Skip to content

COUNTY BOARD

November 10, 2020

Commissioner Proceedings

November 10, 2020

The Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, November 10, 2020 at Lake of the Woods County Government Center in the Commissioners’ Room. 

CALL TO ORDER

Chair Jon Waibel called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. and the Pledge of Allegiance was recited with the following members present: Commissioners: Cody Hasbargen, Joe Grund, and Jon Waibel.  The following members were present by phone: Commissioners: Ed Arnesen and Buck Nordlof. Also present: County Auditor/Treasurer Lorene Hanson.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Joe Grund, seconded by Commissioner Ed Arnesen and carried unanimously by roll call to approve the agenda with the following additions: Human Resources/Permission to advertise, interview and hire a heavy equipment operator; County Highway/Approve wage for supervisor position, EDA/Resolution for Minnesota Investment Fund Program and Auditor-Treasurer/ Northwest Minnesota Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #8 Gambling Permit.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Joe Grund and carried unanimously by roll call to approve the official and summarized minutes of October 27, 2020.

SOCIAL SERVICES

Claims

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Joe Grund, seconded by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen and carried unanimously by roll call to approve the following claims: Commissioners Warrant’s $9,494.83 Commissioners Warrant’s $1,606.69, Commissioners Warrant’s $6,541.30.

AUDITOR/TREASURER

Claims

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Joe Grund, seconded by Commissioner Ed Arnesen and carried unanimously by roll call to approve the claims against the County as follows: Revenue $105,253.09; Road & Bridge $52,288.17; County Development $5,851.50; Joint Ditch $287.50; Solid Waste $24,373.82, EDA $1,656.92.

WARRANTS FOR PUBLICATION

Warrants Approved On 11/10/2020 For Payment 11/13/2020

Vendor Name Amount

Bollig Inc 9,000.00

Cenex Co-Op Services, Inc. 7,141.40

Cps Technology Solutions 8,742.97

Davidson Ready Mix & Construction Inc 7,545.00

DSC Communications 53,860.00

Freeberg & Grund, Inc 13,592.24

Government Management Group, Inc 3,600.00

Howard’s Oil Company 2,320.37

LOW Highway Dept 6,077.50

Mar-Kit Landfill 13,479.25

SeaChange Print Innovations 6,367.72

Titan Machinery – Roseau 13,268.74

Widseth Smith Nolting&Asst Inc 10,605.33

Woody’s Service 2,460.29

Wright Locksmith and Security Systems 7,560.00

63 Payments less than 2000   24,090.19

Final Total: 189,711.00

Further moved to authorize the payment of the following auditor warrants: October 26, 2020 for $615,274.16, November 4, 2020 for $539,203.28.

Permission to Hire

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Ed Arnesen, seconded by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen and carried unanimously by roll call to hire Anna Sanchez for the position of Deputy Auditor/Treasurer- License Clerk/Board Administration at Grade 11, Step 1, $20.33 per hour, Points 253, effective 11/2/2020.

Wells Fargo Motor Vehicle Checking Account

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Joe Grund, seconded by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen and carried unanimously by roll call to authorize the following employees; County Auditor/Treasurer Lorene Hanson, Deputy Auditor/Treasurer Erik Tange, Deputy Auditor/Treasurer Jaime Boretski-LaValla, Deputy Auditor/Treasurer Connie Nesmith and Deputy Auditor/Treasurer Anna Sanchez, to sign for account number 5502 effective 11/2/2020.

Snowmobile Grant-In-Aid Program

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Joe Grund and carried unanimously by roll call to authorize the FY 2021 Maintenance and Grooming Grants with the State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Snowmobile Grant-In-Aid Program for Big Traverse (LOW Drifters) and NW Angle Edgeriders in the amount of $174,422.35 and authorize Chair Jon Waibel and County Auditor/Treasurer Lorene Hanson to sign the same.

Gambling Permit Resolution

Resolution

The following resolution was offered by Commissioner Ed Arnesen, seconded by Commissioner Joe Grund and carried unanimously by roll call:

RESOLUTION APPROVING 

LAWFUL GAMBLING ACTIVITY APPLICATION 

TO CONDUCT OFF-SITE GAMBLING

RESOLUTION NO. 20-11-01

WHEREAS; the Northwest Minnesota Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #8 has submitted a Minnesota Lawful Gambling LG220 Application for Exempt Permit Gambling to be conducted at the following establishment, which is located in Lake of the Woods County: Sportsman’s Lodge 2/22/2021

 Sportsman’s Lodge 3244 Bur Oak Rd NW Baudette, MN 56623

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners hereby approves said application for submission to the Minnesota Gambling Control Board.

HUMAN RESOURCES

Convene Training Renewal for 2021

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Joe Grund and carried unanimously by roll call to approve the Convene Training renewal at $999 for 2021.

Advertise, Interview and Hire Heavy Equipment Operator

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Joe Grund, seconded by Commissioner Buck Nordlof and carried unanimously by roll call to advertise, interview and hire a heavy equipment operator at Grade 11, Step 1, Points 265, $20.33 per hour.

LAND AND WATER PLANNING

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #20-07CU by Ryan Kerr, Dennis King, and Sunset Lodge, LLC

Land and Water Planning Director, Josh Stromlund met with the board and presented a Conditional Use Permit for tracts of land in Government Lot 3, Section Two (2), Township One Hundred Sixty-seven (167) North, and Range Thirty-Three (33) West, Parcel IDs# 06.02.14.040, 06.02.14.030 and 06.02.14.020. Applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the movement of more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of repairing shoreline damage. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake. No comments were heard from the public. Stromlund reviewed the Findings of Fact of the Planning Commission and informed the Board that this application was approved by them as presented.


Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Joe Grund and carried unanimously by roll call to approve the following Findings of Fact/Conditional Use Permit for Ryan Kerr, Dennis King, and Sunset Lodge, LLC to allow the movement of more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of repairing shoreline damage, as presented.

Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners

Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant:  Ryan Kerr; Dennis King; Sunset Lodge LLC__________ Date:  _Nov. 10, 2020

Location/Legal Description: The North ½ of the South ½ of the South ½ of Government Lot 3; the North 115’ of the South 165’ of Government Lot 3; The South ½ of the North ½ of the South ½ of Government Lot 3, Section Two (2), Township One Hundred Sixty-seven (167) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel IDs# 06.02.14.030; 06.12.14.040; 06.02.14.020.

Project Proposal:  Place more than 10 cubic yards of material in the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of rip-rap. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.

  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?  Shoreline repair and stabilization.

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?  Saves shoreline.

  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/stops erosion.

  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 (  )  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?  Saves shoreline.

  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  (  )

November 10, 2020 _____________________________________

Date Jon Waibel

        Chair, County Board

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

Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #20-08V by Kristine Hawkins

Land and Water Planning Director, Josh Stromlund met with the board and presented a Conditional Use Permit for Lot 2, Block 1, Harris Addition, Section Nineteen (19), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, Parcel ID# 19.63.01.020. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow movement of more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of repairing shoreline damage. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.  No comments were heard from the public. Stromlund reviewed the Findings of Fact of the Planning Commission and informed the Board that this application was approved by them as presented.

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Ed Arnesen, seconded by Commissioner Joe Grund and carried unanimously by roll call to approve the following Findings of Fact/Conditional Use Permit for Kristine Hawkins to allow movement of more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of repairing shoreline damage, as presented.

Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners

Findings of Fact and Decision

Name of Applicant:  __Kristine Hawkins______________________ Date:  _November 10, 2020_

Location/Legal Description: _Lot 2 Block 1 Harris Addition, Section Nineteen (19), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID# 19.63.01.020_________________________

Project Proposal:  Place more than 10 cubic yards of material in the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of rip-rap. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.

  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?  Shoreline stabilization.

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

YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

3. 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?  Saves shoreline.

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

5. 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? ______________________________________________________

6. 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? ______________________________________________________

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

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

8. 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?  Shoreline stabilization.

10. 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? ______________________________________________________

11. 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? ______________________________________________________

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

YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

13. 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? ______________________________________________________

14. 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? ______________________________________________________

15. 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? ______________________________________________________

16. 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? ______________________________________________________

17. 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  (  )

November 10, 2020 _____________________________________

Date Jon Waibel

        Chair, County Board

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

COUNTY HIGHWAY/LANDFILL

Highway 

County Engineer AJ Pirkl provided a highway update.  

Landfill Update

County Engineer AJ Pirkl provided a landfill update.

Approve Wage for Supervisor Position

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Ed Arnesen, seconded by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen and carried by roll call, with Commissioner Joe Grund abstaining, to approve offering the wage for the maintenance supervisor at Grade 15, Step 5, $27.74 per hour effective 12/02/2020, pending acceptance of the offer.

BAUDETTE DEPOT – DEPOT PRESERVATION ALLIANCE

Funding Request

Motion

Motion was made by Commissioner Buck Nordlof, seconded by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen and carried unanimously by roll call to approve $10,000 from CARES Act Funds for the Depot Preservation Alliance. The full request from the Depot will be revisited at the next Board Meeting.

RECESS

The Board took a brief recess at 9:45 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:52 a.m.

RYAN ZEMEK, EDA DIRECTOR

Resolution for Minnesota Investment Fund Program

Resolution

The following Resolution was offered by Commissioner Buck Nordlof and moved for adoption: 

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF

Minnesota Investment Fund Program Application

Resolution No. 2020-11-02

Resolution regarding the approval of a Minnesota Investment Fund Application in connection with Lake of the Woods County and the Lake of the Woods County Economic Development Authority for the project entitled Lake of the Woods Distilling Company.

WHEREAS, the Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota (the “County”), desires to assist Lake of the Woods Distilling Company which is proposing a Distillery in the City of Baudette; and,

WHEREAS, the Lake of the Woods County understands that Lake of the Woods Distilling Company through and with the support of the Lake of the Woods Economic Development Authority wishes to apply or has applied to the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development’s Minnesota Investment Fund Program for project financing; and,

WHEREAS, the Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners held a County Board meeting on Tuesday, November 10, 2020 to consider this matter.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that after due consideration, the Board of Commissioners of Lake of the Woods County, Baudette, Minnesota, hereby express their approval of the Minnesota Investment Fund application from the Lake of the Woods County Economic Development Authority to assist with this project.

The resolution was seconded by Commissioner Joe Grund, and the same being put to a vote, was unanimously carried by roll call.

Update on CARES Applications

EDA Director, Ryan Zemek, provided an update to the Board regarding the request for funding from local businesses through the CARES Application, he has received some additional interest and will keep applications open through the 23rd of November.

CORRESPONDENCE

The Board reviewed correspondence from the Williams Senior Citizens.

RECESS

With no further business before the Board, Chairman Jon Waibel called the meeting to recess at 10:10 a.m. 

Attest: November 24, 2020

______________________________ _________________________________

County Auditor/Treasurer, Lorene Hanson Chairman Jon Waibel