Good morning everyone. It's 8:30. I'll call today's meeting of the uh Klay County Board of Commissioners to order. The first item on the agenda today is an approval of the agenda. We do have an amended agenda that has been provided. >> Madam Chair, I'll make a motion to approve the agenda with the amendment.
>> We have a motion offered to approve the amended agenda from Bear, a 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. Citizens to be heard today. Are there any citizens in the audience wishing to address the county board? >> Steve, if we had any online correspondents. >> Madam Chair, we did receive uh three additional requests to have comments on the public hearing on the shotgun rifle
zone and speaking with Mr. Melton. Unfortunately, those are not able to be brought forward because the time for uh bringing forward information is closed. >> Yeah. Thank you. Follow up to that. Uh many residents did reach out to the commissioners individually after the hearing which was allowed, but again, no
further public testimony would be offered. Any other folks wishing to be heard? Moving into the approval of the payment of bills and vouchers. >> Madam Chair, I'll make a motion to pay the bills and vouchers. Motion offered
from Commissioner Bear to pay the bills and vouchers. >> I'll second. >> A second from Commissioner Kravenoff. Further discussion. Further discussion. Further discussion. All in favor of the motion signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppose. Same sign. It carries. Minutes
from April 7th, 2026 were included in the packet. >> Madam Chair, I move to approve the minutes from April 7th, uh, 2026. >> A motion offered from Commissioner Evinger. Second. >> Second from Commissioner Bear. Any further discussion?
Further discussion? Further discussion. All in favor of the motion signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Same sign. The offer carries or the motion carries. I'd like to go back quick to a moment um an item that we just approved in the amended agenda. uh
really grateful. During um the last week, we were able to receive a donation check from the Sabin Elmwood Fire Department in the amount of $750 to our Klay County Sheriff's Office for some work detail. Great for grateful for those um options, not only for the work
detail crew, but also organizations and entities throughout Klay County. Thank you to Sabin Fire Department for that donation. Item two, request approval for out of state travel. Good morning, Kimberly. >> Good morning, Madam Chair, commissioners. I'm here today to request
approval for out ofstate travel in May. I would be attending an educational symposium in Rock Island, Illinois, that's hosted by my land records software vendor. Um, they would be helping fund some of the transportation and the rest of the um expenses would come out of my travel budget for the
recorder's office. >> Questions from the board? >> One question. Yes, Commissioner Bear. >> You had this budgeted in your budget for last year? >> Yes. >> Then with that, I'll make a motion to approve this out of state travel for Kimberly. >> Second. >> Motion offered from Commissioner Bear, second from Commissioner Campbell to
approve the request as presented. Further discussion. Further discussion. Further discussion. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying I. >> I. >> Same sign. The request is granted. Item
three, Kimberly, is a request approval of expenses for the lands records department. >> Yes. So, the recorders compliance committee met a few weeks ago and we have recommended action for the board. The recorder's office was 100% compliance in 2025. So, that means we're
able to share um expenses with some of the other land record departments per the statute. So, we are proposing for the 2027 budget that we would use $105,000 from our compliance fund. $15,000 of that would go towards the maintenance for our tax system. $40,000
would go towards our corner remonumentation program. $37,350 would go towards information services for their online mapping and things that all of our land record departments uses. And then 12,650 towards the um software maintenance for the assessor's office.
So that brings a grand total of 105,000. So I would just be looking for a motion to approve these expenses and that would go in the 2027 budget. Thank you, Kimberly. This is another great uh um example of your good oversight and controls that you have in place, making
sure that we're in compliance 100% to benefit uh other areas of the county. Thanks, >> Madam Chair. >> Commissioner Abinger. >> Yeah, I was part of the committee that met on this. it uh is a great source of funding for us and it's a responsible use those funds that comply with state
law. So in light of that, I would like to make a motion to approve 105,000 in expenses from the records compliance fund for the land record department for 2027. >> A second. >> Thank you, Commissioner Ebinger. A second from Commissioner Kavanagh.
Discussion, Commissioner Campbell. >> Thank you, Kimberly. How does this change from last year? >> It is the same from last year. It's been that same 105,000 for for a few years. >> And it it was the same for areas that we're spending it on as well.
>> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Additional questions? >> Additional questions. All in favor of the motion signify by saying I. >> I. Same sign. The request is approved. Thank you. >> Thank you.
Item five today is our social services department. >> I guess four. Sorry, didn't mean to skip. So, we have the opportunity to approve a proclamation that is recognizing April 22nd as administrative
professionals day in Klay County. >> Thank you, Madam Chair and commissioners. Uh yes, I am requesting uh that we approve uh tomorrow actually uh as administrative professionals day in Klay County. Um our administrative professionals and social services are the steady force that helps keep our
county government running each day. In social services, they coordinate communication, they manage records, they organize schedules, they assist citizens, and they handle the tiny little daily tasks uh that allow all of our other social workers and all of our other staff to serve and function effectively. uh within social services,
our administrative professionals play an especially critical role in supporting the work of our department. Our department is now at 152 FTEES and we have 11 full-time office support specialists, one being a variable hour. So together, those staff support our entire department in our day-to-day
operations and help ensure that uh we have smooth uh continuation of services across multiple floors of the building. Now, um, our administrative professionals frequently serve as the first point of contact for residents seeking services. Uh, they greet individuals
who are navigating complex or pretty stressful situations most often, and they're helping connect those folks with the right staff and the right services. Uh, they also ensure that information is shared accurately and efficiently. So recognizing administrative professionals day provides an opportunity for the board to acknowledge the
professionalism, dedication, and essential contributions of our staff uh that support the rest of our staff, strengthen operations, and help ensure that our citizens receive the services they need. So with that, I have attached proclamation, but I'm open to any questions. >> Any questions for Quinn?
Questions? Thank you for bringing this forward. Um I agree wholeheartedly with everything that you said. uh the board if we can rotate through and uh read through the proclamation. The proclamation for administrative professionals day, April 22nd, 2026.
>> Whereas administrative professionals day is observed each year to honor the individuals whose administrative expertise supports the work of organizations and public institutions throughout the nation. And whereas Klay County administrative professionals
provide essential support that enables county departments to function efficiently, ensuring that information flows accurately, operations remain organized, and services are delivered to residents in a timely and professional manner. And whereas these dedicated
employees contribute daily through their knowledge, attention to detail, and commitment to public service, helping maintain the structure, and coordination necessary for local government to serve the community. And whereas administrative professionals demonstrate professionalism, reliability, and
adaptability while supporting co-workers and assisting citizens. And >> whereas the Klay County Board of Commissioners values the contributions of these employees and recognizes the important role they play in supporting the mission of county government. Now
therefore, be it proclaimed that the Klay County Board of Commissioners hereby recognizes April 22nd, 2026 as Administrative Professionals Day in Klay County and expresses its appreciation for the administrative professionals whose dedication and service strengthen
the operations of county government and the well-being of our community. >> Madam Chair, >> Commissioner Ebinger. Just uh one one notice on this. Uh in addition to the great people we have working for Quinn,
we've got a number of them throughout the entire uh county staff, including Sarah who keeps the wheels on around here for us and for Steve and I don't want we'd be remiss not to mention her. >> Madam Chair, I move the proclamation.
>> A motion offered from Commissioner Campbell to approve the proclamation. A second from sorry, Commissioner Bear did say it right after, but uh certainly of note is Commissioner Ebinger's comments. Uh Sarah keeps the wheels on definitely for
all of us. So we are grateful. Any further discussion? Further discussion. All those in favor of the proclamation signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Same sign. Carried. Now we'll move into the annual department update
that you have for the financial services division. Quinn, we have uh Miss Amenson and Miss Poderic. >> Thank you, Madam Chair and commissioners. Yes. Uh this is another agenda item where I will just do introductions and then keep my mouth shut for the rest of the time. So we've
got Michaela Wooder and Karen Amenson here to speak to our financial services division. Karen, I'll kick it over to you. Um Michaela and I decided to change things up a little bit this year and instead of just data, we um decided to
give you a day in the life. So um I want to walk you through a normal day. Uh not a bad day, not a crisis, just a normal day in the life of an eligibility worker. So the first task of the day,
successfully logging into everything. If all systems load on the first try, it's already a good day. If we don't log into the systems periodically, we get kicked out and then we'll need to contact our security liaison to request access. Again, this
can take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days, depending on the system. This is what's waiting before they've had a chance to even settle in for the day. Each item up there represents a client seeking support. often with time-sensitive
needs. Once they get logged into the systems, they'll organize their day by prioritizing the tasks listed. While they're doing this, they may have clients in the lobby waiting to be seen. And this is even before they've opened a case.
Their first application immediately having questions. Applications reflect real life situations that don't always fit neatly into policy categories. Eligibility workers scan 15 to 20 pages of the application checking for
completeness already making eligibility decisions in their head. They will often go into Maxis, MMIS, prison, maybe MEC squared and Smi. And remember, none of these talk to each other. They review the verifications received
and realize that for instance the payubs don't match what's reported. Now they're calculating manually to determine if the client could be expedi expedited or even eligible. And this is where the day becomes unplanned and reactive to real life
needs. Getting phone calls, front desk questions, emails marked urgent. We request meetings and they're always willing to help their co-workers. And as I stated, we like to say our
systems don't talk to each other. They don't even acknowledge each other. We are asking staff to be accurate in systems that are not designed for accuracy or integrated with one another. >> Can I go back really quick? >> Yep. One.
>> Yep. uh this is the screen in which we are trying to tell your story. So I just want to give huge gratitude for providing this. But for the public watching, you're a financial services division. But if you look in the systems reality,
not addressing the fact that these systems don't talk to each other is contributing to high error risks in which counties are then on the hook for huge pieces. So, as we continue, I testified last week on this exactly and had a prism question that I couldn't
answer, so I should have had you. Um, but this is what we're talking about these. We have to in order to implement the services that the state is having for us to do, we have to have systems that talk to each other. It's like uh yesterday or last week at the Capitol,
it was like going to an airport and being on the Delta terminal and needing to get it to American Airlines and they there literally is no way to do that. So, thank you for dealing with this craziness. Um I'm hopeful we can address this for you, but I just want the public
to see the reality is if this doesn't get addressed, it will continue to see high air risk. Can I just uh I think um every taxpayer in Klay County should be watching this or if that are watching
this and should understand this because every taxpayer in Klay County should be advocating for the corrections that we want done here because this is a clear case of us being able to eliminate a lot of duplication and time spent doubling
up on areas we don't need to be doubling up on. So this is one area whether you're right, left, indep, I don't care. You should be advocating in favor of this this legislation being done. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. I again didn't want to disrupt your presentation, but you are speaking the language that we all need to hear. So thank you. >> No, I appreciate it. Thank you guys. Um, lunch often becomes a time to catch up rather than fully step away. Breaks
are encouraged, but our staff are dedicated, so lunch is often not when they disconnect. And the interviews, this is where policy meets real life, and real life does not follow policy. Clients are navigating complex and
stressful situations and we can conduct interviews which can take anywhere from a half an hour to an hour and a half depending on the programs applied for and the complexity of the household. Conversations often involve helping people understand programs during times
of uncertainty and case processing. This is the part everyone thinks is data entry and it's actually the most complex part of the job. Before anything is entered, decisions are already being made. What income counts? Which program
rules apply? Is this verified or questionable? Does this trigger expedited? They're not even entering data yet. They're making eligibility decisions. Now let's talk real life which is messy and try to make it fit into very rigid
systems. For instance, payubs that don't line up, verifications that conflict, household situations that don't fit clean categories. The system doesn't adjust to reality. The worker has to.
Now comes data entry, but it's not one system. And again, none of these systems carry information forward. And a lot of what we do is not automated. We manually average income, calculate anticipated future income, and
determine eligibility periods. Two workers can look at the same case and have to justify how they got the same result. Then we document everything. We explain why decisions were made, what was verified, and what is still pending,
if anything. These case notes have to stand up in court months and maybe even years later by someone who maybe wasn't part of the case and maybe they're not even working for the county anymore.
So in reality, case processing is actually decision-m, interpretation, translation, data entry, and legal documentation. This is where accuracy is won or lost. and our average processing time.
This slide demonstrates the average processing time required for each step of just one application. When these steps are combined, each application can take several hours of staff time depending on complexity. Our eligibility workers typically
receive between two to eight applications per day on any given day. Even at that range, the workload can quickly exceed the hours available in a standard workday. For example, on higher volume days, the total processing time can add up to 20
to 30 hours of work in a single day. And that's simply not achievable within an 8 hour workday. Our staff work efficiently and are committed to keeping up, but when incoming work exceeds capacity, a backlog is unavoidable.
This slide highlights that the challenge is not effort, it's capacity. Each step reflects careful work to ensure accuracy that for the people we serve and the taxpayers. And our work never stops layering.
This is a part of the day where new work doesn't replace old work. It stacks on top of it. Dales are tasks that require action. They're not optional. There are alerts for verifications, deadlines that impact eligibility, things that must be worked on or we risk
errors. These don't wait until you're done with your current cases. Tickles are tasks we set to come back to, and they always come back. There are follow-ups on pending verifications and time-sensitive actions. Yesterday's work becomes today's
interruption. While we're working applications, existing cases are changing, such as income changes, household changes. It's all information that affects eligibility. Every change has to be reviewed, verified, and often rebudgeted at the
same time. Client's needs pop up throughout the day and require timely response. So, while one case is being processed, there are multiple other cases demanding detention. This is a part of the day where staff
are doing complex ever evolving work, applying policy, analyzing information, and making informed decisions that require time, focus, and sustained attention. >> If I might go back to that one as well. >> Yep.
These uh well, one, I am overwhelmed with what staff is dealing with. So, um, just know that I really appreciate that they're continuing to push forward and addressing the needs of the people that they're working with while they're they're working with this. But this is
the part that um I think is really important. Our board understands it, but I want folks watching to maybe understand a little further. these systemdriven deadlines. When we're talking about mandates in terms of when folks, you know, the deadlines in which
you have to process through all of these counties are talking about how do we triage um maybe weight lists or how do we figure out different ways to address what the workload is because of the significant cost for administration
with new programs that are coming on. That's the part in which counties can't I mean we can't do those dead or uh weight lists. We can't get to it as we get to it. We can't staff to a different level because then that not meeting
those deadlines contributes to error rates even further. So it's you're kind of in this um wheel of purgatory really and how do you best address the needs of the people by dealing with these systems that are really um hindering the work to
actually deal with people. So it it has um nothing to do I don't really think with the financial piece as much as it does the systems that that are not enabling us to do the work to the highest efficiency. Is that a fair Okay.
Thank you. Yes. Sorry. So now let's talk about what happens over time working in this kind of environment. When every task requires decision- making all day across multiple systems that creates a high level of
mental load at any given moment they are deciding who needs help right now, what's expedited. >> Yeah. >> What will cause an error? What can wait? And they're expected to get that right every time. There isn't a lot of built-in space to
pause and reset. That kind of cognitive fatigue doesn't show up all at once. It builds over time. Accuracy is still expected, and it should be, but we're asking for that accuracy in environment that systemically makes the work more complex. So, when challenges show up,
it's often less about individual performance and more about the conditions the work is happening in. Over time, that can look a few different ways. Sometimes it means work slows down because staff are being careful and double-checking to get it right.
Sometimes it means hesitation or second guessing which leads to delays. And sometimes when volume is extra high, it can lead to rushing just to keep pace which is where errors are more likely to happen. The opportunity at hand isn't about changing the people doing the work. It's
about improving the conditions around them so they can do it at their best. This is where your advoc advocacy has really mattered. We know there's been tremendous amount of effort put forth around system modernization. That work directly connects to what
you've heard here today. Modernized integrated systems are one of the clearest ways to reduce complexity, improve accuracy, and allow staff to focus more on their time on serving our residents instead of navigating systems and sitting behind a computer screen.
Because this isn't about lowering expectations. It's about building an environment where these expectations are realistic, sustainable, and consistently achievable. I want to briefly touch on our role in supporting program integrity, knowing that Sandy will walk you through the
fraud investigation side in more detail next week. Our eligibility workers are often the first point of contact as they review applications and verifications. They're also watching for inconsistencies or information that doesn't pass the
smell test. In 2025, our staff submitted 711 referrals to the fraud and collections unit. This is where our role ends and theirs begins. They take those referrals and conduct the full investigation and
any necessary recovery actions. This partnership ensures that program integrity starts at the front end while allowing specialized staff to handle the investigative process. Every referral represents careful review and accountability at the eligibility
level. >> Can we go back to that one really quickly? >> Yep. In regards to those 711 referrals submitted, uh, one, kudos to staff for identifying those pieces and referring. Is there any circle back to our staff?
Um, once it's out of our hands and it goes to the state, are we able to identify what was followed up on, what may be filtered out? >> So, those fraud referrals actually go to our two fraud investigators in Klay County. >> Got it. >> Yep. Two investigators in Sandy's unit.
Um, a lot of what they do is fraud prevention. Um, so if uh information is submitted on the application before someone receives benefits, our fraud staff will look into that before a single dollar would go out in a program benefit and verify that information to ensure doesn't necessarily mean 711
cases of fraud occurred, but just where maybe it doesn't match up or it doesn't pass the smell test or we have concerns that it doesn't match up. We will have the fraud investigators go verify before any benefits are essentially. >> And I may be misunderstood. I thought I heard when you said that's beyond us. I
was thinking us as county, not us as department. And we've certainly heard from Sandy and her department on all of the great work they've they've had there. Sorry. And I did have to throw some statistics in and give our staff kudos because they
do an amazing job. Uh in 2025, the adult and family teams consisting of two leads and 16 eligibility workers processed 7,250 applications, 5,134 renewals,
928 change report forms, 49,530 verifications for public assistance forms totaling 62,842 total forms. And you've likely seen and heard about SNAP error rates in the news recently.
These rates measure payment accuracy, not fraud, but how complex eligibility rules are applied in real situations. Nationally, the error rate is about 6%. In Minnesota, it's closer to 9%, which is why there's increased detention right
now. Our team's error rate is 1.64%. And that's while processing nearly 65,000 documents this year. Each one requiring careful review, verification, and decision-making.
So this isn't just strong performance. It's ex exceptional accuracy in high pressure, high volume environment. This reflects the consistency, coaching, and attention to detail our staff bring every day. It's not about perfection.
It's about doing the work thoughtfully and getting it right for the people we serve. Thank you for taking the time to listen today and for your ongoing support. We truly appreciate the opportunity to share the realities of this work and the impact it has on both our staff and the
county we serve. >> Thank you for uh the presentation. Commissioner Campbell does have a question before we turn. >> Yeah, that that last little chart that you show there says a lot. Mhm. >> Um, you know, for the amount of documents that you process and your
people go through, to have an error rate of 1.64% is really quite remarkable. >> Uh, you didn't say in here, but the it's it's shaded, but in Minnesota, it averages 9%. >> Yes.
>> And in nationwide, it's 6%. >> Correct. >> And Klay County is at 1.64. >> Correct. So that's um hats off to your whole department for the work that they do. >> Excellent. >> Thank you. I might really quickly and
then we'll go to two other commissioners. Um I testified on that exactly the data that you provided. So thanks for getting that. the one one can you really quickly talk about how counties that have error rates as low as we might are actually getting penalized
in a way that counties with 10 to 15 times the error rate are. >> Yeah, absolutely. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um this is the frustrating part about uh the HR1, the big beautiful bill and the impacts of how how it's going to impact Minnesota counties. Uh right now
the the fiscal penalty for error rate is just applied to the state. Um if the state doesn't otherwise define it, uh it's going to be broken out as a total dollar amount and it's based on a percentage of the amount of SNAP benefit that is given to the residents in the
community. So for example, I believe in 2025 we provided about $15 million um in SNAP benefits to our citizens. Um the error rate will be a percentage based on the state's overall error rate of what that is. So for example, where the state
currently sits in terms of their statewide error rate, uh the state of Minnesota would owe 10% of the SNAP payments to the federal government. And that 10% would just apply to your county's payments that went out. Uh
that's a scary scary number to me. Uh that's $1.5 million that Klay County would be responsible for in regards to the fiscal penalty under the big beautiful bill just for the 10% of the benefit that we provided to the citizens. However, if you have an error
rate that's below I think it's 5% there would be no fiscal penalty to the federal government. So in my opinion we're at 1.64%. our performance at the county level would justify zero dollars in fiscal penalty because we're not making those payment errors. However, the way that
it's currently set in the state is they're not taking into account individual county performance. They're just saying that error rate percentage applies to all counties and you pay your fair share. So, because we're doing a good job, we would actually have $1.5 million worth of fiscal penalty when
another county might have a 14% error rate, which is driving up the state average. It's very it's very frustrating to not take individual county performance into account with that calculation. >> And to unpack that a little bit more, that 1.64% 64% error rate equivalates
equival equivalency is $59 in benefit erroneously identified that's not necessarily that doesn't mean that $59 extra that could be an underpayment of benefit to >> correct >> correct >> correct yes but >> and that even if it's a $59 overpayment
that doesn't mean that at the end of the day we didn't also recapture >> recapture when overpayments go out we identify them we find them and then we fix them so if we mistakenly gave you $59 last month, we would either take $59 out next month or if that's not feasible
given your situation, we might take $10 out until we've recouped the total $59. >> Commissioner Ebinger and then Kraov. >> Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh I want to amplify something Commissioner
Campbell said. This is not a right, left or center issue. This is simply good governance. And I think we have it here. We're aware of and and I think you and your staff, Quinn, are are aware that this
commission is very cognizant of the shortcomings that we've got with the system we've that's been inflicted on us up to this point. I've seen something that you seldom see in in local government. It happened with
the floods. It happened with some other crises. We got two commissioners that have gone up to the state capital and really applied themselves on on a lot of issues. This being one of them. I think the expertise our chair speaks of with this is simply because she's become
extremely familiar with what's going on. She's working with people on both sides of the aisle to try and address it as is the AMC, the Association of Minnesota Counties. This is a one of the prime issues that we've got for this legislative agenda.
None of us up here are able to to to deal with the issues that we have to deal with without getting good information from competent staff. And that's what you've got. I'm married to a social worker. The people that are working these want
to manage cases and they want to help people. They don't want to sit there and be a data entry clerk for twothirds of their shift. We hear you. If we could change it right now, we would. We've got people that are making a real effort to
work across the the political turmoil you have in the Capitol right now to try to get this addressed as an issue that's affecting the entire state. I just want you to know the information you've provided them and us is being well used.
>> Commissioner Kavanagh. >> Yeah. Uh thank you. Um so, uh two things. Uh back to the airs. uh the 1.64 in the reforms that DHS is trying to do. Are they
uh are they even interested in um in their work to uh decrease air? Give any any uh how do I say it? focused areas that with
higher rates, say up at eight or nine and and allow the people at 1.64 to uh keep doing their work. I guess I don't I don't know specifically uh Commissioner Krabanhoff. Uh you know that said I think a lot of the times I have to be really honest prior to this role I was
completely ignorant in the financial services world and these two have completely brought me on board and given me accurate information as well to fully understand and I think a lot of the issues actually come from the complexity of the policy decisions that are made. So, I think the state actually needs to look at their policies and make some
decisions about how you can't have this and this count because they're creating errors. So, I think a lot of it um again, just like you said, the staff that we have, they don't want to sit behind a computer screen all day. They want to help people. So, the more they're sitting behind a computer screen trying to figure out is it this or is it
that, they're being less fulfilled in their daily job and we're risking more errors. So, I I don't know if DHS is working on fixing that, but I >> just curious if it was in the conversation. Okay. And then the other thing back to the uh um beautiful bill
that requires two times a year now for checking eligibility. Is that the correct word? >> Yeah, that will be for um healthc care uh MA expansion population. >> Okay. Which you you're going to get into. Okay. I want to hear more about
that, too. You bet. Uh, Commissioner Campbell had asked me a question in regards to specifically what bills we're tracking for the modernization pieces. There are a couple different ones, uh, which is why I was gone last week, Tuesday morning, I
testified on the Frederick bill that is on the House side, 4840. And then the Senate companion bill for that is Senate File 4982. that is to allow a lease purchase agreement for the sale and issuance um
of that to replace the bond or the um Maxis system. And then Senate file 4612 is the vehicle bill uh the Wickland bill that we testified also on that has the Maxis component in it but it also has the um Medicaid pieces that is different
from this conversation but that's where we're tracking. Okay. All right. Any questions otherwise? Michaela, >> good morning. I'm excited to share about our healthcare programs today.
Our current team structure, we have uh 15 individuals on the healthcare team including myself. We have a lead worker and then our teams are split into the programs that they work. So we have six eligibility workers working in the Mets
system on th those healthcare programs. We have three eligibility workers doing the Maxis health care system and three eligibility workers doing the programs for individuals over 65. And then we have a case aid that helps us by
supporting the entire team. So medical assistance is commonly misunderstood in how intertwined it is to our communities and our individuals. Um it is more than just health insurance, right? It is um the entry
point to many services that allow people to remain safe in their homes, uh cared for, and in their communities. It connects residents to health coverage, long-term care, mental health treatment, substance use services, wavered
supports, home services, and care coordination. It's especially crucial for our vulnerable residents, including older individuals, people with disabilities, children. When MA works well, it uh helps people
avoid unnecessarily unnecessary hospitalization or placement in institutions. It matters economically because these services support providers, jobs, and our community. Ultimately, MA is about
the human impact and the system impact. And at its core, medical assistance helps people receive the right care in the right setting at the right time while also strengthening systems and communities that surround them. Here you can see a snapshot of our
current case loads in Klay County and the relevance to our community here. Our teams manage uh approximately 9,361 cases uh across three medical assistance areas. Uh the broader county impact is even
larger. So right now approximately 16,000 individuals uh in Klay County are on some type of a healthcare program with us. So that's nearly one in four residents, about 23.7%. So very relevant here with our community and has a big
impact in Klay County. Next, I'd like to talk about how Klay County compares to some peer counties. Specifically, today I'll be including uh Klay County, Ottertale County, Crowing County, and Candy, Ohio County. Uh we found that they are really fair and
accurate comparables to Klay County in uh case load sizes and and relevance. So what you'll see here is that our total case load sizes specifically for the Mets programs um are the highest amongst
our peers. And what also stands out however is that our individual case loads per worker are extremely high. Um, so Clay is at 1,300 1,037, sorry, uh, cases per worker,
while other counties are ranging, uh, in the 500s. So, you can see that Klay County is operating in a much leaner staffing model than others. And it helps really just illustrate the pressure that our that our staff are under, right, especially tying in the system issues
that Karen was highlighting in her presentation. Um, so these comparisons are really helpful to think about as we picture long-term sustainability for our staff and our programs, uh, our service expectations that we like to continue offering and, uh, future staffing needs
to maintain our level of timeliness and quality of work. So also same comparisons here in our long-term care or our over 65 population which is where you'll see a lot of individuals that are in the uh facilities care facilities or needing
very complex those cases are much more complex because they are on multiple programs at the same time. So they will be on you know cash SNAP and you know healthc care benefits and others. Um so what you'll see here is Klay County may not have the highest overall number of
long-term cases. We are um in the high among the highest in the comparison groups for cases per worker. Uh 356 is incredibly high as a case load for a long-term care worker and they do very
very strong work and we would like to maintain that that quality and the great service that our clients are getting from our staff. So, we really are keeping a finger on the pulse with this demographic and making sure to keep in
mind our staffing needs um to keep the workload sustainable. Another program I'd like to highlight today is our county burial assistance program. So, this is one of the final safety net programs that we offer to families. When a resident passes away
without resources or without another responsible source of payment, the county may provide assistance in paying for a cremation or a burial. Uh this work is complex as it's tied to, you know, policy and procedure and state
statute, but it's also deeply human. Uh we want our individuals to have that dignity, and we're dealing with families at a very, very difficult time. And while it may not be one of our largest programs by volume, it carries a
lot of sensitivity and a lot of importance, um, it ensures that individuals are treated with dignity at the end of their life while also supporting, you know, these families during this time of loss. And at the same time, as county burial assistance is directly paid by our taxpayers, um we
have to be very very mindful of our fiscal responsibility here and the costs associated with these county burials. And so because of that, we work very closely and frequently consistently reviewing state statutes um
and advi, you know, getting advice from county attorney's office and just making sure that we are following state statute while also being as mindful as we possibly can with the dollars that are being spent. And so because of that, it feels like we're constantly
evaluating, tracking numbers, and just kind of seeing how we can make it the most efficient, but also keep it human. >> Question from Commissioner Kavanagh. >> Real quick, um, how many burials did
Clay County have last year? >> Yeah, last year 2025, we had 56 burials. Uh, 2024, we had 59. So, it seems to be kind of around that number. >> Thank you. >> So, glad that you brought that up
because we do see, as you all know, Klay County is one of the fastest growing counties in population right in the state. And so, along with that, our 65 plus population is rapidly growing as well and is projected to continue
growing. And so what this is going to mean for us specifically is more need for medical assistance programs and long-term care services um because of this demographic change. So specifically the 75 and older and the 85 and older populations which is where
you'll see more increased services needed um more admittance into care facilities and more just high support services will be needed. And then on top of that, as time goes on, we are seeing more and
more adults entering retirement with limited resources. People uh do not have assets like they used to. They do not have that financial means. Um 40% of individuals do not have enough in retirement to sustain their current
lifestyle. So that is very alarming and is a good number to show the need for these programs moving forward, right? And it's just going to continue growing. And so it's going to give us pressure in the county burial aspect, but also on
the medical assistance programs. Next, I'd like to share with you about an organization called MAFES. Uh MAFES is the Minnesota Association of Financial Assistant Supervisors. Uh we have 120 members as a part of that association and actually as of yesterday
74 county agencies. We had Ramsey join us yesterday. Um so we are only missing five uh county agencies uh in our organization which we hope to gain their membership soon. Um but what we do is every month we will meet with uh members
from DCYF or DHS uh state staff and we will have many many conversations revolving around you know advocacy for our programs and our clients and our counties or getting that first look into
upcoming changes good discussion with state staff. It's just a great opportunity to be in the know of what's coming our way so we can prepare and then it's also a fantastic space for networking and professional development
for our members. >> Before we move to the next slide, uh Michaela was nominated as president of MAF. So it's it's great to see that uh Klay County is represented uh as really seen as a leadership uh role uh across the state in financial services. So I
didn't know she was going to say it, so I'm going to say it for her. Congratulations. Thanks for putting your name out there. That's really an asset for Klay County. >> Thank you. It was it was an honor to be nominated and elected and I'm just so thrilled to be in the position and drive
the organization forward for all of us. >> Fantastic. >> Yeah. Go ahead. >> I want to go back to my question. >> Yes. about two eligibilities or >> a year >> and from you now that just started in
26. >> Is that correct? >> Not yet. >> Oh, it's 27. >> Mhm. >> How do you expect that? Um to put pressure on what you're doing now and kind of initially as you plan for
that um where do you see it going? >> Yeah, absolutely. Could you go to the next slide? So um absolutely HR1 we have two big things on the horizon um HR1 changes big beautiful bill changes and then we also have a system
change coming that I will speak to as well but HR1 first so that will be our expansion population that's impacted by that. They'll be impacted by both the six-month reviews now instead of an annual review and they will have those work requirements or community engagement requirements. So that
population um for Klay County right now is approximately 2551 individuals. And rough calculations that we've been doing um for the renewal piece of it is we're looking that it's going to add around 40 45 hours per
month uh in doing those additional renewals. So definitely we're going to see a big workload increase there. >> And and along the way they're being every month they're checking in with their income verifications, are they not?
>> We have um periodic data matches that run in the background um with their social security number. So if they're if they apply, you know, start working at a job, then it will flag in our system and it will send out a they call it a discrepancy notice where the client will then need to resolve that with us or
then they could >> their case could close. So definitely it's not just you know once you're on you're right, you're good. There's that frequent checking. >> Yeah. So that's definitely >> how will two times a year help over one.
>> It would be an overall help to see the overall household composition and changes, right? So we'd be checking in more frequently on more than just income, you know, assets. Um did you get married? You know, did your
children move out? Are you no longer claiming someone as a tax dependent, which would change your household size and your income level or limit. So it it would definitely get us checking in on the households more frequently. >> Okay. Thank you for that. >> Absolutely.
>> So for the HR1 changes, we're looking for an increase in workload and administrative work. Absolutely. And timesensitive, right? Because renewals have to be processed by a certain date uh in the month. So some more pressure on our staff there. And then
additionally is the quest project. Now, the Quest project is something that uh some money was given from the federal government to the state of Minnesota specifically to fund a program for private health plans. So, not something
that the public does, but right now it's all in one system. And so, when there is an overlap of public and private, we do assist in that work sometimes. So, this Quest system or it's not the system name, the project will be creating a
system for only those private plans to migrate off of our MET system. Now, that's coming up here in June. So, we've been preparing for that. that we've been going through our trainings for that because there is going to be an impact to our staff with this as well of course um because we will be seeing an increase
in tasks and applications coming in because if they are if whatever this system that Quest will deem you know if they determine that they may be eligible for public programs will be sent the application. So it will be an increase
there or if they have changes that would somehow interface with our individuals, we'll have an increase there. And what we've been told from the state is that those tasks that will be coming over from this new system must be worked immediately as soon as we can. So we're
we're already making changes in the way that we do our workflow to try to have a higher priority for those tasks. But unfortunately that means then that applications and renewals will have to kind of balance that, right? So those where we would maybe spending the time
focusing solely on the applications and renewals, well now we have another thing that we were told is top priority sneaking in. So we're making a couple changes with our workflow now to solidify before this new system rolls out. All right. Thank you for the
presentation. I feel like a lot of the questions and comments we had in the first part of the um presentation certainly applies to some of the issues and components you're working with as well. Additional questions from the board, >> Madam Chair.
>> Yes, Commissioner Campbell. >> I pulled this one out because I'm going to keep this one. I when I talked to this board some more about our budget and what it means to seniors, um there's also another story here.
That's the affordability of people being able to stay in their homes. >> Thank you. >> Absolutely. And the without medical assistance, there would be a lot more pressure on our first responders and our emergency personnel as well, which puts more pressure on our entire community,
right? So, thank you. >> Thank you, Quinn. Any closing comments? Uh really the only thing I'd like to say is when when you uh heard some of the data behind how we're measured and the performance that exists, you heard uh I don't know what your takeaways are. My takeaways are we ask our eligibility
workers to do a lot with what they're given. The case loads are high. They've always been high. Um and yet they do a phenomenal job. I couldn't be more proud of our eligibility worker staff downstairs, nor with these two right here. Um, one of the things I took away from this is the leadership that we have
in these two is phenomenal and they really help guide really difficult and complex and sometimes bash my head against the wall silliness when it comes to the systems that they that they have to operate in. So, I couldn't be more proud of them as well. Thank you so much today.
>> Thank you you guys. >> Item six today, we will move into the request approval of the rate increases to the school nurse contracts. We have our public health director, Jessica Mickelson. Uh, Miss Beer is also here.
>> Good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. Uh, yes, we have two agenda items uh for you today. We'll start with um our school nurse contract. So, uh this is a regular visit to this commission to get these contracts updated. So currently Klay County Public
Health provides school nursing at two school d school districts. Uh we are out at DGF. Uh we have two full-time nurses there and then we're also at Yulan Hitterd Doll two times a month. So uh this is just the regular review of
getting these contracts updated. Um as you can see we are proposing a 3% annual increase for each of the upcoming um school years. Miss Mickelson, I think it's important also to highlight the fact that the
county is subsidizing some of the cost to that. Um, going back to Commissioner Campbell's um, comments on on budgets and how it's affecting our residents, making sure that the school district didn't have the full shift of what the cost is. Correct.
>> That is absolutely correct. So, um, the cost per hour for us to have these nurses out at the schools is $66.75 an hour. What we are proposing in our 3% increase is to uh increase from the $50
per hour that we were at for this current school year and move that to 5150 for the 2627 school year. and then an additional 3% increase for the 2728 school year to so uh to increase that to
5305. >> Madam Chair, I have a question. Not we're not even going to keep up with cola on that. That's way too low. I believe I think I don't think the whole county should be subsidizing the school districts. I think we should be at the 6675
>> to address 3% on top of that every year. >> Do you want to talk about the negotiation with that? How that >> um well, if I I included in my presentation here the agenda item the historical rights. Um so just historically we have not been keeping up
with the actual con cost to have the these staff and these nurses out there. Uh we feel it's a vital community service that the county is providing. We would be willing to really work with any of the school districts and we have had more school districts contracted with
Klay County Public Health previously. Uh but for one reason or another, those school districts have chosen to uh go a different route. Essentially, primarily they've hired their own nursing staff. >> Um but we feel that it's a really
important service. It keeps um the county really engaged and involved with these smaller school districts. Um and it allows us to provide quite a bit of support. Um and we we don't really know what those nursing services would look
like if there wasn't somewhat of a subsidy provided by the county to them. And and partially too, you know, it's the historical rates. if we came in and said, "Okay, we're going to start charging you the 6675," I don't believe that either school
district would renew the contract with us. But, uh, maybe to shed a little light to that, too, and I really appreciate Commissioner Bear's comments. It's similar to though how we deal with the, uh, school resource officers that
are in, um, you know, the sheriff's office has in those schools. I'm I'm fairly certain there is a a subsidy component to that as well because there are off calendar days of school that there's still county responsibilities.
Correct. I mean there's still county employees when school is not in session. >> Yes. >> That's a piece. But you I think it's important as we continue to discuss there are increases
that we are seeing and what the contract rate historically is has not kept up with what the cost is. >> Yeah. And you can see historically we've not done an annual increase. And so we're hoping by now kind of having this initial conversation with the school
districts kind of preparing them um that they may be seeing a more frequent increase. And I mean we're certainly willing to have that discussion with the superintendent. >> I certainly don't think Madam Chair that 3% is enough.
Well, you are bring Well, I just want to say you're six months in. Um I think it's certainly you're hearing the feedback and the comments. Uh yeah, I appreciate that there haven't been increases and you're proposing an increase trying to
figure out where to be. Um but I I think you've also heard from the board that there are concerns on how what what is the appropriate threshold. Commissioner Campbell. >> Yeah. I you know I again it's it's still
a total cost that's going to go on to the taxpayers whether whe whether some of it's county and one of its school district. Um I you know it goes to what we'll even talk about later on some of these um other public health fees that we charge. Um,
you know, I I I think the overall percentage that the school district is paying to the total value, you know, what they're paying what, maybe 80%. I I haven't done the math, but I'm guessing that's probably 80% >> that they're paying of that service. And
we're subsidizing the 20. But part of that um portion that we're subsidizing is the public expects that from the public health department, not from the school district. So there's that there's that component
of it as well that you know um you know if we're if we're going to just say uh let the school districts do it on their own, why have a public health department? I mean essentially it would eliminate the school nursing portion of our
>> Yeah. I mean so so I you know I think you know and sometimes maybe some some of the things that a school nurse might find within a school district might be something that's caught early that's preventing from getting worse throughout
the entire community. >> Right. >> Yes. and provides a lot of oversight um and support to the nurses and we also have a medical director that we're contracted with that we can reach out
to. Um so it's it's a lot more than just the daytoday supports that are provided within the school. Um there's kind of a community of support that these nurses provide in in those buildings. >> And keep in mind whatever whatever a a
school district has for an expense, it goes to all taxpayers within that school district boundary. Whether you have kids in school or you don't have kids in school, it's all still the same. So, I I you know, I
think, you know, we brought we were talking about this in pick and um you know, we weren't having these 3% every year for probably 10 years. And so at least it's pro, you know, by
having this 3%, we're probably keeping it close to always being at that maybe 8020 cost school district versus county. And I say 8020 because I I'm just throwing that number out, but it shouldn't change a lot.
>> Bar, Madam Chair, I don't think anybody's talking about not having this program in the schools. I'm just saying we need to bring that price closer to what reality is on what it actually costs us and what we're
subsidizing the school districts. Holly Holly School has a nurse in it. Barnesville, I'm pretty sure, has a nurse in it. Morehead has nurses in them. We're not subsidizing those school districts with their nursing system. This we are. We're subsidizing Ulinadol
and we're sub subsidizing DGF. And when you subsidize it, the whole county pays for it. Morehead residents are paying for DGF. Barnesville residents are paying for DGF. Holly residents are paying for DGF. I just I would like to see it. 3% is not
enough. >> I think those uh comments are certainly well um intended and they certainly make sense. The the challenging part is that as we're trying to figure out how to be the best partners, um you know, this you've had the opportunity to discuss
with the school districts, I think we're asking for maybe more information on how if it is to that full number and then how does that affect what services are able to be provided? I mean, it it does go into um we're seeing massive cuts to
some of our school districts because of their ability to pay for pieces. So I think it is a a definitely a delic delicate balance in in how we move forward. I think that with new leadership we are seeing the uh intent to address what that full need is. And I
would like to also uh lean into how our agreements with our school resources resource officers work as well because Morehead is paying for Morehead school resource officers. Is it 100%? That's not to you, but you know, a conversation that over the next budget cycle bringing
in the sheriff to discuss that component. Commissioner Kavanagh. >> Yeah. Um like to hear a little uh background. So the three districts that are not part of this, what's the history there? When did they pull out? Why did
they pull out? Does anybody know? Um, so speaking to Holly, we did hire um a public health nurse as a school nurse and at I don't know what year it was, but Holly did choose to hire that nurse um at the school.
>> Um and prior to that um the same thing happened in Barnesville. So this would have been in the last, you know, 101 15 years that that this would have happened. Um and Morehead has always had their own nurses. We have
never um hired nurses for Morehead. Um I don't know the history on that. >> Do we know the is there is there a reason why do you think >> um I wasn't in a supervisor role at that
time. So I I am unsure um what the what the reason was for them to do that. We could certainly reach out and >> well I think it'd be important to our conversation. >> I agree. I as we move into budget discussions as the school districts move
into budgets discussions I know you weren't prepared to have the historical on all of it and giving you the opportunity to provide that information so that we can further d um dissect it is important. Commissioner Camp. Madam Chair, one thing we need to keep in mind when we're doing these things is this
the school district district set their budgets. >> They have a different count they're on a they're on a fiscal year that I believe is July 1 and you know and we're on a calendar year. So uh we need to let them know >> because because they're they're about to
set their budget for the 2027 year. Uh we don't have till December to make this to make this change because they it wouldn't fit in their budget that then. So, um, you know, I I this is a good conversation. I think maybe maybe, you
know, part of the discussion that should be had with with these school districts that do contract with us is to, you know, and I think we talked about that in P to let them know that we are subsidizing them, you know, and and and then maybe we can find what would happen if if we were to go to the full rate.
What would you do? I think, you know, I think those those that those are important conversations to have. Uh but in the meantime, I think there's these school districts in particular want to know about signing a contract now. >> Yes.
>> Right. >> Thank you. I I think we have enough information to act on what's before us today. I appreciate all of the feedback. We do have to be um really cognizant and aware of the conversation about subsidizing others. the argument of of
someone who lives and prays pays property tax but only takes a trans the the bus system for instance could argue that they're subsidizing the payments in their property taxes for a transportation system and roads that they don't utilize at all. So that's part of uh the conversation on what the
benefit of the public health uh department is to the county as a whole, how we're able to help mitigate and identify some issues early on. Uh but certainly all of the comments were welcome today and I think we can make decisions moving forward.
>> Madam Madam chair were you guys um you know as I mentioned this was brought up to pick and the recommendation was to go with these rates for 2027 2028 >> 2026 school year >> 26 2 Yeah 26 27
>> and 28. Um, so I would I would move the approved 3% rate that was or move a 3% in rate increase for school years um as uh recommended by >> we have a motion offered that um
represents the memo provided to the board. >> I'll second >> and a second from Kim Kraban. Further questions, comments. >> Just one further comment >> bear. That's not even meeting COLA for the next two years with the contracts we signed. I mean, it should be at least four or
5%. If we want to keep up with cola at least point other discussion again, this is not a 100% this employee doesn't 100% of a calendar year work for the school districts. Correct. That is
correct. Any other discussion? All those in favor of the motion signify by saying I. I. >> Oppose. Same sign. >> I. >> Carried. Item seven is the request approval to increase the non-delegated
environmental health fees. We have Jessica with us again on this one. And then our public um health uh Mr. Severson. >> Yes. Hi. All right. Thank you, Kent. Uh so before you uh is a proposal to
increase the environmental health non-delegated fees imposed by um the environmental health department. Um as you can see from the proposal before you these fees have not been addressed in over 30 years. The last these have been
pretty much set as is since the 1990s. Uh so we determined it was probably time to take a look at them. So, um there is a graph before you with um each of the services, what the current fee is and what the proposed fee is. Um as we
looked at these, we did a regional comparison. Um we were well before or well below our region in all of the areas. Um but as we determined where we wanted the fees to be, we obviously
wanted to ensure fairness uh throughout um the county and we didn't want to go well above or well remain well below. So, um, we looked at the amount of work that goes into each of the services and
kind of factored in kind of a an hourly rate and included mileage and that is how we determined most of the fees. Um, with some of those that would have set us kind of above where the region is. And so then we did kind of a match with
what um, Becker County um, charges um, as part of our community health board. So, um I can list them off. I don't know if you need me to go through each line item of what they um what they are. Um
let's just highlight the propos or the ones that are changing. >> Um okay. So, the ones that are changing would be um our septic contractor permits. So, our current fee is 150 and we're proposing uh to increase that to $225
to match what Becker County is charging. Our homeowner Oh, sorry. Um, our homeowner insult inspection, we currently charge $300 and we're proposing to increase that to $460. Uh, and that would just be to cover the
cost of our labor and mileage. Um, compliance inspections, we're currently charging 150. We're proposing to increase that to $225 to match Becker County. Uh, water testing sample collection. This is a service that we're
not currently providing, but we would like to start doing it. Uh the current market rate that other entities are charging is $175. And so we're just proposing to match what they're charging. We didn't want to go over or under. We didn't want to get flooded
with all of those referrals, but it's a service that we're capable of providing. And so we thought it would make sense for us to to offer that to the community. uh regarding uh demolitions. Um so for small residential demolitions,
so this would be like a shed uh maybe a one stall garage type size. Um we're currently charging $50 for all of our demolition fees. Uh for small demolitions, we'd like to keep that at $50. Uh for a large residential
demolition, so for example, a house, um we're currently charging $50. we'd like to increase that to h 100red. Uh and then for a commercial demolition, that fee is currently set at $50 and we'd like to increase that to $310.
And again, we factored in the average number of hours staff spend doing um that service and then added a little for mileage as well. >> Questions from the board, Commissioner Campbell. >> Thank you. Uh on the
on these fees, are are we talking mostly uh residential and areas that are fall outside of our incorporated cities? >> For the uh septic fees, yes, for demolition obviously that is across the board rural and urban.
>> So So those demolition fees, for example, Morehead has depends on you to be involved with that. >> Yes. Okay. So they go through you and not they don't have their own internal agency that does that. >> No, typically uh I will do the
inspection and asbestous analysis. Uh a lot of the commercial uh projects will require them to um have a consultant do the asbestous analysis and then I'll analyze that and uh oversee the abatement, make sure that's done. Um
I'm not sure. Am I answering your >> Yeah, I think so. Yeah. And then and then um I just want to point out the water testing. I think that's great. I as we're working on this uh regional water project right now and we have a report on that in our committee reports.
But um there's an awful lot of people who are being more and more interested now in having their water tested when they're learning about the arsenic and all those other things that are there. So when you do that, are you going to have the ability to do the complete
testing within your within or do you have will you receive the samples and send them out and then get the the information back? >> Yeah, that's a great question, Commissioner Campbell. Um what that water testing fee entails is what we're
seeing with lenders on real estate transactions is there's a uh a very large uptick in requiring a third party to sample the water for real estate transactions. Um, back in the day when we did have our county water lab, that
was something that we did regularly as part of our septic inspections was if we were going to be on the property for a septic inspection, we'd collect the water samples and we'd actually analyze the water ourselves in our own lab. Uh, currently, as you know, we don't have our lab, but we have a a an agreement
with R&B Laboratories in Detroit Lakes where residents can come in and get sample kits from us and then bring them back and there's a courier service that will bring them. So what our plan would be is when someone is interested in us collecting these samples for them, we
will bring them back to our own building here and then that will be taken care of by the courier service for bringing them to the lab. >> And so the proposed fee that you're establishing will cover all of those costs. >> Yes. Uh I should back up, not the costs
for R&B. They they would still be paying for the testing through R&B. we would be taking care of collecting the sample and that's and the sample getting to um the lab by the courier and then they would still be responsible for the testing
commissioner Kavanagh. >> Yeah, just follow up on that. Um so for all these um I guess for all the tests I did I always did them but I understand third party because I know uh
for sure there was always suspicion of what well water was coming out of you know so I think you're doing that's good that you're doing that as safeguard. So, in the past, there had never uh been a charge to go out and grab the
water to get it to deal. >> In the past, we had an $8 pickup fee. >> Okay? >> And and I should add to this, this is not intended to be a regular practice that we're performing. This the thought
with this fee is the demand, maybe demand isn't the right word, but the uh the uh the need from lenders needing a third party to be sampling. And >> what we did with that fee was to look
and see what other uh private sector um places are charging for that because we didn't want to be well below and then get flooded with additional things that we're doing with that. Well, the one reason I did the collection, number one, I trust myself that I do it correctly.
Number two, timeliness. And, you know, that there's that risk. You know, when things are happening, you got to be moving on a a pretty quick pace. You know, does 30 third party meet that obligation? Yes. Yeah. You know what I
mean? >> Yep. When you're dealing with a 30-hour uh Yeah. >> old time for the bacteria. Yeah. >> Samples. Yes. It gets interesting to time when you're taking that sample and when to get it. Yes. >> Right. Okay. And then on the other one, I just want to ask I as I view these
increases uh with my experience, I I think they're um in line. I I guess I want to Yeah, I know you gave it great thought, but there was a certainly a great amount of work to these some of these systems. And I knew and I know
even your new designs maybe even a little more at times with soil types. So yeah, very good. >> Appreciate that. >> Commissioner Abinger. >> Yeah. Uh Commissioner Bear and I serve on the the uh partnership for health. We
reviewed the delegated environmental issues for increases last Friday. >> Yep. >> Yep. And it passed uh from the partnership. Uh I think staff has done a good job of looking what's reasonable. One of the considerations on the
delegated issues were inspections of restaurants. Uh and staff took into effect what Fargo is charging in a competitive market. We wanted to make sure that we stayed competitive. A lot of thoughts been put into this. So I
that being said, I'd like to approve the proposed increases to the non-elegated environmental health issues and that would be effective June 1st. >> Motion offered from Commissioner Evinger to approve as presented in the packet, a second from Commissioner Kavanagh. Any
further discussion? >> Just just one question, Madam Chair. >> Home homeowner install inspection. Is that me personally putting in the tank or hiring a third party to put in a tank? That would be uh homeowner personally. So what we see with those by
code by the state code and our county ordinance, if we have a septic system that needs to be installed and it's a pressurized system, anything at the surface or a mound system, a homeowner is not able to install those. Uh if it's a gravity system or a holding tank, a
homeowner is able to install those with a uh design from a licensed designer. What we wanted to do there is we are seeing such an uptick in shops that are going up that have a bathroom and so forth. Um we've kind of drawn a line in
the sand where uh due to th those numbers being increasing the way that they are um if it was if it's planned on the building permit for only a bathroom, we will allow for a holding tank being that if we put in a full system and it's not getting enough use, those are going
to freeze up during the winter. So, we're trying to recognize what's happening here and adjust with what's happening in the market with these shops. Um, if it's if there's living space involved, then we're looking at a two-bedroom minimum size, but we did not
want the uh holding tank charge for a homeowner to uh follow the other homeowner install charge. Um, try again trying to uh remain fair and uh so questions.
>> Any other questions? All those in favor of the motion signify by saying I >> I >> opposed. Same sign carried. Thank you both. >> Madam Chair, I >> could Steve >> uh just want to thank Jessica and uh transitioning into her role. Uh there's
been many different things that we've asked her to look at uh as a commission. Uh I know that uh balancing balancing fees is something that this board takes very seriously in in one providing uh the context of paying for the services
in some cases provided versus the impact it has on the citizens. Uh but we do want to thank you for for bringing these forward. >> You thank you both. The next item eight is the request approval to authorize the relocation of the social services
healthcare financial team to suite 200 of the family service center and discuss the corresponding fitup charge. Okay. Good morning madam chair, board members. Yes. Uh today we're talking about suite 200 up there on the second floor family service center. Um just to
do a little recap on the history of this past year uh we had a current plan to um move some of public health's employees into there and I think um um between um Jessica Mickelson and Quinn had gotten together and did some internal um moves
that would uh free up some of that space for public health. And so sweet 200 did become vacant. And um what we did is we got together between Quinn and Jessica and I and started discussing what really is um would be an appropriate use and
and some future planning for for their departments and their space needs. So I think um what we're proposing is to move a division of um Quinn's financial team up there and he'll he'll go explain that a little bit more. But I um if you were
to ask us now uh his financial team's not completely out of space. they everybody has a space. It is full. Um but this would be a demand that would pop up within the next year or two. Uh anyway, so we're proposing to move them up there and this would be um eligible
for some reimbursement costs from the state. Um and that would also include the fitup costs as well. So um I can let Quinn kind of explain that a little bit more. And >> well Joe did a good job with the history there. Um again, just to be crystal
clear, we don't absolutely have to do this today. Um however, this would be a huge space needs uh fix for I would say all of social services. Um this board was very gracious in allowing us to take over the public health uh defender space uh last year, which kind of solved our
fifth and fourth floor problems. This plan would solve our first four first floor pro problems as well. Um, if you remember Michaela's PowerPoint from earlier when she showed the graph of people, we would be moving the Mets healthcare team from downstairs up to
second floor. Um, what's what's nice about this, as Joe said, is we would this is eligible for uh FFP from the federal government. So, we would would receive 50% reimbursement for not only the building rent, but for the fit up costs as well. Um, it is
important to note that because the healthcare team is, I'm going to say, the right fit. We looked at a lot of different options as to who should move and and what combination of staff would move if needed to cause as little disruption as possible that it ended up being the healthcare side of things. Um,
if it was the uh SNAP and cash team, we would be looking at only 25% FFP based on the big beautiful bill. So, it is fortunate that it's the 50% because it's the healthcare side of it. Um to clarify the reimbursement as well, kind of how the federal financial participation
works is it's not like we submit an invoice and then get 50% of the invoice back. What ends up happening is those expenses are reported as a part of our overall operational cost and then we get a proportion of that back. So this is a very large revenue line in our budget, but it's never broken out by 50% for
this staff or 50% for this invoice. It's just all thrown into what's called the cost pool. That makes sense. Okay. Questions from the board? >> Just one comment. >> Commissioner Bear. >> One comment. Madam Chair. This went through the building committee and it was approved.
>> Additional comments. >> Hearing none. I'll make a motion to authorize re relocation of the healthcare finance team to sweet 200 in the family service center. Second. >> We have a motion offered from Commissioner Bayer, a second from Commissioner Ebinger. What's that?
>> Okay. Additional discussion, >> further discussion. >> All those that motion also has uh the associated fit up costs and product. >> Okay. Does that reflect the second? Okay. >> All those in favor of the motion signify by saying I
>> I >> oppose. Same sign carried. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Item nine today. Thanks, Quinn. Item nine today is a request approval to pro uh seed with the power plant roof replacement project. >> Joe, >> yes.
>> I assume this went to building committee as well. >> Yeah, we brought this to building committee and and um it's it's the original roof from 1972. Uh just to give props to my maintenance staff that we've been patching this for 20 years. It's been uh uh it's been a it's Yeah, it's
outlived its life. So, what we did is we got three different quotes and um we're proposing to move ahead with a replacement um this summer and um so I'm and this is actually on our capital plan as well and we're going to be using fund 19 which has uh sufficient funds in
there to do that and so um I'm asking to move forward with the low quote of ANR roofing at 88,860. >> Thank you for the presentation. I also want to say that the work of your staff has allowed us to push this to a point in where we didn't incur that enormous
cost at the at a time in which we're doing some other significant input into cost of buildings. >> Uh they do a great job of saving us money and figuring it out. So I know once it comes to us that it's likely uh you've reached the point of no return. Maybe fair to say. >> You're right, Madam Chair.
>> Questions from the board. >> Just one comment. >> Commissioner Bear. This this went through the building committee with approval. >> And with that, I'll make a motion to proceed with a power plant roof replacement project by accepting the low code from ANR roofing in the total
amount of to $88,860. >> Okay. We have a motion offered to replace and proceed the project and also to approve the uh bid from ANR roofing in the amount of 88860. A second offered from Commissioner Evinger.
Additional discussion. Additional discussion. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppose. Same sign. Carried. Thank you. We are >> Thanks, Joe. We are a little behind, but I am going to go ahead and call for a
fivem minute break briefly. Thank you. TV's on. Okay, we are back to address item 11 on the board agenda today is the Klay County Board of Commissioners consideration of a draft ordinance language for the 2026 deer hunting
season. >> Good morning. >> Can I clarify something? >> Um, obviously it came up during the public hearing of when the board can readress something. Is that why it's titled the 2026
instead of leaving the date off of it. >> Uh during our during our April 7th meeting of the public hearing, uh after at the end of that meeting, this board uh requested to have an ongoing discussion based on the information that
was provided both in written form and oral form uh to move uh move the decision or the discussion and decision until April 21st. And that's why that it's dated that way. >> Got it. >> All right. >> All right. Uh thank you, Madam Chair. As
this board, as I just stated, this board had a public hearing on April 7th. Uh we had the opportunity to have many of our citizens uh here to provide uh their insight. We appreciate their willingness to to take part in active government. Uh
we highlighted the state statute changes uh the repeal of 97b.318 and and subsequently uh the new state statute 97b.031 031. Uh that made the state of Minnesota a rifle zone. Uh
subdivision number seven provided each county board the opportunity uh the and the authority to limit firearms and hunting. Uh this board had a work session this past year. Uh and at that that point requested that we get county input on this topic. And so again,
subsequently we had the public hearing on the 7th. During that meeting, uh we talked about options for this commission to consider. Uh we we listed here. We'll go into a little bit more detail uh on the future slides. Our commission had a discussion
uh and we had uh citizen input that was provided. Uh again, the public hearing was closed uh and uh and it was the decision to u move any further discussion uh to to today to allow for additional time to reflect on the
testimony and the both oral and written. Uh again, this is just a statute that we talked about that allows this board to adopt an ordinance that that would adjust it just based on the rifle rifle
statute portion uh in limiting uh the number of type of firearms that may be utilized. Again, the goal that this board had is to meet the deadline of May 5th uh to asssure that with the adoption of any ordinance, if there were to be one, uh that the DNR could be notified
so it could go into the hunting booklets. Uh again, option number one that we discussed, again, as a reminder, was just to take no action. Uh the statute that is in place that came in place January 1st of this year, uh stated that the entirety of Klay County would allow
for the use of rifles. Uh and if that were the decision this board would uh take, there would be no ordinance required. Uh ordinance two that we discussed very briefly was a shotgun only uh making the entire county shotgun uh only. Uh again,
there wasn't a lot of traction uh that came with that discussion, but did want to include that uh in because it was part of the initial packet. Option three, uh, one of the things that this board talked about during our work session and subsequent public hearing
was to make sure that we had, uh, we had verification from the Minnesota DNR on any enforcement questions. Uh, we received a letter we received a letter from the division of enforcement at DNR that stated that they would be uh, any ordinance that this county would provide
that was different uh, than the state statute. Uh, they would enforce any ordinance. uh and encouraged us to put that verbiage uh in in our ordinance if uh if that would be helpful. So the carveout areas that we initially
spoke about here uh were where where state highway 9 would separate our county. Uh on the right side uh right side or the east side of the county would be a rifle zone. Uh and uh on the west side rifles would not be would not
be a west side of count state highway 9 would not be allowed to be utilized. In addition, if and this is what the map of of that would look like. Again, the option three ordinance. Again, we highlighted the yellow area.
Uh talked about the enforcement piece from from the DNR. Uh that was included uh to ensure ensure I guess an extra layer of asking for enforcement help from the Minnesota DNR. Uh option 3B kind of came uh as part of
our discussion I think uh with the public hearing. Uh we had uh that Klay County would essentially be split at state highway uh 32 and I 94 uh against which was in basically the same enforcement areas that we had uh in the
2025 uh 2025 deer hunting season. Rifles could be utilized east of Highway 32 and south uh south of State Highway uh 34 to Barnesville. And rifles would not be able to be utilized uh through the remaining part of the county.
Uh and again, this is the map that we had at the public hearing uh and that highlighted where deer hunting rifle hunting was allowed last year. >> Yes. I think it's important to note too, you
know, we presented this during the hearing, but um this might get referenced today as part of the discussion. These are the the zones in which DNR has. Uh so the hunting zones 262 269 that 666 is that uh chronic
wasting disease uh zone up in the northeast corner and then obviously you have the corner of of 239 uh in the southeast portion of Klay County. So just so folks are aware if we reference those four numbers that's what
that means. Okay. Uh and again uh this this gives you the the comparison of of the two carveouts that were discussed at the public hearing just for for comparison. Uh and then I think in in talking with
Mr. Melton after the public hearing again as a board you have a decision these are these are the things that we spoke about in our work sessions in the public hearing. Uh but ultimately you could carve out a a completely different um enforcement area if those were your
wishes. Uh so again we are fortunate to have many citizens that came uh to to listen and also provide testimony. Uh we had a total of 59 uh comments received. 26 were in person during the public
hearing. Uh we also allowed several weeks for our citizens to provide online submissions if they weren't able to make it or were not big fans of public speaking and we received 33 of those uh online submissions. We cut that off
right as the meeting started. Uh we had of those of those 59 uh testimonies, we had 20 that requested to move to all rifle. We had 30 that said continue with what's in place during the 2025 uh
season at Highway State Highway 32. Uh we had six that said split it at at state highway 9. And we had three that were indifferent. They provided facts, no opinions or um or just asked questions. Uh and again, as we touched
on earlier, uh this board requested that a decision be delayed uh for you guys to to uh review all the testimony submitted uh till today. Uh and so that brings us to to our discussion this morning. I thought I'd yield for any questions.
>> Thank you. Any questions for Steve? >> Comments, madam >> chair. >> Yes. So the the page that you showed the rifle where the hunting zones the the hunting zones don't change do
they from according to the DNR. >> That is that's correct. The hunting zones are the same. I think it's important to note too that the zones may not change, but uh as you look in past maps, there have been times in which 265 for instance north um uh
north um of us had had two different uh qualifications for what was allowed. And so making sure um they are able to accurately articulate that. Maybe 666 is a better 666 is a better
example. So that one goes into Becker P or Norman and Clay and at the Clay Norman line north of uh north of 200 uh rifles were allowed in that and then east. So I mean we are able to carve out
but I think in terms of communication for residents how DNR produces the maps just making sure that we're able to utilize that explanation as well as help. >> So m Madam Chair I do have another to to Commissioner Campbell's question. And I do have another slide here that uh that we created. Uh we received kind of an
overlay from uh the Minnesota DNR website. Uh it one kind of expands not the full full zones, but it talks about it shows all of Klay County and then our our neighbors uh neighbors to the north, east, and south. Uh it also the orange
area, the orange the orange lines are the break the breakouts of each of the deer. uh uh different deer sections uh for hunting. Uh the black of course are the counties. Uh and then it is broken down if you see in in dots versus diagonal. I know it's
kind of hard to see in this map. Uh but also kind of shows uh what our neighbors what our neighbor what decision our our neighbors have made uh in in the counties around us. >> So the solid orange lines are the zone boundaries.
>> That's correct. So that if you look at above Ottertale in the the bottom right corner 239 that goes up just east of follows the interstate and then goes east of Barnesville there and then up 32 to where that 241 line is. So it's important to
see that. >> Ryan, I do have a handout if it's help more helpful for the board to see it. >> Yes, Commissioner Campbell has a question. >> So So on this map right here, I we see that um zones 666.
But you said that orange line. So what's what's in that yellow below that orange line? What zone is that? >> Yes, >> that would be. >> Okay. >> Okay. And do we know um we so everything
um east of the county line on Becker side is rifle. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> That is correct. >> And how about Norman County? >> Norman County is also rifle >> in that area. So that area of 666 that
goes in Norman County is all rifle. >> That's correct. >> I'm sorry. And that was the cutout on the northernmost uh boundary uh for the entire state really. It's basically the Clay Norman line which was the shotgun zone to 32. Then once it cuts over at 34
to Barnesville, it basically headed uh the interstate uh all the way down to Alex and then there was some cutouts >> and then back in >> Thank you, Madam Chair. in 07 and 08 262 and 666 were also rifled for those two
years just so everybody's aware of that. Okay. Additional questions, discussion. I mean, what what I would like to see, Madam Chair, is to carve out the whole
666 into rifle, give it a year, and see how it goes and take input from our sheriff after next hunting season because to have three different counties provide in the same hunting zone, it' make it a lot more simpler if the
whole zone would be rifle, especially if we're moving it from 32 to number nine on that map. So that's I would I would like to see that at least go into into rifle if not the whole county. >> Commissioner Kavanagh
just doing discussion of all views. >> I think that's fair. We did not have discussion after the public hearing. This board has not had an opportunity to provide discussion. >> Okay. for discussion here. I guess um um I'm very strongly in favor of leaving
the line at 32. Um we heard overwhelming testimony in people uh um in that Felton area. Um,
I've had count countless phone calls um that nine is just too far west. We had testimony about the state land that's through the area. Police from people um
you know stories people around the Felton area and um that were opposed to it. I think our numbers show that keeping it abs is in other words which is number 3B
option 3B is what the public has told us um they want uh I want to say from my point of view as a person who's hunted probably 50 seasons hunted in other counties
other states Um, I'm just This is about Some are saying it's not safety, but I believe it is safety. Um, I've heard bullets over my head.
I've I've grown up hunting with a a bolt action, so one shot. Of course, I have a magazine in there. I can shoot more. So, that's uh what I have. But I have a lot of friends that shoot automatics,
semi-automatics. And I see a lot of I don't know if I call it beginner, but people that don't aim very well with automatics. >> Nobody's using it. Madam Chair, nobody's using an automatic to
>> semi-automatic. There you go. Excuse me. >> Thank you. He did say semi-automatic in the first part of his >> Yeah. Sorry about that. And when uh I just think there's a safety element there. I know what some of the testimony
was, but when you start taking long range rifles and blurting off five bullets because the thing's out 200 and some yards and you're just giving hail Marys, I just don't think it's safe. My
last point will be it's about this area has been established long enough to give com people a comfort of kind of what's around them, how it's around them. And uh I I just think there will be a lot
lot more comfort in knowing that there aren't new changes going on that may affect their comfort and safety while they hunt
in these areas. That's what I have. >> Thank you, Commissioner Kavanagh. Additional comments. >> Commissioner Campbell. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I I mentioned after the hearing that I
part of my decision was going to be uh significantly important regarding safety. Um, last week our county board had a small cities meeting in Barnesville and I took
I I 94 uh on my way there um from from here to Barnesville and unlike any time before, I paid attention to tree lines where potential hunting could be
happening along that area. And this I'm talking about mostly talking about 269 >> and the number of eligible areas for rifle hunting in that area and tree lines even close to the interstate. We
you know we talk about safety in terms of of you know we heard an awful lot from people who concerned about their homes and stray bullets maybe in their homes. And I started thinking, what about a stray bullet just on traffic
that could be flowing on I94? Uh, now again, I know there's the personal responsibility thing that's there, but people do miss and when you miss that bullet still goes somewhere.
Um, and the further it goes, the more unsafe it is, as far as I'm concerned. But, um, I I just wanted to point that out. Um, I I you know, it seems to me I heard more I certainly heard more testimony
about keeping it the same, especially in that southern area. I I don't remember and maybe Commissioner Kramers were more, but I I do know there was some concern up in that Felton area, too, but um I do not support going rifle uh
within the entire county. I I just I can't support that. Um, and I just want to point out that until the state made this change in my time as commissioner, I had never
had one call suggesting to me that we should change the boundaries of hunting. Not one in my entire time on this board until this issue came up. Um, so in a way I'm kind of if if it's not
broke, why fix it, you know? But I again I I'm I still want to hear from my fellow commissioners on their thoughts on it. >> Thank you, Commissioner Campbell. Commissioner Evinger. >> Yes. In the in the five years that I've
been on on the commission, I have never had the kind of feedback that I've gotten on this issue. Not just people showed up here, but emails, even a text asking me to call and talk to them.
Four of the people I responded to live east of of of nine and all of them were unanimous in telling me that they did not want to have rifles. Three of them were hunters.
One is a farmer who or rancher his cattle who has state land abudding his property that he incur he allows people into part of his property to hunt with shotguns. None of them wanted a rifle.
I've had an opportunity in my career to build well to repair the the current Morehead uh police range where we put the wall up and then I commanded a a police academy
in Little Rock where we had three ranges and we built them. And I'm familiar with ballistics and I'm familiar with where the rounds go. Um, I'm also aware that once we went to semi-automatic pistols, there was always there were always people that did the
spray and prey approach to hitting the target where we'd have to talk to them about you're responsible for where your rounds go. That's going to happen no matter how hard you try to have pe when people are out with a weapon that they can rapid
fire and they want to hit a target. Um, what compels me to be supportive of the 3B proposal is simply I've talked to people that are living and farming out there. And even if you even if the ballistics
and the the the data doesn't support it, their comfort on their own property needs to be taken into account. And as Commissioner Campbell just put it, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. We've not had a big problem with uh
hunters or or or bystanders being hit with with loose rounds. And you know, let's give it a shot in 666 and see how it goes in a year. I don't know if it would make any difference or not, but
the people that are living there would feel unheard and they would feel uh uncomfortable when they hear the a rifle is posted with shotgun. And I think what's predominant in my decision making is the
people that live and work out there, what they're telling me. And I think I think they need to be heard. So, I'm going to be supportive of the 3B on this. >> Thank you, Commissioner Ebinger. Commissioner Bear, >> I'm one that lives and works in 666.
Those are my constituents up there. I've heard two to one in that zone specifically that they want to go to rifle, being out and about in the community, two to one, that they want that zone at least to go to rifle. And we had 26 people if you figure the 20 that said
all rifle and six if you lump them into the east side of nine. So there was 26 people here that talked about wanting rifle. So it wasn't overwhelming support to stay shotgun. There was 30 30 people that said shotgun, 26 that said rifle. I
would not say that's overwhelming support. I'd say that's pretty close to 50/50. Additional questions, discussion, discussion >> I mean we can always madam chair we can always look at this again after a year
or two and see how it goes. >> So my understanding commissioner bearer is based on how it is advertised and my question earlier is because this is a draft ordinance for the 2026 deer season it will have to be redised moving
forward. Is that >> fair? >> That was my understanding. >> You would? Yes. >> Yes. And part of the discussion from citizens were uh how what would trigger the board to readress this? What does it
look like going forward? Is it every three years? Is it every four years? Is it annually? I think because of the way this has been drafted, it has to be next year. But >> but also I I would uh Madam Chair, the the statute itself required or discussed
the idea of of an annual um review. So the statute stated if something new is put into place, meaning if if you left it rifle, I don't know you would I don't think you'd have to review it every year. Correct. >> But if you >> nor do we need to act, >> right? You wouldn't even need to act. But if you're acting and making
something, then the statute has a review in there. That's a annual review. So >> Okay. >> I I believe you have. >> Okay. Commissioner Campbell. >> And And does that annual review require public hearing? >> I'm not sure. I I didn't look at that exact
>> I thought it did, but I Right. I I think >> I believe it does, but I just I'm okay. >> And and again, it might be advisable after one year to have a public >> hearing again anyway, just to hear how it's gone. And I think it'd be advisable anyway. >> Thank you.
One of the things this board talked about at our work session and discussion with the attorney's office and the sheriff's department was that we really wanted to hear from residents on how this would affect them. That was something that counties weren't necessarily part of the dialogue at the
capital when these hearings happened. No counties testified on any part of this and we wanted to hear from residents on how uh one what their situation and perspective is but how this would affect them. Um I have u hunted in all of these
zones so I'm very familiar with all of the different topography and concerns of residents. I did hear uh fairly significant lines in different uh perspectives on where people um felt
like uh a change would be most appropriate. And I think it is uh our um job I I certainly feel like it's my job any decision I make must be in alignment with what our chief public safety officer's recommendation is. there are
significant uh concerns for safety that have been um raised from the sheriff's department. So I want the action of this board to uh take into account that perspective as well. It was clear that um yes there was comments six
specifically on the Highway 9 split. I also had comments that uh because people weren't aware of what the Highway 9 split was had uh personal comments to me that were different. it is um fairly even with what residents are wanting and
I uh will say I didn't hear overwhelming support for 262 to be rifle or 269 to be rifle. If you look at the comments uh the public hearing sign in we were afforded um to see where uh folks live.
we um the responses that people reached out to me um they it's pretty clear that if there was perspective on all rifle the majority of those folks came from north of Highway 10 uh and on the
eastern side of the county. I think that a there was maybe concerns from some of those comments that the county board would talk about making 32 and east all shotgun. I did not hear that from or all rifle or no all shotgun. I didn't hear
that from anyone. So I think there are different ways to interpret what the inperson testimony was with the online testimony. Uh, and based on the averages, I my my stance of the where I would support it uh certainly would
allow um east of nine in the 239 zone to continue to be uh rifle uh 269 and 262 certainly to be uh shotgun only. Um, and then I, you know, I could probably, uh,
because there is a a 2026 date on this review what 666 looks like, but I I don't want to minimize that. Uh, even though there were comments for rifle, there were also residents that uh, were active hunters that also did not want
rifle in that zone, too. So, I think um, approaching this from a staggered position is is taking into all of the voices and saying, "Listen, we heard you. We were glad to provide the opportunity. Here's where the majority of the comments lied. Um certainly this
discussion uh or action is not going to make everybody happy, but what I am really proud of is that we allowed residents the time and space to provide their perspectives. And then certainly it is the onus on us to take into
account the variety of uh viewpoints and uh perspectives and figure out what makes the most sense for Klay County. Additional comments. >> Madam Chair, >> Commissioner Bear, >> I'll make a motion to have zone 666 to
go all rifle and 239 to stay rifle and zone 262 and 269 to go shotgun. >> So for clarification, my understanding is uh 666 has been 266 in the past as well. So, I just want to make sure
because of the CWD, we're want to make sure everyone understands what that 666 would would be. >> Highway highway 9 down to Highway 10 on the norththeast corner of the county. >> And then the cutout for 239. >> And the cutout for 239.
>> We have a motion to that effect. >> I I will second it for sake of conversation. >> We have a second from Commissioner Campbell. And again, you know, when we I think of it from the standpoint of the number of
uh conversations I've had with people similar to what Commissioner Erbinger was talking about, certainly south of Highway 10, there there was a I think a strong strong sentiment towards
uh needing to keep that shotgun, you know, other other been uh east of 32. >> Mhm. >> You know, I I think it I think the people even south of Highway 10 in that area east of 32 were I didn't hear anybody saying, "Well, you should just
eliminate rifle there." Um, you know, I I could support this motion just from the standpoint that uh if you know if we're including in there or if we're under the understanding that this requires a one-year review.
Let's let's you know, we could see what happens there. Um cuz if anything the majority of the people who did prefer and this goes to what Commissioner Bearer did say is I think the people who wanted all rifle
most of them were from that 666 area. Madame Chair >> Bear >> I'd like to amend my motion to have it expire January 1st. Can we do that? So then we have to deal with it.
>> Well, well, we have to no matter what. I think the statute requires it. >> I think you have to withdraw that amendment. >> You know, you have to do that. >> The amendment is withdrawn. >> Yeah. Okay. I wouldn't support that either because if if if it just goes away, then we go then it goes back to
the states, which would be all rightful. >> So I don't >> Yeah, >> I wouldn't support that as my motion. >> Additional discussion. >> I mean, we So what >> Commissioner Bear? 666 was rifle in 2007
and 2008. So that area has used rifles in the past. So it's not something that's going to be brand new for that zone. Just to clarify that. >> Thank you. Any additional questions?
>> Commission. I'll add um I'll be honest, as much as I don't like it knowing it's one year, maybe I'm in love with that. Um and hearing just what you said, if there's been two years there already.
Um, I hope that would when we have a next public hearing hear a better voice for or not to that specific area even though I still bothered by it, but I I can go
with it for one year. >> Commissioner Campbell. You know, I I do I do like the idea that we're um making this decision also incorporating current zones that are established by the DNR. >> I agree. >> DNR.
>> Yeah. >> You know, so we're not we're not trying to split one zone. Um >> Yeah. >> You know, so I think I think it's it's worth a try. Um, is it any less safe in in 666 than the
others? I don't know. Um, Commissioner Bear will find that out, I guess. >> Yeah. >> Commissioner Abinger, >> in uh in light of the fact that generally if everybody leaves a little bit unhappy, it's good legislation.
Um, I'm willing to look at that, but the people that I've spoken to who have concerns about this, I want them to know it's just going to be one year. And you
certainly hope that we don't find out that it's a problem the hard way. But if this is something that impacts on their quality of life and impacts on their concerns for the safety of themselves and their family and their
their their their homes, uh we will look at this in a year and we will have the public coming in and we will listen. We've listened this time. I'm going to yield to the fact that it's Commissioner Bear's district and he's is
we know he's well in touch with the people there and I take him at his word. But if there are problems, they'll be addressed in a year. We'll see how this works. >> Yeah. >> So, I'll join the consensus on that. >> You know, I I think it's important that
we look at where the feedback is coming from. There were uh questions in regards to the Felton area. My my hope is that we are addressing what those concerns are. Hopeful that uh some sort of compromise um pro makes the most sense
to uh move forward. This isn't something that is going to be uh thrilling to every party involved. But what I'm hopeful is that our community hears that this board really wanted to take into account all of the different
perspectives and um weigh what that is. I don't think uh sweeping uh decisions from St. Paul uh always u make local folks happy either and this is the
product of a lot of conversation with a lot of people. Any other comments? >> I I think Madam Chair, maybe I I'll make a comment too and just uh you know, with the Steve and I or the help of staff, you know, we're we're putting together
proposed uh wording uh within an ordinance just based on um uh the the work uh workg group side of things, the public comment, uh just some of those discussions. And so I think as Steve
stated um uh earlier, this is exactly what the board can do. The board can make their ordinance and and so I expect or I I think everybody knows what they're voting on, but the wording itself is not currently captured in any written document. Correct.
>> So we would you can adop adopt that and vote that today. we'll work on and make a document that that def defines those lines, you know, so that I think it's all explained and understood, but we'll just need to do that at a later >> to update the resolution language. >> Correct. And if I'll go to Commissioner
Campbell in a moment, but I think what is uh the most important out of that is we were able to capture and then articulate the concerns from residents and and it um it we heard from folks at the public hearing differently than we thought we might hear from folks. And so
making sure today that we're addressing that as as noted, adding the zones as they were uh during the hunting season last year is helpful to identifying what the ordinance language would be. Correct.
Commissioner Campbell, did you have a >> Yeah, I just wanted to point out uh going to Attorney Melton's um comments, I think the the area that we don't have the language in is pertains to um section 11 1.1. That would have to be that would have to
be redefined according to the motion, right? Isn't that what we're talking about? I think if you looked um three, option 3B had language in it that was capturing the the uh highway 32.
Uh and that language is actually what came from originally the the statute from before and and define that down and but now we'll be able to to change language to capture using nine down to
highway 10 down to 32. I mean we can change that language. So I think there's probably two paragraphs I >> the 34 to 94 would be I mean that zigzag. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Correct. Yes madam chair. >> Okay. And so I I just was looking and I had it up on my computer and now it went
black. But I think as as Steve outlined, I think it's that yellow one has some language in it. And then also that 1 would probably need some language change. So we again we can work on that in wordsmith. Those are words that I
mean once you vote and you're capturing what you've said here, I think everybody understands that. We just don't have a written out document yet for actual words. I just want to make sure that was clear to the board. >> And does that second the whereas after the highlighted does that need to be as part of the factf finding components or
can our discussion be >> right no none none of that I mean again all of this is words they're really ultimately your words they're draft words that >> that Mr. Larson and I worked on just to
have capturing what's on there so they can they can be whatever they are. I just wanted to make sure you're aware that as you vote, you're not actually >> a lot of times in planning commission, it's very easy to >> change that on the fly. That's really not here. We'll need to capture this
after the fact in a written document that you can then again look at make sure that >> so clarification um we don't identify the ordinance as part of the motion the the ordinance number rather since it hasn't been
captured. I feel like generally, not generally, all of us understand exactly what the motion and second and mapping means, but it does need to be reviewed from our attorney. And I think that's part of the the >> Does that make sense?
>> Yep. >> Does that make sense? >> And then and then the one point. The enforcement that's the same language no matter what we choose, right? So yeah, >> that because that was also a topic of concern early on in our discussions is
how is this enforced and and I so I think that what it that doesn't need to be changed. >> All right, very good. >> Further questions. Last call. Any other discussion on the motion before us? >> Madam Chair, I'm going to ask for a roll
call vote. >> Thank you. I have already asked for one. Thank you, Sarah. Commissioner Krabanha, >> yes. >> Commissioner Bear, >> yes. >> Commissioner Mojo, >> yes. >> Commissioner Campbell, >> yes. >> Commissioner Ebinger, >> I thank you.
The motion passes unanimously. Huge gratitude to folks for participating in that process, especially uh our administration and attorney's office and sheriff's department. It was really a triage with all of those entities to
make sure that we had the most um um most pressing information. I appreciate it. >> Okay, that passed unanimously. Item 12 then would be the committee reports. Commissioner Ebinger. >> Thank you, Madam Chair.
Last week on Wednesday the 15th, I attended the Cass Clay Inter Agency Council on Homelessness meeting. Um it's a quarterly meeting we have uh basically it was some exercises
among the the entire group uh looking at mapping out and prioritizing some of the specific activities that are going to take place once the commission is up um and functioning. Um, and we'll meet again in 3 months.
They will have the results of that and we'll begin putting together a work plan. On Thursday the 16th, uh I attended the West Central Regional Juvenile Center meeting, the general business uh
reviewing um our data on uh the usage of the facility looking at uh uh had a budget presentation. Uh discussed the licensing inspection which went very well for the for the uh
center. Uh, Commissioner Campbell may have additional information. He chairs that group, and I'll leave him to get into some of the specifics. Later that day, I attended the Spring Rural Cities and County meeting.
Uh, had to leave early because I had another meeting back in town I had to get to, but I uh it was a good good turnout. It was good to uh see our staff presenting to the the leaders of of our
rural uh city communities. As I said, I had to leave early. We had a Lake Agassy Regional Library Board Executive Finance Committee meeting. Uh basically the the topic that we were covering was uh we had a the normal
financial report but then we discussed the uh um signitories what's build to the signitories every year. what formula we're going to use there. There's been one for about 30 years there. It's based on everything
from property co property values to uh numbers of people who hold a library card to numbers of books that are checked out. It was done way before we had the automated systems we have now where we can track a lot of those things
closer. But the the discussion has has taken us to where we feel like it should be based on operating costs. When we look at the operating costs of the signitories of the library, uh there is some disparity. Becker County, Klay
County, Detroit Lakes, uh are all paying in in excess, not huge amount, but single digit to 10 or 12% more than their operating costs where some other signitories are much lower in looking at
and they're usually the smaller communities. been looking at what uh what we can do on that. Right now the discussion among this committee is we'll bring before the board some proposals again based on operating costs
and shifting to a new formula on a one to fouryear basis so the smaller signitories aren't hit with the entire increase all in one year and that is a work in progress but I think we've made some good headway on it.
Uh, see, Friday the 17th, myself and Commissioner Bear attended the public health partner partnership for health meeting. Um, had our usual financial review and
grants review. I do want to just give a shout out to our staff. Brandon Nelson has done a very good job and Jessica is the new uh director over at public health. They've done a really good job of keeping us informed, bringing the data on these grants, what's going on,
what the transition has been since we've gone to two counties versus four. Just a good presentation on that. Uh we also had a legislative update from uh Jessica Mickelson um shack update and we uh got into the
environmental health issues and as discussed earlier today in the meeting we discussed the uh delegated programs we vote or agreements which was voted on and passed by the public health board and the pro proposed
um non-delegated activities we voted on today. See, uh Saturday the 18th as part of the Lake Agassy Regional Library Board, uh I was at the ribbon cutting for the new Morehead Library. If you haven't been
there, you need to go look. That is an amazing facility. There's great opportunity for for small to fairly goodsiz meeting rooms there for people who want to have meetings and of the you know for the public. Uh just a real good
day. Uh it was just the the culmination of a good program. So that was something that we can look forward to is being part of the downtown Morehead uh rebirth. And that completes my reports.
Thank you, Commissioner Ebinger. Commissioner Kavanagh. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh going back to the Wednesday the 15th, uh I had a historical and cultural society um finance committee. Um we've been doing
kind of a deep dive as a group on our revenue sources and main things that are talked about is um uh areas and effectiveness uh toward working toward um donations uh membership and
admissions. All three of those uh lay apart um es and flows um over the years. But how can we do something in uh in focusing on marketing in different ways to make those u um
more sustainable and growing. So that was the main focus of that. The following day, well then later that day I um drove to St. Paul where Thursday I was at the capitol all day. um along with u um uh the diversion um Jason
Vincson with the diversion um some staff from Morehead, Lisa Bod um and also um mainly led by chamber policy um um Kale with the chamber and then our lobbyist
Haley was along with us who had set up some meetings. main things there with the DA was trying to advocate for a match uh they could have with the uh of some funds, federal funds that they could get to try to have a match with
the state uh to in the way of leveraging uh turning $32 million and hopefully with match have 64 help take care of some of their needs. uh with us um on the PRTF nonsecure. Um two two
conversations uh furthered on that regard and Jenny uh Commissioner Mojo will give a little more on that I think as she was there two days prior to me coming and so a lot of good groundwork
has really been uh executed and coming to fruition. Um hopefully we have a bonding bill and hopefully we do well with it. So we'll just it's a wait and see but um some of the things are moving forward that we didn't in our favor that
we didn't see even the week before. Um let's see. Oh, and that day while I was gone, just a heads up. Um, so part I'm I'm part of on the uh West Central Initiative Economic Development Board
and while I was away that day and not making the meeting, they uh elected me chairman. >> Lucky >> and I I'd been the vice chair, but I had to laugh. So anyway, I look forward to that opportunity to work with them.
That's it. >> Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Crownoff, you also attended the watershed, did you? >> Oh, I did, didn't I? Thank you. Um, thank >> I can report. >> You have your notes. Okay. Thank you for that. Thank you. >> Appreciate it. >> Yep. Commissioner Campbell.
>> Thank you. On Tuesday, April 14th, we had our personnel issues committee meeting. We originally had 10 items on that. one was removed. Eight of those uh move forward with most of them on consent this morning which we all acted
on. Uh the there's um there was one item Clay County compensation system discussion um that was delayed for um so we could get the full pick committee there to discuss that. And then we um we asked for more
information on today we approved the uh non-elegated environmental fees. We also have the MDH delegated environmental health fees that we asked for more information on at PIC. So there was no recommendation on that and we've asked
for more information regarding that. And I understand that maybe you guys in in your public health meeting did act on that. >> Yeah. >> But that's something that we'll have discussion on here, I'm assuming, coming
forward. Um then I had um that same day then we did have a a teams meeting regard with our West regional water group and that was in preparation for the uh hearing
that was to take place on the 17th which I'll comment on in a few minutes. Um then on the April 16th we had our West Central Regional Juvenile Center meeting. Uh we went through our uh
current um statistics for through 2026. Uh and then we also looked at our um 2025 actual numbers, budget numbers and our 2026 budget to date.
and we got a report on a l the licensing inspection which uh you said is always interesting but it's I think we it went well for us here. Um and in July we will be working on our
2027 budget. The that afternoon we had our rural cities and counties meeting. Um, you know, I think it's I think that's it's something that's always worthwhile meeting with these with these groups.
Not only is it good for us to know uh what things they're working on um but in ways that maybe some of our policies might impact uh what they do. uh I think is important to um be able to
have that understanding of what they want. Uh it also allows us to and our staff to um talk to them about important issues that it impacts them. I think about Mark Sloan and he talked about you
know something coming forward about census information and how uh those cities get letters but how the county can be there to assist. I think that was that was good. Um Jill gave some important information about the new ways
of assessing that are done. So these things I think it's important for our our small community leaders to hear and understand some of those things that are going on that maybe they might not be privy to outside of uh having that that
meeting. So um and I do want to um thank all of those uh community leaders for joining us in that in that discussion. Then Friday the 17th in the morning, we
uh Commissioner Bear and I met with our um West Central Regional Group again uh getting our final preparations for uh what was the um second public hearing with the district court in the
establishment of our West Central Regional Water District. And so we had that meeting. There was a full courtroom and an additional court courtroom that had some overflow. There was also a courtroom in Pulk County that had some
attendance. There was a lot of I mean the president I I I just want to give a hats off to the council and to um our A2N engineer. Um they did Stephen Slick.
They did a they did a tremendous job in answering a lot of questions that the citizens had and uh they were well informed and I just thought it was great. Um we I guess we went in there
maybe not expecting an immediate decision from the judge. We were thinking that maybe it would take a couple weeks. uh that presentation was so good and I think the impact that the citizens themselves um showed uh through that public hearing
process that our project was ordered um that day and that I think that's a testament to the good work and the fine detail that over these years
have been that have allowed this to go forward. And it might not it certainly won't be in my lifetime, but there there's going to come a point in time when there's going to be a lot of rural citizens who are going to be very thankful for what's
been done to date to prepare them to be able to have um clean drinking water uh throughout Klay County. And that's that's the goal. So that was an excellent day. And I just want to make sure
I do believe that's that's concludes my report. >> Thank you, Commissioner Campbell. Commissioner Bear. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. On Tuesday afternoon last week, we had a West Central Regional Water District planning meeting to discuss the plan for Friday. Commissioner Campbell was also there. I
don't know if he reported on that, but he was also there. We went through the the whole slideshow that Tuesday to make sure we were all ready for Friday. And then that evening I went up to Craigness Township and gave them an update update on the water district and
shotgun rifle zone which both have been already been determined. And then on Thursday morning I headed down to St. Paul to testify again in front of the capital investments
in for Senate file 4457. We were down there testified on that in the afternoon. And then we also met with uh Senator Coopek and Representatives Joy and Gander as well as Senator Johnson.
So that went very well that and then Friday morning I was up back up in Morehead for Partnership for Health where Commissioner Ebinger gave a great update there. And just one thing on the
delegated and non-delegated agreements. So we agreed at this board today for the non-legated agreements with public health. The delegated agreements are specifically for partnership the health to decide on. And what we decided there on, so that won't
come to the full board. What we decided there on was to move our base our base fees up to MDH levels and then keep all our other fees to where we've had them currently. So, those are not being raised. Our base fees are being raised, but our current all the other fe fees
underneath the base rates are staying the same. And then on that late morning, early afternoon, I was also at the West Central Regional Water District's public hearing. And yeah, I I couldn't say there's great turnout there and yeah,
our our staff with AE2s and council did a tremendous job. I don't think the engineer Steven Slick missed one question. I think he answered every question that was asked of him and it we lasted about three hours in that public hearing and then at the end of it, yeah, the judge signed off on the project. So,
it was a great great turnout and a great uh we exactly what we wanted to happen. So that is all my reports. Madam Chair, >> thank you Commissioner Bear. I have two weeks of reporting. I apologize for missing last week. Thank
you, Commissioner Kavanagh, for taking over as I was testifying at the same time as the board meeting. I let's see going back two weeks, I attended the chamber leadership discussion strategy as a region. I would like to schedule
coming out of that before we get into our um budget cycle, I think in talking with Commissioner Ebinger and Deb White who serves on the Greater Fargamarhead EDC with uh Commissioner Ebinger, I'd like to schedule a meeting between um those of us that sit on the the
chambered discussion and ED EDC discussion with the city of Morehead. I think we need to strategize how we are discussing uh resources and where we're allocating resources. So, do you want to reach out to Dan Molly and see if he can't I think Deb White and um not sure
who the economic de other one is. I don't it might be more but particularly as we talk about how Klay County's um shifted some fundings between the chamber and the EDC wanting to make sure all of our Minnesota um entities are on board there. The next day I attended a public pol or that day still uh attended
the public policy discussion with the chamers's chair Rich Slaggel. uh really helpful discussion as we move forward. And then the Winthrop Weinstein strategy meeting um I'm just going to say in the last two weeks the amount of meetings that we have got because of their uh
work um is unbelievable. I would never have been able to be part of some of these uh dialogues without the leadership of Haley and Tom. Uh that day the April public policy discussion really an update more on what is happening at the federal piece and how we continue to advocate for changes
there. attended the non-secure detention working group. Huge thank uh thinking um of James and Quinn who attend those every single week and really are the data getters for us as we tell the story at the cap. I traveled to St. Paul that day and had the opportunity to meet with
Representative Allen Duran Hinselman Gilman Backer Murphy and Perryman. Those are all individual meetings in a time when it's a little crazy to meet with folks. And out of that, I'm happy to report that we now have new co-authors in Representative Ber, Representative
Burkel, Representative Gilman, and Representative Walgamont that are those are bipartisan co-authors in um folks representing all the way uh northern uh Minnesota to the metro to southern Minnesota. Great job to all of you for
your help. and then had an opportunity to meet with representative uh Joy and Keeler and how we strategized that lift. That afternoon I attended the Niko public policy lands discussion meeting. The next day I attended the big four meeting that's um is serving on AMC
executive committee that's the association of townships the league of Minnesota cities and the schoolboard association. Uh we are really bolstering our message. So many of us have the same concerns at the capital. Happy to be part of that dialogue. I attended the AMC Executive Committee meeting
afterwards and then Monday attended the Barnesville City Council meeting. Good feedback from folks on what the item 11 was on our agenda today. Uh but the main reason I went there is many of you know Jerry Reap. Jerry's worked for the city for a long long time and now is retiring
after 46 years with the city. Uh gratitude to her for all of her work. She has a retirement party. I'll make sure and forward that to Steve to send out. After that, I attended the Buffalo Red River Wershed District meeting with Commissioner Kavanagh. We had a great
update from Riverkeepers on all of the work that they are doing. Great to see how they are utilizing resources, but really sharing uh to do the school district day um work camps. That's great. and then talked about the receding the red and a uh one of the
board members from the CW co-op came forward. A new uh concern has come forward with the ability to license or uh ensure their fertilizer facility north of Wolverton. So we did uh request that they work with the watershed to
come forward to the MCCJPA meeting this week um just to kind of talk about what if there's new information how can we provide data to help it um to where they will get insured or what the proper mechanism of addressing their concern is.
Uh Tuesday morning I traveled to St. Paul again to provide testimony at the capital investment side of the house uh committee on the Maxis funding component that we talked about a few times today. We um was asked by Representative Frederick who's the vice chair of the
capital investment committee to provide insight. He's also been a big champion of our non-secured detention project. Appreciate that opportunity. I did attend uh the pick committee. I did uh need to sign off. So um we'll have some continued dialogue. I appreciate this board supporting the issues that came
before pick. I was asked to attend or um testify in front of the children, youth, and families committee on uh the challenges that counties are facing in implementing the act. There are, I think, some some agreements. The bill that I testified on was in full
alignment with what the Senate passed unanimously. Uh uh the discussion at the house side did have some challenges, but really appreciate representative Keeler for uh working with her caucus to try to see our our side of perspective and and
try to implement some types of pieces to delay to align to have systems that uh communicate to each other. That afternoon I had uh meetings with Senator Utki, Senator Rasmmanson, Senator Jazinski, Senator Lang, Senator
Johnson, and Senator Coop on our project. Uh Senator Coop is working hard to get um Senator Hoffman's signing of our facility. He's been such a champion for that work. And then the next day I testified in front of the Senate Health
and Human Services Finance Committee that specifically is on the U Wickland vehicle bill um omnimous bill in regards to the modernization SNAP and Medicaid components that they're addressing for us that that administratively we heard today on what administration is costing
um some of these programs what they're costing us locally just making sure that we have the systems to be able to do the work. I mean it's really kind of simple. Uh but then ear later in the day I did have the great opportunity I've never met with her in St. Paul to meet um with
speaker Lisa Demouth and talk about our projects talk about the needs also given the fact that we are seeing some significant challenges in our business community was able to raise some of the realities that we are seeing in our business community locally. Um it is
really concerning to see as many businesses as uh we're seeing closing um just in a matter of months. Hopeful that there can be some some um thoughtfulness that goes into that challenge at the capital. That afternoon I attended the Niko rural action committee meeting that
really takes the um we're you know classified as a rural county. Grateful to have the representation at the in Washington DC on that piece. And then Friday was able to um nope. Then I also Thursday attended the rural cities
meeting. One, huge gratitude to Barnesville for hosting that. Two, uh thank you to all of the departments from the county that were there. I think it's really important that we show up in our cities. Um to answer questions if cities have uh confusion or questions on
implementation or collaboration and communication. Uh we had Hitterd Doll and Glendon and Dworth and Holly and Barnesville and Sabin represented. Um really hopeful that that uh folks still see the value in that. Uh there are so many issues that we have um things come
up. Did I say some did I miss somebody? Um so many issues come up. We need to uh leverage shared resources and collaborate together. Um thankful for um folks that uh continue to see value in that. Friday, I attended the West Central Regional Water District re uh
final hearing. I did provide testimony on that. Thank you to the both of you for all the work that you've done to get us to this point. I know there's been lots of strategy and discussions uh and really uh answering questions is the most important piece. Uh thank you
for that. Sunday, I attended a press conference on the invitation of Senator Coopac to discuss the need for uh bonding and how kicking the can down the road continues to cost all of us substantial amounts money. Dworth fire department was there, the city of Dworth, the city of Detroit Lakes, the
city of Morehead, and then Klay County. And then my uh last piece is uh more of excitement. Last week as one, thank you to um Commissioner Bayer and Commissioner Kavanagh for also driving down to the capital. We are hearing um
from representatives and senators. Whoa. Klay County is really invested in a lot of these issues. Thank you for pro providing your testimony. We don't always hear um from folks. So I know it's a challenge for you guys for all of us to get down there. Um, thanks for
making it important. But two, we uh had some outreach from Jenny Nash, who's the committee administrator for the capital investment committee on some refined numbers on our project. And our uh lobbyists say that is a very great sign. So, we'll continue to uh uh beat down
the doors to talk about how this is something um that comm counties are all dealing with and it's a way to actually save us money um shockingly. So, uh, thanks for all of you, uh, for all of your help, um, with the work we're doing. That concludes my reports.
>> Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. Two weeks, I'll only touch on the things that haven't been covered either today or last week. Um, on the 8th, we had management meeting. We talked about the upcoming retreat on that'll be this Friday. Uh, we talked about legislative
priorities and the impacts that uh, they're hearing on their own departments. We had updates from IT and also human resources. Um on the n 9th met with Brandon Lunik and Dan Molly on some shared areas of interest. On the 16th uh had a premcca
meeting. Our meeting for that will be this week. Uh uh and that day as Commissioner Mojo highlighted worked on getting additional information uh to Miss Nash on our nonsecured detention. on uh the 16th participate in the in the
Spring County rural city meeting. Again, thanks for Barnesville for hosting. Again, we're looking for a host for uh for fall. So, if anyone's interested in those communities, let us know. Uh participated in nonsecured detention meeting on the 17th and also attended
the West Central Regional Water District hearing. Uh again, just want to reiterate the great work that uh that was done. Hardly any questions. uh after uh after the presentation uh and Mr. Slick and and uh and council did a great
job answering any additional questions. Uh participated yesterday at the AMC legislative Zoom, heard updates from all of uh the different AMC staff members. Uh just a reminder, this week uh we have our Klay County Commission HR Commission
meeting this afternoon. uh Earth Day press conference tomorrow at the resource recovery center at 10 am uh and again our intergovernmental retreat uh this Friday at 8:30. And that concludes my report. >> Thank you. And to clarify that press conference was advertised so all members
of this board can attend. Correct. >> Okay. >> Brian, do you have anything to add? >> Sarah, did you raise your hand? >> Yeah, just one thing. I I know that Commissioner Bear uh talked about the um
about the delegated agreements u and that was done through the joint with Becker. Um, I just want to say that I have I have some concerns with with those numbers
and I and I expressed him in pick um you know going to the MDH um Minnesota Department of Health's numbers they they established numbers and I don't know if they're always taking into consideration
border cities issues uh when we have 50 and 100% % They're small. They're they're small, but they're still impactful. I just read again last night that we have another restaurant closing in Morehead.
And I I guess I I at some point I I have I have to start asking, you know, we have to start asking what are what are we doing here? uh these fees. Now obviously they're they're they're important and a lot of times we want these fees to cover the cost
but in this particular instance what we're what we're also dealing it you know in the terms of restaurants when we have these inspection fees and all these other license fees that we do we do them on behalf of the public as
well to make sure that these businesses you know are compliant and are clean and safe. You ever wa if you ever watch the movie Bar Rescue and you see and you see some of the filthy pathetic things that go on
in restaurants. Well, we never want to get restaurants to be in that to that extent. And so, not all of what we should be charging should be the responsibility of the small business to pay because it's
for the benefit also of every citizen who goes into those establishments. I I'm just I'm concerned about about the fee increases and I just want to express that because we don't you know it's one of those things that we apparently don't talk about here at the board anymore. I
think we used to we used to at least talk about them and we don't anymore and I I find that troublesome. So I just just want to raise that issue and >> if I could just respond to that. Commissioner >> Commissioner Ebinger, >> the uh staff of public health made an
effort to find out what the costs were in Fargo and either match them go below them as far as restaurant inspection and the inspections. The uh the they they only did the the the uh base
>> the base. They didn't get into the details of the small uh fees that we charge. The base is the only thing that was adjusted and that was to adjust it uh after many years and where we have been investing
uh taxpayers money out of the levy to pay for these instead of letting the people who are using these uh facilities, premises, whatever is being inspected uh carrying their own weight. So, I understand your concern on that
and I I indicated earlier that we are aware that we're border city and we've got to compete with people across the river. I think some of the issues we have are probably the family leave issues and the other things that we're dealing with. I don't think uh staff I
think staff came in aware of that and they don't want to add to the problems there. >> Commissioner uh >> there's no >> I'll let you talk respond to that point and then Commissioner Bear did have his hand. There's there's no question that there's multitude of reasons why um you
know some of our small businesses are hurting and some of them in and and I I can only talk about in Morhead and Klay County when we see businesses closing there can be a multitude of reasons. Uh a lot of it can be you know what are the state stipulations and requirements and
that mandates that come down on businesses. What I'm talking about is what we can control to help reduce that burden so that these businesses can stay open. >> Okay. >> And that that's that's all I'm saying. So,
>> Commissioner Bear, >> with the bump in the base fees still does not cover the expense what we're putting into that employee to go around and check this. So, we're still under the cost of that employee and we are under North Fargo. North. I mean, you
could just say Fargo. We're still cheaper than Fargo on those base fees and we did not touch the smaller fees in there, right? >> We had we we did have a lot of dialogue there at that meeting on this. It wasn't just raise fees and just move on. There was a lot of dialogue and everybody was
understood that what we're doing here also dictates if someone does move to Fargo, if it is cheaper to on fees over there. So, it wasn't just raise fees and let's move on. There was a lot of dialogue at that meeting. >> I do appreciate that. That's um a
continued dialogue that we've con talked about when it comes to planning and zoning pieces. I know you've had that dialogue and even though the fees might be um comparable to what we're seeing uh across the river, there are so many other things that really um make that
that piece kind of a mood point in but I appreciate that we'll continue to work on it. Anything else? If not, we have our EDA discussion later, the press conference tomorrow, and then we are scheduled to meet next Tuesday. We are
adjourned.