It's uh as uh as uh Commissioner Anderson uh said, uh my name is Rep. uh Keith Allen. I'm the representative for 19A, which is kind of the southwestern corner of Goodyu County. Been a longtime resident of the Wanamingo Kenyon area. And uh thank you for just giving me a
brief moment to say hello. Uh just to give you a quick update as far as where things were at with the last session we did at the capital. Uh we passed uh everything is currently in a tie. So uh a lot of work was done in terms of a bipartisan measure to try to get things across the board. Uh some of the things
that we were able to accomplished, we were uh got a budget passed which uh it doesn't seem like a big thing, but given the economy and where things were at and the budgetary shortfalls we were deal dealing with, it was quite remarkable. Uh some of the things that we were able to do, we were able to protect LGA for
cities, CPA for uh counties in terms of trying to uh make sure there's funding there in order to buffer some of the impacts you guys are feeling from the economy. Uh it we were able to do a a bonding bill which was something quite remarkable. It was a skinny bonding bill. It focused on a lot of uh state
projects, roads, bridges, that kind of thing. we really didn't jump down into some of the smaller community projects like we're seeing for the wastewater treatment Zumbro wastewater treatment plant that's uh been proposed to go in. I know that's going to be a huge push this next time around because we have a much larger bonding bill we're going to
be focusing on. Um I'm on bonding committee so there's going to be a lot of tours coming up throughout the state and uh the the clear uh message we've gotten from a lot of uh outstate uh communities is uh wastewater treatment plants and uh w uh clean water delivery
systems are huge huge huge issues for a lot of communities. So, uh, it's, uh, talking to my colleague colleagues in the metro to help them understand the true impacts of what those those do for our communities and how, uh, bonding can help, uh, lessen the impact in terms of
taxes on our local communities. Uh, another big thing we got taken care of was the SSIS technology uh, uh, upgrades uh, which hopefully the state will move extremely fast on it. I appreciate a lot of the comments from the county commissioners uh around the impact
you've felt here at Goodw County and how it's it's been a slow process and it's a slow system and it really needs a huge huge upgrade. So, luckily we were able to get that done. One of the big things we are going to continue to keep pushing on is the uh office of the inspector general, which will help try to root out
some of the waste, fraud, and abuse that we're seeing within uh uh particular areas and hopefully uh be able to put more count or uh more tax dollars back to the people and be able to make sure that services are getting rendered the way they're supposed to be and it's not
going to uh uh individuals with other ideas. So anyway, um I just want to thank you for uh being there talking about what's currently happening in your communities, things that are going on. I, you know, you have my cell phone number. Feel free to reach out at any
time. Um it's it's I'm there to be your voice up at the capital and if I can be part of your team and one of your resources up there to be able to advocate on behalf of Goodyu County, that's what I'm there to do. So, any questions or
>> We chatted briefly at the county fair about housing and that everyone you talked to talks about housing. Every commissioner I've ever talked to talks about housing and you brought up something that the other commissioners hadn't
necessarily and that was that gee yes we need more housing but we can't because of the waste treatment plant. It's at capacity. we can't because we don't have enough clean water. We're at capacity. And that was something that I think many commissioners hadn't even considered.
Um I think in October there's going to be a housing summit here in Redwing. >> Redwing. >> I'm kind of hoping you might be able to attend so that you could bring up those particular issues.
>> Yeah, would be happy to. It's um it's I apologize. I've been around to about this is the last county commissioner meeting that uh I was a that uh was on the list of the three counties I serve. Um but uh it's it's my home county. So it's and everybody already kind of has
my number as it is. So um but yeah, it's as I talk to the other counties, cities, it it seems like the bottleneck on a majority of these situations all comes down to waste water um and how we're able to be able to move it. uh the city of Kenyon is dealing with something similar in terms of trying to move
industry into their community and at at some point in time the the city administrator flat out admitted. He says we we have to address this wastewater treatment plant because it's it's going to be the bottleneck. Um it's it's something that we're seeing in the city of Good Hugh. It's something that we're seeing, you know, name the community.
It's it's a problem. Um, so you know, we really need to make sure we address this in a meaningful, positive way that actually allows these cities to be able to grow because without having housing, you can't grow your schools. And without growing the schools, we can't grow the communities. So, it's, you know, it's
kind of a remarkable thing how there's this chain reaction between everything. And that's the thing I've kind of enjoyed about this process is finding out, okay, what mechanisms do we have on the on the state side that we can help in order to alleviate that bottleneck and help improve things. So,
Thank you very much. >> Yeah, no problem. >> Anybody else? Just a a comment and I watched a lot of hearings at the state and I was a little bit
frustrated that when they talked about the fraud, it was always about catching people, not about what the process is forward >> because nobody wants it to go out the door to the wrong person. Is there any
processes changes or vetting changes or is that coming forward or is it only looking in the rearview mirror? cuz I I'm frustrated with that because that's you're never going to get it all back and it's too expensive to get it all
back and it's much better if it's really and from what I've seen most of it's been um in certain areas where there probably was more dollars thrown at a problem without any kind of
administrative dollars to oversight it. Is there any change going to happen to that piece of it? There's some internal things that are happening within agencies, but it's that's why a you know Senate Democrats
and Senate Senate Republicans came to the agreement on this IOG and they really wanted to make sure this and off or the office I'm sorry the Office of Inspector General um the OIG, they wanted to make sure that they had this in place to be able to have a a centralized location where if there were
employees that were seeing something that was going on, they report to that and allow them to be able to say, "Hey, there is something that doesn't make quite any make any sense about this." Um, and there is some mechanisms already in place, but this is basically with the
OIG, they're trying to standardize something across the board that report, well, all agencies can report to and actually be looked at with more of a microscope to be able to figure out exactly what's going on and how they're able to stop it on the front side as opposed to trying to recoup those
dollars on the back side. Right now, my biggest fear is what's going to end up happening once we collect some of this money back, we get it into place. Are the feds going to turn around and come back against the state of Minnesota and ask for those dollars back in order to make them whole? And that's the big question that we have. Are they just
going to forgive our debt on this thing or are we actually going to have to pay pay the whole thing forward? Um, and that's that's a a question that I'm hopefully going to have answered in this next session. But it's that's what keeps me awake at night is we have that initial loss, but then what's the
federal going what's the feds going to expect out of us in terms of repaying that those dollars back which ultimately falls back on on us as taxpayers again. So, >> and then um my train of thought
um in regards to the cuts coming from the feds especially I I'll focus mostly on human services or public health or is there is there any thought from the
state to buffer that to the county or is it going to just trickle down and come down to the county. So, if we have to do twice a year for Medicaid, if we have to do the SNAP and all of that, is their
funding going to follow the work for us to pay for staff or is it going to just fall on us and we're going to have to pay for it? >> We really are tough those are tough questions and I know they're tough questions. with there was there was grumblings
talking about there was people talking about this uh at towards the end of session but at that point in time it was you know the water was relatively murky and no one really unders it really knows what was the true impact of what's currently going on I'm sure those are things that we're going to probably end
up diving into in the next session and trying to take a look at it in a more meaningful manner but at this point in time a lot of us are just doing what I'm doing right now is just being out in the community listening and try talking to people to find out Okay. What are you guys hearing? What are you seeing? And what's, you know, what are the potential
impacts you guys are concerned about? Um, so we there was nothing we really did in terms of addressing those specifically because they were all so fresh at the time and and no one really knows exactly what it is. And some of the impacts I'm I'm hearing are not just
happening in the short term, but it's going to be like two, three years down the line. So, how do we how do we plan for those kinds of uh scenarios? and is it really going to impact this or is it something that's just out there in the ether that isn't going to hit anybody? So, we're everybody's still trying to
learn a lot more about it. So, question, you know, that office of investigation, don't we already have people in positions? We already have an attorney general. We have a state auditor. We have a governor's I mean, don't we kind of already have that? I mean, do we have
to form something else that uh, you know, has to watch over that? I mean, that's kind of what they're supposed to do anyway, right? >> I don't know if that's necessarily what they're they're required to do at this point. I know the the attorney g attorney general focuses like the opioid
dollars that uh everybody's been working utilizing for drug courts and those kinds of things. Um those that's that's more what the attorney general does on their end of it. Um there are some invest there's offices or offices that
do investigations internally on different things, but nothing really focused on on going after kind of the fraud side of it and trying to catch stuff on the front side. It's more reactionary than anything else. Um and to Commissioner Anderson's point, it's
one of those things where we really got to be more proactive on some of the stuff on the front side in order to make sure you don't have those dollars flowing out. But I know you mentioned that if an employee or a staff member finds or is suspicious of something, they've already had somebody to go to,
you know, to investigate it. But it there's just a lot of frustrations. >> Yeah. And it's it hopefully with this OIG it's going to kind of streamline everything a little bit more and allow everybody to be able to kind of have have a more clear and pres or a clear path as far as where they can go in
terms of reporting and how they can get ahead of this stuff as opposed to trying to react to it because it's typically attorney general is a reactionary point. That's kind of what they do. It's the what we have is the off the auditor uh audits a lot of things within the state
but doesn't necessarily focus and that's always kind of a an autopsy if you will on ter in terms of numbers and impact and what's happened within the state on different programs afterwards not nothing or nothing that's really going on the front side the closest thing we
have that does investigations would be over on the BCA if I remember correctly and they ended up taking like the insurance fraud uh the insurance fraud investigators and ended up moving them over there underneath BCA at this point in time. So that's about the only thing
that we have that's maybe on a little bit more on the front side uh of investigating uh as far as insurance because I also serve on the commerce side and uh that's one of those things that uh we had a lot of concerns about when they moved the insurance fraud investigators from uh uh the com the
commerce uh side over to BCA. But it's we'll see exactly how it works. So >> thank you. >> Anybody else? Well, thank you for stopping by. Thanks for all your work. I know um it's fast and furious up there and it's some days
fun, some days not so fun. >> And like I said, >> kind of like kind of like the county. >> And like I said, I I'm I'm here as one of your team members. If there's anything I can do on my end of it, if as we're seeing some of the stuff coming from the federal side, if you guys start to see glitches and holes, um please I
have an open door. Reach out at any time. So, >> thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you very much for coming. >> Thank you, Keith. >> All right, we'll move on to the consent agenda. There are five items. >> Your wishes. >> Move approval of the consent agenda.
>> Second. >> Been moved and second we approve the consent agenda. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Oppos. Motion carries. Insurance proposals from human resources. This has gone through like a couple of insurance
committee meetings and we came to kind of a decision at those of what to propose. >> Hey, good morning. >> Welcome. >> Thank you. >> Morning. >> Thank you. >> All right. Well, as you said, the insurance committee has met multiple
times this year to consider a number of different items. First and foremost, we have a number of plans that were due to be bid this year. And so, that group reviewed those bids and proposals. And then additionally, we've had a lot of talk about our health insurance. We were based on our utilization and high claims
expecting a less than favorable renewal. And so the group um said, "Let's go out to bid and see what com competition can do for our group." And so the report today, very brief, has a number of different recommendations relative to um the
different insurance programs. And so, um, with respect to health insurance, it was advantageous for the group to go out to bid. Our renewal, um, based again on experience, high claims, and and, um, utilization was at a 43% renewal. And so
through the bid process, we were able to bring that number down to um, between 23 and 26%. And we'll kind of talk about those those variation in and numbers as we go through. Um the committee also reviewed you know annually the IRS sets
the um thresholds for high deductible health plans. And so um the group re reviewed plan one and made a recommendation to increase the deductibles for plan one so that it could maintain its HSA eligibility and embedded deductibles.
Um they also recommended keeping plan two as a minimum uh minimum value plan and thereby increasing the single and family deductibles with with that plan as well. Um, I mentioned before that the health
insurance renewal is between a 23 and a 26% and 23% is is if the group were to implement a direct primary care through CAVRA and so the report outlines a little bit more about what that that is. Um we could also see some cost savings
if we were to in addition to our current um aware network um provide an option for a high value network which essentially removes Mayo Clinic and um vets administration from from the network and and provides those who are
more costconscious a different network of providers and thereby some some cost savings with that plan. All of these proposals fall under Blue Cross Blue Shield, we looked at a couple of different providers and Bluec Cross was the um was the proposal that the
committee was most favorable about. Um and when we went back to Blue Cross Blue Shield and again knowing that the cost pressures and things like that, they were able to offer a 19% rate cap for 2027. And I know that's high when we've been looking at seven and 8% increases
year-over-year, but we do think that that is a good thing for for this plan. I mentioned before there's a there's quite a few recommendations towards the end of this report, but I'm going to pause um after health insurance before we get into some of the other items in
case there's there's questions about those items. >> Questions? I think the one piece that you didn't mention was that there were several companies that refused to bid or chose not to bid.
>> Yes. So we did not everybody that was had the opportunity did not bid. >> Yes, there was um Minnesota Health Consortium in the end did not end up submitting a bid. They couldn't be um they couldn't be competitive. Um and we
had a number of others who when they looked at our group said we can't be competitive and so we're not going to provide a bid. >> Including the Southeast Co-op. >> Yes. Yep. The Minnesota Health Consortium. Yep. >> Didn't bid. Correct. >> Which was kind of surprising.
>> Do we know why they didn't bid? >> Pardon? >> Do we have any idea about why they did not bid? >> They didn't feel they could be competitive. >> Yeah. When we looked at the the different finalists, they were all under 30%. And when we I I believe Minnesota
Health Consortium, they would have been far exceeding that. >> I see. >> Going positive. I heard since our committee meeting, I talking to a couple of commissioners from different counties and their rate increase that they thought they were going to get this year
was less than they were not. They came off of the Southeast Co-op last year and had a big rise and their increase this year didn't wasn't as high as they thought it was going to be, which was positive. Even though ours said, you know, a rate a rate cap of 19, maybe it
wouldn't come in at 19. That's our hope. >> That absolutely is our hope. And then, you know, one of the conversations we've had at the committee level is that, you know, claims tend to, you know, be on a five-year cycle, right? And so, based on where we've been at, we're hoping that we've hit the high point and that we
will start trending down. Of course, we don't have a crystal ball. We don't know, but that's that's our hope. Absolutely. All right. If the board approves the recommendations relative to the health insurance plan, um there would be implications for the county
contributions to the health savings account because we contribute 50% of the deductible. And so those um figures are called out in the next item. We did go out to bid for dental insurance as well. We um asked for quotes maintaining the current low and
high plan designs and Metife gave the most competitive bid and they enhanced um a very um dear part of plan design for the HR team especially um making X-rays on a 12-month cycle which is what
Dennis recommend and and so um that that's helpful. the existing plan is on an 18-month cycle and so can be a little confusing. Um the MetLife proposal um does a 21% premium reduction and since the county
pays for low plan dental for those who are on plan two medical that that does have a positive impact for the county as well as employees. Vision insurance is currently through Blue Cross Blue Shield and MetLife had the most competitive bid for that
coverage at a nearly 20% reduction in premium as well. If you're sensing a theme here, um you're on to something. Life insurance and and disability insurance both had very competitive bids from from Metife
as well and offered premium savings both for county provided basic life insurance and then voluntary life insurance plans. the short and long-term disability insurance plans um will see significant reductions and and that's in large part due to the implementation of Minnesota
paid leave um but also MetLife really came to offer some competitive plans. The final plan listed on there is Minnesota paid leave and and we've talked a lot about this in in various settings throughout the year. We know that this is coming in 2026. Of course,
we have the option to participate in the state plan which is a 888% payroll tax that is at least 50% employer paid and right now that is that is um the the plan. We also went out and said let's look at private plans and MetLife bid at
8% and so that is some savings there as well. So the recommendations at the end of the report are to accept the renewal with Blue Cross Blue Shield and then we are recommending direct primary care through CAVRA recommending to increase plan one
deductibles to 3,400 single and 6800 family to maintain the embedded deductible status recommending to increase plan two deductibles and out-of- pocket maximums to maintain minimum value plan designation. and then to offer a highv value network
option with both the current plan one and plan two health plans and then accept the dental insurance vision insurance basic and voluntary life insurance short-term long-term disability and equivalent paid state
leave plan through Metife >> questions >> did you can you tell me what the total increased cost is for 2026 >> the those are outlined on the on the front. >> Oh, they're individual. I didn't add them up. I'm thinking it's about getting close to one and a half million more,
but maybe not quite that much. >> I don't have the total write off. >> That's the ballpark. Is Yeah. >> Did we get confirmation the rate increase for the following year goes off 23%, not 26%. Did we get
confirmation on that? Remember we talked about >> we talked about that >> if we go with the Cava it reduces our rate and then when they add the percentage on next year is it off of the 23% or the 26%.
>> I'm not confident that we've gotten that. I will go back to Intellissence with that for sure. It's >> it just it just makes cava much more appealing if if that it's cost effective anyway, but it's a little more cost
effective if the increase starts at 23% not 26%. >> And my my guess would be it'll depend on how many people actually use that program. So if a lot of people use it, probably the premium increase will be greater than if it's there but not used very much. Well, they don't count those
people that use that doesn't count towards um claims loss. So, that's where the that's where the that's where the Blue Cross savings is. Less claims lost. >> So, more people use it, fewer people are using the Blue Cross. It's another way
of saying it. So, so it's just it's not that I'm opposed to anything that's here, but I think that it's about a 3%age levy increase just with the insurance increases. Is that about correct? >> I haven't put in the updated numbers
yet, but for it's going to be pretty close to what we have in the current draft of the budget um at a 25% increase overall. >> And I calculated that out this morning and it was just over a million dollars. >> All right. I was just looking just a >> two 2.3% levy increase over
>> So, not the three that I was concerned about. No. >> All right. Thank you. >> Yep. All right. Any other questions? If not, is there a motion to uh move these recommendations forward? >> I'll make that motion.
>> Second. >> Been moved and second. We go with Blue Cross and Metife in this scenario as presented. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say I. >> I. The same. Motion carries.
Thank you and thanks for all your work on that. That is not easy. >> That was a lot of work. >> That is not easy. We got more pages of stuff that are this long than I want to see in the next year. >> There's a lot that goes into it. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. Public works. This
is a a discussion to decide whether we have a variance hearing for a parcel I think in Zimroda Township. Is that correct? >> That that's correct.
>> All right. >> Well, good morning, commissioners. Uh this is a request to schedule a public hearing uh due to a variance request for a property uh along County Road 42 in
Zimroa Township. Staff received uh an application for an access permit back in June of this year from Joshua Betcher. That parcel has one existing access. Um the owner is requesting a second one. um
county staff after reviewing that permit application denied it uh on the grounds of spacing requirements that are outlined in our access uh management and control ordinance. Uh furthermore, the parcel currently has a driveway that
provides reasonable and convenient access to the parcel as a whole. Um the land owners subsequently uh applied for a variance which is also in accordance with the policy as they have a right to do so. Um they submitted
an application on August 7th. Uh that application has been provided to you for uh for your consideration uh today. So the next step in that would be what we're doing today which is requesting to schedule a public hearing
um which is at the discretion of the board and if that public hearing does proceed then um then there would be further action uh from the board on whether or not to uh approve the variance or deny the variance. So at at
this time uh staff is recommending to hold the to schedule the public hearing for September 16th uh at the county board meeting. And at this time, I would stand for any questions. >> Questions? I just have a comment. I went out and
went by this place, looked at, and you know, there's nothing what I want to know is there anything that's changed on that operation that would require another better access? >> Not to my knowledge.
And if they wanted to, they could move the driveway, the current driveway, vacate what's there, and move it anywhere they want in that 600 and some feet that they own of road frontage, >> provided it needs access spacing. Correct.
>> Well, I don't think there's anything anything either direction that's going to affect them on spacing. They can move it to the west. It's unused area. They can I don't understand unloading on the road when you have a
farmard that has that much space in it. >> Mhm. >> It doesn't It just seems to me move the road to where you want it, >> vacate the one that's there >> and get get space in your yard to turn around and do what you need to do.
another driveway is not not really this the need. >> They they would have the option of requesting to simply relocate their access. Uh to my knowledge, they did not make that request >> and they don't own the fields around it.
>> That's owned by an relative or something. Correct. What I'm going to guess. >> Correct. I personally I just don't see I mean we had one on county 14 we denied it and they built their shed
they got an easement to do what they wanted to do I just see that they have all kinds of opportunity to move their driveway to meet the needs if there's a building in the way or something where that driveway is
which there is a building real close to the driveway on I think the west side close to County 42. I think they could just move the driveway farther west and access their property differently and get what they need. So I I don't think
we should start varying from spacing requirements. >> Well, I believe the applicant had said that he was whatever situation he was starting a homebased business. >> So he has a conditional use to operate a a homebased business. know what he's doing, but he's starting a business or
whatever that he said it is. So, it's was one of his outlooks of doing this is why he did this. And as you folks drive and go out and if you've driven out in the country, Brad, you should really we should really pay attention to where all these driveways and everything is. this 350 ft when
within a farmard if you have your house probably where the blue line is there if you're going to have that much activity and stuff going in nobody really gets that excited about uh let's say we're going to haul a nurse we're going to go across the main driveway right in front
of our house exciting everybody loves it you it's not that unreasonable I don't know where and at what particular point we got all uh change of variances or what all these drivers are an issue this situation is not that abnormal, not unusual to driving throughout the county
in multiple different places. He deserves the opportunity to have a variance. It's not that unusual. Look at situations people have been in, especially running a farm to in and out with the trucks, the equipment, the size of stuff, especially like I said, having the house there. If you had the
opportunity to move a driveway, so all the equipment, all the dust, all the gunk, the manure, everything else was moved away from your house or your front yard where you maybe have a deck, whatever it is, whatever the situation is. Yeah, they probably don't have to unload on the road. There can be
adjustments made, but it's not that unreasonable of a request to be able to function and live out in the country. I mean, I even look at my place when I built in Lake City. They wanted to stick me down to one. It's in the city. They wanted to have me with one driver, which would have I had to
get a variance for that. It would have made the property you not completely useless, but so much more challenging to ask for another entrance much like other properties located by me. I can think of how many properties just where I live that if you
go down 16 just outside of Belches you look at Bartholomew and Honeys there's probably three driveways within I I don't even know thousand feet and it makes their farm their businesses so much easier to utilize I don't know what
problem I really don't know what having a driveway there inhibits on anything of the county or any of us other residents what does it cause as a problem it simplifies life and their utilization of it. Allow him the opportunity to come and present and have a variance.
Very reasonable ask out of the county board. Very reasonable and it should be accepted and allowed. So I will move the recommendation forward we schedule public hearing. >> There a second. >> Second move and seconded we schedule public hearing. Is that going to be at
the next board meeting? >> Yes. >> Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Oppos. I. >> All right. We are going to have that at the next board
meeting. Um, for your information, there's a staffing report, project status report, new or old business. Hearing none, committee reports. Linda. So last week there at the Association of
Minnesota Counties, we were working on a strategic plan. And while I was there, I had an opportunity to talk to six to seven county commissioners and I was asking
them if they had a draft budget yet. And most of them do. And at the moment, their average was anywhere between 8 and 12% levy increase moving forward. Um, in
a couple of counties, Ramsey especially, and Dakota, that also included Dakota, I think, included a million dollar cut, but that also included major cuts that they were dealing with. So, it is going to be a challenging year
for counties. Um, the other thing that came up was that the AMC does have an internship program and that a lot of counties do contact them and end up um hiring somebody for staff from the
interns. They're also planning to create a directory of grant writers that counties can use. Um, they want to start state bonding training for commissioners and they also want to
start creating a state mandate template so that commissioners can share with the public exactly what the state mandates are that we are required to administer. >> That it >> that's it.
>> Anybody else? Just a comment. We had um Buffy Baronic here at the last meeting. Buffy is um resigning her position. And so we started on
well, we've had two meetings with people from all four counties uh to rehire uh a new CEO. and we've selected David Drowns to kind of handle that part of it for us. Obviously, we'd have no HR
to amount to anything at that. Um have had discussions with other entities uh about interest um um merging or whatever. Not merging really,
but just if there's any interest in some change to the organization. there really isn't. Um, so we're moving forward with uh getting it out there to rehire. But um I I'll just make one comment. I'm always a little confused about, you
know, how Three Rivers and uh Smcra worked together. So, I asked uh Jenny Larson about that because I had the uh Three Rivers meeting the next day and she said, "Well, the main thing that Three Rivers couldn't do that the um SAM
crew could do was the section 8 uh housing, but she said they they could apply for that." And she said maybe we should sit down and have coffee sometime. And that isn't me saying she's interested, but that is me saying that she felt that they did everything that
SEMR did except for section 8 and they could apply for that ability. >> Well, they do do Yeah, they do do public housing. They they >> they run it differently, but yeah, they do do public housing and they do um I don't know if they do the HECAP stuff or
they don't do the housing trust stuff. I mean there's differences but and that was one of them that was in the discussion but um not at this time is what I heard. So
but we're moving forward with that. But I wanted you to be aware of that as we move forward. >> That's really too bad for us. Well, Buffy just brings a wealth of knowledge from working, you know, she started out
in finance there and worked several years in finance and then really has cleaned up a lot of stuff in as as CEO and still has that finance piece of it.
And that's where we're going to be a little bit challenged because we're going for a CEO but not a CEO CFO and that piece. There's accountants but not really a financial officer there
which is challenging but we're going to work through it. But she's a wealth of knowledge >> as is Jenny Larson as is many others that work in that field. Anybody else?
All right. Review claims. >> Go ahead and pay the bills. Motion. >> Second. >> Been moved and seconded. We pay the bills. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. The same.
Motion carries. And then is there a mo motion to go into a close session? No. after the close meeting. >> Okay, >> that's my motion. Journ after the close session. I'll >> second it.
>> Any discussion? All right. All those in favor say I. I. The same.