Good morning everyone and welcome to the Candyo County Board of Commissioners meeting for Tuesday, December 16th, 2025. Uh please stand as you are able for the pledgece of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation
under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. want to thank everybody who is in the room today as well as folks who are uh uh catching us on YouTube. And uh at this point in time, I would like to u uh
introduce the consent agenda which uh consists of the uh approval of the December 2nd, 2025 county board legal minutes, the approval of the auditor's warrants and claims, approval of human services warrants and claims, cancellation of human service services
warrants, approval of 2026 city contracts for prosecution services with Spicer Raymond and New London Spicer Winterfest event permit application revision and uh approval approve
agreements for police services with cities. Uh commissioners, are there any of these consent agenda items that you would wish to pull from the consent agenda? Seeing and hearing none, I'd accept a motion to approve the consent agenda.
>> So move, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Mdeck moves. Second. >> I'll second that. Mr. >> Uh Dwayne Anders, Commissioner Dwayne Anderson seconds. Any discussion? >> Hearing none. All in favor of approval of the consent agenda signify by saying I. >> I.
>> All opposed? I voted I. I just didn't say it. It was in my head, but I didn't say it. So, um, and I guess, uh, I didn't see it here, but, uh, uh, we should probably have
approval of the, uh, uh, uh, agenda as well. Uh, may I have a motion and a second for that? >> I'll move that, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you, uh, Commissioner Dwayne Anderson. >> I'll second it. >> Commissioner Dale Anderson seconds. Discussion hearing none. All in favor
say I. I. All opposed. Motion passes. Uh first item of business today then is the conditional use permit request and uh Eric Van Dyken will present. Eric, good morning. >> Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board. Eric Van
Dyken, county zoning administrator here with a single action um item for you. Um typically I would title this um agenda item as a planning commission recommendation. In this case, I've just titled it as a conditional use permit
request because um a little bit out of our normal pattern, our planning commission has been unable to reach a recommendation on this proposal. Um after consideration and discussion at the November and December meetings of
the planning commission, the um the planning commission decided to allow this to go to the board without a um without a recommendation. Um the staff recommendation does stand as uh originally um promulgated in the
staff report for the November meeting and then as expanded upon in the uh staff report for the December 8th meeting. This conditional use um is a little bit unique also in that it is for
a use on county property which we don't um consider uh terribly often. the county isn't often granting itself essentially um through an applicant um authority to do certain uses. So um this one has a little bit uniqueness that way
as well. The um the request comes from Titanka Club LLC for um a project they're calling Tepe Tanka Ranch. Um the category in the of conditional use falls under the idea of hospitality and event
center. the idea of hosting people for on-site activities in a in a rural setting with some level of um on-site housing that the property already affords. Um the the range of activities um really
revolve around the nature of the property um outdoor space. Um the most potentially impactful has been the areas that have been focused on the most and that is that would include the firing of um um of weapons on the property in
particular on in two particular areas um as a game um preserve. So that would include pheasant hunting of raised birds and then secondly for a sporting clays course. So, don't picture in your mind a
single station where um where typical clay pigeons are just throwing out from one um one throwing station, but picture in your mind more something I guess for golfers going from hole to hole to hole um across essentially what amounts to a
course. So, that's that's how the um the proposal kind of lays out. Um, also I would I would uh I would note that there are probably the two biggest areas of concern that we've um heard had to do with the the nature of the county's
purchase of land in in the first place and why why did the county even desire to have this land. Uh so specifically there was there has been some concern about whether or not this use um would intersect or how it intersects with the
county's need or um or use of this property. um to that I guess I would I would point to the um the work of your staff that manages the landfill as having a great level of comfort that
this use as proposed would not interfere with their ability to manage um the property for the initial purposes that the the county acquired the property in particular the monitoring that needs to go on and the uh and the benefits that
the county has from that would would um would maintain. So, I would highlight that. And then I would also just note that um one of the things that I think the planning commission or excuse me, the board can um can think about a
little bit um revolves around how the use is restricted on use of guns. I think it can be easy for us to in our minds to hear shooting and and maybe right away go to um a gun range in our minds. Um the county has in fairly
recent h history approved a gun range. Um this would be I would say in a bit of a different category than a gun range even though there certainly is overlap with the use of firearms. But for us we would want to think about relative intensity of use and how that use is
laid out. So you'll you'll note in condition number three or proposed condition number three that the the use itself um as it relates to sporting clays is significantly tailored as to its hours and the times of a year when
it would be particularly active. Um for all shooting generally speaking we're going to have some months where it's just not practical or feasible. So you're you're thinking in the winter months um that would be minimal to non-existent. And then in this particular case, because the applicant
desires this mostly for shoulder seasons, and when I say shoulder seasons, meaning into and out of the summer golfing season, um there is also significant restriction placed on the proposed use um for sporting clays
during the what we might call the classic summer months, the the Memorial Day to Labor Day time period. Um and so during that period it's uh proposed to be limited to a maximum of uh 20 days um
of any sort of sporting clays activity. So that would be a couple highlights I guess I would have for you. you have in front of you probably um two sets of minutes so you can see how the planning commission discussed um the um the staff
report was um also contained out on the uh um um the website and um I would open myself to any questions in regards to findings, conditions or any information
in the staff reports. Uh I I just want to u uh mention a couple of things here very briefly, Eric. And uh uh one is that the uh conditions were added to uh correct uh from the first planning commission meeting uh to the second uh
to u uh limit the number of sporting clay participants uh maximum group size on site and uh uh speaking specifically about leadshot. Uh is that correct? That is correct, Mr. Chair. Um the condition
proposed conditions seven, eight, and nine were were added to provide additional clarity. One of the things that staff was asked to do um in the intervening period between the November and December meetings was to speak to the compatibility questions um as it
related to the findings. And part of my effort in that was to provide some additional clarity of some things that maybe weren't fully as clear in the conditions um um from the November meeting. So the goal was to add some caps on how many people could
potentially shoot in a day on sporting clays and then what size groups could come to the property overall maximum. And then just making more explicit um the limitation on lead shot that it cannot be shot over any surface water which has historically been one of the u
main concerns about um leadshot is deposition in water. >> All right. And uh uh just uh uh just to note that uh you took public testimony on uh a public comment on this matter back at the uh November 10th uh uh
meeting and that was the time and place for uh for that comment to be received. Yes, >> that is correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh Commissioner B. >> Yes. M uh thank you, Mr. Chair. A question about the lead shop. um any reason I mean I'm really kind of
concerned about that that uh lead shot wasn't restricted totally and only steel shot would be allowed. >> Well um I would uh the planning commission had introduced or that idea
came up in discussion at one point. Um no one ever made a motion to to that extent from from the staff point uh standpoint. We we always try to judge things as to relative relative risks and um so generally speaking anywhere as a
matter of standard lead is kind of the standard for sporting clays. And so one of the reasons why you might want to think um twice about restricting that um would be because it the ballistics of shooting steel is significantly different than lead. So if people are going from you know shooting one place
versus another and part of the reason for for that type of shooting is is to practice. So that doesn't mean you you wouldn't necessarily restrict it but it would give you pause to think okay do we really do we need to um then the other thing I would note you use the word
steel if that became a broader discussion staff would recommend the word non-toxic because that does leave open up their opportunities with ballistics more akin to lead but the economics of which are significantly different when you talk tungsten or
bismouth um they are more akin to shooting lead. Um but they are not um but they are significantly more expensive. Um so then when you think of would you need to require it here uh for
staff that comes down to a level u relative levels of risk. Are we going to be shooting over water? No. That's specifically restricted. Are we concentrating our shot in a one particular area where we might be able to require like a a lead recovery? Um,
you do see that in some places. Um, the one that the county recently approved as a as a gun range that would have a lot of shots shot in one particular area. In that instance, lead recovery is um is this solution to concerns any concerns about lead in the environment. Um and
then the relative um amount of shots fired compared to other lead uses. Lead is not widely banned. It's commonly used all across the state in many many cases including I believe at um Prairie Woods, a county
facility um where where lead is still the the shot um that is that is used. Um, so when it's spread out over quite an area and it's much lower than where we think of gun range type of uses, then for for
staff, the relative risk of that goes down significantly. And there isn't a lot that would um lead us to believe that that's going to get into the environment or leech into things in a in a concentration or at a level that would cause um enough
concern to to restrict it. Okay, Mr. Chair, may I just follow up? You may. >> Yeah, my concern I I've done a lot of hunting uh in my life and uh uh lead got a bad reputation and I think it deserves that and I only hunted with steel and I
know most hunters that I hunted with hunted with steel and I think steel is for far as recovery is a lot easier because of the magnetic effect of it than trying to clean up lead. And it's pretty known fact that lead is not very good for the environment in so many
different aspects. And I uh I believe DNR, don't they limit lead >> uh on a lot of the public hunting places? >> Yes. >> And it gets really confusing trying to carry lead and steel at the same time as well and not break any rules and
regulations and and trying to police that. I'm just thinking that that might be more appropriate that just right off the bat we would eliminate lead altogether. And yes, there's different versions of lead uh shot. You know, some are different coded different ways, but I think it's more environmentally
friendly and easier to recover. And it' be easier for people to uh just carry one type of shot along with them and not get them all mixed up because that can run into problems too as well when you're hunting and uh avoids trouble with the law if you actually then have a
wrong wrong shell in your gun when you happen to be in an area and you get stopped. So we don't want that to happen either. And far as the cost, yes, it costs more money, but I think I think that wouldn't be an issue. and it only could be really a big issue just to say uh just steal a shot of some or some non
toxic type of shot. So that's a condition I really would like to see added. >> Commissioner MD. >> Uh thank you Mr. Chair. Before the discussion gets too far and leads to uh a motion one way or the other, I just want to uh note that I will be abstaining from discussion and voting in
this matter. >> Understood. Thank you. Uh anyone else? Uh I I I kind of want to get to uh Corki's point here uh a little bit because I
share that uh I share that same concern. uh and uh if we even even if it's not a major concern, I would just assume see us talking about just solely non-toxic
shock shot used in that uh uh in that uh use. Uh I think uh I think to uh Commissioner Berg's point uh uh I think I think his point is well taken. Uh, Commissioner Dwayne Anderson.
>> Yeah. My my only concern would be we we never had a problem with it at Prairie Woods and then now all of a sudden we have a problem. So I' I'd like to kind of keep it consistent if whatever we do or decide that it would be kind of the same as uh on the lines of what we do at
Prairie Woods. So, um I I I'm looking at this and I know there's a lot of concern with the clay pigeon shooting and it's fun, but it also I don't know, maybe I got the wrong shotgun, but after a day of doing that, you got a sore shoulder and you're not going to be doing it for a few days again. So, it's only as I as
far as I read it, it's only about 20 days out of the summer. Um am I correct on that? >> In the summer months, it's limited to 20. >> Yeah. So, it isn't like it's every day. It isn't kind of a wild west thing. It's pretty well regulated or kind of very
well structured, I think. And and then I read in here and I I had to look it up because I'm not very good at Latin, but survey day that would be like deer. So there's no hunting of deer. So that's I don't know if anybody is concerned about, you know, kind of a lot of, you
know, slugs or something traveling a long distance. It won't be any of that, I guess. So am I correct? If I may, uh, Commissioner Anderson, um, that that restriction does not necessarily limit the hunting of deer, but it limits game preserve of deer. So, this would have no
farm-raised deer, and we wanted to be very explicit about that. Um, in particular about chronic wasting disease. That was the staff concern there of introducing any that's generally how chronic wasting disease has moved historically. And so we just
wanted to be clear the applicant had no intention or desire to do it. But when you talk game farm, we didn't want to leave that open. So theoretically, someone could bow hunt there on the property or something in typical of what would be any anywhere else as well, but there would be no it's not like a
there's no going to be a high fence game uh deer deer uh farming and and hunting out there. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Uh Commissioner Dale Anderson. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'm really torn on this whole thing. I was at the
planning commission and I've been at both planning commission meetings. Um, I I guess I think the biggest concern that I'm hearing from constituents and from people is the clay pigeon part of it. Um, I I got enlightened by a different
person again this morning on a different way to look at it. So, it it's really a hard decision, I think. Um, I think that there just has to be maybe a compromise of some point in here and and I think that's the the part that I'm hoping that
we can maybe come to of of you know maybe looking at different ways of doing this, but yet I still really feel this is an important thing to get uh passed one way or the other and done with today. I don't want to use our 60-day
extension for this. Um, I think that we need to come to a conclusion. Um, I do definitely kind of agree with with, you know, Corki and and Steve about the steel shot. I know it's not a big deal and I know we do it in at Prairie Woods
and maybe we need to look at it to change it there also, but I don't think it's a detriment to anybody if we would just switch it to Steel Shot. And that's kind of my opinion on that. Um, but keep discussion going, I guess.
>> Thank you. Anyone uh anyone else with any other comments? Uh Commissioner B. >> Yes. Another question. Um you're talking about shooting over water. You don't have it in this packet, but I believe I saw something before with the different areas that people would be shooting and that'd be for traps in that would be
moving around. >> It looked like one was shooting out past the property line into some other property. Am I correct on that? Whereas all the shooting would be on on the property itself. >> All the shooting would be on the county property. There is one on the north line
that abuts the other county property in an area where the county doesn't operate at all where there could be a slight bit of carryover into just that one one area. Operationally, it wouldn't affect anything uh countywise. >> Okay. And may I follow up with another question? You may.
>> Sure. And also the feeasants, they're going to be raising feeasants there. Correct. >> And for shooting, correct? >> Yeah. There's >> Can you tell me a little bit more about that? >> Yeah. >> How that's going to work? So the the the applicant has had at different times a
little bit different vision for sometimes purchase of birds and some level of raising on site. If it was raising on site, it would be pretty much a low-key thing that you wouldn't you wouldn't see from the road or anything like that. It would be a small um feeasants of course don't take up a lot
of a lot of room. Um, so, you know, at at that point, if they did that, um, raise some of their own birds, it would be ordering in chicks and then, um, you know, feeding them out until they're such a agent that they're released, um, and then they're released specifically
for particular hunts. >> Okay. And there's different kinds of hunts. So what kind of hunt just individually releasing so many and and people purchase so many feeasants or how is that going to to be released or how's that >> that's the typical pattern is is it's a certain number are are released and
there's different methods of that. Um but that yeah that isn't they don't open the gates necessarily. >> No. Okay. But there is a type of hunting kind of on that where the silo when you let the peasants out and people are shooting them as they come out over the top of the >> No, that wouldn't be the style.
>> Okay. And Okay. So then my other followup if I may, will the hunting uh of the feeasants then that are released will that be all contained on the property? Correct. >> Well, yeah, that would be only be on this property. So wouldn't authorize
anything on any other property? >> Words would be released released on some of the other property. No, they would only be released on subject county even, right? It all be there. So >> that's correct.
>> All right. Any other questions for Eric? Uh and uh I think uh I think Dale made mention of it uh real quick here. Uh would you uh Eric explain the uh 60-day and 120day rule just so the just so the
board is aware uh of of what the implications are for that? >> Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um the the state statute requires decisions on um applications like this within 60 days. Uh the 60-day rule does um expire
today. So this is essentially the decision day. um this that rule does have an allowance for for extension with notification and so um in some instances the county has had to um um take advantage of that extension opportunity.
In this case because the planning commission um decided um to um continue consideration to the following month, we find ourselves kind of right up against the the decision. So, if you weren't to make a decision today, you uh we would
we would invoke um a a rule extension. >> Uh Commissioner Dwayne Anderson. >> Okay. So, does this affect the the lease agreement if it were to be turned down? I would I would expect this would the uh impact that because the lease agreement
is is predicated upon um the proposal that the county sought out um you know and that led to this request and the lease is meant to be held until after that because it um is predicated upon them doing the things that they proposed
to do. >> Okay. And that lease agreement is five years. Correct. >> That's my understanding. So if um so what we could do if we do approve it, the lease comes up in five years, we can always change this and we can say well we don't want that anymore, right? I
mean if it is a problem or >> this this is an interesting this is an interesting case because the county owns the property. So the the permit would remain valid but the county has control um of the language of its of the language of its lease both on its
renewal terms in initial terms and renewal terms. So, um, the county would always have a valid permit there or authorization, but how the county chooses to engage in allowable use of that property is also governed in this
case by a lease. >> Yeah. So, I mean, they they're really bound by they have to have good conduct when they do this sort of thing. it isn't going to be like a wild west in my my thinking when you know maybe some people are thinking that it's just going to be chaos and shooting everywhere and
stuff and I I really don't see it when I kind of think this through because you know it's the county leasing to them and if they cause a big problem and if they're a nuisance we can say well we're not going to renew the lease uh we you know so I I think they're going to be in my my thinking of this whole thing I
think they're going to try to be very responsible >> commissioner or Dale Anderson. >> Well, I know this is not the way it's wrote and and I know that I don't feel it should be rewrote because of this, but just my opinion and I did say it at the planning commission when I was
there, you know, this concern seems to be over the sporting quite part of it. So, so my gut still says to me and in in the way I kind of look at it is if we allow a little more of the of the
pheasant hunting part of it and and let them use a little more of that aspect of it, that's no different than anybody going out feeasant hunting. And and I think maybe that's a compromise in this whole thing, but I know it's not worded that way and I know that's not what
we're going to vote on, but maybe that's something that that they could look at if this does go through to maybe appease everybody a little bit to maybe go a little bit more that way. But but I think that's the biggest concern that I've been hearing is that it's the koi
pigeon part that people are concerned about. Um, so that's just maybe my thought for for the people that are going to do the leasing of it. Maybe that would be a compromise for the people that are neighbors to be be a little more, you know, to not have quite
as much shooting. Maybe that would be a compromise, but that's not the way it's worded. So, I'm not saying I want it changed, but just just a suggestion. >> Thank you, Commissioner Bur. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, can you
expound expound a little bit more on all these different sites for shooting uh clays? To me, it seems to make more sense just to have one site. You shoot your clay pigeons there. And that's a lot of shooting ranges are that way. It's easier for cleanup if you have to do that eventually, which you will if
you shoot enough in over enough years. Um, and instead of moving around, it'd also be safer, I would think, if it was just in one spot instead of moving it around every time. Uh, and it would open up the more land because you don't want people moving here. Oh, today we're going to shoot there. Okay. And other
people goes for a walk and I don't know. It sounds a little cha chaotic in a sense. Can you is this a model that's been done other places to uh move the clay shooting around because what would be the purpose
of it other than moving it around? >> Yeah. So, thank you Commissioner Berg. Um, so definitely trap shooting, which is more historically traditionally understood as you stand in one spot and and clays are flung out in front of you
and you say pull and and away it goes. Um, that is a that is a I would say a distinct use from what they are requesting. Sporting clays are are a station type of um um deal. every station brings up its own um brings up
its own challenges and it's more if you think of the parallels to golf it's more akin to traveling through a course and taking taking shots. So in that way for the golfing company it has some parallels to golf. One of the benefits
it does have as far as potential impact is that it does spread out the shooting. It also limits the amount of people that can be on your course because as you mentioned you can't be people here shooting at people here etc. So that does by necessity mean that you limit
the amount of people that are on a course at one time. They're traveling together through the course and then it it naturally spreads out their shooting a little bit more. If you draw a little bit of a contrast to the um the shooting range that was um approved up in Burbank
Township, there you would have high school and junior high kids coming to practice and and trap shooting events where you line up five stations in a row and one child kid after the next after the next after the next. It would be, if you would imagine, hours essentially of
continuous shooting in in those instances. Um, so this has some added benefit in that it spreads out that um that use. Um, and so it is a different type of use to do trap shooting versus
sporting clays. >> All right. Thank you. Are there any other questions or can we get a motion? >> Well, Mr. Chair, >> and then continue discussion on that. >> I just had a question about the motion.
I expressed my concerns about just using all steel >> and uh would that then be included in the motion or do we have to agree on a separate motion that we want to add that to uh >> if you if you wanted to make a change on
that? Uh uh and uh we could certainly have the motion first and then we could have a uh secondary motion to uh uh revise um condition number nine. >> Okay.
>> Would that uh does that sound about right? >> Well, Mr. Chair, I I would offer that um any motion could be to approve with conditions and you can amend those conditions right in your original motion. I I wouldn't say you need a
separate motion. The the little bit awkwardness about making a separate motion up front is that you're kind of assuming the second motion. In other words, you're assuming a potential um approval that you haven't established yet in a motion um to change something. So, I almost think it would be cleaner
to include it in one motion. >> All right. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Dwayne Anderson. >> Yeah. I I think when I'm reading through all this, I think the staff really put a lot of thought into this and and I want
to just kind of trust what they do and that's where I'm kind of leaning. I know it might not be the most popular thing, but I for for me I I think it would be kind of fun to do something like that what they're proposing and and I don't really want to limit a business that
wants to come into the area and they have they have kind of they're thinking a little outside the box with something like this. And I I just I think it's a good idea. I I know it isn't popular um maybe in front here, but I I got to
kind of stand up for what I believe in, too. And so I I would like to um make a motion to approve this with the conditions and findings as presented. >> Thank you. We have a motion uh from Commissioner Dwayne Anderson. Is there a
second? I'll second for discussion. Um I I I I don't fully disagree with you on this. the additional uh conditions that have been placed on
this I think are mitigating of the uh uh intensity of use. Uh and I think that's uh I think that's definitely helpful in that uh regard. Uh but I would still like to see non-toxic shot shot uh
mandated uh within the uh within the conditions. Um Commissioner Berg. >> Um thank you Mr. Mr. Chair, I just would like to echo the same thing. That's my feeling as well. I, you know, I would also like to see maybe not not as many hours of of day of of uh this taking
place considering the neighbors and so forth, but at this point I I really want to focus on the non-toxic. >> Are you uh offering an amendment then to >> if I can? Yes, I would like to amend the motion to that limit the type of shot
would be non-toxic type of shot and >> I would uh I would second that motion. Uh discussion on the secondary motion commissioner Dale Anderson. >> I I think that would help. I I do think
that it's um maybe not as big of a concern as what maybe we are thinking it is from talking to somebody this morning, but I do think that it's something that maybe we need to look at for Prairie Woods also just to be consistent. If we're going to do
this for one, we should do it for all facilities. Um, but I think that maybe this would help give a little bit of a compromise for the people that are concerned about that. >> Any other discussion?
>> Mr. Chair, may I ask for clarification? >> You may. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, is the intent to limit that for sporting clays or for any discharge of firearm? >> Good question. I thank you for clarifying that for any discharged
firearm fire rifle or shotgun. >> That would be my understanding. Yes. And intent as well, >> Mr. Chair. I have a So then that would limit if there was any uh kind of uh deer hunting on on the property because
you if you use slugs, that's lead. So >> Mhm. >> I don't know that it should be all them in that case. >> I think uh I think you bring up a good point and uh
uh it the conditions simply say there shall be no rifle or pistol range. To me that would preclude the idea of using such types of firearms uh for any other purpose. I do like the
idea of if you're going to hunt deer, as I think you mentioned earlier, um limiting it to archery only, >> but that's kind of not what's being said here to Commissioner Anderson's point.
Correct, Mr. Chair. Um I guess what what I would propose is that the deer hunting isn't really um probably the focus here. I I would propose that the language could be um I'm understanding the intent would to be
for for clay sporting clays and uh the game preserve um shooting um and the condition could be worded specific to the sporting clays and um pheasant hunting with the game preserve >> in relation to condition number nine.
Is that what I'm hearing you say? Well, yeah, depending on if you wanted that as a separate condition um or you wanted an ammendation of condition nine. >> Yes. >> So, your suggestion, your suggested
language would be what specifically? >> Um only non-toxic shot may be used for sporting clays or game preserve shooting. >> Is that acceptable? I think that's I I I think that language
is fine. >> Uh so, uh Commissioner B. >> Yeah, I don't uh I understand what you're trying to do. I I I don't have any problem with the original uh motion I made. Um in in this in reference to
this and if they want to, there's a lot of public land right near there and all over the county to deer hunt if they wanted to. So, I think the deer hunting aspect of the whole property is not that big of a deal, but it's not my property, not my business, and I don't want to restrict that business either. But I I'm
just fine with non-toxic shot, period. All right. Any other discussion on the amendment? Uh, hearing none, we will vote on the uh uh amendment to uh condition number nine. Eric, is that what we're in?
>> I would say it would replace conditioning because there would be no need to say lead shot not be shot over any water surface when you can't shoot. >> Replace. We're replacing the language. >> All right. Uh to the uh uh to the amendment to replace that language to
use only non-toxic shock. Uh all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. All opposed. >> I >> uh three eyes. uh one name the uh amendment is agreed to. Now back to the
main motion uh and uh we do have a motion and a second uh to approve this with the uh amended uh condition as presented. Any further discussion? All right. Uh hearing no further
discussion, we'll take a roll call uh on this. Commissioner Dwayne Anderson >> I. >> Chair votes I. Commissioner Berg >> I. >> Commissioner Dale Anderson. >> No.
>> Three eyes, one nay. The uh motion is agreed to. Um Eric, thank you for >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, >> for your help and assistance on this. And um thank you very much. The next item of business then is
consideration of a lease with U Teatona Hospitality LLC. And we will have uh administrator Baker present. >> Good morning, commissioners. Kelsey Baker, Candy County Administrator. Uh
before you today we have a lease uh with Candyway County and excuse me, excuse me, Tepatitona Hospitality LLC. Just a little recap, in July, the county purchased this property just south of the landfill to help
mitigate costs, future costs um on this property. There's a lot of open space, modern home, cabin, and a barn. Um the county issued a request for proposal, an RFP to lease out the property.
Uh we received one proposal that was from Tatanka Hospitality LLC. Um and the the proposal included all of the submission requirements that were listed within the um RFP. Uh the rent proposed to the county is
$100,000 annually with quarterly payments beginning April 1. However, this lease though would begin if approved today, December 17th, tomorrow, and we would have what we what I would call a move in period. And so,
basically, from December to March, um they would be able to do some minor updates. However, they would still do all of the maintenance of the overall property, which is a benefit to the county. Um, and then beginning April 1 would begin the $100,000 annual
payments. That's listed out. The terms are listed out in 1.2, which I think um answers some of those questions that the board may have. Listed in 2.11 lists that move in period and that when they'll be doing that inside
construction renovations prior to the move in. However, during that time frame, they still will do all of the maintenance required. Um, I think to Commissioner Dwayne Anderson's point listed in 3.3, the compliance with government regulations, they have to stay above the line uh with
within um the county property. Um 4.1 I think is also important to list out the repair and maintenance by tenant. We listed out the specific maintenance duties that the tenant would be doing. Um, so I think that's
important to note that that wouldn't be county uh staff or time or cost to be doing that. 4.3, the tenant shall make no alterations, additions, or improvements into the lease premises without the written consent of the landlord. I think that's really
important to note as well that there would be communication from the tenant to the landlord um if there are any changes within the property. Uh and then
to also note under 10.3 the insurance the county will carry obviously we carry liability insurance so we have this insure uh this property already covered but then the tenant would also carry general public liability insurance as
well. Uh 10.5 lists out the cancellation. Um if the the landlord um the tenant shall obtain a written obligation on the part of each insurance
company insured the lease premises to notify the landlord at least 30 days prior to cancellation of insurance. So I think that was important to note alongside the insurance questions. Then I believe that was it that I wanted to point out. Yes.
So other than that, this is a pretty standard lease. County Attorney Shane Baker has also reviewed it. Um I do feel it covers the county um whole uh solely surrounding liability and insurance. Um
the the landlord would be included if there's any recommendations or changes to the the structures uh or the property. So, with that being said, staff would recommend approval of the lease agreement as presented. >> Uh, thank you, uh, Kelsey. And, uh, I
just, I I need a little clarity on one item here. Um, if we go back to 2.1.1, um, the amount of $1,500 on the effective date of the lease, uh, which will, it says, which will cover
the period from December 17, 2025 through March 31, 2026. Is that $1,500 the only payment? That's kind of how I'm reading this for that uh for that period. And I'm just wondering if there
wasn't an intent to uh capture a monthly u rental there because I'm not sure and I would defer of course to uh the county attorney uh uh as to if the language is
adequate for for the intent. >> My understanding the intent would be the 1500 would be rent monthly rent. If we would need to clarify that, I would look to the county attorney. >> Yeah, the attempt seems to say just for
the entire period, not monthly. >> So, if you want to change it, that would be >> uh Yeah, I would I mean I I would have assumed that it would be a monthly uh a monthly rent and so there would probably need to be some language clarification
there is what I'm is what I'm wondering about. And while and and and while Shane's looking at that uh you and I did uh discuss uh we think it was an autocorrect
uh uh item but under 113.2 two under right to relet. Uh the very last item says uh however landlord shall make a reasonable attempt to mitigate damages in exercising the option to
select the premises. Uh since I don't know what select the premises is, I'm I'm assuming uh and I think uh Shane agreed with me that relet is the word that uh that we were looking for. So, I think that would be
uh that's that's that's worth noting. >> Um Mr. Commissioner Dale Anderson, >> well, Shane's working on that. Two two questions I guess I had. So, is the landlord Kelsey, is that you or is it us
as a whole board? I mean, how are just just so I have it in my head, right? >> Uh well, typically it would be the administrator. Okay. That would be the landlord. Within all of our contracts and agreements, Candyway County Board approves and then the authority goes to
the administrator to be the specific landlord. >> Okay. The only other thing that >> if I could follow up, the only other question I have is and and maybe it's maybe it's going to be taken care of through the land, you know, through the
lease person, but if we're going to have if we're going to have activities out there with firearms, my concern is the liability insurance part. And you know, our world is a different world than what it used to be. and I'm just concerned
about um whether we have something or not in writing, our odds of getting sued if somebody gets hurt, it's pretty high. So, I'm just concerned is that enough liability insurance um to cover us and
that's my only ask. I don't know what that number should be or what it is, but is is that enough? I guess that's my my only concern. >> And and if I can piggy back on that, uh is the language in the contract sufficient to protect the county? I heard you say that it was, but specific
to Dale's question, >> I would look to the county attorney that reviewed that. I I feel comfortable with the policy limitations and talking with MCIT, our insurance trust. Um, and then in talking with the tenant, the
the million-doll policy limit. Um, but I would look that the county would be covered enough um in the language within the the lease. >> Mr. Chair, >> Commissioner B. >> Yes. Um, I appreciate this conversation
because I think we all received a lot of emails and calls and concerns about uh, you know, hold harmless type of things and I even read some of that in there. So, it's quite a detailed contract and I'm no expert on contracts and especially every contract is so different and this one's dealing with a
lot of guns and and bullets or shells or whatever and uh it it does put at risk but I'm feeling comfortable from what I understand and from talking to you individually and MCIT is going to be aware of this and as well as our county
attorney over and we rely on his judgment if that's uh going to cover that and it sounds like it is and I and also I feel that the board is very responsible you know and I and going back to your comment about and question about you know the landlord I guess
we're all the landlord to some degree so how do you define the landlord except administrator is a person who's going to be doing all all the work thank you ahead of time there's one more thing on your plate uh but as board we have responsibility responsibility doesn't
stop now I'm I'm trying to say thank Commissioner Mdck. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. That was a what Commissioner Berg just talked about was also a question for me. I think ultimately the county is the landlord and as the board if there was ever any
litigation it's going to be against the board and against the county not so I would say that the administrator's role would be what it is with the county as administrators or the landlord in this lease agreement
>> but I'll turn to attorney Baker for confirmation or >> on the landlord issue The very top of the agreement says >> landlord is county doesn't matter.
>> Any any other questions for commissioner? Yeah, I I had the same question you did on the 2.11 2.1 which I think we need cleared up before we um approve this and then also on 10.3
about the insurance um is there any in any of the uh points regarding cancellation is there any uh indemnity include here from the tenant to the landlord. In other words,
I would like to see some indemnity against damage. Uh so if something shows up out there that the county is not responsible for something that uh happens with the tenant, >> uh 10.2 lists that
um to answer your question, I believe that's all in 10.2 unless you're looking for something more specific. Well, if if we would get sued by a citizen because technically this land belongs to the
citizens of Kenyui County, um would the county be protected with this indemnification of 10 10.2 or just the dam or just the indemnified for the tenants themselves and their guests are out there?
I would uh hazard a guess that uh if we were sued by a citizen, it wouldn't be because uh in all likelihood they're not going to be an actual user of the uh uh of the property. It might be for something else. And that uh I would
assume, again, Shane could clarify, but I would assume that that would fall outside of this lease agreement >> depending upon what the issue was. >> Yeah. The tenant indemnifies the landlord for
all suits, actions, damages in connection with loss of life, bodily personal injury or property damage, not current at the property. So if there's some other thing that's
outside that range, then there's not on the 211. The way I read that with it's wanting to do is a lump sum payment for this time period. You're thinking of that for $1,500 per month. So that's
three full months and 14 days, which would come out to a total amount of $5,220. I think that's the clarification that I was looking for. And I think I would have great deal of comfort with that. I believe that was the intent uh expressed. I just wanted to make sure
the language uh matched matched the intent. >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. >> Then I would if it's appropriate to make a a motion to approve it with the correction of 11.1
uh amount that you just stated. >> Yeah. 2.1.1 and uh and >> 2.1.1 >> and and also to accept the minor technical change that uh Shane and I identified this morning. >> Yes.
>> Is that >> Yes. Oh, absolutely. >> All right. All right. We have a motion uh on the floor to approve this lease with the clarifications and new language suggested. Is there a second?
>> I'll second that, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Dwayne Anderson seconds discussion. >> Commissioner Dale Anders. Um I I just think and and I've said it to a couple people and I I think that it's it's um it's important to say again that you
know we aren't into this agreement to make money, but we're in this agreement to to make that land not just sit there in a house degrade and fall apart and the buildings degrade and fall apart because they're not being used. and it was put
out for bids and and this is where we're at with the bids and this is what what we have for a tenant that wants to use this land. And I think that we should, you know, be happy about that that we've got somebody that's interested in in
taking advantage of something that otherwise would just sit abandoned and and not be used. So, I think it's a great opportunity for for this organization to to uh use this and and hopefully improve it over time and make
it better for the county um and the people that um that have a chance to be able to use this this facility. and maybe something that would be a great idea and and maybe it's not something that's even in the cards, but maybe at
some point in time that the public would have the opportunity to to do something out there in an event or something. So, I think that's um the cool part about this is that that organization has the opportunity to do what they feel best
and and help uh the community and help people around this area. um also and I think that that's what their goal is from talking with this organization is to help the local area around here in the county also. So I am definitely um
thinking that this is an opportunity that we can't pass up. >> Commissioner, >> thank you. Because I do have people asking me the question. Um I understand that the septic system upgrade was
provided by the seller. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> But there was a fair number of other repairs that were made out there. Uh do you know how much uh we have spent out there and will that be part of um the agreement uh in the least recover those
costs? Mhm. >> I believe this question was asked at the last meeting, too, and I don't have that specific cost, but it's very minimum of what we've had to do out there. Um, and other maintenance costs that we've done are just to make sure it's cleaned up
and looks nice, you know, that we would do with any property. Um, but I don't have those specific costs. I I would have to contact um director gear on that, but I know that they are have been very minimum. Uh when I uh when I went out to the property, it was pointed out
to me there was a balcony that was unsafe and was being shored up. Uh there was one area of insulation that uh uh was uh uh uh had gotten wet due to some roof damage and so they had to repair
that roof and uh uh put some new insulation in. believe that was on the cabin and there might have been some small thing in the u uh uh in the horse bar. Uh but uh uh all of it was pretty minimal and those were things that uh
time was of the essence and needed to be taken care of and uh uh uh I believe all the work was done internally. Yes, >> I believe so. Okay, that's that's as much help as I can be on on that particular item.
Commissioner, >> so that I can speak with some level of intelligence or accuracy when when I'm reassured and supply costs that we've had. That would be appreciated. And you may >> I'm asking the uh motioner and the
seconder if they're comfortable with the indemnity uh part of clause in here at of 10.3 >> I'm sorry 10 >> 10.2 you. Yep. Yep. I was just I was just finding that >> if the county attorney uh if the county
attorney is comfortable with it, certainly I would be I'll speak only for myself on that, >> Mr. Chair. And I'll tell you how I understand it. I understand it that we are indemnified against any injuries
from the tenant as they use the property, not necessarily from any outside um neighbor or or other citizens. Is that correct? >> No, that's not it. Cover anything that's occurring with
>> Okay. All right. Any other >> uh Shane, do you have anything else uh for us? >> No, >> we we covered that. >> So we So we do have a motion and any other discussion before I call the question. Commissioner Anderson.
>> Well, I guess I know Dwayne said it and I guess I want to say it too. This hasn't been a simple process and I know that Kelsey has put a lot of time into it and staff has. planning commission's put a lot of time into this and I just want to say thanks for everybody that put time into it and I think that we
have looked over things very well and they've done an excellent job making sure everything was covered. So just thanks for all the hard work on this process. It's not been a simple one and and really appreciate it. All right, we have a motion and a second
to approve uh a lease with Tatotanka Hospitality LLC uh with the uh uh changes as noted in the uh in the discussion. And Shane, you have you have all of those? Yes.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Um all those in favor of the motion signify by saying I. >> I. All opposed. That motion passes. I want to be respectful of uh uh Corey's time, so I'm going to ask him to come up
at this time. Uh and then once he's done, we will take a brief fivem minute recess. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board. My name is Corey Smith. I'm the director out at Glacial Lakes Sanitary Sewer and Water District. I'm here
before you today for a water and sewer utility billin agreement between Glacial Lakes and the city of New London. Uh currently we are under a 5-year agreement that is set to expire at the end of 2025 this year. Uh the agreement
before you is a basically a one-year extension of that current agreement with the only changes obviously the date and the bill and service fee is increasing from $2 to $2.50 per account. On November 24th, 2025, the Glacial Lakes
Commission reviewed the proposed agreement and recommended for it to the county board here today for consideration consideration. Uh, with that, it is the commission's recommendation to authorize the chair and the administrator to sign on behalf of the county entering into a one-year
bill and agreement with the city of New London. >> So, move, Mr. Chair. >> Commissioner Induct moves. Is there a second? >> I'll second that. Commissioner Dwayne Anderson seconds. Any discussion? Any questions for Corey?
Hearing none. All in favor signify by I. >> I. >> All opposed. >> Motion passes. Thank you. And we will take a fivem minute recess. the podium and Eric, you have a couple of AIS items for us. >> Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Eric Van
Dyken, County Zoning Administrator, standing in this morning for Christa Koopa, our environmental specialist and AIS coordinator. Um Christa's getting into this work after taking on work kind of partway through the year. Um the
first it agenda item is um an approval recommended approval of the annual report. Um the annual report is in your packet. I I guess there's a fair amount of data there and numbers. I think it maybe just worth highlighting two couple
small things. Um you can see the lakes that are focused on obviously the the lakes with the most activity get the most attention from the from the inspectors. Um you'll note on the uh in several places in there there is a total of 11,125
inspections. So that gets to be quite a bit of volume. Um and that repetition has its own effect. And I think part of the fact that you can see is in the compliance numbers you'll see um both um compliance categories that are listed
are well over 90 or over 99% um compliance and that would be on drain plugs and um free of aquatic plants. So that's uh I think a product of the fact that the program has been going for a little while now and u we're seeing some
some pretty good um pretty good compliance. Of course, the goal is always 100%. And uh you know, the the presence of the inspectors and then also you'll note in the budgeting that there is some amount of public outreach and education. It looks like about $12,000
goes to some other broader efforts to um to make the public aware of the need to protect our our waters from aquatic invasive species. So, with those couple highlights, um staff recommends approval of the annual report. >> Uh Eric, thank you. I just had a brief
question because I noticed that there were no inspections done on Games Lake according to this report. Uh can you remind us why that might be? >> No, I cannot. >> I apologize, but I am not familiar
enough with um how and where of the placement of the inspectors to be able to answer that question intelligently. >> Okay. Uh no, no worries. I'm I I'm I'm sure there's a reason, but it just kind of surprised me a little bit that uh uh you know, right at the county park,
especially uh we didn't have anybody there last year apparently. Any uh any questions for Eric? >> Um probably not a question. Maybe you can clarify that, but looking at the inspections by access uh Salisbury, Green Lake Salsbury access is way way up
there. That must be the then the busiest access in the whole county. It looks like it by a long ways. It is a hub of a lot of activity. Yes. And of course, Green Lake is a >> a highly prized lake as well. I think we put those two things together, it makes sense to to concentrate quite a bit
there. That is also the location of the county's one decontamination unit. Um, sure. >> And so that that probably plays into those numbers as well. >> For the public, it was almost 5,000 inspections that just there alone. So
busy. Very busy. kind of a surprise to me in that uh in that number is that uh of over 11,000 inspections uh there's only 122 uses of that decontamination uh unit that's uh is is that
disappointing anything we should be concerned about or were there mechanical issues that type of thing >> I think there are definitely some mechanical issues there was a portion of the season where that was down and I know at at the end of the year Christa had it um up to the ities for some
significant u repairs and and and plans to have it fully operational next year. It's also probably a function of the fact that it's not a requirement. It is a sort of a hey, we think this would be great. Um and so um you know someone who
mainly uses Green Lake, you know, which may be a reasonably high number um of people that really enjoy that lake may say, "Hey, I'm coming out. I'm going home. I'm going right back in the same lake." Um, so that's probably another reason why why it wouldn't be particularly high.
>> Thank you. Any questions? Uh, Dwayne, >> I can kind of comment a little bit about the decontamination unit. It's getting pretty old, I think, and so it's it's down a lot more than it's up. So, I I think this year though went okay. I I don't know. But, um, that's about all I
know about it, but I think Christ is really doing a good job here. Um, and she's kind of up and running. She said she had to kind of not be quite full-time this year yet because she was doing other things with the county, but
I think I think she'll be a good fit for this AIS task force. And so it's really good to see that she's doing a lot of good work here. >> Thank you. Anyone else? Uh there's a recommendation of staff to
approve this report. Uh did we have a motion? I'll make I'll make the motion to uh uh approve the AS annual report. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Uh Commissioner Mckens discussion >> hearing none. All in favor of approving
the annual report say I. >> I. >> All opposed. >> Motion passes. Uh Eric, please continue work plan and resolution. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board. the um following on that then annually the board does or excuse me the
DNR does require a um a work plan. You can see the work plan is it's I would say fairly rudimentary. It's what we would probably call business as usual. Um Christa probably too early in the program to consider any major changes and also when things aren't working you
don't necessar or are working excuse me you don't necessarily change them. So, um you can see a plan for inspectors there that pretty uh roughly mirrors what this year had and um the areas she plans to concentrate as far as lakes go.
Um so along with that is proposed resolution 2025-42. That basically is a version of saying we're going to run the program and use the money given and we're going to run it um according to the work plan submitted.
>> Thank you. Uh, Mr. Chair, I I make a motion to approve the 2026 AIS work plan and the resolution to also move that at the 2025-42. >> Thank you. Is there a second?
>> I'll second it. >> Thank you. Uh, Dale, uh, Commissioner Dale Anderson seconds. Any discussion? You say it looks like business as usual, so it's fine. Uh, great program. I'm glad we've got it. It uh I think it
definitely makes a difference. So, thank you and thank you and your staff for for those efforts. >> Anyone else? Hearing none. All in favor of the motion signify by saying I. I. >> All opposed. Motion passes. Thank you.
>> Uh at this time, we'll have Logan Benson, uh county feed lot feed lot officer, uh with the 2627 work plan. Logan, good morning. >> Good morning, everyone. If you're not familiar with me, I'm Logan Banksson. I took over Russ Hilbert's position over the summer. So, this is just kind of the
same kind of cookie cutter work plan with the MPCA that was brought to you uh back in 23. So, this is for 2627. Uh some of the key points to take away is the numbers have gone down to 274 required food lots to be registered and
be 7% of those to be inspected. So, that's where that 9.5 number comes in. But I what I have number four. So the inspection goal that I put down is 22. But I plan to inspect much more than that. Kind of boots on the ground, meet
everyone, you know, put a name to the face and introduce myself and get a feel for the facility itself and kind of just see what's going on at the facilities. Just looking for approval on the work plan and if there's any other questions, open to hear it.
>> Thank you. Uh are there any questions for Logan? I I guess I have one. So, um, so when it says there's 274 approved, is is that including I mean, how how small of a feed lot do you go down to?
>> Uh, 50 animal units and it kind of varies. >> So, it kicks in at about 50 animal. >> So, yes, we have roughly more about 480 give or take. I'll have to take a closer look at the numbers because I'm getting some closures in and we're reregistering some more and I'm opening up some new ones as well. So once it's at that 50
mark that's um that's where they were required to register. >> Okay. >> So that's kind of what I'm seeing is it's more of the older farms that are scaling back given the unsure times ahead with the pricing of everything and more so it's the next of kin that are they're kind of questioning
if they want to take over the operation. So, more of a retirement farm for some of these sites that are scaling back. So, >> uh, Commissioner Dale Anderson. >> Mr. Chair, I move to approve the feed lot program work plan as it's wrote.
>> Thank you. We have a motion to approve the work plan. Is there a second? >> I'll second that. >> Thank you. Any discussion? >> Hearing none. All in favor signify by I. >> I. >> All opposed. >> Motion passes. Logan, thank you so Thank
you everyone. >> At this time we'll have uh Dr. Tammy Joe Leeberg, our community corrections director uh come up and a couple of couple of grant items for us to consider today. >> Good morning. Tammy Jolieberg, director
of community corrections. I'm here to for two grant proposals as you said. Um one is a new grant and one is a extension on an old grant. Um so I'll start with the the new grant. It's a community work service program grant. It is a short small grant. Um it's a PEL
grant or Perkins grant from the state of Minnesota for $21,000 that I'm asking for approval on. It'll only be for six months going into 2026. Um this grant will provide additional training for existing staff. Um what the exist exist the new training will be is in our
community work service program. We provide training for individuals, justice involved individuals as part of our community work service program doing welding and oil um changes and that sort of work. Um as part of that training, in the past, we have not been able to give
them a certificate um that they could take with them to go get employment. We've just been able to give them referrals or references. Um this um grant is going to allow them to go get training that allows them to provide a certificate that people can take out and say they've now been certified to
provide um basic welding or certified to provide um an oil change. Um we're working with a tech school um actually Northland Community College is our um secondary provider that's going to provide that training. This grant also is going to during the six months is
going to help us with um additional part-time hours for an individual to come in and help us set up and work through providing employment um additional employment services for justice involved individuals working with um resume building interview skills
and those types of things that we can carry on with probation officers and our community work service crew leaders in the future. So, it's a it's a small um short-term grant, but I think it can make a big difference in providing um employment services through our community work service program.
>> Thank you. Any questions for Dr. Liieber? Commissioner Ber. >> Yes. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Um is there a chance of this could be a renewable type of grant going forward then or what happens after this? >> So, they were really excited to provide this um funding for us and going
forward. Um this grant was um a little different. They usually actually work on a larger scale. Um but we struggled with trying to find actually how we fit into this. So it would have been actually for a year program, but because we kind of went back and forth so many times, we
only have it for six months. So during the next six months, we'll see what we have and then we'll see if we can get maybe a second we can write for another grant for next year. >> So kind of a proof of concept. >> Yeah. >> Idea for now. >> Yes. Got it. >> Okay. Good.
>> Did you have any I'm sorry. >> No, no. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> All right. Any any other questions, Commissioner Ramdeck? >> Uh, not a question. Just a comment. I think um you know, if if uh these individuals that go through this program could come out with a certificate
that'll make them much more uh hireable, if that's the correct word. Um and I I think it's a good step forward. And your goal of um getting 10 to complete it is pretty aggressive actually uh because they there's a responsibility for them
too as well. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> And what is their responsibility roughly? How much time will they be spending to achieve this certificate? >> So once we the they're going to be doing the exact same that they do now working with our community work service crew
leaders um except for now that they'll have a test out at the end. So, um, our crew leaders actually are the ones that are going to spend most of the next six months. I think it's over like three month period of time. They have online training and then we're actually going to send them actually to the school for
a three days for a period of time so that they can get tested out so they can earn their certificate and then they can come back and provide the certificates for our our clients. >> Yes. And these crew leaders will then document that they've been, you know, that they're being trained. And of
course, the test is the ultimate test, if you will, >> right? >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. They Yeah. So, they'll be certified so that they can give the certificates out. It's it's similar the way it was explained to me. It's similar to what um like welding teachers get. Um it's the program welding teachers do at the high
school, >> which I've never passed, just so you know. >> Thank you. Uh, any other questions? All right. Uh, is there a motion? >> Uh, I don't think there is. Let's get a
a motion and a second if we may. >> I would move on this um contract. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> I second that, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. Uh, any other discussion? Hearing none. All in favor of approval
of the uh community corrections work service grant say I. I. All opposed. Motion passes. Thank you. And Tammy Joe, uh, you have a uh >> a second. >> One more item. >> Yes, I do. Um, our community crime prevention grant um is a grant that
we've had for the last two years. Um, this grant we have used for a number of things including um primarily used for staff additional staff training in evidence-based practices over the last two years. We've also used it for a couple other things. um we were approved
for with emergency housing, emergency transportation and emergency food and different things for some of our justice involved individuals. Um as part of this grant, this grant was supposed to end at the end of this year um due to a variety of different reasons. We have a small carryover
amount. Um, one of those reasons was we had two staff, myself and another staff were supposed to go to um, Virginia for an evidence-based practice training in October, but due to the federal government shutdown, um, that was canceled and postponed until um,
February or March is hopefully when it'll be rescheduled. And so they have authorized for us to have a extension on this grant to carry those dollars over into the new year to continue to make sure we can spend those dollars down instead of sending them back. Um, and
just one other like small story of some of the positive things we've been able to do with this grant. We had an individual when we talk about emergency transportation and emergency housing. A lot of times we're talking about that here in our community where we have um individuals that um because of our
weather or different things, they don't have housing when they come out of jail or they have to get someplace here. here. Um this summer we actually had an individual that was um had to leave a treatment center in Duth um at 4:00 on a Friday, which is I always say that's
when we always have problems, right? In my world, it always happens to be four o'clock on a Friday. Um she had to leave treatment at um due to a medical reason and had no fault of her own. Um and of course there was nothing. She was actually in the emergency room in Duth when we got the phone call. while they
were discharging her from the emergency room. Because of this grant, we were able to get her a hotel room safe for the night and then get her a bus ticket back to our community to where she was safe. And I would just tell you that the probation officer that was helping us um make sure that she got to where she needed to be, picking her up at the
emergency room and taking her to the hospital uh taking her to the hotel said she was just crying because this woman was so afraid after her um medical event that she was going to be sitting on the streets in Duth and have no way to get home. And so this grant really has made a difference for our clients but also
for our staff and having evidence-based practices um training through lots of different ways. >> Very good. Um any any questions or a motion? >> My question I I have a little question here for clarity for me. It it's just to
accept the extension of this. >> It is just to accept the extension. That is all we need to do is they do need >> accepting your money basically. >> Right. We we well we're accepting that they're going to give us an extension. We accepted their money two years ago. All right. >> Um but they do need that before December
31st or we got to give her their money back. >> Okay. Well, I will make a motion then to accept this uh grant extension. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> I'll second it. >> Thank you. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I.
>> I. All opposed. Motion passes. >> Thank you very much. Thank you so much. >> I did. >> Dwayne and Dale. >> Yep. >> Yes. Sorry, I should have mentioned that. All right. Thank you. And next up is uh Mel Odens, our public works
director. Uh Mel, we got some good news on the first item up. >> I do, Mr. Chair. Mel Odin's public works director, Kuwai County. Um the first item is the bid award consideration for the box uh 10x6 box extensions for the
new London assembly trail. This is the first phase. We worked with the DNR on this um as we try to piece this thing together. And so the the DNR we worked out a co-op agreement with them that they gave us um some federal trail money as long as some of their DNR state
bonding money. So we put the plans together with a consultant. We all work collaboratively and bids were opened on December 9th and we had five biders. The low bidder being R&D Enterprises of Mano, Minnesota
in the amount of $269, $269,343.88, which is considerably lower than the engineers estimate. Um, so it's my recommendation to award the bid to R&D Enterprises out of Mano for the amount stated.
>> So move, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> I'll second that. >> Um, motion by Commissioner Mdeck, uh, second by, uh, Commissioner Dwayne Anderson. Uh, any discussion or questions? Commissioner,
>> again, not a not a question, but this is one one step in a long long journey to um get this trail extension from Sibly State Park into the trail at New London. Uh as we met as a board last meeting, the uh Senate Capital Investment
Committee was meeting in New London about um for support of the uh LCCMR grant to finish the trail. And so hopefully hopefully two years from now we can do a ribbon cutting and say
finally we got we're there. And this is this is part of it because that'll extend that culver so they don't have to go up on County Road 40 to to um cross the river. So good news. >> Uh thank you. Uh Mel, any comments?
>> Uh Mr. chair. I I did um administrator and I did pull it up on the screen if you I could explain a little bit what we're doing here just so when you see it in real life when they start next spring. So here's the middle fork of the C River. This being um it drains this
way southerntherly. Uh this project what it'll do is it'll extend these 10 by sixes by 10 ft. So it's not a lot. They'll remove the end sections, extend a 10 foot and put on new end sections right here. So the the
trail will go up and over and then back down. And what this project does is it's going to provide the trail bed. Okay? And then it's going to uh install a pipe from the east side of this future
parking area. the the trail itself will have a a uh parking area here that will be with the Sibi trail plans when they're ultimately done. And then on on this side, the same thing, there'll be a
pipe um to for ditch drainage. And then one of the things that that to note too is that there we are providing a river access point right here. So, this will be you you'll have the access at the Goat Ridge. You'll have an access here
at 40 and then you'll have the exit at the Nest Lake. So, you will be able to not once you're in the river, not have to go for three hours. If you want to get out in an hour, you can just pop out. Or if you only want to go for two hours, you can jump in here and go to
Nest Lake. You don't need to go, you know, the whole way. We're trying to, if you recall, we made this as one of our our river trails in our trail plan. >> Mhm. >> So that this is what the work's going to be. It's going to be on the south side of 40. Extend these boxes, provide the rip
wrap. Um there will be a railing on here as well. So you'll see that and then this water point. So that that's what you'll see happening next summer, which is in 2026. and then we'll see how the legislature does on
bonding money, but hopefully in 2027 you would see the rest of the trail. >> So, this piece is uh funded by federal and state dollars. That is correct. There would still be some >> uh hopeful uh hopefully we're looking at
potential uh trail dollars from somewhere to uh run uh uh run the trail through u >> yeah that that would uh the the DNR is spearheading that. >> Okay. We would not be. We're we're we're
we did this >> just to expedite this project and it's >> one of our bridges. >> And so and so we're not looking at levy dollars on this. >> Nope. >> Yeah. That's what the LCCCMR money is for nearly $4 million to uh to complete,
not including the Culver part. that money is is provided by DNR for us to do the work, but to finish building the grade and then it will include uh as it's planned a uh culvert under county road nine just south of the prairie uh
woods grade school entrance or just north of that. >> Okay. Uh any last comments or questions? We have a motion and a second, correct? Okay. Thank you. Uh we have a motion and
a second to uh uh award the bid uh for uh for the project stated. All those in favor say I. >> All opposed. >> Motion passes. Thank you. And Mel, next item. >> Mr. Chair, members of the board, the
next one is um another one of the local option sales tax. It's a three and a half mile piece of kind of road seven on the west part of the county where we did um this is a regrading and graveling of the road and we paved it with with this year's central specialties work. U the
project was let in April. It didn't get started until August of last year and completed in November. Um, and then we always let it sit over the the winter and we finish up all the punch list items and um have a final retainage of
1% that we keep until everything is complete. So, it's my recommendation to accept the project and authorized final payment in the amount of $19,89.78 to RNG Construction on the Marshall. >> Thank you. You've heard the recommendation of staff. Is there a motion?
>> Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to uh make the final payment. >> Thank you. And a second. >> I'll second that, Mr. Chair. >> Commissioner Index seconds. Discussion >> hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> All oppose.
>> Motion passes. No. Thank you. >> Turn the page. That's a fun one. All right. Uh at this time, we'll have uh administrator Baker uh introduce uh about three separate items for us here. Kelsey, the floor is yours. >> Yep. Kelsey Baker, Candy County
Administrator. Uh before you today, um we have the first item, I'll do three like the chair said, are the commissioner salaries for 2026. Um you'll do you will see the resolution is blank. When it says therefore be it resolved, I would have to submit the
numbers. Um your current salaries as county board commissioners for 2025 are $41,964.26. Uh the chair receives an additional $1,000 and the vice chair receives an additional $500.
Um, I put in options or technically four options. Three with a 32 and 1% increase or four with a no increase for your salary. What we do have in the budget is a 3% right now. So, that would be adjusted
um depending on the action today. So, staff do not have a recommendation. I will leave this up to the county board um of what you wish to do. Well, let's uh let's hear from the commissioners on this. Does anyone have any any comments
uh in this regard? I uh uh I will start I uh I would not be in favor of either uh option one or two. If there was going to be any increase, it should certainly be minimal. But uh uh certainly I think our choices
realistically lie within either three or four. Uh uh the uh uh taxpayers are being asked to uh uh uh shoulder a uh uh
levy that is somewhat painful. Uh and uh certainly I think we should be judicious in uh uh in what it is that we do this time around. But uh uh that's uh that's kind of where I would be sitting on that. I'll of course defer to the
majority of the board uh if needed. Anyone else? >> Um go ahead. I'm >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. No, Dwayne, too. I think put his hand up. Um yeah, I like to echo your feeling, too. I think we have to have some skin in the game and
cutting this budget and looking at maybe option three or four. I'm leaning towards four, of course. Three is just really a token amount, but I think that's fine. I maybe it's what about 400 bucks for the year. Uh uh it's just maybe a thank you that we could do I I
can live with either one of those. Uh but I I was to make a motion it' be zero increases. >> Let's let's hear from everybody before anybody who wants to say something before we get to a motion. >> Dale, anything?
>> No, Dwayne's next. Dwayne's next. >> I I guess I'd be happy with either one. It doesn't, you know, We're trying to save money, so it's very little that we're saving by any of these options, but it it still
either one would be good. >> Anything to add? >> No, I'll just echo that that I'm fine with either of those options. >> Roger, any comments? >> No. >> Commissioner Berg, would you like to offer a motion?
>> Uh, uh, yeah. I'll offer motion four, no increase in salaries. >> I'll second that. >> Thank you. There's a motion and a second to uh accept option four uh no increase
in commissioner salary for 2026. Discussion. >> Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. >> All opposed. Motion passes. Thank you. Uh Kelsey, uh this is kind of an important one.
Just a tiny um sorry. So um today I would be asking for approval for the 2026 final budget and levy. Um before you in your board pocket today I included option one which is our
preliminary levy which was at a 7.16 option two the 6.23 and option three the 5.38. These were the latest options that came out during the budget work session during um that occurred on December 2nd.
Um the reserve usage is listed at the bottom. Um the financial impact would be a levy increase for 2026. Staff recommendation would be for board to take action on the 5.38% levy for 2026. >> Thank you. You've heard the
recommendation of staff. Pardon me. more coffee. Uh discussion while I go get some. >> Mr. Chair, I'd like to offer a motion. >> Please do. >> Uh I would move the 6.23%
levy increase. >> I'm sorry. I just need something. I apologize. >> We have a motion to move. That is option number two. at 6.23%. Is there a second?
>> Mr. Chair, I'll second that. >> We have a motion and a second to approve option number two at 6.23%. Uh any comments, discussion? Commissioner Mck. >> Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you. And as I
understood the two options the the um cuts in both the 5.38 and the 6.23 are identical. Correct. >> Can you expl >> the the places where the budget was cut
to achieve either the 6.23 and the 5.38 are the same. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. The only difference being is that uh on the five on the 5.38 we're using another uh what 400 some thousand
dollars of uh of reserves and I I'm uncomfortable with using uh using those reserves. We're already taking a fair amount of uh reserves at 1.155. So uh I think that middle ground is uh
is a comfortable position for me. >> Thank you. I think the math comes out to about 350. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Uh so just about Yeah. Just about a levy point about
>> 910 or thereabouts. Any other uh any other discussion on the motion? >> Mr. Chair, Commissioner B. >> Yes. Thank you. Um I think it's kind of a nice place to land from the point of view. Actually, I had hoped earlier. I think I maybe sad to clarify something.
Would it be nice if we did three or 4% like we've done few years past, but uh I was hanging in there for 5% and then I went to 5.9 in my mind thinking this is where we're going to be. This is very close to that. Um I do think we could have possibly cut more, but we talked
about this and I think this is a good compromise. I think uh 6.23 is still a lot of money to put on the levy and and I I know we all feel the same way. So we're concerned about that especially after our truth in taxation where people come in here and their
property taxes are getting so bad that you know that one person was practically in tears talking about they can hardly afford their home anymore. So but on the other hand way uh uh property taxes have been increasing across the state and in
other areas. I I think we're landing below the the average price there and uh I I think this will work going forward and yet we we'll hope that we can even keep cutting as we go along. I commend the board uh they would look at this and
and consider this uh because we since we talked in September that our original levy was 7.16 and this is almost a 1% drop and we all talked about looking at it and I have a feeling we really all dug into it pretty good this time very good not that we didn't do it last time
either and a lot of work went into that administrator Baker spent a lot of time and and staff and Lisa as well you know want to thank everybody body. But that's my feelings on it. I I support this. I second the motion. >> Commissioner Dale Anders.
>> Yeah. I I guess to echo a little bit of what Corki said, you know, I think this is probably the I mean, I've only been on here three years, so I'm just the rookie at this game. But from from what I've been hearing and what I've been seeing, I think this has been probably the most work that's been done on a
budget here for a number of years. And I think the staff has put in a lot of time. Every time I talk to Kelsey, I think she has her book out and she's crunching numbers to try and figure this out a little bit one way or the other. So, I think they've done a great job of looking at the options and and trying to
make this as palatable as they can, but yet to keep us in the right place and and to pre basically to provide good services. I mean, it gets to be a point where I've said to some people, "What service do you want us to cut?" Because if we're going to cut something, we need
to cut a service. and nobody wants to cut services. So, I think this is a good a good place that we can find middle of the ground and and really appreciate all the work that everybody has done on this um from the board and and staff and everybody. So,
>> thank you u uh Dwayne and then Roger. >> Okay. Yeah, I I I would rather have had option three, I guess. And and the reason why is we do have uh considerable reserves, and when you have tough times, it that's what reserves are for. And so
I think it would be very valid to argue for uh option number three instead. So, >> thank you, >> uh thank you. And I don't disagree with Commissioner Dwayne Anderson at all. However, we're all uh painfully aware of
the federal cost shifts that we are going to be facing in the next two budget cycles. Uh we maybe have uh dodged the bullet temporarily with the Minnesota family leave or family MAPA, I forget all the words that are in that the act.
>> Uh as the a judge has recently uh ruled against that. Um, so we're going to buy little time from the state, but we're still facing the Medicaid and SNAP um payments or shifts uh at the federal level. And that's why to Commissioner
Dwayne Anderson's point um where I would say let's let's reserve those reserve those reserves uh for that for facing the next two budget crisis and see where we're at. And I think this process has really given us um u a lesson if you
will um in in scrutinizing everything closely. I see the city of Wilmer uh made a difficult decision to cut uh a staff person uh in order to keep their budget
down and we're going to continue to face uh pressure to um to keep to keep our budget reasonably or levy I should say. >> Commissioner B. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes. And I think really really a couple good points about
using reserves and I think it's all depends upon how you use the reserves is what's important. If we use the reserves uh for ongoing things that's not good use of reserves uh because we have to absorb that in the next year again our expenses but we'd have to try to use our
reserves the way I understand the budget uh for more one-time shot one time expenses as we go forward and I'm not sure exactly what all those uh the extra uh 400 uh almost 350,000 additional reserves
what that would be going for the onetime uh things that would replace in the regular uh levy. So this would give us some the levy at this current point would give us that cushion to move forward not cushion but that that ability to move forward not having to put it on the reserves on the levy next
year. Commissioner Dale Anderson. >> Kelsey, just for the public's point, just so they understand, there's been a lot of scrutiny about counties and cities about their levies and where they're at and with their reserves. What is our level of reserves? How many
months of reserves are we about carrying just so everybody understands what we're talking about on the reserve side? >> We have almost nine months of coverage. And if we uh had uh looked at option uh three that would have been uh that nine
months would have been reduced to what like eight and a half or eight and three quarters. >> Not quite. >> Yeah. >> Yep. Uh roughly we spend anywhere from seven to eight a month and so um we do have very healthy reserves as the our uh
Clifton Larson Allen um our auditors have said uh months of coverage required is 3 to five. Um however though per your discussion having healthy reserves in a time like this isn't bad. you you do um
as an administrator, I would always want to see a little bit more than five months coverage, you know. Um we're a little bit on that higher end, but I think in the the years to come, we'll be using that to spend down um to offset the levy.
>> Thank you. Uh uh I know everyone else has kind of weighed in and uh I feel similarly to Commissioner Dwayne Anderson. And it would have been my preference uh to land on the uh uh 5.38. I think the 350,000
additional in uh uh in reserves to be used to offset the levy there would have been uh uh would have been fine. Uh you know, we're looking at about uh 0.85 more uh than that uh this time around.
then that's in the neighborhood of around 320,000 something like that uh realistically at the end of the day. So um I can uh I can live with either one of these. I am happy that uh we are able
to have come down off of that preliminary that we certified at uh uh 7.16. Uh I think that was clearly uh a win for everybody and uh I will uh
we will we will we will have come up with something better and uh to uh uh Roger's point the uh uh challenges that we're going to be facing over the next uh bianium uh uh next two two to three years
especially uh are going to be uh difficult difficult because we don't know what I'll just say it's sort of madness is going to be coming out of uh Washington or uh or St. Paul, but uh uh we had discussions at the AMC board uh
when we met a week ago on on Sunday. And uh uh I think the watch word is uh uh uh nice but spice uh when we have our interactions with uh at the legislature and uh uh and with our congress people.
uh that uh as uh uh commissioners and as uh association Minnesota counties uh the discussions that we are going to have are going to be maybe a little more pointed uh than what they've been uh uh potentially in uh in years past because
we really need to get the message across that uh uh counties cannot absorb all of these cost shifts uh without uh without some offsets from either the state or federal government. Uh and any
indication that uh uh uh we should be able to do more with less is just not founded in reality. Uh uh all of the demands that the state and federal governments continue to put on us uh have to be paid for somehow. And it's
really inherently unfair to expect uh county property taxpayers uh to bear uh more of the burden for state programming. So uh that'll be uh uh that'll be our job over the next uh over
the next couple of years to is to uh get our legislators and our congress people to see it our way and help us find solutions. Anyone else? All right. Hearing none, we have a motion and a second to approve uh the uh
final budget and uh levy at 6.23%. Option number two. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> All opposed. >> Nay. >> Nay.
32. That motion passes. And uh thank you uh Kelsey for you and your staff uh for doing all of the hard work uh in uh in all of this. I know you're probably sick and tired of looking spreadsheet looking at spreadsheets and would be happy for a
month or two off before this all starts again. >> So, thank you. Can I just say one thing? >> You may. >> Thank you guys for doing the hard work that you did this year. Yep. >> You really were thorough and very transparent. Thanks. >> Next item of business is the uh
recycling contract. Kelsey. >> Yep. Um Gary was unable to make it today and so I'll be presenting the recycling contract uh before you today. You have the contract in front of you. Uh just one area to point out that um the board
had requested that this be a two-year term. So if you go under 2.2 the contract term under uh letter A list the two-year term services. And then I we did uh talk with West Central and we included option B. However, I want to
make it very clear that option B is an option. Uh it is not something the board has to do. The the board still has the authority to go out for bids at the end of the 2-year contract. Um we still
could do that and then also do the extension option as well listed in B. So, I just wanted to point that out. Um, but other than that, the contract is for a two-year term with with West Central Sanitation based off the board's direct
directive. Thank you. You've heard the uh uh recommendation of staff. Any comments or questions? And again, just to just to clarify that this uh this this potential for an
extension is just simply a potential. we may find ourselves towards the end of two years in a different position and it's just something that's there in case we want it to be actionable and it's not required.
>> Correct. >> Got it. Any any comments, questions, >> Mr. Chair, I just like Commissioner B. >> I just like to mention I just feel positive what we're doing. I West Central Sanitation has done an excellent job. They have a big footprint in our
community, employ a lot of people. It's their company head and it's a huge company and uh I think we're lucky that we can come to terms and and make this work for us and them as well because we do want to keep those type of services here uh from the big picture of the
economy not just the recycling contract but what's taking place. >> Thank you. Any other comments discussion? Uh I will just piggy back on that uh a little bit. Uh we know that this is not
a mandated uh service. Uh and certainly uh I think uh being able to look at this again in two years and making a decision as to whether or not we want to continue operating those services uh offering those services is uh is is is well in
order. Uh Commissioner. >> Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. And and technically it's not going with this much recycling is not mandated but recycling as my understanding is a mandated service. Every county has to have some kind of mandated service and
there's a statue as well as we receive some dollars from the state but it doesn't come close to covering this. Not even close. So >> we don't have to offer it the way we >> we don't have to offer all the extra services we're providing but that's what the people wanted and uh we're still
doing it. And kind of to Commissioner Dale Anderson's point of uh uh when folks ask uh ask us to cut the budget and we say, "Well, it's going to mean cuts cutting services. What do you want to cut?" This is one of those that uh is maybe more
popular in some areas than others and I would certainly recognize that. So, any other comments? >> Mr. I don't think we have a motion. I was waiting for a motion, but I do have >> uh Commissioner Bird, would you care to >> Absolutely. I would like to make a
motion to approve the contact ended. >> Thank you. And the chair will second discussion. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, to the point that uh Commissioner Dale Anderson made last, I think we do owe it owe it to our uh taxpayers to I don't think
this is necessarily eitheror uh option here. Uh I think there's some middle road. we or we discussed that at some point and I think we need to continue to look at that because we also owe it to over a million
dollars a year is a lot of money. Uh it's over over 1% of our our our budget about one and a half and um what we're going to be paying in this contract. I think one of the things we should consider which would make it easier for others to take a look at this is I think
the county should own those barrels and then every other because right now any any any uh contractor would come in and have a different uh position because they'd have to go out and buy the barrels to start over. If the county owned them, everybody be at the same
level. >> Thank you. Any other comments? All right, we have a motion and a second to approve the recycling contract as presented. All in favor say I. >> All opposed?
>> Motion passes. Kelsey, thank you. Uh, does anyone up here need a break before we move into the next items or can we? Uh the reason I'm asking the question is that we have one, two, three, four, five, six uh six items uh that are going
to be presented by our guests and uh uh so I'm I'm comfortable with sitting. But uh if anyone is really going to need a break, now's the time to say so. >> All right. Uh what's it? >> Or we can interrupt it in the middle, too.
>> That' be rude. But yes, >> they'd understand. holder approval up here. Yes. >> Then let's go ahead and come on up. Uh uh today we have uh folks from our uh uh children's service services unit. And I'll just ask you all to uh uh identify
yourselves and come up and welcome. >> Hello. Uh my name is Nicole Mson. I supervise ongoing child protection. >> My name is Karly Cray and I also um am a children services supervisor and I supervise ongoing child protection. Okay.
>> Good morning. Robin Striker and I children's services supervisor. I supervise children's mental health um truency and licensing. And >> I'm Stacy Garis, also um the fourth children's services supervisor and I supervise our child protection intake
and then our assessments and investigations. >> All right. Well, welcome. Well, >> thank you. >> Go right ahead. So today we have a presentation with some updates with our children's services units and also an overview of our 2026 parenting skills
contracts. At as of the end of September of 2025, the agency has screened in 102 child protection investigations and 129 family assessments for a total of 231 together.
The top allegation that has been screened in in is neglect. So that could include supervision or lack of supervision of children. Um substance abuse related in regards to the caregivers, environmental hazards, and
then basic needs not being met. The second most screened in report has been on physical abuse and then third is sexual abuse. After the assessment is completed, we provide case management services to
families that are referred for ongoing case management. So far in 2025, we've had an average of 78 child protection case management cases open each month and also an average of 67 child welfare case
management cases open each month. In case management, we provide monthly a minimum of monthly home visits, referrals to services and resources, parenting skills referrals as needed, and we work on setting and achieving goals with families related to child
safety and well-being of the family. For our children's mental health, we've had an average of 58 children's mental health cases open each month. Our children's mental health workers utilize inhome skills for anger management, parenting, social anxiety, sibling
relationships, routines, schedules, and life management skills for the families. And they utilize intensive family based services for helping with the parent child connection, TBRI, which stands for trustbased relational intervention,
accountability, parenting, sibling relationships, communication, health decrease, anger, and identify feelings. In 2025, we've had 58 children in placement in Candy High County. With those children being in PL placement,
the number one reason is due to parental substance abuse. The second reason is due to child reasons followed by educational neglect, physical abuse and other neglect. >> One of the mean may I interrupt?
>> Yes. Um what are 36% of placements are due to child reasons. Can you expound on that a little bit? >> Yes. So that could be a child that's in placement due to their mental health. So they're receiving uh services in the placement to improve their mental health
so they can return to the community. This could also mean our truent kids that are not going to school. We try all of the services to prevent placement. However, they do end up in placement. So that would also fall under child reasons. >> Thank you.
>> Yes. So with our inhome services, our number one goal is to prevent out of home placement um we utilize those homebased services, intensive homebased services and parenting skills as a way to help alleviate the child protection concerns
that we are introduced to the family for. The resource helps kids remain in the home because the goal is to help those concerns before it would rise to the level of needing to remove the children from their home. In the cases that the children are in out of home placement because we're not able to work
services or the services we're working aren't helping to um alleviate the child protection concerns and the need for placement arises. We use inhome skills and parenting skills to help get those kids back as soon as possible. Our parenting skills workers are able to
meet with the kids and the parents even while they are in out of home placement. Um, and it helps speed up the the process of getting them home so they can get the skills they need to be a safe parent for the kids. >> Uh, and and I just I I just want to say
something here real quick. Uh, this had been an area of potential uh high costs for uh, Kio County and still and and still likely remains so. But it's it's it's what you're doing right now is is
driving down uh those costs that need to be uh supported by uh uh by our taxpayers. Correct. And Kelsey, do you want to expound on that a little bit? >> Well, I can, but they're they're all the ones that do the work. Um but yes, out
of home placements is totally levy driven. Um, and you know, I really think it's a it's a philosophy of what the human services department wants to pursue. Um, instead of terminating these rights, how do we work with the parents
and the providers on getting them to be a B parent? Nobody I mean, not everybody is an A parent every day. Um, I don't have kids. I have nephews. I'm not always an Aunt, you know, with my nephews. And so we have to sometimes realize and put put yourself in their
shoes and how do we get them to where they are a good parent. And I think the philosophy here has changed. And so that then drives down that out of home prevention cost. However, I always want to say with a caveat, you just don't know what's going to meet you in the
office or at the door or we'll meet them or if it's a law enforcement agent going into a home. You just don't know how many what you will meet that day and in a blink of a second. It can dramatically change with five or six kids, three
kids, four kids, whatever it may be that can drive up that out of home placement cost. But I would really commend the staff um to lowering the out of home placement and really changing their philosophy on how we do our work and how how that can impact our communities in a
different way and how we work with our providers in a different way and bring these services within um these homes and communities. And so I really applaud the staff. It's this is not easy work. You guys do really hard work every day. A lot of our staff do. But um this is very
commendable to to lower the out of home placement cost in the last two years. It's it's a lot of work and you guys have done a really good job on that. >> Thank you. >> Yep. Thank you for that. And uh Commissioner B. >> Uh thank you Mr. Chair. Yeah. Can you uh share a little bit more? It's all
involved in child protection in a sense. I'm there's you know on call uh any time of the day I'm assume and u generally speaking uh uh any idea what the average case load size is and I just say that
really carefully I understand sometimes three cases can be too many cases you know and it depends upon what the case or situation is but just share a little bit more details the public might be interested >> yeah so we do have an on call worker that is on call every single day um
including weekends, holidays. Um our staff social workers um volunteer for on call um and they're signed up for a week at a time. As supervisors, we are also on call to help field calls coming in in
regards to what to do next for the social workers. Um so when when a call comes in, it starts with the intake. um if it meets for our screening guidelines, it gets screened in for either a family assessment or an
investigation. Um the assessment or investigation worker then makes contact with the family. They investigate um the report and what's going on, what the family needs are um and really if there's a need for pro um protective services
moving forward if um an ongoing case manager would be needed for the family. uh assessments and investigations are open for approximately 45 days and then at the end of the 45 days they determine whether or not ongoing child protection
case management is needed. At that time if it's needed we assign a case worker to that family. Um the assessment worker and the ongoing worker meet to kind of discuss what's going on, discuss what the concerns are. And then after that
initial meeting between the two workers, they schedule to be introduced to the family. With case management, we are open until the safety concerns are um no longer an issue. So we could be open anywhere from 3 months to a year um
sometimes longer. If it's a child protection um case management case, that's a placement. children are only able to be out of the home for 365 days and then permanency needs to be established. Whether that's them being returned to the parent or a
secondary plan being achieved such as um maybe a transfer of custody to the non-custodial parent um or adoption from a relative or a transfer of custody to another relative. Our ongoing case managers sit at currently about I'd say
six to eight cases each. that'll fluctuate due to us having currently three maternity leaves. Um so it really just depends on how many reports are coming in and then um we base case load off of kind of the circumstance of the
case. So we could have a placement case that takes up a lot of our time or a child welfare case where there's not as many safety concerns and the social worker is still spending time with the family but maybe not as much as a placement. >> Sorry. Thank you. Sure. I'm gonna I'm
gonna pull you back into your presentation a little bit here. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> And thank you for asking. >> Okay. So, um kind of like we just talked about now we are um going into what's other services we work with um to help
prevent out of home placement and also work with our families to keep kids in home and keep keep kids safe. Um so two we have two contracts actually with Woodland Centers. Um one is our homebased services. Um and that homebased services worker um we will
make a referral to them and they are a mental health professional. They will meet with the family one to two times per week. Um it is not a therapeutic for our homebased services. However, they work with the family on um skills work,
um regulating emotions, behaviors. Um they sit down with the family um and they work through any family struggles that they're having um to see what what can be better. Um they work with the families, foster families, relative
placements. Um they'll work with these families before they go back into the home as well or to keep them in the home. All of these workers are TBRI trained which is trustbased relation intervention um
certified as well. And then the next one is our intensive homebased services. This is a service that is a therapeutic service that is provided by our mental health therapist. This worker meets with the family a minimum of two times per
week. Sometimes they meet three times per week. Um, and this was they developed to meet an immediate placement risk. So, if if we have a family that is kind of borderlining if if they would need placement or not, we would want our intensive inhome worker to go in there
to kind of relieve some of those immediate concerns that we may have. Um, it's a it's more of a short-term service. It's about a 3 months that they will work in the home. And if there are more services needed, a lot of the times they might get referred back to the the
homebased service. um or UKAP or a different um like a longer term family therapy. Um typically that worker has about five to six cases that they can um do at a time.
Um and then the next one is the intensive homebased services. So, this one is a newer one that we are looking to expand with greater Minnesota. Um, this has a counselor and a therapist level in home who are bachelor's and masters level trained. The worker meets
with the family a minimum of two times per week in addition to being available for crisis phone calls. Um, so they would be available on weekends after hours. Um, and that worker would be able to help the family in a crisis.
The worker meets with the family a minimum of two times per week in addition to being available for the phone calls. Um services are provided at risk for at risk youth and their families in the home and community.
The goal for intensive family services is to stabilize a child's behavior so they are able to live in their home and access community- based services. it h they help develop parenting communication and relation skills improve a family's ability to manage any
crisis. Um greater Minnesota will be if this is approved greater Minnesota will be in the process of um establishing a a therapist for this position to start working with um our agency family based services. Um this is
through United United Community Action Partnership um otherwise known as UKAP. Um this is a skills-based service provided by a trained family based worker. The worker meets with the family about one to two times per week. Um and what they do is they demonstrate and
teach parenting skills, nurturing skills, discipline methods, child growth and development to clients. They also help with budgeting skills, health and safety, and nutritional needs to the family who learn effective strategies to
manage stress, assist family members, and to understand um and cope with separation and loss. They also help um when UKAP is working with families, they also help link them to other services. So, um, UKAP has a
number of services from budgeting, housing, um, car repair, the weather program. So, they also help get those families connected to any other services that they would need as well. And then our trauma-based relational
intervention, TBRI, we have we work with Sarah Barber um and she actually um she provides attachmentbased trauma-informed trustbased relational intervention services for targeted foster care um parents. And so what she does is she
specifically works with our foster parents to help um foster or adoptive parents to help um them better understand different ways to parent um children who may have that have experienced any neglect or trauma. And
it's just she helps role model um what works for one child may not work for the other child. Um, and she really kind of goes through all of that with parents and it's it has really helped um, maintain relative placements as well.
Nurturing parenting. So, this will be a new one that we are doing with Harmony Visitation Center. Um, Harmony Visitation Center is in the process of training their staff in nurturing parenting programs. Um what this is, it's parenting skills that will be provided during supervised visits at
Harmony Visitation Center and will be f focused on the needs of the parents identified by the agency and by nurturing parent assessments that is completed at the beginning of the of the case. Um it it is estimated that this will be able to start in January of
2026. That is all we have. >> All right, that's Rob. >> So along with all of this then there are a number of contracts here that uh that you're bringing forward uh to us. Let's let's dive into those and if there are any other questions we'll briefly touch
them at the end. Uh please continue. >> So I have the packet of contacts that reflects um all of what um you just heard about. Um, so I will read each one individually and request approval for those. Um, so the first that I have
before you is the inhome family based skills services um, with Woodland Centers. And in the past years, the inhome family based and intensive family based services were combined into one contract. We have separated these into two separate
contracts. And this is to continue providing highquality services to families. The inhome family based skills will now be issued as a separate contract. So the total payment will not exceed $85,000 and services will be paid based on
actual hours build by Woodland Centers. Um and they will be um billing that at the $270 per hour rate hour rate which is the CCBHC rate. Um and so with that staff recommendation is to move forward and approve this
contract as presented. Thank you. Uh are there any uh any questions or comments or a motion? >> Mr. Chair, I so move the motion as presented. >> Thank you. >> I'll second that. >> Motion by Berg, second by M Deck. Any
discussion? >> Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> All opposed. Motion passes. Please continue. >> Um the next contract is for um Woodland Cent's intensive family based services contract. Um again, this is um the the
two that were um that were separated into one contract each and this is to continue that high quality services to the family with that intensive family based services. Um this will be a total payment that will not exceed $158,669.
Um and Woodland Centers will credit Kyhai County Health and Human Services on a monthly basis for any third-party um or CTSs payments collected on behalf of the intensive family based provider. So with that staff recommendation is to move forward and approve this contract as well.
>> Thank you. You've heard the recommendation. Is there a motion? >> So chair, I will also entertain a motion to approve that contract as presented. >> Uh Commissioner Burke moves the chair will second discussion. Just one on the previous contract there
was a per hour uh amount and then it was not to exceed. This one I don't see the per hour amount. Is that intentional or is >> Yeah, that is intentional. And that is um the the difference in the two contracts with the inhome um family
skills. We went to an hourly rate versus the a contracted rate um for the intensive. Does the contract spell out the number of minimum minimum number of hours that they would be applying to the the
contract and the services? >> Yes, they they um supply a 0.8 staff for this service through Woodland Centers. >> Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Go ahead. If I may, to Commissioner Amdike's point, I
think in separating uh the woodland contracts, um it does I think in discussions within our health and human services committee um prior we just give that lump sum and it's hard to track that and I sat in with the supervisors and the director with Woodland Centers
and by doing this hourly rate in the first contract that was just approved is a shift in the direction that the county would like to go in because then we're we are tracking the dollars um and the services that Woodlands then is providing with levy dollars if that makes sense because it's a roundabout
way. Um but the supervisors did a really good job in explaining that um and are very were acting very stewardly with the county dollars in contract negotiations. So just to clarify that I think that was a good question to bring up and that was
one of the reasons why we separated that out. >> Correct. >> Uh any other any other questions? Did you have something that you wanted to add? Uh on Okay. No, I just wanted >> All right. We have a motion and a second on the recommendation of staff to
approve the contract. All in favor say I. >> I. All opposed. >> Motion passes. Go ahead. >> All right. So, the next contract I have is for the um Greater Minnesota Family Services Intensive inhome family services contract. So, this is would be
a brand new contract for 2026 that we want to look at. um contracting with greater Minnesota for it um is intense. It's virtually very similar to the intensive family based um services contract that we have with Woodland Centers already. We are just adding
another provider to provide those same services. Um with Greater Minnesota, they have a little bit different of um the financial piece of it. The primary funding model um is a map reimbursement
and um so they will always bill through that first at a rate of $7404 per hour for a counselor level and $10460 per level for a lens or candidate or that licensed therapist. Um, and so this
would not exceed $30,000 and we would not be getting build until they have a staff hired for it. Once they hire a staff to provide this service, then they would be charging us $1,666.66
66 cents per month. Um or a total of $20,000 per year. Um that that we would get build and then they would bill out the insurance piece. Um and then we
would cover what insurance would cover or if there there are un uh non-insured or underinsured um clients. Now, we do plan on using the what we have left of our Prime West
TBRRI grant funds for that initial part of I think we have until through August 30th to spend um our primeless grant. Um and so we plan on using the rest of those funds to cover um this part of the
grant. And then um beyond that we would not exceed $50,000. >> You just answered the question I was going to ask. Thank you very much. >> So have ESPN. >> So staff recommendation is to move forward and approve this contract as
well. >> Thank you. We've heard the recommendation of staff. Is there a motion? >> Mr. Chair, I moved. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> I'll second it. >> Thank you. Uh commissioners Dale and Dwayne Anderson. motion and second discussion.
All right, hearing none. All in favor say I. I. >> All opposed. Motion passes. >> All right. Our next contract is for the United Community Action Agency Family Based Services Contract. So, this unit cost is providing services to reimburseable clients at a rate of um
$58.97 97 per hour. Um, UKAP also charges us $35 an hour for interpreting services and the total amount of this contract would not exceed $210,000. So, our recommendation is to move
forward and approve this contract. >> Thank you. >> So, move, Mr. Chair. >> Commissioner Mdeck moves. Is there a second? >> I'll second that. >> Commissioner Dwayne Anderson seconds. Discussion >> hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I.
>> All opposed. Motion passes. >> All right. And our last contract is for the um 2026 Safe Avenues Harmony Visitation Center contract. Um with this uh purchase of services contract, they
are getting a proposed 2% increase from the fiscal year 2025. Um so that that amount would total $53,360. Um our recommendation is to move forward and approve this. contract. >> Thank you. You've heard the
recommendation. The chair will so move. Is there a second? >> I'll second that, Mr. Chair. >> Commissioner Berg second. Any discussion? >> Hearing none. All in favor say I'm sorry. Uh did you Okay, >> just taking a breath getting ready to vote.
>> Let's vote. All in favor say. >> I. All opposed. Motion passes. >> Mr. Chair, >> you may. Um, I think it's also important to note, um, when we're going into the 2026 budget cycle with MAFA, the act, whatever they're calling it now,
>> these are all considered what's in these contracts and the services that are provided. These are all considered active efforts. >> So, I'd like the board to be aware of that when we go into 26 and you guys are going to uh the capital, we are currently doing active efforts, which
which is required under the act. And so I think that's just important to note within these contracts. >> That's a that's a great point. Thank you so much. Uh did you have anything else? >> I do not have anything else. >> And I'll get to >> Sure. >> Okay. That I I don't have anything else,
>> Commissioner B. >> Well, I just want to really thank all your work and all the time spent just on contracts. It makes me remember I remember the time when at least in human services was over 100 contracts a year. I probably a lot more now. And not only
that, but a lot more complicated and a lot of good services behind these contracts and this makes a big difference. So, thank you. >> And I just want to piggyback on that a little bit. Uh and uh thanks thank you and thank you to everybody in your
department who uh who does this work so often. All too often, >> you're meeting uh families on one of the worst days in their lives. Uh and uh uh this is this is where uh the rubber hits
the road and where uh these services are so important. And uh if we're spending levy dollars on uh uh on services like this to help keep families together and keep them whole and keep pe uh keep especially keep the kids safe. I can
think of no higher use of our uh tax levy for that. So thank you so much for everything that you do. >> All right. Okay, thank you so much. >> Um, we are I'm going to check in. Anyone still need a break? >> Sure.
>> Uh, five minutes. We will take >> Thank you. All right, we're good. >> Thank you. >> All right, the Candy Island County Board of Commissioners is back from recess. Uh, next item is a presentation from
Administrator Baker. Uh, this is in regards to extending a lease. Kelsey. >> Uh, yes. Kelsey Baker, Kyoi County Administrator. before you today is to extend the Prairie Lakes Youth Program lease agreement that is uh ending December 31st, 2025. The ask would be to
extend this lease up until March I'm sorry I put yes March 13th. I was thinking I did March 31, but I did the just a couple weeks into March, a little bit more than two months. Um and in convers so it would be an extended
through March 13, 2026. Uh, this allows time for the Prairie Lakes Youth Board to continue to look at their building options and evaluate their long-term plans. Um, I did have a conversation with the executive director, Kristen Johnson, um, and the Prairie Lakes Youth
Board um, our our liaison, Commissioner Berg feels comfortable with this. I I and so I do feel this is a good option for both parties. >> Uh, thank you. And Commissioner Berg, to that point, anything to add? Um you said
it quite well. Uh uh Prairie Lakes Youth Program is looking at several options right now uh going forward because the current facility is not ideal and has been ideal for some time and uh and we are also looking at uh uh Min West and
uh possibility leasing from there is a different building and see what we can do. So, we're exploring that and we've had tours of that and be having a discussion tomorrow morning on that as well. >> So, looking forward to that. It's kind of a good option we might have.
>> Thank you. And so, uh to that end, would there be a motion? >> Uh Mr. Chair, I so move to support the extension. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> I'll second it. >> Commissioner Dale Anderson seconds. Thank you. Any discussion?
seems uh completely reasonable. So, thank you for that. All in favor of extending the lease with Prairie Lakes Youth Program, say I. I. >> All opposed. Motion passes. Thank you. Uh next item. >> Uh this next one um and I my apologies.
I could have just put informational is the review and discuss the 2026 committee listings. These are something the board will do at the first meeting on January 6, the organizational meeting. However, it's always good just administratively if you have any changes to get those to me prior um it would be
prior to January December 30th. I'll be sending out the board packet for the January 6th meeting. Um and then you can note in there in conversations with um Gary Gear in regards to AIS, we are proposing to um go away from the AIS
committee. um we would still do the AIS work as the board approved today for the 2026 plan. We would just go away from that committee. Um so that's already listed in your uh attachment today. But if you do have any changes, we don't have to go into detail now. That will be for the
board the the first board meeting in January. But if you do have any questions or comments or changes already, I can get that um so that we have the most current document uploaded for the January 6th meeting. But that's all I have for that. So if there are uh known uh meeting dates, times, things
like that. Correct. And also if uh uh any commissioners are looking for uh relief, shall we say, from uh from a particular committee assignment, I maybe want to make that uh uh known and uh
andor uh uh scout around and see if we can find somebody to uh uh to help you out with that. Commissioner MD, >> I just noticed there was one um um I think incorrect note on the extension. I think it's myself and not
Corki that on the extension comm. >> All right. Um so everybody's everybody's clear on the assignment. All right. Outstanding. Uh please uh >> Nope. I said okay. >> Okay. Uh and please continue
>> uh just >> back on time. >> Yeah. Um the space study discussion we have invited Ellers here today. So Todd I will invite Todd Hagen up here to present. Basically we had a a building committee work session with the full
board and some the building committee staff that went through uh Wol's recommendation and also went over some of the financial options. Basically today I would um the ask of Todd is to come back up and present those financial
options to um to give the board another listening session so to speak. No decisions are being asked of the board today. This is purely discussion to look at the options that we do have uh and at the end of the day to be transparent with the public. So W's recommendations
and the financial options are in the board packet. So if anybody does have any questions to please contact me. But I will now hand it over to Todd um so he can explain some of the financial options. >> Good morning and welcome. >> Yeah, great. Thank you, Kelsey. Um board
chair commissioners Todd Hagen from Ellers and Associates had a beautiful downtown Minneapolis. Thanks for the nice uh weather today. Easy getting out here for sure. Um Bruce Kimmel couldn't make it uh this morning. Um so um I'm here uh for you. We tag team uh at
Ellers. So hopefully I can answer your questions. Uh and uh I do want to just go through like Kelsey talked about sort of just a summary of what we talked about with those workshops of sort of how to finance um the justice center and
the HHS um edition. So just to kind of go back to the uh beginning, we we take the numbers from um the uh the architect um you know the project uh manager um to kind of get an idea right of the
estimated cost of each um part of of of the project. Um again we had talked about we we used 53 million for the justice center and 14 million for the HHS expansion. So 67 million excuse me um for the total project costs um these
um prices will probably increase as time goes by. I know each of these is going to start at different times um possibly and it's not going to be tomorrow, right? So uh we expect probably those costs to go go up a little bit. So we did kind of put those together in one
bond issue. Um we bundled it. You've heard that before. Um and um so we've got one bond issue with cost of issuance um at a little under 70 million. Um we just modeled a 25-year bond issue. Um we can legally go out 30 years under
Minnesota state law. So we kind of kept it under under 30 years, but we can certainly go um go to a maximum term of of that if we'd like. Uh, we did show you folks, um, oh, before I get to that, uh, we we would use your underlying
credit rating, right? You have a double A here at Candy Ohio County. Uh, this also qualifies for, um, a state of Minnesota guarantee. Uh, we call that the credit enhancement program, which would kick that up to a AAA um, credit
rating. not a not a real AAA credit rating underline as if you had one yourself, but more of a kind of an insurance um kind of AAA. So, it's probably maybe one notch uh below a AAA, but that gives us lower interest rates then, right? So, the higher the bond
rating, the lower the >> the interest rate will be. >> That's true. >> Were we at AAA once before though? Weren't we AAA or No, >> I'd have to I'd have to look at that and and see. Um so yeah, so it kind of
depends sort of what the methodology is. Um for the credit rating agencies, they change their criteria every once in a while. They just uh did it a a year year or so ago. So um some ratings go up, some ratings go down, some ratings stay
the same, but okay. >> Uh so there's surveillance ratings if you haven't issued a bond in a while. And then when we issue bonds, we um we do go in for a credit rating, both underline, which is your own, and then that state credit enhanced rating. So, we also looked at if there was any
strategies to what we call wrap um the um this debt around existing uh bonds that might be dropping off. Um school districts do that a lot. Um if there is a lot uh if there's debt out there to do that within a reasonable period of time,
we try to do that. So, you do have a 2016 A bond um that we'll be dropping off um somewhere around 2030 or so. So, what we do is we kind of put the existing debt in there and then um combine it with this this debt. And so,
we sort of try to keep the um the uh resultant levy the same, right? But we would probably what we do is we'd sort of inch this one along and then um after that 2016 bond drops off after 2030 or
so then then we're kind of back where we would would have been at the beginning. So we're trying not to have it spike up I guess is what I'm trying to say at the the first few years of the debt service. So the 2016 bond kind of helps us along that way. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Mr. Sure. If I
>> that 2016 bond was that the jail then right >> I think it might have been I'm not sure what the name of it was but Yep. Yep. And so there's only like four years left on that. So okay so that's the the bond
issue and um so we know um just estimates of what the annual um property tax levy would be on that of around 4.14.2 million dollars. Um so we did a tax impact um schedule that sort of shows uh
what the impact would be on the property taxes for various residential values and commercial industrial apartments, some egg land and some seasonal wreck. And we've got it going from all the way from $50,000 to a million dollar. Um so um I
think you've got that maybe in your packets of sort of what that would look like. Um at around a 4.8% tax rate increase. Um, if you look dollar for dollar, it could be a 10% increase from where folks were now and what they would be when when this deck gets on. So, we
>> Can you repeat that again? >> Yep. 4.862% tax rate increase. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yep. Yep. So, we're trying to find ways then to lower that if we could, right? Um, aside from lowering the project down
and extending the debt out um over to go to go to 30 years, uh, we did look at um, local option sales tax as an option, you know, to add that onto your transportation tax. It's already there at uh, at a half a half a half a cent at
uh, yeah half 50 cents on the buck. um 0.5% and uh so we did look at that that that is collecting around $4.2 million a year at the half. So that would pretty much take care of that this debt service
if we add another half um cent sales tax on to get that up to um to 1%. So that's something to think about or you could just add a quarter percent and that get you halfway there. Right? So that's that's an idea we had
um as well. So there is um so if we would do that uh we probably we'd have a couple different bonds we could look at issuing. They're both going to be general obligation bonds, full faith and credit uh backing of the county. Um one would be a capital
improvement plan bond. You've issued those before. Um gets us to the same place. Interest rates are the same andor uh that with a combination of a general obligation county sales tax revenue bond, right? because we'd be able to if we go in for legislation uh we'd be able to issue bonds off of
that special legislation too. So either we so so combination of those two and there's plenty of room if we don't go the sales tax route that in the capital improvement plan law right there's limit annual limitations of what we how high we can go with the tax levy and we'd be
just fine that way too. So, we could go a loan without sales tax or we could do a combination of the two or go full in with a sales tax revenue bond, right? Um interest rates would be the same. Um would still be credit enhanced, right? Um guaranteed by the state of Minnesota. Uh so nothing any different there. It's
just kind of academic exercises over here at Ellers, right? That we would kind of try to mix and mix and match that as as much as we could. >> Is it okay to interrupt you and ask questions? >> Yeah. And then if if I could >> Would you want to go through it first? >> Yeah. I don't want to keep getting you off track.
>> Yep. If if I could just one more point from the workshop too. We had talked about >> um if there's any tax increment financing districts that would be dropping off, you know, in the county too. We talked about that as well. And last night um stayed up a little late and just kind of took a look at what
might what opportunities might be out there too because as a tax increment district drops off or gets descertified that new uh that new tax capacity that's there is sort of unfrozen now, right? And then now it now it can be in our budgets, right? Can be in the school, uh
the county and the city budgets. So looked them up um uh last night. Uh looks like New London's got a few, Raymond's got a few, Spicer's got a few, Wilmer's got a few out there, maybe 17 total. Uh this bond
would go out to 2050 something. Yes, 50ome. I know we'll be we'll all be here, you know, at that time. Um but it looks to me like not doing a deep dive into all of these districts um that they all will descertify or go away within
the term of the bond. So that's you know we could do kind of an analysis on that too. So as we move forward with the bond issue there there would be a property tax initially maybe offset or completely eliminated with new sales tax revenue.
Um but as that bond um sort of matures, right, every year after year after year, that property tax would be different, right? The impact would would be different in in Candyo High County because you would have some of these tax increment districts dropping off and then who knows what all our budgets are
every year to year to year, right? So, u there's a possibility um that that as well. So, they're they're out there. Um they they're they're out there. Uh they're they're pretty long. Um most of them are redevelopment and housing districts uh that could theoretically go
out 26 years but a lot of times a city will descertify them earlier once the um deal is done so to speak. Right? So they could also be descertified earlier than than this. But if they go out for the full term all 17 of those will will be
done within the term of the bond issue at different times. So I just wanted to kind of make that point as well. Um I think right now um I do have sort of also um after questions here I do have the mechanics
of how to go about uh implementing starting out a new sales tax for Candy Ohio County. Uh it is good timing right now because January 31st uh we would need to get um submit the resolution that would need to be passed
uh by the county to move forward um by that time and then we would work with local legislator legislators to introduce the legislation and secure the legislative approval after that. So, uh, we would adopt a resolution that's got,
um, the proposed rate that we would want to put in there. Typically, it's 0.5%. Could be 0.25%. A detailed description of proposed project goes in there. Um, we have to document the regional significance of
the project, the estimated amount to be raised for each project, and identify the length of time. 20 years is typical. You know, we'd probably go 25, right? because we almost have this baked anyway pretty much. We all know what we're trying to accomplish here and the total amount to be collected which would
probably be the bond amount at the end of the day. So, I would probably put some cushion in my number um to get that up just because as we move forward yeartoear before the project gets started that cost will no doubt go up as
we move forward. So, I'll yield for questions now for you folks. Um, that was my quick summary, >> Commissioner Berg and then Commissioner. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for I that's a lot a lot to take in and a
lot for you to uh uh cover and and put together for us. I appreciate the all the options you're trying to give us and make things see if we can make this work. I think we all try to make things work if we can. I am a little concerned about some other things but before I get
into that um the initial levy levy that would go on that would vary how we go about that right wouldn't there is there more than do we have to put a levy let's say we decide to do this and we start next year we'd have to
put what percent on the levy >> yeah we would if if um >> and what would be the options >> yeah if the legisla special legislation isn't there yet if if it is there but it's just not approved yet by us, we'll use that as best we can, we'll maybe
delay some principal payments to kind of dovetail that in there so we don't have a spike in the property tax. So it looks like just with my um math here right now preliminarily it's the four 4.1 to 4.2 million would be the new levy that would
go on which would be much lower than the 4.5 or 4.6 that's needed. Remember, we're going to wrap that levy around the 2016 bond. So, what we are are we are already lowering that levy in the first four years or so to accommodate that.
And then when that drops off, which is 400 to $450,000 that's already been on, right, the tax roles. So, we're going to use that then to increase effectively increase the levy. We still need uh to pay the bonds
off. So, so we would do that if we're not ready, the legislature legislation's not ready or we decide to delay it a year or so or whatever. Um, there is precedents out there of other municipalities that have gone in afterwards
to help bring down the existing levy. So, I don't think it's all is not lost, right? It might be a little heavier lift afterwards, but um I'm sure we can argue our point, you know, pretty well that that that our our levies, you know,
might be a little bit too high or something and we should have a probably a pretty good um argument at the legislature to have them pass that after the fact. So, >> so yeah, I need if I may follow up. Yeah. >> Yeah. to clarify then the the levy that
we would going forward with this. I'm thinking whatever we do, we have to explain this to the public and there's a lot of little pieces to this whole thing. But initially then we're talking about a levy in the 4% range to start with that we'd have to put on there,
>> but that would stay on there, right? I mean, you just can't lower the levy uh going forward, right? So, we would >> you can you can lower it. >> Okay. So we so then the extra sales tax dollars and other things that we talked about dropping off and so forth would
help to come in and and lower that as we move on. So the >> exactly >> in the 4% range uh we had middle to upper 4% range where I looked um would nec not necessarily be something that's just on a levy and we forget about we
move on to additional levy costs per se or or having to help supplement as we go because that that seems like a bookkeeper's nightmare. >> It's all part of the workings of the county. Yep. It's all this this levy and your levy for everything else um is is
all part of the budget. It's the annual budgets every year and so >> once it's on um every year we do our best when we budget to keep it manageable, right? So it's all part of the even though it's a separate pot, it's all kind of part of the same.
>> Commissioner, >> thank you. And I before I go to my uh uh question comment is that I think what Commissioner Berg is saying is that if we put $4.1 million of debt on there next year we have a 3% let's just say
for example we have a 3% levy increase that'll be 3% on top of the 4 that 4.1 million is payment every year. Yep. >> So it's not an increase every year but it's there every year. >> It's it's it's there. Yeah. It's always there. Um, in the packet you talked
about I I didn't see any packet regarding any finances. All we have is the W. >> Um, >> we did before though. >> I didn't put that detailed pack information. I can print it off for them >> because this is preliminary.
>> It is very preliminary. >> This is extremely preliminary. We are paying the bill without building the house. >> Do you know what I mean? Yeah, I I think I I didn't in preparation. You've already seen that those copies of it. Exactly. He was going he was going to
make some modifications. For example, the the highest priced home on the list was 300,000. We were going to go up quite >> we went up to a million. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. >> And I can I can print those copies for you. If you look at the tax impact, if you hit the tax impact part underneath the presentation, Roger, that gives you
that that dollar amount up to a million dollar house. >> So, um, thank you. Uh, so my question for you is, um, $4.1 million
would be what we'd be, uh, our annual payment would be, right? >> Right. >> Okay. So that would have to go if it if we didn't have any alternative ways of paying for that, that would all have to go on the levy. >> Correct. >> Which is around
9% of of what our levy is every year. And then um the interest rates, have they come down some? Just last week there was a drop from the Fed. Is that is that reflected in your numbers, current numbers, or did you have not have time to update that?
>> According to my savings account, it did. Um yes, thank you very much. Um so the bank rates have gone down and the public um bonds issued in the public like this would be they've always been very low. It's a supply and demand. It's um it's
people out there. It's mutual insurance companies. It's it's corporations that buy these bonds. Um I would say if anything went down from um last week um it would probably be just the the very short the shorter years, right? the
probably years one through I don't even want to go to one through 10. It could be one through five or something like that which is probably where the banks are buying them, right? Because they also buy bonds out in the in the public market. So that would be the I think the net effect of that is maybe those
short-term um maturities, those shorter maturities went down a little bit. When you kind of stretch it out to 25 years, I think the the whole the all the interest rates benefit from that. you know, if you average them all out, everything probably went down a little bit >> as well. So,
>> so is there a way of doing this without increasing the levy at all? Because it seems that's what Sterns County is doing with their um project >> sales tax. Sales tax. >> So, if if you had sales tax that would cover the loan payment, the bond
payment. Yep. >> Then there would be no need for any kind of unless we started in the first year before the sales tax started going into effect. Correct. Correct. >> And we don't owe that then, right? If we would or not. >> Right. Right. So, if we go in for the
half a cent, >> that would that would do it. >> And and and that's 50 cents on every $100. >> Yeah. >> At that level. >> Yeah. But that's still at that level though I always like to point out you know that the good news is
if not all cani county residents the the bad news it's still a lot of money and you said 4.2 million a year. Well, that only comes to 105 million and that includes the interest and everything because I thought I saw something was
like 140 million with interest that the loan would be. But by the time we get done, that's a 25 years. Maybe I'm wrong on that. >> Yeah, by the time you get just the last run I did, um it looks like and that's financing
67.755 million. Um total debt service would be Almost 117 >> million. Yep. Yep. >> Well, we might be a little bit more than four 4.2 million a year.
>> Y but yeah, interest rates have come down. It's it's a good time to it's a good time to be thinking about doing this right now because it it's um we are starting to see refinancings kind of reemerging again, too. That's stopped for the last what I think is maybe maybe
eight years or so. So, things are looking up that way. So, >> so, so I think I heard you say that you would there was a process that you were going to take us through. Did I understand that correctly? >> Yeah, for the for the sales tax.
Probably need to do that. Yeah, if you would >> if you're thinking about it. Um, we probably need a another board meeting um in at the beginning of January or some something like that to kind of get that moving forward. We'd like that resolution drafted by your bond attorney
if we could. They're they're pretty uh they're experts in in getting that that kind of paperwork uh done basically. So, we just need a board resolution to move that forward, but we need some information which we already have, right? Because I think this is the
project we're looking at, right? And uh but we could add more if you wanted to. Um, but if you just wanted to solely go with this, um, it's a you would adopt a resolution and like it said, we'd need to figure out if we want to go the half a cent or a quarter, right, scent sales
tax on that description of the project. That's pretty easy. We we know what, you know, Wald has given us that. Uh, nice description there in their presentation materials. Um, document the regional significance of the project. uh which I don't think is difficult to do for a
county project. Um the estimate amount to be raised for each project. That's we already have that transportation um tax in play here right at half a cent. So um you know we already know we think we know what that's going to yield already.
Um identify the term length of time of the bond issue is what they're asking for which kind of mirror right the the sales tax. probably go 25 years on that um because it's such a large project. Uh 20 years is typical on a smaller
project, but 25 on this would probably be fine. Uh and the total amount to be collected, we pretty much know what that's going to be. So I And then we submit that resolution and the background um documents to the state tax committees. Um we must submit that to
the House and the Senate tax committees by January 31st. uh of the year special law is requested. Um we need data and documentation about the regional benefit that must be included. That might be a little heavier
lift, right? Um work with our legislators to get that through. Uh right, might have to go up and testify a little bit um about this. Um when that if if if in fact that gets approved by the legislature, then we
adopt another resolution accepting that law. That's how that how that works. Um if that gets approved then we file that with the secretary of state and then um we hold a referendum. Right? So now we have to ask the voters here um and that must be conducted within two years of
receiving that special authority to impose the tax. Um must include a separate question as we get through that. Then we also need to pass an ordinance imposing the tax and notify the commissioner revenue. So um there are a few um few hoops to jump through.
So January would be the reg uh resolution of the legislature. June 26 would be legislative approval. September would be board resolution for the ballot. I would imagine referendum for the local sales tax would be in November of 2026.
The ordinance and the do notification December 26. And then we would expect if all that falls into place that that uh the collection then would begin April of 2027 in a perfect world. So that's kind of
the timeline we'd be looking at. >> And I and I think I heard you say that uh we would have was it two years from the time we received the authorization to actually put it to referendum? >> Yeah. >> Or would it have to be done at the uh general? you have you have within two
years of receiving the authority to impose the the tax. So you have to conduct that referendum by that then it gets too old I think. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Dwayne and then again. >> Okay. Um so my question would be um
if we got to go before legislature to request to put on that sales tax, you know, I know it has to get voted on, but is that part of their bonding bill then or is that separate? because they have a hard time passing a bonding bill every year lately. So, I'm just wondering, you know,
>> well, it might be I I I I'm expecting since there was a moratorium that just got lifted on this for a couple years, I'm expecting a lot of folks to go in. So, either we're going to run into a political problem and nothing's going to happen. Um or short. Yep. And uh or or
they're just going to say, you know, you waited this long. This is pretty successful program. um let's just run these through. So, I guess we'll just have to wait and see, but it would be it's something that, you know, if you're not in line, you know, you're not you're not going to get it.
So, but I I suspect we're all going to be amongst friends uh going in there and uh these county projects um the regional significance is huge here as opposed to some city park project or something, right? So, or a city hall or something
like that, right? So, um I don't know, just something to kind of think about. You might have a pretty good shot at it. But if you don't ask, right, you don't you don't get. So, >> I think we heard this at uh conference last week. If you're not at the table, you're on the menu. >> That's great.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um and you're talking about, you know, we're looking at this project and we're looking at this project, but now we're at this crucial time is that are we going to do the project or what are we going to do with the project or what route are we going to take? And so I don't think officially we made that decision yet. U so we're
right there looking at do we do this or not and but we have to make that decision now. And so do we look at uh 70 million uh building project going forward and I'm assuming we just don't make that application uh for the sales tax without that commitment that we're
going to continue to do the whole thing. I mean you can't get that sales tax if we didn't follow through with this. Correct. >> Correct. A lot of a lot of municipalities will kind of treat this like a grant too, right? The project's not going to go through without the free money, so to speak. So, it does hinge on
the success of moving forward. It hinges on the success of doing preliminary leg work. So, I don't think that's uncommon. >> Okay. >> If you're a little bit up in the air, >> and a lot of work has gone into this um and we've all had some input in it, but others had a lot more input in this as
well. But at this point, I would just kind of like to revisit where we're going with this and look at our options. And I'm assuming we still have options that we could do both buildings. And just to be clear, for the public's sake, too, we are talking about remodeling this building, moving the downtown out
here, correct? And moving some of the staff from here downtown. Correct. And or in a new building. uh or some of the staff we wouldn't be uh we the the staff the the agencies that here that are paying rent wouldn't probably
stay in this building correct and you you want to explain that whole process then I would like to continue if I would >> well that's one of the options I think like I said it before I think for the board to understand the the big picture yes >> the financials are the biggest decision
so in order to have the understanding was the point today to ask that. >> Yeah. >> Now those details is this is that proposal of building a justice center, renovating the health and human services building which in return could might
free up some space for the tenants. Maybe not all tenants, I don't even know that would then move down to the county office building. They would still be a tenant. Um none those details quite haven't been worked out. It's it's what
would the financial need to understand then in order for the board to make a well-informed decision. >> Those fine-tuned details would have to be worked through um that dollar amount >> and that would affect though but the remodeling is going to be a design. So
we have to have that design and so who stays here and who doesn't stay here and if we do the the justice center then I'm assuming it was to I was told too that community corrections will be moving over there so that's going to open up so we do have to do some of that planning if we're going to look at the whole pol
correct but the board hasn't approved anything with the schematic design yet I mean that's that's right I'm not saying that's right >> but that's the concept behind the whole thing that's the driving force for this so that is part of it if I may say it that way. And my other concern then is I
would assume it could also be broke up that if we just wanted to do the justice center, we could do this the justice center and not make all these other changes as well, which potentially could happen and which is kind of uh being planned for to some degree. We don't know if it'll actually work out that way
to move the downtown office out here. Uh, but the public is going to have to vote on on this optional sales tax in this year coming up. Uh, I assume >> necessarily, >> not necessarily, but don't we want it to start gaining those dollars if we're
going to do anything as soon as possible to move on it. So once we vote on it, I assume we could start collecting dollars. Am I correct? Um, and so I think we got other options and at our probably in our next meeting we're going
have to really look at where we want to go if we want to go and I'm just really struggling with this, you know, as the term was used this madness with the federal and state government that we've been having for the last couple years and it's going to get worse in the next two or three years and we talked about
that and we talked about the trouble with the budget we have now. I'm feeling feeling very uncomfortable about, you know, when you're talking tens of millions dollars just to remodel buildings or building new buildings at this point. Uh so I'm real hesitant
about this and I think we needed as a board to spend more time talking about that part of it as well. But we need need to know the financial we're getting and I think you you're giving me the big picture on that. all the little details of, you know, that this falls in place
or that doesn't fall in place. But no matter what doesn't or does fall in place, it it is a lot of uh taxpayers dollars be it optional sales tax or property tax. And uh
>> we had truth and taxation uh just our last meeting and you know one person was practically in tears saying I can't afford my house and uh even though it's a small amount a half a percent or uh addition on a sales tax that adds up
that adding up to millions and millions of dollars and then you take a half a percent add add on to everything a person does practically that uh even though people coming into our community would pay for that we're also paying for that unless we're going some other place to shop with our stuff.
>> So, it is a big decision we make. This is one of the biggest decisions this board financially had to make for a very long time. So, I think we need to take our time and not be pushed in. Hey, we got one month we have to decide this. And I think there's so many little other
pieces. You know, what's going to happen to the old courthouse then, you know, and how we how much money are we going to get for that? And it's it's hard to put this all together in this shorter time and it's hard for me to wrap my head around that that that's I have I'll have a lot of questions going on.
>> Commissioner Mdeck and then Commissioner Anderson. >> Thank you. Uh one mine is more of mechanics. >> Sure. Um, so December 3, January 31st is deadline for applying for uh whether or not we
want to do a consider a local option sales tax. Is there a public hearing related to that too as well as it being on the amendment or or on the ballot or just goes to the ballot? It it it's it's by resolution to get to that date. And
then after that, then we work with the legislature, right, as we move forward, right? The other resolution is approving that legislation and the referendum. And so there's no public there's no public hearing, but we certainly could have information
meetings. Okay. That that's that's a nonal. >> I thought we had to do a public hearing for Yeah. But but that might >> So may may I >> So the the public hearing would be on on the capital improvement plan bonds. Maybe that's what you're thinking about. >> Okay.
>> Um that there would be a public hearing there for for the bond issue, right? So, so that that approval would be, you know, would need a three-fifths of the full county board. And then there would be a what we call a reverse referendum period after the public hearing, which is a 30-day
period that um we as the county could receive a petition um equal to I think at least 5% of the voters in the last municipal general election that would be um brought forth to county staff and that could uh
trigger a resolution or a um election on the on the bond issue itself. So that would be that would be that would be different than the legislation, right? So so that could that could happen, right? And we've heard of that happening throughout the state lately um on some
on some projects. Um I think a lot of the times maybe it hasn't been um the project hasn't been brought forth to the public um in a non-legal um hearing way. could be um more informational meetings needed, things like that for the public
to to come and see what's going on. Um the push back I I I see throughout the state is that I wasn't really um told this was happening even though these are all public meetings right now and stuff we probably talked about for years, right? It's it's an invitation uh to get the public to come and see what's going
on like school districts do a lot of times too. They do public and then then we talk about tax impacts. We talk about how we could offset this if we've we've sort of got um some of that uh local option sales tax kind of being baked into this as well. And that's where kind
of we talk about that too. So the project plus what the impact is and we try to answer as many questions as we can for the public and we might have to hold another one, right? Just not one and done sometimes and then we and then we go to this to this legal one at that
point. So hopefully that helps. So the informational meetings are >> Yeah, >> I understand. So if we would do a combination of a >> uh bond >> Mhm. >> and a local option sales tax, the bond would require a public hearing.
>> Yeah. The capital improvement bond would. >> Yep. And then the local option sales tax would be on the ballot, but it would not require a public hearing. Now, the the transit sales tax required a public hearing, but they have a little different law. they did not need to get the legislative uh approval first. So,
>> right, that was already in the law. You just had had to approve it, right? So, that was kind of, you know, here's your public hearing now kind of thing, right? And so, that would be a what we call a a sales tax revenue bond then, right? So, um and that would be just a simple board majority on that one,
>> but that one required a public hearing. >> That one that that the sales tax one would not. >> No, the transit one did. >> The transit one did and the capital improvement plan one will. >> Okay. And so my my last point that I wanted to make as part of the line of
questions is we could make application to the legislature to meet that deadline of January 31st. >> Mhm. >> But we don't have to use it. >> Correct. >> If if it's granted to us, we have two years. Did I understand? >> Yeah. Y >> before before it would expire and we'd
have to reapply. >> Yep. You can stop the train anytime you want as we as we say. Yep. >> Dale and then Corky again. >> Yep. So that Roger kind of answered and said what I was thinking. We do have some some doorkeepers in here that we we
can get out of certain things through this process because I think there's a lot of keys to this puzzle that have to all work out together and if if one of those pieces of that puzzle don't match up, we probably don't want to do it. >> Correct. >> So I think we're not as long as we're
not going to get ourselves tied in that we can't um stop the process by doing the sales tax. I think it's very foolish not to look at that even if we don't ever do this project because I have this really crazy idea like what Corki said.
We have a really different government right now. Maybe next year they're going to say no, you can't do that. We aren't going to give no we're not going to give no sales tax things out. So if we don't do it when everybody else is this time, I I really have concern about that we might never get that opportunity for a number of years again. So, as long as we
have gatekeepers in here that we can get out of these agreements, I think we're foolish not to pursue it. >> Good point. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. A a couple of uh lost my train of thought here a little bit. You were I was want to answer uh
Commissioner Mdeck made a made a comment about this optional sales tax. Uh well, once we start if it passes and we get the dollars, we cannot stop. Those dollars have to go towards a project, right? I mean, you just don't put this in the fund for something else. So, we
have to do that. And so, we are really committed and that's coming up. I really would like to see hear public input. I mean, it's like we're going so far down the road before we really get public input on this. And I really would like to have as much public input in making this decision. Are we heading the right
way that you want us to go? uh because I hear from the public that they're they're not into bricks and mortar neither. Uh and we've been talking about a new jail uh uh for uh decades at least two. And uh waiting one or two or three
or four more years, you know, may not be that bad of a deal neither. But I think uh something we got to look at and I I I commend everybody for all the work and time and and I want to thank you. And I don't mean to be putting you on the spot at this, but I'm just trying to put it
all together and I appreciate whatever ever is happening. And it's good we're having this conversation, but I think we have to slow this down and and look at this closer before we move on too too much faster. So, and we got to move on. >> Yep. Thank you. Uh, and a last call for
any uh comments, questions. Just just to make sure that we all understand that if we went to the legislature by the end of January, that doesn't make commitment to us. >> Yeah. >> There is no commitment there because then we'd have to put it on the ballot
either the next election or the following election. >> But and then we put it on the ballot though, that's when we >> once you put it on the ballot, then we're committed. But that could be a, >> you know, almost a year away and almost two years away. >> Oh, no. We were talking about the ballot
this coming year, right? >> Wait, but that's 11 months from now. >> Yeah, but wouldn't you want to start collecting the money? Okay. >> Never have the plan either. >> Well, then we would put All right. Okay. >> The plan the the schematic design of a complex like this is not going to happen
in five months. It's not going to happen in six months. the planning, you know, um would be expected for sure minimum a year um to to design a facility, coordinate meetings, scheduling everything, getting
staff, wled staff out here, you know, all of that >> traditional district. >> Yeah. I mean, that that would be so to commissioner of it might not get on the ballot in that year. Um, and so I think like I said, um, I
guess my intention of having Todd here today and speaking with the chair was to get this in front of you one more time to ask those questions to have more of that timeline concrete and then we can always add this on the agenda in January
for further discussion or of a board work session. >> All right. >> You bet. >> Um, I think uh I think this has been helpful. >> Thank you. Uh, and I think that uh uh we've got some we've got some work ahead
of us and uh uh and some uh clearly strategizing that uh that we would need to do if we do go down that local option. >> Sure. >> Want to thank you for being here today and uh thank you so much for helping us with this.
>> Thanks for having me. I appreciate it. And uh if you have any questions, filter them through Kelsey. Happy to answer any questions you guys have. So, thanks a lot. Okay. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you so much. Uh Kelsey, you have on here review 2026 work plan. Uh did you want to just comment on that
from here? >> Sure. We added um so like I I did I've done this last year and then I added it in this year. Um we have on there uh the work sessions that are scheduled. So no
surprises then they would be scheduled and the the department the respective departments are putting these on. Um I think we've almost I think all of the departments have taken a month to present um to ensure that the county board hears from all departments. We added a community corrections work
session at the April 7th meeting. Um and then just some ancillary items that always come to board um at that time anyways. And so this is just like I usually keep the draft on there um for you guys to review, but it it may
hopefully it will help with your scheduling of other meetings and the work sessions and things like that. >> Um I got one question Wayne and then so in February though the legislative session isn't on there.
>> I didn't put any conference. Okay. I don't think I mean maybe >> cuz I saw you had one for like Niko >> is it? >> That's just because we usually move the meeting. >> Okay. Okay. >> Um >> but yeah, we I didn't put like the AMC
fall none of the AMC conferences on there. But this is a you know if you guys want to move work sessions or anything like that, uh please let me know and we can always get that scheduled. But this is just a tentative. Nothing is set in stone outside of obviously the board meeting. Otherwise,
I think this is I I like seeing these. So, yeah. Very good. Roger. >> I'm just I I think I'm just seeing two meetings a month here. >> I don't see the work sessions on here. Am I missing? >> Right. >> In the afternoon of those board meetings that we've typically done.
>> Oh, >> I uh I I I do think we're going to be relatively busy this year. Of course. I can think of uh two other items that may or may not take up some time, but of course we'll have to uh uh let the DNR know on rifle or shotgun for deer
hunting. Uh I know that we have a letter from uh uh Sherburn County that they're asking us to take action on and that may or may not take up some time. Uh just, you know, things like that that typically come down uh come down the road and uh that we'll have to put some
time in on. Uh but uh uh between that and what we've just uh heard and everything else uh we're going to be busy. >> Absolutely. Probably a lot more than we even thought of. Mr. Chair made his comment. Yes. I really hope we have a
a board discussion about the the use of the rifle and the slugs going forward. Also, I think I'm might be really good that at the next board meeting in January to try to get an update from the sheriff of just a regular update what's
going on and he's willing to do it, but he just kind of like what kind of information would you want to know? >> Yeah. And I think this be probably a good time with everything that's happening that we would come up with a plan and give him some things that >> I see he's scheduled for an update in
August, but uh uh but certainly uh have discussions about bringing him in a little early. >> Um anyone else with anything otherwise? >> I would just go ahead. you brought up um you know the no wake zone, the shotgun
thing, shotgun versus rifle, probably a few other things for consideration that we we could just talk about and see whether or not they could advance to discussion because I know at at AMC at the AMC level, uh short-term rental is
becoming a conversation. >> Yep. Yep. Absolutely. that uh that and a dozen other items came across my uh uh committee uh at general government uh uh and uh surprisingly we got through that
uh in better time than I've been able to make uh here today. So apologize for that. Before I let before I let you go, uh I just wanted to uh uh mention one one other thing for the folks out there. uh in case you hadn't heard u one of our
own was uh honored at the recent uh AMC uh annual conference and uh uh Commissioner Roger Mdeck was uh uh named one of two recipients of the prestigious uh president's award uh at the uh
conference for his uh uh for his work uh uh as a commissioner and uh and at AMC and uh uh I understand it was a little bit of a surprise because they don't tell you about it. Uh but your family was able to be there and uh just wanted
to give that public recognition to you once again and uh offer you the opportunity to say a word or two about >> Well, I appreciate that and I I truly believe there's literally dozens of commissioners from around the state that
uh are deserving of this. Uh it was my turn. I appreciate it and uh um I I appreciate I I've enjoyed all the work I've done. One of the things that the president indicated was that not only the work you do in your own community, but work you do on behalf of all 87
counties and and I think that was a high criteria. So, I appreciate the note. Thank you. >> You're you're you're quite welcome. And uh uh with that, I think we've uh exhausted ourselves of uh the business that we have today. We'll be meeting
with our legislators in about half an hour and we're going to be doing that downstairs. >> Uh so at this point in time uh we will adjourn the Candy County Board of Commissioners.