I'll call the meeting to order. We'll start with the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States for it stands indivisible.
Uh first thing on the agenda is disclosures of interest. Are there any disclosures of interest? >> None. >> Okay. Hearing none, we'll go on to the previous board uh minutes. >> Move approval. >> Second. >> There's a motion and a second. Any
further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. Opposed. Motion carries. Uh, next, review the agenda. Andrea, are there any changes? >> There are no changes. >> Okay. Prove >> second.
>> Okay. Uh, there's a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. Motion carries. Uh, next is to review and approve the consent agenda. And I did want to pull
out uh item number four just because I had a couple more questions. Right. I had one comment I wanted to make on um number six. Okay. The uh lower potency hemp edibles. I
just wanted it on the record so people understood that with lower potency hemp elible retailers, we per statute, we are not allowed to limit the registrations and that this particular one does not
count as one of the cannabis licenses that we have in Good Hugh County. >> Okay. So, I'll make a motion that we approve everything but item four. >> Correct. >> Second. That's all you wanted to say on item six. Correct, Linda? Just your comment. That's okay.
>> And I'll second that. >> Okay. There's a motion in a second to approve the consent agenda excluding item number four. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. Opposed. Motion carries. So, uh um Chad, I think you're on online. Is that
right? Yeah. And um Chad's been very helpful in answering my multiple questions about this. And uh what I what I was concerned about was uh the uh uh cost of having a temporary tower and having only one option. And uh Chad went
through all of that pretty well. But the last question I have about that part really is well what do we do need to do to reach out uh so we get a heads up uh sooner because I don't think that who we partner with is just going to give us
the heads up. I think probably you know as as people are voting for their budgets for their next year. We probably need to do something like send an email out to find out if they're doing any tower work. and Marty commented to me that uh the city of Redwing had basically done the same thing, but then
we're willing to hold off for a year uh so that the county could adjust to that. So, I just wonder how we can make sure that we're getting the information we need so we can do this in the most cost-effective way possible. So, that's one question. And my other question was
is I was uh kind of under the impression that our I don't know what you call that vehicle, Marty, >> emergency communications. Yeah, that the emergency communications vehicle could help us out with a an issue like this. And uh um it it sounds like they can't
do the armor armor radio part of things. So, I just wanted to make sure I understood that. Um and I I think those were my only two questions. >> I think we'll u we'll let Chad and Jeff Nelson probably respond to those.
>> I uh I can start. Can everyone hear me? Okay. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Good deal. Chad Stefen from the sheriff's office and I apologize I couldn't be in person this morning. As you may know, we are in the middle of a fullscale drill related to the plant. But with that being said, Madame Chair,
regarding your question, uh typically the cities refer water towers every 20 to 25 years >> and we will sometimes get a lead time of a year or two. um with Pine Island here, we had we I I've been in constant
communication with them over the last two or three years and uh they actually bumped this project out of theirs from 2025 to 2026 uh due to their budgetary constraints at the time and uh once they approve their budget, they have an idea that they're going to move forward. Um
they have many many consultants that uh they work with to uh secure the date. Um, and so while we always anticipate and try to budget accordingly for these, um, there's a lot of additional factors involved there. And, and I'll certainly,
uh, let Jeff Nelson with PCSA, the county's longtime consultant on these larger projects, uh, comment or articulate any better than I just did on that. Um, but before I turn that over to Jeff, I'll answer your other question regarding the mobile command and communications vehicle. Um, what we're
talking about here is an armor tower site. An armor tower site consists of a shelter, typically 10 by 30, that contains a slew of communications equipment to link to the statewide radio network. Uh, in that shelter is on our system eight different channels and a
rack with a lot of other equipment to make a a trunked digital radio system work. Um, that is not something that our mobile command truck is capable of. essentially um think of our armor tower sites as a cellular site. Um a cell they
they do make sightes on wheels like a cellular tower site on wheels. Uh in the state of Minnesota we have one armor site on wheels that's owned by Henipin County. Um certainly could have been an option but but that's an expensive asset uh to deploy even more than the cost of
uh what we have to pay to move to equipment off the tower and put it back on the tower and it's not available during this time frame. It's certainly not something that would be deployed over 3 to four months. >> Um, and the mobile command truck is while it has a lot of communications equipment in it and we can communicate
with about anyone in it, it doesn't provide coverage. It's not a tower site. Um, and so I I hope that answers that question. Uh, Jeff Nelson, would you like to clarify on the lead times and dealing with contractors?
>> Uh, thanks. Everybody hear me? Okay. Madam Chair, >> uh just >> Yep. >> Uh so good morning. My name is Jeff Nelson and um as uh Kevin Stefen mentions, I've done consulting work for Good Hugh County for a number of years
on the communications front. Um, so on the lead time, our experience has been that it typically takes about six months of planning to try and get uh all of the ducks lined up to make a site move when a water tank needs to go out of
commission. As Chad mentioned, there had been some prior discussion about Pine Island uh uh perhaps doing a a tank uh refurb or rehab. Uh but the actual planning meeting to make that happen
didn't happen until April of this year. And so it was a mad dash to get um quotes and and u um available resources to do it. As I mentioned in my memo, uh we contacted 11 different vendors and
some of them had structures, some of them had uh labor, but only one had both structures and labor available for this project that would be suitable to support the county's needs. >> Uh thank you. It and it isn't my intention to hold this up. It's just to
clarify a few things. And so if if a tower went down because of a natural disaster, what would we do then if if uh so maybe I could take a swing at that real quickly, Madam Chair? So the there
are some what are called transportable tower assets. Uh we talked about that with Pine Island at the time to try and >> see if that would be a fa feasible solution here. >> Uh those are governmentally owned, but
unfortunately the the um land uh footprint is larger than what is available on this parcel where the Pine Island water tank sits. And so it would not be a feasible alternative in that
particular instance. >> Sure. So if there was an emergency, people would be more tolerant of a larger footprint than when it's a scheduled uh refurbishment. I assume >> that's correct. And uh also I I think one other complicating factor is that
the Pine Island uh city council approved this uh contract award for their rehab contractor uh in the third week of May. Okay, thank you. You bet. Th >> those were my questions. Does uh anybody
else have any questions? >> Okay. Is there a motion to approve this item? >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All right. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. Motion carries. Thank you.
Uh next, I think you're up, Marty. Madam Chair, I will stay put here. We uh have been working on um different ways to actually save money. We're always looking at at new new things and new opportunities and we do have an
opportunity with the port security grant that we've had a lot of success with in the past. Um many of our assets uh have been obtained through that. As you know, it's a 25% matching grant on on those items. Uh but we have been very fortunate and have a good relationship
with with the port people uh in the in the cities. I'll cut to the chase. We are we are considering um applying for two separate grants for the port security grant. Uh
the one is to insulate the sheriff's shed. We call it emergency um services building where we do keep our boat and water uh assets. Um our Bearcat and other uh a Humvee for our SWAT
operations. There is partially heated side and then we have a cold side. We have actually two cold sides. We are we are requesting to be able to um apply to get that other
side heated which is the heaters that look like these lights up here. Um it's not a complete HVAC system. That was kind of our mistake. Um we're just trying to heat it. We don't need to cool it because that building does stay ve fairly cool in the summer. Um,
and so we just uh and I explained to uh Linda the other day that we we have a bunch of uh electronics and equipment that needs to stay at a a constant temperature for us to to be
able to deploy immediately. And some of those assets fortunately um sit for a while when we when we don't use them and and uh but when we need them the problem is and the question came up is do you do you need your squad cars in indoors and that's that answer
is no because they're being used on a regular basis like just I'll just throw the bearcat at you. We we don't use that every day but we need it ready every day. So, we've currently put that one in our um heated portion um and made some
room, but we would also uh like to get the emergency communications vehicle back up here. It is currently in Kenyon. Um although it's a great spot for it. It's not centrally located um where we think Redwing would be the best fit. We don't have a spot for that. Um we'd find
room, but it's not heated. So that cost we had an estimate of 227,700 uh if if approved. Um now keep in mind they haven't even come out with the grant yet. Homeland Security's been shut down for a while. We don't know when and if that grant is even going to come out,
but when it is, we want to be ready. So that's why we're we're on this um project proposal right now. the required uh 25% local match would be 56,925 and we've have identified it currently
in the 2027 capital plan in case we are awarded that. So I think I'll stop there and and see if you have any questions in that regard on that particular request. >> And any questions for the sheriff?
We did answer several on emails and I I hope we answered them to your liking. >> I thought I thought part of the uh emergency communication vehicle out of the Redwing in case of a disaster like with the nuke plant that it was located
away from that hazard. >> Um well certainly that is would be beneficial. Ideally, we'd like to set it in the city of Goodyu that all that's centrally located, but we don't have a spot there.
Um, and it just takes manpower to quite frankly, our a lot of our operations are out of the Redwing area that we'd be pulling it. Um, >> okay. >> So, I think maybe Todd, your question would be would be be better off applying
for a grant to uh do something in Goodu then if that's the better location. Oh, >> I don't know. I mean, >> I don't know. >> Well, there was talk about a building in Goodu, but I I don't know where that ever ended up. Any of you guys remember
fair grounds? Put it at the fairgrounds. >> Buildings there and it's there half the time. >> There's no heated ones there, though. >> No, but but >> 220,000. Could the grant be used to uh uh heat it heat it in a location where
it might actually be more useful? >> I don't know. We >> All we could do is ask. >> Mhm. >> All we could do is ask. I don't know if that would fit or not. >> Yeah. >> Chad, do you have any opinion on that? >> Comment on it.
>> Obviously, the emergency that that vehicle is only a portion of trying to find location and like Todd brought up is a question mark. I thought that's part of the reason we moved it to Kenyon was because it was not didn't want it or was not allowed based on the grant to be located in Redwing. But that's only a portion of it obviously that that
vehicle obviously you have more items and more equipment and stuff to get in there. So, uh just to stick to the aspect of what I mean it is what it is. I mean I they're going to continue to ask for it because they want to keep the boats and the other stuff. So >> focus on that vehicle about that down
the road. Go ahead. >> My my thought my thought uh uh board and sheriff is uh kind of twofold here when it comes to emergency command vehicle. The Kenyon location has been great. It's been awesome. It's it's a great location. Those guys bend over backwards for us. Um, I will say uh that we we
tend to bring it up to Redwing and and and keep it up here in the summer in the uh nonclimatec controlled, which again it doesn't need to be air conditioned building because I spend more money on diesel fuel driving it back and forth to Redwing to Kenyon than I, you know, than it makes any sense. Um, regarding using
the grant to fund a facility in the city of Good Hugh, I think this we have to remember that this is a port security grant and the long-term focus is strengthening portwide risk management, protecting the critical uh maritime transportation infrastructure and
everything related to the Mississippi River corridor. And uh I think they would ask if we're going to whether it be build a building or even just insulate a building like the sheriff is asking here. um they're going to ask, "Well, why would you do that further away from that Mississippi River
corridor?" That this grant is um the goal essentially is to improve the response times, assets, and capabilities to the Mississippi River corridor. >> So then they would be concerned about it being in Kenyon. >> Well, and that may be true. Um, but we
also told them we would keep it in a when it comes to the emergency command vehicle, we told them we'd keep it in a climate controlled facility during the winter months. And right now, Kenyon is our option. >> Thank you. Any other questions on this part?
And I think we'll go ahead to the second part then. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. The next one is um all Chad. Uh we we have um new radio councils coming in. They're scheduled for 2028 to 2031, I I
believe. Um but we thought we could we could possibly get these on on the grant as well and then pay the 25% match with 911 funds. But Chad, why don't can you give a quick overview of that project? >> Yep. Essentially, this is an a a 15 to
20 year upgrade. Once you upgrade a radio console um on the armor system, it's then covered under the SUA cost. So whether it needs a um uh a repair or a firmware update, all that stuff is covered under the SUA, but when they do
migrations to platforms, um essentially this is a platform migration. There's a cost. Again, that's a 15 to 20 year expense. Um, so what the sheriff and I are asking for here is to also uh try to seek out this specific grant to cover the replacement of those five radio
councils. Um, we would uh right now the tenative code is $375,700. Um, with 75% match and so local dollars would be used out of 911 funds. Um, in short, there would be no levy impact if we are awarded this grant. Um, and this
would be an awesome thing. budgetarily, not just for levy dollars, but even just maintaining our 911 grant funds uh in the future. Uh I'll stand for questions. >> Any questions? >> Is there a motion to approve them going
forward with applying for the grants? >> So moved. There a second. >> I'll second. Any further discussion? >> Is there any way we can do just the council units and hold off on the installation
or was that better chance of of getting just the one versus >> the two or we >> we've applied for multiple grants in one process and been denied before. >> I think
>> we don't have a greater or less opportunity to get it at the point. It's just it's kind of the luck of the draw quite frankly. >> There could we apply for it again next year? Absolutely. >> Okay. >> And if I may mention what we will do
should the board approve us to apply for this grant is we will start socializing our intent with the captain of the port and the folks with the area maritime security group. Um typically that's beneficial for two reasons. one, they know what we're going to apply for and
they know what the county's intent to to use the funding for. And uh that that in in in line with uh some creative grant writing skills I try to deploy, we tend to increase our benefits of uh securing
this funding. >> So I'm not sure, Todd, if I'm understanding your question. I think you're wondering if we really need to heat that big of space and maybe what the cost of heating that space would actually be and and how much space would is necessary to actually heat. Is that
>> kind of and and it's the ongoing cost. I mean that's going to >> right >> the fuel bill is going to go up and >> really looking at a crunch right now, but I hate to throw something away to not get an opportunity like this. So I definitely see the advantage if we are
going to do it eventually. this could be the time to do it. So, >> do you guys have any estimate on the cost of heating the space? >> No, I mean it's okay if you don't, but >> the cost of heating it >> 5,500 annually. So, >> okay. All right.
>> 5500 annually. The actual heating system would have to be replaced in about 20 years. >> So, so there is a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. Opposed. Motion carries.
>> Thank you. I'll keep you posted if and when the grant actually opens and then from there we I'll let you know if we've got it. And thank you Chad and and Jeff. That's why I have a Chad. Right. >> Thank you. >> Yep. Thank you everyone. Have a good day.
>> Okay. Next. Uh finance and taxpayer services on the potential revision of a food and beverage ordinance. Good morning, commissioners. Uh, so we've been approached by a business that would like a seasonal on
sale liquor license. Um, and so this is allowed in accordance with Minnesota statute 34A.404 subdivision 6. Uh so counties with the approval of the commission of the department of public safety can issue seasonal on sale licenses to
restaurants, clubs and resorts uh within the area of the county that is not or that is unincorporated. These seasonal licenses um would be valid for a period that needs to be specified in an ordinance by the board and it cannot exceed 9 months. I will also note that
um the addition of the resorts um that was new in this last legislative session, they did um amend uh this statute. So the resorts is a new thing to statute that was not allowed in the past. Um additionally, our current food and
beverage ordinance is uh um is quite out of date and it does not allow for these licenses. Um the current version was uh adopted by the county board of health in May of 2011. Um and so if the board wishes staff to
update the ordinance to allow for seasonal licenses, it would make sense uh for us to really dig in and set up a crossount workg group uh involving the sheriff's office, HHS, the attorney's office, land use uh and as well as uh
finance staff to really look into this. Um, so really just wanted to get consensus from the board. Is this something that you'd like staff to work on um to allow businesses to get this type of license? And then should we really look at revising this ordinance
and coming up with something new um that's current with statute? >> Any questions for Lucas? >> Um will wedding venues be in on this or no? Um so wedding venues typically what they'll do is they'll hire a caterer and
that caterer themselves will have a license. So those we um those are handled differently directly through the state of Minnesota I believe. >> What if they uh go through a uh four-wheeler club or a sidebyside club
and then they keep it at that venue and that's where their sidebyside club is. Would they could they apply for this? And then when we know they're just used for larger events and weddings and >> that's something that we would have to
look into um when and if an application comes to us if it meets the requirements of of statute for these for these licenses. >> Go ahead, Linda. I did have a couple of questions for Lucas and he did answer
them making it sound to me certainly as if we should move forward with um a new ordinance and reviewing it because yes going back to what 2011 it does seem like it is out of date and should be
revised. >> So you'd be in support of it? >> Yes. >> Yeah. And I would assume there's other counties that have updated their ordinance or that have an ordinance that allows for seasonal liquor liquor licenses. So that it might >> Yeah, certainly. There's um there's a lot of counties out there that have
their ordinances drafted up differently than ours that are specific to uh a liquor or alcohol issuance and enforcement ordinance. Um uh for additional context um you know the the current ordinance it references
restaurant inspection um to be conducted by environment environmental health staff um as directed by the board of uh public health and my understanding is those duties were handed back to the state department of health back in 2014. So it is quite out of date and our ordinance
should reflect what we're actually doing. >> Sure. And it would probably you could use some models and take a look at them. And uh >> absolutely there there are a number of other counties that have uh ordinance that would be sufficient I think for our purpose. I just a matter of gathering up
uh drafting something for us specifically and then assembling this work group to review and make sure that we're taking all considerations into account. >> Any other any other comments or questions? And I think you're just asking for a consensus and uh um I don't know if we
take a vote on on that or just uh I I'd be in support of you doing that. Is there >> Yep. I'm in support. >> Okay. Yeah. And and a lot of this really we just wanted to make sure um that if we rewrite this, we would rewrite it to include that we can issue these seasonal
licenses. That way we're not going to um you know go against the board of wishes in that in that aspect. So, so that's what we >> I would think even that tiki bar down at the h old Hansen Harbor Marina would might want a seasonal liquor license
>> and without getting into the specifics of this new resort category that could potentially be an option for them. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Yes, you're up. Good morning, commissioners. >> Morning. item I have before you today uh
involves uh a revision to an event permit to use the highway rightway for special events specifically the good hue urun event which will be taking place on Saturday June 13th from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and utilize our county road
9. Um, a little background. Goodie County adopted an event permit application form uh November 15th of 2011 allowing the use of our county rideway to be used for special events.
This may be uh a use as minimal as as a shared use of the rightway for bike races, which we have several of in the county annually. Um, uh, they would be utilizing signs, water tent, and the right of way, partial closure of the road potentially. Um, the
good u shared rightway use event uh with no planned road closures or detours needed. The event permit form uh requires a minimum of a $ 1.5 million per occurrence general liability, a minimum
of a $ 1.5 million general aggregate. Uh the certificate of insurance must be in place 10 days prior to the event. Um mostly so administratively we can ensure that we have everything we need prior to the event happening. Insurance must
remain in place until the event is complete and the insurer must provide notice to Goody County Public Works prior to any termination. When we're going through the process of permitting the utter run this year, staff was made aware of a statute that
uh conflicts with our permit language. Uh and the statute is 466.04 04 and sets a liability limit at $1 million for any number of claims arising out of a single occurrence. If the claim involves a
nonprofit organization engaged in or administering outdoor recreation activities operating under the authorization of a permit issued by a municipality and specifies that the total liability of the municipality on a claim against it and its officers or
employees arising out of a single incurrence shall not exceed the same limits. So in essence, the county's maximum liability here would be a million dollars per statute. The contradiction is that our permit
requires $1.5 million. So requiring them to have a higher insurance limit is forcing them to pay for additional coverage that they're not needing per statute. So it's unnecessary.
So MCIT uh the county's insurance has confirmed that a million dollar per occurrence and $2 million general aggregate policy provided by the Good Hugh community fund would be sufficient insurance for this type of event. However, Goody County does retain the
right to require uh the higher insurance limits for events approved to be held in the county right of way if deemed appropriate. It's requested that the county board determine if these lower limits would be considered acceptable for this event and if so consider revising section two of
our right-of-way event permit special provisions. And in the report, it has all the language uh that's in the permit. And the section that's highlighted in red um that we that we added here would cover
us uh if there were to ever be other forms of liability limits that are um different than what's specified in the permit. So the language um I'll just read the sentence that we're altering. The certificate must be in place 10 days prior to the event and provide minimum
limits of 1.5 million per occurrence and aggregate unless alternative limits are provided for under Minnesota state statute. So that would cover us um if there were to be any additional changes u within
statute. So what I am recommending uh the board consider would be to approve the good good hue community funds event permit application with the reduced insurance limits of a million dollars versus the 1.5 and then revise the
right-of-way event special permit provisions uh as we outlined in the report. And with that I can take any questions. >> Any questions for Jess? Um my my only question is to you, Mr. O'Keefe. Do you see any issues with this
change? >> I I do not I mean this is kind of similar to the snowmobile club issue we had earlier >> on the liability limits and you know I kind of rely on MCIT to give us some guidance and their expertise on these types of issues. And then if they're okay with it, I
>> I don't see an issue with it. I don't see why we would require more insurance than we're exposed to um liabilitywise. It seems to make sense to me. >> All right. Thank you. >> I will move approval on both items. >> And uh are you uh wanting alternate
number one? Right. The Yeah, >> one. >> Yep. That has both items. All right. There's is there a second? >> Second. >> Any further discussion? A motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I.
>> I. Opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. Next, uh, we're at for your information, the project status report. Uh, any new or old business? Any committee reports?
Linda, no committee reports. >> Is uh, is there a motion to pay the bills? >> So moved. >> Second. >> There's a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. Opposed. Is there a motion to adjurnn?
>> So moved. >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. Motion carries. We're adjourned.