[0:00] You know, good morning, everyone. Good morning.

[0:03] » will call the uh County Board of Commissioners regular meeting to order

[0:06] on this day, August 25th, um 8:30 a.m. Um please rise for the

[0:11] pledge.

[0:14] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

[0:19] republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[0:26] justice for all.

[0:29] » [clears throat] >> Are there any adjustments to the agenda?

[0:34] » [clears throat] >> I'm sure I'd like to make a motion to uh

[0:37] approve the agenda. >> All in favor?

[0:40] » Oh. Oh, second. >> Second.

[0:44] All in favor? Aye. Aye. Oppose, same sign.

[0:47] Um at this time we do offer the public for comment to come forward to have any

[0:52] um points they'd like to um give to us. Is there anyone in the audience who'd

[0:56] like to do that? I see no one there.

[1:00] Any Any comments from the board members? >> No matter what.

[1:04] » Don't feel valued, but uh

[1:08] » Um looking on to the uh consent agenda, a motion to approve as a whole. We have

[1:13] claims, minutes of the uh regular August 11th meeting,

[1:18] uh County Parks and Trails Membership appointment, and Airport Advisory

[1:23] Commission appointments. Would anyone like to pull anything?

[1:28] » I'd make a motion to approve the consent agenda as a whole.

[1:32] » Support. >> All in favor?

[1:34] » Aye. >> Oppose, same sign.

[1:38] Um we'll move into our first discussion from Land Services. Neva is here to talk

[1:43] about some work going on in the county.

[1:49] » All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. The few items for you today from our

[1:54] department are items from the Planning Commission's August 11th meeting. The

[1:58] first is the preliminary plat recommended for approval by the Planning

[2:02] Commission with three conditions. This would be for a new standard plat known

[2:08] as Little Creek Woods submitted by Howard Hedstrom. And the Planning

[2:12] Commission first held the public hearing for this on July 29th.

[2:15] There were no comments from the public on that request at that time. The

[2:20] Planning Commission did table it at that meeting to allow more time for revisions

[2:24] to the plat that were noted during the staff technical analysis. And those

[2:27] items were addressed. And then at the August 12th, they resumed that item and

[2:31] recommended approval with three conditions. The conditions are mostly

[2:35] related to two of the 11 lots are split or bisected by the Gunflint Trail or the

[2:40] new private road. And so the conditions are clarifying that the lots that are

[2:45] bisected must remain connected together. You can't split lot 1A and 1B or 2A or

[2:51] 2B. And also that the the parts of each of those lots that are

[2:55] kind of the extra area is not to be improved upon or developed because it's

[3:01] very difficult to find conforming build sites on those lots. Each of those lots

[3:05] do have conforming build sites and meet the standards in the remainder area of

[3:09] those lots. And that's the the overall is a it's been an

[3:14] interesting project with Mr. Hedstrom. We began this process in the early

[3:18] spring time and as many people know in development in Cook County, it takes a

[3:21] little bit of time. So, this is the first item and then the

[3:24] second item today is the final plat approval for this plat proposal as well.

[3:31] » Okay. Questions or comments to Neva.

[3:36] » [cough and clears throat] >> I'll make a motion to approve the

[3:40] preliminary plat for the Little Creeks Creek Woods

[3:43] with including the three conditions. >> Support.

[3:50] » So, we have a motion and >> [clears throat]

[3:52] » All in favor? >> I.

[3:54] » I. >> Opposed? Motion passes unanimously.

[3:58] » Thank you. And then the second item is that final

[4:01] plat item that I referred to. So, um the Cook County subdivision ordinance

[4:06] does allow the approval of both the preliminary and the final plat at the

[4:10] same meeting for the planning commission uh provided that the public hearing for

[4:14] the preliminary plat was held at a prior meeting. So, as I previously referred

[4:18] to, the July 29th meeting was a public hearing for this plat, which was then

[4:21] tabled and then the planning commission reviewed both the preliminary and final

[4:24] plat at the August 11th meeting. And the planning commission recommended approval

[4:29] uh with minimal discussion at the August 11th meeting for this standard plat.

[4:34] » Okay. Questions or comments on that?

[4:38] Commissioner Sullivan. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to make

[4:40] a motion to accept the unanimous recommendation of the Cook County

[4:44] Planning Commission to approve the Little Creek Woods final plat.

[4:48] » Support. >> All in favor?

[4:51] » I. >> I.

[4:52] » Opposed? Same sign. Motion passes on that also. Thank you.

[4:56] » Thanks, Howard. >> Thank you very much. I was prepared to

[4:58] answer any questions, but >> [laughter]

[5:00] » You can save your voice for something else today.

[5:05] » Thanks, Howard. >> Thanks, Howard.

[5:07] » The third item I have for you is a rezone request in the same neck of the

[5:12] woods, so along County Road 60. Uh for those of us familiar with the

[5:16] zoning map, this is a area that is zoned light industrial reflective of the

[5:20] long-time ownership of the Hedstrom Lumber Mill. Over time that land has

[5:24] been subdivided and sold into separate ownership. Um and with this request,

[5:29] this is one of the individually owned parcels that's requesting a rezone from

[5:33] light industrial to FAR 3, kind of the standard residential zoning of that

[5:37] area. During the staff's analysis, staff did

[5:41] identify that uh typically with rezone requests, we like to see all of the

[5:45] contiguous land upon approval of that rezone still be zoned similarly. So is

[5:51] to say we'd like to see the outside edge of a rezone um shifting, not an island

[5:57] of zoning kind of left on its own from a rezone. Um the Cook typically in local

[6:03] governments we approve rezones when they're reflective of a change to a

[6:06] comprehensive plan um when it's something that's identified for future

[6:09] changes. The Cook County Land Use Guide Plan does not speak about a change from

[6:14] this area from light industrial to FAR 3. However, with that being said in Cook

[6:19] County we have been a little flexible with rezones when they're adjusting

[6:23] existing boundaries between existing zone districts. Um so I've brought

[6:28] several rezones to you over the last couple of years. Typically it's shifting

[6:31] to existing um boundaries between zone districts and

[6:35] not creating something left isolated. With this request there is an isolated

[6:41] parcel that's left uh light industrial south of the subject parcel asking to be

[6:45] rezoned FAR 3. Um this parcel would create um

[6:49] conforming FAR 3 parcels with its lot size requirements.

[6:54] Um also what has changed since well so with the planning commission planning

[6:58] commission did evaluate all of this. They took all this into consideration

[7:02] and they also considered that it seems that light industrial land is not

[7:07] seemingly under high demand in Cook County. Um this land has been on the

[7:11] market for a while and it's more attractive for residential development

[7:15] it seems. And so whether that's a short-term

[7:18] change or reflective of more long-term changes in the county um I'm mostly

[7:23] going into this just to kind of explain that um when we have these rezones of

[7:27] larger areas cuz let's bear in mind that the Hedstrom preliminary plat and final

[7:32] plat that was just adopted was also an area that was light industrial that was

[7:34] zoned to FAR 3. And so um we are seeing these changes over time of this light

[7:39] industrial zoning getting shifted into the FAR 3.

[7:43] I'm not saying that's neither a good or a bad thing. It's just that when we do

[7:47] approach an update to our land use guide plan or a county comprehensive plan,

[7:51] these are items that would be especially helpful for us to have informed from

[7:54] community input if this is the vision and direction that our community needs.

[7:58] We don't want to undermine our land uses and the available land for light

[8:02] industrial activities if we're shifting that all to residential area because

[8:06] then we'll see more requests for industrial activities in residential

[8:09] areas if that's not left. So, that's my platform on just re-zones 101. Uh some

[8:15] of that is identified in the staff narrative for the planning commission.

[8:19] So, at the August 11th public hearing, the planning commission did consider all

[8:23] of this. They did feel that still the demand for residential development is

[8:26] strong enough and that this seemed suitable for residential development and

[8:30] they did unanimously recommend approval of this re-zone.

[8:34] Um and also they they mostly wanted to

[8:37] identify that um you know, it just seems like there are

[8:40] shifts over time. So, again, an update to our land use guide plan would be a

[8:43] very helpful component to inform these types of decisions.

[8:46] There has been one shift since we submitted this county board item report.

[8:50] The property immediately south of the one identified as being left as an

[8:53] island, they did submit a re-zone application uh from the light industrial

[8:58] to FAR 3 over the last week. Um it has not been, you know, we haven't

[9:03] had time as staff to review the application for completeness, hasn't

[9:06] gone through a public hearing, but I just wanted to inform you that um that

[9:09] is one minor change. Um maybe major depending on how you view it. Um I still

[9:14] view it as it's still an application, people can still withdraw applications.

[9:18] It's still not the same thing as an application being under review and

[9:21] approved at the same meeting. So, staff's preference just from a a

[9:24] procedure perspective is that both of these applications would have been

[9:28] reviewed simultaneously and then it could have kept this conversation much

[9:31] more linear for all of us. But um again, re-zones don't have conditions. It's

[9:35] just a a approval or a denial. Um so this is recommended for approval without

[9:41] conditions. And I'm happy to answer any other

[9:44] questions that you may have. >> Okay.

[9:46] Questions? I'll go with Mr. Gamble. >> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[9:50] So thank you, Neva, for the detailed um foundation for these recommendations. My

[9:57] question would simply be that uh when we are looking at these, and I assume it's

[10:01] so, but I think for the public it'd be good to know that um

[10:05] we look at in the context of the whole. So you alluded it to an extent relative

[10:11] to the light industrial and residential that we want to find a balance so we

[10:17] have opportunity, but in in the context my question is specific to we see this

[10:23] as we're evaluating it in the context of the whole. So we don't all of a sudden

[10:28] realize when we look individually that oh my goodness, we've left ourselves

[10:33] short on this end. >> Mhm.

[10:35] I agree. >> Yeah. Thank you.

[10:38] » [clears throat] >> Commissioner Mills.

[10:40] » I I was going to ask about the southern property, so I'm really happy to hear

[10:44] that there's an application in and um I really appreciate the the larger map

[10:49] to to give the perspective of just what's going on in the whole area and

[10:53] the the whole industrial campus or complex. So

[10:57] uh otherwise I'd make a motion to approve the the rezone from light

[11:00] industrial to FAR FAR 3 um for parcel ID 53-234-4425.

[11:08] » Support. >> Okay.

[11:10] I have a motion and a second. All in favor?

[11:13] » Aye. >> Aye.

[11:14] » Opposed? Any sign? Motion passed unanimously for you. Thank you.

[11:18] » Thank you.

[11:21] » Moving on to item number five, human resources. We have a couple of updates

[11:26] with this.

[11:39] » Good morning. I found my keys.

[11:41] » Nice. >> [laughter]

[11:43] » I needed help getting in the building this morning.

[11:46] I was like, "Where are they?"

[11:49] » [sighs] >> All right.

[11:53] Okay. So, the first item I have to present today is a job description

[11:57] update and more uh in regards to one specific item on the job description for

[12:02] our emergency management director. Um so, in the

[12:06] for all of our job descriptions and the heading, we've got the box that says

[12:11] like what the title, who they report to, so which department they're they're fall

[12:15] they fall in, the grade, the date it was last updated, board approved, and

[12:20] there's also an FLSA status box. Um so, for the EMD position right now, it's

[12:27] currently um a classified with a non-exempt FLSA status. That's the Fair

[12:33] Labor Standards Act. And in reviewing the job description, which it's always a

[12:38] good practice to review a job description when we have uh turnover in

[12:42] that in that uh position, just to ensure like are there any updates that need to

[12:47] be made to the essential functions of the position, has anything shifted or

[12:51] modified. Including FLSA status is always something um that should be

[12:56] reviewed and reaffirmed um or modified as needed. And so, in reviewing the EMD

[13:02] position given that the current incumbent will be retiring here

[13:07] beginning of next week, um it it came to our attention that the FLSA status um

[13:14] could be updated and changed from a non-exempt to an exempt status. So, that

[13:18] is the only change that I am proposing um and uh bringing for approval today.

[13:26] Oh, and I should say this would become effective after the current incumbent is

[13:31] um is retired, so it would be effective September 2nd, so the day after

[13:37] when that position is vacant. >> Okay. All right. Questions or comments?

[13:48] Commissioner Sullivan. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to make

[13:50] a motion to approve the FLSA status for the emergency management director from

[13:55] non-exempt to exempt effective September 2nd.

[14:00] » Support. >> We have a motion and a second. All in

[14:03] favor? >> Aye.

[14:05] » Aye. >> Opposed? Same sign. Motion passed

[14:07] unanimously. >> Thank you.

[14:10] All right. The second item I have is uh bringing forth a contract with David

[14:16] Drown Associates, which we often refer to them as DDA. So, this is for the

[14:21] ongoing work that I continue to do with collaboration with DDA and the

[14:26] consultant that's specifically working with us and our county. Um so, this

[14:32] would be a continuation of the contract we had for

[14:36] um 2023, 2024, 2025. So, this would continue the 3-year ongoing maintenance

[14:42] of our job description reviews um along with a continued market

[14:47] analysis on a yearly basis. It would be for in uh the same amount that has been

[14:54] charged for the last 3 years in the amount of $10,550

[14:59] per year. Um that has been and continues to be in the HR budget as well.

[15:10] » Questions or comments? >> [clears throat]

[15:11] » Commissioner Sullivan. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to

[15:14] thank you for number one um taking this approach. I have seen over my tenure as

[15:20] a commissioner such a huge improvement in the uh regularity with which we're

[15:27] reviewing our job descriptions, and just appreciate the fact that we're much more

[15:32] competitive. And I think it's great that it is just

[15:36] built into our budget, and the fact that it the price did not go up.

[15:40] That was really nice. I think that's the first thing I can think of in a long

[15:44] time that hasn't gone up in price. So with that, I'd make a motion

[15:49] » [clears throat] >> to approve of the 3-year contract with

[15:52] DDA in the amount of $10,550 for ongoing maintenance of job

[15:57] descriptions. >> Uh support.

[16:01] » Any further questions or comments? Commissioner Gamble.

[16:04] » Thank you, Madam Chair. >> [clears throat]

[16:07] » Well, this is a a subject that, you know, I've I've addressed before. I do I

[16:12] do have a a handout. Commissioner Sullivan said as

[16:15] opposed to getting into a lengthy presentation, it'd be good to have

[16:20] handout to support what I'm saying. So, I will hand this out.

[16:27] There's two pages there, and it's >> Thank you.

[16:30] » Yeah. So, um

[16:35] » [clears throat] >> I would respectfully say that while I

[16:37] support ongoing maintenance of job description on behalf of Cook County

[16:41] employees, I do not support the basis on which wages were established given the

[16:45] county selected for comparison, as it creates an extreme fiscal mismatch,

[16:50] ignores local economic realities, labor markets, and the ability to pay. If we

[16:55] elect to spend more in one area, we have to cut spending somewhere else. We

[16:59] cannot fund it all. That is our reality as a small county with a very limited

[17:05] tax base. We talked about this in the last COW

[17:08] meeting, and I had addressed some of the the issues of why I have concerns in the

[17:15] comparable county selection in the documents that I handed

[17:19] out. It says when conducting a compensation study for Minnesota County,

[17:23] the most important criteria to consider are geographical proximity and labor

[17:28] market competition, followed closely by population size and tax capacity budget

[17:34] size. So, as outlined here in this handout,

[17:38] the criteria for comparable county selection

[17:41] geographic proximity, labor market competition, population and scale, tax

[17:46] capacity and financial resources, full-time equivalent staffing, uh

[17:51] housing and rental costs, economic structure, household income and

[17:55] spending, and total compensation. Those are our categories that look at and

[18:00] there's a narrative that accompanies each of those headings. In the interest

[18:04] of time, the next page here are the uh

[18:08] criteria typically used to determine comparable counties.

[18:12] That's population, per capita personal income, taxable tax capacity, net tax

[18:18] levy per capita, total current expenditures and property tax revenues.

[18:23] Under those categories in the comparable counties that were selected uh to

[18:28] establish our wage base, the top seven counties in the selection

[18:33] we used were the most populous counties. Um and that's Hennepin number one,

[18:39] Ramsey two, Dakota three, Anoka four, Washington five, St. Louis six, and Olm-

[18:46] Olmsted. So, we we we being where we are

[18:51] as far as population, that comparable counties was the top most populous

[18:56] counties. Two was per capita personal income. Six

[19:02] of the seven top counties ranked highest per capita personal income were used for

[19:06] comparison in the county's compensation study. That would be Hennepin, Carver,

[19:11] Washington, Traverse, Scott, and Dakota. Number three, taxable tax capacity. Six

[19:17] of the highest tier, that's the highest tax base and revenue generating and

[19:21] generating counties, were used for comparison in the county's compensation

[19:26] study. Hennepin, Ramsey, Dakota, Anoka, Washington, and St. Louis.

[19:31] Number four is net tax levy per capita. That's the total amount of property

[19:37] taxes a local unit of government decides to raise divided by the total number of

[19:42] people living in the community. Small rural or resort-heavy counties

[19:47] with low permanent populations relative to their infrastructure costs, such as

[19:52] Cook County and Lake County, often register high per capita levy

[19:56] burdens. Cook County frequently ranks second highest in overall per capita

[20:02] relative to tax burden due to high public infrastructure and service costs

[20:07] distributed across a very small permanent population base. Number five

[20:11] under criteria typically used is current expenditures. Seven of the eight

[20:17] counties with the highest total current expect expenditures

[20:21] were used for comparison in the county's compensation study. That being Hennepin

[20:25] County, which ranks number one by a wide margin in the billions. Ramsey County,

[20:31] Dakota, St. Louis, Anoka, Washington, and Olmsted.

[20:34] And six is property tax revenues.

[20:38] Hennepin County consistently collects the highest total property tax revenue

[20:43] in the state due to its large population and immense commercial residential

[20:48] taxable market value. Rural, less populated counties collect

[20:53] the lowest overall property tax revenues, often totaling a fraction of

[20:58] major metro counterparts. So, when I when I look at these

[21:02] realities and and I've done that for a number of years having been part of

[21:08] the comp study that we conducted in my in my first term

[21:14] and in many discussions I I still struggle with this and I

[21:23] as I think you're aware I believe in evidence-based

[21:27] decision-making data that supports that decision. So this isn't

[21:33] something that's driven by an emotion or a personal agenda. It is something that

[21:38] I feel is my responsibility and stewardship to the people that put me in

[21:43] this position to be a good steward of limited dollars.

[21:48] So the proposal that is before us that has been motioned and seconded

[21:54] um I support it on the basis of a

[21:57] commitment to our employees and I said that in the

[22:00] committee of the whole meeting as well. If this is something that we value that

[22:05] we want to set this to attract quality people, maintain quality people,

[22:09] whatever. Um

[22:11] then um

[22:13] I I will support it because we chose it based upon priority what our values

[22:18] would be. And and I've encouraged that we would

[22:22] take a look at everything that we are have chose to be responsible for in

[22:27] governance and then based upon our limited funds prioritize those things

[22:33] and if we make this our top priority then we have done that through a

[22:37] disciplined process and then we have to decide what we're going to cut. Hennepin

[22:44] County number one population, number one budget, number one in in tax revenue,

[22:49] number one across the board this year is having a very difficult time and they

[22:56] are having to cut staff and [clears throat]

[22:59] a lot of other things that are and yet they've got the most money. So,

[23:04] it's up to this board to make a decision on where we're going to spend the

[23:08] limited resources we have because we can't fund it all.

[23:12] So, my support in this motion before us is

[23:18] the commitment to staff with the understanding that we will do the due

[23:21] diligence necessary to balance the limited resources we have that we can

[23:27] expend. So, thank you for listening.

[23:32] » [clears throat] >> We have a motion and a second before us.

[23:35] Is there any further discussion or comments?

[23:39] » [clears throat] >> I'll call for a vote. All in favor?

[23:42] Aye. Opposed? Same sign. Motion passed

[23:45] unanimously. Thank you very much.

[23:51] » [clears throat]

[23:54] » Moving on to item number six, um Firewise with the auditor Brady.

[24:00] » Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh the Firewise Committee

[24:05] is planning brush pick-up events this fall for property owners who've done

[24:09] clearing but need help disposing of the brush.

[24:13] Uh estimated cost of these events is

[24:16] 28,000. We don't have any current grants

[24:20] uh available for funding these costs. Uh our limit our Secure Rural School

[24:27] funds are also limited. Uh we're projecting out to use what we have now,

[24:32] it'll take us into the next uh funding of Secure Rural Schools. So, I'm looking

[24:37] at uh our tax forfeit funds. We had

[24:41] previously authorized these funds to go towards the

[24:46] Firewise coordinator when we were waiting on the Secure Rural Schools.

[24:50] » [clears throat] >> And I'm asking to make those available

[24:53] again for the brush pick-up costs. Uh what we have left is uh just a little

[24:58] over 25,000 now because we've been using it for firewise and it was planned to

[25:04] use it for pictometry, so we spent about 40,000 on pictometry since uh we last

[25:11] used it for secure rural schools. So, anyway, this would uh likely deplete

[25:15] that fund and we'd come back for other use if we needed it.

[25:20] And our coordinator, Steve, is also looking at um every source

[25:26] um of funding uh first of all, the DACA, called the

[25:31] DACA funds. But, we'll look at any of these costs that might fit that we we

[25:36] might get replenished on. But, in the meantime, I'd like to have this

[25:40] available for the brush pick up now and then we'll apply for any refund where

[25:46] avail- that's available later. >> Especially this year with the fire

[25:51] situation. >> Yeah.

[25:53] » Needing to clean up their brush and so forth, but they probably will take

[25:56] everything that you have right now. Commissioner Sullivan.

[25:59] » Thank you, Madam Chair. Um just related to the wildfire risk, we

[26:04] have property owners in District 4 who have already piled up

[26:08] the brush and are waiting for this. So, this is work that our citizens have

[26:12] already completed and it's really a practical way to uh reduce fuel on the

[26:18] landscape. >> Commissioner Gamble.

[26:22] » Yes, thank you. Yeah, I think um historically and you can get the way

[26:26] back and find out that a lot of the fires, forest fires that we've seen that

[26:30] have devastated communities within our state have been because of brush that is

[26:36] there to fuel fires when they stop during start during the lightning

[26:40] strikes or whatever. So, I would make a motion to use up to 28,000 um tax

[26:46] forfeit funds for brush pick up in the fall of 2026.

[26:51] » Support. >> Have a motion in the second. Any further

[26:54] questions or comments? All in favor?

[26:58] Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion passed

[27:01] unanimously. Okay.

[27:05] » So, next item is the [clears throat] airport contract for the taxiway

[27:09] construction project. Previously, we approved grants for the engineering and

[27:15] we've done that work and this is for the construction. We approved the the bids.

[27:20] So, this is the contract with KGM Contractors for the Hangar Road taxiway

[27:26] reconstruction at the Cook County Grand Marais Airport.

[27:30] And the county attorney has looked at the contract and and made some There've

[27:37] been some requested changes made to the contract and the additions that you see

[27:42] in the attachment. Originally, you would have seen just the

[27:46] two-page contract and the insurance and the uh payment bonds

[27:52] and bid bonds. And now we're including all of the FAA

[27:57] uh specs, etc. that outline a lot of the requirements that you don't see, but are

[28:04] just referenced. And some of them are now made explicitly

[28:09] through the county attorney's actions. And Jean, you might want to say more

[28:13] about that. >> All right.

[28:15] » Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, the contract came to us in short form. I

[28:19] know that's the contract that the county is used to seeing.

[28:23] R S & H was pretty clear that they work with that contract on a number of other

[28:26] counties. However, on a call yesterday, Brandon

[28:29] Jensen was particularly helpful in making sure that we had the attachments.

[28:34] The airport improvement project grant-funded

[28:40] projects require certain language in there. So, all of the specs and things

[28:46] like that don't necessarily need to be included, but the fastest way we could

[28:50] get this attached was to include everything and then those um

[28:55] compliant conditions are included in that packet. So, that's the reason for I

[29:01] don't like to make things 300 pages [laughter]

[29:03] when they can be two pages, but we want to protect the grant and we want to make

[29:07] sure that we're in compliance and the letter of the law says that those that

[29:12] language and those terms are in the procurement documents and they're in the

[29:16] contract. So, that's why I made that request and Brandon Johnson was

[29:20] particularly helpful in getting that quickly.

[29:23] » And given the way that um state and federal are dealing with

[29:29] contracts these days, they're getting much more uh

[29:33] let's say detailed in in following we're noticing that especially in the state

[29:40] contracts. So, it makes it makes a lot of sense to

[29:44] make it very explicit in our response.

[29:49] » Commissioner Mills? >> I was going to say

[29:51] with some [clears throat] of our past experiences I I'd say bravo on this.

[29:55] Thank you very much for the the diligence. [clears throat]

[29:57] » Thanks. Commissioner Gannon?

[30:00] » Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I think um

[30:03] anytime you have an agreement, contract, whatever that being explicit and

[30:08] inclusive is hugely important. And getting clarity and understanding and at

[30:13] the point that documents are drafted, that is the point to make sure that you

[30:16] are protecting your best interests. And I appreciate your reference to the

[30:22] letter of the law which sometimes we we just are grow numb to it, but it but it

[30:27] is what protects us and I I appreciate so much your efforts in this area and uh

[30:33] your department and your thoroughness. Thank you.

[30:36] » Thank you, Commissioner. >> [clears throat]

[30:38] » One other point I make, we don't have the grant yet. Uh we've made the

[30:43] application. This is not unusual. They always put us in this position. I

[30:48] shouldn't say always, but often. We have to approve the contract and

[30:52] start even though they have to get um get the work started even though we

[30:59] haven't got final approval, but um it's it's all but assured. So, it's it's work

[31:05] they want done also, so. >> Commissioner Gallivan.

[31:09] » Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh given our previous experience with

[31:14] the airport and the discussions we had with multiple regulatory agencies on the

[31:18] expansion of our runway, the the

[31:22] this is uh a lived experience that informs what we do at this point to make

[31:26] sure well, let's get it right and be thorough on it. So, we have we

[31:30] understand it because nobody likes to diffuse their efforts and energies and

[31:33] resources because of misunderstanding, so this is great.

[31:40] » Commissioner Sullivan. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to make

[31:42] a motion to approve the $1,443,788

[31:48] contract with KGM for Hangar Road Taxi Lane reconstruction at the Cook County

[31:53] Grand Marais Airport. >> Support.

[31:57] » [clears throat] >> Have a motion and a second. Any further

[31:59] questions or comments? All in favor?

[32:03] » Aye. >> Opposed, same sign. Motion passed

[32:05] unanimously. Thank you to Attorney Peterson, to

[32:08] Brady, to Anne who's on committee there that this is

[32:13] um a good move forward. Let's just put it that way.

[32:16] » It's a a very important move forward. Um we, if you recall, had a prop strike

[32:22] » Yeah. >> in the past and we want this repaired

[32:25] and brought forward in good condition and construction should start the week

[32:30] of September 14th. So, thank you. >> Okay.

[32:34] All right. So, we'll move on to item seven, uh administrator.

[32:38] » Thank you, Madam Chair. So, the first item that I have is the courthouse

[32:42] security memorandum of understanding and non-disclosure agreement. And to give

[32:47] you some information on the the background of this, the sixth judicial

[32:51] district contacted me, um Mark Coin and Sarah Taylor, the district

[32:55] administrator, um to let us know that the court had

[33:00] secured funding to provide a security assessment for every county within the

[33:05] sixth judicial district. So, they are paying for that and um engaging in the

[33:12] uh contract with the consultants and are asking for our support in moving

[33:16] forward. And so, with that, we will receive information that is then

[33:21] confidential. And so, want to make sure that that information remains

[33:25] confidential um between the court and the county. And

[33:29] so, they have asked us to support this memorandum of understanding and

[33:33] non-disclosure agreement. Um that work should begin the end of September, and

[33:38] we should have more information within a few months.

[33:41] So, at this time, I'm just asking all of you to support moving forward with the

[33:45] MOU and the NDA. >> Okay.

[33:48] Commissioner Mills? >> Very very supportive. Just curious, when

[33:51] was the last time this was done? >> 2012.

[33:54] » Okay. And um

[33:57] certainly [clears throat] this will factor into our

[33:59] future capital. >> Absolutely. This So, to add more to

[34:03] that, thank you for that question. So, um I did have our architect on the call

[34:08] with the six sixth judicial district so that we could talk about how the two

[34:13] would connect. And we may be moving back when we bring the recommendations from

[34:18] the building study to the board to make sure that we have the time and ability

[34:22] to incorporate the recommendations from the security assessment, as well.

[34:26] » Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Chair.

[34:28] » Yeah. >> Commissioner Gambles?

[34:30] » Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. So, um given

[34:33] the nature of this assessment, it's it's not information that is fully disclosed

[34:39] because that's the nature of security. And so, as we do look at this and with

[34:45] our remodel and all of these kinds of things, there'll be elements that will

[34:50] be discussed that'll be more confidential in nature. And then those

[34:54] elements that we can disclose will will discuss.

[34:58] » Correct. Because I was going to ask the question what all will it encompass, but

[35:01] in doing that then it would compromise the security [laughter] nature.

[35:04] » Correct. >> Yeah, so this is

[35:07] this is where you have to trust the process in this one.

[35:11] » [laughter] >> Commissioner Sullivan.

[35:13] » Thank you Madam Chair. And just for the public, I know when we hear the

[35:18] letters NDA or non-disclosure agreement, everybody goes crazy. So, for the

[35:22] public, just know that approving it for closed security briefings and

[35:28] purposes, this is legally permissible. We're not doing anything awkward or

[35:34] unfair or illegal. We are being transparent as much as we

[35:39] can. >> Thank you, Commissioner Sullivan. So,

[35:40] it's basically the the court um providing security to us as the county

[35:47] that they will not be sharing the security information out with anyone

[35:51] outside of us. So, it's their data, it's their information, but they're providing

[35:55] it to us, like you said, likely in a closed session for information to the

[36:00] board and to help guide our building remodel discussions, but that's all it

[36:05] is. >> Good timing.

[36:06] » Yeah. >> Yes, Commissioner Campbell.

[36:09] » Yeah, thank you Madam Chair. So, I'd make a motion to approve the courthouse

[36:13] security memorandum of understanding and non-disclosure agreement between the 6th

[36:17] Judicial District and Cook County. >> Support.

[36:22] » Any further questions or comments? All in favor?

[36:26] Aye. Opposed? Same sign. Motion passed

[36:29] unanimously. Thank you on that.

[36:33] » Next item. >> All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. So,

[36:35] my next item, as everyone knows, um Mike Keyport, our emergency manager

[36:41] and management director, is retiring um on September 1st, and we have selected a

[36:48] finalist and offered a position uh to Ruth Fogel as our next emergency

[36:53] management director. She has accepted, and she will be starting on September

[36:57] 24th. We're very excited about having her coming on board, um but that

[37:02] provides a little bit of a gap where we don't have a director in that role. And

[37:06] so, my request is to appoint Steve Van Ketrix um to the position as an interim

[37:12] director of emergency management from the time period of September 1st until

[37:17] Ruth is on board on September 24th.

[37:24] » Commissioner Gamble. >> I'll make a motion to um appoint Steve

[37:28] Van Ketrix to the position of interim county emergency management director

[37:32] effective September 1st. >> Support.

[37:35] » Any questions or comments? Commissioner Gamble.

[37:38] » Thank you, Madam Chair. So, just a a question, we did have correspondence

[37:42] from um our fire chiefs asking if they could be involved at all. And so, my

[37:47] question is just what was any involvement at all on the part of fire

[37:52] chiefs >> Um

[37:53] » in the hiring of Ruth? >> Yes, thank you for that question. So, we

[37:55] had one of the fire chiefs from Luton Fire, um Steve, and I'm I'm Duclos.

[38:00] Duclos. Thank you. Steve Duclos um assist us in that

[38:04] process, and during that process, he was consulting with the fire chiefs from all

[38:09] of the different uh fire departments in the county, and um highly supported and

[38:15] uh the recommendation to hire Ruth and was part of that determination.

[38:19] » Yeah. That's that's great. Yeah.

[38:22] I think uh you know, the evidence of being

[38:25] responsive to that is is hugely important, not just for the hiring, but

[38:29] for what it says in our working with you know, community and people have

[38:33] vested interest in us. That's great. Thank you.

[38:36] » You're welcome. And any further updates?

[38:40] » I do. Thank you, Madam Chair. I've got two updates. The first one is that I

[38:43] joined uh attended the county tribal meeting yesterday. It was in Duluth.

[38:49] And um it was a great meeting. There were um

[38:53] I I think probably 20 some people that attended, so it was great great

[38:59] attendance. Um the items that we talked about was the State Community Health

[39:03] Services Advisory Council. Uh they are looking for representatives from the

[39:07] tribes to join that committee. Um we talked about the OMB rule changes on

[39:13] federal grants and how that is impacting tribes as well as the county. And then

[39:17] state legislative priorities. So, we anticipate having our next meeting right

[39:21] before the AMC um conference in December. I think it's

[39:26] December 6th or 7th, if I'm not mistaken.

[39:29] Uh so, that will be our next meeting. But um was happy that I was able to join

[39:33] that. The only other update I have is the fact that we have our all-staff

[39:38] potluck tomorrow from noon to 1:00. So, if any of you can join that, should be

[39:43] fun. Uh we're hopefully doing it outside if the weather permits. I know.

[39:48] » [laughter] >> And Brooke has graciously offered to

[39:51] bring a grill and uh grill brats. Yep. Yep. So, it should be fun.

[39:58] » Okay, thank you. So, I need to back up here because we need a motion.

[40:01] » Yeah. >> To approve, of course, Steve to be the

[40:05] interim. >> Oh, yeah. Madam Chair, I I

[40:07] uh I made a motion and then we had support. Okay.

[40:10] » We just need a vote. >> Okay. Thank you.

[40:13] » All in favor. >> I.

[40:14] » I. >> Opposed, same sign. Motion passed

[40:18] » Represent that in the notes that it happened sequentially.

[40:22] » [laughter]

[40:24] » Right. Okay, so um we'll move on then to

[40:29] employees concerns or missioner commissioner concerns or meeting update

[40:34] reports. Anyone has anything to report?

[40:40] Meetings? We had a busy August, I know.

[40:45] » It was very busy. Thank you, ma'am. >> Oh, Commissioner Sullivan.

[40:48] » I'll go >> Go I have to go right ahead.

[40:50] » Okay. >> So we started out with our local

[40:52] emergency preparedness meeting on August 11th and

[40:58] talked a little bit about the wildfire smoke, the wildfires themselves and kind

[41:03] of talked about given that what we would

[41:06] like to do in terms of activities both, you know, particularly tabletop within

[41:10] the next year. Um and that was the first meeting that

[41:13] Avi ran for us through PHHS, so that was really great.

[41:19] And then we were involved obviously in the

[41:22] emergency management director interviews.

[41:26] And then um Sag Seagull Area Property Owners

[41:31] Association met and I attended that and two big issues. One was about their

[41:37] garbage area. They pick up off of a road off the Gunflint Trail, which unless you

[41:44] have a truck is impassable. And so a second canister has been added by

[41:49] Northshore Waste up by the Loon Lake um canisters and that will be for people

[41:54] who have a Toyota Prius like me or some low-to-the-ground car, but there is an

[41:59] option for everybody then that's there. And so we really appreciate Northshore

[42:03] Waste you know, free of charge putting that

[42:06] extra canister um at Loon Lake. And then Commissioner

[42:11] Gamblin I attended the HRA meeting and um

[42:16] that was very, very productive um and we talked a little bit more about

[42:21] our housing trust fund and are in the process of getting that rolling.

[42:26] And airport advisory um obviously the taxi lane reconstruction, which we just

[42:32] approved and discussed our new commissioner members.

[42:35] And then uh last Friday was a Gunflint uh gratitude gathering, which was an

[42:40] opportunity to thank all of our firefighters, EMS, EMTs, all the first

[42:45] responders that assisted during um the wildfires back in July and ongoing.

[42:52] Uh yesterday we had a safety committee meeting and talked a little bit about um

[42:57] with our new emergency management director having her look at our training

[43:01] schedule and do some of the planning for upcoming events for our employees. And

[43:06] then lastly uh yesterday um the subordinate governmental service

[43:11] district committee met and both Commissioner White and I attended that

[43:15] and we talked about just county responsibility and jurisdiction issues.

[43:21] Um as we know, some of those SGSDs are

[43:25] pri- on private property or private road, DNR and US Forest Service. And so,

[43:32] talking about are there agreements, joint powers agreements that we need to

[43:36] put together, but what do we do to ensure that all these unique little

[43:40] places might have an opportunity to continue. So, that was one of our uh

[43:44] discussions, but very, very busy month and um

[43:49] still the wildfire up on the Little Knife is continuing. It's 90% contained,

[43:55] but it's not over till it's over. Just reminding everyone.

[44:02] » [clears throat] >> Commissioner Mills.

[44:03] » Thank you. Uh yeah, I was up uh up the trail

[44:08] yesterday and smelled smoke and all the weekend smelled smoke and so

[44:12] there's still there's still smoke there's still fire.

[44:15] Um but I guess it's over over the border largely is what I understood but

[44:20] » [clears throat] >> what I wanted to share is that um on

[44:22] Friday Peter Mark and Siri the commissioners

[44:26] from the EDA um successfully got the EDA through the

[44:30] closing process on the sale of Spear National. So that's big news and it's

[44:35] not done done done done because we still have to you know meet the obligations of

[44:40] of the sale contract as far as the irrigation and the septic are concerned

[44:44] so still going through that and that's

[44:47] still on our plate but just a huge step um I feel like for for that organization

[44:53] and for our community um you know it's it's been on the EDA's

[44:58] plate since the formation of the EDA and yeah it's a it's a significant

[45:03] change and transition across the board so

[45:06] just want to thank those guys for the work that they've put into this which

[45:10] has been a lot and a lot and a lot and um

[45:13] » [clears throat] >> really excited for for what's

[45:16] » And I'll just add we we've received the funds.

[45:19] » Then we got them. Yeah. >> The no that's coming but this is this is

[45:24] the funds from the sale. >> Okay.

[45:26] » So we received a wire now which we had to have in order to plan the closing of

[45:31] the bonds >> Okay.

[45:32] » on October 1st so the funds are in our accounts.

[45:36] » You scared me for a second as far as

[45:40] accept or or is that >> [laughter]

[45:44] » Thank you. Uh and I think that's all I I have to

[45:46] share today. >> Okay.

[45:50] Commissioner Gallon [clears throat] >> Yeah.

[45:52] My reports I'll give it public health human services it's on the list there

[45:56] for Um but the question I would have if the

[45:59] board would agreed on this at some point maybe at a cow meeting or whatever, but

[46:04] uh to understand actually how those dollars translate relative to our bond

[46:08] obligation, the money's received, the money in escrow for completing the

[46:13] things that are compliant with the contract. It'd be good for us I think to

[46:17] to see that just >> package

[46:19] » Yeah, yeah. To see that, understand that and how what has been paying down those

[46:25] that debt, how that translates into that 160,000. So, just seeing that picture

[46:30] would be beneficial big time. >> Oh, yeah. On that note too, thank you

[46:36] Commissioner Gamble. Um

[46:39] kind of following up with the conversation about

[46:42] uh I I think you were alluding to it or maybe said specifically just that where

[46:46] the tax dollars, which tax dollars and just our overall costs historically, I

[46:52] think just for the total package would be really helpful to to

[46:55] better understand it cuz I still get questions about that too. Um

[46:59] how much did we pay versus how much have have visitors paid and we can't know

[47:03] exactly, but you know, we can get a better idea just overall so everyone

[47:08] everyone knows where we sit and yeah. >> I've done that summary [clears throat]

[47:12] before, so I think I can just pull it up. We're good. Yeah.

[47:19] » Yeah, thank you Madam Chair. So, yeah, I think it it's it's important for us to

[47:23] to understand and put it in a context because you learn from those experiences

[47:27] and so that's that would be good. Thank you.

[47:33] » Yes. >> Thank you Madam Chair. I forgot one

[47:35] thing. There's a piece of paper every commissioner got

[47:39] on a draft proposal for AMC for the presentation that Jeff Brand and I would

[47:44] like to make it AMC in December. It's called from housing crisis to housing

[47:48] ecosystem and so we are working on a proposal and we'll submit that and have

[47:54] put together kind of a draft power point, but I'll keep you informed about

[47:58] that as that presentation hopefully is accepted as a more than a just a

[48:03] proposal, and then we'll go from there. >> Great. Good mission.

[48:06] » You probably don't need ideas, >> [clears throat]

[48:09] » but I wonder if um either one of the Hamilton sisters in the game.

[48:12] » Oh, they are um on page seven.

[48:16] » And Red Arrow and >> [laughter]

[48:18] » Awesome. >> Bravo.

[48:19] » Do you want to say excuse me? You want to say anything about the Mayhew?

[48:24] The Mayhew project given That was at the EDA or was it not?

[48:28] » Um just uh it was just an amendment for the

[48:31] timeline. >> Okay.

[48:32] » So, yeah. I think that's the only update I'd have for you.

[48:35] » [cough] >> Still

[48:38] still waiting to break ground or any further progress there.

[48:44] » She attended the ARDC meeting last week and we're

[48:48] um in a position where we can help people in terms of the fire that

[48:53] affected businesses, so try to get the word out on that, too.

[48:58] » [clears throat] >> They're gearing up for um

[49:00] October insurance decisions. The staff that they have there for that. We're

[49:06] readjusting our meetings in September because it's just

[49:10] everything is happening, it seems like, in September because we're going to

[49:13] Bemidji for AMC, so we have our next meeting in 2 weeks. So, it's just a

[49:19] matter of, you know, making sure we can adjust. Um and also [clears throat] we

[49:24] um we formed a committee for our bylaws,

[49:27] which haven't been reviewed for I'll just say several years, and so um I'll

[49:32] be a part of that, too. Coming up in um October.

[49:36] We've discussed um we've always met at the Hermantown facility. However, it's

[49:42] um considerable big and um echoey and

[49:46] always cold. So, you would wear three layers if you wanted.

[49:50] » [laughter] >> Sounds so nice.

[49:52] » Right to it. The always cold.

[49:56] » And expensive. >> [laughter]

[49:58] » So, we're looking into going to Lake Superior College.

[50:02] And they have a meeting room there. You drive in, it's the right building on the

[50:05] right side, and there's plenty of parking, and so I think we'll give that

[50:08] a chance. But, you know, this is how we work as a group, isn't

[50:11] it? We evaluate, we reassess, we say, "Okay, can we do different, or can we do

[50:16] better, or can we um try it out and see what happens?" So,

[50:21] that's uh that's where we are with that. Any further thoughts about meetings?

[50:26] » Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. The um

[50:29] ARC, the corrections, is uh something that I report on public health and human

[50:33] service, but something we don't normally talk about, but we did address because

[50:37] we're in budget cycle, is that uh St. Louis County administrator Kevin Gray

[50:43] was there, and he said that their insurance, they self-insure as a county,

[50:48] their health insurance is going up 39%. >> Oh.

[50:52] » And uh they're trying to absorb some of that cost as it relates to

[50:58] the corrections. And uh so, it'll be 15% that is passed

[51:03] on through that that gets passed on in our supportive charge. But, um as I

[51:09] mentioned before, because of some uh changes in personnel and some other

[51:14] issues in accounting that transferred dollars to where they belong, uh that I

[51:19] » think you referenced about 32,000, which was correct, and I

[51:24] So, I it's 32 to 34,000 reduced amount that would be Cook County's share this

[51:29] this year for 2027.

[51:34] » [clears throat] >> And I did have an insurance company

[51:37] because I told Kevin, I said, "Well, I had an insurance company to me when we

[51:41] were looking at our insurance, and they're saying just that your your

[51:45] claims are driving your your rate up and when you're self-insured, that's going

[51:49] to be the case. And so they said you just need to hire

[51:52] healthy people, get rid of the real and hire healthy people. I said, "Well,

[51:55] that's not how it works though." >> That's not how it works, you know.

[51:58] [laughter] >> That is I mean that's

[52:01] funny and also though true and that is something that the benefits

[52:05] and wellness committee is, you know, aware of and really trying to get ahead

[52:10] of. How can you help employees be healthier and thereby reduce your claims

[52:15] and thereby reduce your costs and it's it's a a challenge but I think with, you

[52:20] know, >> awareness

[52:22] » awareness, feedback, participation, it it can happen.

[52:28] The challenging part also is really our rates come from our pool.

[52:34] Um, and so you have to somehow have the whole pool kind of get on that bar but

[52:39] every bit helps. So we'll do our part and

[52:43] try to help do

[52:46] more education for the broader pool or I don't know but step by step.

[52:51] » I I would say that relative to pool to having a pool

[52:56] is that when we are evaluating our health insurance both in the benefit

[53:00] that we receive and the cost to the county that the pool is significantly

[53:06] better than like if we were in a position of St. Louis County where we

[53:09] self-insured. So distributing it out over, you know, but you're you're right

[53:15] that it's we can't control everything. >> Yeah and and uh

[53:20] I have been interested and still am and attempted by the self-insurance because

[53:25] we have had presentations at AMC about [clears throat]

[53:28] I think it was Swift County. They just

[53:33] uh 1% increase, you know, 0% increase and

[53:37] just like for 10 years having that kind of, you know, excellent rates and with

[53:43] being self-insured, but then they'll have a neighboring county who had

[53:46] experienced the same thing and they'll have

[53:49] one bout of cancer amongst their employees or their employee families and

[53:54] it's all out of the water there, so. >> That's the situation with St. Louis

[53:58] County. If you have several million dollar claims, you're going to see your

[54:01] rate >> Yeah, yeah. So, it's it's it's risky and

[54:05] that tempered by >> And you'd have to understand Swift's

[54:08] experience relative to claims >> Yes, exactly.

[54:12] And the age and all the demographic, yeah, it's really

[54:15] » they must have claims managers that they hire.

[54:19] » Yes, yeah. >> Even St. Louis County.

[54:21] » Oh, I don't know about that. >> I assume.

[54:24] » Yeah, I I maybe we didn't discuss that, but I would assume, too.

[54:29] When you got that much money involved.

[54:33] » So, Allison will probably start doing that soon, huh? Just kidding. Just

[54:36] kidding. [laughter]

[54:39] » Um, but on a side note, um, I did hear back from Northeast Service Cooperative

[54:43] uh, late in the work day yesterday and I'm actually meeting with Lauren Sterk,

[54:47] who is the rep that we work with for our health insurance there, on Thursday

[54:51] morning to actually hear about our renewal.

[54:53] » Okay. >> I was ready to write something, but no.

[54:56] » Yeah. >> Stand down.

[55:00] » [clears throat] >> Okay, anything else from anyone?

[55:04] No? Okay. >> [clears throat]

[55:08] » So, um, I'm going to move down to item number 10, correspondence memos. In our

[55:14] packet, we have the sales tax comparison through June of 26 and the HR board

[55:19] report on staffing changes. And um,

[55:23] I'm then um, announcing that we're going into a closed session with the review

[55:28] one-year review of County Administrator Administrator [clears throat] Trebel.

[55:32] And so, um, we'll be uh, be making a motion to close and then we will go into

[55:38] our closed session and we will not return as a board group.

[55:42] So, I will >> [clears throat]

[55:44] » have a motion to close the meeting pursuant to Minnesota Statute 13D

[55:49] subdivision 3A to review the annual performance of

[55:53] County Administrator Trubel Hersema. A summary of the review will be

[55:57] presented at the September 8th County Board of Commissioners regular meeting.

[56:03] » So moved. >> Support.

[56:05] » All in favor? >> Aye.

[56:07] » Aye. >> Opposed, same sign.

[56:09] We are adjourned. >> Did everyone sign this? Mike's card?

[56:16] » Only I don't think I did. >> Okay.

[56:18] » Thank you. >> Yep.

Cook County Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting - 25 Aug 2026

Transcript