I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
» Are there any disclosures of interest?
» Hearing none, is there uh a motion to
approve the previous board minutes? So
moved Anderson.
>> There a second.
>> Second.
>> Okay. There's a motion and a second. All
those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Motion
carries. Next is review the agenda.
>> There are no changes. Chair.
>> Thank you.
>> Approval as presented. Anderson. Second.
>> There's a motion and a second. All those
in favor say I.
>> I.
Opposed. Motion carries. Um, next is
the consent agenda and there's uh seven
items on the consent agenda.
>> Move approval of the consent agenda.
Anderson
>> second.
>> There's a motion and a second. All those
in favor say I.
>> I.
Opposed. Motion carries. Uh, next um
public works
Good morning board. Uh today's item uh
is a quick discussion about a bid
opening we had for a low slump overlay
contract for a bridge on County Road 5
uh just uh west of Lake City. On March
26, 2026, uh, for a little background,
we entered into an agreement with
Stonebrook Engineering to analyze
several concrete bridges in Goodu
County, uh, mainly to look at
maintenance needs that we could address
through, uh, some maintenance dollars
that we budget annually.
Um during the analysis, a low slump
overlay was identified for the bridge in
question, 25513
in Lake City, uh which we are hoping to
extend the life of the bridge. Um low
slump overlays consist of removing the
top 1 to 2 in of uh deck concrete
wearing surface and replace it with 2 to
3 in of new low slump concrete. Uh the
projects improve the driving surface of
the bridge by removing potholes and the
and improve the per or reduce the
permeability of the bridge deck by
reducing the amount of moisture and
chlorides that can penetrate and degrade
it over time. We opened bids on August
4th. Uh we only received one bid and it
was significantly more than our
engineers estimate. So, because of that,
today, uh, we're requesting that the
board reject the bid and we'll rebid it
next year, hopefully with some
additional work, um, and then be able to
provide the contractors with more time
to be able to accomplish the work that
they need to. Um, the high bids were
partly a result of the time of year. Uh,
the lack of number of bids kind of
reflects that as well. um they're kind
of pushed up against the the clock, so
to speak. So, today we're making that
recommendation to reject the bid and
rebid at a future date. So, if there's
any questions, I'd be more than glad to
take them.
>> Go ahead.
Don.
>> Oh, just uh the engineering we don't
have to re-engineer next year. I mean,
no. Okay.
And I guess my question is, is there
some repair that we can do temporarily
to prevent um overwinter chloride and
salt and stuff getting in or is it not
that bad that a repair job would just
pop right back out?
>> We've we've previously repaired this
bridge. Um the the issue right now is
potholes and those have been filled in.
Um
>> the the problem is that the the full
deck is experiencing damination and that
top wearing surface needs to be removed.
>> So they grind off an inch and a half and
then replace it back with more than the
inch and a half.
>> Yep. And so we have to be cognizant that
additional weight on a bridge because
there would be more concrete there than
what we'd be removing when we replace
it. Um, we're trying to be cognizant
that that adds dead load to the bridge,
which could have an impact on needing to
load post the bridge. We're trying to
avoid that where we can.
>> Okay.
I would move approval that we reject the
bids.
>> Second. There's a motion and a second.
Any other discussion?
>> Hearing none. All those in favor say I.
>> I. Opposed. Motion carries.
>> Thank you.
Next is land use management.
» Good morning. The um agenda item before
you is to consider a application for a
conservation subdivision in section 11
of Bell Creek Township. Uh the board
will hold a public hearing on this and
consider a request to reszone 40 acres
of a 70 acre tract of unplatted land um
located on parcel 25.011.0400
to be reszoned from A1 which is the
agricultural protection district to
conservation subdivision. Um along with
a conservation subdivision, the county
ordinance does require that the land be
platted. So in the application is a copy
of the application for a preliminary
plat and a final plat. Um this is a one
lot subdivision. So there's one lot
being platted that would be the home
site. Um there's some roadway dedication
and then the remainder of the land will
be put in a conservation easement. Um
included with the um agenda item is a
copy of the applications that have been
submitted um some staff prepared maps of
the area um and the copy of the meeting
minutes from the July planning
commission meeting. The applicants are
the buyers of the land um Michaela and
Scott Peterson who are purchasing the
land from family. Um they currently
reside in Redwing. The property owners
are Scott and Kelly Peterson. um address
in Redwing. As I mentioned, the um the
proposed subdivision is for a 40 acre
split of the original um larger track of
land. Uh this is in Bel Creek Township
and in as I had early me mentioned
earlier um section 11, the planning
commission, I'll give a little bit of
history on what happened at the planning
commission. The first request that were
that was submitted by the applicants was
actually to reszone the entire section.
Um all of section 11 taking it from A1
to A2. Uh the reason for that is that um
the sections surrounding
this section are already zoned A2. Um
and the applicants had hoped that there
would be um some uh political I would
say um will to reszone the section.
There was quite a bit of neighborhood
opposition to that resoning. Um the
planning commission recommended denial
of the resoning of the entire section
and asked that the applicants work with
staff on a conservation subdivision. Um
so that is what is proposed before you
today which is again um a highle
overview of the conservation subdivision
process is it essentially allows for a
reszoning of a up to 40 anything 40
acres or larger um for the creation of
wellthoughtout well planned residential
housing in areas that normally wouldn't
um be allowed to have residential
housing.
Um, in this case, the Petersons are
choosing to put the home site in an area
on the property that um maximizes
conservation of the land, is putting the
house in an area where it's outside any
bluff, floodplane, shoreland areas, um,
and are choosing to essentially keep
some of the tillable land in
conservation.
Um, let's see. Some key points here is
that there are two township roads that
adjoin the property. Uh, 350th Street
and 165th Street. As common with
platting property, the property owner is
required to dedicate public rightway to
the center line of that road that is
shown on the plat. Um, those are
township roads.
Um there are no um or there are feed
lots directly east and west of this
property. Um but there are no um
uh there's no flood plane on the
property. There is some shoreland on the
property.
Let's see.
Um I think the only other thing I want
to just be clear is that there are uh
two conditions that are being
recommended. The first is that um prior
to construction of a home on lot one of
the proposed Ryan edition, the applicant
shall submit to the county a copy of the
recorded conservation
um subdivision for the 20 acres shown on
outlot
uh a um the word conservation
subdivision is used, but it's actually
like a conservation easement. Um the
ordinance calls it a subdivision, but we
want to see a copy of the easement which
details what is allowed to be what is
allowed to happen on that site and what
is not allowed. The big thing that we
want is we want restrictions on
development and building [clears throat]
on that outlot. Um and then the second
condition is that a final plat must be
recorded within 180 days of the approval
by the county board unless an extension
is requested in accordance with
ordinance. Um, so with that, um, I guess
I'll turn it over to the board. The
notice was published, uh, in the Kenyan
leader for a public hearing. Um, and
like I said, included is a copy of the
40 acres that are proposed to be split
and then the proposed plat.
>> Do you want to take any questions the
board has before opening the public
hearing or or not?
>> Up to you. Whatever.
>> Just just for paperwork clarification.
19 through 23. What we have is a
different that's the bowling property,
correct?
» Just that that's another issue that
we're working on.
>> Oh, yeah. There's different pages from
different meetings in there.
>> Y
>> Oh, there's different attachments.
>> Yep.
>> Okay.
>> So,
» I'm sorry about that. Um,
>> problem.
>> My question is more of a curiosity
question. when they tried to do the
entire uh parcel and the neighbors were
uh objecting what were their concerns?
Uh the primary difference between an A1
section is it allows four houses per
section versus an A2 district which
allows up to 12 houses and no more than
one home per 40 acres or quarter quarter
section. Um right now there are four
homes in this section and the neighbors
were concerned that the jump from four
houses up to 12 um was too much
development to allow in this area that
is primarily agricultural land. Um, so
in synopsis, and I I don't know if the
meeting minutes necessarily reflect
this, but the
township and the neighbors were okay
with the Ryans building a house, but
they did not want five or six additional
houses in this section.
>> Thank you.
» Go ahead.
>> So, in a conservation subdivision, they
could come back and add five more houses
in there.
>> Yep.
Uh the county allows up to six in a
conservation subdivision. However, the
catch is [clears throat] every new lot
has to be platted, which does require a
public hearing and requires that that go
through the planning commission and the
county board. So, it cannot be done
administratively.
Um but technically additional density
can be added.
>> Yes, it would have to have a public
hearing, but what could we use to deny
it?
public public not liking it isn't a
reason to deny it.
>> So we would have to have a different
reason to deny it. So in essence, this
allows them to have six lots,
six building lots.
>> So with the conservation easement,
what's the uh size of the lot, the
minimum requirement
for for one home? So, right now the lot
that is shown is proposed at right
around 20 acres, right? Um the county
ordinance does not have a minimum lot
size for conservation subdivision.
However, I'd say the big thing that is
in the ordinance is that it encourages
sharing of a well and a septic.
>> Um and so density I think would be
determined based on how much capacity,
how much well capacity and how much
septic capacity there is. Um,
>> so this could lead to a more dense area
in a smaller section of housing. Is that
>> cor? Correct. And the whole reason the
whole reason we did a conservation
subdivision was
that was the goal
>> was to consolidate.
They didn't like the majority of people
didn't like switching
sections to A2
>> and then they didn't like planned unit
development.
And then we went to conservation
subdivision and we came out with this
where you're trying to put six houses
close together so they share septics
share well.
It reduces the number of wells. It
reduces the number of septics. So I mean
that was the ultimate goal. Um it has
not worked at all and I I'll say that it
just hasn't worked at all. we get one,
we get maybe two at the max. Um, they're
cumbersome. They're hard to work through
um for a lot of different reasons, but
>> I think we also gave the townships the
yay or nay on that, too. Townships can
have to accept it.
>> Townships with zoning could say, "Yes,
we're going to adopt conservation
subdivisions or no, we're not going to
put it in our ordinance." But they had
to have an ordinance to put it in or or
exclude it. And I don't think Bel has a
zoning ordinance.
>> We do not.
>> No.
» Any other questions?
>> Move to open public hearing.
>> There a second.
>> Second.
>> All those in favor say I.
>> I.
A public hearing is open. Is there
anyone who would like to speak to this
matter?
Second time. Is there anyone who would
like to speak to the uh conservation
easement?
Third and final time. Is there anyone
who'd like to speak to this?
>> Okay.
>> I'm close the public hearing.
>> Second.
>> Uh there's a motion and a second. All
those in favor say I.
>> I.
Public hearing is closed.
Okay.
>> Move to approve the conservation
subdivision as presented and with the
finding of fact that we have
>> second.
>> Any further discussion?
Hearing none. All those in favor say I.
>> I. Opposed. Motion carries.
No, Nick.
>> Yeah, Nick will take the lead on all
three of these items. And then on all
three of them, there's numerous
individuals here that have been involved
in the process.
» Good morning, commissioners.
>> Morning.
>> The first item I have for you is uh
resolution. Um you see it summarized
there at the top effectively
accept
authorized
staff to
» in 2021. The board authorized staff to
apply to the grant uh and with our
partner New Vera Communications.
Um the project itself is a $4 million
project. Um the 25% match is uh provided
by New Vera. It's to about $945,000.
the $3.21 million dollars will be
provided by um the federal government
for the project. Um some of the history,
I think a significant piece of the
history was in um 2024 the board
authorized a rescope of the project due
to rising cause uh costs. So um that
happened and was approved. Um, this
project as it stands today will uh
provide broadband service to 195 new
customers in some of the hardest to
reach areas of the county, some of the
most challenging terrain and otherwise
um not fiscally possible um on the part
of internet service providers to get
that service there. So that's the key
with this grant um the actions and the
agreements that are associated with
accepting this grant. So you will
approve um the acceptance and you will
authorize the board chair um to execute
the reconnect program grant and security
agreement and then two additional
agreements that were arrived at with New
Vera communication based on
conversations we've had with um the USDA
uh regarding our ability to assign the
responsibilities underneath this grant
to New Vera as the internet as the co-
awardee and service provider. Um I think
on June 16th staff was before the board
during a study session during a
committee of the whole during which uh
staff expressed some concern about the
responsibilities, obligations and risks
associated with the grant. Um subsequent
to that uh Commissioner Flanders uh
helped arrange a meeting with the deputy
director of telecommunications programs
with the rural utility service. And at
that meeting, we received some
clarifications regarding what were
ultimately our true obligations and um
what um and we received, I guess you
could say, um a degree of freedom to
enter into those agreements with NEA
that could assign much of the
obligations and risks to to NEA at that
time. So um with that um I will say as
we move forward it's important to
acknowledge that the the risks or
obligations that remain with the county
uh going forward for the term which is
20 years would be to maintain a um a
pledge deposit account because the
county is named in legislation as the
awardee of this grant. the county must
accept the money and maintain a pledged
account um for both accepting the funds
and dispersing the funds. So that will
be the responsibility of the county. The
county will also need to submit reports
that are associated with the grant um
along with the term. uh NEA and their
subcontractors will provide much of the
information that goes into those
reports, but al but in some cases it's
the county's responsibility submit to
submit those reports. And in the near
term, there's certainly going to be some
kind of additional staff time devoted to
setting up those accounts, making sure
all the agreements are in place and
moving forward.
So, the attachments to to this board
packet, you'll see the uh Reconnect
program grant and security agreement.
That's the master agreement with the
federal government that will be signed
both by um the county as principal
awardee and newa's secondary awardee.
And then two additional agreements
between the county and newa
communications. one to assign much of
the responsibilities for reporting
associated with the grant to New Vera
Communications and the second um to obl
which essentially obligates New Vera
Communication or New Vera Communications
to provide the internet service for the
entire 20-year term of the uh grant
agreement. Um with that um I believe I
can uh just turn it over to you for any
questions you might have.
Linda,
>> I don't necessarily have a question, but
I do have comments.
First off, thank you to everybody on
staff for being part of trying to work
this through. I appreciate it very much.
I know that it does add staff time to be
able to take a grant and do the
reporting on it. Um
I personally feel that broadband is
essential. So the idea of getting 195
people hooked up to fiber I think is
extremely important. But I do thank
everybody who put the time and effort
into um moving this along.
And with that, I would move that we
approve
the agreement um between the government
for the Reconnect program grant and
security agreement.
» Whole resolution. Correct.
>> Yes, the whole resolution. Sorry.
>> And the two attachments. Correct.
>> And the attachments.
>> I'll second that.
>> There's a motion in a second. Any
discussion?
>> I just have a question. So obviously
some of the work that NEA is going to do
and
some of it's very technical about how
you report it and what you got to
report.
Who is there anybody we have to rely on
that what is getting reported that's all
that technical stuff is accurate.
So
>> that's that and I I think in the process
we're going to figure that out a little
bit. But
>> a couple things I think it's important
to understand there's a distinction
between the construction period and then
the ongoing service provision through
the 20-year um lease agreement. For the
construction uh period, there are some
pretty specific construction guidelines
that New Vera and any subcontractor they
employ have to follow. And so um those
you know the asuranc is that they'll
follow those detailed technical aspects
in in terms of the construction that's
part of the agreements we'll have with
them. And I think we also have faith in
New Vera as a partner um who's not only
done this um but is in is engaged with
an engineering firm who has uh really
completed a number of these um reconnect
uh programs around the state. So they're
familiar with the requirements of this
particular grant program. So they know
how to provide the information in a way
that the USDA will be satisfied. So
>> and I and I don't I don't question NEA
one bit about the work they're going to
do the contractors they hire, but I also
in the back of my head have this road
construction side of me that says, "Yep,
but you still have to be there to watch.
We really don't have technical expertise
to do that. So what we're relying on Noa
to be that piece of it.
>> That's correct.
>> Okay. I just I think we all need to
understand that, but I just needed it
said. So
>> Jason, did you have a question?
>> Yeah. Well, just [clears throat] a
curiosity. So are these I'm assuming
they've looked at it with this grant and
that's part of the reason it was
questioned initially. These 190 supposed
homes, they've done the research on
this. They're like living in the stone
ages. All they have is dialup. They have
no internet access or anything where
they're at.
>> So that's correct. We we are aware based
on mapping and reporting who in the
county does and does not have access to
broadband um internet service. And so
the areas that have been identified as
part of this grant, we we can say for
certain don't at this time have
broadband access unless they have
independently um you know have a signed
a contract with another say satellite
provider or something like that. We
wouldn't have a way. But in terms of
utility provided broadband service um
we're pretty certain that the properties
identified the area currently lacks that
service.
>> Okay. But they still have internet
access being a satellite
options.
>> It it's it's
>> saying okay so end result is
yeah I don't support this. I mean I
there's a come and go with living in out
in the country. You maybe don't have to
deal with your neighbor's dog. Maybe you
don't the fire truck might take a little
longer to get there and you may not have
d you know you may not have fiber optic
in front of you. If you live on the side
of a rock ridge and you have a half mile
long driveway, it's not feasibly
possible. But you also have Starlink,
you're probably not using an antenna
with TV. You probably have a satellite
for your TV because that's the
transition we've went. Homes are
seldomly hardwired anymore because we
have all the hard wireless. So we have a
$40 trillion debt at the federal
government. I don't know where the $3.1
million is coming from. So
I get it. I'm just not sure that for 190
people that it really makes that much
sense. There's a reason they don't have
that it hasn't been done yet because
it's not feasible that the private
sector has made a decision. It's not
feasible to do it. Evidently, the
government's got the money to make the
decision and says it makes sense for
them. So,
if there was no options, I don't know
that it's equivalent to electrifying
rural America or getting everybody with
a phone. It's not equivalent because
there are options. I'd be very doubtful
that any one of these 190 supposed homes
don't have internet access that they're
not using Starlink. They're not using
some sort of satellite version. It's I
hard to justify the money, but
evidently somebody's got it. Not sure
which pocket they're taking it out of,
but so
>> and that's where I've uh this last
dollar cost have just ex you know
exploded over the last 10 years. You
know, they say that last, you know, used
to be 7,000 for that last mile and now
it's up over 30,000 for that last mile.
And uh it is I I I'm frustrated with it,
you know, but the the program is there.
It's not, you know, technically coming
out of our direct pocket. it it I'm
frustrated with it, but it uh you know I
guess for the advantage for these here
and uh you know it's one of those
programs that
is there and uh you know we got the
grant for it. So um
>> but very frustrated. Jason's point is
exact. It's very frustrating
homes would actually take the service.
Is that correct?
Under the terms of the grant, um the
county would be responsible to making
sure that they have the access to a
broadband internet service. Whether or
not they engage with a an internet
service provider to pay the monthly fee
and get the service, that's that's
entirely up to them. But we we satisfy
the terms of the grant by providing
access.
>> So, we don't really know the answer to
that question. If if 189 homes are
likely to accept or 10 homes are likely
to accept and probably it's somewhere in
between that
>> you can't force people to
>> No, no, I understand that. I I
understand that option.
>> Um I I understand that but I understand
the point of uh I think that does what
does this come out to per home? Do you
know that?
>> 189
>> dividing the project cost by 195. I I
don't
>> Yeah, it's it's pretty high.
I think what's important to remember is
if we were to rely on the private market
or
>> the rest of the county,
>> right, to get service to these homes, it
wouldn't happen. It's just financially
>> I understand that. And so we rely on
these types of programs to really
>> um
>> get to those tough to reach otherwise
very tough to reach areas.
>> To some extent the people who reviewed
the grant have decided that this pro
that this is of value enough to invest
in it. So I understand that too.
>> Excuse me. Sorry.
>> No, that that's okay. Um I forgot what
>> newation new Vera Communications has
determined since they are investing
money uh you know a million dollars into
this project
>> um they probably made the calculation
that um when presented with the
convenience of highspeed internet
reasonable cost. Uh, you know, part of
the provisions of this agreement is that
the cost that any of these 195 uh homes
would pay can't exceed the price any
other uh home in in Redwing or any other
place that uh um NEA provides service.
It has to be provided at the same cost.
And so I think uh they've had a
calculation that given the convenience
and the cost that they're likely to get
a number of customers that would make
this investment to them worthwhile.
>> Right. Right. So they it has there have
to be enough people who actually do it
for it to be worth new vera's uh
investment. I understand that. My my
second question is is um there's always
risks to anything we do. I I get that
too. And the degree of risk to this
contract to me it seems like it would
probably be similar to the degree of
risk with other contracts we might have
with the federal government. that is it
or is it still substantially more? I I'm
just trying to understand is it sort of
the standard level of risk to the county
or is it uh higher than that?
I will say that um when the finance
department uh presented during the
committee of the whole I think one one
of the factors that they um contemplated
is that the dollar value of this grant
at $3.2 $2 million is quite high when it
when in relationship to the overall
county budget. But the the likelihood of
um the federal government say asking for
a refund of that money is is
maybe barely not zero. I mean the the federal government is interested in
provi in this program providing internet
access to rural communities and if some
um some situation were to develop down
the road where we were not able to meet
the obligations or new vera was not able
to meet the obligations of this grant.
First and foremost, the federal
government would work with us to find
another service provider who could um
provide service. And given the fact that
this would be a a robust fiber optic
network in in the ground ready to go, um
finding an alternative service provider
should that come to pass. Um it's not
likely to be a a problem. But um if any
um financial uh penalties were to incur
in incur because of not meeting these
terms down the road, the agreements that
we currently have with NEA shift the
responsibility
all penalties um all I mean sort of all
matter of risk has been outlined in both
the uh assignment of responsibilities
agreement and the operations agreement
to assign that to new communications. So
there is really truly very little risk
to the county at this point um thanks to
the leeway granted by the rural utility
service for us to enter into these
agreements with new
>> and um you know the county attorney and
Lucas
>> and Lucas and Scott and Steve it seems
reasonable the degree of risk
>> I think it does and I I think the risk
is really frontloaded on this particular
agreement it's not really for the whole
20 years I think the greatest risk comes
when the funds have not been distributed
yet once the funds have been distributed
and the cables in the ground I think
that financial risk to the county really
I mean was mitigated at that point
significantly and the contract um
the operating contract has provisions in
there that will allow the county to
transfer ownership of the asset which is
the cable to vera at some point after
within the you know a shorter time
frame. So once we once that actually
happens, if that happens, obviously the
risk to the county then even becomes
even less. So I guess ultimately I
wouldn't see it um as anything more
significant uh than our normal contract
relationships. The issue for us really
is this is new territory for for us to
be doing this type of an agreement and
um installing
making a contract with a a company
that's installing fiber optic and then
having some ownership interest in that
for that time frame.
Um but again I think the the biggest
risk is in the front side of this until
those funds are distributed and the and
the fiber optic is actually in the
ground. [clears throat]
>> Thank you. Go ahead Brad.
>> This you know we talk about this at at
the association of Minnesota counties
all the time because it falls under for
some odd reason transportation. So, I
sit on that committee and we talk about
all the time and and
while I can agree with Jason about the
debt and the federal level,
um these dollars these dollars are
already out the door. They're going
somewhere and if we don't take them,
they're going somewhere else. They're
already appropriated. They're going to
go they're going to come out. So
in that case, we might as well be one of
the takers of that rather than let it
pass us by. And and we still have this
problem. The whole problem, the roll out
of broadband and expanding fiber to
everybody was left to the privates. And the privates took
all the lowhanging fruit. They did all
the really easy stuff. They were in
cities. They put it in in cities because
it was easy because the houses are close
together. Whatever. They did some of the
rural where they were getting fiber from
city to city and then we'll do these
people along this track. It really had
no plan that and it it was no plan to
how they were going to get broadband to
everybody and thus it costs way more. If
they would have come out with a plan,
said, "This is the process. We're going
to start here and we're going to work
our way across a county," it would have
been a whole lot more
um economical to do it. But it was left
to privates. Privates capitalize where
they can capitalize and they let the
rest go down by the wayside. So, it is
the only way it's going to happen. I'm
frustrated. We're all frustrated. Um,
but ending up with
grant that actually gets something done
that if we don't use it, somebody else
will. I'd say you got to go for it. And
I'm not I'm not uh very worried about
the risk because I think it will, you
know, the project will get done after
that upkeep is is less somebody cuts a
cable. That's what's going to happen.
It's not anything else. Any any further
discussion?
All right, there's a motion and a
second. All those in favor say I.
>> I.
>> Opposed.
>> I
motion carries.
» Okay. The second item I have for you is
also a grant. Uh this is seeking board
approval to apply uh for uh the 2026
safe and secure courthouse initiative
grant.
Um this grant uh is to fund um
courthouse safety improvements. Um the
county has in the past um identified uh
through uh audits done in 2021 and uh
its capital planning process a number of
projects that would increase safety and
security at the courthouse. um this 2026
grant uh and the terms of the grant
requirements um align closely with those
projects that we had previously planned.
And so the request is for the board to
authorize uh application for this grant.
I will note that it says up to $400,000
and um because of just the timing uh
with this uh the grant is due September
8th and we need to get working on final
proposals on some of these things. We do
have um what I would say some initial uh
proposals on at least one aspect of this
grant uh program. Some of the other ones
are a little bit more firm. Um but the
budget is is most likely to expected on
the project to be more closer to
$350,000, not $400,000. But at the time
the board packet was due, I had to kind
of put a number in there. So, it's up to
$400,000 with a 50% match um for from
the state and then a 50% match from the
county. Um what's significant about that
number is $200,000 was what we had in
the capital campaign in 20 in the
capital plan in 2028 for these type of
security improvements. So, what this
allows us to do is to um stretch that
dollar to include more um more of the
types of access um and u monitoring
security um um uh projects to expand
that project somewhat, but then to also
add some additional things like safety
glass to the transaction windows, four
transaction windows within the
courthouse, uh the justice center. and
then um an update to the screening um
machinery at the entrance. And I believe
one of the machines is is um um in need
of repair or replacement um in the near
term. So this is good timing with this
grant. Um
I think uh I think that about does it
for the summary. Uh if there's any
questions, I'd be happy to answer them
>> or Tim.
>> Well, I I have one question. It's kind
of to Steve O'Keefe. I had understood
that that was safety glass that was put
in originally at that big window. And
maybe that's not true, but and maybe I'm
just wrong, but that's what I
understood.
>> I had the same assumption, but
apparently you were wrong.
>> Okay. [laughter]
>> It is not.
>> Okay.
>> We were operating under a false sense of
security, I guess.
>> All right. All right. Well, good to feel
secure, I guess. But uh and then the
other thing I wondered, I think there's
been some talk about the windows along
uh Fifth Street for the county
attorney's office and the vulnerability
there.
>> Yeah, if I could just mention there's a
number of different type of glasses that
we have. Um in general, we don't discuss
our actual public discussion.
>> So I just want to make sure if we get
this grant, we're spending it in the way
that provides the most safety possible.
That that's simply
>> correct. And and for those of you who
are here in 2021, we did a full
assessment um of those of all of our
facilities, but um the courthouse in
general um with the sheriff's office and
then um homeland security. So we we do
have pretty comprehensive list of things
that we've been working on over the last
5 years and this just timing wise again
like Nick said, um we are planning on
doing some of these things that are
already budgeted for. So it's just an
opportunity to get some funding from the
city.
>> I understand that. Thank you.
>> So, yes, we'll continue to do those as
we outside of this grant application.
We'll continue to do those improvements.
>> All right.
>> Move approval to enter into the grant.
>> Second
>> motion and a second. Any further
discussion?
>> Hearing none. All those in favor say I.
>> I.
Opposed. Motion carries.
» Thank you. Okay. So, the third item I
have for you is a FYI item. Um,
and I believe I'll have a co-presenter
for this as well. Um,
the background on this uh particular
item is that um the uh Good Hugh County
and the city of Redwing is uh going to
consider the long-term occupancy of the
law enforcement center. And um in the
spring of this year, uh the ad hoc
committee uh from the city council who's
working on this um sent a note through
um council administrator Heinman to the
county administrator requesting uh to
see if we would be open to a couple
different um questions uh ways to kind
of um organize the lease and those are
outlined in the um in the board memo.
But things like long longer term lease
considerations, the ability to um have
um predictability uh both in the long
term but also ways to adjust the lease
over time. Um
ways to uh structure the lease or the
rent um by space type and to um and how
city- funded improvements might be
treated. Um the county uh discussed this
including the board of commissioners at
a uh budget meeting. I believe that was
on um May uh 25th was the date of that
or May um May 19th.
>> Yeah. Oh y
at the May 5th budget workshop, we
discussed that. So, um, and, uh, so,
County Administrator Arnerson responded
in affirmative to, uh, our willingness
to consider these, uh, um, uh, sort of,
uh, potentials that were forwarded by
the city council or by the ad hoc
committee. um with with the caveat that
it would probably be a good idea to seek
a third party with some expertise in
this area to kind of do the final
determination on how these factors uh
can be incorporated into the lease. So
this this um this action is really a
it's a it's a request for proposals that
will go out to qualified firms who we
have identified through a screening
process um that have some expertise both
in u public buildings um but also in
lease negotiate lease negotiations and
financial investment and the
calculations of rent uh in public
buildings. Um it's a small um
engagement. The scope was really
carefully crafted in a way to really
answer one of the questions that's going
to be um that the city of Redwing quite
frankly is going to have to face when
they make a a bigger decision about the
future home of the long-term home of the
police force. So this is not uh this is
an attempt really to just provide one
piece of data and that's um the rent and
the lease calculations and how that will
be calculated in order for them to in
the future maybe you down the road when
they have to make this difficult
decision. This one um this one piece
will be um sort of determined in a way
that we share the responsibility the
city and the county. In other words,
we're both um
sort of participating in both the
process of identifying uh how we should
proceed in determining these things, but
the partners that we choose, the third
party um outside partners that we choose
to do this. So, we've tried, I think,
um, to let the city lead a lot of this
effort when it comes to this particular
piece of work because ultimately it's
important that they trust um, the
process and we all have confidence that
the lease that we arrive at and the rent
we determine at the end is serves our
needs and is adjustable over time. So,
um,
the the attached history document goes
into much more background, but I think
for the sake of this FYI item really,
we're talking about um, a request for
proposals for just some assistance for
expertise, objective, trusted expertise
in arriving in those terms for the
lease. So, um, this item, I think, as
you know, was in front of the Redwing
City Council at their last meeting. Um,
[snorts]
no formal vote was needed or requested
because the quite frankly the dollar
amount is below the thresholds where
that would be required. But we both
administrations I think it's fair to say
think it's important that um our our
governing bodies are our commissions uh
are aware of where we are at in this
process. So um with that I will
entertain any questions you might have.
So, I'll start.
>> Um
I don't I I understand where this is
coming from and
um it is all about building some trust
and we probably need that
um on both on on both sides to some
degree. The question I have is
what are we studying? What exactly are
we studying? And is that what the city
has decided
is what they want?
Because we can go through this whole
exercise and then the goalpost moves and
then go through it again and the
goalpost moves. What I want to know is it an addition? Is it restructuring
of space inside? Is it cuz when what you
said was city council didn't take a
vote. To my knowledge, the city council
hasn't made a decision what they're
proposing for us to study. If they would
tell us what they want us to study,
then I'm fine with it. If they're not
going to tell us and we're taking a stab
at in the dark without the full council
saying that's what we want, then I'm I'm
going to hold off and say come back to
us when you're ready because it's not
ready in that point.
>> Go ahead, Scott.
>> Uh uh if you're asking if the if the
city council has taken a position on
which exact option, to my knowledge,
they have not. I believe the ad hoc
committee has said they preferred option
two
um which is kind of the middle of the
road. Um I will say for all of the
option that does require you know fairly
significant uh county investment as
well.
>> Um but no, if you're asking has the city
council uh taken a specific position on
option one, two, or three? I don't
believe they have. This is intended to
try to uh you know uh determine what
exactly appropriate uh lease rates could
be uh even with an expansion. Um and it
you're right it's it's a it's more
difficult um as you start adding further
onto that building and start you know
complicating it with different types of
uh square footage rates possibly for a
garage versus a internal secure office.
Um, so yes, those those are complicating
factors. There's no question about it.
Um, there's a there's a lot to this. Um,
if you look historically, um, I think
Stacy, is it three or four different
lease versions we've had with the
somewhere in that vicinity and, um, all
of them started with good intentions and
by the time they'd been around a while,
I think there's things that both, uh,
the city and the county didn't like
about them. um in including this last
one as an example. Um I think again it
had good intentions at the beginning of
it but what happened during co the co
years between you know 21 and today
between you know just general inflation
uh construction costs uh building costs
materials costs all of those things um
there's no way we could have predicted
that our rates would get that far out of
whack. And and what I'm saying here, I
don't think I'd be out of out of tune. I
think the city, if they're sitting right
here, they'd agree that nobody, in fact,
I know I've had the same discussion with
Marshall Hock, their finance director,
and Chris Heinman. I mean, nobody knew
those things. And Lucas has been
involved in some of those conversations,
too. We we simply just would not have
known that. And now I think one of the
things we've talked about moving
forward, you'd have to have some type of
circuit breaker that if those if we have
another period of time like that where
it's things are way exceeding
inflationary rates then then you'd have
to have a way to go back and look at
those. Even uh if you go back two years
ago, uh Lucas and his staff spent a ton
of time and actually a lot of other of
us spent a lot of time on it too. But uh
to try to just determine what the cost
the entire cost of that facility are and
break it down to a square footage
standpoint. Even those numbers uh moving
forward, we have to redo all of those.
Um they're outdated just from a I don't
know if that was two or two and a half
years ago, but they're those are already
outdated. So, um, but that that's a very
good question. Um, uh, Commissioner
Anderson,
>> when, uh, when we've set our current
rate right now, it's it's kind of been
an estimate. I mean, we've never had an
RFP sent out to establish our rent,
>> right? Right. And I think that would be
the starting point and say, "Okay, now
if we we we have this established
for the next how many years?" Now, if we
want to throw some remodeling into
there, we we would have that equation,
but we just we've never had an official
RFP on that. Correct.
>> Not not to determine an actual cost. So,
if you look at the structures, we've had
different structures. The first one
literally I think the county needed x
number of dollars and that's how that
number of dollars got applied to the
whole equation and said okay for that
you help us with this we give you this.
Um and then uh we and also there was a
framework in there for some operating
costs and pretty soon that formula
didn't work very well. And then we went
through another phase and we then we
figured out that uh you know uh not all
of the access points like the bathrooms
and the break rooms and the hallways
that you'd use to get to a city office,
those weren't in the equation. So then
we had to figure out how to get those in
the equation. um this last goound, you
know, we we can tell you what it costs
per square foot to have that facility.
But what we're not really experts in,
and that's this is part of where one of
these firms could help you with is that
the the roof over your head has a cost
and and it depreciates the second you
put it there. What when you break that
down to a square footage on the existing
facility for the replacement of that
roof, what how many cents per square
foot should that be applied to the city
and how many cents per square foot foot
should be applied to the county and and
all different costs. You take any
component of the building, the second
you build it, it switches, you know,
from a from an asset to a liability. So
those are some of the types of things
when you when you have to add those on
to the costs of just a square footage
cost today of the building, what those
depreciated costs have to go back into
that lease calculation. And really what
we've done um you know we we we did
previously analyze what the cost per
square footage is and then added some
administrative level onto that um on a
square foot basis. But, uh, forever
we've told the city and our our members
on that committee that we don't honestly
know if that's the right rate. It may
not might be. Um, we do know our our uh
architect has said it's very fair, which
tells me that it's, you know, not too
far one way or the other, but it also
tells me that it might be too fair, too.
But those [clears throat] are things
like I say when you have to figure out
how much the the air conditioning system
should be charged back in rent each
month uh on a square footage basis. We
that's not something we do every day.
>> Actually, we don't do it ever.
>> We never So, is it more about the lease
rate than it is about expansion? I mean,
I because I think you could hand this to somebody to evaluate it and they
could be looking at five different
options because nobody's narrowed it
down or the city basically the city
obviously for us if the city wasn't
there we don't have a problem with space
probably won't for many many years but
h they need to know what we're looking
at and I don't I have and I fully
transparent I talked to one of the city
council members and I don't think they
know what they want and and that's I
don't want to spend dollars
getting a number that really doesn't
mean anything because the goalpost gets
changed. So I I don't know how to get
there. I just I I'm really having a
struggle with that piece of it. Linda,
>> I think in order to manage the scope of
this project, you know, and um we told
potential vendors that we don't want you
to develop cost estimates um about
potential expansion concepts. um the
capital investment involved either by
the city or the city and the county
together, the investment involved in a
in an expansion scenario is something
that we've been asked to consider in how
we calculate the the lease rates. So I
think the reason we're seeking an
outside expert then is to say um I think
there's going to be have to be some
assumptions made or some placeholders if
there is a $10 mill million investment
for example how should that how should
that factor into the lease rate
calculation so at the end of the day we
have the calculations we or we've at
least explored what that would look like
and and come to a decision whether or
not that how and if that should be
included in the rent calculation without
any specific determination of this is
exactly how option one, two and three
will look but some some assumptions so
that we can kind of build the framework
build the the tool that makes the
calculations and then we can plug in the
numbers later um for the various
options. So, this is really just a tool
to to nail down one variable out of many
variables that eventually will need to
be considered. But, uh, but we're
[clears throat] seeking that expertise
to say, should this be considered? Yes.
If yes, how should it be considered? And
then later on, we can determine what
exactly that looks like. Well, and and
my
part of my concern is and I've seen it
happen from afar. I've not been on the
on this committee. I've not been in any
of these negotiations or talks, but once
a number comes out, people hang on to
it. So whatever number comes out of
this, there will be people that will
hold on to that number and no matter
what you change, that's still a number.
Because we've got that now
with old numbers and they still hang on
to them and say, "Well,
whatever." So that's why I'm saying
whatever we do, we better be darn sure,
the city is on board with how we're
getting that number or it won't mean
anything. And I don't think the city's
at that point from my conversation with
that council member that they're not at
that point. They don't know if it's
>> plan one, plan two, plan three. They
have no idea. I've been on that
committee and we haven't met much in the
last year. Not much but uh one time. Is
that what you think? But I think that
your comment about building trust was a
very important one. And um I think that
in a way um going for this kind of
proposal was us not saying this is what
the county wants, this is what the
county needs. It was trying to come up
with a realistic number. And I think
sometimes about Linda talking about true
costs. Okay. And it's always hard to
come up with true costs. I mean, it it's
a moving target. It's kind of hard. But
I think that that the goal was for uh
I think the goal was for the city to to
pay what is indeed their share and the
county to cover what's theirs. That's
really what the goal was. We're not
trying to make money on them. We're not
trying to lose money. We're just trying
to come up with that number. I think
with the the rebuild or with the
addition, I think the concern the city
has is what does that mean to to pay or
put a lot of money into a building they
don't actually own. And so I think that
understanding that piece is really
important to them.
>> Well, and and I not to not to drag up
um old information, but
we contracted with the city for
municipal solid waste. Mhm.
>> That contract specifically says every
year when they set rates, they are
supposed to give us the reasons why it's
going up, give us the documentation.
>> Five years at least.
We've never had it yet.
So, when it comes to being trustworthy,
I'm going to tell you,
>> there's another side of this out there
that the city hasn't upheld that, you
know, I I've asked for it every year.
We never get it.
>> And the rates have gone from 90
something to I think the tipping fee now
is 138.
They haven't given us a justification
why it's gone up once. So,
If you're talking about trust, that's a
two-way street. It's not. Absolutely.
It's not.
>> So, you bring that to me and then I'll start working harder for you.
But it's really been a stick in my craw
>> that we don't have answers to things
that are in a contract.
>> Well, that's reasonable. I mean, would
they should provide that information. I
want to know that this is what the city
council wants us to study, then I'll
vote for it,
>> Linda.
>> Other than that, I won't.
Well, I do support the I it's a small
amount of money comparatively and I do
believe that from everything I have
heard trust level on both sides is quite
weak and that we are to the point where
an independent
analysis by someone who does this
professionally is where we are at. So
from that standpoint, I absolutely do
support it.
>> Go ahead, Scott. I I just wanted to note
in fairness to the city and I'm not
saying that they've given us the
information that Commissioner Anderson
has requested uh but in fairness to the
city the uh date uh has already been set
for them to provide that information.
It's October 5th at 11:30 a.m. this this
year. So in fairness to the current
administration and city council that is
in process this year.
Um, I agree with Linda that I think we
need to have a process that both sides
think is um when I say fair, we all uh are
self-interested and the outside person
is not going to be on the side of the
city or on side the side of the county
but just trying to come up with a
framework that is uh reasonable and
makes sense and I think I think that
would be extremely helpful.
One more comment and that is that
[clears throat] when you're talking
about the law enforcement center and
moving forward, the costs on both sides
are so incredibly high for whatever
direction that the city wants to go.
that for that reason I I mean that's
another reason why I believe that an
independent
um lease framework and understanding of
what the options are and the cost done
by a professional.
It's the way to go.
>> Well, we as a board don't have expertise
on what a lease should look like when
you're um putting on this addition and
uh um the city isn't going to own it. We
don't we don't have expertise in that.
That's a very complex
>> I think it is and complex and again it's
not it's not where we're building a
building to try to make money. We're
just trying to divide the cost fairly.
That's all.
>> And I mean I'll just add to it that
especially since the population in both
the county and the city is not growing.
Right?
>> Therefore,
I'm confused at the moment as to why law
enforcement would keep growing when the
population is not growing. And again,
I'm going to go back to that's why we
need an independent who specializes in
this.
>> I'll put a plug in for the demographer,
too, because they'll have some ideas
about that. Not only is the population
not growing, it's aging and and uh with
the aging population, there is on
average less crime. No,
>> go ahead, Lucas.
I just wanted to add that um with this
specific item, I would say tensions on
all parties are probably rather high and
that's probably just due to the fact
that these things are extremely
expensive. Um so inherently um I would
say myself personally, I'm going to work
as hard as I can to do the best I can to
make sure all the residents of Goody
County as a whole are treated the most
fairly from a county perspective. And I
would agree or I would assume I don't
want to speak for Marshall from the red
from Redwing, but my assumption is that
he would want to do the same exact thing
from his perspective. Um, again, I don't
want to speak for him personally, but I
believe both him and I um have the share
the same opinion that this process is
probably a really good idea just because
as you as I said, tensions are very
high. This u would be an independent
third party and these vendors do this
for a living. We received examples um uh
just for additional context um you know
some of these organizations they work
with um
joint uh buildings that are owned by
multiple different governmental entities
that they share this you know this one
large facility and it may be owned by
five different ones or there might be
five different organizations that are
working out of this one particular um
building and this is what they do. they figure out what each entity should
actually pay in a reasonable basis. Um,
so again, tensions are high, but this is
a means to come up with a number whether
or not we like that number or the city
of Redwing likes that number. Again,
this would be developed by an
independent party that does not have
ties to the county or the city. That was
part of the vetting process as well. We
want to have a true third party. Um, and
then we can weigh those options. So,
>> there's no guarantee that having this
third party do this is going to relieve
tensions, but not re doing it probably
is guaranteed to increase tensions.
>> I think this is probably the best step
forward if we want to continue to
collaborate with the city of Reding with
the law enforcement center.
>> Any other comments?
>> This is not a decision for us. It's
going to go forward.
>> Well, it it it's brought to you
asformational purposes. It's definitely
below a threshold that we can approve.
But I mean, if you have specific
direction that you want or want us to go
back and talk to the city about and it's
a consensus of the board or a motion, it
could be, but uh we certainly would take
all input you have involved and
including Brad. I mean, if you're
wanting to somehow incorporate finding
out what option, if there's a certain
option, we want to figure it out in
here, we could um that I mean, your
question's a very valid question. Um
there's there's no doubt about that. And
we don't honestly know that. We know
what the ad hoc committee is. Um you
know, in in fairness to the city, I also
don't know that uh we have three
commissioners that want to vote for any
project.
I'm I'm sorry I don't to put that on
you, but [clears throat] it's a
realistic answer because or question
because uh if you look at uh options
one, two, or three, all three of them
include $3 million of of uh money from
the county. And that question may be uh
answered one way right now, and it may
be answered differently next year
because there will be two new county
board members.
Well, and you know, I'm always concerned
um if the county builds buildings
is part of building buildings that the
county doesn't need.
And right now, we don't need any
addition to the law enforcement center.
So,
if it gets built and then the city moves
out later, now it becomes a liability
for us. and it's not a conducive
building to any other department other
than law enforcement. So, it really
doesn't maybe some court services, but
it is really a liability at that point.
So I that's why I'm I'm really would
like the city to say yes, that's what we
want you to study and that's what we
want to know the answer to because if
they don't and it's something different
with the other majority of the council
then we're studying the wrong thing.
That's all I'm saying. And that's for
the for the I'm going to leave it to the
committee to make those kinds of
decisions. But in reality, I don't want
to study something that really isn't
going to answer the
>> bulk of the city's question.
>> Yeah, I understand. We haven't met for
quite a while, like I said, but my
impression is, and Scott, you can
correct me if I'm wrong, that what the
city was most interested in was this
addition towards Fifth Street with some
size of a garage. That's my impression.
And I don't think there's an option on
the table where it's just staying in the
same space without an addition but doing
remodeling. I don't think that's on the
an option on the table with the city
anyway.
>> Um Stacy probably is the best to go
through all the different renditions and
there's been a lot of them. No different
than
>> But do you think
>> no different than on HHS I think there
was 28 different presentations on that
building. But um the the the option of a
about a half of an expansion of a garage
was and remodeling inside and then uh
some new space for law enforcement was
the one they were most interested.
Again, that's the ad hoc committee.
That's not the council.
>> Yeah, I understand that.
>> Um I do know that they were, you know,
obviously looking costconscious as well.
Um and I I guess I would add one thing
on to what Brad said about it being a
liability 20 years from now. Actually
any building that you build it's an
asset today but tomorrow it is a
liability and you don't need to wait 20
years tomorrow it begins to be in a
liability.
I understand that.
>> I think that uh starting off with this
where we're going to establish the lease
payment and like Nick was saying, then
we can do a a factor of okay, here's a 5
million, here's a 10 million, here's a
20 million. And I think those can
actually be added on possibly easier
after we establish the original
lease amount. you know, as as the RFP is
written, this is really a way to to re
recommend a rent calculation
methodology, you know, and and
[clears throat] the related financial
terms in the lease. So out of this we'll
have a way to calculate rent. Um that
includes the four specific concerns that
the ad hoc committee um relayed to us.
The four specific questions they relayed
to us as well as some additional things
that um you know that the consultant for
example may bring forward as best
practices. And and one thing one more
thing that may be worth noting because
we will have a new rent calculation
methodology
um that could be put into action as soon
as the next iteration of the lease uh
which is I believe the lease expires in
December 31st 2027. So we're talking
about a new lease in 2028. If this
calculation truly is something that we
are all h, you know, have contributed to
and have faith in, this could be the
basis for determining that that future
uh near-term lease um before any of this
um new investment is is uh realized.
>> I'm going to say I'm in favor of this.
>> All right,
>> just one other thing. Stace Stacy has
over 20 years of into this project. So,
I don't know, Stacy, you haven't talked
yet, but is there anything you we've
missed?
>> I don't think so. I think you guys have
hit on everything. It's it's really it's
the next step of the step of the the
process, and once we have this tool, I
think it's a tool that we'll be able to
use down the road.
» Thank you.
>> So, we'll move forward then.
is uh for your information
in the project status report
doing new old business. Linda,
I just wanted to bring uh bring this to
the board in Welch Township. There is um
a proposal for a 1300 acre solar farm.
And because it is so big, it bypasses
township their regulations because they
do not allow solar farms. It bypasses
the county and it goes directly to the
state. So the company is called Adapture
Renewables
and it is
the funding behind it comes from the
Kirkland Foundation which is part of the
Kirkland family which does Legos creates
Legos. So it's Lego family. Uh they are
known for when they come into a
community that they become a partner
with the community. So, it's still up in
the air at the moment. The original land
owner is Nick Reese of uh Reese Farms.
And
where it is at the moment, last I heard
was that Nick was or Reese Farms was
trying to get more land leased from
local land owners. It is um it's a hot
topic in Welch. There are many that
don't want it. There are many that do
want it. It's a [snorts] way to
diversify your land and your income. Um,
so that's where it is at the moment.
>> Thank you.
>> That formally been applied for with the
PUC.
>> They expect to actually do the formal
application to PUC in January of 27.
Before that, you have to get on to a
list called it's a miso miso.
I cannot tell you exactly the details of
exactly what that is. I have heard it's
a queue that you get into. It's the
first step you have to go to and that in
2025 there were 1,600 applications in
the queue. So it's it's not a fastmoving
project but it is in the works.
>> I'd heard about that too.
>> Any other committee reports?
If not, is there a motion to adjurnn?
>> So moved. Second.
>> All in favor?
>> I motion meeting it's adjourned and
we'll take five minutes.
[music]