A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Cook County committee asks city to share Sawtooth Bluff planning costs; county signals $30,000 cap

May 20, 2026 | Cook County, Minnesota


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Cook County committee asks city to share Sawtooth Bluff planning costs; county signals $30,000 cap
The County Board Committee of the Whole discussed May 19 how to proceed with updating the Sawtooth Bluff regional park plan and how costs should be shared with the city of Grandmarie. Staff said a prior HKGI proposal estimated the planning contract at "in the neighborhood of about $52,000," and the county currently has $30,000 budgeted toward the contract.

Travis, the staff presenter, told commissioners the county is in phase two of the Gantt‑chart schedule and is seeking a current price from HKGI. He said the earlier August 2025 estimate "was in the neighborhood of about $52,000 at that time" and staff has not yet received an updated figure. Commissioners noted the county's $30,000 is already a substantial share of that estimated cost.

Commissioners emphasized the need for clarity before asking the city to commit money. One commissioner summarized the board's likely approach: recommend the county pay $30,000 toward the HKGI contract and ask the city to pay the remainder if the total is below $60,000; if the updated cost exceeds $60,000, return to the board for further discussion. Staff was directed to get the contract number and an up‑to‑date price before the county presents to the city council.

Several members raised governance and accountability concerns for any joint arrangement. Commissioners recalled past difficulties with joint powers agreements and said any steering committee or future joint powers agreement should include explicit roles, review checkpoints and written accountability mechanisms so county taxpayers are protected.

Funding sources and perceptions were a central part of the discussion. Commissioners said some city council members had believed PILT (payment‑in‑lieu‑of‑tax) funds were already earmarked and thus the city felt less inclined to contribute; county officials said PILT money can be used for multiple priorities and that staff should explain allowable uses to the city. Board members also noted that legacy grant sources considered for regional parks typically require a regional tourism or visitor draw as part of eligibility.

Board members stressed that contracting HKGI and conducting planning work would not itself commit the county to developing the bluff. The planning process is intended to update the earlier plan, collect public input, identify feasible operations and maintenance arrangements, and determine whether the land should be developed, preserved or managed in another way. Commissioners asked staff to emphasize public engagement and to identify user groups and stewardship plans as part of the steering‑committee process.

Next steps: staff will seek an updated HKGI price and contract identifier, prepare talking points for a city council presentation that explain PILT and legacy fund constraints, and propose a steering‑committee membership and draft joint‑powers framework. The committee scheduled follow‑up when staff has a current contract price and more detailed steering‑committee recommendations.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee