[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-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",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_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",6354323,"mediaKeyId","2220135-884355f61a2f0c528bd355248816bddb","parentId",2220135,"title","Winona County commissioners agree to explore joint public-safety predesign while holding LEC remodel funds until city commitment","audioSeconds",2336,"startMs",3219000,"endMs",5555000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2220135-884355f61a2f0c528bd355248816bddb&start=3219&end=5555","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2220135-884355f61a2f0c528bd355248816bddb/thumbnail_3219000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6354323/Winona-County/Minnesota/Winona-County-commissioners-agree-to-explore-joint-public-safety-predesign-while-holding-LEC-remodel-funds-until-city-commitment","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6354323-1479bec8e34071d8e5e5dad35ad5baf8/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448668&Signature=JZMuOpkzOdPHoxLLKeNdlbeK4G0mfvfU0SBVaE3woScgFlZGl4mBocfaoUwpqwnDBb8T8Di2MS5KiEmq4Et0yqZ0Gw0FUjt~jz17EjlVQxD8pOeNODxgHGtxOLaoglG2jt66CX0rdj~X3OMby9Io9u3S9IYpKF07JDQ0ZG5nGOrJv1p4EVugysVWxkaHiF6oj1ApP3YnlSSulfq9-nSov4X5H244btWFtmJzY~pmhgY~O5djLHXibijOIATMjUZLE1d9nsc9RxInWK3j4ecZ7Tr-pdZt89Lq6MWUpUyflUK1usNXhVmyIZbp0Z0GUEm06Sq8RyVXZH5o3auYC7XB4A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Winona County, MN","date","2025-01-25T00:00:00Z","article","Winona County commissioners voted to enter a predesign phase with the City of Winona to study a proposed joint public-safety facility and, at the same time, to pursue a study of the costs of remodeling the existing Law Enforcement Center. The board added a condition: the county will not spend funds on a remodel of the LEC until the city confirms whether it would stay in a shared facility, and the board will review the project again in July.

The move came after a lengthy public-comment period in which dozens of residents urged the board not to prioritize a new police facility and instead to allocate dollars to housing, mental-health services, fire and ambulance services, and other community supports. Speakers named in the transcript included Bonnie Hammock, Katie Mueller Freetag, Joan Heckman and many others who said the community needs noncoercive services more than a new police facility. Several speakers asked for a public hearing before the county commits any public dollars.

County Finance Director Chuck Elliott framed the board decision as part of a larger business-case process: identify the problem (an aging LEC with end-of-life mechanical systems), evaluate options (do nothing beyond emergency repairs; remodel the LEC; or pursue a new joint facility), and compare costs and benefits. Elliott told the board that the county budget currently includes $750,000 for emergency repairs to the LEC in 2025.

Supporters on the board said trying to secure state bonding for a joint facility was the best chance to stretch local dollars: the City of Winona has a state grant that could cover design and land acquisition, and the city and county each potentially would contribute an estimated county share of $4.5 million if the state funds the project. Opponents and cautious members pressed for guardrails: clear definitions of “needs versus wants,” firm written language that the county would have no binding financial obligation if the predesign proceeds, and a timeline to avoid open-ended staff work.

After debate, the board adopted a motion directing county staff to participate in the city-county predesign work and to obtain: (1) a formal written statement that participation in predesign does not commit the county to construction costs or binding expenses; (2) a clear answer from the City of Winona on whether the city would commit to remain at the LEC if the LEC remodel were the lower-cost option; and (3) a county review of results in July 2025. The motion also specified that no county funds earmarked for an LEC remodel would be spent until the city’s position was clarified. Commissioner names recorded in the transcript who participated in the motion discussion include Commissioner Ward (mover of the initial option), Commissioner Meyer, Commissioner Elsing, Commissioner Olsen, and others. The motion passed following a roll-call-style call for aye/nay in open session.

Why it matters: The decision keeps multiple options open while attempting to protect county taxpayers from open-ended commitment. If state funding is awarded and the city-county arrangement is feasible and cost-effective, the county could reduce its local share; if not, the county will have concurrent LEC-cost estimates available to inform a county-only path forward. The public input at the meeting underscored local concerns that county spending should prioritize services residents say affect safety day-to-day—housing, mental-health crisis response, fire and ambulance—rather than additional law-enforcement infrastructure.

The board instructed staff to bring back: the city’s formal assurances on obligations; a predesign scope and budget; a separate county LEC remodel cost study (budgeted in the motion at up to $100,000 or less); and a July follow-up for the full board to reassess and decide next steps.

Ending: Commissioners said the action did not commit the county to construction and that the predesign work is intended to produce apples-to-apples cost comparisons so the board can make an informed decision later in 2025.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Winona County Board Meeting - January 25, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Winona County commissioners voted to join the City of Winona in a predesign study of a proposed joint public-safety facility while directing staff not to spend county money on remodeling the existing Law Enforcement Center until the city confirms whether it would remain part of a shared facility; the board will review results in July 2025.","taxTitle","Winona County, Minnesota","taxId",73333,"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},6354304,"Votes at a glance: Winona County board approves consent agenda, corrects TIF calculation, appoints county assessor and sets predesign conditions",479,4676000,5155000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2220135-884355f61a2f0c528bd355248816bddb&start=4676&end=5155","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2220135-884355f61a2f0c528bd355248816bddb/thumbnail_4676000.jpg","/articles/6354304/Winona-County/Minnesota/Votes-at-a-glance-Winona-County-board-approves-consent-agenda-corrects-TIF-calculation-appoints-county-assessor-and-sets-predesign-conditions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6354304-fc38ab404e8caf8aeebcb0cbeaf70174/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448668&Signature=hyohz0iOsWrgUOzrhWRIxsmk5H48HAmk4zlHby5oZ9Z~nm25Tk9DwSK-XAu~4FRo58JIpgw6hoJps~55WiFuzmplbcWtEoeFlsup9HjgoF07UEPhQcafrSSPuG5CTw2wrRkEyQm9cd-cyFZ4F5kRdeLnOKSTHZGsFsXNfHw4P97ZIH6k882o0CPSyiPP5yHnPYfdDGSRu6ziC0aZvayqkiJ4onlnhxMYR7lfe3USci0KSdKBGc-fxq~CguFXuNovDdCU9tp2X8WI5o~haNtGuHji26gyRtXZuYjMxc7Wvnzx-j2qepI8ul3vuPwqXtHvb8kjTyiyoGbAsvPFCPda7w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","During the regular meeting the Winona County Board took several formal votes on routine and substantive items:

- Consent agenda: The board approved a multi-item consent agenda that included contract renewals, grant acceptances and other routine items. (Motion moved and seconded; approved by voice vote.)

- TIF correction (agenda item 9.3, subsequently renumbered): The board adopted a resolution to correct tax-increment financing calculations for a St. Charles TIF district after county tax calculations omitted capturing increment for taxes payable 2024. Staff explained the omission and said the county would pay the captured increment to the city, which disburses to the TIF district. The board approved the correction and directed staff to ensure other TIFs were set up correctly. (Motion moved by Commissioner Olsen; seconded by Commissioner Elsing; approved.)

- Appointment of county assessor: The board approved the appointment of Catherine Frett as Winona County assessor, conditional on preemployment processing. Staff reported a conditional offer at step 6 ($4,427.26 biweekly; annualized pay noted in packet). The motion to appoint passed by voice vote.

- Predesign direction (separate substantive motion): See separate article. The board approved participating in a joint predesign with the City of Winona under conditions (no county remodel funds spent until city confirms commitment; July review).

Votes were generally recorded as voice votes with aye/nay calls; the transcript records motions, movers and seconds but not roll-call name-by-name tallies for these items.

Ending: Staff will complete the TIF correction disbursement process, proceed with assessor preemployment steps, and implement the predesign directions described in the joint public-safety article.","At the same meeting the board approved its consent agenda, corrected a tax-increment financing (TIF) calculation for a St. Charles district, appointed Catherine Frett as county assessor, and set conditions for participating in a joint public-safety predesign with the City of Winona.",{"_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},6354309,"Commissioners ask staff to research splitting Health and Human Services advisory committee into separate public-health and human-services boards",1644,0,1644000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2220135-884355f61a2f0c528bd355248816bddb&start=0&end=1644","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2220135-884355f61a2f0c528bd355248816bddb/thumbnail_0.jpg","/articles/6354309/Winona-County/Minnesota/Commissioners-ask-staff-to-research-splitting-Health-and-Human-Services-advisory-committee-into-separate-public-health-and-human-services-boards","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6354309-a571318e6a971e547ac98fba1c669784/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448668&Signature=I~4p~w-0F-hyHr9ys6fXgxpw0l3YT0HbvK30AcYk9-dYE1Esc0hBBKnI~JlpEu3wnTFtD32iT6CIHD6aLZC30uyoJAnknquHTjaQId42DEReSooZ7i~xhhp4pRLhBX3Mb7lYN0Pt9uK-J~nRSw06rFuDakJo~bwkovoTLu-aMeF7UMh8u56zMzdR9NXt1Vx0SWUiAMmwVJqdoK7Gb7tU-FUlhaBVKOoiwiJJm6vUEUVAxK5Upb7TA9nOrgx2SQv9X5DRhrjxBzz9KYwoeOmhgXihYYvP2vsFIsh-DOMqRgj8D0lR6L9yTU3yaHtSQbiokWE-wssQSbkLNcmEjlVymA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Winona County commissioners discussed whether to split the county’s combined Health and Human Services advisory committee into two separate citizen advisory bodies — one focused exclusively on public health and the other on human services.

Commissioners and community members said the combined committee often places public-health topics at the end of the agenda, leaving insufficient time and attention for health issues such as well testing, immunizations, and local public-health campaigns. Several commissioners said long-term leadership turnover in the HHS department had reduced the committee’s effectiveness, and at least one former advisory member confirmed they felt public-health items “didn’t rise to the top” when combined with human-services topics.

Board members discussed alternatives short of a split, including setting a recurring agenda “hard stop” for time devoted to public health or increasing staff support and clearer leadership to generate measurable goals for the advisory group. County staff noted that structural changes might require a revised resolution or possibly an ordinance; staff were asked to research statutory requirements and bring back details on whether an ordinance or resolution would be required to change the committee structure.

The board did not adopt an immediate structural change; instead, commissioners asked staff to gather and report statutory language, the packet’s historical documents about prior committee structures and resolutions, and any other procedural steps required to return to separate committees.

Ending: Staff will return with a short legal and procedural memo summarizing what changes (resolution/ordinance) would be required, a recommended transition timeline, and suggested membership/leadership steps to improve committee performance.","Winona County commissioners discussed returning to separate advisory committees for public health and human services after board members and former advisory members said public health gets short shrift when committees are combined. The board asked staff to gather statutory details and report back before making a final change.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6354314,"Commissioners ask staff to explore standing-seam option, funding and insurance for historic Winona County Courthouse roof",2705,5715000,8420000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2220135-884355f61a2f0c528bd355248816bddb&start=5715&end=8420","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2220135-884355f61a2f0c528bd355248816bddb/thumbnail_5715000.jpg","/articles/6354314/Winona-County/Minnesota/Commissioners-ask-staff-to-explore-standing-seam-option-funding-and-insurance-for-historic-Winona-County-Courthouse-roof","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6354314-59a9de2a0ed8b9536c6441123ae7c86c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448668&Signature=UjuT43L63xCFWySJhvy4L1Korzo8dgBjl8BJnTZoxw8wso3CK-yDsXH4eL4oJU1XcKMdvNzdzibPi5zUyixVF4rTpPU8ZcFaOCsxKaQoVOS67g2HB~ujV7VOd4X6k8DUFJ97n7n3HdJn3-gBjGbtRo~Y3o-86U5C2ZXGD8I0e8UaQAW31s3K1uzvlPKCgIajGzSlRgIA1iEz0V~7HAyOhsT4hZGkRRD1M0b3tafg53sRG~6Sh3pTEXa-deP4-rK~vUfU7A3~IKcR8m00SJLstRXy~smLz2tKxU7MzfnwhJZWpXAiUMWpAQTPH45hHEMMgyEM8K-qpyl~ozWmj77vRQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Winona County commissioners heard a technical briefing and budget estimate about replacing the slate roof on the 1889 Winona County Courthouse and directed staff to gather more information on materials, costs, insurance implications and grant opportunities.

Brian Merle of Garland Company presented condition observations and life-cycle comparisons between historic slate, synthetic slate, metal shingles and a standing-seam metal roof. Garland engineers reported that pull tests on the existing slate showed poor attachment and that wind uplift had been a key failure mechanism for the current slate installation. The company said a standing-seam metal roof generally performs best for wind uplift and life-cycle cost, while true slate has longer theoretical longevity but requires precise installation and quality-control oversight; synthetic slate and metal shingles occupy intermediate positions in the lifecycle/cost tradeoffs.

County staff noted the courthouse is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and that staff had contacted the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). SHPO staff said a standing-seam metal roof would not be a compatible replacement for historic slate and that installing standing seam would, as a general rule, be considered an adverse effect for that historic property. City historic-preservation staff (local HPC) said the building is on their priority list to assist with Certificates of Appropriateness and possible local review.

Board discussion focused on: (1) whether a standing-seam metal roof could be approved by SHPO and the local historical review process; (2) an apparent mismatch between initial budget figures for standing seam and the board’s $2 million allocation in the 2025 budget; (3) the need for a cost breakdown (materials, scaffolding, contractor installation, engineering and warranties); (4) insurance premium effects of different roof materials; and (5) potential outside funding sources and grants for historic-preservation projects.

No formal construction commitment was made. Commissioners directed staff to: confirm whether SHPO or other historic-preservation review would permit a standing-seam alternate or under what circumstances; provide competitive breakdowns (standing seam vs. synthetic slate vs. other options) including scaffolding/fabrication/insurance cost estimates and an estimate of expected life-cycle cost; and research state and private grants for historic-preservation roofing projects. Staff also was asked to return with a clarified cost estimate for 17,820 square feet (packet figure) and note schedule implications if the county wanted construction in 2025.

Ending: The board asked for a written package that separates (a) whether standing seam is permissible under historic-preservation rules, (b) a competitive bid-ready cost breakdown, and (c) potential grants and insurance impacts before any remodel funds are committed.","After a presentation on the failing slate roof of the 1889 Winona County Courthouse, the board directed staff to gather quotes, insurance impacts, funding/grant options and historic-preservation constraints — including whether a standing-seam metal roof would be acceptable under state historic guidelines.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6354319,"Community Health Board accepts additional Minnesota Department of Health funding, approves mass-casualty reunification training",313,1872000,2185000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2220135-884355f61a2f0c528bd355248816bddb&start=1872&end=2185","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2220135-884355f61a2f0c528bd355248816bddb/thumbnail_1872000.jpg","/articles/6354319/Winona-County/Minnesota/Community-Health-Board-accepts-additional-Minnesota-Department-of-Health-funding-approves-mass-casualty-reunification-training","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6354319-8cf08df355429671a8535e87fe63d92e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448668&Signature=G1atujxiNu2EWd6hqrQ6p8N65DHiVyxrCTDFhUKC66315Al80QennDYM09jcFYuimDs-iWOpIx16OhqF9~PDwte~luhOSivTdA~wel0mX9Eux6KDwwFTF~gYjx5fSYdCwO3uJPNrInhpA7U29PhE0NGf1AG6Wsqz4~UzSoJEpw9T8TAIjSjlhDayVB6tbTfbsT~hE3wUT4FjxdHFnTBhOpWq2aAC4ba~XuHy1gMusP1yIsudkiamRVvjzx2HH9rjdQ9ekSSOV67r-P9F-sgOg3rnIaF1ly2t3Mbi9eyXA-kx6~Qemkmekn~rfC9-TKecM5kXX6M00flPH2N3W1qmxw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Winona County Community Health Board approved two grant actions related to ongoing response-sustainability work funded by the Minnesota Department of Health.

First, the board unanimously approved acceptance of an additional $38,349 in leftover fiscal-year 2024 grant funds from the Minnesota Department of Health’s Community Health Board program (packet reference: page 43). Emily (public health staff) told the board the funds were awarded to support additional response-sustainability projects and must be spent by June. Board members asked staff to verify specific allowable uses after noticing a voter-registration item in a state grant document; attorney and staff follow-up was requested to confirm compliance before signing, but the board approved accepting the funds.

Second, the board approved spending a portion of that response-sustainability grant to host a community-based mass-casualty reunification training. Staff said the session would be run by I Love You Guys (a national organization providing reunification training), likely hosted at Cotter schools, and aimed at up to 100 K–12 attendees (public, private and charter), local law enforcement and other stakeholders. The quoted cost included travel for instructors from Colorado and instructor fees; staff said one of the instructors lives in nearby Sparta and that the organization had been vetted regionally after recent presentations in Rochester.

Votes: Commissioner Begley moved, Commissioner Meyer seconded acceptance of the additional MDH funding and the motion carried on an aye/nay voice vote. Commissioner Vaguely moved, Commissioner Elsing seconded approval of the grant spending for the mass-casualty reunification training; the motion carried on an aye/nay voice vote.

Why it matters: The additional MDH funds expand available local resources for emergency preparedness and community training; the planned mass-casualty training aims to give local school staff, law enforcement and community partners a coordinated plan for reunifying children and families after a major incident.

Ending: Staff will return to the board with additional spending details at a subsequent meeting and confirm compliance and allowable uses of the grant language flagged by the board.","The Winona County Community Health Board voted to accept $38,349 in additional Minnesota Department of Health grant funds for response sustainability and approved using part of the grant for a mass-casualty reunification training for up to 100 participants.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Winona County commissioners agree to explore joint public-safety predesign while holding LEC remodel funds until city commitment

Votes at a glance: Winona County board approves consent agenda, corrects TIF calculation, appoints county assessor and sets predesign conditions

Commissioners ask staff to research splitting Health and Human Services advisory committee into separate public-health and human-services boards

Commissioners ask staff to explore standing-seam option, funding and insurance for historic Winona County Courthouse roof

Community Health Board accepts additional Minnesota Department of Health funding, approves mass-casualty reunification training