn't feel like within the rest of this letter, it talks about all the unicorn and butterfly things that we can
do with the lid with no measurable means as to how we're going to achieve these goals. It's just we're going to say a word and it's going to be great. It's all wonderful. Kevin Martini, this is the native plant specialist. >> Hi Matt. >> I I would ask you to kind of move along.
We have no problem. You want to speak? >> This is the last thing I'll do. I did get this from Tim and I did say that our lakes are aging more quickly because of the development and destruction of natural shoreline. This has happened in the last 50 years and probably more the last couple of decades. I also said that
all the lakes are dying but the geological timeline is thousands and thousands of years before they would fill in. It's interesting they don't mention the chemical treatments and the fact that they will do absolutely
nothing to help a dying lake. So that's the information and the propaganda. This is the tip of the iceberg inside this folder for any of you who would like to reach out to further understand who you're going to put in power of
people's tax dollars. And as Michelle mentioned, we have sheriffs that come to attend all of our association meetings for no other reason than to fear us from being able to speak and to keep us silenced. When we want to say something, it would be like one of these people. If this was one of our board meetings,
they'd have a parliamentarian here saying, "Point of order, point of order, point of order, moving on." It wouldn't fly here. It's not flying here today because they know who they're before. And I don't think that you want these people in power. I think you're going to have beyond a mess on your hands. You
see who's here before me today? Some of them with >> So, I'm going to I'm going to stop you right now because you're making allegations against personalities >> and I've given you the facts right here to back it up. >> So, I'm going to ask you to step aside and let the next speaker speak. Thank you.
>> Yes, sir. >> Good morning. Good morning. Whoa. >> It's a It's a trick one. >> Your your name and address, please? >> Yes. Uh name is Dwayne Lefen. Our property is located at 142 247 County
Road 116 Mirrorfield. I presently live in New and um purchased a lake property on Lower Mission Lake in October of 2012. I'm currently employed full-time and physically took a day of vacation to attend this very important meeting. That's how important it was to me to
take time off. My wife and I make our three-hour trip from New to our Lower Mission property at least monthly, if not two or three times per month, depending on schedules. We are very excited to be able to purchase this property on Lower Mission Lake when I was 53 years old. Now, our 42-year-old
son and 39-year-old son along with his wife and two grandchildren ages 9 and four who have a lay property legacy that this proposed lake improvement district will help both upper and lower Mission Lakes to continue a new legacy to our sons and grandchildren. We could not have experienced this when
we were young. So, this past summer, the joy of lower Mission Lake Sandbar to swim with our sons and grandchildren along with our other anchored families is a memory I will treasure. and want to have continue after we my wife and I pass away and our son and family will
have this lake and property as a legacy. We have been Mission Lake Association members for many years which have in my viewpoint have been a good organization. I want to thank you for this opportunity to speak in favor of the proposed Mission Lakes Improvement District. I believe the proposed district will serve
the needs of the lake to prevent and manage invasive species along with reducing nutrients. Many people have quoted different sources of information. A recent mission bell talks about lake health in 2023 according to DNR. Upper Mission Lake is
graded a B, water quality 43, biology 63, hydrarology 85. Lower Mission Lake is graded a C plus water quality 27, biology 64, hydrarology 87. Lower Mission Lake scores well on quality of
its fish and plant populations. The high concentration of naturally occurring phosphorus leaves keeps lower emission from achieving a B or A grade. Upper mission scores well in all categories and has room for improvements. Water quality is impacted by naturally occurring phosphorus.
I was going to conclude my com my um comments at this time, but to follow up a few other comments have been made here. We do own 400 ft of lake shore. We have cattails, bull rushes, and wild rice and just enough spot to put in our dock for our boat. and we actually share
a joint dock with our neighbor because we're in a um special district that was approved by the county. So, we are very c conscious of concerns about erosion. I've heard people say at different meetings, we don't like herbicides in the lake because we don't want our
children swimming in there. I ask people, do you have your children swim in a pool that has chlorine? That is that has chemicals. Also, controversy over the years have been about fluoride and water. Do your children or do yourself have fluoride in your water when you brush your teeth? The lake
association meetings. Yes, there was controversy at one time, but I think controversy brings strength. It was done with respect. There is constant water tra between the two lakes between upper and lower mission. And um I think that's why it's
important u people have mentioned lower mission has different needs than upper mission which is true but we are constantly traveling between the two lakes. So um yes our lakes are aging not only lower and upper mission but all lakes in our whole country not only Minnesota, Wisconsin but throughout the
world. Question has been about funding. Why do we need this money? What's going to be used this money for? You need to have some resources so you can start developing a plan. Without money you can't develop a plan. So those
are comments I did not have in my previous speech. So I'd like to conclude with the following statement. I respectfully encourage you to approve the proposed Mission Lake improvement district. Thank you for your time, commissioners. Thank you very much.
>> Good morning. >> Good morning. >> Hi. Hi, I'm Hi, I'm Kitri Kylo and I >> Your address, please. Your address. >> Yes. I'm looking I can never remember our fire code number. It's 27301
County Road 19 and um it's on Upper Mission Lake and my family has been on the lake for 96 years since 1929 when my dad was two. So it's a been incredible legacy that my for my grandparents and
my parents have left. Um, so I just want to address a few things that um, in response to some of the things that have been said. Um, I do think I I am in support of the formation of a lid. I am on the currently serve on the board of
the Mission Lakes Association for the last like year and a half, two years maybe at most, but have been involved in going to the association meetings, annual meetings and so forth. And I do want to say I I believe we are an association that is never intending to
be exclusive. So I I do not refute what um the previous speaker said but um the sign that was there I think that um yeah there were other meetings happening. I don't know in other places in the township and maybe it was meant to to say this is for members but I know there
were people at that meeting. we you had to have a paid membership to be able to vote, but people who hadn't paid their dues yet were still welcome to stay. So I just want to say that um I would like to put out there um that the current
health of upper mission it can be said to yeah it's it's in fairly good condition with a B or B+ from the DNR rating but it has been the the treatments that have been done on a spot um you know where funds have allowed
have allowed it to be at a fairly good I'd like to say they've contributed to that good better water quality. Um it the the goal is to mitigate the invasive aquatic species never it will never be able to eradicate it. So that's the
goal. Um there were um 11 spots where invasive species were detected this year on upper mission but only enough funds to treat four of them um for example. So what as uh Dwayne was just saying, you know, I I was a school
administrator for over 35 years and I had to be based do plans improvement plans based on data and so I think that having a lid allows us to be a data-driven organization where we have a certain budget that we can we know we can dep it could be dependent on um to
have know this is what we can do based on data over time have a plan that's on a based on a known budget which is what the lid would allow. So in terms of what other research could be done, I know what has been spoken
about is we sure wish that years ago when there was more funding through pole tabs that they could do a research study about where are the sources a self-study of where are the sources in the lakes where the bad nutrients are coming in contributing to algae bloom and so
forth. So funds could be used for specific purposes to the lake. Um I am an upper mission lake resident property owner, but I really I see that upper and lower mission. Yeah, they're two separate lakes, but they're joined
by a channel and they are we go in between both. I want the quality of both lakes to be good. We've um in my family, they've gone fishing on both. we go boating in in both lakes. So if funds in some ways
need to be more devoted to the lower mission to help the overall entity, I'm I'm happy to that that's how it's done. Um that those plans are done that way. But there would be a board a lid
separate board separate from the Mission Lakes Association to make judicious decisions. Um yes. Yeah, I think that that is covering. So currently I think it was mentioned that 40 or 45 the funding for the treatments
right now come from just 40 or 45% of the property owners. So it's it's meant to be an equity issue, a fairness issue, and to have a consistent budget. Um I I'm just throwing out there I would love to have a way if people we do understand
I understand that people are in hard times right now budget wise. So if there could be a way separately through the maybe through the association, it's just an idea is that for people that are in hard times, could there be a a slush fund to help them with that assessment
on annual basis? Again, not to meant to be punishing people, but to think of the legacy that we want to leave in this lake to keep the water quality good for generations to come. Thank you. >> Thank you. Welcome.
>> Thank you. Is there a microphone? Good. My name is Paul Carris and I live on Ridgewood Drive, Upper Mission Lake. And I just wanted I think you know, Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Kelly have valid points about the difference between upper and lower mission. Uh we are for the lid.
And I I think um you know it's it's really this issue of you know does lower mission even for us upper mission lake people impact our property values our enjoyment of the lake um and the answer is yes it ju it just does it's a very
complicated situation because on one hand there is a big difference and I would ask the association and the lid if it happens to make sure you are looking at this 8:1 ratio that's that's extreme um for sure but that you lower mission does affect upper mission uh because we
are one chain and uh it goes from an 800 acre egg to a400 acre lake. So I think that's the big challenge is how much does lower mission affect upper mission even though we're on upper mission. Uh and the second thing I would just say is you know there's been a lot of articles
in the Star and Tribune you know huge increases in property taxes. None of us want property taxes. I do not like property taxes. I think they're going up way too fast in our cities and states. Um, but this is one at least you know where the money's going. The rest of the time we don't really know where the
money is going. And here we know where the money is going. And that's uh that's why I would be for it because uh we can have all the debates we want. But if we have that money, we can do things uh that can that can be targeted and we're just not putting it into some city or
state slush fund that we have no idea. So, um, so I I think it's this complication of are we one lake or two lakes? Well, we're both I think we're both and and that's I think that the the the reality of the situation that we are
we're individual lakes, but we're also one lake. So, >> thank you, Mr. Paris. >> As homeowners, we are for the lids. >> Yeah, understood. >> My name is Darl Voit. I live 27181 Ridgewood Drive. I heard figures here of
20 $30,000 for uh chemical to treat the lakes. I like a lot of others here are retired on fixed incomes. And when I read this here and they said $250, I think we could live with that. But I
am opposed to it because it's an open checkbook. They can come back and say, "Hey, we need more money." and there's nothing we can do about it. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> I didn't plan on this. Um, >> first of all, first of all, your name and address.
>> Kathy Ofig 15009, County Road 109. I live in Buffalo. I've owned my property for 25 years. There are two things, two opinions I have. One is a tax never goes away and it never
goes down. And the other is like he said, are we going to be taxing legacy property owners out of their property that they've probably had for however many years? Thank you. >> Thank you very much.
Anyone else? >> Good morning. Morning. Lyall Anderson. I'm on 14489 County Road 116. And I have a few things. Uh they say the petition was agreed to by 51% or
something like that. I never even got a notice and I lived there year round for 30 years. And where did this notice go that for the petition? And where are all the seasonal people? Because the meeting is
held after they've already gone instead of when they're here in the summertime. So they would have their input. And our lake used to be much better. We had
all these people come in in fishing groups and so on using the public access and they're the ones that brought in this stuff, not the property owners that are there with their boats never take
them in or out other than our lake. And why don't they put uh a fee at the public access landings that would uh get the DNR their money or
whoever it needs to get rid of this I mean to stop it from coming in in the first place. Our lake level used to be about 2 ft higher than it is right now. And that is
happened like about four years ago. Uh the lake association, the DNR and whoever agreed that oh uh Ducks Unlimited that they should have this brewing pond, which was the old rearing
pond years and years ago, that they needed to drop the lower level. So, we used to have rails on the outlet to from the lake and you could put boards in and we always had boards that
kept the lake level constant. Now, it goes up and down according to the river cuz the DNR cut the rails completely off. And after just a few years, Ducks Unlimited says, "Oh, this
isn't working for us." And so now they gave it up, but they nothing happened with our lake other than get worse and worse and worse with the lower water levels. Our weeds are growing in the lake by the
shore where they never used to. We never had this stuff. I have a boat that I can't even take out to the lake because my motor clogs up with crud from all the the crap that
after they spray it that I can't even run out to the lake without it plugging up the water inlets on my motor. So, my boat is worthless. So, that's another factor. You just get crap
in the lake from spraying over and over and over. And the treatment has not made the lake better. It's made it worse. It actually spreads the stuff because it kills some, but so it kills at the
bottom and and there's a few all only takes one sprig of that to go onto your shoreline and it starts growing there. The spraying is ridiculous. They don't need all of that spraying.
We used to be able to swim by shore. Now, in order to swim, you have to go to the middle of the lake and put your boat out there and go swim off of the boat or uh platform. You know, it's
all ridiculous. And I don't think the the Lake Improvement District, all they're going to do is put more money into spraying, which like me, I'm 84 years old and I'm down at my lake shore clearing out. I
have a 17 cubic foot trailer and I'll clear that out in one day. I mean, fill that whole trailer full in one day from all the stuff that comes into our shoreline. Nobody comes and helps me.
Not the lake association who claims to be so good. I used to be on the lake association uh board and we never had this problem, but it's gotten worse and worse and
worse and we do not need a nail ID. >> Thank you. Anyone else that would like to speak? Mr. Chairman, >> I'm on Zoom. Can you hear me? May I speak? >> Yes. Go ahead. If you're Give us your name and your address, please.
>> Sure. My name is uh Mark Casey. I live at 13979 County Road 116. As a seasonal resident, uh we have owned the property for 6 years. And in that short period of time, we've observed uh degradation of
Lower Mission Lake. Uh as has been indicated in the lid documents. I'm also a member of the board. I'm a lower lake representative at Mission Lakes. Our our goal here is to make upper and lower Mission Lake better. And we realize that
we need a comprehensive lake management plan that meets with all the state, county, and federal guidelines. And that is our objective. Um it's not going to be random spraying of things uh at the whim of us.
uh we want a plan that we can follow and that we can get input from the public on and we are committed to that. Um I will point out as some of the members have pointed out that some of the meetings
have been rockous in recent years and extremely intense and and threats were made physical threats were made against uh board members. Hence our efforts to better moderate discussion in those
meetings and I think we've achieved that. But we will follow the science and we will do what is in our power to do this the right way, the correct way. And we welcome input
from other people in a in a in a manner that is uh friendly and open. And um that's how we would like to operate. Um I appreciate the the pressure that folks are feeling on their pocketbooks and the
property taxes right now. It's not pleasant anywhere in this country. Um but we can't uh just stop our stewardship uh because of that and um we're willing to work with everybody to try to
mitigate the pressures as much as we can. So, I appreciate this process and I appreciate the opportunity to speak and I of course am in favor of the lid. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else online who would like to speak?
>> Anyone else online? Anyone else in the audience who would like to speak? >> Yes, sir. >> Morning, commissioners. >> Good morning. >> Good morning. >> Morning, Mr. Lee. Thank you for serving District 5.
Excuse me. My name is Dell Wooy. Uh I live on 26285, County Road 19. We came up here 45 years ago and bought this property. Uh for the past 30 years, we've been
permanent residents on the property. 45 years ago, our three children were at home and they had the pleasure of having a place to go to the lake. Something that my wife and I never dreamed about when we were kids. We also have seven
grandchildren uh that really have enjoyed the lakes. Uh I'm 85 years old and won't be at the lake long. We're starting to think
unfortunately we need something simpler. Uh so our lake living is coming to a an end. Uh but I'm not here for us. I'm here for the future. I'm worried about the economy of Minnesota.
I'm worried about the economy of Crowing County. If these lakes go to hell, uh we're not going to have the traffic problem that we have today. Uh, I would think every merchant and business person would be equally concerned about the
lakes. Um, I'm I'm hoping that some young family at age 40 like we were would come up here enthusiastically and buy some property. And I would hope that they would have
the same enjoyment that we've had. And I would hope that uh it would be a good outcome for them. I would hope that when they reached my age uh they'd be glad they made that investment. I think the
investment is a big topic that we need to consider. Also, uh the $250 uh lid, which we are very much in fo favor of is a a small insurance for the for the investment. Most of us have
property that's worth uh much more than the 250 would d tax us. Um I was disappointed today to hear some of the comments. Um I'm glad my wife wasn't isn't here today. She wasn't able to be
here. I'm glad she didn't hear that lower emissions turning into a septic tank. Uh my property statement here a few weeks ago showed my property values going up. Uh that doesn't seem to kind
of ring true. Um I'm I'm talking for the future, but I'm also concerned about Crowing County and the health of Crowing County and Minnesota. And I'm surprised that the state and the county doesn't
place more emphasis on the healthy of our lakes. It's not our lake. It's a public lake. Uh the economy is so dependent up here on it. If our lakes go bad and nothing's done in the next 45
years, uh we won't have to worry about the the traffic problems we have in Beexter and the overhead planning that's being done. Um I strongly support the LI and at my
age it might even be considered uh foolish. What do I care? What do I care if things go bad? Um, I I I urge to look at the big picture on this and
to consider the LI. I'm very much in favor of it. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you very much. Anyone else? Anyone else? >> One more shot at it. I have one more other comment. uh you
just had a meeting with uh for the Kimble Lake uh LI and uh it seems to me like they've had their LI for 15 years and they've collected
$200 every year from every property owner around the lake and now they asked for an increase because they haven't had enough. Now after 15 years, they haven't improved it
enough to where they can't keep increasing the amount. Something's wrong with having an LI that it has no end. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
Just >> probably one statement on that is you know over the course of 15 years the cost of remediation has gone up. So um inflation hasn't gone away folks. >> Mr. Chair, there's one more >> problem. >> What was that?
>> There's one more gentleman here that was >> You want to speak again? Certainly. >> I just like to say the association has tried to be as transparent as possible. Uh we've uh had multiple annual meetings where everybody on the lake is invited.
There's no requirement to be a an association member to attend. Um and that's gone on for a long long time. This whole subject was brought up in 2017, 2019, 2022 when we laid it out to everybody at the meeting said who is in
favor of us pursuing a lid for the lakes? 95% of the people in the room at the time put their hand up and said they were in favor. There was one individual in the room that said no. So, we tried to be as transparent as possible. Uh we've also done multiple
mailings, email campaigns, door-to-door campaigns to educate people on the lake improvement district. Uh there's a half a dozen of us here that'll be glad to comment about how many times and how long that took. It took us three and a half years to get to everybody and even
then we got over 20% of the people on the lake we just simply couldn't get a hold of. They're inresponsive or in some cases the owner was in a a nursing home and and the authority uh fell with the kids or something. But anyway, everybody
had a chance to respond and talk about this uh regarding uh Upper Lake versus Lower Lake and who's getting more attention. That's been an argument I've heard forever. So when I took over as uh president of the lake association at the first meeting I was uh in charge of uh
we we charted where all the treatments were taking place and what we found was curly leaf pondweed dominates the lower lake. Eurasian water mil foil dominates the upper lake. to treat uh curly leaf pondweed costs about $1,000 an acre. To
create to treat Eurasian mil foil is about $2,500 per acre. So what you'll see here is that the amount of acreage treated favors lower, but from a dollar standpoint, they're very equal because the upper lake has seen much more
expensive treatment materials. Uh we've also gone out of our way to adopt herbicides that are safe as possible. This is actually a placard that was referred to. These are posted on the area that's being uh treated and also at the public accesses. It's required to be
there for a period of 5 days. And uh the material called purselicore is what we use for urasian mil foil. And it return regarding restrictions. Swimming no restrictions. Drinking water no restrictions. Domestic uses no
restrictions. Fish consumption no restrictions. All it says is do not irrigate food crops uh for three days after treatment. And this is within the treatment area. So we're doing our best to use the most friendly chemicals as
possible to do this. And we recently switched to a uh a product for uh prlely pondweed that also is uh very similar to this in terms of uh toxicity and and so so forth.
Um, we've tried to be as open as we can to to allow everybody to understand what's going on. Uh, unfortunately, it's not just our lake association, but throughout the state, generally, people find that about 40 to 45% of the the lake residents will actually participate
in a lake association. So, yes, we don't have the dominant the the majority of people from the lake involved, but they all have had a chance to to make their individual vote vote heard through signing this petition. And we've made, I like I say, multiple
attempts to get to people. Um, oh, regarding the the $250 that we're asking for, uh, currently there is no requirement in a lid that you state a specific dollar because I'm told that
that limits what you can charge people. From the very beginning, we were telling people we were going to we want 250 bucks and that's going to be it. That's what we need. And so that's why we put it in our proposal. We will be locked in there until such a time that either this
board here or uh the majority of the lakes shore members vote to have it increased and that'll be an every year deal where uh the people on the lake not just lake association people but anybody who owns property on the lake will have a say and how the money is spent and how
much it will be. >> So thank you for your time. >> Thank you. We could go out more than once. >> I'll let you come up, but there'll be no personal attacks as I heard last time.
>> And then I'm going to call this to an end after after you speak. Then it'll be over with and we'll move on. So, can I ask any of you if you know what amount the Minnesota DNR is legally allowed to permit for treatment with both
residential treatment because every single person on both lakes and all lakes in Minnesota has a legal right to apply for their own permit which we had 13 plus violations, citations, warnings on the lower lake um this summer. One I
believe probably the biggest was Mr. fitment, but um do you know what the actual allotted amount of treatment that can be done in a latoral zone? That's a depth uh less than 15 ft or more.
That's it's 15%. So the DNR is allotted both residential through an association or a lid 15% of latoral acres. The latoral acres on upper mission is 285. That math comes out to 43 acres of
possible herbicide treatment period no matter what. So in conjunction with residents and associations or lids, we can only treat 43 acres on upper and we can only treat uh 70 and 12 acres on
lower. So the other thing that I would like to add to the herbicidal treatment is I would encourage all of you which I also attached in the email that's in the packet is to look at the Minnesota Department of Agriculture agenda 2032. Uh Jessica Sheay's familiar with that as
the landfill is dealing with this agenda and it is leaning strongly in support of banning the chemicals used in our waters and in our lakes. And I would urge you to look at that. We all want to talk about what's best for the water, what's
best for the health. The writing is on the wall. These chemicals have PAFS and this is not determined. This is happening in real time today with the DNR, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and they are going to a direction where it's going to come down to health
and safety. The example that was given to me from Crowing DNR was the airlines and using glycol deicer on the airplanes for safe takeoff and the mechanics of an airplane to fly safely through the air. Land application and water application will likely be restricted unless these
chemical providers can produce a fact sheet that states that these forever chemicals are not present in there. Right now that doesn't exist. 24D which was primarily used leading up to Purcellor is the second half of Agent Orange.
Think about that. How do we use the word lake improvement and toxic herbicides in the same sentence? It's an oxymoron. One cancels the other out by definition. Think about that. Okay. Thank you. >> All right. I think our land service is
looking for some direction from us on Are you closing the >> chair? You need to close the public hearing first. >> Sorry. Okay. One second. >> Motion to close public hearing. >> Motion by Commissioner Lupkey to close the public hearing at 10
17. >> Second. >> Second by Commissioner Franine. Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Lubkkey, >> I. >> Commissioner Franine, >> I. >> Commissioner Lee, >> I. >> Commissioner Coring, >> I. >> Commissioner Barros,
>> I. So, that motion passes. Jessica. >> Yes. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair, commissioners. I just wanted to mention a couple more things. Um, as I mentioned earlier, there is no voting today. We'll be back before you on December 16th because we have to hold that hearing
within 30 days of this one. Um, where we would either bring a resolution to support or deny the lid. Um, we'll be looking for some guidance from you guys on that. And I wanted to point you to page 245 in your packet. there is a findings of fact and the statute right there which is what we'll be looking through to see did they submit
everything in this plan does their plan follow what statute is required and then I just wanted to note when they're talking about the increase on the assessment each year they cannot go above that $250 without doing a full petition so they can't just go to their board meeting and the board members five
of them vote to say let's increase it and it gets increased that they cannot do that so they have to do the full petition process come back through the whole public hearing to increase it they can decrease increase it every year. They can go below that. They just cannot go above it. >> Very good. >> Question, Mr. Chair.
>> Um, didn't in the case of Kimble, in case of Ruth, their lake districts, they redid their whole petition to be able for the board to be able to change the amount. Is still the 250 the cap? >> No. For those lake or excuse me, lake improvement districts that did that new
calculation change, they can go above it. So what they do is they figure out their budget each year and then at those lake improvement district annual meetings they vote to approve the budget and then with that budget they will say what their proposed assessment is. So for those few that have done that they
can there is no limit to what they can go up to. And the reason those had to redo that is because our previous lids that we had had it locked in at whatever they said when they formed the lid was the number it had to be and it could not be changed unless they came back and
redid the whole lid. Went out, got all the signatures in, got that percentage to be able to do that. This lid is not being structured that way. >> Correct. Yep. >> This is being structured at the set amount where they can go lower but they cannot go above it. So it's at that 250 or lower.
>> Okay. Okay. I just thought it was kind of interesting. We have, you know, they're all in Crowing County and we have multiple ways of doing a lid in Crowing County. Um the other question I have for you is is um you know it there seems to be such a difference between upper and lower mission right now. There
is no way that they can be separate lids because it is nav negable navable water in between. Is that what was that what separates it with the DNR? >> Um they can like upper and uh lower south long. They have two separate lids. They do. Okay. Okay. So, it's not part
of a statute. It's just what's being presented to us. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um the other thing I had um and I maybe I'll just bring it in at this time. You know, I looking through the letters of support. There was a letter there um from John O who um and it was just
listed as John OJ, but but it's actually a letter of support from the Mission Township. And I just wanted to clarify that that it's it's the you know because we always talk about townships never weighing in and and and that's been brought up before. This township weighed in in um in the last comment it says uh
following discussion our board voted unanimously to support the objective proposed for the improvement district. So that's in their letter. I just want to make sure that that we were aware of that if nobody else on the board caught that. Good job. >> Anything else?
>> All right, we'll move on to 6.4 which is the mission LI letters and administrator. Are we just >> Mr. Chair, that was just your information that was goes along with the item above it with the information from the letters uh from folks that were received prior to today's public
hearing. So, they are part of that record. So that concludes our mission LI discussion today. We'll be back on December 16th. Okay. Move on to 6.5. And I would look for a motion to open a
public hearing regarding the Crowing County. >> Excuse me. >> We just give these people a chance to leave before we do that since they're all standing up. Sure. >> May I May I go and go to the little boys room? >> Sure. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. We're going to take a fivem
minute recess. You're back with us, Tom. >> Yes. Happy to be here. >> Commissioner. >> All right, we're back in session and I would ask Tom to give us a little conversation about the Crowing County
land swap with the HomeVig family. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair and commissioners. Uh before you today is a proposed land exchange and a public hearing to allow further uh public input on this proposed land exchange. Uh this proposed class B land exchange between the county and
Bradley and Jane Homevig. Uh the HomeVigs own 88.25 acres of property across from the county landfill and of that approximately 40 acres is currently a gravel pit. In exchange, the county owns 88.64 64 acres of tax buffered lands in Bay Lake Township that is
considered uh land services has completed a property valuation of each tract and found that the tax for the parcels to be valued at $359,200 and the home big tract is valued at $377100. This value also includes the timber
values. It is the intent of the home bigs to explore a future gravel pit on the track that is currently owned by the county. Of the approximately 88 acres, uh we believe they're less than 40 acres that may be allowed to extract uh gravel because of some restrictions. Uh there is a cartway that bisects the current
tax fort of property to the north and south. Uh and also the no Mississippi River bisects the property east and west and a cup to extract gravel will require a buffer to the no Mississippi River. Um some of the properties also low-lying areas and gravel extraction in those areas will not be possible. The county
highway department historically did use these parcels uh to extract gravels on approximately 4 acres. Uh when it was in use, they were extracting mostly sand which didn't have enough clay, other binders or rock to make class 5. Uh this area has not been used in the past 10 years by the highway department. Um here
in Crowing County, we have ample sand uh for the county uses and we actually give it away for free at the county landfill to help for future cell construction. The current home big parcel is directly adjacent to the landfill. As I mentioned, one of the long-term goals is to buffer the landfill uh for from
future residential development. This land exchange would prevent the home big parcels from being developed in the future once the gravel operations subside. Uh to date, land services has spent about $1,500 on some title work to facilitate the exchange outside of staff
time. Uh there will not be any additional uh cost to complete the exchange and no money will be exchanged between Crowing County and Bradley and Jane Holig. This is a one forone swap. Finally, the home bigs will be required to reclaim the existing gravel pit per the cup and the county does intend on
planting some trees in the property in the future. And with that, I would pause for any questions. >> Any questions? Commissioner Coring, any questions? >> Uh, Mr. Chairman, no questions, but as you know, and we've talked about this
multiple times, uh, I am in favor of this. I'm kind of mad at myself. uh when Commissioner Hog was uh on the board and it was just Commissioner Hog and myself. I'm you guys have heard this before. I'll repeat it again. We did have the
possibility of buying that property at the time before the Home Bigs bought it. And I I personally thought the price was too much at the time. That was a mistake on my part and the Home Bigs and of course bought it for the price that it was being
offered for. And um but I am a firm believer that we've spent millions and millions and millions of dollars out at the landfill and it's important to have a buffer around there to prevent future development. And I go back to the same
thing I've said about Camp Ripley. They see the need to have a compatible use buffer around Camp Ripley to try to prevent future development. And I think this is this is just a smart thing to do
uh on the county board's part to prevent uh uh development around the landfill. So that's all I've got to say. I'm I'm totally in favor of this land swap. >> Thank you. And uh >> m Mr. Chair, um I wasn't here when that
decision was or wasn't made that Paul said he wish he would have changed his mind. Do you remember what the price was, Paul, back at that time when they were looking when the the county had a chance to buy that property? >> Yeah, Commissioner Love Key, I Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Love Key, I I
believe I you know, of course, I'm getting old, so don't can't really remember too good, but I'm almost positive it was $250,000. Maybe if Gary Griffin is sitting there, maybe Gary can remember, but I think it was $250,000 at the time. I don't
remember. >> Gary doesn't remember. >> Gary doesn't remember. >> Yeah. Well, just just an idea. I mean, you know that what it was because um >> the the other thing is is that was $250,000 back those years ago. Um the other thing is also had gravel on it at
that time and that gravel has been removed from that which had a value. So, I I'm I'm questioning it in the fact that that do we need that much of a buffer around a landfill um at this time. The other thing is is I don't know
if that was really a bad decision not to buy it back then for 250 grand. >> So, I want to bring this part of the conversation to an end. I want to look for a motion to open the public hearing. >> So, moved. >> Motion by Commissioner Franzine. >> I'll second it. >> Second by Commissioner Lee. Roll call,
please. >> Commissioner Lee, >> I. Commissioner Coring >> I. >> Commissioner Lupkkey >> I. >> Commissioner Franine. >> Commissioner Baros >> I. That motion passes. Public hearing is opened at 10:37.
Anyone here who would like to speak? Anyone that would like to speak? Anyone online that would like to speak regarding the property transfer from Crowing between Crowing County and Bradley and Jane
Holvig. Hearing none, seeing none, I would look for a motion to close the public hearing. >> Motion by Commissioner Franzine. >> Second. >> Second by Commissioner Lubkkey. Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Franine. >> Commissioner Lee,
>> I. Commissioner Coring >> I. >> Commissioner Lipkkey >> I. >> Commissioner Baros >> I. That motion passes. The hearing is closed at 10:38. All right. 6.6 is the Crowing County and Bradley and
Jane Homeig land exchange discussion. Sorry about jumping in there earlier. Um the the two things was is is we just finished doing a piece of property out there that we that was 7 point some acres that we just purchased for twice
the market value if I'm not mistaken. I think it was on the market for 77. We purchased it for I think $150,000 that was across it's across the road from the dump. And I remember at that time there was conversation where somebody had talked about you know we we have a lot of investment in the
landfill. It's run very well. I mean, and and so I asked the question of the of the staff of how many complaints have we had out there as far as smells or or anything like that, and I think uh Gary came to me with somebody that had a problem with the smoke, but it wasn't anybody next right next to the fence of
the landfill. Um we also do our spray out there. We spray our our leech right out there and it's right next the leech field is right next to I don't remember the name of the piece of property, but it's right next to that and we've never had any complaints from that. And those are people right there by the landfill.
So I'm I'm wondering, are we going too far ahead to to exchange a a and I won't use I hate to use the word burned out gravel pit, but a gravel pit that has given up all of its resources to trade it for some prime land someplace else that also has water feature in it that
also was a memorial forest. And I have a question is is there another piece of land out in Crowing County that we could make that land exchange with that would be better than that piece of property that we're looking at? >> Yep. Uh Mr. Chair, Commissioner Lubkkey, um we have been working with uh Bradley
and Jane Homefig for quite a few years to try to find a parcel that is suitable that they're interested in as well. It's um they're the ones that made the application for this parcel. I don't believe there is another parcel um that they would be interested outside of this one at this time. Uh the uh the property
was a memorial forest. Um that was removed here back in October um through the uh through the vote that you guys had. Um and the gravel pit that they have is only on 40 acres. Um that's all their cup allows for. So there is another 40 acre or 60 acre is excuse me
40 acres out there that has not been touched with the gravel pit on the >> never been never was used as gravel. >> Mhm. >> So it's just the raw land the way it was put there >> with trees. Yep. With trees. >> And and there is some uh wetland as well. >> Wetlands on there also. And the look the
property we're looking at trading for also has wetlands and water features. >> Correct. >> Question for you, >> Mr. Mr. Chair. >> Go ahead, Commissioner Cory. Go ahead. Yeah, I guess we could just we could forget about this and then I guess when
Homeigs gets the gravel out of there and they build about 10 12 houses there and um God help us if we'd ever have any water contamination or smells, you know, and then then the county boards 20 years
from now would say, "Why in the hell didn't they put a buffer around there?" I still think this is a great idea, but if you think it's a bad idea, Commissioner Lumpy, vote no. Yeah. >> I don't I don't know. I'm just I'm just exercising my ability to talk about it
to understand it better. >> Yeah. Well, >> so with the question from me is does the power line, the new power line that'll be going through impact the property values that will be underneath it? And well actually first question is does
it go right over that >> 80 acres or >> Yes. So so Mr. Chair um that power line is is set to be parallel to that existing power line. Um as far as property values go I'd have to defer to Mr. Griffin on actual values if that'll have an impact. >> Gary
um thanks commissioner. Yes. Um the way the power line going all the way through the middle of that 80 acres would have some impact to that property value. Yes. >> Okay. So what we're saying is uh
$3 what $57 or $59. >> We uh it probably wouldn't be worth quite that. is any estimate on where we would be with the value. >> I think we're currently with something like that we're probably around 10%
reduction if it probably already has one but the um my understanding is you know Minnesota Power will have to secure or still pay for that easement that goes through there. So there will be some I
don't know what they're they're given for that but there will be some revenue from that when they come through. >> So it mitigates some of that >> some of it >> loss in property value. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Any other questions? Um Commissioner Lee. >> Oh, sorry.
>> I just wanted to add a couple things. Um I think it's important that we do this buffer as well. If you look at what happened, Elk River, um they've had a lot of issues with that um with their landfill down there and that I think
this is a good step in in leaving alleviating that problem for us in the future. And if you look at the situations that some of the counties like Cass County is in right now, um
we need to um do what we can to um protect the asset that we have with the landfill. Um I mean right now Cass County residents are paying four times what Crowing County residents are paying for same service. Um so I think this is
an important issue. Uh, I did have one of my uh constituents that reached out to me about not being in favor of um of uh Mr. Homeig getting the property on
County Road 8. Uh reason being is um didn't feel it was a good spot for a U gravel pit or and it would eliminate some of our county land that we have. I guess my thought on that is I mean I
don't know if that gentleman realized it was a gravel pit before it became Crowing County property or not. Um and then we have 107,000 acres of of uh county property in Crowing County for people to
be on and hunt and hike and so forth. And two there's two properties within five minutes of this one that they could use as well. So, I I I guess I'm supportive of this deal because I think it's important for us as a county to ensure that that's there for
the next hundred years. That, you know, the next generation of board members aren't dealing with what Cass County is dealing with now. So, >> thank you, Commissioner Lubkkey. >> Yes. Um, you know, as far as the buffer part, I'm not as much of a problem with the buffer part. just making sure we're
doing the due diligence that we're doing fair for fair. And right now, I don't know if that's in my head if that's fair. And then you say, well, uh, you could build a bunch of houses there. Well, I don't know how many gravel open gravel pits we have, and I know there's quite a few in the county, privately
owned and and publicly owned. Um, I haven't seen houses being built in any middle of those gravel pits. And the other thing is if if there is a cup or conditional use on that, what assurance do we have that HomeVig um is going to to get that all leveled back off, get
the overburden back in and the gravel pit is done being a gravel pit that would allow us to be able to plant the trees on there. Um when we bought that property next door, that's 7 and 1/2 acres, was there anything put in place there because I think there was a structure on that place. was any of that is that structure going to remain there
or is the county going to use its funds to remove that structure? If we paid twice the price for that, maybe we should have thought about that at the time and said maybe in that price would have been that structure being removed instead of adding that back on to the do that do our due diligence is what I'm
saying. So that's where I kind of look at this and say isn't we have 105,000 acres in Crowing County. There's maybe got to be a better swap than 80 acres that half of it's uh got a creek running through it that it was a memorial forest
until we changed our minds. Um and there might be a better piece of property out there for the home bigs to be able to use to be an equitable swap. That's my point. So, and I'm going to be quiet. Gary, >> uh thanks uh chairman. I just wanted to
u say I believe we did do our diligence. I believe that the want from the county on that se almost eight acre piece uh it was worth more to us than probably anybody else. Um yes, we are willing to tear down the house. We knew that when we went into that agreement. So we it
wasn't like we um did the transaction and then oh we forgot to get that in the price. We knew that going into it and we were willing to do that to continue to build a buffer around the landfill. Uh here we do have
a um uh I want to say agreement with um Mr. Holig to reclamate this the slopes and everything on that old pit when he gets all of his um all of his piles out of there and um yeah we'll throw you
know some trees on there. the um so there will be some cost but u the the main thing is that there is no other whether it's homes or pole sheds or whatever that we're going to have to compete with private ownership that
continues to you know develop in this county just trying to protect the our resource that's important to all of us here that's all I want to say there thank you >> thank you Mr. Sure. I'll just th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th throw this out there. You know they have a they have a golf course up here that's called a gravel pit golf course. Are we
thinking of having a gravel pit park in Crowing County anytime soon? >> I have been told not to bring up any new parks. >> No. So, thank you for letting me uh speak my mind. >> Any other questions, concerns? And if
there are none, I would look for a motion to approve the resolution that's attached to our agenda. Concerning the Crowing County and Bradley and Jane Homeig land exchange. >> Motion to approve. >> Motion by Commissioner Coring.
>> Second by Commissioner Franine. Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Lovekkey. >> No. >> Commissioner Franine. Commissioner Lee. >> I. Yes. >> Commissioner Coring. >> I. >> Commissioner Barros.
>> I. That motion passes. Thank you. >> Thank you. Now move on to 7.1, the lake improvement district budgets. >> Thought we were done with >> we're back to lake improvements again. >> We're back. >> Can't get away from it.
>> Uh good morning, Mr. Chair, commissioners. Um today I have before you um annually we bring our lake improvement district budgets. Um as per policy, you guys approve their budgets. This is not you approving their assessment. Um those are already set by their docu uh founding documents. Um
there's nine lake improvement districts in Crowing County. Uh each year they're required by statute and our policy to provide us with an annual report. In that annual report is this budget uh that you see in your packet. They're also required to provide what their proposed lid is and we verify that with
our assessment specialist to make sure they're certifying the same amount that they're proposing in their annual report. Um they need to provide us notice of their annual meeting evidence that that notice and the election ballots were mailed out to all property owners. They provide proof of insurance
um any monitoring reports or treatment programs that they performed in the last year. Uh memberships and elected officers and what their plans are for the future, their goals and the accomplishments from the last year of that lid. Um, so before you you see we
have all of our nine lids and what their uh budgets and estimated end of year fund balances are. Some of them it is estimated right now just because they're getting grants in still through the end of the year. Um, they're might not have received their billing for their treatment because usually they're doing
that some of that in the early fall. Um, as you can see there's three of them that have rather high fund balances. A few of them um like Round Lake haven't been assessing their property owners due to that high fund balance and they are investing those funds in um CDs so that they gain interest so that maybe they
don't have to assess their property owners in future years. Um other than that I will open it up to any questions. >> Any questions? >> Sure. >> Commissioner um chair um thank you for sending me that the other day. I asked for some
information and Jessica sent me that there are 60 lids in Minnesota and of the 60 lids there's what only two of them that have actually been dissolved. >> Correct. >> Yeah. And and we are what we and Ottertale I think you said have the highest amount of lids right now.
>> Correct. With nine. Yes. um our authority as a county if if you don't get a financial statement from these lids once they're formed, what authority do we have to to uh oversight is the only oversight we have. We look
at their budget, we pass their budget. Would we not pass their budget? If we don't like what we see, if you don't like what you see and you bring it to us, do we have any authority over those lids if we don't feel they're using their monies properly?
once they're formed. >> Uh you have oversight on it. So if we see that they're buying new cars for the board members, that's something you can, you know, look into. Other than that, we're just assuring that they're spending money on the treatment of the lake or whatever they created the lid
for. So our staff goes through their reports every year and looks at what did they do? Okay. Was that within the guidelines of what a lid is created for? >> I didn't find anything in state that said we could do anything more than we can look at it. I didn't see anything where we could >> You're exactly right, Mr. Chair,
Commissioner. The think about this. The lid board themselves are a taxing authority, right? >> So, similar to you with regard to the county's budget and the oversight that you have, the lid board is the one that is responsible for the budget and the expenditures and all the things with
regard to the lid. You do not have regulatory authority over them once you vote to establish that lake improvement district. And in the >> our policy asks them to provide us the information so that you can be aware but you don't have any control or authority
over it. >> And and in the nine that we have right now we have not seen any problem that has really even though we don't have the authority that has raised a red flag with us. >> That is correct other than and it's not necessarily an issue in that regard. Um
you may have noticed Ruth Lake projects a negative fund balance for the end of 2025. Um this is this kind of transitional time period when we had previously you may recall the county was holding the finances for the lids and
they were submitting their invoices to us. We were paying them. Uh there was a period of time where it looked on paper like the county was floating what the association's responsibilities were. The lid's responsibilities were. We did take action that said lids needed to get
their own bank account, needed to get all of their own information. They were going to be treated like any other taxing entity in that they are going to have their collection settled out to them every year at the same three periods of time that the rest of the
taxing entities get that. That um is part of where this kind of prevailance this review comes in for you is you're seeing the activities of what is happening there but you're not responsible for making any of those things any of those changes and there's nothing that's really risen to any
concern. I believe you would agree when you look at what they have provided. >> Thank you. You talked long enough where I forgot that other question. >> Sorry. >> Well, no, you should say thank you. >> I'll say thank you, >> Mr. Coin.
>> Thank you. >> No, I just said good. >> Okay. You know, again, I I think it comes back to this whole thing with with and that last gentleman, one of those last gentlemen that spoke about how we're entrusted with these natural resources. we're entrusted with those and to be good stewards of them and and
it does it it maybe won't do today, maybe not tomorrow, but somewhere down the road, somewhere in the future, if they are not managed, if they're not taken care of, these are our gems. You know, we're a Lake Center county. Um it will affect our bottom line and and I think that's really important. And I
know with the AIS change next year, I think this well not next year, year after where they're cutting the AS funding that we're managing and doing a I think an a very good job in this county of managing it to get those people out there to do that AAS work. Um I don't know what we're going to do after that. Um the other thing is is ask
what do we charge for all the work you're doing for the lids? I mean what do we do is there there's an administration fee I think was mentioned somewhere. What is that administration fee and how does that that's what you use to review all the documents? >> Correct. Yes, it's a $250 annual fee
that we invoice to each lake improvement district each year. >> Okay. Thank you. I have no more questions. >> All right. If there are no other questions or concerns, I would look for a motion to approve the attached 2026
budgets for the lids in Crowing County. >> I will make that motion. Commissioner Lupkkey makes the motion. Commissioner Franzine seconds the motion. Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Coring. >> I. >> Commissioner Lupkkey. >> I. >> Commissioner Franzine. >> I.
>> Commissioner Lee. >> I. >> Commissioner Barros. >> I. That motion passes. We're County Sheriff. Chief Deputy. >> Welcome. >> Welcome. >> Uh morning, Mr. Chair, commissioners. Um, the sheriff didn't pass anything on
to me today to talk to you about, but uh, as I sit in the back room and I listen about the, uh, land exchange, uh, I see an opportunity with the sheriff's office that I'll have to discuss with the sheriff. Um, but, uh, you know, you >> How did I know that was coming?
>> Yeah. Where did you find >> It just came to me. And, uh, some things that, uh, Commissioner Barls has come up with and asked us to look at maybe a range movement. And uh I think uh 80 acres would be a nice place to start. So um we'll we'll look into it. >> We have further discussion.
>> Well, further discussion. So any questions for me? >> Any questions, >> Mr. Chair? I think I've brought that subject up before about moving the range. >> Yes. I I thought that was brought up a few weeks ago and it was kind of said
that I think the sheriff said he wasn't interested, but >> Yeah. And I I I think the key factor is an opport you know where we move are we going to have disturbed neighbors and uh >> that's a unique location given the proximity to the highway 80 acres I
think there's an opportunity I I'll discuss with the sheriff's department or the sheriff and see what happens so >> fun further discussion we'll discuss we'll talk >> all right thank you >> county attorney Kelsey >> good morning Mr. chair, commissioners, >> a seasoned county attorney now, so
>> yes, I don't have anything for you this morning, but I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. >> Did Don leave that on his thing? I have nothing for you this morning. >> It's just part of part of the deal, I guess. I don't know. >> All right. Thank you very much, county administrator. >> Mr. Chair, I do have a couple of things
for you this morning. First off, on our agenda, we have the appointment for the natural resource advisory committee. You may recall we had a vacancy in the atlarge position on the ENRACK committee and we did accept letters of interest
through November 5th which we did receive two folks who were interested in that position both of which are included in your packet. Um one of them came from Dan Ducet and the other one came from Martin Joyce. The action before you
would be for you to make a recommendation as to which one to appoint to the ENRAC committee. >> So for clarification, this takes a motion by all of us. >> This is a board action appointment. >> Okay.
So anyone willing to step into this and support one or the other? I only know the name of Martin Joyce because I know he's done work in our in the jurisdiction of Jenkins in regards to sewer and and stuff like that. That's the only thing I know. I don't know Dan
Det at all. >> I would move, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I would move Dan Ducet be appointed to the ENRAC committee. >> Commissioner Coring makes a motion to move Dan Ducet to the ENRAC committee.
Do I have a second? I'll second it. Second by Commissioner Lee. Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Lee, >> I. >> Commissioner Coring, >> I. >> Commissioner Lupkey, >> I. >> Commissioner Franzine. >> I. >> Commissioner Barros,
>> I. That motion passes. >> Mr. Chair, the next item is to set your county board calendar for 2026. You want me to cover? You want to cover it? >> Okay. In your packet, there is a list of
the standing meetings that are being set with this uh with this action. We would include the meetings for the county board meeting, meeting the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of each month at 9:00 a.m. in this room. The following exceptions to
that would be the January 13th meeting would be on January 6th. As you know, we have to have the statutory reorganizational meeting the first Tuesday after the first Monday. We would also move the December 8th meeting to December 15th, which meets our statutory
obligation to have an evening meeting for discussion of the budget and levy. that would be held at 5:00 pm. Committee of the whole meetings would be held on the third Tuesday of each month at 9:00 am. And the following exception there would be to move the December 5th
meeting to December 22nd so it does not conflict with the truth and taxation meeting being held that evening. personnel committee would be meeting on the first and third Monday of each month at nine o'clock in the county um
conference room with the exceptions to cancel meetings that fall on a holiday which would be January 19th, February 16th, and September 7th. The budget committee meetings would be held on the second Thursday of each month at 9:00 a.m. in the county conference room. and
the ENRAC committee. The natural resources advisory committee meetings will be held quarterly beginning in January on the Wednesday before the solid waste committee meeting. The ENRACE meeting would be held at 9:30 in the oak room in land services. The
transportation advisory committee would be held quarterly beginning in March on the first Tuesday um either at 1:00 or 9:00 depending on the meeting date at the highway conference room. Another statutory meeting you're required to have is the county board appeal of
equalization. That meeting would be held on June 15th beginning at 2 PM here in the county boardroom. And solid waste committee meetings would be held quarterly on the third Friday at 9:00 a.m. in the oak room. These would be the standing committees, the standing board
meetings that would be published. And this is the calendar that we're putting before you for you to adopt. Mr. Chair, >> Commissioner Coring, go ahead. >> Mr. Chair, just a question for the county administrator. I I tell me if I'm
right. I I believe this in adopting this calendar that meets our open meeting law or or our um posting requirement. But I believe we we do double duty on posting, don't we? uh adopt this calendar and yet
we post uh all these meetings in a paper. >> You are correct, Commissioner Coring. Yes, by adopting this calendar, it meets the requirement of publication or posting notice of what we would need for the public meetings coming up for 2026. However, we still continue to publish
all of these meetings with their agendas uh the week preceding each meeting as well as posting in our official posting locations. >> Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chair. >> Yes. Thank you. >> So, Mr. Chair, I would look for a motion
to adopt the calendar as presented. >> So, do motion by Commissioner Franine. >> Second up. >> Second by Commissioner Lee. Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Franine. >> I. >> Commissioner Lee. >> I. >> Commissioner Coring. >> I. >> Commissioner Lipkkey. >> I.
>> Commissioner Barros. >> I. That motion passes. >> Finally, Mr. Chair, I kind of took them out of order, but our senior management team did meet yesterday. We had a good discussion around as we move into 2026 looking at our year-end performance appraisal review process that is about
to kick off here in December. We also talked about the upcoming changes with the paid family medical leave that will be coming into play in January. Kind of talking about what departments are planning as far as how we will continue to deliver the services that we need to
deliver if we do have some folks who are out on leave. So, we're making sure that we have those contingency plans in place prior to those leaves happening so that we are all kind of working on the same page as we look forward to that. So, it was a good conversation at SMT and we
will continue to look into the future. That's all I have for you today, but if anyone has any questions of me, I'd be happy to answer them. >> Any questions? Hearing none, we'll move on to additional business. Apparently, I'm the only one who speaks
during additional business. So, first thing I want to do is congratulate the team that has created the Crowing County 5-year budget plan. And with their efforts and understanding and commitment to Crowing County, we will have a better handle on the changing environment and
impacts that are annual on our annual levy. So, great work to them. There's quite a list that was included in our SharePoint site. So, appreciate that. The only other thing I have is let's have a gratitude Thanksgiving or happy
Thanksgiving. Should be both. And be safe on the roads and be safe in the air on your travels. So with that, I would look for a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> Motion by Commissioner Lupkey, second by Commissioner Franine. Roll call. >> Commissioner Lupkey.
>> I. >> Commissioner Fran. I. >> Commissioner Lee. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Coring. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Barrels. >> Hi. Happy Thanksgiving. We are >> journal. Does it print for you back there?