e you all right we will uh call our April 1st meeting to order and this is not a joke so to the flag United States of America to the for it stands
na indivisible with liy andice [Music] all right we will uh start with the disclosures of Interest are there any if not previous board meeting
minutes a motion to approve second Mo second that we approve the minutes from our previous March 18th meeting any uh any further discussion hearing none all those in favor say I iose the
same all right motion carries uh review the agenda there are no changes make a motion to approve the agenda second been moving second to approve the agenda as presented all
those in favor say I I oppose the same motion carries consent agenda is there any questions on that just an go ahead no just going to move it okay go ahead and move it all right I'll move to approve second I'll
second it it's been moved in second to approve the consent agenda just one point I kind of wanted to make that approval of that award for the county 8 bridge is like a $48,000 savings that 177% under that is
fantastic to expedite other projects on the road system so uh with that all those in favor of uh the consent agenda say I I oppose the same motion carries Sheriff's
Office Proclamation recognizing National Public Safety telecommuter Communicator week Chad morning good morning M on nope underneath the back there it should be a red light
[Laughter] [Music] perfect good morning Mr chair good morning Board of Commissioners um you have a memo in front of you here from Sheriff Kelly Chief huni and myself requesting a proclamation for this
year's National Public Safety telecommunicator Week um we request that uh you approve this Proclamation and I would ask if if I can give the moment to read through it absolutely very good
so this would be a proclamation authorizing the recognition of National Public Safety telecommunicator week April 13th through the 19th 2025 whereas emergencies requiring police fire or Emergency Medical
Services occur at any time and whereas The Prompt response of Law Enforcement Officers firefighters and paramedics is critical to the protection of life and the preservation of property and whereas the safety of our First Responders is
dependent upon the quality and accuracy of information obtained from the citizens who contact the emergency communication centers and whereas Public Safety telecommunicators are the first and most critical contact our citizens have with
Emergency Services providing a vital link between the community and emergency responders and whereas Public Safety telecommunicators of good hu County have contributed substantially to the apprehension of criminals suppression of
fires and treatment of patients and whereas each dispatcher has exhibited compassion understanding and professionalism during the performance of their duties over the past year and whereas their goodu County Sheriff's
Office values of Integrity respect empathy and compassion are exemplified daily by our Public Safety telecommunicators therefore be resolved that the good Hue County Board of Commissioners if approved declares the week of April 13th
through the 19th 2025 as National Public Safety telecommunicator Week in good Hue County in honor of the men and women whose diligence and professionalism keep our County and citizens safe and that'd be it I I want to add a
couple things should you uh vote to approve that Proclamation this afternoon the Rotary Club is honoring one of our most recently retired Public Safety telecommunicators after 34 years of service and uh some some or many of you
will be in in in the audience for that and so I certainly look forward to uh honoring Wayne beter in that course and Wayne is just a shining example the staff that we have that truly have dedicated um their careers and their time to answer all emergency and
non-emergency calls for good Hue County it's one of those position s that I will argue is often forgotten about um regardless if it's good Hugh County or anywhere in the country you know these folks are truly the First Responders our First Responders aren't going anywhere
without these individuals so with that I'll turn it over to you comments questions I'll just make a comment I I think that the peace of mind that the community has knowing that their calls will be answered quickly and
dealt with appropri is just Priceless and I thank you guys for that so I will share that with the team thank you so in my career I have worked as a telecommunicator for police department
and it is an incredibly difficult job and it's an incred it's the essential job because you're right that is the first call that gets answered and you go from there so until you do that job you really do not appre appreciate the
amount of work that goes into it so hats off to all of your telecommunicators yep I'd like to say thank you too I uh hope that Wayne maybe has a journal going from picking a phone up to going to the first computer to
where we're at now it's like adjustment how he can you know what he's done and what he's experienced and what the staff now is experiencing with NextGen coming out and it's uh yeah very much appreciated cuz I'm on the other end of the calls the fire department so we know how valuable you know our
telecommunicators are so thank you well certainly thank you and uh absolutely the wheels don't turn till the call comes in and then all the wheels turn immediately and that's the important part is we're on the way um so it's good
for the public to know that and is there a motion to approve this I will move the proclamation forward second everybody wants to get involved everybody uh thank you for bringing it Forward uh any further discussion all those in
favor say I I I opposed motion carries thank you Administration Sexual Assault Awareness Child Abuse Prevention month Proclamation there we go uh good morning my name is Aaron ker and I am a prosecutor in goody
County and it's my great pleasure to be joined by Sarah Kern who is the uh executive director of Hope Coalition and good morning Commissioners and um Mr chair we're here on the agenda item for
the administration Sexual Assault Awareness Child Abuse Prevention month Proclamation the month of April is a Sexual Assault Awareness and Child Abuse Prevention month I've served as a prosecutor specializing in the prosecution of sexual assult and child
abuse since 1999 and it's from that Viewpoint that I understand just how common sexual violence against children and adults is in good who County and how important it is to take steps to
prevent it sexual violence Knows No Boundaries it impacts a victim on all levels of their being Body Mind Spirit it impacts community members who know love and support the
victim it impacts community members who don't even know anyone who's involved because they sometimes feel fear or unease that this kind of violent act against a Community member happened here where we live where we work where
worship we intend to just grow old and die this level ripple effect of even one act of sexual violence in our community greatly impacts the public health not only of the person who experienced the violence
those who love them those who heard about it and those who want to take steps to prevent it one organization that exists here in goody County to prevent an insexual violence and child abuse in the community in goody county is the goody County smart team formed in
April of 2007 and the goody County sexual assault multidisiplinary action response team that's what smart sounds for uh is meets regularly and is comprised of team members from law enforcement now
recognize of Captain Collins foxin he's been a one a longtime member of the smart team as well as myself as well as members of cope um we have law enforcement prosecution advocacy we have
um medical providers Mental Health members of the faith community members of Social Services this team works hard to create a protocol that would ensure that um sexual assault victims receive comprehensive informed care no matter
where they present for services in good Hue County and we worked hard to trot in sexual violence in good Hue County and it's this from that Viewpoint that we understand that there is no easy fix that this is a long-term commitment and
that it starts from right here it can start with understanding and with taking small steps forward one step at a time because words have um they do have meaning and words and proclamations from
this board greatly set the tone that sexual violence has no place here and with that I would turn it over to Sarah Kern to read the proclamation that we are so hopeful that you will adopt this year thank you Aaron chair and
Commissioners um I will read the proclamation today whereas the issues of sexual violence and child abuse have many connections both are part of an overarching experiences of harm that contribute to the continued reproduction of trauma and oppression in society and
across Generations whereas nationally one in three women and one in four men will experience some form of sexual violence in their lifetime and one in five girls and one in 20 boys is a victim of child sexual abuse whereas rape sexual assault
and sexual harassment harm our community and statistics show that every 68 seconds an American is sexually assaulted whereas sexual abuse assault and harassment affect individuals of every background and whereas the purpose of
Sexual Assault Awareness Month and Child Abuse Prevention month is to raise public awareness about these issues educate our community on how to prevent it and share resources available to those impacted by sexual assault and child abuse whereas the goal of this month is
to raise public awareness about sexual violence provide education on individual and societal impacts and encourage Community level responses to sexual violence whereas the theme of this year's Sexual Assault Awareness Month campaign is together we act united we
change the theme's focus highlights the power of working together to create safer more respectful environments for all whereas ending child abuse and sexual violence is a community responsibility we must work together to educate our community about what can be
done to prevent child abuse and sexual assault and how to support survivors and whereas anyone can be a leader in preventing and ending child abuse and sexual violence as employers Educators parents and friends we all have an obligation to uphold the basic principle
that every individual should be free from violence and fear and now therefore I that um it to be resolved that the Goodhue County Board on behalf of all residents of Goodhue County does hereby proc proclaim the month of April
2025 as Sexual Assault Awareness Month and Child Abuse Prevention month in Goodhue County to keep our community members safe from these crimes and to stand with survivors and victims of sexual assault and child abuse thank you stand for questions Now
comments comments go ahead Sarah could you just briefly mention that hope Coalition does have a forensic medical Suite for anyone who is a victim of sexual assault absolutely so as Aaron had mentioned earlier the smart team has
been a part of Goodhue County for many years and one of the goals was to bring the ability for forensic medical exams to Goodhue County previously people would have to travel to Rochester or the cities to get that care which prevented many people from following through on
that step in getting everything taken care of and so we have partnered with st Cy Valley sart and brought in the ability to provide exams at um hope coalition's office on oldwest Main Street I just want to say thank you for
the work you do it's something we like to put our head in the sand and pretend isn't there and having this proclaimed reminds us all that that's not an appropriate way to deal with it so thank you there a motion move to approve a
second been moved in second and we approve the proclamation for um Sexual Assault Awareness Child Abuse Prevention month in the month of April all those in favor say I I same
motion carries thank you thank you for all your work thank very thank you Public Works public hearing to discuss a request for access good morning Commissioners uh today we are requesting to hold a public hearing for
a variance request for access um in January of this year David and Vanessa jandro applied for an access permit along uh goodw County Road 14 uh that permit was denied on the
basis of spacing requirements primarily um in accordance with County ordinance the jandr applied for a variance um that application was submitted I believe in February and then on March 4th um the County Board
scheduled a public hearing to consider this variance request in accordance with the access um attached to your attached to the item is the variance applications submitted by the jandros uh along with
essentially a basis for the County's review of the access permit application when it was originally submitted back in January um I believe the jandros indicated they were going to be here looks like they're right over there um so at this point uh staff would
request that the board hold a public Hearing in accordance with uh County ordinance to consider this is there a motion to open to a motion to open a public hearing a second second mooving second we go into a open
public hearing any further discussion all those in favor say I I the same motion carries we are in a public hearing anyone who wishes to speak please come to the
microphone state your name address for the record and state your concern my name is David jandro 35220 County 14 Boulevard and Canon Falls in San Valley um Vanessa
jandro so uh um thank you for having this time for us today I appreciate it um what we're asking the board to consider today would be an access to the north side of our property we do have a unique property it is uh Limestone and
it is a hill um some of this is an issue because we have a septic system and we have to put a driveway on the north side of our property to access what we want to access our well if that were ever to need to be serviced and then um our propane tank if that
ever needed to be replaced and thirdly we have a lot of disease trees on the north side of our property which is Dutch elm disease and uh Emerald ashbo I can stand at the back of my deck and see about 60 trees that need to come down I have a tree service coming every year
the problem that lies for us is that we always have to rely on our neighbor to the north to use his driveway and he is moving out in May so we've always planned on putting a drive driveway in um for the longest time we didn't think it would be a big deal but it obviously
is a big deal so um that's why we're here today to ask the board to consider that um there is a necessary uh want I would say it it would help us um maintain our property and have access to the north side of our property um the
main reason that this is being denied is because of safety issues I can't tell you that I'm sitting here today and putting my time and effort into into this if I knew if it was going to be a safety issue I wouldn't be here today I did attach photographs to the documents
I supported you um looking South and looking North you can clearly see a long ways um my my neighbor to the north has three driveways it and he's been my neighbor for approximately 10 years I've lived there and it's never presented a a safety issue to him to have three
driveways I should call them accesses he has one field access he has one Barn access and one house access um our access would be used infrequently yes we are trying to build a storage shed there for Cold Storage but the main purpose of
the access is to have access to the north side of our property um I do believe that there's a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law I've dedicated my professional career for the last 11 years as being a police officer for the
city of Northfield I wouldn't be here today if I knew that I was presenting a safety issue to the community so I just wanted to say that having this access and for a reason why it's being denied I don't I think I think you have to balance the safety issue versus the
letter of the law and the spirit of the law so I don't know if my wife has anything else to say on it um no he covered it primarily it's just we have no access to our propane or our well or our trees on that side of the property without the Goodwill of our neighbor and really should have access to our own
property to be able to do that okay thank you is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak anyone else from the public that wishes to speak third and final time anyone else from the public which wishes to speak to
this issue I move we close the public hearing second been moved and second we close public hearing any further discussion hearing none all those in favor say I I same we are back to uh the
board what's the board's wishes questions I'm I I would like to hear public works' uh take on the concerns that The jandros Have and the access to the north side of their property and kind of your assessment of weighing the
safety risks versus their access um so I mean the the basis of the ordinance um essentially when we deal with access primarily pertains to and I I respect the idea of the fact that
there is site distance however the basis of the ordinance really pertains to our County Roads um and when we do have accesses spaced closely together it may not present a site distance issue as much as it presents um a traffic
management issue for vehicles dealing with dealing with the potential of cars accessing the highway at intermittent spots spaced closely together that's a lot more uh for vehicles to manage and it also introduces a lot more it also
introduces more conflict points in a short stretch of highway um that's really the intention of the access management ordinance that we have and that's essentially when we went through the permit application that was our that
was how we viewed the application itself thank you any other questions guess I'm curious how uh the neighbors got three in those short distance and is that just it's just over time it just happened or uh that's a
good question um there's a lot of potential uh aspects consider there uh number one someone approved those prior to uh policy existing in good Hue County um two they could have been built
without per permits um currently they do not meet spacing requirements and should be removed Alternatives should be considered there um so the fact that they're there isn't a direct indication that they've been approved um just that
they're there and and we routinely run into uh access spacing issues uh when when when dealing with requests or when we're dealing with the Reconstruction of a roadway um typically in those instances we're reviewing those spacing
requirements and then trying to make adjustments uh to meet the intent of our policy we can't always meet the intent of the policy um depending on uh partiel spacing um you know physical
characteristics of a certain area um are we do have to provide access to the parcels um by law we have to provide reasonable and convenient access um which in this case has been done
so uh as far as um additional spacing concerns this area in particular is uh a double air double yellow uh striped Zone which is a no passing zone um indicating
that there's already some sight distance issues you see Public Works taking up the issue with these other three driveways and possibly having one or two of those removed yep um I mean that that takes quite a bit of time we have to do an investigation with those property
owners and to find out whether or not they have permits or how those uh accesses were initially installed and when um um do we have that's definitely something that we can look into it's it's that exists throughout the county
and and we routinely deal with those types of issues but we certainly can look into it further uh in this area but I was going to say how many are this way around the county well I mean probably several I can't answer that question Without
Really spending a lot of time uh looking into things but but but the ballpark is probably well more than a dozen um non-compliant accesses is that what you're asking well that that the distance would no longer meet the
requirement oh certainly yeah lots of them yeah yeah but in you know a lot of times we see that in residential areas this is a this is not residential um it's a residential area in a highspeed zone so that's uh multiple access points
this space this closely is a dangerous situation has there the Jr a question um uh someone from Public Works had suggested that the new building could be built on the south side rather than the North side and um so that's one question what would the problem be with that and
my second question is on the very high end how many times do you think cars would go in and out of this new driveway I really am asking you to estimate High um in a I don't know in a given week a given day however you want to answer that
so the barn could potentially go on the other side however it's it's literally Cold Storage so I would say access to and from into the building would be I mean at most one to two times a month
honestly um it's to store just uh Vehicles collector vehicles that we work on um it's not a real routine access so potentially if that's the issue with access yes the barn could be moved elsewhere however we still need the access to the north side of the property
um to be able to get to our well and our trees and the propane our house has a giant retaining wall behind it and then goes kind of straight up so you can't go around the back of the house to access that side of the property and then in front of the house there's a detached
garage and in front of the detach between that and the road there's a a drain field so you can't drive in front of it so there's literally no access to that parcel of the property to get to so how I'm hearing it is the barn or the
building could be put on the South Side um but that wouldn't solve the access problem for your um uh well and propane and the trees is that correct okay thank you have you uh pursued getting an
easement to share that existing driveway before the land you're you get along with the land owner to the north it sounds like we do yeah moving out um the easement you've kind of done some research we've considered an easement I know that they're they involve lawyer
fees and U segmented um property lines and such like that and it is expensive I've researched it a little bit uh I didn't want to lower my properties the neighbor to the north I didn't want to lower his property value especially him uh selling his house in May I know that
would not be appeasing to somebody if they saw an easement I know it's always kind of a red flag for having an easement so yes I did consider doing that I just did not think it was the best option for that do we take any consideration that a
driveway that their second driveway would not be used all that often but only a few times to get to the area of their property they're talking about as opposed to the primary
driveway spacing concerns aren't aren't necessarily only predicated on the vehicles uh that are accessing County Road 14 or any of our roads uh it also has to do with runoff the road cars and
what happens in those situations so spacing has more to do um with with other things than than just access so we don't we don't look at the sheer number of times someone's going to use an access for a field entrance or or when
we start to look at um intersecting roads Community developments things of that nature we're looking at traffic volumes a lot more closely but for something like this access is always going to be limited thank you the other
thing of course is these owners might not use it much but a new owner could have an entirely different uh idea about that driveway yep and and per our policy the county reserves the right to review any access uh as land use
changes so if someone if we were to Grant an access today for a certain parcel and and a future um property owner decided to do a different type of use on that property we could relook at that access
and potentially remove it M I always lean on our County attorney and I know he's reviewed our ordinance and our the the reasons for granting variances so I'm going to lean on Steve
to give us some insight as to what we would need to really consider before we would make a ruling thank you commissioner I think um also some of the ordinance does address um the question that commissioner Flanders just asked
with regard to the frequency of use um our ordinance does indicate that in order to Grant the variance the Board of Commissioners shall make a finding effect fact as appropriate that the proposed action will not one unreasonably increase the congestion in
the public right away will not unreasonably decrease the safety of the public traveling in the public right of way and third be cont in any way to the spirit and intent of this ordinance and I I think the comments from our um Mr Greenwood from
our engineer really relate to numbers two and three of those required findings and of course um commissioner flanders's question really addressed number one which was the frequency of the and the increase in congestion of the public right away and it does focus on the public right away and the people
traveling on that right of way as far as the safety uh concerns are so in order for the board to to Grant the variance you would have to make findings in relation to those three categories um otherwise uh the ordinance
would indicate that a denial would be appropriate and and so I'm reading what you're saying or I'm hearing what you're saying that we really don't meet two or three the second or the third one not
not affecting the the traffic or the the traveling public on the RightWay it will affect anytime you had an access so that's that's a you can't get around that very easy the third one remind me again what that one was the third one is
that it will not be contrary in any way to the spirit and intent of the ordinance which I think you know staff addressed what the intent of the ordinance was in their comments as well wishes
um well I fear uh feel for you guys I I do I I think given that we have to find that it's not contrary to the spirit and intent of the ordinance I don't think we're able to make that finding so I I would move that we deny the Varian
requestbody else second is there a second second been moved in second we deny the variant because we cannot meet the threshold of the ordinance for approval one more discussion go ahead
let's say uh just in the spirit of working together as neighbors if this one is if this one would come out that's right next to their land would that help out the decision so that the jandros could get a spot instead if they don't
want to do an easement I mean if you go in review it or are those three to the north still too close to put in another access I the the issue the issue presently with with uh spacing requirements is with the one that's
being requested I mean we're when we're looking at when we're looking at the any request that comes through we're looking at the adjacent spacings um so I mean there's several of them there that are in Conflict so removing removing one that's
non-compliant and replacing it with another one that's non compliant is still not meeting the intent of the policy and in fact I I I would argue that the county would also be accepting some form of liability by accepting
something that does not meet the intent of the policy are are there any other options that we could offer so that they can get to that part of their property uh from a highway perspective I
I don't have any that come to mind I I don't think this is probably a solution but I wondered if they could close off their current um access create this one instead and find a way to use this as their I think the challenge is that what what they're explaining here is that
between um the proposed access and the existing access they don't have a way to I understand that yeah y so it doesn't solve the problem no okay any further discussion not I'll call the question all those in favor of denying the
variant say I I motion carries thank you and I'm looking at my agenda and there's two different orders here how did I how did I do that the one on
the the land use one was ahead of Public Works on the printed copy so we're going to go to land use right now it is April Fool you you had to trip me up uh land use repeal good you count official
highway map and I've asked the question this doesn't make sense why this is coming through land use when it's a public highway map but I've understood it now morning Commissioners uh my name is
Megan Smith land use management director uh to answer the chairperson's question um the Planning Commission by State Statute must hold a public hearing on any official map um so land use had
partnered with public works on this particular project that you have in front of you um which is to consider the repeal of good Hue County um official highway map number one by adopting draft ordinance 25-01 um for uh a summary of what is
being considered this map was adopted in 2004 by the County Board um the map does show an alignment option for County Road 11 that was considered at one time but has since been abandoned in favor of the current and existing
alignment um the background is that the city of Pine Island initially reached out to the county to begin discussing um the essentially the title encumbrances of this area that included this particular map that the county had
adopted um that does show essentially that the county could pursue future rightaway acquisition along this County Road 11 alignment um the city of Pine Island is working with a development company to Annex a portion of land in
good Hue County north of Pine Island in this area where County Road 11 was shown to be realigned um it is north of Pine Island uh the County Road 11 realignment option would um meet up with Highway 52 and require an additional interchange we
put in at Highway 52 one of the letters of support in your packet is from uh mot that does very clearly articulate that mindat does not see the need for a future interchange north of Pine Island um and they essentially agree with the
city of pine Island's request to um essentially abandon any um new access points off of Highway 52 North of Pine Island um for um included in your packet I already mentioned the mot letter there
is a resolution of support from the city of Pine Island there is a draft ordinance that is being considered uh today and there is a copy of the actual map in question which is a four-page map um it prints pretty small um in your if
you want I can also pull it up on the screen if if we want to go over details just I want to touch on the Planning Commission hearing um the county did need to mail notice out to everyone in the affected area um and we
did publish um notice in the in the local newspaper the hearing was held by the planning advisory Commission on March 17th and they are recommending a unanimous recommendation to the County Board to approve the repeal of the map
um their primary finding was that the current alignment and design of County Road 11 meets both the current and the future needs of the county um so with that um I guess if there are any questions or if you all
want to see any details of the map I certainly um am willing to go through that questions um I I can't hear any reason why we wouldn't in fact do this and am I
missing anything can you make a case for us not approving this no I mean staff recommendation um both between land use and I think Public Works is to um obviously recommend the repeal we want to work with the city of
Pine Island um on this um it is important to note that this does not preclude the county or a city or any other political um you know jurisdiction from pursuing RightWay acquisition in the future so I mean if circumstances
change um the city of Pine Island could still build roads in this area mindat this the county we absolutely could still build roads um you know none of us can see that far into the future um what we're just sort of saying is this
particular alignment in this particular date and time um is not something that's being pursued by the county the city or mindat um and again we would you know we worded the resolu or we worded the um documents very clearly that it's just
pertaining to this particular plan that was adopted in 2004 25 years the different plan will undoubtedly be there so yes and um I didn't mention this but you know um obviously the big interchange that was put in at elkrun you know happened since
that time um there's been other you know traffic changes and J turns added on 52 and other things things that have that have happened that haven't exactly followed the transportation plan so um it's it's okay to it's okay to sort of
acknowledge that this isn't going to happen and move forward any by not approving it we're saying no development happens there correct it encumbers the land and essentially says that the county the map is being um the
title company that is repres resenting the buyer is saying that the map essentially restricts the property and puts a layer of um a risk essentially that the county could pursue right of way um right through a a big development
project and so getting financing for that would be very very difficult it prevents development without approving it yeah it it's always that risk to the development side M I understand and is this currently is not
in the city of Pine Island but they're working to go to annexation of this property yeah the land right now is in goodu County um specifically Pine Island Township um and the land is subject now
to a study of a an environmental report uh specifically in AU um and that is I you know I believe that's one of the first steps that's happening um prior to an annexation being actually adopted with the city of Pine Island and this this is an orderly
annexation I mean good or Pine Island Township is working with them so yeah it's a Cooperative um the chair per or the um commissioner Miller who is on the Planning Commission and made the motion is actually um a board member for Pine
Island Township um so he did share a little bit of background in context at the Planning Commission meeting about the cooperation that was happening with Pine Island Town Township the city of Pine Island and the developer okay part of my understanding
was we the county did okay to go through this but really had no plans on doing you know anything for that but it was you know it was a request by the city at that time yeah goodu County had no plans to pursue a interchange project when when
this was originally um um enacted uh goody County was kind of on the tail end of developing our um 20-year Transportation plan and this was included as part of that um most of the
development to the South uh in Olstead County uh as part of this official mapping took place um and has been completed it's everything to the north that hasn't been um and we're supportive of the notion of repealing it mainly
because we don't have a vested interest in that overpass and if Pine Island uh is supportive of that as well I we don't necessarily see a reason not to move this forward board's wishes well I make a motion that we repeal goodu County Highway B uh one and
adopt ordinance number 2025-the or repeal the official highway map for number one ordinance 20 20 25-01 EAS see for you to say all yeah
all those in favor say I iOS the same motion carries have one question go ahead so on the actual ordinance though Tod's name's on there do we want to switch that before we sign
it oh I talked to Megan about that of repealing has Todd's name on there instead yeah I Megan's got that fixed okay next we have student school resource
officer and the reason I just to start this out the reason that's on there is at our last meeting we approved some rates for student resource officer and there was some discussion around around some differences in costs
between policing contracts in this and several times during that we had stated that we want to use actual cost so consequently staff went back and got actual cost and and I I know we don't have a full board today and I realize
that and we probably don't want to make a final decision till we have a full board and that's fine but the process through um uh Robert's Rules of Order parliamentary law is if you're going to
Res reconsider something really needs to happen quickly after the last meeting um you can't move to reconsider it three months down the road it's either at that meeting or shortly after where you move to
reconsider our decision from the last meeting so it's kind of at that point um and when asked they said it needs to get on the agenda so that's a possibility rather than going farther down the road and
then it becomes harder to bring it back up because we've that's kind of where it's at you guys want to speak to the work you did or does there questions from the board we might as well hear from them
first okay good morning Commissioners uh the current school resource officer contracts um as a reminder are set to expire on June 30th staff initially drafted revisions to the contracts which were uh discussed informally at the board meeting on March
4th board members expressed that they would wanted this item to come back for further discussion so on March 18th staff presented two options as well as historical rates for context at this meeting the board approved the city policing contract rates to be used for the SRO contracts with the school
districts these contracts were also to be for a one-year term with the option for a two-year term extension uh Additionally the board gave direction that staff should work to develop an actual cost rate to be used specifically for the SRO since then finance and sheriff's
office staff have worked to develop actual cost information for those uh SRO um so summarizing the items that are increasing the calculated cost was number one we added in the 0.44 uh% additional payroll tax
beginning in January 2026 for the Paid Family Medical Leave the second item is that we included the flat 10% overhead rate for 2025 through 2027 as a reminder the policing contracts um stepped up
that overhead rate from 0% in 2025 to 5% in 2026 and then up to 10% in 2027 health insurance cost was also increased in for 2025 utilizing actual known figures while 2020 in 2026 the uh it
includes a 40% increase and then assumes a 10% increase for 2027 that 40% increase is what goodu county's Insurance costs would have increased in 2025 had our insurance rates not been contractually locked items that reduced the calculated
cost were the the biggest item here was the hours worked um by SRO is actually less than the typical Patrol Deputy so those were reduced to 40-hour work weeks uh additionally these positions are not backfilled for short-term
vacancies such as a sick day um so that extra time was removed as well um additionally vehicle gas insurance and maintenance costs were calculated rather than using a standard rate that was used in the policing contracts employer liability insurance was reduced to the actual cost for 2025
at 2.01% of salary sro's uh squad car cost was reduced as well to reflect what they're actually using um this included the removal of the cost associated with radar equipment and then the last item on here was the vehicle trade and value was
updated to be most recent with the most recent uh trade and value that we had on those um so obviously there are unknowns with these rates the cost of health insurance Beyond 2025 is is unknown we know that we're going to be going through an RFP process this year
um this ultimately will be determined by several factors to include the proposals we received from the vendors as well as the result of the Union negotiations uh So Below you'll find the 2025 2026 and the 2026 to 2027 school
year contract rates approved by the board on March 18th um there's also the actual rates calculated by staff as well as an the option initially discussed at the March 4th board meeting uh as a reminder the the rates that was approved by the board on March 18th was
$73,345 to 2026 school year if the uh school districts decided to go with a two-year contract that second year would have been at $882,000 and $ 82,2 option one presented uh at the calculated rate is for $ 68,5 N9 for
year 1 with a potential $72,600 for year 2 option two as presented is the first initial option that was presented which is keeping it flat at $70,000 with a potential CPI increase in years beyond
that um at this point staff would be willing to entertain any questions that you may have and we are looking for direction as uh to potentially updating the SRO contract rates questions well no I you know I think I was the one who said that 6 6 40
appeared to be the uh going rate and that's was for my reading about the Northfield contract and I think the uh um um Redwing contract as well um the problem with that is that I don't know what they included on their 6040
contract and what what you guys are including and what they are including are probably not the same and my impression would be that the rate at which the redwin police officers are paid and the rate they're benefits and insurance are they're they're probably
not um less than what we're paying they're probably in the same ballpark and the same ballpark is I don't know this but probably true of Northfield as well so I I continue to feel that the numbers we came up with reflect what the
going rate is so I I I think that's a reasonable number I'm somewhat um reluctant to do two years and the reason that I am is because I think so many things are changing for the schools they they aren't certain of their funding we don't know what's going to happen we
aren't certain of our funding we don't know what's going to happen so my own bias would be to say well let's go with the 73,000 let's see what's going to happen and that that really does reflect the going rate I think um but then the other thing is I'm always trying to find
out more so I I sent an email out to a commissioner in each of our 10 kind of District counties to see what they said and I didn't do that till Friday afternoon because I didn't have this information until Friday uh morning and I heard back from seven of them which
was was I thought was pretty good and the Seven I heard back from none of them did SRO contracts they left that all to the cities um who I did not hear back from was steel County which is otana Houston County and I did not hear back
from Dodge County and I think Dodge County does do SRO contracts I think um I doubt that Houston does and I tried to look at the oana schools and I I don't think steel County does so I think out of the 11 counties in our district only
two are doing SRO contracts that's not what I was trying to find out what I was trying to find out is how they charged and I kind of thought half of them were going to be telling me that they charged but but they didn't they said no we don't do that um so I think we should go
with the going rate myself of the 73,000 and hold off on year two because there's so many unknowns about what's going to happen to school budgets and County budgets that I I think it's hard to plan into the future I understand we
might not want to vote for today and uh but you wanted to kind of hear where people were coming from and what information and questions they had so that's what I'm giving I think I think the point is do do we want to revisit this with a full
board or do we not because that's really what we need to that's what we're we need to move to reconsider I don't think we would move to change it unless we move to reconsider and then say we're going to do that today so is there do we
want to reconsider or are we going to leave it the way it is and I can't I can't even you have to be on the prevailing side to move to rec I can't that no um well I I guess I'm comfortable with the decision that we made I would have
prefer one year but uh you know what what Todd and Linda what do you think I think if this revised information would have been in front of us with the updated you know we maybe wouldn't have set the 73
well maybe maybe the 68 is we'd have to understand what other communities were including in that 6040 to I mean the 6040 was sort of a random number I mean I can understand other communities but this is our community and I think we can just make our decision so you maybe
would like to reconsider I I'm okay with reconsidering it y good so you have to move motion then that's the way we do that I'll make a motion we reconsider the uh contracts for next
meeting on the 15th full board full board yep thought okay it's been moved and seconded that we reconsider our rates for sro's at
the April 15th meeting when we have a full board any further discussion all those in favor go ahead sorry sorry sorry um I do con um agree with commissioner beter though that with
so many unknowns that well I recognize TimeWise having a two or threeyear contract is nice but there are so many unknowns for both the county and the schools that I certainly
would agree that going one year would make more sense that's the discussion next yep the next meeting can I comment go ahead yes
so as far as staff goes and staff time this is really been frustrating for our office as far as as and and as well as as Lucas's office so what we're hearing is the work that we've done came up with an actual cost is now
not what we want to go with according to commissioner Peter uh I think I think your actual costs are very helpful I think the question is is whether the 60% uh 40 is right or going knowing what those costs are but um considering what
the what the going rate is so I I appreciate we have the actual costs so I I think that's helpful I think what you're finding in some of those other towns particularly Northfield they get paid much higher than we do I don't know how they got
their SRO contracts I'm guessing Maple what was it Maple Grove what other one did you reach out we just don't have their salaries and I think a lot of that is based on their salary so you're going to find a higher
SRO contracts in a lot of those cities it just again I I've said this before and I feel frustrated because it seems like the Sheriff's Office Sheriff's Office is one of the only divisions that get tasked with figuring out our actual
costs I mean I I know I said it last year and I I don't want to get too deep in those weeds but it's just it's frustrating and it's really um cost the county a lot of Staff time and money to get to get this certainly I'm not trying
to frustrate you but I think that you guys have the biggest and most contracts which is why we end up looking at it so I think that possible and I aren't the only ones no no no no I I understand that and
it it this is just a question we I think we've already have the motion in the second so the vote will happen but it it really did surprise me to learn from the seven who responded that they don't do this at all but that's a that's a that's a fact of who asks them they ask I don't
think so well how many of those would say that they've been asked to do student resource officers or how many of them how many of the schools went to the city and asked yeah I I guess I don't know the answer to your question but my impression from the information I got
back they wouldn't do them well you want to let me answer yeah okay so my impression was that they felt that the cities um then the city that was actually getting the service was being asked to cover the
cost as opposed to the whole County covering the cost for cities that weren't getting it so that was my impression but that that I didn't ask them that specific question so I can't say that I know that answer but um
that's basically what they mostly said that we've left that up to the cities well and and if the cities were the ones that school district asked example Lake City gets theirs through um the Lake
City PD so I think it's a matter who they ask Redwing has been asked by the school district to have a student resource officer from the Redwing PD I think we might get asked or we have
been asked by the Ed district for a for a student resource officer that hasn't come before us yet but it's who you ask it's not not necessarily that we're not they're opposed to doing it or they're
not doing it because the city took the job it's who the school did District asks really it could be but the the feedback I got was that they felt that asking the cities fit more consistently with how districts are are covered so you you could be right but that was the
impression that I got ah but not all cities have police forces so this is we are the providers in these two areas right but then I think the question kind of would I mean and and so I was thinking about that too
certainly it would feel like we have more responsibility for Pine Island because we do the policing but should some of that extra cost actually be included with the contract with Pine Island they could decide if they were willing to take that on or not but that that's a reasonable thing not even say
we should ask I'm just saying it's a reasonable thing to contemplate that's all I'm saying that brings up the question where how many students are coming from outside of the county and these should they be kicking in too but and like said we can't I mean I don't we
ever get anything solved going down that road but the other point I guess I want to make I want to make a correction in the last meeting I think it was said that it's $36 per student and it's really $36 I think per pupil unit which
is a different number than students and it was said that redwin gets three $680,000 or something I don't not 680,000 I think that's what you said in the last meeting I listened to it twice and it's well then I misspoke I think it was because it's
really it's really 20 they got about 2,200 students which is going to equate to about 78 79,000 thinking that well I heard it from the school board member I thought she said 86 but I'm I'm not I think you said 686 but that's fine but
it is you know collectively all the school districts collectively probably get $310,000 for safe schools that isn't going to do a't going to for some of them it's $225,000 that isn't going to that's a drop in the bucket to pay for I
do think contracts that there's I can't remember if was a house or Senate Bill asking that that go up to $48 per I guess it would be per pupil unit um and then also they were asking for a minimum amount no matter the size of the school now that doesn't mean that
will pass but that was one of the um I believe it was a house house file so it's so we the motion is to reconsider this and bring it to the next meeting is there any further discussion all those in favor say I I
oppose motion carries we will revisit this at the next meeting Mr chair we we could option the board to death of course um those what would those wishes be to to I mean how many options does the board want do you
just want actual costs I mean we thr out numbers I think we got I think we got all the information we need right here I don't know as we need to try to I I mean from my perspective quite frankly I want goodu County to be
efficient obviously we're more efficient the way we've Commissioners sat on it when we did the policing contracts figured out what to include we've included the same things in this obviously our numbers are less than the cities I think that's a good thing I I
don't think we know that Brad we don't know what they were taking is 60% of what number we don't we but we know what they're charging we know what they're charging and ours says using the numbers we use for policing contracts figuring that out with Commissioners sitting
there with staff doing that our numbers now say 68 599 that's 40 That's 44 $400 less than what we approved if we if we use the 60% number well now we're going to debate
that too how many how many ways do you want to slice this but but the reason I came up with that is I believe that that was the standard way they were doing it and and maybe that's true maybe that's not true but if it's 60% you have to
know 60% of want of what so if one group is counting it one way and another group is counting it another way way the the 60% if if what you're including in it is different is going to give you different answers well you'll have to ask
questions then between now and the next meeting to figure out how you're going to come to some decision about that because most of what I've ever heard is 6040 splits right right but you yeah you I'm not going to start debating that
too I'm looking at the cost and I'm looking at this board has given direction to staff to find out actual costs they've done it it's here you choose how you want to deal with that that's right I agree with that all
right for your information old and new business report go ahead old business new business or committee report just a reminder that April 26th the miny Mississippi cleanup challenge is going
forward at County Road 18 and Sturgeon Lake Road and also there is a another cleanup event um put on by the city of
redwing at the base of H Barn Bluff any other committee reports yes go ahead so this comes from the CCO board which is the Southeastern uh Library cooperative and
this was just a one sheet really that they put out but I thought it um that the numbers really made a huge impact so they have numbers going back for to 2022 but there were 17 million people that visited
Disneyland there were 15 million people that visited the Smithson and there were 135 million people in Minnesota alone that went to public libraries so the public libraries are extremely important and they are
obviously very very well used so support of our libraries is important and they don't know yet where the federal cuts are going to be coming but they are expecting some down the road any other committee reports
I'll be at the state capital tomorrow and our Karma bill for County Rural medical assistance is on the docket and I'll be testifying uh tomorrow afternoon on that try to get that through and entered and
get it to the Senate County claims move we pay the bills second and moov second we pay the claims as presented any further discussion hearing none all those in favor say I I
iOS the same motion carries motion to adjourn so moved moveing second we adjourn all those in favor say I I the same motion carries we are adjourned