Okay, I will call the meeting to order and start 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, with liberty and
justice for all. Uh, next is disclosures of interest. Are there any? >> None. >> Hearing none. Uh, next on the agenda is to approve the previous board minute meeting or excuse me, minutes.
>> So moved. Greset. >> Second. >> Any discussion? All those in favor? I >> opposed. Motion carries. Uh, next is to review the agenda. Are there
any additions or corrections? There are no changes. >> Okay. Is there a motion to approve the agenda? So moved. >> There a second. >> Second. >> Any further discussion? >> Uh hearing none. All those in favor
signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. Motion carries. Next. There's five uh items on the consent agenda. Uh any uh Betty want to pull any of those items or No.
>> Move to approve the consent agenda. >> Is there a second? Okay. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. Motion carries. Uh next up is human resources setting statutory
minimums for elected officials. All right. Good morning, commissioners. >> Good morning. >> By statute, we are required in an election year to set the minimum salaries for um county attorney and sheriff. And so the report before you
lists the information that we received from DDA relative to those offices throughout the state. And so we've got the ranges for those positions and the actual average pay. um just as a as a reference point for your consideration as you move today to
set the minimum pay for these positions. In the past, prior to us using DDA, these positions were evaluated and given a grade on our paychart. So, we've not gone through this process before because the fact
that they were on the page chart, the minimum was set by the paychart. And so this is a little bit of a of a new process, but one that's required by by statute. Once the individuals are elected, their actual salary would be determined based
on experience, qualifications, performance, so on and so forth. The same process that we do every year, looking at the individual and setting their actual salary. So, I I think it's fair to say it's unlikely that the elected sheriff or uh county attorney
would start at that minimum salary. >> It's more if we have someone who's fresh out of law school, never had a job who uh uh wins, where would we want to start them? Or the same with someone who's a newly licensed peace officer. >> Correct. It doesn't constrain us to, you
know, if if our current county attorney and sheriff are reelected, it doesn't constrain us to paying them at that minimum. It's exactly it doesn't it doesn't constrain us even with a newly elected. >> Exactly. >> Uh yeah, it just sets the floor. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
And um I did give Jessica a call and I wondered if setting the floor roughly where the um minimum would be on what used to be the grade would be a reasonable minimum to set. Okay. Um and
I I believe you thought that that would be >> I think that's a reasonable approach. Absolutely. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I I think that was around 122,000. I don't remember exactly. So the last the position was evaluated
by DDA it would have been at a 122 and the step one is 126 734. >> So maybe um 127,000 for the minimums would be reasonable. Not saying that's what they would get, but that that we need to put something there.
>> Right. >> Yeah. and Steve O'Keefe uh or uh uh John, do you have any opinion about this? >> No, I think obviously it affects my position um as well. And the reason the board is
doing it this year is because this is an election year for both the sheriff and myself and that's why the board is setting the minimum salary for if there's uh anybody interested in the job, they know what to what to expect. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Thank you.
>> All right. Any questions that any of you have or any comments you want to make? >> I'll move approval. Gress it >> of 127,000 >> of the Yeah. The average pay range or do we have to do an actual number?
>> You have to set an actual minimum salary for both. >> Let's do the range. I would think we might want to set the minimum the same for both. And um the problem with the average actual pay is these guys would have tons of
experience. Uh um probably I mean I don't think you have the average number of years of experience. >> So that that's why I was suggesting setting it kind of where the step would be. But of course then we'd adjust it based on all the things that Jessica was
saying. >> Okay. And what was the number that the >> 127,000 >> 127,000 was step one? >> Yeah. >> Okay. I'll move that we set it at 127,000. >> Second.
>> Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Motion carries. >> Thank you. >> Um, next was administration with the budget committee report. Should I
>> Scott? Do you want me to take that? >> Yep. Yep. >> Yep. Andrea, go ahead, please. >> Okay. So, the budget committee met prior to the board meeting this morning um and addressed outside um out of state travel request for 2026. Um all of those were approved. Do you
want to take one at a time or just approve or consider them all at once? I I'll just make the one comment that we had talked about Chad Stefen's uh request for the eligible 911 grant funding. He said typically they use
about 3% of that grant for uh travel and for conferences. And he asked for a blanket approval authorization for out of state travel for 911 funds. And it's not that I think he would misuse it, but it seemed reasonable to me that we set some kind of a cap that, you know, if he
went above that, he'd just have to talk to us. And we talked about 15% and he says he typically uses 3 or 4%. So that was the only discussion item that we had. You want to add anything to that, Todd? >> Nope. No, we're good. So, we thought all of them were
reasonable, but we were a little concerned about having the board's position be blanket authorization for out ofstate travel up to for the 911 fund. That was the only thing. >> And did you come up with a number that you felt comfortable with?
>> Well, um um Chad said they use 3 to 4% and then uh John was there and I said, "Well, would 15% be reasonable?" And if they wanted to use more than 15% for for uh training, they just have to talk to us about it. Yeah. Go ahead.
>> I think we're fine with 15%. >> So, are we going to vote on them one by one? >> Well, do you want to do it one by one? >> That's fine. But I mean, I will. So the first one is for the county administrator and for up to one county
commissioner to go either to the National Association of Counties or the International City County Management Association. >> Is there a motion to approve? >> I'll move to approve. >> Second. >> I'll second. >> Uh all in favor say I. >> I.
>> I opposed. Motion carries. The second is uh for investigation captains and it's uh for learning about AI technology. AI crime and that's for 30,000. Uh it's being funded uh partially by the min
uh task force. >> I'll move that forward. >> Is there a second? Okay. All those in favor? >> I opposed. A motion carries. The next one is for emergency manage management for the National Emergency Management
Advanced Academy. Is there a motion to approve? >> So moved. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Any discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Motion carries. The next one is the outofstate travel uh trainings andor
conferences for the 911 grant funding. And that was the one where we wanted to approve but have uh the someone come back to the board if that amount exceeded 15% of the grant. So that's the motion. Can I I get I guess I'm not supposed to make the motion. I think it
was 15% of the 911 >> brand. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I'll make that motion. >> Second. >> Any further discussion? All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. Motion carries. And
the next one was the Safecom grant for out of state travel. Um move to approve. >> Second. >> Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I.
>> I. Opposed. Motion carries. And the last one was out of state training for treatment court coordinator. >> I'll move that forward. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Any discussion?
All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. Okay. The next item on the agenda was an added item from Jess uh regarding the roundabout at uh Bench Street and
Pioneer Road. >> Morning commissioners. As the board chair stated, uh we added an item really late in the process here. So, thank you to administration for helping with that. We were contacted by
Mindat um in the afternoon on Friday um to discuss a solicitation application that we had submitted for a HSIP grant, which is a highway safety improvement grant. uh
Goody County has applied for these types of grants annually for several years and have been awarded uh quite a few dollars for different projects that were identified in our county road safety plans over the years. Uh the the
specific uh application that I'm talking about today had to do with uh the roundabout project that is planned at County Road 66 and and Cass. So Ben Street and Pioneer Road here in Redwing. Uh the the project was planned
for fiscal year 2027 um and also included concrete paving from County Road 53 up to the roundabout or where the roundabout would be. Grant applications require that projects uh are identified in a county road
safety plan or have uh been developed specifically to address a known safety issue. That intersection was part of uh a four intersection study that we did uh to address safety. So it qualified to
apply for HZIP dollars. Um the product of the analysis identified that as a candidate for a roundabout. When we made the application uh the the maximum allowable funding for
the project was $750,000. the estimated cost for the roundabout exceeded that. So, it was uh appropriate for us to apply for the maximum funding available. There's a 10% match uh for the county. Uh that's true for all HSIP
grants that we've ever received. Uh when Mindot reached out Friday, they were looking for a quick turnaround. They'd like to know uh how we want to proceed by tomorrow morning. So, I need to get back to them. So, timing was a little little crunched, but we're able
to pull it off here. Uh, so the the what we had applied for uh was fiscal year 2027 since that's when we had the project planned for. Unfortunately, Mindot didn't have um much money
available to offer us for that construction year. So, the the amount ends up being just under $54,000. Um, conversely, uh, they can fit this program or this project into their program in fiscal year 2030 at the full
requested $750,000. So, so getting back to them will require us to make the decision on or the board to make the decision on whether you want to proceed with accepting just under
$54,000 in 2027 or the full 750 in 2030 or resend the application and and proceed as we have planned all along. So staff's recommending that the board highly consider um accepting the full
750 in fiscal year 2030. And while appropriately change the 5-year construction program to reflect that, we'll we'll continue to do the paving in in fiscal year 2027, we'll just stop the limits of that paving at an appropriate
location because we are mostly completed with the design at this point. We're working out some things with right ofway and and um the city of Redwing, but we'll be able to kind of work on that over a longer period of time now. So,
>> are there any questions? Go ahead, Linda. >> So, in waiting till 2030, I'm going to assume $750,000 won't be the same as $750,000
now. Does that mean so do we believe we could still get it done >> at $750,000 or is are they just committing to the project? >> They're committing those funds to the project for 2030.
>> The project itself is going to cost in excess of that. >> Oh, okay. Got it. Thank you. Well, I I think the percent the county would be paying should we do it in 2027 would be whatever we'd be paying plus
the 750,000. And if we wait until 2030, we get that $750,000 basically discount for county taxpayers. And it won't be worth as much in 2030 as
it is today, but it'll be worth a whole lot more than um you know the savings will be very very significant. >> Yes. So if you uh if you if you pan it in the light of we had to hire a consultant to do the roundabout design,
the money that we're receiving in HIPP funding will more than offset the cost of that consultant plus right of way plus >> additional things. >> It's a big deal. It is. >> Yeah, I understand that. And other than the delay in time, is there any downside
to it? >> I I do not see one, which is why I'm recommending pushing the project off until 2030. right now. I mean, we've seen since we in we made uh a couple changes at that intersection, we uh
installed a a dynamic speed sign just to the south of that intersection, and I've seen a reduction in uh accidents. Uh maybe not total number of accidents, but the severity of them because it seems as if traffic has been slowing down more. >> Thank you.
>> Yep. I'll make a motion that we authorize staff to accept Mindot's proposal for the funding of this project in 2030 at $750,000. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second it.
>> Any further discussion? Uh hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. Motion carries. >> Thank you. >> Only when we can get it. >> That's what I think. Um, next is a for your information with the staffing
report and the project status report. Um, I just want to comment that I really appreciated the graph that was in the back of the staffing report because it was it helped to kind of understand what was going on. I always think it would be
helpful to know um, you know, the the total number of full-time people, part-time people, seasonal people, and the number of openings. So, if there's any way to add that to the report, that would be helpful to me. Yeah. Any other comments on the for your information.
Okay. Any new or old business committee reports? >> Touch on the >> Sure. Well, we Todd and I have spent a lot of time together lately and it's because there's been a number of LEC meetings and a number of data center
meetings and uh the LEC is at a spot where um the um uh consultant presented three options uh for the city of Redwing to continue to be in that building. and one involved
no garage, one involved a smaller garage, and one involved a full-size garage. And the city of Redwing needs to look at that and compare it to the costs of a new building and make their decision. Um, I can't remember what the
rent was per square foot, but there it was reasonable and there wasn't really a lot of discussion or push back on that issue. >> We're creeping up to $31. >> Yeah. >> Per square foot. and that's where um Vaughn had actually gone and looked at
um commercial property especially here in Redwing. So >> um I know it's a shock for them and yes, but it it it's a change and it's what we have to do. Um I guess my input on it is if we really don't need to do anything. >> I mean we shouldn't be putting any money
into the additions, >> right? >> You know, but we do have maintenance on our building. We all know that we've gone through that capital plan. So there is some money that's going to be um you know put into it moving a few walls and stuff but uh very very minimal. >> Yeah.
>> I mean well $2,000 $2 million >> $2 million. >> It's not minimal, but it's >> you know part of that is is our maintenance a 22y old 23 year old building >> and um I can't remember and Stacy I don't know if you do. Do you remember
what the total rent was per month? it it's all right, but it we would recoup that money is well I mean there'd be a lot to figure out, but they just have to decide. And uh I I think probably the best news out of all of that is really the city and the county
have been very cordial with each other at the last several meetings and uh it's ended up being helpful in terms of kind of growing a connection. >> It's very good to hear. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, I think that part's good. Um, and do you want to say the data center stuff first or do you want
>> Um, it's just there's we're right in the negotiations right now. We have a meeting today on it besides um they are looking at for some uh tax abatements and uh you know I understand these big companies they they have this option they're going to come in and try to get
whatever they can. We have roads to consider. we have um you know our tax base and you know do we is there a fear that they could go elsewhere and we don't get anything. Yeah, there's a small concern there we have to watch out for. But um you know we uh there's
substantial money >> in the tax base from this project. I mean, it's a it's a billion dollar, you know, by the time it's all set out out eight years in the construction. We're looking at uh you know, 28 years of uh
abatement options and then once that 28 years is done, then we will get the full tax base. But I'm doubting doubting any of us will still be commissioners here at that point. Um so so uh we're we're having another meeting today and it's kind of proposal
counter proposal. Both uh Todd and I went down to the meeting in Austin that uh presented about uh uh data centers and that was helpful. Um and uh I believe where it stands Todd is we're going to hopefully do a cow to the
entire board so you understand the options. This would be the second biggest taxpayer in the county. Um, so it is a pretty big deal. Yeah. >> Would that be even with the abatements? >> Um, yes. >> Okay.
>> Yes. >> They're not going to come close to NSP or >> No, no, no, no, no, no. I mean, it's a distant second. Yeah. Yeah. But it's been an interesting process, I would say. >> I think we just need another XL.
>> That would be better yet. Um, any other committee reports? Okay, last on the agenda is claims. >> There motion >> pay the bills. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Any discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I.
>> I. Opposed. Motion carries. Uh, motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All in favor? I opposed. We're adjourned.