SPECIAL MEETING OF THE KOOCHICHING COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Held on Tuesday, May 23, 2006; 9:30 a.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Adee, Hanson, Lepper, Briggs, Pavleck

MEMBERS ABSENT: None

OTHERS ATTENDING: Terry Murray, Susan Congrave, Bob Peterson, Richard Lehtinen, Eric and Stacy Hall, Dennis Hummitzsch, Scott Dane, Rod Otterness, Bill Gray, Everett Ramsey, Doug Grindall, Tom Wherley, Kelly Bloom, Michael Kuryla, Bill Fisher, Chris Molstad, Eric Strand, Dan McCarthy, Brian Nelson, Phil Paulbeck, Russ Strand, Dennis Wagner, Elaine Beach, Mayor Shawn Mason, Bob Anderson; Reporters Laurel Beager and Jerry Franzen

2006/05-34 Motion by Hanson, seconded by Lepper to approve the agenda with additions and deletions. Voting yes: Adee, Hanson, Lepper, Briggs; absent for vote: Pavleck. Motion carried.

2006/05-35 Motion by Hanson, seconded by Lepper to approve the minutes of the May 16, 2006 regular meeting. Voting yes: Adee, Hanson, Lepper, Briggs; absent for vote: Pavleck. Motion carried.

2006/05-36 Motion by Lepper, seconded by Pavleck to approve payment of the Auditor claims in the amount of $20,026.43; to accept the recommendation of the Assessor to grant abatement to Ronald Peterson, parcel # 15-30-31100, to remove building valuation placed in error; to approve payment of the Community Service Department’s financial and social service program claims and administrative claims as presented; to approve payment of the Health Department claims in the amount of $23,364.71. Payment detail on file in the respective departments. Voting yes: Adee, Hanson, Lepper, Briggs, Pavleck. Motion carried.

2006/05-37 Motion by Hanson, seconded by Briggs to approve the County Board meeting schedule for the summer months as presented by the Coordinator (June through August). Voting yes: Adee, Hanson, Lepper, Briggs, Pavleck. Motion carried.

2006/05-38 Motion by Lepper, seconded by Hanson to renew the AEOA SELF Service Agreement for 2006 as recommended by the Community Service Director. Voting yes: Adee, Hanson, Lepper, Briggs, Pavleck. Motion carried.

2006/05-39 Motion by Lepper, seconded by Briggs accepting the following Foster Day Care and Day Care Licensing recommendations: Ralph and Charlene Crane for foster care of two children, Lisa Reller closing home for day care at provider’s request, and Donald and Julie Godfroy for foster care of three children. Voting yes: Adee, Hanson, Lepper, Briggs, Pavleck. Motion carried.

2006/05-40 Motion by Hanson, seconded by Lepper to renew the Family Planning Service Contract with the Women’s Health Center (funded by a Bremer Grant), as recommended by the Health Director. Voting yes: Adee, Hanson, Lepper, Briggs, Pavleck. Motion carried.

000 The Health Director presented the Department’s Quarter 1, 2006 Financial/Statistical Report.

000 The Auditor/Treasurer informed the Board that a revision to the County HAVA Election Plan will be forthcoming as it was found that the 5 current optical scan machines are incompatible with the new AutoMark handicap machines requiring purchase of 10 optical scan machines, rather than the original 5 proposed in the plan. The additional 5 machines will expend an additional $25,000 of the federal HAVA Grant earmarked for Koochiching County, still leaving an adequate reserve for maintenance of the electronic equipment. Board members expressed concern that eventually the HAVA grant funds will be exhausted and the County will have to come up with the dollars to maintain and replace all this electronic equipment. The Auditor/Treasurer stated that the County Election Plan was mandated under the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and at this time it is supported by federal funding. However, in the long term it is uncertain whether federal funds will continue to support the mandate.

2006/05-41 Motion by Lepper, seconded by Hanson accepting the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve CUP#0601 for Eric and Stacy Hall for a home occupation business for heavy equipment repair, maintenance and part sales with property located at 2165 County Road 109. Voting yes: Adee, Hanson, Lepper, Briggs, Pavleck. Motion carried.

000 The Environmental Service Director informed the Board that legislators were at an impasse at the conclusion of the 2006 legislative session in resolving the issues for local units of governments in disposing of video display devices under the July 1, 2006 ban on disposing of these devices in the landfills. As a result the County has to collect, transport and pay for the disposal of these devices (monitors and TVs) at some other location and will need to establish a disposal fee to cover this cost. The Solid Waste Advisory Committee will review the matter and come back with a fee recommendation.

2006/05-42 Motion by Hanson, seconded by Lepper that due to the unseasonable winter temperatures during the 2005/06 winter logging season, that for only timber permits expiring in 2006 and only upon making application, the County will grant a no fee one year extension and for permits already in extension will allow an additional no fee one year extension and further, permits reaching their initial expiration date in 2006 will have the 20% payment waived upon request, to enter into extension. Voting yes: Adee, Hanson, Lepper, Briggs, Pavleck. Motion carried.

000 At the last meeting, the County Board asked the City of International Falls and Rural Fire Association to sign an agreement to retain the partnership for the short term and for the long term, mediate for a long term resolution for providing fire protection service to the rural area. For this agreement, the County Board would support forming a taxing district to begin levying of a tax in 2007. The City of International Falls Administrator provided the Board a written response from the Council which stated the City is only agreeable to a direct contract with the County for providing rural fire protection. In response, the Rural Fire Association representative stated that if the City is unwilling to sign a contract with them, the Association needs to look at its alternative which is a separate rural fire department. Board members expressed frustration with the City for not signing the agreement for the short term to move this forward as the County is not in a position to take any one side, nor does it have a long term proposal with cost from either party to make any other decision. The solution they sought was to keep all the parties together and work it out. Board members stated that the County takes serious the taxing of the people and without a solid proposal the County Board will not support a taxing district.

2006/05-43 Motion by Lepper, seconded by Hanson to table action on establishing a taxing district for provision of rural fire protection services for lack of an acceptable service agreement. Voting yes: Adee, Hanson, Lepper, Briggs, Pavleck. Motion carried.

000 The Board Chair opened session to receive public comment on the proposed TH 332 Road Project. The proposed project would vacate the Burner Road to Boise and reroute from the 90 degree corner of the truck route out to Highway 11 East west of Second Bridge. Tom Wherley expressed concern that this new route may be more convenient for tourists in lining up for the bridge and/or getting to the lake so visitors will by-pass town and businesses will lose out. Also he stated concern with creating an intersection on Highway 11 East for safety reasons. Kelly Bloom owner of the Falls Motel heard the proposal to beautify Highway 53 and now he hears about this new route to by-pass town. Michael Kuryla asked what this proposed road was going to accomplish. He feels if you make this a good route to the lake area, traffic will avoid the business area in the City. Bill Fisher, business owner, stated that when he lived in Cambridge, Minnesota he witnessed what a by-pass did to the downtown. It eventually forced downtown businesses to relocate or close. Chris Molstad also expressed safety concerns on where the route will come out on Highway 11 East and that it was bad for businesses. At this point he sees only a benefit for Boise. Stacy Hall, property owner on the truck route, stated that the truck route is already being used as a by-pass and that the purpose of the truck route was to keep commercial traffic out of the city. Eric Strand stated that the majority of traffic using the Burner Road is local and mostly to access South International Falls areas. He asked if there were other improvements that could be made to make the Burner Road more safe (example cross arms) when Boise is using the road for wood hauling. He also believes that tourist traffic should come through the City and not be diverted to the truck route where there is commercial hauling. Dan McCarthy stated that this proposed project will hurt businesses and he is against the project. Brian Nelson stated that the reason for the truck route (Highway 332) was for truck hauling so putting more non-commercial traffic on the road defeats the original purpose. Phil Paulbeck believes visitors would still use Highway 53 thinking that visitors would be interested in visiting the city if they came all this way. He believes Boise’s need to close the Burner Road is legitimate for their operations and also for the safety of the public. The Burner Road is basically a public road through a major industrial wood yard where there is continuous operation of heavy equipment. He thought maybe the truck route could be designated for commercial traffic only. Russ Strand, property owner on the Van Lynn Road, questioned why the County is throwing money into this road project. He believes putting more non-commercial traffic on the truck route increases the potential for accidents with all the truck hauling that occurs. He also doesn’t believe that not signing the route will keep people from using it as eventually the word will get out it is a quick route to the lake and line for the bridge. Stacy Hall asked about the funding for this road project. The Highway Engineer stated it would be funded with a federal grant and CSAH funds. Several comments were made on the funding and that regardless if the dollars were federal or state, it is still taxpayer dollars. Dennis Wagner said he is not concerned with where the dollars came from but rather where they will be used as if we don’t take advantage of the funding, it will go somewhere else. He believes tourists will still use Highway 53 and believes the truck route should be used for commercial traffic only for public safety reasons. Michael Kuryla stated that Boise wants the Burner Road closed because of traffic accidents but he is not aware of accidents occurring. He feels the issue is more about the County needing to find a road project to expend the CSAH dollars. The Highway Engineer stated that the Burner Road and the alternate route have always been on the table but in past years other road projects took priority. Elaine Beach asked the Engineer what criteria were used for this road project when applying for the federal grant. The Engineer stated that the 90 degree corner on the truck route, Boise’s wood operation on the Burner Road and needing to find a safer local traffic route and providing an escape route for the lake area were all reasons put into the grant application. Chris Molstad thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak on this matter. After hearing discussion, he was wondering if zoning could be used to restrict the truck route to commercial traffic. He would like to see the road go but not at the expense of the businesses. Dennis Wagner asked why the swap could not be made with Boise so they can close the Burner Road and the County hold on to the option to make an alternate route out to Highway 11 East by Second Bridge (having been told by the Engineer that the federal funding for this project is secure until 2009). The Highway Engineer stated that the Burner Road is an extension of State Highway 332 and that MnDot will not release the Burner Road until there is another extension of the State Highway. Bob Anderson stated that Boise supports the local businesses but the Company feels this exchange of one local road for another is a reasonable exchange and needed. The majority of accidents are caused on the route during the night when drivers do not see wood pieces on the road. Fortunately there have been no fatalities to date but there have been accidents in which Boise was found responsible. The Engineer stated that in the past when this road project was discussed, Boise was not interested because local traffic was less but today the road is used heavily by non-commercial traffic and poses more of a safety issue for both the public and the Company. Commissioner Lepper as a point of information stated that this proposed reroute would also serve the Free Trade Zone. He also felt the businesses would not be harmed as like most visitors, after traveling a far distance, would be looking for a rest stop. He also felt zoning should be looked at for options to control traffic as suggested earlier. Tom Wherley reiterated his concern that having traffic coming out on Highway 11 East on a 50 mph highway is dangerous as this is a busy highway in the summer months with many vehicles pulling boats. With no further comment the Board Chair closed the public comment session. Commissioner Pavleck thanked everyone for coming and providing their comments and that he would like time to digest the information before responding to the Engineer’s request to move forward on the project. Commissioner Lepper stated his support for the project taking in points raised today. Commissioner Briggs stated she is sensitive to the business concerns and that she would explore any possible reroute for the traffic line to Canada which would have visitors using Highway 53 into town as the logical route to get in line.

2006/05-44 Motion by Pavleck, seconded by Lepper deferring the Engineer’s request to move forward on the proposed Highway 332 Road Project to the June 6, 2006 Board meeting to allow the Board more time to consider the information presented today. Voting yes: Adee, Hanson, Lepper, Briggs, Pavleck. Motion carried.

000 The Board Chair opened public comment period at 12:25 p.m. Michael Kuryla asked the Board if a petition from the public would help in forming a decision on the proposed Highway 332 Road Project. The Board acknowledged that all information is considered in making their decisions. Stacy Hall stated her support for the proposed Highway 332 Road Project. With no other comment, the Board Chair closed public comment period.

000 The Highway Engineer requested the Board’s input on whether to enhance the design for the new Lindford Bridge over the Big Fork River to embed a picture of a moose in the concrete piers facing the river for canoeing enthusiasts. It would add little cost to the project. The Board was not in support of the enhancement.
2006/05-45 Motion by Pavleck, seconded by Lepper to revoke Board Motion 2006/02-20 due to an error in the legal description and to pass the following: TO REVOKE as County State Aid Highway No. 21 as a County State Aid Highway (length 1.0 mile); TO DESIGNATE County Road No. 108 as County State Aid Highway No. 108 beginning at a point on County State Aid Highway No. 24, said point being at or near the east quarter corner of Section 10, Township 70 North, Range 24 West; thence in a southerly direction for approximately 1,500 feet along the east line of said Section 10; thence in a southeasterly direction through Section 14, Township 70 North, Range 24 West for approximately 3,900 feet to a point approximately 900 feet north of the center of said Section 14; thence southerly 900 feet to the center of said Section 14, and there terminating (length 1.2 miles); TO DESIGNATE Unorganized Township Road No. 488 as County State Aid Highway 102 beginning at a point on County State Aid Highway No. 138, said point being at or near the west side of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 31, Township 71 North, Range 22 West; thence in an easterly direction approximately .65 mile and there terminating in the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 71 North, Range 22 West (length .65 mile). Voting yes: Adee, Hanson, Lepper, Briggs, Pavleck. Motion carried.
2006/05-46 Motion by Hanson, seconded by Pavleck to adjourn the meeting at 12:35 p.m. Voting yes: Adee, Hanson, Lepper, Briggs, Pavleck. Motion carried.