County Board to order. >> I 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.
Probably working. >> It's working. >> We're good. >> Pull my chair out from me. >> Yeah. Is that >> Oh, that was roll call. Beth, >> sure. >> Commissioner Benoy >> here. Commissioner Heinen, >> present. >> Commissioner Pop, >> here. >> Commissioner Johnson >> here.
>> Commissioner Kapinsky >> here. >> Thank you. >> Approve or amend the agenda. >> Sir. So, Mr. chair. Uh after today's consent agenda, could we please uh recess county board to conduct an HR meeting? Okay. And then of course then
resume county board. Anything else? No sir. That's it. >> Move for approval of the agenda, Mr. Chair. >> Second. >> Motion been made and second to approve the agenda. All in favor? >> I oppose. Carried. County board meetings are brought broadcast live and video recorded on YouTube. Please restrain
from speaking from the audience area and come to the podium so that viewers can hear you. The county board observes the Robert's rules of order for its meeting. So, please obtain the county board chair's consent before addressing the county board. Public comments are generally reserved for open form segment
or public hearings. However, public comments on other agenda items may be allowed at the discretion of the board chair. As we begin today, please turn your phones off or just vibrate. Thank you. >> Open form. Nobody's there.
>> Um, so now we'll res or we'll do the consent agenda. >> Mr. Chair, if I could, I'd like to uh remove items three and four as long as our county auditors here and just have a brief discussion in regards to those. And with that, then I'll also move to approve items one and two.
>> I'll second. Motion's been made to uh to approve items one and two and we'll have three and four further discussion. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Christine, if we could just have a brief description of these two applications, I'd appreciate it.
>> So, the first one for Oakill, they um sold I believe their closing date is today. >> Okay. So, the new applicant came in to apply about two weeks ago, not knowing that the process takes as long as it does. So, they signed a management
agreement between the the buyer and the seller so that the buyer could use the seller's liquor license until his is approved and he receives it. So, that one's not okay. >> Yeah, that's okay. Yep. The second one
is um the Mini Mart in south of Rice off of Highway 10. Um this company operates out of Tennessee and they're always late with filing
their application or renewal. And when we sent them the packet this last time, they responded to us and let us know that somebody would be buying the business. So, they didn't know if they were going to be reapplying or not for their
renewal. And then nothing happened. We didn't hear from them. We kept emailing them. Finally, they said that they had mailed a check and we never received it. Um then the new owner or the potential
new owner came in and applied and that license is application is a mess. There's many missing parts. The township didn't approve it. So we don't have that. But they did the township did approve the current owner, the one
that's on here. It's it's a mess to try to follow this whole web of so currently we have Mr. Shadri who is applying who is the current owner and
owns the property right now which is what our ordinance states that the owner of the property needs to be the one that is applying and they're also the ones who because they didn't get everything in they lapsed in they don't have a current
license now so they were shut down by the state agency and they they currently they can't sell. And that's been since July 18th. So, they were selling for about a 3-week period of time there without a a current
valid license. >> And the sheriff's office has seen this. >> Yep. And he stated that there's no disqualifying criminal convictions for the application, but just wanted you to be aware that they were selling
illegally for three weeks. Okay, >> Mr. Chair, at that time, doesn't the state kick in if they know about it? >> They say it. So, they did kick in. They went out there, investigated. They did sell to the agent that was undercover.
And then he went back, investigated, and talked to the employee. And the employee said that they were unaware that they didn't have a license, which most gas station employees probably wouldn't know. And so he said that our county
attorney probably couldn't press charges against that employee, like they wouldn't stand in court because they didn't know. >> But I guess there's nothing happens to the actual applicant >> other than that they're they shouldn't
be selling right now. >> So what happens when if they if they do sell this that new owner have to reapply or does he get the old? >> No, he has to reapply. And how will you know if it's sold? >> Well, we would get the documents
>> and it's up to you to catch it that oh, that got sold and now we need to request a different lure. >> Yeah, >> I think I would make a stipulation that they get a hold of you right away. >> So Michelle said that she wanted to see the actual agreement. So, they gave us a
purchase agreement dated July 1st, but nothing's been recorded in our office yet that it's actually sold. >> So, it's still pending for selling. >> And they haven't they're they're not delinquent on taxes, but they haven't paid first half. So, that would they
would have to pay the taxes in order for the sale. >> My guess that's in the sale. >> Yeah, it is. >> Yeah. So, none of that has happened yet. So, the current owner does meet what he needs to do for a license. >> Yeah. >> Kind of what it gets down to.
>> All right. >> But, >> but you can't grant the old owner or the existing owner the license until the taxes are paid up. >> No. >> No, you can't. >> No, it it's only delinquent taxes. >> Oh, okay.
>> Not late taxes. Doesn't matter >> because they could pay them by the >> Gotcha. October. So if he becomes delinquent, then you come back and say we need to revoke his license. >> I Well, he would have to be delinquent up until it's renewal time.
>> Okay. >> So, right now they don't have a license, >> right? >> And they're supposedly not selling, >> right? >> Well, let's make them legal. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> All right, Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of items three and four.
>> I'll second. Go ahead. Second >> been three and four minute. Uh motion then seconded. All in favor? I >> I >> I carried. >> We'll now recess county board >> and go to the H. Call the H board meeting to order.
Um roll call. >> Everybody's here. We're good. Agenda consent item number one. Approve or amend the housing and redevelopment authority meeting of August 5th.
>> Move approval. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I opposed. Regular agenda. Turn it over to Jessica, sir. >> Okay. And I believe you all have this in front of you.
>> Commissioners, good morning. Morning. >> You have two resolutions for your consideration this morning. The first being the authorization for the issuance and sale of 22,85,000 in lease revenue bonds. This will be considered series 2025A
for the HA. Um so we did hold a bond sale yesterday morning. Happy to say that things went very well. As Monty pointed out, you do all have a copy of that sale summary in front of you. Um so I'll just go through that very quickly. Of course, if you have any questions, feel free to stop me as we go. So,
proceeds here will be used to finance, of course, the construction of the new county government center. And then the bonds were also sized to include cost of issuance for the bonds. We have a structure of 20 years here um with a call date beginning um February 1 of 2033. So, at that point, you can call
the bonds in in whole or in part. Uh in terms of security, the county will make lease payments to the HRA from any revenues available for the payment of the bonds. The bonds do not constitute a general obligation pledge of the county. That being said, it is the intention of
the county to levy, of course, to collect those dollars to make payment to the HR. The method of sale here was competitive. Um the bonds were underwritten by RW Beard. Um that is an underwriter out of Milwaukee. So we saw three bids yesterday. Um all of them quite good. Um, we did receive, of
course, a rating on the bonds with the rating being a double A minus, which is one notch below the county's typical rating of double A. And that's just due to the fact that there is no general obligation pledge here. All other outstanding uh debt for the county was affirmed at that double A level. And
then on the bottom here, you have uh just some information related to the final results of the bonds. So, we have a final par amount of $22,85,000. um the HA board and then the county board of course um will recall that the
starting point was 22,725. The reason that we have this lower number here 22,85,000 is because we received premium on the bonds. What that means is that investors are willing to give you cash today in order to receive a higher stated rate on
the bonds, higher coupon. So you end up paying a little bit more in interest, but you pay less in principal. So we downsize the bonds and then of course that interest rate is a little bit higher. When that occurs, we look at things on a true interest cost basis. So rather than just your average coupon
because again that coupon is inflated due to the fact that you receive cash >> and we have a final true interest cost here of 4.45%. What we had been planning for was about 4.63. So about 18 basis points lower. What that translates to in terms of total debt service for the county means
that we're down about 592,000. It's 59183446 to be exact. So in less in total principal and interest. That of course assumes that the bonds are outstanding for the full term which we don't anticipate. But that being said, if that is the case, you're about $600,000
better. The next page is your bid tab. So this shows uh the bids that were received. of course, uh, RW Bar out of Milwaukee being the faux bag. You'll see that they did bid with the syndicate there. So, we've got about 23 syndicate members that bid alongside Baird. And then we
also had Fidelity and RBC come in with bids as well. Um, considerably higher, about 11 basis points higher. What that kind of signals to us is that um, the syndicate with Baird um, was pretty strong and of course they were very interested in the county's bonds.
>> Mr. Chair, yes. Just note that all of them are below the projected >> all are. Yes. >> Um was it 4.6 something? >> 4.63 is what we were estimating. Yep. >> On the following page, you'll see the sources and uses. And then what I'd uh
draw your attention to here is the pricing summary that's in the middle of the page. And this this gets to that premium bid. So when we look at the third and fourth columns from the left, you'll see that the coupon there out
through um let's see 2036 is at 5%. But then if we compare that against the yield that's in the fourth column, so that 5% coupon produces a yield of 2.51 and that is with that cash included in the bid. So that's where we're seeing
the yield to the county is actually and that's why we look at it on a true interest cost basis rather than average coupon because we take into consideration the cash that's received at the time of sale. So that's again why we're seeing the total par amount of the bonds reduced from the 22725 down to the
22,85,000. We've got the debt service schedule on the following page. Due to that reduction in the true interest cost, you're looking at about 29,592 on an average basis less um for annual principle and interest than what we were
planning for previously. And then finally, you just have a couple of graphs that show the um sort of snapshot of market interest rates. So, we're looking at on page six, you'll see that five-year snapshot. And then finally, on
the last page, you'll see a 25-year look back. um in terms of where interest rates have been over the last many many years. With that, I will pause on that before we tackle the next resolution, the post issuance compliance policy.
Happy to take any questions on the bond sale process, etc. >> Any questions? >> Just great numbers in my opinion. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, they were they will be posted online. Um, actually my son looked this morning and they weren't posted yet
>> because you haven't awarded yet. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> And I That's a good point. Um, Commissioner, so anything that's done by the H board will need to be ratified by the county board. >> Yep. >> Jessica, is your mic on? Just want to double check. Little green way down at the bottom there's a green button for
green. >> It looks green. It's on. >> It's on. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay, we're good here. We're good. >> Okay, so then the following item that you have is the post issuance compliance policy and procedures. Um, so this was prepared
by bond council. And really what this gets to is that you're going to be using your proceeds for which they are intended, which of course is to construct a new government center that you're not going to invest your proceeds at a yield that is significantly higher than what the uh tax exempt bonds are
issued for. And then of course with um in compliance with keeping investors up to date that any sort of material events are posted and so that investors can get the financial information and again any material event information uh from the board.
>> Jessica, this doesn't preclude us from we when we receive the bonds obviously we're not going to be spending these dollars down right away. >> Correct. >> So we're not precluded from receiving interest on those dollars as we proceed. So there's no arbitrage arbitrage problems here
>> assuming that you're investing the unused proceeds for however long. >> Exactly. >> That they're less than that 4.45. >> Yep. Okay. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> So Mr. Chair said we'd ask you then to
consider the first action would be the resolution and uh the TAP law firm has prepared final resolutions for board chair signature. What you had in your packet were draft because obviously the sale had not yet occurred. >> We have the final ones for for board
chair signature. >> Okay. Something I would get suggest in the motion is the motion was based upon the original uh issuance amount and instead it's correct me if I'm wrong Jessica it's 2285 >> correct >> so in your motion we have 22725
if you could just please change that number to 228500 and then otherwise the rest of the motion is fine. Okay. Motion to approve the resolution authorizing the issuance of 22 million 22,85,000. >> Yes.
>> A lease revenue bond series 2025A. >> I'll second. >> Motion been made and seconded to approve the resolutions for the issuance of the bonds. Any other discussion? Any other discussion? Hearing none. Call the question. All in favor? >> I
>> oppose. Carried. >> And then lastly, sir, if you if we could consider the post issuance compliance policies and procedures. >> Motion to adopt the post issuance compliance policies and procedures. >> Second. Motion's been made, seconded to
um consider the post issuance compliance policy and procedures. Any other discussion? >> All in favor? >> I oppose. Carrie, >> thank you, Jessica. >> Thank you, Jessica. Great job. Yeah, she's got to cover the county board items. So, >> Oh, that's right. So, we can go back to
county board. Yep. >> Right. We'll turn the H and return to the county board meeting. Come on. Next. There we have again the resolution that's as you see in your agenda item. Could you cover that one for us, Jessica? Yeah. What's that all
about? >> Commissioners, hello again. So, now you have >> You've been away so long, >> right? You guys um so we have uh another two resolutions for your consideration. Uh
the first resolution effectively concurs with the resolution that was just taken by the H to approve the award and sale of $22,85,000 in HA lease revenue bonds and authorizes the county of course to enter into the lease arrangement with the HR. And then
from there we have the second resolution that again authorizes those postisssuance compliance policy and uh speaks to the fact that you'll use the proceeds of the bonds for the purpose in which they're intended that you won't invest them at a rate that is materially higher than the interest rate on the
bonds etc etc. Happy to take any questions. >> I don't think there's no question. Motion to approve the resolution authorizing the execution and delivery of a ground lease agreement. Lease agreement and continuing disclosure
undertaking all in connection with the HR lease revenue financing of the government center project. Uh Monty, in my motion, do I need to put in 22,850,000? >> Uh I don't believe so. No, it's Jessica's second her. No, I think we're good. Yep.
>> Okay. >> Yep. >> That's my motion. >> Okay, >> I'll second. Motion been made and seconded. You consider the resolution for execution and delivery of ground lease agreements um and continue disclosure of undertake all connections with the HR lease revenue of the
government project. >> All in favor? >> I opposed. >> Carried. And then lastly, the the post issuance compliance policies again as county board. >> Sure, why not? >> Sure, why not? Motion to adopt post
issuance compliance policies and procedures. >> Second. >> Motion been made and seconded to consider the post issuance compliance policies and procedures. Any other discussion? >> All in favor? >> I opposed carried.
>> Thank you very much. >> Thank you again. >> Thank you. Roxan, >> we have >> Amanda's next. >> Safe travels back. >> Yep. Thank you again, Jessica. >> Good morning, board of commissioners.
>> Morning. >> Morning. >> Um, we are recontinuing our conversation um from our July 15th county board meeting discussing the support of the initiative foundation region 7W US economic development administration
application. Um this is uh you wanted to have some time to talk to some the commissioners and other counties um and give them some time to um approve their respective resolutions as far as um
approving the region 7W um EDA application. And um since our conversation on July 15th, Sherburn County approved the resolution um to support this initiative
on uh July 22nd and Sterns County on July 29th. Wright County, however, did not entertain the resolution. Um did not add it to their agenda. So they are not supporting the application. We talked about that at the last meeting. Um I'm
here to answer any questions that you may have. Um we heard a presentation at the last meeting but here to answer any questions that you have before um moving forward with the support of this application. >> Yes. Go ahead.
>> So Wright County is still able to participate even if they don't support it. >> Correct. Technically they will still be able to participate um in the region group. And you stated in our
presentation before that there is um a match for the counties. >> Correct. >> And that can be done through um >> inind in >> staff. Yep.
>> If we approve this and it goes forward, how do I want to word this? My question is that is this like um other boards where we're required to keep that up every single year and could it change from inind to
dollar amounts passed on to our levy? >> Uh perhaps. Um however, this resolution today is only to submit the application um to the federal EDA. um we will come back to the board um to discuss um
future funding of this organization. That that that's not the decision that you're making today. The decision you're making today is to support the application that the initiative foundation is going to submit that application to federal EDA to establish
that um ED district. um and provided that they approve the application and approve our regional efforts then we'll come back to the board and discuss um the funding mechanisms. Initially um the
initiative foundation uh it had is receiving some grant funds to establish the district. They're going to be facilitating it. Um and then uh the discussions have revolved around uh h
utilizing staff time as inind donations towards our contribution to um continue running our ED district or region 7W district. So in the future
there could be an opportunity or well there could be um the funding mechanism could change but we just don't we don't know how that's going to we're still having conversations about how that is going to work but realistically we'd like to see
that being more of inind contributions versus monetary contributions. So, but ultimately it's still costing money one way or the other >> through >> and that's going to be through the Benton >> Benton economic partnership
>> BP will provide the inind >> exactly >> no county participation >> now if all of a sudden these uh these funds from change from inind to levy dollars can we opt out at that point >> or are we stuck >> we we haven't gotten that far in our
discussions yet um this is just the application approve it. So, um we'll come back to county board and discuss all of those other options. >> Okay. Thanks. I I when I was reading through this, I see that there is actually grants out there to support all of this
>> for the funding too though >> and the initiative foundation has applied for a grant to um establish this organization. >> So, is it excuse me, Mr. Is it fair to say Amanda then if we approve the application going forward we still have an opportunity to kind of review and see
what >> yes >> and also my other questions Stern's 3 to1 what was the vote >> um don't have the minutes but I believe that >> I thought that was unanimous >> I don't know if it was unanimous I'm sorry yeah okay thank you
>> but I know it was three to one >> one question I have men is that I'm under the understanding that right wants to get out of this region 7W and they want to go with more of the metro. Is that going to be something that's going to cause a rift? You know, if they that's
that's what they feel that they're more they're better served coming out of the metro than they are coming out of St. Cloud area. >> I can understand. >> Yeah. And and I can understand that. I I don't know how that um affects our district. I'm really not sure. I mean, would they would they consider redrawing
the boundaries then or would they >> I couldn't answer that question. I really just don't know how federal EDA >> Yeah. >> um determines that. >> Okay. And Mr. Chair, in this this particular sorry, this particular case, you need three of the counties if
>> correct majority of the counties move. >> Okay. >> Right. >> Okay. So, so if I'm understanding right, then if we approve this and it comes back with all of the other stuff that we don't
know yet, um we can opt out even though we approved this. >> Yeah. I mean, you don't have to agree um to move forward with it. We're just submitting the application and then we'll come back to county board and talk about the funding mechanisms that um
kind of wrap yourselves into. So we can opt out completely after if we go through with this >> if you if the board chooses. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> That's >> as far as a funding mechanism goes. But it's really just the application to the >> right point.
>> So when we when all the findings are in and and say they do something different and we don't like it, we can opt out >> essentially. Yeah. >> I'll make a motion to support this. uh knowing that we will have an opportunity to look at it when it comes back through.
>> Second motion been made and second it to support the initi initiative foundation 7W economic development application. >> Any other discussion? >> All in favor? >> I opposed. >> Thank you.
>> Thanks Amanda. >> Mr. Mr. Chair, if I can just be I'd like to just make a quick statement before I don't know if Amanda's sticking around or not, but I just want to give her kudos in front of you. Last week, her and Pam spent considerable amount of time trying to line up letters of support for the Highway 23 coalition's
uh feasibility study. We were under a very strict timeline and I reached out to Amanda and said, "Hey, do you have some contacts at these cities, etc., etc." And they stepped right up, especially Pam. I'm sure you were involved. >> Yes. >> And really helped us get that over the finish line. So, I just want to acknowledge that. >> Okay.
>> Why she's here. Thank you >> very much. Every time you every time we ask for their help, they're right there. >> They're right there. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Amanda. >> Roxan. >> Good morning, commissioners, Mr. Chair. So, the first item that I have, I'm
going to pull this up, um, is a potential letter of support, uh, to support the neighbors in the Arm Mitchell Court area adjacent to where the Next Era project is located. Um, the Let Sorry, give me one second here just
to pull that up so that I have the pictures available. So, Next Era is planning to construct um their solar project adjacent to what would be considered more of a rural neighborhood area. And this is probably
one of the areas that's most densely populated in this um next to the Next Era project. Um, Next Era did present to the planning commission their proposed screening plan at the July 24th meeting. Um, we wanted to and I I think I speak
for the planning commission in that they wanted to see the screening plan before making any sort of decisions on whether to um pursue something more in support of the neighborhood for enhanced screening. And when they presented the screening plan for us, yes, it met our
requirements for screening while not requ A according to Nexera they are required to meet the minimum screening standards which it did but in this situation we felt that it was insufficient screening due to the nature of that area and so I
drafted a letter of support for enhanced screening for that area um to and including um photos to indicate that the screening may not be sufficient for this area. Um, so just to back up a little bit, um, here is the neighborhood that
will be adjacent. And I I wanted to show that right now it's a bare field. It's not even um it wasn't even corn or anything there. So it's it's very straight flat area. Uh so you can see that those areas do show um quite well
from the neighborhood. This shows the number of houses and their line of sight to the project area and where that will be seen. Um, and then the one of the neighbors actually pointed out a solar project in Sherburn County that has a
burm and it is very effective at screening the the view from these residential houses. So, this project is in Sherburn County. It's um Haven Township, I believe is what it is. And you can see that there are residential houses along here. And the yellow
circled area is uh earth and burm. And so if you look at the burm on these photos, you would never know that there are solar panels behind it. Um it gets it's it's a little bit difficult to see just because of the scope of the area. Um and these these pictures while a
little bit foggy that morning, you can you can see that there is a very gentle burm and it effectively screens those solar panels. Um, so in discussing with the neighbors, um, I think that would be something they'd be supportive of is a
burm for that area to protect the the viewshed of that, um, location. So, I've drafted a letter to Next Era and to the public utilities commission, presented it to the planning commission last Thursday. They were supportive in
signing that letter to send out um, supporting enhanced screening, effectively a a BM for that location. Uh they do have a public hearing scheduled at the Sock Sock Rapids Government Center next uh I believe it's the 26th.
So is that Tuesday? And so I'd like to get this letter out um and submitted to them before the end of that public hearing period. Uh if the county board is supportive of that. >> Mr. You know, I I'm I'm supportive of the burm and everything like that in this
letter, but if this was a barn going across the road, we wouldn't be building a burm, right? >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Yep. Yeah. And I think the the idea behind this is you're you're essentially putting an industrial use because of the size of the project in an agricultural
area. There's no a project of this scale would never fit in an industrial zone. Yet, it is an industrial type use. So, we're putting that in our in our egg district, our rural districts that you would expect to see housing and farms
and buildings such as that. >> Mr. Chair, as Roxanne said, planning commission was unanimous in their feeling of putting forth this this letter. As you know, we've got very limited opportunities as a county involvement in the next era project. And so, kudos to Roxan. she came up with
this idea to to be able to support the neighborhood, support the planning commission's thought about, you know, can we do something else? And we've we've kind of been all sitting back until next era presented a screening option, right? And they finally did that in July. >> So then that was the response that we
felt would be appropriate to try to support those neighbors and that particular area of rural housing that's going to be seeing this every day. >> Did Roxan, did it affect any of the area? Does it take away from the area
that they are able to install panels on? >> I can't speak to that because this will be something that they'll have to engineer and this is not a requirement. It's simply a request >> on behalf of um >> what does next say about it? Are they
fine with it or >> they haven't? >> The letter hasn't been presented to them. I do know that the neighbors have been in contact with Adam Garcia or Gracia. >> Yeah. Um, and so he's aware that this is what they would like to see. Um, I I
don't know that he's aware that we'll be submitting a letter to that effect. >> Yeah. Because he's certainly aware of their issues with and because he's been at our planning commission meetings and county board meetings to hear. So, >> Yep. And they do want to appease the the local government and the neighborhoods.
U, this is the only area that we have heard from. Mhm. >> So, uh, we're not we're not asking for this for the entire project area, just this location, >> just so the housing the people across the road don't think it's going to cover their second story. >> Yeah.
>> Sure. Sure. >> They'll still be looking at them. >> Will they plant trees on top of the bottom? >> Again, what they do is completely up to them. >> To them. Yeah. >> Yeah. There is there is some in Sherburn
County that does have trees on top. They do. I I know. And so I know I've been involved with this from the beginning and and of course Commissioner Benoy has been with us involved with the city of Sock Rapids when they've came in. And
that's what we did too is made sure that they put a burm around certain areas. >> Yes. >> And they also do a screening thing. So somebody that's got a two-story house, if that glare is going into that house, they have to address that, too.
Yeah, they put um in some of those, Steve, I'm sure you've seen them, but they put sails up >> like a a sail type of thing up to block the the >> glare glare, >> right? As Commissioner Johnson uh uh
relayed, we don't have a lot of say in this anyway, >> but I did uh talk to our Sock Rapids fire chief uh the other day, and there's been now five fires in the other um uh solar panel areas
>> and it's been a nightmare trying to get a hold of the owners cuz they change hands all the time. >> I'm going to say I think all five of those were admitted. >> Mhm. >> I'm pretty sure. just just wanted to get that on the record and and uh I told him I would I
would mention something and I did. Not much we can do about it, but >> Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of a letter of to the public utilities commission next year energy in support of additional screening and location that was provided to us. >> Second. >> Motion been made and seconded to provide
additional screening. Any other discussion? >> All in favor? >> I opposed. Car. >> Okay. And I will make sure that this is tidied up. It's a draft right now. I do have to find more of the information on where to submit this to. Um and then I
will bring it forward for signature prior to next uh Tuesday. I I'll I'll have to see. They might have an extended um period where you can submit the comments um versus what's just in person. So I'll I'll make sure to get that out to everyone. Okay. go back on that. All right. So,
the next request is to transfer funds from the reserve fund to the restricted fund for the tax ka and avenue support. Um, so we knew that we would have to support both the tax the Tyler system and the avenue system for a um an
additional period of time. We just didn't know how long that exactly would be. So, we need to make a final transfer for um 61,100 uh $143 and then an additional 5,000 for
the tax cam user group fee. Um so that is a transfer that should be the end of the contract with Avenue. Um and then there was an error in what we had originally started with. So that's an additional 64,000 that we're
transferring. Um, so a total of it was originally a total of 130,000. Um, but then we just got word that Tyler needs to build a tool um to for our tax statements because we're considered a cloud county where that information is
stored in the cloud versus on pulled from our network. And so there's a uh $4,800 fee associated with that. So, we're looking to transfer $135,583 from reserves to the restricted fund. >> Mr. Chair, just uh for the record, this
has been put aside, this money's been put in this this reserve fund for a long time knowing that this was coming. >> The initial amount was Yeah. Right. And I and I obviously this is additional uh for the reasons described by uh Roxan.
So, It's got to be done. >> I got asked the question, how did we come up with a shortage of $64,63928 >> that the number that was provided to us was um incorrect. So um we it was there's a number that was out there that
was set aside. Money had been pulled from that account. um and not calculated for >> the amount that was told you in the reserves as well. >> Uh yes. >> Okay. >> Right. >> So that was short of what was originally in there.
>> Yes. Yep. And I think it's provided in the report. Um there was So, it was still used for the tax kama project. It just was uh in in error that that wasn't deducted originally from the
266,000. >> So, is it fair to say that the tax and camma project came in over budget then if we had this stuff put away? >> It did. not necessarily over budget, but we we knew that there was a chance that
we would have to run the two programs concurrently. >> We just didn't know for how long. Um it all depended on when we could get up and into the Tyler program and how many um counties removed from the Avenue system.
And so um actually to be fair, it's actually probably less than what was expected to run concurrently. And are we the first cloud county? They have >> I believe second. Do you know >> the first? >> Yeah.
>> So they're just really honing in on issues that are coming up now >> because of being a cloud county. >> Yeah. >> Are they at our expense >> and Ottertales or not?
Okay, that's the $4,800 building that tool. >> It's a good business plan >> apparently. >> Let everybody else pay and then they get to >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Wow. >> Well, I guess we're kind of we're kind of stuck anyway. So I'd move approval of
the transfer of 135,583 from the reserve to the restricted fund for the tax camma conversion and avenue support. >> Second motion been made and seconded to approve the needed funds from the reserves of 135,583.
Any other discussion >> hearing? None. All in favor? >> I >> thank you. Thank you all for this conversion. I know you guys have been under a lot of uh >> added pressure.
>> Okay, Sandy. >> Um my first item is con asking for approval of uh the two 2025 contract for the purchase of guardianship services with Guardian Solutions LLC. Um we currently contract with I believe four
other vendors and we're adding wanting to add another option. Motion to approve. >> I'll second that. It's >> been uh made and seconded to approve the contract for purchase of Guardianship Conservatorship
>> from Guardian Solutions LLC. Any discussion? You said we have two or three other ones. >> Yeah, I believe we have four other ones. So this just gives us more selection in who provides the guardianship. It's not more money. It's the exact same contract
we would do with all the providers. It just gives us other options um if people don't have openings, that type of thing. >> I think in in this more options is better, >> right? Exactly. >> So does this does the money come from the people that use the service?
>> Sometimes. Sometimes if the if is the people have enough have money they do pay for it and sometimes the county ends up paying for guardianship >> and we get reimbursed >> uh we get some small reimbursement but no the majority of the money is county funds
>> uh we've discussed this at previous um board meetings I don't know the uh what our budget amount is but it has been slightly a growing service over time as families are long distance are distant are wishing to be uninvolved or are
uninvolved. Um that is a problem in many counties. Um but we do seek relatives whenever possible, but there are times when an individual can't make their own decisions and are living in substandard situations and the county needs to step in.
>> So do you watch the conservatorship, the person that's doing it, um that they're doing their due diligence? Is somebody watching them? because I have a little personal information on this now. >> Um, we try to I mean we we monitor the
bills. We are often involved with the clients and then also not always though. Um, and there are also reports that need to be submitted to the court regularly. So, the court also has an eye on it. They have a better eye on it now than they used to. um they used to
not do a lot with some of the people who didn't file the reports, but there's more and more requirements actually and that makes it harder harder for guardians as well. So for some family members, it's the paperwork that has become that's required by court that has become difficult. >> Um and that's one of the reasons
sometimes they back out, but there are there are some oversight of it, but not intense. >> Mr. Sure, Sandy. I'm sure it's all over the board, but is there a typical cost to guardianship that you would say?
>> Yes. I don't remember exactly what it is. I believe it's like $125 a month. >> Okay. >> Somewhere in there. So, they don't do a lot with I mean, they do more paperwork, signing, more of that, and then do some visits with the clients, but they're not a lot of hands-on. It is not their job
to move the client, to take him to medical appointments or grocery shopping. It's more of a legal entity to make legal decisions that they are unable to make. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Other questions? >> Motion. Second, I think.
>> Yeah, we got a motion to second. I think so. >> We do. >> Okay. >> Call the question. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Both carried. And then the next item is a item that we have covered in a a couple of committee of the whole meetings, but uh we would
like um the board to estab to approve a position within human services to be the mental health co-responder with law enforcement funds. Funding for this would be covered by the opioid settlement funds and by the community adult mental health
initiative. It is not levy funds, >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. I think uh in our committee as a whole, we talked about doing a trial period on this, but I think we all agree that this trial period probably is going to turn into
>> a much needed um avenue down the road, but uh I I think from my standpoint, this is a no-brainer and and it's working in other places. >> Mr. Chair, I I would have to agree with Commissioner Gapinsky, especially in St. Cloud. It's been known to work very
well. >> And Commissioner Benoy and myself talked to Mayor Anderson uh St. Cloud and they said if we want additional uh support on this, they have opioid funds too that they could very well um
>> you'd be willing to entertain >> entertain. Yep. At least a presentation from us. >> Yeah. Well, that would be actually very beneficial, especially when most of it's going to happen on their side. >> Southeast St. Cloud. >> Yep. >> So, I think I think if we could get a
meeting together, that would be good. >> I I believe that our plan has been, however, that they already have co-responders in St. Cloud and that this co-responder would focus on the rest of Benton County. That was our initial plan. So, the Benton County rural areas,
Sock Rapids, um that area that does not have a co-responder, but that would certainly be a discussion we could have as well. But that was our thoughts is that there already are City of St. Cloud co-responders. >> But as soon as we put a co-responder on, I will guarantee you they'll pull back
that area cuz Benton County has one now. Yeah. >> So either way, I think we need to have a meeting with them and just explain the the avenue what we're doing and what what they're doing and make sure that there's no we'll call it underlap
>> or so that we're working together instead of apart. >> Mr. Chair Sandy, um I I wasn't at the committee the whole meeting. I missed that information, but the 98,000 annually between opioid and uh the other funds, is it half and half?
Is it mostly opioid? >> It's mostly opioid. And it'll it it will change over time as well depending on where Cammy Cammy also supports our outreach worker. Currently, we have a PATH grant that's covering the majority of that cost. So, we haven't needed CAMI funding, but it may have to be a
balancing act to fund both as we >> You need more CAMI funding, rely more on the opioid. >> Correct. With that, I'll make the motion to hire mental health co-responder services to to be funed by opioid settlement gams.
>> I'll second made second it. Any other discussion? All in favor? >> I. >> Good discussion. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Sandy. >> Sandy, are you going to be sticking around for after it all? cuz I think in maybe our commissioner updates we might
have some uh homeless talk. >> Um I was headed to St. Cloud at 10:30. Okay. >> But I could join in virtually or I'm not sure when you'll be >> Well, hypothetically, would the chair have a problem just updating our all of
our meetings on that >> real quick? >> I don't have it. I mean, uh, after our APO meeting, I I sat in on, um, uh, Pastor Carol and a presentation with a few county members and and city St. Cloud and it they
obviously everybody's looking for counties to step in and and fund all this stuff. The city is like, yes, we can we can step in and help out, too. But everybody's like, well, we keep building it and they'll keep coming. >> Correct. We're just we're funding our
own problem because brain I brought up the fact that Brainard and Fargo have already stopped. We know that other counties are bringing them to our doorstep and the more we keep building and funding this this issue without having a
collaborative effort to support the fund the the funds of it, we're going to have our own issue coming even bigger. We can't put a fence around and say we're taking care of this group of people. It doesn't work that way. So, there was there was a I I I I our meeting was
probably 45 minutes to an hour and you guys had one on Monday, correct? We have one with faith and faith in housing and they I got the impression Scott was there with me, but I got the impression that they the faith community wants to pull
back from housing over the winter and they want a solution from the counties and the cities as to where to house those people instead of in the churches. >> Right. One thing I picked up on from that meeting yesterday was that group was reaching out to city officials to
lessen their zoning requirements >> so that it's not such a fight >> to do something. >> But then the problem that we've discussed in the past is because we don't control any city ordinances. If they choose to build or expand on this
side of the river, we kind of become on the hook for this stuff as Benton County. So, there's this back and forth, you know, as they're reaching out trying to close down their trans their uh temporary housing for the winter. Now, they want the city to release their zoning regulations so they can move forward. And it's kind of a
>> I don't know that that's the answer. >> No, it's not the answer. >> You know, it's pretty ironic cuz Sandy and I have been on numerous meetings over the last I don't know, four, five, six years and it's the same thing that you guys are bringing up now. Same issues. So, we haven't gotten anywhere,
you know, with this. >> And it was uh it was very clearly stated in our meeting that the better the services are, >> the more >> the more are coming because they're hearing about it. And and >> Pastor Carol even admitted that she's getting calls from Mississippi and
Chicago and >> people from down south are come making calls right now to say, "I'm coming up in September." And she's like, "Uh, it's winter up here coming up." So, I don't know. I think uh I think a collaborative effort needs to be put
together and we need to make sure our faith communities understand that the the bucket's empty. >> Yep. >> We'll take care of people. But >> to be honest with you, I think that I mean, the takeaway I got is even some
commissioners from outlying areas kind of made that pretty clear in yesterday's meeting. Isn't that what you kind of got, Scott? Is >> um They made it pretty clear that it it it is not going to come from
>> the government entities I think is what I read it as. >> And one commissioner went so far as to say if you're going to rely on government for all of this it's going to be a problem. So it's not going to get fixed just like that. >> Yeah. So, >> well, and if the ordinary if the if the
taxpayers knew what we spend on a homeless person out of taxpayer money, I think people would be extremely shocked at this. And you know, the uh Commissioner Johnson and I had a talk
the other day about the Avivo deal, the shortfall there. And it's like they say they're not bringing anybody from Minneapolis, but we've heard >> Yeah, >> we've heard that they're bringing people from Minneapolis. I think they're going to do whatever fills the doors and get the money coming in.
>> Well, I did attend a meeting last week or the week before with Avivo when we were talking about the referral source >> and what we discussed um with the three counties in the city of St. Cloud and Avivo was that referrals would come from our outreach workers. So they would come
from our good >> threecount outreach workers. Now whether or not though people come up and move into tents in our counties and then become our issue and then become go to vivo that's I mean I I can't say that but the idea is not to transfer people
directly from the metro to Avivo here that we would be the gatekeepers was the discussion in my last meeting with Avivo. Yeah, >> just to give you a little history of this, I know there's a little town down south that created a whole block of
transitioning housing. At the beginning of that whole block, it's a uh homeless shelter and then it just positions into an apartment complex. Okay, they go through a lot of steps.
They spent a lot of money and they still have the same problem. Mhm. >> They still have the same problem with homelessness and I just can't figure it out. >> Mr. Chair, um Sandy, do we have access or do we see financial statements from
Place of Hope, um Lincoln Center, Salvation Army, so we can see where their grant dollars are coming and flowing from. We don't see bank statements. We don't see reconciliations. So, we're offering dollars, tax dollars to support these things without
any good fiduciary tie to what they're doing with it. >> I don't know that we offer them our tax dollars at this point in time. As far as I know, we do pay GR funds towards some beds at Salvation Army, but at least from human services budget, there is
nothing that comes out of human services towards the shelters. >> Right. But once they're identified as a resident in Benton County, where are those dollars coming? >> Well, then we do end up paying their services for other things they might need. Um, they do gain residency in the
shelters that are in Benton County and same would be said in Sterns County as well. >> They gain residency in the shelters. >> So, when they become a resident, how what's that time frame? 24 hours, 48 hours in Ben County. It depends on if they've applied for services previous to
entering the shelter, but if they apply in the shelter for the first time, they are our residents immediately. If they applied previously, they transfer in 60 days. >> So, if I'm at Place of Hope
and something changes significantly at Lincoln or Salvation Army and I move over there, whose responsibility am I? If you are already on assistance while you're at Place of Hope, you will remain that county's responsibility for 60
days. And if you are not and you apply once you arrive in Benton County, you will become Benton County. >> For as long as as long as you remain in Benton County or in an excluded time facility >> once you've applied and received that. Now, if you decide to go back to Place
of Hope, then what? Then that if you re if you applied in Benton County and you go back to Place of Hope, you are Benton counties for two months >> unless you move back to Benton County. But >> this could go back and forth. >> It could go it goes back and forth all
of the time. All the time. >> That's one of our problems. I mean, the homeless outreach workers have done a really good job with this because this happens all the time. But we do struggle in counties with this all of the time with case management and things like that. they go. We switch back and forth quite frequently.
>> One one of the things that uh I would like to find out is how many central Minnesota counties have facilities like this because I was told a lot of counties do not have facilities like this >> and therefore it makes it easier to put
them put people on a bus, bring them by squad car wherever and drop them off which we've heard counties do. And I I have a heart, you know, it's not that I don't want I I don't want to take care of these people or anything like
that. We'll take care of our homegrown. >> Yeah. >> But not transplanted. And as heartless as that sounds, if we could put a fence around, you know, we could take care of our own deal, but we can't take care of Wright County's problem. We can't take care of Sherburn
County's problem. >> Crowing everybody. We just can't do it because it's falling on the the billfolds of everybody in in our counties here. >> So, >> it's a double-edged sword. Yeah. >> It's a it's goes both directions. It's
>> sometimes you think about the county that does nothing is better off. >> It you as heartless as that sounds and and Mike Conway and I were on the same page. It's like all these people that bring in one, I'm like, I just want to call them up and say, "Listen, >> we're not sending anybody to you. the next one that comes here, you're gonna
get 12 coming back. >> Well, or if you didn't if you didn't do anything, they wouldn't come here. >> Yeah. >> Well, although we have a lot of other just I mean, we have a lot of other services that attract people to the St. Clair metro area as well. I mean, we have the VA, we have Sentare, we have we
have a lot of services that >> you can't get in a rural small town as well. So, beyond our shelters, there are a lot of other things that attract people to St. Cloud. You know, >> it's a problem that's not going to go away. >> No. >> Well, and here and and this is just my
thoughts, but the the the issue is we need to get to the underlying problem because these people coming back year after year looking for winter housing because they're on the streets and it's sometimes the same people. Am I correct, Sandy? >> Yes. We need to figure out how to get
them help and how to get them acclimated back into the community instead of I some of these places are are what do I want to call it? Um >> enabling
>> yeah enabling the situation which just keeps continuing to be the same old problem. We need to get to the bottom to the root and figure out how to fix it from the bottom. Not just >> give shelter. >> Commissioner Benoy gets back to is
government the solution all the time. The government's got to be the solution and it's the double-edged sword, right? You know, back in the day it was family, church, and government was on the bottom. And that's completely swapped. Now everything's the government's problem to fix. And the family doesn't want anything to do with it. The big C
church doesn't want anything to do it. And it flows to the government. And now we're trying to the government's trying to fix the government's problem. >> The biggest problem we're having is the length of stay. Okay? Because it's knowing that it's got to be over 128 days just for that individual >> to make a change
>> to make a change. And even then it's we don't even know. So and and correct me if I'm wrong, Sandy. Most stays in certain areas are only 30 days anyway. Okay. So you're not helping the solution that way, >> right? And that has been the
recommendation several times to change the length of stay. >> And then we need facilities for that that are going to help them. >> This is going to be significant with the faith community stepping back this winter now. >> Oh, it's going to be huge. >> Seven or eight churches that were
identified that really are not going to be able to allow that this winter, which we're talking basically two months. Mhm. >> Well, sorry to get everybody on a tangent on that. >> Well, and and yes, in yesterday's meeting, I mean, it was even brought up
that, you know, some of them wanted the government centers to open up their buildings and allow their lobbies to be used for >> for um bed beds and that kind of stuff. And or private companies that have empty
buildings to allow them to put beds in there. I mean, realistically, they're not going to allow that to happen. >> No, >> you know, I I don't know. >> I'm glad you guys are getting involved.
>> All right, that's all. >> Yeah. Thank you, Sandy. >> Thank you, Sandy. >> Thanks, Mr. Chair. Chris. >> Okay, Chris. >> All right. I have an exciting slate of items for you to discuss today.
>> And we're going to put a few more on your plate, too. >> Um, all right. If you would just allow me a moment here to bring it up. Am I sharing? Perfect. Okay. The first item before you
for consideration is uh Oh my goodness. uh uh bridge replacement grant for uh the county road 51 and about 22 bridges. Uh if you recall, we did receive some federal money for those uh bridges. They
also became eligible for state bridge grant replacement funds and and so this agreement, if approved today, would allow Mandot to disperse those funds through us. And I just want to scroll through the agreement um to the funding
uh breakdown in here. So this is basically what it is. We're getting LBRP, local bridge replacement program through the motor vehicle leased sales tax grant. So that's that's the funding source of those and that's
significant because sometimes the local bridge replacement program is funded through state bonding. And when there's state bonding funding those programs, there's additional provisions that we have to include in our bidding packets and things like that. So, uh the motor vehicle lease sales tax is what's
funding um this portion of the grant for that. And between the two pre uh bridges, that's $979,19058. And that's based on our low bid uh awarded uh amount. So any of those that that attend the Micah meetings whenever you hear the motor vehicle lease sales
tax uh discussion between the metro and greater that's why we pay attention to that sometimes because we don't want them messing with that percentage that goes to uh uh bridge local bridges and and roads. So just want to throw that in there. Just to recap too between the two
bridge projects uh there's the breakdown for the 51 bridge and then the Cassad 22 bridge. a little bit over a million and a half of federal funds plus the 979,000 uh of the state funds. Um it does leave
where's that? There's it is a local match between the two projects of $392,9972 which is significantly less than what was identified and set aside in our adopted 5-year road construction uh plan.
So, uh, accompanying this applica or the the agreement, well, there's the application when I first applied for the funds is a resolution. So, it is my county engineer's recommendation to approve the resolution and authorize board chair signatures on the grant
agreement. >> So, moved. >> Been made and seconded to accept the grants for CASA 22 and County Road 51. >> All in favor? I >> good job on that. >> Yeah.
>> All right. Well, thank you for approving that. Okay. The next item is another agreement and this gets a little bit more complicated. So, this is for the pedestrian railroad crossing in Rice. Uh, as you recall, they received a transportation alternatives grant for
that. And that's a federal uh program that comes through us. Normally, we get those funds after we go through a low bidding uh process or a sealed bid process, award a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, have them do the
work, pay them for the work, then seek reimbursement. Here's the twist. Since we're dealing with the Burlington Northern uh Railroad, there is certain items that only they can do within their railroad
tracks. um those happen to be eligible for this grant, but that paying for those is outside of the sealed bid process. So, we need to have this agreement between Benton County and the state uh known as a force account
agreement. Normally on construction projects, force accounts come when you are negotiating with a contractor and you can't agree on what the price of that work is. So you go to force account or time and materials. You make the contractor uh
submit invoices based on their time and the materials purchased. So that's kind of what we're doing here is we will have an invoice from BNSF of the costs of their work for the pedestrian crossing within their tracks.
We'll have to pay that to BNS BNSF and then through this agreement seek reimbursement of those costs. um uh from MINDOT for that grant. Um based on what BNSF has already given us,
uh it's estimated about $129,962. 80% of that is is eligible or $103,96960. The additional would be the city of Rice costs. >> Okay. >> Um >> do they know that? >> Thank you for that question. Uh yes, that's part of the administrative
agreement that we signed with them. Anything it wasn't as specific uh as a you know just distinguish between a force account agreement and the normal construction agreement, but the language in our agreement with Rice says anything
above what the federal grant covers is their their costs. So, the way it's working, we'll pay the contractor. Um, we'll seek reimbursement of the federal funds and then we'll invoice the city of Rise for anything um additional o of
that. So, um it's one of those things I hate to feel like we're being forced into this, but um that that's kind of what it is. Without this agreement, there's railroad work that only BNSF will do that there'll be no means to to
pay for it without this. So, a lot of legal mumbo jumbo in here. I shouldn't say that, but a lot of stuff in there. Basically, to get $103,000 to pay BNSF for for that work, uh, I'm recommending authorizing a board chair on this.
There's also a resolution that accompanies this agreement as well. >> At least it's not a million dollars from Excel. >> It's true. BNF has probably got as much authority as what XL does. >> They do. You know, I I know it's stated
in the agreement, Chris. I'm just kind of curious, you know, when Rice sees this $26,000 are going to have to pay for the, you know, pay for that what they're going to say. >> I think they're well aware of it. >> Well, they're well aware of 20%, but >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. That's I mean >> I mean public health worked real hard to get some of these grants for this thing. >> Yeah. And that's basically what it is. The grant is covering 80% of the BNSF work. So I think it's all I mean we
wouldn't even be here today if they hadn't got that grant. And that's been a lot of years Rice has been looking for solutions to get pedestrians across the railroad tracks. So, um, all said and done, I mean, we're looking at about similar costs just construction-wise,
which the plans are advertised right now. We're planning on having a bid opening September 5th for this work. But, um, yeah, that's always been the understanding I think Rice has had, is that federal grants typically only pay 80% of the total construction costs. So,
>> I'll move approval to adopt the attached resolution and authorize county board chair to sign on a mindot agreement number 1060741. >> Second. >> Motion been made and seconded to adopt the res attached resolution for
with MIDM agreement 1060741. Any other discussion? >> Yes, Chris, how long have we been working on this project? two, three years. Longer than >> Yeah. So, >> I think Nicole was here when they they started.
>> Yeah. I want to say it's almost been four years. So, um >> man, >> hopefully by this fall, we're all done with it. >> Yeah. So, >> I mean, it's a I mean, costwise, as far as what we deal with road construction and and it's a very it's a lowcost
project, but it's has a lot of overhead time associated with this with this federal grant. the the special provisions that are required, whether it's a DBE required or not. Um there's a lot of things that go into it. There's a lot of strings attached to federal funding. Yeah. Usually,
>> we got a motion in a second. All in favor? >> I opposed. Carried. >> All right. Thank you. We'll just move right along. So, the next item I bring before you is uh consideration of consultant services for inservice bridge
inspection. So these are the bridges that have been constructed years ago that we're subject to inspect every year, every two years, or some of them maybe every four years. Out of theund 112 structures that we inspect in Benton
County, um there are 59 that are due this this year that we have to inspect. What's critical and mindot or I should say Minnesota in general is really good about our bridge inspections. We we take
bridges seriously um in in this state and that's a good thing. Um we're really strict on the inspection dates of these and you see this far right column. This is a list of the bridges that are need to be inspected this year. um due to the
number of bridges and the dates of when the inspections are due, we just don't have the capacity to do all of them ourselves. So, we were seeking some consultant help with just inspecting these. Not all of them. Uh but we were
hoping that they could inspect about 29 out of the 59 uh of them. So, about half of the the bridges we'd like to to go forward with with Stantech. And that these are the ones that are highlighted in in yellow. >> That's crazy. >> Here. So, um this is something that's
just tasked with county highway departments that uh that that we have to do. Um >> what happens if you what happens if some of them just get kind of whoops next year? >> Uh we we face a lot of scrutiny. We
could lose funding for bridges. uh they would start looking at, you know, some of the things that we just approved like our bridge grant for replace bridges. That's all predicated on were up to date with doing our inspections. We were tracking the deterioration and things like that. Um if we're not doing a good
job of that, they could say doesn't relieve you of your responsibility to maintain a safe bridge. It just may eliminate you from receiving outside funding to to do that maintenance and repair work on those bridges. >> Point taken. Um, it's it's what I joke
is called the golden rule. Whoever has the gold makes the rules. So, if we're wanting some of the states gold, sometimes we have to follow their rules or even the federal gold. >> Um, when we first started negotiating with uh this consultant, I want to find their fee here and point this this out.
>> Oh, it's after the the bridge list. That's where I need to go. Um they were proposing uh a fee of about uh $33,334. And we looked at what they were proposing to do with that. Some of it
involved uh a bridge inspector and assistant. We went back to them and say, "Hey, if we provided one of our staff to help you assist that, would that reduce the number of billable hours?" Uh they looked at that and said, "Yes." So they did re in between the time that we
submitted that I submitted my agenda item and and now they did bring that down to $25,429. So that's what I'm asking board approval is to enter an agreement with Stantech for bridge services uh for a cost not to
exceed $25,429. It is uh something we have uh we have budget for for this year to to to accomplish this. Okay, >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. >> Question. If they're doing half these bridges for 25 grand, we're supplying
one. Is there a way of freeing up the person that's going to do the other half to do more important things and then do this for 50 grand? >> You You see where I'm cuz we're doing we're doing half of them, right? >> Correct. Yeah. it. You know, if we got
them down to 25 grand on the first half, could they do the second half or the other 25 grand with one of our help and free up one of our people to do something that we're looking at, you know, outsourcing that could be uh more savings to the county.
>> Um, if that makes sense because they're they're engineers, right? >> Well, yeah. So the other one would be uh our assistant uh Mark Lydle has the the qualifications and certifications to inspect these and and the intent is we would use our engineering technicians to
inspect with them because they need to be inspecting bridges for four years before they're eligible to get to that status and stuff. So um >> I'm just looking at for 30 bridges roughly for Mark to go out and do. Is
our better money spent >> on him >> on him on other projects that we're maybe subbing out that we can use a higher level and and save that and then do these bridges outsource with our engineering techs
>> I think would you are you suggesting that we still supplement their staff with our staff >> because that's that's going to be kind of important. We want to get our staff experienced. So four years down the road, >> we're not even talking about this either. Correct. So, >> um
>> I guess we could we could uh >> to discuss that with them. >> My not that I want to give them more money, but we talked about how short we are over the next year, you know, few years. I'm just wondering if there's more if there's better things we can be doing having Lloyd do.
>> Well, I guess the other question is has Mark done any of the 30 he was going to do? Well, no, because they're not yet because they're due in September. Some of them are you need to start inspecting them in September. >> First one of September. Okay. >> So, um I mean what we'd have to do is go
back and and just I guess you got to negotiate with that with them. >> I mean, if it doesn't make sense, don't do it. But if if all of a sudden we can put Mark on something that's more important or is a better value >> his time. Yeah.
Yeah. Um, I'm open to that idea. Due to the timing, uh, I wonder if the board would consider going ahead and approving this with the option to go ahead and increase >> to maximize our efficiency with, uh, all of our duties that we need to accomplish. >> Absolutely. No, that that that sounds
>> I don't think the intent is to stall you out. >> No, no, no. We have another opportunity here. >> So, Chris, on the average, how long does it take to inspect a bridge? >> Um, yeah. So, I know I read it and seen it, but >> maybe a half a day a bridge. So, I mean,
I think we're looking at you've got the inspection time out actually out there on the bridge and then you got to come back in and report. >> I didn't include that. Actually complete an inspection report. That's what I wanted to attach. That could be another hour of time of just typing in everything that you collected,
measurements and stuff uh out in the field um and in days >> putting that into the computer. Then still it doesn't resolve me of any of my responsibilities as the county's bridge program administrator. I still have to find time um at least
>> this fall to review all 59 of these inspection reports. Um I thought this this kind of had uh some time in there, >> but >> broke that down. >> We might be something. >> What I remember just in the conversations was 3 to four hours per
bridge, >> right? >> So >> that's where when you have multiple bridges due within a week, it does make it tough to to as I think as a staff when we looked at this, we're trying not to be greedy and just have it all farmed out. We're trying to
just see what we can do to augment our own staff. But >> and I get the experience, you know, because they've got to gain that experience, too, >> before they can get licensed. But >> yeah, >> but I do share the point with Commissioner Gapinsky that if we can better serve Mr. Loyal's time somewhere
else, it probably would make sense because you're going to have those other people on site anyway, your other engineers on site anyway >> to gather that experience. >> Yeah. looking at 865 bucks a bridge on the contracted outside.
>> Yeah. Uh I have had to do this before when we were before we had an assistant engineer that could do these bridge inspections and I would say that was probably eight years ago. It was only about $500 a bridge. So it's another one of those
escalation things. So that sounds about right because originally when it was $33,000 I was thinking it was over $900 a bridge. >> So we've brought that down a little bit. >> I'm just saying by by doing it this way we're still getting our tax they experience
>> to do it. >> Yep. >> So just a thought >> Mark or I see we're responsible for all the bridges even on the township roads, right? >> That is correct. Yep. >> So they get a free ride kind of. >> Thank you for bringing that up. >> Correct. Yeah. Um, and that's something
that is actually in Minnesota statute. It says, uh, the county engineer is responsible for the safety inspection of their their structures. Now, maintenance- wise, we have a duty that if we inspect it and we see something in their report, we need to inform them of
that and strongly encourage them to to address that maintenance issue. >> If they don't address it there, I think we have some mechanisms to get that work done. But um >> um >> so is there >> we're not responsible for the maintenance cost but certainly the inspection cost of it.
>> So is there any in statute saying that we cannot throw some of that cost over to the townships being it's a township bridge? >> Yeah I think I think there is. >> Yeah. I don't know if that's a practice. I don't know if there is or isn't I guess off the top of my head.
>> Not trying to stir the pot here. I'm just asking the question. >> Yes you are commission. Sometimes it's not a bad idea just to remind them of some of the services we already provide maybe. >> Yeah, >> I get that. >> Um, >> but you're right. I mean, inspecting township bridges on 105th Street recently, Maywood Township, that's where
we identified that needed and we went to work and got a grant and and used township bridge funds to um I mean a half a million dollar structure. The township was out $20,000 and got a half a million dollar structure built. So, >> it's pretty good. >> Um, yeah. So good good discussion if the
board's open to that idea is just to go ahead and improve us working with Stantech and then we'll keep discussing with them of increasing that to do more if not all of them um and and let us manage our staff time >> and and my conversation is not to just
alleviate workload off of your group. I'm just saying if there's better places that he could >> use the time and money that we're not contracting out over there. Yeah, >> let's do it. If it's just going to free up time instead of and pay out more,
then I guess I'm not for that, >> right? That's what I want to make clear. >> But I would I would move approval of entering into the Stantech uh to complete inservice bridge inspections for the 29 and it was at 25,000 >> 429 429.
>> Yeah. Second. Motion's been made and seconded to enter into an agreement with Stantech for uh bridge inspections. Any other discussion? >> Well, and I just kind of want to feed off of what Jared said. As as long as we're making sure that we're not just
freeing up time and that if Mark's time can be spent elsewhere at more of a cost savings than those other ones that need to be done, then we need to look at that. But if it's going to be not a cost savings in wherever you're putting them
with this amount, then I wouldn't even look at those other bridges. >> Understood. >> Got a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I carried. >> All right. Well, that's completes the the action items. Now,
>> well, that was brief. >> Uh, sit back and relax. I wanted to give you kind of an update on road construction projects. uh from this this year. So um not a lot of text just some just want to show some
pictures. Uh Cass 3 and five in Gilman is very much under construction. Uh they've been doing sanitary sewer. They've completed all the sanitary sewer installation on our county road 3 between 25 and 5. And they're working on
three north of five. Um now um and when I say they're complete between 25 and five is yeah the main is in all the connections to service lines are in. Uh they're hoping next week to start the storm sewer which is our pipes and um
keep progressing with that. So that's just that's kind of what the road looked like uh last week when I was out there. They were actually at the time that I was out there installing sanitary sewer on I think this is 103rd. So this is a a city of Gilman Street. uh their costs
for that. Um and that's just a picture of them back filling the trenches or continuing to to move forward with the pipe installation. One thing that we've had to address is uh sump pumps. A lot of sump pumps just draining to the curb. Some of them were draining underground
to they had somebody had made connections to storm sewer in the past. Well, when you tear all that out, where's that water going? And we've got plenty of water this year. So, we've made some temporary connections um to their sump lines and there's just what we're doing now is just directing that
water away from where they're working. And and what we're going to do, we're going to make some permanent connections as part of the project. Um and we we don't want residents to be discharging that water into the curb line anymore. We're going to put some pipes in there where they
can connect to it underground. Um we're going to put some pipes in there. they'll have to make the connection from their house to that that pipe that we're burying that ultimately connects into the storm sewer at the next structure. So, um, that's kind of how we're going
to handle that that permanently and then rely on the the the homeowners to make the kind of like the connection themselves on on their side. After that, kind of road 43 and 66 mill and overlay project that's complete, but I don't
know if anybody knew that we had some bridge work on this project. County Road 43 bridge over Elk River. We milled all that batuminous surface off of the bridge deck. And one of the things that we had to do on this bridge is replace
the grout and place some waterproofing membrane over the joints between the bridge beams. These have like they look like the shape of the letter T uh underneath. And every time that those meet, there's a little bit of a gap
there. Matuminous pavement is not 100% waterproof. Water can get through there. And we don't want that salty water that we put on the roads in the winter to get down into the concrete and corrode the the reinforcing steel. So, this is something that we we do when we have
these projects. Remove that batuminous, have the contract remove that grout, replace the grout, put a waterproofing uh membrane on that, and then pave over it. That's what that looks like underneath. So, you've got these all these beams underneath. We're trying to keep that that joint waterproof. Water
would if it was open, water would seep down in there and then has a tendency to stay adhered to the structures and just run down the structures and over time that could eat away the concrete and the reinforcing steel under it. That's what it looked like. So, we had to we did
that closed that over a weekend back in June. um allow that curing time of that grout and that waterproofing membrane and then on Monday paved that back in even with the roadway on either side of the bridge and then came through with the overlay on all the project after
that. Here's a portion of the 66 reclaim just a picture of the reclaim reclaim machine as it goes through. That's what that material looks like after the second pass of that. It does a really good, these machines do a really good job of getting it to almost like a class five gradation just out there on the
road. You didn't have to haul material off, crush it, bring it back. It does it right out there on the road. Then we blade and compact that and pave on top of that. 66 on the portion where we had those tree stumps, the infamous tree stumps. So this is what we did this time
where we milled through that contractor still had about 10 stumps to remove in that section where we have removed countless numbers before. And what we did we installed this is called a geo uh
uh geog grid instead of a geoexile. So this has a lot higher tensil strength than the woven fabric. So, our theory is that we'll see over time if it proves right that if there are still stumps buried that we didn't see during the reclaiming process and are still working
their way up, they'll hit this geogrid layer and since it has a higher tensil strength, it won't be able to punch through that. Our concern with the traditional woven geoexile that it's it's much like a fabric. Once you get a hole, poke a hole through your shirt, that'll just continue as you're putting
pressure on it, continue unraveling. That won't happen with a material like this. So when through the reclaim at the bottom of that that aggregate layer, we put this geoexile layer on there to keep the stumps from punching through that.
We did replace all the the entrance pipes on that project as well. This is something kind of unique, kind of a cost savings thing. A way for maintenance to acquire some millings which are very beneficial in maintenance
work, whether it's slopes, roadway slopes, driveway approaches, and things like that. In the milling operation and as the in the bidding documents, we told the contractor, "When you're bidding this, we're going to take 800 tons of your millings for our own use." And so
we coordinated uh uh with our maintenance and on the day that they were milling, we just had our trucks ready and just get into the line of their milling trucks and then hauled it back to to our yard. So trucks haul about 10 yards a piece. So um eight
trucks we got or 80 trucks I should say to get our 800 tons of that. No, I said I said that wrong. Tons, not yards. So we got about 800 tons of that. Um and that was just kind of bid in into the project like that. So the remainder
of the millings the contractor got to keep and they use that as recycled material in the new uh batuminous mixture that goes on the roadway. So Cass 7 reconstruction um I don't have any recent pictures but I did want to show this. This is a video that we took
back in May when we were paving that first mile and a half from the south. So, as you're watching this video, just the update on that. We did revise the calendar completion date to August 15th, which obviously passed on Friday. Uh, they're still out there working. Their
goal is to start paving this Thursday. They have six days worth of paving. They plan on working Saturday as well and finishing up all the paving next Wednesday. Um, we believe that the contractor's intention is to get that road completely open before Labor Day
weekend, but there's a lot of work even after you pave it. Um, we want to get shoulders on it or the gravel shoulder so you don't have that edge drop off. We'd like to get some of the safety signs, make sure all the stop signs are up. Um, and then maybe get some striping
done too before we open that up for Labor Day weekend. But that's the current plan right now that um it'll be into next week before we get that open to traffic for sure on on County Road 7. >> So they're technically over the timeline right now >> um on the revised one that we we told
them back in July. Although I do anticipate another request because after we agreed to additional uh basically 15 days to give them we did get some more rain. We'll just have to look at how that really did impact him. So, >> so they're not at this point aren't
facing liquidated damages. >> We there right now as we speak is a project meeting going on where uh Margaret was going to inform them that we're going to start charging liquidated damages um because we have not seen a
new request as of yet. So, they may be trying to figure out how many days that they actually need and how many days they're going to um be charged for LD. >> And it was three grand a day. Yes, my opinion is it's better to give it back
than to take it away. So, I think we may charge it and then if we continue to negotiate with them and get to an agreement, we can always pay out that amount that we withheld on a future pay application. So, so their next payout may have some liquidated damages charged
on it and then if we negotiate and get to an agreement, we can always pay out. It's easier to pay back than to to ask for money back from contractors. Uh and then finally the CASA 51 and 22 bridge construction. So well underway.
This is County Road 51. There on the left side of the picture you see the abupment piling still uh up in the air after driving before they've cut it up. On the right side you can see where uh the reinforcing steel has started to be placed in there. The steel piling is
inside of that rebar cage that's been built. They've cut it off to the appropriate elevation. You build your rebar cage around that. Then put the concrete forms and then those piling become a permanent fixture in the abupment to support it. So that's kind of how that that works there. There's
another picture. We're looking to the east because our six is is over here uh on that that picture in 51. So uh I got to let that cure um for 14 to 28 days depending on how the cylinders are
breaking. And then we have pre-stressed uh concrete beams that come and be be placed on on top of that and set there. This is the County Road 22 bridge. You can see they got some of the piling driven. They don't have the other side
driven yet. Note that we've got the the erosion control in there um to capture any sediment that comes off of our project um in there. What's interesting is inside of our project, you don't see any sediment, but in where the natural stream is flowing, it's collecting stuff
that's coming from upstream. So, um I just think that's always always funny that we we do a lot of we spend a lot of money on construction projects to control erosion and sediment from leaving our projects only to see stuff floating by, not from us, um on these streams. But here, if you've never seen
this before, I thought this would be interesting. Here's a video of pile driving uh occurring. If I can get this to play. So, this is a diesel uh singleaction hammer is what they call. Um it's got actually diesel fuel in there and this anvil as it drops down is actually
compressing the diesel fuel in there and it's you know a diesel works. It's not a spark. It's the compression of the diesel that causes the explosion inside of that machine. And that explosion is actually what's driving that hammer down, not that anvil that's slamming down. That anvil is just compressing the
diesel to cause the explosion. And then each explosion drives that that piling down to the ground. You see these pink marks? The inspector draws those on there because that's how we know we've reached the capacity, the bearing capacity, is how far does that move each
stroke. As you're first driving, it goes down farther with each stroke. as you get close to the bearing um it moves less and less. Um and then based on uh the designer's calculations and the structure capacity that we need, we know
uh how much that should move uh per blow that determines when we've reached our bearing. We also know on this bridge though that those pile are actually bearing on uh bedrock. So that was that was the other thing. Each abupman has a test pile and the test pile requirements
is you drive that to 115% of your plan bearing. Just kind of a safety factor. Make sure that you're not sitting on weathered bedrock that may have loose material and make sure you don't punch through. That's that's happened before where you think there's bedrock there, but if you drive hard enough, you punch through something and find an
underground cave and then then then you end up overrunning your pile length by quite a bit until you hit bearing again. >> How deep are these pylons? So, uh, we're shooting to get about 30 feet. >> Oh, wow. >> So, um, >> that would be further. >> So, yeah, 30 feet we should be hitting
piling. We're actually, we were actually hitting bedrock before that. We consulted with the designer on that and said if we really could, we'd like to hit 30 feet. Less than that, once again, bridge Minnesota is really particular about their bridges. less than 30 feet
of piling, uh, then you have to worry about scour. And, you know, with recent floods and stuff, you wouldn't think that 30 feet of scour could happen. But in other parts of the state, they've seen where flooding has eroded, you know, similar depths of material. So,
when you have less than 30 ft of pile, that's always a concern that if we had a catastrophic flooding event, could it have wash away all that soil around that? And then you have pile that are unstable and could compromise the the bridge. So um there you go. There was just some
pictures of some road construction projects for your viewing pleasure. So that's all I had for today unless there's any questions. >> Yep. >> I've got one. >> We've got one. >> Okay. >> Uh first of all, I'll I'll start with mine. Make sure you get back with Jason Fleming, the police chief, to make sure
that he's okay with putting those stuff in the roadway for the right in ride out at the school, Water Tower Road. >> Did he talk to you? >> I I had conversations with Jason, you know, but >> he had stopped by my house the other
day. He never mentioned it. So, I wonder if I I completely forgot talked to him about that, too. >> But I know we we exchanged phone calls yesterday. I sent him an email first thing this morning with a picture attached uh of what we plan on doing and it's a picture of those being flexible
and I'm revealing the secret to the whole public here, but they will bend out of the way. Um and and I guess that's my my just my opinion on it. If they need to get across those, just drive across them. Um >> I think we found Chris that not a lot of people watch these.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. So maybe maybe our secret safe with us. But um uh >> is that bad? >> We also decided we talked about last time the the ones that just use adhesive to do it. We're going to get some that actually bolt down. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, um they still flex out of the way,
but the base will stay in the same location and stuff. If they get damaged, we'll just just replace them. So, >> um hopefully hopefully that's that appeases them and stuff, too. I mean, the reality of it is next summer we're going to close that intersection to the north, so nobody's going to be able to
get through there from the north. Everybody's going to have to come from the south. So, >> did they get them power lines moved yet? >> They're out there working on it now. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. They started last week. >> They did. Yeah. So, >> must be >> Then the other question that we had is that we understand that the highway
relocalled their trucks and all that and we were wondering why that came about or or uh when the counties, you know, redd designing our logo. >> Yeah. So, um thank you for bringing that up. Yeah, we've had some internal
discussions about that. So, um we will be switching over to the the county logo uh here soon. The intent was as new new units came in, we would put the new logo on there. A different logo did show up on a couple of the new uh new trucks,
but um I think it's in the county's best interest to have the new logo on on the new vehicles at least. So, >> for the side of the vehicles, >> I'll admit it was kind of a unilateral decision. I made the decision of one of our logos, the round logo.
And the reason why I chose that was because it could be a direct replacement of the round logo that's on there. Interestingly enough, uh all of our other vehicles have that old old logo on there with the the cows in the roadway um on that. That's that's the logo that's still on all of our remainder of
our trucks. So, >> we had got a question. >> Okay. You got a question? No, that's point to the Okay, >> that's the one that's the only reason they come up is that we were discussing yesterday in negotiations about, you know, the rebranding of the county and
naturally they want to know if they can have funding to do the rebranding on some of their clothing and it's like this is not going to be demanded of you right now. We may go 10 years before it's all done. We're not paying to rebrand every shirt and everything you wear at this point. So,
>> but I also think it's important that if we have a logo, we stay with the logo, >> right? >> And not go on our own to create a different logo and different departments and all that. You know, we've got to be stay >> stay together. >> So, if the board's supportive of that, I mean, I will this afternoon have new
logos. Well, they won't be placed on there. We got to have them made. They haven't been made yet. But, um, I will have the new new branding logo placed on the the newer units. I mean, I I have I have no issues if they're around and you have the branding in the middle of it.
That's fine. But we got to use our branding logo >> because all other departments are using the same logo, too. >> Right. >> Correct. >> Yeah. Good. >> And then uh Mr. Chair, did you get my email yesterday, Chris, on
>> Oh, yes. About Mr. Petroski. Yes. >> We got to address that. we've got to on, you know, just a legal opinion, what we found on the on the the tour and everything like that and where what what the county stance is.
>> What would the board like uh me to do? Is that consulting the attorney's office on that? Um, I would say that that I think what they're looking for is there they say that there's no easement.
you know, it's been there for 20 years. We just got to say, here's the legal standpoint of where the county is and here's what our view is. So, it gives them an idea of what they can do or want to do or anything like that. They just haven't got that from the county as as
of yet. So would a letter from the attorney's office is that what you think would be the ultimate product that we >> Yeah, I think I think a letter from from basically the highway department uh the attorney whatever whatever we just need
to give them cuz right now we we haven't gotten back to them to say the boxes aren't there or the boxes are in the rightway the boxes are not in the rightway >> cuz from a highway standpoint here's a couple things. if it is in the ride
ofway. Um based on public utilities commission, uh there's a whole bunch of statutes 216D um that deals with they have a right to be within public rightway. >> If they become in conflict with the
public use of that roadway, um then we can do some things. So, if we can't demonstrate that they're in, you know, creating a conflict from the public use, we may not have some we may not have authority to have them to relocate. >> No, we're we're but but here's the deal. What they're saying is is there was
never an easement from the county given to the county for that roadway and there's law that states that if it's been maintained or whatever for x amount of time, it automatically is assumed easement.
>> Yeah. They don't have that information yet. >> Oh, so just you just think that the land owner just simply looking for just like statutory authority of that right now. Okay. Not looking to a solution to whatever they're they're >> concerning. And therefore that would
that would transfer that the the rightway that would give that would that would ultimately give the the um variet or whoever the heck Esententral Energy or whoever's in there the in the rightway
the ability to go ahead and put their stuff in there. But you said the last uh permits that were pulled were 2006. >> Yeah. We're pushing 20 years ago that >> But there's definitely stuff in that right away that's newer than that.
>> One actually just disappeared. He said >> magically disappeared. >> And it'll give them some direction what they want to do. >> Yeah, exactly. >> No. >> Great. >> Okay. I will consult with the attorney's office on drafting up a a letter uh to
them. So, um, >> okay, >> good. Thank you. I needed some direction. I I had seen any kind of formal request from landowner on this. So, >> and and maybe maybe not. Every time you get an attorney involved, it seems like the other side's almost got to get one, too.
>> Yeah. >> I mean, if some of this stuff can come from the county engineer and just say, "Hey, listen. Here's what we have found. We have sent it over to the county attorney for their review of this just just so that we get something back to
them in a timely manner because I know uh Troy has called me a couple times and and I'm going to have to go out and meet with them and I you know there's there's only so much I can do. I don't know the legalities, you know. Yeah. Worst case
scenario, if it's not county rideway, then it still falls to it's a it's between the private land owner and that utility to make something happen. So, um, worst case it determines it's not a county road. Then the next day, we'll stop maintaining it and, um, no skin off
our nose. Then it's going to be between the private land owners to get the utilities moved to where it's more acceptable to them anyways. So, >> um, I will work on that. Well, I will. >> And I think that just needs to be explained to them. Yeah. >> So that you know they understand where
they're sitting and what they're doing. So >> and I don't think anybody doesn't want it to be a county road at this point. It's more the fact that it doesn't appear that there was ever an easement and the road got put in. Now it's been maintained. They don't know
that legality of it being maintained for x amount of years. It's automatically assumed. >> Yeah. >> There's just a lot of gray area there. and and you got somebody that is not an engineer or know anything about roads explaining it to them >> to be timely. May I ask the board if our
attorney's office can't uh provide me some legal reference in a timely manner? Would I have permission to go to an outside attorney that's that's you know very familiar with legal right away? And what I'm okay we have an attorney that
sometimes we use when we negotiate and need to acquire rightaway. We used one it's rinking noon on the Cassad 29 um since um >> urban environment and stuff. Yeah. Adam Ripple is his name. He does this for city.
>> If if county attorney says okay we could do that but we got courts and stuff for the next two weeks. Would it be okay with the board if I even have to pay something out of the highway department budget for an hour to draft up a memo with legal statutory authority of what is right away and what isn't?
>> I think we got to do something reasonably quick because these people were >> they've been on it for >> they've been on it for a long time and and I feel horrible not giving them closure on at least what the determination is. >> Okay, I'll make something cuz I can make
something happen. So, um I >> think it'd be nice to just get back >> get back to him and say, "Hey, we'll have this taken care of within two weeks or three weeks if >> Well, I've been saying that." >> Oh, but that's got to come from the attorney or >> Well, we've had our road tour for how
long? And >> but still never happened, you okay? >> And one more thing, commissioners, I apologize, but these things caused me to look at my notes again. I I just thought it was worth mentioning. Just before coming into today's meeting, I took a
call from our lobbyist, Grady Horn. What just hot off the press, so to speak. Uh there is a state bonding tour that's going to be in St. Cloud next Monday on August 25th. Um they said that they've had over a thousand requests for state
bonding. And before you even asked, I said, "Tell whoever you need to tell that we will be there to talk about our project." So, more details to come today in the next couple days, but I just wanted to get that out there. Now, right now, they're looking at being at St. Cloud State. Grady is working his
channels to see if we can get them to come to the site at the Soccer Rapids High School, but worst case, um, we should be prepared to maybe be at St. Cloud State on August 25th to talk about our project. >> Yep. >> And I'll share more details. I
>> I know in the past they've had those at that Atwood Center, right? Like the auditorium. Do you have an approximate time? >> Sometime in the afternoon is what I heard. I don't have uh >> And they've done them. I think they've done them at Watab Town Hall's already had one.
>> Okay. Oh, they've already had one. >> No, no. Oh, in previous years they tab town hall. >> Okay. >> Royaltton Legion, I think, has had one in the past, too. >> Mr. Chair, I have a question. Chris, did signage get put up on 11 and 22? >> Yes. Yes.
>> And what what is our long-term plan of getting that fixed? Well, we were doing some additional investigations with surveying. There was initial thought that based on some quick surveys of one of the pipes, we thought that maybe the pipe itself was actually settling. Um, the long-term solution is, okay, we got
a short-term and a long term. Short-term is probably have maintenance go out there and grind it just to try to smooth out the bumps. Mhm. >> Long-term is we need to get the we want to get the contractor that installed those back into our office to discuss what happened here. See if they have any
uh possible solutions to that. If they can't come up with solutions as an engineer, I will step in and tell them what to do. But um >> okay, >> they were the ones that, you know, the way specs work, we hire them to be the experts in doing this kind of work. So I
believe in letting the experts tell us what they think went wrong first. If they don't know, can't come up with a solution, we will certainly tell them a solution to to fix it. So, >> it's different. I mean, it would be different if it was one >> one culvert. >> Yeah. >> But it's multiple. >> Yeah. And it's it's over time because we
we we knew about one before the project even closed out and we had to argue with them on whose fault it was. Um they ultimately did fix it under the contract. No additional charge, but even that one, yeah, that has a patch over it. It's settling. And then the other
ones have since come up as we've we've discussed before. So as a contractor >> and I'm by all means not 100% expert on that, but to me it tells me when there's a hump in the road, that's the culbert. So the culvert's not sinking, it's sinking around the culvert.
>> Mhm. >> Um otherwise you wouldn't have that hump where that culvert's sitting. >> Yeah. And again, I want to re bring up the fact to the board and to you that we really need to look at holding on to
that bonding and not releasing that bonding until we get to the point. I know you said it cost attorney fees. I know all of that stuff, but we need to figure out how to recoup the taxpayer dollars when these things go wrong. If we're holding the bonding and we have to
get an attorney involved to get that stuff back, we're recouping taxpayer dollars by holding that contractor accountable for what they did. So, that is something we need to discuss. >> Who was the contractors? >> Uh Minnesota Paving Materials was the
prime contractor. So, uh they had a uh excavating contractor as the sub. Um, TS Dirt Works was the subcontractor that installed the pipes on that project. >> Is that Travis Scott? Okay. All right, Chris, do you want to stick around? We'll do ditch authority
right away. We'll turn it over. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. We'll recess the board and go to ditch authority. >> All right. Call our ditch authority meeting to order. We've had roll call. Is there any additions or changes to the agenda? >> I have none. >> Okay. Motion. >> Motion to approve. Second
>> motion, a second to approve the agenda as presented. All those in favor? I >> opposes carried. Move on to item two, approve or amend the ditch authority minutes of June 17th, 2025. >> Move approval. >> I'll second >> motion. Second to approve those ditch authority meeting minutes. Is there any
further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? I >> opposed. It's carried. Regular agenda item. Discussion on maintenance assessments. I believe that came out in an email. >> Yeah. So I've worked a lot on this. This is um
trying to present the information in a coherent easy to understand manner. It it's it's complicated on those ditches that we've had repairs and so we have repair accounts and maintenance accounts to some that you know we've done a lot of engineering work but we haven't initiated the repair yet. Um it gets
confusing easily. So I do believe it's important to have some sort of documentation there. Um, if we get to an agreement of what that should look like today, this morning, my intention is to make any modifications I need to do and have a couple hundred printed off at a
table as as audience comes into the door this this evening and they can have that and then we would have this on the screen as well. But um I don't know, I just plan on going through each ditch um specifically here. So starting with uh
ditch three once again um I'm trying to anticipate what the end of the year balance would be on this one. It's it's a somewhat of a shot of a dark uh maybe because we've received most of
the assessments on that. We may have a positive balance but not much at the end of the year. Um then looking at 2026, anticipating maybe about $5,100 of expenses and that would be uh inspection costs and possibly mowing the buffer
strips again if that's something that's chosen. So that would put us negative $5,000 in at the end of 2026. So therefore, uh recommending a 2026 maintenance assessment of 5250 and so which is $4,700 less than last
year. So, if there's a silver lining to this, it would be a lower maintenance assessment than than previous, >> but it would leave us with nothing in there after the year. >> Uh, possibly. So, so 4750 less than the previous year.
So the previous year assessment that we set was to cover what >> was mowing of buffer strips, but we had no idea what that would cost until we actually got quotes. Uh >> it was done. >> Yes. Yes. So um
>> Okay. >> But if we want to do it again, so that's where it was like about half the cost. I think we did 10,000 last year. >> Yeah. >> Um yeah, we assessed Yeah. $10,000 last year. And so, >> and but once we get an inspection done, we may determine that no, we don't need
to do that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I mean, we we hear nothing um about ditch three. Yeah. So, >> Okay. Well, I think it's so small and >> Mhm. >> But if we don't do it, we'll have a
positive balance, >> right? >> Correct. >> You're right. >> Yeah. >> So, if we determine that next year we don't need to do any mowing, then um Yeah. then that would result in a positive balance and then have the same meeting this time next year and discuss >> whether we do more.
>> When do we foresee when the inspection would be done? >> Well, okay. So, we have we have a we we have a video inspection of it now. >> Okay. >> So, and uh our ditch inspector has placed all those in uh drone videos on
the county ditch website. >> So, anybody can go out there and look at those. Now, >> are you foreseeing then we have a committee of the whole to decide on these individual ditches whether or not we're going to >> proceed with maintenance? >> But possibly. Yeah. So, because that's that's kind of the
missing piece. We we don't have any conf confirmation or hard yes or nos of what maintenance to complete. >> So, but so that number is kind of based on what the quote was the last time to mow it. >> Maybe with a little bit of inflation. >> Sure.
>> Or 2026. So, I'm okay with CD3. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think it's important on any of these ditches that we mow them once a year because we got to show people that we're keeping up on these. >> Yeah. I kind of I've been changing my mind a little bit on the maintenance
part. I don't think you need maintenance every year on these. Um I think the grasses and some of that that stays on the ditch is better a prevention than actually keeping it mowed down like we do. um the debris and that has a le a
higher chance to flow into the ditch and cause disruption. I we got to keep the brush down and we need to keep you know like you get on ditch whatever we visit out here or was you know up this high. >> Well then we got to we got to have a very clear and concise
um point tonight. >> Yeah. Because the average person, they go look at a ditch that isn't mowed, isn't upkept, they're going to think we're not doing our job and we're just charging them,
>> right? But they also don't want to have the they think that a yearly ditch inspection and a year, you know, every year ditch maintenance is probably too much. >> I mean, you can't let them go like this. >> I haven't found one thing out there that people don't think is too much right
now. Seriously. And I'm not trying >> other than the amount that's going to the >> to the maintenance part. >> But I think if we have a cow after this is set, we can make the determination based off the inspection >> because then we can say according to the
inspection, >> I mean, if you >> we need it or we don't need it. >> Yeah, >> you're right. It's we're basically we're setting a budget >> right >> right now for that ditch. Sometime we'll have to come down and sit down and say it's time to spend some of that budget. Do we want
>> and to both your points like on CD3 for example you're mowing grasses right in some of our areas if they're mowing they're going to get trash from soybeans and >> uh other crops corn stocks that could potentially watch into the ditch. So then the inspection I think helps us determine
do we need to move ahead or not. >> I I still feel these first few years we probably are going to each year until we get those buffers established. That's just my opinion. >> You let those buffers go and it's going to look like we didn't do anything. Yeah. >> And we're going to have to balance that. Good point. It's a budget.
>> Yeah. And we may get to a point that like we only have this much budget. We're going to do what we can with that and then next year adjust and try to do more or >> Well, I I think and I hope I'm right in the long term is that land owners are going to do a lot of this themselves. >> Me too. >> And that's going to take care of a lot of this problem. >> As long as the land owners don't do it
when it's muddy and gets their vehic or get their tractor stuck. >> You're right. >> And tear it all up. >> And tear it all up, then we're back to square one. And then who do you charge? because we let them do it. >> Yeah. >> Now, now you're it's going to be a charge to the ditch and everybody's
paying for it and there's going to be a lot of upset individuals. >> I And I think I mentioned before I I said I think the the first three years >> we should be in charge of the mowing to let that buffer, let everything pack down, make sure it's established, and
then turn it over if they want. >> They don't need to get permitted to do that, do they? >> I don't think so. No, >> no. >> So, at this, you know, that that brings up a good example though, Scott, Commissioner Johnson. You know, maybe in the future
if they want to take care of it, they let us know what they're going to do so that we can go and inspect it afterwards. I'm being serious here. >> Yeah. But, I mean, if you're going to tell somebody that, you know, it's July 1st and and they're supposed to be out there making, you're going to tell them they got to call the county. Good luck.
They're not going to worry about calling the county. Well, they should let us know that they did something so that we can go and do an inspection report, right? We can fly the drone and say, "Okay." >> Yeah. >> What happened here? >> Well, maybe it's back to kind of your point of the first three years ditch authorities managing it till it till it
gets established. >> And I totally agree with that. the first three years >> because by that time the ground should be compacted a little bit, >> everything be maintained and and point if I go out there and tear it all up to rat meat. Yeah. The system's going to pay >> and then you're going to have a lot of
upset individuals and then and then one person likes native grass and everything like that. The next person wants to make hay and the other one people I like this brush >> and the other guy wants it like a manicured lawn. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> And they're all fighting this
>> and then they sell and it all changes. >> Yeah. We start over >> anyways. Okay. We have consensus on three. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> All right. Go ahead, Chris. >> All right. Uh can I get you five? Um quickly, we have no uh repair petitions on this. Um
uh so anticipating maybe an end of year balance of 18,900. Looking at maybe 2026 expenses of about 9,000. And this would be to mow both sides of that buffer strip as well. Um that would project a negative 27,000 at the end of 2026 and therefore
recommending a 2026 assessment of 27,000. >> So is CD5 in shape that we would only have to do buffers because when's the last time that ditch was touched? >> Uh not not that I I don't know. >> I think the land owners have been doing a lot themselves. >> Yeah. But there's no sense to mow the
buffers if nothing has been done to the ditch unless it's absolutely looks like it's not going to have to be done. >> Part of the negative fund balance though I will acknowledge was that we had 33,000 >> and some change of buffer strip payments that we made last year and then last
year we only assessed >> uh $20,000 >> plus the original redetermination benefits cost. >> Correct. Yep. Mhm. So, some of that I mean maybe we don't need to mow or maybe we only need to mow a couple sections or something. Um, but the 9,000 is kind of
based on assuming both sides the whole length of the the ditch. So, but to Commissioner Capency's point on the earlier ditch, 27 would just put us maybe at a zero balance at the end of 2026. >> But CD5's never had both buffer strips mode, has it?
>> Not as part of a formal action of the drainage authority. But I mean once again the adjacent land owners have been active I think just on their own keeping the channel clear and and mowing things. So
>> are they going to ask for reimbursement? >> Yeah. >> I mean serious >> you are. You're right. >> They'll probably ask. >> But I we have no we have no vehicle to do that. >> We have no way of >> reimbursing them. No. >> It's not statute doesn't allow that. I
wish somebody would take control and and say, "I'll I'll do it for a couple grand and mow it when when it's costing the county, you know, 8 $10,000 to do." >> So, if you had like ditch five, so if we had somebody that came in and said, "I'll take care of the buffers on this
ditch for x number of dollars." Can we grant that or does the adjacent property owner A and B have to agree to that, too? >> No. Authority has the authority to do that. If somebody came to us and and said they could mow a ditch that's typically
costing us x amount and they're going to do it according to the way that we want it, we'd be stupid not to at least give them a try >> until you let him take until he let him take the hay and it was my neighbor's hay and then you're going to really have trouble. >> Yeah, but the >> but he got paid for the buffer strip, so
technically it's not his hay. >> That is not his hay. Yeah, >> very good point there, J. that I I'll admit that might be a gray area. They get paid for buffer strips because we're saying you can't do anything you want like you can't plant row crops in it,
>> right? >> But the the drainage buffer law does say that that hay taking of hay is permitted. >> So I don't know if we can technically say that they got paid for us to >> Why wouldn't we put hay everywhere then? >> We do. I mean it's seated back. It's
>> seated back but not everybody wants to take care of it. Well, my other concern though on CD5 is I mean to my knowledge we haven't been out there and done anything. >> No. >> So now we're looking at maybe mowing both sides of the buffer strip, but is it just that mowing?
>> Is it possible to mow? >> Yeah. Is it possible to mow both sides? >> Um, it may be. I mean, we do have a drone video. It looks like it's possible. Uh, we haven't neither Adam or I. >> So, we don't have solid trees or sides
of this ditch. Not like we did on six and nine and 14. Okay. Okay. So, >> all right. So, your your anticipated expenses based off of your join your your drone footage and the inspection of it. >> It says we could mow the buffer strips.
>> Yeah. Now, as soon as I say that, we'll get quotes next year and I'll be completely wrong. But, >> well, >> but I'm basing on what quotes we've had we received in the past. >> Well, we don't have a lot. We don't have a lot of historical data to >> That's that's what I'm struggling with. Yeah.
>> So, what did Oh, we don't have no engineers report on the ditch to see if it's even functionable. >> That's correct. Um, if you recall like 6, 9, and 14, we went through the reestablishment drainage records process
to so we could prove the elevation that that bottom of that ditch is supposed to be. We have not done that on five. I'm not recommending that we do do that. Um but um basically just getting back to case law that says that we shall be
maintaining them. So and how do we maintain them if we have no fund balance to do that? So >> how long what's how long is this ditch open channel ditch roughly? >> Uh >> not very long is it?
>> 3.6 six miles with uh the main branch and or main trunk line and a couple branches, 3.6 miles. But if there's no acceptable flow on ditch five and you go out and start spending money on mowing the buffers,
man, you're going to look like an idiot. You know, the water doesn't flow if there's got blockage or anything like that. I mean, why would people would be just totally upset? We're spending money on mowing. What? >> Where does Five outlet? Do we know? >> Uh, Stony Brook Creek right here,
Highway 23 by the by Norman Avenue there. >> We probably maybe need to see the condition of the ditch. >> I mean, yeah, other than visual with the drone, we don't have any survey on it or anything like that. So,
>> well, it'd still a neg still be a negative balance. I I mean once again board's discretion if you want to just keep saying the same. Last year we did assess 20,000 um and I think that's you know once again the negative balances because that
didn't fully cover all of the buffer strip payments and and you know the readies that they got payments for it. >> Well maybe on CD5 then that we do that for another year since we haven't fixed it. >> I don't know. I have mixed feelings about that but
But you're right. I mean, you go out there and do buffer strips and the ditch doesn't flow. It's >> Oh, boy. >> But once again, we are just the drainage authority, >> right? >> We are tasked with what the people want. >> Well,
if somebody came out and and I had a ditch and it wasn't touched and they were mowing it for an assessment, I'd throw them out. I'd throw them off the place. Well, you really can't because we can control that. >> We control the buffer strip. We have every right to be there.
>> Not necessarily. >> If they've gotten paid the buffer strip payment, >> they have the right to do the hay on it. >> Yeah. But they can't throw us off because it's it they we paid the buffer strip. >> I mean, we have to maintain them. There's no doubt about that. But we got to make sure that we have something to
maintain. >> Okay. First you're saying we have to maintain it. And now you're saying we have to have something to maintain. >> No, no. We have to make sure that we have, you know, that it's a drainage ditch to maintain. We can't just go out and maintain. >> Here's what I'm going to say. No matter
what on ditch five, we're doing at least 19,000 cuz we're in the So, so this is a budget. I say we do the 27 and move on to ditch six because all of these are just getting us back to square one. >> That's right. >> It's not We spent the money already.
>> Yeah. we can decide if we're going to move forward with the >> Yeah. >> the building or not at a future cow. So, we have consensus on five then to move ahead with a >> uh $27,000 assessment. >> Yep.
>> Okay. CD6. All right. Now, this one, if you notice, I I I phrase it a little bit different because we have that repair project that we're paying off, but we have this maintenance assessment that we did start last year as well. So, I should I I list the current maintenance
fund balance. Um, and that's a negative balance of $6,700. Um, once again, looking at 2026, I used what we paid the contractor last time to mow both sides. I inflated that a little bit for inflation. And then the
inspection cost. And once again, the inspection cost could be our ditch inspector going out there and inspecting the actual mowing, not just mo, you know, inspecting for the condition. Um, so $7,500 that would put us uh in the hole maybe of $14,000,
but ultimately I'm recommending just keep the maintenance assessment as the same as the previous year at $7,500. With our with our accounting system, I think um I say current maintenance fund balance is negative. This I would be willing to acknowledge
though that we could still receive more maintenance. Is that safe to say? Maintenance assessment, second half taxes. So, we may have less negative at the end of 2026, >> but you don't know what those are going to be. >> Yeah. So, that's why I only felt comfortable displaying what the as of
August 18th what the maintenance fund balance is for Dish 6. >> Do you think you need to show what the current repair balance is? >> Um, are we going to differentiate? See, that was our quandry at our cow, too. like
okay >> I don't know >> if you if you want me to we can display that but it's it's a rather large negative number so >> um >> okay >> well and that's what the countyy's holding the bag on >> right
>> I feel I mean maybe as a board and as your ditch engineer could say we've already established the repair costs we've come up with a repayment plan for this we're just talking about now maintenance and we're going to keep those counts separate.
>> Okay. Yep. >> I'm we okay consensus on CD6 and then 7500? >> Hey, CD7. >> Um okay. Um >> back to projecting the end of year 2026 because we don't have a repair petition
on that. Um estimating we'll be in the hole about 36,000. Um 26. I I don't know if we'll do any mowing on that. Um at the cow, we heard maybe rumors that there may be a petition
coming anyway. So I I'm not recommending doing any maintenance on that, but recommending the same assessment as we did the previous year, $35,000 just to kind of get us back to to zero. And we're prepared to to tell them what the
negative balance of 36,000 is about. It's buff for strip payments. It's reestablishing the record. Yeah. Just trying to get back to zero. >> Yeah. >> And a little bit in for inspection cost. So we have a little bit of a but Well, yeah. We're basically getting back to zero. So >> if we do much beyond just inspecting the
ditch, we'll be >> ask Chris a question. uh not to m the water too much, but the assessment you just talked about though, isn't that more so a repair rather than a maintenance assessment? In other words, the redetermination benefits, the buffer
strip damages, that's all preparatory for possible repair, not necessarily maintenance per se. So, that almost sounds like a really repair assessment, not a maintenance assessment. So my point though is that when we that
assessment shouldn't go into the maintenance bucket, it should go into the repair bucket because ultimately there could be a repair, right? Maybe. Um, so the I mean we have repair petitions on some of the ditches. Seven we do not
have a >> valid repair petition. So we don't know if a full scale repair will happen. I guess my point is Chris is on on projects where we have done repairs, >> all those initial costs have been bundled in with the repair assessment, not a maintenance assessment. So this is
kind of mixing. >> So I I would suggest to be consistent. You know, any of that preparatory work that was done really ought to be considered a repair assessment and not a maintenance one. And that's how we've done it with past where we've proceeded with a repair. So >> I understand what you're saying.
>> Yeah. But then >> the downside is like how do we recoup those repair costs >> if there's no >> we don't know when a repair would happen. >> Well, I I understand like from Michelle is you can sort of you can establish an initial initial repair assessment and then change it later.
>> So other words you you forge ahead and you do the repair. Well then you adjust the assessment then to reflect that. But I don't I don't see any problem with with based on what hearing from her you could go ahead and begin with a repair assessment now and at least recover those initial costs. So, >> but if that's the case, we'd need to do
that on CD5 then also because there's nothing been done there. >> You got to be able to explain what's the original negative balance for. >> Is it a repair or is it a maintenance? >> I my my assumption is that you know we
do all that redetermination benefits and buffer damages in anticipation of a repair. >> This is why we're only not anticipating maintenance >> doesn't that splits them out, >> right? You're establishing the groundwork for a repair. >> Mhm.
>> If if I I would wager if we were all we were going to do is mow buffer strips, we probably wouldn't have gone through all that effort beforehand. >> I think it's going to be very important that we let everybody know tonight that we're the only county that's breaking it out like this because it becomes fuzzy
on what it is. >> Well, but but I I think again most likely as time goes by, Chris is going to want to know what do I have in my maintenance account? Mhm. >> And if it was all in one bucket, I couldn't tell him. We wouldn't know. >> It's all bundled together with repair and maintenance and we would have no
idea. >> So I I would be willing to wager that those counties that you know that was at Kale said, "Well, they don't do it separately." My wager is they're still tracking it separately in spreadsheets. That's my bet because I think they naturally want to know the difference
between repair assessment and a maintenance assessment and how much was in each bucket. Well, >> they're probably doing stuff in spreadsheets. Most >> got something. >> What Kale was saying was that like on your tax statements, they're not
>> they're not breaking it and maint >> but internally they're breaking it down. internally they but not on >> well I would bet too you know Christine if you've got some of those counties in the south that have very mature ditch systems that are being wellmaintained
all they have are maintenance assessments that's all they're doing you know they they just got a mature system and they're maintaining them >> at some point we'll get there too where all we should have really are maintenance assessments so you could just call it one thing but right now we're kind of in parallel you got this
repair going on now you got maintenance stacked on top. At some point, there shouldn't be any repair assessments. It's all just maintenance. >> We're going to do >> Well, I don't necessarily have an issue with that, but we're going to have to be consistent. We're going to have to go back to five then and call that repair
>> because it's not maintenance. >> That's what >> because again, my argument is with previous projects that have proceeded to repair, all those costs have been bundled into repair assessment. Right. Right. >> Just to be a counterpoint, I think it's worth being devil's advocate here.
Say we do that. We separate now. We're just going to say, "Hey, today we're looking at maintenance on ditch five because we don't have a repair." We say, "Okay, repair um uh maybe that ends up being a positive balance." Then or let me even I'm getting this confused.
Maintenance account maintenance account that negative number becomes a lot closer to zero. We say okay, we can end up with a positive maintenance account at 20 after the end of 2026. But then somebody comes forward with a
petition and then we drag up all these old repair costs from 2020. My concern is the average taxpayer is not going to understand why. Why did you tell me August of 2025 that we could
potentially have a positive repair pal positive ditch account? Now you're dragging up old costs sometime in the future. I agree. This is this is very confusing but um I work for you guys so you tell
me how you want the >> the numbers to be. >> There isn't a good way of doing it. There's not. It's >> and maybe we need to present it as this is maintenance and repair and buffer strip payments and leave it at that.
Trying to break this down is where it's making it confusing. >> You're right on the You're right on the >> break it down into maintenance or repairs. Some of these have not had repairs, but we had to purchase buffer strips. Some of them have had repairs and now we're just trying to maintain.
So, I mean, maybe this is presented as of each ditch. And it this is repair, maintenance, and buffer strip purchases on these ditches. And leave it at that. And we keep our
internal we can we can we can still keep our internal spreadsheet like Christine was saying that says this was for maintenance. We know it could be for maintenance. We we know >> cuz I really think we get a repair
petition, even if people understand that that repair work costs money, I believe that they would understand, oh, the day you repair the petition, that's when your cost started for that repair. Um, >> I don't know. I just get concerned.
>> Confusing. I I still get concerned that say we get a petition on January 1st, 2026 of CD5, that's easy to say, okay, that's when our repair costs start. Anything before that was maintenance
>> maybe because I don't know, >> like I said, if you list it as repair, maintenance, and buffer strip payment, then you are covering all avenues. And then you can go into explaining that some of these have not had a a a a
valid petition, but yet we purchased buffers and um we still need to maintain the buffer strips, >> but we've also paid for a reestablishment of the >> every ditch has went through reestablishment of redetermination of benefits
>> and buffer payments. >> Correct. >> Yes, they've all had. >> We can start with that. So some of these ditches haven't had any rear. >> So every ditches had these two things >> after that. All these ditches are separate.
>> Well, this is I mean it's interesting because we're I feel like we're reinventing the wheel. We're not the only ones that have dealt with this. So there's got to be a clearer way. >> But >> we just better be consistent. I think the only clearer way is when all the
ditches are completely repaired and we're just going back down to mowing and maintenance. That's when it's me and me and you, but I won't be around. Go ahead, Monte. >> So, I guess, you know, again, I think when you've got uh ditches that have been repaired and then we're layering on
the top the maintenance assessment, I think just for for Chris's purposes and accounting purposes, it's good to have those separate. I think if you're starting one from scratch that that there's been no repair on it yet, maybe this is the clean break to just go with
one assessment and it covers all costs incurred to date and going forward. Uh but I think again with the ones we have now, they really should continue to be separate. Uh so Chris knows how much he has for maintenance and we're not mingling in the repair assessments that
are coming in with maintenance assessments. So we can tell you, okay, Chris, here's what you got. But maybe going forward with like, is it five you're talking about >> potentially? I mean, that's hypothetical, >> right? Yeah. That could just be one consolidated assessment for all all
costs incurred up to this point. And also anticipated maintenance because you're right, you may not know whenever get a petition. It could be 10 years from now. >> I mean, I think Commissioner Pop had a good point. There may be some landowners say, "The ditch is flowing just fine for my purposes. Why are you even out there
spending anything on it? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> But I think we could make the argument that well we did do a redetermination of benefits and we did pay land owners for buffer strips. So we've got to recoup that. >> And that's important that we make sure that we paid for buffer strips. You are
paying for the right to have this ditch on your property. >> I guess my thought I I let's just say you're sitting on $30,000 of redetermination costs and so on so forth. I wouldn't suggest just sitting on those until you do a repair because
again it could be a decade from now. >> We need the cash back. >> I think I Yeah, I think you should start an assessment and and maybe again this is a time where you just have one. It's it's one there for which there has been no repair. So there's no like two things going on at the same time, repair and
maintenance and it's just one assessment. But then that's it'd be screwy to have a couple ditches one way and then the other ones this way and then >> I know I'm just trying to think of a compromise. >> Yeah, >> but Jared, I think the ones where we did
the repair on six and nine and 12 and that they know that >> that the repair was done. If you go to say ditch 11, we've done nothing. Right. >> Correct. I mean we re redetermin we just tell them that on ditch 11 we did the redetermination of of benefits and we
paid out buffer strips and that's it. >> That's what we need to recover. >> We need to recover that money >> and I would like that to be really pointed out because when they come into my office to pay that's what they're asking. What am I paying for? They
haven't been out there and done any. >> Yeah. So just saying that what last year we collected and this year is recouping those costs >> and you're you probably get a lot of people that didn't get paid for the buffer strips because they're two miles
away from the ditch and I yeah I can see why they would >> to explain that too that even though yeah you are paying for your neighbor you're >> benefiting because I've had to explain that >> but you're also getting drainage benefits to Christine's point I'm hoping Ka 's
presentation hopefully makes that a little bit more clear that there's a lot of work that goes behind the scenes before you see any dirt being scooped out. >> I don't know. >> So, I guess it maybe it's a question for Kale is is we're describing tonight's
action as maintenance assessments. >> So, does that mean anything legally? In other words, what we bundle in with that? And that's why I'm wondering is can you actually toss the redetermination, etc., etc. you know, buffer strip costs
into what we're calling a maintenance assessment because that's the whole purpose of tonight's meeting is to talk about maintenance assessments. So, it might be worth a question. Is that are we good throwing all those into that bucket and calling the maintenance?
I'm not trying to like, you know, get too much in the nitty-gritty, but I'm just curious myself if that actually has a legal meaning. I believe in our call when he was joining us he said keep it simple. >> Yeah regardless. >> He did and >> and that would be simple.
>> And that would be simple. >> It's just scary. We're sitting here talking about this and in about 6 hours we're going to be in front of a bunch of people. >> Oh really? the beginning of your call. I mean, I know Michelle, our assistant attorney, recommended having this annual
>> public meeting to talk about maintenance assessments, and I would imagine that is a creature of the the ditch law then. It isn't just something we created. It was >> and I believe uh a lot of ditch authorities do that. It's a different times of the year, but uh I think those
that are very active with their ditches have this annual meeting. So, >> should we start that after all the ditches have been repaired? might be >> problem is is they might not be prepared for >> none of us might be here. Perfect. That's exactly what I said. >> You know that's why I said this this is
this is everything whether we want to think that it's for maintenance repair. >> This this meeting tonight to me is to explain why we have the costs we do for our ditches. So >> and so it is it is maintenance. It it it is purchasing the buffer strips. It is.
I mean, it's everything. And and we need to make this as simple as we possibly can in layman's terms, not fancy outright terms that those people understand. So, they're not going to Chris and asking him a ton of questions that, you know, he's got to go into to
total depth with or Christine that has to go into total depth with. This needs to be simple for them to understand. I mean, I don't know how else how else to say that because I mean, some of these people coming to this meeting tonight
probably have no clue what this is all about. >> That's why I guess Commissioner Poy, I worry about using the term maintenance. >> Well, that's what I mean. >> Because if it's an all-inclusive kind of assessment for any and every cost, >> maintenance is a little narrow.
>> You know, someone may say, "Well, how does redetermination benefits got to do with maintenance?" >> Yep. or buffer strip damage payments. What's that got to do with maintenance? So maybe maybe it's a few questions Chris could toss at Kale before the meeting.
>> All right. So >> what did we on again? >> We're on seven. >> You want me to throw out all the numbers and come up with something different? >> Why don't we just put one big number in red and say this is going to be assessed? >> Ditches. the name the ditches and this
is how it's going to go down. >> Well, the recommended assessment for 26 is 35 grand which basically gets us back to zero. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. And I mean that was what it was this year. Um I mean I thought maybe the public would understand that better
because in 2025 it was 35,000. It's the same 2026. Um I don't know. >> And we'll still be under possibly. Yeah. >> Without anything in 26. So, whatever we
do over and above this is just putting the delta even bigger in the red. >> Well, what's the consensus on seven? >> Go with the 35. >> Got a lot of choices. That's right. >> Well, I mean, we do we we've we can hire we can raise it.
>> Yeah. >> I mean, so they were assessed 35,025 and now we're going to assess them another 35,000. >> And that just covers our redetermination of benefits. >> Just covers our cost >> strips covers our cost.
>> So, yeah, we got to we got to get that back to zero. >> But it's not going to be zero. >> Close. Close if we don't do anything in that one. >> Yeah. >> Well, well, we won't do anything probably unless we get a redeterminate or >> Yep.
>> Okay. >> All right. CD9. >> Okay. So, CD9 once again, we just completed a repair. So, this is back to being confusing. So, we've already established a repair assessment. And so, that's why I showed a current
maintenance fund. We essentially have no a zero dollar maintenance fund. Um, so, >> so in nine though, why are you anticipating buffer strip payments? >> Oh, that's an error. Good catch. Nope, it would just be instruct inspection
cost that should be struck. The buffer strip payment should be struck. So, some inspection costs to go out there if we get calls and stuff um and things like that. And CD9's repair was finished when in 24.
>> We finished in 24 and we had all those public hearings the spring of 25 and we did the final certification in June. >> In June. So everybody got was part of those meetings in June saying that we're already assessing it for >> it was finished before that.
>> Yeah. Well, some will say that we've never finished it. We haven't finished it yet. >> What I'm getting at is how long are we going to push the maintenance off? See, that's >> Yeah. I mean, to kind of throw it back at the public, money doesn't grow on trees. If they
want us to do more, where where's the funds going to come from to pay for that? So, and as you recall at the cow, we talked about we should put something in there. So, that's where the $5,000 recommendation came from. >> We're going to put something in there, but we're not anticipating to spend it.
>> Yeah. >> So, then the question may come up, are you going to be maintaining Do you know off top of your head, Adam, if nine looks like it needs to be anything done with it? >> Yeah, 9 and 14 had some pretty good
erosion due to the rainfall that we've had. Um, but also, you know, I think an inspection could be considered, you know, routine maintenance. So, you know, having, you know, $5,000 in there,
I guess it just depends if if someone thinks an inspection is maintenance. >> And that's I think what Monty's going to get at. Maybe that's a question for Kale I can throw at him before the meeting tonight. >> Once again, maybe if we think of it as like a budget, well, we're setting a
budget for maintenance of nine uh onch nine for 5,000. If something comes up, we'll certainly talk about it at a public meeting. And if it ends up being $10,000 worth of work, we need to make the decision. Do we over do we exceed the budget to get it done or do we only do up to 5,000 because that's all we
assess. >> In Kale's presentation, he did list out the costs that could be incurred. In fact, he included board members cost, which I brought up and said, to my knowledge, >> we're not charging the systems, the ditch authorities. >> You're right. And that hopefully he
makes that distinction tonight. That's there's more things Benton County could be charging that they're not. >> Well, in this case, we're charging back an inspection cost. >> Mhm. >> I I just >> And inspection cost should definitely be a part of maintenance because if you
don't do an inspection, you don't know what maintenance you need. >> Correct. >> I just think the question may come up from CD9 land owners that are you going to start maintaining? They're probably aware of the sluffage that's happening too. and the buffer strips haven't been mowed in a year and a half
and we kind of committed that we're gonna maintain it if and maybe now isn't the time. I'm that's open for discussion but I would think for sure next year we better be out there. >> So something just occurred to me and maybe I need to confirm with Kale the procedure. What I just recalled is last
year we had this public hearing where this was presented and we discussed it and then we came back the very next meeting to what as Michelle called ratified it. So we can use these maybe just use these numbers as a starting point and then based on what we hear from the public tonight if like on nine
they say no we want you to do more than $5,000 worth of maintenance next year. we increase that number and at the first meeting in September, we bring that back to be quote unquote ratified or finally adopted. >> That's a that's a good point. Throw it
back at them >> and say this is just a staff recommendation for next year. >> It's a budget recommendation, but the whole purpose of meeting tonight is to throw out our recommendations and hear what the public says. >> Well, and to treat each system separately that way. let those land
owners commit on the CD9 system that that's what they want to have done. >> Correct. I think that's worth acknowledging that each end each ditch is individual. We don't >> Yeah, we're not co-mingling the funds. We're keeping the funds separate for each ditch. >> But I do think we have to be careful as a ditch authority going forward that
they may not say they want it done, but the challenge is back on us. Are we just going to turn our back then and not do anything because they didn't say they wanted it done? The the problem is is you're going to get 10% that that want everything done. You're going to get 50% that that don't say anything but are
going to be upset with you. What whatever way you go and the other people are going to be voicers saying I don't want you know I mean you can't please anybody. You can't >> I don't have an issue with taking that input from the public but I think it's still our responsibility to at the end
make the decision on if it has to be maintained or not. >> And I think that needs to be made clear. We're looking for your input so that we can make the right decision >> for the whole of the ditch. >> But it's got to be the whole of every
ditch. We can't we can't make a rule for ditch nine, then a rule for ditch six, then one for three. It needs to be across the county. >> Well, that's why we did the buff double-sided. >> Yep. it because I'll guarantee some of the
people that haven't had anything done in their ditch are going to have way different opinions than diff than people that had something done on their >> repair. Yeah. >> But ultimately we're there to listen to what they have to say overall. Exactly.
>> And then at the end it is our our decision to make. >> Y >> but we I mean this is our way of listening to the public and what their feedback is. But that that goes to the the ditches that we've paid buffer strips out, we did the redeterminative
benefits, and we haven't had a a repair to >> we're still reimbursing ourselves. >> Yeah. I mean, we know we we've we've expended a lot to get to this point even and the general fund has had to front that. So, >> I've got a very good idea I'll bring up
tonight. Let's give Jerry Machi the extra money he's looking for. And he takes on ditches. >> Exactly. >> And he can what? >> Take on the ditches. >> Soil and water. Soil and water takes on ditches and different kinds. >> They know way more than we do. >> Yeah.
>> Believe you me, that's been discussed and I don't think they have a whole lot of interest. They can't keep their office staff >> chairs filled as it is. >> That's Jerry's thing. >> No, >> he wants to be friendly Jerry. >> Yep. >> That's right. >> Yeah. Well, we want to be friendly commissioners, too, but it's not turning out that way.
>> So, what do you want to do with nine? >> Keep it. >> Yes. Keep it. >> Okay. 10. >> 10. Okay. Uh >> uh yeah. So, we have a valid petition. Uh so, right now the repair fund has this large negative $100,000. Um so,
here I'm showing both. We've got a repair fund balance and a maintenance fund balance. So, the maintenance fund is positive because we did assess a maintenance uh assessment last year, but we've got this large repair fund. So, kind of kind of what Monty was saying earlier, since we do have a repair
petition in, we know we're going to have to do some sort of repair. So, in this ditch, I'm showing that distinction. >> So, >> yeah. >> Um, >> so this is without the repair, though. >> Yeah. And so, I'm recommending a 2026
maintenance assessment of $33,000. And that's because it's the same as it was in 2025. Theoretically, we're going to be doing a repair on tin very, very soon. And then we'll be having that discussion on repair assessments. >> Then you're going to take your positive balance that's in the maintenance and
put it towards the repair. >> I think we should be prepared to address that. The public's going to say that, hey, if you have a positive maintenance, can that go towards the repair >> legally? >> What do you think the repair is going to run? What was it? Was it like 500 grand on this one? >> Mhm. Well, you assess them here or you
assess them there. I mean, what? >> Correct. Yeah. >> Because even even at 33 grand, we're four years out of getting this taken care of. Yes. >> I mean, this isn't going to go down for them. It's only going to go up. >> It will. Yeah. The benefit is that
they've at least had two years of assessment before they got hit with a bigger one. >> So, maybe maybe the recommendation is that we increase 33,000 a little bit. I just couldn't come up with a justification
um knowing that the repair is coming. So just recommending the same as 2025. But if the board wants to increase it because we know the repair assessment is going to be higher. >> How many years have we been going all 15? >> Depends on the last couple. Depends on
the >> Yeah. >> Okay. So if I went 500 grand and I added the 136, so that's 636. I divided by 15 years, I come up with 424. I mean, but I I'm just saying that we're
at 33 grand. That's the lowest. >> I think the question is, is your repair fund balance at a minus 136 going to be in addition to the $500,000? Is the 500 grand a total repair? Okay. So, it is a 636 number. >> Yeah. I think I think Jared did that correctly. Yeah. >> Okay.
>> Thank you for that. >> You won't hear that very high. >> No. >> I can leave. >> Are you saying we should raise it to 42? >> I I think we should because I think I mean if we if we don't do it now and we got to assess next year and it jumps to
50,000, people are going to be pissed. Well, >> if we can keep it at 42,000 from here on out, people are going to be like, "Okay, I've been I've been paying that." >> But if we do the the clear repair for 500 and something thousand, then we're going to give them the option to pay it
off all at once or >> they can still do that at that point. >> How accurate is your 500,000? >> Um, I don't know. >> I mean, is it 580? Is it five00? >> I remember something like $600,000, but
I know that that had contingency in there, including the engineering and stuff. So, you you added those two together, which makes me feel more comfortable. So, we're 630 to 650 probably for total project cost, maybe. >> I think if we go 42,000, it's a lot better number
>> and it's going to be more consistent from year to year. >> So, the 136 that come from the engineering cost and everything on that? Yeah, that would be the engineering cost, the redetermination of benefits, the buffer strip payments, >> all those things that we were talking about previously. Yeah.
>> But we kept it in the repair fund because we did have a repair petition. So, we know that that project's coming. >> So, we good with 42? >> Yeah. I mean, it's a good way to explain it that it'll get >> paid for over 15 years if we >> Yep.
>> consensus with 42. >> Yeah. >> Okay. 42. >> All right. All right, I will make that adjustment. >> Um, so back to no repair petition, anticipating a negative fund balance of
44,000. Um, anticipating, you know, $2,500 of inspection cost due to the length and stuff. I don't know if we'll be mowing that or not, but um, an end of year 2026 balance is looks
like minus 46,000. So last year we we um assessed 36,000 recommending keeping it the same as this year. >> So just a thought. I mean how many miles is ditch 11? >> That's one of our longest ones, right?
>> Well, cuz it has a branch or two on it. Yeah. So Uh, I'm not seeing it. I actually think it's a little bit longer than than 11 or uh 10. So, >> what do you think it just take the whole thing?
>> I was just thinking take the whole thing out of there and be done with it. I mean, once again, we're a bank and we shouldn't be >> 47 grand then >> because if we do any maintenance at all out there, which there hasn't been a
valid petition yet, right? So, we're going to keep going backwards. I'm just saying if we take the whole 47, my guess is it's not going to that extra five grand, six grand wipes that out. >> Mhm.
>> And it's not going to it's not going to hurt as much. >> We probably won't do any maintenance if there's been no solid repair because it's >> so 47,000. >> Yeah. >> CD11. >> Okay. >> CD12.
Uh, so we have a repair petition. So much like 10, keeping it separate. Um, yeah, we have a positive maintenance fund balance because we did levy a uh $25,000
repair or shoot, I getting confused. Maintenance in 2025. So, keeping it the same should theoretically put us in a positive balance at the end of 2026. But >> you've got a valid repair. Yeah, we have a value. >> And what's that cost? Maybe we do that.
>> We don't We haven't even started a repair report yet on that. >> Okay. >> So, that'll be next year then to figure out the total cost. >> I'd say leave it the same. >> This is the one that also outlets into nine. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yep. Leave it at 25. >> Yep. >> Okay.
>> Okay. >> Okay. >> 13. >> 13. So, this is the one that we have the repair. Um, there is a current positive repair fund balance, but I believe there is still an endofear transfer to occur
to repay back a loan from the general fund for this because I think we decided there's still one more year to repair or to pay back the repair, but maintenance fund um negative $1,600 maintenance expense. So, we've heard
that that needs some work. Um, I'm thinking at least for, you know, actually it was less than that. Probably about $13,000 just to to address both sides of the buffer strip mowing, removing trees and stuff. Uh, I hope that that's a good number. Maybe
maybe it isn't, but um uh so yeah, recommending 2026 of $17,000. A and reason why that one was because when the repair was finalized and the repair assessment started at that time a
number just under 17,000 was published and as we discussed at the most recent cow just rounding that up to 17,000 >> but was never assessed. >> It was never assessed. So, in that regard, we're just trying to be consistent with what we previously had published that at someday ditch 13 would
have a maintenance assessment of around $17,000 per year. But you're hoping that that 13 grand would get you. What happens if we just do 20 and we that gives you a 3,000, no pun intended, buffer?
>> Mhm. >> Yeah. Cuz the one thing I don't want >> is we tell them that this is going to clean that up and we come back and we're three or five grand short and then we have to go more. >> Well, the other thing I don't want is we haven't been out there to touch 13 since. >> Oh my god. Yeah. I just I drove by it
once last spring and it's not good. >> Quite certain 13 and 15 only had one side done. >> Correct. Yeah. >> So, we don't know that the open channel is functioning. >> Yeah. I think I mean put my engineering hat
back on. A good recommendation, a good place to start would be to let's address the buffer strip so we can see it, get out there and inspect it and then address the channel. It may be a multi-year process, but >> yeah, because the 15 grand isn't going
to touch >> ain't going to come close. >> How How big is ditch 13? How many is it a long is it? >> Yes, it's pretty >> Well, that's what I'm saying. Maybe >> 13 is 4.6 mi long. >> Maybe we could go to a 25,000 or
something like that to help alleviate some of this stuff. It gives him a bigger budget to get a contractor out there to do some of this stuff. >> So, if we go if we go 20,000 this year and 20,000 next year, we'd be 25 ahead,
right? 30 had 27 ahead for 27. But are we going to do some work? See, that's the >> Well, we don't know if we have to do work on it in 26. That's our issue. >> Yeah. >> This is so enjoyable.
>> And it's because we're starting, we're basically starting from scratch on a lot of this. We're basically saying that there is no more money to do work on ditches. So, we've got to start a budget. >> Did you fly 13? >> Yeah. What's the channel itself look like? >> I'd have to look back at it.
>> I looked at it from the air. It's hard to see cuz it's pretty feeling. It's like you never did it. >> That's what I'm afraid of. >> And the spoils were probably put on a pile. So, the buffer strips aren't even really manageable. >> Yeah.
>> I bet it's like what they did to seven. >> I thought they I didn't think they left the spoils. I thought the spoils were spread out on the one side. >> They might be. I'm pretty sure that they spread the spoils. >> It may vary. I think there was more cooperative land owners on that that wanted the dirt and was moving it
themselves. >> 13's got to be realigned, doesn't it? >> That's something that once we go out to inspect it, that's going to come up that we have these additional channels that are connecting 13 into 15 that changes the drainage patterns. >> Oh my.
>> Mr. Chair, >> he's the chair. >> Mr. Chair, stop. May I say something? >> Go. You go right ahead. >> Okay. >> The deputies have been standing all day. You think we could let them sit down? >> Sure. >> Or leave. Or leave. >> Yeah. Or leave. >> Yeah.
>> Unless they Deputy Thomas, but you want to come up here. I know you got seniority there. You can >> I think we're good. Thank you guys very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Have a good day. >> Thank you for bringing that up. I thought about it a couple times and got
sidetracked. I I I I think Jarrett makes a good point. Throw it at 25,000. >> Okay. CD13 at 25 grand. We have the consensus. Okay. 14. >> All right. Back to having that repair fund and maintenance fund, large
negative repair fund because we just certified that and we have those um things to pay out. Um, but what's interesting is >> I thought we talked about this, but you know, we we published a final cost when we had the initial hearing and we still
incurred additional costs after that, whether it was inspecting the ditch, meeting with land owners, um, what have you. So, we were we were charging that to the maintenance account because as a ditch engineer, I didn't feel comfortable changing that charging that to the repair fund because we already
published what the total repair costs were. Mhm. >> So that's why we're starting off with a negative repair or ah >> negative maintenance fund balance. >> What is it? 45 >> 415 >> on 15 years.
>> They're going to freaking blow. >> That's the That's the >> That's everything. >> Yeah. Okay. Well, >> that's a 619. >> That's already in place. >> That's already been assessed out, right? >> Yep. Oh, >> so we don't have to do this. >> We'll be assessed up. >> Will be assessed up. They've already
agreed to that. We need maintenance. >> So, >> is 15 going to be enough for that? >> I would think so. After just redoing it, it should be >> just do 15 then. >> You think that's good?
Yeah, because my first recommendation was to do zero because I, you know, I've I've listened to the public hearings and I know people are upset, but >> but that means no more maintenance. >> None of these should be zero. >> When was that completed? >> That was after >> Well, the same time as nine. So last
fall. >> So in 2026, we should probably be out there. >> Yeah. >> Mowing more than likely, right? >> And that's what the 15 grand is going to >> That's what it's for. Inspections and mowing. going to be trying to catch up to really it's 12 12 grand cuz we're
2900 in the hole. >> Yeah. >> Is that 12 grand going to be enough to take care of that? >> I would mowing and everything. >> 10 grand. Two will be the inspection. >> Yeah, >> I'm hoping so because yeah, we've already cleared the trees. It should be,
you know, maybe those pencil diameter willows that have popped up or something like that. But >> a little bit of sluffage that's probably happening in >> in my opinion. And this is just one vote here. I we should in the next year or two we should never see red. We should
always be in the black because we are not the bank. And this is this is the cost of >> you're assessing in anticipation. >> Exactly. Right. >> Yeah. >> We shouldn't be we shouldn't be seeing red. We should be seeing >> no more general fund loans. Just you got
the cash. >> Yep. >> Okay. So 15 grand then on 14 CD 15. >> Uh Mr. Chair. >> Yep. got a hand in the audience. >> Dean, >> would it be safe to assume that nine and
14 should be the same? >> Well, they're different. 14's a bigger system, isn't it? >> Uh, overall length. Yeah, because 14 has multiple branches on it. >> Yeah, like six of them or something. >> Yeah, >> I guess I can just see the neighbors that are very close to each other.
They're saying, why am I going to be assessed 15 and the other one only five? Well, the other problem is some of that maintenance assessment is going to reflect an outlet benefit to nine, too. Right. >> Right. >> And 12 is the same thing cuz they're both outleting to nine.
>> Moving on to 15. >> Yeah. >> I'm just thinking the public's >> Yeah. No, that's good. That's You're right. >> How far Well, what do we do with nine? >> Five. >> 5,000. And >> I think nine was just well yeah maybe as
a starting point. >> We know that we need to we may need to do some maintenance. So >> maybe we'd put that at 15 and be done >> for 92 then be done with it. >> I don't Are they similar enough ditches though?
I am just throwing that out there. Nine has one branch. >> Wow. Okay. Okay. >> Throw throw throw 10 at nine. >> Throw 10 grand at nine. >> Can we hypothetically do this? Can we say
just for our own county math, take all these assessments for maintenance, right? And maybe only four ditches need maintenance this year. We use that pot of money or what we pull out of that pot of money. We know it's all going to get assessed to certain areas, but you know
what I mean? And we keep track of it on a spreadsheet saying that this one took this >> or we took like we took $2 from ditch 12 >> over there because this one didn't need it. >> Yeah. >> You know, but at the end of the day, it that $2 still got to go back to
>> ditch. >> Yeah. It's got to it it So, as these assessments are coming in, the county looks at it as one big pool of money. >> I don't know. >> Instead of trying And I think I think in statute each
ditch has >> have its own fun. It's you always used to be that way. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. But what I'm saying is is right now we can't say that that's working because we're pulling it out of reserves. >> Well, it's because we have to. >> Yeah. >> We haven't we don't have assessments
yet. So cash has to come from somewhere. >> And and I'm not saying that we we do away with a certain um fund for that ditch. I'm just saying that that ditch 12 has $25,000 assessed. Ditch seven, ditch 13 has $17,000 assessed. Together
we're at $42,000, right? Well, ditch 13 may may not need anything. So, we can use some of that money knowing that the next year we're going to get more in and everything. And it's almost like a borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, but then
>> Peter gets it later. Don't tell the residents that you're doing that. >> We'll use the county funds >> because we're sitting >> We'll use the county funds to supplement it and pay the county back then in a sense. >> Yeah. >> But you don't know when you're going to get it back, >> right? >> Well, yes, you will. >> Yeah.
>> Well, it's assessed, but at what rate? >> My question. So, these smalish maintenance assessments, >> do they have stated terms and rates of interest? >> No, because they're they're treated as a one-year one-time assessment. So, this goes back to I thought I heard earlier
we were contemplating maybe assessing in advance for a future repair. Did I hear that? >> Yeah. >> And and I worry about that because I know when you do a true repair assessment, there's a stated rate of interest and a term. So, if you're really assessing money, what will
ultimately be used for a repair, there is no such stated term or rate of interest. So, I'm a little worried about that of of going in and in anticipation of repair. So, I think we need to sort that out.
I something tells me that I don't know. >> Okay. >> You're really collecting money for repair without interest or stated term. >> Well, I think what we're Okay. What we say what we're doing is we're collecting our one-time maintenance assessment
and then if sometime in the future >> a couple of three ditches ago where we upped it >> to 42 versus >> see a repair coming and effectively sounded like some of that money would be used for the repair cost >> only like I say well I don't think it
really dollar amount really matters it's going to be used for recover repair costs >> maybe we can't make that statement now, but at the time that a repair does happen, if we happen to have a positive balance in that account that goes towards that, right?
>> So, I think Monty's got some good points. We can't be stating that we're going to assess now for >> in anticipation. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> We're just going to assess one time for one year and then, oh, just so happens that we have a positive balance. >> If you've got excess resources, you can
use that to buy down the repair assessment. >> Sure. >> Yeah. I'm tracking with Monty. I I know what he's saying. >> I think, you know, that to me builds the argument for having those separate buckets because, you know, if it's all
bug in one place and, you know, it's a year from now, we wanted to repair it. How much do we have available to buy it down? >> I don't know. >> It's all blended together. I wish the general public would have to see us go through all of this stuff
because I >> battery die. >> Meetings over battery. >> I I know I'm already my my wheels are turn I mean in the future we're going to be better about this. We may have a quarterly
just a meeting quarterly to just say where are our fund balances now and then that I mean it's not necessarily a public hearing but at least it's a public meeting where we just looked at it a couple times during the year to see what our ditch balances are and >> well back to Christine's point are we trying to match up CD9 and 14 or
>> is 10 grand going to make or break these people? >> I don't know spread out over a lot of people but some people. >> But it's a one-year assessment. >> Yeah. >> So, yeah, they have to pay that whole >> They have to pay it in one year. >> I mean, it's going to be the same people that we heard already at the repair.
>> Oh, yeah. >> They're going to pay the biggest chunk of that 10 grand. >> Somebody told me they wrote $11,000 check for what we what was assessed last year. >> That's a lot of money. >> Correct. But how much did they did they get for the buffer strips? >> Yeah. See, then we don't hear that. We
don't hear that because those same people got paid for their buffer strips too though that are writing that big checkout. So if you subtract both of the subtract one from the other >> at the end of the day this board didn't make these ditches. They were here a 100
years ago and nobody maintained them. I mean we're just doing what is statutually our duty. If you think 15 is if do you think 15 is what we should do on nine?
>> You me? >> Well, I just think making them both equal would be better. >> This is where I was saying if we pulled the money kind of like you had just mentioned maybe we go m maybe we make ditch 9 12 or 13 and maybe bring the
other one down to 13 and they even out. We we can kind of >> I I think Chris would have to look I don't believe you could pull the money. It's I think statute is going to tell you you can't. >> No, I I I get that, but right now the county's pay funding it anyway,
>> right? >> But the other problem with making them the same is nine is the outlet to 14 and it's also the outlet to 12. So 12 and 14 through the redetermination of benefits amounts if I
have a benefit of 10% 9.9 of that might be on my system but there's a percent in there that goes for an outlet benefit >> so 14 and 12 because of an outlet benefit to nine should expect to pay more
>> right >> than nine does is kind of how I'm thinking because nine ends up being the outlet to these that's why they're part whether redetermination of benefits is higher, if you will, because they're getting a benefit to the
outlet. >> So that's why I don't know that it's important that they be equal. I understand your point, though, because there it's the same kind of people, >> right? But I think there's an argument there of why they would be different. Now, should they be 10 grand apart? Maybe not.
>> Well, let's move it to 10 and then 15. >> I I you know, I I'm sorry. I'm just going to go with the recommendation of what Chris put in 15 and just leave 14 at 15. >> But what do you want to do with nine? You want to keep leave at five?
>> Recommendation at five. >> All right. Or >> split the baby and go 10. >> Yep. Go to 10. >> 10 on CD9 and 15 on CD14. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Got consensus on that? >> Yep.
>> And last but not least, CD15. um >> that was published, huh? >> So, uh 15 very similar to to 13 u positive repair fund balance, but I think there's an end-of-ear transfer coming to repay the loan. Um, we do have
a negative uh maintenance fund balance, but as we previously discussed, it was published once to be under just under 20,000 and we rounded it up to just an even 20,000 um just to start uh a maintenance fund.
>> I So, I'm having a mental block here. Why is there a positive balance on a repair? According to Jackie, um I asked the same question because um there's still a endofyear transfer that she will do out of
>> the repair fund back to the general fund to pay back that loan. >> So if I if we see a a positive balance, it's it means it's paid. >> It's zero, >> right? When it's all said and done, that repair balance should be zero. Correct. Coming back and repaying the loan. at
the end of the year. Well, you don't do that. We just do it once a year. >> Sure. >> But if we see a positive balance, the transfer has to happen. There really shouldn't be positive balances. >> No, zero, >> right? Okay. I just want to make sure I was clear about that.
>> So then when we pay that 10,000 back, we can subtract that off that 20 23,000 then or not? >> No, the 10,000 is going to get paid back to the general fund and the repair fund balance will be zero. >> Yeah. And we'll still owe
>> But we'll still owe 23,000 for maintenance. We're going to get out of business. >> Yeah, >> but there will be a negative balance in the maintenance expense. >> Well, according to what was supposed to
been done five, six, seven years ago. >> Well, then according to 20,000, that won't be enough to cover the short. >> We're going to be short 3,000. You know, I I don't think small negative balances are a huge issue. You know,
>> eventually you can adjust subsequent years assessments to cover it. >> It's the 500 600,000. >> Are we good with the 20,000 on CD15 then? >> All right. Anything else on that, Chris, with the assessments clear as mud for Kale and you?
>> I think so. I've got some editing to do. I've got some questions to Kale. I'll have this revised and printed for the meeting this evening. >> Anything else for ditch authority? >> So meeting starts at 6 o'clock tonight. >> Yes. >> 6. >> So Mr. Chair, we scoped out the room uh
last week. Uh there'll be a table up on two tables up on the the stage for the seating for 10. You all and staff and Kale. Um unfortunately there's just like two wireless mics so you're going to have to pass a mic around to speak. There'll be a mic stand down in the
audience area for people to come up to talk. Uh so they have to get out of their seats and walk down to the front uh for a mic there. Uh we'll have presentation equipment hooked up. Um they showed us that so we should be good to go there. >> Okay. >> Uh it'll be unlocked so we don't have to
worry about a key or anything. So um Okay. >> Yep. >> What door do we go on? I >> the door that says auditorium. >> So as you come to the main door before you go in it, it's to the right. >> To the right. >> Oh, okay. Thank you. >> Do we think there's going to be a lot of people there? >> I think there are, but I don't know.
Yeah, >> I just don't know. >> So, when we drive in a parking lot and we see a 100 vehicles going to comment, >> is it going to be on YouTube or is it >> No, no, we don't have the tech over there to >> Oh, okay. >> No, capture it. No, >> we can Can we record it or not?
>> Well, we'll audio we'll audio record, but that's that's it. We won't video. No. >> Anything else for district 30? I don't have anything >> journ to 12:08. Mr. Chair, back to you. >> Um, we read at the committee commissioner meeting updates. You have
anything that's important otherwise? >> No. Do >> you want what? >> Anything that's important? >> Anything that's important that needs to be just talked about. >> I'm good on my end. >> Okay.
>> Um, >> no meetings. >> What? No committee of the whole. >> No cows. >> Dozens. Dozens. >> Said the hall. >> I'm gonna go slash his tires as rental car. >> Chris mentioned the August 25th U
bonding tour. We probably should get this on the calendar at St. Cloud State University. We'll we'll find out Chris a specific time from Grady. >> Yeah. >> Uh but maybe you could at least if you're interested in attending hold the afternoon of August 25th for the bonding
tour stop at St. State University in the afternoon. Uh Chris wanted also set a committee the whole to discuss the 5-year role program. Chris, do you have any any recommended dates for us? >> October, Christmas,
>> Halloween, Easter, >> November, >> um October month. September is that is September. Oh, sorry. I got to get the right month here. >> I mean,
next week would be too early for everybody. >> 26 is open for me, but I don't >> Yeah, not not for me, I guess. 25th is open for me in the morning. But >> what about August 25th then in the
morning? Monday, August 25th. >> I don't have anything till 1. So the 25th would >> Excuse me. >> The 25th for me in the morning. >> In the morning. Okay. >> 8:30. >> 8:30 the 25th. Okay. for for five-year row program. >> Yep.
>> Gets that settled. >> So, just a few more others. Uh, add to your calendars. Um, August 20, this is August 26, too. Commissioner Benoy mentioned this, so correct me if I'm wrong, Commissioner,
you said there is RSVP volunteer recognition event at the Sock Rapids Government Center at 9:00 a.m. on August 26th. >> Correct. >> This is an RSVP volunteer recognition event. Again, South Rapid City Hall Government Center. >> Yep. Got that on my phone.
>> 900 am. You're welcome to attend. The touching tables event for care is October 9th at noon at New Life Church. October 9th at noon New Life Church. It's the touching tables. Am I describing that correctly? >> Yes.
>> Yes. The touching tables event. Um, >> I just >> The Highway 23 Coalition annual meeting is October 3rd at 11:30.
October 3rd. Excuse me. 11:30 at the Roadside Tavern in Rosco, Minnesota. I have no idea where that is. >> It's right on 23. >> Right on 23 >> between >> Makes sense. >> Yeah, it's between
the curve. Ever see the movie Roadhouse? >> Yeah. >> The Roadside Tavern, Rosco, Minnesota, October 3rd. >> 11:30. Thanks, guys. >> They do ask for registrations. Uh, who might be interested in attending the >> I'll be there. >> Commissioner Johnson, you got that.
Beth, who else? Commissioner Pop. >> What is it? >> October 3rd. That's a Friday at 11:30. >> Nope. >> What is it for? >> This is the Highway 23 Coalition annual meeting. And for what it's worth, we have Speaker of the House Damoth,
>> right? Will be in attendance. >> I'll be there. >> Commissioner Benoy, others? No. Okay. Commissioner Benoy brought this to our attention. A September 5th, September 10th um
sure how to describe this. It's described as a fullscale emergency event exercise at Sibli State Park. Um >> that's our AMC. >> This is uh this is during this is during fall policy. Yeah. So that's probably
out then. Yeah. Okay. Then we won't mention it. >> Well, if Commissioner Benoy wants to go. >> Well, yeah. I mean, anybody can still go. >> Commissioner, are you okay us leaving that off the list since it's during fall? >> It's in fall because most of y'all are going to fall policy, right? Okay. I
have, I believe, one last one. Please bear with me. You're invited to the groundbreaking for the Avivo Village Central Minnesota. It is Friday, September 26th at 10. >> Friday, September 26th at 10.
>> How How can they do a groundbreaking if they're 600,000 short? >> Uh, that's an excellent question. And I'm sorry I don't have an answer for you. Well, I I if I may, um Sandy Schelberg shared with me that Sterns County has committed $600,000 of its
statewide affordable housing aid to AEVO. >> That's how they're doing it. >> That's I'm reporting what she has told me. >> As you may know, our statewide affordable housing goes to BEP and a housing trust fund for their rehab loan program. So again, that's Friday,
September 26th at 10:00 a.m. the Avivo Village site, which is at 3100 First Street South in St. Cloud. >> 3100 First Street South in St. Cloud. >> RSVP for that. I I won't be there. I've got a region 7W. >> They are. You know, I'm trying to see if they're asking for, you know, I don't
think they they don't need RSVPs. Did we already approve this? >> I won't be there either. >> No, I ain't going to go. >> No, it's Mhm. >> Mr. Chair, thankfully that's all I have. >> Move for approval of cows. Mr. Chair, >> second. >> All in favor? >> I
>> I >> I accept the count. >> We're adjourned at 12:14. >> Hang on. I have a I I have a couple of questions >> before adjournment. >> Okay. We're not adjourned quite yet then. >> No. >> Yeah. >> I I just have a couple questions just to give me some clarification on some
things. Uh-huh. >> Um um there's some misconception or uh stuff that I'm being sent on uh Snapchats on on Facebook. So I'm I'm I'm
looking for a little clarification um from maybe the board chair or whatever. So when going through all this government center stuff, there was a uh a post out there say kind of trying to
push blame towards the Foley C city council because they placed something on to their consent agenda. >> So am I I guess I'm looking for clarification as to what they were actually what they
were actually voting on. I'd be happy to answer that, Commissioner Million. >> So, uh, because the board chose to use the HRA as the vehicle to issue the debt, uh, under the HRA law, if a county wants to operate an HRA project within a
city's limits, it needs that city's consent to do so. So that's what we asked the city to do is say, "Okay, city of only, do you will agree to allow us to do our county h project inside your city?" And it was on their consent
agenda and they and they agreed. >> So they were not voting yes or no to the building. No, just for >> simply allowing us to do an HIA project within their city limit. Yep. That was it. And and the other question that I have is uh this was also put out there
that the planning commission was voting yes or no to the building. >> Absolutely not. >> And my and my understanding and I'll explain my understanding and then we'll go from there and see if my understanding is correct. They were
basically voting to say they did their job, which read and review it and and say yes, we read and re reviewed it or we didn't do our job because no, we didn't review it and we you know,
>> that's what I'm >> So, so yes. So, all they were asked to do was review what was described as the redevelopment plan, which basically it described the project and how it was going to get paid for and where it physically was inside the city. So, there was like a map that showed the
boundaries of of the county owned property. So, all they had to do is simply say, "Yep, we reviewed it." That was it. >> So, that was their action. And that and something else that was brought up at, you know, the public meeting when
>> basically we're allowed to be crucified, >> of course, >> but um that that we're looking or that you know we I I should be worried about my legacy. But for all you board members and anybody out there who wants to take a look at the video,
I I didn't run for this board to have a legacy. I ran for this board to leave a legacy for Benton County and it's not personal to me whether it was my legacy or not. So just to clarify that that is
not >> sure >> was not my intention when I ran for the board to to create a legacy for myself. So, um, and then some information that I did learn at a training course that we were at on
is there rules and regulations to to public hearings because the attorneys what they're saying at these trainings is not how that meeting was ran. >> Well, yeah, M I Commissioner, I believe, you know, a public hearing is you need
to give the the public the ability to speak. I think each county board can decide, for example, reasonable time limits, you know, like five minutes or 10 minutes. I don't I'm not aware in the statute of any specific rules as to, you know, the
house of conducting public hearings. I think it really is up to each county board to decide, you know, and I would say, you know, if someone's comments get to be a little outlandish and attacking, I think the board care chair can say, "Hey, you know, >> cool it." Well, see, >> but I I think you know, you just you just have to simply give the public
opportunity to speak >> and that's really about all the statute says. So, >> or don't like that >> and and I I agree >> with the fact that they get the chance to speak, but this this is in the presentation from the attorneys that were at >> the the training. It says arguing with
participants andor discuss decision makers is not they have no right to this. This this is what came from the attorneys and it says dominating the public input portion of
to preserve um others. And then it says cross-examining. These things are what the attorney is saying is not allowed. um unlimited time, uh beating a dead horse, making late written submissions if you know like
somebody coming up to you at a meeting and handing you something for >> I know for example whenever we publish a a public hearing notice it says in that notice that all written materials must be received prior to the start of the public hearing. So that's that's made known to people. Yeah. Yeah. So I I this
is this was just coming from the attorneys that that was at a training that actually Mr. Johnson and I both were at. So or turn it 12 times.