e e e e e e e this meeting is being recorded good morning everyone it is Tuesday May 21st we'll call the right County Board of Commissioners to order we'll begin with the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all all right starting off today's meeting uh we have a number of minutes uh we have minutes from 57 a couple of uh meeting or three different meetings there one from 5'8 and two from 58 and one from 514 uh we can adop these minutes collectively or individually is there any modifications uh members Mr chair yes uh thank you well starting with the 57 board meeting minutes under item six pulled from consent the waste management contract on the first sentence add seven months ago after the word expired and that catch Mark read from the job description of the procurement analyst which noted monitors contracts as an essential function then the budget Committee of the whole on 5'8 uh roughly half the office and department heads weren't at that meeting where there was a narrative about staff requests from the board as far as approving little to none I'm I'm wondering if there's any interest in including any narrative to that for those that weren't at that meeting because there was a narrative Mr chair you let it yes there's a recommendation on as far as that goes from there on that but um I'm just just bringing attention because I for those that weren't there I don't know how how much emphasis there's going to be if they you know and I I think it's worth making the note to it we can note that that it was a a a articulated by the board um I would say pretty unanimous that that Staffing positions will be uh in this budget cycle will be highly scrutin IED and will be uh very uh far and few between that we likely to move forward uh look given the potential Financial budgetary constraints this season and as the current economy is uh influx is that a fair enough I'm I'm good at that I just didn't see it in there if if it's not unanimous then if someone wants to speak up now we can go to consensus but all right that's a I didn't have that written out but just bringing it up under 514 the County Board Workshop item nine last couple lines this was an error in how this was written but catchmark agreed with putting all staff rehire or backfill positions on the consent agenda except for the procurement analyst position that one should be on for consideration the consensus of the board was was to do this and and that's what it was but the the minutes reflect different that I was looking for all of them to go on for consideration and that wasn't the case it was just that one position does the board remember that I'm not clear on that so I know that you wanted that sorry Mr chair that was as a separate you just that one position one position as a separate that's how I remember it as well but the minutes say that I wanted to go for consideration or discussion that wasn't it that was the one that one position and the consensus from the board was yes yeah one position yes and that's I'm reading the because it's here the recommendation was for consensus to bring forward staff rehire requests with detailed documentation as consent agenda items for approval uh with it with the one item being uh noted out so you have to add the additional to the recommendation right that the uh the one financial position be uh an agenda item when coming forward right that's what we agreed on Mr chair so I that that affects what staff does with that position that they understand that that's not to go to consent yeah all right then Workshop minutes 514 under the safe schools there was lengthy narrative on on the safe schools from the presenter there and I don't know if my mic quit working or this is like the old Don Williams song say it again but uh catchmark noted that there's an ability to meet virtually by Zoom or teams that wasn't available when safe schools meetings started 30 years ago with now over 50 of these meetings a year that's about 100 hours of Staff time with the commute for every staff member that goes to every meeting and there are at times four levels of staff from Ray County offices or departments attending these meetings some of these office and departments are the ones that are often asking for more new staff so I'd ask for that to be added to the minutes in the appropriate section and those are all I have Mr chair and those have been given to the minute taker if nobody is opposed and cuz wanting to make sure and I'm not opposed to it but I want to work with you to because we we're not wanting to create minutes that are verbatim for all conversation but I also want perspective and point of views that need to be articulated within the minutes so maybe there's a way we can get to a bullet point where it articulates each individual's uh that comments perspective versus getting every word for word verbatim because that that's where we're trying to work with it and trying to get the overall conversation but then I think what we're what we're missing right now is uh some individualized perspectives that that is important and I want to make sure that we can get that in there without having to go verbatim is that well it is I I think the things I'm wanting to add they they add necessary context to what leads to a recommendation or not and then also leads to process change and everything else with positions and if that part is missing from the narrative then it's kind of like how did we get to hear from there but some of these Mr chair there's no there's like the safe schools I think we all had input and there's nothing identified from anybody except the presenter there's uh there's three lines at the end that say the board suggested this and we are a board but we all have we represent our districts and constituents and I think that it's important if a board member wants that to be part of the record that that they can and should and uh so I think those are good points and I don't call out every agenda every every week but this one there was five of them or six there's a lot to take in a lot to consider and that's my point Mr chair Mr chair just real quick I mean understand there was a consensus it wasn't always unanimous and maybe the the whole idea is that when we do um complete a discussion on one of the topics that we articulate clearly what the recommendation is at the very end so that that is documented in there there there's a conversation but ultimately what is the recommendation and that's what we should be focused on coming out of those workshops and to commissioner katar's point and I was going to address it later in the convers in the later in the meeting when actually working through the recommendation because the recommendations on the scap schools wasn't ask of staff to at least articulate and work with the schools to try and uh reduce the frequencies at least at some of the districts and how often they meet and it was a little bit more than an informational only uh recommendation and I think that's what you're articulating through the minutes right and and adding context because we're putting numbers we're putting dollar amounts potentially to to support our our request for a change otherwise it looks like just arbitrarily H we just think there's too many of these uh cut them down so that's why I'm putting some context and I think we knowing the direction and the flavor of the board here I can work a little bit better with staff to uh get more clear uh recommendations on some of them so I will uh make sure that that's better articulated on some of these items so usually I I I've been pretty good about it but I believe on some of these ones here uh I should have given a little bit more dire with them on what the recommendation should be so I agree okay I don't know if anyone else has anything else to change on the minutes Mr chair so I have in the budget forecast there's nothing in my recommendation to the amount that I was trying to set mine for mine in the exact wording I'm a little scarce on it however it had to do with the whole um inflation rate of 3.4% because that was back down and then to add on like the cost of living so I know I was around the 4.5 to 5 as far as being out there to what rate I was looking at so and I I encourage members here if you're looking to make these these language changes of your own and I'm going to use the word of your own to work with uh Caitlyn there to make sure that the minutes reflect your comment uh if you want to change other people's comments I I would encourage you to have that conversation now but I I'm okay with you articulating your own comments uh for the minutes uh afterwards so and I appreciate that Mr chair I just want to make sure that I have some type of forecast in there to what I was looking at as well and I can work with Caitlyn too but it was something along that extent thank you all right so with that we have a number of modific ations to the minutes and as I stated for the individual comments please work with Caitlyn uh after the meeting to make sure that the minutes reflect what you're looking for but otherwise uh the uh bulk of the minutes I would look for a motion to approve them Mr chair I'll make that motion for all looks like six versions of minutes with those proposed changes all right we have a motion by commissioner catchmark second second by commissioner Shane is there any further discussion hearing none all in favor say I I hi hi post same sign all right the uh minutes are approved unanimously all right now moving on to today's agenda is there anything that needs to be put onto uh petitioned onto today's agenda Mr chair yes I would like to petition on the process of scheduling the upcoming Clos session top secret meeting just the process of how it came about um excuse me the top secret meeting the Clos session for labor how it was scheduled right how it came about because it wasn't the same as the first two so because it wasn't because it was posted out wasn't wasn't scheduled via the board is what you're saying right the I can go into it further here if you if help you understand but there was two previous meetings yes that were brought about here mhm in front of the decision makers in this meeting the third one was scheduled within the the second one and I want to I want to discuss that that process of how that happened and and I understand that one there um so if you want to elaborate on your perspective on it and then we can kind of have a discussion so you you want to make that we'll make that item uh for consideration A2 okay a to and we're going to be uh processed for close session and I already spoken fairness to attorney loot so he's not ambushed by this today he's the legal representation here and uh so just so Mr chair is not wondering about that so okay fair enough all right so A2 is good with that all right uh any other items uh I'm going to add on two items one would be B3 to schedule the reschedule the committee of the whole for the the Sheriff's Office and the B4 would be to uh discuss modifying next week's uh Committee of the whole public health uh as I've been requested by members to discuss moving that all right is there any other agenda items that need to be petitioned on today Mr chair I'll make a motion to approve the agenda with those additions all right we have a motion by commissioner catchmark I'll second that second by commissioner Holland any further discussion hearing none all in favor say I I oppose same sign agenda is approved unanimously today's consent agenda would anyone like to remove anything from today's consent agenda for further discussion Mr chair I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda all right thank you commissioner catchmark we have a motion by commissioner catchmark for the approval of today's consent agenda I'll second that second by commissioner Holland any further discussion hearing none all in favor say I I oppose same sign consent agenda approved unanimously all right running a few minutes behind here our first at timed agenda item would be Alisha uh right Soil and Water Conservation regarding the uh joint Powers collaboration agreement for the implementation of the South Fork Crow River watershed management plan wow the one Watershed one plan is actually going to come up for a final vote yes so um good morning Mr chair members of the board um yes this is the the South Fork uh comprehensive watershed management plan it has been uh approved by uh this board so ill and and other uh participating entities as well as the Board of Water and Soil resources so now we uh want to sign this agreement so that we have access to the funding that comes along with it uh so that's the Watershed based implementation funds uh for the the South for small portion of the Southeastern part of uh the county and this just gets us on board so that we can access funding like the are we have a few ditch systems in the area which would be a primary target I think for this and soil Health cover crops that sort of thing so uh Alicia reading through the jpa because it doesn't address any kind of uh fiscal sharing so I'm assuming that you're going to operate entirely with the funds through Bowser that you're not going to look to the individual uh count is part of the jpa for any funding source because it doesn't address any kind of cost sharing within the jpa at least from what I could read of it okay so and that was a thing that I was wondering okay if there is a shortfall in Revenue how does that fall back I I to the jurisdictional uh counties in it is it uh can you explain more about the shortfall in if they would for some reason there would be uh expenses that would exceed the money that you're receiving from the state on it uh does that liability then how does that liability then fall back onto the participating counties um so if if I'm understanding correctly um if there's not enough funding for the the projects that are proposed some of the project would get pushed back to the next funding uh cycle uh for because this is to implement the the projects that would happen like the water and sediment control basins to pay for cover crops yeah I guess I'm more if there was some sort of a cost overrun just because it's not addressed at all within there that if if for some unforeseen reason that that things that there was uh something went wrong in a project and it ended up costing more than what you got from State funds how does that get delineated within the members of the jpa uh my understanding is that the liability is on the individual entity that was um Contracting the project so it would be on that that entity okay so because any matching funds are coming from whether it's a a lid or a if it's right so in the water that is partnering with the South Court Crow then the right Soil and Water would be the responsible for any type of overrun and that would be part of an individualized agreement that you would in that would you're basically you're setting yourself up to be a jpa that's a granting agent only you're not actually going to be doing the projects you're only granting them out to individual entities to do projects yeah the there's there's no additional entity here it's everybody's operating as their their own entities and there I don't believe there's any shared liability because the only reason like but there is going to be staff that's compensated out of it and that's another piece that I look at it because staff always has there is always a potential chance of cost allocations to it because if there is any liability to it how does that get delineated out to the the associated members in there because it's not addressed within the jpa that's the only piece that I I always it's always nice to Iron Out worst case scenario if we have an expense to this organization between all these different counties who pays what share you is is there a concern that you want me to bring back to the or that commissioner dri could bring back to the policy committee before signing it or just a um Mr chair can you could you explain Alicia the the funding and how often it is and what that where it comes from that type of thing so that understanding that we ultimately aren't yeah we aren't funding this the state of Minnesota does you and I understand that I mean this is the the state's giving each one of these one Watershed one plans a chunk of money and they they're the agency that is should be granting this out but there is administrative staff that is being paid PA for with these funds and then they are creating the jpa amongst these counties so essentially this jpa is the employer of these administrative staff am I understanding that correctly no no there's no additional entity so the the staff uh that are doing the administration I believe will be the Renville uh Soil and Water Conservation District and they will still be staff of Renville Soil and Water Conservation District they just Renville will then receive an allocation from the the funding um uh from from the the from the grant agreement uh for each uh and if I if I may the um each Grant cycle which happens every two years the we must establish a work plan that is approved by the policy committee which is elected officials from each entity including commissioner Dietrich um and they they will approve a work plan so for the administrative side they will say the you guys have $150,000 over the next two years for uh admin administrative and if they overrun the cost then Renville s swcd is like responsible for still paying their their staff person or they need to adjust what is happening within that Grant to maybe push things back for the following for the next Grant cycle and I may have misread it because I was reading it as though there there was the administrative there was administrative staff of the South Fork one Watershed one plan not that they would be retained as employment of County no this um agreement is a joint Powers collaborative compared to a joint Powers entity so it has no power to have its own staff at all each entity has to retain its own staff it's it it gets very confusing oh yeah that would be different that's a good question so any other questions from Members I get Mr chair I guess I still have some questions on understanding I I I'm just not understanding the full process is this something that we could have kryer look at just to make sure that we're not involving ourselves in something that I understand I don't want to lose the funding I don't want to lose any of that but I just want to make sure like you said there's no back this is all right Mr shair this has already been approved by us and Kaiser has looked at this yes we have we have this agreement has been shared with uh with Greg kryer so I'm I'm okay with to for the most part I my questions were answered I was the language was was a little bit ambiguous but I'm not an attorney so uh I will defer if Greg's signatures there in the boxes check that that Greg says it's okay uh so that that that leads me to believe the at least the ambiguous language that I'm concerned about is being uh taken care of so and this is the last step in order to receive the funding for the the South for Crow River yes once we have this then we can get the work plan uh approved and then the funding we'll have access to July 1st perfect he kind of one of those ones where you you have to scratch your head as to why the counties need to be involved into it because the when you when you look at it from the perspective we're not putting money into it really it's it's you have you know to me it's it's it's more of a collaborative agreement between right Soil and Water Renville County Soil and Water than it is the counties themselves I mean other than the fact that we delegate Authority on a certain amount of things that that could tangent uh lead to project but could we apply for those projects not being part of a jpa yes could you do it as part of the jpa yes you know when I commissioner V I can see where you're where you're coming from because uh I'm on a joint Powers board and uh unbeknownst to the the counties they weren't doing things properly and got funding cut from deed so then because of the actions taken then all counties then were on alert that we would have to pick up the pieces and I think that's where dereck's coming from you know that if something gets for if the funding would stop for any reason would we have to then pour forward money to finish the project I mean I'm sure that's not going to happen it was a rare occasion that I mean very joint Powers boards don't even understand that they are on the hook for it and I think that's where dereck's coming from we found that out with uh that CM jts so I think that's kind of where his trepidation is like if something if the funding would stop or for some reason it would go over are we going to be on the hook for that money is it basically the question right yeah I mean I just want to make sure because or if there is a project that for some some reason the uh grantee approve the the South Fork approved a grant that Bowser later on says no you know who's who's liable on it you know to pick up those and I guess in this situation you're making documentation that is holding the grantee of the S Fork responsible in that situation yes we have that's why we you know there there's specs that we need to to follow and the the contractor who's actually putting in the practices is held responsible like our we have our staff on site on all of our projects to make sure that they they meet the specs to find uh when when creating those those projects otherwise the contractors don't get paid okay so all right so with that um Mr chair I just wanted to step I read the packet last night so it took me a while to get through this but this is the one where ranky nun and I believe reviewed it and approved it as well right that's correct yeah so I think we're we're covered so okay okay thank you thank you that makes me feel better all right well with that then there's other discussion here I'll entertain a motion from the board I'll make a motion to approve that all right I'll second it motion by commissioner Dietrich second by commissioner Holland uh I appreciate the uh in-depth conversation it's always good that we ask pertinent questions so with that if there's no other discussion all in favor say I I I post same sign all right the uh joint Powers collaborative agreement is approved unanimously great you guys can just send me an electronic copy of the signature page and I'll get it over to the South Fork thanks than and moving on here Chad has waited ever so patiently to come up here in sing for us yes um so we'll start with uh uh the first one is the resolution for and I have to apologize I dropped the ball this morning last week and the language and the resolution is incorrect and Tina picked me up and caught it this morning so I do have a corrected resolution and I can explain a second but I want to hand it out real [Music] quick good the Y is what's corrected it's just basically summarizing the change and I'll explain thank you and then I have the corrected resolution just I wanted to give you the highlighted okay thank you go all right so similar to the Franklin Township Bridge we did uh a month ago roughly and you if you look at the language and the resolution we submitted it references their Bridge cuz we copied and pasted and apparently with the resolution formatting you have to delete a page well we didn't prove it so we drop the ball but try to correct it here if we can cuz the Township's under the gun here to get things moving and they need our support so because we're the Fiscal Agent we have to prove any changes and um based on the engineer's design of uh um 10th Street and hoit Avenue on the south side of Sugar Lake um they're going to do some grading and Paving of the road to the state they got uh 600,000 roughly in State Park Road account funds um and they have to meet certain standards for that road there there are certain areas where we don't feel they should have to meet meet standards because of some sharp curves some Wetland impacts and some property owner impacts so to to avoid those impacts we have to apply for a variance so um mot concur uh we' had a meeting with mot they're going to concur but we do need just a formal resolution from the board to support those variances and basically that it's uh to avoid some Wetland impacts not have to flatten some sharp curves and then um how we tie into the boat ramp so um you want more detail I can go into it but essentially that's the purpose of our resolution and the corrected language was the the more in detail so so I apologize for messing up on that one discussion Mr sure I just appreciate you putting this all together real quick this morning and um it seems pretty simple this is in my in my U District as well um and if you if you look on the map you'd see how it's a necessity so I would recommend moving forward with the the V approving the variances all right is that a motion so so moved all right motion by commissioner Dietrich I'll second that second by commissioner Holland all right all right and if possible could we get signed today and get to mot if we can um and we can follow up with Caitlyn later all right sorry no no we're good all right uh so we have a motion we have a second is there any other discussion any other question members no all right this is a resolution commissioner catch Mark hi I I I I all right resolution passes unanimously our next [Music] item we adopt the letter of support for Sherburn counties uh pursuant of the consolidation rail infrastructure safety improvements uh program thank you chairman vet Commissioners so um this is an important project for Sherburn County and also for our region um we're all familiar with probably 11 11 that cuts from 25 up to Highway 10 and it cross the railroad tracks and um it's County Road 11 actually carries more traffic than trunk Highway 25 in that area so they're applying for a rail Grant to try to do get a grade separation and interchange of the intersection it and um chairman VCH can probably comment to it kind of ties into our uh cmrp Corridor also as part of that project so we definitely support I we we definitely recommend supporting their um uh application and the letter of support would have all commissioner signatures on it I think so this is uh to Chad's point there this project here is probably one of the biggest projects that we can do in the short term to help move traffic uh on 25 that the that pinpoint there of 10 in uh 11 uh in shurn County with the rail part Railway there any improvements that we can get there and get funding to do that is only going to help be able to get the traffic that we currently have there across faster uh currently you can see traffic backing up uh close to a mile during High periods sometimes even further on holiday weekends so needed improvements there yeah well I'll make a motion to uh approve that letter of support all right motion by commissioner Holland second by commissioner Shane any further discussion hearing none all in favor say I I I post same sign all right letter is approved unanimously now we have another letter of support for Sherburn County's uh Community energy transition Grant yes this is through um because of the sheral plant uh coal plant being decommissioned there is a basically a pot of money through the um deed program um that's first come first serve Sherburn County would like to apply for because and has to be in the county so only Sherburn County can apply for this uh and you have to be in Sherburn County so we wouldn't be able to apply for this but the goal is to use funds to complete the phase one e of our um project up in monell Big Lake Becker area so it would basically half the funding that they get would benefit us because we we're splitting all the costs for the environmental work 50/50 so definitely a worthy project and like said it's first come first sered so we tried to get this out as quick as we can this is another great opportunity especially there's only a handful of counties that would be even able to apply for this you'd have to have a I'm going to use the word imminently or at least a determined closing date to be able to apply for these energy transition funds uh hence the reason Sherburn county is positioned for that and it is very gracious that they're interested in using these Grand funds towards this project uh with that I'll entertain a motion I'll make that motion Mr chair all right motion by commissioner Shane second second by commissioner Dietrich any further discussion hearing none all in favor say I I post same sign letter is approved unanimously and uh lastly here we have the award contract 244 for cat 2 yes this is our uh joint Bridge with uh Stern County Casa 2 there Casa 7 uh just north of South Haven and um we opened bids uh we had one bidder uh which isn't great but the prices came in right at our estimate um we have 800,000 in Bridge funds and the bridge estimate was 85,000 approach grading for each side is each our responsibility so our share is roughly 177,000 for this bridge so we're recommending awarding it discussion Mr chair yes yeah good morning Chad so did you say the cost to replace is 800 and the and the bid was 805 or how what was the difference there yep yep let me uh so clarify we have 800,000 in off system Bridge funds um that can be applied towards the bridge itself but then you have a roadway approach grading on either side so on our side of the bridge there's roughly 177,000 approach grading the bridge is 800,000 and on the Sterns County side there's 340 some thousand of approach grading work so the grand total is 1.33 million 2% over our estimate we feel that's the prices are fair and in line with other bid openings around the state for bridge projects so typically if there's one bidder we may want to rebid but if we rebid we won't be building it this year so we'd have to wait till next year and with inflation whatever we gain we'd lose more than likely waiting a year so we're still recommending award um and like I said the the the bridge came in at about 85,000 when we broke the BD bid out by work types and there's 800,000 in federal money so then Sterns County and Wright County will split that remaining five grand oh the bridge is 5050 so well as me I'd get all the contractor and say well cter offer with 800,000 for round figures sealed bids though that's not you can't well you only got one bid but you can't you can't you can't reverse bid and say will you do it for 800 how about 750 how about 700 no it's just the bid's the bid yeah all right thanks it wasn't a sealed bid process it was that's exactly sealed bid processes don't lend themselves to that like you could do with like a Professional Services okay I didn't know if there was a difference because you one one like I said it's not ideal but I said the prices do seem fair so and Mr Shar those numbers are reflected in that total amount or the Lost funds that we're putting towards that the $2,500 that we SP each all right so with that I'll entertain a motion so moved all right motion by commissioner chain second by commissioner Holland any further discussion all right hearing none all in favor say I I I post same sign all right contract 2404 is awarded all right thank you Chad thanks again for working with me on the CR of Township of resolution so appreciate it thank you no problem all right now moving up to Rob he's making his way to the podium here to adopt resolution authorizing uh appropriate County officials to sign Grant application agreement and certification in regards to right County Snowmobile Association participation Grant thank you Mr chair Commissioners this is a routine item that gets approved each year it's a resolution to um authorize myself to be the signer of this Grant and so this is a passor grant so we receive money from the R and it gets passed through the to the right County Snowmobile Association which represents they're kind of the parent organizations for all the smaller groups in Ray County take care of about 247 miles of snowmill trails throughout the county questions comments Mr chair I just have a question and a comment um this last year and not trying to call you all Ross um but I just have some questions because some constituents and non-c constituents came to me was there a different um application that this grant went through I I just had gotten some feedback from some people um to how this went through the process and stuff did we have was there a different change of plans or application we had to go through or anything uh Mr chair I don't believe so yeah this is the second time that I've been involved with it it was the same process as last year okay yeah and maybe you and I can sit down and talk about that sometime it's just that and now that this came forward today I was going to and I apologize that I'm bringing up now but if we get set some time across sometime just to kind of talk about it maybe there's something we can streamline to to help you in this process because I just had gotten some feedback so definitely want to make sure we're utilizing this in the best possible way that we can okay sure Mr chair yes thanks Ross and I know this has come through before now at the winter we had with little to no snow there was not a lot of Trail grooming and all that going on what happens to that there must be money left and how is that carry forward or is there an expiration on every Year's money and has to go back or what's the plan if it's not used yep so that I believe the money is still used so that the snow bill Association um submits the paperwork they gets pass through us and to the DN R and then they cut them a check so they they we we it's a reimbursing Grant so if you didn't have grooming hours you wouldn't turn it into the DNR the money still stays at the DNR is what you're saying so so then what the state does with their leftover funds the state doesn't left over funds Mr chair members board that that's not exactly correct that was pass practice the DNR changed it to a a different Grant so it's an allocation each year it's to create the Club so that they have a uh a funding source um they get four payments a year based on the applications um and they get allocated amount it's it's a they call it performance-based even though there's no performance tied to it it's benchmarks of do you got your signs up have you done your maintenance have you done this have you done these check marks of your activity indicators and then those applications go from the club or the association which is all 12 clubs to Ross Ross s signs the paperwork sends it over to DNR check comes to Heather and Lindsay and then uh goes back to the club so it is an allocation and it's more set it used to be more based on activity and miles of trails are groomed and that type of stuff but then the club's fundings went like this based on winners and they changed this process a while ago so they would actually be they they should be AE that they can take on bigger projects based on this year so that's equipment as well they're great equipment this is these are the good years that they can upgrade their equipment because other years they haven't spent into labor grooming or like vice versa two years ago we had a lot of snow and they groomed a lot more they didn't get more money for that so they build up their reserves Mr chair this could be why the question was out there because maybe this plan was something that maybe LED differently right Mark I mean just saying from previous years and if this is the new process and how it's going maybe that eventually went down the line on timing and stuff so could have I'm not sure exactly the conversation you had but Performance Based Grant at one time our association didn't want to be part of that they wanted it based on the activity and then it was kind of forced down everybody thr maybe 10 12 years ago okay thank you Mr chair uh with speaking of Finance doing some administrative work is any of that money go to our finance staff for their time and effort in handling the the grant money by I don't believe so can Finance speak to if that's uh that available or eligible or is there much involved [Music] or this kind of just goes to the point Mr chair of doing free accounting for somebody and should we shouldn't we I don't know good morning commissioner chairman I'm not sure we would have to do more research I'm sure if it's eligible or not I mean yes we do have administrative time I'm not sure if it's eligible or not well I can I request that a little research be done and that if that is worth asking and eligible that we we get what we what we should for our efforts of Staff time certainly is that a if we have a consensus up here to look into it it's it's fair enough I mean I don't have a number of hours or money so I don't have a starting point but when they say that they're are doing something for somebody else a practice that when you do that we I believe through conversations that we're looking at as new granting things come on is looking at how we if we can Implement our administrative costs with them and when and if applicable sometimes it's it's a do not pass go and other times it it is palatable usually at like a 10 15% or less yeah it depends on what the grant agreement reads so once we look it over we should be able to determine if we can charge our time as Mr chair we remember fiscal agents with the lids since I've been on now we started collecting some fees for doing that book workk and we weren't before so to be consistent we should look at this so if that if we can request that thank you yep all right well with that I'll entertain a motion uh to adopt the resolution authorizing uh County officials assign documents for the St mobile Association participation uh Grant Aid so moved second motion by commissioner Shane second by commissioner Holland any further discussion chairman I just want to say um send back to the group that uh get a lot of compliments on how how nice they do R County does a really good job with their snowmobile trails uh comments all the time people that move into Ray County for that reason I had a discussion with somebody who said that they wanted to live in Ray County because of our soild Trails so that's a it's a good good thing on our on our behalf and thank the Association for all their work certainly pass that on yeah thanks all right with that resolution uh commissioner Shane i i i i and commissioner catch Mark stepped out but uh resolution passes 4 Z all right and now moving on to item D Matt making your way up to the podium here to schedule a special meeting to review petition for repairs on joint ditch 14 uh this ditch here is a ditch that is combined with is it merer and McLoud I think yes it is it's all down in that uh Southwest uh part of the county and looking to a point uh is it three we need to have or two yeah this one would be a special meeting to review the repair petition um in the case of eventual public hearing which is what you would determine if we are moving forward with future steps um that would be a public hearing with notice and and coordination with uh merer McLoud as well so the purpose of of this special meeting um we've received a repair request pursuant to Minnesota statue 103e 715 subdivision 1 and when you receive a repair request on a ditch system uh we did one very recently for County ditch number 19 County ditch number 19 is completely within R County so it's a little bit easier to hear and inform those meetings in this case it's on joint ditch 14 where we have two other counties um who are are active members in that uh in the case of joint ditch 14 we are the host County because the majority of the systems within R County so in that case we have three members that serve as the drainage Authority from rri County one commissioner from McLoud and one commissioner from Meer um that also have been appointed and will serve on this board so you would at this special meeting which we were scheduling today you would review the repair petition and determine if repairs are needed and appoint an engineer that engineer year um would review the ditch complete a survey and come back at a future date with a repair report um and we would schedule a public hearing from there again with a joint ditch system too we have a public hearing with coordination with merer McLoud for that so this one is just to review the repair petition um staff did have a recommended date uh June 18th at 1 p.m. uh I did touch base with Mark this morning um it that time does not work there is another meeting that has been scheduled I was just going to say that two of us would have been out right away it would by default you would have had you would had three but uh two would have to attend for sure the other two yeah and in the The Joint ditch Authority for this one there are three Commissioners so that is commissioner vetch commissioner cmark and commissioner Dietrich that serve as on the joint ditch panel so all three of you will definitely need to be there in case uh we are not able to get attendance for Meer McLoud to have Quorum um so they are recommending 11:00 a.m. instead of 1 p.m. on the 18th are we doing it here virtual what do we I don't know if we allowed to do virtual we can't do virtual so hopefully they will be able to attend but it would be here at the government center all right 11 A.M works so works for me commissioner Dietrich commissioner catchmark is that good yes Mr chair all right so with that I'll entertain a motion to uho well we already have the appointees but to schedule a joint ditch committee meeting on June 18th at 11: a.m. I'll make that motion Mr chair all right motion by commissioner catchmark second second by commissioner Shane any discussion Mr chair just this thing has started long ago and we're it's drug on longer than probably it should but if the other counties can't make that date then if long as we got our three here we can have the meeting right yes yeah you need a quorum to to appoint that engineer so yeah as long as all three of you are here we'll be able to do that okay and I think with the amount of time and the type of response that you got or didn't get from these other counties that I would say we hold that meeting whether they can make it or not because uh the onus has been on them to respond and they haven't been very timely I know I think it was April when we had the first discussion on this petition so it's we've given them more than enough time to make a response on it so we were looking at photos with snow yes over the holes that you could drop a side by side in because the tile had blown apart so it's that's my opinion anyway on I'm going to encourage them to at least submit written comment for the hearing if they're unable to attend as well okay thank you very fair all right so 11:00 a.m. on June 18th uh here in this room and we have a motion we have a second any further discussion hearing none all in favor say I hi same sign all right meeting is scheduled unanimously I'm assuming admin will send me an invite on that thank [Applause] you and next would be Barry making his way up here oh no it's not Barry Jacob's making his way yeah so good morning Commissioners um here today to ask to adopt a resolution um authorizing myself to submit an application on behalf of Wright County uh to the mpca for the low interest septic loan through the Clean Water partnership um so just want to clarify something up front so um we accept an application fee so that pays for our staff time on our septic end for our septic professional to review it we accept the fee UPF front by the applicant then in that application fee there's a additional fee in there that goes to the Recorder's Office for recording this onto the deed to pay through their taxes then in the interest aspect of it because it it was in the form of a 10-year 3% interest we collect a little bit of interest on that as well to pay for staff time to monitor it throughout the whole loan to make sure it's paid off other enforcement would be needed so with that said it's fully funded we do not owe any money no matching nothing we just this is just application just to see if we can procure this low interest loan to continue cuz in the past it's been now going on for 14 plus years and Jacob usually we only have about a handful of people that you're utilizing at any given time it's not like we have a list of you know 40 50 people that are on that Loan program it's it's um yeah we had uh 46 septics between four years so 11 people a year I say it's a couple handful a year but we're not doing we're not getting 4050 year year after year so I think like totally we're probably would you say 40 to 50 total on the program with the three-year loan and then with the one-year extension that we'll probably procure if we get it yeah so Mr chair and we've seen it come through before and the thing about it now is that money doesn't go as far as it used to because the cost of septics have gone up yeah when when it first started it was 13,000 um in 2011 to 2014 now it's about 18,000 on average there's others that'll go up upwards of 30,000 now somebody's catching on on a good listener because you see how you addressed admin cost right away thank you I figured that question was coming but I want Jacob you might be getting a gold star today th those are really hard to come by I got one just the other week so and I'm treasuring it so it was on a string but he still got it you might get yours without a string hey better all right uh so with that uh this is just the annual process of uh adopting and continuing the septic Loan program uh is there any other discussion I'll make that motion Mr chair motion by commissioner Dietrick I'll second second by commissioner catchmark any further discussion isn't it the roll call vote yep it'll be a resol yep so we have a motion we have a second uh resolution I vote i i i i i all right resolution passes unanimously thank you Jacob all right we are finally here making it to the items for consideration the first one would be to request a schedule a committee of the whole to review the status and direction of the household hazardous waste uh so I think the administration is targeting June 4th correct so Cher we do have a number of meetings that day uh we may need to look at one in the afternoon I'm good with one how long will it possibly take generally I guess it depends on how much you guys want to talk wish to have I would say it should be able to get done within an hour 90 minutes tops but there there isn't that many that works mhm unless you want to go like 12:30 so we can get it done a little bit earlier 12:30 would be better okay let's that all right cuz we got don't we have the JD meeting wait do we just no we changed that okay originally I had something down for that 14 ditch but that's fine 12:30 on the 4th all right so we have a motion do I have a motion yeah I'll make a motion okay a motion by commissioner Holland to second second by commissioner Shane to said June 4th at 12:30 for the committee the whole for household hazardous waste and recycling center projects all right next we have a grouping of different recommendations um so starting from the top we have the uh sorry mine got out of order here yeah Dutch first yep the first one would be the May 8th uh County ditch 19 uh committee drainage Authority meeting and that one was to review the first recommendation was to review the land ownership repair request inspection uh pursuant to 103715 and determine if any repairs were necessary and then the other one was uh was to appoint an engineer to make repairs a report uh in agreeance with 103e 715 subdivision 2 uh so those were the two agenda items and then the recommendation was to approve a contract with the engineering firm and Order reestablishment of records for County ditch 19 so with that I'll entertain a motion and a recommendation or a motion to approve the recommendations from the May 8th so moved all right I'll second motion by commissioner Shane second by commissioner Holland to approve the uh drainage Authority uh committee the whole from May 8th all in favor say I I clst same sign all right motions approved unanimously next was the uh minutes from 5'8 from the budget Committee of the whole I think I did them out of order but uh the recommendation was to direct staff to schedule specific times for the August budget meetings and that all back fill positions must be brought forward to the board for approval as a consent agenda Mr chair just can we add except for that one position except for yeah yeah with except for the uh One Finance position that that would be brought for consideration yeah that would be not a that would be a timed agenda item all right with that I'll entertain a motion to approve the uh recommendations from the May 8th budget Committee of the whole I'll make that motion second motion by commissioner catchmark second by commissioner Shane any discussion Mr sh just a quick question with that um commissioner katar's suggestion to add that approve that that that one position wouldn't that be something you could run through personel why would that need to come through to us either way they all are coming to us have to be called out like that either way it doesn't matter because he could pull it from the consent agenda he's just stating that I'm going going to call it off the consent agenda so just he's making it known to just please don't put it there just save yourself the the pause in the agenda so just put it as a timed agenda to begin with so all right with that we will uh we have a motion we have a second do we have a motion on that one yeah motion all right any other discussion hearing none all in favor say I I oppose same sign all right recommendations approved unanimously and now we have the variety of recommendations largely informational uh from the extensions then the uh fair board then the safe schools the recommendation just a slight modification was that we would request that the uh school districts and the county staff work together to uh in some cases not all school districts but in some cases work to reduce the frequency of them uh that just to be good stewards of both staff's times on both ends so then the other one was to uh the external survey was to d uh direct staff to move forward with a launch of the external survey with the follow-up results reported to the board uh between August and October of 2024 uh so as part of that presentation they kind of give us an outline of the questions that they're going to be submitting out to the public uh then we also had the 800 megahertz the board's consensus was to continue with the use of the old systems components and the spare and move forward with the purchase of the installation of secondary system so good discussion on that um I think a good path forward on it uh then we had the uh process for contract reviewers uh which was just an informational kind of walk through where that project's at uh we're we're getting there we still have a ways to go but we'll get there appreciate staff's time with that one it's not an easy one to uh move forward with then we had the uh shortened informational on the legislative updates we'll probably have a much more robust discussion with that on either the action or inaction of the legislator I think it's more inaction which in some cases is good maybe in other cases bad depending on what what topic we want to talk about right so then the last one was the staff rehire consent agenda was the board's consensus to bring forward staff rehire requests with detailed documentation as consent agenda items which was already part of the budget forecast which we just had an additional discussion and was also just kind of an overviewing uh direction to staff to be very cognizant when coming into this year's uh budget cycle with asking for new staff as we are taking a deep dive into looking at maximizing internal operations uh before we look at adding additional staff with that I'll entertain a motion to approve the budget Workshop recommendations I'll make that motion all right motion by commissioner Hollen I'll second second by commissioner catchmark any discussion hearing none all in favor say I I post same sign all right budget Workshop minutes approved unanimously uh item B3 added on was to reschedule the sheriff's uh Committee of the whole that was just scheduled for this PR previous week but was re uh canel due to conflicts with that we have a targeted date uh Chief uh brief discussion with the chief there uh I believe we are now looking into June of course um knowing you're not looking to have meetings next week so uh options would be the sixth uh following the leadership team meeting if we could do that a little later or maybe the third I know the fourth is very busy uh for the board already and I don't know on the fifth how many of the are participating in The Soil and Water to that day uh otherwise that may also be an opportunity in the morning I'm better on the third the third is fine June 3D's good good Chief what time of day you thinking morning morning morning you want to go at 9:00 a.m. yeah 9 A.M works for us sure all right and so June 3rd at 9:00 a.m. I'll entertain a motion moved all right motion by commissioner Shane second by commissioner dietr for June 3rd at 9:00 a.m. for a committee the whole regarding Sheriff's Department uh Outlook I'm going to call it our forecast yeah that's probably fair enough you're going to cover multiple topics I'm assuming uh probably try to keep it uh directed to the city contract rate discussion okay going be just on City contract okay perfect all right all right so with that we any other discussion all right all in favor say I I oh same sign all right June 3rd at 9:00 a.m. is approved unanimously uh we had a scheduled meeting for next week on the 28th for a discussion on public health and the public health authority that we have here at the county I was asked to look at uh seeing if we can reschedule that date that date as there is uh a couple different conflicts with individuals on the board uh looking to push it to the following week if at all possible should we do it on the third is we we can do it on the third yeah we can just follow it up so we did the third at 9:00 a.m. you want to just say it at 11 uh is that work for Sarah she's the busy one uh Jamie you have a budget meeting scheduled you have a budget meeting scheduled yeah um we have a a site visit with mdh but I think I don't need to be in that that's fine supervisors can be in that that's fine 9:00 a.m. on the 3D or no we're looking at 11:00 a.m. because we 9:00 a.m. we already have I apologize 11 that's fine that's even better all right good all right so I'll entertain a motion I'll make that motion all right motion by commissioner hland second second second by commissioner Shane any other discussion hearing none all in favor say I hi CL same sign all right June 3rd at 11:00 a.m. the committee of the whole regarding public health authority uh is scheduled and that brings us to the end of today's agenda is there paring comments I had the closed session that you had put on oh you're right I'm sorry I I skipped that one didn't I apologize I must have dribbled it out right iead and arrow to a different area on my agenda thank you for catching me on that that was supposed to be A2 so I apologize uh so the item was the uh process for closed session so commissioner catchmark no thank you Mr chair I just I wanted to address the decision to schedule the third session of Labor negotiation and the way that came about we already had two on the on the subject matter with by my account about seven six figure staff and Commissioners this is running over $1,000 just for the meeting time not to mention the planning time and the other two were brought up and requested in the meeting here for all the Commissioners and the third one now fact was I left early from the second one but regardless the third one didn't get pushed through here for consideration or I know I only got one vote but it'd be nice to use it for something like this but the scope has also changed from the first meeting to now the third of who would be potentially involved and included here so it's it's not a continuation of exactly the same meeting for three meetings in a row so I just I wanted to draw attention to that um because of how it did change from one group to another and how that third meeting was scheduled at the second meeting the top SEC secret closed session and I for overused and abused word transparency I it just doesn't seem right so I just I wanted to call attention to that see if there was any comment on that piece of it so I think with the was the intent behind that meeting was to leverage the fact that all the pertinent individuals were already meeting for a a a close session on that we met all statutory posting requirements for it uh then the secondary option to do what you would say the additional item added to it was added by members up here of the board in related to other consequences of one action and how it may have consequential actions uh elsewhere within the organization and hence the reason that it was maybe maybe perceived that it was added on but it was actually added on in discussion so was articulating ramifications so uh from that I I understand your point I think whenever possible and if you look at the timing on it because the way with us only meeting twice a month we we have to in some cases post meetings uh that don't always go through here just to be able to be able to do business uh our best practices when and when and if possible we will see scheduling meetings on here but it isn't it isn't in a definitive action that we have to do but um that was one that I I put on there looking to at least continue the conversations leveraging that the fact that the individuals that were in that previous meeting previous close session are the same individuals that would be necessary for the next one Mr chair yes but that extra group that was included at the second one weren't present at the second one but we're assuming they'll be at the third one there there wasn't anyone representing that group that you suggested we bring that was because it was without actually being it's close session details so without being able to discuss it you it was articulated that if you take actions here that it will have consequences here that's why that discussion brought was brought up those individuals weren't there because I am articulating the fact that if we do something here The is going to create other issues within our organization that is where that that that brought into the discussion okay then that then I'll go route that I'd like to make a motion that no more closed sessions for labor occur on this subject matter until it falls in line with the regular contract time for negotiations because the here you're speaking of could be way wider of a here than we are drawing in unsolicited so that's a motion that I make all right we have a motion by commissioner catchmark do we have a second do we have a second do we have a second all right uh motion dies for the lack of a second okay I I I I appreciate your perspective on it I don't want to necessarily know that I want to marry myself to something like that especially in this uh what I'm going to say complex labor market I mean there's days that I look at and go well it might be turning the tide it might be uh getting to be more of a leaner labor market but then there's other days where it's not and it's very tough especially now in getting very spe uh I'm going to call it especially trained staff in certain areas we're trying to find unicorns in other areas we have piles of applicants and Mr chair I I would like to just say that I don't want to hand tie us that when we want to bring certain things to the table during a conversation because good conversation leads to good decision and what is our future so that would handtie us to only being able to discuss what's at hand and not what could develop Mr chair so okay it'll it'll stand as is then I suppose the date and time but I will add this for consideration that I would like the exit interview information that's been compiled by staff for the last year and a half and the hundreds literally hundreds of employ Employee Engagement surveys that our staff has taken the time to do be tabulated and summarized for this third meeting to see if it fits in line with with the subject matter here because otherwise we're taken away from what the staff has been doing on the side and that seems like that would be very relevant to this discussion so I'm not in favor for sure of the meeting happening until this material is available and if it can't meet that deadline then look at postponing it until it is available I will support that I think that that's all pertinent information that we need I mean that along with some other things that we requested at the pre at the meeting itself uh that together will be able to give us a good picture uh on action or inaction that we may need to take so then we need staff to weigh in to see if they can meet that deadline they've got 30 people on a committee to review 300 and some surveys that's deal I think so do we need some feedback if they can meet that that date I would say what is that meeting on again June 4th right June 4th yeah I I was saying yeah I had to remember I was looking on that one and maybe we want to consider pushing it back a week we could just move it back to like the 11th just to give extra time to so Mr chair in the board you're looking for the full report out from that engagement survey just to be clear before we have that meeting to talk about Clos the internal they want yeah a synopsis of the internal report so we have all of our meetings we've been having we had some of them last week we have a number of them this week our last are concluding on this Thursday then we have to put the report together and we'll probably need to do some staff review the fourth is going to be really tight for us to be able to turn that around especially if we'd like to give Commissioners ample time to review that before the meeting I mean that only gives us probably a week or so from today and less than a week after we have our last meeting to write the whole report and review it I I think that we'd need more time than that to have that full report out on the engagement so you want to push it to like maybe the 11th after Workshop or do you want to go even further you can go I I think we may want to go a week further so our intent with that is is we would like to have the full report drafted have admin have a chance to review it and then have one more meeting with those focus groups to go over the results and make sure we captured the essence of those conversations so I'd say you'd probably be looking at Mid June at the earliest before we could have that and ready for assumption by the board June 18th yeah we have nothing after we just schedu we just sched the meeting that was at 11 11 oh you have a cannabis work group at one or one um yeah it's hard to say with that a County board meeting I have to say that I have to give myself at least till 10:30 for sure um then we want to look at the 19th that's juneth oh that's juneth that what does Monday the 17th look after Eda oh that that the 17th is good do that go with a 9:30 on so I will entertain a motion to move the close session from June 4th at 10:30 to June 17th at 9:30 am Mr chair just to be clear this is two prongs of information the exit interview info too because the bottom line is that we're meeting because of exits so we have to look at the data from exits and what we've gotten so far is just exit interview narrative with no department or office attached to it so we really need that too otherwise we don't know who we're looking at that was we we that's what I believe he was look getting the exit and we just talked about the survey I just want to make sure that we're clear that an exit interview data too cuz that's equally important in some cases maybe more important right well that's the purpose why Mr chair I don't want to go too far into the Weeds on stuff we discussed in close session but what I'll say is that we've we've outlined what we would say is a comprehensive set of information to bring forward to the board to review the complete situation so I think I feel pretty comfortable that we'll be able to bring all of that forward by the 17 and I did have a conversation with commission commissioner catchmark about these concerns and I think he's comfortable with what we're planning on bringing forward regarding these positions so we can have that ready by the 17th all right okay fair enough thank you thank you commissioner catchmark uh board members there is there any other parting comments Mr chair thanks for bringing up what could be a uncomfortable or touchy subject and attorney L didn't have to say anything so I assume I stayed in my Lanes so thank you Mr chair one quick comment the Highway 55 Corridor Coalition did receive uh 2 million $2 million uh for an eaw in uh the transportation bill that did get passed oh well there was some good action there surprise and you know I think it's good to see that I mean unfortunately we have to wait a whole year till we get the uh third testing option here available in Ray County but at least it pass so we will said that was good uh so we'll be able to expand testing to a good chunk of more individuals here in R County but they have to wait till August of 2025 oh I'm not quite sure why they wouldn't do it this August but whatever so with that uh we'll adjourn today's uh County board meeting at 10:17