[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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",[32,75,87],{"_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":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6170881,"mediaKeyId","5395311-fd3c81486047cf6859cefe1c39da7590","parentId",5395311,"title","Commissioners decline to order full environmental assessment for Prairie Lakes gravel petition after heated debate","audioSeconds",5050,"startMs",6807000,"endMs",11857000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5395311-fd3c81486047cf6859cefe1c39da7590&start=6807&end=11857","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5395311-fd3c81486047cf6859cefe1c39da7590/thumbnail_6807000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6170881/Becker-County/Minnesota/Commissioners-decline-to-order-full-environmental-assessment-for-Prairie-Lakes-gravel-petition-after-heated-debate","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6170881-43d61222c775bc23c7ce7b2ba753b510/orig.mp4?Expires=1771052910&Signature=UsVLVZi30GtxrTFRSM2naXvtzrl34xzeQeH79brpMKIzL~rnF92EAX5CgIAY6MZQ9KAd7rGzBru9pwCQLZB4pAfYTwoEV22D6CDSDPG~cd70nTe6sAf27V~D4QE6eJWxtMQLMIIBc-DrLKlKx1o6tj2lkv9jViSHqLXP87MIBAsa0~mtu0rtjQtAG7oneayD3Lnqy5ya9NCej94KLceDyvyzlugZw2aHRYSEg7jT6sVRsoKeq7tGSwCWe9s-l-cv8GUWRbMd4UXfDpawCK5i4TiLe1MiCRd14rB2380qRanzqDYnjgx6mpmjk5Sb2B3xMaPkRVrYgUWRUCrlFYBSGQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Becker County, MN","date","2025-07-16T04:19:00.597Z","article","Becker County commissioners declined a petition to order a discretionary Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for a proposed Prairie Lakes gravel-mining conditional-use permit at their July 15 meeting, after a multi-hour public hearing and substantial testimony from neighbors, the project proponent and technical reviewers.

Attorney Tammy Norgard, representing several nearby property owners, urged the board to order an EAW, saying the application before the county was “sorely insufficient” to evaluate potential impacts from dust, noise, vibration, groundwater and nearby residential development. Norgard said the applicant’s mining-operational plan lacked a staging plan, a reclamation plan, screening details, dust-control specifics and truck-count projections—material elements, she argued, that the county’s ordinance requires when evaluating a mining conditional-use permit.

County staff convened a technical review panel that raised questions about missing information; staff asked the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for technical input on airborne constituents, but the agency could not provide an expert to attend the local review and instead sent guidance noting that an air-permit applicability determination would be required for the mine. Becker County Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD), which reviewed wetland potential and soil/water concerns, recommended the county did not need an EAW for the parcel after a site visit that found no Jurisdictional wetlands under the Wetland Conservation Act, but urged that the applicant submit a reclamation plan before a conditional-use permit is issued.

In public comment, neighbors described concerns about proximity (homes within roughly 100–200 feet of the proposed extraction area), possible dust and health effects, impacts to property values and recreational uses nearby, and requests that the board require more detail before approving any mining activity. The applicant and supporters said the parcel contains sand and gravel the developer needs to remove to develop housing and that similar operations exist in the county without an EAW; the developer’s representative said ongoing operations can be regulated by permit and by conditions the board could impose.

Commissioners discussed three core options: (1) grant the petition and order a discretionary EAW, (2) deny the petition (no EAW) and proceed with review under the county’s conditional-use process or (3) ask the applicant to withdraw or supplement the application and resubmit with more detailed plans. Several commissioners signaled concern that the application lacked key plans and that approving the permit without fuller information could expose the county to legal risk on appeal.

A motion to deny the petition to order an EAW was made on the floor and seconded. A formal findings document summarizing the technical review and public input was introduced during the vote and attached to the board’s decision. The board’s motion to deny the EAW petition passed by voice vote. The denial means the board will not require a full EAW at this stage; the applicant may choose to supplement the conditional-use application with additional detail, proceed with required state permit determinations (for example, an MPCA air-permit applicability determination), or pursue a land-alteration permit for on-site work that does not remove materials offsite.

Commissioners and staff emphasized that the conditional-use permit review is a separate process from the EAW decision; staff and the technical review committee had recommended the application lacked some details the county normally expects and asked the applicant to provide additional plans and data. Becker County legal staff and county planners told the board they would document the factual bases for the decision in the administrative record. The board also received a written recommendation from Becker County Soil & Water Conservation District stating no WCA wetlands were observed in the mining footprint during a site visit and recommending a reclamation plan be submitted before final permit approval.

The board closed the matter at the meeting with the official vote recorded as denial of the petition to order an EAW. The developer and affected residents may continue to engage through the county’s conditional-use permit process and required state permitting steps.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","July 15, 2025 Becker County Board of Commissioners Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Becker County commissioners voted not to order a discretionary Environmental Assessment Worksheet for a proposed Prairie Lakes gravel mine after hearing competing testimony from neighbors, technical reviewers and the developer.","taxTitle","Becker County, Minnesota","taxId",56037,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6170887,"Becker County opts for private plan to implement state paid family and medical leave, estimates county share about $116,000 annually",4234,2078000,6312000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5395311-fd3c81486047cf6859cefe1c39da7590&start=2078&end=6312","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5395311-fd3c81486047cf6859cefe1c39da7590/thumbnail_2078000.jpg","/articles/6170887/Becker-County/Minnesota/Becker-County-opts-for-private-plan-to-implement-state-paid-family-and-medical-leave-estimates-county-share-about-116000-annually","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6170887-ced3e2e4c8f25da764ed7dd996757b31/orig.mp4?Expires=1771052910&Signature=bSnSHPB1zix0lJ4k4tmAtUDLkljagKVMhxazqunklyTEb~v0WzG~1z8HZmqTI6apUJuIYwrzhkCwXdH-iNVkzwZnD~5n4HCN-NWFayOZ~86pi0ruinJ6VCfhxVP2d1UgL1oxXpW5AHRLNm2Iosq4mxI4WQCOndIwkuDdUDua~jW0xwWdA8G3fNwR1qWDHrrdFF87JwjyfMrvldRdCKYxHmT~sKIN~9B-wZdJjGK7N7F5XNLAS6ruPl6U73uWHQddmNKn1GAlBZJijgYS2PnW~HB8Raq2919MIYFsgfeyevckTmc0JpYdqdRj7pJA0wi95dhvwIDrL2xOk73z11wbsQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Becker County commissioners voted to use a private insurance plan for the new Minnesota paid family and medical leave program recommended by county human resources staff, the board decided July 15.

Human resources staff presented a comparison between the state-administered PFML program rate (0.88% of wages) and a private plan quote (0.79%) that the county could enroll in. Staff said the private plan—offered through MetLife in the materials presented—would lock the lower 0.79% rate for at least two years and that the county could avoid a likely future state rate increase. HR staff noted a one-time $500 state filing fee is required to register a private plan for county employees; staff said the lower percentage saves the county and employees more than enough to offset that fee.

Commissioners asked multiple budgetary questions. County HR and finance staff corrected and clarified earlier figures and provided an annual cost estimate for the county share. After correcting an initial misread of monthly versus annual figures, staff said the county’s estimated annual employer share would be approximately $116,007 under the selected plan. Commissioners discussed that the program is split 50–50 between employer and employee under current law, and asked about the county’s ability to adjust if the state later amends rates or program rules.

The board voted to approve the HR recommendation to enroll in the private plan option and to proceed with the registration steps. Commissioners were told the private-plan arrangement carries no long-term contract with MetLife and that the county could opt out later; staff noted the private plan provides a rate guarantee for a limited period but that further state changes could alter requirements and costs going forward.

HR staff also told the board that the county will need to finalize internal policy details—specifically whether employees may “supplement” PFML benefits with accrued paid leave (sick/vacation) and how that will interact with the county’s catastrophic leave bank—and that policy decisions must be finalized prior to January 1, when the state program takes effect.

The board approved HR’s recommendation by voice vote; staff will complete the plan registration and return with implementation details and recommended policy language for employee leave supplementation before the end of the year.","The county approved enrolling in a private paid family and medical leave (PFML) plan with MetLife to lock a lower rate (0.79% vs. the state 0.88%), with an estimated county share roughly $116,000 annually. The board approved HR's recommendation after discussion about costs and administrative details.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6170892,"Becker County approves five-year rental for filtered water and ice machines after debate",3580,644000,4224000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5395311-fd3c81486047cf6859cefe1c39da7590&start=644&end=4224","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5395311-fd3c81486047cf6859cefe1c39da7590/thumbnail_644000.jpg","/articles/6170892/Becker-County/Minnesota/Becker-County-approves-five-year-rental-for-filtered-water-and-ice-machines-after-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6170892-95fd1e80fb46964f88cc5a506c7c680c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771052910&Signature=Wzu1lO6tV-Ah-YNvoHPPz02FDRXZg8aRNGKiYP0z2YgRDnO2HD5tGPbnPFWQkXLAnbYx5RssfPfrxz-7AxUhKG57eYRBXAYNvCU65CRShswRUAz-Vx9fYg1rtfMTPM76p39y3RPHVmzQTKwYydKUmH-dliVgxBVvuLivSSsNPUp8ad2rLUR0ZlvPKQE~CsaqOor5c2WOwlyf-CTCawADNU~LTBulL8w0cjuKkDm5IADEV2Cs~FgAyYH971knoNbtWzn78AkdiUp7qsq-TqwQKVLBxp5F3S1OUX4g64l-8KCP9LglXUE37bbs3CyaiKfLyZq2uYLCvI8J0bC7DQDlzQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Becker County commissioners voted to approve a five-year rental agreement with Pure Water Technology North to provide filtered water, hot-water dispensers and ice to county facilities, the board decided at its July 15 meeting. The agreement was pulled from the consent agenda for discussion by multiple commissioners and later approved at a separate vote.

The board approved the rental agreement after commissioners debated whether the machines were necessary, whether existing drinking fountains could be used and whether maintenance could be done more cheaply in-house. Commissioner Erica (first name used in meeting) moved to approve the rental agreement; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Richard and carried. At least one commissioner stated on the record they opposed approving the contract without additional price comparisons.

Supporters said staff and building users value the machines because they provide cold water, hot water for beverages and ice, and because some floors lack drinking fountains. A staff member noted the courthouse lacks fountains on the basement and top floors, while county custodial staff and human services employees said the machines have been in place for years and are appreciated by employees.

Opponents sought clarification on alternatives and costs, asking whether installing permanent drinking fountains (two additional units were estimated at about $3,000 each in the discussion) or using existing highway-department equipment might be cheaper than a rental contract. One commissioner said the equipment has been in place for 8–10 years and the rental increases cost by about $20 per month compared with previous service; another commissioner emphasized the board should compare in-house and contract costs before committing to long-term contracts.

County staff said the highway department and other county facilities maintain ice makers and refrigerators, and that some of the questions could be answered by maintenance staff. Commissioners asked staff to confirm whether barbed components of other procurements were required by outside agencies, and asked that maintenance and alternatives be checked before future similar agreements are finalized.

The motion to approve the Pure Water Technology North rental agreement passed after a roll-call-style verbal vote; commissioners present said “aye,” and one commissioner stated on the record they would vote no and that they wanted a cost-comparison before approving similar contracts in the future.

The board moved the water rental agreement out of the consent agenda and treated it as a separate action item, then approved the rental agreement for the county facilities. Staff will follow up with maintenance about longer-term alternatives and report back if additional budgeting or procurement changes are recommended.","Becker County commissioners approved a five-year rental agreement with Pure Water Technology North for filtered water and ice machines for county facilities after several commissioners pressed for cost comparisons and usage details. The motion passed despite at least one commissioner voting no.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commissioners decline to order full environmental assessment for Prairie Lakes gravel petition after heated debate

Becker County opts for private plan to implement state paid family and medical leave, estimates county share about $116,000 annually

Becker County approves five-year rental for filtered water and ice machines after debate