[1:32] [music]
[2:01] Good morning. Welcome to the board of
[2:03] commissioners meeting of August 25th,
[2:06] 2026.
[2:07] Please stand and join us at the pledge
[2:09] of in the pledge of
[2:10] >> Abel.
[2:13] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
[2:15] United States of America and to the
[2:18] republic for which it stands, one nation
[2:21] under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[2:24] justice for all.
[2:28] Thank you.
[2:29] >> All right. Agenda review. Josh.
[2:31] >> Uh, Madame Chair, um, I have one item to
[2:34] add to the agenda. Right after our close
[2:36] session, pursuant to Minnesota Statute
[2:38] 13 DO5, I would ask that we add to the
[2:41] agenda um, action for an approved
[2:43] settlement agreement after that close
[2:46] session.
[2:48] >> All right. Thanks, Josh.
[2:49] >> Move with the change.
[2:51] >> Second.
[2:52] >> I have a motion and a second. Any
[2:55] discussion?
[2:56] All in favor?
[2:58] >> I
[2:58] >> opposed. Motion carries. Thank you,
[3:00] Josh.
[3:02] [clears throat]
[3:04] >> All right. County ditch 56 acceptance
[3:07] hearing.
[3:11] » Good morning, Jordan.
[3:12] >> Morning.
[3:13] >> All right. So, here we go. Good morning,
[3:16] everyone, and welcome to the county
[3:17] ditch 56
[3:19] contract acceptance hearing. The first
[3:22] item is an agenda review.
[3:26] Um, no changes to the agenda, Madam
[3:28] Chair. Move
[3:29] >> the agenda.
[3:30] >> Second.
[3:30] >> I have a motion and a second for the
[3:32] agenda. Any discussion?
[3:34] >> All in favor?
[3:35] >> I oppose? Carries. [clears throat]
[3:40] » So, the purpose of today's hearing is to
[3:42] determine whether the contractor for the
[3:44] petition repairs affecting portions of
[3:47] branch 3 of County Ditch 56 has
[3:50] completed their contract in accordance
[3:52] with the plans and specifications.
[3:55] The order of business for this hearing
[3:56] is as follows. Staff will review the
[3:59] jurisdictional documents. We will hear
[4:01] from the appointed engineer and then we
[4:03] will open the hearing for public
[4:05] comments. So I'll now ask Blicker County
[4:09] drainage staff Jordan Williamson to
[4:11] review the jurisdictional documents.
[4:15] Um, notice was posted for this hearing
[4:17] outside the Blue Earth County Historic
[4:18] Courthouse located at 204 South 5th
[4:21] Street, Mano, Minnesota 560001.
[4:24] Hearing notice was mailed on August 7th,
[4:26] 2026. Notice of public hearing was
[4:29] published in the Mano Free Press on
[4:31] August 11th, 2026. And I have a memo to
[4:33] read here.
[4:36] The Blue Earth County Ditch 56, CD56 is
[4:40] located in Garden City and Lincoln
[4:41] Townships. The Blue Earth County
[4:43] Drainage Authority approved public bids
[4:45] for CD56 branch 3 repairs awarding the
[4:48] repair contract to Sy Excavating
[4:51] Incorporated on May 27th, 2025. Drainage
[4:54] management staff received the
[4:56] [clears throat] engineers acceptance of
[4:57] contract report for the county ditch 56
[4:59] branch 3 repairs on July 9th, 2026.
[5:02] All contractual work has been completed
[5:06] um by signed findings and orders today.
[5:08] Acceptance of contract hearing was set
[5:10] on July 28th, 2026.
[5:13] Today, we are respectfully asking the
[5:14] county ditch 56 drainage authority
[5:16] accept the drafted findings in order
[5:18] approving the engineers acceptance of
[5:21] contract report for the county ditch 56
[5:23] petitioned repairs and issue the release
[5:25] of any final payments due to the
[5:27] contractor and [clears throat] to pay
[5:28] damages as shown in the acceptance of
[5:30] contract report. That's all I have.
[5:33] >> Thank you, Jordan.
[5:36] I need a motion to accept
[5:38] >> accept the jurisdictional documents.
[5:41] >> Second.
[5:41] >> Motion in a second. Any discussion?
[5:44] >> All in favor?
[5:45] >> I
[5:46] >> oppose. Motion carries.
[5:49] We will now hear from our appointed
[5:51] engineer. Good morning.
[5:53] >> Good morning.
[5:53] >> Morning.
[5:56] » Um much like Jordan said, uh we're here
[5:59] today for the first of two final
[6:02] acceptance hearings. uh this one being
[6:04] Leworth County diction number 56 branch
[6:06] three and the repair efforts that took
[6:08] place on it. Uh this first picture we're
[6:11] looking at here is is generally the
[6:13] beginning of the uh of the project. Um
[6:17] and you can generally see the the course
[6:19] um of the repairs being branches three
[6:22] and lateral age. Um before I get too far
[6:26] into this, I guess I should introduce
[6:27] myself. I'm Jacob Mueller with ISG. Um
[6:30] I'm an engineer on the project. Um what
[6:33] we're looking at here is the watershed
[6:35] for Blue Earth County Ditch 56. It's
[6:37] comprised of a long stretch of open
[6:39] ditch and many subsurface tile branches,
[6:42] laterals, sublaterals. Uh the specific
[6:45] portion that we're looking at today is
[6:47] the branch three portion. Um kind of
[6:49] over here on the eastern extents just
[6:51] south of the city. A little bit of a
[6:53] closer look. Uh kind of shows some of
[6:55] the work that we've done. This this
[6:57] these repair efforts were looked at for
[6:59] quite a while. Um it's a very unique
[7:01] area in that there's been a lot of um US
[7:04] Fish and Wildlife grounds purchased in
[7:06] this area. Um kind of altering the
[7:08] utility of the uh subsurface tile lines.
[7:11] Many of the tile lines are are now under
[7:13] uh wetlands, no longer farmed areas.
[7:15] They route through those areas which are
[7:17] very very expensive to maintain um and
[7:19] difficult to maintain in perpetuity just
[7:21] with root intrusion. that the initial
[7:23] designs uh predominantly looked at
[7:25] reroutes and that was the design that
[7:27] land owners eventually selected.
[7:31] Um a bit on the construction timeline.
[7:33] This was bid in May of 20125. Um Sy
[7:36] excavating was the lowest responsible
[7:38] bidder on in that bid pool. Um and it
[7:41] was awarded to him at that date. Uh
[7:43] contracts were executed on in July of
[7:46] 2025. uh for that specific contract
[7:49] substantial completion was on November
[7:51] 30th of 2025 with that final completion
[7:54] being January 30th of 2026.
[7:57] Um the actual construction timeline uh
[8:00] went from July 21st of 2025 to October
[8:03] 3rd of 2025. So well within that
[8:05] substantial completion window. Um they
[8:08] did have some final punch list items
[8:10] that went slightly um beyond final
[8:12] completion. Um, but they kind of needed
[8:15] the weather to agree a little bit more
[8:16] to finish some of that finalized work
[8:18] and not disturb the fields as much as
[8:20] being in there in January would have.
[8:22] Here's some photos from the from the
[8:24] site. Uh, you can see a lot of this work
[8:27] was occurring in the summer just by some
[8:28] of the area. They had to use a trench
[8:30] box. Um, there's a fairly large waterhed
[8:33] that comes to the system. They dealt
[8:34] with a lot of water, had to use a lot of
[8:36] rock. Um here on the bottom right you
[8:38] can see one of the several road
[8:40] crossings that had to be open, cut and
[8:42] restored. Um all of those are in a a
[8:45] functional condition now. Um road road
[8:48] rightways have been receded. Uh areas
[8:51] were ripped and plowed after the fact um
[8:53] in the egg fields.
[8:55] Here's a couple more photos just
[8:57] detailing some of that site
[8:58] construction. This is kind of more
[9:00] during the active phase prior to um any
[9:03] of the restoration efforts just being
[9:05] repulling the black material on top of that tile alignment and and rip
[9:10] plowing all of that um to minimize
[9:12] damage.
[9:14] Um a bit on construction costs. Um so
[9:16] the engineer's initial repair estimate
[9:19] um at the time of the repair hearing was
[9:22] uh $717,952.
[9:26] The awarded contract was $640,945.75.
[9:32] So approximately $80,000 less than
[9:34] estimated. Um the total costs at the end
[9:37] of the project were $683,2305.
[9:42] Um this was a result of um approximately
[9:45] a $50,000 uh increase in cost and
[9:48] exchange order when the tile was
[9:49] discovered to be about 2 ft lower in
[9:51] certain locations. Um similarly with
[9:54] that there was a net reduction in
[9:55] installed quantities um uh totaling
[9:59] about $16,000.
[10:01] Um to date uh the contractor has been
[10:04] paid $649,6855
[10:08] leaving an amount due of $34,61.50.
[10:14] Damages were tabulated uh for each
[10:16] individual parcel through the duration
[10:18] of construction. um our construction
[10:20] observers on site um use GPS uh to um
[10:25] tabulate and and measure specifically
[10:27] all those areas that were damaged. So
[10:29] the land owners might be paid uh for
[10:31] those those have been delivered to
[10:32] drainage staff. Um here's a map
[10:35] depicting those areas. Um as you can see
[10:38] we we distinguish between different crop
[10:40] sites. areas in brown are beans, uh,
[10:43] such as on the Sant property or on the
[10:45] Miller property. Um, and other areas
[10:47] being kind of this yellow gold color
[10:49] that was corn, such as on the Sorenson
[10:51] property and or on the Williier
[10:53] property.
[10:55] Um, as build documents were generated uh
[10:58] by the engineer to detail uh where
[11:00] everything was installed, how deep was
[11:02] it was installed, where connections were
[11:03] made. Um, this can be used for the
[11:05] future legal record for the CD56 system
[11:08] as well as be a benefit to its land
[11:10] owners to determine where the private
[11:11] tile was connected and understand how
[11:13] they might tile in the future or best
[11:15] utilize their system.
[11:18] Um, we've also provided an abandoned ma
[11:20] abandonment map as portion of the
[11:22] closeout documents. Uh, we do have the
[11:25] revised map here detailing all those
[11:27] areas proposed to be abandoned.
[11:29] Essentially, everything in the area to
[11:31] be abandoned or in the area of repair
[11:33] has been abandoned that was um
[11:36] reinstalled with the exception of uh
[11:39] several tile lines on this property
[11:41] right here which were not touched. Um
[11:43] this landowner was given a new outlet
[11:45] repaired to what he was um essentially
[11:50] agreed to at the time. Um and just kind
[11:52] of minimizing work in that area.
[11:56] So finally, it's the engineer's opinion
[11:58] that the contractor Sy excavating has
[11:59] satisfactorily completed the contract in
[12:01] accordance with the plan specifications.
[12:03] Sy has provided the required submitts
[12:06] for final payment being that signed
[12:07] final pay request, his three-year
[12:08] warranty bond for the installed tile and
[12:11] those I and that IC134 forms for his
[12:14] subcontractors. Ultimately, ISG
[12:16] recommends accepting the work and
[12:17] approval of final payment to the
[12:19] contractor and paying damages to all
[12:20] affected land owners. Thank you.
[12:23] >> Thank you for the report.
[12:25] Excuse [clears throat] me. So, at this
[12:28] time, we'll open the public comment
[12:29] portion of the hearing. If you would
[12:31] like to make a comment, please come to
[12:33] the podium. State your name and address
[12:35] for the record. Comments from the public
[12:37] are expected to be civil and respectful.
[12:39] Please note this meeting is being
[12:41] recorded. There is a 5minute time limit.
[12:44] The county administrator will give you a
[12:45] one- minute warning and let you know
[12:47] when you've used your allotted time. In
[12:49] addition, the board may restrict or
[12:51] limit the time allotted to a person
[12:53] whose remarks are repetitive or not
[12:55] relevant to the matter under
[12:56] consideration by the board. Is there
[12:59] anyone wishing to make comments
[13:00] [clears throat]
[13:02] on ditch 56?
[13:06] Anyone wishing to make comments to
[13:09] county ditch 56 petitioned repairs for
[13:12] portions of branch three.
[13:16] And last time, anyone wishing to make
[13:19] comments for County Ditch 56?
[13:23] » Hearing no comments, I will close the
[13:25] public comment portion of the hearing.
[13:27] Anything from the board.
[13:30] >> No questions. I would so move.
[13:32] >> Second.
[13:32] >> I have a motion and a second. Any
[13:35] discussion?
[13:37] All in favor? I
[13:39] >> oppose. Motion carries.
[13:41] >> And that will conclude the county ditch
[13:44] 56 acceptance hearing.
[13:47] All right, Jordan. Then we're going to
[13:49] move on to
[13:51] County Ditch 73. Good morning everyone
[13:53] and welcome to the County Ditch 73
[13:56] acceptance hearing. First item is an
[13:58] agenda review.
[14:00] >> Madam Chair, no additions or changes?
[14:03] >> Move to approve.
[14:05] >> Second.
[14:05] >> I have a motion and a second for the
[14:07] agenda. Any discussion? All in favor?
[14:11] >> I opposed. [clears throat]
[14:12] >> Carries. The purpose of today's hearing
[14:15] is to determine whether the contractor
[14:17] for the previously approved repairs
[14:18] affecting portions of county dish 73 has
[14:21] been completed has completed their
[14:23] contract in accordance with the plans
[14:25] and specifications.
[14:27] The order of business for this hearing
[14:29] is as follows. Staff will review the
[14:31] jurisdictional documents. We will hear
[14:33] from the appointed engineer and we will
[14:36] open the hearing for public comments. So
[14:38] now we'll have Jordan Williamson review
[14:41] the jurisdictional documents. Jordan,
[14:44] >> notice posted for this hearing outside
[14:46] of the Blue Earth County Historic
[14:48] Courthouse located at 204 South Fifth
[14:50] Street, Mano, Minnesota. Hearing notice
[14:53] mailed on August 7th, 2026. Notice of
[14:56] public hearing was published in the Mano
[14:58] Free Press on August 11th, 2026. I have
[15:01] a short memo to read here.
[15:04] Blue [clears throat] Earth County Ditch
[15:05] 73 is located in Lyra Township. The Blue
[15:08] Earth County Drainage Authority approved
[15:09] a quote for repairs awarding a repair
[15:12] contract to Leland Excavating and
[15:14] Drainage on September 9th, 2025. The
[15:17] property environmental resources
[15:19] department drainage staff received the
[15:21] engineers acceptance of contract report
[15:23] for the approved county ditch 73 repairs
[15:25] on July 9th, 2026. All contractable work
[15:28] has been completed by the contractor on
[15:31] July 28th, 2026. by signed findings and
[15:34] order. Today's acceptance of contract
[15:35] hearing was set. Today, we are
[15:38] respectfully asking that the county
[15:39] ditch 73 drainage authority accept the
[15:42] drafted findings in order approving the
[15:44] engineers acceptance of contract report
[15:46] for the county dish 73 repairs and issue
[15:48] the release of any final payments due to
[15:51] the contractor and to pay damages as
[15:52] shown in the acceptance of contract
[15:54] report. That's all I have, Madam Chair.
[15:57] >> Thank you.
[15:59] Do I have a motion to accept the
[16:00] jurisdictional documents? So moved
[16:03] >> second and a second. Any discussion? All
[16:06] in favor?
[16:07] >> I opposed. Motion carries. Now we'll
[16:10] hear from our engineer from ISG.
[16:14] >> Thank you.
[16:15] >> Uh once again, um Jacob Mueller from
[16:17] ISG. Um the engineer on the project. Um
[16:22] again, we're here to talk about the
[16:23] second of two final acceptance hearings.
[16:25] This one being for the repairs on Blue
[16:27] Earth County ditch number 73.
[16:31] Um just a bit of a view at the
[16:32] watershed. Um here we can see some of
[16:34] the the tile infrastructure as compared
[16:37] to lower CD56 which we just discussed.
[16:40] This one is relatively smaller. It's
[16:42] comprised entirely of tile. Um and so
[16:46] were all of the repairs. Um
[16:49] the the work proposed involved um
[16:52] instead of large swaths of repairing an
[16:55] entire line um as we see in some cases
[16:58] uh there was individual spot repairs
[17:00] only in those areas which were uh deemed
[17:02] to be in an immediate state of failure
[17:04] to restore that as constructed
[17:07] condition. So there's some work on
[17:08] branches seven six branch two lateral A
[17:11] branch two and the main line
[17:15] a bit on the construction timeline. This
[17:17] was bid in August, late August of 2025.
[17:19] The lowest responsible bidder was uh
[17:22] Leland Drainage and Excavating. Um that
[17:26] contract was executed on September 15th
[17:28] of 2025.
[17:30] Contract dates uh final completion for
[17:32] this work was April 15th of 2026 and
[17:35] construction ran between February, early
[17:37] February of 2026 to late March of 2026.
[17:41] Some of the construction photos you see
[17:42] here um involve uh many of the same
[17:45] things we see on on many drainage
[17:46] projects. Um there was a couple areas
[17:48] where roads were opened up and the tile
[17:50] was reinstalled beneath. Those areas
[17:52] have been subsequently receded and
[17:54] established. Um the remaining photos on
[17:56] the top and left that you see involve
[17:58] tile installation. Um one nuance of spot
[18:02] repairs is that generally this work
[18:04] occurs in the historic trench of the old
[18:07] tile. um generally a less suitable place
[18:09] for new tile installation. Soils have
[18:12] been mixed. Um in those cases, you can
[18:14] kind of see what what uh we proposed at
[18:16] what we pursued as a design being
[18:18] encasing that pipe and rock for
[18:19] longevity. Um
[18:23] bit on construction cost and final
[18:24] payment. Um at the at the time our of of
[18:28] finalization, our estimate for the
[18:30] repair work was $99,66.
[18:34] The awarded contract was $122,535.
[18:39] Um the total costs uh incurred on the
[18:42] project for the construction were
[18:43] $114,415.
[18:46] Um essentially less rock and connections
[18:49] were installed as compared. Some of
[18:51] those things are front-end estimates as
[18:53] these are unit price contracts. Um, to
[18:56] date, uh, the contractor has been paid
[18:58] $105,8425,
[19:01] yielding an amount due of $9,330.75.
[19:06] Um, similar to to other projects that
[19:09] we've discussed, damages were recorded
[19:10] in all areas where construction occurred
[19:12] and and property was damaged. Um, that
[19:15] has been tabulated and shared with the
[19:17] um, county drainage staff. Um similarly
[19:20] asbuilts have been generated for this
[19:23] work. Um they yield just plan views due
[19:26] to the small nature or the small scope
[19:28] of work detailing where these repairs
[19:30] have occurred um exactly what went in
[19:33] the ground and where everything was
[19:34] connected uh for future use. Finally uh
[19:38] it's the engineer's opinion that the
[19:39] contractor Leland direct Leland drainage
[19:41] and excavating has satisfactorily
[19:43] completed the contract in accordance
[19:44] with the plans and specifications. He's
[19:46] provided the the required submitts for
[19:48] final payment being that signed final
[19:50] pay request and is IC134 for
[19:52] subcontractors. Um ultimately IG
[19:55] recommends accepting the work and
[19:56] approval of final payment to the
[19:58] contractor and paying damages to all
[20:00] affected land owners. Thank you.
[20:02] >> Thank you for that acceptance report. At
[20:05] this time we'll open the public comment
[20:06] period of the hearing. If you would like
[20:08] to make a comment, please come to the
[20:10] podium. State your name and address for
[20:11] the record. Comments from the public are
[20:13] expected to be civil and respectful. Is
[20:15] there anyone wishing to make comment?
[20:20] Anyone wishing to make comments on the
[20:22] county ditch 73 repairs?
[20:27] And last time, anyone wishing to make
[20:29] comments for county ditch 73 repair.
[20:35] Seeing no further comments, I will close
[20:37] the public comment portion of the
[20:38] hearing. Anything from the county board?
[20:44] I don't any questions.
[20:45] >> All right. So, I need a motion.
[20:48] >> I move approval.
[20:49] >> Second.
[20:50] >> I have a motion and a second. Any
[20:51] discussion?
[20:53] >> All in favor?
[20:54] >> I
[20:55] >> oppose. Motion carries.
[21:01] Okay. No further comment. Here we go.
[21:03] Let's move on to
[21:06] Jordan. We're going into ditch 23. Is
[21:10] that right?
[21:10] >> Yes. Repair.
[21:12] Um the Blueorth County Judicial Dish 23
[21:15] wershed is approximately 1,200 acres in
[21:17] size and located in Sterling and Shelby
[21:19] Townships. Based on inspections of
[21:22] Judicial [snorts] Ditch 23 subsurface
[21:24] tile, a report a repair report was
[21:26] developed. Leworth County drainage staff
[21:28] consulted with ISG engineers to develop
[21:30] a repair report. The repair report was
[21:34] developed using drainage staff input as
[21:35] well as engineering survey
[21:37] recommendations. A copy of the draft
[21:39] engineers repair report was submitted to
[21:41] Blorth County drainage management staff
[21:42] on June 11, 2026.
[21:45] Informational landowner meetings were
[21:46] held on December 17, 2025 and June 11th,
[21:50] 2026 to discuss the proposed repair
[21:52] report, including costs and plans. At
[21:56] today's meeting, we are respectfully
[21:57] asking the drainage authority to approve
[21:59] the draft findings in order, setting a
[22:01] repair hearing date for September 15,
[22:03] 2026. That's all I have, Madam Chair.
[22:06] >> Thank you.
[22:09] So,
[22:09] >> I'll move approval.
[22:10] >> Second.
[22:12] >> I have a motion and a second. Any
[22:13] discussion?
[22:15] All in favor?
[22:16] >> I oppose. Motion carries. Thank you.
[22:20] >> And last
[22:23] journey judicial ditch 33.
[22:27] >> I've got uh joint county ditch 83
[22:29] improvement bid awarding. Um so public
[22:32] bids were solicited for judicial ditch
[22:34] 33 approved in
[22:37] Judicial ditch 33 approved improvement
[22:39] construction plans. A total of six bids
[22:42] were submitted and opened on August 3rd,
[22:44] 2026. These six bids received are
[22:47] provided in the table below with the
[22:48] lowest bid submitted from the Leland
[22:50] Drainage Excavating LLC with a bid price
[22:52] of 378,85255
[22:57] and the highest bid received from Holt
[22:59] Meyer Construction Incorporated with a
[23:01] bid price of 522,510.
[23:07] Leworth County and ISG have worked with
[23:09] Leland Drainage on past repairs and
[23:11] projects with positive results. Based on
[23:13] the submitted low bid price and past
[23:16] work experience, we recommended the
[23:18] improvement work be awarded to Leland
[23:20] Drainage and Excavating LLC. Today we
[23:23] request the judicial ditch 33 drainage
[23:25] authority to award a contract for
[23:27] approved improvement plans for
[23:29] construction to Leland drainage and
[23:31] excavating LLC for a bid amount of
[23:34] $378,85255
[23:38] affecting portions of judicial ditch 33.
[23:41] That's all I have. Madam chair,
[23:43] >> thank you.
[23:48] » Second.
[23:49] >> I have a motion and a second. Any
[23:50] discussion? All in favor?
[23:53] >> I
[23:54] >> oppose. Motion [clears throat] carries.
[23:56] >> Thank you, Jordan.
[23:57] >> Thank you.
[23:58] >> Thanks.
[23:59] >> Thank you, Jacob.
[24:00] >> Thank you.
[24:02] >> So, moving on to
[24:07] the county
[24:09] sheriff, Jeff Worcel.
[24:12] >> Morning, Sheriff.
[24:13] >> Sheriff.
[24:14] >> Good morning.
[24:15] >> How are you,
[24:18] >> Madam Chair? Good morning.
[24:19] >> Good morning. Um, our current contract
[24:22] that we have with River Valley Forensic
[24:24] Services, who performs our autopsies and
[24:25] forensic examinations at Ramsey County,
[24:28] set to expire at the end of the year.
[24:30] Uh, they prepared a new 2-year contract
[24:33] um with the duration ending 123128 with
[24:36] no change in the current cost that we're
[24:37] paying now. I think they're doing this
[24:40] early because there's a lot of other
[24:41] counties that want to um use their
[24:43] services and they want to know how many
[24:44] are going to stay on board with them.
[24:45] And I recommend that we stay on board
[24:47] with them. I'll move approval. Second
[24:50] >> motion and a second. Any discussion?
[24:53] >> It's nice they kept the price the same.
[24:55] >> Yeah.
[24:56] >> All in favor for now. [laughter]
[24:58] >> All in favor?
[24:59] >> I opposed.
[25:01] >> Motion carries.
[25:02] >> Thank you.
[25:02] >> Thanks for that.
[25:06] >> All right. Planning and zoning.
[25:13] » Good morning.
[25:14] >> So the next item on the agenda is
[25:16] planning and zoning. Planning and zoning
[25:18] staff are here to present their action
[25:20] items. There is a public hearing and
[25:23] public comment will be allowed in just a
[25:24] moment. As previously stated, comment
[25:27] should be civil and respectful. If you
[25:29] haven't already done so, please sign the
[25:32] clipboard at the back of the room.
[25:34] And I'll ask the planning and zoning
[25:37] staff to introduce themselves for the
[25:38] record and introduce the first item
[25:40] before the board.
[25:43] >> Yes. Good morning. Scott Salbury, land
[25:45] use planner.
[25:45] >> Thank you. Jenny Mochel Johnson, land
[25:48] use planner.
[25:49] >> Erikson Schaefer, land use planner.
[25:51] >> Thank you.
[25:54] >> All right, go ahead.
[25:55] >> All right, the first item we have for
[25:57] you is planning commission item number
[25:59] 11-26.
[26:02] This is a request for review and
[26:04] approval of an interimm ordinance
[26:06] establishing up to a one-year moratorum
[26:09] on the permitting of data centers within
[26:11] the unincorporated areas of Blueworth
[26:13] County under the zoning authority of
[26:15] Blue Earth County. This moratorum will
[26:18] allow county staff to conduct
[26:19] [cough and clears throat] an evaluation
[26:21] and develop the appropriate performance
[26:22] standards and zoning ordinance
[26:24] amendment. At the planning commission
[26:27] meeting, staff presented a staff report
[26:29] and submitted comments from two
[26:31] residents that were both in support of
[26:33] the moratorum. Four members of the
[26:35] public provided comments in support of
[26:37] the moratorum as well. Public comments
[26:40] highlighted several key themes,
[26:42] including the need to understand
[26:43] long-term environmental impacts, the
[26:46] importance of public officials avoiding
[26:48] non-disclosure agreements, the
[26:50] recommendation for the county to use
[26:52] broad regulatory language since data
[26:54] centers may be labeled as technology
[26:56] parks or or large consumers, and the
[26:59] significance of reflecting the will of
[27:01] the community. Following the discussion,
[27:04] the planning commission voted
[27:05] unanimously to forward a recommendation
[27:07] of approval to the county board based on
[27:10] the findings prepared by staff. So the request in front of you today, we
[27:16] are requesting a board action passage of
[27:18] the ordinance based on the
[27:20] recommendations of the planning
[27:21] commission. There any questions for
[27:24] staff?
[27:26] >> I don't have any at this point.
[27:28] >> I would move to approve.
[27:30] >> Well, we have public comment to I'm
[27:32] sorry.
[27:33] >> That's all right.
[27:34] >> I really got to do that.
[27:35] >> Yeah, sometimes we have public comment.
[27:37] At this time, we'll open the public
[27:38] comment portion of the hearing. If you
[27:40] would like to make a comment regarding
[27:42] PC1 11-26,
[27:44] please come to the podium. State your
[27:46] name and address for the record.
[27:49] Is there anyone wishing to speak to PC
[27:52] 11-26?
[27:55] Good morning.
[27:55] >> Good morning. I have a handout. I made
[27:59] 10 copies. It's not enough for everybody
[28:02] here, but it's an updated version of the
[28:06] number of counties and cities in the
[28:08] state of Minnesota that have passed a
[28:11] moratorium on data centers.
[28:13] >> If you could state your name and address
[28:14] for the record,
[28:15] >> Schwarzoff. I'm a resident of Mano and
[28:18] also Blue Earth County.
[28:19] >> Thank you. and I'm here to speak in
[28:22] support of a moratorum on the permitting
[28:24] of data centers in Blue Earth County
[28:26] while the county studies what a hypers
[28:29] scale data center here would entail.
[28:33] If you approve PC 1126,
[28:37] the interim ordinance, Bler County will
[28:39] join 26 other cities and counties in
[28:43] Minnesota that have already approved a
[28:45] moratorum. and those 26 cities and
[28:49] counties are listed on the handout.
[28:52] Uh I also want to commend county staff
[28:56] for their excellent work on the
[28:58] background and statement of general need
[29:01] in your packet. Just really well done
[29:04] and alum illuminates the issues.
[29:08] It just makes sense to study the issue
[29:11] carefully before a developer comes
[29:15] because of the massive scale and
[29:17] resource requirements of a hypers scale
[29:20] data center.
[29:22] is a large
[29:24] facility. It can can have a footprint of
[29:28] millions of square feet.
[29:30] Uh the proposed data center in North
[29:32] Mano, which is no longer a thing because
[29:35] the developer withdrew had a footprint
[29:38] of 4 million square ft.
[29:42] It uses a lot of electricity and it can
[29:44] use a lot of water. There are also
[29:47] issues with the waste water produced. Uh
[29:51] how do you take care of that and noise
[29:53] pollution and light pollution?
[29:57] It's also important to determine
[30:00] appropriate sighting for a data center
[30:02] near the resources it needs and away
[30:05] from residential neighborhoods because
[30:08] of the noise and light pollution.
[30:12] Uh furthermore, it's important to get
[30:14] public input by having open houses,
[30:16] listening sessions, and the like as
[30:18] described in the background
[30:20] [clears throat]
[30:20] and statement of general need in your
[30:23] packet. This is the way it should be
[30:25] done. And I commend the board of
[30:29] commissioners for bringing it to a vote
[30:31] today.
[30:34] But the cautionary
[30:37] uh tale if a data center is uh is coming
[30:42] and comes to see a county commissioner
[30:46] do not sign a non-disclosure agreement.
[30:51] That's what happened in North Mano,
[30:54] Hermantown, Pine Island, and Farmington.
[30:59] uh in Hermantown, which is the case I
[31:01] know the best because I know one of the
[31:04] residents there. The developer came in,
[31:07] got city officials to sign a
[31:09] non-disclosure agreement, consulted with
[31:12] Minnesota Power about a favorable
[31:14] location, and then bought a plot of land
[31:17] in a rural part of the town, zoned rural
[31:20] residential.
[31:22] There were homes on that land and homes
[31:25] close by. The developer started buying
[31:27] out the homeowners on the land one by
[31:30] one and required the homeowners to sign
[31:33] a non-disclosure agreement as a
[31:35] condition of the buyout.
[31:38] This went on for months until word
[31:41] leaked out about what was happening.
[31:44] Residents were rightly outraged. The
[31:47] trust they had in their city leaders was
[31:49] just destroyed. They're still fighting
[31:52] the developer. So this this is not the
[31:55] way to do it. The way it's being done in
[31:58] Pworth County, I applaud. So to
[32:01] conclude, I'm respectfully asking you
[32:05] today to pass the data center moratorum
[32:07] and study and to keep the process open
[32:10] and transparent and don't sign the
[32:13] non-disclosure agreement if asked by a
[32:16] developer. Thanks for your time.
[32:18] >> Thank you.
[32:19] Thank you.
[32:22] Is there anyone else wishing to make
[32:24] comment on PC11-26?
[32:29] >> Good morning.
[32:31] >> Um, my name is Mariah Celler. I live and
[32:33] work in St. Peter. I'm here to also
[32:36] support the data center moratorum. The
[32:39] scale of these uh which were mentioned
[32:41] in the previous comment. I also agree
[32:42] with what he stated in the previous
[32:44] comment. The scale of these is uh
[32:46] difficult to understand and this affects
[32:48] not only this county but surrounding
[32:50] counties in the electricity use um you
[32:54] know the transformers and equipment that
[32:56] would go into supporting such a center
[32:59] and also the water use although of
[33:00] course I know the state is responsible
[33:02] for water use. Um, I just want to
[33:07] express the [clears throat] concern, you
[33:10] know, as a local citizen, I have for
[33:14] private companies coming in and maybe
[33:16] making it sound like a good deal for
[33:19] communities. Um, and then these private
[33:22] companies not being held accountable or
[33:24] they're not being protections for the
[33:27] communities as they stand. Um, and I
[33:30] feel there's a present danger in
[33:32] Minnesota because we don't have a state
[33:34] that has a strong framework for what is
[33:38] happening. And we need to make sure, you
[33:41] know, our local leaders as well are um
[33:44] listening and and there's collaboration
[33:46] uh between all levels of government and
[33:48] all the different utility commissions
[33:50] and um whatnot. And I really appreciate
[33:53] um the planning and uh zoning
[33:56] um workers for bringing this to to
[33:59] attention and all the hard work they're
[34:01] putting into making sure we have all the
[34:03] information we need. So, thank you.
[34:05] >> Thank you.
[34:08] Is there anyone else wishing to make
[34:10] comment on PC1-26?
[34:12] Good morning.
[34:13] >> Hi, I'm Ava. I uh live in Mano and I had
[34:18] uh made a
[34:18] >> Could you give your full name, ma'am?
[34:20] Uh, Ava Corey Greenness.
[34:22] >> Thank you.
[34:22] >> Uh, and I had made a comment in support
[34:25] of the moratorum at the planning
[34:27] commission meeting. So, I'll be pretty
[34:29] brief. I just wanted to point out a
[34:32] couple of, uh, language things that I
[34:35] noticed. Um, on at the bottom of page
[34:38] 106 of today's meeting packet, uh,
[34:42] there's a line that says evaluation of
[34:45] existing impacts due to. Uh, and I'm
[34:49] thinking that that's probably meant to
[34:50] say evaluation of potential impacts that
[34:53] might result from uh data centers. Um,
[34:57] and then on page 109, or at least
[35:01] [snorts] that's what it's showing up as
[35:02] for me. Um I [clears throat] would
[35:04] suggest that the evaluation or study
[35:06] also specifically include public health
[35:09] impacts uh locally and to communities
[35:12] outside of the US from production and
[35:14] disposal of materials and then also
[35:16] ecosystem or biodiversity impacts which
[35:18] could be included under environmental
[35:20] impacts. It would just be good to
[35:22] explicitly include that and then also uh
[35:25] like carbon sequestration and climate
[35:26] impacts. Um and then also probably an
[35:30] overview of findings on public opinion
[35:32] from the public engagement efforts uh
[35:35] described. But um those are pretty minor
[35:40] details and overall I really appreciate
[35:42] um staff's work on the moratorum. So
[35:45] thank you.
[35:46] >> Thank you for your comments. Anyone
[35:50] else wishing to make comment on PC
[35:54] 11-26?
[35:58] Anyone else?
[36:02] All right, last time
[36:06] I will close the public comment portion
[36:08] of the hearing. Are there any comments
[36:10] by the board?
[36:12] >> I will now move to approve.
[36:14] >> Thank you. [laughter]
[36:16] I need a second.
[36:18] >> Second.
[36:19] >> Any discussion?
[36:22] >> The um meetings that I've gone to on
[36:26] data centers, both on both sides,
[36:30] um
[36:32] it's it only makes sense to sit and wait
[36:34] a year and have have very good
[36:38] discussions on how this affects the
[36:41] community and affects the surrounding
[36:43] area. Um surprisingly uh even the data
[36:48] centers now are talking about um pushing
[36:51] for transparency. They're understanding
[36:54] that non-disclosure issues just create
[36:58] uh a lot of questions and and people
[37:01] being concerned. uh for our sake here in
[37:05] the county, uh we probably won't have
[37:08] any issues just because it's going to be
[37:11] a local city issue. It's going to have
[37:14] to be connected to the water supply some
[37:16] way and that'll have to come from some
[37:19] city. But I think it's it's just smart
[37:22] for us as a county to
[37:26] sit down and and investigate uh get some
[37:29] information what's good for the
[37:31] community and uh find out how it can
[37:35] help or or not help us and and we have a
[37:39] year to work that out.
[37:42] >> Thank you, Vance. Anyone else?
[37:46] [clears throat]
[37:46] >> All in favor? I
[37:49] >> opposed. Motion carries.
[37:52] >> All right.
[37:54] Now we'll move on to PC15-26.
[37:58] >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh PC15-26,
[38:02] uh Bradley and Wendy Caldwell. Request
[38:05] for review and approval of the
[38:07] preliminary plat of Helicopter Land LLC.
[38:10] Uh subdivision plat consisting of two
[38:13] lots. Uh, one lot has an existing house
[38:16] and the other lot has the existing KO
[38:18] aviation business. Uh, the property is
[38:21] zoned light industry and is in the
[38:23] southwest quarter of the southeast
[38:25] quarter of section 4 in Buford Township.
[38:28] Uh, at the planning commission meeting,
[38:30] staff presented the staff report. Uh,
[38:31] the applicant's representatives was
[38:33] present and uh, confirmed the
[38:35] information present in the staff report.
[38:37] Uh, there was no comment provided by the
[38:39] public. Uh the following discussion uh
[38:42] the planning commission voted
[38:44] unanimously to forward a recommendation
[38:46] of approval to the county board uh based
[38:48] on the findings and conditions prepared
[38:50] by staff. Uh we request the board action
[38:53] for passage of the resolution based on
[38:56] the recommendation of the planning
[38:57] commission.
[38:59] >> Thank you manager.
[39:00] >> Thank you. At this time we'll open the
[39:02] public comment portion of the hearing.
[39:03] If you would like to make a comment
[39:05] regarding PC15-26,
[39:08] please come to the podium. State your
[39:09] name and address for the record.
[39:15] Is there anyone wishing to speak to
[39:16] PC15-26
[39:21] for the third time? Anyone wishing to
[39:24] speak to PC5-26.
[39:28] All right, we're going to close the
[39:30] public comment portion of the meeting.
[39:33] Any comments from the board?
[39:36] >> I don't have any comments, Madam Chair,
[39:37] but I'll move approval. Second.
[39:40] >> I have a motion and a second. Any
[39:41] discussion?
[39:43] All in favor?
[39:44] >> I
[39:45] >> opposed. [clears throat]
[39:47] >> Motion carries.
[39:48] >> And we'll go ahead and introduce the
[39:50] next item.
[39:52] Great. The next item is planning
[39:55] commission number 16-26.
[39:58] This is a request for an after the fact
[40:00] interim use permit to allow for the
[40:02] cumulative movement of more than 50
[40:05] [clears throat] cubic yards of material.
[40:07] The property is zoned agriculture and is
[40:09] within the Shorland district of an
[40:11] unnamed stream. The project is located
[40:14] in the southeast quarter of the
[40:15] northeast quarter of section 21
[40:18] Jamestown Township. At the planning
[40:20] commission meeting, staff presented the
[40:23] staff report. The applicant was present
[40:25] and confirmed the information presented
[40:27] within the staff report. There were no
[40:29] comments provided by the public.
[40:31] Following the discussion, the planning
[40:33] commission voted unanimously to forward
[40:35] a recommendation of approval to the
[40:37] county board based on the findings and
[40:40] conditions presented by staff. The
[40:43] request for board action is passage of
[40:46] the resolution based on the
[40:47] recommendation of the planning
[40:49] commission.
[40:51] Thank you.
[40:53] So, at this time, we'll open the public
[40:55] comment portion of the hearing. If you
[40:58] would like to make a comment regarding
[41:00] PC16-26,
[41:03] please come to the podium. State your
[41:04] name and address for the record.
[41:09] Anyone wishing to speak to PC16-26?
[41:16] Anyone wishing to comment?
[41:19] All right, we will close the public
[41:21] comment portion of the hearing.
[41:24] And can I get a motion?
[41:27] >> I will move approval.
[41:28] >> Second.
[41:29] >> I have a motion and a second to approve
[41:31] the resolution for PC16-26.
[41:34] Any discussion?
[41:36] All in favor?
[41:37] >> I
[41:38] >> oppose. Motion carries. And we'll move
[41:41] on to our final item.
[41:43] >> Thank you, Madam Chair. PC17-26
[41:46] is the last planning and zoning item,
[41:48] the applicants Blueorth County, and it's
[41:49] a request for review and approval of an
[41:51] ordinance amendment to chapter 14, which
[41:53] is the shoreland chapter of the um
[41:55] county code, and chapter 24, the zoning
[41:58] chapter of the county code to allow
[41:59] seasonal produce or farm stands and
[42:02] commercial outdoor recreation areas in
[42:04] shoreland districts. The ordinance
[42:06] amends the definition of both uses and
[42:08] updates the associated standards for
[42:10] these uses in the county code. At the
[42:12] planning commission meeting, staff
[42:13] presented the report. There was one
[42:15] member from the public uh who provided
[42:17] comment in support of the ordinance
[42:18] amendment. The individual discussed her
[42:20] agra business and the importance of a
[42:22] tourism in the county. Following the
[42:24] discussion, the planning commission
[42:25] voted unanimously to forward a
[42:27] recommendation for approval to the
[42:28] county board based on the findings
[42:30] prepared by staff. In the board action
[42:32] is passage of the ordinance based on the
[42:33] recommendation of the planning
[42:35] commission.
[42:37] >> Okay. Thank you.
[42:41] So, at this time, we'll open the public
[42:43] comment portion of the hearing. If you
[42:44] would like to make a comment regarding
[42:46] PC17-26,
[42:48] please come to the podium, state your
[42:50] name and address for the record.
[42:54] Anyone wishing to speak to PC17-26?
[43:00] Anyone wishing to make comment?
[43:03] All right, we're going to close the
[43:05] public comment portion of the hearing.
[43:09] Any discussion?
[43:11] >> Can I get a motion?
[43:12] >> Move to approve.
[43:14] >> Second.
[43:14] >> Motion in a second. Now, any discussion?
[43:18] >> All in favor?
[43:19] >> I
[43:20] >> oppose. Motion carries. This will
[43:23] conclude the planning and zoning items
[43:26] and closing the public hearing. Thank
[43:28] you.
[43:29] >> Thank you.
[43:34] » Madame Chair. We are definitely ahead of
[43:37] schedule, much faster than what we
[43:39] anticipated. I think one thing we could
[43:42] do is we could go through the
[43:44] administrative items at this point in
[43:46] time. And I think we'll still have a
[43:48] little bit of time, but then at that
[43:49] point, we could take a a break until we
[43:52] and we go into our next 1010 agenda item
[43:54] for the close session.
[43:56] >> Everybody okay with that?
[43:57] >> I'm okay with that.
[43:58] >> Okay, let's do it.
[43:59] >> All right, the first item we have is the
[44:01] approval of the August 11th uh minutes.
[44:06] So moved.
[44:07] >> Second.
[44:08] >> I have a motion and a second for the
[44:09] minutes. All in favor? Any discussion?
[44:13] [laughter]
[44:13] >> All in favor? [cough]
[44:15] >> I oppose. Motion carries.
[44:18] >> Right. Next we have the bills for the
[44:20] two weeks.
[44:22] >> I move the bills.
[44:23] >> Second.
[44:24] >> Motion a second for the bills. Any
[44:26] discussion? All in favor?
[44:28] >> I opposed. Motion carries.
[44:32] Next, uh, we have the human resources
[44:34] agenda. We do have one action item as a
[44:37] result of some some turnover in our
[44:40] human resources department. We took this
[44:41] opportunity to look at doing a I would
[44:44] say a slight reorganization to just um I
[44:47] think make us um be a little bit more
[44:49] responsive to our department's needs and
[44:51] what they have. And so what we're doing
[44:54] with that is we're looking at um
[44:56] changing it that we'll have actually two
[44:58] coordinators within the human resources
[45:00] department. One really on the employee
[45:02] benefit side and the other on the
[45:04] employee relations compliance and with
[45:06] the compliance is doing everything with
[45:07] our aa FMLA that type of training. So
[45:12] what I would respectfully ask of the
[45:13] board is authorization to initiate
[45:15] recruitment for the human resources
[45:17] coordinator employee relations and
[45:19] compliance position.
[45:22] Move to approve.
[45:24] >> Second.
[45:24] >> I have a motion in a second. Any
[45:26] discussion?
[45:28] >> HR is only getting harder.
[45:31] It has continued to be challenging and I
[45:33] would say one of the things that I I do
[45:35] worry in the future still are um taking
[45:38] care of paid medical leave with the the
[45:40] new state law has has definitely proven
[45:42] to be challenging not only for us but
[45:44] talking with area um county
[45:46] administrators this last week there's a
[45:48] lot of time energy and effort of trying
[45:49] to go to to really coordinate that
[45:51] program.
[45:54] >> All in favor?
[45:56] >> I oppose. Motion carries.
[45:59] >> All right. Next we have theformational
[46:01] items. We have the resignation of human
[46:03] resources specialist and then we do have
[46:06] a employment of an account clerk within
[46:08] human resources. Um an employment of a
[46:12] correctional officer. Um have a
[46:15] resignation of our public works
[46:17] accountant and then recruitment is initi
[46:19] initiated for our public works
[46:21] accountant. And then finally we have
[46:24] employment of a land use planner for
[46:26] feed lots. That would conclude
[46:28] theformational. If there's any question,
[46:30] I'd be happy to answer those.
[46:33] >> Looks good.
[46:36] >> All right. Um, last item under
[46:37] administrative items is a gambling
[46:40] permit. Um, this is a gambling permit
[46:43] that's coming out from the Wasika Hockey
[46:45] Association. And this is for at the
[46:48] Indian Island Winery. Um, this is
[46:50] something that we've addressed the the
[46:52] gambling at the Indian Island Winery
[46:54] recently. And this is adding an
[46:56] additional organization. This was res um
[46:59] reviewed by planning and zoning to make
[47:01] sure this complies and everything
[47:02] checked out. So I would request approval
[47:05] of this uh new gambling permit.
[47:07] >> So moved.
[47:08] >> Second.
[47:09] >> Motion in a second. Any discussion?
[47:12] >> All in favor?
[47:13] >> I oppose. Motion carries.
[47:23] So, we should go to a break.
[47:25] >> I think we could, you know, at this
[47:27] point,
[47:29] >> you know what? I think we'd have time.
[47:30] That's what I was Thank you,
[47:32] Commissioner Pap. I think we'd have time
[47:33] to do the committees as well.
[47:35] >> Go ahead, Commissioner Pap.
[47:37] >> All right. Since our August 11th uh
[47:39] meeting, board meeting, um then we all
[47:41] attended the Nicola County joint
[47:43] meeting. August 13th uh participated in
[47:46] the University of Minnesota drainage
[47:49] conference as well as a drainage work
[47:51] group. And later that day uh
[47:54] participated with the chair and
[47:57] congressman Finstead uh Congresswoman
[48:01] Fishbach and GT [clears throat] Thompson
[48:03] the chairman of the house a committee
[48:05] round table where we talked about
[48:07] [cough]
[48:07] [clears throat] specifically the SNAP
[48:09] shifts and the costs that we'll added on
[48:12] the property taxes. had an opportunity
[48:15] on the 14th to attend an egg lunchon
[48:18] with the congressman and the house egg
[48:21] uh chairman to uh reiterate those snap
[48:24] cuts as well as a JD36 meeting. On the
[48:28] 17th was the Blue County Farm Bureau
[48:30] annual meeting. August 18th work session
[48:34] and JD36 meeting and then August 20th
[48:37] through 21st I participated in AMC
[48:40] strategic planning and board meeting.
[48:44] That completes my report.
[48:45] >> Thank you.
[48:48] >> All right. After our last meeting, I
[48:50] also was at the joint meeting with
[48:52] Nicollet County. That was a good
[48:53] discussion over there with our
[48:55] colleagues. Uh had a Micah call last
[48:58] month. They are not doing anything in
[49:00] person. Uh, and we will also see them
[49:02] later today, my understanding. So,
[49:04] you'll be able to get an update from
[49:05] them. Uh, was also at the University of
[49:08] Minnesota's
[49:10] drainage. Did you report that, Kevin?
[49:12] Oh, I think drainage drainage day. Uh,
[49:15] and then a couple dis inspections after
[49:17] that, the JD36 benefits discussion with
[49:22] some staff, the Farm Bureau meeting,
[49:25] which uh I thought was very informative.
[49:27] They always do a nice job there. the
[49:30] work session, uh, some more discussion
[49:32] on JD36, and then earlier this week, I
[49:36] had some discussion with staff on county
[49:38] ditch 88 and 93. So, a lot of ditch
[49:41] stuff always.
[49:42] >> Thank you, Madam Chair.
[49:43] >> You're welcome. Thank you, Vince.
[49:47] >> All right. Uh, let's see. So, I also
[49:51] went, uh, and visited Nicollet County.
[49:55] That was a a nice visit over there. Um
[49:59] on the 12th I had an MRCI day services
[50:03] summer picnic over in St. Peter. On the
[50:07] 13th um myself and Commissioner People
[50:11] had a Canvas meeting um to make sure all
[50:15] your elections went well.
[50:19] Um,
[50:20] on the 17th I had a Minnesota
[50:23] Transportation Alliance Legislative uh
[50:26] meeting and that evening we had our Farm
[50:29] Bureau meeting where four of us showed
[50:32] up. Um, let's see, we had a work session
[50:36] on Tuesday the 18th
[50:40] and let's see here.
[50:44] Um yesterday uh there was an AMC
[50:47] legislative platform and priorities
[50:49] process
[50:51] and uh that I zoomed in on and that's
[50:55] the end [clears throat] of mine.
[50:56] >> Great Mark.
[50:58] >> Okay. Yep. Let's see. Well, then we did
[51:00] have a joint meeting uh with Nick
[51:02] Lacone. Uh then like Vance had the with
[51:07] our uh
[51:14] We had our uh let's see what you want to
[51:16] call it. Um
[51:19] yeah, with oh with the uh
[51:23] we had the work session then on August
[51:25] 18th and then the uh
[51:29] >> what was that advance? What did you
[51:31] >> had that one joint?
[51:32] >> Yeah, we had the uh
[51:35] >> the canvasing board.
[51:37] >> Yes, canvas canvas canvas board is what
[51:40] it was. Excuse me. Yep. I was trying to
[51:43] conclude my Yep. Read my writing.
[51:46] [laughter]
[51:47] >> Happens to us all.
[51:50] >> All right. Tai two went to the Nicollet
[51:51] County meeting on the 11th. On the 12th,
[51:53] I had region 9. On the 13th, uh the
[51:56] community liaison meeting with St. Peter
[51:59] Forensic Services and in the afternoon
[52:03] with the round table with Congressman
[52:05] Finstead.
[52:06] the 17th Farm Bureau, 18th work session,
[52:10] the 20th I had TDS, and the 21st I had
[52:14] my FICA meeting with my new chair, Todd
[52:16] Patzer. And that ends my report.
[52:21] Right, Madam Chair, I think what we
[52:22] could do is go into the the closed
[52:24] meeting and give time to set up
[52:26] technology, um, use the restroom, take a
[52:28] small break, and then meet over across
[52:30] the hall to continue that meeting.
[52:32] >> Sounds like a plan. So the next agenda
[52:35] item is to close the meeting persu
[52:37] persuant to Minnesota statute section
[52:40] 13D.05
[52:42] subdivision 3B to receive legal analysis
[52:47] and advice regarding a pending civil
[52:49] legal action from Blur County Attorney's
[52:52] Office and outside council. The board
[52:55] and its attorneys will discuss legal
[52:57] strategy and settlement discussion. It
[53:00] would be detrimental to the county's
[53:01] interest for the board to hold a public
[53:03] discussion about these matters. At this
[53:06] time, I would entertain a motion that
[53:08] this meeting be closed persuant to the
[53:11] county attorney priv the attorney client
[53:15] privilege.
[53:16] >> So moved.
[53:18] >> All right. I have a motion
[53:19] >> second
[53:20] >> and a second. All those in favor?
[53:23] >> I
[53:23] >> oppose. The motion carries. The board
[53:26] will now close this meeting under the
[53:28] Minnesota statute section 13D.05
[53:31] subdivision 3B for a meeting with the
[53:33] Blue Earth County Attorney's Office and
[53:35] outside council. Thank you.
[1:39:56] All right, we will call this meeting
[1:39:58] back to order. Thank you everyone
[1:39:59] [clears throat] for your patience.
[1:40:02] Um, I need a motion
[1:40:06] to accept the settlement agreement and
[1:40:09] release of all claims.
[1:40:11] >> So move
[1:40:12] >> I have a motion
[1:40:13] >> second
[1:40:13] >> and a second. Any discussion?
[1:40:16] All in favor?
[1:40:18] >> I
[1:40:19] >> opposed. Motion carries. Thank you all.
[1:40:23] >> All right. Are we moving into human
[1:40:25] services then? Right.
[1:40:30] » Come on up. Good morning.
[1:40:31] >> Come on up.
[1:40:32] >> My agenda is all messed up, so I don't
[1:40:34] know where I am.
[1:40:35] >> Yes. [laughter]
[1:40:37] >> You're good.
[1:40:38] >> All right.
[1:40:42] » Well, welcome.
[1:40:44] >> Thank you much. It's good to see you
[1:40:45] all.
[1:40:47] Thanks for hearing us today. I um have
[1:40:50] just one action item, Madam Chair, for
[1:40:52] the board today to look at and that is
[1:40:55] an appointment for advisory committee
[1:40:58] and it's um Josh Birkinpass
[1:41:02] and he is a resident of commissioner
[1:41:04] district 4, professor of political
[1:41:06] science at MSU
[1:41:09] and um Josh has previously served as a
[1:41:12] member of our committee. So we welcome
[1:41:15] him back. But that is it for my actions.
[1:41:17] >> So moved.
[1:41:18] >> I have a motion.
[1:41:19] >> Second
[1:41:20] >> and a second. Any discussion?
[1:41:22] >> All in favor?
[1:41:24] >> Opposed? Motion carries.
[1:41:28] » Thank you, Matt. Yeah, madam chair. A
[1:41:30] couple offormational discussion items.
[1:41:32] Um I'm very pleased to have both Sarah
[1:41:35] Johnson and Lynette with me to talk
[1:41:37] about adult foster care licensing first
[1:41:39] and then adult protection. I think it's
[1:41:42] always so great to have the people that
[1:41:45] are in the trench tell our story. And so
[1:41:47] I'll just turn it right over to Sarah to
[1:41:49] begin with and talk about um adult
[1:41:52] foster care licensing. And I guess our
[1:41:54] whole picture of foster care is in the
[1:41:57] packet. So
[1:41:57] >> is Oh, perfect. Okay. So yes, our
[1:41:59] picture of our adult foster care and our
[1:42:01] CRS. So that's our our residential
[1:42:04] foster homes. Um just for this uh month
[1:42:07] we just are talking about just the adult
[1:42:09] foster care homes and the CRS homes. So
[1:42:11] we do other kinds of licensing as you
[1:42:13] all [clears throat] know. Um as you can
[1:42:15] tell we have our adult foster homes have
[1:42:18] gone down quite significantly um gone
[1:42:22] actually almost split in half since
[1:42:24] 2021. Part of that reason is the state
[1:42:27] has upped um the fees that those
[1:42:31] families have to pay to be licensed and
[1:42:34] because of that um a lot of those
[1:42:36] families just said they cannot afford to
[1:42:38] pay the fee and stay licensed. Um but
[1:42:41] the other homes have gone up. They
[1:42:42] continue to rise and they're bigger
[1:42:44] their facilities. People don't live at
[1:42:46] those homes. They're usually have staff
[1:42:48] that provide those services for them. So
[1:42:50] those those homes can afford those those
[1:42:52] fees and so those continue to rise. Um
[1:42:56] and [snorts] we do work a lot with um my
[1:42:59] licenser in this area does work a lot
[1:43:01] with actually the other DD supervisor
[1:43:05] Lindsay about if they we need to um
[1:43:08] build more homes and what that looks
[1:43:09] like for our community and we are
[1:43:11] focused on serving our residents of this
[1:43:13] community and not residents outside of
[1:43:14] our agency or our county. Um, other than
[1:43:19] that, I hope you have questions.
[1:43:21] >> Can you walk us through just the number,
[1:43:23] Sarah, because I think it's kind of a
[1:43:25] striking number of beds as far as the
[1:43:27] um, you know, corporate foster care
[1:43:31] and then just how that kind of compares
[1:43:32] to the region. If you have any comment.
[1:43:34] >> Yes. So, we, as you all know, we're the
[1:43:37] hub of this region. So, most people do
[1:43:39] come to Mano um, to build their homes.
[1:43:42] We have a few homes outside of Mano, but
[1:43:44] I think as you can see above, I think we
[1:43:46] have like the majority of our homes are
[1:43:48] Mano homes. I mean, we have one in
[1:43:50] Mapleton, two in Lake Crystal,
[1:43:53] um nine in Eagle Lake, and I think
[1:43:54] that's cuz Eagle Lake is close to Mano,
[1:43:56] so there's more availability for people
[1:43:58] to go there. Um, also the homes may have
[1:44:03] like two, like they might have one
[1:44:05] person living in the home, they could
[1:44:06] have up to like four to five, six people
[1:44:08] living in the home. So that's why the
[1:44:10] homes and the number of beds differ. Um
[1:44:13] so and then they might have staff in the
[1:44:15] homes where they might have to hire
[1:44:17] employee staff for like a onetoone for a
[1:44:20] person. Some staff you can have um like
[1:44:24] one staff could help a couple different
[1:44:26] people in that home. So that kind of
[1:44:27] depends on they they look for um the
[1:44:31] needs of that person in that home and
[1:44:33] know the dangers or if there's any like
[1:44:36] higher medical needs or higher like
[1:44:39] supervision levels that would determine
[1:44:41] how many people are in that home. They
[1:44:43] also look at if you know one person
[1:44:46] might not be able to live should be
[1:44:47] living alone and should not be living
[1:44:49] with other people. So they'll look at
[1:44:50] that um and they can develop those homes
[1:44:52] but people need to come into our agency.
[1:44:54] They need to request licensing. they
[1:44:56] need to become licensed. Um, and then
[1:44:58] everything goes up to DCUF to approve
[1:45:01] the licensing before we would put anyone
[1:45:03] in any of those homes.
[1:45:04] >> Is that helpful?
[1:45:06] >> Any other questions?
[1:45:12] » It's too bad that they got priced out. I
[1:45:14] mean,
[1:45:15] >> yeah. Um, and Madam Chair and Sarah,
[1:45:18] [laughter] um, I was curious just on the
[1:45:21] family foster care part. So, that priced
[1:45:24] out piece. Um, do those are those mostly
[1:45:27] family members or is that not so so
[1:45:29] much?
[1:45:30] >> No, it doesn't necessarily need to be a
[1:45:32] family member. Um, we had a a couple
[1:45:34] homes in our county for a long time that
[1:45:36] did adult foster care and they weren't
[1:45:38] always having someone at their home, but
[1:45:40] they were always open and available for
[1:45:41] people, but then I believe the fee is
[1:45:44] like 2500 or something. And that doesn't
[1:45:47] matter if people are in your home or not
[1:45:49] in your home, you still pay that fee.
[1:45:51] And a lot of those smaller places, we're
[1:45:54] like, we we can't afford that. I mean,
[1:45:55] we're not in the business of we're not
[1:45:57] making any money, right? And that's not
[1:45:58] our business and but we can't afford
[1:46:01] $2,500 because it's, you know, our home.
[1:46:03] We're these bigger residential settings.
[1:46:05] You know, their facilities,
[1:46:07] >> they bring in a lot more income.
[1:46:08] >> It's such a great mission for a family
[1:46:10] to be willing to open their home and the
[1:46:12] corporate side too. And then I the only
[1:46:14] other comment I add Sarah is that the
[1:46:16] combination like you say sometimes the
[1:46:18] people who are serving have behaviors
[1:46:20] and who their roommates are. So it's no
[1:46:21] different than college. You say who are
[1:46:23] you going to be roommates with and how
[1:46:25] does that go? And that that is part of
[1:46:27] what we try to manage throughout with our providers in town. So it's it's
[1:46:31] a big part of our community and
[1:46:33] >> yeah really really
[1:46:35] >> and I should say most all of these
[1:46:37] people that are living in this homes
[1:46:38] also have a a case worker with them. So,
[1:46:40] it's not just the licenser overseeing
[1:46:43] the what's going on the home, but they
[1:46:44] do oversee to make sure everybody is um
[1:46:47] in compliance with their license, but
[1:46:49] usually their social workers also
[1:46:50] involved.
[1:46:51] >> And that's what the $2,500 is for, just
[1:46:53] to be make sure they're in compliance
[1:46:55] with the license.
[1:46:56] >> Well, it doesn't go to us, it goes to
[1:46:58] the state.
[1:46:59] >> So, what are they doing for their
[1:47:01] $2,500? Do we know?
[1:47:02] >> I don't think we know.
[1:47:05] So they're
[1:47:07] >> privileged to do the work, but
[1:47:09] >> you're you're you're making someone pay
[1:47:11] to be a volunteer
[1:47:12] >> almost.
[1:47:14] Yes.
[1:47:15] >> And then on top of that, you're not even
[1:47:16] providing a service
[1:47:18] >> of why you're charging me the $2,500,
[1:47:21] but then it puts a burden on our
[1:47:24] taxpayers because we have to take care
[1:47:27] of that
[1:47:28] >> cost somewhere if people aren't doing it
[1:47:31] >> right. I think we're just we're losing
[1:47:33] that second that ability to have
[1:47:35] somebody live in a family setting
[1:47:37] because that's where the the family
[1:47:39] rooms are a family setting. You know,
[1:47:40] you have your bedroom, you have
[1:47:42] >> your own space, and you know, it's like
[1:47:44] you're living with a family. When the residential settings that
[1:47:47] >> they are still in homes, but they're
[1:47:50] much more structur structured. They're
[1:47:51] much more um
[1:47:53] >> you know, you can only be in the kitchen
[1:47:54] for this amount of time or you know, you
[1:47:56] can only like this is your food. You
[1:47:58] know, it is kind of like Phil said, it's
[1:47:59] college kind of setting area. staff
[1:48:01] working shifts and they come and go and
[1:48:03] so it just has a different
[1:48:05] >> that's just it's just frustrating that
[1:48:07] it is
[1:48:08] >> that they're charging us more.
[1:48:10] >> I would say chair and commissioner that
[1:48:12] this issue it's like one that I think
[1:48:14] we're very passionate about. I mean you
[1:48:15] heard Lynette say too is that we see
[1:48:17] this as a mission. I don't think anybody
[1:48:20] does it for the money. And um if we
[1:48:23] could think, you know, forward looking,
[1:48:25] could we help this at all? Not
[1:48:28] necessarily locally, but try to get the
[1:48:29] state to pull that back to something
[1:48:32] that's at least reasonable. Um yeah, I
[1:48:35] mean, I I'm sure the argument would be
[1:48:36] that those fees help to pay the state to
[1:48:38] do their work, us to do our work. Well,
[1:48:40] we don't get it. But, um I I I just
[1:48:43] think we have to have a heart for the
[1:48:44] people that are willing to put
[1:48:45] themselves in that spot and open their
[1:48:47] homes up. It's a pretty big give. Yeah.
[1:48:50] >> You know, when I grew up, there was like
[1:48:51] one home on every block.
[1:48:53] >> Yeah. Yeah. Right. That's right. And it
[1:48:55] was really cool. I always encouraged
[1:48:56] people to do it. Now, it's hard to
[1:48:58] encourage people to do it. Say, "Oh, by
[1:49:00] the way, there's big upfront fee that
[1:49:01] you have to pay."
[1:49:02] >> Right.
[1:49:03] >> Well, [cough and clears throat] I'm
[1:49:05] sorry. Along with like the trainings and
[1:49:07] everything else they have to stay to
[1:49:09] stay up to date and compliance in
[1:49:10] compliance with their license. I mean,
[1:49:12] it would be helpful if even the
[1:49:14] legislature or the state could say we'll
[1:49:17] have this fee for like these bigger
[1:49:18] facilities that can afford this, but
[1:49:21] maybe we'll [cough] we'll lower it to
[1:49:23] whatever for these family foster homes,
[1:49:26] >> right?
[1:49:26] >> Should be some sort of scale on it. But
[1:49:28] I don't know if I would uh I certainly
[1:49:31] would like to go after the state, try to
[1:49:32] get them to go, but I think I would also
[1:49:35] >> encourage you to,
[1:49:36] >> you know, look at inside of our system.
[1:49:38] Would it would it be in our best
[1:49:40] interest
[1:49:41] >> to pay the fee? And can we and is there
[1:49:43] a way to I, you know, I don't think I
[1:49:45] would shut that out because if we could
[1:49:47] save
[1:49:48] >> money
[1:49:49] >> 10 times the money over here.
[1:49:51] >> Totally agree.
[1:49:52] >> Can we give a grant or can we give a,
[1:49:53] you know, for these people that are and
[1:49:55] I can understand their frustrations. I
[1:49:57] mean, $2,500 is a lot of money when
[1:49:59] you're trying to help somebody and
[1:50:01] you're already,
[1:50:02] >> you know, and I would imagine they get
[1:50:04] paid some sort of PDM, but it ain't
[1:50:06] enough to cover.
[1:50:07] >> They do, but
[1:50:08] >> the extra cost and insurance, it's your house,
[1:50:11] >> wear and tear in your house,
[1:50:13] >> you know, food. It's all those other
[1:50:15] things when you have extra people living
[1:50:16] in your home. I I certainly would not be
[1:50:18] I think your staff should and I'm sure
[1:50:20] you would without me suggesting it, but
[1:50:22] I would just say let's tell the state
[1:50:24] not to if we if we hit that roadblock.
[1:50:26] >> Sure.
[1:50:27] >> And it is truly a roadblock and they
[1:50:29] ain't going to help us.
[1:50:30] >> Yes.
[1:50:30] >> And you guys can find some other way to
[1:50:33] >> think of a way to deal with that to keep
[1:50:35] these people helping us out. I think
[1:50:36] that would be money well spent in my
[1:50:38] opinion. We have to get board support
[1:50:39] >> and if the Yeah. if the board's okay
[1:50:41] with us just informally to have Sarah
[1:50:43] bring that back to her group, her
[1:50:45] supervisor group and then try to get it
[1:50:47] to the state and just see what is there
[1:50:50] any movement there that we could get and
[1:50:51] if not I think we could bring it back
[1:50:53] here and say I don't think they're doing
[1:50:55] anything and so it's up to us if we want
[1:50:57] to do
[1:50:57] >> I just think we have to leave that open
[1:51:00] that important system.
[1:51:02] >> Thank you.
[1:51:02] >> Yeah, thank you very much.
[1:51:03] >> Thank you.
[1:51:05] Well, Madam Chair, the uh next one is uh
[1:51:08] adult protection and there is some
[1:51:10] crossover here. So, people in a group
[1:51:13] home that might have some concerns about
[1:51:16] come [cough and clears throat] into play
[1:51:17] here and then obviously extended family
[1:51:20] comes into adult protection as well. So,
[1:51:21] Lynette will kind of walk us through
[1:51:23] that. And yeah, any questions? I just
[1:51:25] really appreciate the chance to drill
[1:51:27] into some of these specific program
[1:51:30] areas. They're they're smaller than some
[1:51:32] of the other things we talk about, but
[1:51:34] they're really important and there's a
[1:51:35] lot of work that's being done by staff
[1:51:37] and I just it's so nice to be able to
[1:51:39] kind of tell our stories.
[1:51:40] >> Yeah. Thank you for having us today. Um
[1:51:43] I'd like to start out just um with
[1:51:45] letting you all know some background
[1:51:46] information about what's going on with
[1:51:49] adult protection at the state. They have
[1:51:52] required us the last two years to set a
[1:51:55] goal for how many reports are we
[1:51:57] screening in? They would like to see us
[1:52:00] hit to hit the mark of 30%.
[1:52:04] Um I set a goal at 28 actually 31% they
[1:52:09] would like us to hit the target um of
[1:52:12] screening in um I set a goal for 28% uh
[1:52:16] presently in 2026 we are at 26%
[1:52:21] of screening in the reports that come
[1:52:23] in. On this first slide that um is up on
[1:52:26] the screen, it shows the overall reports
[1:52:29] that have come in um from year 2022 to
[1:52:33] 2025.
[1:52:35] If you take a look at 2022, we had a um
[1:52:39] the reports that were um reported to
[1:52:42] Mark, our Minnesota adult abuse
[1:52:44] reporting center, because we no longer
[1:52:46] take the calls at Blue Earth County.
[1:52:48] Child protection still takes the calls
[1:52:50] of I want to make a child protection
[1:52:52] report for adult protection. It all goes
[1:52:55] to the state reporting system which is a
[1:52:57] call center.
[1:52:58] >> Okay.
[1:52:59] >> So the reports go there. They figure out
[1:53:02] okay this is awith county report. They
[1:53:04] send it through SSIS
[1:53:07] which is our um social services
[1:53:10] reporting system. Um they send it there.
[1:53:13] We get the reports and then we screen
[1:53:14] them based on that. So if you see the
[1:53:18] agency reports are quite a bit lower for
[1:53:21] every year allegations are higher that's
[1:53:24] because most reports come in with more
[1:53:26] than one allegation. So it might be care
[1:53:29] never caregiver neglect and physical
[1:53:33] abuse or it might be emotional abuse and
[1:53:38] self- neglect or whatever. So most
[1:53:40] reports come in with more than one um
[1:53:44] neglect listed. So that's but as you see
[1:53:47] we had quite a jump from five uh 620 uh
[1:53:51] actually 522 and 24 to 624 reports in
[1:53:56] 2025.
[1:53:58] Another thing I'd like to mention about our reports that come in uh the
[1:54:03] state of Minnesota allows us to develop
[1:54:06] what's called prioritization guidelines.
[1:54:09] And um one of our prioritization
[1:54:11] guidelines is if we get a report for
[1:54:14] self- neglect and that person has a case
[1:54:17] manager,
[1:54:18] we refer that back to that case manager.
[1:54:22] And as we get into the data about how
[1:54:25] many reports on self- neglect we've had.
[1:54:27] Um you can see our reports are really
[1:54:29] high. And you know, our argument behind
[1:54:33] that prioritization guideline that we
[1:54:35] use is that if there is already somebody
[1:54:38] connected to them and they have a
[1:54:40] relationship within Blue Earth County,
[1:54:43] it makes the most sense for that person
[1:54:46] who already has a relationship with
[1:54:48] them, who's built rapport with them to
[1:54:50] go out and really work at offering
[1:54:53] suggestions and options and ways to
[1:54:56] reduce that self- neglect.
[1:55:01] Uh then moving on to
[1:55:04] the
[1:55:05] allegations by type. What's up there?
[1:55:09] >> Allegations by type.
[1:55:11] >> Yep.
[1:55:11] >> Um so you can see that in 2025, which is
[1:55:17] the blue, we had 348
[1:55:21] reports of self- neglect. I will tell
[1:55:24] you that the majority of those reports
[1:55:26] that come in for self- neglect are
[1:55:29] mostly because people have significant
[1:55:31] mental health issues and or and I say
[1:55:35] and or because typically those issues
[1:55:38] come along with an addiction or they
[1:55:42] come along with um physical disabilities
[1:55:45] just based upon all the years that they
[1:55:47] haven't taken care of themselves.
[1:55:50] So our reports in self- neglect have
[1:55:53] become very complex and very very time
[1:55:57] consuming. And then on top of that for
[1:56:00] self- neglect the state has changed how
[1:56:02] we substantiate.
[1:56:04] So for specifically for self- neglect
[1:56:08] they um have gone from um before we
[1:56:11] could substantiate yes you have self-
[1:56:13] neglected to now we can't substantiate
[1:56:16] but we can say they need adult
[1:56:19] protection services or the person
[1:56:21] doesn't need adult protection services.
[1:56:24] So really it's a matter of our workers
[1:56:26] going out and determining you know do
[1:56:29] these people have um competence. Do they
[1:56:33] understand the consequences
[1:56:35] of their actions that okay if I don't
[1:56:37] take my medications and go to the doctor
[1:56:40] you know I could have a blood clot
[1:56:43] thrown because I have heart arrhythmia
[1:56:45] and um you know I need those medications
[1:56:48] and that consistent medical care. So,
[1:56:51] it's really about determining does that
[1:56:54] person have competence and also if
[1:56:58] they're willing because you can go out
[1:56:59] and if a person has competence to make
[1:57:02] poor decisions and poor choices,
[1:57:05] they can unless [clears throat]
[1:57:07] we have enough information and we have
[1:57:10] maybe some neurossychological
[1:57:12] assessments completed or we have a
[1:57:15] physician that says, um, yeah, we would
[1:57:18] be willing to fill out a physician
[1:57:19] statement for conservatorship because
[1:57:21] this person can no longer manage their
[1:57:24] money for whatever reason and or for
[1:57:26] guardianship.
[1:57:28] So I think just really the main thing
[1:57:30] that I wanted to touch on on this slide
[1:57:31] is just that our self- neglect has gone
[1:57:33] up so high and how things have changed a
[1:57:36] little bit in our system as far as
[1:57:38] substantiations and and decisions made.
[1:57:42] And can I just say a little too about
[1:57:45] that status of self- neglect because
[1:57:49] um you look at that and a family member
[1:57:52] will say to us with the motion this
[1:57:54] person is not doing well and we would
[1:57:56] agree but can we then based on the legal
[1:57:59] parts and Pat's office you know do we
[1:58:01] have a case to bring commitment and and
[1:58:04] we we I think we are very quick to do
[1:58:06] that if we feel we do have a case and
[1:58:08] certainly feel a lot of support from the
[1:58:10] county attorney's office in that regard.
[1:58:12] But there's a whole bunch of cases where
[1:58:15] they are competent to make their own
[1:58:17] decisions. They just choose some
[1:58:19] unhealthy decisions. And we are legally
[1:58:22] and practically powerless over some of
[1:58:24] that is just the truth. I'm not always
[1:58:26] comfortable with this discussion, but
[1:58:29] you you got to draw the line, you know,
[1:58:31] somewhere. And then I think Lynette and
[1:58:33] our staff actually we get you know a lot
[1:58:35] of angry people telling us that we
[1:58:37] should do something but stepping in and
[1:58:39] you've heard about the whole MAPA thing
[1:58:41] with child protection. It's the same
[1:58:43] dynamic is how where is that line where
[1:58:46] people are pretty assertive about the
[1:58:47] county should step in and fix this.
[1:58:50] >> And there's times where we literally
[1:58:52] can't and there's times where it's just
[1:58:54] practically impossible if somebody is
[1:58:56] competent and they don't want help. So I
[1:58:59] just I emphasize that just from my chair
[1:59:01] because you guys are just you roll with
[1:59:03] it and staff don't get weighed by that.
[1:59:05] But it's a heavy burden when you know
[1:59:08] things aren't great and it might not be
[1:59:09] the way we would live or want our our
[1:59:11] family members to live either but
[1:59:13] there's limits to what we can do.
[1:59:16] And you know, our our adult protection
[1:59:18] manual too says like we want to take
[1:59:21] what that person is saying and be person
[1:59:25] centered and and work with them and
[1:59:28] instead of right away, you know, jumping
[1:59:30] to the most restrictive things that we
[1:59:33] can do.
[1:59:35] >> All right. And then our next slide is on
[1:59:39] the SSIS determinations um by type. So
[1:59:43] this was you know if we can substantiate
[1:59:46] which means the allegation is true and
[1:59:49] you know we had very few substantiations
[1:59:52] in 2025
[1:59:54] but I I really don't want that. I think
[1:59:57] we had a couple of reasons for that. we
[1:59:59] had a staff changeover
[2:00:01] um where somebody resigned and it it
[2:00:04] wasn't going real well with them and um
[2:00:07] they did end up resigning and I think in
[2:00:10] the end looking back over everything
[2:00:12] there was probably things that could
[2:00:13] have been substantiated that weren't. So
[2:00:15] I I think that's the first part and then
[2:00:18] I think the other part is because of the
[2:00:22] cases that we are screening in take so
[2:00:25] much time to kind of work through. It's
[2:00:27] that acuity piece it takes a lot more
[2:00:30] time. So just because it wasn't
[2:00:32] substantiated doesn't mean that a lot of
[2:00:34] work didn't go into that. hours of time
[2:00:37] went in assessing the situation,
[2:00:40] meeting, you know, multiple times with
[2:00:43] the person to try to figure out, you
[2:00:45] know, where they're at, how they're
[2:00:46] doing, their competency level, those
[2:00:49] kinds of things.
[2:00:51] So, um really the the self- neglect was
[2:00:55] um the highest and then we get into that
[2:00:58] no determination APS needed or no
[2:01:01] determination not a vulnerable adult or
[2:01:05] sometimes we get that no determination
[2:01:07] investigation not possible if the person
[2:01:09] doesn't let us into their home and we go
[2:01:11] out and we we take law enforcement with
[2:01:13] us to see if that'll help get us in and
[2:01:15] that person just says through the door I don't need you. I don't want you. I'm
[2:01:20] doing fine on my own and that's it. So, that's that one. And then our last
[2:01:27] one
[2:01:30] um which I alluded to that um I sent a I
[2:01:34] set a goal of 26% actually um we have
[2:01:39] screened in 27%.
[2:01:41] The state county average is at 30%.
[2:01:45] The state would like us to be at 31%.
[2:01:50] So that's the information I have to
[2:01:52] share.
[2:01:56] » I have a question for you.
[2:01:58] Why does the state want you to be at a
[2:02:00] certain percent? What is what's there?
[2:02:02] >> Well, the national average of screen in
[2:02:04] is like 50%.
[2:02:06] >> But each state has its own like some
[2:02:10] states say if you're 60 years old,
[2:02:12] you're a you just automatically a
[2:02:14] vulnerable adult.
[2:02:16] >> So because the I take offense to that
[2:02:20] [laughter]
[2:02:22] >> in the club. Yes.
[2:02:25] >> So,
[2:02:25] >> and we we laugh about that, but that's
[2:02:27] my struggle when your staff was in here
[2:02:29] talking about the act
[2:02:31] >> and how we have to come in and we have
[2:02:33] to do everything for that person. If I'm
[2:02:35] a family that wants to try to take care
[2:02:37] of myself, but I just need this little
[2:02:39] bit
[2:02:39] >> and you come in and throw everything at
[2:02:41] me,
[2:02:42] >> I'd be crabby and I wouldn't deal with
[2:02:44] it very well. I can tell you that from
[2:02:46] my perspective. And so I just, you know,
[2:02:48] we laugh about that, but that isn't
[2:02:50] that's not the way it should be, right?
[2:02:52] >> And and I'm sure you get very frustrated
[2:02:54] with the people that don't let you in,
[2:02:56] don't want their help. But you know
[2:02:57] what? If that's what they want,
[2:02:59] >> right?
[2:03:00] >> If the family members can't deal with
[2:03:01] it, you can't expect the county to deal
[2:03:03] with it.
[2:03:03] >> Yeah. It it's terrible. But
[2:03:06] >> that's what that person wants. Um that's
[2:03:10] what that person wants.
[2:03:11] >> And and truth be told, adult protection
[2:03:13] is reactive. We are not proactive. We
[2:03:16] wait until something is, you know, bad
[2:03:19] enough that it allow the the tool that
[2:03:22] we use allows us to screen it in. We
[2:03:25] don't go out going, "Oh, things might
[2:03:26] get bad. They're going to trip and fall
[2:03:28] in their house because it's hoarded."
[2:03:31] You know, we wait until something
[2:03:32] happens where EMS is called and they
[2:03:35] can't get into the home because of the
[2:03:37] hoorde. Then then we can. But it it is
[2:03:41] the way. And it's hard for people to
[2:03:44] understand that we're not react or we're
[2:03:47] not proactive, we're reactive.
[2:03:50] >> Yeah. And I I feel like that I I don't
[2:03:53] want to be flippant either in my remark
[2:03:55] here, but we get a lot of pressure from
[2:03:57] families to say we should do more. And
[2:04:00] we get not an equal number, but when
[2:04:02] we're serving somebody, they say, "Stay
[2:04:03] out of my house. Stay out of my life.
[2:04:05] Stay out." And I get that and both are
[2:04:07] valid, but that's how we find the
[2:04:09] middle. And it's it's a little brutal
[2:04:10] sometimes because you can't please
[2:04:12] anybody any of the time. You know, it's
[2:04:14] the people right in the middle that
[2:04:15] might want a little bit that we come
[2:04:17] alongside. But that's where your
[2:04:18] comments about the social worker that
[2:04:21] has a relationship with them. It's not
[2:04:23] like we say, "Oh, you didn't meet
[2:04:24] criteria and so we won't help you." It's
[2:04:26] like we can come alongside you and still
[2:04:28] help you with one or two things. What are those things? And that's
[2:04:31] probably the best middle intervention,
[2:04:33] right? um not commitments or just saying
[2:04:36] we can't help you at all or having a
[2:04:38] door slammed in her face which happens.
[2:04:42] >> Tough job.
[2:04:43] >> Thank you for your service.
[2:04:44] >> Yeah, no doubt.
[2:04:46] >> Thanks you guys.
[2:04:47] >> Thank you. Thanks for your time.
[2:04:48] Appreciate it.
[2:04:49] >> Good seeing you guys.
[2:04:50] >> See you.
[2:04:55] » All right.
[2:05:01] Our friends from Micah are here.
[2:05:04] >> All right.
[2:05:08] » They didn't have to wait.
[2:05:09] >> Come up. Come up front.
[2:05:11] >> They didn't have to wait too long.
[2:05:18] » Start off with Amber and
[2:05:23] » Sounds like you got a plan. Nathan,
[2:05:26] [laughter] that's Nathan. He's always
[2:05:27] prepared.
[2:05:30] >> Good morning. [snorts] Good morning.
[2:05:32] >> Good morning.
[2:05:33] >> Thank you so much for uh having us today
[2:05:35] and giving us the chance to talk with
[2:05:37] you all. Uh my name is Nathan Jessen.
[2:05:38] I'm the executive director of the
[2:05:40] Minnesota Inner County Association.
[2:05:42] Um can we just go to the if am I to just
[2:05:45] run through the slides right one by one?
[2:05:47] Great. Um so you all know we're a
[2:05:49] voluntary member organization 17
[2:05:51] counties statewide. The suburban
[2:05:52] counties and regional centers throughout
[2:05:54] the state essentially the largest
[2:05:55] counties outside. uh Henipin and Ramsey,
[2:05:58] I'll have the team just kind of
[2:06:00] introduce themselves as as they go
[2:06:01] through. So, you can go to the next
[2:06:02] slide.
[2:06:04] Um I did want to talk a little bit about
[2:06:05] our work. Of course, during the
[2:06:07] legislative session, we're at the
[2:06:08] capital. We're in committee meetings.
[2:06:09] We're we're in meetings with
[2:06:10] legislators, but during the interim,
[2:06:12] we're working just as hard making sure
[2:06:14] we're um connecting staff with one
[2:06:16] another throughout the state and also
[2:06:18] keeping um tabs on task forces or
[2:06:20] meeting with legislators in the interim
[2:06:22] to try and make sure we're setting the
[2:06:23] priorities and hearing from counties uh
[2:06:26] for 2027.
[2:06:28] Um we also try to make sure we provide
[2:06:29] an analytical lens to our work. Um and
[2:06:32] that's a good transition to the next
[2:06:34] slide I have here.
[2:06:36] I want to provide just some data on
[2:06:38] property taxes um and blue earth county
[2:06:41] and provide some comparisons to both the
[2:06:43] state and the non-metro micica counties.
[2:06:45] So the non-metro micica counties are the
[2:06:47] other regional centers throughout the
[2:06:49] state. I want to say one thing about
[2:06:50] this data to begin with. This is
[2:06:52] assessment year 2025 taxes payable 2026
[2:06:57] data. I know that uh I believe you all
[2:06:59] had a presentation um earlier this
[2:07:01] summer from the county assessor that was
[2:07:03] talking about some preliminary
[2:07:05] assessment year 2026 data. So that's if
[2:07:09] it doesn't totally match up, that's why
[2:07:11] uh this is the the best data we have for
[2:07:13] these kind of statewide comparisons. Um
[2:07:16] so when we're looking at net tax
[2:07:17] capacity share, this is essentially what
[2:07:19] you're taxing with your levy. I would
[2:07:21] say that historically Blue Earth County
[2:07:23] has always had um a strong commercial uh
[2:07:26] and indust uh commercial uh property
[2:07:29] share in particular and you can see
[2:07:31] that's true there when you compare Blue
[2:07:33] Earth to both the state or other
[2:07:35] non-metro micica counties. Oh, I should
[2:07:37] pause and say if you ever want to stop
[2:07:39] and interrupt me, just go right ahead.
[2:07:42] Um we don't need to wait for any
[2:07:44] stopping point, but um and and that's shown here. Um and again Blue
[2:07:49] Earth also heavier um a larger
[2:07:52] percentage of a land property and that
[2:07:55] uh that's both a homestead non homestead
[2:07:57] and uh the house garage and 1acre kind
[2:07:59] of rolled into one right there. Um so
[2:08:03] that that's how Blue Earth County
[2:08:04] compares. If you go to the next slide,
[2:08:06] you'll kind of see what the assessment
[2:08:08] year 2025 change was in comparison. This
[2:08:13] is a one-year snapshot to be clear. Um,
[2:08:16] and I think that uh and how compared and
[2:08:19] how Blue Earth compares with the state
[2:08:20] and non-metro uh Micah counties. I'd say
[2:08:23] just kind of at the outset again a
[2:08:25] one-year snapshot isn't going to give
[2:08:27] you a great holistic picture, but it is
[2:08:30] good data to have. I'm going to call out
[2:08:31] the AL land value here in particular
[2:08:34] just because it's obviously the number
[2:08:36] that jumps out the most. a land values
[2:08:38] are kind of uh notoriously volatile and
[2:08:42] if you look at this uh data for based on
[2:08:45] what you all saw earlier this summer for
[2:08:46] assessment year 2026 well a landl values
[2:08:49] are up 6.2%.
[2:08:51] So um especially for the a landl values
[2:08:55] that are more volatile that's going to
[2:08:57] there is going to be some change from
[2:08:59] year to year on that front. Um I do
[2:09:02] think that if you look at the data here
[2:09:04] non-metro mega counties in blue earth
[2:09:05] county um in as well are much stronger
[2:09:08] apartment value growth than the
[2:09:10] statewide average. Um that kind of makes
[2:09:12] sense. the uh apartment property values
[2:09:16] increase and there was a lot of new
[2:09:17] construction in the metro. I'd say 2018
[2:09:20] to 2023 that's starting to level off,
[2:09:22] but since 2023 we're starting to see
[2:09:25] kind of stronger apartment value growth
[2:09:28] statewide in particular in the regional
[2:09:31] centers. Um you can go to the next
[2:09:33] slide.
[2:09:35] Um and so this is the last snapshot was
[2:09:39] just a one-year snapshot. This is your
[2:09:41] growth since 2021. Average annualized
[2:09:44] growth in an estimated market value. Um,
[2:09:47] a few things jump out here. Um, these
[2:09:49] numbers are bigger. They include that
[2:09:52] really large jump in values that we had
[2:09:54] in 2023 when values increased about on
[2:09:57] average statewide 17%.
[2:10:00] Um, and I think again what stands out
[2:10:02] here is really strong apartment value
[2:10:04] growth. Um and for for Blue Earth
[2:10:07] County, you can also see that um and the
[2:10:09] non-metro micica counties commercial
[2:10:11] values um and Blue Earth and statewide
[2:10:13] are are growing a lot more slowly and
[2:10:16] there have been years where they've been
[2:10:17] completely stagnant or even negative.
[2:10:20] [laughter] Um I should say this data is
[2:10:22] inclusive of new construction. Um and of
[2:10:25] course there hasn't been as much new
[2:10:27] commercial construction statewide. Um
[2:10:29] there has been some more on the
[2:10:31] industrial side. You can see that in
[2:10:33] some of these numbers. Um, but that's
[2:10:35] kind of the picture of uh
[2:10:37] [clears throat] the last five years. Um,
[2:10:40] you know, Blue Earth, uh, some
[2:10:42] difference between, uh, it non-metro
[2:10:44] mega counties, particularly around
[2:10:46] apartment value growth, but nothing, um,
[2:10:48] that really jumps out, um, outside of
[2:10:50] that. You can go to the next slide.
[2:10:54] I did want to sometimes if you're just
[2:10:56] looking at one year of change or five
[2:10:59] years of change, it's a lot more
[2:11:02] difficult to see how things change
[2:11:04] slowly over time, but that change can
[2:11:06] really accumulate. So I show what what
[2:11:09] I'm showing here is the net pro property
[2:11:11] taxes paid across these different
[2:11:13] property types across all jurisdictions.
[2:11:15] Um so this is for counties, cities, uh
[2:11:19] you know, special taxing districts,
[2:11:21] towns, um for uh the the overall trend.
[2:11:25] So what jumps out in this data that's
[2:11:27] true statewide and it's true in Blue
[2:11:29] Earth County is the uh residential
[2:11:32] property um is picking up a larger share
[2:11:35] of the overall property tax burden than
[2:11:37] it has before. This has been a really
[2:11:39] consistent trend. Now, you don't really
[2:11:41] see it when it's jumped when it's just
[2:11:43] one year of difference, but I think
[2:11:44] showing the data like this really shows
[2:11:46] you how significant [clears throat] that
[2:11:48] jump has been over the last 12 years. I
[2:11:51] picked 2014 because that's the last time
[2:11:54] there was a concentrated effort to try
[2:11:56] to address rising property taxes at the
[2:11:59] state level. you know, from 2015 to 2019
[2:12:03] on average, property tax levies, I mean,
[2:12:05] they were increasing on average every
[2:12:07] year, but not to the extent that we've
[2:12:09] seen them increase since 2023.
[2:12:12] Um, and uh, property taxes at the
[2:12:15] capital from really from 2015 to 2021,
[2:12:18] while they were there was a property tax
[2:12:20] committee, there are always discussions
[2:12:22] around it. Nobody's ever like thrilled
[2:12:24] with their property tax bill, right? It
[2:12:26] was not a front and center issue the way
[2:12:28] that I would say that it is um quickly
[2:12:31] becoming at the capital now especially
[2:12:34] post 2020 uh three and four. Um
[2:12:38] and I think just that this this data
[2:12:40] shows that um you know Blue Earth again
[2:12:43] a strong commercial property share but
[2:12:45] is seeing the same kind of trends that
[2:12:47] are happening statewide. Um it's it's
[2:12:49] not a unique issue. Of course, as uh
[2:12:52] more retail has shifted from brick
[2:12:53] andmortar to online, this kind of change
[2:12:56] is inevitable. Um and uh that's that's an issue that we're we're having
[2:13:02] to face because, you know, we're going
[2:13:04] to talk a lot about a few issues that
[2:13:06] are driving up property taxes, right?
[2:13:08] This isn't the one issue that's
[2:13:10] increasing homestead property taxes, but
[2:13:13] as homesteads are picking up a bigger
[2:13:15] share of the overall pie. All these
[2:13:18] other things that are driving up
[2:13:19] property taxes are going to be felt a
[2:13:22] lot more acutely by homeowners than they
[2:13:24] would have been even 10 or 15 years ago.
[2:13:27] And I do think that's um notable.
[2:13:31] Uh can you go to the next slide?
[2:13:34] I did want to talk about a few things
[2:13:37] that are going on this summer. I'm gonna
[2:13:40] actually start with the property tax
[2:13:41] task force or working group uh just
[2:13:44] because it's related to what I was just
[2:13:46] talking about. We were pushing for a
[2:13:48] bill that would kind of look at what's
[2:13:51] driving increases in property taxes and
[2:13:53] what are some of this and take a look
[2:13:56] into this data to show how much more
[2:13:57] homeowners are paying than they were 12
[2:14:00] years ago. that uh bill did get positive
[2:14:02] action in both the House and Senate,
[2:14:05] which means, of course, it did not end
[2:14:06] up becoming law. Um [laughter]
[2:14:10] uh but uh the Commissioner of Revenue,
[2:14:12] Paul Markwart, decided, okay, well,
[2:14:13] we're going to take a look at the system
[2:14:15] and still see what we can do and and
[2:14:18] start holding meetings. So, those
[2:14:20] started about two weeks ago. Um it's
[2:14:23] really trying to talk about a lot of
[2:14:25] these same issues. were really pressing
[2:14:27] them to consider the data that I I've
[2:14:29] shared with you and also kind of what's
[2:14:31] driving property tax increases
[2:14:32] particularly when we're talking about
[2:14:34] unfunded mandates from the federal and
[2:14:36] state government. um you know it is uh
[2:14:40] because there's no legislative mandate
[2:14:43] it's kind of uh ambiguous where they're
[2:14:46] going or what's kind of the purpose of
[2:14:49] these discussions a lot of the time I
[2:14:50] was meeting with the commissioner and he
[2:14:53] said publicly that well we're not going
[2:14:55] to talk about property tax shifts or
[2:14:57] recommending any property tax shifts
[2:14:59] because those are really controversial
[2:15:02] and we all know there's not money in the
[2:15:03] state budget to you know pour a lot of
[2:15:06] money into the property taxes system,
[2:15:08] which you know, I raised the point,
[2:15:09] well, if you're not talking about
[2:15:11] shifting property taxes or putting money
[2:15:13] into the system, it's kind of difficult
[2:15:15] to make changes to the property tax
[2:15:17] system. If you're thinking about that,
[2:15:20] um I would say that right now, um he's
[2:15:23] been really focused on well, what can we
[2:15:25] do to increase citizen involvement and
[2:15:28] the property tax process? Um, we already
[2:15:30] do have a pretty robust system when
[2:15:33] you're comparing Minnesota to other
[2:15:35] states when it comes to citizen
[2:15:36] involvement and I know you all have your
[2:15:39] own uh process and you know citizens can
[2:15:41] come and talk to the county board and
[2:15:43] the budget setting process is not just
[2:15:45] one meeting. Um, so we are continuing to
[2:15:48] talk with him about that. When he was in
[2:15:50] the legislature he had a lot of bills
[2:15:52] that he introduced in this area. Um, so
[2:15:55] it is something that I think is a
[2:15:56] long-standing interest of his. Um but
[2:16:00] that the recommendations are planned to
[2:16:03] come out in December, but we'll keep you
[2:16:05] all posted on that. Uh the modernization
[2:16:07] group, of course, we uh had 201 votes
[2:16:10] for a modernization bill back in May. Um
[2:16:13] so as part of that bill we created this
[2:16:16] modernization advisory group with both
[2:16:19] state agency appointees and county
[2:16:20] appointees uh with equal representation
[2:16:23] to oversee the use of those funds so
[2:16:25] that we make sure we have a role in the
[2:16:28] priority priority setting process for
[2:16:30] what types of projects get approved and
[2:16:32] what doesn't. Um that group is scheduled
[2:16:35] to meet for the first time before
[2:16:36] September 15th. We're also working with
[2:16:39] the Association of Minnesota Counties on
[2:16:41] a broader kind of modernization steering
[2:16:44] committee so that the four
[2:16:46] representatives um county
[2:16:48] representatives to that group are
[2:16:50] informed by the state um county
[2:16:53] perspective as a whole. Um there's not
[2:16:56] uh again they're planning to meet um
[2:17:00] before September 15th. We'll have more
[2:17:02] for you then. But there have been kind
[2:17:04] of these broader county discussions that
[2:17:06] we've been having and setting trying to
[2:17:08] figure out, okay, well, where do we rank
[2:17:10] our own priorities amongst one another?
[2:17:13] The last one I wanted to touch on is
[2:17:16] this uh duty disability working group.
[2:17:19] So in 2023,
[2:17:22] the legislature appropriated $105
[2:17:24] million one time to address the rising
[2:17:28] cost of duty disability. So, these
[2:17:30] aren't folks uh that are have a total
[2:17:33] impermanent disability, but if a public
[2:17:35] safety officer is no longer able to
[2:17:37] perform their job um and is ruled that
[2:17:40] way um and given that benefit from PAR,
[2:17:44] um they can claim duty disability and
[2:17:46] seek cover work. Uh this fund of $105
[2:17:49] million is projected to run out in
[2:17:51] fiscal year 2028. Once it does, this
[2:17:55] shifts from a funded mandate to an
[2:17:57] unfunded mandate. Um, and to be clear,
[2:18:00] most public safety officers, uh, this is
[2:18:02] a larger, if we're talking percentage of
[2:18:05] the pie, it's a larger city budget issue
[2:18:07] than is a county budget issue, but it is
[2:18:09] a significant county budget issue, too.
[2:18:12] Um, so this group has been meeting at
[2:18:14] least weekly since June. Um, has
[2:18:17] legislators serving on it.
[2:18:18] Representative Terry Steer is the chair.
[2:18:21] Um and we've essentially been um
[2:18:24] reviewing what other states are doing in
[2:18:26] this area. How do they treat duty
[2:18:28] disability? Is Minnesota unique in this
[2:18:31] significant spike we've seen in these
[2:18:34] cases particularly um post 2020? Um and
[2:18:38] the answer is yes. Minnesota is unique.
[2:18:41] Um most other states are not
[2:18:43] experiencing this spike. Um serving on
[2:18:46] this group are both public employers and
[2:18:48] public employees. public employees are I
[2:18:50] think interest interested in addressing
[2:18:52] this issue because this is really
[2:18:54] weighing down the health of their own
[2:18:56] pension fund. the police and fire
[2:18:58] pension fund just has a fixed 1% colon
[2:19:01] right um so I think there is some mutual
[2:19:04] interest um and resolving the issue it's
[2:19:07] the how of it that becomes extremely
[2:19:09] challenging because um the state budget
[2:19:12] situation which I'll talk a little bit
[2:19:13] more uh once we wrap up um is what it is
[2:19:17] um there's not $105 million that we can
[2:19:19] pour into this um every four years um
[2:19:23] representative Terry Steer has said that
[2:19:25] acknowledge that okay Minnesota has a
[2:19:27] more generous benefit. He's more focused
[2:19:30] on trying to tighten eligibility. It's
[2:19:32] fairly
[2:19:34] um simple for uh folks that decide that
[2:19:37] they want to try to get beauty
[2:19:38] disability um to achieve that benefit.
[2:19:40] Though they do have to go through a
[2:19:42] 24-week treatment process to do that. Um
[2:19:45] so this is kind of another ongoing
[2:19:47] budget issue for talking about potential
[2:19:49] unfunded mandates that we're keeping an
[2:19:51] eye on going into the 2027 legislative
[2:19:54] session. Um, I am just going to pause
[2:19:57] there. I just threw a lot at you. Um,
[2:20:01] I'm going to hand it off to Amber in a
[2:20:02] second. We'll come back um to close us
[2:20:05] out, talk [clears throat] about the
[2:20:06] state budget, but did just want to see
[2:20:07] if folks had any questions so far.
[2:20:14] » It's a lot.
[2:20:15] >> Well,
[2:20:16] great. Thank you, uh, Madam Chair and
[2:20:18] commissioners. Amber Back has covered
[2:20:19] the transportation and bonding issues
[2:20:22] for Micah at the capital. Um so just
[2:20:24] wanted to bring a couple different
[2:20:25] things to your attention. Um one is we
[2:20:27] were very pleased to see the legislature
[2:20:29] pass a $1.2 billion bonding bill this
[2:20:32] last session. Uh transportation was a
[2:20:34] beneficiary of that which with almost
[2:20:36] 15% of the funds going to different
[2:20:38] transportation projects and we were glad
[2:20:41] to see the LRIP as uh funded again as
[2:20:43] part of that. um wanted to make you
[2:20:46] aware that um MDOT is going to start
[2:20:48] taking applications if you have eligible
[2:20:51] um county roads that could qualify for
[2:20:54] these programs. The application um
[2:20:56] process opened September 1st and is
[2:20:58] through November 25th, but considering
[2:21:00] you got a big $ 1.5 million this past
[2:21:02] cycle. [laughter] I don't know if you'll
[2:21:04] have something else again, but
[2:21:05] congratulations on that this last time.
[2:21:07] Um, the one thing I wanted to update on
[2:21:09] this slide is just last week, uh, Mindad
[2:21:11] did decide what the split of the
[2:21:13] revenues between county municipal state
[2:21:16] aid roads and non-state aid roads would
[2:21:18] be. Um, and they're keeping the same
[2:21:20] split they've had in the past with 35%
[2:21:22] of the, um, funds for counties, 30% for
[2:21:26] MSA roads, and 35% for other local
[2:21:28] entities. And as far as the metro
[2:21:30] greater Minnesota splits, um that 35%
[2:21:33] for the counties and it's they're going
[2:21:35] to try to get to 1/8 to each um mind
[2:21:39] district. So it would be spread u around
[2:21:41] the state. Um next slide, please.
[2:21:46] And then wanted to flag some issues um
[2:21:48] that we are watching going into the 2027
[2:21:53] legislative session.
[2:21:55] Um, first of all, we're kind of
[2:21:57] concerned that um, there could be
[2:21:59] attempts to take transportation funds,
[2:22:01] especially those that are statutoily
[2:22:03] dedicated, and keep them in the general
[2:22:05] fund, especially since the state is
[2:22:07] going to be facing a structural deficit,
[2:22:09] which Nathan will tell you more about.
[2:22:11] Um, but if you recall in 2023, um, the
[2:22:14] legislature statutoily dedicated all of
[2:22:17] the revenues from the, um, sales tax on
[2:22:19] auto parts to transportation, and that
[2:22:22] was going to be phased in overtime. Um
[2:22:24] but then in 2025 they slowed in that
[2:22:25] phase in because of potential budget
[2:22:27] deficits and we're concerned that could
[2:22:29] continue to happen next year. So um
[2:22:31] we'll keep watching that very closely.
[2:22:33] And I also think with affordability
[2:22:35] being a big issue these days and people
[2:22:37] complaining about their license tab
[2:22:39] fees, some sort of permanent reduction
[2:22:42] in the tab fee increase that was passed
[2:22:44] in 2023 could be on the table next year.
[2:22:47] I've heard transportation members in
[2:22:49] both the House and the Senate, Democrats
[2:22:50] and Republicans saying that is something
[2:22:52] they want to revisit. Um, and you know,
[2:22:54] it was very popular this past year to do
[2:22:56] a onetime cut of $250 million um to
[2:22:59] that. Fortunately, there was general
[2:23:00] fund money to backfill that so the
[2:23:02] transportation funds don't take a loss,
[2:23:03] but going forward, we're concerned with
[2:23:05] how they would backfill any of those
[2:23:07] cuts.
[2:23:08] Um, another issue that has been ongoing
[2:23:11] and unresolved and kind of plaguing us
[2:23:14] is um, a law that was passed in 2023 and
[2:23:17] tweaked in 2024 to require highway
[2:23:20] expansion projects where you're adding
[2:23:21] new lane miles or building a separated
[2:23:25] grade interchange um, to have to um,
[2:23:28] figure out the increased greenhouse gas
[2:23:30] emissions of that project and then
[2:23:32] mitigate them. Um, Mindot
[2:23:35] [clears throat] has a technical advisory
[2:23:36] committee that's been meeting um,
[2:23:38] regularly for the past few years and
[2:23:40] they've come up with how to assess the
[2:23:43] amount of greenhouse gas emissions, but
[2:23:45] they still don't have a great plan for
[2:23:46] helping project sponsors um, offset
[2:23:50] them. And a lot of the mitigations fall
[2:23:52] outside the realm of transportation,
[2:23:54] making it very difficult to figure out
[2:23:56] how these are going to work. For
[2:23:58] example, one of the things that you get
[2:23:59] the most bang on the buck for are
[2:24:01] changes in land use and greater density.
[2:24:03] But neither Mandot nor counties have the
[2:24:05] ability to compel cities to change their
[2:24:07] zoning to to achieve that. So that's a
[2:24:09] concern. Um and there haven't been any
[2:24:12] projects that have gone through this
[2:24:14] process until just now. Washington
[2:24:16] County is trying to figure out offsets
[2:24:19] for an interchange project and it's very
[2:24:21] complicated and is even raising more
[2:24:23] concerns. So we're kind of keeping tabs
[2:24:25] on that to see how this is going to pan
[2:24:26] out. But we do do really believe there
[2:24:28] need to be some changes to the o over
[2:24:30] overarching framework here in terms
[2:24:32] [clears throat] of governance of how you
[2:24:33] do this mitigation as well as just
[2:24:35] providing funds because all these
[2:24:36] mitigations are expected to increase the
[2:24:38] cost of transportation project
[2:24:39] significantly.
[2:24:41] And then along these lines um especially
[2:24:44] if there is a Democrat trifecta again at
[2:24:46] the legislature, we expect to see some
[2:24:48] other pieces of legislation that would
[2:24:50] put additional conditions on building
[2:24:52] new highway projects. Um there were
[2:24:54] several bills out there last year that
[2:24:56] we expect to come back. Um one would
[2:24:58] halt pro highway expansion unless you
[2:25:00] have a 60-year maintenance plan with a
[2:25:02] source of funding identified and nobody
[2:25:05] comes up with 60-year maintenance plans
[2:25:07] for roads. Bridges, yes, but roads, no.
[2:25:09] I mean, MDOT doesn't have the budget for
[2:25:10] this. Um some of the other proposals
[2:25:13] would require more emphasis on
[2:25:14] alternatives to highway expansion, which
[2:25:17] might make sense in the metro area, but
[2:25:18] not necessarily in other locations of
[2:25:20] the state, including Blue Earth County.
[2:25:23] um as well as having to come up with new
[2:25:24] statements of need and reasonableness to
[2:25:26] demonstrate why you are doing any sort
[2:25:28] of highway expansion project. So um
[2:25:31] we'll be keeping tabs on those and
[2:25:33] keeping you updated, but I'd be happy to
[2:25:34] pause there and answer any questions if
[2:25:36] you have them.
[2:25:40] » So much fun
[2:25:41] >> that it is. [laughter]
[2:25:43] Well, thank you. Oh, and I do want
[2:25:45] quickly want to give a shout out to your
[2:25:47] um engineer Ryan Tes. has been an
[2:25:48] incredible resource, very active in our
[2:25:50] engineers group and really appreciate
[2:25:51] his council as we're dealing with some
[2:25:53] of these issues at the capital. So,
[2:25:56] >> thanks.
[2:26:00] » I guess I'm up. Um, Madam Chair, good
[2:26:02] morning, Madam Chair and Commissioners.
[2:26:03] Nancy Celeleski and I handle both public
[2:26:05] health and human services for Micah and
[2:26:07] it's great being here this morning.
[2:26:09] >> Uh, going into the 2026 session, all of
[2:26:12] the county organizations had three of
[2:26:14] the um same priorities. Nathan did talk
[2:26:17] about technology modernization and I
[2:26:19] just want to call out and thank all of
[2:26:22] you and staff for showing up at the
[2:26:23] capital because certainly all of the
[2:26:25] legislators heard from us and it was it
[2:26:27] was so much a hand all hands- on deck
[2:26:30] issue. The other two issues progress was
[2:26:33] made um on both SNAP and the act or the
[2:26:36] math but CD CWDA.
[2:26:39] However, because the legislature
[2:26:41] appropriated only one-time money, we're
[2:26:43] going to have to go back in 2027 and
[2:26:45] seek ongoing funding.
[2:26:48] So, starting with SNAP, uh counties will
[2:26:50] be paying an increase share due to
[2:26:51] recent federal uh action. Terms of the
[2:26:55] administrative costs, Minnesota's one of
[2:26:57] only three counties where um we're
[2:26:59] responsible for the administration of of
[2:27:02] that program or a portion of
[2:27:04] administrative costs. The legislature
[2:27:06] did appropriate $10.7 million, but
[2:27:09] again, in one-time funding. It will be
[2:27:11] allocated to counties based on their
[2:27:13] proportional share of admin costs. Um,
[2:27:16] effective October 1st of this year,
[2:27:18] 2026, our county share is being
[2:27:20] increased from 50 to 75%.
[2:27:23] And that is estimated to cost around $35
[2:27:26] million annually. So, again, I want to
[2:27:28] point out we received 10.7. So, we're
[2:27:30] going to need need additional funding
[2:27:32] here. Also, uh there's a new cost share
[2:27:35] and it relates to the benefit, the
[2:27:36] actual benefit that's effective next
[2:27:38] year, July 1 of 2027,
[2:27:41] uh when the government, federal
[2:27:42] government is requiring us to pick up a
[2:27:44] percentage of the benefit. And it's
[2:27:46] based on our payment error rate. And I
[2:27:49] just want to remind everyone that error
[2:27:51] rates can be as simple as a
[2:27:52] typographical error, a client not
[2:27:55] returning um needed paperwork, outdated
[2:27:58] technology, and while we've made
[2:28:00] progress on that, it's going to take
[2:28:01] some time of course for that to be um
[2:28:04] upgraded. So the estimated cost for uh
[2:28:07] counties based on the current air rate
[2:28:09] is $138 million annually. So again,
[2:28:12] we're going to have to [clears throat]
[2:28:13] revisit that issue as well.
[2:28:17] Next slide. um is MASPA CWDA.
[2:28:21] Again, the 2026 legislature appropriated
[2:28:24] 15 million one time to address county
[2:28:26] implementation costs. Based on that,
[2:28:29] each county will receive a minimum of
[2:28:31] $100,000 which is based on an existing
[2:28:34] statutory formula and you can see that
[2:28:36] formula on the slide. It's based on
[2:28:39] child population in the county, the
[2:28:41] number of screened in reports of child
[2:28:43] maltreatment, as well as the number of
[2:28:45] open child protection case management
[2:28:47] cases.
[2:28:48] In 2026, the agency DCYF did not receive
[2:28:52] any funding for this and we as you are
[2:28:55] well aware want them to do the case
[2:28:57] review of these cases. So that was
[2:29:00] delayed until July 1st of 2027.
[2:29:03] And I would just remar or mention that
[2:29:06] the working group does expire in
[2:29:07] December 31st of 2026. And so really the
[2:29:10] work has not been done. So I'm not sure
[2:29:13] how that's going to work out um in terms
[2:29:15] of the expiration of that group. The
[2:29:18] last item I want to mention is long-term
[2:29:20] services and supports or LTSS.
[2:29:23] You recall in 2025 um in response to
[2:29:26] massive cost shift proposals and this
[2:29:28] came from everyone the Senate, the House
[2:29:30] as well as the governor um the
[2:29:32] legislature kind of punted it to the
[2:29:34] next bianium and to to address that
[2:29:37] counties and providers are charged with
[2:29:40] finding $178 million in the system by
[2:29:43] July 1st again of next year. A large
[2:29:46] task force was put together um I think
[2:29:49] it's over 30 people. We have six county
[2:29:51] members on there, uh, two from Micah,
[2:29:53] two from AMC, and two from MAXA along
[2:29:56] with providers, consumers, and their
[2:29:58] family members. They've started their
[2:30:00] work and, um, actually found some
[2:30:02] savings uh, this last year, which the
[2:30:05] legislature did book those savings, but
[2:30:07] did not account it toward the $178
[2:30:10] million that we are responsible for
[2:30:12] finding by next year. uh without the uh
[2:30:16] the group continues to meet and they
[2:30:17] have a number of of uh suggestions and
[2:30:21] without um any action to book those
[2:30:23] savings, counties are going to be
[2:30:24] looking at another cost shift in July
[2:30:27] one July of 2027. So, we're going to be
[2:30:29] working hard on that issue as well.
[2:30:32] >> Those are like the three our four top
[2:30:35] issues I just want to mention and and
[2:30:37] call out your staff as well. I've worked
[2:30:39] with Phil Clawson for years and Eric
[2:30:41] Slutton and they're both very much
[2:30:42] active on on our committees and great
[2:30:45] asset to not only you and Micah but
[2:30:47] county statewide. Thanks. With that, I'd
[2:30:50] answer any questions.
[2:30:52] >> Questions?
[2:30:54] I [clears throat] just wondering who the
[2:30:55] other two um states where the counties
[2:30:58] are responsible.
[2:30:59] >> Oh, no. [laughter]
[2:31:01] >> Just
[2:31:04] I used to know this.
[2:31:06] >> What's that?
[2:31:06] >> I used to know this. Oh, [laughter]
[2:31:08] >> let me look into that. I can't remember
[2:31:10] which ones.
[2:31:12] >> Maybe Colorado was
[2:31:13] >> California or something. I don't know.
[2:31:14] >> Yeah, sorry.
[2:31:16] >> North Carolina was maybe one.
[2:31:18] >> Yeah, I don't recall the other one.
[2:31:19] >> Okay, I'm going to Google that.
[2:31:21] >> I bet we'll have an answer. [laughter] I
[2:31:22] bet we'll have an answer in a few
[2:31:23] minutes.
[2:31:24] >> We will.
[2:31:28] Sorry.
[2:31:29] >> All right. Um, if we can go to the next
[2:31:31] slide, I can cover environment. Um,
[2:31:33] madam chair, commissioners, my name is
[2:31:35] John Paul Yates. um filling in for my
[2:31:37] coworker Rachel Sis Noic who covers
[2:31:39] environment issues for Micah. She's out
[2:31:41] on maternity leave, so happy to fill in.
[2:31:44] Um I'm going to cover three of these
[2:31:46] items verbally on the list. The first is
[2:31:48] around um defending waste to energy. Um
[2:31:52] this spring the public utilities
[2:31:53] [cough and clears throat] commission had
[2:31:54] a docket related to the state's carbon-f
[2:31:56] free standard um and issued a ruling
[2:31:59] that allows for life cycle analysis to
[2:32:01] be used to include the burning of solid
[2:32:03] waste um under the state's carbon-f free
[2:32:05] standard. And that ruling was [snorts]
[2:32:08] um there was a petition by some
[2:32:10] environmental groups to have that ruling
[2:32:12] reconsidered um at the public utilities
[2:32:14] commission's um July meeting um and so
[2:32:18] they took up that petition but
[2:32:19] unanimously rejected it. So the the
[2:32:22] ruling will will stand there. Um the
[2:32:26] second item under this bucket I wanted
[2:32:27] to mention is related to um waste to
[2:32:30] energy. There was legislation to
[2:32:32] restrict um the Henipin energy re
[2:32:35] recovery center, the herk um last
[2:32:38] session. I think we'll continue to see
[2:32:40] legislation introduced to to limit um
[2:32:43] the burning of solid waste. Um and I
[2:32:45] think depending on the outcome of the
[2:32:46] election um that will kind of determine
[2:32:49] how much legs those proposals have. Um
[2:32:52] the second item is score grants. Um
[2:32:55] these are um grants that help um
[2:32:59] counties related to various hazardous
[2:33:01] waste management programs. Um Michael
[2:33:04] will reintroduce legislation that would
[2:33:06] dedicate the remaining 27% of the solid
[2:33:08] waste management tax collections that
[2:33:11] are going to the general fund um to
[2:33:13] increase funding for score grants. This
[2:33:15] is an issue that's had broad bipartisan
[2:33:17] support. Um expected to continue um to
[2:33:21] be that way. Um and again just depending
[2:33:24] on various election outcomes um be big
[2:33:28] changes especially in the Senate tax
[2:33:30] committee. So we'll just have to
[2:33:31] navigate those on this issue. Lastly um
[2:33:35] wanted to update related to product
[2:33:37] stewardship programs. Broadly these just
[2:33:39] try to um transition cost um and
[2:33:43] management um for certain products from
[2:33:47] um taxpayers to producers. Um there was
[2:33:50] a battery bill that had been split off
[2:33:53] previously from a larger e-waste bill.
[2:33:56] Um that's gotten a lot of industry and
[2:33:58] stakeholder negotiation over the last
[2:34:01] year and is in pretty good shape to
[2:34:03] potentially pass next year. Um so I
[2:34:06] think it's very possible we'll see that
[2:34:08] outcome. Additionally, what's left over
[2:34:10] of that broader e-waste bill is likely
[2:34:13] to also return. Um, but I think that one
[2:34:16] still has a lot of stakeholder
[2:34:18] engagement to go. Additionally, as the
[2:34:21] paper and packaging products bill that
[2:34:23] had passed a couple years ago is
[2:34:25] implemented, we've seen kind of
[2:34:26] reemergence of some of the opposition um
[2:34:29] to work on that, but we'll continue to
[2:34:32] monitor as that's implemented.
[2:34:34] Happy to answer any questions if there
[2:34:36] are any.
[2:34:40] » Any questions?
[2:34:43] All right, I will close this out here
[2:34:45] over the next couple. Um, so what I've
[2:34:47] got here in this table is basically the
[2:34:50] current um fiscal picture of the state
[2:34:53] general fund. This is post2026
[2:34:56] legislative session. These dollars are
[2:34:58] in millions. So you can and I should say
[2:35:00] they don't factor in inflation. Um so
[2:35:03] you can see basically that okay this
[2:35:05] bianium general fund revenue billions
[2:35:08] lower than general fund spending that
[2:35:10] gap does shrink to about 2.2 billion in
[2:35:13] fiscal 2829. The way that the state has
[2:35:16] balanced its budgets um in the current
[2:35:18] bianium since uh uh during this uh
[2:35:22] legislative bium since 2025 session is
[2:35:25] essentially by rolling over uh surplus
[2:35:28] that they experienced during the 2324
[2:35:31] session when we had that $18 billion
[2:35:33] surplus, right? They didn't spend all of
[2:35:34] it. They rolled a lot of it over. Um so
[2:35:37] that's how they've been balancing the
[2:35:39] [clears throat] budget. Um budget
[2:35:40] reserve remains strong at 3.4 4 billion.
[2:35:43] Um, since the last economic forecast, I
[2:35:46] would say that the national economic
[2:35:48] picture has weakened a little bit. Um so
[2:35:51] when we get the next economic forecast
[2:35:54] in December that means we're going to be
[2:35:56] looking when we get those fiscal 30 and
[2:35:58] 31 look for the first time we're going
[2:36:01] to the outbuing a lot of the time when
[2:36:03] we're talking about revenue is really
[2:36:05] dictated by the national economic
[2:36:07] picture more so than what's going on in
[2:36:09] Minnesota just because the predictive
[2:36:12] nature of our economy is a little bit uh
[2:36:15] the shorter time frames really when it's
[2:36:17] the most helpful. So, what does this
[2:36:19] mean at the capital? I mean, it means
[2:36:20] that a lot of the challenges that we
[2:36:22] were facing the last two years will
[2:36:23] still be in place regardless of what
[2:36:25] party is in the majority, right? Nancy
[2:36:27] was talking about uh onetime money that
[2:36:29] we did get to address, uh rising county
[2:36:31] costs due to SNAP or the act. Um, you
[2:36:35] know, but those were one time, right?
[2:36:36] Those were band-aids. Um, you know, and
[2:36:39] tax committee, uh, we're always looking
[2:36:42] at ways that we can increase CPA or
[2:36:44] other funds to make sure that counties
[2:36:46] are offset for their costs. Of course,
[2:36:48] when we're in a structural deficit,
[2:36:50] that's more difficult. And when we're
[2:36:52] not only is it more difficult at a time
[2:36:55] when legislators are talking about
[2:36:56] property taxes more, it means, okay, if
[2:36:59] we can't solve it by increasing refunds
[2:37:01] or increasing aid to counties, they
[2:37:03] start looking in other areas, and that's
[2:37:05] not always uh the most productive. um
[2:37:07] because they're thinking about things
[2:37:09] like levy limits or assessment caps that
[2:37:11] it's particularly in um the environment
[2:37:13] that we're in are I I mean they make
[2:37:16] less sense than ever, right? Uh given
[2:37:18] that the rising cost shifts um and
[2:37:20] mandates that are coming onto the
[2:37:21] counties. Um so that's a little bit of
[2:37:24] the the picture. Um you can go to the
[2:37:27] next slide
[2:37:29] as far as Oh, I do want to just I I
[2:37:31] forgot earlier. I do want to call out a
[2:37:32] couple of your staff. Laura Alvak is the
[2:37:34] chair of our Micah HR directors group.
[2:37:37] She's extremely helpful on HR issues.
[2:37:39] And of course, Michael Saulberger is an
[2:37:41] asset on any number of issues, but I
[2:37:43] really value his input, especially when
[2:37:45] anytime we're talking about property
[2:37:46] taxes or the property tax process.
[2:37:49] There's a lot of knowledge there. Um,
[2:37:51] but as far as what's next, um, right now
[2:37:53] Micah is in the process of setting its
[2:37:56] own priorities. Um, we've had some
[2:37:58] conversations with our board already
[2:38:00] about that and some informal things, but
[2:38:02] I mean likely it's going to be some of
[2:38:04] the stuff we've been talking about here
[2:38:05] today, especially if it's something that
[2:38:08] um or it's pushing back against cost
[2:38:09] shifts um that that we'd be um looking
[2:38:13] at in 2027. But the picture is going to
[2:38:15] be different regardless of who ends up
[2:38:18] in the majority. In the Senate in
[2:38:19] particular, you've had a lot of
[2:38:20] retirements on the DFL side. So some
[2:38:22] significant chairs like Papis who chairs
[2:38:25] uh bonding, Senator Rest who's been at
[2:38:28] the capital for over 40 years is the
[2:38:29] chair of taxes or Sandra Wickland was a
[2:38:32] sen author of our HHS um modernization
[2:38:35] bill. They're leaving and you know uh on
[2:38:38] the House side, Representative Paul
[2:38:39] Torlson is the party and that's I mean
[2:38:42] you're talking about someone that's
[2:38:43] really been an asset to counties who's
[2:38:45] really a champion for our modernization
[2:38:47] bill in the House. this uh JP mentioned
[2:38:49] the Senate Tax Committee is going to
[2:38:51] have all new GOP members because all of
[2:38:53] their GOP members are retiring. They're
[2:38:55] not running for reelection. Um so it is
[2:38:58] difficult to forecast exactly kind of
[2:39:00] who's going to be sitting in what chair.
[2:39:02] Um but it is something that you know
[2:39:04] regardless of what happens legislative
[2:39:06] session comes back on January 12th.
[2:39:09] We'll see um how everything shakes out.
[2:39:11] Obviously all the constitutional offices
[2:39:12] and all the legislative seats are up for
[2:39:14] election. Um but our work is going to
[2:39:18] you know uh what happens in November
[2:39:20] will inform how um you know our strategy
[2:39:23] to be sure. Um but the priorities are going to be the same, right? I I
[2:39:29] mean they're they're the issues that are
[2:39:30] facing counties across the state right
[2:39:32] now. But I do just again wanted to close
[2:39:35] by saying thank you so much. Um, we try
[2:39:37] to make sure we're an asset to you, but
[2:39:39] Blue Earth is also certainly an asset to
[2:39:41] Micah and really informs our work and we really appreciate that. So, just want
[2:39:46] to say thank you.
[2:39:48] >> Thank you.
[2:39:57] » All right.
[2:39:59] I think that
[2:40:00] >> is the end of our agenda.
[2:40:02] >> Move to recess.
[2:40:03] >> I have a motion to recess.
[2:40:06] So move.
[2:40:07] >> Do I have a second?
[2:40:08] >> Second.
[2:40:09] [laughter]
[2:40:10] Second.
[2:40:11] >> Any discussion? All in favor?
[2:40:14] >> I opposed. We are in recess.
[2:40:22] [music]