All the commissioners are present today. Our item is to approve the agenda. Are there any changes or additions? There are no changes, Board Chair. I'll make a motion to approve the agenda as written. Motion by Commissioner Springer, seconded by Commissioner Power to approve the agenda as presented. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Motion carries. Our next item is staff updates. I'd like to introduce our four H coordinator who recently started up here. And, Melendi, if you wanna come up here and, ask. I I guess I, Michael asked me if I just introduce myself real quick. My name is Melendi Miller. I'm filling in for Carissa while she's on FMLA for the summer.
So I will be here through the county fair and then just a little bit after that. For those of you who are wondering, my parents are Stacy and Julie Miller. So I'm a part of the county. A lot of you have seen me around. Yeah. So active part of the county, and I'm excited to be here for the summer. So Welcome. Welcome. I gave her a thirty second heads up on this. I really give her time to prepare. I just wanna Thank you so much for coming on. If there's anything you need from the county board to help support your position, certainly let us know. Will do. Thank you.
Thank you. After that, we just have some, quick updates with anniversaries here to recognize some individuals. Mister Fitzgerald, from our highway department is here, and mister Flesch, our engineer, will give a brief intro. Dave is a highway maintenance worker at the highway department, and he's been there twenty years. And some of his chief duties include traffic control, setups, and also, signs. So replacing not only traffic signs, but also address signs, street signs, all over. So he's he's a great asset and has a lot of skills and has value
to Congrats. Hey. Thank you for all that you've done for us on our citizens. The next one that we're rec or recognizing is Sean Huth, who's our human resources director, who's been here for ten years. Still remember the day that we brought Sean on. As a lot of commissioners are our long term ones, no. We did not actually have a a human resources department, a separate one. Each of our departments were handling everything, individually, and that led to some very divergent outcomes in a lot of, different areas, whether it be hiring, whether it be employer employee personnel matters. Sean really just kinda changed the culture of our organization and the direction of it.
There isn't a day that I'm not thankful that we made that hiring decision to bring her on. Makes my job easier every day, and I'm very thankful for her. So thank you for your ten years here. I'm not sure if there's anything you'd like to mention, but no. The same vlogger, Sean. Some of the things we've all been through with, it's but it's a good, good thing. Thank you for all you do for us. Thank you. Yeah. And I'd just like to add how, how, pleased that I am and how much you've grown into the job. Because I know when you took over, you were didn't have much experience, so you you're doing a great job.
And should clean up all my messes, so thank you for doing that. We also have Keith Erickson. Mister Erickson wasn't able to come in, but just wanted to recognize that Keith is, works in our highway department as well, has ten years of service. Not sure if there's anything Dietrich would like to mention about his role, but just directly at Keith Keith does great work, and Keith still cleared out of our plain view shop. Sounds good. Thank you. And that's it for the administrator's end. Okay. Our next item is, our public forum, and it appears that everyone who has signed up is, wants to speak on the item,
for cornerstone. So unless someone needs to leave and wants to speak now, we'll when we get to the item on the agenda, we'll have our zoning director introduce it and then allow you to speak. Anyone wants to speak now, though? Okay. Our next item is the consent agenda, which consists of the minutes from January that's not right. January 2. That's not right. It'd be May, twenty second. That is May 20. May 20. The claims, the per diems, the meal vouchers, donations.
We have several donations, given to the sheriff's department to put towards the purchase of the drone. They are a thousand dollars from the Lake City Sportsman's Club, a thousand dollars from the Sean Schneider Memorial Fund, and $2,000 from the American Legion Post and the Lake City VFW from the flags of valuer. Our next item is from administration is to approve the DAC contract. From the Highway Department, approve proposed Wabasha County parking ordinance from probation, approve the REAM grant
amendment extension from public health, approve additional opioid settlement funds from the sheriff's office, authorization to dispose of the 2017 Ford Explorer from the sheriff's office, approve license renewal for Lake City Amber Tower between Wabasha County and MnDOT and also from the sheriff approved the purchase of the drone. Madam Chair, I'll move on the consent agenda. I'll that. We have a motion by Commissioner Wakies, seconded by Commissioner Wabbe to approve the consent agenda.
All those in favor, say Aye. Those opposed? Motion carries. Moving on to our action discussion items. Our item is a presentation from South Country Health Alliance. Good morning, Leota. Good morning. I'm gonna give you this here. One second. But, Scott, can you hear us? I sure can. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you very much. I don't think so. Do you mind if I give this to you and you can click forward whenever I apologize. I just I'm slow on the Morning, Leota. Good morning again, and thank you very much for allowing us the opportunity to appear before you and
provide some updates on South Country. Leota, can you move the microphone just a little bit closer? There. As we typically have done in our spring round of visits, I have with me virtually Scott Sheffman, our CFO. He is going to be doing the bulk of the presentation, providing you with updates on our twenty twenty four year end financials. And then at the end of his presentation, I have a few other brief updates to provide. So with that, Scott, I will turn it over to you, and I'm gonna be manning the, slides.
So let me know if you need me to move forward. Sounds like a plan. Well, good morning. We'll take a look at 2024 here, and we'll talk about a few different things. We'll look at 2025, and certainly any questions you have along the way, feel free to jump in and we'll get those answered. But just starting out, 2024 was a tough year not only for South Country, but all of the plans across Minnesota, but in fact across the country, that are in, the Medicaid space as well as Medicare.
Excuse me. All of the results are out for, each of the MCOs as well as the CBP plans in Minnesota now. Those are a public record that could, file. And in fact, all of the MCOs and CVPs, lost money, both, in their Medicaid programs, but also overall, last year. So I'll say we're in good company. It's not necessarily a company you wanna be in, but I think it does demonstrate that these are broad trends, that we've seen. And we're gonna discuss some of those here,
in the next couple of slides about really what what drivers caused that, both on the expense side, but then really what we have now are really inadequate rates up with some of those, expense drivers. But let's look at what those results were. So in 2024, South Country reported a net loss of 21,100,000.0. We had budgeted a gain of $4,600,000 the '21 included a net operating loss of $9,700,000
for last year and the establishment of a premium deficiency reserve of 11,400,000.0 related to contract year 2025. And we'll talk a little bit, about what a PDR or premium deficiency reserve is. We haven't had one for a number of years, and that was in addition to our loss for last year's business. Just as recent numbers related to this, the year prior, so 2023,
South Country had net gain of 27,300,000 positive in the year prior to that 2022. We had a net positive of 17.6. So those were record positive years respectively, and then in 2024, that was the highest net loss we've had, in our history. So really can demonstrate how quickly, things can turn, not only in the health care business, but insurance in general. Our loss rate ratio last year was 96.9%.
What that means is for every dollar we took in in revenue, to run the programs, basically 97¢ or 97% of our revenue went out to pay claims. So that only leaves 3% left to run the business and essentially, make any profit. Well, you can't run the business on 3% and there's there's none left for profit. Our budget last year was a loss ratio of 89.3%.
And in 2023, where we had record net income, our loss ratio was 83.7%. So you can see what a difference 13%, makes. Our administrative expense to revenue ratio was 8.9%. We had budgeted 9.6. So we did have decent expense control last year, Despite the loss, we did do a decent job of managing our administrative expenses in a tough year. And with interest rates remaining,
at a decent level, we earned $4,500,000 of investment income on our cash balances. We had budgeted for $2,000,000 investment income. So that was an additional $2,500,000 investment income helped offset, some of the loss, but certainly, not enough. Our risk based capital or or RBC ratio, a very important number that we're measured on, finished the year at 555%. Our regulatory minimum that we're held to is 200.
This compared to 811% at the prior year end and 451% the year, prior to that. This is after the $21,100,000 loss and is about two and a half times the regulatory minimum. So we're still in a very, significant, financial position, moving forward. This is very different, than back in 2018 where we had a pretty substantial loss requiring counties to put
in additional capital. We're in a much better position here despite the pretty big loss because we had decent returns the two previous years allowing us to build up substantial reserves to withstand a loss, of the size we had last year and really well positioned going forward. Krypton Larson now completed Scott, we have a question here. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. No. Scott, this is Sheryl. I was just one I wanted to make sure I understood.
The operating loss is claims are paid out of operating. Right? That's correct. Okay. Thank you. And Larson Allen, completed their audit of our books for 2024. Our audit report was a clean or unmodified opinion. So we've had a long history of clean and unmodified opinions, with South Country. No difficulties encountered in performing the audit and no audit adjustments. That's pretty important. So we look at some of the trends. couple of things we're gonna talk about is changes in enrollment.
And I know you're familiar at the county with the ending of the public health emergency and the reenrollment and disenrollment processes that we went through starting in the middle of twenty twenty three. In the in the fall of twenty twenty three, as we started to go through this process, the group that we went through there, the fall disenrollment, we really had two different groups here. Those who, came up for redetermination and left, those folks had slightly lower average cost
than our average members and they left. And then those who left but eventually came back had higher than average claim cost. Those two kinda offset one another. So as that group in total left, things really looked kinda stable as we moved into early twenty twenty five. And so when we looked at results at the end of the first quarter, we actually were at a positive $4,000,000 of earnings at that point because we really hadn't seen any escalation in our average
claim cost of our members. As we moved in the second quarter, that spring disenrollment group that left, they had significantly lower cost, 20% lower in fact. And so as they left, those that remain had a much higher average cost. And we started to see that average cost of members start to climb in the second quarter. And that's when our gains started to turn into losses in the second quarter. As we moved into the third and fourth quarter,
the group that we're calling the churn group, so those who previously left and started to come back later in the year, they started to come back into our enrollment. They had a 27% higher than average cost and started to drive up that average cost of our members from a health care cost. Elevated emergency room and higher than average mental health and chemical dependency costs were the main drivers of those.
And that's where we started to see our margins turn negative in the third and fourth quarter and the losses starting to mount as we got further and further into the year 2024. So that was one of the things that were going on with the makeup of our membership. As we go to the next page, these are some of the other trends that were happening. DHS every other year historically, has done an inpatient claim repricing, or rebasing, of inpatient hospital claims where they go out and benchmark average costs and reset,
their rates for inpatient claims. They did this in 2024, retroactively back in January. And so any claim that happened in the half of the year, we repriced, to a higher number, and retroactively, paid those claims at a higher rate, and then also for the remainder of the year. They didn't do this during the COVID years, but they went back to this practice, in 2022, and then also now they did in 2024. The other two things that were significant,
in the 2023 legislative session, they approved some new benefits. One, that was substantial, was the approval of weight loss drugs, the GLP one drugs. And in particular, our PMAP population, which is a significant, amount of members, for South Country, really became heavy utilizers of the weight loss drugs. In fact, the uptake in these drugs doubled each quarter in 2024.
So we saw the utilization and then therefore the cost, double each and every quarter in 2024. So this was a big contributor to increased cost that were in above, what we were priced for, in our rates last year. Another thing the legislature approved was, new dental benefits for adults, in the PMAP population as well as the addition of crowns and bridges for the time.
And we saw again, a big uptake in the utilization of these new benefits. Probably, people who hadn't had, this type of coverage for many, many years needed, in some cases, multiple, crowns, in bridges. And we saw some members have several, crowns in 2024. And as you know, these can be significant, cost. So we're continuing to monitor. These are still benefits in the current year and, we have seen somewhat of a tapering off of the dental cost,
in 2025. We are still monitoring the weight loss drugs to see if we really hit a saturation point yet. We really haven't seen that in the first quarter, but we continue to monitor that, as we move forward. This is something that we will be sharing data with DHS as we come up to midyear here and whether or not we will be able to get a rate adjustment in the midyear. We did get one last year and all the plans did.
As the rates were not keeping up with the cost last year, and we did get a bump for the time I can remember in my career, we got a positive, bump in the middle of the year and we're hoping that we may get that again this year because certainly, I think the data will will show that that is is required. PMAP would be the one that would really be helpful. For 2025, we only received a 0.4% increase in rates, and that is where the bulk of the losses continue in the PMAP line of
business. I'm just curious if you know off top of your head what 30 supply of a weight loss drug might cost? Well, it depends on which one, the Dosembic and the Wegovy generally are in the $1,200 to $1,400 range. Wow. And they're on the state's preferred drug list. So we have no we have to use those, drugs as prescribed. Thank you. Right. And we pay the we pay the, name brand cost plan, and then any rebates go to the state.
Go to So there may be generic alternatives, but as Leona mentioned, we have to we have to use what's on the preferred drug list. So whatever the net cost is, that's what the state gets. So if there's a 50% rebate, I'm just using that as an example. Yep. They they get the break. We pay the full price. Thank you. Next slide. Very briefly, I will read that to you the definition of a premium deficiency reserve, but it essentially is exactly what the title is. When we're doing our budget for 2025,
we know what our premiums are going to be in our new contract. We project along with our actuaries what our claim costs are going to be for our enrollment next year and we craft our budget for 2025 and if our premiums are deemed inadequate to cover the claim cost and are gonna result in a loss for 2025, our premiums are deemed deficient then, to have at least a breakeven budget.
Accounting then requires us to book that loss in the prior year, and that's the definition of then booking a premium deficiency reserve. That premium deficiency reserve, our best estimate was 11,422,000. That was part of the $21,000,000 loss last year then was that 11,422,000. And so what happens then is each month in 2025,
we will release 1 of that in 2025. The idea of that is then that will offset expected losses in the current year. If all of our assumptions were right, then essentially, we expect to break even then in 2025. We will either outperform or underperform those assumptions and we may actually have a net income or we may actually still have a net loss, but we're starting out with 11,400,000.0
in the bank to offset the 11,400,000.0 of losses. So that's the purpose of a premium deficiency reserve. It's a conservative, form of accounting to say, if you know you're gonna have losses, we want you to book those now to demonstrate that you can actually afford those losses with the reserves that you have. So that that that's the, that's the nature of a PDR. And six of the eight health plans, in Minnesota, including all three of the CBPs, did book a PDR last year.
Okay. The last slide, I think no. I got two more. The 2025 budget. So our original budget was $11,400,000 loss. We set up the PDR last year. So that basically made our 2025 budget a breakeven, a zero. Key assumptions in our budget, our membership decrease is 20% that is due to Cananda County exercising their right to exit as of January first of this year. Revenue on a per member per month basis is slightly higher due to a moderate
increase in the capitation rates that we received That was in Minnesota care, our SMBC lines and also our Medicare lines. And as I mentioned, our largest line of business, PMAP, received a very small increase, only 0.4%. Medical claim costs in the budget significantly higher on a per member per month basis, increase in utilization and unit cost trends both in medical and pharmacy costs. Some of those continued trends that we saw in 2024.
We budgeted for a loss ratio of 95.3% versus a budget last year of 89. Of course, our prior year actual, as I mentioned, was just under 97, so we were looking for a slight improvement there. Our administrative expense ratio in our budget increased 11.9. That's because our expenses remained relatively flat, but with lower membership. We are looking for that to be a temporary for this year in hopes that our membership will grow in 2026,
whether that comes from a favorable Supreme Court decision, Bill is gonna update you on the karma legislation that would potentially take effect in 2027, that could lead to increased enrollment that year. So we basically maintained a pretty stable core of administrative expenses kind of on a one year hold basis to see what happens with future enrollment. And finally, kind of a summary slide. This is our whole existence. It's got three things on here.
The gold line is the regulatory, requirements for risk based capital at 200%. The reddish line is our actual results on an annual basis of that RBC with the exception of very early on in our history with small numbers kind of shows our ebb and flow. We've only been under the regulatory minimum four times in our entire history. The last time being 2018 where a capital call was necessary. And that was really the result of two years of losses.
We we had pretty significant losses in 2016 and '18, and it was really the culmination of of both of those years, that took us under in 2018. We had five years of profitability since, two years of significant net income in 2022 and 2023. And then you can see in 2024, we're still at a very significant 555%, the highest we've had in our history. And then the blue bars are our capital and surplus
in millions. We finished over 70,000,000 in 2023 and despite the significant loss we booked last year, we finished at over 50,000,000, the highest again in our history at the end of twenty twenty four. And again, in a very good financial position looking forward. So that's the last slide I had before we turn over to Leota. Any additional questions? No. Thanks, Scott. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. Well, I didn't do a slide on it because it's the same thing that I've been
saying for the last years. We still have no decision from the supreme court. We are officially one year from the, when the oral arguments were held, last June 3. So it is unusual. It's a very small percentage of cases that take this long for a decision, but there is no, time requirement on it, so we just continue to wait. Sometimes patiently, sometimes not so much. The big focus that we've had this year within the legislature was what's being called the CARMA bill.
CARMA stands for County Administered Rural Medical Assistance. As we have talked about for the last two and a half, three years, we have been working collaboratively with the Department of Human Services and, the Association of Minnesota Counties to really take a look at the county based purchasing model and, you know, what has been successful with that, what are some things that could be perhaps done differently, and really wanted to look at working together to develop a model that would end
this up and down tug of war that we've had over the last ten years or so, with the procurement process. We had legislation passed back in 2024 that gave DHS authorization and direction to continue working with us on developing this model, and we were to bring back to the legislature this year a bill that provides the framework for the model. We did have that bill introduced this year. It was House file 2,955 and Senate file 3,149.
In the House, our authors were Representative Backer, Bierman, Nadeau, Fisher and Hote, and in the Senate, Hoffman, Utqi, Mann, Adler, and Kupak. And we have seen, we saw throughout the legislative process very solid bipartisan support. At the end of session, we had had a hearing in the House and it was, held over for inclusion in the House omnibus bill and did make it into the House omnibus bill also with a budget neutral amendment to really give it a zero fiscal note.
We were concerned that if it had a fiscal note, it wasn't gonna move, this session. In the Senate, it was not heard before committee deadline, but the chair did have an informational hearing on it really almost immediately following deadline. And so we believed that that indicated that there was support, of it, and we were hopeful that it would, when it came to conference committee and and reconciling the House and Senate omnibus bills that the Senate would accept the House position.
We also had had conversations with the governor's office and had received signals that there was support there. I am pleased to say that at this point, we are aware that it has been included in the final omnibus, so now it just we just wait to see if that bill gets passed and signed off by the governor, but we're really, really close to the finish line. It's the furthest we've, ever made it with some of the legislation that we've brought forward in the past. So,
cautiously optimistic that we're gonna cross the finish line this year with that. If if the governor signs that if it makes it to the governor's office and he signs it, there won't be any need for the Supreme Court decision, right? Probably not as great of a need. I I guess I would probably still like to see that Supreme Court decision because we still are going to function in some ways under the CBP statute. Okay. But this definitely, provides some additional benefits. Do you think the Supreme Court in any way is watching this too?
Your guess is that they don't have to make a tough decision? Your guess is as good as mine. I think. So just very high level the framework and why this bill is so important. We really look at this bill as kind of the opportunity to get the model in place that really honors what the true intent of the original county based purchasing legislation was intended to be. So with this bill, again, it will be a counties will have the opportunity to choose, whether they want to participate in CARMA or instead of the prepaid medical assistance program
as it is today. We will still, CARMA, would still plans that choose or counties that choose to do CARMA would still need to go through a procurement process, but the distinction is it is going to be a separate procurement process from the traditional PMAP procurement process. And that's where there have been a lot of challenges. So, that's a huge win right there. Counties that want to do this would have to function under the CBP statute, so they would need to meet all of those requirements that a county based purchasing,
plan needed to meet, demonstrating that you have the capacity and the infrastructure to administer these services. And then counties can apply to participate in karma. Another big change for the enrollment in the CARMA program, this would include the population of what we refer to as PNAP or essentially individuals that are on Medicaid under age 65 in the Families and Children program, but it also would include individuals in the Special Needs Basic Care program that are Medicaid only individuals.
So it it provides for a larger enrollment. It also is a single plan model. So if you're in if a county is doing karma, those populations would be automatically enrolled into karma, but would have the ability to opt out to fee for service. So there is still choice element. The benefits and services will be pretty much the same as they currently are today. It's the Medicaid benefits set, but we will be working with the state towards, developing additional benefits and services that help address some of those health related social needs,
such as food insecurity, housing issues, some of those types of things by 02/1930. So that bullet point and that bullet point are are huge. Really having that that automatic enrollment and a separate procurement process. The payment structure would also be somewhat different. It would be a collaborative rate setting process with the Department. It would still be that counties were full risk. Still looking at having a per member per month capitation, but there would be a risk corridor that would be put in place and that
risk corridor would be both positive and negative. So, just for an example, maybe the risk corridor is a 2% risk corridor. That means that if it was a profitable year, we would retain the 2%. And then beyond that, dollars would either go back to the state and maybe there's a still a continued split, you know, maybe it's we keep 50%. At that point, they keep 50%. Those are things that will need to be negotiated. But it's also on the downside. So if there's significant losses,
like we saw in 2024, we would retain the responsibility for the 2%, two percent of the losses. Beyond that point it would either go back, to the state or be shared at another level. So again, this model really provides some stability. It gets rid of these extreme highs and lows that we've seen, with rates over the years and which the last couple years have been a prime example of. We would be working on, again, there would be quality measures that we would be held to and would need to
report. This really has a goal of working towards greater integration with data systems and data sharing between the county, the state, and at the plan level. And then again having language in there that if there is any federal waiver and authority that is needed, DHS must seek those waivers. So, really excited about kind of where we are with this. Really, again, cautiously hopeful that we're going to get this across the finish line And if we
do, I think it is just a tremendous win for counties and I think a great opportunity for us to build on the successes that we've had as county based purchasing, but to even take it to the next level. So I will pause there and see if there's any questions on that. Put it up yourself. Alright. And, you know, I had a couple other slides as far as what we were watching with legislation, but, of course, that's all outdated by now because that was sent a week or so ago. Karma, as I said, has been our big focus and push,
our highest priority. There are a couple bills out there that we have concerns about. But if they go through as they are, I think we do even though it it's not what we would like to see because it's a later, implementation date, we might still have an opportunity to influence that going forward. So with that, thank you very much, and we look forward to seeing you again in the fall. Thank you, Leota. Thank you. Thank you very much. Have a good one, Scott. Thanks. Our next item is consideration of the Cornerstone Acres pre plat.
Joel, if you'd come up and introduce that for us. Morning. On 02/20/2025, a preliminary plat application was submitted by Brent Beck of Cornerstone Real Estate to plat Cornerstone Ridge. Subject properties are described as Waukesha County parcels R09.00275.00 and R09.00272.24 located in Section 27, Township 109 North, Range 14 West, Mazeppa Township on approximately 109 acres in the agricultural urban fringe district or a three. The planning commission conducted a public hearing on 03/24/2025 to hear testimony related to the
request. After concerning all the testimony, the Planning Commission on a vote of five-zero recommends that the proposed preliminary plat of Cornerstone Ridge be approved. Okay. Next we'll have our public forum. When you come up, please state your name and address, and if you can hold your comments to three minutes. Sarah Erickson. Good morning. Good morning. Hey. Yes. Sarah Erickson. Address is 57242 County Road 21. We're just, on the other side of the the bluff there. My husband, John Erickson, he's not able to be here as he's seeing patients right now,
but he wrote a letter that he'd like me to read. So that's what I'm gonna do here. Commissioner's meeting letter, 06/03/2025. Wabasha County Board of Commissioners must ensure proper development and uphold all ordinances. The initial preliminary plat did not include a water runoff plan nor several details on the roads as outlined in the public email from the county engineer. The 04/01/2025, commissioner's meeting requested this information from the developer.
The board is aware of the public's concern regarding road safety and water runoff. Why is there a portion of proposed 400 And Tenth Avenue that does not include the bluff or bluff setback? According to subdivision ordinances, a preliminary plat must also must include the top and toe of any bluffs present on the land to be subdivided. Section 2, Subdivision 2 B K. Why, where is the documentation to prove that 400 Tenth Avenue can be built to subdivision ordinances given its approximate
approximation to a bluff? 30 feet in width, 66 foot road ride away. Article six, Section 1, Subdivision 10. In the current submitted proposal, the homeowners association will be responsible for road maintenance. How many public roads in Wabasha County with a bluff or bluff setback are maintained by a homeowners association? Where is the water runoff on the east side of that same portion of the proposed 4 And Tenth Avenue to show it would not impact the adjacent private property?
Why did the developer not feel it was appropriate to follow the recommendations of Wabasha County administration in regards to infiltration basins placement next to steep slopes to reduce their risk of failure? What assurances does the public have that the current water runoff plan will not result in damage to adjacent private property that the road that will be built through a bluff or bluff setback will not contribute to erosion and flooding
that the public will not be responsible for future failure of the roads when their maintenance will be done by the homeowners association. Given the lack of documentation present in this proposal to support that the roads will be built to ordinances and the water runoff will not impact adjacent private property. We hope the Board of Commissioners will reject this preliminary plat proposal. Thank you. Thank you. And I apologize if I mispronounce anybody's name. I think it's a Joe Larson.
Good morning. Morning. Good morning. I get Joe Larsen, 574-1121, I guess my questions were on the preliminary plat, which we really haven't seen the drainage, the culverts, the retaining ponds. So I can't really say much more about it until I've seen that. I do know that 04:10 coming in there, that's, the proposed road. Boy, when it comes off right away,
there's an underpass, and that's part of the Groesbeck property. And I don't really see any setback between that and where the road comes off. And then it's, bluff. There's bluff right there. And, going in, like, the three, four hundred feet of the road, I would say, would be have a have an issue with that. So, mister Ryan, who farms there, is gonna be inundated with a bunch of people looking over his shoulder. I that alone should be concerned for the commissioners. I'm sure none of them would like that happening to them.
I guess that's about what I have for right now. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Mary Larson? Mary Larson, 57411 County Road 21. We are a century farm. We have been there a long time. So this cornerstone is coming in. He is going to put down ten ten ten building sites, and he will be leaving. He will have nothing left in our community. So just on that alone, I think, is really sad. But the other thing is also, we have
slow equipment on the road because we farm. We have smells because we have cattle. We have traffic right now because we have the Ponderosa. We have Max, and it's fast moving traffic. And I'm just the impact that 10 building sites on our community that nobody wants, not a single soul in our area wants us to come in. Nothing. That impact is going to greatly, you know, touch us. So I guess I'm pleading with you to please reconsider this because we have been
there. We are a century farm. We will pass this down to our children, and they will live there also. And him to come in, and he is not going to live there. He is going to build houses. He is in. He is out, and he doesn't care about us anymore. So that's my plea, is think about us, think about our farming, think about my children, and think about our community that has been there so much longer than he will ever be, nor does he care.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Joel Rodriguez. Morning. Good morning. Joe Rodriguez. 579-5021, off, I just want to state, the people who live in this community, we're your constituents. We don't want this. That needs to be said very clearly. Okay. I'll go into my remarks. You know about the tow and you know about the foot of the top of toeing the top of the block. It's not really clear, but it looks like 400 And Tenth cannot be can 400 And Tenth be built to subdivision regulations as far as with them right
away? And there is a big drop off. Secondly, impervious improved roads shed water more quickly. That's a concern, really. Where does the filtrate where is the filtration area to retention pond drain to? By the way, I looked at the website, and I have an updated plat version right here. So my question is how many roads, how many public roads are maintained in this county by an HOA? And how successful do you feel like they may be at keeping up a gravel road for 10 people or for 10 houses?
Really? This isn't really a common practice. The right of way at marker C10 on 400 And Tenth has a bluff that is shown to be on the east side of the road. So that would pass through that bluff area. Alright. Where Filtration Basin Number 2 is proposed near the property line of the Grossbach farm, close to two grain silos, what's the possible effect that pond may have on the structural integrity of those silos? Now from the administrator, Mr. Plant, he asked a question and as noted in the remarks,
you asked a series of questions or you wanted a series of questions posed to the engineer. And I'm quoting, Proposed road embankment and ditch bottom shall be within the proposed right of way of 400 and 400, as both are necessary for construction and maintenance of the right of way to be dedicated for the public. Now mister Skob's response stated that frequently grading and embankment limits extend beyond the right of way. An embankment and drainage easement can be placed over the area if concerns exist for
future maintenance. So who's going to take care of future maintenance? Now why not make this correct right from the get go? Why do you wanna put it on the why do you want to put the bonus and responsibility on a future homeowner to take care of this that should have been done right the time? Secondly, as proposed, Filtration Ponds 1 And 2 do not meet minimum best practices according to the county administrator. Alright? Fine. Why not? Why not do things correctly and meet best practices? You have a developer who wants to come in,
yet not meeting best practices. The response is, yeah, but it meets code. Look, there's an easy way to do things, and there's the right way, which way are you going to go. So what's the volume of each water retention pond? How is that gonna be you know, how much does that hold? How are these volumes determined? What calculations and tables were utilized? Really, how did you come to this conclusion? And when I looked on this would be Planet profile, I couldn't find volumes. And, those basins on the most recent planet profile on page 12 of 21,
the basin width is shown as variable. How can you calculate volume without with a variable number? Right? That's not that's not shown. What would be considered best practices for what a runoff development? And then my question is, you know, this gentleman who's proposing this as a developer has his own company. If he doesn't follow best or if he does follow best practices with his own company, why can't he follow best practices with this development? Because, honestly, the taxpayers are gonna be the one that are gonna be left picking up this mess. And as one of those and a constituents of your a constituent of yours,
I don't wanna deal with this. Do you have any questions for me? None? Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. I can't read the last name on this one, so I apologize. Scott? Nelson. Nelson, thank you. Apologize. Thanks. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you for your time. I really don't have a lot to add to, what these folks have said. We we all kinda feel the same way about things. I've spoke with both, I believe, all of the commissioners this weekend, and I appreciate getting back to me and everything so you're aware of my concerns.
And, I just, I guess, kinda reiterate, you know, we're the we're the people that live in this county, and you folks are there to represent us as I understand. And to my knowledge, there isn't one soul in Wabashaw County that wants this development. I've heard from people from everywhere, and, I just hope you keep that in mind. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Tracy Mullaholland. Hello. Thank you. Morning. Good morning. Tracy Mulholland what's my address? 41766 County Road 85,
Mazepa. Okay. There's been no plans, really, Then I've seen that I work a lot of hours, so I would like to see how they're going to put the homes in. And I thought if I have a feeling this is going to pass. And I'm very upset over it, but business is business. So but I believe that they're going to build its out of these homes. It should be by the laws of the land, which then again says one house per 10 acres,
not three quarters, not a half acre. Each home should have a full 10 acres with their own septic, with their own well. And it's the county roads. I don't wanna pay for all that, which we know it's not going to happen with all of their plowing and their maintaining. You know? I don't wanna put up with that. So I just feel that it should be 10 acres for one home. So you could only have a total of 10 homes. And then you put in that,
bluff, and that, again, takes away land and the runoffs and all that stuff. And I believe that you guys are opening up pan pan pan Doris box because if this passes, I have a great eye I I've been I have a great plan. And people sorry. You won't well, you will not be thrilled about me. But you're opening up a lot of loopholes for other stuff. And I think it's very dangerous.
Very dangerous because no one wants this. You guys want, and we don't want it. So do the right thing and vote no because we live there as our families, again, live there. So let's just vote the right way, please. Thank you. Thank you. I believe the last one is Logan White. Oh. Morning. Morning. My name my name is Logan White, and I live at 57987 County Road 21, which is on that corner right above or right across the road from where this
is proposed. And I was on my way to Rochester the other day and looking at where they wanna put the roads in. And if you look at where the marker is for the road they wanna put in between their and miss, it is very close. And if you're coming from Max Park Place that way, there's not a very long sight picture. And with the speed limit being, you know, 55 on the road, and, you know, as it was stated, fast moving traffic, it would be very easy with that being such a high populated road because you
probably have at least 10 to 20 drivers there with five houses on that road. It would be very easy for someone to come flying around that corner, and the person pulling out would not see them. It could very well cause an accident. And it adds a lot more traffic to the area, which as was already stated, there's slow moving vehicles for the farms. And that could cause a potential accident and more hazards there. And it has been stated that the farmland is apparently not great farmland. But yet, it has been producing crops and is still planted for ever since my family has
been on that property. And it's been well over sixty years. It's been there for four generations now. And so, it's still producing, so why take that away from the community? And another thing that I found out was that I have a pretty shallow well. We had to do some maintenance on it this winter because we were having problems. And so you can see on the pipes how the water table has dropped over the years on that well. And by adding in all these other houses that would use that water, it would continue to lower that. And so if there comes a day where my well would run out,
I would be the one stuck footing the bill. And I know there are other neighbors that share the same concern, and so that could cause a huge burden to the neighbors around us. So thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mister Beck, would you like to have an opportunity to speak? Good morning. I'm Kyle Scove. I'm with WHKS. I'm the engineer on the project. We were last here on April 1 at the board meeting. The board considered this proposal and asked us to provide additional information,
additional information that wouldn't normally be required of the preliminary plat, but we accept that and prepared construction plans for the roadway, prepared a stormwater report, detailing out the runoff and the compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit or NPDS permit as it's commonly called. So, that. A few things that were brought up that I'd like to address. As far as the, roadway and the bluff setback, there's a section of that that's showing a bluff.
It's bluff and then it doesn't meet the bluff definition. The slope doesn't meet the minimum slope required to be called a bluff. Sorry. I'm not remembering off the top of my head the bluff definition. But for that portion where the roadway cuts through near that draw, it is not does not meet bluff definition. Regarding the stormwater improvements, you know, we're mixing terms. There's an infiltration basin, which was originally proposed.
Mr. Flesch brought up that that shouldn't be located near a bluff or it should be a setback. We changed the practice and that was in accordance with the Minnesota stormwater manual. It's our guide that this date uses to help meet that permit guidance for meeting the discharge permit. So we changed the practice to a filtration basin, which doesn't have a bluff setback requirement in the and that's been noted in communication back and forth with the county.
So, you know, our guidance is saying that we don't have a setback. Regarding the sizing of those basins, that's all contained in the stormwater report. I didn't print it out. It's 160 plus pages. I do have it electronically if you have any detailed questions about basin sizing. So those filtration basins on the 400 And Tenth and then infiltration basins on 400 And Eighth are sized in order to meet that one inch of runoff requirement from the impervious surface.
That's a state permit requirement and they're actually they far exceed it. In total, we looked at the two year storm or 50% chance of exceedance every year. The ten year, which is typically our storm sewer design, storm, and then the one hundred year storm. So 1% chance. Every year, there's a 1% chance that that storm, I think it was about 7.94 inches of rainfall in a twenty four hour period, is exceeded. For all of those events,
the runoff from this site is slightly less after development than it is today. So the impact from the development on adjoining neighbors would be a reduction in flow. It's not significant but our requirement is that it be at or less. So that's been met. Regarding the sight distance that was brought up, that's been a concern. We have shown that it can be achieved. There are some, there's some brush in the right of way.
It actually provides screening to Ryan's home, so we're a little reluctant to go out and remove that until we're sure that the project's going forward. You know, we'd like the County's assistance in that removal. So, again, we don't want to go out and start cutting those back to the right of way line and then, find out it wasn't necessary. So, it can't the sight distance can be achieved. Trying to remember if there are other any other main comments that were made that I could address. But we do have full preliminary construction plans.
We do have the stormwater report and the preliminary plat. One thing I wanna note on the preliminary plat, there was a concern about a grass shoulder on the roadway. I had changed it in the construction plans but didn't change it in the preliminary plat documents. So yes, there would be a aggregate shoulder on the roadways. So I apologize. It was two different spots. I changed it in one and not the other. So, but it would have a full aggregate shoulder. And with that, I don't know if Brent has any comments he'd like to make.
I do have a couple just to address some concerns that were brought up this morning. A big one, homeowners association. Homeowners associations are very common throughout Olmsted County, Wabasha County, the whole state. It it it'll be up to them to maintain that. That will not fall back on the county or the neighbors. We have worked very closely with planning and zoning, with the highway engineer to make sure that we're not interfering with any bluff setbacks. Like Kyle said, we are decreasing the amount of runoff that's gonna come off from from that area. And with all of that,
planning and zoning gave us a five to five to nothing, approval. The comment about owning the property and then leaving, I'll still own roughly 35 to 40 acres there. My end goal is to put that into CRP, which is visually pleasing to to everybody, I believe. I would have done it this year, but, the the CRP program wasn't out soon enough. At the end of the day, this meets the A3 zoning guidelines made by the township in the county. So in that being said, I ask for your guys' approval to move forward today.
Thank you. Joel, if you could come back up. Thanks. Any questions for me? Not right now. For Not right now. Okay. I guess I I I do have a question. Is it Brent? Yes. Your state, you're gonna remain ownership of the 35 acres? They're roughly 35 acres. 35 acres. So will you be part of the homeowners association then? No. That'll be the 10 lots. And how do you access that 35 acres? Right off from, the gravel there. There's there's a field driveway on the gravel that goes back to max.
And then I also believe there's another one out on 20 1 that'll be, part of the previous. Don't quote me on that, though. K. And the reason for that 35 acres is to that's deed restricted accounting for the 10 acres per lot on the 10 lots proposed. Yes. Joe, as you went through all the review, do does the preliminary plat meet all the requirements for the ordinance? I can only speak towards what planning and zoning looks at. Right. Yes. Planning and zoning does say that it meets that.
I can't speak for the county engineer in any of the road issues, drainage issues, issues, or anything like that. So before this meeting, I did reach out to planning and zoning highway and GIS to ask if it met the, the requirements in their opinion, and the answer was yes. If there's enough information there to move forward with the preliminary plat. And then my understanding is the final plat still comes back. Correct. Yes. It goes to before the planning commission again and then before this board again. K. Any, commissioners have any questions, comments? Yeah. Joel, what is the slope definition for a bluff? The county's definition for a bluff is that it has to rise at least 25
feet. It cannot have a break in it that is less than 18% for a period of over 50 feet, and the overall slope, top to bottom must be 30% or greater of the entire Bluff area. Comments, questions from any other commissioners? So Joe here. It was stated part of the road is in a Bluff area, but yet it doesn't meet Bluff standard. Is is it how did you explain that? There there was a portion of it that didn't meet the 30% requirement.
That's correct. Is that correct? We're talking about the same area, then that is correct. Okay. That was on 400 And Tenth Street? Yes. Would it be possible to bring that up? Yeah. On the street? To show And is the red line is that the bluff? The red line is the bluff and the dotted orange line is the 30 foot setback line from that bluff. And why is that, why is that bluff line has been deleted to the road? Is that after the road is made? It's no longer a bluff. No. That is because that portion does not qualify and meet the definition of a bluff
of an in our ordinance. So this is different than beacons. Correct? I I don't know. I guess I don't understand the question. Beacon is, websites and the ones Yes. I'm familiar. Yes. And if you look at that, it, is different than that. If you could pull up Beacon, you would see her. You talk about the contours on Beacon? Well, the red line is called a buff line. I see the updated version. It just it shows it's going through there. I can tell you that our Beacon website is only for informational purposes. It's not as accurate as a survey or any other not measured it.
Yeah. Yeah. So it Right. Not for Beacon. No. I mean Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Beacon is roughly accurate, but it is not Okay. An official run. This out and And also Beacon is over. Beacon does not contain a feature that shows the quote, unquote bluff line. It it does have a feature that shows, slopes that are over 18% on it, but it does not have a it has contours and things like that, but it does not have a a drawn on bluff line. Right? So where did where did this come from? I I This I can assume this is taken from the available contours for the site.
And then when they determine based on the contours that exist where the top and toe of the bluff are and then what that setback of 30 feet would be. Who determined that, though? Or who made this drawing? We did. The engineer. Okay. So you went out and measured it? It's a combination of infield survey and use of LIDAR and we found the LIDAR to be accurate to the field survey. So lidar is laser survey conducted from an airport.
And it's available from the state through the on John and Mike on the website. But it's publicly available data that was collected by the state. Any other comment? From the county's been out there to verify any of this information. Is that correct? The LiDAR contours are considered to be very accurate. And you still have a the time for public comment is over. Discussion is for the board. Is there any other questions or comments from the commissioners? No. Hearing none, is there a motion on this, preliminary plat? Madam Chair, I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second it.
We have a motion by Commissioner Springer, seconded by Commissioner Powers to approve the preliminary plat submitted by Brent Beck for the Cornerstone Real Estate. Any further questions or comments? I'd just like to make a few. And I represent this area, so this is a very difficult decision for me. I understand that there's a lot of emotion in this. But when the zoning ordinance was adopted, we took so much public comment when the areas were designated A3,
A1, rural residential, things like that. It was the Mazeppa Township Board chose to have a majority of Mazeppa Township in A3 because there were so much, in their opinion, at that time a lot of land that really wasn't, you know, was more conducive to housing and things like that. My concern was this would come to this at some point when the woodland was gone. And the reason we have zoning ordinances is so that everyone is treated equally.
Because, let's say, for instance, someone out there has had a century farm and then they sold to their children and they decided they don't want to farm anymore, but they want to now do the same type of development. If everybody meets the same requirements, everybody is treated equally. We can't pick and choose who who if everyone if this landowner meets the requirements and this one does too, we can't say, well, this one gets it and this one doesn't.
We have to have a legal basis and the reason we have a zoning document is so that we have legal basis on how we make some of these decisions. Most people are okay with developments as long as they're not in their backyard and we're all the same way with that. The zoning ordinance can be changed with requests. So let's say that there's a parcel of land that's considered A3, but the landowner would like to not develop it and want it to be in an a one,
they could they could request that in in specific area to be considered a a one, or the neighbors could. But the problem with that is, is then it would be seen as taking an opportunity away from the landowner who had A3, and now you're decreasing the opportunity for that. So when we have developments come in to this county, they're going to look towards Mozzepa Township because they have the ability to do these types of things.
Most other townships don't and that was a decision made by township boards who took took multiple meetings of comment from their citizens. And so when the Mazeppa Township made this decision, that was based on many public meetings that I was involved in. I was there for those meetings. And that was the decision made by Mazeppa Township. So since Cornerstone comes in and meets all the requirements, there's no legal basis to deny this. I know that it's not what the neighborhood wants,
but we don't have a legal leg to stand on by denying this all based on emotion. And that's the hard part of the decisions we make. My hope is is if once this is developed that you'll hardly know that it's there, and that's typically what does happen. It may or may not be that way, but my hope is that the impact that is is of concern is not the impact you'll see. So I just wanna make that comment. We don't have a legal leg to stand on, by denying this and
that when you guys you guys have the same opportunity with your property as Cornerstone who owns their property. Can I save 1p? That's fine. Okay. We have slow moving equipment on the road. Do you know how many times we have people that could have collided with us? It happens every day all through the county. Increase of traffic that is gonna be going on that road for our equipment. I'm feeding with the farmers. Are you gonna wait until somebody is killed?
And then decide, oh, yeah. This wasn't a good idea. I'm just pleading with you to take that intense iteration for us as farmers. We have been there a long, long time. And if anybody gets killed, it will be on your head. I thank you. Any other discussion from the board? Hearing none, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed? Motion carries. I apologize. I have to step out. I'm muted in the courtroom at 10:30. Reminder to the board that we have, there's an active training drill that will be taking place at the Sheriff's Office at
10:30. So if there's an interruption in here, just giving you a heads up ahead of time. Okay. So Those of you who are staying, it's an active shooter drill, so you'll be part of it. No. From Wabashant? No. You're sure. %. Oh, no. Not to my knowledge, at least. Our next item is, the Jamie Ratz CUP. On 04/21/2025, a complete application for a conditional use permit was submitted by Jamie Ratz for an adult foster home business and lodging establishment on Personal R14.00308.00 located in Section 4, Township 108 North, Range 11 West,
town of Plainview. Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on 05/27/2025 to hear testimony related to the request. After considering all the testimony and facts of the matter, the planning commission on a vote of five to zero recommended that the proposed CUP be approved with the following 10 conditions. Number one, a conditional use permit is granted only for an adult foster care home and lodging establishment on Wabashock County, Personal R 14 Dot 0 0 3 0 8 Dot 0 0. 2, 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, a copy of the Minnesota Department of Human Services license required to operate an adult foster care home must be supplied to planning and zoning. Copies of all subsequent licensure renewals shall be supplied to planning and zoning to ensure current up to date licensure. Number four. The applicant shall be responsible for the coordination and payment of an inspection to be completed by the county's contracted building code inspector to determine compliance with the state building code, state's ADA accessibility code, fire code requirements, and all other applicable codes. Number five. There should be no parking along County Road 4.
Number six, the applicant shall be responsible to bring the business business into compliance with sections four point one and four point two of the rural address ordinance in regards to varying the cost of new street and address signage. Number seven, an e nine one one address must be obtained from Marwaucher County prior to issuance of the building permit. Number nine, a septic system permit must be approved prior to the issuance of the building and land use permit. And number 10, the conditional uses of the adult foster care home and the lodging establishment are severable and may continue in operation independently of one another. Madam Chair, I'll make a motion to approve this with the Planning Commission
recommendation. There's, as we discussed earlier today in our zoning enforcement Let's see if there's a second, and then we'll have discussion. I'll second for the sake of discussion. Yep. Okay. Go ahead, Bob. As we discussed in our zoning enforcement earlier this morning, there's a couple issues here. You've got two building or you've got one building that's gonna have two uses in it. Each use needs a separate address, if I'm No. There would be three addresses is what I was told. Yeah.
Anyways And and the one business would require a license, and there's from the state, four beds which are not available. Mhmm. And so I don't think as it's presented Right. We should approve this. If it was just for an VRBO, I would be fine with it. But the way it's presented, I don't think is would be wise to proceed, with the application as is. We can't approve, if I'm if I read this right, the CUP for the foster care side or,
yeah, foster care side of it because the beds are not available either through the county or the state. Correct? I'm not saying we can't approve it. I'm saying they don't currently hold a license to operate that such a facility. Right. And they can't get a license in the near future because there's no beds available. That's what it appears to be like. Yes. I guess my question too is is, let's say that this got approved. They can't run that business without this license. Mhmm. Right. Well, the license license comes from the state. Right? Correct. Right. But is it going to muddy the waters and the fact that they
they could start taking patients and then they or clients and then they say, well, the county approved it. I don't want is or do they are they fully aware that part of this would mean they must hold a an actual license to prove to us? I believe the applicant is aware that they must have a license from the state to operate that type of business. And if this board approved this and this moves forward, would they they would have to build it exactly as they see as they have presented. Mhmm. And that section of that place would be uninhabitable for any other use until
that's that's my concern is we we let them build this. Mhmm. And now all of a sudden we have two VRBOs, and this isn't what this is stating. Right? Or someone else is living in it. It's just their home. That's And that's not That's the point. It's Now if they left it, to build the rooms in hopes that someday they would have this license and it sat empty, what would the harm be? But the question is is would that happen? Or could they, when they build it instead since they can't get the bids at this point,
do this if we approve this, can they just do the VRBO, do them, all of it? So it requires two addresses for each business. So I think if I remember right, Joe, and you were there too, mister Powers, at the meeting that she said that she wasn't building until she got approval. But I mean From for the beds? Correct. Because she made a point about the process taking six months. It would only take her six months for her husband to build it, but the process of getting to where I wanna build it is six plus months.
And then the state, I assume, will come in through the license process and do all the inspections and make sure everything's up to COBRA for running the foster care and Well, let's say that this has approved another. And she doesn't, if that's true, she doesn't wanna build until she's got these beds approved. Let's say that takes two years. Is there a time once you get a conditional use permit that you must start this? You know what I mean? Does it you know, like a regular building permit, it kind of expires at some point.
Right? Will this expire if something's not done on the property within, let's say, a year or two years or I don't know. Our ordinance does not have anything in there about a limit, operating a business once it has been granted. I apologize for that. Yeah. Typically, when a conditional use permit is, passed that it becomes a property right that extends with the land. The only way that that could be rescinded by is by an official action of the county board, and that's typically for violating one of the conditions on the permit. So if you approve it, assume that it's going to stay active,
while that's pending. Or what and I'm not trying to muddy the waters whatsoever. I know there was a question from, social services as well because as you can probably imagine, adult, I might use the wrong legal term, foster care facilities or adult licensed facilities, Theoretically, probably should not have a VRBO associated with them, and don't take a position on that, but those are usually secure facilities, and they were wondering if you could even operate a VRBO facility out of the same, building as an adult license place. We submitted that question to DHS.
They don't take on hypothetical cases. So I actually don't have an answer for you. And then to be fair approve it and they may deny this because there's a VRBO hooked to it. Theoretically and I don't know if that's the case, but is I just wanna be clear. They don't do hypothetical answers for, situations. So But there would be just like the old the other one that was applied for, there'd be a there would be access from one side to the other. There needs to be, yeah. There there would have to be separate entrances, separate, facilities in there. You know, they also the question that came up here in planning and zoning was,
should a conditional use permit really be looking at two different business practices on one application? Should this be a separate VRBO application and a separate, adult foster care licensing application? Because then you get in these situations like the board is currently in. Well, how do we look at both of these businesses? I mean something along with the allowed right now under the ordinance. It's not disallowed. Right. Joan So is there any detriment to approving this at this? I meant to the county. I meant if she doesn't get licensed by the state, she can't run the I just wanna ask Joe that originally,
this the the staff recommendation was for denial because of Because she did not hold the license. Yep. Right. Okay. The the thought process and I hate to always go to the extreme is if you can apply for a CUP for just about anything. Like, right now, our zoning ordinance might not allow a cannabis operation in a residential area. Would you allow somebody to apply for a cannabis license in a residential area on the theory that at some point in the future, it could become allowable? Typically, you wanna I I maybe I'm looking at that the wrong way, but we know she can't get a license right now for her adult foster care
beds. So why are you allowing an application for that when that's not possible? Would you allow other applications for things that are currently not possible on the theory that it could become possible? I think it's legal. For applications. If she can legally do it. But she can't right now. There is no license. There's there are no beds available. But under our ordinance, she can apply for the CUP. It should be two I think Rick just said it should be two It should have her in our Then our ordinance should state that. Doesn't it doesn't it state that? Can you have multiple I don't believe our ordinance addresses that you can't ask for
multiple things in a CUP. Right. Right. You know, and I guess I'm not opposed to approving it if there's no activity until she holds the license. Well, and if she builds it, that part will have to sit empty. Right? Because it would not be followed would not be following the intent of the conditional use permit. Right? Well, she won't be able to get the license. Of the condition is is that it must be used in as represented. Right? Well, could you come back in and apply for something else up there? Well, you could,
but then it would be a new CUP. Just go through the whole process again. I'm just asking if she's hoping is is that to not have to redo this if she would get the beds. Right. Mm-mm. I do believe she's planning ahead. That's correct. Planning ahead. That doesn't have any planning. Building this until she has the beds. So it may be a mute point down the road. But if in six months, she gets the beds, she would move forward. Right. And, again, our ordinance at this point, I agree. I don't think that it prohibits this. Do we think it's a good idea? And she could get this permit and that Find out.
And find out from the state that they don't allow a VRBO, and then she'll have to change it and come back anyway. Right. I I guess I just don't Yeah. I mean, I And she does operate another adult day care, so she's aware of all the requirements. Olmsted and Wabasha. Yeah. Winona Winona. Or Winona, excuse me. I just to me, if there's no detriment to us approving this, she's the one taking the risk. Documentation that she cannot you you can't build this facility and then use that part that you said was for caring for foster,
what however you wanna say it. It cannot be used for anything but that. Right? You have to put that one together. This is well, but the I think it is the way the application's presented. There's some comment in there you typically. Right? You'd have to come back and amend the CUP. Amend the CUP. Correct? So courts typically look at what conditions the county puts in place. I know you like to use the language of they have to adhere to everything in the application. That's typically frowned upon is trying to do a big catchall. So if there's something important to you, that should be a condition. Well, it says in here,
it's granted only for an adult foster care home and lodging establishment. That's one the first condition. Yeah. But could there'd be two lodging then. It say because it says and. Doesn't say or. So as it's presented, the structure will have two uses. Adult foster care and And. Lodging. Yeah. Let me try not what I'm hearing from if I'm wrong, you can correct me. What I'm hearing though is you maybe like something that states, it will not be used as an adult foster care facility until properly licensed through the state. Right. We can put that in as a condition. Yeah. Right?
Yeah. Of course. So add that in and I'll resend and make a new motion with that added if Joe reads it to me. I think the condition would be the the operation condition. Well, maybe as part of the first condition. Put the wording in there. Yeah. I'll just have to see this adult foster queue. Whoops. I'm going to 92. Yeah. Number one is the addition that, no adult foster care facility will be utilized until, a license by the state. Right. We can do that. We know what the board is looking for. So do you have that tenth condition?
You don't even have that on there. Do you have the tenth, Cheryl, in yours? Can you read that to everybody? The conditional uses of the adult foster care home and the lodging establishment are severable and may continue in operation independently of one another. I'll take that out. So the question is, to me, and maybe I'm not understanding it correctly, that if this doesn't go the above doesn't go, we can still operate the RB Air. Correct. She could still use it as the Yeah. Right. Mhmm. So could she build it? She could build it and then use the portion of it that she's represented as
being part of the lodging establishment as a lodging establishment, but she could not use the adult foster care section until she received a license from the state. Right. Or she could operate the the adult foster care until as as lodging until she came in and and reapplied or But why would you need two addresses then? If you're gonna do that. It doesn't say she needs two address. It says she needs an E 911 address. Right. But That's not An adult foster care needs an address,
I believe. But if it's all on the same property, it'd be one address. There's gonna be two addresses. Oh, okay. Like, three. Other foster care business, for instance, also has two addresses. But one's an emergency address? No. Oh. For the resident for the family resident on-site living there and for the adult foster care. Care. Because they had to be separated as well. Correct? Correct. Yeah. K. Can if this is approved, can she just build a different type of structure and just do VRBO? Or does she have to build it as you as shown?
Presented with her application, she presented building plans. It shows how she intends to have it built. And so it has to follow those plans? That is my interpretation is that, yes. They were supplied. This is what I'm doing. I I just have a feeling she'll have to come back later to amend this at some point because if the beds never come. And but if the beds do come, planning commission felt it was an okay thing. I don't know. Well, Mike stated that she said she wasn't going to start building. She got license. She could, but her plan was not until she got Well,
that would be the smart thing to do is to not build because if you don't ever get them, you'd hate to have a building sitting That's a fact. The ability to do that, but Okay. Any other discussion? Otherwise, we have a motion from Commissioner Wabbe, I think seconded by Commissioner Springer. I'll update that. With the amended condition to approve this, CUP. All those in favor? Aye. Those opposed? Motion carries. Okay. Our next item is the Tempest CUP. Looks like they're gonna wait till we're done. 11:00 because they push it back to you. So April 2120,
2025, a complete application for conditional use was submitted by Seth Tetis to transfer dwelling density from Waukesha County Parcel R 05 Dot 00314 Dot 00 to Waukesha County Parcel R 05 Dot 00152 Dot 00. Subject properties are located in Section 19 And Section 30, Township 1 10 North, Range 10 West, Greenfield Township at 19100640 First Street in Kellogg, Minnesota. The planning commission conducted a hearing on 05/27/2025 to hear any testimony related to the
request. After considering all the testimony and facts of the matter of the planning commission, a vote of five to zero recommends that the proposed CUPE be approved with the following three conditions. One, a conditional use permit is issued to allow for the transfer of one dwelling unit density from Wabasha County Parcel R 05 Dot 00314 Dot 00 to R 05 Dot 00152 Dot 00. 2, a deed restriction that prohibits the construction of any dwelling shall be recorded on the entirety of Wabasha County County parcel R 05.003140
where the dwelling density was derived from. Number 3, Parcel 0 5 Point 0 0 1 5 2 Point 0 0 shall have seven acres deed restricted prior to construction of a dwelling on the parcel. Madam chair, I'll move. Second. Motion by commissioner Wabbe, seconded by commissioner Waukes to approve this, CUP. Any questions, comments, discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Motion carries. And our last item is consideration of a Yachter CUP amendment request. On 04/16/2025,
Brian Yachter submitted an application for a conditional use permit amendment to increase the feedlot capacity of Scotch Prairie Farms LLC. The location for the request is described as Parcel R 16 Dot 00061 Dot 00 located in Section 11, Township 110 North, Range 12 West, Town Of West Albany. Property is zoned in the Agricultural Protect Protection District A 1. The planning commission conducted a public hearing on 05/27/2025 to hear any testimony related to the request. After considering all 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 the following six conditions. One, a conditional use permit is granted only for the expansion of a feedlot as presented in the application and the project shall be undertaken only in accordance with the plans and specifications as submitted or as outlined in these conditions. Number two, the number of animal units on their respective parcels shall be limited to 4,129.2. Number three, the feedlot must adhere to all MPCA rules and regulations regarding the construction and operation of a feedlot. Number four, a copy of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and NPDES stormwater permit must be furnished
to Wabasha County. Number five, a copy of the feedlot registration and permit must be furnished to Wabasha County as well as all subsequent updated registrations every four years. Number six, any expansion or intensification of the use such as increasing the number of animal units or increasing the storage capacity of the manure storage area will require an amendment to the conditional use permit. Just give the board a heads up. There is some language that was provided to each of you about a potential, condition number seven. I know there are some concerns or questions related to, controlling dust or mitigating dust in that area from the operations of that building,
and there is some language that was presented just for your consideration if you'd like to have that added or not. I'd like to have it added. I guess I know they fluoride the road now, but it's probably not enough for the whole year. Who who fluoride this? Spoutters. Right? I read in somewhere in here that he provides application. Yes. Was it in your notes? Yes. The avenue mentioned in the application that they They already They do the whole road? Yeah. I think just the part that So there were two residents that, to my knowledge, that apparently have indicated that they have some concern about dust from additional truck traffic
on, the the road there. I apologize. 660 First. 6 Hundred And 60 First. And that's approximately 1.6 miles long. To do an application on the entire road is roughly $2,400 for a 15 foot stretch of it or 15 feet wide. So that's what the fiscal impact would potentially be. And speaking with our county engineer, typically, if you're going to, chloride the road, you do the first application in late spring, usually May or June. Sometimes that's enough to get you through the year, but in heavy traffic situations or for roads that get beat up,
it could require up to two treatments. And then you'd typically do the second one either in late July or or I'm sorry. Late August or early September, to try to control dust for the rest of the year. Do we know if the township applies it at this point? I am pretty confident the township does not apply chloride out there. I I'd be shocked if any of our townships do because, you know, from our budgets, it Right. It can get costly. Does the township have a have they had a discussion on whether they want a % of the road black or,
chloride it, or don't they care? Discussion. Nothing has been done since they first talked, and they said they had no concerns. The board has no concerns. Yes. The township approval form that was submitted by the applicant, did not state any concerns with dust. And and maybe no one in here can answer the question. But once chloride is applied and they blade the road Blade it first and then chloride it. You don't touch it again. Right. But when when it's chlorided or and bladed, then they lose the lose what happens with the chloride.
Right? And when you have that kind of traffic, I'm assuming this road must get bladed frequently or more frequently than No. I'm sorry. No. Well It doesn't create those ripples. Well, this is what I'm saying. I mean, if if there's the amount of traffic that I'm hearing that is supposedly causing all this dust, you're gonna have those. I would assume this road gets graded more than maybe some of the others, or don't you know? I believe what happens is the chloride gets wore off from all the heavy traffic. It gets broke down, wore off, and then pretty soon you get dust.
If you guys remember, we approve that every year. Dietrich comes with that one. And we we do them corners. We do hills. Right. But then you also I don't know if you're on the board those years that we we really chlorided roads. We we had moved away from putting rock on, and we were chloriding roads. And then we got and maybe none of you did, but I got calls all the time because when it rained, these roads were snotty, slippery, and because we were putting too damn much chloride on the road. Yeah. They put And so this is my concern is That it would turn sloppy and
Yep. And and that's and this is and not that I don't live there, so I don't. But does is the township okay with us? I would really like to know if the township's okay with us requiring chloride to be put on their road, their jurisdiction. You know, they they allow it for residences, but when you start talking the whole road I'm just to serve the board's knowledge, the county does have authority over township roads if it impacts other county roads. So the county has the ability to require chlorine on a business operation on a
township road. Okay. That I didn't know. I I would think he'd wanna be a good neighbor. I it seems like it. Yeah. I I mean, control dust. So they make sense. $2,400 an application, roughly. And that could go up. Obviously, there's inflation and everything else. You're gonna be going out of traffic. Not just it's not just, like, 10 semis a day or 10 trucks going on. It's a lot. A big operation like that. Not everybody, but a big operation. It says right in there at the planning commission,
they talked about dust control. It's right there from the stipulation. No. I'm guessing the truck impact is No. Then he's got more units now. Yeah. Better fuel them for more wood. You know, that would work out. That's up to the board on that. I don't have no idea what our largest farm is, but I believe this is one of Largest farms in here, so it's not really an apples apples comparison to other And we do have to look at every application individually, and I I agree I somewhat agree with you. But they are asking for a big expansion. Right. But there'd be a big difference if a guy had,
say, two trucks a day coming in on a row. Not one. And then during harvest season, it's about a big wave. We have a bunch of them. Yeah. It could be a hundred. The way I understood it from the neighbors was there's more semi traffic and big truck traffic on 660 First Street than there is on 4, and I can believe that. With that many cattle, you gotta feed them. What did what did Bob say? Were you thinking it was, like, one one cow was, like, 1.3 or 1.4 units? Always. Yeah. And he's got 41 he's asking for to be up to 4,129
units. What was the original that he's licensed for? 3,000 something. Yeah. 3000 something. This would be to add 981 point Units. Something. Around the 81 units. I mean, Just the just the trucks alone, hauling the milk away. Certainly up to the board one way or another if you'd like to include the condition or not, for that. It's we obviously get requests every year from people who live in our townships that would like to have chloride on the road. This isn't an unusual request to have, come in front of the board.
It's whether or not you want to include that as a condition. Well, I he already stated he provides core right now. So the only difference would be is one more application. One more application. This makes it required, though, because just for these states that he does, they can always change their mind a year from now and not do that. This makes it that it is a clear requirement to doing that. Who deter who determines that a second application is needed? This makes it so that they are required to do two applications a year. And what if the second one's not needed? It was also It will it ruin the road?
It will be because they're gonna they're gonna blade that at least once in the summer. That's my concern. If if it wasn't needed, we'll do more harm. Yeah. Like I said, I think it'll definitely deal with one problem, but I I think over time, it's gonna gonna create another, but I could be wrong. It was also I just remember all those complaints I got of, like It was all over the direction now. Earlier too in our zoning meeting where he doesn't currently chlorate the whole road, just close to their building site? I believe it go probably goes up to their I didn't drive all the way
down the whole road, but I think it goes all the way up to their house. The whole road. Do you believe it's quieter the whole roads? I think he does. Four and six people are up to that. I don't think it does that whole road. Do you think it goes up to their operation? Right. Near near their operation. Well, Well, is that where all the traffic is? Full room. Wow. You wanna come to an office four. Traffic. So that just be the should that be the This is the one question. Okay. If you're gonna add that, would that be it? To pull up his operation to here to be But we're Then if you want to go fire the first property.
From here to here. Yes. Okay. Because that doesn't say in here. It says to the 66661 First Street. That's Give me one second to pull up, the Right. That 661 is off of 4. But I know. But And that goes She so he should have to call right from four to his property. Exactly. But that doesn't state this in here. It says the road. 661 Street. Yeah. Okay. So from access off 4 to his property. Right. The two main houses are right there off of 4. Right. Right. You know? That's the problem. That's where the issue is.
And that's where 90% of traffic is. It is. It is. Right. They're gonna get out to the North Port. He shouldn't have to chloride past his property is what I That's his road in. So this is the main premises right here, and we're talking about this stretch of road right here. There's a concern that was raised, I believe, by this neighbor, and then the other concern was raised by this neighbor here. So the intention is to have this section what is being proposed for consideration is to have this section of road be required to be chlorinated.
I asked about if there's any concerns from this neighbor, and my understanding is nothing has been, reported from them. I just think we should be more precise in this condition. That's all I'm getting at. That would be from 660 First Street from County Road 4 to his 69. Driveway or whatever. There are so many feet beyond his access. Yeah. Their main road, I think. So from County Road 4 to the entrance of the Dairy facility. The yeah. The facility. Right. Okay. We can make that change if that's what the borrower And the other thing too is is what is the when somebody typically chlorides in front of their place,
how many I suppose it's how far they wanna wanna pay, but is there a a standard that, you know, if we just made them do it in front of those three proper their property and the other two Would you get like you would normally do To get in the country. For their operation? That would be down the end of the road there, by the way. No. No. Well, just He said he said he said he said he said he said he said he said he said he said he was other two. Two? Just in front of their properties. Do you need the rest of the road? Again, I'm I'm getting to this point where I I took those phone calls on these
slippery, snotty roads. And and, again, we're you know, if you do it two times a year like a normal citizen would do in front of somebody's house, that causes the I I don't know. I think the traffic has a little bit of to do with the difference in the the road getting soft from the rain. Just the the amount of traffic that's under that's packed. So tight. Okay. It's almost like concrete, you know. Once you put the chloride on, it just it's a nice hard surface that sheds water. I mean, it really gets hard, but there's a lot of traffic. I mean, it's not like you're driving cars across it.
Right. We could certainly the board certainly has the ability to modify it if you'd like it in front of our when the majority wants, but I I just If you're gonna go past the second resident's driveway, I would say you'd probably wanna go at least 500 feet past it because the wind's gonna carry it. We got feet on both sides or Well, it's Or do you just If you go 500 feet on the other on the other side going into their operation, require them to do it there, the rest of the stretch is just out to four because you got two houses you're gonna be you're you're not gonna be 500 feet each way because he's right
on the corner. When you go in on four, you take a sharp right and a left is right there. Does all this dust affect farmers' fields to I I see them white. Lime. Uh-huh. I see that they're white. Yeah. They do better there. Normally oh, that does help. Sure. Lime is good. Lime is good. I don't know. I I've kind of torn both ways on this one, so I whatever the majority Well, to require them, I mean, it's up to them if they wanna do it to their operation, which they think they might do. But you you probably could put in there to go at least 500 feet past
this Lonnie McNeese place. I would use, like, a parcel, just because of Right. Ownership changes and everything else. Not criticizing what's Pass that place on the corner. So that would be all parcels. All the way from County Road 42 to 500 feet pass. That would be might be end up being about well, if a turn in there, maybe. And then what he does at his So, basically, chloride from this location roughly and then on the road all the way to here is what you're looking for. Yep. Go there again. So, basically, from right here, because it's about 500 aunts,
600, but we'll go 500 feet pass, but then all the way up to County Road 4. Yep. Okay. I understand what you're looking for. I don't know how to clear those. I mean, it's up to them. They might do it all the way to their operation too, if they want it at that point. Yeah. That's his choice. You got that, Joe? We'll figure out a way to word that accordingly. There's mud, so we can do it. Yeah. Okay. Is there a motion? I'll make a motion that we put that as a stipulation in there. We have to approve. We have to approve. Okay. Is there a second? Second. We have a motion by Commissioner Powers, second by Commissioner Huakas to approve the amendment to the yarder CUP adding the condition
of core riding portions of the township road from County Road 4 to 500 feet beyond the second parcel. Sounds good. Any further discussion? None, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Motion carries. I challenge you guys to get the commissioner reports done in two minutes. Okay. I have a DAC meeting, where we went over, the 2024 audit, which turned out really well. And, we had three new clients, and talked a little bit about staff turnover, satisfaction. And yesterday, I had district nine meeting in Lake City AMC along with all of you guys.
Hey, Donnie. You have twenty seconds. Yep. I, because I have attended the district nine and while we reported on it, so we got it. I had three rivers, the May 21. '10 seconds. '10 seconds. '10 seconds. I think that was a meeting where it came out that the federal government's looking or the Trump's budget's looking to cut 25% of the domestic spending. I wanna thank Lake City for host allowing us to use their facilities yesterday. We had Whitewater Joint Powers Board,
May twenty seventh. Just kinda general run of the mill business and also soil and water, whatever day that was. Construction season is busy times in your office. Highway committee following this meeting, zoning this morning. Done. I didn't have anything noteworthy. I had a zoning meeting with Bob this morning, and I attended the planning commission and the District 9 Oh, yeah. I missed the planning commission. What's that? I missed the planning commission report, but we talked about that today. Okay. Then, we need a motion to recess to a,
a workshop I'll move. Second. For probation. Just because we're out of here. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Those opposed, motion carries.