--------- 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, December 30th. Our first item is the approval of the agenda. >> Offer an approval of the agenda. >> I'll second that. >> All right. Motion by Commissioner Mojo,
second by Commissioner Bear. Any further discussion on the motion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. oppose the same sign. Motion carried. Citizens to be heard.
I see we have no citizens in the audience to be heard. James is here on business. Uh anybody online? Nobody online. >> Thank you. We will then move on to the approval of bills and vouchers. >> Mr. Chair, I move we approve the payment of bills and vouchers.
>> I'll second that. >> Thank you. Motion by Commissioner Ebinger, second by Commissioner Bear. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Oppose. The same sign. Motion
carried. Approval of minutes from December 16th. >> I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. >> Second. >> Motion by Commissioner Bear. Second by Commissioner Abbinger. Any further discussion on the motion? Any further discussion?
>> Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Oppose the same sign. Motion carried. All right. Our 8:35 item, we have a request approved to rehire open overnight position in the clips unit. Good morning, James.
>> Good morning, Mr. Chair, commissioners. Um, yes, I'm here today to request permission to um rehire an open position we have in our Eclipse mail program. It's our transition program. Um, you should have a salary calculator in your packet. Um, the position is in our 2026
budget. Um it'd just be minimal savings with between the outgoing employee and the potential incoming employee. Um but the major savings um about $8,25. Um most of that comes in um with the
health insurance and stuff the lag in that. So >> Mr. Chair, I'll offer a motion to approve the rehire. >> Second. >> Right. Motion by Commissioner Mojo, second by Commissioner Ebinger. And this was brought before PIC, I believe, wasn't it? >> Yep. >> Two weeks ago,
>> PIC did recommend approval as well. So, any further questions? >> Are are you going to need backfill? >> You know, I I might um if they come from a different unit possibly. So, or a different county entity then? Yeah, I would request the backfill. >> We'll add a back fill option to my
motion. >> Okay. Does that meet your second? >> Yep. >> All right. So, the motion is to rehire with backfill. All right. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppose the same sign. Motion carried.
Next, we have the uh request approval to sign the 2026 Lakeland contracts for the 30-day evaluation program for non-secure program. >> Yeah, our non-secure program has been running a an evaluation. It's a 30-day evaluation program. Um it's been very
popular. Um Lakeland's been um doing the professional services for that for over 25 years. Um they've been a very very solid partner for us. Um they've they request bare minimum um and they're requesting a 2% increase from last
year's to this year's um which is very very fair. um and I'm requesting permission to sign the contracts with them for the 2% increase um for 2026 for their psychiatric nurse provider which
would be psychiatric meds which is it's gold nowadays um um licensed psychologist and coordinated assessments. So, >> so James, when you budget that that dollar amount, do you
do you do you just go based off of historic data? Because every year that can y >> change? >> Yep. It's one of those >> based on the clientele, right? >> Yep. So, like when I I I budget for this in the 2026 budget, um I I go on what
previously they've requested and and I basically take a very good educated guess on on what the increase >> and they came in with a 2% request, which I think is very fair. >> So, on your in your nonsecure budget, what was the line item for this in 2025?
The total amount >> for this one specifically. >> I did the math on. I don't have the total amount line item on it, but I did the math between last year's um contract and this year's contract between the two and and it's 2%. >> Yeah, I'm I'm just curious. 2%.
>> Oh, the actual hard solid number um 52 79 about 86,000. Okay. That's that's is that a pretty average annual amount other than the increases that we have for
>> Yes. Yeah. It it's it's right it's right in line with um what what the services we need them to provide in our non-secure unit for that. >> Commission logo. >> Thank you. I I appreciate bringing forward. I do serve as chair of the Lakeland board and I I know that
Lakeland has tried to have meetings with all of our county partners as we go through budgeting cycles to make sure if there was a huge outlier then that Lakeland was anticipating they would communicate that uh to county staff as well. Um certainly you've heard me talk
about margins and finances at Lakeland as well. Um this is not something that they're they're doing to uh make a substantial amount of money. They're trying to co cover those those costs as you talked about that can really sway with case case load.
>> Yeah. And I I I agree with that and I don't Lakeland's always been very fair with us in that regard. I was when I when I look at the numbers I was just curious of 2% of what number are we talking? >> Oh yeah. How much? Yeah. Okay. >> You know that what that is and um
>> Yeah. And we had 3% in the budget that you had presented. >> That that's yep. That's what I anticipated was three and they're requesting two. So >> okay. >> With that, Mr. Chair, I'll make a a motion to approve and sign the 2026
Lakeland contract the nonsecure program. >> Second. >> Excuse me. Yeah. Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Bear, second by Commissioner Ebinger. Any further discussion on the motion? >> Just one one question. >> Yes. Go ahead. Do do they charge per client that they see or is it just a lump sum and they provide the services
throughout the whole year? >> It's just a lump sum for us and then we we charge whatever county is utilizing the services. >> Okay. >> Well, in most instances though >> it's clay. >> It's clay, right? Because this is nonsecure. >> That's correct. >> Yeah. Okay.
All right. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. I >> I oppose the same sign motion. Great. Thanks, James. >> Thank you. >> All right. Next, we have request approval to hire two registered nurse
positions for withdrawal management detox facility. Good morning, Troy. >> Good morning, Mr. Chair. commissioners. Um yes, today I'm here to request um if some of you haven't met, this is uh
Andrew Loy. He's my RN supervisor and we are here to request um two RN positions. Uh we went to pick on the 16th and um
and now we are here requesting permission to hire these two nurses. These are budgeted positions. We've had them in our budget um prior to moving to the new facility um as a as a need for the facility. So, uh these two RNs
should make things run a lot smoother. We've been running into a position where sometimes we are only ending up with one nurse on duty. If that nurse would have called in, we'd lose all our revenue for that day. um you have to have nurses um
to be able to um charge for withdrawal management. And we had we had this discussion that pick uh we had fairly lengthy conversation but that in the part about losing that that was the one uh issue that I had brought up to this board that I had a little concern about
u from our previous director had a nursing license would always be able to be covered for for that purpose. And now that we don't have that, you know, there's the potential if you don't have it, if we don't have one of these on on duty, we could lose the ability to
um to do that. So having said that and we we also had the discussion I know um you both mentioned that you have some internal people who are working on getting their RNs that would
really be good candidates for this >> correct. Um and I you know and we did bring up the question for to you at pick and u and that was in terms of the timing
because you know you're budgeted for four RNs. Right. >> Correct. And if you hire these two RNs and the people that you currently have on staff who are not and they're working towards their RN and if you're full with
RNs, uh what does that do to them? >> Well, they wouldn't be able to work in our facility then if we don't have the RN position. So, we potentially could lose some valuable um staff.
you know, I and that's that's the that's kind of the catch 22 that you're in. You I mean, you need the RNs, but now in terms of the in the in your opening comments when you talked about the potential for losing the funding
reimbursement, uh does an LPN qualify? >> An LPN would qualify. You need a nurse on duty. >> So, as long as you got a as long as you can have a nurse on duty. Uh do you have do you have variable hour LPNs? >> We do. Um
I think we have five of them. Um two of them live quite a distance away. Um so the reliability sometimes with variable hour has been tough for us. I guess the reason I'm asking these questions is I, you know, based on on what you guys were
talking about in our in our personal issues committee about your the potential for those internal candidates and and it's nice to be able to see them be able to advance. >> Yep. >> And you know, and if if these are filled
right now, they'd have to be filled by outside, right? >> Correct. Yep. >> Right. So they have to be filled by outside positions and that would leave these internal candidates no options to advance. >> Correct. >> Y >> you know I mean that's just it I mean
that again it it speaks to the dilemma but it also uh is concern about are we are we trying to do this too fast just because of that that reason that you talked about about being worried about
not having a nurse on staff. Yep. >> Or or can we is there any is there other ways we could look at making sure we don't have that happen? And and and again is there have you talked with these internal candidates or
potential internal candidates is the way I should put it. Um where they're at in that process of becoming RNs. >> I have reached out to a couple of them. I have not heard back from one. Um, actually I haven't heard back from
either one of them on whether they did pass their boards or not. My guess is if they would have passed their boards, um, they would have told me right away. Um, I think we have one that graduates or did graduate in December, so she's going
to be taking her boards, too. So, >> I figure that'll be sometime in mid January usually after you you graduate nursing school. I I and I know pick you know basically approve your you know
your request or that re your re recommendation. I'm just I'm just hopeful that you maybe have a little bit of time to see if those internal candidates could potentially qualify. >> Yeah. >> If if they're if they're meeting your
and exceeding your expectations right now. Andrew, what do you think? Uh so the one that's graduating or that just graduated um is meeting I guess you could say but the
two that were really been waiting for those ones are are excellent LPNs but we're just waiting on them to pass their boards to become RNs. So that's who we've been waiting for. But >> but but you know and again for the rest of the board and this is something that
I learned in our pick meeting is that once they become an RN they cannot do the work of an LPN. I did not know that. >> And so >> if you so if you have your and this goes
to the question if you have your full four RNs hired and these two really good LPNs become our ends. We're saying bye.
>> Yep. And that's an unfortunate problem we have because you spend all this time and effort training them getting >> um you know detox takes a long time to to kind of figure out how to work with these clients. Um the mental illness uh
the abusiveness sometimes of them. So it takes a lot >> it's very unique. Yeah. >> Yeah. So >> given that Mr. Chair, should you guys not ask for a back fill which if you're losing uh LPNs
>> as they become RNs that you'd want to backfill with this? >> Yes. I would ask that we be back fill. >> So the back fill would be the an LPN going into an RN position and then you could replace the LPN. >> We have correct. We have some variable
hour LPNs that have been looking for full-time at least two two >> there's two >> two of them for sure that we'd be comfortable with. So >> well I mean I I you know I support your request here. I just I just um
strongly encouraged to see about the ability to get those internal people that have been doing the good work to try to get up and and fill those positions. that you know it's a timing thing for you Troy and I know you're
>> you know under the gun there but Mr. Oh yeah, Commissioner Mo, you want? >> Sorry. Thank you. You know, this has been a dialogue that really started when we were building the facility, understanding we needed to phase some hires in there. I am really encouraged
that your staff is seeking additional professional development. It speaks to their heart for the work. >> Uh, you know, I'm someone that I'm hopeful that this will work out in terms of what we're talking about. Um, so seems to make the most sense. Uh, but I
know as always, Troy, staffing is the delicate balance at that facility, but um, you know, the usage is enormous and so we need to make sure we staff it. >> Yeah. And I've tried to offset as much as I can with variable hour staff.
They're just it's just not it's a reliability thing, you know. So, >> yeah, Mr. Chair, I I'd make a motion to uh approve the hire of two RM positions for withdrawal management detox facility with backfill. >> I'll second that.
>> Right. We have a motion by Commissioner Abber, second by Commissioner Barry. Any further discussion? >> Just a How many people are in there this morning? >> Well, I didn't look at a count this morning >> or I mean couple days. >> I guess we've been I haven't you know
the average of what we've been averaging. Um, >> yeah. >> So, and in January started off a little slow at 14. Um, in November we averaged 23 and a half. So, um, it goes up and down so
much, but um, I did not look at the board today. I probably should have had a number, but my guess is uh, we were a little lower yesterday. We probably got a lot of intakes yesterday, so we're probably sitting at 18. >> And your capacity? 32.
So, and we have hit that a couple times. So, which actually surprised me, but the number fluctuate. >> Oh, yes. And >> oh, I say the number can fluctuate between now and noon. We could have >> 28 or we could have 12. You never can
anticipate what's going to happen each day. >> All right. Any further discussion? >> Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. I. oppose the same sign. Motion carry. All right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> I appreciate that. >> Have a good day. >> You too. >> Thank you. Happy New Year. >> All right. All right. Next, we have a notice of intent to sell Fargo Moride area flood diversion project land in
1665, 1792, 1793, and 1802. Um, Darren, do you want to give a little >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'm not overly familiar with the MCC JPA because I
haven't been sitting in on it, but uh, Steve gave me a little bit of update before he left for his, uh, vacation. So, I'm going to I'm going to read through the description and then that'll kind of outline what we're talking about here today. Um, in 2019, the city of
Morhead and Klay County entered into a Minnesota Land Acquisition Joint Powers Agreement, creating the Morehead County, Klay County Joint Powers Authority, or MCCJPA. The Minnesota Land Acquisition Joint Powers Agreement authorizes the city of Morehead and Klay County to work
collaboratively to maximize its efficiencies with respect to property acquisition in Minnesota for the project. North Dakota has also has a government entity, the Cass County Joint Water Resource District that handles property acquisitions. The Metro Flood
Diversion Authority, the MFDA, has adopted a policy that states it will renew review uh the inventory of real property purchased to determine if it continues to be needed to complete the Fargo Morehead area flood diversion project. If the land is no longer
needed, it will be declared excess land by the MFDA executive director and can be made available for sale, lease, or exchange in accordance with policy. Member entities of the governing boards have the first opportunity to acquire the excess land and entities have 30
days from the receipt of the notification to provide an intent purchase. Excess land is located in Minnesota OIN 1665, 1792, 1793, and $1802.
Um the cost for those four properties is 1 thou $111,000. Um the property totals 22.37 acres. And
so this is allowing Klay County to buy back this property. I believe in your packet you also have a picture of the actual um property. And so basically this is property that was purchased but is not going to be needed for the lead
diversion project. And so the they are asking if we wanted to buy that property back. And I think um just a couple of things. First off, I think it's in your memo. It says that the
um lands director can declare it excess lands. It's actually the diversion authority that has to declare it excess lands. >> Yep. This came from uh Jason Benson on October 13, 2025. and the $111,000
price that's there that that's based on a an appraised value of $5,000 per acre, >> right, >> for zone one property and and zone one property is is property that has more
easements attached to it. And so that's where the 5,000 comes up with. Now, if Klay County wanted this property, I don't know that we'd have to pay 111,000 for it. I I I guess I've never known that that was the case in the
process. Um, I >> I know it I know it allows all member entities to have first option >> and I don't know if that means buy it or um I I guess I've never I I think
there's been a couple of instances where I think Cass County on the North Dakota side has taken the option, but I don't know what they've had to do in terms of paying for it. Well, I saw in the packet they included the North Dakota
properties that are are also being up for sale, >> right? >> Um but it really doesn't go into, you know, it says the first um somewhere where I read the first right of refusal. >> Can't remember where I read that from, but >> Yep.
And >> well, this was, you know, for the for the board's information, this this was brought before the MCCJPA and it was it was actually brought before the lands committee, the four and the proposal out there was to join
the four properties as one, >> right? >> And then sell the entire sell sell it all as one at $111,000 in the lands committee. Um both Commissioner Mojo and I just totally
rejected that. For one thing, um part of our process in the ex once something is declared excess lands, each property owner has in the hierarchy has the right to to buy it back first
before it goes to the public. And so if you tie all four together, >> how can each one put have that? Right. >> Right. >> And so that and that's been that was our concern in that process. Um but right so
so the lands committee uh did vote to um show this as excess lands. It was and the diversion authority did but and then it was after that period now where each entity
has up to 30 days to say whether we want it or not. >> Correct. >> I don't think that if we wanted it. I don't know that that 111,000 would be what we'd have to pay. I I guess I'm just not I don't recall that. >> Yeah. I I didn't see that anywhere in
the >> Yeah. But >> but you are right that I think I think it's if it goes to excess lands that's the value that's been put on it. Um so I think you know I guess the the
>> and it does it does list the former uh owners of that land. So, if they if they wanted to reach out and buy their portion back, that's what I don't know if if they're selling it, like you said, as a whole. >> Well, that's that's to that's yet to be
determined. But, um I think the the action today, of course, is asking this board, do we want the land or not? >> And I don't know that we have any reason to want that land.
All right. >> Yes, Commissioner Mojo. >> Thank you. Uh, this was a long in-depth conversation at both the lands committee and the MCCJPA. I am of the opinion and continue to be that uh this is excess lands. uh you
know I I think the the diversion authority utilized what they needed out of the lands and um were able to mitigate uh going forward but uh have no interest in Klay County holding on to any of this. It makes the most sense to get this back in the public's hands. I
did vote against this at the uh committee levels and the reason I did is I really struggled with um you know these are unique properties and we have a policy in place on how to approach uh
repurchase from land owners and and neighboring land owners and one of these parcels if you look 1792 >> is really challenging and could result in a a landlock situation for access The reason I voted against it is um you know
I wasn't necessarily um clear or sure that I agreed with with the process going forward on who will be approached for purchase. I this is not Klay County does not need this land and so I I will be clear in that that um I believe this
is excess land and should be dispersed of but I did and will vote against a motion um just because I'm not quite clear with what the process going forward is. So, you know, want to be very very clear and transparent in that. My hope is that as a member of the the
land management committee and MCCGAPA that I can continue to be involved in how we um strategize who how that that purchase is going forward. But again from the first part where we talked about lumping this all together uh that
really didn't make sense either because of all the past owners. Um so if I you know I can stand for a question on that but that's where I stand. I I guess so you don't agree that this should should that we don't want this land? >> No, I
>> that's the only motion that we have. >> No, it is. But if you look at the conclusion and recommendation is proceed with the process outlined in the policy and I agree with the process outlined in the policy. But the staff discussion that we had at MCC JPA I felt was in
conflict of the policy. I mean remember we talked about that. >> Yeah. And I and I guess what I thought you were saying that you were going to vote against the motion this morning. >> Well, it depends >> excess land. >> Well, I'm but see there's a >> or that we don't want the land >> on but listen on the on the notice of
intent to sell. Yes, I agree with that. But if you look in the further memo, the conclusion and recommendation, I'm saying I I don't agree with the process because I don't think I agree with the process, but the recommendation from staff when they came to MCCJPA, that's
why I voted against it because I felt like it was in conflict of the policy. So I agree a motion to deem this excess lands. Absolutely. But if you go with what this conclusion and recommendation is, that's where I had a confusion. But
I Commissioner Mojo, I don't believe we vote on that recommendation. I think the vote that we're taking today is simply whether Klay County wants to accept the land or not or acquire the
land or not. That's all we're voting on today. >> That was my That was my understand >> I agree with you 100% down the road and I will I will have the same vote as you >> right >> when it comes to that. So, I I just want to make sure that what we're dealing with today is just does Klay County want this land or not? The answer should be
yes or no. >> Right. I'm just saying that there's a conflict in the memo. >> Yeah. Okay. >> In the introduction, the memo says as a recommendation that the excess land and begin the process to dispose of the properties. Yes. But later on when they talk about that, that's where staff had
a concl. >> So, if it if a motion included those steps, that's where I would vote against it. But the motion to just declare excess. Yes. >> Yeah. And it and it's it's it's I mean in terms of it's not even to to vote
that it's excess. It's whether we want it or not because the diversion authority has the power >> to determine if it's excess lands or not. >> Not not this board. >> Our our sole purpose today. Do we want
the land or not? >> Correct. And I I think we're in agreement that we don't want the land, but we do agree, and this is for another day, >> that we need to follow the excess lands policy,
>> right? >> And and Commissioner Mojo is correct that in this memorandum, it really doesn't follow the policy. >> And that I think that's where the concern is and we and that but that'll be an argument for another day. So,
>> and I appreciate that. I felt as someone who in the last 10 days has voted against those both committee levels felt it was important for the record to show that I was concerned and frustrated rather with how that would have looked. >> Very good. >> Commissioner Ev.
>> Yeah, Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion that the properties described um be declared excess land and that Klay County indicate we do not wish to exercise right to buy it. Does that address? >> Well, I I I guess we're not even asking
this board to deem it excess lands because it's already been done. >> Okay. All >> we simply decline to make a purchase of it. >> We we decline the offer to >> purchase land, right? >> That is that your motion? >> Yes. >> All right. Is there a second to that motion?
>> I'll second it with the spell out of 1665, 1792, 1793, and 182 as the parcels. Okay. All right. Are we clear, Sarah? You got that? Okay. All right. Any further discussion?
Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppos the same sign. Motion carried. All right. So, you will notify um Jason. >> Yep. I'll I'll give Jason a call and let him know that it was voted on today, not
to um All right. Thank you. All right. Next, we have the uh review of the Klay County Board of Commissioners Committee Assignments for 2026. This is obviously just a the period to
for each of us to look at the committees that we have. I I think we've noted the the one change that per policy that we have is that Commissioner Ebringer will go off of the personnel issues committee and Commissioner Mojo
will be on it as next year's chair and then I will remain on it as the past chair >> and I believe audit does the same >> and that is also the that's also the same. Yes.
audit committee. >> Mr. Chair, >> yes, >> I in edits to mine, I am no longer chair of extens AMC extension. So, just clear that piece and I believe the AMC tax
forfeite work group and the AMC subcommittee on taxes and state property uh is no longer meeting. So, we can take those off. And then the only clarifying piece is uh Commissioner Campbell and I work on the
flood mitigation legislation. And since the PRTF legislation is noted in mine with Commissioner Kabanov, I feel like I mean, we're meeting on that and we've taken action as a board on that. Just need to add that to both Commissioner Campbell and I
>> Yeah. And I and I and I I think that might be good to clarify that. I I think we've but we've both been pretty much reporting that under the chamber public policy committee. >> I agree. But then do you want me to take the PRTF legislation and add that to the
chamber because we we still do flood work without the chamber. >> Yeah. And I um >> it's no no change in terms of budget. I just think for clarification because on on when I'm filling out my forms and you
have the legislative line there's either PRTF or flood. I feel like that >> yeah maybe maybe then we can just add the flood one. you know, I've been I've been report because all of all of those um committees has been the involvement
with the chambers. That's why I've used that one. But but I think to clarify that it might be good then to just have the um flood >> legislation >> legislative >> because I that >> those are those are our two priorities.
So it kind of coincides with our priorities as well. So, >> and that's all the edits I think of right now. >> Um, we did we did just have a little conversation here too. Um, Commissioner
Bear and I both and right now we have listed it as the White White Earth Nation Committee. And I I wonder if that would I think it it would be good to just rename that. At the time we did it, we weren't sure what to call it, but I think maybe just referring to it as the
tribal lands committee might be a it's a little more um yeah, I think that's that it's okay with the board to make that >> Yep. >> change. >> Um does any did you have anything else?
So, uh, Commissioner Mojo, I know I know when you go down and attend AMC now as a as a new director board member, um, th those expenses are paid for by AMC, right?
>> Correct. >> But I but I wonder I wonder if we should um, still on yours just show you uh, as AMC director you know, executive is it is it would it
be the executive board or >> Right. So, I serve on the board of directors, but now with this new that you're talking about as the executive committee. >> Yeah. So, I I think listing it as as the executive committee, but it's it's something that you would not be submitting to the county form. The only
time that I um that there's a differing so if there's a conference that the board of directors meets at that is not reimburseable by AMC because we would be going to that anyway. >> Right. Right. >> But the governor's office visit next
week would be under the AMC. >> So I I I just think it would be appropriate to maybe just at the top of your list there just to have AMC executive director. >> Executive committee.
>> Executive committee. Excuse me. Yes. Not executive director. >> I don't want to kick Julie out of her job. >> Yeah. She's way better than I am. >> All right. Um Dave, do you have you gone through yours? Do you >> Yeah, I'm I'm I'm happy with where it
stands. >> I have one, Mr. chair that I don't know if it needs to be separated out or not for partnership for health with that separating and going down to Becker County and Klay County. There is a shack opening for that and Shaq meets four
times a year and it's odds are I'm going to be the representative for shack for the the community health board for partnership for health. >> That's great. >> So if if that separates out or do I just keep it under partnership for health or should I have add another one in there
for the shack? I wonder if we could just >> even under partnership >> if we could just put a slash there and put check. >> Yeah, I think that's you. I think we selected you. >> Yeah. Yeah, I I I >> He's already voted in. >> It is a function of the partnership for
health. >> Um >> so, so you're also on >> Partnership Health. >> Partnership for health, but you would not be on the shack. >> I would not be on the shack. >> So on, so on Dave's it could just state the way it is. Partnership for Health and under Commissioner Abbinger or
Commissioner Bears it could say Partnership for Health SL >> check, >> right? >> I mean that's that's fine. Yeah, it's >> so so it's basically saying either. >> Yeah. >> Then that's how you >> Yeah. He'll have four meetings a year. >> Okay. >> All right. Is that okay? All right. So
let's make that Can we make that change, sir? Right. Do you have anything else? >> Um yeah, we >> that's that's all I have. Mr. We'll need to double check the abbrev abbreviation because it's >> it is sac. >> Yeah. S caca
>> sac. Still haven't figured out how that got to be shack but it is. >> I still haven't figured out all the abbreviations for the first year in here. How many different abbreviations? All the >> soil and water. >> Yes. All right. And then um
you know we'll have to we'll end up going through these again. I think we do it after the sixth. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Now are there were there a couple of them that we had we had to do a
formal deal on by the 31st? >> I think we did those last week. >> Did we do those last week? >> Yeah. One that had to be done. Okay. Okay. All right. I'm just looking through um the Wait, I guess that's I think we're pretty much done for a
while now, but I mean, we still have to keep them on some of these committees for in the future, but I believe we're somewhat done now with the development code and comprehensive plan. I think those are something that's taken care of. >> Done every five or 10 years or
>> Yep. We did a lot of that work this year. Yep. All right. So, I I don't know if we have anything else for that today. We'll um we'll certainly hear from Commissioner Krabmanoff on the six then with any
changes that he may have. If there's anything else we need to add, we can be bringing it up then on the the 6th. All right. We'll move into then we'll move into our committee reports. And I'm going to start with Commissioner
Ebinger. I >> have no reports. Didn't have any meetings last week. >> Be short today. Commissioner Mojo, >> a report. >> Commissioner Bear. >> Yes, I have one. >> You and I have the same one. >> I'll keep it brief and let you fill it
in. >> Okay. For perfect. >> So, we had uh what did we have? We had West Central Regional Water District yesterday. >> It was pretty much a Zoom meeting. And only one commissioner made it up to H Hallstead and that would be our own Commissioner Campbell. Treasured the roads up there to H Hallstead.
>> They were perfect. They were perfect. >> I was busy moving snow all morning so I >> I figured you were busy. >> So we I don't have the agenda in front of me, but we talked about be a conference with the judge on
January 5th to figure out when they have an opening to get on their calendar to do our second hearing in front of them. And then hopefully at that hearing we'll be able to they'll sign off on the project. But we're having a conference on January 5th to find out when in their calendar in the next hopefully two
months we can get in there and get that scheduled. We're also putting together an FAQ sheet to send out to the cities and other entities so when we do send out 1900 and 19,500 notices in the mail to the three
counties that they if people start asking questions they know what type of questions might be asked so they can answer those. That was pretty much what happened there was a very short meeting. It was pretty much virtual but yeah it was very short. if there's anything else Commissioner Campbell can fill in.
>> All right. Yeah, I think that pretty much did it. We we always continue to have conversations about the funding and of course the funding that the counties have provided or it's pretty much all used up. Uh, as a matter of fact,
there's I think there's $20ome,000 reserved for this mailing that we have to do for the courts for the 19,000 that Commissioner Bear talked about. We do have I'm guessing it's and I don't have the exact numbers in front of me,
but I'm guessing we have upwards of $50,000 now in services between legal and engineering that they are holding u bills for because we have not received our federal appropriation yet that's supposed to pay
help pay for those things. So, I'm a little bit concerned about how long we've been waiting for those funds and how long we can expect somebody who's worked on our behalf to go without being paid. So, that that's a little bit
concerning. Um, but so far they've been willing to to do that knowing that those funds are coming. So, um, you know, we this that's a partnership with three counties and we have had
commissioner from Wilin County reach out to us and he was at he was present virtually yesterday too and uh they're they're interested in knowing what we're what we're doing. They have some water quality issues in
in Wilin County as well. And they're they're looking at more of a right now a a small area that they're working on in terms of a potential need. Um, but they're also wondering if it wouldn't be
in their best interest to look countywide at things there too and and the potential of them maybe joining up with us. Um, so we brought that up with our board members yesterday and there
seemed to be um a lot of agreement that you know if it if it works out after we get through this process and we could amend that partnership to include them if they wanted to that we're more than willing to look at that. So, I think again there's when you're dealing with a
regional project, you have more opportunities to get your state and federal funding, which we're going to re need for if we're going to this project is going to be successful. Uh, I think that's
pretty much it for that. Darren, do you have anything for us today? Just a couple few things. On December 23rd, I had a phone call with Josh Hegen regarding our ongoing negotiations. Also had a phone call with Dan Heglin from the extra regarding our early
retirement program. Uh speaking of which, we've had one person so far uh take that opportunity and we have another one that is kind of reviewing and trying to set dates. Uh also on the 23rd, I had a phone call with uh Stacy from Roso County. Um we're trying to
help them out with their paid leave and no taxes on overtime as well. Um took some vacation from the 24th to the 28th. Yesterday I reviewed some grids and imported um and the import for our 2026
wages which will be happening shortly next couple days. Um just as a reminder uh Minnesota paid leave starts on Thursday. Um the intergovernmental retreat is January 30th. I think that was sent out
yesterday. So make sure you let um Sarah know if you're going to be attending that. And uh I'm going to bring a negotiations update to you guys on the 6th. So we'll have a close session for that. >> All right, that concludes it. in that um
that early incentive thing. I think we we did have a June 30th time period on that. So I I when we did that, I didn't expect that we'd have people jumping uh at the at it in terms of doing it by December 31st.
>> No. And I I kind of told uh Dan Hegelin the exact same thing. I said I we may get more at the start of the new year, right? >> Um I didn't expect a ton of people. I think I said give me a call back on June 30th and we can maybe >> There you go. That's so
>> Yeah. >> Sarah, do you have anything for us today? >> I'm done. 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, December 30th. Our first item is the approval of the agenda. >> Offer an approval of the agenda. [clears throat] >> I'll second that. >> All right. Motion by Commissioner Mojo,
second by Commissioner Bear. Any further discussion on the motion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppose the same sign. Motion carried. Citizens to be heard.
I see we have no citizens in the audience to be heard. James is here on business. Uh, anybody online? Nobody online. >> Thank you. We will then move on to the approval of bills and vouchers. >> Mr. Chair, I move we approve the payment of bills and vouchers.
>> I'll second that. Thank you. Motion by Commissioner Ebinger, second by Commissioner Bear. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed the same sign. Motion carried.
Approval of minutes from December 16th. >> I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. >> Second. >> Motion by Commissioner Bear, second by Commissioner Abinger. Any further discussion on the motion? Any further discussion? Seeing none. All in favor signify by
saying I. >> I. >> Oppose the same sign. Motion carried. All right. Our 835 item. We have a request approved to rehire open overnight position in the clips unit. Good morning, James.
>> Good morning, Mr. Chair, commissioners. Um, yes. I'm here today to request permission to um rehire an open position we have in our clips mail program. It's our transition program. Um you should have a salary calculator in your packet.
Um the position is in our 2026 budget. Um it just be minimal savings with between the outgoing employee and the potential incoming employee. Um but the major savings um about $8,25.
Um most of that comes in um with the health insurance and stuff the lag in that. So >> Mr. Mr. Chair, I'll offer a motion to approve the rehire. >> Second. >> Right. Motion by Commissioner Mojo, second by Commissioner Ebinger. And this was brought before pick, I believe,
wasn't it? >> Yep. Two weeks ago, >> pick did recommend approval as well. So, any further questions? >> Are are you going to need backfill? >> You know, I I might um if they come from a different unit possibly, so or a different county entity, then yeah, I
would request the backfill. >> I'll add a back fill option to my motion. >> Okay. Does that meet your second? >> Yep. >> All right. So, the motion is to rehire with backfill. All right. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I.
>> I. Oppose. The same sign. >> Motion carried. Next, we have the uh request approval to sign the 2026 Lakeland contracts for the 30-day evaluation program for non-secure program. >> Yeah, our non-secure program has been
running a an evaluation. It's a 30-day evaluation program. Um, it's been very popular. Um, Lakeland's been, um, doing the professional services for that for over 25 years. Um, they've been a very very solid partner for us. Um, they've
they request bare minimum. Um, and they're requesting a 2% increase from last year's to this year's. Um, which is very very fair. um and I'm requesting permission to sign the contracts with
them for the 2% increase um for 2026 for their psychiatric nurse provider which would be psychiatric meds which is it's gold nowadays um um licensed psychologist and coordinated assessments. So,
>> so James, when you budget that that dollar amount, do you do you do you just go based off of historic data? Because every year that can y >> change? >> Yep. It's one of those >> based on the clientele, right?
>> Yep. So, like when I I I budget for this in the 2026 budget, um I I go on what previously they've requested and and I basically take a very good educated guess on on what the increase and they
came in with a 2% request, which I think is very fair. >> The So, on your in your nonsecure budget, what was the line item for this in 2025, the total amount >> for this one specifically? >> I did the math on. I don't have the total amount line item on it, but I did
the math between last year's um contract and this year's contract between the two and and 2%. >> Yeah, I'm I'm just curious. 2%. >> Oh, the actual hard solid number um 52
79 about 86,000. Okay. That's that's is that a pretty average annual amount other than the increases that we have for >> Yes. Yeah. It it's it's right it's right in line with um what what the services
we need them to provide in our non-secure unit for that. >> Commissioner logo. >> Thank you. I I appreciate bringing forward. I do serve as chair of the Lakeland board and I I know that Lakeland has tried to have meetings with all of our county partners as we go
through budgeting cycles to make sure if there was a huge outlier then that Lakeland was anticipating they would communicate that uh to county staff as well. Um certainly you've heard me talk about margins and finances at Lakeland as well. Um this is not something that
they're they're doing to uh make a substantial amount of money. They're trying to co cover those those costs as you talked about that can really sway with case case load. >> Yeah. And I I I agree with that and I don't Lakeland's always been very fair
with us in that regard. I was when I when I look at the numbers I was just curious of 2% of what number are we talking? >> Oh yeah. How much? Yeah. Okay. >> You know that what that is and um >> Yeah. And we had 3% in the budget that
you had presented. >> That that's that's the that's what I anticipated was three and they're requesting two. So >> okay, >> with that, Mr. Chair, I'll make a a motion to approve and sign the 2026 Lakeland contract the nonsecure program.
>> Second. >> Excuse me. >> Yeah. Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Bear, second by Commissioner Ebinger. Any further discussion on the motion? >> There's one one question. >> Yes. Go ahead. Do do they charge per client that they see or is it just a lump sum and they provide the services throughout the whole year? >> It's just a lump sum for us and then we
we charge whatever county is utilizing the services. >> Okay. >> But in most instances though >> it's clay. >> It's clay, right? Because this is nonsecure. >> That's correct. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. I >> I oppose the same sign motion. Great. Thanks, James. >> Thank you. >> All right. Next, we have a request approval to hire two registered nurse positions for withdrawal management
detox facility. Good morning, Troy. >> Good morning, Mr. Chair, commissioners. Um yes, today I'm here to request um if some of you haven't met, this is uh Andrew Loey. He's my RN supervisor
and we are here to request um two [clears throat] RN positions. Uh we went to pick on the 16th and um and now we are here requesting permission to hire these two nurses.
These are budgeted positions. we've had them in our budget um prior to moving to the new facility um as a as a need for the facility. So, uh these two RNs should make things run a lot smoother.
We've been running into a position where sometimes we are only ending up with one nurse on duty. If that nurse would have called in, we'd lose all our revenue for that day. Um you have to have nurses u to be able to um charge for withdrawal management.
And we had we had this discussion that pick uh we had fairly lengthy conversation but that in the part about losing that that was the one uh issue that I had brought up to this board that I had a little concern about u from our
previous director had a nursing license would always be able to be covered for for that purpose. And now that we don't have that, you know, there's the potential if you don't have it, if we don't have one of these on on duty, we could lose the ability to
um to do that. So having said that and we we also had the discussion I know um you both mentioned that you have some internal people who are working on getting their RNs that would
really be good candidates for this >> correct. Um [clears throat] and I you know and we did bring up the question for to you at pick and u and that was in terms of the timing
because you know you're budgeted for four RNs. Right. >> Correct. And if you hire these two RNs and the people that you currently have on staff who are not and they're working towards their RN and if you're full with
RNs, uh what does that do to them? >> Well, they wouldn't be able to work in our facility then if we don't have the RN position. So, we potentially could lose some valuable um staff.
you know, I and that's that's the that's kind of the catch 22 that you're in. You I mean, you need the RNs, but now in terms of the in the in your opening comments when you talked about the potential for losing the funding
reimbursement, uh does an LPN qualify? >> An LPN would qualify. You need a nurse on duty. >> So, as long as you got a as long as you can have a nurse on duty. Uh do you have do you have variable hour LPNs? >> We do. Um
I think we have five of them. Um two of them live quite a distance away. Um so the reliability sometimes with variable hour has been tough for us. I guess the reason I'm asking these questions is I, you know, based on on what you guys were
talking about in our in our personal issues committee about your the potential for those internal candidates and and it's nice to be able to see them be able to advance. >> Yep. >> And you know, and if if these are filled
right now, they'd have to be filled by outside, right? >> Correct. Yep. >> Right. So they have to be filled by outside positions and that would leave these internal candidates no options to advance. >> Correct. >> Y >> you know I mean that's just it I mean
that again it it speaks to the dilemma but it also uh is concern about are we are we trying to do this too fast just because of that that reason that you talked about about being worried about
not having a nurse on staff. Yep. >> Or or can we is there any is there other ways we could look at making sure we don't have that happen? And and and again is there have you talked with these internal candidates or
potential internal candidates is the way I should put it. Um where they're at in that process of becoming RNs. >> I have reached out to a couple of them. I have not heard back from one. Um, actually I haven't heard back from
either one of them on whether they did pass their boards or not. My guess is if they would have passed their boards, um, they would have told me right away. Um, I think we have one that graduates or did graduate in December, so she's going
to be taking her boards, too. So, >> I figure that'll be sometime in mid January usually after you you graduate nursing school. I I and I know pick you know basically approved your you know your request or that rec your re
recommendation. I'm just I'm just hopeful that you maybe have a little bit of time to see if those internal candidates could potentially qualify. >> Yeah. >> If if they're if they're meeting your and exceeding your expectations right
now. >> Andrew, what do you think? Uh so the one that's graduating or that just graduated um is meeting I guess you could say but the two that were really been waiting for
those ones are are excellent LPNs but we're just waiting on them to pass their boards to become RNs. So that's who we've been waiting for. But >> but but you know and again for the rest of the board and this is something that I learned in our pick meeting is that
once they become an RN they cannot do the work of an LPN. I did not know that. And so >> if you so if you have your and this goes to the question if you have your full
four RNs hired and these two really good LPNs become our ends. We're saying bye. >> Yep. And that's an unfortunate [clears throat] problem we have because
you spend all this time and effort training them, getting to them. >> Um, you know, detox takes a long time to to kind of figure out how to work with these clients. Um, the mental illness, uh, the abusiveness sometimes of them. So it takes a lot
>> it's very unique. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So >> given that Mr. Chair, should you guys not ask for a back fill which if you're losing uh LPNs >> as they become RNs that you'd want to backfill with this?
>> Yes. I would ask that we be back fill. >> So the back fill would be the an LPN going into an RN position and then you could replace the LPN. >> We have [clears throat] correct. We have some variable hour LPNs that have been looking for full-time at least two two
>> there's two >> two of them for sure that we'd be comfortable with. So >> well I mean I I you know I support your request here. I just I just um strongly encouraged to see about the
ability to get those internal people that have been doing the good work to try to get up and and fill those positions. I, you know, it's a timing thing for you, Troy, and I know you're, >> you know, under the gun there, but
Mr. Oh, yeah. Commissioner, you want >> Sorry. Thank you. You know, this has been a dialogue that really started when we were building the facility, understanding we needed to phase some hires in there. I am really encouraged that your staff is seeking additional
professional development. It speaks to their heart for the work. uh you know I'm someone that I'm hopeful that this will work out in terms of what we're talking about. Um so seems to make the most sense. Uh but I know as always Troy staffing is the delicate balance at that
facility but um you know the usage is enormous and so we need to make sure we staff it. >> Yeah. And [clears throat] I've tried to offset as much as I can with variable hour staff. They're just it's just not it's a reliability thing, you know. So,
>> yeah, Mr. Chair, I I make a motion to approve the hire of two RN positions for withdrawal management detox facility with backfill. >> I'll second that. >> Right. We have a motion by Commissioner Abber, second by Commissioner Bear. Any further discussion? >> Just a How many people are in there this
morning? Well, I didn't look at a count this morning or I mean couple days. >> I guess we've been I haven't you know the average or what have we been averaging? Um >> yeah. >> So and
in January you started off a little slow at 14. Um in November we averaged 23 and a half. So um it goes up and down so much but um I did not look at the board today. I probably should have had a number, but my guess is uh we were a
little lower yesterday. We probably got a lot of intakes yesterday, so we're probably sitting at 18. >> And your capacity? >> 32. So, and we have hit that a couple times.
So, which actually surprised me, but >> the number can fluctuate. >> Oh, yes. And >> oh, I say the number can fluctuate between now and noon. We could have >> 28 or we could have 12. You never can anticipate what's going to happen each day.
>> All right. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I oppose the same sign. >> Motion carry. All right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I appreciate that. >> Have a good day.
>> You too. Thank you. Happy New Year. All right. Next, we have a notice of intent to sell Fargo Moride Area Flood Diversion Project land in 1665, 1792, 1793, and 1802.
Um Darren, do you want to give a little background? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'm not overly familiar with the MCC JPA because I haven't been sitting in on it, but uh,
Steve gave me a little bit of update before he left for his, uh, vacation. So, I'm going to I'm going to read through the description and then that'll kind of outline what we're talking about here today. >> [snorts] >> Um, in 2019, the city of Morhead and Klay County entered into a Minnesota
land acquisition joint powers agreement, creating the Morehead County, Klay County Joint Powers Authority, or MCCJPA. The Minnesota Land Acquisition Joint Powers Agreement authorizes the city of Morehead and Klay County to work
collaboratively to maximize its efficiencies with respect to property acquisition in Minnesota for the project. North Dakota has also has a government entity, the Cass County Joint Water Resource District that handles property acquisitions. The Metro Flood
Diversion Authority, the MFDA, has adopted a policy that states it will renew review uh the inventory of real property purchased to determine if it continues to be needed to complete the Fargo Morehead area flood diversion pl. If the land is no longer needed, it will
be declared excess land by the MFDA executive director and can be made available for sale, lease, or exchange in accordance with policy. Member entities of the governing boards have the first opportunity to acquire the excess land and entities have 30 days
from the receipt of the notification to provide an intent to purchase. Excess land is located in Minnesota OIN 1665, 1792, 1793, and $1802.
Um the cost for those four properties is 1 thou 111,000. Um the property totals 22.37 acres and
so this is allowing Klay County to buy back this property. I believe in your packet you also have a picture of the actual um property. So basically this is property that was purchased but is not going to be needed for the flood
diversion project. And so the they are asking if we wanted to buy that property back. And >> I I think um just a couple of things. First off, I think it's in your memo. It says that the
um lands director can declare it excess lands. It's actually the diversion authority that has to declare it excess lands. >> Yep. This came from uh Jason Benson on October 13, 2025. and the $111,000
price that's there that that's based on a an appraised value of $5,000 per acre, >> right, >> for zone one property and and zone one property is is property that has more
easements attached to it. And so that's where the 5,000 comes up with. Now, if Klay County wanted this property, I don't know that we'd have to pay 111,000 for it. I I I guess I've never known that that was the case in the process.
Um, >> I I know it I know it allows all member entities to have first option >> and I don't know if that means buy it or um I I guess I've never I I think
there's been a couple of instances where I think Cass County on the North Dakota side has taken the option, but I don't know what they've had to do in terms of paying for it. Well, I saw in the packet they included the North Dakota
properties that are are also being up for sale, >> right? >> Um, but it really doesn't go into, you know, it says the first um somewhere where I read the first right of refusal. >> Um, can't remember where I read that from, but >> Yep.
And >> well, this was, you know, for the for the board's information, this this was brought before the MCC JAPA and it was it was actually brought before the lands committee, the four and the proposal out
there was to join the four properties as one, >> right? >> And then sell the entire sell sell it all as one at $111,000 in the lands committee. Um both
Commissioner Mojo and I just totally rejected that. For one thing, um part of our process in the ex once something is declared excess lands, each property owner has in the hierarchy
has the right to to buy it back first before it goes to the public. And so if you tie all four together, >> how can each one put have that right? >> Right. >> And so that and that's been that was our
concern in that process. Um but right so so the lands committee uh did vote to um show this as excess lands. It was and the diversion authority did but and then
it was after that period now where each entity has up to 30 days to say whether we wanted it or not. >> Correct. >> I don't think that if we wanted it. I don't know that that 111,000 would be what we'd have to pay. I I
guess I'm just not I don't recall that. >> Yeah. I I didn't see that anywhere in the >> Yeah, but but you are right that I think I think it's if it goes to excess lands that's the value that's been put on it. Um
so I think you know I guess the the >> and it does it does list the former uh owners of that land. So, if they if they wanted to reach out and buy their portion back, that's what I don't know if if they're selling it, like you said, as a whole.
>> Well, that's that's to that's yet to be determined. But, um I think the the action today, of course, is asking this board, do we want the land or not? >> And I don't know that we have any reason
to want that land. All right. >> Yes, Commissioner Mojo. >> Thank you. Uh, this was a long in-depth conversation at both the lands committee and the MCCJPA. I am of the opinion and continue to be
that uh this is excess lands. Uh, you know, I I think the the diversion authority utilized what they needed out of the lands and um were able to mitigate uh going forward, but uh have no interest in Klay County holding on to any of this. It makes the most sense to
get this back in the public's hands. I did vote against this at the uh committee levels. And the reason I did is I really struggled with um you know these are unique properties and we have a policy in place on how to approach uh
repurchase from land owners and and neighboring land owners. And one of these parcels if you look 1792 >> is really challenging and could result in a a landlock situation for access. The reason I voted against it is um you
know I wasn't necessarily um clear or sure that I agreed with with the process going forward on who will be approached for purchase. I this is not Klay County does not need this land and so I I will be clear in that that um I believe this
is excess land and should be dispersed of but I did and will vote against a motion um just because I'm not quite clear with what the process going forward is. So, you know, want to be very very clear and transparent in that. My hope is that as a member of the the
land management committee and MCCGAPA that I can continue to be involved in how we um strategize who how that that purchase is going forward. But again from the first part where we talked about lumping this all together uh that
really didn't make sense either because of all the past owners. Um so if I you know I can stand for a question on that but that's where I stand. I I guess so you don't agree that this should should that we don't want this land? No, I
>> that's the only motion that we have. >> No, it is. But if you look at the conclusion and recommendation is proceed with the process outlined in the policy and I agree with the process outlined in the policy. But the staff discussion that we had at MCC JPA I felt was in
conflict of the policy. I mean remember we talked about that. >> Yeah. And I and I guess what I thought you were saying that you were going to vote against the motion this morning. >> Well, it depend >> excess land. >> Well, I'm but see there's a >> or that we don't want the land >> on but listen on the on the notice of
intent to sell. Yes, I agree with that. But if you look in the further memo, the conclusion and recommendation, I'm saying I I don't agree with the process because I don't think I agree with the process, but the recommendation from staff when they came to MCCJPA, that's
why I voted against it because I felt like it was in conflict of the policy. So I agree a motion to deem this excess lands. Absolutely. But if you go with what this conclusion and recommendation is, that's where I had a confusion. But
I, Commissioner Mojo, I don't believe we vote on that recommendation. I think the vote that we're taking today is simply whether Klay County wants to accept the land or not or acquire the
land or not. That's all we're voting on today. >> That was my That was my understand. >> I agree with you 100% down the road and I will I will have the same vote as you, >> right, >> when it comes to that. So, I I just want to make sure that what we're dealing with today is just does Klay County want
this land or not? The answer should be yes or no. >> Right. I'm just saying that there's a conflict in the memo. >> Yeah. Okay. >> In the introduction, the memo says as a recommendation that the excess land and begin the process to dispose of the properties. Yes. But later on when they talk about that, that's where staff had
a concl. >> So, if if a motion included those steps, that's where I would vote against it. But the motion to just declare excess. Yes. >> Yeah. And it and it's it's it's I [clears throat] mean in terms of it's
not even to to vote that it's excess. It's whether we want it or not because the diversion authority has the power >> to determine if it's excess lands or not. >> Not not this board.
>> Our our sole purpose today. Do we want the land or not? >> Correct. And I I think we're in agreement that we don't want the land, but we do agree, and this is for another day, >> that we need to follow the excess lands
policy, >> right? >> And and Commissioner Mojo is correct that in this memorandum, it really doesn't follow the policy. >> And that I think that's where the concern is and we and that but that'll
be an argument for another day. So, >> and I appreciate that. I felt as someone who in the last 10 days has voted against those both committee levels felt it was important for the record to show that I was concerned and frustrated rather with how that would have looked. >> Very good.
>> Commissioner Ev. >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion that the properties described um be declared excess land and that Klay County indicate we do not wish to exercise right to buy it.
Does that address? >> Well, I I I guess we're not even asking this board to deem it excess lands because it's already been done. >> Okay. All >> we simply decline to make a purchase of it. >> We we decline the offer to >> purchase it land, right?
>> That is that your motion? >> Yes. >> All right. Is there a second to that motion? >> I'll second it with the spell out of 1665, 1792, 1793, and 182 as the parcels. Okay. All right.
Are we clear, Sarah? You got that? Okay. All right. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppos the same sign? Motion carried. All right. So, you will notify um Jason.
>> Yep. I'll I'll give Jason a call and let him know that it was voted on today, not to um All right. Thank you. All right. Next, we have the uh review of the Klay County Board of Commissioners Committee Assignments for 2026.
This is obviously just a period to for each of us to look at the committees that we have. I I think we've noted the the one change that per policy that we have is that Commissioner
Ebringer will go off of the personnel issues committee and Commissioner Mojo will be on it as next year's chair and then I will remain on it as the past chair >> and I believe audit does the same
>> and that is also the that's also the same. Yes. the audit committee. >> Mr. Chair, >> yes, >> I in edits to mine, I am no longer chair of extens AMC extension. So, just clear
that piece and I believe the AMC tax forfeite work group and the AMC subcommittee on taxes and state property uh is no longer meeting. So, we can take those off. And then the only clarifying piece is uh
Commissioner Campbell and I work on the flood mitigation legislation. And since the PRTF legislation is noted in mine with Commissioner Kabanov, I feel like I mean, we're meeting on that and we've taken action as a board on that. Just
need to add that to both Commissioner Campbell and I >> Yeah. And I and I and I I think that might be good to clarify that. I I think we've but we've both been pretty much reporting that under the chamber public policy committee. >> I agree. But then do you want me to take
the PRTF legislation and add that to the chamber because we we still do flood work without the chamber. >> Yeah. And I um >> it's no no change in terms of budget. I just think for clarification because on
on when I'm filling out my forms and you have the legislative line there's either PRTF or flood. I feel like that >> yeah maybe maybe then we can just add the flood one. you know, I've been I've been report because all of all of those
um committees has been the involvement with the chambers. That's why I've used that one. But but I think to clarify that it might be good then to just have the um flood >> legislation >> legislative because I that
>> those are those are our two priorities. So it kind of coincides with our priorities as well. So, >> and that's all the edits I think of right now. >> Um, we did we did just have a little
conversation here too. Um, Commissioner Bear and I both and right now we have listed it as the White White Earth Nation Committee. And I I wonder if that would I think it it would be good to just rename that. At the time we did it,
we weren't sure what to call it, but I think maybe just referring to it as the tribal lands committee might be a it's a little more um yeah, I think that's a that is okay with the board to make that
>> Yep. >> change. >> Um does any did you have anything else? So, uh, Commissioner Mojo, I know I know when you go down and attend AMC now as a as a new
director board member, um, th those expenses are paid for by AMC, right? >> Correct. What? >> But I but I wonder I wonder if we should um still on yours just show you
uh as AMC director you know, executive is it [clears throat] is it would it be the executive board or >> Right. So, I serve on the board of directors, but now with this new that you're talking about as the executive committee.
>> Yeah. So, I I think listing it as as the executive committee, but it's it's something that you would not be submitting to the county form. The only time that I um that there's a differing so if there's a conference that the board of
directors meets at that is not reimburseable by AMC because we would be going to that anyway. >> Right. Right. >> But the governor's office v visit next week would be under the AMC. >> So I I I just think it would be
appropriate to maybe just at the top of your list there just to have AMC executive director. >> Executive committee. >> Executive committee. Excuse me. Yes. Not executive director. >> I don't want to kick Julie out of her
job. >> Yeah. She's way better than I have. [laughter] >> All right. Um Dave, do you have you gone through yours? Do you uh >> Yeah, I'm I'm I'm happy with where it stands. >> I have one, Mr. share that I don't know
if it needs to be separated out or not for partnership for health with that separating and going down to Becker County and Klay County. There is a shack opening for that and Shaq meets four times a year and it's odds are I'm going to be the representative for shaq for
the the community health board for partnership for health. >> That's great. >> So if if that separates out or do I just keep it under partnership for health or should I have add another one in there for the shack? I wonder if we could just even under partnership
>> if we could just put a slash there and put check. >> Yeah, I think that's Yeah, >> you're I think we selected you. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, I I I >> He's already voted in. >> It is a function of the partnership for health. >> Um
>> so, so you're also on >> Partnership for Health. >> Partnership for health, but you would not be on the shack. >> I would not be on the shack. >> So on, so on Dave's it could just state the way it is. Partnership for Health and under Commissioner Abbinger or Commissioner Bears it could say
Partnership for Health SL >> check, >> right? >> I mean that's that's fine. Yeah, it's >> so so it's basically saying either. >> Yeah. >> And that's how you >> Yeah. He'll have four meetings a year. >> Okay. >> All right. Is that okay? All right. So, let's make that Can we make that change,
sir? Right. Do you have anything else? >> Um yeah, we >> that's that's all I have. Mr. We'll need to double check the abbrev abbreviation because it's >> it is sac. >> Yeah. S caca >> sac.
Still haven't figured out how that got to be shack but it is. [laughter] >> I still haven't figured out all the abbreviations for the first year in here. How many different abbreviations? All >> soil and water. >> Yes. All right. And then um you know, we'll have to we'll end up
going through these again. I think we do it after the sixth. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Now, are there were there a couple of them that we had we had to do a
formal deal on by the 31st? >> I think we did those last week. >> Did we do those last week? >> Yeah. The ones that had to be done. Okay. Okay. All right. I'm just looking through um the wait. I guess that's I think we're pretty much done for a
while now, but I mean, we still have to keep them on some of these committees for in the future, but I believe we're somewhat done now with the development code and comprehensive plan. I think those are something that's taken care of. >> Done every five or 10 years or
>> Yep. We did a lot of that work this year. Yep. All right. So, I I don't know if we have anything else for that today. We'll um we'll certainly hear from Commissioner Crabmanoft on the 6 then with any
changes that he may have. If there's anything else we need to add, we can be bringing it up then on this the 6th. All right. We'll move into then we'll move into our committee reports. And I'm going to start with um Commissioner
Ebinger. I >> have no reports. Didn't have any meetings last week. >> Be short today. >> Um Commissioner Mojo, >> a report. >> Commissioner Bear. >> Yes, I have one. >> You and I have the same one. >> So, I'll keep it brief and let you fill it in.
>> Okay. For perfect. >> So, we had uh what did we have? We had West Central Regional Water District yesterday. >> It was pretty much a Zoom meeting. Only one commissioner made it up to H Hallstead and that would be our own Commissioner Campbell. Treured the roads up there to H Hallstead.
>> They were perfect. They were perfect. >> I was busy moving snow all morning so I >> I figured you were busy. >> So we I don't have the agenda in front of me, but we talked about be a conference with the judge on
January 5th to figure out when they have an opening to get on their calendar to do our second hearing in front of them. And then hopefully at that hearing we'll be able to they'll sign off on the project. But we're having a conference on January 5th to find out when in their calendar in the next hopefully two
months we can get in there and get that scheduled. We're also putting together an FAQ sheet [snorts] to send out to the cities and other entities. So when we do send out 1900 and 19,500 notices in the mail to the
three counties that they if people start asking questions they know what type of questions might be asked so they can answer those. That was pretty much what happened there was a very short meeting. It was pretty much virtual but yeah it was very short. If there's anything else Commissioner Campbell can
>> All right. Yeah. And I think that pretty much did it. We we always continue to have conversations about the funding and of course the funding that the counties have provided are it's pretty much all used up. Uh as a matter of fact there's
I think there's $20ome,000 reserved for this mailing that we have to do for the courts for the 19,000 that Commissioner Bear talked about. We do have I'm guessing it's and I don't have the exact numbers in front of me, but I'm guessing we have upwards of
$50,000 now in services between legal and engineering that they are holding u bills for because we have not received our federal appropriation yet that's supposed to pay help pay for those things. So, I'm a
little bit concerned about how long we've been waiting for those funds and how long we can expect somebody who's worked on our behalf to go without being paid. So, that that's a little bit concerning. Um, but so far they've been
willing to to do that knowing that those funds are coming. So, um, you know, we this that's a partnership with three counties and we have had commissioner from Wilin County reach out to us and he was at he was present
virtually yesterday too and uh they're they're interested in knowing what we're what we're doing. They have some water quality issues in in Wilin County as well. And they're they're looking at more of a right now a
a small area that they're working on in terms of a potential need. Um, but they're also wondering if it wouldn't be in their best interest to look countywide at things there too and and the potential of them maybe joining up
with us. Um, so we brought that up with our board members yesterday and there seemed to be um a lot of agreement that you know if it if it works out after we get through this process and we could amend that partnership to include them
if they wanted to that we're more than willing to look at that. So, I think again there's when you're dealing with a regional project, you have more opportunities to get your state and federal funding, which we're [snorts] going to re need
for if we're going to this project is going to be successful. Uh, I think that's pretty much it for that. Darren, do you have anything for us today? >> Just a couple few things. On December 23rd, I had a phone call with Josh Hegen
regarding our ongoing negotiations. Also had a phone call with Dan Heglin from the extra regarding our early retirement program. Uh speaking of which, we've had one person so far uh take that opportunity and we have another one that is kind of reviewing
and trying to set dates. Uh also on the 23rd, I had a phone call with uh Stacy from Roso County. Um we're trying to help them out with their paid leave and no taxes on overtime as well. Um took some vacation from the 24th to the
28th. Yesterday I reviewed some grids and imported um and the import for our 2026 wages which will be happening shortly in the next couple days. Um just as a reminder uh Minnesota paid leave starts
on Thursday. Um the intergovernmental retreat is January 30th. I think that was sent out yesterday. So make sure you let um Sarah know if you're going to be attending that. And uh I'm going to bring a negotiations
update to you guys on the 6th. So we'll have a close session for that. >> All right, that concludes it. in that um that early incentive thing. I think we we did have a June 30th time period on
that. So I I when we did that, I didn't expect that we'd have people jumping uh at the at it in terms of doing it by December 31st. >> No. And I I kind of told uh Dan Hegel the exact same thing. I said I we may
get more at the start of the new year, right? >> Um I didn't expect a ton of people. I think I said give me a call back on June 30th and we can maybe >> There you go. That's so >> Yeah. >> Sarah, do you have anything for us today?
>> I'm done. [laughter]