##VIDEO ID:Yo5Y0uK4Uxs## County building authority where we have to take some action on the regional railroad Authority and then we will move to our our formal uh board meeting we also have to have a closed session uh because we've had an offer to purchase some property so those of you who are here for the public hearing we probably are not going to get to the actual public hearing till about 6 o'clock you are most welcome to stay and listen to the formal parts of our meeting and um to be here while we take a break to do our closed session on the on the offer we've had um but just so you know we probably won't get to that public hearing till 6 so and but we're glad you're here and we will certainly uh happy to talk with you I have asked staff to put on the chair a couple copies of our general land use plan um which is the subject of the public hearing because I think there's some confusion about uh about our approach to General land use planning and I think some people will be surprised to see how detail it is and uh difference between General land use Planning and Zoning so when we get to that public scre time we've got an hour to kill anyway you may want to look look over that plan so with that I am going to uh call our meeting to order and we're going to start with our Pledge of Allegiance I ALG to flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation and God indivisible with liy and justice for all our first order of business is our mad County building authority um I call that meeting to order and our uh mean we only have two things to do on this agenda the first is to the election of officers and do I have a motion Mr Canan if you're going to help us with this I'm only here uh Madam chair just in case there are questions but just to reiterate uh this is a the strange animal again new state county building authority was created in the late 1980s it was created at a time when uh local units of government were allowed to create private corporations uh the law has since changed and so basically this is a grandfathered Corporation but we keep it alive just an event that has a use um for over 30 years it didn't really have a use and then last year as it turned out we waited long enough and the HRA had a use for the building authority and so the building authority is now the owner of 19 scattered single family homes that the HRA had formerly owned and that allowed them to access a program and funding that they weren't able to access before so as you can see in your agenda as it is every year we simply need you to elect officers it's typically the same officers that the County Board has and the board of directors for the building authorities the same as the County Board uh have you approved the meeting minutes from the last annual meeting and then approve the audit of the corporation's books and accounts thanks and Mr Canan I'm believe I'm correct in that our tradition is that the uh is the County Board chair serves as the chair of the building authority of the year that they are uh in the office and I believe that we are intending uh I I'm not sure if any of my members are intending to make the motion but I believe the order would be um commissioner Ty to be the the chair uh commissioner senum to be the vice chair uh uh our administrator Travis gransy to be the uh secretary and wifredo katala to be the finance officer that's correct Treasurer uh could I have a motion to that effect I will move that motion second I have a motion in a second to elect to elect those four people to the officer positions of the olad county building authority is there any discussion seeing none all those in favor signify by saying I I I those oppos same sign motion prevails and now uh we have uh an audit and Mr Mr Canan are you going to review the audit with us or is that Mr Roman catala typically we haven't refuted the audit but this simply authorizes that when the county does its own audit to the extent there's any activities of the building authority they will be included in the County's audit so but typically in the past we have not included I don't believe there's any report to be given concerning an audit from the past year I would just note that we had a completely clean audit last year and uh got AAA Bond rating yet again and so I think that we can trust that it was included last year and we have no issues uh to report from our audit uh from last year so I move to approve the audit I have a motion in a second to approve the audit of the olad county building authorities corporations books and accounts all those in favor signify by saying I I I those oppose same sign motion prevails and the final thing is to approve our very lengthy half page minutes from our 2023 uh procedural uh meeting of last year do I have a motion to approve the the minutes so moved second I have a motion and a second all those in favor are signify by saying I I let oppose same sign motion prevails I'll make a motion to adjourn oh I wouldn't have adjourned thank you second I have a motion and a second to adjourn the meeting all those in favor signify by saying I I I oppose same sign motion prevails moving now to the Regional Rail Authority Mr Canan you want to give us the overview yes Madam chair again uh the history on the regional rail Authority you recall it's becoming a bit dated now but 20 to 25 years ago when the uh DM was proposing coal trains and there was discussion about a bypass potentially to run them around the city of Rochester it was determined that basically the county um if it was acting through a regional rail Authority had some Powers basically that the county itself did not have and so simply to keep all of our options open at that time that's why the county decided to create a regional rail Authority again for more than a decade it's had very little to do but again in the event that it's needed in the future we simply have this f- minute annual meeting to keep it alive so if we need it it'll be there so in that case um the meeting has been called to order and we the first order of business is to elect officers and it's proposed that we have the same format of chairman County board chairman Ty uh Vice chairman senum County Administrator Travis gransy as the as the secretary and Alfredo ran Cala as the treasurer so moved I have a motion I have a second I have a motion in a second to approve the officers all those have favor in favor signify by saying I I those oppose same sign motion prevails now could I have a motion to review and approve the 2023 Regional Rail Authority it's all moved second have a motion and a second second to approve the minutes all those in favor signify by saying I I those oppose same sign motion prevails similarly we have uh included this corporation's audits with our audit with the our general County auditing and so uh are there any any discussion needed about that audit uh we have a motion to move to approve the audit have I have a motion and a second to approve the audit all those in favor to signify saying I I I those oppose same sign motion prevails is there any other business to come before the body no Madam chair thank you I'll move to adjourn second a motion and a second to adjourn all those in favor say how saying I ition prevails would wouldn't it be amazing if all of our meetings were that easy right so now we will call to order the oler County Board of commissioner's meeting and we always do start with a time for public comment which is different than the public hearing that we will be having on our general land use plan is there anyone who would like to use this time uh uh for the uh public comment period is there anyone in the room who'd like to offer public comment is there anyone online seeing none we'll move to our consent agenda and we have a long consent agenda as our final meeting of the year so bear with me while I read through a list of about 25 items first just do approve the stad County Board minutes from December 5th 2024 to accept the mobile crisis Grant acknowledge the 2025 Olstead County Housing and Redevelopment Authority property tax levy to adopt updated aquatic invasive species prevention plan to approve the 2025 Olstead County Board calendar to approve the 2025 chairperson's contingency account to approve the 20 25 Olstead County Commissioner salaries and Inc County expense allowance per month to approve the 2025 non-contract Compensation Plan to approve the 2025 elected official salaries to approve the in count expense allowance to approve the 2025 committee and board assignments to approve a gambling permit for Rochester Ducks Unlimited to approve a gambling permit for Byron po post prom to approve the final plant for Oak Quarry to approve Cooperative construction agreement 105 8065 with the state of Minnesota mindat for County Road 112 and trunk Highway 63 roundabout to adopt the 2025 Chester height sewer subordinate Service District budget and sewer service fee schedule to approve purchase of service agreements to authorize 2025 reserves for General obligation bonds to authorize the transit sales and use tax for transport Transportation related expense services to reappoint 2025 Advisory board members to release right of we to the city of Rochester to approve our 2025 State Legislative priorities and state capital investment bonding prioritization to to establish a public hearing date to discuss the 2025 to 26 Capital Improvement plan and authorization of the issuance of capital Improvement plan bonds to approve payment of property tax fire abatement 74. 36. 33. 02657 4 is there any is there a motion second it's been moved in second to approve the consent agenda uh commissioner senum i' I'd like some discussion on on G and a pardon me G and K I'm sorry you'd like to discuss the Olstead County Commissioner salaries and in County expense and to approve the 2025 committee and board assignments yeah so Madam chair I pull uh I pull uh G simply because I think it's important that uh that that kind of vote stands aside uh of the rest of the votes so I would move approval of uh item number G having to do with commissioner salaries and Inc County expenses at the noted amounts in resolution 24 um we already have a motion before us to approve the full consent agenda and I pulled those two out so I think the appropriate motion would be I would move that let's see what would I move why don't you I believe I have a motion do I not I have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda except for G and K so I'm going to call I will I will withdraw G commissioner if you want to just hold those two we'll vote on the rest and come back and we can have that separate vote Yes okay so what's before us right now members is all of the items on the consent agenda except for items G and K those will be voted on separately is there any discussion of any of the items on the remaining consent agenda see none all those in favor of the consent agenda except for items G and K signify by saying I I I those oppose same sign motion prevails commissioner senum Madam chair I would once again say that item number G deals with commissioner salaries and in County expenses uh noted in resolution 24 at the unoted amounts and I would move approval second we have a motion and a second to approve the 2025 Olstead county commissioner salaries and in County expense allowance per month is there any further discussion all those in favor signify by saying I I I those oppose same sign motion prevails commissioner K and Madam chair I would just move also approval of item K having to do with board and committee uh assignments uh my my Proviso is that I have been a member of the AMC environmental committee since I started I wanted to be on that that committee uh that's sort of and and I didn't even know that the the County Board had authority to decide that but um let's just move a move approval and uh but with with provis I'll probably drift towards the environmental committee instead of Public Safety um May I just um note commissioner that while we have while the county gets to appoint a voting member of AMC policy committees other members are welcome to attend their meetings and fully participate in their discussions and if there happens to be that whoever was appointed to that uh committee is is not present olstad County does get one vote so you would be able to vote even though you're not the quote unquote officially assigned member so you your interest in the environmental Committee of AMC policy environmental committee you should be able to pursue and not have any constraint yeah I would just simply like to be on the list of that committee that's what I'm ask um I believe that AMC will put you on the list yeah okay even as an alternate as an alternate that's an that's fine yeah absolutely uh so Madam chair I would renew the motion to approve item K second it's been moved and approved to it's been moved and seconded to approve the 2025 committee and board assignments all those in favor signify by saying I I I those oppose same sign motion prevails we are now going to move to our discussion and decision regarding the final payable 2025 property tax levy and payable 2025 budgets welcome well good evening Commissioners uh my name is wifredo Roman catala I'm say County Chief Financial Officer and today we're requesting the approval of resolution adopting the 2025 om County property tax levy inate County 2025 budgets before we go into that I would just would like to briefly highlight a few things related to the timeline and events that took place before this moment as you probably recall we started this journey or this process back in April with uh a roll out of the countywide Strategic plan and discussion of a five-year budget model followed by the Department's updating the capital Improvement plans in June which the County Board reviewed in detail and provided feedback uh the opportunity for feedback in July to us we can make some changes to it uh further the Departments and the finance department Department partnered um to get the base budget and decision request completed in early August and budget decision request presented to County Administrator by the middle of August and finally uh in midt to the county board for your assessment and recommendations and uh decisions to move things forward uh many of the things discussed during that time was uh the impact of collecting bargaining agreements into our budget new positions uh impact of capital Improvement plan and related Debt Service uh for that Capital Improvement plan um based on the budget information presented to the County Board you approved the 2025 maximum Levy back in September 17th and then just recently in December 5th uh we have the THU in taxation uh which we had the opportunity to share with our County taxpayers uh the impact of our 2025 budget into their property taxes for 2025 so as you can see in the resolution uh today we're requesting approval for adopting the 132 Milli 690,000 673 of Levy uh needed to support our 2025 budget you can further see in the resolution that number is breaking down into two pieces the first piece relates to uh 131 million1 195,930 supporting operations for the county and then we have separated out the 1, 14949 $35 to fund libraries and as you know uh those libraries are supported by all properties H County except for those in the city of Rochester stewville Chatfield uh St Charles and Pine Island so that's the difference between those two two figures also today we're requesting your approval uh for the 2025 governmental funds budget amounting to$ 354 m921 998 and the waste management fund of 61 m596 n94 um I assume you may have some questions or comments with regards to the budget so after that I will request uh a roll call vote uh from the board please thank you are there are there questions well Mr ratala as you uh outlined we we have a spent quite a bit of time looking at this so it's not uh our questions have probably been answered in in our previous discussions one more time members are there any questions in that in that case a roll call has been requested to approve the you need a motion first a roll call has been requested to approve the budget and uh we you're correct we do need to start with a motion and a second move to approve the budget as presented second been moved and seconded to approve the budget would the clerk call the role I I I I I I thank you so members now we are going to go into a closed session um I don't think it will take more than a half hour or so but as I announced at the beginning of our meeting we are going to recess do a closed session expect to come back by six o'clock and our uh next item on the agenda will will be uh to to conduct that public hearing unless there's some informational items I haven't been aware of on the agenda potentially but we'll do that public hearing about our general land use plan Amendment um again I think we will be back by six o'clock apologies to those of you who got the notice about five it's been a little bit confusing with the with with the U things that have happened and part of our issue was we uh have to give three weeks notice before a public hearing and the notice that we had given was for six o'clock so it is going to be at six o'clock and um we will be back by then I'm sure and uh open up the public hearing at 6 o'cl so we are in recess um Madam chair could you just need to identify the the parcel of real estate before we go into close session thank you I have that here it's on page 127 of 143 the partial number is in the resolution I am there but I failed to underline the partial number so it'll take me a minute to find it there okay thank you that's easier to look at the screen all right so the County Board is going to meet in close session to discuss the proposal to purchase a portion of this tax partial 64.1 11.07 n469rj many of my colleagues have uh have intention to to discuss after the public hearing is is concluded just so you know those of you who uh don't always come to public hearings we ask that you have about a two-minute time to speak and I do have a timer that I will attempt to use I sometimes goof and don't use it properly and then uh we will uh just listen to your comments and then we'll move to our discussion and hopefully our discussion will reflect a lot of what we've heard from you as well so with that um Mr Dunn if you'd like to introduce the topic for us please yeah good evening Madame chair Dave Dunn Olstead County Housing and planning director uh here to talk to you about text Amendment 0224 003 which is a general land use plan text Amendment uh but I would be remiss if I didn't start tonight without saying a you know how much uh because of tonight being your last meeting Madam chair I know that uh it's the last thing you want to do but we all want to say thank you for all of the contributions that you have made and so hopefully your questions be a little easier on me now that I've said that at the beginning of this as we no promises thank you as we proceed thank you so what I wanted to do tonight was actually just kind of start with a summary of the issue then I will walk through it in Greater detail and then I'll probably close again with the same summary I think that way it helps uh to kind of clarify the issue at hand the impact of it and then kind of some of those core issues that I'll get into in a little bit more detail uh the text Amendment before you tonight is really geared to create a procedural modification to the way that text amendments or map text amendments are done for the general land use plan uh the the reason for that is our last interation of the land use plan which was completed in 2022 did a nice job of trying to engage cities these townships and the county in the process but what we didn't do is we didn't really spell out very well what that process was and so uh created a little bit of gray area to say the least and so what we want to do tonight is to kind of clear that up the next point on there I want to talk a little bit about how often this happens because I know that's one of the things that's come up too there have been 26 uh General land use plan amendments since 2014 that have been before you as the board uh 20 of those I believe were approved six were denied all of just about 22 of those had some kind of suburban development uh but the thing I also want to highlight because I know the most controversial portion of this is really around the urban service area and kind of that component of the conversation uh of the last 10 years there have been three of those that have come forward so really a relatively minor percentage of all of the uh General land use plan amendments actually involved the urban service area uh so those three we have worked with the city on over the course of the last 10 years I believe one was 2014 2016 and 2019 so on those three when they came up we worked together and we had similar evaluation similar uh proposals and outcomes that we could all work with the other part is just to be clear I think on the primary disagreement I think it really comes down to you know not so much the process itself I think there's some general consensus around the ability to enhance this process I think there's different opinions on who should make some of the the final decision especially on the urban service area issue uh everyone here is probably acknowledged at least it's looked at that plan that yeah there's some cleanup that can do uh and I also want to acknowledge the partnership that we have with City of Rochester staff I know Ryan's here I don't know if anyone else is here but we sincerely appreciate their partnership on this issue and many more and they really did uh play a part is we're trying to figure out how to do these things the best we can uh also want to highlight that reasonable people don't always agree on everything and that's okay as we look at this and we go through these issues and we look at how this works and what happens uh the city of Rochester did propose a alternative proposal uh it would require a little more vetting but it does some of the things most the things that we really want to clean up but again as we talk about kind of this at the end of the day it really is uh that disagreement kind of that decision-making Authority and finally just in summary the planning staff does recommend approval of this text Amendment uh we have gone uh worked with our city Partners our Township Partners uh the different Committees of the County Board to really get feedback on this and do what we can to make this the best process possible uh what I would ask is if there are modifications that you would wish to make that are more than maybe a comma or a period or of anything substantive that we table the conversation because sometimes when we have amendments on the Fly that are significant we end up with unintended consequences so when we're doing you know hey let's change this or that or the other and we just would want a little time to think about that so a little bit of background information here for you so I wanted to start with our Olstead County Strate iic priorities uh this was I know earlier this evening that uh as we we talked about the budget we talked about kind of the first time that a strategic plan had been completed for Olstead County and of that we came with these five strategic priorities that you can read on the screen two just to highlight because I do think they come into play here tonight are that environmental sustainability and responsible growth and development so as we work to uh develop the county both uh physical way and infrastructure and all the things that go along with it balancing the needs of our population and balancing the needs of our environment and our agricultural Partners is the work that we're doing so starting with what is the general land use plan because I know for some people here tonight it might be the first time that you've heard of this document that will be uh referred to probably for the rest of the evening is glop uh I think in most of the rest of the slides that's how we put it in there but it is is our general land use policy visioning document for uh the unincorporated parts of Olstead County it really looks at growth management uh Redevelopment of land and preservation and really tries to do a couple of things primarily preserving the resources that we have uh whether that's agricultural whether that's other natural resources and then also promote Economic Development and it's that continuous balancing act that we're talking about this evening so this is the land use plan as it sits today uh unfortunately the resolution on the screen isn't always the best so it's a little difficult to see all of the colors but most of that is what I would have called yellow on there which is resource protection or more commonly it'd be considered agricultural lands uh you can see the gray area just barely if you look hard enough that is the urban service area so as we look at that uh you can kind of see and understand again what that looks like what is the urban service area that is the area that is outside of the city limits that is within the areas that cities plan to provide Municipal services to within the next 25 to 50 years the idea here is that we want orderly growth in our community and really to work together and partner that we can do that in an efficient manner within this area our land use plan calls for development to be consistent with the applicable cities comp comprehensive plan so if the area is within chatfield's urban service area we would recommend for land uses in that area that it be applicable to that it would be complimentary to how Chatfield would see the use of that land in the long term that being said until the time of annexation the county and Township do remain and do retain the jurisdiction over the land use in that area so again looking at that map again just kind of focused on that urban service area and that area and really kind of the area where there's probably the most discussion been on this text Amendment tonight and so then as I as I get started I want to just take a little bit of a step back because I think it's important to understand what the language was prior to the 2022 General land use Plan update I think that helps to understand the context for which the 2022 language was created and then also to probably understand where there's a modification that can be made so in the 2014 general land use plan this was the criteria or the process by which a private party could consider a map Amendment uh what I really want to just highlight there is the township recommendation is basically the one kind of additional component to that other than your typical application paperwork and processing fees the challenges that we had with the plan as it sat in 2014 was that there really wasn't a role for cities in the process especially when we're talking about our urban service area we really wanted to work with our city Partners across the county to figure out how do we incorporate them into the process uh the county still made those ultimate decisions I will point out that in the case of the city of Rochester during most of this time of course the planning department was Consolidated so I'm sure part of the reason there was not specific City language in there was because it was in referred because of the joint department but it still wasn't in there and there still was definitely a lack of clarity so my good uh clip art again I think for those of you who have already seen it once or twice before I think it's easy to kind of see where we were at in 2014 where we really didn't have a role for the cities and the townships had to provide a recommendation but it wasn't very clear what that was or why or what the criteria was so now I want to move forward to the current language as the plan sits today so this is the language for a map amendment process as it stands today the red language on the board were the changes from the 2014 version to the 2022 version that was approved a couple of years ago you can see there that we asked for now we asked for an official Township recommendation I don't know the difference between the non-official township recommendation the official one but we now ask that it be official and the resolution and findings of support from all applicable cities if you are mending an urban service area in addition to that I think one of the questions that had come up during the process was about the criteria that we use and is there how does this criteria work and is there criteria that we evaluate so we wanted to take a couple of slides and just kind of walk through this is the criteria that's currently in the plan so when a land use plan map amendment is uh proposed these the criteria that we look at to make the determination as to whether or not it's something that we should recommend approval or denial for and then ultimately this is the criteria and recommendation that the board makes the final decision so you can see on there and one you can see the first one is was it a mistake uh that's very common when you talk about planning documents if there's an error let's make sure and and change that uh the second criteria talks about changing conditions so of course as you know these documents can live for a period of time situations change populations change uh the third one really talks about being consistent with policies of the general land use plan and really those Community Values and are they is the plan and is the proposed amendment consistent with those values uh and then meeting those policies and other criteria the fourth one again talks about policies and again kind of what's changed you can see kind of some different patterns here as far as making sure what's the change what's the criteria why is is there a need uh for this change is the land and five better suited number six talks about if there are any alternatives that are available uh number seven really highlights that Suburban development uh much of the land use plan uh application the map Amendment applications that come in are really around uh applicants wanting to get their land reclassified into some kind of suburban development so we wanted to add that component specifically and then the last one was actually the one that we did add in 2022 which was about traffic generation so we're thinking about different uses and different impacts making sure we're thinking about the impact on the transportation Network as we evaluate them so we I think did a lot of things to really clean up maybe some earlier shortcomings in the 2022 document but I think there was probably one part that we missed and really what we're here to probably address today which is really that process for Township and City approval uh while we talk about an official resolution from the township and a resolution of support from the cities we hadn't really outlined or highlighted what that process looks like in our in our current document and so it really is challenging for us to know what criteria was used to evaluate this uh was it truly evaluated did it move forward and it's also a process that we at the county staff don't control because all of these things have to happen in order for us to accept an application finally it doesn't really talk about anything specific to Urban service area as far as criteria goes as well so as we were looking at this we really felt like that was an opportunity that we have to enhance the document so again I think if we're looking at where we went from 20 14 to the current plan as it sits today we went from one end of the pendulum to the other so we went from really not providing any formal role for cities in this process to making City approval necessary in order to submit an application finally I just want to take a one moment before I get into the proposed amendment and take a drink and talking a little about the map amendments that had been done between 2014 and 2024 so almost now in 11-year period of time to evaluate kind of what's the recent past in this how many of these Amendments have been proposed and how many have gone through so you can see on here that 26 of those were uh General land use plan map amendments were proposed of those 20 were approved and six were denied all of the six that were denied were for some type of suburban development uh which is not really surprising considering almost 85% of the applications are to reclassify land for the potential for Suburban development the other thing on there that I just want to highlight is that uh three of the 26 or only 12% of those were in were modifications to an urban service area so again as we talk about uh kind of the information about where we're talking tonight in the specific area of urban service area this is not something that happens very frequently uh so we've seen this three times in the last 11 years uh two of those actually remov Land from the urban service area one added land to the urban service area and on all three of those we work with our partners at the city of Rochester to come up with good and workable viable solutions for everyone now for two of those it would have still been during the joint Department days so that would have obviously been a collaboration but I think the last one was after the Departments split up so with all that background and information just to walk through the proposed amendment that is in front of you all tonight and you can see there the striketh language is language that we're eliminating and then the red language is the new language included so this is where I say my funny joke about can you read all of it and see if your eyes are working uh but the reality is there's a little bit more to it than there was before and so in its totality this is the amendment that's before you and this is the first part and then what we also are doing is we are amending one of the nine criteria as well so this is one through three this is three through four through six and then this is seven eight and then nine which is the uh criteria that we are proposing to add uh to the information here tonight so what I want to do that's the very broad overview and I'm sure you all read it and read it very thoroughly from the time it took me to click the button four times but what I do want to do is go through it kind of paragraph by paragraph Point by Point here and just kind of highlight the the components of it so the first paragraph is really the original paragraph from the 2022 document and what we wanted to change here was to allow private parties to submit an application directly to the county for a general land use plan Amendment and the reason for this is that the process right now it goes to a Township first uh it may go all the way through the Township in fact generally I think what happens is it goes to the township the Township Board uh reviews it they approve it and that might be the first time we see or hear about it is already after kind of the Township board has heard it and approved it and we haven't had a chance necessarily to vet it or to ask any questions uh same thing with an applicable City if it was in an urban service area it would go to the city along with that it's unclear what are the processes that go along both with a Township or a city for approval uh and so what we wanted to do was allow the county to take the lead on this process and really kind of Shepherd and guide projects through it uh so we knew kind of what to expect for an applicant when they submit a general land use plan Amendment the second paragraph here talks about the review process and this was really a opportunity I think for all of us to put our heads together just a little bit and figure out how do we do this in a way that respects the time constraints of an applicant but also allows for adequate re development review time understanding that these are complicated issues and sometimes do require some outside uh expertise in order to really get the information that's needed and so what we have added into this is that when the applic is submitted to the county we will turn around within two business days and provide that application to an applicable City or the applicable Township for sure and then that Township shall have uh 60 days or two regular meetings whichever is longer and that was one of the things we modified knowing that sometimes you might just miss the meeting of the month and we wanted to make sure there was time uh to to complete that evaluation and to provide that resolution of support or opposition from that point the county will have an additional 60 days to work through the Planning Commission and then ultimately to the County Board as it sits right now so really what we're trying to do there was to create a balanced process with the timelines for an applicant and then also for the timelines to review so that's really this paragraph third paragraph is pretty straight forward uh if we don't hear from you you have basically forfeited your right or your opportunity to provide that formal comment uh again what we want to make sure we do is we want a process and I think for us just ensuring due process is very important uh whether your proposal is ultimately approved or denied to have your opportunity to speak your to share your idea and to share your vision and your thoughts uh the the paragraph three really says that if we don't hear the process continues and then the last paragraph uh highlights to some extent what we should be looking for in those findings from both the township and an applicable City if it's one of those situations where it is an urban service area uh so when you those findings do come kind of understand what are the impact of that from the perspective of all of the stakeholders and lastly that new uh criteria that we added so criteria number nine for modifications to the urban service area is really geared toward creating those specific questions when looking at is this land geared for an urban type development or should it be removed from an urban type development into another type of use and so uh talking about whether or not there has been any infrastructure investments in the area is one of the things that we know we want to know because if there have been that's an extraordinarily important component of this uh what would be the time frame of potential infrastructure investments in the area uh kind of what planning work has been done so kind of that component uh looking at what how does the proposed amendment impact the ability for managed growth because again one of our core values as a county is that we want to have responsible growth and development and so highlighting on the front end uh what is the impact of The Proposal on responsible growth and development is something that is extraordinarily important to us environmental factors so some sometimes as you all know you know we we try to do land use at a 30,000 foot view but then sometimes when you get down to actually analyzing the property itself there can be characteristics that can either make a property suitable or unsuitable for a style of development so are there anything in that that requires some additional Environmental Protection and then finally you know is the area suitable or not suitable for Urban Development and the reason we say Urban Development in there is because this really is that urban service area component only for this additional criteria so if there's something with this land it's supposed to be a catchall so really it's you know what else should we know as we evaluate this so the new part again is that specific criteria for the urban service area that we are adding to the conversation so what we're attempting to do is to take that little ball in the pendulum and take it from one side that maybe we went a little bit too far in 2022 and then kind of work it back into the middle in this 2024 Amendment we hope that we can create a standardized inde Dependable process where we enhance transparency and work with all of our key stakeholders and so with that uh just to give a couple of slides because I know and I know we have our partners here from the city of Rochester but we have been working closely with them throughout this process and uh and they'll speak for themselves I know in a few minutes but just some of the summary of the conversations we've had at least as we've evaluated this I think there's a consensus at least on the staff level that clarifying this is a good thing that clarifying the process and kind of creating a better streamlined approach makes a lot of sense uh the city of Rochester would recommend that they maintain their role in the process where they have the final authority to move projects forward that is Again part of their requests and the reasons that they had hired highlighted our potential impacts to affordable housing uh infrastructure planning and then potential Nega negative environmental impacts with that they did submit a proposal that was in your packet today of kind of an alternative approach uh that really outside of an urban service area would probably be very similar in fact I think what they would be recommending is outside of an urban service area the amendment as proposed would make sense uh inside the urban service area really modify the process to be one that would be led by the city and the city would take the project potentially to the township for review and then if there was an opportunity or if the county felt the need to appeal uh after a city approval the county could appeal if they didn't agree with the decision so as I talked about we've had continuous conversations around this and uh first of all we're appreciative of the partnership and and you know Partnerships are tested when you don't agree and the fact that we can sit there and laugh and smile and get along when we don't agree is something that you don't see every day it's kind of disappointing that it's that way that that should be special but I think that is one of the many special things that we have here that I'm very proud of I'm very appreciative of our the city's work and so I think we do have very similar values and goals so if you were to read the city's comprehensive plan and the County's comprehensive land or the general land use plan they sound very similar and if I'm going to give you the spoiler alert it's because a lot of it was written by the same people and the same people have same beliefs and same values about making sure that we have affordable housing and environmental stewardship and infrastructure planning in our community because these are things that we all hold dear to us the city's proposal as it is could enhance the process so as we talk about it today it is a viable opportunity for them if that is the board's Choice uh you could say yes we can you know we want to outline something in more detail and allow the city to make that final decision uh it would probably require a little bit more vetting so I wouldn't be here tonight to say that something that we could recommend approval on but I just want you to know that as we look at this and we look at different ways and we look at outcomes they've really worked with us well and there are definitely pieces of this that that are viable if that would be a route that the board wants to take so again I told you I was going to start with my summary and end with my summary and now I'm back to the end and so the summary really denied is that our text Amendment before you is to modify our process to make map amendments in the general land plan uh really to mod make modifications based on what I think were some great ideas in the 22 document that we just need a little bit more clarity on uh it is a thing they they aren't infrequent but they don't happen very often so we have a couple three a year uh of which three over the last 10 years have really involved the urban service area of the city of Rochester so when we talk about this there's been three of those that have uh come forward and when that happens we've worked together well uh in large part because we have similar criteria and we have similar values and so as we look at these we do feel that we have a lot of the same perspectives and the disagreement really in this case is over kind of that role and whether it is the county board's role to make that decision whether it's a city council's role uh planning staff we recommend uh moving forward and we recommend approval of the text Amendment and I think at that point uh if you have any questions for me before I take a seat and allow the public hearing to get started I'd be more than happy to answer them or if you want to wait until after the hearing is up to you members other questions uh I do have one Mr done uh in reviewing the materials that the city had forwarded to us there seems to be on your number nine uh a a criteria that the city had recommended that isn't reflected in what you've uh proposed to us so far and I wondered if you'd had a chance to see um what I pulled out of the out of the packet was statement that says excuse me I'm sorry so it would be like on your number nine it would be an e will there be impacts to the neighboring Pro properties specifically how does this proposal impact surrounding properties in create future limitations for potential development that that was uh I believe suggested by the city but isn't reflected so far in what what's been listed you could so I think what we would say is it's kind of a part of this more generically into all of those pieces of nine but if you wanted to specifically add that as a criteria I think that's certainly something that you could do I think we we support that as a criteria specifically I think our thought was more the spirit of was covered in the others that that was probably the difference perhaps um when we move to the public comment period someone from the city or uh can reflect on that and on our behalf although I don't have anyone listed right now from the city except I do have council member wall so um members are there other questions oops okay well all right so we will now move to the public hearing process again we'll ask that you try to limit your comments to 2 minutes uh we will be timing you and as you come up to the podium if you would please introduce yourself and give us your home address we we'd appreciate that as well so I have Norman wall council member wall uh first on the list December greetings Madam chair County Commissioners I'm Norman wall 5841 Dogwood Court Northwest from the Rochester city council thank you for the opportunity to address you on an issue that's critical to uh both of us we've had lots of meetings officials uh staff members uh eight days ago our Council again met for the second time to deal specifically with text Amendment and uh We've communicated our position to you twice uh opposing that text Amendment for a number of reasons actually Mr Dunn already uh showed them to you particularly in the terms of uh housing that perhaps uh some developments will sty our ability to provide all kinds of housing in various uh ways to provide for a range of people in the largest growing city in Minnesota second we're worried about infrastructure that we have limited resources and uh certain developments we might have difficulty bringing water sewer other services and those are uh services that are funded by uh the city of Rochester finally we're worried environmentally that large clusters of homes will environmentally uh create risks that uh a modern wastewater treatment plant uh will mitigate against phosphates and pfas and chemicals and all those things that we're worried about so we ask of you three things things in the city tonight one is to not pass what is proposed in your packet for tonight uh a second is that you add the criteria I'm uh grateful to Mr Dunn for his review of the city proposal uh I think that that would lead to our third request and that is that we allow a bit more time so that together uh we can provide the very best product I thank you uh for representing the people of Olstead County uh 125,000 of which uh live in the city of Rochester and we believe that uh decisions that encumber City finances belong with the city really appreciate all that you do thank you for your time thank you for your leadership thank you all right uh John Johnson welcome Commissioners thank you for having me this evening uh John Johnson 2017 80th Avenue Northeast Iota Minnesota which I'm in HH Hill Township but our Maine address comes out of Iota so um obviously we would we would like to to keep this power of any land use changes at the Commissioners County Commissioners level you people are our elected officials and it would be remiss of me to not come and oppose not having this done back to the county because our our constituents would expect to have elected officials take care of our our land use I I think that's a reasonable request we've always worked with the city gotten along good with them I know Dave done you talked about collaboration between the city and the county but what you left out was collaboration between the city county and the townships we've always worked with the city and have had a good relationship and we want to see the city Thrive and and and grow as it's needed our our goal is here is to keep control of this at our Township level we know we don't have final say but our elected officials would have final say in it any questions thank you Mr Jens we don't we don't ask ask questions or engaging conversation but we are avidly listening thank you I appreciate you for hearing me thank you Joel Mesmer Joel meser maybe I'm saying it wrong ssme r m I think I was signing up for here well you you did and welcome but uh I'm Joel Mesmer I'm uh 5423 Highland Ridge Lane Southeast um I'm on the Maran Township Board of supervisor and there again I'm Elco John's statements there is um we just don't agree with the current language and we like the decision making to be with our commissioners and us as elected officials as well you know we have uh in our Township any we have 1,400 households and 4,200 residents and and you know we just want to keep that in our hands and in your hands and like John said we work with the city well on other issues so that's what I wanted to say tonight so thank you thank you thanks for being with us Roger burkie my name is Roger burky 3840 30th Street Southeast I'm also a member of the Maran Town board thank you Commissioners for hearing us tonight uh the Township's kind of got drawn into this through our fire contract every 10 years we have a fire contract with the city of Rochester this contract had a provision in it with this zoning um amendment in it we feel it's not it should not be in the fire contract we just want fire protection for our constituents we get along great with the fire department we've got along good with the County Board and the city council as the other two members have said we just want fire protection that's what we're here for we're not here to get in the middle of the city county dispute that's up to you guys we want to stay with the county in that urban service District but uh my feeling is and I think I speak for the other townships we want to have a fire contract we do pay our fair share uh in 2025 collectively the four townships will pay the city of Rochester $815,000 Maring Township is $233,000 for 2025 that's a big part of our budget we can't do any more Road and Bridge with it we need fire protection thank you Commissioners thank you Amy cockett hello I'm Amy cockett I live at 716 28th Street Northwest and I have to say I've heard a lot of calming voices tonight a lot of don't worry be happy you can trust us uh the problem is already you can hear there isn't trust and so how do you design a system that works with low Trust on behalf of the league of men voters I urge you to oppose the stricken language which currently says that the city has to support a change in the urban service area uh the change says the city can advise now if you if the trust isn't there that's a huge change moving it to you I think cities must retain this Authority if the Olstead County land use plan is to continue to be a technical document rather than a political document as our area faces unprecedented growth we're going to be seeing who knows how soon our the city of Rochester and even mad county is going to double with everything that Mayo has planned I was there as the president of the league of men voters when your predecessors on the Olstead County Board in 1978 took a courageous step to implement a land use plan that protected agriculture protected orderly development and what we saw coming as the enironmental crisis with the fragile groundwater I saw firsthand the risks they took and that later County boards in maintaining this technical approach rather than a political approach and and I remember cheering a huge meeting at John Marshall High School auditorium when this was being explained in 1978 and how difficult it was for the elected officials to Bear up to the anger the anger was not Urban versus rural it was Old Farmers versus young Farmers old farmers who wanted to retire and sell their land for development and young farmers who wanted to be able to buy land at agricultural prices and with the agricultural protection and the orderly development that was in the urban service area we were spared that coming before either the County board or the city the area was mostly our areas have mostly been spared annexation Wars or the imposition of a met Council as certainly happened to referee these kinds of interests in other areas of our state Miss cockett um you're over time but if you You can conclude your remarks I'm not asking you to sit down I'm just asking you to wrap up okay just wanted to let you know what the timing was would you like to conclude your comment I will just say that the change that happened two years ago was probably because of a very unfortunate situation where the Consolidated planning department was split up before that you did not have to specify that the city had to have a right of first refusal because the planning Consolidated planning did that I just would like to have you think that for almost 50 years of success we are I think what you're doing tonight will be undermining a technical document I would just suggest we come together work together and talk together before you make what I see as an unalterable change thank you very much thanks for understanding in terms of at the time Bernard nean Mr Negan my name is Bernard nigan I live at 670 6th Avenue Southwest Rochester Minnesota I didn't sign up to speak so I don't know how I got my name on there but on there it's on here Oh I thought that was the attendance Sor weren't the only one I think Mr now that I'm here desper was in the same situation just briefly a little history I think it's our family farm that is might be the impetus for some of this discussion and the proposed changes um the history of the family farm was that it was purchased in 1897 by my great-grandfather it's been in the family for four generations uh the uh last Farmer in the family just retired a few few years ago there are nine of us who are descendants of Ralph and Agnes Nan who who owned the farm U we are um um as I said no more farmers in the family so we're looking to dispose of the farm and uh our advisers have told us that due to the uh topographical issues of the farm uh it's uh it's got floodway It's got a flood plane it has steep slopes uh in excess of 18 degrees uh it uh has wetlands and uh high elevations as very difficult to develop as an urban uh parcel uh they've told us that the highest and best use of that farm is Suburban development uh it's my opinion that the city is by keeping it in the trying to keep it in the urban Reserve is trying to put a square pig in a round hole uh it the the Topography is just not amenable towards Urban Development and some of the Commissioners here have toured the property I think they uh after having the uh the hay ride they might have have to agree with me so uh thank you and I I guess next time I'll watch where I sign up Nick Miller chair casc and County Commissioners uh thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening my name is Nick Miller I live at 818 8th Avenue Southwest Rochester and I'm the incoming uh w i representative on Rochester city council while I am speaking tonight in opposition to the proposed text Amendment as written I want to begin by recognizing the progress made between city and county staff over the past weeks it's clear that we all share our commitment to thoughtfully managing growth and servicing the people of omet count and serving the people of omet County however I stand with my city colleagues in respectfully opposing the proposed changes to the general land use plan as they stand today I do so not because of a lack of trust and the County's leadership but because we need more time to ensure we arrive at an amendment that strengthens process increases transparency and protects the long-term fiscal and environmental sustainability of our region this decision will impact Rochester's growth not just for the next decade but for the next Century development decisions made today carry long-term implications some of which may burden Future Leaders and taxpayers with the costs of poorly planned growth we must avoid the kind of uncoordinated development that leads to costly remedies such as the clean up of 1500 septic systems in Southeast Rochester decades ago unplanned development leaves lasting liabilities for future Generations the this proposed change risks Rochester's ability to grow in an orderly fiscally responsible and environmentally sustainable manner next month five new members will join the city council and County Board bringing fresh perspectives to both bodies this moment presents an opportunity to recommit to strong working relationships and to alignment on a shared vision for our community growth that is orderly and well planned requires all 14 of us to collaborate particularly as we coordinate critical infrastructure Investments whether it's water and sewer systems roads or public services our ability to work together shapes the fiscal health of our broader community and demands coordinated long-term planning city and county staff have worked hard to advance this discussion and progress has been made towards the updated glup language however I do not believe that we are yet at the Finish Line I ask that you delay this decision to allow more time for County staff to evaluate Rochester's proposed amendment language and report back to you on its feasibility additional time will ensure the process aligns with the goals of both bodies without shifting decision-making Authority in ways that could hinder long-term planning as commissioner time recently wrote To Us newly elected City Council Members the role of elected officials is to set Direction while trusting the trained professionals we rely on to carry out the work that direction is strongest when set collaboratively with clear processes and criteria that both city and county Support so let's take the time to get this right or as Mr dun said do a little additional vetting excuse me you are now at the same thank you it was if you could wrap up please thank you for your service to Olstead County and for your leadership on this issue I look forward to working together in the months and years ahead thank you thank you very much you'll have a new appreciation for how difficult it is to make a lot of points in two minutes as the as the as the council uses the two minutes uh with some frequency which we we're not quite as accustomed to so apologies to those of you that I had to ask to ctail your comments so uh members we have now had Mr dun's presentation we have heard the public comment let me ask is there anyone else who wishes to speak I'm a rule Jim beer 5945 60th Avenue Northwest I've listened to a lot of stuff tonight uh I would agree with M cockett that I think this uh slipped through the cracks when we split the uh consolidated planning and uh because if if I was I was used to be a county commissioner for those of you don't know Michelle took my place she's a lot smarter than I am anyways um I know I would have not been in favor of uh seeding that authority to the city of Rochester and the reason not because I don't like Rochester but I view we're in Olstead County and I view the County Board as a senatorial uh body there is plenty of representation I believe six of you members uh are elected by the city of Rochester have most of your constituents in the city of Rochester so if the city has a um a view I think there'll be and it's a strong view I think you only have to convince six because that that that's most of the Commissioners I'm kind of stumbling around but I'm really really truly disappointed when I first got elected in 200 and two the city and the county and the townships and rpu and people's Co-op were at each other's throats and you can say I'm an old man and that that was uh that's a long time ago but these this is the same thing over again and I'm very very sad that we are regressing and I feel that if you do not pass this uh tonight that we will be regressing it's a county land use plan it includes input from the townships from the cities including the city of Rochester but at the end of the day it's you seven people that have to vote on these and as I recall the last 20 years when and Ken Brown is here too you should invite him up to speak we worked hard to try and get along with everybody we have a big pie in Southeastern Minnesota and there is plenty for everybody to share I see that I'm over time uh I would thank you for your service and please pass this amendment thank you thank you is there anyone else who wishes to testify is there anyone else who wishes to testify please go forward introduce yourselves if you've seen the others do welcome my name is Nathan Clark uh I'm at 2589 Wild Rose Lane Southwest Rochester Minnesota I serve on the Rochester Township Board um so what that so it goes to two minutes yep okay I'll try to finish even sooner it does keep going so I I think this is a really difficult issue and there a lot of good opinions on both sides um thinking of Bernie the thep he I've walked his land and um I I see his perspective so I I can really see both sides and that justest to me there probably needs to be some sort of compromise in the middle I like the idea of this pendulum and I just so I just want to share but I but I do worry about urban sprawl and that's a word I haven't heard here yet tonight and I just encourage y all to go home and Google that term tonight and read up on it um I'm just going to quickly share an anecdote with you to refer to what I'm talking about I teach part-time out at the college and a student comes to me and says Mr Clark I have a chance to go to Europe to visit Poland is all right if you can excuse me for a week um so I can go on this trip you bet but when you come back I want you to give the class a presentation on what some things some differences you observed and this is one of those from the mouth of bab's moment this young guy says I swear this was unsolicited he says Mr Clark when he gave his presentation he said one of the biggest differences I noticed was people over there in Poland the towns are all clustered together and then you have this beautiful landscape that you can see but here we we just spread out we Americans we just spread our homes all as far as we can we we use big chunks of land and there's no and it's eaten up the landscape so I just again I see both sides of the issue very bright people good people on both sides of this issue but I just I worry about urban sprawl I would encourage you all to read up on that Houston Phoenix the Wass front between Salt Lake City and Provo Utah it's their one giant strip mall and it ain't Pleasant that's that's that's my concern thank you very much for your service thank you thank for your service and for your comments is there anyone else who wishes to testify is there anyone else who wishes to testify is there anyone online who's seeking to testify I'll move to close the public hearing second I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing all those in favor signify by saying I I those oppose same sign motion prevails well members we're open for discussion and I know that some of you are ready maybe act on a motion first sure I'll make a motion you want to dis ask any questions I have a question for Mr Dunn yes sorry Mr Dunn does anyone else have questions for Mr Dunn okay the the factor that I raised earlier of uh that the city had proposed of impacts to neighboring properties how does the proposal surround affect impact surrounding properties in your view is that it's already implied in the criteria you've developed it's already implied in the criteria that being said if it wanted to be explicitly added I think that's something that we would think works well with the spirit of the the amendment right are there are there any other discussion uh points of clarification that members would like to chair can I just say I mean these every word in this document explicitly important if I don't if if what uh if was suggested here is uh is important uh that word those words ought to be in the document I think uh because I I I don't think you know people are going to be interpreting this document 20 30 40 50 years from now they're not going to go back to this hearing tonight and watch and try to get a sense of the body uh they're going to read what's on the piece of paper so I think we need to be ex you know as explicit as possible and whatever whatever language we have well and and I really I wanted to raise that question because we are in the spirit of cooperation trying to work with the city to come to something that we can we can all live with and uh rather than have a uh I just think having some clarification now would be helpful that's why I brought it up before we have a motion because once we have a motion then it's a it's really more about amendments rather than just open discussion so I'd like to have a little open discussion first um Mr dun is there anything you wanted to add having heard the public testimony no just appreciate everyone coming out and speaking on this issue okay all right so um I think you're ready to make a motion no I think Bri's I'll make the motion to accept the text the text Amendment for the uh General land use plan as presented is there a second I I would like to amend it to to include that sentence that commissioner cascaden read um which is will there be impacts to neighboring properties specifically how does this proposal impact surrounding properties and create future limitations for potential development if I recall that's in there isn't it no it's it's it's not in the county but so I'm asking if I can amend your motion to put that in there yes you consider that a friendly Amendment yes so now we have a friendly Amendment to the motion to adopt the language as proposed by the staff would second the motion have a motion and a second chair can I get a just a state of clar so we have the motion and we have nine I'll call it criteria uh and number nine is a b and c and then we would include this sentence that has been referred to is that is that what the motion is pretty much it would be number nine would be a b c d and there would now be an e okay just wanted to make sure St had that uh Mr duns indicated that staff have got that any other clarification okay discussion all right so I think it'd be important that as we start discussion with we have a little history of how we got here why this is on the news every night so I've done some study and I'm going to give you a little history lesson if you can put up with me so in 1975 Rochester olad County Planning formed it was the only combined City County Planning Department in the state and it handled all planning and zoning issues within hestad County's 18 townships and the City of Rochester this combined planning department consisted ofate County employees and was funded by theate County tax levy and fees 1997 after years of conflict between area townships and the combined planning department which was accused to being very Rochester Centric six area townships form their own planning department within H state county the tcpa which is the township Cooperative Planning Association would eventually grow to include 14 omate County townships tcpa provides zoning oversight for these townships and for these townships any variations from W County's regulations must be more restrictive not less hestad County still provides longrange planning and transportation planning services in addition to administering the well code 2019 wanting more planning Services than theate County Board was willing to fund the city of Rochester decided to end the Cooperative planning agreement with olate County which is a move I understood and supported Rochester's Community Development Department was formed and all planning in the townships including in the city's Urban Reserve area was administered byad County's planning department 2022 olad County passed an update of our general land use plan the rewrite took place during covid and no discussion was had about giving the city's right to control the planning within the urban Reserve area yet we passed it and it was in there after 45 years the cities now had planning Authority outside their city limits with this new process any land use change will go to the appropriate Township for comet and then Advanced to the city for approval if the city didn't approve it the county never saw it spring of 2024 some Township residents made Commissioners aware of frustrations they were having dealing with the city on potential land use changes and possible annexation they felt powerless dealing with a body of government that did not represent them the county was taxing them but powerless to represent them we initiated a study of the issue and invited the city of Rochester to present to us so we could become informed on the issues from their perspective summer of 2024 while the county was considering whether it made a mistake seeding planning authority to the city in the urban Services area generally a two mile plus band outside the city limits of any city where the city feels that it may be able to offer city services sometime in the next 50 years the city was the city was negotiating this next 10-year fire contract with the four surrounding townships these 10year contracts have been negotiated for at least 20 years now and did not involve H state county because they have nothing to do with Hest state county without notifying hestad County a city administrator asserted a clause in the contract that had the townships not read it thoroughly before signing would have seed the township planning in the urban Services area to the city of Rochester it required that the townships collaborate with the city of Rochester when land use changes are requested in this area if they didn't collaborate they would be in viol VI ation of the fire protection contract this was an effort to take away the County's ability to take back plan and Authority that we had mistakenly given them in 20122 the fall of 2024 the city of R Rochester keeps rewriting Clause number four but doesn't change its meeting giving the townships no choice but to refuse to sign a contract that would give their power to the city of Rochester or be found in violation of the fire contract and they remain on an impass to this day winter of 2024 at least one city council member after previously saying multiple times that connecting the issue in front of us today with the fire contract was a mistake and that he's sorry that they did it now outright threatens to stop selling Fire Protection Services to the townships if the county takes back planning all right that's the timeline of History to get to today I'm going to present a few more facts every resident of the city of Rochester is also a resident of Olstead County theate County Board consists of four Commissioners whose districts are entirely within the city of Rochester one whose district is 2third City of Rochester mine is 5050 Rochester in small towns and Township and one commission and only one commissioner whose district is primarily rural rural I don't know if any County Commissioner who wants to harm the city of Rochester ability to grow in a re responsible manner we just want to do the same job we've been doing for 47 of the last 49 years represent our citizens in the rare instance where a rural landowner and the city are not in agreement which has happened three times in the last 10 years nearly every developer that I've ever met would much rather develop with city services where they can sell Three Plus Homes per acre instead of three plus acres per home it's much more profitable so this is not about fighting annexation the Rochester Fire Chief has been on record supporting the proposed 10-year extension of the fire contract with the four surrounding townships he stated that the contract was fair to all sides is the townships benefited from first class fire protection a fact that the townships agree with and the city benefits financially as RFD only responds to fire calls within the townships not ambulance calls or services such as assisting in a lift of a falling person like they do in the city lastly if the city does not offer another fire contract to the four townships Rochester City taxpayers will have to make up 10, 23, 931 in Lost Revenue that the townships would have paid over the next 10 years thank you is there any further discussion chair commissioner Rosman I would just like to speak in full support of this amendment I don't need to articulate the many Mutual values that we have with the city of Rochester many of our speakers Did it tonight what we are doing in defining a fully transparent and detailed process that now forces accountability is just reinforcing all of those shared values I find it very unfortunate that there have been opponents to this amendment who have taken a 1886 page thorough thoughtful strategic document and really brought it down to a few bullet points and talking points that are being pared by some in opposition to this this is the right move it's a a much improved process and I certainly hope that we have enough support tonight to move this forward and um continue to represent the citizens of hsad County thank you other members oh whatever you know Mr Dunn I'm going to bring you back up again as uh as we heard this evening uh we have I've been on the board now 12 years this is my 12th year on the board and only a handful of times have we ever looked I think you said three times in the last 10 years and when when you have a complicated technical area like land use planning and you only do it once every three years you don't really develop much expertise in it so the county I always tell people that the Count's focused a lot on our human infrastructure and the city's more focused on our built environment and our built infrastructure I I say that looking at our physical development folks because we do maintain build roads and have parks and so on but I think a point of confusion here and maybe I'm going to just see if you think this is if this is an accurate assumption when people have heard about this conflict between the city and the conflict on the land use plan they conflate it with zoning and so the so the issue before us let me see if I've understood this correctly is when a property owner in the township wants to petition to have their land reclassified usually it would be out of the urban service area the reserve area into Suburban development that issue is not necessarily once one if if that were granted which as you demonstrated has hardly ever been granted that doesn't that's that that's a reclassification of land but they still have to get zoning permission to do whatever it is that they're planning to do so it feels to me like with our land use plan looking at some of the same things affordable housing Environmental Protection uh orderly growth um that we that we some of the confusion may be that especially among the Citizens We're hearing from that aren't Township officers and so on they really don't they don't they think that when we talk about a land use plan amendment that we're talking about zoning am I is that how you're understanding it or am I am I uh confused here well the two are very confusing when you put them together because when you talk about land use you're talking about the broad uh generally what I'll say is land use is very broad it is not partial specific nor is it legally binding but what it does do is set the basis for zoning which is legally binding and does give a property a certain amount of Rights so the two need to be connected uh you need to have so if you have a parcel that has a land use designation of commercial you really shouldn't go in and put an industrial zoning classification in the two so it does they are connected but then there is that second part of any process that would be zoning which would be to give a partial specific rights thank you I think in my mind some of the things I'm reading from people they've conflated the two um and that's that's I think part of the confusion the other question I have for you Mr Dunn is you had said earlier if we make sub substantive amendments you would prefer that we not do that on the Fly are we in a place that you feel that um you don't need the amendment is clear enough that that's been offered yeah absolutely and and as we looked at that uh particular criteria the only reason we didn't specifically include it was we thought it was inferred so specifically including that we feel like uh maintains the Spirit of collaboration that we want to have and it's a it's a good thing to document it thank you very much all right members any other discussion Mr senum uh thank you madam chair uh as I guess everyone knows I I opposed this on November 5th and uh and I'm going to oppose it tonight uh and I I think a lot about this in terms of uh the destiny of a city and and who is best equipped if you will to carry that Destiny out and and we live in a great County and we live in a great City I don't think there's any question about that and we live in a city that's dynamic dynamic Beyond perhaps any other city in the midwest maybe the entire country actually and uh I uh I was looking last night at uh the population growth of of Rochester uh from 2000 to 2 20 it was uh 41% 2% a year uh compounding and I just thought a little bit about that okay so Rochester is 121,000 what if what if for the next 100 years we we grow at 1% a year what is that compounded and it's 328,000 people and then I think about the space that we have and and by the way why why did the legislature ever create the urban service area it was because they contemplated through something called a Community Development act back in 1975 that cities and not certainly not all of them but cities certainly like Rochester should have an ability to look into its future and determine the destiny of of where all that growth is going to occur and and as we I'm not being critical here but as we look at where growth has occurred outside of the city through a period of time in many cases many years perhaps 20 to 30 uh we now basically have a city where from Highway 52 if you circle around to the Northeast you almost get to Century High School before you can say poke a a sewer pipe through and in fact uh serve people on the other side of that Suburban subdivision area and the same is true of the Southwest area and the same is true of the deep Southeast area and so as we think about the growth of a city and uh I think if you don't believe it's going to grow you don't believe in the future of Mayo Clinic or or this city and everything that goes with Mayo Clinic uh we're going to have to have space for people and the more we encapsulate if you will the city of Rochester and I'm not suggesting that this board will do it but we're talking about people that will be at this dis or another one like it someplace in this County 50 and 100 years from now and and and how can we assure the future of our city and frankly our County that that that that development is going to occur in an orderly basis and and frankly in an urban basis and so as I think about this I just think in terms of what is our what is our city going to look like and I say collectively our City we all don't live in it but collectively our city because frankly it is the mother city of hestad County and uh and that's just the way that's just the way it is but what will it look like in 50 or 100 years we know it's going to be much bigger and and where's that growth going to occur right now frankly the growth is kind of going to occur out in that far Northwest area because that's that's that's where growth can occur based on uh on the lack of ser sub divisions encapsulating City so I just think we have to think long term about this we have to think in terms of what this City's going to look like long Beyond any of us and and I would contend and and I thought this myself I don't I don't even know what the city's annual budget is much less know what their Fire Protection Service program is much less what their utility from the standpoint of electrical service is much less the sewer and water I I don't know anything I used to back in the '90s but I don't know anything and I would contend that you know and none of us do and none of us are expected to do but yet we're going to with the adoption of this amendment we're going to determine Vis of V land use Amendment text uh texts that come before us we're going to determine what that future is uh without a lot of knowledge and without the I don't think the U the information that that really you have to have and by the way I was looking at the city's comprehensive plan 352 Pages they have thought a lot about what this City's going to look like on into the future and so is the county by the way but uh there's a there's a lot of stuff here and a lot of stuff that we don't know and a lot of stuff that's very very important in making these kind of decisions so I I believe that the urban Serv area contemplated the cities decision-making process within it that's why the legislature created it and I uh for that reason oppose this amendment and believe that in the long run city city council working with County Board are in the best decision to determine what again Rochester Minnesota and frankly the surrounding cities look like long long into our future thank you okay call vote well I'm wondering if anyone else has another comment I I just can't resist you know I've I've gone back and forth thinking about this but I just want to call out that the urban service area the termination is the land use plan that the county had made and put that into an urban service area for the city's future development and I cannot believe given we have so much of the same criteria for what we see is is planned orderly growth that if there is a request to make a change to the urban service area that the county will not really look at what the city's needs are and consider that and collaborate with the city moving forward but the question is in my mind it comes down to who represents the people of that Township and the city council is good a job as you're doing and planning for the city does not represent those people and so if we can get to a place that we can find a way to really deeply collaborate I think makes more sense and for where we are right now and to the point that was made earlier is you've already seen that we've made changes in 2014 in 2022 and now we're making a change in 2024 so we will have the opportunity this board and future boards will have the opportunity to make modifications to our land use plan and to our relationship with the city um and how we and how we make decisions in the future this isn't this isn't the end of the story it's just a new chapter in a long long history of working together the city and the county on a whole variety of issues um you know we work together already on housing we work together already on on uh uh emergency response we work together on a whole variety of issues and uh this particular issue is not one that determines the F full future of our relationship in any in any way shape or form so the question for me comes down to do the people the prop the property owners in the townships where we've identified land use plans for urban service area who represents them when there's a petition by a private individual to make a change to that designation and I think it should be made by the people that represent them and not by the city who is with all good intentions and with a lot of congruence with our own values of of trying to plan orderly growth and so um I I am uh I've been back and forth mentally on this several times um but I I'm prepared to support the the motion that's before us but not without without your long speech um commissioner I just couldn't let let the meeting end without at least uh articulating another another approach to this question it is a complicated question and we do value our relationship with the city of Rochester so I think uh my colleague to the left was intending to call the question is there call the question all right the question is called all those in favor of the amendment signify by saying I I oppose same sign motion prevails so we are now ladies and gentlemen thank you for your patience of being with us this amendment has been adopted by the Olstead County Board this is the latest chapter in a long story we are not uh this is not a b end an end all in any way shape or form so we are going to move to some reports a couple of quick reports um in fact one I'm told is not going to uh happen and then I'm going to ask for a very very brief recess of a minute or two uh because uh as you know as my colleagues know I like to read a quote at the end of the meeting and I have something else I want to do tonight to close this last meeting uh that I'll have the privilege of being at this on this board and and in this chair so um I'm wondering if commissioner Mueller is prepared to give us a report on status of the law library you know I am I am had my I have had my uh final meeting with the law library uh commissioner-elect Bob Hopkins is going to be my replacement uh for the law library the annual budget is $1,375 they have 1.2 full-time employees the only uh real comments were about the size of the room that they only have two computers and of privacy so um just concerned with the size of the area that they have for the the people that come in to use the library other than that it is pretty uneventful so but that's what's going on okay and I understand from uh commissioner Rossman that the Federal Medical Center Advisory Board community relations board actually has not met in 2024 so it was the easiest assignment she's had all year and I observe that uh for those of us who've been around a long time we can remember when it was a very controversial entity in our community and they had many community relations meetings um and isn't it interesting that it's no longer needed so I am going to M chair I have a point of personal okay but I I would like uh I wonder if you would allow us to have the recess and then use your point of personal privilege we would you allow that depends on what your last comments are well I would like are in recess we're in recess about about a two- minute recess two three minute recess and then we'll come back in a few are we on TV I think we are probably on TV yeah we will be can I do it now no please wait okay okay I'm feisty today oh is he usually when you're walking well the wrong ones sorry the gold the gold ribbons that's okay we got oh yeah well I mean those are for you I got five stars is it what that mean okay I'm going to call us back to order please remember I told you it would be a very brief recess so I know uh commissioner uh snum uh wants to have the floor and I will gladly see give him the floor in just a couple minutes but um Mr staver I wonder if you'd you're welcome to stay Mr staver because I think you might enjoy this Mr staver I've been given a gift I've given a gift to each of our staff and to my colleagues on the board and if You' just take a look at the little gift that I've given you as a as a parting gift for me um this our public policy decision making it was random we have to balance priorities responsibility um and supposedly um we want to put uh in our in our budgeting process we want to collaborate and uh have different perspectives reflected uh we want input from voters and interest groups and legislators but we also need a big picture view and if you don't know what that puzzle is supposed to look like when it's you know you don't have a picture of what what you're solving uh it gets really really messy and lots of times we don't have a very clear picture of the puzzle that we're trying to solve then we also know that we have limited resources and if you get one of those puzzle pieces especially for some of those with the more complicated puzzles if you get one of those puzzle pieces out of order you're really in trouble and it'll take you a very long time to kind of figure it out because it has to fit perfectly uh for for you to to achieve the your enti and they may not even fit together uh all at once at at The First beginning so bottom line solving public policies puzzles is timec consuming and a demands focus and resolving complex issues in a democracy involves long processes and many constraints and the proposed Solutions often go through revisions like we're seeing tonight many revisions through debate negotiation and sometimes failure before arriving at a workable work plan so I hope that you will enjoy having these little puzzles and thinking about what puzzle are you trying to solve in the public policy Arena and who of the staff is trying trying to solve the same puzzle that you are I took it apart you took it apart in your little box it says what it's supposed to look it says what it's called it might give you a hint of what it's supposed to look like at the end but those of you with uh with active cameras like the guy to my right and the guy to my left you might want to take a picture of it before you pull it apart really anyway it's it you know I I've uh really enjoyed my 12 years on the County Board I enjoyed the staff and all the work that we've done together I've enjoyed trying to solve public policy puzzles and uh I've I've really enjoyed it when we're working on the same puzzle which doesn't happen as often as I wish it did but um thank you for the opportunity to serve with all of you and um and good lot in solving your public policy puzzles so and I would guess that now um commissioner senen wishes to speak well thank you madam chair and uh I start looking at this I'm not sure I can even get the Box open let's let's puzzle but uh thank you this will be a a fond memory of you and I I just wanted to say and I I didn't really come uh other than just kind of speaking from my heart from the standpoint of uh our relationship and uh which goes back I'm not sure how long but certainly uh during our time in the Senate together and this last couple years on the County Board uh I've really appreciated you as a person as a policy maker as a a thoughtful individual that uh guides and and gives wise uh Cel and U and uh advice at all times you're you're a genuine Community icon and uh I will miss you on this County Board and I and I I'm I'm sure our community and our our entire County will uh because you have you've left a legacy and you've uh you've done the good work and uh so congratulations on your retirement it won't quite be the same around here that's for sure but uh we all wish you well and uh I just wanted to express my thanks for our personal relationship through the years it's been a good it's been a good ride and good luck wherever your ride takes you thank you very much really appreciate it entertain a motion to adjourn so move nobody else