County discusses next steps for SGSD policy making

Cook County is the only one of Minnesota’s 87 counties to use a mechanism called Subordinate Governmental Service Districts (SGSDs) to facilitate road maintenance on non-county roads. Whether to continue the program has been a topic of debate for the past several months, and the Board of Commissioners is taking steps to increase public engagement in the discussion.

After a town hall meeting during which the possibility of establishing a work group including members of the public was suggested, the board is discussing the details of making that suggestion a reality.

Background on SGSDs

The SGSD program establishes districts in which property owners pay a special assessment to the county in exchange for the Highway Department providing administrative services to coordinate work on the roads, like contracting for snow plowing or grating work in the summer.

Most of the roads that fall in SGSDs are private roads, though some are U.S. Forest Service or Department of Natural Resources roads. There are nine SGSDs across the county, and comprise of roughly 250 properties, including about 30 homesteaded properties.

The debate thus far

County Highway Engineer Robbie Kimmel-Hass spoke to the board several times in 2025 about potentially ending the program. He has advocated for the discontinuing of SGSDs. He has argued that the program raises issues around road jurisdiction, equity of services offered to property owners across the county, and the amount of county staff time that administering the program takes. He has suggested that those who currently own property within an SGSD instead form a road association or property owners association in order to arrange for their road work privately.

Many property owners who are part of SGSDs have expressed their opposition to ending the program, and the year kicked off with a well-attended town hall meeting, during which the county was able to hear directly from property owners, and those in attendance were able to ask questions. During the meeting, many attendees said that they were concerned that the dissolution of SGSDs would negatively impact their property’s value, and that, if left to arrange maintenance without the county’s backing, it could be more difficult to find contractors willing to take on the jobs, and that getting everyone on a road to pay in would become more difficult without the special assessment.

Moving forward

After much back and forth during the town hall, Commissioner Dave Mills suggested that the county form a work group to allow representatives from county departments to work alongside members of the public to assess whether to continue the program, and if it does continue, what should be changed.

During the Feb. 17 Committee of the Whole (COW), a meeting that allows the commissioners to discuss issues, but during which no decisions are made, and no votes can be taken, the board once again heard from Kimmel-Hass about how the county could go about establishing a work group. He suggested that the group comprise of representatives from impacted county departments, several commissioners, representatives from several SGSDs, POA or road association members, and contractors. He suggested a total group size of under a dozen members.

While the commissioners agreed that all of the parties mentioned by Kimmel-Hass were important to include, Mills suggested a larger group, allowing representatives from all of the SGSDs to participate, instead of limiting it to just a few acting as spokespeople for all nine groups. Kimmel-Hass said that if the number of participants from SGSDs was enlarged, he would also want other stakeholders to have more representation in the group. He cautioned that the group growing too large could undermine the functionality of the organization.

Management Information Systems Director Rowan Watkins also spoke to the board during the COW, emphasizing the need to include county residents who are not part of SGSDs. He said that only 4% of county residents are part of SGSDs, and the remaining 96% of residents and property owners organize road work without the county. He raised the topic of equity, since there are many roads in the county that currently do not qualify for SGSD status, and said that reflecting the perspective of those property owners would also be important.

Though the exact number of participants and the division of those people among the stakeholders was not set at the COW, the commissioners were generally in agreement that the group would aim to provide guidance for the county on a timeline of six to twelve months, and that the group’s meetings would not fall under the public meeting laws. Kimmel-Hass suggested the later in order to parallel other advisory groups run by the county, and to encourage candid conversation as the group discusses the merits and pitfalls of the program.

Administrator Kristen Trebil-Halbersma suggested that by the next regular board meeting, she and Kimmel-Hass establish a specific scope and purpose statement for the group, which, if approved by the board, can then be communicated to the SGSDs. The board meets next on Feb. 24.

Kirsten Wisniewski February 19, 2026