Good morning everyone. It is 8:30. I'll go ahead and call today's meeting of the Klay County Board of Commissioners to order. Our first item on the agenda today is an approval of the agenda. >> Madam Chair, I'll make a motion to approve the agenda. >> Second. >> We have a motion offered from Commissioner Bear to approve the agenda
as presented. A second from Commissioner Ebinger. Any further discussion? >> Madam Chair, does that include the addition? I am. Yes. Yeah. Sorry. >> That matches your motion. Second as well. >> Thank you. >> Any discussion?
Discussion. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Same sign. Carried. Are there cit any citizens to be heard today? Any individuals wanting to address the county board on any item not on the
agenda? Steve, have we had any online requests? >> Have not, Madam Chair. >> Thank you. Next item on the agenda today is the approval of the payment of bills and vouchers. >> Madam Chair, I move for approval payment of bills and vouchers. >> A second.
>> Motion offered from Commissioner Ebinger to pay the bills and vouchers. A second from Commissioner Krabnoff. Further discussion. Any further discussion? Discussion. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying I. I
>> oppose. Same sign. Carried. The minutes from the May 26, 2026 meeting. >> Approve. >> Motion offered from Commissioner Campbell. >> Second. >> Second from Commissioner Bayer. Discussion. Discussion. Discussion.
>> All those in favor of the motion signify by saying I. I. >> Oppos. Same sign. Carried. Item two this morning is our budget presentation from the Historical and Cultural Society. Good morning, Laura.
Good morning. Um, good morning, commissioners. My name is Laura from the Historical and Cultural Society of Klay County, and I'm the uh new executive director there. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today and for all the support that you
have given us throughout the years. I'd also like to uh say a special thank you to Paul Kravangh who serves on our our board. He's been very helpful to me in my first year at the organization. So, the Historical and Cultural Society
of Klay County, um, we are a historical society as our name indicates, but in a nutshell, we help people who live in Klay County and visit Klay County discover the stories that shape where we stand so that visitors and residents can better understand and value the place
that they are in. For nearly a hundred years, HCSCC has adapted and changed to meet the needs of our community. and we started as a relatively small um historical society and have grown to be a primary tourist and cultural attraction in the
area. We're working to preserve the stories of all who call this place home. As we look forward, we're hoping to have some way of commemorating the 100th anniversary of the historical society in 2032.
Um we are not just your average historical and cultural society. Um, we have very unique objects such as the ship and the church. We do art and local history displays. And our staff and volunteers guide visitors through the museum
on tours. We have changing exhibits every two to three months or I'm sorry, three to six months. And with the quality of our research and exhibits is exceptional. As a result, we're considered a must-sea destination to the visitors of Klay County. and we
consistently receive high uh reviews that encourage others to visit, drawing others other visitors into the area uh and we help sustain our organization that way for the future.
2026 overall was a success. We welcomed nearly 25,000 visitors to the museum. We went out into the community and reached nearly 1,500 people. And we had over a million views on social media. We also had 48 donations to our uh museum and
archival collection. Each donation is considered an each individual is considered a donation. So when we got several hundred uh photographs from uh John Peterson for the from the Fleet and Wing uh photo collection that is
considered one donation. So we got many more objects and archival material than just 48. The gift shop increased revenue, which means an increased support for our budget and county taxes. Um, but these are more than just
numbers. They reflect community engagement, educational impact, public access, and a positive impression on both the visitors and community members. Besides reaching uh the visitors to the area, we
have a strong presence in the county in general. Um, one of our primary goals is to go out into the broader county. We strive to go out and engage um, all of the county from history harvests in Yulan,
Holly, Morehead, Barnesville, and Comtock to school tours or presentations at all of the um, county schools. And we also go out to give presentations to civic organizations, nursing homes,
and participate in the county fair as well as um potato potato days. Uh this year for one of our school tours, I was lucky enough to be a part of it. Um, one of the greatest experiences I had was,
uh, one student walked in and realized that their father was in the Klay County exhibit and another pointed to a picture of the county fair and said, "Hey, that's my uncle." Uh, so the kids see themselves directly in our um, exhibits.
And just last week, um, I'm not making this up. Another uh student came in a week after their tour, brought their parents so that they could do research in the archives. Um >> Commissioner Barry,
>> with that being said, my son is in that picture. >> Oh, I I planned that plan. That was a very well planned. >> Great. >> No, I had no idea.
Um, but these are powerful moments for the for the students and their classmates as they realize history isn't just about the past as we think of it oftentimes, but it's with them today and it's happening right now. And they these experiences spark curiosity, deepen
understanding, and create a lasting connection to our shared history and to the county. Um, last year, uh, we received $219,235 from the county. We could not be more
grateful for that support. We're also grateful for the staff that helps us through all of this, especially my first year as the executive director. These funds make up a large part of our budget and help pay the salaries of the archavist, museum collections manager,
and outreach supervisor. All who work towards our mission of collecting, preserving, interpreting, and sharing the stories of Klay County. These employees are the front lines in terms of making sure we accomplish our mission. And also, the money helps subsidize these reduced admissions for
students to come through the museum. We have only charged $2 per Klay County student for the last 30 years. Funds from the county membership and donations help us make that possible. Like many cultural organizations, we continue to
navigate rising costs, changes in tourism trends, and increasing competition for attention and funding. We work diligently to find ways to cut costs without cutting the quality of experiences. However, we're also focusing on new and innovative ways to
increase revenue such as improved marketing, paid programming where appropriate, sponsorships, and more. We understand and have also experiences the changes in the fiscal environment, which helps us understand the challenges
that you are facing as uh you plan the next year's budget. During your budget planning, we'd like to request that the funding remain the same for 2027. This will help us maintain the presence in the county, continue to protect and preserve the important documents and
objects, and serve the people of Klay County. You do have a copy of our 2026 budget in your packet if you want to look at that. Um as you look at the income, we have many different revenues uh uh streams of
income. Uh in 25 we were above budget in donations, fundraising, special incomes, and gift shop sales. Uh our admissions
memberships were down slightly. Um the investment line for 2026 um is listed there, but in 2027 we're hoping that will be higher, not just based on a whim, but we've made some
changes to do um to change it to to more uh why can't I think of the words right now? um better investment strategies um to to help us become sustainable more long term. But
as you can see in the expenses, the vast majority of that is the wages and salaries of those who do the work to preserve Klay County history. Uh if you look at the bottom, it looks like we um budget for a massive deficit.
That's just because it's a nonprofit budget. much of that deficit is what we got in 2025 to spend in 2026. So, we actually only budgeted for about a $15,000 deficit. And that's because we have some
reserves that we can spend and have some plans for how to spend those things a little bit more wisely. Overall, we're very proud of the work that we are doing today, but we're also looking forward to the future. Our strategic plan
That's That's a computer. It's >> Oh, okay. Um, our strategic plan provides direction on what is most important, including long-term sustainability, expanding community connections, and preserving the history and culture that continues to shape our county.
Thank you for your time, and uh, if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. >> Thank you, Miss Ford. Any questions? >> Questions? >> Commissioner Kavanaaugh. >> Go ahead. >> Yeah, I just managed. Thank you.
>> So you the 2026 budget was projecting $171,000 loss that was going to be made up by funds that you had in your >> in 2025. >> Okay. So we get a lot of um grants that
are awarded like in the fall and winter and we can't spend them until the next year. So that's why it looks like that. >> So it wasn't necessarily a reduction in reserves. It was just >> correct the timing of when grants would come in.
>> Yes. >> So you're 2027. You're not planning a negative >> I >> operations. It might look like it because of when the grants come in, but no, it we will not plan a a deficit in
2027. We understand that things are getting tight and we're looking at trying to uh like I said, cut costs, but also be innovative and finding ways to bring in more dollars. >> I was just curious if you were having to
go into your reserves in 2027. So, >> I hope not. Thank you, >> Commissioner Kavanagh. >> Yeah. Well, thank you, Laurel. Uh again, to this board, it's been uh uh just fulfilling to be able to work along with
this circle society. Um there's in that short presentation, it's hard to uh say enough about all the exhibits, the work that it takes for the exhibits, the numbers of people we've had through was mentioned of 25,000, the Pangi event
with, you know, over 900 people coming. We've been >> 1500 >> or 1500, I'm sorry. What was that? Oh, right. And then uh um and also the Comtock House. Yeah. sell events there. So I encourage on this board and the
public uh be be looking at the website or become a member and then you'll get a a monthly newsletter of all the events and things being kept up. So um uh the
previous uh uh Marine uh Johnson uh had been there how many years? 17 >> 17 years and Laura is taking her place and um uh Marine did a fantastic job in the development. Uh Laura with fresh
eyes is um I think just bringing some new things into practice. uh watching and um uh watching mainly the our staff I guess you know uh working the ways
they can um uh create create more opportunities. One example is the gift shop uh and then and you see that wasund some 30,000 or something like that of our um 123,000 thousand. So that's a big
deal. So anyway, working on I mentioned earlier uh the establishment of a endowment type fund that we're doing now to uh for long-term money that hasn't been ever spent uh to create about
$20,000 in income uh to help sustain and working with um strategies again as already mentioned uh in ways of um um leveraging uh investments or investments into
projects that can build donations and also uh encourage more um uh endowments to become uh donations toward the endowments. So, uh that I just a big thank you and I think for one year
you're doing a banging up job. So, >> thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Bear. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. What what are your reserves at? What are you sitting on? >> Well, um, we moved about 500,000 to the endowment and then our reserves beyond
that are about 260,000. >> Thank you. >> Yep. Commissioner Ebinger, >> I just want to wait make one observation. I'm the only one here on the board that wasn't born and raised here. >> Oh. And I came the first night I was in
city of Morehead for my job interview along with four other candidates was at the YMcl, which I couldn't pronounce then. >> Yeah. >> And uh the the the I can't remember the fell's name, but he was in charge of the exhibit there. Gave a tour, looked at
the boat, was very impressed. He talked about the area, and I was so impressed I ran my mouth when I got hired. and the city manager put me on your board for about four years. But uh
I brought numerous people and everybody in my family has come up there and whenever they come visit I want to go look at the boat and see the church. >> Yeah. >> And it's just a wonderful thing to be able to show that off to people especially in winter. >> Yeah. If you'll go to your gift shop, my
sister-in-law Carol uh actually rendered the the stave church in in winter and you guys are selling her gift cards now. >> Oh, great. >> So, it was pretty cool. >> U just I I think a whole lot we've been members ever since. This is a great
thing for the community. I wish people would get a membership. >> Yeah. >> Just so you can stay engaged and keep things functioning here because Morehead needs more of this. and Klay County needs more of this and you're doing a good job. You've you've picked up the
torch from what Paul's saying. So, >> Well, thank you. >> I'm very supportive of of of the request, which is nice that it's not an increase. >> I'm not going to lie, we'll take more money, but you >> we won't get we won't get more money.
>> Well, thank you for being a member and and for for all the kind words. Commissioner Bear, >> do you want to give us a little idea how to become a member? >> Oh, >> or do we have to go and >> uh you can go to the website which is hcsccconline.org.
Um or you can stop by and we you can get a membership right right now. Um the lowest membership, an individual member is $40. Um and then it goes up from there. Um, and basically you can you get free
admission to the museum uh for like if you get a family membership it would be you and your family. If you get an individual it's just you. Uh but we also have other benefits like a museum travelers. Uh, it's called Time Travelers where you can get discounts at
other um historical museums and if you get up to the $125 level, you get an ASTC membership which gets you into all kinds of museums at discounted or or free. So, it's a it's really a great benefit. And um you know, the biggest
thing is it it supports your local county historical society, but it also um gives you gives you those benefits. and being new. Um, kind of going off of what you said, um, you know, when I I
came from the state of North Dakota in their historical society and I honestly uh I kind of did a sneak tour, came into Morehead, I'd been to the Yums, but it had been many years and so I looked around and um, it really is an
exceptional historical society at the at the county level. that really is, you know, above and beyond what most county historical societies are. So, if you haven't been there, absolutely. Uh, come and visit us and if you become a
member, we'd appreciate it. >> Yeah. >> Thanks also for the presentation. I appreciate the unique way that you're trying to outreach a different audience. Seeing over a million dollar or a million views online really uh is probably attracting a slightly different
audience. Uh, in regards to the board makeup, are I see online that you have two openings. Is do you still have two openings? Are you full? >> No, we we filled them uh at the annual meeting in May. >> Okay.
>> And, you know, I I appreciate that we're still looking at having a wide representation of geographical uh residency throughout the county. And I think you'd talked about the addition of the new members, you know, >> Yeah. one from a hallway and down in in town.
>> Yep. Yep. >> So, thank you for continuing to keep that top of mind. >> Yeah. Anything else? >> Thank you. Thank you for the budget request. Uh we take the summer to uh visit with people about the utilization
and funds and certainly as we start to craft a budget, we'll um you know have to weigh some some challenges, but uh hopefully we'll make it through. But I appreciate all the background information that we have to make that decision. >> Sure. If you ever have any questions, feel free to ask.
>> Wonderful. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Item three today is a request approval of the letter of support. Is Justin There he is? >> Uh letter of support for the federal rail grant. We have our
highway engineer Justin with us. Good morning, Justin. >> The federal rail grant. So, this is consolidated rail infrastructure and safety improvements or Chrissy because Mandat does and the Federal Highway Administration love their acronyms. Um,
so last time I did bring a few different rail crossing letters and it was not clear which crossing it was in Klay County. So I did find that out. It is on Cassad 23 just north of the landfill. So this is MDOT just applying for another rail crossing grant and asking for a
letter of support and I do think it would be a good thing to support. >> Questions from the board? >> I have no >> for identifying that rail crossing though. We appreciate Madam Chair, I'll make a motion to approve the letter of support for the Federal Rail Administration grant. >> We have a motion offered from
Commissioner Bear. Second, >> and a second from Commissioner Campbell. Further discussion? Discussion. Discussion. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppos. Same sign.
Carried. Item four today is a request approval of support to support stated Highway 36 bridge replacement. >> Yes. So, this is a letter that I've brought before the board many different times for many different applications. So, this time, Pulk County is taking the
lead on a bridge investment program, BIP application. This would bundle three bridges across the Red River, including Klay County, Norman County, and Pulk County in Minnesota and Cass and Trail County in North Dakota. These bridge replacements would be funded with 80%
federal funds, bridge bonding, then then also a local match on both the Minnesota and North Dakota side. I think this is another really good project that if we were able to get federal funds, this is probably the only way this project would move forward just because of the cost of it. >> Correct.
>> Those are big dogs. >> Commissioner Kavanagh. >> Yeah. I'll make a motion to approve the letter of support for the CASA 36 bridge replacement. >> Second. We have a motion offered from Commissioner Kavanagh to approve the request. A second from Commissioner Ebinger. Discussion.
We certainly have discussed this at length and I agree the cost is enormous and will not be able to happen unless we are able to secure these funds. >> Agreed. >> Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion signify by saying I. >> I.
>> Oppose. Same sign. Carried. Justin. Item five today is a request approval for the agreement of the bridge design. >> Yes. So this past year through a load rating contract that MDOT does, they they mainly focus on timber structures and CASAW 21 was one of the structures
that was on their list. It was previously open to legal loads and due to severe timber deterioration, the bridge was rated down to five tons. So just as a little bit of background, so the bridge was looked at initially in June and then in August and Klay County
wasn't notified until February that it was a 5-tonon restriction, which came to a shock to everyone. Since then, we were able to do a shoulder closure to raise that rating up just a little bit, but it is still a
severely deficient bridge that through the legislature this year. Obviously, there is bridge bonding funds and then also on the 5-year plan, CASAW 21 is due for a reconstruct next year. So, that I am looking to contract with Houston
Engineering for Bridge Design that would keep this on a 2027 timeline and then also being eligible for bond funding. And then we also did this is a pretty sensitive area hydraulically. So we have
done quite a bit of background with mindot because initially the hydraulics came back as three box culverts. We were able to through some hydraulic analysis convince them that a threespan slab span bridge would be the best option in this area.
>> Well, we talked about this yesterday at highway tracking. This has been something in talking with Alliance Township and residents uh down that way. Uh really curious about what the solution would be. I appreciate you working with the state on maybe some
flexibility uh that would really reduce our costs that would be encumbered. Questions from the board? >> Madam Chair, I'll make a motion to approve. >> Madam Chair, I'll make a motion to approve the agreement for bridge design with Houston Engineering. Motion offered
from Commissioner Bear. >> Second. >> Second from Commissioner Ebinger. Any further discussion? Discussion. Discussion. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying I. >> I.
>> Opposed. Same sign. >> Carried. Thank you. Item six is the request approval of the division bridge prioritization resolutions. >> Yes. So part of being eligible for bridge bonding funds is the county board
does have to pass a resolution kind of showing priority and what LPI or local planning index ratings are on specific bridges on both the county and township system. So there is two resolutions today. Um, by statute, the county does
look at all the township bridges and does maintain the township bridge list as well. So, the first resolution I'd be looking for is the Klay County Bridge priority list. And then this is done every couple of years. And the main addition here is the bridge that we just
approved. The CASD 21 is adding it to the list because previously it wasn't efficient. >> Any questions or comments from the board? You >> want two motions? One, >> huh? >> You would want two motions, three
separate resolutions. >> I'll make the first one. Motion to approve a deficient bridge resolution 2026-10. >> We have a motion offered from Commissioner Kmanov to approve resolution 202610. >> Second. >> Second from Commissioner Evinger.
Further discussion? >> I I say this all the time. I think this is poorly worded. not you, but the state when they call it a deficient bridge and we're admitting we have deficient bridges and we're waiting till 2030 to fix them. >> I agree.
>> It just it just it just seems that they should have a different terminology for that. Um it means that they're there's signs that it's going to be needing to be done. >> If I was a defense attorney, I'd love
this. >> Second career. Third. third career. >> Yeah, maybe I should go into that. Brian, what do you think? >> And it is it is difficult, too. So, if you see the LPI number, anything above a
60 technically is not eligible unless you can prove go through quite a bit of um analysis to prove that it is eligible. So, in all reality, four of those bridges are only eligible for funding at this time. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> And then it's a guessing game at which
year it's going to be deficient. >> I wish they would just have a different name. >> I agree. I do agree with you. >> Any other discussion >> on that list there that says the Stony Creek for Cassat 21? Is that the same bridge that we just discussed on the
prior motion? >> That is correct. >> Any further discussion on the first resolution? All those in favor of the motion signify by saying I >> I >> oppose. Same sign carried. The next request would be the 2026-11
for the county and township structures. >> Yes. So, same thing on this one. I'd say the biggest bridge to note on this one is the one in Glendon Township. Um, we are I think we just got our DNR permit last week and we're working on
right away with the township still planning on a fall bid letting on that project. So, that one's obviously a pretty high dollar amount and really leveraging our township bridge funds, but I think it's going to be a really good project that's much needed.
Madam Chair, >> Commissioner Bear, >> I'd like to make a motion to approve bridge the deficit uh deficient bridge resolution 26-11 for the township structures. >> Motion offered from Commissioner Bayer to approve the second resolution.
>> Second. >> Second from Commissioner Ebinger. Any further discussion? Discussion. Discussion. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying I. >> I. Any opposed? Carried. Thank you. Do
you briefly want to give a snippet? Uh we talked a little bit about messaging for the closures on the projects. Do you want to just highlight the board really quick? >> Um yeah. So we are working on some social media kind of how we message what's going to be closed and what's
not. Um, we are going to as say for example the roundabout project as it moves into different phases, we're going to do like drone flyovers and kind of highlight the detour routes and try to inform the public a little bit more. And then the Holy Cross Township, obviously,
if you've been in that area, there's a ton of different roads closed. We do have a road closure map that GIS maintains. Then we're going to work closely with the core and diversion authority at how to better communicate what's open and what's closed. And then we have also been meeting about every
other week with producers down there at CW Valley to kind of let them know what's open and closed. >> Thank you. Really appreciate it. >> Thank you, >> Miss Justin. >> Item seven today is a request approval to increase to the increase to the
social services change fund. We have our social service director Quinn here. Good morning. >> Morning, Madam Chair, commissioners. Uh, yes. I'm requesting a motion to increase our change fund from $100 to $200. Um, we use this change fund down in Suite 102 uh to make change for clients that
make payments and social services. Uh, right now $100 it's it can be depleted pretty easily. Um, if folks come in, uh, once it's depleted, we're unable to make additional change until funds can be obtained from the treasur's office. And since it's now located at the government center, we take a little bit longer to
get change so we're not constantly running back and forth over from the government center. We think going from 100 to 200 should take care of this or at least we'd like to try that. Um I guess with that I'd yield for any questions that you have. >> Quinn, are you seeing an increase in people wanting to make cash payments because of the additional um fee that
would be incurred with a card? >> Uh I don't I don't believe that that's it. It's just it we take child support payments down in first. Um that was actually one of the things that we took away from the interdep departmental retreat was the reduction in kind of the admin processing for cash payments. But because we take child support payments
in first, we have to have cash on hand. So it's more that than it is uh credit card fees. >> And then uh finally, this isn't changing any oversight. You still have the same oversight mechanism in play. >> Correct. >> Controls in play. >> Yep. Cash goes into a lock box immediately. Um it's logged, it's
receded, and then it's also logged and receded at the treasur's office as well. >> Questions from the board on the request? I would anticipate you'll see a savings in time as well for our staff. >> I hope so. >> Additional questions from the board or
desire. >> Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the increase in the financial service change fund from $100 to $200. >> Motion offered from Commissioner Bear to approve the request. Second from Commissioner Campbell.
Any further discussion? Discussion. discussion. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppose. Same sign. Carried. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh item eight, 2026 legislative session
overview. We have our social services impacts. Appreciate having our lobbyists in here for this. They've heard this story from the state as well. I want to ask you to join us for this one. Sarah was fantastic getting updated
information. This was changing even Thursday and Friday of last week. So, uh there might be updated information in the PowerPoint, but I believe that the attachment that you have should have the updated information. >> Okay. >> Thanks, Sarah. >> Okay. Okay. So, I I would like uh this
isformational purposes only. I don't have any motion. Um this can be an open dialogue. So, if you have questions, feel free to stop me. Um I really just wanted to do an overview of 2026 legislative session and how it impacts social services as there was pretty significant changes um both I would say
to the good and to the bad. Um so with that, one of the biggest successes for counties um which I know all of you are aware of is system modernization. Um, obviously we've been uh administering growingly complex programs using systems that were never designed for the work
today or the technology of today. Thanks to this board's support uh and ensuring that our voices were heard at the capital, the legislature made a significant investment in addressing those challenges by approving $90 million for human service modernization, including 75 million in the first year.
Uh, it's one of the largest technology investments counties have seen in as long as I've been here, many, many years. Um, counties have been pushing for meaningful modernization for a long time, and this legislation represents a huge step forward. Um, some of the projects that are already identified include an overlay to modernize the
Maxer or Maxis user experience. They're basically going to layer something on top of the green screen. Green screen will still be there, but when you look at it, you won't see that anymore. It'll look more modern. Um, improved integration, and by improved, they're going to create integration between MN
Benefits and Maxis. um development of AI supported policy resources and dedicated funding for county-led innovation projects. I'm particularly interested in that when more details uh come out. From an operational perspective, this investment has the potential to really
reduce manual work that our eligibility workers do. Uh improve our efficiency, shorten training curves for new and onboarding staff, uh and ultimately allow our workers to spend more time serving residents rather than navigating and doing data entry on outdated systems. There's still a significant
amount of work ahead and implementation details will continue to evolve, but this is one of the few areas where the legislature paired policy goals with meaningful financial investments. Overall, this is a substantial win for counties and positive long-term investment in the sustainability of county administered human service
programs. I also want to take a minute to thank this board for their continued advocacy in this area and support. Uh I do not believe that we actually would have got this across the finish line without all of your voices raising the concern and the issue as broadly and articulately as you did. So, thank you
very very much for that. Um, when it comes to the SNAP admin funding loss, um, this is not good news, unlike the slide before. Um, based on the most recent information available, we are projected to lose $42,533
in federal SNAP admin funding during the calendar year of 2027. The state did recognize that counties would experience funding losses and appropriated $10.7 million in one-time uh funding that would go statewide. Based on the current estimates that I received as of
Thursday, Friday of last week, Klay County share of that is estimated at $127,365. Uh while that funding is certainly appreciated, uh it is important to remember that that's one-time funding. Uh because other federal funding reduction begins in October of 2026,
this one-time funding can help soften some of the immediate impact during the initial implementation period, but it does not address the long-term loss of federal funding that counties will experience in 2027 and beyond. A larger concern is that county's response the
county responsibilities for administering SNAP remain unchanged. The work is exactly the same as it was before. >> Can I ask you? >> Yes, Commissioner Campbell. >> So, are we talking this area. Now, are we talking about where we went from a 50% cost share to 75% cost share?
>> Correct. Y in the SNAP, we still get 50% on the MA side of things, >> right? Because at our at our district meeting on Friday, we were giving charts and according to the formula that they gave us there,
um my math said that we'd have a $565,000 increase. >> So, what did it look similar to these? Yeah. >> Yeah. So, uh, Susan and and I kind of broke this down when we received it as well. It's not matching the specific reports that we get. So, we looked at
our actual reports, um, both countywide and income maintenance. >> We got these numbers. I'm not 100% sure where AMC got those calculations. >> Okay. Well, I like your numbers better than AMC's numbers. >> I do, too. It's still too It's still too big of a number. >> Well, I mean, yeah,
>> neither one of them are good, but >> Correct. Yes. So, I I do recognize that there is a discrepancy between what this shows, but based on our report, we ran them twice because it was it's off. We couldn't figure out how they actually came up with those numbers based on the reports that we saw.
>> Thank you. Um >> before you go to the next stat, I did I was in Washington DC last week and did have an opportunity to talk to Tina Smith but uh more import as importantly but due to her ranking member on the egg
bill, Senator Clolobashar talking about the fact that there is some bipartisan support to push this one-year delay uh for that which you know then would bump back in the folks with the big uh error rates. We're still happy with our
smaller error rates. You know, that has to be acted on now in I think 10 days or so. But I think there is a movement to incorporate a delay in that. And given, you know, what we talked about with modernization, hoping that there can be some, you know, meet in the middle with
that so that the costs incurred would be less than what we're anticipating. still a lot, but uh uh Senator Clolobashard was pretty encouraging thinking something like that could happen. >> Good. Thank you for that, Chair.
>> Um again, the work will still be there. We still have to do all of the things, process applications, determine eligibility, uh answer client questions, uh all while keeping error rates as low as humanly possible. Uh work remains the same, but the funding for that particular program area is being cut in
half by the feds. Uh from a budgeting perspective, this is one of the clearest examples of a cost shift from the federal government to the state to the counties. Minnesota is actually one of three states in the nation where counties are responsible for a portion of the SNAP admin costs. Uh while we're fortunate to receive some of this
temporary funding through state appropriation, there is no ongoing solution to replace that lost federal revenue as of right now. Uh next is the SNAP error rate. Um, so there's the there's the loss of the SNAP administrative funding and then there's
the fiscal penalty tied to the SNAP error rate. We're going to get essentially hit twice on this. Um, in my opinion, this is the single largest long-term financial risk coming out of these federal SNAP changes. Um, again, completely separate from the reduction in SNAP admin funding that we just
talked about. This creates a new cost sharing structure. I will call it a fiscal penalty, but it's a cost sharing structure tied to statewide SNAP error rates. Um, based on our current estimates, again, all Minnesota counties collectively face $97 million a year in
these fiscal penalties using our share of statewide SNAP expenditures as the known benchmark. Right now, our estimated exposure is $1.53 million per year once it's fully implemented. This change will not occur until quarter 4 of
2027. Um, so the impact on our 2027 budget is projected to be closer to $383,000 just for quarter 4 of 27. Um, beginning in 2028 though, we would be looking at that full annual fiscal penalty of $1.53
million. Um, what's particularly concerning about this policy is that the penalty is tied to the statewide error rate, as I know you all have said, not our individual performance. Uh, last year, again, our error rate was 1.68% 68% which is a very very strong result and if graded by the federal government
on the individual level we would face no fiscal penalty whatsoever based on that error rate. Um however under our current structure even for counties that perform well they will still be responsible for a portion of the total statewide penalty. Madam Chair, >> Commissioner Campbell,
>> when when this is looked at by all 87 counties in the state of Minnesota, which where where are the real deficiencies in this thing that are bringing the statewide error rate to 10%. Are they small counties? Are they large counties? Um it's just
this is really troubling that that we're making up for somebody else's inefficiencies at appear. So >> correct. Yes, a lot of it is coming out of the metro. I think volume is a huge part, but there are some smaller counties that struggle with air rate as well. There's no there's no magic. It's not just the metro, but the metro is a
huge part. But there are counties in the metro that perform well at the same time. >> I do think it's important too to talk about the fact that staffing uh you are required to process through these applications in a certain time amount. And some smaller counties that are having workforce challenges, if they're
not approve or processing through these, that contributes to the error rate as well. So that's where county's hands are really tied if they're facing budget constraints and say we physically can't we can't add to the levy by adding additional uh work employees.
>> But but was there really was there really an error or was it just something took longer to get done? >> That's but and that plays that is technically an error. >> Um the error like errors when we talk about the error rate they're not even necessarily fraud. Everybody hears
errors and they think that it's fraud or it's mistakes. It's not. It could be something that's keyed wrong that we catch. Yeah. >> And then no, like, okay, extra money went out, but the next month it's prorated and we get it back. >> But if you're required to process something in 30 days and you do it on
day 31, that is an error. >> Yeah. Could be. Yep. The address was wrong or the client took too long to get back to us in the in the time frames. Yeah. A whole bunch of different things are errors um that are outside of county control. So even if eligibility workers are doing everything they can timely,
there still could be things on the client side that force counties to have an error. Um I I do think it's important to understand how the federal government views uh the SNAP programs administration. SNAP is ultimately a federal state partnership and the
federal government holds the state of Minnesota accountable for program administration and error rates. Federal government does not hold individual counties responsible. Minnesota chooses to operate under a state supervised county administered model, meaning that counties perform the day-to-day eligibility and case management work on
behalf of the state. Because the federal government holds the state accountable rather than individual counties, it's my belief that there should be a strong policy argument that counties should not bear the full financial risks associated with statewide performance measures, particularly when a county is meeting or
exceeding the expectations at the local level. Um this will be one of the major issues that I continue advi advocating for at the max level during the ne next session. Um again social services position is that county should either be fully protected from these statewide penalties or at the very least uh the
county contribution should be tied to the individual county's actual performance rather than a statewide average. Uh if the federal government considers SNAP to be a federal state partnership, then the federal responsibility for administrating the program and any penalties associated with it should rest with the federal and
state governments, not our local county property taxpayers. >> Um do have some positive >> just a question that so I think it bothers all of us greatly. Um,
are you aware of is there any be public information to identify going back to Commissioner Campbell's uh thoughts on uh knowing where these greatest errors are taking place,
uh, counties like us that are way under, are they going to be identified? Here's my point. Are we going to be able to publicize this in a way to try to make a more equitable change? >> We have the data. We have statewide error rates or we have individual county
error rates that we can get like we we have that now. Um will DHS DCF do anything from a public release? I I don't know. We we certainly could. We have that information. >> Well, I don't think it'd be all bad to get out in the media.
>> Just one last. So, so this $97 million that um that's that's the that's the cost to the state of Minnesota for the 10% error rate >> based on the projections. Yes. >> Based on the projections >> and that and that's
>> and so if if if the state um maintained a 1.68% error rate, they would receive that $97 million. >> That's correct. And the $97 million is based on the fact that the current statewide error rate is at the middle
threshold of error. It is possible that the error rate goes higher in which case the state would owe 15% of all SNAP admits. So that number would go up >> commissioner. >> So where is the next? So right now we're
just over 10%. Right? If we go to 15 then we we'd owe 15%. It's I I don't remember what the number is for. There's three thresholds. One of the threshold is a 5%. Uh so the state owes the federal government 5%. The second threshold is the 10% which is where we
sit now. And the third threshold is 15%. That's the highest that it would be, but you'd have a pretty astronomically high air rate at that point. So in so in your um group of social service directors that you have
there what >> is there is there something that's being recommended that can bring the error rate down? >> System modernization was a huge part of that. The issue is that we're we got the funding for it obviously but can't snap our fingers and and make it happen. Um that's it. The workforce shortage is
certainly a component of it. And then there's also policies. Um, it's my understanding that there's very complex policies that come around with it. Those policies could be, I'm going to say, simplified or shored up in the immediate. So, that is something that we're actively talking about in our >> Are those federal policies or state
policies? >> It's how the state is interpreting the federal policy. We believe that there are state policies that that could be changed to simplify it and then ideally lower that error rate. Commissioner Abner, >> as far as moderate
motorization boy, missed that word. Yeah. As far as getting our systems up to where we're we're wanting them to be. >> What's the timeline? >> I have not heard a timeline. It's I It's going to be I would say years, not months.
So operating the way we are now, we're looking at continued error rates at these levels uh statewide. >> Can't speak to other counties performance. I hope that given the gravity of what the uh outcome of these
error rates are that everybody I mean if there are opportunities to simply just buckle down and do better, I certainly hope that counties do that. Um, I certain I would would assume that our eligibility worker staff will keep our error rates low as well. Um, I guess I don't I don't know how to answer that
question. >> Are these penalties going to be reassessed annually or >> uh it's based on the last two years of of performance. Um, so the uh 25 performance or uh payment error rate time frame and
a 26. So they base what the error rate is on work that's already occurred. That was a little bit of a sticking issue as well of saying you're now grading us on something we didn't know that we were being graded on in 2020. >> Thank you.
>> Move on to MA. >> Um on the positive side, there are a few points of good news in regards to MA and healthcare eligibility. Um, we got an expansion of address verification tools that will allow counties to use additional data sources like the United States Post Office, uh, and return mail
and outofstate address information to identify eligibility issues more quickly. So, if somebody leaves the county or moves out of state, um, this should reduce our staff time spent researching address discrepancies, uh, lower a little bit of our postage costs, and improve our program integrity overall. should allow our workers to
take action on cases one to two months sooner than what the rules were before. It's a perfect example of a statewide policy where may maybe we were distributing benefits to someone uh and they had a different address change but we couldn't act on that based on the policy rules. So that was shored up. At
the same time, the legislature created a new oversight and reporting requirement that could create significant administrative burden for counties. Um, local agencies will now be required to report to DHS when application or renewal timeliness falls below 80%. The challenge is that METS the MET system
does not currently track this information in a way that allows counties to easily easily measure compliance with this. So, if no automated solution is developed quickly, counties will be forced to manually track applications from receipt through completion in order to determine reporting requirements and then trigger
that notification to DHS. So again, this would create a pretty significant workload without improving any service delivery and would divert staff time away from eligibility determinations and serving clients. Um I I find that one particularly ironic that essentially we're tracking ourselves when we need to
notify the state if timelines aren't met. Um looking ahead, counties will also be responsible for implementing reduced retroactive MA coverage beginning in 2028. Um it's going to be dependent upon your eligibility criteria. Right now, MA will go back
three months in time and cover expenses that were eligible for funding up to three months retro. Um, with the big beautiful bill changes, depending on your eligibility criteria, that's going to drop to two months retro or one month retro. Um, it's going to create additional complexity for staff and
administering that uh quality assurance, the policy interpretation. Um, it's also going to have a significant impact on the client side of things. If you had if you're eligible for MA and your medical expense was three months ago and that retroactive coverage dropped to one month, you're going to be responsible
for those medical expenses. Um, another piece of good news is the work and community engagement requirements um are going to create new implementation responsibilities, but the state appears to be using an external vendor for the outreach and the verification of the work requirements.
Uh we're we're we're thinking that METS is just going to have a simple checkbox added to it that will basically tell our workers yes or no if that person meets the work requirement um laid forth in the big beautiful bill. Um next is the Minnesota
African-American Family Preservation and Child Welfare Disproportionality Act or just the act. Um the legislature did make several important changes in this session. Uh it did provide $15 million in one-time statewide funding. Each county is going to receive a minimum
allocation of $100,000 per year. Um I don't know exact what our exact allocation will be right now. Um I believe it's going to be a little bit higher than $100,000. Um but again, this is a temporary one-time allocation. Caveat to that is that it cannot be used
to supplant existing funding. It can replace temporary funding, but we can't use it to just simply offset um other costs. The legislation also clarified several definitions and narrowed the applicability of of the act, which should help us better understand which
cases are covered and which ones aren't. Uh again, that clarification is very helpful because some of the biggest challenges with implementation that we've heard has been understanding when exactly does it apply and when doesn't and then the legal documentation that comes along with that. Another important change is that the case review
requirement, which is going to be a huge administrative burden for counties, was delayed until July of 2027. Um, that gives counties and the state additional time to work through uh questions that we have about that and hopefully address the remaining concerns during the next legislative session. Um, social services
position is that the case review function should be administered at the state level. Uh, it's identical to the way the review structure exists right now for IQA and MiffPa cases. So, that structure already is there. Um we we use internal audit tools right now for MI uh
MIFBA and IQA cases and we will develop them for uh MAFA cases. Um we use them for training for quality assurance practice tools. It's just a good thing to do. Um however when the purpose of the review is to determine compliance with the statutory requirements I don't
believe that that function should rest with the same agency that does the work. um state administered review process would provide better consistency that independence and credibility across counties. Um it would also avoid placing counties in the position of effectively grading themselves on their own
compliance. Um the $100,000 a minimum of $100,000 onetime funding may be helpful for the startup and implementation, but the underlying work is going to continue beyond that one-time allocation. Um the details and specifics are still
unclear from DCYF um again about that $100,000. But because the details remain unresolved and additional legislative changes and legal challenges are anticipated, I'm not seeking a specific staffing increase or funding increase requests in 2027 for the act. I believe
it's more responsible to make future staffing and budget recommendations based on real known requirements and known workload impacts rather than guesses and assumptions made from incomplete information. Um we're kind of brainstorming different ideas of what we can use that $100,000 for, but right now
I'm not looking to add a staff just to add a st. Um the key point for the board in my opinion is that this is another example of legislative change where initial funding was fought for. So thank you again for that advocacy. It was ultimately provided, but the long-term
administrative responsibility still remains with counties and there isn't sustained funding to go with that. Again, forcing that burden on the local taxpayer. Um, this final slide kind of represents a bunch of different areas. I won't go into too much detail about them. Um, not
the main focus today, but still important from a budgeting and operational standpoint. The legislature made several uh long-term services and supports or LTSS uh disability waiver changes aimed at savings and program integrity including
service limits and provider oversight. The key issue for counties in my opinion is not necessarily each individual provision in the L LTSS work. Um, it's whether or not the state can identify the full $177.5 million in savings that is needed in
order to avoid uh future county cost sharing in the disability services world. Um, if that target is not met, counties uh may face future fiscal exposure. This is the 5% of disability residential uh cost that came out. I
believe that was last year. Uh, for waiver case management, there was some positive developments. Um the contracted case management uh provision was uh sunset was prevented. Uh rate study was approved. Those are really important steps, but they also tell us that the larger issues of no rate
adjustments since our 1% increase in 2015, the workforce sustainability and long-term service capacity are still not fully solved. Um so good news that we'll have a rate study hopefully with recommendations to in uh increase that rate. Um, in the non-emergency medical
transportation realm, uh, the county authority was preserved. Uh, the state must now provide six months notice before they would move forward with a statewide or regional contracting out of that service. It gives counties more predictability. However, the ancillary services like the parking, lodging, and
the meals um were not included and not addressed. So, there's still some unresolved issues for counties and for providers there. Um and then the governor's transformation initiative is the broadest long-term issue on this slide. Um it includes studies of county,
tribal, and state roles as well as something called a transfer assessment related to the state taking over uh MA administration by 2033. Of course, that doesn't mean a transfer is happening tomorrow or even in 2023, but it does mean the basic structure of the county
administered state supervised human services system is being actively studied. Um, I think an important message for the board is that several of these items are not immediate budget changes, uh, but they could significantly affect future county responsibilities, our staffing models,
and our future budgets. I'll continue to stay engaged at the max level, uh, will be at the table so that our daily county realities can be a part of those discussions as well. >> Commissioner Kavanagh, >> I'm just curious, um, other states, is it common for the
state to take care of that? administration. >> Uh Minnesota is one of 10 states that still have the state supervised county administered. All the other states have a state administered. So if you want SNAP or MA or any other programs, uh you call or you go to a state office and you
get a state employee versus a county plate. >> Thank you. >> Uh final slide here is intended to bring all of the major bud budget implications together and answer what do we know today? What could this mean for our future budget? Um, again, we are
projected to lose uh approximately $42,533 per year in the federal SNAP admin funding with a one-time allocation to offset those losses of $127,365. Uh second, beginning in quarter 4 of
2027, uh we're estimated to lose approximately $383,000 in that SNAP error rate penalty. Uh with the projection that that will grow to 1.53 million uh in calendar year 2028. Taken together, that means we could be
looking at approximately $783,000 in combined SNAP related costs in 2027. Look, looking further ahead, those same pressures could exceed $ 1.95 million beginning in 2028 if no legislative or funding changes occur. Um, again, there
are some positive investments uh in this session. The system modernization being the biggest part of that um received significant funding, MAFA implementation, one-time funding was provided and several of those LTSS issues received additional attention and study. But again, those investments are
one-time in nature. While the administrative responsibilities and potential cost exposures are ongoing, uh overall message I hope that the board will take away is that this legislation created both opportunities and challenges. Uh there were meaningful investments in modernization, but there are also incredibly significant future
fiscal risks that remain unresolved. Um again, I'll continue to monitor implementation guidance, any legislative developments, and specifics about county allocations, and I will update this board immediately so you have uh the most accurate information possible. With that, I'd yield for any additional
questions that you may have. >> Thank you so much for putting this entire presentation together. Uh it uh you know, we leaned on you heavily during the legislative session to share perspectives and impacts from staff uh
for us to help share that story. And I I do want to go to you know the first slide that was an enormous win. I mean, to see that modernization had its own line item with that amount of money really speaks to counties uniting one
voice, one priority to that. Uh, but the work I don't think is really over in regards to how we continue to share what these budget implications will mean for counties going forward. Um, so to have this is really helpful. I do feel like
we should uh meet with, you know, our our state reps and senators on this, but also candidates running. Uh the more people that realize what these budget implications, not only in St. Paul, but DC, mean for us, um is really important.
Additional comments, Commissioner Kavanagh. >> Yeah. Um would you uh please send a electronic file update of the two slides that you changed? >> Yep. >> Right. Is that was that included in Sarah's email this morning? >> Okay. >> The updated PowerPoint. I'll send that.
>> Got it. >> Right. >> Questions? >> Just one thing. >> Commissioner Ebinger. >> Yeah. I'm not trying to be the the point of information here for the uh for the press, but could you send the uh
rankings and the the cost by county just so we have an idea of what's going on? I really wonder where the problem lies and if this is going to be reassessed annually. It's it's incumbent on us to make sure the counties that are driving
the numbers up get the support or the input or whatever, but I'd like to kind of know where the problem is. >> Absolutely, >> Commissioner. >> Well, Campell, that's really good. We have a we have a a 10 10% average,
right? That means that and if we're at 1.3 there, some have to be way over 10%. >> Correct. >> Yep. >> To to get a 10% average. >> And if if those if those are the the counties that are giving us the issues, you know, AMC, whatever other resources
we have, we need to let them know that we're having to pay their freight as it stands now. You have to start to wonder is it is it is it a workforce issue or is it an issue on some counties maybe not wanting to uh keep their uh counts
for employees so that they're um uh what's the word I want to use where your client to um >> your ratio >> case loads >> ratio >> I mean you have you might have some county birds said well heck we're just
you know so what if we're if we 10,000 clients to one. >> So I >> do you want to answer that in commission? >> Yeah. On on that note, I I do it it can be done. If you remember when I came in to talk about the request for two new
eligibility workers and our um financial services department update, our our our case load ratio, if you will, is one of the higher ratios in the region. um that was specifically for healthcare, but our our SNAP team, they don't have the lowest case load to staff ratios in the
region either, and they still do a fantastic job. So, it it can be done even with the high ratios. It's a component absolutely to have a smaller a smaller case load per worker, but even on those higher ratios, quality staff, quality training, it can be lower.
>> My my concern is that not just that it isn't fair, which it is not fair. My concern is maybe there's a secondary benefit we can reap out of this. If the heat's on, the people that are really either negligent or in need or whatever
the the the causal factor is for their number being up, uh maybe with a little peer pressure and a little bit of scrutiny, uh they'll be willing to address their issue the way you have in our county. And that's,
you know, if there can be any benefits, if we can make any lemonade out of this this uh this situation we're in right now, we we ought to make it. >> Commissioner Bear, >> how many staff members work on the SNAP side of it? Then what is their ratio?
>> Don't want to quote you the wrong information. I'll get it too long. Yeah, we just >> was going to that slide in my brain, but I can't remember the exact numbers. Yeah, >> I'll get it to you. >> Well, uh I know that some members in the
community have asked, why is Klay County spending so much time advocating in in St. Paul? Uh why are you uh doing that in person? uh when you look at what our requests will be uh towards we'll talk about the budget this uh afternoon but
when you look at what those additional requests will be and what this total number for admin will be additionally we're talking levy points and that's why uh we we we're spending so much time sharing that story because we're really proud of your staff about the work that
they do uh with the um the finances that they're given uh staff ratios and whatnot. not but um these are really challenging numbers and the 28 budget implications are really scary. >> Thank you again all for the advocacy
that you have. I mean I I don't think there's a single one of you that I haven't heard kind of carry this. So I I appreciate that support from this board as well. It really gives us a lot of um say positive hope moving forward that you understand the gravity of what some of these numbers are and we really appreciate it.
>> Yeah. Additional questions. And just one thing and not to not to belabor your comment just now, but the presence we had for a county, the distance we are from St. Paul, it made a
difference in what we could bring back to this county to keep it from going on the levy. And you know, I joke about it with my entire district contained in the city of Morehead, but when I came here, I didn't know anything about ditches. I didn't
know they were even important. I didn't know about the roads and everything else we've got to do. And I didn't know the impact our levy has on farmers. And I think a lot of what's been done on this answers
legitimate questions on why are we spending so much time up there and paying for lobbyists and doing these things. It's because we need to have a voice there. And this year we had it. And when you hear Quinn, you understand that we we we are when our voice is
heard, it's for legitimate reasons. We have staff here that does the work that we can bring facts to the to the uh legislature and along with our requests. We can back it up. So, I I want to thank the members of this commission that have
spent an inordinate amount of time up there because it's not been easy, but it has benefited our taxpayers. And while we're fighting with the levy, these are things will bring that levy down. So, I'm grateful for that. >> Thank you, Commissioner Ebing or Commissioner.
>> Being a being a border county and you know, um you know, I it would be interesting to see what percentage of our county population that we have is on is on SNAP. You have that information? I >> do. Yep.
and and I I I'm I'm guessing that it's it's fairly similar to a lot of other large counties in terms of that percentage. Uh, I I guess what I'm getting at is I
I'd like to get to the root cause as to why some of these counties have such high error rates because they're the ones who are um forcing us to pay more. You know, we we can just,
you know, take it up the tailpipe and and and have to deal with with these increased costs. But the fact of the matter is is that there's we need to we need to find solutions. I'm glad our lobbyists are here today to
hear some of what we're talking about. But I just >> I think we can get some data that would be helpful. >> Additional questions. >> Okay. Thank you, Quinn. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you.
>> We are scheduled for a five minute break. We're one minute off. So, we'll take a come back at 9:46. Six. us. Back to order. Item 10 on our agenda today is our Klay County Legislative Review. Uh
representation from Winthrop and Weinstein. We have Tom Hansen and Haley Cobb with us today. Thanks for coming to Klay County. It's great to see you this morning. Well, thank you for having us. Um, we will both introduce ourselves briefly
and then get into it. I know we've, uh, spent plenty of time with all of you. Um, but I am Haley Cobb. Um, I'm based in St. Paul at Winthre and Weinstein. Um, I have been working at Winthre for the last four sessions. Um, and it was a joy to work on behalf of Klay County this year.
>> And I'm Tom Hansen, a uh, I've been at Winthre and Weinstein since uh, 2010. Prior to that, I served as Minnesota's MMB commissioner and in the distant past, I'm a Concordia graduate and a
resident of Morehead. So, I love the area. I consider it my second hometown. >> All right, so we'll get right into it. You don't have to share a microphone. We'll grab another one. >> Thank you. >> Thanks.
Okay. So, I know we won't spend too much time on this here because I know you all are very well verssed in what happened this legislative session. Um, but this was a short session year this year. Um, it was February 17th through May 18th. So, including weekends, just about 90 days, uh, subtracting weekends, uh, it's
not a whole lot of time for the legislature to get their business done. Um, last year they passed a bianual budget. So, this year was a year for bonding and a supplemental budget if they so chose. and they did choose. Um the DFL held a narrow majority in the
Senate, 3433, unchanged from last session. Um and then the House, uh also unchanged from last session, had a tie, um with a led by a Republican speaker. So um as you all probably know from your visits to St. Paul, um there was some uh
a continuation of that interesting situation where every committee had a DFL co-chair and a Republican co-chair um and they switched off different days. So, we came into the legislative session with a very polarized political environment. Um, and so you saw some very different priorities being
discussed on um those alternating days in committee. Um, add to that the fact that every every legislator is on the ballot this November, House, Senate, um, governor, all of the constitutional offices, and then some of our federal offices as well. Um, so folks were, you
know, motivated to get out of St. Paul, get their business done uh quickly. Um and then there was certainly some partisan gridlock. Um it is very hard to get legislators to agree even if there are um even if there's a DFL trifecta or a GOP trifecta. Um so this year with um
that slim majority in the Senate and the tie in the House, um it was very challenging for folks to find things that they all agreed on. Um so heading into the fiscal and budget outlook, we um as I mentioned, they passed their major bannual budget last
session. Um so this session they ultimately agreed to pass a supplemental budget agreement of about 660 million. Um we focused this session on fiscal restraint and then some one-time investments as you heard in previous uh presentations. Um that carried through
across mostly all subject areas. uh the state was considering the fact that we have a structural deficit. So currently we have a a surplus or we came into session with a surplus um but as years progress in 2027 28 29 um there is a
significant deficit projected. So legislators were motivated to try to decrease that deficit by decreasing ongoing spending um but also using some of that one-time spending uh or that the current surplus for onetime spending um or to decrease those ongoing costs. Um,
they did also focus on preserving long-term budget flexibility. Is there anything you want to add there? >> No, you covered it. >> Okay. So, major budget change items. Um, we these are just sort of broad things to be aware of. Um, the legislature had
a mandate this session in both parties to focus on fraud um on addressing fraud, pardon me. Um, so they did institute um a new uh office of inspector general and they funded that office. This is going to be um a pretty large office which will have the
authority to invest in investigate suspected fraud ac across all state agencies. Um so that is a pretty big cost as well as adding some additional funding for the attorney general's office to do um investigation and enforcement of fraud that totaled about $35 million of the budget agreement.
They also spent uh $52 million on their own safety and capital safety and security. Um after the tragedies that happened last June, um legislators were were motivated to address some long-standing security vulnerabilities that we've dealt with at the capital. So
um you all probably saw the new security lines um that that we had in place at the capital this session. Um that will become permanent as well as some other security measures that costed about $52 million. Um, we talked plenty about the IT modernization effort and just to to
add to that uh discussion, this was a huge lift for counties this session and it was really remarkable how it became the focus of the conversation and really I think speaks to the way that counties were able to unify around this um very obvious problem that frankly should have
been addressed a long time ago. So that was a really big um item in the budget, $90 million for that. And then um legislators focused also on a package that would shore up some of our uh safety net hospitals, primarily Hen
County Medical Center, um down in the metro, um which was facing potential closure due to uncompensated care and um significant budget issues. Um so they spent $25 million on that with an additional pool of money that is available for other safety net hospitals
as well as for Henipin County Medical Center um as it may need it in the future. >> Just a the IT modernization they are going to modernize systems that I and Commissioner Mojo has heard me say this
multiple times. They were old when I was at MMB in 2010 and and and part of the problem is you get people have some of these IT workers have spent their whole lives working on this and they're retiring and so you don't even have
schools that are training for this these programs. So I think the state has a very um has a very big need for this and I think it'll be very helpful to you. I think the the system is older than
some of us in this room. Okay. Um so just on taxes, uh this is I'm digging into the tax bill a little bit here since this is broad and something you'll probably hear about. Um we did the legislature passed a one-time increase in the homestead tax credit refund. So that's that um additional
form that you have to file by August um to receive your uh additional homestead tax credit. Um, so the legislature chose to invest $125 million in a one-time increase. So when you file that form, you will see um your refund will be
given at 2022 rates rather than 2026. Um so it'll be a little bit higher than normal. Um the legislature also, as we we talked about the one big beautiful bill act that the federal government passed, um that made a lot of changes to federal tax code. the state of Minnesota
does not automatically bring our state tax code in conformity with the federal governments. Um and so we have to, you know, go into the legislature and specifically decide which of those items we want to conform to and which we don't. Um the legislature decided to
conform to most of them this year. So there's a very long list um that you can read for yourself. Um we would be here all day if I was telling you about all of them. Um but one highlight is the pass through entity tax um for businesses has been extended for two years. It's not permanent. We'll have to
come back um and figure out whether we want to address that again later. Um big win for the region though. We did have uh an increase in the tax credit for sustainable aviation fuel um and also an extension. So, um hopefully that will pay some dividends for Klay County as
well as for the surrounding area um as businesses start to participate in that uh new market. We're going to transition now into the the the bonding bill and um we're starting more general and I you're going to see that the basic
premise is that um as a region and as a county you did very well and this is the one Haley's one she let me do this one slide on the size of the bill and I could go on and on about how I think Minnesota's capital
investment system is broken. and blah blah blah, but I won't. Um, but I started I wanted you to get a sense of the challenges that Minnesota are facing. If you look and I picked 1998 for a reason. I worked at the legislature
um at that time and it was the first time we did a billion dollar bonding bill and it was a similar year to now where everybody thought we had all these requests. So you look um you look at the chart u 1.4
uh billion in um agency requests and only 321 million for political subdivisions. So a total requests of about 1.8 billion and a billion of them got funded.
I mean so you had a really good chance of getting something then. Now you uh fast forward to now you have almost four billion in agency requests, almost three billion in political subdivisions for a
total of $6.5 billion and it's only a $1.2 billion bill. So that's all to say that you faced a lot of competition um um in the session and you have to really make your case um going forward.
Go ahead. And so what did they do? Um they did 1.276 billion. And if this had been adjusted for inflation based on those 1998 numbers, this should be about 2 and a
half to three billion, but it hasn't been. Um the um GO bonds is 1.2 billion. They did uh 46.5 for general fund. They did some transportation and some trunk highway
appropriations. And then here is just um what they did with it and the difference this year over um the 2025 bill. There were a lot more uh local projects this year and less agency projects. You can see that with
the water infrastructure, 419 million, a lot of um roads and bridges on transportation and then a big chunk under um economic development. Scroll down to um you get a sense of how well
um you did um the the flood money that we're Haley's going to talk about in a a minute is a double-digit number um out of 79.8 million. That's really really good that the state recognized the need for this area.
>> So, continuing on with the uh capital investment discussion, um we'll talk a little bit about some of the uh items that were contained in it that impact our region. Um so, as Tom mentioned, it was a $1.2 billion bill and I think worth noting that there was a record
number of bipartisan votes votes for this bill. um which was pretty exciting in a in a tie in the House. Um the third year of a tie ever um in our state's history, we actually had one bipartisan win. Um and it's something that Klay County can benefit from. So pretty
exciting there. Um, so I uh couldn't speak to how uh Minnesota State will allocate these funds, but um there was asset preservation included for the Minnesota State University system um at a really high level, $64 million for that as well as $3 million for
demolition. Um so hopefully some of that money will come to MSU Morehead. Um should be pretty exciting. And then um not even including that, but our region came away with $24.1 million out of that bonding bill um which as Tom mentions is
is pretty darn good. So uh some of those projects, I know we all uh worked uh quite a bit on advocating for um the flood hazard mitigation project. Um we actually got $10 million out of the bonding bill, which was um a pretty heavy lift. So, very exciting to have
that um that significant chunk of that ask taken off the table this session. Um we got just $1.8 million for the non-secure juvenile detention facility. Um we'll certainly be coming back in future legislative sessions to ask for the the substantial balance there, but
that's a good starting point. Um it is a really good sign that the legislature has indicated to us basically what what we take away from that $1.8 8 million is we don't have the money to fund the project, but it is important to us. Please come back in future sessions. Um
we do want to help you complete the project. So that 1.8 million is a good good starting point and a good sign signal from the state that this is a priority from them. Um there was also $5 million allocated for the West Central Regional Water District. Um and $7.3 million for the Prairie Lakes uh solid
waste ash recovery and recycling project. Um, in addition to all of that, the state allocated $9 billion toward the statewide flood hazard mitigation grant assistance program. That's a program we have to apply for, so no guarantees we'll get that, but that could certainly help um with the flood
mitigation project as well. Okay, so um moving on to 2027. A lot could change between now and election day, and a lot can change between election day and the start of the 2027 session. Um, so I won't make any major prognostications here. Um, but the
election is certainly going to shape the legislative priorities. I think, um, as each party, uh, goes into election season, we'll hear more about their priorities and their vision for the future. Um, but it could be pretty different depending on which party is in charge. Um, God willing, we won't have
any more ties next year. Uh, I I might quit. We had more ties. I'm kidding. Um but uh budget sustainability is going to remain central this next session as I mentioned that structural deficit that's still a project that we will the state will have to address um if we don't want
to be in debt. Um and then the other key issues we will see we will see. Um the only guarantees is that we will have a new governor. Uh governor Tim Walls is not running again. Um so our uh two candidates will be facing off in November. We will see what happens
there, but um we will certainly have some some different voices in the governor's office no matter what happens. Um and then of course our uh current speaker of the house, Lisa Damoth, has uh left her post as speaker um to run for governor. So she will no
longer be the leader of the house GOP. So we'll have at least two new leaders um out of the out of our top legislative leaders next year. So things could look substantially different. We wanted to end and talk a little bit about the uh next steps for the
nonsecure juvenile detention facility. And I I think it's really positive that the state has two years in a row funded it. And I like the fact that they funded the first year in the general fund and the second year in the G in general
obligation bonds because that gives us an opportunity going into a bianial budget year to um um grab funding from both places and the amount of support that um that you have built um in this
region is incredible. We had um I think most of the counties in the northwest corner of the state and we were able to take the letters, you know, in the in the in the motions of support and go to their legislators and then they would
get on our bills. So, I think that we were able to build a lot of support. We um and I think we can use that this summer and fall to um um try to um um pitch state agencies on getting into
the governor's budget. And granted, as Haley said, we're going to have a new governor. Um yes, but a lot of the base work of budget development happens whether the governor's staying or not. I
mean, you got to do the work. the new governor can't come in in January and have a $65 billion budget in a few weeks. So, I think that we we have an opportunity to build support at corrections, DHS, and other stakeholder
support. And I think it's a uh uh and I've said this before, uh the state should be very appreciative of the commitment you have made to Northwestern Minnesota on this project. And I think that they realize that. But scroll back to the slide, you know, six 6 and a half
billion and of requests, 1.2, and they've done they've shown that they want you to come back by funding it two years in a row. And one thing I would add, too, is I went back and um added up all of the the time and the effort that we spent on advocacy for this project
this last session. We had nearly 40 meetings with legislators about this project. Um that was a lot of you in this room came down to St. Paul to advocate for it. Um and that's not even including the, you know, the times where we would run into a legislator in the hallway and very quickly talk to them about it and they said, "Yeah, we
support the project. We love it." So um that was a lot of work. There were, I know, at least five trips down to St. Paul um from commissioners to talk about this project. So we have a really good base. Um you know, if you think of those 40 meetings, those were unique meetings with legislators. Out of the 201
legislators, that's pretty great. We also met with leadership to talk about it. So, um, we had a really great start this legislative session that we can build on in future sessions with the new legislators who are coming in, um, after the elections and continue to build on
that support with existing ones. That is it for us. Any questions? Any questions for Haley or Tom? Well, I just want to give gratitude to the both of you. the um the access well one the weekly meetings that we had to
strategize how we would move forward. A lot of the groundwork when we uh first partnered with you certainly we had the support of all of the tribes but we had a large amount of counties that had signed resolutions of support. So we' done a lot of communication uh through
AMC and others on it. but uh to work with you and have additional access in spaces that we had not before to be able to have if you look at the co-authors on those bills those are individuals that we've never before had uh opportunities
to meet with uh we had both the house and senate uh capital investment tours to tour all of the projects that were able to secure funding and then also uh to meet with leadership uh in those final final days of session where really
the um the bill is crafted to be able to be present and to be pulling people off of the floor. I thank you for your help with that. It really helped. Uh yes, we were down there a lot, but you were able to answer questions when we weren't able to be there in person and that was
really valuable. >> Questions, Commissioner Kavanagh. >> I do uh you know, deep appreciation for all you did. Um, again going back to the weekly meetings, um, I think created
that relationship between us where we got to know each other a lot, uh, personally better and you could, um, from week to week build on knowing exactly how you're working down
there when we aren't with you and and uh, conveying that information back and forth. Uh the last thing um and and I'll add to that because of that and that knowledge we gained I felt then when we
were down there we were just much more fluid you know in that that messaging and it was consistent and we had ways of following up with the legislators uh uh after we spoke to them so you
could get a feedback from them how how they're viewing what we were asking for. And then last, I don't want to uh it would would have been a piece that would have been very difficult and I think uh in our relationship we'll even build on
in a greater way and that's getting toward the governor's office and you just mentioned that uh is a a deeper you know hopefully with greater success next year than we've had but that you know again is about building having those
built relationships to get there. And then I also want to mention NAMI. I think NAMI is a major piece that's going to come into play not only with the legislature but uh especially the governor's office. So thank you for all
that because that's um those are places I don't think we would have been. So >> questions. Anything else? >> Well, thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you for the presentation. Thank you for being here.
We'll move into item 11, the committee reports. Commissioner Evinger. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh last Tuesday, uh myself and Commissioner Cam or Commissioner Campbell and Steve
and who else did we have? Brian uh madam just to discuss the Red River Regional Dispatch Center. Some of the issues that are coming up on that to include uh working with the county municipalities
and determining what funding will be on that. I think we're probably going to have that in a work session at some future date where we can all discuss it in depth. Uh Wednesday the 3, uh myself and Commissioner Barrett
attended the community health uh partner input meeting for community health improvement plan which is a an annual uh plan that they've got to give for the state and it was very productive. Uh we ended up agreeing on
three areas. Uh the Klay County region agreed to mental health, transportation, affordable housing as as three priority areas. Becker County will have a similar meeting if they already haven't had it.
And then uh there'll be a follow-up meeting that will determine uh with the with the priorities that are established uh where we want to go proceed next year as part of a regional public health board.
Um, on Thursday the 4th, uh, I remotely attended the, uh, SECB legislative committee meeting. It was interesting. Uh, very little
public safety legislation made it into into consideration this session. Uh, I think we had check my notes. Um, think we had one issue that that uh was
a priority that actually got out of committee and that was the armor uh issue. You've probably heard me over the last several years bemoone the fact that we can't get the armor state statute updated. And it's mostly service
providers have presented obstacles for that being done because uh some of the service providers uh that were providing landlines for over 90% of the emergency 911 calls back when our current statute
was written are still being paid at that rate. for about 4% landlines and they don't want that that uh to be changed. Uh at this point there was uh discussion
in within the committee and it's going to result in a legislative task force to establish funding for updating and maintaining armor. And that was pretty much what we accomplished this year in in the
legislative session for public safety, at least for the communication thereof. Uh the plan to get armor transferred over to the Department of Transportation and let them try and maintain it that way at this point was a wash.
So, uh we all agreed to get together next year and hope to get something done. Uh Friday on the uh 5th, I attended the AMC District 4 meeting with with the other commissioners and Steve um and Daryl.
Uh it was a good meeting. We had again it was recap on >> uh our legislative accomplishments this year and uh I'll let let some of the other commissioners join in here on details
but uh again it's this session's been a mixture of we we've had some accomplishments but we've also had some things that have been very limiting. So look forward to the next session coming up. and we can try and move the ball down
down the field a little bit. That completes my report. >> Thank you, Commissioner Ebinger. Commissioner Kavanagh. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, going back to Wednesday the uh the 3, um that
afternoon, uh uh Darren and uh Matt and I went to the um the public uh public hearing for put on by Excel about the new transmission or
transmission line 35 uh kilob. um transmission line that XL is proposing, starting up at a transfer station uh called Bison, which is just north of Mapleton and stretching down
over u south of Horus and then going across to the east and then kept moving into the big transmission lines that we all see on the SL 2020 line along uh I 94.
And it was interesting. Uh again, this whole purpose of this is to have more power in those lines available for future growth of Fargo Morehead and the u uh uh other development that will happen throughout this area. uh none of
it intended for uh AI centers um but just more to be uh in the line uh for future use and the balance the power of that line going down uh from this area
to Alexandria for more efficiency. So learned a lot. Uh after they kind of had their public part, Darren and Matt and I sat and talked to the Excel um communicator and we had about 20 minute
discussion just more Q&A and it was just learn something new. So it was a good place to be and learn about what I see when I drive down I94. Um the next morning on the 4th uh I had
the uh uh chamber public policy committee meeting. Uh really the main uh um event or part of that meeting was to get a Minnesota session update and it was in fact done by Haley. So pretty
much what you heard her give us is what we heard and she did a great job. So uh yeah more uh you know big winds once again just for our area not only the things that we were involved with in in
flood and you know our winds uh also for the city of Morehead in the way of uh mainly flood mitigation. Um that afternoon I I'm um chair of the Klay County Collaborative which will
have our monthly meeting tomorrow. Uh we met with the uh uh group that'll set up the agenda set. Well, that's what we did. We um met to set up the agenda for tomorrow's meeting and and other things uh on this. It's been a change and I'll
get more detail after our meeting uh in next week's report, but we've had a major shift. you know, we had um it's still, you know, county based, but uh as far as the administration of it, it's all over with CAP LP now. And their
structure, the depth of their administration, their structure is really going to solidify what this is group is doing. uh our revenues continue to go up uh by the uh um the work that they're done and and what we get through
the federal government uh to u keep boosting this and um so anyway we're u uh getting more and more trying to grow our participation of what we're um doing each year. So I
think uh this year we'll be uh upward of uh roughly 400,000 in in grants to our schools and our um uh other partners in this program providers I should say. Uh
Friday I was at the district 4 meeting that was mentioned with all of you on on commission here. Um, I do enjoy these. They become, you know, once again it was a review about the session which we're uh hearing a number of times. So I think
we're pretty familiar with that. But I do appreciate the depth of uh the work that AMC does. And I really feel it in these meetings when you know you hear about uh when each individual group whether you know it's legislative or
torrent environment or you know whether whatever the subject matter is it's really good to have their their uh updates so that we become familiar with it um uh as a collective whole on our
11 counties. I had to make sure on that before I said it. So anyway, and then plus meeting other commissioners. I I do find val value in that. I'll pass that on to somebody else. And then last night
I was at the Buffalo Red um monthly meeting watershed Buffalo wershed. And mainly what I'd uh like to talk about there was a small presentation done by the welcome county um so water and and they've been working
on soil health practices in a big way. That was a main uh thing with them. It was trying to um elevate soil health practices with uh farmers throughout the county
and and they really have been leaders in the state. Uh they've come up with multi-million dollar grants from a private industry and the federal government. Um there they have 17,000 acres under these programs and uh it's
something for all other soil and water uh districts throughout the state to really pay attention to and to their own. So typically the Buffalo wershed gives them $25,000 annually to help with these contracts. Um they got so much
money through the feds and the private uh they they said they really don't need the money. though they um it'll save the wershed 25,000. However, they may come back at some time, but right now they have that program all in place. Other
than that, we had uh one drain tile up in Mullen Township. Um uh development in Dworth that's going to back up to a watershed ditch. A little discussion about that. And then uh you can help me
on this, Jenny. What's the name of the fertilizer plant outside of Wolverton? >> CW. >> CW. Okay, thank you. Um, so we discussed this last month. Um CW's putting up they weren't part of the of the uh diversion
uh flood mitigation are part they're outside that embankment or um and so they are building they're concerned about a breach over the uh um the dyke area or not the dyke excuse me the levy
area and uh so they are going to build their own levy around that plant and that was approved by the uh board that engineering was worked through through the district, the wershed district was Houston engineering doing the work.
Other than that, um really the last thing I'll just uh really talk about last month was very somewhat heated about a project 34, a new um restoration taking piece uh
through that area starting in Barnesville and going over on uh up Whiskey Creek. And uh that was discontinued disc dis discontinued last month uh with people wanting to see
some more retention before they get going with the project which then led to discussion last night on Stony Creek which that reg uh which that registration restoration excuse me has been done and uh anyway
and having some negative effects. though on on the outlet. Uh so they're actually um looking at potential um uh uh areas to withhold the water u
on that project and and nothing. It was only a general discussion but again about retention at at at the top of the restoration. So we'll see where it goes. It's crazy expensive uh to be doing this
on the registration, buying out the land or restoration and buying out the land, but u you'll see we'll see where it goes. And that's my report. >> Thank you, Commissioner Kavanagh, Commissioner Campbell. >> Thank you. On June 3, Commissioner Bear and I along
with Lucas Ba, our board chair from West Central Regional Water District, along with our engineers met with uh county commissioners from Wilin County. uh they have a an interest in what we're doing as a as a district and um I think
basically Commissioner Bear and I invited them to uh suggest that they um look at joining us um as as our lobbyists will know there's power in numbers uh when we when we deal with the state legislature and funding and so I
think they you know the commissioners that were there were very receptive of it and there's a process involved. It would it would take again going back to the district court. I don't think that would be a problem.
Um but in the meantime there needs they they're going to have to have um a little bit of preliminary feasibility work done that will be their responsibility to do. Um, we did suggest that they bring forward a letter
suggesting an interest and maybe requesting to join so that we can get that process started. I think it'll just amplify our message as to the importance of clean water in our rural areas and it'll um, as we mentioned, it'll bring Jordan
Raspersonson, Senator Rasperson into our um, into our group. That's his area out there and and I think he's supported before, but I think it'll even enhance that support by other legislators.
Friday, I attended the district 4 meeting. The one thing that I did want to point out, it's and it's a small item, but nonetheless, it's um they mentioned that there was a $4 million uh $4 million in safe and secure
courthouse grants that was approved. And I know that on our building committee, we've talked about uh some projects for securing our entrance downstairs. And I I think because these dollars are available, I it's a it's a 50/50 deal,
but I I I would certainly think that what we're planning would qualify for those dollars and rather than us pay 100% of it, you know, maybe we should be looking at u talking with Joe and seeing about I don't know when uh when that money is available, but I
would I would think that if they passed it, it's and I I would think if we can get our application And >> yeah, Commissioner Campbell, I'm on that committee and I will get the information to you. >> I was notified by AMC. I represent AMC
on it >> and uh that we're going to have another series of it. So, I'll be sure you >> Well, the important thing would be for for um I mean, I think Joe's got we pretty much got the plan out, right? >> That's that's correct, Madam Chair.
Commissioner Campbell. We did have a conversation with Joe and the and the sheriff this week already and so we're starting to look into that process. >> Good. Thank you. All right. And other than that, um it's it's always interesting to hear um other counties
perspectives and what they have going on. Um we were all disappointed I think in the SNAP discussion. Then yesterday I had had the highway tracking meeting. We had a highway tracking meeting. Um, I think Justin is
really looking for ways. He's he's looking for suggestions on how we can improve our social media when it comes to road closures and that type of thing. He's so he's really um trying to get ahead of those types of things moving forward.
Uh there's a some dust control issues regarding trunk highways 75 mil and overlay issues that we're dealing with. Um he also gave some information on the 40th Avenue roundabout that's going to
be happening that is going to have an impact on on how uh transportation occurs on Highway 75 South when it comes to getting off there to go to the east on 40th. So that could have some more imp implications
on Highway 75 traffic Cas 21. Uh you heard Justin talk about that this morning where they did close the shoulder on that and I think the mindat has agreed probably that a bridge is probably the best solution for that
project and uh so that would qualify then for bridge bonding dollars. So we're going to be looking at at that. Uh he also mentioned about the uh several um issues in the Holy Cross Township
area as it relates a lot of them are re somewhat related with the diversion project and the road closures as a result of those. Uh there was an issue with um along Casat 2
that that the diversion authority was doing um and there was there was um a lot of traffic was detouring to basically through a private properties uh driveway and land area and
it created some issues there. Um, so we had that conversation and we I think Commissioner Mojo and I and our highway our highway tracking group was in agreement that there was a request that maybe there be a cost share and
repairing that. I think they're looking at a mill and overlay or something and to that effect and so we suggested that maybe the county would be able to um partake in that and and Justin thought he could find that within his current budget to do that. Yeah, up to $5,000. I
think the total um project was was said might cost $10,000 to do. And so it it to us it really wasn't a diversion authority issue. So we didn't feel that we should be going to the diversion authority asking them to pay that. It
was more probably of a more of a local traffic control issue. Um, so anyway, I so hopefully um and we did we did request that Justin go to the land owner and talk about that cost
share 50/50 cost share. And then there's a little discussion about some dust control up in the uh Oakport area that was requested by the diversion authority. And so that one will be taken care of and build to the
diversion authority. He also talked about the MS4 audit that's that's done. Um, and in this particular case, there's going to be anou that will be approve approved by the city and the county as far as
all of the MS4 um projects that are within the city. The city will handle the MS4 permit requirements on that. anything outside of um where its jurisdiction will be handled by our county engineer.
And another thing that they are doing is they were looking at new permit requirements going um going into effect shortly and it's we refer to those as rules that these agencies um implement. And we we do have some
Justin has some real concerns about some of the potential rule language that's in there that's through the MPCA. And so we're um we need to monitor that language to make sure there can be some real significant
issues according to our engineer in that regard. So, and that might be something that we might even want in the future for Tom and Haley to monitor for us as well as it goes through that process. And the five-year plan will be coming
pretty soon. And there was the Highway 75. There was the road closure on that. They were originally talking about that going from um the middle of June all the way to September or something like that. know the latest that
>> July 5th. >> Yeah. >> July. Yeah. So, just this morning, I think Justin informed us that they're going to do that early and have it completed by the middle of July, which would be a lot better in terms of the the different harvest. There might be a
little wheat harvest that that could interfere with but be done before most of the major harvests that are done. Uh we had a little discussion about CASAW one. I think you remember there we had a resident up there that didn't like
the traffic that was going from basically Wall Street to the south to where the old Broadway bridge was. I made the suggestion yesterday that maybe we should look at even having that removed from our casaw list u and just turn that over to the city of
Morhead and that could potentially free up maybe a/4 mile of casaw miles that we could maybe look at reapplying to an area where there is much more traffic and more need. So, uh, Justin was going
to check into that and, uh, we talked a little bit about the township maintenance contract with High Highland Grove and he did he gave us a construction update on CASA 9 and he will be coming
forward with us in the future regarding equipment purchases. And that concludes my report. >> Thank you, Commissioner Campbell. Commissioner Beard, >> thank you, Madam Chair. Last Wednesday, I was also at that West Central and Regional Water District Clay Wilin County meeting which Commissioner
Campbell Campbell uh put it nicely that we in we didn't really we we asked we invited Wilin to start looking at joining our group there at the West Central Regional Water District and they are going to work through some things before getting back to that
group. And then that afternoon I was also at the public health partners partnership for health meeting where we h went over the community health improvement plan also known as CHIP where commissioner Ebinger gave a nice
update on that. I don't have anything to add. And then on Friday, I was also at the district 4 meeting with all of you. And I really enjoy those meetings, meeting with all the other commissioners there. And we had an update from all the
counties there on the an update on their building projects and just projects going on in the counties counties and then the AMC update. And that is all I have to report on that and that is all my committees. Madam Chair,
>> thank you. Commissioner Bear, going two backs two weeks back, I had the opportunity, we had a landowner reach out with some drainage concern uh around the Baker area. I met out there with the highway department and uh supervisor from the Buffalo Red River Wershed
District. I think we were able to um each triage which one was line lied laid within our own jurisdiction. And the highway department has a plan to address a covert that has some um wash out that it's occurring. I attended the Prairie
Lakes uh Prairie Lakes meeting. Uh Commissioner Campbell reported to that on last Tuesday. I have nothing further to report on that. I attended the legislative planning uh session sort of wrap up with Tom and Haley and
Commissioner Kraban and Steve as we uh one talked about uh the Minnesota legislative process, but as we move into hearing what our congressional delegates uh as they forwarded that for congressional earmarks uh any additional
work that we need to do for that. I attended the LA FGO Morehead Diversion Authority Land Management Committee meeting with Commissioner Campbell. Uh he did also report on that. Uh the other piece that I would mention is I I did I was quite concerned with moving the
closure of 75 up for six weeks earlier that could pose quite a disastrous if you will um effect for the co-op but also the growers down there. I am encouraged that Justin is really becoming the catalyst of communication for the growers down there so that we do
have a plan for them so that they don't have 20 mile detours when they're hauling grain to the market. I attended the SWAT committee meeting. We had a really great update on our trash week uh campaign.
Trash collection was down a little bit during that. So, I'm curious to see if that's just a anomaly or if it's a trend as people um are able to access the resource recovery facility and the citizen drop off at the landfill throughout more time than than prior.
Grateful for the staff work that went into that. That afternoon, I attended the MCC JPA meeting that Commissioner Campbell did also uh pres um cover the CAP LP uh monthly meeting with Commissioner Kraban. I attended that. He
attend uh updated on that meeting. And then getting into the last week I um had the opportunity was nominated to attend the county leadership institute in Washington DC. Uh the 31st through the 3rd. Uh there was 21 applicants that
were accepted into that program. Uh really focused around adaptive leadership and problem solving and shared uh items of mutual interest. Uh really the items that we've spent a lot of time talking about today are top of mind for most of those counties. And
then land use uh continues to be a big uh issue as counties are wrestling with large uh da uh land use requests from data centers to solar panels to other pieces and then how uh we all move forward with um communication to our
residents through that. So I graduated from that. I'm thankful for the opportunity, but really thankful that AMC covered all of the costs incurred for that. I thought it was an important opportunity. During that time, I did take that opportunity to meet with uh on
June 3rd with U. Barbcman Brekie from Scott County. We met with Senator Smith and uh Senator Clolobishar staff to specifically talk about our county project that was moved forward for earmark. Thanking them for the senators both doing that. And then also to
highlight the SNAP challenges uh that will come uh if action does not get addressed in the farm bill. Um timely as we uh were talking about that today and then on June 4th did have the opportunity to meet with both Senator Smith and Senator Clolobashar as
highlighted today. District 4 meeting with all of you on Friday. Uh really great to hear from all of the different counties on challenges that they have as they're moving forward with budget planning and what the
successes were with the legislative uh legislative session. I think our strength lies within our our shared issues. So I appreciate that we were all able to attend that discussion. And then yesterday I attended the highway tracking meeting with uh Commissioner
Campbell. I almost called you Senator Campbell. Commissioner Campbell, uh, on all of the different items that, uh, Justin is busy with with the department, um, in in regards to road grading and dust controlling on issues that are becoming problem areas. They're really
quite, uh, responsive to those needs. And then two, how we're communicating the um, the closures. Uh, it's challenging. And it took me a little extra time here because I had a city closure and a state closure to uh
mitigate, but uh great to see so many important projects moving forward. And then the other piece is we did talk about uh the five-year plan update and the bridgeou that we did today and how the 21 project will uh be incorporated into that. And then lastly, we did have
Highland Grove opted out of the township maintenance agreement. Uh there was a little bit of a budget impact on that. Uh the difference that was built in the actual um each entity needs to figure out what makes the most sense for them and uh in that in that instance Highland
Grove felt that that was the best cost utilization for them. That concludes my reports. Mr. Larson. >> Uh thank you, Madam Chair. Last Tuesday, I participated in the discussion that Commissioner uh Campbell and Commissioner Eberger shared with the
rural cities and and the Red River regional dispatch facility. There'll be more to come on that. That afternoon, I met with Anna on a personnel matter here within the county. Also met with Lori Johnson uh in regards to taxation districts uh here within the state. Uh
also uh on the third met with a series of department heads, Sheriff Empor, Mr. Milton and also Darren and Anna on several county issues. On the fourth, I also participated in the public policy chamber of public policy meeting uh
where Haley uh presented. I think that one of the interesting parts is is with the chamber policy it brings a variety of people, business owners, government entities, education, uh just uh citizens, business owners. Uh, and I think that the interesting part of the
presentation, much like today, is there's a little blip on there that it talks about SNAP and some of the adjustments that happen. Uh, and I think it was important to to have those other entities understand how impactful that is uh potential to our levy. And so that
was great that we had that that avenue to bring that forward. After that, I did talk with Kale from the chamber, uh, Commissioner Commissioner Bear and Commissioner Campbell, our committee assignments on our intergovernmental retreat. And there's been some discussion about, uh, from some
committee members of the, uh, I guess ability to continue or the demand to continue that and talked with Kale about the possibility of of bringing back the chamber uh, as part of that relationship with that group. And so Kale was going to have a have a conversation with the
staff about that. On the Friday, I participated the MC district spring meeting that's been well covered and also yesterday in the highway tracking which has been well covered by the commissioners. And that concludes my report. >> Thank you. Brian, do you have any report?
>> Thank you. Darren, >> every every time I hear that word Dur that name Daryl, I think of the Bob New Hart. Um, this is I'm Daryl. >> Brother Daryl. >> Daryl. >> That's all right. I was It's a good joke. >> I I knew it was
>> all right. Um, Tuesday, June 2nd, I also attended the Red River Regional Dispatch Center, uh, which was covered by Commissioner Abiger very well. Um, I also started work on the meas performance measurements program, which I'll most likely bring to
the board next week. Uh, and then that has to be submitted to the state by July 1st and then also had a evaluation that I did on uh Tuesday as well. On Wednesday, I also attended the uh transmission line project with
Commissioner Kahoff. I I agree that was extremely interesting on how power is sent throughout the country and and uh it was a very good information session. Uh Thursday I was off which was nice. Friday, June 5th. Um
I also participated in the AMC District 4 meeting down in Fergus Falls. And then yesterday had a meeting with Anna on some personnel issues and started work on two more evals. So that concludes my
report. >> All right. Anything else? Make sure and look at Commissioner Campbell's award. That's quite quite neat. Uh with nothing else on the agenda, we are scheduled this afternoon to have a work session at 1:00. Uh other
than that, we will be meeting June 16th in the evening at 5:00 p.m. and followed by the appeal of appeal and equalization meeting at 6:30. We are adjourned.