Good thing we passed that around now. >> Exactly. We all take our turns. >> You're right. Yeah. Um, approve or amend the agenda. >> Mr. Chair, we have one consent item to add the tobacco license uh on the the dis there as consent item number 10.
The next one to be a regular item and please let's add it after the 9054H item. This is the sock rapids tiff district item that's on the dis 2. Again, let's add that right after 9:05 after the 4 group is here. >> Okay. Move for approval of the amended
agenda. Mr. Chair, >> second. >> Motion been made and seconded to approve the amended agenda. All in favor? I >> opposed. Carried. >> County board meetings are 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's chair consent before addressing the county board. Public comments are generally observed for open forum segment. However, public comments on
agenda items may be allowed at the discretion of the chair. As we begin today, please turn your phone to off or to vibrate. Thank you. Open form. Thank you, Beth. Um, Mike Leandowski from Alberta
Township. >> Morning. Morning, Mr. Chairman. I'm here just for a couple things. A question. Uh, first of all, for the work site across the street, some sensitive work it looked like was taking place over the last several days, weeks. uh middle of
the middle of the site. Um yellow caution tape yellow caution tape uh was up. >> Folks, if you're online, could you mute yourself, please? >> And I'm sorry, Mike Leandowski here, Alberta Township. Anyway, u so that
section in the middle of the work site, is there any updates that you can provide anybody of the board or county administrator as to what was going on with that? the dirt that was taken out. Um, if there was an issue, what was the issue? Where did the soil go that they took out? Um, and was that issue within
the budget of the contract for the uh site manager. >> So, Mr. Chair, I would suggest that uh we get a thorough update from Pete from Integrity on September 23rd. Pete will be here scheduled for his monthly update
on the 23rd. and then he can provide all the information uh as requested. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Okay. That's at a regular board meeting. Correct. >> Correct. >> Yeah.
>> And then the last thing uh over the last many weeks, months, there's been um discussion from a few on the board that there's been harassment and even threats by some in the public. And so I'm wondering today if there's anyone that
can comment if there's anything that's releasable to the public as far as a criminal complaint or an actual arrest, something that can be given to the public. I'm not looking for investigative details, just what can be released to the public.
Monty, is is that something the county attorney would have to >> Yeah, I would recommend contacting Kathleen Rutder uh and then she can uh provide the requested information. She'd be in possession of that. Yeah, >> Mr. Chair, if I could, Mr. Leandowski, I will confirm with you that yes, indeed,
that's happened and it's happened to me and I'm not interested in releasing one iota of information to you or anybody else. Period. >> Okay? >> Want the public information? Check the county attorney's office. Yes. >> Well, I doubt the county attorney has it cuz it's going to be a conflict, but I'll check. >> I could be, but you're not getting it
from me. >> I I would imagine Kathleen can then refer uh Mike to the proper authorities who would have public information on this issue. So, she's a good place to start. >> Okay. >> Yeah, absolutely. Yep. I will start with the county attorney and it's just a matter of trying to find out what was
actually done, what was said to keep the public informed to find out what was done, what the elected officials here today are going through. And so, that's why I'm trying to find out. Thank you. All right. Thanks. Ann Olsson, welcome.
>> Have you recovered from the county fair? >> No, I have not recovered yet, but >> we didn't do the consent. >> Did we do the consent? >> No. >> Well, we got to do the consent agenda. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. One second. >> Hang on a minute. Hang on. You can stay right there, though. >> Yeah, I'll stay here. >> Um, we have consent agendas 1 through
10. >> I'll move approval. >> Second. Motion been made and second to approve items one through 10. Any discussion? >> All in favor? >> I posted. Thanks, Steve. >> There we go. >> Now, Ann, you can. >> All right.
>> So, uh, no, I really haven't recovered yet because uh, from county fair, we went right on to state fair and if any of you watch us on our social media, um, you'll see that the kids have been doing amazing down at the state fair. But, oh, I'm Ann. the extension educator for 4 and I brought along a bunch of my kids
with me just to do our traditional annual asking for the proclamation sign to um identify national 4 week or Ben County 4 week coming up October 5th to the 11th. But just a few updates on our program. Uh it's been a really good year
for us. Uh we have over 550 kids um enrolled right now in 4 if from all over not just Benton County but it goes beyond that because we are amazing. So people keep coming from other areas to join us. Um we have 13 active clubs, 157
screened volunteers. That doesn't even account for all the volunteers we have that are not screened. Um this past year we've had about 171 new members. A lot of that is uh has to do with our day camps. We had phenomenal day camps this last year um with farm safety. Uh and
with that alone, we had a lot of businesses that joined in with us through the community um including the fire departments and Arnolds and the Farm Bureau. Uh we had average 100 kids each of our day camps and we held six of them and uh we had to cut them off at
some point or another because even with 24 to 25 youth camp counselors, which many are in the room, uh we still couldn't really take more kids than that. Uh for county fair we had 346 youth participate which was a big number. Um we had animals up um 593
animals were there. So it was up over 100 animals from the year prior which part of that would had to do with some of our horses and miniature horses. We had 17 miniature horses this year which was incredible. We had a group that came to us and they're going to be speaking to you as well. Uh we had over a
thousand livestock exhibits and um almost 1,200 general exhibits. Uh for state fair we had 130 youth head off to state fair between livestock and general llama horse the horse and dog are still going and shooting sports. Um we had at
the state fair like I said I already alluded to was insanely successful and typically on our social media we'll put like our first and second places and maybe the third. Well this year I had to go to fourth and fifth because there were so many siblings in there. Um I think I stopped at fourth. I did not go to fifth which I'm getting some heat for
that. But even with just champions reserves and seconds and thirds or thirds and fourths, it was busy if every species had it. Um we had the champion um black Ignis Heer uh Nolan Hackett brought that in. We had a reserve
champion crossbreed cow braid mouse. We had um oh Austin Moler brought in the reserve champion Birkshshire Barrel and he also was um one of the candidates for their purple ribbon auction there as well. We had the champion junior dough. Um there that list goes on and on. Our
rabbits were amazing, too. We had uh we have seven kids going to state horse this weekend and we have 11 miniatures going. Five dog. Um for our llama again, they just shine like crazy. We had the first, second, and third in the state for the costume contest and also the first and second in the state for
educational posters in both age categories and first, second, third 56 in uh showmanship for llama. So, brag, brag, brag, and brag. So, now let's break some more. Um, I did I don't know if you guys got a copy of this. It shows
our detailed numbers. Um, this is just a little uh those of you who are not on the um CEC. I'm sorry that you don't get to see everything, but I'm giving you a sneak peek of our county fair report along with some photos of just some of the kids from the state fair. And then on the top of that was the national for
each week. So, I'm just going to have a few few of the kids. Um actually I got a little bundle here of some kids that were able to take the time today to be here just to share a little bit about what 4 has meant to them. So the coers would you guys go first? Okay. So I got Ava and Piper Cobinger.
>> Good morning. >> Good morning. >> Morning. >> My name is Ava Coer. I'm starting my 11th year in 4 this year. Um, Benton County was extremely well attended and it was really fun to see all the people and then be able to explain um different
horses and what they do and all that fun stuff at the fair. Hi, I'm Piper and um I've been in 4 years and it was really really fun because there were so many people and and we made tons of new friends moving
to a new county overall. Benton was really, really, really fun. >> Thank you. >> So, we did have about um oh gosh, close to 20 some people that joined us from different counties this year that really helped increase that manager horse. And
you guys remember Claudia? She was my summer assistant. >> Um, hi. My name's Claudia. I'm going to be an 11th grader actually tomorrow. And and this will be this I just finished my eighth year in 4. Um, like she just said, I was a summer assistant this year
and I've been heavily involved in 4 years. I've shown countless species of livestock including I was just came back from the state fair for llama and I've shown ducks, rabbits, just started showing sheep this year. So, I've been heavily involved and I've been involved
as a camp counselor for a couple years and it's been one of the most impactful organizations that I've ever been involved with and I am a very very busy person. So, I'm involved with a lot of things and it's definitely tops my list of the most important and impactful thing in my schedule. >> Thank you. Which school?
>> Tech High School. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Hello, I'm Jonathan. I've been in 4ish years now. Um, Benton Benton County 4H and 4H in general has been hugely impactful in my life. It has given me a ton of leader
experience helping out at the day camps and leading some of the activities at the day camps. For example, at a recent project day camp, I led a welding project showing the kids how to weld and having them weld their own small little
light up bug that lights up in the dark as a nightlight. um for for projects. Uh this year I didn't bring as many as some previous years, but I brought a few photos and my main big project was
a display board talking about the social and emotional side effects that occur with having uh food restrictions like food allergies or food intolerances and how they affect especially youth in group settings.
um 4 was and was kind enough to let me give the presentation to the Benton give a presentation on the project at the Benton County 4H leaders council meeting and it helped me stand in front of people
talk to people about what's important to me and spread word spread awareness of an issue that challenges me personally with my food restrictions. Thank you. And >> Jonathan won't brag about himself, but um he was one of the many that um
received a blue ribbon and plus he received one of the community impact recognition awards and they are not very >> they're not and the purple. >> Oh, and the purples. Yes. The purples and community impact. So that was insane. Um just to have people from our own county there too for that.
>> That was on display at the state fair. Correct. Yeah, I seen it. I seen that. >> Yeah. Say your name. Put something with at the same time. >> Wait, I don't really like saying my like
>> That's okay. This is Matthew, my singer. >> Name name. I I like saying in like what name I use for when I'm playing games. >> Yeah. What did you What did you do at the state fair? >> I did share the fun.
>> And did you like it? >> Share the fun. Okay. >> I liked it. >> Yeah. big group like these kids were included with the show the fun. It was really cool to get up on the big stage right >> here next. Yeah. >> Hello, I am Robert.
I have been in 4 nine years and I'm going into ninth grade. >> Nice. >> Nice. I brought some like almond flour muffins to the state fair, which is because way too many members of
my family have way too many food restrictions. And I h wanted to make something as my first ventures into baking to get around that. >> Oh, congratulations. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Robert,
>> I like your hat. This is the McKay family. >> Yeah. >> Hi, my name is Owen McKay. I was in 4 for 5 years and I'm in bet I mean I'm in St. Pat 4 club and this year I showed
chickens and static projects. I I won in some of the static projects area. I won in showmanship for chickens and I got a blue ribbon for showing a hobby for chickens. And I love how all the staff
are really kind in 4 and I really like 4. So I recommend it to all my friends and I think 4 is just a great experience. >> Thank you. >> Hi, my name is Luke McKay. Um I've been
in 4 years and something I really enjoyed this year is uh showing goats. uh my um my uh my like my club members uh let me show their goats because they had an extra
one. And um I just had like a really great time showing it and I want everybody else to have the same experience I did. And I hope that um that just like it goes great even though I didn't really win but
um I I uh did the 4 lunch lunch stand this year and I uh worked the ice cream booth. Um, it's called the Little Red Barn and >> Okay. >> It's just a great way to make friends and everything and I just uh hope that
we can just keep on doing the county fair because it's awesome. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Hi. Um, my name is Eve McKay and I have been involved with 4 years. Um I would say that before joining 4 I really
didn't understand the impact uh and value of leadership and then once I joined 4 and became a ambassador I really started to learn how important leadership skills were. Um and not only
did I learn teaching young children but I learned to teach to peers which were kids like my own age which before that was honestly kind of terrifying. um and then to even adults. Um and I just want
to thank Benton County for these skills that I know that I will have with me for my entire life. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Hi, my name is Anna McKay. Um I've been in for five years and I showed my
chickens at the county fair this year. and I was getting >> typical. >> Yeah. >> I had an amazing judge who really helped me um show how chicks are shown and how
to care for them. Uh and because of all the wonderful people in 4 and because of my judge, I was able to take it to the state state fair for the very first time. And um it was so much fun and filled with really great learning experience.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And you did a good job too. >> Ain't that wonderful? Okay. Don't we read the national >> Yep. Thanks guys for the bravery. All right. So um Benton County for each week proclamation. Whereas 4 is America's
largest um youth development organization having supported almost 6 million youth across the county thus far. Whereas 4 has helped 492 youth this past year in Benton County to become confident, independent, resilient and compassionate leaders. Whereas 4 is
delivered by cooperative extension, a community of more than 100 public universities across the nation that provides experiences where youth learn by using hands-on projects in areas including health, science, agriculture, and citizenship. And whereas national 4 week showcases the incredible
experiences that 4 offers young people and highlights the remarkable 4 youth in Bang County who work each day to make a positive impact on those around them. And whereas 4 network 600,000 volunteers and 3,500 professional provides care and supportive mentoring to all foreers
helping them to grow into true leaders, entrepreneurs and visionaries. Where therefore we the board of Benton County commissioners do hereby proclaim October 5th to the 11th 2025 as 4 week throughout Benton County and encourage all of our citizens to recognize 4 for
the significant impact it has made and continues to make by empowering youth with the skills they need to lead for a lifetime. >> So move Mr. Chair >> second move. It's been moved and seconded to proclaim October 5th to the
11th of 2025 National 4 week. All in favor? >> I opposed. Carried. And I will I will have to say that I was I had some time on Wednesday we had an AMC extension. Yeah. And I went through the first time in a number of years I went through the exhibits on the second floor and I was
amazed at how many Benton counties. I seen the muffins that I did just out of pure luck. I was, you know, going by and I was looking, you know, whose county they basically look for. And I was I was totally amazed at how many Benton County people were in the exhibit building. something that we probably haven't seen
for a number of years. >> It's been a number as it keeps growing. >> It actually has been uh when I first came there's maybe 18 or 19 that would go down for general >> and you could find many you know food allergy ones was a big one. It was on a like a bulletin board out there. >> Yep. That was food allergies or Yeah.
>> So, >> and his food allergy when he did it for the leaders council, he had people waiting and talking to him at the end for a long time to the point where I finally just said, "You guys are safe. I'm leaving now." Um because they had a lot of questions. So very important information was given out there. >> I think it's fair to say every time we
go to AMC conference 4 in Benton County brought up. >> Yeah. I was >> That's good to hear. >> I was with the commissioner from Dakota County and we were walking and he goes, "Wow." He said, "Benton County has got a lot here in Dakota County. You know, population is a lot larger, but their 4 is they got a great 4 program, but
probably not as good as ours right now. >> So, >> and we are pretty much the ball, right? >> Can we get a picture or can we congratulations everybody? >> Congratulations. Thank you. >> Sure. >> Yeah, they want a picture. >> All right. >> Can we get to that picture now? And >> Yeah. Oh, sure. >> You take the picture.
>> That means all you guys are >> everyone else picture. >> We'll let them guys stand up on the ledge. So, you guys are a little higher than us. Jonathan. Yeah, you guys do a little little cute
squat that we do. >> There you go. >> Do a little little bit of the squat. >> No, not you stand up. Usually, yeah, usually I'm in the front telling what to do. >> Thank you so much.
>> Thank you guys for what you do. >> Thank you for letting us >> used to feel it anymore. >> Walk right up to it, though. coming back for more. >> That's the next one. >> Yep. So,
Sock Rabbits, the TIFF here, Todd. Well, first of all, thank you very much uh board members for uh being willing to add this to your agenda. This um originally we had planned on bringing this to the county board uh next Monday, and we just found out late last week that there isn't going to be a county
board meeting uh next uh next Monday. So, we were scrambling last week. Um, by state law, for what we're asking or what we're planning on doing here in the city, before the city of Sock Rapids can consider it, uh, the county and the school district have to consider it first. And so, we had already advertised
our public hearing notifications for the 22nd of September. And, uh, we found out, uh, late last Thursday that, uh, that that wasn't going to work. And so, we were either going to have to readvertise or or, uh, somehow change that public hearing notice. So, so appreciate uh the board being willing to consider this uh very much this morning.
So, just a little background on the project. What this is is a 76 unit uh market rate apartment. Uh this would be located on Mayhew Lake Road, kind of right across uh Mayhew Lake Road from the new truck garages that uh that are getting constructed uh in the industrial
park by uh by Gary Poch. >> This is a one that's been going on for quite some time. Correct. Yeah, this is actually uh something that the city approved I think in 2005 or 2006 along with the residential development that happened there. Um and uh
we've been working I guess quite extensively over the last five or six years with a local developer to try to make a project work on this property and they just couldn't do it. um they just couldn't get the rate of return with TIFF and uh and uh fee reductions to uh
to ult ultimately get to a rate of return that they were comfortable with. So recently uh earlier this year they sold the property to a developer Raider Baxter area. Um, this uh this developer has more typically been in the uh single family residential uh realm of things,
not so much in the multifamily realm of things, but earlier this year, he built his first apartment in Becker um and then purchases property to do his second uh his second project uh related to uh multifamily. Um when he first came to the city, he was requesting uh a lot of
assistance, a lot of public assistance to make the project work. put together a performer for us that we had reviewed by our financial uh uh consultants and associates and uh after reviewing their perform they believe that uh the project uh does work with eight years of tiff it
does not give him an unreasonable rate of return and in fact his rate of return is a little over 8% and I can say that uh I've been with the city 23 years uh 23 years ago there's nobody that had done an apartment project for a return of a little over 8% but that's how things have changed over the years if
you want to do residential you have to be willing to have a much less uh rate of return than what used to be the norm. Um so what we're uh what we're asking you well and also then one other point with this project this is a market rate housing project. Uh traditionally you
cannot use tax increment financing for market rate housing but last year the legislature passed new legislation that does allow uh and it's actually called workforce housing. It does allow for multifamily market rate housing to uh to use tax increment financing um if it can
be defined as workforce housing which is what we're doing here. Um but there are a couple other hurdles that uh that we have to overcome to call it workforce housing. Uh one we have to demonstrate that there is a vacancy rate within I believe that's a 20 mile radius of the project of less than 3% um in apartment
buildings and uh we've been able to demonstrate that. Um the second thing is is we have to have a letter from a local employer um saying or stating that there is in fact a need for workforce housing in the area. And I think most of us realize realize that and that shouldn't be too difficult. And then the last
thing is typically when cities use tax, excuse me, tax increment financing, the city doesn't have to go to the county and the school district asking for approval. Um, typically the only thing that we have to do at that point is we have to go to the county board and the school district if we're asking them in
a in terms of timing um to what's called wave fiscal disparities. And that's essentially a 30-day comment period that counties and school districts get to inform the city if they believe that there's going to be some additional costs that the city should be aware of relative to the project. In this
particular case, we're asking the county board to wave that 30-day fiscal disparities uh review like we typically do. But also one other thing, and that is the county in this case, because it's a workforce housing tiff plan also has to approve the tiff plan. That's what's
unique about workforce housing. So that's what we're asking you uh to consider uh this morning um in the resolution that uh that you have in front of you is a waiver of the fiscal disparities and then also approval of the tiff plan. So I'll entertain any questions that the board might have.
>> Any questions? >> Mr. Chair, >> Commissioner Hiner, Commens, you guys aware this is the first I've seen it so I'm that's why I'm asking. M >> M Mr. Chair, I wasn't aware of this, but I' I was aware of the project for this has been going on for quite some time,
and it's been a little tough to get off the ground. I I know originally it was the driveways in and out of that that uh complex at one point cuz it started where we weren't going to let a driveway come in off of one, so we had to come in
off the residential area. >> Correct. >> But um from my stand and this is the only plot in this district, right? >> Correct. This is the only one that could have a uh an apartment building on it. And kind of a side note on that, um Sock Rapids, Sock Rapids is doing with
apartments is a little bit unique. And I think Steve and Jared might be aware of this from their time uh at the city. Um when I started at Sock Rapids about 23 years ago, uh the worst area in our town for police calls was essentially that Highway 15 corridor where we have a
bunch of apartments. Mhm. >> Um it's traditional with planning and zoning that you segregate uses together, right? You put commercial together, industrial together, single family together. And what we found uh over the years is that one of the problems with putting all of the apartments together
is ultimately apartments change hands. Often times they change hands right after they're constructed. Sometimes people will hold on to them until they're at the point of having to be maintained for the first time, having to invest in new carpeting and countertops and things like that, and then they'll switch uh they'll switch hands. Um, and
what we've noticed over the years is that when you end up with one bad apartment owner, um, that doesn't care about maintenance, doesn't care about who they rent to, it doesn't matter if the two apartments next to them care or not because nobody will want to live in those apartments either. And then
eventually that spreads to that entire apartment districts and you end up with a lot of problems. And so, uh, what we've done recognizing that is we spread apartments out over the city. Um, we're not putting them all together. We're putting them in one residential neighborhood over here, another residential neighborhood over there. And
so this is an example of that. This is something that we actually approved in 2005. Um, and then right after the Great Recession, it was purchased by somebody that sat on the land. They were from Alaska, uh, waiting for an opportunity to sell. And they sold it to a local developer here about 5 years ago. The
local developer has built apartments in Sock Rapids, but he just wasn't able to make his numbers work, or at least to the point that he was comfortable with his rate of return. And so he sold it to this person up in Brainer uh at Baxter. I do apologize for the county board not getting a little bit more heads up uh on this. Um as I said, I thought that this
was going to be coming to the county board next week. I had a meeting actually scheduled with uh Steve and Jared um earlier or excuse me later today to talk about this and actually a couple other projects that we have going on at Sock Rapids. Uh so uh so I apologize for uh for this coming to you guys a little bit cold.
>> Mr. Chair, is this a 9-year tiff is what I'm >> eight? Okay. Yeah. Workforce housing is an 8-year term >> and I think it's fair to say that the the crime is still in that area where >> Yep. >> where where you mentioned earlier. So >> I I live up by that area and yes, you
see it every day. >> Well, that's probably why there's crime. >> Yeah. Right. >> Well, it could be. You know, >> just Mr. Chair Todd, just to clarify, so I'm I'm trying to follow the process here. >> Yeah. So, typically we would have seen this today for a move on it on the 20 on our next board meeting, but because we
moved our meeting to the 23rd, that would be after your meeting. >> Correct. >> That's why we're moving this thing up. So, >> correct. Okay. Again, I'm not It's not that I'm not supportive. I just One of the things on here says the board's reviewed and discussed the TIF plan. Well, >> we have now. >> Yeah. >> You know what I'm saying? I just want to
make sure I'm understanding the timeline and the why. >> Sure. Yep. No, understand. That's And you're correct. Okay. >> We would have been in front of you next week >> and we would have typically seen it anyways because we do have to sign off on it. >> Correct. Okay. >> Yep. >> And from my from my from my standpoint, this is something that I'm in favor of
because it's not like we have anything right now. >> Right. >> And if you look at anything that Sartell has done, they've all done in tiff district areas uh up until I mean that's how they built all the medical areas and everything like that. It's one of these things that can start spurring
development, especially with that corridor that we we've been talking about on one. >> It sounds like with this particular project, it can be used for workforce for the tiff and that gives us market rate. >> Yep. >> And that's and that's how it's designed and why it was designed that for the
tiff project. Mr. I'm sorry. >> Yep. No, I'm not. Go ahead, >> Mr. Schultz. How many tiff districts do you have left yet in soccer? >> Oh, Mr. Chair, that's that's a good question. This is our 26th Excuse me. 26th tiff tiff district over our history, right? >> Um not very many of them are open
anymore though. Um >> four, five or six I would say that we currently have open. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I apologize. I can't answer that question. >> Didn't mean to put you on the spot, Todd. >> And most of those are for commercial versus residential. Correct. That was my next question if they were all
apartments or commercial. >> Yeah. And Mr. Chair, it's it is it is something that we hadn't really traditionally done. uh tiff apartment projects and because of the statute uh you can't do it for market rate which is something that we tend to do a lot of in so Rapids when we do apartments um we
did do one during the great recession there was a two-year period where uh the legislature allowed cities to tiff really whatever they wanted and so we did that large apartment project on Highway 10 um that's uh I guess just a little bit south of the Golden Spike
Road exit um that's a Torberg project a very large project and uh and we tiff that to the full extent that we are allowed to by law to get that project off the ground and it's either the first or second biggest taxpayer in the city right now. Uh it's been a very successful project. We also did the one
in the downtown that was a redevelopment tiff tiff district that also has been a very successful uh project not just from the developers perspective but also from a taxing perspective uh for the local entities. We're doing very well with these. Our financial director has told
me that within four to five years, this particular one that we're talking about today will be our will be within our top 10 taxpayers in the city. >> Okay. >> I would uh I would move to approve the or support the the tiff district for the
city of Sock Rapids >> and wave >> and and period. >> Yeah. And wave the um the visitation or the the the period of uh response. Yeah, pretty Davis. And I'll second that. >> Okay. Motion to made and seconded to approve the TIFF district and to wave
the 30-day >> comment period. >> Comment period. >> Thank you. >> Any other discussion? >> Hearing none. All in favor? >> I opposed. Carrie. >> Thank you very much. >> Thanks, Todd. I'll give you a call later. I got to talk about the meeting. >> Yeah. Are we still going to get together later?
>> Um, that would be the plan. I might have to do it um over the over phone because I got another appointment, but >> Okay. It's all good. Thank you. Thanks, >> Sheriff Hec. >> Good morning, commissioners. >> Morning. >> So, I have a couple of contracts today
for you uh that I've previewed in some previous presentations. We are uh seeking to change food vendors in the jail. Uh this uh this was spurred by some conversation we had earlier this year about the cost of uh the cost of
that particular line item in the jail. So we had gone out and uh sought some new bids. After uh some lengthy negotiations, uh we have a couple contracts that are ready to uh ready to sign that would transition us from our
current vendor of Summit Foods to our new vendor, Skillet Kitchens, on October 1st. So the contract amendment from Summit Foods uh since we have been using them since February of 2025 under 2024
prices that will bring the price that uh we expected to reimburse Summit Foods for up to the 2025 rate. So there'll be some back pay that'll that'll uh be done there and that will end our relationship on October 1st with Summit Foods and the
Skillet contract picks up on October 1st at the um much reduced rates that Skillet is asking of us and that will continue for um for three years with options to extend each year annually. Uh we anticipate this is going to save
us at least 35 to $40,000 each year in food costs. Hopefully it will be more than that. >> Mr. Chair, >> yes. >> What what do you see the difference? I mean 35,000 a year is a lot of money.
>> Well, my suspicion is they are likely buying our business. Um I I I think that's a a real possibility in that in subsequent years the the price will likely go up. However, um we think the service that we're going to get from
Skillet is going to be better than what we've seen from Summit lately that there they've had some struggles lately and we've been um going through those with them. We hope to have better service from Skillet. And if that also gives us the opportunity to save some money over
the next three, four years, I think that's a win for the county, >> right? Yeah. So, 100 bucks a day. >> Yeah. Right. >> Mr. Chair Sheriff, just so I'm clear, and I realize this is a next agenda item with Summit, but am I seeing that we'll
save 35 grand with Skillet, but because of the back pay to Summit, it's going to be an additional 287? >> Not an additional 287, a total of 287 for the 10 months period >> of the eight eight or nine months that we'll uh have Summit as our food vendor. Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions? I think, you know, this has been coming back and forth over the years on how it's went up. >> Yes. >> And it's continually increased. So, >> I'll move approval of the contract with Skillet K Skillet Kitchens uh for the
three years. >> I'll second. >> Motion been made and seconded to approve the contract with Skillet Kitchens for jail service for three years. All in favor, >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. >> Thank you for checking in on this. I know this is a topic every year cuz for the last since I've been on the board,
it's been going up up up and up and we finally get something whether they're buying our business or not. It's a way for us to >> reset that a little bit. >> And try to lower costs as much and >> even if it comes later on with an increase, it's still probably going to
be >> y >> lower than what we have. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Um all in favor? >> I opposed carried. And so the next item just dubtales in as I stated. We uh we've approved the skillet kitchen contract. So now we need
to approve the amendment that terminates our relationship with Summit. >> Motion to approve the amendment with Summit. >> Second motion made second to approve the amendment with Summit Foods. Any other questions or discussion? All in favor?
>> I oppose. Carried. >> Thanks. Maybe just thank Summit for all their work for us over the last years. Even though they they've went up, it's just like everything everything goes up. So >> yeah, >> we may need them in the future. >> Certainly. >> Thank you. >> Thank you,
>> Monty. As Mr. Chair, Jackie Trout as benefits advisory committee chair will take us through the next three items. >> Morning, Jackie. >> Morning. Good morning. >> Morning. >> Good morning. As Monty mentioned, I'm here as the chair of the benefits
advisory committee. Um, we've actually been working very closely with the culture team as well. Um, and we've been very busy. So, we kind of have a marathon of items here today, but I'm not doing it alone. Um, the first agenda item that I have is regarding the um,
the funding for 2026 for our health insurance and Amy is here from Marshia McClennon Agency to give their recommendation what our funding should be for 2026. Jackie, I know Amy would like us to share screen. Can you do that or would you like me to do that for you?
>> Um, if you don't mind, >> I will take care of it. Okay. >> I think she's got a PowerPoint and if it So, okay. All right. You are now the presenter.
>> Um, Amy. >> All righty. And if it doesn't work, uh, we have the presentation here locally. So, Oh, you're good. We see it. >> Excellent. >> All right. >> It's a little loud. Let me turn it down just a little bit here. >> Uh, let's see.
>> Well, thank you members of the board for allowing me to be in front of you again to share um some updates that we've got. As Jackie mentioned, there's been a lot of activity this year, and I really have to commend the BAC and the culture committee for really diving into an
employee survey that was taken a little over a year ago and taking all that feedback um and really doing a lot of work on the employee benefit plans this year. So, um, Jackie is going to go into that deeper. Uh, but what I will share with
you is I want to give you a little bit of an overview on how the plan is currently running and then our recommendation uh for the renewal and then Jackie will go into some of the other pieces. We've really got good news
this year. The Benton County plan is running very well in particularly in comparison to what we're seeing overall market. This is some information that we go over monthly with the committee. Uh, one of the good advantages of being self-funded
is you get to see live data and you get to see what's happening in the year uh, as we go along. So, there really aren't any surprises and this year we have seen good things all along. >> So, what you're looking >> Sorry, >> Amy, are you advancing through your
presentation because it hasn't changed for us? Um, I am >> okay. We've we sometimes have lag issues. So, here's what we'll do is we'll switch to us and then we won't have the lag issue. >> Okay, that sounds good. I will stop sharing then.
>> Can you just stop from your end? >> We're on slide two. >> Yeah. >> Three. >> We Let's stick with it for a second here. You did you did already got out. >> Get back in.
There it is. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Okay. Great. >> All right. So, what you're looking at here is we're looking at year to date and then the left column or the column further over the 2025 projected January
through December is how we're anticipating the year is going to end. And a couple of key things to call out here. The 74.4% 4%. This is how you're running towards the funding coming from both employees and the county. To be at
74% with claims through July is a very good place to be. We know towards the end of the year that number is going to go up because more of the deductibles and the out-of pockets, the portions that the employees and plan participants pay um have been satisfied. So, the plan
will begin to take on more of those costs. But as we look at this, a couple of things to notice right here where you see carrier expected total costs and MMA expected total costs and actual. So carrier expected, this is where Blue
Cross, as of right now, Blue Cross was thinking total plan costs would be run about 2.1 million. We were actually thinking they'd be at 2.2 million. You are running at 1.8 million. So, a dramatic decrease
from the last several years. Um, and again, very good to see, but that's been really consistent. So, we're very happy with that number. We've also been able to add about six a little over $600,000 to the reserve. Um, we anticipate we're
going to dip into that a little bit as the year to just a little over 600,000, but we're projecting by the end of the year to be sitting at about 1.7 million. Our target is about 1.8 or an equivalent to six months in reserve. Um, and a
little bit of how we use that as a target. It's going to take about three months worth of claim dollars or three months worth of reserve if we ever had to shut the plan down to pay out runout claims. So that gives us a little cushion equivalent to about three months
that if in years when we have really high increases, and we've had had a couple of those, we can put some of the reserve at risk to bring down those increases. And again, one of our goals when um Benton County first went self-funded was we want to try to level
off any increases. We don't want steep increases followed by a big drop. We want to try to keep that to a rolling hill. Uh and that's really where having that reserve balance has helped us. And over here in the blue box, these are just the current funding rates that your
current plans have. So that's a little bit of how the plan overall is running. This is another piece that really tells a good story. This is going back four years and we're looking year to date on what the PMP PM claim trends. So that's
per member per month. So every belly button, what are those costs looking like? And as of right now, we are down almost 30% to the previous years at $342. Last year we were sitting at $484 and that leveled off a little bit to
$463. So what that means is for every belly button per month, we are anticipating claim costs to be $34,2.33 every month for every person. So that's another really positive trend to see as
we go into the underwriting phase. This is looking at from our underwriters of where they're looking at a claims or a funding need to fund to expect it. And right now that's looking at 1%. Now
expected means just to cover current claim costs. Not looking at any price increases down the future, but just where our current claims are trending and our current fixed costs are looking like for 2026.
You will notice up here we also have a 5% margin that we add on to the claim cost. That increases our likelihood of being correct. And I'm going to show you an illustration of that. We also use that if there are times we need to build a little bit more in the reserve. And as
I show had shown on the previous page, we anticipated we're going to be about $130,000 short of our six-month target in our reserve. So we may want just a little bit more of a bump in there to give us better odds of accurately underwriting
this. Now, here is a good illustration. This light blue line, this is if we just fund at a 1% increase, we have a 56% chance of being accurate. So, you know, 50% of
the time we're going to underfund, 50% of the time we're going to overfund. Now, if our reserve is really healthy, we're pretty comfortable with having that margin. But by just increasing it 5%, that increases the accuracy to 78%.
Now again as we started looking and having some really good discussions with both Monty and the board of what's happening within Benton County um we are coming to settle in on a recommendation of 3%
and we feel that the 3% will set Benton County up well into 2026 and potentially into 2027 where we're anticipating the collaborative as a whole which Benton County participates may have some higher
fixed cost uh rates particularly within stoploss because we were not able at this time to secure a stop-loss cap for Blue Cross Blue Shield. Um we are still making that request and trying to make our case but that's why we feel the additional 2% above expected will really
position the plan well. So 3% is our recommended increase. You're going to notice some other changes on this particular sheet that Jackie is going to go into, but for right now, I will stop and see if there are any questions that any of you have.
>> Any questions, Mr. Chair? >> I remember just a couple years ago, we were in tough shape. Yeah. >> On this. And that's where, you know, I I I appreciate the 1% all the way up to, you know, the 5%. I I I I I
support the 3% but I'm more comfortable with the five just for the fact that I would rather have a little more in there to to go off of because as we know one year can set us up set us back a long ways. >> Well, you know, coming back as long as we've been in this um I seen the when we
were really good and then you you know what happened? We've had some horrific claims and we took it down to where we were when you came on when you you know. Yeah. So it it does happen, but from my standpoint, it looks like you can kind of ride that out as we go. I think, you
know, we did a great job. Sure, we had some pretty hefty increases, but you have to if you got them. And maybe >> maybe employers are doing a better job out there. You the employees are doing a better job as far as that goes, too. So, >> well, and and the insurance is there for
when you need it, >> right? you know, so if people have claims that they've paid it, they paid for it and >> over the years and they should should have the right to that. But I'm I'm almost wondering if that 5% would instead of giving it more of a hump two years down the road, maybe it evens that
out a little bit more. >> I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. This just a recommendation for this coming year for 3%. you know, >> we'll have another recommendation the following year if we have a >> lower or a high.
>> Amy, any thoughts on that conversation? Um, you know, I tend to be conservative um on this and originally we were at 5% was our original tenative. Um, and with some of the changes that the committee has made and like I said some some
discussions that were going on with maybe some other um things that are happening within the county, I think that 3% um is is still a good recommendation. But you're absolutely correct. Does 5%
give us more um and potentially increase our likelihood that we're sitting even better? Yes, it is a really tight balancing act. And as of right now, you know, we're only looking at seven months worth of claims. If the year continues
like it is right now, we are going to be we'll be solid. if all of a sudden we start to see some spikes to put a little bit of some variability into it. But even finishing the year at 1.7 million,
that's a good it's a good strong reserve. But I like the fact that you're remembering how this can go um and and are having that long-term outlook. What >> because I think that's very appropriate. What would uh on on the average person,
what would that extra 2% from three to five be? >> Um is $3, $5. >> Um if I I'll quick look and see where we
were sitting. Well, you know what? Actually, um sorry, I shouldn't have uh closed this video. Um we were do and I it's the the total cost right now at 1%
you're looking at about a $42,000 increase. If we did the 4.7 it would go up to a $200,000 increase between both the county and employees >> employees >> and that's illustrated on slide three.
>> Mr. Chair, uh do we only have let's see two questions. When will we review 25 like right away in January or when do we see those results? And secondly, do we only have one shot at this 3%. I mean, if we you come back with a report in January, February says, "Oh, this thing
fell out of the water." Can we raise it to five at that point or do we only have one shot >> on December? >> So, uh, at some point the rates will become solidified in labor agreements. Mhm. >> Uh so it's it's more of a challenge to
make changes once those agreements are settled. >> Okay. >> So uh are they changeable potentially? Uh but you'd have to negotiate. >> Have to go back to all your labor. >> Mr. Chair, >> this is more of a question for Jackie as I know you've been working hard with the
the culture team. >> Would this be a game changer if we went to five versus three? I mean, you look at it, it just it it solidifies the future, but yet it it is an increase. >> I don't think it would change any of our
upcoming recommendations. >> Okay. >> Cuz initially we like Amy said, her tenative recommendation to us was we were probably going to have a 5% increase. Um, and it wasn't until probably about a week ago that we found out that it was a 3%.
>> Okay. And we haven't been negotiating with the unions on health insurance at all. So that could come into play if we went from, you know, because we do 80 80 85% of that cost. So it would be a added cost to the counties.
>> It makes sense to split the banana go. >> That's where I was that's honestly where I was going to go with the next one. I like that thought. >> One thing to mention uh too, Mr. here is that with the current funding level, we're still building reserves at a decent pace.
>> Again, at the current funding level, so I think maybe that's where Amy's coming from is that you know why she thinks the 3% is good is >> even even without that increase, we're building reserves now, >> right?
>> And we know that can turn around in a flash. Mhm. >> You know, one thing I would mention, I know we we did have some some really bad years and one of the reasons is there was a there was a catastrophic case which was quote lasered out >> and and it the reinsurance did not pay
it. We were just paying dollar for dollar out of our fund and that was one big reason why our reserves >> plummeted so much and I believe the laser concept is a thing of the past. Is that correct Amy? That a laser >> that's correct. We do not have that in
our contract cross. >> So that was again a very catastrophic case which we again reinsurance did not cover. >> That makes sense for wouldn't it make sense why it's only 3%. >> At 3% and I look at it we still could build reserves to 1.8
1.9 by next year. >> Yeah. But as we know health health care or health insurance you know the premiums keep going up. >> Yeah. >> You know what I mean? So, we got to make sure we're keeping up with that and it's not dipping back into the reserves. And like I said, a couple clients, well,
now we got the reinsurance, too. So, and some perspective, you know, right now from what we're seeing in the marketplace and we're seeing with our other clients, anything under 10% is a really good renewal this year. >> I would say more of the averages are
coming in between 15 and 25, particularly under the fully insured groups. Um, so it has been a tough year on health insurance. Um, so Benton County is doing very well probably comparative
to a lot of your other neighboring counties or employers. >> And would you say that last year it was not nearly this for the other counties? >> Um, last year was a little bit tougher.
Benton again has had a a good renewal last year. So, we've had two very consistent years of claim costs. Um, and we've also seen a steady drop in high cases. Um, now you can often say this has been very steady, so we could
anticipate, you know, a little bit more going up, but that's also factored into the underwriting. You know, the underwriting is really based on Benton County's claims. Um, and some of those years that were very co high cost um are factored in there.
You know, last year when we saw claims 30% higher than we're seeing them right now, that experience is factored into this renewal calculation. >> I still like the 4%. Well, and talking about perspective is puts us in a unique perspective to be
able to potentially build our funds reserves up a titch higher. >> Yeah. >> And we're way we're that much lower than the average. Right. So >> it it allows us when we do have that 10 or 12% increase to go down to that 8%.
>> Probably probably right. >> It's my favorite saying. It's a gift that keeps giving. >> Yeah. >> Until it doesn't. I don't know about health insurance if that 50. >> Yeah. >> So, this is an action I don't mind taking it. It is. Yeah. We look to you
to consider the recommendation from MMA and um then uh those are the rates that we take into labor negotiations and which we would then adopt for our non-UN employees as of January 1st. So, >> Mr. Chair, Monty, can I put you on the
spot? Are you opposed to a 4%? >> I don't think it's necessary. I think 3% is is is is completely adequate. You know, again, looking at how we're building reserves at a good clip. Uh we're getting quite close to our reserve target. I think 3% is totally adequate. Yeah.
>> And I think I take into consideration Monty's been here from day one when we started the self. >> So feel so >> I'll move for the 3% then increase. A second. >> Motion been made and seconded to approve the 3% increase in health insurance for
2025. Any other discussion? >> 2026. >> 2026. I'm sorry. >> All Any other discussion? All in favor? >> I opposed. Carried. >> Thank you, Amy. >> Thank you, Amy. >> All right, moving on. We have several
changes that we're recommending as the BA that we make to our health insurance plan. So on the agenda item, I kind of broke them out into three different categories. Um the first one is we would like to add a new high deductible
option. So currently we have the 300 deductible HSA in the 6,000 family and then for VIBA it's 3,00 6,000. So we wanted to give employees another opportunity um to have a even higher deductible less making the contribution
rate even less. So we wanted to introduce a 5,000 10,000 viva and HSA plan. Um the second recommendation that we had was to adjust the current plan deductibles. So like I'd mentioned currently the HSA for the single has a
$3,300 deductible and that's because of IRS regulations. They keep increasing that a little bit every year and in 2026 it's actually going to be 3,400. So the single keeps going up and the family we just been keeping the same. So we kind of wanted to realign everything again.
So we wanted to make the viva and HSA be 346800 for 2026 to kind of bring everything back in line. In the past, they were actually both 3,000 6,000 until the IRS came in and we had to quickly adjust that to be
compliant. So, that would be our second recommendation. Our third recommendation, I will say this one was probably the toughest um for our team to vote on and make a decision. We've heard for several years
um employees come to us asking us, why do we just have the option of single and family? I am a husband and wife and I have to take family coverage. I am a wife and one child as a dependent. Why do I have to take family coverage? Um, and we've looked into this several
times, but we couldn't, it wasn't beneficial for us at the time. Um, we decided to look into it one more time. Um, and I included in your agenda items kind of what that would look like. Um, with the funding recommendation.
Um, and the BAC did decide to move forward with this recommendation after we did a quick survey just asking the simple question, yes or no. With these proposed funding numbers, do you approve? Would you support this? And we had about 72% say that they would
support having a four tier plan rather than a two-tier plan. Um, and the reason being that this was such a hard decision is it's not a win-win all across the board. there are some options that would see an increase while others would see a
decrease. So that's why it was a hard recommendation for the BAC to make. But in the end, we do recommend that we expand our coverage tiers from two being single and family to four. And we do add a um employee plus spouse and employee
plus child or children. Is there any questions on our health insurance recommendation? >> Would it be employee plus child or children? >> Child or children? >> Children or children. >> The way Amy explained it to us is even
though children go to the doctor quite frequently, usually the treatment that they need is much less expensive than a grown adult. So, a child or children would be actually a a lower contribution
rate than an employee plus spouse. >> Okay. Jackie, I'm wondering is could you and and or Amy uh cover the the premium estimates that are on page that are in the handout. I believe that's page two if I'm looking at that correctly.
You try to get some simulation of what those premiums would be with the new uh four tiers versus the existing tiers. Yeah, >> Amy, you are welcome to chime in at any time, but yeah, as Monty said, we kind of gave um what the two-tier versus four
tier would look like. Um, and you can kind of see another thing that we would recommend is or what we proposed is kind of making the current VIBA and HSA cost very similar. Um, so you'll see for single whether you're in Viva or HSA
stay stays the same, but you can see as you work yourself down to employee plus spouse, employee plus children and family, the different prices there. >> And u, if I recall correctly, Jackie, you all did a survey. What was the survey results on that?
>> So, the survey, we had 166 employees respond to the survey and um we gave kind of examples like you're seeing here of what premium or contribution rates would look like and we simply asked one question saying if Benton County moved
to a four- tier medical plan off um offering single um plus employee or children, employee plus spouse and family, would you support this option? And then the option of yes or no. Um, and 72% said yes that they would support this. 28% said no, they would not. And
that was kind of our deciding factor. Like I said, the BAC had a hard time make trying to decide if we were going to move this way or not. But once we got those survey results and see that a large majority of employees supported this, that's kind of why we move forward with the recommendation. >> Okay.
Any questions on that? I think, you know, 72% of the employees wish to go that route. Mr. Chair, may I ask Amy Amy, could you educate us briefly on this HSA deductible issue, the IRS? Why does that
go up and why must why must we follow suit? >> Yes, great question. Uh the IRS rates govern the plan rules for lack of a better term and they have something that's called in an embedded deductible
within an HSA. And in order to keep the deductible embedded, they set certain thresholds at what the single rate could be. >> For if you just have single coverage, this really doesn't matter to you. If
you have more than yourself covered under the health plan, it becomes particularly important to maintain that embedded status. And what that means is let's say within your the example of the we'll say the 346800
plan. If we did not maintain or if we did not increase that single deductible to 3,400 and I am a family coverage instead of any one individual under my
plan having their out-ofpocket maximum reached at the individual level of 3,400 they could go all the way up to that 6800. >> Okay. Right now with that embedded status, any one individual automatically stops at the single deductible or the
single out-of- pocket maximum. >> Yeah. >> So it's a significant impact like when we were talking about some of those high cases that you've experienced in the past. >> Yeah. >> Usually it's just one member within the family. And so if I had that at that 6,800 level, that one person's out-of-
pocket maximum would go all the way up to 6,800 and that would satisfy everybody in the family. If we maintain that embedded, that would stop at 3,400. >> So it really reduces that exposure. >> Thank you. >> During COVID, the IRS did not make
adjustments and then right after COVID, all of a sudden they started kind of playing catch-up and it's gone up a $100 every year since then. Thank you. >> Anything else? So, Mr. Chair, uh in looking for your consideration of the BC
recommendations and u whatever you approve, we'll take that into labor negotiations and of course then uh carry also to non-UN employees Janu for effective January 1. Of course, it's it's important for employees to know uh what the health insurance plan is going
to look like as they make decisions about open enrollment, which is in >> November. >> November. Yeah. So, >> Mr. Chair, I are we still sticking with the Blue Cross Blue Shield. Is that the plan? >> So, Blue Cross, of course, are selfunded. They're the plan
administrator. Yes. I So Amy is has that been put out to bid recently or is there a plan for that to go out to bid anytime in the future? >> Uh we will be within our five years every 5 years we have to go out and so in 2027 we would need to go out for
coverage for 2028. So as of right now for 2026 we plan to stay with Blue Cross Blue Shield. >> Yeah. >> We may need to look for other stop-loss coverage in 2027 >> should not be favorable. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. >> I'll move approval of the four tier plan. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second make motion and second to move to the four tier plan. Is any other >> disc? There's there of course there's two other aspects to the u the BAC
recommendation. What's your thoughts about the other two uh aspects? You want to do those one at a time perhaps or? So just for clarification, Mont, you're talking about addition of a new high deductible option. Yep. >> Adjustment of the plan deductibles and expansion of the coverage tiers. >> Yes, sir. Yep. Those
>> the high deductible. I mean that it doesn't >> Yeah. I call it super high. That's right. Those those three pieces fine. >> Yeah. >> It'll be there, right? >> Yeah. Because that actually helps the county, too, >> right? >> Commissioner Pinsky, are you considering adjusting your motion to include all
three? >> Yes. All three of them. >> Yep. And I'll second. >> So motion been made in sec seconded to ex exceed all three recommendations. >> Any other discussion? All in favor? I
>> I opposed. Carried. >> All right, we're going to continue on. Hang in there. Okay, so we covered our recommendations for health insurance changes. Um, if you remember, oh, um, earlier this year, I was in front of you and we asked to change our ancillary
insurance broker to Integrity. Um, and Integrity did go out and do an RFP for our life and long-term disability insurance. And Isaac is with us here today to kind of go over the results of those RFPs. And if Monty, if you're so willing, I believe Isaac is going to be
presenting. If you can push the magic buttons to give him the power. >> Okay. Let's see here. See, I I go here and I um I find him. I go make him the presenter.
>> Yeah, there you go. All right, Isaac, you should have seen a popup that says you're the presenter. >> All right. Thank you. Okay. Are you seeing my screen? >> Yes. >> Should be. All right. Uh commissioners, thank you. Good morning. Um, as Jackie
mentioned, uh, we recently became your, uh, broker of your ancillary benefits. So, that's your life insurance, long-term disability, and we're looking at an additional voluntary coverage with vision insurance, which we'll review here momentarily. um just after quick review of your life
and long-term disability plans, you know, uh it it uh presented itself to me that there might have been some opportunity for a couple of tweaks to those plans as well as just kind of check the market and see uh where that information is uh where your rates are
coming in uh in a competitive bid environment. So, we took the life and LTD out for RFP. The life insurance does have an employer paid component to it. So we treated that like a formal RFP making that available publicly. Uh there's some other
protocols around that. But um in addition to making that posted publicly and inviting solicitation uh or bids on that solicitation I should say we also distributed that RFP to this list of carriers about 20 carriers that included your incumbent carrier
Minnesota life. As I was reviewing that information, you've had that plan in place, this life insurance plan in place with Minnesota Life since 1978. So, um, it was time to just kind of take a fresh look at that and invite some competition.
Um, and so we had some really nice, uh, response, I would say. And, um, all in all, um, I I I should set this up one more time or with one more thing with both the life and long-term There was no particular motivation
um to change carriers from an administrative standpoint. Um Benton County has been pleased with the carriers um thus far, the incumbent carriers. So there's been no uh compelling reason to leave that way. This was simply just a check of the
market as well as introducing some uh plan enhancements along the way. So knowing that, you know, we were going into this uh giving that incumbent carrier some added favor um knowing that uh you know there's effort and cost and
energy that it would take to change carriers as well. So giving that extra emphasis on the incumbent. Uh I'm not going to dissect this in too much detail here, but uh very pleased to see Minnesota Life Insurance Company um they did reduce their uh basic life that
employer paid component by about 10% and then keeping all the other rates consistent. So no changes on the voluntary employee paid um and then a small reduction on the uh employer paid, county paid portion. doesn't add up to a
whole lot uh annually but a little bit of savings there. Um more important than that I would say was the plan enhancements and the the quotes on the plans that we got. So other carriers that were in the mix were
the Hartford, New York Life, Transame, Minnesota Life uh agreed to a couple of plan enhancements that we asked for. Uh this is based on our review. integrity employee benefits our review um relative
to the market. So we work with 64 other counties, 140 public entities across the state. So this is our specialty. A couple of enhancements that we wanted to uh ask for included
um increasing that spouse life, that voluntary spouse life from 150,000 to 250,000. Minnesota Life agreed to do that with no change on those rates. Another one which adds some uh
administrative advantage is removing the age reductions on the basic life insurance. So the employer paid component. Once an employee reaches age 65, those amounts get reduced and it just adds some administrative complexity as well as you know potentially some
confusion for those employees. So Minnesota Life agreed to those two changes along with the reduction in rates. Um so the recommendation from the BAC and our recommendation would be to adopt uh Minnesota Life's uh proposal
here with a three-year rate guarantee. That's not a three-year commitment. It's just a a guarantee of those rates. So if if you know something motivated you to want to change carriers next year or two years from now, you would have the freedom to do that. you just um can
enjoy these rates for three years. So recommendation being um adopt these plan enhancements and accept the uh the uh proposed rates uh to reduce the basic life on life
insurance. Uh Jackie, do you want me to pause there or do you want me to keep going through on all these benefits? >> I think we can keep moving on. >> Okay. Um, same drill here on the long-term disability. Uh, the incumbent carrier here is Madison National. Um, we
got quotes from a handful of other carriers in the market. I should add these carriers that we uh distributed the uh the RFP to that declined. It's not that they wouldn't be interested. It's just that they looked at your plan design, they looked at your rates, and
they decided it just didn't fit in their models very well. So um we got quotes from five carriers here including MS Madison National the incumbent. This one is a voluntary coverage. So this is an employee paid coverage
and uh Madison National came in very aggressive. This is not uncommon. uh when you start introducing some competition to the equation Madison National uh very consistently we see
this pattern uh from uh across our other groups when you start introducing competition um they reduce their rates. So they reduce their rates by about 25% that's fairly uniform across each age band here. There's a little bit of
variation from one age band to the next, but for the most part, 25% is consistent across each age band. Three-year rate guarantee here as well. Again, not a three-year commitment, but a three-year rate guarantee.
We asked for one plan enhancement, and that was to increase the maximum benefit amount, monthly benefit amount. Today, that maximum amount is $5,000. We asked that to be increased to 7,500
and that covers just more of your employees. That pretty much covers all of your employees. Um, just increases the amount of wage that that uh plan would cover. So, it just makes uh those employees more whole if they were to use a long-term disability uh have a
long-term disability claim. So, Madison National will honor that quoted rate and allow for that increased maximum. So that would be our recommendation. Again, giving favor to Madison National as the incumbent. Really good carrier administratively.
Um steady as she goes that way and uh you know have otherwise been pleased with them. So uh recommendation is to uh adopt these reduced rates with the increased um
maximum on the monthly um uh benefit. So that's the recommendation from the BAC and from us at Integrity. And then last but not least, this would be a new benefit. This is voluntary
vision insurance. And um you know, I'm just going to pull up a little display here. You guys would have actually seen this. You may not have it in your materials now, but uh when we presented and you you uh voted to use us as your broker, we had this information in
there. Um this includes information on uh for our book of business. Again, all public entities across the state. You know, how many groups are offering uh at the beginning of the year 137 groups in total. How many are offering any given
benefit? Right now, 98 of our groups have voluntary vision insurance in place. Average participation across those 25,000 employees is about 40%. So, it's a pretty popular benefit uh with
employees paying out of pocket. Um this was something that has come up. There's some feedback from employees. Uh Jackie would have more background on that. Um to look at voluntary vision insurance. So, we did that. We compared
um some poolled plan offerings that are available. And um couple key things about this is that there's not exam coverage here that's going to be paid for on your medical plan. So we're not we don't want to pay for that in two different places uh from a premium
standpoint. So this is savings on materials uh those glasses and contacts. $150 allowance for either those glasses or contacts in a given year. So essentially, you can think of it as you get a $150 of benefit as well as some
discounts on other options. Um, but you're really paying for less. So that employee only 610 a month, it's a non-taxable benefit. So 610* 12, it's non-t taxable. So I'm going to say 7 to
take taxes off. 5124 annually for the employee only. And then you would have a $25 co-pay on glasses. So you're looking at roughly $75 a year if you're going to get a pair of glasses. Uh but you get $150 of
allowance. Very simple uh way to illustrate that. Um so this again is a voluntary benefit paying uh with employee premiums and our recommendation is VSSP. The main reason
we're recommending that is the the uh benefits are going to be the best when you're staying in network and when we charted the the network in the area out. So looked at Foley, Malaca, St. Cloud, Sartell, Sak Rapids, Weight Park, these
are the number of clinics that are in network. Um you know VSSP had the uh best network. Metife actually uses the VSSP network. uh the recommendation to VSSP simply because um that's a
household name. Um a lot like Delta Dental. If you think of uh dental insurance, it's just a household name that uh people recognize, providers appreciate VSSP. They're very good administratively, um easy to work with. So that's our
recommendation would be to adopt the VSSP pool plan that we had set up with the Minnesota Healthcare Consortium a couple years back. You'd get three years of rate guarantee similar to life and long-term. That's not a three-year commitment, just a three-year rate
guarantee. And um you know, we would u make this available on the menu of benefit options for coming uh open enrollment. Mr. Chair, just for sorry just for
clarification on the on the vision uh employee optional no employer cost. >> Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> That is that is correct. Yes, >> Mr. Chair. >> Um the vision like the the exams those
are covered under the medical. Correct. >> Correct. Yes. So realistically, this is if some if an employee wants to take this, basically they're they're hedging their bet on they're going to get glasses, >> right? Or they already have glasses. You know, every couple years they need to update those. >> Yep.
>> Yep. So they're going to pay 75 to get 75, >> right? >> Yeah. We just wanted to have another option >> for employees to take a like that. >> Okay. Any other questions? We need a motion and probably need to mention the
three companies. And >> Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of the recommendations from BAC and the culture team regards long-term disability, life insurance, and vision insurance as presented. >> I'll second. >> Any other discussion on that?
All in favor? I >> opposed. >> Terry, thanks Jackie for everything. Thanks Jackie and the whole BA. If I may, right, I just want to thank the BAC, Jackie, and the culture team. I will say these these changes on TEI is very bold and very creative. These these
kinds of changes have been discussed for a long time and I think it's good to see more options for folks. So again, thanks to culture team and the B the BC for their work. Appreciate it. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> We're going to we're going to do Christine and then we'll recess for ditch.
>> Yep. Hey, do public health first because public health ain't going to take >> Good morning. >> Good morning. >> Morning. >> Uh, so before you actually Commissioner Benoy asked me to offer up some information on a insert to put in with
the TNT notices before you. We have a neighboring county's um budget information that they had in with their TNT notices last year. So just looking to see if that's thing you would like
just kind of explain public where where the dollars go, how it's separated out between county, city, township, special assessment. >> Mr. Chair, Christine, would you if if we would like this, would you put together a draft document like this that we can
approve? >> Yes. would have a draft ready for the October 7th meeting. Um because all of our proposed levies have to be into our office by September 30th. >> Yep. >> And then we would need to submit our artwork to the outsourcer by
midocctober. >> So that's plenty of time for you to get your notices in. Okay. >> Yep. >> I'd like to see the draft of it. >> Absolutely. >> See the draft. How much time do you think you would have >> in doing something like this? >> Uh not that much time. >> Okay. No,
>> Mr. Chair, >> my guess is the special taxing district. That's where the airport authority would fall, >> right? >> Yes. >> I think it's very important on a lot of Yeah, we need to explain where all this is coming in because I think a lot of taxpayers assume just because it's
Benton County taxes, it's all on us. It's there's school district, there's cities, there's there there's there's airport, there everything, townships. >> We take the brunt of it. >> Yeah. Great idea. Thank you, Commissioner Ben, for asking. Now that you draft,
>> thank you. >> We'll we'll do the uh public health ain't going to take too long from so recess the board meeting and move to public health first. >> Call the Ben County Community Health Board meeting to order. Uh anything to
add to the agenda, Jacqueline? >> Yes, I do have um one item to add. Hopefully will be a quick one. And I have one item to pull off of the consent agenda. The um Towns Square media contract amendment. We were just looking to extend the end date for that contract. And we were hoping we'd have
it signed and back from the um party by today so that we could get it early September since we made a change with the second meeting, but we didn't get it back in time. So, we can take that one off. >> Okay. So, we'll pull number three from the consent agenda. What else do you need to add? >> And then adding a contract with
Children's Dental Services. Thank you. >> Oops. Okay. Motion to uh for the agenda modified agenda. >> So I'll move >> second. >> We got a motion, a second. Any further discussion? If not, public question. All in favor say I. >> I.
>> Oppos. Motion carries. Consent agenda item one and two. >> Move for approval. Mr. Chair, >> I'll second. >> Got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? If not, I'll call the question. All in favor say I. I >> I opposed. Motion carries. Jacqueline,
consider approval of the >> um well and good morning. Thank you for your time on the agenda this morning. So, I have in the agenda packet today just a request for a proposal there. Um we received notification of a funding opportunity. Um the amounts that we can apply up to would likely be around
175,000. Um, as you know, we already employ a community health specialist who works on um, substance use prevention and we know that that work um, entails quite a bit of staff time, especially when we look at policy and community initiatives and implementation of that. So, this funding source really would
just be an opportunity to offset some of our costs and the work that we're doing already and um, even expand maybe some additional um, opportunities around more of the work with the cities within Benton County and looking at their policies as well. So, um, we still want to explore it a little bit further. So,
I didn't put in there just for us to just blanketly apply. Um, I do want to sit down the timeline's coming up pretty quick for an application to be submitted. So, I wanted to bring it before board just to get support of us looking into it further and if we feel like it's a good fit then applying application for that. So,
>> Jacqueline, uh, do we have to throw anything in this for uh, if we get the funding? I did not see that there was a match, but I will look at that um to be make sure. >> Yeah, just need to know if we get a 10% match. >> Yeah, from my standpoint, if we get additional funding, I will I still would
not support additional staff, >> right, >> for this work. >> This would be >> Yeah. Not asking for additional staff. Nope. >> Although we could use this funding, say if it were to come in to offset staff time um or other staff time, you know, we can use it. Yeah. Yeah. If they're working in that space. Yep.
>> That'd be great. Yep. >> And how long is this funding available? >> Um, let me see here. >> Spaced out over time or is it 175 for the whole year? >> I believe it's for Yeah, I believe we would apply. I'll have to look. I'm sorry. I don't have it. I know it's just
the timeline is coming up really fast for letters to be submitted for application to be considered. And so I'll have to look at the time frame. I thought it was only for one to two years, but I will have to double check on that. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Um the main thing we were looking at is you know that expanded work with
our cities and partners. We updated our Benton County tobacco ordinance and we wanted to do some additional work with partners and this funding source um I know after Mariah looked at it and Kayla looked at it would offset and allow us to pay for staff time to do some of that work with them. So
>> Mr. Chair, yes. I uh I when it comes to when it comes to um the tobacco ordinance and stuff, I imagine that would also include maybe cannabis. >> Um it this potential funding source is only for I believe tobacco and flavored
tobacco products. However, we do have the cannabis and substance use prevention grant that we use for that for the cannabis work. And so we were looking at it as a way for if our cannabis and substance use prevention are shipped tobacco funding for those gap areas that we don't have coverage of, we would utilize a source like this.
Yeah, >> good questions. >> Yep. Any other questions for Jacqueline? What would you like to do with this board? >> Move for approval to for uh public health to explore the funding opportunity. >> I'll second. >> Okay, I've got a motion, a second. Any
further discussion on that? If not, I'll call the question. All in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. Next one, Jacqueline. >> Yeah. And just one question of clarification. Do we have a permission to apply once we after we looking into it more? >> Yep. >> Okay. Just want to make sure that motion covers that. Okay. And then the one
add-on that I had for today is consider approval for a memorandum of understanding between Children's Dental Services and Benton County Public Health Community Health Board. As you know, our our region lacks access to dental care. And so one of those um short-term um solutions for us is to engage a mobile
dental provider to come out to Benton County and to provide dental services. Um our regional dental coordinator Tessa has established a partnership with Integra Care um and also with community dental or children's dental services to potentially come out into our county to
provide those dental services. So, um, we're looking at a hygiene team coming out to our Foley location here across at a Tanganger. And then the restore team is a team that comes back and does restorative services for those that need a follow-up appointment and more
advanced dental care. Um, our goal would be to have Children's Dental Services come out at least monthly to Benton County um, Integra Care as well as other areas throughout the county to provide those services. So today just looking to see if I can get approval of this
contract and then we would be looking to um coordinate with CDS for those visits. >> Any questions board? >> Mr. Chair Jacqueline just for clarification the estimated cost of $1,000 per visit. >> So this is um this is what I'm right now
what we have. So the way that children's dental services and Tessa you can correct me if I uh misspeak but what I'm hearing from Tessa the way that they operate um most of their services are billable if we are able to cover mileage and transportation because that time is not billable to an individual's plan or
for their service um they can come out to the community more frequently. So for us we committed to children's dental services that we have some local public health funds that could help offset some of their transportation costs to come out to our community um with the hopes that then they can come out more frequently. That is the amount that we have estimated that we would spend as of
today is only a thousand. Um because that's what I have for available in our local public health funding to fund. Um in the future if we get the Medicica grant that they came and asked for a couple weeks ago, we would plan to maybe support more of those visits if >> So how far does your thousand I mean
>> we're just going to fund the first one for this at this point in time visit. >> Yep. We're just going to fund the first one. Children's dental services can still come out. It's just when they have opportunity for mileage to be covered, they can come more frequently. >> Sure. So, okay. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> And it's broke down between hygiene and restorative.
>> Yes. Yep. That's the cost for what it would be for them to come out to um for that one time hygiene. And then the restore team, that's the cost for their restorative for their mileage and travel time, I believe. Yeah. >> And Children's Dental Services would cover any costs associated above and
beyond that. >> Correct. Yep. Yep. That's our only commitment. They really us right now all we are is um getting the contract established and then being that person to identify different community locations that would be good for them to go out to and helping to spread the word, educate the community on the
visits um and so forth. So for us, our only um really part at this point in time is just the um coordination. So >> okay, board motion please. >> I'll move approval.
>> Thank you. I'll second it. We got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? If not, I'll call the question. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Jaclyn. Anything else? >> That is it. I'm going to leave you with a copy of our newsletter, but no other agenda items. >> Mr. Chair,
>> got a a question here. I I know that the city of S Rapids approved the two cannabis >> sites and then also put a moratorum on their Did you work with them at on that stuff at all? >> We did not work with them. Um, we do have a cannabis committee.
>> So, I could ask and see. I know Roxanne um has been quite engaged with using that. >> Um, but as far as I know, we were not >> okay. I know uh it there's not a lot of these being passed right now in the state and for the uh city and our county
to pass two right away. And I from what I it was Uncle Hippie Cannabis LLC and Cultivated Knowledge LLC that they approved for the uh business district. >> Uncle Hippies. >> Uncle LLC.
>> Oh, LLC. Good. >> Yeah. And we, you know, we do have the cannabis and substance use prevention funding which that funding came out um just recently in this last year. That's new funding to prevent um the use. And so certainly we'll be engaged in different implementation and education
activities. But yeah, >> just a note, they did put then a one-year moratorum. >> Yeah. >> So, >> okay. >> How many other cities have brought in these candidates? Cuz I know what was a city that was in the news that I think they ended up letting it go.
Um it was down by Redwing or something like that. >> It's in southern part of the state. That is correct. Yep. There's >> Have there been a lot of these approved lately? You know, I've heard that there have been in different counties just from other public health directors just various um communications and just people talking about and kind of
planning for what will what will be when there's more access to the substances. But at this point in time, yeah, I don't have like an exact number >> and just for the public, we're we have to allow a certain amount per Yeah. population and then um the cities of
Sock Rapids that are not on or the cities that are not under our >> um or jurisdiction would have would have the ability to man monitor their own. Correct. >> Yeah. The way we have ours drafted Yim, thousand people. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Yep. >> But excluding the jurisdictions that are not under our and their population. >> So their population comes off. Correct. Yep. Okay, >> more to come with that one.
>> Anything else? >> Thank you, Jacqueline. Appreciate it. At that point in time, >> go ahead. >> We're adjourned at 10:38. I'll turn it back over to the board chair. >> Then we'll go straight to ditch authority. >> All right. We'll call the ditch authority meeting to order at 10:38. Um,
we've done our roll calls. Is there any additions or changes to our agenda? >> I have nothing. Is everybody comfortable with the order as presented? Okay. The only thing I will say is I would like to uh pull item two to have
further dis consent agenda item two to have further discussion with Chris and Beth uh to review the minutes. They're pretty complex and long. Yeah, >> I know Beth spent some time trying to listen to the recording. And I think Chris and I have additional notes that could maybe help solidify those minutes. So, I'd like to pull the approval of
those special meeting minutes from the August 19th meeting tonight so the three of us can review those and make sure they're correct and we can add them to our next ditch authority meeting. >> Second. >> With that, is there a motion to approve our amended agenda? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second.
>> Motion second to approve the amended agenda include pulling item two off the consent. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? >> I oppos carried. Move on to consent agenda item number one, the minutes from the August 19th. >> I'll make a motion
>> to approve. >> Second. >> Motion a second to approve the ditch authority minute meeting minutes from August 19th that were held in the AM that morning. All those in favor? >> I opposed carried. Move on to regular agenda items. Item one, consider the landowner request to keep a tree within
the CD14's buffer strip. Chris. >> All right. So this first item uh is on county ditch 14, the ditch that we just uh completed the repairs. As you are aware, the drainage authority has adopted a policy that we remove all trees within the 16 1/2 ft buffer strip
on both sides of the ditch. Uh during the repair project, there were some trees that were rem that were allowed to remain mostly due to they had personal property attached to them. When I say personal property, I'm most often referring to there were deer stands. So,
still yet today, there is a tree that still remains in the buffer strip. Uh I've had some correspondence with this land owner uh written and verbal and recently our drainage inspectors had correspondence with this indiv individual. Um they would like the tree
to remain within that buffer strip area. And the reason that they're asking for it to remain is they're they're quoting or citing uh a treaty from 1837. That's the year 1837 between the US government and indigenous people uh or tribes at
that time uh that they're saying allows them the right to have that tree there and use that buffer strip uh for hunting purposes. So, I'm bringing this to the drains authority for discussion because it it would be in conflict with the policy to
remove all trees within the buffer strip. Uh just asking the drains authority to consider I guess allowing that tree to remain um due to this this treaty. >> Comments, >> Mr. Chair? >> How many other trees and ditch areas in
the buffer zones would this treaty affect? I mean, or is this like a one-off? >> I think on this ditch right now, this would be the last tree that's remaining. We had a couple that we had the contractor come back earlier this summer to remove, and then once again, they
they found a deer stand still in the tree. Uh, and then after some written correspondence from our office to that landowner, um, we received a call back. Um, and then as recently as the most recent ditch meeting that we had, the Foley High School auditorium, this
landowner was there and then spoke to our drainage inspector Adam about this issue. >> I let me rephrase my question. Is this something that can be brought up on other ditches? Are we going to have to do this on everything when somebody is opposing a >> commission? I know Hannah from Rinky is
with us. Perhaps she could offer some thoughts on that. Cris, can you minimize so we can see Hannah? >> And she might be muted. >> You're muted if you're attempting to respond. Hannah, you're muted. >> Good morning, Hannah. Do you have any
response to that conversation at all? >> Good morning, everyone. Can everyone hear me? >> Yes, we can. >> Okay, perfect. Um, yeah. So Chris had actually reached out to John Kale and I about this and um
John's answer um was I think is um the good one in that there's probably a practical solution here of that the tree and the stand could remain as long as they do not impede access to
the system for inspection and maintenance. So, the reason of why normally trees would be removed is that when you're doing a ditch cleanout or inspection, sometimes you have to have the side by side or heavy machinery that
come in and trees could block access um to that. So, as long as the tree or if there were other trees in similar situations that don't impede um access to the system, it
could remain um without having looked specifically at the treaty that the landowner referenced. um little bit diff more difficult to kind of ascertain whether or not that's a viable claim or kind of
what a counter to that would be. Um we certainly could look into it further, but um as far as the practical solution, the tree could remain as long as um there's
an understanding that that's only as far as it's not impeding inspection or maintenance of the ditch. I think to Hannah's point and what this board is going to have to decide is the practicality versus if we ask Ricky Nunan to do a in-depth >> right
>> consultation to check on the validity of the treaty and their discussion is it outweigh pushing the tree off the buffer strip. I guess that's to your point. Do we run into it other ones? Maybe we do and maybe we have to deal with it on a one by one situation.
>> I to Commissioner Capency's question I think it's difficult to answer. We don't I don't think we know at this point how many land owners would claim that they have that Native American right at this point. >> Chris or Adam, do we feel the trees impeding the buffer strip to be able to
do anything? You have no hesitation on that? I mean we were able to clean I mean complete the channel cleaning um with that tree remaining um and that's why our contractor Helman was able to work around it at the time and um other yeah it was pointed out that the tree
was remaining and we had said that they were going to come down so I >> my knowledge we've only had really one other request to keep a tree but the re we've disagreed with the reason why yes here now we have another reason but >> are we going to have to do more work to come up with a reason why
>> you know I don't think we should have to if we go out to Rinky Newman or something that has to go back onto the ditches. >> It will you know repair or assessment. So I don't think that >> the majority of the people in that ditch would not want to pay to see if this tree could or could not be removed.
>> Mr. chair. At at a minimum, if this was approved, if this tree would go down in a storm, I think it would be up to the land owner to pay for >> removal >> removal at that point if it's in the ditch or something like that. >> Is that an option, Hannah, that we could
require the land owner to be responsible for that or does it have to be done by the system? It would need to be done by the system >> at that point. I can't >> either way. Either way, if it falls down, it have to be by the system instead of the land owner.
If the tree fell down and was if it's the system that wants the tree removed, that would be a a cost of the system. If the land owner would be removing it, I guess regardless, then um that wouldn't
necessarily have to be a system cost. I think just to clarify though to we're all on the same page here is that >> if the tree came down on its own from an act of God or whatever, who's responsible to remove it if we allow it
to stay? I could see that ditch owner saying it's your responsibility. It's in the ditch. >> Yeah, me too. My concern would be if the land owner wanted the tree to remain there at to begin with and it falls down. What if we run into some reluctancy from that land
owner to get it removed and remove the blockage? >> It may end up forcing the drainage authority to take action which yeah then would have to be assessed onto everybody >> um at that time unless I I know Hannah helped me out. There is some statute
that talks about buffer strip violations. I don't know if there's anything under there. I mean, trees can be in the buffer strip by law. If there's, I don't know, some kind of angle there that that there's a violation of the buffer strip, there's opportunities at that point to assess
individual anodes for correction. >> That is true. However, just having a tree within the buffer strip likely would not be a violation. That generally would be um if somebody were to be growing crops within there or um
put pavement or concrete or something like that. Um and they're generally trees most likely wouldn't be a violation under under the buffer law. So Hannah, since this is a request from
a landowner, can we tie a condition to it that says if this tree comes down, you are responsible to remove it. if we approve the request for >> Yeah, I think that that's um I think it's worth having the
conversation with the land owner about that and um having an understanding between the ditch authority and the land owner of yes, we're going to allow this, but >> here's what you would have to do. >> So, so then does it make sense to let's have Chris and Adam have a conversation
with the land owner and see if they're agreeable to that and we can move on it on our next itch meeting. How's How's that? A >> And with that, make sure that when they go in there with a skid loader and they tear apart the ditch, >> they repair >> they Well, it's got to be repaired.
>> Yeah, exactly. >> That makes sense. >> So, this sounds like some an agreement signed by the land owner and the drainage authority that correct >> puts that in writing because once again, this is not going to be an issue we deal with tomorrow. it's going to be years down the road and we need something in
writing so everybody remembers that >> everybody we have consensus on that >> and it follows the land so that's got to be a disclaimer if if they sell the land >> that's got to be a disclosure >> while we're on that topic is it okay with the drainage authority to seek
assistance from our our drainage attorneys on writing up some of that language and expending some funds to have that draft that language drafted It's hard because I that that goes on the digit >> that goes on the ditch >> and and it's and it's basically
affecting one land owner. >> How I mean if we did that maybe that's something that the land owner could pay. >> Land owner should pay. I think that should be a negotiation >> in the negotiations at the landowner >> or you can bring back the estimated cost
to us at the next party meeting on what that would cost. >> Good. Okay. >> Um >> over one tree. >> Members, since this is an agenda item, probably be appropriate to get a motion to table and second it. >> Motion to table it to their next uh ditch meeting.
>> Second. >> Okay. motion to table and second the next uh scheduled ditch meeting which as of right now I'm not sure when that is if we have one scheduled or not. >> Well, it was scheduled originally uh for the 16th which was a regular board scheduled meeting. That brings up a good
topic. Now that the regular county board meeting was moved to 20 September 23rd, do we want to do follow similar suit? And now that I think about that, it may be an action item that wasn't on today's agenda. Do Monty, do our ditch authority and other subsequent meetings follow our
county boards? I mean to Chris's point, we didn't really change the ditch authority meeting. >> We didn't. >> Right. Yeah. So, um, of course, you can always have a special, >> right? >> Because we could we could easily cancel
it due to lack of agenda items, but to reschedu it sounds like it would take an action. Well, yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I would say follow the board meeting. >> Yeah. So, we'll add that. We'll need to
add it as a We'll have to move on it. >> Yeah. >> Need to add it to the agenda. >> Yeah. Well, we'll need to add that discussion >> as a as a a motion to change. >> That would be my follow-up question. Can we take action on that if it wasn't part of the published agenda?
So for today's agenda, there was not an action item to reschedule the September 16th drainage authority meeting. So can we take action on it if it wasn't part of the published agenda? >> We should be able to. We got time. >> I don't see a problem simply a scheduling matter. No, you know, it's
not substantive action scheduling the statistics. So I don't see a problem. >> Well, let's handle two different things here. First one, we got a table and a second to our next ditch meeting. >> Correct. Motion to say a meeting. You just tell me.
>> But but this particular motion to table is to our next ditch authority meeting. >> Would be whenever it may be. >> Okay. Whenever. Yep. >> That Okay. >> Yep. >> All right. So, we have a motion to table to our next ditch authority meeting. All those in favor >> or I >> or whenever it may be.
>> Whenever it may be. Thank you. >> Anyone opposed? It's carried. Thank you. All right. Consider the landowner repair permit request for branch three of CD14. >> Okay. So the next item uh similarly so it's on ditch 14 again the one that we
recently had repaired but on branch three. This individual uh land owner would like to do uh in my opinion some additional work uh on that channel through their property. Um, our drainage
inspector did has had conversations with this land owner. Did make a a field inspection of it and did notice some areas of some erosion in the bank. Um, uh, here's the channel. This is in a portion of the ditch where the channel
is really shallow. And part of that is due to before we did our repair project, this dash line represents the ditch bottom as it was out in the field. it was already below where it should have been. So, there wasn't any excavation
really in that channel. Maybe just some vegetation removal to kind of define um the channel to begin with. So, um we talked about it as a kind of a drainage team in the office and thought, well, let's have the land owner complete
it like a permit. Um and then we would take that to the drainage authority to for consideration to allow them to do some work. Um uh we came up with some conditions that we think recommended conditions to put on that permit if you
do consider approving it. Um but yeah, I mean Adam, our drainage inspector had conversations, multiple conversations with this land owner. if you have he might be able to share some more insight on what that landowner intends to do um at that location. >> Quick question before I move to you
Adam. Has a landowner been involved in these proposed conditions of this permit? I mean does he is he aware of them? >> Uh were the conditions shared because I know I think we just came up with these just before agenda items were due last week. So >> anything you want to add, Adam?
Yeah, I'm just going to scroll back up here to um the photos I took when I met with the landowner out there. Um, so basically what the landowner is stating is that since the ditch was cleaned out on one side and the
excavator was on one side, um, it basically square cuted this side of the ditch while allowing this side to be tapered off cuz obviously when you dig with an excavator, you he says it went straight down and then pulled out
tapering. Um, so basically what this landowner is stating is he wants to go in on the other side of the ditch and basically taper off that side. Um, in his own writing here, this is the permit
we had him fill out prior to this meeting. Um, he states himself that he just wants to prevent the banks from caving in and plugging it. um he's not going to go deeper than the Houston
engineering reestablishment report. Um so basically in these provisions is we're asking him um to just taper off that one side of the ditch and then clear out any sediment that may have eroded from that from that square cutting.
>> Okay, any questions? >> And that his cost, correct? >> This would be at his cost. >> Correct. This is the only time or the only money spent would be obviously my time and Chris's time on this matter. Um, but he would be using his own
excavator. Um, I would he he asked me to also come out there if this was approved to make sure that he's doing it right, making sure he's not going above and beyond of what um was stated in in these provisions and also his own words. Um,
so I would be I would be the one inspecting it to to make sure that it's that it's done well. >> Mr. Chair, I'm assuming he's going to do this through his whole parcel then instead of just areas. >> Yeah. So I'll I'll >> This would just be the branch though, right? Not the main trunk.
>> Well, branch, but I just want to make sure. >> But it does go through majority of it. >> Correct. >> Yeah. So this one on the right here is the main trunk. And then this is branch three that comes through his property. You going to do the whole branch? >> Most likely, yes. Um, I only saw like
half of it and but this was the spot that was the worst regarding the erosion back into the bank. >> I've actually seen that branch and to Chris's point, it's extremely shallow. >> Yep. >> To your just they barely took the
vegetation out of it. >> What are your wishes? I have no problem with it if he >> No, I have no problem with it. >> He's going to oversee it and they're doing it on their own cost. I'll make that motion. >> Okay, >> I'll second >> a motion. A second to approve the landowner uh repair permit request for
branch three of CD14 as presented and would need to be in agreement with those conditions. >> Yeah, I just want to make sure to clarify that the conditions as presented were okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. With your second? >> Yep. That is my that is okay with me, Mr. Chair. In the future, some of these ditches, if if there's experienced
excavators that are willing to take on certain areas at, you know, no cost, it's going to save the whole The problem is is just so they know, it doesn't alleviate them >> in the future from other sections. >> No credit. >> Correct. I just want to make sure
because that's a fight we don't want to >> if they, you know, they're not going to be able to go in other people's property that correct >> correctly on their own. So, >> all right. We got a motion, a second. Any other discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? >> I I opposed. It's carried. Move on to
consider the county ditch 10 repair. >> All right. So, uh I believe we might even have some land owners along county ditch 10 in the audience. Um, as part of the the agenda packet was the petition to repair county ditch 10 that the
drainage authority received uh back in December of 2020. Um, so uh at that point we were kind of already starting the redetermination of benefits process. I don't recall in 2020 if we had decided
on this one yet. shortly in this time frame or shortly thereafter is when we started we decided to do a redetermination of benefits on all the ditches. Um but uh I believe I don't know if the the petitioners are here but this was the petition that was received
uh the petitioners uh words stated the greatest benefit will come from cleaning the ditch from county road 4 south one mile and one quarter mile north. However, the entire war waterway is in need of long overdue cleaning slashmaintenance. It was determined to
be a valid petition. Um, and then a repair report uh was ordered. And that's kind of the time frame that we're in right now. We don't have that repair report completed to to know what uh a
repair would look like at this point. So, I I don't know if the the chair would like to hear from um adjacent land owners on county ditch 10 at this time or >> uh yeah, I just have one question for you. I'm just looking at my notes
actually from the public hearing that night. The petitioners, if I'm reading this correctly, Tracy Reinhardt Adams >> and Richard Adams. Richard Adams I believe gave testimony that night if I
recall the discussion unaware or didn't agree with the repair. Do you have any idea is that is my recollection correct because it's >> I do remember though. Yeah. Um somebody Yeah. Richard Adams speaking at the meeting that we had over at the Foley auditorium. Yeah.
>> He was according to this he's a petitioner. Mhm. >> Uh if it's if it is in fact the same Richard Adams, I wouldn't point out their mailing address at that time was Chesterfield, Virginia, but this this parcels uh or parcel was a originally
benefited parcel. And so there they did have a vested interest in the drainage authority and had the uh the right to petition for a repair. >> So again, a valid repair petition >> was determined to be a valid repair petition >> benefiting the CD10 system. >> Mhm. and it was filed in accordance to
103E.715 petition repair process. >> Okay. Yeah. Um if there's people here''d like to speak on CD10, if we could please try to keep it to a couple three minutes, I'd appreciate it. There's looks like there's a number of people that probably would like to speak. So, if you could please come to the podium and state your name and address and your
comments for the record. Hello board. Morning. >> I'm Robert Stolman. Um I come as a spokesman for most of the land owners here. Uh the petitioner is also here, Tracy Adams. >> Okay.
>> Um and uh we'll get into that subject after I read my prepared statements. Uh I'll deviate a little bit. Um, based on the discussion that we just heard here about other ditches,
um, my address is 1783 35th Street Northeast in Sock Rapids. The last mile of CD10 runs through my property. Thank you for allowing us to be on your agenda today. My comments today reflect most land owners along CD10 and several
benefactors of the ditch. Why am I here? When I was invited by postcard to the August 19th annual ditch meeting, I did some research on the Benton County website. I ran across the December 3rd,
2024 meeting minutes of the Benton County Drainage Authority Subcommittee, which describes two alternatives to work on CD10. One alternative listed was $4.4 million
in estimated cost and the other was $522,000 estimated cost. My small 260 acre farm with 150 acres of tillable acres would be assessed between
8,000 and 70,000 depending on which number was used. I wondered if my neighbors knew of this potential cost. Most did not. Upon registering for the annual ditch meeting at the door, I received the
agenda that stated that 136,000 has already been spent or allocated toward CD10, but no one has seen any improvements, just that someone has been studying the issue.
The issue was a uh repair petition which was submitted in December 2020. This petition began a very formal process and apparently gave a blank check to the county to do something with
the ditch, but we still don't know what. At the beginning of the meeting, the ditch authority attorney explained the difference between terms maintenance and repair in the drainage world. Maintenance means inspections for vegetation,
trees, beaver dams, and their removal. Repairs are generally for a complete redigging of the ditch in part or in whole. The Minnesota public drainage manual section 7 indicates that drainage law
does not require the appointment of an engineer for non-pitioned repair of drainage systems. Whereas for a petitioned repair, the drainage authority must appoint an engineer to be responsible for examining the drainage
system to determine the extent of the repair. Transparent communication and trust are our key issues. One researcher boils trust down to one question. Are you there for us?
Is the county ditch authority there for us as benefactors to the ditch of CD10 or CD11? Five years without improving the ditch, 136,000 spent without our approval.
Here's what our ask is going forward. accept the original petitioner's withdrawal to their request so that a less formal, more effective maintenance effort can be made promptly.
Immediately remove the beavers just south of 65th Street Northeast where there are two beaver dams. Show an itemized breakdown of the current expenses and involve the benefactors in approving all expenses
going forward to ditch of CD 10 and CD11. The physical work necessary to clean out the 8 to 10 locations of blockage identified by the county drone footage should never come close to costing
$100,000. Please watch the budget like it was your own money coming out of your own pocket. We recommend removing the blockages agreed upon before the end of February
2026. To deviate from my statement a little bit, we've I've talked to contractors and their hourly rate and the approximate cost to clean out the section between 55th Street and 65th
where the blockage is uh would be 10 to 30,000. Just making I don't want to pin a contractor on an amount. Uh, but we know right now that the I'm going to start on the bottom of
the ditch on my property. There's hardly any water running through there right now because of lack of water. Okay. You go a mile north and that water is flowing, but there's hardly any water in it. The next mile,
well, that would be just below 55th. And then somewhere between 55th and 65th, the water stops running. And at 65th, that's where the water is all blocked up and you can put a leaf in there and it's not moving.
You might think that we are all wanting the ditch cleaned so we can farm the land. Not true. We have several land owners along the ditch that like to preserve the wildlife habitat as well. CD10 is very unique in the sense that
very little tillable land is benefited directly from the ditch. Rather, the ditch improves heavy runoff from many acres of meadow that flood. Farmers didn't have crop insurance a 100 years ago. The best thing was to own a variety
of land. So during a dry spell, the farmer could harvest or graze the meadows. Also, just a side note, as you determine the maintenance budget for the buffer strips along CD10, less than 10% of the buffer length is accessible unless on
frozen ground. Um, we appreciate being heard today. Others can speak. You can call on others. But I feel that these comments come from numerous conversations and about 10 hours of research with the
neighbors and on the website. Uh we look forward to being hear your comments uh at a further meeting if not today. Apparently that might be the 23rd. Um to deviate from what I've written here and
then we can go on. But with this this discussion with trees, ditch 10 has generally operated pretty well for the last hundred years doing what it's supposed to do.
And it is a wildlife area. It's not like any other ditch you really have in the county, I believe. and to help preserve that just to clean out the high spots. I think we're convinced that getting those high spots out are going to give enough
relief to anybody who is needy drainage for any tile system that might be connecting to it north of 65th. Um that seems to be the only tillable concern. uh all of the tillable land that all the
neighbors the rest of the of of town can have significant floods and it does not affect our tillable land. It only affects whether we can get our u hay off and if we can get in there and in fact we have made hay there now on our end
it's not possible on the other end. So that's reverse of what you think a ditch should be. The bottom of the ditch should be the wet side not the top of the ditch. So thank you >> members. Any comments before I open it back up? >> Mr. Chair, >> maybe we could give Mr. Sultman some
some breakdown of that 138 because it's going to be redetermination of benefits, all of that cost as well as the uh the buffer strip payment. Do we got that as well as the engineering for the repair?
>> Yeah. And maybe I I will remind the drainage authority that this ditch went through the reestablishment of drainage records process just like we did on the previous repairs due to the fact that we had original documents that showed the profile and the alignment of this channel but we
didn't have elevation data. So we went through this reestablishment of drainage records process and that was finalized in 2023 uh after public hearings. And it was just looking at the file here online or electronically noticed of hearings went
out to everybody. So yeah, part of the the cost was yeah the redetermination of benefits, the reestablishment of drainage records process to find where the bottom of that ditch is supposed to be and that's where we learned we had high spots and beaver dams. Um yeah, and paying out buffer strips.
>> Do we have a breakdown of that? And you know what I'm looking at is, you know, is it was it you know $20,000 for redeterminative benefits and was it you know 4050,000 of of buffer strip payments? >> We do. Yeah. our accounting uh system we
have I have a report I can picture it on my >> but what I'm saying is could we tell that to the people >> um yeah I apologize I don't have those exact numbers off the top of my head but that is readily available uh to us as staff that we could share easily to to
show what has been spent to date on on what >> but just for clarification too I believe one of Robert's points was since there is a valid repair petition triggered an engineering ing >> had to do. >> Correct. Yeah. >> So, there's engineering cost.
>> Yes. >> Involved two for the repair report. >> Yes. >> Okay. Which would be part of the 136, I would assume. >> Yes. Correct. Yeah. Mhm. that those numbers that were presented at the the public hearing was costs to date on that ditch >> and one of
>> and to my recollection, excuse me, Commissioner Prinsky, is when the subcommittee met, we did look at both alternatives, but that information in a repair report hasn't been presented to the ditch authority yet to make a choice >> on which repair. Correct. >> So, we've still heard public input. I mean, according to his input, he's got
estimates, I'm sorry, I don't remember. 10 to 30 >> 10 to 30,000, >> but they're not necessarily part of the alternates that were provided from the engineering firm. >> Yeah. >> Which this ditch authority hasn't seen the repair report yet.
>> Correct. And we're all it's what's interesting is we're all talking about we're kind of focused on the same area as we as we heard at the subcommittee. that area or that one mile between 55th and 65th. We're running up against the wetland conservation act that was passed since, you know, more recent than when the ditch was established, which forces
us to consider those wetland areas in specifically in that mile stretch. >> Well, and those alternates, if I remember from the subcommittee meeting, the $4.4 million estimate was based off a full repair of the full system. >> Correct. And we stepped and the alternate two was a significant step
down of basically taking out high spots, beaver dams, cul. >> Wasn't the 4.4 exceeding the benefit? >> I don't recall. >> I'm because that included wetland bank credits and >> Well, yeah, that's what was a big part
of that cost is if >> Yeah. >> Even though drainage law and I think even wetland conservation Well, maybe I'm overstepping my bounds. I'm starting to talk about legal things and maybe our attorneys better. But what I understand from a technical standpoint, we're obligated to replace wetlands that are
impacted that have existed for 25 years or more along that ditch. And when you look at our wetland conservation act in our state, we have to replace that at 2:1. And we've had this conversation before. In our bank service area, as the board of water and soil resource looks at >> on the open market, wetland credits are
running upwards of $100,000 per acre >> and it's the highest one in the state. >> Yeah. Which is the highest the states for one one every one acre of wetland that we potentially impact. We have to buy two acres of credit to replace that. So one acre of impact could cost the
drainage system $200,000. which I believe is why the subcommittee said, "Let's do a little bit more homework to see if there's other areas that we can restore drainage without having large wetland impacts." The sad reality of that is that that requires
staff time and engineering time to investigate those options and leads us to the 136 to $140,000 of costs to date. >> Christine, have these buffer payments been paid out already? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Do I see you shaking your head, Robert? What what what was your payment
roughly? >> I think it was maybe $8, $900. >> Okay. >> All right. Any other questions for Chris? Maybe there's others that'd like to speak. >> No. All right. Anybody else that'd like to come to the podium? >> Cost for the buffer was like 5200 for the whole. >> Okay.
>> All right. Anyone else that'd like to speak regards to CD10? Couple more times. >> Petitioner. >> Is the petitioner here? Did they say? >> Yes. Okay. Any you'd like to add anything?
>> So, good morning. My name is Tracy Reiner Adams and I live at 275765th Street Southeast. Um, I would like a point of clarification and my husband did speak at the August meeting. Um, he is the other petitioner um for the original petition that was filed in
2020. Um, Richard didn't say he didn't want the ditch cleaned out. What he said was that the cost of cleaning out what was a neglected ditch for the last um, I'll quote my dad, 70 years ago, he could walk down ditch 10. He could put
his feet in the bottom of ditch 10. Walk down ditch 10, walk towards the farm, walk down ditch 10, walk all the way up to what was then County Road 4, which is, um, 65th Street. Um, now um, you can't swim. Um, so, uh, that's what my husband was saying. He wasn't saying,
"Don't do it." He was saying, "Wow, this is a lot of money that you're assessing to us today that nobody's paid any amount of money up until this point >> to have maintained and accomplished. So, it's a heck of a punch financially at
this point when you're talking about the numbers um that were floating around. And those are the same numbers that um Robert just presented to you. Those were the only numbers we had um given to us. >> So, >> thank you for clarifying that by
>> Yes. Um so, and uh the ditch is worse today than it was in 2020 when our original petition was filed. We were looking for relief um for the ditch to be cleaned out because we cleaned out our personal property ditch um that runs
along our property with permission from your authority um to do so and established it back to its level and we were looking for the county to do the same and get that water down south. It belongs to Bob's house, not at mine. Um >> I'm just saying in the natural flow of
water, that's it. Um, there are several things we didn't understand and that's true as far as this assessment and who gets benefit and who doesn't pay. Um, but we were instructed that the only way to get the water moving the way it
should was to file this petition. If there was a way to ask verbally for a maintenance request that would have accomplished that, we did that and we're told that's not what you need. So, we filed the official petition that you see
and that um was made public record. >> So, that's where we are today. >> Tracy, can I ask if you've had any discussions or or Chris maybe could answer this about um uh what's the word I want? I'm sorry. Uh pulling back the petition. That's not the word. Withdraw. Thank you. Withdrawing the petition. Has
there been conversation >> spoken with Chris directly? Um what I did speak with I have not spoken with Chris directly because Bob was speaking with Chris um on the group's behalf. Um so um my concern our concern is the same
concern it was then if we pull our petition does the water flow? our our we're a little uh anxious about that, but a little disappointed that when we asked for the beaver dams to get taken
care of to just establish a normal flow of water, not cleaning it out, but hey, my gosh, you know, beavers live here and the water stopped flowing. Bob can mow meadow, he's never mowed before. you can't watch a a leaf move in the
ditch at 65th Street, but we were told that those ditch that those beaver dams won't be addressed and the flow of just things you could maintain will not be addressed because of this petition. So, it was implied very heavily that the
only way to do the maintenance things that lets the water do its natural thing, much less clean it out, is to withdraw the petition. That's where I stand today. I don't know. I don't know who wants what to make those things happen and to have them done
cost-effectively and some of them with immediiacy. >> Sure. Okay. Thank you, Tracy. >> Mr. Chair, go ahead. >> Uh just I I agree with you 100%. I I wish these ditches would have been taken care of 20 30 years ago because we
wouldn't be sitting here having to make up a hundred years of of back time. And then with with time we get strangleholded by the state on regulations we need to push down which nobody likes including beaver dams. You
between you and I I think it's easy go out there and blow up a de beaver dam right. Well then we got the the the DNR and everybody like that all over us and we have to have permits or or we get in trouble even more. So I I I agree with
everything you guys are saying and you know when it comes to starting the petition nobody knew what these petitions would would bring forward. It brings forward costs and stuff like that and some of these costs whether we sit here like it or not are
there. It's not like just because you pull back the hund the the the the petition the 130ome goes away. it. There was a lot of things done uh on this that you guys like Robert said, we haven't seen anything yet. I get that it it it
bites, but there's with with what the county has to go through and and then when you when you look at affecting the DNR, the Bowser, the every all every every state group above us, it's insane
on the cost of of what these things cost to engineer. >> Chris, do you have any comment about that? I know. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, Tracy. Um, no. I I appreciate her comments. Um, and maybe Hannah can help me out here. What I understand, legally though, we did receive a
petition. Legally, the drainage authority reviewed that in order to report. So, I think we're obligated to bring back a final engineering report at a public meeting to meet our statutory obligation. Now, at that point, once the
report is shared and finalized publicly, the drains authority will have to choose what to do next. That could be to do a full repair or to be a partial repair. And I don't know if Hannah, if you have any comments on if the board or drainage authority, I should clarify, drain
authority chooses to do something different than what that report says, what are maybe some risks or implications with that? >> Yeah. So Chris is correct. The end of the day, this is the during authorities's decision. Um the engineer
just submits their recommendation and um the board could choose to go along fully with that recommendation. The board could um ask the engineer to come back with um some alternatives. And at the end of the day, as long as there's
support, um whether that be from the landowner saying yes, we don't want to expend money on these certain things and the board finds that those certain things are not necessary to um maintain the hydraulic capacity of the ditch,
that is um within the board's discretion. As long as there's support within the record for that decision. um especially if it is contrary to what the engineer comes back with. But the board would be able to do that at that time.
>> And and Hannah, I think the important part here is that this would be a public when this board receives that report. It would be a public meeting with public input about the report. What we don't want to have happen is correct, we get the report, >> we've got to try to make a decision and then land owners six months later are
frustrated because of decision. this takes landowner involvement like you're doing today to share with us about what happens with the potential repair on CD10, but we we don't have that rep report yet. Mr. Pinsky, >> Mr. Chair, I just want I don't want to
put words in your mouth, Tracy, just from and and I heard it from Robert as well. When you put this petition in, there's no way you thought it would come up to $138,000 to repair a ditch, let alone the 522, let alone the 4.4. before, >> right?
>> Had you have known that, >> you wouldn't have done the >> you probably wouldn't have done that. That's what this is about. It's about you. Nobody knowing the process and and you look at the you you look at the governing factors that increase all of
these costs all the way along. The 10 to $30,000 might not be including all the buffer strips and everything like that. It's being smart about it, right? >> Well, if I might comment. >> Yep. Go ahead.
So this 10 to 30 this 10 to 30,000 is simply to get an excavator in to dig that out in the winter time. >> And um this operator operates in Sherburn County and does the county ditches there. >> Yeah. >> And um I mean he sounded conservative uh
with the number that he was uh presenting but um I mean he talked about the whole cleanout between 55th and 65th. But my hope my main concern our main concern right now the land owners here represent about 80% of the
ownership along that ditch. >> The rest of them are some 40s that are Alaska owners and that kind of thing. >> Yeah. >> Um but my main concern is is don't expend any new money unless we get some input in this before we go and even
finish the engineers report which may or may not be necessary. What's been done so far has been interesting and good in the sense that that ditch when you look at the the mapping of it is very close
hardly has any sediment in it. It has a few kinks in it that was I don't know how they originally got there but they were filled um in 2021 when it was so dry. Uh Chad Flipsson and I cleaned out our section of that ditch by flipping
the hairdo back from the side. So a six foot wide ditch went to 20 ft wide back where it was. All we did is flip the hairdo of bad grass that was growing in it. And there was maybe three spots that I I we showed Chris where we were going
to do uh how low we would go and all the sediment is on a pile there yet that we took out of it. Um, but you know, we I mean in in a perfect world, I think all of us land owners would pay for it ourselves. I
mean, the the what the county can do as a conduit is spread that costs and do it administratively, right? But we don't need to create all these extra expenses. It's kind of like having a sliver and going to the mail clinic for a consultant.
>> Thank you. Uh Hannah, just logistically here though, I'm hearing Mr. Stolman and probably the land owners requesting that we don't expend any more dollars, but to my understanding, we haven't received the repair report yet, which is required from the petition. Is that correct? And
so to say we can't expend any more dollars, I don't know that we're at a spot where we can't expend more dollars to get the final repair report because the petition has triggered the repair report. Is that a correct statement?
>> So where are we at in the report? >> Yeah. Well, can I Mr. Chair, can I ask a question of Hannah? >> Yeah. If the original petitioners withdraw their petition, even if they said they wanted to do that, that doesn't absolve us of the responsibility to finalize the report, does it? Or can
we just stop it at that point? >> Um that well at that point um because the repair wouldn't be ordered um we would have there potentially would be
an issue with um cost because when that petition repair petition would have been filed um I'm pulling up the statute right now just to make this um
yeah So it wouldn't necessarily um absolve the issue um just by getting rid of the repair report because the drainage authority has already accepted it and found that um there's
some need for repair in the system and appointed the engineer. And so, um, that's we're kind of past the step of, um, whether or not to go forward with this. And so,
the next step would be um a hearing on the repair report. >> Chris, where are we at on the timeline of the report? >> So, I would say we're close. Yeah, as you recall at the last work session we had, the the the drainage authority gave me direction to coordinate with the township because one of the
>> conversation points was the township culvert at 55th Street indicates that it could be a foot and a half to maybe two feet higher than what the bottom of that ditch elevation should be. So that's where I'm at. I'm trying to coordinate a meeting between and happens to be on the
line between Mayu Lake and Minden Township. So trying to coordinate a township meeting between the two townships is is where I'm at to have that conversation. And the reason why is because uh and just for the public's benefit, public road crossings has been deemed to be a cost to that road
authority, not all the benefit benefited land owners. So it really does impact the township's levy whether they can afford to lower their coverts at their cost. Commissioner Py. >> So, would it be fair to say that a lot of or a lot of this 138 is already
spent, number one, and number two, we're just we got a few pieces left before the road author or before the ditch authority gets this report back. So, expending more money would be very minimal at this point. >> How much would that be roughly?
>> Yeah. And and I will add, we we staff-wise, we have reached out to some contractors to get some quotes ourselves. So I wanted to be just as an engineer, I wanted to be prepared for that. Um what it would cost to bring in there and remove those
>> beavers between 10 between 55th and 6T 65th Street >> dur now during this during this communication in this $138,000 was also the Bowser the DNR and everybody approving us >> correct >> doing those removals. had meetings with
the techn technical evaluation panel. Uh we had email correspondents. Uh >> yeah, we had wetland desk level wetland reports put together. >> That point, Chris, correct me if I'm wrong, but if if a land owner were to go
out and potentially hire other contractors, they're going to be subjected to the same rules mess around that ditch that we are. That means Board of Water and Soil Resources, DNR, >> SWCD, US Army Corps, our own LGU, >> the TP's going to have to approve any of
that work, are they not? If I mean, if we're subjected to it, why wouldn't everybody else be? >> Correct. And I I'll apologize for Hannah. She did tell me that she had another meeting, so it looks like she might have jumped off. >> Okay. >> But that's my understanding. And I think there may be some exemptions that are
allowed for drainage authorities that may or may not be allowed for individual land owners, but if they were to go excavate before doing their due diligence on those wetlands, and once again, there is a large wetland complex identified between 55th and 65th Street,
if they violate that, they could be subject to uh penalties and assessments for that. that whereas maybe maybe there's some protections under the drainage code that we can do some things that a individual land owner couldn't. I will remind everybody too that um kind
of get your tin is also Mayhew Creek which is on the public waters inventory which is another layer of regulation that has to be vetted through as well. So you got board of water and soil resources which is tasked with enforcing the wetland conservation act. the DNR is
enforced or tasked with enforcing public waters regulations. Um >> well, and as we've experienced, county drainage ditches are not exempt to the wetland conservation. >> No, >> there was a recent statute change that that altered that and I think I don't even fully understand that. So that I
think that's one thing to fully understand that we'd have to consult with attorneys. Going back to the petitioner, >> I didn't know that I was going to be a drainage authority when I went for commissioner. Had I known that might be a different outcome to be quite honest
with you. And you by all means didn't know that those five or six agencies would be triggered by your simple petition. That's the frustrating point that we have to deal with and then we have to answer to you guys. I myself
want to get all of our local legislators in a in a building and let you guys come to them and say, "Is this true? Why why why is it this way?" Because I think we need to start higher up. You know, it's been a rough couple months here and it's
not going to get better right now. >> Mr. Mr. Chair, >> Chris, what's it going to take to get rid of those two beaver dams? We looked because it is very swampy between 50th. We don't believe that you could walk a piece of equipment out there. So, we reached out to a a contractor that's known for cleaning
ditches with specialized excavators with swamp pads as they called it. We we couldn't even get them here for under $10,000. It was going to be at least $10,000 just for mobilization of that equipment. Um, we used to have contacts with people that were licensed to use
explosives to remove beaver dams. uh we've lost those contacts due to retirements and things. So, we're still investigating that. We're we were in contact with some trappers too to trap the beavers before we do that. But mind you, all those costs even to
have explosives to remove the beaver dams is still a cost to the drainage system. So, yeah, I think we're hearing that we don't want to expend any more costs on the drainage system, but we do want to see some results. Well, we we do know we need to get rid of the beaver dams.
>> Okay. Because they're claiming that that's the flowage. >> Mhm. >> It's disrupting the flowage. So, at that point in time, we've got to get rid of the beaver dams one way or another. >> Yeah. >> I mean, that's a cost that's just going to have to be though, >> right? It's a cost. >> You won't know until after those beaver
dams are gone. The >> flow wants to speak. >> Yep. Go ahead. >> We can We're kind of we're going around in circles right now with the discussion. And that's what I offered in my original comments is to come back to another meeting with some facts and make
some decisions instead of going around and we're not blaming anybody. I'm I think we're all fine with additional costs as long as we know what they are and can approve them. >> Correct. >> I think it's at the end of the day, the county doesn't have any skin in this
game. It's only for the land owners and the benefactors and to and and your process is only to distribute those costs to our satisfaction. So don't work against us. Work with us, please. >> Well, and Robert, to that point though,
I would like to say I I think we we are trying to work with you on this. We're trying to take as much public testimony as we can and and operate within the rules we have to operate in as a ditch authority. And so I I think you're right. We will have further discussions going forward and we appreciate the
input. We really do because otherwise the five of us sit here go well we think this is best. >> We do still have things we have to follow though. I I I hope you can understand that. >> We totally get that and and I do you appreciate the fact that our ditch is unique compared to the others and I've
heard about the others and they're not any chair. One more point. >> Go ahead. >> Uh to your point uh Mr. Stolman. We took a lot of stuff out of that meeting we had the other night uh at the Foley um school.
>> Uh one of the things that Commissioner Benoy and myself, we went over to talk to Sean Sean Arnold about what he brought up about um getting the people involved in inspecting the ditch before final payment. That was one of the deal
one of the one of the things that come out of our you know conversation. And I think that's a very fair point, but I but we also talked to Sean. It's like, okay, one person might not like that rock or that, you know, so we got to come up we got to come up with a certain
um >> criteria on what we're looking for, but I think that's very fair if the people are paying for it. There's got to be some kind of a a a a small committee along that ditch that says, "Okay, we we agree this is done right,
>> but there's got to be also some criteria set for that to be evaluated." >> And all that has to operate within the correct we have on us. >> Yep. Exactly. >> I agree with it 100%. >> And to Chris's credit, I mean, he's been good to work with all along. I haven't dealt with that at all. I haven't met
him yet. So, >> all right. Thank you for your comments. Public are still open. Commissioner B. >> Yeah. Robert, the contractor excavator that you spoke with, is there is it possibility for you to share that information with Chris for him?
>> Scott Monte does the work with Sherburn County. >> Okay. Anyone else? Vern Reinard, 2759 65th Street Northeast. And so we are
Tracy, my daughter, she owned the own part of the farm. But anyway, uh my reason for getting up here is that we wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the fact that Deppa rented that meadow to a
cattle owner who run cattle in there and started the blockage of ditch 10. Okay. Now, if there wasn't anything on the books to say that you can't run cattle in a low land or in a meadow that
crosses a county ditch, there should be. So, if we spend all the money to clean this ditch out and get it flowing again, what is to stop Deo from renting it to somebody else that does the same thing? There has to be law in a book that says
you can't do that without fencing off the ditch so that the cattle can't go back and forth across it because that ditch 10 runs diagonally across 100 acres of meadow. Okay. And the
cattle of course obviously went back and forth and how many places did they cross? How many small dams did they create to start with which in turn creates the problem we have today. So if there is no law on the book, there
should be gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, and you just mentioned it about getting legislators involved, getting a agricultural commissioner involved. There needs to be one on the books that that cannot happen. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. And Chris, correct me if I'm
wrong, but I believe there's rules in the book. You cannot be operating in the buffer strips that way. So you can you should not be crossing the ditches. >> Uh I believe well >> with cattle We should get a legal determination. They may be allowed to graze within the buffer strip, but to to
cross without an approved crossing may be where we can draw the line as a drainage authority and say you can't just draw cross through the channel. You need to construct an actual crossing with a culvert and stay up out of the channel. And that >> that seems like common sense. >> I would I would think that there.
>> Anyone else? Anyone else on CD10? Final call. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you all for your input. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. We're going to move on to consider the ratification order for the 26 maintenance assessments. Chris. >> All right. Uh well uh I did seek
assistance uh or we sought uh assistance from Rinky and Arrange authority to draft this findings in order for the resolution uh of the maintenance assessment. Um maybe just uh
quickly here we'll go through uh what we you know we had a public hearing um back in August at the Foley High School auditorium. These were the numbers that were presented for Benton County ditch number three a $5,250 assessment uh maintenance assessment for
next year. County ditch five, $27,000. Uh ditch 6, $7,500. Ditch 7, 35,000. Ditch 9, a $10,000 maintenance assessment for county. Ditch 10, $42,000
maintenance assessment. Ditch 11, $47,000. Ditch 12, $25,000. Ditch 13, $25,000. Ditch 14, a $15,000 assessment. and ditch $1520,000
assessment. So that's the resolution. Um if adopted, that's what would be certified today and then put on the the tax statements for a one-time assessment for uh maintenance of those ditches. >> Uh Chris, just for clarification, a
majority of these assessments are for past expenditures on some of these systems, which are redetermination of benefits, reestablishing the record, buffer strip payments. We're trying to get out of deficit. >> Yeah. >> On these systems and that's where these dollars are made up of. Is that
>> Yeah, I would say. Yeah, that is that is a true >> the majority of them. CD9 and 14 were clean and six. So, these are quote unquote >> true maintenance actual work being done on these systems. >> Yeah, a lot of these ditches had a negative uh balance and we the the
drainage authority has had to borrow from the county's general fund to expend those. So, some of these Yeah. would go back to pay back the the county's general fund for those expenses already incurred. And then I think going forward, if there's any additional funds left over, they would stay in that account for that individual ditch and
could be applied to future costs if there's anything remaining. So, >> okay, members, and just a point of interest, this resolution has been put together that includes all ditches together. >> Yep. >> So, what are your wishes or thoughts, comments?
I think the only the only comment I heard in some of the negative ones that they don't really really feel that we have to view every ditch every year. They think like every other year, every third year that we should not be spending money. Uh specifically, it came from ditch six. I think that they they
feel that we did a fantastic job and they like what we've done, but they don't see it necessary to come back every year. And I think, correct me if I'm wrong, statute requires every five >> unless there's a buffer strip violation. You have to each year. >> How do we find those violations if we
don't inspect? >> Well, >> I'll report a land owners probably to the ditch inspector, >> which would then trigger us to have to inspect. >> Right. >> Correct. And maybe just for clarification, I'd just like to point out that if a landowner calls from one of those ditches and wants to talk to the drainage inspector, as his
supervisor, I've instructed him to track those that time spent on that ditch. And so that only gets taken out of that ditch's account. So it's not like ditch 14 is paying for our drainage inspector to look at ditch six or vice versa. So
we we if he does receive calls um it'll it'll get assessed or charged back to that individual ditch. >> To your point, Commissioner Pop, one of the things I think we have to keep in mind, which we kind of had consensus on, the first few years are going to be a little painful because we don't want to get behind, >> right?
>> So we've kind of have to balance this out each year. Do we need to inspect it this year? Maybe, maybe not. >> Maybe not. >> Right. >> But we don't want to have the situation where we're falling behind. >> I would see I would see ditch six like, okay, they mowed it last year. after they inspected it. Probably not.
>> And that makes sense, you know, but maybe first year after a repair or something, we might have to be looking at it. >> Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thanks for that comment because that was my suggestion is that, you know, it after three to four or five years, hopefully they'll be
just a steady >> instead of up and down, up and down. >> Well, and where this annual ditch assessment meeting comes into play is that it gives us an opportunity to decide that whether we want that amount or not. I mean just to just to further
initiate or emphasize the point like ditch 14 this maintenance cost our ditch inspectors had a you know presumably a couple halfhour phone calls with a land owner an hour or two drafting up a permit with some conditions and going to be inspected
to inspect that individual land owner's work. That's additional time spent on ditch 14 on a project we just completed the repair. So that's where maintenance assessments really come in to to cover those those you know staff time costs. >> And we may be depending on the
inspection going out there and mowing or removing trees already in the maintenance mode. >> You're correct. Yeah. Ditch nine. Where are we sitting with that one more time on on the what we got in the kitty or what we're behind on or are we even with that right now?
>> Ditch nine just has the repair. >> Yeah. So it had a large negative balance for the repair cost that that earlier this summer you certified the repayment schedule for that. >> Okay. >> And this is a one time one-year assessment. >> Correct. So we would have a similar
meeting in August of next year um to discuss what we think. It gives us an opportunity to look at the the past year of what we actually spent and talk about what we think we may need to do in the next year and determine the appropriate assessment for that. Well, just for reference, historically when we talked about ditch six last year, I believe
last year's assessment was 15 >> 15. >> We went out for quotes to do some work came back in at a roughly $7,500. So that particular system actually has a credit >> right >> on it. >> I think actually >> for that for that portion of it because
there's still repair assessments on it. I understand that. >> Yeah. But when I when I single it down to the actual work of the maintenance, >> I think what I remember is that we had about $7,500 assessment and then the initial quotes came in at double that. >> Okay.
>> But then when the actual work was completed, it did come in under our assessment. So yeah, to your point though, we do have a small credit, >> but if we needed to go in and mow again, you know, a year later or two years later, hopefully we have the similar cost. >> We're starting to get some historical data now.
>> Correct. So each year we're going to have more information and be better equipped to estimate those forward costs. >> Mr. Chair, go ahead. >> I I know one of the things that came up in that meeting uh in Foley was the weeds. Is there any kind of a a a spray
that we could put on that's I don't know that could take care of these for cuz mowing them is just cutting them down, right? >> We want to spray >> and he was that individual was talking more about brush growing. >> Exactly. And there is environmental sides.
>> Yeah. Um I don't know if I've shared this with that, but yeah, I there are sprays available because we spray for brush in our road ditches. >> So, >> I've already been thinking in my head of some things. Can we can we build a little spray rig with some of the equipment we already have just to spray
it uh spray those buffer strips as opposed to paying for maintenance. So, yeah, >> there's some things that, you know, we're in the infant stage of this, so it's going to take a while. We're learning things every day. >> Yeah. >> Unfortunately.
>> Okay. So, you see the order in front of you for the ditch assessments for 2026. Again, they're all they're individualized but lumped together in the resolution. So, what would you like to do? >> Well, we were negative on some and we got to get we got to get the the money
back to the general fund of the county from the ditch authority. So, I'll make a motion that we accept the ditch assessments for ditch three, five, six, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15.
Okay. Is there a second? >> Okay. A motion and a second to approve the recommended assessments for maintenance on all of our county ditches that were labeled off in the motion. Is there any other discussion? This is Mr. Chair. Go ahead.
>> It's not fun to assess people. Believe me. >> No. >> But it it it's also not fun to go out there and find out we need more money to replace these. And we're starting this is a process that's starting so that in the future when something does need to
be cleaned, we got we have some money sitting there. So, um it's not it's not fun to do this, but I I will support it. Any other discussion? >> No. >> Okay, we have a motion, a second on the floor. We'll do a roll call vote, please. Beth.
>> Commissioner Benoy, >> I. >> Commissioner Heinen. >> Commissioner Pop. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Johnson. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Kapinsky. >> I. >> Okay. Motion carries unanimously to set this assessment for 2026. >> Anything else? Chris, in regards item.
Uh, Christine, >> can I clarify for the assessments that are under $10, what you would like done with those? Oh. >> Oh, that's right. >> Sorry. >> What did you do last time? >> We We the one >> Didn't we just roll round it up to 10?
>> They rounded up to 10. >> Yep. >> That work. Okay. >> Yeah. >> You probably had some land owners who were frustrated that you were assessing them 75 cents and had to mail out the >> Yeah. >> assessment. I'm assuming
>> they would have been assessed the $10. >> So, it was the minimum of 10. >> Yeah. Because had stated that in a maintenance assessment you can increase it to like the $10, but if it was a repair assessment you have to charge the actual amount.
>> Okay. So yes, do we have consensus on that? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Anything else on CD10, Chris? >> So or excuse me on the uh order? >> I have nothing more. >> So Mr. chair. So with these peoples, are are we going to put ditch 10 on halt
till we get further deal or are we going to let the engineers report come forth and add more money to their already? >> We have to. >> From from my standpoint, I thought we clarified that the report all be it, you know, working out with the with the
townships is pretty much done. >> There's going to be minimal money spent to bring that report back, >> right? I mean, we have no idea. I mean, do you have any idea, Chris? How much >> how much more to spend? >> Yeah.
>> I don't know. Uh, four or five hours of meeting time and prepping for a public meeting. So, min minimal. >> Minimal. >> Then we get a full repair. We can bring it back in front of you guys, >> in front of these people, so that they can kind of decide which route we should take.
>> I guess what I'm trying to say is that 136 or 138 isn't going to go to 175. You know what I mean? >> Yeah, that's my concern. >> Well, I'm suggesting we don't have to decide that until you get your numbers together and we can come back on the next board meeting. >> Yes, that's what the engineers report will do is
>> don't do anything new until we've figured out the logistics of withholding the petition and those kinds of things. >> Oh, okay. Yeah. No, we still got to do the proc finish the process. That's all. >> Completely on hold. >> Well, >> no. Can't put the process on hold. We've
got to finish the process. >> That's all I'm asking. Yeah. Well, >> to get to to get to your spot though, uh, Mr. Sultman, I think we're we're like you said, a few hours away to having all of this stuff. And then we have a$1,000 an hour for those meetings.
So, that's 5 to$10,000 that both of those beaver dams out. >> That's what I'm getting at. What is an hour of meeting time cost? >> It's a very good question. The problem is we have to bring that report back at a public meeting which requires
notification in our official newspapers. You know, that's $200 to $300 because you have to run it so many days and they charge by line. We have mailings. We're required to send mailings out to all those benefited land owners. So, we have that postage cost um and just the time
prepping for that that meeting. So, um I mean all said and done, maybe it is $5,000 just to prep for to have the public hearing. So, >> but if we had but if we held a public hearing before that, we haven't we don't have all the information.
>> We don't have none of >> that's that would be as an engineer, that's what I'd say is like they're going to ask questions that we don't have answers to yet at a public hearing. And correct me if I'm wrong, even if we wanted to today to go blow up those beaver dams, we still have to have the
proper permits put in place. >> Well, >> Mark Elguson, 5092 Fifth Avenue Northeast, Sock Rapids, Minnesota. For instance, I have a beaver dam on my property. The water level was coming up onto the
neighbors. He went to the courts, got a court order to come onto my property and remove the beaver dam. So, I don't see how the county ditches would be any different than mine. But we
got to remember this includes a a a waterway too, which is a public waterway. >> Just for clarification, Mark, you're talking about your private ditch, not the county drainage ditch. >> No, I had a beaver dam that was on my property >> in his ditch >> draining some flowage there or where
it's created a wetland. >> Mhm. >> The neighbor to the north. >> Yep. >> Felt the water was too high. >> Yeah. >> Went to the courts. got a court order to be able to come onto my property and remove that beaver dam.
>> But my question is, is that drainage is that your private ditch or are you talking about the county ditch 10? >> It's actually It was actually in the It was actually in the state right away. >> Yeah, >> the Beaver Dam. >> Yeah. >> So, I'm still trying to
>> Wasn't it a county ditch? No, >> it was not a county ditch. >> Okay, that's what I'm trying to >> So, I think I think beaver dams are a little >> Yeah. I think you could go out and remove a beaver dam pretty easy. >> You can even go on a public waterway and do a beaver dam because up in area
remember years ago they did. >> It was a bunker hill creek. They removed the beaver dam because it was flooding out. >> Well, I guess we'll have to find out. So maybe that's something Chris will have to check. >> It's I I think it's relatively easy to >> Yeah. Thank you, Mark. >> Okay. >> Thanks.
>> All right. So, we're off of that. Uh discussion, possible action regarding ditch authority legal counsel. >> I Mr. Chair, >> I think having uh um Rinky Nunan at our last meeting >> was great
>> was phenomenal and and uh they were able to answer a lot of questions that we had have been stuck >> y >> with I think >> more than a lot. You know, >> we've been trying to get legal counsel
all the way through this process so that we would have a better understanding and more knowledge. And in my opinion, the only time that happened is when we had Ricky Newan in office. >> Monty, we required any type of action on
it or just some consensus or what? >> I think ideally, Mr. chair, there would be a motion and and second and vote of the ditch authority to so to have an unambiguous decision on this issue. Yeah. So >> So basically all ditch authority matters
would be gone through rinky nun >> if that's your motion. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. >> What do you wishes? >> I'll make that motion. >> Okay. There second. >> I'll second. >> Okay. motion in a second that all future ditch authority matters would be through
the Ricky Nunan office >> conversation. >> Yep. Go ahead. >> Um I had a lot of land owners at the meeting and after the meeting that contacted me that said that was a very professional attorney that we've had up
there. It helped all of us out and it made us understand that you guys are the we'll say it the the voice of the state. There's so many things that we we can't do. You know, we we know it's obvious.
It's it's pretty easy. Remove a couple beaver dams, but the minute we overstep our boundaries, we're personally liable individually. So, and a lot of people don't understand that. So, um, I I am all for making sure we have the right
representation, not only for us, but for the people out there, so they get the right answers right away, too. >> Any other comments? Again, >> I will say being new on the board, having him there was very enlightening, the most I've learned. Plus, I think
that some of the calls that I've received back in reference to that also was he he kind of laid it out in layman's terms or were simplified the legal language so that the public understood what what he was actually
talking about. >> Okay, one more one more comment. >> I want to make sure this isn't a knock against our correct >> county attorney, >> correct? I >> I It's just like a doctor. Like I go to my regular doctor. I don't want them doing heart surgery on me. Right. So,
they're specialized and that and I think Rinky has proven that they're very specialized on this area and they represent a lot of counties. Yep. >> They do actually represent about 50 counties in the state of Minnesota >> and North and South Dakota too. So, >> did you have anything else? >> Okay. Any other discussion? There's a
motion and a second on the floor that all future ditch authority um the word I want to go through Ranky Newton. >> Would go through Ranky Newton. Thank you. Wow. It's been a minute morning. Any other discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? I
>> opposed carried. >> I was so communicate that to uh county attorney's office and uh and John Cole. >> Okay. Thank you. Anything else? Y >> Chris, >> I have nothing else for drainage authority. >> Members, we're adjourned at 12:00. Thank you.
>> Break. >> Okay. Take a five minute break. >> I need to take a break. So, we're going to go to Chris Bird and we're going to do the amendment, right? Yes. If we we may
please. So, um and then if after that, if it's okay, we're going to adjourn the county meeting. we go to our budget so we can get some >> What about the road plan? >> You have to do the road plan or can we put that? >> Well, for the interest in time, we can sacrifice that until the 23rd uh board
meeting. So, >> no, you probably have a gentleman here that came for that meeting, but >> Oh, really? Well, if we got to do it, we got to do it. >> Just talk fast, Chris. >> Okay. So, all right. What would you like me to talk about? >> The first one.
>> Go ahead and do the five-year road plan. >> Yeah. >> All right. Well, okay. So, we recently discussed this at a committee of the whole um although previously to that we discussed it on road tours and and other public meetings. So, this would be the next 5 years of our road and bridge
construction improvement plan from 2026 to 2030. Couple things I just want to point out. Over the next 5 years, this represents almost $73 million of investment in road and bridge infrastructure. Of that $73 million, $33
million would come from outside grants, whether that's state or federal grants. $18.5 million would come from our local sales tax. $16.4 million would come from our annual state aid aotment. And then $1.7 million would come from our
wheelage tax that we collect here locally. So that would be the next five years of road and bridge construction projects. I did include a resolution for you to consider. I would say that uh a couple things. It approves this and helps direct our our workload over the
next 5 years. Number three, though, the board still reserves the right to amend the plan from time to time to reflect changing needs, priorities, or funding availability. So even though I'm asking for, you know, kind of a resolution adoption today, that doesn't preclude you from opening it back up and saying, "Hey, Chris, let's talk about it some
more." >> Correct. All right. Questions on the five-year road plan. >> Oh, he's chair. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> You're so wounded up. >> I'm sorry, Commissioner P. I'm still in ditch authority mode. Sorry. My
apologies. >> APO got called Madam Chair and he was looking at Rayanne. So, >> that was person. >> My apologies. Okay. Yeah. Any other discussion on it? Otherwise, I think, you know, like he said, we can go back at any given time and add or subtract or and lot's going
to depend on 33 million in grants. That might not happen. >> You're right. Yeah. So, with thankfully, you adopting this, we're starting to get into grant season or grant applications. So, by you adopting a plan helps me to include that in my application funding. >> Mr. Mr. Chair, maybe if I can just a
couple highlights because Tim is here again kind of year one is kind of solidified right as you know and then years two through five are ones we're going to discuss but a couple highlights in that county 50 is still on for year two as further discussion and then CASA
25 was added as a reconstruct potential project in year five. So, just to highlight that, I know that you missed our committee the whole meeting. Uh, Mark was here. Um, but that's kind of the big picture of what
happened with that five-year road plan. Again, year two, I I think I could say year two through five are >> very much subject to change. >> Yeah. >> At least it highlights something on >> ju just like every previous year, two through five always gets changed and moved around.
>> Yeah. >> Because of funding, >> right? So, I just wanted to highlight that. I know the rest of us know that, but since Tim was here, so he's aware of what we did or are thinking of doing. >> Okay. So, we do have any other discussion?
Move >> approval. Second. >> And move and approve to adopt the five-year road plan. Any other discussion? All in favor? >> I opposed. Carried. >> All right, let's move right along. So the next item I thank you for
considering today is a contract amendment to our KJ engineering contract. KJ is the one that's designing our Casawat 2 reconstruction project that's in that plan just adopted for 2027. So year two um just as quickly as
a as a monetary budget runs out, we run out of time budget as well. So we the first contract amendment I included the original contract just for your reference in the the packet but I want to get down to the the first contract amendment and we discussed this at the
recent committee of the whole about that project and that is to design a roundabout at uh the intersection of county road 78 and two which uh as an engineering standpoint we believe would be a good idea due to the crash history
at that that was not part of the original scope. So they're they're proposing a cost of $47,452 to design that roundabout at that intersection. To put that in perspective, because I saw 21 29 and one roundabout intersection, that cost us
over $200,000 of engineering just to design that as a standalone project. So, since they're already designing the road around it, I do think there's some cost savings and some advant advantages to amending the construct the engineering contract by $47,000 to design a
roundabout. So, >> I I mean, we won't know the cost until we get to the design, but at some point we have to kind of draw the line on how much we're going to spend on that deb. Well, Mr. Sure. The original discussion
wasn't it about 600 gray 600,000 as a total for the roundabout. >> That's for the construction costs. Okay. It would raise money. >> Yeah. And that's that's rough bar napkin estimate. We will get a revised and and detailed estimate after doing this work. >> Okay. >> So once again though, we're already
reconstructing the roadway. For $600,000 more, we get a roundabout to address crash issues versus $2.9 to $3 million as a standalone roundabout project. Mr. Chair, you know, I it's not that I'm against this. I mean, I did say let's
just go ahead and and uh spend it on the consulting and all that for that roundabout, but I drive through there three to four times a weekend and it just drives me crazy that we have to put a roundabout in a big wide open intersection.
>> Okay. And we have to spend funds for that. >> Yeah. It it to me it doesn't make sense. >> Yeah. The only thing that's suckier is going back and doing it later. >> Right. But but I agree. So that's why I agreed to it. But I'm still against the roundabout there. I am.
>> I came through there. Well, after we had the meeting, I was hauling corn. You'd not believe the chances people take >> when you're going there. I mean, why? You can see. I mean, >> yeah. They don't even have to be close. >> That's part of the problem is they think
they can see. They can see. You might just had a major accident on four and six yesterday. >> Yeah. >> Same situation. >> Same one. Same. Yeah. >> Yeah. You're right. Wide open intersection, 90°. You got good lines of sight both directions. Why are people crashing? >> Yeah. >> I mean, you can literally walk across
that street when you see vehicles coming. I mean, seriously. >> But I'm sorry. Just my opinion. >> You can sit here. >> So, that would be the first contract amendment. Uh lumped in with this agenda uh item was uh amendment number two. Oh,
I should have shared that. That's that's a rough sketch of what that intersection would look like with a roundabout at it. Two going east west obviously 78 north and south there. So, um amendment two, uh a little bit more, but this is we reached out to them to see if they could
help us out with acquiring ride of way along this stretch of roadway, which needs to be occurring now. So we there are 58 parcels uh by 57 different land owners along that stretch of roadway. It's really coming down to a time crunch
of being able to acquire this. Um just to put in perspective this this is being estimated to take about 840 hours of work to do that. >> Oh Jesus. >> Our most recent reconstruction 7 Mark Lloyd was able to do that uh on that project. But for this one, it would take
21 weeks of him working 40 hours a week to get that done. Almost a half a year. And we need to be getting right away hopefully before the end of the year so we can get trees cleared in 26 before bats become an issue so that utilities
can be relocated so that we can reconstruct the roadway in 2027. Um, >> this is for all of CASA too, right? The whole project. >> Correct. Yeah. Well, just to rice. >> I mean, yeah. To rice. >> To rice. Yep. Mhm. >> So, and that that's interesting. It's a
similar length as Cass 7. Um, what's interesting is Cas 7 had 50 parcels, but only 37 land owners. So, there was a lot of owners that uh own multiple parcels. That's where it becomes time inensive. When you're dealing with 57 different
land owners, scheduling time to meet, to discuss, to negotiate, to stake out the rightway. Oh, the rightway stakes got knocked out because of mowing. Can you restake that? It does. It does become really time inensive to have those conversations. >> So, is this acquisition to purchase
rightaway for the 2 and 78 intersection? >> It would be the whole length all the way from Rice East to Casaw 1. >> Yeah. >> So, the whole four and a half miles of roadway. >> Five miles. Okay. >> There's a couple of large owners in there. I mean, so you must have a lot of
like just lots where there's a house. >> You're right. Yeah. As you get closer to Rice, you got more individual houses. Uh where on the east side it's it's 40 acre parcels. But um >> And you must have had some dollars figured in for the Casawat 2 project in
regards to these two items, right? It's just that now we're looking for outside consulting for it. >> Yes. Correct. Yeah. So fortunately for us, we are doing very well on 2025's consultant budget. So I do have budget capacity left in this
calendar year to to cover these costs. >> I'm a little concerned though if we don't have a county person doing it, an outside consultant. I think that's, you know, when we did 78, Mark did it >> and there I don't know how many there was there was a lot of miles in that.
And I think the public is more aware when you know Chris or Mark Lydle will come and say the county wants to build this road. You send a consultant in and it's like okay I'm you know if they got a got money to hire a consultant we can add this much more to the costs and we you know how many are we going to have
to take to eminent domain because I think uh Mark Lyle did a really good job. We were down to one that we actually had to send him a letter >> for eminent domain. >> Yeah. And that person has got property on this project too. >> Oh,
the problem is though with it is to give Mark Lloyd six months worth of work. >> I just some things that are different now than when we were acquiring Cass 7 roundup or reconstruction because I I thought the same thing. I asked these questions. Why why why were we able to do it before? We
can't do it. Well, for one, Cass 7 reconstruction took a month longer than what we anticipated. So he's managing that. We've got Gilman in progress now. That reconstruction project that wasn't happening when we were acquiring SAW 7. We have two bridge projects. Uh we've
got plan review and design oversight on the next year's road construction projects. Mr. Lloyd will also have to acquire additional rightway for the CASA 13 and CASA 12 uh bridges that are in the plan for next year as well. >> Doesn't he also have about 30 bridge
inspections to do? >> That's correct. Yeah. So, back to that earlier discussion of um having them do more of the bridge inspections. Does that alleviate some cost of this? I think it was actually cheaper to have uh the rideway done um than have them do
the bridge inspection. It comes out to, you know, about $2,000 per parcel uh to do this work to have the consultant. >> How much did you say? >> $100,000. Yeah. So, since we have 50 58 parcels, so it's about $2,000 per parcel
to have the consultant do it. >> If I had the time, I'd go out there and talk to these people personally and get it done for half of that. >> I mean, that's that's honestly more than a half per one person's half I mean, half their wages
>> for a half a year. >> Yeah. Yeah. But it gets into the supply and demand out there. >> But then if that person does that, how do they get the rest of the stuff done? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. What kind >> we pull them off and say you need to do this. >> He just said what we got what he's got to do next.
>> That seems >> Does that include all the paperwork and everything that goes with this? >> Yes. So this would be drafting letters. Uh this would be doing the surveying out there to actually because land owners want to see the stakes. They want to see where is that rightway going to go. Um,
it includes three in-person meetings with each individual land owner from the consultant. Um, yeah. Uh, yeah. Drafting up with that, uh, uh, permanent and temporary easement language, uh, all that. So, I mean, with
all due respect, I mean, I guess I just need an explanation. We just hired three people over at the public works highway department in in hoping to alleviate some of these outside extra costs. So I mean,
>> yeah, that's an excellent question. So three people, three engineering tech, we got still one of them inspecting Cass 7 reconstruction. They did not get the road opened before last weekend, so it's still closed now. They're still doing uh permanent seating. They still have to do striping and shouldering. So we got one inspector on that. We've got two
inspectors out on the Gilman reconstruction project right now. We've got the third engineering technician finishing up surveying for the upcoming project. So, the engineering technicians we hired aren't even available to do ride-of-way uh work either. >> In the future, maybe we need to look at
our workload. And I'm not saying that you haven't, but maybe we're trying to tackle too much in one year. Maybe we need to push some of these off, you know, to me to to utilize our staff a little bit more because I mean,
>> I would bet we might run into some funding. >> Yeah, true. >> Mhm. >> It's a double-edged sword. >> You're exactly right. And that's why I mean, it is a it is a a timing thing. So, I really prescribed the ideas like having two budgets, a monetary budget
and a time budget. So when you don't have one enough of the other, you need more of the other side. So >> and it really that's why it needs to take five years from agreeing to do a project till you're constructing it because you need time to do these
things. I know land owners don't feel don't like to feel rushed when we say we're constructing this roadway in a year and a half. We need you to sign this this rightaway document. So I I don't like the idea of pushing even land owners. >> I don't think we have a choice. Well, we don't that, you know, that's
>> we, you know, not not against you, Chris, at all. 100%. >> I'm going to bite my tongue, but you're right. We have no choice. It's very disappointing, and it just >> just makes us frustrated, that's all. As you can tell, Chris,
>> you're right. I mean, it kind of has impacts to the five-year road discussion. Are we trying to get too much done in five years? It >> gets to the point where pretty soon we could do all these outside stuff. I might as well hire another person.
>> Well, every one assistant engineer might but good finding them. >> I mean, seriously, what good is that going to do? It it it seems like this just this outside stuff just keeps growing. And no, no, I'm no disrespect, but it just keeps growing and growing
and growing. A and we hired three people. >> I mean, at at what point do you say enough's enough? I don't know. I don't know the answers. I I I just It's frustrating because ultimately this board's the one that has
to explain to the public why we are spending this kind of money on outside. And I've sat here and watched Chris get beat up at that podium as to this kind of stuff >> and it's frustrating.
>> Chris, so you need a Mark Lidle to do property acquisitions with his experience. Correct. Well, you're right. The alternative would have be a staff person that's knowledgeable in rideaway acquisitions. I mean, state aid, federal projects.
There are laws, once again, we're getting to legal territory of property owner rights. A lot of it is timing. You have to provide them with a fair market appraisal. You got to give them so many days to consider it. so many if they counter offer, we get so many days to
consider it and then counter offer and and those kind of back and forth things. So, it's those things you you could get into big trouble if you do one of those things wrong. >> You're talking about 58 land owners here. >> Yeah. 57 on Luckily, one landowner owns
two parcels. So, 58 different land owners. That's that's the the struggle. So 58 land owners, giving them their due time for consideration, discussion, answering questions, and we know even if we hire KJ, we're still going to get
questions from the landowners. They're going to call the county, they want to talk to the county engineer. Why is this person? So we will still have time invested on top of this. KJ is still going to call Mark Lloyd because Mark Lloyd's the project manager and say, we had this discussion with the land owner. What does the county think about this
offer or or this proposal and stuff? So, >> yeah. Well, >> well, welcome to our work. >> I We can't We've already got money coming for two. We We can't >> I mean, this project's got to move forward. >> It really is. If we had complete I mean, I think the work >> a motion.
>> I'll second it. >> Chorus. What's the motion? The motion is to engage KG >> like seconding it when you don't >> approve the contract amendments. >> Yes. No, that's >> you agree. >> Yes. >> Um just for clarification, it's not to exceed, right?
>> It's not to exceed. >> Yeah. Yes, we can. Yep. We will do that. We will manage that budget and we will take on more work if we need to to get stuff done and not use a consultant. >> Do you have any say in the person that's going to do this? Because you know that could make a big difference if you're
type A or type B person. Oh yeah, for sure. >> Okay. >> They're working for us when we approve this. So if somebody is we think they're doing they we think they might be do job and we we hear feedback. Nope. >> We'll tell them get that off the job. Get us somebody different.
>> Okay. All right. All right. So you heard the motion and the second. All in favor? >> I opposed. Gary. >> Thank you. That's a lot to absorb. Uh appreciate the time. >> Our frustration isn't with you. It's >> No. Yeah. It's the process again.
>> It's us versus the the problems out there. So, we'll move to Do you have any committee of the holes? >> Just one, sir. Uh September 18th, 7:30 p.m. St. George Town Hall Township Officer Association fall meeting. September 18th, 7:30 St. George Town
Hall. You are invited. >> That's a BCAT meeting. >> Yeah. >> The Township Officers Association fall meeting. Yep. Okay. The follow it's a fall annual the twice yearly annual meeting. >> Yep. Motion to approve the committees of the hall.
>> Second one's been made and second approved committees only. Any other >> last one of the year? >> All in favor? I >> I carried. We're journed at 12. >> Kind of funny. Commissioner
>> I'm already going to have her a half hour late. I could just have her cancel. >> Leave it. >> Yeah, but she's your mom is back. >> I know. Would it be okay? >> Well, I was I >> the one time I completely don't look at
my couch.