All right. Uh, it is 9:00 and we will call the December 16th meeting to order with the flag pledge to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right. First item um the disclosures of interest. Seeing none, uh previous board meeting minutes approval.
>> Move approval. >> Second. >> Been moved and second we approve the minutes as presented. Any further discussion hearing? None. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Oppos the same.
>> Motion carries. Review the agenda. changes. Move approval. >> We'll pull in number 11 from the consent agenda for discussion. >> Okay. Anything else? Is there a second?
>> Second. Move the second we approve the agenda. Pulling item 11 from the consent agenda. Any further discussion? Oh, nope. Consent agenda. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. The same. >> Okay. Item 11.
approval of annual building code contracts for 2026. >> My only comment or discussion, I'm I'm not going to approve it, is that we're at, I believe, 2 to $250,000 of a loss or extra cost to the taxpayers this year.
The year prior we were. We're going to continue to do that in the future. I have absolutely no idea why we continue to do that or why you guys continue to support that, but I'm not I'm not going to support it. Are you saying you don't support working
with the um communities in our county and the city of Near Strand or are you saying you don't think we should have a a building code administration and building inspectors in the county? Which
is it? I don't feel we should have. We can work with them all we want, but no, I don't know why we would continue to spend have a building inspection department that costs the county or every other taxpayer that much money. So, >> um,
>> we don't need to. >> It obviously only provides it for half the county and doesn't do the other ones and it continues to cost us this much. So, I will not support doesn't matter what I believe you're going to do. I mean, supporting this and saying because you guys are looking at a 20, we're all
looking at a 20% increase. you got a $200,000 cost amongst the rest of the county. If we approve this, and which we probably will, good or do whatever you want. If we approve it, there's no way to make a change to that or make any adjustments to it. So, I have no problem working with our other communities, which we have and I've approved in the
past. But setting forth with that, I guess it spurs a discussion and maybe some of my fellow commissioners will look at this and understand why we continue to spend that much money when we don't have to. So, it doesn't matter if I approve working with it or not. I'm not going to approve this particular
contract because that puts us in a position whether you guys want to agree or make any changes in the upcoming year. If you approve it makes it very challenging to make the changes. Um, I I sent a note to Megan, I don't know, a couple days ago, but you
responded yesterday, and I think my question was thinking about when counties provide services to other communities, do we want to charge what it costs or don't we want to charge what it costs? So, I was asking Megan that
question about whether or not we were recouping our costs, and she's spent a lot of time in detail, but I think you don't really know the answer to that question. Is that fair enough to say I don't want to put you on the spot if
uh but um uh what I looked at is revenues um year to date. So year to date, the county has taken in 151,000 in city contract revenues for building permits
and 185,000 in township work essentially. Um so that is a total of 343,000 in revenue that does not fully up offset the cost of the entire building
department. Um what I had shared with Commissioner Bcher is that my observation in the last year is that we have had we have to have staff for these townships that cover all 21 of the townships because the um townships and
the county have all adopted the Minnesota State Building Code. So we have to have the staff here anyhow to do permit intake, plan review, and inspections. the city contracts allow us to make some additional money um by
offering you know essentially taking not that staff and that time um and taking on additional work but not hiring any additional staff. Um, one of the things that I am curious about, um, and I did
articulate this to Commissioner Bcher, is when the city first started entering into these city contracts and kind of what the what the conversation was then. Um, just this morning, I did speak um, just we had them I just talked to some
of my staff this morning and I said, "Are we able to figure out when we first entered into some of these contracts?" And the initial response I got was some of them probably go back to when the state building code was first adopted in the county. Um
to further kind of articulate um when we track our time, it is just office time spent on building permits. Um although we we track um obviously revenue separately and permit separately whether it's a city revenue permit or a township
permit but we don't necessarily separate our time out. So I wouldn't be able to say today you know 30% of the staff time is spent on city contracts 70% on township contracts. I could give a ballpark. I could give an estimate but I
don't have exact numbers. and and really I wasn't expecting exact numbers but the reason I was raising the question and I think this is something I've said before. So if you look at uh 2025 and the 11 counties of our entire
budget we get um uh just under 50% from levy 49.87 87 and the 11 county average is 40.52. So we are relying on levy more highly
than other counties. And I don't quite well we are those are just the numbers and I think that we have to understand why that is and see if there's a way that we can rely a little bit less on levy. Um, and I'm I'm I'm not making a
proposal about this, but I had asked a question as well because I I think when we're looking at that 20% levy, we have to find a way to continue to meet uh people's needs the best we can, but not be raising a levy by 20%. So, that's
where where my question is, do we want to be charging what it actually costs or do we not? And I I think with the school resource officers, at a minimum, we wanted to know what it actually cost. And with the contracts for um the
sheriff for other communities, we wanted to pay what it actually cost. And there might be reasons not to do that, but I I think we need to know the information. So to the extent that you can find that, um I think that's good. And I wasn't um
thinking about challenging this year's proposal, but I think over the course of the the coming months, we need to look at it for going forward. Is this where we want to be or isn't it? Um so that that was that was my point. So it's a
little bit different than Jason's, I think. But >> this when you're talking about this, you're just talking about the not permitting cost. You're talking about building inspection, building um plan review costs. You're talking
about just that portion of land use, >> correct? Okay. >> The building I call it like the building division of land use. Yep. >> But I think our county, we do provide a lot of we provide the recycling. We're never going to compensate it back for that. Our sheriff's department or
that's what we do as a county. We do provide these things for our citizens. So, >> well, but I think in this case we provide it for some townships but not others and some cities but not others. Is that correct? >> Uh, all 21 townships are covered by Good
Hugh County's building official and our building services. Um but just uh seven cities. Um so Redwing does its own Canon Falls or Redwing does its own Zambroa and Pine Island and Lake City all have
their own contracts. Um the city of Redwing has their own in-house building department. The other three cities, I believe, use a a private company. Okay. What's your wishes? >> Do we would it help if we raised our fees? Is that something we're looking at
so that we can >> Well, we are raising >> just approved our fees. >> Um last >> there was actually a fee um increase that got approved. Um the what what's called the plan review fee, which is a percentage of the valuation was increased this year. So that will
actually help um increase our revenue. It was an increase from um I believe 45% to 65% of the total valuation of the permit. Um so that'll um that'll be a slight increase in permit revenue for
the county. And you know, one of the things too that I was sharing with Comm Commissioner Bcher via email is we're probably in if we're going to keep up with what I call true cost or um is that the term I think. >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Um if we're going to be if we if the expectation is to keep up with that, there really has to be permit fee increases every year because just the cost of doing business at with the county goes up. Um, and so that's something that I think, you know, I would have to be mindful of to make sure
that when that fee schedule comes around that there's really every year there's going to be a fee increase. And there hadn't been a fee increase for I want to say six or seven years. Um, and I think part of that was just during, you know, the COVID era and construction and
everything was increasing. Um, but this year there is a going to be an increase. There's a that's a it's really walking a fine line because if you put the fees too high, we all know people just don't get permits
>> and that's not where we want to go because then we're chasing problems later. and and >> I'm I'm having discussions with two different insurance companies about about getting information about whether
permits were pulled for projects when they go out to start insuring uh property. They want to know they had permits and they had inspections and they had all that and that's going to be a thing going
forward. So if people don't get permits, >> I think we all know this not get insurance. >> Not going to be perfect solutions to any of this. Then there's >> and there's no way there's no way Megan's office can tell you this year we're going to have 200 permits. Next
year we're going to have 300 permits. >> It's always a it's a it's a >> just a a guesstimate of where we need to be. But we can't just arbitrarily say we're going to cover all our costs because we'll probably get
more people that won't get permits and that's not where we want. >> It's just an area of exploration and and yep, >> you know, do we want to be um you I understand that the townships are different than the cities and I'm not even suggesting an increase. I'm just
suggesting we understand more about that. And I think some of our fees we hadn't increased for even a lot longer ago than six years ago. So I think it's good to increase them and um to uh kind of keep up with inflation. I think we
need to do that. But I think as a board we have to be willing to look at a broad range of possible ways to get this under control. And I do think understanding why our levy is such a higher percent of our budget than our surrounding counties. Well, I think we need to
understand that and and that doesn't mean we change anything, but I think how can you have a good discussion if you don't even understand why that is? And I'm thinking that there's probably a number of things that are a piece of that puzzle. Um, and I I also think if
we're charging good you for an example, what it costs to have the sheriff deputy do their work, and I understand permits are different every year, so it have to be some kind of an average. Is there a reason we wouldn't expect the cities who
use the county services to pay, and I don't mean every penny, because again, it changes from year to year, but do we want to be covering a lot of those costs? And you you could argue that we do, but I think we should at least know that's what we're doing. >> Yeah. But
are you suggesting a different fee schedule for for townships than for cities? >> Um I think that the town I don't know enough about how how this works. So if the city is contracting with us, that
feels different to me than if the um townships aren't contracting with us. It's just part, as Todd said, part of our We have zoning authority in the township. That's the only reason we have it. >> Right. Right. >> We don't have zoning authority within the city, but they're saying we want the
county to do our building inspection part. And that's the only part we're doing is building inspection. >> That's what this contract is about. It's not about zoning. It's about >> okay. >> Building inspection. So then would we expect the cities to cover what the cost
is of that inspecting or would we not and and so that that's the question and um you know >> then you would do it well I think what I'm hearing is you're saying the the cities should cover all the costs but we're not looking at that for the townships.
>> Um I'm saying I think we need to look at a broad range of possibilities. So when something like this comes up rather than just saying well we've always done it that way so let's keep doing it that way I think we have to look at is that the way we want to keep doing it and maybe
it is >> but I I think we have to look at that. I think if we just rubber stamp everything we're not going to solve too many problems. Well, I don't think this is rubber stamping it, but that's your that's your
>> um >> and because of because >> remember every city, every resident in every city is also p paying property tax to support the zoning part, the permit
part >> that doesn't cover their city, >> right? But they have to contract for a reason, I assume. Like for example, the city of Redwing does does have zoning. So those folks are paying not only for the city of Redwing zoning, but also a
third of the county zoning as well. >> Same with Good You. They're paying for city zoning and they're paying for county zoning. >> Right. >> But what they are doing is in their zoning ordinance, they have to have building inspection. >> So they're contracting with us to do
building inspection instead of inspect tech or whoever. There's others privates that do it. >> Yeah. >> Because of the quality of the service they get from Goody County is why they've chosen >> to go with us >> because we're there
>> 6:00 in the morning to do a footing inspection so they can pour a footing. Yeah. >> So we keep pro process going faster. If you're with one of those other companies, they may only come to your town on Wednesday. Mhm. >> That doesn't help the contractors move
forward. >> That is exactly why we have so many cities that have contractor >> I'm not suggesting an answer. I'm suggesting there's a lot of things we have to look at. That's what I'm suggesting. >> So, are we going to move this forward today and then look at it through the
year? >> And I think Megan, I think you're okay with that. Is that correct? >> Sure. And I'm absolutely willing to I mean put this as a workshop agenda item, send out additional information, speak, you know, whatever we need to do. I I actually would like to bring in my
building staff too. Yeah. >> Um because they they know this in and out. >> Um but absolutely um we can look at it. >> Thank you. >> The board's wishes. I'll make a motion that we move this
forward for this year, but follow up with what Commissioner Beter has said and in every direction look at true program costs of what it really costs. So for next year, >> there's a second. >> I'll second that.
>> Any further discussion? >> I guess I we will support it because uh we have increased the fees and we are working towards a solution. So, all those in favor say I. >> I oppose. >> No. >> Motion carries.
>> Chair, >> go ahead. >> Um, I do think as we continue to talk about true costs, we probably at your workshop, we should discuss how much the board wants to spend on figuring out true costs. I'm not saying you shouldn't. >> No, but we kind of calculated, Lucas, I
think, on was it the jail or police officers? We tried to figure out exactly what we spent to figure out that true cost and I think we had over $10,000 of staff time and that was on the earlier versions. We haven't recalculated it. So we're probably, you know, 20 $30,000
into costing out stuff over on the sheriff's side of things. >> Um so we got to be a little careful that plus we don't really have a a unit that's here just to figure out true cost of everything we do. So >> and um of course ideally we would know true costs. Okay. But is there a way to
get closer to the ballpark so the board at least understands the ballpark of what this is costing? Um, so so I'm asking you if there's somewhere in between knowing to the dollar every cent and getting at least in the ballpark so we know.
>> Yeah. And there is and there it's but we're always going to disagree on whether it's close enough and what to include and what not to include. if you remember. >> Well, we're all going to disagree. >> Good wrestling matches over how much of admin we should include. >> Um, but I mean in this case, if you look at it, the the the cost of it is the the
expenditures in the budget because we would have this regardless if we contracted with cities. We would have that staffing component because after passing the building code, we have to provide that to the townships. We don't have to do it to the cities, right? But if we want to offset the expenditures,
that's where we have to figure out how much we can charge the cities and how much they're willing to pay because if it gets too high, they're they're not going to pay pay for it. So, but all I'm saying is that we need to remember that when we're, you know, trying to figure out these true costs that there is a
cost to it. Um, if you go back to the I think it's the uh police officer and Lucas can correct me if I'm wrong when we were calculating that uh the sheriff staff had gotten pretty darn close with some initial uh estimates and then we didn't like those and then we spent
another 10 to 15,000 after that. >> We have to as a board hopefully get satisfied with pretty darn close. >> I think pretty darn close sometimes is good enough when you're looking at things like this that we have to provide anyways. >> Yep. I understand that. >> So, and I don't know if Lucas has more
to add on this or not. >> Yeah, I'll just say that those those figures that Scott mentioned, those were the first round of doing those calculations. So, that was before we started really digging into doing any of the SRO kind of work. So, none of that's included in this. It's it does take a
good amount of staff time. It's it's and it's not just finance. It's it's each of those individual departments as well. um where yes, it's absolutely important to know how much things are costing us, but it's taking people's time from doing their actual work and we need to recognize that. >> Although I would argue that knowing what
things actually cost is all of our work. I would argue that. So, while I realize that yes, it takes staff time to put that together and start looking at what true program costs really are, but it seems to me somewhat
similar to us hiring DDA to find out whether or not our um salaries where they were and that we realized that. Okay. So once we found out, we realized that we had to lift those up considerably to be able to
stay current. So it seems to me not necessarily a one-time cost, but I mean, yes, it is upfront to be able to get the information that you need, but from that moment on, then perhaps one can go up with
cost of living added on. But if you've got absolutely no idea how much something really costs to provide the service to people, then either we're shortch changing the county or we're shortch changing we're
shortch changing somebody. >> I think just my act, you know, on our on our website, you can go back and get budgets from 2015 forward. All the numbers are in there. dig into them, figure it out, figure out
what you really want to ask a question about because um if we didn't have this revenue from the city part of this, we would be spending more dollars
of levy dollars to cover the cost of this. It's not it's not significantly different than the jail. And if we take prisoners, yes, they don't 100% cover the cost of the prisoner, but they
dilute all the other costs, so they're smaller. So, I suggest you go back, dig on the website. You got budgets that go back a long ways, probably even farther than that if you ask Andrea. And you can
look at the section that is on these costs and figure out some questions to ask around it because just throwing it back on staff without us doing some work is not really a responsible way to do that. We should have some
direct understanding of that budget and it's all there just you just have to dig. So all right let's move on. We have a really busy day. Um, uh, human resources.
>> Mr. Chair, commissioners, I have two items before you today. Uh, the first is on commissioner wages. Uh for Minnesota statute, county board shall by resolution set the annual salary for board members to be effective for the first of the year. Currently, commissioner wages are set at $25,417
annually. The 2026 budget reflects a 3% increase, bringing commissioner wages to 26,181. We are seeking direction from the board. >> Questions, comments? It's awful quiet. >> Well, I'll I'll just make the comment
that I do recognize from the wage study that uh Goodyu County is a bit behind on what the commissioners are are paying, but I think given where we're at, I think the 3% is where we need to be. That would be my view.
>> That a motion? >> Sure. I'll make the motion to accept the proposal of the 3% increase. or second. >> I'll second it. >> Been moved and seconded. We set the commissioner wages with a 3% increase. Any further discussion? >> All those in favor say I.
>> I. >> I. >> Oppos? >> No. >> Okay. Pdeium rates. >> Second item is PDM rates. Uh, currently the PDM rate is $100 per day. Uh we would normally be asking the board to consider uh continuing that $100 pdeium rate, but uh with some staff discussions
um and some uh volunteer members that are serving multiple meetings. Uh if the county board would like to address the fact that some days contain multiple meetings and some days are more time consuming than others. Another option would be to set the civilian and commissioner PDM rate at $100 for $4 or
less and $125 for more than four hours. Once the pium right is set for 2026, it cannot be changed. We had a little discussion, Scott and I, here about this a little while ago and and and
while that maybe works for some, it really centered around a little bit around our planning commission and our board of adjustment, which typically met on two separate nights for staff savings and for
the people involved. There's a person that sits on the planning commission and the board of adjustment. So, they meet now the same night. So, even with the four hours, they would still only be getting $100 for actually two meetings with very long
agendas. And that I I don't think that's fair. I really think it would be better if it was $100 for the first meeting and 125 if you have additional more meetings. So just do it by meetings and
not by hours. So if I have if I have three meetings in a day, it would be $125. 100 for the first one. 25 covers all the rest of them. Same it's the same numbers. It's just different way of
looking at that way. The person that sits on those committees would get 100 for the first meeting and 25 for the second one. So would do that just a different way to look at. >> My understanding was state statute said we could only get one PDM per day. Is
that right, Steve? >> That that is definitely true for commissioners because your duties are obviously broad. Now civilians, I think it's it could be interpreted a little bit differently. Um usually when you call it a PDM, it does mean one PDM per
day. Um but when it comes to civilian appointees, if they're appointed to several different committees, those are different activities. And um you know, my reading of the statute, I think you could give if one civilian member was on two separate committees, they met two
separate meetings on the same day, they could be entitled or could be entitled to two payments for each one of those meetings. Does that make sense? Because they're civilian. the the pdium for county commissioners is a different statute. That's pretty clear-cut. That's
one pdeium per day. And the you could certainly set it as Commissioner Anderson has suggested if you do it. Um the PDM being $100 for one meeting and if you attend more than one meeting, you could it's up to 125. The board could certainly do that. Um but when it comes to the civilians, I think you could look
at that a little differently. So, so, so, >> and I haven't discussed that with our administration, so they may have a different opinion on that. >> So, the the civilian or the staff member, if they had two meetings,
they could get $200. And the commissioner, if they had two meetings, would get the $100. Is that correct? >> Correct. Okay. >> And if the board wanted to do that, I would suggest calling the civilian a per
meeting payment. Set it as a per meeting instead of a per >> per day >> per DM just to avoid the confusion of that. >> And um I I don't really have a problem with that at all. I'm just wondering roughly um how much more it would cost
the county doing it that way. Do we have any idea? I would have no idea on that. >> And some with staff because they would get the two pdeiums, but if they're already getting two pdeiums now because
they're on different nights, it's not really >> I don't think I don't think staff get pdeiums. >> It's only it's only people we have appointed to the parks committee, to the planning and zoning, to the board of adjustment, to >> any committee that has lay people on it.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> It would be those people, not >> not staff. >> All right. So, it has no impact on staff and it would just have the impact on um non-elected people attending meetings
and it probably wouldn't have much impact at all because right now that's they're two different nights and we're switching it to one night if Yeah. And that's the main one that would be impacted I think. And I I I was the one that pushed from 50 to 100 just because
my representatives from my part of the district, they spend an hour and 20 minutes on the road. >> But now that we have combined these together, I I try to average this average this out and for 4 hours, let's just say hour to get here and for 3
hours. I I'm still okay with $100 per meeting, $125 I >> you know, but uh I think with the mileage and uh and $100 for that meeting, I I'm I'm okay with it. I guess I would not >> for $1100. Yep.
>> Okay. So, you would leave it the way it is? >> I would leave it the way it is. And I uh maybe that would be a nice option, but I don't see that happening very often. >> And you don't see it as necessary? >> Don't see it as necessary. So, I'll make a motion to leave the PDM policy as it's been.
>> I'll second that. >> Okay. It's move moved and seconded that the PDM policy stay at $100 per day for civilian and for board members. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I.
I. >> I. Opposed. >> Motion carries. Veteran Service Office ride share reinstatement request. >> Morning Justin. >> Morning. So I thought >> your mic might not be on.
>> Turn your mic. >> You >> Thank you. Um none of our drivers transferred over to the DAV program. So, they received no extra drivers uh from us to take over the volume of rides that we've been providing. Um
we're providing about 500 to 600 rides a year. Um and with no additional drivers, they can't take on the extra extra work. Um in addition, uh they would like to talk with the VA about staging a a van up here in um in the future with the plan of eventually taking over our
program. Um that's a six-month toyear process just getting the VA to approve that. Um and it would also require uh the DAV to come here and establish anou with the county um to maybe stage the van in the in the um the county parking lot. Um so I'm asking for the
reinstatement of the ride program for the next year. Um it's uh if I remember correctly, the budget item is about a $50,000 cost. Um I am ready to answer questions. Bard's wishes.
>> I'm sorry. >> Ord's wishes. >> Can I ask a question? Uh, you sent me a nice email yesterday and it sounded like you believed that this change could occur, but that it will take time. Is
that am I understanding that correctly? >> It will take time. Yep. Um, I uh I'm going to attempt to assist the DAV in recruiting some drivers. Um and um again working with them with that the the VA to establish a a van over here in
Redwing. Um right now they run through um Pine Island all the way through that uh 52 corridor. So they hit that the the south >> west side of the county, but they don't hit um Redwing as much. Um so we want to be able to make sure they can they can come over this way and handle veteran
rides from this side of the county. Um, so I'm going to help them work on the the van, recruiting some drivers, um, and helping those drivers uh, pass that that background check. On the VA side, >> uh, the VA did just, uh, recently institute a, um, uh, I believe it's called a tier one FBI background check
for drivers. And right now, the DAV is getting, um, only two out of 10 volunteers approved through that background check. So, it's uh, there's some attrition going on. So, um, >> there isn't a whole lot of choice with
this. >> No. >> No. >> You're confident that our drivers will come back and be with >> They're still driving now and none of them have have said that they want to discontinue driving for us. So, we are we will maintain all of our current drivers. Yep.
I'll make a motion that we reinstate the driver program with a veterans service office and that within the next year you work towards another option
with the VA and the DAV drivers. >> Absolutely. >> I'll second that. >> Been moved and seconded. We reinstate the program and continue to work towards a transfer of it. Any further discussion? Go ahead. >> Just clarification, maybe Andrew or Justin, you can both verify, but
initially this was like a $150,000 budget item. Was it not with the vans and the owners? It was only 50,000. >> It's uh initially when they're in the discussions during our budget uh conversations, the administrative assistant position and the ride program was clumped together. Uh during one of those meetings, I asked that they'd be
separated um and that we discussed the two items individually. The ride program is about a $50,000 cost. The administrative assistant position is about $100,000 cost. >> Right. >> Correct me if I'm wrong. >> Right. >> Um just a question. Do most counties, I
think you answered this before, use the DAV drivers? >> Many do. Um and or they have a a hybrid model. Um >> for example, some counties will do only do rides from their county van on every odd day. >> I see. I see.
>> Wednesdays. Um, >> and then the DAV is DAV is picking up the other portion of the the ride. >> I see. So, they might have a limited service um and use the DAV the two together. All right. Thank you. >> And we can look at that option too. I can I can I can come to you with a with a variety of options.
>> Yeah. Thank you. >> Absolutely. >> All right. All those in favor say I. >> I. Same. >> Motion carries. Thank you. Finance and taxpayer service. Cannabis retail registration
application. >> Good morning, commissioners. >> Morning. Um, so as uh Commissioner Anderson stated, this is related to uh our first fully completed application for uh retail registration for a cannabis
business. Uh Minnesota statutes chapter 342 was established by the state legislature back in 2023. It's been updated a couple times since then. Uh final regulations were adopted April 14, 2025 and can be found in Minnesota rules
chapter 9810. Office of cannabis management is the state regulatory office created to oversee the implementation as well as the regulation of adult use cannabis market, the medical cannabis program and consumer health industry. Uh the OCM governs the
application and licensing specific process. um specific requirements for each license type and their respective business activities and conducts enforcement and inspection activities. Local units of government cannot outright ban cannabis uh businesses. However, they can limit the number of
act cannabis retail registrations for cannabis retailers. That's one of the license types. Cannabis micro businesses with retail endorsements. Cannabis and cannabis mezo businesses with retail endorsements. Those are three of the specific license types established in statute.
um uh Goodyu Countyy's ordinance, if you recall, we did choose to limit the number of um of retail establishments that we can have in the county. It's one per every 12,500 residents. Um and one other thing I wanted to note
is the med medical cannabis combination businesses as well as the lower potency hemp retailer businesses. We cannot limit the number of those registrations in the county. So we can only limit those first three, the retailers, the micro businesses, and the mezzo
businesses if they're con conducting retail specific businesses. Um, additionally, one another item to note is that our ordinance does not limit we cannot limit any municipal stores. There are no municipal stores in
the county and we cannot uh include in the number of um businesses for our limitation purposes any store that's on uh land held in trust for uh Prairie Island Indian community. Um so that being said based on current
population levels uh Goodyu Countyy's maximum number of cannabis retail registrations is four. City of Redwing and City of Pine Island have both retained their registration authority. The city of Redwing granted a retail registration back in August of 2025 and
I spoke with uh an individual from Pine Island again yesterday morning just to confirm they haven't received an a single application. Therefore, they have not um they have not approved a registration yet. So that gives us three registrations yet that we can issue in
accordance with our ordinance. Um, so onto the specific business, there's uh Floroscura LLC doing business as Americanmade cannabis. They've uh, as I said, they submitted a complete application on December 1st.
Uh, the application indicates that the business will be a micro business with a retail endorsement within the city of Lake City. Lake City does uh, retain their own zoning zoning authority. However, they did delegate the the
cannabis retailing registration to Goodyu County. Um, so it's up to the board uh overall to um approve this business registration. That being said, I will uh do my best to answer any questions you may have about
this. Obviously, this is the first one that we've had to date. So, >> so in there it states that it meets um Lake City zoning. Correct. >> That's correct. I had a >> So, the zoning part that Lake City takes care of has been met.
>> That's correct. >> And it's a completed application. We don't have any any outstanding stuff with the application. >> That's correct. the application that the ordinance that we approved as well as the application requires a a list of
information including um essentially proof that they have insurance. So, we've received their insurance binder. Um we have their tax ID number, we have that zoning authority, um approval, we have the all of the information that um that is required by our ordinance.
>> So, give me one reason we could deny it. As long as they meet all the requirements of our ordinance and statute, we cannot deny it. >> Correct. That's exactly what I thought. Questions? >> Just a curiosity question. We don't um
we just cover the Goodyu County portion of Lake City. We don't cover all of Lake City in terms of >> That's correct. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I will move approval. >> I'll second it. >> Been moved and seconded. We approve the cannabis business in Lake City. Any
further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Oppos the same. Motion carries. Thank you. Thanks for all your work on that. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> And the next is the fund balance designation.
>> Good morning, commissioners. >> Morning, Teresa. Um attached you're going to find the schedule of proposed or projected fund balance commitments as of December 31 of 25 for all of our funds. All 25 expenditures were made in accordance with the board approved
commitments in place as of December 31 of 24. There is only one change to the 25 report. The change is the use of the 27th payroll fund. As a result of New Year's Day falling on Thursday, payroll will be paid on December 31 of 2025,
resulting in the 27th payroll being paid at the end of 2025. Um, the county is required to record fund balances in each of the following categories: non-spendable, restricted, committed, and assigned. Any
changes to committed fund balances must be approved by the board on or before December 31 of 2025. And at this point, the staff recommends the board approve the fund balance commitments as outlined in the attached for December 31 of 25.
If you have any questions, I'll take those now. >> Questions? >> Not. Is there a motion to approve? >> Move approval as presented. >> Second. Been moved and seconded. We approve the fund balances as presented.
Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Oppose the same. Motion carries. Thank you. Federal dollar exchange with Wabasha
County Public Works. Welcome, Jess. Morning. >> Morning commissioners. >> Morning. >> Uh as the board chair mentioned, uh the item today is to discuss um whether or not the board wishes to
move forward uh with the process to exchange federal dollars with Wabash County uh to simplify a project that they have in 2028. So earlier this year, I spoke with the Wabasha County Engineer to discuss the possibility of of trading
federal dollars uh that they're receiving in 2028 for Goodyu County local dollars. So it' be an exchange of of uh it'd be construction dollars, levy dollars that we use for construction. The exchange of funds would be possible
as Goody County is already receiving 4.65 million in federal dollars for a project on 11. Um the requirements to receive these federal funds include at least a 20% match by the county uh which will exceed even with an
additional 1.5 million uh federal dollars uh from Wershaw County uh due to the due to the reasons uh regarding the total estimated cost being right around 10 million. Uh the requested exchange of
funds would allow Wabasha County to avoid a full federal process. uh with MIDOT state aid which would reduce overall expenses, reviews, administration costs. Uh Goody Countyy's got uh we'll be stepping through the full federal
process for our project regardless because we're receiving federal funds for that project. Um there'd be a few more steps that would need to happen before an exchange would be possible. Those include um submitting the fund
exchange applications to the MDOT district state aid engineer uh in Rochester. Uh after forms are received by the DSAE, the area trans transportation partnership will have to consider the transfer of federal dollars to good
county. When considered, the ATP members may want to know that Goody County's project has enough capacity for eligible items which would include but are not limited to shoulder paving, storm water management, sidewalk trails, ADA improvements, etc. Once approved by the
ATP, Goody County and Wabasha County would need a funding exchange agreement with approval by both county boards. There's no guarantee expressed or implied that we would make it through all the necessary steps to gain approvals to exchange funds, but there is a high likelihood that Minda and the
ATP would be amunable to this proposal as it is a common uh occurrence in in district 6. Regardless of whether the exchange of funds is approved, Goodyount's project on CASA 11 would not be substantially impacted.
So alternatives for the board to consider today would be to proceed with the concept of making an exchange with Wabasha County for their expected $ 1.5 million of federal money in fiscal year 2028 in exchange for an equivalent amount of local dollars from Goodyu
County or to reject the idea. Staff is recommending that the board proceed with the concept and I would be willing to take any questions. >> Questions? Um, as I understand it, there's really no harm to Goodyu County uh at all and
it benefits Wabasha County. Is that correct? >> Yes. But saving them having to go through that full federal process. >> Right. Right. Right. >> Go ahead. >> Well, I looked at it the opposite direction, which was there didn't appear
to be much benefit to the people of Good Hugh County. And while I recognize that this might be a common occurrence that happens in the past, I don't feel as comfortable thinking that something might happen
between now and 2028. So that federal funds may or may not come. Mhm. >> So I did not feel comfortable with this >> whether or not the federal funds would be made available to Wabasha County at
simultaneously the $4.65 million that we're receiving of federal dollars uh in that same line of thinking would be imperiled. So if we don't exchange with Wabasha County, they're not exchanging with us. So if federal dollars aren't made
available to Wabashaw County, Goodyu County wouldn't be giving up 1.5 million of our local dollars, we would retain those and that would be identified in the agreement that the board would ultimately have to have to sign. Today's action by the board is not to
agree to make that change. That that would happen through agreement. This is just to get uh an approval from the board to even consider doing it. So, if the board's not interested, we don't have to move forward. But, um, I
don't necessarily see a a financial impact to Good County other than a little bit of my time spent discussing this with the ATP. It's it's you know whether you look at it individually as postage stamp goody county or you look
at it regionally if there's a way to make the cost of projects less we should always work together to make the projects cost less and the federal meeting the federal guidelines makes a project cost more. We already are going
to have to do that, >> right? >> If we take if they if that's taken out of Wabasha County's cost, >> they'll be able to do more because of it. And regionally, that's a good thing. So I
to me, this was kind of a no-brainer. We It's >> pretty common. >> Yeah. It's like I mean, we know what it costs to do federal projects. we're getting four million whatever to do federal project. We're going to have to meet it whether
we have this 1.5 or whether we don't. So it just eliminates some work on Wabisha's end which in turn always affects us because we all are regional so frees up dollars.
>> What's your wishes? >> Is it a motion or a recommendation? >> It's a motion for him to move forward. >> Yep. I'll make that motion that we move forward. >> There's a second. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
>> You cannot trust federal government. I don't either, but if the dollars don't show up either way, the projects aren't going forward either way. >> Right. >> But there all right. There is not a significant benefit to Good Hugh County.
Is that correct? You're saying regionally? Yeah. for roads. There's a and that in that would incorporate Good Hugh County. Is that right? >> It seems like we want to be a good neighbor whenever we can. >> This board multiple times say we need to
work with our neighbors. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> This is working with our neighbors 100%. >> And you know, I didn't >> Sometimes it benefits the neighbor more than it benefits you, but it benefits everybody in the state of Minnesota >> to do more. and and there isn't a way
that we wouldn't have the match that's required with this. I mean, I I understand Linda's concern about the federal government and what they might do. So, we aren't there's not any way in which we're somehow exposing ourselves to not having the match. >> No, we have the match. I mean, it's been
programmed and presented to the board previously. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Any further discussion hearing? None. All those in favor say I. I oppose. Thank you. >> Motion carries. Thank you.
Administration 2026 budget and levy. >> All right. >> Well, I'll put you in a room with Wabisha County. >> I do understand it's very important to be good neighbors and to help when we
can. My issue is not with Wabach County. >> Okay. I'm gonna take the next one here. >> Another one. >> All right, Andrea. >> All right. Um, on September 16th, the county board approved the preliminary levy at 48 million261504.
Um, the final levy may be decreased. It cannot be increased from this figure. The board has held multiple budget workshops and discussions including the truth and taxation public comment period and the proposed budget. at this time is 93,616249
with a proposed levy of 48,261504. This reflects an increase of 2,94529 or approximately 6.5% over the 2025 levy. Um, also included in your report uh were previous reports that have been
presented to the board. Um, just a little bit of background, the 2026 uh budget represents year one of our two-year budget cycle. The preliminary numbers that were presented to the county board in August
showed an levy increase of 4,509529, which was approximately a 9.95% increase over the 25 levy. Um the major drivers in this increase included uh personnel costs. Um significant
increases in health care expenses. Um we also additionally received uh legislative changes at both the state and federal levels which reduced county revenues um but added new mandated responsibilities. The county also underwent a facilities
assessment where improvements to our buildings were prioritized uh into different categories based on their immediate, intermediate, and long-term needs. Many of the identified projects were not included in previous capital planning.
Um regardless, the board did set the levy at 48 the preliminary levy, excuse me, at 48,261504, um which is the 6 and 12% over the 2025 levy. So, um to reach that target, since then, like I had mentioned, we've met in
multiple budget workshops. Um we have underwent and adjusted employee healthc care costs based on open enrollment results. Three positions have been eliminated, including a sheriff's deputy, the county sanitarian, uh the deputy surveyor, and
um we've reduced a part-time facilities maintenance position um resulting in dis discontinued benefits. We've also made some operational and capital adjustments including eliminating the IQUIC contract,
eliminating the juvenile bed contract, increasing our motorpool mileage reimbursement rate from 30 cents per mile to 70, and we've deferred um capital projects in facilities maintenance to future years with funding to be determined at a later date.
This draft budget also includes use of fund balance of just over $1.7 million. Um I won't go through all of those, but they're listed. Just to touch on the 2027 budget, it's just a snapshot in time at this point.
um no action is required by the board but again with the 2027 budget we see increased personnel costs and um health care rates uh as main drivers along with that capital planning.
With that, staff recommends the board approve the 2026 budget and levy as proposed um with a levy increase of 2 million 945529 or 6 and a half% over the 2025 levy
and we can take any questions. >> Questions? >> Go ahead. So this year there was a 23% increase in health care and this says there'll be an additional 19% increase
next year. Is that accurate? >> It's capped at 19, but we are supposed to get like a 44 or 45%. So my guess is we're going to get the bulk of that. >> Didn't we s I mean didn't we sign a three-year contract again?
>> Mhm. We we it's a one it's a one-year contract, but it has it's capped at at 19. So, um, previously we had a situation where we had a one-year rate guarantee and then a three-year cap. Um, and I believe it was right at the cap
almost every year. So, I I I wouldn't be surprised if we have 19 next year. >> Any other questions? Well, I just I I'll just comment, you know, we had I think four or five budget workshops. Many of us had questions in
between those workshops and and I just want to commend the staff. Um they've done a a heck of a job in some very difficult times with some very difficult projections going forward. Um, I mean, I
sat through stuff at the at the AMC conference where they were talking about the um dis disability waiver uh amounts um and the counties and DHS and
the the committees that are working on that to try to figure out how to get their arms around that and reduce that. Um the challenge from the legislature is that we got to reduce that by $177 million.
If you do the math, simple math, that's $2 million a county. If we can't get there, those cuts will come down to the county, which is just a small percentage of the cost of those programs. Um we got some
really heavy lifting um AMC counties in general staff at counties over the next year. Um there isn't anybody here that likes to see that 20% number for next year. It amazes me when I talk to
commissioners around the state. Um we are one of the few who do two-year budgeting. I wish we could do 28 next year when we're doing 27. I don't know if that's possible, but um there are a lot of counties that don't
have a clue what next year is going to look like for them. I mean, they maybe have a little bit, but not as indepth as what our staff put together. And it really helps us when we're thinking about how we how we do things this year. And we saw it plain in this day. If we'd
have done a 9% levy, we wouldn't be at 20%. we'd be probably 5% less for next year, but when you push it off, it just it just just grows immeasurably um going forward. So, I commend the staff for the
work they've done. I commend the commissioners for the questions we've asked, for the work we've done to get to 6 and a half. Um just on the way in today I heard um the state county average is going to be somewhere around 8 or 8.1 when final levies are done. So
we're under state average. That doesn't make me feel any better, but um we've done we've done a lot of work to get to where we are. So I commend the staff for that. >> Questions? >> Well, just a comment. I I do think we
have to start working on the 2027 budget almost immediately next year because I >> think we are. >> Yeah, I think we need to. I don't think we can wait until August to be looking at that. Um I I attended the meeting you're talking about with uh 177 million
and the uh it was a I thought a well presented meeting and there was a lot of good information and they commented that cutting 177 million will cause harm. okay that it will and um what I think is
is with the uh proposed levy of 20.9 we have to recognize that that too would cause harm and so to me we're going to have to find a way I think um I talked to one of the Ramsey County commissioners and she said well
everybody's mad at them and in a way I think that will happen for the our county board because We're going to have to spread that harm around and no one's going to want to see that. But I think that'll be our responsibility. >> We're in a we're in a much better
position than a lot of counties. When when you talk to a lot of counties, >> we have had reserves. We use some of those reserves. We we are we are in a good position going into some very >> uncertain and unpredictable times,
especially in the next year or two. And I I've not been at this long, but I have to believe that the county's gone through more difficult things than the 2027 budget we're looking at. And so, uh, that that's our task to to deal with it. >> They went through times where the state
told them what they had to levy. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, I I >> I don't want to get anywhere near that. So, the choice is ours. Uh, six and a half. Is there any other changes or is there a motion to approve that? I'll make a motion to approve the levy
at $48,261,54 which is approximately 6.5%. >> Second move and >> second we approve the levy as presented. Um any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I oppose. >> No.
>> First board meeting of 2026 >> Tuesday after the first Monday. Correct. >> That is correct. So staff recommendation is uh would be 9:00 a.m. that day on January 6th, 2026, which is the first Tuesday after the first Monday.
>> There motion. >> I'll make a motion to approve the first meeting at as uh January 6, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. >> Second. >> Second. >> We approve the board meeting as presented. Any further discussion?
All those in favor say I. I was the same. Motion carries. Buffy, our H levy budget and request. Welcome. >> Good morning. I'm Buffy Bronnic, former
executive director for SMRA, now representing Sumptra as their consultant. With me today online, I have Ashley Jurgensson, our new uh controller. Um, just want to introduce her to the board as she will likely be um involved with um the presentations in
2026 for the 2027 budget that we'll start working on here shortly as well. Um just maybe a quick update for the board. We are still um looking for a CEO to replace my position. We're um we've got a hiring committee in place and we hope
to make a decision here within uh first quarter of 2026. So um just to let you know that we are still working on that and um the hiring committee is um diligently working on that with DDA.
Um so I am here today to present the 2026 budget and our request uh for our levy in September. As Andrea stated the preliminary levy was set uh sumptures levy request uh was set at 386940.
That levy request represents a 2% increase in the HA levy over 2025. Um why why only 2%? Why not 6.5? Why not something larger? um part of the community development um expense that's
part of the um I'll say core levy request for good Hugh County was spread to all counties um and we have received um I think Wabasha was supposed to meet this morning on their levy they had to delay that um but they'll act here
shortly on that and um I expect those all to get approved so because we took some money out of what we had allocated to Good Hugh County and spread that to the other counties. That's why we were able to keep the levy requests lower. Um, just to talk a little bit about
2027, we do not um um budget in detail, but we do have about a 3 and a half% increase for 2027 projected. Not seeing anything else um come um um come in that would impact us negatively, if anything,
with the bring it home program. um that'll help us mitigate our losses in our section 8 voucher program, which then means we do not have to levy as much at the counties to subsidize the section 8 program. So again, that's why
it's just a three and a half% increase in 2027. Um so just really briefly, that 386,940 is broken up into three components. the general fund um for $90,940.
The county subsidize 50% of the cost for the general fund. So, it's 50% paid for by programs, 50% by county lobbies. The second component is our community development, housing development. Part
of that for grant writing, that administrative component, that's the piece that was um spread out to the other counties. um $10,000 for grant matching on our small cities programs and 124,000 to subsidize the um rental
assistance and debt coverage on existing bonds that are out there for um what we term the good HU projects. We've got five housing projects um Kenyon Cannon Falls and Good Hugh. Those five different projects um we um get a levy subsidy according to those bond
documents and that totals 124,000. And then that third and final component is the housing trust fund um for $100,000 to fund that. Um we are maybe just a really brief update on housing trust fund. We are getting ready to go out with the next RFP. Um the housing
trust fund subcommittee for Good Hugh County did approve um going out for all funds that are available. I had a little bit of a panic. Um assuming that we get the 100,000 now um we are going to go ahead and even RFP for that. So all dollars would be spent in the housing
trust fund. That'd be about $300,000 then committed. So >> questions. >> Motion to approve. >> Motion to approve. >> Second.
>> Been moved and seconded. We approve the housing uh HA levy at 386940. Any further questions? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Oppos. >> Motion carries. Thank you. And thank you
for your years of service. >> Thank you, Buffy. >> Does it feel different being a contractor? >> Um, it does. Yeah. A little less stress. >> Little >> can understand that. >> Cheryl Ke Cheryl Kei took a little bit
of it from him as chair of the board. She's kind of taken a little bit of that. Uh, Union Pacific Rail merger. >> Is online. >> All right. >> Hello. I'm online. Sorry. I was planning on being in person, but I've got a sick
kid at home today. >> All right. Welcome. >> This evening. All right. Thank you. Um, I'm with uh I work with Union Pacific Railroad, and um if you didn't know, they're going through a merger with Norfolk Southern. Um it will be the
first uh continental railroad from coast to coast connected by one company. Um there has been a rise and a need uh for a company to kind of make this move. Um with onore man manufacturing coming back
to the US um there's a lot more goods to get around not just finished goods but materials for goods to be manufactured here. Um and Minnesota is is a heart in the heart of of some of that um onshore
manufacturing. Um and so for this um for this to go forward, the uh service transportation board will be receiving their application. And so we are going out trying to find um letters of support or letters of neutrality of you know hey
let the surface transportation board do their job and consider every angle um and and that you know and everything from there to a full letter of support. Um and so I am here to ask you guys as a board um for a letter of support and
neutrality um and see if you have any questions that I can answer. We met earlier. Uh, this was Commissioner Anderson. Uh, I think Scott and I and you met earlier and talked a little bit. Um, can you just if I were
to think about this rail line and I think about our neighboring counties, I would assume it would be Dakota from starting south of the Twin Cities. It would be Dakota, Goodyu, Wabasha, Winona. I don't even
>> Does it Does it go into Houston or does it get into Wisconsin at the end of Winona? >> I will I can figure I will find out. I don't want to tell you one way or the other because I'm actually not sure. I know Scott County for sure on the other side that side of the ca that side of
the state. I'm not exactly sure. So, I will write that down and get you guys that info. >> Yeah. Have you you haven't met with Houston County? >> Not yet. Nope. >> Okay. All right. Well, I would envision it would be wise for
Good County to connect with those other counties and it could be a joint letter from all of us if we could all come together with a a letter of support that is um kind of consistent across all the
counties that are affected. I think that makes a lot of sense to me rather than us each individually do it. Um so I think that's on us to to have a conversation with with administrators and and staff in those um
counties and see if we can come together with something. >> Yeah. Yep. Um I haven't heard from all those count I have reached out to all those counties. I haven't heard directly from all of the counties surrounding you guys. Um, but I will follow up with them just so that I can I have followed up
with them. I will follow up with them again so that they have the chance to hear from me before they hear from you. Um, or we can connect offline about that. Um, but yeah. >> All right. That's good. Is there a question? >> Is there a deadline to this?
>> Uh, pretty soon. It's going to be uh the application was supposed to be filed in November. Um, but they are pushing it out. So, I don't have an exact date for you, but it is it is pretty soon. Um, >> okay.
I don't think I don't think the turnaround time would be very hard if this >> if this board feels like we should >> offer a letter of support. I I quite frankly in our discussions we had with you, I I really couldn't see any downfall. um in further looking I you
know I talked to you about um who offloads or unloads rail in Goodyu County and this of course doesn't pertain to progressive rail in Canon Falls cuz they're not part of the system. Um it would be my understanding
that ADM in Redwing here is the only onload or offload facility for rail cars. um in Good County. I I don't know if Ardent Mills actually loads grain or
or product in Lake City, but that's Wabisha County. So, I think the only business affected in Guy County really is ADM >> USG US >> USG in
>> where's that? It's just >> next to Samstone just on 61 USG United States Gypson. >> Okay. And load rail. >> That's Goody County. >> Yeah, it's Wuda Township.
>> Okay. All right. So, that would be we have just two that use that rail line for product going in and out of Goody County. Anything else you need from us? >> No. No. >> All right.
>> I'll connect with you offline about that. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, uh, Scott, will you work on um getting connected with the other counties and see if we can put something collectively together? >> Yep. We'll we'll get the some more
information from Kayla and draft up a uh letter and then ask them if they're would like to sign on to it or if they'd like to >> right >> have us send it and uh send something similar from their county. I >> I just absolutely don't see any reason
we wouldn't um be on board with this. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, thank you. I'll have a draft over you to you today, Scott. >> Thank you, Caleb. >> All right. For your information, staffing reports,
Wells Creek designation, capital plan information, debt service, ditch fund, fund balance, project status report, any new or old business, any committee reports? Go ahead.
Um just one the um Redwing Ambulance Service is going to be coming to talk to Welch Township. This was um in regards to trying to gather more money to be able to help pay
for EMS services in our service area. Um they've made a and there were two presentations at AMC that I went to all on um emergency ambulance service and it
is very underfunded. Um it is not sustainable. The cost of actually doing it however may not be sustainable either because it's to really pay for everything. It's incredibly expensive. So I have no
suggestions for an answer, but I did want everyone to know that it is a big issue at the state level and the local ambulance service are going to be coming and talking to all the different townships. Just so for my information, and I don't
know the answer, um if you're a township, you have to contract for fire service. That's state statute. Do you have to contract for ambulance service? I don't think so. But I think that's the problem.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. Because the townships are getting the service and not uh chipping in uh the same share as the people who live in in the city of Redwing. >> So is so and then consequently um not to
pick on any one town um good doesn't have an ambulance service. So I think the Zimroa service is Goodyu. >> Yep. Correct. And they are a joint power. So there are 17 member joint power organization manages Zimroa or Zimroto ambulance and that is all per
capita based. So each one pays a10 to $15 per capita so >> population for the Zimro. >> So the same question the same question goes to that do cities by statute have to have provide
ambulance service? So would a good you have to contract with somebody versus a township which doesn't have to >> I think that the services themselves there's a map of where they are required to cover >> state. Yeah.
>> Yeah. That comes from the state. So every the state requires that everybody be covered but they don't require that everybody pay for that coverage. Is that correct? >> I would have to research that. I just know that we're in a joint powers and we
finally got our last township on board last year to pay that per capita. >> Yeah, >> it is a it is a big problem. I know I don't know if you've talked about it at AMC since you got on the board, but we
have we talked about it at AMC and counties in general do not want to get involved with this. It needs to stay at that city township level and not be countywide because
there's no way we'll >> they cross so many borders. It just doesn't work. So, >> right. And the Redwing one specifically goes across into a different state as well. So, they go over into um county. >> Yeah,
>> they go up into Ravana. I would guess >> I don't see it. >> Trenton Vesa A Creek. >> No, I don't see it. >> All right. Any other committee reports? >> I have one. >> Go ahead. >> Southeast uh Minnesota Communications
Board. Um 2027 through 2032, there will be a large uh replacement of equipment coming down the line. So there's was a lot of talk yesterday with regionalizing our dispatches. So I think that issue is
coming up again and there probably will be another study to you know see what the savings could be and and what uh the best thing is for >> So would it be a regional study or individual county studies? >> It would be regional. That's what we hope. I mean cuz each and then they'll
go to each individual sheriff's department and where the dispatch are. I know Rice and Steel already share. >> Is this in preparation for nextgen 911? Uh that's nextg 911 I think everyone can handle but that uh the the the boards
have to be replaced apparently through um Motorola. So that's going to be a major cost. So at that point might be the time to really take a serious look at at you know maybe whether it's two across
southeast Minnesota or three across southeast Minnesota you know take a look at it. So, >> all right. Works. >> Anybody else? Go ahead. >> I've got one. Um, just wanted to give a report on the AMC meeting. Um, at the annual meeting this year, uh,
Commissioner Anderson was awarded the presidential uh, award which is given by the president of AMC. It's the highest award that they give. So, it's quite an honor. Uh, we're very welld deserved. Um, uh, President and Commissioner from
Dakota County, uh, Mike Slavic, presented the award. Um, and he talked about, uh, how Commissioner Anderson presents himself both locally and regionally and statewide. Um, and also talked about his family and some other things. So, it's a very nice event. Um,
and it was nice. Uh, Commissioner Anderson knew all about this and he, >> yeah, right. >> He managed to meet his, uh, family and some other people into the room. So >> yeah, >> you might have had some help with that, but no, it's very welld deserved and um >> we're very proud of you and uh want to congratulate you.
>> Um also I did want to note that on January 6th after our board meeting, we'll have a reception with some cake and coffee and stuff. So to honor our award recipient. So >> excellent. >> Very very very big surprise, but
>> congratulations. >> Thanks. With that, let's pay some bills. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Been moved and second we pay the claims as presented. Any further discussion? Hearing? None. All those in favor say I. >> I.
>> Opposed the same. Motion carries. Well, before we adjourn, I'd like to thank the board for um trusting me as the chair this year. this being my last meeting as chair. Not I'm not going anywhere next year.
You're not going anywhere too. >> Not next year anyway. Um so thank you and thanks for all the work you've done and um we've had some really good discussions. We make progress every day in Goodyu County and um I've enjoyed it.
I thoroughly enjoy working with our staff and I thoroughly enjoy working with all of you. So thank you very much. >> Thank you. Is there a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> Already did. >> Been moved and second we adjourn. All those in favor say I. I.
>> The same motion carries. Thank you. >> To claim. Sorry. >> We will have a HHS meeting in just a few minutes.