[clears throat] Good morning and welcome to the Candyo County Board of Commissioners meeting for Tuesday, November 18th, 2025. Please stand for the pledge of >> allegiance. I aliance 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. >> Want to thank everyone who is in the chamber this morning as well as folks who are uh catching us on YouTube. Uh at
this time we uh will look for approval of the agenda with one change uh and is that is that uh in the interest of time we are going to move the 955 item uh to follow the uh 915 item.
With that uh uh change, is there a motion to approve the agenda? >> Also move. >> Thank you. Commissioner Anderson moves. Is there a second? >> I'll second that. >> Commissioner Dwayne Anderson seconds. Any discussion? All in favor say I. >> I.
>> All opposed. Motion passes. The consent agenda is before the board and that includes the approval of the TW November 4th, 2025 county board legal minutes, [snorts] approval of of the auditor's warrants and claims, approval of human services warrants and claims,
cancellation of human services warrants, and the annual Spicer Winterfest event permit application for uh January 23rd through uh February 8th, 2026. and a 2026 child welfare welfare juvenile
justice screening grant. Is there any of these items uh that any commissioners wish to pull from the consent agenda? >> Hearing none, then I would entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. >> So moved. >> Thank you, Commissioner Mdeck. Is there
a second? >> Second, Mr. Chair. >> Second, Commissioner Berg. Thank you. Discussion hearing none. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. >> Motion passes. Thank you. At this time then we'll have Ace Bonama, our emergency management director, uh come
before us with a uh request uh to uh uh apply for a grant. Ace, [clears throat] >> good morning. Thank you for your time. Ace Bonama, emergency management director here today seeking your approval to apply for a grant concerning low-level radar gap weather radar gaps.
We've talked about these weather radar gaps in the past and I know the board is very knowledgeable on the issue. For the public's sake, there's a white paper in the board's packet explaining the issue. That white paper can also be found on the emergency management website at www.kcmn.
usm under the category of weather radar gaps. As you may recall, uh we thought we were on track with both Democrat and Republican support of radar gap filling bills in front of both the House and Senate. um last term. Unfortunately, due
to budget constraints, our bill was not included in the omnibus package. So, we're looking at a different approach. We're seeking your approval to allow Kenya County to be the fiscal agent and apply for a pilot project through the Legislative Citizen Commission on
Minnesota Resources, known as the LCCMR, through their emerging issues fund. Instead of just looking at this as a public safety issue, the LCCMR looks at natural resources projects primarily from the environmental and natural resource trust fund perspective. We feel
that the data that we receive from adding low-level radars that fill the state's radar gaps will give a much more accurate picture of things such as rainfall and snow amounts, smoke impacts, and wind events, both real time and historical data. This grant request
is for 625,000 per year for two years. We've worked with the private company to install a radar as a proof of concept in the city of Wendell, which is in Grant County. In addition to the state and regional partners accessing data from that radar, if the company is awarded the bid, four additional radars, or five
if that company's not awarded the U bid, would be built to cover a large portion of Minnesota's radar gaps. Uh we anticipate this pilot project will bring key state agencies together to determine if radar as a service is beneficial to the state and address how we can
continue to access data after the grant period expires. Even if the agencies involved and the state do not find ways to cons to uh continue using that low-level radar gap at the end of the grant timeline, the money used will help build these radars will likely allow
still allow the National Weather Service to use the data from these new radars to give out life-saving severe weather warnings. [snorts] If selected, Cany County would be the fiscal conduit for this funding. Um, this would be a reimbursement grant and there would be no cost to the county other than the
time spent for administering the the grant and I'm salaried so that falls under the all other responsibilities of my job. Um, you may be asking us why us? Isn't there another agency that can champion this? And after all, it's a statewide issue. The answer is because
we can be a leader and get it done. There's a short turnaround on the emerging issues grant. Honestly, it's due tomorrow. Uh the application um we have several letters of support from the Association of Minnesota Emergency Managers, the Association of Minnesota Counties, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agencies, and we expect one from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture soon. None of these agencies had the capacity to move the application through their governance governance structure as quickly as we can. And part of that, in my opinion, is to your credit is being informed so that we don't have to start
at square one. Recently, as we worked on Canyon County strategic plan, we talked about our county being a leader and working collaboratively with partners, and this project is a prime example of that. I've talked a lot. It's a complex issue. I'm sure you have questions or
comments, and I'd be happy to try and address those now. >> Uh, thank you, Commissioner Mde. >> Uh, thank you. Appreciate that. Uh, and thank you for your leadership on it. I think you're the right person and we're the right county to to take this. But I do have a question about once the um
uh two-year grant period is over with, what are the ongoing costs of this? And would that fall then on the counties if the legislature doesn't fund it? >> Yes. So, if the legislature doesn't fund it, um and and we're hoping that this [clears throat] project brings the right people together, which has been one of
our toughest things, um because it is such a big issue. We look at just trying to find the right person. Mel can probably help me out here. When you're talking about Mandot who's going to benefit from these radars because we're talking snow plows, they have an avionics unit, they have a drone unit,
they have the 511 folks, there's so many people in that department and it's like we need to get the right people cuz if we all can can chip in because they're probably different departments are paying for different types of radar services. So if we can use this project to bring the right people to the room
and come up with uh this is how we can continue to get radar as a service. I kind of relate it to how we did if you remember pictometry. Um when we started looking at that I [snorts] was in the dispatch center at the time there was no
way that that with my budget we could do that. But when we started teaming up with the assessor's office, with the um the surveyor's office, and we and with Mel's office, we all kind of got to the table, and it's like if we all chip in and do this together, then we had the
money to to to carry it through. So, I'm hoping the same thing's going to happen. But again, if nothing happens, the radars get built and the National Weather Service, the the current company that we work with has already promised, but because it's going to go to a grant, they may not be the successful bidder.
We anticipate that they probably will be because there's not a lot of people that are doing this. [snorts] Um, so those radars would still be able to be visible at the National Weather Service so they can put out the watches and warnings. So that's why I see even if there's no cost, the state says nope, we're not
going to do anything, it's still getting the information to the right people at the end. >> If I may follow up for clarification, so I understand LCCMR [clears throat] is a good source for for the grant for two of them, my understanding. >> Uh actually, this will provide five. So
if if the company that we're working with is awarded, they would only need to add four. If they're not, then it would be five across the state. So the ongoing cost is that operation cost or is that for continued buildout of a more complete system?
>> Uh the the ongoing costs. So we are not owning the radars. The the radar company would still own them and we're basically getting the data from them. So it's kind of like leasing a car. Um sometimes in government it's easier for us to get the
onetime cost to buy it, but then there's no money to maintain it. So, in this case, and it's a private company, and we're hoping that they're successful because then they can keep putting money to repair it, keep adding radars, and we tell them too, [snorts] like we helped
get this radar in Wendell, uh, Minnesota. And we told them, if your competition comes, we will try and help them find a spot across the street because it's all about getting more eyes to the sky. Um, so I hope hope that answers your question. >> I think so, Mr. Chair. I would move on
this request for um uh to be able to apply for the grant. >> Thank you. Is there >> I'll second that, Mr. Chair. >> There's a motion and a second. Any further discussion? >> I just Commissioner Anderson. >> So, if if we were to get this, would
that help it so that we don't need spotters out uh to watch for storms? Cuz usually when storms are coming, we have like, you know, people that are in the fire departments, local fire departments and law enforcement that go out and they, you know, sit out in in these
storms and watch the weather so that they can warn people if something bad is coming up and and so will that help eliminate so we won't have to have as many people get in harm's way or >> It's kind of a tricky question. I think that the weather service and it's always better to have eyes just because we're
talking weather and there can be gaps and um that type of thing, but it's going to give them a better idea of what they're getting into and it's going to let us get the warnings out sooner. Um in the case of Wendell and we had some case studies um they were getting
reports from the weather service that they were getting snow and what was happening is the weather service whose radars see um above 10,000 ft in Grant County there. They were seeing the precipitation fall but the the snow wasn't reaching the ground. So it's like
that ground detail. You're always going to want somebody on the ground reporting back to the weather service. It's just going to give us more tools. So, like in the case of Ryan Ericson, we're not sending them out into the the storm. We're we're having a heads up before
that storm gets here that okay, this lowlying stuff is coming in. Also, in Grant County, they were issued a snow squall warning over the winter and people are like, "What is this?" They've never been in a snow squall because the weather service was never able to see one. Now, they can for that area.
>> Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Commissioner Berg. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a a quick question, but first a comment as well. Yeah, you you are the you are the person to take this on and I want to commend you on your diligence to keep working at it. It's just such a priority for us to
accomplish this and uh you're doing an excellent uh job trying to find other options to make this happen and uh thank you. I also have a question. There's no administrative in the grant dollars for being fiscal host and >> uh not really and and it I don't see it
being very very tough. I already talked to Karen about how we do some of this stuff and um it's it's more of a pass through that um basically we can choose if we're going to do once a year and then get reimbursed or if we do a monthly thing and those are all issues
that we're going to tackle if we get awarded the grant. >> Okay. And then I think we have to proceed. Thank you. I just wanted to know. >> Uh so thanks, Mr. Chair. So do we have a site located yet or are we still looking?
>> So for our area, we do have a a site that uh Renville County um city of Renville is actually signed the contracts. It could have happened this year, but um because of the weather and stuff, for some reason, they don't like climbing on water towers in the winter
time. So So we're putting it off till next spring. Um so [snorts] regardless of if this goes through or not, we are going to see the advantage of that radar next year covering our area. [snorts] But again, um by adding these four or five radars,
it's going to take care of a large chunk of the state and fit all the puzzle pieces together. I guess um this project doesn't call out if we were trying to accomplish the entire state. There'd be three additional radars across the north that are currently covered by some
Canadian radars um that just share the information with the weather service, not the public. Um and so we feel that as those are important, but it's harder to because there's not the tower structure and stuff up there. So
it's like we're trying to do the most good for the most people as quick as we can. >> Thank you. >> All right, last call. Anybody else for comment? We have a motion and a second to approve the request. All in favor say I. I. >> All opposed.
>> Motion passes. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for for this work. At this time then we'll have County Attorney Shane Baker uh speak to resolution 2025-44. [cough] Shane, [clears throat] good morning. >> Good morning.
Uh the issue I bring before the board is acquisition of cemeter an abandoned cemetery in Failen Township. This property is you could say it's one that time left
behind. What's what you have before you is not the interesting part of the story. Um, this came to us. The history of this plot in Failen Township at 1100 or sorry, 11,07037th Street Southeast
was where Bethesda Evang Evangelical Cemetery was located. That was established on December 22nd, 1886. It's on a 2acre parcel. Deed was recorded June 22nd, 1887. That deed still on record at the county
recorder's office. The church did not have a building and services were held in a close by school number 68 building. The church ceased to exist around 1910. No church records are available that they had their first burial there July
3rd, 1886 and the last burial was April 28th, 1910. So we're talking about a cemetery that has not had any burial activity for over 115 years. There are 10 people buried at the site with only two gravestone markers
visible. After years of neglect in 1970, so 55 years ago, a cemetery restoration effort was made by relatives of those buried at the site. There were reports of vandalism to the cemetery. Neglect
became a problem. But over the years with those individuals also passing away and there is no in ownership interest by anyone it was abandoned and uncared for. There are tax records available but
they were sent to the wrong organizations. So we have a couple acres in this county that's been used as an cemetery. It's been abandoned for a century. Fast forward to last year in June. Savea Lutheran Church
took on the responsibility of restoring and maintaining this cemetery and they now want to come and obtain that cemetery for future ongoing use. Uh chapter 306 allows a mechanism for this
to occur. How that works is that the county obtains possession of the cemetery pursuant to 306.243 243 and then we have to be involved with maintenance over one year's time before
the full transfer can occur. But we can sign agreements where we're entering into a joint maintenance arrangement and that's the agreement before you now is to work with Survey Lutheran [snorts] and share maintenance
costs as are outlined in the agreement. Um, paragraphs three and four are kind of the highlights there. The county agrees and will upon execution acquire title, accept responsibility by passing this resolution. One year after
acquiring title, county will transfer land to the to the church and then upon passing the resolution, the church will assist in accepting responsibility by facilitating the care maintenance supervision. And this is not limited to
groundskeeping, facilitating donations, making repairs, embellishments, and general care. Um, and these are things they've in fact already started doing. So, they asked is to adopt the resolution,
which will then allow the agreement to be signed by the clerk and the chair. and then in one year's time they'll be able to sign off on a warranty deed when the one year has passed. >> So my request is to approve resolution
2025-44. >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. >> Yeah. I'd make a motion to adopt resolution 2025-44. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> I'll second it. >> Thank you. There's a motion and a [clears throat] second to uh approve the
resolution. discussion. >> Yep. Thanks, Mr. Chair. So, I just want to thank uh Surveya Lutheran Church for taking this up and the responsibility of doing this and taking care of people that have gone before us. And also, I would like to thank Shane Baker for
stepping up and figuring out all the legal legalities of this. And then also administrator Kelsey Baker for stepping in and helping on this issue. So, it's been quite a few years that we've been working on it. So, thank you. Anyone
else? Commissioner B. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. [clears throat] I definitely support this and thank them as well. Otherwise, the county would have to take this on and I think it's more appropriate what's what's happening for that uh location. A quick question though about the contract. The very first sentence, the Evang Sa Evangelical
Church is at 15th Street Southeast Wilmer. That's not correct. Is that correct? >> Oh, that was the address I was provided. >> Yeah, you can Is that your address?
>> It would probably be Wilmer is a zip code, correct? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> What was Wilmer's zip code? Okay. It's not Sea then. >> No, no, that was b that was something bouncing back and forth. Those were some last minute alterations was >> Okay. All right. >> And that's what they told me. So, >> thank you for the question. >> We We had put in Sava ourselves.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Anyone else? >> All right. We have a motion, a second to approve resolution 2025-44. All in favor say I. >> All opposed. Motion passes. [clears throat]
>> Shane, thank you. And Commissioner Anderson, thank you as well for your work on this. >> Right. At this time then, we will have uh ask Michelle Hansen, our election coordinator and deputy auditor treasurer uh to come to us uh regarding a petition
to repurchase. >> Good morning, county board. Mayor, um members of the board, um my name is Michelle Hansen, elections coordinator, deputy auditor, treasurer for county. Um I'm here today, as he said, to um bring
before you a request for repurchase. Um this is a property located at 1500 Wharton Avenue Northwest in Wilmer. A little bit of background on this property. Uh the former owner of this property currently resides in California. Um she states that she uh
moved there to take care of some uh family that is ill. Um currently she has other family that is living in the property um in Wilmer. And the property uh originally was scheduled to be forfeited back in 2022, but the former
owner at that time signed a confession of judgment, which was a 10-year repayment plan with 5% interest um to pay up those back taxes. And um part of the agreement on the confession of judgment is also to keep the current taxes current. Um so beginning in 23,
she would need to keep the 23 taxes current as well as making her annual installments on the confession. Um I I've detailed out in your packet um information regarding the um payments. um she's fallen behind on the payments
um consistently throughout the confession and after um notification, yearly notification and then some reminder notices uh she continued to fall behind and uh basically the uh
property was forfeited to the state after notification to um the former owner and we went through the uh process of forfeite where the notification of um expiration
of redemption was published, posted in our office, served to the property, and then also sent by certified mail to the former owner. Um after that point, they had 60 days to redeem the property, and when that 60 days passed and the
property was unredeemed, then um the property was forfeited into the state of Minnesota's name. Fast forward um that was back in September. Fast forward back to October. Uh the former owner contacted me and asked about the
possibility of repurchase and what was all in involved in that. In the meantime, I contacted county attorney Baker and we started looking at the possibility and what were the regulations um requirements under the statute. Um, at that time, um, I was
kind of waiting for further information from Attorney Baker and about a week later, um, the former owner showed up in our office and, um, wanted to to try and get this done. So again, I was in contact with attorney Baker. Um it
appears that because of the way the statute's written, the circumstances with the confession and the default, and this has happened within the last um less than 6 months, uh it does appear that with county board's approval, uh the former owner would be allowed to
repurchase the property. Um Attorney Baker has drafted a resolution which I believe um you were given this morning. possibly. I know it came uh late yesterday, but >> it's in your packet. Um the resolution
um basically explains the circumstances of the the default and um I do have um at the office I do have a cashier's check from the former owner in the amount of the back taxes, penalty,
interest, and the special assessments that are due at this time. Um, and that information is also in your packet. So, I guess I'm just looking for your um um questions on this matter and then to
move on the resolution. I think maybe Shane has some more information on that. >> Shane, go ahead. >> Just some clarification on the resolution. And all the information within that all the whereas clauses are either coming from the all came from the
sheet that you had originally come through that last Thursday. That's where all the lays out the confession judgement process and all the redemption left payment so forth or the statutory provisions. In essence, the board's
being asked to determine to support repurchase if this situation would create undue hardship, injustice resulting from per forfeite or permitting repurchase will promote the use of the lands that will best serve public interest.
Um, the short terms basically are the entire back taxes, assessments, penalties, interest, and costs of $8,833.49 cents would be paid. That's the cashier's check. So, we know it's not
going to be one that bounces, which has had some history before. >> And it looks like if she would have come to us around September 22nd, we wouldn't have needed board approval. Right. >> Within a month she was acting
and this is resolution 2025-45. >> Thank you, Commissioner Mck. And then Commissioner >> um I do support this but I'm having trouble finding the resolution. >> Yeah. And that came by email this
>> late yesterday or this morning. Mr. Chair, why don't we uh move to table this and we can keep moving the meeting on until we get the resolution. >> My understanding is that uh Michelle is on short time here. So, uh she has to be
out of here at a time certain. So, >> I'm okay. It's actually attorney Baker that needs to leave. >> No, it's Shane. It's Shane that needs to leave. Okay. My my bad. >> No problem. Um, >> is it just a second and we can [snorts] have this?
>> When was it sent? >> Do you want me to go print it? >> Yeah, I just emailed it to you. >> Is it resolution 20254? >> 45. >> We have it in our email right now. >> Yeah. >> Sorry about that. >> Go ahead. Uh uh so so uh you made your
comments on that. Uh Commissioner B. >> Um did uh let's see Commissioner Endeck, are you going to make another motion then you said or no? If not, I will. >> Okay, I'll second it. >> So the motion is to approve 20 uh 2025-45
in reference to the terms and conditions and responsibilities as stated. All right, we have a motion and a second to approve the resolution. Discussion, >> Mr. Chair, I think anytime we Mr. Chair, >> sorry, >> go ahead.
>> Anytime we can keep the property in the hands of the U property owners rather than the state, we're better off. >> Uh, I'm going to ask a couple of questions here. When we uh when we first entered into this uh confession of
judgment uh the agreement was also to keep the current year's taxes uh current uh and then making these uh these payments. Are the current year's taxes uh current? Have they been paid? >> The 20 25 taxes are not current at this
point. >> Yes. >> Thank you. So, given that this is kind of a I mean, I'll I'll I'll I'll probably vote in favor of approving this, but I'm really
really having a hard time with the idea that this could very possibly just go right back into a default, >> right? uh that the u u that the former owner has not uh
kept up on those promises at any at any point in time. Um I know we've done several of these in the past. >> Uh and sometimes we've had to come back and work something else out, but uh uh
I'm just I'm having a little harder time with this one than I am with uh uh with others. So, >> sure. I if I can. Yes. >> Um when I did speak with Miss um Apprentice, the former owner when she was in our office, um
>> I did explain to her that these taxes would need to get paid. You know, we're not forgiving those. Um but, uh at this point, it from speaking with attorney Baker, our understanding was that the requirement per the statute was to pay
up all of the delinquent taxes. So, it's kind of a um a catch 22, if you will, because those 25 taxes are not delinquent yet. Um but like I said, I did reiterate to her that those still will need to be paid and all of this is
pending board approval. So, um, you know, I just want to make that clear that that we did have that discussion about the 25 taxes needing to be paid, >> but the resolution does not uh uh address the correct current year's taxes that have correct >> been unpaid yet.
>> Correct. >> So, conceivably those could we could we could approve this action and then we could be right back to where we start. But, >> correct. Yeah, it's you see you see where my >> I do understand
>> concern lies. >> Um no, Commissioner B. >> Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair. And uh you bring up some really good points that we have to be careful going forward with these type of things. To myself, I'm just looking at mainly a timing issue. If the person was in here a few months
earlier, wouldn't have been a issue that we'd be dealing with. And uh I I don't see a problem with that moving forward with this. >> Anyone else? >> We have a motion in a second to move on
resolution 2025-45. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> I. >> All opposed. >> Motion passes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Jane. [snorts] Thank you for your work on this as well. At this time, we have a
2026 budget update. Uh, uh, Administrator Baker will present. Kelsey Baker, Candy County Administrator. Before you today, uh, I have a budget update. There was some information included in your board
packet. Um, and then I will go through a couple of um I'll explain these options, go through kind of where we are at um and
um stand for any questions or comments or recommendations then on how to proceed with the 2026 budget. So at the September 23rd meeting, the board approved the preliminary levy at a 7.1. Since then, myself, our chief financial
officer, and our auditor treasurer have been reviewing the budget, and as presented in the past, have been looking at operating expenses versus one-time expenditures and capital improvements. Um, I commend this county and um the work that our staff do to provide these services, to keep these buildings
standing, the structure, uh, to keep the services that we're providing, whether it's the landfill, law enforcement, license bureau that we keep our equipment, and our software, and the infrastructure all moving forward and working. Um,
couple things that I did note looking at um, some of these ongoing expenditures. Um, some of it we can possibly not ever pre prevent. Um, our medical aid to prisoners is 1.5 million. Our landfill leech 8 is $470,000.
Um, our landfill earth moving contract is $900,000. Our road and bridge road dust control is $715,000. We budget for revenue for our county parks at $700,000. Um, thank you to the board and our data
processing department. We increased the technology to up to 300,000. Um we have election expenses every other year. Our utility services just for the jail that are every year run around $330,000.
Our C6 task force that provide um public safety for our counties is 315,000 and that was increased from 2025 to 2026. um community work service runs around 200,000 and our payroll benefits are the
majority of our expenditures. And so when we look at this detailed look, we looked at mandated versus non-mandated services, quasi government requests, personnel costs, operational expenses, and the current projects and the use of reserves for Kyoi County. Our
goal remains to present a fiscally responsible budget that continues to meet service expectations being mindful of the levy impact to taxpayers. I understand this is the preliminary is coming in at a seven and that is high for this year and that has that is high
for historic purposes in Candy County. However, we did the wage increase in 2024 and we're going to feel that level out for the few years and I have talked about that. So within your board packet I'm presenting there's four options.
Option one is that 7.1%. Um option two you'll next on the agenda is the recycling contract that has been talked about. We have a 5-year contract. Um if you were to reduce that to option six that comes to that 6.5.
Option three I would suggest if we do use more reserves we come up to that 1.65 million. That's a comfortable amount depending on um the use of fund balances. I've talked with other counties our size. They use around 1 1.4
1.5 to 2 million reserves. So coming in with that 1.6 million of the use of our reserves is very comfortable and we have very healthy reserves to spend down. That would get us to that 5.9. If you were to do um if the board were to
choose to reduce the recycling contract and use the reserves, that' get us to that 5.3. Um the reason why I bring up that recycling contract is it it is a non-mandated service. This is something that's not affecting our staff services. If we start looking at cutting staff,
that will affect how our services are delivered. If we were to cut community work service, that's going to affect not just community corrections, but that's going to affect a lot of our quasi government partners. Being a community- centered partner, we want to make sure that we would give enough adequate time.
Um, the other thing that we look at and that I did reduce some dollar amounts was the quasi government. Um, that is something typically that the board reviews um and provides those recommendations. I've worked with the chair and the vice chair on reducing
some of those. I've had conversations with CCT. I've had conversations with the fair board, um, Humane Society. Um, we give to these quasi government areas and some other counties don't give necessarily to, uh, certain
organizations. I commend this board for doing that. However, in these tough times, this is an area that we could reduce. The requests came in at 1.7 million. I reduced those to 1.6 6 million. This that document has been provided to the
board in the past. Um and so I did look at that that area as well and we reduce that. Um and so when we continue to look at the budget, we look at avoiding structural imbalance as well. We don't want to cut
too many FTEEs and then in 2026 we're adding that right back in because of maybe some, you know, mandated services that the state will push down to us. Um the levy impact we are we're coming down from last year. That is the goal then
for 2027's budget that we continue to come back down to peak that with the wages to come back down and level that out. Um balancing our service services with coverage and fiscal responsibility doesn't just happen overnight. It does
take time and we're reooking at that. We do create revenue in some departments. It doesn't fully compensate then the full wages. So those wages then are on the the levy. Um I think the one thing that we look at when I look at option necess like option
three we look at balance and responsibility strategic use of our reserves targeted reductions. If this recycling contract is reduced that affects the the budgets for 27 28 29 that that 5-year contract. Um we want to
preserve core services. Um so those mandated services that are coming down those are the services then if we cut staff those services then will be impacted and [snorts] then future adjustments and so um if you do need any this quasi
government that was emailed out and then looking at the preliminary levies across the state the average was an 8%. [snorts] Excuse me. I um in talking with other administrators, some of them have a been able to come down from their levy, their preliminary, some have not.
Um my recommendation would be to use the the use of reserves, come to that option three, depending on how opt the recycling contract vote goes. I can always come back with another option. Um with that, I will stand for any questions. Like I said, I have spoke
with the chair and the vice chair. We've had conversations. Um, if the board would wish to have a budget work session, that could be something done prior to the December 16th meeting. I believe it's the 16th, not the 18th, uh, that second meeting in December. Um,
then I would like that some direction on that to come back with another recommendation. So, just to be clear, Kelsey, uh uh these options that you've attached are are for discussion uh today uh in preparation for that truth and taxation
uh meeting. And these are options that uh you were request that this board requested uh that you look at and bring back. So, >> yes. >> Uh correct. >> Correct. >> Yeah. All right. Commissioner Anderson. >> Yeah. So my question would be to
administrator Kelsey Baker. Are there any options here that you're not real comfortable with or are they all you could we can easily do any of these four options and Yes. >> Okay. >> All right, >> Mr. Chair. >> Uh Commissioner Burke.
>> Oh, thank you very much. Um as you mentioned and I think the finance committee, the vice chair and the chair are supporting these three all these options already. And so do they uh I guess my question is you sound like you put a lot of time and work in this and
thank you and uh we've gotten to into some really good depths at time on this and we I still feel strongly that we have to get it down at least one more percent where we're at and how we go about that. I am a little concerned just focusing on on re really doing actually
just as it is and take money from reserves or just focusing on recycling. I think there's a lot of other [snorts] options we can really dig into more and that's where a work session would probably help at this point. You know um I mean just looking at you know capital
uh improvements that we have to do you know which ones are essentials and which ones could be postponed for a year and I'd rather see us uh uh put money uh postpone those than than take away recycling from people. uh this budget
that we have for recycling has been there for 5 years at this amount of money and and it's been on the levy uh already and uh going forward I think the people who will lose their recycling will not be happy since they've been paying for it all these years as well.
[snorts] Um and I really then that's another whole issue and that's going to be another agenda item. I think we need to keep looking and and either have a special board meeting or add extra time earlier for our next board meeting before the truth and taxation because uh
I think that'd be a important time. >> Mr. Chair, if I may then um to answer that question, in our capital equipment fund, we did reduce it from one uh 1.4 to 1 million. >> Okay. And and what was the total budget
on that? 1 million for our capital equipment fund. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> So we reduced it >> last 2025 was 1,467,450. >> Um the 2026 budget is 1,58750. >> So we reduced it how much?
>> The 1 million. >> 1 million. >> So about $400,000 less than >> That's what I'm saying. >> 2025. >> Okay. >> Uh Commissioner Dale Anderson. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I just want to thank the whole staff for working on this and Kelsey for working on this. I
know this has been a lot of work. Um, and my concern is and and I know this maybe doesn't go well with everybody, but there's things coming down the road that I don't want to get us too low so that we don't have the ability to do things in the future. Um, we have some
building issues that are going to be coming up and there's other things that we might see in the future that are and and I'm not saying we need to stockpile money or we need to to do anything like that, but there's certain criterias when you're going out for a bonding issue or
or anything like that that we have to fall into. And I'm scared if we get too low, we're going to fall out of that them criteria. But the other thing that I look at and and I know maybe I'm a different person by saying this, but in my times of being
on a board, we hire good people to do the right thing to support the business that we are are in. And and I feel that you guys have worked this to death already. So, I am fine with any of the options, but I just don't think that we
need to get to that real skimmed down point and get ourselves in trouble for the future because I don't think this is the last year we're going to see a big big push. [snorts] >> Thank you. Anyone else? Commissioner and Doug, >> remind me again when truth and taxation is.
>> December 2nd. >> December 2nd. Well, so we would have to have this work session prior to December 2nd or change the truth and taxation date. >> That's been set. That's in the TNT letter. So, we can't change that. I
think like Commissioner Berg had a a good recommendation um to have we have a regular scheduled board meeting December 2nd at 4:30. We could easily I mean if the board would be in favor of that you could move the work session to 2 p.m. and that would be enough time then for
staff to prepared to change documents by 6 p.m. So, uh, and the the, um, one of the options you present, I think you mentioned opt option three, feels like you're leaning [snorts] towards that
one. Um, but that includes using more reserves, cutting some line items, and in addition to the the uh, the savings in the uh, uh, recycling. Correct?
>> No. So option four is not the cutting the recycling contract. It is just the usage of reserves >> but it's also includes some cuts. I heard you mention quasi government and some other areas, right? >> Yep. Yes. >> So for me
um we haven't seen we haven't gone line by line on any of these things since that initial one. And I I feel like we need to take put that uh document in front of us and go down the list. by one and see if there's other opportunities
that we can find for for savings. When I talked to to commissioners from around the state, cost cutting is something they are all doing, including, you know, hiring freezes, uh postponing capital uh uh improvements, you know, a year or so.
Um stockpiling for for um future cost. uh if if that's what we're doing, we should make sure that that it's identified as this is in preparation for for uh cost shifts from the state. So, I'd like to have that
work session. I would propose either the 2:00 meeting or a 9:00 meeting that day uh that morning on December 5th. >> Second >> or a second, I'm sorry. And I think if we're going to have that uh uh that meeting, I agree that uh the 9:00 would
probably give a little more space to staff uh to have things ready for the uh TNT presentation uh that evening. Um so, so I do want to be clear here though. [snorts] uh at the direction of the board. Uh you
and staff have been working on all of these numbers and trying to find the right balance between uh maintaining mandated uh services as well as uh uh uh
any other uh costsaving measures. I mean you've already done a lot of this. you've already reduced the uh quasi governmental and it's possible that there's more room to cut there. Uh I think this late in the game it might be
difficult for some of those partners to swallow any additional uh cuts. So I would have some concern there. Uh but I just want to be clear that uh all of you all have already been doing uh uh this work and uh uh I really do appreciate
all of the work that uh that our staff has been putting into this. I I think if I may the um if that work session then we do that the direction is that we I have gone line by line
>> um and so if that's the direction to cut services then that will be to cut staff and so if that's the direction from the board that is what I'll bring back with a recommendation for the work sess for the work session I'll bring back a recommendation to look at that and
that's where I said before when I looked at these operating expenses. When we look at cutting staff, then that affects our services on how we deliver them. Now, the one thing that I have been working on is how we can figure out a way. And so, that's where I commend this
board to give that those extra dollars to the technology because if we can get a little further ahead on the technology, we shouldn't have to add any staff. In fact, what we could reduce staff through attrition. So that is the the plan. That's our internal plan. I
talk to that talk to our HR director about that all the time. We talked about that with department heads. How can we look at our services differently? Um but then there are just some that we can't look at differently. Um i.e. death control. Okay, that's a bigger public
safety question. Then um we look at our medical aid to prisoners. We look at our public safety, our task force dollars, our our landfill leate uh agreements. So it there's it's a complex complexity. And so when you ask me to come back with a different recommendation that I'm
presenting today, I would ask what is that recommendation? What are you looking for? Are you comfortable with the staffing reductions? Are you comfortable with postponing and kicking the can down the road with infrastructure projects? So I would like and you don't have to come back and
provide that input today, but that would be nice to know to come back with a different recommendation other than what you see before you today. Then >> and I would uh uh I would just piggyback on this and uh it would probably be more
helpful to you to be able to have those conversations with commissioners certainly ahead of this uh December 2nd special meeting. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. because that's Commissioner MD. >> Sure. Thank you. Um,
as it's as it's presented now, it's essentially a budget that you would ask us to uh approve without any input from the whole board. You've you met with the chair and the vice chair and you you laid that out there and said, "Here's here's an option." But three of us
haven't had the option of or the five of us together to say, "Okay, what about this and what about that to bring this down?" And that's why I think we need to have the work session so that we're all involved. We all hear the questions and we feed off of each other to get the
synergis synergism that is available when we work together on this rather than because if you come back to us again with another proposal and and we still have some questions about it, then we really haven't gained anything or we'll pit each other against it if we
against each other. If we sit down, roll up our sleeves, and and come up w with a recommendation that we maybe not be perfect that but we can live with in a work session, then we're all better off for it. >> Commissioner Dwayne Anderson.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I I just want to say with all these quasi government uh items that we've you know we set the budget or we're looking at setting the budget for I sit on a lot of those committees and uh you know they have they have uh inflationary pressures and
and employment pressures and and to cut them too much it it it's going to affect a lot of service that are provided in our county. and and it sounds like we want to have uh have it kind of both ways. We want to cut the budget, but we want to have the services stay the same.
And that it at some point it just isn't possible. And so things will have to be cut if we're going to go any further than what we are here. And as far as uh work sessions, we've had several over the last year. I don't know, at least two that I can think of. Maybe it's been
more. I don't know. And uh and and we do have the opportunity. I've I've talked to administrator Kelsey Baker about the budget several times when I when I've come in to talk to her and she's open to talk to anybody. You just go in and talk to her. I mean, and we don't need to
have another work session in my opinion because we've talked this over and then to change things at the last minute. It's going to be really difficult for staff. So, I I you know, I I would love to have it lower. I I just think at some point it's it's not going to be uh it's not going to be reasonable if we cut too
far. >> Commissioner, >> thank you. [clears throat] So, the only uh budget that we've approved was a 7.1% increase as a board. And so, if we don't have the work session to change it at this point, it's
a budget that we haven't approved as a board. And um there are areas on those line items. there are areas that don't cut services that can be trimmed uh to reduce this budget if that's what we
want to do or we go the direction that Commissioner Dale Anderson uh is suggesting and we leave it where it's at or maybe even get it a little higher, you know, in preparation for the future. >> Commissioner Anderson, >> I'm I'm not saying to get it any higher.
I I would be fine with option three. I'm just saying I don't want to go and cut another point off of it is what my point is. I mean there's there's the four options here are very doable no matter which one they are. But we've hired good
people to to figure this out and I don't know if us five are the professionals. That's that's my concern with it is these people do this every day and they're they're the ones that should know this business and know what's best for for our county and and we just to
oversee it and that that's where I'm coming from. I I'd be fine with option three, but I just have concerns going anything lower than than what's on what's being presented. >> And uh and and I just want to re
[snorts] reiterate this point. Uh if If we expect our staff to be bringing us recommendations, uh we we we need to inform them what it is that we are looking for. If we're not having conversations with the
administrator and the staff, uh they're not mind readaders, okay? Uh we need to be say stating to them, working with them to let them know what it is that our expectations are. Commissioner MDC, >> thank you. I agree with that about
having the conversations, [snorts] but we also need to have conversations with each other and that's what a work session does. And uh I'm going to disagree with Commissioner Dwayne Anderson. We really only had one work session on the budget. What we've had a
comp couple informationational meetings where we were told things it wasn't a a work session. And so we've only had the one setting the budget for the year is one of the most important [snorts] if not the most important responsibility of a county board uh that we have and we
have uh commissioners all over the state that have several work sessions before they decide on a preliminary budget and they have a ruler and they go line by line by line and they talk about each one. We we never do that. And I'm just saying that if we're going to make
changes at this hour, it should include the whole board. >> And historically, just to be clear, uh this board has never gone line by line by line by line, predating uh Kelsey's time here. >> Commissioner B. >> Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll go way
back in some budgets. I think we have, but it was different times and different situations then, and I really can't compare it to that as well. But I think it's important I think to be really clear it's the north budget uh that we're putting together and also uh we've
been elected by the public and I've been reading uh on the media newspapers from the uh Twin Cities newspapers or local newspapers people and businesses they're concerned about the levy and everything getting pushed down on the levy and my concern is that we came in with a big
levy last year and uh that wasn't like it should be and and you Why? And I think we can say why, but a lot of that stuff we're catching up on. I do think with over a hundred uh million dollar budget that we can come up come up with another $444,000
is it uh to take 1% off the levy uh that we are proposing already. Also want to be very clear and remind the board that when we set the levy at where we did we had quite a conversation and there was a 100% commission commitment you know from
the board and from the administrator that hey we're we are really this time going to going to be able to try to lower that and we will lower that and I really want to bring that up again that that was our goal and I would like to see us accomplish that and uh going
going forward and uh we I've never seen it happen in the past uh that the boards come back and actually lower it and and we had that conversation but this time everybody on the board said we can do it this time and I think there are still other ways to look at it. I always feel the more eyes you put on something and
the more people you collaborate with, you still come up with a better project. And that's what we're trying to do is can we also look at this and instead of narrowing it down to taking out of reserves or and or recycling, I'm not sure why recycling is the one place to
look at as an important service moving forward. I would also like to add to it that uh that we do have it's close to nine months in reserve. So we have we have dollars there available and uh I do not think we're at the point where we have to cut staff but we don't know in
the future and uh and there are you know uh places I believe that would considering that I know people are talking about uh soft a mandate on on hiring freezes you know we can even look at that for a while uh there there's
many other options but I'd rather look at options that that would affect that we uh if we have to remodel something that we do not if it can wait another year, it's not a big deal that we can not remodel that and fix that and go in and even look at that more and also
different parts of the budget and I I've talked to you about some of those areas as well. So there's other things we can explore. Um but that's my feeling and I feel that we have a responsibility to the people that elected us to keep this levy low. It's impacting uh uh
everybody. is not just businesses but residential owners. Uh I mean we all got our statements this past week and uh I was pretty shocked because what's happening the the inflation the the values of our properties are going up and it's starting to hit people more and
more and for some people you know their house payment or their uh uh taxes almost uh equal what they'd pay in rent someplace uh and that's on top of maybe the house payment on top of it. So we have to be really careful going forward
and looking at other options as many as we can and not knowing what our future's going to going to bring. So that's my stance on that. >> Well, thank you. And this item was for information only and uh uh thank you for for presenting and we will take minutes.
>> It wasn't for information only, was it? >> Commissioner Mbeck was discussion for me. >> Yeah. But the administrator uh suggested that if we want to have a work session that we let her know that. I'm going to make a motion that we set up a work session for December 2nd at 9:00 in the morning.
>> We have a motion on the table for setting up a work session for December 2 at 9:00 a.m. Is there a second? >> I'll second that, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. Discussion, >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. If this motion fails, at a very
minimum, the sheet that we were given when we when we did the preliminary levy, we should have an updated one that shows those quasi cuts and and the other areas that we were going to get. But I think I think that the board needs to work together to set this budget, not
not to, you know, just make an executive decision. >> And ju and just to be clear, those quasi governmental uh uh documents have been provided to this board in the past. an update would be in order, >> but I want to be able to look at it and compare what it was to what it is now. And and
you know, it seems to be a floating number on something. >> So that's uh I don't I don't agree, but that is something that uh uh certainly we will uh request staff to provide for us. There's a motion on the table to set the uh special meeting for December 2nd.
All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> All opposed. Hi. >> Hi. >> Roll call. >> Commissioner Mdeck. >> I. >> Commissioner Dwayne Anderson. >> Nay. >> Commissioner Berg.
>> I. >> Commissioner Dale Anderson. >> Nay. >> Chair votes I. Three eyes, two nays. The motion is agreed to. >> We will take a 10-minute recess. Are you ready? >> Thank you everyone. The Candiary County Board of Commissioners is back from
recess. Uh our next item of business is a uh recycling contract bids. Uh Gary Gear, our environmental services director uh will present. Gary, good morning. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gary Gear, Kenway County Environmental Services
Director, uh here before you to present potential recycling bids for the board to consider. Um they were first uh presented October 7th. uh and the current uh recycling level of service was proposed as well as two week
countywide service. And at that time, the board requested that staff look into potential bids for countywide 3-week service and countywide four-week service. Uh you will see those as bid number three and number four uh in your packet. And in addition to that, as
staff worked with the contractor to uh present numbers, two other potential options uh it felt uh staff felt should come before the board and those are bids five and six. Number five is uh a hybrid
of sorts. It uh captures twoe service to uh residential areas in the rural area that are higher density and as well as then offering drop sites for the remaining rural sites. And uh bid number
six is simply staying with the twoe service within all cities and rural drop sites for the remainder of the rural. So upon reviewing those bids, uh staff, uh is recommending uh that the board uh consider bid number five, which is the
hybrid uh that provides bi-weekly service to all the cities and over 50% of the rural population and then provides for drop sites for the remaining rural population. Uh that is a slight reduction from the current
[clears throat] uh contract that we've had over the last five years. And uh as such uh we would I would staff would be recommending the board approve moving forward with bid number five uh as well as open for any comments that the board may have.
>> Any questions for Mr. Gear? >> Commissioner Mdeck. >> Thank you. Um you say that with some weariness, Mr. [laughter] >> Uh you didn't happen to develop a map of who would be affected by this, have you? >> We are thinking alike. Thank you,
Commissioner. Yes, I did. And Melissa, I believe, has a copy of that. The the attachment that is in your packet is by address, and that gives us uh uh you'd have to know the county highway map by heart. Maybe Mill could tell us where they are, but uh but the map as we get
there will show uh highlighted areas. I mean, I And >> there we go. >> There we are. So all of the yellow highlighted areas on this map are the areas that we would be offering prim primarily is all of New London
Township. Uh a majority of the developed area of Dovery Township just north of Wilmer and then all of the developed uh residential, you know, the platted areas on all of our lakes. So that attempt
gave us the the greatest kind of I think maybe bang for our buck to capture as many of the rural higher density residential to two week service. So uh and to maintain existing routes as much as possible for the contractors. So
that's kind of why I I guess I would say that the the bid landed at that amount the 930,000 uh was the efficiency. I'm just looking at the uh screen here now. And is there anything to the south of uh uh Wilmer
that's in yellow? >> There is not. >> Okay. So, uh city of Princeburg, Lcast, Lake Lily, and Raymond, >> they all cities, they all would receive two week service. >> Okay. And that's the clarification.
>> Cities still have service. Correct. >> And and at Water and Candy, Ohio as well. >> Correct. The yellow areas are the areas outside of current city limits that are would be high density and provided two week service as well. >> Okay. So the yellow is just simply
showing those high density areas. >> Yes. Correct. >> And if you're if you're in one of our county cities right now, that will not change. >> Correct. >> Okay. Commissioner MDC and then uh Commissioner Dwayne. >> So the the default no color means uh
drop sites. >> Correct. Yes. >> Uh Dwayne go. >> Thanks, Mr. Chair. So, and if we went with bid five, uh with the five drop sites, what areas are where are those five drop sites? Do you know
>> they they would likely could have the potential to fluctuate, but right now it would be Atwater, Lake Lillian, Prince, Raymond, and Wilmer. >> Okay. And it's actually the the bid is per uh 8
cubic yard receiver serviced, not necessarily the drop sites. And we've we've estimated with the contractor the number of services that we would need as we run the program or learn the program. If Lake Lillian uh only needs two bins versus three bins to accommodate that
volume, then we could move one of those bins, you know, somewhere else because we're trying to capture the number of services. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Uh Commissioner Dale Anderson, and then I'll come back to Commissioner Index. >> So, I don't want to be a jerk by saying this, but I'm going to say it. So,
everybody that's north of the landfill doesn't make a difference. I mean, we got a lot of area up there in my area that is going to have to drive 20 miles to drop off the recycling and >> that that that isn't right. And so
>> that just you you have to have a drop site up there somewhere. Otherwise, we're we're not we're not saving enough money by doing any of these options to make to make that feasible to me. Commissioner and Deck.
>> Thank you. [clears throat] You know, I appreciate all the work that went into it. And for me, the most equitable combined with the most economic um option would be option four, where everybody in the county got picked up
every four weeks. The five-year contract that we've had demonstrated that while it may not fulfill every aluminum can and every piece of plastic that if you break down your your recycling, you can get by with once
every four weeks. That way, everybody in the county, we don't eliminate anybody. And we do save $16,545 over the current contract. And I'm going to make a motion to uh for bid number four. >> We have a motion on the table for
[snorts] uh uh selecting bid number four. Is there a second? Hearing none. The motion li dies for lack of a second. Uh further discussion, >> Mr. Chair, >> Commissioner Ber. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, uh,
Commissioner, uh, Dale Anderson, uh, I agree with your point that, uh, we're looking I'm I'm trying to wrap my head around why we're looking at these options at this point. And to me, the, uh, there's not that significant amount of of savings going forward without
creating a lot of chaos and cuts here and there. And, uh, right now we have a service out there. I I am more concerned about uh going forward the next year or two years what's going to be happening and that's our concern and right now I think
this is a kind of a distraction in a sense that uh the savings is not too great but the important thing we got to look at is the contract and right now we've had a five-year contract and I'm not sure what the options would be in that and I'm I'm really leaning towards
something that if we can negotiate a shorter contract and just leave things are as they are to see how the landscape looks uh say two years from now or three. I'm not sure we can have a contract that short, but going forward I would like to have some discussion if
that's even an option to look at uh making the contract to review because then that's when we'd have to really make some of these major decisions like like some of the other ones that took a bigger chunk. We don't know right now and we're trying to cut the budget
carefully so we don't really cut services so we don't have to uh cut services not knowing what's going to be coming down the road. And and if we reach that point then yes, this is what we have to do. And I think if we have a two-year contract, then we'll know at that point where we're at financially
and uh what kind of budget we'd have to have to really make those cuts where you just kind of keep the lights on. And I don't think we're going to be there. I think we can figure this out, but I'm just looking for some time and uh look for some other options.
>> I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that if there's a shorter term that's going to uh uh affect the bid amounts, >> correct? >> Because the provider has uh [snorts] uh investment in carts and staff and so on
and so forth. uh and and and and so I would question whether or not there would actually be an interest in participating in a shorter term contract at that point in time. Uh any further discussion like uh Commissioner Dwayne
Anderson? >> Yeah. So, me personally, and and I'm I think I'm in the minority here, but I like I like contract number six because uh in my area, a lot of them them recycling containers, they tip over in the wind or a semi blows them over
because there just isn't enough room on them rural roads to uh you know, keep those things standing until they can get picked up. Um, but I don't know if there's a stomach for cutting it that far, but I I think that would be when we're talking we got to make more cuts
and more sacrifices, that would be the best option in my opinion. >> Commissioner MD, >> thank you. So, um, on Dwayne Commissioner Dwayne Anderson's um, suggestion of option number six,
does the map show where the drop spots would be? >> It it does. It does not. Um they those would be but in option six proposed would be Atwater Lake Lillian uh Princeburg Raymond Wilmer New London and
Spicer. >> So if New London is getting picked up I think it would be bi-weekly now right or semi-weekly >> city right so but you'd put it in New London. What about to Commissioner Dale Anderson's point at least make the
landfill an opportunity? Yes, that is certainly a possibility with either bid five or bid six. Um, and it isn't, you know, it it's not a significant or one thing I just wanted to point out, maybe backing up to Commissioner Dwayne
Anderson's comment, bidden five or bid six, uh, the the rural service would be the same in your predominantly your entire district for either of those, but it would be the significant savings realized in uh, bid bid six because of all of the the rural areas in the
remainder, the northern half of the county being uh, drop sites only. Commissioner Berg and then I'm gonna ask a question. >> Okay, Mr. Sher, thank you. Um, I just have a question. Is that I I brought up
for discussion about the contract? Um, and I think every one of these has there been a discussion about the contract, shortening it up at all. And maybe that should be part of the discussion before we vote on something like this to see where we're at because
that impacts it as well. I I'm I'm I'm not following. What's the question? >> Oh, how long a contract we're going to have? >> Five years contract >> and you have had a discussion that this is uh does not was negotiated.
>> I mean to answer. >> Sure. I've been in discussion with the contractor and yes, they're not wanting to uh move forward with anything less than five years just because of what uh Commissioner Gardner has spoken to. uh just with their investment in uh their
equipment and their operating costs. >> Okay. >> So, it would be an increase in these proposed bids if we were to try and go to a shorter term. >> Commissioner Dale Anderson. >> Well, I guess I was just pondering maybe
I should have seconded Roger's motion just for discussion. But I guess my question is on bid four, if we would actually do that, what what is the concern or or maybe you
can explain why that isn't a good option um with the amount of savings that's there. I believe it would be that um while as Commissioner MD had referenced certainly if people work at
it we've found that you can accomplish four-week service with the 95gallon cart that we have. We've also heard from a lot of folks that and we know a lot of folks that are not that have not been inclined to do that.
Now, whether they can be taught or trained, potentially, yes. But the standard level of service for city curbside single sort recycling is 2 week. And it would be a significant
reduction in the level of service in all of the cities to go to four a week. Could it be pulled off? Potentially. Um I I I think a lot of people would be expecting different ser a level of service from the contractor meaning
getting out of their vehicles to you know collect recyclables that are stacked beside their carts. >> That's not an option though Gary. >> It's not an option but it would likely create but people are going to do it.
True. It's so it it it's going to create I think an an a difficult way to handle the recycling waste stream in city limits. Mr. Chair, but if the downfall
if they don't put the effort into it, it's going to cost them more because they're going to have more garbage then is what the downfall is. So it is it it isn't creating a bigger cost to the county. Correct. One way or the other, it's basically costing them more money
because they're going to have a bigger garbage container sitting there next to it if they don't put the effort in. Correct. >> Um I'm [snorts] going to take uh take my time for just a second here and then I'll come back to you. Thank you. Uh so
uh I can tell you from personal experience that I'm maybe a little more militant than others on the recycling if uh uh if it if it fits in that bin uh and it doesn't need to go into my waist stream.
You know, that's what I do is I break all of that down. And I can tell you that that thing gets filled up in two weeks. And I know I'm not alone in this. Uh I know that we see it all across uh uh all across the city uh overflowing uh
even with uh having uh broken down boxes and so on and so forth. In fact, I've got a bunch of stuff, a bunch of cardboard that I'm going to take to the drop site later this afternoon uh because it'll be easier for me to do that than it is to uh uh break it down
and try to fit it into that uh card for pickup next week. Uh I don't believe that uh the folks who have been accustomed to the uh uh two-week pickup are going to uh uh participate very well
going forward uh in this program if we uh if we go to a four-week solution. So for that reason I would not I would I I would vehemently oppose any reduction in the cities from the twoe standard. Commissioner MD.
>> So Gary, do you know are all the people in the cities using the 95gallon barrel or are they using the smaller one? >> 95. >> I I just have a hard time have always had a hard time. I don't think the people in the country are any more intelligent than people in the cities.
And so if we can figure it out for every four weeks, they certainly should be able to figure it out every four weeks. Also >> I I I do believe and be careful a lot of rural residents have acreage and have option available
to them. >> Mr. Chair, as best as I can say it, >> please don't don't no don't even go there. Come on. >> I agree. That's >> you're saying that we're living in the country or going out and burning our garbage or we're disposing of something.
Come on, Gary. >> That is not even >> That is absolutely inappropriate. >> Mr. Chair, Commissioner Anderson, >> I just want to get this rolling. I'll come out with my motion. If it doesn't get a second, it doesn't hurt my feelings, but I'm going to go with bid number six. I make a motion that we
>> I'll second that. >> Six. >> We have a motion and a second uh to uh approve bid number six for uh the county recycling agreement. Uh further discussion. So, just to be clear, that is city's
bi-weekly and then all rural would be uh by drop site. Um Neil, I I I hear your concern and I I don't know that having a single drop site out at uh just the landfill would help the folks in your
district terribly much. >> Not a bit. >> What What might be a solution there? Uh would would would there need to be a relocation of a drop site? And the drop site, by the way, that's that has very little to do with the
contractor, >> correct? >> Other than that they come out and uh pick it up periodically. >> Yes. [clears throat] >> So if it was seven or if it was eight drop sites, the that uh difference would be fairly
negligible. >> Correct. Um, is is there some is is there something like that that we could pose as a potential solution for your district or what what are your thoughts on it?
>> I I don't know. My thoughts are we just leave it the way it is right now or or we go to every four weeks? I I mean we um it's I go back to what Corki has said. We've we've got people that have paid this for this service and we've got
people that have expected it. Now, um I I just I this this is just as bad. I was just sitting here thinking this is just as bad of a decision as the first vote that I had to make on this commission, and that was to decide where the where the paper was going to be because there
is not a win here for anybody. Um there there's no winning on this decision no matter which way we go. >> Commissioner B. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I still want to go back that we leave things and I agree with Commissioner Dale Anderson as they
are, but also then go back and see if there's a possibility that we could uh lower the length of that contract because that's really the issue here going forward. If we're having financial problems uh down the road, we will have to want to look at that contract. And I
believe we went with a 5-year contract at that time. We did was for those reasons that you did state it was very important that they had a big investment in this and to get started on this we needed a longer contract. U I would just
like to uh uh that we would go back and you uh check with uh uh Mr. Williamson to see if this if that's negotiable to shorten the time. if we go with number one and leave things as as it is because
this is going to cause a lot of chaos for them just to switch to one to the other and they got to move trucks around, staff around and everything the way it is and I I would think they might be willing to look at that. >> Uh Gary, uh I think I heard you say just
a couple of minutes ago that you had indicated that the contractor would not be interested in a shorter term. Uh that is >> I believe I believe would be willing to look at a shorter term but it would be at an increased cost >> but that it would
>> yeah at an increased cost >> because >> Mr. Williamson do you do do you want wish to address the board at all? >> Well if you do I'll have you come up >> Mr. Chair Donna Williamson and County
Board, thanks for entertaining this today and I'm sorry it's a tough dis tough discussion. Just happens I was thinking of the timing if this would have been a year before year after or something like it probably wouldn't be quite as hard to to to wrestle with. So I apologize for that. Um however every
every whatever board member has said is true. How can everything be true? It's all true. It it and it's all real. So the results end up unfortunately in your five people's hands to decide um what's
the best path forward. Nothing that is said is wrong. It's all correct. And so there if if you the I think the least the least problematic would probably be to stay with something you're doing today or very close to it. The least amount of uh complaints. But there's a
there's a budget to worry about too. And we'd be glad to work with staff with your staff with Mr. year and and Kelsey, whatever. Um, on length of contract, >> do we have uh kind of a drop dead date,
Gary, for uh for getting this done? >> Um, I I believe it would be the December 2nd meeting. Uh, and then we would have to decide on the bid and then approve the contract at the same meeting. uh we
wouldn't be able to push the contract past the second because of the other than if we the board landed at bid number one which would be maintaining the same service otherwise there's too much work to be done to for the contractor. >> Thank you. So at this time we have a
motion and a second for correct for uh uh bid number six discussion further discussion on that motion commissioner. >> Thank [clears throat] you. Um, yeah, I don't see that much um to gain if we're going to stay with the same
contract as number one. I don't wouldn't see uh what there is to gain uh by by going two years. Um I just want to know uh who do I direct the phone calls to that that's this is the number one item
that I have received phone calls on until recently. the shotgun versus rifle um question. In my 12 year or since we've adop five years that we've adopted this contract and um >> there's a lot of frustration out there
about the the difference between the city and the and the and the rural area. >> Commissioner u uh Commissioner Mdeck, I couldn't agree with you more. As I recall, when we first uh gone this down this route in contracting, uh uh when we
closed down the the county's program for recycling, never received as many phone calls and concerns from the citizens. Every citizen has a strong opinion about recycling. And uh up to this point, I we've never had any any anything like
that. So, if we make some changes, be be prepared that this uh the input in input that we're going to get from the citizens because they want their they want their recycling and we have a system in place right now and I just believe uh right now the citizens are
basically uh they're not maybe some are not happy because they want more of that service for themselves but we we we are at a comfortable place for the time being. >> Thank you. Any further discussion on the motion at hand?
The motion is to accept uh bid number six cities bi-weekly and establish uh seven uh rural drop sites. All those in favor of the motion say I. >> I.
>> All opposed I >> I. That motion does not pass. Are there any other motions from the board? >> Mr. Chair, >> Commissioner Rim, >> point of order in that Robert's rules
does allow discussion without a second on a unless we or without a second on a motion unless we as a county have a policy um to to prevent that. So your point is what? That we're not that we have the >> motion that I made earlier should not
have died for lack of a second. >> Uh and yet here we are. Uh that is in every board that I have ever served on that has typically been the practice. Would you like to make another motion? >> Well, you like to revive your motion?
>> I don't believe that I uh can make the same motion. Commissioner Anderson could if you wished. I don't know why you couldn't. >> Hey, I'll I'll move on bid number four
every four weeks for everybody. >> We have a motion and a second again on bid number four. >> Was the second? >> Uh is there excuse me, is there a second? >> All right, then. [snorts] Uh clearly there's not appetite for
that, >> Mr. Chair. Commissioner Burke, >> I'd just like to make uh a motion for bid number one with a caveat that uh we would seriously look at that, but also then uh have a report back at the next board meeting uh to see if there can be
any discussion or leeway as as reference to how long of a contract because to me that's the big thing. All these are not cutting that much dollars and it's causing a lot of commotion. And my concern is for a five-year contract in today's economic environment and the
taxes and so forth that uh we'd be wise at looking at a shorter contract. Uh with the idea that we highly value the service very much so and that we would uh just would have to relook at that. But most contracts aren't out
necessarily for five years. So, so you're making a motion for bid number one, which is currently figured at that five years >> with the caveat I said that we uh uh or or I maybe I should just ask that we
would tableabling it be appropriate that we table it until the next board meeting and and or postpone it and then and just report back if there's any option to lower that and then bring it back for a vote because then I would like to make
that motion not knowing what's >> so then so then I would suggest that uh so that staff and the vendor have clarity on this that if we're asking them to rework figures one more time uh
that we allow for a three-year option and then we make a decision at our next meeting on this one way or the point of point of clarification or
question. So, um that that retooling or refiguring would only be for option one, right? >> The way I >> um >> my understanding. >> Yeah. >> Is that your motion? >> Well, actually my my motion is is to take a look at the length of the
contract. if you do any one of these actually except for me number six which might have some significant savings and if that's the reason we're doing that um I would just like to to have that information as we vote going forward and see if we could uh postpone it and
further some discussion about the length of the contract and and make us come back say no this is where we're at on this contract and I'm fine with that. I'm I'm also fine I mean I'm fine with whatever you come back with. I wish we could make it shorter because financially in this environment
a long-term contract like this is significant. >> Yep. You're uh so so so you're uh >> uh proposing to uh postpone to our next meeting. >> Yeah. >> Uh consideration of the bids and to
request staff to uh visit with the vendor and come up with options uh for a three-year contract. >> Oh, no. I I think we should just trust the staff with this and and see what they can come up with in negotiations.
>> We I would really like us to give a little more definitive uh direction to staff and to the vendor so they don't have to guess what it is that this board is asking for. >> Well, I mean, what what are we going to what
are we going to what are we saying? We want a one-year option. We want a two-year option. We don't want five, but we're not willing to say what it is that we're asking for. I think they need something definitive. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. May I just follow
up on that? Yes. I would like to say uh uh reducing the the number of years and uh I would like to suggest a two-year contract and see what you come back with. >> If I understand the motion, Mr. Chair, the motion, >> it's not a motion. It's a a table with
it directions, right? is request is is is moving to uh postpone until our next meeting >> consideration of the question and directing staff to work with the uh uh incumbent vendor to bring back options
for a reduced term >> or two years. Two >> that's what he's saying is two years. >> Okay, I would second that motion. >> Thank you. Motion and a second on the uh motion to postpone. Any discussion,
>> Mr. Chair? Um, part of the reason why the two years make some sense in my mind is that we faced some significant budget increases in uh budget year 27, 27, and 28. And uh this would give us an
opportunity to make some adjustments if we had to to drop down to, you know, option number six that was here today. >> Thank you. Any other comments? >> Yes, I I think by negotiating this too, I think there's a a factor of a
inflation as well and I I would think everybody was going to take that in consideration and everybody would have a better handle on it if it was a shorter term contract. >> And anyone else? And just to clarify, are we we we still are not taking any of
these options off the table. These will still be presented. Correct. >> Correct. All right. >> For me, >> anyone else? All right. On the motion to postpone, all those in favor say I. I. >> I. All opposed. >> I.
>> Four eyes, one nay. The motion is agreed to. Thank you. And we'll see you next month. >> Thank you. >> And uh we need a fivem minute recess. >> [snorts] >> NDI County Board is back from recess.
Our next item uh is we have uh Julie Mson uh here to present on uh judicial security uh law and there is an action item attached to this. Julie, good morning. >> Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good
morning, commissioners. Julie Mson, Kenui County Recorder Office. Um I do have two items actually today. Uh the first will be the judicial security law. This is a new law that is taking effect January 1st, 2026.
Um it is um it's an enhanced privacy measure for jud judicial officials um for this year's legislation builds off of u Minnesota Minnesota state statute 480.45
um adding a key provision to rec retroactively masking of existing property records. Um, an overview of the bill is that it is an address protection program built specifically for judiciary. [cough and clears throat] A judiciary
official will submit a judicial real property notice or an RPN. Um, it will list information at the county to be protected. The county can charge up to $75 to process the request and there are provisions to disseminate this
information and it goes live January 1st. um who is covered by this new law. Um every Minnesota District Court judge, senior judge, retired judge, and every judge in the Minnesota Court of Appeals
and every active senior, recalled or retired federal judge who resides in Minnesota. It does not include employees of the Minnesota Judiciary Peace Office, uh employees of the Minnesota Judiciary, peace officers, or county attorneys, prison guards at this time.
Um what data is covered? Um definition is taken from safe at home which describes [clears throat] property records as any record of data that is maintained as part of the county real estate document recording system for use for the public data on assessments data
on real or personal property taxation and other data on real property. Um this will also ret retroactively include online and or digital real property records. Um data that is kept
as a digital format is covered whether it is online or not. Um the county recorder must not disclose the individual's personal information in conjunction with the property identification in the request. retroactive and future documents and
certificates of title, digitized tax and GIS data. Um, notable exceptions are digitized trackbooks and microfilm. Uh, there are four forms that we will see. The first is the judiciary real
property notice that is submitted by the judicial official. Um, the form is created by judiciary. Um, this is what we'll use to mask the records. Um then there's the consent to access. This will be signed by a judicial official that we
can release information. The other is a request to access. This is without judicial officials consent. This would be such as a title company um looking to do search for real estate records. And then the consent to terminate pro um
prohibition and on dissemination. Uh how the how does the jud judicial real property notice work? Uh the judicial official submits the form. It lists the name, legal description, P ID, contact information. Um mo most
importantly, it will define the data to be masked. One request per parcel to be masked, and we may charge up to $75 um to take this request. Um the judicial RPN masks the data unless
it is shared with another government entity for taxation and assessment purposes. Uh it is shared with the examiner of titles and we can return original documents back to the submitter. Mask data is until the protected individual consents to leaving the
program and submits a consent to terminate a court order to the county to make public. no longer an owner of the property, the individual dies and a death certificate is filed with the recorder or no longer qualifies for coverage.
Um, accessed by consent will likely be the path used most often. A form including a judicial official signature will be presented and copies will be released. If a potential buyer that is making an offer to buy the protected parcel wants access, that person can
only access with consent. Access by request to release um is any of the following licensed people that can request access. A title insurer, abstractor, attorney, loan originator, or realtor. They will fill out a notorized request to release that will
include a full name, title, address, and employer, the purpose for the request, the requesters's relationship relationship if any to the individual, the legal description, and proof of lensure. um access for the title industry. It is
recommended to permanently file the consent or request to release and the consent to terminate where the individual has consented to the termination of the real property notice um in writing signed by the individual and acknowledged by a notary. Um when
received, we would make publicly viewable all documents, certificates, and other records that were masked. Where do the fees go for counties? They'll be deposited with the county recorder. All fees collected, then we'll go into the general fund. So, I'm here
today to ask that we um go with the recommended uh $75 for RPN or notices. >> All right. The chair will make that motion. And is there a second? >> Mr. Chair, I'll second it.
>> Thank you. Any discussion? Any questions for Julie? So this is kind of in the light of the events of uh earlier this year. uh certainly takes on a little more importance. Uh but uh but also this was
this was something that was already uh set up back in 2024 and [clears throat] uh since the uh uh [snorts] horrific events of this last uh June uh there have been uh perhaps additional
requests to add other u uh folks within uh doing certain jobs uh to something like this. That isn't being done yet. No, but that would likely work for something similar here. Y >> and that'll certainly be before the legislature this this next time around.
>> Yes. >> Because that's what the safe at home type of thing is for is for public officials. >> Uh safe at home is actually for individuals that are seeking um to have their um their data also private. Um
that this [snorts] differs um this is specifically for judiciary. Mhm. >> Um it stems from the federal law, Daniel's law, um which is um masking in information for judicial officials. Um each state is taking on their own take
of how they want to privatize. Um but this is this is the beginning for Minnesota. They're starting with judicial. Um like I said, they're also um in the works next year of adding to that. So, >> and and and so your ask here today is
just simply to uh uh implement this and implement the $75 fee. >> Yes. Because this is a new fee. Yes. >> All right. Uh any >> discussion? Go ahead, Commissioner. >> How many requests a year do we get?
>> Um since this is new, we don't have any requests for this at this time. um for safe at home. We currently have one person on that program in the county. >> Okay. So the $75 is not going to
generate a great deal of >> it just just makes it commits them to something by >> right >> not making frivolous requests. >> Correct. >> Anyone else?
All right. We have a motion and a second to uh approve the recommendation of staff. All in favor say I. >> I. All oppose. Motion passes. And then uh the second part of this is a uh uh is in relation to the software system. >> Correct.
>> Uh and those [snorts] folks who uh subscribe to that. >> Correct. Um so my second item is um regarding our land record software um provider. Fed Fiddler Technologies is increasing their user fees for Laredo
Angular. The last increase that they um passed on to us was January 1st, 2019. Um so with the anticipated increase to the user fees to Laro Anywhere, the um [snorts] and the subscription agreement has been updated and all users will sign
a new agreement. Um the areas highlighted um in the proposed agreement that was in the packet um are the changes that have been made. Um it includes updated terms and agreements and an overall approximate um 15%
increase for the user fees. So I'm looking today for the approval of the new agreement and increased fees. >> So move, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> I'll second [laughter] that, Mr. Chair. We have a motion and a second. Discussion, questions.
Pretty straightforward. All right. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying I. >> All opposed. Motion passes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh, next up, uh, Corey Smith, uh, Green Lake Sanitary Sewer and Water District Director. You have a resolution for
>> sure do. Good morning, Mr. Chair, [clears throat] members of the board. My name is Cory Smith and I serve as the director out at Glacial Lakes Sanitary Sewer and Water District. I'm here before you today for resolution 2025-43 which is for consideration of assessments pertaining to Glacial Lakes
delinquent water and sewer use accounts. Um this year there are four delinquent amounts to consider for assessment which are identified in the resolution that you have in your board packet resolution 2025-43. Uh just quickly I will go over the last
four of the partial ID which is the P ID and the total amount to be assessed. Partial ID ending in 0010 has a total of $1,586.95. Parcel ID ending in 0030 has a total of $2,4660.
Parcel ID ending in 02000 has a total of $1,814. parcel ID ending in 0090 has a total of $1,76253 cents. Uh throughout the year, the city of New London, whom does the billing for
Glacial Lakes, uh sends out monthly letters identifying the accounts of their delinquent dollar amount. Uh in addition, the districts um we also do send out letters later on in the year stating that um this resolution um is
going to the Glacial Lakes Commission to be recommended to the county board and then eventually be attached to your um property tax statements. So, [cough and clears throat] at our last Glacial Lakes Commission on October 27th, the commission reviewed the status
of our delinquent accounts and approved forwarding them uh the information to the county board for assessment consideration. So, with that, it is the uh Glacial Lakes Commission's recommendation to adopt resolution 2025-43
to recover the outstanding delinquent account balances. >> So, move, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. There's a motion and is there a second? >> Second, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. Uh any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor of resolution
2025-43 say I. >> All opposed. >> Motion passes. Thank you. >> Thank you. At this time, I'd like to invite uh Zach Maboo to uh uh come up before us and uh uh Zach has a little
bit of uh news and some changes within his organization and then we will uh uh we will have director Khan uh come and visit with us about a uh related contract. Zack, good morning. Good to see you. >> Good morning, commissioners. Uh thank you very much for inviting me at this
opportunity to share my vision and what I have been doing within with our community here in Wilmer. I've been living in Wilma since uh 2011 and it started with central interpreting services and uh it was the first place is born was Kanyoha County and this
organization has really become great now all covering the whole twin city not twin city the whole state of Minnesota everywhere now and we have been doing work with the you know different entities government agencies healthcare
insurancees and all that sort of thing and we were providing different language Somali language, Spanish language, um, uh, Kan language, Mong language, you know, so that we've been really doing multiple different language. So this is where this
organization has born and really it's becoming the whole state of Minnesota. So we'll be glad, you know, I'm glad to be part of that. And now as becoming age 65, I'm getting too old. So I'm kind of trying to step back and we have Sido adden who's the new president of the
organization who's really taking over and we'll be glad to really our home state hometown of Kandoha County to really uh continue the work that we've been doing within this county and I thank you for the opportunity. Thank you. >> Thank you. So, and and and so so you're
retiring and those of us who are a little older than you are might >> resent the characterization that we're getting old, but some days we feel it. Uh and so uh it says here introduction of new uh president.
>> Yes, her name is Sedo. She's uh she's the current president. Say come down here. She's the new president. actually she resides in Twin Cities but we have an office here and we have a huge office in in in Minneapolis so she's coming from Minneapolis now you know
>> outstanding >> yeah nice to meet you >> I'm not a get a public speaking but my name is S and I'm presenting west central we're from Minneapolis and we serve large community in Minneapolis
provide 11 language right now all the way down from Wilmer to St. Cloud to all twin cities to mano to some beaters all those areas and as uh sack is retiring or stepping back we're taking over and
we will be happy to work with you and keep our relationship the same. We are trying to be in this area once in a while or every couple months to overseeing things. So it's nice to meet you. I'm not good at public speaking, but yes. [laughter]
>> Well, welcome and uh thank you. Congratulations on >> your new role here. Zack, congratulations to you on your retirement. >> Uh you've been an important part of this community for years and I uh I understand you're going to remain in the
community because you love winter weather. So, >> thank you. >> He'll be still around. [laughter] Well, thank you so much. And uh Caroline, >> yeah,
>> we'll move right into uh uh the contract uh being proposed. >> Good morning, Caroline Khan. Have the opportunity to serve as the director of health and human services for Candy Ohio County. And as Commissioner Gardner Gardner has shared, I'm presenting to you this morning our two-year countywide
contract for West Central Interpreting. We've had this uh contract in place since uh Zach started the organization in 2012. Um it is a a unique one that is housed in health and human services but does benefit the countywide um and has been extended to be utilized through any
department. Um has been a long-standing very strong uh [clears throat] relationship. So um you can see a copy of the contract as well as the updated rates. Um very minimal updates since he began the contract in 2012. I was doing
a little research from that that history and that's very nominal um increase which is uh very much appreciated in our in our rural partnerships. So uh my recommendation for the board today would be to approve our contract to and um rate stability for the next two years uh
with West Central Interpreting. >> Thank you. Is uh there a motion? >> Mr. Chair, I also move to approve the contract as stated. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> I'll second that. >> Thank you. And just to clarify, under number three here, it says the total
amount to be paid [cough] by the county for services purchased from the contractor shall not exceed $50,000. Correct. [cough] Is is is that I mean I don't mean this flippantly, but is that is that enough? Uh because the reason I
asked that question is that the need for these interpreting services have just done nothing but grow over the years. I know uh on the supporting hands nurse family partnership joint powers board uh we're seeing uh these increases and the
need for uh these services uh to uh is is is just going up and uh the rates that we're seeing here are pretty standard. >> Correct. Um, if the need will is getting close to surpassing that, we will come back to the board because that would be
something that we would want you guys to be aware of that our interpreting needs are surpassing our expectations. Um, that is in line with what we would expect based off of previous year's spending. So >> certainly any other questions, >> Mr. Chair,
I couldn't help but think at auctions and in a poker game, you never raise yourself. >> I'm sorry. [laughter] Yes. >> At an auction or at a poker game, you never raise yourself. Your own bid. >> Yeah. >> Or bid against yourself. >> Yes. >> Understood.
>> Yes, Mr. Chair. And follow up. Yes. You know, as you said, you'd bring it back to the board to make a decision and the board will make a decision if they want to raise it at that time. >> Correct. >> And and and I when I ask is that enough? I'm just I'm just pointing out to the need.
>> Correct. Correct. It is a growing need. >> Nothing but growing. Yeah. Uh, Commissioner Dwayne Ed. >> Yeah. So, on here it says phone interpreting. Uh, so this service, is it mostly provided via the phone or is it in person or is it
>> It's a combination. West Central Interpreting has been one of our best partners to provide our in-person support and has been a great partner for us to to be a local partner to provide inperson for whether it be court hearings or um different experiences like a men choices assessment. um
they've done a great job being able to be a partner in the home andor in the um experience that the client needs. So, >> okay. So, if it's in court, it's probably more than likely in person. >> In in person, it depends on how that court is being delivered, but or a mediation um different different
experiences. So, they've been a great partner in that process. We do also use them for uh phone support as well as um documentation. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Commissioner Deck. I'm really curious what what was the uh demonstration we
had on the uh AI software here about a month or so ago. Liv. >> Oh, >> Eevee. >> Eevee. Thank you. >> Um I I think about interpretation, how that application could certainly be something we'd see over the next couple
of years, uh where they automatically interpret from Spanish to English, English, Spanish, Karin to English, and back and forth. Yeah, that would be another first language service. Um, we would still likely have a a need for service supports um like these our
partners as like West Central as well as our other translation um partners that we have at the county. Um but that would provide um another avenue for first language experience. I suspect that that would not be a uh that that that is
something that would be in addition to but it's not likely to replace because depending upon the language uh you know there might be you know someone says something and you know is it really this
or is it really that is it uh uh just kind of the vernacular of a particular dialect that type of thing and the AI is not necessarily likely to be able to catch those differences in dialects, that type of thing. So, the need here is
still going to exist. >> Correct. I think it would just be an enhancement. We're we're committed to always enhancing our first language experience within the county and and that would be a service as well as the services that we have before you today. >> Outstanding. Anyone else?
All right. We have a motion and a second to approve the contract with West Central Interpreting. All in favor say I. >> I. All opposed. Motion passes. Thank you, Zach. Congratulations on your retirement. Thank you all for your patience here today. [clears throat]
>> And then uh >> you need a you need a signature now. >> No, I was just since they were here, I was going to have her take care of their signatures, but um >> uh and you have a you have an update for >> I do. I do. I have a brief uh update regarding um the federal changes. Um you
know, I I regret that it's not able to provide these in writing to you ahead, but as you've maybe witnessed yourself in the news, these things are changing faster than um we've ever experienced in in our work. Um so, a few updates that we just wanted to to briefly highlight.
As as we are all aware, our federal government has returned to operations and so some of our work has continued um as as normal. um but some is [clears throat] still in that process of redeployment. So we want to u thank you for your continued partnership and support as our department and our
community have navigated the challenges of these widespread impacts. Um we have been made aware that some of the programs uh have been funded through the continuing resolution through January. Uh the department of u US department of
agriculture however has been funded through September of 26. We are hopeful. That doesn't tell me for certain that SNAP itself is funded within the USDA. Um but we do know that the USDA is funded through 26. Um which does give us
some some hope with that. Um the we do um understand that there are some continued upcoming changes that we continue to navigate. Um and you may have seen some of those even hitting the news last night. I want to remind the board as well as our community that
Minnesota is a um state supervised county administered um state. So what that means is that the federal government provides information to the state and then the state provides that information to the counties. So often there is a time lag in how that process
unfolds. There is some information out in the news um cycle this morning related to reapplication for SNAP participants. We have not received any direction from the state as to that being valid or that being something that is being enacted at this moment. I can't
give you an answer as to what will be in my inbox by the end of the day, but as of right now, that is not something that is being enacted. And I know that does bring um a bit of concern during a moment of what we were hopeful to be a moment of pause. Um, so I just wanted to highlight that things are continuing to
unfold and these are great opportunities that we can continue to come forward and share with you um in a and end with our community about these changes. We do understand that work requirements will be continuing to unfold um and change
how SNAP access is delivered with the federal government shutdown. Some of that is still being in development through the USDA. So what we do understand is there will be a requirement to participate of a minimum of 80 hours per month um for certain
populations of ages 18 to 64. This was previously 18 to 54. So now we'll have older adults from that 54 to 64 being required to meet that 80hour a month requirement. We are still yet unsure as to how we will collect that and how we
will ensure that. We will continue to receive guidance um but that is not yet delivered to this the counties. Um adults could previous that were previously exempt from time limited work rules um with a child under 18 in on
SNAP. Uh now children have to be under the age of 14 and parents um for parents to get that time exemption. This could potentially affect around 200 of our clients here in Candy Ohio County. I apologize. the earlier could affect just
over 600 uh Candy Ohio County clients. Um exemptions, previous exemptions are gone for people that uh are aged 24 or younger who were in the pro foster care system at age 18 and those who served in the US military. Um, we have are
watching with our DCYF partners in case there are potential workarounds that we could use in this area. And if someone fails at these work requirements um within their three months in a three-year window, it will no longer be a rolling three years. It will be a calendar three-year window is from what
we're understanding, which is just continuing to to change how the the rules unfold. um the static 36-month calendar starting over in January 1 of 26. Um it was previously, like I stated, the rolling calendar year. We're also
monitoring changes to utility and shelter allowances and the limits being placed on using state energy assistance such as lie heap to qualify for SNAP as well as the upcoming potential uh state cost sharing and administrative cost shifts. Um, I did want to provide a
brief update about what that looked like during the federal shutdown and and individuals still coming to pro um apply for applications during that time frame from October 1st until now. We did receive an additional 172 applications for uh SNAP benefits within our county.
So, that's demonstrating that our need is still here and our need is still growing. And it also demonstrate to me that the trust is still here with our community that um they're still coming to have their needs served. So, um with
that, my my main takeaway with you is um appreciation for your continued patience as we navigate this. I am so incredibly proud of the way that our leaders are leading through this work. Uh Dana and her team have done incredible work navigating these changes very quickly.
um as well as the rest of our leadership team as these unfold in unprecedented ways. And I always kind of joke that unprecedented doesn't even seem worthwhile anymore because it's all seems precedented at the moment. So, um but we we will continue to update the
board and update our community as as quickly as possible as we receive guidance. Um but understanding that there is typically a um a process of delivery time from when you may see something in the news cycle to when that will get delivered and deployed.
Uh and I just want to thank you just as one commissioner uh that the work that you and your team have done in this area during this time of extreme chaos uh has been nothing short of stellar. And I want to thank you for looking out for
our constituents and for our community uh during this during this time and you're still going to be doing that. And I just want to thank you so much. >> Anybody else uh with any questions or comments? Commissioner Mck. >> Thank you. Um I just want to be clear.
You talked about a lot of provisions about uh the age at which you know the extended age at which you have to look for a job. That goes into effect next year though, right? not or a 27, right? Not not 26.
>> November 1st of this year is when those changes took place as far as going up to age 64 or under the age of 14. >> So, so they're already in effect. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Correct. >> We just still haven't received guidance on
>> how to do it. So, they they've went into effect, but the the guidance as to how >> Okay. And the other the other question is um there's been some talk that all SNAP recipients would have to reapply even if
they've been um approved prior. So that would suggest that how many do we have in the county? >> We would have just over 2,000 applications >> and they'd all come to the door at one time. We again have not received guidance as to how that would work, but Dana and her team are working through if
that were to be the case, how would we operate through that and triage? >> That's my question. Yeah, >> because there's going to be delays then we we >> I can't see you hiring and training people for that. >> That is not feasible. >> Reinvest or re reestablishment time.
There's going to be delays. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> Anyone else? Uh yes, please. Commissioner Berg and then Commissioner Anderson. >> Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And also, you mentioned, [clears throat] you know, as yourself, you want to thank him. And I also want to thank you as well as
Administrator Baker and all the staff that been out in the community and working to make this get through this. And you are so right. Throughout history, we've never ran into a surprise about the surprise, you know, that it would get to this point and we'd have to deal with this this way. So, but uh we
got a long ways to go yet as you're also saying, but at least we're heading in a better direction now. So, appreciate flexibility of all the staff going through all this. >> Commissioner Dale Anderson. >> Um yeah, I just like to say thanks. Also, the interesting thing we were at
the food shelf yesterday for a different reason and and it was interesting that we had a discussion about that this was a really terrible thing we've just went through, but a very good thing we went through because it opens the eyes of everybody that didn't really understand what was going on in our county and our
community. So, I think that, you know, we have to make sure that we keep that message out there that there is a need and and this is how it's being done and and and there's a process if you need that need. But I think you guys do try your best to to get that message out
there. But it was interesting how the perspective of those people that work in the food shelf said that it was a terrible thing, but yet a great thing because it really opened people's eyes to what's going on. So, thank you very much for what you guys have done. And uh did you did you mention that
maybe there's a suggestion that we uh as a board >> I'll talk about that on report out. >> Got it. Okay. Okay. >> Mr. Chair, thank you. As we've talked about in the past and you brought up really a good point is uh never let a a crisis go to waste and and I think
there's a positive side to this too that we've learned from this and and we're going forward in a very better way than we did before. >> All right. >> All right, >> Caroline. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> And uh keep up the good work. Thank you.
>> At this time then, we uh will ask our human resources director, Katie Zeamer, uh to bring us resolution 2025-30. >> Hello, Katie Zeamer, human resources director with Candyo County. We recently hired Mike Jamber as our new jail
administrator. With this, we are permitted as his employer to allow him to continue in the police and fire PAR plan since it was a transfer and that's the plan he has been in for the majority of his career. This resolution is me requesting that we allow him to continue
in that PAR plan. >> So move, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. There's a motion to approve the recommendation of staff. Is there a second? >> I'll second that, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. Motion in a second. Questions, discussion? >> Uh, no. Uh, yes, Mr. Mr. If I may. Yeah.
Can you share a little bit what that involves? You know, why would you be moving that way >> with the position that he's in if it wasn't a transfer? >> I understand. But maybe, you know, the public doesn't understand that either. >> Yes. So with the jail administrator
position, it would be under the correctional para plan, but because he has been in the police and fire for a majority of his career to allow him to continue in that plan, which each plan has different contribution limits and different stipulations with it >> and it's a better contribution.
It's better for his retirement. Let's put it that way. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> All right. Any other questions? We have a motion, a second to approve resolution 2025-38. All in favor say I. I. >> All opposed. Motion passes. Thank you.
Uh, Administrator Baker, uh, proposed 2026 county park policies and fees. >> Uh, good morning, Kelsey Baker, Kandui County Administrator. Before you today, we have the proposed fees um for our
county parks. Uh we have um we have a pre-season and a postseason meeting with all the park managers. We have two county commissioners that sit on that um both the Andersons. And so at the the postfall meeting or postseason meeting,
we discussed rates and fees. Um and we I spoke with all managers um looked at some of what our rates are, look at what looked at some of the options, what we could do. Um and we looked at our proposal is increasing all seasonal
I'm sorry daily and seasonal rates tent rates and then not not increasing the pet shelter and then the cabins. And then our other proposal was within the policy that um seasonals, so 0 to more than 0 to 29 is classified as a seasonal
camper would be able to register that first seven days when we open up registrations in January. So I'm asking today to approve the proposed 2026 camping rates and allowing
seasonal campers to register the first seven days. >> Thank you. Uh, is there a motion, >> Mr. Chair? I so move. >> Thank you. Uh, motion to approve the recommendation of staff. Is there a second? >> I'll second that, Mr. Chair.
>> Discussion. >> Commissioner Mdeck, >> what um if I may, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, what was was the percentage increase the same for all the parks? Correct. Where there was a rate increase and what was it? >> It wasn't a percentage. It was $2.
>> The if we you would have done like >> each park has a little different >> Yes. Each park is a little bit different and that's why I included this rate page so that you all have it and really that the public has it as well. Um and the the rate increase that $2 will go to the
county and really this depends on the occupancy of our parks but if we're at total occupancy this is an additional $9,500 revenue. So it's not even a huge driver in revenue that we're seeing but this does keep us in line. The last
increase we did was in 2022. And so we um in talking with staff and managers when looking at the daily, the seasonal by doing this across the board and not touching the tent, I'm sorry, not the tent, the pets, the rental, and the cabins. We're at least keeping up with
inflation so we don't have to do a major increase in 10 years. So we're hoping that this will fix the problem then for a few years. Um but like I said, this is really based on total occupancy. If we don't have that total occupancy, we won't see a a true change in revenue
increase. >> Could I follow up? >> Yes. >> Um, speaking of occupancy, [clears throat] um, throughout the season and throughout the campgrounds, do we have a handle on what that occupancy is? Is it like 80% 70%? >> Each park is pretty different, but our
occupancy levels within Green, Diamond, and Games are pretty high above probably around 90%. I don't have those numbers. I'm just going off memory. 90% and above for those three. We struggle a little bit over on the Big Candy side, the Big Candy East. And um we have a lot of
seasonals at Big Candy West. So our occupancy remains probably 78 to 80% on Big Candy West. Our occupancy is a little bit lower on Big Candy East. >> Anyone else? We have a motion and a second to approve
the recommendation of staff uh related to the new uh rate fees for 2026. All those in favor say I. >> All opposed. Motion passes. Thank you. >> Uh at this time uh I would uh request a
motion to go into close session with [clears throat] uh attorney Kendra Olsen from Peton Law. Persuent to Minnesota statutes 13D.05 5 subdivision 3B to discuss pending litigation. Is there a motion? >> Mr. Chair, I so move.
>> Thank you. Is there a second? >> I'll second that, Mr. Chair. >> We have a motion and a second to uh go into close session. All in favor say I. >> All opposed. Motion passes. Thank you. And uh we will enter that session momentarily.