--------- don't want to add anything on that just let it be okay have you talked to Susan no okay all right uh we will call our February 4th meeting to order we're a few minutes late we had a really hot
topic about snowmobile trails that we were talking about so please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance Al to the flag of the United States of America stands all right we are in session uh
disclosures of Interest are there any seeing none we'll move on to previous board meeting minutes motion to approve berer second move and seconded to approve the minutes as presented all those in favor say I I
close the same motion carries review the agenda any changes there are no changes no changes to the agenda is there a motion to approve so moved second been moving second to approve the agenda as presented all those in favor say I iose the same
motion carries consent agenda there are six items I'll move the consent agenda forward I'll second been moved in second to approve the consent agenda all six items all those in favor say I I I
oppose the same motion carries uh finance and taxpayers city of redwing Tiff proposal morning Commissioners good morning uh so this next item on here um this is
regarding a proposed Tiff uh District within the city of redwing uh we had received notice on January 25th 20 or January 25th 2025 um as required by law uh the Tiff information was distributed
to the board on January 28th via email um and to be discussed at this board meeting um just as an FYI the board can take no official action on this this is just purely an FYI item um so you are
aware of this uh item so as outlined in the notification the city of redwing is proposing a 25-year Redevelopment Tiff that encompasses five Parcels uh all these par Parcels are within the downtown area of redwing um the specific
buildings are the former hallstrom floral building the old Chief theater building the eagle house building the former Riverfront building and the former malter building um these buildings would either be removed or redeveloped and would
create a total of 149 new residential units as well as approximately 37,000 ft of retail restaurants or other entertainment space um
the County taxes collected for these Parcels for pay 2024 was only uh about $ 13,825 um which under the current Tiff law if these are entered into we would continue to collect that through the entire length of uh of this agreement
um the proposed Tiff is expected to generate a total of $377,450 annually through the three major taxing jurisdictions that would be uh the county of good Hue the city of redwing and the local school district of which
$131,800 um it's expected to go to goodu County Alone um more information can be found in the uh lengthy uh analysis provided by their contractor um again there this is an fii
item there is not um much that the board can really do with this the board by Statute can adopt standard questions to ask the city of redwing um if we don't have standard questions you can come up um or you can request additional
information um these comments must be submitted with 30 within 30 days of receipt um the commissioner who represents this area um can um submit written comments as well um so again after the report
there's the official notification letter the Tiff analysis provided by Baker Tilly I provided photos of all those properties as well as the pay 24 tax statements for those five properties the city is scheduled to have a public
hearing on Monday February 24th at about 6 PM if you're interested in attending um again other than that uh staff doesn't see any issues with this Redevelopment project however if the board uh does have any significant
comments concerns questions uh let staff know and we can forward those on to the city questions I just have one go ahead well I just have a question it's just because I'm still trying to understand tips and how they work so it's nothing more than
that but um the amount of tax we collect stays numerically just the same even as inflation occurs and that kind of thing so we we not only don't capture the increased value which I understand but we don't see any inflationary increase
either is that correct that's correct the dollar Mount would stay over the life of the agreement then once the agreement is done it's decertified then we would start reing that I understand I just want to make sure that I was understanding that correctly that's correct thank you y my question was as
to the projections projections are based on today's tax rate taken out to after the Project's done and said this is what the tax rate is and that's what you'll collect is that
correct uh that's my understanding is there's not a there's nothing that talks about um any tax rate change for the school for the city for the county they all stay the same I believe it's the the
set tax rate that's kind of the way that's kind of the way I read it in Baker Tilly's um information so any other questions right anybody want to pose any question
to the city to answer seeing none uh item two draft Financial policies hold on you might have to switch microphones they're not hearing you I think I shut it
off nice yes so good morning we'll start again um for you I have the 2025 um Goodhue County financial policies the finance department reviews their policies and submits them to the board for review and approval on an
annual basis within our financial policies we currently have nine separate policies that include fixed assets Capital planning Investments debt management fund balance purchasing Federal
procurement cash handling and Banking and payment card acceptance for 2025 there have been a few changes and I'm going to go through those right now we have updated the scope section of the fixed asset policy and the vehicle
and Equipment replacement section within the capital planning policy these updates are to conform with the new guidance provided by the governmental Accounting Standards Board about capitalization of assets and the aggregate cost of assets acquired
together the second change was to the Improvement expenditure amount um we updated that to $2500 in the capital budget section of the capital planning policy the amount was increased from $1,000 to align the
policy with changing costs and the last change was the National Credit Union Administration has been added to the authorized depositories diversification safekeeping and custody of securities colle
erization in internal control section within the investment policies to conform with permiss permissable Investments under Minnesota statute and by periodically having the Board review and approve the financial
policies that serves three purposes it allows new Commissioners the opportunity to review and understand the policies serves as a refresher to longstanding Commissioners and shows the County's independent auditor and other financial consultants and rating agencies that the
County board reviews its Financial policies on a regular basis and takes Financial stewardship very seriously it is our recommendation that the goodu County Board approve the
2025 goodu County financial policies as presented questions ahead so under number two scope the second paragraph it talks about um examples include computers and
Firearms yes if I understand from our Tech committee meeting um while John and his office are working on the list of computers and all the equipment that we have I think that's something that's
ongoing or not completed so when they do that do they get the information to you then so that you have the listing of what computers that there are correct we have a software system
that they maintain that the finance department has access to that we can view all of that information that they they put in that system any other questions since these were drafted a few
years back and we had policies but these are just really good you guys you know it's a really good system and I really appreciate the work on it and I really app appreciate getting it brought forward so we review it and just like that process we're
using well I I do appreciate reviewing it because without it coming to the board I wouldn't read through all of the policies and so I appreciate that thank you there a motion to adopt them motion to adopt the financial policy
second Mo second we adopt the financial policies as presented with the limited changes that were made any further discussion hearing n all those in favor say I I same motion
carries Public Works updated 5-year Bridge plan good morning Commissioners morning here today to talk about several items related to Road bridges in goodu County including our last item that is a public
hearing to discuss local optional sales tax eligible project most of you were uh in attendance at Saturday's Township offic meeting so you got a sneak peek at uh some of the projects that we have planned um but this first item we're
here to talk about our 5-year bridge program um annually we bring this in front of the board uh and then we provide our resolution to the state of Minnesota uh so they can get a good sneak peek of of what we're looking at for funding needs most of the structures
in the program consist of Township Bridges uh in terms of this update to the program the last 5year program that was approved by the County Board on on February 6 of 2024 six of those structures on that list were replaced uh
and one is in the process of being replaced and that's the l2510 structure in the city of Pine Island that bridge also has uh Federal funding uh tied to it two of the structures were moved from 2028 to 27 one moved from 27 to 28 and
one move from 2027 to 2029 that's a uh net effect of the LPI the local planning index number changing uh over time I like to take a look at um what's happening with the bridge so if we see more substantial changes in the LPI um
we try to move those bridges up to get replac sooner uh the bridge is stagnant and holding uh firm then you we'll tend to push that one out a little further if we can so we work on uh agreements with the townships uh kind of two years ahead
of time so we can stay in front of the design process and Survey process that that needs to take place that way when funding becomes available we can advocate for that and and uh fund these structures so with the moves we also saw
five new additions to the program with one being placed in 2028 and the remaining four structures in 2029 uh as a point of information the proposed program includes all of the county structures that were El ible um
for for this year uh it amounts to 10 Bridges um two of these structures are being funded in part by federal monies made available through through uh competitive grant opportunities so those are federal dollars uh we also Advocate
strongly for bridge bond dollars and we have been the recipient of those as you uh May well know because we bring those agreements in front of the board to approve as well so uh Grant uh those those bridge bond Grant dollars or lbrp local bridge replacement program dollars
are uh they've been exhausted at the state so uh when we're advocating for legislative action we need to advocate for for additional bonding dollars to to put into that program because it it certainly benefits us and and our local
Partners uh one of the notes on the report uh the last two structures one's in Featherstone Township one's in Leon Township they no number Bridges uh and that's because the uh current um structure that's in place does not meet
the definition of a bridge in Minnesota um you have to have a bridge that spans 10 feet uh to be considered um while not considered a bridge presently the hydraulic information that's come back would size it as a bridge so we work
with the state on those um they they become Bridges and then we can replace them utilizing Township Bridges so an lt10 that just stands for less than 10 uh the 2025 Bridge replacement priority list is showing there with
estimated costs and locations um and with that I I would entertain any questions from the board questions go ahead um L 0415 and 41 six on Welch
those are the two culverts says you come down seven yes that we've talked about in the past right yep all right and just confirming you're going to keep in contact with Welch Township because you were going to do both of those at the
same time which means that section of the road's going to be closed and people have to go around right yes yep for a short period of time these structures uh the replacement of them uh will be with box covers not an actual uh formative
Bridge like you would normally think of so the replacement will be a lot quicker but yes there will be a detour uh for a short period of time which is why we plan both of them uh back to back so we only have to have that Interruption once right just the other structure on
seven in 25 going to mean you can't go from Vasa to Welch correct you have to go something and come down Sunset Trail past that bridge and then go into Welch
we will we're we're working on both sides of Welch with this one kind of right kind of right in Welch with the two but but the the first one's going to probably take a little longer to get in yes in 25 do you or anyone else have an ability
to come to one of the Welch Township meetings just to explain to them your detail plan so that they are well aware of it yep thank you y certainly it it it could be that the March meeting would be a good time to come that's the annual
meeting so then there's residents there too if that works any other questions on the program or is there a motion to accept the program as presented move to accept second secondly we accept the bridge
program as presented any further discussion hearing none all those in favor say I I I oppose motion carries fiveyear County Highway construction program all right so again um staff is
in front of the board to discuss uh The Five-Year County Highway program it changes annually as as funding changes uh and as we finish projects our 2025 program uh includes the following grading on our County Road 2 which has
been bid out and awarded and uh tree clearing operations should start within the next few weeks and then that bridge replacement that we just previously discussed uh on County Road 7 that's structure 25530 uh and a bridge replacement on
Casa 8 which is structure 25516 25 construction program consists of grading and Bridge replacement projects amongst others um well not many projects in the county system for 25 the county road 2 project is going to
constitute the majority of our time given it's a rather large grading project um we'll start with tree removals uh creating last I mean everything's weather dependent as we all know um we still have 2024 carryover
projects that need to be completed uh early in the year but most of that consists of turf establishment and just final final cleanup on on those projects uh while the 2024 update provided a few new additions to the 5-year program the 2025 update includes
several new projects these projects were able to be added due to the federal funds that we received for the casa 11 project uh in in the 2028 program other savings have been realized through competitive bids that we've received as well as the addition of a
new year in the program and the funding associated with that year uh we were able to add 14 new projects uh to this 5year program that's being present presented these projects combined for an estimated value of just over $17 million
and are programmed in Year's 2027 through 2029 overall goody county has a total estimated value of projects over the 5year program uh just over $72 million so we have a lot of work in front of us uh as always just remember this is a
living document the further we go out in the program the less uh reliable it is you know depending on what happens with econ iies and and uh how fast we can actually deliver the projects so with that uh on the on the
second third page of the report towards bottom under the recommendations is um a table showing all of the projects on the county road system uh and in which year and the estimated costs and some of the the funding that's associated with that
you'll see in 2025 we have an estimated $8.5 Million worth of work 2026 we ran that up dramatically to 16.7 million and uh beyond that uh we we have another three rather large years
so options for the board to consider revise the program before we approve um or you can approve the five-year construction program as presented allowing staff to present the program to the public and prepare plans to deliver the projects for construction so with
that I'll entertain questions from the board question none one thing I'll comment that it is nice to see that we're grading roads and fixing safety on roads and doing it the right way I just was a lot of years
where that construction budget was 67 million 6 million 5 million it was not getting anything done with we were band-aiding and fixing roads but not really upgrading and making sure and
we all know the traffic on County Roads is not what the traffic on County Roads was 25 years ago everything that's farmed to Market is H in a semi every piece of equipment that goes down the road for Farmers hangs over the
edge of the road and is driving right down the shoulder right down that edge of that asphalt and it's starting to show on some of these roads that are too narrow and it's cracking the edges off and we need to stay ahead of that the economy is not going to change it's
going to continue to be that kind of equipment going down the road and milk truck got replaced with garbage trucks so that's still the traffic's still out there it's just a change traffic so it's nice to see that we're
getting we're staying ahead of the curve a little bit with that so on a test to the the board's um actions over the years is the county has one of the most robust 10 ton networks that I've seen at least in our district so that that
allows our Farm to Market traffic to get where they need to be without being detoured uh so much and then taking an aggressive approach to replacing our County structures especially those that are uh eligible and have load postings uh is also very prudent so we'll
continue to to tackle all of that as as best we can what's your wishes move to approve a second been moved and second I we approve the five-year proposed construction project
knowing full well it will be modified um any further discussion all those in favor say I I I hold the same motion carries local option sales taxs all right the last the last last item that I
have for the board to consider today is um a discussion on the local optional sales tax and the possibility of a public hearing on an annual basis uh we present the the updated 5-year Road and Bridge program that addresses all the issues that we have with our County
infrastructure these programs are driven by funding uh issues that arise during the year and changes and what is happening with the industry as it relates to market trends uh obviously these are very fluid documents which is why why we we review them on an annual basis 2025 is no
exception especially with inflationary pricing that we've experienced uh since CO as programs change and new projects are added uh there's always a need to review that list of lost eligible projects updating this list ensures that the dollars that are collected you know
can be spent on on what we're working on in that 5-year program during the last um uh time that that we discussed this with the board the list of lost eligible projects was updated over the last year we've added several projects to the
program the 2025 uh Highway construction projects that are highlighted indicate their loss funding eligibility that list is on on one of the next the third page of the report uh so today we're here to ask the County Board approve a new list
of uh eligible projects utilizing these proceeds collected through the local optional sales tax uh Alternatives would include adopting this list uh to use revenues uh that are generated from the local optional sales
tax or seek funding from other sources or take no action and continue to work from the approved list of projects that we had in 2024 adoption of a revised lost project list requires a public hearing notice of this public hearing was published on the County's website
and in the Kenyon leader on January 22nd as well as several of the other local newspapers around that that same time frame after the public hearing and considering public comment a resolution containing a list of projects that would be eligible for funding is needed to utilize dollars from the local optional
sales tax These funds cannot be used for maintenance paying staff buying equipment or other purposes so with that um are there any questions that I can answer from the board before entering into a public hearing questions a motion to open a public
hearing motion to open public hearing second been mov second we go into a public hearing for lost consideration of the list of local option sales tax um projects any further discussion all
those in favor say I I I the same motion carries we are in a public hearing for the list of possible inclusion for local option sales tax project
anyone like to comment anyone who would like to comment third and final time anyone who would like to comment on the local option sales tax list of
projects we close public hearing second second let's move in second that we close the public hearing any further discussion hearing none all those in favor say I iose the same motion carries we are back what is
the board's wishes on this item I would move that we accept the uh list of projects for the local option sales tax as presented second mooving second in we accept the list as presented for local
option sales tax eligible projects any further discussion hearing none all those in favor say I I I oppose the same motion carries thank you I would ask that the board approve the attached resolution as
well so I I it's kind of a two-part action in case there were items that were changed so the second part would just be to attach resolution is at the end is there a motion to approve that um make a motion to approve the attached
resolution second and mo second we approve the resolution has presented any further discussion hearing none all those in favor say I I oppose the same unanimous good work thank you thank you
very much Human Resources wages for summer help and interns welcome all right I think you're all well aware at this point that over the summer months we employ staff to do certain projects a lot of times we refer
to them as as summer help and statute limits us to 100 Days with those individuals if they meet the criteria of being underage 22 and a continuing student um if not we can have them for 67 days it's been a couple years since we
have looked at the starting wages for Sumer helpers and of course um the challenges that we experience in the labor market for our full-time position um hit this area as well um I can tell you that last summer we had positions where we had no applicants and where we
had insufficient applicants and so um we did reach out to our compensation consultant for some guidance on setting summer help wages and so um those recommendations are outlined in this report and so um what's before you is
recommendations to change the starting pay for both summer help as well as for internships and so the proposal before you is in line with previous proposals but we've also included an alternative to
consider rather than bringing this back um on an annual or semi or you know every two-year basis um but to consider putting Sumer help on the existing pay grade at um salary grade
101 and so those proposals are before you for your consideration today questions so I'm to assume when you say put them on pay grade 101 you have a pay range there
um no one would stay on 101 long enough to get to $30 it would be a fouryear or or an intern would be at the beginning you would decide how long that internship would be so no one would ever
get out that far no would make it easier to a certain degree go ahead well under the alternative It also says though that there could be the authorizing of hiring up to step
eight um for the interns I certainly support the increase in in Pay but I don't necessarily support the putting it over onto grade 101 and
putting it on the great pay grid I I tend to agree with Linda I don't think it's a hardship to review this every couple of years um and this is a pretty significant increase for people okay any other comments go ahead Scott
yeah the only thing the two things I was going to point out on the alternative um is is is one there's there are no employees on that grade number so this um you know in in previous pay scales we were always concerned about uh that we'd be bumping up against where other
employees are at and and there are no employees in this in this grade um and then secondarily that uh that last sentence there when it say talks to go up to step eight that's that's the policy but I mean there' be no intention that it in in turn would ever be
starting that high so um the high the highest level we do start is if they're actually uh in the county attorney's office and there they're required um you know to have two years of full Law School in so they're like this far away from being a practicing attorney uh and
having their doctorate in their jurist doctorate so just two comments on that um on that last alternative well then if you're looking at it if we're putting them on the pay grade they'd be better off going back to the hourly rate than they would be going on at
1952 is if we're going to start them back here at 23 to 25 if it is a law or doctorate well the but the the the legal the uh the any intern that would have two years of law school and we wouldn't be starting them
at the bottom we'd be we'd look a rate that would be closer to what is outlined in Jessica's memo somewhere in that 23 to 25 um and and one thing that uh it wasn't mentioned but Jessica did go out and look at where other internships and
stuff are and I can tell you that if you're you know you can go on the AMC website and you go to the league of Minnesota cities and if we're paying underneath where everybody else is um you know we just won't get applicants and that's part of what happened last year but is the recommended hourly
compensation you know of the technical undergrad 18 to 22 is that competitive yeah so the the numbers you proposed are competitive I'm assuming yeah yeah there's there's lots of variation out there you know what type of position it is those are in
L what's words wishes I'll make a motion that we increase the hourly rate based upon uh for summer interns based upon the first part of the memo
that does that include the summer help change too is it summer help and interns sorry summer help is the top one and interns is the lower one yep thank you're approving both of those yes okay for the first part not the second part the alternative okay it's the first one
I'm seconding that all right been moved and seconded we adopt the recommended summer help rate and the hourly rates for interns any further discussion all those in favor say I I I
oose carries thank you all right uh you have some Capital plan reports fourth quarter financials project status any new or old
business um Steve would you like to discuss what we looked at at the Planning Commission or would you want to bring that up at a different time about the wording I'm trying to remember the details of that other than I know one of
the Planning Commission members had some questions regarding uh the language in the finding sections of the report that comes to the board for adoption and I'm reviewing that with uh our land use director and I think we'll have a recommendation
for the board um I think there were some valid points made in the comments from that particular member and uh again I'll review that with Miss Smith and I'll have a recommendation for the board and will it be something that we need to approve a change to how they report that
or is that something that the Planning Commission and staff will initiate and start doing I think it'll be something that the the staff will just start incorporating into their reports and basically the issue is
with regard to the findings as you know the ordinance has a list of specific findings that the Board needs to make in order to approve a conditional use permit the reports that have been coming to the board have a slight variation of just a couple words um deviation from
what's actually written in the ordinance itself and I think the recommendation from that particular uh member of the Planning Commission was to mirror the the ordinance language a little more closely in those findings and I I tend
to agree with that recommendation you're talking about the land the zoning ordinance or are you talking about State Statute a zoning ordinance zoning ordinance which follows State Statute yes okay I I think it's it's like you saying it's like a softening it appears
that everything is being followed right you know and likely but or supposed to will not I think uh I think they want it means the same I think the language they're using means the same thing but it it just doesn't I think the recommendation is usually to try to mirror the ordinance language uh
precisely and these type of findings is probably a safer bit so it hasn't been an issue in the past that I'm aware of um because the board has been that language has been proposed to the board for as long as I can remember um but again I think the point uh from that
particular member of the Planning Commission was is valid and I think we should consider changing it kind of the different correct I read through some of it and I think also the issue of findings of fact should be facts not opinions right
yeah in the past there's been discussion between the difference of May shall and must right exactly that kind of thing here what so there is yeah there is that question so okay good anything
else committee report go ahead so I was um up at the at Association Minnesota counties and at the board of directors meeting Bill
Sterns from wadina wadina wadina County uh this is following up on H uh HHS and the information about the um the African-American families and keeping the children
in the homes as best as possible aqua and the African-American families act and what Bill said was that their County attorney strongly suggested that they hire two more assistant County attorneys
to deal with the uh legalities that were going to come up because of that and when they presented it to the county attorney staff uh the assistant County attorney that
they have currently said no he didn't want to do it and so he resigned so now they're looking for three assistant County attorneys he didn't want to enforce that he didn't right just thought it would be so much more complicated that he didn't
want to take part in it and therefore resigned to go somewhere else I bring it up just because it was a pretty big issue at um for discussion and yes to go from one assistant County
attorney to three and then have one say no we didn't want any part of it so it just might be something in the future it's going to be more complicated than we think well I don't doubt that it is going to be complicated it's going to be
stressful and it's um ultimately hopefully going to be better for the citizens serve that's the goal so I I think the only thing I'll bring up I didn't have a chance to read through Scott's email this morning um
but uh the city and the County LEC committees are going to meet again and um I visited some with K Coleman and some of the city council members and they expressed the impression that the county didn't want them there and I
believe that the board our board has in fact wanted to work that out and if that's not the case I'd like to hear that so I have that information going forward um there were a few things that uh Kay said she felt that um the city
was unlikely to agree to have their space be that lower level again this is just what Kay said and she wondered about the possibility of moving some things from the top to the bottom and uh they also Express a lot of concerns about their vehicles being
outside um and she didn't know if they'd actually had any problems or if they're worried about problems and we talked about how the parking could be you know very near the building but it could be some distance away as well so anyway I'm
assuming the board would like uh Todd and I to continue to work with the city and see what we can work out I do question here yeah all right
okay all right uh uh just a comment on the annual Township officers meeting that we were at on several of us were at on Saturday I thought it was a really good meeting um I Heard really good
comments from from uh supervisors for the township about the information we share and how valuable it is and how they like to have that connection to County staff and and so it was I thought it was a good meeting so thanks for all
that attended uh next County claims move approval second moved and seconded to approve the county claims as presented any further discussion hearing none all those in
favor say I I oppos the same motion carries is there a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn second we adjourn all those in favor say I I oppose the same motion carries we are
adjourned thank you Part: 2
all right we will call the committee of the whole to order this committee whole is about a DNR grant and aid snowmobile trails do limited use permit and I think Lucas uh from Finance has a
presentation yes good morning Commissioners um as uh commission said my name is Lucas daing I'm the finance director here at goodu County um I just want to mention I believe we have a couple members uh from the DNR as well as the do um just for those members that
are visiting us virtually just know that we if your uh microphones are live we can hear what you're saying uh if you have cameras on we can see what you're doing um so during the presentation please keep your microphones muted um and I'm assuming we're going there's
going to be some discussion back and forth but while uh while we're giving the presentation here please keep yourself muted um and and let us know um if you have any questions again for the board feel free to interrupt at any time and ask any questions you feel
necessary uh from there we will begin uh so on this slide here I've got an agenda I really want to cover what the dnr's uh Grant aid program is um what the Dos nighttime two-way uh limited use permits what those are a
couple issues that we've ident identified um with the interjection of these two the intersection of these two uh items couple options that we've identified and ramifications of those options as well as some time for questions additional discussion and uh
an opportunity for the board to give staff Direction regarding this so here this slide it just gives uh the program background this is all information directly from the dnr's website regarding this program uh programs been around since the early'
70s um I guess you know you can read the slide here Minnesota Legislature they delegated the responsibility of administering the cost sharing program for development maintenance of these trails to the DNR the goal of the program is the creation and maintenance of locally initiated trails that were
financially assisted by the state this program is popularly known as the grants and aid program um Statewide the system has grown to over 21,000 miles um so it is throughout the entire State it's a
Statewide this really is a Statewide issue then how this program affects us locally within goodu County um within goodu County we have the good County Trail Association um the total funding from the DNR for this season is approximately
$84,000 uh we have six local clubs that make up the Trail Association we've got them all identified there we have about 320 Trail miles within the program the county receives $264 per Trail Mile and this program has been along around for a
very long time it's been uh the Redwing system itself has been around at least since the 1960s so it's a long running program long history here in the county So within the program there are specific requirements for the spons onor
the sponsor itself that is good you County in this case um within the program those requirements are we as a county must pass a resolution serve as the sponsor and submit an application to the DNR our current resolution that we have on file goes through this uh this
snowmobiling season typically we've done it on a t fiveyear rolling basis so this upcoming spring we would I would present another one um we must also certify there's four benchmarks within this program each of those benchmarks identify specific
requirements that the clubs are supposed to complete once they um provide that paperwork to the county we certify it provide it to the DNR then the DNR goes ahead and issues payment to us then we give those funds out to the
clubs um so the sponsor is supposed to work with the DNR to verify the clubs are adhering to various guidelines uh we're supposed to meet with the DNR at least once annually and then the DNR strongly urges the sponsors to similarly enter into contracts with their
snowmobile clubs um and we also are supposed to assure that trails are ready and open for use and landowner permission has been obtained and again there are the specific program requirements for the club
specifically first one on there is to uh secure local government sponsorship again that is us as the county uh they're supposed to complete their tasks submit documentation in a timely manner maintain sufficient records to satisfy auditing needs I've spoken with a member
from the Trail Association they have been audited in the past at least within the last 10 years and they passed with no issues there was um uh my understanding is there was no concerns they um everything was sufficient um they must adhere to Trail
user Maps public information grooming signage guidelines um they're required to attend a DNR training session at least annually as well um and they must uh secure appropriate insurance coverage um something I want to add it's not in the
slides here something that was brought to my attention last night is that the trail clubs the insurance that they currently do have does cover um liability and damage within private lands and public right away
so I just want to make that clear um just found out that night that that the insurance that they currently do does cover those things so just to be clear then what do wants us to take over as liability
you're saying the trail insurance as best we know it will cover that my understanding is that their insurance does cover liability and damages to property in both on both private and public
lands but including right away that's my understanding but I think it's also true you can sue who you want to sue so you could sue their insurance you could sue the state you could sue the county I mean you can still sue
somebody yeah the clubs also uh must obtain sufficient permission from each landowner um according to the DNR requirements um if it's a privately owned land it can be whe either written or verbal um
permission uh but the dot is requiring in this case a signed Lup document uh for uh Minnesota do owned right away uh and then again the clubs are required to provide a backup plan in case the groma dies breaks down um and
then they also must secure federal tax status as a nonprofit cor Corporation uh then moving on to the dot nighttime two-way use uh limited use permit uh on this slide it identifies the statutory Authority that I was able to find supporting why these are
required I've highlighted in yellow the sections that I felt were most appropriate um you can see on there no person shall operate a snowmobile within the RightWay of any trunk County state aid or County Highway between the hours of 1 half hour after Sunset to 1 half
hour before Sunrise except on the right hand side of such RightWay and in the same direction as the highway traffic on the nearest Lane of the roadway adjacent there to then below so that's saying you can't do this then down below highlight in yellow it says the commissioner of
Transportation may allow the two-way operation of snowmobiles on either side of the trunk highway right away where the commissioner Transportation determines that two-way operation will not endanger users of the trunk highway or Riders of the snowmobile using the
trail uh so my interpretation is um that up above in yellow it says you can't do this then down below in yellow it says in certain conditions the commissioner can say yes you can but which is why you need a limited use permit that's my understanding is that's why if if you
operate it under the upper part you don't need any permit that's saying you can ride in the RightWay of any mot road on the not from this from the lowest part of the ditch to the outside of the
RightWay that's what that's saying you can't do it into ongoing traffic into oncoming traffic as long as you're going the same direction as traffic yes [Music] yep so consequently if the Trail Association
put a put a Crossing north of goodu on 58 so snow wheel traffic could get to either side and south of goodu on 58 and the traffic they could get to either side they
could um drive on the proper side of the road either direction and would not need a limited use permit uh it was uh explained to me by the dot that for any Trail any place that a trail crosses the RightWay they
would need to have an alup so for any intersection of a trail cross crossing a state highway they would need it is what was explained to me this is Dave Evans from the Minnesota Department of Transportation I'm the gentleman who gets to issue these limited use permits if the groomer
enters into the trunk highway system a limited use permit is needed um for any part of the trail that is in within that right away it's not necessarily a two-way nighttime portion which is this one segment in in good Hue County that
we're talking about is a two-way nighttime but we also have snowmobile Lup Trails where it is a just a regular snowmobile trail if the groomer enters into the raway we need to have a limited use
permit so so the crossing so so technically if there are two crossings that are in within men. RightWay and the groomer goes across our trunk highway or our RightWay a limited use permit would be
needed so that you're saying that covers you'd have to have that all over goodu County yep yeah technically technically all of the snowmobile clubs should have a limited use permit it'd be really nice if it was just one for the entire
County that uh I knew where everything was but uh nobody's ever approached us except for in a few little spots so so you're saying that you should have that limited use permit with the Snowmobile
Association if that's the case why are we here why aren't you doing this with the Snowmobile Association the snowmobile club we cannot write a limited use permit out the limited use permits need to be signed by another government agency either the county a city or a
Township or the DNR are the only ones that we can have a limited use permit with um mindat cannot enter into a limited use agreement with a private organization so that's why we're here uh question wouldn't it be cleaner to do it
with the DNR because then that could cover the entire State instead of with 87 individual counties that's something that's got to be dealt with with the DNR I'm not sure that's really where it should be I
think so CU goodya County basically all we are is for in most part a pass through to get the dollars to the to the organizations because they don't have uh they don't have the fiscal
responsibilities or the fiscal oversight that the county does to make sure that those dollars are expended according to State Statute that's what we are able to do but in essence it really should be
with DNR you should be contracting with DNR you shouldn't even be contracting with us about this this L has gone through the DNR through the city of good Hue uh good hu County now has seen it twice and nobody
has wanted to sign it so well nether did Filmore County and Houston County so so the problem is if we sign this as a county and we have it from our
insurance carrier um Minnesota county intergovernmental trust which ensures 81 counties in Minnesota that we're not covered so if we sign it as you have presented it we're not covered for the liability
they've told us that so you have a there seems to be a direct um problem with the state assigning liability to a county or to a sponsor which I I'm going to guess almost all of
these are counties that can't get coverage so it seems it seems it needs to go back to the drawing board and we need to figure out collectively NR mot
and us how we can get this done and get coverage because nobody wants to assume that and right in the contract it says we can't assign any part of that contract to anybody else so that says we can't assign the liability to the associ
snowb association if they actually do have that coverage that's right in the contract so there's a real disconnect between mindat DNR and the work you're trying to do
with the county see commissioner Anderson I believe uh the gentleman from the DNR has his hand raised and would like to speak right go ahead good morning hi my name is Wade Miller I'm the um State trails and Stow
mobile program consultant for DNR parks and trails Division and I just wanted to to clarify a few things as as they're being discussed and I can understand that the counties in southeast Minnesota may not have been aware of this
permitting requirement that's been in place for many decades but just so everybody's on the same page the state of Minnesota is authorizing permission and the way dot authorizes that permission is through a limited use permit and they need a recipient to
accept the uh permit any land owner that grants permission for a public public Trail waves their liability and as stated many times anybody can be sued anytime for anything however we wouldn't have a
robust system in the state of Minnesota of 22,000 miles if there weren't these protections and statutes in place one of those is the liability waiver when at no fee someone grants permission to cross their property whether it's public or private that underlying land owner is
waving liability the program requires that all permissions be in the name of the sponsor so all of the private Crossings and public Crossings within your system should be in the name of good Hue County similarly DNR has a permitting
process we call ours the grant nade Trail permit it isn't as detailed as do do is a road authority the Department of Natural Resources is not a road authority however when a Stone beill Trail crosses DNR properties regardless if it's a Wildlife Management Area a
public water access State Forest lands we the DNR issue a permit to the sponsor so that a sponsor and Club can operate and maintain a grenade Trail it's one of those protections that are in place there's a recreation system
statute that basically says any anyone using a public Trail is assuming risk and so unless there's negligence or gross negligence proven in a lawsuit which most of these lawsuits um have been thrown out um I I
can't think of a lawsuit that's actually stuck for example um in the state of Minnesota gets sued every day and the Department of Natural Resources the sponsors the clubs they all get named in the lawsuit if there's an accident but typically they're thrown out immediately because of this the systems and statutes
that are currently in place and so I don't know that the state of Minnesota do can issue a permit at this time to the state of Minnesota when we are the grant of the funds and so just like DNR issues a grant and a trail
permit to the sponsor and in most of Minnesota the counties have lups in place for some reason I've just been discovering this in the past year that Southeastern Minnesota the counties don't all have lups in place and there
are many examples throughout the state where lups have been in place for decades and and I'm not clear and I know the gentleman from mot said that they didn't understand why they weren't approached either and so one of the requirements in the program has been for years that all Trails must have
landowner permission whether it's private or public and Do's L is the the mechanism for which do authorizes activities within their right of way and that's their purview again I just want to Echo that I don't know that DNR can accept a do
permit for example when the Department of Natural Resources operates and manages a state Trail we have to obtain an Lup from mindat to operate and maintain those State Trails within mindat RightWay
so um DNR does obtain permits from uh mindat when DNR is the owner and operator of said Trail in this case we the DNR enter into a contract with you the sponsor and the requirements within
that contract basically state that you the sponsor must meet all the obligations to the program and that's why DNR encourages sponsors to enter into a contract with their clubs that you can relinquish many of those assignments onto the
club but as it sits you as you stated you are a Fiscal Agent that is correct DNR doesn't have the authority to use Grant funds directly to a private entity therefore we have to do any of our grants through a local unit of
government and there are many sponsors that are cities some are townships and many and most of them are counties and so I'll I'll stop there if you have any other questions I just wanted to clarify a few things thank you so just a question for you
um the State trail that goes from Canon falls out to Lake billsby is uh DNR trail that is also a snowmobile trail in the winter do you have a limited use permit on that
between between DNR between DNR and mind I'm going to without I'm going to confidently say I think we do I don't think we can construct and operate and maintain a trail without a limited use permit I don't have it on my fingertips it is certainly something we can look up
but I know that we cannot build operate or maintain a state Trail as statutorily authorized by the legislature unless we have secured the proper interest and in every case I've ever been involved with on state Trails is we have and needed to
secure limited use permits from minda so I would confidently say we do have it in place but I don't have the proof at this time but I certainly can obtain it anybody else otherwise we'll continue this is this is Dave Evans from the do one more time um there are I have
reached out to other districts that are um the uh the St Cloud area and the bigi area for some of their uh snowmobile trail lups and I have two of them sitting here in front of me that uh the
counties have signed um and one for a city of Park Rapids where there is a crossing of the trunk highway system within the city of Park Rapids that the snowmobile club has an Lup for um currently within the district there is
one snowmobile trail that the city of Casten has signed and I believe I am working on trying to clear up some older lups and the lake billsby one I do know that I have one that is currently
active for Lake billsby area within our rway so I would have to dig it up but I know I just recently had that one was renewed and I believe the snowmobile trail one is has expired but I've been working on a bunch of older ones that
I'm trying to get renewed so that one might be on my renewal list okay thank you so continuing on the Lup that um we're here to discuss specifically this is within the city of Goodhue on this slide here we've got the um the map as
drawn up this is from when the construction was actually completed on the roundabout um the map is kind of oriented uh 90° 90° off to the side so North is actually on the right side of this map um so 58 is the one that's
going from the left to the right and Casa 9 is the one that's going uh up and down on this map um so you can see it's just this one very small section in yellow uh for this specific Lup as just a question for M that have
you been to that site and looked at that trail is that how you determined this marking this was put into the plan set specifically so they knocked down the curb section on Cony Road 9 um it was
supposed to be um 6in curb through there and then um when they proposed this roundabout they actually come in here and put the trail section in and this is as much of the trail that was brought to our attention for this project I do know
there's Trail further south and further north on this but this was all that was brought to my attention so this is all I could include on theend in the current Lup so because quite frankly what you've marked
off is about 250 ft 120 ft either side of of the inter of the crossing and that um seems kind of odd this is what was brought to my
attention um I couldn't at that time I didn't reach out to any of the other snowmobile clubs to find out how much more was actually in our rightaway in this spot um they were trying to get the Lup issued so they could do the work on this intersection and well of course the
work happened and the Lup was never issued so and that would be the only Lup you'd have with good you County for trails in goodu County if we if we went ahead with this that would be the
only one you have that's but that would be the only one we would have and I know there's more sections but until the snowmobile clubs come forward I can't add them onto the Lup so okay thank you so the next side here covers some
specifics about the agreement um so they're required for trail sections with nighttime two-way traffic in the Minnesota DOT RightWay as we discussed so any Trail Crossings of a US Highway EST State Highway sections of Trail in which snowmobilers ride against oncoming
roadway traffic as we mentioned um and trail on the one single side of the roadway within Minnesota DOT RightWay the agreement itself uh it indemnifies the state of Minnesota thereby Shifting the liability of the sponsor I will also mention um the do
that's attached to this meeting is a more recently revised uh Lup than the one we initially uh received Steve O'Keefe our attorney had worked with the dot to update the language in section 14
of the Lup the one that is attached is the most recent upto-date one um but uh it does specify and the other one was a basically a blanket inem indemnification of the state this one is
now more specific um and does identify um I can I guess I can read it off what it says but um permittee shall indemnify defend to the extent authorized by Minnesota attorney general's office hold harmless and release the state of Minnesota its Commissioner of transportation and
employees and any successors and assigns of the foregoing from and against and this is the section that was updated all claims demands and causes of action for injury or death of persons or loss of or damages to the property including the
permites property occurring in connection with the permit's construction maintenance and operation of the snowmobile area or facility except when such injury death loss or damage is caused solely by the negligence of state of Minnesota
but including those instances where the state of Minnesota is deemed to be negligent because of its failure to supervise inspect or control the operations of permit or otherwise discover or prevent actions or operations of permit giving rise to
liability uh to any person so it does call out now and specify the trail itself versus the entire RightWay area the old agreement my understanding was we would be assuming all liability within that RightWay now it is limited
to the snowmobile trail within that RightWay so Steve O'Keefe the attorney was able to get the language updated to this which is better obviously we're still assuming this liability from the
state but this language is better than it was initially presented to us I have a question go ahead Tod if this crossing here gets moved for further to the West on nine does it eliminate this issue uh so I've spoken with um an
individual from the good Hugh club and we did discuss trying to move the trail and see if that would relieve or uh remedy the situation um his opinion was that the easiest way to do it would potentially be going east
of the city of good Hue and making a large loop around the city but that ultimately wouldn't fix this situation because then there would be two Trail Crossings against or cross Highway 58 that are inherently more dangerous than Crossing at this one
roundabout um and additionally those two Crossings would need to have their own Lup so still required to sign the lups and those Crossings would be more dangerous well those Crossings would be where the traffic's at 60 M an hour versus here where it's at 15 recommended
15 going through a roundabout that's correct oh every place a trail crosses a state highway we should have an Lup but we're only addressing this one right now that's correct this is the one that has been presented to us from the do as
Dave Evans from the dot said um most likely there are several other areas within the county that should have these um seems to me this is the as Dave said this is the one that he is aware of
specifically can you review that state statute again for recreational purposes we can wave our liability that's what the land owners are doing or is the clubs assuming the
liability through their insurance policy the clubs are required to have insurance from the DNR my understanding is that their insurance does protect against uh the liability and damages where the trails are located um ultimately I think if
somebody sues they're going to go to where they think the money is which would be the state and the county the state if we sign this agreement the state is uh we are indemnifying the state and we are assuming that liability uh in a later slide I do have I reached
out to mcit with the language with the agreement um and I copied word for word MC's exact response um and they would not be willing to cover this they do not cover any situation in which the county is assuming someone else's liability I
did send to mcit the updated the revised agreement to see if I could get another comment from them on that I haven't heard back from them yet though and and I assume there's no one besides mcit that would insure us for this kind of
thing if if they won't do it nobody else would I don't know the answer to that I'm there's a potential that we could find an uh an insurance company that would Insurance the cost is I don't know what that question is do we know what
the U amount of liability the clubs are required to have and do we have a method in which we make sure they have that liability so do we know if they're insured for I don't know $50 million or whatever it might be or are they
not so I don't know what they're required to um the DNR says that they should be covered um they should have insurance coverage um on the second to last slide I have a couple options on there and one the options is to um allow staff to
create or direct staff to create an agreement with the clubs and that would be one of the items within that agreement that I would like to um have in there is the requirement you must have X amount of in insurance and we should also have um their insurance certificates we should have that
evidence yeah I think PRI to signing these My Life as a Township supervisor we would require that the insurance company notify us if there was any change in their insurance as well I'm not sure if it always worked but that was the requirement sure yeah that would
be a good statement as well hello this is Wade Miller again with DNR parks and trails division um Minnesota statute requires for nonprofits a $1 million liability for not for for-profit or
private uh requirements for insurance it's 1.5 million so that's the minimum requirement from the state of Minnesota on liability and most stn Bill clubs do carry that $1 million liability per occurrence
okay any other questions comments all right uh you want to keep on going here Lucas yep so another couple items just to note um regarding this um as we mentioned uh in discussion doesn't appear these lups have been implemented consistently
Statewide um and within you know as Dave has mentioned at least within or I think it was weighed from the DNR within the southeastern region of Minnesota um it doesn't appear that these lups have been enforced until
now um previous discussions I've had um between the dot and goodu County neither of us are aware of any of these agreements that have that are on file currently or have ever been signed in the past for a snowmobile and as commissioner Anderson
mentioned there's at least two other Southeastern Minnesota counties that have refused to sign these agreements uh assuming these liabilities this is the information that I referenced uh MC's response essentially what it states is that mcit will not uh
ensure the Assumption of somebody else's liability um generally uh they recommends against indemnifying another entity for their own conduct um their opinion was ideally it'd be best for the state to contract
directly with the snowmobile clubs themselves uh where the club gevs to protect defend release and hold the state harmless for a claim arising out of the snowmobile club's negligence again I don't know if this is possible but that is what MC's recommendation
is additional issues here is um just with the clubs themselves um the grant payments are being delayed they haven't received their Benchmark payment number one um previous conversation with the DNR was as soon as if the County Board
agrees to sign the Lup we provide it to the DNR the DNR will process that payment they'll pay us we can pay the clubs and it should happen relatively quickly um if the Lup is not signed then the clubs will need to remove that trail section take down signage and provide updated maps and information to
recalculate the trail miles um typically these payments are made early to mid January now we're at the beginning of February so they still haven't been paid yet um the and The Benchmark number one payment um it's 45% of the total award so this is it's about
38,000 that'll get split amongst the six clubs and so here's a couple different options that staff um has developed uh the first one would be if the board were to agree to sign the Lup from mindat in this case the county is assumes the
liability in each area identified by an Lup there would be no impact to local Club funding other than the delay that they are currently experiencing um and as mentioned additional lups may be required in the future most likely will be required in
the future um if the board decides not to sign the Lup goodu County will not assume that liability uh as I said local clubs must remove signage update Maps public Trail system information and provide updated
Trail mile information to the DNR um Trail groomers will no longer be allowed in the sections of the trail where the uh the trail system has been removed um it reduces the trail funding by that $264 per mile and riding in the
menot right away remains legal it just cannot be um it can't be an official Trail anymore so if somebody wants to go out then and ride they're that is up to them so it really centers around the
grooming and the and the trail marking in the RightWay if they don't groom it they don't Mark the trail there but users use it um well we don't have any we don't have any liability then in
those sections the county would not have any liability for that um you know we're not signing off as a sponsor for that section if somebody wants to ride their snowmobile under their own decision in an area that's not covered as an official trail that is up to them um
whether or not they can do it legally if it's against Traffic Steve Keef has his hand up um you know that's that's Steve has there's a comment on the line go ahead Steve o'keef Steve o'keef go ahead Steve yeah thank you and I want I
apologize for not being there person um just I think I was going to make the comment that uh Lucas just made at the end there that it is under state law illegal for snowmobile Riders to do two-way traffic after dark at night and that's what this
permit allows so the permit is is very limited in scope and that's so it's it's kind of hard to gauge what the exposure here is on liability simply because of that we're talking about a very small section of the trail and a very small part of the that use which is you know
the two-way traffic after dark but I mean that was the point I wanted to make was basically that it is illegal for the writers even if this was not part of the official Trail they could not legally operate two-way after dark under current state statute this
permit allows them to do that okay I I have a question Steve um with the state not being uh responsible could we not be sued for any of the miles of the trail whether
they're on private property or not on private property well I think we certainly could um but that liability would have to be based on the County's negligence as opposed to um indemnifying for somebody else's negligence and then the other
question that I have well sort of but a million dollars sounds like a lot of money unless you have a couple of brain injured people who are going to live for 40 years and then it's not going to go very far and I wonder if we can get any information on how much liability insurance would actually be needed to
protect the county yeah I think that would be covered under uh under chapter 466 for the County's liability limits are set in that statute and most agreements that um talk about Indemnity and requirements
for insurance um require the other party to maintain Insurance up to those limits so that would be the place to start and I think um I'm not sure if Lucas mentioned it or not but he did get a an example agreement from Nicolet County that had some language in there that was
I think very um useful in that regard on that point it's probably more than a million dollars right it is I can't remember what the exact amount toar but it is a little bit more than that it's not a lot more than that but it is more than that and the statute I remember I mean
board had a little conversation earlier about you know private land owners and their liability in these type of situations but there is a statute that does provide private land owners immunity for trail uses on their property where it's where they're doing it um for not pay so they're not
charging people to use the trail through their property there is a statute that protects them from liability in those situations the counties um has some similar uh types of immunity in chapter 466 that protect the county for trail
uses um but I'm not sure if that would fit in this particular situation because the the statue that I'm referring to protects the county for um operating vehicles and County ditches and this is a state highway thank
you a little bit more Lucas yeah and just the uh the last option on here is um to draft a contract between the county and the clubs similar to what Steve oie was just saying similar to that other County in which we could have an agreement with the clubs
um specify our identify our relationship with them more specifically what's required of them what's required of us and um impose any other restrictions that we deem necessary uh to maintain um this relationship that we have
questions go ahead do we happen to know over the past years how big an issue this has been as far as liability goes I mean hav we haven't got any sign had
pardon we don't have any signed so we don't have we're not we haven't been assigned the liability from the state at this point right this is asking us to take some liability yes I guess I'm asking have there been any accidents in good Hue
county is there like 10 a year of there been none in 10 years M mobile accidents right on the trails oh yeah there have yeah there's been just put round thank you if I was to if I was to
assume what mot's concerned about and I am assuming it because I haven't asked the question is the two-way traffic in the ditch is not about the snowmobiles so much as it is the lights to the traffic on the road
that now you have traffic coming from this side traffic coming from that side with a bouncing light down the that's what the concern is not not actually the two-way traffic of the snowmobiles cuz that the whole trail system is built on two-way traffic it's just when you're
next to the roadway and you have oncoming traffic on both sides of you that has bouncing headlines that's the part I think they're concerned about and from Do's standpoint is that what you're really
looking at or Steve yeah I mean I I think I mean the issue here is the way that those two terms are defined in the limited use permit the definition of area and facility are so narrow
that we that this permit is only in relation to that specific stretch of the trail which is the crossing over the highway for nighttime two-way traffic it wouldn't include other parts of the trail until we get you know until we get to the
other agreements I think the other agreements where there's long stretches of two-way traffic might be a little different issue with regard to exposure but I think on this particular limited use permit I think the exposure is more narrow than that but clearly that's that's one of the the concerns they have when I spoke with
the um representative from um Department of Transportation about their concerns one of the things that she had mentioned was that the state has no ability to come out and monitor or inspect the trail markings and uh they're expecting the
county to take on that responsibility which is why they think that this um indemnification is appropriate because we're respons ible under the agreement to basically certify that the markings have been uh placed properly and that
the trail is been uh designed properly so that that's where the clubs come in because we don't as far as I know the county doesn't have any mechanism to to do that as well to inspect the entire trail system to make sure that these uh markings have been put on there and the
signs have been put on correctly so we're in a similar situation which is maybe why um the clubs would be willing to sign agreements with the county taking on that particular piece of the liability does the county currently do
any inspecting of snowmobile trails no we don't that's something where um and we don't inspect the signs we don't do anything like that no the clubs as part of their benchmarks they certify that all the work is completed they provide
that to the county we review the the paperwork sign off on it proved to the DNR so we review the paperwork but not the trail that's correct thank you there is a comment online yeah well I'm I'm in there too I'm sorry if I'm jumping ahead here I
just wanted to make one quick comment on there that the sheriff does Patrol these Trails um when they're obviously ridable which they aren't right now so we do have someone from the county who is on the trails and observes these things and I'm assuming that if they saw something that was inappropriate they would notify
us but whether or not how much of the trail system actually Patrol I do not know another comment online yes hi this is Wade Miller again um first of all I just want to thank you Lucas I think you did an excellent job on presenting information today um it
was very factual and not subjective uh very much appreciated I want to just share with you folks um just how the grant Nate program kind of works so the DNR is considered the checkbook and the sponsor is considered the general contractor and the clubs are considered
the subcontractor and so we the state of Minnesota DNR we have an agreement and a contract with you the sponsor and we hold you accountable through that contract to make sure that all program requires requirements are being met and as far as signage goes DNR is very
careful not to have a signing prescription like Road authorities have signed prescriptions where they purpose built build roads trails are typically uh placed where they are allowed and they're not purpose-built or designed for design speed and signing
requirements um are generally stated adequate signing so it's up to each Club to determine what is adequate signage there are laws in place that basically state that all snowmobile traffic crossing a public road must come to a stop before proceeding therefore clubs
should generally put in a stop sign and a stop ahead sign but there are yield signs there's curve signs and it's up to each Club to place signs where they feel they're adequate and clubs are typically generally really good about monitoring their Trail the DNR is required to monitor these
Trails um at least 50% of each Grant is monitored every year which means in two years uh 100% of the grants should be monitored On The Ground by DNR staff assuming there's snow if there's not snow DNR staff make their best attempt
to look at brushing signage from roads or access points to try and determine if the clubs are meeting those performance benchmarks as Lucas presented earlier in the meeting I would also want to share that my involvement with some of the court cases that have been um that have
occurred there are accidents on snow bill Trails um very frequently throughout the entire State and of course anybody can be named on a lawsuit or subpoenaed but like I mentioned before I can't think of one where they haven't been thrown out and typically
the attorneys look at a couple of things things they go into our policies and they try and find out where we're breaking policy and so for example DNR will not fund a trail that doesn't have permission so if we're made aware of a trail that does not have permission we're not going to fund it because then
there's a negligence component there that could be assigned to DNR and as I mentioned earlier all of the permissions are supposed to be in the name of the sponsor and all of those permissions basically acknowledge that a private landowner is granting no fee
permission for a public Trail therefore any users are assuming risk it's very similar to a hunter going on a Wildlife Management Area a boater using a public water access if they damage their equipment they sure they can sue the state of Minnesota but they're assuming
Risk by just being there and so unless there's negligence proven and then that's really what it comes down to and and and a bigger question I would have for DOT is generally the state of Minnesota and I can only talk about DNR but when we put hold the Minnesota
harmless we're basically saying we're not placing liability on you we're just saying that we're relieving ourselves from liability upon your actions but we're still held accountable if we go on to or manipulate anything or try to operate maintain
anything we we are we are assuming our own liability and and can be subject to negligence if if a club Parks a tractor on a trail they could be considered negligent if a sponsor goes out and they Park something on a trail to block or
hinder or intentionally try and harm a user they are negligent but as long as in good faith there are a lot of statutes in place and protections in place that I feel and and this is me being just as honest as I can be you as a sponsor and as a county should feel
very comfortable that for decades the 22,000 miles of stone Bill trails in the state of Minnesota that have accidents on them all the time um that do have all the permission in place have been thrown out of out of court so to me there's more of a risk if there was an accident
and there was a portion of trail that didn't have a permission to me there would be a loophole that any attorney would love to jump on and try and make a case out of and so I just want to let you know that in most of the state these lups are signed by local units of
government whether it's a city Township or County and they are following the grant nade program guidelines and like I said you are the we look at you as the general contractor so you're certifying to us that these benchmarks are being met you are telling us that the trails
are open and ready you're tell us you're telling us that they're satisfactorily groomed and you're also telling us on the last Benchmark that the trails have been officially closed for the year and you've historically gotten your funding and you've passed that funding on to the club which is the subcontractor that
does 99.9% of the work on the ground some counties do have staff that have and can afford time and resources to assist further but most clubs and sponsors are just that the the sponsors Act is just a Fiscal Agent as a pass
through but that's not how the DNR would look at it in the agreements that the counties have been signing for decades with that again I just want to thank you all for your time and I again appreciate Lucas's presentation and thank you minda for participating in this call as well thank
you just a question for you you obvious ly see these um lups all over the state why aren't they consistent why why why is it the trail systems consistent across the state why
aren't they consistent why is men. 6 different than menot 7 different than some District up north why why isn't the state got a standard Lup cuz quite frankly as I read this it
really almost looks like it took a construction Lup to do construction for some work in mots RightWay and modified it to make it try to work for snowmobiles and it just doesn't seem
right with the vast amount of snowmobile trails in Minnesota that mot hasn't come up with a standard Lup for this because it doesn't matter if you're riding alongside the road in northern Minnesota or you're riding alongside the road in southern in Minnesota other than there's
maybe more traffic along the road but that's if you're not going to approve it the commissioner always have the right to approve or disapprove and if it's too busy a road to have it they can always disapprove it not approve it but it just seems like there should be consistency
consistency from DNR should want that mindat should want that I know certainly counties want it why isn't there why hasn't that been done I think you're asking me this question and I apologize that I'm I'm not an
authority for DOT but my um my understanding is that state agencies including DNR we have to get any of our permissions Andor agreements approved by management and budget and Andor the department of administration and I would
assume that that do is very similar and and I'm not going to speak on Do's behalf but as time goes on there may be different templates used for permissions as language changes people change positions interpretations change and so we as
state agencies are required to have very boilerplate consistent messaging and so I'm not going to talk about how mind may have different lups but I understand your concern because it it it it is interesting that the document that was
shown earlier about a roundabout with a stone Bill Trail is the only interest in this conversation where to me like you mentioned the dnr's grant n program requires all portions of all trails to be permitted so whether it's in a County right away the county should be granting
permission if it's in a Township right away the township should be granting permission if it's in all of dot right away dot should be permitting all of that activity but Dot may not be aware of where there may be trails and so I'll let mot respond to
your question specifically thank you and that's the biggest thing this is Dave Evans from the Department of Transportation the snowmobile clubs never have never reached out to mindat D6 here in Rochester for permission to have their Trail within mot rightaway so
if they don't reach out to us and ask if they can have the trail we don't know about it um that's not something that we go out and look for so that's the biggest portion on why we don't have any lups in Southeastern Minnesota um the clubs have not reached out to us
to grant to get permission um that and as far as consistency within our lups our forms our forms are all boilerplate forms and they are consistent throughout the state um to a point I mean they do update
these occasionally but it's not very often um so I mean it is they are trying to remain constant and consistent because otherwise it's just going to cause trouble if if we got neighboring counties and the lups say something different
so question go ahead Linda I think my question is for Steve O'Keefe but number three up there on the options draft a contract between the county and the clubs so that liability is assigned to the clubs and then sign
the Lup after each Club signs the contract would that be sufficient in your opinion to cover the county I I think it would go a long way towards covering the county obviously you can't say you'll ever be
100% covered but I think with the clubs taking on that liability I think that would certainly significantly reduce any risks that the County's exposed to okay so Steve in your opinion or um
maybe mot's opinion also on item nine on the limited use permit it says no assignment of this Lup is allowed wouldn't that cover assigning the liability or the indemnity or whatever you want to
call it wouldn't that cover that that we couldn't assign it and in the nickolet the one you saw from nicket County district 7 mind 7 did that include that same language I can't tell you specifically on the
Nicola County one I just read through it briefly um and I don't have the details on that but I think the transfer that they're talking about in in our Lup is the permission itself and not necessarily the liability piece of that
I think we can contract individually with the club um to accept I mean basically it would just be they're indemnifying our liability under our under the Lup so if we're found liable um they would be covering that
that would be my take on on that particular paragraph nine I do have a copy of a limited use permit for Crowing County that has all of the control sections where the snowmobile trails are and that language
number nine is in there and Crowing County did sign that Lup is uh the one that I have here in front of me was issued in 2021 to Crowing County and uh it has all the same language in it except for that line
on section 14 a that was changed for goodu County otherwise it's all it's the it's the exact same Lup as what you guys have in front of you so so I don't know if this is accurate but it seems to me the board
wants to support snowmobile trails but that we don't want to have liability for something we can't be insured for if if we can't be insured for the liability then how can we sign the contract and the question that um you had Brad is can
we actually uh give that pass that over and I don't know if we know the answer to that so I think that's one question but I think we want to support it but we don't want to put the county at risk and then um I do think the second thing is it sounds like we had always viewed this as it passed through
and now kind of what we're hearing is that the state is saying that we have some responsibility for monitoring the trails in a way in which we have not as a county been monitoring them well there's a there's a definite probably disconnect between
mot's monitoring of Crossings yes or RightWay use dnr's monitoring of trails and definitely ours yeah the the challenge is it's passed through we get zero dollars
so everything has expended everything we have to expend to do this even Lucas's time to review and submit stuff we get nothing other than economic economic engine that's that's part of it I I
acknowledge that um it just seems like there's very little minding the store in this process process yes I agree with and that and that is very frustrating from an from a liability standpoint that's the question so is
there and this is just I'm just throwing this out is there a way Steve okay Steve go ahead yeah I'm sorry I know it's after nine o'clock but I just to comment I think commissioner BET's point with regard to our relationship with the uh
the trail clubs is correct the grant and aid agreement that the county signs does treat the trails the trail clubs as our agents under the grant and aid program so we are somewhat
responsible for what they do and I think historically the problem here has been that this issue has never really come up before so it's just been running along apparently pretty smoothly over the last several decades and now we're confronted with this issue and finding out how it's
actually being operated and what our responsibilities are but the actual agreement for the grant and aid money again does does identify the clubs as the County's agents back to my I mean can we take this out of the dot right away I mean is
that I understand you know well if we moved it maybe this one's more dangerous that's more dangerous but just to solve this problem now because we have more coming down the road I'm I'm assuming you you know so to to settle this issue right now I don't know if the club can move
that can you just to comment so we can move forward we Canen it you can move it anything's possible there's no stone building taking place so it can but if we can get if a majority of the the counties in northern Minnesota and elsewhere have accomplished this there's
either a disconnect between what these counties are assuming as liability or what m mcit is presenting to us so did Crowing County say well whatever we don't care we're going to assume the liability every other County I mean the do has said majority of the counties did this doesn't make sense so why you know
we maybe need more information from mcit or croing County or other counties in northern Minnesota or elsewhere what's the deal I mean I don't know if that they're ignoring it or mcit that there seems to be a disconnect between it I don't I don't get it
mcit looked at this contract y and they don't they don't allow mcit covers crowin County 81 counties I can tell you they don't cover some Metro counties right 81 Cy right so did Crowing County
ask mcit or did they just sign it there's a question so they might have assumed it was covered so have a question I can't I can't you know we've uncovered some challenges with this I totally want to support snow bills I
totally want to move forward and um what I was going to suggest is if Steve's comfortable with us signing something with the trails that makes their brings their liability insurance
in in force into what we're doing I I probably can go forward with this but I would like to shorten I would like to shorten the length of it and maybe maybe see if menot would be amable to do two
years and then I think we need to work on language and understanding how this works I'm frustrated to a certain point that there's no
mechanism that um oversees this or puts any dollars to it it sounds like mot's only going to respond if somebody brings it to them it's not like mot is actually enforcing
statute as they're supposed to I don't know as DNR is carrying through quite as much as they should with it and it's all getting dumped on the counties to take on the risk and to take on the
management of it with absolutely zero dollars coming to the county and that's frustrating to me so if we could shorten the length of it get the assignment to the the from the sign a signature from the clubs I
would be willing to go along with this for a 2-year period but we need to work on and it may be the association of Minnesota counties needs to get some some understanding with this with DNR and with the Trail
Association um maybe we'll we're in a different world than we were 20 years ago we'll have to talk to our legislators when we go up there and and you know as much as I'd like to believe that going forward
this will be managed and you know the the renewals will happen to lups we just sign one with the Canon Valley Trail that they said it in that contract or in that Lup it said we um
releasing the county from an Lup from 1990 and 1985 so obviously minda doesn't have a handle on how to manage getting that process to keep going forward
and we have some responsibility in that but there's just a whole lot of gray area with this that makes a person nervous but if do you think from mot's point of view we could shorten the length of
it absolutely absolutely we can shorten that thing to two years if that's what you guys would like pardon what was the last part you said that is not a problem we can shorten that thing to two years I I basically agree with you Brad
I just think we should need to know what Steve was citing about what the county should have for liability uh and he said it wasn't much more than the million dollars and sometimes with insurance it's not that much more to get that degree of coverage because like your
house doesn't burn down most years you don't have these things so I think we need to know that too right but in this instant it doesn't matter what our liability limit is unless we purchase extra MH well but at least we'd be following the guidelines for what what
we should have okay any other comments from DNR or menot the only comment that I'll maybe add to relieve some of your concerns is you could require the county to list you as additional insured on their liability
certificate you can make that requirement in that agreement that you're talking about drafting with the clubs that might give you piece of mind but like I said these are public trails and so the liability really comes down to negligence and and it's like I said regardless of all the
protections you put in place anybody can get sued but it really comes down to negligence but for peace of mind maybe you want to ask the club to have a Certificate of Insurance naming uh good Hue County as additional insured or certificate holder that might give you
peace of mind just a comment thank you right and you know and I think we all worry about what the cost of getting sued and and the outcome of that but the other side of it
is if we get if we get in lawsuit it's our it's our nickel because mcit is not going to cover the lawsuit and it's our staff time that we're expending the dollars on so there's a lot of concern around around that part
from my um personal point of view I understand that and it I find it interesting and I said this to to Lucas and Teresa before um we went through all the ordinance for Co and all the Zing
changed for Co and we didn't have very many people in the room but for mindat and d and DNR just know we got more people in the room over this than we did over passing cannabis ordinances so it did touch a nerve and I think we need to
work on either better communication or better understanding or a better working relationship around it and I'm committed to to do that with you and uh from an insurance standpoint um as long as the clubs are saying that
they're covering private and public roadway I mean I would see hopefully there's no problem with the clubs coming up with that um signing that contract and just say y you know the count good you count is an additional insured on that so so i' I'd be okay with going
with number three also but shortening up the term and then years working on it okay so I don't know if we can add something we need it we really need a contract back from the state to do that don't we what we're
best off doing you have consensus today is you've given consensus to staff staff's heard it we'll ex we'll we'll get contracts uh uh in place and then bring them back to you okay all right thank you all right thank you to everyone
thanks to all the people from the snow bill Association I hope you realize we are uh really want to work with you we really want this to go forward but um we do have concerns about the liability side of it so Luc thank you very much
yeah thanks for staff for all their work on this thank you all right we will take just a couple minute break and then we need to get into our regular board meeting