Good morning everyone. It is Tuesday, July 8th. We'll call the Wright County Board of Commissioners to order. We'll 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. Okay, we have a pretty robust agenda here. Uh, first item on the agenda would be the minutes from the June 24th meeting. We can approve those. Uh, you all stand for any motions or modifications? I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. All right. Motion by Commissioner Dietrich. Second. Second by Commissioner Moina. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. Oppos. Same sign. All right. Minutes are approved unanimous. Second. Today's agenda. Uh, would anyone like to add or may remove anything from today's agenda? Mr. Chair, I do have an addition I'd like to make. Um, under items for consideration, it's a purchase agreement between Wright County and French Lake Township for the old highway shop uh in French Lake Township P90000153406. Okay. So, the French Lake shop as is for consideration A4. Um, I'm going to add on another item under A5 and it would be the discussion on the uh building officials inspector's position uh for PNZ discussion. All right. And with that, is there any other modifications? I'll stand for a uh motion to approve the agenda as presented. So moved. I'll second. All right. Motion by Commissioner Shane, second by Commissioner Holland. Uh any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. Oppos. Same sign. All right. Agenda approved unanimous. Today's consent agenda. Would anyone like to remove anything from today's consent agenda for further discussion? If not, I'll stand for a motion. I'll make that motion. I'll second that. Motion by Commissioner Shane, second by Commissioner Holland to approve today's consent agenda. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. Post same sign. Consent agenda approved unanimous. Now on to timed agenda items. First one here we have Chad making his way to the podium on resolution 2539 requesting variance for State Park Road. All right. Morning chairman, commissioners. Yes, this first item is um uh Naple Lake Township received a state park road account grant. With that comes they have to meet state aid a certain set of standards. But if you've driven that road, it's a dead end road to a um DNR boat launch. A lot of homes, very hilly. So we're asking a variance to not have to shave the hills down as much, which would to wipe out septic systems and potentially a couple of homes. So it's uh been approved. Well, approved at the um district 3 level. It's got to go down to central office. But so we're supporting um their variance requests for this project on CO foot which is just east of Maple Lake. So we're familiar with that. All right. With that, uh if there's any questions, otherwise I'll stand for a motion to approve uh resolution 2539. So moved. Second. Motion by Commissioner Moina, second by Commissioner Dietrich to approve resolution 2539. Any further? All right. All in favor? Oh, resolution. Commissioner Moina. I I I I I All right. Resolution passes unanimous. And now we have the contract for Karina Township. Yes. And I apologize. Originally, we put in Maple Lake by accident. We had two township items. So, Mark was able to correct that last minute. So, I apologize for that error in the original. um agenda item, but uh Krena Township, this is another state park road count project. Um finally got to the point where we could bid it. Had a lot of issues with Mandot working through some variance requests. This not little more complex than um Maple Lakes, but we're there. Um township got good bid prices and we're um we will be the fiscal agent for that project because of the grant funds. So, thank you for working with Karina Township. Appreciate it. Thank you. Very good. I'll stand for a motion to approve the uh contract with uh Knife River. So moved. All right. Second. Motion by Commissioner Dietrich, second by Commissioner Moina. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. Post. Same sign. Contract approved. Unanimous. Thank you, Chad. Thank you. Moving along. Well, and get this. Uh Mr. Duchin is here just in time. He loves to come and visit us. He always has such a big smile on his face. It means he loves what he does. Come on, Mr. Chair, members of the board. So, yeah, we have an item um today to schedule a public hearing for August 14th at 100 p.m. Uh from my understanding you guys did discuss this a little bit at a special session last Thursday. Is that time still of Yeah, Mr. Sure. We we tabled this from last Thursday because we weren't sure if we would have a quorum if we had a meeting uh for CD19 on August 14th, which is a Thursday, I believe, at 100 p.m. So, if that works for I think we had two and two and we just needed We were waiting on Commissioner Dietrich to find out if you can make August 14th at 1:00 work. Oh, yeah. It's fine. All right. Okay. And I think we're good. Uh, with that, I'll stand for a motion to set the public hearing on County Ditch 19th for for the repair report on August 14th at 1 p.m. in this room. So moved. All right. Motion by Commissioner Shane, second by Commissioner Moina. And any further discussion hearing none. All in favor say I. I. Oppos. Same sign. All right. Motion passes unanimous. Thank you. And I think we're very enough close. We'll move on to our health and human services portion of our meeting here. So, first item on our health and human services agenda is the sorry is the consent agenda. We have one item on the consent agenda. Uh stand for any motions. I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda. Motion by Commissioner Dietrich. Second. Second by Commissioner Shane. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. Oppose. Same sign. All right. Motion passes unanimous. Now moving on to our timed agenda item. First item on there, we have a tobacco license here for discussion. Sarah, do you have any information you want to add on to it? Otherwise, I can No, we just have a denial. Um, it was it's too low it's too close to a youth oriented facility. Mr. Chair, this is a resolution. Correct. Thank you. Yeah, Mr. Chair, it seems pretty information. It's cut and dry. It's a more of a black and white decision. I'll make a motion to approve the denial of the tobacco license. I'll second. All right. Motion by Commissioner Dietri, second by Commissioner Holland for the denial of the tobacco license. Uh is stated here for Costless Tobacco Shop. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. Oh, it's a resolution. I'm sorry. Commissioner Shane, I I I I I. All right. The resolution passed unanimous. Second is another uh resolution here for the hearing officer's recommendations to suspend VIP tobacco for seven consecutive days. Uh there was quite a robust uh uh notations and information provided within the uh packet regarding this uh hearing. Yes, Mr. Chair, that's correct. This was presented to the hearing officer, Scott Anderson, who the board previously appointed as the independent hearing officer in these matters. I I think his findings of fact um and conclusions are are well reasoned and have a solid basis which I'm sure know the board has reviewed in their entirety. So if it meets the board's approval, we can adopt the resolution um affirming the findings. All right. At this time, I will stand for any uh motion or discussion on the hearing officer's recommendation on the suspension of tobacco for seven consecutive days. Motion to approve the recommendation. I'll second. All right. Motion by Commissioner Moa, second by Commissioner Holland. Uh, any other discussion? Hearing none. Uh, resolution vote. I vote I I I I I. All right. Motion passes unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. And we are too early for our public hearing. Um, we will move down to items for consideration. We'll come back to the other ones. Uh first item on items for consideration would be the authorize of signatures between Wright County and Wright County Soil and Water on a lease agreement. Yes, Mr. Chair. This is um in light of the county's purchase of the the building that Soil and Water is located at 311 Brighton Avenue. This is just uh restating the lease now that the county owns it, putting in the county's name and um just basically a formality in the process. Very good. Uh there's no chair really a change in terms of anything that we aren't aware of from previous discussions. So with that, I'll stand for a motion. I'll make that motion. I'll second that. Commissioner motion by Commissioner Shane, second by Commissioner Holland. Any further discussion, Mr. Chair? Yes. Just real quick, we're negotiating um the other tenants for that lease as well. The other one is with the United States federal government, the USDA. We're in the process of changing that one over going through the federal process working with a guy in California right now who's actually very actively engaged with us which is wonderful to see with the federal government. Yeah. Thank you. But I I would assume that should be clarified by the end of the month. Very good. All right. Uh any other discussion hearing? None. All in favor say I. I. Post same sign. Lease agreement approved unanimous. Second, we have the approved resolution 2540 in concurring with the declaration of the city of Buffalo for emergency slow no wake restriction on Buffalo Lake. Um so administration, do you have any uh background on it otherwise? Um yes, Mr. Chair, we were um Commissioner Dedric brought this over to administration's attention and we worked at the city of Buffalo and learned that they were adopting a uh emergency no wake restriction on Buffalo Lake because the lake was at I believe 918.5 ft um which uh I believe actually put some of their infrastructure a foot underwater that they have around the lake. So, the city of Buffalo enacted a no wake restriction out to 600 ft around the entire lake. Um, in light of the fact that Buffalo Lake is actually crossur jurisdictional, it's part city, part township that for this to be fully in effect on the lake, the county has to concur with it. So, this is just bringing up for concurrence uh after what the city of Buffalo has already done, mirroring their exact language. Um, it will remain in effect for 30 days as presented or until the elevation reaches 917 feet, which is about a foot and a half lower than what it currently is. Yeah, Mr. Chair, just thank thank you for working with me and with the city of Buffalo and getting that done. I appreciate that. Uh, Chairman Bch, question to the edund. Um, who enforces that? Does the city of Buffalo enforce it or I don't believe the city of Mr. Chair, Commissioner Holland, I don't believe the city of Buffalo has any water patrol or assets that can do it. So enforcement of water by statute falls over to the sheriff's office. And I don't believe they're really on that lake. Are they? It's a fishing lake. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Holland, the sheriff, I think, has 286 lakes that they have to patrol. So, um, and only about three boats, I believe. So, okay. the the math on that is not well for enforcing every lake every day. So, it's a feel-good measure. I Mr. Chair, Commissioner Holland, I I can't comment on that. Mr. Chair, I would say it's an education piece as well. I mean, it's just respecting people's property. Um, when it's that high, it washes shorelines away. Um, it's it's just a a kind of a measure of education as well as consideration of the property owners. So, uh, I just want to make a quick comment on this. Um, if we would have rewinded back to about 12 years ago, we the county enacted an ordinance that all the lakes were invited to be able to participate in that would actually put triggers in place that allows for no wake zones to be on when the water is at a specified amount above the ordinary high water mark. Uh, the vast majority of the lakes in Wright County chose not to participate in that. And my fear is that I don't want to have a lot of these one-off situations like this that they're coming now after the fact when they chose not to participate in that ordinance and are kind of picking arbitrary water marks to to enact these uh at uh I'd rather have seen the lakes participate in more of a a codified uh participation in our ordinance uh when doing this versus uh a lot of just oneoffs. That's my fear with doing this is that uh next week I could have another lake and then the next week another lake and when in all actuality they should have should have gone through the process of actually getting included into our ordinance either uh going forward or they should have done it on the front end but they still could at any time uh look for an ordin apply for an ordinance amendment to be included in that. Correct. Administrator Kryser that that Mr. Chair that is correct. We did go through a process about 11 years ago um where we expanded our our noake ordinance and Buffalo Lake um was one of the lakes that would have been receiving that notice and they did not reach out to us to create a permanent no and I think this is uh nice from an educational standpoint. But I also uh know that this generates a lot of phone calls into dispatch uh on complaints on one on a situation where we have a very limited resources to enforce it. Uh so wanting people to understand that we want this is more of an educational tool. Uh it we definitely don't want to be tying up lines with people calling in uh to report wakes in no wake zones uh because our ability to get out there will likely be in the hours not minutes and they'll be long gone and it'll be almost impossible for us to sit uh write a citation for that. So, wanting to make sure that we're we're doing this in letting people know that this is for more of an educational purposes and more for a respect of the land owners around the lake and being respectful to their property. Thank you. All right, Mr. Chair, I do need to correct one statement I made earlier. I believe I said that it would go off at 917 ft. I apologize. I was looking at the wrong part of the resolution. It would be in effect for 30 days or until the water level reaches 916.5 feet. So, six inches higher. All right. So, with that, uh, we will all stand for any motions or discussions on, uh, resolution 2540. I'll make a motion to approve that resolution. We have a motion by Commissioner Dietrich to approve resolution 2540. Second. I'll second. All right. Second by Commissioner Mo. Discussion. So, I know that we talked that uh the sheriff's office would be responsible for enforcing this. I assume we've been in contact with them, but has the city been in contact with how this is going to be enforced? And is there any form of a game plan that they have made? I know that you said that there's three boats and there's a lot of lakes that they have to patrol, but if they're putting this one off and it is incredibly high. I mean, driving around the lake, the water is I mean, there's a lot of a lot of boat landings and and docks that are underwater, but I mean, have they been in contact with the sheriff's office about what they want to see done or how they can best be served by this? Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moina, to the extent of whether or not they've been contacted, I believe yes, City of Buffalo has contacted with the sheriff's department and has informed them about their resolution. I have told them that this is going to be on the agenda as well. To what extent that they will do and to the further elaborate on the question you had. I don't have that information. Um you know enforcement rests solely with the sheriff's department. So how they do it and their means and manners of doing it I have not had discussions with them to that level of detail and I don't believe the city of Buffalo has either. Commissioner Vet. Um, I was sitting on Pilaski Lake uh the 4th of July and I can tell you that is extremely high as well and I that was one heck of a busy lake and there was no abiding by any wake zone uh there and there was no I mean all of our water patrol I'm assuming was in Anandale because there was a lot of people in Anandale for the weekend and and I just feel like this is very ownorous on our sheriff's department. Um because yes, there will be a lot of phone calls there. There it it will generate a lot of uh angst amongst the voters and the homeowners. Um so yeah, I I I feel like I'm with you, Commissioner Veetch. I don't want all these lakes to be coming to us, you know, with really no nothing for us to be able to do on their behalf and enforcing it. And that's I appreciate your your comments on it. I I I I feel in the side of it that we want to be a good steward in helping people and encouraging people to be respectful neighbors to each other. But at the end of the day, enacting this, I want people to understand there our ability to enforce it is uh very little to almost non-existent. Mr. Chair, um I just appreciate the discussion. I didn't know there was historic uh you know discussions pre previously regarding the ordinance um and the engagement with the lakes but if you're going to approach enforcement like that like we don't park a squad on every road for every speeder that goes by. I mean it's it's a it's an education piece but there's some enforcement with it. Um, and this is just it's historically high levels of water on a lot of lakes and it's a lot it can be a lot of damage with the wake boats and the and just the activity and and this is just a balance between that. I don't think that you know it's it's all the time. Um hopefully the water recedes and um you know we're back to normal but and it's only within certain feet of the shoreline that that wake no wake zone is allowed or is enforced. uh if you're out in the middle of the lake, you can have fun. Mr. Chair, um Commissioner Dedrick, just to follow up, you're correct. It is a 600 foot no. It's not the entire lake. Um that is would be a no wakeake subject to it. But I I do want to follow up on the historic nature of it as well and just indicate that the city of Buffalo has done the background material and has drafted a sample ordinance to try to add this add Buffalo Lake to the full ordinance. they've done. When you do this with the DNR, you have to do a a full worksheet analysis detailing a lot of the conditions of the lake, depth, average depth, types of fish, aquatic vegetation that are on the lake, and gather that information. So, the city of Buffalo has gone through that and they were planning on getting us that information um to possibly present to the board for a permanent ordinance. But I just want to let you know they have started it. We have not done anything. I haven't received the packet yet, but in talking with their city administrator, they have started the process and we'll be getting that to us soon. Background. Administrator Kryser, I I another point to I'm glad you brought it up is the distance. Our current ordinance that the lakes could have participated in is at 300 ft. This one is double that distance. Um, which makes it even more uh ambiguous in determining the the distance from shore. So, I'm a I'm a little bit reluctant to support it just because it's even further than our our current ordinance for lakes that went through the process and and participated in it. Um, so that being a fact that that if it was at 300 ft, I might be because it would be more in line with our ordinance for no wakes. Um, I just know that the further it gets out there, everybody has a different perception on what 300 feet versus 600 feet is. Uh, from that perspective, and Mr. chair. Um, we could amend the resolution to say 300 ft. I just simply took what the city of Buffalo adopted before when I received it and just made this a concurring resolution. So, I adopted what they had. But yes, you're correct. Our ordinance, the maximum we do is 300 ft at the county, but open to an amendment if the chair would like. I I have a question, Mr. Chair. Who I get that this will go in our minutes, but how is the the city going to be handling the notification of the public for this? Are they sending letters? Are they putting it on their website, social media pages? And there's signs at the landings as well. Um well I I can't say whether they I know that the lakes that participate in our ordinance have purchased and put signs out for when it comes into effect on those once the this here once again being a one-off. Uh I I can't def say definitively what their plan is for uh advertising this no wake restriction and more to the fact is it's what are they going to do to notify people when it is off too. Yeah. I mean, I'm I'm not saying I'm against this because I get it. It is very high and there is a very major road that goes around that. If the water gets any higher, you have the wakes, they are going to eventually start coming onto the roadway because of how high the water is. I just Yes, I agree with you. I think there should have been a little more forethought and I'm glad that they're working on on getting this as a permanent thing, but um you know, maybe a little warning for some of those other lakes that aren't already involved in it that maybe they should look at getting this taken care of. Mr. Chair, I would I would make an amendment to that to be 300 ft from the shoreline to be consistent with the county ordinance. So, you're making a motion to amend to uh because we didn't have a motion yet. We're still in discussion. So, you're making a motion to approve amend resolution 2540 uh to the extent down to 300 ft making in line with the county ordinance. Uh and a motion to approve ordinance 2540 with amendment. Amendment. Yes. Thank you, chair. I'll second that again. All right. Second by Commissioner Moina. I appreciate the modification on this. My biggest, like I said, concern is I limited resources and wanting to make sure that we're not tying up dispatch lines with people calling in and complaining about boats being in uh boating in a no wake zone. We don't want to use our 911 dispatch for those type of calls. That isn't what it is meant for. And this is my concern with it is that this these type of ordinance end up flooding dispatch with calls and now all of a sudden somebody who's having a heart attack can't get through. And I and that's what I want to prevent happening. So I if we go forward with this, I guess my my I would encourage the public if they want to report this to call it in on a non-emergency line. um it not 911 because this isn't an emergency when somebody is boating in a no wake zone and we won't get anybody out there in a timely enough fashion to cite them for it. So calling in 911 is only hurting other people. It's not solving the problem and I agree with that. All right. So, we have a mo motion by Commissioner Dietrich, second by Commissioner Moina for resolution 2540 with the amendment uh reducing the no wake zone from 600 ft to 300 ft. Uh any other discussion hearing? None. Uh resolution vote. Commissioner Holland. I I I It's a hard one, Mr. Chair. I I'm glad that you amended down to the 300 300 ft. Um I looked into this as far as the you know gears back again. I'm going to go with what you said. I cannot have it use the emergency line. So I will be in favor of this this one time. I uh so I'm going to vote I with the caveat that I want administration to advertise this that it's put in there in bold lettering that please do not call 911 to report these uh offenses and include the non-emergency number. Include the non-emergency number because I I really do not want to see even the ones that are in our ordinance. I don't want people be calling or people to be calling 911 to report these violations. So, all right. And I vote I. All right. Resolution 2540 uh with the amended distance of 300 feet reduced from 600 feet is is approved unanimous. But going forward, I want to state that if we get uh many more of this, I am going to direct them that they're going to go through the ordinance process. I don't believe I want to start doing a bunch of one-off no wakes. So if any other lakes are watching and are interested in participating with this, uh you will need to go through the ordinance amendment process. All right. Uh now we are on to we got a few more minutes yet. We got time to adopt resolution 2541 to submit a grant application to deeds redevelopment, a grant for the demolition of the downtown government center. Thank you, chair and commissioners. We're continuing with the process of redeveloping the old government center in downtown Buffalo. As part of that, we've been working with DED as well as the city and the developer to apply for this redevelopment grant in August of this year. So, the deadline for it August 1st. As part of this, we need a resolution from the county board stating that you are in favor of us submitting this application. We expect the total cost of this project to be about $2 million of of which we'll have to match 50% of it. So, we're anticipating it'll be about a million dollars for the county's match, which we plan to come out of county fund balance. Had a conversation with finance and they believe that there's a healthy fund balance enough for us to be able to pull that money without impact other projects that we're planning. So, with that, looking for adoption of the resolution today. And other than that, I'd be open for any questions of the board. Mr. Chair, I um been involved with this since the beginning and it is so relieving to finally get this close. So, I'm definitely in favor of passing this through 25-41. And so, I would like to make this motion to move forward. Motion by Commissioner Shane, second by Commissioner Holland. Uh, any other discussion? Mr. Chair, what would be the timeline um with the application? When would we know and then move forward? Yeah, thank you, Chair and Commissioner Dedrickch. We expect that we would know results sometime in the fall. They're not specific about exactly when, but I think it's usually September October timeline when you get notice of award, which obviously would then mean we'd probably start I'm guessing we'd start in the spring with something as far as a demolition. Um there's also if we don't get this round, there's another round for applications open in February of next year too that we would apply for if we don't get it this time. Sure. And my concern is with we're in the budgeting process, we're going to start, you know, really digging into that and just being concerned that if if there's, you know, still some federal shifts that we're going to have to address um that million dollar match for this. I mean, it it's a it's better than paying the full price. So, I I absolutely support the grant application. I'm just concerned with the timing and how we're budgeting moving forward. So, that's my only concern. not being involved in this process uh prior to January. Is has there been conversations around this of that the the county will get some of that back in when when it's sold? Because to me, this seems as though and probably to many that uh will watch or read this in the paper that we're doing a a favor, for lack of a better term, for the developer so that they don't have to pay $2 million or even a million dollars to demolish the the current site that's there. Uh I'm just curious how the construction far enough along to so we would be renegotiating with the developer uh if we are awarded and able to carry forward with this. Uh unfortunately the developer isn't far enough along. They don't they don't have site control to be able to apply for this themselves. Uh and they need a corrected government sponsoring agency to do it. So that is the reason we kind of went this route with it. Uh we've been having ongoing conversations with the developer on this. So they're they're aware that if we are awarded this that with the purchase price that there will be a renegotiation. So but if we can leverage some outside funds to be able to get this project to move forward on a more uh timely fashion, they're all for it and we're all for it. But good points. It was a good point. Commissioner Vet, I um I think some of it to clarify is I think anybody that wanted to purchase that was uh it was kind of hooked to us de doing the demolition. I just wanted to make sure that, you know, we're not doing it and then not getting anything back. We're paying a million dollars to get rid of a building that we don't want, right? Nope. that was uh worked out in our uh uh purchase agreement that we moved forward that they were going to cover the demo cost, but if we were going to need to based on other circumstances that it would be a re uh a triggering effect to renegotiate out the terms of the contract. So, very very good questions especially because you were involved with it from the front side. So, fair. All right, with that uh do we have a motion? Do we have Yes. Yes, we had a motion by Commissioner Shane, second by Commissioner Holland. Uh for resolution 2541. Is there any other further discussion? Hearing none. Resolution vote. Commissioner Commissioner Dedric. I I I I I resolution passes unanimous. Thank you. And now at this time, we are just a couple minutes past our public hearing time. It is now 9:32. Uh we will move back up to item D on the regular agenda for a public hearing for Wright County ordinance uh sorry ordinance Mr. Chair it's 25-2 yeah 25-2 uh relating to chapter 112 on cannabis registration and regulation. Uh at this time uh is anyone in the public wishes to speak please come forward to the podium. Mr. chair, if you like, I I can give a brief synopsis of what's going on here, just so the public, if they are here, knows what's going on. And for those listening online, um what we're amending here today is the application process. Before we just had like a general come on in, make an application. We're now changing that over to a first come, first serve application process. What we saw at the state with their lottery process is what we're seeking to avoid here. Excuse me. So, we're trying to go to a first come, first serve. when you get your application in, you'll get it because we are limiting the number of cannabis licenses at this level uh to based on the population that were permitted under state statute. Um the other change to the ordinance is in section two where we're modifying the the administrative fines to match what is in our tobacco ordinance. So um that the two mirror. So before it was a little bit lower than we had in tobacco. So we're trying to make the two mirror. So, um, any license holder that is selling lowto hemp edibles and also tobacco sees the same fine on each violation regardless of what application or what license they're holding. All right. Any other information, Mr. Nothing? Nothing else, Mr. Chair. Those are the two amendments. All right. So, at this time, if anyone would like to uh from the public would like to speak on ordinance amendment 252 uh pertaining to regulation and registration of cannabis and Wright County, please come forward to the podium at this time and state your name and city of res residency. Uh for the record, the floor is open. Uh Walt Barlo from Middville Township. Uh we just have a few questions on how this is going to be enacted. Okay. Uh first of all, way we understand it is the uh state is going to issue a permit. The county is going to license the business. Now, being a township, if the business wants to be in, for instance, Millville Township, uh, will they I realize that because we don't have over 12,500 people that we have to allow one business. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. Does the county have uh zones that they're like they have adult entertainment zones? Are they going to do something like this? Mr. Chair, I I can maybe help address this. For the townships, you you fall underneath the county's jurisdiction where you have to have at least one within the county township areas. We have that they're underneath their planning and zoning. Um, these are regulated want to say if you're a Sarah, I'm gonna get mess up the lens here. If you're a distributor or a dispensary, that's correct terminology. I believe we limited those to commercial and industrial zones. If you're growing, you are only permitted in industrial. It is not allowed in residential, egg, or egg. And they would microphone. Excuse me. Sure. Um, you know, and I'm not the planning and zoning director to be clear. Um, Sarah Gcho is public health. So, uh, they would have to go through the planning and zoning process prior to applying. Um, otherwise they because of the time frames that were held to by the Office of Cannabis Cannabis Management. Uh, they would probably likely be sim similarly denied because we have to meet this 30-day timeline. Otherwise, they need a they not a conditional use permit. We What is Barry using now? Interimm use permit. Thank you. So, um they're not going to you would hear about it before we do our own planning and zoning. So, you would have you would likely need to have those regulations all written out for in advance for what you want to accept. Okay. Thank you. And then the only other comment I had when I I was going through your amendment on uh on the appeal process, you you just said they have the right to appeal, but in the amendment itself, it uh doesn't say where they appeal. Now maybe it's in the uh ordinance itself or the beginning but in this amendment on uh uh the appeal process you just as they have the right to appeal. Administrator Kreser the process is the same of that of tobacco. Correct. Yes. They go to our hearing officer. Yes we have a hearing officer that would do these appeals or they would go to the office of cannabis management at the state. One of the two. But what you have in the ordinance, the sections that are here are only those that are being amended. We did not copy and paste the entire amendment ordinance into this, just the sections that were being amended. Okay. Well, thank you. All right. Well, thank you, Walt. All right. Would anyone else like to speak uh regarding the ordinance amendment 25-2? Would anyone else like to speak on ordinance amendment 252? Would anyone else like to speak on ordinance amendment 252 hearing? None. At this time, we will close the public hearing and bring the discussion up here to the dis. Mr. Chair, before the board are two action items. The first to I guess consider and adopt the proposed amendments to ordinance amendment 25-2 and then adopting a resolution after that for summary publication. So there there was a if I may um Mr. Sheriff, there was a point brought up that uh some townships do their own planning and zoning. So, if they do their own, their PNZ has to approve it and then the counties and how how does that work when they're there certain townships do their own planning? So, you still have to go through the planning and zoning process before you can go to public health in this case to get the permit. Uh so, you take you go it's kind of like a three-fold. You go to the state, then you go to planning and zoning, then you go to the county public health to get yourself fully, right? So, if they do their own planning and zoning, do they do theirs and then the counties or they skip theirs and go right to the county or just theirs and to public health? That's kind of what I'm curious. You got to get through the planning and zoning at wherever it whether it's the county who does it or the township. They have to go through that before they can come to the county public health. But before they can even go to the p the county planning and zoning, they need to go to the state and the and get the uh I don't know what whether you call a license or permit state county. One's a license, one's a permit. So um Chairman Vet and uh Commissioner Mo uh I'll I'll clarify. There are several terms that are very similar but distinct. So um all uh applicants will go first to the office of cannabis cannabis management at the state and that's where they submit their initial application then that will be enter uh system that they have purchased that will flow to us. If it is under our very few but you know most will probably be in the cities let's be clear. Um, but if it's within townships, uh, they will go to Barry if they were within our jurisdiction or to the township that are within the townships. We've been tried, we've tried to make it very clear what we have jurisdiction over for planning and zoning, what we don't. There's a 30-day clock that starts for approval for planning and zoning. Um and our office will make sure that we are in communication with those cities or those townships to make sure that we have planning and zoning approval. Our office in public health gives a registration. So there's licensing at the state and we get a registration fee and then planning and zoning gives planning and zoning approval. So there are three different distinct steps. So, we aren't doing a second planning and zoning approval, just to be clear. Yeah, that's I just wanted to make sure that when you have those jurisdictions and the different people doing the different planning and zoning that it wasn't going to be a added step in the process. There's definitely a lot of hands in this cookie jar on this one. There are. Yes. And then our our role is to ensure that there's compliance primarily with um the under 21 sales. Um, Mr. Chair, commissioners, it's a complicated statute obviously and it's it's voluminous, but I think basically to answer your question, I think the the type of business would have to comply with the planning and zoning in place or they'd have to seek um a change in the P&Z process. So, and we focus most of our energy on the retail establishments because um I believe we're going to get licenses for those first from the state. So that's where we've focused most of our energy in in figuring this out um in a in a complicated statute in an everchanging process. Commissioner, I have a question for Sarah. Now uh June 18th, I believe was the the the date everybody got their license. So they're out they're out from the races right now, right? Have we gotten any submissions uh for any county, city, or township at all? Do you know? I don't believe that we have full applications, but we have folks that are working on on buildings. We have folks that are working through the process. We had a very interesting uh um Megan uh and I had a very interesting conversation with uh lawyer extraordinaire Jeff O'Brien who is very knowledgeable in cannabis and he said they have 18 months from the time they get their license. So he said they all have uh rigorous uh um real estate uh agents looking for where they can put these. They know setbacks. Uh so he said they are basically out of the gate and running. So correct. So essentially they're pre-approved for a license. They don't have their actual license until they have a physical location which is an interesting approach. Um, and so they're out hither and yond looking for where they're gonna put their flag. It's a good way to refer to it. So, at this time, uh, I'll stand for any motions on the ordinance amendment 252. Mr. Chair, I'll go ahead and make that. And I just want to thank Sarah and Megan for um helping me understand a lot of this and sending me information. And I yes, it has been a whirlwind for the last year for sure, if not even longer, but since this all started. So, but I'm okay with these amendments because again, we weren't changing the whole thing. It was just these. Um so, I'll make that motion. I'll second that. All right. We have a motion by Commissioner Shane, second by Commissioner Holland for the approval of ordinance amendment 25-2. Any discussion? And I do thank you all for it's been really a long I think it's been 18 months or more. It's been a lot of meetings. We have uh really dug deep and I appreciate all the city's work in this too. Uh so thank you so much. All right. At this time, if there's no other discussion, uh, all in favor of say I. I. I. Oppos. Same sign. All right. Ordinance amendment 252 approved. Unanimous. Second. We need to adopt the uh summary language resolution for ordinance amendment 252 for publication. So moved. I'll second. All right. Motion by Commissioner Shane, second by Commissioner Holland for resolution for summary of publication for ordinance amendment 252. Any discussion hearing? None. Commissioner Moina. I I I I I resolution passes unanimous. Thank you, Sarah. Thank you. Thanks, Sarah. And now moving back to items for consideration. We had two petitioned items on. First was the uh A4 French Lake shop and authorizing signatures on the uh agreement with the French Lake and on the purchase of French Lake shop. Yes, Mr. You're looking at entering into a purchase agreement uh with French Lake Township for the former French Lake Township Highway Shop. Uh purchase price of $110,000. It is for PID number 209- 0000-15346 um in French Lake Township. Um looking to close by the end of the month. Hence why I had to petition this on um little earlier. Are the documents included? They're not in the packet. No, we got it late. I just want Okay. So, they want to close by the end of the month. So, our next meeting is on the 29th and I couldn't won't give us the time. I'd have to really move quite a bit with the title company to get this closed in two days. Um, Mr. Chair, I'll go ahead and go along with that motion or make that motion um with the with the French Lake. I know there's been a lot of due diligence and want to thank the people that have been involved with that as well because I know there was a little bit going back and forth. Um I think it's the best in the county's interest to move forward on this without letting any more time pass. I'll second that. All right. We have a motion by Commissioner Shane, second by Commissioner Holland uh for authorizing signatures on the purchase agreement with the French Lake shop between Wright County and French Lake Township. All right. Any other discussion? I I just want to thank the the ways and means for getting this taken care of as well as the staff time that has been put into this. Um, you know, as I said uh prior, I don't think that um going from one government entity to the other that we should require them to purchase it. I understand the thought behind it. Um I just think it's charging residents twice for it. Uh, but I again I want to thank the Ways and Means for getting this taken care of and and at a price that French Lake and the county feel is acceptable. All right. Thank you. Any other discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. I. Oppose. Same sign. I. All right. Motion passes 41. All right. Next. Uh I appreciate board members for allowing me to petition on the discussion on the uh building inspectors for planning and zoning. Uh put this on. I have received a number of phone calls here recently. Um and our turnaround times for inspections are becoming um what I'm going to call unpalatable. We've have now uh we're averaging at almost 20day turnaround. Uh and even at minimum very basic uh things as simple as like a furnace or a window replacement typically you should be able to be done in less than you know really less than 5 days but we're trending even into the double digits on turnaround on that. Uh so especially because this is an item that is not subsidized by the levy that the fees entirely pay for the workers and actually we cover more than the workers. Even if we added this position, it would cover that. Uh we take in over a million dollars in uh permit fees. So we right now are employed with three individuals there. Uh we had budgeted for a fourth one. What I'm asking is that we actually uh we did put that freeze on hiring, but I'm asking at this time that the budgeted item that be back uh be allowed to move forward in filling that building uh inspector position uh to be able to get the turnaround times down. We are trending to be able to be at or maybe possibly exceed the number of permits that we had last year. We've grown exceptionally over the last three years. Uh, I can't consciously uh ask these people to wait any longer to be able to get their inspections to be able to move forward with their uh construction. So, it's it it it's not a subsidized service. It's those that use it pay for it. Uh the it is one of those areas where we actually take in more than we actually spend to do so. Uh we my fear is if you do this people are going to stop getting the permits because it's taking too long to get them to be able to get the inspections and that's even d more dangerous. So Mr. Chair, um do we actually have numbers that like basically a a profit loss? Do we do we do we actually have numbers because I didn't see anything. Um what's coming in? And I know I hear the million dollars, but actual lines that actually show where both of them are, where our expenses are to what our revenue is. That something that maybe Lindsay, you could you can archaically go that the revenue line is budgeted at at about a million dollars and we right now the expense to it is three inspectors and three inspectors do not and that's you know, so that's the part right there. there's other pieces to it that you could tangentally from an ordinance perspective that you could tang tangentally connect to it that there's other operations that within P&Z that may be applicable to it but generally those fees are there to pay for the safety and security of the dwellings in the county and for the workers that make sure that the state building code is upheld in the county uh for the safety and security of citizens. So, Commissioner Veetch, this spring, I was the one that uh pushed forward uh a hiring freeze. I got a lot of push back for it. Uh but we didn't know if that county or if the state shift was coming our way and we wanted to get to budget time. Now, that big beautiful bill isn't going to be beautiful for counties and we know that they're going to be a significant amount of shifts coming our way because of that. And I'm just afraid that the floodgates are going to open. If we do a rehire here, then are we gonna everybody's going to come and say, "We need a rehire. We need a rehire before we get to the I'm I'm already nervous about budgeting. I don't like budgeting at all because I would like to see zero levy increase." Um so I that's what scares me about this position. um is is yeah we do I I do feel it makes sense but then at the same time we're setting a precedent that any department can come up and say okay we need to rehire we have been saying no uh and we're we're two weeks into starting to go through that process and so I don't know I'm really not in favor of doing this right now just for the fact that we just don't know what's coming down upon our heads. Commissioner Holland, I I appreciate your perspective and I wholeheartedly, you know, am upset over some of the cautious that we're getting from the federal government after we just barely scathed by and wouldn't say we got unharmed by the state, but we were far less harm than we were potentially uh facing. But now we're even harmed even greater from the federal government. But we can't I I'm I'm more about we have to look at making where these cost shifts are more accountable for the the lack of service. I I I I get if we wanted to hold off on eligibility specialists that are processing SNAP applications because that's where a lot of the cost shift is. I I I I can get that in in holding off there. But these people that are doing these construction workers, these people that are doing remodels on their homes when they are paying the full fair for it and then some, they're actually subsidizing these other areas in here and they are we've I I have the turnaround list here and some of them are almost pushing 50 days. Like that that is so unacceptable. It's you're you're telling people don't build in Wright County or if you're doing it just ask for forgiveness. Don't get a permit. Uh and that's Mr. Chair, is there any way of streamlining the process making this maybe a little bit more functioning? I you know I I'm not sure of the department but if if that's one way and again my my thought pattern is I just need to see mine's more about the budget and where the department costs are and if that's if this truly is we're you know not mocking up some of the water by doing some of these hard things you know streamlining it basically are we making it more costly on ourselves. So then see what our permit revenue is bringing in to offset that. I guess I'd kind of really like to see numbers. So and the biggest thing and and I get it that the two of yours don't have township so you probably you have one township, you have no township. You wouldn't be likely to get as many phone calls as uh the the other three of us on this. Um and the other side to this is that we made changes. We tried to we went for efficiency on this. We put implemented software. Uh unfortunately that that efficiency that we went for was more efficient on the perimeters, the ones that are pulling the perimeters by having online permits. We were allowing people to do it online from their homes. Now with that uh comes a little bit more work on our end because when people put in information online, they sometimes miss things and we have to follow back with them. Whereas if they came to our window, we can ask for it right there, get clarification. So we with the online side of it, we have a lot of backtracking communication with it, which takes us a little bit more ownorous time. Uh also because of the influx of permits that we've continually had, we don't have anybody that's actually working at the desk. All of our inspectors are out in the field. We this other fourth position was intended to be able to have an inspector at the counter and in the office working in sending back those responses to those online permits and dealing with the people that are coming to the counter. But right now that's not happening. These inspectors when they come back at the end of the day from the field are actually working the uh working on playing catch-up at that point uh which ends up making our turnaround times even further out. Uh I I I really understand the side of needing to be uh financially uh responsible and trying to mitigate these costs, but this is a this is purely a game of these people are paying for a permit and they're paying for a service that we're not giving them and we need to give them that service for those permits. That that's plain and simple what it is. Again, Mr. Chair, I I appreciate that again, but I'm just looking at the actual actual numbers. I'd like to see I just can I add just a couple comments? Um, thank you. I appreciate it. I have gotten a lot of phone calls. Um, the they want to build their houses and this is the time to build. Um, so this isn't this is a timely issue. Um, we have this budgeted for 2025. We did hire even during our hiring freeze driver's license center to address the needs there when that demand came high and that's what we're doing here. This is a high demand and we need to address it. Um we hired in finance. We reorganized and we hired in finance and in it. Um those were some important you know things that we decided this was we are going to go forward. I appreciate the soft hiring freeze but again we're looking at the growth in the county. We don't want to inhibit it. We want the inspectors getting out there doing their job and um providing the service that we're required to do um as a county. So, I just I I just agree that we want to do it well and and uh encourage our county to keep growing. Any thoughts, sir, Commissioner Mo? I'm okay with it because it was previously budgeted for. If this was an added position that we had not planned on, I would be in the same boat as the others of there's issues with what we're going to be dealing with in the budget. Uh but because this was previously planned for and it is the season right now, I'm I'm okay with it. Appreciate the support, Commissioner Moina. And that's all I'm asking is we've had a lot of discussion and then we've last year's budget time we the workload suggested we needed this position and now it's even more to the fact that we need it and that's all I'm asking is that we we carry forward with uh to meet the demand. So at this time I'll stand for any motions. I'll make a motion to approve. All right. Motion by Commissioner Dietrich to approve the uh uh hiring of a budgeted uh building inspector. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Mo. Any discussion? One question. If it was budgeted, why is it at our table? This is what I don't like. Because it makes us look like spending freaks. It's already budgeted. Why didn't we? So, we have froze. We have a soft freeze. Mhm. If it was budgeted, we should have we should have went ahead then and filled that position. So now we're now it's at the table, which really bothers me because it makes us look like, okay, we we have a a a free a freeze, but oh well, we really don't have a freeze. That's my thing. And so for that reason, I vote no. All right. So, with that, um, I can respond to it and I get it. We have a very dedicated, uh, hardworking planning and zoning director, and he tried to to hold out as long as he could. He waited to the busy season to, uh, hire into this position because he wanted to save as much county dollars as he possibly could. But when he got to the point where it he wanted to hire it, we put the freeze in place because he did he was like, "Well, I don't want to hire it in February because I I didn't need it at that point." It was more of a he meant his intentions were good for for the citizens of the county. Building starts in April. Yeah. Yeah. I I'm just saying that discussions that I've had on it. So, and then fair enough. So uh with that uh any other discussion? No. All in favor say I. I. I. Oppos. Same sign. I. All right. Uh motion passes 32. All right. Is there anything else uh for today's agenda? Nothing further, Mr. Chair. All right. With that, we will adjourn at 10:02. [Music]