[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.