Good morning everybody. Hope the mic is working well. Uh um I'd like to convene the LCCMR uh for today, July 30th, uh Thursday at 9:01 a.m. And welcome everybody. Uh we have a long list today on our agenda. Um let's start with roll call. >> Alrech Albbright here. >> Alrech present. >> Present. >> Her hers here. Her present. Jordan. >> Jordan present. >> Jordan present. Bean. >> Beam in here. >> Bean present. Faber. >> Faber is excused. Ben Seth is excused. Gilman. >> Gilman present. >> Gilman present. Green here. >> Green present. Headstrom. >> Headstrom present. >> Headedstrom present. Heinesman. >> Heman present. >> Heinesman present. Langth >> Langth present. >> Langth present. Lily >> Lily present. >> Lily present. Mchuan >> present. >> Mchuan present. Moore is >> more present. >> More present. Putnham >> here. >> Putnham present. Scraba >> Scraba present. >> Scraba present. Westerm Westerrom Currently there are 14 members present. Okay, members we have quorum and uh uh you probably already heard um a new name is mentioned among our members uh uh m Mr. Tim uh Pinsep from Warren, Minnesota and was appointed by um uh Speaker Damoth um this week. And so um the name was called, but just in case those of you who are curious um our members, the new member is not here today, but uh uh he probably will join us next time in our meeting. So just FYI on that. Okay. Uh, next on our agenda is to approve the minutes uh for June 17th and 2930 and July 1st of 2026. >> Move the minutes. >> Okay. Uh, Chair Albright move. Um, no second. Right. >> Right. >> Okay. All right. All in favor say I. Or is it a roll call? >> Okay. All in favor say I. I. I. I. >> Okay. Motion prevail. Okay. Next is um uh report from members on potential conflict of interest. Any member uh want to note conflict of interest? >> Oh. Oh. On. >> All right. Um, member uh >> Hrom. >> Good morning everyone. Uh, conflict of interest is 2027-124 2027-193 2027-307 and then uh 2026 318 Okay. Any other members want to announce a conflict of interest? >> Um, Commissioner Lindseayth. >> Uh, thank you, Chair. Um, uh, if we're doing 2026, I'll say, uh, 2026 396. 396. Okay. Any other members? Okay. Uh let's jump to um uh next on the agenda and if members want to announce later for any conflict interest uh to the at large committee here do do so at later point. Um, next is item number four. Uh, this is a action agenda and a request to release an interest in real property acquired by uh and ENRTF funds. Um, and uh it's regarding RIM uh conservation reserve easement uh continuation and the board of water and soil resources. um like to calm. >> Okay. So, uh Miss Chauffeur, can you introduce uh our speaker, a presenter? >> Yes. Chair, members of the commission, I'm here to introduce agenda item four, which is a request to relinguish 4.6 acres of land from a conservation easement acquired with ENRTF funds in 1993. The conser conservation easement was originally acquired to protect 56.5 acres of repairarian land susceptible to flooding for soil and water quality and to enhance fish and wildlife habitat. The applicant is requesting 4.6 acres of land be removed from the conservation easement for construction of a replacement bridge and relocation of County Road 21 in Renville County. Minnesota statute 116P.15 identifies that any interest in real property or any portion of the interest in real property acquired with ENRF shall not be sold, transferred, pledged, or otherwise disposed of or further encumbered without obtaining the written approval of the Legislative Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources. The statute also provides that the commission shall notify the chairs and ranking minority members of the legislative committees and divisions with jurisdiction over the trust fund at least 15 business days before approval of the request. The process requirements per Minnesota statute 116P.15 have been met and included in your packet are the required 15-day notice letter that was sent to the chairs and ranking minority members of the House and Senate Environment and Finance Committees on July 9th, 2026 and the request letter from the Minnesota Board of Water and Solar Resources and Renville County Public Works. Minnesota statute 116P.10 10 requires repayment if assets acquired with ENTFs are sold. The repayment must equal the percentage of the project's total funding provided by the fund. In accordance with Bowser's conser conservation easement alteration policy, Bowser has calculated compensation for this 4.6 acre easement release at $44,41 to be paid by Renville County. If this request is approved, that 41 $44,41 would be returned to the ENRTF. Sharon Ducet, Bowser's easement section manager, is here today to answer any questions you may have. Also joining remotely is Jeremy Leblanc, Renville County's assistant county engineer, and Carly Swenson, Bowser's conservation easement specialist. Staff have a draft motion that can be shared when the commission is ready. Chair her and members of the commission, I will turn this request over back over to the chair to determine if you'd like to discuss, have questions for staff or have questions for Bowser and Renville County. >> Thank you. Thank you. U Miss Schaefer. So, uh uh Miss Duce, do you have a a presentation or uh it's just a Q&A? >> Thank you, Chair Her. Uh good morning uh commission. I don't because everything I was going to say Tiffany covered. >> Okay. So any question for Mr. Miss Duce? Um members here and those are online. Let's give a few second for those who's online to raise their hand. Uh yes uh chair Jordan. >> Thank you chair her. Um I'm not sure who is most um able to talk to answer this question. So I'll just you know throw it to the group but can you talk to me a little bit about you know 1994 was um a few years ago but um I'm wondering about why what the original intent of protecting this land was um and why it was included in an LCCMR package. And I'm also wondering if Renville County um is proposing a land swap for any of this land that they want to remove from protection. Miss Dath. >> Thank you, Member Jordan. Um, so I can cover a few of the things. Uh, so it is a 1994 easement. It was purchased with the future resources fund. Um, it was, uh, originally a perpetual repairarian easement. So the idea, we have many of these in Renville and Redwood County along the Minnesota River. Um, and it was basically to protect the repairarian flood plane area of the Minnesota River. Um the issue at hand now as you can see from the map is the Minnesota River is very close to the road. Um and the bridge is deficient. So Renville and Redwood counties because it is the county dividing line are working together on the bridge replacement. Um and Renville County is responsible for uh the replacement and moving of the county state aid highway as it approaches the bridge when they replace it. Uh, I think Renville County, uh, Jeremy might be more appropriate to answer questions related to the project. >> Um, thank you. Um, yes, the, uh, the project as itself is not proposing a land swap. Um it is Renville Countyy's intent to um maintain and keep the original rightaway um so that we may work uh in the future if necessary to uh stabilize the Minnesota River Bank from encroaching on the new highway as it's built. >> Any followup? Uh Chair Jordan? >> Uh not at this time, Mr. Chair, but I'm still mulling this over. I think if the for me I think that what I'm grappling with is the intent of this uh you know protection area was to protect flood plane area. It seems that that is not that we have not necessarily succeeded in you know establishing flood resilience with this project. I guess I do have some concerns about removing land to protect from flood and protect uh riparian habitat if you know we're not I I I am not sure about this. I think, you know, I understand the need to move the bridge, but it sounds like this easement area is also very important to the resilience of the Minnesota River in this area. So, um, I'll let other members ask questions. >> Um, member Lynch. >> Uh, thank you, Chair Her. Um yeah, I are there any plans um to try and enhance the wildlife along the ditches there or if there's any like wildlife corridors being I I would really like to see more um culverts created for wildlife to trans transverse roads. It seems like that might be an opportunity. Um just curious if there's anything in your plans currently. >> Um thank you u member Lince. uh that currently there is no plans for uh I guess additional plans for um wildlife uh travel and habitat. The road as itself currently sits uh very level to the existing uh terrain and the bridge will come up to um raise it above the flood plane uh to prevent overt topping. Um, so that will be a change uh locally at the bridge area, but we will be um returning to original grade as quickly as we can um because this area is a as you mentioned a flood prevalent area and um we we we're not raising the road in any capacity to prevent the flooding um that may happen in the future as we're not allowed to do that by MEDOT standards. >> Commissioner L said, any followup? Um, Commissioner Beman. >> Um, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so from the memo, it seems that there will be a cash return back to the to the trust fund for the value of the the limited acres, the 4 uh 6 acres. Is there any other requirement with Bowser under the rim program for additional wetland protection somewhere else or is there I know there's not a land swap but is there besides this small amount of money going back to the trust fund is there any other replacement or protection somewhere else that's tied to this change >> Mr. Uh, Leblanc or um, Miss Duce. >> Thank you, Chair Her. Um, there is not a requirement for replacement for public road projects and other public proposed projects uh, through Bowser. Um, I would say that the alteration policy that Bowser has was included in the packet. Um and one of the things that we typically see um and be and the way our alteration policy is written to address is this is um a relatively large easement release for a rightway road project for us. Um typically they are very small onetenth 2/10en of an acre. Um and so our policy has been that we don't think replacing those in uh on public land is of particular benefit. So we allow for uh municipalities and counties to uh repay at our current rate rather than doing a replacement. If this were a private land owner uh replacement is absolutely required. Any question from members? >> Going once, twice. Um, Chair Jordan, >> thank you. Um, and to to Bowser then I guess has another parcel of this size from that was protected using NRTF funding. Has another parcel equivalent to this size? You said most of the time it's like a fraction of an acre. Has any other parcel is there precedent for this? Have there been other parcels of this size that have been released without, you know, remediation for other parts of the land? Is this or is this like one of the larger projects that has been done? Is there anything else that has been done that's similar to this? >> Thank you, Chair. >> Um, member Jordan. Um, I might call on Carly for this one. She handles all of our alteration requests. Um, in my memory, this is uh one of the larger ones. Um, and uh I did a quick look this morning and we have approximately 200 easements that are funded by ENRTF over the the history of um Bowser and um the commission working together uh to secure land. And I don't think I've ever been here before with a request like this. Paulo >> Carly. >> Yes. Thanks. Um, Chair, uh, that, uh, that's correct. This is going to be the largest request to alter an easement, uh, for a public road project that Bowser has ever encountered. Um, as Sharon mentioned, they're typically fractions of an acre um, for right ofway widening. Uh but because of this the particular geographic layout of of the road in proximity to the Minnesota River uh there's really no reasonable alternative uh to not impact the conservation easement. Our policy does require avoidance if possible. Um and so just because of the geographic layout of this road um that leads to the larger impact to this easement. >> Okay. Uh, Commissioner Link. >> Um, thank you, Chair Her. Um, okay. Yeah. So, I see like it looks like you guys will be moving the road and bridge further east. Obviously, that's why you need um the the land. What would be the plans then for that western edge that will be bordering um the river? >> M. Seth. >> Thank you, Chair. I'll turn that one over to Jeremy. >> Yes, thank you for the question. Um the plan would be to um restore that to uh vegetation uh mosaic seed uh from Mindot uh area, but that would be a um a grass area um or for or I guess regular road ditch type or backsloping commission link. >> Okay, that's that's good to know. I think um um probably most of us here, you know, just besides a grass ditch or grass slope, um if there could be some actual riparian vegetation that's planted, um yes, >> that would be that would probably make us feel a lot better. >> If I may, yes, there there will be riparian uh seed as part of this project as well. So any uh any native wetland areas that uh have that already will will be receded and such. Okay. Um, Represent Heman. >> Thank you, Chair. Uh, just a comment. Uh, the needs of this community to make this adjustment seem very reasonable and I want to speak in support of it. I'm looking for in the discussion some kind of a concern that would justify a no vote and I can't find one. Uh it seems like this is a pretty important uh adjustment that needs to be made today. And I'm just going to put it on the record that I think that there should be a lot of no or excuse me a lot of yes votes for this. >> Thank you. Uh represent Heinsman. Uh Senator Westerm. >> Thanks, >> Mr. Chair. Just um can can you expand the discussion on the public road uh project? You've talked about the bridge, but talk about is it a private road uh just exclusive few people will get access to it or is it for the public? Uh how how does it impact your community? Um it sounds like it's a public road that we we'd all benefit from. So I think that's that's got to be taken into account. >> Okay, Mr. Lumlang. >> Yes. And thank you uh member Westerm. Um this is a um a joint project between Redwood County and Renville County. Uh this these are uh two county state aid highways with Redwood County uh state highway 17 and Renville County uh state highway 21. And this would connect those two roads together. This is a um a public road uh that is uh I guess it's a very rural road, but it's it's a well-used road uh through that area. >> Nice. >> And and to follow up, Mr. Chair um >> Westerm is >> this is this is there an existing bridge and this is moving it or or is this a new connection with the bridge too? >> Mr. Lebron. >> Yes, thank you. Uh the there is an existing bridge there. It is a historic bridge which we've gone through cultural uh review on and uh Redwood County is the owner of the particular bridge uh and is working to relocate that if necessary. But there is a bridge and an existing road in this location and uh we're just realigning it. that uh bridge in place was closed in 2020 or 2023, I'm sorry. Um for structural deficiency with uh the structure itself. >> So um the right now the bridge is closed and there is no passage. So this would reopen what's been a passageway uh for the community. And when you talk historic bridge, I mean, let's not be um I'm guessing it's kind of like the historic bridges we used to uh we we have in our area and some of them are pretty rickety and structural when you said it was structurally deficient in 23, so they had to close it. I can only imagine that's uh several bridges in in rural areas where I grew up um come to mind. And so I think advance improving the the structure and um many of those bridges are are narrower and and in some cases they don't even have much for rails. Um I don't know what this one exactly does, but I I think that's that seems like a very good reasonable reason to change this, but good to know you're reconnecting. But feel free to add any more comments about the bridge or or was it state-of-the-art before you closed it? Okay. Um, no, this was not a state-of-the-art bridge. It is a through truss bridge. Um, so historical significance in that sense is that it's it's cool bridge to look at. Um, but it is very narrow. It's a single lane bridge. Um, and uh when it was open, its max capacity was 15 tons of traveling. Um, so this uh new structure will um be a wider structure, a concrete uh bridge that will allow for heavier farm and uh emergency equipment across. >> One last question. Um >> bridge have have they looked at doing a con a large concrete culvert instead to make more of a permanent structure rather than a bridge that will will eventually in 50 or 100 years need to be replaced again. Uh I don't know how wide the river is there, but has that been looked at or is that something you would look at? Because um that's that's a that's a good direction that a lot of uh roads are going, especially um with culverts and equipment nowadays that wasn't available 50 or 100 years ago. And just wondering for a long-term investment if that's something being looked at, a large culvert to make it a more permanent structure. >> Mr. Leblanc. Uh >> uh yes, the um the the river at Minnesota River at this location is a very large river. Um the bridge itself will be um over 300 ft long and there would be no uh no cover large enough to put in that area. >> Sounds good. I appreciate that information. Thanks a lot. >> Okay. Represent. >> Thank you, Chair. Um more of a statement. um you know, listening to uh the counties and Bowser, you know, and we help fund Bowser. I trust their um regulatory. They're making sure this project fits their needs and the community needs. So again, I'm just I'm I'm trusting everyone that lives down there that this is something they need and and that the movement of the the ENR or money is what they need and what we need. So I'm all in favor of it. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other further comments? U Chair Jordan. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. And to Bowser, what is Bowser's position on this? Like are you supportive of this? Do you have no stance? Are you not supportive of this? What is Bowser's official position on this project? >> Miss Ducet. >> Thank you, Chair. Uh, Commissioner Jordan. Um, this is large for us. I will say that it is a large easement release. Uh but we are fully supportive of our local governments um and their need to provide safe passage for the community, safe roadways, um safe bridges. Uh so we work with them and uh we would be in we will support it after receiving permission from LCCMR. >> Followup chair. >> No, good question. And um I sense that you know this probably will get uh a majority yay. But uh let's say if they get the majority nay what what will be the the outcome uh miss or or even director um that >> thank you. >> Um if uh the commission chooses not to approve Bowser will also not approve. Um, we are required to have LCCMR's permission uh to do the release. Uh, so we will not approve the release. I will let Jeremy speak to what that means for the project if they don't get the uh release of the easement area. >> Uh, Mr. Leblanc. >> Thank you. Um, the, uh, currently the project is has a budget of or I should say an estimated cost of $5.5 million. Um, of that, um, 3.9 million is being funded, uh, with federal dollars and 1.3 million is being funded with state aid bridge dollars. And, um, that is time-sensitive, uh, funding, uh, should this easement not be, uh, granted as a release. Um, that would jeopardize that funding and most likely the project would not move forward. >> Okay. I still see uh Senator Westerrom's hand um on Zoom. Senator Westerm, do you have another question? >> Um Mr. Chair, I forgot to put it down, but um to to um just clarify what the last comment was. Um so so it the project would not move forward. the current bridge is closed because of structural deficiency and so there's just no connection in the local community across the Minnesota River um at this point. Is that is that correct? And basically um I'm familiar with other places where this happens and it gets to be quite a quite a ways around uh if you live locally to uh cross over the bridge. Is that is that kind of the correct scenario, >> Mr. Leblanc? Member Wester. Yes, that is a correct understanding. Um, this bridge is closed and it it is a a gap for the community as far as connection. Um, the resulting detour is 10 miles in length to cross the river. >> Okay. Any other members? Any comments? Um, if not, uh, I'll take um a member's motion to move this project. >> M. Mr. Chair. >> Yes. Come. Uh, I would move that we approve this. >> Okay. S Westm Serum uh move to approve the Bowser request. Should I have should I come? Yeah. Okay. U Michelle maybe you can read the whole statement better than I >> chair her commissioners. The motion would be um Commissioner Westerm moves to approve Bowser's request to relinguish 4.6 acres of land from the conservation easement acquired with enerative funds appropriated in ML1 1993 subdivision 3E under the terms provided in Bowser's July 7th 2026 written request and then if the commission does move to approve we would ask staff ask that further to direct staff to work with applicant to to implement the approval. >> Okay, any discussion on this motion? Okay, then we shall have roll call. >> Alrech. >> Albrech. Yes. >> Alrech. Yes. Her. >> Her. Yes. >> Her. Yes. Jordan. >> I. >> Jordan. Yes. Bean. >> Yes. Bean. Yes. Faber is excused. Finth is excused. Gilman. >> Yes. >> Gilman. Yes. Green. >> Yes. >> Green. Yes. Hadstrom. >> Hadstrom. Yes. >> Hadstrom. Yes. Heman. Hezman, yes. >> Heensman, yes. Langth, >> Langth, yes. >> Langth, yes. Lily, >> Lily, yes. >> Lily, yes. Mchuan, >> Mchuan, yes. >> Mchuan, yes. Moore, >> Moore, yes. >> Moore, yes. Putnham, >> yes. >> Putnham, yes. Scraba, >> yes. >> Scraba, yes. Westerrom, >> yes. >> Westerm, yes. Currently, there are 15. Yes. Zero no. >> Okay. Thank you. And motion prevail. Now we to a um item number five. This is an action agenda. I'll pass on to uh Mr. Verren to lead this agenda. >> Chair her, members of the commission, there are three work plans on the consent agenda ready for your consideration for approval. You have a spreadsheet in your packet with the ML 2026 work plans and conditions for July 30th, 2026. On lines 3 through five, you can see the three work plans. Reminder, the consent agenda includes work plans accepted by staff with reasonable changes from the original proposals that are deemed ready for your approval. Any member can pull a project off the consent agenda for further discussion. If you do this, depending on the question, you may want to pull the put the pulled work plan on the agenda for a subsequent meeting to allow the project manager to be present to discuss any concerns members may have. If you choose to approve work plans on lines 3 through five, we ask the motion to include approving the work plan subject to the notes and contingencies provided on the spreadsheet. Chair her and members of the commission. If you would like to discuss and when ready, staff have a draft motion that can be shared with the commission. >> Okay. Any question from members? Um, looks like Commissioner Moore uh has this hand up. Commissioner Moore. >> Yes. Thank you, Chair Herb. First, I I apologize. I had not read the agenda until uh just a few moments ago. I do have some conflicts of interest for 2026 that are noted on the website. I follow with a question to director Nash. Uh I don't remember exactly the rules of voting on situations like this. Do the members with conflicts of interest for 2026 not vote at all on this particular agenda item? >> Director Nash. >> Mr. Chair and members, I think you would just refrain from voting um if there's a conflict of interest present. So if there's not a conflict of interest on these specific work plans, I don't think you have a problem. >> Got it. Thank you. >> Okay. Any further discussion? >> Okay. Um Oh, Chair Jordan next to me. >> Mr. Chair, I was just going to make a motion to approve this, but it feels it seems that there's some online discussion. >> Okay. Senator Green. >> Not really discussion. I just was going to let you know that I can't for some reason get this up on my uh computer to look over it. So, I'm going to not vote on this and that's the reason why. >> Okay. So, Chair Jordan, your motion. >> Oh, >> Mr. Chair. >> Uh, yep. Um, represent Heisman. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, if I'm understanding the motion correctly, these items on the consent agenda, the work plans would all move forward. Is that correct, >> Mr. Baron? Chair her, member, that is correct. >> Okay, >> represent. >> Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. Mr. Chair, I I do have a couple of questions if that's okay. Is this the proper time for discussion? >> It is. Uh, Represent um Heisman. >> Okay. Um, as I'm going through the list that was provided for members online, um, I'm seeing I think one of the projects their fiscal agent is Friends of the Boundary Waters. Is that correct? Uh, Mr. Baron, >> chair her, member Heindman, that is correct. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair, for that clarification. If I could make a comment. Um, Representative Heisman, >> I just would like to continue to uh voice concern relative to the organizational structure of the Friends of the Boundary Waters. There was a lengthy discussion on that topic uh at the last meeting. So I don't think we need to have a long draw out uh discussion here again today. Um but if I am reading the proposal correctly, it appears that friends is acting friends of the boundary waters to be precise is acting as the fiscal agent for no cost to the uh adaptive wilderness within reach organization. Um am I understanding that correctly? Could that be confirmed, Mr. Chair. >> Yes. Let's confirm um by Mr. Vin. Go ahead. >> Chair her um member Heinsman. That is also correct. >> All right. Uh Mr. Chair, again I have another comment if that's okay. >> Uh go ahead, Represent Heisman. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, since our last meeting, it has uh come to my attention that not only were the issues raised rel relative to shared assets and space and so on with the uh additional operations that and activities that Friends of the Boundary Waters is engaged in. It's also uh come to my attention that they even share uh the same executive director with the wing that provides trips to kids that side of their activities as well as the anti-mining political side of that organization. Uh, I would encourage groups like Adaptive Wilderness Within Reach to find organizations that operate solely and have no crossover with political activist elements or groups. And it doesn't matter what the issue is. I think it would be wise to find a fiscal agent regardless of if it's at no cost or what have you. I would prefer that there was a fiscal agent that may, as most do, take a percentage for the work that's being done to provide that service to an organization. as opposed to an example such as the one before us today in which you have all of this question and all these issues that are being raised because of the political activities of an organization and uh I don't uh I don't think that I'd be that far out of line to also mention that uh there are many on this LCCMR board that receive donations, contributions to their campaigns from the friends of the Boundary Waters Pack. uh it becomes so convoluted and so gray that members like my fel myself feel compelled to point out the issues that that this particular organization friends of the boundary waters is associated with. And I would hate for that to muddy the water and bleed over into uh other organizations as they're trying to I think um engage in in uh providing opportunities that generally we can agree are great. uh if organizations can avoid that I think that would be far better for uh the outcomes and for the discussions and avoid any of those other kinds of conflict. So, while uh this will probably move forward today, I I would suggest a no vote to help groups recognize the conflict that they're creating by engaging with uh organizations that seem to not be uh separating their political activities very well from their uh proposals here at the LCCMR. So, I wanted that on the record today. I wanted to explain my no vote and uh I appreciate uh your discretion and opportunity that you've provided me, Mr. Chair, to make those comments. >> Thank you. Any the remarks from members? Um, Chair Jordan, you going Okay, you going to make a motion? Okay, Senator Green. >> Yeah, I guess we're going to let people know I did get it up and I'm reading through it. So, I will be voting no on this, too. Thanks. Um, as I recall last time I did um question whether there are other and and I think the question uh was uh put out by represent Heinesman and I reiterated that um whether there are other agency uh 51c4 or 527 or such and also have the nonprofit arm that requests money uh through the LCCMR and they are a handful of those organization as well. So uh we are not putting preference on uh the friends of boundary waters but there are our re recipient this year and I think that adapted woliness see see the friends of boundary water as a trusted um fiscal agent and comfortable to work with. And I do hear uh the voice of opposition well and is uh noted uh but I just want to state my point and give extra additional information. So um with that I want to pass to chair Jordan. Do you want to mo make a motion on this or are we ready for that or Okay, I see a another hands from chair um Senator Westerrom. Um Mr. Chair um to Michael um what is the process if this project wasn't to be part of the motion of consent uh to pull it off the consent? Is that a majority vote or uh what what's the process if this project maybe should have some more discussion? >> I think that would be a question to maybe like to have Mr. Baron explain or director Nash. >> I don't know. >> Yeah. Yeah. Chair Mr. V chair her um member Westerrom. Um it our understanding is that it it it's not necessary a vote. Um any member could ask to to have it pulled from the consent agenda for further discussion. >> And and Mr. Chair, um Mr. Varian, if if we pulled this one, we could still consent uh and pass the other two in a in a in a in a motion. Correct. >> Um Mr. Chair her um member Westerrom. Yes, you could um move to approve the other two and then come back to the the one that you pull off of there um for further discussion. And just for my own clarification, Sen West, are you talking about the adaptive wilderness project? Pull out that only or you talking about the whole motion? >> Um Mr. Chair, I I would I'm just trying to make sure I get the facts and the rest of us understand it, too. That's the legislative process. That's also similar where if something's on a consent agenda, but there's a member or a few members that have concerns, they can pull it off the consent agenda. Um, so I just wanted to make sure that that was a similar idea here, and it sounds like it is. If anybody does want to um raise that concern or object, we could then have a further discussion. But uh the other two projects I don't think uh come with this similar um concern and so I'm wondering what others think on that. But um for now u maybe my one question um Mr. varian. How how do we uh know um is it common that that an administrative uh fiscal agent would would charge nothing for it? And how do they cover those costs if they do? Mr. Varian, do you know the answer to that? or do they have a does somebody from the um adaptive wilderness or um friends of the boundary waters have an answer to that otherwise it even the DNR charges us and they've got all kinds of staff and money to administer the LCCMR and it kind of be similar that seems like there'd be a couple thousand dollars of expense. Um, but who's covering that otherwise? If you know, Mr. Varant, >> Mr. Baron, chair her, uh, member Westerm. Um, you are correct. Often the fiscal agent does charge a fee or a cost. Um, but that's not always the case. In in some instances, they they use their own funding. um to to cover any of those those costs. I don't know the exact um funding source for the friends of Boundary Waters in terms of how they are covering that cost in this case. >> So, and and there more of a maybe a concern or comment, but I'd open it up for others to just decide if we wanted the consent or not. But um I mean we know we know their act their political activities is is very much anti-mining and and um so some of those funds it seems like are what's going to cover the costs for this adaptive wilderness which then does kind of bring to me a question to that group and entity. uh what kind of what kind of quid proquo is going on. Um, and if their group is is entering into this same type of political dynamic, um, I I think Senator Representative Heindman's comments, um, we we should probably heed his comments and, uh, I would say the adaptive wilderness should probably steer clear of of this concern that that has raised raised a lot of eyebrows in the past six months. Um, just I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair. If other people want to comment, I'll decide if after I hear from others what what to do. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I just want to remind us that that um of what I remember if my memory serves me correctly that the adaptive wilderness within reach was a very compelling presentation about creating pathways for disabled people to get access to the outdoors. Um, it's a small organization and so nonprofits, uh, I worked at a nonprofit that also did something similar, uh, will help small groups that have a really, um, unique and compelling mission, uh, to help be their fiscal agents because small organizations have a hard time doing so. So, it they can act as a charitable fiscal agent. Um, it's actually a good deed. So, I just want to put that out there. And um I would say we should not remove um the work plan from from uh any motion that is put on out there. Thank you. >> I agree with that too. Commissioner Link Seth also noted that is a uh adaptive wilderness here on online or okay. So if there's any question that direct to them there be happy to answer. Okay represent Scraba. >> Yes. Um sorry. Um, so the whole the whole issue of the consent agenda doing them in my opinion, these have already made it through. They got their approval. We're looking at them again. We're looking at cost reductions. They're taking away uh we're going through the process. For me, again, for whatever reason, every project that you have is in the district I represent. So, I'm looking at all of this and looking at the projects and I'm like, it it benefits all of my my my district. It it works in favor of uh the use and that the politics behind it. Yes, I'm I'm disturbed, but it's not enough for me to stand in the way of something we've already approved. and we're correcting any any anything else. So, I I I'm going to support all of them. I'm going to support this this whole agenda, the uh consent agenda. So, um that's where I stand. Thank you. >> Thank Thank you very much. Um let's see. Chair Jordan, you want to renew your motion? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I move to approve the consent agenda for the 2026 work plans. >> Okay. Um, I need further discussion. >> Not roll call. Mr. Chair. >> Yes. Senator Westerm. >> Mr. Chair, I'm just wondering if Representative uh Jordan would be amanable to approving uh the two two aside from adaptive wilderness separately. Uh and then we come back and consider that one single single as a single motion. >> Represent Jordan or >> Mr. Chair, I would not support that. >> Okay. Uh motion is renew. Um roll call. >> Albrech. >> Albbright. Yes. >> Albrech. Yes. Her >> her. Yes. >> Her. Yes. Jordan. >> Yes. >> Jordan. Yes. Bean. Yes. Bean. Yes. Favor is excused. Finth is excused. Gilman. >> No. >> Gilman. No. Green has declined. Voting on. >> No. I'll vote no. >> Green. No >> Headstrom. >> Headedstrom. Yes. >> Headedstrom. Yes. Heman. >> Heinesman. No. >> Heman. No. Langth. >> Langth. Yes. >> Langth. Yes. Lily. >> Lily. Yes. >> Lily. Yes. Mchuan. >> Yes. >> Mchuan. Yes. Moore. >> Moore. Yes. >> Moore. Yes. Putnham. >> Yes. Putnham, yes. Scraba, >> Scraba, yes. >> Scraba, yes. Westerrom, >> no. >> Westerrom, no. Currently, there are 11 yes, four no. >> Okay. Motion prevail. Okay. Next on the agenda is item number seven. Um the brief on on the RFP. Um okay. Um how does member feel about this year evaluation? And uh >> Mr. Chair, >> did I miss something? >> The big one. >> The big one. Okay. All right. I'd like to call Miss Kapana to talk talk about the big one here. >> All right. Thank you, chair her, members. Um I'm just going to give a short um summary of evaluation number two and the compiled results. Um for more detail in your materials, you have a memo. You have three table spreadsheets that summarize those results as well. Um I'll also point out that in your materials, we have included the additional materials that were provided to you during your evaluation number to the additional information that you had requested or comments we'd received back from people. Um so to begin with I just wanted to summarize um staff followed the procedures adopted by the commission at the June 17th meeting. Just to remind everybody those procedures were to rank all the proposals from high to low based on the proportion of members allocating funds to a proposal. Um then calculating an average allocation amount for each proposal based on the members that had allocated funds to a proposal and then going down that list of ranked proposals and adding that average amount together until all the funds were spent. Um and if that happened to fall in the middle of a group of proposals um we would then either include that group or exclude that group depending on what created a final total that was closer to the amount available for allocation. So that sort of summarizes the basic procedures that staff followed and the commission followed uh adopted at the June 17th meeting. So following these procedures um these were the results of valuation number two. That cutoff did end up landing in the middle of group proposals that 63% of members allocated funds to. So if we had include including that group results in overspending by about $6.1 million, um excluding that group would have resulted in underspending of about $7.8 $8 million. Since 6.1 is closer than 7.8 to the total amount, we did end up including that group in the initial agreement. Um, so that means there were 116 projects that would be funded under the initial agreement and that would include the DNR contract, the LCCR administration, and the LCC legacy website. So, um, I talked about those two tables that are part of your, um, meeting package. So we presented those results in two different types of tables. Um one includes the says showing individual allocations from highest to lowest. That's the one with a lot of columns. Um that shows those results but also shows how the distribution of members allocating funds looked like. Um just to clarify for everybody when it says one, two, three, that one does not indicate that is the one member's allocations. That's just it goes from highest to lowest. So from 1 to 16 in this case. Um the second spreadsheet table we have for you that shows these options um is the one that just says the initial agreement as of July 28 20 20th 2026. That shows the same information in terms of the initial agreement but in this case it includes the staff comments and the member comments. So those are the two tables you have in front of you showing the results of the evaluation number two. So based on evaluation number two and the the initial agreement rule set up that means there are $6.1 million overallocated at the moment. Um staff have developed three basic options for your consideration um to deal with that overallocation. Of course you also can come up with other options if you wish. So just to summarize option one would decrease the projects in the final group that made the cut. So those selected by 63% of members by 43.9%. Um this would result in a cut about so that would cut six proposals in addition to the cut they may have taken from the average average allocation. Um there would be about $4,000 remaining and this could be covered using the commission buffer. Um, this option would result in funding recommendations about 38% to 53% of the requested amount for those proposals. Option two would pull in the next two sort of groups at the low that were ranked the lowest. Um, so this would be any proposal that was selected by 69% of members or fewer. Um, option two would decrease those proposals by 29.2% from the average allocation amount. Um, so this would result in a cut in the average allocation amount to 13 proposals. Um, the remaining $3,000 overall allocation could be taken from the buffer to balance everything out. Um, in this case, those proposals that were being cut would end up with um, their funding recommendation would be up 47% to 93% of their requested amount. The final option staff put together would be a cut to all proposals contained in the initial agreement. And this would result in a cut of 4.92% for those proposals. Um, just to point out, following the rules established by the commission, small projects would not be subject to that cut. In addition, um, any project, no project would be cut below that $300,000 threshold. Um, so this would result in a decrease in the average allocation amount for 84 proposals. There would be about $11,000 overallocation still in place. And this we could take from the buffer to balance everything out. Um we have included in your materials a spreadsheet table that shows in detail what the cuts would look like for each pro proposal under each of these um options. Um there is shading to indicate which ones actually were subject to a cut based on the option. Um so now putting that all in front of you, you can decide now how you would like to handle that overallocation. But before you begin that discussion, I just wanted to add three very quick notes. Um, first, there are two members that have declared a direct personal financial interest in a related organ organization that is part of the initial agreement. So those members will not be able to discuss or vote on actions related to these specific proposals or imp would impact the consideration of these proposals including if they are included in a recommendation package. So assuming these proposals remain in a proposed package, it's going to take a vote of nine members to pass that recommendation. So that's the base of 11 members minus the two who have that conflict. Um second note quickly, there is a sample motion in the memo. So if anybody wants to move motion, um we do have a sample motion ready to go for you guys. Um and then finally, I just wanted to point out that staff are prepared to run any calculations. there are additional options members want to consider. We just ask you a little grace because it does take us a little time to put those numbers together for you, make sure they're accurate. With that, Chair Her, I'll turn it back to you. >> Yes. Um um Chair Albbright. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh thanks for that recap and all the work that staff did to put together all these proposals because um it's a lot of higher math. So kudos to you all. uh you know when I look at the proposals I appreciate that you've tried to give us some options uh given that some of those mo all of those projects on the lower three ti tiers and that and in particular the last tier have already taken quite a substantial cut. I I'm in favor of um proposal number three. So I'll move to recommend all proposals above the 129644 million cutoff as shown on the attached initial agreement spreadsheet dated July 2026 with the adjustment as described in option three be passed. >> Okay. Uh motions made by chair Albbright. Any discussion on her motion? Sam, >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes, Sam Westerm. >> Um, Mr. Chair, um, I I just wonder if we could talk about a few alternatives. Um, before we get into the motion, but I that's that's what we're on right now as discussion. But um member Albreight um one one other calculation I worked with my staff on is uh doing a little larger reduction of projects over $4 million and um the example we used was 10% and then the remaining projects would um take a 3.4% or roughly thereof. um as another alternative and um so I'm just want to throw that out for members um as as a alternative way the the there's only about five that are getting over $4 million and if they took a 10% cut they'd still get a substantial amount of money and so I I want to share that as an idea um a possible amendment to your to your proposal But I'm not moving that now to uh member Albbright. I just want to bring it up. Um if that's if there'd be uh some interest in that. One more question I have. Mr. Varian, um you said the the 4.9% reduction does not count the the the projects under 300,000. Uh did you run any any uh figures if we did just an uh a reduction of 4% to everything? Um even though they're small and some of them that are under 100,000. I get it. It's probably less um wiggle room, but it's also less of a reduction. Um, if we did a 4% across the board, uh, you know, I I realize they're submitting proposals, but it is just proposals and I think if we even had a project at 299,000, they could probably absorb a 4% or would find a way to make the project work. So, I'm maybe if we're going to do an across the board, I I think maybe that's a more appropriate way. and and then everybody just squeezes out any any any excess that they could find a different way to do and some of them would only be like two or three or five or $10,000 max. So, Mr. Varian, do do we have any runs or do you know what percentage if we did just included every everybody in this uh option three uh scenario? >> Mr. Van to the Westroom question. Oh, Mr. Kapana. All right, Mr. Pamp, you are correct. Thank you, Chair Hurst. Senator Westerm, I'll I'll answer that question. Um, no, we did not run a scenario where all projects, including the small projects, were taking a cut. We were sticking to sort of the rules that were urgently established by the commission in terms of valuation. Number two, we could of course run those numbers right now. If you, the commission is interested or Senator Westerm is interested in that, >> if you could while we're discussing it, I'd be interested. Um, and I guess maybe part of my persuasion uh of that is we've already protected those projects completely from any any uh reduction or uh any one of us saying you know what um this this seems like it's a little high or this is not what I would support. Um, so by implementing the rules we've used where anything under 300 is either zero or all, um, I think I think it'd be reasonable to consider something under 5% for all of them, uh, if we're going to go that route. But again, I'd be interested in comments of if we did a larger for the top five projects that are all over 4 million, if we did 10% and then the remainder would be a more like a three or three 3.4% 4% uh reduction might might be the way I would like to go or suggest we we consider going but if you could get me that number that ask that number that would be helpful as we're discussing this okay Mr. Kapana um could this this will be offline right between Mr. Kapana or um >> five minutes >> okay do we >> so >> Mr. Mr. Chair yeah my intent would be others could discuss while staff works on this and they can come back to us in a few minutes >> okay uh to the rescue I see a hand raised by uh represent Leon Lily so represent Lily uh >> thank you Mr. chair. Uh I just uh would speak in favor of uh Senator Westertorm's uh concept. I I think reaching into the smaller groups uh is really, you know, it's it's not sacred sacred ground for me. So I I guess I I think that's a a good idea and a good concept. That's all. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other discussion from members? Um, Chair Jordan. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, and I, uh, disagree with my good friends, uh, Senator Westerm and Representative Lily. When a project is very small, a $5,000 haircut is pretty significant. I worry about these smaller projects ability to complete their projects if they are cut. Um, you know, it just goes a lot farther with these smaller projects. Um, I do support the Alrech motion. Um, I also considered what Senator Westerm said about taking from the six largest projects or also even projects that, you know, are just like grant organizations or ones where they would have, you know, just less additional capacity. But I do think what uh, Chair Alrech has proposed is what is most fair. It allows us to fund a lot of projects. And um I think using the smaller projects um to to fund all these larger projects would just make it harder for these smaller projects to go through. And I wouldn't want to jeopardize the viability of the project by cutting them. Um, I think it's just a lot fairer if it's, you know, looking at the scope of millions of dollars versus, you know, under $300,000 that it's just a little bit fairer to to go with the option three that was proposed by Chair Alrech. >> And um, just to reiterate, the option three um would will not reduce anything below 300. Okay. So I think that's what I heard uh represent Lely say as well. So do uh do we have an answer for Senator Westerrom now or >> it's going to be a while. >> It's going to be a while 10 minutes. >> All right. Do we want to recess then? >> So you could I don't know. You could recess. You could move to vote, >> Mr. Chair. Yes. Uh Senator Westerm. Uh Mr. Chair. Um, I might just solicit a couple of pieces of feedback. Um, what what would people think if we did a 10% or or if 10 is too much, a different number, but a little higher on the top on the any project over 4 million, which would be five from our count that that I worked with staff. that would get us down to um more of like a $3 million gap and then just have the have the rest of the projects take a percentage hair haircut if you will. Uh if we if we trim the larger ones a little bit more. Uh Rep. Jordan sounded maybe a little open to that idea and uh maybe Senator Putnham, I'd just solicit your input and and uh member Albreight as the me maker of the motion if you'd comment after uh Senator Putnham. Uh I'd just be interested in a few few little feedback on that idea. >> Senator Putnham. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair, and uh thank you, Senator Westerm, for for asking my opinion. Um, I do think that uh I kind of see both sides of this one to a certain extent in that the gains that we would get for paying down the absence from tapping into the smaller uh bills are not going to be all that significant because they're going to be smaller amounts being taken from them. Um, however, I think uh Tori's got a great point in that we didn't actually do uh the same sort of um uh questioning process with the smaller bills as we did uh with the bigger ones. Uh so uh I will also say that some of the the the bills that are kind of towards the the bottom of the pile which I'm assuming is why Tori's asked me to think about this a little bit. A lot of those are aggreated which is unfortunate uh from my perspective because I think by and large uh the commission does some really great work but we don't tend to focus as much on those issues that are agricultural related as I I would prefer. And so I think that's also part of uh of a concern uh when we look at this this list of issues. But I I I will say that I I see both sides of the argument pretty pretty well on this one. Uh uh but I I I see where Tori's coming from on this one, too. >> Now, Senator Western, just one question. What would would any amendment be proper to be made on the option number three, the motion by uh Chair Albbright so that so that we can best use of our time? Miss Mr. Mr. Chair, um maybe the best motion then and and it would be kind of um well my my how about if I just throw out the I I'd move to amend that we reduce any project over 4 million by 10% and the remainder is reduced out of the projects in option three which would not be the ones under 300,000. So my motion would be to reduce projects over $4 million. They're receive five projects receiving over $4 million were reduced by 10% and then um reduce the rest of the projects over 300,000 by the percentage accordingly. >> Okay. >> Which which would just which would be about three 3.4% 4% um based on our my staff uh our calculations we did the last day or two. But my main motion would be to just cut the top top five projects, all of them over 4 million by 10%. That that's the motion to discuss. >> Okay. All right. Uh Chair Jordan, >> Mr. Chair, thank you. I'm not that good at flipping through pages. Can you like list out those and maybe I think Senator Western said his staff worked on this. I don't know if somebody can just list those projects that are over four million because I'm just trying to like highlight things and my eyes just aren't that good. >> And and Senator Her >> and I also believe that the Alrech motion is on the table as well. Um I just want to ask uh for clarification, are you uh suggesting those projects that were originally their original request or how they came out in this allocations process? because um while I I understand uh Senator Putnham's and probably Senator Westerm's interest in having egg projects, those projects fell at the bottom and um some of them are larger than 4 million and would you know are at 80% now and would take another 10% cut. So I'm just um trying to figure out are you asking for from the amount requested or from the um compiled member evaluation average amount? >> So West Mr. Chair uh Commissioner Albbright um it would be just the projects that are being proposed to funded over 4 million um in in our after evaluation too. There was five of them according to what we came up with. Um, my staff is online. I could have them probably list them off quickly if we want, but I I would guess um Mr. Varian or Kano could uh probably find those four five projects. Um, so it's it's the latter. Uh, Commissioner Albbright, not not how they came in original request. then it would be a bigger number of projects that are still over four million, but there there's only five five left that are over four million. Um, so that's the ones I'm saying we do 10% on and then take the rest of the percentage according to your motion uh after. Okay, we have a number of show of hands here um before we go to formalize any motion um particularly uh the motion to amend by Senator uh Westerm but uh let's hear people in in in lineup. Uh I will go to uh Mr. Kapana first and then followed by uh uh Representative Lely and Commissioner Link Seth. Uh, thank you, Chair Her. Just to clarify what those five projects are if members are interested. The five projects that average allocation amount was greater than $4 million was line 17, 2027115, which is the Minnesota State Trails Development, line 36, 2027456, AIS Solutions for Minnesota Innovation, Translation, Leadership. Line 82 2027371 SNA Habitat enhancement public engagement and biodiversity protection. Line 30 2027312 local parks trails and natural areas grant program. >> Can you say that number again? >> Yep. That was line 30 2027 312. So that's the local parks, trails, and natural areas grant programs. And then line 42 which is 2027555 the Teduch State Park entrance bridge replacement >> and then 82 right. >> Yeah. >> And line 82. Yes. Which is 2027371 the SNA and habitat enhancements. Those are the five where the average allocation amount was greater than um $4 million. So, in order of lines, cuz I know I went sort of out of order in terms of how it shows up in the table. It's line 17, line 30, line 42, line, sorry, 36, line 82. >> Okay. >> Does every does everybody have them? Okay. So, um let's keep that as FYI for now. And I Let's go to represent represent Leon Lily. Um whether >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh um I was just going to kind of back up. I I like the the bigger groups that uh Representative Westerm's talking about, but I actually would stick with this original concept of going all the way down to the uh small groups. I I heard uh uh my my co-housemate uh say it that that wasn't fair, but it's actually fair if every group uh takes a sliver. Every group all the way down to the smallest ones. So, I think that's actually I don't know. It's kind of a weird use of fair to me. I would say that's fair where every group takes a nip. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. All right. Um then commissioner links. >> Uh thank you Mr. Chair. Yeah I I guess the con concern I have with um doing the 10% on the larger projects they are already taking um some of them are already taking a significant uh reduction already based on the average evaluation. Um uh I guess I'm I'm still in favor of the original motion um that uh Commissioner or Chair Elrech uh proposed. Thanks. Okay. Now, uh, Senator Westerstrom, do you want to uh readress your amendment or um if if not, then we just go ahead and vote with the >> Mr. Yes, Senator Senator Westerm. >> Mr. chair. Um I I I guess I I can I thought there might be a few others that comment on it, but um for the purposes of just moving with it. Uh I'd reiterate the amendment would be that we reduce the largest five projects that are over 4 million by 10% and reduce the others in the Albbright motion accordingly uh at a smaller percentage than 4.9. >> Okay. So, this will be an amendment to the Albright motion. Um, right. >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> I see Senator Putnham's hands up. Let's go to Senator Putnham first. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry for being remedial. Um, uh, we're not still stalling while there's more math being done, are we? >> Because, um, I'm willing to just blather on for a little bit if that's what we're trying to do. But I actually do have a genuine question, which is, could we sort of restate the whole thing at once? I'm a little bit unclear exactly where we're at. So, um uh could we kind of just boil it down uh into its absolute specificity real quick? >> Okay. We have we have um Chair Albbright motion um >> option three >> option three on the tape here in front of us and uh and amendment has been brought forth by Senator Westerrom. Uh I we may have to pass the amendment. It sound pretty clear to me, but in case, you know, staff want to make it to a more um committee context lingo, you know, we can do that. But I think it's pretty clear with me on the amendment. It's uh represent Jordan. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I do want to hear from Commissioner Alrech, but I do actually think what her original motion is, which is option three, is kind of a compromise between the two options that were proposed by Senator Westerm. Um, and so I do still support the Alrech motion as Representative or as Commissioner Alrech proposed it, but I am curious about what her as the maker of the motion, what her feelings are. But my first preference would still be option three. But I do think there are other options on the table that I could support. >> Uh so the maker option three. All right. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. The reason I like that uh option is because it does respect the allocation process and the ranking that we used. And so currently if we were to take 10% from those five projects, four of those projects had 94% high ranking by this uh commission. And so they um fared well under the rules and um the process that we used. uh we've uh I'm I'm not uh you know I I think 10% is is more than it needs to be and and I think that we need to respect the process that we used which was everybody gets to rank. I'll also just share this is the point in time when we will miss Mike Reese as our uh citizen member because members had an option to submit uh a different proposal and um that's something Mike Greece almost always did because he saw things differently than um maybe we did when we ranked things and and we often adopted his uh proposal because We had it ahead of time. We knew what it was and and it was well thought out. You know, I'm just disappointed that if Senator Westerm's staff did spend time on this that it wasn't submitted to staff so we could have it ahead of time and be able to uh review it and um be better prepared to respond to it. So, I I continue to like the idea of using the proposal, the um option three that was presented by staff. Thanks, >> Commissioner Bean. >> Um thank you, Mr. Chair. I actually strongly agree with what Chair Albright just said in terms of the process. I mean I think we have a lot of structure to this and we had a lot of of the rankings and the shifts based on the rankings and who compiled what we went through the presentations we made some adjustments all of us collectively which are now reflected here and to just target five large projects because they have a lot of money and I don't know if there's other reasons to target them but to hit them extra hard um I do think does not do justice to the process. I I also think it's a separated question from whether we want to just drop down the haircut on everybody into the projects below 300,000. I think that's a separate question and we can debate that. But I think the the part about just hitting the five largest projects doesn't uh doesn't jive with how we've approached it so far. Thanks. >> Thank you. Um, Miss the Kapana, do you still need extra time for the for the math to show it to Sam Westrom or um, >> uh, Chair Herr, we're still reconciling just to make sure we have the right numbers here. >> Okay. >> All right. I see hand from um, Commissioner Moore. >> Thank you. Um, thank you, Chair Her. And and I want to thank the the commissioners for such a thoughtful uh thoughtful discussion and I think all of the all of the suggestions seem very reasonable to me. I personally could live with with any of them. One thought I had just recently had relative to to Senator Westertorm's suggestion is that three or four of those five uh repeatedly garner significant funding from LCCMR and that may provide a reasonable justification to trim those slightly more proportionally than we would from some of those other projects. I certainly comprehend uh Representative Jordan's argument that these small projects taking a proportional cut will take a disproportionate hit because they just don't have the capacity to support that. And that's where I think uh you know Senator Westerm's uh suggestion is very very reasonable. I'm certainly not opposed to to the original motion as um indicated by by uh Chair Alrech as well. So, thank you everybody for this for this discussion and um I will be at peace with any of these outcomes. >> Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Moore. Uh Senator Westerm, your hands still up. Do you want to comment further? >> Well, u Mr. Chair, um appreciate the comments. Uh I mean, Commissioner Moore, I'm I'm I'm open to an amendment to the amendment if 10%'s the wrong number or somebody else had commented on that. Um, I just it's kind of the same idea if we're going to the the large recipients certainly can probably adjust no matter what they get. Um, and I agree with uh I think it was Rep. Commissioner Albbright or Langth maybe that if we go go to all the projects which is a separate motion or could be following this. Um I I guess I'm I'm trying to read the room and I I I don't know. I'm getting some support and some not. I'm willing to withdraw the the motion if there's a better alternative or take an amendment if somebody has. Otherwise, Mr. chair. If nobody does at this point, uh I'd say let's just take a vote on it and kind of read the room. But it would it would uh it would just amend the motion three uh to say 10% of the projects receiving over 4 million and then the the the rest of the projects would to receive a reduction accordingly. Um if that helps summarize it for for some of you. Yep. And um Senator Westerrom, you have you have you have your hands hands up. >> Oh, pardon them. Sorry. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. I just I kind of want to underscore um Comrade Westerm's point uh about um so those groups that have greater resources having the capacity to take the haircut a little bit better. Uh uh I think that that is a really good point. Um but similar I guess I'm still in the same space where Commissioner Moore is and that I could live with any of these options. But um uh I I really just wanted to make that that point to call Senator Westerm comrade. Um and uh I hope that someone appreciated that that I'm also stalling for the math too. So um that's that's all there. >> Okay. Um, let's let's do it this way. Since Senator Senator Westerm already made his amendment, we'll vote on his amendment. >> I think we need to >> Could you repeat the amendment, please? >> Senator Wel, can you uh repeat your amendment? >> Mr. chair. Um the amendment would be that we reduce projects receiving over $4 million and uh receiving over $4 million a 10% reduction and then reduce the remaining projects of option three accordingly. >> Um director Nash Mr. Chair, Senator Westerm, I just want to clarify. So that's that would not be reducing the small projects. You're saying just the large projects would be reduced by 10% and then everything is else is exactly as it is in option three. >> Correct. >> And is there a net in your calculation was there a net amount remaining after that? >> Um I don't have that right accessible but it was roughly 3.4% 4% of the rest of the projects based on our our calculation. >> So be um I'll see if I can but I I don't know if that helps. I mean instead of 4.9 it'd be a 3.4 or thereabout. That's >> okay. >> After the 10% reduction of the large projects. >> Sure. >> Right. Exactly. So let's um >> recess >> let's >> we can do that before um right after right after Mr. Mr. Kana has g give us some answer. >> So chair we've run our calculations on that and um I think what we found is it sounds like Senator Westerm's numbers are correct. So if you cut those five projects by 10% the cut for the remaining projects would be about 3.42% 42% leaving the small projects untouched and make also not cutting any project below $300,000. That would leave about a $1,000 overallocation at that point which could be taken out of the buffer. So those are the numbers we're seeing right now based on that scenario. Okay. So, we may not need recess, but I want to pass back to um Chair Albbright to see what she think about the amendment uh to her motion. >> Um thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh like uh some have said um this is uh you know I'm trying to be a commissioner who stays true to the process and that selects uh as a group that we select projects that are worthy of our funding from the environmental trust fund. Um, I don't have any uh any pet projects in this list. I don't have any interest in any projects in this list. I don't have any um uh potential conflicts or independent financial benefit from any of the projects in this list. So, um I'm just trying to do good work on behalf of the commission. Uh and I recognize that all of us are trying to do good work on behalf of the commission. So, it's just frustrating for me when we um come to this point in our process and then we have to try and scramble to figure out what is the number that each of these pro proposals is going to be allocated. And I think more than anything, it's just a frustration that um we're asked to on the fly recalculate everything and try and figure out is it equitable? Is it fair? Is it reasonable? Does it make sense for the proposer for that project and what they are going to be able to do with the funding they receive? And will it meet the goals and priorities and outcomes that they've put forth in their proposal? So, for me, it's just more of a frustration than than anything uh that that we're having to try and on the fly figure out how will this proposal be affected and and not just the money, but what what that proposer is able to do with the funding that they receive. So, with that, um, I'm willing to, um, accept Senator Westerm's motion and to move this along because I'm a roll up your sleeves, collaborate, and get it the job done kind of person. And so, I'll accept his motion. I think it's not exactly a motion. It's more of a separate proposal. And so the s maybe what I will do is I will withdraw my motion and then let Senator Westerm make the motion on the proposal. >> Okay, let's do that. S Westrom uh the um >> well Mr. Chair, >> hold on. The the the motion uh from Senator Albbright on option three three is withdraw. So now we are at on a clear table now. Um, Sam Werrom to to any chair any motion that you would like to make. >> That that that is um fine. Commissioner Albbright um accepting mine as a friendly would have just amended yours and and been the same, but I'm happy to make the the motion that we um move option three uh with u caveat that we reduce projects proposed to receive over $4 million by 10% and reduce the others accordingly to approximately 3.4%. Okay. Um any discussion on the western motion? >> Yeah, we're getting kind of into the weeds now, so you have to you have to catch me up here. Are we voting on on what project we're going to vote in the final uh in the final vote or are we just are we voting for the the final allocations right now? >> Uh we voting >> with this proposal. >> We voting on the um western mo motion with new language that maybe I'll have uh Mr. Kapana just phrase it for us. That's will be the uh that will be the western motion and yeah so it's not any particular project >> Mr. Chair. >> Well that that's correct. That's correct. I'm not not quite done yet. That's correct Mr. Chair and I understand that. But we have to vote this out to to let it go to the for the legislature for next year for approval. What are we voting on here today? Are we voting to to pick a project that we're going to uh be moving forward here today? >> Yes. Every every project that we score. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. Senator Westerrom. >> Mr. Chair and Senator Green or Commissioner Green. I just think this answers your question. This is just to establish what would the funding level be for these projects that we're picking. We would still have to make a final vote to approve it as a package. This is just to determine the funding level, which my motion is option three, but amended to take a 10% reduction on the larger projects, which is the top five projects receiving over 4 million. Um, does that help clarify it? And Mr. Chair, if I'm saying something incorrect there, director, please state differently. >> Yeah, it's correct to me. Uh but Senator uh Commissioner Albbright. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh my understanding uh of the motion and action needed that we are moving to recommend all the proposals above the $129,644,000 cutoff that is listed in this sheet. uh with um Senator Westerm's proposal that those that were supposed to be more than four million would now take a 10% cut with all the rest of and any leftover amount that we need to reduce would come from all of the rest of the projects. Uh, and this is our this is our recommendation to staff to draft language to put forth for the legislative session. And if I'm incorrect on that, uh, Rep. Um, Director Nash, can you correct me? Thank you, >> Director Nash. Uh, that's my understanding as well. And and I Yep. Director Nash, >> Mr. Ch Mr. Chair and members, that was my understanding as well. And I think Mr. Kana has a comment if you're >> Mr. Kapana. >> Yes, I believe Chair her that is my understanding. I just want to clarify that the rest of the projects, the ones that are below $4 million in average allocation amount. The cut there would not apply to small projects or cut anything below $300,000. Correct. >> Okay. So, uh in front of us is the Westerm amendment and I hear chair frustration. I am aligning with her because we can't just craft thing in in the last minute but it seems to uh work. So in front of us is the western amendment uh >> motion. Oh the the the western motion. Okay. Um and let's let's move on to a roll call. >> Albrook. >> Albbright. Yes. >> Albrook. Yes. Her >> her. Yes. >> Her. Yes. Jordan. >> Yes. >> Jordan, yes. Bean, >> yes. Yes. Favor is excused. Pins is excused. Gilman, >> yes. >> Gilman, yes. Green, >> no. >> Green, no. Headstrom. >> Abstain. >> Abstain. Heinesman. >> Yes. >> Heinesman. Yes. Langth. >> Langth. No. >> Langth. No. Lily. >> Lily. Yes. >> Lily. Yes. Mchuan. >> Yes. >> Mchuan. Yes. Moore. >> More. Yes. >> More. Yes. Putnham. >> Yes. >> Putnham. Yes. Scraba. >> Scraba. Yes. >> Scraba. Yes. Westerrom. >> Yes. >> Westerm. Yes. Currently there are 12. Yes. Two. No. One abstain. >> Okay. Motion prevail. Okay. Um, let me just double check the order of business here be before no resets, but give me 30 second. All right, just want to double check here uh the order of business here. And looks like we're we're com complete the the the big one as as earlier was referenced to uh we're now now on uh item number seven. Uh >> Mr. Chair, >> yes, Sarah Wrom. >> U Mr. Chair, I just if somebody is interested in modifying that we'd go lower, I think that would be an appropriate motion still at this time. But if not, then what we've done would be completed. So, I just wanted to raise that because there did seem to be some interest in others uh going to the projects and I I would actually have supported that too. But if somebody wanted to, but otherwise, if no motion comes, um I just wanted to be >> Yeah. clear on that before we moved on. If if somebody's interested, now would be the time. >> Sure. Thank you, Sarah Westman. I think we spend ample time with your leadership and so we all concur and majority of us concur in support of uh uh your uh option. So, um we're good with that. Uh we'll just move to the uh item number seven, debrief on 2027 RFP recommendation process. Um let's see there's a few point here um maybe just throw out there you know for you can say a casual conversation but it will be on the record of what do you think the process that we have carried this force and recommending uh the 2027 RFP has been for you um so this is almost like a debrief or a retreat question to members and we'll spend in maybe 15 minute or so. Um looks like we still have time. The other uh reservation for this room is in right at around noon. So um just want to throw that question out there and uh be before we jump to uh other business. If there's no if if no one want to make any statement here, we're good. We just move on to item number eight. Uh chair chair Jordan. >> Thank you, Mr. chair. Um, and I remain disappointed in how much AI was used to generate these project proposals. Um, there was a lot of AI used, not just in the project, just across the board. Um, I would hope that applicants in the future would not use AI to generate their responses, um, and to generate materials for it. I think it's one thing if we're teaching and using AI in, you know, maybe like to identify wildfires, but to I to to create your promotional materials and was just very disappointing um to the applicants. You all used the same ones. You all either use Cloud Chat, GPT or Microsoft Copilot. So, it was very obvious to me, but I worry about the use and proliferation of AI to create this. I worry about also I do not like funding uh projects that are going to use a free version of AI to create their projects. That doesn't feel like a good use of state resources to me. Um and so I would just really encourage people as you apply for LCCMR funds in the future um to not use AI. And a lot of the projects that we didn't fund, it really was just a lot of AI slop. Um and so I'm glad that we didn't really look at those. Some people used it thoughtfully, but in the future, I just am really dismayed by how much AI was in those projects. I read every single project that was submitted in those binders. Um, I lugged them around the legislature for about a month. Um, so please do not fill my binders with AI next year. Thank you. >> Good. Any other members? Let's see. Um, Commissioner Gilman. Thank you so much, chair, and thank you members for this option to vote remotely um or just to participate remotely as well. Again, I will concur. I did see uh Representative Jordan in the halls in the in the chamber with her big books. Um and I got them delivered to myself as well. So, couple things I just want to bring up. You know, being new to this space, very grateful that I was um a part of this. I've learned so much. Um, but again, there's several projects in here and if you need to have the names of them, I could get them get them to you as well. But just instate um, you know, projects that are happening in state if we're if we're contracting things out out of state in the future. What could those things look like? You know, if we are doing if these proposals are coming to us, but the money is going outstate. I I was that was a little alarming. Um, some of the presentations said that there was, you know, graduates or people from other colleges that would not be getting funded, but when you looked into it more, there was funding going for people's M's programs in other states. And again, that just does not sit well um to me. So, um, you know, if there's outstate proposers, how how could we collaborate, but even keep the percentage down? Um, I just uh I just was wondering if there's any more discussion about that or if we section out a few of these. You know, I I know we probably can't take these projects out um unless that's voted voted upon to do that, but I definitely was um concerned by those projects being elevated that these these this money would be going outstate. So, I just wanted to get that on the record as well. >> Thank you, Commissioner Gilman. Senator Westerm. >> Uh, real briefly, Mr. Chair, um, just just on the process when we established, uh, letter G or C, I think it's was it category G that's the lower or the H? H, maybe it is. Anyways, the project's under 300,000. That that came about maybe 5 years ago. Uh, four or five years ago. Um, few of you might remember it. Um, some of you probably don't, but we kind of tried to, we were struggling as a commission to try to figure out how to incentivize smaller projects to apply and what would be the benefit of being a project that comes smaller um, as a proposal. And so we have more more across the state, more organic groups, if you will, and not just your standard uh state agencies or government entities that seem to be the ones that are mostly receiving it. So I think we've accomplished that partly. this year when we changed the the uh interview or the presentation process, I actually heard some positive feedback from uh one or two of the proposers uh liking that aspect of it. And so I don't know if that's the right mix for sure. Uh, but I do think maybe we're on the path to having a benefit for proposers to bring a smaller project under 300,000 so we can stretch and allocate more projects uh across the state to maybe new groups or um groups that haven't traditionally applied year after year. So, I just raised that as a I don't think we've got a final conclusion on what's the benefit of the small projects being proposed, but I think we've added to it this year um in our presentation not not requiring them to come in and giving them a um I guess a stronger likelihood of getting support uh in the final process. Um, I still do think maybe we should scrutinize the dollars a little bit, but um, that can be a discussion for another day, but my comments are mostly to highlight we we've struggled to find a benefit for urging pro uh, proposers to be small in their request and maybe we've started down that path this year and and that might continue to encourage more small proposers and I think the lottery fund as intended probably uh likes would like to see that um if good projects come in. >> Thank you, Senator Westerrom. Um Commissioner Linkson. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um yeah, I'm in agreement with Senator Westerm on that. I I think it was a a good move we made um this spring to um just uh allow the small projects through without the presentation. Um, a lot of these when I worked at a nonprofit, um, when you're putting in proposals for under, uh, you know, $500,000 million dollars, it's it's nice just to not have to worry about, uh, committing more time and energy, uh, to that to that proposal and actually doing the work. Um, so I I think it's something we should consider doing again. Um, and it also would allow for us as our fund is growing, right? I think when I started on the commission, we had about hund00 million that we were um uh appropriating or recommending each year, and now we're up to 130. Um that allows for us to hear more of the larger projects um because I don't think we can take on um more presentations. I I think that we get pretty tapped out with the whole week. Um, so that would allow for larger uh projects to be heard in that 90 um presentation cap um and then just allow those small projects through. So again, this is an idea that as that money is growing, we're going to need to be funding more projects and how do we prioritize who's getting the presentations. So uh thank you for that. >> Thank you, Commissioner Linkath. Uh next is Senator Green. Okay. Okay. >> I'll I'll just pass. Thank you, uh, Commissioner. >> All right. Um, Chry, >> thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I, um, sort of picking up on what Representative Gilman mentioned about um, out of state contracts and whatnot. Some of us struggled a bit with the allowable expenses that um, were included in proposals. And um I'm interested to hear a little bit about what folks are thinking about the allowable expenses. We have a um a policy in place that lists the allowable expenses, but we often fund projects that are contrary to that or maybe bend the rules a bit. And so I just want to remind everyone that at our um June meeting, we did appoint a subcommittee that will meet uh to to talk about allowable expenses and if we should have any changes to our policy. Um they include Representative Jordan, Representative Scraba, Senator Mchuan, um Commissioner Bean, and myself. And um I think all of us would like a little direction from members if you have any thoughts right now you want to share about allowable expenses. There have been some discussions about should we pay participants uh to attend trainings? Should we purchase vehicles? Um you there's just a list of things that seem to come before us that we're wondering is that really something we should be funding. So, I'm interested right now as long as we have a few minutes if anyone has any comments about allowable expenses that uh they'd like to um comment on. Thank you. >> Okay. Any anybody want to make comment on what um Chair Albright just mentioned? >> We can circle back as well. >> I I I certainly would. >> We have hands raised. Yeah. >> Okay. All right. On online. Sorry. I I I turn when I look at the folks here then I forgot to look at the screen. So the order will be uh represent uh Lily. >> Um thank you. I just want to um thank staff. I they continue to do a good job of looking at the projects and uh their rankings and their notes are often helpful to me as I'm looking at it. I I um I also get the binders. I don't look at every sentence like Sydney. Uh very impressive she is indeed. Um but I do look at it and uh certainly the staff I very much value their rankings and their comments and um I sometimes work around them but or but most time I uh very much are using them. So thank you staff. >> Okay. And then um Commissioner Moore, >> I think Gilman was ahead of me actually. >> Okay, Commissioner Gilman. >> Thank you so much, Chair. And thank you, Commissioner Moore. Also, um again, I uh was very I was very impressed by the help that I got from staff um as I walked through my second my rankings and just I modified uh many of my um many of them because of the allowable expenses piece of it and got to have more conversations around that. I think having a framework and then us sticking to that as we go through this process would be really great. It's one thing to kind of understand like a a conference can cost um you know this much money or you know we don't know how much it is but when you like hearing director Nash talk about some things as well um first when I first came in I we have to look at that and so for me I had no troubles taking uh money off of you know what they were asking for and then also as we listen and do the process you know could this project still happen or could these things still happen if they don't get their expenses. But again, that that to me goes back to there is money in these projects that are in this package that are going to go it's going to go outstate and I know that in the legislature uh you we have lots of different things that we deal with and um uh and again when things go outstate or it's it's talked about quite a bit because we do want to help our folks here in Minnesota. So, I I'll be so excited to hear what the subcommittee comes up with and if they want any of my feedback or input just from me um seeing this process and having like a business mindset lens from my personal business and how we have such accountability and things that we do to track where our money goes. I think it's very um important and I think it should be really heated that this this process should not we need to have scrutiny under under those things. So, uh I personally went through all of them and um you know definitely took money off of you know the bulk of those because of how they were listed um and I didn't think that aligned with what you know the original intent was. So, thank you. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Gilman. Um, Commissioner Moore, >> thank you, Chair Herb. And in in response to uh Commissioner Albrech's uh question about allowable costs, I guess I would I would make a different point in that having been a proposer of projects like this and writing many grant proposals, there are very frequently occasions when the capacity needed to accomplish a project does not lie in Minnesota, but the benefit goes directly to Minnesota from the accomplishment of those projects. There are laboratories that only are located in other states that are required to do some of the data analysis work from the data collected from a Minnesota project. Similarly, there are experts at academic institutions that are outside of Minnesota where that capacity does not lie within the state. So, I have a much less strong view on outofstate expenses if the net benefit goes to the state of Minnesota. That said, I I do agree that conference expenses may be a little bit extraneous for the purpose of this funding and there are certainly many things we can take a closer look at, but I do think we need to be smart and reasonable about using capacity that is not located within Minnesota when the benefit nets uh towards Minnesota itself. Thanks. >> Okay. Um, Commissioner Beman. Um, thank you, chair. Um, to the two things, but to the point about the allowable expenses, being one of the people who volunteered for this committee, I don't know if staff was intending to before the meeting set out any send out any sort of inquiry again to commission members for ideas or to go over the list of what are the allowable and nonallowable expenses. But it would be very helpful before we start meeting to have a bit more concrete thoughts from the rest of the commission about what are you concerned about so we know where to focus the discussion. That would be very helpful. And I do agree strongly with um commissioner Moore about the balance between there might be reasons to have money technically going out of state to a a lab or a researcher that's very unique but the benefit to motans is what we really should be looking at. So I agree with that. But to change tac in terms of feedback on the process I want we all are thinking about how much one there were 400 something proposals on will those number will that number continue to increase and how is there some limit to what we can just have a capacity to even consider and read and two with the amount of money increasing is there any change to again um I don't know and I don't have a suggestion but just a change to the eval EV valuation process to address more and more money that we have to give out and are we going to get more and more proposals and can how do we handle that in a realistic way would be my question. >> Okay, good. Well, I thank you everyone's input and sharing your ideas. You know, this will help us, you know, um maybe um plan on the future. Um also help applicants maybe tailor their application as well to um suit appeal to our decision making here. Um I want to also add on uh one point and I have said it before is equity and so uh sometime is overlooked even though we're trying to you know be good and uh trying to be inclusive but sometime is overlooked and I was a little disappointed that we did include uh a project that are more uh African-American related um but that's in the past we're Now I already have a full package but I just want members to be conscientious of that and not we all have our own choice of voting. Um, you know, my the sad part of it is like we only have a few people that vote for those project that are conducted by community of color and so for them to have a chance for V evaluation or rank high for us to even pick them uh in our caucus is still uh slim. So I'm just want to shout out that we do consider you know um let's say the prodical son project um while the prodical son still um uh want to be acknowledged um and not let the prodical son um to a point where they said we don't care anymore. So um I just want to make that point share that with folks and that's for all member to consider in the future. So thank you thank you for all your input and this is very very valuable information uh very valuable for the uh staff as well and us and um applicants out there agency out there. Um, so now we're going to move on to um other business if there's any other business. >> Mr. Chair, there is no other business. >> All right. Uh, public testimony. >> Mr. Chair, we received three letters um related to proposals before you and those were both posted on the meeting page and distributed in packets. >> Okay. Thank you for the thank you for um the information and also thank you everybody for making my job as chair easy again this time. Uh and uh we don't have to resort to recess. We actually going to adjourn early than the expected time. So instead of having reset in the middle, we have recess after I adjourn. Okay. So any other announcement? >> Mr. Chair, I was just going to say we generally at this meeting also try to get a picture of the commission. So if if you are willing to and if the people online are willing to show their faces, we can arrange the people in person in front of the cam in front of the screen and take a picture of you after the meeting adjourns. >> Okay. Over there. Okay. All right. Thank you uh director Nash and to my co-chair and all members um for uh this very progressive um decision for today's agenda. Thank you very much. And meeting is a jerk.