Polk County Board denies petitions, orders county grid addressing applied after public testimony

The Polk County Board of Supervisors on Sept. 17 voted to deny multiple petitions asking that historic or non‑grid road names remain in place and directed staff to apply the countywide grid addressing ordinance to the subject properties.

Paul Gideyson, chairman of the Town of Balsam Lake, told the board the town reviewed the ordinance, toured the county 9‑1‑1 dispatch center and decided it was in the town’s public‑safety interest to apply the county grid across the entire town. He said the project originally targeted about 400 noncompliant addresses but that number grew to about 630 after the town applied the change townwide. "We felt that fixing the noncompliant addresses…is a top priority," Gideyson said.

Multiple residents from lakeshore and cabin communities said they had not received adequate notice of the change and raised practical concerns about duplicate house numbers, mail delivery, and the effect on seasonal property owners. "We just didn't have enough notice," said Lynn Bongren, who drove up from Minnesota to speak. Debbie Patterson said many Deer Lake residents do not live full time and did not see notices published outside the immediate area; she urged the board to prioritize visible fire signs as a lower‑cost safety measure.

Sheriff (unnamed) supported the county grid, telling the board the system makes locations intuitive for deputies and other responders, and called it a reliable backup when GPS may fail. County attorney Malia advised the board that, under the current ordinance, if the board were to grant any petition it would need to make a specific finding that implementing the ordinance "would not aid first responders." She also warned that making a finding contrary to the dispatch and first‑responder evidence could invite litigation.

Following discussion in committee of the whole, a supervisor moved — and later amended the motion — to deny all petitions and apply the Polk County addressing ordinance. The board then took a roll‑call vote; the board's summary reported the motion passed with a majority (the board recorded a count of nine yeses to four nos, with abstentions recorded). The chair declared the motion passed and instructed staff to proceed with applying the county ordinance.

The board and several speakers noted the petition process and recordkeeping: some petitions were filed before the committee meeting and later submitted signatures would be treated as public comment, not part of the original petition, per the county attorney's guidance. The board also noted two petitions had been forwarded to the board without committee recommendation.

The board did not adopt any ordinance changes at the meeting; Malia said revising the ordinance itself would be a separate policy action outside the scope of the current petition decisions.

The board’s action means staff will move forward implementing the county’s addressing grid on the affected properties; residents who wish to refile petitions would, per the attorney’s guidance, need to bring a new petition through the committee process.