Commissioners discuss snowmobile trail permits and state LUP requirements; county urged to seek legal clarity

Houston County commissioners spent a sustained discussion on state land-use-permit language and its effect on snowmobile clubs and trail sponsorship, and several commissioners asked county staff to send the materials to the county attorney and to seek clarification from state legislators and DNR/DOT staff.

Commissioners and attendees said the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and DOT had sent letters to local clubs asking for removal of trail signage and that the agencies were withholding funds because counties had not signed a recently provided LUP. County speakers said the LUP’s draft language would make the county — as sponsor or fiscal agent — solely liable for accidents on state rights-of-way, a change county attorneys across the region had declined to accept.

"They have made comments about…taking it a step further to make this better. Literally, if they close or remove their signs from the state road right away…snowmobilers could be killed and seriously injured because they would have to remove the signs that they're required by the state and DNR to have," a commissioner said while relaying club concerns. Speakers said the La Crescent Club and Houston Money Creek Snowmobile Club had received letters and that at least some clubs face funding loss that could jeopardize their operations.

Speakers described uncertainty about whether the county is the statutory sponsor for trail permits or only a fiscal agent that distributes funds. One county official said the permit forms distributed to clubs list the sponsor as the county and asked that the county attorney review the club’s landowner-permit documents and the state LUP to determine whether the county is being asked to assume a new liability.

Commissioner feedback included requests to contact state representatives and to forward the clubs’ materials to the county attorney. The board noted that multiple southeast counties had declined to sign the LUP for similar reasons and that county attorneys had advised against signing.

The meeting record shows no legal decision was made at the meeting; commissioners directed staff to follow up with their county attorney and with state legislators to seek clarification and potential resolution.

During the same discussion period, several commissioners reported receiving constituent calls about a proposed solar project and asked that future land-use ordinance work consider screening and aesthetic standards for solar facilities. One commissioner presented photos from Mapleton, Minn., showing tree screening installed around a solar array and said screening standards should be discussed as part of forthcoming ordinance revisions.