--------- It's 8 8:30. We'll call this morning's meeting of the Klay County Board of Commissioners to order for Tuesday, November 25th. And just to point out, we have this morning had been having a few technical difficulties with some of our microphones. So hopefully uh the
audience can all hear us and uh we'll try to get that fixed shortly. So with that uh is there approval of the agenda? >> Mr. Chair, I'll make the motion to approve the agenda. >> Second. We have a motion by Commissioner Bear, second by Commissioner Ebinger.
Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. I >> oppose the same sign. >> Motion carried. Next, we have citizens to be heard. Do we have any citizens to
be heard on items not on the agenda? Any sentence to be heard? None in the audience, any online? >> Nothing, Mr. Chair. >> All right. Thank you. Approval of bills and vouchers. >> I don't think that's working, but uh >> there
move to approve. >> Second. We have a motion by Commissioner Krabnoff, second by Commissioner Bear. Any further discussion on that motion? >> Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. I
>> oppose the same sign. Motion carried. We will move into our 8:35 it agenda item that is Minnesota Power Maple River to Cailluna 345 KV transmission line project presentation.
Do we have our Drew? Is that okay? Drew, come on up. Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Um, sorry I was a couple minutes late there, but thanks for having me. Uh, my name is Drew Jenkee. I'm an environmental compliance specialist with
Minnesota Power here today to talk the Maple River to Cailluna or MRC transmission line project. If we could go to the next slide or do I control it? Oh, perfect.
So, a little bit about the project. Um it is uh a joint proposal between Minnesota Power um who I work for Ottertale Power Company and Great River Energy. The project itself will be a new
345 kilovolt single circuit transmission line built on double circuit capable structures. Uh, all in all, the line will be approximately 160 miles running from Minnesota Powers Cailluna substation just outside of Iron, Minnesota in the
Brainer Baxter area. And the other terminal point is the Maple River substation owned by Ottertale Power and that one is just outside of uh the Harwood or Fargo area. Why we're building the project? Um, really there's four main um project
needs. Um really the big one is to enhance the reliability of the regional transmission system. So think of this project as enabling that bulk power transfer uh at a regional scale. Uh similar with the second point, they're increasing transmission system capacity.
Again, we're we're looking to enable uh more transmission at a regional scale. Uh meeting growing electrical demand and enhance resiliency during extreme weather events. And that's at either end of the line. Uh the project will be birectional. So depending on where the
energy is needed at any given time, it can go either way. Uh and then again enabling that cost-effective regional transfer. A little further background on the project. So the mid-continent independent system operator or MYSO uh
is a a group that essentially operates the electric grid. And every so often, MYSO will take a look at the regional transmission system and determine if upgrades are needed. Uh, this MRC project was approved in tranch 2.1 um of
the MYSO approval process in December of 2024. Uh, that follows their trunch one batch of project approvals that were approved in 2023. Um, so you can see there circled near the top of the map where this MRC
project fits into the grand scheme of the MYSO uh recent batches or tranches of approved projects. touched on this a little bit already here, but um some of the project components, as I mentioned, it'll be approximately 160 miles uh depending on
how much zigging and zagging we do between the two substation endpoints. Uh will be built as a single circuit 345 kilovolt overhead transmission line project um on double circuit capable structures. For the project, we will
hang both sets of conductors. Um, so there'll be six total wires. Um, but initially they'll be jumpered together near the terminal or substation endpoints. So initially it's going to operate as a single circuit, but we'll have that second set of conductors ready
and strung when it comes time to energize a second circuit timeline. Um, so a lot of this year has really been uh focused on stakeholder engagement. We've had two rounds of public open houses. First round was in
June. Um at that one we had a pretty broad study area um that we were able to show the public and and folks and get some feedback on. We did hold an second round of public open houses in October. Um and that at that one we had uh it
narrowed down a little more into some preliminary routes which we'll show in a bit here and which is where we're at now. We are planning a third round of public open houses for the next spring, likely in the March or April time frame. Uh getting in getting into next year, we
do um anticipate submitting our permit applications to both the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission and the North Dakota Public Service Commission next year. Um, we'll touch on a little a little bit better on the timelines there, but we'll also be working on
engineering environmental surveys uh and begin discussions with land owners for right of way and uh right of entry agreements. Assuming all goes well, we would begin construction in 2029 and have the project in service by 2033.
So this this map shows uh that broader study area and this was really our starting point. Uh for reference the Cailluna substation is on the far right or eastern portion of the figure here and then the Maple River substation you
can see just outside of Fargo on the far left or western edge of the map. What you see highlighted in blue is uh potential routing options centered on existing transmission lines for the most part. Um we it's not only good practice
but we're actually driven by state statute to follow existing transmission lines as much as possible. So what we did was start with this very broad study area um which allowed us some flexibility to to do some routing work in order to get from A to B. And this is
what we were able to show at open houses in June. From those open houses and some feedback with primarily state agencies like the DNR, uh we've developed it down into these preliminary routes which are
also our certificate of need notice area. So this is the area that's really been winnowed down to our potential routing options. >> Mr. Chair, >> yes a question, please. >> Y >> thank you for clarifying this. I you know these swaths are are several miles
wide. Uh so how do you um what is the best course of action for public engagement for folks that maybe just look at a blue line and think, "Oh, this is following I94's corridor. I'm good." When they might be three or four miles off that um but
could be included in your project scope. >> Yeah. And so so we set a 1 and a half mile buffer either way off of existing lines just to make sure we do notice an appropriate amount of folks and to keep options open open. Ideally we would
colllocate a route immediately adjacent to an existing line. But as far as the public outreach with questions we do have project website set up um email hotline and a phone hotline that essentially all gets routed to me. I
have had a few questions. You know, it looks like the edge of this blue line is running right through my property. Does that mean you're proposing the line there or is it just the area you're considering? So, we've had plenty of those, I guess, clarification conversations.
>> And I guess part of the reason I ask is is I do live within that buffer line of the um transmission line. And so I' I've really not been aware of it to this point, but I appreciate I've been aware just because of the comm the commission piece, but not as a resident piece. My
other question is um you know, I appreciate that you clarify that for the most part you have to follow through with what existing components are by statute, but you said there for the most part and so are those for the most part areas identified in here at all? And
>> right >> is there a map that shows where those areas could be that aren't attached to an existing >> not in this presentation. We don't have the existing lines mapped. We do have that mapped on our website. We have an
interactive project web map. >> Um and actually primarily here in Klay County there's just not a whole lot of existing transmission lines. So, anything over 100 kilovolt is what the statute um directs you to follow.
>> Um and really as we get towards the border crossing and really into the northwest portion here in Klay County, there just isn't much. So, we would be looking at what we call more green field development within the county. >> But that is all accessible on the website.
>> Yes. >> All right. Uh this this map is just uh the one we were looking at previously, just a little bit larger. Um so the plan is here to take these preliminary routes, narrow this down even further into a
proposed route at some point next year. A little background on the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission permitting process. Um, so the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, for those that are unfamiliar, is a five member panel uh appointed by the governor on staggering
terms. And they regulate just about everything we do as public utilities from the rates we're allowed to charge our customers to where we build our generation sources or source our electricity from and then if we can and if so, where we can put these uh
transmission lines. So for this project we will be going to the public utilities commission for two types of permits. Uh first one is a certificate of need. Uh essentially just like it sounds we go to the commission with an application explaining why the project is needed and
in the interest of our rate payers and the public. Uh that one we will be filing by early February of next year. Uh the second type of permit is the route permit and that's the one where we go to the commission with an actual
proposed route on a map for them to consider. Uh through that process, anyone can propose alternative routes for consideration as well. We need a little bit more time to come up with a proposed route that's going to make the most sense. So we're going to file that one a little later into next year,
likely around the August time frame. Uh both of these processes have uh ample opportunities for public comment and engagement. Um and we're we've been spreading the word uh to those interested. Uh just for awareness here, the North
Dakota side does have a pretty similar process. Um beginning there with number two, the certificate of need of certificate of public convenience and necessity. uh that is similar to the certificate of need process in Minnesota. And then the certificate of
corridor compatibility and route permit is similar to the route permit process uh east of the border. I've touched on this a bit here, but um just to give you an idea of uh our routing process and and where we collect input, um really we we started with that
initial study area, which was the bigger bigger map. um had some open houses and discussions as I mentioned with some state agencies, identified routing opportunities, and then developed preliminary routes, which is where we're at now. Um we're taking we're still working on some of the
feedback we got at the October open houses. Uh we've got a few more agency meetings coming up here to uh dig a little deeper into where we're at with the preliminary routes and from there we'll we'll identify a proposed drought next year prior to submitting to both uh
state commissions. um through this, you know, what what we're asking folks for feedback on is is whether there are any constraints uh that we ought to be aware of that we're not or if there are any sort of routing opportunities uh for us to consider as
well. Once we do get down into more of a proposed route area, we will, uh, hit the ground running, uh, no pun intended, with some field level surveys, um, geotechnical evaluations really feed into our engineering design as far as
where we can place structures and if so, uh, how to design those foundations. Uh we'll also do a whole suite of environmental surveys from cultural and archaeological resources, wetland surveys, and then a whole suite of uh biological surveys.
This figure gives uh a good demonstration of our preferred uh structure design. So this is a steel monopole anywhere from 120 to 180 ft high depending on the topography of where it's located. And then the right
ofway width needed for a new 345 kilovolt transmission line is 150 ft. >> Yes. Yes. Commissioner. >> So when you said you were going to are you going to string the second the second line in there too or just hang everything for the string to be run?
>> Uh the second the second set would be strung. Yeah. So all six you see there's six wire location. Yep. All six would be strong. >> Okay. >> And just using half of it at the time or Yeah. So, they would all be energized. Um, but it's it'll operate as one
circuit. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> I have one more question. So, when you do the easements, uh, are they 150 ft or I mean, how wide are they? >> Yeah, correct. So, a standalone easement is 150 ft. Um, in a collocation
scenario, we can overlap. Um, like for example, if there's an existing 230 kilovolt line, we can overlap that right ofway about 30 feet. So, it would be 120 ft off of the edge of the rightway. >> And that's always your your first priority if you can.
>> Correct. >> Yep. And actually, that's my next next slide here. It gives a a pretty good graphic of that. So you you'll notice uh in the middle there there's an overlap of 30 feet um give or take you know with
that existing rightway. Um also notice these structures are quite a bit taller than uh what folks might be used to. So about twice as high as an existing 230 uh wooden H frame structure. I mentioned the monopole, steel monopole
is our preferred design. Uh in certain scenarios, we may have to pivot to these lattice tower designs on the far right. Um typically when we run into these are poor soil conditions. Um we prefer the steel monopole. Most land owners,
especially farmers, prefer them the single or monopole structure. But uh we have to make sure the you know the line's going to be stable. Uh so these lattice tower structures are four-legged. Um and just for reference, they're about 30 foot by 30 foot uh
footprint at the base. >> M >> I notice on part of your proposed route areas, um given how much taller these are, some of your maps are rather close to the Morhead airport. How does the height of that would it differ the
closer you are to the airports? Yeah, it can. Um, and the FAA actually maps out certain restriction zones. So, we are aware of that and we try to route I guess around it would be preferable. But yes, sometimes we may be looking at some
shorter structures >> because >> or different structure types. >> You know, if I look at that piece by 336, you're within a half mile of the runway and even the angle on that. >> Yep. And it it it all goes into that
routing consideration and it depends, you know, if there's if it's the approach zone or >> or where you're at with >> which I appreciate that you're aware of it. I just know that they had a regular telephone poll and there was an accident. >> Oh. >> Within the last five years.
>> Okay. Yeah. >> Uh this one shows, you know, preconstruction uh through into operation phasing. Um so we'll begin with surveying uh right ofway clearing. Uh then from there we stake out our structure locations, pour foundations
with anchor bolts. Uh stand up the structures, string the wires. Um and then after the project does get energized, there is a cleanup and restoration phase that we need to ensure before the project goes fully operational. And finally into my last slide here. Um,
so as I mentioned, we're we've been through a lot of community engagement. Uh, we it will be an ongoing process here. Uh, we do have a a live project website that I mentioned a bit ago. Um, you know, couple rounds of public open houses with a third one planned. Um, and
then through the both state commission processes there, uh, there's ample opportunities for public engagement. So, thank you. I will uh hang around for any more questions. Okay. Do we have any questions? All right. Well, thank you for giving us
update. >> Yeah. Thank you all. >> All right. Next, we have a FM Metro Railroad needs study pres presentation. Good morning. >> Okay. I talk pretty loud anyway. Well, thank you, chair, honorable
commissioners, um administrator, administrator Larson, and and uh and Madame Clerk. We're glad to be here this morning to present this uh present this study that we've been working on for a little over two years now. And um we're kind of getting close to finishing up.
So, we wanted to go around and and let all the jurisdictions know what we've been doing. So, to give you some little a little bit of background, a little over three years ago, BNSF approached several of the jurisdictions in the region as well as Metrocog and they they
um talked about doing a study of key rail crossings and uh other rail related locations throughout the region. So all parties met and he agreed for a comprehensive study to assess current conditions and identify future potential
infrastructure improvements and BNSF agreed to pay the local match to the federal funding for the project. So that was a big relief for the local jurisdictions. That's usually 20% for you know divided up amongst the jurisdictions. So that was that was very
nice and and well appreciated. Um, HDR began work on the rail study in June of last year and their local office here drew upon rail expertise from their offices across the US and Canada um for rail expertise and uh project manager
Dan Berguson from the local office of HGR is here and will provide a slide presentation to give y'all an update on Klay County. >> Good morning. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair and commissioners. Um, yep. So, as Ben mentioned, we had
multiple locations throughout the metro area. 15 in total is what we ended up with, and those were selected by the jurisdictions. In Klay County, we had four locations outside of the Morehead um and Dworth city limits, and we'll
touch on some of those. Uh the key objectives of the study were evaluating existing conditions, assessing potential improvements, and recommending infrastructure enhancements at these locations. We did have uh quite a bit of public
engagement within the study. We had a study review committee as well as a stakeholder committee with representation from Klay County Engineering, Morehead Engineering, Morehead Fire, Morehead Public Schools, and Mindot on the Minnesota side, as well as uh several other representatives
on the North Dakota side. We had a popup event during the winter warm-up in February at the Ror Museum in downtown Morehead and had some pretty good turnout. That's where this photo is from. uh got some good foot traffic and visited with interested parties. Uh we
also were at the Kuanas Pancake Carnival in at the Fargo Dome in February as well as having public meetings in both Morhead and Dworth in addition to West Fargo and Fargo in the summer.
So the preferred alternatives that we found um this is in Dworth at they have the existing Main Street crossing which um sees high train traffic. Um there's uh several tracks uh that you need to
cross there. And we wanted to study uh an identified location for an overpass at 14th Street to the east in Dworth. So in this image you can kind of see um 14th is that
yellow highlighted area on the right side and the overpass um typical section is shown as well with a potential four-lane structure for the future which also connects to the H Heartland Trail. Here's just another closer look at that
area. 14th. Uh, Mandot does have a um a potential improvement looking at a roundabout at the intersection of Highway 10 and 14th. And uh we've been coordinating with them on uh just being prepared. This is just a planning study.
So there's obviously you know quite a few steps to be taken before anything like construction, but it's always good to coordinate on the early side of things. Next up, uh, we have 40th Avenue South on Highway 52 or near Highway 52. This
is a skewed intersection with Highway 52 going parallel to the railroad tracks. Uh, a short storage area on the west side of the tracks and um just not exactly ideal geometry to work with. Uh the preferred alternative that we
identified is a widening of the roadway and adding pavement to the surfacing as well. Um adding a turn lane and shoulders to make things a little bit more bicycle friendly as well as updating the railroad warning devices and the layout to meet quiet zone
requirements uh if that's something desired for the future. We also looked to the south of Morehead at 50th Avenue. This would be um the railroad tracks that run parallel to 20th Street in Morehead extended to the
south all the way down to 50th Avenue. Uh the preferred alternative here was an overpass. And this area is probably a little bit further into the future for these types of improvements, but that's how far we're looking. Um and again uh
pending traffic a potential four-lane structure um over that with some considerations for the existing facility near there. >> Is the purpose of that to uh like a future corridor study where you you
basically let people know that something traffic-wise might change in the future. the purpose of >> well I mean putting this bridge there overpass there now it just seems like they're >> yeah aren't there
>> I mean there's um certainly considerations you know years of considerations whether it's um traffic studies and funding and those types of things that would go into a project like this before it would come to fruition
>> I guess usually once once a plan is put in place what what I'm getting at is often times then There were signs put up where it might say future corridor or something um so that people who might want to invest in that land might know what changes are coming.
Is there any consideration to that? I for our study I don't believe that would be um a consideration you know at this point. >> Chair if I can add to that a little bit. One of the things that came out of the
study that we learned um talking to BNSF is we were kind of surprised to be honest that they were looking at some of these rail crossings that weren't in very urbanized areas, you know, for the most part that weren't highly trafficked and they said that the reason that they
that they wanted to look at some of these areas was because of their experience in Texas and they were very specific about that and they they said that there was so much development so much growth and it was it happened so fast that by the time that growth
occurred around some of these intersections there wasn't room to be able to do any improvement. So they wanted to kind of get out ahead of that and kind of have have this on the radar more for their use so that they know if they see that development starting to
happen that they can they can be aware of this. and they were concerned because in Texas development occurred right up at the right up at the right ofway of the railroad. They didn't have room to work. They didn't have room to make any type of expansion and in some cases they
had some fatalities. So that's definitely got their attention and why they were looking at these areas. I think that was a surprise for us. We didn't expect that, but that was a pretty candid comment to come from the railroad and say that, you know, they're looking way in the future on this and
and that was pretty welcome to hear to be. >> Yeah. >> So, they um I think back on the both the along the railroad there on 40th and also on 50th, I used to travel out a lot going employer when I was working. I drove
that way all the time and there was the stacking of trains was always an issue. Uh I don't know. I think since since the Moreheads rail project was completed, I don't know if that stacking is as big a
problem as it used to be. I think the trains are able to I don't think they have to wait as long to be able to get in and and back their way back in. But I wonder if that if stacking has anything to do with the railroads interest
because a lot of the farmers don't want to see those roads blocked by train stacking. We we didn't receive any comments um about it during our our outreach to the public or stakeholders >> it in some other areas but not in these.
Okay. So similarly on 60th Avenue South, this would just be south of 50th on that same um on that same stretch of railroad tracks. Uh very similar alternative was selected as preferred. So this would be
the um what would be called by some the convent road connects to 52nd Avenue down there. And this one sees a little bit more traffic having that river crossing. um would see this happening potentially before the 50th Avenue uh
improvement. And again, here we're looking at some bicycle and pedestrian uh infrastructure as well. >> And here and all these were now we're talking about east west traffic that would the bridge would go up over the railroad tracks. Is that what we're talking about here?
>> Correct. And just a little bit of insight as to our approach on um the factors we looked at with these improvements and these alternatives. So we just went through the preferred alternatives. There were multiple alternatives for most locations
that we looked at and we sent a survey to the um study review committee as well as the stakeholder committee and asked them to prioritize you know these these different considerations um on the screen right now. And what we
got back from that survey was uh high scores for magnitude of project benefits as well as emergency service access. Uh also community impacts and discretionary funding potential and magnitude of project costs were some of the higher
scoring items. So we use that to create a weighted uh scoring criteria which we called a multiple account valuation. And we had other factors such as uh benefit cost ratio that were considered as well.
>> So on the far right column there, the higher the number, the u more significant the project becomes. >> Yes, that's correct. >> I mean it it there's a bigger demand. >> Yep. Yeah. the more you know the higher
the number in any given column the the higher that uh project scores in that category essentially. >> So Kevin >> along that lines have a question where where it talks about train traffic. So
am I reading that correctly? Some of these is five trains a day or >> uh so that would be a basically a zero to five score. um with five being more significant train traffic at these locations.
>> You know what the current I'm just curious what is the current amount of travel on that? >> I do have the uh the numbers here. Are you talking 40th or >> no? Uh well going north south so whatever those cross you know whether
it's 40th you know 50th or 60th >> the 20th street track. >> Just a curious question. >> You understand what I'm saying? >> Yes. And uh so all that data actually the uh Federal Rail Administration does
make public. Um, I just pulled up the 50th Avenue location and it's listed as eight trains per day. >> Okay. >> 980 >> eight eight no zero.
And with that, I'd just like to thank you again and note that the final draft report is available on FM Metro Cog's website if anyone's interested in some leisurely reading. >> Well, any do we have any other questions for board members?
>> All right. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you. All right, Justin, you're start your lengthy list of uh items you have for us today. >> Yeah, good morning. So, the first item I have
is requesting approval of resolution 2025-32 for Department of Natural Resource Funding. And so this is the annual resolution that I bring in front of the board every year and this is for the art trail that runs from Uland 5 miles north to the Norman Klay County line. What
this resolution does is it just allows us to be reimbursed for any maintenance activities that we do on the trail. >> Sure. >> Do we currently do any activities of maintenance on that trail? >> Not a lot. So Norman Moles for us. Um we
do spray every year. um L&M sprays for noxious weeds for us. And then in the past three years, I think we've replaced a couple different culverts. So, a little bit, but not a lot. >> We get reimbursed for anything we suspend it. >> Correct. The Trailblazers Club does most of the
maintenance and then they >> they send us invoices and we get reimbured from the DNR. >> That Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to approve resolution 2025-32. >> Second. by Commissioner Bear, second by Commissioner Ebinger. Any further
discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed the same. Motion carried. >> All right. So, the next few items I have are a bunch of local road improvement applications. So, the first one is going
to be for Klay County's LIP application. So, as I've indicated to the board a few different times, so the proposed project that we're going to submit an LI application for is Cass 11 from Trunk Highway 336 to Sabin. It is a route of
regional significance for Klay County. And currently, that road is just too narrow for the traffic that takes it. It's in need of a grading project. And if we're successful, we could get up to $1.5 million through this grant and potentially accelerate when the project
would be constructed. >> That'd be a good project. So, I'll make a motion to approve the resolution 2025-33. >> I'll second the motion. >> All right. Motion by Commissioner Krabanov, second by Commissioner Mojo. Any further discussion?
>> Further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. I. oppose the same sign. Motion carried. Next. >> Yeah. So, the next item is another local road improvement application. So, this one is for Glendon. So, since Glendon is
not a state aid city, they do require a county sponsorship to apply for this project. Um, so they are applying for local road improvement funds to improve Second Street Southeast and 110th Street South. And then I just put there's also
just kind of on the resolution. It kind of explains a little bit about the project, but I think it would good application and we've traditionally sponsored all of these and had really good luck in Klay County. >> With that, Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to approve resolution 2025-34.
>> I'll second the motion. >> Commissioner Bear, second by Commissioner Mojo. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? I'm seeing none. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppos the same sign. Carried. Right.
>> Next one is resolution 2025-35. This is for hitterdoll's local road improvement application. So they are proposing some water and sewer work as well as paving NP Avenue just north of Cass 26 tying into State Highway 32. Um,
this is the first time Heetterall has applied for a local road improvement project to my knowledge and it looks like a really nice project. >> Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to approve resolution 2025-35. >> I'll second that motion by Commissioner Mojo, second by Commissioner Barer. Any
further discussion? Further discussion? I just want to I just want to point I think this is great that these local communities are really taking advantage of this. Mhm. >> I think it's and I'm glad that you're working with them and helping educate them on the possibilities are. So,
>> definitely. And then just for your information, I will be bringing one more next week for Dworth. >> All right. Um all in favor signify by saying I >> oppos the same. Motion carried. All right. >> All right. So, next item. I am
requesting approval to purchase a plow for unit 100. So this pickup is used by our road foremen and a critical piece to have during winter which obviously we are experiencing right now. The plow would be purchased from Bert's Truck Equipment in Morehead and the amount of
the purchase would be $11,389 and we do have money in the budget to cover this and then in the future this would go into internal service. >> So you're looking at getting that in this year's budget yet?
>> Yep. So, we do have um in 10 340 604. So, it' be equipment over $500. We do have enough funds to cover this purchase. >> All right. >> One question. >> Has a road foreman had a plow on their truck normally? >> Correct.
>> We didn't replace that truck. Correct. >> We did. So, we replaced it, but we didn't get rid of the truck. So, we still have that >> down. Yep. >> That one. Does that one still have the plow on it? >> Correct. >> With that, Mr. Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to approve the purchase of a plow
for unit 100 in the amount of $11,389 from Berts Truck Equipment in Morhead. >> Second by Commissioner Bear, second by Commissioner Ebinger. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? And so then you will end up then putting this plow on
the internal service moving forward. >> Correct. >> What's the life of those? >> Uh I think we go it's either seven or 10 years. I don't remember off the top of my head, but I I think it's 10. >> All right. Any further discussion? >> One other question.
>> With with a truck that h that the road foreman did have that still has a plow on. Is there another person that drives that home or uses that truck consistently? >> Does not drive at home, uses it consistently? Yes. >> So, they'll be using that plow this winter as well.
>> Correct. And um one thing too with purchasing the plow for the road foreman um his normal kind of what he takes care of is south of Highway 10. So especially with that roundabout construction next year I think the plow will get used a ton.
>> Perfect. >> All right. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I same motion carried. All right. Next request for drone. Yeah. So, I'm requesting approval to purchase a drone from Frontier
Precision. So, one thing that kind of changed this year with State Aid, State Aid was kind of sponsoring a lot of people going to bridge inspection training, which was a two-eek course. A lot of people got certified, including myself and a few other staff. So, now
they kind of shifted that money was coming from the timber haulers account, and then they kind of split it up based upon based kind of how many bridges each county had and had a minimum. And then you got so much per bridge. So this year we received $25,755
from state aid. And this money has to be used for anything bridge inspection related. So load ratings or like this case purchasing a drone. Um, so in total, the quote also includes um training the drone and also an online
portal to assist getting all of our bridge inspection staff their part 107 license which is required to fly the drone. >> Any comments, questions? >> One question. >> How do you have any drones right now under your
>> So we have one um so we received one couple years ago from FHWA. We're having we had some issues in licensing it so we never really used it all that much. So this will be the first real drone that we'll use. And then also
with this one we can use it for not only bridge inspection but it does have capability to survey like gravel stock piles and and one other thing this typical drones obviously if you see one at department store for a thousand bucks they're ran
strictly on GPS. This is if GPS were to ever go down, this also this will still run and it's USmade. >> I would imagine for this to be used in bridge inspection work, it it has to have extremely high resolution.
>> Absolutely. The camera on this thing is amazing >> because you're looking for fra correct fractures and >> and one thing unless we borrow like a snooper truck from mind we're not really able to get under bridges very often and
this thing will be a gamecher for that. >> Yes, Commissioner. >> Do you have trained operators? >> Nope. So this quote includes I think it's for seven people to it's called the pilot institute but it's basically an online
portal with quizzes and videos that helped staff get their part 107 license. >> Good. Thank you. >> One one more coming. >> So will this uh speed up inspections of bridges in the coming? I wouldn't say necessarily speed up. Um
it will help us and just kind of another tool because they're still going to have to look at all the same things when they're doing bridge inspections, but in the summertime I think it's something that we'll use as a tool to get under the bridges more. >> Inspect them better there having to wait for MDOT super truck.
>> Correct. We did talk about this at the highway committee and seemed to fall in where there's probably more benefits than not >> particularly with how we coordinate with the sheriff's department also on road closures and communication for folks to
get visual on what's happening outside. >> Definitely. And one thing that I envision using this for is like I mentioned earlier, the roundabout project is probably doing like a weekly fly over and just giving an update on our social media pages just indicating
how progress is coming. you know, the um as Commissioner Ever both know being on the diversion authority board, one of the I think one of the best reports we get on a monthly basis uh is the visual from drone footage of
all the different things going on. And it really really is uh an interesting and good tool where you can see progresses being made and it does have really unique opportunities to pinpoint you know, problem areas. And so I I
fully support this. I think this is a a good investment. >> Yes, Commissioner. >> Um I'd like to make a motion to approve the purchase of a drone from Front Frontier Precision in the amount of $25,1225.
>> Second the motion. >> Right. We have a motion by Commissioner Abby or second by Commissioner Mojo. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppos the same sign. Motion carried.
All right. Now, we're going to get into a couple of final contracts. SAP 014594-002. Yeah. So, this speaking of local road improvement. So, this was the local road improvement project in the city of Holly. I thought it turned out really well and residents seem to really like
it. Um, Hog Incorporated was the contractor. The final amount to be approved is 947,2379. And then the initial bid was $876,81.38. The reason for the overages is they had a couple soft spots that they had to dig out that weren't anticipated >> or quantities that.
>> Yep. And these are these are all uh paid for um by the local community or or and whatever they receive from their >> Yep. So their local road improvement grant is capped at what the bid amount was. So anything additional has to come
from the city of Holly and they did request all of their wheelage tax for this project that almost covers that overage. But they do sign an agreement when they get the grant that basically says they're responsible for anything over the capped amount. So they had
built up their wheelage tax over >> Yep. >> which we allowed them to do. >> Correct. >> Up to seven. >> With that, Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to approve the final contract voucher for SAP 014-594-002
in the amount of 947,2379. Second. >> We have a motion by Commissioner Bear, second by Commissioner Kavanagh. Any further discussion on the motion? Any further discussion? >> All in favor signify by saying I. >> I.
>> Oppos the same sign? Motion carried. All right. Next, we have contract SP014611005. Um, yes. So this is a final contract voucher for the federal aid project on CASA 11. Um this was the concrete pavement rehab and Diamond Grind
project. Diamond Surface Incorporated was a contractor and the project turned out very well. Um throughout the last couple years, this has kind of been a trouble road for us with pavement buckling. Um, just as an FYI, every time that pavement buckled, it was about
$50,000 to replace, plus closing the road down for probably 2 weeks. Um, so you'll see the final amount to be approved is a little over $100,000 more than the initial bid. So, with federal aid, usually with a state aid project,
we like to build in a fluff factor of about 5%. Federal aid does not allow you to do this. And we had um in the month of June before they started we had a couple hundred degree days where we actually had more panels buckle. So that's the reason for the overages.
Um so the final amount that I'm hop or that I'm looking to get approved is1,182,5548 where the initial bid was 1,63,772.98. And then one thing that we also did in this project was seal all the joints where previously none of the joints were sealed and that's what was causing the
pavement to buckle. It would just fill with sand and whatever else. And then as or as it gets hotter concrete wants to expand so didn't have anywhere to expand so it would buckle. >> So hopefully this will alleviate the buckling. >> Correct.
>> Have to spend 50,000 a time fixing. >> Correct. Any other questions? Words, wishes. Mr. Chair, I'll make the motion to approve the final contract vouchure for SP014-611-055 in the amount of 1,182,5548.
>> Second. >> We have a motion by Commissioner Bay, second by Commissioner Graboff. any further discussion. >> It's very nicely done. I drive that road often and yeah, it's a lot smoother now. >> And I do want to give a little kudos to
our maintenance department, too. Kind of right at the end of the project um on the north side of the bridge. We had a really bad panel that our staff did a really good job at ripping out and replacing. >> Lot smoother up and down off that bridge. Mhm. >> And this being a CASA project along with
federal funds, this was this was um uh financed through our five-year plan. >> Correct. So there was federal funding plus state aid funding on this project. >> So I mean it's the overage will slightly impact our five-year plan, but we've also seen some savings in some other
projects. >> Correct. >> More than offset that. >> Yep. >> All right. Any other discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppose the same sign. Motion carried. >> All right. Now you guys want to go to
>> Arlington. >> Where are you going? Texas. >> Arlington. So final board item. Um so I'm requesting approve out ofstate travel for the myself and the assistant county engineer Alex. So this is for the NACE conference, National Association of
County Engineers, which through Minnesota County Engineers Association, we are a full member in NACE and participate. Um so this year's annual conference is in Arlington, Texas goes from April 12th to April 15th. Um I
think this is a very valuable conference with many technical sessions from around the US and it also provides CEUs to help maintain lure. Um, we do budget for this every year. Conference registration is $745
each. Flights are about $400 and then board or hotel stay I believe is around that $800 mark which is all within budget. Um, last year was in Chicago and just kind of mentioning how it provides value to
the county. John Deere was a major sponsor of that event last year and they found out that we were purchasing three motor graders and they actually gave us a system that's about $8,000 that kind of helps keep that plow on the road in snowstorms. It's a new system they just
came out with and we got that at no charge. >> Mr. Chair, >> Commissioner Mo. >> Thank you. Uh it seems like not all of America floods in the beginning of April. So, um, following suit with what we've done before, if there's an issue
and we're seeing that it could potentially be flooding, we'll adjust that. >> Yep. >> Um, yeah, I part of where I think there's huge benefit is, uh, you know, we've heard nationwide about how some folks are using beet juice, sun deicing components, and given the fact that
we're up here and, um, it costs a lot of money to buy that equipment up up front. And I think that's one of the valuable pieces that you'll continue to hear and see if it does make sense back here. And then the other piece where I think nationally is starting to make sense is
there's some pretty enormous uh studies and projects going on that have to do with ash. Mhm. >> Both Commissioner Campbell and I serve on Prairie Lakes and we've heard about what that mindot project is and you know I think those are areas where 745 bucks
looks kind of cheap when um if we could see some substantial savings by bringing those projects to Klay County. Uh certainly um I see the value in attending the conference. >> Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to approve the request. >> Second.
>> Motion by Commissioner Mojo, second by Commissioner Ebinger. Any further discussion on the motion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Oppos the same sign. Motion carried. >> Thank you.
>> You got anything else for us? >> No. No. I think I'm done for this week. >> So, I want to say thank you for um your input and time that you are involved with when we have our our state house and senate bonding committees coming
forward regarding our our needs and uh in regards to the diversion project on the Minnesota side, explaining those important road raises and all
those things. It's important for the state to hear that. >> And so, thank you for um being willing to hop on those buses and out of your other busy schedule to work on those items. >> Yeah, not a problem. And it the buses are kind of fun because you do get to
connect with people and one of the senators Anne Johnson's actually a civil engineer so it was good to connect with her. >> A civil engineer that he also was in her class. >> Yep. >> So yeah that was good. >> All right.
>> All right. Thank you. >> Right. Thank you Justin. Well, I guess we can take our break. We're ahead of schedule. I want you all to note that. >> All right, we are now back in session.
We will resume our agenda. Moving on to request approval to purchase two-way radios for the landfill. Good morning, Corey. >> Morning, Mr. Chair and commissioners. Uh my first request for the day is to purchase some new radio equipment for 2-way radio equipment for the landfill.
Um as you know we had an incident there this summer where a gentleman passed away and after we discussed um what had happened and how our response was we realized that unless our operators are actually in the equipment they have no way of communicating with anybody else
on the grounds other than cell phones. Um so I looked into buying handheld radios. um couldn't find anything that was compatible with the old system we had out there. So, I looked at purchasing a new um and the new system would also be compatible with the radios we have at the RC so we could
interchange them at a time of need. Um the cost of the new radios is $9,93953 installed. So, that would be my request for the first item this morning. >> Commissioner Mojo, >> thank you. We did talk about this at
SWAC and and I just want you know, folks to understand that what happened at the landfill wasn't a result of the the radio component. We were just addressing how in the future we could address a crisis out there uh and really felt like this was the most important way with
folks going in and out of equipment to be reachable is the most important piece. Well, I you know, and that kind of remote area out there too and and you have I I just think from a safety standpoint, even for our our staff out there working,
>> right? >> Uh you know, to be outside of their vehicles if something happens to be able to reach out for assistance is important. So I and I and as Commissioner Moer mentioned, this was talked about at our solid waste meeting,
advisory committee meeting, and that got the full endorsement of the solid waste advisory committee to move forward with this purchase. Mr. >> Chair, >> yes, Commissioner >> is how many units will this be? >> Seven total units. Two of them will be handheld.
>> Okay. >> That our our landfill technician and our operator will each carry a handheld with him at all times. Um when our landfill tech is not there, our summer help would have land would have a landlord handheld also. And then we have extras at the RSC that we could transfer out there if we can get to. >> Do you have somebody monitoring as a
base just in case somebody is gets in trouble? >> Yep. Yep. There's the office has one. There's a base unit in the office at all times. Plus every every piece of equipment pickup has one in. >> Sounds great. >> Commissioner Bear, >> can you hear these back in Morehead? You
can hear them in Moria, but you can't communicate back to them with with the handheld. I have I've tried in the past. Um, >> but as soon as you get to that Glendon area, they can start hearing you. Yep. >> You can hear, but you can't you can't talk back. >> I can hear, but I can't talk back. Yep. And that depends on weather and that
kind of stuff on where they're at at the landfill. If they're down in a hole, it makes >> different. >> But within the within the footprint of the landfill, there's no issues there. >> So then we'd be also replacing the radios in the equipment. >> Yes. Yep. Those are all analog equipment. They've been there as long as I've been around. So, 10 years just
about. Um I'm not so sure they weren't there when my dad was there. So, um the serial numbers are 1 2 3 4 I believe. >> Time for an upgrade. >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes, Commissioner Ever. I'll move to uh
approve the purchase of new radios from Midstates uh for landfill in the amount of $9,93953. >> A second. >> I have a motion by Commissioner Ebinger, second by Commissioner Krabanoft. Any further discussion?
Further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. I >> oppose the same sign. >> Motion carried. All right. Next, we have a Certificate of need request. >> Yes. Uh we are renewing our license or
permit at the landfill and part of that permit application is a certificate of need letter resolution. Um we have gone through this with Stantech and our landfill technician. Uh essentially what it is is an estimate of how many um how much volume we will be using over the next 10 years. Um we turn that in and
it's monitored you know annually by the MPCA and that and that kind of thing. So um it's an estimate. We're fairly confident that's a high estimate. Um, but we want to we have to have it as part of our our renewal process. So, that is this is the next step is
requesting this letter of resolution. >> One question, Commissioner Bear, >> looking at years back, do we come close to that estimate or >> uh we're a little bit lighter. Uh we we've added a percentage or two increase every year just, you know, >> yeah, >> for growth and potential with the uh
construction and demo waste, but no, we don't come close. We're probably 10% below that number. >> Mr. Chair, with that I'll make the motion to approve the letter of resolution for the certificate of need for the landfill permit. >> Second.
>> Motion by Commissioner Bear, second by Commissioner Abiger. Any further discussion on the motion? >> Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. I >> oppose the same motion carried. All right. And your next
one is the Leeate contract. >> Yes. As you know, we have entered a contract with Pelican for the last couple years to um dispose of our Leeate. Um this is just an annual contract that we do with them. It has been looked over by the attorney's office. Uh the only change from last
year's contract to this year's is there is a $2 per thousand gallon increase. Um, so basically 0.02 cents per gallon. Um, which is still keep it cheaper than than the Fargo, but we also have Fargo as a backup. So my request would be to
sign the the contract for the 2026 leaf tape removal. >> Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to approve. >> Right. >> I'll second. >> We have a motion by Commissioner Mojo, second by Commissioner Krabnoff. Any further discussion on the motion?
It's um it certainly is a costefficient uh compared to what our previous >> Yep. It saves us 2 cents a gallon. So on 3 million gallons that adds up in a hurry >> closer freight
>> uh same >> same distance as far as hauling >> little prettier drive. >> Have we have we looked at is there any cities in Klay County willing to take this stuff for us or no? >> No. I've requested Morehead. um they don't want it just due to the fact there's some heavy metals in there that
they can't handle at this time. Okay. >> Nobody within Klay County. We've tried. >> All right. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppos the same. Motion carried. >> And you're still on schedule. Thanks,
>> Corey. And I asked questions. >> All right. Looks like we have a an announcement here this morning. >> Good morning, Mr. Chair, commissioners.
Yes, an exciting morning this morning. Uh, as this board is aware, uh, we've uh, uh, recently had a recruitment process to replace the public health uh, director. Uh, we've had several several interview screenings and also uh, this board was a part of the interview
process for the final candidates. And through that process, we had a candidate uh that came forward out of that group that had strong leadership uh a strong vision for for that department uh where she like to take take that and also a collaborative spirit to work with the
staff that we have. And so uh this morning I would bring before you uh Jessica Mickelson for consideration to be the next public health director. uh in our in our discussions with Jessica, our county has a promotional promotional policy uh which requires a minimum of a
5% promotion increase uh not to exceed a maximum price. And so uh the grade the grade and step that Jessica would be looking at is grade 26, step five. With that, I'd yield for any questions. All right,
>> Mr. Sharon, we uh came to a to a pretty clear consensus amongst us that Jessica was our pick. We're looking forward to having somebody from within the county family moving ahead and taking over this department
and uh it's going to be a pleasure to work with you as we reform our partnership for health, too. So, I'm looking forward to it. And having said that, I'd like to make a motion to accept recommendation to hire Jessica Mickelson as the public health director, grade 26, step five with backfill and
social services. >> I'll second the motion. >> We have a motion by Commissioner Abinger, second by Commissioner Mojo. Any further discussion on the motion? >> Question. >> The start date December 20th. Anyway, we can push that to January 1st.
>> Um, Mr. Chair, I think one of the challenges we've talked about a starting date. you know, it's certainly up to the board's wishes of when they'd like to start. We've not had leadership within that department for a little over two months. And so, um, I know that that
Jessica is working to prepare prepare her budget or excuse me, prepare her department, uh, to leave. Uh, and so I I think that, uh, we certainly up for the board's wishes. You know, I think in in past when we've hired somebody new to
lead a department, um not only do we try to get that person in as soon as possible and often times we end up uh with a duplicate payment because we want them to take advantage of the person, the predecessor um in
most instances who might be retiring or whatever. And in this particular case, uh, she's not going to have that ability to have that individual. Um, so I I still think I I still think getting her on board right away is is really
important. Um I I do want to comment on um all five of us were able to be part of that interview process and and um we had we had really good internal candidates as well
as external candidates and we're fortunate to have selected somebody internally and I just want to maybe send out a message to the other internal candidates who applied that um or they're
they're really good and I think you it's going to show that you have some people within your department that you're going to now lead that are very talented and look forward to you being able to uh take advantage of that talent to to make
things more smooth for you. So, um, but anyway, we had we did have that and and I think as Commissioner Aberinger said, I think you kind of rose to the top and that was encouraging. So, >> Commissioner Moel,
>> thank you. I'm really excited about this. I've had the opportunity to work with you in a variety of capacities and I will say it's really interesting and wonderful that your team that you're leaving is here to support you and cheer you on. that speaks of the collaborative nature for the work that you do and I'm
just so excited for you to see where you take this department. Uh, you know, I also think it's important for us to um uh take into consideration a department that hasn't had a head for a while because of the absence. And so, you
know, I appreciate waiting um waiting, but there will be a cost savings because you are leaving and vacating a position to go to a next. So, um, I will wholeheartedly support this and excited to see the work that you'll do. >> Mr. Chair, >> Commissioner Abier,
>> just on as far as the hiring line goes, if we can impose on Quinn to borrow one of his employees, uh, we have the first meeting of the new partnership for health, which will be December 10th or 5th, correct? And it it it'll be
here in in Klay County. So, I'm excited to see you hit the ground running with as much information as we and your staff can give you. And >> so, you're basically telling Quinn that that we're taking his employee for >> Well, he's he's giving me a thumbs up,
which I think is probably insincere, >> but uh yeah, I'm not telling Quinn anything. He's smarter than me. All right, anybody else? Well, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. I. >> I. >> Oppos the same sign. That's a unanimous yes. Jessica, do you have any comments to >> Well, I just want to thank Steve and all of the commissioners for this opportunity. I'm really excited to get started. I know I have big shoes to fill
with Cathy's departure. Um, but I'm really excited to work with her dynamic team that she's put together and it's very bittersweet to leave the amazing group that we have in social services, but I'm really excited. So, thank you. Appreciate it.
>> Right. Congratulations. >> And and Mr. Mr. Chair, if I could just briefly take a second for that the team that she'll be supervising and thanking them for uh for pulling that their their staff together over the last several months uh and making sure that public health worked as smoothly as it as it
did. Uh so thank thank them. All right, that moves us into our next um topic and that's the 2026 budget discussion that we have on our agenda every meeting now to the end of the
year. Um I know um in front of us um Mr. Larson has provided us with our non-county 2026 levy requests and I think he was looking
for a final um review on that moving forward before we do go to our final levy and and was wondering if there were any uh questions regarding those moving forward. I know that uh Commissioner Krabanov brought to my attention that
there is a slight uh difference in the historical and cultural society. Uh the amount it was reduced to was 219,235. Is that correct, Commissioner? Create
>> not 218 but two 219 235. >> That makes it same as last year. >> Right. Commissioner Abbinger. >> Yes. I I u notice we we this reflects
the reduction from the $3626 362,690 request from Lake Agassy Regional Library was reduced to uh 349209. The uh last time we discussed this,
there was a request that I look into what the consequences of that $15,000 shortfall will be to Klay County. All the funds that we pay are reflective of a formula that was devised 30 years ago.
And uh the library has got a budget that's running very close. There's not a lot of room in it to cut. So, if we don't pay the additional $15,000, which is half of the we're paying half of the original increase to
the ask, um I ask what items are going to need to be uh limited. as it looks now with the with the union requirements that non-UN employees uh receive cutbacks prior to any union
employees. The obvious quickest generation would be to close the Uland facility right now, which is open three days a week, two hours a day. That would still leave $5,500
uh for the Barnesville and the Holly uh locations to eliminate uh positions and the per hour at each of those locations. Barnesville, the elimination of one hour of employee time over the year would
save,84. In Holly, it' be 1,288. So they would try to sit there and figure out between the other two locations where the cuts need to be made. I do not like the current formula and
there are other members signitories that don't like the current formula. It's complex and it was obviously designed to address some needs 30 years ago that have changed and we have already resolved to address that in the
upcoming year to be more reflective of reality. Uh however, having said that, I would ask that we avoid these these cutbacks to services in Barnesville, Holly, and Ulan and go ahead and pay the
additional 15 15,000 to meet the shortfall that uh is currently showing a Klay County budget. Did we um did we ever ask or discuss the um the libraries reserves and what what
those reserves look like? I I can't remember if we had that discussion or not. I c I can't remember what they are, but I in looking at it a month ago, we've had a lot of figures run through, but in looking at it a month ago, it is not excessive. And it'll probably be
tapped this year with the cuts as we're all experiencing on state and federal funding that normally comes through and some of the additional demands. I anticipate that if grants or other funding aren't located, they're probably
going to need to go into the reserves. And just like us, you don't want to the next few years. We don't know what what they hold, but it doesn't look like it's going to be a partic particularly easy time fiscally for any entity. And this is not a a
place that's replete with funding. >> I just I I was just wondering if the formula that you talk about Dave, if that if that formula um just automatically um
takes the budgeted needs of the library board and distributes that based on the formula before there's any consideration of reserves being taken or if if reserves
have been part of the discussion and built in to their budget. >> Since I've come there, it's been a little disturbing to me, but they've always made a work. The budget shows a deficit at the start of the year. Uh expenditures are going to exceed
income, and that's another thing I think needs to go into factoring a new formula. Leaving something untouched for 30 years is just not what I think. I mean it varies
because the components that are in it, library use, membership within a geographical range, but I 30 years ago they had to take a poll of people in three or four of the libraries for a two-month period to determine part of
their construction of of the of the uh formula. And this, I think, was done to not have to have to do that every year. As a result, it takes no no
um reckoning of the actual cost of operations into the formula, what it takes to run the facility. So, I think it's time to to redo it. I was elected again as president of the library board for the for next year and that is our
primary. Uh we want to get it done by budget. You know we want to get done by June so that we have an idea of what we can send out to everybody and are able to justify it and get a consensus from the
the uh signitories. >> Mr. Krabanov. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Sure. Um, so I do support their work. I I guess you you're talking about a new formula and I I don't quite understand what that
means. And maybe I should, but I don't. And um, so if they have a new formula, where might we land next year? >> That's a good question. Um, it's going to be based on cost of operations
and I think our costs are considerably less than than the many others that are involved. But that's something we're going to have to look at. >> I mean, is the formula is is it showing an inequity to Flay County versus other places or
>> not? Not not as much as it is over in our neighbors Becker County and Detroit Lakes. There seems to be a real uh differential there. and they are the only signatory and they may have approved the the original ask.
I've not gotten that information yet as of last Tuesday. It was still a question up in the air but or last Thursday but uh all the other signitories have approved the original ask. >> Mr. Chair, commissioners, if if uh I may
I just pulled up the preliminary budget request that they provided. Uh and it's anticipated that uh the they will be utilizing one point one $136,566 of fund balance uh this year, which was
an increase of $36,566 over last year. >> So, does it say what their reserve balance is? >> I believe, Mr. chair. I think that we had a conversation earlier in the budget process that they were right around 2 million. Uh their their overall budget
is is 4.4 million proposed next year, which would be roughly five months of five months of operating. >> Mr. Moto, >> thank you. Just a clarification though, it is anticipated that they will have substantial
um A&E um purchases, correct? or furniture purch sorry not A&E purchaser purchases for the new site >> I believe those are not I believe it's those are capital items
that have already been budgeted for >> I thought in the negotiations that was something that came forward that it looked like they were going to have to purchase their own as opposed to as part of the entire project. Yeah, they're going to have to purchase the for their offices, >> right? But that wasn't something that
was budgeted in in 25. So, I mean going to Are they purchasing that out of reserves? >> They would have >> I think there was I think there was an item already budgeted for it. Any other questions? >> Mr. Chair,
>> Mr. Mojo, >> thank you. It is also likely with the reallocation that Klay County will see an increase. >> Unlikely. I don't know. It's it depends >> if Becker sees a substantial decrease. Somebody I mean that's going to have to
filter through. And so I'm just trying to figure out a way for our budget to step into what that looks like. >> Yeah. I think that it goes to you know Paul's question too. I the uncertainty of
you know anytime that you're dealing with a new formula typically when there's a request somebody thinks that they're being harmed by the current formula and want it changed right I mean that's
typically why you would have somebody advocating for a change in a formula >> and in this particular case I you know I think the bigger your your county is, you know, um the bigger the target
>> at the county population and the number of people who have a card who are using the facility. Now, a major factor in it. I think what we're going to be looking at is usage and cost of running the operation.
that's going to enter into uh identifying some deficient areas, some some locations that don't have enough uh transactions to justify continuing to fund them.
And I don't know how that'll impact us in the long run. I don't know how that'll impact Pecker County. They've got a couple places that really are not real busy and it may be a reckoning time to where where we start looking at cutting, but I don't know that yet. This
is a resolution made by the board and it's not been entered in. There's been no speculation other than the fact that the cost of operation has to be a major consideration in this >> and it is not at this time. It >> should be the only consideration of it
is the cost of operation. Mr. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Everard, the any changes that would happened in 26, but the the new request if there wasn't a change wouldn't be implemented till 27. That's correct. Correct. >> Any change in the formula, >> right? Yes.
>> Okay. >> Why we want to get it done by June? Well, and I you know I I do know I I serve on a couple of other boards and I do know that there are some um there are some concerns maybe between Becker County and the city of Detroit
Lakes for example on on some of their how they feel that their portion of cost share works. Uh you know I don't know how that's going to translate into and falling down on Klay County. We don't
know the answer to that. Uh, and I don't think we will know it until you get into those formal discussions on certainly I think it's our responsibility to pay our our fair share of of those types of things.
Um, well, we've got a request by Commissioner Abing. What's your other board's feelings on that? Uh, I was I was going to ask where are we at on the preliminary? >> Uh, so based on the the adjustments that
you as a board agreed to last month or last week, we're at 4.64%. >> And that is that now that's net. >> That's net. >> When when we listen and compare it to other counties, they're not they don't talk net. They talk. So So our without
net, ours would be what? 5.7. probably be right in the yeah 5.7 range. Yes, I think we're at 1.12 of net growth and that's that's 5.7% of our projected >> correct
>> 2025. >> Any else? Um, just switching topics here, >> I think. >> Well, you know, and I guess in in fairness, maybe >> maybe maybe we can look at whatever anybody else might have
too and that might have an impact on this, >> you know, in fairness if we, you know, can we find someplace else where we can >> find some funds, >> the savings, help offset that? I I think if we go down the economic development with the EDA for cities in
Klay County, if we reduce those to zero just because it's not the greatest year to be putting out more money and maybe directing some of that money over to the library to cover that 15,000 for this year. And then hopefully Dave can get
the library reformulated and bring that in a little tighter. And if if it is cutbacks, not closures to all of our tech libraries long term to save money there, I think that's where I'd find the funds out of those four EDA cities.
And then yes, move that move 15,000 over to the library and then save the other five. Just the way the budgets are lining up for this year, they haven't received it before. So I I don't if if we give it to them now and then have to pull it away next year being 2027 going to be even a harder year to budget for.
Everybody's saying I think long term that would be the right decision and then hopefully we reign in the library. Give Dave a year to re in the library. >> Well to that though part of the reason we justified to the Minnesota entities
pulling back the EDC is there was a gap in Minnesota work that was happening. And um you know I I disagree. I think if anything else we should bolster what our smaller communities are doing. And even in discussion with Dworth and Barnesville
they said that's um substantial change that can happen with that amount even if it's minor. I think the piece about the library that is scary is we are part of a group there. >> And so if we start seeing um you know if
we pull out of that agreement then other boards go back to that um and reallocate things we might see larger cuts to Klay County than we're already anticipating. Um, you know, Dave, you're part of that and so you sit around those discussion
boards. That's where I'm, you know, concern concerned. Part of it is, you know, I I think that while 4.64 is not necessarily where in our brains we would love to be, given the fact that we
thought we were at 22% in February, I think we've done a fantastic job finding savings and getting critical about it. So, if you look at what we paid with the chamber and the EDC last year, um 185,000, what we've got allocated
through the county or the city EDAs and the EDC, that's 78,000. So, that still is even a reduction of what what they were doing there. I just I feel it's it's easier to take something away that we haven't been we haven't given out yet in case long term
we have to pull monies back next year. >> Commissioner Koff, did you have a comment? >> Well, I want to I want to go back to um just my opinion on on the um legacy.
I think Um, if everybody else is owned up to the current rate, I would be in favor of um, you know, putting that 15 grand back
into that. Uh I too uh feel like we've done a really really good job on um working our um fund balance down or not our fund balance I'm sorry the levy down to uh um I'll call it reasonable area.
Um I have a question on the EDA part. Can I go back? Can someone remind me what was stated in the me the u uh resolutions that were sent to us a
couple of years uh a couple weeks ago from the um Dworth Holly and and that was on the dispatch right and is that then the net of that is that a greater cost to us?
>> Yeah. So, um I think I think the um I'm not sure if all four cities have acted on it yet, but I think a couple of them have. And they've basically said that they want to over a three-year period eliminate
um paying for any dispatch services. Um that that um that part if that's done, that does go on back on to the county levy. And I and I assumed you did. I I wanted
to make clear. Yeah. And do we know a dollar amount in that? Is there any way of >> Well, the to the total amount that they're projected to pay this coming year is $22,000. So if you take a take a quarter, third
of that um in 27 um we would that would be in that that area. Again, with the understanding that there's probably going to be an increased cost that also be associated with that. I I think I think I think that in itself is down. You know,
obviously they those small cities have told us what their intentions are and you know we need to be prepared for what those intentions are. >> Um but I also think that uh it might become a much bigger thing >> uh than that that uh hasn't been
discussed yet. uh that I guess I'm not ready to talk about that today, but >> yeah. >> Um >> I think I think Mr. Chair, commissioners, we we have been told uh that uh and we've seen some news articles. My understanding is that the
representatives from the four cities at some point are going to be coming before uh this board to to make that formal presentation of the resolutions. Well, with that being something in the future, um I guess for me, I'd still
support the ADA and work with the uh historic or work with Lake Agassy for that increase. However, I um how that would work in the future, I think depending on the responses on on
dispatch um may change things in the future. Yeah, I had a discussion about that dispatch piece with um someone in leadership in in Barnesville, not current leadership, but past. And uh you know, I I think we have to be very clear
with them about what services would drop off. And I understand you don't want to talk about today, which is fine. I'm not going into that. But, you know, it it does need to be stated to other residents of the cities what what those components pay for and what services is it non-emergency? I don't know what it
is, but what will go by the wayside and if that's if that's something that folks are willing to to address and those are very very important conversations that not only we need to have with uh the city councils, but also I think residents just aren't aware what the gap
would be. Well, I I I think that request might lead to other requests, too, uh coming forward. That's going to be really it could it could really really change the dynamics of how dispatch on this side of
the river is going to have to be funded. And I it it's a concerning it's concerning to me on how that all pans out. Like I said, I'm not ready today, but I've been doing some numbers and and I think ultimately who it really impacts
the most is our rural people and our farmers are going to see this see this significant cost shift if you know. So, I think we're going to have to be very careful on that. I I I
have a I really do appreciate Commissioner Bayer's comments on this is new funding that is this the right year to be doing it. It's it's new funding taking from an old economic development
aotment. It's it's basically redistributing the 185,000 that we had in previous budgets in a different way. So, it's from from a technical standpoint, it's not new money, but where it's going is new. And I think
that that I think that might be the argument there of is this the if we were to ever have to back off, you know, why would you give something if you're having to back off it?
>> That's that's that's my concern. I don't I don't disagree that those um those different local communities I I don't disagree that they wouldn't
put the dollars to good use. I don't think we would even provide them with the dollars if we didn't think that they'd put it to good use, you know. So, >> so is this discussion or are we doing a motion? >> Well, it's just it's it's just
discussion, but I mean the floor is open if somebody wants to to move a change to or make a motion to change something to keep it as it is. >> Okay. Then I will if that's >> Okay. >> Okay. Mr. Chair, I I'd like to make a
motion then um uh to Is it whatever the 15,000 >> $13,481? Thank you. That amount uh be uh put back in or excuse me be part of uh our um
giving to the Lake Agency Regional Library for 2026. >> Second. >> Okay. So, the m the motion basically is to restore back the funding to its original request, >> which is $362,690.
>> Yes. >> Have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the motion? Any further discussion? I'm not sure where the board stand is. We would do a roll call vote. >> Commissioner Kraven, >> yes.
>> Commissioner Mojo, >> yes. >> Commissioner Campbell, >> no. >> Commissioner Bear, >> no. >> Commissioner Ebinger, >> yes. All right. So that motion carries and that so that 13,041 is put back in.
>> Then I would like to make a motion to pull the EDA money from the four rural Klay County cities for this year and maybe look at it next year, but just this year with what we're going to be looking longterm, it's easier to pull it back now than later. So I' I'd like to
make a motion to pull the EDA money out to the four rural cities. >> We have a motion. Is there a second? Is there a second? I will second the motion. I don't chair doesn't do it very often, but I'm going to do it today just for the sake of
discussion. I know we've discussed it, but I just I think in fairness it's worthy of anything any other comments that we make. >> I I think I think it if we were prudent it I I think the four city would use that money. I think they turn that money around and make even more money. But
just for us to fund that, I I don't think this is the appropriate time for us to be funding that. That's all I have to say. I'll ask for a roll call vote, chair. All right. Uh any I just want to make sure we're done with discussion here
first. >> Any further discussion? >> Yeah, I'll just bring it up. I I still support it. I just go back to our ADA meetings and the enthusiasm I saw from the folks and we build up Morehead. I
just I I just think it's in us. we should be building is the opportunities for these communities. And um um I I I'm one that does believe that if we help them, it helps them more and that
creates more development and that brings more county taxes in. So um uh is there a roll call yet? That was discussion, I guess. But >> did you have another comment? This this is a real conundrum for me.
Um until I was elected commissioner, my entire districts in city of Morehead. I didn't know what was going on out in the county and I've made it a point to learn and there's some people trying really hard out there to grow grow their
community and they're not part of Morehead. they're they've been out of the partnerships a lot of the time when things come through. Uh that that in my opinion explains a lot of the lack of information they have
about the value of the of the uh Red River Regional Dispatch Center to their communities. They've got to be brought in. They've got to be given the opportunity to understand what the services are. And we've got to be willing to show that
we're we're willing to play the game with them. We've been doing this for Cass County and for for Fargo and we've left our own people out there unadressed. So, and by the same token, it's real hard
when you're looking at potentially uh critical uh shifting of the property taxes on to the county. It seems we're getting from both sides now, from the towns underneath us and the state up above us.
It's difficult to to go into this with a collegial collaborative uh feeling. So, I don't know. I'm I'm not even sure how to vote right now, but I do know that
we we've been scrupulous in trying to cut where it's reasonable. And I I I I think maybe there's a a valid point that given the nature of what the ca what it costs for us to work
with the cities in rural Klay County, we may need to stand back and and and see where the appropriations go after we settle some of this situation with the dispatch center. Again, it
doesn't seem fair though because these folks have been trying hard and they they have a right to get some county support. >> So again, I want to I want to I are we finished? Okay. Okay. So I I agree. I
don't disagree for one moment that these entities wouldn't put this money to good use. I I don't that's not the issue at all to me. And I and I'm really thankful that for this for this board for really
taking a look at how to reinvest that original $185,000 that we committed to economic development in Klay County. Uh you know with with with the difficult times that we're having and you know we still brought in a lobbyist for the
important work that we need to be done that we're hoping that we can get some assistance from the state. But but ultimately my decision on this one is going to fall into the fact that none of those four entities even asked for this.
>> It was something that we we gave as a as a um different way to to maybe invest that original 185,000. But from my standpoint and also trying to do um and I talk about it all the
time, helping that little retired person living off social security, paying property taxes, how can we adjust and how how can we help that person and every dollar matters when it comes to that. Um,
so I that's why I second the motion and that's why I support this because in this particular instance, this is money that nobody even requested and under these trying times when we're trying to and we're looking at 2027 as
even being worse than 2026. How can we how can we do some things now? I do I do I think they'll do good with the money if we gave it to them. Absolutely. That's not even the issue. Not to me anyway. So
>> also not to me, Mr. Chair. >> Pardon me. >> Not that's also not the issue to me. >> Okay. All right. Any any further discussion? All right. I think uh we are asked for a roll call vote on this. >> Commissioner Kenhoff. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Mojo.
>> No. >> Commissioner Campbell? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Bear? Yes, >> Commissioner Ebinger. >> All right, that motion that motion carries. Um, do we have any further discussion on
items? Steve, do you have anything else that you wanted to bring forward to us today? I I know you provided I had asked for a breakdown on the basically the final 20 2024 revenues over expenditures.
Uh, which I think it's pretty close to final now. >> Yeah. >> Uh, I don't know if we're I don't know. I think Did you send that to everybody? I know. >> I have not. No. >> Okay. Okay. So, maybe maybe we can have that in preparation for the >> Yeah. Mr. Chair, in in anticipation of
AMC meeting and the following meeting would be our truth and taxation uh evening meeting. I trying to work with Lori. Uh it's a quick turnaround this week, but uh tried to have a a levy sheet uh a uh expense expense revenues
of where we are uh this year, the halfs and sales tax uh and then the fund balance document uh for the board as part of this discussion on December 2nd. >> I have one question. >> Yes, Commissioner. >> Do you want us to finalize the this
sheet our non-county letter requests or >> Well, Mr. chair, commissioners, I think that uh today what what we wanted to do is I wanted to do is bring forward the actions uh that that are on this board have been been things that you guys have taken on uh throughout this budget
process. And so uh I wanted just to make sure that the numbers that we had uh from your previous discussions matched what Lori had in the budget. And so, uh, we'll make the we'll make the changes, uh, make the changes that were brought forward today, and that'll be part of,
uh, part of the levy document next week. >> Um, so, Steve, so all of these, um, external requests, uh, were any of these
were any of these voted on independently by the board? >> Uh, Mr. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, my my recollection is that you did vote uh to to not fund uh not fund uh the two different red items
here, the the rural routes and and the cultural diversity. Uh I think the other ones were discussions that we that we have just had as part of the the budget process. >> Okay. And and so as it's presented with those two motions that were made today
on those two line items, um >> I don't know if that's >> I think we did specifically vote on the EDA package. >> Oh, we may. Boy, I'd have to look back um on that for sure. Commissioner Ro,
Mr. Chair, >> should question to Mr. Chair. Should we go through line by line after we get this next week and vote on each one of these? >> Well, I I you know, I guess what I would do because they because we voted them in the preliminary levy, we're going to
assume that they're in unless unless there's >> discussion on the motion to take it out like we just did today. You either add it back or you take it out. >> And I, you know, I think every every board member will have that ability to, you know, to do that moving forward. Yeah.
>> Um, at this at this point in time, I just I want to know if there were if there was any entity of these where they were told that they would receive the dollars.
>> Uh, no. >> From a formally from a formal >> no from a standoint. >> From a in from a formal standpoint, I have to we have told two entities they would not be receiving funding. about uh and we've told them we've told other entities the adjustments the board have
made has made um but uh but that uh the final we always tell tell each of these departments that the final decision isn't made until you guys establish the budget. So all right. So I So at this point I I
think moving forward uh un unless I mean these numbers I think our administrator has asked are we good with these and at this point in time we've made we've talked about two and unless there's something else I think they'll just move
forward as as being part of the final levy proposal. there. Yeah, I mean that that doesn't happen until, you know, later in December, but All right. Do we have any anything else
on budget? If not, we'll move into our committee reports. And I believe I'm going to start with Paul today. >> Right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh going back to uh
Tuesday the uh last Tuesday we had our u we were all part of the interviews and then uh late uh in the afternoon uh that evening I I did attend the Klay County Board of
Adjustments. Uh just talk a little bit about that. Uh that uh was a request of a variance for the uh elevated uh dispensary down in Baker and the request was uh our cannabis uh ordinance. We
have a 500 uh foot setback to residential and uh he was requesting go down to 250 uh after uh room was full of I'd say around 50 people mostly all from uh
Baker which has a population of 50 people and and the township was against it as well as some local uh uh land owners around it. So anyway, long and short, it unanimously went forward to uh to uh
deny uh that request. So um in order for him to do it anything, there would have to hold that 500 foot setback. On Wednesday, uh we had a um uh a team's
meeting again with our lobbyists um moving forward with the nonsecure facility. our strategies with that. Um, again, working toward the working with the governor. The other thing that was uh mentioned is um getting out working
with the people uh whether Senate or House uh um people that were part of the tour, were invited to the tour but were not able to make it. So anyway, working on that and then also uh just put it out
there I think was mentioned maybe last week but um that Steve myself and Steve Summers from Solution will be re uh reporting and giving an update and get an updated uh resolution for the
Minnesota Indian Affairs uh conference going on in Martin uh Minnesota next week. So that's on that. Uh that afternoon on the Wednesday later after that at noon uh I had the finance uh
committee meeting for the historical and cultural society. Um again that final budget uh was uh is going to be uh their final budget will be um being taken this Wednesday. uh and everything. Um and
again taking the figures that were allowing them and let's see uh then on Thursday morning I was part of a uh teams meeting with the rethink mental health and suicide
uh coalition. Um really good uh meeting with uh indepth information. Uh we had a presentation by Chandler uh Esenure from the executive
director of U fibroid coalition in homelessness. She shared her insights on the social detriments of uh health uh these positive and negative impacts and the reason it's good to understand these
determinants is that you know where people are their environment they live in wherever they were born in whether it's positive or negative it has an influence on later
uh year outcomes And uh and those are the things if whatever we can do to make those positive uh effects in our community, move people out of these native places um uh environments. So you
say not places but environments uh the better off we're going to be as a community. Uh right now we as I think it's a number we've heard uh pretty much uh for a little while here we have roughly an estimate of about 1,55
homeless people identified in ourh community every day and um and of that uh about 600 of those are students. Um, and then after that, um, after Chandler
got done, uh, talking about that, uh, Amy Rico for Morhead schools and Amy works under, uh, a federal grant, uh, within the schools. And, um, anyway, right now, Morid school
system has uh, 346 kids living in homelessness situations. That doesn't mean they don't have shelter, but that does mean that those kids um don't have a permanent permanent place. They're
moving from place to place uh finding a way to get through them or their families. And and the scary number to me is that of those 346, 81 of them are unaccompanied. So, these are mostly kids under 18 that
are out on their own uh trying to make that way. So, uh anyway, Amy did a good job. These uh the the good uh good news about the 81, they're in school and uh it's all and she'll talk about so
strongly, the only way we get these kids out of these situations is uh through education. So, >> Well, can I ask a question? Yes. So, um I mean th those are serious numbers. >> Yeah. >> I I'm I'm wondering um how how do those
do do they compare those numbers from previous years? >> It it >> so so like are there trends going up or and and you know we for a long time in all of
our boards for years we wanted to end homelessness. >> Yeah. and you know and what are we doing and what's working and what isn't working and what are the trends you know so it's it's staggering to hear these numbers is it a is is it something that's
>> well I'll just go off and and maybe Dave will have a little more insight being part of that coalition but as I understand it the the bigger number the area number the thousand number I think that number has is growing uh she
indicated that too. However, how much I don't know. I know specifically to Amy in the school, that number is definitely growing. >> Yeah. I I recall the issue of homeless students in Morehead schools came up
back when I was still a police chief. So that's more than 18 years ago. >> But my understanding is there was a problem tracking it. In the last several years, there's been more of a concertive effort to identify provide services to
transportation to these kids and that number keeps getting bigger every year. Uh what is disturbing and I missed I was at a at another meeting and had a conflict and I missed the presentation but again as as Commissioner Kravangh
indicated what's really disturbing are a number of these kids that are on our own and it's not the ones we can track in school and provide some services to although the services are inadequate it's the ones we don't know about
and uh a lot of challenges in this issue and I I spent 25 30 years aware of it and working on it and I don't think it's really getting much better. There's a lot of effort going into it
but we keep we keep trying to address these things and and we can't seem to get on a specific track on it and we need to >> Yeah. I just want to end on a positive note. you see commitment out there, people trying. That's too good.
>> Well, I Yeah, I don't >> and uh I think the work out there, they're doing the best they can. So, yeah, that's what I have for my report. >> Thank you. >> All right, Commissioner Mojo. >> Thank you. Last week, I also was part of
the interview process. Excited to have the opportunity to take take part in that. I attended the board of adjustment meeting that was reported on by uh commissioner Kraven well and then also attended the uh planning commission meeting. We did
have a a full house for both of those items. A continuation discussion um on some of the points that had come out on one of the hearings from the board of commissioners earlier in the morning. We did have a request for
conditional use permit with the wild rice watershed district. a construction of a rock arts rapid in Hagen Rock Arch Rapids in Hagen Township. That did pass. The concrete holdings for Simonson LLC
was a IUP piece that was for the concrete batch plant in Kurts Township. Uh Kurts Township was there and they were not in favor of the request. That did uh was denied at a 5 to3 vote. The
uh ECE had an interimuse mining permit on their parcel in Holly Township that was approved and then a interim used uh permit for a dog boarding kennel in Scree Township. Uh
Lux were doing that. That also was approved. and then a uh conditional use permit in Park Township for a conditional use permit to um converge an accessory use into a principal use. The other component was uh they moved a
recommendation to reappoint Ashley Hang to the planning commission her second term. Matt will be bringing that forward to this board's action. The next day I attended the Red River Basin Commission. We had a joint powers
committee meeting, a good presentation uh from the water institute, I believe. Sorry, I'm pulling that up. Just a minute. Sorry. Good discussion on all that is happening in the other counties. Um, you know, as
we move forward, now is the time where we see a lot of permits at the watershed level. So, um, talked a little bit about what each one is seeing in their own area. I don't know why the agenda is pulling not pulling up. Uh, I So, yes, it was Brian Footer with
the Red Retention Authority. Good presentation on that and the work that they do throughout the basin. And then we had the Klay County Legislative Planning Meeting. good followup on on the developments with the Senate tours and who we're working working with and
strategy moving forward. I also had the opportunity to attend the AMC uh environment natural resources pre-conference call. Uh that was with general government. I wasn't sure. Were you on that one? >> No, I was. >> Okay. So, um, basically there's several
different proposals that kind of overlap with general government as well, wanting to make sure that we had an opportunity to talk about that. Um, you know, I I really do appreciate what AMC is doing there to make sure that they're understanding where both policy
committees are as we move forward uh for the conference. All of that information will be discussed and voted on at your committee meeting Thursday morning. Then I attended the SWAT committee meeting. Uh we did have a good presentation on
the pumpkin recycling pieces and then Commissioner Campbell will have his update on Prairie Lakes and obviously we already took action on the uh the one piece moving forward. Um and then that afternoon we attended the
I attended the Metro Morehead Klay County Joint Powers Authority meeting. We did have a um action on a property there. Um there's are three eminent domain trials that will be happening in December. Had updates on the property acquisition
components and then we had a closed session to discuss some of those pieces and approved. We had three reimburse relocation reimbursement requests. one was pulled and then we did vote to
approve uh one and then we approved the 2026 farm management or farmland lease rates that stayed the same and then looked at an amendment amended flowage easement language good actions happening there
and then Friday we had or or I'm sorry Thursday I also had the metrocog policy board meeting We um had lots of presentations on studies. They have all of those updates on their website. Uh thank them for coming about the railroad piece. And we did have a discussion at
the end. Um there was about $62,000 in uh approved and documented approved expenses for the bike ped counters that happened in 2024. and Federal Highway and North Dakota DOT moved the goalpost
on what those requirements were and throughout the last year have um denied the reimbursement request on that. So, um we had a long discussion about how Metrocog will pay their bills because we
don't have a reserve on that and um even though there was documented approval change the rules can change apparently. So, uh, there'll be more to discuss on that and more to figure out. Um, we did have a substantial reduction in our dues
based on the work the plan workload as you see on our outside agency pieces. Those are all funding based on formulas for um what the projects are and Klay County had a substantially um reduced one based on planning for 2026. But it
does beg the discussion. I think you might talk about this at collaborative and uh when you have other pieces is what does happen uh when federal funding falls through on pre-approved pieces for agencies like that. So um we will be having probably meetings with all of the
administrators from every entity on that going forward. Um but just so you know that happened. Uh and then yesterday I attended the Lakeland Mental Health Center board of directors meeting. We had good updates from the collaboratives. Uh Ottertale had a great
update on the bar programming which is um shoot reducing risks something bridging. Anyways, Min or Klay County has it in our schools. What is that? Anyways, it's a great program that works
with addressing risks and addressing reductions uh with those risks. And so they were able to show how they were seeing successes in their uh school districts. So um Klay County obviously has that in ours and so we can agree on
on that. Uh we have probably the least amount of open positions and we've ever had over there and obviously those open positions um directly affect the revenues. So financially they're on track to um make up some strides that were lost earlier in the calendar year.
But uh we did have a long discussion about how uh some gaps in services were happening at Alexandria's office. We'll figure that out. But um particularly for them uh the unknown with paid family leave implementation
um and you know the state obviously will cover the um the expenses of the employees, but um that will directly affect revenue. And so we're just trying to figure out what that means. And then we did have a discussion since we are um selfinsured
um we did need to replenish the account because we did have some high claims and I think it's important for this board to know that um we do have a board designated fund that has a high value in it and instead of coming to the board uh boards all the different counties we
will be pulling money from that board designated fund to offset those pieces. So, we made a motion to move $300,000 that would get us up into the black and then cover um we're thinking six to eight months of the next calendar year. And that's some what we will do to continue to fund that piece. I believe
that concludes my reports. >> Thank you, Commissioner Bear. >> Mr. Chair, >> thank you, Mr. Chair. I was on uh the 18th, I was also at the interview process. And then uh Thursday, November 20th, I went to the kickoff for the Klay
County Heartland Trail Task Force where we had an overview presentation on what the H Heartland Trail in Klay County looks like and how it's come all the way to now and all the meetings they've had previously.
We reviewed the the task force and the members of it and I have to get a hold of a couple other townships to make sure they're aware of the task force has been together. But we also had a discussion of this designating a state trail or a
regional trail and I they're looking for a way to go with that which which which way to do that would be the next step and it comes down to funding and maintaining the trail. I was wondering if metro if we could get Metrocog to come to a meeting in the next month and
give us a presentation and let let us all have that discussion because I there's pros and cons to each of them and I don't the whole trail doesn't have to be a whole state trail or a regional trail. You can have pieces of each and I believe that's that's the best route like when you're going through towns let that be a regional trail but out in the
country maybe have that be a state trail as long as the towns are willing to take on the regional part of it. >> Metro did talked about that at our board meeting. uh they are having those discussions. It's more of a global strategy on what makes sense for funding pieces. I think there was some unknown with with again there are great state
trails around the Alexandria area and there's great um you know uh whatever >> regional trails um so I think they're all trying to figure that out. What the unknown is is how the current legislative ask plays into that and not wanting to disrupt
what the allocation from the state trail piece is. But it's my understanding that they will be having those meetings in the next four months with the individual entities. But maybe >> but I think if we could bring them here because we want we want to have that direction by we're going to meet maybe in January February.
It wasn't decided but we're going to get to the first of the year. But if we can if our group can get that figured out where where we stand on it. I think that'd be great. I think if we reach out to them and see if they come beginning of the year, >> I would certainly appreciate
>> give us an update on it and let us >> I know we did have a presentation here a while back on on those differences, but I don't you know I don't think we got really into the weeds in terms of >> on making ha having Klay County Commission make a recommendation on
where we stand on that. And I I think part of the challenge is the gaps in in what the service area is, right? Metricco is not in the business of figuring out what the best financial route is. We can just >> advise what the plan is.
>> Yeah. >> So if they don't advise, I guess I have a question. Who would we go to on that? I got >> I mean they they would advise us which I mean they they put both of them out there and say the pros and cons of each trail
>> but for like running through Klay County, rural Klay County, >> it would be I believe it would be us making that decision or the townships. Now if the townships want to take on the regional part of it and m do everything that takes the regional trail then and Klay County as a commission just walks
away from that and let the cities and the townships take care of that. then we can be a supporter. But if we if the townships don't want to take on the regional trail part and want to have it stay trail or if we want to have it regional, there's there's pros and cons on how it's how it's maintained and who
funds to build them. >> Well, exactly. The upfront cost >> upfront cost >> and the maintenance >> and the maintenance. Yeah. Those those are the two differences between staterun versus regional. >> Yeah. >> And I and again, I think it's that's where Commissioner Bear is going with this. Ultimately, should we
>> we should we should decide >> giving a preference to >> Yes. Got it. >> Well, then I have some direction at those meetings instead of >> my own preference. >> Anyways, if we would build 32 miles of trails today, it would cost about $51
million. So, that was that meeting. And uh then on Friday I was down in uh Fergus Falls for a partnership for health with commissioner Ebinger where we had this was our last partnership for health meeting with all four of the
counties and we went down through the grants on the splits of grants. We're going to split all the grants except for three and the the other two of the main grants will be we'll they'll still run through partnership for health through us and
then we'll we'll build the other partnership just to get through those two grants. Those grants end next year. We just can't get them split. So, we'll work through that for one more year. And then there's a ship partnership that
lasts for another four years where we are going to I believe we Yeah, we're going to get a contract written up for the ship memorandum for Partnership for Health and Prairie Lakes on working through that.
If there's anything else, I'll let uh Commissioner Ebinger talk about Partnership Health. He is the chairman of that group still. And then on Monday, yesterday, I was at the West Regional Water District up in Holstead.
I had to leave that meeting early, but when I was there, we were going over the final survey update with we had the reviewers report there. So, we had three uh members from the community, one from Pole County, one from Norman, and one
from Klay County. and we were giving them the viewers report which shows everything we've worked on and how it would operate. I left before any decisions were made on that. I'll let Commissioner Campbell report further on that. So I left that meeting to go to
wild rice watershed one watershed one plan meeting in ADA where we went through the the wershed based funding summary for I'll just go through Klay County's
numbers. So these are roughly 2-year grants for FY23 which expires. They had an extension there for that for one year. So that actually the money has to be spent by 123126. Klay County is down to just $32,000 and
they should have that all spent by midsummer. There a lot of planning money there that they're going to use. And then FY25 which expires in uh December 31st 27 we're sitting on about $154,000
there where we spent about $76,000. And a lot of that money gets spent in egg structures and as in for watershed for um yeah drain tile and stuff like that in the water in the wild rice wershed
district. So Klay County has wild rice watershed district and the Buffalo River. So Buffalo River has a one plan too. So the money has to be kept kept separate there. So the SWCD takes care of those dollars and keeps them separate on their their balance books as well.
And um that we had a few a little bit other discussion there. Nothing too important but that is all I have to report. Chairman. >> Thank you Commissioner Hebinger. Thank you Mr. Chair. Uh I also participated
last Tuesday on the 18th for our interview for a public health director and quite pleased with the results as we saw today. Uh on the 19th, Wednesday, I did a uh joint executive committee
meeting with the chamber and the EDC involving innovate 28 and some of the funding issues on that and some of the governance. Uh following that, later that day, I
attended the Morehead or the the the diversion authority finance committee. Uh pretty much just the general order of business, u approving contract actions, uh draft, and we do have a
draft cash budget that was completed there. Um, and later that following that I had a trying to keep everything straight here. No, I'm sorry. The following day, Thursday,
uh, the 20th, I attended the, uh, Greater Fargo Morehead EDC executive board meeting. And again, we reviewed some of the projects uh and document ready
uh opportunities are in the Cass Clay area. Uh there was some discussion about uh the programming and the budget of innovate 28 which was covered the day before with the executive committee the two executive committees meeting
and um plan for a performance review and a comp study uh towards the end of the year we're going to initiate a 360 review of the organization management. Later that day, I had a diversion
authority meeting. Again, this was very much, maybe Commissioner Campbell recalls, but pretty much standard business approval of of uh the consent agenda with the items we had at finance committee the previous day and general uh or project
updates. We are advancing along and getting ready to shut things down for the winter. And then a uh finance had a 226 uh draft cash budget version three attach
um and a sales tax update. Following that, I had an executive session for the Lake Agassy Regional Library Board uh over some uh concerns on the the uh slate of candidates were put
together for the uh for next year. We met and resolved those issues and it was followed by a full board meeting of a full board of trustees meeting where we approved the slate of candidates and I will be serving another
year as president. Um we have a balance now with representation for an incoming uh Becker County representative. Um we are uh working on a strategic plan.
Most of it has been completed. Uh and that pretty much is what I've got from the library. On Friday the 26th, as Commissioner Bear indicated, we had the
P4 meeting. It was the last meeting of the four counties. And I want to express some uh thanks to Brandon Nelson when with our auditor's office and Rory Beal. It was a comprehensive and I think a
welldesigned division of some of our grants and funding. Some of it is is as is indicated by Commissioner Bayer. We're going to have to carry through the year, but there's a very collegial attitude on that. And I'm particularly happy with the the SHIP contract we've
got, and we're going to come up with an agreement plan. We're near two of a five-year contract and the state wants us to remain on ship which is a statewide community health services advisory committee and we're going to keep that up and running for all four counties working in unison. So that's
good news. And that completes my report. >> All right. Thank you. On November 19th, I had the I attended the Prairie Lakes Municipal Solid Waste meeting. Uh, two
items that are focus on there. Our finances and everything are pretty much running consistent with our budget. Cash balance is consistent with what we had last year. Two areas that I want to discuss. First one is the ash management. I know there was some discussion with Justin this morning on
using that product in roads. One of our biggest concerns right now that we have is the ash landfill that's uh in Ottertale County where we send all our ash to. As you know, um
we've found out now that that's going to reach its capacity in October of 2027. That's that's of real concern to us. We we knew it was coming. Uh we knew that, you know, we were hoping that we could get some of this ash stuff going to be
buzz and roads. Um if you recall a long time ago, I brought up that we wanted a plan B, which was to be able to expand that permit. And so currently we're um obviously we're looking at expanding the current
permit, which does not allow us to go outwards, but allows us to go upward. Very familiar with that. That's what we've done at our landfill in Klay County. The concern that I have with that is is some of those um permit changes, some of
them can take up to 10 years to get them done. We don't have 10 years, obviously. And um so we've really uh asked um our executive director to really move
strongly with um getting that application. It's not even submitted yet. So So we've got to really get moving on that. Um the we generate between 10 and 12 tons of
ash out of that facility a year. Our land, you know, so uh for example, the one road that we did as a test pilot used 4,000 tons of ash.
>> 4,000 tons. >> 4,000 4,000 tons. Oh, wait. Yeah. Thousand pounds. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> No, the No, because it's 10 tons. We're talking tons. So, the the landfill
uh you can uses we send about 10 tons a year >> to the landfill. >> To the ash landfill. That one road used about four 4,000 or four tons, excuse me. Four tons. Yeah. Four tons. Yeah. >> Four tons in that project. So,
so basically if we had did two projects like that a year, that would that would at least help solve the problem for a little while. Um, we also are have improved or we we approved
building a shed like what we have at the highway department for storing and that can hold um basically two year that can hold 10 tons of ash in it. So that might buy us
a little bit of time. But anyway, we do have a dilemma on with that ash and that. So that's a and and that ash landfill is owned by Ottertale County, but within Prairie Lakes's annual
budget, we budget about $400,000 that we pay to Ottertale County for the operations and maintenance of that because that's that's all it does is it takes ash from from Great Lakes.
And the other thing I want to comment on is is uh there was some we had Ottertale County's HR department was at our meeting and they had asked us to um agree to for Prairie Lakes to use
Ottertale County's policy regarding um paid family medical leave. And so we when we got into those discussions um we had our plant manager really spoke up and with real concern
about that. And so in in Ottertale County's plan, they do not allow employees to supplement their sick pay for the
balance that they don't get from paid family medical leave. That's the current policy of Ottertale County. And so I spoke up on that and I said, "Well, in in in Klay County, we've allowed our employees because I mean, we we don't want some we want somebody to make sure
they're whole. >> You know, they get they you know, if they get go through these things and they only get paid 60 or 70 and there's depending on where you are in an income level, it has an impact on what percentage of paid family medical leave
you have. So that and you know so u but if you if you're getting 60% paid for paid family medical leave that doesn't mean your mortgage drops by 60%. It doesn't mean all your bills drop by you know by that amount. You still have to
make all those payments. And so I, you know, I spoke up in really um in favor of us, you know, maybe looking at not but we were required to adopt a we
needed to have a a policy in place by December 1st. So ultimately what the Prairie Lakes board did was adopted a um Ottertale County's policy so that we have a policy in place with
the idea in mind that we would look at modifications to that and and Ottertale County said we don't have to follow theirs. I mean we can and so I'm certainly going to be advocating you know at that level that that we look at more of what Klay County has
done and I and Brian, the operations manager, really had strong concerns about the way it was currently proposed. He thought it could really have an impact on employees as well. So, those are the
two issues there. Um, there's other things, but those are the big issues. And then on Thursday morning, we had our Klay County Solid Waste Advisory Committee meeting. Uh we've pretty much we dealt with the issues with the um
radios. Uh there was a way sort study that was done. Something down the road that that also I found really interesting was how much of household waste
is organic product. you know, when when you think about the cost of our landfills and organic product just going there when there's when there can be alternatives to that, you know, in terms of being able to
compost or whatever, you know, so it's something that we might want to be looking at in the future, but those those are good to have those. And I thankful for the college students who are willing to go through. You pretty much have to dress up in hazard
uniforms and go through every piece of garbage. >> It was Commissioner Gross's favorite part about >> Yeah, he Yeah, it was his it was his favorite one time. >> He was thrilled with it. >> Yeah, he he basically said never again. So anyway, um so that was that we had
the radio issue. Um and we did have uh one of our um one of our solid waste advisory committee members who's we all know here from his past work um
had a had a significant injury with a fire. He had b a real severe Joe Peterson had severe burns in a accident at home and he's he's recouping
now. Uh they I believe they airlifted him to the burn unit in Minneapolis. And I guess uh just want to send our thoughts out to to Joe and and wish him a speedy recovery um that he can get
home. He was originally he was hoping he'd get home by Thanksgiving, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen. So, but um I think you all remember Joe from years ago outside of you know with work with um
>> Lakes and Prairies. Yes, he was the director of Lakes and Prairies for quite some time. Uh then um I had the Morhead Klay County Joint Powers. Uh Commissioner Mojo talked about that and and an example.
So, we did end up having uh some discussions with the land owner and it just goes to show that even though sometimes a government entity has no choice but to go into an eminent
domain, uh in this particular case, uh the conversations with the land owner continued and a resolution was made outside of, you know, a final eminent domain process. So, so it it goes to show that
they, you know, I think on the part of the diversion authority that they continue to work with land owners uh to try to come up with a a solution outside of the last resort, which is eminent domain. Um
then we then I had the diversion authority meeting that same day. I think the commissioner Ebinger talked about that. The one thing for TW 2026, the interesting deal in that is the
diversion authority will be paying out approximately $1 billion in 2026. Their cash their cash budget for 2026 could reach payout of $1 billion. And you think about that's a that's a significant amount of money. But what
you got to remember though is so this diversion project has been under construction for several years and part of that process was the contractors you know the on the um the contractors were required to meet
certain milestones to reach to get those payments. And now in 2026 they're going to really reach a significant portion of those milestones. And of course in 2026 we're supposed to have all of our final lands all done and dealt with. So
yeah, a billion dollars is going to be paid out. A lot of it going to contractors and by the way a lot of it going to Minnesota contractors. That's that's you know that's a really positive thing. Then uh West Central then we did have I
also attended the West Central Regional Water Board on uh yesterday the 24th and I think after you left um Commissioner Bear I think really the only thing that we got did a deep dive regarding the uh the responsibilities of
the viewers and because we have to submit a viewers report as part of the uh district court process and the three viewers uh were there yesterday at our meeting, one from each county. Uh we had good representation there. A lot of good
questions on their part, so they're taking it seriously. And then ultimately, they all signed the agreement and the oath, the viewers oath that needs to go to that will be part of the presentation to the judge for the
second hearing. >> Mr. Chair, >> by Okay. Yes. I read in the paper that Barnesville is working with the Wilin County Creation District. What's that regarding >> So I at the Partnership for Health had a there was a Wilin County Commissioner
there and I chatted with him about that. He said it's very early stages. They're looking at it. They've had one meeting so far. So that doesn't mean we can't bring them in with into ours maybe, but they've had one one one meeting about it. I I I
think you know and I and that's encouraging to hear that there's another county that's looking at a regional water or you know the importance of regional water. I any any county that's interested in doing like that, they're they're really better off trying
to go in like Senator Papus when when they were here on that last Senate, one of the comments that she made was, you know, this is a significant important issue, but what she really liked about it was
the regional approach. It's it's a you know it's just similar to what we're talking about with our PRTF you know so you know from that standpoint it's early on um you know at some point in time maybe if Wil gets serious about it there's no reason why
we couldn't modify our to include Wilin County. >> Right. I just thought it was I had not heard of it yet. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I I know there's a lot of interest in that southern area and quite frankly there's actually some interest in some of the people in the Pelican Lake area of Ottertale County
>> who would like to see some rural water going to that area as well. So um but anyway, so that you know the viewers report was was uh done. There is going to be um
a a letter that's going to be going out to all of the potential um people who would be part of the the water district about the hearing process. So, it's pretty much going to be every property
owner in Klay County with the exception of Morehead and Dworth that will receive this letter. I think to the tune of I think they talked about right now they have about 19,000 letters going out >> for the district >> for the district and they're hoping that
maybe they they can originally they start off at 22,000 they were able to cut it down to 19,000 based on land owners who have multiple parcels and they're thinking that maybe they can get that down to 17,500. So those are all letters going out. It's
important for our small communities to know that all all their citizens are going to be getting them and to understand that this is all a voluntary thing and a user based and nobody's forcing anybody into anything. So, um but anyway, so that was that was that.
Um I don't have anything else to add to that. Steve, >> thank you, Mr. Chair. If I could start just with a clarifying question from Commissioner Abberger and Commissioner Bayer. When we separated or in the
process of separating Lauderdale and Wilin, we had to redo a delegation agreement. Part of the delegation delegation agreement lays out the ship responsibilities. Was there any discussion at all about if we're going to continue on with that that there
would be a there' be an adjustment? >> My understanding We >> we we do not have that agreement in place yet. We were going to get it drafted. >> Okay. >> Here's here's an agreement that Rory and
I have looked at that I believe is is present. I don't think it's signed yet. We've looked at or viewed it. It covers those issues that we would still do even though we're separate, but the one part that we're keeping. So, there's an agreement for that part. I just don't think it's been executed yet, signed yet. >> Yeah. And it was reviewed by the
Ottertale County Attorney as well, and she was happy and it it should be coming through. We've got a meeting the 5th, and I'll make a another inquiry into that. Rory was well into the process on it.
>> Okay. Thank you. Uh, last Tuesday, I participated in the interviews. I want to thank the board and Darren and Anna and Quinn uh for being part of that process. Uh excited about our candidate or not our candidate but our our new public health direct director Jessica is
going to do a great job. On on the 19th a u um we met uh with Haley uh as far part reviewed our bonding tour that's been discussed uh discussed about the potential of getting a meeting together with the governor's office. Uh on the
19th we had a brief uh casino discussion. Really not a great deal more information. Uh we did uh discuss uh the news article that was in the White Earth Nation um newspaper that talked about the meeting
that they had on up at the reservation. Um on the 19th I met with Jessica. Uh on the 20th we had the MCCJPA meeting that's been well covered. on the 21st, the non-secured detention meeting which has also been well covered on the 23rd and 24th. Uh worked on the MYAK
presentation. Excited to be a part of that. We had a deadline of Monday to get the presentation in. So um so we were able to get that under under the deadline. Uh participated in the water district meeting uh yesterday which has been well covered and yesterday
afternoon met with Mr. Melton on a county issue happening. um would just note that for our citizens that we are going to be closed on November 24th or excuse me, November 27th and 28th in observation of Thanksgiving. That concludes my report.
>> All right, Brian. No, thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Nothing. All right, Darren. They took away my uh microphone, so I won't Yeah, maybe they're trying to tell me something. I don't know.
>> I won't >> Thanks for your report, Darren. >> I won't I won't take it personally. Um most of mine have already been covered. Uh public health director interviews uh participated in that um board of adjustment and planning commission
meeting both on November 18th. Uh Commissioner Mojo covered that. Oh no, Commissioner Krabhoff covered that very well. Uh November 19th sat in on the legislative planning update with our lobbyists. um updated our negotiation status and had a meeting with Anna and
Steve. On the 20th, I sat in on the SWAC meeting as well, which was covered by Commissioner Campbell and Commissioner Mojo. That afternoon, I had M MC meeting. Uh November 21st, uh sat in on the legislative meeting and had the LEC
admin staff negotiations. um thought we were going to have a tenative agreement there, ran into a snag, but uh hopefully we'll we'll get that negotiated uh pretty quickly. And November 24th uh had a meeting with Mark
and Brian uh Melton, Mark Sloan, and Joe Olsson regarding uh handling of data practices requests. And that concludes my report. >> Thank you. >> I was just going to say, Mr. chair commissioners. Um we've been uh seeing a
a significant increase uh in the number of data requests that that we're receiving that uh starting to impact uh the amount of time our staff are having to spend. And so part of part of the things reason that Darren and and Brian and Mark are meeting is to look at look
at those data requests and we have a policy uh but uh with the increased uh increased demand that we're having to look to make sure that we're uh we have a policy that's meeting the the change. So that'll be probably coming forward in the next few months.
>> Commissioner Mole, >> thank you. Yesterday uh late afternoon, there was a report that there was a Morehead um someone that was being charged with the feeding our future uh scandal that um the fraud Pelican Rapids and Morehead sites. Can we have staff
look into if any um you know staff fund or not staff funds, levy funds had gone into the supports of that? I don't Commissioner Campbell and I served on the COVID relief uh funds and I I don't recall seeing the name of that organization but just want to make sure
that we are not and have not contributed funds to that organization. >> We can do that. >> Thank you. >> And that might actually fall into um connecting with Cecilia from extension. I know that uh regionally there was some food supports that uh food support work
that happened with Rosie in the Pelican Rapids area and just want to make sure that we're not continuing any of that. >> All right, Sarah, do you have anything for us today? We're journed. Part: 2
It's 8 8:30. We'll call this morning's meeting of the Klay County Board of Commissioners to order for Tuesday, November 25th. And just to point out, we have this morning had been having a few technical difficulties with some of our microphones. So hopefully uh the
audience can all hear us. and uh we'll try to get that fixed shortly. So with that uh is there approval of the agenda? >> Mr. Chair, I'll make the motion to approve the agenda. >> Second. >> We have a motion by Commissioner Bear,
second by Commissioner Ebinger. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I >> oppose the same sign. >> Motion carried. Next we have citizens to be heard. Do we have any citizens to be
heard on items not on the agenda? Any citizens to be heard? None in the audience, any online? >> Nothing, Mr. Chair. >> All right. Thank you. Approval of bills and vouchers. >> I don't think that's working, but uh >> there
move to approve. >> Second. All right, we have a motion by Commissioner Krabnoff, second by Commissioner Bear. Any further discussion on that motion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I
>> oppose the same sign. Motion carried. We will move into our 8:35 it agenda item that is Minnesota Power Maple River to Cailluna 345 KV transmission line project presentation.
Do we have our Drew? Is that okay? Drew, come on up. >> Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Um, sorry I was a couple minutes late there, but thanks for having me. Uh, my name is Drew Jenkee. I'm an environmental compliance specialist with
Minnesota Power here today to talk the Maple River to Cailluna or MRC transmission line project. If we could go to the next slide or do I control it? >> Oh, perfect.
So, a little bit about the project. Um, it is a joint proposal between Minnesota Power, um, who I work for, Ottertale Power Company, and Great River Energy. The project itself will be a new 345
kilovolt singlecircuit transmission line built on doublecircuit capable structures. Uh all in all the line will be approximately 160 mi running from Minnesota P Cuna substation just outside of Iron Minnesota in the Brainer Baxter
area. And the other terminal point is the Maple River substation owned by Ottertale Power and that one is just outside of uh the Harwood or Fargo area. Why we're building the project? Um really there's four main um project
needs. Um really the big one is to enhance the reliability of the regional transmission system. So think of this project as enabling that bulk power transfer uh at a regional scale. Uh similar with the second point, they're increasing transmission system capacity.
Again, we're we're looking to enable uh more transmission at a regional scale. Uh meeting growing electrical demand and enhance resiliency during extreme weather events and that's at either end of the line. Uh the project will be birectional. So depending on where the
energy is needed at any given time, it can go either way. uh and then again enabling that cost-effective regional transfer. A little further background on the project. So the mid-continent independent system operator or MYSO uh
is a a group that essentially operates the electric grid and every so often MYSO will take a look at the regional transmission system and determine if upgrades are needed. Uh this MRC project was approved in tranch 2.1 um of the
MYSO approval process in December of 2024. Uh that follows their trunch one batch of project approvals that were approved in 2023. Um so you can see there circled near the top of the map where this MRC project
fits into the grand scheme of the uh recent batches or tranches of approved projects. touched on this a little bit already here, but um some of the project components as I mentioned, it'll be approximately 160 mi uh depending on how
much zigging and zagging we do between the two substation endpoints. Uh will be built as a single circuit 345 kilovolt overhead transmission line project um on double circuit capable structures. For
the project, we will hang both sets of conductors. Um, so there'll be six total wires. Um, but initially they'll be jumpered together near the terminal or substation endpoints. So initially it's going to operate as a single circuit, but we'll have that second set of
conductors ready and strung when it comes time to energize a second circuit timeline. Um so a lot of this year has really been uh focused on stakeholder engagement. We've had two rounds of public open houses. First round was in
June. Um at that one we had a pretty broad study area um that we were able to show the public and and folks and get some feedback on. We did hold an second round of public open houses in October. Um, and that at that one we had uh it
narrowed down a little more into some preliminary routes which we'll show in a bit here and which is where we're at now. We are planning a third round of public open houses for the next spring likely in the March or April time frame. Uh getting in getting into next year, we
do um anticipate submitting our permit applications to both the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission and the North Dakota Public Service Commission next year. Um, we'll touch on a little a little bit better on the timelines there, but we'll also be working on
engineering environmental surveys uh and begin discussions with land owners for right of way and uh right of entry agreements. Assuming all goes well, we would begin construction in 2029 and have the project in service by 2033.
So this this map shows uh that broader study area and this was really our starting point. Uh for reference the Cayuna substation is on the far right or eastern portion of the figure here and then the Maple River substation you can
see just outside of Fargo on the far left or western edge of the map. What you see highlighted in blue is uh potential routing options centered on existing transmission lines for the most part. Um we it's not only good practice
but we're actually driven by state statute to follow existing transmission lines as much as possible. So what we did was start with this very broad study area um which allowed us some flexibility to to do some routing work in order to get from A to B. And this is
what we were able to show at open houses in June. From those open houses and some feedback with primarily state agencies like the DNR, uh we've developed it down into these preliminary routes which are
also our certificate of need notice area. So this is the area that's really been winnowed down to our potential routing options. >> Mr. Chair, >> yes a question, please. >> Thank you for clarifying this. I you know these swaths are are several miles
wide. Uh so how do you um what is the best course of action for public engagement for folks that maybe just look at a blue line and think, "Oh, this is following I94's corridor. I'm good." When they might be three or four miles off that um but
could be included in your project scope. >> Yeah. And so so we set a 1 and a half mile buffer either way off of existing lines just to make sure we do notice an appropriate amount of folks and to keep options open open. Ideally we would
colllocate a route immediately adjacent to an existing line. But as far as the public outreach with questions we do have project website set up um email hotline and a phone hotline that essentially all gets routed to me. I
have had a few questions. You know, it looks like the edge of this blue line is running right through my property. Does that mean you're proposing the line there or is it just the area you're considering? So, we've had plenty of those, I guess, clarification conversations.
>> And I guess part of the reason I ask is is I do live within that buffer line of the um transmission line. And so I' I've really not been aware of it to this point, but I appreciate I've been aware just because of the comm the commission piece, but not as a resident piece. My
other question is um you know, I appreciate that you clarify that for the most part you have to follow through with what existing components are by statute, but you said there for the most part and so are those for the most part areas identified in here at all? and
>> right >> is there a map that shows where those areas could be that aren't attached to an existing >> not in this presentation. We don't have the existing lines mapped. We do have that mapped on our website. We have an
interactive project web map. >> Um and actually primarily here in Klay County there's just not a whole lot of existing transmission lines. So, anything over 100 kilovolt is what the statute um directs you to follow.
>> Um and really as we get towards the border crossing and really into the northwest portion here in Klay County, there just isn't much. So, we would be looking at what we call more green field development within the county. >> But that is all accessible on the website. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Right. Uh this this map is just uh the one we were looking at previously, just a little bit larger. Um so the plan is here to take these preliminary routes, narrow this down even further into a
proposed route at some point next year. A little background on the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission permitting process. Um, so the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, for those that are unfamiliar, is a five member panel uh appointed by the governor on staggering
terms. And they regulate just about everything we do as public utilities from the rates we're allowed to charge our customers to where we build our generation sources or source our electricity from and then if we can and if so, where we can put these uh
transmission lines. So for this project we will be going to the public utilities commission for two types of permits. Uh first one is a certificate of need. Uh essentially just like it sounds we go to the commission with an application explaining why the project is needed and
in the interest of our rateayers and the public. Uh that one we will be filing by early February of next year. Uh the second type of permit is the route permit and that's the one where we go to the commission with an actual
proposed route on a map for them to consider. Uh through that process, anyone can propose alternative routes for consideration as well. We need a little bit more time to come up with a proposed route that's going to make the most sense. So we're going to file that one a little later into next year,
likely around the August time frame. Uh both of these processes have uh ample opportunities for public comment and engagement. Um and we're we've been spreading the word uh to those interested. Uh just for awareness here, the North
Dakota side does have a pretty similar process. Um beginning there with number two, the certificate of need of certificate of public convenience and necessity. uh that is similar to the certificate of need process in Minnesota. And then the certificate of
corridor compatibility and route permit is similar to the route permit process uh east of the border. I've touched on this a bit here, but um just to give you an idea of uh our routing process and and where we collect input, um really we we started with that
initial study area, which was the bigger bigger map. um had some open houses and discussions as I mentioned with some state agencies, identified routing opportunities, and then developed preliminary routes, which is where we're at now. Um we're taking we're still working on some of the
feedback we got at the October open houses. Uh we've got a few more agency meetings coming up here to uh dig a little deeper into where we're at with the preliminary routes and from there we'll we'll identify a proposed route next year prior to submitting to both uh
state commissions. And through this, you know, what what we're asking folks for feedback on is is whether there are any constraints uh that we ought to be aware of that were not or if there are any sort of routing opportunities uh for us to consider as
well. Once we do get down into more of a proposed route area, we will uh hit the ground running uh no pun intended with some field level surveys. Um geotechnical evaluations really feed into our engineering design as far as
where we can place structures and if so uh how to design those foundations. Uh we'll also do a whole suite of environmental surveys from cultural and archaeological resources, wetland surveys, and then a whole suite of uh biological surveys.
This figure gives uh a good demonstration of our preferred uh structure design. So this is a steel monopole anywhere from 120 to 180 ft high depending on the topography of where it's located. And then the right
ofway width needed for a new 345 kilovolt transmission line is 150 ft. >> Yes. Yes. Commissioner. >> So when you said you were going to are you going to string the second the second line in there too or just hang everything for the string to be run?
>> Uh the second the second set would be strung. Yeah. So all six you see there's six wire location. Yep. All six would be strong >> and just using half of it at the time or >> Yeah. So they would all be energized. Um but it's it'll operate as one circuit.
>> Yeah. >> Yep. >> I have one more question. So when you do the easements uh are they 150 ft or I mean how wide are they? >> Yeah, correct. So a standalone easement is 150 ft. Um, in a collocation
scenario, we can overlap um, like for example, if there's an existing 230 kilovolt line, we can overlap that right ofway about 30 ft. So, it would be 120 ft off of the edge of the rightway. >> And that's always your your first priority if you can.
>> Correct. Yep. And actually, that's my next next slide here. It gives a a pretty good graphic of that. So you you'll notice uh in the middle there there's an overlap of 30 feet um give or take you know with that existing
rightway. Um also notice these structures are quite a bit taller than uh what folks might be used to. So about twice as high as an existing 230 uh wooden H frame structure. I mentioned the monopole steel monopole
is our preferred design. Uh in certain scenarios we may have to pivot to these lattice tower designs on the far right. Um typically when we run into these are poor soil conditions. Um we prefer the steel monopole. Most land owners
especially farmers prefer the the single or monopole structure. But uh we have to make sure the you know the line's going to be stable. Uh so these lattice tower structures are four-legged. Um and just for reference, they're about 30 foot by
30 foot uh footprint at the base. >> M >> I notice on part of your proposed route areas, um given how much taller these are, some of your maps are rather close to the Morhead airport. How does the height of that would it differ the
closer you are to the airports? Yeah, it can. Um, and the FAA actually maps out certain restriction zones. So, we are aware of that and we try to route I guess around it would be preferable. But yes, sometimes we may be looking at some
shorter structures >> because >> or different structure types. >> You know, if I look at that piece by 336, you're within a half mile of the runway and even the angle on that. >> Yep. And it it it all goes into that
routing consideration. And it depends, you know, if there's if it's the approach zone or >> or where you're at with it, >> which I appreciate that you're aware of it. I just know that they had a regular telephone poll and there was an accident. >> Oh. >> Within the last five years.
>> Okay. Yeah. >> Uh this one shows, you know, preconstruction uh through into operation phasing. Um so we'll begin with surveying uh right ofway clearing. Uh then from there we stake out our structure locations, pour foundations
with anchor bolts. Uh stand up the structures, string the wires. Um and then after the project does get energized, there is a cleanup and restoration phase that we need to ensure before the project goes fully operational. And finally into my last slide here. Um,
so as I mentioned, we're we've been through a lot of community engagement. Uh, we it will be an ongoing process here. Uh, we do have a a live project website that I mentioned a bit ago. Um, you know, couple rounds of public open houses with a third one planned. Um, and
then through the both state commission processes there, uh, there's ample opportunities for public engagement. So, thank you. I will uh hang around for any more questions. Okay. We have any questions? All right. Well, thank you for giving us
update. >> Yeah. Thank you all. >> All right. Next, we have a FM Metro Railroad needs study pres presentation. Good morning. >> Okay. And I talk pretty loud anyway. Well, thank you, chair, honorable
commissioners, um administrator, administrator Larson, and and uh and Madame Clerk. We're glad to be here this morning to present this uh present this study that we've been working on for a little over two years now. And um we're kind of getting close to finishing up.
So, we wanted to go around and and let all the jurisdictions know what we've been doing. So, to give you some a little bit of background, a little over three years ago, BNSF approached several of the jurisdictions in the region as well as Metrocog and they they um talked
about doing a study of key rail crossings and uh other rail related locations throughout the region. So all parties met and he agreed for a comprehensive study to assess current conditions and identify future potential infrastructure improvements and BNSF
agreed to pay the local match to the federal funding for the project. So that was a big relief for the local jurisdictions. That's usually 20% for you know divided up amongst the jurisdictions. So that was that was very nice and and well appreciated. Um, HDR
began work on the rail study in June of last year and their local office here drew upon rail expertise from their offices across the US and Canada um for rail expertise and uh project manager Dan Berguson from the local office of
HDR is here and we'll provide a slide presentation to give y'all an update on Klay County. >> Good morning. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair and commissioners. Um, yep. So, as Ben mentioned, we had multiple locations throughout the metro
area. 15 in total is what we ended up with, and those were selected by the jurisdictions. In Klay County, we had four locations outside of the Morehead um and Dworth city limits, and we'll
touch on some of those. Uh the key objectives of the study were evaluating existing conditions, assessing potential improvements, and recommending infrastructure enhancements at these locations. So we did have uh quite a bit of public
engagement within the study. We had a study review committee as well as a stakeholder committee with representation from Klay County Engineering, Morehead Engineering, Morehead Fire, Morehead Public Schools, and Mindot on the Minnesota side, as well as uh several other representatives
on the North Dakota side. We had a popup event during the winter warm-up in February at the Ror Museum in downtown Morehead and had some pretty good turnout. That's where this photo is from. uh got some good foot traffic and visited with interested parties. Uh we
also were at the Kuanas Pancake Carnival in at the Fargo Dome in February as well as having public meetings in both Morhead and Dworth in addition to West Fargo and Fargo in the summer.
So the preferred alternatives that we found um this is in Dworth at they have the existing Main Street crossing which um sees high train traffic. Um there's uh several tracks uh that you need to
cross there. And we wanted to study uh an identified location for an overpass at 14th Street to the east in Dworth. So in this image you can kind of see um 14th is that
yellow highlighted area on the right side and the overpass um typical section is shown as well with a potential four-lane structure for the future which also connects to the H Heartland Trail. Here's just another closer look at that
area 14th. Mindot does have a um a potential improvement looking at a roundabout at the intersection of Highway 10 and 14th and uh we've been coordinating with them on uh just being prepared. This is just a planning study,
so there's obviously you know quite a few steps to be taken before anything like construction, but it's always good to coordinate on the early side of things. Next up, uh, we have 40th Avenue South on Highway 52 or near Highway 52. This
is a skewed intersection with Highway 52 going parallel to the railroad tracks. Uh, a short storage area on the west side of the tracks and um just not exactly ideal geometry to work with. Uh the preferred alternative that we
identified is uh widening of the roadway and adding pavement to the surfacing as well. Um adding a turn lane and shoulders to make things a little bit more bicycle friendly as well as updating the railroad warning devices and the layout to meet quiet zone
requirements uh if that's something desired for the future. We also looked to the south of Morehead at 50th Avenue. This would be um the railroad tracks that run parallel to 20th Street in Morehead extended to the
south all the way down to 50th Avenue. Uh the preferred alternative here was an overpass. And this area is probably a little bit further into the future for these types of improvements, but that's how far we're looking. Um and again uh
pending traffic a potential four-lane structure um over that with some considerations for the existing facility near there. >> Is the purpose of that to uh like a future corridor study where you you
basically let people know that something traffic-wise might change in the future. the purpose of >> well I mean putting this bridge there overpass there now it just seems like they're >> yeah aren't there
>> I mean there's um certainly considerations you know years of considerations whether it's um traffic studies and funding and those types of things that would go into a project like this before it would come to fruition
>> I guess usually once once a plan is put in place what what I'm getting at is often times then there were signs put up where it might say future corridor or something um so that people who might want to invest in that land might know what changes are coming.
Is there any consideration to that? I for our study I don't believe that would be um a consideration you know at this point. >> Chair if I can add to that a little bit. One of the things that came out of the
study that we learned um talking to BNSF is we were kind of surprised to be honest that they were looking at some of these rail crossings that weren't in very urbanized areas. you know, for the most part that weren't highly trafficked. And they said that the
reason that they that they wanted to look at some of these areas was because of their experience in Texas. And they were very specific about that. And they they said that there was so much development and so much growth. And it was it happened so fast that by the time
that growth occurred around some of these intersections, there wasn't room to be able to do any improvements. So they wanted to kind of get out ahead of that and kind of have have this on the radar more for their use so that they know if they see that development
starting to happen that they can they can be aware of this. And they were concerned because in Texas development occurred right up at the right up at the right ofway of the railroad. They didn't have room to work. They didn't have room to make any type of expansion. And in
some cases they had some fatalities. So that's definitely got their attention and why they were looking at these areas. I think that was a surprise for us. We didn't expect that, but that was a pretty candid comment to come from the railroad and say that, you know, they're looking way in the future on this and
and that was pretty welcome to hear to be. >> Yeah. >> So they um I think back on the both the along the railroad there on 40th and then also on 50th. I used to travel out a lot going
employer when I was working. I drove that way all the time and there was the stacking of trains was always an issue. Uh I don't know. I think since since the Moreheads rail project was completed, I
don't know if that stacking is as big a problem as it used to be. I think the trains are able to I don't think they have to wait as long to be able to get in and and back their way back in. But but I wonder if that if stacking has anything to do with the railroads interest
because a lot of the farmers don't want to see those roads blocked by train stacking. We we didn't receive any comments um about it during our our outreach to the public or stakeholders. it in some other areas but not in these.
>> Okay. >> So, similarly on 60th Avenue South, this would just be south of 50th on that same um on that same stretch of railroad tracks. Uh very similar alternative was selected as preferred. So, this would be
the um what would be called by some the convent road connects to 52nd Avenue down there. And this one sees a little bit more traffic having that river crossing. Um would see this happening potentially before the 50th Avenue uh
improvement. And again, here we're looking at some bicycle and pedestrian uh infrastructure as well. And here and all these we're now we're talking about east west traffic that would the bridge would go up over the railroad tracks. Is that what we're talking about here?
>> Correct. >> And just a little bit of insight as to our approach on um the factors we looked at with these improvements and these alternatives. So we just went through the preferred alternatives. There were multiple alternatives for most locations
that we looked at and we sent a survey to the um study review committee as well as the stakeholder committee and asked them to prioritize you know these these different considerations um on the screen right now. And what we
got back from that survey was uh high scores for magnitude of project benefits as well as emergency service access. Uh also community impacts and discretionary funding potential and magnitude of project costs were some of the higher
scoring items. So we use that to create a weighted uh scoring criteria which we called a multiple account valuation. And we had other factors such as uh benefit cost ratio that were considered as well.
>> So on the far right column there, the higher the number, the um more significant the project becomes. >> Yes, that's correct. >> I mean it it there's a bigger demand. >> Yep. Yeah. the more you know the higher
the number in any given column the the higher that uh project scores in that category essentially. >> So Kevin >> along that lines have a question where where it talks about train traffic. So
am I reading that correctly? Some of these is five trains a day or >> uh so that would be a basically a zero to five score. um with five being more significant train traffic at these locations.
>> Do you know what the current I'm just curious what is the current amount of travel on that? >> I do have the uh the numbers here. Are you talking 40th or >> no? Uh well, we're going north south. So whatever those cross, you know, whether
it's 40th, you know, 50th or 60th, >> the 20th Street Track, >> just a curious question. >> You understand what I'm saying? >> Yes. And uh so all that data actually the uh Federal Rail Administration does
make public. Um I just pulled up the 50th Avenue location and it's listed as eight trains per day. Okay. at 80 eight no zero. And with that, I'd just like to thank
you again and note that the final draft report is available on FM Metro Cog's website if anyone's interested in some leisurely reading. Well, any do we have any other questions for board members? >> All right. Thank you for your
presentation. >> Thank you. >> All right, Justin, you're start your lengthy list of uh items you have for us today. >> Yeah, good morning. And so the first item I have is requesting approval of
resolution 2025-32 for Department of Natural Resource Funding. So this is the annual resolution that I bring in front of the board every year. And this is for the art trail that runs from Uland 5 miles north to the Norman Klay County line. What this resolution does is it just
allows us to be reimbursed for any maintenance activities that we do on the trail. >> Sure. >> Do we currently do any activities of maintenance on that trail? Not a lot. So, Norman Moles for us. Um, we do spray every year. Um, L&M sprays for noxious
weeds for us. And then in the past three years, I think we've replaced a couple different culverts. So, a little bit, but not a lot. >> We get reimbursed for anything we spend it. >> Correct. The Trailblazers Club does most of the maintenance and then they >> they send us invoices and we get
reimbursed from the DNR. >> That, Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to approve resolution 2025-32. >> Second >> by Commissioner Bear, second by Commissioner Ebinger. Any further discussion? >> Any further discussion? Seeing none, all
in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> The same. Motion carried. >> All right. So, the next few items I have are a bunch of local road improvement applications. So, the first one is going to be for Klay County's LI application.
So, as I've indicated to the board a few different times, so the proposed project that we're going to submit an LI application for is Cass 11 from Trunk Highway 336 to Sabin. It is a route of regional significance for Klay County.
And currently, that road is just too narrow for the traffic that takes it. It's in need of a grading project. And if we're successful, we could get up to $1.5 million through this grant and potentially accelerate when the project would be constructed.
>> That'd be a good project. So, I'll make a motion to approve the resolution 2025-33. >> I'll second the motion. >> All right. Motion by Commissioner Krabanov, second by Commissioner Mojo. Any further discussion? >> Further discussion? Seeing none, all in
favor signify by saying I. >> I. oppose the same sign. Motion carried. Next. >> Yeah. So, the next item is another local road improvement application. So, this one is for Glendon. So, since Glendon is not a state aid city, they do require a
county sponsorship to apply for this project. Um, so they are applying for local road improvement funds to improve Second Street Southeast and 110th Street South. And then I just put there's also just kind of on the resolution. It kind
of explains a little bit about the project, but I think it would good application and we've traditionally sponsored all of these and had really good luck in Klay County. >> With that, Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to approve resolution 2025-34.
>> I'll second the motion. >> Commissioner Bay, second by Commissioner Mojo. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppos the same sign. Right.
>> Next one is resolution 2025-35. This is for Hitterdoll's local road improvement application. So they are proposing some water and sewer work as well as paving NP Avenue just north of Cass 26 tying into State Highway 32. Um,
this is the first time Head Doll has applied for a local road improvement project to my knowledge and it looks like a really nice project. >> Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to approve resolution 2025-35. >> I'll second that motion by Commissioner Mojo, second by Commissioner Barer. Any
further discussion? Any further discussion? I just want to I just want to point I think this is great that these local communities are really taking advantage of this. Mhm. >> I think it's and I'm glad that you're working with them and helping educate them on
>> the possibilities are. So, >> definitely. And then just for your information, I will be bringing one more next week for Dworth. >> All right. Um all in favor signify by saying I >> oppose the same. Motion carried. All right.
>> All right. So, next item. I am requesting approval to purchase a plow for unit 100. So this pickup is used by our road foreman and a critical piece to have during winter which obviously we are experiencing right now. The plow would be purchased from Bert's Truck
Equipment in Morehead and the amount of the purchase would be $11,389 and we do have money in the budget to cover this and then in the future this would go into internal service. >> So you're looking at getting that in
this year's budget yet? >> Yep. So we do have um in 10 340 60 604 so it' be equipment over $500. We do have enough funds to cover this purchase. >> All right. >> Any one question.
>> Has a road foreman had a plow on their truck normally? >> Correct. >> And we didn't replace that truck. Correct. >> We did. So we replaced it but we didn't get rid of the truck. So we still have that >> down. Yep. >> That one. Does that one still have the plow on it? >> Correct. >> With that. Mr. Mr. Chair, I'll make a
motion to approve the purchase of a plow for unit 100 in the amount of $11,389 from Berts Truck Equipment in Morhead. >> Second by Commissioner Bear, second by Commissioner Ebinger. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? And so then you
will end up then putting this plow on the internal service moving forward. >> Correct. >> What's the life of those? >> Uh I think we go it's either seven or 10 years. I don't remember off the top of my head, but I I think it's 10.
>> All right. Any further discussion? >> One other question. >> With with a truck that h that the road foreman did have that still has a plow on. Is there another person that drives that home or uses that truck consistently? >> Does not drive at home, uses it consistently? Yes.
>> So, they'll be using that plow this winter as well. >> Correct. And um one thing too with purchasing the plow for the road foreman um his normal kind of what he takes care of is south of Highway 10. So especially with that
roundabout construction next year I think the plow will get used a ton. >> Perfect. >> All right. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I same motion carried.
All right. Next request for drone. Yeah. So, I'm requesting approval to purchase a drone from Frontier Precision. So, one thing that kind of changed this year with State Aid. State Aid was kind of sponsoring a lot of people going to bridge inspection
training, which was a two-eek course. A lot of people got certified, including myself and a few other staff. So, now they kind of shifted that money was coming from the timber haulers account, and then they kind of split it up based upon based kind of how many bridges each
county had and had a minimum. And then you got so much per bridge. So this year we received $25,755 from state aid. And this money has to be used for anything bridge inspection related. So load ratings or like this
case purchasing a drone. Um so in total the quote also includes um training the drone and also an online portal to assist getting all of our bridge inspection staff their part 107 license which is required to fly the drone.
>> Any comments questions? >> One question. >> How do you have any drones right now under your >> So we have one um so we received one couple years ago from FHWA. We're having we had some issues in
licensing it so we never really used it all that much. So this will be the first real drone that we'll use. And then also with this one we can use it for not only bridge inspection but it does have capability to survey like gravel stock piles and
and one other thing this typical drones obviously if you see one at department store for a thousand bucks they're ran strictly on GPS. This is if GPS were to ever go down, this also this will still run and it's USmade.
>> I would imagine for this to be used in bridge inspection work, it it has to have extremely high resolution. >> Absolutely. The camera on this thing is amazing >> because you're looking for fra correct fractures and
>> and one thing unless we borrow like a snooper truck from mind we're not really able to get under bridges very often and this thing will be a gamecher for that. >> Yes. Commissioner, >> do you have trained operators?
>> Nope. So this quote includes I think it's for seven people to it's called the pilot institute but it's basically an online portal with quizzes and videos that helped staff get their part 107 license. >> Good. Thank you.
>> One one more comment. >> So will this uh speed up inspections of bridges in the coming? >> I I wouldn't say necessarily speed up. um it will help us and just kind of another tool cuz they're still going to have to look at all the same things when they're doing bridge inspections. But in
the summertime, I think it's something that we'll use as a tool to get under the bridges more. >> Inspect them better there having to wait for MDOT super truck. >> Correct. We did talk about this at the highway committee and seemed to fall in where there's probably more benefits than not
>> particularly with how we coordinate with the sheriff's department also on road closures and communication for folks to get visual on what's happening outside. >> Definitely. And one thing that I envision using this for is like I mentioned earlier the roundabout project
is probably doing like a weekly fly over and just giving an update on our social media pages just indicating how progress is coming. you know, the um as Commissioner Ever and I both know being on the diversion
authority board, one of the I think one of the best reports we get on a monthly basis uh is the visual from drone footage of all the different things going on. And it really really is uh an interesting and good tool where you can see
progresses being made and it does have really unique opportunities to pinpoint problem areas and so I I fully support this. I think this is a a good investment.
>> Yes, Commissioner. Um, I'd like to make a motion to approve the purchase of a drone from Front Frontier Precision in the amount of 25,1225. >> Second the motion. >> Right. We have a motion by Commissioner Abby or second by Commissioner Mojo. Any
further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. I. Oppose the same sign. Motion carried. All right. Now, we're going to get into a couple of final contracts. SAP
014594-002. Yeah. So, this speaking of local road improvement. So, this was the local road improvement project in the city of Holly. I thought it turned out really well and residents seem to really like it. Um, Hog Incorporated was the contractor. The final amount to be
approved is $947,2379. And then the initial bid was $876,81.38. The reason for the overages is they had a couple soft spots that they had to dig out that weren't anticipated >> or quantities. >> Yep. And these are these are all uh paid for
um by the local community or or and whatever they receive from their >> Yep. So their local road improvement grant is capped at what the bid amount was. So anything additional has to come from the city of Holly and they did request all of their wheelage tax for
this project that almost covers that overage. But they do sign an agreement when they get the grant that basically says they're responsible for anything over the capped amount. So they had built up their wheelage tax over >> Yep. >> which we allowed them to do. >> Correct.
>> Up to seven. >> With that, Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to approve the final contract voucher for SAP 014-594-002 in the amount of 947,2379. Second. >> We have a motion by Commissioner Bear,
second by Commissioner Kavanaghoft. Any further discussion on the motion? Any further discussion? >> All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppos the same sign? Motion carried. All right. Next, we have
contract SP014611005. Um, yes. So this is a final contract voucher for the federal aid project on CASAW 11. Um this was the concrete pavement rehab and Diamond Grind project. Diamond Surface Incorporated was a contractor and the project turned
out very well. Um throughout the last couple years, this has kind of been a trouble road for us with pavement buckling. Um, just as an FYI, every time that pavement buckled, it was about $50,000 to replace, plus closing the
road down for probably 2 weeks. Um, so you'll see the final amount to be approved is a little over $100,000 more than the initial bid. So, with federal aid, usually with a state aid project, we like to build in a fluff factor of about 5%. Federal aid does not allow you
to do this. And we had um in the month of June before they started we had a couple hundred degree days where we actually had more panels buckle. So that's the reason for the overages. Um so the final amount that I'm hop or that I'm looking to get approved
is1,182,5548 or the initial bid was163,772.98. And then one thing that we also did in this project was seal all the joints where previously none of the joints were sealed and that's what was causing the pavement to buckle. It would just fill with sand and whatever else and then as
or as it gets hotter concrete wants to expand so didn't have anywhere to expand so it would buckle. >> So hopefully this will alleviate the buckling and correct not have to spend 50,000 a time fixing. >> Correct. Any
other questions? Words, wishes. Mr. Chair, I'll make the motion to approve the final contract voucher for SP014-611-055 in the amount of 1,182,5548. >> Second. >> We have a motion by Commissioner Bear,
second by Commissioner Krabhoff. Any further discussion? >> It's very nicely done. I drive that road often and yeah, it's a lot smoother now. >> And I do want to give a little kudos to our maintenance department, too. Kind of right at the end of the project um on
the north side of the bridge. We had a really bad panel that our staff did a really good job at ripping out and replacing. >> Lot smoother up and down off that bridge. Mhm. >> And this being a CASA project along with federal funds, this was this was uh
financed through our five-year plan. >> Correct. So there was federal funding plus state aid funding on this project. >> So I mean it's the overage will slightly impact our five-year plan, but we've also seen some savings in some other projects. >> Correct. >> More than offset that.
>> Yep. >> All right. Any other discussion? Seeing none. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppose the same sign. Motion carried. >> All right. Now you guys want to go to >> Arlington. >> Where are you going? Texas.
>> Arlington. So final board item. Um so I'm requesting approve out ofstate travel for the myself and the assistant county engineer Alex. So this is for the NACE conference, National Association of County Engineers, which through Minnesota County Engineers Association,
we are a full member in NACE and participate. Um, so this year's annual conference is in Arlington, Texas goes from April 12th to April 15th. Um, I think this is a very valuable conference with many technical sessions from around
the US and it also provides CEUs to help maintain lensure. Um, we do budget for this every year. Conference registration is $745 each. Flights are about $400 and then board or
hotel stay I believe is around that $800 mark which is all within budget. Um, last year was in Chicago and just kind of mentioning how it provides value to the county. John Deere was a major
sponsor of that event last year and they found out that we were purchasing three motor graders and they actually gave us a system that's about $8,000 that kind of helps keep that plow on the road in snowstorms. It's a new system they just came out with and we got that at no charge.
>> Mr. Chair, >> Commissioner Mojo. >> Thank you. Uh it seems like not all of America floods in the beginning of April. So, um, following suit with what we've done before, if there's an issue and we're seeing that it could potentially be flooding, we'll adjust that. Yep.
>> Um, yeah, I part of where I think there's huge benefit is uh, you know, we've heard nationwide about how some folks are using beet juice, sun deicing components, and given the fact that we're up here and, um, it costs a lot of
money to buy that equipment up front. And I think that's one of the valuable pieces that you'll continue to hear and see if it does make sense back here. And then the other piece where I think nationally is starting to make sense is there's some pretty enormous uh studies
and projects going on that have to do with ash. Mhm. >> Both Commissioner Campbell and I serve on Prairie Lakes and we've heard about what that mindot project is and you know I think those are areas where 745 bucks looks kind of cheap when um if we could
see some substantial savings by bringing those projects to Klay County. Uh certainly um I see the value in attending the conference. >> Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to approve the request. >> Second. >> Motion by Commissioner Mojo, second by Commissioner Ebinger. Any further
discussion on the motion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Oppos the same sign. Motion carried. >> Thank you. >> Right. You got anything else for us? >> No. No. I think I'm done for this week.
>> So, I want to say thank you for um your input and time that you are involved with when we have our our state house and senate bonding committees coming forward regarding our our needs and uh
in regards to the diversion project on the Minnesota side explaining those important road raises and all those things. It's important for the state to hear that >> and so thank you for um being willing to
hop on those buses and out of your other busy schedule to work on those items. >> Yeah, not a problem. And it the buses are kind of fun because you do get to connect with people and one of the senators Anne Johnson's actually a civil engineer so it was good to connect with her
>> a civil engineer that he also was in her class. >> Yep. >> So yeah that was good. >> All right. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you Justin. Well, I guess we can take our break.
We're ahead of schedule. I want you all to note All right, we are now back in session. We will resume our agenda. Moving on to request approval to purchase two-way radios for the landfill. Good morning, Corey. >> Morning, Mr. Chair and commissioners. Uh
my first request for the day is to purchase some new radio equipment for two-way radio equipment for the landfill. Um as you know we had a incident there this summer where a gentleman passed away and after we discussed um what had happened and how
our response was we realized that unless our operators are actually in the equipment they have no way of communicating with anybody else on the grounds other than cell phones. Um so I looked into buying handheld radios. um couldn't find anything that was compatible with the old system we had
out there. So, I looked at purchasing a new um and the new system would also be compatible with the radios we have at the RRC so we could interchange them in a time of need. Um the cost of the new radios is $9,93953 installed.
So, that would be my request for the first item this morning. >> Commissioner, >> thank you. We did talk about this at SWAC and and I just want you know, folks to understand that what happened at the landfill wasn't a result of the the
radio component. We were just addressing how in the future we could address a crisis out there uh and really felt like this was the most important way with folks going in and out of equipment to be reachable is the most important piece.
Well, I you know, and that kind of remote area out there too and and you have I I just think from a safety standpoint, even for our our staff out there working, >> right? >> Uh you know, to be outside of their vehicles if something happens to
be able to reach out for assistance is important. So I and I and as Commissioner Moa mentioned, this was talked about at our solid waste meeting, advisory committee meeting, and that got the full endorsement of the solid waste advisory committee to move forward with
this purchase. >> Chair, >> yes, Commissioner >> is how many units will this be? >> Seven total units. Two of them will be handheld. >> Okay. >> That our our landfill technician and our operator will each carry a handheld with them at all times. Um when our landfill
tech is not there, our summer help would have land would have a landlord a handheld also. And then we have extras at the RSC that we could transfer out there if we can get to. Do >> you have somebody monitoring as a base just in case somebody is gets in trouble? >> Yep. Yep. There's the office has one. There's a base unit in the office at all
times. Plus every every piece of equipment pickup has one in. >> Sounds great. >> One, Commissioner Bear, >> can you hear these back in Morehead? You can hear them in Moria, but you can't communicate back to them with with the handheld. I have I've tried in the past.
Um, >> but as soon as you get to that Glendon area, they can start hearing you. Yep. >> You can hear, but you can't you can't talk. >> I can hear, but I can't talk back. Yep. And that depends on weather and that kind of stuff on where they're at at the landfill. If they're down in a hole, it makes >> Yeah. different. >> But within the within the footprint of
the landfill, there's no issues there. >> So then we'd be also replacing the radios in the equipment. >> Yes. Yep. Those are all analog equipment. They've been there as long as I've been around. So, 10 years just about. Um I'm not so sure they weren't there when my dad was there. So, um the
serial numbers are 1 2 3 4 I believe. >> Time for an upgrade. >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes, Commissioner Ever. I'll move to uh approve the purchase of new radios from Midstates uh for landfill in the amount of $9,93953.
>> A second. >> We have a motion by Commissioner Ebinger, second by Commissioner Krabanoft. Any further discussion? Further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. I >> oppose the same sign.
>> Motion carried. All right. Next, we have a Certificate of need request. >> Yes. Uh we are renewing our license or permit at the landfill and part of that permit application is a certificate of need letter of resolution. Um we have gone through this with Stantech and our
landfill technician. Uh essentially what it is is an estimate of how many um how much volume we will be using over the next 10 years. Um we turn that in and it's monitored, you know, annually by the MPCA and that and that kind of thing. So um it's an estimate. We're
fairly confident that's a high estimate. Um, but we want to we have to have it as part of our our renewal process. So, that is this is the next step is requesting this letter of resolution. >> One question, Commissioner Bear, >> looking at years back, do we come close to that estimate or
>> uh we're a little bit lighter. Uh we we've added a percentage or two increase every year just, you know, >> yeah, >> for growth and potential with the uh construction and demo waste, but no, we don't come close. We're probably 10% below that number.
>> Mr. Chair, with that I'll make the motion to approve the letter of resolution for the certificate of need for the landfill permit. >> Second. >> Motion by Commissioner Bear, second by Commissioner Abiger. Any further discussion on the motion? >> Any further discussion? Seeing none, all
in favor signify by saying I. >> I. always the same. Motion carried. All right. And your next one is the leate contract. >> Yes. As you know, we have entered a contract with Pelican for the last
couple years to um dispose of our Leeate. Um this is just an annual contract that we do with them. It has been looked over by the attorney's office. Uh the only change from last year's contract to this year's is there is a $2 per thousand gallon increase. Um, so basically 0.02 cents per gallon.
Um, which is still keep it cheaper than than the Fargo, but we also have Fargo as a backup. So my request would be to sign the the contract for the 2026 leaf tape removal. >> Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to approve.
>> Right. >> I'll second. >> We have a motion by Commissioner Mojo, second by Commissioner Krabn. Any further discussion on the motion? It's um it certainly is u cost efficient uh
compared to what our previous >> Yep. It saves us 2 cents a gallon. So on 3 million gallons that adds up in a hurry >> closer freight. >> Uh same >> same distance as far as hauling >> little prettier drive.
>> Have we have we looked at is there any cities in Klay County willing to take this stuff for us or no? >> No. I've requested Morehead. um they don't want it just due to the fact there's some heavy metals in there that they can't handle at this time. So, okay. >> Nobody within Klay County. We've tried. >> All right. Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I oppose the same. Motion carried >> and you're still on schedule. Thanks, >> Corey. And I asked questions.
>> All right. Looks like we have a an announcement here this morning. >> Good morning, Mr. Chair, commissioners. Yes, an exciting morning this morning. Uh, as this board is aware, uh, we've recently had a recruitment process to
replace the public health uh, director. Uh, we've had several several interview screenings and also uh, this board was a part of the interview process for the final candidates. And through that process, we had a candidate uh that came forward out of that group that had
strong leadership uh a strong vision for for that department uh where she likes to take that take that and also a collaborative spirit to work with the staff that we have. And so this morning I would bring before you uh Jessica Mickelson for consideration to be the
next public health director. uh in our in our discussions with Jessica, our county has a promotional promotional policy uh which requires a minimum of a 5% promotion increase uh not to exceed a maximum price. And so uh the grade the grade and step that Jessica would be
looking at is grade 26 step five. With that, I'd yield for any questions. >> All right, Mr. Abinger. >> Mr. Share it. We uh came to a to a pretty clear consensus amongst us that Jessica was our pick.
We're looking forward to having somebody from within the county family moving ahead and taking over this department and uh it's going to be a pleasure to work with you as we reform our partnership for health too. So I'm looking forward to it. And having said that, I'd like to make a motion to
accept recommendation to hire Jessica Mickelson as the public health director, grade 26, step five with backfill and social services. >> I'll second the motion. >> We have a motion by Commissioner Abinger, second by Commissioner Mojo. Any further discussion on the motion?
>> Question. >> The start date December 20th. Anyway, we can push that to January 1st. >> Um, Mr. Chair, I think one of the challenges we've talked about a starting date. You know, it's certainly up to the board's wishes of when they'd like to start. We've not had leadership within
that department for a little over two months. And so, um, I know that, uh, that Jessica's working to prepare prepare her budget or, excuse me, prepare her department, uh, to leave. Uh, and so I I think that, uh, we certainly up for the board's wishes. You
know, I think in in past when we've hired somebody new to lead a department, um not only do we try to get that person in as soon as possible and often times we end up uh with a duplicate payment
because we want them to take advantage of the person, the predecessor um in most instances who might be retiring or whatever. And in this particular case, uh, she's not going to have that ability to have that individual. Um, so I I
still think I I still think getting her on board right away is is really important. Um I I do want to comment on um all five of us were able to be part of that interview process and and um we
had we had really good internal candidates as well as external candidates and we're fortunate to have selected somebody internally and I just want to maybe send out a message to the other internal candidates
who applied that Um, boy, they're they're really good. And I think you it's going to show that you have some people within your department that you're going to now lead that are very talented and look forward to you being
able to uh take advantage of that talent to to make things more smooth for you. So, um, but anyway, we had we did have that and and I think as Commissioner Abberinger said, I think you kind of rose to the top and that was
encouraging. So, >> Commissioner Mojo, >> thank you. I'm really excited about this. I have had the opportunity to work with you in a variety of capacities and I will say it's really interesting and wonderful that your team that you're leaving is here to support you and cheer
you on. that speaks of the collaborative nature for the work that you do and I'm just so excited for you to see where you take this department. Uh, you know, I also think it's important for us to um uh take into consideration a department that hasn't had a head for a while
because of the absence. And so, you know, I appreciate waiting um waiting, but there will be a cost savings because you are leaving and vacating a position to go to a next. So, um, I will wholeheartedly support this and excited to see the work that you'll do.
>> Mr. Chair, >> Commissioner Ever, >> just on as far as the hiring line goes, if we can impose on Quinn to borrow one of his employees, uh, we have the first meeting of the new partnership for health, which will be December
10th or 5th, correct? And it it it'll be here in in Klay County. So, I'm excited to see you hit the ground running with as much information as we and your staff can give you. And >> so, you're basically telling Quinn that
that we're taking his employee for >> Well, he's he's giving me a thumbs up, which I think is probably insincere, but uh yeah, I'm not telling Quinn anything. He's smarter than me. >> All right,
anybody else? Well, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Oppos the same sign. That's a unanimous yes. Jessica, do you have any comments to
>> Well, I just want to thank Steve and all of the commissioners for this opportunity. I'm really excited to get started. I know I have big shoes to fill with Cathy's departure. Um, but I'm really excited to work with her dynamic team that she's put together and it's
very bittersweet to leave the amazing group that we have in social services, but I'm really excited. So, thank you. Appreciate it. >> Great. Congratulations. >> And and Mr. Chair, if I could just briefly take a second for that the team
that she'll be supervising and thanking them for uh for pulling that their their staff together over the last several months uh and making sure that public health worked as smoothly as it as it did. Uh so thank them. All right, that moves us into our next
um topic and that's the 2026 budget discussion that we have on our agenda every meeting now to the end of the year. Um I know um in front of us um Mr. Larson
has provided us with our non-county 2026 levy requests and I think he was looking for a final um review on that moving forward before we do go to our final levy and and was wondering if there were
any questions regarding those moving forward. I know that uh Commissioner Krabanoft brought to my attention that there is a slight uh difference in the historical and cultural society. Uh the
amount it was reduced to was 219,235. Is that correct, Commissioner Cra? >> That is correct. >> Not 218, but two 219 235. >> That makes it same as last year. >> Right.
Commissioner Ebinger. >> Yes. I I u notice we we this reflects the reduction from the $3626 362,690 request from Lake Agassy Regional
Library was reduced to uh 349209. the uh last time we discussed this, there was a request that I look into what the consequences of that $15,000 shortfall will be to Klay County.
All the funds that we pay are reflective of a formula that was devised 30 years ago and uh the library has got a budget that's running very close. There's not a lot of room in it to cut.
So, if we don't pay the additional $15,000, which is half of the we're paying half of the original increase to the ask, um I ask what items are going to need to be uh limited as it looks now with the
with the union requirements that non-UN employees uh receive cutbacks prior to any union employees. The obvious, quickest generation would be to close the Ulin facility right now, which is open three
days a week, two hours a day. That would still leave $5,500 uh for the Barnesville and the Holly uh locations to eliminate uh positions and
the per hour at each of those locations. At Barnesville, the elimination of one hour of employee time over the year would save,84. In Holly, it'd be 1,288. So, they would try to sit there and
figure out between the other two locations where the cuts need to be made. I do not like the current formula and there are other members signitories that don't like the current formula. It's complex and it was obviously
designed to address some needs 30 years ago that have changed and we have already resolved to address that in the upcoming year to be more reflective of reality. Uh, however, having said that, I would
ask that we avoid these these cutbacks to services in Barnesville, Holly, and Yulan and go ahead and pay the additional 15 15,000 to meet the shortfall that uh is currently showing
the Klay County budget. Did we um did we ever ask or discuss the um the libraries reserves and what what those reserves look like? I I can't remember if we had that discussion or not. I c I can't remember what they are,
but I in looking at it a month ago, we've had a lot of figures run through, but in looking at it a month ago, it is not excessive. And it'll probably be tapped this year with the cuts as we're all experiencing on state and federal
funding that normally comes through and some of the additional demands. I anticipate that if grants or other funding aren't located, they're probably going to need to go into the reserves. And just like us, you don't want to the next few years.
We don't know what what they hold, but it doesn't look like it's going to be a partic particularly easy time fiscally for any entity. And this is not a a place that's replete with funding. >> I just I I was just wondering if the formula that you talk about
Dave, if that if that formula um just automatically um takes the budgeted needs of the library board
and distributes that based on the formula before there's any consideration of reserves being taken or if if reserves have been part of the discussion and built in to their budget. >> Since I've come there, it's been a
little disturbing to me, but they've always made it work. The budget shows a deficit at the start of the year. Uh expenditures are going to exceed income, and that's another thing I think needs to go
into factoring a new formula. Leaving something untouched for 30 years is just not what I think. I mean it varies because of the components that are in it. Library use membership within a geographical range but I 30 years ago
they had to take a poll of people in three or four of the libraries for a two-month period to determine part of their construction of of the of the uh formula. And this I think was done to
not have to have to do that every year. As a result, it takes no no um reckoning of the actual cost of operations into the formula, what it takes to run the facility. So, I think it's time to to
redo it. I was elected again as president of the library board for the for next year and that is our primary. Uh we want to get it done by budget. You know, we want to get done by June
so that we have an idea of what we can send out to everybody and are able to justify it and get a consensus from the the uh signitories. >> Mr. Kraboff. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Sure. Um,
so I do support their work. I I guess you you're talking about a new formula and I I don't quite understand what that means. And maybe I should, but I don't. And um, so if they have a new formula,
where might we land next year? >> That's a good question. Um, it's going to be based on cost of operations and I think our costs are considerably less than than many others that are involved. But that's something we're going to have to look at.
>> I mean, is the formula is is it showing an inequity to Flay County versus other places or >> not? Not not as much as it is over in our neighbors Becker County and Detroit Lakes. There seems to be a real
uh differential there. and they are the only signatory and they may have approved the the original ask. I've not gotten that information yet as of last Tuesday. It was still a question up in the air but or last Thursday but
uh all the other signitories have approved the original ask. >> Mr. Chair, commissioners, if if uh I may, I just pulled up the preliminary budget request that they provided. Uh and it's anticipated that uh the they
will be utilizing one point one $136,566 of fund balance uh this year, which was an increase of $36,566 over last year. >> So, does it say what their reserve balance is?
>> I believe, Mr. Chair, I think that we had a conversation earlier in the budget process that they were right around 2 million. Uh their their overall budget is is 4.4 million proposed next year, which would be roughly five months of five months of operating.
>> Mr. Mal, >> thank you. Just a clarification though, it is anticipated that they will have substantial um A&E um purchases, correct? or furniture purch sorry not a purchaser
purchases for the new site. >> I believe those are not I believe it's those are capital items that have already been budgeted for. >> I thought in the negotiations that was something that came forward that it looked like they were going to have to
purchase their own as opposed to as part of the entire project. Yeah, they're going to have to purchase the for their offices, >> right? But that wasn't something that was budgeted in in 25. So, I mean going to Are they purchasing that out of reserves?
>> They would have >> I think there was I think there was an item already budgeted for it. >> Any other questions? >> Mr. Chair, >> Mr. proposal. >> Thank you. It is also likely with the reallocation that Klay County will see
an increase. >> Unlikely. I don't know. It's It depends. >> If Becker sees a substantial decrease, somebody I mean, that's going to have to filter through. And so, I'm just trying to figure out a way for our budget to step into what that looks like.
>> Yeah. I think that it goes to, you know, Paul's question, too. I the uncertainty of you know anytime that you're dealing with a new formula typically when there's a request
somebody thinks that they're being harmed by the current formula and want it changed right I mean that's typically why you would have somebody advocating for a change in a formula >> and in this particular case I
you know I think the bigger your your county is, you know, um the bigger the target >> that the county population and the number of people who have a card who are using the facility. Now, a major factor
in it, I think what we're going to be looking at is usage and cost of running the operation. that's going to enter into uh identifying some deficient areas, some
some locations that don't have enough uh transactions to justify continuing to fund them. And I don't know how that'll impact us in the long run. I don't know how that'll impact Pecker County. They've got a couple places that really are not
real busy and it may be a reckoning time to where where we start looking at cutting, but I don't know that yet. This is a resolution made by the board and it's not been entered in. There's been no speculation other than the fact that
the cost of operation has to be a major consideration in this and it is not at this time. That >> should be the only consideration of it is the cost of operation. Mr. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Eberger, the any changes that would happened in 26,
but the the new request if there wasn't a change wouldn't be implemented till 27. That's correct. Correct. >> Any change in the formula, >> right? Yes. >> Okay. >> It's why we want to get it done by June. Well, and I you know I I do know I I serve on a couple of other boards and I
do know that there are some um there are some concerns maybe between Becker County and the city of Detroit Lakes for example on on some of their how they feel that their portion of cost share works. Uh you know I don't know
how that's going to translate into and falling down on Klay County. We don't know the answer to that. Uh, and I don't think we will know it until you get into those formal discussions on certainly I think it's our
responsibility to pay our our fair share of of those types of things. Um, well, we've got a request by Commissioner Abing. What's the other board's feelings on that? Uh, I was I was going to ask where are
we at on the preliminary? >> Uh, so based on the the adjustments that you as a board agreed to last month or last week, we're at 4.64%. >> And that is that now that's net. >> That's net. >> When when we listen and compare it to
other counties, they're not they don't talk net. They talk so so our without net, ours would be what? 5.7 >> probably be right in the Yeah, 5.7 range. Yes, I think we're at 1.12 of net growth >> and that's that's 5.7% of our
projected correct >> 2025. Anything else? Um, just switching topics here, >> I think. >> Well, you know, and I guess in in fairness, maybe maybe we can
look at whatever anybody else might have too and that might have an impact on this, >> you know, in fairness if we, you know, can we find someplace else where we can >> find some funds for >> a savings help offset that? I I think if we go down the economic
development with the EDA for cities in Klay County, if we reduce those to zero just because it's not the greatest year to be putting out more money and maybe directing some of that money over to the library to cover that 15,000 for this
year. And then hopefully Dave can get the library reformulated and bring that in a little tighter. And if if it is cutbacks, not closures to all of our tech libraries long-term to save money there, I think that's where I'd find the
funds out of those four EDA cities. And then yes, move that move 15,000 over to the library and then save the other five. Just the way the budgets are lining up for this year, they haven't received it before. So I I don't if if we give it to them now and then have to
pull it away next year being 2027 going to be even a harder year to budget for everybody's saying I think long term that would be the right decision and then hopefully we re in the library give Dave a year to reign in the library. >> Well to that though part of the reason
we justified to the Minnesota entities pulling back the EDC is there was a gap in Minnesota work that was happening. Um, you know, I I disagree. I think if anything else, we should bolster what our smaller communities are doing. And
even in discussion with Dworth and Barnesville, they said that's um substantial change that can happen with that amount, even if it's minor. I think the piece about the library that is scary is we are part of a group
there. >> And so if we start seeing um you know if we pull out of that agreement then other boards go back to that um and reallocate things we might see larger cuts to Klay
County than we're already anticipating. Um, you know, Dave, you're part of that and so you sit around those discussion boards. That's where I'm, you know, concern concerned. Part of it is, you know, I
I think that while 4.64 is not necessarily where in our brains we would love to be given the fact that we thought we were at 22% in February, I think we've done a fantastic job finding savings and getting critical about it.
So if you look at what we paid with the chamber and the EDC last year, um 185,000, what we've got allocated through the county or the city EDAs and the EDC, that's 78,000. So that still is even a reduction of what what they were
doing there. I just I feel it's it's easier to take something away that we haven't been we haven't given out yet in case long term we have to pull monies back next year. >> Commissioner Koff, did you have a comment?
>> Well, I want to I want to go back to um just my opinion on on the um legacy. I think Um, if everybody else is owned up to the
current rate, I would be in favor of um, you know, putting that 15 grand back into that. Uh, I too uh feel like we've done a really really good job on um
working our um fund balance down or not our fund balance, I'm sorry, the levy down to uh um I'll call it reasonable area. Um I have a question on the EDA part. Can I go back? Can
someone remind me what was stated in the me the u uh resolutions that were sent to us a couple of years uh a couple weeks ago from the um Dworth Holly and and that
was on the dispatch right and is that then the net of that is that a greater cost to us? >> Yeah. So, um I think I think the um I'm not sure if all four cities have acted
on it yet, but I think a couple of them have. And they've basically said that they want to over a three-year period eliminate um paying for any dispatch services.
Um that that um that part if that's done, that does go on back on to the county levy. And I and I assumed it did. I I want to make clear. Yeah. And do we know a dollar amount in that? Is there any way
of >> Well, the to the total amount that they're projected to pay this coming year is $22,000. So if you take a take a quarter or third of that um in 27 um we would that would be in that that
area. Again, with the understanding that there's probably going to be an increased cost that also be associated with that. I I think I think I think that in itself is down. You know, obviously they those small cities have told us what their intentions are and
you know we need to be prepared for what those intentions are. >> Um but I also think that uh it might become a much bigger thing >> uh than that that hasn't been discussed yet. uh that
I guess I'm not ready to talk about that today, but >> yeah. >> Um >> I think I think Mr. Chair, commissioners, we we have been told uh that uh and we've seen some news articles. My understanding is that the representatives from the four cities at some point are going to be coming before
uh this board to to make that formal presentation of the resolutions. Well, with that being something in the future, um I guess for me, I'd still support the ADA and work with the uh historic or work with Lake Agassy for
that increase. However, I um how that would work in the future, I think depending on the responses on on dispatch um may change things in the future. Yeah, I had a discussion about that
dispatch piece with um someone in leadership in in Barnesville, not current leadership, but past. And uh you know, I I think we have to be very clear with them about what services would drop off. And I understand you don't want to talk about today, which is fine. I'm not
going into that. But, you know, it it does need to be stated to other residents of the cities what what those components pay for and what services. Is it non-emergency? I don't know what it is, but what will go by the wayside and if that's if that's something that folks
are willing to to address and those are very very important conversations that not only we need to have with uh the city councils, but also I think residents just aren't aware what the gap would be. Well, I I I think that request might
lead to other requests, too, uh coming forward. That's going to be really it could it could really really change the dynamics of how dispatch on this side of the river is going to have to be funded.
And I it it's a concerning it's concerning to me on how that all pans out. Like I said, I'm not ready today, but I've been doing some numbers and and I think ultimately who it really impacts the most
is our rural people and our farmers are going to see this see this significant cost shift if you know. So I think we're going to have to be very careful on that. I I I I have a I really do appreciate
Commissioner Bayer's comments on this is new funding that is this the right year to be doing it. It's it's new funding taking from an old economic development aotment. It's it's basically
redistributing the 185,000 that we had in previous budgets in a different way. So it's from from a technical standpoint, it's not new money, but where it's going is new. And I think that that I think that might be the
argument there of is this the if we were to ever have to back off, you know, why would you give something if you're having to back off it? >> That's that's that's my concern.
I don't I don't disagree that those um those different local communities I I don't disagree that they wouldn't put the dollars to good use. I don't
think we would even provide them with the dollars if we didn't think that they'd put it to good use, you know. So, >> so is this discussion or are we doing a motion? >> Well, it's just it's it's discussion, but I mean the floor is open if somebody
wants to to move a change to or make a motion to change something to keep it as it is. >> Okay, then I will if that's >> Okay. >> Okay, Mr. Chair, I I'd like to make a motion then um uh to Is it whatever the
15,000 >> $13,481? >> Thank you. that amount uh be uh put back in or excuse me be part of uh our um giving to the Lake Agassy Regional
Library for 2026. >> Second. >> Okay. So, the m the motion basically is to restore back the funding to its original request, >> which is $362,690. >> Yes. >> Have a motion and a second. Any further
discussion on the motion? Any further discussion? I'm not sure where the board stand is. We'll do a roll call vote. >> Commissioner Krahoff. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Mojo, >> no. >> Commissioner Campbell,
>> no. >> Commissioner Bear, >> no. >> Commissioner Ebinger, >> yes. All right. So that motion carries and that so that 13,041 is put back in. >> Then I would like to make a motion to
pull the EDA money from the four rural Klay County cities for this year and maybe look at it next year, but just this year with what we're going to be looking longterm. It's easier to pull it back now than later. So I' I'd like to make a motion to pull the EDA money out
the four rural cities. >> We have a motion. Is there a second? Is there a second? I will second the motion. I don't j do it very often, but I'm going to do it today just for the sake of discussion. I know we've discussed it, but I just I
think in fairness it's worthy of anything any other comments that we make. I >> I think I think it if we were prudent it I I think the four city would use that money. I think they turn that money around and make even more money. But just for us to fund that, I I don't think this is the appropriate time for
us to be funding that. That's all I have to say. I'll ask for a roll call vote, chair. All right. Uh any I just want to make sure we're done with discussion here first. >> Any further discussion?
>> Yeah, I'll just bring it up. I I still support it. I just go back to our EDA meetings and the enthusiasm I saw from the folks and we build up Morehead. I just I I just think it's in us. We
should be building the opportunities for these communities. And um um I I I'm one that does believe that if we help them, it helps them more and that creates more development and that brings more county
taxes in. So um uh is there a roll call yet? That was discussion, I guess. But >> did you have another comment? >> This this a real conundrum for me. Um, until I was elected commissioner, my
entire district's in city of Morhead. I didn't know what was going on out in the county. And I've made it a point to learn. And there's some people trying really hard out there to grow grow their community.
And they're not part of Morehead. They're they've been out of the partnerships a lot of the time when things come through. Uh, that that to in my opinion explains a lot of the lack of information they have about the value of the of the uh
Red River Regional Dispatch Center to their communities. They've got to be brought in. They've got to be given the opportunity to understand what the services are and we've got to be willing to show that we're we're willing to play
the game with them. We've been doing this for Cass County and for for Fargo and we've left our own people out there unressed. So, and by the same token, it's real hard when you're looking at potentially
uh critical uh shifting of the property taxes on to the county. It seems we're getting from both sides now, from the towns underneath us and the state up above us. It's difficult to to go into this with a
collegial collaborative uh feeling. So, I don't know. I'm I'm not even sure how to vote right now, but I do know that we we've been scrupulous in trying to cut where it's
reasonable. And I I I I think maybe there's a a valid point that given the nature of what the ca what it costs for us to work with the cities in rural Klay County, we may need to stand back and
and and see where the appropriations go after we settle some of this situation with the dispatch center. Again, it doesn't seem fair though because these folks have been trying hard and they they have a right to get some county support.
>> So again, I want to I want to Are we finished? Okay. Okay. So, I I I agree. I don't disagree for one moment that these entities wouldn't put this money to good use. I I don't that's not the issue at
all to me. And I and I'm really thankful that for this for this board for really taking a look at how to reinvest that original $185,000 that we committed to economic development in Klay County.
Uh you know with with with the difficult times that we're having and you know we still brought in a lobbyist for the important work that we need to be done that we're hoping that we can get some assistance from the state. But but ultimately my decision on this one is going to fall into the fact that none of
those four entities even asked for this. >> It was something that we we gave as a as a um different way to to maybe invest that original 185,000.
But from my standpoint and also trying to do um and I talk about it all the time, helping that little retired person living off social security, paying property taxes, how can we adjust and how how can we help that person and
every dollar matters when it comes to that. Um, so I that's why I second the motion and that's why I support this because in this particular instance, this is money
that nobody even requested and under these trying times when we're trying to and we're looking at 2027 as even being worse than 2026. How can we how can we do some things now?
I do I do I think they'll do good with the money if we gave it to them. Absolutely. That's not even the issue. Not to me anyway though. >> Also not to me, Mr. Chair. >> Pardon me. >> Not that's also not the issue to me. >> Okay. All right. Any any further
discussion? All right. I think uh we are asked for a roll call vote on this. >> Commissioner Krabanhoff. >> Commissioner Mojo. >> No. >> Commissioner Campbell? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Bear? >> Yes. Commissioner Ebinger.
>> All right, that motion that motion carries. Um, do we have any further discussion on items? Steve, do you have anything else that you wanted to bring forward to us today? I I know you provide I had asked for a breakdown on the basically the final
20 25 2024 revenues over expenditures. uh which I think it's pretty close to final now. >> Yeah. >> Uh I don't know if we're I don't know. I think did you send that to everybody? I know. >> I have not. No. >> Okay. Okay. So maybe maybe we can have
that in preparation for the >> Yeah. Mr. Chair, in in anticipation of AMC meeting and the following meeting would be our truth and taxation uh evening meeting. I trying to work with Lori. Uh it's a quick turnaround this
week, but uh tried to have a a levy sheet uh a uh expense expense revenues of where we are uh this year, the halfs and sales tax uh and then the fund balance document uh for the board as
part of this discussion on December 2nd. >> I have one question. >> Yes, commission. >> Do you want us to finalize the this sheet our non-count le request or >> Well, Mr. Mr. Chair, commissioners, I think that uh today what what we wanted to do is I wanted to do is bring forward
the actions uh that that are on this board have been been things that you guys have taken on uh throughout this budget process. And so uh I wanted just to make sure that the numbers that we had uh from your previous discussions matched what Lori had in the budget. And
so uh we'll make the we'll make the changes uh make the changes that were brought forward today and that'll be part of part of the levy document next week. >> Um so Steve, so all of these um external requests
uh were any of these were any of these voted on independently by the board? >> Uh Mr. Chair, members of the commission, my my recollection is that you did vote uh to to not fund uh not fund the two
different red items here, the the rural routes and and the cultural diversity. Uh I think the other ones were discussions that we that we have just had as part of the the budget process. >> Okay. And and so as it's presented with those two motions that were made today
on those two line items, um >> I don't know if that's true. >> H >> I think we did specifically vote on the EDA package. >> Oh, we may. Boy, I'd have to look back um on that for sure. Commissioner Rojo,
Mr. Chair, >> should question to Mr. Chair. Should we go through line by line after we get this next week and vote on each one of these? >> Well, I I you know, I guess what I would do because they because we voted them in the preliminary levy, we're going to
assume that they're in unless unless there's >> especially in the motion to take it out like we just did today. You either add it back or you take it out. >> And I, you know, I think every every board member will have that ability to, you know, to do that moving forward. Um,
at this at this point in time, I just I want to know if there were if there was any entity of these where they were told that they would receive the dollars. >> Uh, no.
>> From a formally from a formal >> no from a standoint. >> From a in from a formal standpoint, I have to we have told two entities they would not be receiving funding. about uh and we've told them we've told other entities the adjustments the board have
made has made um but uh but that uh the final we always tell tell each of these departments that the final decision isn't made until you guys establish the budget. So all right. So I So at this point I I think moving forward
uh un unless I mean these numbers I think our administrator has asked are we good with these and at this point in time we've made we've talked about two and unless there's something else I think they'll just move forward as as being part of the
final levy proposal. I there's Yeah, I mean that that doesn't happen until, you know, later in December, but All right. Do we have any anything else on budget? If not, we'll move into our committee
reports. And I believe I'm going to start with Paul today. >> Right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh going back to u Tuesday the uh
last Tuesday we had our u we were all part of the interviews and then uh late uh in the afternoon uh that evening I I did attend the Klay County Board of Adjustments. Um just talk a little bit
about that. Uh that uh was a request of a variance for the uh elevated uh dispensary down in Baker and the request was uh our cannabis uh ordinance. We have a 500 uh foot setback to
residential and uh he was requesting go down to 250 uh after uh room was full of I'd say around 50 people mostly all from Baker which has a population of 50 people
and and the township was against it as well as some local uh uh land owners around it. So anyway, long and short, it unanimously went forward to uh to uh
deny that request. So um in order for him to do it anything, they would have to uh hold that 500 foot setback. On Wednesday, uh we had a um a teams
meeting again with our lobbyists um moving forward with the nonsecure facility. our strategies with that. Um, again, working toward the working with the governor. The other thing that was uh mentioned is u getting out working
with the people uh whether senate or house uh um people that were part of the tour, were invited to the tour but were not able to make it. So anyway, we're working on that. And then also uh just
put it out there. I think was mentioned maybe last week, but um that Steve, myself, and Steve Summers from Solution will be re uh reporting and giving an update and get an updated uh resolution
for the Minnesota Indian Affairs uh conference going on in Martin uh Minnesota next week. So that's on that. Uh that afternoon on the Wednesday later after that at noon uh I had the finance
uh committee meeting for the the historical and cultural society. Um again that final budget uh was uh is going to be uh their final budget will be um being taken this Wednesday. uh and
everything. Um and again taking the figures that were allowing them and let's see uh then on Thursday morning I was part of a uh team's meeting with the rethink
mental health and suicide uh coalition. Um really good uh meeting with uh indepth information. Uh we had a presentation by Chandler uh Esleen Gur from the
executive director of fibroid coalition in homelessness. She shared her insights on the social detriments of uh health uh these positive negative impacts. And the reason it's good to understand these
determinants is that you know where people are their environment they live in or where they were born in whether it's positive or negative it has influence on later uh
year outcomes. And uh and those are the things if whatever we can do to make those positive uh effects in our community to move people out of these negative places um uh environments are
going to say not places but environments uh the better off we're going to be as a community. Uh right now we as I think it's a number we've heard uh pretty much uh for a little while here we have roughly an estimate of about 1,55
homeless people identified in ourh community every day and um and of that uh about 600 of those are students. Um, and then after that, um, after Chandler
got done, uh, talking about that, uh, Amy Rico for Morid schools and Amy works under, uh, a federal grant, uh, within the schools. And, um, anyway, right now, Mor school
system has uh, 346 kids living in homelessness situations. That doesn't mean they don't have shelter, but that does mean that those kids um don't have a permanent permanent place. They're
moving from place to place uh finding a way to get through them or their families. And and the scary number to me is that of those 346, 81 of them are unaccompanied. So, these are mostly kids
under 18 that are out on their own uh trying to make that way. So, uh anyway, Amy did a good job. These uh the the good uh good news about the 81, they're in school and uh it's all and she'll
talk about so strongly, the only way we get these kids out of these situations is uh through education. So, >> Well, can I ask a question? Yes. So, um I mean th those are serious numbers. >> Yeah. >> I I'm I'm wondering um how how do those
do do they compare those numbers from previous years? It it >> um >> so so like are there trends going up or and and or you know we for a long time in all of our boards for years we wanted
to end homelessness. >> Yeah. and you know and what are we doing and what's working and what isn't working and what are the trends you know so it's it's staggering to hear these numbers is it is is it something that's
>> well I'll just go off and and maybe Dave will have a little more insight being part of that coalition but as I understand it the the bigger number the area number the thousand number I think that number has is growing uh she
indicated that too. However, how much I don't know. I know specifically to Amy in the school that number is definitely growing. >> Yeah. I I recall the issue of homeless students in Morehead schools came up
back when I was still a police chief. So that's more than 18 years ago. >> But my understanding is there was a problem tracking it. In the last several years, there's been more of a concertive effort to identify provide services to
transportation to these kids and that number keeps getting bigger every year. Uh what is disturbing and I missed I was at a at another meeting and had a conflict and I missed the presentation but again as as Commissioner Krabangh
indicated what's really disturbing are a number of these kids that are on our own and it's not the ones we can track in school and provide some services to although the services are inadequate it's the ones we don't know about
and uh a lot of challenges in this issue and I I spent 25 30 years aware of it and working on it and I don't think it's really getting much better. There's a lot of effort going into it,
but we keep we keep trying to address these things and and we can't seem to get on a specific track on it and we need to. >> Yeah. I just want to end on a positive note. you see commitment out there, people trying. That's too good.
>> Oh, I Yeah, I don't >> and uh I think the work out there, they're doing the best they can. So, yeah, that's what I have for my report. >> Thank you. >> All right, Commissioner Mojo. >> Thank you. Last week, I also was part of
the interview process. Excited to have the opportunity to take take part in that. I attended the board of adjustment meeting that was reported on by uh commissioner Kravana well and then also attended the uh planning commission meeting. We did
have a a full house for both of those items. A continuation discussion um on some of the points that had come out on one of the hearings from the board of commissioners earlier in the morning. We did have a request for
conditional use permit with the wild rice watershed district. a construction of a rock arts rapid in Hagen Rock Arch Rapids in Hagen Township. That did pass. The concrete holdings for Simonson LLC
was a IUP piece that was for the concrete batch plant in Curts Township. Uh Kurts Township was there and they were not in favor of the request that did uh was denied at a 5 to3 vote. The
uh ECE had an interim use mining permit on their parcel in Holly Township that was approved and then a interim used uh permit for a dog boarding kennel in Scree Township. Uh
Lux were doing that. That also was approved. and then a uh conditional use permit in Park Township for a conditional use permit to um converge an accessory use into a principal use. The other component was uh they moved a
recommendation to reappoint Ashley Hang to the planning commission her second term. Matt will be bringing that forward to this board's action. The next day I attended the Red River Basin Commission. We had a joint powers
committee meeting, a good presentation uh from the water institute, I believe. Sorry, I'm pulling that up. Just a minute. Sorry. Good discussion on all that is happening in the other counties. um you know as we
move forward now is the time where we see a lot of permits at the watershed level. So um talked a little bit about what each one is seeing in their own area. I don't know why the agenda is pulling not pulling up. Uh I so yes it was Brian Fer with the
ROR retention authority. Good presentation on that and the work that they do throughout the basin. And then we had the Klay County legislative planning meeting. good followup on on the developments with the Senate tours and who we're working working with and
strategy moving forward. I also had the opportunity to attend the AMC uh environment natural resources pre-conference call. Uh that was with general government. I wasn't sure. Were you on that one? >> No, I was not. >> Okay. So, uh, basically there's several
different proposals that kind of overlap with general government as well, wanting to make sure that we had an opportunity to talk about that. Um, you know, I I really do appreciate what AMC is doing there to make sure that they're understanding where both policy
committees are as we move forward uh for the conference. All of that information will be discussed and voted on at your committee meeting Thursday morning. Then I attended the SWAT committee meeting. Uh we did have a good presentation on
the pumpkin recycling pieces and then Commissioner Campbell will have his update on Prairie Lakes and obviously we already took action on the uh the one piece moving forward. Um and then that afternoon we attended the
I attended the Metro Morehead Klay County Joint Powers Authority meeting. We did have a um action on a property there. Um there's are three eminent domain trials that will be happening in December. Had updates on the property acquisition
components. And then we had a closed session to discuss some of those pieces and approved. We had three reimburse relocation reimbursement requests. one was pulled and then we did vote to
approve uh one and then we approved the 2026 farm management or farmland lease rates. It stayed the same and then looked at an amendment amended flowage easement language.
Good actions happening there. And then Friday we had or or I'm sorry, Thursday I also had the Metrocog policy board meeting. We um had lots of presentations on studies. They have all of those updates on their website. Uh
thank them for coming about the railroad piece. And we did have a discussion at the end. Um there was about $62,000 in uh approved and documented approved expenses for the bike ped counters that
happened in 2024. and Federal Highway and North Dakota DOT moved the goalpost on what those requirements were and throughout the last year have um denied the reimbursement request on that. So um we had a long discussion about how
Metrocog will pay their bills because we don't have a reserve on that and um even though there was documented approval change the rules can change apparently. So, uh there'll be more to discuss on that and more to figure out. Um we did
have a substantial reduction in our dues based on the work the plan workload as you see on our outside agency pieces. Those are all fundings based on formulas for um what the projects are and Klay County had a substantially um reduced
one based on planning for 2026. But it does beg the discussion. And I think you might talk about this at collaborative and uh when you have other pieces is what does happen uh when federal funding falls through on pre-approved pieces for agencies like that. So um we will be
having probably meetings with all of the administrators from every entity on that going forward. Um but just so you know that happened. Uh and then yesterday I attended the Lakeland Mental Health Center board of directors meeting. We had good updates from the
collaboratives. Uh Ottertale had a great update on the bar programming which is um shoot reducing risks something bridging. Anyways, M or Klay County has it in our schools. What is that?
>> Anyways, it's a great program that works with addressing risks and addressing reductions uh with those risks. And so they were able to show how they were seeing successes in their uh school districts. So um Klay County obviously has that in ours and so we can agree on
on that. Uh we have probably the least amount of open positions and we've ever had over there and obviously those open positions um directly affect the revenues. So financially they're on track to um make up some strides that were lost earlier in the calendar year.
But uh we did have a long discussion about how uh some gaps in services were happening at Alexandria's office. We'll figure that out. But um particularly for them uh the unknown with paid family leave implementation
um and you know the state obviously will cover the um the expenses of the employees, but um that will directly affect revenue. And so we're just trying to figure out what that means. And then we did have a discussion since we are um selfinsured
um we did need to replenish the account because we did have some high claims and I think it's important for this board to know that um we do have a board designated fund that has a high value in it and instead of coming to the board uh boards all the different counties we
will be pulling money from that board designated fund to offset those pieces. So, we made a motion to move $300,000 that would get us up into the black and then cover um we're thinking six to eight months of the next calendar year and that's some what we will do to continue to fund that piece. I believe
that concludes my reports. >> Thank you, Commissioner Bear. >> Mr. Chair, >> thank you, Mr. Chair. I was on uh the 18th I was also at the interview process and then uh Thursday, November 20th, I went to the kickoff for the Klay County
Heartland Trail Task Force where we had an overview presentation on what the Heartland Trail in Klay County looks like and how it's come all the way to now on all the meetings they've had previously.
We reviewed the the task force and the members of it and I have to get a hold of a couple other townships to make sure they're aware of the task force has been together. But we also had a discussion of this designating a state trail or a
regional trail and I they're looking for a way to go with that which which which way to do that would be the next step and it comes down to funding and maintaining the trail. I was wondering if Metro if we could get Metrocog to come to a meeting in the next month and
give us a presentation and let let us all have that discussion because I there's pros and cons to each of them and I don't the whole trail doesn't have to be a whole state trail or a regional trail. You can have pieces of each and I believe that's that's the best route like when you're going through towns let that be a regional trail but out in the
country maybe you have that be a state trail as long as the towns are willing to take on the regional part of it. >> Metro did talk about that at our board meeting. uh they are having those discussions. It's more of a global strategy on what makes sense for funding pieces. I think there was some unknown with with again there are great state
trails around the Alexandria area and there's great um you know u whatever >> regional trails intale um so I think they're all trying to figure that out. What the unknown is is how the current legislative ask plays into that and not wanting disrupt what the allocation from
the state trail piece is. But it's my understanding that they will be having those meetings in the next four months with the individual entities. But maybe >> but I think if we could bring them here because we want we want to have that direction by we're going to meet maybe in January February. It wasn't decided but we're going to get
to the first of the year. But if we can if our group can get that figured out where where we stand on it. I think that'd be great. I think if we reach out to them and see if they come beginning of the year, >> I would certainly appreciate >> give us an update on it to let us
>> I know we did have a presentation here a while back on on on those differences, but I don't, you know, I don't think we got really into the weeds in terms of >> on making ha having Klay County Commission make a recommendation on where we stand on that. And I I think
part of the challenge is the gaps in in what the service area is, right? Metricog is not in the business of figuring out what the best financial route is. You can just >> advise what the plan is. >> Yeah. >> So if they don't advise, I guess I have
a question. Who would we go to on that? I mean they they would advise us which I mean they they put both of them out there and say the pros and cons of each trail >> but for like running through Klay County rural Klay County >> it would be I believe it would be us
making that decision or the townships. Now if the townships want to take on the regional part of it and m do everything that takes the regional trail then and Klay County as a commission just walks away from that and let the cities and the townships take care of that.
then we can be a supporter. But if we if the townships don't want to take on the regional trail part and want to have it stay trail or if we want to have it regional, there's there's pros and cons on how it's how it's maintained and who funds to build them. >> Well, exactly. The upfront cost >> upfront cost
>> and the maintenance >> and the maintenance. Yeah. Those those are the two differences between state-run versus regional. >> Yeah. >> And I and again, I think it's that's where Commissioner Bear is going with this. Ultimately, should we >> we should we should decide >> giving a preference to >> Yes. Got it.
>> Well, then I have some direction at those meetings instead of >> my own preference. >> Anyways, if we would build 32 miles of trails today, it would cost about $51 million.
So, that was that meeting. And uh then on Friday I was down in uh Fergus Falls for Partnership for Health with Commissioner Ebinger where we had this was our last partnership for health meeting with all four of the counties
and we went down through the grants on the splits of grants. We're going to split all the grants except for three and the the other two of the main grants will be we'll they'll still run through partnership for health through us and then we'll we'll build the other
partnership just to get through those two grants. Those grants end next year. We just can't get them split. So, we'll work through that for one more year. And then there's a ship partnership that lasts for another four years where we
are going to I believe we Yeah, we're going to get a contract written up for the ship memorandum for Partnership for Health and Prairie Lakes on working through that. If there's anything else, I'll let uh Commissioner Ebinger talk about
Partnership Health. He is the chairman of that group still. And then on Monday, yesterday, I was at the West Regional Water District up in Holstead. I had to leave that meeting early, but when I was there, we were going over the
final survey update with we had the reviewers report there. So that we had three uh members from the community, one from Pole County, one from Norman, and one from Klay County. and we were giving
them the viewers report which shows everything we've worked on and how it would operate. I left before any decisions were made on that. I'll let Commissioner Campbell report further on that. So I left that meeting to go to wild rice watershed one watershed one
plan meeting in Ada where we went through the watershed based funding summary for I'll just go through Klay County's numbers. So these are roughly 2-year grants
for FY23 which expires. They had an extension there for that for one year. So that actually the money has to be spent by 123126. Klay County is down to just $32,000 and they should have that all spent by midsummer. They're a lot of planning
money there that they're going to use. And then FY25, which expires in uh December 31st, 27, we're sitting on about $154,000 there, where we spent about $76,000.
And a lot of that money gets spent in egg structures and as in for wershed for um um yeah drain tile and stuff like that in the water in the wild rice wershed district. So Klay County has wild rice wershed district and the
Buffalo River. So Buffalo River has a one plan too. So the money has to be ke kept separate there. So the SWCD takes care of those dollars and keeps them separate on their their balance books as well. And um that we had a few a little bit
other discussion there. Nothing too important, but that is all I have to report. Chairman, >> thank you, Commissioner Ebinger. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh I also participated last Tuesday on the 18th
for our interview for a public health director and quite pleased with the results as we saw today. Uh on the 19th, Wednesday, I did a uh joint executive committee meeting with
the chamber and the EDC involving the innovate 28 and some of the funding issues on that and some of the governance. Uh following that.