COMMISSIONER PROCEEDINGS October 13, 2026

The Lake of The Woods County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, October 13th, 2026 at Lake of the Woods County Government Center in the Commissioners’ Room.

Chair Joe Grund called the meeting to order at 9:00a.m. and the Pledge of Allegiance was recited with the following members present: Commissioners: Cody Hasbargen, Ed Arnesen, Jon Waibel, Buck Nordlof, and Joe Grund. Also present was County Auditor-Treasurer Anna Sanchez. 

Motion was made by Commissioner Ed Arnesen, seconded by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen and carried unanimously to approve the agenda with the following changes: add MCIT Voting Members, Constituent Medicare concern, and County TV.

Motion was made by Commissioner Jon Waibel, seconded by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen and carried unanimously to approve the official minutes of September 22nd, 2026.

Kent Christenson spoke with the board about County TV. Stated that fixes have been made to the fiber link. He also spoke on how certain events will only be available via streaming services and no longer be available on County TV starting in the next year.

Motion was made by Commissioner Joe Grund, seconded by Commissioner Jon Waibel and carried unanimously to approve the following claims: Commissioners Warrants $2,317.23; Commissioners Warrants $6,003.58; Commissioners Warrants $18,590.15.

Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Buck Nordlof and carried unanimously to approve the Affidavit of Lost Warrant number 43448 in the amount of $30.00. 

Motion was made by Commissioner Jon Waibel, seconded by Commissioner Buck Nordlof and carried to approve the claims against the County as follows with Commissioner Joe Grund abstaining: Revenue $173,946.82; Road & Bridge $52,871.66; County Development $350.00; EDA $1,417.50; Joint Ditch $83,588.02; and Solid Waste $484,555.27.

AMI Consulting Engineers P.A.                                                     43,500.00 

Christofferson/David                                                                      2,750.00 

Co-Op Services, Inc.                                                                      2,155.00 

Computer Integration Technologies, Inc                                             2,914.00 

Counties Providing Technology                                                         4,583.00 

DHM Companies/DHM Equipment                                                 23,540.00 

Farmers Union Oil company                                                             4,696.69 

Houston Engineering Inc                                                                11,816.00 

Huot Construction & Services Inc                                                   387,853.03 

KC TECH LLC                                                                              2,925.00 

Lakeland Energy Cooperative                                                           4,032.62 

Lano Equipment Inc.                                                                     12,000.00 

Larkin Hoffman Attorneys                                                               6,525.00 

Law Offices Of Patrick D. Moren                                                    25,401.32 

LE-AST Services                                                                            2,906.96 

LOW Highway Dept                                                                     89,479.25 

Mar-Kit Landfill                                                                           19,703.85 

Marco Technologies LLC                                                                 2,222.73 

Northeast Technical Service, Inc                                                     13,796.00 

North Leaf Auto Body                                                                     8,652.22 

Northdale Oil Inc.                                                                         31,283.21 

Pennington County Sheriff Office                                                    22,211.99 

R & Q Trucking, Inc                                                                       5,480.00 

Saber Shred Solutions, Inc                                                                5,233.41 

SeaChange Print Innovations                                                            5,071.00 

University Of Mn                                                                         19,312.50 

Walker Pipe & Supply                                                                     2,685.00 

60 Payments less than 2000                                                           33,999.49 

Final Total:                                                                                796,729.27

Further moved to authorize the payment of the following auditor warrants: September 23rd for $138,653.07; September 24t for $2,101.98; September 30th for $29,000.47; October 7th for $53,806.77; Manual Warrant October 1st for $408,217.31. 

Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Ed Arnesen and carried unanimously to approve lease between Lake of the Woods County and the Department of Public Safety, Driver and Vehicle Services for 5 years starting July 1, 2027 through June 30th, 2032 for a quarterly rent of $75.00 totaling no more than $300.00 per year.

Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Buck Nordlof and carried unanimously to approve the Affidavit of Lost Warrant number 43531 in the amount of $1,191.00.

Motion was made by Commissioner Ed Arnesen, seconded by Commissioner Jon Waibel and carried unanimously to approve the application for Local Option Disaster Abatement as presented.

Motion was made by Commissioner Ed Arnesen, seconded by Commissioner Jon Waibel and carried unanimously to approve to update alternate voting member from Commissioner Buck Nordlof to Commissioner Cody Hasbargen.

Mayor of Williams Chad Lundsten came to the board to learn about the progress towards the demolition of the Williams School. Currently both phase 1 and 2 are complete with phase 3 in progress. Current project costs projected between $2 or 3 million. 

Joe Laurin gave an update on the helicopter pad project for the Northwest Angle with a few different sites that are being discussed along with costs associated with project. He also gave the board an update on historic signs and park updates.

Public Works Director AJ Pirkl gave an update on general ongoing projects including: bridge inspections, landfill building, and JD-24 cleaning. Also discussed the road tour set for October 21st at 1 p.m. with the Ditch meeting to be held later the same day at 6 p.m.

Lot Seven (7), Block One (1), Sandy Shores Second Addition, Section Seventeen (17), Township One Hundred Sixty-Three (163) North, Range Thirty-Three (33) West (Prosper)- Parcel ID #16.57.01.070. Applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit, in accordance with Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the movement of more than ten (10) yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of constructing an access and repair/maintenance of existing rock rip rap. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.

Motion was made by Commissioner Jon Waibel, seconded by Commissioner Ed Arnesen and carried unanimously to approve the following Conditional Use Permit #26-05CU by Paul and Nikole Baumgartner to allow the movement of more than 10 yards of material within the shore impact zone with thru purpose of constructing an access and repair/maintenance of existing rock rip rap.

Name of Applicant:  Paul and Nikole Baumgartner                                             Date:  October 13, 2026

 Location/Legal Description:  Lot 7, Block 1, Sandy Shores 2nd Addition, Section 17, Township 163 North, Range 33 West - Prosper                     Parcel Number: 16.57.01.070

Project Proposal:  Applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit, in accordance with Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the movement of more than ten (10) yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods for the purpose of constructing an access and repair/maintenance of existing rock rip rap. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.

1)  Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan?                                                                                                                                                 YES (X) NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not?  Shoreline protection and allowing access to Lake of the Woods provides a balanced approach to land use planning taking into account individual rights and protection of the natural environment.

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

Why or why not?  Safe access to Lake of the Woods and protecting the shoreline reduces the sedimentation to the lake.  

3)     Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution, including sedimentation and nutrient loading?                                                                                                                                               YES (X) NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not?  Proper installation of rock rip rap prevents and controls the sedimentation and nutrient loading on Lake of the Woods. Proper installation of erosion control methods for the access will prevent and control water pollution.

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

Why or why not?  The rock rip rap is already present and the proposed access is limited to DNR width requirements. 

5)     Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway of rivers or tributaries?                          YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not? Is not located in a floodplain or floodway of a river or tributary.  

6)     Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal?                                   YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not?  Temporary and permanent erosion control is to be implemented.        

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

Why or why not?  Project has no additional impact on existing access roads (Sandy Shores Drive) as the property is under development.

8)     Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses?                                       YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not?  Adjacent property is comprised of permanent and seasonal dwellings.

9)  Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location?           

Why or why not?  Rock rip rap stabilizes the shoreline and a summer/winter access to the lake addresses the issue of no public accesses in the vicinity.

10)    Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal system adequate to accommodate the project proposal?                                                                                                                   YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not?  Project proposal has no bearing on the liquid waste or sewage disposal; however, the property has sites to properly address sewage disposal.

11)    Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with Section 901 of the Zoning Ordinance?                             YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not?  The project proposal has no further bearing on the visibility from the lake.      

12)    Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems?               YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not?  The project proposal has no bearing on the water supply or septic system; however, the lot has a drilled will and adequate sites for a septic system. 

13)    Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project proposal will generate?                                                                                                                         YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not?  Lake of the Woods is approximately 300,000 acres.

14)    If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or other hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements, has a permit been sought?                          

                                                                                                                        YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not?  The project does not consist of above or below ground storage tanks.

15)    Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties?       

Why or why not?  No fencing and/or screening is proposed. 

16)    If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties to the extent possible?                     

                                                                                                                        YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not?  No signage is proposed.

17)    If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed?                                                                                                         YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not?  Proposed project will not generate additional traffic. 

The answers to the questions above, together with the facts supporting the answers and those other facts that exist in the record, are hereby certified to be the Findings of the County Board of Commissioners.

The specific reasons for denial or conditions of approval are as follows:

              October 13, 2026                                             _____________________________________

                        Date                                                                             Joe Grund

                                                                                                        Chair, County Board

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

Lot Ten (10), Block One (1), Hooper Creek, Section Eighteen (18), Township One Hundred Sixty-One (161) North, Range Thirty-One (31) West (Baudette)- Parcel ID # 24.63.01.100. Applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit, in accordance with Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the movement of more than ten (10) yards of material within the shore impact zone of Hooper Creek and more than 50 cubic yards outside of the shore impact zone to re-slope a portion of the bank. This portion of Hooper Creek is considered an Agricultural River Segment.

Motion was made by Commissioner Ed Arnesen, seconded by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen and carried unanimously to approve the following Conditional Use Permit #26-06CU by Dale and Krisann Thortsen to allow more than 10 yards of material within the shore impact zone of Hooper Creek and more than 50 cubic yards outside the shore impact zone to re-slope a portion of the bank.

Name of Applicant:  Dale and Krisann Thortsen                                                 Date:  October 13, 2026

 Location/Legal Description:  Lot 10, Block 1, Hooper Creek, Section 18, Township 161 North, Range 31 West – Baudette

Parcel Number: 24.63.01.100

Project Proposal:  Applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit, in accordance with Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the movement of more than ten (10) yards of material within the shore impact zone of Hooper Creek and more than 50 cubic yards outside of the shore impact zone to re-slope a portion of the bank. This portion of Hooper Creek is considered an Agricultural River Segment.

1)  Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan?                                                                                                                                                 YES (X) NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not?  The Lake of the Woods County Board is clear about the types of values important to the county. Specific to this request:

·       Local influence over policy decisions that affect county citizens.

·       Conservation of the resources in the county. This project will only affect what has already been disturbed. No natural vegetation is to be disturbed.

·       Balancing environmental protection objectives and individual rights. 

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

Why or why not?  There will be a natural buffer between the excavation and Hooper Creek. Additionally, safety of the landowner and guests is the main driver. Lastly, proper erosion control methods will prevent sedimentation to Hooper Creek.

9)     Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution, including sedimentation and nutrient loading?                                                                                                                                               YES (X) NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not? Proper erosion control methods will prevent water pollution to Hooper Creek.

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

Why or why not?  The project proposal is to make the existing topography more suitable for access and safety concerns.

11)  Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway of rivers or tributaries?                          YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not?  The project will not be located in the floodplain and/or floodway of Hooper Creek.  

12)  Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal?                                   YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not?  Proper erosion control methods are to be implemented.         

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

Why or why not?  Project has no additional impact on existing access roads.

14)  Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses?                                       YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not?  Adjacent property is comprised of permanent and seasonal dwellings.

9)  Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location?           YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not? Property location is within the shoreland area of Hooper Creek.

11)    Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal system adequate to accommodate the project proposal?                                                                                                                   YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not?  Project proposal has no bearing on the liquid waste or sewage disposal; however, the property has a compliant septic system.

14)    Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with Section 901 of the Zoning Ordinance?                             YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not?  The project proposal has no further bearing on the visibility from Hooper Creek.         

15)    Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems?               YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not?  The project proposal has no bearing on the water supply or septic system; however, the lot has a drilled will and compliant septic system. 

16)    Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project proposal will generate?                                                                                                                         YES (X)  NO (  )  N/A (  )

Why or why not?  The Rainy River has approximately 20 miles within Lake of the Woods County and Lake of the Woods is approximately 300,000 acres in size. 

18)    If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or other hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements, has a permit been sought?                          

                                                                                                                        YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not?  The project does not consist of above or below ground storage tanks.

19)    Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties?       

Why or why not?  No fencing and/or screening is proposed. 

20)    If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties to the extent possible?                     

                                                                                                                        YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not?  No signage is proposed.

21)    If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed?                                                                                                         YES (  )  NO (  )  N/A (X)

Why or why not?  Proposed project will not generate additional traffic. 

The answers to the questions above, together with the facts supporting the answers and those other facts that exist in the record, are hereby certified to be the Findings of the County Board of Commissioners.

The specific reasons for denial or conditions of approval are as follows: 

                  October 13, 2026                                          _____________________________________

                        Date                                                                             Joe Grund

                                                                                                        Chair, County Board

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

Motion was made by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Jon Waibel and carried unanimously to approve Josh Stromlund to sign on Chair Joe Grunds behalf.

The following resolution was offered by Commissioner Cody Hasbargen, seconded by Commissioner Ed Arnesen and carried unanimously to approve the following:

Be it resolved that Lake of the Woods County enter into a grant agreement with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, for traffic safety enforcement projects during the period from October 1, 2026 through September 30th, 2027.

Sergeant Russell Platz is hereby authorized to execute such agreements and amendments as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of Lake of the Woods County and to be the fiscal agent and administer the grant.

Discussion with concerned constituent on the varying costs of Medicare across counties.

Motion was made by Commissioner Ed Arnesen, seconded by Commissioner Jon Waibel and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 10:12 a.m.

 

Attest:                                                                         October 13, 2026

________________________________                    _________________________________

Auditor/Treasurer Anna Sanchez                               Chair Joe Grund