He's with this company. In the future that we should have the landowner and the Yeah. Even though it's tied to the land. You know what you think? Did you know? That way, if anything happens without money, then it's clear that this was an agreement. But that's Right. Right. That's what I'm saying. Yeah. That's why I'd like to just have it added. That transmission wasn't under warranty, was it? I guess it is. Yeah. No. We don't. I'm just gonna acknowledge that we received it. That's been distributed to each of the county commissioners. Okay. It's 9 o'clock. We'll call the meeting to order.
Please join us for the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and is with regard to which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Good morning, sheriff. Roll call. All the commissioners are present along with several staff. Our first item is to approve the agenda. Are there any changes or additions? No, madam. We're chair. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. I'll second it. We have a motion by Commissioner Wakies, seconded by Commissioner Wabi to approve the agenda as presented.
All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Motion carries. Our next item is staff updates. This will also include the administrator update. But as you know, Tracy Krause, our current veteran services officer, will be retiring here in June, it looks like, at the very June. We went through a recruitment process, and we were very fortunate to get a very qualified candidate who has already started up, to, learn with Tracy because this is one of those positions that really doesn't have a how to manual, for it. So, experience with somebody else who's knowledgeable is perfect. And I just wanna introduce Bill and have him come on up here to give
a brief kind of introduction. Morning. Morning. Morning. Morning, Bill. Good morning. Thank you for this opportunity. I, just wanna introduce myself. Bill Kerr. Live in Plainview. Moved back here to Plainview about two and a half years ago after retiring from active duty air force. Served for about almost twenty one years. I've got a wife and, four kids, two two daughters in college, two in high school. Pretty involved in Plainview as well. I'm a school bus driver over there, part time, and I'm the boys soccer coach in Plainview as well. And I'm really excited for this opportunity to, work here and to serve our veterans and,
honored to be able to, give back a little bit and to help our veterans in our in our Waukesha County. So thank you for this opportunity. Thank you. Well, thank you. Make it helpful. Yeah. The only other item we have is to recognize Brian Sylvester who's our dispatch supervisor for and he's been employed at the county for twenty years. I believe the sheriff has a couple words to offer. Good morning, Precious. Brian's not able to be here today. He's away. But, certainly, wanna recognize him for the time being here, as a dispatcher. And then, the last two years as our dispatch supervisor, Anytime the county can, get a twenty year employee or more,
there's a lot of value in that. As we, replace those positions, it costs the county greatly when we do that onboarding and then, the employees don't have that experience. So we're just grateful he's here, and we have a lot of lot of twenty year old employees. So thank you. Thanks, Ryan. Thank you, sheriff. Thank you. It's it's great to promote within when we can. Yep. No doubt. Is that it, Michael? Those are the only items for the updates. Our next item is public forum, and it appears that everyone that has signed up is for under the zoning items. So when we get to to the item,
we'll have the zoning administrator introduce it, and then we'll let the public speak before the board has a discussion. Our next item is the consent agenda, that consists of the minutes from February 18, the claims, the per diems, the meal vouchers, and from public health, approve the purchase of two Motorola radios, also from public health, approve the purchase of radio batteries, And from social services, approve the purchase of transmission for 02/2019 Ford Fusion. Madam chair, I'll move on the consent agenda. Does the batteries come with the radios or is that just extra batteries?
Rodney can probably answer that. Do they they don't come with batteries. There might just be some extra batteries that they're ordering. They're terribly expensive. Everything is for the radio world. Probably for the operator. Couldn't yeah. Okay. Okay. I just seconded it. Did you make the motion, Danni? Yeah. Okay. Motion by Commissioner Springer, seconded by, Commissioner Powers to approve the consent agenda. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Motion carries. Moving on to our action or discussion items. Our first one is from planning and zoning for the consideration of a reclassification
of the primary zoning district of a parcel. Good morning, Joe. Good morning, Joe. Joe, if you wanna introduce this, and I'll let those who wanna speak from the public. In September of twenty twenty four, it was brought to the attention of the zoning administrator that Wabashock County parcel R16.0022.00 lies within the two primary zoning districts of the Agricultural Protection District or A1 and the Agricultural Low Density District or A3. Per chapter 3.01 of the Wabasha County zoning ordinance, all lands under the jurisdiction of the ordinance shall be designated as lying within one and only one primary zoning district.
To remedy this situation, article 17 section one subdivision one gives authority to the county board to amend the zoning map to correct those mistakes. The public hearing was held on February 2025 to hear testimony related to the request. After considering all testimony and facts of the matter, planning commission on a vote of five to zero recommends that Wabasha County Parcel R16.00122.00 be placed entirely within the Agricultural Protection District or a one. We had four individuals sign up for to speak on this matter, and I'll call you up. And if I mispronounce your name,
I apologize in advance. The first would be a Richard Lau. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to address the county. My name is Richard Lau. I'm an attorney with Redmond Law. I represent the property owner. I think our comments are very simple. We just simply we agree with the with staff's recommendation that this property should be properly if it has to be changed, it should probably be A3, both because of the nature of the property and because most of the surrounding property is zoned a three. It is simply my client my client,
the property owner, purchased the property, understanding that it was both a one and a three. He didn't ask for this change. He didn't expect a change. He relied upon this zoning. He purchased the property for $300,000 He has currently spent more than $80,000 in pulling permits in reliance that the part of the property was A3. For example, he has both a permit for both the installation of a bridge, as well as for wetlands. This is actual hard money that he's spent on this in excess of $40,000
And this will be damaged by this amount if the county adopts this change, forcing him to lose the ability to develop half of this property from A3 to A1. It is we understand that some of his neighbors may have concerns about the eventual development of this property, but this is merely speculation at this point. The main point is that the property should be A3. If it's change is needed, and he's not asking for change, but if a change is needed, A3 would fit both the existing character of the property as well as fit with
what the the surrounding prop most of the surrounding properties are. We we we strongly urge the the council to consider that the damage that that changing this reclassification will do to one of your neighbors. Thank you. Thank you. Charlene Clennard. Charlene. Charlene Clennert, twenty six thousand six hundred and seventy five, six hundred and thirty sixth Street, Kellogg, Minnesota. Regarding the zoning district reclassification of parcel R16001220 implemented by the Planning and Zoning Commission. As a concerned citizen, I would prefer to see the entire 80 acre plot owned by Meadowview Properties zoned
as an A1 parcel. The purpose of the zoning ordinance is to promote, preserve and protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Wabasha County, along with the integrity of the land and water resources of the county. Specific purpose of the ordinance lists that it is to preserve agricultural land and to limit incompatible land uses. We want to protect and preserve the natural resources of the county. Article 15, the right to farm, has the intent and purpose to provide a substantial contribution to the economy of the
county, maintain open space, enhance the quality of life, promote environmental quality, and has a minimal demand upon services provided by local government. It is also the declared policy of the county to enhance, encourage, and preserve the agricultural lands and practices within the county. Where non agricultural land uses extend into agriculture areas or exist side by side, agriculture operations and residential uses that generate nuisance may be the subject of private nuisance
complaints that would result in the cessation or curtailment of operations. Such actions discourage investments in farm improvements to the detriment of adjacent agricultural uses and the economic viability of the county's agriculture industry as a whole. It is the purpose and intent of this article to reduce the loss to the county of its agricultural resources by limiting the circumstances under which agricultural operations may be considered a nuisance. Agricultural production that complied with all Wabasha County ordinances shall not be considered by the
county as constituting a nuisance. If it should be designated as a three, it could possibly be made into more plots with houses and or campgrounds. How would they access this property? What if they bring motorcycles or ATVs to the property and then frighten or scare the cattle, which are on three sides of the plot? If the plot is allowed to change its density, how would it be accessed? I understand the plot has already been denied a road access. Would they be loading and unloading their recreational equipment on the township road,
thus making a hazard to other drivers? An a one classification would keep the integrity of the plot as property, which could only place one house rather than the potential of a high density parcel. It has a one at the northern end where it abuts with Hazy And Franke Properties. I would like to see the entire property designated as A1. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Charlene. Thank you, Charlene. Thank you, Charlene. Thank you. Jacob? Good morning, Ken. Good morning. You all know me, but for the record, my name is Ken Jacob. I'm at 29924 Highway 60 at Millville, Minnesota. So good morning,
Wabasha County Commissioners, County Administrator, County Attorney, County Sheriff and fellow Wabasha County citizens. I thank Charlene Clennet for doing a good job of expressing concerns of West Albany Township residents, and so I will not reiterate what she's clearly stated. This morning, the issue at hand is to classify parcel R16.00122.0080 acres as A1 or A3. As you all are aware, this parcel in question is in the middle of Wabasha County District 2 and in Wabasha in West Albany Township,
both of which are predominantly classified A1. It makes sense to correct the parcel classification as A1, which is in harmony with the surrounding property use practices. When this property was purchased approximately four years ago, it was clear that there was a split classification on this 80. And if it was reclassified, it would could likely become A1, which is where we are at presently. You all have had the opportunity to watch the recording of the February 24 Planning Commission meeting and expect you have at least once.
Everyone who wished to speak was given the opportunity. After closing their meeting to the public, they discussed the application and came to a unanimous decision to recommend to you that this parcel be all classified A1. A1 is in harmony with the ag usage of the surrounding properties while protecting the fragile ecosystem of the valley of this on this parcel. In closing, I want to remind you that the Wabasha County Planning Commission made a unanimous recommendation to classify this parcel as A1.
I respectfully request that the Wabasha County Board uphold the recommendation and classify parcel R16.00122.00, all A1. Thank you all for allowing me to for my input this morning, and I wish you all a wonderful day. Thank you. Thank you, Ken. Thank you, Ken. There's one other individual signed up, but I apologize. I I can't read the name. So, if there's one other person I would like to speak on this matter that signed up? Okay. I just wanna also recognize that Marin Holt provided information for the board to consider. She wasn't able to attend.
The commissioners have been provided with that information prior to prior to not. Well, I have a few thoughts, so I'll start out. I did watch the public hearing, read the information provided in the packets, taken several phone calls, and have had several emails, both in favor of the a one and the a three district. 69.3 acres are not considered prime farm farmland, according to the county. This property I'm sorry. There's echo here. This property is bordered more prominently by land in the a three zone.
Permitted uses such as recreational residents, hunting cabinets, or cabin camping cabinets are the same in both a one and a three district. I heard a lot at the public hearing, what if there were campers, minibikes, motorcycles. But mister Dice could be having those things happening right now on on that property if he chose in either zone. And I also heard what if there were eight different, parcels or owners. At this time, it is one parcel. So if at any time mister Dykes wanted to replat to subdivide this one parcel
into more parcels, he would have to go through the proper zoning to do so. To me, it seems highly unlikely mister Dykes would replat given the topography of the parcel into eight separate parcels. My philosophy has always been that property owners should be able to do what they want with their property within reason. And I don't think it's unreasonable for mister Dykes to want this parcel classified in the A 3 District. Any other comments or discussion from the board? Have we heard anything from the township? Any concerns or issues?
None. And I just wanna apologize for the public that's here. Our tech we're having technical difficulties with the agenda staying up on the the screen. I also had some people call me, stop about this property. But then again, if most of it is based on assumptions, that's I mean, you can't assume what somebody's gonna do. You can't assume who your neighbor's gonna be. I mean I hear this all the time about people coming down from the big city and they want city sewer, they want city water, they want blacktop roads. That's just assumptions. You know that and I hear that all the time.
To me, it doesn't make any sense because you haven't even met these people. They could be good neighbors. You don't know. If it's gonna be one neighbor or eight neighbors, you have no clue. As far as building, I guess I know the property pretty well. I've been through it. And I know there's two feed lots there, but that's on their property. They talk about the right to farm. You have a right to farm. All of the farmers do, but on their property, not the right to farm on your neighbor's property. And I think they're losing track of that. I mean, the right to farm is the right for you to farm your property. If mister Dyches doesn't wanna even plant those fields down there,
to me, they're just small fields that look like food plots. If he doesn't wanna plant them, he doesn't have to. He has the right to farm it, but he doesn't have to farm it. That's really all I have to say. A lot of it is assumptions though. And that's to me, doesn't make any sense. I just want to say that I've served many years and some years with Ken on the Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment. Anytime you have a discussion on a rezone or most issues there is public pushback for change. A lot of this is based on assumptions and a lot of the discussion that
was had at the Planning Commission meeting in here is discussion that should be had when there's an actual application in front of either board for discussion. I respect I re I do respect the planning commission's decision, but I do not agree with it. Yesterday, I was contacted by Scott Sexton, who was my appointee to the planning commission, and we had a very good discussion. He told me that, he thinks the planning commission made the wrong decision, which means a lot to me. I thanked them for calling.
I I do respect their decision. I know that, they have hard decisions to make. I I do know that there was a lot of public input outcry as I watched the planning commission meeting. But there again, it's based on assumptions, and it should be discussion when there's an actual application for a plat or something going on with the property where this is just a clerical matter to write an error. So that's all I got. Yeah. And I agree with Commissioner Walkis on this one.
I know, me and Commissioner Powers attended the planning commission, and I appreciate, their commitment and decision on decision they made. I mean, I look at the property, and I'm thinking 80 acres. There's no way he can put eight homes on it per se. And you got a feedlot on both sides. You got wetland or floodplain, I guess. And as we all know, we can't build in that. I, the one striking thing for me was the 66% of the property is bordered with A3. So it isn't like we're spot zoning this,
you know, and that comment got brought up in the numerous phone calls I took. So and to me, it wasn't something that mister Dykes asked for. I mean, he'd rather have an a three than a one. But at the end of the day, it was something the county found out and pointed out and just trying to get it corrected one way or the other. That is all I have. If there's no further discussion, I would move that the, decision on the on the Dikes property be, changed to all a three. Is there a second? I'll second that.
We have a motion and a second to classify do do I need to read the parcel number? Parcel R 1 6 Point 0 0 1 2 2 Point 0 0 as a 3. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Aye. We'll do roll call. Commissioner Springer? Nay. Wakas? Aye. Wabi? Aye. Keys, aye. Powers? Aye. Motion carries. Just for maybe I should have brought this up at the beginning of this item. There are other parcels that have multiple zoning designations, and the reason for that being,
and speaking with our GIS, is obviously when the zoning ordinance was passed in 02/2001, our GIS capabilities aren't what they are now. So they basically just overlaid it with our county parcel map, which was kind of rudimentary. So they understood that there were gonna be these issues. That's why there's the clause in the, the zoning ordinance that there are gonna be some corrections because this this is going to occur. There are some other parcels that are probably similar, and we'll see if they come forward at some point as well, and we'll correct them as they come up. Okay. Our next item is consideration of the Braun CUP request.
I would point your attention to the requested action on the agenda item. It erroneously shows the number four, but uses the word seven. That word should also read four. On 01/08/2025, a complete application was submitted by David, I believe it's pronounced Brown. Yes, it is. Thank you. For a conditional use permit to operate a welding and repair business for farm equipment within the A1 Zoning District. Subject property is described as Parcel R02.00011.12 located in Section 2 Township 108 North Range 12 West, Elgin Township on approximately 3.89
acres. The property is zoned in the Agriculture Protection District or A1 And farm implements, service supplies, and sales are allowed as a conditional or interim use. Planning commission conducted a public hearing on 02/24/2025, to hear testimony related to the request. After considering the testimony and facts of the matter of the Planning Commission on a vote of five to zero, recommends that the proposed CUP be approved with four conditions as follows. One, that a conditional or interim use permit is granted only to David Brown for a welding and repair business on Parcel R02.0011.12. Number two,
the business shall be undertaken only in accordance with the plans and specifications as submitted in the application or as outlined in these conditions. Any expansion beyond what is represented within the application will require an amendment to this permit. Number three, the hours of operation shall be limited to 8AM to 5PM, Monday through Friday. And number four, there shall be no parking on County Road 79. Prior to this meeting, I did speak with mister Brown, and one of the things he brought up is that, on some occasions, customers come a little later than 5PM. And so he was wondering if it was possible to change the time to 6PM
instead of 5PM. And, also, he does some work on Saturdays and wanted to include that so we could include Monday through Saturday as work. K. I don't know if you wish to speak at all for yourself. You said it then. Good morning. Morning. Dave Brown. There was another change onto the north side of the main shop. I got it marked as a 45 by 20 lean to, and that's run that's running half the length of the shop. I wanted to go full length of the shop, which would be 20 by 90.
And, yeah, the hours I was worried about just because I do have people showing up after hours on weekends, dropping stuff off, picking stuff up, and don't wanna kinda do the wrong thing and get my permit yanked or anything like that. That's what I'm sure. Oh, go ahead. I was just gonna ask Joe, is would there be a problem with the board changing either of those preferences? Yes. Okay. You have the building documented then or will have the expansion that he's proposing? Yes. What were the dimensions again?
It's 20 by 90 instead of 20 by 45. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Madam Chair, I wanna I'll make a motion to amend that or add those conditions in. And as anybody that's been involved with farming, it might rain Monday, Tuesday, and have to work the weekend. So that to me, that's that's not a problem. So just to be clear, the amendment is to note that the hours can be from 8AM to 6PM, Monday through Saturday, and Joe also got the different building. And I know we did talk at the planning commission about number of employees if
he were we gonna add that in there? There was a condition suggested for that. I believe it was the planning commission's thought that we shouldn't limit them to numbers of employees. And if all of a sudden, I think at the time it was three, so if all of a sudden he decides he wants a fourth, he would have to come in to another amendment to see if he just hire one more person. K. Is there idea that to remove that condition of the number of employees? Employees? Okay. Yeah. I don't know. It's not listed as a condition. It's just I think part of it was addressed, but there will be no parking on County Road 79 if you got 50 employees
that can't park on the road. So, I see no problem with those changes. Dave runs very good business there, and I'll second the motion. I I do have a question. So is there a motion to add a condition for the size of the addition at all, or we're just representing that now that that has been represented by mister Brown? Do we wishes to do with the larger addition rather than the smaller one that was represented during the planning condition? Would you like that included? I don't think it's necessary because just as long as we know that that is what he's requesting, and that is what he has changed his request to.
Noted. Got it. K. K. We have a motion and a second to approve the Braun CUP request with, amended hours from eight to six, Monday through Saturday. And also the building size. And the building size. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thanks, Steve. Our next item is consideration of sorry, I'm going to screw this up, Aldanio Novell Energy CUP request. Welcome back. On 01/21/2025,
the complete condition conditional interim use permit application was submitted by Ralph Adanizio of Novel Energy Solutions requesting to operate a one megawatt commercial solar energy system in the Agriculture Protection District, or A1, on Parcel R11.00163.00, located in Section 21 North, Range 13 West, township of Mount Pleasant on approximately 315.83 acres. The planning commission conducted a public hearing on February 24 to hear testimony related to the request. After considering the testimony and facts of the matter, the planning commission, on a vote of five to zero,
recommends that the proposed CUP be approved with nine conditions as follows. One, a conditional use permit is being issued for the construction and operation of a one megawatt AC commercial solar energy system. Two, the project shall be undertaken only in accordance with the plans and specifications as submitted in the application or as outlined in these conditions. Number three, the project shall comply with all provisions of the Wabasha County Solar Energy Systems Ordinance regarding commercial solar energy systems. Number four, the county may enter onto the premises at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner to ensure the permit holder is in compliance with conditions and all other applicable ordinances.
Number five, the applicant shall post a bond or issue an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $250,000 per megawatt to cover the cost of the decommissioning and site restoration upon project termination. Upon expiration or revocation of this permit or voluntary termination of the project, the permittee shall meet all the requirements of the discontinuation, decommissioning, and restoration section of the Wabasha County Solar Energy Systems Ordinance. Number six, dust shall be managed so as to prevent a nuisance during the construction phase of the project. Number seven, the landowner shall provide Wabasha County the contact information for the appropriate individual or individuals
responsible for operation and maintenance of the solar energy system. Any changes to the contact person or person's information shall be forwarded to Wabasha County in a timely fashion. Number eight, the applicant and property owner shall enter into a developer's agreement with Wabasha County in accordance with the Wabasha County solar energy systems ordinance. Number nine, an approved application for utility permit on County Highway right of way is required for the utility crossing at 300 And Fiftieth Avenue, AKA County Road 22, from the Wabasha County Highway Department prior to construction of the solar energy system.
Thank you, Joe. And we have a couple of people who wish to speak. I believe Ralph Koehler. Good morning. My name is Ralph Taylor, thirteen thousand seven hundred County Road nine, Yota. Our family is the principal owner of Novel Energy Solutions. We're farmers by trade, live in the area, one of the largest community solar developers in Minnesota. Yes, we're working with the Pearson family on getting another project to allow people to take advantage and get some savings from solar energy without having to invest any of their
own money. So I believe we've met all the conditions. We're quite excited about this project and looking forward to bringing a new venture and working with the Pearson family. So happy to answer any questions and just wanted to be here for the approval. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And I don't believe there's anybody else unless you David Pearson is in the back end. Is there anything, mister Pearson? I think Frank covered. Okay. The only thing that I request the Board to consider is I think when these
applications come in front of us in the future, and I think, and I'm requesting today, is that instead of adding just the, I get that the parcel number is there, and I get that there's going to be the condition number eight that the property owner has to enter into a developer's agreement, and I get all that. But I think we need to have in the, actual resolution the landowner and the solar company because I want it very clear to people.
I'm not against these solar energy projects, but I want them to know that and I don't always think they know when they come here that they are ultimately responsible for the cleanup of these thirty, fifty, a hundred years from now. And I want and as long as they're okay with this and they they know this, I'm way okay with, voting in favor of these things. And I'm always concerned that these companies these solar companies go bankrupt or we're on
you know, it used to be windmills, and now we don't do windmills anymore. Now it's solar. What's the next thing? I don't know. And nobody can ever tell me what a good use I mean, these windmills, we can't get rid of them now. We don't even know what to do with them, so we're burying them in the ground. They don't sound very green to me. And this is my concern with solar a little bit. Nobody can tell me what we're gonna do with them at the end of their useful life. And I'm okay with that, but I want the property owner to know that when and if these all go debunked, they are ultimately responsible.
Whether this $250,000 is there, whether due to a technicality of well, it was there until we went bankrupt or it was there till we sold out or it was there till you know? I don't want any of that confusion. I want people to know that when these things need to be taken out, if the county is held responsible, no other taxpayer should have to pay 1 dime to restore that land. And if you're okay with your family members twenty, thirty, fifty years from now, I'm being on the hook to to take care of these. I am happy to vote for these things.
And that's why I want I personally would like to see landowner's names right on here along with the developer so that there's no confusion, and they can't say, well, this was a technicality. And that's again, I'm not against green energy. I'm just first of all, I haven't seen where it's been very green in the past, and I just don't want anyone else to have to pay for restoration for when someone else has made a bunch of money on it. That's I just want that clear. So I my request is is that
the land owners be placed in the resolution even though the property is there, even though there's gonna be a developer's agreement. I just want it very clear that because we are not I mean, you can't we're giving a conditional use to a company that doesn't even own the land. You know? So I I just want that's my only concern. I just want people to know upfront. I don't want them to be surprised at the end, and their grandchildren are saying, what did they do to me? Right?
Because if you can't pay the bill, we're going to clean it up, and then the bill will be placed against the property. And then if you can't pay it, we own the property, and then we'll sell it. And it's just not a comfortable situation for this for any board to be in, and I don't want to put any future boards in that situation. I don't have any problem with that. But we discussed at one time having a form created where the property landowner had to sign stating that he realized that And we do have that developer's agreement.
Correct. They would be responsible for the cleanup. Okay. But if you if commissioner Springer, if it would make you feel more comfortable, you could modify condition eight to say the applicant and the property owner, comma, mister Pearson shall enter into a developer's agreement. Yeah. So that has a name associated. But but, yes, the underlying property owner has to sign off on the developer's agreement. Okay. Any other questions or discussion? Would you like that change? The landowner's. Right? Mister Pearson, wanna say something? David Pearson, three hundred and fifty eighth Avenue. And, just to comment on,
Mr. Springer's comments. This comes as a little bit of a surprise to me. But including language like that, I certainly wouldn't want that to preclude the developer's main responsibility to handle the decommissioning of of a project. Well, what happens when they're not here? This is and I and I've said I even when mister Drysdale was here, I said, are you aware that if these companies aren't here and the money's not there Mhmm. The landowner is ultimately responsible?
And this has been my concern with every development. I bring it up every time. We try to we try to make sure that and it doesn't sound like you're aware that you have to sign this thing that ultimately will make you responsible if this money dries up. Because I you know, let's just say, you know, you're gonna make a certain amount of money or you wouldn't be doing it, and so all of them. It just makes sense. Right? But no other taxpayer should have to pay to clean that up. And when you're talking systems like this, they're big, and they're a lot of money. And it's probably to clean them up today is probably 250,000.
I don't know what it is thirty years from now or twenty years from now or fifty years from now. And now zoning may change, and maybe that won't be an issue. But as as we sit here today, I want landowners to know before they jump into these things, it looks like the developer is but when the developer is gone and nobody's around, it's not gonna be me or my children or grandchildren who are gonna pay for something that other people made money off of. It is the responsibility of the landowner who owns the land at the time that it gets decommissioned. And whoever we sign this today,
I just I I'll be I'll be the one to make the motion to move this forward as long as you are okay and understand that so that you can't say, well, I didn't know. You know today because I'm telling you. I'm tell I tell everybody this isn't against you, David Pearson. This is for any solar company. I have said this every time they come in front of me, and I'll make the motion today, but you gotta tell me that you're okay with it. And if you can't, maybe it's something you need to talk to the developer about to just say, hey. What are you what is my risk? What happens when you guys sell out?
What happens when you guys go bankrupt? Or we are just not around anymore because I've watched all these computer companies come and go through the years. Nobody lasts forever. And this novel solar company will not be around here thirty years from now. I guarantee it. So what happens, and who's on the hook? I don't know. Nobody can nobody ever tells me, but maybe you can. I don't wanna get We've got a six generation farm here that's made at a hundred and forty four years That's a farm. We're not talking about green energy. This green energy changes like I change my underwear.
And and it may, but isn't every landowner with any development under that same obligation? You're right. And that's why we we're just addressing this. And and I as a developer and a local resident whose family's been here almost a hundred and fifty years. That's an obligation you undertake whether it's building a welding shop This gives me inputs on that or a solar array. This gives me zero comfort, mister Koehler. Zero comfort. I'm just stating that I don't think it's different for owner of a solar array. Well, I'm building on your land.
Well, building on a land in a one megawatt system, and you're and this is ag land being taken out of production. When we wanna talk so I just I just want people to know. I'm not voting for anything that that any other taxpayer is gonna take responsibility for when somebody else makes all the money on it. Yep. And I'm not gonna talk about this specific matter or your specific company or your specific parcel. We've just been in situations where developers have gone away, and we've had issues with decommissioning in the past. Hence, why there's this agreement that was developed in place to make sure everybody understands what
their obligations are. In fact, we recently had a solar development sell off where we returned the initial, deposit that was provided for them and have the new company submit the new one. So it does happen. So Go ahead, mister Pearson. I would well, I would just again make the point that, by including language like this, I certainly wouldn't want to make it appear to the solar companies or the developers that, okay, this is our chance to go away. Make it more, make it more advantageous and more
Well, and I think I understand what you're saying, but I think we have the documentation in that shows the responsibility, but to and you're gonna sign on to that or or we can't this won't continue. But I just think in the resolution, the permit is being given to you and to the developer. Right? I don't think so. So why do we give permits to people who don't own the land? Because they have a lease. Yeah. I'd have to I don't know how the developer permit reads, but it it could be either way. But it Mister Pearson, the permits, but it it could be either way.
But it Mister Pearson, the development agreement reads that the solar company is responsible for the decommission, and they put up a $250,000 bond. They give that to the county. But what miss, commissioner Springer is trying to reiterate to you is if that solar company goes bankrupt or ceases to be, you as the landowner are ultimately responsible. Mhmm. That But with this, bond that they post, that's that's the first avenue for for the decommissioning expenses,
I would assume. Our county attorney answer that. There are also I'm not the county attorney, but there are all sorts of bonds. This is just trying to cover to make sure that there's always going to be somebody that's there to remedy or decommission it. You can look around Wabasha County. We have a number of inactive mines where those companies were supposed to remedy the situation and work. And I'm not picking up mines, but this is to try to make sure there are no other issues that are similar to that, having as many people involved in that process as possible. Go ahead. I have a second point also.
Is this, with the inclusion of this language in this particular, permit approval, is that any does that treat our project any different from any of the other projects that have been, moved forward in the county? No. That's the way the development agreement reads. Mister Springer was only asking that your name be placed in the resolution as the proper as the landowner. This language has been in place since we started doing solar. But if other if other permittees do not include or permits do not include the
landowner's name, then you're treating our Well, I'm not because your parcel number is there. But your name your name with the parcel number. Yeah. I will also say that we're talking about what's in the resolution rather than just what's in the permit. And so the parcel number in your name is likely included in the paperwork in a number of locations. What the actual resolution to approve says is just in the minutes, not just the minutes but the official record of what the Board approved here. But your name appears throughout the signed agreement with your developer, and the parcel number. There are obligations that will run with the property, obligations that'll be right on the landowner as an individual,
including your name here will not change anything as to how this has operated for the last at least three years since I've been paying attention to this process. So you're not under any greater obligation than any of the last half dozen or so solar operations approved by this body with a change in just adding your name in the resolution, if that puts you at ease. It wouldn't be any different if he sold the property in ten years. I don't know, but then the new owner would know this. Right? Right. So let's say thirty years from now, this thing is being decommissioned,
and it's $350,000 We only have $250 Does anybody have any idea how long they run before they decommission them? I think we're too early in the process. Sure. Yes, please. Yes. And there's, I think, a couple points to bring up. The first thing I I believe, and maybe I'm wrong, with any development, if you lease it now or building or, like I said, a welding shop, anything else, if the building becomes unusable and doesn't deteriorate, the landowners always if the county does it, landowner gets the responsibility.
So singling out solar is special for that to me is if it's a obligation as landowners, we have a farm. If you have a building that you can't go and the county does it, county takes it out or a trailer park, landowner gets it. But right now, the current sign panels are warrantied to be at 85% of production at year twenty five. So we will have leases that can go up to forty years with them. They will still be functioning. The current situation when you look at it,
a solar panel weighs about 18 pounds. The initial of it, and we'll just deconstruct an array for you to bring, I think there's some confusion, but a panel is basically polycarbonate wires and aluminum trim. So it's four bolts will take the panel and make it loose. They're aluminum or metal. Lifetime span, all reusable. You take the trim off of that panel, you got the bulk of the weight. Then essentially, you're looking at somewhere 12 to 15 pounds of polycarbonate and wires,
basically what you have for a computer. They grind them up. The wires can be melted. There's some precious metals in them. It's sand and polycarbonate that can be ground up and reused. Once you take the panels off, every there's two rows of racking that the panels attached to, all aluminum. Well, this isn't what I'm concerned about. I'm concerned about it thirty or forty years. That's right. This is being decommissioned. You can tell me that's what you think it's gonna be, but in thirty years, I know that any government has never got less regulation.
So there'll be more regulation on how we need to get rid of stuff. And I'm just stating what happens at the end of that year when it's $350,000 and we got this 250,000. Does the landowner know that if they can't cover it, that we will do it, and we will tax them back, and then we will assess that land to their property? Well, at the current rate right now, there's profit involved in taking them down and doing it. We don't know in thirty years, but that's where I'm explaining. In thirty years, the aluminum is all reusable. Yeah.
You're telling me there's a lot of what ifs, and that's what I'm concerned about. I believe there is with anything twenty years down. Talk about buildings, when a farmer builds a building, he knows he built it. And and this should be no different. My but mister Pearson's telling me right out today that he thinks that that this company is a % responsible for decommissioning this. And if it if the $2.50 doesn't cover it, who are you does the company plan on adding more to decommission if they're around? Yeah. We are responsible for decommissioning. Our lease with him also states that.
Okay. There's a liability like any of them coming back that he can come back and claim that. There will be someone that owns it yet, but the nice thing with a solar array versus everything else, it's continuing to generate revenue. While it's operating and those panels will be at forty years, my son worked on Wall Street before he came back. They quit modeling at that point because everything was paid. But at current rate, one megawatt will be somewhere around $125,000
of revenue a year. Twenty five years with inflation, what will electricity be worth? Much more. But what I was beginning to show is in twenty five years, the product that's out there on it, the panels, we're looking at 12 pounds of polycarbonate wire where much of that can still be recovered. Per panel? Yes. How many panels are So at twenty twenty five years, you said it's 85%. Still going and the panels So what's going to be reduced? Point do you start changing panels? Or what what what point do are they they have to be fixed or replaced
or decommissioned? At what point? In the lifespan for these gardens at twenty five years, really, there isn't a plan. It depends what the price of electricity does. And just like with our farm of what point do you trade a tractor off? It all depends what the price of corn is and how the tractors running. But if suddenly they gain a new efficiency and you can pick up 30% production and the price of electricity is tripled, pretty easy decision to make and we'll replace panels at that time.
If it continues to go up at 8% and the panels are still doing it, in most cases, probably won't replace them for the lifespan. I'm just trying to understand the panels themselves. You said twenty five years are at 85%. So if they're at 20 say 30%, you're getting 30% out of the panels. Oh, we watch them. We can see production by You would obviously do something before it got to 30. Right. Right? Right. I mean, there's gotta be a number of where you start changing things. And it's it's all a math equation.
It's what the revenue that they're producing and level of production to say it. K. It's like farming. I was I just didn't know how long you let panels go before you But right now, over 95% of all the arrays are still reusable and recyclable at year '25, which would be the first time they would be coming down because that's the obligation with the utility for the program. I mean, the amount of waste that's in them at the end of their lifespan is much less than what we use in computers over that twenty five years.
I have one more Sure. Couple more comments. What first of all, I don't I don't necessarily agree with or I don't understand your, the state was made that this would be comparable with agreements, and permits for, like, the last half a dozen or something. And but it seems like that have to sign this agreement that you're agreeing to today. He's just making All I'm asking is is that your name be placed next to the parcel number. Okay. And I don't wanna be argumentative, but I'm argumentative. But, we heard an earlier issue with the planning commission,
and, the county board rejected the planning commission's decision because of a bunch of what ifs down the road. And it seems to me like we're just filing the what ifs. So Well, there's no what ifs here. I want you to know that whoever owns that property, at the end of this, if the company is gone and then there's not enough money to pay the bill, the landowner will be responsible. Unless you're if you're okay with that, we'll But you're but you're you're the you put in the what ifs of what if the company leaves Well, I just know it's gonna happen, and that's why I'm trying to fix it right up front.
So there's no I can guarantee you this company will not be around in thirty years. It just they just don't it's all technology. Move it's moving so fast. Your family may sell off or whatever, but and it'll be a new name. So you might say, well, technically, it's the same. But I can tell you, this comp you may just it'll happen that family just decides it's not lucrative anymore, and there's no government programs fund subsidizing anymore. And that's why you just told us that the reason we're doing this,
we're putting these in for free. Why wouldn't the land owner do this? Why is it free? It ain't free. Somebody's paying for it. It's government subsidy. Right? That's Was it a government subsidy? Yes or no? For what are you talking? On this no. That's 5%. Get a get a discount on their electricity. With all energy in The United States, there's subsidies. There's four That's what I'm saying. I'm just saying that subsidies for I'm just saying for nuclear. And there is some for renewable energy too. So it's all subsidized. I agree. I'm tell I I'm not arguing that. What I'm arguing is me how our business is gonna run and how long it's
gonna last. I don't believe you know that either. How How many windmills are being put up right now? That's not that's not my business. Right. Because there's not. And that's why you don't wanna answer the question. I I don't know. Maybe I opened too much of a can of worms. I just don't know why putting somebody's name. Maybe after this one, then we'll start that process. Because at the end of the day, he he's signing something that says he's ultimately responsible. And he clearly didn't know that, and that's what I'm always afraid that these companies aren't telling landowners is, but I'm telling them today. Well, at the end of the day, Springer,
if a company comes in and wants to lease part of my farm to whatever, store this or store that, if they go bankrupt, that stuff is on me. I got to clean it up. I agree, but it doesn't sound like they're being told that. So I'm telling them when they come here. Mister Peeuton, this isn't something new. Every solar garden that we've approved in the past as part of the development agreement states that if the solar company that you are leasing your property to ceases to
be when it comes time for the cleanup, the land owner is ultimately responsible. I'm not gonna say that's gonna happen to you. I'm not gonna say the company is gonna be gone, but that is a possibility. And that's the development agreement's been that way with every solar garden we've approved. Mhmm. But you do have that bond. Correct. Yeah. That's first. Correct. And it the default it is stated in the contract how it if it goes out, what you can all the other options available. Like you said, Donnie,
he's gotta sign a piece of paper to me. And and and if it's 350 and there's only a two fifty band Change the bill. Change the ordinance. 50 they're responsible for. That's fine. I just want people to know. Mhmm. K. You say, well, you do that, you walk away today. And this guy's left with whatever potentially could happen. That is inaccurate, but there's there's remedies like anything else on it that we're obligated first for the cleanup when it's when it's going. The bond is up there to offset that.
What we've recommended some is two years before it ends, you look. But at the present rate, that will more than cover it. It's a profitable business. If you take what the arrays are worth now and the recycling and the cost to take it down, it's a money making business. The problem is there aren't any of them that are 25 years old yet. That's coming. So the business hasn't taken off because there is no volume. But like ours, assuming the utility still needs them at that, they will go forty,
fifty, 60. The infrastructure is there, but all of it using today's use of metals, all of it is recyclable except for the small portion of a panel that you grind, the polycarbonate you can reuse, the wires you can, but all the everything else is metal. It's aluminum and steel, which has much greater lifespan than twenty five years, particularly when it's not in the ground. And the ground is still productive. It's generating more revenue than it does as corn or soybeans in the agriculture state.
And on a state average, all of the product it produces will be used pretty much within state or immediately across state lines versus half of our corn and half of our soybean value is exported out of the state. We'll get more taxes because now it'll go from ag to commercial, right? There'll be a change. Okay. I'm gonna call for a motion. At the time that, the development agreement is presented to mister Pearson, he can make his decision. That that doesn't weigh on our decision here right now. Madam chair, did you make a motion?
No. I said I'll call for a motion. I'll make that motion. Second. You're making the motion to approve the request. Okay. We have a motion and a second to, approve the NOVEL Energy CUP request. Any further questions or discussions? Hearing none, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. One here next, and I apologize that I can't get your stuff up. We're just splashing like a disco ball up here, so I don't really know what's going on. Maybe we should've bought such a cheap system. No. It's expensive. Morning. Morning. Good morning.
First item here, just the software annual agreement fee. Correct? Alright. And that's just our budget software and our annual, agreement and payment that we make. I'd like to bring it to the board just so you remember that the cost is budgeted. We did budget it, which was approved in 2025. And I'd like to bring it to the board because of the dollar amount. Madam chair, I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second. Motion by commissioner Springer, seconded by commissioner Powers to approve the annual software fee. Any further discussion? Is this the third year then? Or this?
Yes. It will be the third year that we're using this. And it's been very helpful. Great. Good deal. Any other questions, discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed? Motion carries. Our next item is the annual designated fund balances. Okay. This one is brought to you every year, and this is the designated funds. And these are kinda like your capital requests that you approve for budget for certain projects. So every year, if the project is a so I'm gonna make an example, the jail washing machine project.
Every year, they're gonna put 3,700 and $3,271 into that fund to build up for if they need a new washing machine. Hiawatha Transit bus, the pool car replacement fund, court service intake, we have an election machine replacement, election pulling pads, general maintenance projects, geothermal system repairs for the maintenance fund. We have a vending machine fund. There's an impound lot fund, squad replacement fund, road improvement highway projects,
technology projects and then the Xerox tax and CAMA projects. There's two different projects, one's for IT and one's for the actual CAMA project. And then on the bottom, we have the capital equipment, and that's what Highway wants for capital equipment. I did include other more documentation than what we normally do just so you can see how those funds were being spent or not spent and how they're planning on being spent in the future. The, vending machine fund is That's a new employee funded, right, from the vending project?
Correct. Like the Pepsi and the Coke machine, they give us, I think it's, like, $12 a month back in revenue, and we keep that in a certain fund. So it just sits there. That that transit fund, remember we put away 10,000 for two years? I don't I mean, they did that survey a number of years ago. I don't see them ever ever using that. I mean, I'm sure they take it, but, the need just wasn't there to run them buses out of these towns. Yeah. That was the only one that caught my eye. There hasn't been any accident on that. We reached out to Hiawatha a few years ago and informed them that we were
gonna transition that to our general fund. I didn't know that. Oh, I apologize. Well, yeah, that was that has to be three or four years ago. Okay. Yep. For your time. Before my time. Before my time. We're getting a determination in that budget process to Okay. Okay. I just have a question. What's the court services intake on? You're going to ask me questions that I'm not 100% sure of? I have to admit, I don't know that one. Oh, I just was curious. I can look into it a little bit further. It's not being too much. Pardon? Probation fees. They seem come A lot.
I don't know. Because I don't have it in front of me. I didn't pull up that part of that. We don't get a lot of them. Yeah. The highest years are, had $1,540 put into it. Before that, it was, for a lot of years, $1,005. And the amounts are consistent Okay. So it's not a increase. Yeah. It's not a Yeah. No big deal. If if you can find out, Gwen, that'd be great. Nope. I will find out. I think the last time we had funds put in, it was 2022, and it was $55.
So no. So Oh, it had some put in 01/24. Mhmm. Oh, no. Well, that's just the balance. So I have to balance that. You're right. Okay. Any anyone else have any questions or discussion? Do we need to approve these? You do need to approve these. So then I can take out the Hiawatha Transit One for and put that into general fund, so then that's not in there. So you can approve it with the change made. Exclude that? Exclude that. Okay. Is there a motion?
So moved. That includes the exclusion? Yep. Correct. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Motion by Commissioner Springer, second by Commissioner Powers to approve the annual designated fund balances with the exclusion of the transit fund, which will be put back into the general fund. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Motion carries. Next, we have commission reports. Mister Springer, would you like to start? I sure love you very much. Thank you, ladies. I do not have anything to say. Mister Wakis?
You always do a lot. He makes up meetings. Well, sometimes I have witnesses. On February 20, I attended the Whitewater Joint Powers Board meeting. Kind of around the table, Winona County has hired a new feedlot officer. The bowser report, some of their federal money has come through the cracks. They could have reported on that following one of the one watershed one plan meetings. Part of the discussion we had too was whether joint powers board has met monthly. A year or two ago, we switched it to bimonthly,
and we're probably gonna move to quarterly. In the late eighties, early nineties, when the board was established, it was seen as a better way to for the three SWCDs involved to address one area. We're now with the one watershed, one plan programs that's kind of consolidated, so more to come on that. Labor management committee, I attended with commissioner Key on the twentieth as well. Just general run of the mill business. I'll let commissioner Key add if she chooses.
And soil and water was last Thursday. I've got the wrong date written down. You could do it there now. Okay. Good. Thank you. I thought someone's watching him. Thank you. Just kind of general business there. And, this morning, before this meeting, we had zoning enforcement, discuss some of the upcoming and what was passed zoning issues, and that's all I have. Commissioner Waddy? Yes. Since our last meeting, I, along with most of the commissioners, attended the township officers meeting, and I thought that was very well attended by not only the,
you know, the all the officials, but the county reports were very informative. And then, of course, planning commission the last it was a week ago, Monday. Yep. And I think that's been well reported on our action items here. And then I had a DAC meeting. The one thing that just reminded me to follow-up on is they're having issues with the transit bus. I don't know if you're familiar with their location, but they want two of the city, parking areas right in front. The transit wants to be able to pull in there straight,
and, you know, they can't back. I mean, they've got so many different restrictions, but, you know, I gotta get ahold of transit and just tell them they can pull at an angle. The clients can walk that little bit. It's not a big deal, but I don't know. It seems like they're doing more to get out of hauling than haul. But anyways Where is this? Down at the DAC where they pick up the old Ben Franklin store. They want They have their own bus. Does Hiawatha transit transit? They they try to. Because I thought they have their own bus. They do have their own bus, but they they only have one person that's got a CDL to drive it,
and she's been out on medical available. Okay. And then they end up using Sure. The Hiawatha Transit if it's available. But other than that, you know, it's like everywhere. We had some resignations and some new hires, but all in all, they're they're doing pretty good. That's all I got. Commissioner Powers? Again, I attended the planning commission with Commissioner Lawby, and it was pretty much discussed in detail here. And I also attended a meeting this morning, zoning enforcement. There wasn't really too much facts to tell yet.
Joel's got some letters to send out on a few enforcements. So that's kinda pending. I really can't give you any information on that yet. K. Unless you wanna know where the properties are all at, but we'll let Joe handle that. Other than that, I don't have anything. Okay. I attended a HRA meeting. We approved the HRA is submitting an application for matching funds for our local housing trust fund, and that's to Minnesota housing. And, we also will be applying to Minnesota housing housing for bring it home funds, which will provide rental assistance.
I think this was approved in 02/2023, and they still don't have other regs in place. And this this would be state funding. The other rental assistance program the HRA provides is federal funding through HUD. Like Bob said, I also attended the labor management committee meeting. I just it was noted that the lifestyle spending accounts are up and running. People are starting to get reimbursements. And then we also were told that, HR is going to be researching other, available dental plans. They don't feel that,
getting the biggest bang for our buck. I also attended the township meeting, and I just wanted to to say, thank you to the department heads who attended the township meetings. It's always nice they give a nice update, and it, I guess, furthers our our message of what's going on at the county and what the county is doing. And there's always, with some of them, a lot of dialogue, especially with when Dietrich gives his, Culverts. Update because, you know, that probably concern about every department concerns him the most. So Culverts and signs.
Yep. So and that's all I had. Any commissioner concerns? I have none. No? Anything else, Michael? Nope. Make a motion to adjourn. I'll second it. We have a motion by Commissioner Springer, seconded by Commissioner Lobby to adjourn. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed? Motion carries.