Video / Data /Archive The Watcher's Report

NOTICE : To run this page you may need to allow active x or make adjustments to adobe flash or other components of your browser as you will be referred to you tube and google video within content on this page.

The data below is presented in an attempt to make it available to the public, we have requested the the county board stream and archive the video of their meetings and make available at least notes of the county board workshops. At this point we do not have the capacity to put all meetings in full on the web site but attempt to bring things in context as much as possible without making the data/video too long to be useful.

If you would like to view the video recordings of the board meetings they can be purchased from PACT tv, some are available at the Duluth Public Library, and you can always request them from the St. Louis County Board.

If you need any further information you can request it from the St. Louis County Auditor or Gary Eckenberg at St. Louis County Adminisatration as a data request and will be entitled to receive that, you may be charged what the county has expended to retrieve the data. They will provide you with an estimate in advance thereof.

The order of the archive

The data is being gathered from many places and at this time order/date is not always correctly attached but we are working on making the archive as complete, searchable and available as possible

Board Policy Manual - April 08.pdf (3 MB)

vvvv	Date/Place of Meeting	Agenda / Communications / Minutes Links Link to county repository of info	Audio Video Links Relevant to the Date	Related Data /Minutes at SLC Website/ Some Video available at Public Library/Pact offices Audio Available in Entirety from County by Request
	2 9 2010	Sale of Land to Fond du Lac Tribe
	10 14 09	Nelson : Letter to Editor
1.6.09	January: 6th
1.13.09	Jan 13 Duluth Courthouse	Agenda and Board Letters for 1-13-09 (137 KB) Consent Agenda for 1-13-09 (12 KB) Communications Received through 1-7-09 (23 KB) Annual Meeting of the Board of Commissioners of St. Louis County, Minnesota (332 KB)		PROCEEDINGS OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MINNESOTA OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS, MINNESOTA, HELD ON JANUARY 13, 2009
1.27	27th – Clinton Town Hall	Agenda and Board Letters for 1-27-09 (62 KB) Consent Agenda for 1-27-09 (12 KB) Communications Received through 1-21-09 (13 KB)
2	Feb	Agenda and Board Letters for 2-3-09 (81 KB) Consent Agenda for 2-3-09 (10 KB) Communications Received through 1-28-09 (12 KB)	February: 3rd, 17th - Duluth Courthouse 24th - Hibbing City Council Chambers
3	March 3 2009	http://www.co.st-louis.mn.us/slcportal/Portals/0/Agendas/age3-3.pdf Consent Agenda March 3	March: 3rd 17th - Duluth Courthouse 24th – Hoyt Lakes Community Center	Link to Video of County Board Meeting Map of all easements Map of easements across school trust lands referred to in motion.
4	March 16	An email was sent March 5 as follows A County Board workshop has been scheduled for Monday, March 16 beginning at 9:30 a.m. at Black Woods Conference Center, Proctor, MN. An agenda and related materials will be sent prior to the meeting, and will be posted on the County's internet site.	County Board Workshop
	04/ 21/09	Workshop Assisted Living, Chris Jensen
5	Video By Main Speaker		Forsman, Mike Commisisoner	9_4_Forsman_Speech.wmv 12 18 07 Forsman discusses complaintant in sexual harassment case in unflattering terms Intent vs. Impact http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=forsman%2C+st.+louis+county&emb=0# http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=forsman%2C+st.+louis+county&emb=0# http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=forsman%2C+st.+louis+county&emb=0#
6			Commissioner Fink has thrown a book at 1. Commissioner Peg Sweeney, he states that had he meant to hit her he would have.	1. Sept 4 Fink The We Are Watching Campaign begins, Comm. Fink Responds   2. St. Louis County Commissioner Fink has thrown a book at Commissioner Sweeney, gives his perception of event 3. Commissioner_Fink_Opposes_Rep_Oberstar.wmv : Commissioner Fink explains his interest in defeating the Oberstar clean water act. 4. Oberstar response to Fink 5. Bob Tammen, Resident of Soudan, expresses disapproval of Meeting Commissioner Fink Promoted/attended Fink Opposes Forest Industry Plans
7			Kron, Bill / 3rd thru 09/D
8			Nelson 3. In a debate regarding smoking in St. Louis County Bars and Restaurants, the issue of leadership versus representation arose. Commissioner Kron asked Commissioner Nelson how far he would go in maintaining his position that his vote represents the will of his constituents and probed the limits and boundaries of the issue asking if it was correct to support something morally wrong, using the example of slavery (at the time of this board meeting the film "Amazing Grace" was playing in Duluth and many civic leaders had viewed the film and discussed it's relevance to leadership and representation) Mr. Nelson thoughtfully responded that he would, and gave his reasons as "the last time I looked we still lived in (sic) "a democracy" and that he is elected to represent his constituents and if that is what they wanted and it was at the time when slavery was legal then he would indeed support it. (Transcript to follow) 4. The Board generally seeks public input on controversial matters, in the instance being discussed in video 4, the board has voted on a matter and communicated their preference to another governmental body and employees. Members of the board have received input from citizens who have brought issues of relevance to their attention and have changed their view on the matter that was discussed. They have chosen to agree to send a report to the public without recommendation as to outcome, and to seek further input from the public. Mr. Nelson forcefully expresses disagreement with the change in votes, stating that this provides political cover for the commissioners who have voted to seek public input. He states that he will no longer vote in workshops unless those votes are held to in future meetings, despite public input. 5. Freedom of Information : Mr. Nelson states that a request for information has been made inclusive of his travel records, he states that the public should go to to his office to seek public documents regarding his use of public funds, so that he can explain them. The standard practice is for such requests is listed on the St. Louis County Website here . Also one may inquire of the County Administrator or Assistant Administrator. A check with their office has affirmed that to be the proper course for submitting requests for information. 6. In this clip, the County Attorney advises the County Commissioners to use caution in statements that could bring charges. Mr. Nelson protests that the county attorney has warned to board to be careful as that may draw attention to the issue. His comments take approximately four times longer than her brief cautionary statement. Commissioner Kron thanks the County Attorney for cautioning board and points out that the former County Attorney, Alan Mitchell gave just such warnings often to board.	1. 11 07 07 Workshop Code of Conduct Discussion by Board 2. Nelson proposes code changes that would weaken code of conduct on Dec 11 3 You Tube Video entitled " Slavery in St. Louis County, MN?" 4. Nelson advocating violation of Board Bylaws 5. Nelson Public access to data 6. Nelson Rebukes St. Louis County Atty Fords re caution to the board 7. Nelson advocates banning public recording and falsely accuses person of maliciously editing tape of workshop
9			O'Neil
10			Raukar, Steve	Steve_Raukar Purchasing and Environment Commissioner_Raukar_Reports_On_Rail_Initiative 1 14 08 Raukar on choice D .wmv
11			Sweeney, Peg
12			Attorney	10 07 Atty Ford Cautions Board 11 18 07 County Attorney advises on proposed code of conduct
13			Auditor
14
15			Sherrif
16			Code of Conduct	Workshop is recommended to discuss Code of Conduct 11 07 07 Workshop Code of Conduct Discussion by Board 1 09 Workshop on Code of Conduct -
17			Mileage Reimbursement	12 28 07 Mileage Reimbursement Vote
18	March 17 08	Workshop In Pike Lake	OHV Planning Northern St.Louis County	http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5216326698485969991
19
20			Forest Planning	Nelson on Workshop Voting The only public vote on OHVs in Cloquet Valley
21			Watchers Speak	12 18 07 Code of Conduct Public Input Ely
22
23	Summer 08 8 12 08		August 12 Video Mike Forsman states concerns regarding the employees of the only firm to bid on a county contract. He states his belief that the primarily hispanic workers are "illegal aliens" Commissioner Forsman reports being given his information on this matter "third hand". He states that false green cards are widely available. As a commisisoner options available to Mr. Forsman to fulfill his duties, include being able to seek the council of the County Attorney with regard to ascertaining the documentation required of workers. Further if he is aware of false documents being available that should be reported to law enforcement.
24	Summer 08		Summer 08 County Attorney Ford addresses board, she has not been able to get the item on the agenda and addresses the board during the public comment section. Requests an item be put on agenda for closed session. Atty Ford states that one duty of county atty is to advise county and her duty is to consult with her client. In furtherance of those duties she has need to address board, has made repeated requests and has not been placed on agenda. Mr Fink states he will take the request under advisement and take it up with the administrator.
25	July ? 08		Invasive species	Audio Recording of the Discussion Start at 36 to hear relevant content.
26	Spring 08		EEOC COMPLAINT FILED STEMMING FROM CHARGES AGAINST DENNIS FINK : Updated at: 04/07/2008 07:11:49 PM By: Renee Passal WDIO Print Story Email to a Friend EEOC Claim Against St. Louis County "The woman who filed a sexual harassment claim against St. Louis County Commissioner Dennis Fink last year, has filed a complaint against the county. Employee Relations Director Martha Watson confirmed the complaint is through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission." click here for more from WDIO Duluth News Tribune Report : John Myers "The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is investigating a complaint filed by a St. Louis County employee claiming inappropriate behavior by several county officials and employees. click here for more from DNT	link to Details of Cases against Fink/Raukar goes here   Click Here for Link to EEOC information on Sexual Harassment
27			Rose Berens, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Bois Forte band and Daniel Donovan  address the board regarding the renaming of Big Island  which Rep. Rukavena wants named Strand Island  to honor the most recent residents of the island  who donated the land back to the state,  which had originally taken possession of it when the Ojibwe People ceded it.  Bois Forte website : http://www.boisforte.com/index.htm  One reference to the issue of treaties with the Ojibwa people is found here : http://www.glifwc.org/Publications/otrui2006.pdf	Big Island Name Change Considered
28
29				Sam Haddad 1   Sam Haddad 2 Sam Haddad appears in both videos above.
30	Spring 08 Cotton?		Cloquet Valley State Forest
31	3 18 08		There was a lengthy discussion at the St. Louis County Board Committee of the Whole on March 18.
32	3 18 08		Video of March 18 Birch Lake Project. That project is mining for Non Ferrous (non iron) metals as is the Polymet Project. What the Commissioners so excited about the project failed to mention is that Birch Lake Project is directly under a lake and Polymet is an open Pit mine, both are a new type of mining for our region, they are Non Ferrous or Sulphuric. For an alternative view of Non Ferrous Mining in NE Mn see the videos (11 of them) Polymet Video 1 , 2, 3,  4 (Best short summary)  5,  Q&A 1, Q&A 2, Q&A 3 , Q&A 4 , Q&A 5 , Q&A 6	Video of March 18
33	1 14 08		Kevin Skwira-Brown Addresses Board January 15, 2008 Kevin Skwira-Brown and Marsh Stennerson address board choice of Alan Mitchel interim administrator. Text of Kevin's speech Chair Forsman, Commissioners.  My name is Kevin Skwira-Brown. I live in Duluth.  I joined you yesterday as you selected a finalist for the Interim County Administrator position. Over the opposition of Commissioners O’neil and Sweney you chose to select an interim Administrator from a pool of candidates generated without even posting the position.  By not posting the position or soliciting applicants, you did as Commissioner Fink warned, heighten the perception that there was a preselected person for the job.   This perception becomes even more solidified with the announcement that Alan Mitchell is that finalist. Yesterday Commissioner Forsman made it clear that the finalist was a former County employee and his first choice.  I sat there mindful that the Mesabi Daily Tribune and WDIO raised the name of Alan Mitchell, former County Attorney as a potential candidate several days ago.  I come before you today with the hope that you will not stoop still further in hiring as the interim Administrator the man who lost election as the County Attorney, failed to address the complaints of sexual harassment against a County Commissioner when he was County Attorney, and represented that County Commissioner when complaints of sexual harassment were responded to and investigated under the current County Attorney.  When I heard Commissioner Rauker say that the finalist was someone who had proven accountability to elected officials I hoped he wasn’t referring to Mitchell’s inaction when sexual harassment complaints were made during his watch as County Attorney or the legal services rendered when Commissioner Rauker was investigated for sexual harassment.  I was reminded of the attempted $75,000 per year parting contract for Mitchell that was nearly slid under the radar following his defeat. Commissioner Forsman described the process of selecting a finalist as non political.  Given the history of baggage that accompanies Mr. Mitchell, I find that claim to be difficult to accept.  If you are serious about valuing transparency and accountability you will either open the process beyond the unsolicited four or move as a finalist one of the other applicants.  Failure to do so can not help but further diminish morale among employees and confidence among the people of St. Louis County. In yesterdays selection process in the First and Second rounds four commissioners rated Candidate A, identified by one of you as an internal candidate as preferred to candadate D, now known to be Alan Mitchell. Given that despite yesterdays activity this board is in the position today to take its first, final and formal action on this issue.   I urge you to revisit those last two candidates and act in a manner that will serve administrative continuity, fiscal responsiblity, employee morale and public confidence. We deserve better. Thank You Kevin Skwira-Brown	We Are Watching A Campaign for Accountability
34	Jan 08		Committee Appointments While several appointments were made at the first meeting of the new year, one was mentioned as an aside during that meeting, Keith Nelson stated that he will be appointed to the citizens advisory group that will have voting authority with regard to the OHV Park/Scramble Area expansion planned to be in the works by the fall of 08.   Public Hearings will be in the spring.	The Park is proposed to boarder the Mesabi Bike Trail The maps and details are available here :  OHV PARK
35			Sam Haddad addresses the board again on 1 15 08 Chair Forsman is given assistance and guidance in the duties of chairing the board by Commissioner Keith Nelson. Mr. Nelson also has recently told Chair Forsman that he was wrong to offering a compromise,stating his, Commissioner Nelson's belief, that compromise is not what they are the commissioners are there for, they are there to make decisions, according to Mr. Nelson	insert white T-shirt sam h video
36			Commissioner Raukar Discusses His Preferred Interim Administrator 1 14 08
37			On 1 8 08 Commissioners voted to form a subcommittee to explore how to handle the selection of an interim administrator.   The Mesabi Daily News indicated they have been informed of details of the choices made to date on 1 11 08, and this evening WDIO stated they had been informed by the deputy administrator of the board's choice of Interim Administrator.
38			Bob Tammen addresses the board, questioning the presense of Dennis Fink and Keith Nelson at a meeting where hate speech and anti environmental positions were advanced. Link to MPR Article on the Meeting
39	Winter 07
40			Kevin Skwira-Brown Letter to the Editor On Tuesday, St. Louis County Commissioner Keith Nelson offered a watered-down version of a code of conduct for elected county officials. (Commissioners’ ethics code clears hurdle” Dec 12 ) Void of any real substance, given its absence of accountability in the event elected officials violate county policy, the Nelson Code is a political victory for those who opposed holding County Board members accountable for their behavior as related to sexual harassment. Commissioners Dennis Fink, Mike Forsman, Nelson and Steve Raukar would seem to fall in that category. The remaining three board members – Peg Sweeney, Bill Kron and Steve O’Neil – are in the unenviable position of either opposing this meaningless code that the other four can pass without them and being mislabeled as opposing standards or going along with the charade manipulated by the majority. As someone who has attended nearly all County Board meetings since September. I’m disappointed though not entirely surprised, by this latest political maneuvering. While a meaningful and comprehensive code of conduct was developed as directed by the County Board , resistance by some to being held to real standards and accountability has resulted in the current “Nelson” code. A vote on the Nelson code is scheduled to take place in Morse Town Hall in Ely at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday. Like the vote to absolve Fink of Consequences for the sexual harassment charges that were substantiated by multiple investigators, this vote will take place during the one monthly board meeting held away from Duluth and in a venue that traditionally draws less public attendance. I assume the Board members orchestrating this assume we the people of St. Louis County will accept defeat and relinquish our commitment to fair, just and accountable county government. Those of us who gathered when Fink and Raukar were absolved of consequences will not be so easily dissuaded. Kevin Skwira-Brown
41			Duluth News Tribune December 15 Opinion by Editor County code of conduct lacks teeth, needs tweak St. Louis County Board Chairman bill Kron summed up the relief of many constituents last week while answering questions about the county’s long needed code of conduct and ethics.  “We finally got something back before the public again” he told the News Tribune’s editorial page after commissioners considered the latest draft of a code that’s been written and rewritten – but not yet approved – over many long months. Never was the need to finalize the document more clear than last summer when complaints of sexual harassment were filed against commissioners Dennis Fink and Steve Raukar. So is this latest draft, which could be voted on as early as Tuesday when the board meets in Ely, the answer? Frustratingly, no – not yet.  As written, the code is practically worthless because it won’t hold up to legal challenges, Commissioner Steve O’Neil said. The grass-roots group We Are Watching called it a “watered-down version” of previous drafts and said it’s “gutted to the point of failing” as less than morally strong legally unsound and fundamentally unenforceable. It doesn’t help that it leads off with typos and grammatical issues in what is otherwise a well – focused statement of purpose : “It is an elected official’s responsibility to do their [sic] wok [sic] in a professional respectful and lawful way.” The draft reads “Each ELECTED OFFICIAL is expected to assume personal responsibility for ensuring that his/her conduct is appropriate and legal. This code of conduct establishes standards for Elected Officials in St. Louis County . Except that it doesn’t. Rather than establishing those standards, the document summarizes existing laws and policies. After offering an Oxford University Press definition of the word “respect,” the nearly 2 ½ page draft cites a state law prohibiting the use of county resources to support candidates or political organizations. Then it runs down a list of existing county policies on conflicts of interest, maintaining alcohol and drug-free work places, discrimination, harassment, retaliation and workplace violence. That’s a fine review. So what should be done if elected officials are suspected of breaking those rules? Under “Reporting Suspected Violations” and “Consequences” the draft recommends that complaints against an elected official be reported to the board chair, who is to meet as “soon as it is practical” with the county’s chief administrator and affirmative action officer “to determine a course of action in response to complaint.” The document doesn’t specify any of those courses of action, details that would seem to be necessary in light of the County Board ’s refusal last summer to address complaints against Commissioners Steve Raukar and Dennis Fink after separate, unrelated investigations upheld sexual harassment complaints. And the “consequences” as the last section is titled? There aren’t any. Rather it points out a statute that “gives the Board power to set up it’s own rules and regulations in response to complaints on a case-by-case basis.” That’s a tough-sounding way of saying the board doesn’t have to do anything at all. “It’s not quite there.” O’Neil said, politely, of the draft. Kron agreed and said that’s why he has asked County Attorney Melanie Ford to tighten up it’s language, especially in the last two sections. “To make it so there are some teeth in it.” Kron said. “I’m confident the county attorney’s language changes will do that, and we can get this wrapped up by Christmas.” Even if it’s unwrapped, it would make a great Christmas present.
42				Video
43	12 18 07		Code of Conduct is passed - code was weakened significantly when entire new draft was presented at the end of the process written and offered by Keith Nelson and unnamed attys	See Code of Conduct Passed 12 18 or click here
44			The recent vote at their Dec 18th meeting to raise mileage reimbursement for elected officials to 72.6 cents/mile (well in excess of the federal mileage rate) Commissioners have since lowered the rate.	Click to watch Board discussion of Mileage Reimbursement on 12 18 07   Part One Part Two First part of 12 18 07 Mileage Reimbursement Discussion Second part of 12 18 07 Mileage Reimbursement Discussion First part of 12 18 07 Mileage Reimbursement Discussion Second part of 12 18 07 Mileage Reimbursement Discussion   Brief Video of Vote Longer Video of entire mileage issue with video of County Board Budget Workshop
45	1 8 08		Commissioner Fink lays out the process with which he recommends the board pursue filling the vacancy for SLC Administrator on 1 8 08
46	Dec 07? Workshop		Process to determine Interim Administrator board sets out the process they will use	Video Click Here of Commissioners Workshop to determine process regarding interim Administrator for St. Louis County Click HERE
47	12 18 07		findings of sexual harassment are minimized	The issues, analysis, findings of investigation are minimized 12 18 07  HERE
48				First part of 12 18 07 Mileage Reimbursement Discussion Second part of 12 18 07 Mileage Reimbursement Discussion
49	Fall 07
50	November 27, 2007		Kathy Heltzer Addressed the Board    Chairman Kron and Commissioners,   My name is Kathy Heltzer and I live in Duluth. It has been my pleasure to attend a variety county Board meetings since September of this year. I address you today regarding the proposed Code of Conduct that this Board voted unanimously to develop back on Tuesday, September 4th. At that time you directed Administrator Dana Frey to bring back a draft by October 10th, which I believe he did.   On October 16th you considered the draft code at the Board workshop in Pike Lake. Some of you were concerned that words such as “professional, respectful and lawful” were in the code, indicating they had no relationship to one another yet not suggesting alternative language to the Administration that could be substituted.   In the section concerning “workplace violence” some of you asked that the following sentence be deleted from the code.” Bullying includes; but is not limited to, derogatory remarks, insults or epithets, malicious gossiping, physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening. Intimidating or humiliating, or the intentional sabotage or undermining of a public servant’s work performance”.   In the section regarding consequences of violating any Code of Conduct one of you asked that the Board clearly have the option to “do nothing”.   In summary, a “Code of Conduct” for this Board does not appear any closer to becoming a reality than it was back in September. This is a disappointment to many of us who have been watching the actions and conduct of this Board both in person, on the web, and on Public Access Television. It continues to be our hope that you will choose to demonstrate the ability to enact a Code of Conduct, which reflects the integrity and good faith of the citizens of this county. We would expect no less of our elected officials.   Thank you .
51			County Attorney cautions the board to be more professional in comments to the public, so as to prevent or make less likely that the county will be sued in the future. She has heard discussions indicating the commissioner's statements are being perceived as retaliation and warning them to be more circumspect. Commissioner Nelson is hostile and calls for a closed session although that would be illegal given the circumstances. Chair Kron graciously accepts her advice.
52			County Attorney offers suggestions to improve code of conduct with the aim to protect the county from possible charge in the future. The county and it's taxpayers must pay the fines for suits brought due to permitting harassment of it's employees.
53				County Attorney warns board in September  HERE
54			Commissioner Sweeney Confronts Commissioner Fink over his behavior
55	9 17 07		Incident at Commissioners Workshop Sept. 17 Letter to the Editor : To express their opinions and views Mike Forsman waxes poetic about diesels and Dennis Fink uses electrical analogies. I find myself also harking back to my profession while observing the September 18th board of commissioners' Workshop at the Public Works building. As an educator, I gather a lot of information from observations. I would have happily handed out stickers for effort in what appeared to be a civil and even at times informed discussion about environmental practices of the various branches of county government. Apparently some of those boys did their homework. I was less than pleased with some of the nonverbal demeaning expressions and occasional whispering between a couple of individuals. Perhaps a little talk out in the hallway could have dealt with that irksome behavior. But I really would assign an essay to Dennis Fink (100 words or less) titled, "A Better Way Than Throwing a Booklet at a Peer to Express an Idea" as a result of his harsh words and good aim in responding to a Peg Sweeney comment. Oh, and the strategy of all strategies in a classroom: I would definitely work out a different seating arrangement. Phyllis Mead	http://northernmnnews.com/Audio BOOK THROW.wma "Apology" HERE Chair Kron responds to throwing/apology issue  HERE
56	Summer 07
57	9 07		The first Day of We Are Watching Kathy Heltzer announces the campaign, it's goals and asks for Accountability, a code of conduct, and greater awareness. Candy Harshner, PAVSA, speaks to the issue of sexual violence, sexual harassment. She asks the county commissioners establish a sexual harassment policy applicable to all elected officials and that all elected county officials participate in sexual harassment training. She asks them to understand the emotional, physical and psychological impact of sexual harassment. Ellen O'Neill Resident and taxpayer, asks for help. She was raised to be honest, respectful, fair, kind and ethical. She believes most of the residents of St. Louis County also are. She asks that the current level of discourse, decisions and behavior be improved. Wendy Rhunke resident of north and south SLC, she was surprised by recent events and invited Diedre Dodge, first SLC female Board Member. Diedre Dodge states it is surprising to be in the room where she served. When she started 32 years ago she learned what discrimination and harassment was first hand. She thought it had changed with the code of conduct and ethics for county commissioners made in the early 70s. She discussed process of the decisions made in the committee of the whole then ratified in the board proper, giving more time and opportunity for the public to come to speak to critical issues. She also believes that elected leaders set the policy for all of St. Louis County, including an unwritten rule that they would model the right behavior and follow the policies they expect their employees to follow. She states she is aware Chairman Kron is reintroducing the Code of Conduct.   link
58	Sept 07		Deb Anderson Violence and Harassment Specialist for ISD 709 (Retired the day before!) Urging a binding code of conduct that includes the commissioners. She says it is hypocritical for leaders to have one standard for themselves and another for their subordinates. Change is a process, sometimes a long and arduous process. For commissioners to adopt flippant posturing, costuming and rhetoric, denigrates and minimizes the legitimate concerns of your constituents.
59			Ellen Quinn, reporting victim in Raukar Complaint, speaks out with courage and dignityThe Scarlet Letter ceased to be a stigma. but came to be something to be looked upon with awe and reverence.
60			Bob Grydahl Speaks regarding harassment   Longtime resident. Supports sexual harassment policy and training. As a male who has at times been in positions of leadership, that he can't think of any reason why the commissioners can't vote to support to attend training and have a policy (to prevent sexual harassment) Attorney Ford pushes her red button, fully in support of a code of conduct. Peg Sweeney does the same, she always assumed she was an employee of St. Louis County.
61			Commissioner Forsman finds fault with accusers He gives a long, rambling and disjointed speech. http://www.northernmnnews.com/forsmantranscript.htm Makes accusations against other elected official
62			Commissioner Fink : makes a false accusation that all commissioners have been considered for sanction. County Administrator Frey verified that no consideration for discipline had been made during any board meeting except Re: Fink and Raukar. Fink must have been speaking to a discussion outside of the board meetings.
63			Commissioner Fink - early response to code, distraction from duties
64
65
66	4 07		Commissioner Nelson "represents his constituents" in a discussion regarding the smoking ban he again states he oppose this because the majority of his constituents oppose the ban. In exploring the issue of representation vs leadership Commissioner Kron references the issue of slavery as an example in which leaders must realize representation must give way to leadership. Later, in the election of Nov 08, Mr. Kron's challenger, Chris Dahlberg accuses Mr. Kron of having "race baited" Mr. Nelson and drawing from this example states that Mr. Kron went "below the belt" in this discussion.
67
68				Sam Haddad 1
69
70
71			Minimizing the significance of lynching by referring to the We are Watching group as a “lynch mob”.   Discounting women who address the Board, whether they be other commissioners, citizens, county employees or elected officials. Not including mandatory sexual harassment and diversity training as a provision of the Code	1. lynching comments HERE 2. Discounting comments HERE 3. See approved code HERE
72			On December 18 A Code of Conduct was passed by the St. Louis County Board, the code of conduct is still being finalized with statute citations being added. Below is the version Commissioner Kron introduced on 12/18 and which was passed by unanimous vote of the St. Louis County Board.   As Commissioner Raukar stated, this is an important milestone. ST. LOUIS COUNTY CODE OF CONDUCT DECEMBER 18, 2007 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE It is an elected official’s responsibility to do his/her work in a professional, respectful and lawful way. Each elected official is expected to assume personal responsibility for ensuring that his/her conduct is appropriate and legal. This Code of Conduct establishes standards for elected officials in St. Louis County. 1. Respect (definition: Oxford University Press) 1. a feeling of admiration for someone because of his/her qualities or achievements. 2. due regard for the feelings or rights of others. 3. (respects) polite greetings. 4. a particular aspect, point or detail. >verb 1. feel or have respect for. 2. avoid harming or interfering with. 3. agree to recognize and abide by. 2. Political Participation (See Minnesota Statute 383C.05 Political activity) Elected officials shall not use county funds, equipment, supplies, employees, or facilities in support of candidates or political organizations. 3. Conflict of Interest (See County Board Resolution #104, February 20, 2007 for current policy) Preserving the integrity of county government is a key concern of all elected officials. Elected officials must avoid any business, financial or other relationships where personal interests conflict or appear to conflict with the interest of the county. 4. Drug and Alcohol-Free Workplace (See County Board Resolution #512, June 13, 1989 for current policy) Preserving the safety of employees and setting a good example for the public is an important goal for St. Louis County elected officials. Elected officials shall comply with all federal and state laws, as well as county policy. 5. Discrimination, Harassment, Retaliation, and Workplace Violence (See County Board Resolution #494, October 4, 2005 for current policy) All St. Louis County elected officials have a responsibility to conduct themselves in a manner that contributes to a safe, accepting and supportive workplace environment. Violence in the workplace, in any form, will not be tolerated. It can be physical, psychological or behavioral. It is the intent of the Code of Conduct to ensure that everyone associated with St. Louis County, including elected officials, employees, customers, contractors and visitors are not threatened by any actions or conduct. 6. Educational Programs As part of its commitment to maintaining these standards of conduct, the county has established a menu of training programs for all elected officials and employees related to the County Code of Conduct. Each elected official is encouraged to attend one internal or external Code of Conduct training per year. 7. Reporting Suspected Violations Upon receipt of complaint against an elected official, the Chair of the County Board must convene a meeting with the Chief Administrator and Affirmative Action Officer to review and investigate the complaint and determine a course of action in response to the complaint. The aforementioned officials shall be authorized to use a neutral third party to do so. 8. Consequences of Violating the Code of Conduct If the investigation concludes that an elected official has violated the Code of Conduct, the St. Louis County Board of Commissioners shall take appropriate and immediate action.
73			Sept 07 We Are Watching begins	Video of the First Day
74			Mileage Reimbursement	Part One Part Two
75	3 13 07		Commissioner Nelson comments on a vote was taken in a County Board Workshop and admonishes others that taking additional action in the formal and open board committee of the whole after public input on the issue and the subsequent Board Meeting were "Political Cover"   St. Louis County Board Policy Manual Open Meeting Law
76

Board Policy Manual - April 08.pdf (3 MB)

County Ordinances 

Liquor Ordinance Revised in June 2006

Planning Commission Meeting Notes

https://stlouiscounty.org/slcportal/Portals/0/Departments/Planning/Whats%20New/3Bays/Planning%20Commission%20Minutes.pdf

MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING CONDUCTED BY THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FRIDAY, JANUARY 25, 2008 NORTHLAND OFFICE CENTER, THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
9:30 AM – 3:15 PM
Planning Commission Members: Tom Coombe
Dennis Fink (until 2:20 pm)
Jack Huhta
John Lukan (until 2:55 pm)
Don Nienas
Sonya Pineo
Darlene Saumer
Roger Skraba
Ray Svatos
Decisions/Minutes for the following public hearing matters are attached:
NEW BUSINESS:
A.
U.S. Steel, 3 Bays on Vermilion preliminary plat in S19, T62, R14 and S13, 14, 22, 23, and 24, T62, R15 (Breitung)
OTHER BUSINESS:
The Planning Commission welcomed two new members, Darlene Saumer and Sonya Pineo.
The Planning Commission elected Jack Huhta as Chair and Roger Skraba as Vice Chair.
Approved the December 13, 2007 minutes.
The Planning Commission agreed that the next hearing date will be on Thursday, February 14, 2008.
2
The St. Louis County Planning Commission met on this 25th day of January, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. and conducted a public hearing and other business.
The hearing was U.S. Steel, 3 Bays on Vermilion Preliminary Plat in S19, T62, R14 and S13, 14, 22, 23, and 24, T62, R15 (Breitung).
Scott Smith, St. Louis County Physical Planning Manager, reviewed the staff report as follows:
A.
There are various types of shoreland, including rocky and sloping terrain, along Lake Vermilion.
B.
There are five steps to approving a density transfer plan:
a.
Yield plan approval
b.
Density transfer design concept approval
c.
Density transfer preliminary plat approval
d.
Document approval
e.
Final plat approval
C.
The definition of lot width according to ordinance is the shortest distance between lot lines at the building site.
D.
Staff recommends denial as there are lots in the yield plan that do not meet the width requirements. There is no objection to higher density, but the applicant may not use density transfer to achieve it.
The Planning Commission discussed the following:
A.
The bridge portion through the ordinary high water mark. The bridge would not be permitted by the DNR unless approved by the town of Breitung, the county or the state.
B.
To approve the yield plan before approving the density transfer plan, Scott Smith reiterated that the yield plan would establish the density for the project and then look at the density transfer concept plan for development.
C.
The package wastewater treatment plan, would need to be permitted by the MPCA because of the amount of wastewater disposed daily.
D.
The new ordinance amendment would apply to this development. Scott Smith stated that the amendment applies to the revision of the original application. The applicant had amended the application based on information revealed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and it came after the effective date of the ordinance amendment.
Seven email correspondences were printed out and distributed to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting. Scott Smith summarized and addressed the concerns of the correspondents as follows: the plan includes two more riparian lots than the EIS, 67 instead of 65, but there was a nine percent reduction in overall lots from the EIS plan; the boat launches should not be located near properties outside of the project boundary; the new project should require a new EIS; there are local concerns about high density shoreland development. Scott Smith read into the record a letter in opposition from Breitung Township as lots in the yield plan do not meet the minimum dimensional standards of the zoning ordinance.
Bill Latady, Bois Forte Historical Preservation:
He became aware of the project in 2006 and attended a meeting with U.S. Steel; U.S. Steel
3
agreed to do a cultural resources inventory; feels U.S. Steel was proactive and commends their willingness to complete the survey; has no problem with the development moving forward.
Dennis Hendricks, Regional Manager, U.S. Steel Real Estate:
Has been working on the project for several years; wants to make a model community for future development on Lake Vermilion.
Mike Fischer, Project Manager, LHB Engineering:
Gave a brief timeline of the development process; County Board approved EIS findings in January 2007; density transfer plan began to be put together to county standards.
Peter Coyle, Larkin & Hoffman:
A low density transfer plan is being proposed; feels the zoning ordinance needs to be considered as does the subdivision ordinance; has consulted the county, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Minnesota Protection Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, state Historic Preservation Society and Bois Forte with the development; they are not requesting variances from any ordinances; the yield plan is only to establish the correct density; the design was created based on professional input; the density transfer plan relied on new subdivision authority.
C.J. Fernandez, Landscape Architect, LHB Engineering:
One major goal for the development was to minimize wetland impacts; they have decreased the acreage of wetland impact from 7 ½ acres in the EIS to 4 ½ acres; shared use of a community septic system would minimize the amount of clearing needed; they used utility easements to minimize wetland impact; they did surveys of the shoreline to come up with two clear sites based on their criteria; the initial permitting process has begun for the packaged septic plan; they have proposed two plans, including a conventional yield plan which conforms to county zoning codes and a density transfer plan which would preserve more wetlands and habitats.
Dennis Hendricks, Regional Manager, U.S. Steel Real Estate:
Answering a question from the Planning Commission: all of the lots would be on the municipal septic system; there would be 11 lift stations on the site; the wastewater would go from the lift stations to the packaged plant by a gravity flow system and the discharge would be drinking water quality; the system can be designed, constructed and operated such that usage changes would be manageable to treat at capacity during the summer or at a reduced flow in the winter; an auxiliary power source will be in place to prevent problems during power outages.
C.J. Fernandez, Landscape Architect, LHB Engineering:
The boat landing sites will be community-owned property.
Mike Fischer, Project Manager, LHB Engineering:
A standard lot is larger than other residential zoning lot; creating smaller lots on a density transfer plan gives them lots to preserve; the narrowest lots are still larger than a typical lot on Lake Vermilion.
4
Peter Coyle, Larkin & Hoffman:
There are legal standards which guided how they made their decision; feels the county has an obligation to provide clear standards for subdivision platting; the subdivision standard in ordinance 33 is defined by one line; they used ordinance 46; they have a conforming yield plan which satisfies subdivision requirements; they have submitted a conforming density transfer plan which satisfies the ordinance; if the ordinance is ambiguous, the court will favor the applicant to resolve the legal standard.
Dennis Hendricks, Regional Manager, U.S. Steel Real Estate:
There are 600 acres of wetland on the site of which only 4 ½ acres will be impacted by development; the wastewater treatment package plan is a good addition; by having a community system, it will protect the lake.
Mike Fischer, Project Manager, LHB Engineering:
The homeowner would have to make an argument to have wetland mitigation to the Army Corps of Engineers; if not their responsibility, it would be left to the DNR.
The Planning Commission discussed the following:
A.
The conflict between the two presentations on what defines a legal lot. Scott Smith stated the distance between the lot lines at the shortest point and handed out a form used in his presentation that demonstrates the staff’s definition of a 200 foot wide lot.
B.
If a new precedent would be set in interpreting the definition of lot width differently than the staff.
C.
An example where 50 foot wide lots may be allowed with 200 feet of lake frontage. Scott Smith stated that the issue was brought to his attention at the concept plan stage, but the preliminary plat application is based on the county’s definition of width.
D.
The definition of lot width is defined by limiting factors on a lot.
Tom Stanley, Assistant County Attorney, St. Louis County Attorney’s Office:
Staff will stand by the current interpretation of county subdivision Oordinance 33 in what defines lot width; it would be a policy shift to interpret the definition otherwise; the conflict between the two presentations is not in dispute, but whether or not staff’s definition of lot width is ambiguous.
Audience members who spoke in opposition:
Emily Willits, Dorsey & Whitney, 50 South 6th Street Minneapolis, said the yield plan must be in compliance with conventional rules and ordinances because the yield plan ensures the density transfer plan will comply with the law. She stated it would be premature to accept a plan based on a community wastewater treatment system. She feels she needs more information on how the community wastewater system would operate. She quoted Minnesota Rules chapter 4410.3000 on substantial change and feels that if the change to an original EIS is substantial, a supplemental EIS is needed.
Walt Moe, 3331 Nisen Drive, Tower, has concerns about the septic system, if there would be blasting done and where the pipes would be placed for a piped system. He also has concerns for
5
the launch areas and how many docks would be placed at the landings. He also had concerns for the number of docks on the riparian lots and if the shoreline has been surveyed for the best location for docks. He was also concerned for what well systems would be used and if a survey had been done to determine if the level of density of a community well system could be supported.
Bob Wilson, 1501 Echo Point, Tower, is concerned about the continued comparison of lots that exist on Lake Vermilion with lots presented here. He was also concerned about the high water mark and low water mark and the shallow bays of Lake Vermilion in regards to the boat launches and docks on the riparian lots.
Motion by Fink/Nienas to approve the yield plan for 65 riparian lots, 2 boat launches, 85 nonriparian lots and one lot for a wastewater treatment system.
Discussion on the motion:
The Planning Commission. . .
A.
Asked if they were accepting U.S. Steel’s proposal and ignoring the staff recommendation and the ordinance and setting a precedent for future cases.
B.
Inquired what the process was once a yield plan was approved and whether or not the density transfer plan would need to be approved or to approve the preliminary plat.
In Favor: Fink, Lukan, Nienas – 3
Opposed: Svatos, Pineo, Saumer, Huhta, Skraba, Coombe – 6 Motion failed 3-6
Motion by Skraba to approve the yield plan for 65 riparian lots, 2 boat launches, 85 nonriparian lot and one septic lot with 153 total lots with the intent that when in the design concept approval, the number of riparian lots can be modified. The motion did not receive a second.
Discussion on the motion:
The Planning Commission. . .
A.
Was informed by Scott Smith that the applicant had a financial number for design considerations in mind and it may not be financially feasible for the applicants if the number of riparian lots is adjusted down.
B.
Was informed by Scott Smith that the boat launches are not expected to be on residential lots.
The motion was not voted on.
Motion by Svatos/Pineo to approve the yield plan for 62 riparian lots, 2 boat launches and 86 nonriparian lots for a total of 153 lots.
Discussion on the motion:
The Planning Commission. . .
A.
Inquired if they denied without prejudice if county staff could reach a compromise on the number of riparian lots. They were informed that there is no compromise as the
6
yield plan is either compliant or noncompliant.
B.
Was informed by Scott Smith that the only middle ground would be for two riparian lots for the boat launches, which the department feels are unnecessary.
C.
Was informed by Scott Smith that 62 riparian lots can be developed for residential use and the nonriparian lots could be used for other development.
D.
Was informed by Scott Smith that the applicant has two options concerning an ordinance amendment: an ordinance text amendment or an ordinance map amendment.
In Favor: Svatos, Pineo, Saumer, Huhta – 4
Opposed: Nienas, Lukan, Skraba, Coombe – 4 Motion failed 4-4
Motion by Svatos/Pineo to approve the yield plan for 62 riparian lots, 2 boat launches and 86 nonriparian lots for a total of 153 lots.
Discussion on the motion:
The Planning Commission. . .
A.
Was informed by Tom Stanley that the only justifiable number of riparian lots is 62 as proposed by staff and 67 as proposed by US Steel.
B.
Discussed if US Steel was to go to court to challenge the number of riparian lots granted and won the case, the Planning Commission would still need to rehear the case.
In Favor: Lukan, Svatos, Pineo, Saumer, Huhta, Skraba – 6
Opposed: Nienas, Coombe – 2 Motion carries 6-2
Motion by Skraba/Svatos to approve a density transfer design concept of 62 riparian lots, 2 boat landings and 86 nonriparian lots with all lots meeting minimum dimensional standards of District 7.
Discussion on the motion:
The Planning Commission. . .
A.
Was informed by Scott Smith that the standards are clearly stated in Ordinance 33 and do not need to be included as part of the motion.
B.
Discussed whether or not to include community owned boat landings as they would be owned by the Home Owners Association.
In Favor: Nienas, Lukan, Svatos, Pineo, Saumer, Huhta, Skraba, Coombe – 8
Opposed: None – 0 Motion carries 8-0
DECISION: Approved a yield plan of 62 riparian lots, 2 boat launches and 86 nonriparian lots for a total of 153 lots. The Planning Commission approved a density transfer design concept of 62 riparian lots, 2 boat landings and 86 nonriparian lots with all lots meeting minimum dimensional standards of District 7.
1
MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING CONDUCTED BY THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2008 NORTHLAND OFFICE CENTER, THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
9:30 AM – 12:00 PM
Planning Commission members in attendance: Tom Coombe
Jack Huhta
John Lukan
Don Nienas
Sonya Pineo
Darlene Saumer
Ray Svatos
Decisions/Minutes for the following public hearing matters are attached:
NEW BUSINESS:
A.
Central Iron Range Sanitary Sewer District (CIRSSD), temporary meteorological tower, S20, T58, R20 (Balkan)
B.
U.S. Steel, 3 Bays on Vermilion preliminary plat, being a portion of S19,T62, R14, 4th Principal Meridian and being a portion of S13, S14, S22, S23, and S24, T62, R15, 4th Principal Meridian (Breitung)
OTHER BUSINESS:
Motion by Lukan/Svatos to approve the March 13, 2008 minutes.
In Favor: Huhta, Lukan, Nienas, Saumer, Svatos – 5
Opposed: None – 0
Abstained: Coombe – 1 Motion carries 5-0-1
Note: Pineo was absent during the vote.
Motion by Coombe/Lukan to initiate a rezoning and comprehensive plan amendment request in the Town of White.
In Favor: Coombe, Huhta, Lukan, Nienas, Saumer, Svatos – 6
Opposed: None – 0 Motion carries 6-0
Note: Pineo was absent during the vote.
Tyler Lampella, St. Louis County Planner, requested a clarification regarding the cul-de-sac radius for Cedar Beach Plat, which was heard in February of 2007. The plat showed a 70 foot radius, which is greater than the standard radius of 50 feet. Tyler Lampella asked if the Planning
2
Commission intended to impose a radius greater than that required. The Planning Commission responded that they did not intend to impose a greater radius other than for the reason that the 70 foot radius was presented to them at the February 2007 Planning Commission hearing.
Motion by Pineo/Nienas to amend the 70 foot radius to a 50 foot radius by the standards.
In Favor: Coombe, Huhta, Lukan, Nienas, Pineo, Saumer, Svatos – 7
Opposed: None – 0 Motion carries 7-0
The Planning Commission reviewed the Crisis Management Plan and the screening plan for the Pioneer Recovery Center.
Motion by Svatos/Nienas to accept the Crisis Management Plan and screening plan for the Pioneer Recovery Center.
In Favor: Huhta, Lukan, Nienas, Pineo, Saumer, Svatos – 6
Opposed: None – 1
Abstained: Coombe – 1 Motion carries 6-0-1
The St. Louis County Planning Commission met on this 10th day of April, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. and conducted a public hearing and other business.
The first hearing was Central Iron Range Sanitary Sewer District (CIRSSD), temporary meteorological tower in S20, T58, R20 (Balkan).
Mark Lindhorst, St. Louis County Planner, reviewed the staff report as follows:
A.
The nearest resident is 3,500 feet away.
B.
The applicant contacted the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Since the tower is only 150 feet in height, no FAA approval is needed.
C.
The site is already cleared and will be gated.
The Planning Commission discussed the following:
Stated a concern regarding whether the height of the tower in combination with the height of the mine dump would interfere with aviation and air space. The concern is due to student pilots in the area.
Mark Lindhorst responded that the height at the tower site is less than 20 feet higher than the surrounding area, which is not an issue.
Norman Miranda, representing CIRSSD: the tower will measure wind and direction; after the data is compiled, construction of a wind tower farm is possible.
3
Motion by Pineo/Lukan to approve the request per staff recommendation.
DECISION: approval of the temporary meteorological tower with the following condition:
The tower will be removed after three years.
In Favor: Coombe, Huhta, Lukan, Nienas, Pineo, Saumer, Svatos – 7
Opposed: None – 0 Motion carries 7-0
The second hearing was U.S. Steel, 3 Bays on Vermilion preliminary plat being a portion of S19,T62, R14, 4th Principal Meridian and being a portion of S13, S14, S22, S23, and S24, T62, R15, 4th Principal Meridian (Breitung).
Scott Smith, St. Louis County Physical Planning Manager, reviewed the staff report as follows:
A.
Noted for the record that Barb Hayden, St. Louis County Planning and Development Department Director, and Tom Stanley, St. Louis County Attorney, were joining the hearing via video conference.
B.
Showed a video prepared by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), which showed the wetland and the stream, which is a public water.
C.
The state proposed purchase of the property for a state park should not be part of the Planning Commission’s deliberation in their decision.
D.
This is a residential subdivision of 62 riparian and 86 nonriparian lots.
E.
Density Transfer Subdivision steps to approval:
1.
Yield plan approval
2.
Density Transfer design concept approval
3.
Density Transfer preliminary plat approval – design
4.
Document approval
5.
Final plat approval
F.
Issues:
1.
FEIS supplement: either the ISTS or the package plant would meet local and state environmental standards; another issue staff considered was when would it be a mandatory threshold for environmental review, which the state threshold is 1,000,000 gallons/day and what the developer is proposing to treat with the package plant is a maximum 38,500 gallons/day; therefore, it is the recommendation of staff that the FEIS not be supplemented.
2.
FEIS Mitigation Strategies: have been incorporated into either the design, the declaration, the design guidelines or recommended by conditions; some are impractical.
3.
Access: after USS applied to the Land Department for access across a piece of tax forfeited property, there is now a state interpretation that the Land Department
4
cannot provide access to a corporation, only to an individual; some legislation has been proposed and is currently under consideration; this issue will be addressed with a proposed condition.
4.
Roads – private: under Ordinance 33, private roads are not allowed except by waiver granted by the Planning Commission; the applicant has not requested a road waiver.
5.
Phasing: concern is how to track the phasing; this issue can be taken care of in the county’s negotiations in the development agreement when the developer comes up with a phasing plan, showing each area to be phased and each proposed name.
6.
Plat name: the St. Louis County Recorder’s Office would like the numeral 3 spelled out in the plat name.
G.
The plat meets the density required by the Planning Commission and meets the design standards of developing the most suitable areas and avoiding the most sensitive areas.
H.
An explanation regarding condition number two: there is a concern that before the package plant is in place, someone may buy a lot and want to put in a holding tank, which would require a variance request.
I.
An explanation regarding condition number four is: staff would want to avoid a pipe to the mainland, unless it is associated with the bridge, which may only be permitted by the state if it is a public road owned and maintained either by the township or the county.
J.
To date there has been no discussion of what uses will be allowed of the trails. Future buyers should be aware if there will be motorized use of the trails.
K.
An explanation regarding condition number eleven: U.S. Steel (USS) provided the yield plan used to establish the density of 62 riparian and 86 nonriparian lots but never made it part of an application; therefore, it is not part of a public record.
The Planning Commission discussed the following:
A.
An option would be for the developer to post a bond to ensure that the package plant is developed and maintained. Scott Smith said that there are set contingencies that are considered by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in their permitting.
B.
There has been a limit to shoreline docks in other plats. Scott Smith said that the developer has planned on two docks per site but the Planning Commission could require that the declaration be amended so the number of docks be reduced from two to one.
C.
Inquired if condition number ten sets precedent. Scott Smith said that this is the first density transfer subdivision plat since the ordinance was amended in the fall of 2007. The development agreement is required under the ordinance amendment. It does not set precedent for St. Louis County.
Dennis Hendricks, 210 West 5th Avenue, Virginia, representing USS: brought a team with him to answer any questions about the development.
Peter Coyle, Larkin Hoffman Attorneys, representing USS: the original plan was for 65 lake frontage lots, which they believe was a compliant plan.
5
The Planning Commission had some concerns regarding possible freezing of the package plant. Peter Coyle responded that the MPCA requires a licensed operator to oversee the system.
The Planning Commission inquired why there would not be overnight mooring allowed at either boat launch. Peter Coyle responded that there was some concern that the area will become a marina. This area is a temporary docking facility for the interior property owners.
The Planning Commission discussed minimizing the number of docks to one per site and asked if this would be acceptable. Peter Coyle responded that the county’s code does not place any limit on the number of docks and the DNR does not have any restriction that they impose. The applicant would not accept the condition of one dock per lot. The applicant has agreed to impose a limit of no more than two docks per lot.
Tim Korvy, a civil/wastewater engineer with LHB, brought with him Phillip Parsons with Parsons Engineering, whose firm has installed most of the package plants in Minnesota; described the overall collection and treatment system; he gave details regarding the grinder pump system and how it would operate; there will be two check valves and two alarm systems consisting of audio and visual; a MPCA licensed operator will operate the system and be hired prior to construction of the system; the systems are tested weekly and the results of the tests are submitted to the MPCA for review; they have been working closely with Brett Ballavance from the MPCA on this project.
CJ Fernandez, an architect with LHB, discussed the boat launch analysis, selection and concepts: after receiving the detailed topographic information, many areas were eliminated as possible boat launch sites, leaving seven possible sites; LHB performed an in-depth analysis of each site; their goals were to protect the sensitive aquatic habitat and protect the shoreline conditions; two sites were chosen as the best locations after lake bottom and upland surveys were performed; the sites had to allow for the mitigation of stormwater runoff.
Peter Coyle responded to staff recommended conditions as follows:
1.
The applicant shall demonstrate legal access to the site from Highway 169: the legislature is still meeting so there is not yet an answer.
2.
All lots shall be served by a package plant and no other means of wastewater treatment shall be allowed: it is the applicant’s objective.
3.
The package plant and related facilities shall be permitted by the MPCA and constructed prior to final plat approval: constructing the package plant prior to final plat approval is premature; the applicant does not have a problem with constructing the package plant concurrent with any residential development; the applicant objects to this condition.
4.
Condition #2 notwithstanding, if the proposed bridge to the island is not allowed, the lots on the island shall be water-access only and shall be served by one or more sub-surface sewage treatment systems on the island: the applicant would like an opportunity to connect those lots to the package plant if they can even if they do not get a public road access to the island.
5.
The Declaration must be recorded with plat and may not be amended until U.S. Steel no longer owns a majority interest in the platted property: the applicant agrees with the
6
condition; however, they would like the option to amend the declaration with the county’s consent, at least until the ownership is transferred.
6.
No covenant within the Declaration which implements a mitigation strategy recommended in the FEIS may be removed or made less restrictive without the consent of the Planning Commission: no objection.
7.
Boat launches and associated facilities shall incorporate Soil and Water Conservation District recommendations for construction and permanent stormwater management: no objection.
8.
Allowable uses of the designated trails shall be addressed in the Declaration: the applicant’s proposed condition is there will be non-motorized traffic during the summer condition and motorized traffic would be allowed during the winter condition.
9.
All roads shall be dedicated to the public: the applicant has substantially proposed a public road system; there are some circumstances in which a private easement across property for private service roads may be necessary and that may be a part of the final plat that has to be present; the applicant is respectfully reserving that option.
10.
The applicant shall negotiate a development agreement acceptable to the Planning Commission and the County Attorney which includes the terms of the density transfer, protection of the common elements, and a plan for phasing of final approval. The development agreement shall be recorded with the plat: the applicant is comfortable with this and can work with Tom Stanley on this.
11.
The applicant shall resubmit for the record the yield plan used to establish the density of 62 riparian and 86 nonriparian lots: this was supplied to staff previously.
Scott Smith spoke regarding the requested design waiver for the roads. The requested waiver is specific to two portions of the road that do not meet the curve radius as required under Ordinance 33 due to the topography and wetlands in the area. Staff recommends to the Planning Commission that the design waivers be approved as part of their motion if they are to approve the preliminary plat.
Audience members who spoke in favor of the proposal: none.
Audience members who spoke in opposition of the proposal:
Emily Willits, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, representing Sensible Advocates for the Vermilion Environment (SAVE): a yield plan was submitted in January of 2008 to county staff but the public has not seen it; that plan had 62 riparian lots total, not 62 lots and two boat launch lots as shown on the preliminary plat; stated that county Ordinance 33 requires the number of riparian lots cannot exceed the number that could be achieved with the yield plan; quoted the yield plan definition as stated in Ordinance 33; SAVE encourages the commission to require USS to submit a yield plan with 64 riparian lots before moving on to consider this preliminary plat; the yield plan has to come first, it establishes density; two additional boat launch lots could have an environmental impact; under Ordinance 33, boat launch lots area and width have to the meet the requirements for residential lots; if there are more than six boats parked at once, the width has to be expanded by 25%, which is stated in the DNR shoreland regulations; SAVE would support condition number three; a bond could be considered by the commission; SAVE would support a limitation of one dock.
7
Dave Grigal, 4755 Mihelich Point Road, Tower and Roseville, president of SAVE: the proposal will more than double the size of Breitung Township; the population will be on or adjacent to the lake; therefore, there will be increased lake traffic and more water quality issues; SAVE asks the Planning Commission to protect the Lake Vermilion environment.
Steve Lotz, 9388 Holter Road, Tower: he is glad to hear that the decision of the Planning Commission will be based on St. Louis County ordinance; staff said a conforming yield plan is 62 lots, but what was approved at the January meeting was 64 lots; the two boat launch sites are not green space; Ordinance 33 was amended to accommodate this project; the project was initially proposed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD); has not heard anything about discharge from the treatment plant; he is concerned with backflow.
Walt Moe, 3331 Nisen Drive, Tower: is concerned with what happens when the package plant system fails.
The Planning Commission requests that the concerns of Mr. Moe regarding the wastewater are addressed.
Peter Coyle: at the January 2008 Planning Commission meeting there was extensive discussion regarding the extent of yield that would be acceptable, which was approved by the Planning Commission; the direction from the commission was to design a density transfer plan that had no more than 62 private lots with boat launch sites to be put into open space, which was done; this is the only project that he knows of that has went through an EIS; there is no state or environmental agency at the hearing today commenting on the plan or stating concerns; there is not recent correspondence commenting either; in some cases, the lots in the development will be three to four times larger than the vast majority of zoned lots that exist on Lake Vermilion.
Phillip Parsons, owner/president of Parsons Engineering Products, representing Ashbrook, which is the package plant proposed for this project; in 41 years he has never experienced a catastrophic failure of these systems; if there were a complete power failure, LHB has designed a stand-by, on-site generator to power the plant; regarding mechanical difficulties: the plant is designed with complete redundancy, with every key mechanical component having a redundant part, which is a requirement of the MPCA; Brett Ballavance of MPCA is responsible for reviewing, approving and issuing permits for this project; regarding if somehow something were to get into the wastewater and destroyed the chemistry and the biology of the plant: there is an equalization tank at the front end of the treatment plant that would hold whatever chemical came in that would destroy the biology and the chemistry, which would be pumped into honey wagon trucks and delivered to treatment plants that are better equipped to handle a flow like that.
The Planning Commission inquired of Phillip Parsons if he has experienced ledge rock and different elevations at other locations, as there is on this site. Phillip Parsons said that he has incurred similar conditions on other sites. Site, topographic and soil condition surveys will be performed.
The Planning Commission requested Phillip Parsons to comment on the concern regarding discharge. Phillip Parsons responded that discharge to Lake Vermilion will be extremely clean and will be as clean as any in the state due to the biological uptake of the growth in that wetland.
8
Marcie Moe, 3331 Nisen Drive, Tower: her concern is the sensitive shoreland area; nothing is documented on which areas are sensitive and which areas are not; concerned with water quality due to increased activity and possible docks in a sensitive area; she thought that the Planning Commission would follow the Breitung Plan and require 200 feet of shoreline per lot; she thought that 175 feet of width was required at the January 2008 meeting.
Steve Lotz stated the following concerns: lot size, bedrock, shallow soils, large wetlands and less than desirable lakeshore; it is not unreasonable to expect and require this property to be developed differently than land was developed in the 20’s and 30’s.
Dennis Hendricks, 210 N 5th Avenue, Virginia: distributed three pictures of a package plant to the Planning Commission; the minimum lot width of the proposed lots are 200 feet; the applicant has preserved a good portion of the shoreline; the property has been mining company land for over 100 years and was not developed because of the timber opportunities, which was supporting the mining at the Soudan Mine.
Motion by Svatos/Nienas to approve the preliminary plat of 3 Bays on Vermilion and road design waiver as proposed with the following conditions:
1.
The applicant shall demonstrate legal access to the site from Highway 169.
2.
All lots shall be served by a package plant and no other means of wastewater treatment shall be allowed.
3.
The package plant and related facilities shall be permitted by the MPCA and constructed prior to occupancy of the first home.
4.
Condition #2 notwithstanding, if the proposed bridge to the island is not allowed, the lots on the island shall be water-access only and shall be served by one or more sub-surface sewage treatment systems on the island, unless able to connect to the package plant.
5.
The Declaration must be recorded with plat and may not be amended until U.S. Steel no longer owns a majority interest in the platted property.
6.
No covenant within the Declaration which implements a mitigation strategy recommended in the FEIS may be removed or made less restrictive without the consent of the Planning Commission.
7.
Boat launches and associated facilities shall incorporate Soil and Water Conservation District recommendations for construction and permanent stormwater management.
8.
Allowable uses of the designated trails shall be addressed in the Declaration. Non-motorized summer use and motorized winter use.
9.
All roads shall be dedicated to the public.
10.
The applicant shall negotiate a development agreement acceptable to the Planning Commission and the County Attorney which includes the terms of the density transfer, protection of the common elements, and a plan for phasing of final approval. The development agreement shall be recorded with the plat.
11.
The applicant shall resubmit for the record the yield plan used to establish the density of 62 riparian and 86 nonriparian lots.
12.
The Planning Commission recommends one dock per riparian lot.
9
Discussion on the motion:
Regarding condition 4, Coombe inquired how the commission could ensure that the wording is correct so the package plant is tied into the islands the way the commission wants it to be tied in, whether it would be tied in under the lake or not. Scott Smith explained that any associated facility of the treatment plant must be approved by the MPCA.
Regarding condition 9, Nienas inquired about the wording. Scott Smith explained that staff is recommending that all roads as shown be dedicated to the public. The ordinance does allow for a design waiver; however, no specific design waiver of the public road standard has been requested.
Regarding condition 10, Lukan requested an explanation of the process. Scott Smith explained that the development agreement is intended to be between the county and the developer; the county attorney would negotiate the agreement and then it would be brought back to the Planning Commission for approval; the Planning Commission’s recommendation would then be brought to the County Board; the intent is to use the development agreement to ensure the integrity of the Planning Commission’s decision.
Nienas inquired about the 64 lots. Scott Smith explained that in January of 2008, the Planning Commission approved a subdivision with 62 riparian lots. There are currently 62 riparian lots shown. It is an interpretation of the St. Louis County Planning and Development Director that the recreational facilities be allowed on common open space.
Nienas inquired about the lot width. Scott Smith explained that in January of 2008, the Planning Commission stated that each lot must meet standards per District 7, which is one acre and 150 feet of width.
Tom Stanley, St. Louis County Attorney, recommended to the Planning Commission that they make proposed condition 12 a recommendation as opposed to a condition.
Coombe requested that Tom Stanley explain his recommendation. Tom Stanley explained that Mr. Coyle had made it clear that USS is not agreeing to this as a condition. The county does not have the authority to impose this as a condition or to regulate it. Typically when this situation arises, the developer indicates a willingness to agree to that condition.
DECISION: Approve the preliminary plat of 3 Bays on Vermilion and design waiver as proposed with the following conditions:
1.
The applicant shall demonstrate legal access to the site from Highway 169.
2.
All lots shall be served by a package plant and no other means of wastewater treatment shall be allowed.
3.
The package plant and related facilities shall be permitted by the MPCA and constructed prior to occupancy of the first home.
10
4.
Condition #2 notwithstanding, if the proposed bridge to the island is not allowed, the lots on the island shall be water-access only and shall be served by one or more sub-surface sewage treatment systems on the island, unless able to connect to the package plant.
5.
The Declaration must be recorded with plat and may not be amended until U.S. Steel no longer owns a majority interest in the platted property.
6.
No covenant within the Declaration which implements a mitigation strategy recommended in the FEIS may be removed or made less restrictive without the consent of the Planning Commission.
7.
Boat launches and associated facilities shall incorporate Soil and Water Conservation District recommendations for construction and permanent stormwater management.
8.
Allowable uses of the designated trails shall be addressed in the Declaration. Non-motorized summer use and motorized winter use.
9.
All roads shall be dedicated to the public.
10.
The applicant shall negotiate a development agreement acceptable to the Planning Commission and the County Attorney which includes the terms of the density transfer, protection of the common elements, and a plan for phasing of final approval. The development agreement shall be recorded with the plat.
11.
The applicant shall resubmit for the record the yield plan used to establish the density of 62 riparian and 86 nonriparian lots.
12.
The Planning Commission recommends one dock per riparian lot.
In Favor: Coombe, Huhta, Lukan, Nienas, Pineo, Saumer, Svatos – 7
Opposed: None – 0 Motion carries 7-0