Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ordinance And Policies topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adopts nonmetallic-mining ordinance; first readings for facility use and HR concealed-carry updates approved as housekeeping
Summary
Supervisors gave unanimous approval to the second reading of an ordinance amending nonmetallic mining rules and heard first readings for facility use and HR policy revisions that align building rules with an existing concealed-carry county ordinance and update workplace policies on care navigation and pets.
The Chippewa County Board unanimously approved the second reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 30, Article 2 of the county code on nonmetallic mining at its Aug. 12 meeting and advanced several facility and human-resources policy updates in first reading.
The mining ordinance (Ordinance 6-25) completed a second reading and vote with no recorded opposition. A representative for a project (Trenton Shutter, project engineer) answered questions during the reading and the board called the vote after confirming no further discussion.
On separate items the board took first readings on updates to the facility use policy and the HR policy manual. The facility use revision clarifies firearm rules to align the county’s building rules with County Ordinance 2-462 concerning concealed carry; the HR handbook revision similarly adjusts concealed-carry language and adds cross-reference to the ordinance. Both were described by staff as housekeeping changes that do not change current practice but bring policy language into conformity with the code. Those items will return for a second reading before final adoption.
Staff also presented a proposed update to the county’s care-navigation/preferred-provider incentive policy. The county is changing vendors and moving from a care-navigation product (Aletheus) to a preferred provider network (Amplify); policy language was adjusted to make the incentive mechanics vendor-neutral while removing procedural steps that applied only to the former vendor. That policy and a pets-in-the-workplace update (which clarifies questions security staff may ask and confirms service animals vs. comfort animals) were presented at first reading.
Board members asked timing questions for the facility use update; staff said the second reading would normally be scheduled for the next county board meeting. No votes were taken on the HR or care-navigation/pets policies at this meeting beyond advancing them in first reading.
