Okay, I'll call the uh Board of Commissioner meeting to order. We'll begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible,
all. >> Are there any disclosures of interest? Okay, hearing none, uh we'll move on to the previous board minute uh board meeting minutes. >> Move approval. >> Second. >> Any discussion?
Hear motion and a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Opposed? Motion carries. Uh next it's to review the agenda and I believe we have one addition. >> We have one addition we'd like to uh Representative Keith Allen is with us today and we'd like to give him a few
minutes to just give a quick update on >> top of the agenda. >> Yep. Yep. >> Okay. >> Probably under reports from officials. The very right after the consent. >> Oh, all right. All right. That sounds fine. Is there a motion to approve the agenda with that addition? >> So moved. >> Second.
>> Motion and a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Opposed? Motion carries. Uh next is the consent agenda items. >> Move approval as presented. >> Second. >> Motion and a second.
All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Opposed? Motion carries. And next uh we'll hear from uh Representative Allen. >> You might have to turn the on, Keith. >> It's underneath. >> other side. >> Yep.
>> Perfect. >> All right. Well, uh if thank you for letting me address the county board. Uh again, my name is Keith Allen. I'm the state representative for the district of 19A, which encompasses uh the townships in Goodhue County, which is Cherry Grove,
uh Holden, uh Kenyon, and then Wanamingo. And uh just wanted to start off by a huge uh debt of gratitude and thanks to the board the board here and all county commissioner boards the boards throughout the state of Minnesota. Um the advocacy you and your
counterparts did uh at the capital this last year uh just really resonated uh among uh elected representatives at the capital, especially with what you're dealing with in terms of property taxes, uh the impacts of some of the stuff that's came down from the state, and more
importantly, uh what you're dealing with with uh with the uh computer uh system within DHS. Uh your your comments were heard loud and clear, and it was definitely uh really appreciated. Uh some of the things we ended up accomplishing in the at the capital this
year in the in uh session, we were able to strengthen government accountability. We did that through creating an office uh called the Office of the Inspector General. It's independent of the house. It's independent of uh the the governor's office. And what it's really
designed to do is actually have teeth to go after a lot of the fraud that we've seen in the state of Minnesota. Uh the other big one that ended up happening was uh as I mentioned before was the DHS technology modern modernization. Um everybody It doesn't make a difference what part
of the state you're in currently. This is one of those big things that's really impacted people across the board, and you guys uh you guys got to hear about this probably more regularly than anybody anyone else. Uh and uh we got funding in place to actually get this thing taken care of and get going uh, or
start moving forward on the whole entire thing. Uh, infrastructure and bonding uh, investments, we ended up doing 1.2 billion dollars of capital in capital investment. Uh, one of the projects that did end up getting funded down here uh, impacts the communities of
uh, Prairie Island, Zumbrota, Wanamingo, and uh, and uh, Goodhue, which is the Zumbro wastewater treatment plant. Uh, we it uh, we were able to get a total of I think 12 million dollars back into the bonding uh, the bonding bill in order to
be able to make sure that that's not uh, it's on life support and going forward as opposed to just not getting anything at all. We've all seen the importance of it and it's a great example of some of the things that we're seeing where multiple communities are going together in order to try to be able to create uh,
a a kind of a joint task force or a joint group in order to be able to kind of get some of these projects going forward. Whether it's uh, wastewater treatment plants, whether it's water freshwater delivery systems, those are the kinds of things that we're looking at as a bonding committee uh, going forward where it really does
logistically make a lot more sense to be able to stretch that dollar a little bit further um, uh, given everything that's happening within uh, within the labor force and what we're currently seeing. Uh, we did some property tax relief uh, relief stuff. We also stabilized the healthcare
act the healthcare access uh, specifically behind HCMC. There was a much larger issue that we've uh, ran across where uh, uh, patients uh, within hospital systems that um, that had a tendency not to pay would get
thrown on ambulances and shipped down to HCMC and that's where they would end up getting unloaded. Uh, it it was a major major issue. We kind of understood what was going on and a beautiful part about what ended up happening was as you're probably aware of the county commissioners were kind of run running and managing the hospital. They were the
hospital board. They There are with what we did for funding, we set clear guidelines as far as how that board is to operate. The county board is no longer going to really have as as active as a role in it as they did, and it's going to be medical professionals are going to be
actually running and managing the entire thing, and they're going to try to get it back on a more solid financial stable footing. We improved public did some things around improving public safety, specifically with a school bus bill, as everybody had heard. Uh there was issues with school buses
being driven past with their stop arms out. I wrote a clarification within law in order to be able to make sure kids could get on and off school buses in a more safely safe manner. So, instead of it being hinged on the the stop arm coming out, it's all based
on whether or not the red lights are flashing, and that indicates that people have to stop. It's something that we all know, we were all taught in driver's ed. Now it's actually something that people are going to we're going to have to the people to enforce the law. And then the other big thing we did is
just basic bipartisan problem solving. A lot of us wanted to try to get something accomplished and make sure we were actually delivering delivering on what our communities were looking for and what they needed, and I think we were able to do that and land the plane in a timely manner. So,
with that I'll leave it back to you for any questions. So. >> Go ahead, Linda. >> I just wanted to thank you on behalf of so many people for the upgraded I mean for working on the HHS technology
modernization. That in and of itself should make such a huge difference on so many levels. Thank you. >> Brad? >> Um thanks. Thanks for your service. Thanks for the job up there. I can't imagine
um doing that. I just [clears throat] It's I I I would I would fall over flat on my face on that job. Um a couple of things though that really strike me and I watched a lot of hearings online this year and I would
was up there a few times. Um and on the fraud issue and none of us want it none of us want fraud. I totally get it. I watched uh uh I I was watching it intently a lot because I wanted to know what is the how
are we going to be on the proactive side of that? And I didn't really see a whole lot come out proactively to prevent the fraud in the first place. I saw a whole lot of stuff about reactive which is what as a county commissioner
it is the last thing I want to do is be reactive. I want to be proactive. So is there anything you can is there any piece you can throw out that says we've done this proactively to not let it get out the door so we don't have
to go chase it and try to get it back. >> I appreciate that question Commissioner Anderson. The big thing I see uh looking at that uh the OIG bill that ended up coming through is there's whistleblower protections that are coming into place on that that allow people to be able to
employees within state agencies to be able to report it. So they're not going to have to try to go up there the food chain like they have in the past. They can report it directly over to them and try to get that going forward. I was one of those things uh when I did a short stint working within Congress we had the
office of the whistleblower um real clever name uh given Congress but uh what they ended up doing it gave us as employees it would give you protection to be able to go in anonymously be able to report something. If you see it say something about it.
And that's a lot of it. Most the most times from what I've from what I've gathered talking to some of these people and what's going on, they kind of the boots on the ground and the people that are closest to the the the the fraud and have a lot of questions about it. They're usually the ones that have caught a majority of it early on. It's
just other people above would just never really follow through on it or they would just wouldn't think it was that big of an big of an issue. And hopefully with the OIG office, that's going to be, you know, pairing it with the whistleblowers that are coming forward and making sure that
they can take a better look at those kinds of things. It'll help along along those lines. And then actually having tangible teeth to or having teeth to the actual office itself. Cuz we that's the one thing we do at the capital very well is I've seen it over and over again.
You've seen it. They create offices and there's just no back no no teeth to the office to actually get something accomplished. We've seen some of that stuff within the Attorney General's office, which was just brought to a brought to light here through KARE 11 just in the last week or two about a particular loophole within
Medicaid where they just really don't have the resources to be able to go after these people. I think they had 21 million or something like that dollars and they'd only recovered 2 million dollars of the 21 million of the people that have actually been actually owed money at. And they wanted
to go back further like into people's property and go after different things. Luxury cars, that kind of stuff. And they didn't have the capability of doing it, which is we would think as a common sense thing that would happen. But that's that's some of the stuff that I'm starting to kind of catch and see. So,
I'm talking to some some other colleagues that are much more adept in the law the world of law and we're going to try to work up a bill that would actually go out allow the Attorney General's office to be able to go back and grab on to stuff like that. But I think it comes down to the whistleblower component of it.
>> Well, that's good. I'm glad I'm glad that that should help. The other piece that I have seen being in this for 12 years, being beyond that in township, and beyond that in school board, there's a lot of things that come
through the legislature. And there the intent is there, but the but it's not it's not defined enough so that when it gets to the department, the department got it's instead of a
focus like this, it's a focus like this. And and then the intent doesn't actually happen because it gets veered off in different directions. Is it is there any way that more of more direct
if you have a if you have a program you want to do that you actually can confine that to so it gets done the way obviously you want it done? Because I see I see it happen all the time and it doesn't matter whether it's at state or whether it's at the federal
and even sometimes at the county, but we need to be more direct about directing funding where we actually want it and it doesn't get it doesn't cost twice as much to deliver as what it
actually does. And that is the part that frustrates me. We waste too much money on trying to prevent fraud, yes, but also the paperwork part of it just kills us. It kills us at the county. It takes too much staff to do stuff.
>> And I think a lot of that comes down to us in the legislatures we're looking through the intent of law and trying to figure out exactly what you know, what is the scope, what is it's what is it's true intended target, and how do we really make sure those dollars are getting to where they're supposed to be intended to go to.
Um and some of that onus onus falls back on us to be perfectly honest with you. I mean, it's it's something that we have we have to do a much better job of. It's one of those things I've tried to task myself with with anytime I'm digging into a piece of legislation. Is it actually going to go to the Is it in
doing it exactly what it's intended to do and is it supposed to be able to actually go to the the place it's supposed to end up going. Kind of like what we see with the bonding side of it. I mean, you we do bonding bills. We know exactly where every penny is going to be end up going is going to go. And can we do that with other pieces of
legislation? I think we can do a much better job at it. >> Well, I I just want to thank you cuz quite frankly, I don't know how you do that job. >> [laughter] >> As I told as I told Barb Healy once, I don't know how to think like representative or a senator.
>> [laughter] >> Any other questions? Well, well, I want to thank you for coming because we don't see too many folks from St. Paul come down and talk directly to us and I very much appreciate that. >> Well, it's it's appreciated that you guys you guys take the time out of your
day to be able to come up and talk to us in session and I know it looks like a it's just pure chaos cuz we're running back and forth between committees and we're all really tough to be able to hammer down for times and I can't tell you how much I appreciate what you guys do in terms of advocating on behalf of
Goodhue County cuz it really it does make a huge difference on our end of it. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh next up, land use management. Good morning. This agenda item is related to the Wanamingo demolition
landfill site, which is located in Minneola Township. Um the County Board is being asked to consider an addendum to an agreement that is the landowner agreement, um Wanamingo demolition land debris land disposal facility. Um that agreement
exists between Goodhue County and Glenn Seeberg, who is the owner of property located off of 135th Ave, uh Zumbrota, Minnesota. Um the site is is commonly known as the Wanamingo demolition landfill.
The purpose of the addendum is to allow Mr. Seeberg to split his land and put the landfill area in an LLC, um thereby separating it from his house and farm. Included in the agenda materials today is a copy of the original agreement that
was executed in 2022. Um a copy of the draft addendum that you all are being asked to consider, a certificate of survey of the proposed parcel to be created. I believe it is approximately just over 14 acres.
Um and then there's an aerial image of the um the overall property in the packet. Um just for some background, um the county did enter into an agreement with Mr. Seeberg, who is the property owner. Um he owns a 70-acre uh tract of land.
Um the site is in the process of being closed in accordance with the MPCA requirements, but was generally operated, from what I can tell, from about 1985 to 2023. Um the county is still leasing the land
and also performing and paying for annual monitoring of the site. Um Mr. Seeberg is maintaining the site. Um I think I'll just sort of jump to the um certificate of survey that is included in the packet. Um what this is
doing is creating a proposed legal description for the area to be split. Um as I mentioned previously, it is 14.23 acres. Um the surveyor did include >> [clears throat and cough] >> all the monitoring wells. I believe um
1 2 3 There's six of them shown on the property um and the location of the monitoring wells, which are fully enclosed in the proposed um new site. Um so with that um I guess if there's any questions, I know um I know that
this this >> [clears throat] >> this site has history to it um and so I I am not fully prepared to dive into that, but I have talked to Mr. Greenwood um who knows a lot more about the demolition history.
>> Go ahead. >> I have just a couple of comments. Obviously, Steve's looked at this. >> Yes, I have. >> Okay. I didn't see anything about the the property owner has to carry any kind of insurance.
Do they need to? And can we stipulate that? >> I'm going to have to think about that one. I I know that I mean the county has responsibility for the landfill itself. >> Right. >> I think that's where the liability would fall.
>> Okay. >> Um I don't know. I can't remember the terms of the original agreement to be honest with you sitting here right now, but I don't remember. >> see anything about insurance in either of the agreements and that that's why it it just made me think about that. The second thing is if this survey is
accurate, it appears that the access for that farm place is at least partially on our property or on on the one parcel. And granted, it's his parcel,
but um in thinking about if it ever went tax forfeit, he would lose access to his building site.
And is that is that And I And I only bring that up because those are real possibilities. And is there a way to exclude the driveway from the parcel
so that that would never be an issue? >> And um I was remiss in discussing this in the staff report. There is a draft easement agreement um that goes with this lot split. I just didn't include it
in the packet. Um the Steeberg or the the property that is being split, the LLC property, um the 14 acres, um would have an easement over it. So essentially Mr. Steeberg could still get
to his home. Um So this this map that's up on the screen is just a staff rendering of of sort of where that new property line would be. The orange area is approximately the property line. Um both properties have as proposed have
legal frontage along a public road, which is required. Um but there's one improved driveway. And that is the driveway that we want to make sure that the county has access to and Mr. Steeberg has access to. So there is a draft easement agreement that would
>> And I And I And I I hesitated to even ask that question. But by the same token, the drawing there shows that eventually the driveway isn't all on one property or all on the other
property. It's kind of a mix. And I don't know if that's accurate enough, but um the survey should show that. I just don't want to get in a position later that that becomes an issue.
And is the easement to Goodhue County? Because a landowner can't give an easement to themself. I don't think. >> Sure, and I can um
the easement agreement that I reviewed was specifically from Mr. Steeberg to the LLC. >> Oh, okay. So, it's a two two different owners, then it works. Okay. If it was Steeberg to Steeberg, it couldn't you can't do an easement to yourself.
Okay. All right. >> Linda. Though splitting up these properties, would this make any kind of a major change for Mr. Steeberg as far as taxation goes and what it is zoned as?
And I bring that up just because last night there was someone who sold off some of her property and all of a sudden the zoning uh it changed as far as her house now became residential instead of agricultural land and she was hit
with quite a significant new tax bill that she was not expecting. I just would like to make sure that doesn't happen to somebody else. Too, do we know if it would? >> I had previously looked at at the break looked down at the breakdown of the
property values and classifications for them. It looks to me like a section of it is already set up as um commercial or land bill type thing, but that's something that I I would like to confirm with the assessor just to make sure
um how that is going to change. I don't want to give the incorrect answer on that. >> I would like that. Thank you. >> And and my question is do you see any downside for the county or for the overall citizens of Goodhue County and uh
in this request? >> Um that is a good question. There is um you know, I I think in just the conversations that I've had with some of my colleagues, there is some I would say general question about the long-term ownership
of the site and maybe the long-term care of it, the long-term monitoring of it. It sounds like that's a decision that will likely have to come back before the county board. Um maybe some unresolved decisions. Um what
what I see the benefit in this is is it clearly separates two uses that are not really compatible with each other. So, a farm and a residence um is not is legally described and is on the same property in the same address
and the same legal description as a landfill um that needs separate monitoring, separate agreements, and we need to know exactly, you know, where that is. Um there is some risk, I think, for the county by putting it in a by
allowing it to go into an LLC. Um the landowner could you know, could potentially sell that. Um could do a number of things with it. Um but I think the agreement as it's written still the way I read the agreement still
essentially puts the burden on the property owner. Um they are the property owner, they are maintaining the site, they are responsible for the site. Um all you know, again, what this is doing is it's splitting the land to allow them to put it into an LLC. Um but I I think
there is some inherent risk there. >> But But I would assume that we have a risk related to this landfill period. >> Correct. >> Does this substantially change what our risk would be? Or the risk is there,
it's going to continue to be there. Does it, Jeff? >> The risk won't change with the land split. >> Yeah. So, it's there's a risk and it will >> There's always risk with a landfill. >> that. And And Steve, does that seem right to you that yes, there's risk, but it won't
substantially change based on it being in an LLC? >> I would agree with that. I mean, the county's on the permit, correct? From PCA. >> Yes. >> So, the county's on the permit for running the landfill, so our I mean, we're obviously >> So, I understand >> That's all the way in I mean, this
agreement's been with the landowner for a long time, this relationship. And I don't see any change in that based on this move to put it in an LLC. >> So, it would seem like our risk would
stay roughly the same as it is now. >> Yeah. And I think I mean, the risk that Commissioner Anderson talked about with the property going in the tax forfeiture would be a risk, but I think that could happen anyway. >> Go ahead, Linda. Or Todd. >> Todd.
>> Oh, um back to that insurance. I mean, all Glennon has to do is just add on his LLC onto his current policy and is a named insured, but his farm policy will not take on any of the demolition side of it, you know, because we are under contract with the
the county, so >> And I wasn't I I was just concerned that there was no no mention of insurance. There hasn't been in the past. I don't know that there needs to be going forward.
>> I don't doubt there is. Uh I just from my perspective, I needed to know that. I I really want clarity around the easement part and that that's I just I wish it was clearer to me that
the road is either on one property or the other property. And that the easement, if it's not on the landfill property, that we would get an easement to access that property on that driveway.
And I don't know, do we need to have this Can we answer those questions before we approve this? Does it have to be approved today or can it can it wait until we get clarity on that? >> There's no real um urgency from the
county's perspective or from that >> It isn't. >> There's not like a 60-day rule or anything in place here. Um I think that um something that I could do is look into the access issue and who actually is granting easement agree you know,
easement to whom and what is the county's role in access. I had um assumed that previous agreements had addressed access being that we entered into an agreement with the land you know, the property owner um that we would be the county would be given
access. Um but that should be clarified. >> I think with this orange line you said that was a staff they drew that line on. Even if you look at the top, it doesn't go all the way to the property line. So,
you know, it it it appears like that it does come over the driveway there. That this is I don't think this is truly official. I mean, with the survey and everything. So, >> Obviously, it was surveyed. >> Yeah. >> So, the survey should really show
exactly where that is. >> We can measure exactly the quarter quarter section line on the northwest corner. Um we know there's a there's an entire 40-acre quarter quarter section in here that those legal description measurements are based off of. So,
should be pretty easy to find exactly where that new park will be. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> Megan, you mentioned the possibility of the LLC being sold off or that potential.
Would that really be that big a deal? >> So, we see this all the time in land use. Um people, you know, put their land in different entities, in different tax structures. Um and sometimes it's for the purpose of leveraging money. Sometimes it's for the
purpose of transferring wealth. Sometimes it's for the purpose of selling. I can't really hypothesize here, but to me, um and and I've been mostly dealing with the attorney representing Mr. Steburg. To me, the intention here that was
relayed to me is we'd really like to separate this landfill site from our farm. Um and from our from the house and from the buildings. That was what um you know, that is a house that is in a human person's name. This landfill is not. We would like to put that in an LLC. Um so,
that's really all the context I have on that. Um I don't know what they intend to do with it in the future. >> Okay. So, it sounds like the the risk to the county doesn't change either way and that the main question that's left
unanswered has to do with this easement both for the farm itself, but also for the county. >> Correct. >> Yes. And as far as you know, there's no pressure as far as waiting and getting that easement issue addressed and coming back to the board. Is that correct?
>> into that. >> And is that what people would like or do you want to move on this today? >> I guess I don't see the easement as much cuz we do have the access to the top. You know, where the driveway improvement was and and as long as there's that
easement with the LLC, that's going to stay with the LLC wherever that goes. If it does get sold or whatever. Um I guess I don't have a problem with that. Um >> Want to make a motion? >> Yep, I'll make a motion we approve this. >> I'll second.
>> Motion and a second, any further discussion? >> Just one question. Is there any Is there anything in the agreement about if it got sold that the new landowner has to would have to address with the
agreement? >> I did look and I don't mean to um see me want to weigh into this, but the agreement as I How Well, how this all came to be is the lot split crossed my desk. Very simple. We do them all the time, dozens of them. Um and
>> [clears throat] >> the agreement I went and looked at how the agreement was written. The agreement is actually between a private person and the county. >> Right. >> And so to me, how I would look at this is that the county is allowing that to
be transferred into an LLC. If that were to be transferred to someone else, um the agreement would need to be amended again. Um I will also point out that this agreement does expire um about 6 months from now. Um so
the agreement is good was originally approved in 2022. It's good for a 5-year term. Um it expires on January 1st of 2027. Just double-check that. 5 years from the date signed by all
parties. Um >> This This property doesn't have a conditional use to it, does it? >> It does not. >> Okay. Cuz then, you know, that would carry through, but just an agreement between a an owner and
the county doesn't necessarily carry through with the land. It's a way I and I only play a lawyer at home. I'm not really a lawyer. It's just questions. I just I don't like loose ends. I like to know
that this is where we're going and we know the parameters with it and there's a little bit of ambiguity in how we wrestle that back later. And I don't want to I don't want to leave that out there. I want it really clear.
If it transfers, the new landowner has to enter into a agreement or or somehow that there's some language around that. Is there a way to do that? >> Well, I mean, we could address that in the contract. I I believe yes.
Nothing specific in there now that I recall. I read this last week, so I'm not I'd have to look at it closely again right now. >> Well, that's why I wondered that's why I wondered do we need to approve it today or with all these questions with from a few
of us, should we go back and now make sure we feel like that moving forward will be okay. >> Yes. That's >> Okay. >> Now, to Megan's point, um
the current agreement will expire within 6 months. We've kept the agreement open mainly because we need access and cooperation from Mr. Steberg through the closure process with MPCA. We're not quite there yet. Um there's still some things to resolve. And we're the
construction's done. We're waiting for turf establishment and then the placement of of waste markers, which have come into question as of late. Um, but when that's completed, we're going to have to enter into another agreement with Mr. Steeberg, at which point we can address
those issues and we can either handle that prior to the expiration of the agreement or after. Either way, there's going to have to be defined um expectations amongst both parties, who's taking care of the monitoring, who's taking care of uh the land management,
uh weed control, things of that nature. Um And the you know, all of those things come with costs associated with them, so um more to come on that later if the board would choose to do something sooner rather than later, we can certainly
reach out to Mr. Steeberg. It's just might be easier and cleaner to get through the closure process, get our certificate the state, and then work through whatever we want to work through with that agreement. >> So, what I'm hearing is approve this
today and then we're we're when we get done with closure, we'll have another opportunity to that some of these questions maybe can be answered. >> Yes. >> So, we're approving the split. Or we didn't No, we don't need to approve the split. You approved the split. Okay.
>> It's really um >> I'm I'm satisfied with that answer. I'm satisfied with that answer that we can move forward and then we'll have another shot at this to make sure we've got all these >> loose ends. >> All the buttons buttoned. All right.
>> All right, so there's motion and a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. Motion carries. Uh next is the public hearing on amending the Goodhue County Cannabis Ordinance. >> All right. Um, this agenda item is to
amend an ordinance that um specifically relates to low potency hemp edibles, which are a um a product that can be sold in retail. Um, it is under the county's definition of a retail product. Um, however, it is
regulated very differently from the full potency um cannabis products. Um, the county ordinance does not provide clarity on whether or not right now, the way we and our staff is interpreting it is that low potency hemp
edibles and full potency have to be spaced 1,000 ft from one another. Um, I believe that that was an oversight. Um, probably something that uh never really got dove into or discussed too much when the cannabis ordinance was being
reviewed. Um, now that we're seeing a lot of popularity in these low potency hemp edibles, they're being sold at gas stations, grocery stores, um liquor stores. Um, they're kind of popping up like in a similar market where like cigarettes and tobacco would pop up. Um,
and as I noted in my staff report, a lot of our rural towns in Goodhue County are only a few their commercial districts are only a few blocks long. Um, so to have a 1,000-ft spacing requirement really says like, "Well, the first person first gas station
downtown got the low potency, you can't have one." Um, so what we're proposing here is to remove that 1,000-ft spacing requirement and make sure [clears throat] that the ordinance is clear that that does not apply. Um, that is in line with state statute um and that is also in line with
what I have been able to determine other counties are doing, which is not having that spacing requirement apply. Another note on the spacing requirement is completely optional um even for full potency. Goodhue County has chosen to do it to be more restrictive. Um, it's
still in place for full potency. It just wouldn't be for low potency. Um, that is what the hearing is on. There's also a small um, statutory reference that is being changed from um, just correcting a reference number from our ordinance to the actual statute.
Um, so with that the recommendation is to hold the hearing and to amend the ordinance. Thank you. >> Questions for Megan before we go to public hearing. Hearing none, is there a motion to open public hearing? >> I'll move. >> Second. >> All in favor say I. >> I.
>> I. Uh, public hearing is now open. Is there anyone who would wish to speak to the uh, amending of the Goodhue County Cannabis Ordinance? Second time, is there anyone wishing to speak to amending the Goodhue County Cannabis Ordinance?
Third and final time, is there anybody who would like to speak to amending the Goodhue County Cannabis Ordinance? >> Move to close public comment. >> Second. >> A motion and a second to close the uh, public hearing. All those in favor say I. >> I.
>> I. Opposed. Motion carries. All right. So, uh, what concerns if any do people have about uh, amending the ordinance as suggested by staff? >> I'll make a motion to approve the ordinance amendment as written.
>> Second. >> Motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. >> I don't I think this is the last time we'll amend that ordinance.
>> I think it changes every day. >> It's the Finance and Taxpayer Services. >> That's because of our legislators. >> Good morning again. This morning I have with me Doug Host. He's our principal auditor with our accounting firm CliftonLarsonAllen and
he's here to present a summary financial information for our financial statements for the year ended December 31st, 2025. Currently the financial statement audit is not 100% complete, but we're close enough to the point where we're both
comfortable getting that information to the board. Just for a frame of reference, so that's the 16th day. Our actual deadline to meet the requirements to get the GFOA's Certificate of Achievement award. That is the 30th of this month. So,
we're very close. We're certainly going to meet that deadline, but that gives a little context on the timing of that item. Um Overall, the county's financial position is stable as of the year end. Revenues were up slightly, which was primarily
driven in an increase in property tax revenues. Um increase in local option sales tax, as well as an increase in wheelage tax revenues. And the county remains focused on controlling our expenditures as well as paying down our uh
debt in accordance with the payment schedule. Our unrestricted fund balance has gone up again year over year just as it has the past several years in a row. And our undesignated fund balance remains above the minimum amount as required by the county's fund balance
policy. And we do plan on going on into that in a little bit more detail on Wednesday night at that Committee of the Whole that we have scheduled. The auditors performed a review of our annual comprehensive financial report for compliance with the Government Finance Officers Association Certificate
of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Program. The county believes the 2025 ACFR meets the requirements for the program and will formally submit that report for award consideration. Participation in the program and receipt of the award demonstrates to external stakeholders that the county is
committed to sound management of its finances and operations and adheres to high standards of financial reporting and can give the county several economic advantages including reduced interest rates on debt issuances and overall bond ratings. And with that,
I'll turn it over to Doug. >> Testing. Can you this on? Yeah, we're good, right? All right, so just one quick thing. This is my copy of your financial statements and this is how thick it will be if you don't print it double-sided.
It should be half that, but uh I think the instructions I provided uh our helper we got a little lost in translation, but that's just my copy in case you have some really in-depth questions. I I got to be able to uh go back to that. So
anyhow, thanks Lucas for the introduction. Um yeah, the audit there's just like one letter and a couple signatures and a T and an I T to cross and I to dot. So I would anticipate all the final documents
will be done this week. No issues there. Um it's a pleasure and honor to be here today to present the results of the 2025 audit and on the next slide it's just the agenda. Uh just a little background. Um there's an auditing standards board that lays out
all the rules and testing and guidelines that we got to follow and there's certain things we're required to communicate to the board and uh we'll touch on that verbally today, but there's also when everything is issued, you'll get a four-page letter that summarizes it all. It's boilerplate.
Possibly the only thing that changed was the date of the letter from last year. So, it's that boilerplate. If If there were some major issues, then it would change. Um They also require us to test your internal controls and report those. We'll touch on that in a little bit. The
federal government gives you some grants, and they require us to test your controls and compliance over certain grants, and we did that. And so, we'll have a little summary of that. The state auditor's office requires us to test your compliance with various state
statutes. So, we do a lot of testing, and we got to answer to a lot of bosses, I guess, because there there's various organizations that tell us what we need to audit. So, uh then we'll look at a high-level at what I would consider a a
good uh healthy financial year for the county, and then wrap it up. Um again, this is just a PowerPoint. It's not an audited document, but we pulled the information for this from your audited financial statements. So, on the next page,
mentioned that four-page letter, I'm just going to touch on the highlights here. I mentioned it's boilerplate, um but in there it says, "Hey, why do we do an audit?" And the main reason is to issue an opinion on your financial statements, and we will be issuing
what's uh called an unmodified opinion. Means it's clean. It means your financial statements are materially correct as presented. If we have disagreements with various management that we work with uh as part of the audit, we're required to communicate that to you.
You probably would assume there were none, and you would have have assumed correctly. There is none. The staff here, as always, have just been amazing to work with and prepared, and we really really appreciate that when we
uh are in those situations with our clients because honestly it doesn't happen all the time. And we didn't encounter any difficulties in performing the audit. So all in all it went very well. So next page here is just one item.
The audit standards require us to communicate to you. It's one that's been around for I'm not sure how many years, but we're just required to look at your segregation of duties each year. Your centralized system has lots of different
stops and checks and balances. That's pretty normal, but there are some decentralized collection places that have fewer people and they can't fully segregate those responsibilities. It's very common. Um required communication.
So now we've communicated it to So we've met our responsibilities. The second category on the next page of reportable conditions is called a significant deficiency. We don't have any of those to report this year. None
last year. None in 23. So all in all I do a lot of audits each year and this this is kind of unusual in a good way cuz usually there's something that we find that requires to be communicated, but
not for the last few years here. So great job to everybody. I mentioned the feds require us to test your controls and compliance over federal programs and this year in our testing that were there was one item that came up for the
federal requirements and that deals with a review of income verifications. We tested 60 60 eligibility clients, I guess we'd call them. And [clears throat] we were not provided with documentation for two of the 60 uh
having been reviewed for income verification. This is something um that we are seeing a bit of an uptick in regards to uh the medical assistance program. As far
as seeing it in other counties that we are On the other side, last year we had an item regarding about case file reviews and sufficient number not being done. This year we followed up on that and we are {quote}
{unquote} resolving it. So we love to resolve those when the county we communicate a suggestion and the county implements it. That's always awesome. And there weren't any any of those in 23. >> I just want to add in that the the
medical assistance item that's on here, HHS staff are aware of it and they're working internally. Uh the accounting staff are working with that that team lead as well as the state of Minnesota to make sure they're identifying any kind of reports that they need to see to to identify those issues. So that is
being worked through currently. >> So good chance it'll be a resolved issue for next year. So um page seven as far as the testing of your compliance with state statutes, again great job here. No items to report
over the last three years. It may even be more than that, but um yeah, all in all looks good there. So any questions on the controls and reportable items or otherwise, we'll switch gears to finances.
>> We will never be able to get rid of that segregation of duties unless we hire three people for every place that takes in funding. >> It's a great point or question and the audit
standards even sort of call this out saying the auditee that be the county should always do a cost-benefit analysis on the controls that you implement. So, let's say I'm going to give a crazy example. If you spent $50 million
to hire enough people, yeah, you could get rid of that. Is the cost-benefit there? Absolutely not, right? Um >> Keith, we need more money from the state. >> There you go. Um so there are a few other things and you
mentioned previously about being proactive or reactive. There are some what we call detective controls that do don't require hiring 50 more people or something. Um but it still doesn't take
away from the risk that some money might go out the door that shouldn't have. So, um >> And it's really not about It's really not about expending money as much as it is receiving money. Is it?
>> Yeah, I would probably say that Cuz Cuz >> accurate summary, yeah. >> Because all the expended money for the most part goes through Lucas's office. >> Yeah, exactly. >> Which has multiple people. But they may accept dollars out at Public Works or
they may accept dollars um somewhere in the county where there's only one person accepting the dollars and there's not that check and balance in [snorts] that office. >> Right. >> Yeah, that >> Uh Which which
easily you know, not easily, but you could not record it Yeah. I understand that. >> A uh real quick example, um I've run into the veteran service officers having a their very own
checking account. Sometimes them checks don't run through you or through the centralized system. Okay, they only write $500 worth of checks out of the year and there is just the one person that collects the money, deposits it, writes the checks,
reconciles the bank account at the end of each month. But if they're only collecting and spending $500 each year, there's no cost benefit there. Um but like I mentioned, the centralized
system y'all got in place, that's not really what that recommendation is for. It's more the decentralized one. >> Thank you. >> I'll just add in our VSO does not have a separate checking account. >> Yeah, [laughter] that was that was not a specific goodhue county example. It's just something I've run into.
>> [laughter] >> Oh. Yeah. >> [laughter] >> All right. So, how did we do financially? Well, how did you do financially all in all? I mentioned it was a good year. Slide eight just compares the total expenditures over the
last 5 years and your unrestricted fund balance. You're sitting at about 11 months of reserves, which is as Lucas mentioned above the recommended minimum levels. And I think we've discussed in previous
years how important it is to have adequate reserves in case something happens with a decrease in funding or an increase in the costs of Well, for instance, my deck was falling apart. I have to rebuild it and I cannot
believe the price of lumber and all the stuff that goes into making a deck. So, that tells me prices I don't watch the news much, but I'm pretty sure it's been saying the prices are through the roof on just about everything. So, that no less than 5 months of
expenditures, it definitely fluctuates with the cost of the goods and services that you need to uh acquire. But, all in all, healthy stable fund balance levels across the government. That's where we throw all your funds
together. Um slide nine, for the year the revenues were up about 4.3 million. Lucas also touched on kind of the two big drivers, taxes, which there is a increase in levy, pretty small.
Overall compared to maybe some of uh the other counties in the state, but in all there's about a 2.4 million increase in taxes, and some of that was I think about a $900,000 increase in
just the sales tax received. And the other component big uh increase is the intergovernmental revenues. That's uh That was uh oh Something that is definitely like a roller coaster is federal grants
received in road and bridge. In '24, there wasn't very much received. In '25, there was like 1.4 million. So, about a um Uh is I don't know, 8 900,000 increase in federal grant money that you
just it it fluctuates from year to year. So, overall, revenues were up about 4.3 million. The next page looks at the expenditures of the county for the year is just shy of 86 million, and it was up
about 600,000 over uh '24. Uh two big drivers there. Or what might look a little bit unusual, there's a method to the madness, I guess. Uh,
for the highways and streets and Lucas, I'm going off of memory, but I'm pretty sure the costs that used to be reported for roads infrastructure used to maybe be on the highways and streets line, but now it's down on the capital outlay line.
Does that ring a bell? Am I right? >> Yeah, I think that's a correct assessment. Capital outlay for the highways and streets on there. >> Is what I think. >> It's In 25, it's now being reported in separate lines. Um, and the other
item was about a 1.5 million increase in human services, and I would say that's pretty consistent. You know, that's about a 10% increase for those, uh, that function, the human services function.
And yeah, it's pretty consistent with the increase we're seeing, um, in other county audits. >> So, Goodhue County has some debt outstanding, and the amount of debt was
reduced by about 1.5 million in 2025. We verified that all the debt payments that were due in 2025 got made. Uh, the compensated absences >> [snorts] >> Excuse me. Uh, balance was up about
120,000, and that's just the accumulated balance of the unused vacation, PTO, comp time balances of all county employees. And you have some leases and subita liabilities, which stands for
subscription based information technology agreements. That's IT leases. It calls Uh, subita is a bit com- but since we're in accounting and auditing, we use
acronyms for everything. So, I'm DPH. Douglas Paul Olson. So, we can we can create an acronym for anything. So, page 12, wrap it up. All in all, good year for the county. The items we're required to communicate
to you are not earth-shattering by any means. Your fund balance levels are solid for the year. It was up about 6.6 million. Uh overall fund balance has increased each of the last 7 years. Um if you go back 7
years, your levels were not not excessive by any means at that point. They they're maybe just a tad bit low. So, all in all, stable financial situation for you. Each year, it seems there's a
a new governmental accounting standard board statement issued that that needs to be implemented. And for '25, it was just about some disclosures in the notes to the report. Didn't really impact the county. So, with that,
I got time for questions. >> [clears throat] >> Go ahead. >> I just need a better understanding of how you calculate the months fund balance. >> Got it. All right. So, on slide
eight, right, the total expenditures for general fund, road and bridge, and all your funds, what were they for the year? Uh for '25, it was 85,870,000. So, there's 12 months in a year. How
many months or on average, how much do you spend per month? So, it's about 7.1 million if you do that math. and then we take that number uh and compare it to your unrestricted fund
balance. >> So, you divide you divide >> Yeah, and then it Yeah, you >> You divide that up. >> and divide it by >> total >> the average monthly expenditures. >> So, but farther than that, >> Mhm.
>> what you call unrestricted fund balance, I'm pretty sure that tomorrow night, Lucas is going to have a much different number because his his the way we look at restricted and
allocated and all of those fund balances makes that unrestricted number different than what you use. >> Yeah. All right, so great [snorts] question, and you're probably right. The the numbers you get might be
different. If you talk to MnDOT, they're going to look at road and bridges, you know, fund balances cuz they got a whole separate system. What they think Goodhue County road and bridge fund balance is is different than what we say too because
MnDOT requires road and bridge to use a totally different set of accounting numbers. Okay? It's a bummer that they are not all in sync. And internally, you might be focused more on a cash basis when you're looking at reserves,
but the audit standards require these to be on uh another basis. So, the numbers that we use on there use three of the five buckets of fund balance. And the five buckets are non-spendable,
and and I'll explain these real quick in a little bit, but non-spendable, restricted, committed, assigned, and unassigned. And that's kind of on uh availability. Up here, non-spendable which you can't
spend it. That's why it's called non-spendable. Means like you have >> Like debt service like money and debt service you can't just spend it. It has to be reserved for debt service. >> Right. That's the second one. >> No, I got it. I got it. >> Like Road and Bridge has inventory of supplies and materials. That money's
already been spent. The asset's there, >> Right. >> but you can't spend it. So, that's what goes in that bucket. That's a great example of the second bucket. Grants can do that to you, too. The bottom three is what we pull in here,
and that's where you do have some availability over how you're going to spend or have some intentions of spending that fund balance that it's earmarked for. And those are the three different categories. >> And the way I interpret this that page
and those numbers is that this is a snapshot in time. >> Mhm. >> And the snapshot's always done the same way. You always You always do it the same way. >> Yeah. >> So, from a from a comparison standpoint,
those numbers mean something. >> Right. It's >> From a budgeting from a budgeting standpoint, I wouldn't want to use those numbers to budget. Because I don't I know we don't have 11 months of money to spend.
>> Right, because you know, internally there's a lot of plans to use some of that for maybe a new building >> Right. >> or a new road grader or something. You got some internal uh plans for that, certainly. >> Exactly. >> Yep. >> That's I just wanted to really
understand that piece that this is just a comparison for us to use for where were we last year, where are we today. >> Yep. >> But when it comes to actually figuring out how we're going to budget those dollars,
this is not a number I need to I should be even >> You should listen to Lucas said for that. >> Okay, exactly. But the reason we include this slide is like there's been audits I've worked on where their fund balance numbers we're doing this. >> Yep.
>> Board, you got to you got to address this right now in those situations. So, uh fortunately here, if you look at the chart and the graph, it's like all right, things been pretty pretty stable here. So, that's really the only message
we're passing on at this point. But the whole budgeting process and internally how much is available? >> Yeah, then >> [clears throat] >> your internal information. We can't go go into all that. We'd never get drawn into that. >> [laughter]
>> Well, and you're looking at you're comparing you're only using 25 numbers. You're not You're not looking at what we what we did in 26 or what we're planning to do in 27. You only deal with where we were in 25
based on 25's type of spending, this is what it looks like. That 26 was a different number. You aren't even auditing 26, so that doesn't matter to you. So, I get it. >> One of the benefits of doing things like this
and I didn't write the standards, but they want comparability from one entity to another. If you go to your neighboring county, they have the same five buckets reported on the same basis. So, there can be some comparability. I think
that's one of the goals when they wrote some of these accounting standards. >> Thank you. >> All right. Very good. Well, thank you so much and uh talk to you >> Thank you. >> [cough]
>> So next up is the uh low potency application for the Tilin Brewing Company. >> Yes, that's correct. Uh so first off I want to start out uh by saying that this is a lower potency hemp edible registration application. Um so this is one where typically we
would add this to the consent agenda because this is one that we cannot limit. However, it is at this place in this agenda because procedurally we needed to wait until after that public hearing for that ordinance to change to take place. So this is one where
um this business would have been within 1,000 ft of another business. Again, so that's why we're we're addressing it right now. So that being said, we can't limit the number of these lower potency hemp edibles. They meet all the restrict uh restrictions, all the
requirements that we have in place. It's in the city of Cannon Falls. Uh we have a letter from the city of Cannon Falls confirming that it meets all their zoning requirements specifically. Um so I guess other than that, um we recommend that this one get approved and I'd be
willing to answer anything [clears throat] you may have specifically about this one. >> Go ahead. >> Uh question on Cannon Falls, isn't it the locals can have more restrictive but they can't have less restrictive?
>> Um for cannabis >> Well, for the lower potency hemp edibles >> they're really you cannot restrict the number of registrations. Um you know, if somebody applies and they
meet all the requirements per statute, they must be approved. So I think our ordinance is written probably as restrictive as we can be. And uh the city of Cannon Falls has delegated this authority, this responsibility to
Goodhue County to serve in this function. >> Well, when you said that Cannon Falls was okay with it, it didn't come up they didn't have any different guidelines than we did. >> That's correct. They delegated this
registration authority to us. However, they have their own zoning department, so their zoning department did review the location and their ordinance and found that it it meets the requirements. >> Brad? >> The question I have is is exactly
procedurally. So, we now adopted an ordinance. Doesn't it have to be published before it's effective? >> I had that question for the county attorney before we came to this meeting, but I don't know what it means. >> I think it has to be published before
it's enforced. I think I think it's okay for the board to approve this at this point because I think the ordinance has been approved by the board. The only issue with publication really comes in in enforcement requirements, so that the people who we were enforcing against had notice of it. In this particular case, that's not what
we're doing. So, I think it's okay the board to approve it. >> And my understanding was that an ordinance is not effective until it's been published. But it is you're saying it's effective already. >> I think it's effective upon the the approval of the board. >> All right.
Then I'll move approval. >> Second. >> Motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next is administration with two items.
>> Yeah, our next item is SEMCAC's Housing Trust Fund recommendation, and Justin Stotts, if you'd come up and present that. The new executive director from SEMCAC. You You go to here. >> All right. Morning. >> Morning. >> Morning. >> Um
yes, I sat on I'm the CEO of SEMCAC. I started there March I'm here to discuss the 2026 Housing Trust Fund recommendations. is now. >> Thank you.
>> Um I'm here to discuss the Housing Trust Fund recommendations and request your approval. Um this year the Goodhue Housing Trust Fund received five applications requesting more than $652,000. The Housing Trust Fund subcommittee
uh reviewed and scored all the applications and the SEMCAC Board uh recommended approval of the applications on May 20th. Uh today the final approval rests with the Goodhue County Board. Um after scoring and discussing the the
subcommittee recommended four awards totaling $411,999.83. Uh the first is a $30,000 grant to Cannon Falls Housing Initiative. Uh this project supports construction on a home built by Cannon Falls High School
students and helps ensure the finished home remains affordable to an income-qualified buyer. Uh the second application was a $79,211 grant for preservation of SEMCAC's
public housing fourplex in Zumbrota. Uh this funding will address uh needed capital improvements including uh siding, roof, and resolving foundation issues. At the Simcro property, it's located at
310 Main Street in Zumbrota. Um the third recommendation is a $240,000 deferred loan to Three Rivers Community Action for rehabilitation of 50 affordable housing units in Cannon Falls.
This award provides a critical local leverage for state funding applications and is contingent upon Three Rivers securing state funding. Um they're applying for tax credit funding on this. And a fourth recommendation, the final
recommendation is an award up to $62,788.83 to Wanamingo Land Company to replace original windows in the seven-unit [clears throat] affordable housing property. The award is structured as half forgivable and half repayable and
is contingent upon obtaining a second competitive construction bid for the property. There was one other application, a remaining application from the city of Kenyon, which was deferred. The subcommittee that
reviewed it um felt the project concept had merit and um was something that we would like to support, but recommended waiting until a specific housing development proposal is ready to move forward.
These recommendations uh support both the creation and preservation of a affordable housing in Goodhue County, and I'd be happy to answer any questions on these. >> Um I I have one question. How does the
deferred loan with Three Rivers work? I mean, is it deferred for 5 years or something like you mentioned in the other one? >> Well, our discussions we don't have anything set on stone on this, but our our discussions with them is because of their state funding um
the state funding of they grant points based on the tax credit fan- financing structure and to get the points for this, it would probably uh be a payment horizon of roughly 20 years.
20 to 30 years because um state funding has to be in priority over um any um other funds that are coming in. >> Thank you. Linda. >> Um the fourplex in Sombreroda um
is HUD supposed to keep up with the capital fund to keep that going? >> They are. They are, but um what what we've seen in public housing all across the country is HUD does not keep up with
capital needs. Um they severely underfund them and this project in particular um is um about a $230,000 project that we're doing, so that's just a portion of the funding we're
requesting. But yes, we we we see that it's a constant struggle every year HUD underfunds that capital fund. >> I guess my problem with that is that there are so many things that we're
trying to subsidize that if something else is I mean some other entity is supposed to pay for it and then they don't. Keith. Um that then the county has to the county taxpayers have to um pick up the tab. So
it just seems to me it's one more. Not that that's >> Do you want to talk to federal delegation? >> Well, >> [laughter] >> Oh, I have many things to say to the federal delegation. Right. >> This is what we've struggled with at at SEMTA for years. Ever since I've gotten
on the board, it's like And it's what schools struggle with. There's never enough money for the capital side of it. There's only enough money for the instruction and whatever and a little bit of capital. But when it comes to a capital need, there's not enough funding there. So,
then you go to the taxpayer. And this is this is a prime example of we have 100 and whatever you said it was 200 and some thousand. And we got a We got the biggest portion of it in our capital reserve, but there's a shortfall.
So, what do you do? Not fix Not do the whole project? And that's what And I think I think intention in the beginning was we would set up a housing trust fund. And the state was going to contribute an equal amount to what the county
contributed to it. And so, when we put in 100,000, they had to put in 100,000. We put in 400,000, they had to put in 400,000. Well, as soon as it got set up, then they quit doing it. They didn't They just changed the rules. And they don't put any money
into it. So, that's a frustration of I think we're going to see with all housing trust funds because the intent of it in the beginning then got changed from the state level and and the funding
the funding we thought we were going to be able to generate is now totally falling on local taxpayers. And the HUD is not is not keeping up in a lot of areas. It's not going to keep up with Section 8 vouchers
>> Question will end up being is property tax really the place that should be like comes up with many many issues and property tax folks can only afford so much money and it's tends to be a regressive tax so it is probably not
where it should be but does that mean we shouldn't fund it? >> Right. I mean I understand that but I mean considering tomorrow night we're going to be talking about our own capital needs and what we can afford and not afford and now we're also talking about filling the capital needs that the
federal government should have contributed to. >> We are we are one of um four counties in the SEMTRA HRA and we've chosen that route to do it and that comes with responsibility and this
is one of those responsibilities so I I I understand where you're coming from. I'm not totally I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm frustrated with the federal government um not actually
living up to what they really want us to do and outpay it increases outpace what they funded at so >> I have to speak more to that point. I mean the federal backlog is in the billions you
know between um what what capital needs are out there and what they fund and the unique problem with public housing and we just to be clear we've made this request and and will make this request in each one of the counties we
have a property um uh public housing um by the the statute that set it up is not allowed to take on a mortgage. We can't we can't mortgage that property to try to improve it. The
it's it's um not allowed under regulation and law so this is our only avenue short of asking HUD to give us permission to sell that unit and um and allow the private market to do what they will
with it. So, as far as keeping it affordable, this is really one of our only avenues, unfortunately. But, I I totally understand your your hesitation. >> I guess my problem is I don't see this sustainable because >> that's cool. >> of the situation we're already in with
our own capital issues. Right. But, yes, I realize the problem that you're facing, as well. >> So, they're sort of dealing with the problem of today and trying to establish something that might be more sustainable
long-term, and that is a big big challenge. >> I move approval of the recommendation as presented. >> I'll I'll second it. >> There's a motion and a second. Any
further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. Motion carries. >> And >> Justin. This >> The second item was the budget committee where we evaluated outside agencies.
That meeting was held on June 9th. Majority of them were in attendance or online. At the end of the meeting, the chair and the vice chair made the recommendation of freezing um the outside agencies for 2026.
Um so, that is all been communicated to them. Um most of them were happy in relation to the fact we previously warned them it might be a 10% deduct. Um and I will say um the libraries, in particular, offered that up. Um and I did give you
a draft copy of an addendum uh the agreement that if that's the line of thinking where the board's at, I know they have said they're in agreement with that and they would carry that through their boards uh to get approval. Um and I do don't know that uh
uh Canawha Valley Trail uh did mention that the challenge uh as there's more than uh one entity involved there uh in going for us to go flat and the others to maintain, uh they would probably to be fair, they'd have to go flat as well, which
causes budget issues. So, but um that was noted. Uh you know, Commissioner Anderson did uh provide information as far as what we had previously agreed to with the Canawha Valley Trail. Um so, there is there is some complications there, but the numbers are in front of
you uh what it would be if we do stay flat. Um I think today if if if you're planning on going in that direction, we will re-communicate and and get this addendum uh in front of you and they can get it in front of their local library boards. If your direction's differently,
you'll just have to let it as advise us of that. So. >> And it was my understanding that Mr. Rebkee was okay with that plan of holding uh each unit of government flat for next year. Is that correct or am I incorrect
and >> I I We have a discussion We'll have a discussion about that at our Canawha Valley Trail meeting. It's on the agenda. >> I see. >> It is not It is not He may say that it's workable, but it's really not
workable. I just was with him yesterday going over finances. It's not workable situation. It needs We need to address it. I'm not ready to approve these till I know more budget stuff. >> Well, and then also
if one thing changes, that might impact overall um what we would do with this. So, uh if that's not firm, um that's really what Todd and I were operating under, the assumption that that was firm. >> Well, in in some of the other questions
I have with you, I mean, there were some in there that by keeping them flat, they actually asked for a reduct or reduction, but but by keep keeping them flat, you were actually paying them >> Yeah. >> more than what they were requesting. The
other piece I'll put in there is that uh it didn't define with um Sempra where the where the if you're going to hold them flat, where does the money come from? Which part of that budget item does it
come from? I it it requires more discussion than just saying we're going to keep them flat and go forward. We need to know I need to know. Maybe you all are ready to. I need to know more information. >> So, we'll have to schedule another time
to talk about this then. >> All right. >> That's my opinion, and that's only one person. So, there's five of us, so if you're ready to go, you can go, but I'm not. >> My concern was about not knowing what the uh trail number was going to be
would impact how I viewed the other numbers as well. And I think um I think the one agency put it down by 10% because that was basically the request that we made. I think the soil and water was probably the other one where it was down uh some.
I can't I can't remember. Those were the two that I remember. >> Well, I think there's a difference between um some on the board wanting to do that and us actually voting to do that cuz we haven't voted to do any of this.
None of these numbers are voted on and hardened numbers or it's until we vote on it, it's not it's not a It's not a real thing. It's a proposal. >> Yes. >> I'm I'm just saying I'm not ready to vote on those today because I think
there's some massaging that needs to happen with it. That's all I'm saying. >> Do we need a motion to table it? >> No, because we weren't actually even asking for motion on it at all. So, it's a report. Um and I like I was
kind of just if there was some type of consensus, which there obviously isn't, um then we'd report that back. But, there we won't report anything. We'll find another time when we can discuss this matter. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Anything else on the budget committee report? Todd?
>> No. >> No, okay. And then there's for your information with the staffing report, project status report, and the minutes from the budget committee. Right? Any new or old business?
Any committee reports? Is there Next is claims. >> Move approval to pay the bills. >> Second. >> Second. >> All right. So, I believe we'd have to close adjourn this meeting and then go back to Lucas's presentation. Is that correct?
>> Yeah, so let's just talk about that for a minute. So, your options right now, we're 7 minutes after when Health and Human Services was supposed to start. Um you could go to that. Um you or you can go back to the committee the whole that we had talked about. Um in both cases, we're
having people wait. >> Right. >> Um the other option I think you do have with with the USDA grant DA grant is they did say that we could do a 30-day extension as we could extend it and finish this at another time.
I mean, it does we are in construction season, though. So, but but we also on the on the other side of this is, you know, at 11:30 we we start the employee recognition and I will need to go to that. >> And is there any downside to postponing
the decision for 30 days other than we don't want things to pile up too much, but >> If we do the full 30 days, I mean, I I think there's probably some construction implications, but I I don't I think there's probably another time we can figure out to talk about it. >> Hopefully. >> Thank you, Linda. >> Well, I would like to postpone it
because I certainly would like to an opportunity to get a hold of every legislature that we have to see whether or not they can't jump in and do something different and at least even if at the end of the day the answer
is no, at least I will feel that we've done absolutely everything possible to help it move along and do it. I do believe we >> All right. >> owe the county taxpayers broadband in
this day and age. >> And we don't need a motion for this. Is that correct? It's a committee of the whole >> Committee of the whole. >> Okay. And um are others okay with postponing the completion of this uh presentation? >> Yes. >> All right. So, the consensus
>> That's what we'll do and and Nick has been communicating with those people, so he can send another email out and let them know that we'll let them know when we have another time identified. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. And then we will start it uh HHS here in about 5 minutes. >> Okay. Well, we got a Is there a motion to adjourn this
>> to vote on the claims still. >> Okay. Uh I thought we did vote on the claims, but maybe not. All right. So, there was a motion to pay the bills. Was there a second? All right. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. Motion carries. >> Motion to adjourn.
>> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Motion carries and will uh uh