All right, I will call the November 4th uh board of commissioners meeting to order. We were in a budget workshop prior to this. Um we will be going back into budget workshop after this board
meeting also. Um please join me in the pledge of allegiance. All right. Are there any disclosures of interest? Seeing none, uh, previous board meeting minutes from October 21st.
>> Move approval. >> Second. It's been moved and seconded to approve the uh previous board meeting minutes. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. The same. Motion carries. Uh review
the agenda. We need to pull at the uh applicant's request under land use management item two uh public hearing and consideration for conservation subdivision. That applicant has asked to pull that from the agenda.
Any other >> That is the only change. Chair. >> Okay. Move to approve the amended agenda. >> Second. >> Been moved and seconded we approve the amended agenda. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I.
>> I. The same. Motion carries. Consent agenda. There are seven items. >> Motion to approve the consent agenda. >> Second. It's been moved and second to approve the consent agenda on all seven items. All those in favor say I.
>> I. >> All the same. Motion carries. We're on to department uh reports and we have land use management public hearing considering the request for an assembly controls license for the wheat trail
festival. ordinance. Um the application that is included in the packet um was submitted by Will Ericson for an assembly license. The application is for a rural outdoor music festival to be held July 23rd um
through the 25th, 2026 to promote mental health and provide resources for the farming and rural community um in partnership with the Living Foundation. The festival will be located at 16764 342nd Way, Good Hume, Minnesota. Um,
it's on a overall about a 200 acre site owned by Daniel Ryan. Uh, just to recap, the county's assembly control ordinance does require that licenses be obtained for any planned assembly event or ticket sale where you're selling over five or
where you're planning over 500 people. Uh there are some exclusions in the ordinance that allow the county to exclude um the county fairs, breakfast on the farm. There's a few exclusions in there. Um it doesn't appear that this would be an exclusion. So therefore,
it's being brought to you all for consideration. The way that the ordinance is set up is it really allows the county staff and all the departments to weigh in depending on what type of event it is. Um so in this case I routed the
application to several county depo several county departments for feedback and input. Um most of them got back to me with you know either I have no concerns or we should attach some conditions to help you know maybe plan ahead for this event. So the feedback
that I did receive specifically from public works and emergency management and the sheriff's office are included as conditions of approval. Um, in this case, I would say the the big thing to know for the county is that um the
property is located in Bell Creek Township on a township road. Um, but the route to get to the site will be through, you know, county roads. Um the
uh the actual township road, you know, is an area that I feel should be restricted to no on street parking. Um but that would be of course a township decision. We are proposing a condition in here based on feedback from public works that there would be no parking
allowed on any on any streets leading up to the event. Um, and the big reason for that really is to make sure that if there has to be an emergency manage management vehicle getting to the site that they have clear access to the site. Um, another thing to note here is that
the property owners are proposing overnight camping. Um, overnight camping is one of the things that the ordinance says if there is an overnight component to the event that there needs to be a separate conditional use permit reviewed by the planning commission in
conjunction with the event. Um, so the applicant, Mr. Ericson, did submit a separate conditional use permit application. That public hearing notice got published and will be heard at the planning commission meeting on November 17th. Um, time is of the essence for the
applicant here in order for them to book um to book the performers. So, I wanted to get this on the on the agenda before the cup is heard. Um, the other note I would say here is that um I learned from
Health and Human Services that overnight camping does also require a permit from MDH. Um, and so that is something that I made the the property owner and the applicant aware of as well. Um, it sounds like they are um they are working
with MDH for the overnight camping. So with that um within the last month, our staff has kind of weighed in on this and overall the recommendation is to approve um approve the event and again it would be a one-time license for the Wheat
Trail Festival with the conditions outlined in the staff report. Um, there is a public hearing required. I I I believe Mr. Ericson is here as well in case there are any questions. >> Just for clarity, you have 12 conditions
on the >> assemblies. >> I do. Questions from the board for staff. Okay. Is there a motion to open for public hearing? >> So moved. >> Second. move and second we open for
public hearing on a request for a assemblies control license for the wheat trail festival. Any further discussion hearing? None. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> We are in public hearing. Anyone wishing
to speak to this uh application? Anyone wishing to speak to this application? Third and final time. Anyone wishing to speak to this application? >> Motion to close public hearing.
>> Second. >> Move and second we close public hearing. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> The same. Motion carries. Um back to us. >> Motion to approve the land use
recommendation for the assembly license with the 12 conditions. >> Second. >> Move. seconded that we move this issue and approve it. Any further discussion we have anything from the attorney's office?
Obviously, you weighed in on it. >> I don't have anything to add to the board. Thank you. >> All right. All right. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. The same. >> Motion carries. I hope it goes well. Will >> you?
>> All right. The second item was pulled. The third one is a final plat for the Omen property. The board is being asked to consider a request uh submitted by the applicant and property owners, the Omen Farms LLC
at 3049423rd Avenue Way, Canon Falls, Minnesota for a final plat. The application impacts the following tax parcels. Um I won't read them, but they are in the staff report of record. Um, the proposed plat is
titled Omen Edition and comprises 123 acres with five proposed lots. A preliminary plat was reviewed and a public hearing occurred on July 21st, 2025 and was approved by the county board in August of this year. Included
with the staff report is an copy of the application that was submitted. um an email from Keith Omen who is one of the members of the LLC regarding the staff's proposed recommendation for an easement um which I'll talk about later. Um
location maps prepared by staff and then the draft meeting minutes from the planning commission meeting of October 20th. A couple things to note. Um the property the entire property is zoned A2 um agricultural district within the plat
area there is one allowed or one um density unit that I call it I guess I call it is a density unit would be um a potential building site um because it's A2 the building um density requirements limit houses to no more than 12 per
section or no more than more than one home per quarter. per quarter section. So in this case there is one density unit in this entire 123 acres available. Um the planning commission as I mentioned um has reviewed this is
forwarding a recommendation of approval. The main issue here that I do want to point out is that Good Hugh County owns some landlocked property between this property and Lake Bilsby. Um on the
county property north of this platted area there is a boat launch. Um that boat launch is used to access Lake Bsby. It's my understanding it's used um obviously in the summer by boats, but it's also used in the wintertime for
snowmobiles and getting um ice shacks moved on and off the lake. um little bit of research that I was able to do is that it doesn't look like there is actually a written recorded easement in place um
that I was able to find. Um it does look like when I look at aerial photography that that access has been used at least since 1971, which is the last like really clear aerial photography that um I was able to pull for this area. So
that's you know 50 plus years of of use. Um the land use staff did approach the Omen farms about granting of an easement um that was requested and essentially the
response was we are not willing to grant an easement. Um so with that the plat is being presented to you without an easement in place. um the legal kind of ramifications of that. Um I did discuss a little bit with the county attorney.
Um you know, the the concern here would be if the property owner would ever say, you know, we don't want you going over our property. Um I can't predict. I can't see into the future. I don't know if that's going to happen or not. Um the Omens have been really good to work
with. Um but again, nothing is in writing. Um, it's my understanding that the county cannot necessarily force an easement. We can just negotiate easements. Um, and it's also my understanding that there can't necessarily be a force condition of
approval with the plat um to say that you are required to dedicate an easement, but we can we could request one. Um, and I guess my last sort of comment here is that it is my feeling that the county has evidence that this is
being used clearly for public use. It's not being used to benefit one property owner. It's not being used to specifically just, you know, um, benefit one business or one property owner. Has public like a public use. So, my feeling on the law on um if we were to ever have
to use like a prescripted easement argument that it that would apply here. So, like I said, it's an issue that I wanted to bring to your attention. It's a little bit unresolved at this point. Um I would
recommend that down the road the county land committee and the property owner sit down and talk about this. Um, like I said, it's been it's been hanging out there for 50 plus years should get resolved. Um, I don't know what the answer is in terms of how wide the
easement is, the actual location, if there's a financial trade-off there, who, you know, who's in charge of maintenance, all those things should really be negotiated and talked about in that easement negotiation process. Um, the other thing I will bring up is the
LA, it's my understanding that the land committee has also talked about a possible land swap in this area. I don't know a whole lot of details on what that would look like, but there is some agricultural land that the county does own um on our land that is leased to the
Omen family. Um, so it's an area where there's kind of a lot of moving parts on it. Um the plat itself really my understanding from the Omens is it's really just to divide up um the land amongst family. It's not
necessarily to develop property or to build anything. It's really just a a formality being that we the county ordinance requires anytime you split more than three tracks of land you're required to plat it in instead of just doing a meets and bound survey. Um so
with that long way of saying planning commission's recommendation is to approve um my recommendation is to approve the plat. Um and then my hope is in the future the county can negotiate an easement for a land swap with the property owner >> questions.
How do we have access to that egg land right now? >> We do not have legal access to it. >> Don't we have to be allowed legal access to our land? Isn't that everybody that own lands has to have access to it, right? >> Yeah. I mean, right now we have access
through this driveway, right, to the uh my understanding? Correct. So, and and it's also my understanding. I haven't had any conversations with the Omens, but I'm assuming at this point that that things will remain the same as they are right now with our use of that access um going forward. Now, if that changes,
that puts us in a different legal position, I think, with regard to whether or not we want to pursue the prescriptive easement. And I think there might be some other legal theories to approach as well for continued use of that roadway. But I think that's an issue down the road. And that's an issue
for whether or not the Omens decide, you know, we don't want the county to use that anymore. Um, right now, I don't think that's the case. I could be wrong. I don't know if the homeman's are here, but um as of now, I think we continue to use it as is and try to negotiate a formal
um you know, access and uh a formal easement that can be recorded. >> Didn't you just say that they are not in favor of a easement for us? >> The email and I I like I said, I've had
a lot of conversations with uh Keith Omen. Um, but I asked them to put it in writing and essentially the um the position as I understand it is that they are not they were not supportive of spending additional surveying dollars or
time to go back and add an easement on the plat. Um, but that does not mean that they are they're opposed to working with the county in the future. They just didn't want to update their plat as as drafted. >> That's Scott. I'm just curious if do you
know if it the answer would be different if we used our surveyors or if we asked for something less like a cartwhe >> I would say that's all um my feeling is that they would be open to that but um like I said you know Mr. Keith Omen is
here. Um my my conversations with them strictly from land use and my authority is hey I'm noticing that there's a landlocked piece of land here. Could we get an easement? The answer was no. I'm not going to, you know, pay for those
additional dollars to to um send out my survey crew to update the plat. >> I I just think we could do that. And I mean it's been there for 54 years, so that's obviously what it is. I think I think part of this has to do
with the LLC and getting it from my understanding out of the LLC as multiple owners to a single owner of this parcel and then getting easement is much easier than going through all of the papers and
all of the legal stuff you have to do with an LLC. So, I think I think there's an easier path forward. We all realize I think all of us realize this was a mistake when the land commission or land I think it was called land commission
that parcel was supposed to be in good county's name and it wasn't and got missed in that whole process. Um I think there's a path forward. I don't see any reason to hold up this um
split and platting for that piece. I think there's a path forward once it gets out of the LLC. >> So, worst case scenario though, we look at do we have other options for people to access the lake here for the ice fishing? And so, is this if this gets
eliminated and the land owners say, "Nope, we own it now. We want nothing to do with the county. What other options do we have for the public to get to the lake? >> There's always a path to get access, legal access to landlock property
through the through statute. So, there's always a process to get there. It might be ugly, but there's a process to get access to landlock property. >> Wouldn't that be easier to do it now before we close it? It's not easier because they're in an LLC and for them
to work through all the LLC part of it is what's complicating getting an easement. Once they're once this is split into three owners is my understanding. Then an individual owner giving an easement is much easier than doing it
with the LLC. >> We hear a >> Yes. Can we hear from the owner and see what his take is on it? Yeah. >> Good morning. >> There's a button on the back of the mic.
>> There you go. >> Thank you. Please state your name so we got it for the record. >> Keith Omen. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. So, I represent the LLC. Um I've been trying to get this split for a while and you guys probably have reviewed this before. Um there are three
owners of the LLC. We are partners. What we are doing here is dividing the land into three separate pieces. So therefore, the LLC will not own that property anymore. My brother will end up with that property. He is not opposed to
giving you guys an easement um if the countyy's willing to work with him. Um I just don't see the point of us, the LLC, trying to get this worked out at this time. It's pretty much a simple split. Um, it sounds big because there's five
parcels there, but it's not that big of a deal. It's only three different parcels basically for three different people. Um, and all we're doing is dissolving the LLC. So, as far as the access goes, that's
been there since I've sh I was this tall. Um, and there was no county access there. um legal access anyway, but there's other county property all around
this that doesn't have access to it. So, um I guess at this point I would just like to get through this split, get the LLC divided up, then you can work with Kevin to figure this out
if that works for you guys. just scares me to look into the future and say, you know, Kevin's not here and all a sudden he says, "Well, I didn't say that, you know, and now we have to go through another statute to get access to our property." But I commissioner, I
think that's going to be true regardless. If there's a disagreement and the landowner decides not to give us the easement, we're going to be in litigation to resolve this issue. whether or not it's done now through this process or it's done later with the, you know, the new owner. Um, and
that's I I really think, um, the bigger principle here is I don't believe the county can use the platting process to gain an advantage on trying to get this easement. I think that would be an inappropriate use of the platting process. It's a completely separate
issue. Um, we tried to join it together because I think it made sense if there was going to be an easement that it' be represented on the plat, but we don't actually have an easement right now. So, I think the plant as presented accurately shows the um interest in the property. And, you know, we'll have to
work through the rest of it later um if the board approves this. But I don't think the board um at this point um should use the platting process to kind of gain it, you know, seemingly to gain an advantage with the negotiation on the easement. I think that that might get us
into some trouble, >> right? >> That was if it was a private land owner, we wouldn't be having this discussion. >> I think you have to look at it from that aspect. If the private land owner wasn't in here saying, "You got to get me access." We would approve this plat in a
heartbeat because they've met everything. So, I can't see that this is a reason to hold it up. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I'll move to approve to adopt the staff report into record and approve the request.
>> Is there a second? >> Okay. Any further discussion? Well, I wondered if we should have the record reflect that the county board, it's their intent to pursue the easement so that it's clear that uh the Omen family is aware of that and and uh at least
it's documented that that would be our intent. >> Correct. I think that's that's a good point and I think the county does have a legitimate legal interest in that easement. I think that we could enforce later and by approving the plat today we are not saying that we we agree you know
we're giving up that opportunity. >> No no we believe >> may not may not be easement we may want to buy that right away to get there. >> Yeah >> it may totally be different than an easement. So >> well that the the county has had access and it's certainly the hope that the county will continue to maintain access
through a legally appropriate means. >> Right. >> Any other discussion? Hearing none. And all those in favor say I. >> I. Same. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you for being here and and speaking to this. Appreciate it. >> Thank you.
>> All right. Next. Probation juvenile detention bed contract. >> Good news. Rhonda. I >> think when you're talking about juvenile detention, it's really hard to be It's not good news.
>> It's really hard to be good news. >> There is no good news. So, as my letter indicated, we have not utilized the bed as much as we had hoped to. And part of that was the transportation issues we faced with having it two hours away. We actually had several apprehension and
detention orders that were not um fulfilled because they the Redwing PD just did not have staff to get our adolescence there. So, as we I talked with the juvenile agents and we really think it's best to not have the contract for 2026. We will do like we did in the
old days. We will get on the phone and start calling around and find an appropriate bed. We still may use Houston County. They have not been full. I don't think getting a bed there is going to be an issue for uh if we have to. Um but we'll try Dakota County first. That's obviously the closest. So,
we'll start with those closer places first. Um, and I also hope we have that savings also knowing that it's out of our control. If we get a juvenile who is in a high-profile case and they end up in detention for months, that is completely out of our control. So, I
hope we have that savings, but we just don't know depending on what the activity will be. As Steve knows, we have no control. >> So, it's a possible 50 plus,000 savings. Is that what I'm
reading? It will probably be less than that. It would be about 36,000. >> 36,000. >> Yeah, it would be less than that. And that is hoping we don't utilize those beds. But yeah, >> I'm I'm a little bit concerned, not a
little bit, a lot concerned that if we have someone and that and a bed there is the right place or a bed anywhere is the right place that transportation is the issue not getting them to the right place. That concerns me.
>> Well, the right place can be Dakota County. It doesn't have to be. >> So, are you saying if they don't go there where we have a bed, >> they end up at Dakota County >> or somewhere else? Correct. We will call around to find an appropriate bed for
them. And Houston County might end up being that if all the other beds are full >> and that does that happen? >> Yes, that will probably happen. But we also know Houston County has not been filling up. So that we they're a pretty sure shot of utilizing them if the other
beds are full in the state. >> Well, go ahead. >> By law, who's required to transport? Law enforcement is um like whoever arrests them. >> Whoever arrests, correct?
>> And and we're in conversation with Redwing PD about the issues that have happened. So um supervision staff was not aware of what was happening. So, so and then that's kind of where I hope we can work through that because if
a local PD can't transport, can the county transport and build a local PD? >> We'd have to ask Marty that question. And that's not probably for today, but I hope the transportation issue gets solved
because if a juvenile should be there and we don't get them there because somebody doesn't want to drive that far, I got real problems with that. >> Correct. And >> we need a whoever drives them, right? >> They need to get there. >> Correct. And we've even had, you know,
we've talked about having two of our I have to send two agents if we transport. And I I'm going to pull them from somewhere at 3:00 a.m. to get them somewhere. I mean, it it's just not possible for the juvenile agents to do it because I need both of them if they're going to do it.
>> And I I'll be honest, I'm I'm concerned. I think Houston County made a good faith effort to try to find a solution for juveniles in southeast Minnesota. >> Yes. and having partners that are willing to contract for beds is a piece
of that that we're going to transfer that issue to them a little bit and >> correct >> I'm always in favor of working with other counties if it works out and so I'm a little bit hesitant but I will go along with it today >> Houston County has been excellent to
work with they've had some learning curves which you know we've had to they've let our adolescence have contact out with everybody outside so we had say you can only have contact with parents, probation officers, case managers. But that's been a learning curve from going from adult detention center to a
juvenile facility, right? Not the same rules apply. But they have been great to work with. They have complied with all of our requests. They have been great about allowing Zoom court. So we did not have extra transports going back and forth just for court alone. So they have been wonderful to work with,
>> continue to work with them. So any other questions? So >> you need a motion to not contract >> the contract for 26. >> Denied to contract with them. >> Correct. >> So moved. Second.
>> Move and second. We deny contracting with Houston County for juvenile beds for a juvenile bed. Any further discussion? >> All those in favor say I. >> I. oppose the same
carries. Thank you, Ron, and thanks for your work on that. And hopefully we can find solutions to transportation that um that work. Um finance and taxpayer services,
>> ADA, >> DDA. >> Oh, DDA. Tessa, welcome. And Jessica, welcome. Well, we were just going to skip over it, but I guess we're not.
Some people have to keep me on task. >> All right. Good morning, commissioners. What we have before you today, um, you're familiar with. We've been with DDA for three years now, doing ongoing maintenance of our job descriptions as well as market analysis. And so we have
before you um a report outlining um DDA's recommendations and I'll let you take it from there. >> Thank you. Um this has been before the personnel committee to be talked about it as well. Um so this is per their recommendation. Um, like Jessica said,
our role every year is to do a market analysis on all the positions that has been done. The board has received that information. Right now, it's been in close session because of union negotiation. This is strictly on just the job classification review process. So, every
year, um, DDA works with supervisors and employees to do one-thirdish job descriptions. And that process is to review the job description. um look at updating it and then look at the classification
um of that. And so what do we look at when we're looking at the job description? We're not looking at the person involved. We're looking at um what's needed for that position. So education, experience, managerial knowhow, problem solving, accountability, impact on end results,
freedom to act, and the working conditions. So um in the review um for this year um we use the same um process we updated a little bit. So we met with department heads in the
beginning to talk to them if they had other concerns like career ladder desire or recruitment or retention issues. Um they worked with their HR manager in the beginning. Once we went through the process, they looked at their forms, filled out a review form, um, sent back
to DA. We wrote the job description and said, "Here's your updates. Did we catch it? If no, let us know there was an appeal." And then we re sent back the classifications and said, you know, your job is classified correctly or we're proposing it move here. And there was um
an appeal process with that as well. Um, I went through the appeals. I worked with the HR manager and then we had a meeting with the department heads to go over that too so that there was clarity on their expectations um their desires
um just information from them so we would understand kind of what they were asking for um with that so before you today we have the classification changes um would be HR generalist from 112 to 113
um HRIS payroll analyst from 110 to 111. HR specialist 110 to 111. HR manager 117 to 118. Probation officer from 112 to 113. Court services director from 117 to
118. Accountant 1 from 109 to 111. Accountant 211 to 113. Tax and election manager from 113 to 114. Appraiser 2 from 110 to 111. property transfer specialist from 109 to 111. Um, land use
management director from 118 to 119. Court or county surveyor from 118 to 119. Assistant veteran service officer from 110 to 112. With this process, we also had some new jobs that came through and I just wanted to put them in as
well. also H um HHS deputy director 2120 chief deputy surveyor 117 and evidence-based practices coordinator at a 115. Um so these are the classifications specifically that we're recommending. We went through the review
again the appeal process um listen to the s you know the department heads read the appeals um and this are our recommendation >> questions and as Tessa said we went through personnel committee with it and I don't
think there was any real questions from us part of the ongoing process to keep us hopefully keep us up to And hopefully if we we do this correctly, we should be always evaluating and
putting people in the right job class. And then if our settlements are similar to other county settlements, we should continue to stay the grid should continue to stay in pace with other um
counties. >> Yeah. I mean, it's really like I've said before, it's really like your pavement improvement plan. We want to look at your jobs every year so we hopefully have minimal budget disruption. Um, just like you would with the pavement improvement, you do seal coating and
crack filling and all of that to maintain it. Your employees are your greatest asset, but they're your biggest expense and we would rather when we do the market like the board gave us direction to where they wanted to be. If it starts falling behind, we would flag
that and put that into this process and say, is it the industry? Is it the job? you know, why is this job starting to fall? So, we don't have a huge wage gap like we did when we first started so that we are um trying to make sure and the other thing is part of this is
career ladders to help you with retention recruitment issues. And I would say part of it is kind of succession planning when someone's retiring. How are we best filling that position? It doesn't have to look like it always has in the past. It's having those conversations with the department
heads to make sure we're meeting their needs. Um, and keeping good employees here if we can. Um, so out of this process, I think it was important that we did create some um, career ladders to distinguish some jobs and to have some
internal growth. Um, and I think the conversations we had with the department heads were good. I would encourage employees to remember that through this process, you know, they use the job description to review form. They do that. If there's an appeal, they work
with their supervisor and HR manager and it comes through this process and then with a department head. Again, we're trying to be transparent and we want them to be too to follow that process so we can make it um easy for them and hopefully understandable.
>> Questions? Motion to approve this adjustment reclassification. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Second. >> Been moved and seconded. We adopt the reclassifications as presented. Any
further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> The same carries. Thank you. Thank you for all your work. >> Thank you. Now we're on to taxpayer and finance
cityingo tiff proposal. >> Good morning commissioners. >> Morning. Morning. >> The finance department received notice of a proposed uh tiff district 32 from the city of Wanamingo on October 17th. as required by law. Staff distributed
that information on October 17th via email and placed it on today's board agenda. Um the board is not being asked to approve the project. This is solely at the discretion of the Wanamingo City Council. As outlined in the notification, the city of Wanamingo is proposing a 25-y year redevelopment tiff
district that encompasses a portion of two parcels which are currently being replatted. The purpose of the TIFF is to assist with the redevelopment of a vacant elementary school building within the city to provide space for private commercial use, including child daycare center, community gym, office space, or
similar use. The 60,000 square foot building is located at 2253rd Avenue at the intersection of Third Avenue and Second Street East in the city. The vacant elementary school property has been determined to be substandard. The city has indicated in writing that the development would not be reasonably
expected to occur solely through private investment within the foreseeable future. The city intends to issue PGO tax increment financing revenue note to reimburse the developer for uh public development costs. Tax increment will only be used to reimburse the developer
for eligible costs. Uh one thing to note here is the county does not currently receive property taxes from these parcels as they are owned by the school district. The proposed tiff is expected to generate a total of about 79,000 annually from the three major taxing jurisdictions or
about 25,000 uh for Goodyu County alone. Uh more detailed information can be found in the attached analysis that has been uh completed by Northland Securities. Again, city of Waningo is not seeking approval of the proposed uh tiff and the
board is limited in the actions it can take. Um, there is going to be a public hearing on Monday, November 17th at approximately 7 PM to receive public comment on the establishment of the proposed TIFF district. If the county wishes, they can submit in writing some
comments no later um than 30 days of receiving the written notice. Um, staff doesn't see any issues with the proposed TIFF. However, if the board would like to submit any questions, um, I would be um, more than willing to share those with, uh, the city.
questions. I hope that goes forward and they can redevelop it into um very usable community services. That was >> sorry that was one of the things that came up at the housing summit uh this
past week in Redwing and that is the redevelopment of sites rather than focusing on new building where you have to put in all the infrastructure as well. So I hope it goes forward as well.
>> Any other comments? Thank you. >> Thank you. Next, administration SER housing trust fund tr housing trust fund and I think we have Buffy online and I know we have Bob here.
>> Yeah, Buffy's taking this one. >> All right, go ahead Buffy. >> Well, good morning. I'm Buffy Baronic. Um I am consulting for Sumptra at this point. Um not representing Sumptra as their um executive director. Um we had
planned to have this on an earlier board meeting um but um just didn't work out that way. Um Sentra is requesting the board approve a $30,000 grant to Habitat
for Humanity for rural uh rehab uh work. And when I say rural, I mean outside of the the city limits of Redwing um in the service area of SEMRA. A similar program is already in
existence with the Redwing HR. Um and in your packet, you will see a formal writeup that was presented um and approved by the Sumptra board. Um this money um that's being requested was
actually earmarked by the Good Hugh County Housing Trust Fund Subcommittee. Um and um that was earmarked about 3 years ago. Um our initial um plan was to create a
rural rehab with 100% payback. Um um concurrently um Bob was working on a program um within the city of Redwing and it it's a it is a tiered payback. Um use of housing trust fund dollars uh
require incomes to be at or below 80% um area median income. Uh Bob's program does too. And um this was a way um to demonstrate need um and also um test the waters for um setting up a program that
would partially revolve. The reason why we are um in front of of you today is because not all of the loan dollars would be approved. It is on a sliding scale based on income which is I believe on the second to the last page of your
packet. Um, I am going to um now turn it over to Bob to talk a little bit about the the program um and address any questions that you may have for him or the process. You can ask me questions as
well um regarding the process um of earmarking the money or the approvals at the sump board. >> Okay. Bob, state your name for the record. Sure. Is this on? >> I think it's on.
>> I'm Bob Holly, executive director for Goodie County Habitat for Humanity. And uh this home revitalization program that we've had in place for years has become uh more robust um with um a grant from uh
the state of Minnesota. We've hired a a construction manager who's in the process of getting his contractor license. Uh we've got a new van that we can u travel around the the county now to fix up people's homes and help them as needed. The program home
revitalization amounts to mainly critical home repair, doors, windows, um um roofing and so forth. And then aging in place, people that older people that want to stay in their home and uh as long as possible and remain there
safely. So, ramps, maybe a walk-in shower, those types of things. So, the the U applicants or the the people apply, everything we do fits into the 30 to 80% income
um area median income. So, um they apply, we review their application, we have income information that we use to judge um how we would handle this project for them. We approve the project
uh and then we proceed with a memorandum of understanding with the applicant and they understand going in that uh they may have to or they will be paying back some of the uh project costs and that those funds would go right back into the
the same pot they came out of to be used at a later date for uh future projects. So that's the way the program is set up in Redwing. uh they've uh the HA and the city have uh funded that program for
three years. Um so we're hoping that uh you'll see fit to fund uh this type of work outside of the Redwing city limits. >> Questions? >> I think this went through housing the
housing trust fund committee went through the SERA board. >> Correct. And now it's back to us. That's a lot of Captain May eyes. So, any questions?
Motion to go ahead. >> I'll move going ahead with the proposal as presented. >> Second. >> Been moved and seconded. We go ahead with the proposal as presented. Any further questions? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Oppos the same.
>> Thank you. Thank you for the work you do around county. >> Thank you. >> Thanks both. >> All right, next one is Ikqua Crew. >> Stacy Lance has this item. >> Okay. >> Good morning. >> Morning. Uh so in front of you is an
opportunity to uh give notice to the state of Minnesota to no longer um continue with the IQ program. So the institution community work uh crew contract. Uh if you recall we had the program and we had the sentence to serve program. Uh the state of Minnesota
eliminated the sentence to serve program. Um you as a county board chose to start our own sentence to serve program which is now up and running. Um, we have a current contract with the state of Minnesota for the work crew that comes out of the correctional facility. That's effective through June
30th, 2027. Um, we're giving the board the opportunity at this time to give notice to the state of Minnesota that we no longer need that crew, which we have for 20 hours a week since we have our own program implemented. Um, which then could reflect um some budget savings for
2026 uh and beyond. It's roughly uh $54,000 annually that we spend on that program. If the board is interested in that, um we'd be seeking that direction today and we would be giving the state of Minnesota notice that the program would
no longer be contracting as of 1231 2025. >> Question. Do you see downsides to uh terminating the county's involvement with that program? >> Um we don't. Uh we've had conversations amongst public works facilities and maintenance. Uh the 20 hours a week that
is provided to us work we feel uh will be picked up with a sentence to serve crews. Um whether it's juveniles or adults. >> Thank you. >> So what I'm hearing is that our us running sentence to serve, we're going to get more hours of work out of the
people who go into that program versus what we were getting when the state was running the program. Well, previously the state had 25% of that contract, you know, as far as sentence to serve. So, it was a it was a 7525 split as far as what the county got. The other thing
that we're doing is that we're taking a closer look at the work that the crews are actually doing. So, they'll be providing work for Goodyu County and, you know, showing us the cost savings of the work that they're doing for us, but also they've done work for other entities. They'll still be doing some of
that. Some of those include our outside agencies, but maybe more on a limited basis, but also what kind of work can be provided in the community communities um for the juveniles that pushes more on the restorative justice piece.
>> Go ahead. >> Do we supply that crew to the other agencies for free? >> We do not. So, if you are a levy authority, um this is actually going to come through on the fee schedule. This year, in the past, we've charged $200
for a full day for the sentence to serve crew, $100 for a half day, so either eight hours or four hours. We are um requesting to increase that fee on the fee schedule to $350 for a full day to 200 and $200 for a half day, I believe.
And that'll be effective in 2026. We have not adjusted that rate since 2013. >> Have is there a different cost to nonprofits? >> There is not. Um depending on the different work that needs to be done and the different
classifications of the individuals doing it. I believe we have some boundaries with juveniles whether or not we can charge for the work that's being done by the juveniles. I don't think that we can. No, we can't. So if juveniles are doing the work with the nonprofits, then we don't charge for those days.
>> So this would go into effect. Basically what you're saying, it's a $54,000 savings for 26 and half of that for 27. >> It' be 54,000 for 26 and 54,000 for 27.
>> I thought you said it ended in >> You're right. It end it would have ended in >> half a year of 27 >> been looking at renewing the contract. So that's correct. >> I'll make a motion to terminate the IQA contract effective December 31st, 2025.
>> Second. >> Moved and second that we terminate the contract with uh the state for IQUA crew. Any further discussion? Is there is there other entities that would pick up that IQA crew from?
>> So, currently with that crew leader and that contract, the city of Redwing holds the other 20 hours a week contract. Um, in full transparency, I had the conversation with the EQUIC supervisor um at the state of Minnesota and mentioned that this was going to be
coming in front of you today. They said that there is people asking for contracted time for crews. Um whether the city of Redwing would maybe choose to pick those two days up, there's other places in the state of Minnesota that are requesting work to be done, too. So,
they were aware of that this decision was being brought before the board today. >> Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say I. >> I. Motion carried. >> Thank you. Uh for your information,
uh new and old business, county access management and control ordinance. >> That's me. The our current access management ordinance does not seem specifically in the rural areas doesn't seem to meet the needs, desires, and wants of our a lot of the rural
taxpayers. So, I'm asking that we move it to the planning commission so they can re-evaluate it. Maybe it's perfect, maybe it's not, but see if they can possibly tweak it so it'll better serve our rural customers, rural taxpayers. That's my motion is to move the
ordinance to be re-evaluated in the planning commission. >> I'll second it. >> Been moved and seconded that we move uh have the county access management control ordinance evaluated by the planning commission.
Can I ask is that really the appropriate place for that to be evaluated? >> Well, that I kind of had that same question in my mind. It it's a little bit of in between public works and a little bit between land use management. So, and typically what we do is have
staff come up with options um and then present it. Um but I don't know Megan and Jake do you guys want to come up and just thoughts because it's it's man certainly the the accesses is managed in public works. >> Well and I think they put the original policy together. The planning
commission's charge is to deal with the zoning ordinance, not access, not roads, not it just doesn't seem like the right place nor the right jurisdiction for them to
be talking about. >> But I think those are all issues when we look at it as a planning. >> But you're referring it to a committee that doesn't have jurisdiction over it. That's where I that's what I'm what what I'm looking at. Their charge is not
road management. >> Well, and maybe to clarify, I'm not asking them to take it over, but the planning commission is made up of members of the county. I would much rather have them. I don't know. They look at all their other ordinances and
stuff, zoning or whatever issues. So, it's a bigger issue. And I guess that body, that planning commission, I feel would be very well verssed in looking at it because of the rural makeup of a lot of the members, the communication that those members have with other people of
the rural. It seems to be a rural issue. They don't have to re they're not going to redo it. They still have to follow regulations and stuff we do. I think it would be a better voice committee that would be able to evaluate the situation and better give this board >> seems more seems more fitting to go to
the land committee >> than it does to zoning which is which is totally around zoning. Go ahead. >> Who did it the first time in 2006? Well, it was adopted by the county
board, but it was it was done with through the um public works, >> I believe, >> and >> public works >> public works. Mindot was involved. Other counties were involved
um in how we wrote that to meet the um regulations around accesses and all of that. >> Okay. Go ahead, whoever wants to go. I >> I think I can start. As I mentioned, I
think this was done uh through public works last time. I think Greg Isacson was the one that primarily spearheaded it. Um so, with that in mind, I I mean, I think there's probably some validity to it going through land committee um and ultimately through public works, but I
can defer to Megan on the ordinance piece of it. >> Um my Well, first I'm still getting to know the planning advisory committee and kind of where their areas of expertise are. I would say zoning is what they're
primarily focused on. Um, putting an access control management in front uh ordinance in front of them would take some education. Um, I'm I'm absolutely willing to present it to them. I mean, it's not an issue. If it's if I'm directed by the board, no problem. Um,
the way I read the ordinance is it feels like it's um, changes would need to be really recommended by somebody who has some background in in traffic engineering and traffic control. Um, but where land use can overlap, it I think
is when we're reviewing new conditional uses, variances, plats, um, that to me is a good time to look at um, well, how many accesses do you have? Um, and that is something that, you know, maybe gets incorporated. Maybe there's an overlap
in departments down the road. Maybe the ordinance states that when a land use application comes in, part of that review is, are you still reviewing all your or still using all your access points? How are they used? Um, and the purpose there would be to correct, you
know, decades old issues essentially and catch um, presumably new ones because I think what I've heard the board say is they want the ordinance to be equitable where, you know, your neighbor down the road maybe has three or four access
points, but the new access is being scrutinized. Um, and so the way we can catch that is through, you know, when a new application comes in, we we sort of evaluate them. Um, but yeah, I I guess I mean, I'm
willing to take on whatever the board directs, but I would question the traffic engineering kind of technical knowhow how of the planning commission. would the public works uh refer back to planning advisory? I mean, is there I
mean, I understand the tech technical side of it and the engineering side of it, but you know, what I'm looking at there's there's some situations that are it's pretty practical that this would work, you know, but you know, how how
can we find a a and I know we did a variance on this last one. I mean if we'll never be able to avoid variances people are going to ask but uh how much is that consideration taken into um
>> the consideration of future variances >> yeah the situation of right somebody comes in and asks for a variance versus what was here I mean whether all any of this is going to change I don't But somehow I want to find it
easier for a person in the country to start a business to have the access and and I understand safety is an issue and and I think that was the reason why we did this because supposedly they were loading out on the road is what we were
told. But what uh I don't know it's just it's it's gray to me. I I want to work with people. I I look at at this and saying, "Whoa, no, we're not going to work with people." And uh is that is there a way to soften
that? >> Well, I mean, certainly from public works standpoint, what we would recommend for modifications to this would have to be based on something, whether it's Mandot, whether it's um the
Ashtto Green Book, uh which has a bunch has several guidelines. uh we we would ultimately look to have a basis for whatever modifications we make to the ordinance. Um whether that satisfi whether that eases more variance
requests or not, I don't know. Um but that would be our first step would be to check the ordinance today for conformance with state and federal guidelines that are effective as of now. Well, I think what you're basically what
Todd, you're probably in the same boat that I'm at, is that if all things being equal, if one individual wants to because of expansion in their farm, expansion of a business, wants to put a secondary driveway 100 yards away from their current driveway, which has no line of sight, has no safety issues based on our current current ordinance
writing, it's not allowed. and you being in the country, me being in the country, driving throughout the roads, you can say it is done, has been done, continues to be done, defies logic and common sense, maybe I'm interpreting not what you're saying, but that's where I'm looking for is that we very on the
current ordinance. You cannot do that. No if ends or buts about it. Public works directors up here said you can't do it. Not for financial reasons, economic, any other reasons you can't do it. Ordinance says you can't do it. And what I'm seeing and what people in the
rural area are asking and looking for, we should be able to do this because it has been done. It's continued to be done. There's not a safety issue involved in it. Common sense dictates we should be able to be should be able to be done. That's what I would like to see with the change of the ordinance.
>> I'm I'm not opposed to looking at it. I just don't think land usees or planning commission is the right place. I think land committee and public works is the right place to look at it. I I the people who work on the planning
commission have enough stuff to deal with and they're dealing with a big ordinance right there. This has different imp implications. I think I said it at the last meeting. Once a driveway is put in, it becomes
county property to take care of. And you may not think a driveway is a is an impediment on the road, but when you go off the road and hit that driveway with your car, you're now airborne. You're not just going to end up in the ditch.
So, there are implications that the the books you talk about and the statute or the the guidelines you talk about are why we have this. And it was adopted in 2006. And you can go back and look at at
zoning maps back a long ways before that on our website and you will find multiple places where there's more than one driveway and they're too close together. Obviously, that's why in 2006, somebody said, "We got to slow this
train down and come up with some more guidelines that don't end up with us having that many more driveways to maintain long term for the county because once it's in, it's ours. We have to put the culverts in. We have to fix them. If
there's a drainage issue, it's ours. It's not the land owner. It's ours." and the public probably doesn't want to have that many. So that's why I think they come up in 2006 and did this because they saw that problem. So I'm not
opposed to looking at it. But I don't think the planning commission is the right place to go. They have enough on their plate with with that and it doesn't really go through the variance process at board of adjustment. They are dealing with a different animal than
this. I think it needs to go to the land committee and if that's where it needs to go then let's evaluate it there. I'm not sure if the land committee what that's made up of that they're any more experienced in access than public than the planning commission but either which
way or we can simply give it to public works to have it and I stated what my objective is what my that I think the taxpayers want if you folks agree which I would I don't assume that you're going to but the objective so if you we want to get to a point where public works
brings it back to us with that stated goal in mind if my fellow commissioners agree with me that that is a stated goal We don't have to go to a committee. We can give it to public works to >> reevaluate. The >> stated goal is to get more accesses. >> No.
>> Well, that's what I'm hearing. What What is the stated goal? >> To allow an individual to have access to their property when it's all all things being equal is feasible. It's not a safety issue. If I add on you, we can use Mr. Bcher's example. Okay. I think
it's ridiculous that anybody that we're looking at it, there's not a safety issue involved in road travel, anything that that anybody has shown us. Public works hasn't shown us. It's just not compliance with the current ordinance. >> Okay. >> So, why can't I have it 400 ft apart?
Why do I have to have it 550 ft apart? And nobody showed me or told me why that 400 ft other than it's in violation of the ordinance. What's wrong with the 400 ft? So, that is my stated objective. If we can get to that through public works giving us redirection on it, I'm all I'm
all for it. Linda, >> just following up and going back to Mr. Bcher's issue, the then the co cover culvert that he put in >> that has nothing to do with it. >> Well, then wouldn't the county
>> No, we're I'm talking about reevaluating the ordinance. I'm just We can use Mr. Bcher as his placement as an example. Nothing to do with how or what he did on the driveway. I just >> But if I follow up on what Brad's saying, then would it have been the county's responsibility to put in the
culvert? >> No. No. The when someone you can allow and that's what the permit does allows someone to put a culvert in a and a driveway that attaches to our road to our specs.
>> Yeah. And after that's in and it meets all the qualifications, it becomes county property to take care of it from then till per perpetuity. So every time someone puts in a driveway, whether it's for a house, whether it's for a business, whether
it's for a a residence or I mean a farm or just to get into a field. Once it's put in, the the owner pays for it. But from then on, the county's job is to take care of it and manage it and
replace the culvert when it rots out. And all of those costs are bore by the county residents, not by the owner >> and the additional maintenance on it, adding rock and things like that. >> We don't have to add rock to an approach.
>> If we if we reo the road, we're going to have to add rock to there. Yeah. If they want more rock on their own, I would say they probably can. But it's not if it's not a safe access, then it's our job
from right away to road for us to take care of it. Typ typically when we do a resurfacing or reconstruction project on any road um we'll either on a resurfacing project will either refresh the rock on these approaches oftent times um and then a reconstruction
project will completely rebuild them at our cost. >> So there's a that's why I think I don't think um planning commission is the right place for it. That's I'm not opposed to
looking at it. I'm opposed to going into it with a preconceived notion we're going to change it. I think we need to evaluate whether it needs to be changed. >> You know, I'm not sure where the right place is, but I think having members of the public be participating in the
discussion is important. So, if if that's not what the land committee is, that way. I I think the planning commission would that. And I believe right now it's the same access rules whether you're on a county gravel road
that has very little traffic or you're on a county state aid highway. Putting in a farm road that gets used a few times a year. So, I'm I'm thinking that it's a one-sizefits-all and certainly a gravel road where
there's not much traffic and even >> the the primary the primary thing that differentiates the spacing for accesses is speed. >> Well, but the speed limit on a gravel road is still 55, I believe. But I think if you looked at the average speeds on
those gravel roads, they aren't anywhere near 55. And I think if you looked in a county state 8 highway, they're probably over 55. >> Correct. >> Um, and so then also I'd like some information about whether there really are accidents at these um, you know, there's places I think about my
husband's farm and where his co comes to the road, there's three driveways within, you know, 20 feet of each other and to my knowledge there's never been an accident there. That's one example. But I would just like information. It's really safety that I'm most concerned
about. And if uh putting more accesses on a gravel road really doesn't increase, if there's no documentation of that, I'd feel differently about it. >> We we can certainly generate um
crash histories for corridors, you know, from from the past. Uh, I would simply mention that anytime you add an access, you're intro you're introducing conflict points on the roadway. Um, which in and of itself introduces
potential for increased potential for crashes, which in theory lowers safety. >> So to me, I'd like to let people use their land in the the best way for them possible and not ignore safety. But
everything has some risk. So that's just life. >> So if nothing is done or nothing changes this, the only way to they a land owner would have to come with asking for a variance like evaluated at that time and said okay
we'll grant you a variance or not. >> But I think you're supposed to meet all the criteria. So I think the question is is that really right on a gravel road that gets 10 cars a day for me. The safety was the biggest
concern. So the ongoing cost doesn't matter. >> My experience in the country is limited. I'm thinking about all the farmers I know that have multiple accesses and to my knowledge the countyy's never been uh
asked to do anything with them. doesn't mean it's, you know, maybe >> just were on the road tour and saw one that wanted us to do something. >> We did, but so I'm talking about >> we don't hear about it, but they do. >> I'm talking about the dozen people or so I know and what they say and that's a
small sample size and not statistically significant, but >> we don't hear about all the stuff that public works has to do. So >> there's a motion on the table to put it. Scott wants. I >> just gonna say some sometimes when these things come up and they don't fit somewhere good, we create a committee. And to me, this sounds like the time
when you should probably do that. And typically, you'd probably have Jake and Megan and and J Jess on that plus two commissioners. And I would probably suggest that Jason would be one of them. Uh but to study this issue and come back with a recommendation and the ordinance process does have to come back through
this body. So, >> and it does have to have a public hearing. >> Oh, yeah. So, we have a motion. Send it to planning commission. I Okay. So, looking at it from 2006, I
would say it definitely could stand to be looked at again since it's been 20 years. I also don't know where the best place for it is to go. And I think maybe following up with what Scott said specificity with the right people to
look at it. >> That's fine. I just wanted more the reason the planning commission was and Todd you can maybe identify that too is that that was made up of individuals throughout the county. I don't know what the land committee is made up of for that or that it belong. But I thought getting more of a voice of rural people
on that committee was where it belonged to give more of an opinion to this board to make that decision. And again, like I said, I don't the safety issue is going to be there no matter what we do. They don't have to be experts in the ordinance, but I believe if you were able to get more of an opinion or assessment from people in a rural area
that this is not unusual. It's not and that's what they want. That's what their desire is to do that. But I'm fine with forming our own committee to specifically study and get. But that again, that is my objective. I think that's where the citizens want us to be
or to get to. So if my fellow commissioners don't agree, then we don't even have the committee. So >> I know we have a couple of uh pack committee members that I definitely would want to be on this and that's where when Jason but you know there are
there's some definitely qualified people to look at this situation but there's several that wouldn't be qualified to look at this. So, you know, so if we and that's my feeling, but we could uh Yeah, maybe that's the way to start is start
as a committee instead of running it right through the or would it be better to run it through the planning commission first just with the impression of what we have and it gets kind of convoluted either which way. So, >> guess I would as we've been talking now I would say let's hold off
So, are you okay with resending the motion? Your second? >> Yep. I will resend my >> I will make a new motion that we form a new committee to study the control county access management. >> Second board members and
some citizens. It's going to be rather challenging to >> you're going to you need to kind of specify what the makeup is so that appointments can happen. >> No, cuz I then that's not the more
because to try people have things to do during a day. The planning commission already has people appointed to it. So I'm no I have no interest in appoint making new if you want to make a new committee with two board members and three staff members. Fine. But as to trying to pull people
>> out of the public, >> two board members and two staff members. >> Makes no sense. >> Two board members. At least two board members and two staff members. >> Three staff. >> Three staff. >> Okay. Is that where you want it to go? >> That's fine. Yes. >> All right. Is there a second to that?
>> Second that. >> All right. Any further discussion? >> All those in favor say I. >> I. The same. >> Okay. who who in addition to Jason wants to be on it. >> I'll do it. >> Jason and Todd.
>> Thank you, >> Megan. Just just for clarity, >> that's the right one. >> And part of the reason I didn't want >> I can do it. >> Part of the reason you have more things to to do with the planning commission. you're going to start studying um the
ordinances around density, but not really around density, more about we're getting all these plats, we're getting all these splits and and is our subdivision ordinance correct? Is there some ability and you're forming a
committee for that out of the pack to do that too? >> Correct. U Mr. chair. Uh what I've been looking at kind of over the last year and just sort of highlighting areas in our ordinance where there's maybe um where the language is ambiguous, where
the maybe where staff isn't interpreting it one way, the public is consistently interpreting it a different way. Um and or instances where there could be more um cohesion between the subdivision ordinance and the zoning ordinance.
specifically as it relates to the subdivision of land, platting of land. And then add on top of that, I have some planning advisory commissioners. Um, and I would would say some members of the board of adjustment who hear variances who have sort of noted there's areas
that it's probably time to look at in the ordinance. Um, specifically related to residential density and whether or not homes can be built. Um, I would say the the preference that I'm hearing is is there ways that we can allow more
homes to be built without reszoning to R1. So, I have a list of I don't know eight to 10 sort of topics and I'm looking I actually spoke to a a member of the board of adjustment
yesterday um uh Commissioner Reichel who is interested in spearheading this and helping kind of >> articulate the concerns he hears. We have a lot of diversity out in the county and there's several townships that won't want any more homes and then
there's some close to our communities that, you know, they they want to definitely add housing. So, there's there's definitely differences. That was part of part of the reason why I didn't want to give you another task for that group because you're already going to be
pulling from them for that committee to some degree. >> Yeah, I'm still trying to define scope. so it doesn't become too massive of a project and then just die collapse under its own weight. Um but yeah, there's some things that I think maybe have not been looked at in a while and the county
has maybe, you know, things have changed in townships. Things have changed with demographics. Certainly things have changed with the economy and the cost of building. >> All right. Uh committee reports Okay, actually this is kind of following
up with um what Megan was talking about. The housing summit in Redwing was last week and the housing shortage is negatively affecting economic development. The cost of building has
gone up 50% in five years. Um, if you want to try and build a $250,000 house, you need an $81,000 income. And a $400,000 house requires $129,000
income. So, one of the things that was suggested was connecting with employers to be able to find out what is the average income of not your average employer employee,
but at least you'll find out what can they afford so that you've got so that we're educating employers about housing as well. And then the last thing was the importance of explaining what affordable
housing is to the public. And maybe that is something that um eventually the communication people between the different cities and the county, we can all get on the same page with a marketing
thing of what you what we say to explain what affordable housing is. affordable versus >> wellce versus there's so many definition >> there's subsidized >> which of course is what so many people
think is affordable housing and um workforce housing but that's different affordable housing is workforce housing but you got to know how much money your workers are being paid and then there's market rate and Then
I've got attached single family too. But um anyway, it's a very convoluted >> housing's complicated. Any other committee reports? >> Just a comment. Uh Buffy was on here
earlier today from um the HA. She has formally retired from that job. She's hired back in a contract basis for a while. Um we had uh meeting yesterday and picked candidates to replace her. We
will be doing interviews in uh December with those candidates and hopefully have somebody in place shortly after the first of the year. Anybody else? claims. >> Motion to pay the bills. >> Second.
>> Been moved and second we pay the claims. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> The same. Motion carries. Is there a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Been moved and second we adjourn. All those in favor say I.
>> I. The same carries. will take.