The Cook County Board approved the 2016 proposed levy at $7,298,870, up from the 2015 final levy of $6,16,848, which is an increase of $782,022. This is a 12 percent increase over last year, said Board Chair Heidi Doo-Kirk on September 29.
The biggest increase occurred in the General Revenue fund which will see a 17.62 percent raise over 2015, a raise of $489,478 over last year. The Road and Bridge (R&B) fund will get $237,557 more in 2016, up 14.9 percent over 2015.
Public Health and Human Services will get $56,992 more in 2016, a 4.9 percent bump from 2015.
Two areas saw minor decreases from 2015. The county’s building funds will receive $6,500 less and the Cook County Airport Fund will get $150 less in 2016.
The board set the Truth and Taxation meeting for Tuesday, Dec. 1 at 6 p.m.
Also approved was a levy of $223,550 for the Cook County/Grand Marais Economic Development Authority, the same as last year. Supporting the motion were Commissioners Ginny Storlie, Jan Sivertson and Heidi Doo-Kirk while Commissioners Garry Gamble and Frank Moe voted against the measure.
Highway advisory committee to include citizens
Cook County Administrator Jeff Cadwell brought forth a request to have the county establish a Highway Advisory committee. The committee, said Cadwell, would act as an advisory group similar to Septic Advisory Committee. Its goal would be to promote open discussion, gain public input and departmental knowledge into the planning and prioritization of highway department functions.
Commissioner Moe asked that the committee have countywide representation. The board unanimously passed a motion to form the committee, which will be made up of a commissioner, highway staff and public representation.
Highway Engineer Dave Betts came before the board with two requests concerning the replacement of the Cross River Bridge on County Road 46. The first asked the board to authorize the current consultant to include aesthetic treatments for the bridge in the plans and the second was to make a final selection for the aesthetic treatment style for the bridge.
“Because this bridge is visible to residents and the users of Gunflint Lake, we believe that aesthetic bridge enhancements are appropriate for this project,” Betts told the board. “During our August 26 meeting with residents, they were asked to review examples of optional enhancements for the bridge,” said Betts.
After presenting various pictures of bridges to the residents, they preferred one with a wood railing, and most residents preferred the concrete treatment shown in another picture. “Please note that the additional cost for these aesthetic treatments is estimated to be between $18,000 and $20,000. Because aesthetic treatments are not eligible for bridge bonding, these treatments would be a local cost.”
Erickson Engineering prepared preliminary plans for the bridge, and the board authorized them to include the aesthetic upgrades in their final plans. Betts said preliminary estimates show a cost of $515,000 to replace the bridge, plus an additional cost of $240,000 to install a temporary bridge. He recommended using Minnesota Local Bridge Replacement Funds, commonly referred to as Bridge Bonding, to pay for most of the new structure, with an estimated local cost of $80,000 that would be paid by the county.
Next Betts asked the board to approve LHB Corp.’s proposal for design of the Otis Creek culvert replacement and drainage improvements at an estimated cost of $27,840 (plus $6,200 geotech fees).
Plans are to replace the small culvert on Otis Creek where it crosses County Road 16 (Arrowhead Trail), with a larger culvert and improvements to the approach and to the ditches. Before any of that can take place a review of the watershed and waterway is necessary to help ensure the proper sizing of the new culvert, said Betts, adding that at this time the highway department doesn’t have the capacity to design such a structure.
Betts said his department received five proposals for the work and, “LHB’s proposal ranked number one due to their project approach and hours dedicated to critical project task.”
With his recommendation, the board gave LHB the go ahead to pursue the design work.
Last week commissioners approved a motion for Cook County to enter into a storm water erosion control project on Otis Creek on Amy Neilson’s property at an estimated cost of $3,403. The project will consist of a culvert and a berm on Neilson’s property, which has flooded due to a too-small culvert, which often clogs. Neilson qualified for a Conservation Practice grant of $2,551.50, which will help pay some of the cost of the work.
Definition of farm discussed again
The board discussed the recent decision by the Minnesota Department of Revenue to overturn the county board’s decision to classify Mark Adams’ Hovland property as agricultural.
The board made its decision at the June 17 Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting after Adams argued that he had worked his 40 acres as a farm for 40 years—raising and selling vegetables, livestock, pigs, horses; boarding horses; renting out horses used for logging; as well as running a small sawmill on the property.
However, Alison Plummer, who was the assistant county assessor at the time, argued that Adams had only two acres of tillable land and the state called for 10 acres or more of tillable land to be classified as a farm.
Adams’ argument swayed the commissioners who voted that he retain his agricultural status, which has since been overturned by the state.
Commissioner Gamble said the state’s definition of a farm should be revised to reflect what happens in each county.
Commissioner Moe, who represents the east end of the county where Adams resides, agreed with him, and after discussion the entire board decided to seek legislative relief for Adams and farmers like him in the county.
Assessor Betty Schultz agreed, and she said she would see what could be done for Adams and the other people who are trying to farm in Cook County who also don’t meet the state’s legal definition as farmers. She suggested that the county establish a working group to consider agricultural alternatives.
“The agricultural dynamics in the Arrowhead Region may be different as there is a shorter growing season, poorer quality soils with a much more limited agriculture use,” said Schultz.
Leave a Reply