Washington County Board Meeting

Mandate and core functions. Director Castillo. Good afternoon, board. I'm here to present community services portion of the mandate and core functions workshop series. I'm Jen Castillo, and I'm the Director of Community Services. Starting off by looking at CSD's department revenues, our budget structure is really 45% levy funding, and the other 55% is non-levy funding. This non-levy funding is made up of close to 60 different revenue streams that include both federal and state reimbursement, competitive and formula-based grants, and also different state and federal aid and fees. The diversity of this funding does provide some stability for our budget, but at the same time, it provides a lot of volatility because each one of these funding streams comes with different rules, different timelines, different eligibility requirements. But I think one of the most challenging things when budgeting is each one of these revenue streams are really driven by external policy decisions and not necessarily correspond with the cost of us providing services.

This has led to our biggest budget challenge over the past few years, is that our non-levy revenue sources are not keeping up with our cost of providing our services. When looking at our expenditures, personnel costs continues to dominate our budget. It is 73% of our total expenditures. For the rest of our budget, I will just say that CSD's budget contains close to 1,100 different budget line items. Every year, management goes over each one of these line items in our budget development process to identify efficiencies, eliminate unnecessary expenditures, and ensure that our resources are aligned with our priorities. Why I bring this up is because in the client-related, you will see that there is a change, a decrease of 6%. That is not because demand has decreased. That is because we have trimmed and cut costs in any discretionary areas we can, and we continue to do that. So that has been a trend going over the past few years of decreasing in our client-related costs, because simply the payroll and the personnel is not an area we can.

Services and charges really represent a very small portion of our budget. But any takeaway from these two slides is that our costs are rising faster than the pace of our revenues. So, this is not an anomaly of this year. This has gone on for several years. So we have, even long before this workshop, always put a lot of focus on our mandates and our core functions to make sure we are providing those. Actually, sorry, I think it was on the last slide. You can see at the bottom that 77% of our budget goes towards mandates and the other 23% goes towards things we have, and the board has, deemed as core functions. That really leaves a very small amount of funds for anything else. This is a list of our top levy-dependent mandates. This is obviously not an exhaustive list in any manner. But what you can see from here is the top levy mandates really are safety net services. We spend a considerable amount of levy to administer mandated programs in our public assistance area, like SNAP and Medicaid. Our out-of-home placement is a huge usage of our levy. Although we may have some discretion in how we budget for out-of-home placement, we really don't have discretion in what we pay.

Because as soon as a client meets that level of criteria for placement and a certain placement type, such as a state facility, we must pay that. And so what we actually pay can be very different than our budget, and I just explained that because we really don't have control over what we actually pay, no matter how we budget it. We have a considerable amount of levy going towards our mental health emergency response, our pre-petition screening, our child protection. These are obviously public safety and client and community safety services. When you really look at this list, I think it's clear to say that we're spending our levy on critical mandated services. When you look at the core functions, and I know that previous directors have gone over the definition of core function, that remains the same for how we deem core functions. Really, these are functions that support those mandated services. We have our internal administrative supports.

That is our policy analysts, our accountants, our internal audit functions. Without this and without these, we would risk higher potential sanctions, compliance. So they are vital to our operations. We have other CSD administrative expenses. We have a very large workforce, so this looks like a very large amount, but this is really the cost of doing business. This is mileage, copies, office supplies. And we have our mental health embedded jail co-response unit. I'll talk about that on the next slide a bit more. Otherwise, we really have those administrative functions or those strategic functions in the different areas. Those can be anything from onboarding activities to our, oh gosh, I'm sorry, my family resource center. Those different strategic preventative initiatives that we work on to hopefully prevent people from deeper and more costly services. This is a slide, again, this is not an exhaustive list, but what I tried to do with over 40 programs and multiple services underneath, it's really hard to decide what to put on this slide, especially how kind of small it was. But I tried to give a little flavor of some of our top expensive programs, such as case management services, where it is mandated. We do need to provide the service, but we do have some discretion within how we provide the service, such as caseload sizes, the intensity of the caseloads.

Same with our mental health supports. We are mandated to provide mental health supports. We are incredibly proud of the mental health supports and the robust system that we have where we offer 24/7 crisis stabilization outreach. We are not required to provide at that level. However, we do feel that providing those upfront intensive services do prevent us for more costly placements or harm to the community down the stream. I did throw in, we also have mandates on a much smaller level about burial assistance, and fraud prevention, and guardianship services. All of those programs in itself probably don't amount to about more than 100,000 each. We are mandated to provide those, but we have some discretion within those, such as burial assistance, how much we give to assist with burial assistance, how much we go after families for a payment. Fraud assistance, we partner with the sheriff's office, so we have top investigators working with us with our fraud prevention services.

We don't have to do it that way, but we also feel that that is the right way to do it and the best way to get quality responses. Guardianship service, we are mandated to provide guardianship services when it's court-ordered. However, there is occasions when there are extremely vulnerable people who need guardianship services who may not fall under that court-ordered, but we also feel that is a need to provide that service to prohibit further exploitation or harm to the individual. So in all those areas, we may have some discretion. They would come at the trade-off of risk to the community, dignity, public perception. And again, none of them really amount to a huge amount of savings. For our core functions, our largest levy-funded core function is our embedded social workers. We do believe that this service, and partnering with the cities and with the jail, provides the best level of mental health supports to these populations and prevents much further cost downstream.

We do have discretion in how much we spend, whether it's how many cities we partner with or the contribution that we put towards this from county versus how much we ask for the cities to fund this. Pulling back on this service doesn't really save money in the end. It really just shifts it to the jails or the hospitals. So again, we have discretion if we wanted to save money within the county, but that certainly doesn't just provide a savings overall in the system. We, again, have internal administrative supports where we have accounts planners. They're essential in helping us go after grants, and finding other revenues, and establishing fees, and getting recruitment for those. So although we may save upfront if we reduce spending in this area, we in the long run could likely lose revenue because of it. Disability supports, employment, and day services, we are no longer as a county mandated to do this.

We used to be years ago. I think I wasn't here, but I heard even 10 years ago that we were spending close to a million in this area. We have reduced this over the years as we look at where do we have to spend money on mandates. We are down to about 200,000 a year. We feel like this is really a floor level that still provides some safety net resources to this population who may not be eligible for other services, like waiver services. But we always use those first, and would use this as only for those who need it who are not eligible for other services. We do spend some levy on our welfare prevention. Obviously, early intervention and prevention helps not only more costly service, but helps with harm to children in the future. So if we can get upfront, build on family strengths, and prevent any sort of abuse or neglect, we are investing in that.

And otherwise, we do have some other staffing expenses. It's really about investing in our staff. These are really hard jobs. Making sure that we give them the mental health supports, that we make sure we give them tools like emergency radios when they're out in the field are essential to making sure not only they can do their job, but they can do their job safely. In saying that, I understand that there's probably no way I could give you all the details on our budget, but I hope that the takeaway that you have is the vast majority of levy funding is on mandates or core functions. We are lean. We are very lean. If we were to reduce in any of the areas, it would have significant service trade-offs, and it would result in staff reductions. Our focus has been, and it continues to be, on directing the services we are mandated to do and that keep our community safe. And that is what we will plan to continue doing unless I receive other direction from the board.

At that time, if you have any questions. Thank you for the presentation. Commissioner Bigham will start us off. Yeah. Thank you, Director Castillo, for your presentation. Your budget is very lean. There is no doubt about it, and there is no more truth to what you have spoken today than if services like those you and your team provide would have a negative impact on the community, to be honest, and on our most vulnerable population. And I just appreciate how lean that the budget is and focused on the mandated... services because we are staying in our lane. We are not trying to fill the lane of the state, trying to fill the lane of the federal government. We are staying in our lane, and I appreciate that. A couple things. The embedded social workers are a game changer in the communities that do have them, and I think it's in a month or something, we're going to- Next week... next week. Okay, so even sooner.

We're going to be getting data about that. But the feedback that I have had from law enforcement in my district, from the sheriff's office, and the conversations that we've had in the community, is that the social workers are a godsend for being able to help deliver the services that our neighbors in crisis need, and the follow-up, so that the cops can do their job and investigate the crimes, and the social workers can help make sure and ensure that there is a path to services that our neighbors in crisis need. So, I think that it would be not a smart move for the board to move in a direction of limiting or cutting or changing that philosophy. The day services is such a touchy and emotional subject because I think of the wonderful organizations like Rise that offer this service and the meaningful service that it has for some of our most vulnerable members of our communities, but also their caretakers.

This is reprieve for them. And it's just a tough conversation to have. And I hope future state budgets will focus in on this. And I know that if my good friend, Senator Hoffman, has anything to do with it, that there will be additional funding from the state for these services. The final couple things I want to talk about related to funding, and Director Castillo mentioned it, is we get a lot of grants, and if you cut the money that we have to put up towards the grants or to supplement the grants, all you're doing is giving that money back to another organization or back to where the grant came from. And I think that that does a disservice to our residents that need the services that those grants fund. The final thing is, and this is one of the items that I think we could talk about in the near future. My experience on the African American Family Preservation Act task force, and also the DCYF Intergovernmental Relations Council, has led to a frustration with the Department of Children, Youth and... DCYF.

There's a program called Family First, and there's federal funding tied to it. And the department has to apply and let the federal government know what the programs are allowed to be eligible to use that federal funding. And we've talked extensively about the family resource centers being an eligible service to help on that front-end service to stop the, I think, traumatic effects that can end up happening without a home placement, and other services that are more expensive, quite honestly, to have to provide. And the department did not, in its most recent application, adjust that, and that is frustrating, and I believe that conversation will be continuing. But at some point, organizations need to probably speak up and ask the department to get moving on this. I know a lot of Director Castillo's counterparts in other counties, and the organization that you're involved with, all have had conversations about this on... But it just seems as if the department is slow-walking it, to be honest, for some reason, and I don't understand that.

But I'll end on that, but this is really the bread and butter of the services that we offer, and they are to, I think it was Humphrey that said, "In the dawn of their life, in the twilight of their life, in the shadows of their life," that we have to provide these services to. So thank you so much for the presentation. And thank you to you and your team for all you do, and especially your leadership during these times. If there's one department that's getting literally attacked from the feds and the state, it's this one. And so there's been a lot of turbulence coming at your department from the feds and the state, and you've led with such a steady hand, calm hand, and your team is amazing for what the last year pretty much has been on your front doorstep. So thank you, Director. Thank you. Commissioner Karwoski? Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Director Castillo Castillo.

Okay. Thank you for the-- I have as much- You had it r-... difficulty as people pronouncing Karwoski. Yeah. That's any correlation. I'll give you a hint. Just ignore the Ls. Okay. Castillo. You had it right. You had it right the first time. You had it right the first time. Yep. Okay. Anyhow, thank you for the presentation. I think Commissioner Bigham spoke on a lot of good points. I totally concur with her thoughts on that. I just wanted to either bring up a few more points or reiterate a few important points. Your department budget's almost $70 million, so it's a significant portion of our county budget, and so much of it's mandated. And I know we have, with all departments, a lot of core mandates or core functions, and I can understand your department and the core functions having a lot. It's easier for me to understand the core functions having a lot of the support to execute the plan of the mandates.

But regardless of that $70 million, and there is a 6% increase in 2025, I just think we need to, as we go into 2027 budget, do due diligence and still review those core mandates. That's what I'm asking of all departments, a little deeper dive. But I do think that much of what you do is cheaper to do it on the front end than to not support mental health, all the social service programs, and then have bigger problems because of it. I really think a case in point, though, Commissioner Bigham pointed out, is that in the last few years, the embedded social worker is a classic example of partnering with cities to solve problems with individuals before they become big problems. That's, I think, a great investment. I know I represent Oakdale, part of District 2, and they're just going to be starting up an embedded social worker, I believe, in July. Mm-hmm. It'll be interesting to track that because that will be their first embedded social worker. So I'm really looking forward to seeing what their police department and their city council and residents, how they embrace that.

I'm optimistic it's going to be as successful as other areas of the county that we've implemented then. Commissioner Bigham also mentioned staying in our lane, and I think to the taxpayers, that's really important, that there's federal programs, state programs, and we have our county role. And there's much made about fraud out there at the federal state level. I think it can be political. I think we've stayed in our lane, and I think we run an operation that's due diligence and really doing what we can do about fraud, and we're not part of that, and we have to stay that way. But I think part of that is really just staying in our lane and not trying to do the state's work or the fed work. And I think maybe that in the future, that's where we have to push back and have the state be more responsible in supporting some of our financial needs, and federal, because we're doing their mandated programs.

But thank you. All right. I'll wrap us up here, Director Castillo. Thank you again for the presentation. I also just want to point out that you didn't talk about the changes from SNAP, you didn't talk about the changes from the age of delinquency, and then the act implications. So there's other factors that are going to be influencing your budget. Just putting it out there. I'm sure we're getting really high viewership right now. But just to share that there are other pieces to this too, that we don't necessarily have final numbers or final plans for as we go into the budget season. So, more to come, I guess. Yes. Thank you so much. Next up, we have Sheriff Dan Starry to walk us through the sheriff's office mandated services and core functions.

Good afternoon, Madam Vice Chair and Commissioners. I am Dan Starry, proudly serving as the 30th county sheriff in Washington County. This workshop today is to highlight the sheriff's office mandates and core functions, and the objective today is to lay out the mandates that we must provide by state statute, law, or rule, and core functions that the sheriff and county board have determined should be funded for the safety of our public. Minnesota law, statutes, and rules create legal obligations that bind the sheriff to perform various duties. This slide shows that we have several funding sources, but the majority of our funding, 72% or roughly 38.5 million, comes out of the levy. The other funding, roughly 14.5 million, comes from non-levy revenues, with most coming from fees for services, mainly our police contracts.

As far as the expenditures, when you break it down, the majority, 97.9, you'll see at the bottom, roughly $50.6 million of our expenditures are within the mandated services, whereas the rest, about 2.1%, is to support our core functions. So very highly mandated specific As you know, a mandate is a state or federal law, statute, or rule requiring action or providing certain services or programs. This slide shows 10 of our largest mandated functions with adult detention services, patrol, and emergency communications response center, or 911 dispatch, being the top three, all being state-mandated. Others are criminal investigations, court security, water parks and trails, medical examiner services, juvenile detention services, and just the mandated training that the deputies and correctional officers must have.

This slide shows our core functions to keep our public safe. As you can see, this accounts for just over $700,000 of our overall budget of that $53 million, or just about 1% of the budget. These services that are provided really are mainly personnel operating costs for SWAT and crisis negotiations, human trafficking, K-9 personnel, and violent crimes enforcement teams. The North Central High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area is where we get money from the federal government to combat drug trafficking organizations. Again, drug trafficking organizations that are operating right here within Washington County. We have nothing on this because there's really nothing discretionary about mandated programs. This slide shows core functions that we just talked about that could be discretionary, but it would have real effects on public safety for each of our citizens and visitors. I would say we work very hard on finding other opportunities for funding, like grants, to support these, and also state and federal funding such as appropriations, et cetera.

Nearly everything we do is mandated by state law, rule, or statute. And those core functions, like human trafficking or narcotics, if we got rid of those, it would certainly have the potential to have more victims, more care services needed, increased organized crime in our area, or have an increased risk to the level of service our citizens expect within our county. And I'll stand for any questions. Thank you, Sheriff, for your presentation. Commissioner Bigham will start us off. Thank you. No one mention that he's retiring because one of us will just automatically start crying. I think that the number one top priority of this board is to keep our communities safe. That is what everybody expects. And if you can't do that in a way that means you don't have the tools for your staff to go home safe every night or to effectively deescalate or handle a violent situation, that no longer is the priority, right? Because you can't achieve it.

And so to me, there really is no discretion when it comes to the safety of our communities. And you really do an excellent job, Sheriff, with looking at grants, both from the state and the fed, but also outside of government and foundations and different things like that, and I think that that says a lot. And all on top of, I think, the wonderful task force, VSET, all these other known groups and task forces that have outcomes that impact victims are amazing and really core to what the priority is of keeping our community safe. And I think the other issue that I want to highlight is that we implemented recently the reserves, the sheriff's reserves, that have been really very important to retention and recruitment. And the last two swearing-in ceremonies of the deputies have been multiple new deputies, not just two. One was, what, 12, and one was seven. And there's another group coming in here in the beginning of the fall, I think. So that is a concern of mine, that you have to be able to have-- and as I say at those ceremonies, we promise that we're going to have the tools available to your team, the talent, meaning the staff and the people, and I just think that we need to not do things that would impact the retention and recruitment.

I guess that's just my general thoughts about what you're required to do, because it's a lot, and safety is the top priority. So those are just my general thoughts about it. Commissioner Karwoski? Yeah. It's hard not to say something. Mm-hmm. Sheriff Starry and your department keep up the great work. It's been an honor being a board member as you was leading the sheriff's department. So I think your budget reflects really confidence in the community Confidence with our partner cities, whether they have their own police department or whether we contract. We see it every day when we're out there, the respect and partnership. So, and as Commissioner Bigham pointed out, public safety is really our number one priority when you're elected, and it's hard not to fully support that, not only to protect our residents, but to protect your department, our officers on the street. So hopefully we can keep doing that. Obviously, I think it's almost a $53 million office. I think it's due diligence to look carefully at it.

I don't think there's any much wiggle room where we're going to sacrifice any kind of safety or performance, but I think due diligence as we roll to the 2027 budget, we just got to try to look at everything, and we'll go from there. But thank you for your service, and we're very happy. I know we've got officers in the audience, and you do us proud. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Mira. I'll just comment briefly on the value the sheriff's office brings to our communities, the contract communities that Commissioner Karwoski alluded to. Certainly, there's quite a number of them in District One, and just the value that that brings to the taxpayers in the county. There's certainly economies of scale of the sheriff's department and the ability to provide those services in a cost-efficient way to those contract communities. But certainly, we recognize and we've recognized for a long time the amount of mandated and core services that the sheriff's department provides, and you manage those very well, Sheriff. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll wrap us up here, Sheriff Starry, by saying thank you again for your presentation. I can't use the new commissioner card for very much longer here, but what I will say is when I came into this role, the job of the sheriff maybe was a little more clear than some of the other ones, right? You run a jail, you protect people, you put away bad people, right? Some of it is very black and white, and I appreciate that. And then when I got to the budget last year and realized, wait, the state tells us we have to do all these things but doesn't give us the money? I felt like this was one of the places where, again, I was able to see the black and white of what the county really does and how important the role is. And so, I know when I'm in community, oftentimes I use the sheriff's office and the budget and what's mandated to really explain the gaps that the state has when funding the counties.

And so, it's just reinforced yet again here with almost 98% of your budget being mandated, but paid for by levy. So thank you again for the presentation, and we now have 15 minutes before we will start our board meeting. So Administrator Corbid. Madam Chair, just a couple of comments to wrap these two department presentations up, and one for Commissioner Karwoski. Next week's board meeting will have the agreement with the city of Oakdale for the embedded social workers. So you'll see that on the consent calendar next week. But these two departments are really quite interesting, where they're both fairly large departments, they both have a significant amount of expenditures to them. They're both highly mandated, but how the state funds them is very different, right? So the sheriff's office, they tell us what we should do, but they provide little to no money to do most of those services. It's kind of identified as a county-operated, county-funded, mandated service.

In the human services side, you've also got that same kind of idea that we're doing a lot of mandated services, and as the board knows, we're one of the few states where the counties actually do that administration of many of these social service programs instead of the state government. And they provide us some funding, a fairly significant amount of funding, but not complete funding, right? And so oftentimes, I think sometimes we feel like we're whining a lot or complaining a lot about money not being available for these services. But really, this is supposed to be a fully funded state service that we're administering on their behalf. And 20% of our levy each year is going to this state-mandated human services program. And so I think that's why I think state legislators get the kind of feedback from county commissioners related to this topic as compared to the sheriff's office, right? We don't expect money for the sheriff's office, therefore, we don't really complain about not getting any.

Same thing was on the election side. That's another good example. When Amy was here talking about her election services, they've started to provide a little bit of funding, but generally, the idea was the locals do the elections, right? And we kind of know that, and we fund them, and we pay for them. So it's interesting to see how those different types of mandated services are funded, how the state responds to county requests for assistance in certain areas, and then there's just places where we just know it's our responsibility, and we have to fund that service. So, I think this whole exercise of talking to the different departments and seeing how this mandated, non-mandated core, where the funding is non-levy, levy, has been really kind of enlightening, I hope, to you about the differences. And then, as we look for places where we can reduce funding potentially or save dollars, not necessarily just to reduce the tax burden, but that's part of it. But also, we're trying to keep up with the increased service demand.

So we're having a lot of service demand in certain areas, and in order to put the additional resources that need to go there, sometimes you have to reprioritize. And so that's part of our process as well. So, really appreciate the Board taking the time to listen to these presentations, and I think they'll be helpful when we get to late July, early August, when we start presenting the 2027 budget. So thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, everyone. We'll be back at 2:00.

Just give me one second.

I know I am. Good afternoon. I'm going to go ahead and call the June 16th Washington County Board of Commissioners meeting to order. Clerk, please take the role. Commissioner Miron? Here. Commissioner Karwoski? Here. Commissioner Cox? Here. Commissioner Bigham? Here. Commissioner Clasen? Role call taken. Commissioner Clasen is absent. Please join us in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right. We are at the comments from the public section. I do not have any speaker cards. So is there anyone from the audience that wishes to address the board today in public comment? Okay, seeing none, I'm going to move to approval of the agenda. Is there a motion? Motion. Motion to approve as printed. Second. All right. Moved by Commissioner Karwoski, seconded by Commissioner Miron. Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carries. We have the consent calendar. I am going to pull item K. Are there any other items that commissioners would like to pull? Move to approve all items on the consent calendar with the exception of item K. Second. All right. Moved and seconded. Clerk will take the role. Commissioner Miron? Aye. Commissioner Karwoski? Aye. Commissioner Cox? Aye. Commissioner Bigham? Aye. Consent calendar passes four zero. Thank you. Item K is approval of modify the administration policy number 1005, the code of ethical conduct.

And, I just was reading through that, and I think there's a little bit more clarity or review that I would say should, in my opinion, happen on the wording, I guess. And so I know the personnel committee did discuss this, so I don't know if Commissioner Miron wants to make a suggestion or give a little history. Thank you, Madam Chair. Personnel committee did meet, and we had a number of items on the consent calendar that were approved today. So, I had a chance to review a little more closely the policy 1005 that you're speaking of, specifically item E, political activities, and I do think that it would be prudent maybe to look at that a little more closely. I would suggest maybe that the county attorney maybe review it and then provide feedback to the personnel committee. I don't think there's anything urgent here, although we are getting into an election cycle. And so having some clarity here on how this applies to employees in general and then the county board as employees.

And I also, as I thought about this process, how we've been engaged in appointments of sheriffs, of county attorneys in the past and how that plays into some of the political activities if you will, because we do have from time to time, opportunities to make appointments like that. So I think some general clarification, maybe some added language as it might apply to some of those appointment processes and that type of thing might be healthy. So I appreciate Chair Bigham raising this issue and asking for a little more review and detail, and I would certainly support that added review. Any other discussion, or? I'm supportive. Okay. You got a comment. Administrator Corbid. Madam Chair and commissioners, I just wanted to note that Chair Bigham gave Angie Nalezny, our HR director, a heads up on this yesterday. I did get a chance to talk to her just briefly late yesterday. She concurs that there's some work needed in that paragraph E to kind of balance your role as elected officials on the county board.

She noted that there's even a statement in there that talks about when you're on paid time. Well, really you're kind of always on paid time as a county commissioner, and so there is some work we need to do. I know she's working on some options, and will be prepared to bring something back to the personnel committee. So thank you for giving her a heads up on that prior to the action today. Appreciate that. I know that it's helpful when staff gets a heads up on information. Is there a motion then that you would prefer the avenue? Yes. I'll ask our county attorney. More appropriate to postpone the item, to bring it back to personnel for review and then recommendation, or is it best to table the item? Madam Chair, Commissioner, it depends on exactly what we're trying to do. If I understand the commissioners correctly, it sounds like you want to send it back to personnel committee.

So then I don't think either tabling or postponing would be the appropriate thing. I think the appropriate motion would be to just send it back to the personnel committee to further review, clarify, and then bring back to the board when it is ready With the county attorney's assistance. Yep. Madam Chair, then I will move to send Policy 1005, specifically item E, for review by the county attorney and the personnel committee, and then have it be brought back to the county board with a recommendation. Second. Oh, second. All right, any other discussion? Because this was a consent calendar, I'm going to ask for a roll call on it as well. So, Clerk, please take the roll. Commissioner Miron? Aye. Commissioner Karwoski? Aye. Commissioner Cox? Aye. Commissioner Bigham? Aye. Motion passes four zero. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is from Public Health and Environment, and Deputy Director Timm, and Alicia Rodriguez, who is the project manager with Local Public Health Association of Minnesota.

Welcome. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and commissioners. I'm Jill Timm, deputy director with the Department of Public Health and Environment, and as you mentioned, Chairperson, I'm here with Alicia Rodriguez. Alicia is the project manager and also the member engagement coordination with the Local Public Health Association, or as we fondly refer to it as LPHA. LPHA provides leadership and collective advocacy on behalf of Minnesota's city, county, and tribal public health organizations. In Washington County, our Public Health and Environment Department is a strong and an active member of LPHA. You might know that our director, David Brummel, serves as the metro representative on the LPHA executive committee, and our department leverages lots of valuable partnerships and resources as a result of the work of LPHA. Today, Alicia is here with us to provide recognition for an exceptional program in Public Health and Environment, our Jail Parenting Program. As you know, Public Health and Environment partners closely with the sheriff's office, specifically Commander Roger Heinen, and the jail staff to run the medical unit. But in addition to that effort, PHE also partners with jail programming, Sergeant David Stumpner, Correctional Officer Caitlin Schlief Johnson, and others in the department to implement additional programs for inmates, and specifically here, we're going to talk about our Jail Parenting Program.

I'm grateful for the working relationship that we have with all of the jail staff, from the leadership down to all of the correctional officers. Some of them are here today to help us celebrate the Jail Parenting Program. And before Alicia presents the certificate and recognizes the program, I would like to share a five-minute video that really beautifully illustrates the work of the program that's going to be recognized by the award. Also, thanks to IT, because I think this is just going to work seamlessly. So, we'll show the video.

Just watching my son grow from in here and not being able to do my part as being a father, carrying my half or just getting to know my son or getting to see the changes that he does. His first steps, his first words. I feel those are the biggest challenges for me. I didn't feel like I was equipped to be a father because I was 18 having kids, so I felt like I was still young, young-minded, still running the streets. So me settling down with a kid was like, it was a-

All parents want the best for their children. People have the capacity and the ability to change despite where they've been and what they've been through. My goal is always to have somebody leave here better than when they came in. Being a parent in general is already hard, and then for you not to be able to be present there, I'll stress that time is probably the biggest factor. You're not able to spend the time that you want or the kid deserves. You can't be there all the time when this kid is doing this, and that one is doing that, and it's hard to be a dad to all of them from the phone.

Home visiting has to adapt to different settings to better support families' needs. And so when we go into jails, home visiting looks different, which is one of the reasons why we actually prioritize group settings and group conversations. In the jail, we call ourselves facilitators because we don't see ourselves as being an expert in the jail. It really is bringing other parents together and facilitating the conversation and the wisdom that they already have. We're using the Circle of Security curriculum, which is a more structured eight-week group. Each week, we build on a different parenting concept from the previous week. And the main reason Circle of Security is a good fit for the jail parenting group is that aligns really well with the other values of home visiting, which is focusing on the relationship and always keeping the child in mind. We watch lots of examples of children, and we talk a lot about what do we see, what do we notice, what did the parent do in that situation, how do you think that that parent felt or how the child felt, and building the reflective capacity for each one of those parents.

The more we can build that attunement or connection and awareness to our children, the more secure that child's attachment will be. I definitely notice a shift in pretty much every one of the parents, and I think the biggest change that I notice is just in the way that they talk about their kids, talk about their needs And how to meet them and noticing what their child's behavior might be saying. Some parents maybe have never had a healthy model for how to respond to a tantrum or how to handle a situation. Through this program, we can talk about ways to respond to a child's needs. Parents in the program often say, "I have a different way of approaching this," or, "I have a new tool that I can try out rather than getting as angry as maybe I was before." So I have past trauma that I didn't know that I had, and it was really holding me back from being a good father to my son. You can't go off of what your past was.

And it really changed my perspective of everything, just when they told me to be more aware of my past. My hope for the parents and the families that I work with is they would have this feeling of increased ability to be a great parent, to have a great relationship with their child no matter where they're at or what's going on in their life. I definitely feel like this should be implemented in all jails, all prisons. If you're not, definitely do it. My hopes is, being a father is just them accepting me for who I am. You know what I'm saying? And just being there for them as a father, just reconnecting. The time that I wasted in here, I'm going to give it back to them when I come home.

I'm going to turn it over to Alicia now so that she can recognize the staff that are implementing the program with the certificates. Madam Chair, Commissioners, thank you so much. My name is Alicia, and as Jill said, I am the project manager and member engagement coordinator for the Local Public Health Association. The Local Public Health Association, or LPHA, has awarded the Jail Parenting Program at Washington County Public Health and Environment the LPHA Program Spotlight Award. LPHA would like to present the award certificate to Tyler Roenicke, family home nurse supervisor, and Heather Naughton and Dina Olson, who are both public health nurses on the family health nursing team, in recognition of their leadership implementing this innovative and effective program. The Program Spotlight Award recognizes programs or initiatives that demonstrate measurable impact and innovation in local public health. The award highlights outstanding work and shares impactful strategies and success stories throughout the LPHA network. After thoughtful review by the LPHA staff and the Member Engagement and Outreach Committee, there was unanimous agreement that the Jail Parenting Program is highly deserving of this recognition.

As you just saw in the video, the Washington County Jail Parenting Program strives to help incarcerated parents maintain meaningful connections with their children, promoting family well-being, mitigating the trauma of family separation, and reducing recidivism upon release. Through this program, staff thoughtfully evaluated community needs and leveraged staff expertise to deliver a program that is both effective and replicable with minimal resources. In this way, the program strongly aligns with LPHA's strategic priority of enhancing public health system capacity. In 2024, the family home visiting team used prior evaluation data to reassess services provided within the county jail, shifting to a cohort model and implementing a new curriculum better aligned with participant needs. They then went a step further by adapting the Circle of Security curriculum specifically for the jail setting, recognizing that participants may not immediately be able to apply new parenting skills. These thoughtful modifications emphasize reflection, group discussion, and practical application in future interactions, including limited or brief visits with children.

The program is also making a lasting impact. Between 2013 and 2025, more than 250 parenting groups have been held at the county jail, reaching 629 fathers and 305 mothers. It is estimated that this work has positively impacted up to 2,500 children, with nearly 50 parents participating in the Circle of Security groups since their launch in 2024. LPHA is honored to recognize the Jail Parenting Program for its responsiveness, innovation, and meaningful impact, and to celebrate the dedicated work of Tyler, Heather, and Dina in making this program a success. So with that, I would like to present this certificate of recognition.

Thank you so much. We'll take some comments from the board, and then I assume we can do a photo at some... Okay. Great. Comments from the board. Commissioner Karwoski. Thank you, Madam Chair. Great presentation. The video makes it so much more meaningful, and to see the impact, and you could really see that what they do as this parenting program really helps with the rehabilitation, the preparedness of these inmates to go back out on the streets and be more productive, having something to look forward to. Great job. I got to compliment our staff. Thank you for the great work. Commissioner Cox. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the presentation, Ms. Rodriguez. Thanks for coming here to present it in person. This feels really special. And thank you to the team that's here in the audience, both from the public health, and also the sheriff's office side of things. This is a true collaboration again. Washington County doesn't have the silos in some of these places that I know exist in other places, and this is just one more example of more than 2,000 children having a positive impact.

And when we think about what that means just ripples out, that's absolutely incredible, and I'm really proud to be here today. So thank you, everyone, for your hard work each and every day to make this possible. Commissioner Miron. Thank you. I got so excited about this award, I spilled my coffee here. So, 13 years, and I remember when we approved this. I came on the board in 2013, and I thought it was a good program there, but I appreciate, as I was thinking through it, why did it take 13 years to be recognized? But I think the key is the modifications that you talked about, and I think the dedication of the individuals that are in the roles they are in now. But certainly, this award, I think, just recognizes a review of a program that's been going on in the county for some time, and then identifying the value of that program. And so, congratulations to the team.

This doesn't happen, as I mentioned, it doesn't happen without the right people and a lot of collaboration that's going on, and learning from past practices. And what works and what doesn't work and stuff. And certainly, Roger Heinen, I don't know how many years you've been with the jail there, but kudos to you and the management there that goes on. But congratulations for putting together a team that really is now worthy of recognition, and significant recognition in my mind, with this program. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you very much. A lot of what I was going to say, Commissioner Miron actually just said. But I remember back when Sheriff Hutton really started with the U of M and the Children of Incarcerated Parents study that they did, and Commander Heinen has been with us day one on this. And that leadership continued through Sheriff Starry, and I know it will continue on to his successor. And the impact and the growth that that program has had, which is demonstrated today, that addressing the trauma and addressing the needs, providing the services, is not only the right moral thing to do, but it's the right thing to do for people to become productive citizens once they come out of the Starry Slammer.

And so, it's important to me that we highlight the cross-department work and efforts. The home visiting nurse team is hands down amazing, and I'm due for another ride-along. But the work they do is just game-changing for the three times that I have done ride-alongs has had a personal impact on me, and what they offer to families when they are having children, and it's just amazing what they can do with family services. And I think taking that and their talent and bringing them into the jail to be able to work with that environment, with Roger's leadership and his amazing staff, it's just so proud that the staff is working so collaboratively together. And I'm very, very proud of the award, and to Commissioner Miron's point, it's long overdue. And so, just appreciate all the efforts, and congratulations to everyone that has made this happen. So keep up the good work. Thank you. All right. We'll do a picture.

No, I have a copy on there, so I have to Photoshop that now.

Good timing. Just a couple. Not bad. Well, I wiped up most of it. Got it. Got the picture.

Perfect. Perfect. All right. Take a few. Okay,

We're good to go. Thank you. All right. The next item is from administration, and we have four very familiar faces joining us today from MICA and the Minnesota Inter County Association. And so we'll have Nathan Jessen start us off, and he'll be joined by Amber Backes, Nancy Zaleski, and Rachel Senk. Madam Chair, members of the board, thank you for having me this afternoon. I'm just going to go through a quick run-through, essentially, of the top-level items that happened at the Capitol this year and what we saw. You all are familiar with our work and what we do, so I'm not going to spend too much time here. But we will have the individual lobbyists come up and introduce themselves as they go through their issue area. The one thing I do just want to highlight about our work, though, is that we're not just working during the legislative session. We work with you and your staff during the interim to help bring staff together from across the state to not only develop policy but allow them to trade expertise and then have that knowledge inform the work that MICA does at the Capitol. So I would say at a high level, the 2026 legislative session expectations were relatively low coming into it.

This is an election year. There was a current biennium surplus, so there was not necessarily a need for the legislature to pass bills or budgets. And unlike other election years in recent past, there wasn't a gigantic pile of money that the state had to allocate through different committees. And then, of course, the same dynamic existed as 2025 with a tied House, which is a relatively unprecedented dynamic to work with at the Capitol. But even if the end result had a more opaque process than normal, it ended up being a relatively productive session when you think about recent election year legislative sessions at the Capitol. We'll talk more about these a little bit later, but at the beginning of the year, MICA's informed by the vote of our board of county commissioners set four priorities around IT modernization, SNAP, implementing and resourcing the African-American Family Preservation Child Welfare Disproportionality Act, and promoting a robust bonding bill and defending transportation allocations.

There was action on all of those this year at the Capitol, even if we didn't get 100% of what we were asking for on every front. But that just shows you the level of the results that were produced at the Capitol, and we haven't had an even-numbered year bonding bill passed during regular session during an election year in quite a while. So the legislature was able to move that at the end of the day, too. We'll cover the issue itself more in-depth later, but on SNAP and AFBA, the cut targets that the HHS committees received made it really difficult to get any ongoing money there for counties. But we did see one-time allocations. And at the end of the day, the state budget, essentially the change was that they spent one-time money and had a slight, about 10% reduction in the ongoing structural deficit. When it comes to taxes, I would say the most notable things are what didn't pass. We worked closely with tax chairs to talk through them and other members about levy limits and the unintended consequences happen when levy limits are going into law. We haven't had them in law for over a dozen years.

I think it's been a dozen years now. Those bills ended up not getting heard. We worked with all three chairs, Senator Rest, Representative Davids, Representative Gomez, on that. They were all good to work with on that issue. There were bills that were heard around assessment changes, shifting the burden of proof from the taxpayer to the county and limiting other assessor tools. Those did get heard but were not included in any omnibus bill that moved at any point. And while Washington County didn't have a local sales tax authorization it brought to the county, there were 37 different modifications, authorizations, extensions that different counties and cities brought forward. None of those moved forward. What did happen was a one-time increase in the homestead credit refund that'll be going out to taxpayers this fall. Basically, if they're applying for the homestead credit refund, part of the normal process, they don't need to do anything different. They'll get this one-time 14.9% boost, and that's paid for out of the state general fund, about $125 million, rather than any shift at the county property tax level.

Also had a four-year extension of local homelessness prevention aid. This was scheduled to sunset after 2028. Washington County gets about $500,000 a year for this aid, and it's unique because it's relatively flexible, too And there were only very minor property tax shifts that occurred. The largest was less than a million dollars statewide, and not things that are going to have a significant impact on the tax base in Washington County. I wanted to talk a little bit about IT modernization. This is one that passed both chambers unanimously with 6,734 votes. But just because it passed unanimously does not mean that it was easy to move across the finish line. What I would say is really unique about this bill is that the level of county input that was there throughout the process, and we worked closely with our partners from AMC and MAXA on this as well. But this is a unique fund with specifically listed projects, unlike previous appropriations, that really had county input on the wording that we think that specificity is really going to matter.

And it creates a new advisory council, which will be meeting, I believe, by the end of this month for the first time, that has county appointees on it. That they'll be overseeing and having to be briefed on how the money is being used in this fund, and that's not an existing mechanism that we have right now in current law. And the other thing I would say about this, that there's $75 million in the first biennium, $15 million in the second biennium, and those are significant numbers, but there's also a built-in structure for the fund to potentially refill up to $50 million every two years. And that's essentially if it's an odd-numbered year, and if the budget balance is greater in October than it was at the end of session, there can be at least up to $50 million that moves from that, essentially the state bank with the money that is already in the general fund, to this account.

And that's significant because, as you all know from your talks with the legislature, it's really difficult sometimes to build momentum to get general fund dollars, especially if the legislature just recently passed a bill to do something. But IT modernization is not a problem that you solve overnight. So we think that potentially having this, it's not going to be necessarily the steadiest stream of money, but this is going to be a really significant piece that we're going to need to work to make sure we keep at the capital moving forward. And then the legislature also set up a legislative commission that our advisory council that has county involvement will report to. So I think from here I'll turn it over to Nancy Suleski, we'll go through our lobbyists, and I'll wrap it up at the end. But I think, do you want to take questions at the end or- Yeah Okay, great. We can do that.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Commissioners. Nancy Suleski here on behalf of MICA. I do both health and human services, and it's great to be here today. Nathan covered technology well. I was just going to say it was all hands on deck, all associations, county commissioners to staff, everybody worked hard on this, including AMC, MAXA, and the Rural Counties Association as well. So that was a huge endeavor, and we were very pleased with the outcome. Couple of other things that were priorities, again, for all organizations related to changes that are coming down from the federal government. The first one dealt with SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. We did receive one-time funds for admin of $10.7 million in fiscal year '27. That allocation is based on each county's share of SNAP admin costs in 2025. This is a one-time appropriation, so something that we will be revisiting again next year. The second issue was MAFPA. That was also something that all counties were working on, and again, one-time money of $15 million in 2027.

I would point out that each county is allocated a minimum of $100,000 in that account. This is separate from the allocation floor of other legislation, where $75,000 is in that account for each county as well. Must be used for staffing or services needed for child protection. Money cannot be supplanted in terms of current county expenditures, but may be used to maintain staff and services if they were paid for by temporary funding, as an example, ARPA funds. And then finally, I would mention that there was no funding allocated to the department, to DHS or DCYF on this. So they had wanted to take a portion of our $15 million because the case review process is going to go to them. The legislature really stuck firm with the $15 million going to counties, so what they did was delayed the effective date for those case reviews to July 1 of next year. The working group that's working on recommendations now does sunset at the end of this year, 12/31/26.

Another issue that was one-time funds, so we will be, again, revisiting it next year. Next item I would cover is the Omnibus Human Services bill. This is chaired by Senator Hoffman, Representative Mohamed Noor, and Representative Schumacher in the House. They received the only negative spending target when budget targets were established of $300 million that they had to find. That did not go over well with those chairs and those committees, but nevertheless, that was what was given to them. Some of the things that they addressed was transforming the human services system or starting the process. The two departments must consult with counties and tribes and study and recommend improvements to the roles and responsibilities of counties, tribes, as well as the state agency in the administration of human services programs. DHS must procure a contract to assess the current status of admin of MA and plan for an eventual transfer to the Department of the Administration of Medical Assistance by January 1st of Of 2033. That sounds like a long way off, but it's amazing how fast time passes. And also, DHS must contract with a consultant to make recommendations to improve its performance as the state's Medicaid agency.

A couple of things I'm just going to mention. NEMT was addressed in this legislative session last year of 2025. The legislature transferred the admin of NEMT to the state, and they were supposed to pick that up on July 1st of 2026. And of course, they're not ready to do that. So they removed that date that the state was going to take that over and just left it open. What they included in statute instead is that counties will receive six months notice if and when the state does take over the administration of NEMT. Another couple of things I want to mention related to it is all drivers must be individually enrolled and reported on all claims, but there is an exemption for both volunteers and not-for-hire vehicles. I'm going out of order just a little bit because there is a typo on this slide. That social worker title change, the two bullets underneath actually belong on the environment slide, and they are also on the environment slide.

So just ignore those two, if you will. MnCHOICES, I just want to mention that that's not on the slide, but I do want to report that DHS is going to have certified assessors on their staff to perform assessments on counties' behalf if needed due to backlog. So I did want to mention that. And then I also wanted to mention that the health bill did put additional funding into mobile crisis grants, $3.8 million for fiscal years '26 and '27. Now back up to social worker change. Effective July 1 of next year, '27, individuals that are hired by counties cannot use the term social worker unless they are licensed as a social worker or hold a degree or graduate degree in social work. Under this legislation, current county employees are all grandfathered in. So that was the agreement that they came up with. This has been pretty contentious. As you know, there's been a lot of conversation about requiring county social workers to be licensed, and so this was the compromise that was worked out this year. If I were a betting person, I think we'll see more suggestions on this going forward.

Another thing I wanted to mention, this was a huge deal for public health. The definition of medical consultant who serves on community health boards was expanded to include advanced registered nurses as well as osteopaths and physician assistants. So that was something that passed as a standalone bill and has been signed into law. What didn't happen? A couple of things I want to mention. You're all aware of the long-term services and supports work group that's been working on trying to find savings in LTSS, and that came out of a delay of cost shifts to counties in 2025. So work group has been working on it and has come up with a number of recommendations. If we don't find those dollars, we're facing a potential cost shift of a total of $178 million next year. So the legislature did pick up some of the things that we identified in this area, but unfortunately, they did not attribute it to the $178 million that we need to find.

My understanding is that the group is putting together a report that will list those with the reference that these were identified, this is what they save according to the spreadsheet that the legislature passed, so that that information is out there. A couple things I would mention is Senator Hoffman at one point in his committee did have a reduction of that 178. He reduced it by 31%. That did not happen, again, due to that high negative target that that committee received. There was also language relating to, on the disability waiver, people are allotted $40,000 annually for car improvements and/or home improvements annually. They changed that to every three years for homes and every five years for vehicles. So they did come up with some savings there. Another thing is the long-term services and supports loan program contains $65 million. They canceled that grant, and so that was savings again of 65 million in the first biennium and 5.6 in the second.

So that's something we also identified that we were hoping that it would be counted against what we need to find. Again, if this doesn't get fixed by next summer, those cost shifts are likely coming our way, and I would just remind you that some of these things do require CMS approval as well. So we're continuing to work on that issue as well. Other things that did not happen is there was no cost shift to counties relating to the behavioral health fund. We do currently pick up part of that, but there was no expansion or additional cost shift to us. And then also, there's no ban on contracted case management. That is something that's been around for a few years. What they did instead is they're going to have a rate study and report that's due next year instead, and then we will see what comes out of that. Another thing I just want to mention is Waiver Reimagine has been discussed for a number of years. The plan was to take the four waivers and move them into two. There was a proposal this year to repeal that program, Waiver Reimagine. That did not happen.

Instead, DHS is required to establish an approach to the two-waiver program effective January 1st of '27. So that data's coming up here. Finally, I do want to call out your staff and all of you. You were all there. There were many days. I think nobody knew what day county day on the hill was because there were commissioners and staff there all of the time. Do want to call out you, Madam Chair. Thank you. You've been very much over there, and I also want to call out Jen Castillo from your staff. She's been very instrumental, works with our work group and our committees, and again, these folks are wonderful advocates, not just for your county, but for counties statewide. And with that, I would be happy to answer any questions. I think we'll do them at the end- Yeah. Sounds good... if there are any. Sounds good. Oh, the last thing I- Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Commissioners. I'm Amber Bacchus, the transportation liaison for MICA. It's nice to see everybody here today. So first, wanted to talk a little bit about what happened at the legislature, and we were very pleased, as Nathan already mentioned, to see a $1.2 billion bonding bill enacted. That was a great surprise since it's been a while since we've had a bonding bill pass during the regular session in the even-numbered year when it's supposed to. So that was fantastic. And the amount of it far exceeded everybody's expectations. At the end of the previous session, we thought maybe there'd be $700 million available to bond for, but $1.2 billion was a great surprise. Now, we never got to see the bill until that last day of session. Neither the Senate nor the House capital investment committees passed a bonding bill. They always keep it close to the vest, and this was extremely close this year as it wasn't shared until that last day.

But some significant areas were funded, including wastewater infrastructure, state and local transportation improvements, and congrats to Washington County on inclusion of a couple of your county highway projects. Higher education asset preservation at the U and MnSCU was a big part of it, as were other local projects. But we're extremely pleased about transportation because many of MICA's top priorities were included. Local road improvement program received $47 million in bonding, which was $5 million more than last year. Local bridge rehabilitation, $25 million. Again, a $5 million increase from last year. The Local Government Road Wetland Replacement Program received $4.5 million, which is enough to prevent any of the credit areas from going bankrupt, which is a good thing. And then there were also some capital assistance projects dealing with solid waste, and my colleague, Rachel, will share more about the details of that. So that was truly wonderful news. And it was good there were some of our transportation priorities covered in the bonding bill because there wasn't a transportation bill passed this year.

The Senate was trying to move a supplemental budget bill for transportation. It got as far as the Finance Committee and stalled out due to some conversations about TAB fee increases and greenhouse gas, and they couldn't quite figure that out. And then on the House side, the House Republican co-chair, John Kosnik, wasn't interested in doing a bill this year. And so one wasn't going to move since you needed Republicans and Democrats on the committee to move one forward. But that's not to say there weren't any changes with regard to transportation. The big item was as part of the global negotiations that were made with leadership at the very end of session. There was a one-time TAB fee reduction included, and that was actually a- added in the bonding bill since it wasn't a transportation bill. So for calendar year 2027, Minnesotans will see a decrease in their TAB fees. That would be the rates they would've paid before the increases that were passed in 2023 as part of the transportation bill.

Unfortunately, legislators realized by doing that one-time cut, that would've created a hole in the Trunk Highway Fund, but they did use some of the general fund dollars on the bottom line to backfill that. So the transportation funds will be held harmless. So consumers will get a little bit of tax relief, but the highways will be spared any cuts in 2027. And then as far as what's on the horizon, there were a lot of issues that were discussed this year that we expect to see next biennium. So I just wanted to bring those to your attention because they seem to be ongoing conversations. The first one that we've been watching for the last couple of years are having the state mandate design standards for local state aid roads, so CSAH roads and MSA roads. There has been some concern amongst legislators that the standards haven't been updated for a while and so aren't inclusive of more multimodal opportunities for biking and walking in the design of those roads.

So the legislature tried to mandate what those design standards would look like. But that legislation prompted MnDOT to put together the rules advisory committee and start the process for updating the rules so that could happen, relying on the expertise of MnDOT and local engineers and local elected officials to make those decisions versus the legislature moving forward. So while the bills didn't move right now, it did prompt the rules process to go forward. However, if I think legislators aren't happy with what that looks like coming back into next session, we could see some legislation again about what those standards would be. A big issue for MICA and our member counties is implementation of a greenhouse gas transportation offset and mitigation program that was passed in the 2023 and 2024 legislative sessions. So if you are to build any new highway capacity in terms of extra lane miles or a grade-separated interchange, then you would have to figure out how much greenhouse gas would be generated by that improvement and find a way to offset this.

And I know this is important to your county with the prospects of an interchange going in at Century Avenue and Highway 36 coming. You want to know what this is going to look like, how you're going to mitigate, how much it's going to cost. Well, unfortunately, since they passed this law in 2024, they still really haven't figured out how to implement it. There's been a technical advisory committee that's done a great job of figuring out how to assess the greenhouse gases that will be created by these projects. But they haven't really figured out yet how to mitigate them. And it's especially difficult because some of the mitigation comes from beyond the areas of transportation and things that neither MnDOT nor counties have control over, such as increasing transit operations, which isn't a function of your county or MnDOT, or in terms of changing land use planning, which isn't a function of you guys or MnDOT.

And there is a deadline coming up in August 1st of 2027 to figure out how to assess things across a portfolio of projects, so it's not on a project per project basis, and that's running way behind. MICA and AMC were successful in securing a hearing in the House Environment, excuse me, House Transportation Committee to have MnDOT give a status update on the program, as well as for local elected, such as Chair Bigham to talk about some of the concerns about the costs and how this is going to work, especially since it seems to be in conflict with the Met Council's comp planning for land use and what this is all going to look like. Nothing got resolved this year, but that did get MnDOT motivated to meet with us again at the end of session. And so again, we appreciate Commissioner Bigham participating in that meeting, and they have agreed to have an informal working group to talk about what legislative changes need to happen so this program actually works, and people can rely on what the cost and the process will look like going forward.

So expect more on that next year. Then a couple other issues that I think are going to be top of mind, especially if Democrats again control the governor's office, the House, and the Senate, are things that would limit the ability or make it harder to build transportation improvements and divert more money to transit from transportation. And these are sort of modeled after the greenhouse gas bill, which says you can't build anything unless you've done this mitigation. So there were several bills put forward that would prohibit highway expansion projects from moving forward unless you did other things. One of them said you'd have to create a 60-year maintenance plan and identify funding for that before you could build new roads or bridges. Another one would say you have to look at alternatives to building out to transportation roads and bridge system before you could do so, or you had to justify its purpose, and it would just make it more cumbersome to move forward with some very necessary projects that you might need for safety or for growing communities.

The legislators promoted these seem be listening very closely to some of the transit and environmental and multimodal groups who think too much is being spent on roads and bridges and not alternatives. But at the same time, I don't think there's appreciation for all the needs that are out there in terms of our existing system. And those all do support transit in terms of bus operations and other things. So we'll be working on that going forward. The other one is with regards to transit planning itself. There was a proposal to overhaul how transit corridors are built out. And it would really focus on setting some benchmarks looking at density, which would make it very hard for counties like Washington to have expansion of their transit systems here because they would not meet the density requirements. So it really favored Hennepin and Ramsey in terms of future investments. So that's something that just had an informational hearing, but I know the House Transportation Committee members are very interested in moving that next year. So we'll be working with them over the summer and into next year to talk about some other considerations that should be part of creating benchmarks for transit expansion.

And with that, I will stop there and happy to turn it over to my colleague, Rachel. But thank you for your time today. And again, I appreciate all the good work in terms of these initiatives, and especially besides Chair Bigham, I did want to give a shout-out to Wayne Sandberg, your county engineer, for all his good work, especially on the greenhouse gas issue. So thank you. Thank you, Amber. All right. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Commissioners. My name is Rachel Sosnojek, and I represent MICA on environment issues at the Capitol. At the high level on environment issues, we did not expect there to be a lot happening this year, and our expectations were met there is not a lot of new spending, and no really significant policy changes in the environment space. The legislature was able to pass fiscal year 2027 appropriations for the Outdoor Heritage Fund, as well as the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund.

So good to see those appropriations go out. There was a little bit of uncertainty on whether they were going to be able to reach agreement there. So glad to see that get done. Amber gave an overview of bonding, but just want to double-click on a couple solid waste-specific issues that were included in both the cash and the general obligation bonding bills. There was a little over 10.5 million that was allocated to the Capital Assistance Program for solid waste infrastructure projects. I know a portion of that is going to Ramsey-Washington Recycling and Energy Center for some- To replace some old flail mills, if I am correct. And so I think the high level there is it's always helpful just as we can chip away at the backlog of projects. There were around $60 million in total requests submitted to the MPCA as part of CAP. And so just the more that we can see those projects funded, then next time there's a bonding bill, we can work our way down that list of requests.

There was also a little bit of money, a little over 2 million for the Statewide Drinking Water Contamination Mitigation Program, which was newly established in the 2025 bonding bill. And the cash bonding bill included $125,000 for a study on the illegal transport of infectious waste, which was something that had been traveling as part of the Senate's environment omnibus bill, and this is where it ended up finding a home. And so we'll see the findings from that study come out soon. The Health and Human Services bill did include an exemption for legacy parts from the state's new PFAS reporting system. So the first round of reporting will actually be due this coming September, and this is sort of the first step in how the state is thinking about phasing out the use of non-essential PFAS in products sold in the state. And so I think just helpful for us to think about, just knowing that the issue, especially for Washington County, the issue of PFAS contamination of water is huge. There's going to be a huge cost associated with the mitigation of that.

And a big part of that is how can we prevent future contamination. And so, enforcement of this PFAS ban is going to be really essential. So wanted folks to be aware of the change related to legacy parts. There's a longer list of things that didn't pass. Battery product stewardship is something that MICA, along with other county groups, were very involved in and pushing for. We had thought in the final days of session that we were close to reaching agreement to get this bill across the finish line. But unfortunately, that just fell apart as part of the larger negotiations in wrapping session up. And so luckily, we're in a really good place with where that language is at with all of the different stakeholders who have thoughts and opinions on what battery product stewardship will look like in this state. And so we'll definitely be bringing that forward again next year, and starting from a stronger spot.

We did not actively push for an increase in Square grant funding this year. I think just recognizing it's not a budget year. The dynamics were not necessarily the strongest for this to be a strategic choice, but did just want to mention it because this is something that MICA has been very actively involved in, and will continue to push for this in future sessions. There was some good conversation around the need for increased score funding to counties, as part of other committee discussion on other bills and other topics. So definitely it's still top of mind for legislators, and we'll definitely be bringing that bill forward next year. There was a bill that was introduced that would introduce new limits and emissions and monitoring standards related to the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center, the HERC. This is very concerning for MICA, because protecting waste to energy across the state is a top priority for us and our environment platform. There was no formal bill hearing on this bill, but it was brought up as part of an informational hearing on the topic in the Senate Environment Committee about halfway through session.

So something that we'll continue to monitor and will likely be talking more about in future sessions, depending on the breakdown of the legislature next year. One thing that wasn't included in the bonding bill that we were hoping to see was some money for local governments related to new rules around construction and demolition landfills. And just as these facilities are responding to new rules that have been proposed by the MPCA, requiring additional lining and cover systems for these landfills. There was $118 million in statewide need. And so I think as we get a clear timeline of when exactly those rules are going to be implemented, that will help create a little bit more of a sense of urgency, and I think just a lot more education and awareness building is needed for members of the Capital Investment Committee, so we'll be involved in that. And then finally, just want to mention, in the energy space, there were some MICA member counties who had Renewable Development Account, RDA appropriations that were proposed as part of the Senate Energy Bill.

And the same kind of thing played out last year. Not a lot of agreement between the House energy co-chairs and the House and the Senate energy chairs. And so struggle to get an energy bill put together and ultimately no RDA appropriations were passed this year. So just wanted to call that out. And I will keep it short. And yeah, of course, if folks have questions, I'll be back up later. And I think going back to Nathan. Thanks. Great. On pensions, there's just a couple things to think about with potentially significant impacts on county budgets. The first is this Duty Disability Reform Work Group. In 2023, the legislature allocated $105 million one time to make sure that duty disability claims weren't an unfunded mandate. There's just about $40 million left in that account right now. You're talking about potentially if no action is taken, an impact starting in 2028. So public employees, public employers are on that group. MICA has an appointee to try to come to some type of recommendations for the legislature to figure out how to make sure there's a solution that public employers and employees can agree on moving forward.

There was a new plan related to probation officers and 911 telecommunicators that keeps employer contributions constant at 7.5%. It includes an increase in employee contributions for those set of employees. And the correctional plan saw a reduction in both employer and employee contributions with an increase in benefits because that plan is funded over 105%. So just wanted to close with just a brief 2027 outlook. If the state budget remains in the same place where a lot of these issues are going to come back, I would say that the last couple of years, the legislatures had big cut targets in both taxes and HHS. Those are two areas that have some of the most direct county budget impacts. Nancy ran through a list of things that, whether it's the LTSS, SNAP, or MAFPA, that have significant county budget impacts that are going to be an issue. But there's also, of course, an election in November, and we've seen property tax issues continue to bubble up, and I anticipate that those will continue to be part of the discussion next year. The MICA board will start the process of setting our priorities in August, and we'll go from there.

Happy to stand for any questions or comments. Thank you, Team MICA. We appreciate all your advocacy and what you do for us at the Capitol. Amazing organization and teamwork. Would Commissioner Karwoski or Commissioner Miron like to start as our representatives on MICA? Commissioner Karwoski. Thank you, Madam Chair. Executive Director Jessen, thanks for coming, and the leadership team of Nancy, Amber, Rachel. You're all doing a great job. We've recently expanded to 17 counties, which really makes us focus on mid-size county needs, and really appreciate the progress you're making. I just want to really highlight some things. I agree, despite the news we see as they roll through the session, the end result, I think, was pretty productive. I know our staff, I speak on behalf of Executive Administrator Corbid, really does appreciate the data MICA provides our staff. If we had to produce that on our own, one, we couldn't produce it, but it really is very helpful.

I did want to mention highlights for me that the $1.2 billion bonding, although the transportation bill wasn't approved, we did get numerous projects, and our city partners got projects, and what helps our cities helps our county. The IT modernization. The greenhouse gas initiative could be a burden or a hindrance to a lot of our road projects, but I do think as Amber pointed out at making progress, our public works director, county engineer, Wayne Sandberg's a real leader. I think if we can keep working with our county engineers, not only in Washington County, I think they're the key to coming up with a practical solution for that we can move on with road modernization, essentially, and get some of these interchanges done. And then I think Rachel, who's leading the environment, really is an area that we've gone into just in the last couple years. And I do think it's been nice to get Commissioner Miron back on the board because with his expertise in waste to energy, waste to recycling, and your expertise on water, it's been a good complement to some of the environmental issues of the MICA board.

I do think the SCORE funding being increased and just we really see it with our MICA counties, not only Washington County, but from Goodhue to Sherburne, it's really becoming a vital need that I think MICA could play a really good role of being an influencer. So appreciate the work you're all doing. Thanks for presenting today. Commissioner Miron. Nathan, I just want to congratulate you because the expansion of the counties, I think, is a direct result of your leadership and your staff's leadership. We just appreciate having a broader base of counties within MICA and sharing in the cost, if you will, but also the insight and the lobbying efforts that go on, and the various issues that affect all of the counties, typically, that are members of MICA. So, congratulations on that. Just as we look at the highway expansion projects and the greenhouse gas emissions, that is going to be a significant issue. Even the transit for resilient metro is going to be an issue.

I don't know how much, if that moves forward at all, they'll do a look back on some of that. But obviously, we in Washington County are redirecting some of that transit tax to roads and bridges and that. And really, quite frankly, it's based on our anticipated costs. We've spent a lot of time looking at our costs related to roads and bridges and transit, and I would hope that that would bear heavy in the minds of legislators as they look at passing something like that. We're meeting our needs or trying to meet our needs with the monies available, and we're redirecting as appropriate. So, how much of a look back there'll be on that.

And certainly, the environmental issues, the infectious waste thing, doing another study on an issue that we know is problematic- I guess I would've appreciated something more direct in the way of action there, but it's difficult, and of course, the hospital lobbying group has a strong presence at the capital as well. And so there was some pushback certainly on those issues. But it'll be interesting as we develop our priorities for the coming year. I suspect that many of our priorities will be similar to what we've had.

As Commissioner Karwoski pointed out, just the value of MICA membership to us, the fact that it's not only the issues that we're working on here, but directly through MICA, but it's some of the other issues that are raised at the capital, and how MICA has become a partner in collaborating with us on other issues as well, and we just really support that. Nathan, you didn't mention, we talked about the election year, but a lot of retirements coming up. You didn't talk about that. I saw one of the photos there was Representative Torkelson, a good farmer friend of mine, and of course, he's leaving after many, many years in the legislature, but we've got quite a number of retiring legislators, and there's going to be a lot of institutional knowledge that's lost, and I don't know, maybe you want to share a few comments about that. Sure. First, just want to say that Representative Torkelson was really great to work with on this IT modernization issue.

Really focused, and he was forward-looking. And there's plenty of others. I don't want to go on for too long, but another one that's been around for a long time, Senator Ann Rest, Senate tax chair DFLer, worked with her in numerous capacities over the years. And if you're talking about institutional knowledge, I got to think that she's at or near the top. She's been serving the legislature for over 40 years. Mm-hmm. There's plenty on both sides of the aisle. I think it's always an adjustment every two years, right? But especially every four years when the Senate's up, and the level of change that happens. And that's going to be something that we deal with. There's always going to be some churn, Chair Bigham knows this better than anybody, with legislative bodies. But we especially did see a lot of senior members especially go out of cycle this term. The other thing I'll mention just briefly too is the number of county commissioners that we have, even within our partner counties, that have commissioners that served in the legislature, that have tremendous insight on a lot of these issues and relationships.

Some of that will change now with the election, but certainly that has been helpful, I think, as well. Yeah. David? Thank you. MICA's just amazing. The team, they work well together, they're responsive, they're prepared. And I just really appreciate each and every one of you and your efforts in a tough couple of years, and unfortunately, it's not going to get any easier going forward. Nathan, I know that you worked in revenue, and by the way, I will say Senator Rest, that's her jam, between taxes and elections. She's the reason we got local funding for elections and cannabis funding. Now let's see if we can't get that cannabis funding back for public health, but that's a different story. So correct me if I'm wrong, but with the ongoing funding for modernization, and this is stretching a little bit, when there's a surplus, a certain percent goes into the reserve automatically by statute, and it's capped. And then emergency disasters is another one where a certain percent by statute gets swung over to it. And then public schools trust fund, the lands trust fund for public schools, and now modernization, or am I conflating a couple of them?

You're essentially correct, is what I would- Thank you. That's all I need to know. No, just kidding. The difference with the modernization is that it won't happen at the same time as the reserve shift. Okay. So the reserve shift, you're right. We have a $3.2 billion budget reserve right now. That's full. But the amount that MMB recommends for the reserve changes based on- On-... how volatile our revenue system and how- Right... big our budget is. The IT Modernization Fund, money would get allocated to that account in October actually. It's not dependent on the total surplus, it's dependent on, okay, if we closed the legislative session in a surplus, and since the close of the legislative session, are we seeing revenues come in above projections? So it would use those revenues that came in above projections just since essentially mid-July- Right... and use that to fund the account, rather than the total surplus.

So if the legislature ends with a really big, leaves a lot of money on the bottom line, that money wouldn't necessarily be able to go into this modernization fund. Yeah. And we just had the report of, I think, 60 million over forecast. Mm-hmm. But my point of bringing this up is I was worried that it would be dependent on a significant surplus forecast, and kind of is. And so just be mindful of that because the 90 million is fantastic. We need it, and the ongoing funding, and the mechanism, Torkelson, I think, is the person who did this, is very important, and welcomed, and needed. Just not a guarantee of consistent ongoing funding. So I just- To me, that's important to put out there. And then the rest of my stuff might be more for Rachel, and I don't need her to come up, but this is more in your bailiwick. There is what I would call a disturbing report from the Minnesota Resource Management Report out of the MPCA, and it's requiring a reduction by 90% of landfilling and 90% of waste to energy, which are counterproductive.

And so, at the Recycling and Energy Board and at District 10 for AMC, this has been brought up, because I'm very concerned that I think it already has legs out there in the communities, and it's just not something that can be done. And there's this tendency that I think the administration takes these and then just rolls with it instead of really looking in how do we implement this stuff. And so July 7th is the cutoff, and so I believe Micah is sending the letter of concern, and AMC is sending a letter of concern. I believe RNE- RNE... is going to be sending a letter of concern. So- Partnership of Waste and Energy, right? Yeah, and our legislative wing of the project, yeah. Waste to Energy. So I just also want that out there, that I think we have strength in numbers to get real facts, real data, and the realities of, I think these are intended consequences, to be honest, not unintended. So this keeps me up at night, not going to lie.

And then SCORE funding, I feel that we keep hitting our head against the $30 million that the legislature steals every year from every budget from us and puts it in the general fund. And I think we have to think about how we're doing that differently. And one of the things, it's just changing the color of money, but if we take that 30 million and tell the legislature, "Keep it, but allocate it through an LCCMR process," or heck, let LCCMR do it, that 30 million to projects that can divert waste. If you're going to steal our money and keep it, put it towards something that it's intended for. And the SCORE funding is not even, when it was originally created, that's a whole another story. We don't do that the way we do SCORE funding anymore. It's old. Put it that way. And then the last couple things I just want to say is, the pension plan for probation and telecommunicators, I could not selfishly be more happy about that.

It was something that I did on my way out of the Senate. Senator Seberger took it for, I think, a session or so, and then now I'm embarrassed to not know the Senate. Was it Frent that had this bill? Okay. So, Dar Peconi from our office has been amazing on this, and I just really, truly thank her advocacy for it. It's going to mean a lot to a lot of people. This came to me because Dakota County telecommunicator, who's my age, wrote me saying, "I know we haven't spoken in years, but we're getting a lot of burnout from telecommunicators." And then to think about what our probation officers go through as well. So it's just needed, I like it, and I'm glad we finally got there after many years. The Act, I believe that DCYF is going to pay for this in next year, the case review. So, I have issues with having to budget for it next year.

Just going to say that, and I know we're not the only county. But personally, I don't want to tax taxpayers on a program that I believe the state is going to cover with case review. So I think levying that is concerning, and they should've just accepted it, the department should've. Age of delinquency is something we're going to keep our eyes on. I believe there'll be movement on it next year to clarify, but we don't have the services, counties don't, for secured facilities, and I know that I've spoken a lot about that. And then I'll just wrap up real quick with adding my two cents about the frustration with the greenhouse gas offsets. Representative Kraft has really been engaging. He's curious, and I appreciate that, and he really wants to make this work, and I intend on continuing that conversation with him. And we have meetings set, and so I think that that's going to be a good thing to continue those conversations, but I don't think it really gets at the core of Met Council, who coupled these bills up there.

They're just letting their comp plans that they require us to do be destroyed. And I want to give a lot of kudos to our county engineer, and I know he walked in the room, but the other commissioners had said that, too, but his efforts on the greenhouse gas offsets, and Joe Mack out of Carver are... Anoka. Anoka. Anoka, yep. Linden from Carver. God, I got it. Thanks. Anyway, thank you guys so much. I don't know if you have any final... No, just wanted to thank you all again for your work at the Capitol, and especially thank your staff, too. We just mentioned Wayne. Angie Nalezny- Yep... HR director is just invaluable to me and as my work on pension issues. Any number of Washington County staff, Mr. Corbid, just really informs the work that we do at the Capitol, and we really value your advocacy and then their knowledge, too. So... Thank you very much Thank you very much.

We look forward to continuing to work with you on the legislative agenda. Thank you so much. Thank you. And then next on the agenda is- Margaret... Larkin Hoffman, right? Okay. I just didn't know if there was a change quick. And Margaret Vessel to give us an update on the 2026 Minnesota legislative session.

Welcome, Ms. Vessel. Good afternoon, commissioners. As Commissioner Bigham stated, Margaret Vessel with Larkin Hoffman Public Affairs. I'm the managing director. I have had the good fortune of working with you all now for a number of years, and it has been such a pleasure. So first of all, thank you so much. This year, I will say in 2026, Washington County had probably one of the best or better years than we've had in years past. We were successful on quite a few of the bonding projects that you all had been putting forward on your legislative platform. I have them listed. The first eight pages is an overview of what happened this session. I won't go through those details because I think Mike did a nice job, and unless you have specific questions, I can just skip to the good part. So, as you all know, they start on page 11. They are not in necessarily priority order, so I just wanted to highlight the good work that we did.

We introduced a bill on Cottage Grove 19A and 100th Street, and we worked in concert with the City of Cottage Grove, and the initial request was $22 million. That's how the bill was introduced. We had federal funding that was going to be in jeopardy, and so this was a project that we had to really get some movement on. At the end of the day, we were successful in getting $9.6 million of the 22. I have been told by staff that that will absolutely get us started, and we can revisit the project in the future if need be. And kudos to the authors, Representative Wayne Johnson and Senator Judy Seeberger, who led the efforts at the Capitol. Bronze Creek is the second one I'll talk about. That has been on the legislative platform for a number of years, and it's been something I was like, "Okay, we're going to finally get this one through." And I'm happy to report that we were able to get the initial bonding request was $3 million, and we were able to get 2.931 for the Bronze Creek project. So that bill was successful this legislative session, and there again, thank you to our authors, Representative Josiah Hill and Senator Karin Housley. They did lead those efforts, and it was their number one priority as they moved forward.

Woodbury's Bailey Road and Woodbury Drive, that was a new one to the platform this year, and it was a smaller one, so it was only 500,000, but it was meaningful and important. And so we were able to work with Representative Cha and actually Representative Buck, and then Senator Hemmingsohn Yager to get that bill funded this legislative session. So we were able to fund it at $500,000. Hardwood Creek Regional Trail. This was one that we had thought maybe it wasn't going to move this session, and later in the game, the authors reached out and said, "Hey, we can fund this." So, we were able to secure $1 million. That was the original ask of the bill. We got $1 million for the Hardwood Creek program. And then in a bit of, I'll take credit for it, but I didn't really have anything to do with it. In the ENRFTF, sorry. Environmental and Natural Resource Trust Fund bill had an additional appropriation for the extension of $1.244 million. And so Hardwood Creek actually got 2 or 1.24 to fund that trail, and so we'll see what kind of lights and bridges Commissioner Miron puts on it after that.

And lastly, well, two more. The Metropolitan Parks, as you all know, you are one of 10 implementing agencies in the metro area. This pot of money goes to fund all of your metro park improvements. We worked with the 10 implementing agencies, well, I guess nine other, and we held a parks and pizza party for both the House and the Senate. You all were able to attend. We worked with the chairs of the bonding committee, and just really pushed on this. This was initially a $20 million ask. It is matched by two-thirds from the Met Council. So the bill is funded at $10 million and actually probably equates to, I think it's million. Little over 16 million will be funded into Metro Parks after the bonds are let. So that was, I think, a big win for the implementing agencies. You get a portion of it. It's based on population, but still, any money helps in parks.

And then lastly, I worked with- The county engineer, Wayne Sandberg, he came to me towards the middle to end of session and said we need to get a technical change to the appropriation in 2023 for Lake Elmo and 36. And it was just a simple change. It added the words, "and the city of Lake Elmo." And so Washington County and Lake Elmo will be able to work a little bit better in concert. MMB came to us or came to Washington County and said you can't do improvements on land if you don't own them. And so this is going to save both the city and the county about $4 million. The other platform pieces that unfortunately weren't successful, but something that we can consider as we move forward, Cottage Grove Ravine Park. We had bonding tours in both the House and the Senate. We've got really good feedback on how great that park is and the necessity for the lighting, and so I think that's something that there is a general interest in.

And so we'll continue to work on different avenues there. The Wood Waste Bill, that was something that the implementing agencies, the parks, were really interested in as well, and we did get a hearing in 25 with Representative Hansen. There were actually two bills that came forward this year. They were companions. Both were $4 million. Unfortunately, this was not included in the 26 bonding bill. And then lastly is Lake Elmo's 1017 and 17B improvements. That was a $2 million request, and that was not included, unfortunately. This was a new piece, and so I think if this is something we want to move forward with in the future, certainly it got hearings in both the House... For sure in the House. Commissioner Cox was there to testify. So it was a good hearing, and we got great reception on the project. So I think in the future, that will be something, if you all want to take on. I heard Micah's presentation.

So they talked a lot about the environment bill or the lack of the environment bill, and battery stewardship, the solid waste tax. We did include language in your report on health and human services. I did hear them go over that. And let's see. And then there was money in the Outdoor Heritage. So Lessard Sams allocated $2.8 million to Washington County's Habitat Protection Enhancement Partnership, the phase two, and that actually will go a long way in helping with phase two. There was also money in the bill, 1.4 million in the second year for the Bone Lake phase two. So those two projects were specific to Washington County and funded in the Outdoor Heritage bill. Madam Chair, I would stand for questions. I'd be remiss if I didn't say that your staff is top-notch, and we really enjoy working with them. They make us look good on a very short notice, and so we appreciate them very much, as well as you and your availability to come to the capital when we need you.

So thank you so much, and I would stand for any questions. Thank you, Margaret. Any questions, comments?

Commissioner Miron. Well, not a question, just a comment or a recognition, Margaret, of you and your team and the success that we've seen with you over the years here. We've had discussions about our lack of success in the past, and I think as you point out, our staff here works well with you, but certainly, you've got connections at the capital, the ability to recognize opportunities where they exist, and much of the success that we received there was just in the last day or two of the session. And as you point out, I think some things that were kind of surprising to us, but you pivot when you need to, and you certainly have the relationships. And as I looked at your report, just the support you garnered on both sides of the aisle for the projects that we had, that's what it takes to get this stuff done and just appreciate the success. You bring so much value to us at the county level here.

When I look at our contract with you and the value that we received just this year, it is significant. So appreciate the work you do. Commissioner Karwoski. Thank you, Madam Chair. Margaret, thanks for presenting. I would agree with Commissioner Miron's comments. And to add, I think the leadership in Larkin Hoffman, consistency of the message from year to year, a lot of persistence, and I think that consistency paid off of getting these across the goal line. If you could, I know we've thanked our legislators, but you've seen them a lot more. If you can reiterate to our, I think we have 16 senators and legislators that represent all of Washington County or parts of Washington County, and that bipartisan of both parties, Republicans and Democrats, as Commissioner Miron pointed out... really working together and leading these bills. We've got to thank them, and thank you, and we'll look forward to the next session. Commissioner Miron.

Yeah, just one more comment. Margaret, you didn't mention it, but you worked with Senator Housley and secured 2.8 million, almost 3 million for Highway 61 and County Road 32 improvement work. That wasn't even on the radar. But it was something that Senator Housley recognized the significant need in Forest Lake. The fact that Washington County is planning improvements on County Road 32. We received some significant federal funding, and this certainly is going to complement the work that we're doing within the area and probably will allow us to utilize those funds and improve that corridor as a whole rather than doing it piecemeal. And kudos to you and the work you did with Senator Housley to secure that funding. And again, that was money that came in probably the last day, if not the last few hours of the session. It's good to be the lead of the bonding committee. And to have the legendary Sandy Pappas on her way out the door, which I can't talk about retirements because it'll make me cry. But, those two worked really well and certainly delivered for the East Metro.

Certainly did not forget Washington County. And our whole delegation worked really well together, and prioritized the needs of Washington County. So I just appreciate each and every one of them. And again, if you guys want to hear a fun speech, listen to Sandy Pappas's retirement speech, because she does give a shout-out to Senator Housley for their relationship and working together. And it really is talk about institutional knowledge that's going to be lost between Pappas and Rest. It's going to be bad. So of course, Margaret, your leadership is phenomenal, and your responsiveness and your strategy is amazing, and we appreciate that. But I also would be remiss to not bring up Jessica Tabit, and then of course, Andrew Carlson and Brandon Strickland, who when you couldn't be at four places at once, filled in for you. So they are just an amazing team, and you guys do great work. And I just think we're going to have a pretty robust discussion about legislative priorities going into next year, and I know you'll be part of that, because we really wiped a lot off of our plate.

So we have to talk with our staff and talk with our communities, and their needs. But I know that the City of Cottage Grove certainly appreciates the efforts and the partnership between the county and Larkin Hoffman on the 19A and 100. That was a big deal after all these years, so certainly appreciate the efforts. Commissioner Miron. Margaret, is there something you'd recommend in the way of showing our gratitude? It's end of session, right? And some of these people are not going to be back. They've announced retirements and that type of thing, and yet they've served and represented us well. I don't know. Just maybe you could think about it and coordinate with staff. But I always think that showing gratitude for the representation and the efforts made, and then obviously delivering on these projects is a good thing to do. And so I'm hoping that maybe we can put something together in that way to thank our legislators.

Madam Chair, Commissioner Miron, absolutely. I'll be happy to think about something. At the very least, a letter from the county board to the legislators, and specifically even our delegation, I think would be very appropriate. I didn't mention because I don't want to leave anybody out, but they really did work well together. And Senator Housley in her position, it was to our benefit. So- Mm-hmm... she really was able to help us out in a way that was meaningful. And so, yeah, I would be happy to think about something else, but I think at a minimum, a thank you note to the delegation would be appropriate. And you are very highly regarded by them, and so because of that, they work hard for you. So I'd be remiss of saying, they all work really hard on your behalf to make sure that they're representing not only their cities, but their counties and moving forward, so. Thank you, Margaret. Thank you.

Next on the agenda, and we're probably about 20 minutes behind, but we have Washington County Community Development Agency, Economic Development Director Chris Enger, and Abby Whitman from the Forest Lake Community Development Director. Thank you, Madam Chair and commissioners. Yeah. Good afternoon. And I'll try to keep it brief. But I did bring Abby along with me- Absolutely... to answer any questions if you do have any. So please feel free as we go through the presentation. Thank you for the opportunity to share a little bit about the Opportunity Zone program. This is a program that was created back in 2017 and reauthorized in 2025. And it's a way for Low-income census tracts areas to be able to attract private investment into new developments, both commercial, retail, housing type of developments. So if you think along those lines, that's the intent of the program. There is a federal regulation that provides for the governor of each state to nominate 25 sites, or 25 census tracts of the 278 in Minnesota that are eligible, or 289 that are eligible. 73 will be allowed to move forward to the federal government.

So not all of the eligible census tracts in Minnesota will move forward, but we're hoping that we can make the list of the governor's nomination to be included. And I'll talk a little bit about how that works in some of the following slides. One of the new additions to the program this year is that rural areas, which is one of the opportunities for, in this case, the City of Forest Lake, to be able to get more benefits than they have in the past under this program. And I should also mention, back in 2017 when the program was originally created, there was also another site in the City of Oakdale that would've qualified by census tract, but I reached out to the City of Oakdale and to the City of Forest Lake back then, and at that point in time, they did not pursue the program. And so this is our first go at the Opportunity Zone here in Washington County.

So what are opportunity zones? Again, they're designated by the federal government, and there are certain census tracts that meet criteria that makes them eligible. And in Washington County, there are only two census tracts that are eligible, and they're both in the City of Forest Lake. Opportunities, as I mentioned, is a way for private investment to happen in low-income census tracts within eligible areas, where investors can take their unrealized capital gains and make investments in these census tract areas and then receive some federal benefits from it. So there's not a grant particularly allowed as part of this program. It's private investment that receives federal incentives to invest in these low-income communities. There's also a program, and it's a little bit more complicated than I'm capable of diving into the weeds on. But under the Opportunity Zone program, there are opportunity funds, and investors can create these funds, and then new investments in these opportunity zones can take advantage of those funds.

And it helps, in some cases, get the projects started, whereas sometimes the raising of equity can be complicated in getting these projects moving. But this is a way for private investment, again, to come into these projects to get them across the starting line. And for that private investment, they can receive a temporary deferral on their capital gains. They get a step-up in basis of capital gains. There's rural investments, in this case in Forest Lake, a triple step-up in capital gains in the step-up basis, and then permanent exclusion from taxable income for long-term investments that are made in these census tracts. I mentioned in Washington County there are two census tracts that are eligible for the program. They're both in Forest Lake. Census tract 701.03 and 701.04. It's a really good coverage of the northern part of the City of Forest Lake, and it includes all of the downtown area, and then along the east side of Highway 61 in Forest Lake. These, I want to mention, were both reviewed and considered by the Forest Lake Economic Development Authority and the Forest Lake City Council, and unanimously they chose 701.03 to be the highest-rated priority and 701.04 to be the next highest-rated priority.

So we're asking for consideration from the county as part of the state's nomination process to the federal government to also rank those in that priority order as based on the City of Forest Lake's recommendation. So here's the process that we have to go through. On June 1st, the City of Forest Lake EDA recommended consideration and approval to the council. On June 8th, the Forest Lake City Council recommended approval, and that's why we're here at the county board today. Part of the State of Minnesota, the governor is asking for counties to weigh in on these and make his list available to the federal government. But we're hoping that we can make that list and make the cut that goes forward to the federal government. So if that's done today, on June 30th, we'll ask the county to forward the recommendation to the state, and that also includes the ranking of those two census tracts that I mentioned of Forest Lake.

The State of Minnesota approves the list, starting on July 1st is the application process. And then on September 28th, the State of Minnesota forwards that information and that list, the final list, to the federal government for consideration. And the final thing I'll mention is that this is really intended to be a partnership program. So as part of this effort to make Forest Lake included in the state's list, we did reach out to, obviously, the City of Forest Lake, but the Chambers of Commerce in Forest Lake, the Washington County Coalition of Chambers of Commerce, the Forest Lake Career Launch Program, which is part of the Forest Lake High School, the CDA, and then the Open to Business program. And the Open to Business program is going to be an important partner because it's a nonprofit organization that already works with businesses here in the county. And they're also a community development financial institution, or a CDFI at the federal government, and we're hoping that we'll bring in more private investment through the CDFI program. So with that, I'm going to pause for any questions.

And if you have specific questions that Abby can maybe help with, I'll ask her to jump in and weigh in as well. Thank you for your consideration. Commissioner Miron. If I may, Madam Chair, to get it before us- Mm-hmm... I'm going to move to adopt the resolution to approve the City of Forest Lake's application to the Opportunity Zones program and priority ranking of the census tracts as requested by the State of Minnesota. I'll second that. Moved and seconded. Commissioner Miron. Yeah. Chris, this is one of the benefits of having you as our... economic development director, and implemented and engaged with the CDA, the partnerships that we see on the screen here. Serving almost as an extension in economic development to the smaller communities. I know that you and Director Whitman work closely together on a lot of projects, as you do with other cities as well. But certainly to recognize this opportunity, to see how limited it is, but then also putting the effort in to get us over the finish line in the way of an application, and we'll see how this goes.

But Washington County, and I'm really proud of the work that we've been engaged in in economic development, in comparison to what we did 15 years ago. We're really working in this arena. I can't imagine not having moved in the direction that we've moved in. And Chris, you're just so appreciated. We appreciate all the work that you're doing. Thank you. Commissioner Karwoski. Thank you, Madam Chair. I concur with Commissioner Miron's comments, and I'm going to add a few. Economic Development Director Ng, thanks for presenting, and Community Development Director Whitman, thanks for being here, and congratulations to Forest Lake. I'm going to touch on one thing. In recent, just today it was mentioned how Senator Housley sponsored a bill for some road improvements in Forest Lake. And then we had other significant road, federal money on road improvements. And really, yeah, we do road improvements for safety and car safety, but it really helps. This is another tool in the toolbox, getting this zone. But yet, when we improve roads, it all adds to bringing economic development. So I wish Forest Lake well.

Economic Director Ng, I think I'm starting my 10th year on the county board, and we were commenting your 10th year as economic development director. I think other commissioners, we've seen your work. I know I represent eight cities, and I think you've helped them all, from Landfall to Oakdale, Mahtomedi. I know you've been at Woodbury, always offering assistance to be an asset, a tool in the toolbox of our city partners. So thank you, and this is just an example one here in Forest Lake. Thank you. Commissioner Cox. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the presentation, and I'll just say I'm excited to see how this unfolds. It's kind of interesting that this is the first time Washington County's had the opportunity, so it's a groundbreaking thing for, I think, all of us to be a part of. So thank you for your leadership on this, and we'll watch the process. Thank you. Yes, thank you, Director Ng.

A lot of people are excited about these and, no pun intended, but the opportunity that they bring. And for our county to be able to have the option to do this is a big deal. And I know that when they originally were starting, I think it was Governor Dayton, that it really was unique. And so just appreciate that we are taking advantage of it, and I know it's competitive. So any further discussion? All right, seeing none, then the clerk will take the roll. Commissioner Miron? Aye. Commissioner Karwoski? Aye. Commissioner Cox? Aye. Commissioner Bigham? Aye. Resolution passes four zero. Thank you both. Thank you. All right, now we have to approve three items for CSA 17 and Trunk Highway 36, and Mr. Giesen is going to present to us. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, commissioners. My name is Andrew Giesen. I'm project manager in the Public Works department. And today, Public Works will be recommending approval of a construction contract and two agreements related to the County Highway 17 and State Highway 36 interchange project.

So during my presentation, I will provide an overview of the project background and scope, discuss bids received, and provide an overview of the financials for this project. I will review the project agreements, share how the project is tied to our strategic plan, and close by recommending approval of three board actions. So this project is included in the county's capital improvement plan as RB2674 and is located within the cities of Grant and Lake Elmo. This intersection has an extensive crash history with about one reported crash every two weeks. And since the opening of the bridge that connects Minnesota to Wisconsin in 2017, traffic volumes on 36 have continued to grow, leading to increased congestion and delays seen at this intersection. The county, MnDOT, the city of Lake Elmo, city of Grant, Valley Branch Watershed District, are all working collaboratively to address this issue. And over the last few years, the project team evaluated over 20 possible ways to improve this intersection.

So through a comprehensive multi-year evaluation process, a recommended alternative rose to the top that made significant improvements by reducing expected crash rates, reducing congestion, and improving pedestrians' and bikers' ability to cross Highway 36. These improvements are proposed while also minimizing overall project costs, acquisition of private property, and overall project footprint. And the project is entering the construction phase with substantial completion expected in the fall of 2027. So the next three slides show some renderings of the project. The first slide shows the new bridge, or the new bridges, that will carry Highway 36 traffic over Lake Elmo Avenue. Also shown on this rendering is the new trail being added along Lake Elmo Avenue that crosses under the new bridges, that avoids interactions with Highway 36 traffic. And then in addition to the pedestrians and bicyclists, folks that snowmobile in the area will also benefit from this grade-separated crossing. So this next rendering highlights the intersection of the existing frontage road on the north side of 36 and Lake Elmo Avenue, which will be controlled with a traffic light.

And then this last rendering shows the free-flowing traffic using Highway 36 in the middle, the existing frontage road on the north side of 36, and then the new frontage road on the south side of 36. And then this rendering also shows the ramps that include acceleration and deacceleration lanes that drivers will use to exit and enter 36 in this area. So construction bids for this project were opened on April 14th. Four bids were received, with a favorable low bid coming from Ames Construction in the amount of roughly $27 million, about $3 million under our engineer's estimate. So breaking down the financials of all elements of this project, total project costs are roughly $42.7 million. Revenues for this project come from many sources, including contributions from the City of Lake Elmo, MnDOT funding, state and federal grants, and from state aid. A critical piece of this project was the full acquisition of River Valley Church. The county worked closely with the church on this acquisition and closed on this property in December of last year. So that acquisition required a budget amendment to add roughly 5 million of state aid to the project.

And so that 5 million that was added, as well as receiving a favorable bid for this project 3 million under estimate, results in a project balance of roughly $8 million. And this $8 million will go towards our state aid fund balance, and will be both programmed in future CIPs and have the flexibility to be used on existing projects that may need it. So in the end, the county was very successful in maximizing grant opportunities and obtaining funding from MnDOT for this project, which has resulted in county costs coming in much lower than programmed. So moving on to project agreements. A project of this scale has many formal agreements. This includes an agreement that the board has already executed, two additional agreements that Public Works is recommending approval on today, and then three future agreements that are tied to the three state bonds associated with this project. So focusing on the agreements highlighted within the blue bubble, we have two agreements between the county and the City of Lake Elmo on this project. The first is a cost agreement that defines design and construction responsibilities between the agencies, and the second is a maintenance agreement, which defines long-term maintenance responsibilities of infrastructure on this project. And both of these agreements have been reviewed and approved by our partners at the City of Lake Elmo.

Before I close with recommendations, I wanted to highlight how this project directly addresses a number of objectives within the county's strategic plan. So this includes maintaining a strong partnership with our cities, reducing vehicle idling, and adding bike and ped infrastructure to provide sustainability benefits by reducing vehicle emissions. Increasing the quality of our natural water bodies by treating runoff in a number of new stormwater basins that will be constructed as part of this project. And then these basins also help combat the risk of flooding in the area. We're also maximizing grant funds to grow and sustain the county's ability to fund other programs, services, and infrastructures. And lastly, this project significantly reduces the risk of fatal or serious injury crashes in the area. So to close, Public Works has three board actions we are recommending approval on today. This includes the construction contract with Ames Construction and two agreements. So with that, I'm happy to stand for any questions.

Commissioner Cox. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to approve contract number 18215 in the amount of $27,313,659.44 with Ames Construction. Second. Moved and seconded. Commissioner Cox. Mr. Giesen, thank you for the presentation. I kind of just want to rush to get them all approved so that work can get started. I think we've talked about this so many times. Such a needed intersection. So much of the team that's sitting in the audience, and you, Mr. Giesen, started this before I even was sitting in this seat, and I'm so grateful. The amounts of grants that were brought in helped not only our county, but the cities involved as well. I think this is just an incredible collaboration, and I'm excited for the work. Commissioner Miron. Yeah. I think it's too bad that we've got an afternoon meeting because the engines are actually idling, ready to go to work out there. I drove by there today and of course some more effort to clear the right of way and get prepared for this... construction project, but a big project.

Congratulations to county staff engineering work leading this. It's a major state road improvement and, as typical, Washington County is leading that, and I believe that's because of our quality staff and the expertise that we have along with the contract staff that we utilize in a very good way at the county level. But Ames Construction is a notable company. They've done a lot of work in Washington County and elsewhere. Just appreciate them bidding on this particular project and certainly anxious to approve that contract. Thank you, Andrew. We're going to power through these three resolutions or agreements, contracts, sorry. But just thank you so much for your time and effort that has gone into this project, and all the staff. Sharon Price, I mean, everybody. It's just been a big team effort, and you guys have done a tremendous job, so really appreciate it. Any further discussion? Commissioner Karwoski? Yeah. With a project this expensive, you've got to put a few comments in. No, it's money well spent.

What I was impressed with, first of all, I've got to thank Commissioner Cox and Miron for your leadership. These do not happen without a lot of effort, working with your communities. And then Commissioner Miron, retired Commissioner Miron put... Or not Miron. You're not retired yet, Commissioner Miron. Retired Commissioner Kriessel put in a lot of years of effort. And a couple of things that struck me for this, eventually will be a budget of about 51 million, is with a small percentage of local dollars, like $3 million, and rightfully so. This is, as Commissioner Miron pointed out, it's regional. This helps the safety in a variety of ways, moving traffic in a safe, orderly fashion, but it really helps people from all over the region. And so rightfully so, and it's really state and federal money largely, so the taxpayers can be reassured that we're rightfully not drawing on the backs of local taxpayers. It's a regional project. And I was also impressed with the bids. A lot of bids, and they were all pretty tight, so that tells me that very competitive, and even the engineering estimate was right in there.

I think they came slightly under the engineering estimate, but the bids were on such an expensive... That's kind of why I brought up 51 million, when you got bids that are pretty tight to that. And then, I had one more point to make. Must not have been that important. I forgot what it was. But anyhow, it'll be nice to see this happening, and I'm looking forward to avoiding this area for many months to come. Thank you. Sounds good. With no further discussion, Commissioner Cox renews her motion to approve contract number 18215. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carries. Commissioner Cox. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to approve cooperative cost agreement number 18223 between the city of Lake Elmo and Washington County. Second. Moved and seconded. Discussion? Seeing none. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. Motion prevails. Commissioner Cox. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to approve cooperative maintenance agreement number 18224 between the city of Lake Elmo and Washington County.

Second. Moved and seconded. Discussion? Just Grant appreciates a cooperative agreement with Lake Elmo. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carries. There you go, Mr. Giesen. Thank you. Thank you. Next item is with general administration about adopting a resolution for the State Standard Measures Program and authorize the county administrator to file a declaration to participate with the Office of the State Auditor. Eleanor Han, our planner, is going to present. Yes. Madam Chair, Commissioners, good afternoon. As stated earlier, my name is Eleanor Han. I'm a Planner 1 in the Office of Administration. I'm here today to talk to you about the State Standard Measures Program. As a part of this presentation, I will ask for you to consider adopting the provided resolution, as well as authorize County Administrator Kevin Corbid to file the declaration to participate in the Performance Measurement Program and to file the 2026 Performance Measurement Review document with the Office of the State Auditor by July 1st.

Although this is my first time presenting this item to the board, Washington County has been participating in the State Standard Measures Program for 15 years now. As a background on the program, in 2010, the legislature created the Council on Local Results and Innovation. The council was tasked with creating a standard set of 10 measures for the cities and 10 measures for counties for information sharing and reporting purposes. This list of measures was revised in 2013 to allow more measures for cities and counties to select from and use as a part of the program. Participation in the program is voluntary A county that elects to participate may be eligible for funding on a per capita basis, not to exceed $25,000. Washington County has had a longstanding commitment to performance measurement and continuous quality improvement and is able to participate in the program with little additional work. Again, the county has participated in this program since 2011.

First, a little bit about performance measures in general. Performance measures are a quantitative assessment or qualitative measure of an activity or outcome. Performance measures are a systematic way of collecting, analyzing, and evaluating how well a program, project, or initiative is on track to achieve its goals. Washington County collects an enormous amount of data points across all departments and from a variety of different sources. Washington County departments collect their own data, such as tracking of the county website visits, but departments also collect information from other agencies such as the state departments and the Met Council, or even through the national census. The county uses these reliable metrics to help inform county's plans, goals, and action items.

Although the county tracks over 1,000 metrics, this report to the state only gives us 27 options to choose from. They limit the number of options for this particular report in order to increase consistency across the counties and cities participating in the program, and to improve opportunities for comparison. In addition, by reporting on the same indicators over time, we are able to identify trends and concerns or successes across time specific to Washington County. Through this program, Washington County chose 10 of the performance measures from that list of 27. We take the opportunity to highlight additional performance measures through other means, such as the annual report on community indicators, which you will see later this year, and the community survey. This is the list of the 10 indicators chosen by the county of the 27 identified by the state. As you can see, the report highlights indicators across a variety of departments. This slide shows the entirety of the report.

Obviously, this isn't a very legible scale for you all, though there is a copy in tonight's packet. But we wanted to share this to highlight the length and concise nature of the report. It focuses on the data, makes it easier to navigate the report for those interested in that data, whether that be the public, other counties, the state, or anyone else.

As outlined on the state's website, there are three reporting requirements for successful participation in this program. The first is the resolution, which I mentioned earlier, and is before you for approval today. The next is the actual three-page report, which I briefly just showed to you on the previous slide and is included in the packet, with the 10 indicators and the accompanying dataset. Lastly, Washington County has previously and continues to commit to sharing this document with the public. The county shares this report in a number of ways. The first is on the Washington County website. The county website currently has a performance measurement page where this report and other pertinent information is provided. After Washington County submits the document to the state, the state auditor's website uploads all of the county and cities' reports that have been submitted to their webpage as well. Third, Washington County includes this information in the budget. The report in front of you today is just one of many ways that the county shares data and information.

It is worth mentioning at this point that the county also produces another, more robust annual report later in the year that pulls additional performance measures, and shares that information as well. Some of those indicators are also shared in the county's Staying in Touch quarterly newsletter later this year.

Today, I am requesting that the Washington County Board of Commissioners adopt the resolution and authorize County Administrator Kevin Corbid to file the declaration to participate in the Performance Measurement Program and file the 2026 Performance Measurement Review document with the Office of the State Auditor by July 1st. At this point, I would stand for any questions regarding this. Any questions? Comments? Commissioner Miron. I'll move it to get before us. Move that we adopt a resolution for the State Standard Measures program and authorize County Administrator Kevin Corbid to file a declaration to participate with the Office of the State Auditor. I'll second it. Commissioner Miron. This has been a valuable tool for the county. As we look at our strategic plan, the work that we're doing, the guidance that this provides in our budget process. Just so much information that is garnered by this report. It is, in my opinion, money well spent. It's very, very valuable information.

And I had a chance to visit with Ms. Hann on the way up here this afternoon for our meeting. You do an excellent job presenting And, I'm just pleased that she's with the county, and she told me on the way up that she loves her job. So I think we're- Good... fortunate for that as well. Good. Thank you, Ms. Hahn, for your presentation. Well done. This is one of my favorite things that we do as a county because it drives our decisions to appropriate funding and to target grants and also to show that where we're investing is producing outcomes that we are striving for, and where to improve. So, appreciate that. If there's no further discussion, then the clerk will take the roll. Commissioner Miron? Aye. Commissioner Karwoski? Aye. Commissioner Cox? Aye. Commissioner Bigham? Aye. Resolution passes four zero. Thank you. Thank you. Anything else under general administration, Administrator Corbid? No, Madam Chair. Okay. Sounds good. Commissioner reports.

Commissioner Miron, do you want to kick us off? Personnel committee met. Most of the issues we dealt with on the consent calendar, we've got an issue that we'll be talking about more. Commissioner Cox organized a meeting with Two Rivers, and we had an opportunity just to have a candid discussion about the work that they're doing and the opportunities they provide within Washington County. Our Budget and Outcomes Committee of the Clean Water Council met. We reviewed the last round of applications for funding from the Clean Water Council. We had our board workshop last week. The Metropolitan Emergency Services Board executive committee met. We talked and reviewed the operational budget and recommended that to the full committee, so that'll be coming before the committee. We also reviewed our capital needs. And then the joint powers agreement for MESB needs to be signed again, so that'll be coming to the counties as part of that process. So, the Clean Water Council met all day yesterday, and we took public input on the programs that were being proposed, met in small groups and identified important aspects related to the budget process and that type of thing. So, we'll be moving forward with those budget recommendations in the coming months.

One of the things that was reported on, though, and I serve on the Budget and Outcomes Committee, but there is also a policy committee on the Clean Water Council. And one of the more emerging concerns is the impact of chloride to our water bodies, and the policy committee developed a policy. I didn't bring it with me today, but I want to make sure that we have an opportunity to review that from a public health standpoint, from a public work standpoint, to see what impacts that policy might have on at least those two departments. And then, this afternoon, I just had a brief opportunity to join the Community Development Agency for their employee appreciation recognition event. But it was short-lived because I had to get over here. But interesting statistics that were shared about Washington County and affordability of housing. They had three panelists that spoke, and I think some of that information was really helpful to me, identifying how prosperous we are as a county, but how unaffordable we are to live in this county, and then the difficulty that creates for people on the margins. So, that's all I have, Madam Chair.

Commissioner Cox. Thank you, Madam Chair. As Commissioner Miron mentioned, the personnel committee met, and then he was kind enough to join me at the Two Rivers Community Land Trust meeting with Ms. Carly Schumann as well. I just had questions about it and learned a ton, actually. So, very excited about that program. Attended with Director Thomas, who just stepped out. The East Central Regional Juvenile Center Advisory Committee meeting, he chairs that. I'm so grateful for his leadership there and for that partnership that we have with those needs that our county has. Another Stillwater Prison decommissioning meeting. It's all prison all the time, it feels like some days. The City of Lake Elmo, so a huge thank you. The public works team was in here, but to Director Wayne Sandberg and then to Kevin Peterson, for including me at a Lake Elmo capital planning meeting. So, just making sure the county and the city are on the same page as we look forward to the next five years of capital improvement planning. And then was able to attend, just yesterday, the AMC District 10 meeting with Commissioner Bigham.

It's always good to just hear what the other metro counties are looking at and are concerned about and planning ahead for next year already. So, it was great to be there. Commissioner Karwoski. Thank you, Madam Chair. Several highlights for me was I attended the last Water Consortium meeting, and what was of particular interest, both presentations were on the impact of motorboats. I'm actually working with a resident on Tanners Lake that has some shoreline erosion. So it was really the Water Consortium meeting was on the impact of boats and shoreline erosion. And also, another interesting Very in-depth. The U of M extension was involved in these, and even a boat, depending on the lake bottom, if a boat's 10 feet out of the water, and if it's powerful enough and long enough, it has some impact on the aquatics of the bottom of the lake bottom. So, very interesting. Attended an Hour Car event, which has been a program established in the Twin City area, largely in St.

Paul and Minneapolis, some of the suburbs. It's basically been grant money, public money, and it's been basically tied to transportation transit systems where someone that doesn't have a car will continue to use transit because maybe they have to go to a doctor appointment. They don't have a car, but they take transit to work and back. They can use this Hour Car for errand. And the reason Washington County was involved is that through East Metro Strong, over the last year or two, they agreed to expand the program along the Gold Line. I'm not sure the date of when they'll get an Hour Car, but it'll be free to use for someone in need. No cost to the city, no cost to the county. There'll be one at the Greenway station, the Helmo station, and the Woodlane station, I think in about the next year. A good opportunity. So they just invited the partners to share where that vision, where the Hour Car is going.

We had a metro workforce meeting of the metropolitan area workforce leaders. As we didn't mention, but our last county board meeting was not a board meeting, but we had six workshops on that last Tuesday. Attended, well, had a mica board meeting here last week, really highlighting the positive session findings. But also this morning, with Executive Director Jessen from MICA, we had an executive committee meeting. And then, as Commissioner Miron pointed out, I was able to go to some of the CDA, Community Development Authority appreciation luncheon, and I was also astounded by that unaffordability of housing. We're the most expensive place to rent, and really the amount of level of modest incomes that really have a difficulty affording rental housing. Really, the way it was presented, I've never seen it that way. It was really like a crisis. And I know we need to recognize affordable housing, but this really hit home. That's all I have, Madam Chair.

Thank you. I attended the NACO Justice and Public Safety meeting. The speaker had a last-minute cancellation, so they had to shuffle. The Great River Rail Commission met in a strategic planning meeting, and that was very good. I think there was a lot of good discussion and planning that went on that they have to figure out the next direction and next step for that. So, met with finance committee. We had a bonding, would you call it a management group discussion after an RFP, and then also authorized Administrator Corbid to let people know we're going to be going for bonds, I think is probably the simplest way of saying it. Then, as it's been mentioned, the AMC District 10 meeting was jam-packed and a lot of really good energy and conversation. And then also, always, the American Legion Post 98 in St. Paul Park does a wonderful Flag Day ceremony, so I was happy to be able to attend that.

If there is nothing else, we do not have any board correspondence, and after we have a break here and adjourn, then we'll have a break. We will be going into the evening portion of the meeting, which is our Washington County Board of Appeal and Equalization. So, seeing no further items on the agenda, we are adjourned.