##VIDEO ID:9u5nzPDPF-g## good morning everyone I'd like to welcome you to the committee the whole work session today Tuesday August 20th we're getting started a few minutes late because of the length of our Public Health and Human Services meeting but we appreciate uh you waiting for us for those of you that are members of the public watching today as we begin on our agenda we have our minutes and then we have an update on the transfer station and we have a number of people here to address that uh first issue the transfer station and so I'd like to welcome Dustin Hansen of Northshore was Teresa VA our director for Eda and Tim Nelson director of Land Services welcome thank Youk you all right Madam chair I I'll kick this off and I was just looking at the uh agenda for the committee of the whole and I thought I had appended the uh the table that showed the funding for it and I'm not seeing that now so I may need to go and get the uh I BR up maybe okay that'd be great that'd be great yeah all right so we'll try to put that table on the screen for everyone to see and primarily today what this is is an update on the status of funding for the grandm transfer station um improvements that we have been looking at and talking about for quite a long time yeah and and so again just kick taking it off um Jan is putting up on the screen a table that should have been included in your board packet showing funding uh to date for this project as you recall when we started talking about the uh proposed transation it's been now a couple years ago right um the the idea was that um Dustin and Barry Peterson they were going to kind of put together a funding package P they wanted the County's assistance in applying for uh some State bonding for it at the time that we started that discussion it was expected that Northshore waste would retain ownership of the facility that the County's role would be getting uh assisting in getting some State funding as we started to get into that process and talking with the folks at Minnesota management budget um they started suggesting a process that was not what we expected it to be which was um that the in order for for uh the county to receive funding for the project the county would in fact have to be the owner of the facility and so as you know we were successful in getting $2 million for uh the project through the uh through the uh mining mining tax uh which is being uh funneled through ITR so so um that's that's $2 million which is great um subsequently thanks to the hard work of Teresa ba who applied for funding from the uh Department of Employment and economic development um we were able to get another $800,000 for the project that has not been publicly announced yet but we're able to share that with you today um Dustin and Barry have uh about $363,000 of private Equity into the project um and then there's the other ITR Grant the amount of $450,000 so that comes to a total of about 3.6 million um looking at the top half of this table you can see uh the estimated total project costs which are about $6.1 million and so where things currently sit is there's a funding gap of 2.5 million uh we did uh reach out to our uh US senators and uh sought ear marks for for the project congressionally directed spending is what they call it um and we were notified quite recently that uh we were not going to get that funding so that's where we are today um and the conversation really is how do we move this project forward I think there's a lot of agreement that we need a better way of managing our solid waste and I know Barry and Dustin are very committed to that and uh we've talked at length about the uh you know public health and economic benefits of having a better system for processing solid waste so and I've heard from this board that there's a lot of support for this it's something that would benefit our community in a number of ways and so the the conversation today is really just to talk about where we are in terms of the financing for the project and also talk about some possibilities of of moving it forward and I've probably stolen all your thumbnail at this point but I would invite uh Teresa and Dustin to to jump in um no I was going to provide an update um thank you on the kind of sources of funds and where we're at but I'll just um I guess reiterate that you know 32 million dollar in grant funding is roughly 53% of the estimated total project cost that's pretty remarkable um we've secured that without demonstrating any local match um and I I think that I I note that more to just speak to the fact that our partners see the importance of this project um representative scraba Senator hild I RB um you know and others locally stakeholders who have provided letters of support um gone down to the capital and spoke about this so um yeah what am I missing I think I think one of the things that needs to be talked about in this as well is you know there is a ticking time clock on this money that we receive from the state I'm glad you said clock M and so that's why we thought it was so important to come and talk about it now and and explore options to try to do that I I have mentioned to some folks in the hallway but I'll say it again you know when we originally came and talked to you guys we were going to own the building which means this last funding that would need to come um would come from us you know we go to a bank we get financing and we would say hey we went to the i r or the state we secured this other funding for it you know we'd like to borrow money and and put up this building they would have a lean on it that's not really the case because we don't want a building anymore so that's you know what we're hoping to to talk a little bit about yeah and one more note on the uh timer that or clock that was a good good lead in um the Eda grant for 450,000 that was secured from ITR was from 2022 it expires in September of 2024 um I've talked to their staff about another extension it's had two already um they would just like to understand what our next steps are um for financing the remaining Gap um before they just move forward with an additional extension so they kind of understand where this project is at so there are a lot of clocks timing and I guess to further clarify for for folks um who may not have uh heard earlier discussions on this so the whole thing about the County's ownership of the facility um that again that is to meet the state's requirements in terms of receiving the 2 million um the county would not be operating the transfer station that would remain with Northshore waste basically we would be the owners in fact uh so that there is a public stake in the project um that's necessary to receive the Public Funding um but in terms of the County's commitment to actually run the facility or to oversee its construction that would still fall to Northshore ways to to do and I did you know I thought a lot about it at the beginning when we first started talking about this option and you know I think from the state it makes a lot of sense to do it this way if something does happen you know say Barry and I were to to disappear the county still was in the garbage business you know either the Connie would have to step in and and pick up and start picking a garbage or somebody else another company would come in but facility the things that we're talking about the future of solid waste in Cook County is taken care of by building this facility owned by the county and whoever operates it operates it it just happens to be us at this point so we need to come up with 2.5 that's the bottom line $2.5 million for this to continue and in order to secure an extension for Grant dollars we need to explain where that is coming from I think start communicating a plan of plan of action of how we intend to close that Gap so Tim Nelson director of Land Services and I have had a conversation about the situation we've talked about different op that would be available to us um one part of the funding we we have a solid waste fund that we've had for many years um the balance of which currently is about I think $330,000 um we have used that that line item to pay for the replacement of equipment at the recycling center so when we need a new forklift or new Bins or what have you we've tapped into that funding to to cover those expenses and I'm not sure exactly how this is going to look but I'm not here to advocate for simply wiping that clean and donating it all to the project because I think there's still an ongoing need for having equipment replacement funds but it is totally aligned with with the origin of the funds that we would use it for a solid waste project so and that's important because there is an immediate need to move forward on uh designing that the plans for the facility and so um the funding that we have in that in that line item could be used for that purpose and I I don't know Dustin if you have a clear sense of kind of what the anticipated expense there would be I really don't have a an exact number on that um you know when we started this process we put the money up front to get PL started um and as we started running into questions on the funding from the state we kind of pump the braks out out a little but um you know I would guess I would guess if you're going to get a complete set of plans they're going to be a few hundred th000 to to have everything ready to go shovels in the OR ready for shovels on the ground um but I you know I'm just kind of taking a shot the dark um you know some of the some of the things that I think are important to talk about in this transfer station is that it's just kind of the beginning of of the goal that we actually talked about um you know I think this being stage one and trying to incorporate some other things you know we have the topy transfer station I know there's been conversations at least with the past commissioner and you know we talked um talked with commissioner white about it as well Cleland doesn't really have a transfer station or anything out there so kind of taking a step back and looking at Solid Waste in the whole County and saying okay how how do we operate it and how do we fund that for the future I think is an important thing for us to do at this point um I just what I don't want to do is start moving forward with this one thing and then a year later we're talking about the next thing the next thing you know it's I think it's good to get everything out at the beginning um so I I don't know if anybody has any thoughts or comments on on the future versus you know just this single transfer station at this point um for we had a good conversation because some of it is for uh Community to hear um this facility is it going to this facility this facility is it going to have um a space for we have a recycling center so the idea is to down the road move that operation to the space where the transfer station or do does the county upgrade what they have do we have you have we have a conversation yet about how that will uh work and can we share it yes um I'll I'll start because I mean we have talked about this okay yeah we we have right and so I mean a recycling center is not part of the first phase of the project but it is contemplated as a longer term goal um and really it would make a lot of sense it'd be a real benefit to the community I think to have a facility that handles all manner of household waste whether it's trash or Recycling and I want to be really clear this we are not having any conversations about getting rid of our recycling program or our recycling staff that's not what we're talking about here um what we what we are thinking about and again this is not a a first phase but down the road is to have recycling at the transfer station and then our our staff would be working out of that facility uh presumably and um then we would have a vacant site that we would have to figure out what we're doing with um and that could be I mean if there's not a need for it it could be sold or there there are different things we could do um so that's that is something that we're thinking about but it's it's a second second part of the second phase yeah I think one of the things that came up a lot in these conversations that we've had around the community is um you know trying to make the recycling a a bit more efficient um you know and this is just my personal opinion but I feel like it's very hard to recycle currently okay compared to a lot of communities in the state of Minnesota um you know I can tell you that I own a home in another town and we have curbside recycling we throw everything into a bin we bring it to the end of the driveway and our recycling is taken care of for us so the idea of having easier more efficient recycling options for the residents of the the county um would would benefit recy in multiple ways I think it because it's easier more people will recycle um um I also think that uh you know the more the more people recycle the less is the less that's going in the landfill but I also feel like um the the material that we're taking from recycling you know curbside recycling you still have to you still have to pay to get rid of so it's not like you're really saving any money where really it's an environmental benefit um so ultimately our our goal has always been to try to figure out a way to offer curbside recycling to our customers I think the businesses would also benefit from not having to have trucks parked out behind their restaurants full of cardboard all the time things like that so that's what I can say about RW seing thank you uh just for uh some some added kind of context in terms of where we're at from an overall standpoint uh when I first arrived here 25 to 26 years ago we had seven waste haulers we had our facility uh which is a landfill facility over the hill and we were still in development of the recycling program and adding on to that um over the course of the years the number of waste dollars has Consolidated down we had three for a number of years and then two and then now we just have the one that correlates with um also the overall Regional Solid Waste planning from a timing aspect it didn't work out really well for us because over the last uh couple years we have been engaged in a regional Solid Waste plan uh update and so it was actually slightly before the time in which we needed to update our plan solely as a county for the state so we still though engaged in for that Regional plan to assist them along because the facilities that all of the regional waste was going to was going to be closing down and they needed to look for Alternatives where that has left us is that that plan was completed last year and that was put into the books and that's great for the regional standpoint but we didn't really get to focus as much on our own local programs as we could especially in the transition down to one uh holler um if you recall as Commissioners periodically over the course of this year I've thrown out the prospect of doing are updating our comprehensive plan we have a comprehensive land use plan and then we have other plans housing plan Transportation plan and so the idea was to take all of that put it together into a comprehensive plan overall and part of which we can take and look at specifically the solid waste system that we have because yeah our recycling program as we did has grown and grown and there are elements to it which we have grown we always contend with the economies of scale uh issue which don't work very well for us in a large Geographic County but small population wise we have our surges of the busy Seasons versus the slower seasons and so it is very challenging all the way around um and especially with the you know the um Capital Equipment uh fund and replacement we've been able to manage to keep that going uh well enough over the years uh but yes it is time to really take a concerted look at um the overall solid waste management system from the County's perspective now that the regional plan is in place and they are now currently going to be going out on on rfps for the disposal and processing of the waste from a region-wide basis so it's a good time and I and I'm all of that kind of summarized to say that this next year is a good year for that level of planning for us with the recycling with the the Sol way system and assisting in with the transfer station Tim would you talk a little bit we were talking about how things were set up in Clear Water County and I think that would be helpful for the Commissioners to here okay um so what what we had done in Clearwater County which is Northwest it's uh just straight west of buiji um is we had not only like we do here is we had remote uh trailer sites here we have them strictly just for uh recyclable materials but there we had combined that with uh actually solid waste drop off sites we each of the sites that we had we had eight around the county and we had designed it so that uh each of these particular drop off sites were within 2 miles of 98% of the County's residents and so people could go and drop their Recycling and their uh garbage off at each of these we had three eight yard dumpsters set up at these and then we collected a solid was service there is under Minnesota statute 400 there is the ability for the county to be able to bond or to set a a levy and a service charge specifically for solid waste and it has to be managed in and of itself under its own direct fund the current fund that we have now is is not under that uh criteria but if if uh what we had done there is set up a specific Solid Waste service fee or management fee on the taxes and then we took that in and we contracted it out to the waste haulers and that paid for the collection of the waste and it paid for the Tipping of the waste at the facility uh that we could direct where it would go and we we were part of a an incinerator complex at in that location and so we directed all of the waste to go to a specific location therefore we didn't have to worry about flow control or a waste holler going to some other facility that that wasn't part of that uh system so that is how we had uh funded it um and it did it it did work well I mean there's always pros and cons to any kind of system but that's at least in a nutshell how that system was set up there so um so we got some funding and and the solid waste fund but we still need to make up a significant down um yes um um is there and it sounds like there's um an Avenue with that Solid Waste fee or tax or whatever is there an advantage to using that tool for bonding versus just our general obligation bonds I don't know about any benefit or detriment Brady may be able to better answer that question but I do know specifically under that statute we are authorized to be able to do it it has to be specifically for solid waste related type activities and it has to be managed outside of like the General Revenue tax funds or so it has to be its own dedicated fund and so that would be the difference is there a dedicated that would handle for de service with with GE bonding would be Ling and so it be it would be much like the other special assessments on a tax statement and so the the itemization of that I could see has more clarity so I could see that as an advantage but I could see a disadvantage with efficiencies needs to be administered or managed separately too so yeah I guess would be helpful there are there other are there other opportunities for funding seems like we've looked at our grants and our um State bonds and yeah Federal we've already I mean I mean in terms of creating a sustainable ongoing funding source it seems like the bonding is probably the way to do it and to to establish a fee everybody in this County generates waste and so we all have a stake in this and from my perspective uh taking that approach would really make the most sense in the long term there I mean there may be grants that we could get in the near term but those would not be ongoing presumably but I don't think you can you quit looking for Grants and funding for the future of the project when it does kind of recycling composting you know maybe a inand small transfer station or everything satellite back to the mainland um you know I and a lot of the a lot of the grants and a lot of the funding things that we saw on the federal level all talked about Recycling and composting MH it seemed like there was a lot more options out there now I have nothing to back that up besides you know what what we read in them right um so I think when we get to stage two recycling stage three composting I think having options for federal funds um or state funds for that there another pot that we can go back to I think one of the the concerns that we've talked with Teresa about is this 53% that she talks about um what from the state so to try to go back to the state to get even more is difficult yeah striking on on the federal level commissioner white well how about since there is there is a phase two how about actually going forward with the planning for phase two looking at that and in a conversation with you and I've been aware of this but construction jobs there is any I don't know the amount of waste from construction sites from shingles to Lumber to uh sheet Goods that windows that are they they could easily be used again if there was a good place for them to be stored um Habitat for Humanity someone just told me about this I don't know they themselves but there is a they have a fac for people to donate and then they sell those items at a low cost this is yeah I think it's called rore okay so and there's a lot of material out there so if we included that is to go back to the state perhaps say this is this is our phas and this is what we need for this building and this is where it's going to go if we need a building and then with our existing recycling center there is a need the Buy and Sell Shop is wul too small and I believe that it could be expanded I believe an expansion of that that store would benefit many many people in the county and I've also heard that and I don't know how this would be practical but to have uh an outlet store even in Grand cordage somewhere there been well why can't we have one of those up here I don't know but you know I can just see all sorts of complications but um perhaps if movement went ahead on this is what we would look like state of Minnesota this is where we're going here are the plans for this and really go into this even though we might not open a recycling center for two years down the road or whatever the case may be but we're not going to have a decrease in anything waste related I don't know if that can be done I don't know I don't know how this Teresa I think it speaks to if there's the potential to just talk through using part of the solid waste fund to get further down the road on the engineering to really I mean I think it's important to keep in mind that we're talking about a gap of 2.5 million but those are based on estimates that are 2 years old now so what you know the further along that you get down engineering you're showing our agencies that have funded us already that we're getting closer and closer and it gets us more accurate cost so we understand the Gap but it also gets you better cost for what would it look like if we put one shovel in the ground and mobilized once and we did this and phase one Recycling and then we also have plan sets to go pursue a grant that's viable for composting so I think going down that um gets you further down and it keeps to the timelines that we've committed ourselves with our grant funding and in thinking of um the the score funding that we have the funding that um Land Services is managing right now it seems with that 330,000 that we could potentially take a couple hundred, to do our work and our design and still leave 130,000 just tossing out some general figures um so that we could replace equipment and continue to deal with the the operation of our recycle system um but I do agree with you Teresa that seems like an appropriate use of those funds and the other thing we need to keep in mind is that um waste is a function of government it is our responsibility to do and provide if there is not someone else and so it does come down to local governments looking at this I would say most counties in the state of Minnesota do have a fee on your tax statement that is about waste and so we would not be at all out of line it would be different for us it would be new it would be a change but that is something that most counties do question about that service fee and the ly Authority what percent of the levy can we use for that do you know the do I mean like for Eda we have a set amount you can f up to what amount can you go up to yeah the the language is actually very broad it it is it it doesn't provide for a cap limit on it it just basically says um you know the fees for the management of of solid waste you know and and um it becomes you know frankly more of a political issue in terms of what the the Commissioners are comfortable with adding on to a level because it's a special assessment it's not you know in with the General Revenue it's its own uh kind of fund and and this is where I want to understand what that can be used for can it be used for putting a building for like we're considering or is it for garbage pickup which is what I think most people if they saw it on their tax statement and saying well I don't have to pay for my tax CU that's probably what they're going to think and I think that will create some controversy in our community if we don't consider that and our C on this so and knowing the amount if we are to bond for $2.5 million and I don't disagree with using that money to do the plans but we're still short at least two2 half million dollar for 2-year-old plan so I'm to I'm going say put another million on there um so we're still short we don't have a solution and I understand using that service fee to maybe help us Bridge something but I don't think that's going to be a solution um so I don't know what else we're going to do but I want to get back to that chart that was up there just clarify my head CU I I apologize for not getting that on the agenda sent that to me I was just looking at it quick and there was owner Equity there private Equity is was that the for the Usef fund land acquisition the top line up there so that's where that balance yeah so we we purchased obviously we purchased the property um but you know we've been paying kind of all along for all the things to get done with the assumption that we were going to own this building you know we had Wetland delineation done we had soil boring done we had plans put together um you know we've a few make sure clarify in my mind and for the Public's mind that you're not putting $363,000 in your building no I mean that's money we've already put in correct and yeah so and I'm assuming it this makes it very very complicated now that it has to be account building so it'd be very probably very difficult for you to go out to a bank and say Hey I want I have this business and have it's great business plan right but can you help me yeah and the the comment that I I've had with with that is you know ultimately if we were even able to go out and borrow money ultimately that that gets passed on to our customers anyways right so the people that are paying for garbage currently are going to be paying that that back anyways I wish I had that money in my bank I could just write a check for it but it's not there so the the money either way gets passed on to the residents of Cook County so so I I think this Board needs to think about how are we coming up with $3 million I mean it's fine to say we need to we need to think about garbage I don't know what else we're going to do we have to but sitting here talking about um well let's spend $200,000 and worry about the next one later I don't think I don't know I kind of think we need to make sure Brady's here maybe we talk to Ellers how are we going to come up with $2 and A5 million do sooner rather than later yeah of all our priorities going on right now I don't know that that is the big question that that is the big question um the short term need that was Teresa pointed out is we need to demonstrate to i r that we are moving forward so that we don't forfeit $450,000 that's that's priority number one at this point you're exactly right commissioner Ian we need to bring the bigger picture Focus but but and that's kind the most critical and this is a start for that and the money that's expiring in September is I think think they'd just like to understand what the county plans to do okay um you know I don't think they'd be very comfortable if we just said well we're going to try again next year for congressionally directed spending um because that doesn't provide much assurance that you know we're working now if we said we are um going to spend some dollars on engineering so we have better estimates we're going to engage Ellers with those estimates and we're going to do X Y and Z I think that's a very different conversation would bring much comfort to them Tim does um $130,000 in that fund if we were to allocate a couple hundred th000 for engineering does that leave you in a good position historically I want you to kind of think back over the years yeah well um that's a good question we we I generally throw about 30 Grand in a year into that as just replacement keeping it flush uh some of the years um I I actually as I put cuz I I listed in the budget as just Capital purchase and then it goes into that fund uh we'll buy the equipment directly off of that line item and it doesn't go into the fund so that fund is is maintained at that level simply you know because it it's been an even amount to going in so 130 will get us through it generally uh becomes an issue when we have some of the the much larger pieces of equipment um that uh that we've had to replace and we don't expect to have to replace those for several years yet like the big horizontal bailer and such like that and we have used that fund too to expand on the uh the budget shop twice uh in its lifetime and there there's that that debate that uh the Commissioners at that time didn't necessarily want to compete with the other thrift stores that are in the community and so they yes we expanded but you know we didn't want to like take over or compete directly with them so that was a little bit of a concern at that point too and it essentially pays for itself really what that we don't make money out of that uh that budget shop it just creates enough uh funding Revenue to to cover its own costs I'm sorry that particular facility is really it's one of the most beneficial things that we offer for a segment of the community because not many people both ways they they would never be seen in the recite in the bargain store and other ones would like I can't afford to go to the other one you know it's it's just how it is it's funny because my understanding is the other one's form is because there wasn't enough capacity in the first one oh you know and but we don't want to expand the first one because the other ones are there's plenty to go around because many of us take our our recy cycling our use things good using down to duth because we know there's no place for them up here anymore they just don't have just down in enough space so I would suggest as the next step to respond to commissioner Johnson's question we do need to figure out how we're approaching this we need to talk to Ellers right we need to figure out you know how what are the parameters of the the financing or the um service fee or whatever Solid Waste fee that you want to call it um how would that be implemented and how would it affect our overall uh financial status in regard to financing other capital projects um and so what I would offer is is we can start having that that conversation with Brady we'll reach out to ERS and start getting information to to respond to your question about that question for Teresa when does itle r meet in September I don't know if they have a board meeting in September um that's just the end of our our grant expires in September so it would be nice to communicate to them but I can even do that before I'm just thinking time is of the essence here so it seems really important that we try to get this information for potentially our next board meeting for sure did the it still want to meet with us before the end of the month I know our last conversation with Chris that's how but I I wasn't part of I think you had another conversation last they did and I don't know if it came up on the call about mineral taxes um um oh it it totally did okay yeah so that happened then yeah so and there's in Jason actually that relates to the next item on the agenda so do we have our um Solid Waste District set the we have just that fund that was set up that that are that fund is actually residuals from when we did have the landfill we closed the landfill we at that point had a substantial more in that fund and it was landfill Assurance we had to turn that over to the state because we were one of the last facilities of a closed landfill that was brought into the official closed landfill program so the state is actually the caretakers of the closed landfills that we have they have two on that site um and so they took that the rest of the funds that were left off are weren't specifically or expressly by Statute anyway dedicated to the uh solid waste and we didn't have to maintain that as a separate thing um but is as we get a new facility if if we own the building and such that would have to be and if we established that that fee we would so the the district or it wouldn't be a district we it just would be the county the county boundaries it would be we would set that in Clearwater County when we had that setup we had structured it where it like anything it was you know there was a commercial uh rate there was a full-time resident rate there was a seasonal resident rate you know so there were different rates on different categories and that just generally went through the uh assessor's office and classifications how large is Clear Water County umide what three times five times how big is it compared to County so uh population wise about twice okay commissioner yeah so we don't have to set a district I just reading through the statute it sounds like um you know it's it's a process to set your District well and I know we C outside of the county too so I didn't know if there's a larger discussion that needed to happen as we're trying to find funding and setting levies and all this kind of stuff how many Hoops are we going to have to you know yeah I it really wasn't that complicated um a when we had set up for our landfill Assurance uh fund back when we did the uh landfills and also in in Clearwater County for setting it up it was just the geographic boundaries of the county itself we didn't have to go through like a subordinate Service District process or anything like that um and those waste hollers we had under contract they did their own private collection to also outside of the the limits of the the county boundaries but it wasn't our concern really commissioner Mills you said we we collect outside of the county where we pick up a little bit in Lake County yeah um Finland oh yeah few in Silver Bay Beaver Bay but I would say more than 90% of our in yeah it just looks like we need a petition to create the district so I'm just trying to yeah I think the funds that you guys are talking about are more maybe a little bit different than Clear Water where you were Contracting to pick the garbage up the funds are more for this facility that we talking well the the statute's pretty Broad and I don't know which particular section that you're in 400 I know there's 11 12 13 there's different ones that deal with the different uh Financial mechanism of it and you know Frank it's it it is very Broad and and it can be used for infrastructure uh in development of of the building and and such like that and yes we did use it on a Perpetual basis and kept that in this may or may not be something that we do just to amuze it over a certain period of time and then it kind of goes away or we maintain it to maintain a balance but it just specifically has to be used uh for Solid Waste Management purposes Solid Waste would also includ recycling yes and comp anything so it kind of covers all of those yes it does steps and stages that we're talking about absolutely well it sounds like we need to engage Brady and we need to engage Ellers and then come back and have a board conversation I just appreciate um all the questions today and the input um Arena we appreciate you coming is there anything you'd like to add thanks for yeah um you know it's been a really interesting process um I think 3.2 million we've managed to get and um in talking with Teresa I realized that you know trying to get this funded completely uh from from outside of the county is maybe maybe it's even possible maybe you know maybe the CDs money would have come in but I think the consequences for this County and for the Eda and you know in the future is the next time people look at us and go what are you guys putting into it you know I mean there's there's that sense of it so there even if we had gotten all of the money to do this from outside there might be another impact sure down the RO somebody's going to ask down the road it's like you guys just want everybody else to pay for your stuff you know so I think I think that's a that that really hit me when we were talking about that that there's um it's not necessarily a a a huge success for us to get that money from elsewhere because there could be impacts later down the road um you know we we have to show we have skin in the game I think and you know I mean it's important to all of us so I I appreciate this conversation very much you guys it's important to all of us and it is a function of government it is something that we need to do so good discussion good questions okay so um I just want to understand I I know you've been talking of solid waste fund um is that a a board decision that needs to happen how do we that's a board decision so that would be on another agenda correct because this process and looking at it project management um you know to get the plans in place for Dustin he has to start a process to rep permitting which he has to have some plans for so there's a there's a a lot of kind of other things here as well so I just wanted to yeah 30 months sounds like a long time but it goes it's not I'm actually a little scared it's a lot to get done in 30 30 months yes well thank you so much everyone for a good conversation and we have some work to do [Music] thanks so the next item on our agenda is about State funding for the harbor view apartment improvements and uh we have Jason hail with us here today to share some information and there's a microphone right there for you good morning good morning hello how are you all great good how are you just fine uh trying to solve problems um so I know James did you want to give any Preamble in this like the go ahead okay um so the purpose of and I appreciate very much being added to the agenda I thought it would be worthwhile me coming to talk directly about it because it's a complicated situation um just for some context of course we're all familiar with Harbor View Apartments 31 units just down the down the road um which since it was constructed I believe uh has been uh housing uh deeply subsidized affordable housing for seniors and folks with disabilities that's that that's who can occupy those units um last year of course we learned that it was listed for sale uh which was a shock to tenants community and the bigger concern after doing digging is finding out that the HUD contract that keeps that building affordable expires next June so again this is all been talked about I'm just kind of providing the context for where we are now um we didn't know who the new owner was until after they closed uh and so once the H found out who the new owner is I reached out to them immediately and we started talking we negotiated for several months about how can the HRA help um keep as many of these un units affordable as possible for as long as possible I'm very grateful to them they didn't have to talk to us at all because once that contract is up they could flip the whole building to Market rates and there's it's totally legitimate so we were very much obviously not wanting that um and it we worked out entered into an agreement with them uh we ironed all those details out and entered into an agreement in June with the HRA that preserves 21 of those 31 units to receive Section 8 uh vouchers from and so what's really important here is the tenants there once that contract the current contract expires those tenants get what's called an enhanced voucher from a Hut automatically in other words they're able to just like basically sign a new lease agreement that enables them to stay and I've talked to I don't know how many people from that building uh tenants and management and ownership lots of questions and concerns the owner this is new to them too so we're trying to navigate this and you know when you throw Hut in the mix it's not the simplest uh equation uh but the understanding is and the agreement is um I don't want to say straightforward but more or less straightforward in exchange for us helping them with some building improvements which the tenants benefit from uh and also equally important in my mind keeps a building um the longevity of the building increases how long it's going to be here in exchange for that they're maintaining 21 of those units as uh SE receiving or accepting Section 8 for 12 years at least that was what they were willing to agree to and again I I know this is a broken record but it's important for me and the H to continuously say that is not obligatory and it was I'm just grateful that people are willing to to make those uh concessions work with us on those kinds of things so today the reason I'm here is because HUD the deadline for um the the building owner to send out a letter to the tenants there's a there's a federal requirement I don't know if it's a statute or what it is but the rule is a year in advance of that building switching for the contract expiring they have to send a letter to all their tenants that says this is formal notice and year in advance the building is the contract is done we're not renewing the contract here's what to expect so the HRA had to reach an agreement with them and solidify that before they sent that letter out because if we hadn't done that in June by the way so the letter had to be sent out by the end of June for Hud's regulation if we had not done that the building owner would have I they I don't know what they would have done with the building because they they have they would have to have sent a letter that said all of these units are going to be potentially market rate because we don't know yet um and the other problem is again I've been Fielding a lot of calls and understandable concern tenants that live that live there now before the agreement was reached were concerned like well where's my unit in this mix how do I get assurances I can't give them those assurances all I can say is the agreement that we've reached uh and the building owner's concern was we need to we need to if we're not going to do this we need to let them know now so that they prepare for how they're going to turn units over so that's all laying the stage right we reached an agreement because we had to by June or not have one um and the stipulated $350,000 would go to physical improvements in the property 50,000 would be held by the H and escrow kind of a industry term for it it's called a landlord mitigation fund so one of the biggest problems that nationally that HUD has with section8 program is there are way more vouchers than there are people that can use them I should rephrase that there are way more vouchers that are issued not enough units that will accept them so like duth is an example I think they have something like 80 people with vouchers that cannot use them because there's nowhere that will accept them so we wanted to obviously you know it's convenient that they turn over automatically tenants can stay as long as possible the landlord's intention after this agreement is to keep as many of those tenants in place as long as it makes sense for the tenants and the vler um but they needed to we needed to establish that $50,000 pot of money is helps with folks a lot of landlords their obviously misconceptions and stigmas with uh deeply affordable housing that we try to combat but a landl mitigation fund provides some insurance in case there are damages caused above and beyond the deposit by those tenants um that the H can help make those improvements so we're banking on the fact that we're not going to need to use them that's the Hope right is that those tenants are wonderful tenants there are no issues but if there are here's some peace of mind right so we in our preliminary Levy request which I think I don't know if you've seen that yet I don't know I gave it to Brady in June or something so I'm not sure when the count the board has seen it there's a line item there specifically for this project a one-time request for I think it's $150,000 the intent of the H is to use that and the $250,000 that administrator yorie I don't know if you mentioned the number but that's the amount that the state approved for this when we requested this and worked with uh Senator hild which he was wonderful in even getting this you know forward it was sort of a honestly was a Hail Mary like we talked to mp uh Minnesota housing we've talked to HUD there were no resources that would fit the situation they they essentially said sorry the only way to do it is to give them money and have them agree to keep some units available like that was what they told us that those are your options um which that that's a whole other problem than systematic problem that needs to be considered but so we when we made the request uh and it was approved to the state we we couldn't enter into that agreement until legislature said passed right so it was a sort of down to the wire 11th Hour situation where we're like uh we need to know like now um it was approved and uh perhaps ignorantly or mistakenly the Assumption was the money would go to Cook County like as an appropriation the money would go to Cook County Cook County would Prov the HRA and we would give it to you know on a reimbursement basis for the improvements that were agreed upon that's not what's happening uh administrator Y and I were on a call last week last week mid last week with ITR it was very much news to us to the H that the funds were going through the I um ITR uh not even as a sort of pass through but like the state actually directed ITR to issue bonds to support these projects and with that comes requirements for public bidding for the whole any of the work uh open public bidding process and prevailing wage for the whole thing that is not at all what the owner anticipated it's not what we anticipated and there's no I'm not there's pointing a finger here just the acknowledgement that like that was like whoa uh that they they they already have Contracting Crews and teams they already have the work that they've identified that they want to do and this whole thing was predicated on understanding that the money we provide can go a certain distance in making this building improvements um I can tell you uh they have Arrangements like for example one of their uh crew members gets a discounted or free apartment I don't know if it's in duth but that's part of their Arrangement is we give you free or discounted lease and we pay you hourly X $20 an hour whatever it is to do certain work on the on properties the prevailing wage rate for that same work is $65 an hour so you can see that very quickly $250,000 value gets goes a lot less far right so all of this is couched around the understanding that we had to get the agreement in agreement to save units uh we got the approval from the legislature which was a huge win and then after the fact after the agreement was entered into after the letters were issued because we have that's how they had to happen we learned that this process is required so the reason that's all the context you know it's a lot sorry but I think it's important to understand how we how we got here um we have Alternatives I'm working I've been talking with the new owner of course and we're trying to troubleshoot and again I have to commend him he could say these aren't the terms we agreed to we're not interested he's not saying that he's saying how do we problem solve this because it's also in their interest to keep tenants in the building one of the things they've tried to really mitigate is as soon as it was announced the building had sold and the contract was up people wanted to leave I feel that I don't know how many calls from tenants saying hey I have an option in Two Harbors should I take it like I can't tell you that um if you're really anxious about it I recommend if you have a viable you know option that you're okay with then do it uh but they want to keep people in place we want to keep people in place so what we're TR and I was talking to James about this we have sorry to throw one more thing and then I'm happy to answer questions um we have an agreement with wner of community housing for bir departments so that was another opportunity the H was able to step in and try to save that building um they because they got a successful award for Minnesota housing to rehab that entire property which is already underway now and is going to really kick into gear next year uh q1 so probably January February of 25 they'll close with Minnesota housing where they get the $10 million package or whatever the whole ends up being uh once they close our H $250,000 deferred loan gets paid back that was the whole the impetus was we're going to put it out there and risk that if you don't get funded it's a forgivable loan but we have to try to save 24 affordable units fortunately the state and their wisdom in this case decided to fund it and so we're going to get that money recycled so we can use it for other things so we have that coming in q1 of some time I was not comfortable even given the 11th Hour sort of Hail Mary I was not comfortable trying to enter an AG gement without having the 400 you know lock down and once we got the thumbs up from the state for 250 we have other things we can move around and we have that future closing with with oneof that we could rely on to because our we're not we don't actually start using the funds or reimbursing them until after the HUD contract expires so July 1 of next year they can submit reimbursements for work on the building that improvements they've made our interest was well we're going to wait CU that's when the clock starts for our 12 years of maintaining those units at that level and then we can reimburse for building expenses so James and I were talking we thought well how do we what's difficult is we don't know and the the owners trying to figure this out there's a without getting too deep in the weed sorry I probably already have one of the complications with public bidding is again you have to open it up you to and you have to bid uh that that in theory is not really a problem but when they've already we don't even have a a scope of work like they didn't prepare a package and say this is the precise amount of work we're going to do we were just contributing toward their building Renovations generally so they're trying to figure out what scope of work do we want to include in this public bid and what's worth $250,000 approximately of work and if prevailing wages applied how does that like so there's a whole bunch of heads scratching and trying to figure out how do we make this actually work and what's the real value now of that 250 if they could get let's just call it $500,000 worth of work done and now they can only get 200 just easy math it's not as it's half is worthwhile right so what I've talked with the owner about what they proposed what they proposed which I think seems like a fair way to do it so we have $100,000 that 150 50 of which is held in escrow like I mentioned that mitigation fund $100,000 that we've requested to help just go towards a building improvements that's not subject to this I I process so that's going to be a separate thing and then there's 250 and what they said is well what if we get a is there a way the HRA can provide a sort of banked fund that sits and waits and when we re when we submit reimbursements we can calculate the difference of you know what the prevailing wage adds on top of what we're planning on doing and then you reimburse just the overage of what that would be and they'll I mean they're they they work with Union shops they have all the mechanisms for the contract and CER of payroll and such and they'll have to do that for the 250,000 i r has to now starting this year you have to submit certified payrolls for all of that work so that's their that's their pitches we're trying to figure out how to make this work no it's in nobody's interest including Theirs to not figure out to make make this work um so James said well is there a way that we can sort of do a loan to the Future and Reay it with the 2025 budget or an in fund loan is sometimes how we call it or some mechanism that we can do that to just ensure that this proceeds and then we can use the one of community housing to reimburse like the that loan that gets paid the H will get that back we can use that to reimburse These funds or some of it comes from the levy or whatever so I'm before you telling you the situation and open to ideas questions concerns but I just want to lay that out there because they're committed as long as we are they're committed to work with us to figure out how do we make this make sense it was a lot I thought you were going to give us a problem well I've had some sleepless nights over it Dave it's not a problem to you I'm happy to hear it well it sounds like you you and the owner have come up with some solutions which pred is predicated on the county being comfortable providing some of those resources so that we can have you know basically an insurance policy would it will and it will dip into that there's no question when we did the math it's well so but what I'm trying to say is like versus losing all the affordable hous right I know that's how I feel about it but and that's the it R's mission is to try to save those things um and we are trying to as you used in the last conversation put our skin in the game to show like the even the state that we're willing to participate in solving our own problems but I had to at least lay out the context for you yeah it just it it hurts but I don't see an option like it hurts bad yeah but I don't see an option yeah I'm working very hard to keep that owner at the table and ensuring like we have some time because our agreement starts technically next year but we don't have that much time I'm not even worried about the why I should say of course then the other complication is the 30-month timeline and how it's structured with the reimbursement like there are just more layers of requirements now that we didn't know existed until I didn't know until Wednesday when we met with I we were trying to get answers and they didn't have any and then we met and then we got them MH Mr Johnson you were talking very fast and I was trying to take notes sorry and I'm trying to figure out my numbers here what dollar figure are you asking for a loan for what is the amount what's the dollar amount um I think I don't think I said that so fair question you didn't miss it I didn't say yeah sorry so loose based on the math again we have 100 that's going in for the escrow and then the 250 I the way we're calculating it we think I think if we did 150 as a set aside 150 y well that but that's in addition to the levy we already had the levy request for 150 so it' be a total of 300 150 for the overage and 150 we were already hoping to put into the project and if if the board in December had not approved that preliminary budget request of 150 we would have relied on the One Roof Community Housing close and of course we'd rather take that money and re there's already another project that's asking for there's always another thing there's plans for that yeah so yeah well there's not we haven't committed those funds for anything but there are no shortage of opportunities to use that to help other projects right no is there a state statute we can levy on seasonal properties just that's what I would love to see happen at the state we're talking about that that's a discussion next year in y That's why we are sitting here trying to figure out how to come up with this CU it'd be a pretty nice solution I think whatever like a second home if it's not Homestead and it's not trying to punish people with second homes but it's the reality of the problem they're contributing to unintentionally you get to have that yeah you can keep it but but it's also going to help contribute in a different areas so yep help us out yep and of course the second homeowners aren't thrilled about it but by and large there's there's support for that conceptually a tremendous amount of support y That's Just time Jason I I just want to say thank you to you and also to the owner that we're still having this conversation because I mean those units if I were the owner I'd probably just say you know what this is too much hassle goodbye I was legitimately concerned that that would be the case yeah and so I don't believe that you would but yeah I don't believe you would as a person I mean you know it's it's not it's not easy thing to do look at from a business standpoint which is what it is it's an investment for them right sure but there's clearly something beyond the return right there's clear in their intentions yeah yeah I mean if if it was strictly about return they probably would have said appreciate your interest we're going to reinvest and flip it so to speak and get as much as we can out of it but there's also this is the case with all the projects you do how mitigation of risk is a has a monetary value that's hard to place so to being able to keep all of those units full most of them full is a risk mitigation tactic and they're willing to maybe get less rent if they know they have a stable I mean the tenants there some of them have been there for a long time and that's good for an apartment owner and so they also don't they're trying to I mean nobody likes this situation HUD doesn't like it the tenants don't like it we don't like it um but it's you get lemon what are we going to make with it um and R pie yeah is that the same uh sure yeah but I'd also like to remind us all we'll be sitting here 12 years from now will be exact same problem if not worse yeah potentially unless we talk we need to do something St Paul and say you need to change the rules about the second home ownership or coming coming up with a solution for how do we have a society that is not up here and down here yeah the difference is growing Stark and and I'll say that I have I won't name names but uh I have calls of course with colleagues across the state um and we do lots of trying to like brainstorm and write letters of recommendation to the Senators and the trying to move the needle on the policy pieces uh and a couple of them have shared in these groups like that their HRA owns some buildings that are about the contracts are about to expire and because of the Deferred maintenance and the cost to get them improved and what's actually approved for reimbursements they're considering turning them into Workforce market rate housing because the numbers just don't work and nobody's happy about that and they're like doing it sugarin and really frustratedly but it's like as a as a responsible owner of property you have to do it so yes that yes I agree commissioner the system is totally broken uh and we need to figure out how to do it on and these are the kinds of things to your point locally I really appreciate the community stepped up and Tred to figure out what we can do locally there are some syst systematic large level problems that are National much as M Minnesota that our policy makers really have to start figuring out but we're going to do like we're nobody else could help us with this particular issue so we're locally trying to figure it out well we know that we need to to look at this 150k we need to know that through AMC we need to do our part to really push legislation for next year um so we have some some work here in the county and work outside the county that we need to do amen yeah and uh chair I have an email out to ITR there were some questions after our meeting of course um and to be fair to them they didn't ask for this necessarily they they were directed by the state this is what you have to do and they just don't have all of the answers and we have a deadline I think of is it the 30th the 30th and I was going to mention that yes yes yeah so yeah surprise yeah so um yeah we just found this out last week so uh on your agenda next week will be a resolution to authorize the receipt of the funding from myr or the the submission of the application which will enable us to be reimbursed for this project and the trans station right so that that's the that's that's the sleepest nights there's we have till the 30th to finalize that we get the resolution in um and as the ITR staff have said like there's no question about whether or not you get the the transfer station money or the funding for the Housing State like they have to because the state mandated it through law but we can't get it unless we submit the application and I'll say that it's I'm trying to work through a Litany of public bidding questions uh when we don't have a defined scope of work like there usually is like if we had known that this is the way it would manifest we would have I would totally differently approached this but we didn't until Wednesday uh so we're doing a lot of trying to catch up and get some answers um but in because I'm not I'm not sure what the outcome of those answers is going to be I'm trying to be extra cautious and say can we so we have 150 in our budget already as a request can we look at 300 and then look at ways that the few like existing things can reimburse that but my primary concern is to make sure that we have it covered so that the owner doesn't walk away and we'll have to go to the H board and make an amendment to our agreement that talks about how this whatever solution we come up with um but we I have to figure it out the next 10 days or so we're so glad that we got so much time on this yeah hurry up and wait I guess any other questions about this generally thank you for dealing with it oh my gosh the other thing the other thing we learned last week is that I expects to to do the bonding in November and that starts the 30 month clock correct and the oh yes thank you the I didn't know whether or not that would be an issue um I explained that to the owner they they anticipated because our contract with them the agreement for the h is that there's a fiveyear it's a fiveyear window for them to make the improvements because in part they they want to do it as people leave which is super common they don't want to displace anybody so like tenant in Unit 10 leaves okay now we're going to go and rehab that unit for the next round of tenants obviously they can't do that if there's a Time Clock uh at least not in the staged way that they anticip ated so it's just another thing one more thing uh any other questions or generally thank of course thanks for giving me the time maybe this isn't a helpful thought exercise that I like to think about we hadn't formed any H yeah what what would be happening with those apartments MH they would what would be being built right now you know it's just this is a world of difference and cannot inise enough how valuable it is to our community well thank you for deciding to do it I didn't establish H so thanks for thinking ahead about thats really are you're welcome really driving driving us forward yeah and I I have to say like there's just for the record I guess or off I don't know there's a microphone um these are the kinds of things that I really don't like in my work like where we think we have something buttoned up and everybody's in agreement and then there's a sort of curveball left field moment and the only response is okay how do we solve it and to be frank this happens with almost every project in some way but I'm really sensitive to these types because there are people that don't have a lot of options living in that building and I get calls from them and they're understandably nervous and I can't give them 100% reassurance about anything except that we're doing what we can to help MH um so I really appreciate you taking it with uh you know taking it seriously and understanding the the need so thank you it's only taken us 50 years better late than never commissioner that's what I heard anything else thank you thank you Jason item D on our agenda is tax for land disposition and assessment HS is here to speak with us this morning I was looking back at my notes in the last well one of we've spoken about this numerous times but brings me back to February of 2023 yeah a lot has happened since then right absolutely with Tyler yeah it's it's been a while um thank you guys for having me today uh I did put together just some packages or packets which include the six Parcels that you know we had talked about at of our regular meetings where the state statute now um based on the Tyler settlement is going to require the same of these six Parcels so this is just you know nothing we can really do about it it's just some information for you guys to look at um you know the first one here is partiel 25054 0104 this is a partiel up in a subdivision and tofy we currently have it assessed at $84,500 uh 3 half Acres there is a uh HOA lean filed against the property and I did attach that as one of the attachments behind that page um effectively the the HOA has filed a lean because the county hasn't been paying the dues on that property which includes like snow plowing and maintenance so um that I believe we'll be able to to put on as part of the seller's fee as as maintaining that property as if we had just been paying those dues the whole time um so you know this the sale of these properties is going to be handled in the auditor's office uh my understanding is that these have to be offered at the estimated market value for a period of 30 days if there is not a sale at or above that asking price at the close of the 30-day window they can be listed for uh a minimum bid which is what would be required to make the county whole for the taxes and fees and interests that were accumulated on the property so there are there is one property here or maybe two that you know unfortunately the statute from my understanding is going to require that we sell these properties um unless the the state of Minnesota withdraws some of these from the sale and I'm not sure that they have the authority to do that uh there's a parcel here that it's it's the second one after the one in tofy it's partial 51015 2205 that is it's it's technically we have it in our tax software or system as one parcel but it's two non-contiguous polygons and you know I did talk with neeva Maxwell and Land Services about this parcel and you know it it definitely would have some challenges depending on whether or not there's Wetlands there whether or not you'd have enough you know area to meet setback requirements for any kind of development uh so it it it's really just one of those odd Parcels that we'd prefer not to have out there um with two non-contiguous and and either one of them is a standalone I don't believe meets that minimum requirement of 2 acres for uh R1 zoning so um I I'm going to talk with Neva and I'm also going to check with some of the the the people at the state of Minnesota to find out you know is this something that because it's a non-conforming parcel for the county to go unlist it and sell it at public auction it creates kind of problem you know maybe it wouldn't sell because if it doesn't have any development potential it's just not going to have any value so if a property goes to the minimum bid and does not sell uh then it would go into being managed the same way properties are currently managed under the tax forfeit 282 statute so you know then it could it could go through any of the existing 282 statutes we had prior to the Tyler decision the last parcel um is in Town 80 0601 1801 this is one of those Parcels that's up it's actually right next to the school trust lands in the subdivided area of town that doesn't have any utilities or infrastructure there's no roads and sewers going up in that part of town just north of the Gunflint Trail kind of over by the cedar Gro business park so there's platted out you know subdivided type lot and block breakouts but there's no utilities up in that area there is one for for fitted parcel up there our current assessment on that is 17,400 I don't know if it will sell for that much given that there isn't really access there there might be like a little four-wheeler Trail going through there but other than that I don't believe there's any you know it wouldn't be something that could easily be developed or you know put to use and I know there were some talk at one point about potentially a development or a project going on in that area so you know unfortunately with the new statute we're supposed to list this and sell this offer it for for sale at the market value um otherwise had it been prior you know to to Tyler we maybe would have looked at you know doing some kind of an exchange or sale or transfer over to the school district but just because their ownership of adjacent property in that area so this is just I I wanted to put these together these paral reports on the ones that we know we're going to have to sell these fall into that category this the time frame that we have to put these onto the market and offer them for sale at a public auction I will be putting together similar information I know we've talked about this you know leading up to Tyler and then kind of creating a flowchart of the desires that you know we we're trying to maximize the potential of these lands so what I'm thinking is that you know maybe we will look at and I don't know I'm kind of here to get your guys input on is it something do we want to just say let's start with the highest valued property you know we're in a peak of the real estate market let's take six at a time and let's start with the highest valued tax forfeit properties that forfeited prior to 2016 any of the properties that forfeited prior to June 2016 that we still currently have held in trust they do not fall into this category that they must be offered for sale we can continue to treat them and manage them under the existing 282 statutes you know if we wanted to harvest Timber we can do that if we wanted to put it up for auction and and sell it into the public we can do that or if we see a need like affordable housing you know any of those initiatives that the county had kind of labeled out or or numbered as priorities we can still continue to do that with some of those parcels and we we certainly have some parcels with a lot of potential I mean we we kind of perused through the list a couple years back and just I mean I know there's 120 Acres off the Caribou Trail there's a large chunk of land down in tofy off Highway 61 and there 's all kinds of parcels like that that we can you know put to a good use and you know a lot of them may end up just just like these going to an auction getting back into the tax rols and there will be revenue generated from those that will still be managed under 282 anything that falls in that six-year period from Tyler it's a split I think we send 75 uh% to the state after we've taken out all of our we cover all of our fees and um back taxes and things like that so there's not going to be a whole lot of Revenue out of these six but when we start working our way through that list I think there was what did I name 70 or 60 some 70 some uh that would remain those Parcels we we would manage under 282 which you know there's specific things we can and can't do with the money we can put it into like a forest management account from there it goes to different uh it's allocated under statute to specific uses so um yeah roughly 75 on top of these six so now some of those I do know you know they're going to end up being like a roadway that you know they subdivided off this land and this road ended up having a tax bill it it's like an HOA Road or something like that that that got forfeited over the years or like little Remnant Parcels that you know they're not something the developer ever intended to be developed but it was just a little corner of the you know when they subdivided off that no one ever paid the tax tax bill so there are some of that that you know we're probably never going to be able to sell it uh just because there's no good use for it it's not big enough for development um and stuff like that you know we'll have to kind of take it out of our inventory of tax forfeits and maybe kind of clear it up with the state and get some Deeds for those so that they're held in in County fee interest um or maybe in the case of like those little slivers that were remnants from a subdivision we can offer it to the adjacent parcel owner you know that that that really would be the only value to a lot of those types of parcels where they don't have the development potential so my plan was you know to talk about you know do we want to take that approach of let's look at the the six at a time or 10 at a time I don't know you know what the board prefers what's too overwhelming you know how frequently should I bring another block of these properties to the board um do we do we focus on that high end or do we just you know do we want to work our way from east to west how do we want to approach uh do we want to kind of look at the parcels that I am thinking are going to be most suited for resale and approach it that way first I know we had talked about implementing a checklist so you know if I if I take if I'm planning on taking a parcel to the board for consideration uh Robbie over at the highway department should have looked at it you know um Pat or someone from the Sheriff's Office should have looked at it Rowan should have looked at it everyone in all the different County functions will have looked at the parcel and said you know maybe we could or maybe we don't need this parcel then their input would come with the packet to the board and I effectively would then be making a recommendation that you know X parcel you know we're going to work with the HRA to to to put to a use uh X parcel you know the highway department has indicated an interest in uh you know site there for something so if if that if the board is kind of on board and and thinks that that's the approach I'm just kind of curious on the timelines and you know like I say do we want to take them five at a time 10 at a time how do we want to do this to to work our way through that list of 75 story thank you well in CAU there already is a development there and there's a couple homes for sale right now and this is the end of the road so I would think that would have a pretty high priority yeah so yeah so this list all these ones they're they're statut have to be offered for sale so they will be the one on 61 uh 61 it's actually if you're familiar with the old Connie to what is it now the North Country Cottages um it's almost directly across from there it's just a little bit to the west but on the North side the snowmobile trail actually Clips the corner of that parcel and so you know based on what Neva was was expressing about the parcel and she wasn't sure that it was completely undevelopable um it was a matter of you know taking a closer look at it and finding out if there were any Wetlands on the property but you know if let's say we offered that for sale and nobody saw value in it uh other than maybe that parcel owner that lies directly in the middle seeing value in it if it wasn't to sell for the EMV or for the minimum bid which is the taxes and penalties that are due on it um then you know maybe we could manage it under the 282 and look at you know does the snowmobile club have a need for that parcel you know could they put like a main garage or something there that would you know be easily accessed off of the trail so you know that we may end up having to manage some of these Parcels but that the like the tofy one I would expect will sell that's a pretty Prime lot for development some of these other ones like the one up in the near the business park and the one off of Highway 61 that's not really as it's a substandard siiz lot or two non-contiguous substandard size Lots we may end up back with those in our management list and then we can look at some of those um you know alternative uses where we're not necessarily selling it at public auction and looking for a public use or you know like the snowmobile club that type of thing I would say how much do you want to take out of the office six or 10 well you know really depending on the time of year um obviously in the springtime I get kind of busy with the assessment stuff and finalizing our assessment and preparing all the appeals and stuff uh during the summertime there's a little bit more of a lull in my daytoday you know I I've got work I've got to go out and do yet this summer and fall um but I I think that if we were to say you know five Parcels at a time that's not super overwhelming to prepare you know the information on five at a time it's more of a matter of how frequent do we want to do this is it going to be every other month you know I mean there's there's two meetings a month typically and this has to happen during regular meeting so we can actually make decisions on it and make motions five a year I mean we've had these for how many years most of them like you said probably aren't going to go Fe make us a lot of money on the market I'm all about putting you know property back on the tax R if it makes sense but knowing Robbie's work and seeing that list and knowing um needs there the powers you know we're not going to sell those properties and so I like I lik your idea of the checklist I thought that had come to us a long time ago but I we ever approved it did we no it was it was very it was very tentative it was very like in its first stages of development and I would like to see make sure that parks and trails the user groups of those properties are also involved in some way I don't know how you reach all this clubs ATD clubs ski clubs bike trails but we need to make sure because there's been people using County Land public lands whatever and then we find out no the county sold that or whatever or it's no longer in public so I want to make sure all use user groups get notified or informed and I think if we go through five a year so what if it we've been dealing with this for how yeah so I don't think it's something you need to rush through I would like to see some priority given for Parcels that you recognize would be opportunities for housing I think to be working with our HRA is a way that we get extra bang for our buck we're providing housing for our community and getting things back on the tax roll and so kind of through that lens is is where personally I'd like to see it Priority I I agree with the housing and I agree 100% if you can check with Mitch Travis too um about the US groups he's going best yeah I think but um getting back to what director Nelson was talking about with our comp plan this all would fit very well into our comp plan and help us make decisions so whether that's um room for another transfer station up in the you know East end or the West End or whatever these kinds of bigger I think um picture things need to be Tak in consideration but housing is what comes to top for me too um just to clarify so when is this what the timing of this when does this happen this these these properties have to be offered for sale it says by the county auditor and they have to be offered for 30 days I'm not sure that they set a deadline here to have these sold by but I I think it say just to have a make a good faith effort to sell the properties forfeited during this time frame so I think some of the counties have actually already put some of theirs on and some of them are still in the preparation of of listing their properties that fall in that time frame so um so this year yet is what we're hoping for listing or yeah I mean I I don't see I don't see a deadline it says participating counties must make a goodfaith effort to sell all properties that forfeited within the appal time period and remit a portion of the proceeds is established in the section um counties must affirmatively opt out by August 1st 2024 so I don't see a deadline in there but I think it's just as as soon as possible you know we don't I don't think we have any discretion or latitude in how we approach these they just have to be offered for sale and if they don't sell at EMV they go down to that minimum bid price and that's why it's unfortunate that you know we don't get to you know pull something that's substandard and creates an issue for you know zoning uh out of the out of the mix but unfortunately I don't think we get the latitude to do that another one that's interesting is the two Parcels on the camp 20 Road they were forfeited by the same owner and one has Camp 20 Road access the other does not so unless we make a legal access it really only makes sense to sell those two together but we I don't believe we have the latitude to do that and say they're only being sold together um but you know I I I feel like we could create easement or access to that back parcel because otherwise you know again we create a situation where you're selling a property without legal access um is not legal yes so that you know it seems like it would be an our interest to create that access across a parcel that's also being held in trust under the tax forfeitures to create that legal access under the authority of that the state is technically the owner right now um so there there there's some things that you know that when they thought all this stuff through with Tyler and the resolution but you can't think every situation through you can't think of these substandard lot issues you can't think of these access issues um some of these are out to order no criticism just just noting I think I'm just confused like so I I did include like the certificate of forfeiture for each one it's possible that one or two of them might have gotten mixed up cuz the printer was jamming up but um and then I included that lean on the tofy one then for the uh for the one on the highway 61 I included a legal copy of the legal description because it's lengthy it's almost a full page long and then I also included a survey of the parcel that's non-contiguous separating the two Parcels to show that that is a lot of record surveyed and actually he does have the two acre minimum there so you know this one is not pied years right right yeah and then is this one also non-contiguous so that's a different non-contiguous partial that's actually the survey that shows that there is a separation of those two Parcels this is the survey that shows this it shows two the the parcel that's separating those two yep it shows the one and the middle2 acres in the middle okay um thank so the county Parcels are highlighted in the colored map on with the blue squares and there's one in between that is the survey that's actually privately owned owned by the the gentleman on Cascade Beach Road Atwood okay um and then following that you have a parcel on County Road 14 and that one actually does have legal access through some of the Json private property so there's a utility and and access easement recorded So that one uh you know I know there's going to be interest in that that's a buildable lot it's it's a prim area so it's it's going to have a lot of interest and there's recent sales mhm and then then it skips into those two Parcels off of the camp 20 road that uh were fored actually just it was it was just within the window of the of the settlement period well this is for the uh School trust one right uh let's see here the Jeffrey Jagger uh Scott hold so that one would be on the county Ro 14 one did that one get mixed up in order well I'm sorry there's two on here yeah so that this is the posting from the newspaper and it will list multiple thank you yeah that's what's actually recorded with our record's office is it it's just basically straight out of that newspaper okay okay thank you so yeah there's there's really not you know a lot that that the board has uh to make a decision or there really is no decision on making on these but we do have to have uh the auditor has to start this process now of listing these properties and offering them for sale for 30 days at the EMV oh it's worth noting from my past experience uh the timing was bugger um but neither a commissioner uh nor any family member of a commissioner can bid on on these properties um and it might extend up to St I forget what all the I believe it's all County Staff All County employees are are removed from the bid including family or is that only for I don't know how far that extends I think it's County employees and probably significant others you know expect Grand cats dogs no grandparents if your grandchildren wanted to buy something and they work for the county Grand grandparents I'm not sure they're County Employees no no but the grandparents are not County employes yeah I don't think it extends that far I think it's just County Employees my grandchildren are not they're not ready to no so I will um I don't know I I can put together a list of like say five properties and bring it to you guys sometime this fall before the winter and uh you know I'll I'll push these through the various user groups and the Departments and you know let let Mitch and everyone know that if they think of anyone who you know might have an interest or a stake you know certainly if there is like a superior hiking trail or a snowmobile trail crossing a property we want to make sure all the legal you know things are in order so that that that easement isn't going to be contested by a future owner and create a problem for those user groups the trails using the trails and stuff I know we've had that happen in the county when a new buyer comes along and yes we have you know shuts it down yeah well thanks for all your work on this and um I look forward to other properties getting put up for sale or for auction or utilized yes that's the key I really appreciate your perspective in the proactive approach here and having to adjust for St requirements and just your thorough it's really appreciate your Stell thank you then I did have a second thing on the agenda here so I attached a copy of a request for proposals this is a draft that St Louis County their their auditor their assessor and I think their legal team has kind of looked at this and and there are some highlights on it so you know there there's some things that we want to clarify some dates that we have to specify and we're we're really trying to fine-tune an RFP so we can order and contract an appraiser to prepare for our 2028 evaluation of the ti blatnik lands um we met in uh Two Harbors last week the county administrators and the assessors and we we we got to a point in the assessors group where you know we have been preparing basically mineral ownership maps on GIS so that we can say the feds own the mineral interest in this area of the Boundary Waters there's private interest in The Boundary Waters and there's a lot of State interests in The Boundary Waters but in order for an appraiser to accurately you know value or establish the you know the value to the rights of the minerals that the feds do have in that land um we started with that process we've been working with or talking with John vegan who is you know semi-retired appraiser out of duth he actually was working on the 2008 appraisal with Stager Walt and you know we had kind of just preliminarily I set actually aside some money in the 2025 budget to allocate for a 2028 appraisal we're going to chip away at it each year so it's not one big hit on 2028 or 2027 budget uh so we initially thought maybe 200,000 to contract this appraiser and and mineral experts um John had been talking with some appraisers and some of the mineral valuation experts and they said we should probably plan on budgeting a little more you know depending on on the scope of work that we're laying out in this RFP if they have to contract with a couple of geologist and mineral valuation experts you know everyone's going to want a chunk of the of the money and it could be you know in excess of $500,000 so you know there's there's a lot of things to consider I know we've talked about them in this group but I think the direction that the group decided last week was let's wait till we get some bids and then we have to bring it to the board we're going to continue to to allocate and budget some money for 2028 and then when we get this RFP we'll come to the boards and say hey is this something that there's an appetite for are we willing to spend you know 160,000 would be about our share 160 170,000 if we split it three ways um is that something we're willing to drop on an appraisal to basically you know have in in contrast to the boundary what the federal appraisal that they're still going to do it's not that this appraisal will replace that it would just be something that we would have in comparison to theirs um I don't know is there any thoughts or questions I mean that was kind of what we had decided is that we don't know anything until we know what the bids come in at I think we need to see the bids but then we also need to keep in mind um that the the money that we're receiving after um um a determination is made is for a period of 10 years so when you look at that $160,000 or whatever might be that's over 10 years and we need to think about it over 10 years yeah one one thing I'll add regarding the conversation we had last week is that you know each of the Three Counties has a different amount to lose um if future appraisals come back in a bad way um in the most recent you know when the when the uh secretary of agriculture reconciled at the final reconciliation for our current payments um St Louis County lost almost nothing their payments were almost flat um cook and Lake counties uh in the original 2018 appraisal lost a lot and that was partly restored the the reconciliation came back at a better level than the reappraisal that was done last year um um but we have more to lose um than St Louis County does and so part of the dynamic is how how much is it worth pursuing our own appraisal um how how much do we have to to gain over those 10 years um there's I mean we could do our own appraisal and there would be no guarantee that it would put us in a better position against the Department of Agriculture um it would c i I mean I think it would almost certainly help if we had something that said look here's we think your appraisal is flawed and here's our own that paints a different picture um but again nothing's guaranteed and in terms of how the cost is shared among the Three Counties that's another thing because this you know Kevin gray the administrator for St Louis County said you know we're we're with you we're Partners in this but I mean he pointed out out you know we're I mean we're pretty much fully restored here and so I he was signaling that their appetite for doing this is less if the cost is significant and so what the cost share would be among the Three Counties is very much an open question right and I do have some of the numbers so in the final determination based off uh um Franco Orion to Franco was that St Louis County will be losing less than $113,000 a year that's like 7 1,000 of their budget of their Levy for 24 um Lake county is standing to lose in the final final reconcile determination 335 a year so that's you know 3.3 million over the 10-year period and that's 2.7% of their 2024 Levy um Cook County is 296,000 so 2.9 Million over a 10year period you said 7,000 of their budget but it's probably like 7,000 of 1% of their yeah 7,000 of 1% of their budget and ours is 2.36% of our 24 Levy so you know obviously we did make a we we made up a lot of ground from the original um 2018 appraisal that first one that came through that there was all the you know we had a lot of upset um people that we were originally going to lose 750,000 a year so 7.5 million which was 7.4% of our 2019 Levy uh Lake County would have lost 1.3 million a year so $13 million over the 10e period That's 12.6% of their Levy and Lake County would or sorry St Louis County originally would have stood to lose 252,000 so they're in the they were in the boat that we are now in and you know I did get that sentiment from uh St Louis County that you know we've talked about Tai blatnik and how it's a unique payment we should be very grateful that we got a pilt payment laid out that's a it's like a tax- like uh payment there's only one other program like it in the country so the appetite for St Louis County to you know push the issue when they're not standing to lose so much is is deteriorating you know their Commissioners fully understand all of the implications and what you know what putting up a fight means so we're in good shape I mean I we we the the assessors when we talked with and sat with uh twin metals or big rock exploration you know they're talking about the mineral value that's in the ground you know could exceed $1 13 trillion uh we don't expect our appraisal to come in at a number that is going to completely wipe out our tax levy I mean that number is not astronomical it's only like $5,000 an acre if they valued it at $5,000 an acre it would basically cover our entire Levy but I do think it would be more representative of the appraisal that you saw in 2008 and I brought it up at our meeting last week I don't think our appraisal is going to cost 500,000 I don't think we have to go to that length to prove that this land is worth more than 750 an acre you know I think that was very clear in the final reconciliation they initially came in at 58 million for the Three Counties then they came back and said it was 65 million for the Three Counties and then they finally reconciled at 734 million the the continual um revaluation or Rec reconsideration of what that number should be tells me that they they heard our arguments and and they they at least took them into consideration throughout this process because at at some number we're going to continue to push it and at some number we're going to just say okay that that that's enough we'll deal with it later so you know who knows uh if we do kind contract and get an appraisal and it comes back at 2500 an acre that would be great news it it would also be something that we could make a very compelling argument to the forest service you know that hey your your appraisal at $800 or $900 an acre just is not reflective of what somebody who wanted to sell this land would take for it or what somebody who was thinking about buying it an investment group they wouldn't just say okay the timber is worth this much we're going to buy it for that much they're going to look at all those other little things the mining is going to be the biggest draw I mean uh twin medals has spent over $400 million on less than 5,000 Acres with all their legal fees permitting you know all the different things that that you can tally up is over $400 million and uh we got a valuation of 734 million on a million Acres nearly I mean the numbers are just they're they're really eye popping when you when you consider it and that's where I think some of that caution comes from St Louis county is that hey if if this amounts to them paying us $20 million they're going to Congress will catch on to it real quick I can remember sitting through so many Zoom meetings and hearing the lack of qualifications of a mineral experience so if we pick somebody out and you can't find somebody in Minnesota you have to go out west where they have theal and if there's a list of folks out there they're not going to be a lot but we would have control of that where we've listened to the feds and we had all these amounts come in but I think from my perspective one more chance to finally have somebody who has more experience in what they do this yeah and and in reality whenever it comes down to litigation I mean I'm always talking about like small Minnesota based Tax Court type things uh having an appraisal is the golden ticket I mean effectively what I've noticed from the Minnesota tax court is that if the assessor says it's here and the appraisal says it's here they're going to come somewhere right in the middle and that's how they that's how they resolve it almost 99% of the time so um I think that an appraisal is is well worth the money spent when you talk about you know the potential of losing $7.5 million over a 10-year period I mean imagine if we had truly lost 7.5 million what we could do with that if it was just handed over over to us in 2028 you know so I think if we're investing you know 15,000 or so it it it's well worth it and 2028 is unique because we only plan to budget for that in about a three or foure period now if we're looking forward to 2038 we can we can spread this out over a 10-year period and and the impact to the budget isn't going to be as significant each year so the the they threw us off guard with the 2019 low valuation and then dragging it on I mean it's 2024 and in March we finally got the final reconciliation yeah I was going to ask do we want to wait until 2028 or do we yeah I mean I that it's really The Three Counties working together and I don't think anyone has uh has ever brought up looking back at 2018 and doing like a retro yeah this no no no but do we wait do we do it in 2020 or do we do in 2027 like because of how long the whole thing took if we're if we're ready it's I mean so our plan with as far as their timeline for this RFP is that we would have our appraisal finished and inand by like June of 2028 so that's the that's the date they've been using for the valuation and we may not get a 2028 number until 2029 like we did last time around but but we will have something in hand hear back from evaluation is every 10 years yeah and another thing that I had mentioned in this meeting you know because we have got the ears of some of our Congressional leaders out in Washington and um you know they have all expressed some concern with the ti blatnik funding and I think that if there was a little pressure uh not so much on on TI blatnik but the forest service appraisal process um Congress has the ability to direct you know the department of a and the forest service back in uh the early 2000s the Bureau of Land Management went through a lot of scrutiny on their appraisal process and Congress actually um ordered them to get uh report have have the appraisal Foundation which is a nonprofit do an analysis of the process and give ADV and Give opinions on how they can make it better and they wrote up a lengthy report on how um you they were undervaluing properties that were in interest of the federal government to obtain and if they were trying to compensate somebody for for their land uh or if they were trying to exchange they were overvaluing federal land so and there was too much involvement in the process of the appraisal with that Bureau of Land Management they actually recommended creating a whole separate valuation Division and they do have mineral valuation experts in that Division and it's just curious to me you know like the two Sil of government don't operate the same the Bureau of Land Management and the forest service and Department of egg are operating completely different in their valuations so you know that I think is something that might be worthwhile is some pressure on the appraisal process of the forest service I mean I know that the forest service wouldn't wouldn't necessarily like going under the scrutiny but I do think that there was a little bit of direction given to the appraiser that made the out that that result in the outcome we got they said the minerals don't have any value don't give Val value to the minerals effectively in that first appraisal so I I do think that you know a group like the appraisal Foundation if if if we kind of gave them some information you know as far as what we observed in The Ordering of this appraisal from the forest service the results um and just some of the complete omissions in those two appraisals we got I I think they would say yes this should be looked at closer I think we also have to remember that in Congress we have a great representative from the West the west from the western part of the country I stood at the corner of the capital hearing them talk about all of their forestry requests and all of the stuff out there and they say Boundary Waters what's that we don't know what that is we got to be in their face to say we are as important as your forestry is out west and in our case we're more important but they each have their own areas and it was very it was 80 of us standing there m you know understanding each other was the main thing yeah it's very interesting I mean I've been doing more digging here and there kind of throughout the whole process and I read the letter that John blatnik sent to Washington recommending that they withdraw acreage from the boundary for the US or for the Superior National Forest and you know what the what the letter said was that you you know we've offered this land up and no one from the public wants it it's it's it's not good Farmland it's not fertile and so they started talking about you know let's preserve this as a Wilderness and a roadless area and when you read through some of that stuff from like the' 40s it was like 1941 I think it's it's super interesting and and now you're thinking about all these mining conglomerates that are surrounding you know effectively bordering The Boundary Waters just how much things have changed I mean precious metal prices have gone up do we need them we need them for the future so it's got a point though it's really bad farming yeah yeah you can't you can't run a tiller up there I don't think so I uh I'll let you guys know um if we when we put this RFP out what we get back that will be kind of you know the board's the RFP does include that you know the board county boards have to approve the funds so that's kind of the the decision making time and we will continue to put some money aside you know I think we're putting 177,000 aside for 25 26 and 27 which will get us you know a chunk of this money whatever the amount ends up being yeah I I think it's a wise investment sounds expensive but it is expensive but just having that evidence um that appraisal that the dollars that are at stake yeah I think the appraisal will look a lot more similar to the 2008 where they develop an income approach I don't think it's going to go over the top where they come up with a you know trillion dollar value but I do think it's going to consider that recreational potential I mean it's clearly there right and uh they're not going to be able to say you know um 1,400 lakes in Cook County are offset by a couple miles of Forest roads in Wisconsin on Timber harvested land scrub scrap land right well thanks so much for all your work and keeping us in the loop MH thanks Bob yeah we will uh see you guys um sometime in the fall or early winter with some partial recommendations great all right thanks guys all right budget update so we've been sitting in this room for four plus hours um several of us have a 1:00 meeting so I'm going to make this very brief I was hoping to to have uh clear gov ready to demo for you today we're not there yet no um but I did want to check in so you guys are scheduled to set the preliminary budget levy on September 10th and so time is getting shorter and I wanted to check in uh on the information that's been presented to you thus far to see if there are any any things that have been going through your mind in terms of um what has been proposed um to the extent that there's a desire to to look closer at anything that's been put in front of you and to talk about potential reductions we need to have that conversation here pretty quick um before September 10th so I just wanted to ask the question and see where where the board is and um if there's a need for us to schedule another work session before the 10th we can certainly do that um I'm seeking your feedback commissioner M I think um we need to scale back um the training um in this this this budget year um significantly not 100% but uh I just think we need to approach I I training is so important we need to do it and we will but it's just stepbystep approach and so um I don't have a number but um I I I would I would like us to identify where the train training is most needed and where the training is most impactful right and then start there with maybe I mentioned before supervisors department heads if that's the case right you know um or maybe it's the case for just sheer onboarding to start you know newers right so so there's two different approaches there and I don't have a strong opinion on that but I'm thinking kind of that either situation I hear that loud and clear I you know again I put those numbers in the preliminary it's just a talking point um I did not anticipate the board would say oh yeah that's great where are we doing this training they'll say oh we're going toida you know yeah and and I mean to be clear we already have money I mean we we provide training right but the Strategic plan the Strategic plan deres it and we just need to look at what we have the many things that we need to accomplish and be reasonable so with our plan this coming I'm I'm guessing there's probably agreement on that point and what commissioner Mills just said um so I will take a look at that and come back with something more um specific and at a reduced level um I'll talk with staff about that too and see kind of what their thoughts are so I mean I was almost I was almost thinking a reduction on that line out way like 90% for perspective so um I don't know if that's fair or reasonable but that's kind of what um just like I said taking things step by step yep y would it be reasonable to have a summary of everything that we're going to be considering we can certainly do that three weeks away yes we we can certainly do that really good suggestion yeah I'm wondering about new now we um approved one today I really had time had a problem with that I W for oh well um cuz I have they jump the line and then but that's just my personal perception um so we do have we had some other positions in that proposed budget friend correct um I guess I would like to go back and say do we really need this this year can it be put off for another year is there another way to get that those needs met whether it's a contract with somebody or some other way to deal with whatever that issue is I don't know um I think the fact that we've had two requests three requests just right here of things that are really oh these are important things these are important things well wait a minute not everybody gets to be at the top of the pile um we're going to have to make some hard choices thinking about what's happening um in our world right now State and National levels and inflation and what's happening with people that are actually trying to live here um we have to be cognizant that we can't just say oh all these things are wonderful and yes taxpayers you have to pick up the tab for it and we have to think down the road it's not just this budget how does how do those costs those Personnel costs which make up the majority of our budget how do they compound over the years and you have to be thinking making sure are we doing it in the most effective and efficient way or is it there a different model we can use to provide those services that that I think that's extremely important that that long that Long View because um those expenses you know they have they have the coli increases right and they have uh benefits that go on with it too um and those costs multiply you know right um so the and at the same time um those Investments are into our community right like are we investing in our children you know how is that down the road improving their our lives are we investing in our seniors and how is that improving our community's wellbeing and so we have to look at both of those ongoing growing costs and then also the strategy of how are we best investing these costs and the impacts that it'll have throughout the community I think that's critical commissioner uh Johnson to your point I mean I think that question about Contracting is a really good one and I think there are some areas where we could lean on that more um thinking about about Facilities Management I mean groundskeeping you know I I've heard anecdotally that hiring somebody to do mowing is just as expensive as like creating a position and doing it in house but um you know we already use Contracting for example for snow removal because we our staff can't do all the snow removal that we need done um so yes there are opportunities for that and and I believe me I think about it all the time I know there are lots of competing priorities and I really want to be strategic about how we make investments um thinking about something like the uh you know the new facilities position that we're proposing right the creation of another uh U maintenance tech um we have been short in that area for for many years and yes we can continue doing that we can continue to to be understaffed and we'll continue to have the results that we've had which which is that our buildings are not receiving the treatment that they need so I'm not I'm not trying to be argumentative I'm just saying there's yes there are there are decisions that the board can and needs to make um and those decisions have consequences for for other things and so I I mean I'm your partner in trying to find Solutions and and figuring out the best way to use our our tax dollar strategically because I I feel the weight of the responsibility to the community that you know there are a lot of people that are struggling and inflation's coming down but it's still high and when you go to the I mean I blanch every time I go to the grocery store I mean it's expensive and so I I take that really seriously and I want to find uh good strategies for for providing higher levels of service without breaking the bank and thank you for that and me bringing that up doesn't mean that I was against every new hire that I put on I didn't say that I said let's be I didn't say you said that okay I just want to make sure we're clear yeah I got it I got it oh that's an alarm that's my wake up alarm we're out we're out of time am I dreaming well thanks for the the discussion and a lot more to come on the budget and and before we close do we want do you want one more work session before um the 10th well honestly no but I I I mean summer is going fast now I get it um I can send out so what I'll do is I'll send out the I'll update the summary of new expenditures including things that came in after I sent you the first couple of versions of that um and that will also include the reduced spending levels for training um and then you guys can look at that and if you still have heartburn about it or questions yes yeah I was just thinking about the last work session and um you know getting these the updated numbers is really really helpful but it's going to come down to just the decision making time and the discussions that we have at that time I think the more discussions we can have before that the better um but it's also not the decision time so then it's kind of like there's still all those things in the year and all those moving parts and um so I don't know and and keep in mind that is our preliminary Levy so we have few months here to get down to our final which can come down but cannot go up right one one of the things that I often think about too is just our Highway that Highway presentation and the grant funding that was brought in that blew my mind and it really made me think of other positions if we can leverage that kind of you know resource it's just like okay well then that's up in up in the game quite a lot for resources and getting outside resources versus just the lobby you know that's that's really valuable so those kinds of strategic Investments I I want to look at too um the other thing I want to mention Wednesday um we are having a call with Northeast service Co-op regarding premiums for next year so we'll have that information that'll be helpful be part of my summary um contracts are being negotiated for for 25 through we're proposing a 2-year contract this time 25 through the end of 26 um we are again that's that's still in process so we we have tentative agreement with one of the units and we're working with the other two and we're hoping that we can come to tenative agreements before the 10th so that will be Clarity on that great thank you yep well we have minutes are standing committees that are attached to review and with that we are adjourned and we can leave the tables and chair set up for personel yep which I will be late for