- CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
- Roll Call
- Approval of Agenda
- Approval of Minutes – Regular Meeting – May 12, 2026.
- OUTSIDE AGENCY: Southern Minnesota Initiative Foundation (SMIF) Presentation
- There’s been an explosion in work in Rice County over the last two years.
- Priorities
- Community vitality
- Would like to get the word out into smaller townships beyond Northfield and Faribault.
- Paint the town — paint grants
- Economic development – grant funding round opening up. Some
- coworking spaces
- Succession planning workshops
- Early childhood/childcare
- Funds for school districts, childcare pods, books for kids
- $1.5 million invested in Rice Co over the last couple of years
- Otto Bremer is using SMIF, and the other initiative foundations, as the mechanism for its grantmaking. SMIF doesn’t choose their grantmaking priorities, but passes through and administers the grants to distributes its funds.
- Peters: Good work. Will spread the word.
- PROPERTY TAX & ELECTIONS: Denise Anderson
- All of the following approved unanimously:
- Renewal of On & Off Sale, including Sunday Liquor License for Channel Inn, 23219 Farwell Ave, Warsaw, for the period of July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027
- Renewal of On Sale, including Sunday Liquor License for Red Barn Farm of Northfield, 10063 110th St E, Northfield, for the period of July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027
- Renewal of Wine Liquor License for Veseli Ball Club Inc, 4851 Jackson Ave, Webster, for the period of July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027
- Renewal of On Sale Malt Liquor License for Veseli Ball Club Inc, 4851 Jackson Ave, Webster, for the period of July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027
- Renewal of On & Off Sale, including Sunday Liquor License for Ettlin’s Ranchero Supper Club Inc, 4452 40th St W, Box 36, Webster, for the period of July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027
- Renewal of On & Off Sale, including Sunday Liquor License for Brewster’s Bar & Grill, 9856 50th St W, Veseli, for the period of July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027
- ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES: Julie Runkel
- Approved: Waiver of Plat/Peterson – Section 23, Erin Township
- Approved: Preliminary Plat/Bordignon – Section 13, Erin Township
- Conditional Use Permit/Community Co-Op Oil – Section 1, Walcott Township
- Discussion regarding removing condition disallowing parking vehicles at Community Co-Op Oil space.
- Purfeerst: Community Co-Op Oil is remodeling its space and are tight on space. This space in the country would give them more space.
- Peters: I have no problem with it. They keep a pretty clean site.
- Underdahl: What was the planning commissions’ thinking that they could not park vehicles there?
- Runkle: THis was a pre-existing condition that is being held forward.
- Peters: Should we put a time period on the condition or remove it?
- Runkle: You can do either
- Underdahl: Do we have this condition for other similar companies?
- Runkle: We don’t have something similar to this.
- (Some debate and discussion follows regarding comparable sites)
- Underdahl: Just want to make sure we’re being consistent.
- Malecha: Waterford parks vehicles there.
- Malecha: Good with removing it.
- Purfeerst: Moves to remove condition 6.
- Unanimous approval with removal of condition 6.
- Approved: Conditional Use Permit/Trnka – Section 4, Forest Township
- Approved: Interim Use Permit/Truscott – Section 33, Wells Township
- FACILITIES: Chris Kluge
- Approved: Declare Fleet Vehicle, 2010 Chevrolet Colorado with VIN No. 1GCJTCDEXA126985, as County Surplus
- COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS: Angela Brewer
- Approved: Appointments to the Community Corrections Advisory Board
- Their terms shall be from April 28, 2026, to April 28, 2028.
- Carolyn Treadway, general public member
- Jay Haws, general public member, business representative
- Judge Jeffrey Johnson, Judiciary representative
- Rochelle Marquardt, Community Corrections representative
- Thao Trihn, County Attorney representative
- Fran Davies, Social Service representative
- Paul LaRoche, Law Enforcement representative
- HIGHWAY: Dennis Luebbe
- Approved: Approval of Highway Maintenance Agreement with the City of Faribault
- Approved: Resolution #26-021 and MnDOT Agreement # 1062400
- MnDOT is planning to make improvements to TH 19 from near the intersection of I-35, approximately 4 miles east, to near Decker Avenue later this year. MnDOT proposes using Rice County Highway 59 (Anoka Avenue and 90th Street east) as a detour. MnDOT’s typical detour agreement pays for additional road maintenance costs and road life consumed by the additional traffic. (TH 19 has daily traffic volumes of approximately 10,000 vehicles). Resolution #26-021 and MnDOT Agreement # 1062400 provide compensation to the County in the amount of $8,046.38. The estimated detour period is 15 days. MnDOT will provide media notifications of the detour.
- Approved: Resolution # 26-022 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Aggregate Resource Mapping
- The DNR has approached Rice County to encourage a process to map county aggregate resources. This is intended to provide easily available and understandable maps and GIS datasets. Includes site visits to quarries, and borings on public right-of-way.
- Underdahl: At high level it seems straightforward, but when it gets in the hands of the DNR, there could be a negative consequence years down the road.
- Peters: It would be nice to know what we have out there for future planning. I’d like to map it but I see your point Underdahl.
- Purfeerst: A few years ago this came up. I think it’s a good idea. It’s good to know what we’re sitting on.
- Malecha: We’ve talked about this a few times before, and I think it’s a good idea.
- Hoisington: Elaborate on the negative consequences?
- Underahl: Years in the future, this information can come back and be used in a different format than the way it’s used today.
- Unanimously approved.
- INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: Allan Klug
- Phone system support invoice at ~$30k
- Purfeerst: Is this all of the phones in the county?
- Yes, physical phones, server, and two virtual servers, and call routing. We pay for the phone lines and software licensing.
- Approved unanimously.
- County 20 construction timeline
- Luebbe recommends not doing a county-wide trail plan at this time.
- Highway Department received a $1.5 million grant for Phase 1 construction of County Road 20. The grant timeline is rigid and cannot be extended – construction planning and right of way acquisition for County Road 20 must continue.
- Commissioners previously advised staff to combine Phases 1 and 2 of County Road 20 construction if possible, due to potential cost savings, reduced detour and cost escalations.
- Commissioners have expressed a desire to have a county trail plan with public input developed before deciding or committing to the construction of a trail along County Road 20.
- To meet the grant timeline for County Road 20 construction and determine whether to include a trail in the construction plan, the public input process regarding the rural trail system needs to be greatly narrowed in scope to address only whether a trail should be constructed alongside portions of County Road 20. The public input process must be finished prior to the end of September so that reports, costs, and recommendations can be presented to and acted upon by commissioners in October.
- Environmental Services staff have been asked to lead the public engagement process. To create capacity to do so, Environmental Services staff would need to put zoning ordinance amendments and the preliminary highway commercial district discussions on hold temporarily while this work is completed.
- Staff is asking commissioners to clarify what outcomes they are seeking from a narrowed-in-scope public input process in order to decide whether to invest in trail construction alongside County Road 20.
- Pending the outcome of the public input process for a trail along portions of County Road 20, staff can solicit design/cost options showing County Road 20 construction with a trail and without a trail. Staff will seek input from consultants, other agencies, and trail entities regarding design and construction costs, usability, and ongoing maintenance costs for the County Road 20 design that includes the trail, so that commissioners can see the projected fiscal impact of including a trail as part of County Road 20 construction.
- It is proposed that staff will still deliver on a broader public input process for a rural trail system plan at a later date.
- Discussion
- Hoisington: Are you asking us to separate County 20 from county trail plan?
- Hoisington: Do we have a detailed plan of 20 with and without a trali?
- Hoisington: We need to have a plan to look at to understand how the plan would impact landowners.
- That’s desirable, but not likely possible in this timeframe.
- Hoisington: It’s equally difficult for us to approve or disapprove without really knowing how it will impact land owners. This is controversial.
- We have the impacts to the first phase. I don’t think it’s the acquisition of the property that is controversial, it’s the trail going in front of rural homeowners. So we could acquire the land and then do a deep process to create buffers and consideration. But the bigger question is it the board’s interest to have a trail system through the county. You’ll never be able to get a trail cheaper than along with this highway project. But we don’t have a trail plan, so what does this lead to?
- Peters: Given the calls and emails I’ve received from Cannon City, I’d like to move forward without the trail. In this economic environment, I don’t think we need to put a trail in.
- Purfeerst: Would be in favor of acquiring the land necessary for a trail at this time. I’ve also received a lot of calls saying that we don’t need a trail, and there are other places to bike. But would be in favor of acquiring the land, so that in fifty years, we could do the trail
- We probably couldn’t do that in court, unless we had a plan. We can’t make a case for why we need the right of way, the judge will not likely approve that. So we would need a plan for this trail.
- Folsted: Would you be willing to have us scale back to doing a smaller trail plan? And if so, we could use internal staff or consultants. And if internal staff, what would we postpone.
- Peters: I’d like to see a plan keep going. I’d like to see us move forward with an 8 foot shoulder without a trail, and we make sure this project gets done.
- Underdahl: We need a comprehensive trail plan. Imagine if we’d had a plan in place when this grant came along, then we’d be in a different place. This fits in with trying to connect some of our natural areas. When we brought the trail into the County 20 plan, it made sense in an economic sense. But a trail was not thoroughly embedded in the plans. Before we walk away entirely, I’d like to be able to look at it deeper and address some of the concerns people brought up. This isn’t new to me: the people who live on the trail don’t want it and everyone else does. This puts us in a difficult position. If we had a plan that existed, it would help us weigh this stuff out.
- Peters: I’m all in for going to the west and plugging into state and DNR trails.
- Malecha: We’ve been waiting years for county road 1 planning and zoning. So if the staff put time into this process and put off that work, the impact is not that huge. Agrees with Underdahl that we need to push this a little further. You have to look at this as a quality of life thing. 8’ shoulders are good, but trails and parks add to the quality of your community and county. There are a lot of counties adding bike trails. What if we’re taking the wrong approach, saying “no, no, no.” There are people against this, but there are 65,000 residents of the county, and we have to think about all of them.
- Hoisington: We want to separate trail plan from county 20 plan.
- Folsted: Yes. That’s the first step. Second in internal or external.
- Folsted: What information do you need us to come back to you with so you can make this decision
- Peters: I’d like to hear about maintenance. Fergus Falls doesn’t like their trails because of maintenance.
- Purfeerst: Would be in favor of hiring outside consultants. If we can get the projects up and running while keeping engineers on other projects, we might be able to move quicker.
- Luebbe: The question is what kind of info do you want to glean from public outreach. We’re gathering impact to property owners, maintenance. What would you want as feedback?
- Purfeerst: I thought we were talking about pulling Julie’s staff. We’re going to have a county open house on the whole trail system.
- Eventually, but we need to focus on this section right now.
- Underdahl: I need a defined route, including assessing constructability issues. Costs of project and how it will be born. Maintenance.
- Julie: You’re basically looking at Dundas to Cannon River Wilderness Area. If you wanted our staff to do that, we can do that. We can’t do the whole system by fall.
- Observer had to depart at this point.
