PUBLIC HEARING OF THE KOOCHICHING COUNTY BOARD
Held on Tuesday, April 1, 2008; 5:30 p.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Pavleck, Hanson, Adee, Lepper, Briggs
MEMBERS ABSENT: None

OTHERS ATTENDING: Steve Blair, Einar Sundin, Jerry Jensen, Marty Cody, Jaci Nagle, Brian Youso, Connelly Adams, Arden Barnes

PURPOSE: For adoption of a County Ordinance Establishing Koochiching County's Rural Addressing Requirements

000 The Board Chair opened the hearing with the County Sheriff and other 911 Signage Committee members providing an overview on the purpose of the Rural Addressing Ordinance and the tentative plan for incorporating 911 signage in the rural areas of the County.

The Board Chair opened the hearing for public comment. The Coordinator informed the Board that no written comment was received. Connelly Adams asked the Board how much property tax would increase for the cost of the county-wide 911 signage as his rural property taxes for 2008 went up 30%. It was explained that for Phase I of the signage plan, township funding from the annual Tax Forfeited Apportionment is earmarked to cover signage cost for properties with habitable dwellings on a maintain road, therefore no signage cost will be assessed to Phase I properties. Arden Barnes, resident of the City of Ranier, asked if her property would receive a 911 sign. Committee members explained that during this process, the cities in the County were informed of the County's plan to regulate rural addressing and place 911 signs for better emergency response services. In doing so, cities were asked to review their city addressing system and if interested in placing 911 signs in their city, to consider bidding with the County for a lower cost. Under law, cities are responsible for their own addressing and other than the City of Mizpah, all other cities have their own addressing system. Some cities are considering 911 signs in some of the rural areas of their city but the decision and cost is that of the city. In answer to Ms. Barnes question, the County would have extra signs for future property owners to purchase after getting a rural 911 address so she could purchase a sign but displaying it would have to follow any signage and addressing regulations of the City. With no other public comment, Committee members and Board members continued review.

Committee members stated that the 911 signs are designed so that the numbers can be seen from both sides and will be consistently placed, which greatly assists emergency responders in locating properties. It is definitely an improvement for public safety in the County. The question was asked about disposal of the current fire number signs. The Sheriff stated they are still working on a plan, hoping that someone will be interested in the material for scrap metal sale. The question was asked if the 911 sign will match the current address of properties or change the address as some businesses have large investments in their address for business advertisement purposes. The Sheriff stated that the rural county address will match the 911 sign. For the most part, the rural addressing is done so it is a matter of assigning the 911 sign number to the County's rural address system. For new signs, a rural address will be required to get the sign.

With no other comment from the public or County representatives, the Board Chair closed the public hearing at 5:55 p.m. informing those present that the draft County Rural Addressing Ordinance will be presented to the County Board on April 8, 2008 for adoption.