Yeah, we don't want to get into valuations. >> 6 o'clock, we'll call the county board meeting to order. We'll begin on the flag [clears throat] pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [clears throat] >> Roll call. >> Commissioner Benoy >> here. >> Commissioner Heinen >> here. >> Commissioner Pop >> here. >> Commissioner Johnson >> here. Mr. Kapinsky
>> here. [clears throat] >> Approve or amend the agenda. >> We have no changes. >> Move for approval, Mr. Chair. >> Second. Motion been made and seconded to approve the agenda. All in favor? >> I opposed. Carried.
>> County board meetings are broadcast meetings are broadcast live and video recorded on YouTube. Please restrain from speaking from the audience area and come to the podium so that the viewers can hear you. The county board observes Robert's rules of orders for its meeting. [clears throat] So, please obtain the board's chair consent before
addressing the county board. Public comments are generally reserved for the open form segment or the public hearing. However, public comments on other agenda items may be allowed at the discretion of the board's chair. As we begin today, please turn off your cell phones or tune
them to vibrate. Thank you. Open form. So if you're if you're gonna talk on open form and anything on the evaluations or everything that's we'll save that for a different time. We have Jim Markfort and the issue is the
airport. My name is Jim Markfort and my question is how can the city just give the airport to three different county and the property owners? It was a municipal airport. Correct.
>> I don't know if it was municipal or if it was just city-owned. Right. >> St. Cloud Municipal Airport. Wasn't that what it was named? >> Yeah. Yep. >> And then they changed the name so they can give it cuz you can't give it away to the counties if it's a municipal airport. >> No, it was it was actually done all
three counties um agreed to go into the regional airport authority so they could have a taxing authority and it was it all the the I believe it was the Sherburn County attorney did all the um upkeep and everything like that.
It allowed them to collect more money from federal if they were a regional airport authority. >> So if they're collecting from the federal, how come all our property owners have to pay for it? [clears throat] >> Well, that's a pretty good question because >> on this sheet here that you get a what
is it? A 100% 100% increase in the levy went up to a million dollars. So who's going to pay that? >> Well, the million dollars is for all three counties. Um I don't know exactly what Benton County share, but our share is a lot less than that. Um I think it's
somewhere around 130,000 is what Benton County share is. That was kind of a mistake from the auditor treasure. That shouldn't [clears throat] have been put on there as a million dollars. It should have been broke down. And we've been working with the airport on some of that commissioner Kapinsky and myself because
um you know I'll own that that I voted for that regional airport authority because it just seemed like it was something that was needed in this in the part of the county because we have the most to gain in Benton County with it being so close to our developmental land and it sits right on the edge of
Morrison of Benton County [clears throat] and it just looked like it was something really good and the the agreement kind of said that We weren't supposed to they weren't supposed to tax us for 10 years cuz the city is picking up about what 680,000
a year until they get um financially stable >> to the 10th year for 10 years and what is it four >> and so five five years >> five I think that was done in 2019 was it >> I don't know I can't >> I think it was 2019
>> I don't remember the exact year [clears throat] but u so that was kind of a disappointment part on behalf of the cities and personally I don't think that the the documents were viewed very well by our attorneys and there are some
loopholes that allowed the count the the uh airport authority to >> so why was it just given it to the property owners why wasn't it given it to all the residents of the county just the property owners aren't the only ones that use that airport I've never been to the airport and I don't know how many
people here use the airport but we have to pay for Now >> we have to pay a portion of it. Yes, >> we've been working very hard to try and get that taken care of. >> Yeah. >> Between um the I know Sterns has been >> very vocal about it. We've been
extremely vocal about it, >> but it takes it takes uh everybody basically to agree to let somebody out. That was one of the bad things that was wrote in the contract. So, that was done before my time and and I I'll tell you
it's it's been a tough tough go with it because [clears throat] if everybody would would revert out of that, it' go back to the city of St. Cloud. So, right there, they're not going to have a vote. They don't want to take on all that again. So, right now, we're we're really working to minimize what happens out
there versus >> we as the land owners are seem to be getting an awful awful lot of stuff dumped on us lately. So >> anyway, that's my question. >> Yep. >> All right. Thanks, um, Mary Joe Nordman.
[clears throat] >> Good evening, Mary Kay Nordman. Um, I have a couple questions. First of all, tax increases like 9 what percent? 9.5 >> 56. >> 9.56. Okay. Of that 9.56, how much is the new government center? Seven. Seven.
What? >> Mr. Chair, how about we address budget levy related questions and under our truth and taxation portion? Uh, that will come up. Absolutely. You bet. Yep. >> Okay. Would that? >> Yeah. Yep. >> That'd be okay with you. >> That's fine with me. Y >> Okay. Thanks. >> Consent agenda. We got items 1 through
nine. I'll make a motion to approve one through nine. >> I'll second. >> Motion been made and seconded. Approve items one through nine. All in favor? >> I opposed. Carried. >> Mr. Chair, as a note, I do. Okay.
>> Yeah. All in. Okay. Commissioner Kapinsky has to leave at 6:40. >> Um his daughter's got parents night in Sock Rabbits for girls basketball and he um will stay as long as he can, but I don't I won't blame him for not wanting to miss that. though
Monte Hudley County Minister conduct the truth and taxation meeting. >> So, Mr. Chair, do you have an announcement you'd like to make perhaps before we we get into the staff report? >> Y >> tonight we are considering the truth and taxation public meeting. The proposal of
this meeting is to discuss the proposed 2026 county budget and levy. A brief staff presentation. I will invite members of the audience to come to the podium for questions and comments about the proposed budget and levy. If you wish to address the county board, please
sign up on the sheet in the back of room of the room. When you come to the podium, give your name and your address. If you come here tonight with questions on your property values, on your truth and taxation notice, please sign up on a separate sheet in the back of the room and our land services will contact you.
Please put down your phone number and the best time for us to call you. Again, the purpose of tonight's meeting is to discuss the budget and the levy and not property values. Please sign up with with please sign up to speak with the county assessor and he will do his very
best to answer your questions. We'll begin with a staff report tonight. >> All right. [cough] So, Mr. Chair, the information on truth and taxation has been published on our website for a couple of weeks and uh I'd like to just show that if I may. Excuse
me. Monty, is your mic on? >> It sure is. I'll just get a little closer. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> So, [clears throat] we've had out here again on the the the county website the summary that's in your packet, which we'll talk about tonight, and then also the detailed line. So, if you if you're
really interested in in seeing the budget line by line, department by department, you can go out here and you can see every account, every line, every department. I think it's about 80 or 90 pages of our detailed line on budget.
So, I want folks to know that is out there on our website. Um, my intention tonight was to cover the summary and I know you've got a lot of folks here, so my comments will be really brief to give lots of time for
the public to speak. Our obligation on the statute, Mr. chair is simply to discuss the budget levy and give the public an opportunity to ask comment, ask questions and make comments. So, let's take a look quickly at the sum at the summary. I think what I'll do is
just focus on um I'll just focus on the onepage summary. This is in your packet and a little bit of the graphs too, but let's just focus if we can on the on this one page summary. So, we have at this point a proposed levy increase of 9.56%
or $2.4 million from 2025. That results in a levy about 27.3 million. Our 10ear average is is a 3.74% levy increase. And I'll jump, if I may, quickly to the the graph that's that's in your packet to it. Second, you can
[clears throat] see this graph is 10 years from 2017 through 26. And you definitely can see at the bottom here uh some fairly small levy increases those those during some of those years. And uh
and and you can see the decline in our tax rate. This shows in 2017 our tax rate was 66% and it's down to 47.7% in 2026. I will jump back up to the summary.
So, um, this next bullet talks about the tax rate. We're expecting about 5% growth in our tax capacity from our county assessor. So, that helps to actually offset, uh, some of the growth in the tax rate. It will see a small increase though with the levy increase
going from 45.6% to 47.7%. Lots of times folks want to ask want to know about, well, how does it affect the median valued house? And the current median is 267 from our county assessor. That's up 4.25% from last from 2025.
[clears throat] Based upon that median value, the county property taxes would increase $106 or $8.84 cents a month. One thing I wanted to pause just for a moment and and dig a little bit deeper into this if I could is lots of times
your your tax burden is is based up is oftentimes a function of your value. So if your value stayed the same, you might not see nearly as large of an increase or sometimes your value might go down. So that's kind of the weakness of some of these examples. It depends on where
your value is going. And I I wanted to show you [clears throat] and I I want to try and isolate what's the effect of the levy increase assuming your value stayed the same. And just remember if you could for a m moment that $106 number.
So let's go to my homestead example. You could see 2025 the county taxes are just $1,63. 2026 1,169. And there's that 106 increase. So this assumes again you're
looking at median valued house from 25 to 26 going from 256 to 267. So what if I just leave that value the same? The increase is basically cut in half. So the point I'm trying to make here is is that the actual effect of the
levy increase is about 50 bucks. It's half of that increase on a medium value house. So again, it's really important to sort of get inside what's going on with your value and that can have a significant effect upon your tax burden.
All right, let's go back to my summary. Here we go. Um, we talked about median value. The total budget is 68.8 million and that's a decrease of 1.1 million. Lots of times we see some big girrations in our budget from year to year and sometimes that's a function of a RO
program, a really big row program one year, a much smaller one the next. So we're going to seeing a smaller row program in 2026 and that explains most of that $1.1 million in decrease. This next set of bullet points answers
is is it Mary Joe? Mary Kay, >> Mary Kay, mayor, excuse me, Mary Kay, uh, her question about, well, how much of the lab increase is related to the debt service on the new building? That first bullet point answers your question. 1 million point 1.7 million
1,739,000 is related to the debt service on the on the government center. And here's the rest of the pieces that make up that levy increase, the $2.4 million levy increase. a general wage increase for county employees, step increases, and
career advancement adjustments. We have a 3% health insurance increase. Also, January 1, Minnesota pay leave starts and the employer has the obligation to pay at least half of that. 088 contribution. So, that's what that that
cost us, 103,000 for the Minnesota paid leave. Also, the board chose to use $500,000 of reserves to help bring that levy increase down. Uh, our reserves are in in decent shape. So, the board felt comfortable using reserves to bring this
levy increase down. Uh, we're seeing some increased state aid for road maintenance. That helps. And then there's a bunch of other miscellaneous changes of of a negative $225,000 which gets you the $2.4 million web increase. Uh, moving on down. This basically just
elaborates on those points I just made. You can see the first bullet point. Um, the board chose to issue two point, excuse me, 22 point uh, $1 million in HR lease revenue debt for the new government center that matures over 20 years with interest payments starting in
26 and then principal payments starting in 27. Uh, again, general uh, wage increases for employees, staff increases which average 3.2%. 2% and career ladder promotions. And I should pause there for a moment. So any given year year in and
year out, we always address the issue of compensation and benefits. Uh that's a factor. Uh our county needs to be competitive with other counties, other employers, and u so it's necessary to make those adjustments. And also too,
SAP increases are included in labor agreements. So those are h those we have to fund. [cough] Uh we talked about the health insurance increase to 3%. What I understand is 3% is pretty darn good by most by most measures. Um oftentimes um employers
have seen doubledigit health insurance [cough] increases. So in our self-funded health insurance plan, we're doing actually quite well with a 3% increase. And talk about Minnesota pay leave reserves and so on. And the last bullet point simply talks about our reserve levels. They're decent. [clears throat] They're good. they're good enough and
they're solid enough to allow the board to use this $500,000 of reserves to help bring that levy increase down. So, I I wanted to focus on there's one last bullet point I want to talk about and that is the proposed budget includes no new positions. So, I think the board said look, okay, we recognize there's
going to be this levy increase for the building. This is not the year to add new positions. Not the year to add new positions. So there's no new positions and really very little above above and beyond the basics to fund county government. Um departments were ext were
very restrained in asking for increases to their operating budgets. So most departments saw no increases in their operating budgets. So that was uh departments responded very well to that request in the board or restraint in operating budgets and again no new
positions were funded in 26. Mr. Chair, I believe that was all I wanted to cover again [clears throat] in the sake of time knowing you've got a lot of folks here. The rest of this um is you know these are graphs you've seen before uh that describe where the funds
come from. Property tax of course is the largest at 40%. And then on down the line federal and state road funding is next and then human services federal funding. You can see we receive a substantial amount of external resources to help fund the
operations of county government, 11.7 million in state and federal road funding, nine almost $10 million of of human services and public health revenue. So, we're bringing substantial resources into the county. One I usually like to point out is county program aid.
That is a state general purpose aid with the intention of helping counties reduce their levies and provide property tax relief. It only accounts for about 5% of our revenue sources. So, it's not a significant source of funds to reduce uh
local property tax levies. So, where's the money going? Um well, not surprisingly, quite a bit to salaries and benefits. That makes up 47% of the overall total funds budget. We can we have a very large capital
project budget next year. Again, that's mostly the road program out of our $68.8 8 million budget and on down the line. Um, this one one I like to show is what I call a typical department budget. So, we take out all the RO program that kind
of muddies the water. And I think my purpose in showing you this explains why personnel costs translate into those levy increases, those budget increases because most departments the primary cost in those budgets is personnel. So
salaries, wages, health insurance, retirement and so on. So the typical department 75% of their budget is made up of compensation and benefits. So that's the point I'm trying to make is you see that translation into into increases [clears throat] in budget levy
uh because of again wage increases and so on. All right, where does it go by function? Well, 27% of the next year's budget will be the highway, 24% human services, and on down the line, 18% general government, and then so on down
to public safety at 8%. General government is like county administrator, uh, auditor, treasurer, county board, uh, planning and zoning. Those those are general county functions. That's what makes those up. So, Mr. share. The rest
of this are simply spreadsheets and lots of detail which folks can study certainly uh on their own on our website and I'm always of course happy to [clears throat] answer questions that anyone has about them. >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. Monty, do we want to go over what
the maybe the the state averages? >> Absolutely. Sure. Let's go back. I'll just I'll zero back to the the summary. We'll keep that up on the screen. Right. That's been a topic of a lot of conversation is is is our living increase and and all we we're again
we're sitting at 9.56 the statewide average as we've been recently informed from Micah which is the Minnesota inter governmental association >> and this is from department of revenue data the statewide average for counties
is 8.1%. So, not super far off that statewide average. Uh, all things considered, including the fact that [clears throat] there's the new debt service levy in our 2026 proposed levy. So, again, 8 8.1% was this is the statewide average for
counties. >> And, Mr. Chair, a couple other statistics, and I just wanted to throw it out there, 47 counties are within the striking distance of the 8.1%. Mhm. >> There is 10 counties at or just below
5%. And then uh out of uh the 87 counties, uh Benton County per capita is 79th lowest um tax per capita. So there's a lot of numbers out there that kind of can skew things every which
way. Yeah, I think you said that uh in terms So there's 87 counties and we have the 79th lowest per capita levy in the state and that's been true historically for a long time that we pretty much in that lowest 1010 10 when it comes to per capita levy, per capita spending. That's
true. Yep. >> And folks can actually see that for themselves. They can go on the state auditor website. There's this really great comparison tool that you can actually look and see those per capita rankings on the state auditor. It's it's really a nice resource. So, Mr. Chair, again, the sake of time, uh, I will wrap
up and turn it over to you, sir. >> Okay. Is there a signup sheet in the back for people or we just going to go? Oh, Beth's got it. >> You want You want to do that right away, Pam? >> I can. >> Okay. Um, Commissioner Benoy got
something that one of her constituents wanted to be read. Um it's a short statement but it says uh commissioners our main complaint about our property taxes is the total amount proposed from all jurisdictions combined from 2026
is 1.5% of the estimated market value of our property. Uh we are now working with a realtor because being on a fixed income we are getting taxed out of our retirement home where we have lived for only four years.
She tells us they look for normal property tax to be in the range of 1 0 to 1.2% of the estimated market value. So, we were already way out of line in 2025 at
1.37 and now 2026 will be far worse. Between the increase from the county and the city of St. Cloud, we are 4.5%
poage points of above the median. So we verminently disapprove of the increase and secondly would like to get an answer on why we are being so unfairly taxed and
what we can do to get them reduced. All of these tax increases are why we do did the petition drive against the CIP funding for the new administrative center because it was very obvious to those of us who signed it that these tax
increases come from state issues, county, city, and schools was headed for a train wreck. Thank you, Darl and Michelle Watercott. [snorts] Uh 551 53rd Avenue Southeast St. cloud.
Okay. Um, Kelly Gallagher. [clears throat] >> Thank you. Yep. We'll put it in the record. >> Yeah. >> Hi, I'm Kelly Gallagher. Uh, one 025 chair in place and rice. So, I want to
address the decision-making process of this board. Um, you can throw numbers out all day long. Um, I just want to understand and so I'm going to explain how I've heard it and you can correct me if I'm wrong. So my understanding is we spent a million dollars with an
architect before we've even approved the process of the building. Then um it was stated that well if the voters bring a reverse referendum um we'll reconsider and we'll take it to a vote to that to the people. So, somebody actually did that and got the
proper number [clears throat] and brought it to you guys and you didn't take it to a vote anyways. You decided we're going to vote on our own and we're going to make this government center a go. So, that's the the next step that I heard. Um, so now, but then also before
you even voted for the building to go live, you were already breaking ground. So this was already a done deal and you didn't care about the voters. So my understanding is that's how I understood the process went. So first I want confirmation if that's how the process went and please correct me if I'm wrong
in how that process went. >> Well, yes and no. um process was that we had a majority that said we should um or [snorts] that we should not let the voters um have the petition and then it went to
the alternative funding package after that. So [clears throat] you Okay. So then I'd like to hear from each one of the board members your rationale on spending $27 million without going taking it to a vote. So I just like to hear from each
one of you. >> Correction, it's 22085 million. >> Okay. So I can honestly tell you yes, I voted for it. >> Okay. >> Okay. And if it would have came to 25 26 27 million, I would have uh I wouldn't
have voted for the building. I had a number set in my mind. Now, [snorts] when we went through with the architects and the engineers that went through our facility and they gave us a breakdown of what it was going to cost to do a remodel on the [clears throat] old
edition, the 100-y old building. [snorts] >> With that breakdown, we still needed space because we could not use the lower level at all because we would had to do new HVAC, new electrical, we had to do
everything brand new. So now we had now we were going to lose space downstairs. And then the only other alternative was to add another facility onto this building, which we got an estimate of $23 million. That did not include all of
the remodeling in that basement either. So moving forward, we spent two years on this 1.6 million I think it was for the architects. Monty, you can correct me. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So we spent two years, two and a half years working on this, all five of
us. So now it came, the referendum came in and and great. I I thanked everybody for doing that, but I wish everyone would have waited until the bids were opened and then had a conversation because the bids came in at
245, I think it was, Monty. >> Yeah. >> And we were going to throw two million into the project. So at the end of the day it was 22 million.085 now and I voted for it for that amount.
>> So help help me understand the referendum how that I wasn't quite clear when you said the referendum came in and it shouldn't have come in at the I >> No, I didn't say that. They they brought the referendum that morning and I wish they would have waited until they seen
the bid so we could have had a conversation about it, you know, the next day. But the referendum that came in that morning and then the bids came in that afternoon. Uh late afternoon was it Commissioner Johnson? >> 2:00 2:00. [clears throat]
>> Okay. And then those bids came in at 24 million. We were I was shocked. But all they were asking for was you to take it to a vote. So >> to the public. So I don't understand. >> Finish. Let me finish. Okay. So with that being said, it was $22 million.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Now I went back to the architects and I'm going give me a logistic cost of what it would be for 2026 to bring it back to the voters. We initially would I
think he gave me a 34 to $35 million estimate if we bring it back to the voters to vote on. >> So my process was okay do we do it now? >> And that's a hypothetical. >> That is hypothetical. That is correct. I
don't have a crystal ball. Right. No, nobody does. [clears throat] But at the end of the day, I was not willing to push it for another year and a half and throw another 10 to 12 or $15 million onto a project. >> Okay. >> Whether the voters voted for it or not.
>> Okay. Thank you. And in and me too, I came into this when I got [snorts] on the board in January, so I was very new when all of this came about. And I think you can talk to just about anybody on the board. and I clearly said I was not
in favor of a new building and I made statements at our meetings stating that I would let it go to. But again, same thing Steve said when the bids came in $5.5 million less than what the estimate
was cuz it was 27.5 million is what the architect had had it estimated at. I thought, okay, this has been pushed off for how many years? If we keep pushing this off, what is it going to cost the taxpayers? We're also renting a building on the east side of St. Cloud that
[clears throat] previous boards uh agreed to renovate, which we don't own. They we pay rent every month on that building. So those costs there was I had to do a lot of digging to come come up with my answer and it was not an easy answer to come up
with but I looked at it as it's a $5.5 million savings. I and and a couple people brought to my attention that well we could have done a vote right away. We could have done a special election. >> I wasn't in favor of that. I do not
agree with when the school districts do that because they don't get all the voters out there to vote. That's why they do that. So, I would have had we would have had to wait until the 2027 election if I was >> I think you would have got voters out there >> or 2026.
>> I think you would have got voters. [clears throat] >> Okay. Thank you. >> Let me let me add on to that. The special election would have cost us another $50,000. >> Yeah. >> Okay. We weren't going to do >> peanuts compared to 22 million. >> You know, you can say peanuts, but whatever.
>> Okay. Now, at the I'm not done, Mr. Chair. At the end of the day, when we brought people in through the facility, this is what they told us. Plan on spending anywhere from $5 to $700,000 a year just to put band-aids on everything
that we have going on. Okay. So at that point in time, you start throwing the dollars out [clears throat] at at 22 million and in 10 years, we'd save over that what57 million easily
>> by not putting band-aids over everything that has been going on for a very long time. Okay, Mr. Chair, I'm done. Thank you. >> I have a couple comments to make yet, too. Um, when I got on the board in January, in two times in January, the
boiler system had went down in this building that they had to do repairs on. So there, he's right. There's stuff that needs to be fixed. >> And also, I looked at it as we have the numbers. We know what they
are. If this went to a vote for me, it would have been remodel the old building and add enough structure to suffice and get rid of the Eastgate or build a new building. So, it it wouldn't have been we're not
doing nothing cuz we had to do something. So, when the vote came out, it would have on the voters's ballot, it would have stated it in my opinion one or the other. And at that point we know no costs when everybody is is voting.
>> And one other thing we would have had to do is we would had to bring it back to the uh architects [clears throat] and engineers >> to upgrade everything again too. >> Okay. >> So which would have been additional cost. >> Well and Steve correct me or or Mr.
chair correct me, but I I believe that when I did some digging that the initial cost to hire the architect without knowing for sure what you were doing, you needed that to get your bids out, >> right? Correct. >> Without that, you couldn't even move forward at all.
>> So, who else voted against taking it to the vote the public vote? >> Voted well from or or for not. Yeah. >> Okay. From from my standpoint, I will tell you right now, I struggled with the vote up here. [clears throat]
I gave my word at an earlier meeting and I ended up reluctantly having to stand by that word. I I pushed it to a vote. So, I did vote no even though my colleagues looked at all the numbers and
I agreed with them. It's like we can't just sit here and do nothing. >> We have to do something. But at the end of the day, I voted to push it to an election and you know, I I I did it because I gave my word and I believe
that that's worth something to me. >> Um even though that I knew that the right decision probably was to move forward. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, Kelly, I I voted to [clears throat] construction of the government center. Um I they touched on a little bit of
history, but I want to give you my from my viewpoint. >> Sure. Um, back in May, we had a public hearing and you know, the room was filled with opposition basically to the government center. Um, if you fast forward to, I believe it was May 26, please don't hold me to the date, but I
believe that was the date petitioners turned in the petition, which we figured was coming. It was not a surprise. >> Um, when we looked at the capital improvement plan bonds, I think it's important to remember, too, and I I I need to back up a little bit. For the prior 18 months, we held approximately
53 meetings. 56 >> were available to the public uh through committee of the holes or board meetings. We had almost zero input at that time until the government center public hearing. Um and we were a five to nothing unanimous board. Uh we were $1.6
million into architectural uh drawings and moving ahead. Um and we were a five nothing unanimous board until that public hearing. Nobody on this board, and I I don't generally don't speak for you, but I don't think anybody on this board ever went into it with the intent
of trying to overturn a petition. That's with the capital improvement plan bonds. We knew that a petition could be provided. So, that was never the intent. Now, again, I'm giving you my viewpoint. Okay? So, fast forward through May, the morning, I believe, of May 26, the
petition shows up. Um, we assume it's valid, but the auditor treasur is going to have to validate that petition. Um that afternoon at two o'clock I think it was Commissioner Hein and myself were here. We opened bids 24 and a half million roughly $5 million back what we
had approved for a funding mechanism. So for me personally I had a hard time leaving $5 million on the table. To Commissioner Benoy's point the 26 ballot more than likely I agree with her from my position would have asked the voters are we spending X on a remodel or are we
spending Y on new building? It wasn't going to be are we not doing it or are we doing it. Okay. [snorts] And in my mind, that $5 million that was good for 45 days. It was a 45day window that we had to decide if we're going to accept those bids or not.
And from my perspective, that's I knew it was 24.5 million today. None of us, like to your point, >> had a crystal ball to decide what was 26 going to bring us. Was it going to be 30 or 35 million? I don't know. Was it going to be 27 or 28? Nobody knows, but
we knew we had qualified bids for 24 and a half. So, because of that, that's what I based my decision on, not leaving the $5 million on the table because even though those people weren't necessarily here, there were some people that understood and were in favor of the government center and would have been
the same uh discussion with them about why we left $5 million on the table if the bids would have came in 5, 10, $15 million higher if the voters would have approved it. So that's how I got to that decision and I'm just explaining [clears throat] you my personal decision. >> I appreciate it.
>> Well, my decision was made probably prior when the when the Sock Rabbits Herald and the Benton County News started to come out with um what it was going to cost and all that. Um, you know, I just got constituents out there right and left that said, you know, why
you want to do this and this t the timing wasn't right is what I heard a lot of and they kept telling me and I decided at that point that this is not something we should move forward and we were going to honor the the petition. I I didn't think some people that after
the petition was not honored said they didn't care if it was 35 million. They wanted to have something to say about this and how we spent their how we spent their money. And I think they entrusted the county board to do the best job for the decision of the county
>> and I was not about to go against the petition or the when my constituents up in my part of the county were telling me that they wanted they wanted to have some say in it. Right. And granted, we had a lot of meetings and they could have had say in some of that, but you
know, the meetings are not conducive to a lot of people for the timing to get here. You know, a lot of people work and stuff like that. So, we did have our open houses and they were they were mixed. I think there wasn't it wasn't horribly against or or horribly for you
know some some were reasoning but for the most part there was not uh not a lot of people up in my area that were in favor of doing it >> you know at that point in time. >> Well I appreciate you guys uh giving me your input. Um, I think, um, just in
looking at this, I feel like your decision-m process is broken, though, and that's what I would like to see addressed because it seems to me you might have a strong case to take to the voters, and you could have gotten the voters in involved earlier. I understand you said there was 53 meetings. I know
I've ran boards before. It's hard to get people out, but you have to actively get out there and engage them. And I don't think I didn't hear about this until Oh, boy. um maybe a few month couple months ago. So, and I would have been here and so and and I'll take responsibility for
not reading the Herald or whatever. I I'm busy, right? We're all busy. But I think the process is broken and to go against the will of the people. I think you heard from the will of the people and you intentionally went against the will of the people. I get you had a good business case. I get you wanted to save the money. Totally get it. Your process
is broken. That's what I'd like to say. And um I would like to ask for the voters, is there an opportunity to scale some of this back? Maybe it's not the 27 million, but maybe you have somewhere else in your budget you can start scaling things back because like your
the letter this this young woman or this woman sent forward, it's killing people. >> Mhm. >> Mine went up 28%. So I, you know, I just I think you need to be listening to the people because
>> the people want to be heard and so I think you need to be more intentional about that. And that's that's what I had to say. >> One thing I've heard in [clears throat] since you know the the valuations came out in that that people are really tired of us telling them that the medium value home is 2776,000.
We have to drop that. It's not about the medium value home. It's our businesses. It's our our land, you know, our agricultural people that are are uh totally picking up the tab on this and they get really tired of hearing about 108 bucks, >> right? Yeah.
>> You know, so >> yeah, you you can skew the numbers all you want to make it look good, but it seemed to me you had a good case and you missed the boat by going not going to the public. So that's what I had to say. >> Thank you, Miss Gallagher. Mary Joe,
>> Mary Kay, Mary Kay, >> 511 [laughter] 25th Street, Northeast, Stock Rapids, Minnesota. Okay, so you guys do you put out this great thing, but let's kind of peel the onion back. You spent $1.9 million? >> 1.6.
>> 1.6. Okay. Um, you had how many meetings? >> 503 50 plus. >> Okay. Um, now we're looking at how much of the government center is actually going to be utilized. That's 100% over there. How how full is that going to be
full of people offices that are actually going to be used? Is it 50% 75%? How big do we build this over and beyond? >> The only extra space we have is upstairs. And >> yeah, every department has some space
for expansion, not a lot. Human services the most on the second floor. If I I it's tough to take a guess because it varies by department. >> Well, I wouldn't think it should be a guess. I mean, we should know how much is utilized, right? I mean, is you know, is the extension office going over
there? Are we going to be paying for that anymore? I know we're coming bringing Sock Rapids over. Are we going to are we really going to fill this up or half full? Where are we at with it? Correct me if I'm wrong, Monty. I don't think you were guessing. It's more you didn't know off the top of your head
like DMV might have one or two extra offices, you know, and and stuff like that. He just doesn't have that with them. Correct. Is that what you're getting at? >> Right. >> We knew going into it. It's roughly, you know, 10% of a of a >> a vacancy. >> A vacancy. Yeah.
>> Okay. Um, another question I've I've heard a little buzz about um tearing down the old building. I've been to numerous meetings and I brought up parking prior to this and you've had all these 52 meetings and now we're talking about spending another million and a
half for a parking lot and to tear down the other building. Is that correct? That's coming out of a slush fund or where what's happening with that? >> It was never in in the budget. It will have to come from somewhere. >> But you have you have 50 some meetings to to figure
this out. Yeah, it's in the $24.5 million >> just Yes, it is. >> Okay, >> if I may. So, you may recall is is during this mostly occurred during committees of the whole where we talked about what cash we had available for the project and we said we had about 4
million. So, the board said okay let's take 2 million of cash towards the new government center and the other two to set aside for the demolition of the old courthouse and the creation of additional parking. So that is sitting in the CIP fund uh at this right at this
moment right that other two is sitting there and again that part I know wasn't discussed as much in the public meetings open houses and so on but it was certainly discussed in work sessions with the board >> of setting aside those resources for
that purpose. So >> so that is part of the >> it's part of the cost. Yes it is. It's not part of a different fund or anything like that because I mean I came to meetings and I asked about parking and where people were going to park and I've never heard anybody mention about
>> it's part of the capital improvement fund. That's where we're pulling the 2 million down in the building and then the other two millions for the for the parking lot and tearing down. >> So correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it always we're going to sell this for a dollar and I I can't remember. >> We're not tearing down the whole thing.
>> Never any decision about what was going to be done here yet. We're actually just starting those discussions on the redevelopment of this property >> and what that what that may entail. >> The thing that was talked about tearing down was the old part, >> right? I understand that I understand that that part was going to be tore
down. >> This is up in the area >> and but when I brought up parking, I said, you know, where where are all these people going to park? Where are all these people that are going to come to Foley for their tabs going to park? And I never heard anything about a new parking lot until just recently. So that kind of I was wondering where the tab
for that was going to come too. So um getting back to my question the very first one I asked was so of the percent 9 whatever it is how much of that is actually the government center is it about 7% 7 and a half%.
Um, someone actually asked me that today. And uh, if this is kind of a complicated answer, but if if you took out the debt service, you probably also wouldn't use the $500,000 of reserves because I think the board said, "Hey, we're going to use
that to bring this down because of the debt service." Long story short, the increase would be about 3.8%. >> So that 9.56' be 3.8%. So, you're talking about >> Okay, explain that to me one more time because I'm not understanding.
>> Yeah, I think you asked the question of how much of the leing how much of the that 9.56 is related to the the um >> the building >> government center. Correct. >> So, it's it's Yeah. So, if you didn't if you didn't have you didn't have the debt service in there, instead of 9.56, it'd be about 3.8.
>> But don't you have to have the debt service in there? Because absolutely have to have it in there. Right. Okay. Right. So you're you're saying that three point but really the debt actually went up by how much more interest are we paying because you did not go with the first funding another 1%. How much of
the >> I do not know the answer to that question of of what what what would the interest rate had would been had we issued cip I don't know the answer to that. So >> okay but interest has gone up since this all process >> you know I remember Mr. Chair, we always
heard from Jessica Green from North End Securities is that historically the lease revenue debt is about 25 basis points interest rate higher than CIP debt. So 0.25% is interest rate higher. >> I believe at that time when she said that it was 4.1
>> and then if we went H and don't quote me but I think these were the numbers 4.3. >> Yeah. So again I I do not have a number to tell you what would be the additional interest. get that we can get those numbers for you. >> I just look at it as, you know,
everybody everybody is going to the grocery stores and everybody's paying their bills right now and everything is skyrocketing. And I came and I pleaded my case of, hey, this is what's going to happen if you guys go ahead with this. This is what I'm hearing from my neighbors and my friends that live in
Benton County. Old people, young people, people that are retired, people that are living on a budget. And now here we are looking at this high of an increase on our taxes. It affects people that are [snorts] making their monthly house payment and
their escros are going to go up up. And you're looking at keeping it under 10% this year. What's going to happen next year? we're going to just keep it under 10%. I go back to what this board did by not
listening to the petition and letting the people vote on this. And that's on you guys. That's my point. Thank you. >> Okay. They were they were the only two that signed up. And I guess I'll ask is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak?
>> Okay. Michael Leandowski, Alberta Township. I was just going to make a couple remarks on some of the uh other comments from the uh people here and and respons. So, um, we keep hearing that the reason some of
you or most of you went with this decision was because the good bids at, uh, 22 million. And, um, it still begs the question [sighs] where the higher dollar amount came from
earlier because it was projected to be higher than that. Came in at 22 million. Sounded sounded good. Um but no one seems to talk yet about what is the interest on this loan on these bonds.
Um we get it that it can be refinanced at some point >> but as it sits today what is the interest on this? >> I did not bring that with me. [snorts] >> It was correct me Monty but I think it was locked at when we when we did that.
The interest is locked in right now. If we have other speakers, I'm happy to go to my office and get that number, but I don't >> you don't need the exact I thought from my recollection that we talked about it before. It was like four to five million, was it not? >> Four to five million >> of what interest?
>> Oh, for the whole duration of the 20 years. >> Correct. >> Oh, I would bet it's higher than higher than that. >> Higher than four to 5 million. >> It's kind of like a house mortgage. If you buy a house for 500 grand, you're really not paying 500 grand, >> right? Exactly. So, this project, while it sounds good at 22 million, it's not
22 million, >> right? >> That's right. >> It's way higher. >> Okay. So, I just wanted to get that out there that Yes. Okay. You got 22 million, but the interest when anybody takes a loan like a mortgage like you like you indicated. Yep. You got to figure that
in the total. So, everybody's got that in the back of their mind. Um, wanted to point out, you talked about space and the reason for having to do this, the repairs and everything. we get the repairs and and I understand that. But as far as the space,
um I've personally taken calls from at least seven people, some from human services, some from other county workers, and it's very troubling. And I I know there's been county uh surveys and and um the surveys all came back
with positive stuff supporting the project, but I'm just passing this on to the board that there are people inside the county that say we got no space problems. And so when you hear that coming from an employee that works in
the county building where there's supposed to be this big space crunch, it's very troubling. Um and then finally you all are going to vote on the final levy and approve it on what date?
>> 16th. >> December 16th. And at that meeting then is that when you decide or consider the um percentage increase for elected officials or when does that get added on to your final decision?
>> Yeah. The board will be asked to set elect official salaries on the 16th. >> On the 16th. On the 16th. >> That'd be all elected officials. >> Yeah. Right. All right. Thank you. >> Somebody else raising their hand out there. >> Jim did.
>> Jim Markford. I uh I just want to ask you about the remodel of the courthouse. I want to compare it to our ditch that nobody did anything to for over a hundred years.
And most people know what went on with that. And now you have the same thing with the courthouse. So it's a hundred years old. Hasn't it been kept up? Now all of a sudden it's going to cost how many millions of dollars to bring it up to date? Why wasn't it kept up to date
as it as it went on? We have to do that with our houses, with our stuff. We have to keep it up to date. Why wasn't the courthouse kept up to date? >> Mr. Chair, I'll I'll answer from my perspective, Jim. This is my fifth year on the board. Um when I first got
elected, there was we had started discussions about a new government center. bids were coming in way whacked and we put our brakes on it on it and we uh as a board indicated to property management to make sure that you're maintaining the building for what you
need to do, but please don't be spending a bunch of money until the board makes a decision about the government center. So, I can only speak about the last few years. So, to answer your question, yes, it's been maintained to what it needs. We certainly haven't tried we tried to
stay away from recarpeting everything and repainting everything and replacing windows everywhere and all those type of things because we were in this discussion process of what we are going to potentially do for a government center. So I can only speak to the last four plus years before that the other 96
years I can't answer your question. >> So we're getting the same thing with the courthouse as we did with the ditches. It's all getting dumped on us now. Well, and I I think you and I have had those discussions about ditch authority, right? You're absolutely right. The ditches were let loan for a 100 plus years, and
>> for me, I can only answer the last four. I'm sorry. I I can't answer for before that. I understand the frustration. I I'm sure it's a political hot potato. Nobody wanted to address it because landowners like yourself were going to get assessed, [laughter] right? And they kicked it down the road for the last
hundred years. And here we are. and you say now you're going to get a vote for a raise and you're probably not voting just for your raise, but we don't get to vote on our raise. We get we get our set budget what we get from our social security and stuff and and you guys are
just throwing all this big figures at us that we have to and we don't get near the compensation from uh our retirements and stuff to make up for all these uh um increases that you guys are giving us. Well, that the county board will have
discussion coming up in a meeting about what the elect again, these are all elected officials. It's not just us, auditor, treasur, sheriff, county attorney, all of those individuals will be discussed if and what amount they would get. We haven't had that meeting yet, so I can't answer that. We haven't made that
decision. >> Can I Mr. Chair, can I ask answer Mark's question? >> Sure. >> He asked about the interest rate. So, this is actually based on the bond sale. Um the uh what's described as the true interest cost is 4.45%.
And if the bonds are not refunded and just fully paid over the 20-year term, the interest the total interest paid would be 12 8 million 12.8 million >> on 22 >> 22
>> million in principle. Yes. So >> I'm sorry. I just don't like guessing. Sometimes when I guess I'm wrong, so I don't want to guess. >> Absolutely. >> Right. >> Great. Thanks for that information. [clears throat] >> Anyway, I just we're getting a lot of stuff dumped on us. And
>> I agree. >> Most of us aren't fixed incomes or basically close. We don't have the [clears throat] ability unless we decide, well, let's all go get jobs again. >> Yeah. And that wasn't the whole point why you're supposed to retire so you have to go get a job so you can stay on your
keeping your house or your farm or whatever. >> Mhm. >> Anyway, there's a lot of frustrated voters out there. Is [clears throat] there anybody else that wishes to speak? Okay. Well, go ahead. There's one coming from the back first. State your name and
and >> Raymond Glay. Uh 1012975th Avenue Northeast. Uh you guys talk about and we know the new building's going up. Uh what's the plan for the old building? You guys don't address what it's going to cost you to maintain it. You don't know if it's for sale and you guys just
started this discussion and you've already wanted to build the building already three years ago. I mean, is there a plan for what you're going to do with this? >> They're they're working on a plan. We've got a >> but but that's the point. You guys spent 20 37 million actually with interest and
you have no plan of what you're going to do with this and you still have to maintain it, put the heat on, keep the water running. All of those are expenses, right? >> Somewhere in some and somehow we have to devest oursel in this building because we cannot afford what you just said >> Mr. Chair to your point it then
>> to your point about not we weren't able to make a final decision. Let's just hypothetically say that you were going to buy it. We couldn't make that decision with you because we hadn't made the decision there yet. We couldn't sell this to you until the decision was made for there. Right. >> So, we've had preliminary discussions.
There's all kinds of ideas on the table. We've actually just put together a committee. We've got a we've had one meeting. We've got another one coming up with the city on the 16th, I think, to find out a bunch of different options for us. But again, we couldn't make final decisions on this because there
wasn't a final decision on that yet. Does that make sense? We I mean we talked about multiple ideas. We just couldn't finalize anything because we didn't know we were leaving here. >> But you still have the liabilities then of this building until you make that decision. So you're still going to this
building is still going to cost you money. >> We're still going to be here for another year at least. We'll be here for another year at least while that's being built. And and our hope and our plan is that we have something in place by then because we do want to divest out of here. So this is going to become a taxable property and not a
>> that may be could be could be there's some of us that feel and and from my opinion I want to look at options that put this back on the tax roll. That's just my opinion. >> Wouldn't that make sense? I mean >> but we've got to have more than my opinion to agree on that. >> I agree. Okay. Uh then one one other thing is the
airport. I really do think that that's such a backwards kind of answer as far as the taxpayers, the property owners are going to pay a bill that we don't some of us don't use or have been there and you put another burden on us again,
which seems like you guys automatically put it on property owners without even thinking of any other way to do it. We're the bank for you guys. And >> let me give you my view on this. I want to give you my viewpoint. This is not the restaurant. This is my view point.
>> I had no idea on the St. Cloud Airport Authority. >> The [clears throat] contract that was established back in 20 2019 allowed them >> the three counties and the city of St. Cloud to levy. Okay. A year ago, we got a letter from the St. Cloud Airport Authority saying, "We're going to levy a
million bucks." >> And we had already said our preliminary and we basically said, "No, you're not. We can't. What do you mean you're going to levy us?" So, we've had discussions as Commissioner Pop and Commissioner Pinsky alluded to about what we're going to do about that because all three
counties got this letter from the St. Cloud Airport Authority saying we're going to do that. Fortunately, it doesn't make it any better, but it's based off tax capacity. Benton County takes the least hit >> on the threecounty thing. That I'm not trying to say that's good,
>> but fortunately for us, it's about 130 150 grand. Sterns is getting hammered at 60 some% of that money. And >> so we're trying to work with the Scloud airport authority going how can you restrain your cost so that next year you're not levying us because in my opinion it's not going to stop at a million.
>> No it isn't. >> And they've got levy authority through that approved contract. >> So that's a whole another nightmare and and I'm just telling you that's what we woke up to one day. >> Yeah. And we've had the conversations with them because each of the three
counties in the city get two appointees to that airport authority. >> And if you know push comes to shove, the counties can load that airport authority with people that will respect what the county wants and not what the city wants. um it's not something you really
want to do, but um if you know if it gets to that point, >> believe you and me, we've had discussions about unappointing >> unappointing people that we have, you know. >> So, I guess my last comment is, you know, we're getting to the breaking point, too, out here paying these bills that you guys are putting in front of us
that we have no say so over. You didn't give us a vote over and we still got to keep paying them. And we know what the what happens when we don't pay them. you know, then it's disaster for all of us property owners. So, thank you for your time. >> Okay, there was one more hand out there.
Okay. >> Hi, my name is Mike Acres. Uh 2927 90th Avenue Northeast in Sock Rapids. Um so, uh Scott, you are my commissioner. Um we've emailed a few times, uh going back
and forth. Um obviously, you made your decision. I completely disagree with it. Uh it's always easy to spend other people's money. Uh so it's unfortunate that I don't even want to be at this meeting, but here I am. Um I built a house last year and um my question to
you guys is um this year it sounded like there was like no additional uh jobs being created for the county. Um but my question is so it's 10% this year or 9.56%. I know Steve you like to be very particular it looks like.
>> I've just got it in front of me. That's why I can tell. Yep. So, um, and so my question is, you know, having just built this house, should I be packing my bags and selling this house cuz I'm regretting the choice to stay in this county? Um, because if it's 9.56% this
year, what is it going to be next year? What is it going to be the year after that? Do you have any estimates on that? Um well typically on kind of any given year with compensation, health insurance and other factors it's usually a four to 5%
to start. U so it stands a reason that we might be looking at something in that range in 27 >> that include the the levy for the government center. >> So that's going to be baked in then that's going to be in the base then. So you know the I think you ask about what what could be the increase for 27. So I
think again historically 4 to 5% to start could be lower but that's probably more reasonable like four to 5%. >> So the property owners $27 million a year we fork over for you guys to decide on how uh how you spend our money. And
you know uh I think a lot of us here are unhappy with what's been going on. Our bills go up. I don't know if anyone's electric bills gone down. Anyone? garbage bill thing, right? >> Nothing. Everything goes up and you spend $22 million
without taking it to a vote. It's a joke and it's it's really disappointing. So, thanks. >> Okay. Is there anyone else otherwise we're going to >> Well, there's somebody in the back then. Hi, I'm Deb Olsen
and I live here in Foley. I understand that the taxes are what they are. One of the things that I would like to ask our elected officials, many of you
go to our state for various functions, committees. The other part that's killing us is our insuranceances. My personal uh homeowners insurance has doubled
just in the last year. The insurance industry has lobbyists and packs and I would ask that our elected officials start working on those individuals to
bring down some of those costs for your residents in our county. Other things like utilities you have no control over but you do have some say and input in the insurance
industry. Thank you. [snorts] >> Somebody else. Okay. >> Me. >> Yep. Kelly Gallagher. So, I'm back to process again. And um
just after hearing everything that I've heard, it seems to me that if you're running a business, which this is government, it's not a business. A business does not have the ability to just increase their budgets. They have a budget they have to live within. And if they can't live within their budget,
they have to make cuts. And so, yes, you might be giving 3% increases and raises. some people, but maybe you don't need all those people. What about a process to be create efficiencies? Now, I've heard from many of the people that I work with that use your services, they
never wait in line. It's they it's a joy to come here because they they get in our way. We have never have a problem. Maybe there's a way that you guys So, that's why I'm kind of like, why do you need a new building? Seems to be operating just fine. However, maybe you
need to tighten the belt and look at processes and create some efficiency with less people. That's what I have to say. Thank you. Okay, seeing no more hands, we're going to close the truth and taxation meeting.
>> That's not even >> what? Yeah. So then we'll move on. She's okay. So we'll move on to set commissioner of uh committee of the holes. Anything Monte? >> Oops. Turn my mic on. Couple things in
the record. The men do study workshop at St. Cloud City Hall. That is Thursday the 4th at 11:00. I know a couple board members are interested to attend it and that's going to be okay. That's okay. We got you covered uh uh to attend that. Again, that's the Mandot Highway 10
study workshop, St. Cloud City Hall Council Chambers 11:00 a.m. on the 4th. So, if you communicate with Beth, you're good to go. >> Is that going to be a higher level than the other three meetings they're having or >> I think actually it's going to be much more in-depth. Okay. Um, you know,
that's their TAC witches meeting, technical advisory committee. Um, it kind of got my little I kind of messed up a little bit there. Um, but that's okay. >> Um, I think you'll get a lot more detail if you're interested in going. All right. Uh, we need to get in the
calendar the AMC annual conference December 8th, 9th, and 10th at uh in um >> Bloomington. >> What city is that? That's that's >> it. Bloomington. I think is >> Oh, it's a Minneapolis address. I think
it's I think it's Bloomington though. >> You sure about that? >> Uh you are invited by uh public health to a presentation by the Minnesota State Demographer on March 9th at 1 p.m. Sock Rapids
Government Center. Go. March 9th 1 p.m. South Rapids Government Center. a presentation by the Minnesota State Demographer and we also have to add the you know this is this is wouldn't be necessary as a committee just want to make sure you have on your calendars the BEP holiday
event Thursday December 18th >> at 4:30 >> excuse me >> May I ask Beth do they need RSVPs Yes. >> Did you Did you collect RSVPs? >> I have one. >> Anyone else wish to attend?
>> I'm on the B. >> You're You're the You're good. >> I'm good. >> Anybody else? >> Um I'm I'm waiting. >> Maybe. >> You're a Maybe. Okay. Beth follow up. Okay. All right. That's all we have. Mr. Chair, >> move for approval of the cows. Mr. Chair,
>> hang on. If anybody Did you all get this? >> Yes. >> Yeah. I'm not >> If it Nobody's going. No, >> then we don't need to add it. Okay. >> What I need now? >> So, you have a motion, Mr. >> I have a motion and I need a second. >> Second.
>> Motion been made. Second to approve the cows. All in favor? >> I I >> We'rejourned at 7:10.