Skip to content

COUNTY BOARD

April 13, 2021

April 13, 2021

The Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, April 13, 2021 at Lake of the Woods County Government Center in the Commissioners’ Room. 

CALL TO ORDER

Chair Joe Grund called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. and the Pledge of Allegiance was recited with the following members present: Commissioners: Joe Grund, Jon Waibel, Cody Hasbargen and Buck Nordlof.  Commissioner Ed Arnesen arrived to the meeting at 9:05 a.m. Also present: Jaime Boretski-LaValla.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Buck Nordlof, seconded by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen and carried unanimously to approve the agenda with the following additions: Lake of the Woods Tourism.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Jon Waibel, seconded by Commissioner Buck Nordlof and carried unanimously to approve the official and summarized minutes of March 16, 2021.

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Jon Waibel, seconded by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen and carried unanimously to approve the official and summarized minutes of March 23, 2021.

SOCIAL SERVICES

Claims

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Buck Nordlof and carried unanimously to approve the following claims: Commissioner Warrants $15,493.15; Commissioner Warrants $2,560.95; Commissioner Warrants $15,900.81.

AUDITOR/TREASURER

Claims

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Jon Waibel, seconded by Commissioner Buck Nordlof and carried unanimously to approve the claims against the County as follows: Revenue $48,901.60; Road & Bridge $48,593.66; County Development $4,200.50; Solid Waste $38,734; EDA $6,294.56. 

WARRANTS FOR PUBLICATION

Warrants Approved On 4/13/2021 For Payment 4/16/2021

Vendor Name Amount

ByteSpeed, LLC 3,940.00

Cenex Co-Op Services, Inc. 6,756.62

Deputy Registrar No.75 2,609.50

Freeberg & Grund, Inc 21,510.05

Headwaters Regional Development Commiss 6,250.00

Interstate Billing Service Inc 2,725.70

JMD Manufacturing Inc 2,496.00

Lakewood Health Center 5,256.00

LOW Highway Dept 10,573.75

Mar-Kit Landfill 16,120.50

Powerplan 5,192.60

Quadient Finance USA Inc. 4,000.00

R & Q Trucking, Inc 5,150.00

University Of Mn 9,407.00

Voyageurs Comtronics, Inc 2,995.20

WIDSETH 5,250.50

74 Payments less than 2000   36,490.90

Final Total: 146,724.32

Further moved to authorize the payment of the following auditor warrants: March 24, 2021 for $24,982.53; March 31, 2021 for $2,165.13; April 1, 2021 for ($66); April 1, 2021 for ($121.40); April 3, 2021 for $233,831.28; April 7, 2021 for $68,668.03.

Tower Space User Agreement Amendment

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Ed Arnesen, seconded by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen and carried unanimously to approve the amendment of the Tower Space User Agreement with Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc., adding an additional antenna, and for Chair Joe Grund and County Auditor-Treasurer Lorene Hanson to sign the same. The amended agreement will be for $8,500 per year. 

LAKE OF THE WOODS TOURISM

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Ed Arnesen, seconded by Commissioner Jon Waibel and carried unanimously to provide a letter of support for the Resort and Tourism Economic Relief Program and for Chair Joe Grund to sign the same.

LAKE OF THE WOODS SENIOR CLASS TRIP

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Jon Waibel and carried unanimously to donate $2,200 from Con Con Funds to Lake of the Woods School’s Class of 2021, for their class trip.

SHERIFF

Sentencing to Service Joint Powers Agreement

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Jon Waibel, seconded by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen and carried unanimously to approve the Joint Powers Agreement with the State of Minnesota for the Sentencing to Service Program; $2,778.52 for FY2022 and $2,872.99 for FY2023, and for Chair Joe Grund to sign the same.

Approval to purchase cameras

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Buck Nordlof, seconded by Commissioner Ed Arnesen and carried unanimously to approve the purchase of cameras, through Marco, for the Sheriff’s Department.

HUMAN RESOURCES

Jail/TAC Administrator Position

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Jon Waibel, seconded by Commissioner Buck Nordlof and carried unanimously to approve to hire for the Jail/TAC Administrator Position at grade 11, step 9, $24.60 per hour.

Permission to advertise, interview and hire for Night-Time E-911 Corrections Officer

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Ed Arnesen and carried unanimously to approve to advertise, interview and hire for the Night-Time E-911 Corrections Officer position.

PUBLIC WORKS
Highway
Update
AJ Pirkl, County Engineer, provided a Highway Update.  The department is under budget and will plan to use remaining budget dollars for over-time hours on projects.  Ditching work started on April 5th and it is going well.  Pirkl is evaluating options to repair the County Road 80 drainage issues and plans to start the project in the spring or early summer.  

Solid Waste Landfill
MPCA Update
AJ Pirkl, County Engineer, provided an update on his last meetings with the MPCA regarding the landfill.  Conversations are ongoing regarding the use of a three-foot cap or a synthetic cover for the landfill.

Parks and Rec
Approval to purchase a roll-in dock
AJ Pirkl, County Engineer, discussed quotes received for a dock at Ship’s Wheel public access.  It was the consensus of the Board to go with a Hewitt roll-in dock.  The 30-foot-long and 5-foot-wide dock will cost $3,450.  The dock will be delivered in approximately two weeks.

LAND AND WATER PLANNING
Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-04CU by Devlin Reasy
Land and Water Planning Director, Josh Stromlund met with the Board and presented a Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-04CU by Devlin Reasy: Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Turgeon Estates, Section Twenty (20), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, Parcel ID# 24.60.01.040. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone and more than fifty (50) cubic yards of material outside of the shore impact zone of the Rainy River for the purposes of controlling erosion and sedimentation. The Rainy River is an Agricultural River segment.

Motion
Motion was made by Commissioner Jon Waibel, seconded by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen and carried unanimously to approve the following Findings of Fact for Devlin Reasy to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone and more than fifty (50) cubic yards of material outside of the shore impact zone of the Rainy River for the purposes of controlling erosion and sedimentation as presented: 

Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners
Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant: Devlin Reasy Date:  April 13, 2021

Location/Legal Description:  Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Turgeon Estates, Section Twenty (20), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, Parcel ID# 24.60.01.040.

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting to move more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone and more than fifty (50) cubic yards of material outside of the shore impact zone of the Rainy River for the purpose of controlling erosion and sedimentation.

  1. Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? YES (X) NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not?  Control erosion.

2. Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare?

YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution, including sedimentation and nutrient loading?                        YES (X) NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not?  Erosion control.

  1. Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features, and vegetative cover?                                            YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not?  Will not adversely affect these.

  1. Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway of rivers or tributaries? YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal?

YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not?  Reason for project.

  1. Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads?     YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

9. Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location?

YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not?  Reason for project.

  1. Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal system adequate to accommodate the project proposal? YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with Section 901 of the Zoning Ordinance?         YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems?

YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project proposal will generate? YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or other hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements, has a permit been sought?                                                 YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties?                                                                                               YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties to the extent possible?                                                                                YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed? 

                                                                                                       YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

If all answers to the Findings of Fact-Criteria are either “Yes” or are “Not Applicable” to the request, the criteria for granting the conditional use permit have been met. The conditional use permit will maintain the goals of safety, health, and general welfare of the public.  

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  None

Approved as Presented (X) Approved with Conditions ( ) Denied  (  )

April 13, 2021 _____________________________________

Date Joseph Grund, Chair, County Board

This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-05CU by Knife River on behalf of The Welberg Family Trust
Land and Water Planning Director, Josh Stromlund met with the Board and presented a Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-05CU by Knife River on behalf of The Welberg Family Trust:  The SW¼NE ¼; SE¼NW¼; NE¼SW¼; NW¼SE¼; Section Thirty-six (36), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.36.13.000. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the expansion and continue the extractive and commercial use of the property consisting of aggregate mining and washing and hot mix asphalt plant in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2).

Motion
Motion was made by Commissioner Ed Arnesen, seconded by Commissioner Jon Waibel and carried unanimously to approve the following Findings of Fact for Knife River on behalf of The Welberg Family Trust to allow the expansion and continue the extractive and commercial use of the property consisting of aggregate mining and washing and hot mix asphalt plant in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2), the specific conditions of approval are as follows:
1. The Conditional Use Permit is valid for ten years and terminates on April 13, 2031.
2. Must meet all applicable Minnesota Pollution Control Agency rules and regulations.

Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners

Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant: Knife River on behalf of The Welberg Family Trust Date:  April 13, 2021

Location/Legal Description:  The SW¼NE ¼; SE¼NW¼; NE¼SW¼; NW¼SE¼; Section Thirty-six (36), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.36.13.000.

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the expansion and continue the extractive and commercial use of the property consisting of aggregate mining and washing and hot mix asphalt plant in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2).

  1. Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? YES (X) NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not?  Existing aggregate mining.

2. Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare?

YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution, including sedimentation and nutrient loading?                        YES (  ) NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features, and vegetative cover?                                            YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not?  Aggregate mining proposal.

  1. Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway of rivers or tributaries? YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal?

YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not?  No change.

  1. Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads?     YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not?  Same access as before expansion.

  1. Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not?  No change.

9)  Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location?

YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1.  Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal system adequate to accommodate the project proposal? YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with Section 901 of the Zoning Ordinance?         YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems?

YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project proposal will generate? YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1.  If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or other hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements, has a permit been sought?                                                                                      YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties?                                                                                                YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties to the extent possible?                                                                               YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed? 

                                                                                                       YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

If all answers to the Findings of Fact-Criteria are either “Yes” or are “Not Applicable” to the request, the criteria for granting the conditional use permit have been met. The conditional use permit will maintain the goals of safety, health, and general welfare of the public.  

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:

  1. The Conditional Use Permit is valid for ten (10) years and terminates on April 13, 2031.
  2. Must meet all applicable Minnesota Pollution Control Agency rules and regulations.

Approved  as Presented  (  ) Approved with Conditions  (X) Denied  (  )

April 13, 2021 _____________________________________

Date Joseph Grund, Chair, County Board

This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-06CU by Knife River on behalf of Michael Gamache
Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #21-06CU by Knife River on behalf of Michael Gamache:  The SW¼NW ¼, Section Three (3), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Parcel ID# 23.03.23.000. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow extractive use of the property consisting of aggregate mining in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2).

Motion
Motion was made by Commissioner Jon Waibel, seconded by Commissioner Buck Nordlof and carried unanimously to approve the following Findings of Fact for Knife River on behalf of Michael Gamache to allow extractive use of the property consisting of aggregate mining in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2), the specific conditions of approval are as follows:
1. Conditional Use Permit terminates upon completion of the Lake of the Woods County CSAH #6 road       project.
2.  A dust control plan is to be submitted to and approved by the Lake of the Woods Public Works Director.

Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners

Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant: Knife River on behalf of Michael Gamache Date:  April 13, 2021

Location/Legal Description:  The SW¼NW ¼, Section Three (3), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, Parcel ID# 23.03.23.000.

Project Proposal:  Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401.C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow extractive use of the property consisting of aggregate mining in a Rural Residential Zoning District (R2).

  1. Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? YES (X) NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not?  Aggregate mining.

2. Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare?

YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution, including sedimentation and nutrient loading?                        YES (  ) NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features, and vegetative cover?                                            YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not?  Aggregate mining to create a pond.

  1. Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway of rivers or tributaries? YES (  ) NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal?

YES (  ) NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads?     YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not?  Existing road.

  1. Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not?  Existing pit.

9. Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location?

YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal system adequate to accommodate the project proposal? YES (  ) NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with Section 901 of the Zoning Ordinance?         YES (  ) NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems?

YES (  ) NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project proposal will generate? YES (  ) NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or other hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements, has a permit been sought?                                                YES (  ) NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties?                                                                                                YES (  )  NO (X)  N/A (  )

Why or why not?  Not needed – vegetative cover in place.

  1. If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties to the extent possible?                                                                                 YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

  1. If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed? 

                                                                                                         YES (X) NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not?  Via 38th Ave NW.

If all answers to the Findings of Fact-Criteria are either “Yes” or are “Not Applicable” to the request, the criteria for granting the conditional use permit have been met. The conditional use permit will maintain the goals of safety, health, and general welfare of the public.  

The specific conditions of approval are as follows:

  1. The Conditional Use Permit terminates upon completion of the Lake of the Woods County CSAH #6 road project.
  2. A dust control plan is to be submitted to and approved by the Lake of the Woods Public Works Director.

Approved  as Presented  (  ) Approved with Conditions  (X) Denied  (  )

April 13, 2021 _____________________________________

Date Joseph Grund, Chair, County Board

This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance.

RECESS
With no further business before the Board, Chair Joe Grund called the meeting to recess at 10:18 a.m.

Attest: April 27, 2021

_________________________________ _________________________________

County Auditor/Treasurer, Lorene Hanson Chair of the Board, Joe Grund