##VIDEO ID:vgYjiSD4QrQ## e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e good morning it's 8:30 and I'm going to call the Clay County Board of Commissioners meeting for September 3rd 2024 to order first item on the agenda is approval of the agenda I'll move to approve the agenda second and motion second any discussion if not all in favor say I I both same sign motion passes and we have an employee recognition this morning Sheriff let you talk about Marine Keegan thank you uh unfortunately something came up last minute for marine so she's not able to be here today but Marine has been with us for 20 years um she spent majority of her uh time with the sheriff's office in warrants and transports so she travels uh across the state and even sometimes across the country to pick up folks that um need to come back to our facility um soon she will be and I got to be careful how I word this she will be the person with the most amount of experience in that division um with the upcoming retirement of of Janelle Ragin Bach so we really appreciate marine and her knowledge and her Dedication that she has to the Sheriff's Office and uh and the warrant and transports division thank sheriff and thank you to [Applause] Marine next on the agenda we have citizens to be heard are there any citizens here that want to speak to any issu issue that's not on today's agenda Steve anybody online nothing Mr chair all righty next approvement of payment of bills and vouchers move to approve second the motion and motion second any discussion all in favor say I I oppose same sign motion passes next we have approval of minutes from August 20th 2024 August 27th 2024 and the work group session minutes from August 13 2024 Mo approval he motion to Second any discussion if not all in favor say I I oppose same sign okay next we have let me get caught up here T Jagger and Jessica mikkelson uh approval to replace one full-time employee social worker position with back fill if needed Quinn Jessica morning Mr chair Commissioners um we are here like you said to request uh the approval of one full-time Social Work position in our adult intake unit unit um we are in the unfortunate position of having to replace somebody who's had 31 years of experience in this position so it's pretty neat um but also very demanding um so this is our adult intake uh we do have 1.5 FTE in this position right now um this is the one full-time person in this role um again we talked a lot at pck committee about her institutional knowledge that she has and how difficult it's going to be to replace um we are looking at four weeks of of overlap so we upon approval of this uh motion we would immediately start the posting uh we're hopeful that there'll be some internal interest with this as well so I would request that backfill be completed um there will be a slight cost a slight impact as this person would start in 2024 so it be $879 of an increase to the two 2024 budget um however I did go back and look at how we're sitting in terms of vacancies that we've had and we would more than have enough um I or more than enough under spending in our salaries for 2024 to cover this $879 difference for 2024's Budget um we did include the wage calculator for 2024 and 2025 for for your review um if there's any questions I would gladly take those questions Mr chair I'll make a motion to approve the request with a backfill as necessary second have motion and a second any further discussion if not all in favor say I I I oose same sign very good good luck on the search she's this going to be a difficult spot to to replace yes very much so yeah thank you so much thank you thank you thanks Cory bang Solid Waste manager Solid Waste budget presentation morning Mr chair morning Commissioners thank you I'm here to present the budget for the 2025 um or proposed budget for 2025 I'll just go from the top to bottom uh point out some highlighted changes um some big percentage changes and explain why uh the very first line on page 62 is the special assessment um after a couple meetings we've decided that we need to raise our special assessment from or by $5 from 45 to 50 um what this does is covers the cost of equipment um all of our Capital needs and we were falling behind um as you know the compactor went from 600,000 to 1.2 million so uh we don't want to be in a bind in a couple years down the road so we are requesting to add that $5 to the per parcel fee uh a little further down you'll see there's an inter fund transfer that we removed um all that did was take money from the capital side or from the operating side to the capital side so we just elected to take that out rather than juggling money back and forth just to have a true budget um a little further down Printing and Publishing I removed that out of the uh Solid Waste Management budget and we moved it into the rrc we're just trying to combine everything into one budget item or one category there so uh same on the following page we had a couple items that were 100% decrease we mve those to the resource recovery center budget also uh just combine it to make it a little easier and the last one on the next p on that page is that $200,000 the off set the first one so composting budget did not change uh recycling we took out the part-time salary there and we put it into the rrc budget we're using the same people in all those positions so we just put them all under the one same with equipment repair maintenance and office supplies we moved all that to the rrc budget and I remove the miscellaneous item on the very bottom as we don't use miscellaneous very often on page 66 in the household hazardous waste budget um we removed the part-time salary there also move that to the RC as we share the same people so we put it in one category we took the telephone and postage out completely CU that goes to the RC and we did have an increase in our other Professional Services there just due to the fact that our haulers that pick up our material have raised their rates so we have to have something to cover that so that's where that increase comes from on page 67 cleaning supplies move that to the rrc and small tools and supplies I raised that a little bit just because we have some small needs but it's only $1,000 it's 100% increase but it's only $1,000 increase so cost of everything's going up on page 68 the existing landfill budget we are proposing the landfill fees will go from $53 a ton to $56 a ton this again is tocover the cost of increased expenses uh it's a $3 increase so it's pretty minimal but it should help us cover all of our operating expenses uh we also raised the hay rent we rebid that this spring and it went from $500 a year to roughly 2,000 or a little more so we'll get a little bit more income there I removed the printing and P or Printing and Publishing went up a little $500 just to cover cost of increase or cost increases uh other Professional Services I dropped that to or I dropped that to 200,000 from 300,000 if you remember last year I dropped it from 500 to 300 uh we don't have any major projects and it seems like that was an Overkill so we we are trying to find a true number for that amount or for that category uh conference registration I removed that as we don't have any land manager Al any more going to any conferences or anything like that so that reduced it by 1500 page 69 there was no changes no major changes on 70 uh equipment over $500 uh we're having some pump issues so I I bumped that up to $10,000 um the pump itself is about 2500 so if I have to replace one pump and we have three or four of them um it the $2,500 we had in the budget would be gone right away so I don't think we got that page we don't have that page sry is this under existing landfill yes so it should be in the back page 70 for us I think it's page 67 got it find it okay so we went it was equipment over $500 so we went from 2500 to $10,000 as I was saying uh those pumps alone or would eat up the $2,500 budget um if you see the very bottom line there the closure or not of that section above the resource recovery it says closure and post closure cost it's $270,000 we move that to the capital side of the budget and that'll come out of our per parcel fee uh that number is a variable that goes could go anywhere from a negative number as you see uh to a very positive number of $400 $500,000 so that $270,000 is a is a benchmark and we leave that in there to kind of cover us both ways down in the resource recovery portion uh salaries other we added $32,988 that's to cover Joe's maintenance and janitoral staff um we didn't have those in previous budgets but it was only fair to pay for for his people when they're and maintaining our building building repair and maintenance I bumped that up from 5,000 to 10,000 just because our stuff is off warranty now or the majority of it and $10,000 will cover the costs we're hoping so uh everything has gone up a little bit but and that is all unless you have questions questions for Corey thank you appreciate it Corey thank you next up we have our County Administrator our current County Administrator Steven lison and Lorie Johnson uh thank you Mr chair Commissioners we're a little ahead of time so I'm anticipating Lor's on her way here but uh we can certainly start here and she can jump in as we go um we're like a half hour early though well I could I could do our other ones I just mean for the sake of Lori I don't I think that's fair yeah um we could do uh committee reports or you've got some other things here I have two other items Mr chair yeah change order and pre-sign contract I could jump jump and do those and and then we could do we could do uh committee assignments if committee updates if we're still moving ahead of the schedule uh the first item I guess is item number five request to change order number three uh for Department of Motor Vehicle project uh if you take a look uh on the back side of your document uh there are five different items uh that are there uh pr4 which is a card card reader uh from from a door standpoint adjustment of $1,748 75 uh a roof cap metal color upgrade uh as we've got to the project uh to the end of the project there's a area from a cap standpoint that we felt looked better with $786 waiting waiting ceiling perimeter trim uh was not part of the original plan uh but uh but uh requesting to move forward until $1,597 50 c adjustment uh spray foam installation uh as we got to the ceiling there was different spots behind uh the beams that we weren't able to get uh get the insulation in so we had to se spray foam that that was $5,775 and then as they worked through the ceiling of the trim we also had some adjustments to the duck work that had to be made $2,457 uh for a total of $2,361 25 the additional CM fe uh with a 23591 and 12 again as we've talked about we've been done very well from a contingency standpoint the original contingency on this project was $26,700 uh when if approved uh this would leave a remaining contingency of $183,200 25 with that I yal for any questions questions for Steve commissioner karanov um give me a idea on that uh remaining contingency what type of things might be that would get to that biger figure for the 183 well we're hoping we're hoping nothing but I mean what kind of things are possible I'm just curious uh I mean I think you're just you just have any any minor changes that uh that we would need to make adjustments on uh from from the DMV standpoint I think we're we're in a pretty solid position so I mean I don't think we're anticipating any significant changes to that well but too though didn't we talk about internally the the the approach and that's something that will Beed there's an approach to the farmers field uh to the to the in to the West uh there'll be additional change there but that I mean that won't from $183,000 standpoint that that uh will but that is an adjustment that would be coming yeah is I think the cost on that was 6,000 I think it was right around there yeah any other questions for Steve okay thank you Lor's with us do we want to jump in do we need oh Mr chair could we could we get a motion to to approve that change order sorry about that U Mr chair I'll offer a motion to approve change order number 3 in the amount of 23591 and12 second have motion to Second any further discussion if not all in favor say I I oppose same sign motion passes um Lori do you want to pop up or good there uh okay um thank you Mr chair again just a budget discussion over the in the last week the board uh has been working on uh working on approving the market study uh and so uh with that uh we gave the last board presentation that we had had a had a a net Levy request increase of 8.375 uh with the with the market study uh implementations the various steps that we had uh we we are now sitting at 10.23 uh% uh in increase understanding that that's not an acceptable level um Miss Johnson and I have had multiple meetings over the last week uh and and have some uh things for this board to consider to to move forward uh before we do that I would just note that this board this budget already does include a 3% col up it includes a 9% Insurance increase which is n 4.5% of that uh is the counties uh we have step increases uh new requests we have $250,000 for future uh insurance and again the market study implementation is also uh included in this to get to that 10.23% over the last week we've looked through uh several different areas for Bud budget mitigations we look for again the review of Department budgets uh the utilization of County fund balances uh We've looked at the review of utilization of additional funds whether that's the public safety $50 that you've already approved uh or consideration the use of arpa which uh will be discussed at an upcoming meeting and then also internal and external budget uh requests um so the the uh use of County fund balance I think I know that this board uh takes two things very seriously uh number one uh having a healthy fund balance that meets the auditor standpoint um but also they you firmly believe that in the event that you've asked for tax levy dollars from citizens that in the event that we have revenues over expenditures that that be looked to utilize for future budgets uh and so uh today today as Lori and I sat down and and looked at our budgets uh we did I did provide you an updated uh fund balance comparison document again uh within your packet uh just of note that again this is a hasn't been the audit hasn't been completed it's an estimate at at this point uh but uh but we did see some adjustments uh in the general fund uh and Miss Johnson also put together on a second document here uh provided additional information of how or why some of those fund balances have adjusted uh in a in a positive positive way and so if you take a take a Peak from the general fund uh the estimated amount at the end of 2023 was 14,3 $4,530 uh or an adjustment of $5,500,000 uh we're fortunate to uh to have an adjustment back of about 1 Point uh just about 1.7 million uh so that was a positive thing we also saw increased interest uh than what we what we were anticipating with uh uh from our budget there are also several different one-time items the criminal justice Aid uh positions that were left open uh that uh that U caused additional revenues over expenditures we also had the sh the corrections of the jail uh also had some job openings but also if you recall we helped out otter tale County when they had some different issues and so we had some uh when their jail was not able to be used so we we had some additional Revenue uh that we that we had uh had there so um again the recommendation then after our discussion was to utilize $1 million from the general fund half a million dollars from public health uh and also uh $350,000 from Social Services now say that again please um 1 million from the general fund $500,000 from Public Health and $350,000 from Social Services one of the things that we wanted to just a a reminder for the board uh that you've already you've already appropriated some of these funds uh for different different things one you have uh $500,000 that you set aside uh for this 2024 budget you have another $500,000 that you set aside to complete uh the the uh withdrawal management detox project uh We've utilized 276,000 uh for the Holly Highway shop uh and also 94,5 34 for the home that we purchased on the Northwest Campus so uh again of the fund balances uh already appropriated that don't show in the 2023 document uh are 1.4 uh 1,425 534 um so just to take that into consideration as far as uh as far as uh where we are from a from a a levy standpoint or excuse me fund balance on each of those areas with with the adjustment uh again I would say also say that $ 1.83 five million in recommendation would be the largest fund balance that this board is utilized and that would get the the levy proposed down to 5.87% um uh just of note in 2020 when we did the last Market study 8 5 85 was the net Levy amount that was settled on having said that we continue to look at different Alternatives uh to to lower that again this board has taken action on the public safety funding already uh utilizing $32,400 remaining there uh and uh looking to to find ways to utilize that within the budget to uh to offset the levy uh new requests you also have a form uh within your in your packet of the new requests as you've had presentations from the different departments uh those have been brought forward uh as part of their presentations uh and looking at that uh we have a couple different uh recommendations for this board to consider uh the assessor's office asked the in their budget has a $45,000 line item for aerial pictometry this pictometry is different than the other pictures that we've taken throughout the county uh this will allow uh this will allow the auditor's office uh by Statute every three years that if they can't get on a property uh they can do uh the aerial the aerial pictures are so sharp uh and within uh within the appropriate uh ability to uh to have uh to utilize them for for the assessor work and so we have repairi and Aid that we receive funding for from the legislature each year we continue to to get that again this year uh there are restricted things of how we can spend those dollars uh and so the request would be uh for you to consider is to remove uh remove the $45,000 request from the assessor's office uh and and utilize uh run that through a repairi and Aid uh committee for for potential use there have a question really quick on the riparian I understand it's allocated and we have an account that sort of builds for any issues what is that amount at okay okay I'm not sure exactly what that okay and the other re the reason I'm asking is you know I I know we have a nominal increase requested from S swcd I don't have it in front of me is it three to four something percent is there any work within the scope that they do that we could offset that request with the ceria need that's certainly something that uh we could look into if the I me they do so much that I think it could qualify for and I just have a hard time with you know I know the intent why it was earmarked and understanding that we've gotone a little bit past now the buffer strip implementation and issues coming out of that I that might be an opportunity to capture some spend some more of those funds um and keep it off the levy I certainly take a look yeah if we get that number that'd be good because it seems to be building y we can certainly look in look into that okay uh the the uh as I mentioned we're scheduled to meet with arpa and one of the things that the Commissioners from arpa committee have have discussed is looking at the victim witness uh position this position has been funded by our in previous years uh and next year that would be a 998,199 uh position that could be removed uh from uh from the budget also if you recall at Public Health when Kathy was here uh the state of Minnesota is no longer paying for vaccines and so she has $220,000 in her budget uh that uh she would uh uh that could be covered by the arpa arpa funds and then could be subsequently removed from her budget the next item is a new request is coming from rhod and Bridge Highway Department New maintenance worker uh again within Justin's budget he has multiple variable hour positions that are utilized for snow removal and also for mowing um uh and as if you recall during his board board presentation on the budget uh he had $400,000 uh that has gone to to the city of Morehead for the last 20 years for the 40th Avenue turn back uh and during his budget request or during his budget update he requested that that $400,000 be allowed to be kept in his budget to deal with seal coating and additional striping um the request for you to consider would be utilize look at utilizing 75,000 of that $400,000 uh for the new position uh and when you remove the variable hours if your board was to approve that uh that would be a savings of $1 12,120 uh as Justin also reported uh he is going to be having five retirements that are going to happen this fall uh the board has already taken action on uh on looking to replace those but uh in reviewing in reviewing those positions with with Lori and and Darren uh we're going to seeing a another Savings of roughly $125,000 uh and so these would all be requests for your consideration uh we the balance uh for rip perion 8 at the end of 2023 was 82493811 [Music] Realm of the intent of those funds I really do feel like we could offset some of that and um I just in a in a time when we're lobbying the legislature for some big needs um you know I have a hard time if we're not utilizing frequently those funds that are being have been allocated um especially now that all of the buffer strips have been implemented right and to the point if I may uh add you know I I do feel specifically for the ask on on what we're talking on the aeral p p commentary there we go uh I think that aligns itself for those uses I agree as well yeah yeah I had no idea that number was that high I knew it was high but well it's been a it's been several year it's been several years since that and can I ask um being I'm newer so was there over the last let's see that started what eight years ago or six years ago was the Dayton Administration so I'd say yeah about eight my um so my point was was there discussions earlier on from commission uses for those funds at all we did have discussions or I mean we have a buffer strip um committee and we did have discussions on you know how we could utilize those funds I think that you know maybe I'll lean on the attorney a little bit I mean part of those were um understanding that there could be some litigation that um some of those funds would need to go pay for if we had land owners that weren't wanting to comply understanding it wasn't our regulation it was from the state um so I think that's initially why some of that um was that way but we had talked between um the Assessor's Office office and lands the planning planning and zoning office if that could be utilized in some way but nothing definitive commissioner Campbell Lor the repairing Aid is that is that a considered a restricted fund through with the state auditor's office yes and so we don't that's not considered when we talk about what we have for available Reserve fund balances so it's it's kind of balance outside Elby itself sitting out there somewhere it's part of the general fund but it's a restricted fund balance and this would make the the uh criteria for perade the pictometry one for sure yeah so but that eight that $800,000 is nothing that anything to do with the 14 million that we show on the general fund balance no okay Lori do you see a downside to using this aid for that purpose not at this point I don't I think it would be helpful to find out what um the boundaries are of that fund just uh get a feel for that because it just seems like a big enough amount we should be UTI you know if we have some um lateral movement with it you know so this the statute basically says and it was 2015 so we were close on that it's been longer than I thought but um that requires buffer land along those public Waters and public Drainage Systems within the state and the aid in the section is used to enforce and Implement these requirements well if I can just to just to chime in here so so on that on that all that buffer stuff that we did did we turned that over to the Watershed they get a portion of it they get a portion of automatically of the Rian Aid fund they get a portion of that they get a portion yes I okay and that I'm assuming that's then to handle the buffer stuff that they work on for the county okay yeah but our our compliance I mean um the Buffalo red was RA lagging on their work you know that completion of it but they pretty well are catching up on that the the part that uh the Solen water had I mean it's it's like 99 point something complete so again it'd be just nice to see what latitude we have with this yeah I think and I think that based on the this board's request last year we did spend time some time with Matt Jacobson and also Soil and Water staff just to to look at some different ways and we can certainly look at that again does there other Watershed District receive part of that too then they've they've chosen to allow the county to to utilize to address those issues so um we don't provide provide funds for them any other questions all right the the final document that uh I had in your packet was the external agencies uh again there in addition to our departments there are agencies which this board has chosen to provide uh uh funding for uh as a part of our ongoing Levy and so the request there are requests from 2025 it also shows based on what their 2024 request was and so uh from a board standpoint if there's any insight or direction that you would like to provide or here um this is the information of of our external agencies M thank you I didn't mean to Dera the conversation on the other parts I really am grateful for the work that you've put in to find additional ways to offset Levy requests with a new requests I you know I I think it's it looks really good and I support that I want to go back a little bit about all of the discussion that we've had throughout the last few months um and just I know we've provided some feedback there um I'm just going to maybe P pick on extension because while that's not necessarily maybe in this external request piece there is a big agreement that was an addition you know and while I support that just because I really have seen firsthand the amount of work that those positions do throughout the entire County in a time when we spend a lot a lot of money on mitigating difficult Circ circumstances I think that is an opportunity to provide great work throughout the county to um prevent things like that not only youth but um certainly in um natural resources realm as well um but you know we've tweaked a little bit the full-time equivalents for those positions over the years and I believe now we've transferred through attrition um so is it 2.8 plus 2.8 paron 2.8 position 2.8 plus the um office support correct correct right so I think in the request this year it was maybe 2.85 um with that office support and I I understand their their reasoning um but knowing that the agreement is a large increase I would maybe lean towards holding the full-time equivalent going into this next year what it's been certainly open to board dialogue so it would be continuing the 2.8 instead of the 2.85 that's a new request I getting a consensus from yeah it's part of those is that yeah um it's part of those discussion I agree with you uh commissioner I I think that you know that's a new role and let it you know let let's give it a little time uh I think for uh even though feels doing a wonderful work you know let's let's see uh how that develops um that' be my opinion too Mr commissioner Campbell I I I would agree with that and I I just think back to um this new three-year contract uh that's out there now also had a an a significant uh increase I I think it was to the tune of 20 some per if I'm not mistaken for year one and then it was at yeah you know so you know so I you know I think that in all by itself there's it's it's increased in investment that we have to make in that and although we're only talking about a you know a really small fraction of a dollar amount there I still think it's probably appropriate that we um kind of absorb some of the High increase than cost of the what of what we already have first and then and then see what how that develops moving forward but I I agree with both Commissioners on their statements regarding that okay yeah I wouldn't be supportive then I I do have another um one if I might sure than you um over the last year I've taken a deliberate initi itive to be more active with the edcs that we help fund with Levy dollars that being the chamber um greater um downtown Morhead Inc with Derek Le Point and then the GF greater far farore at EDC and I understand that you know individuals from this board are also on those boards too but um I I really one I'm going to say I really struggle with the joint ask from the GF EDC in the chamber um I appreciate that their work mirrors itself in certain ways I appreciated their presentation um I I do have a hard time with a 26% increase for the the um request this year being I'm I'm still not seeing generated work or discussions or initiatives on the side of the river and I understand that we have challenges and opportunities with that um and understand that you know maybe you could do more with additional money but when you look at a $250,000 request for for an external agency that is a huge amount of money um particularly when I look at you know the Minnesota rural rural coun caucus that I'm we meet monthly if not every two weeks during session and the amount of funds that are generated for Minnesota counties through that we only pay $2,900 to that agency and the lobbying that we get is unbelievable um so back back to the other request I I really I'm not sure that I personally can rally behind that huge of an increase um this year I I think that um Shannon full has done phenomenal work the the lobbying efforts the visibility at the capital the visibility at community events having monthly dialogues with leaders on the Minnesota side is huge and that it just can be really commended um I'm not so sure that that the other $85,000 that's that was last year now bumping that up even makes sense I can't I can't justify oh we haven't seen any work with that piece here's some more money I um I'm on that board the EDC and I agree with you wholeheartedly uh the chamber has done a very good job at what we need which is making St Paul aware that we are out here and we're part of the second largest metro in the state and she has done an impressive job I had the opportunity to go up to the first Morehead day at the capital and it was stunning we had a large group of very articulate people who went from uh chamber went from office to office and made our presence known and our needs identified um I I agree with commissioner Mojo that shano has done a good job at representing our community in St Paul In fairness thec they have got a huge amount of money coming from bismar and their business and their orientation is towards the development of uh businesses that are predominantly on the west side of our River and as a result we kind of get lost in the crowd and to actually increase the funding when I've not seen anything directed towards the Minnesota side um at least as far as the EDC goes I think we've got places we need to direct our funds and we have taxpayers to remember that that's no small amount to people that they're paying I I've heard commissioner Campbell's warnings that it's a regressive tax and indeed it is it's one that's necessary for us to function but it's one that we need to be aware where we spend money and that is a pretty large ask at a 26% % increase so I am inclined to agree with commissioner moso on this anybody else have a commissioner kraban off so in those discussions um you know for those of you that are involved with the chamber Andor the uh EDC when they ask for that additional 65,000 do we have a any idea where the emphasis of that money was pushing I mean they use the word joint but did they I mean in any conversation was there was something where the chamber was saying you know we value you know we feel we need this more value and the EDC saying another piece you know was it 5050 was do you follow what I'm saying but uh you're looking at what the distribution of the 6 exactly and that's the part that's bugging me well they they formed this Alliance um I've heard nothing identified as these are additional Services who will proide provide the Minnesota side uh they are working in unison on a lot of projects a lot of it is funding through the state of North Dakota but um they've revised the governance model that they're using in the EDC and and as such um there's a lot more money available from the state of North Dakota and that I think they see it as everybody's got to chip in more well we're not getting it from St Paul and we do have specific needs that arguably are not being addressed on our side um that we we get some good support from chamber going to St Paul with us I think Derek points done a good job um so that's where we're at and frankly and I'm speaking with all my constituents in the city of Morehead but we've got communities within our County that are doing a pretty good job of trying to promote their own businesses and we we we are not as supportive of them as we are of the EDC and those are things we really need to consider commissioner Campbell yeah I uh having served on the greater Fargo Morty DC uh board before not not on the executive committee as uh commissioner ER is now and commissioner Wayan was before him um I I you know I I recall you know that and that board was a fairly large board with several Minnesota members on it uh including the president of Concordia College Morad State uh and then we also had um um several Pro you know business people that are involved there and I you know and I and I think back to some of those conversations that that you know we are always uh reminding that that there is this side of the river and you know and that there needs to be some some things done here and I I do I do think that um over the long you know the whole picture uh that that goes on in terms of Economic Development not always do we are you are you going to be maybe the the successful one in landing the business uh but you have you still have an opportunity to to be able to have a home for some of those new employees that might work in those facilities and I think over the years Klay county has benefited from that uh you know all you got to do is take a look over I94 every morning and every evening and you can see the number of cars going over those people are going over there to work and we can't we can't lose sight of that uh you know but I I I guess my commissioner karnov that's the question that I have too is this $65,000 request because they they now put it in like like a combined request they still have separate budgets the chamber still has its own budget and and so how much how much are we how much is going to the chamber and how much is going to the EDC I I think think we fund um for for what we're what we get out of it in terms of um business development in in Clay County I think the 85,000 towards EDC is adequate right you know so I and I'm not suggesting that that we remove that because just because there's always those other benefits that we get that I described that I think is a got a good value to it um but I I 26% right now is a lot um I know they've got some some joint Ambitions that are new and might be exciting for some but and as commissioner eringer said I think they're they do get uh significant funding from um the state of North Dakota which I I don't know if it's passed through C County or how that works because Cass County is a big investor into that um but uh yeah I I I I guess what it boils down to is I'm not excited about adding the 65,000 you I I agree that there are peripheral benefits uh a lot of people that work in North Dakota live in Morehead I don't know if what we're getting from the EDC is encouraging that though um I think there's an encouragement for people to live in Fargo and we're we're spending our tax taxpayers funds needs to benefit our taxpayers and that's part of of the concerns I've got again Shannon full has done a great job working with us and I hope she continues to give us the support that we can take to the capital she has up to now but I don't see a 26% increase being being prudent anyone else we used to have we used to also have another investor um into this process not only Klay County but the city of morid and where where they at when it comes to uh investing into the EDC are they do they have any money going to the EDC anymore yes I can't remember the amount and I don't know if they've had a request for an increase and I don't know what the response to that is that may be some background we want to we want to reach out and and get from them just to give us some perspective on what we're you know what our what our position is going to be well last year I think there were 25 I think that's ringing in my head too but I'm not certain of it 25,000 yeah and then and then lastly I just want to um combine some of these things when you when we come to this discussion because it was it was uh my my motion and recommendation last year that we actually remove 25,000 from the EDC and move it over to the downtown Mor at Inc because of the uh ex the tremendous amount of effort that's being placed on our side of the river and I see now that the the request from them is is to that they get that again the motion that originally made was basically going to be a one-time deal however I support the continuing effort and I do think that that 25,000 that was taken should stay uh with downtown mored Inc and I think it's probably going to look that way where it's going to be a very positive investment over the next several years as we start to see the things happening they're they are truly engaged right now with the development so yeah you know I concur with that as well other comments thoughts on this what is what is uh $65,000 is taken out what does that do to our net well Mr chair if the board were if the board were to uh take all the recommendations that were brought forward to you today and Lori has got her her magic laptop uh if if you were to remove that plus the $65,000 request uh you'd be at 4.65% from a levy perspective I had an opportunity to to meet with Lori and Steve last week on on this and we had some really good discussions and and I think maybe from the recommendation standpoint where we're at on a preliminary Levy it's something that I I certainly I certainly think it's a good starting point and I I don't think we're going to be harmed by setting the preliminary lever at that and I just want to go back to a minute just on that piece with the highway department uh where Justin um had had asked for that full $400,000 uh that was going towards a turnback project now to being used for roads and striping the the fact of the matter that he'd still have $325,000 left of that $400,000 is still a significant significant increase to his ability to do what he couldn't do before to the tune of having $325,000 more money every year if if that was is the case that we want to continue to do that so I I still you know I I don't think we should look at that as a net bad thing uh with what we're doing in in using that 75,000 for his and it's still going to his department for a new request so um so I I think that still makes a lot of sense uh I being on the arpa committee I'm going to certainly support the recommendations there and I know uh the uh victim witness thing uh that's Brian also serves on the arer group and I think that's really a sign significant one that it makes sense to um be able to use those funds towards that in the same with the the 20,000 from public health but so I I you know I after sitting down with you to I I too want to thank you for your your work on that I I personally don't think we're done yet uh when I when I look at Circle these numbers I still think that we have the ability to to soften the blow a little bit more and uh but we can have that dialogue between now and December but but I everything that you've proposed here uh on on bringing this down I am in complete supportive one one of the things that we also have to remember though in addition to these things is what was just requested of solid waste to that's another $5 that goes directly on the property tax statement that $3 in tipping fee that's going to go on to everybody's uh uh monthly garbage bill you know so those are things that fall outside of our Levy but there are still things that are impacted by the people who have to pay for it and and we still haven't we're still not done with the HRA yet so okay I'm done okay um commission moo thank you commissioner evinger um the the one piece that I'm having a little bit and and I understand that it's nominal um but the historical society is asking for a 3% uh this year and I know commissioner krainov you're on that I struggle not having the full budget and you know I we've heard it it's it's not ready till December but you know that agency is has the ability to recoup fund or revenues and you know I just struggle a little bit with that amount knowing that it was commented that they've done they did fantastic with um visits would maybe appreciate having more of an in-depth U budget line item so we can see proposed in actuals I don't know if that's possible as we move forward but I think yeah I think we can get something I can say that um as I follow the budget I mean their cash flows are good there there's no question about that one thing I think they've done you know they did a wage study also same thing 52% you know that number seems to be pretty common and and so they're making their adjustments within uh they had a retirement of a you know my peel at you know would would have been a a high salary you know for being there 30 some years and and now you have so they're internally making those adjustments um and uh so I don't I don't think there I don't I don't what I view we get numbers I don't think they're building on their account at all I think they're just kind of managing and with that there is a good cash flow for that operation I think that you know they have a vision too and their vision is this is tourism this brings money in the Morehead this brings money into our County and what can we do to be the museum that can you know have some ability have some focal point from people throughout the state and the region and I appreciate that I I I hope no one up here feels like I'm pinpointing their specific committees I just know we haven't had the opportunity really to discuss as a whole through that so I I'd appreciate that and then my my final piece Mr chair um and then I'll be quiet is um as Klay County continues to grow um um and we're tackling really complex issues as as reiterated here um and just looking at our legislative efforts um within the county uh County staff the ability to maybe seek Congressional delegated funding which I know we've not had the opportunity um to do we you know we're really tack tackling some big issues and I I really um I know Steve hasn't brought this forward forward and being cognizant of where the budget is and know I've brought this forward to commissioner Campbell just to talk a little bit about you know I Clay County currently has a halftime assistant County uh administrator and I know that we don't have a request for this but it's as we look forward to what that would be I really think that Klay County needs to think really seriously about adding that as a full-time position uh we're we're growing as we alluded to in the discussion earlier and I appreciate that you know our administrator didn't bring this forward just because I know he's cognizant of what the the fiscal strain is on all of these requests but at at some point we have to take that step and and maybe it's January 1 uh you know we do have a pck committee that can work these things through uh we do have some maybe um Savings in in areas with the external agencies but certainly um if there's any additional revenues I'm not seeing cannabis revenues here not that we want to pay for that 100% with that but um to have crucial support um with the team that we've built to manage the day-to-day operations streamlining processes um and ensuring that our key projects are administrated effectively I really do think we'll see the savings um you know I just can think back of the legislative session and Steve spends two days at the capital and and Darren's working things through here but there still is a large amount of issues that are going on and I'm not sure that we're funding that area as well as we could and so it's it's nothing against Steve or Darren's work at all but you can't look at how much everything is growing without acknowledging that I can wait in on it first of all commissioner Mojo no problem with you talking these are things we need to talk about and you know even and we try and avoid work sessions and adding to everybody's busy calendar but these are this is a very important thing to discuss and I appreciate not just the Insight but the fact you bring things up that we need to talk about as a group one of the advantages and there are plenty of disadvantages that I have having worked as a staff person for 40 years in local government is that I've seen it done in very different circumstances different a differ size communities different focuses but I have never seen an administrative organization in the places I worked that run as runs as lean as we do here now that's a good thing we we don't have a bunch of people who sitting around with idle time but it's also there's just so much you can expect out of the team you've got if you don't have a a backup and that half time in our administrative team I think is warranted and it's worth discussing it's worth looking at and we've talked about this for at least two years where you know maybe we'll look at it next year and think about it maybe we maybe it's time to look at it now and think about it and see what what a cost or what a a reorganization structure would look like to basically give our County Administrator is doing a very good job the support that he needs where he needs it and that has to come from Steve and his his staff I mean that's not something we decide that's something Steve you provide us with the information and I'm soliciting that I think commissioner mooso is soliciting that um it's just information but we I think we need to hear it you you're doing a good job but this is the fourth fastest growing county in the state and we're going to keep growing and not only hiring somebody now or getting somebody into position make sense five years from now having somebody with five years experience in administration when maybe we look at a real surge coming in will be invaluable when you need it is not the time to decide that you're going to staff it you staff it and anticipation those needs so I agree with commissioner moso that's something we really need to look at and consider well and and and part of the reason that I bring this forward is we've not had the opportunity to discuss this as a full board I've taken some of the feedback that I heard during reviews over the last six months but certainly uh if you look at our committee assign ments as a whole they certainly grown and um we work with our administrator to do that I I would probably lean heavier on commissioner Campbell to this discussion probably because um you were here with the implementation of the assistant administrator when I I believe the administrator was V when VJ was here and that's when it was added and you know and I'm not quite sure the year that that was but certainly you can attest to the need yeah I um first off I you know I I I think we've got the best Administration in state of Minnesota in terms of our County admin administrator and his group and I don't think we've gone backwards one bit in in what we do and what you know and that's a testament to to um both Steve and Darren and everybody that that he looks to for uh advice and potential recommendations I I certainly think this is is worthy discussion I don't think it's I quite frankly I don't think it's anything that we need to put a a dollar placement in the budget for right now I think you know I think we're at this point in time we're trying to bring down that doesn't that does not mean that we still should not get the feedback I I think you both make a good point you know we're Rec recognize it and we're seeing the potential of our of the growth and demands I to this date Steve hasn't called me on the phone and hey I need somebody I need I need help you haven't done that to me uh and you know but but I do think that you should be you know talking with us about that and and maybe you know maybe a good place to start is is pick and I and it goes to some of the other issues and commissioner Mojo mentioned the legislative issues you know it wasn't too long ago we and I don't think we have anything on our budget right now for 2025 but we had talked about um um implementing some a lobbyist you know is um uh you know I I think there's there can there's something to be said by some who say don't send us lobbyist send us your own people uh to tell us what your needs are you know so from that standpoint you know that might that might be a way too to maybe move some funds from one place where we're considering putting money to to something like that and again I I think it's a good idea I think the dialogue should continue I think we started off I think when we started off uh it was Darren's position was 20% um admin or assistant in 80 right isn't it how Darren that sounds about right yes yeah you know so so we've you know that's kind of moved up and I I I yeah anyway I I think it's I think it's worthy to talk about and I I don't think we should um avoid it I'm not saying that we shouldn't implement it in 20125 but if we do and and we've already set a levy uh you know just based on numbers I see we can find the money to do it for that year all you got to do is look at revenues overe expenditure thank you and I just to follow up I I really value all of your perspective on this and so I I think that we have a system to where we have a pick committee that can start pulling the numbers on what would that that cost um you know because it's intertwined with the HR department I think there's some ways you can work um well well I don't think Steve has ever come and said I need help uh you know I there's been years where he comes to us and can't at the end of the year has not been able to take his vacation and understanding um people with Dynamic responsibilities and families um sometimes it's it's more work to actually take your vacation than take your vacation and so I think from that I you know I think that is one aspect of why I think we need to add additional support to that department I would agree and in now four years of having worked with Steve I would I would be scared to death if he came in and said he needed help because I think it would be way past the point to where he needed help and that's not a criticism Steve it's a recognition um we uh we do have from what I've seen the best administrative group of any County when you go to these AMC conferences it shows even the counties that are way over budgeted in in certain areas and it reflects in their Levy and uh and yet you know we function well and effectively and that's a testament not just to you but to your two predecessors since I've been here the county has always had excellent administrators and Lori has always done a great and a very critical job for us so we're fortunate but you don't run somebody to death best best running back back in in the NFL doesn't take every snap there's got to be a backup so this is something I hope we'll look at and pick is a good place to start oh commission kavanov um I I support everything we're saying uh can I jump to another subject or okay so uh question on the revenue side do we have a rough idea what uh how the Cannabis tax will come in or when it comes in or is there any just asking projections that the state throws out that kind of says what the expectation may look like Mr chair commissioner krainov at this point we've seen nothing from the state as far as what we can expect so I don't know if at AMC at the policy conference if we'll if we'll hear any information at that yeah because it is you know I don't know that it's going to be huge but it it you know um it'll be inter in what it AMS to because it comes to us right it's a really good point commissioner Crown up but we also got to remember that in 2026 I think there's a whole new boatload of taxes that are going to be coming forward that we're going to be quired to pay too yeah no in terms of you know the cost for the uh per per employee family leave and yep all of those things that are going to be implemented in 2026 so uh hopefully that tax will be a big on on that Revenue side and not to be too jaded but if it comes from St Paul uh you're going to get the bone there may not be much meat left on the bones uh I think the state's going to be pretty heavy-handed in taking their share of what they think running this and they have a pretty large State um bureaucracy they're developing to oversee this and those folks got to be paid so I'm I'm not seeing this as as much of a windfall I hope it just what it costs us I hope is paid for any other input or Steve what else you got for us no I think uh I appreciate it just wanted to maybe kind of bring it all together if uh the recommendations that that were brought forward uh uh will address the arpa next week uh the the feedback I got from the board is is to uh to keep the EDC and chamber at 100,000 for the chamber $85,000 for the EDC uh keep the the positions for extension at 2.8 rather than 2 uh 85 uh and then the board would be would be fine at this point point with utilizing or would support utilizing 1.83 5 million uh for uh for dos at the levy from fund balance and then we will reach out to uh the soil and water and look at if there is any repair in funds that can be utilized uh uh to offset the soil and water and then also to does the board want us to reach out to a marine uh in regards to the Historical Society historical and Cultural Society well it probably should come from you maybe if they I mean they have to have an audit audited results too but even their proposed for actual I've never exactly seen they proposed an actual one one of the things that most those external agencies will do is they'll they'll provide us with a budget and then if in in sometimes if they're funding portion of a current Year's um budget with fund balances uh we have an idea what those fund balances are that they have I we talk about it with our own budget why shouldn't you know external agencies should be providing that same thing to us so I I do agree with commissioner mojo on that but okay I I did have one last question for Lor when we met I had asked the if you were able to uh calculate the revenue on the uh 50% cost share on federal stuff for in that we have for or um cuz cuz that that's something you had said was not included in the revenue so when we raise uh all of our wages that should also mean that we have increased you know and in those that qualify 50% of that comes from the federal government but so we put the entire cost of that in our budget but not the revenue offsetting from top so if we could do that incorporate that too I have not done that yet yeah and and and I knew that that was I think we me we talked last Thursday or something and so he didn't but I still think that that's something that uh could also then because we know it's got to be something so whatever that is add that in too on the revenue side that basically that'll bring that net down a little bit but work with Quin yeah yeah perfect thank you anything else all right thank you for your feedback appreciate it thank you and let's see you've got one more yes uh the last uh item I have this morning is the request approval to enter into a pre-design contract with Klean McCarthy Architects uh this uh this board has identified addressing mental health as one of its priorities within our County uh previously this board took action on seeking funds for a psychiatric Residential Treatment uh facility for youth uh we had entered into an agreement uh to look at a pre-designed contract for services for at that facility having said that as we started that process uh and we looked at the needs of that facility one of the things that commissioner Campbell pointed out was is we we have a facility just like that already it's called a non-cure Detention Facility located across the street uh and uh uh I think that one of the things that has been talked about previously is we utilized that that space uh because it was it was convenient but for some of our youth uh that maybe isn't the best uh place to to go especially those that have done nothing to necessarily be there and so one of the the ideas that was brought forward was uh to utilize the prtf or use the non-secure detention space as the prtf uh and then look at funding uh for uh for the non-secure detention in a different location uh we've had the opportunity to talk about that as a as a building committee uh the the uh that that committee was in support of that we also had the opportunity to talk through our legislative committee uh with with representative C or excuse me representative Keeler and senator koac in regards to that and felt that uh that was something that uh they could uh they could support through legislative requests also uh and so uh the request before you this morning from CLE McCarthy uh is a is a lumpsum contract not to exceed uh $ 155,50 uh if you recall earlier our earlier project uh was $199,000 uh dollar with the reimbursables uh we spent about 20 roughly a little over $21,000 of that on that study having said that uh Clan McCarthy has indicated that because of the work that we did there some of that work will transfer uh into uh into this discussion this contract has predesigned service for both uh the expansion or or the design of a new facility but also any potential redesign of the existing facility that the Department of Human Services and mdh uh would have uh for that uh it's important to realize that as a as a hourly not to exceed the cost of the two studies for the redesign or for the predesign and the remodel would be roughly about $85,000 as we've talked about through our other project uh B3 requirements uh do come with with legislative funding and so uh there would be up to an additional $75,000 of fees for B3 uh depending on the square footage of that facility and with that I'd yield for any questions commissioner Campbell thank you thank you Steve I um you know I think I think it's really important that we um go through this this phase I I I I think the focus is going to be on on a um the design of a new non-secure uh Slash transitional housing um facility um and then and then a what would be a re remodel if anything on for the prtf um and and the the nice thing about that is all of these funds you know if if it is approved and we get it they're included in what we we can ask for through uh the financing from the state uh I I just my only concern is um with the language in the motion to adopt that's in here and it and it almost gives the impression that we're building two new buildings um because it says a contract for a non-secure facility and a psychiat res Residential Treatment Facility it's you know I I think with you know just from a public standpoint we're not trying to build two new buildings and the way the way this reads it could read that we're building two new buildings sure so but I you know I fully support us moving forward with with this um contract with Klein McCarthy and I think through our building committee we also suggested that that should move forward any other comments commission Campbell would you have a uh an alteration to the motion that was presented that you'd like to move well I um yeah I I would I would move the that we approve entering into a predesigned contract with Klein McCarthy Architects for a non-secure juvenile facility uh and for um the redesign of um our current non-secure unit um to the needs required for a prtf do we have a second sounds good I'll second that okay discussion and I you know and I I guess I I do know that um from the Lang the language and how we do it and what we do for the state I you know I think the key thing there is that is that we're in this process that we would be doing we are taking what is already ours and using it for what is a Statewide need you know so so from that stand standpoint and there's I believe we still have a what a $2 million balance on the bond in that building so all of these things have to be financially um put together in a in an appropriate package and and it needs to be supported first and foremost if we're going to get anywhere by our local legislatures and it's my understanding that they're on board and in the know on how that all works but the only thing that that would concern me is if the motion that I have um put forward is adequate for the needs of our legislators I'm assuming it would be because this is just really about the hiring the the architect for design I would I would think commissioner Campbell Mr chair that this would be appropriate based on the discussions that we had okay thank you this is a necessary expense it's kind of like uh you can't go fishing without buying tackle and this is the tackle we need to go try and land this this funding so um and as commissioner Campbell indicated the building committee was was comfortable with this any other discussion we've got a motion to second on the floor if there's no further discussion all in favor say I I I oppose same sign motion passes thank you yeah uh going to take five minute break e e e e e e e e e e e okay back in session and we're in committee reports and I believe check my notes believe we're going to start with commissioner Campbell okay all right on the 20 the 27th in that after we did have a um we had a solid waste budget meeting where we went over with u Cory the things that he presented today and the changes that that he made and there basically those the $5 increase on the uh tax and then the $3 tipping fee is what will be needed just to cover the current expenses it's um then on the 28th we had a Prairie Lake Solid Waste meeting and at that meeting Senator Senator kic was was there and um he toured the plant and then he was able to come in for the first 15 minutes or so of our meeting and you know I think in the past he had shown some some sort of concern I think it was mostly towards that the the uh waste energy facility in Minneapolis and the location that it was at and I think he had some strong concerns there on that but but by and large he's been very supportive of our facility as a matter of fact when there was legislation out there that maybe could have hampered the ability for the waste energy facilities to continue he stood he he spoke up and said you know that our facility uh was doing it the appropriate way we were able to talk to him a little bit about the ass reutilization and I just kind of wanted him to be aware that in the future that might be uh an alternative product that can be used in mot projects as well so it could be used just not so much just for County projects but if mot has some projects in the area that could use that it would be beneficial uh of course we asked about the score funding and I also we also talked to him about how these facilities uh could potentially be a positive for all the discussion about posos and how you get rid of it and and in our facility in purum um our facility Heats to 1900 degrees and posos are 95 to 98% destroyed at 1700 degrees so this could be another way that could you know could actually be a good reason why we have these facilities to get rid of that contaminant um we did receive our Ash permit from mpca for and I believe that's I don't if it's a three-year permit or whatever uh and then there will be some T stack testing done for posos uh done December 2nd and when we talk about how it destroys it we still want to know what emissions might be coming out and that we're we're going to be within those safe standards which I'm confident we will based on other places that have done the same thing that same day I came back then we had the building committee meeting and we had um some significant discussion about um the um needs of Social Services as well as um public health and then with James with the second floor the fourth floor um there's going to be 3200 square ft that's going to be available for uh could be available for uh um Social Service needs and in the second floor another 1,400 ft that could be available for public health and this is outside of the uh area that's James is currently using which is 5,000 square ft and again if you recall our overall uh conversation and plan with the merger of non-secure and the prtf that it could also free up that 5,000 square ft in the family service center which would really uh put us in a good position long term and I know Brian Milton had talked about is it probation Steve that has really been wanting to get back over closer to the campus so there might be some opportunities there down the road um we did uh hear from Joe regarding the building that we have over here and it's um I I think based on the costs involved we had talked about renting that that house that's kind of out of the question now so we'll be just keeping that um up in terms of um view from the public uh we talked about the garage doors at the resour recovery facility and there you know the need that we have to get those in place before winter sets in and of course there's going to be some legal issues that are going to be ongoing and attorney Melton's been involved with that discussion there was also some long-term discussion about the front entrance of the exterior of the family service center what could be done with the canopy and the way that all looks um at this point in time I don't know that there was any direction really given to make changes at this point and you know then we did just we had the timeline uh of things that come over the next year to all the way up through 2030 so um good discussions that were had there and that concludes my report thank you commissioner cra off thank you um I just had one meeting that was on the 20 Wednesday the 28th we had our monthly uh meeting for the historical and cultural society and um just a couple quick comments about that um we had one of um Gabby who was in in charge of our um Communications uh uh for the um for the societ soety uh uh has uh left her position got a a really good job with the University of Minnesota down the cities and so um we're in the process of replacing a a big job and uh that she did um and it looks like we have some uh good applicants uh in mind uh also just a um kind of it's been an ongoing conversation now for a couple months we we know that our um executive director uh Marine is going to be leaving us in July of 2025 so we've been doing salary surveys along with um um um um excuse me a full board um excuse me employee uh positioning in the work that they do we had a retreat and um just how things may look for uh what uh ahead for a new executive director and putting that uh person in a good place to succeed and carry on the good work that the U Society has done for a number of years uh we also had a um as board education we had a um um a discussion about the traveling Z zibits that we uh do and I'll just make a couple of qu quick comments uh so uh each year we have about a $225,000 budget over there for the traveling exhibits they were normally three a year um and and not only are there three a year in order to get these exhibits uh some of them are three years um ordered three years in advance so it takes quite a bit to get these things to come to uh our facility uh so anyway we did a a deeper dive into that and um it was very interesting so anyway otherwise budget's good shape and um we we look forward to our fall activities the Pangia coming up the big event uh that will hold at the mcoms in November 16th and also a in October having a fundraiser for the hisorical society called The Hustle 5K so uh put on your running charts and come out on Saturday October 12th that's it thank you commissioner mooso thank you I last week on last Tuesday I attended the solid waste budget committee discussion uh as commissioner Campbell alluded to I also attended the Prairie Lakes uh committee meeting um really thankful that Senator cek had the opportunity to get out there and tour the facility if you're not familiar with what happens out there it's really helpful ful to observe um really great opportunity to reduce so much out of the way stream and have a dialogue with a lot of uh different County entities who see the importance in such a joint facility um then I also had a discussion with Steve on the budget proposals that we discussed today and then um wanted to um in update the board I've been appointed to a subcommittee on tax and state assessed properties it's the subcommittee that the association of Minnesota counties has through um Matt hilgart to discuss a lot of what's going on in the realm of that Statewide really grateful for the opportunity to provide Klay County's perspective on that uh certainly um there's a lot of different um unique circumstances regarding the dialogue that we'll have there and hopeful that um some of those discussions will W fa ably for Klay County um I know that in the past uh when I served on the tax forfeiture committee it required a board support so just um wondering if this board sees support and value in that I would move that uh you be granted prdm on that okay have a motion to Second any further discussion all in favor say I I I motion passes thank you I appreciate the opportunity and then that concludes my report okay I only had one uh meeting and that was covered by commissioner Campbell the building committee meeting he was very thorough in that I do however I've also AMC's request that I serve on a on a u Grant review for sa the fa safe courts program and uh that is probably going to involve um well there's 24 packets so it's going to involve a lot of time at the desk but we also have about six meetings scheduled and that'll be representing AMC as part of the uh Public Safety Board and I would like to see if I could uh get an commit or commission report uh vote on that as well Mr chair I'll add that to your committee portfolio with prium no second okay have a motion a second I'll abstain but all in favor say I I oh same sign okay thank you um that completes my report Steve thank you Mr chair I participated in the solid waste budget discussion that was addressed by commissioner Campbell and commissioner L commissioner Mojo uh also participated in the building committee which has been addressed on the 29th I met with uh Troy and Kathy uh in regards to uh food contract at the new location uh talked about the door updates and key issues are they're having uh and then also what their training schedule looks like as we as we approach uh the opening of the facility um just a just a followup I I did have the opportunity to uh to talk with commissioner gross on Friday he threatened to be here this morning um but uh he's hoping to return soon but having said that last week we did uh we talked I brought forward the lands committee update uh our lands committee uh I think there was in talking with Mr chair I think there was a little bit of confusion on what committee I was getting across uh and so uh just wanted to bring that forward again again there's a potential that commissioner gross will be back by the time that meeting starts uh but uh in in the case that uh we're we're not just looking to have a a discussion with a motion of who who we would like to have on that committee uh with uh with PDM commissioner mooso you're on that committee but there's two members so we need a second one I was mistaken on which committee that was I thought it was one I was covering for commissioner gross but is that um something commissioner krainov would you be interested in that may be uh that sorry I don't have my calendar pulled up did you say the date it's in the next two weeks it's um that committee we we cover a lot uh in regards to the county-owned properties uh the Crestwood pollinator site we went through that the haland leases Gravel Pit stuff did you see it um thank you say it again 10 what the same day as the ordinance meeting I think Matt was looking to have it right after board next week oh yeah that'd be fine do we need a motion on that uh yes please Mr chair I'll make a motion to add commissioner krainov as commissioner gross's alternate for that with prium second a motion second all in favor say I I poose same sign okay U and then would just note I appreciate the the comments and discussion in regards to full-time administrator uh today um we'll bring assistant administrator assistant administrator today that I wouldn't appreciate but I do I do uh I do as was pointed out we are fortunate to have a very many great number of talented people here uh that that makes everything run smoothly uh as an example of that the question that uh that you guys had in regards to uh the the statute in regards to cannabis uh the 80% will go to the general fund of anything anything generated through the tax portion uh and 20% will come to local government so Matt was Matt was watching us and forward to that on so that concludes my report thank you girl anything nope Sarah well a little early but I suppose we're adjourned --------- ##VIDEO ID:SS0pMx1WJXk## good morning it's 8:30 and I'm going to call the Clay County Board of Commissioners meeting for September 3rd 2024 to order first item on the agenda is approval of the agenda I'll move to approve the agenda second and motion second any discussion if not all in favor say I I both same sign motion passes and we have an employee recognition this morning Sheriff let you talk about Marine Keegan thank you uh unfortunately something came up last minute for marine so she's not able to be here today but Marine has been with us for 20 years um she spent the majority of her uh time with the sheriff's office in warrants and transports so she travels uh across the state and even sometimes sometimes across the country to pick up folks that um need to come back to our facility um soon she will be and I got to be careful how I word this she will be the person with the most amount of experience in that division um with the upcoming retirement of of jelle Ragin boach so we really appreciate marine and her knowledge and her Dedication that she has to the Sheriff's Office and uh into the Warren and transports division thank sheriff and thank you to [Applause] Marine next on the agenda we have citizens to be heard are there any citizens here that want to speak to any issue that's not on today's agenda Steve anybody online nothing Mr chair all righty next approvement of payment of bills and vouchers move to approve second the motion and motion second any discussion all in favor say I I oppose same sign motion passes next we have approval am minutes from August 20th 2024 August 27th 2024 and the work group session minutes from August 13 2024 move approval okay motion a second any discussion if not all in favor say I I oppose same sign okay next we have let me get caught up here TN Jagger and Jessica mikkelson uh approval to replace one full-time employee social worker position with back fill if needed Quinn Jessica good morning Mr chair Commissioners um we are here like you said to request uh the approval of one full-time Social Work position in our adult intake unit um we are in the unfortunate position of having to replace somebody who's had 31 years of experience in this position so it's pretty neat um but also very demanding um so this is our adult intake uh we do have 1.5 FP in this position right now um this is the one full-time person in this role um again we talked a lot at pck committee about her institutional knowledge that she has and how difficult it's going to be to replace um we are looking at four weeks of of overlap so we upon approval of this uh motion we would immediately start the posting uh we're hopeful that there'll be some internal interest with this as well so I would request that backfill be completed um there will be a slight cost a slight impact uh as this person would start in 2024 so it be $879 of an increase to the 2024 budget um however I did go back and look at how we're sitting in terms of vacancies that we've had and we would more than have enough um I or more than enough under spending in our salaries for 2024 to cover this $ 8,079 difference for 2024's Budget um we did include the wage calculator for 2024 and 2025 for for your review um if there's any questions I would gladly take those questions Mr chair I'll make a motion to approve the request with a backfill as necessary second have motion and second any further discussion if not all in favor say i i i o same sign very good good luck on the search she's this going to be a difficult spot to to replace yes very much so yeah thank you so much thank you thank you thanks Cory bang Solid Waste manager Solid Waste budget presentation morning Mr chair morning Commissioners thank you I'm here to present the budget for the 2025 um or proposed budget for 2025 I'll just go from the top to bottom uh point out some highlighted changes um some big percentage changes and explain why uh the very first line on page 62 is the special assessment um after a couple meetings we've decided that we need to raise our special assessment from or by $5 from 45 to 50 um what this does is it covers the cost of equipment um all of our Capital needs and we were falling behind um as you know the compactor went from 600,000 to 1.2 million so uh we don't want to be in a bind in a couple years down the road so we are requesting to add that $5 to the per parcel fee a little further down you'll see there's an inter fund transfer that we removed um all that did was take money from the capital side or from the operating side to the capital side so we just elected to take that out rather than juggling money back and forth just to have a true budget um a little further down Printing and Publishing I removed that out of the uh Solid Waste Management budget and we moved it into the rrc we're just trying to combine everything into one budget item or one category there so uh same on the following page we had a couple items that were 100% decrease we move those to the resource recovery center budget also uh just combine it to make it a little easier and the last one on the next p on that page is that $200,000 they offset the first one so composting budget did not change uh recycling we took out the part-time salary there and we put it into the RC budget we're using the same people in all those positions so we just put them all into the one same with equipment repair maintenance and office supplies we moved all that to the rrc budget and I removed the miscellaneous item on the very bottom as we don't use is miscellaneous very often on page 66 in the household hazardous waste budget um we removed the part-time salary there also move that to the RC as we share the same people so we put it in one category we took the telephone and postage out completely because that goes to the RC and we did have an increase in our other Professional Services there just due to the fact that our haulers that pick up our material have raised their rates so we have to have something to cover that that's where that increase comes from on page 67 cleaning supplies move that to the rrc and small tools and supplies I raised that a little bit just because we have some small needs but it's only $1,000 it's 100% increase but it's only a $1,000 increase so cost of everything's going up on page 68 the existing landfill budget we are proposing the landfill fees will go from $53 a ton to $56 a ton this again is tocover the cost of increased expenses uh it's a $3 increase so it's pretty minimal but it should help us cover all of our operating expenses uh we also raised the hay rent we rebid that this spring and went from $500 a year to roughly 2,000 or a little more so we'll get a little bit more income there I remove the printing and public or printing and publishing went up a little $500 just to cover uh cost of increase or cost increases uh other Professional Services I dropped that to or I dropped that to 200,000 from 300,000 if you remember last year I dropped it from 500 to 300 uh we don't have any major projects and it seems like that was an Overkill so we we are trying to find a true number for that amount or for that category uh conference registration I removed that as we don't have any L manager alter anymore going to any conferences or anything like that so that reduced it by 1500 page 69 there was no changes no major changes on 70 uh equipment over $500 uh we're having some pump issues so I I bumped that up to $10,000 um the pump itself is about 2500 so if I have to replace one pump and we have three or four of them um the $2,500 we had in the budget would be gone right away I don't think we got that page we don't have that page is this under existing landfill yes so it should be in the back page 70 for us I think it's page 67 okay got it find it okay so we went it was equipment over $500 so we went from 2500 to 10,000 as I was saying uh those pumps alone or would eat up the $2,500 budget um if you see the very bottom line there the closure or not of that section above the resource recovery it says closure and post closure cost it's $270,000 we move that to the capital side of the budget and that'll come out of our per parcel fee uh that number is a variable that goes could go anywhere from a negative number as you see uh to a very positive number of $400 $500,000 so that $270,000 is a is a benchmark and we leave that in there to kind of cover us both ways down in the resource recovery portion uh salaries other we added $32,988 that's to cover Joe's maintenance and janitorial staff um we didn't have those in previous budgets but it was only fair to pay for for his people when they're cleaning and maintaining our building building repair and maintenance I bumped that up from 5,000 to 10,000 just because our stuff is off warranty now or the majority of it and $10,000 will cover the costs we're hoping so uh everything has gone up a little bit but and that is all unless you have questions questions for Corey thank you appreciate Corey thank you next up we have our County Administrator our current County Administrator Steven lson and Lorie Johnson uh thank you Mr chair Commissioners we're a little ahead of time so I'm anticipating Lor's on her way here but uh we can certainly start here and she can jump in as we go um we're like a half hour early though well you I could do our other ones I just mean for the sake of Lori I don't think that's fair yeah um we could do uh committee reports or you've got some other things here I have two other items Mr chair yeah change order and predesign contract I could jump jump and do those and and then we could do we could do uh committee assignments if committee updates if we're still moving ahead of the schedule uh the first item I guess is item number five request to change order number three uh for Department of Motor Vehicle project uh if you take a look uh on the back side of your document uh there are five different items uh that are there uh pr4 which is a card card reader uh from from a door standpoint adjustment of $1,748 75 cents uh a roof cap metal color upgrade uh as we've got to the project uh to the end of the project there's a area from a cap standpoint that we felt looked better was $786 waiting waiting ceiling perimeter trim uh was not part of the original plan uh but uh but uh requesting to move forward to $1,597 adjustment uh spray foam installation uh as we got to the there was different spots behind uh the beams that we weren't able to get uh get the insulation in so we had to spray foam that that was $5,775 and then as they worked through the seiling of the trim we also had some adjustments to the duck work that had to be made $2,457 uh for a total of 22,36 one25 the additional CM Fe fee uh with a 23591 and 12 uh again as we've talked about we've been done very well from a contingency standpoint the original contingency on this project was $26,700 uh when if approved uh this would leave a remaining contingency of $183,200 25 with that i' yield for any questions questions for Steve commissioner karanov yeah um give me a idea on that uh remaining contingency what type of things might be that would get to that bigger figure for the 183 well we're hoping we're hoping nothing but I mean what kind of things are possible ahe I'm just curious uh I mean I think you're just you just have any any minor changes that uh that we would need to make adjustments on uh from from the DMV standpoint I think we're we're in a pretty solid position so I mean I don't think we're anticipating any significant changes to that well but too though didn't we talk about internally the the the approach mean that's something that will be included there's an approach to the farmers field uh to the to the in to the West uh there'll be additional change there but that I mean that won't from 183,000 standpoint that that uh will but that is an adjustment that would be coming yeah was it I think the cost on that was 6,000 I think it was right around there yeah any other questions for Steve okay thank you Lor's with us do we want to jump in do we need Mr chair could we could we get a motion to to approve that change order sorry about that Mr chair I'll offer a motion to approve change order number three in the amount of 23591 and12 have motion to Second any further discussion if not all in favor say I I oppose same sign motion passes um Lori do you want to pop up or good there uh okay um thank you Mr chair again just a budget discussion over the in the last week the board uh has been working on uh working on approving the market study uh and so uh with that uh we gave the last board presentation that we had had a had a a net Levy request increase of 8.375 uh with the with the market study uh implementations of various steps that we had uh we we are now sitting at uh 10.23 uh percent increase understanding that that's not an acceptable level um Miss Johnson and I have had multiple meetings over the last week uh and and have some uh things for this board to consider to to move forward uh before we do that I would just note that this board this budget already does include a 3% Cola it includes a 9% Insurance cre increase which is n 4.5% of that uh is the counties uh we have step increases uh new requests uh we have $250,000 for future uh insurance and again the market study implementation is also uh included in this to get to that 10.23% over the last week we've looked through uh several different areas for Bud budget mitigations we look for again the review of Department budgets uh the utilization of County fund balances uh We've looked at the review of utilization of additional funds whether that that's the public safety dollars that you've already approved uh or consideration the use of arpa which will be discussed at an upcoming meeting and then also internal and external budget uh requests um so the the uh use of County fund balance I think I know that this board uh takes two things very seriously uh number one uh having a healthy fund balance that meets the auditor standpoint um but also they you firmly believe that in the event that you've asked for tax levy dollars from citizens that in the event that we have revenues over expenditures that that be look to utilize for future budgets uh and so uh today today as Lori and I sat down and and looked at our budgets uh we did I did provide you an updated uh fund balance comparison document again uh within your packet uh just of note that again this is a hasn't been the audit hasn't been completed it's an estimate at this point uh but but we did see some adjustments uh in the general fund uh and Miss Johnson also put together on a second document here uh provided additional information of how or why some of those fund balances have adjusted uh in a in a positive positive way and so if you take a take a Peak from the general fund uh the estimated amount at the end of 2023 was 14 , 324,000 M500 488 again if you recall last year we had a significant market value adjustment of roughly $4 million uh we're fortunate to uh to have an adjustment back of about 1 Point uh just about 1.7 million uh so that was a positive thing we also saw increased interest uh than what we what we were anticipating with with the uh from our budget there are also several different one-time items the criminal justice Aid uh positions that were left open uh that uh that U caused additional revenues over expenditures we also had the sh the corrections of the jail uh also had some job openings but also if you recall uh we helped out Ottertail County when they had some different issues and so we had some uh when their jail was not uh able to be used so we had some additional Revenue that we that we had uh had there so um again the recommendation then after our discussion was to utilize $1 million from the general fund half a million dollars from public health uh and also uh $350,000 from Social Services can you say that again please um 1 million from the general fund $500,000 from Public Health and $350,000 from Social Services one of the things that we wanted just a a reminder for the board uh that you've already you've already appropriated some of these funds uh for different different things one you have $500,000 that you set aside uh for this 2024 budget you have another $500,000 that you set aside to complete uh the the uh withdrawal management detox project uh we've utilized 276,000 for the Holly Highway shop and also 19453 uh dollars for the home that we purchased on the Northwest Campus so uh again of the fund balances uh already appropriated that don't show on the 2023 document uh are 1.4 uh 1,425 534 um so just to take that into consideration as far as uh as far as where we are from a from a a levy standpoint or excuse me fund balance on each of those areas with h with the adjustment uh again I would say also say that $ 1.83 five million in recommendation would be the largest fund balance that this board has utilized and that would get the the levy proposed down to 5.87% um uh just of note in 2020 when we did the last Market study 8 5.85 was the net Levy amount that was settled on having said that we continue to look at different Alternatives uh to to lower that again this board has taken action on the public safety funding already uh utilizing $ 32,44 of the remaining uh remaining funds to offset the sheriff's department budget uh for this year uh the the arpa committee is scheduled to meet on on September 9th uh we have at least 144,000 $743 remaining there uh and uh looking to to find ways to utilize that within the budget to uh to offset the levy uh new requests you also have a form uh within your in your packet of the new requests as you've had presentations from the different departments uh those have been brought forward uh as part of their presentations uh and looking at that uh we have a couple different uh recommendations for this board to consider uh the Assessor's Office asked in their budget has a $45,000 line item for aerial pictometry this pictometry is different than the other pictures that we've taken throughout the county uh this will allow uh this will allow the auditor's office uh by Statute every three years that if they can't get on a property uh they can do uh the aerial the aerial pictures are so sharp uh and within uh within the appropriate uh uh ability to uh to have uh to utilize them for for the Assessor's work and so we have repairi and Aid that we receive funding for from the legislature each year we continue to to get that again this year uh there are restricted things of how we can spend those dollars uh and so the request would be uh for you to considers to remove uh remove the $45,000 request from the assessor's office uh and and utilize uh run that through our repair and Aid uh committee for for potential use there have a question really quick quick on the riparian aid I understand it's allocated and we have an account that sort of builds for any issues what is that amount at okay okay I'm not sure exactly what that okay and the other re the reason I'm asking is you know I I know we have a nominal increase requested from S swcd I don't have it in front of me is it three to four something perc is there any work within the scope that they do that we could offset that request with the riparia need that's certainly something that uh we could look into if the I mean they do so much that I think it could qualify for and I just have a hard time with you know I know the intent why it was earmarked and understanding that we've gotone a little bit past now the buffer strip implementation and issues coming out of that I that might be an opportunity to capture some spend some more of those funds um and keep it off the levy I certainly take a look yeah if we get that number that'd be good because it seems to be building yep we can certainly look in look into that okay uh the the uh as I mentioned we're scheduled to meet with arpa and one of the things that the Commissioners from arpa committee have have discussed is looking at victim witness uh position this position has been funded by arpa in previous years uh and next year that would be a 998,199 uh position that could be removed uh from uh from the budget also if you recall at Public Health when Kathy was here uh the state of Minnesota is no longer paying for vaccines and so she has $20,000 in her budget uh that uh she would uh uh that could be covered by the arpa arpa funds and then could be subsequently removed from her budget the next item is new request is coming from rhod and Bridge Highway Department New maintenance worker uh again within Justin's budget he has multiple variable hour positions that are utilized for snow removal and also for mowing um uh and as if you recall during his board board presentation on the budget uh he had $400,000 uh that has gone to to the city of Morehead for the last 20 years for the 40th Avenue turnback uh and during his budget request or during his budget update he requested that that $400,000 be allowed to be kept in his budget to deal with seal coating and additional striping um the request for you to consider would be to utilize look at utilizing $755,000 of that $400,000 uh for the new position uh and when you remove the variable hours if your board was to approve that uh that would be a Savings of $120,000 $120 uh as Justin also reported uh he is going to be having five retirements that are going to happen this fall uh the board has already taken action on uh on looking to replace those but uh in reviewing and reviewing those positions with with Lori and and Darren uh we're going to see a another Savings of roughly $125,000 uh and so these would all be requests for your consideration uh we the balance uh for riparian 8 at the end of 2023 was 82493811 [Music] within the realm of the intent of those funds I really do feel like we could offset some of that and um I just in a in a time when we're lobbying the legislature for some big needs um you know I have a hard time if we're not utilizing frequently those funds that are being have been allocated um especially now that all of the buffer strips have been implemented and to the point if I may uh add you know I I do feel specifically for the ask on on what we're talking on the AER P commentary there we go uh I think that aligns itself for those uses any I agree as well yeah yeah I had no idea that number was that high I knew it was high but well it's been a it's been several year it's been several years since that and can I ask um being I'm newer so was there over the last let's see that started what eight years ago or six years ago it was the Dayton Administration so I'd say yeah about eight my um so my point was was there discussions earlier on from commission uses for those funds at all we did have discussions or I mean we have a buffer strip um committee and we did have discussions on you know how we could utilize those funds I think that you know maybe I'll lean on the attorney a little bit I mean part of those were um understanding that there could be some litigation that um some of those funds would need to go pay for if we had land owners that weren't wanting to comply understanding it wasn't our regulation it was from the state um so I think that's initially why some of that um was that way but we had talked between um the assessor's office and lands the planning planning and zoning office if that could be utilized in some way but nothing definitive commissioner Campbell Lori the repairing Aid is that is that a considered a restricted fund through with the state auditor's office yes and so we don't that's not considered when we talk about what we have for available Reserve fund balances so it's it's kind of f balance outside El by itself sitting out there somewhere it's part of the general fund but it's a restricted fund balance and this would make the the uh criteria for perion a the pictometry one for sure yeah so but that eight that $800,000 is nothing that anything to do with the 14 million that we show on the general fund balance no okay Lori do you see a downside to using this aid for that purpose not at this point I don't I think it would be helpful to find out what um the boundaries are of that fund just uh get a feel for that because it just seems like a big enough amount we should be UTI you know if we have some um lateral movement with it you know this the statute basically says and it was 2015 so we were close on that it's been longer than I thought but um that requires buffer land along those public Waters and public Drainage Systems within the state and the aid in in the section is used to enforce and Implement these requirements well if I can just to just to chime in here so so on that on that all that buffer stuff that we did did we turned that over to the Watershed they get a portion of it they get a portion of the automatically of the raran a fund they get a portion of that they get a portion yes I see okay and that I'm assuming that's then to handle the buffer stuff that they work on for the county okay thank you yeah but I our compliance I mean um the Buffalo red was RA lagging on their work you know their completion of it but they pretty well are catching up on that the the part that the Solen water had I mean it's it's like 99 something complete so again it'd be just nice to see what latitude we have with us yeah I think and I think that based on the this board's request last year we did spend time some time with Matt Jacobson and also Soil and Water staff just to to look at some different ways and we can certainly look at that again does our other Watershed District receive part of that too then they've they've chosen to allow the county to to utilize to address those issues so uh we don't provide provide funds for them any other questions all right the the final document that uh I had in your packet was the internal agencies uh again there in addition to our departments there are agencies which this board has chosen to provide uh uh funding for uh as a part of our ongoing Levy and so the request there are requests from 2025 it also shows based on what their 2024 request was and so uh from a board standpoint if there's any insight or direction that you would like uh to provide or here um this is the information of of our external agencies thank thank you I didn't mean to derail the conversation on the other parts I really am grateful for the work that you've put in to find additional ways to offset Levy requests with a new requests I you know I I think it's it looks really good and I support that I want to go back a little bit about all of the discussions that we've had throughout the last few months um and just I know we've provided some feedback there um I'm just going to maybe P pick on extension because while that's not necessarily maybe in this external request piece there's a big agreement that was an addition you know and while I support that just because I really have seen firsthand the amount of work that those positions do throughout the entire County in a time when we spend a lot a lot of money on mitigating difficult circumstances I think that is an opportunity to provide great work throughout the county to um prevent things like that not only youth but um certainly in um natural resources realm as well um but you know we've tweaked a little bit the full-time equivalence for those positions over the years and I believe now we've transferred through attrition um so is it 2.8 plus 2.8 pardon 2.8 position 2.8 plus the um office support correct correct right so I think in the request this year it was maybe 2.85 um with that office support and I I understand their the reasoning um but knowing that the agreement is a large increase I would maybe lean towards holding the full-time equivalent going into this next year what it's been certainly open to board dialogue so it would be continuing the 2.8 instead of the 2.85 that's a new request am I getting a consensus from yeah it's part of those is that yeah um it's part of those discussion I agree with you uh commissioner I I think that you know that's a new role and let it you know let let's give it a little time uh I think for uh even though feels doing a wonderful work you know let's let's see uh how that develops um that'd be my opinion too Mr commissioner Campbell I I I would agree with that and I I just think back to um this new three-year contract uh that's out there now also had a an a significant uh increase I think it was to the tunee of 20 some per if I'm not mistaken for year one and then it was at yeah you know so you know so I you know I think that in all by itself there's it's it's increased in investment that we have to make in that and although we're only talking about a you know a really small fraction of a dollar amount there I still think it's probably appropriate that we um kind of absorb some of the High increase and cost of the what of what we already have first and then and then see what how that develops moving forward but I I agree with both Commissioners on their statements regarding that okay yeah I wouldn't be supportive then I I do have another um one if I might sure than you um over the last year I've taken a deliberate initiative to be more active with the edc's that we help fund with Levy dollars that being the chamber um greater um downtown Morhead Inc with Derek Le Point and then the GF greater for farore at EDC and I understand that you know individuals from this board are also on those boards too but um I I really one I'm going to say I really struggle with the joint ask from the GS EDC and the Chamber um I appreciate that their work mirrors itself in certain ways I appreciated their presentation um I I do have a hard time with a 26% increase for the the um requests this year being I I'm still not seeing generated work or discussions or or initiatives on this side of the river and I understand that we have challenges and opportunities with that um and understand that you know maybe you could do more with additional money but when you look at a $250,000 request for for an external agency that is a huge amount of money um particularly when I look at you know the Minnesota rural rural County's caucus that I'm we meet monthly if not every two weeks during session and the amount of funds that are generated for Minnesota counties through that we only pay $22,900 to that agency and the lobbying that we get is unbelievable um so back back to the other request I I really I'm not sure that I personally can rally behind that huge of an increase um this year I I think that um Shannon full has done phenomenal work the the LOB efforts the visibility at the capital the visibility at community events having monthly dialogues with leaders on the Minnesota side is huge and that it just can be really commended um I'm not so sure that that the other $85,000 that's that was last year now bumping that up even makes sense I can't I can't justify oh we haven't seen any work with that piece here's some more money I um I'm on that board the EDC and I agree with you wholeheartedly uh the chamber has done a very good job at what we need which is making St Paul aware that we are out here and we're part of the second largest metro in the state and she has done an impressive job I had the opportunity to go up to the first Morehead day at the capol and it was stunning we had a large group of very articulate people who went from uh chamber went from office to office and made our presence known and our needs identified um I I agree with commissioner Mojo that shanono has done a good job at representing our community in St Paul In fairness DDC they have got a huge amount of money coming from bismar and their business and their orientation is towards the development of uh businesses that are predominently on the west side of our River and as a result we kind of get lost in the crowd and to actually increase the funding when I've not seen anything directed towards the Minnesota side um at least as far as EDC goes I think we've got places we need to direct our funds and we have taxpayers to remember that that's no small amount to people that are paying I I've heard commissioner Campbell's warnings that it's a regressive tax and indeed it is it's one that's necessary for us to function but it's one that we need to be aware where we spend money and that is a pretty large ask at a 26% increase so I am inclined to agree with commissioner moso on this anybody else have a commissioner kraban off so in those discussions um you know for those of you that are involved with the chamber Andor the uh EDC when they ask for that additional 65,000 do we have a any idea were the emphasis of that money was pushing I mean they use the word joint but did they I mean in any conversation was there was something where the chamber was saying you know revalue you know we feel we need this more value and the EDC saying another piece you know was it 5050 was do you follow what I'm saying but uh you're looking at what the distribution of this exactly and that's the part that's bugging me well they they formed this Alliance um I've heard nothing identified as these are additional Services who will proide provide the Minnesota side uh they are working in unison on a lot of projects a lot of it is funding through the state of North Dakota but um they've revised the governance model that they're using in the EDC and as such um there's a lot more money available from the state of North Dakota and that I think they see it as everybody's got to chip in more well we're not getting it from St Paul and we do have specific needs that arguably are not being addressed on our side um that we we get some good support from chamber going to St Paul with us I think Derek Le Point's done a good job uh so that's where we're at and frankly and I'm speaking with all my constituents in the city of Morehead but we've got communities within our County that are doing a pretty good job of trying to promote their own businesses and we we we are not as supportive of them as we are of the EDC and those are things we really need to consider commissioner Campbell yeah I uh having served on the greater Fargo Morty DC uh board before not not on the executive committee as commissioner ering is now and commissioner Wayan was before him um I I you know I I recall you know that and that board was a fairly large board with several Minnesota members on it uh including the president of Concordia College morid State uh and then we also had um um several Pro you know business people that are involved there and I you know and I and I think back to some of those conversations that that you know we are always uh reminding that that there is this side of the river and you know and that there needs to be some some things done here and I I do I do think that um over the long you know the whole picture uh that that goes on in terms of Economic Development not always do are you are you going to be maybe the the successful one in landing the business uh but you have you still have an opportunity to to be able to have a home for some of those new employees that might work in those facilities and I think over the years Klay county has benefited from that uh you know all you got to do is take a look over I94 every morning and every evening and you can see the number of cars going over those people are going over there to work and we can't we can't lose sight of that uh you know but I I I guess my commissioner kbov that's the question that I have too is this $65,000 request because they they now put it in like like a combined request uh they still have separate budgets the chamber still has its own budget and and so how much how much are we how much is going to the chamber and how much is going to the EDC I I think we fund um for for what we're what we get out of it in terms of um business development in in Clay County I think the 85,000 towards EDC is adequate right you know so I and I'm not suggesting that that we remove that because just because there's always those other benefits that we get that I described that I think is a got a good value to it um um but I I 26% right now is a lot um I know they've got some some joint Ambitions that are new and might be exciting for some but and as commissioner eringer said I think they're they do get uh significant funding from um the state of North Dakota which I I don't know if it's passed through Cass County or how that works because Cass County is a big investor into that um um but uh yeah I I I I guess what it boils down to is I'm not excited about adding the 65,000 you I I agree that there are peripheral benefits uh a lot of people that work in North Dakota live in Morehead I don't know if what we're getting from the EDC is encouraging that though um I think there's an encouragement for people to live in Fargo and we're we're spending our taxpayers funds needs to benefit our taxpayers and that's part of of the concerns I've got again Shannon full has done a great job working with us and I hope she continues to give us the support that we can take to the capital she has up to now but I don't see a 26% increase being being prudent anyone else we used to have we used to also have another invest VOR um into this process not only Klay County but the city of morid and where where they at when it comes to uh investing into the EDC are they do they have any money going to the EDC anymore yes I can't remember the amount and I don't know if they've had a request for an increase and I don't know what the response to that is that may be some background we want to we want to reach out and and get from them just to give us some perspective on what we're you know what our what our position is going to be well last year I think there were 25 I think that's ringing in my head too but I'm not certain of it 25,000 yeah and then and then lastly I just want to um combine some of these things when you when we come to this discussion because it was it was uh my my motion and recommendation last year that we actually remove 25,000 from the EDC and move it over over to the downtown Mor at Inc because of the uh ex the tremendous amount of effort that's being placed on our side of the river and I see now that the the request from them is is to that they get that again the motion that originally made was basically going to be a one-time deal however I support the continuing effort and I do think that that 25,000 that was taken should stay uh with downtown more Inc and I think it's probably going to look that way where it's going to be a very positive investment over the next several years as we start to see the things happening they're they are truly engaged right now with the development so yeah you know I concur with that as well other comments thoughts on this what is what is uh 65 $5,000 taking out what does that do to our net well Mr chair if the board were if the board were to uh take all the recommendations that were brought forward to you today and Lori has got her her magic laptop uh if if you were to remove that plus the $65,000 request uh you'd be at 4.65% from a levy perspective I had an opportunity to to meet with L and Steve last week on on this and we had some really good discussions and and I think maybe from the recommendation standpoint where we're at on a preliminary Levy it's something that I I certainly I certainly think it's a good starting point and I I don't think we're going to be harmed by setting the preliminary ly at that and I just want to go back to a minute just on that piece with the highway department uh where Justin um had had asked for that full $400,000 uh that was going towards a turnback project now to being used for roads and striping the the fact of the matter that he'd still have $325,000 left of that $400,000 is still a significant significant increase to his ability to do what he couldn't do before to the tune of having $325,000 more money every year if if that was is the case that we want to continue to do that so I I still you know I I don't think we should look at that as a net bad thing uh with what we're doing and and using that 75,000 for his and it's still going to his department for a new request so um so I I think that's still makes a lot of sense uh I being on the arpa committee I'm going to certainly support the recommendations there and I know uh the victim witness thing uh that's Brian also serves on the ARA group up and I think think that's really a significant one that it makes sense to um be able to use those funds towards that and the same with the the 20,000 from public health but so I I you know I after sitting down with you two I I too want to thank you for your your work on that I I personally don't think we're done yet uh when I when I look at Circle these numbers I still think that we have the ability to to soften the blow a little bit more and uh but we can have that dialogue between now and December but but I everything that you've proposed here uh on on bringing this down I am in complete suppor of one one of the things that we also have to remember though in addition to these things is what was just requested of solid waste a that's another $5 that goes directly onto the property tax statement that $3 in tipping fee that's going to go on to everybody's uh uh monthly garbage bill you know so those are things that fall outside of our Levy but they're still things that are impacted by the people who have to pay for it and and we still haven't we're still not done with the HRA yet so okay I'm done okay um commissioner moo thank you commissioner evinger um the the one piece that I'm having a little bit and I understand that it's nominal um but the historical society is asking for a 3% uh this year and I know commissioner krainov you're on that I struggle not having the full budget and you know I we've heard it it's it's not ready till December but you know that agency is has the ability to recoup funds or revenues and you know I just struggle a little bit with that amount knowing that it was commented that they've done they did fantastic with um visits would maybe appreciate having more of an indepth um budget line item so we can see proposed in actuals I don't know if that's possible as we move forward but I think yeah I think we can get something I I can say that um as I follow the budget I mean their cash flows are good there there's no question about that one thing I think they've done you know they did a wage study also same thing 5 a half% you know that number seems to be pretty common and and so they're making their adjustments within uh they had a retirement of a you know Mar peel at you know would would have been a a high salary you know for being there 30 some years and and now you have so they're internally making those adjustments um and uh so I don't I don't think there I I don't what I view we get numbers I don't think they're building on their account at all I think they're just kind of managing and with that there is a good cash flow for that operation I think that you know they have a vision too and their vision is this is tourism this brings money in the Morehead this brings money into our County and what can we do to be the Museum that can be you know have some ability have some uh focal point from people throughout the state and the region and I appreciate that I I I hope no one up here feels like I'm pinpointing their specific committees I just know we haven't had the opportunity really to discuss as a whole through that so I I'd appreciate that and then my my final piece Mr chair um and then I'll be quiet is um as Klay County continues to grow grow um and we're tackling really complex issues as as reiterated here um and just looking at our legislative efforts um within the county uh County staff the ability to maybe seek Congressional delegated funding which I know we've not had the opportunity um to do you know we're really TX tackling some big issues and I I really [Music] um I know hasn't brought this forward and being cognizant of where the budget is and I've brought this forward to commissioner Campbell just to talk a little bit about you know I Clay County currently has a halftime assistant County uh administrator and I know that we don't have a request for this but it's as we look forward to what that would be I really think that Klay County needs to think really seriously about adding that as a full-time position uh we're we're growing as we alluded to in the discussion earlier and I appreciate that you know our administrator didn't bring this forward just because I know he's cognizant of what the the fiscal strain is on all of these requests but at at some point we have to take that step and and maybe it's January 1 uh you know we do have a pck committee that can work these things through uh we do have some maybe um Savings in in areas with the external agencies but certainly um if there's any additional revenues I'm not seeing cannabis revenues here not that we want to pay for that 100% with that but um to have crucial support um with the team that we've built to manage the day-to-day operations streamlining processes um and ensuring that our key projects are administrated effectively I really do think we'll see the savings um you know I just can think back of the legislative session and Steve spends two days at the capital and and Darren's working things through here but there's still is a large amount of issues that are going on and I'm not sure that we're funding that area as well as we could and so it's it's nothing against Steve or Darren's work at all but you can't look at how much everything is growing without acknowledging that I can wait on that first of all commissioner Mojo no problem with you talking these are things we need to talk about and you know even and we try and avoid work sessions and adding to everybody's busy calendar but these are this is a very important thing to discuss and I appreciate not just the Insight but the fact you bring things up that we need to talk about as a group one of the advantages and there are plenty of disadvantages that I have having worked as a staff person for 40 years in local government is that I've seen it done in very different circumstances different a different size communities different focuses but I've have never seen an administrative organization in the places I worked that run as runs as lean as we do here now that's a good thing we we don't have a bunch of people are sitting around with idle time but it's also there's just so much you can expect out of the team you've got if you don't have a a backup and that half time in our administrative team I think is warranted and it's worth discussing and it's worth looking at and we've talked about this for at least two years where you know maybe we'll look at it next year and think about it maybe we maybe it's time to look at it now and think about it and see what what a cost or what a a reorganization structure would look like to basically give our County Administrator who's doing a very good job the support that he needs where he needs it and that has to come from Steve and his his staff I mean that's not something we decide that's something Steve you provide us with the information and I'm soliciting that I think commissioner mosjo is soliciting that um it's just information but we I think we need to hear it you you're doing a good job but this is the fourth fastest growing county in the state and we're going to keep growing and not only hiring somebody now or getting somebody in position make sense five years from now having somebody with 5 years experience in administration when maybe we look at a real surge coming in will be invaluable when you need it is not the time to decide that you're going to staff it you staff that and anticipation those needs so I agree with commissioner moso that's something we really need to look at and consider well and and and part of the reason that I bring this forward is we've not had the opportunity to discuss this as a full board I've taken some of the feedback that I heard during reviews over the last six months but certainly uh if you look at our committee assignments as a whole they certainly grown and um we work with our administrator to do that I I would probably lean heavier on commissioner Campbell to this discussion probably because um you were here with the implementation of the assistant administrator when I I believe the administrator was V when VJ was here and that's when it was added and you know and I'm not quite sure the year that that was but certainly you can attest to to the need yeah I um first off I you know I I I think we've got the best Administration in state of Minnesota in terms of our County admin administrator and his group and I don't think we've gone backwards one bit in in what we do and what you know and that's a testament too to um both Steve and Darren and everybody that that he looks to for um advice and potential recommendations I I certainly think this is is worthy discussion I don't think it's I quite frankly I don't think it's anything that we need to put a a dollar placement in the budget for right now I think you know I think we're at this point in time we're trying to bring down that doesn't that does not mean that we still should not get the feedback I I think you both make a good point you you know we're recognize it and we're seeing the potential of our of the growth and demands I to this date Steve hasn't called me on the phone and say I need somebody I need I need help you haven't done that to me uh and you know but but I do think that you should be you know talking with us about that and and maybe you know maybe a good place to start is is pick and I and it goes to some of the other issues and commissioner Mojo mentioned legisl issues you know it wasn't too long ago we and I don't think we have anything on our budget right now for 2025 but we had talked about um um implementing some a lobbyist you know is um uh you know I I think there's there can there's something to be said by some who say don't send us lobbyist send us your own people uh to tell us what your needs are you know so from that standpoint you know that might that that might be a way too to maybe move some funds from one place where we're considering putting money to to something like that and again I I think it's a good idea I think the dialogue should continue I think we started off I think when we started off um it was Darren's position was 20% um admin or assistant and 80 right isn't it how Darren that sounds about right yeah yeah you know so so we've you know that's kind of moved up and I I I yeah anyway I I think it's I think it's worthy to talk about and I I don't think we should um avoid it I'm not saying that we shouldn't implement it in 2025 but if we do and and we've already set a levy uh you know just based on numbers I see we can find the money to do it for that year all you got to do is look at Revenue those overe expenditures thank you and I just to follow up I I really value all of your perspective on this and so I I think that we have a system to where we have a pick committee that can start pulling the numbers on what would that that cost um you know because it's intertwined with the HR department I think there's some ways you can work um well well I don't think Steve has ever come and said I need help uh you know I there's been years where he comes to us and can't at the end of the year has not been able to take his vacation and understanding um people with Dynamic responsibilities and families um sometimes it's it's more work to actually take your vacation than take your vacation and so I think from that I you know I think that is one aspect of why I think we need to add additional support to that department I would agree and and now four years of having worked with Steve I would I would be scared to death if he came in and said he needed help because I think it would be way past the point to where he needed help and that's not a criticism Steve it's a recognition um we uh we do have from what I've seen the best administrative group of any County when you go to these AMC conferences it shows even the counties that are way over budgeted in in certain areas and it reflects in their Levy and uh and yet you know we function well and effectively and that's a testament not just to you but to your two predecessors since I've been here the county has always had excellent administrators and Lori has always done a great and a very critical job for us so we're fortunate but you don't run somebody to death best best running back in in the NFL doesn't take every snap there's got to be a backup so this is something I hope we'll look at and pick as a good place to start oh Mr kavanov um I I support everything we're saying uh can I jump to another subject or okay so question on the revenue side do we have a rough idea what uh how the Cannabis tax will come in or when it comes in or is there any just asking projections that the state throws out that kind of says what an expectation may look like Mr chair commissioner krainov at this point we've seen nothing from the state as far as what we can expect so I don't know if at AMC uh the policy conference if we'll if we'll hear any information at that yeah because it is you know I don't know that it's gonna be huge but it it you know um it'll be interest what it AMS to because it comes to us right it's a really good point commissioner Crown up but we also got to remember that in 2026 I think there's a whole new boatload of taxes that are going to be coming forward that we're going to be required to pay too yeah no in terms of you know the cost for the uh per per employee family leave and Y all of those things that are going to be implemented in 2026 so uh hopefully that tax will be big on on that Revenue side and not to be too jaded but if it comes from St Paul uh you're going to get the bone there may not be much meat left on the bones uh I think the state's going to be pretty heavy-handed in taking their share of what they think running this and they have a pretty large L State um bureaucracy they're developing to oversee this and those folks got to be paid so I'm I'm not seeing this as as much of a windfall I hope it just what it cost us I hope is paid for any other input or Steve what else you got for us no I think uh I appreciate I just wanted to maybe kind of bring it all together together if uh the recommendations that that were brought forward uh uh will address the arpa next week uh the the feedback I got from the board is is to uh to keep the EDC and chamber at 100,000 for the chamber $85,000 for the EDC uh keep the the positions for extension at 2.8 rather than 2 uh 85 uh and then the board would be would be fine at this point with utilizing or would support utilizing 1.83 5 million uh for uh for dos at the levy from fund balance and then we will reach out to uh the soil and water and look at if there's any repair in funds that can be utilized uh uh to offset the soil and water and then also does the board want us to reach out to Marine uh in regards to the histor Society historical and Cultural Society well it probably should come from you maybe if they I mean they have to have an audit audited results too but even their proposed for actual I've never exactly seen their proposed and actual one one of the things that most of those external agencies will do is they'll they'll provide us with a budget and then if in in sometimes if they're funding portion of a current Year's um budget with fund balances uh we have an idea what those fund balances are that they have I we talk about it with our own budget why shouldn't you know external agencies should be providing that same thing to us so I I do agree with commissioner mojo on that but okay I I did have one last question for Lori when we met I had asked the if you were able to uh calculate the revenue on the uh 50% cost share on federal stuff for in that we have for um because because that that's something you had said was not included in the revenue so when we raise uh all of our wages that should also mean that we have increased you know and in those that qualify 50% of that comes from the federal government but so we put the entire cost of that in our budget but not the revenue offsetting from top so if we could do that incorporate that too I have not done that yet yeah and and I knew that there was I think we what met we talked last Thursday or something and so you didn't but I still think that that's something that uh could also then because we know it's got to be something so whatever that is add that in too on the revenue side that basically that'll bring that net down a little bit but work with qu yeah yeah perfect thank you anything else all right thank you for your feedback appreciate it thank you and let's see you've got one more it yes uh the last item I have this morning is request approval to enter into pre-design contract with Klean McCarthy Architects uh this uh this board has identified addressing mental health as one of its priorities within our County uh previously this board took action on seeking funds for psychiatric Residential Treatment uh facility for youth uh we had entered into an agreement uh to look at a pre-designed contract for services for at that facility having said that as we started that process uh and we looked at the needs of that facility one of the things that commissioner Campbell pointed out was is we we have a facility just like that already it's called our non-secure Detention Facility located across the street uh and uh uh I think that one of the things that has been talked about previously is we utilized that that space uh because it was it was convenient but for some of our youth uh that maybe isn't the best place to to go especially those that have done nothing to necessarily be there and so one of the the ideas that was brought forward was uh to utilize the prtf for use the non-secure detention space as the prtf uh and then look at funding uh for uh for the non-secure detention in a different location uh we've had the opportunity to talk about that as a as a building committee uh the the uh that that committee was in support of that we also had the opportunity to talk through our legislative committee uh with with representative C or excuse me representative Keeler and senator koac in regards to that and felt that uh that was something that uh they could uh they could support through legislative requests also uh and so uh the request before you this morning from cly McCarthy uh is a is a lumpsum contract not to exceed uh $155,500 uh if you recall earlier our earlier project uh was $ 109,000 uh dollar with the reimbursables uh we spent about 20 roughly a little over $ 21,000 of that on that study having said that uh Clan McCarthy has indicated that because of the work that we did there some of that work will transfer uh into uh into this discussion this contract has pred Design Services for both uh the expansion or or the design of a new facility but also any potential redesign of the existing facility that the Department of Human Services and mdh uh would have uh for that uh it's important to realize that as a as a hourly not to exceed the cost of the two studies for the redesign or for the predesign and the remodel would be roughly about $85,000 as we've talked about through are other projects uh B3 requirements uh do come uh with with legislative funding and so there would be up to an additional $75,000 of fees for B3 uh depending on the square footage of that facility and with that I'd yield for any questions commissioner Campbell thank you thank you Steve I um you know I think I think it's really important that we um go through this this phase I I I think the focus is going to be on on a um the design of a new non-secure uh Slash transitional housing um facility um and then and then a what would be a re remodel if anything on for the prtf um and and the the nice thing about that is all of these f funds you know if if it is approved and we get it they're included in what we we can ask for through uh the financing from the state uh I I just my only concern is um with the language in the motion to adopt that's in here and it and it almost gives the impression that we're building two new buildings um because it says a contract for a non-secure facility and a Psy psychiat res Residential Treatment Facility it's you know I I think what you know just from a public standpoint we're not trying to build two new buildings and the way the way this reads it could read that we're building two new buildings sure so but I you know I fully support us moving forward with with this um contract with Clin mcarthy and I think through our building committee we also suggested that that should move forward any other comments commissioner Campbell would you have a uh an alteration to the motion that was presented that you'd like to move well I um yeah I I I would move that we approve entering into a predesigned contract with Klein McCarthy Architects for a non-secure juvenile facility uh and for um the redesign of um our current non-secure unit um to the needs required for a prtf do we have a second sounds good I'll second that okay discussion and I you know and I I guess I I do know that um from the Lang the language and how we do it and what we do for the state I you know I think the key thing there is that is that we're in this process that we would be doing we are taking what is already ours and using it for what is a Statewide need you know so so from that standpoint and there's I believe we still have a what a $2 million balance on the bond in that building so all of these things have to be financially um put together in a in an appropriate package and and it needs to be supported first and foremost if we're going to get anywhere by our local legislators and it's my understanding that they're on board and in the know on how that all works but the only thing that that would concerned me is if the the motion that I have U put forward is adequate for the needs of our legislators I'm assuming it would be because this is just really about the hiring the the architect for design I would I would think commissioner Campbell Mr chair that this would be appropriate based on the discussions that we had okay thank you this is a necessary expense it's it's kind of like uh you can't go fishing without buying tackle and this is the tackle we need to go try and land this this funding so um and as commissioner Campbell indicated the building committee was was comfortable with this any other discussion we've got a motion to second on the floor if there's no further discussion all in favor say I I I oppose same sign motion passes thank you yeah uh going to take five minute break okay back in session and we're in committee reports and I believe check my notes believe we're going to start with commissioner Campbell okay all right on the 20 the 27th in that after we did have a um we had a solid waste budget meeting where we went over with u Cory the things that he presented today and the changes that that he made and there basically those the $5 increase on the uh tax and then the $3 tipping fee is what will be needed just to cover the current expenses it's um then on the 28th we had a Prairie Lake Solid Waste meeting and at that meeting Senator Senator kic was was there and um he toured the plant and then he was able to come in for the first 15 minutes or so of our meeting and you know I think in the past he had shown some some sort of concern I think it was mostly towards that the the uh waste energy facility in Minneapolis and the location that it was at and I think he had some strong concerns there on that but but by and large he's been very supportive of our facility as a matter of fact when there was legislation out there that maybe could have hampered the ability for the waste energy facilities to continue he stood he he spoke up and said you know that our facility uh was doing it the appropriate way we were able to talk to him a little bit about the ass reutilization and I just kind of wanted him to be aware that in the future that might be an alternative product that can be used in mindat projects as well so it could be used just not so much just for County projects but if mot has some projects in the area that could use that it would be beneficial uh of course we asked about the score funding and I also we also talked to him about how these facilities uh could potentially be a positive for all the discussion about posos and how you get rid of it and and in our facility in pum um our facility Heats to 1900 de and posos are 95 to 98% destroyed at 1700° so this could be another way that could you know could actually be a good reason why we have these facilities to get rid of that contaminant um we did receive our Ash permit from mpca for and I believe that I don't know if it's a three-year permit or whatever uh and then there will be some T stack testing done for posos uh done December 2nd and when we talk about how it destroys it we still want to know what emissions might be coming out and that we're we're going to be within those safe standards which I'm confident we will based on other places that have done the same thing that same day I came back then we had the building committee meeting and we had um some significant discussion about um the um needs of Social Services as well as um public health and then with James with the second floor the fourth floor um there's going to be 3200 square feet that's going to be available for uh could be available for um Social Service needs and in the second floor another 1,400 ft that could be available for public health and this is outside of the uh area that's James is currently using which is 5,000 square ft and again if you recall our overall uh conversation and plan with the merger of non-secure and the prtf that it could also free up that 5,000 square ft in the family service center which would really put us in a good position long term and I know Brian Milton had talked about is it probation Steve that has really been wanting to get back over closer to the campus so there might be some opportunities there down the road um we did uh hear from Joe regarding the building that we have over here and it's um I think based on the costs involved we had talked about renting that that house that's kind of out of the question now so we'll be just keeping that um up in terms of um view from the public uh we talked about the um garage doors at the resource recovery facility and there you know the need that we have to get those in place before winter sets in and of course there's going to be some legal issues that are going to be ongoing and attorney Melton's been involved with that discussion there was also some long-term discussion about the U front entrance of the exterior of the family service center what could be done with the canopy and the way that all looks um at this point in time I don't know that there was any direction really given to make changes at this point and you know then we did just we had the timeline uh of things that come over the next year to all the way up through 2030 so um good discussions that were had there and that concludes my report thank you commissioner graan off thank you um I just had one meeting that was on the 20 Wednesday the 28 we had our monthly meeting for the historical and cultural society and um just a couple quick comments about that um we had one of um Gabby who was in in charge of our um Communications uh uh for the um for the society uh uh has uh left her position got a a really good job with the University of Minnesota down the cities and so um we're in the process of replacing a a big job and uh that she did um and it looks like we have some uh good applicants uh in mind uh also just a um kind of it's been an ongoing conversation now for a couple months we we know that our um executive director uh Marine is going to be leaving us in July of 2025 so we've been doing salary surveys along with um um um um excuse me a full board um excuse me employee uh positioning and the work that they do we had a retreat and um just how things may look for uh what it ahead for a new executive director and putting that uh person in a good place to succeed and carry on the good work that the U Society has done for a number of years uh we also had a um as board education we had a um um a discussion about the traveling Z zibits that we uh do and I'll just make a couple qu quick comments uh so uh each year we have about a $25,000 budget over there for the traveling exhibits U there are normally three a year um and and not only are there three a year in order to get these exhibits uh some of them are three years um ordered three years in advance so it takes quite a bit to get these things to come to uh our facility uh so anyway we did a a deeper dive into that and um it was very interesting so anyway otherwise budget's in good shape and um we we look forward to our fall activities at Pangia coming up the big event uh that will hold at the mcoms in November 16th and also a in October having a fundraiser for the hisorical society called The Hustle 5K so uh put on your running charts and come out on Saturday October 12th that's it thank you commissioner Mojo thank you I last week on last Tuesday attended the solid waste budget committee discussion uh as commissioner Campbell alluded to I also attended the Prairie Lakes uh committee meeting um really thankful that Senator cek had the opportunity to get out there and tour the facility if you're not familiar with what happens out there it's really helpful to observe um really great opportunity to reduce so much out of the way stream and have a dialogue with a lot of uh different County entities who see the importance in such a joint facility um then I also had a discussion with Steve on the budget proposals that we discussed today and then um wanted to um in update the board I've been appointed to a subcommittee on taxes and state assessed properties it's the subcommittee that the association of Minnesota counties has through um Matt hilgart to discuss a lot of what's going on in the realm of that Statewide really grateful for the opportunity to provide Klay County's perspective on that uh certainly um there's a lot of different um unique circumstances regarding the dialogue that we'll have there and hopeful that um some of those discussions will weigh favorably for Clay County um I know that in the past uh when I served on the tax forfeiture committee it required a board support so just um wondering if this board sees support and value in that I would move that uh you be granted prdm on that okay have a motion to Second any further discussion all in favor say I I motion passes thank you I appreciate the opportunity and then that concludes my report okay I only had one uh meeting and that was covered by commissioner Campbell the building committee meeting he was very thorough in that I do however I've also AMC's request that I serve on a on a uh Grant review for sa the fa safe courts program and uh that is probably going to involve um well there's 24 packets so it's going to involve a lot of time at the desk but we also have about six meetings scheduled and that'll be representing AMC as part of the uh Public Safety Board and I would like to see if I could uh get an commit or Commission rep vote on that as well Mr chair I'll add that to your committee portfolio with prium second okay have motion a second I'll abstain but all in favor say I I I oh same sign okay thank you um that completes my report Steve thank you Mr chair participated in the solid waste budget discussion that was addressed by commissioner Campbell and commissioner L commissioner moo uh also participated in the building committee which has been addressed on the 29th I met with uh Troy and Kathy uh in regards to uh food contract at the new location uh talked about the door updates and key issues they're they're having uh and then also what their training schedule looks like as we as we approach uh the opening of the facility um just a just a followup I I did have the opportunity to uh to talk with commissioner gross on Friday he threatened to be here this morning um but uh he's hoping to return soon but having said that last week we did uh we talked I brought forward the lands committee update uh our lands committee uh I think there was in talking with Mr chair I think there was a little bit of confusion on what committee I was getting across uh and so uh just wanted to bring that forward again again there's the potential that commissioner gross will be back by the time that meeting starts uh but in in the case that we're we're not we're just looking to have a discussion with the motion of who who we would like to have on that committee uh with uh with PDM commissioner moso you're on that committee but there's two members so we need a second one I was mistaken on which committee that was I thought it was one I was covering for commissioner gross but is that um something commissioner krainov would you be interested in that may be uh that sorry I don't have my calendar pulled up did you say the date it's in the next two weeks it's um that committee we we cover a lot uh in regards to the county-owned properties uh the Crestwood pollinator site we went through that the haland leases Gravel Pit stuff did you see it thank you say it again the same day as the ordinance meeting I think Matt was looking to have it right after board next week oh yeah that'd be fine do we need need a motion on that yes please Mr chair I'll make a motion to add commissioner karanov as commissioner gross's alternate for that with prium second motion second all in favor say I I poose same sign okay U and then would just note I appreciate the the comments and discussion in regards to full-time administrator uh today um we bring assistant administrator assistant administrator today that I wouldn't appreciate but I do I do uh I do as was pointed out we are fortunate to have a very many great number of talented people here that that makes everything run smoothly uh as an example of that the question that uh that you guys had in regards to uh the the statute in regards to cannabis uh the 80% will go to the general fund of anything anything generated through the tax portion uh and 20% will come to local government so Matt was Matt was watching us and forward to that so that concludes my report thank you anything nope Sarah well a little early but I suppose we're adjourned