right now. Yeah, you're good. Just talk into it. All right, we will call the county board meeting to order here at the Can Valley Fair and we will start with the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of
America and to the republic for it stands. One nation, indivisibley andice for all. All right. And we have uh the Can Valley board Can Valley Fair board president,
vice president, and a spokesman Nancy Hobo here. Uh so Ferland, we'll just have you say a few words and then Rodney, and then I guess a few words, Nancy. Few for Nancy.
So I just want to thank all you guys for support. uh grew up in this town, born in this town since lived here since 1969. Attended this fair my whole life. Uh got on the board now elected president and really appreciate the support that the
goodie county gives Valley Fair to make it as great as it is. Um Rodney Rob's here, vice president. Say a couple things. Thank you guys. Same as me. I grew up town 56 years old now. Now I've been on the board for seven years. I'm vice
president. I'm in charge of the grand stand in the beer concessions and it's just an honor to be on the board. You know, our grand stand we just found tonight was or today was 1937. It's one of the oldest grand in the state trying to re
do it and it's it's it's a it's a pretty penny to do. So we're going to try and raise money to keep it going without tear down. But again, I just want to thank you guys for showing up and this is awesome. Uh, three two of my sons are on the board, too. So, we got a younger generation of kids going on the board.
You look around, it's looking nice. So, thank you guys a lot. And here's a woman of very few words. Who's that? It's not me. Welcome. 110 years. How about a round of applause?
All right. Good. I would like to encourage all of you to take a few minutes after your meeting and go through our exhibit buildings, our 4 exhibits. 353
4 exhibits yesterday were entered. our flower exhibit. Jodie Scholam from the Canon Falls Historical Society has put up the history of the Canon Valley Fair
in that community building over there full of photos and a lot of statistics about the fair. So, if you have any questions, look for any of us with the red shirt or just holler, "Hey, you and
somebody will answer." All right. Have a good meeting. Thank you. All right. And then I just want to recognize John Rodmacher, city administrator from Canal. Just started on the job a few months ago.
Six. Six months ago. Wow. Um, just wanted to introduce him to the FC board. Thanks for coming, John. And thanks to the Can Valley Fair for hosting us. Um, you've been here for a long long time. I've
been coming here for 67 years. So, I've been here for a few too. Um, first item of business today is disclosures of interest. Are there any? Seeing none, uh, approve the approve the previous board meeting minutes. Move to approve.
Second. Move. Second. We approve the minutes. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. The same. Motion carries. Uh are there any changes to the agenda?
There are no changes. Chair. Motion to approve the agenda. I'll move to approve the agenda. Second. Move. Second we approve the agenda as presented. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I.
Oppos the same. Motion carried. Consent agenda. There are five items. Uh covered bridge riders snowmobile club temporary off on sale liquor license. Goodbye county and historic agricultural
society. Uh on sale liquor license for the fair. Uh gambling permit for the modern posi of goody county uh at the goody county fairgrounds. radiological uh emergency preparedness grant and the
community energy transition grant contracts. I'll move approval of the consent agenda. Second. It's been moved and second we approve the consent agenda. All those in favor say I. Oppos the same. Motion carries. Uh we
have two items under land use. One is a conitional use for a solar project in Kenya. Megan Smith will lead us through those. Good morning, commissioners. First item for your consideration is to
consider a conditional use permit for a 4 megawatt commercial solar farm located at 4578 Come Boulevard, Canyon, Minnesota. The solar site will take up approximately 35 acres of a 120 acre parcel.
If at any point you're having trouble hearing me, let me know. Um, included in your agenda is a copy of a portion of the application that was submitted. I do want to note that the entire application was right around 400 pages long. That is, of course, part of our county public
record that will be kept on file permanently. The county um photo copy or included in your packet just to keep what you are seeing to be the most relevant information. Um but in included with the agenda is the application, the
um project narrative, the actual construction plans, a copy of the decommissioning plan and then some soil information. Um county staff also prepared maps showing the general location of the property. And then there is at the end the proposed recording
affidavit um that would be reported if the conditional use is approved. Uh in summary, the project is going on property that is owned by David and Mary Wickham. The applicant acting as the agent for the property owner is New Leaf Energy. They are based out of
Massachusetts. Um the the uh project is on land that is zoned A1 and it is located in Kenyon Township. The applicable ordinances here are listed in the staff report, but um as you may know, the Comey adopted a solar energy
system ordinance. It's in article 19 of the county's zoning ordinance. Just a couple things to point out here. The county does regulate solar energy systems in three different ways. We have what are called residential solar energy systems, commercial solar energy
systems, and then utility scale. Um utility scale requires a conditional use permit. The other two are allowed with a um essentially with a building permit. Uh the planning advisory commission did meet on June 16th and they held a public
hearing to consider this request. There were no comments from the public. Um Cole Bearden who was present on behalf of New Energy was there to provide an overview of the project and answer any questions that the commission might have. Um two of the questions that the
commission raised, one was related to the interconnection request with Excel Energy with XL Energy and where that was at. Um New Leaf Energy has submitted a request for an interconnection permit and has not yet been approved. Um the other thing that
was discussed was a drainage ditch that goes kind of east west in the property. Um so the commission looked at that. Um and there was general discussion on the life cycle and the lifespan of solar panels. Um the commission did discuss
that there is a 20year lease proposed between New Energy and the Wickhams. That lease was submitted that executed lease was submitted with the application. Um that lease does have a renewal clause that allows the property
owners to renew it on a 5-year basis. Um the planning commission did recommend approval of the conditional use permit. There were findings of fact um one through five that are aligned with the county's uh required findings of fact
for conditional uses. And then there are four recommended conditions of approval. Um, the first is that the owner or applicant would notify the county after the 25-y year lease period to verify if the project will be decommissioned or if the lease will be renewed for another 5
years. Um, pointing out that the project is subject to the Minnesota solar energy production tax and that the owner is responsible for remitting all reports and payments in accordance with state law. um noting that a copy of the MPCA MPDS
permit, which is basically the construction storm water permit, must be filed with the building permit. And lastly, that the county reserves the right to require financial security from the owner operator in an amount equal to 125% of the total cost of the
commission. Um that is something that the commission can choose to impart on conditional uses. It's my understanding that historically um solar projects the county has not held a financial security. The way we calculate that is based on the numbers provided in the
decommissioning plan. Um the numbers are in there. They they have a total value of decommissioning. They subtract out salvage value of some of the metal and then we then there's an inflation rate um based on projecting what what the
cost of this will be at 25 years from now. So with that, I guess I um am available for any questions. Well, I I asked you a question about the decommissioning just a few minutes ago, and I understand that wind energy does
provide that type of bondage from solar. We've not done that, but I think that the federal support for solar is certainly changing. And I wonder if we should not change things today, but to have land use take a look at what other
are doing and uh maybe have a broader discussion about whether we should in fact do that decommissioning to go to the bond uh going forward. Yeah, that is something that our staff can absolutely research kind of what other counties are doing and and is
there a threshold for you know when the the bond is required? Maybe maybe it's based on number of megawatts, maybe it's based on how much acreage, maybe it's based on total value. Right. What we don't want is for future boards 25 years
down the road to end up with a big deal that so are there because 25 years is so far down the road none of us will be here. So what are the not the ramifications but
I mean what do we have in place if at the very end somebody doesn't want to do the decommissioning? Do we have any recourse? Does the county have any recourse? Um I've not been through that happening specifically. So I'm I'm going to try to
hypothesize maybe what would happen. Um there's sort of two people that would be quote quote on the two people or two entities. One would be New Leaf Energy or whatever their name might be 25 years from now. Um maybe they have been
acquired, maybe they've been split. Um and then the property owners. Um you know, the property owners have some skin in the game as well because this is all their land. Um so to me, the county would likely, and again, we probably rely on heavily on the legal advice of
our county attorney, but that would probably be first two avenues to pursue is going with the if the property if the project were abandoned let's just say um it would I think first we would look to get corrective action through those two um entities
and then if that doesn't work then plan any other questions you can bring it up you're looking at me no I'm not I'm And I this has been a kind of a a tough issue for a long time. And there's a
there's a few ways you can look at it. You can look at it. It's particular just to solar. And that's really in my mind um putting blinders on and closing your eyes. Um because quite frankly if you and we have
several around the county um very large um manure storage sites. So if they walked away from that the cost of that could be much worse than the cost of decommissioning a solar.
Um, so I think when we look at it and only aim it at solar or wind, I think we're missing we're missing a really um other expense that unintentionally could come forward. So, I that's why I have
been um kind of opposed to it in the past, but I've not been opposed to making sure that enough land stays with that solar project. And this one being 35 acres. Um, and I don't know as we've
ever approved one for that large a scale. I I think the largest is five or under. I I I haven't done that research. I I don't think I don't think we've had any that have had to go through MPCA
yet. So, this is a much larger scale, which makes me even more nervous. So, tying land to it that if you had to decommission it and they tax forfeited to the county and we had to clean it up, if there's enough land with it, now our
cost recapture could be better. So, I'm really reluctant to go down the path of bonds simply because there are other things that happen out in Roi County that
really then should also have bonds because we could potentially have those come back to us and we have to clean them up too. So, so maybe we need to look at this more broadly than solar, but we still have to have an idea of how
we want to protect the taxpayers who will be dealing with this long after most of us are here. I think um just for context since I've been here I believe there's three areas in the zoning ordinance that require or that the county has the option of requiring financial security
for gravel mining hits and the cost to reclaim the land after gravel mining uses um wind energy and solar you agree we need to look at it more broadly I I agree we We need to we need to figure out what the path forward is. Yeah.
My my understanding working with uh this over yours was that we were not going to allow um solar projects to be split from the original parcel. Not able to find it in zoning. I haven't I haven't really found
it in the subdivision ordinance, but um separating them off alone then puts them a bigger risk if they ever get tax forfeited to the county for cost. So I'm more leaning towards not allowing
a split on that parcel than I am trying to put. Yeah, there's different ways to do that, right? Same thing, right? And with the gravel mines and with the wind, are we requiring the bond or you maybe don't know that either. Just be good to know that too.
We could go back and look. And then what are the ways in which uh taxpayers are being protected in other counties whether it's bonds or whether it's as Brad suggesting not allowing a split on the property. So that that's what I'd be interested in.
But I I believe we have to treat this project the way we've been treating projects and then just stimulates to look at how we want to move going forward. That brings up another question. Let's say a a parent at this point has five children. They split that off five
different ways and they can get creative on it and that one person gets that 35 acres and they let that go. So I mean so I think the split is probably the you know say you can't split that off that off
and I think we probably wouldn't have to attach that today if we studied it and then made the decision to not allow solar projects to be split from their original part and and that become part of our ordinance then it doesn't have to be
part of If that's the wrong we have a decision to make or can we can we delay it? We can delay the decision. We do have a 60-day rule. Um but we have enough time to bring this back to the
it's July mid July meeting 14th meeting the July. Does does that give you enough time to gather some information and u I mean, so if it's narrowed specifically to whether
or not um the county has historically required financial security, I can perhaps find out something about the county. Erin, Erin's looking at here, assistant county attorney. Do you have any words
of wisdom on this? Do you have a motion? Second, please. We don't have a motion or a second. So yeah, so we should do that first. Yes. I I don't think you have anything
to cont. I'll make a motion that we with further discussion or can I do that? It's either yes or no. I'll make a motion to approve. Is there a second? I'll second it just so we can discuss it further because we have
we have eyes watching us, the public and our county attorney and I appreciate that. We we do need to follow the the letter of the law with this any other thoughts on this. Well, just one question in in in terms of uh
waiting till after the July 14th meeting, what 15. Is there any downside to that for their company, for this land owner or uh I did speak to the applicant yesterday,
I think, and they we kind of prepared for a couple different scenarios. Number one is that we're unaccustomed to a county meeting at a county fair. personally apologize for not being able to be here. Sure. Um, and they did just say that if there were questions, but they would be comfortable with it
and being here on the 15th. And I think one of the questions if you if we required a bond, obviously that would go towards the developer. If we talk about not being able to split, that really is the
landowner. Mhm. So, and I don't think there's any way by the 14th we could ever change the ordinance to affect that part of it, but we could be made we could make them aware that we're considering it.
Not that they run out and split it right away, but it's a thought. And as I mentioned, you know, the county has the data on the decommissioning cost. So figuring out, you know, 125% of that would be fairly easy to do. It's
just a matter of does the board wish to require it for this project? Are there risks that you perceive that would want to require it for this project? Um I this is my first solar project presenting to you, so I was unsure kind of what your what your wishes would be
on it. I I understood from our conversation that this company's used to having that kind of bond to pay in other projects that was my impression. They mentioned that at the planning advisory commission. So I I don't think requiring a bond
would change what they can do. I mean that was the way it sounded. And I I can't answer them, but We have a motion and a second to approve it as presented. Um I don't think we can we can do a couple of things. You can
withdraw your motion. We can move the delay till the 14th. give Megan and staff some time to to study it a little bit more and understand what the ramifications of us asking for it on
this compared to some other project. Um we and I, you know, I've only been here 11 years. That's not forever, but I think I was here when the first solar projects went in and I think I can say we've never ever put a bond on any of
them. So, it is a major shift for the county to do that. And like I said, I think it really begs to think about other um other expenses that could come forward from other projects if they
became counterpart. I think just with the sheer size of this one, we have Yeah. Well, that and we can that's another choice. We could choose to we could choose to to um say if they're over a certain size, we're going to
put make them have a B or or we could do both. We could do the split and we could do this. We could do multiple things. I think so. The the question is do you want to you want to actually go through with it today or do you want to go lower?
Well, I'm very supportive of solar. So, I'm glad to see more projects going forward, but it seems to me that it makes sense to delay since the company's okay with it. We do have a time and then we'll have maybe three options that we can consider about how to program or
something. So, it's not that I'm not supportive of solar, I am, but I think we have to have a little more clarity on this issue of and I will withdraw my motion and I'll withdraw my second. Is there a motion to table this till our next regularly
scheduled board meeting? I'll make a motion to table it until our next board meeting. I'll second muster for staff. Yes. All right. Any further discussion? Oh, I don't think that's debatable. All those in favor say I.
Any oppos? Ken, if you need more direction on that, um we can talk as an exact committee. uh if you have questions. All right. Next item is
um preliminary plat request for Spring Garden Nursery. Okay. Commissioners, this is an agenda item that is also being presented to you from the planning advisory commission. Um it is a preliminary plat for a
proposed flat titled Spring Garden Nursery. It's located just outside Canon Falls um within the shoreland overlay district of Lake Bills. It includes the subdividing of 6.5 acres of land um into
three lots. The property currently contains one home and the address is at 4900 Stealth Ridge Road. Included in the application is a copy of a preliminary plat and site maps prepared by county staff. The property owners are Peggy and
David Loren and it is located in an R1 zoning district and located in Stanton Township. Um the county's subdivision ordinance here has to be compared with the county's zoning ordinance to determine whether or not the lots are
configured in with enough area to meet zoning requirements, but also is it meeting the platting requirements. That was something that our staff reviewed um and then presented to the planning commission. Based on lot sizes as proposed, it does meet both the county's lot size requirements for the R1
district, but also the lot size requirements for subdividing land in a shoreland district, which require larger lot areas and more lot. So, the three lots as proposed meet, like I said, R1 and shoreline ordinance.
Just a couple things to point out. Um, the property is adjacent to Highway 19 and Highway 19 has a fairly large rightway. Um, that right ofway is shown on the attached plat. Um, the sub or the
surveyor did include acreage calculations that include lot size with rightaway and lot size without right away. And I think that's really helpful because it shows that there is a significant portion of these lots that is essentially unusable for for construction activity because it's in an
easement. It can be lawn area um as well. Um let's see here. I wanted to just from a historical perspective, this site um was reszoned in 2018 from A2 to R1 and
there have been a couple variances and conditional uses issued to the property owner as well. I want to go over some of the public comments that were submitted at the planning advisory commission meeting. There were two um neighbors that did
submit testimony in opposition of the project. Um most of their opposition I would say would be concerned with density of the area and you know having more homes built built in this area. Um the commissioners did discuss
some of the density. Um and then they also discussed Sant Township and Sant Township's requirements for platting. Um one of the things that they decided to do was forward the recommendation to you for approval of the preliminary platform. um knowing that the county it
the plat meets county platting requirements but if it does not meet Stanton requirements that it can't proceed into what's called the final stage. Um so we're good to go with preliminary um we need to get uh essentially get together with Stanton Township before
the final subm and I um I have already been in contact with the Stanton Township clerk um just to discuss some nuances of what they require. Um so with that the planning advisory commission is recommending approval. Plats do not require findings of fact
but there are some conditions recommended conditions of approval. There's a couple that I think are a little bit important here. Um number one is Scout Ridge Road is a private road that is owned by um
owned by a private private park and and uh the that is subject of the subdivision does not have legal access to Spellbridgeidge Road. So, the first recommendation is to terminate that address of Spellbridgeidge Road. Um,
everything from UPS trucks to the garbage to, you know, all the deliveries are coming down Ridge attempting to get to this property and it's there's not legal access. So, I'm I'm suggesting that that be cleaned up to this. Um, number two, we have a standard 180day
period where you have to move the plat forward within 180 days to final plat or it expires and you've got to go back to preliminary. Um, number three, Mindot has limited access off of Highway 19 to this property owner. They're have
only allowed one driveway access. Um the presumption here is that these new lots that are being created would all use this access point. There is an easement shown on the platform. Um one of my concerns is whether or not Mindot is okay with taking that access point
concerning two homes to four homes. Um that is a essentially a mindot decision, not a county decision, but I pointed it out here in the conditions of approval just so it doesn't get lost. um proof of ownership will be needed.
And then really the last thing is related to a structure that exists on the property. So there's a home on the property and then there's a large out building. Um it's like a commercial building that is used for storage. Um that building if the plat is approved
will be put on its own lot. what the county or what I'm recommending you all consider would be putting a restriction on the fact that that building cannot be used until the property owner submits building plans and construction plans for the purpose
of the use of the property. Um that would allow our building department to review the proposed use determine that the building meets building codes. We also allow zoning to make sure that the use is allowed in R1 district. Um so it's essentially saying you can't use the building building permit is
submitted and approved. So with that um recommendation against planning advisory is to recommend approval and I'm here for any questions. I'll move the planning commission recommendation with the seven conditions.
I'll second that motion. Any discussion? Go ahead. Um the building on lot two that can't be used. So does that mean for anything to
be used for storage? Does it just have to stay empty? Um that usually doesn't work too well for people. So um can you give me a little bit more detail on that? So I'll give you a scenario using it for
storage in an R1 district where there's not a principal structure for a home would be considered commercial storage. It's not allowed in an R1 district. Um you have to be zoned business or industrial to have like a self storage facility. So I would be
concerned if someone buys the lot and just uses it for storage without having a house. Um also the building as I understand it was initially built for um almost under a commercial type of construction. And because the property is not zone commercial, it's zone residential. We need to make sure that
we don't have people living in a structure that was built for commercial occupancy. So, a lot of it boils down to just life safety um protection of the occupant. I I have a follow-up question. Could the current owner until it's sold, could
they continue to use it as they are using it until the plat until the final plat is recorded? Once it becomes um a standalone building on a standalone lot, then it becomes the what's called the principal use of
principal use of the lot and principal use of the building. So, they could not rent to this plan. We just need to know what is proposed. It's kind of what I'm suggesting. You know, is it going to be converted to a residential structure? We need to know if somebody's um want to put a homebased
business in there. You know, all we're saying is you need to submit per to tell us how you're getting this. Any other questions? I got I got several. Megan and I have been talking about this issue. First,
there's no rush to do this because the Lawrenes haven't even applied to the township. So, we really don't need to get this done today because they need to go through a whole process with Stan Township. Not that Stan Township's decision really affects our decision.
But the questions I have around it are that's a state highway. We don't know what the state setback for building is. Our setback right now in an R1 is 40 ft.
If that was an A1, A2 or A3, our setback from that right away would be 60 ft. being a state road having only a 40ft setback and knowing that state roads get rebuilt
that 40oot setback does not seem adequate at all. So I have real questions about that. The other piece is while these parcels are 2 acres as noted in the information
only 1.7 acres of that is outside roughly 1.7 per parcel one's maybe a little more per parcel are outside of that rightway. So in other words, that's all that's usable is the 1.7 acres because you can't do anything in the
rightway. And then if you got the setback, that takes another chunk. As soon as we approve this as a platted three three parcels, the assumption of everybody is they're all builders. I'm not so sure they're
all builders and I don't think we're doing justice to the landowner to approve a plaque where They're probably or could there's a significant chance they could not be all burned. We should make sure they're buildable before we approve a plaque
that splits it that way. Maybe there's only two lots there, not three. If you really get down to figure out whether to build a lot. So, I think there's just too many questions there that we need more answers to. Um, so I
would hope we would not move it forward and give us give our staff more time to get information from Mandot, get information about whether there's actually room for septic systems on those lots plus a dwelling plus a well
or whether they're not really three buildable. Is that information you'd be able to get? My uh my concern specifically is just with um they have been notified. They have been
emailed. You know, I don't know what their turnaround time frame is for reviewing individual class in all of their districts. Um but they have been contacted with these questions. Um And if we approve this, um, I think
Brad, you said mind would still do their thing. And so maybe they wouldn't even want to apply it until they knew what was going to say. And what Stanton Township say, too. So, it looks like there's a building connected to the back of the house. Is
that just for personal that's all classified under a residential occupancy building? And I personally I'm not saying we shouldn't eventually approve it, but I just think what happens sometimes is we
approve something and then our staff have to deal with the fallout because we didn't actually have all the information we needed and they're trying to pigeon hole a building site into a spot where a building site shouldn't go or can't go.
the configuration of the easement of that road through the parcel three I think it is I mean takes up a whole chunk of that if it was down the edge of it there'd be a whole lot more usable space but once you create a plat with an easement for a road changing just
changing the easement for the road becomes a huge hurdle for anybody going forward so I there's just in my mind too many questions that need answered before we Do you have any reaction?
The question I have is if we went forward with this, they obviously had it surveyed out. So, I'm not sure what their plan was, what direction they had, or as a land owner getting the survey, I would making the assumption, did they do their due diligence? Uh, is it buildable site? Would the
surveyor know? May, may not if they have the applicant. And then when they were to come to land use and asked you if this is a proposed use, is it a buildable site? So, are they putting the cart before the horse that they don't even know and now we're going backwards
because they didn't do their due diligence to pl this cuz they obviously surveyed it. So, they had a plan. They just throwing it out. They're assuming is that what we're making assessment is that they're assuming this is all buildable or we're what's their plan? I don't know. Why are
they doing it if they don't if they're not buildable? What's their plan? If we're going backwards and saying they're not buildable, aren't they supposed to know that ahead of time? Yeah. So, Commissioner Majaras, um, in my conversations with the property owner, they're intending that all three
lots are buildable and their plan does include a plan in a way so that all three lots can be built on. I believe the plan is to sell them and let the future buyer decide where they want the house, how big the house would be. Do they want a detached garage,
where the septic would go, there's obviously some areas that are going to be limited. Um, but just in my, like I said, in my conversations with the owner, they are intending, but the lots are available. So when you go through it and they plat it this way, are they presenting it to
you in a manner that it's on your Dudy County's land use, it's on to you to tell them, "Yay or nay, these are buildable." They should be doing this on their own, but then they're going to be coming to you to ask you what are the setbacks. Are they buildable?
So one way or the other, you're probably going to get involved. So yes, I guess I can see Brad's point. Is it prudent if they're expecting these to be buildable? And I have no idea if there's a question that they're not. I don't I'm not sure if there's a question or not.
So, just to kind of anecdotally add in, when the county approves lots split or plat, we're not guaranteeing whether or not anything is available. We're we're simply um allowing the property owner to subdivide. After the land is subdivided, whoever
owns the land has to come to us again with permits based on their exact style of construction. Um, you know, the one factor here that I would say is a big factor is how big of a house do they want? What style of house? Um, how is it going to fit on the lot? Um, all three
lots have the ability to have a house on it. Is it a 8,000 foot house or is it a 1,000T house? Correct. So based on that, I guess I I see other people's point, but I don't know how we I mean, it seems fairly simple that we
can approve it, then the onus is on the land owner to do nothing abnormal than what we've done in the past before a building permit anything is issued, it won't be verified if they can. If it's they don't verify this before they spend the time and money on it, it's
their decision. And you're right, it is their decision. they could they could do a split like that. And um I just think it makes it difficult for our staff when we probably have questions we could get
answered before we approve the PLA that gives them clear direction as to what they exactly can do with that because right now they haven't gone through Stanton. So they don't know whether Stanton's even approve it and they don't know if they can get three
houses in there or two houses in there or just the one that's already there with Stanton because they have a density issue. If you only look at one ordinance, our ordinance, and you don't ask mindot and you don't ask Stanton, it may fit for us, but it may not fit for
anybody else. So I don't like doing things that cause conflict with our other partners in government. So that's the only reason I'm saying I would want to back it down and take the time to
actually be able to give me some solid answers. But I think our vote would be what that's what he's saying allows. Well, but if MDOT says that they have a 100 foot rightway there and you can't
build within 100 ft of their rightway, that severely changes what you can do on those lots. Right. I understand ours is only 40 and if it was A1 it would be 60. There's a conflict there that I have a problem with with our own ordinance that I think
we need to look at. Um 40s may be okay if it's a platted road within a development of R1. But if it's a county road I don't know if 40 is a big enough setback when we go to rebuild the road.
I have another question. If we approve this, they could choose to either go ahead and plat it or they could wait until they talk to Mind. Is that right? Correct. Uh before with the proposed conditions, they would as written, we
can't consider a final plan until all those are right. So would say this step is approved but that doesn't mean anything about stant looking because if if we do this work ahead of time before Stanton even comes in we may
have wasted that work too says no you know we we approve this I think they followed all of our guidelines they come to us they've said can we do this as far as county does that have any influence on the other two I don't believe so I
mean maybe the land owners are hoping But I I I don't know. So, but bottom line is, you know, you know, the horse or whatever, but you know, there's a lot of good points there, but I think they have followed our guidelines and this is
in front of us right now. Yeah. Go ahead. Is there is there any county policy on where you have to go first? I mean I All right. We have to work we have to work
independent of each other. All right. But I mean I agree with you. If I don't know what Stanton Township wants, then it just seems like Well, and I'm not really concerned about how Stanton deals with it because Stanton has their own and they're going
to deal with it the way they want to do. They need our zone. I get it. I just think there's enough questions out there about really whether whether they'll be able to do what they're what they've told you they want to do because we don't have enough
information about that. And you know, we have a motion, a second. We can go forward and it may come back different later. Uh may come back to a different preliminary plot and the final pill when all the answers are
out there. So that's fine. Anything else? If not, all those in favor say I. I. Opposed? Nay. All right. Next financial statement of audit, Lucas Dolly,
financial director will take care of that. Commissioners, the county's auditors presented summary financial information from the annual comprehensive financial report or on May 20th, 2025. At that time, the audit was not yet
complete. However, both management and the auditors felt that it was close enough uh to u discuss the 2024 financial results. Discussing the results at that time uh was uh beneficial as it allowed us to
move that information a little earlier in the budgetary cycle. The doctor has now been finalized and the auditors issued an unmodified opinion to the overall financial statements, meaning that the financial statements and related notes and schedules were paired in conformity with
applicable accounting rules. The auditor's opinion does not offer judgment as to the financial health of the county itself. Though the auditors also perform a review of the ACA for compliance with the government finance officers association certificate of achievement for
excellence in financial reporting program. The county believes that the 2024 act meets the requirements of the program and has formerly submitted the 2024 report for award consideration. Participation in that program and receipt of the award demonstrates to external stakeholders that the county is
committed to sound management of its finances and operations and adheres to high standards of financial reporting. It can also give the county several economic advantages including better overall bond ratings as well as reduced interest rates on debt issuances.
U a copy of that is available for reference on the county's website and with that final staff recommended the county board accept the audit financial statements for a year end December 31st 2024 questions
heard the report at the last meeting or couple meetings ago from the auditor pretty depth financial positions good work that staff has done is excellent and they were commended during that
audit and I commend them for the work they do. Board's wishes move to approve second move and second we approve the audit and financial statements. All those in favor say I
oppose the same. Motion carries. Can I make one statement? You can. I'm glad that we have our financial staff heading into these next few years. So, I'm glad you're there. Thank you. It's a lot ahead of us. Thank you.
All right. And then there's a few for your informations. Any questions on any of that? See none. Product project status report. New or old business. Committee reports.
What your request today? All right. Claims review and approve the county claims. I'll make a motion we pay the bills. Second. Move the second we pay the county claims. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I.
I. Oppos same. Again, I'd just like to thank Valley Fair for hosting us. It is always nice to get out away from Redwing and out into the county for a meeting and this is one of them. We'll have
another one of the county care on Thursday of that week too. So with that, is there a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. Second. Second we adjourn. All those in favor say I. I. Oppose the same. Motion carries. Thank you.
We will be a few minutes and then we will reset for our health and human service board.