Good morning everyone and welcome to the Candy High County Board of Commissioners meeting for Tuesday, February 17th, 2026. Please stand as you are able for the pledge to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it
stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. I want to thank everyone for uh uh being in the room today as well as uh all you all that are out on uh uh watching us on
YouTube. Uh really appreciate your engagement here today. Uh at this time, I would request approval of today's agenda. >> Mr. Chair, I move. >> Commissioner Dale Anderson moves. >> I'll second that, Mr. Chair. >> Commissioner Dwayne Anderson seconds.
Discussion. >> Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> All opposed. That motion passes. >> Uh the next item is the consent agenda that today uh uh includes the approval of the February 3rd, 2026 county board
legal minutes, approval of the auditor's warrants and claims, approval of human services warrants and claims, and cancellation of certain uh human services warrants. Uh all routine stuff. We're paying the bills. >> Mr. Mr. Chair, I so move.
>> Commissioner Berg moves. Is there a second? >> I'll second it, Mr. Chair. >> Commissioner Dwayne Anderson seconds. Discussion hearing. None. All in favor say I. >> I. All opposed. >> That motion passes. Thank you. >> Uh at this time, we have a resolution
before us and I'm going to ask uh Jennifer Swenson to uh executive director of Prairiewoods Environmental Learning Center uh to introduce this to us. Uh Jennifer, good morning. Welcome. >> Good morning. Yeah, Jennifer Swinson Prairie Woods Environmental Learning
Center. And today we have a resolution authorizing an environmental and archaeological grant application to Greater Minnesota Regional Parks and Trails Commission and the Minnesota DNR U for the Prairiewoods Phase 1 Master
Plan Project. Um, so just a reminder that last year Prairiewoods completed master planning and uh were officially designated as part of the Greater Minnesota Regional Parks and Trails Commission system and that was a big step for us. This year we plan to pursue
some funding uh in order to achieve some of the projects from the master plan um and move some of these projects forward. Uh phase one includes quite a few projects and so we're working to prioritize um a few projects for funding for an
application that's due later this July. Um, those priorities would include a welcome center addition to the front of our education building to make it more accessible and the parking associated with that and a few possible
improvements to the outdoor canoe and kayak dock and the yurt area. Um but before we can apply for funding for construction, uh we want to first complete the appropriate environmental and archaeological reviews and
assessment. And so we're planning responsibly from the start without any delays. And so we're planning to apply for this environmental archaeological grant um in an amount not to exceed $50,000 to help cover those early planning and
assessment costs. There's no required match for the $50,000 grant and we're not requesting any funding from the county. Um just this resolution that would be submitted with our application and the Prairiewoods board also approved
a resolution similar to this one. >> Thank you. Uh any questions for Jennifer? >> Mr. Chair, I'd move on 2026-11. >> Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second it. >> Uh, thank you, Commissioner Anderson.
Uh, discussion. >> Commissioner U. Jennifer. Thank you. Will you um just describe a little bit what an environmental and archaeological uh study is? >> Of course. Um it would cover determining
whether the area is developable based on um different permitting, natural history, rare plant species just to identify whether the area is okay to develop um artifacts, you know, archaeology, things like that that would
be reviewed and assessed and kind of checked off on. And that process takes several months. That's why it's important to start it early even as you're thinking of what projects you want to ask for funding for. >> Uh all right. Yes. Continue.
>> Thank you. Um and this is not really different than what we do for any public works things. And I asked the question only because you know some people who are listening or in the room might might wonder the same thing. What what is a study like that for? >> Exactly. Most people are seem to be
familiar with um Native America, indigenous Americans and artifacts that may have been left behind like cemeteries and that kind of stuff. So, thank you. >> Exactly. Yeah. >> Any other questions? Commissioner B. >> Mr. Chair, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um sound like kind of a no-brainer to me. I
do have a question though. Um how long before you find out if you do get the grant and how long a time frame you you expect us to take before you can proceed? >> Sure. So this is um our first funding ask for this pre-work. Um and then as I
mentioned there is a funding legacy funding um application. Their deadline this year is in July. And so we're currently pulling together um people that we need to help us create that funding application. For example, an
architect to help design what we would want the front of the building to look like. Um and so that process um can take up to three years before you actually would complete a project. So >> thank you. >> And I would like to come back um once we
narrow down our funding application for July and talk about that as well. >> Anyone else? All right. Uh hearing uh nothing else. Jennifer, thank you so much. We have a motion and a second to approve resolution 2026-11.
All in favor say I. I. >> All opposed. >> That motion passes. Thank you and good luck. >> Uh at this time we have another resolution uh under consideration uh approving Town Road account payments. Uh
uh public works director Mel Odin is going to present. Mel, good morning. >> Yep. Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Um before you is consideration of the an annual town road distribution um calculation for the 24 townships in
Candyway County. Every year in February, there is a um a distribution that the county board is the financial steward that takes the state money and distribute it distributes it to the to
the 24 townships in our case. Um about a year and a half ago I suppose or a little over a year ago um some of the town board members had suggested that we take a look at the formula that currently is 60 40 60% based on miles
and 40% based on the population of any township. Um and so we we did um we met with Denell Williamson. Um then a year ago at the annual town meeting in March, it was discussed at the at the annual
meeting for consideration of do we do we want to take a look at a new formula or do we want to continue with the 6040? there was a there was a consensus to have Dell work up some options and so he did um and distributed it to the over the
summer to the townships and then um last fall in September we do a fall road and bridge township meeting and they voted on it which one which one to perhaps consider and they they voted I think I
don't remember what the exact vote was But it was it was to go with 100% mileage and not population. So it went from 6040 to 10 and0. So that was the vote. Um Dell came to our January 20th
meeting and asked for the board to consider revising the formula. It was kind of a head nod. You know, maybe you want to consider this. Well, now the day has come where we've got the money, we need to distribute it, but we don't have an official vote. Okay, so that's where
we are. Um, this is according to Minnesota statute 162.081 and that that explains on the requirements of the county of any county board that once you get the money, you have 30 days to get it to the township
in to their in their hands. You can't just hang on to it. And so the we didn't actually get the money until February 4th. So we technically would have until March 4th. Okay. So there is a technicality here that you could go to
one more meeting if you really wanted to. I just want to make that clear because I don't want to feel like our backs are up against the wall even though this is typically what we would do. So anyway, with that being said, I put together um a summary of what
Denell had uh and I've also in and put a formula or a resolution in here um of of the 100%. So, Mr. Mr. Chair, it's my my recommendation to consider this
um and and open it up for discussion and then uh you can have staff revise the resolution to whatever you may want. So I would open it up for questions. >> Thank you. Are there any questions for the director?
>> Mr. Chair, >> commissioner and >> thank you. And so, um, I think I understand this right, but if we do nothing, it will stay at the 640. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Thank you. Anyone else? >> Mr. Chair, Commissioner.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is there any other county in Minnesota or how many counties go 100%. >> The only two counties that are in Noan Ramsey because they're 100% incorporated. The other ones, they do maybe 955 or some version or other. And
I think I put a summary in there. There's there's a lot of variety. Um this the default is 5050. And like in our case in Kawaii County, I think we went to 6040 because we do have some urban um urbanized or some
developed townships that perhaps have a little more strain and so they they did edge a little bit. um they they went 60% mileage and maybe a little bit less on the population to uh
so the rural townships would have a little bit of an edge if you will if we're not talking large dollars. We're talking uh the the total amount this year is $65,861. It it shows that it's down. Um I don't know if you want me to explain that, but
I I will just in 30 seconds. the the delivery fee and the um auto parts sales tax is put into a transportation alternatives account taa that is not included in here and that's usually
between uh 50 to $70,000. So if you add that back in here you're actually getting the same or a slight increase. So the reason on that is is because they do a a basically an estimate in February and but they don't know the final
distribution until August. So the state was saying this is a new funding stream. Do we want to keep going with estimate final estimate final for financial purposes or do we just go final and then give this the next year?
And so they chose 2026 to take the TAA money estimate final and actually give this would be February of 27. >> Commissioner, you sure follow up? >> No, no, this Oh, no. Okay. Uh, Commissioner Anders,
>> um, I know I requested people to call me about this when we got brought up when Dan Neil did it and I have gotten a few phone calls. I've gotten some phone calls from that have different opinions all the way across. But, you know, I think the biggest thing that I look at
when I really looked at this the last couple weeks is, you know, there's not a perfect way to be to be fair, but we have to be equitable. And I think that's the thing that we have to look at is what's equitable to everybody to make this work. And and I mean it
would be great for the the small townships to to get that extra money to help with their roads, but yet I think we have to look at where our population is traveling on and where we're probably beating up the roads the worst or maybe maybe it still goes back. I've had some
conversation with a couple people that maybe some of these farms have to start putting in some some money into the game for how much they're using these roads and maybe that's an option that has to be looked at by these townships. Um I'm not saying that's the 100% answer, but
you know, we have to as as people in our community be responsible for some of the the damage that we do. Also, I feel I mean I'm a farmer. I I I I've busted up a road and I've I've put my money into it because I know it was my fault. >> So, I think that that's something that
maybe these townships maybe need to go back and ask some of these people that that are using them a lot if they'd be willing to at least if it does happen to one bust up because I mean it might never happen or it could happen. So, I think maybe that's maybe a way to to get
some money in into these townships to help with some of these bigger road projects because they weren't built for what's being pushed across them every, you know, every fall and every spring. They just never were built for that. They were built for a car probably back
in the 50s or 30s and and they weren't very big vehicles back then. So, I I guess that's the biggest thing that I look at is maybe there's other options for some of these townships to get some money in to help them with these road projects. Also, >> Commissioner B.
>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, question. These dollars that go to the townships, they can be only used for the road or they can use >> Correct. It's intended for road. Yep. >> And >> construction, reconstruction, and maintenance. >> Okay. And then just to basically follow
up on that, um knowing different size townships, six to $20,000 can make a big difference if you're counting. Have they been counting on the regular amount coming in or is this something? >> So, um a few townships called me and and
basically I wanted to know the the swing plus or minus on this. And so I gave them the 6040 and I gave them the the new, you know, and I I don't want to diminish the impact of this to the townships. It's it's a lot of money to the townships and and a percent of their
budgets. Um it's just that it the the swing isn't dramatic, if you will. I mean, I think the bigger swing is is on the urban townships would be the bigger swing. The smaller ones is plus or minus $3,000 or
something. >> They look like maybe up to 20 if I may. >> The larger ones would be up to 20 to 25,000. Y >> uh Commissioner Anderson. >> Thanks, Mr. Chair. Um so I got a call yesterday about this and and then they
said they told me that the statute says that I must take into account road miles and the population. Um and I said, "Nah, it doesn't say that, does it?" And I said, "Well, when I get done, I'll I'll I'll look up the law." And I said, "You look up the law, too, and we'll figure it out." Well,
that person was right. And so I guess my question is to our county attorney Baker. I, you know, part of the thing is our responsibility is not to get the county in trouble and I I think in this case also not to get the townships in trouble, but I would like to see if uh
Attorney Baker would have an opinion on on the the law and what it says or what how much weight we got to put on it when on population when it says you must. Looking at statute 162081, it indicates factors the board must
consider include towns population and town road mileage and other factors deem advisable. So you do need to consider population which would suggest that having a 100 split not accounting for
population could not be done. Well, what weight to give the population is up to you on what you think is equitable for the towns. >> So, we would have to kind of justify whatever number we come up with, whatever number is presented.
>> Yeah. But at least you got to have >> we can't just throw a number out there. We got to we got to be able to justify it somehow. >> And I mean whether because obviously the closer you go to 100% the more that's distributed to the lower population townships. You may think that's equitable. You may think
it's based on population, but population should be part of the formula and not 0%. U I'm I'm going to ask question >> and the chart did or the packet did have like around 54 counties >> where the formulas were distributed and
you can see that it's >> and that's kind of where I was going to go with this uh on that uh on that item that was provided in the packet uh notes that and I understand this is pretty recent chipoa did 95 >> yep
>> uh in order to get around this very issue that uh that you're raising I would assume I haven't talked to any of our friends over there, but um but I would assume that that's that that's what they were doing. >> That would seem that way. >> Yeah. Thank you, Commissioner Burke. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. I did have a
question. How long have we been at the 6040? >> You know, I didn't look back. I think the last time it was reviewed is maybe 2005 to 10, you know, probably 15 20 years. >> You had any cons? I I think at the time
there was some debate. I I think what it does is it it it's it's it's good discussion first of all because it brings some light to some of the money that we get from the sales tax and some of the money we get from gas tax that goes to the town board. I mean I certify
the miles every year. We we drive um I have to certify all the money that goes here. I have to certify these miles that they're being driven at least eight months and maintain at least eight months a year. And so this isn't just a a flippant thing. It's it's it so it's
good to bring attention to it and it's good to discuss it. And I think at the time they had some of this very similar discussion and they just ended up sticking with the 6040 because it seemed to be the most equitable. I don't know how I don't know how you ask anybody what you know there's got to be there's
a little bit of a subjective thing to this. You you want to be fair and you want to you want to get the money out to the townships. >> Mr. Mr. Chair. >> Uh, I have Commissioner Berg for >> Oh, I'm done. >> Oh, you're done. Okay. >> Uh, Commissioner,
>> um, this is really not pertinent to the decision we make, but it might be of interest to those listening. What is the source of that gravel tax? >> Where does it come from? >> Oh, the gravel tax. >> That that's that's the gravel tax is not
the the source of the gravel tax is is a different subject, but that's um from the the gravel pits, >> right? They pay. so much per yard or ton or whatever >> and that's by >> and it goes into a pot and then it gets distributed under this formula at this point. >> Not this formula. This is this is a
different formula. >> Yes. >> Yeah. This is this is Yeah, this is the HUTDF. >> All right. Thanks for that clarification. Um, can we can we get the u there's a request to have the uh uh
list of the uh townships uh and the impacts. Uh if we can get that up on the screen. >> Sure. >> At uh page 14. >> Oh, can you do it from there? Oh, sure. You can do it. I need to pop it open
then. better. Mel, if you can have that, we can just do the overhead, too. >> We're getting it. >> Yep. >> This one. >> That one. That one right there. >> No. Oh, you want that one? Which one do you want? one.
>> Well, maybe both. I just thinking for the audience and the people know >> some of the details. >> Can you read it? >> This is Which one do you want? >> The u the one that you were already on here. So, yeah, the page 14,
>> the spreadsheet right there. >> Yep. >> And then Yep. Perfect. All right. Uh any other any other questions from the board? So it was presented to us as a 100 uh%
uh miles uh formula which uh according to the advice from our uh attorney uh would would seem to not follow statute. Um, and so, uh,
I I I guess I have a level of discomfort with, uh, a couple of things here. One is that, uh, the county township association uh, did uh, discuss this. Not every uh, not every township participated.
uh but uh most of them which uh and most of ours are the lower density uh uh population uh townships uh wanted to go to uh uh to this formula and that's why the townships association brought this
uh brought this forward to us. But it still seems to me as though there's a little bit of um angst amongst some of our other uh townships over that over that decision. Um, and I I guess I I guess I'm curious,
you know, what it would take to uh have the townships go back to the table and work something up. I mean, yeah, we're we're kind of up against it right now. I think I heard you say >> Yeah. So, what we would what you know, administrator and I talked about this.
Um, there there's a couple options. We could we could revise the formula and get this resolution revised yet for today if you if you so chose. You could you could leave it like it is and and discuss it and then next year we could you know we
could take into account whether it's tax capacity or levy or population or equalization. There's a there's a lot of things you could do. Um, and that's my point was a little bit like, you know, you only, you know, the townships association just wanted to revisit it
because it hasn't been revisited for for quite some years and and there's a lot of new people and and maybe bring the equity part into it again. And so, it isn't bad to revisit something and then come up with a solution. I don't know that I would want you to feel like
you're making a bad decision either way. Maybe you could leave it and we could do more work and then next year or or we could revise something today and I could get you something back yet today. So,
>> uh any any thoughts from the board? >> Mr. Chair, >> go ahead, Commissioner. >> Perhaps you just want to uh ask to see if there's a motion for the resolution. Uh is there uh is there a motion to move
the resolution forward? Uh hearing u uh hearing no uh uh no one to move uh move on the resolution. Uh we are open for uh more discussion on this. commission. >> I I would love to do what the townships
want >> because um I was a township officer for many years and I hated that the county would say no, we're not going to do it this way. We're going to do it our way. But when when it's pointed out that you
must consider population, that makes me stop and go, "Wait a minute." You know, I I don't want to get us in trouble and I don't want to get the townships in trouble either. So, I'm really struggling with this. Um, but I think maybe the option then is
just to say, let's take a pause, a one-year pause, and then put it back to the townships. I don't want to say no, but I I think it's got to be looked at better. I I think when attorney Baker says you can't go 100 for for road miles
and zero for population um because we whatever number we would have to come up with we'd have to be able to justify it >> um potentially and and so then to just throw another number out there to me is it's hard to do and because I I'm just throwing numbers out there at that
point. Uh so I guess I'm going to make the motion. I I think I'll I'll make the motion and I'm going to get dinged on this because I I know there's a lot in my town in my district that want it to go 100% road miles, but I'll make the
motion to keep it the same at 6040 and hopefully we can get together with the township association and uh come up with a number for next year that that will work. Um I I think 100 for miles and
zero for population at this point doesn't work. Uh so that's my motion is to re keep it the same as 6040 for this year and hopefully we can come up with a another number next year. So >> we have a motion by Commissioner Dwayne
Anderson to keep the formula the same for 2026. Is there a second? >> Mr. Sure. I think I think it's actually moot because uh we had a resolution 20 2024-13
and has failed. So essentially it will stay the same without any further action at this point. But I would agree with commissioner what commissioner Anderson said is that um it shouldn't be the county making that decision. And I would encourage the townships to continue to
talk. And I mean, I live in the township and so my township and the townships in my district would be uh affected quite a bit uh in a downward level. But again, it was my township that first brought
this idea up and and uh so I think the townships could work spend some time working it out and I don't think we should be making that decision for what that split would be. Uh, Commissioner Anderson, >> I I totally agree with what Dwayne was saying and what Roger said. I think it
would be great to have, you know, have some more time for them to kind of come up with something and figure out how we can make this better for everybody. Uh, I know it's an important thing for the small townships because it's it's a way for them to get
some revenue without levying their their constituents. But yet I think we have to look at the whole the whole county as a whole and that makes it hard because there is a lot of variation in our county for size on different townships and that so if they could go back and and work on this some more that would be
great. Um and come up with a different thing maybe we go to a 7 7030 or whatever that number gets to be. But like Dwayne said it's hard for us to come up with that. We're just pulling numbers out of the air I think at this point if we keep going. So thanks. I think I think we would be put in the
position of trying to split the baby at this point. So, Commissioner Anderson. >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, I have a point of order though on that because um uh under the statute and I'm not a lawyer, but this is what I read
yesterday and and uh attorney Baker can maybe clarify this, but under subdivision three, um the the amounts must be paid in a sufficient time to allow the county to distribute the amounts to each town by
March 1st annually. So, we got to we got to decide today. Um, if we take no action, >> I don't I don't know what happens, but um I I No, I think it reverts to 50/50. >> I would look for clarification from uh
the administrator and the uh county attorney. >> Administrator Baker. >> Um, we still would have to pass a resolution. We typically still pass a resolution. Even if we don't pass a resolution, Commissioner Dwayne Anderson would be right. then it would resort
back to that 50/50. Um, every year, yes, >> public works director does bring a resolution with the 60/40 split notifying the townships of what it will be. So, per Dwayne's point, we still need to pass the resolution, which I know Mel has readily available with that
6040. That would be the standard resolution you would have passed if this wouldn't have been brought forward, been a discussion. Um, and so I think your motion, maybe you want to clarify in your motion that it would it's the 6040
split. Um, and then we would get that resolution would replace what you have in your board packet. >> That that would be correct. And and to your point, it the the statute does say or within 30 days a receipt of the dollars. We got it on February 4th. So,
>> so that that that's why I was saying if >> you know I I just wanted to be clear that that if this says March one and that's >> probably since the start of time is what we've done. You know what I mean? >> So, we could you could pass that resolution today or make the motion that
it would be the 60/40 split including the resolution or Mel could bring the resolution back at the March 3rd meeting and that would be insufficient time. But either way, the county board would still have to pass that 60/40 split resolution by the March 4th. >> I mean, if you're in consensus, we could
seems like we just do it and then and then it's they'll we >> So, if we kick the can down the road to the next meeting. Uh, is there time to talk with townships or because I think we should just I think we should really move on this. My my
recommendation what it does is it it puts all of us in a little bit of a not that that maybe matters that staff gets put in a pinch, but it might it might mean manual checks or something because you would only have hours to get it by state statute
>> if if we wait till next meeting. >> Uh I would uh I would ask attorney Baker if he has anything to add in regards to the uh point of order that was raised. >> Nothing additional. I agree that >> you need resolution. So you're you're you're feeling that um that we should
probably make a motion to continue I mean we we've always done a resolution of 6040 that that's every year >> um and that's what we approve. >> Mr. Chair >> had to do the decision today. >> I have commissioner first. >> Oh thank you Mr. Chair. I I don't want
to kick the can down the road. I think we can make a decision today and I think we should. >> Thank you commissioner. So I would offer an amendment to resolution 2026-12 to use the formula of formula of 6040 for the distribution. >> Okay.
>> Is uh is that amendment agreeable? >> Yep. >> All right. So everybody understands then that the motion would be to approve 2026-12 with the existing 6040 split. That's the
Reader Digest condensed version. >> Okay. >> We need a second though for that. >> We still need a second. >> Yep. Thank you. Is there a second? >> Amendment. >> Uh we need a second to the amendment first. Yes. Or to the main motion. >> We need a a second to the main motion
first. >> Well, actually I I don't represent a count township, so I'm thinking it should come down the township. One of you would want to make that decision. Well, the uh the chair will second. >> Okay. >> Uh even though he's in the same boat.
Yes. All right. Uh and now we uh have an amendment to the main motion uh offering up the specific 60/40 split. Is there a second to the amendment?
>> You you just made it. You second. >> Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah. That's right. Thank you. Thank you for all right. Discussion on the motion as amended. Anything else? Are we ready to vote? All right. Very good. Uh, all in favor
of passing resolution 2026-12 as amended, signify by saying I. >> I. >> All opposed. All right. That motion passes. Thank you very much. >> Uh, should be
okay. here at this time. Let's uh >> Are we going to be going through every one of these tax forces? It looks like a lot of stuff and a lot of explanation. Then maybe we should >> Yeah. No, that's that's perfectly fine. Yeah, I was going to say there's some there's a lot of technical stuff here.
So, we're going to be on this one a while. So, yeah, we will take a 10-minute recess. Fine. All right, the uh Candyo High County Board of Commissioners is back in session at this time. We have another resolution, actually two, uh resolutions
2026-13 and 14 consider approving tax forfeited land sales. Uh we have Michelle Hansen, our deputy auditor uh and elections coordinator uh with us here today to uh uh bring up this subject. And this comes
just as a reminder for the board. Uh this comes out of the Supreme Court decision on Tyler versus Minneapolis that uh uh unanimously found that uh the state's uh tax forfeited uh uh statutes
were uh unconstitutional. And so our association as well as many others uh uh and uh auditors across the state uh worked to come up with uh legislation to be able to uh uh have a new system and now we're starting to
work through that. Uh Michelle, you're going to guide us through that today. Good luck. >> Good morning. >> Uh members of the board, Michelle Hansen, uh deputy auditor, treasurer, and elections coordinator. As Mr. chair said already. Um,
this is a lot of stuff. I'll just say if you've looked at it at all, um, in your board packet, there's a lot of information here and so I'm hopefully going to try and walk through it and simplify what I can for you. Um, but as Mr. chair um had said this is result of
the Tyler lawsuit and um basically the tax forfeited um process now has a lot to do with the timing of when these properties were forfeited. Um so there's um two time periods if you will. The first is the good faith time period.
These are the parcels that were forfeited between June 23rd of 2016 and December 31st of 23. Um, so those parcels are to be handled one way. The ones that have been forfeited after
December 31st of 23 have a different process. So in the background information, I I've spelled that out for you. Um, basically our two resolutions have to do with those two types of forfeitures. And so the first resolution
uh 2026-13 has to do with those good faith parcels and um the parcels that were uh forfeited during that pro process um or that time period, excuse me. Um,
as another caveat to that, um, any parcels that were residential, four units or less, um, must be offered for the first 30 days to someone that will own, occupy, um, use those properties
for non-commercial residential use. So, these can't be turned into rentals that can't be purchased by folks that will turn them into rentals. Um, and so that's a 30-day requirement. >> Sure. Yes. >> Commissioner Mck. >> Well, I had two questions. You just
answered the other one about you can't you can't, you know, collect these and turn them into rentals, but is the uh does uh previous owner get the first right of refusal? >> Um, I believe at this point we're beyond the point where that first owner could
um repurchase. >> Okay. Shane can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that there is no way for them to purchase them without paying exactly what they would have had to pay to redeem it. Does that make sense?
Um, so that first 30 days, that residential requirement, um, it what it does is it it essentially makes us have two separate auctions for these good faith parcels. So, it's a step one and a step two of those good
faith parcels. So, resolution uh 26-13 is for those good faith parcels. What we're proposing to do is set our first auction, which is March 30th at 9:00 a.m. And there is a list of the parcels
um uh that are residential properties with that residential requirement. So there are a handful of parcels listed there um in city of Wilmer, city of Sunberg, city
of Raymond and city of Lake Lillian. Those parcels all were uh residential prior to forfeite. So they need to be following that residential requirement. Um the properties are um the sale price
is set by appraisal or a suggested appraisal by the uh county assessor. And um there are some exceptions to that as far as um we are allowed to include
some fees, some of the county's expenses in that sale price so that we can recover some of that. If those properties do not sell at that first sale, they can be purchased over the counter through our office for the
following 30 days at that same uh sale price listed on the auction with that same residential requirement for that first 30 days. If they do not sell, then we move on to sale number two, which we've tenatively
set as April 29th, which is any of those parcels that did not sell on that first auction of this good faith auction, the residential requirement would be lifted then and then there are two additional properties that were uh commercial type properties
in the city of Atwater that will be added to it because they don't have that residential requirement. So, those are our two sales. At the time of the second sale, again, if the properties don't sell, they could be
sold uh purchased across the counter through our office beginning the following day. One of the other um things that came out of the Tyler auction or the Tyler lawsuit, excuse me, is that no longer can the parcels be purchased on a
contract. They must be purchased by cash only. Reason being is that we are required to send a certain portion to the state and that has to be available funds immediately if there are former owners or somebody that has a claim
against the property files that to recoup those funds. So those funds have to be available. Um, the other requirement that I've put into our terms of sale, um, that's not exactly spelled out in the resolution, but it is further in the terms of sale is I'm seeing other
counties are now, um, having a requirement about um, potential purchasers um, or biders not having any delinquent taxes on any other properties in the county. So, anyone that wanted to
be a potential buyer or bidder would need to make sure that their own current property taxes are current. So, we don't want to create a snowball effect. And so, um, we felt that that was appropriate to add to ours as well. Um,
and so I've added that. So, that is in our terms of sale. It's not exactly spelled out in the resolution. The resolution is basically just a a summary for you. Any questions on that first round, >> Commissioner B? Well, not a question
about that, but a question about the the descriptions of the property and most people don't have a plot book and neither do I. It' be nice to have a map somehow online or something because if we want to put up for auction, you know that people, oh, that's the lot next
door where I live. I might want to bid on that. So, uh, I know they can come in and get the information, see where it's at, but can there some way we can make this auction a little bit more available online that people can say, "Oh, this is that property down the block. I might be interested in that. Might be able to
sell it better." >> So, one of the other requirements with the TYO lawsuit is that it must be published 30 days prior to the um auction itself. And then we also need to market it, per se. So, the plan is to
put it out on our website. Um, I was planning to speak to Kelsey's office about uh using some of our um social media to drive them to our website as well and um kind of use that platform.
Uh the other item is that we are required to notify adjacent owners that the parcels are coming for sale and again we can drive them to the website for further information and then of course they can come to our office as well.
>> Good and thank you for the clarification >> and per the the um the information within your board packet along with the resolution we have the parcel numbers. >> Yes. which then are on our county GIS public facing website, you can punch in
those parcel numbers and it'll pull it directly up. If I knew I can go through all those steps for every one of those, I'm not sure about that. >> Right. We'll have more detailed information if board approval. >> Sure. Sure. >> Good. Thank you, >> Commissioner MD.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, these um I'm going to call them rules. Um are they set by statute? >> I believe so. what what we are utilizing and I believe we included this in your board packet was this handy little chart
that AMC put out um shortly after the Tyler lawsuit in one of their publications. Um it just breaks it down and makes it a lot easier to look at um because it is a lot of information. Um but it does talk about um each of these
time periods when the properties are forfeited and the requirements the um additional sale requirement and that that residential requirement is in there. >> I have I have a couple other questions. Go >> ahead. Yes. Um, how much time does a
person have to occupy? Because most of them are likely going to take a fair amount of work to get them into the many of our tax for the tax forfeited parcels are going to require some uh some work, >> right? >> Uh, so is there a time frame? I thought
I heard you say 30 days, but that seems short. >> The 30 days is that they have to be offered as a residential. they have to be offered to someone that's going to own or occupy it as a residential for that first 30 days. So, we can't sell it
to anybody >> that for instance will want to use a use it as a a rental. >> So, is there a time frame? I mean, >> I don't think you'd want this to drag on for years and years that somebody's wor and we have examples of that too in the county, but is there a time frame?
>> I don't I don't know that. Okay. Um, >> attorney Baker, do you have any? Not off the top of my head. >> And and then a related couple of related questions. Um you know, could a party make claim that they're going to occupy it? Oh, my kid
is going to live there or whatever and then they own it or they buy it, they they >> refurbish it and then they flip it. Is there >> is there any safeguards against that? And then I'll ask the next one uh at the same time is how will this be monitored
and enforced? Is that up to our environmental services or accessory? Do you >> you know that's one thing we haven't talked about. So that would be one thing that we would have to figure out in that 30 days prior to the auction coming due
might be some sort of a um possibly a a statement that's signed by the buyer. I I don't know. We we could work with attorney Baker on that and and try and get some clarification. I used to be in the seed corn business and we would go to our national meetings in late summer
and they they'd lay roll out the uh the new programs for this year's dealers and by the time we got back to Cedar Rapids, Iowa from De Moine, the dealers back in Minnesota had loopholes figured out. So, >> Sure. That's why I'm asking these questions. >> Sure. No, understandable.
Now my understanding is uh also uh that if these properties do not sell through these new processes there is a mechanism then by which then that they can be sold under the terms of the old statute.
>> Correct. uh which uh which allows for some uh maybe a little more creative uh uh ways to uh get these get these properties sold, rehabbed back on the tax roles. >> Yes. So, if we go through both of these
sales and they're still not sold, then we can revert to the old process. >> Um and in that case, um it may be possible to do a contract. um those restrictions would possibly um
be gone. Um so those would be things we would need to look at. Um >> and there's some there's some public purpose >> uh yes clauses within that that uh potentially a local unit of government correct could correct uh could perhaps
then participate in that in that regard. >> Yes. Um, one one thing I wanted to mention to that fact is so after that first 30 days, that residential requirement, if indeed an entity such as
um a public unit of government wanted to purchase but they didn't qualify under that residential requirement, they may qualify at the next auction to purchase that way. >> Okay. So, Commissioner, >> yeah, I just want to make clear that I'm
I'm not uh I'm not actually not opposed to an entrepreneur who buys some of these properties, fixes them up, and puts them back on the market for a family. We need those kind of places. >> And not everybody who wishes to own a home has the skill set to renovate a
home and get it into livable conditions. And so, um, I'm guessing that we're going to find out like so many things that get passed at the legislature or by the courts that there's a lot of tales that we haven't figured out yet in this process. >> The
>> I would I would move on resolution uh 20. This is 13. This one is 13. >> Yes, >> it is. >> Resolution 2026- Mr. Chair, >> we have a motion and a second uh to move on resolution 2026-13.
Uh further discussion, questions. All right. Hearing none. Uh then all in favor of uh approval of resolution 2026-13 say I. >> I. >> All opposed. That motion passes. And then we have 2026-14
which is the second process. Yes. >> Right. So, the second process, like I said, these are properties that were forfeited after December 31st of 2023. Um, this is a whole new set of rules um for the auctions. And the first being um
what's called an EMV or estimated market value sale. So, the first um auction we're proposing to be on uh March 31st um at 9:00 a.m. And these are parcels.
Um there are only three. Um but these parcels the sale price the the the starting sale price if you will is the estimated market value at the time of forfeite. Um again there is one caveat
to um we are able to add some fees or um costs that the county may have incurred into that um sale price. Um, and so the sale prices are as listed there. Um,
there is a couple of them that have some odd dollars and that is due to some fees that were incurred by the county. Um, and also some um, special assessments that were levied after the time of forfeite. Um, so some street work or or
things like that. So again, the price is set for the first 30 days. If they don't sell at that first sale, they could be purchased at at our office over the counter, but that price is set for the first 30 days. Then the second sale um
if those three properties or any of them remain unsold then for the second sale the price drops to what they call the minimum bid which is the sum of the delinquent taxes um assessments and fees
at the time of forfeite. And then um any special assessments that were levied um or scheduled to be levied that are not included in this could be reassessed by the city or township upon
purchase. So, um, what I've written into the terms of sale is that, um, like with any of these properties, the potential buyers and biders need to do their homework, need to do their research on what fees may be occur incurred once the
property's purchased. So we are required to list the EMV or the the starting bid price for that first auction and then also what the starting bid would drop to if they remain for the second auction and then that again would stay for those
30 days. >> Okay. Uh and and just to clarify, these are going to be in-person auctions, >> correct? Uh and so and and then if somebody wants to go actually take a look at the uh property and they want to get inside uh they would work with your
office to do that. >> Yes, that's correct. We do have access. There are three homes within the city of Wilmer. Um and we have keys for that so we could arrange um a walk through. And I know I've been in one of them multiple
times. And uh uh you would not be out of place if you wore a hazmat suit, >> right? >> For for certain at least something over your covering your mouth and nose. >> It is important to notice along with those lines um that the properties are
to be sold as is where is. >> So there um whatever's in the homes goes with the home. whatever is or isn't, I should say. Um, I have not personally been in them, but I we have staff that have been.
So, >> Commissioner Anderson, >> so I'm just making a little joke here. So, that that all that other stuff that that's free that goes with it. So, >> thank you. >> Yeah, you're gonna you're you're going
to get rich on that free stuff. >> All right. Uh, do we uh have any other questions for Michelle? If not, uh, can I entertain a motion for resolution 2026-14? >> Mr. Chair, I'll move. >> Thank you. Commissioner Anderson moves. >> I'll I'll second that. M.
>> Commissioner Dwayne Anderson seconds. Any further discussion? That was less painful than I thought it was going to be. Like I said, there's a lot of stuff to get through, but >> yeah, >> Commissioner Anderson,
>> I just know that there's a person in Sunberg that'll be really happy that this is happening and there I've gotten a lot of phone calls about that one property and and they really want it cleaned up and this will be great. I mean, I can I'm going to be excited to call them after this and say, "Hey, it's on the auction. It's going to get done."
And so thanks for all the work you guys have done with this and and getting this put together so it can get cleaned up. So thank >> thank you. >> Anyone else? >> All right, we have a motion and a second to move on resolution 2026-14. All in favor say I.
>> I. >> All opposed. That motion passes. Thank you very much. And at this time, uh, uh, we will ask, uh, uh, County Administrator Kelsey Baker to bring forward the Prairie Lakes Youth Programs Lease Agreement. Kelsey,
thank you. >> Good morning, commissioners. Kelsey Baker, Candyway County Administrator. As the board chair said, before you today, you have uh you have the Prairie Lakes Youth Program lease agreement with Kandy County. Um, this was approved for an
extension through March 13, 2026. um in hopes that Prairie Lakes would be moving down the road a little further on some building projects that they have been working on. And so the agreement's coming to the county board today at this meeting and then the the agreement will
go um be discussed at the Prairie Lakes youth uh board meeting tomorrow and there is a correction. The fire was the 1804 building. 1808 is the secure building. So within the agreement um we
had not changed the dollar amount. So the annual rent was updated in that agreement. This is unchanged. Um due to having a good working relationships with Prairie Lakes. I spoke with Commissioner Berg who sits on that joint powers. Um
Prairie Lakes have has been looking at building options and what will be their best option moving forward long term. And so I did not raise their rent because they're they're in the process of looking at structures and where that the best use will be. Now, if they
decide to stay in 1808 and stay within the building along with a lease with the county, we will revisit that lease amount. Uh but their annual rent is $43,790.40, making their monthly rent for the one building $3,649.20.
and that's equivalent to 12 installments throughout the year. That would be $2 per square foot. Um, and then if uh the lease would be starting commencing March 14th, 2026, continuing through March
31st, 2027, and then we'll go uh around 6 months period. And that is listed um on page three under the options. So following the March 31st, if we need to extend that, it would go from April 1st
to December 31st and then January to March, April to December. I did speak with the executive director, Kristen Johnson. These she feels comfortable with this. Um, and like I said, this is really hoping that the county board or Prairie Lakes youth program would have a
better understanding of where they want to be long term um for to run Prairie Lakes youth programs. And so I think it's working well with Prairie Lakes and with the county on how we can stabilize them and then continue helping them move
forward on giving them this time. And so today I would ask for approval. Sorry, this is up here. Um I would ask for approval on the the uh the agreement. >> Thank you. You've heard the recommendation of the administrator. Uh is there a motion?
>> Mr. Chair, I also moved on the agreement. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> I'll second that. >> Thank you, Commissioner Mdeck. Discussion. Commissioner MDC. >> Thank you. Um, Miss Baker, there there's two highlighted areas and I see no
strikethroughs, you know, with replacement language. So, there's no material changes to this uh from the previous contract other than the options added and the and then the one-year lease. >> Correct. Yep. And um just to maybe expand on that a
little bit, the county has always held within the lease that we handle things outdoors. So I think that's where the discrepancy has come in with the windows within the Prairie Lakes Youth Board and the county. And so we've worked through some of those issues, but you are correct. Nothing substantial has changed
outside um of correcting those that dollar amount and then the the lease timeline. So, you mean we had to wash the outside of the windows and they had to wash the inside of the windows? Is that what that >> Well, it's a more a little bit more in depth. We don't have to go into, but the
replacement of the windows really needs to be done. And so, we've been working through that on who does what. >> Commissioner B. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'll I'll put on my Prairie Lakes Youth Program board hat, and I want to thank uh Administrator Baker for putting this
together. It seems very reasonable. $2 a square foot for uh any business is is a bargain. And what we're getting for that is that then the county is going to maintain the the property outside the uh getting rid of the snow in the parking
lot and so forth. But uh so it is seems very reasonable. It seems very fair. It has, as you mentioned, has not been uh uh to the board yet for Prairie Life youth program with other four counties. But I can't picture there to be an issue with this at all um going forward and we
just really like to flex appreciate the flexibility. also like to add that it is a joint powers and yet you know we sit on that joint powers and in some ways it's really Candy County's facility in a sense that ever came down to it these
other counties uh you know would not want to really probably step forward with any significant dollars or commitment to building at this point because the advantage is to candy county we employ close to 100 people there and
uh and a lot of kids uh come into that facility and it's the closest one we have and uh it's very important for the sheriff's department to be able to take children there that need detention and we uh take you know all kind all kinds
of uh situations with kids adolescents that need uh need to be detained including uh murder and and so forth there. um it's has not been updated for years and that's where we're struggling you know and we got really close maybe just a little bit of history if I may
since we do have some time uh back in 2019 uh Representative Baker uh worked really hard and worked with Prairie Lakes youth program uh and got a a grant available for over a million dollars to update it and at that time there was a match to it
and just to update the board on that the board uh was prepared to uh have a half a million dollar match and I would hope if we ever go down the road again that we would still be supportive of that because it's a it's a an asset to our county in so many different levels but
even on the economic level uh that we would keep that in our mind as we do support that going forward uh just in case something does come up and I hope something does come up uh I think these kiddos need a a decent place for detention so uh anyway enough said about
that But thank you so much going forward and I really hope this passes. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Uh, anybody else? >> All right. So, we have a motion and a second to approve the uh lease agreement
uh for Prairie Lakes youth programs. Uh, last call for discussion. Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. >> All opposed. That motion passes. Thank you very much. I I do want to thank my friend uh Commissioner Berg for helping me out
with one of his pair of cheaters. Somebody forgot to put any in my pocket this morning. Uh we are now at the county administrator annual uh uh performance review. Uh and the
administrator has the option of uh having this review held in a open or a closed session. And you've indicated uh Kelsey that uh right here in open session is fine. Is that all still >> good?
>> All right. Very good. Uh so I just uh I I wanted to go over a couple of things very briefly. Let me switch screens here. There we go. Uh uh Vice Chair Anderson and I uh spent some time yesterday uh going over the u
accumulated uh reviews uh that commissioners have shared. Uh and there are uh several uh items that uh uh we had some common themes uh uh under the heading what is the u county
administrator doing well? Uh uh certainly uh holding uh people accountable uh and that is uh staff, department heads and our board uh uh and making sure that uh uh uh communication
is uh especially strong with uh everybody across the enterprise. Uh it was noted that employee retention rates uh uh have uh become uh uh uh much stronger uh during Kelsey's tenure. Uh
employee uh morale is especially high. Uh and uh it was noted that uh uh she had an exceptionally strong year uh last year bringing the board and department heads uh uh along in the creation of the
strategic plan for the county. Uh uh I know it wasn't necessarily mentioned in here, but the new uh the new logo at minimal cost was also a win. Um and then the work to um uh uh bring forward uh
our building committee and bringing to the board uh the um uh need for a new justice center and remodeling this uh this building here. Uh the administrator uh uh absolutely demonstrates a strong
work ethic. Uh is proactive and prompt in returning calls, answering questions. Uh and as far as what could the administrator uh improve upon, uh there's a u uh suggestion to uh uh see some changes in regards to uh uh
building permits and uh planning and zoning. Uh trying to help people instead of making things harder for them. uh and uh also that we hold more discussions uh of all or and I assume with other
departments so that we can uh as a board gain uh additional understanding uh of all of these different areas. Um and uh uh also that uh uh that the administrator continue to uh uh work
confidently uh recognizing also the need for uh uh boundaries regarding work life balance and uh uh while overcommunic overall communication is strong. Uh there's room to continue to expand uh communication across the board and the
entire enterprise. uh broader engagement uh would uh help enhance uh uh further enhance transportation and uh uh transparency and collaboration. Uh trying to mash up two words, I guess. Uh and working uh more with our state
and federal representatives on our county uh and regional priorities and goals. Um, as far as priorities or goals that you'd like to see this administrator focus on in the next one to three years, uh, the, uh, building projects, um, technology is really a big
one as well. uh moving us forward as well as uh uh helping us in whatever way uh she can to uh uh push the state to do the systems modernization that our eligibility workers and others need to be able to um uh do uh uh their their
work and then uh assessing the parks and uh uh further developing long-term plan and goals. I know we have a parks plan that isn't that old, but uh probably need uh maybe another
fresh set of eyes on that. Uh uh looking to uh uh potentially streamline uh agenda setting uh trying to make it easier uh to bring items forward for board discussion. Uh expansion of work
sessions uh is something that is suggested as well. Uh it's also noted that the uh budget process is uh much improved uh but continue looking at ways to enhance that process and ensure that all stakeholders are uh equally informed
and uh uh while they're already positive uh areas uh continuing to refine those areas that bring uh continual success. Uh uh and there's uh there's some maybe uh uh
uh working on maybe uh moving some offices around out here and doing something uh uh different in the lobby if for some reason we don't receive authorization from either the uh uh state or ultimately the voters uh to proceed with the uh uh justice center uh
project. Uh it was also noted that this year will be really challenging uh at the legislature as we try to get permission to bring that plan to the voters. Um and uh planning for a voter information campaign uh should we receive approval should actually start
soon uh sooner rather than later. Uh we also have all of our bargaining units coming up this year. Uh and so that's going to be a high-wire act, so to speak, uh in uh meeting state and federal mandates while trying to our
best to protect property taxpayers from high levy increases. Uh and uh all of her uh skills are going to need to be brought uh forward on that. Uh and uh also a long look near and long term at non-mandated uh services and uh uh
assessing whether or not uh some of those uh uh can continue to be uh sustained or if they need to be uh uh potentially looked at uh uh for inclusion on the chopping block. uh what happens over the next several years uh
especially uh with the is it's highly dependent upon what happens at the state uh and federal levels. Uh but overall uh it's felt that the uh administrator has changed the culture among the workforce and the organization for the better. Uh
and uh uh that particular writer is uh uh grateful for for her leadership in these un uncertain times. There were several other thoughts. Um, uh, problem solving, always making sure there's enough interest to then discuss the
issue. Uh, uh, good at knowing what the issues are and can always answer questions right away. Uh, communication, making sure that we have ample time to, uh, uh, look things over and also contacts us before the meetings and
again is responsive if need be. uh and uh very good at getting things done and uh never feel that uh she hasn't followed through. That's a uh cliffnotes version of what's uh of what's in here. I want to thank uh thank the members for
their uh for their comments on this and uh uh Kelsey, I hope uh I hope this is satisfying for you to hear and don't know if you want to or need to have any comment on that or
I mean, I can um I think some of those and I'll review this with the the chair and the vice chair again, but I think per the strategic plan to improve the internal communication, which I think we've done, um newsletters, all staff meetings or all staff emails, department
head uh meetings and updates um and also doing more of the community events to getting um showing up at community presentations. And it's not just me, it's all staff as well. It's different departments that go and talk with community groups and community members.
U because I think one thing that counties don't always do well and we're all guilty of is we don't give ourselves enough credit and pat ourselves on the back and how much we play in certain roles with nonprofits and things like that. um can you continue to bring training and education and I think the staff have
really appreciated that the board has been supportive with this and bringing professional development training into our into the county um to help with education and promoting from within um to continue to guide internal policies and keeping those up to date. I don't
think that's anything that's easy to do. Um because it's it seems like a minimal task, but then it it does really it does matter when um the rubber meets the road. Um just to touch briefly on the turnover rate. Um ending in 2025,
December 31st, 2025, our turnover rate went from a 13% to a 9% um from 2023 to 2025. And so I think that is a substantial um positive thing that's happened within KY County. But I can't take all the credit. It's our department heads. It's
the board. It's the staff that all make this work. Um and so just to end this, I do really am grateful to the this county board. Um I'm grateful to the constituents and the staff to allow me to have this position. I'm always grateful to do this job. Um I enjoy my
job tremendously. I enjoy the work that county government does. And I think to look to all county commissioners to work on my state and federal legislative issues and um keeping Candyo County at the forefront of the state is um something that this county has always
done well and I can I I hope to continue doing that. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you very much. Uh with that, uh Commissioner B. >> Yes. I just like to make a comment. uh listening to this uh administrator Baker
has had a lot on her plate this past year and the and the two years before that as well and several of those comments you uh made uh I also was quoted in those and I just want to say thank you for past year.
>> Thank you. All right. Uh with that then uh we are at the uh uh towards the end of our agenda. So we have uh are there any administrative updates that uh you want to make >> just that we'll have um you had scheduled the health and human services
work session for Monday March 2nd. Um the listening schedule I want to just verify I put that on here for 5:30 Monday March 9th. Um I know it was discussed but I just wanted to verify that that was still going to happen. So >> um so that we meet our notifications for
open meeting locks. So, this is our public notice that then it will and I'll probably still do a notice within the paper to get the word out for that listening session. That's for the shotgun rifle discussion. >> It's at 5:30. Um, >> and we'll have that in the U MPR.
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> NPR EOC. I just got to check room availability. Oh, >> okay. You already did. Yep. Thank you, Leah. >> And then >> and so it is NPR. I already scheduled it. >> Okay. >> And then um
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to follow up on that, this is going to be a listening session, not a discussion, right? So, just to be really clear and I notice on the agenda there uh the DNR is going to be there. is that >> working on getting somebody from the DNR to talk talk about this and kind of set
the table, >> but there will be a discussion, but they're going to give the background on it and then y >> let's be clear >> and and there may be one or two points of clarification uh that uh I know I might have uh just in terms of what it is we can and can't uh do by the
statute. Um uh somebody uh uh communicated with me and asked about limiting magazine capacity. Well, I don't know if that's in our Bailey Wick or not. So, uh so at any rate, we'll be uh we'll be listening on that and then
uh we'll have a public hearing uh scheduled and uh a decision needs to be made no later than I think it's May 5th. Yep. Okay. Um any uh any questions for
the administrator on that? >> Okay. And uh uh anything else for administrative updates? All right. Uh uh and we don't have any uh do we have any appointments that we need to uh address?
Uh members, do we have anyone that you're still looking for that we should be? >> What do you need to fill? I got two I have to fill. An extension is one of them, too. >> Okay. And that's from your district. Yes.
>> Okay. Sorry. >> Oh, um >> I can't speak louder. >> Oh, yeah. It's you you don't whisper around me anymore. Okay. So, >> unless you don't want me to hear it. Um
and so then uh uh calendars and uh uh committee reports. Uh uh Dale, uh would you start us off? >> Sure. Um I had a ditch meeting up in Benson on the 6th. Um they're putting in a different box covert. It's part of our
our road project that we're working on on 25. I'm going to say that the wrong road number, but it's on the it's a big project that we're starting. um just replacing box car culvert and they had to be in on that watershed is with swift
colony also. So um we had a health board meeting on the 10th um that's always interesting to see what's going on in uh in public health and um to hear where where things are at with the cannabis and stuff like that. We had a little
discussion about that in that um and that evening I had a middle fork watershed meeting. Um they're starting their Mongolia Lake um Rock Rapids uh project and trying to get as much done as they can before frost comes out. Then
they have to quit until next winter. It's only a winter project. It can't be done in the summer. And then they're going to replace a uh a bridge there that uh people drive across also with that project. Um so that was interesting. And then on um the 13th, I
was part of a Zoom meeting for CCT for discussion on um on on their organization and where it's going forward. So that's what I have. >> Thank you, uh Commissioner Bergman. >> Oh, uh thank you, Mr. Chair. I've had
several meetings. Um and al also like everybody else, a lot of these meetings don't reflect all the phone calls and so forth and and other paperwork we end up having to do. Um after the last board meeting I uh uh we had a special EDC meeting and there was two other board
members on that uh uh board as well and that was to look forward and and working making decisions to hire a new uh director. Um and then I had a prime west and prime west is the health care services for those people on some kind
of med medical uh assistance for health care and actually with all the changes taking place with that and some of the rules and regulations. there's uh going to be tens of thousands of people on that uh receiving health care services through insurance through them and
they're managing the uh there's four or five different programs but there's really the biggest one is the uh the Medicaid uh program um and a lot of changes going on taking on that many people at this at one time too but they're moving forward and it's really
good that we have this kind of healthc care uh uh taking place in our county uh in our catch region, our catchment area. Um that was on a whole day uh meeting and then also I had a hot creek project
uh consider um meeting as well as a hot creek one watershed plan meeting and that's two different groups uh dealing with the watershed of hot creek and uh uh and the dollars and working with Bowser or the state of Minnesota that
oversees all these wershed districts. I had a pack four for family elected officials board meeting with the uh five four other counties um on on the 11th and uh reviewed a lot of the things that have been taking place with pack four.
The good news is that you know we were all aware of the s grant that was uh $1.2 $2 million that the federal government decided to just uh uh one evening send out an email saying the money is gone and as of this moment and
the good news is that three days later they sent out an an email to the director uh saying well there was a lot of complaints about that and we're going to reinstate it immediately. So we're moving forward again and we just uh worry about the funding not being very
stable for that but uh it's making good progress. I had a uh EDC, economic development commission uh joint ops uh board meeting and uh attended that and uh some really good changes I think taking place with the EDC uh including
the joint ops and and organization of that. So feeling real positive positive about that. I also in Marshall had practically an all day meeting uh last Friday for the uh 18 county uh adult uh
uh uh adult mental health uh uh program. This adult mental health consortium and 18 counties was for the elected officials on that board and reviewing uh uh the dollars we get from the state. And these are this was formed years ago
when they closed down the state hospital as some way to keep some of those dollars that we lost for mental health care that were going to the state hospitals back to the communities and and things have changed a lot since that's happened. But these are some dollars that come in and
all 18 counties then divide these dollars up and use them with with their mental health centers or with their county staff and other agencies involved. And this was a elected officials of the board and uh they had their annual election and I'm the secretary again. So uh that's really
good. The good news is I really don't take the notes but I do review them. But uh the chair, the vice chair and the secretary, we review uh uh monthly uh the the advisory board that the the
staff, the directors of the human service departments and and the mental health centers are part of and they uh uh do uh all that work and they bring it forward to us. We meet quarterly as as a full board to ratify all decisions, but
then the three officers of the board uh approve those each month. And I believe I got another meeting this afternoon, but other than that, I think that pretty well sums it up. Thank you. >> Very good. Thank you so much. Uh,
Commissioner Anderson. >> Yeah, I don't I didn't have any meetings this time and I was checking my schedule every day and it's like, am I missing something? But I so I was lucky that way. But sometimes it's better if you do have meetings because then you know you're not missing it. But >> if you're missing something, how will you know?
>> Yeah, that's right. So So >> all right, >> that's my report. There's nothing report. >> Thank Thank you. Slacker will teas commissioner deck. >> Thank you. So um I didn't also didn't have a lot of meetings that haven't
already been reported on. Um, but I serve on the Highway 23 uh coalition board as of the first of the year roughly or late last year and we have a meeting again tomorrow morning. But, uh, Highway 23 was notified recently from
Senator Globishar's office, uh, that we receiving, uh, $3 million planning grant for largely for that, um, or >> yeah, the two and a half miles of pavement, uh, east of or on the south
end of town. And um as part of the what highway engineer Mel Odens and I will do in Washington um next week is to visit with with staff especially Clolobashar staff of what the uh next steps will be
because the whole project uh will require about another 17 million to to construct and it'll be a lot of time. there will be a um a match required of this $3 million grant and that's uh comes to about $750,000.
Um so that all has to be worked out. There's plenty of time to work it out, but uh personally I I'm hoping that we can uh do that sooner rather than later. And then last week I was uh part of uh u
AMC Futures and uh driving down to to the futures meeting. I was listening to NPR and listening to the uh speech by the borders are Tom Holman and I think uh futures went off uh off a script just a little bit and they opened
up the conversation regarding ICE and uh so that prompted me if I if I if you would indulge me I I have a statement that I think uh is kind of important regarding all that we've gone through and and um so I'll just read it so that
I don't leave things out But um I already mentioned being at at AMC Futures last week and over the weekend I received a number of postcards from residents extolling the board to stand to take a stand on ICE activity in our county. The criticism really isn't uh
unjustified. As a member of the KCED board uh joint powers board, I move to ask staff to prepare a letter illustrating economic and social damage to our community. The board members present unanimously approve this action. The Wilmer City Council made a similar
statement and at the urging of community members, our last meeting saw the addition of an agenda item to explain the 287G amendment of our ICE detainee contract. I was thank thankful and relieved that this item was added to the agenda. However, we had an elephant in the room
and that is the impacts of ICE in our county. We did not address it. We should not be scared of that elephant. Thank you. Anything else that you'd like to >> All right. Very good. Thank you for that, >> Mr. Chair. >> Uh, Commissioner B.
>> Thank you. I strongly support what you've said strongly that uh we should be doing more. >> Uh, it's my turn now. And, uh, uh, and and to that point, I'll just, uh, I'll piggy back off of this a little bit. Uh
I've had uh uh two things that have come across my desk recently and one of those was the uh uh opportunity to work with one of our colleagues from Ramsey County, Commissioner Garrison McMerry. uh and uh we are working on a joint uh
op-ed piece uh specifically talking about uh a lot of the impacts that you're uh referencing uh commissioner uh as well as uh next steps forward and you know how can we be hopeful uh coming out
of this and how can we how can we help our friends and neighbors and all of the different businesses that have been uh impacted and uh I think we've just this morning seen the final version of that. Now we're just looking for a place to
publish and there may be other commissioners that join us in on this but uh u that's I was I was happy to be asked uh to contribute to that uh effort. I also was asked to be part of a
small group uh who uh had the pleasure of meeting with Minnesota Senate Majority Leader Aaron Murphy on Sunday. Um, uh, Senator Murphy wanted to come out and, uh, uh, hear from, uh, uh, folks
out here, uh, because what happens just in the Twin Cities, uh, especially where, uh, ICE has been concerned, uh, is, uh, uh, we're going through much the much the same thing. Uh, one of my, uh,
one of my friends was unjustly detained and beaten. uh and this was somebody that they knew was legal. Uh they just wanted to tell him not to be uh standing up for uh for our uh folks here anymore.
And uh uh he was put in a a situation of personal danger uh to himself through these uh uh uh untrained and unprofessional agents. Uh if there's going to be an ice presence left in Minnesota, it needs to revert back uh to
the professionals and not the cowboys. Uh the professionals that our uh law enforcement has always worked with in the past uh uh have been uh nothing but professional. Uh our jail, by the way,
has to be uh inspected at least twice a year by uh uh by ICE. And they, believe it or not, have standards that we have to meet. And, uh, for a quarter of a century, uh, that is a relationship that Candyoy County has had that has, uh, uh,
served, uh, uh, served the county and that, uh, uh, and the federal government well. But the actions that have been taking place out in our communities uh, have been that have been met with strong resistance from just folks like you and me, members of the general public. uh
those need to stop. Uh they are singularly unhelpful. They are uh put people in danger. They do not enhance public safety. Uh uh they uh uh they take away from that. And so, uh, I'm
happy to, uh, visit with, uh, uh, uh, Commissioner Mdeek and, uh, uh, talk about, uh, potential next steps, uh, that, uh, might wish to bring before this, uh, board. Uh, I think, uh, I
think that's that's a proper discussion uh, to have. Uh, Commissioner B, >> thank you. Um, you made a really good point. I I do want to emphasize that we do support our sheriff's department and our police department and uh we do have
a good sheriff's department and police department, but we like you said there's some bad actors out there in the community. And I have personally also know somebody who was picked up just because of the color of the skin they had and uh they uh picked up and driven away and held in the vehicle for a while
and then uh uh and then told him get out and made him walk back in the cold to his vehicle. uh and just because the the person he had his driver's license, he was born here and everything else, but his skin wasn't the right color. And these are the kind of things we don't want happening here. This is just
uncalled for. And I think we need to take even more action even though it looks like it's simmering down scares me that they can do it and they can just bye with it and they they can come back and do the same thing. And I think we need to take some kind of action.
>> Thank you for that. Um uh I just want to move forward. Uh uh uh the administrator gave me a a letter uh that was actually addressed to me uh uh as the chair uh from uh Minnesota Department of Human Services Office of Internal Controls and
Accountability. And this uh uh they're conducting review of uh county audits uh uh for the year ending in uh 2024. Uh and uh essentially what this is is uh uh that they are uh looking to see if
the findings that were contained in the uh uh audit are sufficient uh for these purposes and the actions that we have uh in the audit uh specified are going to be taken place. uh if those are going to
be sufficient or if uh or if uh D uh DHS needs to uh uh uh require more of us and they found that the corrective action plan included in the audit for 2024. Uh those were acceptable if completed within the uh proposed timeline. I do
also want to remind folks out there that uh our uh county uh staff, we uh we have a uh a fraud department within the uh uh within the county and uh it's uh it's pretty active. Uh and if there are folks who are getting getting benefits that
they shouldn't be getting, uh then uh uh then action is taken. So, uh, most of what we're finding in the way of fraud is in, uh, uh, is at the state level and it's not it's not at the county level.
By and large, uh, we, u, we have little control uh, uh, uh, other than what uh, uh, what parameters the state says that we need to follow. uh there's not a lot of wiggle room in for anyone to uh uh uh
be acting outside the scope of their duties at the county level. Uh whatever oversight has been uh lacking at the state level. Um I believe there were already correction plans in place, but this is going to be a hot topic for the legislature. I hope
that our legislature will look at this not as an opportunity to score political points, but uh to look at how do we how do we prevent this from happening in the future? How do we rectify what's happening now? Uh because there's
there's far too much at stake uh this time around uh for especially in a short session uh when uh we have a hopefully we have a bonding bill uh that that gets done this year. That's kind of the main purpose for this uh for this session.
And so we'll see where uh where that takes us. But again, uh I'm hopeful that uh the tide is turning in a number of different areas and uh looking forward to what we can uh accomplish as a county in 2026. Anybody else with any last
thoughts, comments? >> I I would just have a followup to the fraud discussion. you know, to a certain population, they don't distinguish between feeding our our future and and county government. And they think there's fraud
going on here and that we are complicit in it because we don't, you know, root it out. And when uh a previous health and human services director was here, we would ask uh if you know of fraud, you know, because we always hear, oh yeah, so and so's brother-in-law is living in
the basement and not paying any rent. you know, just the stuff you hear. And Ann would always say, "If you know about those things, here's the number to call and turn them in." So, I'd like to for for us to publish that number so that
people can call in their fraud complaints. >> There you go. All right. Very good. Anything else for the good of the order today? >> If not, then the uh board of commissioners is adjourned. Thank you
everybody.