[music]
Good morning. Welcome to the board of
commissioners meeting of August 25th,
2026.
Please stand and join us at the pledge
of in the pledge of
>> Abel.
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.
Thank you.
>> All right. Agenda review. Josh.
>> Uh, Madame Chair, um, I have one item to
add to the agenda. Right after our close
session, pursuant to Minnesota Statute
13 DO5, I would ask that we add to the
agenda um, action for an approved
settlement agreement after that close
session.
>> All right. Thanks, Josh.
>> Move with the change.
>> Second.
>> I have a motion and a second. Any
discussion?
All in favor?
>> I
>> opposed. Motion carries. Thank you,
Josh.
[clears throat]
>> All right. County ditch 56 acceptance
hearing.
» Good morning, Jordan.
>> Morning.
>> All right. So, here we go. Good morning,
everyone, and welcome to the county
ditch 56
contract acceptance hearing. The first
item is an agenda review.
Um, no changes to the agenda, Madam
Chair. Move
>> the agenda.
>> Second.
>> I have a motion and a second for the
agenda. Any discussion?
>> All in favor?
>> I oppose? Carries. [clears throat]
» So, the purpose of today's hearing is to
determine whether the contractor for the
petition repairs affecting portions of
branch 3 of County Ditch 56 has
completed their contract in accordance
with the plans and specifications.
The order of business for this hearing
is as follows. Staff will review the
jurisdictional documents. We will hear
from the appointed engineer and then we
will open the hearing for public
comments. So I'll now ask Blicker County
drainage staff Jordan Williamson to
review the jurisdictional documents.
Um, notice was posted for this hearing
outside the Blue Earth County Historic
Courthouse located at 204 South 5th
Street, Mano, Minnesota 560001.
Hearing notice was mailed on August 7th,
2026. Notice of public hearing was
published in the Mano Free Press on
August 11th, 2026. And I have a memo to
read here.
The Blue Earth County Ditch 56, CD56 is
located in Garden City and Lincoln
Townships. The Blue Earth County
Drainage Authority approved public bids
for CD56 branch 3 repairs awarding the
repair contract to Sy Excavating
Incorporated on May 27th, 2025. Drainage
management staff received the
[clears throat] engineers acceptance of
contract report for the county ditch 56
branch 3 repairs on July 9th, 2026.
All contractual work has been completed
um by signed findings and orders today.
Acceptance of contract hearing was set
on July 28th, 2026.
Today, we are respectfully asking the
county ditch 56 drainage authority
accept the drafted findings in order
approving the engineers acceptance of
contract report for the county ditch 56
petitioned repairs and issue the release
of any final payments due to the
contractor and [clears throat] to pay
damages as shown in the acceptance of
contract report. That's all I have.
>> Thank you, Jordan.
I need a motion to accept
>> accept the jurisdictional documents.
>> Second.
>> Motion in a second. Any discussion?
>> All in favor?
>> I
>> oppose. Motion carries.
We will now hear from our appointed
engineer. Good morning.
>> Good morning.
>> Morning.
» Um much like Jordan said, uh we're here
today for the first of two final
acceptance hearings. uh this one being
Leworth County diction number 56 branch
three and the repair efforts that took
place on it. Uh this first picture we're
looking at here is is generally the
beginning of the uh of the project. Um
and you can generally see the the course
um of the repairs being branches three
and lateral age. Um before I get too far
into this, I guess I should introduce
myself. I'm Jacob Mueller with ISG. Um
I'm an engineer on the project. Um what
we're looking at here is the watershed
for Blue Earth County Ditch 56. It's
comprised of a long stretch of open
ditch and many subsurface tile branches,
laterals, sublaterals. Uh the specific
portion that we're looking at today is
the branch three portion. Um kind of
over here on the eastern extents just
south of the city. A little bit of a
closer look. Uh kind of shows some of
the work that we've done. This this
these repair efforts were looked at for
quite a while. Um it's a very unique
area in that there's been a lot of um US
Fish and Wildlife grounds purchased in
this area. Um kind of altering the
utility of the uh subsurface tile lines.
Many of the tile lines are are now under
uh wetlands, no longer farmed areas.
They route through those areas which are
very very expensive to maintain um and
difficult to maintain in perpetuity just
with root intrusion. that the initial
designs uh predominantly looked at
reroutes and that was the design that
land owners eventually selected.
Um a bit on the construction timeline.
This was bid in May of 20125. Um Sy
excavating was the lowest responsible
bidder on in that bid pool. Um and it
was awarded to him at that date. Uh
contracts were executed on in July of
2025. uh for that specific contract
substantial completion was on November
30th of 2025 with that final completion
being January 30th of 2026.
Um the actual construction timeline uh
went from July 21st of 2025 to October
3rd of 2025. So well within that
substantial completion window. Um they
did have some final punch list items
that went slightly um beyond final
completion. Um, but they kind of needed
the weather to agree a little bit more
to finish some of that finalized work
and not disturb the fields as much as
being in there in January would have.
Here's some photos from the from the
site. Uh, you can see a lot of this work
was occurring in the summer just by some
of the area. They had to use a trench
box. Um, there's a fairly large waterhed
that comes to the system. They dealt
with a lot of water, had to use a lot of
rock. Um here on the bottom right you
can see one of the several road
crossings that had to be open, cut and
restored. Um all of those are in a a
functional condition now. Um road road
rightways have been receded. Uh areas
were ripped and plowed after the fact um
in the egg fields.
Here's a couple more photos just
detailing some of that site
construction. This is kind of more
during the active phase prior to um any
of the restoration efforts just being
repulling the black material on top of that tile alignment and and rip
plowing all of that um to minimize
damage.
Um a bit on construction costs. Um so
the engineer's initial repair estimate
um at the time of the repair hearing was
uh $717,952.
The awarded contract was $640,945.75.
So approximately $80,000 less than
estimated. Um the total costs at the end
of the project were $683,2305.
Um this was a result of um approximately
a $50,000 uh increase in cost and
exchange order when the tile was
discovered to be about 2 ft lower in
certain locations. Um similarly with
that there was a net reduction in
installed quantities um uh totaling
about $16,000.
Um to date uh the contractor has been
paid $649,6855
leaving an amount due of $34,61.50.
Damages were tabulated uh for each
individual parcel through the duration
of construction. um our construction
observers on site um use GPS uh to um
tabulate and and measure specifically
all those areas that were damaged. So
the land owners might be paid uh for
those those have been delivered to
drainage staff. Um here's a map
depicting those areas. Um as you can see
we we distinguish between different crop
sites. areas in brown are beans, uh,
such as on the Sant property or on the
Miller property. Um, and other areas
being kind of this yellow gold color
that was corn, such as on the Sorenson
property and or on the Williier
property.
Um, as build documents were generated uh
by the engineer to detail uh where
everything was installed, how deep was
it was installed, where connections were
made. Um, this can be used for the
future legal record for the CD56 system
as well as be a benefit to its land
owners to determine where the private
tile was connected and understand how
they might tile in the future or best
utilize their system.
Um, we've also provided an abandoned ma
abandonment map as portion of the
closeout documents. Uh, we do have the
revised map here detailing all those
areas proposed to be abandoned.
Essentially, everything in the area to
be abandoned or in the area of repair
has been abandoned that was um
reinstalled with the exception of uh
several tile lines on this property
right here which were not touched. Um
this landowner was given a new outlet
repaired to what he was um essentially
agreed to at the time. Um and just kind
of minimizing work in that area.
So finally, it's the engineer's opinion
that the contractor Sy excavating has
satisfactorily completed the contract in
accordance with the plan specifications.
Sy has provided the required submitts
for final payment being that signed
final pay request, his three-year
warranty bond for the installed tile and
those I and that IC134 forms for his
subcontractors. Ultimately, ISG
recommends accepting the work and
approval of final payment to the
contractor and paying damages to all
affected land owners. Thank you.
>> Thank you for the report.
Excuse [clears throat] me. So, at this
time, we'll open the public comment
portion of the hearing. If you would
like to make a comment, please come to
the podium. State your name and address
for the record. Comments from the public
are expected to be civil and respectful.
Please note this meeting is being
recorded. There is a 5minute time limit.
The county administrator will give you a
one- minute warning and let you know
when you've used your allotted time. In
addition, the board may restrict or
limit the time allotted to a person
whose remarks are repetitive or not
relevant to the matter under
consideration by the board. Is there
anyone wishing to make comments
[clears throat]
on ditch 56?
Anyone wishing to make comments to
county ditch 56 petitioned repairs for
portions of branch three.
And last time, anyone wishing to make
comments for County Ditch 56?
» Hearing no comments, I will close the
public comment portion of the hearing.
Anything from the board.
>> No questions. I would so move.
>> Second.
>> I have a motion and a second. Any
discussion?
All in favor? I
>> oppose. Motion carries.
>> And that will conclude the county ditch
56 acceptance hearing.
All right, Jordan. Then we're going to
move on to
County Ditch 73. Good morning everyone
and welcome to the County Ditch 73
acceptance hearing. First item is an
agenda review.
>> Madam Chair, no additions or changes?
>> Move to approve.
>> Second.
>> I have a motion and a second for the
agenda. Any discussion? All in favor?
>> I opposed. [clears throat]
>> Carries. The purpose of today's hearing
is to determine whether the contractor
for the previously approved repairs
affecting portions of county dish 73 has
been completed has completed their
contract in accordance with the plans
and specifications.
The order of business for this hearing
is as follows. Staff will review the
jurisdictional documents. We will hear
from the appointed engineer and we will
open the hearing for public comments. So
now we'll have Jordan Williamson review
the jurisdictional documents. Jordan,
>> notice posted for this hearing outside
of the Blue Earth County Historic
Courthouse located at 204 South Fifth
Street, Mano, Minnesota. Hearing notice
mailed on August 7th, 2026. Notice of
public hearing was published in the Mano
Free Press on August 11th, 2026. I have
a short memo to read here.
Blue [clears throat] Earth County Ditch
73 is located in Lyra Township. The Blue
Earth County Drainage Authority approved
a quote for repairs awarding a repair
contract to Leland Excavating and
Drainage on September 9th, 2025. The
property environmental resources
department drainage staff received the
engineers acceptance of contract report
for the approved county ditch 73 repairs
on July 9th, 2026. All contractable work
has been completed by the contractor on
July 28th, 2026. by signed findings and
order. Today's acceptance of contract
hearing was set. Today, we are
respectfully asking that the county
ditch 73 drainage authority accept the
drafted findings in order approving the
engineers acceptance of contract report
for the county dish 73 repairs and issue
the release of any final payments due to
the contractor and to pay damages as
shown in the acceptance of contract
report. That's all I have, Madam Chair.
>> Thank you.
Do I have a motion to accept the
jurisdictional documents? So moved
>> second and a second. Any discussion? All
in favor?
>> I opposed. Motion carries. Now we'll
hear from our engineer from ISG.
>> Thank you.
>> Uh once again, um Jacob Mueller from
ISG. Um the engineer on the project. Um
again, we're here to talk about the
second of two final acceptance hearings.
This one being for the repairs on Blue
Earth County ditch number 73.
Um just a bit of a view at the
watershed. Um here we can see some of
the the tile infrastructure as compared
to lower CD56 which we just discussed.
This one is relatively smaller. It's
comprised entirely of tile. Um and so
were all of the repairs. Um
the the work proposed involved um
instead of large swaths of repairing an
entire line um as we see in some cases
uh there was individual spot repairs
only in those areas which were uh deemed
to be in an immediate state of failure
to restore that as constructed
condition. So there's some work on
branches seven six branch two lateral A
branch two and the main line
a bit on the construction timeline. This
was bid in August, late August of 2025.
The lowest responsible bidder was uh
Leland Drainage and Excavating. Um that
contract was executed on September 15th
of 2025.
Contract dates uh final completion for
this work was April 15th of 2026 and
construction ran between February, early
February of 2026 to late March of 2026.
Some of the construction photos you see
here um involve uh many of the same
things we see on on many drainage
projects. Um there was a couple areas
where roads were opened up and the tile
was reinstalled beneath. Those areas
have been subsequently receded and
established. Um the remaining photos on
the top and left that you see involve
tile installation. Um one nuance of spot
repairs is that generally this work
occurs in the historic trench of the old
tile. um generally a less suitable place
for new tile installation. Soils have
been mixed. Um in those cases, you can
kind of see what what uh we proposed at
what we pursued as a design being
encasing that pipe and rock for
longevity. Um
bit on construction cost and final
payment. Um at the at the time our of of
finalization, our estimate for the
repair work was $99,66.
The awarded contract was $122,535.
Um the total costs uh incurred on the
project for the construction were
$114,415.
Um essentially less rock and connections
were installed as compared. Some of
those things are front-end estimates as
these are unit price contracts. Um, to
date, uh, the contractor has been paid
$105,8425,
yielding an amount due of $9,330.75.
Um, similar to to other projects that
we've discussed, damages were recorded
in all areas where construction occurred
and and property was damaged. Um, that
has been tabulated and shared with the
um, county drainage staff. Um similarly
asbuilts have been generated for this
work. Um they yield just plan views due
to the small nature or the small scope
of work detailing where these repairs
have occurred um exactly what went in
the ground and where everything was
connected uh for future use. Finally uh
it's the engineer's opinion that the
contractor Leland direct Leland drainage
and excavating has satisfactorily
completed the contract in accordance
with the plans and specifications. He's
provided the the required submitts for
final payment being that signed final
pay request and is IC134 for
subcontractors. Um ultimately IG
recommends accepting the work and
approval of final payment to the
contractor and paying damages to all
affected land owners. Thank you.
>> Thank you for that acceptance report. At
this time we'll open the public comment
period of the hearing. If you would like
to make a comment, please come to the
podium. State your name and address for
the record. Comments from the public are
expected to be civil and respectful. Is
there anyone wishing to make comment?
Anyone wishing to make comments on the
county ditch 73 repairs?
And last time, anyone wishing to make
comments for county ditch 73 repair.
Seeing no further comments, I will close
the public comment portion of the
hearing. Anything from the county board?
I don't any questions.
>> All right. So, I need a motion.
>> I move approval.
>> Second.
>> I have a motion and a second. Any
discussion?
>> All in favor?
>> I
>> oppose. Motion carries.
Okay. No further comment. Here we go.
Let's move on to
Jordan. We're going into ditch 23. Is
that right?
>> Yes. Repair.
Um the Blueorth County Judicial Dish 23
wershed is approximately 1,200 acres in
size and located in Sterling and Shelby
Townships. Based on inspections of
Judicial [snorts] Ditch 23 subsurface
tile, a report a repair report was
developed. Leworth County drainage staff
consulted with ISG engineers to develop
a repair report. The repair report was
developed using drainage staff input as
well as engineering survey
recommendations. A copy of the draft
engineers repair report was submitted to
Blorth County drainage management staff
on June 11, 2026.
Informational landowner meetings were
held on December 17, 2025 and June 11th,
2026 to discuss the proposed repair
report, including costs and plans. At
today's meeting, we are respectfully
asking the drainage authority to approve
the draft findings in order, setting a
repair hearing date for September 15,
2026. That's all I have, Madam Chair.
>> Thank you.
So,
>> I'll move approval.
>> Second.
>> I have a motion and a second. Any
discussion?
All in favor?
>> I oppose. Motion carries. Thank you.
>> And last
journey judicial ditch 33.
>> I've got uh joint county ditch 83
improvement bid awarding. Um so public
bids were solicited for judicial ditch
33 approved in
Judicial ditch 33 approved improvement
construction plans. A total of six bids
were submitted and opened on August 3rd,
2026. These six bids received are
provided in the table below with the
lowest bid submitted from the Leland
Drainage Excavating LLC with a bid price
of 378,85255
and the highest bid received from Holt
Meyer Construction Incorporated with a
bid price of 522,510.
Leworth County and ISG have worked with
Leland Drainage on past repairs and
projects with positive results. Based on
the submitted low bid price and past
work experience, we recommended the
improvement work be awarded to Leland
Drainage and Excavating LLC. Today we
request the judicial ditch 33 drainage
authority to award a contract for
approved improvement plans for
construction to Leland drainage and
excavating LLC for a bid amount of
$378,85255
affecting portions of judicial ditch 33.
That's all I have. Madam chair,
>> thank you.
» Second.
>> I have a motion and a second. Any
discussion? All in favor?
>> I
>> oppose. Motion [clears throat] carries.
>> Thank you, Jordan.
>> Thank you.
>> Thanks.
>> Thank you, Jacob.
>> Thank you.
>> So, moving on to
the county
sheriff, Jeff Worcel.
>> Morning, Sheriff.
>> Sheriff.
>> Good morning.
>> How are you,
>> Madam Chair? Good morning.
>> Good morning. Um, our current contract
that we have with River Valley Forensic
Services, who performs our autopsies and
forensic examinations at Ramsey County,
set to expire at the end of the year.
Uh, they prepared a new 2-year contract
um with the duration ending 123128 with
no change in the current cost that we're
paying now. I think they're doing this
early because there's a lot of other
counties that want to um use their
services and they want to know how many
are going to stay on board with them.
And I recommend that we stay on board
with them. I'll move approval. Second
>> motion and a second. Any discussion?
>> It's nice they kept the price the same.
>> Yeah.
>> All in favor for now. [laughter]
>> All in favor?
>> I opposed.
>> Motion carries.
>> Thank you.
>> Thanks for that.
>> All right. Planning and zoning.
» Good morning.
>> So the next item on the agenda is
planning and zoning. Planning and zoning
staff are here to present their action
items. There is a public hearing and
public comment will be allowed in just a
moment. As previously stated, comment
should be civil and respectful. If you
haven't already done so, please sign the
clipboard at the back of the room.
And I'll ask the planning and zoning
staff to introduce themselves for the
record and introduce the first item
before the board.
>> Yes. Good morning. Scott Salbury, land
use planner.
>> Thank you. Jenny Mochel Johnson, land
use planner.
>> Erikson Schaefer, land use planner.
>> Thank you.
>> All right, go ahead.
>> All right, the first item we have for
you is planning commission item number
11-26.
This is a request for review and
approval of an interimm ordinance
establishing up to a one-year moratorum
on the permitting of data centers within
the unincorporated areas of Blueworth
County under the zoning authority of
Blue Earth County. This moratorum will
allow county staff to conduct
[cough and clears throat] an evaluation
and develop the appropriate performance
standards and zoning ordinance
amendment. At the planning commission
meeting, staff presented a staff report
and submitted comments from two
residents that were both in support of
the moratorum. Four members of the
public provided comments in support of
the moratorum as well. Public comments
highlighted several key themes,
including the need to understand
long-term environmental impacts, the
importance of public officials avoiding
non-disclosure agreements, the
recommendation for the county to use
broad regulatory language since data
centers may be labeled as technology
parks or or large consumers, and the
significance of reflecting the will of
the community. Following the discussion,
the planning commission voted
unanimously to forward a recommendation
of approval to the county board based on
the findings prepared by staff. So the request in front of you today, we
are requesting a board action passage of
the ordinance based on the
recommendations of the planning
commission. There any questions for
staff?
>> I don't have any at this point.
>> I would move to approve.
>> Well, we have public comment to I'm
sorry.
>> That's all right.
>> I really got to do that.
>> Yeah, sometimes we have public comment.
At this time, we'll open the public
comment portion of the hearing. If you
would like to make a comment regarding
PC1 11-26,
please come to the podium. State your
name and address for the record.
Is there anyone wishing to speak to PC
11-26?
Good morning.
>> Good morning. I have a handout. I made
10 copies. It's not enough for everybody
here, but it's an updated version of the
number of counties and cities in the
state of Minnesota that have passed a
moratorium on data centers.
>> If you could state your name and address
for the record,
>> Schwarzoff. I'm a resident of Mano and
also Blue Earth County.
>> Thank you. and I'm here to speak in
support of a moratorum on the permitting
of data centers in Blue Earth County
while the county studies what a hypers
scale data center here would entail.
If you approve PC 1126,
the interim ordinance, Bler County will
join 26 other cities and counties in
Minnesota that have already approved a
moratorum. and those 26 cities and
counties are listed on the handout.
Uh I also want to commend county staff
for their excellent work on the
background and statement of general need
in your packet. Just really well done
and alum illuminates the issues.
It just makes sense to study the issue
carefully before a developer comes
because of the massive scale and
resource requirements of a hypers scale
data center.
is a large
facility. It can can have a footprint of
millions of square feet.
Uh the proposed data center in North
Mano, which is no longer a thing because
the developer withdrew had a footprint
of 4 million square ft.
It uses a lot of electricity and it can
use a lot of water. There are also
issues with the waste water produced. Uh
how do you take care of that and noise
pollution and light pollution?
It's also important to determine
appropriate sighting for a data center
near the resources it needs and away
from residential neighborhoods because
of the noise and light pollution.
Uh furthermore, it's important to get
public input by having open houses,
listening sessions, and the like as
described in the background
[clears throat]
and statement of general need in your
packet. This is the way it should be
done. And I commend the board of
commissioners for bringing it to a vote
today.
But the cautionary
uh tale if a data center is uh is coming
and comes to see a county commissioner
do not sign a non-disclosure agreement.
That's what happened in North Mano,
Hermantown, Pine Island, and Farmington.
uh in Hermantown, which is the case I
know the best because I know one of the
residents there. The developer came in,
got city officials to sign a
non-disclosure agreement, consulted with
Minnesota Power about a favorable
location, and then bought a plot of land
in a rural part of the town, zoned rural
residential.
There were homes on that land and homes
close by. The developer started buying
out the homeowners on the land one by
one and required the homeowners to sign
a non-disclosure agreement as a
condition of the buyout.
This went on for months until word
leaked out about what was happening.
Residents were rightly outraged. The
trust they had in their city leaders was
just destroyed. They're still fighting
the developer. So this this is not the
way to do it. The way it's being done in
Pworth County, I applaud. So to
conclude, I'm respectfully asking you
today to pass the data center moratorum
and study and to keep the process open
and transparent and don't sign the
non-disclosure agreement if asked by a
developer. Thanks for your time.
>> Thank you.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else wishing to make
comment on PC11-26?
>> Good morning.
>> Um, my name is Mariah Celler. I live and
work in St. Peter. I'm here to also
support the data center moratorum. The
scale of these uh which were mentioned
in the previous comment. I also agree
with what he stated in the previous
comment. The scale of these is uh
difficult to understand and this affects
not only this county but surrounding
counties in the electricity use um you
know the transformers and equipment that
would go into supporting such a center
and also the water use although of
course I know the state is responsible
for water use. Um, I just want to
express the [clears throat] concern, you
know, as a local citizen, I have for
private companies coming in and maybe
making it sound like a good deal for
communities. Um, and then these private
companies not being held accountable or
they're not being protections for the
communities as they stand. Um, and I
feel there's a present danger in
Minnesota because we don't have a state
that has a strong framework for what is
happening. And we need to make sure, you
know, our local leaders as well are um
listening and and there's collaboration
uh between all levels of government and
all the different utility commissions
and um whatnot. And I really appreciate
um the planning and uh zoning
um workers for bringing this to to
attention and all the hard work they're
putting into making sure we have all the
information we need. So, thank you.
>> Thank you.
Is there anyone else wishing to make
comment on PC1-26?
Good morning.
>> Hi, I'm Ava. I uh live in Mano and I had
uh made a
>> Could you give your full name, ma'am?
Uh, Ava Corey Greenness.
>> Thank you.
>> Uh, and I had made a comment in support
of the moratorum at the planning
commission meeting. So, I'll be pretty
brief. I just wanted to point out a
couple of, uh, language things that I
noticed. Um, on at the bottom of page
106 of today's meeting packet, uh,
there's a line that says evaluation of
existing impacts due to. Uh, and I'm
thinking that that's probably meant to
say evaluation of potential impacts that
might result from uh data centers. Um,
and then on page 109, or at least
[snorts] that's what it's showing up as
for me. Um I [clears throat] would
suggest that the evaluation or study
also specifically include public health
impacts uh locally and to communities
outside of the US from production and
disposal of materials and then also
ecosystem or biodiversity impacts which
could be included under environmental
impacts. It would just be good to
explicitly include that and then also uh
like carbon sequestration and climate
impacts. Um and then also probably an
overview of findings on public opinion
from the public engagement efforts uh
described. But um those are pretty minor
details and overall I really appreciate
um staff's work on the moratorum. So
thank you.
>> Thank you for your comments. Anyone
else wishing to make comment on PC
11-26?
Anyone else?
All right, last time
I will close the public comment portion
of the hearing. Are there any comments
by the board?
>> I will now move to approve.
>> Thank you. [laughter]
I need a second.
>> Second.
>> Any discussion?
>> The um meetings that I've gone to on
data centers, both on both sides,
um
it's it only makes sense to sit and wait
a year and have have very good
discussions on how this affects the
community and affects the surrounding
area. Um surprisingly uh even the data
centers now are talking about um pushing
for transparency. They're understanding
that non-disclosure issues just create
uh a lot of questions and and people
being concerned. uh for our sake here in
the county, uh we probably won't have
any issues just because it's going to be
a local city issue. It's going to have
to be connected to the water supply some
way and that'll have to come from some
city. But I think it's it's just smart
for us as a county to
sit down and and investigate uh get some
information what's good for the
community and uh find out how it can
help or or not help us and and we have a
year to work that out.
>> Thank you, Vance. Anyone else?
[clears throat]
>> All in favor? I
>> opposed. Motion carries.
>> All right.
Now we'll move on to PC15-26.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh PC15-26,
uh Bradley and Wendy Caldwell. Request
for review and approval of the
preliminary plat of Helicopter Land LLC.
Uh subdivision plat consisting of two
lots. Uh, one lot has an existing house
and the other lot has the existing KO
aviation business. Uh, the property is
zoned light industry and is in the
southwest quarter of the southeast
quarter of section 4 in Buford Township.
Uh, at the planning commission meeting,
staff presented the staff report. Uh,
the applicant's representatives was
present and uh, confirmed the
information present in the staff report.
Uh, there was no comment provided by the
public. Uh the following discussion uh
the planning commission voted
unanimously to forward a recommendation
of approval to the county board uh based
on the findings and conditions prepared
by staff. Uh we request the board action
for passage of the resolution based on
the recommendation of the planning
commission.
>> Thank you manager.
>> Thank you. At this time we'll open the
public comment portion of the hearing.
If you would like to make a comment
regarding PC15-26,
please come to the podium. State your
name and address for the record.
Is there anyone wishing to speak to
PC15-26
for the third time? Anyone wishing to
speak to PC5-26.
All right, we're going to close the
public comment portion of the meeting.
Any comments from the board?
>> I don't have any comments, Madam Chair,
but I'll move approval. Second.
>> I have a motion and a second. Any
discussion?
All in favor?
>> I
>> opposed. [clears throat]
>> Motion carries.
>> And we'll go ahead and introduce the
next item.
Great. The next item is planning
commission number 16-26.
This is a request for an after the fact
interim use permit to allow for the
cumulative movement of more than 50
[clears throat] cubic yards of material.
The property is zoned agriculture and is
within the Shorland district of an
unnamed stream. The project is located
in the southeast quarter of the
northeast quarter of section 21
Jamestown Township. At the planning
commission meeting, staff presented the
staff report. The applicant was present
and confirmed the information presented
within the staff report. There were no
comments provided by the public.
Following the discussion, the planning
commission voted unanimously to forward
a recommendation of approval to the
county board based on the findings and
conditions presented by staff. The
request for board action is passage of
the resolution based on the
recommendation of the planning
commission.
Thank you.
So, at this time, we'll open the public
comment portion of the hearing. If you
would like to make a comment regarding
PC16-26,
please come to the podium. State your
name and address for the record.
Anyone wishing to speak to PC16-26?
Anyone wishing to comment?
All right, we will close the public
comment portion of the hearing.
And can I get a motion?
>> I will move approval.
>> Second.
>> I have a motion and a second to approve
the resolution for PC16-26.
Any discussion?
All in favor?
>> I
>> oppose. Motion carries. And we'll move
on to our final item.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. PC17-26
is the last planning and zoning item,
the applicants Blueorth County, and it's
a request for review and approval of an
ordinance amendment to chapter 14, which
is the shoreland chapter of the um
county code, and chapter 24, the zoning
chapter of the county code to allow
seasonal produce or farm stands and
commercial outdoor recreation areas in
shoreland districts. The ordinance
amends the definition of both uses and
updates the associated standards for
these uses in the county code. At the
planning commission meeting, staff
presented the report. There was one
member from the public uh who provided
comment in support of the ordinance
amendment. The individual discussed her
agra business and the importance of a
tourism in the county. Following the
discussion, the planning commission
voted unanimously to forward a
recommendation for approval to the
county board based on the findings
prepared by staff. In the board action
is passage of the ordinance based on the
recommendation of the planning
commission.
>> Okay. Thank you.
So, at this time, we'll open the public
comment portion of the hearing. If you
would like to make a comment regarding
PC17-26,
please come to the podium, state your
name and address for the record.
Anyone wishing to speak to PC17-26?
Anyone wishing to make comment?
All right, we're going to close the
public comment portion of the hearing.
Any discussion?
>> Can I get a motion?
>> Move to approve.
>> Second.
>> Motion in a second. Now, any discussion?
>> All in favor?
>> I
>> oppose. Motion carries. This will
conclude the planning and zoning items
and closing the public hearing. Thank
you.
>> Thank you.
» Madame Chair. We are definitely ahead of
schedule, much faster than what we
anticipated. I think one thing we could
do is we could go through the
administrative items at this point in
time. And I think we'll still have a
little bit of time, but then at that
point, we could take a a break until we
and we go into our next 1010 agenda item
for the close session.
>> Everybody okay with that?
>> I'm okay with that.
>> Okay, let's do it.
>> All right, the first item we have is the
approval of the August 11th uh minutes.
So moved.
>> Second.
>> I have a motion and a second for the
minutes. All in favor? Any discussion?
[laughter]
>> All in favor? [cough]
>> I oppose. Motion carries.
>> Right. Next we have the bills for the
two weeks.
>> I move the bills.
>> Second.
>> Motion a second for the bills. Any
discussion? All in favor?
>> I opposed. Motion carries.
Next, uh, we have the human resources
agenda. We do have one action item as a
result of some some turnover in our
human resources department. We took this
opportunity to look at doing a I would
say a slight reorganization to just um I
think make us um be a little bit more
responsive to our department's needs and
what they have. And so what we're doing
with that is we're looking at um
changing it that we'll have actually two
coordinators within the human resources
department. One really on the employee
benefit side and the other on the
employee relations compliance and with
the compliance is doing everything with
our aa FMLA that type of training. So
what I would respectfully ask of the
board is authorization to initiate
recruitment for the human resources
coordinator employee relations and
compliance position.
Move to approve.
>> Second.
>> I have a motion in a second. Any
discussion?
>> HR is only getting harder.
It has continued to be challenging and I
would say one of the things that I I do
worry in the future still are um taking
care of paid medical leave with the the
new state law has has definitely proven
to be challenging not only for us but
talking with area um county
administrators this last week there's a
lot of time energy and effort of trying
to go to to really coordinate that
program.
>> All in favor?
>> I oppose. Motion carries.
>> All right. Next we have theformational
items. We have the resignation of human
resources specialist and then we do have
a employment of an account clerk within
human resources. Um an employment of a
correctional officer. Um have a
resignation of our public works
accountant and then recruitment is initi
initiated for our public works
accountant. And then finally we have
employment of a land use planner for
feed lots. That would conclude
theformational. If there's any question,
I'd be happy to answer those.
>> Looks good.
>> All right. Um, last item under
administrative items is a gambling
permit. Um, this is a gambling permit
that's coming out from the Wasika Hockey
Association. And this is for at the
Indian Island Winery. Um, this is
something that we've addressed the the
gambling at the Indian Island Winery
recently. And this is adding an
additional organization. This was res um
reviewed by planning and zoning to make
sure this complies and everything
checked out. So I would request approval
of this uh new gambling permit.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>> Motion in a second. Any discussion?
>> All in favor?
>> I oppose. Motion carries.
So, we should go to a break.
>> I think we could, you know, at this
point,
>> you know what? I think we'd have time.
That's what I was Thank you,
Commissioner Pap. I think we'd have time
to do the committees as well.
>> Go ahead, Commissioner Pap.
>> All right. Since our August 11th uh
meeting, board meeting, um then we all
attended the Nicola County joint
meeting. August 13th uh participated in
the University of Minnesota drainage
conference as well as a drainage work
group. And later that day uh
participated with the chair and
congressman Finstead uh Congresswoman
Fishbach and GT [clears throat] Thompson
the chairman of the house a committee
round table where we talked about
[cough]
[clears throat] specifically the SNAP
shifts and the costs that we'll added on
the property taxes. had an opportunity
on the 14th to attend an egg lunchon
with the congressman and the house egg
uh chairman to uh reiterate those snap
cuts as well as a JD36 meeting. On the
17th was the Blue County Farm Bureau
annual meeting. August 18th work session
and JD36 meeting and then August 20th
through 21st I participated in AMC
strategic planning and board meeting.
That completes my report.
>> Thank you.
>> All right. After our last meeting, I
also was at the joint meeting with
Nicollet County. That was a good
discussion over there with our
colleagues. Uh had a Micah call last
month. They are not doing anything in
person. Uh, and we will also see them
later today, my understanding. So,
you'll be able to get an update from
them. Uh, was also at the University of
Minnesota's
drainage. Did you report that, Kevin?
Oh, I think drainage drainage day. Uh,
and then a couple dis inspections after
that, the JD36 benefits discussion with
some staff, the Farm Bureau meeting,
which uh I thought was very informative.
They always do a nice job there. the
work session, uh, some more discussion
on JD36, and then earlier this week, I
had some discussion with staff on county
ditch 88 and 93. So, a lot of ditch
stuff always.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair.
>> You're welcome. Thank you, Vince.
>> All right. Uh, let's see. So, I also
went, uh, and visited Nicollet County.
That was a a nice visit over there. Um
on the 12th I had an MRCI day services
summer picnic over in St. Peter. On the
13th um myself and Commissioner People
had a Canvas meeting um to make sure all
your elections went well.
Um,
on the 17th I had a Minnesota
Transportation Alliance Legislative uh
meeting and that evening we had our Farm
Bureau meeting where four of us showed
up. Um, let's see, we had a work session
on Tuesday the 18th
and let's see here.
Um yesterday uh there was an AMC
legislative platform and priorities
process
and uh that I zoomed in on and that's
the end [clears throat] of mine.
>> Great Mark.
>> Okay. Yep. Let's see. Well, then we did
have a joint meeting uh with Nick
Lacone. Uh then like Vance had the with
our uh
We had our uh let's see what you want to
call it. Um
yeah, with oh with the uh
we had the work session then on August
18th and then the uh
>> what was that advance? What did you
>> had that one joint?
>> Yeah, we had the uh
>> the canvasing board.
>> Yes, canvas canvas canvas board is what
it was. Excuse me. Yep. I was trying to
conclude my Yep. Read my writing.
[laughter]
>> Happens to us all.
>> All right. Tai two went to the Nicollet
County meeting on the 11th. On the 12th,
I had region 9. On the 13th, uh the
community liaison meeting with St. Peter
Forensic Services and in the afternoon
with the round table with Congressman
Finstead.
the 17th Farm Bureau, 18th work session,
the 20th I had TDS, and the 21st I had
my FICA meeting with my new chair, Todd
Patzer. And that ends my report.
Right, Madam Chair, I think what we
could do is go into the the closed
meeting and give time to set up
technology, um, use the restroom, take a
small break, and then meet over across
the hall to continue that meeting.
>> Sounds like a plan. So the next agenda
item is to close the meeting persu
persuant to Minnesota statute section
13D.05
subdivision 3B to receive legal analysis
and advice regarding a pending civil
legal action from Blur County Attorney's
Office and outside council. The board
and its attorneys will discuss legal
strategy and settlement discussion. It
would be detrimental to the county's
interest for the board to hold a public
discussion about these matters. At this
time, I would entertain a motion that
this meeting be closed persuant to the
county attorney priv the attorney client
privilege.
>> So moved.
>> All right. I have a motion
>> second
>> and a second. All those in favor?
>> I
>> oppose. The motion carries. The board
will now close this meeting under the
Minnesota statute section 13D.05
subdivision 3B for a meeting with the
Blue Earth County Attorney's Office and
outside council. Thank you.
All right, we will call this meeting
back to order. Thank you everyone
[clears throat] for your patience.
Um, I need a motion
to accept the settlement agreement and
release of all claims.
>> So move
>> I have a motion
>> second
>> and a second. Any discussion?
All in favor?
>> I
>> opposed. Motion carries. Thank you all.
>> All right. Are we moving into human
services then? Right.
» Come on up. Good morning.
>> Come on up.
>> My agenda is all messed up, so I don't
know where I am.
>> Yes. [laughter]
>> You're good.
>> All right.
» Well, welcome.
>> Thank you much. It's good to see you
all.
Thanks for hearing us today. I um have
just one action item, Madam Chair, for
the board today to look at and that is
an appointment for advisory committee
and it's um Josh Birkinpass
and he is a resident of commissioner
district 4, professor of political
science at MSU
and um Josh has previously served as a
member of our committee. So we welcome
him back. But that is it for my actions.
>> So moved.
>> I have a motion.
>> Second
>> and a second. Any discussion?
>> All in favor?
>> Opposed? Motion carries.
» Thank you, Matt. Yeah, madam chair. A
couple offormational discussion items.
Um I'm very pleased to have both Sarah
Johnson and Lynette with me to talk
about adult foster care licensing first
and then adult protection. I think it's
always so great to have the people that
are in the trench tell our story. And so
I'll just turn it right over to Sarah to
begin with and talk about um adult
foster care licensing. And I guess our
whole picture of foster care is in the
packet. So
>> is Oh, perfect. Okay. So yes, our
picture of our adult foster care and our
CRS. So that's our our residential
foster homes. Um just for this uh month
we just are talking about just the adult
foster care homes and the CRS homes. So
we do other kinds of licensing as you
all [clears throat] know. Um as you can
tell we have our adult foster homes have
gone down quite significantly um gone
actually almost split in half since
2021. Part of that reason is the state
has upped um the fees that those
families have to pay to be licensed and
because of that um a lot of those
families just said they cannot afford to
pay the fee and stay licensed. Um but
the other homes have gone up. They
continue to rise and they're bigger
their facilities. People don't live at
those homes. They're usually have staff
that provide those services for them. So
those those homes can afford those those
fees and so those continue to rise. Um
and [snorts] we do work a lot with um my
licenser in this area does work a lot
with actually the other DD supervisor
Lindsay about if they we need to um
build more homes and what that looks
like for our community and we are
focused on serving our residents of this
community and not residents outside of
our agency or our county. Um, other than
that, I hope you have questions.
>> Can you walk us through just the number,
Sarah, because I think it's kind of a
striking number of beds as far as the
um, you know, corporate foster care
and then just how that kind of compares
to the region. If you have any comment.
>> Yes. So, we, as you all know, we're the
hub of this region. So, most people do
come to Mano um, to build their homes.
We have a few homes outside of Mano, but
I think as you can see above, I think we
have like the majority of our homes are
Mano homes. I mean, we have one in
Mapleton, two in Lake Crystal,
um nine in Eagle Lake, and I think
that's cuz Eagle Lake is close to Mano,
so there's more availability for people
to go there. Um, also the homes may have
like two, like they might have one
person living in the home, they could
have up to like four to five, six people
living in the home. So that's why the
homes and the number of beds differ. Um
so and then they might have staff in the
homes where they might have to hire
employee staff for like a onetoone for a
person. Some staff you can have um like
one staff could help a couple different
people in that home. So that kind of
depends on they they look for um the
needs of that person in that home and
know the dangers or if there's any like
higher medical needs or higher like
supervision levels that would determine
how many people are in that home. They
also look at if you know one person
might not be able to live should be
living alone and should not be living
with other people. So they'll look at
that um and they can develop those homes
but people need to come into our agency.
They need to request licensing. they
need to become licensed. Um, and then
everything goes up to DCUF to approve
the licensing before we would put anyone
in any of those homes.
>> Is that helpful?
>> Any other questions?
» It's too bad that they got priced out. I
mean,
>> yeah. Um, and Madam Chair and Sarah,
[laughter] um, I was curious just on the
family foster care part. So, that priced
out piece. Um, do those are those mostly
family members or is that not so so
much?
>> No, it doesn't necessarily need to be a
family member. Um, we had a a couple
homes in our county for a long time that
did adult foster care and they weren't
always having someone at their home, but
they were always open and available for
people, but then I believe the fee is
like 2500 or something. And that doesn't
matter if people are in your home or not
in your home, you still pay that fee.
And a lot of those smaller places, we're
like, we we can't afford that. I mean,
we're not in the business of we're not
making any money, right? And that's not
our business and but we can't afford
$2,500 because it's, you know, our home.
We're these bigger residential settings.
You know, their facilities,
>> they bring in a lot more income.
>> It's such a great mission for a family
to be willing to open their home and the
corporate side too. And then I the only
other comment I add Sarah is that the
combination like you say sometimes the
people who are serving have behaviors
and who their roommates are. So it's no
different than college. You say who are
you going to be roommates with and how
does that go? And that that is part of
what we try to manage throughout with our providers in town. So it's it's
a big part of our community and
>> yeah really really
>> and I should say most all of these
people that are living in this homes
also have a a case worker with them. So,
it's not just the licenser overseeing
the what's going on the home, but they
do oversee to make sure everybody is um
in compliance with their license, but
usually their social workers also
involved.
>> And that's what the $2,500 is for, just
to be make sure they're in compliance
with the license.
>> Well, it doesn't go to us, it goes to
the state.
>> So, what are they doing for their
$2,500? Do we know?
>> I don't think we know.
So they're
>> privileged to do the work, but
>> you're you're you're making someone pay
to be a volunteer
>> almost.
Yes.
>> And then on top of that, you're not even
providing a service
>> of why you're charging me the $2,500,
but then it puts a burden on our
taxpayers because we have to take care
of that
>> cost somewhere if people aren't doing it
>> right. I think we're just we're losing
that second that ability to have
somebody live in a family setting
because that's where the the family
rooms are a family setting. You know,
you have your bedroom, you have
>> your own space, and you know, it's like
you're living with a family. When the residential settings that
>> they are still in homes, but they're
much more structur structured. They're
much more um
>> you know, you can only be in the kitchen
for this amount of time or you know, you
can only like this is your food. You
know, it is kind of like Phil said, it's
college kind of setting area. staff
working shifts and they come and go and
so it just has a different
>> that's just it's just frustrating that
it is
>> that they're charging us more.
>> I would say chair and commissioner that
this issue it's like one that I think
we're very passionate about. I mean you
heard Lynette say too is that we see
this as a mission. I don't think anybody
does it for the money. And um if we
could think, you know, forward looking,
could we help this at all? Not
necessarily locally, but try to get the
state to pull that back to something
that's at least reasonable. Um yeah, I
mean, I I'm sure the argument would be
that those fees help to pay the state to
do their work, us to do our work. Well,
we don't get it. But, um I I I just
think we have to have a heart for the
people that are willing to put
themselves in that spot and open their
homes up. It's a pretty big give. Yeah.
>> You know, when I grew up, there was like
one home on every block.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Right. That's right. And it
was really cool. I always encouraged
people to do it. Now, it's hard to
encourage people to do it. Say, "Oh, by
the way, there's big upfront fee that
you have to pay."
>> Right.
>> Well, [cough and clears throat] I'm
sorry. Along with like the trainings and
everything else they have to stay to
stay up to date and compliance in
compliance with their license. I mean,
it would be helpful if even the
legislature or the state could say we'll
have this fee for like these bigger
facilities that can afford this, but
maybe we'll [cough] we'll lower it to
whatever for these family foster homes,
>> right?
>> Should be some sort of scale on it. But
I don't know if I would uh I certainly
would like to go after the state, try to
get them to go, but I think I would also
>> encourage you to,
>> you know, look at inside of our system.
Would it would it be in our best
interest
>> to pay the fee? And can we and is there
a way to I, you know, I don't think I
would shut that out because if we could
save
>> money
>> 10 times the money over here.
>> Totally agree.
>> Can we give a grant or can we give a,
you know, for these people that are and
I can understand their frustrations. I
mean, $2,500 is a lot of money when
you're trying to help somebody and
you're already,
>> you know, and I would imagine they get
paid some sort of PDM, but it ain't
enough to cover.
>> They do, but
>> the extra cost and insurance, it's your house,
>> wear and tear in your house,
>> you know, food. It's all those other
things when you have extra people living
in your home. I I certainly would not be
I think your staff should and I'm sure
you would without me suggesting it, but
I would just say let's tell the state
not to if we if we hit that roadblock.
>> Sure.
>> And it is truly a roadblock and they
ain't going to help us.
>> Yes.
>> And you guys can find some other way to
>> think of a way to deal with that to keep
these people helping us out. I think
that would be money well spent in my
opinion. We have to get board support
>> and if the Yeah. if the board's okay
with us just informally to have Sarah
bring that back to her group, her
supervisor group and then try to get it
to the state and just see what is there
any movement there that we could get and
if not I think we could bring it back
here and say I don't think they're doing
anything and so it's up to us if we want
to do
>> I just think we have to leave that open
that important system.
>> Thank you.
>> Yeah, thank you very much.
>> Thank you.
Well, Madam Chair, the uh next one is uh
adult protection and there is some
crossover here. So, people in a group
home that might have some concerns about
come [cough and clears throat] into play
here and then obviously extended family
comes into adult protection as well. So,
Lynette will kind of walk us through
that. And yeah, any questions? I just
really appreciate the chance to drill
into some of these specific program
areas. They're they're smaller than some
of the other things we talk about, but
they're really important and there's a
lot of work that's being done by staff
and I just it's so nice to be able to
kind of tell our stories.
>> Yeah. Thank you for having us today. Um
I'd like to start out just um with
letting you all know some background
information about what's going on with
adult protection at the state. They have
required us the last two years to set a
goal for how many reports are we
screening in? They would like to see us
hit to hit the mark of 30%.
Um I set a goal at 28 actually 31% they
would like us to hit the target um of
screening in um I set a goal for 28% uh
presently in 2026 we are at 26%
of screening in the reports that come
in. On this first slide that um is up on
the screen, it shows the overall reports
that have come in um from year 2022 to
2025.
If you take a look at 2022, we had a um
the reports that were um reported to
Mark, our Minnesota adult abuse
reporting center, because we no longer
take the calls at Blue Earth County.
Child protection still takes the calls
of I want to make a child protection
report for adult protection. It all goes
to the state reporting system which is a
call center.
>> Okay.
>> So the reports go there. They figure out
okay this is awith county report. They
send it through SSIS
which is our um social services
reporting system. Um they send it there.
We get the reports and then we screen
them based on that. So if you see the
agency reports are quite a bit lower for
every year allegations are higher that's
because most reports come in with more
than one allegation. So it might be care
never caregiver neglect and physical
abuse or it might be emotional abuse and
self- neglect or whatever. So most
reports come in with more than one um
neglect listed. So that's but as you see
we had quite a jump from five uh 620 uh
actually 522 and 24 to 624 reports in
2025.
Another thing I'd like to mention about our reports that come in uh the
state of Minnesota allows us to develop
what's called prioritization guidelines.
And um one of our prioritization
guidelines is if we get a report for
self- neglect and that person has a case
manager,
we refer that back to that case manager.
And as we get into the data about how
many reports on self- neglect we've had.
Um you can see our reports are really
high. And you know, our argument behind
that prioritization guideline that we
use is that if there is already somebody
connected to them and they have a
relationship within Blue Earth County,
it makes the most sense for that person
who already has a relationship with
them, who's built rapport with them to
go out and really work at offering
suggestions and options and ways to
reduce that self- neglect.
Uh then moving on to
the
allegations by type. What's up there?
>> Allegations by type.
>> Yep.
>> Um so you can see that in 2025, which is
the blue, we had 348
reports of self- neglect. I will tell
you that the majority of those reports
that come in for self- neglect are
mostly because people have significant
mental health issues and or and I say
and or because typically those issues
come along with an addiction or they
come along with um physical disabilities
just based upon all the years that they
haven't taken care of themselves.
So our reports in self- neglect have
become very complex and very very time
consuming. And then on top of that for
self- neglect the state has changed how
we substantiate.
So for specifically for self- neglect
they um have gone from um before we
could substantiate yes you have self-
neglected to now we can't substantiate
but we can say they need adult
protection services or the person
doesn't need adult protection services.
So really it's a matter of our workers
going out and determining you know do
these people have um competence. Do they
understand the consequences
of their actions that okay if I don't
take my medications and go to the doctor
you know I could have a blood clot
thrown because I have heart arrhythmia
and um you know I need those medications
and that consistent medical care. So,
it's really about determining does that
person have competence and also if
they're willing because you can go out
and if a person has competence to make
poor decisions and poor choices,
they can unless [clears throat]
we have enough information and we have
maybe some neurossychological
assessments completed or we have a
physician that says, um, yeah, we would
be willing to fill out a physician
statement for conservatorship because
this person can no longer manage their
money for whatever reason and or for
guardianship.
So I think just really the main thing
that I wanted to touch on on this slide
is just that our self- neglect has gone
up so high and how things have changed a
little bit in our system as far as
substantiations and and decisions made.
And can I just say a little too about
that status of self- neglect because
um you look at that and a family member
will say to us with the motion this
person is not doing well and we would
agree but can we then based on the legal
parts and Pat's office you know do we
have a case to bring commitment and and
we we I think we are very quick to do
that if we feel we do have a case and
certainly feel a lot of support from the
county attorney's office in that regard.
But there's a whole bunch of cases where
they are competent to make their own
decisions. They just choose some
unhealthy decisions. And we are legally
and practically powerless over some of
that is just the truth. I'm not always
comfortable with this discussion, but
you you got to draw the line, you know,
somewhere. And then I think Lynette and
our staff actually we get you know a lot
of angry people telling us that we
should do something but stepping in and
you've heard about the whole MAPA thing
with child protection. It's the same
dynamic is how where is that line where
people are pretty assertive about the
county should step in and fix this.
>> And there's times where we literally
can't and there's times where it's just
practically impossible if somebody is
competent and they don't want help. So I
just I emphasize that just from my chair
because you guys are just you roll with
it and staff don't get weighed by that.
But it's a heavy burden when you know
things aren't great and it might not be
the way we would live or want our our
family members to live either but
there's limits to what we can do.
And you know, our our adult protection
manual too says like we want to take
what that person is saying and be person
centered and and work with them and
instead of right away, you know, jumping
to the most restrictive things that we
can do.
>> All right. And then our next slide is on
the SSIS determinations um by type. So
this was you know if we can substantiate
which means the allegation is true and
you know we had very few substantiations
in 2025
but I I really don't want that. I think
we had a couple of reasons for that. we
had a staff changeover
um where somebody resigned and it it
wasn't going real well with them and um
they did end up resigning and I think in
the end looking back over everything
there was probably things that could
have been substantiated that weren't. So
I I think that's the first part and then
I think the other part is because of the
cases that we are screening in take so
much time to kind of work through. It's
that acuity piece it takes a lot more
time. So just because it wasn't
substantiated doesn't mean that a lot of
work didn't go into that. hours of time
went in assessing the situation,
meeting, you know, multiple times with
the person to try to figure out, you
know, where they're at, how they're
doing, their competency level, those
kinds of things.
So, um really the the self- neglect was
um the highest and then we get into that
no determination APS needed or no
determination not a vulnerable adult or
sometimes we get that no determination
investigation not possible if the person
doesn't let us into their home and we go
out and we we take law enforcement with
us to see if that'll help get us in and
that person just says through the door I don't need you. I don't want you. I'm
doing fine on my own and that's it. So, that's that one. And then our last
one
um which I alluded to that um I sent a I
set a goal of 26% actually um we have
screened in 27%.
The state county average is at 30%.
The state would like us to be at 31%.
So that's the information I have to
share.
» I have a question for you.
Why does the state want you to be at a
certain percent? What is what's there?
>> Well, the national average of screen in
is like 50%.
>> But each state has its own like some
states say if you're 60 years old,
you're a you just automatically a
vulnerable adult.
>> So because the I take offense to that
[laughter]
>> in the club. Yes.
>> So,
>> and we we laugh about that, but that's
my struggle when your staff was in here
talking about the act
>> and how we have to come in and we have
to do everything for that person. If I'm
a family that wants to try to take care
of myself, but I just need this little
bit
>> and you come in and throw everything at
me,
>> I'd be crabby and I wouldn't deal with
it very well. I can tell you that from
my perspective. And so I just, you know,
we laugh about that, but that isn't
that's not the way it should be, right?
>> And and I'm sure you get very frustrated
with the people that don't let you in,
don't want their help. But you know
what? If that's what they want,
>> right?
>> If the family members can't deal with
it, you can't expect the county to deal
with it.
>> Yeah. It it's terrible. But
>> that's what that person wants. Um that's
what that person wants.
>> And and truth be told, adult protection
is reactive. We are not proactive. We
wait until something is, you know, bad
enough that it allow the the tool that
we use allows us to screen it in. We
don't go out going, "Oh, things might
get bad. They're going to trip and fall
in their house because it's hoarded."
You know, we wait until something
happens where EMS is called and they
can't get into the home because of the
hoorde. Then then we can. But it it is
the way. And it's hard for people to
understand that we're not react or we're
not proactive, we're reactive.
>> Yeah. And I I feel like that I I don't
want to be flippant either in my remark
here, but we get a lot of pressure from
families to say we should do more. And
we get not an equal number, but when
we're serving somebody, they say, "Stay
out of my house. Stay out of my life.
Stay out." And I get that and both are
valid, but that's how we find the
middle. And it's it's a little brutal
sometimes because you can't please
anybody any of the time. You know, it's
the people right in the middle that
might want a little bit that we come
alongside. But that's where your
comments about the social worker that
has a relationship with them. It's not
like we say, "Oh, you didn't meet
criteria and so we won't help you." It's
like we can come alongside you and still
help you with one or two things. What are those things? And that's
probably the best middle intervention,
right? um not commitments or just saying
we can't help you at all or having a
door slammed in her face which happens.
>> Tough job.
>> Thank you for your service.
>> Yeah, no doubt.
>> Thanks you guys.
>> Thank you. Thanks for your time.
Appreciate it.
>> Good seeing you guys.
>> See you.
» All right.
Our friends from Micah are here.
>> All right.
» They didn't have to wait.
>> Come up. Come up front.
>> They didn't have to wait too long.
» Start off with Amber and
» Sounds like you got a plan. Nathan,
[laughter] that's Nathan. He's always
prepared.
>> Good morning. [snorts] Good morning.
>> Good morning.
>> Thank you so much for uh having us today
and giving us the chance to talk with
you all. Uh my name is Nathan Jessen.
I'm the executive director of the
Minnesota Inner County Association.
Um can we just go to the if am I to just
run through the slides right one by one?
Great. Um so you all know we're a
voluntary member organization 17
counties statewide. The suburban
counties and regional centers throughout
the state essentially the largest
counties outside. uh Henipin and Ramsey,
I'll have the team just kind of
introduce themselves as as they go
through. So, you can go to the next
slide.
Um I did want to talk a little bit about
our work. Of course, during the
legislative session, we're at the
capital. We're in committee meetings.
We're we're in meetings with
legislators, but during the interim,
we're working just as hard making sure
we're um connecting staff with one
another throughout the state and also
keeping um tabs on task forces or
meeting with legislators in the interim
to try and make sure we're setting the
priorities and hearing from counties uh
for 2027.
Um we also try to make sure we provide
an analytical lens to our work. Um and
that's a good transition to the next
slide I have here.
I want to provide just some data on
property taxes um and blue earth county
and provide some comparisons to both the
state and the non-metro micica counties.
So the non-metro micica counties are the
other regional centers throughout the
state. I want to say one thing about
this data to begin with. This is
assessment year 2025 taxes payable 2026
data. I know that uh I believe you all
had a presentation um earlier this
summer from the county assessor that was
talking about some preliminary
assessment year 2026 data. So that's if
it doesn't totally match up, that's why
uh this is the the best data we have for
these kind of statewide comparisons. Um
so when we're looking at net tax
capacity share, this is essentially what
you're taxing with your levy. I would
say that historically Blue Earth County
has always had um a strong commercial uh
and indust uh commercial uh property
share in particular and you can see
that's true there when you compare Blue
Earth to both the state or other
non-metro micica counties. Oh, I should
pause and say if you ever want to stop
and interrupt me, just go right ahead.
Um we don't need to wait for any
stopping point, but um and and that's shown here. Um and again Blue
Earth also heavier um a larger
percentage of a land property and that
uh that's both a homestead non homestead
and uh the house garage and 1acre kind
of rolled into one right there. Um so
that that's how Blue Earth County
compares. If you go to the next slide,
you'll kind of see what the assessment
year 2025 change was in comparison. This
is a one-year snapshot to be clear. Um,
and I think that uh and how compared and
how Blue Earth compares with the state
and non-metro uh Micah counties. I'd say
just kind of at the outset again a
one-year snapshot isn't going to give
you a great holistic picture, but it is
good data to have. I'm going to call out
the AL land value here in particular
just because it's obviously the number
that jumps out the most. a land values
are kind of uh notoriously volatile and
if you look at this uh data for based on
what you all saw earlier this summer for
assessment year 2026 well a landl values
are up 6.2%.
So um especially for the a landl values
that are more volatile that's going to
there is going to be some change from
year to year on that front. Um I do
think that if you look at the data here
non-metro mega counties in blue earth
county um in as well are much stronger
apartment value growth than the
statewide average. Um that kind of makes
sense. the uh apartment property values
increase and there was a lot of new
construction in the metro. I'd say 2018
to 2023 that's starting to level off,
but since 2023 we're starting to see
kind of stronger apartment value growth
statewide in particular in the regional
centers. Um you can go to the next
slide.
Um and so this is the last snapshot was
just a one-year snapshot. This is your
growth since 2021. Average annualized
growth in an estimated market value. Um,
a few things jump out here. Um, these
numbers are bigger. They include that
really large jump in values that we had
in 2023 when values increased about on
average statewide 17%.
Um, and I think again what stands out
here is really strong apartment value
growth. Um and for for Blue Earth
County, you can also see that um and the
non-metro micica counties commercial
values um and Blue Earth and statewide
are are growing a lot more slowly and
there have been years where they've been
completely stagnant or even negative.
[laughter] Um I should say this data is
inclusive of new construction. Um and of
course there hasn't been as much new
commercial construction statewide. Um
there has been some more on the
industrial side. You can see that in
some of these numbers. Um, but that's
kind of the picture of uh
[clears throat] the last five years. Um,
you know, Blue Earth, uh, some
difference between, uh, it non-metro
mega counties, particularly around
apartment value growth, but nothing, um,
that really jumps out, um, outside of
that. You can go to the next slide.
I did want to sometimes if you're just
looking at one year of change or five
years of change, it's a lot more
difficult to see how things change
slowly over time, but that change can
really accumulate. So I show what what
I'm showing here is the net pro property
taxes paid across these different
property types across all jurisdictions.
Um so this is for counties, cities, uh
you know, special taxing districts,
towns, um for uh the the overall trend.
So what jumps out in this data that's
true statewide and it's true in Blue
Earth County is the uh residential
property um is picking up a larger share
of the overall property tax burden than
it has before. This has been a really
consistent trend. Now, you don't really
see it when it's jumped when it's just
one year of difference, but I think
showing the data like this really shows
you how significant [clears throat] that
jump has been over the last 12 years. I
picked 2014 because that's the last time
there was a concentrated effort to try
to address rising property taxes at the
state level. you know, from 2015 to 2019
on average, property tax levies, I mean,
they were increasing on average every
year, but not to the extent that we've
seen them increase since 2023.
Um, and uh, property taxes at the
capital from really from 2015 to 2021,
while they were there was a property tax
committee, there are always discussions
around it. Nobody's ever like thrilled
with their property tax bill, right? It
was not a front and center issue the way
that I would say that it is um quickly
becoming at the capital now especially
post 2020 uh three and four. Um
and I think just that this this data
shows that um you know Blue Earth again
a strong commercial property share but
is seeing the same kind of trends that
are happening statewide. Um it's it's
not a unique issue. Of course, as uh
more retail has shifted from brick
andmortar to online, this kind of change
is inevitable. Um and uh that's that's an issue that we're we're having
to face because, you know, we're going
to talk a lot about a few issues that
are driving up property taxes, right?
This isn't the one issue that's
increasing homestead property taxes, but
as homesteads are picking up a bigger
share of the overall pie. All these
other things that are driving up
property taxes are going to be felt a
lot more acutely by homeowners than they
would have been even 10 or 15 years ago.
And I do think that's um notable.
Uh can you go to the next slide?
I did want to talk about a few things
that are going on this summer. I'm gonna
actually start with the property tax
task force or working group uh just
because it's related to what I was just
talking about. We were pushing for a
bill that would kind of look at what's
driving increases in property taxes and
what are some of this and take a look
into this data to show how much more
homeowners are paying than they were 12
years ago. that uh bill did get positive
action in both the House and Senate,
which means, of course, it did not end
up becoming law. Um [laughter]
uh but uh the Commissioner of Revenue,
Paul Markwart, decided, okay, well,
we're going to take a look at the system
and still see what we can do and and
start holding meetings. So, those
started about two weeks ago. Um it's
really trying to talk about a lot of
these same issues. were really pressing
them to consider the data that I I've
shared with you and also kind of what's
driving property tax increases
particularly when we're talking about
unfunded mandates from the federal and
state government. um you know it is uh
because there's no legislative mandate
it's kind of uh ambiguous where they're
going or what's kind of the purpose of
these discussions a lot of the time I
was meeting with the commissioner and he
said publicly that well we're not going
to talk about property tax shifts or
recommending any property tax shifts
because those are really controversial
and we all know there's not money in the
state budget to you know pour a lot of
money into the property taxes system,
which you know, I raised the point,
well, if you're not talking about
shifting property taxes or putting money
into the system, it's kind of difficult
to make changes to the property tax
system. If you're thinking about that,
um I would say that right now, um he's
been really focused on well, what can we
do to increase citizen involvement and
the property tax process? Um, we already
do have a pretty robust system when
you're comparing Minnesota to other
states when it comes to citizen
involvement and I know you all have your
own uh process and you know citizens can
come and talk to the county board and
the budget setting process is not just
one meeting. Um, so we are continuing to
talk with him about that. When he was in
the legislature he had a lot of bills
that he introduced in this area. Um, so
it is something that I think is a
long-standing interest of his. Um but
that the recommendations are planned to
come out in December, but we'll keep you
all posted on that. Uh the modernization
group, of course, we uh had 201 votes
for a modernization bill back in May. Um
so as part of that bill we created this
modernization advisory group with both
state agency appointees and county
appointees uh with equal representation
to oversee the use of those funds so
that we make sure we have a role in the
priority priority setting process for
what types of projects get approved and
what doesn't. Um that group is scheduled
to meet for the first time before
September 15th. We're also working with
the Association of Minnesota Counties on
a broader kind of modernization steering
committee so that the four
representatives um county
representatives to that group are
informed by the state um county
perspective as a whole. Um there's not
uh again they're planning to meet um
before September 15th. We'll have more
for you then. But there have been kind
of these broader county discussions that
we've been having and setting trying to
figure out, okay, well, where do we rank
our own priorities amongst one another?
The last one I wanted to touch on is
this uh duty disability working group.
So in 2023,
the legislature appropriated $105
million one time to address the rising
cost of duty disability. So, these
aren't folks uh that are have a total
impermanent disability, but if a public
safety officer is no longer able to
perform their job um and is ruled that
way um and given that benefit from PAR,
um they can claim duty disability and
seek cover work. Uh this fund of $105
million is projected to run out in
fiscal year 2028. Once it does, this
shifts from a funded mandate to an
unfunded mandate. Um, and to be clear,
most public safety officers, uh, this is
a larger, if we're talking percentage of
the pie, it's a larger city budget issue
than is a county budget issue, but it is
a significant county budget issue, too.
Um, so this group has been meeting at
least weekly since June. Um, has
legislators serving on it.
Representative Terry Steer is the chair.
Um and we've essentially been um
reviewing what other states are doing in
this area. How do they treat duty
disability? Is Minnesota unique in this
significant spike we've seen in these
cases particularly um post 2020? Um and
the answer is yes. Minnesota is unique.
Um most other states are not
experiencing this spike. Um serving on
this group are both public employers and
public employees. public employees are I
think interest interested in addressing
this issue because this is really
weighing down the health of their own
pension fund. the police and fire
pension fund just has a fixed 1% colon
right um so I think there is some mutual
interest um and resolving the issue it's
the how of it that becomes extremely
challenging because um the state budget
situation which I'll talk a little bit
more uh once we wrap up um is what it is
um there's not $105 million that we can
pour into this um every four years um
representative Terry Steer has said that
acknowledge that okay Minnesota has a
more generous benefit. He's more focused
on trying to tighten eligibility. It's
fairly
um simple for uh folks that decide that
they want to try to get beauty
disability um to achieve that benefit.
Though they do have to go through a
24-week treatment process to do that. Um
so this is kind of another ongoing
budget issue for talking about potential
unfunded mandates that we're keeping an
eye on going into the 2027 legislative
session. Um, I am just going to pause
there. I just threw a lot at you. Um,
I'm going to hand it off to Amber in a
second. We'll come back um to close us
out, talk [clears throat] about the
state budget, but did just want to see
if folks had any questions so far.
» It's a lot.
>> Well,
great. Thank you, uh, Madam Chair and
commissioners. Amber Back has covered
the transportation and bonding issues
for Micah at the capital. Um so just
wanted to bring a couple different
things to your attention. Um one is we
were very pleased to see the legislature
pass a $1.2 billion bonding bill this
last session. Uh transportation was a
beneficiary of that which with almost
15% of the funds going to different
transportation projects and we were glad
to see the LRIP as uh funded again as
part of that. um wanted to make you
aware that um MDOT is going to start
taking applications if you have eligible
um county roads that could qualify for
these programs. The application um
process opened September 1st and is
through November 25th, but considering
you got a big $ 1.5 million this past
cycle. [laughter] I don't know if you'll
have something else again, but
congratulations on that this last time.
Um, the one thing I wanted to update on
this slide is just last week, uh, Mindad
did decide what the split of the
revenues between county municipal state
aid roads and non-state aid roads would
be. Um, and they're keeping the same
split they've had in the past with 35%
of the, um, funds for counties, 30% for
MSA roads, and 35% for other local
entities. And as far as the metro
greater Minnesota splits, um that 35%
for the counties and it's they're going
to try to get to 1/8 to each um mind
district. So it would be spread u around
the state. Um next slide, please.
And then wanted to flag some issues um
that we are watching going into the 2027
legislative session.
Um, first of all, we're kind of
concerned that um, there could be
attempts to take transportation funds,
especially those that are statutoily
dedicated, and keep them in the general
fund, especially since the state is
going to be facing a structural deficit,
which Nathan will tell you more about.
Um, but if you recall in 2023, um, the
legislature statutoily dedicated all of
the revenues from the, um, sales tax on
auto parts to transportation, and that
was going to be phased in overtime. Um
but then in 2025 they slowed in that
phase in because of potential budget
deficits and we're concerned that could
continue to happen next year. So um
we'll keep watching that very closely.
And I also think with affordability
being a big issue these days and people
complaining about their license tab
fees, some sort of permanent reduction
in the tab fee increase that was passed
in 2023 could be on the table next year.
I've heard transportation members in
both the House and the Senate, Democrats
and Republicans saying that is something
they want to revisit. Um, and you know,
it was very popular this past year to do
a onetime cut of $250 million um to
that. Fortunately, there was general
fund money to backfill that so the
transportation funds don't take a loss,
but going forward, we're concerned with
how they would backfill any of those
cuts.
Um, another issue that has been ongoing
and unresolved and kind of plaguing us
is um, a law that was passed in 2023 and
tweaked in 2024 to require highway
expansion projects where you're adding
new lane miles or building a separated
grade interchange um, to have to um,
figure out the increased greenhouse gas
emissions of that project and then
mitigate them. Um, Mindot
[clears throat] has a technical advisory
committee that's been meeting um,
regularly for the past few years and
they've come up with how to assess the
amount of greenhouse gas emissions, but
they still don't have a great plan for
helping project sponsors um, offset
them. And a lot of the mitigations fall
outside the realm of transportation,
making it very difficult to figure out
how these are going to work. For
example, one of the things that you get
the most bang on the buck for are
changes in land use and greater density.
But neither Mandot nor counties have the
ability to compel cities to change their
zoning to to achieve that. So that's a
concern. Um and there haven't been any
projects that have gone through this
process until just now. Washington
County is trying to figure out offsets
for an interchange project and it's very
complicated and is even raising more
concerns. So we're kind of keeping tabs
on that to see how this is going to pan
out. But we do do really believe there
need to be some changes to the o over
overarching framework here in terms
[clears throat] of governance of how you
do this mitigation as well as just
providing funds because all these
mitigations are expected to increase the
cost of transportation project
significantly.
And then along these lines um especially
if there is a Democrat trifecta again at
the legislature, we expect to see some
other pieces of legislation that would
put additional conditions on building
new highway projects. Um there were
several bills out there last year that
we expect to come back. Um one would
halt pro highway expansion unless you
have a 60-year maintenance plan with a
source of funding identified and nobody
comes up with 60-year maintenance plans
for roads. Bridges, yes, but roads, no.
I mean, MDOT doesn't have the budget for
this. Um some of the other proposals
would require more emphasis on
alternatives to highway expansion, which
might make sense in the metro area, but
not necessarily in other locations of
the state, including Blue Earth County.
um as well as having to come up with new
statements of need and reasonableness to
demonstrate why you are doing any sort
of highway expansion project. So um
we'll be keeping tabs on those and
keeping you updated, but I'd be happy to
pause there and answer any questions if
you have them.
» So much fun
>> that it is. [laughter]
Well, thank you. Oh, and I do want
quickly want to give a shout out to your
um engineer Ryan Tes. has been an
incredible resource, very active in our
engineers group and really appreciate
his council as we're dealing with some
of these issues at the capital. So,
>> thanks.
» I guess I'm up. Um, Madam Chair, good
morning, Madam Chair and Commissioners.
Nancy Celeleski and I handle both public
health and human services for Micah and
it's great being here this morning.
>> Uh, going into the 2026 session, all of
the county organizations had three of
the um same priorities. Nathan did talk
about technology modernization and I
just want to call out and thank all of
you and staff for showing up at the
capital because certainly all of the
legislators heard from us and it was it
was so much a hand all hands- on deck
issue. The other two issues progress was
made um on both SNAP and the act or the
math but CD CWDA.
However, because the legislature
appropriated only one-time money, we're
going to have to go back in 2027 and
seek ongoing funding.
So, starting with SNAP, uh counties will
be paying an increase share due to
recent federal uh action. Terms of the
administrative costs, Minnesota's one of
only three counties where um we're
responsible for the administration of of
that program or a portion of
administrative costs. The legislature
did appropriate $10.7 million, but
again, in one-time funding. It will be
allocated to counties based on their
proportional share of admin costs. Um,
effective October 1st of this year,
2026, our county share is being
increased from 50 to 75%.
And that is estimated to cost around $35
million annually. So, again, I want to
point out we received 10.7. So, we're
going to need need additional funding
here. Also, uh there's a new cost share
and it relates to the benefit, the
actual benefit that's effective next
year, July 1 of 2027,
uh when the government, federal
government is requiring us to pick up a
percentage of the benefit. And it's
based on our payment error rate. And I
just want to remind everyone that error
rates can be as simple as a
typographical error, a client not
returning um needed paperwork, outdated
technology, and while we've made
progress on that, it's going to take
some time of course for that to be um
upgraded. So the estimated cost for uh
counties based on the current air rate
is $138 million annually. So again,
we're going to have to [clears throat]
revisit that issue as well.
Next slide. um is MASPA CWDA.
Again, the 2026 legislature appropriated
15 million one time to address county
implementation costs. Based on that,
each county will receive a minimum of
$100,000 which is based on an existing
statutory formula and you can see that
formula on the slide. It's based on
child population in the county, the
number of screened in reports of child
maltreatment, as well as the number of
open child protection case management
cases.
In 2026, the agency DCYF did not receive
any funding for this and we as you are
well aware want them to do the case
review of these cases. So that was
delayed until July 1st of 2027.
And I would just remar or mention that
the working group does expire in
December 31st of 2026. And so really the
work has not been done. So I'm not sure
how that's going to work out um in terms
of the expiration of that group. The
last item I want to mention is long-term
services and supports or LTSS.
You recall in 2025 um in response to
massive cost shift proposals and this
came from everyone the Senate, the House
as well as the governor um the
legislature kind of punted it to the
next bianium and to to address that
counties and providers are charged with
finding $178 million in the system by
July 1st again of next year. A large
task force was put together um I think
it's over 30 people. We have six county
members on there, uh, two from Micah,
two from AMC, and two from MAXA along
with providers, consumers, and their
family members. They've started their
work and, um, actually found some
savings uh, this last year, which the
legislature did book those savings, but
did not account it toward the $178
million that we are responsible for
finding by next year. uh without the uh
the group continues to meet and they
have a number of of uh suggestions and
without um any action to book those
savings, counties are going to be
looking at another cost shift in July
one July of 2027. So, we're going to be
working hard on that issue as well.
>> Those are like the three our four top
issues I just want to mention and and
call out your staff as well. I've worked
with Phil Clawson for years and Eric
Slutton and they're both very much
active on on our committees and great
asset to not only you and Micah but
county statewide. Thanks. With that, I'd
answer any questions.
>> Questions?
I [clears throat] just wondering who the
other two um states where the counties
are responsible.
>> Oh, no. [laughter]
>> Just
I used to know this.
>> What's that?
>> I used to know this. Oh, [laughter]
>> let me look into that. I can't remember
which ones.
>> Maybe Colorado was
>> California or something. I don't know.
>> Yeah, sorry.
>> North Carolina was maybe one.
>> Yeah, I don't recall the other one.
>> Okay, I'm going to Google that.
>> I bet we'll have an answer. [laughter] I
bet we'll have an answer in a few
minutes.
>> We will.
Sorry.
>> All right. Um, if we can go to the next
slide, I can cover environment. Um,
madam chair, commissioners, my name is
John Paul Yates. um filling in for my
coworker Rachel Sis Noic who covers
environment issues for Micah. She's out
on maternity leave, so happy to fill in.
Um I'm going to cover three of these
items verbally on the list. The first is
around um defending waste to energy. Um
this spring the public utilities
[cough and clears throat] commission had
a docket related to the state's carbon-f
free standard um and issued a ruling
that allows for life cycle analysis to
be used to include the burning of solid
waste um under the state's carbon-f free
standard. And that ruling was [snorts]
um there was a petition by some
environmental groups to have that ruling
reconsidered um at the public utilities
commission's um July meeting um and so
they took up that petition but
unanimously rejected it. So the the
ruling will will stand there. Um the
second item under this bucket I wanted
to mention is related to um waste to
energy. There was legislation to
restrict um the Henipin energy re
recovery center, the herk um last
session. I think we'll continue to see
legislation introduced to to limit um
the burning of solid waste. Um and I
think depending on the outcome of the
election um that will kind of determine
how much legs those proposals have. Um
the second item is score grants. Um
these are um grants that help um
counties related to various hazardous
waste management programs. Um Michael
will reintroduce legislation that would
dedicate the remaining 27% of the solid
waste management tax collections that
are going to the general fund um to
increase funding for score grants. This
is an issue that's had broad bipartisan
support. Um expected to continue um to
be that way. Um and again just depending
on various election outcomes um be big
changes especially in the Senate tax
committee. So we'll just have to
navigate those on this issue. Lastly um
wanted to update related to product
stewardship programs. Broadly these just
try to um transition cost um and
management um for certain products from
um taxpayers to producers. Um there was
a battery bill that had been split off
previously from a larger e-waste bill.
Um that's gotten a lot of industry and
stakeholder negotiation over the last
year and is in pretty good shape to
potentially pass next year. Um so I
think it's very possible we'll see that
outcome. Additionally, what's left over
of that broader e-waste bill is likely
to also return. Um, but I think that one
still has a lot of stakeholder
engagement to go. Additionally, as the
paper and packaging products bill that
had passed a couple years ago is
implemented, we've seen kind of
reemergence of some of the opposition um
to work on that, but we'll continue to
monitor as that's implemented.
Happy to answer any questions if there
are any.
» Any questions?
All right, I will close this out here
over the next couple. Um, so what I've
got here in this table is basically the
current um fiscal picture of the state
general fund. This is post2026
legislative session. These dollars are
in millions. So you can and I should say
they don't factor in inflation. Um so
you can see basically that okay this
bianium general fund revenue billions
lower than general fund spending that
gap does shrink to about 2.2 billion in
fiscal 2829. The way that the state has
balanced its budgets um in the current
bianium since uh uh during this uh
legislative bium since 2025 session is
essentially by rolling over uh surplus
that they experienced during the 2324
session when we had that $18 billion
surplus, right? They didn't spend all of
it. They rolled a lot of it over. Um so
that's how they've been balancing the
[clears throat] budget. Um budget
reserve remains strong at 3.4 4 billion.
Um, since the last economic forecast, I
would say that the national economic
picture has weakened a little bit. Um so
when we get the next economic forecast
in December that means we're going to be
looking when we get those fiscal 30 and
31 look for the first time we're going
to the outbuing a lot of the time when
we're talking about revenue is really
dictated by the national economic
picture more so than what's going on in
Minnesota just because the predictive
nature of our economy is a little bit uh
the shorter time frames really when it's
the most helpful. So, what does this
mean at the capital? I mean, it means
that a lot of the challenges that we
were facing the last two years will
still be in place regardless of what
party is in the majority, right? Nancy
was talking about uh onetime money that
we did get to address, uh rising county
costs due to SNAP or the act. Um, you
know, but those were one time, right?
Those were band-aids. Um, you know, and
tax committee, uh, we're always looking
at ways that we can increase CPA or
other funds to make sure that counties
are offset for their costs. Of course,
when we're in a structural deficit,
that's more difficult. And when we're
not only is it more difficult at a time
when legislators are talking about
property taxes more, it means, okay, if
we can't solve it by increasing refunds
or increasing aid to counties, they
start looking in other areas, and that's
not always uh the most productive. um
because they're thinking about things
like levy limits or assessment caps that
it's particularly in um the environment
that we're in are I I mean they make
less sense than ever, right? Uh given
that the rising cost shifts um and
mandates that are coming onto the
counties. Um so that's a little bit of
the the picture. Um you can go to the
next slide
as far as Oh, I do want to just I I
forgot earlier. I do want to call out a
couple of your staff. Laura Alvak is the
chair of our Micah HR directors group.
She's extremely helpful on HR issues.
And of course, Michael Saulberger is an
asset on any number of issues, but I
really value his input, especially when
anytime we're talking about property
taxes or the property tax process.
There's a lot of knowledge there. Um,
but as far as what's next, um, right now
Micah is in the process of setting its
own priorities. Um, we've had some
conversations with our board already
about that and some informal things, but
I mean likely it's going to be some of
the stuff we've been talking about here
today, especially if it's something that
um or it's pushing back against cost
shifts um that that we'd be um looking
at in 2027. But the picture is going to
be different regardless of who ends up
in the majority. In the Senate in
particular, you've had a lot of
retirements on the DFL side. So some
significant chairs like Papis who chairs
uh bonding, Senator Rest who's been at
the capital for over 40 years is the
chair of taxes or Sandra Wickland was a
sen author of our HHS um modernization
bill. They're leaving and you know uh on
the House side, Representative Paul
Torlson is the party and that's I mean
you're talking about someone that's
really been an asset to counties who's
really a champion for our modernization
bill in the House. this uh JP mentioned
the Senate Tax Committee is going to
have all new GOP members because all of
their GOP members are retiring. They're
not running for reelection. Um so it is
difficult to forecast exactly kind of
who's going to be sitting in what chair.
Um but it is something that you know
regardless of what happens legislative
session comes back on January 12th.
We'll see um how everything shakes out.
Obviously all the constitutional offices
and all the legislative seats are up for
election. Um but our work is going to
you know uh what happens in November
will inform how um you know our strategy
to be sure. Um but the priorities are going to be the same, right? I I
mean they're they're the issues that are
facing counties across the state right
now. But I do just again wanted to close
by saying thank you so much. Um, we try
to make sure we're an asset to you, but
Blue Earth is also certainly an asset to
Micah and really informs our work and we really appreciate that. So, just want
to say thank you.
>> Thank you.
» All right.
I think that
>> is the end of our agenda.
>> Move to recess.
>> I have a motion to recess.
So move.
>> Do I have a second?
>> Second.
[laughter]
Second.
>> Any discussion? All in favor?
>> I opposed. We are in recess.
[music]