--------- All right, good morning everyone. It's 8:30. We'll call this morning's meeting of the Klay County Board of Commissioners to order for Tuesday, September 23rd. Our first item is the approval of the agenda. >> Offer a motion to approve the agenda. >> Second. >> Have a motion by Commissioner Mojo,
second by Commissioner Ebinger. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppose. The same sign. Motion carried. Citizens to be heard. Do we have any citizens to be heard on items not on the
agenda? Any citizens? Okay. None in the audience. >> Nothing, Mr. Chair. >> Nothing online. Very good. All right. We'll move on to the approval of bills and vouchers. >> Move to approve. >> Second. >> Motion by Commissioner Krabanhoff,
second by Commissioner Einger. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. I >> oppose the same sign. Motion carried. I
next we have the approval of minutes from September 9th, 2025 and the work workg groupoup session minutes from August. I think that's September 26, isn't it? Or was it August? >> August. Okay. September 26. >> September 26. Yeah.
>> Oh, it is not. Isn't September 26 yet? >> Allow for a motion to approve. >> I will second. >> All right. All right, we have a motion by Commissioner Mojo, second by Commissioner Bear. Any further discussion? I just didn't think it was that long ago that we had that present. All right, any further discussion?
Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I oppose. The same. Motion carried. All right. Our 835 item is request approval for resolution 2025-23 for setting the date and terms for the tax forfeited property sales and
approval of the tax forfeited list. Jacqueline, good morning. >> Good morning. Um included is the three parcels of the um that are tax forfeited to the state of Minnesota for non-payment of taxes. Um just looking for approval to list
those in the um the newspaper and um on the website. Something new this year is we're going to um work with public surplus to do an online auction. So those can be listed out there um uh
going forward. >> Can I ask a question >> on the list? Um, is the value of the one 223400? >> That's what it was. Yeah, that's what it was for last year. So, it'll have to be listed at that for 30 days.
>> I had just because the one before was 27. >> Yep. >> Got it. >> Yep. The one um the uh block 34 lots 8 through 11 in Morehead. Um that one actually had the the home burned down
about well two years ago now and so there's just a garage in a shed there. The house has been removed. Okay. So >> Commissioner Bear, >> it states in here that the online auction will start November 3rd. When would be the closing of auction?
>> So it has to run for 30 days. There's no um statute um that says it has to run for 30 days at the estimated market value. Then after the next 30 days going forward and there on then we can place a a minimum bid that we want to receive.
And so this will be new this year something to try um versus having a um in-person auction. >> So it could it could take up to 60 days >> at least and then it can sit there. Normally they would sit out on our website
um for just somebody can walk in and actually just purchase it over the counter. So after those two, after the 60 days, then I'm guessing it'll actually be in January just based on the dates and when it's actually starting. Um, then anybody could walk in over the
counter for whatever doesn't sell. But then they'll be listed out there, too, which will be nice for people to see pictures where they really couldn't do any of that um, prior on the website. We just had it listed. They had to call. So, >> Commissioner Mush,
>> thank you. Uh this might be given the fact that there's build a building on that site that might be we will anticipate the ruling of the tax forfeite to go into account the equity going back to the previous owner.
Correct. >> Yeah. There's um they have so much time to request that um there's a new bill put in place um for that. >> Yeah. Just making sure that we I mean I know you're on top. >> The one um that one that you're
referencing is the um uh the one in Morehead there. Um that one is over by Concordia and um the city of um Morehead Assessor and myself and the locksmith went to that a few weeks ago.
It's not a good not a good building. There's a family of raccoons, I think, living in there and yeah, it's been sitting empty for a long time. >> Holes in the roofs and yeah, it's not a good situation. So, that one will decrease.
>> You had mentioned that um at some point in time then that um there can be a minimum price put on it. Who who and when is that determined? Um we'll actually determine it with the city of Morehead and then um Lori Johnson will
work together to collaborate that. Nathan did um send me a form already and it's looking I think it was around 40ome thousand. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right.
Any other questions? Mr. Chair, I'll offer a motion to approve the resolution 2025-23 for setting the date and terms for the t tax forfeited property sale starting November 3rd, 2025 via the Klay County website.
Right. We have a motion by Commissioner Per, second by Commissioner Krabenhoff. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppose the same sign. Motion carried.
All right, you're set. Thank Thank you. >> All right. Next, we have request approval to hire rehire two positions in public health. >> Good morning, Rory and Susie. Good morning, chair and commissioners. Um, due to our budget, I'd like to bring
this position back at a later date if that's possible. >> Okay. Um, >> yeah, Mr. Chair, and I've had conversations with Quinn and and Susie and and Rory. uh they've received some new information I think in in uh regards
to the UKare program uh which which the adult the adult position that's before the board today for consideration uh works through uh and so with that uh with the uncertainty of knowing that what the information the impact is going to be um they're they're looking to uh
guess table this table this or not even table but bring it back at a at a later date once they have additional information to determine if it is needed or not. >> Right? Because because these are some of the issues that we had brought up in pick that were recommended to come here
based on some changes. But >> there's new information since our pick >> new information since the pick meeting is you're asking to have this just >> the one the one position. Yeah. The first >> the first one. Okay. >> Yep. The adult healthcare program. I believe that Rory is still requesting
number two. Okay. So, and so this there's two. So, the uh the second one I hear the the analyst one that is still up for discussion. >> All right. >> That is correct. >> So, if that if that's okay with the board, then we will just move on to
that. We will um wait additional information. I don't know if that's going to require going back to pick again if there's something different. So, between Quinn, Quinn, maybe you can Yeah. So, um, from the time that this
was put on the agenda after the last pick meeting, we got new information on Friday. Uh, that information can't be made public until October 1st based on their marketing rules. Uh, we will absolutely bring it back to pick. Um, it's just the potential impacts of that
change could also change what we discussed to pick at the same time. So, a lot of moving parts with this and I think the the smartest thing to do is just press pause on that position now until we have more information and can have a better plan. >> All right. Thanks, Quinn. That's what
we'll do on that one. All right. Next, we have the analyst and CNTC outreach. >> Good morning, Mr. Chair and commissioners. Um I'm here to request approval for a combined public health
analyst and child and teen checkups outreach position 08 um child and teens checkups if you're familiar right that's our program that works to ensure that those who are eligible get um wellchild visits
evidence-based program um and and that part of the position is funded through the department of human services an ongoing grant we have with The public health analyst position is one that is funded through the Minnesota Department of Human Services. It's
called foundational public health responsibilities. Funding that comes from the state to each jurisdiction to ensure that they fulfill basic public health um responsibilities. This one we expect uh and we've had it before would be primarily helping us
with the community health needs assessment which we're required to do and uh a community health improvement plan that comes as a result of that health needs assessment. So it would be 08 it would be entirely funded through those grant funds. Um child and teen
checkups is ongoing. We expect the MDH foundational public health funding will continue. Um if it didn't, we'd have to then re-evaluate it.
Right. Any discussion, Mr. Bear? So, we're taking two separate positions and turning them into one. >> Yep. They used to be separate, but we thought it made sense to combine them. >> Were they both full-time positions? cuz this looks like we're going to hire a point8. What were they what were those
positions at? >> Uh the analyst originally was 08 and the C and T outreach was point8. >> So 2.8s to to become a point8. >> Yes. >> Commissioner, >> were the two positions both paid for previously with grants?
>> Yes, they were. >> Are the grants no longer available? >> Um the grants are still available. Um it's just a way to try to use those dollars a little more efficiently. We don't have to use them specifically for this, but um so those grants are they're
still funded through the same grants we have. However, like the child and teen checkups, we get a dollar amount per person served and of course our our service area will be diminished to Becker and Clay. So the amount we will receive will be less. >> Okay. This is these are part of what
what we've done through the partnership. >> Yeah. Both of them are through the uh community health board. >> Okay. Very good. All right. Any further? Yeah, we we did have this discussion in pick and it was it was recommended to um move forward
with this, but I I I do think for for the board it would it might be good for us to um get a better understanding of what these grants are and what all uh they can be used for. Um I I don't know
that any one of us sitting up here could answer that question. >> Well, if I may. >> Sure. >> So, the uh child and teen checkups is a very specific program through DHS, which it's largely phone calls and other texts and other communications to families who
are eligible and I would say are at risk of uh to ensure that they're aware of their wellchild visits and that they're getting in um and they're doing that preventive practice. It's an evidence-based program. The foundations of public health has a long list of
approved capabilities. Um, it's up to each jurisdiction to decide how they'll use those. So, for example, this one lists assessment, planning, communications, community partnerships,
um, data and epidemiology, and policy as some of the priority things that the grant would like local jurisdictions to use the dollars for. Okay. >> And so I I I can provide more information. Um but there is a fair
amount of latitude in how those dollars are used. >> Okay. >> Yes. Commissioner Bear, >> how many people are doing this grant work right now for us? >> Zero. >> Other than these two separate people are doing it and then >> um we don't actually have anybody doing
it right now. >> Have we had in the past? >> Yes. >> Yeah. That's these these are the request is to rehire. >> Right. >> Right. Any other discussion? >> Mr. Chair, >> Commissioner,
>> I will move that we u approve the public health analyst and child and teen checkup outreach.8 full-time employee. >> All right. Do we have a motion? Do we have a second? >> I'll second the motion. We have a second by or we have a motion by Commissioner
Abberinger, second by Commissioner Mojo. And my question, and I'm not sure if you're able to answer this question, and maybe Steve can, but uh when we originally when you originally had the public health budget come through, uh were both 08 positions included in that
budget? >> Nope. This this point this combined point8 position was what was included. >> All right. Okay. Very good. I was hoping there was more savings. I'm always looking.
>> All right. All right. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppose. The same sign. >> I. >> All right. Motion carried. >> Thank you. >> All right.
Next are we have a request approval to fill full-time sanitarian position. And this one we have Kent. Good morning. >> Good morning, Mr. Chair and commissioners. I am here uh to request
filling our open sanitarium position with a variable hour position that we currently have on staff. Uh again, this is something that uh we brought to the pick committee a few weeks ago and had some discussion there and uh little backstory uh history on the
position is with our delegation agreement with the Minnesota Department of Health for food, beverage, and lodging pools program. uh we have a set criteria that we need to meet for number of establishments and trained staff. Um
that number is 250 um licenses per inspector. Uh we have 331 that we have. So it um you know obviously that is over that threshold of 250. Um along with that we do have other uh
program areas in our department that we deal with uh primarily the septic inspections, demolition inspections, public nuisances and things. So the positions that we talk about with in relation to FTEES and so forth. It isn't solely for that um delegation
requirement for the food, beverage, and lodging inspections. We do have many other areas that we deal with as well. Uh the current variable hour that we do have on staff has come in fully licensed and credentialed for the septic program which has worked great for us. Um I've
been able to hand over the keys to that art for most of the year here and concentrate on food and beverage and lodging inspections as our previous sanitarian had given her notice um because she had decided to pursue her
masters last February. So that position has been open, but we have not filled it because we've had the variable hour in place for the septics and I've taken care of the rest of the, you know, department needs. Um, since then, um, I should also back up and say that, uh,
Abby that was here in the sanitarian position, we have been able to keep on staff in order to keep our delegation agreement requirements, um, met with her credentials and so forth to uh, be on staff and still, you know, qualify for
inspections that she's been doing. So at this point um our variable hour is eligible to sit and um meet the requirements for MDH for the delegation agreement. So at this point we were looking at changing her over and filling
that open sanitarium position >> questions. For the person being on variable hour, how many hours a week is she working on average >> currently? Right now, it's pretty high. She's anywhere from 35 to 40.
>> Is there a reason? Another question. Is there a reason why we haven't filled this since February? >> Primarily because we still had Abby, the previous sanitarian, was able to be on staff and still do work for us. Um
Olivia hasn't quite met the requirements up until now to be in that position. So now that she's eligible now is the point where we want to switch her over. And and that coincides too with um the previous sanitarian has now
given her notice that she's no longer going to be employed with us. So we do need to make this move. Um, at the same time, we are working with a new delegation agreement with MDH, and that's one of the requirements they need to know at this point when we submit our information is do we have two qualified
staff. So, it makes sense obviously right now to fill that position and make sure that we have that in place for submitting our delegation information. >> Kent, the previous delegation agreement was uh with the four counties, correct? >> Yes. Yeah. And how and now this new
delegation agreement will be Clay and Becker. >> Yeah. >> And how does the how does the number of um clients impact that? I mean obviously we're going to be dealing with somewhat
less clients because we're going from four counties to two. >> Yep. So, how does that how does that fit into, you know, going to what we had before to now? >> So, some information on that is with the
four counties we have um the delegation agreement as far as food, beverage, and lodging goes was with three. Becker County was still with the state. So, we haven't done anything with that number of establishments or anything. The the Becker County portion has been state. Previous to this
agreement, it for years it was Clay and Wilin. And in this agreement now, we've had Clay Wilin and Ottertale for our food and beverage inspections. In this new delegation now, Ottertale will be leaving and Wilin will be leaving with them. So, we will be just
Clay. Um, previous to that, like I mentioned, it was Clay and Wilin for years. Um, so now with Wilin being out, it'll just be Clay. Um, the Ottertale portion was more so
managerial and supervisory for me as far as time and the inspections. I mean, the inspectors would call me in to help them and inspect with them, but not on a regular basis. So the the number of inspections sounds higher when you say we're going from four counties to one, but in
reality it was basically still Clay and Wilin as far as the day-to-day inspections and and time and now it's going to be clay. Um, I know in uh in terms of time going forward with, you know, that change in establishments
right now, um, I've had Olivia going through our septic program and she's been extensively going through and streamlining what we have and, um, there's extra time there, or I shouldn't say extra time, but utilizing her time in that manner outside of other time
needed for inspections. if that kind of answers what you're asking. >> Sure. >> I I think so. Yeah. Um, Commissioner Mo. >> Okay. >> Commissioner, >> and just to clarify, we do not provide any of these services to Becker. Never have. Correct.
>> Correct. And at this point we have we are go what you're asking is we refill a full-time position with somebody we had on as a variable hour employee who's now certified enough to take that full-time position.
>> Correct. >> And that's been vacated by an employee who will no longer be rendering us any services. >> Correct. Yep. So, for our 331 establishments, we need to have one full-time inspector for every 200 of them.
>> 250. >> 250. Uh, are you going to be continuing to do inspections? >> Yes. >> So, we have two employees who are going to cover the 331. >> Yep. >> Okay. So, we're we we should be well staffed on that. There won't be another
variable hour hired or asked for? >> No. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I I know this we had talked about this to some degree at pick I believe and we and maybe I'm going to look to Steve and Darren on
um your thoughts on what what did we come up with a recommendation on this or did we think this is something that >> Yeah, Mr. Chair uh commissioners based on the the recommendation of of the group we did we did say that we would be recommending because of the demand of
the cases and the requirement uh requirement of the agreement that we would be supporting this. I think there was also um it it is convenient to have somebody who's a known entity whose work for us is variable hour that we can move into this
position now that she's gained certification. Oh, >> yes. Commissioner Bear. >> So, the state does uh Becker counties. >> Yep. >> So, if we have a new director come in and they want the state to do Klay
County and we hire this person, then what do we do? >> There would be a year's time needed to give up that delegation agreement. So, if that were the the uh course of action for going forward at some point here,
there would have to be a notification to the Minnesota Department of Health and a year's time for them to uh collaborate and ready for that um change over >> and with us switching from partnership for health from four counties down to two and dece January 1 being that switch
over. If the new director comes in in October and says, "I don't want to run this program. I want the state to cover this. Do we still have to give a year's notice or does it go straight January 1? >> It is a calendar year that they would need. Yep. >> Yep.
>> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. M. >> Do you have any idea what the state would charge for that service? Uh the state currently has gone through some uh fee analysis and I pretty I
can't say for sure that they've adopted it yet, but I know that they're going through increased license fees right now if that is that what you're asking. >> Yes. Okay. And they the state's response would be basically to run any services they provide us off the licenses.
>> I'm sorry, what was that? the the the funding that the state gets for doing these inspections is the is by by through the the licenses they issue and if the county would there be any cost to us?
>> No, there would not. No. Um the state would collect the license fees and yeah, we would be out of the picture for that. >> How close are we to self- sustaining on the license fees for these services? >> We are not self- sustaining right now. No. Um
I'm not sure what that number is, but I believe we're in a shortfall for that. >> Would the state charge more than we do? >> Yes. >> Thanks, >> Commissioner Kraboff. Little confused. Uh so I'll just ask,
can you uh tell me again how does Abby fit in this uh work? And so by bringing a new p, you know, new person in uh how does her work change or not change or
>> Yep. Abby has given her notice as of last week. So she's no longer an employee here at Klay County. >> Well, that's done. >> Yep. It's >> understood. I'm with you. All right. Thank you. Well, I'm I'm still
Commissioner Abby, you mentioned the number three >> 31 >> 331 >> 331. >> Um, >> that's number county current establishments. Um, and so we would actually have two
full-time people uh doing that, which would be able to run us all the way up to 500, >> 250 per. >> Uh, are there any options for us to do
something other than an additional full-time person? because we're nowhere we're not quite close to 500. You know, we're closer to the 250 than we are to the 500. >> Mhm. Now, along with that, uh, Mr. Chair, we do have, like I mentioned, the other programs that we deal with, the
septic and so forth. So, as far as FTEEs go, our breakdown is not solely those two full-time positions for those 331, if that's what you're asking. you know, we would have the septic program which is quite demanding which um when I was looking through the FTEES, I believe we
come out to a.7 or so when we combine the two positions and look at duties. So um you know of the 2.0 that we would have on the books for the county 7 septic
2 I believe or 0.1 demolition and then uh 1.2 1.3 for the All right. >> Just if I may. Yes. One more. >> Yes. >> So on on both the uh inspection on uh
septics and your other inspections the so at 3:15 what's your trend line been in the numbers in the last let's just say two years? >> Yes. Um, Mr. Commissioner, the the
numbers have been pretty static as far as septic inspections go. We've been hovering around the 90 90 to 100 per year uh for new and existing uh demolition inspections have been going up and the time involved with demolition inspections has been going up. The uh
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is very strict on uh asbestous requirements and what's needed for that. Uh so sampling and time and analysis and revisiting sites has >> okay >> has been going up that trending that
time involved has been very very much trending up. >> Okay. And I I've been aware of that I guess. Thank you. Well, my um I I'm just I'm just going back to uh questions from Commissioner
Bear and I'm I'm just wondering about um the timing of this and uh and maybe my question can go to uh Steve and to Darren again. Um and Anna is not here, but what are we
looking for a time frame for um our new public health director to be on board? >> U Mr. Chair, commissioners, the applications closed yesterday at 4 p.m. Uh we're looking to set up a first round
of interviews next week, early Monday, Tuesday. Uh and uh then our goal would be once that uh that group has been cut to a smaller number would be to bring this board together if that was your wish is to do the interview process for
uh for uh the finalists >> on my conversations that I I ask that the full board be in that final interview with the top three candidates whatever that might be. So but but you're anticipating that to happen. We're gonna we're'll be doing doing
interviews next Monday and Tuesday and uh the finalists we would hope to have signed up for the next that following week. So I'll be looking for your schedules for your availability. >> Well, I I certainly see this, but I I'm I'm just wondering if if we should be
getting some opinion from our new public health director on this as well. And I think we would still have time in terms of the um you know I think the other question that came to was on the this agreement that's being done on a calendar year basis and
how that agreement might be submitted. I I still would like to have the input of our public health director on that. Just a point on that. >> We're in the process of trying to transition partnership for health
and um it's quite difficult without a director and it's going to take some time for whoever we bring in to get up to speed on what the issues are and to keep our Becker and I'm I'm trying to keep our
Becker counter county people informed. But the sooner we can get a a uh directory in the better. Next meeting's in November and I would love to have one there. I don't know if that's realistic, but this is we got a lot of moving parts
going on right now. >> Right. >> Mr. Chair, if I could Yes. >> to um go off of uh the Commissioner Abers's um comments there. Um that is very real where we are working right now
with Becker and the state on the new delegation agreement and um yes uh timeliness of of having this position in place to satisfy that for us to submit our delegation information is
probably the primarily the reason why we wanted to come back today. Um just to try and keep informed and see if we can get this position approved. Um but that was the that's the major reason right now is the timing of this is with the delegation agreement information that we
need to submit. >> And is there is there a is there a deadline on when that delegation agreement needs to be submitted? >> There's not a firm deadline. Um technically the notice was given last year in the last week of December. So
that would be pretty much a year's time would be in December. >> Okay. All right. Commissioner Bear. He he answered, you asked the question. I I think we have time to time to figure this one out instead of just approving it today.
Well, I'm, you know, I'm not I'm not opposed to it, but I I at this point in time, I still think I we should have input uh on both the delegation agreement and this position have some input by our
>> soon to be hired new public health director. >> I agree, Commissioner Binger. >> Just the reality of the grounds is the state wants partnerships. Oh, yeah. >> And in that vein, we need to move forward
with some things that are are moving at this point. And signing with this delegation right now for a year is reasonable. It's unreasonable to expect a new public health director to come in and either make a decision that we're
not going to sign a delegation agreement uh or or agree with it. I mean, we need to move forward where we know uh that we're we're functioning. >> You know, I I I guess I would like to know from a new public health director
what they want in and what they want out of the delegation agreement. >> Give them a year to figure it out. If they're hitting the ground running, they don't know what they want. >> I think we still we still give them a year. I mean, they still end up with a year because we have to give a year's notice. I I I would like to have a
director's input on this position before we approve this position. That's the way I feel. We have we have we have we still have time to fill this position. I'm not saying we're not going to fill this position. I think we have till de end of
December to fill this position. >> Well, we have an employee who's already working for us that knows the tasks and we're not going to backfill her position. So actually we're taking 6 off that we're paying every week now and
putting them in a position to provide the services we're obligated to provide to Klay County citizens. I would be interested when we have a new direct director looking what the cost breakdown is not for us but for the citizens. How
much more expensive would it be if we told the state we wanted them to provide these services? how much is it going to cost our businesses and people with septics and all those other things to to get those the services done. Uh and that's something I'd be interested in
seeing raw numbers on at this point just getting a new partnership with Becker County off and running. There's going to be a lot of moving parts for every whoever comes in here and I don't know if making a decision on this delegation is is something they could do right off
the cuff. Kent, does this position is this position required to be within a delegation agreement? >> Yes, it is >> is required. >> Yeah. >> All right. Any further discussion? >> Mr. Chair,
I move that we approve the filling of full-time sanitation position. We have a motion to approve filling the position. Is there a second? Second. Call for a second. All right.
Without a second that motion is not forward. All right. Um, administrator Larson, >> Mr. Chair, and may a question to Kent, based on the the our agreement, in the event that Aby's no longer will no longer be an employee and we have over
250, are we subject to any sort of ramifications from the state that you're aware of? Well, the ramifications ramifications would be that uh they would not grant us the delegation agreement if we didn't have that in place when we would want to
submit. Um, as Commissioner Ebinger had had uh mentioned, our current state with with Becker and moving forward, um, there's there's parts that uh in real time we would want to inspire some
confidence in in what we're uh trying to accomplish. Um, so that's a I mean, that's a factor here there. Um, >> all right. So we will um this certainly will be um discussed more during this
calendar year. >> Mr. Chair, >> yes. >> I just I hope my colleagues understand my only reason for voting or wanting to have that position filled is so that we can provide services to our citizens that we can maintain a standing with the
state and that we can regain some some uh confidence in our partner in this partnership. I've been working with the groups and trying to trying to figure out what we need right now. We need to just stabilize the situation we're in and
maintain the staff that the state requires us to and provide the services the citizens of Klay County that they expect and they need. >> I don't think any board member here believes that we're going to not be providing the services at this point in time. I
>> I I'm sure they don't believe it. I just want us to be in a position where we can do it. Would you have comment, Commissioner K? >> Uh, only I the reason for my not seconding is I I do want to wait for the
see where we go with the new director. >> All right. Thank you, Kent. >> Thank you. >> All right. Next item we have is the approval of the crime victim service grant award. Are we ahead of schedule here? >> I think we're behind.
>> We're behind. Okay. >> Brian's in charge. >> Are you going to handle this one, Brian? >> You going to >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Been huh? >> Great. I I I thought Michelle was going to be up here because I'd asked her. I I think what uh occurred this I think
regularly has gone on the consent agenda regularly. It got onto the regular agenda and I asked her since it's already on there to just fill some information in to the board about uh victim services and some of the work that we do. Obviously, beyond the idea
of the county attorney's office working for public safety and holding uh offenders accountable and and u ensuring that uh crime is is uh dealt with appropriately. The other piece that we're always uh looking at is uh dealing
with victims, helping them navigate uh the court system and and through that and then obviously trying to work to make them whole. Uh and so I I would say Michelle and her team do a great job with that. Um, we also work a great deal with restorative justice uh through the
crime uh victim uh services program. Uh, this VOCA grant is a grant that we've had for numerous years. I think well over 10 to 15 years. So, this is a grant that we're always working to get back each year. Um, I believe the grant this year is $70,000.
uh there's no match requirement where I think there has in the past been some match piece but uh it goes towards primarily uh salary um part of Michelle's salary as well as one of the other um employees in there to help work
with victim it's really ma mainly funding direct victim services and so uh we would ask for approval of the grant and I don't have any other numbers I was going to ask that's why I was asking her to bring forward just some of the services that we do provide and how many victims we regular work which I don't have here for you today.
>> Mr. Chair, >> yes, Commissioner Mushell. >> Over the amount of time that I've served on this board, I have observed a high utilization uh with the dollars that we receive with this. Michelle does a phenomenal job in her sphere of work and
uh happy to uh support this endeavor. >> Mr. here. >> Commissioner Avery here. >> I'm working with the the uh diversion diversion the uh the public safety or the the uh
victim assistance program here as part of my portfolio. Michelle's done a remarkable job with restorative justice and some other components on this. So I would like to just um move to approve the crime victim services grant award. >> I'll second the motion. Have a motion by
Commissioner Ebinger, second by Commissioner Mojo. Any further discussion? I would like to also echo what's been said that it's um a service that's very worthwhile. Um
it's it's important that the victims of these crimes uh receive assistance whenever possible. So this is a good way to help in that regard. So all right, any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by
saying I. >> I. I. >> Oppose. The same sign. Motion carried. Thank you, Brian. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. Next, we have a request approval of the
purchase of IT network switches. >> Morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, commissioners. Uh first item bringing forward today is a replacement of uh request to replace 48 of our network switches throughout the county.
Um some of these are past their end of life uh warranty period even a replacement cycle. So we are looking to get these on replacement this year which will you know due to the the amount will
carry into next year as well. Um we've received three quotes for these and just due the due to the amount um they all three quotes did fall under a state contract or a swift contract number 260512.
Uh, but even with the state contract, I did want to get a couple extra quotes just to show the the cost difference as well. Uh, first quote did come in at $420,1260. Second quote, $48,66040 and the the last quote $358,74
even. And if it were approved, I would prefer to go with the uh lowest quotes through High Point Networks for $358,74. What is the life of these switches? >> They it it varies, but typically most of these switches are pushing 10 years old
already. Um most of the life they kind of have a life cycle of uh yeah five years before end of sale and then another five years before end of support end of uh support life. >> Thank goodness for internal service funds.
>> Yes. >> Uh exactly. >> So with that being said, do you have happen to know uh how much is in the internal service funds to help cover these? Yeah, I did uh work with uh Lori Johnson a couple months ago on this and we we're sitting I think in our
technology services fund closer to around a million dollars sitting there now. >> Yeah. But that's that's for >> for everything >> for many different things. I'm talking about how much was >> Oh, for the network switches. So when uh Miss Johnson and I sat down and looked
through it, we have a quite a few items where maybe we had some hardware where we, you know, we we planned it out or, you know, we purchased something and we did not replace that item. So that fall into something, you know, you know, some funds where we can use it to replace
these network switches. Um so most of these are already covered and then some of that uh those funds that we did not replace other maybe other server hardware would then we could use for this. Okay, >> for the general public out there
watching what is a network switch? So this would be anything where say your computer or network uh voiceover IP phone that plugs into say the wall you know plugs into your wall a wireless access point that plugs in uh to the
network. This gets you connectivity to the internet or to your network server um anything basically that gets you connectivity to any resources on the network or internet in general. >> So you can't go to Menards and buy these
for $3.99. You probably can. Yeah. With the 11% rebate. Yes. >> Yes. >> Do you have that bid in here? >> What's that? >> Do you have that bid? >> Well, well, actually the last with the High Point Networks one, we're we're taking advantage of an end a quarter
discount, too. So, they uh knocked off that price significantly. So, I think there was like $60,000 and a quarter discount on that. So, we tried to get as many discounts as we could to make it make it as cheap as possible. Well, Commissioner Grab,
>> just coming back to your question a little bit. Had you had an estimate earlier when you were looking at your internal services at all or did you kind of know what was ahead of you? >> Uh, we didn't. No, we we started looking at it uh just the age of the network
switches and >> uh without knowing exactly how much it would be. Um then we started looking, received the quotes and you know just verified with internal service. >> You just knew the time was coming. >> Mhm. Yeah. It's all right.
>> We're a little overdue on probably about a third of these switches. You know, we've been pushing them off for a few years here. Just uh just in favor of some other >> other things as far as time resources go with the staff. We just haven't had time to to do these.
>> All right. Any other questions? Yes, Commissioner Bear. >> So, this will replace about half of the switches that we >> This would be probably >> third. I mean, yeah, third. >> Yeah, probably about four fifths. So, basically everything except for the newer buildings here in the last few years. >> Okay. So, this would place four. How
many How many switches then do we have roughly? >> Uh, I'd say closer to 60. This is 48 of them. >> Okay. >> Mhm. >> Mr. Kraov. Yes. >> I'll make a motion. >> Second. All right, we have a motion to
>> if I Yes. Yeah. As written. So for that amount of 35874 with high point nets. >> That meets your second. >> All right. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all
in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppose the same sign. >> Motion carried. All right, that is approved. Thank you. Next we have the um technology services penetration testing. That's back again.
>> Yeah. So a couple weeks ago uh Joselyn and I uh presented uh just a review of the uh IT penetration testing uh security assessment on our network. And we I guess as as a group here, we kind
of came to a conclusion that maybe we we look more on the internal penetration testing side versus the external and the internal as a combined item proposal for next year's budget. So what we did is we came back now with some updated quotes
for just the internal side of this. Uh so I will read those off now. So they they vary from price ranges and terms uh from 1 to five years. And I did get a couple more vendors in here as well. These are just budgetary quotes.
Uh so FR secure and paleo were the two original uh quotes. So FR secure ranges from uh so 1 to 5 years uh 22,100 to 19,800 and as you know one year
typically is more expensive and then as a 5year you get cheaper you know longer you commit but that isn't always the case with all these vendors uh strata scale which is a little bit of the opposite uh $27,000 for one year and then as you get up to the fiveyear or
three or five year it's it actually gets a little more expensive due to the cost of their, you know, price increases year-over-year. So, the 5-year was 29,700. Uh, Pledo, they they didn't get back in time for uh, you know, three or five
year terms. So, their one-year price originally was $30,000 for internal. um uh CLA which is uh Clifton Larson Allen um their price is 21,000
for one year and then as long as you do it before March which is their kind of slower time and you know throughout the next three to five years it could be 18,950 and then each year there'd be a four to
6% growth annually. Mr. Mayor, >> and in your budget, you what did you have in your budget for this? >> We uh we proposed a request for $40,000 for both. >> For both. >> Mhm. >> And this would be just for the internal. >> Yep. So, a little bit less, a little bit
more than half, I guess, would be the request >> and from what the original request would be >> because we we are still doing stuff for external and internal. This would just be on top of what we're doing.
>> This would be a little more in depth. >> Quite a more in depth. Yes. >> But I just I don't want the public to think we're not doing anything for cyber security. >> Oh, right. Right. Right. >> Yep. No, we we definitely are. Um, of course, we won't go go into detail on
that, but yes, we we do have that, but this would be >> this would be a increased um increased on top of what we are already are doing. So yeah, I'll go. Yes, Commissioner. >> Okay. Um, so of these choices I you know
how you're putting them out. Is there something as you've looked at them that you have a sort of a preference toward? >> There are a couple of them that I do like. Um
I think two at least two of them have um something where after 60 or 90 days they will come back and do a reassessment. You know you know they'll do the assessment we we fix the things that we can fix and then they'll come back and test again and just to make sure that
we've we've fixed you know what we've said we fixed which is a which is a good reassurance and >> I like that. Um, >> and which are they or >> um I I'll have to double check. I know uh the CLA, the Clifton Larson Allen is
one um which happens to be the one of the cheapest ones which I is probably my preference anyway. Okay. >> Um they you know in CLA they do have some additional add-on things uh like
wireless assessments too where you know they try to penetrate the the Wi-Fi networks as well. >> Okay. um that was significantly higher. That was maybe like another I don't know 16 or $18,000 which we would maybe skip for this time around. Um but but yeah, I
do I do like do like what I heard from them from their presentation. I think they're they're wellrounded. They've been in the industry for 30 years. They have 130 locations across the country. They're, you know, mid Minnesota based. That's u they seem
pretty impressive. I mean FR FR secure is I think also Minnesota based. They're another impressive one as well. >> Thank you. >> So is the the discussion we're having today is it is it right now that your focus is
to be on the internal? >> Yeah, correct. >> Yeah. But when we when you originally talked the 40,000 that you talked about was for everything, right? >> Yep. External and internal. >> Exter Okay. So within the uh 2026
budget, did we incorporate the 40? >> That was the request and then uh yeah then we were asked to come in just to to review >> but as as we set the preliminary levy the 40 is included. >> That's correct Mr. Chair.
>> All right. And so there's, you know, I I according to this, it's just discussion only today, but I'm So I'm assuming that that's just the direction you're looking at um starting with in 2026
>> for the uh the internal only. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. I I think that would be the I think, you know, speaking with Joson, I think that's the the best focus. And that that isn't isn't to say that we're not still dealing with external stuff, but it's just >> by having somebody else involved,
they're doing the study to >> and their study is going to focus on internal weaknesses. >> Correct. >> For lack of a better word, right? >> Correct. >> It's going to audit the systems that we have in place, >> right? >> And help us to identify any weaknesses. >> That's right. Y
>> All right. That's sounds good. >> Just if I Yes. just to continue. I mean, we kind of asked this last time, too. I mean, as you much of the two you kind of picked out, do you do you see advantage
uh necessary beyond one year? I mean, I'm just asking you, do you work that out to five years or what would be Yeah, you have to commit to something up front, I'm sure. Right. Yeah, I'd say
it's pretty advantage or adventious to to do this on a routine basis just because you know as you get new new software you know as the the vendors we work with provide new software updates things like that new
vulnerabilities can occur. So software version comes out you know that new new vulnerabilities come out along with it. So we could have we could have one of these companies come in and you know do the assessment even that 60 to 90 days we fix everything and then the
next week another software comes out and we're vulnerable again. So it's it's just a game of playing catch-up. >> Oh really? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Thanks. So, so again, I I guess uh what I'm wondering and kind of going off some of the qu questions that Commissioner
Krabanov just asked you is of these uh when are you going to determine which one you prefer and what length of term do you prefer because I do believe that the board would have to approve that and and you're asking you're not asking for
any action today. So, um I know I guess the next step would be for you to come back to us with which one you're uh suggesting and and would it be a one-year term or a four-year term or whatever it is? >> Sure. I mean, if if that's a decision
the board wants to make today, I mean, I would I mean, I would prefer to go with the the Clifton Larson. >> Well, I think because we have it on as no action today, I think technically we can't do it. So, um, when you're ready to make that recommendation,
um, I think just put it on the the next agenda and and >> sure, we'll deal with it. >> One one one comment on that. If you could also see if what it would cost to put on the external in year two or three if we have the budget for that. >> Gotcha.
>> So, then we know. >> Yep. >> All right. I think that unless there's any other questions from board members. Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you very much.
>> All right. Next we have the request approval of contract with Winthrop and Weinstein lobbyist services. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is really a continuation of uh the agenda item from last week where this board approved the
proposal from uh Winthrop and Weinstein. At that time you asked that uh that staff work with them to bring forward a contract that identified uh starting prorated for this year and then also for 12 months 12 months uh next year. Uh and
so before you for your consideration this morning is a contract that covers those parameters. We would be looking at uh $14,000 for the remainder of 2025 uh and $48,000 uh for for all of 2026. I have had Brian
review the contract. Uh in the event he approved that in the event uh in the event that from a standpoint of dissatisfaction of the services uh there is an out uh on the contract and so we would not have to remain with them should the board wishes not to be uh
during that time frame. Uh having said that uh I would yield for any questions that you may have. I don't necessarily have any well the I I don't have any questions but a couple of comments. Um the first one is the 48,000
our board and our um preliminary levy we decided that we would be taking that from that 185,000 that we had had in previous economic development dollars. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> So that's the intent right now that
that's where that 48,000 come. >> Correct. And my my second one isn't a question, but uh in passing this um and hiring this lobbyist services, I think it's important that we um
we understand the normal contact procedure with them and who should be doing that. And again, I look to this board and I think in the past we've we've had uh commissioners Krabanoft and Mojo dealing with legislative activities that going on
along with Mr. Larson. And I would just assume that our board kind of stick with that with that as being our primary contact for that purpose. Um, you know, I think sometimes you can get where an individual board member might
want to u call or something, but I would I would like to see us go through those channels, all of us to go through those same channels so that we're uh of the same voice with what our needs are for their services. So, >> as long as those commissioners are okay with that.
>> Well, I I'm >> Yes, >> that's the chair's prerogative there. No, but we appreciate the work they but this will help them in a lot of sense, but they're the ones that have really been following and know the atmosphere down there and who should be talking to.
And so I think that's that's my opinion on on that. Um any other discussion on the um motion to approve the contract? >> Mr. Sher, I'll make the motion to approve the contract with Winthrop and
Weinstein for lobbyist services for 2025, the remainder of 2025 and the year 2026. >> Second. >> We have a motion by Commissioner Bear, second by Commissioner Aberinger. Any further discussion? Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Same sign. Motion carried. All right. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would note that uh Mr. Hansen from from Winthrop and Reinstein does plan to be here on w Wednesday Wednesday. So >> tomorrow. Thank you.
>> All right. Thanks. All right. Next we have approval of the following resolutions. Uh 2025-24 authorizing county to enter into a credit enhancement pro program agreement with the Minnesota Public
Facilities Authority. Good morning. >> Hello, Mr. Chair. Todd Hagen from Ellers and Associates. Nice to see you commissioners as well. >> Morning, Todd. >> Don't get up here very often. I think the last time was for some new project
financings, right, in the bond world. And um haven't had too much activity in the refinancing um sector for probably five years or so. It's been very quiet with interest rates going up and we've locked and loaded a lot of your your
bond issues with low interest rates. So, that was always good news back when we did that. Um, things are changing a little bit right now um in the market and we do have some what we call bond calls coming up on February 1 of 2026.
um one in particular, um a 2017 a jail bond that was probably issued somewhere around 22 million or so. There's 17 and some change left on it. Um and it would be a a good candidate to take a look at
um refinancing um closing by the end of the year at least uh to call that bond in or prepay it for an interest cost savings is what we would be doing. So there's 10 years left on it right now, which is terrific. Um very uh still a
large bond issue, right? With large block sizes, that means every principal maturity um they're pretty um pretty large sizes there. So it should attract some um some good bids on the bond issue as well. Um can't say exactly right now
what that what that would save the city or the count county, but um we do have a pre-sale report in front of the the commissioners here with some with some numbers on the back and a schedule basically um to take a look point. There we go. Got it.
>> We're going to probably get you another microphone here. I think it was making some sounds before, right? Thanks, Steve. >> We did take a look at this with um Steve and Lori also as well um probably about a month ago just to see if it was worth
uh taking a look at. Um at that time um we did talk to a bond underwriter DA Davidson and company out of Minneapolis as well to see what a negotiated sale might might look like. I know the county has um always done competitive bidding
on their bond issues because they've always been very straightforward, right? Um with a high credit rating as well. So, um the legislature did make some changes this year as far as uh being able to guarantee these bonds by the state of Minnesota. This bond issue was
guaranteed back in 2017 um which gave us a AAA bond rating. The county has a double A. Um, so that's more of kind of a guaranteed insured type rating to get to that AAA. It's not a true AAA, but it gets us uh to the top
right on that. Uh, the legislature this session did allow for um carryover of of that credit enhancement. They call that guarantee um if it gets refunded for an interest cost savings. So, we wouldn't be able to do that if we extend the term
from 10 to 15 years, let's say. Uh but we can certainly um also get this one guaranteed as well if we stay within that original term and save some money right at the end of the day here which is the goal. Um so we did take a look at
that. Um, and as we know, uh, the Feds have, uh, lowered their, uh, Fed funds rate by a quarter percent, um, just a week ago or so, and they might lower it again by the end of the year as well, which may or may not affect the public market as much as banks, let's say. But,
um, it is a good sign to sort of lock and load or at least get this on the radar for at least a closing uh, in November uh, or at the latest in January, right? So, what we do is set this up with you folks right now for a
bond sale. Um, say, let's see, I've got the schedule here, which would be um say October uh 20 27th, we would receive bids uh for your meeting on on October 28th to close November 13th. But there is some
latitude or flexibility in the resolution that's in front of the board right now to uh say, "Hey, let's just see if uh how things are shaking out as we get closer and closer to the end of the year. If our crystal ball or all indicators uh think that it would be
worth waiting a few months, you know, and um and set the bond sale a little bit later in the year, uh that we'd have the flexibility to do that as well. Um, so our our recommendation um is to um to
go competitive on this as well because it's a pretty high quality rated bond, right? It it will be it's 10 years in length. Uh and and the uncertainty out there of kind of where the market is is sort of going away as we as we move forward throughout the end of the year.
Um Paul is here from DA Davidson behind me. uh if you want to know a little bit more about the negotiating sale aspect of this, if it's worth um just kind of meeting up with one underwriter and go through the the path that way, which um which there are some advantages of that
as well. Um just to kind of stay on the pulse of the market. Um being able to kind of pick and choose maturities as we move forward uh here with with those folks. Um um our firm uh doesn't see a big advantage in that at this point for
this bond issue, but again it's something to keep in keep in mind. Um if you asked me a year or a month or two ago, um I would I would say yeah, we might be leaning into more than negotiated sale because the the uh savings is pretty tight, right? And do
we want to uh refund every maturity or do we want to kind of pick and choose some of them we call partial uh call? Maybe just do the front part and keep the back um as is. Uh if we do that um there's double costs, right? We've got two bond issues also sort of moving
forward. Um and and it's a little fragment fragmented for for Lori and the folks um to sort of keep track of the two bond issues as opposed to one. And so our recommendation is to is to just uh is to do a full call on this. Just swap one out for the other basically as
we as we move forward. So yeah, we've looked at this every which way um sideways and up and down and our analysts at Ellers uh feel that it would be a good one just to go ahead and uh try to save some money right um by the end of the year for you folks. Right
now, we're looking at um somewhere north of 500 some thousand dollars over the 10-year period. We hope to that that looks better as well. Um I'd like to see some of the indicators sort of start looking a little bit better for you, but uh we also feel that calling a bond
issue on its first available call date, which is 21 of 26, is also the most efficient way to go. Uh the other thing we have going for us too uh as far as on the bank side of this on the investment side if we close in November uh we're
also able to invest those bond proceeds for three months and make some money uh up to the 21 call as well. So that also adds to your savings too. So, uh, even though, uh, some of those rates have gone down, we hope to capture, um, those
rates for the savings for the new bonds and then still be able to invest the bond proceeds at a decent rate to make some, uh, to make some more savings for you, too. So, it's a it's a good one out there. Um just an FYI too, we'd also one of the risk factors I suppose if you can
call it that, uh we'd also be swapping out um a February 126 call date, you know, and any date thereafter on the old bonds. Uh we would be probably locking into more of a 6 to 8 uh year call on the new bonds, too. So 2033 would have
to wait to do it again. But again, there's only 10 years left on the bond issue. So the chances of uh this being called again or prepaid for an interest cost savings are pretty minimal I think between now and then. So tried to just catch the highlights for you folks. We
we already have uh some of the wheels in motion just because uh this schedule between now and October 28th is pretty tight. We're uh kind of already starting to talk to the rating agencies a little bit and kind of schedule those calls with Steve and Lori. So I I yield to you
folks. Um, again, if you have any questions on negotiated sales, Paul's here, too, just to kind of see if, you know, if you have any questions on that as well. Otherwise, I'm I'm here to answer anything you have for me as well. So, >> all right, Commissioner Bear.
>> So, if we do this now, you said 2033 would be the earliest we could do it again, correct? >> Yeah, I I would try to So, as as as soon as we go back to the office, we'll put this through what we call quality and control this afternoon. We'll kind of monitor that call date too to kind of
see where the market is. We could push that to six years, maybe seven years. Uh I think that would be the farthest out would be 20 33 to call it again. >> Could we narrow that down to three or four years or I mean I'm not I don't know how bonds work completely, but
>> that's pretty tight. That's pretty tight. >> Yeah, that's pretty tight. I think Paul would probably tell you two, six years is probably probably pretty pretty close to as tight as we could get on that. But again, that's a negotiated thing too as well. And we'll continue to just see what the market appetite as well. It may
not make much difference. Um, generally speaking, um, Commissioner, that the the the shorter the call date, the more hit, so to speak, we might get on the interest rate, right? Because the the investors out there are probably seeing that you might might take our our bond
away within two or three years. So, we'd rather see >> seven or eight or years. and I know that I can hold on to that issue. So, I will give you a lower interest rate. So, >> yeah, good question. >> So, what what does the actual um impact of the Federal Reserve's lowering of the
rates due to what we're talking about here? >> Yeah, probably um not as as much on this bond issue because this is called a non-bankqualified bond issue. It's over $10 million. So, the Feds give us a $10 million limit uh
each calendar year to to have a bond be bank qualified. And that kind of also helps with the interest rate. It attracts supposedly attracts banks to buy the bonds too as well. So, if it's bank qualified, uh banks are allowed to deduct up to 80% of their interest um
cost uh on to buy a bond um as well as tax exempt both federal and state. Uh, so it does bring banks into the into the mix >> provided it's under 10 million. >> Provided it's under 10. So we still have we have over 17 on here. So it's going to continue to be non-bankqualified.
Um, so like I said, that that impact's probably going to be minimal, I think, for for banks. Um, this is a public market sale, right? Not a bank or a loan >> uh deal. So the public market operates a little bit differently, more on supply and demand out there. Uh we're also
hitting this I think at the right point as well where uh there's probably going to be a lot less supply uh when we're going to sell these bonds than um and high higher demand basically just because um uh some folks um their refundings really haven't been on the
radar for very for all these years and they're probably not just kind of getting getting to look at them right now to see if there is an interest cost savings. uh and generally over the the the the winter or so in the fall of the year, new new projects aren't being, you
know, completed right now either. So, I think we've got that whole um low uh supply, high demand going for us, too. Sometimes we can call that the the January effect basically too when um there's lots of bond calls on 21. But, uh we'll see how it goes. This is I
think the perfect storm for you folks uh getting this all lined up and and ready to go. So between now and if the Fed were to drop another half a point by the time that still doesn't have a lot of impact on what you're >> it it could it depends and and Paul could tell you you know in in the
portfolio basically uh where they get their money from right they're underwriters broker dealers so they spread their wings throughout uh all the markets right so they're it could attract some banks um it could attract retail sales folks you know um um mutual
insurance companies buy these bonds too as well, for the long term. Um, so I think it it it it can help, but it's certainly not going to hurt, right? So I think we're riding the wave down, which is uh which is a good thing. >> And then I have one last question for you. So So sometimes
sometimes if you're if you're under that $10 million and then you become bank qualified, you can actually get more competition for the bidding of those bonds. >> That is correct. So, going back to um Commissioner Bear's question in terms of
call date, um could we could we establish a call date to make sure that at that point in time our principal balance would be under 10 million? >> We could. We'll take a look at that. That's a great idea. >> Yeah, I would take a look at that.
>> That is a great idea. Oh, I you know I think maybe you should I mean when you're looking at that uh when it comes to the call date you know look at your advertised schedule and see okay well let's try to tie that call date to when that 17 million becomes less than 10
>> for sure I will take that I will take that back to the office with me. >> All right >> thank you. Yeah. >> All right. So, um, on our agenda here, we have two items here. And the first one is the authorizing the county to
enter into a credit enhancement program agreement with the Minnesota Public Facilities Authority. Um, is that so you're requesting that too on >> correct? Yep. Two resolutions. Yep. That one gets us uh to have them guaranteed by the state of Minnesota like the old
one is or the current one is. >> Okay. So that that is the resolution that gives us the state backing. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Correct. I just want to make sure everybody's understanding of that. All right. Any other questions >> other than just making sure you have the
resolution so you know what we're >> correct. Yep. I have copies of those. >> Yep. >> Yes. Let's let's act on the 2025-24 first, please. >> Chair, I'll make a motion to for to to
approve resolution 2025-24. >> I'll second. >> We have a motion in a second. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I oppose the same sign.
>> Motion carried. And then the next one would be the resolution 2025-25 authorizing the providing of for the sale of general obligation jail refunding bond series 2025A.
And I do uh want to note that we have Lori Johnson in attendance. Lori, I don't know. Uh I'm assuming you're here in support of All right. Very good. >> Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to approve resolution 2025-25. We have a motion and a second. I just
want to ask is there any uh does 2025-25 have any date specific that we need to include? Uh it has a a a bond sale date of October 28th in paragraph 2, but it also
gives us the flexibility. It says or on such other date and time as the board deems desirable. So, we will keep you uh keep Steve and Lori up to date to see if um it's advantageous to move that October 28 out
>> to another month. Yep. >> Okay, there I see it now. Okay, thank you. >> Yep. >> All right. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I oppose the same. >> Motion carried. All right. Very good.
Thank you. >> Thank you very much for having me. Yep. All right. Does the board want to take a quick break? >> Just keep going. Break. All right. All right. We're going to take a fivem minute break. >> All right. We are back in session and we are now down to committee reports and
we'll start today with Commissioner Mojo. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Last week I I attended the planning commission meeting. We had several hearings. One was a conditional use permit request for a the event center modification uh in
Glendon Township which passed and then a request for an interim use permit, a mining application in Keen Township which also passed and then a uh conditional use permit request for a principal use in Holly Township with uh
which passed. And then uh we did have uh two applications that were withdrawn uh concrete badge plant sort of request and then one was propo postponed to October 21st. I will attend the Kurts Township meeting tonight uh to have further
dialogue with that at the township level. Uh in regards to new business, we appointed uh the Morehead public service requested that there was an appointee to the Morehead Wellhead Protection Plan,
that amendment team. So the planning commission did request that our board chair Joel Hildebrandt serve in that capacity. But I had a question on that because I seem to recall that usually >> commissioners serve on those wellhead
protection plan districts within their uh >> within their district. I know that I serve on a couple including the Sabin one. And so I did ask a point of clarification that this doesn't negate county commissioners from serving in a capacity. And it was u Matt's
understanding that it was this was a planning commissioner specifically that would participate. So he would ask I think you maybe were appointed. No >> on the Yeah. Um so he was going to ask ask to make sure that
>> Well, I I serve on the wellhead protection group as a >> Right. So maybe Steve, can you uh follow up with that just so that we're clear? And then we did have a recognition. Curt Stubstead has served on the planning
commission for it's already been nine years. Wow. So that time went fast, but uh his uh he's exhausted his uh terms on that. So it will be stepping off of the board, so we do have some openings. Matt's working to
advertise the openings so that we can get some other great applica applicants in there. Kurt still serves in the capacity on the watershed district, so we're really grateful for his work there. Wednesday, I was invited. Minnesota Public Radio had a event in Morehead uh
with Senator Coopac and the chairs of both the Klay County GOP and DFL. Uh I was invited to uh have a discussion with them on on some of the issues that counties are facing after the uh state and national legislative sessions. So I
appreciate the opportunity to participate in that. The next day I had a meeting with uh Lakeland. The finance committee meeting did look at some of the uh program trends that have gone down in recent years, but this particularly had to do with our self-
insurance. Um we have exhausted midyear the amount of money that we had built up as a reserve. Um there was over $250,000 in that. Now we're at a $65,000 in the hole. So, uh we'll um we did discuss a
max claim acrual of 10,400 per employee. Uh that will hopefully get us to uh zero by year end. It should, but depends on claims. And then we do have some work to do uh to fix that for 26. Um but we
still maintain that um given what trends are that we've saved the organization $2.6 million by self-funding since 2018. The next day, I had a discussion in regards to our non-secure detention
proposal and the PRTF work with staff to prepare for the bonding tour that will happen tomorrow. So, we had a nice uh planning session on that that afternoon. And I also had a flood mitigation discussion with the city of Morehead,
the uh Buffalo Red WHED and the um diversion authority folks in preparation for that tour as well tomorrow. So I think we've got the right folks in the right places to uh tell the story and request for the need. And then yesterday
I attended the Lakeland Mental Health Center board uh monthly meeting. We were at the Detroit Lakes office. They do great work there. They really partner with the Morehead site. Well, um obviously MD
positions are really costly position. So, I think they do a great job of making sure that they're offering uh appointments um scheduling appointments between the two sites uh in a great spot. But, uh, our August is always a
really difficult month in, uh, that area because people are taking vacations and families are, um, out of school and doing those things. And so, we're hoping that our, um, finances see a little bit of a bump going into the year. And I think that
concludes my reports. >> All right. Thank you. >> Oh, I will say, sorry, I also attended the Morhead City Council meeting yesterday. Um, and there was small discussion. Uh, uh, one of the city council members, uh, invited the public to our SWAT committee meeting on Thursday, but there was, uh, no
discussion on the contract. >> All right. Thank you, Commissioner Bear. >> I only had one meeting last week. It was last Friday, a subcommittee meeting with the building committee. Myself and Commissioner Campbell were there along with the city of Morehead and the Morehead School District. We just talked
about facilities and making optimal use of all our facilities. >> That is all I have, Mr. Chair. >> All right. Thank you, Commissioner Eringer. >> Thank you. Um, last Tuesday, the 16th, I attend the diversion authority board retreat and bus tour that we did of some
of our uh project sites. Uh, the retreat retreat covered the diversion authority governance policy implementation that we're currently going through. some of the uh challenges we're going to
look at when the operations and management factor comes in or maintenance factor come starts here in the next couple of years as we get things completed. Also discuss the 2026 budget timeline, the basic concepts of our financial
plan. Um and uh then we got on the bus and we took a tour of various key component sites uh for the project including P3 portions of the project and Maple River aqueduct
and some of the bridges and channel reaches and the Russ River outlet. uh the next day or no I'm sorry this yeah it was the next day Wednesday the 17 17th um myself and and uh the chair
along with Darren Brooks Steve Larson Lori Johnson attended the uh meeting with distant or the zoom meeting with the state auditor on the uh exit meeting they had on our audit later that day
attended the pick committee meeting which uh the issues we've covered today were contained in that and then later that night or no I'm sorry Thursday the 18th I attended the full meeting of Lake Agassy Regional Library Board
uh most of our business was simply voting on approving some grant applications and uh some of the funding mechanisms that come through the state that require board approval. And then we do have tentatively we've signed a uh
10-year lease with the city of Morehead to get uh space for the Lake Ay regional library. I don't know maybe Commissioner Mohou that was brought up to the the U city board last night or not.
>> Uh well they did sell the old library. >> Yeah, I know. So we better have a place to go. But they didn't vote on a new vote on the on the new lease with us with Legacy Regional >> unless it was incorporated in their 25
prelim or six preliminary budget. >> Okay. >> The finance piece, but I don't recall hearing. >> Okay, I'll follow up on that. But it has been a uh I as I understand it, the negotiations are clear and we've got a we've signed the the uh lease.
>> Okay. And that completes my report. >> All right. Thank you, Commissioner Krabanoff. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Back uh last Tuesday, excuse me, uh for the um we had a
recorded meeting for the law library. Uh things are still very active uh down there. It's used u uh very steadily. Uh we'd had uh two people uh um serving as a uh for a part-time position. Uh both
those people have left um um taking other positions in law and um but we did hi get have a new hire uh for this small uh part-time position that uh will be running the law law library now. And
just so we all know um that is their own funding. Um the funding for the law library comes through um state statute that u were paid on per case that runs through the court system. So um the new
hire is well in the budget uh that we set up for the year. Uh later that afternoon we had the adult mental health monthly meeting. um very well attended uh with our providers and a couple of
consumers. Um uh it we were um joined by the new uh assistant chief um uh Bill Alfelt uh with the city of Morehead. Um he introduced himself. we have a nice uh
background so we all knew where he was coming from and he's really focused in on mental health and in Morehead activity. So, um his thoughts and the work that we do in that uh LAC fit right into um what he's hoping for and to u
you know do the best we can on crisis and uh um uh crisis response and also um the management that goes along with it. Um, let's see. On the 18th started, uh,
oh, excuse me. Back to Wednesday, uh, 17th, I had my monthly finance meeting with the adult um, historical cultural society. Um, everything's running on budget or a little above. So, that's
good. Good efficiencies going on. Uh also just will bring up uh two things that coming in near future. Um October 25th we're doing a 5K fundraiser for the historical society. And then um the big
event is our pangia event which will be on November 22nd or last year I think we had like 700 people come over at the Hum Center. Um on September 18th, the Thursday, I had
my uh hi meeting and um again, great appreciation for them be able to have their 300,000 tax tax levy that was approved by us in Barnesville. They then worked on knowing
that they worked on their um preliminary u 26 budget and then al uh so they they had a plan in place for next year and then wanted to tell you and I think Dar mentioned this that one day but um just
to make sure they did receive an increase because of their their work in homework starts with home they have been given an increase uh for the years 25 through 27 they were expecting $619,000
and now Minnesota has in fact given them $874. U homework site was home is a is a program through the state uh that provides rental assistance that focuses
on families for school age children. Uh that afternoon I had a a quality visit with our uh social director Quinn uh Jagger and and um we had um uh talked about trying to find again continuing in
light of our preliminary budget, you know, trying to find work on ways to uh get that that down. I think uh going along with other um Steve and others are um finding um I don't have specifics for
you today but uh finding a few more places maybe we can uh work our levy down some more. So uh it was good talk. We also talked about those are the challenges of 26. Uh we also talked about the challenges of 27 when we start
hitting the um uh the how do I say it the cost shifts from the federal government on SNAP and Medicaid that are going to hit Minnesota. Um and then that evening uh through the early childhood um initiative we had our
longest table event and uh that was over at Trinity Lutheran Church. Um well attended. A couple hundred people showed up and good conversation uh with our group and uh with others in the community.
Um, as Commissioner Mojo um mentioned on Friday, we had our um PRTF small group uh get together again in prepar preparation for the bonding tour tomorrow which I'm very excited about.
And then yesterday in uh early morning or in the morning we had a insurance subcommittee uh we had had the um approval of a health plan um uh that we accepted
couple meetings ago. And anyway, there was a part that's coming up uh about um within that um program another benefit that may be um um looked at uh on u
within the the health program that will be discussing I think it's going to be coming here right for discussion or on the essential only how will that work >> I think the board's taken action the board's taken action on establishing the
dollar amount and >> Okay. Okay. All right. We'll leave it at that. It was already approved. That piece of it was uh it already had a vote within the the committee and then um uh then yesterday afternoon I had my
Cascade Food Partners steering committee. uh that group is uh kind of redefining on outreach uh to have more effective uh effectiveness with the group and I think there'll be um that
will be a continued uh conversation for the next few months and then with that that's my reports. >> Thank you. All right. On September 16th, I also attended the
diversion board of authority retreat and bus tour. I'll start off with the retreat. we uh reviewed the governance policy implementation and how in the past we maybe haven't followed those procedures like we should and and uh
we're kind of trying to make sure now that we with our guidance from the new authority director to really make sure that we're following those that government governance policy.
Uh we talked a little bit about the future staffing once we move more from construction to operations and maintenance. Um talked about environmental monitoring and then considerable time on the 2026
budget and the financial plan. Then we went on the bus tour and um you know I got I got to say that going on that bus tour it's um it was like my first work on on flood projects was back
in my time on Oakport Township and we were working on uh what turned out to be a $33 million flood plan in Oak Township that they said would never get built and and we drive by their Tay and it's built.
And then we talk about this plan and I think back from working on this from ever since the 2009 flood and to stand over uh one of those massive um diversion inlet structures
uh and seeing it almost done and seeing all the channel almost done. It was um I think back to the um public inputs and public frustration and public arguments that transpired for many years to see
the collaboration efforts of this finally being done. And this thing is supposed to be close to substantially complete by next fall. And it was it was
that that work that's been done. And of course it wasn't $33 million project. It was a $3.2 billion project. a little bit difference there, but um overall very very happy to finally get out there and
see that. And then the um we did meet on the 17th with the pick committee. Uh several items uh a couple of those items we were brought before our board today. Um I think Anna's going to be coming forward with her recommendation on the
referral policy that we currently have. Um, you know, I think, you know, with today's numbers that we're seeing where people are, we're getting a lot of applicants. So, there I think there we're going to be seeing a request that
that uh referral policy probably will no longer be needed. Uh we had some discussion about the p paid family medical leave and um the supplementing of time, you know.
So um so that'll that'll be coming before the board also. Um sleeve donation that will be coming before the board. And then we had a
a significant conversation about um vacation balances over 240 hours and believe that we decided that that that policy was um good in its current form. So I don't believe that's coming
forward for any changes. Yeah. Then on the 17th, I also had the audit committee meeting uh the exit meeting uh for the 2024 audit. Uh another very good clean audit. Um the
typical usual thing was uh the areas of these small departments where there's the internal controls. It's hard to have multiple people dealing with, you know, something that might be a $200 total cash and then don't need to have five
people working to do that. So, uh, and then I did, uh, ask that, um, presentation of that audit be presented to the full board so that we can expect to see that coming. Uh then on the
uh 22nd, excuse me, on the 19th, I got to get my my dates right. On the 19th, we had a um Commissioner Bear talked about the building committee subcommittee that we we had with um city of Morehead and
Morhead school district and it was just kind of some discussions about facilities and how we can work better work together to you know make all these facilities work and there will be more to come on that.
Uh that same day uh I also attended through the uh chamber policy committee. We had uh another discussion regarding the flood mitigation and most of that was in plans and preparations for the
bonding tour that's going to be here tomorrow. And that concludes my report. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Last uh Wednesday I participated in the regional city administrator, county administrator
meeting. Most of our focus was uh was on budgets and levies, paid family medical, even insurance. Uh I think that just in the discussions that uh that were brought forward in preliminary levies u the one which this board set was uh on
the lower end of of what is ahead in most of those cities and counties. Uh participated in the state audit exit interview. again uh that will need still needs to be finalized by the state auditor as as commissioner Campbell mentioned we did receive the highest uh
highest unmodified certification uh but again more to come for there participated in the pick meeting that's been well covered and also on the uh 19th participated in the PRTF ledge meeting a legislative planning meeting uh that we had both moving forward but
also uh for for the bonding tour appreciate uh this board's efforts. You guys are all significantly involved in the bonding tours in some level over the next in the next day. So, thank you for all your work there. On the 19th, met with Darren on a series of issues. Um
participated on the 19th in the flood mitigation prep for the bonding tour uh and uh also participated in the meeting with the city and city of Morehead and Morehead School District. Uh participated in the insurance committee meeting which has been well covered. Uh
just a a quick uh review of the Morehead uh city council. There was no discussion last night or no no agenda item for the Lake Agassy contract. Um the dispatch uh dispatch open house. I think you've all received an invitation.
Uh is going to be for the for the Red River Regional Dispatch Facility is going to be October 28th uh from 4:30 to 7:00 p.m. Uh based on the agenda at 4:45, there'll be a small ceremony and so Sarah will be adding that to uh to
your upcoming upcoming meetings should you all want to attend. Um just of note uh starting in two weeks uh we will have a uh an additional agenda item for budgets only. Uh the the chair
requested that that be placed on the on the agenda and we'll be there uh to have further discussion or if there's nothing new to discuss that point uh we'll just move through it. But I know that that's something that you've shared with the chair that's of importance to you and so that will be added in two weeks. And
that's my last item is there's no board next week and due due to the fifth Tuesday. Uh and with that, that concludes my report. >> Thank you. I I did want to add I I didn't report on the insurance uh subcommittee meeting. Um
on the microphone is going dead. Um, thank you. Uh, that Commissioner Kravangh reported on. Um, we talked a little bit about the NIS contract
as well as adding another option. Um, to the current four options that we have and so more more to come on that. We'll have a discussion at that with the full board. >> All right. Brian, do you have anything for us today? All right, Darren.
>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, on the 16th, I had a meeting with uh, Anna Quinn and Jessica Mickelson on regarding moving some public health nurse or some employees from public health to social services. That I think was the one that was put on hold for today. Um, also
attended the safety committee meeting where we reviewed quarterly accident reports. Um, discussed some fire drills and exting fire extinguisher training, some safety training program. I also attended the board of adjustment uh and the planning commission meeting
which is already been covered by commissioner Mojo. Um judicial security committee uh committee meeting on the 17th with Mark, Kimberly, Jill and Lorie. Um and that's basically where the law now says that uh in starting in
January we have to redact personal information for judges from the land records documents. and really uh Kimberly is doing the lion's share of that uh coming up with a policy on that. I also attended the state auditor's exit meeting and the pick meeting and then uh
also on the 17th I had second negotiations with the lieutenants and the sergeants. On the 18th I was down in St. Paul at the MC um HR payroll user group meeting. uh we had a presentation from UKG and that was also a meeting
where we invited the private and public organizations who are using UKG to come together for those presentations. So it was it was um interesting seeing how the the private and the public organizations uh differ and also uh are the same. uh
20 on 19th uh I also attended the PRTF legislative meeting. Um and then the afternoon uh had a meeting with our legal adviser on some outstanding personnel issues that have been going on for the past several years. Um yesterday I I also attended
the PIC meeting which has u already been discussed um on the benefit issues. That's concludes my report. >> Thank you. Sarah, do you have anything for us? Nothing. All right, we returned. Part: 2
All right, good morning everyone. It's 8:30. We'll call this morning's meeting of the Klay County Board of Commissioners to order for Tuesday, September 23rd. Our first item is the approval of the agenda. >> Offer a motion to approve the agenda. >> Second. >> Have a motion by Commissioner Mojo,
second by Commissioner Ebinger. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppose. The same sign. Motion carried. Citizens to be heard. Do we have any citizens to be heard on items not on the
agenda? Any citizens? Okay. None in the audience. >> Nothing, Mr. Chair. >> Nothing online. Very good. All right. We'll move on to the approval of bills and vouchers. >> None can approve. >> Second. Motion by Commissioner
Krabanhoff, second by Commissioner Evinger. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppose the same sign. Motion carried. I
next we have the approval of minutes from September 9th, 2025 and the work workg groupoup session minutes from August. >> I think that's September 26, isn't it? Or was it August? August was August. Okay. September >> September 26.
>> Oh, it's not isn't September 26 yet. >> Allow for a motion to approve. >> I will second. >> All right. We have a motion by Commissioner Mojo, second by Commissioner Bear. Any further discussion? I just didn't think it was that long ago that we had that. All right. Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppose. The same. Motion carried. All right. Our 835 item is request approval for resolution 2025-23 for setting the date and terms for the tax forfeited property sales and
approval of the t tax forfeited list. Jacqueline, good morning. >> Good morning. Um included is the three parcels of the um that are tax forfeited to the state of Minnesota for non-payment of taxes. Um just looking for approval to list
those in the um the newspaper and um on the website. Something new this year is we're going to um work with public surplus to do an online auction. So those can be listed out there um uh
going forward. >> Can I ask a question? on the list. Um, is the value of the one 223400? >> That's what it was. Yeah, that's what it was for last year. So, it'll have to be listed at that for 30 days.
>> I had just because the one before was 27. >> Yep. >> Got it. >> Yep. The one um the uh block 34 lots 8 through 11 in Morehead. Um that one actually had the the home burned down
about well two years ago now and so there's just a garage in a shed there. The house has been removed. Okay. Thanks, >> Commissioner Bear. >> It states in here that the online auction will start November 3rd. When would be the closing of
>> So it has to run for 30 days. There's new um statute um that says it has to run for 30 days at the estimated market value. Then after the next 30 days going forward and there on then we can place a
a minimum bid that we want to receive. And so this will be new this year something to try um versus having a um in-person auction. >> So it could it could take up to 60 days >> at least and then it can sit there. Normally they would sit out on our
website um for just somebody can walk in and actually just purchase it over the counter. So after those two, after the 60 days, then I'm guessing it'll actually be in January just based on the dates and when it's actually starting.
Um, then anybody could walk in over the counter for whatever doesn't sell. But then they'll be listed out there, too, which will be nice for people to see pictures where they really couldn't do any of that um prior on the website. We just had it listed. They had to call.
So, >> Commissioner Mush, >> thank you. Uh this might be given the fact that there's build a building on that site that might be we will anticipate the ruling of the tax forfeite to go into account the equity
going back to the previous owner. Correct. >> Yeah. There's um they have so much time to request that um there's a new bill put in place um for that. >> Yeah. Just making sure that we I mean I know you're on top >> the one um that one that you're
referencing is the um uh the one in Morehead there. Um that one is over by Concordia and um the city of um Morehead Assessor and myself and the locksmith went to that a few weeks ago.
It's not a good not a good building. There's a family of raccoons, I think, living in there and yeah, it's been sitting empty for a long time. >> Holes in the roofs and yeah, it's not a good situation. So, that one will decrease.
>> You had mentioned that um at some point in time then that um there can be a minimum price put on it. Who who and when is that determined? Um we'll actually determine it with the city of Morehead and then um Lori Johnson will
work together to collaborate that. Nathan did um send me a form already and it's looking I think it was around 40ome thousand. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right.
Any other questions? Mr. Chair, I'll offer a motion to approve the resolution 2025-23 for setting the date and terms for the t tax forfeited property sale starting November 3rd, 2025 via the Klay County website.
Right. We have a motion by Commissioner Bear, second by Commissioner Krabanhoff. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppose the same sign. Motion carried.
All right, we're set. Thank you. All right. Next, we have request approval to hire rehire two positions in public health. >> Good morning, Rory and Susie. Good morning, chair and commissioners. Um, due to our budget, I'd like to bring
this position back at a later date if that's possible. >> Okay. Um, >> yeah, Mr. Chair, and I've had conversations with Quinn and and Susie and and Rory. uh they've received some new information I think in in uh regards
to the UKare program uh which which the adult the adult position that's before the board today for consideration uh works through uh and so with that uh with the uncertainty of knowing that what the information the impact is going to be um they're they're looking to uh
guess table this table this or not even table but bring it back at a at a later date once they have additional information to determine if it is needed or not. >> Right? Because because these are some of the issues that we had brought up in pick that were recommended to come here
based on some changes. But >> there's new information since our pick. >> New information since the pick meeting. And so you're asking to have this just >> the one the one position. Yeah. The first >> the first one. Okay. >> Yep. The adult healthcare program. I believe that Rory is still requesting
number two. Okay. So, and so this there's two. So, the uh the second one I hear the the analyst one that is still up for discussion. >> All right. >> That is correct. >> So, if that if that's okay with the board, then we will just move on to
that. We will um wait additional information. I don't know if that's going to require going back to pick again if there's something different. So, between Quinn, Quinn, maybe you can Yeah. So, um, from the time that this
was put on the agenda after the last pick meeting, we got new information on Friday. Uh, that information can't be made public until October 1st based on their marketing rules. Uh, we will absolutely bring it back to pick. Um, it's just the potential impacts of that
change could also change what we discussed to pick at the same time. So, a lot of moving parts with this and I think uh the smartest thing to do is just press pause on that position now until we have more information and can have a better plan. >> All right. Thanks, Quinn. That's what
we'll do on that one. All right. Next, we have the analyst and CNTC outreach. >> Good morning, Mr. Chair and commissioners. Um I'm here to request approval for a combined public health
analyst and child and teen checkups outreach position 08 um child and teens checkups if you're familiar right that's our program that works to ensure that those who are eligible get um wellchild visits
evidence-based program um and and that part of the position is funded through the department of human services an ongoing grant we have with The public health analyst position is one that is funded through the Minnesota Department of Human Services. It's
called foundational public health responsibilities. Funding that comes from the state to each jurisdiction to ensure that they fulfill basic public health um responsibilities. This one we expect uh and we've had it before would be primarily helping us
with the community health needs assessment which we're required to do and uh a community health improvement plan that comes as a result of that health needs assessment. So it would be 08 it would be entirely funded through those grant funds. Um child and teen
checkups is ongoing. We expect the MDH foundational public health funding will continue. Um if it didn't, we'd have to then re-evaluate it. Right. Any discussion, Commissioner
Bear? So, we're taking two separate positions and turning them into one. >> Yep. They used to be separate, but we thought it made sense to combine them. >> Were they both full-time positions? cuz this looks like we're going to hire a point8. What were they what were those positions at?
>> Uh the analyst originally was 08 and the C and T outreach was point8. >> So 2.8s to to become a point8. >> Yes. >> Commissioner, >> were the two positions both paid for previously with grants? >> Yes, they were.
>> Are the grants no longer available? >> Um the grants are still available. Um it's just a way to try to use those dollars a little more efficiently. We don't have to use them specifically for this, but um so those grants are they're still funded through the same grants we
have. However, like the child and teen checkups, we get a dollar amount per person served and of course our our service area will be diminished to Becker and Clay. So the amount we will receive will be less. >> Okay. This is these are part of what what we've done through the partnership.
>> Yeah. Both of them are through the uh community health board. >> Okay. Very good. All right. Any further? Yeah, we we did have this discussion in pick and it was it was recommended to um move forward with this, but I I I do think for for
the board it would it might be good for us to um get a better understanding of what these grants are and what all uh they can be used for. Um I I don't know that any one of us sitting up here could
answer that question. >> Well, if I may. >> Sure. >> So, the uh child and teen checkups is a very specific program through DHS which it's largely phone calls and other texts and other communications to families who are eligible and I would say are at risk
of uh to ensure that they're aware of their wellchild visits and that they're getting in um and they're doing that preventive practice. It's an evidence-based program. The foundations of public health has a long list of approved capabilities. Um, it's up to
each jurisdiction to decide how they'll use those. So, for example, this one lists assessment, planning, communications, community partnerships, um, data and epidemiology, and policy as
some of the priority things that the grant would like local jurisdictions to use the dollars for. Okay. >> And so I I I can provide more information. Um but there is a fair amount of latitude in how those dollars are used.
>> Okay. >> Yes. Commissioner Bear, >> how many people are doing this grant work right now for us? >> Zero. >> Other than these two separate people are doing it and then >> um we don't actually have anybody doing it right now. >> Have we had in the past?
>> Yes. >> Yeah. That's these these are the request is to rehire. >> Right. >> Right. Any other discussion? >> Mr. Chair, >> Commissioner, >> I will move that we u approve the public
health analyst and child and teen checkup outreach.8 full-time employee. >> All right. Do we have a motion? Do we have a second? >> I'll second the motion. We have a second by or we have a motion by Commissioner Abberinger, second by Commissioner Mojo.
And my question, and I'm not sure if you're able to answer this question, and maybe Steve can, but uh when we originally when you originally had the public health budget come through, uh were both 08 positions included in that budget?
>> Nope. This this point this combined point8 position was what was included. >> All right. Okay. Very good. I was hoping there was more savings. I'm always looking. >> All right. All right. Any further
discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppose. The same sign. >> I. >> All right. Motion carried. >> Thank you. >> All right. Next are we have a request approval to
fill full-time sanitarian position. And this one we have Kent. Good morning. >> Good morning, Mr. Chair and commissioners. I am here uh to request filling our open sanitarium position with a variable hour position that we
currently have on staff. Uh again, this is something that uh we brought to the pick committee a few weeks ago and had some discussion there and uh little backstory uh history on the position is with our delegation agreement with the Minnesota Department
of Health for food, beverage, and lodging pools program. uh we have a set criteria that we need to meet for number of establishments and trained staff. Um that number is 250
um licenses per inspector. Uh we have 331 that we have. So um you know obviously that is over that threshold of 250. Um along with that we do have other uh program areas in our department that we
deal with uh primarily the septic inspections, demolition inspections, public nuisances and things. So the positions that we talk about with in relation to FTEES and so forth. It isn't solely for that um delegation
requirement for the food, beverage, and lodging inspections. We do have many other areas that we deal with as well. Uh the current variable hour that we do have on staff has come in fully licensed and credentialed for the septic program which has worked great for us. Um I've
been able to hand over the keys to that art for most of the year here and concentrate on food and beverage and lodging inspections as our previous sanitarian had given her notice um because she had decided to pursue her
masters last February. So that position has been open, but we have not filled it because we've had the variable hour in place for the septics and I've taken care of the rest of the, you know, department needs. Um, since then, um, I should also back up and say that, uh,
Abby that was here in the sanitarian position, we have been able to keep on staff in order to keep our delegation agreement requirements, um, met with her credentials and so forth to uh, be on staff and still, you know, qualify for
inspections that she's been doing. So at this point um our variable hour is eligible to sit and um meet the requirements for MDH for the delegation agreement. So at this point we were looking at changing her over and filling
that open sanitarium position >> questions. For the person being on variable hour, how many hours a week is she working on average >> currently? Right now, it's pretty high. She's anywhere from 35 to 40.
>> Is there a reason? Another question. Is there a reason why we haven't filled this since February? >> Primarily because we still had Abby, the previous sanitarian, was able to be on staff and still do work for us. Um
Olivia hasn't quite met the requirements up until now to be in that position. So now that she's eligible now is the point where we want to switch her over. And and that coincides too with um the previous sanitarian has now
given her notice that she's no longer going to be employed with us. So we do need to make this move. Um, at the same time, we are working with a new delegation agreement with MDH, and that's one of the requirements they need to know at this point when we submit our information is do we have two qualified
staff. So, it makes sense obviously right now to fill that position and make sure that we have that in place for submitting our delegation information. >> Kent, the previous delegation agreement was uh with the four counties, correct? >> Yes. Yeah. And how and now this new
delegation agreement will be Clay and Becker. >> Yeah. >> And how does the how does the number of um clients impact that? I mean obviously we're going to be dealing with somewhat
less clients because we're going from four counties to two. >> Yep. So, >> how does that how does that fit into, you know, going to what we had before to now? >> So, some information on that is with the
four counties we have um the delegation agreement as far as food, beverage, and lodging goes was with three. Becker County was still with the state. So, we haven't done anything with that number of establishments or anything. The the Becker County portion has been state. Previous to this
agreement, it for years it was Clay and Wilin. And in this agreement now, we've had Clay Wilin and Ottertale for our food and beverage inspections. In this new delegation now, Ottertale will be leaving and Wilin will be leaving with them. So, we will be just
Clay. Um, previous to that, like I mentioned, it was Clay and Wilin for years. Um, so now with Wilin being out, it'll just be Clay. Um, the Ottertale portion was more so
managerial and supervisory for me as far as time and the inspections. I mean, the inspectors would call me in to help them and inspect with them, but not on a regular basis. So the the number of inspections sounds higher when you say we're going from four counties to one, but in
reality it was basically still clay and Wilin as far as the day-to-day inspections and and time and now it's going to be clay. Um, I know in uh in terms of time going forward with, you know, that change in establishments
right now, um, I've had Olivia going through our septic program and she's been extensively going through and streamlining what we have and, um, there's extra time there, or I shouldn't say extra time, but utilizing her time in that manner outside of other time
needed for inspections. if that kind of answers what you're asking. >> Sure. >> I I think so. Yeah. Um, Commissioner Mo. >> Okay. >> Commissioner Abar, we do not provide any of these services to Becker. Never have. Correct.
>> Correct. And at this point, we have we are go what you're asking is we refill a full-time position with somebody we had on as a variable hour employee who's now certified enough to take that full-time position.
>> Correct. >> And that's been vacated by an employee who will no longer be rendering us any services. >> Correct. Yep. >> So, for our 331 establishments, we need to have one full-time inspector for every 200 of them.
>> 250. >> 250. Uh, are you going to be continuing to do inspections? >> Yes. >> So, we have two employees who are going to cover the 331. >> Yep. >> Okay. So, we're we we should be well staffed on that. There won't be another
variable hour hired or asked for. >> No. >> Okay. Thank you. I I know this we had talked about this to some degree at pick, I believe, didn't we? And and maybe I'm going to look to Steve and Darren on
um your thoughts on what what did we come up with a recommendation on this or did we think this is something that >> Yeah, Mr. Chair uh commissioners based on the the recommendation of the group we did we did say that we would be recommending because of the demand of
the cases and the requirement uh requirement of the agreement that we would be supporting this. I think there was also um it it is convenient to have somebody who's a known entity whose work for us is variable hour that we can move into this
position now that she's gained certification. Yes, Commissioner Bear. >> So, the state does uh Becker counties. >> Yep. >> So, if we have a new director come in and they want the state to do Klay County and we hire this person,
then what do we do? >> There would be a year's time needed to give up that delegation agreement. So, if that were the the uh course of action for going forward at some point here, there would have to be a notification to the Minnesota Department of Health and a
year's time for them to uh collaborate and ready for that um change over >> and with us switching from partnership for health from four counties down to two and dece January 1 being that switch over. If the new director comes in in October
and says, "I don't want to run this program. I want the state to cover this. Do we still have to give a year's notice or does it go straight January 1? >> It is a calendar year that they would need. Yep. >> Yep. >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. >> Do you have any idea what the state
would charge for that service? Uh the state currently has gone through some uh fee analysis and I pretty I can't say for sure that they've adopted it yet, but I know that they're going
through increased license fees right now if that is that what you're asking. >> Yes. Okay. And they the state's response would be basically to run any services they provide us off the licenses. >> I'm sorry, what was that? the the the
funding that the state gets for doing these inspections is the is by by through the the licenses they issue and the county would there be any cost to us? >> No, there would not. No. Um the state
would collect the license fees and yeah, we would be out of the picture for that. >> How close are we to self- sustaining on the license fees for these services? >> We are not self- sustaining right now. No. Um I'm not sure what that number is, but I
believe we're in a shortfall for that. >> Would the state charge more than we do? >> Yes. >> Thanks, >> Commissioner Kraov. Little confused. Uh so I'll just ask, can you uh tell me again how does Abby
fit in this uh work? And so by bringing a new p, you know, new person in uh how does her work change or not change or >> Yep. Abby has given her notice as of
last week. So she's no longer an employee here at Klay County. >> Well, that's done. >> Yep. It's >> understood. I'm with you. All right. Thank you. >> So I'm I'm still Commissioner Ary, you mentioned the number 3
>> 31 >> 331 >> 331. >> Um, >> that's number county current establishments. >> Um, and so we would actually have two full-time people
uh doing that, which would be able to run us all the way up to 500. 250 per >> uh are there any options for us to do something other than an additional full-time person because we're nowhere
we're not quite close to 500. You know, we're closer to the 250 than we are to the 500. >> Mhm. Now, along with that, uh Mr. Chair, we do have like mentioned the other programs that we deal with the septic and so forth. So, as far as FTEES go,
our breakdown is not solely those two full-time positions for those 331 if that's what you're asking. You know, we would have the septic program, which is quite demanding, which um when I was looking through the FTEEs, I believe we come out to a.7
or so when we combine the two positions and look at duties. So, um you know, of the 2.0 I know that we would have on the books for the county 7 septic. 2 I believe or 0.1 demolition and then
uh 1.2 1.3 for the >> right >> just if I may. Yes. One more. >> Yes. So on on both the uh inspection on uh septics and your other inspections
the so at 315 what's your trend line been in the numbers in the last let's just say two years. >> Yes. Um Mr. Commissioner the the numbers have been pretty static as far as septic inspections go. We've been hovering
around the 90 90 to 100 per year uh for new and existing uh demolition inspections have been going up and the time involved with demolition inspections has been going up. The uh Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is very strict on uh asbestous requirements
and what's needed for that. Uh so sampling and time and analysis and revisiting sites has >> okay >> has been going up. that trending that time involved has been very very much trending up. >> Okay. And I I've been aware of that, I
guess. Thank you. >> Well, my um I I'm just I'm just going back to uh questions from Commissioner Bear. And I'm I'm just wondering about um the timing of this
and uh and maybe my question can go to uh Steve and to Darren again. Um and Anna's not here, but what are we looking for a time frame for um our new public
health director to be on board? >> U Mr. Chair, commissioners, the applications closed yesterday at 4 p.m. Uh we're looking to set up a first round of interviews next week, early Monday, Tuesday. Uh and uh then our goal would
be once that uh that group has been cut to a smaller number would be to bring this board together if that was your wish is to do the interview process for uh for uh the finalists. >> On my conversations that I I ask that the full board be in that final
interview with the top three candidates, whatever that might be. So, but but you're anticipating that to happen. >> We're going to we're'll be doing doing interviews next Monday and Tuesday and uh the finalists we would hope to have signed up for the next that following week. So, I'll be looking for your
schedules, your availability. Well, I I certainly see this, but I I'm I'm just wondering if if we should be, you know, getting some opinion from our new public health director on this as well. And I think we would still have
time in terms of the um you know, I think the other question that came to was on the this agreement that's being done on a calendar basis and how that agreement might be submitted. I I still would like to have the input of
our public health director on that. Just a point on that. >> We're in the process of trying to transition partnership for health and um it's quite difficult without a director
and it's going to take some time for whoever we bring in to get up to speed on what the issues are and to keep our Becker and I'm I'm trying to keep our Becker counter county people informed. But the sooner we can get a a uh
directory in the better. Next meeting's in November and I would love to have one there. I don't know if that's realistic, but this is we got a lot of moving parts going on right now. >> Right. >> Mr. Chair, if I could.
>> Yes. To um go off of uh the Commissioner Abers's um comments there. Um that is very real where we are working right now with Becker and the state on the new delegation agreement and um
yes uh timeliness of of having this position in place to satisfy that for us to submit our delegation information is probably the primarily the reason why we wanted to come back today. Um just to try and keep informed and see if we can
get this position approved. Um but that was the that's the major reason right now is the timing of this is with the delegation agreement information that we need to submit. >> And is there is there a is there a deadline on when that delegation agreement needs to be submitted?
>> There's not a firm deadline. Um technically the notice was given last year in the last week of December. So that would be pretty much a year's time would be in December. >> Okay. All right. Commissioner Bear. He he answered, you asked the question. I I
think we have time to time to figure this one out instead of just approving it tonight. Well, I'm, you know, I'm not I'm not opposed to it, but I I at this point in time, I still think I we should have input
uh on both the delegation agreement and this position have some input by our >> soon to be hired new public health director. >> I agree, Commissioner Binger. >> Just the reality of the grounds is the
state wants partnerships. Oh, yeah. >> And in that vein, we need to move forward with some things that are are moving at this point. And signing with this delegation right now for a year is
reasonable. It's unreasonable to expect a new public health director to come in and either make a decision that we're not going to sign a delegation agreement uh or or agree with it. I mean, we need
to move forward where we know uh that we're we're functioning. >> You know, I I I guess I would like to know from a new public health director what they want in and what they want out of the delegation agreement. >> Give them a year to figure it out. If
they're hitting the ground running, they don't know what they want. >> I think we still we still give them a year. I mean, they still end up with a year because we have to give a year's notice. I I I would like to have a director's input on this position before we approve this position.
That's the way I feel. We have we have we have we still have time to fill this position. I'm not saying we're not going to fill this position. I think we have till de end of December to fill this position. >> Well, we have an employee who's already
working for us that knows the tasks and we're not going to backfill her position. So actually we're taking six off that we're paying every week now and putting them in a position to provide the services we're obligated to provide to Klay County citizens. I would be
interested when we have a new direct director looking what the cost breakdown is not for us but for the citizens. How much more expensive would it be if we told the state we wanted them to provide these services? how much is it going to
cost our businesses and people with septics and all those other things to to get those the services done. Uh and that's something I'd be interested in seeing raw numbers on at this point just getting a new partnership with Becker
County off and running. There's going to be a lot of moving parts for every whoever comes in here and I don't know if making a decision on this delegation is is something they could do right off the cuff. Kent, does this position is
this position required to be within a delegation agreement? >> Yes, it is >> is required. >> Yeah. >> All right. Any further discussion? >> Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the filling of
full-time sanitation position. We have a motion to approve filling the position. Is there a second? Second. Call for a second. All right. Without a second that motion
is not forward. All right. Um, Administrator Larson, >> Mr. Chair, and may a question to Kent. Based on the the our agreement, in the event that Aby's no longer will no longer be an employee and we have over
250, are we subject to any sort of ramifications from the state that you're aware of? Well, the ramifications ramifications would be that uh they would not grant us the delegation agreement if we didn't have that in place when we would want to
submit. Um, as Commissioner Ebinger had had uh mentioned, our current state with with Becker and moving forward, um, there's there's parts that, uh, in real time, we would want to inspire some
confidence in in what we're uh trying to accomplish. Um, so that's a I mean, that's a factor here there. Um, >> all right. So we will um this certainly will be um discussed more during this
calendar year and this >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. >> I just I hope my colleagues understand my only reason for voting or wanting to have that position filled is so that we can provide services to our citizens that we can maintain a standing with the
state and that we can regain some some uh confidence in our partner in this partnership. I've been working with the groups and trying to trying to figure out what we need right now. We need to just stabilize the situation we're in and
maintain the staff that the state requires us to and provide the services the citizens of Klay County that they expect and they need. >> I don't think any board member here believes that we're going to not be providing services at this point in time. I
>> I I'm sure they don't believe it. I just want us to be in a position where we can do it. Would you have comment, Commissioner K? >> Uh, only I the reason for my not seconding is I I do want to wait for the just see where we go with the new
director. >> All right. Thank you, Kent. >> Thank you. >> All right. Next item we have is the approval of the crime victim service grant award. Are we ahead of schedule here? >> I think we're behind.
>> We're behind. Okay. >> Brian's in charge. >> Are you going to handle this one, Brian? >> You gonna >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Been huh? >> Great. I I I thought Michelle was going to be up here because I'd asked her. I I think what uh occurred this I think
regularly has gone on the consent agenda regularly. It got onto the regular agenda and I asked her since it's already on there to just fill some information in to the board about uh victim services and some of the work that we do. Obviously, beyond the idea
of the county attorney's office working for public safety and holding uh offenders accountable and and u ensuring that uh crime is is uh dealt with appropriately. The other piece that we're always uh looking at is uh dealing
with victims, helping them navigate uh the court system and and through that and then obviously trying to work to make them whole. Uh and so I I would say Michelle and her team do a great job with that. Um, we also work a great deal with restorative justice uh through the
crime uh victim uh services program. Uh, this VOCA grant is a grant that we've had for numerous years. I think well over 10 to 15 years. So, this is a grant that we're always working to get back each year. Um, I believe the grant this year is $70,000.
uh there's no match requirement where I think there has in the past been some match piece but uh it goes towards primarily uh salary um part of Michelle's salary as well as one of the other um employees in there to help work
with victim it's really ma mainly funding direct victim services and so uh we would ask for approval of the grant and I don't have any other numbers I was going to ask that's why I was asking her to bring forward just some of the services that we do provide and how many victims we regular work which I don't have here for you today.
>> Mr. Chair, >> yes, Commissioner Mushell. >> Over the amount of time that I've served on this board, I have observed a high utilization uh with the dollars that we receive with this. Michelle does a phenomenal job in her sphere of work and
uh happy to uh support this endeavor. >> Mr. here. >> Commissioner Avery here. >> I'm working with the the uh diversion diversion the uh the public safety or the the uh
victim assistance program here as part of my portfolio. Michelle's done a remarkable job with restorative justice and some other components on this. So I would like to just um move to approve the crime victim services grant award. >> I'll second the motion. Have a motion by
Commissioner Ebinger, second by Commissioner Mojo. Any further discussion? I would like to also echo what's been said that it's um a service that's very worthwhile. Um
it's important that the victims of these crimes uh receive assistance whenever possible. So this is a good way to help in that regard. So all right, any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by
saying I. >> I. I. >> Oppose. The same sign. Motion carried. Thank you, Brian. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. Next, we have a request approval of the
purchase of IT network switches. >> Morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, commissioners. Uh first item I'm bringing forward today is a replacement of uh request to replace 48 of our network switches throughout the county.
Um some of these are past their end of life uh warranty period even a replacement cycle. So we are looking to get these on replacement this year which will you know due to the the amount will
carry into next year as well. Um we've received three quotes for these and just due the due to the amount um they all three quotes did fall under a state contract or a swift contract number 260512.
Uh, but even with the state contract, I did want to get a couple extra quotes just to show the the cost difference as well. Uh, first quote did come in at $420, $1260. Second quote, $48,66040.
And the the last quote, $358,74 even. And if it were approved, I would prefer to go with the uh lowest quotes through High Point Networks for $358,74. >> What is the life of these switches? >> They it it varies, but typically most of
these switches are pushing 10 years old already. um most of the life they kind of have a life cycle of uh yeah five years before end of sale and then another five years before end of support end of uh support life.
>> Thank goodness for internal service funds. >> Yes, exactly. >> So with that being said, do you have happen to know uh how much is in the internal service funds to help cover these? Yeah, I did uh work with uh Lori Johnson a couple months ago on this and
we we're sitting I think in our technology services fund closer to around a million dollars sitting there now. >> Yeah. But that's that's for >> for everything >> for many different things. I'm talking about how much was >> oh for the network switches. So when uh
Miss Johnson and I sat down and looked through it, we have a quite a few items where maybe we had some hardware where we, you know, we we planned it out or, you know, we purchased something and we did not replace that item. So that fall
into something, you know, you know, some funds where we can use it to replace these network switches. Um so most of these are already covered and then some of that uh those funds that we did not replace other maybe other server hardware would then we could use for
this. Okay, >> for the general public out there watching what is a network switch? So this would be anything where say your computer or network uh voiceover IP phone that plugs into say the wall you know plugs into your wall a wireless
access point that plugs in uh to the network. This gets you connectivity to the internet or to your network server um anything basically that gets you connectivity to any resources on the network or internet in general.
>> So you can't go to Menards and buy these for $3.99. You probably can. Yeah. With the 11% rebate. Yes. >> Yes. >> Do you have that bid in here? >> What's that? >> You have that bid? >> Well, well, actually the last with the High Point Networks one, we're we're
taking advantage of an end a quarter discount, too. So, they uh knocked off that price significantly. So, I think there was like $60,000 and a quarter discount on that. So we tried to get as many discounts as we could uh to make it make it as cheap as possible.
>> Well, Commissioner Gra, >> just coming back to your question a little bit. Had you had an estimate earlier when you were looking at your internal services at all or did you kind of know what was ahead of you? >> Uh we didn't. No, we we started looking
at it uh just the age of the network switches and >> u without knowing exactly how much it would be. Um >> then we started looking received the quotes and you know just verified with internal service. >> You just knew the time was coming.
>> Mhm. Yeah. It's >> we're little overdue on probably about a third of these switches. you know, we've been pushing them off for a few years here just uh just in favor of some other other things as far as time resources go with the staff. We just haven't had time
to to do these. >> All right. Any other questions? >> Yes, Commissioner Bear. >> So, this will replace about half of the switches that we >> This would be probably >> third. I mean, yeah, third. >> Yeah, probably about four fifths. So, basically everything except for the newer buildings here in the last few years.
>> Okay. So, this would place four. How many How many switches then do we have roughly? >> Uh, I'd say closer to 60. This is 48 of them. >> Mr. Kraov. >> Yes. I'll make a motion. >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion to
>> If I Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> As written. So, for that amount of 35874 with high point networks. >> That meets your second. Second. >> All right. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all
in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppose. The same sign. Motion carried. All right. That is approved. >> Thank you. Next, we have the um technology services penetration testing. That's back again.
>> Yeah. So, a couple weeks ago, uh, Jocelyn and I, uh, presented, uh, just a review of the, uh, IT penetration testing, uh, security assessment on our network. And we, I guess, as as a group
here, we kind of came to a conclusion that maybe we we look more on the internal penetration testing side versus the external and the internal as a combined item proposal for next year's budget. So what we did is we came back
now with some updated quotes for just the internal side of this. Uh so I will read those off now. So they they vary from price ranges and terms uh from 1 to 5 years and I did get a couple more vendors in here as well. These are just budgetary quotes.
Uh so F FR Secure and Pledo were the two original uh quotes. So FR secure ranges from uh so 1 to 5 years uh 22,100 to 19,800 and as you know one year
typically is more expensive and then as a 5year you get cheaper you know longer you commit but that isn't always the case with all these vendors uh strata scale which is a little bit of the opposite uh $27,000 for one year and then as you get up to the fiveyear or
three or five year it's it actually gets a little more expensive due to the cost of their, you know, price increases year-over-year. So, the 5-year was 29,700. Uh, Pledo, they they didn't get back in time for uh, you know, three or five
year terms. So, their one-year price originally was $30,000 for internal. um uh CLA which is uh Clifton Larson Allen um their price is 21,000
for one year and then as long as you do it before March which is their kind of slower time and you know throughout the next three to five years it could be 18,950 and then each year there'd be a four to
6% growth annually. Mr. Mayor, >> and in your budget, you what did you have in your budget for this? >> We uh we proposed a request for $40,000 for both. >> For both. >> Mhm. >> And this would be just for the internal. >> Yep. So, a little bit less, a little bit
more than half, I guess, would be the request >> and from what the original request would be >> because we we are still doing stuff for external and internal. This would just be on top of what we're doing.
>> This would be a little more in depth. >> Quite a more in depth. Yes. >> But I just I don't want the public to think we're not doing anything for cyber security. >> Oh, right. Right. Right. >> Yep. No, we we definitely are. Um, of course, we won't go go into detail on
that, but yes, we we do have that, but this would be >> this would be a increased um increased on top of what we are already are doing. Yeah. >> So, yeah. I'll go. Yes. Commissioner. >> Okay. Um, so of these choices I you know
how you're putting them out. Is there something as you've looked at them that you have a sort of a preference toward? >> There are a couple of them that I do like. Um
I think two at least two of them have um something where after 60 or 90 days they will come back and do a reassessment. You know you know they'll do the assessment we we fix the things that we can fix and then they'll come back and test again and just to make sure that
we've we've fixed you know what we've said we fixed which is a which is a good reassurance >> right >> I like that. Um, >> and which are they are? >> Um, I I'll have to double check. I know uh the CLA, the Clifton Larson Allen is
one, um, which happens to be the one of the cheapest ones, which I is probably my preference anyway. Okay. >> Um, they, you know, in CLA, they do have some additional add-on things, uh, like
wireless assessments, too, where, you know, they try to penetrate the the Wi-Fi networks as well. >> Okay. um that was significantly higher. That was maybe like another I don't know 16 or $18,000 which we would maybe skip for this time around. Um but but yeah, I
do I do like do like what I heard from them from their presentation. I think they're they're wellrounded. They've been in the industry for 30 years. They have 130 locations across the country. They're, you know, mid Minnesota based. That's u they seem
pretty impressive. I mean FR FR secure is I think also Minnesota based. They're another impressive one as well. >> Thank you. >> So is the the discussion we're having today is it is it right now that your focus is
to be on the internal? >> Yeah, correct. >> Yeah. But when we when you originally talked the 40,000 that you talked about was for everything, right? >> Yep. External and internal. >> Exter Okay. So within the uh 2026
budget, did we incorporate the 40? >> That was the request and then uh yeah then we were asked to come in just to to review >> but as as we set the preliminary levy the 40 is included. >> That's correct, Mr. Chair. Right.
All right. And so there's, you know, I I according to this, it's just discussion only today, but I'm So I'm assuming that that's just the direction you're looking at um starting with in 2026
>> for the uh the internal only. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. I I think that would be the I think you know speaking with Joson I think that's the the best focus but >> and that that isn't isn't to say that we're not still dealing with external stuff but it's just >> by having somebody else involved they're
doing the study to >> and their study is going to focus on internal weaknesses >> for lack of a better word right >> correct >> it's going to audit the systems that we have in place >> right >> and help us to identify any weaknesses >> that's
Yep. >> All right. That's sounds good. >> Just if I Yes, >> just to continue. I mean, we kind of asked this the last time, too. I mean, as you of the two you kind of picked out, do
you do you see advantage uh necessary beyond one year? I mean, I'm just asking you, would you work that out to five years or what would be Yeah, you have to commit to something up
front, I'm sure. Right. Yeah, I'd say it's pretty advantageous or adventious to to do this on a routine basis just because, you know, as you get new new software, you know, as the the vendors we work with provide new software
updates, things like that, new vulnerabilities can occur. So, software version comes out, you know, that new new vulnerabilities come out along with it. So we could have we could have one of these companies come in and you know do the assessment even that 60
to 90 days we fix everything and then the next week another software comes out and we're vulnerable again. So it's it's just a game of playing catch-up. >> Oh really? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Thanks. So, so again, I I guess uh what I'm wondering and kind of going off some
of the qu questions that Commissioner Krabanov just asked you is of these uh when are you going to determine which one you prefer and what length of term do you prefer because I do believe that the board would have to approve that and
and you're asking you're not asking for any action today. So, um I know I guess the next step would be for you to come back to us with which one you're uh suggesting and and would it be a one-year term or four-year term
or whatever it is? >> Sure. I mean, if if that's a decision the board wants to make today, I mean, I would I mean, I would prefer to go with the the Clifton Larson. >> Well, I think because we have it on as no action today, I think technically we can't do it. So, um, when you're ready
to make that recommendation, um, I think just put it on the the next agenda and and >> sure, we'll deal with it. So, >> one one one comment on that. If you could also see if what it would cost to put on the external in year two or three
if we have the budget for that. >> Gotcha. >> So, then we know. >> Yep. >> All right. I think that unless there's any other questions from board members. Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you very much.
>> All right. Next, we have the request approval of the contract with Winthrop and Weinstein lobbyist services. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is really a continuation of uh the agenda item from last week where this board approved the
proposal from uh Winthrop and Weinstein. At that time you asked that uh that staff work with them to bring forward a contract that identified uh starting prorated for this year and then also for 12 months uh 12 months uh next year. Uh
and so before you for your consideration this morning is a contract that covers those parameters. We would be looking at uh $14,000 for the remainder of 2025 uh and $48,000 uh for for all of 2026. I have had Brian
review the contract. Uh in the event he approved that in the event uh in the event that from a standpoint of dissatisfaction of the services uh there is an out uh on the contract and so we would not have to remain with them should the board wishes not to be uh
during that time frame. Uh having said that uh I would yield for any questions that you may have. I don't necessarily have any well the I I don't have any questions but a couple of comments. Um the first one is the 48,000
our board in our um preliminary levy we decided that we would be taking that from that 185,000 that we had had in previous economic development dollars. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> So that's the intent right now that
that's where that 48,000 come. >> Correct. And my my second one isn't a question, but uh in passing this um and hiring this lobbyist services, I think it's important that we um
we understand the normal contact procedure with them and who should be doing that. And again, I look to this board and I think in the past we've we've had uh commissioners Krabanoft and Mojo dealing with legislative activities that going on
along with Mr. Larson. And I would just assume that our board kind of stick with that with that as being our primary contact for that purpose. Um, you know, I think sometimes you can get where an individual board member might
want to u call or something, but I would I would like to see us go through those channels, all of us to go through those same channels so that we're uh of the same voice with what our needs are for their services. So, >> as long as those two commissioners are okay with that. >> Well, I I'm
>> Yes, >> that's the chair's prerogative there. No, but I mean we appreciate the work they but this will help them in in a lot of sense, but they're the ones that have really been following and know the atmosphere down there and who should be talking to. And so I think that's that's
my opinion on on that. Um any other discussion on the um motion to approve the contract? >> Mr. Sher, I'll make the motion to approve the contract with Winthrop and Weinstein for lobbyist services for
2025, the remainder of 2025 and the year 2026. >> Second. >> We have a motion by Commissioner Bear, second by Commissioner Aberinger. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I.
>> Opposed. Same sign. Motion carried. All right. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would note that uh Mr. Hansen from from Winthrop and Reinstein does plan to be here on W Wednesday. So >> tomorrow. Thank you. >> All right. Thanks.
All right. Next, we have approval of the following resolutions. Uh 2025-24 authorizing county to enter into a credit enhancement pro program agreement with the Minnesota Public Facilities Authority.
Good morning. >> Hello, Mr. Chair. Todd Hagen from Ellers and Associates. Nice to see you commissioners as well. >> Morning, Todd. >> Don't get up here very often. I think the last time was for some new project financings, right, in the bond world.
And um haven't had too much activity in the refinancing um sector for probably five years or so. It's been very quiet with interest rates going up and we've locked and loaded a lot of your your bond issues with low interest rates. So,
that was always good news back when we did that. Um things are changing a little bit right now um in the market and we do have some what we call bond calls coming up on February 1 of 2026.
um one in particular, um a 2017 a jail bond that was probably issued somewhere around 22 million or so. There's 17 and some change left on it. Um and it would be a a good candidate to take a look at
um refinancing um closing by the end of the year at least uh to call that bond in or prepay it for an interest cost savings is what we would be doing. So there's 10 years left on it right now, which is terrific. Um very uh still a
large bond issue, right? With large block sizes, that means every principal maturity um they're pretty um pretty large sizes there. So it should attract some um some good bids on the bond issue as well. Um can't say exactly right now
what that what that would save the city or the count county, but um we do have a pre-sale report in front of the the commissioners here with some with some numbers on the back and a schedule basically um to take a look
point. There we go. Got it. >> We're going to probably get you another microphone here. I think it was making some sounds before, right? Thanks, Steve. >> We did take a look at this with um Steve and Lori also as well um probably about a month ago just to see if it was worth
uh taking a look at. Um at that time um we did talk to a bond underwriter DA Davidson and company out of Minneapolis as well to see what a negotiated sale might might look like. I know the county has um always done competitive bidding
on their bond issues because they've always been very straightforward, right? Um with a high credit rating as well. So, um the legislature did make some changes this year as far as uh being able to guarantee these bonds by the state of Minnesota. This bond issue was
guaranteed back in 2017 um which gave us a AAA bond rating. The county has a double A. Um, so that's more of kind of a guaranteed insured type rating to get to that AAA. It's not a true AAA, but it gets us uh to the top
right on that. Uh, the legislature this session did allow for um carryover of of that credit enhancement. They call that guarantee um if it gets refunded for an interest cost savings. So, we wouldn't be able to do that if we extend the term
from 10 to 15 years, let's say. Uh but we can certainly um also get this one guaranteed as well if we stay within that original term and save some money right at the end of the day here which is the goal. Um so we did take a look at
that. Um, and as we know, uh, the Feds have, uh, lowered their, uh, Fed funds rate by a quarter percent, um, just a week ago or so, and they might lower it again by the end of the year as well, which may or may not affect the public market as much as banks, let's say. But,
um, it is a good sign to sort of lock and load or at least get this on the radar for at least a closing uh, in November uh, or at the latest in January, right? So, what we do is set this up with you folks right now for a
bond sale. Um, say, let's see, I've got the schedule here, which would be um say October uh 20 27th, we would receive bids uh for your meeting on on October 28th to close November 13th. But there is some
latitude or flexibility in the resolution that's in front of the board right now to uh say, "Hey, let's just see if uh how things are shaking out as we get closer and closer to the end of the year. If our crystal ball or all indicators uh think that it would be
worth waiting a few months, you know, and um and set the bond sale a little bit later in the year uh that we'd have the flexibility to do that as well. Um, so our our recommendation um is to um to
go competitive on this as well because it's a pretty high quality rated bond, right? It it will be it's 10 years in length. Uh and and the uncertainty out there of kind of where the market is is sort of going away as we as we move forward throughout the end of the year.
Um Paul is here from DA Davidson behind me. uh if you want to know a little bit more about the negotiating sale aspect of this, if it's worth um just kind of meeting up with one underwriter and go through the the path that way, which um which there are some advantages of that
as well. Um just to kind of stay on the pulse of the market. Um being able to kind of pick and choose maturities as we move forward uh here with with those folks. um um our firm uh doesn't see a big advantage in that at this point for
this bond issue, but again, it's something to keep in keep in mind. Um if you asked me a year or a month or two ago, um I would I would say yeah, we might be leaning into more than negotiated sale because the the uh savings is pretty tight, right? And do
we want to uh refund every maturity or do we want to kind of pick and choose some of them we call partial uh call? Maybe just do the front part and keep the back um as is. Uh if we do that um there's double costs, right? We've got two bond issues also sort of moving
forward. Um and and it's a little fragment fragmented for for Lori and the folks um to sort of keep track of the two bond issues as opposed to one. And so our recommendation is to is to just uh is to do a full call on this. Just swap one out for the other basically as
we as we move forward. So yeah, we've looked at this every which way um sideways and up and down and our analysts at Ellers uh feel that it would be a good one just to go ahead and uh try to save some money right um by the end of the year for you folks. Right
now, we're looking at um somewhere north of $500 some thousand dollar over the 10-year period. We hope to that that looks better as well. Um I'd like to see some of the indicators sort of start looking a little bit better for you, but uh we also feel that calling a bond
issue on its first available call date, which is 21 of 26, is also the most efficient way to go. Uh the other thing we have going for us too uh as far as on the bank side of this on the investment side if we close in November uh we're
also able to invest those bond proceeds for three months and make some money uh up to the 21 call as well. So that also adds to your savings too. So, uh, even though, uh, some of those rates have gone down, we hope to capture, um, those
rates for the savings for the new bonds and then still be able to invest the bond proceeds at a decent rate to make some, uh, to make some more savings for you, too. So, it's a it's a good one out there. Um just an FYI too, we'd also one of the risk factors I suppose if you can
call it that, uh we'd also be swapping out um a February 126 call date, you know, and any date thereafter on the old bonds. Uh we would be probably locking into more of a 6 to 8 uh year call on the new bonds, too. So 2033 would have
to wait to do it again. But again, there's only 10 years left on the bond issue. So the chances of uh this being called again or prepaid for an interest cost savings are pretty minimal I think between now and then. So tried to just catch the highlights for you folks. We
we already have uh some of the wheels in motion just because uh this schedule between now and October 28th is pretty tight. We're uh kind of already starting to talk to the rating agencies a little bit and kind of schedule those calls with Steve and Lori. So I I yield to you
folks. Um, again, if you have any questions on negotiated sales, Paul's here, too, just to kind of see if, you know, if you have any questions on that as well. Otherwise, I'm I'm here to answer anything you have for me as well. So, >> all right, Commissioner Bear.
>> So, if we do this now, you said 2033 would be the earliest we could do it again, correct? >> Yeah, I I would try to So, as as as soon as we go back to the office, we'll put this through what we call quality and control this afternoon. We'll kind of monitor that call date too to kind of
see where the market is. We could push that to six years, maybe seven years. Uh I think that would be the farthest out would be 20 33 to call it again. >> Could we narrow that down to three or four years or I mean I'm not I don't know how bonds work completely, but
>> that's pretty tight. That's pretty tight. >> Yeah, that's pretty tight. I think Paul would probably tell you two, six years is probably probably pretty pretty close to as tight as we could get on that. But again, that's a negotiated thing too as well. And we'll continue to just see what the market appetite as well. It may
not make much difference. Um, generally speaking, um, Commissioner, that the the the shorter the call date, the more hit, so to speak, we might get on the interest rate, right? Because the the investors out there are probably seeing that you might might take our our bond
away within two or three years. So, we'd rather see >> seven or eight or years. and I know that I can hold on to that issue. So, I will give you a lower interest rate. So, >> yeah, good question. >> So, what what does the actual um impact of the Federal Reserve's lowering of the
rates due to what we're talking about here? >> Yeah, probably um not as as much on this bond issue because this is called a non-bankqualified bond issue. It's over $10 million. So, the Feds give us a $10 million limit uh
each calendar year to to have a bond be bank qualified. And that kind of also helps with the interest rate. It attracts supposedly attracts banks to buy the bonds too as well. So, if it's bank qualified, uh banks are allowed to deduct up to 80% of their interest um
cost uh on to buy a bond um as well as tax exempt both federal and state. Uh, so it does bring banks into the into the mix >> provided it's under 10 million. >> Provided it's under 10. So we still have we have over 17 on here. So it's going to continue to be non-bankqualified.
Um, so like I said, that that impact's probably going to be minimal, I think, for for banks. Um, this is a public market sale, right? Not a bank or a loan >> uh deal. So the public market operates a little bit differently, more on supply and demand out there. Uh we're also
hitting this I think at the right point as well where uh there's probably going to be a lot less supply uh when we're going to sell these bonds than um and high higher demand basically just because um uh some folks um their refundings really haven't been on the
radar for very for all these years and they're probably not just kind of getting getting to look at them right now to see if there is an interest cost savings. uh and generally over the the the the winter or so in the fall of the year, new new projects aren't being, you
know, completed right now either. So, I think we've got that whole um low uh supply, high demand going for us, too. Sometimes we can call that the the January effect basically too when um there's lots of bond calls on 21, but uh we'll see how it goes. This is I think
the perfect storm for you folks uh getting this all lined up and and ready to go. So between now and if the Fed were to drop another half a point by the time that still doesn't have a lot of impact on what you're >> it it it could it depends and and Paul could tell you you know in in the
portfolio basically uh where they get their money from right they're underwriters broker dealers so they spread their wings throughout uh all the markets right so they're it could attract some banks um it could attract retail sales folks you know um um mutual
insurance companies buy these bonds too as well, for the long term. Um, so I think it it it it can help, but it's certainly not going to hurt, right? So I think we're riding the wave down, which is uh which is a good thing. >> And then I have one last question for you. So So sometimes
sometimes if you're if you're under that $10 million and then you become bank qualified, you can actually get more competition for the bidding of those bonds. >> That is correct. So, going back to um Commissioner Bear's question in terms of
call date, um could we could we establish a call date to make sure that at that point in time our principal balance would be under 10 million? >> We could. We'll take a look at that. That's a great idea. >> Yeah, I would take a look at that.
>> That is a great idea. Oh, I you know I think maybe you should I mean when you're looking at that uh when it comes to the call date you know look at your advertised schedule and see okay well let's try to tie that call date to when that 17 million becomes less than 10
>> for sure I will take that I will take that back to the office with me. >> All right >> thank you. Yeah. >> All right. So, um, on our agenda here, we have two items here. And the first one is the authorizing the county to
enter into a credit enhancement program agreement with the Minnesota Public Facilities Authority. Um, is that so you're requesting that too on >> correct? Yep. Two resolutions. Yep. That one gets us uh to have them guaranteed by the state of Minnesota like the old
one is or the current one is. >> Okay. So that that is the resolution that gives us the state backing. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Correct. I just want to make sure everybody's understanding of that. All right. Any other questions >> other than just making sure you have the
resolution so you know what we're >> correct. Yep. I have copies of those. >> Yep. >> Yes. Let's let's act on the 2025-24 first, please. >> Shar, I'll make a motion to for to to
approve resolution 2025-24. >> I'll second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I oppose the same sign.
>> Motion carried. And then the next one would be the resolution 2025-25 authorizing the providing of for the sale of general obligation jail refunding bond series 2025A.
And I do uh want to note that we have Lori Johnson in attendance. Lori, I don't know. Uh I'm assuming you're here in support of >> All right. Very good. >> Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to approve resolution 2025-25. We have a motion and a second. I just
want to ask is there any uh does 2025-25 have any date specific that we need to include? Uh it has a a a bond sale date of October 28th in paragraph 2, but it also
gives us the flexibility. It says or on such other date and time as the board deems desirable. So, we will keep you uh keep Steve and Lori up to date to see if um it's advantageous to move that October 28 out
>> to another month. Yep. >> Okay, there I see it now. Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. >> All right. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I oppose the same. >> Motion carried. All right. Very good.
Thank you. >> Thank you very much for having me. Yep. All right. Does the board want to take a quick break? >> Just keep going. Break. All right. All right. We're going to take a fivem minute >> break. All right, we are back in session and we are now down to committee reports and
we'll start today with Commissioner Mojo. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Last week I I attended the planning commission meeting. We had several hearings. One was a conditional use permit request for a the event center modification uh in
Glendon Township which passed and then a request for an interim use permit, a mining application in Keen Township which also passed and then a uh conditional use permit request for a principal use in Holly Township with uh
which passed. And then uh we did have uh two applications that were withdrawn uh concrete badge plant sort of request and then one was post postponed to October 21st. I will attend the Kurts Township meeting tonight uh to have further
dialogue with that at the township level. Uh, in regards to new business, we appointed uh the Morehead public service requested that there was an appointee to the Morehead Wellhead Protection Plan, that amendment team.
So, the planning commission did request that our board chair Joel Hildebrandt serve in that capacity. But I had a question on that because I seem to recall that usually >> commissioners serve on those wellhead protection plan districts within their
uh >> within their district. I know that I serve on a couple including the Sabin one. And so I did ask a point of clarification that this doesn't negate county commissioners from serving in a capacity. And it was u Matt's understanding that it was this was a
planning commissioner specifically that would participate. So he would ask I think you maybe were appointed. No >> on the Yeah. Um so he was going to ask ask to make sure that >> Well, I I serve on the um wellhead
protection group as a >> Right. So maybe Steve, can you uh follow up with that just so that we're clear? And then we did have a recognition. Curt Stubstead has served on the planning commission for it's already been nine years. Wow. So that time went fast, but
uh his uh he's exhausted his uh terms on that. So it will be stepping off of the board, so we do have some openings. Matt's working to advertise the openings so that we can get some other great applica applicants in there. Kurt still serves in the
capacity on the watershed district, so we're really grateful for his work there. Wednesday, I was invited. Minnesota Public Radio had a event in Morehead uh with Senator Koopac and the chairs of
both the Klay County GOP and DFL. Uh I was invited to uh have a discussion with them on on some of the issues that counties are facing after the uh state and national legislative sessions. So I appreciate the opportunity to participate in that. The next day I had
a meeting with uh Lakeland. The finance committee meeting did look at some of the uh program trends that have gone down in recent years, but this particularly had to do with our self- insurance. Um we have exhausted midyear the amount of
money that we had built up as a reserve. Um there was over $250,000 in that. Now we're at a $65,000 in the hole. So, uh we'll um we did discuss a max claim acrual of 10,400 per employee.
Uh that will hopefully get us to uh zero by year end. It should, but depends on claims. And then we do have some work to do uh to fix that for 26. Um but we still maintain that um given what trends
are that we've saved the organization $2.6 6 million by self-funding since 2018. The next day, I had a discussion in regards to our non-secure detention proposal and the PRTF work with staff to
prepare for the bonding tour that will happen tomorrow. So, we had a nice uh planning session on that that afternoon. I also had a flood mitigation discussion with the city of Morehead. the uh Buffalo Red WHED and the um diversion
authority folks in preparation for that tour as well tomorrow. So I think we've got the right folks in the right places to uh tell the story and request for the need. And then yesterday I attended the Lakeland Mental Health Center board
uh monthly meeting. We were at the Detroit Lakes office. They do great work there. they really partner with the Morehead site. Well, um obviously MD positions are really costly positions. So, I think they do a great job of
making sure that they're offering uh appointments um scheduling appointments between the two sites uh in a great spot. But, uh, our August is always a really difficult month in, uh, that area because people are taking vacations and
families are, um, out of school and doing those things. And so, we're hoping that our, um, finances see a little bit of a bump going into the year. And I think that concludes my reports. >> All right. Thank you. >> Oh, I will say, sorry, I also attended
the Morhead City Council meeting yesterday. Um, and there was small discussion. Uh, uh, one of the city council members, uh, invited the public to our SWAT committee meeting on Thursday, but there was, uh, no discussion on the contract.
>> All right. Thank you, Commissioner Bear. >> I only had one meeting last week. It was last Friday, a subcommittee meeting with the building committee. Myself and Commissioner Campbell were there along with the city of Morehead and the Morehead School District. We just talked about facilities and making optimal use
of all our facilities. >> That is all I have, Mr. Chair. >> All right. Thank you, Commissioner Eringer. >> Thank you. Um, last Tuesday, the 16th, I attended the diversion authority board retreat and bus tour that we did of some of our uh
project sites. Uh, the retreat retreat covered the diversion authority governance policy implementation that we're currently going through. some of the uh challenges we're going to look at when the operations and
management factor comes in or maintenance factor come starts here in the next couple of years as we get things completed. Also discuss the 2026 budget timeline, the basic concepts of our financial plan.
Um and uh then we got on the bus and we took a tour of various key component sites uh for the project including P3 portions of the project and Maple River aqueduct and some of the bridges and channel
reaches and the Russ River outlet. uh the next day or no I'm sorry this yeah it was the next day Wednesday the 17 17th um myself and and uh the chair along with Darren Brooks
Steve Larson and Lori Johnson attended the uh meeting with distant or the zoom meeting with the state auditor on the uh exit meeting they had on our audit later that day attended the pick committee meeting
which uh the issues we've covered today were contained in that and then later that night or no I'm sorry Thursday the 18th I attended the full meeting of Lake Agassy Regional Library Board uh most of our business was simply voting on
approving some grant applications and uh some of the funding mechanisms that come through the state that require board approval and then we do have tentatively we've signed a uh 10-year lease with the
city of Morehead to get uh space for the Lake Eye Regional Library. I don't know, maybe Commissioner Mojo saw that was brought up to the the U city board last night or not. >> Uh well, they did sell the old library.
>> Yeah, I know. So, we better have a place to go. But they didn't vote on a new a vote on the on the new lease with us with Legacy Regional >> unless it was incorporated in their 25
prelim or six preliminary budget. >> Okay. >> The finance piece, but I don't recall hearing. >> Okay. I'll follow up on that. But it has been a uh I as I understand it, the negotiations are clear and we've got a we've signed the the uh lease.
>> Okay. >> And that completes my report. >> All right. Thank you, Commissioner Krabanoff. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Back uh last Tuesday, excuse me. Uh for the um we had a recorder meeting for the law library. Uh
things are still very active uh down there. It's used u uh very steadily. Uh we'd had uh two people uh um serving as a uh for a part-time position. Uh both those people have left. um um taking
other positions in law and um but we did hi get have a new hire uh for this small uh part-time position that uh will be running the law law library now and just so we all know um that is their own
funding um the funding for the law library comes through um state statute that u we're paid on per case that runs through the court system. So, um the new
hire is well in the budget uh that we set up for the year. Uh later that afternoon, we had the adult mental health monthly meeting. Um very well attended uh with our providers and a
couple of consumers. Um uh it w we were um joined by the new uh assistant chief um uh Bill Alfelt uh with the city of Morehead. Um he introduced himself, gave a nice uh
background so we all knew where he was coming from and he's really focused in on mental health and and Morehead activity. So, um his thoughts and the work that we do in that uh LAC fit right into um what he's hoping for and to u
you know do the best we can on crisis and uh um uh crisis response and also um the management that goes along with it. Um, let's see. On the 18th started, uh,
oh, excuse me. Back to Wednesday, uh, 17th, I had my monthly finance meeting with theel, um, historical cultural society. Um, everything's running on budget or a little above. So, that's
good. Good efficiencies going on. Uh also just will bring up uh two things that coming in the near future. Um October 25th we're doing a 5K fundraiser for the historical society. And then um
the big event is our pangia event which will be on November 22nd or last year I think we had like 700 people come over at the Hum Center. Um on September 18th, the Thursday, I had
my uh hi meeting and um again, uh great appreciation for them be able to have their 300,000 tax tax levy that was approved by us in Barnesville. They then worked on knowing that they worked on
their um preliminary um 26 budget and then al uh so they they had a plan in place for next year and then wanted to tell you and I think Dar mentioned this that one day but um just to make sure they did receive an increase because of
their their work in homework starts with home they have been given an increase uh for the years 25 327 they were expecting $619,000 and now Minnesota has in fact given them
$874. U homework site was home is a is a program through the state uh that provides rental assistance that focuses on families for school age children.
Uh that afternoon I had a a a quality visit with our uh social director Quinn uh Jagger and and um we had um uh talked about trying to find again continuing in light of our preliminary budget, you
know, trying to find work on ways to uh get that that down. I think uh Quinn along with other um Steve and others are um finding um I don't have specifics for you today but uh finding a few more
places maybe we can uh work our levy down some more. So uh it was we had talk we also talked about those are the challenges of 26. Uh we also talked about the challenges of 27 when we start
hitting the um uh the how do I say it the cost ships from the federal government on SNAP and Medicaid that are going to hit Minnesota. Um and then that evening uh through the early childhood um initiative we had our
longest table event and uh that was over at Trinity Lutheran Church. Um well attended. A couple hundred people showed up and good conversation uh with our group and uh with others in the community.
Um, as Commissioner Mojo um mentioned on Friday, we had our um PRTF small group uh get together again in prepar preparation for the bonding tour tomorrow which I'm very excited about.
And then yesterday in uh early morning or in the morning we had a insurance subcommittee uh we had had the um approval of a health plan um uh that we accepted
couple meetings ago. And anyway, there was a part that's coming up uh about um within that um program another benefit that may be um um looked at uh on u
within the the health program that will be discussion I think it's going to be coming here right for discussion or on the essential only how will that work >> I think the board has taken action uh board's taking action on establishing
the dollar amount and so >> Okay. Okay. All right. We'll leave it at that. It was already approved. That piece of it was uh it already had a vote within the the committee and then um uh then yesterday afternoon I had my
Cascade Food Partners steering committee. Uh that group is uh kind of redefining on outreach uh to have more effective effectiveness. the group and I think there'll be um that will be a
continued uh conversation for the next few months and then with that that's my reports. >> Thank you. All right. On September 16th I also attended the
diversion board of authority retreat and bus tour. I'll start off with the retreat. we uh reviewed the governance policy implementation and how in the past we maybe haven't followed those procedures like we should and and uh
we're kind of trying to make sure now that we with our guidance from the new diversion authority director to really make sure that we're following those that government governance policy.
Uh we talked a little bit about the future staffing once we move more from construction to operations and maintenance. Um talked about environmental monitoring and then considerable time on the 2026
budget and the financial plan. Then we went on the bus tour and um you know I got I gotta say that going on that bus tour it's um it was like my first work on on flood projects was back
my time on Oakport Township and we were working on what turned out to be a $33 million flood plan in Oakport Township that they said would never get built and and we drive by their T and it's built.
And then we talk about this plan. I think back from working on this from ever since the 2009 flood and to stand over uh one of those massive um diversion inlet structures
uh and seeing it almost done and seeing all the channel almost done. It was um I think back to the um public inputs and public frustration and public arguments that transpired for many years to see
the collaboration efforts of this finally being done. It's I mean this thing is supposed to be close to substantially complete by next fall and it was it was
that that work that's been done. And of course it wasn't $33 million project, it was a $3.2 billion project. a little bit difference there, but um overall very very happy to finally get out there and
see that. And then the um we did meet on the 17th with the pick committee. Uh several items uh a couple of those items we were brought before our board today. Um I think Anna's going to be coming forward with her recommendation on the
referral policy that we currently have. Um, you know, I think, you know, with today's numbers that we're seeing where people are, we're getting a lot of applicants. So, I think there we're going to be seeing a request that that
uh referral policy probably will no longer be needed. Uh we had some discussion about the p paid family medical leave and um the supplementing of time you know so
um so that'll that'll be coming before the board also um sleeve donation that will be coming before the board and then we had a a significant conversation about um
vacation balances over 240 hours and believe that we decided that that that policy was good in its current form. So I don't believe that's coming forward for any changes. Yeah. Then on the 17th I also
had the audit committee meeting u exit meeting uh for the 2024 audit. Uh another very good clean audit. Um the typical usual thing was uh the areas of
these small departments where there's the internal controls. It's hard to have multiple people dealing with you know something that might be a $200 total cash and don't need to have five people working to do that. So uh and then I did
uh ask that um presentation of that audit be presented to the full board so that we can expect to see that coming. Uh then on the uh 22nd, excuse me, on the 19th, I got to get my
my dates right. On the 19th, we had a um Commissioner Bear talked about the building committee subcommittee that we we had with um city of Morehead and Morhead school district and it was just kind of
some discussions about facilities and how we can work better work together to you know make all these facilities work and there will be more to come on that. Uh that same day uh I also attended through the uh chamber policy committee.
We had uh another discussion regarding the flood mitigation and most of that was in plans and preparations for the bonding tour that's going to be here tomorrow.
And that concludes my report. Now thank you Mr. Chair. Last uh Wednesday I participated in the regional city administrator, county administrator meeting. Most of our focus was uh was on budgets and levies, paid family medical, even insurance. Uh I think that just in
the discussions that uh that were brought forward, preliminary levies. Uh the the one which this board set was uh on the lower end of of what is ahead in most of those cities and counties. Uh participated in the state audit exit interview. Again, uh that will need
still needs to be finalized by the state auditor. As as commissioner Campbell mentioned, we did receive the highest uh highest unmodified certification. Uh but again, more to come for there. Participated in the pick meeting. It's been well covered and also on the uh
19th participated in the PRTF ledge meeting, a legislative planning meeting uh that we had both moving forward but also uh for for the bonding tour. appreciate uh this board's efforts. Uh you guys are all significantly involved
uh in the bonding tours in some level over the next uh in the next day. So uh thank you for all your work there. On the 19th met with Darren on a series of issues um participated on the 19th in the flood mitigation prep for the bonding tour uh and uh also participated
in the meeting with the city and city of Morhead in Morhead school district. uh participated in the insurance committee meeting which has been well covered. Uh just a a quick uh review of the Morehead uh city council. There was no discussion
last night or no no agenda item for the lake agency contract. Um the dispatch uh dispatch open house I think you've all received an invitation uh is going to be for the for the Red River regional dispatch facility is
going to be October 28th uh from 4:30 to 700 p.m. uh based on the agenda at 4:45 there'll be a small ceremony and so Sarah will be adding that to uh to your upcoming upcoming meetings should you all want to attend. Um
just of note uh starting in two weeks uh we will have a uh an additional agenda item for budgets only. Uh the the chair requested that that be placed on the on the agenda and we'll be there uh to have further discussion or if there's nothing
new to discuss that point uh we'll just move through it. But I know that that's something that you've shared with the chair that's of importance to you and so that will be added in two weeks. And that's my last item is there's no board next weekend due due to the fifth Tuesday. Uh and with that, that
concludes my report. >> Thank you. I I did want to add I I didn't report on the insurance uh subcommittee meeting. Um on the microphone is going dead. Um
thank you. uh that Commissioner Kravangh reported on. Um we talked a little bit about the NIS contract as well as adding another option um to the current four
options that we have and so more more to come on that. We'll have a discussion at that with the full board. All right, Brian, do you have anything for us today? No. >> All right, Darren. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Sure. Uh on the 16th I
had a meeting with uh Anna Quinn and Jessica Mickelson on regarding moving some public health nurse or some employees from public health to social services. That I think was the one that was put on hold for today. Um also attended a safety committee meeting where we reviewed quarterly accident
reports. Um discussed some fire drills and exting fire extinguisher training some safety training program. I also attended the board of adjustment uh and the planning commission meeting which is already been covered by commissioner Mojo. Um judicial security
committee uh committee meeting on the 17th with Mark, Kimberly, Jill and Lorie. Um and that's basically where the law now says that uh in starting in January we have to redact personal information for judges from the land records documents. and really uh
Kimberly is doing the lion's share of that uh coming up with a policy on that. I also attended the state auditor's exit meeting and the pick meeting and then uh also on the 17th I had second negotiations with the lieutenants and
the sergeants. On the 18th I was down in St. Paul at the MC um HR payroll user group meeting. uh we had a presentation from UKG and that was also a meeting where we invited the private and public organizations who are using UKG to come
together for those presentations. So it was it was um interesting seeing how the the private and the public organizations uh differ and also uh are the same. uh 20 on 19th uh I also attended the PRTF
legislative meeting. Um and then the afternoon uh had a meeting with our legal adviser on some outstanding personnel issues that have been going on for the past several years. Um yesterday I I also attended the pic meeting which has u already been
discussed um on the benefit issues. That's concludes my report. >> Thank you. Sarah, do you have anything for us? All right, we returned.