Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Regional Governance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Benton County seeks elected representation, levy limits in Saint Cloud Regional Airport Authority talks

Benton County Board of Commissioners · December 19, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

County staff presented a menu of options for engaging with the Saint Cloud Regional Airport Authority, from increased operational briefings to amending the enabling resolution to allow county voting members; commissioners emphasized representation and limiting the authority's levy exposure and asked elected officials from the four jurisdictions to reconvene.

Benton County commissioners reviewed a set of options for how the county might engage with the Saint Cloud Regional Airport Authority and sought direction on two priorities: elected representation on the authority and a levy limit.

Staff presented material prepared with Sherburne County that described five operational options ranging from regular informational updates to appointing voting county members and explained that amending the enabling resolution (to allow county elected officials to be voting members or to set a levy cap) would require consent of all four entities—Stearns County, Sherburne County, the City of Saint Cloud and Benton County. As an example for discussion, staff said a levy limit of 0.004% of tax capacity could generate about $1.56 million (Stearns County prepared the illustrative estimate).

Commissioners expressed concern about exposure to future levies if the city later withdraws from the current arrangement, and urged reconvening elected officials from all four jurisdictions to seek consensus. Several commissioners said they favor having an elected official at authority meetings (even if non‑voting) and argued for a formal mechanism to limit levy increases. The board designated its local representatives to continue the discussion with administrators and requested that staff arrange a meeting among elected leaders.

No formal change to the enabling resolution or levy authority was adopted at the meeting; staff characterized the action as direction to pursue interjurisdictional discussions and report back.