Good evening. No problem. >> Nice sunny getting to be really hot uh July, but it's July. It's supposed to be hot summertime. So, we start our meeting with public comment. Um and people will know we have a new podium. So, hopefully it will be a
little easier for people to hold all their paperwork. Um but you have two minutes. You can step up to the podium. We ask you to say your name and your address. and you can address us about any anything any topic on your mind. We do have the timer on the board. So we ask you to try to adhere to the twominut
to allow for multiple speakers. So and and if anybody is online >> not anybody >> nobody nobody tonight >> there's one person that I but >> so anybody in the audience would like to address the Winona County Board please
step forward. Good evening. My name is Richard Anderson, 26709 Severs Drive, Rushford, Minnesota. Um, I've been here before on trespass and I'm back on rifles. I'm opposed to it. Number one, I don't think we need it.
We've been 80 plus years without them. Um, it's we get a lot of people deer hunting in this area from out of the area. So, we need to take a stand in our area, I believe, to uh to to do what we think is right for our community. And I think
it's safety is number one concern. I have a road. I was just telling Marshall earlier, I have roads on all side of my property. And like I said earlier, I was here on the trespass issue before. If I don't know who's in my woods and I can't stop them, the bullets get closer.
They're not next to me typically my property, but they will be um eventually. Now, this is if this was um Houston has taken it up. I think Dodge County, Freeborn County, and >> are we sure? >> Homestead.
>> Homemstead. Oh, have already opted out of the uh this. It uh made the news on I'm gonna >> Houston has not >> Houston is not, but this was in the news. I'll just hand this if you want to look at it. >> You got me. Thank you. >> Yep. >> But uh I just don't think we need it.
Guns in kids' hands. They already we have we have enough weapons out of the woods right now. I don't think we need to add this to it. Um so anyway, I just wanted to voice my opposition and that's all I I have and I have 30 seconds left. Thank you. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you, >> Zayn Jacobson. uh 33095 County Road 25 Rushford and uh I'm another one that's uh against uh rifles. Um I'm a hunter. Huntered all my life.
Had no problem at all killing deer with um shotguns. Um I've got a hole in one of my buildings uh on my property from a slug. Uh I'm surrounded by state land. We have a number of big parties that come in and
hunt and it's uh uh set and counted shots. One morning group of hunters came in. I don't know how many were in the group that were hunting but there was over 60 shots and they got two deer. Now I don't know why you have to shoot that many times. Um you know I always figured
one shot one deer. >> Bad shot. >> Bad shot. So, with that being said, uh, shotgun shells don't carry as far. I already have a hole in one of my buildings, and I'm, like I say, I'm surrounded by state land. Uh, there's
been numerous times from my property out to Highway 43 is about 3 miles, and there was 44 vehicles parked in that. So, I don't know how many hunters that is, how many vehicles, but if they're shooting that many times with
shotguns, you come in with highowered rifles and you're launching shells all over, they carry a hell of a lot farther. So, uh I think it just comes down to a safety issue. And I don't know what what
what we're gaining by going to high-owered rifles. I've never had any problem killing deer with a shotgun or a muzzle loader. Why do we need to make things more dangerous when people are bringing their kids out in the woods in the state land want to take their kid hunting and you got these big groups
come in pushing deer and throwing high-powered shells all over. I don't I don't get it. I can't hardly agree with it and I think anybody concerned about safety would see it that way. So there you go. Time's up. >> Perfect.
>> Thank you. Take care. >> Thank you. >> Before we start that, can I do a disclaimer? >> Sure. Uh, so as a disclaimer, I am not uh stating anything any beliefs on behalf of Winona County Sheriff's
Department, Winona County ERT, or any affiliates in regards to law enforcement. I am solely here as a citizen of Winona County. Uh, my name is John Hazelton. I live in the city of Winona. And if the board's okay, we'll leave it at that. Uh, I am
actually in favor of the rifle zone. And if we were in a court of law and we had time to go through all of my credentials, certificates, and training, and expertise, I would be considered an expert in the field. Uh, listening to the last gentleman speak,
he talked about hearing 60 shots near his property when there were 40 vehicles near the property. This isn't going to change the amount of hunters that are in the woods. What it will change, it'll change the amount of shots that are being fired. Uh, rifles are far more accurate, uh, and typically affixed with
a scope, making them far more accurate, and you hear more of the single shot, two shots, uh, and wellplaced shots, and the deer expires, and that's the end of it. Uh, as far as, you know, someone's building getting hit with shotgun slugs,
that absolutely is is something that can happen with shotguns, muzzle loaders, and rifles. What people need to remember in regards to this, and I know the county like the back of my hand, there is no remote area remote enough that if you shot a shotgun or a muzzle loader in
a direction unsafeely, that shell does not have the potential to go over a road, to a house, or to a civilian. So, when you're talking parabolic arc of a shotgun compared to a rifle, there is no difference. It's not going to change
the safety if one can go further than the other. If you adopt that theory, you're in essence saying that someone's life at a quarter of a mile is less valuable than someone's life at a half mile. And back to what I said, there is nowhere in this county that a shotgun
shell would not possibly travel over a road, over a house, or over a human being. So, if we limit the amount of rounds being fired, the accuracy of the weapon, we're going to reduce the risk of potential harm or danger or damage to
property. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else wishing to address the Winona County Board? Any any topic? It doesn't need to be. Good evening. >> Good evening. Hello. My name is M.
Shepardson. I live at 216 West 6th Street in Winona. I am a care worker and a mutual aid organizer in this community. Growing up in Dakota, Minnesota, our family motto was we care for each other. And I usually heard this most often after a fight with my sisters
caught my parents attention. As an adult, it motivates me to be a community member that my parents are proud of. This past winter, a few friends and I provided more than 500 warm home-cooked meals to the warming center. It was a labor of love and a commitment to
showing that we care. In 2024, 86 unique individuals stayed at the warming center and had somewhere to sleep and eat during the coldest months of the year because people in Winona cared. Now it's July. The day center is projected to close in September and Winona County is
still 1500 units short. The day and warming center are vital resources for the most vulnerable members of our community. Most of Winona is much closer to qualifying for emergency services than they are qualifying for a loan to buy a home. If we care for each other,
we act like it. Unhoused folks are not a burden in this community. They are our neighbors. And I want to come to the board and encourage all of us to be good neighbors. Um and by doing that, we will protect the day in the warming center. Thank you. Thank you.
>> Yeah. >> Is there anyone else wishing to address the Winona County Board? And this will be the last request. Anybody else wishing to address the Winona County Board? Okay. All right. Thank you. Uh we'll
move on to item number four, approval of the county board meeting minutes from July 8th, 2025. >> So move I'll second that. >> Have a motion by Commissioner Elins by Commissioner Olsen to approve the meeting minutes July 8th.
>> It was >> well I no he >> they're close to >> he was softer spoken. See I've got one one ear is >> my left side is a little >> I think Mr. You want to argue about it? We'll take >> sure feels feels bad.
>> Oh, shake. Goodbye. Centennial report. >> Okay. All right. Recorded as Elen and Olsen. All those in favor say I. I. >> Oppos. Nay. Meeting minutes approved. Uh consent comments and approval of the agenda. Uh Commissioner Vagley,
>> one comment at the end, please. >> Commissioner Eling, >> I'd like to just 65 if we could. I just got a couple questions or comments on that. >> Okay, we can move 65 to 7.0. It'll be short.
All right. Uh, Commissioner Olsen, >> nothing for me. >> Commissioner Meyer, >> uh, I want to give a committee report. Miss Holy, >> nothing, Madam Chair. >> Okay. Uh, I would like to pull 6.3 for a
a separate vote. So, we'll make that seven 7.01. Again, just for a separate vote, please. And a possible comment at the end. >> Commissioner Warden, our county attorney.
>> Yeah, you keep forgetting me. >> No, I don't keep forgetting you, but go ahead. She did that on purpose. Go ahead. >> I'll see to ask. Yeah. Okay. Fine. >> Uh, can you point that policy out to me? And >> if notes, >> we can create one.
>> Okay. As a courtesy sitting here. Um, I have nothing. So, thank you. >> All right. Nothing. All right. Thank you. All right. With those um, we have an amended. >> Move to approve the agenda as it was
amended. >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion by Commissioner Meyer, seconded by Commissioner Olson to approve the amended agenda. Any discussion? >> All those in favor say I. I. >> Post nay. Okay. Approved. All right. Miss Holty, if you'd read the remaining
items of the consent business into the record, please. >> We'll do. 6.1 Approve State of Minnesota 2025 2026 cooperative agreement to fund treatment court. 6.2 to approve renewal of purchase of service agreement with
Olmstead County for specialized case management for clients of ANOA Metro Regional Treatment Center and Minnesota Security Hospital. 6.4 Approve updated tobacco policy 610. 6.6 Approve resolution for donations
received April 1st through June 30th, 2025. And 6.7 confirm payment of dispersements. I'll move to approve the consent items. >> I'll second. We have a motion by Commissioner Vagely, seconded by Commissioner Meyer to approve the consent business items. Any discussion?
All those in favor say I. >> I. Post. Nay. Okay, those are approved. Um, so this is pulling our our two items. Um, 6.5 was pulled. Approve updated overtime and compensatory time policy 3.10. That
was on page 41. I just wanted to bring that up and thank you. I actually had to call Marsha on a separate issue and she filled me in on some of the information that you had given her and it my question originally was and with my travels I haven't had time to do this but was you know we are we seeing an
increase in that and it was confirmed that that is going up. Um, now you know, as I alluded to, uh, in our conversation, I just said, well, a lot of times that's, you know, the argument is going to be it's a proof that we need more staff or some something to some
extent, but really is there, you know, the department heads, um, I mean, overtime is a big thing in any business and and in any agency, I guess. Um, is there how closely is that being monitored? Is are we setting standards? I know in my company I set standards and
say, "Hey, you at 40, we're done." And then we'll review what needs to actually happen versus what's nice to happen. What What are we doing to I mean, that's a pretty big number, 800 or on track for 800 and some thousand just in overtime and compensation. Um so that's a that's
a that's not a small number. um is it I guess just a little bit of an explanation why we continue to see that number grow uh even though we're adding more staff but yet this number still grows on top of it with I'm just trying to figure out why we're doing that and
who's who's really saying hey guys is there a policy put into place like I have to say hey we get to this and then we review something so >> madam chair mayor >> yes >> um so there's other pieces to the equation. So the request was how much
overtime have we expended and so we gave those dollars but what's not reflected in those numbers is the fact that we pay overtime when we're short staffed and so the salary line items are not getting expended but the overtime is showing. Do
you see what I'm saying? >> Well again >> by not looking at well what didn't we spend in the regular wages we're really not seeing a fair comparison on budget. But overall, if we continue, if the if the idea of adding more staff to fill the void, but yet we still continue to
spend more money on overtime, I I would have to think that if we're adding full-time staff, we should see a reduction somewhere else. Correct. >> We're seeing a reduction in the regular wages of >> and and let me let me just give a
example if I may. So, the dispatch center is a prime example. So, we budget for some overtime because it's just going to happen and then we also budget for um the number of staff that we need. Well, when you have turnover and you're
three, four people down, you're paying that much more in overtime, but you're not expending your regular line item for wages. Do you see what I'm saying? >> I I >> So, it's really not a apples to apples, >> but overall, we're still up in total
amount of employees. Correct. >> I think we're one. Well, other than the once, >> but if we went back two, three years ago since I've been on the board, >> you know, we could we've continued to add employees every year, but yet this number continues to go up with it. >> In 2025, we did. Otherwise, it's been
one position that has been increased to the number of FTEEs. >> Okay. >> Commissioner Meer. >> Yeah. So, just to clarify, what we're saying is that we have vacancies. >> We do. And when we have vacancies, sometimes people have to do over. It is
not justification for increasing staff, >> right? >> And it is it is not that this there isn't sufficient staff. It's that someone we have vacant positions. >> It's a combination because there are areas that we are short staffed and they
are asking for more staff. There's also the other side of the coin of um I lost my train of thought. I'm sorry. >> Before you jump back on it, let me ask
you this question. Is it in your opinion is it costneutral? Is it are we ahead paying the overtime >> in some areas? Yes. in some areas. No. >> Be interesting. >> And to answer your one of your previous
questions about who's monitoring what what is our policy. So depending on the department head as to what they are establishing as their policy, if you will. The direction from me as the administrator is we don't pay it unless
we have to. Um Mr. Um, who are you? >> Elliot. >> Instructor Elliot. >> Yes. >> Um, you can attest to your conversations with the department managers in reference to overtime that you just
followed up with folks. >> Yes. Yep. >> Y >> and I can confirm what you said about the dispatch center. A lot of it's driven by vacancies that they have. So when they have mandatory staffing, so they've got to put certain number of bodies in that room over there. And sometimes they've got to pay people
overtime because they just don't have enough people. And it and that seems to be the case with their and in the jail. Um what uh um Captain Buzzwell said was they have people that are on medical leave. So again, they're short-handed. So in order to meet this minimum
staffing at the jail, it's the same situation where they got to pay people overtime to meet the minimum requirements because they don't have enough people. Um, and with the sheriff, um, and I've got to dig into this further. I I need to prove out my theory, but I believe with the sheriff,
anybody that's working on Christmas or New Year's or or any holiday, uh, it's all overtime and it's all posted into the overtime code. >> So, it's it's it's a function of the way we code hours worked on a holiday. It
looks like overtime, although a lot of it isn't because it's some of it's straight time and some of it's triple time. So, it's it's some of it you're going to end up with that no matter what. And I'm trying to figure out what that base number is so that we can really pinpoint where are we above that
base and that's the stuff that you know Ron's got to look at. >> Yeah. None of this I mean I I com you know can concur with a lot. I I understand we're very seasonal in what we do. So, it's we're we're in my business, we're much better to pay somebody overtime if they're willing to
work that than to hire a person that's not needed nine months out of the year. So, I there's nothing against this. My thing is is it at some point it becomes more cost effective to add a person versus continue to pay full. And then there's a lot of times when it's way
more effective to pay overtime than when it is to add another person, especially if you can't easily eliminate that person, which governments have an issue doing. So my my question was, is the number continues to increase? And as you know, public perception of adding staff
to a decreasing community and in population numbers, the justification for that number to continue to go up and if we add staff, we should realistically hopefully see that number go down to offset part of that. and and some of those we the people we had in 2025 have
just come aboard. So, I mean it. >> Yeah, we're projected at 409, I think, was the number halfway through. >> 409 is what I gave Commissioner >> She shared that with me when I called her on the Actually, it was a >> Yep. >> Yeah. Okay. So, Commissioner Olsson, >> so I just was reading the city of
Minneapolis has police department overtime of $500,000 for one person. >> What? >> No. >> One person >> that's been abused in some areas. So that's >> well and it's the oversight >> and that's been going on for
>> Yeah. >> 500 $500,000 >> I guess if if I may. >> Well, and it's supposed to be to it's supposed to be pre preapproved. >> Yeah. It's it's an easy area and I've seen this in multiple areas to kind of exploit. They're allowed to slip through the cracks a little bit. Just, you know,
yep, that's fine. You know, you work the overtime, fill in the void, and sure as not going to give you a hard time because you're willing to put in that little time. So it's it's one that can build up a lot of unnecessary expense if isn't managed correctly. And I just was curious as to the process in which you know how how tight of thumb are the
department heads really keeping or is this a lax situation and is there anything we can do as administration to be sure that this number doesn't continue to grow especially if we're going to look at and allowing more staff to come on board to our decreasing population. So I just wanted to address it publicly.
>> Mr. vaguely. >> Um, with that, um, double checking, I'll move to approve what had been formally item 6.5, approve updated overtime and compensatory time policy. >> I'll second that. >> We have a motion by Commissioner Vaguely, second by Commissioner Meyer,
uh, to approve the policy. I do have a couple more questions. Um, I didn't understand the all the compens compensatory time, the 80 hours. Is that 80 hours a calendar year or 80 hours for your length of employment or 80 hours?
Where does that 80 hours you say you pay uh in cash? What is that 80 hours back to? >> So if they reach the maximum that they can have acred on the books, there is a payout um at the end of the calendar year.
>> Okay. So is everybody all of our employees have this 80 hour factor or is that very >> by the collective bargaining agreement? >> Okay. All right. And so now with our federal laws changing overtime is that going to be you know because we when we
pay overtime we're kicking in um para dollars uh workman's comp dollars you know all these things that go with salaries that we you don't think about. So will the laws changed. Will that maybe help us a little or yet to be seen? We don't have the details on how they're going to implement that yet.
>> Didn't he say no tax on >> tax on over time? >> Yeah, it should in theory, but >> yeah, >> I don't know how that's going to be administered. Yeah, >> it might help. And um I do want to compliment Chuck. He was very um >> Thank you. very thorough. Lots lots of
great information. Um answered he he answered all my questions. I do have to say though, I couldn't print those numbers uh large enough. It just I need I had a different I I I could read them but I I appreciate the the prompt uh response to my questions. Okay. Uh all
those in favor of approving the policy say I >> post nay. Okay. Policy is approved. Um but I I think the discussion is more to be had you know in our whole budgeting process and um how we how we monitor it and how we hold people accountable.
Thank you. Um okay then going to um the next item was 6.3 approve the non-UN wage grid amendment. Um what the the emergency management position changed from um is is there a change in
responsibilities or why why did we change from what let me get to it. Was it manager to >> director? Yeah, we we changed from ads director removes coordinator and what
what does that do to me? >> What does that do? >> Person in the job. Do they get paid more? I mean, and they aren't um >> contract >> management. I mean, he's he's a staff of one. >> Um so again, why why the change, I
guess. So looking at the market and what his position, we did an analysis of that and determined that he should be reflective of his job and that's the job channel that we we um looked at with you know looking at other counties as well as the pay comparison to our comparable
counties um and the hay which is now corn ferry study on that. It's what? >> Corn fairy. Used to be hay when you heard us say hay. The name changed to cornfairy. So yeah, >> it does, you know, and Midwest.
>> What term? Fairy. >> I didn't bring that with me. >> Okay. All right. >> But that's why it was um so and it took us some time to get through that. So >> but unfortunately no pay for performance issues are
>> related to this. >> Yes. Am I right that at the pay scale that he was at that the individual could have potentially gone back to being a deputy sheriff and made more money? >> Um I believe yeah I believe so. I mean
because he you look at our comparisons. Yeah. The overtime definitely. But you look at the comparisons it was under and that's why we so chose to make that recommendation. >> Did you want me to answer? Oh, good. >> No. I mean, I I know it's on everybody's radar because I've been saying it for 20
years and maybe someday I'll get my wish. >> I was born then, so just kidding. >> Yeah. >> Okay, Commissioner Vaguely. >> Um, I'll move to approve what had been formally item 6.3 approved non-UN wage grid amendments for 2527. >> I'll second that. >> And we have a motion by Commissioner
Vaguely, seconded by Commissioner Meyer to approve the non-union wage grid amendment 2025 to 2027. Commissioner Eling, >> we actually brought this up and had some conversations about this pay for performance and you know, are we making
any headway? Have we given any thought to any of these scenarios about truly rewarding the employees we feel are doing what they should be doing or are we is it are we getting closer to beginning to maybe have that discussion
and really hey if you are doing what if if a department head sees somebody doing up and above what they should be doing and it's warding off an expense I don't disagree we we should be somehow rewarding that person um no different than the person that pulls in more sales
than the next person, they should be rewarded. But there's a there's a Bayside. It's no different than the cost of living adjustment, all these things that we bring into discussion. So, um, have we given any more thought to that? >> Yes, Mr. Sadler and I are working on a
presentation for the board. So, we are anticipating having a working session. >> Um, but we're working >> Okay. >> the whole compensation philosophy. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Fair enough. >> Okay. So, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I.
>> I. Post. Nay. Thank you. >> We'll look forward to that conversation. >> Okay. Then to our general business item 7.1. Discuss determined 2026 SEMRA allocation and approval of preliminary levy resolution.
And Buffy, hopefully you didn't get any speeding tickets getting here. >> I did not. >> Break any laws or rules that put us all at risk? >> No. >> Okay. Good. Good evening. >> Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board. Buffy Brick, executive director of SEMRA. Um, as you know, I'm here tonight to talk about the 2026
preliminary levy for the HA. Um, the sooner we can set that levy, um, that would be preferable. That allows us to plan. Um, so, um, if we need to have further discussion, more than happy to have that. Um, our request this year is
for $144,234. A request last year was for 126,927. That increase is related to two key things. The first being federal cuts and the second being risk mitigation. Within risk mitigation,
um we're looking at structuring controls positions within SMRA. One of those key areas is my position, which is CEO, CFO. Um our accounting department has an amazing accountant. um we want to bring in somebody else that has equal or more
experience um that can help foster that and alleviate um some of that risk. That's not just coming from me, that's coming from our external auditors as a recommendation or suggestion too for that. Um I'll talk about some of the other um staffing um stuff in a moment.
Um the other um and maybe more related to those staffing is the regulation compliance and addressing the needs of our clients in the legal side. um we need to have the staff at the right level knowing and supporting so that we don't
have issues from a legal comp or a compliance standpoint. So within our community development department, we want to do a reorg and have a community development director. So again, being able to bring in more dollars to SMRA. Um right now a lot of that's temporarily
done by me too. So, um, again, that would be a good thing for SEMRA and hopefully ultimately the counties by bringing in more dollars for you. Um, and ideally, if we're bringing in more dollars, then we can back off even on this levy request. Um, and then the final thing or the final position within
there is for a housing coordinator. Talked a little bit about a housing navigator. Um, I like the term housing navigator, but in terms of positions that we already have, we have a housing coordinator. What that individual would do is when calls are coming in, they can send the client to wherever they need
it, which might be the county, it might be um Three Rivers Community Action, could be a CAP agency, SECAC, um or it could be within our own organization. Um that will help lift off some of the pressure from our departments who need to focus more on regulation. There's a
lot of regulation. Even though we had a change at the top, who wants a lot less regulation? We still have a lot of regulation going on and a lot of changes. Um, it's still happening and we're still feeling that pressure. So, getting into the meat and potatoes of
the request, it's still the same components as we've always had. We have our general fund levy request, which is $69,734. Just a sidebar on our general fund. I'm probably getting into the financial details a little bit too much here, but that is my background. Our general fund
is funded by levy and by programs. Programs pay money in there. So, this isn't a 100% levy request and when I can and if the programs are going and have that that ability to fund that, they do. Um otherwise, we're having to come in and fund it with a levy. The key piece
within there is a shortfall within section 8. So top level federal government is saying we need to cut um we need to keep our assistance to individuals the same. So what happens? Assistance is the same. Your rents are
going up. I serve fewer people. So not that it's about not about the people that we're serving, but in order for me to have the people to serve the people, I need administrative dollars. So I'm serving fewer people. I get less admin revenue coming in. I have a
shortfall there. On top of that, the federal government saying your admin fee, we're going to cut that, too. So, we're we're projecting a shortfall even after taking on the city of Winona. We're projecting a shortfall of $60,000.
Um the CFO housing navigator impact on that general fund is about 31,000 to levy dollars about 62,000 um overall I'm sorry 62,000 overall for the section 8 shortfalls 31,000 for levy this is overall we split the general fund
between all four counties and then the staffing component of that the CFO and the and and the um housing navigator is 32,000 or 16,000 towards the levy for all the counties. Um, so general fund, community development and housing
development. I talked about the um, community development director. There's a cost to do that. And what we're what we are requesting is that all four of our counties pay for a portion of our community development department. Um, I
was just in front of Dodge County and they got the news that we'd like to have this. They haven't paid that portion of the levy in the past. um five six years ago now they started contributing to Sumptra again um and then now adding in this community development is going to
be key so I'm hopeful that they will fund that piece of it um of our three FTEES in order to fund the community development director and this department we are going to need about.7 of an FTE
funded by the counties that's roughly 2 of an FTE by each of the counties or 1725. Um, so what does the community development department do for you? Um, they write the grants. They administer the grants. This is our small cities programs. These
are our rehab programs. This is the housing trust funds that they administer. Um, the community development um and housing development is a total request of 49,000. In there are things that you've seen in the past. That's the continuing funding of the go
bonds on the Lewon projects and the match money for the for the grant writing that we do as well. The remainder is then for the funding of staff. The last item under community development is the request to continue to fund the housing trust fund for 25,000.
So in sum summary the total request is 140,234 general fund roughly 70,000 community development 495 and a housing trust fund for 25,000. >> Commissioner Vley >> just to get up on the table for
discussion and um we don't of course don't need to approve it. I'll move to approve the SIM request for the full $144,234 amount. >> I'll second that. >> We have a motion to approve the
preliminary preliminary approval of the 144,234 made by Commissioner Vagley, second by Commissioner Meyer. Discussion. No. Um I'm trying to figure out that now your housing trust fund
we got money from the state and there I thought we were still getting some money or that went it dropped significantly. >> Yes. So there's SAHA state affordable housing aid that the counties uh receive and
for 24 and 25 that money was given to Sumpshire to put into the housing trust fund. >> Right. And last year you provided the 25,000 of the levy. So we're asking for that same amount from the levy to go into the housing trust fund.
And yes, the SAHA in theory that's probably another separate board action item that the 2026 money that's coming in would go into fund the housing. >> So if we took the the the
25 that you're looking for for housing trust fund. That that that's just that's not SAHA dollars or anything. That's just you're just asking for local levy from outside the city Winona to pay you the extra 25,000 for housing trust fund.
Okay. So that's that's extra. I mean, you kind of wear me down that I'm willing to approve what we gave you last year, but not we I can't uh justify um to my taxpayers. Um not that you don't do good things, and Buffy does
marvelous. She is she is a great juggler. She has multiple things in in the air at the same time and and does a great job. But that we're looking at a 14% increase. There's no way my taxpayers can afford a 14% increase. That's what you say in the You're
looking puzzled. That's >> um I was just I was looking really quick for some numbers to put that on a taxpayer basis. I mean, I think we're talking >> Yeah, it's pennies perenn. But again, it's my it's my cows, my pigs, my chickens, my corn, and my beans paying for it. And you know, if you've gone to
the dollar store lately, it just every every expense is up significantly. insurance, taxes, everything. So, I mean, I I would be willing to go at uh hold it level like we said with some of our other agencies a week or two ago. Um
and I would um stay with 126,927. And if we have to take that out of the if and again, Buffy does a great job of juggling the the um the workload and the numbers. if you take that out of the
housing trust fund and then get some Saha dollars and substitute it there. But to ask my taxpayers to pay it, no. >> Commissioner >> in context, it sounds like a simple number, but you know, and there's no
doubt that you do good work, but you know, the conservative approach that I take to everything is is it's it comes to it's a nice to have or it's an absolute need to have. There's no doubt that we have beat up the taxpayer pretty hard in the last
number of years and we're going to see a continued amount of people wanting a request and so it's just it's it's exactly that. It's it's all these increased costs that continue to come into place and it makes it very difficult because at face value it's pennies but it's those pennies plus
these pennies. It's just the way corn prices work. What's another $10 an acre? Well, that $10 an acre could be $2 over your entire profit. It sounds small when you're dealing with something as expensive, but when it really comes at the end of the day, how much expendable income and we continue to compound the
expenses on the taxpayer, not just what we do, but what they're faced with every day just to survive. So, it it's difficult for me to give somebody a 14% increase when we know there's other people that aren't even going to ask for an increase, maybe out of the kindness of their heart, just do the best that
they can. So, I'd have a hard time supporting that, but it I would, you know, I would support it at at the standalone and and leave it to what it was last year. >> Mr. Vaguely, >> um, I'm going to vote yes because couple reasons. I think that's another example
of being pennywise and how foolish. You might, if you, if you kept it at the at the same amount, you would save $19,000 roughly. But what you would lose, especially in possible match, grants, etc. >> That's correct. Um, and it's not just especially it's what I'm especially
interested in is redevelopment and uh rehabs that the program does. I think it'd be foolish not to do this. This is different than the um outside agencies that we looked at two weeks ago. This is a proactive agency that frankly um if we
saved $19,000, it would cost us more on the on the back end, I feel. Um, and this is set in the preliminary level levy. We'll have to do a formal levy approval later. Um, at some point, Buffy, if you could provide us like short bullet points about what you're a
what you're able to do with more dollars. Um, you're the financial background is really helpful and good, but like with this additional funding, we're able to do this or not lose to and in some ways what you're doing is you're playing defense. >> Like last night, I was at a board meeting in the highwa health center. One
of the big concerns is to meet these new federal guidelines in terms of eligibility and work requirements, it's going to require more staff time and they don't even know how often. No one's even they're sure. Is it a monthly? Is it every two months in terms of work
verifications? You're going to need more staff to administer the additional work requirements, etc. So, in some ways, it's you not doing more. it's just you not losing services or options for people in terms of because housing is still a very important issue both
connecting people with starter homes but also especially the rehab um the rehab work that you guys do and thank you for that >> commissioner Olson >> the auditor's report for risk mitigation >> was that a suggestion
>> that was a suggestion yes not a requirement it was not a finding it was a suggestion >> I I read that several times for several organizations. So, I'm not going to support the most. >> It it to Commissioner Olsen's point, it
seems like that's that's a buzzword for every auditor. They think you should have 10 people looking at the numbers so that there's no chance of, you know, and in small organizations, it just doesn't happen. But it seems to be one of their buzz phrases that they like to put in everybody's audit report. Um, one of my
contentious points is what is the city of Winona contributing for us running for SEMA running that their housing section 8 program? >> I believe it was $1,200 this year. >> That's not enough. That's not covering
the cost of running that program. And we're running it. And again, that's my rural districts, Commissioner Elings and mine paying this for to fund the city of Winona's section 8 housing. And we just had this discussion about the warming center and the homeless and the people
in affordable housing people. That's not fair that that the bulk of the population that is looking and asking and putting demands on the SEMA organization is not covering their costs. So again, um, and Buffy knows
this. I said go ask him for more. >> There's a city council. >> I know there's a city councilman there and he's playing like he's not listening, but I think he is listening. >> Madam Chair, I need to address Commissioner Olsen's comment on I do not support the auditor. So >> full disc
>> the motion. Oh, the Okay. So, if you're not supporting the motion for the full 144, maybe I need to understand that better before I fully disclose what I'm thinking. I I need to understand what you're not supporting. Are you not supporting the CFO or are you not
supporting? >> I'm not going to support the motion. >> Okay. All right. >> Question. >> Okay. We have uh we have a motion to approve the preliminary at the full amount of 144,234. All those in favor say I.
>> I post nay. >> Nay. >> Okay. So fails. Yes. Commissioner Meer. >> May I ask Commissioner Olson a question? Okay. And and potentially for you. All right. So the 69,000 general fund expenditures and the one bullet point then is incorporate staffing and auditor
risk mitigation restructuring. Um, since Commissioner Olsen asked a question about that, is that the portion that you are not interested in funding? >> Right. I think we're all being asked to do more with less um, and to add staff in
this time um, is questionable. >> Okay. >> I but I understand the request. I need you to be very specific on this because if you if you fund me and I'm I
will be happy to take the 126 927 and I'm going to go forward with everything but the housing trust fund but then I don't feel as if that that was the I have a a concern about that not I'm not
addressing your point then Commissioner Olsen because I would be funding the CFO if you give me the 26927. Do do you see what I'm saying there? Am I as clear as mud? >> Y she's as short staff as anybody is in
these roles and responsibilities and trying to do and Buffy to her credit is trying to do some what's what's the term? Um >> what? >> Reorganization. >> Well, reorganization or um succession planning. >> Yes. and stuff because, you know, she
has an aged staff and they have um there's some burnout there. So, I I think she is trying to address that. I guess sitting on uh the board, I understand that, you know, to a certain degree. And so, I'm saying, well, again,
uh Buffy could take the 126 and figure out what what she needs to do with it. And if we take the 25 out of the housing trust fund and then hopefully maybe get something, you know, from a a Saha dollar account or something uh to supplement that. >> Mr. Are you willing to go above last
year's amount at all? >> Yes, >> you are. >> Would you like to state the number? >> We'll make a motion for 130,000. >> I'll second it. >> Okay, we have a motion. 130. We have a motion made by
Commissioner Olsen, seconded by Commissioner Meyer to set the preliminary levy at $130,000. And that would be be with what uh no discret I mean with to leave it within the SER organization to adjust their
>> the spread. What I mean, we're not telling them that they can't hire. >> Yeah. >> I mean, we're not micromanaging. Full disclosure, what I would do is take the difference between what I have listed here. Anything extra would go into the housing trust fund. >> And again, uh, is there any, and again,
I know your table and plate is very full, but is there any desire to are you meeting with the city of Winona and asking for any more funds for them? >> I have not met with the city of Winona. >> Okay. We can still get in. What What's the budgeting process? I'll ask the councilman sitting there. You were still
early in the game, right? >> Okay. wasn't the person to give details. >> No, no, but I mean >> the budgeting process. Okay. >> Well, we just we got >> Sure. Okay. Thank you. All right. So, we have a motion for uh preliminary at
130,000. Any other further discussion? Okay. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Post. Nay. Nay. So, I think I heard 32. 32. Okay. That's preliminary. >> Thank you.
>> It can't go up. It can't go down. All right. All right. Uh, item 7.2, discuss, provide direction regarding next steps for the joint public safety facility and coordination with the city of Winona. And it started on page 58.
Drive safe, Buffy. Slow down. Okay. 58. Miss Holy, I think you were requesting of us to give you some direction. >> Yes, please. the way I read it. >> Um, I guess I'm not going to read all of this to you and assuming that you've had
an opportunity to review it. Are there questions that you have? >> Commissioner, >> not a question. Just a um, did you want any other introductory? >> No. >> Um, I want to address the article that came out last Wednesday on Post. It's factually accurate. But one of the
things that I mentioned when Chris Rogers contacted me is that I don't want to communicate with the city through the media. I want the county and the city to be talking. And I was I was assuming that he was going to be interviewing a lot of county board commissioners and a lot of city council members. It was just
oneonone. So, um I was and I I told him repeatedly that it's too early to develop an opinion. We need to have more discussions. We needed to as a county board, we hadn't discussed it since the legislative session ended. We haven't talked with the city. So, I I said what
I have is very little new information. The how the article reads, I think it it looks like I have stronger opinions than I do. So, I just want to clarify that. Um in on page 58 um it says requesting board direction of the following whether
to submit a formal written request to the city of Winona for a decision on remaining colllocated at the law enforcement center and a second bullet point whether to include a specific deadline for the city of Winona to respond to the the county's request so the county can make timely decisions
regarding the next steps for facility planning and space utilization. Um, I understand um that administration needs more direction because we haven't had a discussion as a board since the session ended. Um, what I'd like to suggest is not to submit a formal written request
and not ask them for a specific deadline, but just to just to ask the staff to have a conversation, is to meet at the staff level, county administrator, um, city administrator and talk about possible next steps. This sounds like we're giving ultimatums or
giving directions, and I don't think that we're to that point yet. Not even close to it. Um, I'd like to just ask that the county administrator and whatever appropriate staff meet with the city staff and have a conversation, all staff, no elected officials, unless you
or Mr. felt like a need to bring us in, etc. Because I've not spoken with you about it with Commissioner Ward. Uh, council member Heim is here. He and I have not spoken about the issue since then. um since the last meeting that we had in this room about it. So I feel like we need to talk more amongst
ourselves, the staff need to talk more and then maybe have different members from each bodies talk if that's helpful but not necessarily. But um I would rather instead of um submitting a formal request or asking for a deadline is just
ask the administrator to begin a conversation with the city administrator if that makes sense. >> Um Olson, >> our last action was to go through with a pre-esign
>> and no obligations. >> With no obligation. Yep. >> Where is that? >> We don't know. We don't know, do we? >> No. >> No. >> Commissioner Ellison.
>> Good. Um, yeah, that was kind of, you know, when this came up again, I was in the same boat saying, I I'm not sure I know anything more than we did when we voted and I was very clear. I think a lot of those things came from me like this, this, and this, right? No obligation, no taxpayer money, no
nothing, right? And that was my >> bull consensus to move forward that we have zero obligation to our taxpayers or ourselves. So, we really haven't received a report back on any of this stuff. So part of me just says we got to kind kind of come half circle or full
circle and where where the heck do we stand? So um yeah, as far as the deadline goes now that goes back to several things when we look at setting the budget for this year, we approve 750,000 I think in emergency funds to
try to say, "Hey, we've got an aging facility. We know some things need to happen." Correct me if that number is wrong. Is that Did I get it right? And so the sense of urgency >> I think it was I think it was one and a half million but >> what but it was half we reduced it down whatever it is it was a substantial
amount of money to say hey we could have some problems. >> So at the end of the day you know saying well we could be shoving money into a into a a dead object here. I I feel as though there is a little bit of time sensitivity here >> that hey we kind of we gota we kind of
got to move this thing forward and we need to know what's happening >> and is it an indefinite on hold is it you know where do we go with this thing so I I feel as though we need to design something even if it's a little bit maybe a ways out there but I think we do
if if we're getting no information back I think we have to kind of steer the ship then because I don't think the stip's really ship's really being steered honestly because we're not there's nothing happening. It's stagnant. So, um you know, we have decisions that we need to make. 750,000 is three three points on
our levy that's wasted if we can't come up with and it could be 25% of a total project cost for us, you know, whatever that is. So, >> Mr. Fagers, >> um I totally agree that there are some time factors, especially on our end, and how much we plow into a building that we
may or may not keep. I completely agree with that. Um I told Chris Rogers is that we as a county board we haven't discussed it. We haven't discussed it with with county administrator and there's a couple good reasons why we that office is very busy with a whole bunch of positions and vacancies and people are still trying to figure out
the the result of especially St. Paul but also what's happening in Washington DC. >> So there's a there's a whole there's a reason why it hasn't floated to the top of the to-do list. Um, so that I said what I expect is at some point the staff will discuss it first and then they'll
bring it to the different to the county board and to the city council for discussion and then maybe we can have some other discussions later. So I feel like this is I do think there's a need to begin to discuss um timelines or deadlines, but I want the staff to go to meet first with um and just update each
other and look at other options moving forward. >> Mr. Mayor, >> so the the city did not get the funding from the legislature, >> right? >> And from the article, I took away that they would potentially try the next >> bonding session.
>> Um I don't think it is a bonding year next year. So, and at any rate, given >> they seem to bond every some every year. Absolutely. >> They don't follow their own. >> But I mean, given the austerity measures at the federal level, I think they'll be struggling with their budget. So, I
don't I don't see it as a I don't I don't don't see that it's a really a very positive situation and um I think we do have issues with the building and I I can imagine a scenario in which the
county decides to go ahead and fix up the law enforcement center. We can invite the city to stay if they want to and they can move forward and move out if that's what they want and we could do that design in such a way that we could then um make up for any shortfalls of
space that we have here. We could move finance over there. We could move administration over there. We could expand our counter space. Sort of the things that we considered for looking at potentially buying another >> DMV and whatever. >> Exactly. Yes. And so I I mean I do think
there's a point upon which we quit waiting and make a decision. I'm not so far away from that to be honest with you. >> Yeah. So push comes to shove. I think we I think we should push. So what I see
this is the question of if we decided to study, you know, spend some money, 50 or $80,000 to do a study to see what it would take to remodel the law enforcement center. We needed to know whether that was just for us or if it
was for us and for the police department. >> We have 75, correct? We we didn't we approve some money for that study? >> It was not approved. It was tabled. We're gonna wait until >> I couldn't remember if we did or not. That's how long this thing is drug out after we did it.
>> I think we said July of this year we could revisit it. So here we are >> and that is why it's on the direct >> my perception of this is the question to be asked is >> if we decide is is there would you in any way consider staying at the law
enforcement center in a remodel or are you going to move? That's just the bottom line and we should just accept that at this point and you know make a decision of our own. >> Mr. Chson, >> I as far as the county's commitment was to
go with the previous time phase. >> We're not there. Um we're not going to be there. We don't know. I would like to see if that was still going to happen. If not, then
we need to move on. But if we committed to that, I think we should fulfill our commitment. >> Predesign. Sure. >> Right. Well, um, this is we're not being responsible to our
taxpayers by letting that part of our building just sit empty. We're we're guilty of, you know, not managing it well. Um, not using the space well. We're renting space all over town for different functions. And I think that was it. You know, could we be using
that? I I think we need to we need to put it on the line. We need to ask the city what are they going to do. Yes. And if they're not willing to answer it right the next day, we can take that in stride. But we need some answers. We can't we cannot just keep letting that
building, you know, when you don't use a building, it deteriorates. When you use a building, it deteriorates. But I mean, it deteriorates just sitting there. And it it's foolish for us to to not be using that space better um than we currently are. I haven't been over there for months, but I bet you there's still
old city bicycles sitting in the corner. And I don't know if they cleaned it up. There was a lot of trash and junk when we went through it when we were deciding what we're going to do it. I don't know if anybody's done anything with it. >> It has it has been cleaned up. >> It has been cleaned up. Okay. I like >> 100% but it's >> okay. But I have I haven't been there.
But for for us not to be using that when we're renting space in other areas of town. Um I I I say we submit a formal letter and and ask for a specific deadline. If they don't answer, then you know when are you ready to answer? But if we don't put the question out there,
we're just going to keep having these staff meetings and and they're going to spin their wheels. Commissioner Meyer was first. >> So, Commissioner Olson, I'm curious to know if you um your preference would be really to maybe do what Commissioner um
Begley is saying, which is to have our staff inquire with the city where is the pre-esign at, what's going to happen. >> Um >> and then make a decision after we know what that is. Okay. And do we even have a lease right now? >> No. >> No.
>> But we have multiple things that we're trying to work on with the budget. And that's why it again I need some direction from the board so that we can >> and I'm okay with minor budget. >> I'm okay with that. >> So we give them 10 days. >> Whenever is their next meeting >> must talk. >> Commissioner Eling. I mean we've been
waiting a long time. I mean again Commissioner Elsing. >> Yeah. I I think there's a reasonable amount of time that you know of course we want to you know necessary I' I've said this from the very beginning whatever is the most coste effective option to do what we need to do right
that's ultimately my still my stance but at the same time we we do have some things that we need to move forward on and um this isn't a facicious thing and the nice thing is is I agree with commissioner meer we have options for this space that we've been trying to
explore And if we can consolidate and hey the money that we might lose if they decide to leave we probably going to pick back up and what we're doing in other locations we centralize it. It's close and I quite honestly I think constituents would like that. So and it keeps it on campus and it keeps our
services on campus and and you know that puts us in a different probably mode of action and how we take a look at that building. But you know we do have some costs that eventually are going to come to fruition. these things are going to happen at some point if it's true what we're being told that the maintenance
that needs to be done. So although I I I don't want to expedite it and rush it and and be unnecessary but I do believe that we have to kind of lay a ground rule out because we got to start looking ahead here on this thing a little bit. So what that day we know the amount of time is it 30 days 60 days 90 days 120
days you know I I don't know and that's where I would want a reasonable request from staff and anybody involved to come up with a number to help us decide what's a reasonable amount of time for a decision to be made so we can move forward and then even in the meantime it's no different than I mean I'm
working in a big relocation acquisition into our business right now and there's so many moving pieces to this thing but you have to put a time frame into place Otherwise, it'll just drag on. So, um I would request that if and I realize we don't have a whole lot of staff time,
but could you come back to us with a time frame that's reasonable for us to begin to with with city input that says, "Hey, we should know an answer and and fill in the blank x amount of days." Is that reasonable enough? And would the board be okay with that?
>> We'll make a motion to do that. that well just to clarify and that's on the pre-esign like to get an answer like >> to get an answer of where we're moving forward on this pre-esign is is there information on this pre-esign so we can begin to make decisions so I it's a bit of a muddy motion I guess but
>> okay we have a motion do we have a second >> second >> okay >> could you restate the motion or apologize >> the the motion is for staff well so so let's just resend this for a Do we necessarily need a motion for this
or are we asking staff to come back with with an answer that we could make a motion to set the time frame? I think that'd probably be a more realistic. So, I'm going to resend that motion and um if that's okay. All right, >> Miss Holty was looking for direction. >> Can we follow up in the next meeting and
maybe we can we can come up with a motion that puts a time frame and have a discussion and that should be able to go right to the board meeting. We don't need to have it on the committee of the board >> if possible. >> If possible. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And that could be a >> 12. >> That could be a general, >> right?
>> Yep. >> Okay. Commissioner Vega, >> I agree with all of your points. Um, and I just want to add that we need to be careful how we speak because need to be respectful of another elected body and it's I feel like sometimes we're we're waiting for them or we're directly or indirectly blaming the city council from
um they could also do turn around the same thing is that we haven't told them anything. We haven't asked. We haven't done anything. is we're partners in this process and let's just >> yeah we said to go ahead with the pre-esign >> but I mean but we I mean we the county has been very busy with a lot of balls
juggling a lot of balls at once the city is busy with a lot juggling a lot of balls at once so just a matter of we're partners in this and I hope we can stay together I think it's the best interest of everybody speaker and myself only but I just want to make we be careful that we're not judging we're not you know
criticizing for lack of information I think if we just have the staff get together they can hopefully figure out some options and or at least talk about a time frame and to Commissioner Alison's point give an update on the pre-esign >> pre-esign andor any other plans
>> because again we haven't heard anything so maybe if that's totally off the table they need to say something >> let's call it a formal update >> yeah okay all right >> I also asked Commissioner Ward um I did not speak with Mr. Heim. I didn't know
he was coming. Are there any I know you were part of the agenda, but is there any points you would like to address? >> Is that okay from the board? >> Yeah, totally. Yeah. >> Well, he's Are you Are you in an official capacity or you're just a citizen? >> I'm just here because I was on the
committee that we worked on for a year and a half. >> Yeah. >> So, I'm not here to represent the the council in its entirety. I'm here as a member of that working group and I'm that has a personal interest in trying to move this forward. I think it feels
like we're there's two ships passing in the night. If you look on your summary on page 60 from your packet, you look at the third paragraph. I'm starting at the beginning of the second sentence. It says, "At this time,
the county has not agre Well, I'll just read the whole thing. In response to public safety, Stop. I'm trying to get on the right page. You said page 62. >> Page 60. >> 60. >> Paragraph three. >> Paragraph three. >> This is from the >> in response >> January 28th. >> Yeah. >> Y Okay.
>> And it says um Okay. That's the meeting date on the T. Okay. Um I think there's Okay. That's So, so this is the past stuff. >> Yep. >> Got it. Never mind. So, the page you
would be referring to, our last >> I'm going to say >> any sort of decision we've made as a county board would be page 58. >> And it's where I kind of laid out a very detailed no county funds, re-evaluation, no obligation.
>> Yep. >> That is our last. And so, we put it back in and again, none of this facicious. We put it back in your hands to say, "Okay, we agreed to this under no obligation or cost, right? show us what you got. >> And I think and I can't give you an
exact spot as to where that's at. I think things I'm not sure things got hung up and and the the part that I think is is critical going forward, you had in your agenda to ask the city, what is it going to, you know, are you interested in staying? The the piece of
it that's difficult from the working group is what are we as being asked to stay with? Are we talking about an LEC that has a minimum of maintenance which you list as 4 million that's just structural? Are we talking about
expanding, redesigning? What are we being asked to stay at? That has never been specified. >> There goes my tents out back idea. But I mean, you know, it talk because there was a discussion on your part of having
the other um group, not BKV, but the one that you climbed McCarthy do somewhat of a study and and try to figure out, you know, what can fit in there. So, I think that's where we're I think that's where we're stuck, you know. >> Are we though? I mean, our our intent for the study though was based upon
which is why we haven't done anything an answer back on this pre-esign. And I had to go back and think about this and did we do that or not do that, >> right? >> We had to prove that in in our per se budget that hey depending on what the answer was, which is why we delayed this till July, >> right?
>> Anticipating an answer. And then based on preliminary what that answer might be, yay or nay on this other side would determine we had the money set aside that we could go in and figure out what to do with that building. Right. >> And so that to me, I guess the way I
understood it, that 75,000 was really an anticipated funding or funding source that depending on where this relationship went, we knew where to dedicate and how to dedicate those dollars on a on a design concept. >> Well, I think, you know, I you given
that and given that I'm not I'm I am not here to speak for the county for the city uh council, >> I think there's some there's some pieces here that are being missed. you know, I I can't give you an exact where is the update on or where is the pre-esign at. >> So, I think it makes sense as as commi
as commissioner vaguely suggested to have the two staffs get together and say where are things and then from that um just you know decide where we are and you know can we go forward but I think the idea of asking the city if they want
to go along we would need to understand what we're being asked to go along with. Well, but in in our defense, you kind of asked us to go along and the way I always understood it is that you were going to get more bonding money to cover the cost of this thing. Now, that didn't happen. >> You know, you know very well that
bonding money is not a guarantee. >> I think the city council always thought you were going to get a chunk of change. >> I never did. I said that at the working group meeting. I said it was doubtful. I said we should try. And >> Commissioner Meyer, >> thanks for coming and I appreciate all
the time that you put in to the um to the meeting. So that from my perspective, >> Sure. >> Uh the question is this. >> Is there any circumstance under which the city would be willing to partner and the and the PD would stay at the law enforcement center? And I and I think
that our question was if we're going to study a remodel of the LEC, then it's either for us alone or for us and the and the police department. Correct. >> And we wouldn't spend the money on that if there was no way that a city wanted to pay
>> even if you didn't get the bonding money. >> So, and I can only speak for myself and say I've always put forward staying together as one of the ultimate things, but to me that's where we started, right? BKV did a study and that study gave us what it would look like to stay
in that building and it was between 30 and 35 million. The reason that we began to look at a new building was because it was $10,000 cheaper >> as an estimate. >> But the conversation Yeah. somewhat cheaper. >> But the conversation of needs versus wants is still one that's significant.
>> That still has to happen because we're still dealing with inflated numbers from two years ago. >> Yeah. So, I I think we probably didn't put a lot of faith in what BKV said in that study. Um, and that anything we look at, we're ending up with another X
million more to deal with that building anyway. So, >> Sure. >> So, for us, we are trying to figure out which costs more. >> Sure. >> And then make a decision about what investment we're going to make. and
nothing. No, you know, not enough moves forward or changes for us to have enough information to make that decision. >> But we figure if you're not ever going to stay because the police department absolutely just wants a new building and that's it, then we want to know that, >> right? And I and I obviously can't give you that answer. Exactly.
>> You know, I mean my again my personal answer is the same thing I said in the working group. I I think it's I think it makes sense. It makes sense from a taxpayer standpoint to stay together. Um I think so. But that's just me. That's just me personally. This not a reflection necessarily. I
think people are still open to it. I guess the last thing that I would say, and I appreciate the time to speak, and I don't, you know, I don't know if I'm helping or hurting. Um, you know, I never do, but uh >> appreciate that you're here. You're not hurting it. >> Yeah. But I think it's easy to get frustrated with this, right? We've all
been at this for a very long time. I still think we don't have all the information upon which to make good decisions yet. I'm not sure what exactly is hanging that up, but I think it's worth pushing forward to get to that point to where each respective body has
the information that they need to make good decisions. I don't feel that we're there yet. That's my personal opinion. I hope we can take, you know, the remaining steps forward to at least get there. As I said early on, this is a 20step process. We're still at step four.
So, we got to waste >> Yeah. I just, you know, first of all, thank you for taking the time to step up, but I don't I don't feel it's fair to you to come up and defend an entire board. No. >> Um, so as much as I appreciate you coming up, I believe this just solidifies the need for the discussion,
>> but still within a time frame. So what the discussion here is what I would like our staff to bring. And hey, he said, she said, you did, I did. Solve that out. Come back to the board with some realized expectation that hey, we've got priorities. you have priorities. This
solidifies the need to do it. Thank you. Um, and I think y'all should hash this out in the background >> yes to all that. >> And like you use the term formal update. I think that's a great way to describe it. A formal update with timelines and options.
>> It would be great to have >> the county administrator and city administrator get together for a formal update. Come back with some numbers, dates, and options. Um, and I began this process thinking there's no way in hell I'm going to support building a new building, but
when the estimates came to remodel that I I had to double check and triple check there, and it I do think to Commissioner Meyer's point, there is some room to shrink the cost of the big remodel over there, but I there was no way in hell I was going to support a new building. Um, but when the numbers came through that the newer building was actually a couple
million dollars less expensive. That's why I even began entertaining the idea of looking at a different site, etc. But I think if the staff can get together and talk about it to Commissioner Elsie's point, I think that's that would good things will happen after that. >> There's more more weight more to
collocating and moving than just the building. >> Commissioner and to Commissioner Meyer's point, we still have a building to deal with if we didn't. So we still have cost >> Absolutely. >> to repurpose a building >> or even knock it down. Mhm.
>> Commissioner, no administrator holding. >> I don't wish to be. Thank you. >> I know. Sorry for that slip. >> I want to take a pay cut. >> Yeah. Right. That's great. >> You'd have to take a severe pay cut. >> True. >> Yes. >> A big head.
>> Um so I just want to make sure that everyone's aware that the further we push this out to have any kind of timeline >> that it's going to impact our budgeting. That's why I said 10 days. >> So, we won't be in a position to do much with the building until maybe 2027.
>> Y, >> please factor that into that's exactly what I'm asking is you're going to be able to have some of that information to bring back to us to give us a reasonable guideline for this timeline, right, in which things need to happen. And we're going to I'm
>> I'm delegating that. You know, it's the hardest thing to do in business is to trust somebody else. And so what I'm saying is this is the discussion I believe you guys can have and come back and and give us a reasonable outlook and then we'll discuss if we feel like changing it we will. So thank you for doing that.
>> All right. Okay. Um committee reports commissioner vaguely >> um a com >> one one thing uh in today's Winona Daily News with a letter to the editor that I submitted last week it ran in the post. I just want to formally share that same
announcement. Um, almost every week since last November, I get asked about what what my plans are for November of 2026. I know it's usually commissioners don't announce this early their plans for two years, a year and a half away,
but I just want to I want people to know so they can stop asking and encouraging me is that I'm not going to run for the House in 2026. I'm going to run again for the county board in 2026. So, I just want to that's been posted in the media for those who still read um the post and
daily news. I just wanted to share the meeting as well. So, um not running for the house. I will run for reelection in 2026. So, that's all I'll say about. So, thank you. Okay. Uh, Commissioner Meyer, >> I was at a meeting uh earlier this week >> and there was an update from the
Minnesota Department of Health on their progress in terms of well um testing and mitigation in the eight counties. So, their goal was to test 10% of the wells by the end of this year. And Winona
County has exceeded 10%. We are far ahead of any of the other counties in the region. And we have also installed uh through that program they've installed 50 reverse osmosis systems for Winona well users, private well users and that again is also like four times
more than any other county. So >> did they indicate because I had conversation with the Culligan man at the county fair and is there more money? He thought the money had been expended and I thought the state >> No, there's still there's still money. Yeah, >> because they get there was like six
million three from the legacy fund. >> I'm looking at Miss Holty. So, do we do we know what Winona County could access in that? >> I don't think we have the new numbers for 2026 yet. I haven't seen those. >> Okay. Yeah, because the commissioner of health alluded that there was more
money, but she didn't have any figures either last time we had a shack. >> My understanding is the money that counties didn't use is being put back into the pot and redistributed. Is that your understanding? We give our data on that. >> Yeah. So, if we could somehow f find out
if we have more money for testing and for more of these reverse osmosis systems, we should really let people know. >> I they Yeah. Well, there's definitely free testing kits still available. You apply through >> re retap mint. What's it called? >> Uh >> I think it's mint. >> Mint.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Maybe maybe we could put something uh update on our website or something in regards to that. >> And they sort of showed how when they did um newspaper ads. There was a spike and they had recently done something on KTTC out of Rochester and then there was
a even a bigger spike in people requesting the test. >> Yeah. So, if we can get something in the newspaper saying we got more uh fund, you know, resources for that, that'd be great. Okay. Uh Commissioner Eling. >> Yeah, I guess I did have a comment. I just wanted to thank everybody that came out to the fair. Uh it was a great great
event. We only had a little bit of uh unfair weather. It was attended very well. Um I stopped in and talked with Cindy Tim multiple times and and a few others. Um so it was it was great to see the attendance and just wanted to thank everybody. Uh you know the good thing is
is um 4 numbers are up again and uh you know it was nice to see the buildings uh almost full uh probably the fullest I've seen them in a while. So um that is uh that's garnering a lot of attention not just in our community but other communities with the 4 director and different things too how we're growing.
So, um, exciting to see that. Uh, it's it's it's a good time. So, I just wanted to thank everybody for coming out and also the board support to continuing to fund the fair. So, that's it. >> Well, and with that, the next big family event is family night on the farm. >> Thank you.
>> And that is Thursday, August 7 from like I think 4 to 8 I think it runs. And it's at the Clark Farm >> out of Oakidge. >> Yeah, Oakidge out in Rolling Stone. And there'll be more information coming out about that. But again, another great community event and I I'm hoping I was
glad to see the planning people did uh make a a booth at the county fair to gather some input and I think they're planning to go to this event too and maybe hopefully get some more input on our comp plan discussions. So I appreciate that. All right, with that >> motion to adjurnn. Second
>> motion by Commissioner second by Commissioner Olson. Any discussion? All in favor say I. >> I post nay. Thank you. Okay, >> Mr. Yeah. And then that fair is did >> Yeah.