Good, sheriff. It's 9AM. We'll call the meeting to order. Please join us for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Roll call. All the commissioners are present today. Our first item is to approve the agenda. Are there any changes or additions? No, Board Chair. Madam chair, I'll move on the agenda as written. Second. We have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as presented. All those in favor,
say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Motion carries. Staff updates? Just a handful of quick ones. First, I wanna recognize Mark Passi, who works in our highway department. He's been working here for twenty five years, worked his way up the ladder. He recently was promoted to our construction supervisor position, provides great service to the county. And, also, if any of you guys have met him, he's one of the most positive people that you're gonna be around. Always has a smile on his face, and just wanted to recognize his time here at the county. Couple other ones. Reminder, June 2, we have the District nine meeting for, AMC. We will be hosting that meeting.
It is gonna be taking place in Lake City at the Lake City Ballroom, which is in their city hall area, but should be a good meeting. One of the items that, I sent to the Association of Minnesota Counties to discuss was was a limited use permit, that is being requested for the county to sign off on. Provided an update to the board, but just kind of by a really brief way of background, Wabasha County has a number of snowmobile trails that are are found in our county about 200 miles. This year, for the first time ever, the state has asked in the county to sign off on a limited use permit.
What a limited use permit is is basically requiring the county to take on all liability for those trails, the crossings, etcetera. Typically, that wouldn't be much of an issue except for, Minnesota County Insurance Trust has informed us that if we sign off on this agreement, we will have no coverage for it. So it would be we would be taking on all the responsibility for a trail that we typically have no oversight over. The only role we have in the snowmobile trails is a financial pass through for our snowmobile clubs. We don't do any maintenance on it. We don't do any signage on it.
We don't really do anything on it. The rub on this, though, is if we do not sign that limited use agreement, they will not provide the funding to our limited snowmobile clubs. So we're stuck in a kind of rock and a hard spot. And I think it'd be really beneficial for AMC to take a position on this because it's gonna be impacting all the counties across the state. I'm hearing some counties are signing off on it. I'm hearing some counties are not signing off on it. I'm hearing some counties are requiring their snowmobile clubs to sign off on it. If the snowmobile clubs were to sign off on it, they would be required to have I think it's a million and a half dollars
worth of insurance. It could be a million. Either way, if it's a million or a million and a half, it's a lot of money, and our snowmobile clubs typically don't have that kind of funding available to, purchase, some of that insurance. So I'm getting that number one on your radar so when it comes up at our AMC meeting, you're not caught off guard. And number two, that if you hear from any of our snowmobile clubs, because this is actually the time of year where they're buying signs and doing some trail maintenance and incurring some costs, they're not gonna be receiving any, reimbursement at this time because we have not signed off on that agreement. What is the dollar amount for that they get from the state?
$82,000 roughly. Split between all of our clothes. It's a big deal. It is a big deal. So it's not insignificant. There are liability concerns, but also trying to understand that, we'll probably have to do something to make sure these trails are running, in the upcoming year here. But it doesn't make sense to me that the county would provide insurance when we don't own the property. What my best guess is is this is the state not wanting to have liability or to have to, pick up the insurance cost. Because across the state, there are approximately 21,000 miles of snowmobile trails is is the last data I've seen.
We're actually just dropping the bucket, though it's important here in Lavishaw County. I'm guessing they wanna get out of the insurance in the liability game. And MCIT has no interest in We can get an additional rider. I have no idea what that cost would be for Wabasha County, but, of course, there's additional insurance that could always be purchased to cover it, if that we are so choose to do so. And maybe there'd be strength in numbers if, other counties were all interested in doing it. But under our typical insurance, there would not be any coverage for Wabasha County if there is an accident or
injury that took place on those trails. Another issue of passing So you're thinking it's on the trail or the road or something so? Injuries? Majority I I I can't speak from, you know, with extensive knowledge, but my understanding, majority of injuries are at trail crossings, not on the trails themselves, and that's where we'd be taking we'd have liability the entire trail, my understanding, but, yeah, it's specifically So somebody got hit by a car crossing the snowmobile on on the road, or car would have insurance on it? And, typically,
most of the snowmobiles people have insurance on too. But Don't know that, but it could be more as to design, like, are the trails being maintained appropriately? If somebody gets into an accident because there's a fallen tree across a trail, who's responsible for the maintenance on it? Typically, that is our clubs, and they're doing a great job in our county, for maintaining those way to do it. So, I mean, it's that's 99% of where the liability concerns would be around crossings, but theoretically, there could be other areas as well. What time is that district meeting? So I believe it starts at at eight.
There we go. Eight to twelve. There'll be a lunch provided, at the end of it. So just wanted to get that on your radar. Couple of other quick ones just because I know we've got an agenda in front of us here. Our next meeting, May 20, right after the agenda starts, we'll be having a closed session with our labor attorney to discuss, discuss, labor negotiations. I wanted to share that with our citizens too just so that, we're not gonna be starting we'll start our meeting at nine, but probably won't be in an open session until 09:45, ten o'clock, maybe at the earliest. So that is one little change there. Also, at our next meeting, I can't believe it already, but we're in budget season.
So we'll have our first budget session with the county board after the meeting on the twentieth, whatever time we get done, and we'll start setting our, meetings for the following months after that as well. I believe that is all. And that was the administrator update also? Correct. Okay. Our next item is the public forum. Two people sign up. I believe one would like to talk on item 10 c, so if the board wants to wait until that time. But there is one other additional with mister Brad Jek for County Road 4 access. Thank you. My name is Brad Jek. Work for Tony Montgomery Realty and Auction Company.
We recently submitted an application for, just can I ask a question quick? How much time do I have? Typically, we like three minutes, but Three minutes. I just gotta know how fast I gotta go. Sounds good. So we recently submitted an application for access along County Road 4 to the subdivision that was recently, or lands that was recently annexed into the city. BA Holdings has been going through the annexation process process of lands that were originally, the property zone of this 38 acres, had a zoning change that was adopted back in February of twelfth two thousand nineteen by Plainview Township.
That property was sold by the Schultz family, and Betcher and Tony Montgomery Dustin Betcher and Tony Montgomery created BA Holdings and purchased that land, and they're gonna be putting in a industrial commercial subdivision to align with the, already adopted, planning zone change that had taken place. From the very beginning starting over over a year ago now back in last February, March, we had been going to township meetings, and, we had a very local or a very vocal commissioner that was at those meetings that stated that that would never be allowed by the county to happen.
And, through the process in dealing with that, we tried to bring the township along, but statute allowed us to get those lands annexed in. There has been a great deal of opposition, from both, what seems like definitely township, and and realistically seems like county as well, for the growth of the city. We've had to, cross numerous hurdles to get here to where we are now. We now have the property and land annexed in. We have met with the county engineer out on-site on March 27, both myself, BA Holdings engineer, and the county engineer,
to talk about access coming off of County Road 4. And when we were talking to, that day out there on the property, we were told that without any issue, we could go to the very south end of the property, which is along County Road 4. It put, became undue hardship with that process because of the waterway that we would have to cross through there, to come in with that access. So we had asked if there could be consideration to just to the north side of the waterway that crosses underneath with a culvert through the property. We submitted an application. There was no statute given as to why it was denied.
There was just reasons as to why it was denied. We have been told or we have written proof, in an email that we have printed in the file that the county engineer was told not to help or be of any benefit, to the process of the annexation and to the process of the development of this property. So now coming to a head when we're looking for the access off of County Road 4, It seems slightly arbitrary and capricious with the process of, minds were already made up. And so, I bring up a couple other, one issue with it is when that denial was sent through email,
that the township was also sent a copy of that. And it just raises a question as to why was the township notified of the denial, why were they put on the email chain, if you will, with that when these lands have been annexed into the city and the township has no jurisdiction over this land whatsoever. So that that's a little bit, interesting, I guess, if you will, to me. The other part of this is that, we had talked about Ag Partners. Ag Partners was granted access, off of County Road 25. And to be honest with you, their driveway would have been substantially closer had they had just gone straight east and
not turned south and come on to County Road 25 if they would have accessed, 270 Fifth Avenue. Their intersection or their driveway is only 450 feet from that intersection of 270 Fifth and, County Road 25. So it seems like there's been other properties that have been granted, and now all of a sudden going back to BA Holdings not receiving any opportunity to put this access along a 10 ton road. I will remind you that this is an industrial commercial subdivision.
We are building 10 ton streets and wider streets, that you would find in normal truck routes through city or municipalities. Those streets are being built, that way because of it being an industrial commercial subdivision. We're gonna assume, and it's only an assumption that there will be truck, heavy truck traffic, possible semi traffic into the subdivision. And so it just, bewilders me why we would come in on a gravel road and not off of a 10 ton road that's there for for public access for the better development of the of the lands. John Deere is only 350 feet north,
of County Road 42 that they have an intersection to. They have multiple intersections. They could just stick on the, county or on the Township Road, and it would meet what we're supposed to be being told. And then you have NorthPark, which is just 735 feet north on, Ona County Road. Again, there's access, and it's just north of, the 42 Intersection there as well. So it just seems, like there's been other properties that have been given the opportunity, and it seems like everything's coming to a head now with this denial, based on the long, over year process that we've been having to jump through hurdles,
to get to this point. So, in talking to the owners, they're going to be moving forward with, the appeal process on that access. They have a 10 ton road, bordering the entire west side of the property. They want to come off of that road. I I believe it makes most sense financially, fiscally to be on a 10 ton road with a 10 ton street in a subdivision. And by going north onto 500 And Thirtieth Street next to the sewer plant would cause undue hardship for that development. And so, I guess, just to let you know that they're gonna be taking all means and legal means
possible to appeal that process to get in there unless there's, possibly some statutes that could be stated or or reasons why these other properties were granted, and and now this one's not being granted access on that on that county road. And that's about all I have. I just wanted to share that, possibly information, backstory history, and and possibly, most definitely frustration on the developer's end. So I I'm not the developer. I'm here representing them only in in the statute that I'm giving or the licensure that I'm giving the opportunity to do that in. But just wanted to to bring that forward,
and hopefully, we can come to a meeting of the minds that that works for both the county, and the city, obviously, being city lands, and the developer to make it a, a viable opportunity to have, growth within our community and in our county, for hopefully a larger tax base as well. So with that, I thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Our next item is our consent agenda, which consists of the minutes from April 15, the claims, per diems, the mule vouchers. We have several donations for the purchase of a drone by the sheriff's department,
a thousand dollars from the Plainview American Legion, a thousand dollars from Millville American Legion, twenty five hundred from Mazeppa Fire Department, and 2,500 from the Kellogg Fire Department. From the auto treasurer, approve a liquor license for a Voyage Saloon. Building maintenance, approve purchase of a new mower. Highway, approve the agreement between MnDOT and Wabasha County. Also from the highway, approve agreement between the City Of Wabasha and Wabasha County. Public Health, accept immediate termination of COVID grant funding. And then from the Sheriff's Office,
approved disposal by auction of 2019 Dodge Charger. Also authorized fiber and insulation for SIP, which is Session Initiation Protocol. And, authorized donations of AED Defibrillators units. Is there a motion to approve? So moved, Madam Chair, second. We have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Motion carries. Our action discussion items. Our first one is approve funding, from the Wabasha County Housing Trust request.
Good, Patrick. Can you hear us? Great. I'm gonna turn it over to Buffy for some background on this. Wonderful. Thank you. I'm Buffy Bronic, executive director of SEMTRA. And with me today on the line, I have Patrick Michener, our grant writer of Sumatra. Patrick is part of our community development department at Sumatra, one of the three key departments at Sumatra. So community development, rental assistance, and rental housing. I just remind you of the importance of community development as we enter this budget season, and this is part of the community development function that we're here discussing today.
For the public and for the board's sake, I'm just gonna give a real quick, brief background of what brings forward our request for, the acceptance of the awards for the housing trust fund dollars. As you know, in 2024, we worked diligently with the county to set up and create a housing trust fund. That housing trust fund is administered by SumTra. Patrick does a lot of that work on on your behalf. We have funded the housing trust fund with $202,000 from the state, state the state affordable housing aid,
which was, part of the 2023 legislative session. That is a continual funding basis. However, it is decreased in years '25 and going forward. This, the award process began in January with a request for proposal, that was released in January and went through March. It was approximately a sixty, seventy day, open period. So I'm sure sent out a lot of emails, to counties, cities, nonprofits, developers, really trying to solicit that interest. We posted it on our website, had it in the newspaper. We received three applications,
two of which, the Centra board approved. That's our first process for taking awards, embedding them is through the Centra board. One award was pulled just because of the viability of the prod project rate prior to that. So going into this, we were oversubscribed. That's what we wanna see is that there's more demand for the affordable housing, needs out there. The, two applications that we're asking you to approve today will, just will be slightly under, our total allocation. We have, two applicants that we're recommending. That is Habitat for Humanity of Goodhue County. I know that sounds strange,
but they actually do work in Wabasha County. They would like to build a home, in Lake City. And then Multi County Builders who owns a, they're both these entities are five zero one c three nonprofits. Multi County Builders owns a 48 unit, HUD subsidized project based, building, that takes care of our disabled, and elderly. The recommendation is to, as I said, Sempstra board, approved both of these, in April. The first one is a hundred and $25,840 to multi county builders in the form of a thirty year forgivable loan.
That preserves the affordability. This is a typical funding mechanism that we see with a lot of our funders like Minnesota Housing Agency or Greater Minnesota Housing Fund and then $50,000 to Habitat for Humanity in the form of a grant that would be for the lot purchase and for construction cost of that home. Multi county builders would use those funds to replace a sewer line. There's been some scoping that, that the sewer line has collapsed, and also, for updating lighting fixtures for efficiency purposes. The lighting is over 30 years old. Habitat for Humanity,
as I said, this would be, for a single family home in Wabasha County of Lake City. It's for a single mother, of three. She's also a veteran, and we're really happy to be collaborating with the City Of Goodhue whose construction builder's trades course will be coming in to actually build the the home as well. So, a real nice partnership there. We expect all the funds to be used, by hopefully spring of twenty twenty six. We say that just with the construction process and the school year. In terms of what did the request bring to the table,
there were, matching funds of about $330,000, roughly $50,000 from multi county builders and, 290,000 from, Habitat for Humanity. So leaving on the table in the trust fund is about $25,000 that we would then roll into next year's RFP process. With that, Patrick, anything you wanna add? Anything I missed? No. I think you covered the book. Questions from the board. Said, Buffy, that, Centra is in the process, or maybe they have already submitted an application to Minnesota housing for matching funds to
go into our housing trust fund. We did not for Wabashaw County Okay. Because the the state MHFA program would own they don't allow matching dollars on SAHA dollars. So we could only match Oh, okay. Where there was levy dollars coming in. So in the case of Winona County, they put 75,000 in approximately over the course of two years, and Goodhue County puts in a hundred thousand dollars into theirs. So we asked for the max there and about a hundred and 50,000, Patrick. And and went for For Goodhue.
For Goodhue. For Goodhue. Or Winona. I misunderstood that. Okay. So so not on behalf of Wabasha. Are both of these projects in Wabasha County? Both of them are in Wabasha County. K. Yep. And then the only the 50,000 will be recoverable? That is not recover coverable. None of it. It is a grant. Correct. And explain why why a thirty year forgivable, how does that work versus just calling it a grant? It preserves the affordability. So if you, let's just say you you gave MultiKenneth Builders the hundred and, 25,000
and then they sold the property and they went market rate, that money could be pocketed. So for thirty years, it has to remain affordable. Otherwise, it would come back into the housing trust fund. So it's that way to preserve that affordable housing. Something that you're going to hear more about with all the federal funding and changes and stuff is the potential loss for affordable housing. If that federal funding decreases. This is a way for you to preserve that. It's a mechanism. I just didn't understand that. Yeah. Any other questions or comments? Hearing none, do we have a motion? I'll move to approve the funding request from,
the housing trust. I'll second that. We have a motion and a second to approve the, funding of the two applications from the housing trust. Any further, discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Motion carries. Exposing. Thank you. Thank you. Planning and zoning, consider consideration of our billing CUP. On 03/20/2025, a complete application was submitted by Rick Billings for a conditional use permit to use a single family residence as a lodging establishment. Subject property is described as Waukesha County Parcel R 05 Dot 00499 Dot 00 and
is located in Section 12, Township 110 North, Range 10 West Of Greenfield Township, at address 66760140 Sixth Avenue in Wabasha. The planning commission conducted a public hearing on 04/28/2025 to hear the testimony related to the request. After considering the testimony and facts of the matter, the planning commission on a board vote of four to zero recommends approval of the proposed cup with the following four conditions. One, the use should be undertaken only in accordance with the plans and specifications as submitted in the application or as outlined in these conditions. Two, any expansion or alteration of the use shall not be undertaken until amendment to this
conditional use permit is approved by the Wabasha County Board of Commissioners. Three, all applicable federal, state, and county statutes, ordinance, rules, and regulations shall be observed. And four, the conditional use permit shall terminate when there is a transfer of title out of possession of either Marcy or Rick Billings. Madam, I'll make a motion to approve. I sat in on the Planning Commission meeting that night, and it seems, he's doing the right thing here. I'll second that. Motion and a second to approve the CUP request from Mr. R. Billings. Any further, discussion? Hearing none,
all those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thanks. Also from Planning and Zoning, we have a rezone Well, we could see if you want or you can look at it. How are you doing? We also have a rezone request from Dee O'Reilly. We'll just let Joe introduce it, and then we'll have you come up and speak. On 03/07/2025, the complete application was submitted by Dorothy O'Reilly to rezone Wabasha County Parcel R 03 Dot 00176 Dot 00 from the Agricultural Protection Protection District A 1 to the Agricultural Urban Fringe District A 2.
Subject property is described as Wabashore County Parcel R 03 Dot 00176 Dot 00 located in Section 20, Township 110 North, Range 13 West of Guilford Township on approximately 80 acres. The The purpose of the rezone rezone would be to allow a split of the property that would maintain the eligibility of a dwelling for the created and residual parcels. Planning commission conducted a public hearing on 04/28/2025 to hear testimony related to the request. After considering all the testimony in facts of matter, the planning commission on a vote of four to zero recommends denial of the proposed
rezone based on the following. One, request is to rezone one parcel to the A 2 District and would create an island where the proposed use of the property may conflict with adjacent properties that are zoned a one where the purpose is to maintain, conserve, and enhance agricultural lands that have been historically valuable for crop production, pasture land, and natural habitat for plant and animal life. The A 1 District is intended to encourage long term agricultural uses, preserve prime or productive ag farmland, forest lands, and natural resources, and stabilizing public expenditures for public services by restricting location and density of nonfarm dwellings
and other nonfarmland uses. Residential development in this district was meant to only allow an overall density not to exceed one dwelling per 80 acres. Number two, the area is smaller compared to districts surrounding the parcel in question. Number three, the proposed new district allows land uses that may be inconsistent with those allowed in the vicinity. Number four, the proposed rezone conflicts with the policies and the comprehensive land use plan and the zoning ordinance. And number five, if granted, the rezone would confer a special benefit on the property owner not commonly given to the owners of similar property. Thank you, Joe. We did have one individual sign up to speak on this,
Mary Gassner. Hopefully, I pronounced that correctly. Oh, thank you. Yeah. Thank you for allowing us to share again, commissioners, this morning the reason why we're requesting the rezoning. My name is Mary Gassner, and I'm one of the six property owners along with my sister Dorothy who submitted the original application. Our interest in rezoning is to create more affordable parcels, for our current family members to retain a small level of ownership in our family's legacy farm. We believe that the parcel is in a unique position, which is the reason for the visual,
in that the roadway runs in directly through the center of the property, splitting the 80 acres into equal 40 halves, and the current use of the land would be retained even with the change to the a two zoning. So if if you look at the map, the existing homestead on the left side of the roadway, which is near the red dot, that is where the existing home is currently and would remain. And then on the right side, there are outbuildings and bins that are also, going to remain with the a two zoning.
But with the a two zoning, it would give our family members the opportunity to purchase that and possibly build a homestead across the street from the existing dwelling and at a more affordable price than if we were to remain at A-one. So, it, in essence, creates two properties that give a lower point of entry for our family members to be able to purchase the property. Retaining that A1 zoning lumps it together and limits the available use of that across the road location, which currently is functioning somewhat like an A2 zone anyway.
It has buildings, it has water, it has electricity, and so our ask is really to, on paper, in essence, change the zoning to A2 to allow us to continue to use it in a way in which A1 functions. We are not intending to change the tillable acreage and that would be remained, which meets one of the primary goals of A-one zoning, which is to retain the tillable acreage. The reason that we wanted to come today to have further discussion is after the open comment period at the commission,
discussion or the commission meeting, we felt that the commission members hinged a lot of their decision on building precedence with allowing us the exception, and that attaches us to all future and past requests, although ours is individually very unique in that it splits the property evenly, it's already functioning as a one, and it meets your needs of of retaining the tillable property, associated with a one zoning. So we wanted to talk a little bit to precedents and ask if you would reconsider using that as one of the primary decisions in declining our request because it
would function very similar to the a one process or the a one zoning functionality that it has right now, and it would meet the needs that you have as a county while also meeting the needs that our family has in attempting to create a lower level of entry to ownership of our farm our family farm. So, with that today, I I wanted to ask if you could reconsider the Commission's position on rezoning our parcel. This request upholds your interest in maintaining tillable acreage. We won't take away from that, and that is not the request.
We also would be able to make future ownership available for more of our family members, and that there's little risk in future requests meeting the same unique position that our parcel has because our farm and the buildable sites are already functioning in the way in which the rezoning to A two would allow it to function. So with that, I I ask for your approval of our rezoning request, And if I can be helpful in answering any questions, I certainly would like to. But we really felt listening to the commission's discussion,
it was contingent on setting a precedence, which we don't believe we're doing in this request. Thank you so much for your feedback. Sure. Thank you. Are there any questions from Lauren? No. Other than I sat in also on that planning commission meeting that night, and I I I strongly agree with the planning commission's decision being that, everything around it is is zoned a one. And and, truly, if we wanna if we wanna start a two, I'm not opposed to that, but that's not what the that's not what the zoning ordinance
was put. Be different if this was butted up to an a two district. Absolutely. Because now you're creating an island of nonconformity and Makes it You're you're well, it's no different than yeah. Well, exactly. Because my property of a 74 acres can't be split, and I have four children. It should be nice to do that as well, but I'm not allowed to do that either because I don't touch an a two district either or a three year, any other district for that matters. And so, I I I agree. Yeah. We're seeing that for illegal, in my opinion,
to a spot zone. That's what that is, the spot zoning. As a two builds out from there, eventually, that could potentially be an option. Mhmm. But until that reaches that, it's just essentially an illegal Change Yeah. Classification. Yeah. Unless somebody wants to dig into the zoning ordinance, and I don't at this time. What people don't also understand is preserving ag land doesn't always mean not building an ag land. The more people that live in the country, the more conflict with farming happens. And the more people that live in the country then want city services in the
country's lifestyle. And that adds cost to everybody in the county. And so there's more conflicts that's it's not always I can't you can't prevent somebody from buying 80 acres, building a house in the middle of it, and never farming another drop of it. There's people with that kind of money out there, and we can't stop that. But it's when I I know your intentions are good that it's gonna stay in the family. But it stays in the family for how long? Till the next divorce or the next family argument or whatever.
And now you have now it's a sellable, buildable lot, and it will be sold to somebody twenty years from now, thirty years from now, probably not family. And then that's where we start to have conflict. And it's no different than the property I own. Sure. Would it be nice for me to sell to my children? Yes. But the the whole point of the zoning document at the time it was placed was and we took it to the people was they wanted preservation of ag land. Whether you farm it or not,
if you're not farming it, you will have someone else farm make income off it, and it feeds the nation. And so at that and I agree with Mike Wabi. If we if if at some point we don't wanna preserve ag land and we wanna go back to the public to ask the question, do we want building, or do we want preservation of ag land? That's a decision that I think is much bigger. And every time we bring this up to the township the annual township meeting, they don't want it. They don't want change at this point.
And so I I I get your your wishes. I want the same for my family. But at the end of the day, you have to look at the, first of all, it's not legal because it's spot zoning. And, but again, at some point when a two reaches that, if if others would ask for the zone change and it kept working its way out, which is considered orderly development, And that's the purpose of a zoning ordinance is orderly development. Until it touches that, it's just not something I think this board should consider. But Madam Chair, I'll move with,
Planning Commission's desire to deny this. Is there a second? I'll second. We have a motion and a second to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the rezone request for Dee O'Reilly. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Motion carries. Our next item is to set a public hearing for the approval of Waukesha County Sheriff's Office purchasing and utilizing a drone. Morning, commissioners. Morning. Rodney Bartsch from the Sheriff's Office. So we have,
started a project in regards to soliciting for some funds from, charitable gambling organizations to purchase a drone. Part of the process, even before we purchase, is that we have a public hearing and that citizens are allowed to come in and voice their concerns. And this was largely established for the fear of surveillance, by the government, which is not what the intended use of this is for. We will have a policy which will be, kicked out to you all before that public hearing that we have developed and we've
taken from some other counties. This is primarily a search and rescue tool, And frankly, I wish I would have done it five years ago when I listened to the, especially the fire departments talk about the need and how much we'll be able to use this. Currently, we've done well. We're probably over $20,000 right now. We did get a surprise last couple of days in regards to the tariffs or the expected tariffs possibly out of China with an increase of $8,000 to $10,000
We are going to wait this out for a little bit. This setting the hearing has nothing to do with the purchase, which you all will be in charge of approving if you so desire. This is just a part of the process that we need to get done before we go to that next step. Did you have a preference for a date, Rodney? In the resolution, it's listed as May 20 at 09:15. Understanding that you can have the public We'll be in a closed session to start out the meeting, but the public hearing just has to occur after 09:15. So you can leave it as is in the resolution,
understanding that it might not be until 09:30 or 09:45 that the public hearing actually starts. Sounds good. Thank you. The policy be ready by then? Yes. It's it's done now. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Madam chair, I'll move to, set the, public hearing for May 20. So May 20 at 09:15, you said? Correct. Okay. We have a motion and a second to set, the public hearing for the use of a drone within Wamsher County for May 20 at 09:15. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.
Aye. Those opposed? Motion carries. Next we have commission reports. On Thursday, May 1, I had a meeting over in Owatonna with a South Country Health Alliance board. Not I shouldn't say not a lot going, but, the Karma bill has progressed. Is it looking favorable? It is, but until it's till it's through the past, the finish line will always refresh us what what that's about. It's essentially so that, boards like us, Prime West will not have to go through the,
Request for proposal. Yeah. Every you know? So we'd have essentially I don't know. Single source. Single source. Single source instead of having to have yeah. No. We still haven't heard from the, Supreme Court on our ruling yet. May that could take another up to years. I'm just hoping that the Karma is successful like everybody else on this board. What we've historically seen are the years where our insurance, with South Country Health Alliance has been profitable, which our goal isn't necessarily to make a profit. It's to be able to, provide insurance consistently to those that need it.
But in the years where it's been profitable, we have people that wanna come in here. But in the years where it's down, like this year, it's looking down for us. Then all of a sudden, the private markets seem to wanna pull back. So it's you know, it'd be nice if we had some consistency. We're here to provide that insurance. It'd be nice if, we were able to then do that consistently versus jumping around every few years. Well, and, again, just like you're saying, when we have profitable years, we, as a government agency, can turn that money back into these grants You got it. Which enrich the lives of the people. And these are tax dollars to begin with.
And when Blue Cross Blue Shield makes money We don't pay that. They pocket it, and none of it comes back to the citizens to improve dental care or anything like we do. You know? So we don't we don't pad our coffers with it. We provide these grants to the counties, to individuals providing, you know, the dental clinic on wheels that we have now or the health care clinic that you know? And so, I don't know why it hasn't why county, based purchasing has not been a positive for both Democrat and Republican legislatures.
Well, there's clearly Private insurance. Well, there's clearly some, lobbying that's being done because nobody with half a brain would say, you mean any pro profits you make would actually go back into health care? You would think everybody would want that, but clearly, there's money being thrown around through the lobbyists, and people are may on the take up there. There's no there has to be. Otherwise, it makes no sense. But if we can get this legislation through, for some reason, it just clicked.
And all of a sudden, people are thinking maybe this isn't a bad deal. So we'll see. And commissioner is correct. We do not receive any funding from South Country Health Alliance on the years that it's profitable other than community reinvestment grants. The money that and those profitable years is set up in a reserve account for years like this where we're projected, to be 8,900,000.0 in the negative. So, it ends up in the the long run kinda evening out in a lot of ways, good years and bad years. And we just wanna be able to prepare for those bad years with those good years rather than having other people come in where we're only getting the bad side of it.
We also talked about, Kanabek County's departure from South Country and how we're going to pay their, what their interest in it. Do we pay over five years? Do we pay them one lump sum? You know? And we're talking $8,000,000. So trying to do that in the most prudent way financially. I I think it'll be paid off early, but we went with the five year plan primarily just until we can get through Karma and see what we've got. They're gonna pull out with you? Yeah. We they did,
they had a new board get elected, and they didn't understand South Country Health Alliance, and they pulled out. In the long run, it's probably best for us because they were the they were a much higher user of our services, which their their clients will now not have that benefit at South Country. I think, you know, the farther away from South Southeast Minnesota, central part of the state, when you get up there, there's less less providers, more expensive cost to health care. And those people, when they use it,
it costs us a lot more to use it. So, I I mean, even though we hate to see them go, in the long run, they were our biggest users of the plan. Everyone who who got the most benefit out of South Country has left. Right? So I would but, again, it was a brand new board. They didn't understand it, and they saw a one time $8,000,000 They were looking for the money back. Yeah. Yep. We got people that wanna come in, but the the cost to buy in is pretty expensive because it is a it is good for their people,
and it's good for the financial help. A while ago to Mhmm. Afford it. Well, if you wanted to buy in, like, Kanabag County now, if they wanted to buy in, they'd come up with $8,000,000. But who who has that laying around? Alright. Well, it wasn't cheap for us to start South Country Health Alliance either. That's actually the the buy in cost is determined based on the cost for the counties who initially established it. Our equivalent would have been, I guess, $5,600,000 If we were to try to start it up now, that's what the cost would have equated to when it was first created.
Anything else, Danny? No. On the twenty ninth, I attended the Winlak technical advisory committee. Just some updates. Stream subcommittee is, working along with the DNR, different organizations studying, streams, and also they're gonna focus on, springs. And it doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but both upper and lower, springs is where the older water and the new water is mixing. And just trying to get a handle on where some of the nitrate contamination is
coming from if it's in the newer water or the older water. Local forestry team has a lot of rim projects. I've reinvested in Minnesota, updating forest areas, wooded woodland areas. Discussed, just a review of the work plans for '25. Some projects in the hopper. Nothing huge. And we have our Winlac policy committee next week, I believe it is. So that's all I had. I had planning and zoning, which we went through both of them today. K. I attended a zoning enforcement meeting this morning.
I guess a lot of work was created for Joe. You gotta send letters out before we hear back about him. Couple things are on delay. The judge is off. So And I didn't have any meetings. Any commissioners have any concerns? Now we'll meet before June 2. So is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.