This meeting is being recorded. Good morning everyone. It is Tuesday, February 3rd. We'll call the Wright County Board of Commissioners to order. will begin with the pledge of allegiance. >> 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. >> So, it looks like we have a pretty robust agenda here today. We'll go right at it. First item on the agenda would be the approval or modifications of the minutes from January 20th. I'll stand for any uh motions at this time. >> I'll make a motion we accept those as presented. >> All right, we have a motion by Commissioner Holland. >> Second. >> Second by Commissioner Shane. Is there any discussion? >> Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. Same sign. All right. Minutes are approved unanimous. Today's agenda. Is there any corrections to today's agenda? Administration is shaking their head no. So board members, any adjustments? I'll stand for a motion. >> Moved. So moved. Second. >> Motion by Commissioner Shane, second by Commissioner Holland. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Same sign. All right. The appro agenda is approved unanimous. Today's consent agenda. Would anyone like to remove anything from today's consent agenda for further discussion? >> I'll stand for a motion. >> I'll make that motion. >> I'll second. >> All right. Motion by Commissioner Shane, second by Commissioner Holland. Any discussion hearing? None. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Same sign. All right. Motion passes unanimous. Uh, next is the first timed agenda item. Barry is back there waiting very patiently for us. Uh, we have a request to withdraw a reszoning application. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Uh, this matter came before the planning commission. Uh, the planning commission did adopt findings for the for denial. However, after the meeting, the applicant did submit a request to uh withdraw, which is fairly typical. If it happens before the planning commission acts, it does not come this far. But since the planning commission has already acted, this board has to act to accept that withdrawal. >> I'll make a motion that we accept the withdrawal. >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion by Commissioner Holland, second by Commissioner Shane to accept the with uh withdrawal application for zoning application for Christina Clark. >> Uh Mr. Chairman, can we add that uh it is without prejudice at the applicant's request as well? >> Yes, it is noted. Thank you. >> All right. Any discussion hearing? None. Uh all in favor say I. >> I. >> Post same sign. >> Motion passes unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. And Ross must be marked today. >> Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Uh for Ross, today he is requesting that you adopt a resolution related to an outdoor recreation grant through the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. It's for the improvements at Monaceipi Park. This project's been planned for probably the last five years. Um, we got the CIP money in the budget which would be used as the local match. It includes ADA access improvements, uh, playground replacement, um, some trail connections, parking, all that good stuff. So, uh, resolution is to in support of the grant application for the sorry, this wasn't for BB Lake, he's got one for Mississippi coming up, too. So, um, this is for BB Lake, which also includes ADA replacement of the comfort restrooms, uh, those types of things. And, um, so the match is there. Hopefully, uh, they did increase their funding from quarter million to $350,000 in that program. So, we'll see how that goes. >> There's Ros. >> All right. Wonderful. So, at this time we have uh resolution 20 uh 2611 with the grant application for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Outdoor Recreation Grant. >> So moved. >> All right. Motion by Commissioner Dietrich. >> Second. >> Second by Commissioner Holland. Any discussion? Hearing none. Resolution vote. Commissioner Mina. >> I >> I >> I >> I resolution unanimous. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Good morning, Lindsay. >> Good morning, Mr. Chair and board members. Um, before you for consideration is a resolution to establish our ballot boards for the 2627 election cycle. State law requires counties to establish absentee yuokava and male ballot boards to administer and process process ballots for each election cycle. This resolution includes the approval of the county's election staff as members of the ballot board over that same time period. >> All right. This is our typical uh election process that we take place with this resolution. Uh is there any discussion? Otherwise, I'll stand for a motion for the uh approval of res adopting resolution 2612. >> So moved. >> All right. Motion by Commissioner Holland. >> Second. >> Second by Commissioner Moa. Any further discussion hearing? None. Resolution vote. Commissioner Shane. >> I >> I >> I >> I >> I resolution passes unanimous. >> Thank you. The next resolution I have for your consideration is the creation of the Buffalo Deer, Goose, and Mink Lake Improvement District. On January 20th, a public hearing was held regarding the creation of the Lake Improvement District. And included in your packet is the DNR's advisory report, which has been shared with the improvement district. The report outlines concerns regarding the district's boundaries and a stable funding, which would both impact the ability to achieve the goals of the improvement district. The individuals who organized the petition for the creation of this district are aware that they will have no tax authority if the improvement district is approved. I do understand that their intent in organizing the improvement district in the manner that they have is to allow them to apply for grants and accept donations to achieve those goals. >> Lindsay, I appreciate that. Um, this is kind of a a bit of an oddity. We generally don't get uh lake improvement district applications uh that have no taxing authority. Um, but I after having talked with Commissioner Dietrich, they want to move forward with that. So, it was intentional, I believe. Yes. So, with that, if that's their wishes, I I will support it. But, >> yeah, I just like to add, I talked to Brett and he they're they're just they have a lot of enthusiasm and a lot of support and and moving forward in this manner is exactly what they expected. So, there's nothing, you know, confusing with it. um we're moving they're going to move forward and they're excited about it and they'll be applying for um for grants and and and continuing with the study and the whole process. So um they just wanted to say thank you too for moving forward and having this opportunity to to take care of their lakes. So thank you chair. I just have a question. Isn't it near impossible to get a a grant uh without any matching funds? And if they don't, how are they going to prove that they can get the funds? That is just my question. >> I can't speak for that for any in any definitive sense as to what their chances are getting grants or not. Um I'm guessing this is going to be more of a trial basis for them and they'll see how these grants shake out for them as they apply for them. Uh there may be a likelihood that they're coming back at a different time in the future to modify it, but I guess they want to try and see how it works. So, >> so if they do if we do uh if they do want taxing authority, they do have to come back and have another public hearing. >> They would have to repetition. >> They'd have to start the process again over. >> Yep. They're aware of that. >> Okay. >> What changes would they have to make specifically that would get them the taxing authority? they have to outline it in the petition and make sure that the pet uh all individuals that are signing the petition um have an understanding that it will include tax authority. So either by adorum taxes or by a special assessment. >> I'll make a motion to approve this. >> Right. So we have a motion by Commissioner Dietrich to adopt resolution 2613 establishing a lake improvement district on Buffalo Deer Goose and Mink Lake. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second by Commissioner Moina. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Resolution vote. I'll vote. I >> I >> I >> I >> I. >> Resolution passes unanimous. >> Thank you. And now we are moving on. We are moving quite swiftly here, but uh I don't know about you, Administrator Kryer, but I think I might move right into the health and human services portion of the meeting. So, >> Mr. Chair, I think that's fine. >> All right. Uh with that, first item on the Health and Human Services agenda would be the consent agenda. Uh I'll stand for a motion to approve the consent agenda, unless anyone would like to remove something for further discussion at this time. >> I'll make that motion. >> All right, we have a motion by Commissioner Holland. >> Second. >> Second by Commissioner Moina. Any discussion hearing? None. All in favor say I. I. >> Oppose. Same sign. All right. Resol consent agenda approved unanimous. And next, our timed agenda item would be the consideration of resolution 2614, hearing officer recommendation for a violation issued to H&H Sports in uh Maple Lake. Uh so I I'm going to start off here. Uh do you have anything you want to say prior to it? Otherwise, I have a few things I want to say on this one. >> Uh uh no, Chairman Betch, I'm just here on behalf of uh HHS today as your rep. So if you have questions but you have the hearing officer's finding in your packet. >> Yes. So I'm going to start off here with saying so this this compliance check here in violation or potential violation uh was conducted not by Wright County uh but it was conducted by the FDA. Uh so I want to make sure that's very very clear. Uh cuz uh our our process is grossly different than that of the FDA and how they do their compliance checks. Uh this my concern with this compliance check and having done my research on it, this compliance check was poorly administered by the FDA and does not meet the spirit of our ordinance. Uh a compliance check is meant to achieve two things. Uh one is to educate and the other is to inform individuals and the business of the laws and how their businesses business is fairing within these laws. Now, this compliance check was done on August 13th, and at that time, it I'm not even aware that the individual who actually sold the product to the minor was even notified that they failed it, much less the business. The business wasn't notified for 33 days. Um, if if we're trying to educate and we're trying to keep nicotine out of uh kids' hands, if somebody fails something, we'd want to tell them right there. That's how we do it. Correct. >> Uh, yes, uh, chair, that is correct. We immediately go back into the premises and provide education and actually return the product. And >> and I knew that because I know you run a very, very good compliance check, which they are. These compliance checks are good if they are done correctly and we are able to uh inform the individual of their uh inappropriate actions and as well as the business so that they can uh hold people responsible and so that they can educate so it happens but in this case I don't know if the individual was informed the business wasn't informed for well over 33 days uh so in that case we would have to assume that there was probably continued sale of of nicotine to minors during that period of time Um, I can't consciously uh uphold this violation because on our end it it it it isn't serving any good because it doesn't have the two things. It didn't have theformational format and it didn't have the educational format which is the spirit of the ordinance in trying to keep these products out of children. Um, so I'm going to strongly encourage the board here to reconsider resolution 2614 and to uh move forward to February 17th with a different resolution. Um, and I and I caution us with working with the FDA and their compliance checks unless they do it differently than they currently are, cuz I'm not real comfortable with doing compliance checks and then finding out via the mail uh 30 plus days later that that's just a bad practice. >> Makes sense. >> I would like to add that I mean they still failed the compliance check and that to me is important to understand and that's part of the process. I wasn't familiar as familiar as FDA's process by any means. Um, so I, you know, talking with administrator how this went, but they still violated the ordinance. So I I'm I feel comfortable moving forward with this. Um, went before the hearing attorney, so um I'm fine with that. They still and and they can still learn from it. Now, Mr. Chair, I will say that I had a lot to do with looking at the policy and and their procedures and was not um enthused at that at all because at this point is it does it just look like a money grab? You know, here here this person supposedly went in there, but we don't know. But we find out from at home how many days later. So, and that is not what we're here for. for the people to make sure they're safe. How does that make anyone safe? So, I kind of have a little issue with it, but I don't even know at this point what we can do to solidify that, you know, how can we make that better? But yes, it's not even going with our ordinance. >> Uh, Commissioner Shane, I mean, there's two factors with this. uh one factor is uh we can re work with uh administration to redraft a different resolution and the other side of it is have more conversations on whether we want to still work with the compliance checks through the FDA or if we just want to do more of our own internal compliance checks. And I I I'd be more in favor of doing our own internal compliance checks just cuz I know that your process is well documented and all parties involved are well informed of it. Uh it's a good practice. This one here just leaves me feeling just very uneasy. >> So, I could go ahead and make that motion to work with the administration to look for a new resolution working through this. >> Is that >> Greg? Will that be sufficient or do you want me to put language together? I I guess at this point I'm looking for a resolution to uh dismiss this this violation just because of the improprieties uh that have taken place of this the lack of informing of the business and of the individual who who potentially we don't even know definitively uh uh made this sale. So with that I I >> Mr. Mr. Chair, members of the board, excuse me. Um, given the comments here, I I'd feel sufficient that we have enough to create a resolution if that's the direction of the board and bring it back on the 17th >> board members. Uh, any other thoughts on this? >> Mr. Chair, I'll just say I I do appreciate our process. Obviously, we we've kind of it's we've looked at it before and it's a good process and with the education, I mean, I don't want to take anything away from what we do. >> Um, but we don't dictate how the FDA does their process. Um, and they found non-compliance and that's I mean, I just I'll stand on that, but I understand where you're coming from and um on behalf of the business as well. All right. So, at this time, is that a motion you had by Commissioner Shane to, uh, uh, move a work with administration to come forward with a resolution for February 17th? Uh, >> revised or or a revised resolution for February 17th? >> I'll second that. >> All right. We have a motion by Commissioner Shane, second by Commissioner Holland. Is there any discussion? Is there is there any possibility that we could add this on to our committee of the whole agenda that is in an hour or so and just have some further discussion on this with public health as well of just kind of how that process plays out cuz I just I don't want to put us into a sticky situation where we're going to start denying things that the FDA or the federal government is doing within the county and puts us in a bad place with them and creates any other kind of issues. So, I would just like to kind of dive more into what that relationship looks like and if this is a one-off type of scenario or just kind of what our more in-depth working relationship is with them. I'm I'm not opposed to denying what what had happened, but at the same time right now they I mean they went to court or at least they went in front of the the hearing and they presented evidence that said that this compliance check did happen. So I can't say whether it did or didn't. I I do think it's pretty serious if we're selling to minors, but I would just like some more kind of in-depth conversation. And I know public health, they kind of manage our side of things. So, I just like a more of an in-depth conversation if that's possible. >> U Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moina, unfortunately, we cannot add this to the agenda at 10:30 cuz it's considered a special meeting underneath the open meeting law. So, the agenda has been published 3 days ago, so we can't change that agenda topic. If it was a regularly scheduled meeting, we could, but given the nature of it, we can't. >> If it was a workshop, we won't have a problem. But because it was specially scheduled, we're we're stuck with the topics we can add to the agenda. >> Is there a rush to get the denial of this done or to resolve this? I know we're not doing a workshop next week, but I mean, is there a rush that we have to do it in two weeks or can we put it on when our next workshop agenda is, which is a month from now, but >> we can schedule a committee to hold at a different date. We don't have to wait all the way till March for that to have a discussion on it. Um, I don't know that I'd want to leave this particular item hanging out there for, you know, 30 60 days anymore on it. But, uh, if you want to have a greater discussion about these compliance checks and the FDA piece of it, um, I will I kind of note for you, Commissioner Mo, like historically we used to, I would say tangentally not enforce FDA ones because our ordinance didn't really kind of allow it in the in the past. Now, it does allow us the ability to site under this piece, but uh it it doesn't put us in any kind of bad relationship with the FDA on whether we do or don't on it. I I just if they were if knowing what I know now in order for me to want to enforce their compliance checks, they would have to do it vastly differently than this because there's no due process to this. I mean, finding out via snail mail 33 plus days later as a business owner and and no notification as to whether the individual was notified and the business owner themselves wasn't even given the name of their staff member that potentially did this. Uh like how is this uh business owner supposed to manage his employees? uh and when he's also responsible for a hefty fine based on a violation of his employee. Like that that doesn't do the business any good and it doesn't do that individual any good and it certainly doesn't help us achieve the spirit of our ordinance of educating and informing individuals. But, uh, we had a motion by Commissioner Shane, second by, uh, Commissioner Holland to, uh, come forth on February 17th with a different resolution. Uh, Commissioner Moa, do you want to try and and sway the that motion to a different direction in >> I I said everything that I had. I just Yeah, I I think more in-depth conversation is to be had about it, but I understand your point of view that we have no idea if they what they actually did. So, having not been there and having not been in the the hearing that they had, I I don't know. So, all right. Well, with that, we have a motion by Commissioner Shane, second by Commissioner Holland to come for back on February 17th with a revised resolution uh uh around the modification of penalties and fines regarding the uh violation of HHS sports shops and tobacco a potential violation. Uh >> Mr. I just just a question. Have we reached out to the FDA at all? have in this process um to double check has anybody reached out? >> Mr. Chair, Commissioner Dedric, I am not aware of anyone reaching out to the FDA. Um I'm concerned that that might be a fruitless activity on our part just given how federal agencies generally work. >> Well, we're we're addressing what happened by a federal agency. I think it would be prudent to just have a conversation. So I I will say in the information that I got there in documents I had no contact individual with it. So I I don't know how that would be even administered. So uh based on that letter there was no contact individual with questions or concerns. It was directed to >> um Mr. Chair, Commissioner Dedric and members of the board. The letter from the FDA did reference someone. It was signed by someone who uh title as a director. I don't know where they're based out of off the top of my head right now, but I mean there was a name on the letter. Um I I have not reached out to them. Public health has not the attorney's office has not reached out to them. We just processed the complaint as we got it and um the record is before the board. So we haven't done any further additional digging. >> So what if it what if it happens again? We're going to just have the same conversation again. I mean, I'm just I'm just asking, you know, if we're not coordinating and having a full big picture of how we're going to resolve this, I mean, it then it's just going to happen again. >> I guess with this piece here, uh, in my the motion is separate of wanting to change of practices, but we can have maybe a workshop discussion on whether we want to going forward uh enforce FDA compliance checks. Um, I think that's a bigger discussion that we have to have. Uh right now it's more dealing with this and we can invite FDA if they want to participate or not. I don't know if they will in that but uh I'm kind of more on the sides of it because we don't have any control over it and because of the the information I've gotten right now on how they conduct it. I'm kind of more on the side of us just doing our own compliance checks and not utilizing the FDA ones or at least not enforcing them. They're still going to do them. We're just and there'll be more of an informative piece. Uh Let's send them a letter. >> What? >> Let's Let's send them a snail mail letter back and say unless you follow our ordinance and how our practices are done, we're not enforcing what you do. >> And it's on them to respond and to change their practices because if they're doing it to us, they're doing it to other people all over the place. >> Right. So >> unrelated to the conversation we're actually having, but so we'll note that we'll put this as a March workshop item to discuss uh the overall future ongoing practices of it. We have a motion by Commissioner Shane, second by Commissioner Holland uh to come forward with a uh reconsidered resolution uh changing the wording and removing of fines for the uh current situation. All right, any other discussion hearing? None. All in favor say I. >> I sorry I was thinking it was a resolution. I apologize. Sorry. >> Opposed same sign. All right, motion passes unanimous. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. And next we have the schedule a public hearing at March 3rd at 9:30 a.m. for the updated local option sales tax. This is also a uh item that we do usually annually and updating our projects and adding uh new ones onto our 5-year uh local options sales tax uh transportation list. Uh so included in the packet is that updated list. Um at this time is March 3rd at 9:30 at the board meetings. Good on everyone. I'll stand for a motion. >> I will be gone. But no, that's because I >> it's in Yeah, it's a board meeting. So you want to make a motion though? >> I'll make a motion that we uh go forward with that date. >> All right. We have a motion by Commissioner Holland to set March 3rd at 9:30 in this boardroom during the board meeting for a public hearing on the local option sales tax. >> Second. Second by Commissioner Shane. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Oppos. Same sign. All right. Motion passes unanimous. All right. Now we have the Sorry. Bear with me here. We have the workshop minutes that are included in the packet here. Uh, >> sorry. Got >> here. Would you like me to summarize it? >> Yeah, if you want to summarize. I just can't. I'm trying to find. Oh, here it is. Okay, I got them here. The Jan worksheet. So, we had the uh update on our quarterly AERS uh financial update. >> We're still trending. Well, I'll summarize that real well. We're meeting our budgetary goals in terms of our investment income. Uh, next would be uh the county abatement uh policy revision. The recommendation is move forward with the policy revision by the county board uh in the GIS application. So we had a quick demo by right access point uh a page within the right county website. Uh it's more informative uh very good tool finding site encourage staff and in citizens to go out there and check that out. Then we have the Saha funding uh and this was to schedule a meeting on February 3rd uh with more information about the SAHA funding and how we want to move forward with that and partnering with the cities on their funding as well. Uh so with that then we had the email distribution uh just a brief discussion on that and practices and that wasformational only. So with that, I will stand for a motion to approve the workshop minutes. >> So moved. I'll second. >> Motion by Commissioner Shane, second by Commissioner Holland. Any further discussion? >> Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Oppos. Same sign. All right. Motion passes unanimous. Next we have the transportation committee the whole. I am not going to go through all the details in that. Uh there's uh quite a long robust discussion on a variety of different projects. Um I will stand for a motion to approve the recommendations from the transportation committee of the whole on January 13th. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion by Commissioner Holland, second by Commissioner Shane. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Post same sign. All right. Next, we on January 20th, uh we had a closed session to uh do a performance evaluation on county administrator. The recommendation was to come out of it. The county administrator exceeds expectations. Um at this time, I'll stand for a motion to approve the January 20th uh close session. >> So moved >> recommendations. All right. Motion by Commissioner Shane, second by Commissioner Holland. Any further discussion hearing? None. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Post. Same sign. Motion passes unanimous. And the last item would be the uh operations uh committee minutes. Uh the operations minutes. Here we have the I guess I'm going to turn this one over uh to either Jeie or Kirby. I wasn't at that one. So you guys maybe if you want to summarize any of it. >> Only really just kind of getting things off the ground and looking at KPIs. So >> nice. Appreciate both of you working with that and getting us uh some good dashboards out there to uh be able to track how things are going throughout the county. So with that, I'll stand for a motion to approve the uh operations committee uh minutes from January 20th. >> So moved. I'll second. >> Motion by Commissioner Dietrich, second by Commissioner Holland. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Oppos. Same sign. All right. Motion passes unanimous. And with that, we have concluded the agenda. Is there any parting words anyone has before we adjourn? Uh hearing none, we will adjourn the county board meeting at 9:31.