[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6115356,"mediaKeyId","2739299-1d1cf7b666d2962095ecad6659c62889","parentId",2739299,"title","Votes at a glance: McLeod County board approves parks tree trimming contract, fairgrounds PA system payment, road contracts and other routine items","audioSeconds",183,"startMs",1285750,"endMs",1469020,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2739299-1d1cf7b666d2962095ecad6659c62889&start=1285&end=1469","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2739299-1d1cf7b666d2962095ecad6659c62889/thumbnail_1285750.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6115356/Minnesota/Votes-at-a-glance-McLeod-County-board-approves-parks-tree-trimming-contract-fairgrounds-PA-system-payment-road-contracts-and-other-routine-items","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6115356-e95db5d8be55caf40bc8aaa3afa8dcf6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771152457&Signature=BsultqVNZg4hnyKgI1MehyZf9URJ7t43wwYCX-3~s6PMAI9MlGcytMSMwKnYekcyq4s8wJWQqDS6zXAcv4aOJd~jEgCsfxCbR8UzdWWacZ~HzK~jDUm3o202w-nGMTvGKIhuf2~l4-9XHF3AgSLvcgfIpu6UebDg1gZnO3gFG64986ZltIpMZZNqmk89wAPjdaPPmdNPVDnUGxhyXTirQ84HQTP2~fuygxRy4CADP3oQupn0i7-miCOw2-pFEimZC~HF6krBAIOCofqvTDY4As6Fmzhoj2-kyjcYzK5AqY1REe0qwYjkacAFduPRNvyAhHGdkPIL6sqTJY7xOXuyOA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","McLeod County, MN","date","2025-03-22T20:13:05.687Z","article","The McLeod County Board of Commissioners voted on a series of routine expenditures, contracts and agreements during the meeting. Key actions passed by the board included authorization of a parks tree‑trimming contract, a payment toward a public‑address system at the fairgrounds, write‑offs of small uncollectible receivables, a joint powers agreement with the city of Winstead for a resurfacing project, and awards for several highway construction and marking contracts.

Parks tree trimming: The board approved an estimate from JGS Enterprise LLC (Resort, Minnesota) for parks tree‑trimming at $250 per hour, not to exceed $75,000, to be paid from American Rescue Plan Act coronavirus relief funds. Parks staff explained the contractor will perform trimming across all six county parks; chipping and hauling will be done by county staff. A second estimate from MC Tree Service (Hutchinson) was $365 per hour. Motion to approve was made and seconded; the motion carried.

Fairgrounds PA system: The board approved payment of $7,261.62 to the McLeod County Ag Association toward purchase and installation of a public‑address system connecting Century Hall and several livestock buildings; total equipment and installation cost is $12,111, with the Ag Association paying $4,849.38. Funds will come from the fairgrounds capital budget. Motion carried.

Write‑offs: The board authorized writing off three small outstanding receivable amounts totaling $984.06 that county staff determined were cost‑prohibitive to pursue through collections. County staff described multiple reminder invoices and the administrative cost of pursuing small claims as the rationale. Motion by Commissioner Gerger to write off the amounts, seconded by Commissioner Wright, carried.

Joint powers agreement — Winstead resurfacing: The board approved a joint powers agreement with the City of Winstead for the 2025 joint resurfacing project. The city will perform water main repairs and associated engineering/inspection and pay water main repair costs; the agreement defines rights, obligations and cost‑sharing. Motion carried.

Highway contracts and awards:
- Awarded County Projects CP02500001 and CP02500002 (2025 pavement marking and sealcoat project) to Marsh Sealcoat & Trucking, Inc. of Morris, Minnesota, at $485,294.75 (engineer’s estimate $587,050.84); other bids ranged from about $516,000 to $550,000. Motion carried.
- Awarded County Project 025000005 (2025 route and seal project) to Camco Inc. of Dassel, Minnesota, at $47,658.65; the engineer’s estimate was $77,180. The packets originally posted online were corrected to show all bids. Motion carried.

For each approved contract, the board noted the funding source as indicated in the staff report (for example, parks tree trimming from ARPA funds; pavement marking from highway construction budget; fairgrounds payment from the fairgrounds capital budget).

Several of these items generated brief clarifying questions from commissioners (for example, whether contractors were aware of the $75,000 cap on the parks work, and whether PA speakers’ angles would be adjusted); staff provided responses on scope, installation plans and logistics. All listed motions carried; the record did not include a roll‑call tally for individual yes/no votes.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","McLeod County Board Meeting March 18th, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The McLeod County Board approved a set of routine contracts and payments, including a parks tree trimming contract using ARPA funds, payment toward a fairgrounds PA system, write‑off of small receivables, a resurfacing joint powers agreement with Winstead, and several highway contracts.","taxTitle","McLeod County, Minnesota","taxId",73157,"location","Minnesota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6115361,"County engineer outlines McLeod County five‑year highway construction plan and funding sources",1362,1501770,2864070,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2739299-1d1cf7b666d2962095ecad6659c62889&start=1501&end=2864","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2739299-1d1cf7b666d2962095ecad6659c62889/thumbnail_1501770.jpg","/articles/6115361/Minnesota/County-engineer-outlines-McLeod-County-fiveyear-highway-construction-plan-and-funding-sources","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6115361-cf97b6592ef3929579ffb5aee30eb739/orig.mp4?Expires=1771152457&Signature=A~LYc9NodALke6n1muIEfihAPJS1BGHQVRQKoUpZIkDcfUzD1ncsFF411b5~OpNDzIcuRVpIq5FZOx8Eg0rivTRTL0SyFLh4NMZc7uvAGu65w6s~k~SNIegd0EKmm7vCl6Uz6dc~pXjCoEU-XEjXENRz1qMh1uI8XQItdo8nOpxsGVzhpQ2FN~6KpUEo6IUctas1Pos47jKJojVVvMFQsXPdHVca5MVA3nWC85wJaEji8CpTbbfiTDYnFw~t1UujBlHbI87Zlm31kbuViXgmSLgetr5fLYBQQ261vBg0ij31WnNvZl6airkpspob0eyr0TV27pPRpL~kQoPfqgqTjQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","County Engineer Andrew presented the McLeod County five‑year highway construction plan and a countywide pavement management overview to the Board of Commissioners.

Andrew told the board McLeod County maintains about 390 miles of roadway, including approximately 255 miles of county‑state‑aid highways. He summarized funding sources — the Highway User Distribution Fund (fuel tax, motor vehicle sales tax and related revenues), county state aid, and a half‑percent local option sales tax enacted in 2020 — and reported that the county’s 2024 county state aid allocation was about $6.7 million, of which roughly 60% ($4.07 million) is typically earmarked for construction and 40% for maintenance. He said local option sales tax receipts have risen from roughly $2.4 million to about $3.2 million annually in recent years.

Andrew explained pavement‑management priorities and unit cost estimates used in project planning: sealcoats at about $27,000 per mile (8–10 year life), minor bituminous rehabs averaging roughly $175,000 per mile (10–12 year life), major bituminous rehabs about $360,000 per mile (15–20 year life), concrete overlays roughly $700,000–$750,000 per mile (25–40 year life), rural reconstruction approximately $1.7 million per mile, and urban reconstruction around $3.2 million per mile. He emphasized the cost‑effectiveness of timely preventive maintenance versus later reconstruction.

For 2025, Andrew listed two principal projects: a concrete overlay on County Road 1 from County Road 202 to the north county line, and reconstruction of Hennepin Avenue from 13th Street to 20th Street in Glencoe. He said the county will include MnDOT projects on planning maps, noting MnDOT will construct crossovers on U.S. 212 this year to support a 2026 bridge replacement. Andrew described the 2026 program as more comprehensive, with a federally funded concrete overlay on County Road 18 (funded through regional solicitation/ATP) and several minor and major bituminous reha‑bilitation projects.

Board members asked about prioritization methods. Andrew summarized the county’s methodology: biennial pavement inspections using MnDOT’s pavement inspection vehicle (ride data, surface defects, crack types and counts), traffic levels, priority routes, pavement age and crash data. He said the county groups projects by region to improve bid pricing and may collect additional traffic counts where state data are insufficient.

Commissioners raised local concerns: pedestrian crossing and lighting on County Road 1 in Winstead; potential changes in traffic patterns on County Road 33 due to adjacent roundabout projects; bridge funding uncertainty given the state bridge bond program’s funding status; and timing for specific township bridge projects. Andrew said the state bridge bond program is currently out of money and that county bridge work depends on legislative action or internal reprioritization. He noted one bridge (Virgin Township over Buffalo Creek) is in the plan and eligible under the town bridge program.

Andrew closed by noting that the plan’s first two years are more certain and that later years are subject to change based on funding and board priorities. The board will incorporate the five‑year plan into a broader systemwide transportation plan that will address long‑term maintenance and potential widening projects.","County Engineer Andrew presented the 2025–2029 highway construction plan, described funding sources including county state aid and local option sales tax, and outlined project types, estimated costs per mile, and major projects planned for 2025–2029.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6115366,"McLeod County commissioners deny conditional‑use permit after planning commission recommended denial",601,30150,632000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2739299-1d1cf7b666d2962095ecad6659c62889&start=30&end=632","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2739299-1d1cf7b666d2962095ecad6659c62889/thumbnail_30150.jpg","/articles/6115366/Minnesota/McLeod-County-commissioners-deny-conditionaluse-permit-after-planning-commission-recommended-denial","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6115366-0126aedfbbdb633050cc6abda7567930/orig.mp4?Expires=1771152457&Signature=RiIVmA1-IEohT8bBe2zzFOkofUDJDSf75qmmz~zq7pxgwlfBsJBkH~0ENqCuAbrkhm-2h6qxI0kaReV-lIoganGxJFKsfQZU3Y2HIrywt77aH56LH~ylhCipPuGPgqJlZEgPjMwrTrHHSCu6n16iJVzA7smLzGSjiDH0w6hAhD4TvKvrRieEub9F5VSAuQUkju1DDKZiju9pNQACKimLDQWM03MXO6H0bZv46J1amLHbzoQ4sovWWMR4QaVdhXEywkbfMeZVIXT1MbxNmpjspoo2-lbkNdIqBuhKFp-d~MgfJ5b2apOt4RXcm0VAetGNR4eU5rzTU8LGNgPYg6Mx3A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The McLeod County Board of Commissioners voted to deny a conditional‑use permit for an unnamed applicant after the county Planning Commission recommended denial on Feb. 13, 2025.

County planning staff recommended denial based on the Planning Commission’s findings of fact: the request “is not in harmony with the general purpose of the area,” intensified activity would “lead to direct conflict with neighbors,” and a home‑occupation designation is not allowed because “there is no dwelling on this property.” The commission reviewed applicable county standards in Section 17 of the zoning ordinance and performance standards in Section 16, and cited state statute 394.301 as the statutory authority that permits the county to impose conditions when issuing conditional‑use permits.

Planning and zoning staff member Mark explained the specific review criteria the Planning Commission applied, including impacts on neighboring property enjoyment, property values, orderly development, utilities and access, parking, and measures to prevent nuisances such as odor, dust and noise. Mark told the board the closest neighboring house is at the parcel described in the record as “17969200 and Fortieth Street, Hutchinson, Minnesota,” and that the application parcel sits roughly 265 feet from that residence.

During discussion, a commissioner asked whether the applicant could pursue the same business on another parcel. Planning staff replied that the applicant may research other parcels that do not abut residences; if circumstances change — for example, if the applicant acquired the neighboring parcel with a dwelling — the application would materially change and the applicant could reapply.

The applicant addressed the board, saying he and others had talked with neighbors following the Planning Commission hearing and that “the adjoining property is actually at this point willing to sell us their property with the home on it, and we're just waiting on an appraisal to work through that process. I feel like we've gone through all the steps to be able to make all the surrounding properties happy, and we're more than willing to compromise with any of them on the details of the planning to make sure that it's not an eyesore or any of their concerns get addressed through the planning process.” The applicant requested the board grant the permit now with the option to revoke later; commissioners responded that acquisition of the neighboring dwelling would change the application and likely require a new application.

After further questions from several commissioners about the scale of the proposed accessory building, the role of the Planning Commission’s findings and the need to respect that body’s review, a commissioner moved to deny the permit; the motion was seconded (second by Commissioner Krueger) and carried. The board did not provide a roll‑call vote count in the record.

Board members and staff repeatedly noted the applicant’s right to reapply if the property circumstances change and emphasized that the denial reflected the application as presented to the county for the specific parcel under review.

The denial preserves the Planning Commission’s findings, and staff advised that a materially different application (for example, including a dwelling on the parcel) should be brought back through the normal application process.","The McLeod County Board of Commissioners voted to deny a conditional‑use permit after the Planning Commission found the request out of harmony with the area, likely to intensify activity conflicting with neighbors, and ineligible as a home occupation because no dwelling exists on the parcel.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: McLeod County board approves parks tree trimming contract, fairgrounds PA system payment, road contracts and other routine items

County engineer outlines McLeod County five‑year highway construction plan and funding sources

McLeod County commissioners deny conditional‑use permit after planning commission recommended denial