Okay, so the board of directors called this work session to order. First of all, I want to thank the cities for coming to meet with us this morning and express your concern. I have to read this script to to the rules of the full board of
directors. So, thanks for coming. And this is an opportunity for the full board to discuss and hear from the cities regarding the law enforcement contracts. There will be no discussion on other items at this work session. To ensure there's appropriate
opportunity for all the cities and the full board to talk specifically about law enforcement contracts. Anyone who would like to address the full board uh will follow the following rules. Must stand at at the podium to speak. Yes. >> Stand at the podium. >> to sit right there.
State your name and where you live and who you represent. State your comments regarding the city law enforcement contract. Each person that wishes to make a comment will have up to 3 minutes to do so. After 3 minutes uh your time will be up. After 3 minutes,
the chairman will call for the next person to comment. Each city will be asked to comment first. After each city has an opportunity, there will be a call for a second opportunities for the cities to come up and speak twice. If time allows after the cities have
finished, any other person who wishes to comment to the full board about law enforcement contracts will have an opportunity. Following the same rules. Up to 3 minutes. And um when your time is up uh
the timer will sound. Okay. No action will be taken at this work session. There will be no poll or straw poll votes. Discussion will start with a review of the current [clears throat] timeline regarding the city law enforcement
contract. Do I read this review or this timeline? So, in 2016, the county board timeline June 2nd, the county board reviewed contract options at board meeting. Or we we we've reviewed that. Public
Safety Committee met with the cities to present options for contracts on June the 3rd. June 16th, the county board work session regarding city law enforcement contracts. July 7th, county board meeting
gaining consensus on direction to move forward. And then uh August uh 4th, the board meeting uh meeting formal direction so a preliminary budget can be set. And in September, county board sets the preliminary budget.
Thanks. So, what do we want to do next here, Susan? We're asking cities to one at a time, you can come up and give us your thoughts on your law enforcement contract. So, who wants to start?
You guys going to draw straws? Is that the plan? Uh Jeff Foltz, City of Owatonna City Administrator. I just got this last night about our meeting. It's 3:07. So, I have a couple of questions. Uh looks like you This came from the county.
And if that's correct. You have a couple questions. Yeah. Um And then Well, we I missed last meeting with Floyd. That's all I know about health. Um
So, it's like it was pretty much a lot like the first discussion with cities are are uh all Um question of the future
of what we're paying to the county. And right now, the city of Blue Earth Lakes tax levy is just under 25% of our yearly budget. That's what it looks like. And um there comes a point in time where
I have to recognize the dollars and what's going on in the city and other priorities the city has for funds. And I think we need law enforcement, but I
think there got to be a happy medium. And you know, we have uh putting the whole budget on the the county. And getting rid of the law enforcement contracts.
Has there been any numbers run on the what impact that would have on the tax payers? >> But we're not We're not going to start talking about numbers until July. Right now, I'm well, focusing on the policy of what the right policy to do is. I know
numbers will play a large role in it, but yeah, we haven't released any of those yet. >> Okay. Um the city is again, let them talk for themselves what their consensus is. They'll look at the hours of work
contract and maybe we can cut those hours. We want law enforcement. We aren't here to say we're going to jump we're not going to do anything. We need we need law enforcement. But we've got to be at a happy medium
established. And what I mean by that is our costs got to go down if we have to cut hours. You know, a couple hours a day, you're talking 50% cut. You're only you're talking you know,
two hours, three hours a day. Um I've give credit to the sheriff. She is she's made some changes that we requested for to help us with. And she's she's doing that.
And we couldn't get it anywhere with that request from your previous sheriff. And I appreciate that, Jim. And the city does. Um It's tough. It's tough. You know, the
I'm sitting on the chair with the city like you're sitting up here watching your budget. And it it's tough for me to spend 25% of your levy for law enforcement. And um you know, we have
other priorities right now that we're looking at. I'm not saying law enforcement shouldn't be a priority, but the presence is sometimes questionable in our lives in the city and
uh visibility uh They they They have very very visible publicly. Aren't they? They're public who bans. They don't talk to people. They don't walk up and down Main Street.
Campground is a is a big deal. The presence of the campground isn't what it used to be. Uh weekends we'd like to go rallying. Slowly around the campground in the past because Monday there was an officer out
there and he just sped right through it and we have a speed limit of 10 miles an hour in the neighborhood going way over that. And nobody showed up this weekend. Uh I was told that the park people never saw a law enforcement officer all weekend.
And that that's really one of our priorities in the in the summertime. Campground is full. There's 300 400 people up there. And we're lucky we haven't had many issues the last few years.
We've had somebody just drove right through the lot and you know day and night talk to people. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Uh I'm going to put I'm going to put Yeah, but but but just to be clear though the city they can come back up here.
>> Yep. Yep. And we'll just I was thinking maybe 6 minutes the first round. >> Yeah. Yeah. So we we watch you come back up here. But we'll let the other townsfolk for a little bit. I've got a couple of other things though. Yeah, that's fine. Another thing for the
uh for the commissioners here. We want to speak up because in the back room, it's hard to hear us. It's No, we just want to speak up a little louder. Who does uh Rita, do you want to come up? Barrett, do you want to come up? >> I'm Rita Rudy and the city clerk for
Barrett and I live in Auburn. I guess the main point for us is that our cities are paying county taxes to you for sheriff's contracts. They're paying taxes to us for law enforcement contracts. The law enforcement contracts are not
providing for our needs. Um the main reason these law enforcement contracts, my understanding, was ordinance enforcement and patrol hours. We aren't getting ordinance enforcement. I mean, they'll respond to come out, but there's no enforcement. There are no
tickets being written. There are no follow-up to, you know, the issues. The other is the patrol hours. I figured out the first 4 months of this year, 60% We get 2 hours a day. 60% of those hours were between midnight
and 6:00 a.m. So, we want presence in town and I'm getting a lot of complaints from residents. We don't have presence during daytime hours. Um these law enforcement contracts over time I don't even know how many years. I've been there 28 years. We've been
contracting all this time. The needs of law enforcement have changed. So, I understand the sheriff's department their needs 28 years ago and what they are today are different. They don't have the staff to provide the daytime hours we want. Um
There's changes, but it's not fair to my residents in Barrett to be paying county taxes and then came city taxes for basically the same service. The rural people right now are getting the exact same service that we're getting in Barrett. We're not getting any extra
special service, I don't believe. I mean, we're paying $42,000, over $42,000 a year for this special extra coverage that I don't feel we're getting. And we as a city also have a lot of other needs. That's a huge percent of our levy, also.
And so, why should I or my residents pay extra money for not an extra service? And again, I'm not blaming the sheriff's department. I know their needs have changed, and I think that's what you as commissioners need to look at. What has changed? What What, you know,
how were these contracts designed how many years ago? How does that fit today's needs? Um So, I I think it's time for the county to consider not having special contracts with cities and spread it out over the whole tax base. I I know we're not
talking numbers. I don't think the numbers will be that significant of an increase. Um for city people, it's probably going to be less. I mean, obviously, the rural people will probably pick up a little bit more, but unless the contracts change that there
is equal coverage for us, I the contracts don't benefit us. They're just right now they're not benefiting us. Um I I don't see daytime presence in our town. That's what people want. They want daytime presence. Uh I understand Jen,
you know, night patrol is good. I mean, you can't patrol consistently at all the same things, but you have to have some presence. These kids in town need to see a law enforcement officer. Um we just don't see that. I mean, I I sit at the corner of the school. We used to get
morning presence or afternoon presence when kids school was out, and I could tell when a cop was in town because just listening to the traffic, you hear the difference. I haven't seen any of that. I don't think I've seen it once this past year. So, something needs to change and unfortunately that's in your hands to
decide, but that's how we in Barrett feel. So. >> Good. >> Um see what happens in Jessup. Um mine will be pretty short and simple. So, Hopedale came into this um I don't say we were surprised, but um we
were happy with our law enforcement contract. We felt we were getting what we needed and um we were able to pay that. We were a little bit larger than some of the other communities that were being charged the same amount. So, we came in um pretty
pretty happy with um what we were getting. However, um after learning more at the meetings, um I guess we we can understand why it's why it's might be a struggle for some of the other communities.
And we feel that if you take, you know, if you take a couple of those communities off, then all of a sudden the contracts don't make sense. Um these were put in place, I believe, when we had communities that had town cops and we had communities that did not
have any law enforcement in their town. And so, it seems to me like once we've all now migrated to having Grant County Sheriff's Office as our law enforcement, then it only makes sense to kind of look at the contract situation and see where we can um change things up. Uh we talked
about it at our meeting and I think we feel like I guess Scott and Anderson and I talked about it and I think we feel like um moving to the county um levy portion that option A on that is probably where
things would be best. Um, I guess we didn't really I didn't really notice that we were being taxed twice, but absolutely right. We are being the set the residents in town are being taxed twice for um, the service. And maybe they're getting a little bit more in town, maybe they're not that service, but um,
I guess that's where Hoffman sits is we recognize that there's other communities in this county that we have to kind of rely on to have these contracts and if they're not there or they're going to step away from that, we've got to make a change. So, that's all I have. >> You know, the city of Ashby, they're not
on here, are they? Are they on now? >> Yeah, I'm here. >> Hey Mike, do you want to give us uh, your thought? >> Sure. Um, thought Scott was going to be here, so he can list, but anyway, he had another thing going on. So, I agree with uh, Hoffman there as far as
the overall thought on everything. Um, see, we're we've been happy with contract, too. Um, Scott had mentioned that he the mayor Mayor Wilsing thought that increasing the levy would be probably the most fair way to do it and keep it across even across the board. Um,
my view on it is um, the contract with the cities makes sense if ordinance enforcement is provided with that because I think with the city you got a bigger population base, you should have more coverage there. So, I personally don't have an issue with it. Um, going up, everything goes up, I
get that. Um, but as long as it's ordinance enforcement is done, then I think it makes sense in my mind to have a contract. Um, and it's gotten pretty good, I think. I've had numerous people saying, "Hey, what happened with this?" It's I don't know. I didn't handle it at
all. Law enforcement took care of it, so that's kind of my viewpoint on it. And then like I said, the Skowhegan area wants to kind of whatever the shortfall is, he figures that actually he thinks it should all be distributed evenly amongst everybody for all of the county.
So, that's kind of where we're at. >> Thank you, Mike. >> Yep. >> Is there any other >> town here >> that we haven't Wendall Wendall not here. >> Okay. >> Herman's coming. >> I know. >> What's that? >> Herman's coming. >> Who is that one here?
>> Herman's coming. >> Oh, they are. Okay. So, Jeff, you want to come up here again for a little bit? City of Waterville? You want to go up there, do you say? >> I don't >> [clears throat] >> City of Waterville.
>> I don't I'll go back, but >> The greatest actual one I appreciate you guys meeting. Um Yeah, it'd be good to get some numbers on you know if the county took it all
but I'm trying to think of a way that the county wouldn't have to cut any positions, but still make this work. The only way thing that I can come up and think about where it could work
is uh lower the cost to the cities equally and then put the difference county. So, say
this 342,000 that's the total of all the city contracts that we're paying right now. Is that correct? >> Yeah, right in there. That's what I'm thinking about. Yeah. >> Okay. Well, I'm just hypothetically
say cut everybody 50%. We'll say 50%. And the county take 50%. And run the numbers on that. Run the numbers on the three 342,000.
Also, the numbers of weekends there. See what the impact of the and readers write. You know, I've heard that comment a lot. That uh the city people uh are being taxed on the count by the
county through their taxes, plus they're getting uh the tax of the city law enforcement also. And that's a legitimate point. And
visibility is I hear that a lot. Well, we never see them driving home at night. Well, they will be. Law enforcement should should get to
know all of the city and get to know all some of the people in there. You know, what the heck is it? Get out of your car and go to somebody down the block. Go up and down Main Street and go into business stores. Introduce yourself. And maybe maybe they aren't trained that way anymore. Maybe maybe uh
maybe they're not supposed to do that. I don't know. And with the society we live in today, maybe maybe they aren't supposed to do that. You know, small cities I think are different than larger cities. But in that way
um it's just visibility is is one of the main things I hear. They're all three they'll be able to work this out. Split the piece of the pie. And
they have everybody's under the table and agree with But I don't think anybody's going to agree to the dollar amounts you're paying right now. And I don't think all the cities want not everyone personal protection.
You know, we're going to have still have law enforcement protection to a certain extent, but that's the cost of the dollars of the economy. But it's it's uh the little things that really shouldn't be They're in the big things. The requests
that that the cities are making you know, aren't that that huge. You know, and you know, we got a process and Genesis is helping with that process for on subject premises, which is really
helpful. You know, what if their officers drive around? Covering all the streets once a week between the two of them. And they can see just right down the addresses. And that's what Genesis trying to
accomplish right now. And I seen some success in it. Because when people have issues, they call
the office. They don't call you. They said if you if you see a problem, call the enforcement bureau and they're really burners. They heard people do eight years. And I think they're intimidated by doing it.
You know, they don't call me. I don't And me is going to be the person to talk to in another couple weeks. We have fired somebody that had been disciplined or wanted you to learn to serve them a beer or
for months. But they might believe that person is going to be the administrator to small. She is She will be well informed on what they have here in the city.
And but she's going to have to because I sit my chair. They can go there first. And she's going to do a good job. After we have hired very smart. She's going to run all of this. She's going to be in charge of
people. Very well educated. She's a CPA. Milton and she's good with dealing with people small. It's just this. The complaints aren't just about
dollars. It's visibility is a big big thing. And being being involved or taking on these people, community That's That's making us small small
communities. And we are large city. We are you know a town of 3,000 people. This culture is different here. And And everybody has to recognize culture.
And I think it can happen. But it's got to be given to and safe by both parties make this work.
So >> [cough] >> That's [clears throat] all all I have to say. >> Thank you, Jeff. Do any of the other cities want to come back up? Jeff? >> Well, I think I'm probably going to reiterate what you've already heard, but
I think you need to hear another time. Like we Jeff had mentioned, it's a significant part of our budget, okay? And we realize that that's important for us to be be safe. But I don't think it's just, you know, we can't look just at our city. It's
kind of like it is a county issue, and I think it really is something that needs to be spread across the county. Because when our cities are safe, secure, when things are taken care of like ordinances such as like nuisance properties and things, that sometimes more than likely will
eliminate some of the other bigger issues that could come up. If our cities don't are not looked If they don't look safe, that reduces the people that want to say, "I You know what? I'd like to live in this community." And so that like I said, I think that just helps our entire county. We're too
small to say that that we can't that that we shouldn't work together. And the cost of it, that should be shared because all of us benefit in the entire county. When Jeff said, you know, presence is very important. And
I also understand that probably some things happen nefarious things happen when it's under the cloak of darkness, right? But and people don't see if our law enforcement is driving around. But that's what that is a physical thing they do need to see and the presence
um The other thing with with Elbow Lake and we've had this discussion and we hear that we're not just because it's you have the hospital. You have to cover those hours and I'm not sure exactly how that's always covered, but if that cost comes back to us the Elbow Lake, you
know, we're not going to divide that and Jenna has said that you can't divide like when someone comes in and they're from the Hoffman area, then Hoffman will be charged for that law enforcement present that needs to be there. And we have people that come in that are not from the county that we still respond to. So I think when you think about
that, I don't know that if that Elbow Lake should be necessarily penalized because we have that that um the hospital here and they extra hours of that base. The other thing is I think there's a lot of there's agency assists and I'm not sure, Jenna, where those
agency assists go to. You know, like when um you know, that's an agency assist in in the city. Again, that's a county service that is going to somebody in the county and again, that's county
county uh law enforcement working with county departments and why that should just become a city responsibility for that. So I think what I guess I'm saying two things is that I see this is a county issue cuz we're too small. We're only a county of 6,000.
That's that's a small city in most parts of Minnesota. And so I think if we can share that, that cost should be shared. And I don't think and as we're recognizing, you know, city city residents are paying for law enforcement for the city and they're also paying for
the county and it's like that's I don't know if that that's fair. Uh we appreciate the service definitely that law enforcement does, but we need presence and I think that it needs to be something that's shared across the county, all taxpayers cuz we're all taxpayers.
So, thank you. I know you have a difficult decision ahead. But uh thank you for this time. >> Anybody else from the cities want to say anything more? If they're doing it do we have anybody from the public that wants to speak?
Do any of you want to speak? >> I'd love to. Uh Boone Carlson, I live in Wendell or Norcross Minnesota the municipal taxpayers of Grant County. Um I think some of that fixes a problem
that occurred over by here and of course I was pretty young when all this happened, but uh some of you mentioned earlier all the a lot of the towns had city police officers and then they, you know, the time was
harder to staff those police officers, right? So came up with that idea like, "Hey, we're going to pass some of the county." So one of the things I'd like us to look at is how many of those positions was each one of those towns replaced
as a deputy in their office. And if it was, I'd like us to look back and say, "Do we need that level of service today?" Because it's already been mentioned that we've got a declining population.
Going forward, um you know, so Herman, Hoffman, Barrett, Wendell one time, Elbow Lake had police. Have all those positions not replaced at the county level. I think we really need to look back and say, "Do we need to have all those
positions replaced today?" With the population decline in this town. Um Having issues come up like this are good cuz it challenges us to make hard decisions. We do need a level of law enforcement in the county.
But what level do we need? And I think we really need to look at that going forward, how much we're going to spending on having deputies in this county. And challenging them and challenging us to decide
what role they're going to play in the county. The cities have been paying for service because of the time. It was the way to get out of having to employ a city police officer or two. They would have to employ two no matter what cuz somebody's going on vacation or
night day shift. We need to We need to break that down and analyze it. We cannot keep an open checkbook for the Grant County Sheriff's Department in this county any longer. The taxpayers are frustrated.
They're really good at handing out DWIs and speeding tickets. That's what the public perception is. We need to cut it down and cut expenses at that level. The towns spending this money for this
level service has been fantastic. Now, if you ask the town if they would rather fund their fire department or their first responders or the ambulance service, I'd like to hear their answer on that.
Taking that money and giving it to that area instead of a Grant County Sheriff's Office. So, going forward with this challenge coming up with the city contracts, I challenge the commissioners to do due diligence for the rest of the county
and examine exactly what level service we need in this county. And the fire departments are important, first responders are are important. Ambulance service is important as we all know. And we need a level of a sheriff's office doing their job, too.
But, how many people does it take to do that job? And we need to be spending the money that we're spending on overtime at the Grant County Sheriff's Office. What's the county getting What are the residents getting back getting return for that? For all the overtime we're
paying? Let's look at this. Let's break it down. This fits an issue in this county that's been sticking with us for too long. I yield my time. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anybody else want to get up and speak?
>> Quick. >> I'll go quick. I don't have that much to add, but What it really comes down to is I've been on a lot [clears throat] of boards in my life, too, so I know what budgeting is all about. And you make a budget, we make a budget. And right now, you know,
the 25% of our levy is more than what we want to spend. You know what I mean? We We just put it in. Now, are we getting a good deal compared to hiring our own policeman? Absolutely. I mean, we mentioned it the last time we were here.
It is a good deal, you know, but just because it's a good deal doesn't mean we eliminate either. You know, it's like buying a car. I can go in there and they give me a hell of a deal on a car, and they are. They're probably giving me a hell of a deal. My budget says no, I can't do that.
You know, and I might have to go to another vehicle with a little bit less, you know, good stuff, you know, and it's the same thing. Okay. Right now, if we continue the way we are, Eagle Lake's only option to save
money is to cut back hours. You know, and we're willing to do that at this point. We don't want to, but, you know, we will. And if we do that, that's going to affect your budget again, too. You know what I mean?
And I think at the one of the first meetings, Troy, I think Herman brought this up about we don't want to sign a 3-year contract. We would just as soon go year by year. Cuz what if, you know, what if we decide
to cut back, you know, to the 5 hours, and maybe Eagle Lake's got eight. You know, and then we find out, you know, maybe we needed those eight. You know, we don't want to just be stuck with that for 3 years. I just have for you guys to think about when you guys are
trying to figure out what we're going to do here. And uh And I'm finding out more from her on ordinances, too. And that just kind of depressed me almost, cuz you were just saying to correct me if I'm wrong. You know, on the uh
nuisance properties, you know, she can go to them, she can write letters and everything, but nothing ever gets done. And it goes back to the city that decided what we're going to do anyway. You know what I mean? And then you just have to say that and it goes to the
board. It costs us money, compared to the money you I mean the I hate to say this, but the gold guy we had a hell of a time trying to get him down and cost us cost us money and everything. You know, so when it comes right down to it, how much are you able to do with ordinances
anyway? You know? So, I don't know. We talked about getting somebody else just to do that, too, but we're trying to figure out a cut is what I'm trying to say. Just like you guys try to cut near things, so I mean
Jen does a good job. I mean, I'll tell you right now, I think right now, just by talking to Jen, it's the best chair we've had for this issue. Since we signed up. And a lot of these complaints that we have needs to go to her and it is going to
her and he's listening. But you guys need to be aware of what's going on. That's all. You know, some of the issues that we've had. And then she's done a decent job so far of trying to help us out with it. So, hopefully down the road they'll get a lot better. But I do get frustrated
as I'm sure you do, with the law and what you can and can't do. I have people come up to me and, you know, and saying, "Hey, you know, that guy's got a dirty yard or he's got a mower. Just go in there and mow the damn thing and send him a bill." You know, I don't know if that's legal or not.
You know, and uh and life isn't black and white anymore. Right? So, I understand all the problems. But again, going back to us, you know, that'd be the only thing that we can do, right? at this point if nothing changes,
is to save money. And just so you know that that could happen. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Chair, I I I mean, so I don't know that it's ever been said, you know, the county's made an offer to the city. That doesn't
stop the cities from coming back with a counter offer. I realize that there's so many different entities that one can't speak for the other, but that's that's my view on it is that, you know, an offer's been made. I don't think anybody ever sitting here said we wouldn't listen to a counter
offer. It's just I get there's logistics in trying to coordinate between how many different entities to do that. >> Mr. Chair. >> Just kind of following up with what Boone said. And maybe you can remember, but I was on the city council in Hopland back when
Redwood Valley brought the city contract to us. Remember that day? And at the time it it appeared to be a huge savings. Now, what I don't know is if the cost of operating a police department
independently has risen faster than the budget of the county in total. The concern I have is if we back away from a contract that was a savings to the city
and shift the cost with no changes to the egg land, which is about 77% of the taxes. Now, that's a tax shift. And if we're going to do that, that's a
decision we got to make, or we got to do what Boone said. Because this thing has gone full circle over a number of years. And so just backing out of a city contract and shifting it to the 77% of the taxpayers,
we got to answer them, too, right, Mr. Chair? >> Exactly. >> But I don't know that number. If if each of one of our cities had continued to fund an independent police department, would the cost be higher?
>> I can I can answer that. >> Go ahead. >> I don't even have to think about it. It would be way higher. We all know that because our expenses have gone up every year um running running the sheriff's office um And I I understand cities' concerns
with uh visibility and enforcement, but those those need to be directed to the sheriff. I can I can talk to her about that. First question I'd ask her is do you have a daytime patrol deputy
that's out there during the daytime? And if you do, let's get them into these towns during the daytime and turn the lights on cuz that's what we used to do. We would We would be in that barracks school every morning, every night. Ashby.
And so so yeah, visibility's a big thing here with with the the the deputies. And uh and to uh uh with Jeff's question on can can they walk up and down Main Street? You bet they can. They can do
whatever they want. And you know, if if you're not out there communicating with the public, you're missing the boat a little bit cuz that's where your informants are. You get to know the people and then they start talking to you. Then you find out about the bigger stuff. Okay. So
but anyway, uh what Kenny said there, 77% of the property zone is it's an ag and uh when there's a shift, um then it's all directly on ag.
If if we went away from the the you know, levy for the 300, whatever thousand it is, 77% of that 360,000 would be going right on agland. So, that And then the question is, you know, we're paying twice for taxes.
Yeah, you you are. Like uh but the calls are where the people are. That's where the calls are. That's where the ordinance violations are. That's where all the calls are. So, you're getting more service. They're you know, Elbow Lake Elbow Lake by far
takes the most uh police calls in the county. Because there're more people there than there are in other people there. So. But uh so, that that's that's what my concerns are. Yeah, that the taxing twice, I've I've heard that for 40
years, and it's true. We we pay taxes twice, but we're in those towns >> [clears throat] >> where we expect more. And we need more. And uh so. And the city ordinances, yep, they they're a problem. But people get upset when there's
unsightly premises or dog poop left. So, you got to handle them. And uh but then again, the cost when it push comes to shove, when that ticket gets rolled, then the county attorney's going to prosecute them people, and that costs money. And they can delay things in court, you
know how courts go. Delay, delay, delay, delay, delay. And uh and then and then some of them don't clean it up anyway. And and you got to go back to court to do more, so you can go clean it up, which costs more money. So, I understand all of those uh
uh pro- problems and thoughts that the city has. What are the other Boone comments there? Um the there's 11 sworn officers in the County now. When I started in '86, there was two deputies and the sheriff.
But Elbow Lake had two full-time, two four two part-time. Vergas had one, Hoffman had two. Herman had two plus plus some part-timers. So, there actually body wise, there was more cops in the county in 1986 than there are now. There
was like 13 then and now they've got 11. So, it's it's uh But that's our issue there, but it's hard for people to understand it cuz I've been around for a long time and and I I know all of that, you know. So, but anyway,
>> Herman Herman's here. >> Oh, Jeff. Sorry Jeff. >> No, I apologize. I have a little >> That's all right. >> disruption in my schedule this morning. >> Well, go go ahead, Jeff. You >> Well, I know what's been said already. The people that were at the other law enforcement meetings know, you know, you
don't have to ask me for my opinion. I think you covered a lot of it. The double taxation, um the the patrol hours, the just the general raising in costs from the time we started our contract to now cuz Paul had a meeting today so he couldn't
be here, but you know, Paul and I have been on the council in Herman longer than anybody and I think these contracts started probably before we got on, but you look at what we were paying previously and now we have less population than we've ever had and we're paying, you know, a
lot of money for what we what we're getting. I think that double taxation thing, like I said, you know, if I had a house on golf course or Pond de Terre or, you know, wherever any of the lakes, um it's it is kind of a double taxation
kind of a thing. Like I've mentioned, I've lived in my house since 1997. I've called 911 one time since I lived there and that was for the lady across the street. So, I think the problematic properties, you can't lay that on the city. A lot of that is you have problematic properties
in the rural areas as well. Um we're getting a lot of feedback from our tax base in Herman that you know, doesn't like the way this is working right now. I have said I understand we are a land-based county and that's
where the property value is. And as I've said at these other meetings, you know, I've complained about you know, my taxes on my house like a lot of people have in in in Herman or Elkhart or other counties and people have basically said, "Well, if you don't like it, go find one where the
taxes are cheaper." And I kind of feel like that's when you're a land-based county, unfortunately, there is going to be a little more shift in that direction. Um and I think you can argue there are a lot of rural calls. I mean, I think
so you're going to have problems in any county. Do they happen to be within the city limits or are they in in the rural areas? I don't know, but I think based [clears throat] on what we've seen in other counties, this is not the norm for shifting things
into the into the quote-unquote metropolitan areas with a population basis. So, um I don't know what the right answer is. We've had a couple of the meetings. I don't think there was any clear-cut answer, but I think the general consensus from the city representation
has been is generally not like the way it is on at the city level. All right. That's appropriate or not, but um I don't know. I think that these continued contracts are going to be a real tough sell with the cities. I
really do. >> I can answer your question when the contract started, it started in 1991. >> Yeah, that was before my time by a long shot. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> But >> And and again, we've said that there's been no complaint to law enforcement as I think the Grand County is very is
excellent. No complaints with the service that we're getting. But, I mean, I think if all the cities just decline to sign the contracts or whatever, are we going to stop patrolling or are we going to shift that back to the to the general tax base of the county?
I think is the question. >> Uh it's a good question because uh You know, if if the if if if we don't have contracts, the the city ordinance work wouldn't get done at all. Cuz the the sheriff responsible for felonies and
gross misdemeanors. But, I will say this, that if you're the sheriff and you're sitting there and somebody calls from Bel Boulevard and saying, you know, somebody stole 1,000 bucks from me or 500,
it would be very very hard to sit there not respond to that call. Even if we didn't have a contract. But, they don't have to. >> But, that's that's my that's that has been stated on numerous occasion going back to previous sheriffs. So, what are they doing in other
counties? Are they not because there are other counties that don't have I think Stevens County doesn't have any local law enforcement now. And I from what I've gathered, they're not doing contracts other than there are a couple of communities that want some specific patrolling at specific times that
they're paying for. Are they not doing anything in I mean, other counties? I I don't either, but I just we keep hearing this that this is what our responsibility is. What are we really going to go to that level where we're not going to do any enforcement in at the at the local
level? So, if I have if I have a property in the in the rural area and something happens now, the deputies come. But, I'm not getting quote unquote double taxed for that. So, it's kind of a kind of
double standard in my [clears throat] opinion. You're saying you're not going to do anything in the towns if we don't sign these contracts and then it does get done in the towns. I know, I'm but that's what my question is. I mean, is that really going to happen or are we going to shift this over and just run the sheriff's
department like it basically is right now just with a shift in how it's being the the cost is being distributed. >> Well, the biggest problem for me is shifting that fee onto the ag land. I don't think that's right.
Because there's there's a lot less stuff going on out in the county than there is in these towns because there are people breathing in the town. There's like Lawrence Township out there, you might go out there one or two times a year on something. And you know, there's quite a lot of ag land
out there. So, but but anyway, that's that's how I see it. You know, the the towns should be responsible for their police protection. I'm more than willing to pay for mine up in Ashby there. Um I uh
I more than willing, but I I really don't think that I should be taxed for Elbow Lake's problems or Herman's or Hoffman's or Barrett's problems. Okay? It's their towns, it's their jurisdictions, their buildings are in their towns. And uh
and uh you know, that that's how I see it. And it was a cost savings to these towns when they when they originally signed these contracts. And I'd be willing to bet I don't know what Herman's uh
contract is specifically now. It's like 40-some thousand, isn't it? Am I Okay. So, in 1991 with Marvin Riley there buying squad cars and all this and that, you think you think that levy was about 40,000, maybe?
>> I I I that's another argument I dispute a little bit. Yeah, it's obviously costing us a lot less to do it than it but we're getting 2 hours of service a day. I mean when we're paying full-timer or when Ashley was paying full-timer or whatever, you're obviously paying less
but you're obviously getting less. So, I guess the other question, you know, when we've done these other projects in the county, has anybody calculated I understand the shift over to farmland also but what is the actual per acre shift going to be? I've been on the fire department for 33
years in Herman and there are a lot of farmers that are on on the fire department with me who have said when we do fire department levies it's like, you know what? If it's got to raise, it's got to raise. I mean, what's the actual cost per acre going to be? It's it's very nominal. Obviously, our fire
contracts are a fraction of what this is is going to be for a cost for the year but I think that's another valid question. I mean, we don't want to shift it over. Well, show me a number. I mean, what is the cost per acre? You know, like you said, I can get that but my house is valued at I think $300,000 or something
like that. Um but that's the way things are supposed to work. I mean, if I had a quarter of farmland that was worth a million and a half dollars, I understand that I'm going to be disproportionately taxed for that also. So, I think, you know,
there's a lot of arguments to go the other way on this, you know, and I think when Doyle and Troy and both of us that have met, I think that you guys I think understand that there's some resistance meaning Doyle and Troy.
Um I don't know what I missed here but uh you know, when I was in my absence but like I said, this is a tough sell. I mean, these small towns I understand the county's small towns are small but you know, when you got 400 people, that's like you said, that's a lot of
shift to those 400 people versus if you take it school district by school district adding a little more to the to the production ag land. I I don't know. I mean I don't [clears throat] I don't know how you do it in a in a county where the the
the valuation is 80% in in ag land. They're going to shoulder more of the load. That's unfortunately the way it is in some cases. And we have a couple of city council members in Herman that also own farmland and I don't know that that swayed their
opinion a whole lot. Who do you want to talk? >> Yeah. Lou Carlson, Nora Cross. Um >> Lou Carlson, Nora Cross. >> I think the county has been given going forward has been given a very good opportunity here
to address an issue here that has been a plaguing issue within the county and county taxpayers. The cities want to continue to get some service. The service is costing too much money. I think we can really look at a situation.
We have 11 deputies. And if we're really looking at a situation here, we can cut that down to eight to nine. The cities can still keep their service. I don't think the county taxpayers are going to suffer at all.
Um and everybody can keep rolling ahead. But I think in government we always have a hard time cutting. We always want to go to tax. And I understand that. But lots of times you don't get given an
opportunity like this for the city to start or it's going to go up to so much money that it's going to cost everybody way too much money. Furthermore, this is the I've been talking about this for 10 years before we built all this stuff around here.
Our school it's got a school referendum coming up here, too. And I know as a taxpayer, property taxpayer, I want to be able to fund my school, too. As long as we keep funding all these other things all the time, it makes it harder
for the taxpayers to flip the bill for all these things. And sometimes the county does decide that it's not their responsibility for the school. But the responsibility is to all the taxpayers that pay the taxes. So let's buckle down,
make some hard decisions, cut staff, save taxpayers some money, take some burden off the towns. Thank you. >> Okay. Then we got 4 minutes. Uh Good night. Who do we have from our auditor?
Can you must have reached out to I did. If they don't pick somebody right Can somebody read that? Or what do we got here? And I'm talking uh that would probably raise the uh tax rate to $13 per acre.
Using the value of $7,500 per acre for ag land, non-homestead tax. Uh non-homestead, yeah, would be 26, so uh could be anywhere from $13 for someone with the ag land to $26
an acre. But, I can guarantee you the most most ag owners are going to be in here hollering and wanting some of that. >> Dwight, that's not correct. >> That's what? >> That's not the if you got to if the difference the difference >> You want to add You want to address that, Chad?
>> Lay it out there for me. >> Hold on a minute. Yeah, Ken Ken reached out to me this morning, and we're in the middle of proof and ballots and payroll, so I Just give me a second. Um
So, the current county tax rate from 2026 is 33.367%. Adding $350,000 to the current 2026 levy would change that rate to 34.99%. What this means is uh using a value of
$7,500 per acre, which I just threw a number there. Um that was I believe last night at our equalization meeting, Carl kind of said that's an average. Um for ag land 2026
tax, if you are homestead or in the first tier, which means you get the 0.5 rate your tax is approximately $12.63. If we added $350,000 to the 2026 tax levy, that to $12.63
would have increased to $13.13. Um you guys do the math on that. It's about 50 cents an acre. Using a $7,500 value um on ag land and if you were non-homestead or over that first tier,
meaning you had more than 3 million whatever that tier is dollars of ag land, you'd move to 1%. Uh it's $25.26 per acre approximately. And if we added the uh $350,000 to the
levy, that would increase to $26.24. So, a little under a buck an acre. If you have a $300,000 home, your 2026 tax is approximately $1,010.22.
Um if $350,000 was added to the uh increase or 300 $350,000 was added to the levy, um in '26, that would have went up to $1,049.81. So, about a uh roughly a $40 increase
on your county tax. Again, I got asked this 2 minutes or 5 minutes before your work session. It's quick estimates. I was in the middle of other stuff. Um like I said, these are estimates. Don't hold me to the exact numbers,
please. >> Thank you for your response, Chad. I apologize for asking you so late. But, thank you. Okay. Well, it's 9:00. So, we're going to close this session, but I want to thank you all for coming today. And uh we'll be uh
discussing this again and uh we'll see how it all goes. But, thanks for coming today, man. All the time. Okay. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting if you'd like to make that motion. of America and to the republic
for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, we have a public comment. Sounds good. Anybody from the public want to make any comments today? Okay, hearing none. Uh,
we'll call for the approval of the agenda. We have We have uh We have one addition. We have one addition. What What were they again? >> It's from um the county auditor. It is the resolution for mail ballot
So, the resolution authorizes the county auditor to to appoint absentee mail ballot board members for elections. >> Okay. Okay, with with that addition, I'm asking for approval of the agenda. Calling for it. >> So it.
>> So, I made a motion to approve the agenda agenda. Do we have a second? >> I'll second it. >> Okay, Doyle. >> Doyle seconded it. >> Any further discussion? Hearing none. Uh, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed, same sign.
The motion carried. Approval of the meeting minutes. >> Okay. >> The green half minutes attached to the word packet. I go right into the Sheriff's Office budget. I don't I don't see them in the minutes either. >> All right. Guys, come on.
I'm going to read them? >> Go over next door and make copies. They're in front of us. We got to see them. >> Yes, we can. I can't you know, I'm giving my laptop is black. I'm on black. I'm on Saturday. So.
>> It's not not the fact at all. Okay. >> I said they're not in the packet because when I look on my phone I see them. >> Is this like very Did you see them very first or what page? Were Were they on the original packet? Okay.
>> email I did I had computer issues before I sent it cuz it was such a large packet that maybe >> I have a >> In the swimming pool to see you then. That's okay. Just a little hiccup. Maybe 10.
>> Next time let me know before the meeting. >> I will be honest with you. I didn't get a chance to look at any of this till this morning. >> I did but I I thought maybe >> You were here to put a hard copy here. >> That's why I didn't question. I just And then when I just seen the letters
>> Okay. >> Thank you. It would have been something I need. >> Like to motion to approve the minutes. >> If any makes a motion to approve the minutes, do we have a second? Second. Bill Bill made the second. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All same sign. >> Motion carries. Approval of the warrant. >> Five. >> Who did it? >> Right. >> Any questions on the warrant? Who'll make the motion, Lou? >> Second to the severance.
>> Bill makes the motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Troy second. Uh any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed?
I'm saying motion carries. Public Safety Committee, Sheriff Troy. >> So, we were 18 1 almost $82,000 over spent on overtime. There's other additional over expenditures in the This is in the
Sheriff's office. And a lot of those you've seen in the packet were broken down and some of it got moved out of the There was communication stuff in the operations budget that I believe got has
gotten moved out since. The one that is concerning to me is that overtime, that 81 almost $82,000 overtime overage. So, in '25, we were
full staffed except for 3 months. We were down a deputy for 3 months. In '24, we were down two deputies for 6 months, totaling a whole year's worth for one deputy, right? We spent $123,000
from budgeted 79 in 24. So, we actually spend more being full staff. I don't It doesn't but to me why that is. So, I broke it down by hours just this is just for 25.
We have two deputies on for two shifts, 12 hours is 48 hours a day, right? 17,520 hours a year. We have nine non-admin deputies at 2,223 hours
per year, 20,000 hours, 20,007 hours. If we figure those nine deputies, we need 300 hours of coverage for vacation, sick, all the other things. So, that when they're figuring out for overtime
coverage needs, they use 240, I use 300. That's $2,700 a year. But, we got 3,000 hours of deputy overtime. So, we still have a full-time
over 2,000 hours of additional overtime beyond those coverages. That's the concerning part to me, folks. We really don't have 11 officers, we're running at 12. >> This means our deputies are working really hard.
Really hard. And these are overtime hours that they are they're away from their family. And we already work 2,223 hours compared to a 2080 employees. >> I mean, maybe we should start there or
maybe he's not aware that law enforcement is before any overtime, they're working 2,223 hours. So, it's not the 2080 you [clears throat] get overtime after Dwight probably do that at our church. Yeah.
>> So, what I've done is I've I've went back and I've made a spreadsheet of everybody with overtime and what it is. Whether it's covering vacation and sick time, um holidays, you know, that's something that is completely out of the the
sheriff's rules. That's just something with the union contract. You guys have a union. Um >> And on that whole gentleman today, that's something I brought up at the public safety and at the budget committee and Vic, we're in the board
agrees to things for the union, that should maybe be taken out of an or asterisk or taken out of an operational budget because it's not the discretion of whether or not the department head is doing that has been taken away. The board has said, "We're going to do
those things." >> Then we also asked SWAT pay, um DARE, which DARE is compensated by an opioid grant, but so it looks like it's coming out of our overtime, but it's actually not because we're
getting reimbursed for it. Um the training, I can't you know, there's so many hours that we have to have per state goals. Um TCDI, we get a grant for that. So again, it's
taken it out of our overtime budget, but we're also getting money for that. So that was $22,000 that we got in 2025 for TCDI. Well, you're not seeing the compensation. Um incidents,
I we can't control what what goes on. You know, I can't control like if there's a night deputy coming on at 6:00 p.m. um and a call comes out at 5:30, until the night guys get to that call, then the people can be relieved. Um,
nobody wants to work extra. It's hard to get people to work extra. They're not laughing at us. They're not We're doing a job that we have to get done. If we don't do it, who's going to do it? Um, sometimes we have call-ins, uh, court.
Can't dictate if they're getting called in for court and for the union contract, which I have nothing to do with, you get 2 hours overtime. For court, no matter what. Um, we also have military time, which hasn't been, uh, taken into consideration in the
past, and it needs to be. Um, and then we have meetings, uh, you know, we try to have quarterly department meetings. We also have our county attorney training at that time, too. So, four times a year, you know, we it's we need to have meetings. We have
to pay overtime for that. And then just the covering open shifts. So, I went through everybody's time sheet, um, dispatch and that it is. Um, every page that for 24 and 25 and so that's that's on there. You'd like to
see more. Um, Chad also got it through our payroll system. We had it for pencils. Which looks like this. Of everybody's. You know, whether it was holiday,
vacation, or sick leave. So, the public safety committee, we've been working with the budget finance committee. Um, you know, we have a plan moving forward. So. But, you know, if a call comes out, you know, like let's just say last
Wednesday's incident, you know, down in Hoffman, our resources were completely taken. Um, you know, you You a murder, you have, you know, whatever, you know. We do the best we can. >> Yeah.
What we're What we're seeing here is not a lot of like towards the end of a shift. I haven't seen people just working 2 3 4 more hours. >> No, but not very many. >> Do Do any of your deputies ever Are they on
call at all anymore? >> They're still on call. >> Yeah, you see that's Yeah. >> You're not going to be able I I just think it's going to be hard for you to put people on call for a dollar 50 an hour. Nobody's saying that. >> 28 days is what it
No, I just think I got So, this one page here where you got the deputies coverage and you mentioned 2223 hours. Which is 42.75 hours a week. But if you deduct the vacation
and ex divided by 52 it's 40 hours a week. And I agree they work hard. I work. But I don't know here in rural America there is not a lot of 40 hour weeks. So
we got to make sure we get that number 22 23 extrapolated down to a week. And that's the number. >> And we're on 171 hours in a 21 >> pay cycle. >> 28 days. >> 28, sorry. Just match this one. >> I don't know if that what that meant to
what I said there. Well, that's the number that is used as the 171. So, the 2223 isn't what's used. It's the 171 in a 28 day period. That's what it's based off. It's not based off of 42 hours a week or Oh, that's
>> [clears throat] >> the number that is used to determine whether it's weekly, daily, yearly is that that number. So that 171 number. >> The 28 physical >> Does that but does that equal the 2223?
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> And will you enlighten everybody of why the county did this? I don't know what I see the measures. >> Um well, you know, I I don't think I was the sheriff when I was way younger.
I think that was langley but I I I really don't know how to explain it. I know what the dollars were. >> Yeah. >> But you you can maybe I don't >> But you add I mean if you didn't have it that way, you'd be adding another 170 hours times
nine for overtime. >> Yeah. >> I mean that's where you If If my recollection is correct, it was done when Elwanger and Ashley came on board. Because now you have the full-time
coverage rather than you're gaining those additional hours without paying overtime. >> And so I know back in 21 or 22 or I think it was 21. Uh the sheriff's office was anytime that we
went to training, it was always at um at regular base pay. And uh when Justin got a hold of that, he said, "No, anytime that we work more than 171 hours, no matter what it is, you have to start paying overtime."
So you know, if we go back to the budgets back in 21 and 22 and 23, you know, you probably saw an uptick um because they weren't paying that then. You know, and if they were scheduled on paper,
then you didn't pay overtime but that got we got stopped and said no. For federal law, if you work more than 171 hours of 28 days cycle, you have to pay overtime. So, that was a shift because for all
those years, that's what the county's been doing, but we can't do that anymore. Um so, like for the training, we don't we obviously have mandated post training that we have to complete, um mandated yearly, every 3 years, whatever it is.
So, to try to mitigate those prices, you know, when we started controlling mine, that we can do a lot of our mandated policies our my mandated post, you know, hours, we can get it done by there. Um but we still have use of war
shooting. Obviously, you can't do that stuff online, but so, we try to mitigate as much as we can, so. >> But yeah, it it goes down to hours and maybe I didn't make it in a loop. So, the the 48 hours a day,
365, is 17,520. The over just on the 2223 is 2400 hours. And then 3000 hours of overtime, so above that, we have 15,480 hours above.
We got to go to 2700, so we still got And I'm not saying that if it's not we're not getting the service for it. I'm saying that is from a budgeting standpoint, that's a lot. So, what I see from 24 to 25 is when we are full staff,
we're actually spending more on overtime than we did when we were down. >> So, Mr. Chair, I have a question. >> [clears throat] >> And there's a lot of numbers. But I hear you know, this board that we really with the elected departments, you only really have one
say and that's their budget. Would that be accurate? And we do working on budget and we do a preliminary and then we do a final. My question then is once we approve a final budget
and we've locked and loaded that budget, is the next time that we can do anything about it the next budget or are we responsible the day after we set that budget for the next 365 days?
Because if we're not, that's not good. So, when we say, "Well, we can't do anything until cuz we set the budget." Well, what if Joyce's numbers are accurate and it's way out of whack? Can we do anything
about that? >> This doesn't answer the question, but I have asked the auditor to start in July. We didn't start in June cuz it hadn't been brought to the board, but starting in July we're going to get a budget update from the whole county. They'll have slight month,
what was spent this month, year-to-date budget and then a percentage. So, this should never surprise us again from the year previous. So, shame on me for not following that. I wish we had.
>> And I think the numbers worked. The formulas that were made to make these budgets, you know, this is prior to my time, right? I just started. Um, I don't think the numbers were the formula hadn't updated and so I think that's where the
shortages have been from. >> But it it's it's alarming to me because we're sitting just had an hour long conversation about $342,000, and now we have, you know, just on the payroll side of it, we have what did we figure [clears throat] out
here? 200 some thousand? So, I mean, we're not talking about 300, we're talking about a half a million. So, yeah, and so, Mike, we worked harder this year on the budget than we've ever worked before. We had
people who are involved in law enforcement, with decades of experience. Arthur one of them. Are we that far off? What what did we not know last December that's now kicking us
in June? Yeah, I don't know. I don't know. This is the I've been in business for 40 plus years. This does doesn't seem to square. Well, I think I think a lot of it starts with the
you know, the budget that we approved didn't call for that much overtime. I think there's a line item for overtime in there. I'm there. So, you know, I I don't know. But is the what happening different than what
we had thought? >> I I I was told that the formula to make these numbers, even the regular hours, is not correct. >> Our budget's wrong. >> Well,
I got a question, Mr. Chair. Jim, if you can answer this, this training list that talking about and the hours of doing it, you know, that isn't something yearly, right? Your post training 16 hours, that's over a 3-year period or 2-year period? >> Well, 36 minutes a year. >> Is that what it is? 36?
>> to have at wellness. We don't have to do it yearly. >> Yeah. >> Um there's I mean it depends on what it is, but and they they just keep coming down with more mandates, more mandates, but they don't provide any more money >> Right. >> to provide us to do this. >> So, my question is how many how many
times is your law enforcement officers been on overtime to do this training? Their required training. >> It's up to everybody. >> So, there you go. >> if if I How do you control that? You don't. >> Well, if I can provide the training, like if I can get someone to come, you know, which
takes a lot, but I know that the BCA is uh looking at further outstating some of the training. Um so, it can be closer because if we have to drive anywhere, we're paying probably overnight, or you know, which is expensive. We can't So,
Grant County Sheriff's Office is not really knowing anything more like, "Hey, we can send you to a lot of training because we can't afford it." And we don't do it. We love it. >> So, basically what we're looking at here [clears throat] is >> This is real >> This is This is what it's going to be next year, too, then.
>> This is real This is real numbers, you know. Our guys are already working more than a 2080 hour, you know, on top of the overtime. There's people that had more than 200 hours last year, but they didn't want They don't want it.
And now that we've been short, I mean, everybody is This is not helping morale. >> Yeah, we were already May 1, 8, we were already 63% spent down over time. >> Well, what's the solution to that?
>> We're I mean, we're really cutting it. I mean, we're we're really watching everything. Um >> But like like when one of the deputies takes a vacation day, you're filling that shift with an overtime shift. >> I have to. And there has to be two people on Um
I try to pick up as much many as I can, you know, cuz you're you're I'm salary, so leaving me, I'm picking up a lot of shifts. Um any you know, if it's if they're happening through the week the weekend, I try to pick it up. If I can't, someone
else, you know, has to. >> Did you have 1200 hours for for 25, and that does not include the sheriff and chief deputy. Those are the nine hourly deputies. Then dispatch, which is 100 hours. >> Yep, we're you got to you have to include dispatch. So, this
>> The numbers I was using did not include the overall their overtime for dispatch as well, but that was not included in the numbers I was showing you. Okay. >> but the numbers that I did, it's everybody's on there. >> The the $81,000 over spend does include it, but when we
break it down to hours, it does not. So, I mean, you know, you got 5,480 hours over that 17 520. That does not include two more full-time officers. So, now that's another 4,000 9,400 hours over that number.
>> Yep. >> The longer they're here, the more vacation they get. >> Yeah. >> So, that compounds things. >> And I like when we're when we're really short, you You I ask them to be these you know, be courteous if you can try to switch shifts so we can, you know,
because if you take a day off, someone else is going to have to pick that up, you know? Everybody is >> The three second vacation, you know, that could get >> and the holiday. >> Right. Correct. Those three could, you know, get the answer.
Something that is hard to schedule for. >> Yeah. >> I would guess. >> It is. >> So I got a question, Jen. So you made a comment that that that we had to calculate overtime on some items based on the county attorney.
>> Yeah, so in the past, okay. >> What and when did that commence to take place? >> So I was told for years that any training was supposed to be paid at base wage. But um it was it was it was even before I
became chief deputy. Um Justin said, "No, if you are working more than 171 hours in a 28-day period, regardless if it's meetings, office shoots, training, whatever, you have to be at overtime.
Anything." >> But we know how many hours in this difference that includes >> Well, >> I can put a number, a dollar amount to it, I guess, though. >> Well, I I mean, it would
the training um I can put it this way, we had 686 hours of training. You know, >> and all of them were over the 171. >> Um all of them are going to be. So because they this training is like out
works or office shoots or, you know, and we we do try to do it on your day that you're working, but you know, we can't be we have to have extra people out there because a call comes out that officer's not ready. >> And you said that plenty of this start?
>> I would say 21, 22. >> No, is that when that changed? >> The 171 or when we got them? >> The memo was just in saying when did that start? >> Yeah, I would say 21, 22. I guess I don't
>> So we've been we're talking about a current situation in 26 that started in 21. Did I hear that right? Is that a yes? >> Yeah. >> So then the budget if I'm looking at the budget then
we would have to have been wrong five years, four years. How does that affect today? Cuz you can't be wrong for four years and all of a sudden you're more wrong. Okay, it doesn't make sense. Okay. >> You know, like historically I've always been told that
our budget with the sheriff's office we've always been under. You know, we have line items in the budget and so if we were over on one line item somewhere else it was picking up. We've consistently always been under except for the last couple of years.
Which >> Was it even in 24 overall? Yes, overall in 24 the actual so then that's I think what the board is potentially falling into is we looked at the actual
of 24 was 1 million. This is the operation part, is it not? Communications, built any 1 million 157,000 and all of that's payroll. Well, we would be you look at the final
bottom line and you'd be under. We didn't get into the breakdown as deeply as we probably should. Now, when we look at 25, we had a number of things happen that helped keep 24 under cuz we know
that there was a an overspend of $50,000 in overtime, but we had no new squad cars coming in. And we [clears throat] just seen a bill for a squad car teardown from the old and put into the new. It's no new equipment. It's just
the labor is $10,000 it was going to cost. We had none of them in 24. We had seven in 25. >> Yeah, and so I've done a capital schedule. You know, the last 5 years. >> I I think we've been looking at the bottom line and not the detailed
breakout when we look at what's happened in the past and that's going to have to be our problem as much as anybody's and that we looked at the bottom number. The bottom number said, "Okay, well, we didn't have four cars that came in in 24. They came in in
25 along with the other three." So, now you had everything blow up in one year and that's why it looks what it worse. Now, you could have taken some of them cars out there. You could have had other things. You know, there was there was an additional the axon spend
of the additional $60,000 wasn't budgeted. It was just approved by this board afterwards. So, that drives up your over too, right? So, it's a number of things that all came to light at once that said, "We have to do a better job of watching and controlling that."
>> The axon did not cost the county anything in 25 because we used contingency funds, grants. >> But it shows up as an expense. >> Right. Right. There you go. >> I mean, so to say that the money was there already, that that may be true, but it shows up as an expense in that
number that said you were over by. >> But it was a >> But it didn't come out of the budget. >> Right, that's what I'm saying. And just like the TVD and all these other things that we got money back from, it doesn't show it on our line items here. So >> It was a federal grant. Safety grant or
whatever that was and then it was public safety dollars again from the state. So that backfilled up 100%. >> Going back to 2021 and I I hear that. But we got to go back to 2021. We have 5 years. And in 5 years something should have
floated to the surface. So we've been budgeting wrong and always had enough funds to not have to address this. I find it hard that we can possibly be that far off in 2026 in 6 months
with 5 years of experience. It There's something don't make sense. The math and it's not just great math, it's more complicated. But this doesn't make sense to Ken. >> Dwight, there's a comment online. >> Uh
>> It says I have a question for Dwight and Jen. When did Grant County go to 24 hours per day? When did your department go to two officers at night? Um >> Well, I I can answer the first part of it. Um It never was 24 hours when I was a
sheriff. Um it went to 24 hours when Elbow Lake and Ashby contract started. >> And we used to have three to four people on at night. And now we are down to two.
So we are literally the bare minimum. >> Okay. All right. So uh we're a little bit past time on this subject. The budget committee I think it is working with the sheriff's office uh working on it. >> We didn't solve it today. You know, an update and yeah.
>> Yeah. So, we'll >> Well, Mr. Chair, >> Yeah. >> I I I believe in the fact >> Right. >> Did I really get an answer to our leadership responsibility once we approve a budget? Is it 365 days before we get the same
thing about it? >> No. >> Or do we have something to say about the budget that we approve and we're going to do something about it now? Yes or no? >> We can we can we can at any time look at that budget.
Because that's that's the control that we will that we're obligated with. >> If we told our sheriff this has got to change, can she say, "Oh, you No, you can't tell me that cuz you approved the budget." But we're not on budget.
>> Well, if if like the sheriff says that any part that they can't do anything about, then they need to include that in their next year's budget so that they're not over budget. But you know, we we got to scrutinize this because
I think I think in some areas it's probably too much, but like the sheriff said, nobody wants to take calls anymore. Well, when I was a sheriff, they were on call, I was on call. I didn't get paid, but that's fine. But but there was on call, so that didn't get that
plugging in overtime shifts and stuff, you see. It was a lot simpler back then. It's not simple anymore for what goes on. It's just like they call a a hot one the other day with that pervert from uh out of East Virginia drove 2,400
miles to assault a a young lady down there. That took time and money that to do that. He's sitting in jail, I stake it, and we're going to be paying for it. But it's stuff like that that goes on that not all of us know about. And but but yeah, we we got
to take a look at this the sheriff there every month when I was a sheriff or every 2 months I was looking at my budget percentage here in this line item percentage here. What do we got to do about that? You know, what we're and like for example said if they're if they're over it like we'd be over in our
jail budget in the meth years because there was we had dozens and dozens of defendants in jail over 4 years. So we were over there, but well we're under here. So but we we'd come to the board tell the board, look we got all these guys in jail. And and so we we would communicate with
the board on all overtime and money issues within our budget. Cuz that's the only control that we have the elected officials. They can run their office. We we can't tell them you can't arrest that guy for DUI or you can't arrest that one, but you can take that
one. We can't do that. And you know, we shouldn't do that. But the money part of it that is our responsibility and and and that our elected officials and then they'll do it. They should be communicating with us when they're having issue with that budget. Thank you. But we can look at that
budget and we should look at it all the time. Okay. So on that issue uh we're going to move on to that and uh we're going to go into the boat and water grant and uh work plan. Sure.
>> All right. So it was brought to my attention that we um our buoys are very very old and we need to start doing some updates. So I reached out to the Department of Natural Resources. They were um willing to provide like a grant uh to help us pay for these. So it's
based off of any um water patrol hours that we might put in, um buoys, any calls that you know, required us to out on the water. Um and so, we um they did provide us um
a grant for $1,500, uh 1,586. Um and so, I I did complete the application. Um I just I just need a signature from the board if they were accepted. So, I'm thinking for the next
3 years that we would update our buoys like three or four a year um as long as we can always call back to this boat water. This is a state grant. Um to that which will help us pay for the buoys that we have to put out so
future of our force and we have >> Jen, is that 1,586? Is that Was that last year same number? >> No, 15 changes. >> It It That's what I thought cuz I've seen it for years. >> Yeah. >> It was more than that. So, they pay uh um I C R's contact stuff.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. So, they they restructured all that's taken care of. >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Sorry. >> Okay. Um I do have one question, Sheriff, on that. Who Who set the buoys? Did you set the buoys this year? >> Uh I Kenny and Jordan did.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. >> That's good. >> So, we unfortunately, we did we did have an individual that was new to law enforcement. We sent him to the school uh for boat water patrol, um but he has left law enforcement. >> Mhm.
>> So, um you know, we're not going to get a lot of patrol hours this year because we just you know, but we we do set all the buoys. Yeah. Yeah, I know. If storms happen, so we have to go find them or >> And the boat's ready to go and >> And the boat's always ready to go. Yeah.
Yeah. Ready for We have a call, we got to go. So. >> Good. >> So, we need a motion to approve the grant or Yes. >> Motion to approve, Mr. Chair. And do we have a second? >> Second. >> It is seconded by Troy. Uh Any further
discussion? Hearing none, all in favor favor favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed abstain. Aye. >> [clears throat] >> Motion carried. Okay, Maya. >> Let's get you guys back on track here. Good morning.
Uh just coming with a couple of uh contracts. So, uh two um the law enforcement generator, the new one that went up recently in your building. Uh we did not have a service contract on that. Um and so, we have a
contract already in place for other two generators, and this would just be an additional contract for that generator that's new with the law enforcement building. In addition to that, the elevator that services the law enforcement building, um we had gotten uh
I think I brought to you maybe a couple months ago. They were going to start charging us $100 a quarter for our elevator service contract for fuel charges. They only come to us once a year. And so, I thought that was a little
extreme to charge us $400 a year for one visit a year in a fuel charges. So, I reached out to them. Um They were We did not have a contract for the elevator in the law enforcement center yet. So, they were able to keep our
um the contract that you have, it didn't break up the numbers very well, but currently we pay about $215 a month for the courthouse elevator contract. They were able to keep that. That's actually at $214 going forward, or $250
$25.68 per year. And the law enforcement came in at the same price. So, basically it would be um continuing our courthouse contract as it is actually a dollar cheaper and adding the law enforcement contract as well.
So, that is the two items that I have reading this morning. >> Okay. So, this is a monthly so it's prorated for 26. >> pay a year we pay a yearly rate. I think it starts as of June 1 or July 1 and
then it would go we would pay that up front per year. So, we pay the 250 or 2568 for each one. >> But it's kind of it's not annualized January so >> We're not paying for more than we're getting it. >> No, no. It's annualized but I think it'll start it would start now.
>> Okay. >> Um with that contract. So, And if you look in the contract if you dig through it it says there is a two month charge and an installation fee for this. That stuff has already been taken care of so that is not in the contract. It's
simply there's a $14 per year charge for that maps the their monitoring system and a $200 per year or per month charge for the actual service contract for the inspections and all that. Yes.
>> Do we need two separate motions here for these two contracts? >> would that's that's up to you if you'd like to do it separately per building or it just would be with the the one contract. It'll be all it'll all come on one and we'll just divide it out here.
>> Okay. Well, I'll make a motion to approve the generator contract and the elevator maintenance contract. Okay, Troy made the motion. Do we have a second? I'll get Do I have Do I have a second? Any further discussion? Hearing none. Uh all in favor signify by saying I.
>> I. >> Opposed same sign. Motion carried. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Conditional use permit. Hey Randy. >> Morning guys. >> How are you? >> Good yourself? >> Good. >> So, what I have before you is there's a
packet from our uh back meeting the other day. Uh Black Silos, which is owned by Tom and Jenna. They have been kind of operating a little rental place. They have two uh renovated silos that they put some
reinforcements and doors in and painted and then they have a couple little sheds there that is kind of >> boutique where they got coffee cups and such and such and that kind of stuff. And then they have a bathhouse with a bathroom and a shower and then >> uh they're looking to add, like you guys
said, approved to their liquor license last month. So, they're looking to add that liquor store piece. So, with all that, they were meant that special treating a conditional use permit to operate their little rental place there. So, they came to PAC and went through that and uh PAC approved their uh permit
to recommend you guys. So. There was no concerns really from the PAC just cuz uh they're really a very small scale and there would be almost no impact if there was only broken down and the lake stuff. So, there's only two little huts. So, you know, I'm talking, you know, half a
dozen folks at half a dozen, maybe. So, and then uh the neighbors and the township both were at the uh meeting and they had no issues or no at all. So, and a couple calls we got to with the public were the same. They were just asking about the lake. So, >> Okay, we need a motion to approve.
>> I'll do it. >> I'll make the motion, Mr. Chair, for the conditional use permit number 264 026 401. >> Okay, do we have a second? >> Second.
>> Joel made the second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed, same sign. Motion carried. >> This is >> Thank you, Reed. Okay, Tina. >> Hello.
Hey, first thing I have is granting these to set a cannabis um temporary cannabis event registration fee. Um and Jared from Public Health is with us today. If you want to join us up there. >> Yeah.
>> Um when the temporary cannabis committee met, we discussed what that fee should be and Jared, you can maybe explain for the commissioners the the framework about how a fee can be determined. >> Yeah. So, it's there's not as much language
around this um paying for a temporary cannabis event versus the other license, but uh we decided to keep it similar to what we're charging for the other licenses, uh which some of the state statute language is uh local unit of government may charge $500 or $1,000
depending on the license type or up to 1 and 1/2 of the applicable renewal license fee. Uh since that's at the state level, the renewal license fee or the initial license fee is 750. Um we would actually charge you 375. >> 375 is what the committee
>> proposes. That's what we would add to the >> Mr. Chairman, I have a question. So, what changes were made down at the state um with cannabis and the standard of, you know, um grow operation, micro, you know, meso, >> Mhm. >> things like that, whether it's a you
know, they're uh you know, some type of a temporary event, you know what I mean, and things like that. What did happen down there that reflect back on us? >> Mhm. Um so, I know things are constantly changing with the state with the state as they, you know, try deal with federal
regulations and um certain things, but I know um some of the most recent changes is just allowing businesses to be more flexible um when changing and attaining different license types. Well, so um nothing to pertinent to local
governments and they are all good. We're good. >> They did change how they classify some of the growing stuff. They changed like micro and meso, some of the definitions that they tweaked a little bit. >> Mhm. Stuff that they permit. >> Correct. >> And some other permit stuff with the material and growing and operation
outside, inside. They have changed a couple things with that. Which impacts planning and zoning a little bit, but not with how our our net is set up, so. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, when we approved the ordinance, we knew we still had to do some work on this temporary event registration. And
so, the first order of issue is for the board to approve that fee. So, if somebody does make application, what that fee would be. So, the committee is recommending $375 for a can of temporary cannabis
event registration fee. And then that, if approved, would get added to our county fee schedule. >> I'll make that motion. >> Okay, Ken makes the motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Seconded by Troy. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed, same sign. Motion carried. >> Um, then the next item um, involving the cannabis temporary event registration is the application and the process itself. So, the committee met with public health. We went through the documents
that were included in your board packet. And so, we feel that they're good where they're at. So, we would be looking to the board to approve that application that was in the packet and the process that was outlined in how someone would apply or
register to hold a temporary cannabis event in Grand County. >> So, moved. >> [clears throat] >> Troy makes the motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Seconded by Bill. Uh, any further discussion? Hearing none, uh, all in favor signify by saying aye. >> Aye.
>> Opposed, motion carried. >> Does anybody questions for public health board? Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you guys. >> Thank you. You're always helpful. You're a good man. >> Uh the next item is uh
the Barracuda renewal license. That is our county email protection license. Um it's an annual license and the cost for that annual license is $8,779.50. Um and so included in your packet with the agenda request form was the
quote for that from the Morphisec tonic. But this is what we use to protect um our email from cyber incidences. >> Is this like a package that we have to buy 150?
We don't have 150 emails, do we? >> Um I don't know what our total number is. Um I would have to double-check that. But there there's more than you think just because >> Right. There is. But I mean it may be a package in that
you can't buy >> Mhm. >> You can't buy 103, you have to buy 150. >> Right. I do not know the answer. I'd have to research that. This is what the county purchased last last year to cover ourselves. >> And that was the same price then?
>> I don't know that question for sure. I didn't look back. >> I will make a motion approving the purchase of up to 150. Okay. And if that's what we got to have, then we're going to have it. Let me get that answer first.
Up to 150. >> Okay. Do we have a second? >> There you go. >> Seconded by Doyle. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed, same sign. Motion carried. >> The last thing I just want to update the
board is that extension hired a summer intern a local person from Kerman. And we tried to get him you know going with his laptop and the laptop that we
had for the summer intern position was so outdated that none of our stuff would work on it. So we did some looking through our inventory didn't find anything that they could use. So I did get a quote from Morris Electronics for a just a general laptop for our summer
intern that cost is $1,031.25 all set up and so that has been ordered and extension has been made aware that that will be coming and that is a county computer. So we'll have that back in our inventory when the internship is up. So I just wanted to update
the board. >> Okay, thank you. >> And so Siri's been been made aware of all that. Okay. >> Okay, well we've got a 3 minutes before our next work session. So >> Give it a rain ball. Excuse me.
>> What was made? >> Just got it. 10:28 >> Do you want to be moved to either of the meetings? She left her meeting. >> Thursday between 10:00 and 2:00. >> This Thursday?
>> Yep. >> Just a little bit weird. >> Down in Lowry? >> I have a guest. Guess where I got to zoom with. >> [clears throat] >> I don't have a computer to zoom with. >> I don't care. She's never done one before. >> Oh, yeah. >> Is she? >> Oh, yeah. >> I mean, Rick, we can walk in there for
10 minutes and then that's the end of it. Drive back here. 62 miles down there. >> We're cutting costs. We should be cutting it on the commissioner level, too, if we can. >> 62 miles away Lowry and back
>> We're there for 15, 20 minutes and then what? And drive back. >> Yeah, it's 10:00. So, uh we're going to drop into a work session here. Uh and I have to read this script again. I need peanuts. >> Thank you. What I did for you.
>> Uh it's the same setup as the previous one, but uh uh this work session is on county park ordinances. This is an opportunity for the full board to discuss county park ordinances. There will be no discussion other than
uh other items at this work session to ensure there's an opportunity for the full board to talk specifically about lot four, but one. That's a little bit different feel there. It's on that H Jarrow thing.
Okay, you must stand up at the podium to speak, state your name, where you live, and who you represent. State your comments regarding county parks. Anyone who wishes to make a comment will have up to 3 minutes at the podium. After 3 minutes, uh the next person can come up. Uh
if time allows, second opportunity will be available. No action will be taken at this work session. There will be no poll or straw poll vote taken. Discussions will start with a review of current ordinances with the county attorney, Justin.
>> Okay, so um in your packet, you have the ETB ordinance, um the Pinewood Park ordinance. I know that there has been
some discussion regarding Pinewood Park and what the county can do with that. So, we have the best deed from the the DNR as well. Um you know, which indicates that if it ceases to
exist as a Pinewood Park, it reverts back to the state. In other words, you can't convey it. And then, um is most of the discussion, you know, primarily centering around,
you know, what to do with the parks in terms of funding. Uh Tina also included, um you know, a hunting ordinance from Crow Wing County and then a policy from Mille Lacs County.
Um whatever you um decide to do, it would be my recommendation that it be uh done by ordinance. You know, ordinances your legislative power to enact something that is
punishable by law. Policies are not. So, the current breakdown um So, the ATV Park Ordinance was initially approved with hunting not being allowed at any time within the
park and was subsequently amended a couple months later to allow hunting in the park, but only from November 1 through April 1. Um the 2017 Pineridge Park Ordinance
Although it's called the Pineridge Park Ordinance, the language here is not limited to that. Seems to indicate that all Grant County parks are game refuges and um you know, no person shall hunt in there,
take a fish, and that's about it. You know, and this all comes on the the tail of you know, the Forest decision not to do anything that would alter um you know, what sort of firearm you can
use to um you know, take animals during hunting season. So, things have changed. Um there's some inconsistency within your ordinances and
I just wanted to discuss um what it is that you want done. >> And then in addition to that, I would add um last year 25, there were some people here um about Pineridge Park and archery only
hunting. Um so, that would be considered in the discussion, too. >> Right. So, any question on the background? You know, you'll see that um the Crow Wing County, it applies,
you know, globally to parks, to county managed property, [clears throat] to county owned property. And I don't know if you want to make those distinctions because we do have property out there.
>> The idea is to try to clean it up. So, either we have separate ordinances and they're what the board wants them to be, or make one ordinance that encompasses everything. Um but the archery conversation that comes
up, I believe archery season starts September 1st, and if we're going to follow the, you know, public notice and public hearing for ordinances if they're amended or rewritten, um there is a timeline and and dates that we have to meet to do that. And
another decision that the board will need to make is if there is any amendments to the ordinances or new ordinances written, do you want to use the planning commission planning advisory commission, or is the board going to take this on? >> So,
I don't think it'd be a dumb idea to let the planning commission get a third, you know. But, am I getting this right that uh we're going to it's going to stay archery only in Pine Ridge? >> Well, it's >> I mean,
>> Well, it's not currently. It's It's not There's no archery allowed. >> Correct. >> We would have to install an archery board. We said we wanted to do it, but we haven't done it. So when we when we talked about that, was that before the hunting season last year or was it Well, I don't remember.
I don't I don't remember. I [clears throat] think it was just before. Just before? But if you're going to designate, you know, that ordinance to state that you can bow hunt, then you bow hunt around the campers. Plus, you're going to cross the lake here. How do you designate an area? I mean, other than, you know, give
it a description or something or how would that how would that fit? You know, the current ordinance may know there was discussion in October about this as well about signage. Mhm. Um You know, so current ordinance reads at
public entry of each park, which again seems to make the Partridge Park ordinance an ordinance of general application. Um County game refuge shall not be permitted.
But signage shall be posted around the boundaries of the park stating the rules of that less than 400 ft. Signs shall be at least 12 in in diameter with black letters upon a white background. There you are.
Set up in a gravel pit for you. You know, those are all discussions for the board here. Well, the first thing I would say is probably take out the requirement to posting every 400 ft because they're not and I don't anticipate that we're going to do that.
You know, [clears throat] to Bill's point, if you wanted to Yeah, you'd have to have some signage if you're going to segregate portions of the park that are open for
hunting and other portions that are not. >> As someone who's involved, I don't anticipate anybody setting up on the east side of the park in the pine trees. >> Yeah, but you know, I also saw a guy out in North Dakota who had a donkey on the top of his pickup because he shot that
he shot a mule deer. So, I don't give everybody much credit. Was it dope? Well, >> I think there's already people that are hunting in the back of the park. >> I know there is. Right? They don't >> Because their land goes right up to it. >> Yeah. >> Well, and I think one of the first
questions is do we want to keep two separate ordinances or do we want one? Because right now the two ordinances that we have >> contradict each other. >> A little bit. >> Yeah. So, you know, and you could have special carve outs for
you know, if the ATV park is going to have you know, different hours than Pirate's Park or you know, and problem is if you know, if you see another park coming down the way then
you know, it's going to have to be amended. >> But you're talking one ordinance with carve outs, you said? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> If that's what you want, you know, then you decide that there's going to be no hunting then there's no carve out for hunting.
>> We do any changes, we're going to have to have a hearing, correct? Or can we change it today? >> No, you'd have to go through the hearing process. Yeah. >> Yeah, I know the same people will be here. They'll want to be here. Yep. Yeah, and that's good. So, I'd say one
ordinance and let's build it the way we want to or Right work sessions are not exciting. Yeah. Yeah. And other properties would be good. Draft that in the ordinance.
Yeah, it again is entirely up to you. I think this ordinance just had one ordinance to have one ordinance. That addresses that. Yeah, that's what I was having >> So, I think we should, you know, kind of hear from Reed too as far as like if the
board chooses to use the planning advisory commission hear from him kind of how that would work or where you are with workload. >> My My only question is so Justin and those ordinances say who is that administrator of those but say that the
board is or is that something where you're going to do kind of all the drafting and then just bring that to like a planning commission work session type thing where you put in all that task so you go back and forth and when later do a public hearing and you present that or who's set up to do all of that?
So, who's the head of the enforcement entity of either one of those ordinances for that? Those are the two things that I would say that need to be a part of it for sure. >> So, the closest that the behind your edge
park ordinance gets is that um any person violating provision of this ordinance shall be judged guilty of a misdemeanor. You know, so that would suggest that it's law enforcement. Um and any person violating any
ordinance any provision of this ordinance may be expelled, ejected, or ousted from a park at the discretion of a law enforcement officer or department employee. Which is as clear as mud. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So
>> And uh because you know we have a sheriff's office. We don't have a sheriff's department. You know, a department would suggest or infer something that is um not elected. >> So
my thought would be you include both like the sheriff's office and facilities and things that manage the park. I think you're going to have whoever admins that side too of the parks with their office that that is. You know. If you come up with the drafting of those for sure you
and those other folks are going to have to work with that organization. They should know the ins and know the outs. >> Here under the ATV park the sheriff's department and/or the Grant County Board shall have authority to close areas of the park to the public for construction in the park,
prevent access to dangerous dangerous areas, protect seedlings and plantings, for maintenance purposes, and for natural disasters. >> So if you mold those ordinances together and have things when you put together an addition, clear up to make it clearer as
long as you please Jim and them. Right. Who is who does what? Who is who enforces? Who is who admins it? Who is how all that works? But you're >> You're addressing the enforcement that you talked about. >> I as department but that to me they
shouldn't really be in the enforcement piece. >> They're not departments but they do manage the park. They are the ones that clean it up. They handle the garbage pieces. They handle all those other things. >> I didn't know if you meant the department >> sheriff's office can still stay as the enforcement piece to me but maybe there's a tackling that too that DNR or
the dash resources could also help with that if you have somebody who shouldn't be there or one of those lines. >> But if we're talking about one ordinance for all county property or we including gravel pits which would now be under the title of mining. >> say that if I'm let's just say I'm out
there and I'm mowing and somebody is in violation of this ordinance, I have the right to tell them to leave or do I have to call law you know, like if that says for department then that what it says to me is if highways in a gravel pit and they see you in there, they have the ability to
tell you to get out right is what that ordinance says. What is that how you want it to read? I mean what I I wouldn't have a problem with it saying you have the ability to say that you're violating your ordinance you should leave but it's not an enforcement in that you're not going to arrest them. Right.
You would rely on law enforcement to take any steps out of it. Just like with our private property if we don't feel safe or they're on our property because it's not safe for us, we would have to have our DNR as well and call them or somebody has violated the terms of the shoreline ordinance,
you know, historically law enforcement has signed those complaints because >> [clears throat] >> they have to be the complaining so to me that like when we talk about the hunting aspect about this land, the
difference for the ATV park is that's closed other than hunting from November 1st to April 1st, right? So it's not perfect. A park that's open to go right. Yeah, I would advise you against the
having a park open when people are out there shooting their guns. What I mean what would you advise then as far as archery at Partridge Park? You know, I don't You know, I You know, I think it depends, you know, if
You know, what the you know, the occupancy is or You know, the people, you know, are there there are areas out there where people are going to set up a portable deer stand that people also are going to
be walking through the trees. >> It's possible. >> One other caveat is there's you know, there's dwellings out there, you know, you it's a 500 ft setback from any dwelling or anything like that. So, you know, say that you know, that the pic- >> the camping area and things like that,
that might be close enough where you can't even hunt because of the raft property. >> But, I think Bill that's with a firearm, though. >> No, that's bow too. Really? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That's from what I read. It's because
you're going to people with crossbows. You can't just archery anywhere. >> Maybe you can open it to the long bows. >> Yeah. >> Sheriff's discretion. I'll go to Sheriff for a 100 yd for a long bow or a whatever you specify. >> Okay, Robin Hood.
>> I will say that most bow hunters probably aren't going to set up in there when there's campers in there because they don't like any noise at all. They're pretty pretty fussy about that. But if there's something they've got to chase out of the area that went running right through the middle of that thing, you think they're not going to shoot at it if they
have the ability? They will. I uh >> Does it have to match the actual hunting season or can you set it like after Thanksgiving or after muzzleloader or does it have to match the exact start date
that Minnesota says? >> No. No, I don't know. I would assume so. Yeah. Yeah. >> So you can make the late season when there's no campers if you wanted to. >> Yeah, but there's a lot of people that are called beeping and stuff like that that are camping in that place. >> Oh yeah, I'm just
>> I would just I I get what you're saying. >> Well, I mean on the other side, you can close it from November 1st to >> April 1st to match your other part. >> Then your your parts are aligned. >> But what do you do
if the early bow season starts? >> You don't make any hunting allowed till November 1st on any of them. >> And do the signage all the way around it. >> Well, I would say that we take that out cuz we're not going to go do it. Let's be honest.
Just put a sign at the entrance of the park. The signs what our rules are. Parks are closed from November 1st April 1st. Hunting is allowed when the park is closed. >> So that no bow hunting for the 1st
September 15th through November 1st. Here's from the people who elected you in there. Yeah, there'll be squatters out there. But I personally don't see an issue with it. If they're both running on September 15th, there's campers in there,
those bow hunters aren't going to set up over there by those people, but >> Justin, that's something you could just have a map at the entrance that has shows where all the camping is allowed, and then this other portion there's no camping. We could have a map big enough from A to B. Like a cargo or call out specifically
for that. >> Good. [clears throat] >> Doesn't mean they're going to do anything. >> It doesn't prevent it, but it most folks, you know, are going to abide by that. You're always going to have the folks that do what they want, but have the number on there to call, whatever, sheriff's office or warden, whatever it says if there's somebody
blah blah blah. Just like now, there's suspicious folks at the campground. >> Is it the board that has to have this already in place? >> By September 15th. >> That means somehow you assume Justin's going to have it ready and drafted road
to have all that stuff worked out and to have it back to you guys by then. It's a very tight timeline turnaround. >> It goes into effect on an X date, then it's October 1st, and you missed two weeks. >> And I think bow hunting would be started right around the 15th for September.
>> It's usually the Saturday closest to the 15th. >> Yeah. Well, we got tags you got to tell me. And I have no problem with saying we're going to start bow hunting when it is and leave it open year round as it is now.
That's what I'd want to see. One ordinance covered both of them. And and the other county properties, just do we need an ordinance for our gravel pits and stuff because people are going to go in there and they want to exclude certain activities in there.
>> Well, sure. >> We just put it in there and then like exclusions allowed in any county gravel pits, mines, whatever you want to describe those properties as are only allowed in as part of any this place. >> Except as otherwise provided herein. >> Yeah. >> Technically, isn't it trespassing now if
they just go out there? >> [clears throat] >> Yeah. >> We've heard that no one gets ticketed for trespass. >> No, I I don't but technically But it's a mining area. So actually it's it's illegal for unless authorized personnel.
And then [clears throat] Sheriff kind of weighs in on that. >> You know, it's also illegal to hunt standing crops but do you know how many police warrants you see in South Boulder or fields in Southwest North Dakota and >> Mhm. Bathing. >> They're all doing the same thing. It
would be illegal in North Dakota. >> Eating and bathing? Then read your will to help us out a little bit on that. >> Yeah. So let me know. This may be some timing things or if we have to add on new special meetings, we can but yeah, preferably it's much easier to do them on our calendar to schedule meeting
dates just from a scheduling standpoint but if we need to we can adjust. >> Okay. >> I wish I could try to add something to add. >> With with us moving to Rifle, you're going to see more people in the county that don't live in the county in this area. I would just about, you know, throw a
$100 bill bet on that. So we got to have some type of notification and signage or something. Just my thought, that's all. >> Okay. Ashley, do you need anything else? >> Nope. >> All right.
Thank you. Okay, so then uh well, we're 7 minutes early, but we can call that close to this work session then on County Park ordinances. So, thank you. Okay.
Ashley, you want to start 2 minutes early? >> Well, I am here. Um we have VSO applicants um scheduled to interview this week and next week. And so, wondering you know, last board meeting you had to narrow it down between
four and eight or four and seven applicants to interview in front of the full board. Um the next board meeting is not till July 7th. So, my question is do you want to schedule a special board meeting or do you want to interview um
I don't believe we narrowed it down to let's say four. I think we could do it at a regular board meeting in the afternoon, but if let's say we have seven, I don't we'd be able to get it done in the afternoon. So, question is is do you want to schedule a board meeting special board meeting before the 7th and
wait till the 7th? That is they'll 2 and 1/2 weeks away. Um our last interview is scheduled The last day of interviews is scheduled for the 23rd. >> And how many are there again? >> 15. >> You've done 14.
No, I haven't done any. >> We haven't done any. This week we interview this week. >> Okay, you said the last one was >> The last day is scheduled for the 23rd. >> So, you have no idea on the number we may have. >> And I would note to the board that July 7th and July 21st, the two meetings in
July, those afternoons, um we have the agencies requesting appropriations and tax levies coming to meet with the board. So, again, depending upon the number, those afternoons might not work.
Um so, it might be a special board meeting. >> And I I want to also note I want to be mindful on training time because we're still looking at that August 1st um date for RTA to be done. So, we have the month of July for training.
>> Looks to me like we're going to have a special meeting, probably. The way I see it. >> It'll be after the 23rd. >> I don't see it. July 1st or 2nd would work best for me. >> It'd work for me. July 1st, Jeff?
>> Or 2nd? >> First? >> Yep. >> That would work best for me, Thursday. >> Thursday is there a That's working. >> How about you, Bill? You looking? >> Yep.
>> July >> Probably work. How many matters? >> It will work fine on the 1st. >> It July 1st? >> What time? >> 1:00, sir? >> No. What time? >> What time? >> Why don't we start at 9:00? Yes, if we got seven of them, we're going to feel
better. Like the idea of having it start at 8:30. That would be a lot more efficient. You want to do that? >> Okay. >> 8:30? Maybe those people can't show up at that time. >> I can get someone to come at 8:30. I might as well be in the meeting.
>> Okay. >> I imagine it'd be an issue. >> Anybody else got any discussion on that? Okay. Wednesday, [clears throat] July 1st at 8:30. We'll be interviewing right here then, Tina. That's quite a bunch of applicants,
that's for sure. Glad to see that. Okay. >> We have the additions to the agenda. >> Yeah. And that was uh Yeah. >> Chad, are you still on the meeting committee? >> That was for the voting, right?
>> Yes. Chad, are you still with us online? >> [clears throat] >> All right. Well, um you guys got the information. I sent it out when I sent you the warrants. It looks like it's called the absentee
and mail ballot board resolution. Looks like he would like the board adopt the resolution authorizing the auditor to appoint ballot board members. >> Were you Were you guys asking for me? I was out of the office. >> Yes. Yep, we were just going to do your
agenda request. So, I don't know if you want to explain to the board what what it is. I They got the resolution in in the packet. >> Yeah, we talked about it last night, didn't we? >> Yes. >> Any more questions?
>> How have we done it in the past? >> What? >> How How How have we done it in the past? >> The I've come to the board each each year that we have elections and you guys have approved uh or approved the list of people that are being appointed to the
ballot and the mail ballot boards. This would give the authorization for me to appoint >> Thank you. >> Yeah, I'll call for a motion to that effect. Do we have a motion? >> So moved, Mr. Chair. >> Okay, Bill Bill made a motion. Do we
have a second? >> Second. >> Seconded by Doyle. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed. Motion carried. Thanks, Jed. Okay. Budget committee updates.
Well, budget finance, Troy and Bill. Well, we got a meeting happening now. >> We have lots of meetings this afternoon. >> Yeah. >> We're starting department budget meetings this afternoon. >> Okay. Uh building committee, Troy and Bill.
>> Things were up to speed on what Bill and I had brought to us today. >> Yeah, there was two contracts [clears throat] that we updated and then >> Um >> That's really the main items that we were >> going over. >> Focusing on. >> Okay.
EMS committee, Bill and Dwight. Dwight, you got it? >> Just give them a spiel on what we did over there. >> There was a committee meeting and we discussed the sprint paramedic truck to be added um to the
the local sprint paramedic plan um with the capital schedule. And so, um, did a little research and reached out to the county attorney to draft a legal document that, um, will help aid the
county in moving forward with, um, the appropriated funds when they're used to purchase ambulances while they're first rate of refusal and just to kind of button up the legal aspect of how that would work. And so, when we get that agreement, that draft agreement,
um, and the plan updated, we will come back, hopefully by July 7th, board, if not the next meeting in July. And then when we, um, do that, the committee asked Senator Rasmussen to come and maybe speak about it since he was
part of the, uh, legislative pilot pro- program that started this statewide. And so, more to come in July at one of the two meetings with those draft plans and draft agreement. >> Okay.
All right, personnel committee. >> We have no other interviews starting later this week. >> Okay. Highway committee. >> Can I get an update? >> I did. I got an email from our engineer. And >> [clears throat]
>> start with on the maintenance side, finished patching on County 5, 8, and 14 to get them in the best shape possible prior to the seal coat, which is the chip seal, that's been planned. Half of the staff are out mowing
ditches, the other half are blading and regraveling roads, more patching and culvert repair will happen after mowing is completed. On the construction side, east abutment has been poured on the County Road 52 bridge, which would be
Harrison bridge at the north end of the lake. Currently switching operations to switch to work on the west abutment. Which is one side of the of the other. So, they got to go around. They did not uh actually put a like a you know, where
they can let the river go around them while they're work working. They they decided to shoot pile in and dewater in or concrete. So, it's been a result turn out to be pretty good. >> Mhm. >> Okay, seal coat project will begin in mid-July.
And Cassadaga 20 resurfacing scheduled to begin around August 1st. Which Cassadaga 20 goes north of four clear to the county line. Okay, what else we got? Other items of note and there's nothing
there. So, apparently there was nothing there. >> Pet flat. >> All right. Uh public safety committee, Troy and Doyle. >> Yeah, I think that one over there. >> We didn't have an update yet. >> Yeah, okay. I guess we did, didn't we?
>> Yeah, uh solid waste committee, Penn and Troy. >> We didn't meet last month. >> Okay. Strategic planning committee, Troy and Penn. >> I mean, we didn't meet either. >> No, we met Dr. Shannon about his plan.
>> Okay. >> When he when he decides to transition. >> Okay. >> I think one of the consensus probably for boards that he's truly aware and concerned about
succession and I I felt probably a higher level of comfort after listening to what his strategy is and I think we're in pretty good hands with where we're at right now. >> I'll fight. That's Would you agree with that, Penn?
>> Yeah, I thought it was a good meeting about what IT is currently in Grant County with the future of IT, you know, might look like in Grant County and we're on a good path. Things are working well now and very He's very open to, you know, talking about that transition with
Kristin. >> Horizon Public Health We met on the 12th of February, your your day, yeah. And he was in charge, he ran the meeting and did well and her two new assistants uh
were there. Uh and uh but yeah, so Ann Ann's going to stay on. She'll be done like July 1st, I think. But uh and then they they were uh in the process of taking interviews on uh
financial person and uh they they they made an offer to one of them and uh uh what I was told is they they they that that person accepted. So, we'll see who that is uh pretty soon here. Uh Jake, Western Prairie.
You want to speak on that? We were all there. >> I wasn't there. >> I wasn't there. >> Well, that's right. You guys weren't there. We weren't all there. Well, we went over some things, but I'm not sure if that was all of us. It was the same stuff.
>> A lot of it targeted SNAP. >> Yeah. And where we're headed and the revenue that comes to the state, like all that's all structured and our district meeting up in Fergus, they, you know, with AMC, they come with a brochure and there's there's questions that were asked about
that brochure and where we're headed from there. So, >> But I think the biggest piece for the local governments is when budgeting for 2027, the budget, if I understood it correctly, the costs just that are coming in '27,
we have to budget for and plan for one quarter. >> Well, so now So, HR1 federal government is cutting their administrative cost share that the county's going to have to pick up
25% of the administrative cost share that's not being funded anymore from the federal government. So, it follows their calendar year. That starts right now in 26. There's another 25% I believe that the federal government will no longer fund
come October 1 of 27. So, it is another quarter, but it's not just starting in October of 27, it's increasing. So, it It's actually starting this year. >> And then 28
>> When you budget for 28 then you'd be planning for a full year of it. >> Yes. But that legislation at the federal level when when we get through these the midterm elections, that could be subject to change. Just because it's all there now, that doesn't mean it's it's you know,
concrete. >> Right, it could get worse. >> It could get worse, it could get better. We don't know that. So, there's well, and then there's the budgeting also is So, that's the cost share part of it and then you have the error rate when we get into 27.
That the state The state puts some in for administrative, but it doesn't cover what the cost is. And then there's the error rate where there'll be penalties and that's out of our control because the state gets fined as a whole
and we would never exceed the cost the error rate or we never should, but we're still going to get penalized because of the state number. And state didn't pick up any of that. Okay. So, there are huge expenses coming just for staff and then you can you
throw in other There will be more detailed list of that to come. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go back and I don't know if it goes to public safety or to budgeting or what, but historically we've just gone along with the cities will
eventually sign the contracts and sometimes it drags into January, February and I don't think we should do that this year. I think we should be prepared by preliminary levy time to cover the cost cuz I don't think we're going to have a contract signed.
So, that's my feeling on it. If we have to have that plan, we don't necessarily have to execute it, but the plan has to be in place to cover it by the end of September when we set our preliminary head. >> You know, so that that that dollar amount is what we put in the journal.
You know what you're saying? >> Well, >> maybe the cities come back with a I mean, yeah, we need to have a plan whether it's going along or or I we need to have something in place by the end of September. We can't just hope they get signed as we have in the
past cuz I don't think that's going to happen. >> Just follow what you're saying is right then. And then you people have worked hard on this. But I don't think >> we should focus only on the city contracts, but
rather on the budget and how the operations are. Cuz that's really where the proof is in the pudding. It's not in the $342. We might think that, but I didn't mean that. >> Yeah. >> Well, and when I say the financial, I
mean it's more than the $342. >> I know >> Look at the expense side, too. If you're looking at one that's closer to a half a million. >> Okay. I just want to put that on everybody's radar so we don't get into September and Okay.
All right. Anything else today? David Gerdes meeting at 10:41 a.m. Thank you.