Board Meeting Information & Materials - Regular Meeting

Good morning. Welcome to the Board of Commissioners meeting of August 25th, 2026. Please stand and join us in the pledge of Abel.

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.

Thank you. All right, agenda review, Josh.

Madam Chair, I have one item to add to the agenda. Right after our closed session pursuant to Minnesota Statute 13D05, I would ask that we add to the agenda action for an approved settlement agreement after that closed session.

All right, thanks, Josh. Move with the change. Second.

I have a motion and a second. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Josh. All right, County Ditch 56, acceptance hearing. Good morning, Jordan. Good morning. All right, so here we go. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the County Ditch 56 contract acceptance hearing. The first item is an agenda review.

No changes to the agenda, Madam Chair. All right. Move the agenda. Second.

I have a motion and a second for the agenda. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Carries. So the purpose of today's hearing is to determine whether the contractor for the petition repairs affecting portions of branch three of county ditch 56 has completed their contract in accordance with the plans and specifications. The order of business for this hearing is as follows. Staff will review the jurisdictional documents, we will hear from the appointed engineer, and then we will open the hearing for public comments. So I'll now ask Bloor County Drainage Staff Jordan Williamson to review the jurisdictional documents.

Notice was posted for this hearing outside the Blue Earth County Historic Courthouse located at 204 South 5th Street, Mankato, Minnesota, 56001. Hearing notice was mailed on August 7th, 2026. Notice of public hearing was published in the Mankato Free Press on August 11th, 2026. I have a memo to read here. The Blue Earth County Ditch 56, CD56, is located in Garden City in Lincoln Townships. The Blue Earth County Drainage Authority approved public bids for CD56 Branch 3 repairs, awarding the repair contract to Selle Excavating Incorporated. On May 27, 2025, drainage management staff received the engineer's acceptance of contract report for the County Ditch 56 Branch 3 repairs on July 9, 2026. All contractual work has been completed. By assigned findings and orders today, acceptance of contract hearing was set on July 28, 2026. Today we are respectfully asking the County Ditch 56 drainage authority accept the drafted findings and order, approving the engineer's acceptance of contract report for the County Ditch 56 petition repairs and issue the release of any final payments due to the contractor and the pay damages as shown in the acceptance of contract report. That's all I have.

Thank you, Jordan. I need a motion to accept. I'll accept the jurisdictional documents. Second. Motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. We will now hear from our appointed engineer. Good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning. Much like Jordan said, we're here today for the first of two final acceptance hearings, this one being Blue Earth County Diction No. 56, Branch 3, and the repair efforts that took place on it. This first picture we're looking at here is generally the beginning of the project. And you can generally see the course of the repairs being branches three and lateral H. Before I get too far into this, I guess I should introduce myself. I'm Jacob Mueller with ISG. I'm an engineer on the project. What we're looking at here is the watershed for Blue Earth County Ditch 56. It's comprised of a long stretch of open ditch and many subsurface tile branches, laterals, sublaterals. The specific portion that we're looking at today is the Branch 3 portion, kind of over here on the eastern extents just south of the city. A little bit of a closer look, kind of shows some of the work that we've done. These repair efforts were looked at for quite a while. It's a very unique area in that there's been a lot of U.S. Fish and Wildlife grounds purchased in this area, kind of altering the utility of the subsurface tile lines. Many of the tile lines are now under wetlands, no longer farmed areas. They route through those areas, which are very, very expensive to maintain and difficult to maintain in perpetuity just with root intrusion. that the initial designs predominantly looked at reroutes, and that was the design that Landowners' Benches selected. A bit on the construction timeline, this was bid in May of 2025. Selle Excavating was the lowest responsible bidder in that bid pool, and it was awarded to them at that date. Contracts were executed in July of 2025. For that specific contract, substantial completion was on November 30th of 2025, with that final completion being January 30th, 2026. The actual construction timeline went from July 21st of 2025 to October 3rd of 2025, so well within that substantial completion window. They did have some final punch list items that went slightly beyond final completion, but they kind of needed the weather to agree a little bit more to finish some of that finalized work and not disturb the fields as much as being there in January would have. Here's some photos from the site. You can see a lot of this work was occurring in the summer just by some of the area. They had to use a trench box. There's a fairly large watershed that comes to this system. They dealt with a lot of water, had to use a lot of rock. Here on the bottom right you can see one of the several road crossings that had to be open cut and restored. All of those are in a functional condition now. Road right-of-ways have been reseeded. Areas were ripped and plowed after the fact. in the ag fields. There's a couple more photos just detailing some of that site construction. This is kind of more during the active phase prior to any of the restoration efforts just being re-pulling the black material on top of that tile alignment and rip plowing all of that to minimize damage. A bit on construction costs. So the engineer's initial repair estimate at the time of the repair hearing was $717,952. The awarded contract was $640,945.75. So approximately $80,000 less than estimated. The total costs at the end of the project were $683,230.05. This was the result of approximately a $50,000 increase in cost in a change order when the tile was discovered to be about two feet lower in certain locations. Similarly with that, there was a net reduction in installed quantities, totaling about $16,000. To date, the contractor has been paid $649,068.55 leaving an amount due of $34,161.50. Damages were tabulated for each individual parcel through the duration of construction. Our construction observers on site use GPS to tabulate and measure specifically all those areas that were damaged. The landowners might be paid for those. Those have been delivered to drainage staff. Here's a map depicting those areas. As you can see, we distinguish between different crop sites. The areas in brown are beans, such as on the Sant property or on the Miller property, and other areas being kind of this yellow gold color. That was corn, such as on the Sorenson property or on the Willier property. As-built documents were generated by the engineer to detail where everything was installed, how deep it was installed, where connections were made. This can be used for the future legal record for the CD56 system, as well as be a benefit to its landowners to determine where the private tile was connected and understand how they might tile in the future or best utilize their system. We've also provided an abandonment map as portion of the closeout documents. We do have the revised map here detailing all those areas proposed to be abandoned. Essentially everything in the area to be abandoned or in the area of repair has been abandoned. That was reinstalled with the exception of several tile lines on this property right here which were not touched. This landowner was given a new outlet, repaired to what he was essentially agreed to at the time, and just kind of minimizing work in that area. So finally, it's the engineer's opinion that the contractor, Selly Excavating, has satisfactorily completed the contract in accordance with the plan's specifications. Selly has provided the required submittals for final payment, being that signed final pay request, his three-year warranty bond for the installed tile, and that IC-134 forms for his subcontractors. Ultimately, IHG recommends accepting the work and approval of final payment to the contractor and paying damages to all affected landowners. Thank you.

Thank you for the report. Excuse me. So at this time, we'll open the public comment portion of the hearing. If you would like to make a comment, please come to the podium, state your name and address for the record. Comments from the public are expected to be civil and respectful. Please note this meeting is being recorded. There is a five-minute time limit. The county administrator will give you a one-minute warning and let you know when you've used your allotted time. In addition, the board may restrict or limit the time allotted to a person whose remarks are repetitive or not relevant to the matter under consideration by the board. Is there anyone wishing to make comments on Ditch 56? Anyone wishing to make comments to County Ditch 56, Petitioned Repairs for Portions of Branch 3? And last time, anyone wishing to make comments for County Ditch 56? Hearing no comments, I will close the public comment portion of the hearing. Anything from the board?

No questions, I would so move.

Second. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. And that will conclude the County Ditch 56 acceptance hearing. All right, Jordan, then we're going to move on to County Ditch 73. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the County Ditch 73 acceptance hearing. First item is an agenda review.

Madam Chair, no additions or changes? Move to approve. Second.

I have a motion and a second for the agenda. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Carries. The purpose of today's hearing is to determine whether the contractor for the previously approved repairs affecting portions of County Dish 73 has completed their contract in accordance with the plans and specifications. The order of business for this hearing is as follows. Staff will review the jurisdictional documents. We will hear from the appointed engineer. And we will open the hearing for public comments. So now we'll have Jordan Williamson review the jurisdictional documents. Jordan.

Notice was posted for this hearing outside of the Blue Earth County Historic Courthouse located at 204 South 5th Street, Mankato, Minnesota. Hearing notice mailed on August 7th, 2026. Notice of public hearing was published in the Mankato Free Press on August 11th, 2026. I have a short memo to read here. Blue Earth County Ditch 73 is located in Lyra Township. The Blue Earth County Drainage Authority approved a quote for repairs, awarding a repair contract to Leland Excavating and Drainage on September 9, 2025. The Property and Environmental Resources Department drainage staff received the engineer's acceptance of contract report for the approved County Ditch 73 repairs on July 9, 2026. All contractual work has been completed by the contractor. On July 28, 2026, by signed findings in order, today's acceptance of contract hearing was set. Today, we are respectfully asking that the County Ditch 73 Grandage Authority accept the drafted findings in order, approving the engineer's acceptance of contract report for the County Ditch 73 repairs, and issue the release of any final payments due to the contractor and to pay damages as shown in the acceptance of contract report. That's all I have, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Do I have a motion to accept the jurisdictional documents?

So moved.

Second. And a second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Now we'll hear from our engineer from ISG, Jacob.

Thank you. Once again, Jacob Mueller from ISG, engineer on the project. Again, we're here to talk about the second of two final acceptance hearings, this one being for the repairs on Blue Earth County Ditch number 73. Just a bit of a view at the watershed. Here we can see some of the tile infrastructure as compared to Blue Earth CD 56, which we just discussed. This one is relatively smaller. It's comprised entirely of tile. And so were all of the repairs. The work proposed involved, instead of large swaths of repairing an entire line, as we see in some cases, there was individual spot repairs only in those areas which were deemed to be in an immediate state of failure to restore that as constructed conditions. So there's some work on branches seven, six, branch two, lateral A, branch two, and the main line. A bid on the construction timeline, this was bid in August, late August of 2025. The lowest responsible bidder was Leland Drainage and Excavating. That contract was executed on September 15th of 2025. Contract dates, final completion for this work was April 15th of 2026, and construction ran between early February of 2026 to late March of 2026. Some of the construction photos you see here involve many of the same things we see on many drainage projects. There was a couple areas where roads were opened up and the tile was reinstalled beneath. Those areas have been subsequently reseeded and established. The remaining photos on the top left that you see involve tile installation. One nuance of spot repairs is that generally this work occurs in the historic trench. of the old tile, generally a less suitable place for new tile installation. Soils have been mixed. In those cases, you can kind of see what we pursued as a design being encasing that pipe and rock for longevity. Bit on construction cost of final payment. At the time of finalization, our estimate for the repair work was $99,606. The awarded contract was $122,535. The total costs incurred on the project for the construction were $114,415. Essentially less rock and connections were installed as compared. Some of those things are front-end estimates as these are unit price contracts. To date, the contractor has been paid $105,084.25, yielding an amount due of $9,330.75. Similar to other projects that we've discussed, damages were recorded in all areas where construction occurred and property was damaged. That has been tabulated and shared with the county drainage staff. Similarly, as-builts have been generated for this work. They yield just plan views due to the small nature, small scope of work, detailing where these repairs have occurred. exactly what went in the ground and where everything was connected for future use. Finally, it's the engineer's opinion that the contractor, Leland Drainage and Excavating, has satisfactorily completed the contract in accordance with the planned specifications. He's provided the required submittals for final payment, being that signed final pay request, and is IC 134 for subcontractors. Ultimately, ISG recommends accepting the work and approval of final payment to the contractor and paying damages to all affected landowners. Thank you.

Thank you for that acceptance report.

At this time, we'll open the public comment period of the hearing. If you would like to make a comment, please come to the podium, state your name and address for the record. Comments from the public are expected to be civil and respectful. Is there anyone wishing to make comment? Anyone wishing to make comments on the county ditch 73 repairs? And last time, anyone wishing to make comments for county ditch 73 repair? Seeing no further comments, I will close the public comment portion of the hearing. Anything from the county board?

I don't have any questions.

All right. So I need a motion.

I move approval.

Second. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Okay, no further comment. Here we go. Let's move on to... Jordan, we're going into Ditch 23. Is that right?

Yes, it's being repaired. The Blue Earth County Judicial Ditch 23 watershed is approximately 1,200 acres in size and located in Sterling and Shelby townships. Based on inspections of Judicial Ditch 23 subsurface tile, a repair report was developed. Blue Earth County drainage staff consulted with ISG engineers to develop a repair report. The repair report was developed using drainage staff input as well as engineering survey recommendations. A copy of the draft engineer's repair report was submitted to Blue Earth County Drainage Management staff on June 11, 2026. Informational landowner meetings were held on December 17, 2025 and June 11, 2026 to discuss the proposed repair report, including costs and plans. At today's meeting, we are respectfully asking the drainage authority to approve the draft findings in order, setting a repair hearing date for September 15, 2026. That's all I have, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

I'll move approval. Second.

I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. And last... Judicial Ditch 33.

I've got Joint County Ditch 83, improvement bid awarding. So public bids were solicited for Judicial Ditch 33 approved improvement construction plans. A total of six bids were submitted and opened on August 3rd, 2026. The six bids received are provided in the table below with the lowest bid submitted from the Leland Drainage Excavating LLC with a bid price of $378,852.55 and the highest bid received from Holtmeyer Construction Incorporated with a bid price of $522,510. Blue Earth County and ISG have worked with Leland Drainage on past repairs and projects with positive results. Based on the submitted low bid price and past work experience, we recommended the improvement work be awarded to Leland Drainage and Excavating LLC. Today we request the judicial ditch 33 drainage authority to award a contract for approved improvement plans for construction to Leland drainage and excavating LLC for a bid amount of three hundred seventy eight thousand eight hundred fifty two dollars fifty five cents affecting portions of judicial ditch 33 That's all I have madam chair.

Thank you Second the motion is second any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

Thank you, Jordan. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you, Jacob.

So moving on to the County Sheriff, Jeff Wurthel.

Good morning, Sheriff.

Good morning. Good morning.

Madam Chair, good morning. Good morning. Our current contract that we have with River Valley Forensic Services who performs our autopsies and forensic examinations at Ramsey County is set to expire at the end of the year. They prepared a new two-year contract with the duration ending 12-31-28 with no change in the current cost that we're paying now. I think they're doing this early because there's a lot of other counties that want to use their services and they want to know how many are going to stay on board with them and I recommend that we stay on board with them. I'll move approval. Second.

Motion and a second. Any discussion? It's nice they kept the prices the same.

Yeah.

All in favor? For now. All in favor?

Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.

Thanks for that. Thanks for that. All right. Planning and zoning. Good morning. Good morning. So the next item on the agenda is planning and zoning. Planning and zoning staff are here to present their action items. There is a public hearing and public comment will be allowed in just a moment. As previously stated, comments should be civil and respectful. If you haven't already done so, please sign the clipboard at the back of the room. And I'll ask the planning and zoning staff to introduce themselves for the record and introduce the first item before the board.

Good morning, Scott Salisbury, Land Use Planner.

Jenny Mochel-Johnson, Land Use Planner.

Erickson Schaefer, Land Use Planner.

Thank you.

All right, go ahead. All right, the first item we have for you is Planning Commission item number 11-26. This is a request for review and approval of an interim ordinance establishing up to a one-year moratorium on the permitting of data centers within the unincorporated areas of Blue Earth County under the zoning authority of Blue Earth County. This moratorium will allow county staff to conduct an evaluation and develop the appropriate performance standards and zoning ordinance amendment. At the planning commission meeting, staff presented a staff report and submitted comments from two residents that were both in support of the moratorium. Four members of the public provided comments in support of the moratorium as well. Public comments highlighted several key themes, including the need to understand long-term environmental impacts, the importance of public officials avoiding nondisclosure agreements, the recommendation for the county to use broad regulatory language since data centers may be labeled as technology parks or large consumers, and the significance of reflecting the will of the community. Following the discussion, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of approval to the County Board based on the findings prepared by staff. So the request in front of you today, we are requesting a board action passage of the ordinance based on the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Are there any questions for our staff?

I don't have any at this point. I would move to approve. Well, we have some public comment to come. Oh, I'm sorry. That's all right. We've got to do that. Yeah, sometimes we have public comment. At this time, we'll open the public comment portion of the hearing. If you would like to make a comment regarding PC 11-26, please come to the podium, state your name and address for the record. Is there anyone wishing to speak to PC 11-26?

Good morning. Good morning. I have a handout. I made 10 copies. It's not enough for everybody here, but it's an updated version of the number of counties and cities in the state of Minnesota that have passed the moratorium on data centers.

If you could state your name and address for the record.

I'm Bruce Schwarzkopf. I'm a resident of Mankato and also Newark County. Thank you. And I'm here to speak in support of a moratorium on the permitting of data centers in Blue Earth County, while the county studies what a hyperscale data center here would entail. If you approve PC-11, 26, the interim ordinance will join 26 other cities and counties in Minnesota that have already approved a moratorium. And those 26 cities and counties are listed on the handout. I also want to commend county staff for their excellent work on the background and statement of general need in your packet. Just really well done and illuminates the issues. It just makes sense to study the issue carefully before a developer comes because of the massive scale and resource requirements of a hyperscale data center. A hyperscale data center is a large facility. It can have a footprint of millions of square feet. The proposed data center in North Mankato, which is no longer a thing because a developer withdrew, had a footprint of four million square feet. It uses a lot of electricity and it can use a lot of water. There are also issues with the How do you take care of that? And noise pollution and light pollution. It's also important to determine appropriate siting for a data center near the resources it needs and away from residential neighborhoods because of the noise and light pollution. Furthermore, it's important to get public input by having open houses, listening sessions and the like And I commend the Board of Commissioners for bringing it to a vote today. But a cautionary tale, if a data center is coming and comes to see a county commissioner, do not sign a non-disclosure agreement. That's what happened in North Mankato, Hermantown, Pine Island, and Farmington. In Hermantown, which is the case I know the best because I know one of the residents there, the developer came in, got city officials to sign a non-disclosure agreement, consulted with Minnesota Power about a favorable location, and then bought a plot of land zone rural residential there were homes on that land and homes close by the developer started buying up the homeowners on the land one by one and required the homeowners to sign a non-disclosure agreement as a condition of the buyout this went on for months until word leaked out about what was happening residents were rightly outraged. The trust they had in their city leaders was just destroyed. They're still fighting the developer. So this is not the way to do it. The way it's being done in Fort Worth County, I applaud. So to conclude, I respectfully ask you today to pass the data center moratorium and study and to keep the process open and transparent and don't sign a non-disclosure agreement if asked by a developer. Thanks for your time. Thank you. Thank you.

Is there anyone else wishing to make comment on PC 11-26?

Good morning. Good morning. My name is Mariah Seller. I live and work in St. Peter. I'm here to also support the data center moratorium. The scale of these, which were mentioned in the previous comment, I also agree with what he stated in the previous comment. the scale of these is difficult to understand and this affects not only this county but surrounding counties in the electricity use you know the transformers and equipment that would go into supporting such a center and also the water use although of course I know the state is responsible for water use I just want to express the concern you know as a local citizen I have for private companies coming in and maybe making it sound like a good deal for communities and then these private companies not being held accountable or they're not being protections for the communities as they stand and I feel there's a present danger in Minnesota because we don't have a state that has a strong framework for what is happening and we need to make sure our local leaders as well are listening and there's collaboration between all levels of government and all the different utility commissions and whatnot. And I really appreciate the planning and zoning. for bringing this to attention and all the hard work they're putting into making sure we have all the information we need. So thank you. Thank you.

Is there anyone else wishing to make comment on PC 11-26? Good morning.

Hi, I'm Ava. I live in Mankato, and I had made a comment.

Could you give your full name, ma'am?

Ava Corey Greenes.

Thank you.

And I had made a comment in support of the moratorium at the planning commission meeting, so I'll be pretty brief. I just wanted to point out a couple of language things that I noticed. At the bottom of page 106 of today's meeting packet, there's a line that says evaluation of existing impacts due to, and I'm thinking that that's probably meant to say evaluation of potential impacts that might result from data centers. And then on page 109, that's what it's showing up as for me, I would suggest that the evaluation or study also specifically include public health impacts locally and to communities outside of the US from production and disposal of materials. And then also ecosystem or biodiversity impacts, which could be included under environmental impacts. It would just be good to explicitly include that and then also like carbon sequestration and climate impacts. And then also probably an overview of findings on public opinion from the public engagement efforts described. But those are pretty minor details and overall I really appreciate staff's work on the moratorium. So thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Anyone else wishing to make comment on PC 11-26? Anyone else? All right, last time. I will close the public comment portion of the hearing. Are there any comments by the board?

I will now move to approve.

Thank you. I need a second.

Second.

Any discussion?

The meetings that I've gone to on data centers on both sides, it only makes sense to sit and wait a year and have very good discussions on how this affects the community and affects the surrounding area. Surprisingly, even the data centers now are talking about pushing for transparency. Their understanding that non-disclosure issues just create a lot of questions and people being concerned. For our sake here in the county, we probably won't have any issues just because it's going to be a local city issue. It's going to have to be connected to the water supply some way, and that will have to come from some city. But I think it's just smart for us as a county to sit down and investigate, get some information, what's good for the community, and find out how it can help or not help us. We have a year to work that out.

Thank you, Vance. Anyone else?

No.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. All right. Now we'll move on to PC 15-26.

Thank you, Madam Chair. PC 15-26, Bradley and Wendy Caldwell. Request for review and approval of the preliminary plat of helicopter land LLC. A subdivision plaid consisting of two lots. One lot has an existing house and the other lot has the existing Cato Aviation business. The property is owned Light Industry and is in the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of section four in Beaufort Township. At the planning commission meeting, staff presented the staff report. The applicant's representative was present and confirmed the information present in the staff report. There was no comment provided by the public. The following discussion, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of approval to the County Board based on the findings and conditions prepared by staff. We request the Board action for passage of the resolution based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you. At this time, we'll open the public comment portion of the hearing. If you would like to make a comment regarding PC15-26, please come to the podium, state your name and address for the record. Is there anyone wishing to speak to PC15-26? Or the third time, anyone wishing to speak to PC15-26? All right, we're going to close the public comment portion of the meeting. Any comments from the board?

I don't have any comments, Madam Chair, but I'll move approval. Second.

I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. And we'll go ahead and introduce the next item.

The next item is Planning Commission number 16-26. This is a request for an after-the-fact interim use permit to allow for the cumulative movement of more than 50 cubic yards of material. The property is zoned agriculture and is within the Shoreland District of an unnamed stream. The project is located in the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 21 Jamestown Township. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff presented The staff report, the applicant was present and confirmed the information presented within the staff report. There were no comments provided by the public. Following the discussion, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of approval to the county board based on the findings and conditions presented by staff. The request for board action is passage of the resolution based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission.

Thank you. So at this time, we'll open the public comment portion of the hearing. If you would like to make a comment regarding PC16-26, please come to the podium, state your name and address for the record. Anyone wishing to speak to PC16-26? Anyone wishing to comment? All right, we will close the public comment portion of the hearing. And can I get a motion?

I will move approval. Second.

I have a motion and a second to approve the resolution for the PC16-26. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. And we'll move on to our final item.

Thank you, Madam Chair. PC17-26 is the last planning and zoning item. The applicant's Blue Earth County, and it's a request for review and approval of an ordinance amendment to Chapter 14, which is the Shoreland Chapter of the County Code, and Chapter 24, the Zoning Chapter of the County Code, to allow seasonal produce or farm stands and commercial outdoor recreation facilities areas in shoreland districts. The ordinance amends the definition of both uses and updates the associated standards for these uses in the county code. At the planning commission meeting, staff presented the report. There was one member from the public who provided comment in support of the ordinance amendment. The individual discussed her agribusiness and the importance of ag tourism in the county. Following the discussion, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation for approval to the County Board based on the findings prepared by staff. And the Board action is the passage of the ordinance based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission.

Okay, thank you. So, at this time, we'll open the public comment portion of the hearing. If you would like to make a comment regarding PC17-26, please come to the podium, state your name and address for the record. Anyone wishing to speak to PC17-26? Anyone wishing to make comment? All right, we're going to close the public comment portion of the hearing. Any discussion? Can I get a motion?

Move to approve.

Second. Motion and a second. Now, any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. This will conclude the planning and zoning items and closing the public hearing. Thank you all. Thank you.

Madam Chair, we are definitely ahead of schedule, much faster than what we anticipated. I think one thing we could do is we could go through the administrative items at this point in time, and I think we'll still have a little bit of time, but then at that point we could take a break and go into our next 1010 agenda item for the closed session.

Everybody okay with that?

I'm okay with that.

Okay, let's do it.

All right, the first item we have is the approval of the August 11th minutes.

So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second for the minutes. All in favor? Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

Next we have the bills for the two weeks. I move the bills. Second.

Motion and a second for the bills. Any discussion? All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries.

Next, we have the human resources agenda. We do have one action item. As a result of some turnover in our human resources department, we took this opportunity to look at doing a slight reorganization to just, I think, make us be a little bit more responsive to our department's needs and what they have. What we're doing with that is we're looking at changing it that we'll have actually two coordinators within the human resources department, one really on the employee benefits side and the other on the employee relations compliance. And with the compliance is doing everything with our ADA, FMLA, that type of training. So what I would respectfully ask of the board is authorization to initiate recruitment for the human resources coordinator, employee relations and compliance position.

Move to approve. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? HR is only getting harder.

It has continued to be challenging, and I would say one of the things that I do worry in the future still are taking care of paid medical leave with the new state law has definitely proven to be challenging, not only for us, but talking with area county administrators this last week, there's a lot of time, energy, and effort of trying to go to really coordinate that program.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

All right, next we have the informational items. We have the resignation of human resources specialists, and then we do have employment of an account clerk within human resources, an employment of a correctional officer, have a resignation of our public works accountant, and then recruitment initiated for our public works accountant, and then finally we have employment of a land use planner for feedlots. That would conclude the informational. If there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer those.

Looks good.

All right, last item under administrative items is a gambling permit. This is a gambling permit that's coming out from the Wasika Hockey Association, and this is for at the Indian Island Winery. This is something that we've addressed the gambling at the Indian Island Winery recently, and this is adding an additional organization. This was reviewed by planning and zoning to make sure this complies and everything checked out. So I would request approval of this new gambling permit. So moved.

Second. Motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. So we should go to a break.

I think we could, you know, at this point. You know what? I think we'd have time. Thank you, Commissioner Papp. I think we'd have time to do the committees as well.

Go ahead, Commissioner Papp.

All right. Since our August 11th meeting, board meeting, and we all attended the Nicollet County joint meeting, August 13th, participated in the University of Minnesota drainage conference, as well as the drainage work group. And later that day, I participated with the Chair and the Congressman Finstead, Congresswoman Fischbach, and GT Thompson, the Chairman of the House Ag Committee Roundtable, where we talked about specifically the SNAP shifts and the costs that were landed on the property taxes. Had an opportunity on the 14th to attend an Ag Luncheon with the Congressman and House Ag Chairman to reiterate those snap cuts, as well as a JD36 meeting. On the 17th was the Bluewood County Farm Bureau annual meeting, August 18th, work session and JD36 meeting. And then August 20th through 21st, I participated in AMC strategic planning and board meeting. That completes my report. Thank you.

All right, after our last meeting, I also was at the joint meeting with Nicollet County. That was a good discussion over there with our colleagues. I had a MICA call last month. They are not doing anything in person, and we will also see them later today, my understanding. You'll be able to get an update from them. Was also at the University of Minnesota's drainage. Did you report that, Kevin? Oh, yeah. Drainage day. And then a couple of distance inspections after that. The JD36 benefits discussion with some staff. The Farm Bureau meeting, which I thought was very informative. They always do a nice job there. The work session. Some more discussion on JD 36. And then earlier this week, I had some discussion with staff on county ditch 88 and 93. So a lot of ditch stuff. Thank you, Madam Chair.

You're welcome. Thank you. Vance.

All right. Let's see. So I also went and visited Nicollet County. That was a nice visit over there. On the 12th, I had an MRCI day services summer picnic over in St. Peter. On the 13th, myself and Commissioner Peeble had a canvas meeting to make sure all your elections went well. On the 17th, I had a Minnesota Transportation Alliance legislative meeting, and that evening we had our Farm Bureau meeting where four of us showed up. Let's see, we had a work session on Tuesday the 18th, And let's see here. Yesterday, there was an AMC legislative platform and priorities process that I zoomed in on. And that's the end of mine.

Great. Mark?

Okay, yep. Let's see. Well, then we did have the joint meeting with Nick Laconi. And then I had, like Vance said, with our... We had our, let's see, what do you want to call it? Oh, with the... We had the work session then on August 18th. And then the, what was that, Vance? We had that one joint. Yeah, we had the... The canvassing board? Yes, canvassing. Yep, canvas board is what it was. Excuse me. I was trying to conclude my... Can't read my writing.

Happens to us all. All right, I too went to the Nicollet County meeting on the 11th. On the 12th, I had Region 9. On the 13th, the community liaison meeting with St. Peter Forensic Services. And in the afternoon, the roundtable with Congressman Finstead. The 17th, Farm Bureau. 18th, work session. The 20th, I had TDS. And the 21st, I had my FICA meeting with my new chair, Todd Patzer. And that ends my report.

Right, man, I'm sure. I think what we could do is go into the closed meeting and give time to set up technology, use the restroom, take a small break, and then meet over across the hall to continue that meeting.

Sounds like a plan. So the next agenda item is to close the meeting pursuant to Minnesota statute section 13D.05. Subdivision 3B to receive legal analysis and advice regarding a pending civil legal action from Bloor County Attorney's Office and outside counsel. The board and its attorneys will discuss legal strategy and settlement discussion. It would be detrimental to the county's interest for the board to hold a public discussion about these matters. At this time, I would entertain a motion that this meeting be closed pursuant to the county attorney client privilege.

So moved.

All right, I have a motion. Second. And a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The motion carried. The board will now close this meeting under the Minnesota Statute Section 13D.05 Subdivision 3B for a meeting with the Blue Earth County Attorney's Office and outside counsel. Thank you. All right, we will call this meeting back to order. Thank you everyone for your patience. I need a motion to accept the settlement agreement and release of all claims.

So moved.

I have a motion.

Second.

And a second. Any discussion? All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you all. All right, are we moving into human services then, right?

Come on up. Good morning. Come on up. Good morning.

My agenda's all messed up, so I don't know where I am.

Thanks for hearing us today. I have just one action item, Madam Chair, for the board today to look at, and that is an appointment for advisory committee. And it's Josh Birkenpass, and he is a resident of commissioner district four, professor of political science at MSU. And Josh has previously served as a member of our committee, so we welcome him back. But that is it for my action items.

So moved. I have a motion. Second. I have a second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple of informational discussion items. I'm very pleased to have both Sarah Johnson and Lynette Ayers with me to talk about adult foster care licensing first and then adult protection. I think it's always so great to have the people that are in the trench tell our story. And so I'll just turn it right over to Sarah to begin with and talk about adult foster care licensing. And I guess our whole picture of foster care is in the packet, so.

Oh, perfect, okay. So yes, our picture of our adult foster care and our CRS, so that's our residential foster homes. Just for this month, we just are talking about just the adult foster care homes and the CRS homes, so we do other kinds of licensing, as you all know. As you can tell, we have our adult foster homes, have gone down quite significantly. Gone actually almost split in half since 2021. Part of that reason is the state has upped the fees that those families have to pay to be licensed, and because of that, a lot of those families just said they cannot afford to pay the fee and stay licensed. But the other homes have gone up, they continue to rise, and they're bigger, their facilities, people don't live at those homes, they usually have staff that provide those services for them, so those homes can afford those fees, and so those continue to rise. And we do work a lot with My licensor in this area does work a lot with actually the other DD, Supervisor Lindsey, about if we need to build more homes and what that looks like for our community, and we are focused on serving our residents of this community and not residents outside of our agency or our county. Other than that, I hope you have questions.

Can you walk us through just the number, Sarah, because I think it's kind of a striking number of beds as far as the corporate foster care. Corporate foster homes. And then just how that kind of compares to the region, if you have any comments.

Yes, so we, as we all know, we're the hub of this region, so most people do come to Mankato to build their homes. We have a few homes outside of Mankato, but I think as you can see above, I think we have like the majority of our homes are Mankato homes. I mean, we have one in Mapleton, two in Lake Crystal, nine in Eagle Lake, and I think that's because Eagle Lake is close to Mankato, so there's more availability for people to go there. So the homes may have like two, like they might have one person living in the home, they could have up to like four to five, six people living in the home. So that's where the homes and the number of beds differ. And then they might have staff in the homes where they might have to hire employee staff for like a one-to-one for a person some staff you can have um like one staff could help a couple different people in that home so that kind of depends on they look for um the needs of that person in that home and know the dangers or if there's any like higher medical needs or higher like supervision levels that would determine how many people are in that home they also look at if you know, one person might not be able to live, should be living alone and should not be living with other people. So they'll look at that. And they can develop those homes, but people need to come into our agency, they need to request licensing, they need to become licensed, and then everything goes up to DCUF to approve the licensing before we would put anyone in any of those homes. Is that helpful? Any other questions?

It's too bad that they got priced out.

Yeah, Madam Chair and Sarah, I was curious just on the family foster care part, so that priced out piece. Are those mostly family members, or is that not so much true?

No, it doesn't necessarily need to be a family member. We had a couple homes in our county for a long time that did adult foster care, And they weren't always having someone at their home, but they were always open and available for people. But then I believe the fee is like $2,500 or something, and that doesn't matter if people are in your home or not in your home, you still pay that fee. And a lot of those smaller places, we're like, we can't afford that. I mean, we're not in the business of, we're not making any money, and that's in our business, but we can't afford $2,500, because it's our home. We're these bigger residential settings. There are facilities. they bring in a lot more income.

It's such a great mission for a family to be willing to open their home and the corporate side too. And then the only other comment I had, Sarah, is that the combination, like you say, sometimes the people we're serving have behaviors and who their roommates are, so it's no different than college. You say, who are you going to be roommates with and how does that go? And that is part of what we try to manage throughout with our providers in town. So it's a big part of our community. Yeah, really.

And I should say, all of these people that are living in this home also have a caseworker with them, so it's not just the licensor overseeing what's going on in the home, but they do oversee to make sure everybody is in compliance with their license. But usually there's social workers also involved.

And that's what the $2,500 is for, just to make sure they're in compliance with the license?

Well, it doesn't go to us. It goes to the state.

So what are they doing for their $2,500? Do we know?

I don't think we know.

It's the privilege to do the work, but yes. You're making someone pay to be a volunteer, almost. Basically, yes. And then on top of that, you're not even providing a service of why you're charging me the $2,500, but then it puts a burden on our service taxpayers because we have to take care of that cost somewhere if people aren't doing it.

I think we're just losing that second, that ability to have somebody live in a family setting because that's where the family classrooms are a family setting. You have your bedroom, you have your own space and it's like you're living with a family. The residential settings, they are still in homes but they're much more structured. They're much more you can only be in the kitchen for this amount of time, or you can only, this is your food. It is kind of like Phil said, it's a college kind of setting area.

Staff working shifts, and they come and go, and so it just has a different flavor. It does feel different.

It's just frustrating. It is. That they're charging us more.

I would say, Chair and Commissioner, that this issue, it's like one that I think we're very passionate about, and you heard Lynette say too, is that we see this as a mission. I don't think anybody does it for the money. And if we could think, you know, forward-looking, could we help this at all, not necessarily locally, but try to get the state to pull that back to something that's at least reasonable. Yeah, I mean, I'm sure the argument would be that those fees help to pay the state to do their work, us to do our work. Well, we don't get it. But I just think we have to have a heart for the people that are willing to put themselves in that spot. and open their homes up. It's a pretty big give, yeah.

You know, when I grew up, there was like one home on every block.

Yeah, yeah, that's right. And it was really cool. I always encouraged people to do it, and now it's hard to encourage people to do it. It's like, oh, and by the way, there's a big upfront fee that you have to pay. Right. Well, I don't know.

I'm sorry. Go ahead. Along with like the trainings and everything else, they have to stay up to date in compliance with their license. I mean, it would be helpful if even... the legislator or the state could say, we'll have this fee for these bigger facilities that can afford this, but maybe we'll lower it to whatever for these family foster homes.

There should be some sort of scale on it. I don't know if I would, I certainly would like to go after the state, try to get them, but I think I would also I'd encourage you to look inside of our system. Would it be in our best interest to pay the fee? And can we? And is there a way to? I don't think I would shut that out because if we could save money ten times the money over here, can we give a grant for these people that are... And I can understand their frustrations. $2,500 is a lot of money when you're trying to help somebody and you're already... I would imagine they get paid some sort of per diem, but it ain't enough to cover the extra cost and insurance.

It's your insurance, it's your house payments, it's your food, it's all those other things when you have extra people living in your home.

I certainly would not be, I think your staff should, and I'm sure you would without me suggesting it, but I want just... Let's tell the state not to do it. If we hit that roadblock, and it is truly a roadblock, and they ain't going to help us, and you guys can find some other way to think of a way to deal with that, to keep these people helping us out, I think that would be money well spent, in my opinion. We'd have to get board support.

Yeah, if the board's okay with us just informally to have Sarah bring that back to her group, her supervisor group, and then try to get it to the state, and just see is there any movement there that we could get, and if not... I think we could bring it back here and say, I don't think they're doing anything. So it's up to us if we want to do this. I just think we have to leave that open, because it's that important.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Well, Matt, I'm sure the next one is Adult Protection. And there is some crossover here. So people in a group home that might have some concerns about what would come into play here. And then obviously extended family comes into Adult Protection as well. So Lynette will kind of walk us through that. And yeah, any questions? I just really appreciate the chance. to drill into some of these specific program areas. They're smaller than some of the other things we talk about, but they're really important, and there's a lot of work that's being done by staff, and it's so nice to be able to kind of tell our stories.

Yeah, thank you for having us today. I'd like to start out just with letting you all know some background information about what's going on with Adult Protection at the state. They have required us the last two years to set a goal for how many reports are we screening in. They would like to see us to hit the mark of 30%. I set a goal at 28, actually 31% they would like us to hit the target of screening in. I set a goal for 28%, presently in 2026 we are at 26% of screening in the reports that come in. On this first slide that is up on the screen, it shows the overall reports that have come in from year 2022 to 2025. If you take a look at 2022, we had the reports that were reported to MARC, our Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center, because we no longer take the calls at Blue Earth County. Child Protection still takes the calls up. I want to make a child protection report. For adult protection, it all goes to the state reporting system, which is a call center.

So the reports go there.

They figure out, okay, this is a Willard County report. They send it through SSIS, which is our social services reporting system. They send it there. We get the reports, and then we screen them based on that. So if you see the agency reports are quite a bit lower, for every year, allegations are higher. That's because most reports come in with more than one allegation. So it might be caregiver neglect and physical abuse. Or it might be emotional abuse and self-neglect or whatever. So most reports come in with more than one neglect listed. But as you see, we had quite a jump from 625 actually 522 and 24 to 624 reports in 2025. Another thing I'd like to mention about our reports that come in, the state of Minnesota allows us to develop what's called prioritization guidelines. And one of our prioritization guidelines is if we get a report for self-neglect and that person has a case manager we refer that back to that case manager. And as we get into the data about how many reports on self-neglect we've had, you can see our reports are really high. And, you know, our argument behind that prioritization guideline that we use is that if there is already somebody connected to them and they have a relationship within Blue Earth County, it makes the most sense for that person who already has a relationship with them, who's built rapport with them, to go out and really work at offering suggestions and options and ways to reduce that self-neglect. Then moving on to the Allegations by type, what's up there? Allegations by type. So you can see that in 2025, which is the blue, we had 348 reports of self-neglect. I will tell you that the majority of those reports that come in for self-neglect are mostly because people have significant mental health issues and or, and I say and or because typically those issues come along with an addiction or they come along with physical disabilities just based upon all the years that they haven't taken care of themselves. So our reports in self-neglect have become very complex and very, very time consuming. And then on top of that for self-neglect, the state has changed how we substantiate, specifically for self-neglect. They have gone from before we could substantiate, yes, you have self-neglected, to now we can't substantiate, but we can say they need adult protection services or the person doesn't need adult protection services. So really it's a matter of our workers going out and determining You know, do these people have competence? Do they understand the consequences of their actions? That, okay, if I don't take my medications and go to the doctor, you know, I could have blood clot throne because I have heart arrhythmia and I need those medications and that consistent medical care. So it's really about determining does that person have confidence and also if they're willing because you can go out and if a person has competence to make poor decisions and poor choices, they can unless we have enough information and we have maybe some neuropsychological assessments completed, or we have a physician that says, yeah, we would be willing to fill out a physician statement for conservatorship because this person can no longer manage their money for whatever reason and or for guardianship. So I think just really the main thing that I wanted to touch on on this slide is just that our self-neglect has gone up so high and how things have changed a little bit in our system as far as substantiations and decisions made.

Can I just say a little too about that status of self-neglect because you look at that and a family member will say to us with the motion this person is not doing well and we would agree but can we then based on the legal parts and Pat's office you know do we have a case to bring commitment and and we I think we are very quick to do that if we feel we do have a case and certainly feel a lot of support from the county attorney's office in that regard. But there's a whole bunch of cases where they are competent to make their own decisions. They just choose some unhealthy decisions. And we are legally and practically powerless over some of that is just the truth. I'm not always comfortable with this discussion, but you gotta draw the line somewhere. And then I think Lynette and her staff actually We get a lot of angry people telling us that we should do something. stepping in and you've heard about the whole MAPFA thing with child protection. It's the same dynamic. Where is that line where people are pretty assertive about the county should step in and fix this. And there's times where we literally can't and there's times where it's just practically impossible if somebody is competent and they don't want help. So I emphasize that just from my chair because you guys are just, you roll with it and staff don't get waylaid by that. But it's a heavy burden. when you know things aren't great. And it might not be the way we would live or want our family members to live either, but there's limits to what we can do.

And our adult protection manual, too, says we want to take what that person is saying and be person-centered and work with them instead of right away jumping to the most restrictive things that we can do. All right. And then our next slide is on the SSIS determinations by type. So this was, you know, if we can substantiate, which means the allegation is true. And, you know, we had very few substantiations in 2025. But I really don't want that. I think we had a couple of reasons for that. We had a staff changeover. where somebody resigned and it wasn't going real well with them and they did end up resigning. And I think in the end, looking back over everything, there was probably things that could have been substantiated that weren't. So I think that's the first part. And then I think the other part is because of the cases that we are screening in, take so much time to kind of work through. It's that acuity piece, it takes a lot more time. So just because it wasn't substantiated doesn't mean that a lot of work didn't go into that. Hours of time went in assessing the situation, meeting multiple times with the person to try to figure out where they're at, how they're doing, their competency level, those kinds of things. so um really the the self-neglect was um the highest and then we get into that no determination aps needed or no determination not a vulnerable adult or sometimes we get that no determination investigation not possible if the person doesn't let us into their home and we go out and we we take law enforcement with us to see if that'll help get us in and that person just says through the door, I don't need you, I don't want you, I'm doing fine on my own, and that's it. So that's that one. And then our last one, which I alluded to, that I set a goal of 26%. Actually, we have screened in 27%. The state county average is at 30%. the state would like us to be at 31%.

So that's the information I have to share.

I have a question for you. Why does the state want you to be at a certain percent?

Well, the national average of screening is like 50%, but each state has its own Like some states say if you're 60 years old, you're just automatically a vulnerable adult. So because the, yeah.

I take offense to that. In the club, yes. And we laugh about that, but that's my struggle. When your staff was in here talking about the act and how we have to come in and we have to do everything for that person. If I'm a family that wants to try to take care of myself, but I just need this little bit, and you come in and throw everything at me, I'd be crabby. I wouldn't deal with it very well. I can tell you that from my perspective. And so we laugh about that, but that's not the way it should be. And I'm sure you get very frustrated with the people that don't let you in, don't want their help. But you know what? If that's what they want, if the family members can't deal with it, you can't expect the county to deal with it. It's terrible, but that's what that person wants. That's what that person wants.

And truth be told, adult protection is reactive. We are not proactive. We wait until something is bad enough that the tool that we use allows us to screen it in. We don't go out going, oh, things might get bad. They're going to trip and fall in their house because it's hoarded. You know, we wait until something happens where EMS is called and they can't get into the home because of the hoard, then we can. But it is the way, and it's hard for people to understand that we're not proactive, we're reactive.

Yeah, and I feel like that, I don't want to be flippant either in my remark here, but we get a lot of pressure from families to say we should do more, and we get not an equal number, but when we're serving somebody, they say, stay out of my house, stay out of my life, stay out. And I get that, and both are valid, but that's how we find the middle, and it's a little brutal sometimes because You can't please anybody any of the time. You know, it's the people right in the middle that might want a little bit that we come alongside. But that's where your comments about the social worker that has a relationship with them, it's not like we say, oh, you didn't meet criteria and so we won't help you. It's like, we can come alongside you and still help you with one or two things. What are those things? And that's probably the best middle intervention, not commitments or just saying we can't help you at all or having a door slammed in our face, which happens.

Tough job. Thank you for your service. Yeah, no doubt.

Thanks, you guys. Thank you. Thanks for your time. Thank you.

Appreciate it. Good seeing you guys. See you.

All right.

Our friends from MICA are here. All right.

They didn't have to wait too long.

Sounds like you've got a plan, Nathan.

That's Nathan. He's always prepared.

Good morning. Good morning.

Good morning. Thank you so much for having us today and giving us the chance to talk with you all. My name is Nathan Jessen. I'm the executive director of the Minnesota Inter-County Association. Can we just go to the, am I going to just run through the slides and just ask for one by one? Great. So you all know we're a voluntary member organization, 17 counties statewide, the suburban counties and regional centers throughout the state, essentially the largest counties outside. Hennepin and Ramsey all have the team just kind of introduce themselves as they go through. So you can go to the next slide. I did want to talk a little bit about our work. Of course, during the legislative session, we're at the Capitol. We're in committee meetings. We're in meetings with legislators. But during the interim, we're working just as hard, making sure we're connecting staff with one another throughout the state and also keeping tabs on task forces or meeting with legislators in the interim to try and make sure we're setting the priorities and hearing from counties for 2027. We also try to make sure we provide an analytical lens to our work, and that's a good transition to the next slide I have here. I want to provide just some data on property taxes in Blue Earth County and provide some comparisons to both the state and the non-metro Mica counties. So the non-metro Mica counties are the other regional centers throughout the state. I want to say one thing about this data to begin with. year 2025 taxes payable 2026 data. I know that I believe you all had a presentation earlier this summer from the accounting assessor that was talking about some preliminary assessment year 2026 data. So that's if it doesn't totally match up, that's why this is the best data we have for these kind of statewide comparisons. So when we're looking at net tax capacity share, this is essentially what you're taxing with your levy. I would say that historically, Blue Earth County has always had a strong commercial property share in particular, and you can see that's true there when you compare Blue Earth to both the state or other non-metro Micah counties. Oh, I should pause and say, if you ever want to stop and interrupt me, just go right ahead. We don't need to wait for any stopping point. And that's shown here. And again, Blue Earth's also heavier, a larger percentage of ag land property, and that That's both ag homestead, ag non-homestead, and the house garage in one acre kind of rolled into one right there. So that's how Blue Earth County compares. If you go to the next slide, you'll kind of see what the assessment year 2025 change was in comparison. This is a one-year snapshot, to be clear, and how Blue Earth compares with the state and non-metro microcounties. I'd say just kind of at the outset, again, a one-year snapshot isn't gonna give you a great holistic picture, but it is good data to have I'm gonna call out the Ag land value here in particular just because it's obviously the number that jumps out the most. Ag land values are kind of notoriously volatile. And if you look at this data based on what you all saw earlier this summer for assessment year 2026, well, Ag land values are up 6.2%. So especially for the Ag land values that are more volatile, there is gonna be some, change from year to year on that front. I do think that if you look at the data here, non-Metro-Mega counties and Blue Earth County as well are much stronger apartment value growth than the statewide average. That kind of makes sense. The apartment property values increased and there was a lot of new construction in the Metro I'd say 2018 to 2023, that's starting to level off. But since 2023, we're starting to see kind of stronger apartment value growth statewide, in particular in the regional centers. You can go to the next slide. And so this is the last snapshot was just a one-year snapshot. This is your growth since 2021, average annualized growth in an estimated market value. A few things jump out here. These numbers are bigger, they include that really large jump and values that we had in 2023 when values increased about on average statewide 17 um and i think again what stands out here is really strong apartment value growth um and for for blue earth county you can also see that um in the non-metro micah counties commercial values um and blue earth and statewide are are growing a lot more slowly and there have been years where they've been completely stagnant or even negative. I should say this data is inclusive of new construction. And of course, there hasn't been as much new commercial construction statewide. There has been some more on the industrial side. You can see that in some of these numbers. But that's kind of the picture of the last five years. You know, Blue Earth, some difference between it and the non-Metro Miami counties, particularly around department value growth, but nothing that really jumps out outside of that. You can go to the next slide. I did want to, sometimes if you're just looking at one year of change or five years of change, it's a lot more difficult to see how things change slowly over time, but that change can really accumulate. So what I'm showing here is the net property taxes paid across these different property types across all jurisdictions. So this is for counties, cities, special taxing districts, towns. for the overall trend. So what jumps out in this data that's true statewide and it's true in Blue Earth County is that residential property is picking up a larger share of the overall property tax burden than it has before. This has been a really consistent trend. Now, you don't really see it when it's just one year of difference, but I think showing the data like this really shows you how significant that jump has been over the last 12 years. I picked 2014 because that's the last time there was rising property taxes at the state level. From 2015 to 2019, on average, property tax levies, I mean, they were increasing on average every year, but not to the extent that we've seen them increase since 2023. And property taxes at the capital, really from 2015 to 2021, While there was a property tax committee, there were always discussions around it. Nobody's ever thrilled with their property tax bill, right? It was not a front and center issue the way that I would say that it is quickly becoming at the Capitol now, especially post-2023 and 4. And I think just the status shows that Blue Earth, again, a strong commercial property share, but is seeing the same kind of trends that are happening statewide. It's not a unique issue, of course, as more retail has shifted from brick and mortar to online. This kind of change is inevitable, and that's an issue that we're having to face because we're going to talk a lot about a few issues that are driving up property taxes, right? This isn't the one issue that's increasing homestead property taxes, but as homesteads are picking up a bigger share of the overall pie, all these other things that are driving up property taxes are going to be felt a lot more acutely by homeowners than they would have been even 10 or 15 years ago. And I do think that's notable. Can you go to the next slide? I did want to talk about a few things that are going on this summer. I'm going to actually start with the property tax task force or working group just because it's related to what I was just talking about. We were pushing for a bill that would kind of look at what's driving increases in property taxes and what are some of this and take a look into this data to show how much more homeowners are paying than there were. 12 years ago, that bill did get positive action in both the House and Senate, which means, of course, it did not end up becoming law. But the Commissioner of Revenue, Paul Marquardt, decided, okay, well, we're going to take a look at the system and still see what we can do and start holding two weeks ago. It's really trying to talk about a lot of these same issues. We're really pressing them to consider the data that I've shared with you and also kind of what's driving property tax increases, particularly when we're talking about unfunded mandates from the federal and state government. It is, because there's no legislative mandate, it's kind of ambiguous where they're going or what's kind of the purpose of these discussions a lot of the time. I was meeting with the commissioner and he said publicly that, well, we're not gonna talk about property tax shifts or recommending any property tax shifts because those are really controversial. And we all know there's not money in the state budget to pour a lot of money into the property tax system, which I raise the point. Well, if you're not talking about shifting property taxes or putting money into the system, it's kind of difficult to make changes to the property tax system, if you're thinking about that. I would say that right now, he's been really focused on, well, what can we do to increase citizen involvement in the property tax process? We already do have a pretty states when it comes to citizen involvement. I know you all have your own process and citizens can come and talk to the county board and the budget setting process is not just one meeting. So we are continuing to talk with him about that. When he was in the legislature, he had a lot of bills that he introduced in this area. So it is something that I think is a longstanding interest of his. But the recommendations are planned to come out in December, but we'll keep you all posted on that. The modernization group, of course, we had 201 yes votes for a modernization bill back in May. So as part of that bill, we created this modernization advisory group with both state agency appointees and county appointees with equal representation to oversee the use of those funds so that we make sure we have a role in the priorities get approved and what doesn't. That group is scheduled to meet for the first time before September 15th. We're also working with the Association of Minnesota Counties on a broader kind of modernization steering committee so that the four representatives, county representatives to that group are informed by the state and county perspective as a whole. There's not, again, they're planning to meet before September 15th, we'll have more for you then. But there has been kind of these broader county discussions that we've been having and setting, trying to figure out, okay, well, where do we rank our own priorities amongst one another? The last one I wanted to touch on is this duty disability working group. So in 2023, the legislature appropriated $105 million one time to address the rising cost of duty disability. So these aren't folks that have a total and permanent disability, but if a public safety officer is no longer able to perform their job, They can claim duty disability and seek other work. This fund of $105 million is projected to run out in fiscal year 2028. Once it does, this shifts from a funded mandate to an unfunded mandate. And to be clear, most public safety officers, this is a larger, if we're talking percentage of the pie, it's a larger city. but it is a significant county budget issue too. So this group has been meeting at least weekly since June. It has legislators serving on it, Representative Terry Steer is the chair. And we've essentially been reviewing what other states are doing in this area. How do they treat duty disability? Is Minnesota unique in this significant spike we've seen in these cases? And the answer is yes, Minnesota is unique. Most other states are not experiencing this spike. Serving on this group are both public employers and public employees. Public employees are, I think, interested in addressing this issue because this is really weighing down the health of their own pension fund, the police and fire pension fund, just as a fixed 1% COLA, right? So I think there is some mutual interest in resolving extremely challenging because the state budget situation, which I'll talk a little bit more once we wrap up, is what it is. There's not $105 million that we can pour into this every four years. Representative Terry Steer has said, acknowledged that, okay, Minnesota has a more generous benefit He's more focused on trying to tighten eligibility. It's fairly simple for folks that decide that they want to try to get a disability to achieve that benefit, though they do have to go through a 24-week treatment process to do that. So this is kind of another ongoing budget issue if we're talking about potential unfunded mandates that we're keeping an eye on going into the 2027 legislative session. I am just going to pause there at you. I'm going to hand it off to Amber in a second. We'll come back to close this out, talk about the state budget, but did just want to see if folks had any questions so far.

I'm good. It's a lot.

Great. Thank you, Madam Chair and Commissioners. Amber Backus covered the transportation and bonding issues for MICA at the Capitol. So just wanted to bring a couple different things to your attention. One is we were very pleased to see the legislature pass a $1.2 billion bonding bill this last session. Transportation was a beneficiary of that with almost 15% of the funds going to different transportation projects and we were glad to see the LRIP funded again as part of that. Wanted to make you aware that MnDOT is going to start taking applications if you have eligible county roads that could qualify for these programs. The application process opens September 1st and is through November 25th, but considering you got a big $1.5 million this past cycle, I don't know if you'll have something else again, but congratulations on that this last time. The one thing I wanted to update on this slide is just last week MnDOT did decide what the split of the revenues between county municipal state aid roads and non-state aid roads would be and they're keeping the same split they've had in the past with 35 of the funds for counties 30 for msa roads and 35 for other local entities and as far as the metro greater minnesota splits that 35 for the counties and it's they're going to try to get to one-eighth to each um mid-dot district so it would be spread around the state Next slide, please. And then wanted to flag some issues that we are watching going into the 2027 legislative session. First of all, we're kind of concerned that there could be attempts to take transportation funds, especially those that are statutorily dedicated, and keep them in the general fund, especially since the state is going to be facing a structural deficit, which Nathan will tell you more about. But if you recall, in 2023, the legislature statutorily dedicated all of the revenues from the sales tax on auto parts to transportation, and that was going to be phased in over time. But then in 2025, they slowed in that phase in because of potential budget deficits, and we're concerned that could continue to happen next year. So we'll keep watching that very closely. I also think with affordability being a big issue these days and people complaining about their license tab fees, some sort of permanent reduction in the tab fee increase that was passed in 2023 could be on the table next year. I've heard transportation members in both the House and the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, saying that is something they want to revisit. And it was very popular this past year to do a one-time cut of $250 million to that. Fortunately, there was general fund money to backfill that, so the transportation funds don't take a loss. But going forward, we're concerned with how they would backfill any of those cuts. Another issue that has been ongoing and unresolved and kind of plaguing us is a law that was passed in 2023 and tweaked in 2024 to require highway expansion projects where you're adding new lane miles or building a separated great interchange to have to figure out the increased greenhouse gas emissions of that project and then mitigate them. MnDOT has a technical advisory committee that's been meeting regularly for the past few years and they've come up with how to assess the amount of greenhouse gas emissions but they still don't have a great plan for helping project sponsors offset them. and a lot of the mitigations fall outside the realm of transportation, making it very difficult to figure out how these are going to work. For example, one of the things that you get the most bang on the buck for are changes in land use and greater density, but neither MnDOT nor counties have the ability to compel cities to change their zoning to achieve that, so that's a concern. And there haven't been any projects that have gone through this process until just now. Washington County is trying to figure out offsets for an interchange project, and it's very complicated and is even raising more concerns. So we're kind of keeping tabs on that to see how this is going to pan out. But we do really believe there need to be some changes to the overarching framework here in terms of governance of how you do this mitigation, as well as just providing funds, because all these mitigations are expected to increase the cost of transportation projects significantly. And then along these lines, especially if there is a Democrat trifecta again at the legislature, we expect to see some other pieces of legislation that would put additional conditions on building new highway projects. There were several bills out there last year that we expect to come back. One would halt highway expansion unless you have a 60-year maintenance plan with a source of funding identified, and nobody comes up with 60-year maintenance plans for roads. Bridges, yes, but roads, no. I mean, MnDOT doesn't have the budget for this. Some of the other proposals would require more emphasis on alternatives to highway expansion, which might make sense in the metro area, but not necessarily in other locations of the state, including Blue Earth County, as well as having to come up with new statements of need and reasonableness to demonstrate why you are doing any sort of highway expansion project. Um, we'll be keeping tabs on those and keeping you updated, but I'd be happy to pause there and answer any questions if you have them.

So much fun that it is.

Well, thank you. Why did you want quickly want to give a shout out to your engineer? Ryan told us he's been an incredible resource, very active in our engineers group and really appreciate his counsel as we're dealing with some of these issues at the Capitol.

I guess I'm not.

I guess so. Good morning, Madam Chair and Commissioners. Nancy Seleski and I handle both public health and human services for MICA and it's great being here this morning. Going into the 2026 session, all of the county organizations had three of the same priorities. Nathan did talk about technology modernization and I just want to call and thank all of you and staff for showing up at the Capitol because certainly all of the legislators heard from us and It was it was so much a hand all hands on deck Issue the other two issues progress was made on both snap and the act or the math plus CD CWDA However, because the legislature appropriated only one-time money. We're gonna have to go back in 2027 and seek ongoing funding. I So starting with SNAP, counties will be paying an increased share due to recent federal action. In terms of the administrative cost, Minnesota's one of only three counties where we're responsible for the administration of that program or a portion of the administrative costs. The legislature did appropriate $10.7 million, but again, in one-time funding. It will be allocated to counties based on their proportional share of admin costs. Effective October 1st of this year, 2026, our county share is being increased from 50 to 75%. And that is estimated to cost around $35 million annually. So again, I want to point out we received 10.7, so we're going to need additional funding here. Also, there's a new cost year and it relates to the benefit, the actual benefit, that's effective next year, July 1 of 2027, when the federal government is requiring us to pick up a percentage of the benefit. And it's based on our payment error rate. And I just want to remind everyone that error rates can be as simple as a typographical error, a client not returning needed paperwork. outdated technology and while we've made progress on that it's going to take some time of course for that to be Upgraded so the estimated cost for counties based on the current air rate is 138 million dollars annually so again, we're going to have to revisit that issue as well and Next slide is MAFPA CWDA. Again, the 2026 legislature appropriated $15 million one time to address county implementation costs. Based on that, each county will receive a minimum of $100,000, which is based on an existing statutory formula. And you can see that formula on the slide. It's based on child population in the county, the number of screened in reports of child maltreatment, as well as the number of open child protection case management cases. In 2026, the agency, DCYF, did not receive any funding for this, and we, as you are well aware, want them to do the case review of these cases. So that was delayed until July 1st of 2027. And I would just mention that the working group does expire in December 31st of 2026, and so really the work has not been done. So I'm not sure how that's going to work out in terms of the expiration of that group. The last item I want to mention is Long-Term Services and Supports, or LTSS. You recall in 2025, in response to massive cost shift proposals, and this came from everyone, the Senate, the House, as well as the Governor, the legislature kind of punted it to the next biennium. And to address that, counties and providers are charged with finding $178 million in the system by July 1st, again, of next year. A large task force was put together. I think it's over 30 people. We have six county members on there, two from MICA, two from AMC, and two from MAXA, along with providers, consumers, and their family members. They've started their work and actually found some savings this last year which the legislature did book those savings but did not account it toward the $178 million that we are responsible for finding by next year. The group continues to meet and they have a number of suggestions and Without any action to book those savings, counties are going to be looking at another cost shift in July of 2027. So we're going to be working hard on that issue as well. Those are like the three or four top issues. I just want to mention and call out your staff as well. I've worked with Phil Klassen for years and Erica Slutton, and they're both very much active on our committees and great asset to not only you and Micah, but county statewide. Thanks. With that, I'd answer any questions. Any questions?

I'm just wondering who are the other two states where the counties are responsible. Oh, no. Just, I don't know.

I used to know this.

What's that? I used to know this.

Let me look into that. I can't remember which one. Okay. I just... Maybe Colorado. California or somewhere. Yeah, sorry.

North Carolina was maybe one. Is it? Yeah, I don't recall the other one.

Okay. I'm going to Google that. I bet we'll have an answer in a few minutes. Yeah, we will. Sorry.

All right. If we can go to the next slide, I can cover environment. Madam Chair, Commissioners, my name is John Paul Yates. Filling in for my coworker, Rachel Cisnocic, who covers environment issues for MICA. She's out on maternity leave, so happy to fill in. I'm going to cover three of these items verbally on the list. The first is around defending waste to energy. This spring, the Public Utilities Commission had a docket related to the state's carbon-free standard. and issued a ruling that allows for lifecycle analysis to be used to include the burning of solid waste under the state's carbon-free standard. And that ruling was, there was a petition by some environmental groups to have that ruling reconsidered at the Public Utilities Commission's July meeting. And so they took up that petition but unanimously rejected it. So the ruling will stand there. The second item under this bucket I wanted to mention is related to waste to energy. There was legislation to restrict the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center, the HERC. last session I think we'll continue to see legislation introduced to limit the burning of solid waste and I think depending on the outcome of the election that will kind of determine how much legs those proposals have the second item is score grants these are grants that help Counties related to various hazardous waste management programs, MICA will reintroduce legislation that would dedicate the remaining 27% of the solid waste management tax collections that are going to the general fund to increase funding for SCORE grants. This is an issue that's had broad bipartisan support, expected to continue to be that way. And again, just depending on various election outcomes, the big changes, especially in the Senate Tax Committee. So we'll just have to navigate those on this issue. Lastly, I wanted to update related to product stewardship programs. Broadly, these just try to transition cost and management. for certain products from taxpayers to producers. There is a battery bill that had been split off previously from a larger e-waste bill. That's gotten a lot of industry and stakeholder negotiation over the last year and is in pretty good shape to potentially pass next year. So I think it's very possible we'll see that outcome. Additionally, what's left over of that broader e-waste bill is likely to also return But I think that one still has a lot of stakeholder engagement to go. Additionally, as the paper and packaging products bill that had passed a couple years ago is implemented, we've seen kind of reemergence of some of the opposition to work on that, but we'll continue to monitor as that's implemented. Happy to answer any questions if there are any.

Any questions? Nope.

All right, I will close this out here over the next couple. So what I've got here in this table is basically the current fiscal picture of the state general fund. This is post-2026 legislative session. These dollars are in millions, and I should say they don't factor in inflation. So you can see basically that, okay, this biennium general fund revenue, billions lower than general fund spending. That gap does shrink to about $2.2 billion in fiscal 28-29. The way that the state has balanced its budgets in the current biennium during this legislative biennium, since the 2025 session, is essentially by rolling over surplus that they experienced during the 23-24 session when we had that $18 billion surplus. They didn't spend all of it. They rolled a lot of it over. So that's how they've been balancing the budget. Budget reserve remains strong at 3.4 billion. Since the last economic forecast, I would say that the national economic picture has weakened a little bit. So when we get the next economic forecast in December, that means we're going to be looking, when we get those fiscal 30 and 31 look for the first time, we're going to, the outlining a lot of the time when we're talking about revenue, is really dictated by the national economic picture, more so than what's going on in Minnesota, just because the predictive nature of our economy is a little bit, the shorter timeframes really when it's the most helpful. So what does this mean at the capital? I mean, it means that a lot of the challenges that we were facing the last two years will still be in place, regardless of what party is in the majority, right? Nancy was talking about one-time money that we did get to address rising county costs due to SNAP or the act. But those were one time, right? Those were band-aids. And tax committee, we're always looking at ways that we can increase CPA or other funds to make sure that counties are offset. For their costs, of course, when we're in a structural deficit, that's more difficult. And not only is it more difficult, at a time when legislators are talking about property taxes more, it means, OK, if we can't solve it by increasing refunds or increasing aid to counties, they start looking at other areas. And that's not always the most productive, because they're thinking about things like levy limits or assessment caps that, particularly in the environment that we're in, are, I mean, they make less sense than ever, right? Given that the rising cost shifts and mandates are coming onto the counties. So that's a little bit of the picture. You can go to the next slide. As far as, oh, I do want to just, I forgot earlier, I do want to call out a couple of your staff. Laura Elvebach is the chair of our MICA HR Directors Group. She's extremely helpful on HR issues. And of course, Michael Stahlberger, is an asset on any number of issues, but I really value his input, especially anytime we're talking about property taxes or the property tax process. There's a lot of knowledge there. But as far as what's next, right now, MICA is in the process of setting its own priorities. We've had some conversations with our board already about that and some informal things, but I mean, likely it's gonna be some of the stuff we've been talking about here today. that or it's pushing back against cost shifts that that we'd be looking at in 2027 but the picture is going to be different regardless of who ends up in the majority in the Senate in particular you've had a lot of retirements on the DFL side so some significant chairs like the rest, who's been at the Capitol for over four years as the chair of taxes, or Sandra Whitland, who's the Senate author of our HHS modernization bill. They're leaving it. On the House side, Representative Paul Torkelson is departing, and that's, I mean, you're talking about someone that's really been an asset to counties, who's really a champion for our modernization bill in the House. JP mentioned the Senate tax committee is going They're not running for reelection. So it is difficult to forecast exactly kind of who's going to be sitting in what chair. But it is something that, you know, regardless of what happens, legislative session comes back on January 12th. We'll see how everything shakes out. Obviously, all the constitutional offices and all the legislative seats are up for election. But our work is going to, you know, what happens in November will inform how our strategy, to be sure, but the priorities are going to be the same, right? I mean, they're the issues that are facing counties across the state right now. But I do just, again, want to close by saying thank you so much. We try to make sure we're an asset to you, but Blue Earth is also certainly an asset to MICA, and it really informs our work, and we really appreciate that, so.

All right. I think that is the end of our agenda. We'll be recessed. I have a motion to recess.

So moved.

Do I have a second?

Second. Second.

Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? We are in recess.