Please join me in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We want to introduce her new employee. Oh, okay. We're just going to bore her. All right. Well, good morning. Public comments. Anybody? Anybody in the audience? Uh, I see nobody. Agenda review and adoption. Can I get a motion? So moved, Mr. Chair. Second. Motion by Udman, second by Anderson to approve the agenda. The agenda review and adoption. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. I. Those opposed? Don't we have the amendment? Uh with an amendment. Yeah. Right here, sir. That's the one you keep talking about. Yes, sir. I'll modify move to approve the amendment. Okay. I don't we needed to add that on the floor. If he uh accepts that amendment, do you accept the uh amendment? I do. And Anderson. Okay. Now, any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. I. Those opposed? Motion passes. Put this in the Item 1.4, approval of the May 6, 2025 minutes. I'll move approval, Mr. here. Second. Commissioner Lynch moves and Commissioner Fehee seconds approval of the May 6, 2025 minutes. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, motion passes. Community announcements. Seeing none. Commissioner Lynch, if I could, I'd just like to remind everyone uh make sure that we have a uh uh the various celebrations for Memorial Day. Make sure that you come and honor our war dead free human beings walking on the United States of America and we owe that to the some of our veterans who did not make it back. So, well said, Mr. Chair. I had the same comment with Memorial Day being on the 26. uh please attend a local event and honor those serving and who have served and also remember to buy a poppy and support the veterans. Very good. Commissioner Udman, mine might be a little longer, but uh we all have the uh we all have the privilege of ser serving on a number of committees and we just came out of legislative priorities. It's not lost on us and a number of people staff hundreds of hours of preparation and monitoring. Um we we we invest in a lobbyist to keep tabs on what's going on there as well. And um um the the news isn't great for the local folks. Um there's there will likely be significant shifts to the local level. And um we we are toiling and spending a good amount of time trying to figure out what it means and what we're going to do about it. And um I think the world full of fingerpointers, most of the conversation today was talk about solutions. And really the solutions for us at the local level are to inform our local residents of what's going on so they can be aware and talk to their lawmakers. Um and then if those shifts do come from us, the honest to god truth is is there's there's three options. We can find efficiencies. Um we can maximize revenues. Um or we can consider cuts. And so I just it's not sounding the alarm. It's not being an alarmist. It's it's less concerning this year, although it's very concerning. It's more concerning in 26, 27, and 28. And so I just wanted to say that. Um that said, uh we had fantastic time at Minowashta opening. It's the first time I think we've made a significant investment in that park in 20 years or so and it was fantastic. Commissioner Workman was there, Commissioner Anderson was there. I know our entire board has been participant uh in supporting that uh that project and it was a cold day yet hundreds of people showed up. Um I can only imagine how tight the parking would have been had it been a nice 70°ree day. And so congratulations to you and your team Arty. You guys have put in a lot of work. Um, and it's a significant investment by our taxpayers. $1.2 million spent on it. Um, hadn't been updated, I think, in 25 or so years. 20 25 or 30. So, it's a huge community asset. And, um, Commissioner Workman spoke. There was a G there from Wisconsin. I think has been there multiple times. I know other people have used this. This is not just ours. This is a regional gem for a lot of people to be part of. Uh, I had a chance to take part in Paige Becker's day. I don't know if anybody who follows women's basketball, but she came out of Hopkins and um she had her first WNBA game um last week and in Hopkins they renamed the town Paige Beckers Minnesota for a day. I just thought that was cool. The spirit of the mayor that was leading that charge and we had a chance to be part of it. Girls loved it. So Paige Beckers, it's it's a real deal. They changed the name. Uh the Lynx won that game. Yes, they did. Um, next one is it's rare when um we have a staff member that reaches 30 plus years of service. Um, we sent Reed off in style. Uh, Reed Ashville has led our jail for 32 years. Um, and so he retired on Friday and so it was great to see um, a lot of the people from his past and current and then also there was a little bit of social. I see Firstman's in the room himself and my myself were there and just a lot of people from the community. Uh he's a unique individual that's added a lot of value and probably one of the things I'd elevate two of the things I'd elevate about Reed. One um we get to high rates on that jail regularly and it seems apppropo that um that the Stillwater jail was or prison was was um announced to be closing in the next handful of years um because there I think $180 million of deferred maintenance and I think if they replaced it' be 1.3 billion. It's a different scale but I don't think we worry about that jail having to be reconstructed in the next 20 years largely because of a lot of the investment the board has made. the taxpayers have made um and that Reed has led. And then the second thing about Reed, there wasn't a single conversation or lunch I ever had with Reed where he didn't mention his wife or his kids. And so uh real clear on his why as to why he did what he did for all those years. So thank you Reed and your family for putting up with a lot of a lot of stuff. Uh prek open house last week had the chance to park a bunch of cars. I think there's over 150 families that came out and um these are people that are uh making an investment in our community and that will be the future leaders in our community and see their faces and how engaged they are on that day. Um I don't know what our enrollment numbers are going to be locally. Um but it sure was to fun to see the spirit of those young families coming out. Uh AMC day at the capital was last week for commissioners and I did get a chance to speak to and see a lot of our peers. Um we're having the same conversations that I met earlier. Met with a number of lawmakers and a number of peers. I think the most value was the the number of peers that we spoke to that they're facing some things similar. We all have these conversations in the different boards that we're on, but what are you doing different? What are you doing better? What how are you approaching this? And so that was worth it. Couple hours later, um, Commissioner Anderson and myself had a chance to attend the Melsa meeting, which is a regional library book board. 103 um, libraries roll up to that. We're having similar conversations at the library level, too. Um, what happens when the funding doesn't necessarily match the need or the the expenditures or the wants? Taste of Chaz was a great event uh last week as well. Um I think uh Steve said that thousands of people came out to that. New vendors, existing vendors, a lot of time and effort and a beautiful day. Um Henipin Carver Workforce Board was last week. We we're at Luna local 5863 Union Training Hall Center. I think Commissioner Anderson joined remote on that one as well. Um uh Commissioner Workman often says a job is probably the best plan that we have. And so we are doing work behind the scenes and above the above board um to to address uh uh employment and and get people working and getting livable wages. I had a chance to meet with about a half a dozen not forprofits and uh civic organizations and faith organizations just in the last week just to name a few SVA humanity alliance love inc gather and grow bountiful basket a better societal society asking them if shifts come our way where do we shift and I think oftentimes the front door of a church or a not for-profit or a a a civic organization that's where the shift happens because they see those folks first uh and oftentimes uh efficiently serve them and I think sometimes we don't elevate them enough but one particular organization that we as a board have been funding to the tune of about $20,000 for the last four or five years that's actually not worth $20,000 in five money year money five years ago. And so I said what happens if this happens and that happens and we never really know how close they are to closing but this particular organization if you look at it numerically would be the equivalent of about three to four employees if we had to if we had to do the work that they do on behalf of Carver County. Um and then fan finally u my kids got a chance to go to the library. They have a seed library. So if you haven't planted for your spring, they have seed library. Uh so you can go grab um seeds to plant in your own home. And there's no cost to that. And that was um funded by the generosity of the Charles Dy loc uh grant through a foundation more or less that created a guy passed away. He was he was very fond of our libraries and he contributed a million dollars of his estate that's helped fund some of these programs. And again, that's another area where we press to be like if we want to do some extra things or maybe not so extra things just do some things. um the money of philanthropy and doing things as a community um stretch stretches. We can see that in the seed library. So those are my comments. Thank you, Commissioner Anderson. I'll be shorter. Um thanks for mentioning Thank you, Commissioner Udman, for um mentioning the things we went shared, too. I w I do um want to add uh Chair Workman and I were able to attend the foster care parent appreciation um banquet. What a fabulous event that was. It was um so moving um to see people who have and I forget their names. Um Bernie and Bonnie Stockman. Stockman. Yes. Who have been foster care parents in this community for 50 years. And to hear the stories from social workers and um from some of those foster kids, the lives they changed, it was it was truly moving. you see a lot of bad press about foster families in the media and on TV and that that was not what what Commissioner Workman and I witnessed. So, thank you Heather for inviting us. Um, thanks Clint and his entire staff for for putting um that together. I think our HHS is is truly full of un unsung heroes in this community and and our foster care parents are definitely some of them. So, um that's all I have. Thank you very much. I uh we did lose a veteran up in Chanhassen, longtime veteran. I went to high school with his son, Conrad Connie Winkl. He would have been uh he would have been in standing in the color guard on Memorial Day last year uh and he won't be this year and early 90s somewhere in his 90s and uh a great guy, great people, great family who I know my most of my life. Um thank you Commissioner Uterman for bringing up the state shifts. Um uh you're too polite. Uh probably um the taxpayers of Carver County are headed for a lot of unhappiness. I think um I think if we can just shift all of our problems over to the ditch payers because I see there must be at least two of them in the room and now they perked up uh which we cannot do. Um uh but it is uh the legislature finished uh yesterday, last night. Well, they didn't finish. They, let's face it, they uh they punted for another week or three probably. Uh I have apparently have a steak sandwich bet with Commissioner Udman about when they'll get done. I said they get done before June 30th or by June 30th. And to get that sandwich, I think he's uh twisted my words. But um uh Mina Mina Washa Park um you know I thought wow one about $1.2 million playground which growing up many of us here um I think I said you know you don't even need to get a tetanis shot to play on any of this stuff. Uh uh but when I saw it uh it it was it got to be the best playground we have in the county. Right. Um sure. Unbelievable uh uh space. Um the utterman children running around. Um but I was too shocked at how many people were there um on such a not good day. And so people want to do things and they want to enjoy Carver County. Menowashta is a beautiful park and proud it's in district two. Uh at the uh at the foster parent dinner. Uh I'll echo Commissioner Anderson. I got to see old friends Bob and Sue DS who have been at this game also. Most Chaza High School graduates would know that name. Bob DS. um Voice of the Hawks, Voice of the Hawks and uh teacher and everything else. When I was of course there um I was there. Um so, but uh great to see them. They're kind of the emergency foster care family, right? So, when somebody needs somebody right away, so what a what a glorious night and uh to uh talk about uh all the good things that those people are doing. So, that's all I got. All right. Can I get a motion for the consent agenda? So moved. Second. Motion by Anderson, second by Uterman for the consent agenda. Any discussion? It's a big consent agenda. Thank you for putting stuff on there. See no other discussion. Any All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed. Motion passes. Item 3.1, Coney Island interpretive plan project update. Oh, good morning, Mr. Chair. Members, Sam Perz, parks and trail supervisor. Thanks for some time this morning. Nice to be with you. A brief update. Here we go. A brief update for you on some long-range planning we're doing for Coney Island in respects to interpretive opportunities. a bit of an agenda we'll go through here and I'm going to pause on this first slide. You know, a bit of an oversight. I should be pointing out and I'm going to that um consistent um with our long range plan for Coney Island and Lake Wonia Regional Park. This interpretive plan kind of tucks underneath that. So, if you go back to 2016 when we updated the long-range plan for Lake Coney Regional Park, which included the part of that emphasis at that time was to include Coney Island into the regional system as a as a function of Lake Lone Regional Park. That planning effort brought forward an interest by the public to have interpretive opportunities. So this next round of work that we're going through now is consistent with that. And so we gathered some stakeholders here early March. You can see that list of mostly community groups to the Wakoneia area. Um other key key stakeholders that were identified of course are archaeologists. The county has gone through about you know five major studies of archaeology to this point here since since the county has uh you know taken ownership and operating the island. Um and a lot of that information is coming forward here in our interpretive plan and we'll we'll continue to do so. Um American Indian community we tried to I'll say gather um what be considered a Dakota advisory council and I could share more on that but that was a bit of a struggle with not having relationships there as a part of the requirement of the grant that was that was a requirement. So we did do good work to try to make connections there through an individual with the leazison through the Hokataki organization uh which is a branch of the Midawakatan tribe or a component of the Midwakan tribe down in Shakipi and that really wasn't all that fruitful but nevertheless made good good efforts to try to to try to bring that voice to the table. Of course our park commission had representation there. Uh the Mace family, the Wakonia Chamber. Um so our list of stakeholders and I think we had pretty good participation there in March. um folks came out and and shared a number of different um you know engagement questions and ways that we wanted to learn from these stakeholders how they uh see interpretive opportunities on the island as we go forward. Some of the key elements and I'll pause here again. So again like other longrange planning think of this at 30,000 foot or maybe even higher doesn't get to the I'll say the nats ass of what's what's the story. It's what are the themes? What are those where are those themes represented on the site? And so the four themes that are identified at this point are really again indigenous use or Dakota crossroads. Uh community gathering again um archaeology and history you know shows that the site was used for community events for community gathering back in the resort era and the heyday of of kind of use of the island. Labor and leisure. You think of, you know, folks like Amler that again was operating resorts and cabins and and vas and and you know offering uh leisure opportunity for folks but also an opportunity for for employment. And then island ecology as kind of another core theme. You think of again the example maybe being the rrookery and and uh other natural resource opportunity that's out there whether it's the 100 plus year old sugar maples, the wildlife that we continue to see on the island that you know we continue to scratch our heads and say how is there a population of red fox on the island? So ecology to the site is as another strong theme geographically on the island. You know how those themes might be represented in certain areas of the island. Um and again I I think the clear example there as the consultants kind of putting this together for us you know that area 4 island ecology again that's right where the rrookery at at a past date was was known to be. So, um you can see again how these interpretive um you know, uh opportunities might come, you know, come to fruition on the island itself as people use the site. I'll point out too that at some point in a later date, we see a relationship between Wakonia mainland and the island, you know, in term in terms of uh interpretive, you know, kind of uh comprehensive opportunity, whether it be something that's, you know, ice harvesting and Yellowstone trail as examples of known history that impacted the main mainland. uh there's a relationship between there and the island in terms of how we might be offering interpretive opportunities as a whole from from Wakonia Regional Park. So the plan gets us to really to concept in terms of what you know what users might see. Did I skip a slide there? I did. Um in terms of what what can you actually engage with you know signage is I think the easy one that most people think of and certainly signage is on the list of considerations but you can you can do signage in so many different ways. you know, whether using artifacts and and materials to represent old artifacts that people can tactically touch and feel and engage with, you know, AI and and technologies come so far where you might be able to do signage that shows a rendering of how, you know, how that site was used in different ways, whether it's a cabin or what other past structures that were, you know, shown on the site at a at a past date. You know, it's maybe as far as soundposts or ways that people can, you know, participate in things, you know, from an audio perspective. Um that might again be tied to the ecology of the site. Maybe it's just uh a story that was told by um someone in past um um I'm trying to think of the word here, a um you know uh you know audio history of of a past story that was significant to the site and that's being played through through the soundpost. uh technology, whether it's through an interactive map. And another slide here or another op, excuse me, another example in the in the plan would be using the sun room for potentially a place where people could come back and use the technology in the room through a program experience that might give them more of a comprehensive like you'd see at maybe a museum or other uh historical sites where you could participate in um in more of a comprehensive um you know, experience of of what was on the island from a culture and historical perspective. So project schedule and milestones here up in front of us. We're at the 50% uh you know draft status. Now we're receiving comments from that stakeholder group and making sure that those comments are being factored in as we move to 90%. We have a deadline to submit this back to the state historic uh preservation office uh by the end of June. I'll point out there too that the grant dollars are really what has led us to being able to proceed with this plan. the county received about just shy of $49,000 for this project, which is, you know, the the majority share of the cost of this this planning work. Um, and then after June, we'll receive comments from the state, add those to the to the plan, and then move those into final final plan, looking to come back here in August um into the county board for authorization and adopting the plan um moving forward. Uh the final plan will include which is not part of today will include some cost estimating for those interpretive opportunities as a menu so that we can uh continue to program uh actual installation of of opportunities. Sorry, it's jumping on me here. So following opportunities here, there's some some key ones right in front of us. You know, grant funding here with with the state. There's another large grant cycle coming due in uh July uh pre-application that times out fairly well with the completion of this plan. um final application would be due in September. Again, we were successful with this round of work and the way the state likes to work, the historical society likes to work is in steps and so would feel, I think, a little confident that we'd have an ability to go out and be successful with another another grant application. Those dollars would be awarded in 26. Um we did receive money from the board here in schedule E as part of 25's budget. Uh 50 50k was was put in the parks budget for what I'd say is design implementation. what can we get in the field so that people can actually start participating in interpretive opportunities on the site. And with that, I'll pause for questions. Just a brief update. Any questions? Commissioner Hudterman. Uh, thank you. There's so many things that you do. You know, you're opening a park one day and now we're talking about interpretive Coney Island another day. And programming, I know, is on the horizon. Micah was passionate about that the other day. Um I appreciate your comments about the native population. Um that was an area that I was not educated on and I had to become very educated on a number of years ago. So I appreciate the reach out. It's very challenging space. So thanks for your time on that one. I think largely we've ruled out commerce on Coney Island at least for the short term. I know before it was like a hotel and I'd heard at one point a Hilton property was trying to buy it or get on it and that motivated the guy that eventually bought it and donated it and so on so forth. So I speak in the context of I think that making that a you know a destination place for commerce or partnering with private market probably isn't something in the in the horizon when we talk about these things. Um but I also think that elevating the history and the uniqueness of this um it comes with its challenges. I'd say the people I talked to roughly half say why are we spending any money on this? The other half are like let's go make this thing possible. It's a challenge to get there law enforcement to get there if we have a lot of people. There's a lot of complications and I appreciate you're navigating those things. Do you know how many annual visits we get there a year at Coney Island? No, it's not parsed out. Um not parsed out uh aside from Wakone as a whole and so um but to that question, Wakone Regional Park was just over 400,000 users in 24. So that's 24 data. Um just ahead of that was Lake Mawash Regional Park that um our use estimates as a system were 1.8 million in 24. So that's about up another 200,000 from 23. But Conan specifically, no. I I could try to drill into that. It becomes complicated. It's a 5year average. I think you've heard Marty and I talk about how those use estimates are calculated at Met Council sort of parse out a specific um park gets a little bit challenging. Um but I can follow up with you on that. Do you know just an estimate ballpark how much in aggra we've spent on studies of of the island? I mean is it Well, I'll tell you this. It's a fair amount of money. Are we talking north of 100,000? Yes. Okay. So I'm just going to make this suggestion and I don't know if it sits in your domain. You know it's a lot of it's not your lane. It's your lane. Maybe it's your lane or it's not your lane. If we're spending a million, 100,000, 200,000, whatever dollars, I just like to throw this out there. It's right now it's more or less a private island. If you have a boat to get there, you can get there with very few exceptions. I'd like there to be four times a year where anybody of all means can get out there, whether we pay for a pontoon or we schedule, I don't know. I'd like us to do that. I'd like it to be a public island, not a private island. And then I'd also like us to potentially consider that given the exorbitant amount of money we've spent on studies upon studies and and government does this very well and it's not your fault, right? To get the money, you got to study it. To do the study, you got the thing and da da da da da. But what would it look like if we carved out um5 or $6,000 to have somebody that does this create a children's book to talk about the history of the island? And what if every sixth grader in Carver County had a chance to have that book whether they get to step foot on that island or not? It would be a minimal expense. It would be high impact. And I think we've got about 1500 sixth graders across Carver County. It would be very minimal cost. And I just put that in context. It'd be less than probably one or two% of what we spent on studies to have true impact. And so maybe that's a partnership with the library. Maybe that's a partnership with the historic society. Maybe that's a partnership with somebody else. And I don't do it just to have some silly, you know, thing that Udman conjured up. I do it to say that in 10 years we could spend another couple hundred,000 on studies and really not truly pass that along to the next generation. And think about in the course of 10 years we could have um 15,000 sixth graders know about that island and that would reap way far better benefit in my opinion than the next study that we're required to do. And so I just offer that as a comment to put in your head. Yeah, Mr. Chair, Commissioner. Yeah, that great comments points well taken. I will I will uh add a couple more in to the conversation that as Matt said at the end there, we are required uh and we all I think we all know this, but we are required through the way this the site is listed in the National Historic Registry of Places. Archaeology is part of what we've done and it's part of where we're going regardless. So again, we put the monument in in recognization of the Hoffman Family and Foundation last year that triggered archaeology. So Matt's comments are are spot on. I struggle a little bit again with what we've been required to do. Um, if it was my sole decision, I think the 50k that was awarded through this year's budget would be four things on the ground. What could people what could people actually engage with rather than more planning and that's how I you know there will be some needs to be some design services there again to pick up the story and design them in a way that whatever tool we go forward with there will be some cost that's associated to the actual designing but how can we get that to be things in the ground that people can engage with. Um the comment on the on the ferry service is also well taken. And I actually talked with the Maces yesterday who's one of our stakeholders, Jimmy and Ben and and their family. Um, and I asked them again, are you interested? It's that that's where we first started with the ferry concept. Are you interested with the partnership within Tom Marina? And they just weren't interested at that time. It doesn't sound like they're any more interested, but that nut continues to be a hard one to crack. Well, they're for-profit, too. Like, if we carved out money and said four times a year, these are the dates. Sign up and you cap it. Start at 100. 100 times four times that's 400 people. It probably cost us less than five grand to make it accessible to people that don't have a $50,000 boat, you know, don't live on the lake. It's our island. It's not, you know, a private island. And so, again, is it our job? Is it not our job? I don't I don't know that anybody else has cracked that code. So, can we budget for four times a year once a month for the summer and get more kids and families out there to see it? And and I will say that there's a number of people that are affluent and tied to the historic society, tied to Coney Island. The one that the name that comes to mind is Melker. You know, I don't think that it would be hard to fund raise if we needed to get these things off the ground as well. Again, impact look out 10 years. Do we have more kids? Do we have more families that have experienced this or do we just have have more studies and surveys? And I'm not again, this isn't at you. This is I I understand the nature of the beast. And so, I just if we can unlock maybe 10% of what we spend on the studies for for actually benefit or more for benefit to school children and families. So, that's where I'd like to see us go. Well, maybe Commissioner Urman wasn't in the legislative meeting this morning talking about cuts because he's talking about spended money, but not a lot. But, uh, you know, by its very nature, it's an island and I'm very attracted to islands. Uh, I honeymooning Key West and it's expensive and it's hard to get to an island. Meline Island is on our calendar this year and we'll have to get our 74 Chevet onto the ferry and drive out there. Uh it's and it's expensive out there and you got to pay a ferry to get out there and it's hard. So that I would love to I pop into Wakonia Regional Park when I'm in the area and look around. I go I wish I could go out to that island. That's the beauty of it is that it's an island. I know you I think Sam, your department has a kayak uh trip going out there. Um I don't know if I signed up or I thought about signing up, but is that in June? We do multiple. Yep. So again, points well taken. We hear it and in full transparency, we hear it from time to time from our park users. How the heck do I get out there? So we know it's it's a barrier. We understand it's a right now it's a gap in our services. Our rental program that's there um through through Paradise Commons, of course, that's a way. It doesn't mean that if you're not an able body person that you can get in a canoe and go. Uh we offer through our programming as as Commissioner Workman's saying multiple times a year do we we offer a Coney Island kayak or paddle that ties in interpretive very brief interpretive. You know my staff aren't historians but they offer a bit of the history and then they get them to Coney Island in a paddle experience and that's been a pretty successful package over the last few years. So we do multiple of those. Um but again that leaves out people that can't get in a canoe or a kayak understanding that point. Yep. Right. Mr. bets. has have you presented at the county fair before or like had a poster board because that's a real affordable way and it educates people and you have all those people because you know the county attorney's office sometimes has a booth and we're trying to educate and I was just thinking that would be really interesting even if you don't have to have it staffed necessarily if you had two really nice poster boards and had this people are really intrigued by that and then you might touch people that go wow I didn't even know this existed but it's great out there they've done a great job and my family goes out there just you can grill on the island, you can just go swim a little bit, you can walk around the island. So, it really is a nice gem um that Carver County has and invested a lot and is just really neat to kind of, you know, park your boat and and go and walk around, enjoy it. So, thanks for what they've done on that and the board for investing in that and the Hoffman family from my perspective. Thank you, Norm Hoffman. All right, any other questions? Commissioner, not a question, just a statement. I um it's it's not a private island and that was Mr. Hoffman was mentioned. He was he wanted the island for Joe Sixpack was his quote and he wanted it for anyone with a family to get out there and you can get out there the canoe. Uh you can borrow a boat, you can rent a boat, you can get out there in any different avenue. And one of the major surprises for me is how many people use it during the winter where they load up on uh and walk across the ice and uh and get out and they grill with their family on the island during the winter and to the point where on a Saturday morning you better get there early because there's only so many grills and there's only so many picnic tables otherwise it's going to be taken over and that's on an island. So it's really well used. So it's not a private island. It's Carver Countyy's island. Use it whenever you can. And just one other Thank you. Um, thank you so much, uh, for what you do in the parks department. So, uh, I appreciate that. I do, um, want to echo Commissioner Udman's comment about, you know, getting more access to that. I I admit I've never been to Coney Island. I need to get out there and I'm curious. you piqued my curiosity on some of the the artifacts and using that as an educ educational purposes. Um, so I I'm not here to to figure out the how. You guys can can figure out the how, but I do like the idea of kind of getting more access and um and adding more kayaks. Um, I am an avid kayaker, so um have to look into that program. I probably missed the boat. uh literally missed the boat on the sign up for the kayaks, but but that's okay. And and again, hats off to Marty and Sam for all you do for our parks department. So, you make us shine. Thanks for that. And one more. Are the docks in? Well, I was going to mention that in terms of access, right? Still got to get to that, but um the docks are on site. We did add a dock to Coney Island this year. Um so there's more access, right? Um which as we all are saying and understanding, that's that's the key to getting it out there and enjoying it. Yep. And and where's the new dock? The there's one on both south shorelines now. The west side where it's been since opening and now on the east east side. Shoreline satellite. Well, we'll be back with you then in August is the plan, Mr. Chair and members. Um, appreciate your time. Very good. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Marty. All right. Item 3.2, county ordinance to limit the number of cannabis retail registrations. I am going to read a quick statement here. The board chair would like to make a point of order. The language in the limited number of cannabis retail registrations ordinance previously came before this board for enactment on November 19th, 2024. Sometime after that meeting, it was discovered that adoption of the ordinance on November 19, 2024 was mistakenly presented for board adoption without first publishing a notice of the intent to enact the ordinance in the official newspaper as required by law. The ordinance was voted on and unanimously passed by the board on November 19, 2024. is therefore null and void. Notice of the limited number of cannabis retail registration re registrations ordinance that is before you today was properly published in the official newspaper for the required 10 days. Do I have a motion to adopt the limited number of cannabis retail registrations ordinance? So move, Mr. Chair. Second. I have a motion by Lynch and a second by Anderson. Any discussion? Any explanation by staff? It pretty self-explanatory. Anybody in the audience got a concern about it? I see none. I thought that's why they were all here. Yeah. And we have posted that now. Correct. Correct. Yes. Correct. Okay. All right. So, seeing no other discussion, all those in favor say I. I. Those opposed. Motion passes again. Thank you, staff. Okay. Uh, we're going to go into a close session. So, I need a motion to enter close session pursuant to Minnesota statute 1 uh 13D.05, 05 subdivision 3C2 to review confidential or protected protected non-public appraisal data under Minnesota statute 13.44 subdivision 3 and pursuant to Minnesota statute 13D.05 05 subdivision 3C1 to determine the price for the sale of a permanent transportation easement on CCRRA Carver County Railroad Association owned real estate property which is located in Chaza Minnesota and extends over a portion of parcel identified by tax ID number 30.99906 6 0 lying northeast of First Street West and all of the parcel identified by property tax ID number 30.9990500 which is the CCR property. I would make that Mr. Chair, may I have a moment? Um actually with the amendment to um 2.11 this morning that data was reclassified as public. At the time the materials were submitted to the board it was protected but now that data is now public data by virtue of the majority vote of the board this morning. So we can eliminate the closed session and go directly into the open session for the Carver County Regional Rail Authority. So, Miss Shimshack, I read that uh for nothing. Is that apologize? I didn't quickly enough. I read it poorly for nothing. Okay. Is there any chance you could repeat that? Yeah. Could you? I missed some of it. Okay, good. I'd rather have everything in the open. So, thank you very much. Next time, interrupt me, Mr. Walsh. I might need a little help from our technical crew in the back to pull up our PowerPoint. Well, let me start with time out. Mr. Chair, do we need to recess on the regional rail, however? Yep. And convene. Change your hats. Well, that's Commissioner Lynch's uh Mr. Chair. I'd like to recess our con uh regular session and go to uh regular the regional rail authority. Okay, that's a motion by Lynch and a second by Commissioner Fehee. Any discussion on that? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. I. Those opposed. Motion passes. We are the Carver County Regional Rail Authority. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members. I'm going to take a kind of a big step back and talk about just briefly the Union Pacific Railroad Corridor which runs from Chaza as you know and have seen some work out there on that corridor constructed trail all the way over to Carver and then eventually that UP corridor crosses um the Minnesota River into Scott County where there's a very another very large project the Mariam Junction Regional Trail Trail Project. So back uh about 2013, Carver County, Scott County got together and acquired that railroad corridor. So that's just some brief history about I'll say our initial acquisition of the corridor. Um in about 20 I think it was 1415. Uh we did pave a portion of that trail corridor from Athletic Park to Carver. So there's an existing trail on that. And then as I've mentioned now in terms of the current project and we'll talk more about this in a little bit, Chaza has led a project to construct a trail from essentially Athletic Park on the old railroad corridor all the way over to the East Creek diversion channel. So that's just some brief brief history about the railroad corridor. So about a year ago, we were here um talking about a permanent transportation easement over the corridor for Chaza to construct construct this trail. Um, sorry that this is kind of a bit complicated in that you are both the regional rail authority which owns the property and you are also the operator um on parts of the corridor as the Carver County Board and a portion currently under construction. The regional rail authority is operator of that but we've transferred those responsibilities to CHASA while they are constructing the trail. So, um, again, just a little bit of I'll say background. I'll try to advance things here. So, again, this diagram here kind of shows the the current project area of where the trail is through CHAS. Again, starting over at Athletic Park, the red dashed line, and then leading all the way through town to the East Creek diversion channel. and trying to see if I can get the pointer to work here, but I think you can see it there in red. So going back again about a year ago, the board approved a joint powers agreement between the Carver County Regional Rail Authority, the county, and the city of Chaza for construction, operation, and maintenance, repair of the extension of what this project is called, the circle to brick trail onto CCR owned parcels and the county owned parcel in Chaza. So the corridor where this trail project is contains both property that the county owns and property that city of Chasta owned as well as um our our regional rail authority property. So there's three different parties that were involved. The next action. Um, this did this skip all the way forward. Seems like we skipped a couple things here. One, two, three. Um the JPA joint powers agreement was executed uh in 24 uh 2024 again about a year ago which allowed the construction of the trail and the county on the county parcels uh perform any other activities that were reasonably related to the necessary to the construction and then ongoing operations of the trail maintenance and repair of the improvements with Chaza. So we have a joint powers agreement with Chasa for the operation of the trail and that that assigns maintenance operations and repair cost obligations between all parties. So as we kind of go forward the project will uh eventually I'll say conclude in terms of overall construction and then upon what I'll say the completion of the construction of the project. We'll begin taking over some of the maintenance responsibilities for that and so will Chaz have some maintenance responsibilities particularly as it relates to what I'll say is some of the streetscaping elements that are a part of that corridor. So in July 20 uh last July um 6 2024 um the ward authorates CC to enter into a permanent transportation easement agreement. So, the Carver County Regional Rail Authority will continue to own the property. Um, but it is providing a an easement, you know, for the trail to occur on regional rail authority property. The regional rail authority has other obligations in the corridor. There's a number of utility lines, crossings, and so forth that still are in the corridor. And what the uh the regional rail authority has assigned to Carver County is that ability really to operate, maintain and construct a trail on CCR property. So the permanent transportation easement agreement is subject to the existing existing conditions of the corridor. Um we concludes the preservation of the corridor for future transportation use. So just a reminder that at some point in time should it ever be decided that rail transportation be reestablished on the corridor. That is a potential. We don't know of any I'll say pending projects that would indicate that but that is a potential. There are the existing utility agreements which I mentioned and licenses on the corridor property. Um, we may use the quarter in the interim for a recreation trail and it assigns CCR's operations, maintenance, and repair obligations over to the county. So, the appraisal um that took a look at the across the fence uh method for I'll say determining the value of these these parcels. So, and that simply means if the property was next to residential, it was appraised as residential. is next to commercial was appraised as commercial and so next to also open space it was appraised as a similar similar value. There are seven tracks of the property two of which are kind of shown here and then as you kind of proceed through town you can see the other tracks as it goes through the the streets all the way up to track number seven which is near um the end of the project. So this is some of the private data that uh was referenced as what's in the appraisal information here and these are the values for those individual um parcels. So uh phase one phase one occurred last year and we applied for funding park acquisition opportunity funding and we receive 75% of the value through the metropolitan council for grant for a grant and that is matched has been matched by the regional rail authorities contribution of 25% of inind easement value. So the parcels 2 and 7 had an appraised value of 2,135500 a 75% value 1.6 million and then the inind contribution was a little over $500,000 that in terms of easement value that was contributed as the match to the park acquisition opportunity funds. So phase one is complete. We submitted that application. I don't believe we've received the check yet for the 1.6 million, but we're close to getting that. It's just a matter of time before the check shows up. It's in the mail. It's in the mail. Phase two is what we're talking about today. And so that includes the other parcels 1 3 4 5 and six. And the value there is 1.8 million. The county again uh can receive up to 75% of grant funding or about $1.3 million for the easement value through the park acquisition opportunity fund of the Metropolitan Council. Now, we were a little I want to say I rush is maybe not the right word, but I want to get ourselves in line so that we can receive the funding as timely as possible. The first acquisition in 2025, um we're eligible for one cycle of funding for in one state fiscal calendar year. The second calendar year begins July 1 and we want to get in line for funding here uh in what would be the state fiscal year 2026. So the park acquisition opportunity fund dollars are available on a first come first serve basis and I'm aware that there are other agencies that are moving forward with acquisition. So again hopefully trying to get ourselves in a good position to receive those receive the funds. So again, um the um what the value is is indicated there, what the county may receive in terms of park acquisition opportunity funds at 1.3 and then the inind contribution in terms of the easement value of just under 500,000 for the easement. So the documents that are needed here um and what helps me complete the grant application is actually the signed stipulation settlement agreement between the Carver County Regional Rail Authority and Carver County for parcels 1 345 and six. uh we would move forward again with a permanent transportation easement agreement between the regional rail authority and Carver County and that gets recorded and then we go on to complete our joint powers agreement here assign the operations and maintenance repair and obligations of those parcels over to the county from the regional rail authority over to the county. So the requested actions here again are to approve the stipulation for settlement agreement between Carver County Regional Rail Authority and the county for setting the terms, conditions, and cost of CCR's convenience of the permanent transportation easement over the parcels 1345 and six to the county. Approve permanent transportation easement agreement between the regional rail authority and the county uh for CCR's conveyance over those parcels. And again, as I mentioned with regards to we'd be eligible for 75% of the uh value of those corridors through the park acquisition opportunity fund for the permanent transportation easement agreement and then approve the joint powers agreement between Carver County Regional Rail Authority and the county for the transfer CCR's operations, maintenance, and repair obligations on those parcels. And so I believe with that, Mr. Chair, couple more actions here. again allow the county to apply for the fiscal year 2026 park acquisition opportunity grant from the metropolitan council for the county's acquisition costs related to those parcels going 1 3 four five and six and then allow Carver County to make an inind donation of 25% of the fair market value of the park of the PTE again over those same parcels um provided provided we receive the funding from the metropolitan council um at 75% of the of our acquisition um thoughts. And so with that, Mr. Chair, I would stand for questions. Any questions? Commissioner Lynch, we had this last time and I asked the same question of you and Mary. Could you make it any more complicated? Right. Thank you. We tried. Let me try and simplify it. I'm a little skittish about Met Council paying for things they commit to. Is this lock tight that if that we'll get Met Council dollars to what we want them to be or will we be stuck holding the bag at some point? Um again, we have been applying at an increments that are within the funding constraints of the Metropolitan Council and so we're eligible at the 1.7 million in terms of initial park acquisition opportunity funds. The account currently has funds in it that would allow us to I'll say claim those funds. there are others that are stepping in line and so we are trying to it'll say um get get ahead of the of the others in here so that the fund funding source if you will the bank account um has the dollars to go forward should should there not be enough funds to go forward with the full acquisition then we would probably break the parcels again into smaller segments or wait till the next funding cycle and reapply again so clarify You wanna do you want to come up to the microphone? One of the controlling factors, but this is contingent. The conveyance of the permanent transportation easement is contingent on getting the funding. That's helpful. That's embedded in That's so if we don't get the funding this term, we can re-examine the documents and as Marty said, break them down in a different fashion, get any funding that is available. The goal is to maximize the county's receipt of funding. And one of the other drivers of this transaction is the fact that the county is the only entity that's eligible to receive the med council funding. The regional rail authority is not eligible entity for that purpose. So the conveyance had to occur from the regional rail authority to the county to make the county eligible. And secondly, it was always the intent that the county would be absorbing the maintenance responsibilities of the trail anyway. So, it's it um it's a reasonable outcome to have the transportation easement granting the property rights and then the JPA granting the obligations. That's how Hey, Colin, does that thing above her head pick up her voice? Okay. Yeah. Come up to the podium. Repeat that. No, I thought you're good. No, but I think that's a good answer because I think uh for the thousands that are watching currently us here on on uh at this meeting um why we had to do it um it well said. So yes, um I'm assuming on page 78 are those four actions and we're not going to read them. Marty did a good job of reading those. Uh, Mr. County Attorney, so if we could do one lump motion, I would move, Mr. Chair. Second. Okay, I got a motion by Lynch and a second by Uterman. Further discussion? Not sure what we'd ask, but seeing no other discussion, all those in favor say I. I. Those opposed. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Marty, good job. Wasn't so complicated when we gave Mary the chance to speak. All right, Commissioner Lynch. Mr. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make the motion to recess as the regional rail authority and convene as the Carver County Ditch Authority. Second. Commissioner Lynch just made that motion for us to uh recess as the regional rail authority and convene as the county ditch authority and Anderson has second that motion. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. I. Those opposed? Motion passes. Item 6.1, continuation of a February 4th redetermination of benefits public hearing for county ditch 23. John, do you need an official name tag? I do not. Good morning. Sorry, Mr. Chair. Yeah. Yeah. Is it better off getting paid as a county attorney or John? Probably not. No. No. Good morning. It's raining out. We need ditches today. I think so. Probably don't have enough today, Mr. Chair. Didn't hear it this morning. The rain. The meer the All right, Mr. Cobb, are you the I can get us started, Mr. Chair, if that's okay. Uh, so again, I just like to say thank you to the board for inviting us down today for the continued hearing. My name is John Cole. I'm an attorney from Rinky Nunan in St. Cloud Minnesota and the board has engaged me specifically on their public drainage issues. Um so again, thank you Mr. Mets. I I won't be taking a portion of your salary today, but um I do appreciate you letting me sit here uh while we get through this hearing. Uh this is Mr. Chair and members of the board a continued hearing. As you know, uh we originally met in February and at that hearing uh there were many comments and concerns expressed by the public that were in attendance. Um, there were also some discoveries we made about some township ditches that were within the watershed area of ditch uh 2-3. Um, and based on all of that, the board uh chose to continue the hearing to today's date and gave some specific uh instruction to the viewers to re-examine certain portions of the watershed area of ditch 2-3 uh to give special consideration um and investigate uh some of the situation or the conditions related to the township ditches. Um and then also to look at certain specific properties um and land uses uh within the city of Waconia, the schools um and there was a specific land owner uh that was asked to be looked at as well uh based on the the certain flooding that occurs on that individual's property. And the viewers will get into the details of their examination of all of those things. Um, I will say though that uh part of their examination, the viewers did discover that there are actually four township ditches within the watershed area of ditch 2-3. Uh, they did inquire of the townships. The townships believe these are all active ditches. So, the townships believe that they are their infrastructure uh to take care of in terms of maintenance. Um, and the viewers also investigated at the county uh auditor's office and at the townships to see whether there were specific benefits roles uh for these drainage systems, the township ditches. Um, discovering none, uh, the viewers did go through a process of delineating the watershed areas of the township ditches. Um and from that delineation uh using uh with the assistance of the county developed a mailing list of all of the owners of properties within those areas so that we could give them a separate notice in addition to notice to the townships um that there would be an outlet charge consideration rather than a direct benefit um inclusion in 2-3. And we do that because we don't want to double assess people. If somebody's getting assessed on 2-3 and they're in 2-3, they're going to get an assessment. But if they're also in a township ditch, they might get assessed for the township ditch also. So what we do on outleting systems and the viewers will explain this is we identify the properties that utilize the system that outlets to the main system and utilizes the main system as an outlet for drainage and then they apply certain considerations to the development of a an outlet charge for that area. So the res end result is if the board were to adopt the current viewer's recommendation, when a dollar gets spent on on CD2-3, a portion of that dollar gets allocated to each of the four township ditches according to what percentage of total benefits each of those township ditches has um and what type of burden it places on the main system. In that regard, then we're not double assessing people both for um uh at the same level and same rate as we would um if so if they were included just on 2-3 and then supplementary on the on the township ditches, we just catch them once um and at a lesser rate. That is reflective of the burden that those outleting ditches place um on ditch 2-3. uh the viewers will uh will uh discuss that the board did close the public comment hearing in February. However, because of this new configuration of benefits, we were required to provide new notices. So, we gave the new notices out. So, uh today the board should open a public comment period. uh that public comment period can be limited to uh the outlet charge discussion uh rather than benefits because everyone that you know had an original benefit consideration had an opportunity at the prior hearing and of course Mr. Chair and members of the board the board always has the discretion to open up for greater public comment. Um, and I will note for the record also that at the last hearing, uh, Commissioner Fay, he recused himself because he does have property on ditch 2-3. Um, and I've offered the opinion that that is not a direct conflict of interest. He's under no legal obligation to recuse himself. Um, but he, um, is able to exercise his own, uh, discretion and, and decide how he wants to participate in the hearing today. Um, so I'm not calling him out, but I'm just highlighting that because um, that may become part of the discussion today as well. Thank you. Does the board have any questions of me before we No, you done? I am. Thank you. Felt like I was cutting you off. I thanks for the comment. Uh, open government and Commissioner Fay, you can decide what you want to do. Anybody got any discussion? Are we going to open it up here? I think we I believe you are required to I'm sorry, Mr. chair. Uh so today after you let me talk and I'll never stop. So thank you for cutting me off. Um I'll be followed by the uh we we have provided all of the notices. Uh the additional notices required for the hearing today. Um those went out I believe mid last week on the 14th. Um and again those went out to the owners of property affected by these outlet charges on the township ditches and then to the townships themselves. Um, we are going to hear the uh viewers report on re-examination today and then following the viewer's report on re-examination would be the appropriate time to take any public comment. Uh, we do have a draft of findings in an order um that I can review with the board today if the board chooses to take action today. Um if not, you could certainly continue this uh to a next regular meeting uh appropriate time on the board's agenda for the sole purpose of considering the uh findings a draft of findings in an order um in the matter and then I'll defer to whatever guidance the board gives me following the receipt of any public comment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Okay, the viewers. Good morning. Good morning. Can I use this to scroll? Yes. Here we are. Um my name is again for for you guys my name is Scott Henderson lead viewer on doing the reget termination of benefits here on CD23. So here were the the six things that uh during uh the original final hearing we were asked to to look at. We were asked to reexamine some the benefits portion in the watershed areas of sections 20 and 21 in Lake Township. uh the city of Wakonia stormwater storm water discharges including uh I think it's the Wakonia school district um a Mr. Nissan's property down on uh Carver Creek uh look at the time travel issues for remote areas of the watershed uh the possibility of a fifth land class uh with benefits could that be justified and then like Mr. Kovas said the township ditches. So, I'm just going to scroll through these um six points kind of one by one. So, re-examination of uh the benefits in Lake Township. Um we did look at those lands again and found uh them to be uh reasonable within their classes uh three and and four um with those similar lands within the entire wershed. for for us to do our job. We have to look at those lands similar lands similarly and and and assess them and and give them benefits. And so um for us those lands in those townships didn't trigger us to make any difference. If we would have made a difference there, we would have had to reexamine all those liked areas within the entire wershed and and make changes. At the end of the day, the percentages probably wouldn't have shifted very much because again, we're changing a lot of acres in that class three and class 4 area. And so the benefits might have changed, but then that percentage that people owe would have been so small. Um, as John tends to say, the juice wasn't worth squeeze for doing that work. But with those areas within Lake Township and sections 21 and and 20, but also including uh here you can see 17, 18, 19, 28, 29, 33, 32. All those areas do drain to Reach Lake and Reach Lake. Uh we did do a um lake attenuation on that lake. So, how much water is retained um during a 2-year, 5year, 10 year, 24-hour event? Um and we reduced the benefits to those lands draining to Reach Lake by 6.3%. For the city of Wakonia discharges, including the school, um spoke with uh city of Wakonia staff. They gave us quite a bit of information on the discharges and and where their storm sewer inlets, outlets, um pipes are are all located at. Um the city of OKone is already included within the benefited area. Um and that's based on urban benefits, urban drainage and aggricultural benefits because there are some um a acres within the city of Wakonia's limits. um schools included in that benefited area since the school since the city is all included in that area and have benefits uh there was nothing extra for us to to look at. I would say probably um originally since we're still working with the original benefits which was about 800 acres this area wouldn't have been in is not currently in the benefited area of the ditch system. But now uh with that benefited area expanding as much as it is um a lot of that I think in the entire city is now included within the benefited area. Uh they will be paying a close to a 10% 9.37% um benefit assessment. Uh so again for every dollar spent um 9 cents is coming from from the city. So there was no need for us to change anything or or increase their benefits within our process. They were already captured and and looked at and benefited. Uh Mr. Niss's property um when he spoke he said it has about 20 acres that are flooded. Um when we looked at it, the viewers designated uh over 24 acres as non-benefited to take into account those acres um that have not been and and kind of continue to to not be altered from a presettlement condition. The map shows it as that hatched area all those areas that are um nonbenefited. And you can kind of even see through the um through this aerial image and and and the area. Uh the pink would be the the residential classification and and the rest of that blue is that class 4 um class 4 classification. So um even the area along Carver Creek um is nonbenefited and those lands kind of adjacent to that creek, there's just there's no farming that takes place there and and no burden placed on the ditch system. So therefore, no changes were made to the property time uh time of travel issue for remote areas of the wershed and the and the fifth land class benefits. So I apologize. I misspoke. Um back in February, I said that we looked at this area and used a 24-hour time frame. We actually used a 28 hour time frame. And so what you can see in that little box there is that water would get to that ditch all within 33 um hours, but we we capped it at at 28. Um anything over that additional five hours kind of really doesn't place that big of a burden. And so really what you would see there is the oh we'll call it the magenta and pink areas of the wershed. um yeah sure that water gets there but uh it's really not placing a large burden on so so we felt it wasn't appropriate to have them included um would it be appropriate to add them in a fifth class we also thought no because that that burden of time that that ditch is getting inundated really isn't there um so for us it it as a as a group of viewers we looked at it and said it it didn't seem to make sense to to start to add that in um where this entire watershed would be benefited because that burden just isn't there. Um so we kept it as is the the the class 4 lands reach out um and not just in the 24 to 28 hours but even less than 24 hours would have that that class 4 designation. And again, these these principles are are supported in the Minnesota Drainage Guide Handbook. And so nothing that we've done here is is kind of outside of the norm. But each ditch system, especially a ditch system with such a large watershed, um we do take into consideration different uh travel time instances where we're currently working on a system in Wadina County uh that is probably a 40,000 42,000 acre whed. Um for our time travel, we used 10 hours and anything after 10 hours became non benefited just because there just wasn't that burden placed on the ditch system there. So each dish each ditch system is a little different. Um but but for this one we felt that that 28 and less was was the way to go. Township ditches was probably the biggest thing that that we had to to look at. Um both Benton and Waconia townships have authority over their drainage systems and are active. Um there is a benefits role not necessarily housed with the the county. The county did not have that information. Um but we determined and assigned benefits for the township ditch systems. And so um even though the township ditches do not have a direct connection to the ditch, the waterersheds have been improved for drainage and place a burden on that county system. So we removed individual property benefit in those areas. Um you can kind of see the outline of the map. Um Wonia ditch one is that yellowish to the very north. Um there is no benefit there. Um they're outside of of really that timing issue and they drain north through some lakes and then outlet into Lake Waconia. Waconia 45 is that area in purple. Um that's right kind of where the school is at um and and part of the city of Wakonia. So those land owners that are originally benefited in 23, we removed them but placed that benefit amount within the systems of within that township system of Waconia 4 and five. Uh Benton Township one and two are those lower areas down there. They both drain into well what would be Carver Creek that then outlets and uses CD23 as its outlet. So you can see there respectively that those those systems are carrying a little bit of benefit. That's our um that's how we handled the questions that were uh brought forth during the public hearing. So that brings us kind of back to to our recommendation. Uh here is the the land class map for the area. Current benefits is 800 acres. Um we see that the the total wershed is just over 40,000 acres. but place benefits within 16,675 acres. Current benefits at $15,85. Our proposed benefits are a little under 14 million. Here's the the breakdown of the um subwaterershed adjustment factors. If you recall from the February, we kind of score the ditch um in how much the the water can handle during a we'll say a modernday drainage of one inch per day removing that water off of the landscape. Um the main ditch area, um nothing's at 100% optimum. Um the the main ditch is probably what we would consider a B score. So we reduced everyone's benefits by 12 and a half% there. And conversely then up in the upper wersheds, those were reduced. There is a a small branch, branch four, um that is um really undersized for that little area. So that one got enough, but that's for the most part. I think it's a a decent drainage system based on modern drainage standards. And then here's the final breakdown of the different uh classifications of land um within the system. Again, total acres, total amount, damages, there's 36.47 acres of buffer that needs to be paid on the system. Uh our recommendation is the damages would be 30 just over $36,000. You can see there the the prime acres. So that would be tillable land that was taken out of production for that buffer was $6,500 an acre. That's the recommendation. And and after going through the the final hearing and the continue file hearing, that's the that's our recommendation. Sorry for the fonts. It was when I saved it to a PDF, it happens. Yeah. Monkey with the fonts. Any questions of the viewers? Okay. So, should we ask the public if they want to comment? Be appropriate to open the public comment period at this time, Mr. Chair. And again, the board has the discretion to just limit the comments to um the items that were reviewed during the re-examination. Okay. I make the motion to open a public comment. Mr. Chair, I got a motion and a second to open the public comment period. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed. Motion passes. Here we are. The people who actually own these ditches. Right. Comment. I'd like to make a comment. I I totally disagree with this whole thing. to begin with. The people that got that ditch going through the property are the ones that suffer. They the you know my farm is underwater you know number acres every year. That water that goes through my farm comes from three cities, four lakes, and they estimate in town one inch of rain per acre in residential property run 6,000 gallons run off. And agricultural property only 2,000 gallons run off. And for my neighbors, part of their water runs across my farm. I get water on the north side of 110th Street. I get the water. There's two big farms behind us. Me and the two neighbors get all the water from them. 320 acres. They do not hold any water. Them are the ones that are benefited. Now, the spring is dry as it was. I had about six acres underwater. I'll bet you right now after last night, I bet you I got at least 10. The neighbor next to me was unable to plant this whole field because it had ditch. And yet we got the highest assessment because we got the ditch in our property. Whoever set that up is wrong because them are the ones that suffer. We pay taxes on that land and we can't use it. It's no good to us. So why do we have the highest assessment? It's people like behind me and across the road from me. Them are the ones that benefit from that ditch, not not the ones that got, you know, most of us that got that ditch going through us, you know. And the other question I have is, are we paying because we got a private ditch, they ain't going to do nothing. Are we paying to help clean out all them other ditches? You know, and as far as literature, everybody gets all this stuff. At the last meeting, I was told I was going to get that. I never get nothing. There was a card sent out now. I never got that. I don't get no information. They keep telling me I'm going to get it, but I don't get nothing. I have no, you know, it's I've been living here for 57 years, paying taxes 57 years. And I heard again the other day, well, you're not original resident of Carver County. You can't expect the same thing we get. How many years do you have to live here? After being here 57 years, I should be considered a resident of Harvard County. I think I agree. Sir, will you uh remind us your name and your address? Pardon? Could you remind us of your name and your address? I give it to him the last time. Well, I I want to hear it though and the tape recorder wants to hear it. Okay. Tell them your name, Joe, and your address right now. You want it? Yeah. It's Joseph Nan, 11255 at 110 Street, Cologne 55322. Thank you, sir. Do we have a response to that? I can hear the rain on my window back here. Yeah, I can. Mr. Nissance was the property that we actually, you know, re-examined and and looked at and uh I mean I understand that the the flooding that's occurring um on his property. um he has benefited as as the the lowest benefit, you know, that class 4 is is putting a putting a burden on the ditch and and I mean we understand that that he's flooded um and and we took into account those areas that are that would be flooded and be non-bened. So So you've taken it into account. we have and if we're removing him or removing a lot of folks, you know, like it but his land drains and and drains to the creek and and puts a burden on it that that goes to 23 then I can we can pull it up on a map if it if it's better, but it's um Mike, you might know where it's at a little bit easier. Um Scott, did Joe get an information mailing about this or email or how did we contact him about the change or the review? Um I didn't have any phone numbers to call folks. So I didn't Mr. Chair and Commissioner Lynch. Um so Mr. Fzen would would have uh received the original notification for our public hearing in February. Um then there was uh additional um um mailing that went out, but those would have been just the property owners that were within the township ditches. That's the ones that got the additional mailing. So um that was a that was a limited number of people and I don't believe Joe would have been included in that. So he wouldn't have gotten anything more than um for this meeting anything specific. That was just for that group of um ditch owners that were in those four township ditches. Can you zoom out a little bit? Scott, would you like me to comment while you're pulling stuff up? Um, so, Mr. Chair, members of the board, the the property that Joan E has is several miles upstream on Carver Creek, um, upstream of our county ditch system. So, County ditch 23 is a few miles downstream of this. Um, I think he may be confused that the maintenance and the activity occurring on his ditch, which is actually Carver Creek, I think years ago some of the private land owners cleaned out and straightened that part of Carver Creek, but this area right here is not part of our county ditch 23 public system. It's actually part of Carver Creek. Um, so what Mr. Henderson is saying is the water eventually gets to County Ditch 23. is assessed at that class 4 level. Um, but we as a ditch authority are not actively managing this part of the of the of the stream right here. It's not part of our public ditch system. Just to make everybody clear of that. And so here's here's his property and and and like we showed, you know, this area is kind of non-benefiting and up in here where it's kind of wet is is is nonbenefiting. You can tell it's been it's been straightened. So, it's private. Comes down, curls around, comes back, and then the county ditch actually starts right here. So, there is natural waterway that flows, you know, I think 23 is Carver Creek. It's one in the same at that one location where legally the the ditch began or Yeah. began right there. And uh Mr. Fishman's correct. He wouldn't have received a an extra notice. He would have received a a landowner's packet. Um but nothing nothing about like the township ditches that we sent extra for today. So he's a long way from this. Yeah. Couple miles. couple miles. Yes. Um, can you go back to the presentation? He would probably were roughly. Sir, are you section three of Benton? So he'd benefit at the number four fourth class classification. Yep. And he's he's roughly right here. So he's not wrong. He is getting he that Carver Creek is taking a lot of water from um from like the Benton Township um ditch one um and and this area. But his his water is then getting to the to the ditch right here. Is the water going quickly? No, because Cologne, you know, city of Cologne is using county ditch uh two and using that and and Carver Creek comes in right where that county ditch comes in also. So there I mean there's there's a lot of water in that area but through our process you know the the area that's not being farmed or being used for agricultural property is being non-benefited. The rest of it though that that has been farmed and continues to be farmed and you can look at it through aerial imagery um it is carrying a benefit because that water you know that land is being able to to be farmed and and uh taken out of presettlement condition and and be used for something. So that's that's a good that that's our that that is our process to look and say yep the land has been sllicked up or or moved from a presettlement condition and and agricultural properties agricultural practices continue to get taken place on that property. So it would be a benefited property. So if a person had six to 10 acres that was flooding uh today is that when they tile it or so specifically to his flooding issue what is Joe asking for? He's saying I have less property. I should be paying less on the ditch because I can't use my land more of my land. And that's a disagreement with you. Correct. Um I mean we're not saying that he's using less than his land. He's using the land that we are benefiting. That's that's all he hasn't taken he hasn't taken more land out of agricultural p practices and put it into a program or let it go back to presettlement conditions. Therefore, that acre is is benefiting from that ditch. Even the acres that are wet. Well, the acres that are wet that this would be non, you know, nonbenefited up in here. This area that looks like it drains to like a wet area is non benefited. Everything else seems to be cropped, at least in this aerial. Maybe there's a small spot here, but going back, you know, we're talking as best as we can look at aerial imageries and continue to see that all this area is is cultivated. So, for us, that's a benefit. Mr. Chair, can I just point out that on on the screen um Joe had indicated he thought about 20 acres flood and uh according to the viewers, they're actually designated at 24.15 acres are flooding. So, that's they're actually above what you know, Joe's ballpark number was. So, it seems like they're in agreement on on how much of the acres are flooding on his property. Okay. Okay. Anybody else? Mr. Kling Hutz, good to see you. Oh, good to see you, Mr. Chair and commissioners. Mike Clung Hutz, uh, farms at 7940 Airport Road. another farm um on Highway 10 by the the school that my family owns and that was part of the the redistribution of township tile stuff. Um I have a couple of photos here of uh I'm not sure you guys understand how big the the municipal outlets are and how they relate to the water coming down the ditch. So I would like to share these with And I think you emailed these to us earlier. This is a photo at the from the school. This is a photo of some of the damage we cut in. Yep. Anyways, the entire watershed is 40,533 acres and only 16,674 acres of it are being assessed. That's 41%. Um, the study says 4,360 acres are urban residential. The cities of Wakonia and uh Cologne, most of that's Wakonia. um that's 26% of the uh acres being assessed. He put the slide up there that said that Wakonia is only paying 9% of of the total assessment. And I'm wondering why the eggland um is being charged so much more than the urban residential, especially when there's outlets like up to I guess between 18 and or between 10 and 20 outlets of that size coming from the city of Bonia into the ditch and and draining into the established drainage system. I was wondering if Scott could answer that. Why? Why the urban a the urban residential acre uh is charged so much less than an agricultural acre. Keeping in mind the giant municipal outlets. Um so we don't look at um we don't look at the size of outlets or or rates when we're looking at an urban area. an urban area for us is is just one of the the many different classifications of land. Egg land for us is is the reason why ditches were even created in the first place in the state of Minnesota and established was to was to drain the lands and make them more I don't want to say profitable make them more productive uh agriculturally and so that is the justification for doing uh benefits the land is benefited because of um able to take it out of a presettlement condition and and put it into um a productive landscape shape that uh every year can go in and and and be farmed. Um you know um a house doesn't really isn't there to to to make money or turn profit or or produce anything uh much like the agricultural land is that uh is truly benefiting from from the ditch system. So that's that's our basis for for doing this not only in 23 but uh in in every ditch system that we look at that has a little urban drainage to it. But is aren't aren't Mr. Nissan and Mr. Glinguts kind of saying the same thing? The impervious surfaces of these smaller maybe urban areas are adding a significant amount of water to the system. So you're saying maybe we don't there there isn't a way to they're not Well, I mean Well, I I Mr. Chair, I know where what you're getting at. Um I would also say though that the city of of Waconia um has a very robust storm water management plan part of the one wershed one plan there are um any new development uh I think even the school has uh holding ponds to help control that flow um on agricultural land it's they don't have that as that type of control structure it's mostly pipes that water drains through and goes right to the ditch system. So, um, we again, you know, the the the city putting in if if we really wanted to get down to it and and and do more studies and and all that, we can, but is the where where's that end? You know, then then are we going to go to a farmer that has a pumping system and and regulate that? Now, the the drainage authority could regulate the the flow of water through, but that's not for us to determine. We determine just the the straight benefits of of water coming off that land. Well, in Shannon, I pay a storm water fee, right? And I'm sure city of Rooney also has a storm water fee, I'm assuming. I have a couple more questions. Uh the study says that they hired Houston in Oh, study says they hired Houston engineering to do a 3 meter by 3 meter study of the watershed. Um did they identify all the municipal outlets that are feeding water into an established downstream ditch system? Scott, did you identify all those municipal outlets? How many there are? Yeah. Um how many? I mean, I don't know off the top of my head how many the question outlets there are into the ditch system, but again for us we we looked at that urbanized area both in in Cologne and and Wonia and and assess them a benefit that we feel is is adequate. Great. Well, that's surprising that they don't know how many outlets there urban municipal outlets are there are. Um, I went looking yesterday. I drove on Highway uh 10 and I spied four within 10 minutes. And if you drive by the Faulk property that's being developed now, uh the first thing they do is they're putting in the storm water uh system so that they don't have to deal with the storm water uh when they're grading the rest of the system. And that that fog property 300 acres is going to have outlets right into the ditch also right into the established drainage system. Anyways, I I'm just trying to make the point that I don't think that the um urban rate is fair compared to the agricultural rate. um the the cities are required to deal with the first inch of water, but then once you get once you get in a rainy season or a storm like we're having today, uh there's those huge outlets that flush a ton of water down the ditch system and and flood Mr. Tiss's land. And like on my farm, I have a 6-in tile outlet and that thing is 48 in and per acre, I'm paying way more than the urban area. Um, moving on to specifically to my farm, the board asked him to look at the retention time of uh the wetlands in section 21 and 22. He said, "We didn't do it because then we'd have to do it for everybody else in the in the watershed." I mean, that's what that's what I gathered from what he wrote up there. And I got involved in this because um our family owns a farm in Wakonia Township and I own you know I have one in Lake Town and um I got the the assessment notices for both of them. And the one in Wakonia Township um if it wasn't for tile it wouldn't be a farm. It would all be swamp. And that assessment is uh approximately a third per acre of what my assessment is in Lake Township, which which drains into a wet land and the water disappears. So, I'm just looking for this to be fair. I'm not uh and and equitable. I'm I'm I'm not trying to escape my responsibility. In fact, I told Scott that uh if if he would change my uh home farm designation to the lowest quality of agricultural land, I' I'd be fine with that. So, I'm not trying to escape an assessment. I acknowledge that there is some water that runs off my farm, but um when you compare it to the municipal areas, the municipal outlets in the urban, it's it's it's not a fair assessment. So now I got some uh questions for the attorney. How long have the redeter How long have the redetermination of benefit laws that allow a ditch authority to collect fees for municipal outlets that are downstream of an on an established drainage system been on the books? Mr. Cole, Mr. Chair, uh Mr. Cling Hudson, your your question kind of combines a few different things. So redetermination of benefits is something that's always been an option for drainage authorities. Um I can say with confidence since at least 1947 and likely uh it there are sections of the drainage code that predate that that um reflect that process for redetermining benefits or reallocating benefits on a drainage system. Um municipal outlet and other uh types of proceedings I think were added after 1947. Um, and so I I guess that that answers your question. They've been on the books for a long time. Um, but each of those various statutory provisions are used in different contexts depending on the circumstances. And in the instance where we're doing a redetermination of benefits, um, we are we are looking at uh current conditions uh versus like a pre- ditch a pre a no ditch uh situation. And often times in a redetermination of benefits, we collect up um past use of the drainage system that was not uh was not brought in according to other proceedings. Um so this becomes then a reset of the entire ditch system. Thank you. Again, another question for him. Um do you think there's an obligation by a public body to use available state statutes that are uh basically tools to that you know they provide tools and opportunities to effectively manage and finance the operation of of the ditch? I mean you said these have been available since 1947. It's it's 2025. It seems to me like if you'd if the ditch authority had been collecting municipal outlet fees uh over the years, we wouldn't be here. We we would have had enough money to pay for the buffers for the the ditch system. So, Mr. is there a obligation by a public body to use the tools that are available to them? Uh Mr. Chair, first I think there's an implication that the only reason we're doing the redetermination of benefits is to pay uh for uh buffers and that is not correct. Um this board made a determination and it's reflected in the actual change in acreage uh benefited acres that are being recommended by the viewers that the benefited areas have changed. Um so I I think we got to clarify that that that um that implication of that comment. Um my I'm going to offer a single opinion. My opinion is that government just like citizens should follow the law. Um and that is exactly what the board's doing here. Um there is there is no uh requirement to go back and and and uh correct uh past mistakes. If you've made a mistake, you don't have to continue to make it. Um and so I think the board has taken an appropriate action to move forward to um basically reset this drainage system and account for all of the burdens that are being placed on it by the various uses including private property uh use and uh municipal use as outlets for municipal storm water and other other uh other public uses. Okay. I'm I'm I'm sorry to belleaguer you, but I got a couple more. If I appeal this uh is is the only option to appeal uh my assessment or can I appeal the whole the whole uh study? Mr. Cole, Mr. Chair, the Mr. Clingal Hutz, there are provisions in the drainage code that will answer that question for you. So, you can look at those provisions 103E.091 specifically, and it will explain to you what your options would be if you're dissatisfied with the outcome of these proceedings. I haven't had a chance to look at it. You're not going to answer. I don't work for you. I'm not going to give you an opinion. I gave you I gave you the statutory site so you can look it up yourself. Thank you for that. Did you catch that statuto number? No. 91. It's recorded. 103e.091. Okay. The next question was also related to that. Who who's responsible for the court cost? The Mr. Chair, the cost of appeal are paid by the appellants and regardless the costs of this drainage authority are paid for by the entire ditch system. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Mike. And Colleen, I'll be brief. Colleen Kling Hutz, uh, spouse of Mike, same properties. Uh, the point was made by Scott, traditional drainage was to benefit eggland. I don't argue that traditionally. Now, however, all of this drainage stuff really benefits the urban residential. You don't see people's backyards ponding. You don't see people's backyards having little wetlands and things. they've got bigger uh water retention ponds that as Mike pointed out once they collect an inch of water then they get to just spew it. So I agree. I don't think the determination of benefits and the assessments to private agricultural compares at all to what the cities and municipalities are being assessed at. Steve Rodermucker, Ditch 2, Benton Township, 11970 Market Avenue, Cologne. I own land there, 107 acres. And just like Clingal Hut said in Nissan said, Nissan and me especially, and I don't can't vouch for Clingal Huts, but probably the same issue is we're going to get three inches of rain. I was at two and a half when I left home today. Wow. Two days after it quits raining, my pee ground's going to have 6 to 8 inches of water in it. It backs up after the fact, whether it comes from clone, whether it comes from Waconia, whether it comes from the school that he's talking about. The the ditch system can only handle so much water, especially that we're dumping more in. Besides, we're going to add another 3484 homes on Little Avenue in the next 5 years, six years. I don't know that the actual figure there, but it's in the works. So, all this water easily runs to the ditch. The outlet can't take it. So, it backs up into Niss's, Klingo Huts, mine. And that's where a lot of our problem is coming from. And the other thing is you have some farmers putting in 12-in drainage tile, which their land drains out a lot faster. Us guys with the low land, you can't put a a bigger tile in or even a tile because we don't have the capacity in the ditch for the water to go down low enough to get out. Where you talk 45, 50 years ago, we did not have this issue. me, Joe Niss. That's one of the things that Joe Niss was talking about last time and this time 40 and 50 years ago, this land that's underwater today, whether there's benefits or not, we still losing property that we paid for. So, with these with what's happening, there's that much more water that's backing up after the rain is substantially over. Within two to three days, you'll have water back and uh you can come out and you can actually take a look at that. That's one of the things I think Joel was talking about last time when he got up here. So that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Yep. This is going to be okay. So I'm Sue Loey 1250 Highway 5 Cologne, Minnesota. You may know my place. If you go down Highway 5 after a 2 to three inch rain, you'll see Lake Loey. That's my low land. Okay. The only reason I'm here is first to say this has got to be a hell of a hard job for you guys and I appreciate your work. Now, after I say that, I got to find my spot here. There it is. If it wasn't for these ditches, okay, and that have been draining farm family farmland for over a hundred years, okay, in many cases anyway, at least a hundred years. I think Wagner's in back of me. I think that was 150. Okay. The development schools, hospitals, and and the consumer spaces would have no way to get water drainage from their property, which means you would be losing um if they can't build on it, they ain't going to, which means you'd be losing businesses, which would be tax dollars. Okay? But the egg ditches now are doing such so much more because they're also draining those businesses and the school and the hospital and they're also trying to drain off their land. Okay? When they're draining off their land, they are usually I bet you it's got to be at least 75% of the time we are the last the farmlands are the last ones to get drained. Correct. Correct. That's what I Exactly. Exactly. Yep. Okay. So, what I'm saying here is there's got to be some way to benefit the farmers under those circumstances. For well, for one thing, what the hell are you going to eat when they're gone? Okay. So, I'm just talking about doing something about the benefits of these farmlands that are no longer first in line to get their land drained off so they can get farming. Okay. Okay. So, what else do they One more thing. One more thing. No, not one more thing. I got it all. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else? Complicated stuff. All right. Seeing nobody else, do we want to have a motion to close the public? So move, Mr. Chair. portion. Second. A motion by Lynch and a second by Anderson to close the public comment period. Seeing no discussion, all those in favor say I. I. Those opposed. Motion passes. Back to the board. Mr. Chair, if I could. Um Mr. Henderson, um I heard um section 21 was not reduced. I've heard you say that was reduced by over 6%. The benefits were not reduced per the land. Yes. But it was reduced because of the drainage into Reets Lake and the attinuation that that Re Lake Reits Lake gives that that small whed. Okay. I wanted to make sure I thought you had we had a lot of wonderful comments. I thought that uh you had wonderful comments that Mr. Niss's here and Mr. Mr. Rodmacher, they both said the same thing that water comes in at a a high rate and you said that it does because um there's more much more Mr. Rodermacker said 50 years ago there's much more land that's tiled now so it's going to come higher. It's going to take the uh the first inch as much as possible. I heard about the city of Wakonia. Uh the city of Wakonia has a very robust water management plan. I'm even not if you're aware of this, but they try to capture as much as uh water as they possibly can. I know that the old water tower is used to capture water and then they use it for a watering system. How much they can grab? Mr. Rodermarker said we had over three inches. I'm sure they can't grab that much. But uh the other good point that you had is that they have a water management system where they try to grab the first inch whereas agricultural just tries to get rid of it. The other ironic thing is I was talking to a gentleman from Wyoming and we were talking about water and I always have my comment about Mark Twain said that whisies for drinking waters are fighting over out there they try to capture as much as the water as they possibly can and I had a hard time explaining to him that here we try to get rid of the water as fast as we possibly can and he and the whiskey and he couldn't uh he couldn't fathom that. Uh but I my comments are I'm glad we looked at this in February. uh we didn't have it accurate as possibly can. Um we want to be as accurate as we possibly can. So we took a look at it. Um and the public was right. We found other different things. We found u uh township drainage had drained into this. So then it changed up a little bit. We reduced some by 6% because of the 28 hour travel time. Um is this uh perfect? And um I love the comment by by Sue. I love the guys you do. It's a hard job, but I love that. That was wonderful comments. Um, with that th those are my comments. I uh I'm glad we did a wonderful job. I think uh it's Are we going to keep everyone happy with this? No. No, we're not. But did we look and try to make it as accurate as possibly can? I think we personally I believe we did. But that's my comment, sir. Anybody else? I think it's hard for for us sitting up here to imagine how we might change what what you've done. And I know I know the brain of Mr. Klingo Huts well enough to know he's got got some good angles. Um he may may need to research the litigation part of it, but it would be very hard for this board to say, "Okay, well, we're going to we're going to just tweak because we know better than these guys." Um, so we're we are we're in a tough situation. We surely want fairness. Um, I wish I was paying attention back when Chan Hassen was developing and what was going on cuz we had those these problems as everything moved. We're already out to is it Sue? We're already out to Sue's house out there um in my lifetime. and and so it's hard to it's hard to imagine how Commissioner Anderson could make a motion that make everybody right happy in the room. So we kind of have to go by our experts. Well kind of we sort of have to um and for lack of a another option I don't know what we do. Commissioner man, you got an option? Well, I think that we all have different customers, right? Like John said earlier, like you guys are our customers, so we have to look at this differently. And and I'm I always look for solutions or listen to solutions. I I heard I heard the problem from that I heard was and my grandpa was a farmer for a bunch of years in Iowa and that's probably my closest tie to farming. Um you drive down 212 and you see things have changed five all the things that are going on, the growth in Wakone, etc. Um the question that I don't have answered leaving today is if there's um an increase in non-benefited land, the least amount of cost is that assessment. The most amount of cost or the value to you lost is that acreage. And so if Joe comes in in two years and it's not just 20 acres, it's 30 acres. I don't I don't know what that solution is. Valid points and I'm the least close to it because I don't live in the rural community. you know, you get the rural city divide type stuff, but I'm listing like what is what is the solution? We heard the problem that that number of those unbenefited acres that you're not paying for is you don't get to enjoy those or use them. I don't know what the solution is. And so, uh, you guys, we we report to you guys. We work for you guys. John goes home, right? H2O goes home. But I don't know the answer to how do you solve what you guys have painted as potential injustice. I guess I don't know that answer. And so I I guess I lean on Tim and Tom and JP and they know this stuff way better than I do. If we're 90ome% of they're there as a community. Can we get a little bit further without without burdening the 96% that this works for? And I don't know that answer. So that's kind of where I'm at. I think we all agree that it's not perfect by any means and I hear you. But I I don't have the answer to if your land your usable land shrinks, it doesn't matter how much you're paying for assessment, whether you're paying for it or not, right? You lost land. So, and today's a good day to talk about it, I think, with three three inches because you're going to go home and you're going to look out your window and you're going to get pissed off like, but I don't know what the solution is. So, those are my thoughts. I think one of the excuse me, and sorry, Mr. Chair, if you don't want me to say anything, I don't have to. But I think one of the issues that that the land owners have brought up is that the ditch isn't handling their water. Doesn't really have to do much with the benefits, but the ditch isn't handling their water, and there's a lot of folks that are um using that ditch. We're going from a wershed of or a benefited area of 800 acres. So, when you think about how many people would be paying today for a repair on that system, it's minuscule to the amount of folks that are actually really using that ditch. And so, I think it gives the charge to Mike and David to to look at that system. is are is there ways uh in the farming landscape and the urban to to build in more storage. Again, that doesn't affect our necessarily our process, but I think they're bringing very good points that we hear and John have heard those kind of points all over the state. You know, it's there's a lot more water coming through the systems and the systems just weren't designed to handle that that flow. And so, you guys are in a hard spot. That was just my comments. Is there a motion? Mr. Chair, um just if I could just pull the board on a few questions and then I think uh I can can make a suggestion that might get us through today at least. Uh the first question is um is there anything you've heard today that would cause the board to want the viewers to go out and re-examine any more um than has already been done? I'm I'm seeing no real appetite for that. Um the second one is is and again you you raised this Mr. here. Um, you appoint the viewers. Uh, viewers have certain qualifications. They come back with a recommendation. Uh, you hear their recommendation. You hear the public comment. In this case, you sent them back out to do re uh some re-examination. They came back with their report on re-examination, explained to you how they approached uh the assignment given to them by you in that re-examination, and then gave you a revised recommendation. You do have the ability to alter the viewer's recommendation, but you're going to have to have some evidence that's going to cause you to do that. And and I think as you've pointed out, Mr. Chair, and maybe other board members feel the same way. You're not really sure what to do with the public comment and how you might modify the viewers's recommendation to account into the next question then is based on what you know and what we've talked about. Uh the requirements are for the viewers they have to look at every acre within the watershed of the drainage system. They have to um uh classify lands according basically to their situation in the landscape and uh various factors. And the viewers went through a presentation on all of the different considerations they give to individual lands um so that the board can have confidence that they've treated similarly used or similarly situated properties in a similar way. Um so knowing that that's kind of the charge that are given to the viewers and and knowing now um how the viewers went about doing that work and having received their reports and their uh their amended reports and the explanations of how they got there. Um would you be able to find would the board generally be able to find that the viewers reports have been made and other the proceedings have otherwise been completed in a manner consistent with the code? And if that's a yes um then we move to the next question which is do we believe that um again given the fact that we can't get it perfect do you believe that they are sufficiently correct um to uh be defensible should they be challenged and if that's a yes um then we go again to do you believe that they treated everyone fairly and that they they came up with a reasonable value for the various damages or benefits or the damages um have they've been allocated. And if you find that to be a yes, then we would go forward and adopt the viewers's recommendation and complete the redetermination of benefits. In this case, we have a lot of information that needs to be distilled into a set of findings. We want to be able to adequately address the comments that have been made in the public comment process and um and also uh document what the viewers did in their re-examination and how they approached that. Um so I don't think today we would be in a situation to adopt detailed findings in an order. Uh but I do think the board might be in a situation today to give guidance to staff to prepare that detail of findings in order with a specific outcome in mind. uh for the board's consideration at its next regular meeting at an appropriate time on the board's agenda. And so if that's the direction the board would want to go, um then Mr. Chair, you could entertain a motion to continue this hearing to a date, time, and location um articulated on the record. And again, our recommendation would be the next regular meeting of the board. Um and then we would recess, have this hearing for the sole purpose of considering a set of detailed findings um and an order um in whatever direction the board gives me to to write them. So we are going to have another meeting, right? Unless you want me on the fly to go through five pages of findings in an order today, which I think could be tedious and unpleasant for everyone in the room, I would recommend that you do continue. But again, it's for the sole purpose of giving me guidance, allowing me to develop a set of draft findings in an order, a detailed set of findings um for the board to consider um in advance and then to consider and adopt at uh whatever continuation meeting. I think the common thread of the speakers uh the land owners here today uh and the one point that they maybe have instilled in me um the insecurity in me is the math on the on the urban input suburban input to the system. And so if you could maybe help us to better understand um Mr. Rodmacher said, you know, 356 new homes, multiply that times three people. So there wasn't 1,500 people living there, but now there is. And now there's impervious surface and there's I mean it's so it it it certainly makes it a little difficult to understand how the flow of water I think I think I heard that that neighborhood isn't benefiting benefiting like egg. Um but the water has to go somewhere. So, I'm I think I don't know if I'm speaking for the board, but it seems to me that that that's a common thread of I'm butdding up against this suburban area that's that's expanding out and it's potentially changing the flow of water in these ditches. So, what is our math correct? Is is I'm not picking on the city of Wakonia. They do do a good job. um like what what is the city what's the city's what do we say there were 9% of it so if I could get a if I could be a little bit more confident in that math for the next meeting that would be my only concern anybody else I I would agree it it's I don't know if we need any more studies um I mean I'm I'm grateful that we did it we went back and and and did that. It gives me more confidence. Um, but I would agree it's it's it's the math. That's what's bothering me. And um, the fact that Joe Niss has 24 acres that he can't use and I don't know how to do, but they took that into account. Yeah. True. Okay. I think I think the visuals for Mr. Klingah sets a pretty big wide pipe. that wasn't there 20 years ago or 10 maybe. But so um well good job Mike but yeah that that's a little bit of an insecurity for me. So Commissioner P has been kind of quiet. Are you going to abstain today? I am. Okay. Anybody else? So do you want to refashion that motion for me? I certainly will give it a try, Mr. Chair, you say it, we'll approve it. Let Well, let let me make sure I understand what you're asking. Are you asking for the viewers to provide a more clear definition or explanation of how they calculate municipal drainage benefit again so that you understand the math or are you asking them to relook at that and consider adjusting the uh municipal benefit to the cities that are utilizing ditch 2-3 as an outlet? Sounds expensive. I I I I think maybe you just need to understand better how when we say 9% again, that's kind of how it fleshes out in the grand scheme of the total, but it might be better. It might be well suited to just have us include um for your consideration in advance of the findings um an explanation of how the viewers go about calculating uh municipal benefit. And I think that's probably something the viewers can put together pretty quickly. Sure. Okay. So, I think the motion then would be Well, let's ask this question. When is your next regular meeting? June. June 3rd. Okay. So, it would be a motion to continue the hearing to the board's regular meeting on June 3rd in this location um at 9:00 or thereafter at an appropriate time on the board's agenda and with direction to the viewers to provide um an explanation of how they calculate uh municipal benefits uh for your consideration along with the detailed findings in order. So, move second. Okay. to the Cobb motion. I have a motion by Lynch. It's now the Lynch motion. Uh and a second by Anderson. Any further discussion? Just one thing. I I'd imagine that offline Mike and his team and and it's probably not your job can kind of have the discussions of is it unders sized? Is there more, you know, is there a place that they can be retained? because from the solution side, what we're voting on today is not the solution of right of of what Joe and the other people in the room brought forth. So, I'm hoping that that's h being happen happening offline um to be like, okay, what do we do about that next next time he comes back and it's 30 acres. We still haven't solved it and it's not your issue. So, I'm hoping that those conversations with Mike and team are going on. Does 8 in pipe go 12 in? Is there a place for when we're doing a road, we can add more retention space? That's the solution side that I kind of want to hear. And so it's not tied to the vote, but I just wanted to make that statement. Yeah. Thank you. I appreciate that. Same. Okay. Other any other discussion? Only other discussion is you mentioned it, Mr. Chair, and it says related fiscal FTE comments. All ditch costs are paid by the benefiting land owners. So as far as we kicking this down the road further, it's going to be more expensive to the benefiting land owners. Correct. Correct. Correct. Well, aware and that can be said about anything we do at this table. True. Right. But we're My point is that we're not expending it to the uh our our budget. This is the benefiting land owners specifically. Right. Thank you for that. Okay. All those in favor of the motion say I. I. Those opposed motion passes four to nothing with Commissioner Fehee abstaining. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to recess as the county ditch authority and reconvene as the county board. Second. Okay. Got a motion by I know he's saying you he served you and a second by Anderson to recess as the county ditch authority and reconvene as the county board. Seeing no discussion, all those in favor say I. I. Those opposed. Motion passes. Mr. Hemsy. Yes, sir. I I'll be brief as we're breaking up it sounds like uh schedule issues. So t uh this coming Tuesday, May 27th, your strategic strategic planning meeting that will be with division directors at 9:00. We had it from 9 to 3. Uh both Dave Unmucked and I think we can finish that up by 1 maybe. We hope with a lunch. Uh maybe do you want to get out to Coney Island finally, Commissioner Anderson or others? I would like that. Uh maybe we could uh I'll try and line that up with the parks. I know they could maybe grab a pontoon and get you out there. Yeah, you definitely want to visit there. Why don't you bring your boat? You want to go fishing, too? Yeah. So, can I can I get paid for that? I didn't think of that. Probably. Uh yeah. So, n we sent out the agenda and I can tag that on. Are other commissioners interested in that? Sure. Sure. I know I know most of you have been there, right? But would be good to see it again. Looks like a nice day so far. If I looked ahead in the weather, uh yeah, so we have a document coming to you that the division director's help craft. I know you you drafted it. Division director's help with that and then uh Dave and I and RE are working with division directors to finalize that. So Thursday at noon, we'll get that in your hands for review and then we'll talk about that again next Tuesday. And then another uh meeting change here, at least I want to make sure we you're all okay with it. moving the September 16th meeting to September 23rd. That that was due to the uh DC flyin for commissioners Fahhe and Workman. Only only a few of you responded. So are we good with that change? Sure. So you can guess it is Christa. You can make that change. Now uh again just a reminder and I think you all know but know this but just to clarify. So, we set the schedule in January uh by statute that's required and if we're changing it then then we need to call it a special session Christa. So, it's like kind of the quirky things in law which uh we tend to forget because it just seems a little strange to call that a special one, but that's how we'll handle that. Very very similar to a regular session except for the fact we change it later during the year which we do once in a while. That's it, Mr. Chair. Well, um, if I could, you mentioned special session. How is the state legislature uh what do we know? Well, we met with uh our our uh lobbyist Tony Albbright this morning and Commissioner Workman and can jump in, but we don't know a lot more as compared to what we knew yesterday, the week before. Still, it doesn't look like real good news for us. So, we're uh we're talking about talked to Mr. Chair Workman again about how let's continue uh making sure others including our delegation in particular understand the potential negative implications of what may come out of the session because it really still is pointing toward cost shifts in particular in our health and human services area. So we're we're continuing to fight against that as an fundamentally unfair tactic and certainly we're not alone. you know, we hearing uh AMC, Mike, uh many of the metros, other counties. Uh so, but stay tuned. Uh we'll we'll uh uh hope for the best, prepare for the worst. That's sort of the motto right now and we'll we'll be back wi with you hopefully within the next few weeks. We'll get Tony in the room and Commissioner Workman, you have things to add to that. I don't I don't know who this is for you or for Commissioner Workman, but uh they're going to have a special session. When would that be? And then uh well, they want to have uh have it all worked out by tomorrow. I think tomorrow. And then go right into a special session maybe three days. And I don't believe any of that is going to happen. You say, "How long have they been in session? Then they're going to work it out in three days." Yeah. Was that a hypothetical or I think Tony said zero chance. Just the logistics of doing it that quickly. So maybe a bit of a show to say, well, we're going to get got to do this quickly. Uh he was right about the 100% chance on the special session as others were here. So, but stay tuned. It it's not over till it's over. And you know, it is a proverbial sausage making process. Hopefully, it tastes as good as sausage right at the end here. But uh boy, this is shaping up to be an sort of an unprecedented uh session to the negative side for us. And hope, you know, again, hopefully let's let's hope for the best. And I I think really, and Commissioner Workman knows this really well, things happen at the last minute, you know, and and by the way, the legislature doesn't subscribe to the same laws that you do in terms of open meetings and transparency. They are behind the scenes, which is part of the challenge, right? Yep. So, we're working full boore and we got Tony and others down there advocating for us. But I think the more you and others can get out the word of the potential impacts on our services, the better because it really uh really to me looks very concerning on on how we do business here and if nothing else the level of service that we provide and that that is concerning really extremely concerning. So, so again, stay tuned. Unfortunately, you know, reading through all this all the information I get. There's there's no information you can really pick up, you know, very I shouldn't say no, very little information because these bills just haven't been, you know, HHS, for example, it hasn't been addressed or talked about or there's been no information sent out other than the uh the budget agreement, which if you've seen it, it's a one-page document, right? And it's simply a road map and it has the big numbers. You know what what what what what are the what are the spending targets, right? Commissioner Workman, you give some 101 on this, too. Which is confusing to everybody's spending targets? What does that mean? Well, the devil's in the details as they get into now the conference committees and they have so they have a they're marching orders, but it really comes down to these committees that will be working on just about they're not all reductions by the way, but most of them are including the biggest concern for us, which is health and human services. You know, an example, um, 1999 when I became the chairman of the House Policy Transportation Committee, but I we had a lot of cash and, um, we secured 150 million, which sounds like not a lot of money today, to build out in Eden Prairie 494 from 212 to 100. So, there's 150 million there. By the time it was getting ready to spend that money near the end of my term in 01 02 um we were running the state was running out of money and Governor Ventura didn't want to raise taxes so he started looking for cash. So there was 150 million in cash for this road project and this is just one little sliver. So, um, even as a chair, I wasn't in the room, you know, Speaker Swiggum and the leadership are all in these meetings. And so, I had to follow, literally follow Speaker Swiggum around at 3 in the morning and remind him that we needed that 150, don't take my 15, it was mine, $150 million. Um, um, and set us back on that freeway again. And so, uh, it it worked. uh I got to keep it. But imagine now a thousand other little things that that and with such tight um tied up majority um anybody and everybody even our own legislators can switch the game. And so it's going to be not pretty. And uh I think Commissioner Rutderman's going to owe me a steak sandwich. And that's a great example, Mr. Chair, if I could about you said all the way from 212 all the way over to 100. And then later down the road when they redid 169 and 494, that intersection alone was like $2 billion, was it not? I don't remember the number, but it was all right. Any other comments? Seeing none, thank you. Uh, Administrator Hemsy, can I get a motion to adjurnn? So moved. Second. Got a motion byman, second by Anderson to adjurnn. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. I. Those opposed. Motion passes. Man, it's hard to beat man.