[0:02] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[0:05] United States of America and to the

[0:07] republic for which it stands, one nation

[0:10] under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[0:13] justice for all.

[0:19] » Are there any disclosures of interest?

[0:24] » Hearing none, is there uh a motion to

[0:27] approve the previous board minutes? So

[0:30] moved Anderson.

[0:31] >> There a second.

[0:32] >> Second.

[0:33] >> Okay. There's a motion and a second. All

[0:34] those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Motion

[0:38] carries. Next is review the agenda.

[0:43] >> There are no changes. Chair.

[0:44] >> Thank you.

[0:45] >> Approval as presented. Anderson. Second.

[0:48] >> There's a motion and a second. All those

[0:50] in favor say I.

[0:51] >> I.

[0:52] Opposed. Motion carries. Um, next is

[0:56] the consent agenda and there's uh seven

[0:58] items on the consent agenda.

[1:03] >> Move approval of the consent agenda.

[1:04] Anderson

[1:06] >> second.

[1:08] >> There's a motion and a second. All those

[1:10] in favor say I.

[1:11] >> I.

[1:11] Opposed. Motion carries. Uh, next um

[1:17] public works

[1:34] Good morning board. Uh today's item uh

[1:38] is a quick discussion about a bid

[1:40] opening we had for a low slump overlay

[1:43] contract for a bridge on County Road 5

[1:47] uh just uh west of Lake City. On March

[1:52] 26, 2026, uh, for a little background,

[1:56] we entered into an agreement with

[1:58] Stonebrook Engineering to analyze

[2:00] several concrete bridges in Goodu

[2:02] County, uh, mainly to look at

[2:05] maintenance needs that we could address

[2:07] through, uh, some maintenance dollars

[2:10] that we budget annually.

[2:13] Um during the analysis, a low slump

[2:16] overlay was identified for the bridge in

[2:20] question, 25513

[2:22] in Lake City, uh which we are hoping to

[2:25] extend the life of the bridge. Um low

[2:29] slump overlays consist of removing the

[2:31] top 1 to 2 in of uh deck concrete

[2:35] wearing surface and replace it with 2 to

[2:37] 3 in of new low slump concrete. Uh the

[2:41] projects improve the driving surface of

[2:43] the bridge by removing potholes and the

[2:46] and improve the per or reduce the

[2:48] permeability of the bridge deck by

[2:50] reducing the amount of moisture and

[2:51] chlorides that can penetrate and degrade

[2:53] it over time. We opened bids on August

[2:56] 4th. Uh we only received one bid and it

[2:59] was significantly more than our

[3:01] engineers estimate. So, because of that,

[3:04] today, uh, we're requesting that the

[3:07] board reject the bid and we'll rebid it

[3:10] next year, hopefully with some

[3:12] additional work, um, and then be able to

[3:15] provide the contractors with more time

[3:17] to be able to accomplish the work that

[3:18] they need to. Um, the high bids were

[3:22] partly a result of the time of year. Uh,

[3:25] the lack of number of bids kind of

[3:27] reflects that as well. um they're kind

[3:30] of pushed up against the the clock, so

[3:32] to speak. So, today we're making that

[3:36] recommendation to reject the bid and

[3:39] rebid at a future date. So, if there's

[3:41] any questions, I'd be more than glad to

[3:43] take them.

[3:45] >> Go ahead.

[3:46] Don.

[3:47] >> Oh, just uh the engineering we don't

[3:49] have to re-engineer next year. I mean,

[3:51] no. Okay.

[3:54] And I guess my question is, is there

[3:56] some repair that we can do temporarily

[3:59] to prevent um overwinter chloride and

[4:03] salt and stuff getting in or is it not

[4:06] that bad that a repair job would just

[4:10] pop right back out?

[4:11] >> We've we've previously repaired this

[4:14] bridge. Um the the issue right now is

[4:17] potholes and those have been filled in.

[4:20] Um

[4:22] >> the the problem is that the the full

[4:25] deck is experiencing damination and that

[4:28] top wearing surface needs to be removed.

[4:31] >> So they grind off an inch and a half and

[4:33] then replace it back with more than the

[4:36] inch and a half.

[4:37] >> Yep. And so we have to be cognizant that

[4:40] additional weight on a bridge because

[4:42] there would be more concrete there than

[4:44] what we'd be removing when we replace

[4:46] it. Um, we're trying to be cognizant

[4:49] that that adds dead load to the bridge,

[4:52] which could have an impact on needing to

[4:55] load post the bridge. We're trying to

[4:56] avoid that where we can.

[4:58] >> Okay.

[5:00] I would move approval that we reject the

[5:02] bids.

[5:03] >> Second. There's a motion and a second.

[5:06] Any other discussion?

[5:08] >> Hearing none. All those in favor say I.

[5:11] >> I. Opposed. Motion carries.

[5:14] >> Thank you.

[5:18] Next is land use management.

[5:30] » Good morning. The um agenda item before

[5:33] you is to consider a application for a

[5:35] conservation subdivision in section 11

[5:38] of Bell Creek Township. Uh the board

[5:41] will hold a public hearing on this and

[5:43] consider a request to reszone 40 acres

[5:46] of a 70 acre tract of unplatted land um

[5:51] located on parcel 25.011.0400

[5:57] to be reszoned from A1 which is the

[5:59] agricultural protection district to

[6:01] conservation subdivision. Um along with

[6:04] a conservation subdivision, the county

[6:07] ordinance does require that the land be

[6:09] platted. So in the application is a copy

[6:12] of the application for a preliminary

[6:14] plat and a final plat. Um this is a one

[6:17] lot subdivision. So there's one lot

[6:20] being platted that would be the home

[6:21] site. Um there's some roadway dedication

[6:24] and then the remainder of the land will

[6:26] be put in a conservation easement. Um

[6:29] included with the um agenda item is a

[6:33] copy of the applications that have been

[6:35] submitted um some staff prepared maps of

[6:38] the area um and the copy of the meeting

[6:40] minutes from the July planning

[6:42] commission meeting. The applicants are

[6:45] the buyers of the land um Michaela and

[6:49] Scott Peterson who are purchasing the

[6:51] land from family. Um they currently

[6:53] reside in Redwing. The property owners

[6:55] are Scott and Kelly Peterson. um address

[6:59] in Redwing. As I mentioned, the um the

[7:02] proposed subdivision is for a 40 acre

[7:07] split of the original um larger track of

[7:09] land. Uh this is in Bel Creek Township

[7:12] and in as I had early me mentioned

[7:15] earlier um section 11, the planning

[7:18] commission, I'll give a little bit of

[7:20] history on what happened at the planning

[7:22] commission. The first request that were

[7:24] that was submitted by the applicants was

[7:26] actually to reszone the entire section.

[7:28] Um all of section 11 taking it from A1

[7:32] to A2. Uh the reason for that is that um

[7:37] the sections surrounding

[7:40] this section are already zoned A2. Um

[7:44] and the applicants had hoped that there

[7:47] would be um some uh political I would

[7:51] say um will to reszone the section.

[7:54] There was quite a bit of neighborhood

[7:56] opposition to that resoning. Um the

[7:58] planning commission recommended denial

[8:00] of the resoning of the entire section

[8:03] and asked that the applicants work with

[8:05] staff on a conservation subdivision. Um

[8:08] so that is what is proposed before you

[8:10] today which is again um a highle

[8:14] overview of the conservation subdivision

[8:16] process is it essentially allows for a

[8:19] reszoning of a up to 40 anything 40

[8:22] acres or larger um for the creation of

[8:26] wellthoughtout well planned residential

[8:28] housing in areas that normally wouldn't

[8:31] um be allowed to have residential

[8:33] housing.

[8:34] Um, in this case, the Petersons are

[8:37] choosing to put the home site in an area

[8:40] on the property that um maximizes

[8:43] conservation of the land, is putting the

[8:45] house in an area where it's outside any

[8:48] bluff, floodplane, shoreland areas, um,

[8:51] and are choosing to essentially keep

[8:53] some of the tillable land in

[8:55] conservation.

[8:57] Um, let's see. Some key points here is

[9:02] that there are two township roads that

[9:04] adjoin the property. Uh, 350th Street

[9:07] and 165th Street. As common with

[9:11] platting property, the property owner is

[9:14] required to dedicate public rightway to

[9:16] the center line of that road that is

[9:18] shown on the plat. Um, those are

[9:21] township roads.

[9:24] Um there are no um or there are feed

[9:27] lots directly east and west of this

[9:29] property. Um but there are no um

[9:34] uh there's no flood plane on the

[9:36] property. There is some shoreland on the

[9:38] property.

[9:40] Let's see.

[9:42] Um I think the only other thing I want

[9:45] to just be clear is that there are uh

[9:48] two conditions that are being

[9:50] recommended. The first is that um prior

[9:54] to construction of a home on lot one of

[9:56] the proposed Ryan edition, the applicant

[9:59] shall submit to the county a copy of the

[10:01] recorded conservation

[10:03] um subdivision for the 20 acres shown on

[10:07] outlot

[10:09] uh a um the word conservation

[10:12] subdivision is used, but it's actually

[10:14] like a conservation easement. Um the

[10:16] ordinance calls it a subdivision, but we

[10:18] want to see a copy of the easement which

[10:20] details what is allowed to be what is

[10:23] allowed to happen on that site and what

[10:25] is not allowed. The big thing that we

[10:27] want is we want restrictions on

[10:29] development and building [clears throat]

[10:30] on that outlot. Um and then the second

[10:33] condition is that a final plat must be

[10:35] recorded within 180 days of the approval

[10:38] by the county board unless an extension

[10:40] is requested in accordance with

[10:42] ordinance. Um, so with that, um, I guess

[10:45] I'll turn it over to the board. The

[10:47] notice was published, uh, in the Kenyan

[10:49] leader for a public hearing. Um, and

[10:52] like I said, included is a copy of the

[10:55] 40 acres that are proposed to be split

[10:56] and then the proposed plat.

[11:00] >> Do you want to take any questions the

[11:02] board has before opening the public

[11:04] hearing or or not?

[11:05] >> Up to you. Whatever.

[11:07] >> Just just for paperwork clarification.

[11:10] 19 through 23. What we have is a

[11:12] different that's the bowling property,

[11:14] correct?

[11:18] » Just that that's another issue that

[11:20] we're working on.

[11:21] >> Oh, yeah. There's different pages from

[11:23] different meetings in there.

[11:24] >> Y

[11:25] >> Oh, there's different attachments.

[11:27] >> Yep.

[11:27] >> Okay.

[11:28] >> So,

[11:32] » I'm sorry about that. Um,

[11:33] >> problem.

[11:34] >> My question is more of a curiosity

[11:36] question. when they tried to do the

[11:39] entire uh parcel and the neighbors were

[11:43] uh objecting what were their concerns?

[11:47] Uh the primary difference between an A1

[11:50] section is it allows four houses per

[11:53] section versus an A2 district which

[11:56] allows up to 12 houses and no more than

[11:59] one home per 40 acres or quarter quarter

[12:02] section. Um right now there are four

[12:05] homes in this section and the neighbors

[12:08] were concerned that the jump from four

[12:11] houses up to 12 um was too much

[12:14] development to allow in this area that

[12:16] is primarily agricultural land. Um, so

[12:21] in synopsis, and I I don't know if the

[12:23] meeting minutes necessarily reflect

[12:25] this, but the

[12:27] township and the neighbors were okay

[12:29] with the Ryans building a house, but

[12:30] they did not want five or six additional

[12:33] houses in this section.

[12:35] >> Thank you.

[12:39] » Go ahead.

[12:40] >> So, in a conservation subdivision, they

[12:43] could come back and add five more houses

[12:45] in there.

[12:47] >> Yep.

[12:48] Uh the county allows up to six in a

[12:50] conservation subdivision. However, the

[12:53] catch is [clears throat] every new lot

[12:55] has to be platted, which does require a

[12:58] public hearing and requires that that go

[13:00] through the planning commission and the

[13:01] county board. So, it cannot be done

[13:03] administratively.

[13:05] Um but technically additional density

[13:07] can be added.

[13:10] >> Yes, it would have to have a public

[13:11] hearing, but what could we use to deny

[13:15] it?

[13:16] public public not liking it isn't a

[13:20] reason to deny it.

[13:22] >> So we would have to have a different

[13:24] reason to deny it. So in essence, this

[13:27] allows them to have six lots,

[13:31] six building lots.

[13:34] >> So with the conservation easement,

[13:36] what's the uh size of the lot, the

[13:38] minimum requirement

[13:40] for for one home? So, right now the lot

[13:43] that is shown is proposed at right

[13:46] around 20 acres, right? Um the county

[13:50] ordinance does not have a minimum lot

[13:52] size for conservation subdivision.

[13:54] However, I'd say the big thing that is

[13:57] in the ordinance is that it encourages

[14:00] sharing of a well and a septic.

[14:02] >> Um and so density I think would be

[14:05] determined based on how much capacity,

[14:07] how much well capacity and how much

[14:09] septic capacity there is. Um,

[14:12] >> so this could lead to a more dense area

[14:15] in a smaller section of housing. Is that

[14:18] >> cor? Correct. And the whole reason the

[14:20] whole reason we did a conservation

[14:22] subdivision was

[14:24] that was the goal

[14:26] >> was to consolidate.

[14:29] They didn't like the majority of people

[14:32] didn't like switching

[14:34] sections to A2

[14:36] >> and then they didn't like planned unit

[14:39] development.

[14:40] And then we went to conservation

[14:42] subdivision and we came out with this

[14:46] where you're trying to put six houses

[14:48] close together so they share septics

[14:50] share well.

[14:52] It reduces the number of wells. It

[14:54] reduces the number of septics. So I mean

[14:57] that was the ultimate goal. Um it has

[15:01] not worked at all and I I'll say that it

[15:05] just hasn't worked at all. we get one,

[15:08] we get maybe two at the max. Um, they're

[15:12] cumbersome. They're hard to work through

[15:14] um for a lot of different reasons, but

[15:17] >> I think we also gave the townships the

[15:20] yay or nay on that, too. Townships can

[15:22] have to accept it.

[15:24] >> Townships with zoning could say, "Yes,

[15:28] we're going to adopt conservation

[15:30] subdivisions or no, we're not going to

[15:32] put it in our ordinance." But they had

[15:35] to have an ordinance to put it in or or

[15:38] exclude it. And I don't think Bel has a

[15:43] zoning ordinance.

[15:44] >> We do not.

[15:45] >> No.

[15:49] » Any other questions?

[15:51] >> Move to open public hearing.

[15:54] >> There a second.

[15:55] >> Second.

[15:56] >> All those in favor say I.

[15:58] >> I.

[15:58] A public hearing is open. Is there

[16:01] anyone who would like to speak to this

[16:03] matter?

[16:08] Second time. Is there anyone who would

[16:10] like to speak to the uh conservation

[16:13] easement?

[16:17] Third and final time. Is there anyone

[16:19] who'd like to speak to this?

[16:22] >> Okay.

[16:23] >> I'm close the public hearing.

[16:25] >> Second.

[16:25] >> Uh there's a motion and a second. All

[16:27] those in favor say I.

[16:29] >> I.

[16:29] Public hearing is closed.

[16:32] Okay.

[16:34] >> Move to approve the conservation

[16:36] subdivision as presented and with the

[16:39] finding of fact that we have

[16:43] >> second.

[16:46] >> Any further discussion?

[16:50] Hearing none. All those in favor say I.

[16:52] >> I. Opposed. Motion carries.

[17:00] No, Nick.

[17:03] >> Yeah, Nick will take the lead on all

[17:05] three of these items. And then on all

[17:06] three of them, there's numerous

[17:07] individuals here that have been involved

[17:09] in the process.

[17:14] » Good morning, commissioners.

[17:15] >> Morning.

[17:17] >> The first item I have for you is uh

[17:22] resolution. Um you see it summarized

[17:24] there at the top effectively

[17:27] accept

[17:52] authorized

[17:54] staff to

[17:58] » in 2021. The board authorized staff to

[18:02] apply to the grant uh and with our

[18:06] partner New Vera Communications.

[18:08] Um the project itself is a $4 million

[18:12] project. Um the 25% match is uh provided

[18:15] by New Vera. It's to about $945,000.

[18:20] the $3.21 million dollars will be

[18:23] provided by um the federal government

[18:26] for the project. Um some of the history,

[18:29] I think a significant piece of the

[18:31] history was in um 2024 the board

[18:35] authorized a rescope of the project due

[18:37] to rising cause uh costs. So um that

[18:42] happened and was approved. Um, this

[18:44] project as it stands today will uh

[18:47] provide broadband service to 195 new

[18:50] customers in some of the hardest to

[18:53] reach areas of the county, some of the

[18:55] most challenging terrain and otherwise

[18:58] um not fiscally possible um on the part

[19:02] of internet service providers to get

[19:03] that service there. So that's the key

[19:05] with this grant um the actions and the

[19:08] agreements that are associated with

[19:10] accepting this grant. So you will

[19:12] approve um the acceptance and you will

[19:15] authorize the board chair um to execute

[19:18] the reconnect program grant and security

[19:21] agreement and then two additional

[19:23] agreements that were arrived at with New

[19:26] Vera communication based on

[19:28] conversations we've had with um the USDA

[19:33] uh regarding our ability to assign the

[19:35] responsibilities underneath this grant

[19:38] to New Vera as the internet as the co-

[19:41] awardee and service provider. Um I think

[19:44] on June 16th staff was before the board

[19:48] during a study session during a

[19:49] committee of the whole during which uh

[19:52] staff expressed some concern about the

[19:54] responsibilities, obligations and risks

[19:56] associated with the grant. Um subsequent

[19:59] to that uh Commissioner Flanders uh

[20:02] helped arrange a meeting with the deputy

[20:05] director of telecommunications programs

[20:07] with the rural utility service. And at

[20:10] that meeting, we received some

[20:12] clarifications regarding what were

[20:14] ultimately our true obligations and um

[20:18] what um and we received, I guess you

[20:21] could say, um a degree of freedom to

[20:24] enter into those agreements with NEA

[20:26] that could assign much of the

[20:28] obligations and risks to to NEA at that

[20:31] time. So um with that um I will say as

[20:37] we move forward it's important to

[20:39] acknowledge that the the risks or

[20:42] obligations that remain with the county

[20:44] uh going forward for the term which is

[20:46] 20 years would be to maintain a um a

[20:50] pledge deposit account because the

[20:52] county is named in legislation as the

[20:55] awardee of this grant. the county must

[20:58] accept the money and maintain a pledged

[21:01] account um for both accepting the funds

[21:04] and dispersing the funds. So that will

[21:06] be the responsibility of the county. The

[21:08] county will also need to submit reports

[21:11] that are associated with the grant um

[21:14] along with the term. uh NEA and their

[21:17] subcontractors will provide much of the

[21:20] information that goes into those

[21:22] reports, but al but in some cases it's

[21:24] the county's responsibility submit to

[21:26] submit those reports. And in the near

[21:29] term, there's certainly going to be some

[21:30] kind of additional staff time devoted to

[21:34] setting up those accounts, making sure

[21:35] all the agreements are in place and

[21:37] moving forward.

[21:39] So, the attachments to to this board

[21:41] packet, you'll see the uh Reconnect

[21:43] program grant and security agreement.

[21:45] That's the master agreement with the

[21:46] federal government that will be signed

[21:48] both by um the county as principal

[21:51] awardee and newa's secondary awardee.

[21:55] And then two additional agreements

[21:57] between the county and newa

[21:58] communications. one to assign much of

[22:00] the responsibilities for reporting

[22:02] associated with the grant to New Vera

[22:04] Communications and the second um to obl

[22:08] which essentially obligates New Vera

[22:10] Communication or New Vera Communications

[22:13] to provide the internet service for the

[22:16] entire 20-year term of the uh grant

[22:19] agreement. Um with that um I believe I

[22:24] can uh just turn it over to you for any

[22:27] questions you might have.

[22:29] Linda,

[22:30] >> I don't necessarily have a question, but

[22:32] I do have comments.

[22:35] First off, thank you to everybody on

[22:37] staff for being part of trying to work

[22:42] this through. I appreciate it very much.

[22:45] I know that it does add staff time to be

[22:49] able to take a grant and do the

[22:52] reporting on it. Um

[22:55] I personally feel that broadband is

[22:59] essential. So the idea of getting 195

[23:02] people hooked up to fiber I think is

[23:05] extremely important. But I do thank

[23:08] everybody who put the time and effort

[23:10] into um moving this along.

[23:14] And with that, I would move that we

[23:17] approve

[23:18] the agreement um between the government

[23:23] for the Reconnect program grant and

[23:25] security agreement.

[23:30] » Whole resolution. Correct.

[23:31] >> Yes, the whole resolution. Sorry.

[23:33] >> And the two attachments. Correct.

[23:36] >> And the attachments.

[23:38] >> I'll second that.

[23:39] >> There's a motion in a second. Any

[23:41] discussion?

[23:41] >> I just have a question. So obviously

[23:44] some of the work that NEA is going to do

[23:48] and

[23:50] some of it's very technical about how

[23:52] you report it and what you got to

[23:54] report.

[23:57] Who is there anybody we have to rely on

[24:01] that what is getting reported that's all

[24:04] that technical stuff is accurate.

[24:08] So

[24:08] >> that's that and I I think in the process

[24:11] we're going to figure that out a little

[24:13] bit. But

[24:15] >> a couple things I think it's important

[24:16] to understand there's a distinction

[24:18] between the construction period and then

[24:21] the ongoing service provision through

[24:23] the 20-year um lease agreement. For the

[24:26] construction uh period, there are some

[24:28] pretty specific construction guidelines

[24:31] that New Vera and any subcontractor they

[24:33] employ have to follow. And so um those

[24:39] you know the asuranc is that they'll

[24:40] follow those detailed technical aspects

[24:43] in in terms of the construction that's

[24:45] part of the agreements we'll have with

[24:47] them. And I think we also have faith in

[24:50] New Vera as a partner um who's not only

[24:53] done this um but is in is engaged with

[24:56] an engineering firm who has uh really

[24:59] completed a number of these um reconnect

[25:02] uh programs around the state. So they're

[25:05] familiar with the requirements of this

[25:07] particular grant program. So they know

[25:09] how to provide the information in a way

[25:11] that the USDA will be satisfied. So

[25:14] >> and I and I don't I don't question NEA

[25:17] one bit about the work they're going to

[25:20] do the contractors they hire, but I also

[25:24] in the back of my head have this road

[25:27] construction side of me that says, "Yep,

[25:30] but you still have to be there to watch.

[25:33] We really don't have technical expertise

[25:35] to do that. So what we're relying on Noa

[25:40] to be that piece of it.

[25:43] >> That's correct.

[25:43] >> Okay. I just I think we all need to

[25:45] understand that, but I just needed it

[25:48] said. So

[25:51] >> Jason, did you have a question?

[25:52] >> Yeah. Well, just [clears throat] a

[25:53] curiosity. So are these I'm assuming

[25:55] they've looked at it with this grant and

[25:56] that's part of the reason it was

[25:57] questioned initially. These 190 supposed

[26:00] homes, they've done the research on

[26:01] this. They're like living in the stone

[26:03] ages. All they have is dialup. They have

[26:04] no internet access or anything where

[26:05] they're at.

[26:07] >> So that's correct. We we are aware based

[26:09] on mapping and reporting who in the

[26:12] county does and does not have access to

[26:14] broadband um internet service. And so

[26:17] the areas that have been identified as

[26:19] part of this grant, we we can say for

[26:21] certain don't at this time have

[26:23] broadband access unless they have

[26:24] independently um you know have a signed

[26:28] a contract with another say satellite

[26:30] provider or something like that. We

[26:31] wouldn't have a way. But in terms of

[26:33] utility provided broadband service um

[26:37] we're pretty certain that the properties

[26:40] identified the area currently lacks that

[26:43] service.

[26:44] >> Okay. But they still have internet

[26:47] access being a satellite

[26:50] options.

[26:52] >> It it's it's

[26:52] >> saying okay so end result is

[26:56] yeah I don't support this. I mean I

[26:58] there's a come and go with living in out

[27:00] in the country. You maybe don't have to

[27:03] deal with your neighbor's dog. Maybe you

[27:04] don't the fire truck might take a little

[27:05] longer to get there and you may not have

[27:08] d you know you may not have fiber optic

[27:10] in front of you. If you live on the side

[27:11] of a rock ridge and you have a half mile

[27:13] long driveway, it's not feasibly

[27:15] possible. But you also have Starlink,

[27:17] you're probably not using an antenna

[27:19] with TV. You probably have a satellite

[27:21] for your TV because that's the

[27:23] transition we've went. Homes are

[27:25] seldomly hardwired anymore because we

[27:27] have all the hard wireless. So we have a

[27:29] $40 trillion debt at the federal

[27:31] government. I don't know where the $3.1

[27:32] million is coming from. So

[27:36] I get it. I'm just not sure that for 190

[27:40] people that it really makes that much

[27:42] sense. There's a reason they don't have

[27:44] that it hasn't been done yet because

[27:46] it's not feasible that the private

[27:48] sector has made a decision. It's not

[27:50] feasible to do it. Evidently, the

[27:52] government's got the money to make the

[27:54] decision and says it makes sense for

[27:56] them. So,

[27:58] if there was no options, I don't know

[27:59] that it's equivalent to electrifying

[28:01] rural America or getting everybody with

[28:03] a phone. It's not equivalent because

[28:05] there are options. I'd be very doubtful

[28:08] that any one of these 190 supposed homes

[28:11] don't have internet access that they're

[28:13] not using Starlink. They're not using

[28:14] some sort of satellite version. It's I

[28:18] hard to justify the money, but

[28:21] evidently somebody's got it. Not sure

[28:24] which pocket they're taking it out of,

[28:25] but so

[28:26] >> and that's where I've uh this last

[28:28] dollar cost have just ex you know

[28:31] exploded over the last 10 years. You

[28:34] know, they say that last, you know, used

[28:36] to be 7,000 for that last mile and now

[28:38] it's up over 30,000 for that last mile.

[28:41] And uh it is I I I'm frustrated with it,

[28:44] you know, but the the program is there.

[28:47] It's not, you know, technically coming

[28:49] out of our direct pocket. it it I'm

[28:52] frustrated with it, but it uh you know I

[28:55] guess for the advantage for these here

[28:57] and uh you know it's one of those

[28:59] programs that

[29:01] is there and uh you know we got the

[29:04] grant for it. So um

[29:09] >> but very frustrated. Jason's point is

[29:11] exact. It's very frustrating

[29:16] homes would actually take the service.

[29:18] Is that correct?

[29:21] Under the terms of the grant, um the

[29:23] county would be responsible to making

[29:25] sure that they have the access to a

[29:27] broadband internet service. Whether or

[29:29] not they engage with a an internet

[29:31] service provider to pay the monthly fee

[29:34] and get the service, that's that's

[29:36] entirely up to them. But we we satisfy

[29:38] the terms of the grant by providing

[29:40] access.

[29:40] >> So, we don't really know the answer to

[29:42] that question. If if 189 homes are

[29:45] likely to accept or 10 homes are likely

[29:47] to accept and probably it's somewhere in

[29:49] between that

[29:50] >> you can't force people to

[29:51] >> No, no, I understand that. I I

[29:53] understand that option.

[29:54] >> Um I I understand that but I understand

[29:56] the point of uh I think that does what

[29:58] does this come out to per home? Do you

[30:00] know that?

[30:01] >> 189

[30:02] >> dividing the project cost by 195. I I

[30:05] don't

[30:05] >> Yeah, it's it's pretty high.

[30:08] I think what's important to remember is

[30:10] if we were to rely on the private market

[30:12] or

[30:14] >> the rest of the county,

[30:15] >> right, to get service to these homes, it

[30:17] wouldn't happen. It's just financially

[30:19] >> I understand that. And so we rely on

[30:21] these types of programs to really

[30:24] >> um

[30:25] >> get to those tough to reach otherwise

[30:27] very tough to reach areas.

[30:29] >> To some extent the people who reviewed

[30:31] the grant have decided that this pro

[30:33] that this is of value enough to invest

[30:36] in it. So I understand that too.

[30:38] >> Excuse me. Sorry.

[30:39] >> No, that that's okay. Um I forgot what

[30:42] >> newation new Vera Communications has

[30:45] determined since they are investing

[30:46] money uh you know a million dollars into

[30:48] this project

[30:49] >> um they probably made the calculation

[30:52] that um when presented with the

[30:55] convenience of highspeed internet

[30:58] reasonable cost. Uh, you know, part of

[31:00] the provisions of this agreement is that

[31:01] the cost that any of these 195 uh homes

[31:05] would pay can't exceed the price any

[31:08] other uh home in in Redwing or any other

[31:10] place that uh um NEA provides service.

[31:13] It has to be provided at the same cost.

[31:16] And so I think uh they've had a

[31:18] calculation that given the convenience

[31:20] and the cost that they're likely to get

[31:21] a number of customers that would make

[31:23] this investment to them worthwhile.

[31:25] >> Right. Right. So they it has there have

[31:27] to be enough people who actually do it

[31:28] for it to be worth new vera's uh

[31:31] investment. I understand that. My my

[31:34] second question is is um there's always

[31:38] risks to anything we do. I I get that

[31:40] too. And the degree of risk to this

[31:43] contract to me it seems like it would

[31:45] probably be similar to the degree of

[31:48] risk with other contracts we might have

[31:51] with the federal government. that is it

[31:52] or is it still substantially more? I I'm

[31:56] just trying to understand is it sort of

[31:58] the standard level of risk to the county

[32:00] or is it uh higher than that?

[32:05] I will say that um when the finance

[32:08] department uh presented during the

[32:10] committee of the whole I think one one

[32:12] of the factors that they um contemplated

[32:15] is that the dollar value of this grant

[32:17] at $3.2 $2 million is quite high when it

[32:20] when in relationship to the overall

[32:22] county budget. But the the likelihood of

[32:26] um the federal government say asking for

[32:28] a refund of that money is is

[32:32] maybe barely not zero. I mean the the federal government is interested in

[32:37] provi in this program providing internet

[32:39] access to rural communities and if some

[32:43] um some situation were to develop down

[32:46] the road where we were not able to meet

[32:48] the obligations or new vera was not able

[32:51] to meet the obligations of this grant.

[32:53] First and foremost, the federal

[32:54] government would work with us to find

[32:56] another service provider who could um

[32:59] provide service. And given the fact that

[33:01] this would be a a robust fiber optic

[33:05] network in in the ground ready to go, um

[33:09] finding an alternative service provider

[33:11] should that come to pass. Um it's not

[33:14] likely to be a a problem. But um if any

[33:19] um financial uh penalties were to incur

[33:22] in incur because of not meeting these

[33:25] terms down the road, the agreements that

[33:27] we currently have with NEA shift the

[33:29] responsibility

[33:31] all penalties um all I mean sort of all

[33:36] matter of risk has been outlined in both

[33:38] the uh assignment of responsibilities

[33:41] agreement and the operations agreement

[33:42] to assign that to new communications. So

[33:45] there is really truly very little risk

[33:47] to the county at this point um thanks to

[33:50] the leeway granted by the rural utility

[33:53] service for us to enter into these

[33:55] agreements with new

[33:57] >> and um you know the county attorney and

[33:59] Lucas

[34:00] >> and Lucas and Scott and Steve it seems

[34:03] reasonable the degree of risk

[34:05] >> I think it does and I I think the risk

[34:06] is really frontloaded on this particular

[34:08] agreement it's not really for the whole

[34:10] 20 years I think the greatest risk comes

[34:12] when the funds have not been distributed

[34:14] yet once the funds have been distributed

[34:16] and the cables in the ground I think

[34:18] that financial risk to the county really

[34:21] I mean was mitigated at that point

[34:23] significantly and the contract um

[34:28] the operating contract has provisions in

[34:31] there that will allow the county to

[34:33] transfer ownership of the asset which is

[34:35] the cable to vera at some point after

[34:38] within the you know a shorter time

[34:40] frame. So once we once that actually

[34:43] happens, if that happens, obviously the

[34:45] risk to the county then even becomes

[34:47] even less. So I guess ultimately I

[34:49] wouldn't see it um as anything more

[34:51] significant uh than our normal contract

[34:53] relationships. The issue for us really

[34:55] is this is new territory for for us to

[34:58] be doing this type of an agreement and

[35:01] um installing

[35:03] making a contract with a a company

[35:05] that's installing fiber optic and then

[35:07] having some ownership interest in that

[35:09] for that time frame.

[35:11] Um but again I think the the biggest

[35:13] risk is in the front side of this until

[35:16] those funds are distributed and the and

[35:18] the fiber optic is actually in the

[35:20] ground. [clears throat]

[35:21] >> Thank you. Go ahead Brad.

[35:23] >> This you know we talk about this at at

[35:26] the association of Minnesota counties

[35:28] all the time because it falls under for

[35:31] some odd reason transportation. So, I

[35:33] sit on that committee and we talk about

[35:35] all the time and and

[35:38] while I can agree with Jason about the

[35:41] debt and the federal level,

[35:44] um these dollars these dollars are

[35:47] already out the door. They're going

[35:48] somewhere and if we don't take them,

[35:50] they're going somewhere else. They're

[35:52] already appropriated. They're going to

[35:53] go they're going to come out. So

[35:56] in that case, we might as well be one of

[36:00] the takers of that rather than let it

[36:03] pass us by. And and we still have this

[36:07] problem. The whole problem, the roll out

[36:11] of broadband and expanding fiber to

[36:15] everybody was left to the privates. And the privates took

[36:21] all the lowhanging fruit. They did all

[36:23] the really easy stuff. They were in

[36:25] cities. They put it in in cities because

[36:27] it was easy because the houses are close

[36:30] together. Whatever. They did some of the

[36:32] rural where they were getting fiber from

[36:35] city to city and then we'll do these

[36:37] people along this track. It really had

[36:41] no plan that and it it was no plan to

[36:45] how they were going to get broadband to

[36:47] everybody and thus it costs way more. If

[36:50] they would have come out with a plan,

[36:53] said, "This is the process. We're going

[36:55] to start here and we're going to work

[36:56] our way across a county," it would have

[36:58] been a whole lot more

[37:01] um economical to do it. But it was left

[37:04] to privates. Privates capitalize where

[37:07] they can capitalize and they let the

[37:10] rest go down by the wayside. So, it is

[37:14] the only way it's going to happen. I'm

[37:16] frustrated. We're all frustrated. Um,

[37:19] but ending up with

[37:23] grant that actually gets something done

[37:26] that if we don't use it, somebody else

[37:28] will. I'd say you got to go for it. And

[37:31] I'm not I'm not uh very worried about

[37:35] the risk because I think it will, you

[37:38] know, the project will get done after

[37:40] that upkeep is is less somebody cuts a

[37:44] cable. That's what's going to happen.

[37:45] It's not anything else. Any any further

[37:49] discussion?

[37:50] All right, there's a motion and a

[37:52] second. All those in favor say I.

[37:54] >> I.

[37:55] >> Opposed.

[37:56] >> I

[37:58] motion carries.

[38:03] » Okay. The second item I have for you is

[38:05] also a grant. Uh this is seeking board

[38:07] approval to apply uh for uh the 2026

[38:11] safe and secure courthouse initiative

[38:13] grant.

[38:16] Um this grant uh is to fund um

[38:20] courthouse safety improvements. Um the

[38:23] county has in the past um identified uh

[38:26] through uh audits done in 2021 and uh

[38:30] its capital planning process a number of

[38:33] projects that would increase safety and

[38:35] security at the courthouse. um this 2026

[38:39] grant uh and the terms of the grant

[38:41] requirements um align closely with those

[38:44] projects that we had previously planned.

[38:46] And so the request is for the board to

[38:50] authorize uh application for this grant.

[38:53] I will note that it says up to $400,000

[38:56] and um because of just the timing uh

[38:59] with this uh the grant is due September

[39:01] 8th and we need to get working on final

[39:04] proposals on some of these things. We do

[39:06] have um what I would say some initial uh

[39:10] proposals on at least one aspect of this

[39:12] grant uh program. Some of the other ones

[39:14] are a little bit more firm. Um but the

[39:17] budget is is most likely to expected on

[39:20] the project to be more closer to

[39:22] $350,000, not $400,000. But at the time

[39:25] the board packet was due, I had to kind

[39:27] of put a number in there. So, it's up to

[39:28] $400,000 with a 50% match um for from

[39:32] the state and then a 50% match from the

[39:36] county. Um what's significant about that

[39:38] number is $200,000 was what we had in

[39:41] the capital campaign in 20 in the

[39:43] capital plan in 2028 for these type of

[39:46] security improvements. So, what this

[39:48] allows us to do is to um stretch that

[39:51] dollar to include more um more of the

[39:55] types of access um and u monitoring

[39:59] security um um uh projects to expand

[40:03] that project somewhat, but then to also

[40:05] add some additional things like safety

[40:07] glass to the transaction windows, four

[40:10] transaction windows within the

[40:11] courthouse, uh the justice center. and

[40:14] then um an update to the screening um

[40:18] machinery at the entrance. And I believe

[40:20] one of the machines is is um um in need

[40:24] of repair or replacement um in the near

[40:26] term. So this is good timing with this

[40:28] grant. Um

[40:31] I think uh I think that about does it

[40:33] for the summary. Uh if there's any

[40:35] questions, I'd be happy to answer them

[40:38] >> or Tim.

[40:39] >> Well, I I have one question. It's kind

[40:40] of to Steve O'Keefe. I had understood

[40:42] that that was safety glass that was put

[40:44] in originally at that big window. And

[40:47] maybe that's not true, but and maybe I'm

[40:49] just wrong, but that's what I

[40:50] understood.

[40:51] >> I had the same assumption, but

[40:52] apparently you were wrong.

[40:54] >> Okay. [laughter]

[40:55] >> It is not.

[40:56] >> Okay.

[40:58] >> We were operating under a false sense of

[40:59] security, I guess.

[41:00] >> All right. All right. Well, good to feel

[41:02] secure, I guess. But uh and then the

[41:04] other thing I wondered, I think there's

[41:05] been some talk about the windows along

[41:07] uh Fifth Street for the county

[41:09] attorney's office and the vulnerability

[41:12] there.

[41:13] >> Yeah, if I could just mention there's a

[41:14] number of different type of glasses that

[41:16] we have. Um in general, we don't discuss

[41:19] our actual public discussion.

[41:22] >> So I just want to make sure if we get

[41:24] this grant, we're spending it in the way

[41:25] that provides the most safety possible.

[41:27] That that's simply

[41:28] >> correct. And and for those of you who

[41:30] are here in 2021, we did a full

[41:32] assessment um of those of all of our

[41:35] facilities, but um the courthouse in

[41:37] general um with the sheriff's office and

[41:40] then um homeland security. So we we do

[41:43] have pretty comprehensive list of things

[41:45] that we've been working on over the last

[41:47] 5 years and this just timing wise again

[41:50] like Nick said, um we are planning on

[41:52] doing some of these things that are

[41:53] already budgeted for. So it's just an

[41:55] opportunity to get some funding from the

[41:57] city.

[41:57] >> I understand that. Thank you.

[41:59] >> So, yes, we'll continue to do those as

[42:01] we outside of this grant application.

[42:03] We'll continue to do those improvements.

[42:05] >> All right.

[42:06] >> Move approval to enter into the grant.

[42:10] >> Second

[42:11] >> motion and a second. Any further

[42:12] discussion?

[42:14] >> Hearing none. All those in favor say I.

[42:17] >> I.

[42:17] Opposed. Motion carries.

[42:26] » Thank you. Okay. So, the third item I

[42:28] have for you is a FYI item. Um,

[42:33] and I believe I'll have a co-presenter

[42:35] for this as well. Um,

[42:40] the background on this uh particular

[42:42] item is that um the uh Good Hugh County

[42:46] and the city of Redwing is uh going to

[42:49] consider the long-term occupancy of the

[42:52] law enforcement center. And um in the

[42:54] spring of this year, uh the ad hoc

[42:56] committee uh from the city council who's

[43:00] working on this um sent a note through

[43:03] um council administrator Heinman to the

[43:06] county administrator requesting uh to

[43:09] see if we would be open to a couple

[43:11] different um questions uh ways to kind

[43:16] of um organize the lease and those are

[43:18] outlined in the um in the board memo.

[43:21] But things like long longer term lease

[43:23] considerations, the ability to um have

[43:27] um predictability uh both in the long

[43:31] term but also ways to adjust the lease

[43:34] over time. Um

[43:36] ways to uh structure the lease or the

[43:39] rent um by space type and to um and how

[43:43] city- funded improvements might be

[43:44] treated. Um the county uh discussed this

[43:48] including the board of commissioners at

[43:51] a uh budget meeting. I believe that was

[43:53] on um May uh 25th was the date of that

[43:56] or May um May 19th.

[43:59] >> Yeah. Oh y

[44:03] at the May 5th budget workshop, we

[44:05] discussed that. So, um, and, uh, so,

[44:08] County Administrator Arnerson responded

[44:10] in affirmative to, uh, our willingness

[44:12] to consider these, uh, um, uh, sort of,

[44:17] uh, potentials that were forwarded by

[44:19] the city council or by the ad hoc

[44:21] committee. um with with the caveat that

[44:24] it would probably be a good idea to seek

[44:26] a third party with some expertise in

[44:29] this area to kind of do the final

[44:31] determination on how these factors uh

[44:34] can be incorporated into the lease. So

[44:37] this this um this action is really a

[44:40] it's a it's a request for proposals that

[44:43] will go out to qualified firms who we

[44:46] have identified through a screening

[44:48] process um that have some expertise both

[44:51] in u public buildings um but also in

[44:55] lease negotiate lease negotiations and

[44:58] financial investment and the

[45:00] calculations of rent uh in public

[45:02] buildings. Um it's a small um

[45:06] engagement. The scope was really

[45:07] carefully crafted in a way to really

[45:11] answer one of the questions that's going

[45:13] to be um that the city of Redwing quite

[45:16] frankly is going to have to face when

[45:18] they make a a bigger decision about the

[45:21] future home of the long-term home of the

[45:23] police force. So this is not uh this is

[45:27] an attempt really to just provide one

[45:29] piece of data and that's um the rent and

[45:32] the lease calculations and how that will

[45:34] be calculated in order for them to in

[45:36] the future maybe you down the road when

[45:40] they have to make this difficult

[45:42] decision. This one um this one piece

[45:45] will be um sort of determined in a way

[45:48] that we share the responsibility the

[45:51] city and the county. In other words,

[45:52] we're both um

[45:55] sort of participating in both the

[45:57] process of identifying uh how we should

[46:00] proceed in determining these things, but

[46:02] the partners that we choose, the third

[46:05] party um outside partners that we choose

[46:07] to do this. So, we've tried, I think,

[46:10] um, to let the city lead a lot of this

[46:12] effort when it comes to this particular

[46:14] piece of work because ultimately it's

[46:17] important that they trust um, the

[46:20] process and we all have confidence that

[46:23] the lease that we arrive at and the rent

[46:25] we determine at the end is serves our

[46:28] needs and is adjustable over time. So,

[46:33] um,

[46:34] the the attached history document goes

[46:37] into much more background, but I think

[46:39] for the sake of this FYI item really,

[46:42] we're talking about um, a request for

[46:45] proposals for just some assistance for

[46:47] expertise, objective, trusted expertise

[46:50] in arriving in those terms for the

[46:52] lease. So, um, this item, I think, as

[46:56] you know, was in front of the Redwing

[46:58] City Council at their last meeting. Um,

[47:01] [snorts]

[47:01] no formal vote was needed or requested

[47:04] because the quite frankly the dollar

[47:06] amount is below the thresholds where

[47:08] that would be required. But we both

[47:10] administrations I think it's fair to say

[47:12] think it's important that um our our

[47:15] governing bodies are our commissions uh

[47:17] are aware of where we are at in this

[47:19] process. So um with that I will

[47:22] entertain any questions you might have.

[47:27] So, I'll start.

[47:29] >> Um

[47:31] I don't I I understand where this is

[47:34] coming from and

[47:37] um it is all about building some trust

[47:40] and we probably need that

[47:43] um on both on on both sides to some

[47:46] degree. The question I have is

[47:50] what are we studying? What exactly are

[47:54] we studying? And is that what the city

[47:57] has decided

[47:59] is what they want?

[48:01] Because we can go through this whole

[48:03] exercise and then the goalpost moves and

[48:07] then go through it again and the

[48:08] goalpost moves. What I want to know is it an addition? Is it restructuring

[48:16] of space inside? Is it cuz when what you

[48:21] said was city council didn't take a

[48:23] vote. To my knowledge, the city council

[48:25] hasn't made a decision what they're

[48:27] proposing for us to study. If they would

[48:31] tell us what they want us to study,

[48:35] then I'm fine with it. If they're not

[48:37] going to tell us and we're taking a stab

[48:40] at in the dark without the full council

[48:43] saying that's what we want, then I'm I'm

[48:46] going to hold off and say come back to

[48:49] us when you're ready because it's not

[48:51] ready in that point.

[48:52] >> Go ahead, Scott.

[48:53] >> Uh uh if you're asking if the if the

[48:58] city council has taken a position on

[48:59] which exact option, to my knowledge,

[49:01] they have not. I believe the ad hoc

[49:04] committee has said they preferred option

[49:06] two

[49:08] um which is kind of the middle of the

[49:10] road. Um I will say for all of the

[49:13] option that does require you know fairly

[49:15] significant uh county investment as

[49:17] well.

[49:18] >> Um but no, if you're asking has the city

[49:21] council uh taken a specific position on

[49:25] option one, two, or three? I don't

[49:27] believe they have. This is intended to

[49:29] try to uh you know uh determine what

[49:34] exactly appropriate uh lease rates could

[49:37] be uh even with an expansion. Um and it

[49:41] you're right it's it's a it's more

[49:42] difficult um as you start adding further

[49:45] onto that building and start you know

[49:48] complicating it with different types of

[49:50] uh square footage rates possibly for a

[49:52] garage versus a internal secure office.

[49:55] Um, so yes, those those are complicating

[49:58] factors. There's no question about it.

[50:00] Um, there's a there's a lot to this. Um,

[50:04] if you look historically, um, I think

[50:07] Stacy, is it three or four different

[50:08] lease versions we've had with the

[50:11] somewhere in that vicinity and, um, all

[50:14] of them started with good intentions and

[50:17] by the time they'd been around a while,

[50:19] I think there's things that both, uh,

[50:22] the city and the county didn't like

[50:23] about them. um in including this last

[50:26] one as an example. Um I think again it

[50:31] had good intentions at the beginning of

[50:33] it but what happened during co the co

[50:35] years between you know 21 and today

[50:38] between you know just general inflation

[50:41] uh construction costs uh building costs

[50:44] materials costs all of those things um

[50:48] there's no way we could have predicted

[50:49] that our rates would get that far out of

[50:52] whack. And and what I'm saying here, I

[50:54] don't think I'd be out of out of tune. I

[50:56] think the city, if they're sitting right

[50:57] here, they'd agree that nobody, in fact,

[51:00] I know I've had the same discussion with

[51:01] Marshall Hock, their finance director,

[51:03] and Chris Heinman. I mean, nobody knew

[51:05] those things. And Lucas has been

[51:07] involved in some of those conversations,

[51:09] too. We we simply just would not have

[51:11] known that. And now I think one of the

[51:13] things we've talked about moving

[51:15] forward, you'd have to have some type of

[51:17] circuit breaker that if those if we have

[51:20] another period of time like that where

[51:22] it's things are way exceeding

[51:24] inflationary rates then then you'd have

[51:27] to have a way to go back and look at

[51:29] those. Even uh if you go back two years

[51:32] ago, uh Lucas and his staff spent a ton

[51:35] of time and actually a lot of other of

[51:37] us spent a lot of time on it too. But uh

[51:39] to try to just determine what the cost

[51:41] the entire cost of that facility are and

[51:43] break it down to a square footage

[51:45] standpoint. Even those numbers uh moving

[51:48] forward, we have to redo all of those.

[51:50] Um they're outdated just from a I don't

[51:53] know if that was two or two and a half

[51:54] years ago, but they're those are already

[51:56] outdated. So, um, but that that's a very

[51:59] good question. Um, uh, Commissioner

[52:02] Anderson,

[52:04] >> when, uh, when we've set our current

[52:07] rate right now, it's it's kind of been

[52:08] an estimate. I mean, we've never had an

[52:10] RFP sent out to establish our rent,

[52:15] >> right? Right. And I think that would be

[52:16] the starting point and say, "Okay, now

[52:18] if we we we have this established

[52:22] for the next how many years?" Now, if we

[52:24] want to throw some remodeling into

[52:27] there, we we would have that equation,

[52:29] but we just we've never had an official

[52:32] RFP on that. Correct.

[52:33] >> Not not to determine an actual cost. So,

[52:36] if you look at the structures, we've had

[52:38] different structures. The first one

[52:40] literally I think the county needed x

[52:42] number of dollars and that's how that

[52:45] number of dollars got applied to the

[52:46] whole equation and said okay for that

[52:49] you help us with this we give you this.

[52:51] Um and then uh we and also there was a

[52:55] framework in there for some operating

[52:56] costs and pretty soon that formula

[53:00] didn't work very well. And then we went

[53:02] through another phase and we then we

[53:04] figured out that uh you know uh not all

[53:07] of the access points like the bathrooms

[53:10] and the break rooms and the hallways

[53:12] that you'd use to get to a city office,

[53:14] those weren't in the equation. So then

[53:15] we had to figure out how to get those in

[53:17] the equation. um this last goound, you

[53:20] know, we we can tell you what it costs

[53:23] per square foot to have that facility.

[53:25] But what we're not really experts in,

[53:27] and that's this is part of where one of

[53:30] these firms could help you with is that

[53:32] the the roof over your head has a cost

[53:35] and and it depreciates the second you

[53:37] put it there. What when you break that

[53:40] down to a square footage on the existing

[53:42] facility for the replacement of that

[53:45] roof, what how many cents per square

[53:47] foot should that be applied to the city

[53:49] and how many cents per square foot foot

[53:51] should be applied to the county and and

[53:54] all different costs. You take any

[53:55] component of the building, the second

[53:57] you build it, it switches, you know,

[53:59] from a from an asset to a liability. So

[54:02] those are some of the types of things

[54:03] when you when you have to add those on

[54:06] to the costs of just a square footage

[54:08] cost today of the building, what those

[54:10] depreciated costs have to go back into

[54:13] that lease calculation. And really what

[54:16] we've done um you know we we we did

[54:19] previously analyze what the cost per

[54:21] square footage is and then added some

[54:24] administrative level onto that um on a

[54:28] square foot basis. But, uh, forever

[54:31] we've told the city and our our members

[54:34] on that committee that we don't honestly

[54:36] know if that's the right rate. It may

[54:38] not might be. Um, we do know our our uh

[54:42] architect has said it's very fair, which

[54:45] tells me that it's, you know, not too

[54:47] far one way or the other, but it also

[54:49] tells me that it might be too fair, too.

[54:51] But those [clears throat] are things

[54:52] like I say when you have to figure out

[54:54] how much the the air conditioning system

[54:57] should be charged back in rent each

[55:00] month uh on a square footage basis. We

[55:02] that's not something we do every day.

[55:04] >> Actually, we don't do it ever.

[55:06] >> We never So, is it more about the lease

[55:10] rate than it is about expansion? I mean,

[55:13] I because I think you could hand this to somebody to evaluate it and they

[55:20] could be looking at five different

[55:23] options because nobody's narrowed it

[55:26] down or the city basically the city

[55:29] obviously for us if the city wasn't

[55:32] there we don't have a problem with space

[55:36] probably won't for many many years but

[55:40] h they need to know what we're looking

[55:43] at and I don't I have and I fully

[55:47] transparent I talked to one of the city

[55:49] council members and I don't think they

[55:52] know what they want and and that's I

[55:55] don't want to spend dollars

[55:58] getting a number that really doesn't

[56:01] mean anything because the goalpost gets

[56:03] changed. So I I don't know how to get

[56:06] there. I just I I'm really having a

[56:09] struggle with that piece of it. Linda,

[56:13] >> I think in order to manage the scope of

[56:16] this project, you know, and um we told

[56:21] potential vendors that we don't want you

[56:24] to develop cost estimates um about

[56:28] potential expansion concepts. um the

[56:31] capital investment involved either by

[56:33] the city or the city and the county

[56:35] together, the investment involved in a

[56:38] in an expansion scenario is something

[56:41] that we've been asked to consider in how

[56:43] we calculate the the lease rates. So I

[56:47] think the reason we're seeking an

[56:48] outside expert then is to say um I think

[56:53] there's going to be have to be some

[56:55] assumptions made or some placeholders if

[56:57] there is a $10 mill million investment

[57:00] for example how should that how should

[57:02] that factor into the lease rate

[57:04] calculation so at the end of the day we

[57:06] have the calculations we or we've at

[57:09] least explored what that would look like

[57:11] and and come to a decision whether or

[57:13] not that how and if that should be

[57:16] included in the rent calculation without

[57:19] any specific determination of this is

[57:21] exactly how option one, two and three

[57:23] will look but some some assumptions so

[57:27] that we can kind of build the framework

[57:30] build the the tool that makes the

[57:32] calculations and then we can plug in the

[57:34] numbers later um for the various

[57:37] options. So, this is really just a tool

[57:40] to to nail down one variable out of many

[57:43] variables that eventually will need to

[57:46] be considered. But, uh, but we're

[57:48] [clears throat] seeking that expertise

[57:50] to say, should this be considered? Yes.

[57:53] If yes, how should it be considered? And

[57:55] then later on, we can determine what

[57:57] exactly that looks like. Well, and and

[58:00] my

[58:01] part of my concern is and I've seen it

[58:04] happen from afar. I've not been on the

[58:07] on this committee. I've not been in any

[58:09] of these negotiations or talks, but once

[58:12] a number comes out, people hang on to

[58:15] it. So whatever number comes out of

[58:17] this, there will be people that will

[58:20] hold on to that number and no matter

[58:22] what you change, that's still a number.

[58:25] Because we've got that now

[58:28] with old numbers and they still hang on

[58:31] to them and say, "Well,

[58:34] whatever." So that's why I'm saying

[58:38] whatever we do, we better be darn sure,

[58:43] the city is on board with how we're

[58:46] getting that number or it won't mean

[58:49] anything. And I don't think the city's

[58:52] at that point from my conversation with

[58:56] that council member that they're not at

[58:58] that point. They don't know if it's

[59:01] >> plan one, plan two, plan three. They

[59:04] have no idea. I've been on that

[59:05] committee and we haven't met much in the

[59:08] last year. Not much but uh one time. Is

[59:12] that what you think? But I think that

[59:14] your comment about building trust was a

[59:16] very important one. And um I think that

[59:19] in a way um going for this kind of

[59:22] proposal was us not saying this is what

[59:25] the county wants, this is what the

[59:26] county needs. It was trying to come up

[59:28] with a realistic number. And I think

[59:30] sometimes about Linda talking about true

[59:32] costs. Okay. And it's always hard to

[59:35] come up with true costs. I mean, it it's

[59:37] a moving target. It's kind of hard. But

[59:39] I think that that the goal was for uh

[59:44] I think the goal was for the city to to

[59:49] pay what is indeed their share and the

[59:51] county to cover what's theirs. That's

[59:53] really what the goal was. We're not

[59:55] trying to make money on them. We're not

[59:57] trying to lose money. We're just trying

[59:58] to come up with that number. I think

[1:00:01] with the the rebuild or with the

[1:00:02] addition, I think the concern the city

[1:00:05] has is what does that mean to to pay or

[1:00:10] put a lot of money into a building they

[1:00:11] don't actually own. And so I think that

[1:00:15] understanding that piece is really

[1:00:17] important to them.

[1:00:18] >> Well, and and I not to not to drag up

[1:00:23] um old information, but

[1:00:27] we contracted with the city for

[1:00:28] municipal solid waste. Mhm.

[1:00:30] >> That contract specifically says every

[1:00:33] year when they set rates, they are

[1:00:35] supposed to give us the reasons why it's

[1:00:38] going up, give us the documentation.

[1:00:41] >> Five years at least.

[1:00:44] We've never had it yet.

[1:00:46] So, when it comes to being trustworthy,

[1:00:51] I'm going to tell you,

[1:00:52] >> there's another side of this out there

[1:00:54] that the city hasn't upheld that, you

[1:00:58] know, I I've asked for it every year.

[1:01:02] We never get it.

[1:01:04] >> And the rates have gone from 90

[1:01:06] something to I think the tipping fee now

[1:01:09] is 138.

[1:01:11] They haven't given us a justification

[1:01:12] why it's gone up once. So,

[1:01:16] If you're talking about trust, that's a

[1:01:18] two-way street. It's not. Absolutely.

[1:01:20] It's not.

[1:01:21] >> So, you bring that to me and then I'll start working harder for you.

[1:01:27] But it's really been a stick in my craw

[1:01:30] >> that we don't have answers to things

[1:01:34] that are in a contract.

[1:01:36] >> Well, that's reasonable. I mean, would

[1:01:38] they should provide that information. I

[1:01:39] want to know that this is what the city

[1:01:42] council wants us to study, then I'll

[1:01:44] vote for it,

[1:01:45] >> Linda.

[1:01:46] >> Other than that, I won't.

[1:01:49] Well, I do support the I it's a small

[1:01:52] amount of money comparatively and I do

[1:01:55] believe that from everything I have

[1:01:57] heard trust level on both sides is quite

[1:02:00] weak and that we are to the point where

[1:02:03] an independent

[1:02:05] analysis by someone who does this

[1:02:09] professionally is where we are at. So

[1:02:13] from that standpoint, I absolutely do

[1:02:16] support it.

[1:02:17] >> Go ahead, Scott. I I just wanted to note

[1:02:20] in fairness to the city and I'm not

[1:02:21] saying that they've given us the

[1:02:23] information that Commissioner Anderson

[1:02:24] has requested uh but in fairness to the

[1:02:29] city the uh date uh has already been set

[1:02:32] for them to provide that information.

[1:02:33] It's October 5th at 11:30 a.m. this this

[1:02:36] year. So in fairness to the current

[1:02:38] administration and city council that is

[1:02:41] in process this year.

[1:02:44] Um, I agree with Linda that I think we

[1:02:46] need to have a process that both sides

[1:02:48] think is um when I say fair, we all uh are

[1:02:53] self-interested and the outside person

[1:02:56] is not going to be on the side of the

[1:02:59] city or on side the side of the county

[1:03:01] but just trying to come up with a

[1:03:02] framework that is uh reasonable and

[1:03:05] makes sense and I think I think that

[1:03:07] would be extremely helpful.

[1:03:11] One more comment and that is that

[1:03:14] [clears throat] when you're talking

[1:03:15] about the law enforcement center and

[1:03:17] moving forward, the costs on both sides

[1:03:20] are so incredibly high for whatever

[1:03:22] direction that the city wants to go.

[1:03:26] that for that reason I I mean that's

[1:03:28] another reason why I believe that an

[1:03:31] independent

[1:03:33] um lease framework and understanding of

[1:03:36] what the options are and the cost done

[1:03:39] by a professional.

[1:03:41] It's the way to go.

[1:03:42] >> Well, we as a board don't have expertise

[1:03:44] on what a lease should look like when

[1:03:46] you're um putting on this addition and

[1:03:49] uh um the city isn't going to own it. We

[1:03:51] don't we don't have expertise in that.

[1:03:55] That's a very complex

[1:03:56] >> I think it is and complex and again it's

[1:03:59] not it's not where we're building a

[1:04:00] building to try to make money. We're

[1:04:03] just trying to divide the cost fairly.

[1:04:05] That's all.

[1:04:06] >> And I mean I'll just add to it that

[1:04:08] especially since the population in both

[1:04:10] the county and the city is not growing.

[1:04:13] Right?

[1:04:14] >> Therefore,

[1:04:16] I'm confused at the moment as to why law

[1:04:18] enforcement would keep growing when the

[1:04:20] population is not growing. And again,

[1:04:23] I'm going to go back to that's why we

[1:04:25] need an independent who specializes in

[1:04:28] this.

[1:04:29] >> I'll put a plug in for the demographer,

[1:04:31] too, because they'll have some ideas

[1:04:32] about that. Not only is the population

[1:04:34] not growing, it's aging and and uh with

[1:04:36] the aging population, there is on

[1:04:39] average less crime. No,

[1:04:42] >> go ahead, Lucas.

[1:04:44] I just wanted to add that um with this

[1:04:47] specific item, I would say tensions on

[1:04:50] all parties are probably rather high and

[1:04:52] that's probably just due to the fact

[1:04:53] that these things are extremely

[1:04:55] expensive. Um so inherently um I would

[1:04:58] say myself personally, I'm going to work

[1:05:01] as hard as I can to do the best I can to

[1:05:03] make sure all the residents of Goody

[1:05:05] County as a whole are treated the most

[1:05:07] fairly from a county perspective. And I

[1:05:10] would agree or I would assume I don't

[1:05:11] want to speak for Marshall from the red

[1:05:13] from Redwing, but my assumption is that

[1:05:15] he would want to do the same exact thing

[1:05:17] from his perspective. Um, again, I don't

[1:05:20] want to speak for him personally, but I

[1:05:22] believe both him and I um have the share

[1:05:25] the same opinion that this process is

[1:05:27] probably a really good idea just because

[1:05:30] as you as I said, tensions are very

[1:05:32] high. This u would be an independent

[1:05:35] third party and these vendors do this

[1:05:37] for a living. We received examples um uh

[1:05:40] just for additional context um you know

[1:05:43] some of these organizations they work

[1:05:45] with um

[1:05:47] joint uh buildings that are owned by

[1:05:50] multiple different governmental entities

[1:05:53] that they share this you know this one

[1:05:55] large facility and it may be owned by

[1:05:57] five different ones or there might be

[1:05:58] five different organizations that are

[1:06:00] working out of this one particular um

[1:06:03] building and this is what they do. they figure out what each entity should

[1:06:08] actually pay in a reasonable basis. Um,

[1:06:11] so again, tensions are high, but this is

[1:06:13] a means to come up with a number whether

[1:06:17] or not we like that number or the city

[1:06:20] of Redwing likes that number. Again,

[1:06:23] this would be developed by an

[1:06:25] independent party that does not have

[1:06:27] ties to the county or the city. That was

[1:06:30] part of the vetting process as well. We

[1:06:31] want to have a true third party. Um, and

[1:06:34] then we can weigh those options. So,

[1:06:36] >> there's no guarantee that having this

[1:06:38] third party do this is going to relieve

[1:06:41] tensions, but not re doing it probably

[1:06:45] is guaranteed to increase tensions.

[1:06:48] >> I think this is probably the best step

[1:06:49] forward if we want to continue to

[1:06:51] collaborate with the city of Reding with

[1:06:53] the law enforcement center.

[1:06:56] >> Any other comments?

[1:06:58] >> This is not a decision for us. It's

[1:07:01] going to go forward.

[1:07:02] >> Well, it it it's brought to you

[1:07:05] asformational purposes. It's definitely

[1:07:07] below a threshold that we can approve.

[1:07:09] But I mean, if you have specific

[1:07:11] direction that you want or want us to go

[1:07:13] back and talk to the city about and it's

[1:07:15] a consensus of the board or a motion, it

[1:07:17] could be, but uh we certainly would take

[1:07:20] all input you have involved and

[1:07:23] including Brad. I mean, if you're

[1:07:24] wanting to somehow incorporate finding

[1:07:27] out what option, if there's a certain

[1:07:29] option, we want to figure it out in

[1:07:31] here, we could um that I mean, your

[1:07:33] question's a very valid question. Um

[1:07:36] there's there's no doubt about that. And

[1:07:38] we don't honestly know that. We know

[1:07:39] what the ad hoc committee is. Um you

[1:07:42] know, in in fairness to the city, I also

[1:07:44] don't know that uh we have three

[1:07:46] commissioners that want to vote for any

[1:07:48] project.

[1:07:49] I'm I'm sorry I don't to put that on

[1:07:52] you, but [clears throat] it's a

[1:07:53] realistic answer because or question

[1:07:55] because uh if you look at uh options

[1:07:57] one, two, or three, all three of them

[1:07:59] include $3 million of of uh money from

[1:08:02] the county. And that question may be uh

[1:08:07] answered one way right now, and it may

[1:08:08] be answered differently next year

[1:08:11] because there will be two new county

[1:08:12] board members.

[1:08:14] Well, and you know, I'm always concerned

[1:08:19] um if the county builds buildings

[1:08:24] is part of building buildings that the

[1:08:26] county doesn't need.

[1:08:29] And right now, we don't need any

[1:08:31] addition to the law enforcement center.

[1:08:33] So,

[1:08:35] if it gets built and then the city moves

[1:08:40] out later, now it becomes a liability

[1:08:42] for us. and it's not a conducive

[1:08:45] building to any other department other

[1:08:47] than law enforcement. So, it really

[1:08:50] doesn't maybe some court services, but

[1:08:53] it is really a liability at that point.

[1:08:55] So I that's why I'm I'm really would

[1:08:59] like the city to say yes, that's what we

[1:09:02] want you to study and that's what we

[1:09:05] want to know the answer to because if

[1:09:07] they don't and it's something different

[1:09:10] with the other majority of the council

[1:09:14] then we're studying the wrong thing.

[1:09:16] That's all I'm saying. And that's for

[1:09:18] the for the I'm going to leave it to the

[1:09:20] committee to make those kinds of

[1:09:22] decisions. But in reality, I don't want

[1:09:26] to study something that really isn't

[1:09:28] going to answer the

[1:09:30] >> bulk of the city's question.

[1:09:32] >> Yeah, I understand. We haven't met for

[1:09:34] quite a while, like I said, but my

[1:09:36] impression is, and Scott, you can

[1:09:38] correct me if I'm wrong, that what the

[1:09:40] city was most interested in was this

[1:09:43] addition towards Fifth Street with some

[1:09:46] size of a garage. That's my impression.

[1:09:49] And I don't think there's an option on

[1:09:51] the table where it's just staying in the

[1:09:54] same space without an addition but doing

[1:09:58] remodeling. I don't think that's on the

[1:10:00] an option on the table with the city

[1:10:02] anyway.

[1:10:04] >> Um Stacy probably is the best to go

[1:10:06] through all the different renditions and

[1:10:08] there's been a lot of them. No different

[1:10:10] than

[1:10:10] >> But do you think

[1:10:11] >> no different than on HHS I think there

[1:10:13] was 28 different presentations on that

[1:10:15] building. But um the the the option of a

[1:10:19] about a half of an expansion of a garage

[1:10:21] was and remodeling inside and then uh

[1:10:24] some new space for law enforcement was

[1:10:27] the one they were most interested.

[1:10:29] Again, that's the ad hoc committee.

[1:10:30] That's not the council.

[1:10:31] >> Yeah, I understand that.

[1:10:32] >> Um I do know that they were, you know,

[1:10:35] obviously looking costconscious as well.

[1:10:38] Um and I I guess I would add one thing

[1:10:40] on to what Brad said about it being a

[1:10:42] liability 20 years from now. Actually

[1:10:44] any building that you build it's an

[1:10:47] asset today but tomorrow it is a

[1:10:49] liability and you don't need to wait 20

[1:10:51] years tomorrow it begins to be in a

[1:10:53] liability.

[1:10:55] I understand that.

[1:10:58] >> I think that uh starting off with this

[1:11:00] where we're going to establish the lease

[1:11:02] payment and like Nick was saying, then

[1:11:04] we can do a a factor of okay, here's a 5

[1:11:07] million, here's a 10 million, here's a

[1:11:08] 20 million. And I think those can

[1:11:10] actually be added on possibly easier

[1:11:14] after we establish the original

[1:11:17] lease amount. you know, as as the RFP is

[1:11:20] written, this is really a way to to re

[1:11:23] recommend a rent calculation

[1:11:26] methodology, you know, and and

[1:11:27] [clears throat] the related financial

[1:11:29] terms in the lease. So out of this we'll

[1:11:31] have a way to calculate rent. Um that

[1:11:34] includes the four specific concerns that

[1:11:37] the ad hoc committee um relayed to us.

[1:11:40] The four specific questions they relayed

[1:11:42] to us as well as some additional things

[1:11:45] that um you know that the consultant for

[1:11:48] example may bring forward as best

[1:11:50] practices. And and one thing one more

[1:11:52] thing that may be worth noting because

[1:11:54] we will have a new rent calculation

[1:11:56] methodology

[1:11:57] um that could be put into action as soon

[1:12:00] as the next iteration of the lease uh

[1:12:04] which is I believe the lease expires in

[1:12:06] December 31st 2027. So we're talking

[1:12:08] about a new lease in 2028. If this

[1:12:11] calculation truly is something that we

[1:12:13] are all h, you know, have contributed to

[1:12:15] and have faith in, this could be the

[1:12:17] basis for determining that that future

[1:12:19] uh near-term lease um before any of this

[1:12:24] um new investment is is uh realized.

[1:12:29] >> I'm going to say I'm in favor of this.

[1:12:31] >> All right,

[1:12:33] >> just one other thing. Stace Stacy has

[1:12:35] over 20 years of into this project. So,

[1:12:38] I don't know, Stacy, you haven't talked

[1:12:40] yet, but is there anything you we've

[1:12:41] missed?

[1:12:42] >> I don't think so. I think you guys have

[1:12:43] hit on everything. It's it's really it's

[1:12:45] the next step of the step of the the

[1:12:48] process, and once we have this tool, I

[1:12:50] think it's a tool that we'll be able to

[1:12:51] use down the road.

[1:12:55] » Thank you.

[1:12:57] >> So, we'll move forward then.

[1:13:01] is uh for your information

[1:13:03] in the project status report

[1:13:07] doing new old business. Linda,

[1:13:11] I just wanted to bring uh bring this to

[1:13:14] the board in Welch Township. There is um

[1:13:19] a proposal for a 1300 acre solar farm.

[1:13:24] And because it is so big, it bypasses

[1:13:29] township their regulations because they

[1:13:31] do not allow solar farms. It bypasses

[1:13:34] the county and it goes directly to the

[1:13:37] state. So the company is called Adapture

[1:13:42] Renewables

[1:13:44] and it is

[1:13:48] the funding behind it comes from the

[1:13:50] Kirkland Foundation which is part of the

[1:13:52] Kirkland family which does Legos creates

[1:13:55] Legos. So it's Lego family. Uh they are

[1:14:00] known for when they come into a

[1:14:01] community that they become a partner

[1:14:04] with the community. So, it's still up in

[1:14:07] the air at the moment. The original land

[1:14:10] owner is Nick Reese of uh Reese Farms.

[1:14:14] And

[1:14:16] where it is at the moment, last I heard

[1:14:20] was that Nick was or Reese Farms was

[1:14:24] trying to get more land leased from

[1:14:27] local land owners. It is um it's a hot

[1:14:30] topic in Welch. There are many that

[1:14:32] don't want it. There are many that do

[1:14:34] want it. It's a [snorts] way to

[1:14:36] diversify your land and your income. Um,

[1:14:40] so that's where it is at the moment.

[1:14:43] >> Thank you.

[1:14:44] >> That formally been applied for with the

[1:14:47] PUC.

[1:14:49] >> They expect to actually do the formal

[1:14:52] application to PUC in January of 27.

[1:14:57] Before that, you have to get on to a

[1:15:00] list called it's a miso miso.

[1:15:04] I cannot tell you exactly the details of

[1:15:06] exactly what that is. I have heard it's

[1:15:09] a queue that you get into. It's the

[1:15:11] first step you have to go to and that in

[1:15:13] 2025 there were 1,600 applications in

[1:15:17] the queue. So it's it's not a fastmoving

[1:15:20] project but it is in the works.

[1:15:25] >> I'd heard about that too.

[1:15:29] >> Any other committee reports?

[1:15:32] If not, is there a motion to adjurnn?

[1:15:34] >> So moved. Second.

[1:15:36] >> All in favor?

[1:15:37] >> I motion meeting it's adjourned and

[1:15:40] we'll take five minutes.

[1:15:49] [music]

County Board 8/18/26

Agenda

Transcript