[0:05] stands one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice

[0:11] for all. >> Amen.

[0:17] » Good morning and welcome to our regular meeting today, Tuesday, September 1st,

[0:22] 2026.

[0:25] Um, I know that there's one change to pull uh item six off of the consent

[0:30] agenda and just remove it completely. Are there other changes by the

[0:36] commission?

[0:39] If not, can I get a motion to approve our agenda?

[0:45] » Thank you. I got a motion from Commissioner Autton. Is there a second?

[0:48] » Second. >> Motion from [laughter] a second from

[0:51] Commissioner Arens. If there's no further discussion, Alicia, will you

[0:54] call the role? >> Commissioner Putnham,

[0:57] » yes. >> Arens,

[0:58] » yes. >> Here.

[0:59] » Lendine, >> yes. Motion carries. Next, uh, move on

[1:03] to our consent agenda agenda minus that item six. Can I get a motion to approve

[1:09] our consent agenda? >> So moved.

[1:12] » Got a motion from Commissioner Erenss. Is there a second?

[1:17] » Second. >> Got a second from Commissioner Aten. If

[1:20] there's no further discussion, Alicia, we call the role. Commissioner Putnham,

[1:26] » yes. >> Arens,

[1:28] » yes. >> Hi.

[1:29] » Lendine, >> yes. Motion carries. Uh, next we have

[1:33] our public hearing on the 2027 Lincoln County budget

[1:40] and our commission office um provided us with an updated copy, paper copy this

[1:47] morning

[1:53] and it was also attached to the agenda online.

[2:06] So,

[2:11] what changes, if any, do the commissioners want to make to the agenda

[2:15] budget? >> Just for clarification, for public

[2:17] knowledge, um the changes that were made were with the pay study that was

[2:22] implemented. Then we went through and changed all the personnel throughout the

[2:26] agenda. Also um we had talked about moving uh

[2:32] 101417242600

[2:35] which is the HR budget from 12,000 to 4,000. I didn't do it when I origin

[2:41] originally published the provisional so it's in there now. And the other change

[2:45] was revenue in the emergency management. Herald had confirmed that the state

[2:50] would be do a 40% match. Other than that those are the only changes that were

[2:53] done from the time of publication till today. Okay, thank you. Um, first, are

[2:59] there any department heads that want to come up and speak to their budget as

[3:03] presented in our um, budget that we have now?

[3:11] Nobody. All right.

[3:17] All right. Commissioners, what do you want to do?

[3:22] All

[3:35] right. Is there anyone from the public who would like to come up and speak to

[3:38] the budget as presented?

[3:42] » You want to bring up one change, Madam Chair?

[3:44] » Oh, okay. Go ahead, Commissioner. >> So, [clears throat]

[3:50] thank you, Madam Chair. So, as I mentioned before, uh I do support trying

[3:54] to put something together for some funding for the Linux ambulance issue

[3:59] that is going on. Uh Paul was having out those sheets.

[4:06] » He stepped out. >> I see that.

[4:10] Can Can you do that, Sherry? Thank you. Hand one out commissioners. So, what

[4:16] I've done is worked through and around things a

[4:20] little bit and not taking any money out of cash reserves.

[4:27] I kind of asked the department, do you want to

[4:30] speak into your microphone a little bit better?

[4:32] » Yep. So, what I did is kind of asked the department heads to see if there was a

[4:37] little they could give each way uh to help meet the number of uh 60,000 that

[4:45] I'm recommending for the Lincoln County portion.

[4:50] Let me hand those sheets out. Everybody can see what each one of those are.

[5:00] And this is going to be my proposal.

[5:06] There's the sheen talking >> and I'll go through them once you have

[5:10] them.

[5:20] » And I'd like to say thank you to all the department heads that were willing to

[5:22] give a little bit in their budget to to make this happen. So I really appreciate

[5:26] your effort in doing so. So my proposal is from the treasurer's

[5:34] budget to take a th000 from supplies and motor vehicle for a total of two 4 a,000

[5:40] from travel and supplies for 2,000 sheriff 2,000 minor equipment register

[5:46] of deeds $500 auditor 2,000 EMS could cut 2,000 from emergency

[5:55] service lines building and grounds I don't remember what line item that is

[6:00] $2,000 HR $3,000 I believe that was out of

[6:05] travel I believe and then $10,000 out of the commission's travel budget that was

[6:08] at 21,000 that will bring that down to 11 which the second sheet reflects the

[6:14] new numbers on that. [sighs and gasps] When it comes to other economic assist

[6:18] um assistance, my proposal is to not give them a

[6:23] budgetary increase from last year to basically keep them at 2026 levels.

[6:31] Children's in would stay at 15 and drop of 135 is what it proposed. The

[6:39] help center uh stays at 9473. Solless stays at 45. Inner lake stays at

[6:47] 6903. Linux enrichment stays at five. Can

[6:51] transition stays at 15. Code ababilities 4320 and Lifscapes 53 52332

[7:01] which brings the total of all of those up to my request of 60,078.

[7:08] Not adding any new dollars to the budget, trying to find them within the

[7:12] existing budget. So that is my proposal to add that to the

[7:17] budget for that. And as you all know, uh they're still working on the operating

[7:21] agreement. I think people have seen a uh draft. I know Drew has um been looking

[7:27] through one because we need to obviously get the legal on that. So

[7:32] » So if we if we got or reduced these items by the amount that you're

[7:37] suggesting and move that to what line item would that go to? Do you know? I

[7:42] have no idea. >> I would I would probably take it out of

[7:45] other economic assistance. Just add it into that line item.

[7:50] » Add it to other economic assistance as an ambulance line item.

[7:53] » Yep. I'd have I'm going to have to double check and see how the accounting

[7:56] would go on it. But at this time, I would just say add it to there.

[8:00] » Okay. [clears throat]

[8:03] It would be added to the general fund though.

[8:05] » Okay. Nathan is here from the city of Linux.

[8:10] if there was any pertinent questions about what's going on. Not about this,

[8:16] but >> yeah. Commissioners have any questions

[8:21] uh for Commissioner Auton?

[8:28] » So, we're automatically giving the children's in for sure 28,000 next year.

[8:34] And >> no, the recommendation was to leave it

[8:37] at 2026 levels. you'll see those lines. So, they're actually reductions that

[8:43] commission >> No, I understand that. But we've um have

[8:47] we talked about given to children's in and

[8:51] lifecape and everything >> every year.

[8:53] » Every year. Okay. >> There has not been any discussion as to

[8:56] what you want to cut out of the budget. You guys, you have not had any

[9:01] discussion other than what Commissioner Aton is presenting. So, if you want to

[9:04] cut all of it, you can cut all of it. He's just saying to keep it level to

[9:09] take it out of these items. >> Yes. My proposal is to keep them static

[9:16] » from 26 to 27. >> Doesn't mean that you somebody couldn't

[9:20] make a decision to cut more or cut them out entirely. That's not my proposal.

[9:25] What was the process used to ascertain or determine

[9:30] how and why each of the line items under other economic assistance would be

[9:37] raised? >> Yeah.

[9:38] » So, for example, uh the 2026 children's in uh budget is

[9:48] 15 and in 2027 the proposal is 285. Yeah,

[9:54] Paul Anderson, Link County Commission administrative assistant. Um, kind of

[9:57] followed the same program, the same pattern we have since I came in. So that

[10:02] was 2024 uh for the 25 budget year. Uh, we sent

[10:07] out applications to the to the outside agencies um asked them to uh submit

[10:15] their budget proposal, uh, financial audit documents,

[10:19] uh, any justifications. Uh, this year we we changed it up a little bit. that we

[10:23] had them submit um uh onepage funding explanation

[10:29] justification documents make it a little bit easier. Uh those are sent uh to the

[10:33] board. Um I include them in the budget line for other economic assistance as uh

[10:40] an out uh as an outside agency request and then leave it up to the board to uh

[10:45] determine whether or not they would like to fund that. And they have uh you

[10:50] should have the packets in the email. If you don't have a handy, I can resend

[10:53] you. Um, but that that that explains their audit situ or their financial

[10:58] situations, their budget requests, and their budget justification.

[11:02] » Thank you, Paul. >> Yeah, I just want to note here. So, in

[11:07] 2024, Children's in was 8,000. Then it almost doubled the next year, so

[11:15] 2x. and then it's doubled again for 2027 to

[11:20] 285. Uh, Helpline Center has stayed flat for

[11:26] the last 3 years. That's now jumped up to 12,000.

[11:31] Solless has gone up uh almost 4x

[11:39] uh was in 2024 it was 9473 and then 45k and 45k and 50.

[11:49] Interlakes started at 6785 in 2024.

[11:55] That's kind of had some modest increases. Linux enrichment has stayed

[11:59] flat for the last four years. Canton transit

[12:04] has gone up well literally doubled in the last four years.

[12:09] Uh decodabilities is statutoily required.

[12:14] Uh so that number presumably is decided based upon

[12:19] the statute. Then lifecaped has almost doubled as

[12:24] well over the last four years.

[12:29] And so, Commissioner Putnham, just to answer your question, it uh

[12:35] these numbers have moved up pretty rapidly over the last few years.

[12:44] Yeah. Um I, you know, in a uh $12 million shortfall,

[12:52] I guess this all looks kind of saddened. Um, some of this stuff I don't have no

[12:59] clue. Like for instance, um, Linux enrichment. How how how do we need to be

[13:06] enriching them?

[13:11] Well, my other concern is here that and I appreciate Commissioner

[13:19] Attton going to the department heads. Uh went to the treasurer, the 4, the

[13:24] sheriff, the register of deeds, the auditor, the EMS, the buildings and

[13:27] grounds, the HR, and then the commission.

[13:32] And they cut out approximately

[13:38] what? Yeah. Yeah. What does that add up to?

[13:42] » I think 15 >> 15,000. Well, that's 15,000 of spending.

[13:47] Yeah.$ 155. That should have never been there in the first place because if they

[13:51] can give it up for this should have never [clears throat] been budgeted in

[13:55] the first place. So,

[14:00] » go ahead, Commissioner. >> I don't know if I necessarily agree with

[14:03] that assessment that the fact that it should have been there in the first

[14:06] place. I think they were doing me a favor.

[14:11] to move this proposal along. >> I get No, I appreciate that. Thank you

[14:15] for saying that in public. >> So, what is the reason that we need to

[14:19] give um 60,000 to the ambulance in Lennox? What was the reasoning behind

[14:27] that? >> Well, we're supposed to have a meeting

[14:30] with Turner County to ascertain whether or not there's interest in uh having an

[14:37] ambulance district. That would be a taxation district and I've talked to the

[14:43] Turner County folks about that. They're interested in having that meeting. I

[14:48] thought we were interested in having that meeting. And what that would do is

[14:53] if the ambulance district was approved is that would place a levy or a tax on

[15:02] the people who would actually use the ambulance service themselves as opposed

[15:07] to coming out of the general fund that comes from all taxpayers across the

[15:11] county. So, I think that we should have that meeting with Turner County uh

[15:19] before we spend any taxpayer money here on the ambulance district cuz I thought

[15:25] there was motivation to want to at least I'm being

[15:30] told on the part of Turner County, they're interested in setting up an

[15:34] ambulance district and I think uh we ought to sit down and talk with them

[15:40] about doing the same thing. Now, would that be on um

[15:46] certain townships with around surrounding Lennox then?

[15:54] » Yep. Go ahead, Commissioner. >> It would be for the Lennox ambulance

[15:57] service territory. >> Well, what's the territory?

[16:00] » Which which includes like the city of T and Delipree Township. They have they

[16:05] have all committed. I think there's an email out there just said the last few

[16:09] days that breaks down which of the uh entities have decided to

[16:15] get on board and the dollar mouse input on there. So yes, it includes townships,

[16:20] but this is not intended to pay for the township's portions because this would

[16:24] not cover that. >> Um what are we giving?

[16:27] » I'm just I'm going to address Commissioner Arens. Okay.

[16:32] » Do you think I I understand what you're saying about the ambulance district and

[16:35] what by putting a line item and moving this money doesn't necessarily mean that

[16:39] the county is approving the expense itself. I'm assuming there's

[16:45] going to have to be more discussions and a vote. Would you agree?

[16:51] » Sounds to me like we give budget authority and it that

[16:56] makes it happen. I don't know that that's necessarily

[16:59] true. Um, >> seems like it works out.

[17:02] » Legal is shaking their head. So, I don't I don't think we're we're actually

[17:06] approving the expenditure. >> There would have to be a joint agreement

[17:09] between all the entities and that's still in the in its infancy.

[17:14] » Yeah. And I I think the joint agreement was sent around. Is that the email

[17:19] you're referring to, Commissioner? Hot? >> Yes.

[17:22] » Uh, there were no according to the one I've seen, there were no numbers

[17:25] attached to it. There was supposed to be an exhibit attached to it that put all

[17:31] of the respective entities breakdowns and uh nobody's provided that to me.

[17:37] Commissioner Putnham, you've been provided that?

[17:40] » No, I haven't. Um my question being is we're going to

[17:46] give one ambulance district money or proposing here, but what about the other

[17:53] ambulance districts? We we're going to what are we going to do for them?

[17:59] » Go ahead, Commissioner. >> So, uh to address Commissioner Har's

[18:04] concerns, this is not to the uh spend the money. This is the money to put the

[18:10] line item in the budget. >> All right. Sorry. So, this is not to

[18:17] spend the money. This is to get a line item in the budget to have the funds

[18:21] there if needed. uh is the in the intent of this otherwise we all realize if we

[18:27] need the money next year that we're going to have to come and take it out of

[18:30] the budget or out of out of reserves to have something done and there did not

[18:35] seem to be any appetite to do that the last time I brought this up uh

[18:40] Commissioner Putnham as the other ambulance services they haven't been

[18:43] here to ask and I guess if they do we'll deal with

[18:48] that at that moment but they haven't come up here so I I'm not concerned

[18:52] about that at this moment. >> Well, yeah. And and I think the reason

[18:59] they haven't asked is because they're able to fund their operations on their

[19:03] own without assistance from the county commission.

[19:07] » Um that's why and they run less overhead than Linux. Linux has higher overhead

[19:15] and um that's choice that that they've made. that's a level of service um above

[19:24] and beyond the others that they want to provide.

[19:28] And um I just keep going back to this issue

[19:34] of we should collaborate with Turner County. I've called township

[19:40] supervisors, didn't reach all of them, but talked to a lot of them about this

[19:46] issue and how they view the taxation of an ambulance district. And look, nobody

[19:54] likes the idea of a tax increase, [clears throat]

[19:59] especially when they're concerned about spending.

[20:05] It makes it really difficult to do tax increases when there's no fiscal

[20:11] discipline. However, in the township supervisors

[20:16] that I've spoken with, they're all fairly conservative folks

[20:22] and they all understand the importance of having an ambulance service to come

[20:30] when it's called. and so they're willing to come to the table to talk about

[20:37] uh forming an ambulance district. Um

[20:42] but what I think they're concerned about is this issue of potential double

[20:48] taxation. You get taxed on your property taxes.

[20:53] You get taxed as a township. You give the money to the township. You give the

[20:57] money to the to the county commit or to the county.

[21:02] Then the county sends one check out the door in this instance proposed for

[21:07] 60,000 and then the township send money out the door for whatever dollar amounts

[21:12] they would decide to support the ambulance district. Well, the issue's

[21:16] been brought up to me and I I you know am sympathetic to this as well is well

[21:23] why are we doing why do we have this taxation system that we do if we're

[21:27] going to send these checks out instead why don't we just form the ambulance

[21:33] district and they would apply the tax to the affected people and then those

[21:43] persons would have to pay for the service as opposed to county taxpayers

[21:48] from around the whole county paying for it. Um, and then the other issue comes

[21:54] in is this agreement. Um, as I understand it, this is not just

[22:03] a proposal to uh give $60,000 to the Lennox Ambulance

[22:09] District. There has also been a request made of us to participate

[22:14] in this group of like 20 different entities

[22:20] all the affected townships, the city of Linux,

[22:24] Turner County. I mean there is a whole host of them and there would be this

[22:28] committee of like 20 people as I understand it. Um, I may not be

[22:37] precisely correct on that number of entities, but I'm just reaching for that

[22:41] right now. It's it's all these entities and they would be a partner to this

[22:46] contract where the city of Linux would provide

[22:50] the service and then all these other entities would come together and just

[22:54] pay for that service. Um, what I'm concerned about though is

[23:01] that those entities, even though they're paying the fee,

[23:06] they don't have governance authority over the ambulance system.

[23:13] They pay the money, but they don't control the system. In fact, I think the

[23:18] contract specifically says, Commissioner Utten, that Linux would control that.

[23:26] So really, you're relying upon whoever in the city of Lennox to make

[23:32] the policies and the procedures as well as the oversight.

[23:38] But all the other participants, the donor entities,

[23:43] they don't have any oversight over the taxpayer money that leaves the taxpayer.

[23:50] So they would just we I am concerned about setting up that kind of system

[23:59] where there is no end toend control from where the money goes out of the taxpayer

[24:05] pocket to where it gets spent. And I think the more effective approach,

[24:13] but also the one that ensures there is taxpayer

[24:17] oversight, is the ambulance district itself.

[24:24] » Uh, go ahead, Commissioner Aten. >> So, you guys were dealing with this way

[24:28] before I showed up here two months ago, and I'm under the impression that a

[24:32] taxing district was decided against because it went fly. So, it just seems

[24:37] like it's a red herring thrown out there on this issue. Uh, as did the governance

[24:43] of the board. I'm pretty confident that some of these

[24:51] people contributing and being part of this don't want to be running the

[24:55] amlets. That's my information from one of the

[24:58] cities that they're not interested in having a spot on a board or be in charge

[25:02] of running the amlets. Linux has done it for a long time and have done a fine job

[25:06] of it. >> And we're not voting on an ambulance.

[25:08] We're not making any decisions on an ambulance. This is simply um reducing

[25:13] these budgetary amounts and then allotting $60,000 for future discussions

[25:19] um regarding ambulance services. So, if we could get move that off of the dime

[25:23] since we're not actually debating what we're going to do um to get our budget

[25:29] uh finalized. And just to say when it comes to the townships or the other

[25:33] entities, that's for Linux to deal with them as to how that works out. I don't

[25:38] believe that's for us to make the decisions for the townships of how the

[25:42] board is set up for them and what kind of representation they have. They're

[25:45] contributing. That's something that they can negotiate themselves. I'm focusing

[25:48] on Lincoln County's contribution. >> Commissioner Schmidt, did you want to

[25:52] say something? >> Well, yes, I do.

[25:56] » And I will afterwards if I can. Thank you. Um

[26:01] we're up against the deadline here up until the 31st of December and then that

[26:08] ambulance uh uh is cut off and remains in the city of Lennox. So I mean it's a

[26:14] life or death issue in some some areas. I congratulate Commissioner Utton for

[26:19] his endeavor to do this and what the idea was that you tried to distribute

[26:26] this so it's equal so everybody pays something. I mean I I I we had a meeting

[26:33] uh on an ambulance district earlier in the year a couple years ago and that was

[26:39] the most one of the most inflammatory meetings I think we've had on opposition

[26:44] to that. Now, maybe the temperature has changed, but we're coming up with a sum

[26:49] of money that was talked about as possible. Uh, county portion, that's

[26:55] all. And Commissioner Autton has found a way in which to have that funds be

[27:01] available. Doesn't mean we're going to spend it. Doesn't mean anything. It just

[27:05] means that we now have sequestered the funds if we decided to go ahead with

[27:11] that proposal. So I think uh I don't see anything wrong with putting that aside

[27:16] and saying that these funds are and and I look at our staff for willingness to

[27:23] try and cut their own budget to get this sum available. So I think we have a lot

[27:30] of goodness, a lot of wins right here. So I don't have a problem with just

[27:34] passing this thing saying we got the 60,000 should we want it? if we got it.

[27:39] If we don't, we can we don't have to use it. So, do you need a motion, Madam

[27:44] Chair? >> I'd like to speak.

[27:46] » Oh, excuse me. I'm gonna Commissioner >> Commissioner Putnham, go ahead. You have

[27:49] the floor. >> Okay. I've just got to thank Herman for

[27:53] uh lowering the budget. He just helped the 27 budget here by lowering it and I

[28:00] appreciate that. And um I'm not

[28:07] I'm not a proponent at this time for this. So

[28:15] » do you want us to take these peace meal um

[28:20] for the record? >> Any changes that you make to the budget,

[28:23] you'll have to do a motion on each item. >> So for instance, treasurer reducing

[28:28] supplies. >> No, you can do this in one.

[28:30] » Okay. >> Yeah. So, should I do the reductions and

[28:33] then if we do if somebody wants to make a motion on moving 60,000 to the

[28:37] ambulance do that separately

[28:44] have to do? >> Does that make sense?

[28:48] » Well, give me a minute to think about this. Okay.

[28:53] » Well, what's wrong with making a motion on this handout? Just say make this

[28:58] handout a >> Yeah,

[29:00] » that's my question. Incorporate that into the budget.

[29:03] » That's my question. >> In writing. Yeah.

[29:05] » Well, and then I I will I'll have it in the minutes like this. So,

[29:08] » Sure. Okay. Well, if we're going to do one felt swoop on this, um, then I would

[29:14] take public input on what Commissioner Atten has presented.

[29:23] Is there public input on what Commissioner Aten presented?

[29:29] If not, is there a motion? >> I would so move, Madam Chair.

[29:34] » Thank you. Is there a second? >> I will second.

[29:38] And so just to clarify the motion, it's to reduce

[29:42] uh what's on the sheet by the amounts indicated, leave all the other economic

[29:47] assistance at the 2026 levels and then move that savings to an ambulance uh

[29:54] line item that would be under other economic assistance

[29:58] » or wherever I need to put it within the general budget

[30:00] » or wherever Sherry needs to put it to be in compliance with what she needs to do.

[30:06] Is that your motion, Commissioner Atten? >> Yes, that's my second.

[30:10] » Or that's your second. So, Commissioner Schmidt, is that your motion?

[30:13] » Yes. >> Commissioner Atten, that's your second.

[30:15] Y >> um Alicia, will you call the role?

[30:19] » Commissioner Putnham, >> I guess I don't quite understand it all.

[30:24] Are we voting on this to give it to them or what are we doing?

[30:28] » Voting to put it in the budget. >> I restated the motion. So, that is the

[30:32] motion. Do you need it restated, Commissioner Putnham?

[30:35] » Well, just restate it then. What did I just ask? Okay. So, the motion, as I

[30:40] understand it, is to reduce the departments by the amounts listed on the

[30:45] sheet that Commissioner Atten gave us, to leave the other economic assistance

[30:50] levels at the 2026 levels, and to move or add a 60,000 line item

[30:59] for ambulance, services, other under other economic assistance, or whatever

[31:04] line item uh our auditor feels is necessary to remain in compliance.

[31:11] That's the motion.

[31:16] » And then you're going to do public comment.

[31:18] » I I did ask for public comment. >> Yep.

[31:23] » Commissioner Putnham. >> Well, I don't like the idea of moving

[31:27] 60,000 over there that isn't even budgeted yet. So, no.

[31:33] » Schmidt, >> yes.

[31:34] » Arenss, >> yes.

[31:36] » Uton, >> hi.

[31:37] » Landing. Yes. Motion carries. All right. Any other commissioners on

[31:41] any other budgeted items on changes that they want to make?

[31:46] Is it appropriate, Madam Chair, to talk about before we begin how our staff has

[31:53] worked very hard on reducing the budget? >> You you can certainly say whatever you

[32:00] would like to say. I' I've offered to have department heads come up and

[32:03] address their budget and explain that, but sure. Go ahead. Um, but I would like

[32:08] to stay focused on what we're doing here, which is um, pro approving our

[32:12] budget or not approving. >> Talking about changes from the original

[32:16] budget that various uh, departments have made. For example, the sheriff's

[32:22] part-time wages have gone down. Uh, the jail overtime wages have gone down and

[32:28] jail health insurance has gone down. Our PNZ has gone down. Uh we have had many

[32:35] different changes and when I added all them up that came to over $200,000 worth

[32:41] of actual cuts that our uh staff has made in their operation and their

[32:47] departments and I think that shouldn't go unnoticed. So I would commend them

[32:53] for what they've done. So I just like to make that statement. The other one is I

[32:58] want to talk before we get into the budgets

[33:01] uh before so everybody can understand that this budget process just didn't

[33:07] happen by accident. So when the budget begins back in February 3rd, there has

[33:14] been 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13 meetings of the budget committee that

[33:24] every budget that is presented by a department head has gone over has been

[33:30] has been uh looked at not only by themselves but by the other department

[33:35] heads. So there's a lot of internal things when this budget is finally

[33:40] prepared. There are a lot of questions that were asked by department heads of

[33:45] each other as to the relevance of the money that they were asking for. So I

[33:50] mean it just isn't that uh they come out of this thing with a wish list. It's a

[33:55] very serious thing. I commend each department head and I commend our

[33:59] auditor for how well this thing is has been gleaned through. So when you see

[34:05] these numbers that are in front of us this morning, they have been looked at

[34:10] and relooked at and they're real. So whatever we decide or the commission

[34:16] decides to do with them is another thing. But I just want to commend our

[34:20] audit committee and our auditor for hard work in putting this thing together.

[34:25] Thank you. On July 15th, there was a budget

[34:30] published. And then on July 30th, there was another

[34:34] budget published. And if you look at

[34:40] this is dated now, August 18th. You heard the auditor say what the only

[34:46] changes were. There was a reduction in the HR and then one other line item. And

[34:52] then there's been the ones we've made today, but

[34:58] there may have been some minor reductions in

[35:02] line items contained within the budget, but here's what the numbers state.

[35:11] These are the largest departmental increases in order for the top five from

[35:17] July 15th to July 30th. Sheriff's Office started out at 4.8

[35:23] million and on July 30th it went to 5.5 million. That's an overall increase in

[35:32] 621,000.

[35:35] On July 15th, the state's attorney's office started out at 3.2.

[35:41] July 30th, 3.4 139,000. Planning and zoning 445

[35:48] to 566 that's 120,000. Jail increased by 120,000.

[35:56] Auditor increased by 57,000.

[36:01] Now what drives some of that? Uh some of that is being driven by the wage study

[36:10] we did. that was that was an input that was not available to us back on uh July

[36:19] 15th that was feathered in later on. So

[36:24] you've got person this personnel category 41

[36:29] got salaries overtime part-time wages OASI retirement workers comp and health

[36:35] insurance um and so uh yes

[36:43] some of the department heads made cuts

[36:48] but overall the at least for those five departments

[36:53] they are an overall increase. And just for those five departments

[37:00] alone, that's a general fund increase of uh if

[37:06] I'm doing my math right, about $1.2 million increase

[37:12] on that personnel, excuse me, for all departments. For the personnel, excuse

[37:16] me, for all departments. [sighs]

[37:19] So, um any

[37:24] any um statements that would suggest that the budget is being cut,

[37:32] uh you have to take into consideration

[37:38] that there's almost a 6.3% increase of money coming out of the

[37:45] general fund. uh and going towards these expenditures.

[37:52] So I would just caution that we be careful about making any

[37:59] assertions that the overall budget is going down. The overall budget is going

[38:03] up, not down. And then additionally, and what I have

[38:09] concern about is we have we're using $11 million out of our reserve fund to help

[38:17] balance our budget and most families don't do that

[38:24] and most businesses don't do that. We're using a lot of money, $11 million

[38:34] to fund. Some of that is for ongoing expenses

[38:39] and some of that is for one-time expenditures.

[38:43] And my concern about the overall sustainability of a budget in which

[38:49] reserves need to be used to pay for ongoing expenditures.

[38:54] You wouldn't run a business like that. You definitely wouldn't run your family

[38:58] budget like that. >> And so

[39:01] » what changes what changes do you want to make to the budget, Commissioner Erands?

[39:05] » I've made I've tried to make budgets for changes for the last seven years and

[39:09] they get shot down. >> Well, let's hear them.

[39:12] » So, okay,

[39:14] » let's go. >> Let's Let's do this. Um, I just want to

[39:19] let you know this probably take about an hour or two.

[39:22] » That's fine. >> Okay.

[39:23] » Got time.

[39:29] » [snorts] >> Start on page one, August 18th. It's

[39:33] page one of 61

[39:38] under that's the general fund revenues.

[39:44] Page two is the just a continuation of that. Page three,

[39:51] Board of Commissioners Personnel Services

[39:57] Salaries and wages for next year are scheduled to go up

[40:03] 6.53%.

[40:08] I don't know of anybody in society today who's getting a 6.53%

[40:16] increase.

[40:21] I don't even know why that was proposed or who put that in here. That is so out

[40:27] of step with what's going on with family budgets today. Why elected county

[40:33] commissioners need to have a 6.53%

[40:37] pay raise. >> Commissioner Erenss, you also have

[40:40] Paul's wages in there. >> Okay. But I'm looking at Yeah, I'm

[40:44] looking at personnel services. What page are you on? And wages are all

[40:51] part of that. >> So why are his ser Why are why is his

[40:56] line item with our line item then? >> Because he's under your budget.

[41:01] » Okay. >> And that's wages.

[41:03] » Well, I don't think any county employee should be getting a 6.53%.

[41:10] » No offense, Paul. >> He would be getting a It would be

[41:12] budgeted. All county wages were budgeted for 3% cola and 2.5% step.

[41:18] » Yeah. And it rounds up, it says 6.53% here. That's five. There's a com there's

[41:26] a increase for commissioner wages because what we've historically done is

[41:31] we take the commissioners or elected officials and we give them the 5.5%

[41:36] for budgeting um increase to match the what we are

[41:41] budgeting for the employees. >> Well the county you asked for the

[41:47] changes and thank you for the clarification.

[41:49] » What is the change commissioners? Well, the county commissioner should be

[41:53] flatlined and not receive any increase.

[42:04] Are you going to make a motion on each page that you're going through? And I

[42:07] think that's probably what we're going to want to do if these are going to be

[42:10] extensive. So, and I'm writing them down as we go. So,

[42:13] » I move to flatline the commissioner salary for next year.

[42:19] Well, typically before we take motions, we hear public comment.

[42:26] Is there public comment on what Commissioner Erands proposes?

[42:34] » Lendon Montgomery, Fairview, South Dakota. I think that is a very prudent

[42:39] suggestion and I'd like to see it passed.

[42:43] So, you are um any other public comment?

[42:52] » I appreciate too looking at I'm sorry, Beth Quail, Harrisburg. Um appreciate

[42:56] looking at the budget and try to cut some items. I would also wonder why we

[43:00] can't see the budget. understand it's online, but here as a meeting and we're

[43:05] the um taxpayers, why don't we have a copy of the budget on the screen that we

[43:10] can see what's going on? Thank you. >> Make that happen.

[43:17] » All right. So, any other public comment? All right,

[43:22] » Madam Chair, I have a question. >> What's your question?

[43:25] » Well, are we going to vote on every change that Commissioner Eron wants? I

[43:30] would rather have him go through his entire changes to the overall budget and

[43:36] then react to that rather than going uh change by change by change.

[43:42] » I think the way that we should do it is by each um department number and then we

[43:48] can do it page by page, but >> I don't I think it's too much to keep

[43:52] track of to talk about it overall. >> Yeah.

[43:55] » Okay. >> There's some stuff that you may not want

[43:57] to do. Commissioner Erenss, you were making a motion. Is that your only

[44:00] motion under the board of commissioners is to uh leave that flat?

[44:06] » Um >> I second

[44:08] » as the 2026 amount. >> That's the only one on that line item.

[44:14] » Okay. Well, what other changes do you want to make to that on page three?

[44:18] » Well, I'm making that motion the way it is.

[44:21] » All right. So, there has been a motion made. Is there a second?

[44:25] » I second it. Got a motion and a second. Alicia, you'll call the role.

[44:29] » Commissioner Putnham, >> yes.

[44:31] » Schmidt, >> no.

[44:32] » Arens, >> yes.

[44:34] » Hi. >> Landing?

[44:35] » Yes. Motion carries. Other changes that you'd like to make on

[44:41] the board of commissioners department. >> Go down to the bottom.

[44:47] I see all of these subscriptions on there to the Canton Chamber of Commerce,

[44:54] the Sou Falls Development Foundation, the Beersford Chamber, the Harrisburg

[44:59] Chamber, the Lennox Chamber, the Tea Chamber, the Sou Falls Chamber,

[45:04] and then the South Dakota Association of Counties and Niko Dues.

[45:13] And really the question I bring up more of a rhetorical question is

[45:19] why do we just spend money with chambers of commerce?

[45:25] There's other organizations. There's the Lions Club. There's the Rotary. I could

[45:29] go on. There seems to be this belief somehow that government needs to be

[45:35] embedded with the Chamber of Commerce. And I just don't believe

[45:42] that we should be spending government money

[45:45] to these organizations. There's all kinds of organizations we

[45:49] could be involved in, but I want to this thing here, the South Dakota Association

[45:54] of Counties and Niko Dues, $15,000.

[46:02] And then we send property taxpayer money to the association of counties

[46:08] and then they go up there and they lobby for the things that their board of

[46:12] directors says we should do. But sometimes it's against the interest

[46:17] of taxpayers. So we're using taxpayer money to lobby

[46:21] against taxpayers. Even Ronald Reagan was against taxpayer

[46:26] funded lobbying back in the 80s as president of the United States. Well,

[46:31] it's a good example to follow. So, my motion is to remove spending

[46:39] for all of those organizations on there. >> Is there a second?

[46:46] » I second it. >> Got a motion and a second. Any

[46:50] discussion, >> Madam Chair?

[46:53] » Go ahead. So can somebody explain to me then exactly the

[46:59] SDACCC and the NAO dues how that is utilized for the benefit of Lincoln

[47:06] County. >> Commissioner Schmidt, would you like to

[47:09] address that? >> The county association is your voice of

[47:14] county government. It looks out for all of the different things that the state

[47:18] tries to put un unfended mandates that are re that counties have to pay for. I

[47:24] think it's extremely nearsighted not to be a part of that. And the reason your

[47:29] sum is there is because it's based on a per capita basis and because Lincoln

[47:34] County is the third largest county, one would expect that our dues would be

[47:38] there. As far as the national association, the counties are concerned.

[47:42] They are the ones that look out for us on a national level. They are the ones

[47:47] that put money aside for counties to do all kinds of things. For example, you

[47:53] got it may not affect us, but they have a PILT thing which affects the counties

[47:58] in the West River. It may not affect Lincoln County, but overall that one

[48:03] there is the one that provides us with a voice on a national level. So, if you're

[48:09] going to be a participant, you're going to be a county, you're going to be an

[48:12] isolated island by yourself. And as far as lobbying against each uh something of

[48:18] the taxpayers, I don't think so. I think if you look at this association and the

[48:24] things that they've lobbied against and prevented from happening, it would have

[48:28] cost the taxpayers if we'd have been sitting out there on an island by

[48:32] ourselves. And they said, I'm not arguing about chambers of commerce.

[48:36] That's uh philosophical. But when it comes to belonging to your state

[48:40] organization and your national organization, I don't know of any other

[48:44] organization that does not want to participate. So I think this is

[48:48] extremely nearsighted on our part. Um, Commissioner Aten, for example,

[48:54] um, indigent legal services. The Association of County Commissioners

[48:59] lobbyed pretty hard to get the state to take

[49:03] back on um handling some of those appeals so that it the counties weren't

[49:08] having to pay for those appeals. And that was successful. And there is um

[49:13] there is now an indigent services that the state is paying for which was an

[49:18] assistance to the counties and so it did save the taxpayers money and so it is it

[49:25] is definitely a benefit uh to the counties to belong to that. Um, as far

[49:31] as the board making a decision, the board um votes on resolutions and things

[49:38] of that nature to move forward to the entire

[49:43] um congregation of counties when we go and have our meetings and then we sit in

[49:49] an auditorium and we vote and make amendments on different resolutions. So

[49:54] to say that the uh board of directors makes all these decisions, that's not

[50:00] true. Um, and I agree with Commissioner Schmidt, the chamber. I mean, that is

[50:07] philosophical. I do support spending those those monies um to be part of

[50:13] those things. However, if that's the way this, you know, board wants to go, I'm

[50:18] fine with that. But I can't support removing the association of county

[50:22] commissioners and the uh and the NAO dues.

[50:26] » One other thing I neglected, if you looked at our road and bridge fund, the

[50:30] amount of money that are that we've received from counties have been through

[50:34] lobbying the state legislature continually. And not only that, but our

[50:40] townships have appreciated our efforts as well. So there's any number of

[50:45] things. I mean, I didn't we didn't come prepared to find out all of the

[50:49] different things that come through our lobbying effort or through our joint

[50:53] relationship with the association. So, >> madam chair.

[50:58] » Yep. Go ahead, Commissioner. >> All right. So, that was I was a little

[51:01] aware of most of that information. A lot of that was um for the other

[51:05] commissioners and the audience of what they do. I think being the only one that

[51:09] has served in Pier, um I do know the worth and the value of what they do

[51:14] bring to the state capital and advocating for counties. Um they've

[51:18] advocated for my bills and they've killed my bills. So, uh they do pretty

[51:22] good work up there. I will not be supporting this motion.

[51:27] » Thank you. If there's no further discussion, Alicia, we call the

[51:31] » I I would like to weigh in on this. >> Go ahead, Commissioner.

[51:35] » Have time here. Um, I concur somewhat with Commissioner

[51:43] Smith on this deal, but

[51:48] is this something that we can take off and then

[51:53] next year we can talk about it >> we have a new commission?

[51:58] » We're h we're having our budget discussion and setting the budget for

[52:02] the next commission right now. Well, I guess I would be

[52:09] to taken everything off except maybe that then.

[52:14] » Okay. Well, we're just voting on the motion that Commissioner Arens made and

[52:18] that you seconded. >> Okay. I second it then. We take it all

[52:22] off. >> He I mean he can make a motion to amend

[52:25] the main motion and that's what it sounds like you were trying to do.

[52:29] » There you go. You're so smart. >> So, you'd like to make a motion to amend

[52:36] and take off all the chambers and then leave the SDACC and NO dues on there.

[52:41] » Seven. >> Yep. If they're if they're doing us a

[52:45] good job. >> Now, Commissioner Smith did say that

[52:50] they lobbyed for the bridges, roads and bridges, the state, but that

[52:57] actually to me shouldn't be nothing need to be lobbied on. That should be a given

[53:02] that we have to take care of our roads and our bridges and the state should be

[53:07] [clears throat] taken care of us. >> Is there a second to the motion?

[53:10] » Second. >> I got a motion to amend and a second.

[53:15] Alicia, we call the role on the amendment.

[53:18] » Commissioner Putnham. >> Yes.

[53:20] » Schmidt. >> And the motion calls for

[53:23] » keeping >> keeping on the association.

[53:27] Get rid of the rest. >> Yes.

[53:30] Erands, >> yes.

[53:32] » Aton, >> nay.

[53:34] » Landing.

[53:40] » No. Motion carries.

[53:45] So, as amended,

[53:50] we need to vote.

[53:56] Alicia, we call the roll. >> Commissioner Putnham.

[54:00] I guess. Yes. >> Schmidt.

[54:02] » Yes. >> Arens.

[54:03] » Yes. >> Uton.

[54:05] » Hi. >> Lending.

[54:06] » Yes. >> Motion carries.

[54:23] » Oh Jesus. >> My apologies. We'll do that moving

[54:27] forward. All right. All right, Joel, go ahead.

[54:30] » Have it now.

[54:36] » What's the What page are we on now? >> Well, that's up to Commissioner Erands.

[54:42] He's going through the changes that he wants to make.

[54:47] » Now, the other changes I'm concerned about here are by department.

[54:54] So can just for simplicity for me if you want to change it by department can we

[54:59] do it if you don't want to do it by page can we do it by maybe personnel and

[55:06] then other and then capital improvement by

[55:08] » I think yeah I understand what you're saying so for instance we made changes

[55:13] when I look at the department category 411 board of commissioners and we made

[55:17] those changes >> so

[55:21] now I'm asking what is the next department. So, for example, on

[55:24] » next department of states attorney. >> What page is that on?

[55:28] » Page nine. >> All right. So, then everybody go to page

[55:31] nine. >> Okay. Gotcha.

[55:33] » And that's department 4151. >> Yep. Okay.

[55:37] » Go ahead, Commissioner Erenss.

[55:41] » There was an increase between July 15th and July 30th of 139,000.

[55:49] Now, their original budget increase to that 3 point,

[55:54] excuse me, use the wrong one. And what I'm concerned about is the adding of F

[56:01] new FTEES into the county. And that's going to be

[56:06] my concern with most of these departments. Well, just two, sheriff's

[56:10] department, state's attorney. What I'm concerned about is adding in too many

[56:14] new FTEEs. And so for right now, I want to roll

[56:19] back all those FTEES in the state's attorney's office. We can look at it

[56:24] next year, but my motion is no new FTEEs in state's attorney's office.

[56:32] » Well, okay. So, is there some monetary amount

[56:37] that we can associate with that? Drew, are there FTEEs built?

[56:42] » And thank you for bringing that up, Commissioner Erenss. I actually had a

[56:45] discussion with commissioner was that yesterday that Tom was reviewing whether

[56:49] those actually were a need and so he was possibly going to be coming before the

[56:53] commission and asking to cut those out. Um if I may if we could obviously you

[56:59] don't have to pass the budget uh but if we could have some time for us to review

[57:03] our case load and uh come back to the commission and possibly cut those out at

[57:07] a later meeting. >> Okay, good. Uh, next to the sheriff's

[57:14] department. >> Page.

[57:17] » Page number. >> Yep. One second, please.

[57:36] 20. Thank you.

[57:42] I did not have page 20. >> Yeah, I see it.

[57:49] Went too far.

[57:53] Concerned about the FTEES here as well. I'd like to have a discussion about

[57:58] that. It's a pretty big increase. I can understand

[58:05] increasing deputies, but there's been, if I recall correctly in my notes here,

[58:11] there's also an increase in corrections officers. Is that correct?

[58:17] We call them COS. >> Page 20.

[58:21] » Page 20. >> 20. Okay.

[58:24] » Good morning, Sheriff. >> Good morning, Steve Spencson, Lincoln

[58:26] County Sheriff. Okay. So, CO would not be in the sheriff's budget. They'd be in

[58:30] the jail budget. >> Okay. in the jail budget. And how many

[58:34] new COs are contemplated in your budget? >> Two.

[58:40] » Okay.

[58:43] Now, our jail numbers have stayed relatively flat over the course of the

[58:47] last year, if not have probably gone down over the last two years. Right.

[58:52] » Commissioner Ers, are you moving to a different item? Right now, we're on the

[58:55] sheriff's budget. >> My apologies. I'm on the issue of

[58:59] corrections officers, which I was just informed fall under the jail budget. So,

[59:05] we got to turn actually to page

[59:14] 22. Page 22.

[59:25] So we're under department 4212 right now.

[59:33] So just personnel services alone in the jail from last year to this year

[59:40] um are increasing by 64%. They're going from 862,000

[59:49] to 1.4 4 million

[59:53] and essentially so that's a 64% increase. I understand the reason for

[59:59] the increase for some of that is current personnel will be receiving

[1:00:05] um increase in salary wages and benefits. I get that part and that's

[1:00:11] fine. But what I'm concerned about is adding new FTEES.

[1:00:16] And so, um, we've decreased our jail numbers or

[1:00:22] they've stayed relatively flat, but now we're adding more correctional officers.

[1:00:29] Um, I'd like to get a better understanding of that.

[1:00:34] » Okay. It's it's it's fairly simple. With the new courthouse being built, uh we're

[1:00:38] going to be covering more courtrooms, triple the courtrooms, and we have now a

[1:00:44] control room that we have to uh staff during business hours, which will take

[1:00:49] up to two people. We have front security. And then we move remove the

[1:00:55] redundancy that my office is the sheriff's office people will be

[1:01:00] separated from the jail people. So, we don't have the the backup with the

[1:01:04] people in the current office. So, I honestly think two is going to be a

[1:01:09] stretch to be able to cover all this, but that's our ask is two FTEEs to help

[1:01:15] cover the additional courtrooms, the control room, uh, and the other

[1:01:21] functions that we do. We also have the the, uh, sex offender registration, uh,

[1:01:26] fingerprinting, pistol permits. They do a a gamut of things, but adding

[1:01:32] two to to uh cover that new building is probably

[1:01:37] not enough. >> Now, just mechanically in terms of the

[1:01:41] actual flow that undergirds the premise of needing more

[1:01:47] people, what you're saying is the judges are actually going to be processing more

[1:01:55] criminal defendants than what they do now.

[1:01:59] because that's not the case. I mean, the case load is the case load uh the case

[1:02:05] load today or the case load on on the first week in November is going to be

[1:02:10] relatively the same as the case load on the third week in November when we're

[1:02:15] moved into the courthouse. So, in terms of the there won't be an

[1:02:21] increase in the number of criminal defendants that have to be moved around,

[1:02:25] will there? No, but the Well, no and yes. Depends on

[1:02:30] if who they keep in jail and don't keep in jail. Those numbers traditionally go

[1:02:34] up. For whatever reason, we've we've stayed flat or even gone down. However,

[1:02:40] the the court cases,

[1:02:44] the the courts here, magistrate, circuit court, uh divorce court, those cases

[1:02:50] continually go up and we still have to cover those courtrooms for security. uh

[1:02:55] the the but people in jail and the the increase in court doesn't correlate with

[1:03:01] the people in jail. So if I if I come here to contest a

[1:03:05] speeding ticket, we have a deputy in there for security uh sentencing, etc.

[1:03:11] So if there we've increased the courtrooms, uh I'm assuming we're going

[1:03:14] to have to cover those. So the the number of people in jail does not

[1:03:19] correlate with the increase in cases because there is an increase in cases

[1:03:22] and it increases annually. >> I think there is an overall increase in

[1:03:28] the number of cases. That just goes without saying. Um, my

[1:03:35] concern here is that the request is not commensurate with the way that we're

[1:03:41] going to be moving people through the courthouse over there cuz essentially

[1:03:45] we're going to be moving people through the courthouse over there in terms of

[1:03:50] numbers the same way that we've moved them through this courthouse. Not true.

[1:03:55] We have we have a uh we have a control room now that all all movement from for

[1:04:00] inmates through the court court system and back into the to the holding area

[1:04:05] for the thing is is secured and has to be um monitored by the control room

[1:04:13] doors opened elevators uh allowed to operate. So that is a is a new task that

[1:04:18] we that's been put on us which is going to take a is going to take a person.

[1:04:23] [snorts] No, I get that, Sheriff, and I

[1:04:25] appreciate that. But that's the schematics and the layout, but the

[1:04:30] number of people won't be increasing. >> I mean, you're going to see general

[1:04:35] annual increases, >> right?

[1:04:38] » But, but you're just cuz we're moving to a new building doesn't mean we have more

[1:04:43] defendants coming to see us. >> Correct. So, so, so we don't have a

[1:04:48] control room in this building, >> right? So we don't have to man that.

[1:04:53] There is a control room in the new building. We will have to man that.

[1:04:58] » And who and who is that being manned by? >> I would call him a court or a

[1:05:04] corrections officer, courtroom security officer. And we call them cos.

[1:05:08] » And are we taking that out of Hyde or is that a new FTE position as well?

[1:05:13] » That would be one of the positions that I need.

[1:05:16] » Okay. in addition to what I have. We're underst staffed in that area currently

[1:05:21] now. >> Yeah. So, we hire one new correctional

[1:05:25] officer for the control room. I get that part. But the current existing

[1:05:31] correctional officers that are used to handle defendants in this building will

[1:05:36] now just instead report to a different building. Right.

[1:05:40] » Correct. And so their numbers would we we is that why you're why do you need

[1:05:48] the second correctional officer though?

[1:05:53] Okay. There's going to be some redundancies

[1:05:55] if this if this control room co is sick vacation it has to be manned. I mean,

[1:06:03] I'm I'm trying to simplify it to to but but I and plus we have an additional

[1:06:10] what is there four courtrooms an additional four courtrooms. So if

[1:06:15] clearly the judges are anticipating the courts being busier. So if if now we

[1:06:20] have two courts in session versus typically the one or or two but now we

[1:06:24] have two or three. Again each courtroom requires security.

[1:06:32] So essentially because of this new control room concept, in order to make

[1:06:38] this thing work, because of that building design over there, we're stuck

[1:06:43] with having to hire two new correctional officers. Is that what I'm hearing?

[1:06:48] » That's what you're hearing. >> Okay.

[1:06:54] And I thought this $54 million building was going to help solve problems.

[1:07:00] Now it's just creating more more. It's actually creating more spending. I think

[1:07:05] it does help with some problems. Don't get me wrong.

[1:07:09] » It it's going to be a much safer building than we currently have.

[1:07:13] » So the control room is a big part of that.

[1:07:15] » Any other cuts or questions that you want on the jail budget? Commissioner

[1:07:19] Ers. >> Oh, that was the two that was that was

[1:07:22] the issue. >> Okay.

[1:07:23] » That was the correctional officer issue. I guess I got the answers. I obviously

[1:07:27] don't like them, but I understand it now. Thank you.

[1:07:30] » No, and I appreciate that. >> Next department.

[1:07:35] » Well, we got the sheriff's office up there, so let's just keep going with the

[1:07:39] sheriff. >> All right, so we're going to backtrack

[1:07:42] to page 20.

[1:07:49] » Okay,

[1:07:52] » so pretty big. How many new FTEEs are you asking in the sheriff's office and

[1:07:58] what kind are they? >> We're asking for two deputy positions

[1:08:02] and a administrative assistant. The reasoning for the administrative

[1:08:06] assistant is because we're losing an administrative assistant to the new

[1:08:10] building who who takes care all the jail admin

[1:08:15] paperwork. Uh which is going to create us not having

[1:08:21] staff to cover the front desk. Now, we can cover that front desk with a

[1:08:27] deputy at lunch or if we have a uh our our administrative assistant is out

[1:08:34] on leave, we can we can cover it with a with with a uniform person. It's not

[1:08:39] ideal. Um

[1:08:44] » Commissioner Erenss, when you're looking at um Sheriff Swinson's budget for the

[1:08:49] the biggest part of the salary increase is going to be the pay study. Yeah, I I

[1:08:54] get it. I I And like I said, I understand that part. That's been

[1:08:59] resolved. What I'm talk, you know, when you have a family, you talk about

[1:09:06] the mouths you're going to feed before you talk about the new ones.

[1:09:10] And I want to talk about the new ones. Um

[1:09:15] the administrative assistant. So, walk me through how this administrative

[1:09:22] assistant needs to be used over in this new courthouse.

[1:09:27] So, so they do all the morning bookings, uh, uh, the billing for Mia County, the,

[1:09:34] uh, 24/7, uh, accounting, the, uh,

[1:09:39] electronic monitor accounting, uh, reconcile accounts.

[1:09:45] in in the age of like computers and the internet and all of that people working

[1:09:51] remotely can't this person just do their current functions that they serve over

[1:09:57] here you know in term with the exception of

[1:10:01] an you know somebody walking up to the front door with the exception of that

[1:10:06] which is a you know you got to be there physically they can continue to do all

[1:10:11] the same things they're doing here with the exception of greeting people over in

[1:10:15] a different location, right? >> Are if you're asking if the jail

[1:10:21] administrator could stay in this building and and cover the front,

[1:10:25] » they could do it from the new building, right?

[1:10:28] » That's what we're doing. >> But then why do you need a new one? Why

[1:10:32] do you need another administrative assistant?

[1:10:35] » Because of the the foot traffic we get into the sheriff's office. Uh they do

[1:10:41] so the administrative assistant for the sheriff's office does all the

[1:10:44] bookkeeping, paying bills, uh answering phones. So and and I'm okay with not not

[1:10:51] adding a second one if it's if it's a a budget critical item. However, it is

[1:10:57] going to have to be backfilled by someone which will be a unformed member

[1:11:00] of the sheriff's office. When you say back filled,

[1:11:06] you mean eight hours a day?

[1:11:11] There's going to it's on a day-to-day basis, it would not be 8 hours a day.

[1:11:15] » Okay. >> But it's going to be a few hours a day

[1:11:17] because there's no way one administrative assistant can handle all

[1:11:19] the traffic that comes into this office uh by by themselves.

[1:11:24] » Yeah. I don't like the idea of uniform personnel who ostensibly are going to be

[1:11:29] Well, is that uniform person conducting patrol?

[1:11:34] » Very well could be. >> Okay. So, it's a it's a sheriff's

[1:11:40] deputy, >> correct?

[1:11:42] » Back fill it. >> Okay.

[1:11:45] [sighs] I just I've got concern that the new building is not resolving some of

[1:11:51] these financial challenges. Um, and then there's a request for what?

[1:11:56] Two new patrol deputies. >> Correct.

[1:11:59] » Okay. And what's the rationale behind that?

[1:12:02] » Just the the continued increase in calls for service, population growth.

[1:12:11] » Well, my motion would be to reduce a a uh

[1:12:17] administrative assistant for now. Let's see how it works out. give it a few

[1:12:22] months with the transition to the new building and we can always come back to

[1:12:26] it.

[1:12:33] » Do you want to address that? >> And I'm okay with that. It's I I think

[1:12:37] it's going to be glaring glaringly obvious, but I'm I'm okay with that. I

[1:12:41] mean, we we're moving in before the end of the year. Um, I I have no issue

[1:12:46] coming back after we give it a couple months

[1:12:50] or not coming back. Maybe it works out great.

[1:12:56] » Other commissioners have questions for our sheriff.

[1:13:04] » Right. Any other items on uh under department 4211? Commissioner Erenss?

[1:13:09] » Nope. That's it. >> Okay. Anybody else?

[1:13:12] All right. Any public input on the 4211 budget?

[1:13:19] » Do we have a second? >> Well, I usually take public

[1:13:24] motions. >> Okay.

[1:13:27] » All right. If not, um, is there a motion?

[1:13:30] » Motion is to remove the administrative assistant from the sheriff's budget.

[1:13:34] » We need a dollar amount. No. Okay. >> I second.

[1:13:38] » Got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Madam Chair,

[1:13:43] » go ahead, Commissioner. >> So, I am I'm probably not going to

[1:13:46] support this one either. I'm a little concerned with what uh the sheriff had

[1:13:51] to how he had described that this is going to be handled and by taking a law

[1:13:55] enforcement officer off of the streets. I don't know if that uh really benefits

[1:14:00] Lincoln County at all, especially when we're adding two new deputies because of

[1:14:04] the need. So, um I'm not going to support it.

[1:14:10] Other discussion? I agree with you, Commissioner Aten. Um,

[1:14:16] our sheriff has done a lot to bring in different revenues

[1:14:22] um to his department. He has taken cuts when he if he doesn't need something, he

[1:14:28] gets rid of it. But when he needs something, I really truly believe that

[1:14:31] he's telling us he needs it. And so, I'm not going to support removing that from

[1:14:35] his budget. Madam Chair, we all remember when all

[1:14:41] department heads came in and gave their report on their department and what they

[1:14:47] were doing. And for anybody that was listening to our sheriff and what he has

[1:14:52] accomplished in the past year since he's taken over has been remarkable. I've

[1:14:58] never known him to ask for anything more than what he ever needed. and as to

[1:15:03] support your statement, Madame Chair, if he doesn't need it, he doesn't ask for

[1:15:07] it. So, I will not be supporting that at all.

[1:15:12] » Alicia, will you call the role? >> No, I'd like to speak then to

[1:15:16] » Go ahead. >> Okay.

[1:15:18] Um, I believe that if we wait for just a

[1:15:23] little bit and like he said, maybe it'll work, maybe it won't, but

[1:15:29] um, let's just try to make things work for a little

[1:15:34] bit. So, I'm I'm I would support it.

[1:15:39] » Alicia, will you call the role? >> Commissioner Putnham,

[1:15:43] » yes. >> Schmidt,

[1:15:45] » no. >> Arens,

[1:15:46] » yes. Autton. >> Nay.

[1:15:48] » Lindy. >> No. Motion fails.

[1:15:51] Next items you'd like to discuss if you can go by department. Commissioner

[1:15:55] Arens. >> There's uh

[1:15:58] there's a department run by planning and zoning, but it's not

[1:16:03] in the planning and zoning budget. I believe that it's uh run by the uh we

[1:16:11] had the presentation from the gentleman who runs our GIS department

[1:16:17] » and what was contained in there was a >> you want to find that for us?

[1:16:24] » Yeah.

[1:16:32] 17 >> 17

[1:16:35] » page 17. >> Oh, sorry.

[1:16:42] » Do you want flood plane management or GIS? Commissioner,

[1:16:45] » it's a flood plane management. >> That's page 25.

[1:16:50] » What is >> that's department 4223

[1:16:53] » and in flood plane 25. Page 25. >> Okay. All right,

[1:16:58] » I'll let you get there.

[1:17:03] » Gotcha. Just let me know when you get there.

[1:17:05] » All right, good to go. >> Cuz I think one of my pages was in here

[1:17:10] backwards, too. In flood plane management,

[1:17:17] there's a $100,000 line item in there. And when our GIS flood plane manager was

[1:17:24] in here, um I asked him, "What's that $100,000 for?"

[1:17:31] [clears throat] And his his belief was that there is no

[1:17:36] specific uh flood plane management project under

[1:17:41] consideration. He didn't have any ideas um uh at the

[1:17:48] present for where that would be used. and he's also new to the department. So

[1:17:53] he said that was a holdover from last year. As you can see, there wasund

[1:17:58] $100,000 put into fees and contracts in 2026. None of it was used. It's now been

[1:18:06] requested for 2027, but there's no identified project. And

[1:18:11] so I think at this time until and unless there is an identified project

[1:18:17] uh for flood plane management we should remove that from the budget. So my

[1:18:23] motion is now of course allow for >> Commissioner Erons. Do you

[1:18:29] » I think those numbers are typically in there for like

[1:18:33] I don't know when they do their programming updates and stuff but if we

[1:18:38] don't I does anybody know the answer to that? No.

[1:18:43] » It wasn't used last year. >> Right. I see that. and uh and our flood

[1:18:49] plane manager stated that there is no identified

[1:18:53] project. There's no use for the money. >> So uh is any other questions that other

[1:19:00] commissioners have right now? I would uh concur on this the fact that um

[1:19:08] my thoughts is if there is a problem they come to commission and just ask for

[1:19:15] some money you know at a later date in 27

[1:19:19] » so they don't need to be in here. >> Is there any public input? Is that the

[1:19:23] only one on this department? >> Yes.

[1:19:26] » Okay. Any public input on the item?

[1:19:31] If not, is there a motion? >> Motion is to remove the 100,000.

[1:19:36] » I second it. >> All right, I've got a motion and a

[1:19:41] second. Any further discussion?

[1:19:45] If not, Alicia, we call the role. >> Commissioner Putnham,

[1:19:49] » yes. >> Schmidt,

[1:19:51] » yes. >> Arens,

[1:19:52] » yes. >> Auton. Hi.

[1:19:53] » Landing. >> Yes. Motion carries.

[1:19:57] » [clears throat] >> Next department, Commissioner Erenss,

[1:20:00] that you want to go through. >> Planning and zoning.

[1:20:02] » Got a page number. >> That was 36.

[1:20:07] » Yeah. >> Is that 17? I

[1:20:09] » think it's 36. 37. 36. 36. >> 36.

[1:20:16] » Okay.

[1:20:21] » Go ahead. We are in department 4711.

[1:20:31] » Now again goes back to this issue of I think there's some increase in here

[1:20:36] because of

[1:20:40] uh salaries and wages and I don't know is

[1:20:45] there anybody from planning and zoning here right now?

[1:20:48] » I guess >> what is it you needed to know?

[1:20:50] » Not currently. What what is the issue that you want to look at? Well, the

[1:20:52] issue is there's almost $120,000 increase from July 15th to July 30th.

[1:20:58] And I want to know why. >> Commissioner, um I did just get a

[1:21:02] message. He might be on the phone, but uh director uh Toby Brown said that he's

[1:21:07] not requesting an FTE. So, the increase on the August 19th report is 19,000.

[1:21:14] » Okay. >> So, he took out that FTE request. And

[1:21:17] has that been ref and I assume but I better ask is that reflected in the

[1:21:21] August 18 in the version we have in front of us now.

[1:21:25] » It looks like it because it looks like the increase is 19,211

[1:21:29] » cuz and I guess when [clears throat]

[1:21:34] earlier when the auditor was speaking she said the only and I mean I get it

[1:21:38] there's lots of moving parts. The only difference between the published version

[1:21:43] and this was something for uh reduction in the HR and one other thing,

[1:21:50] » but I'm going to assume that uh Toby removed that request then

[1:21:56] » there is there's currently no request for a full-time employee.

[1:22:00] » Okay. There was previously though. Right. Well, I I don't have one listed,

[1:22:04] but the problem with the personnel is we if you're going from the 15th to the

[1:22:10] 30th to the day, there was calculation errors and then we came in, we did the

[1:22:15] uh wage study and then so the personnel is kind of a harder one to nail down to

[1:22:21] what it is. But I have not shown uh requests for personnel and planning

[1:22:28] zone. But Drew, you're saying that Toby

[1:22:31] removed that though. >> And I just got again, he must be in a

[1:22:35] meeting. He's messaging me. Uh he said there was never request. It must have

[1:22:38] been a calculation error of some kind that was corrected.

[1:22:41] » Okay. Well, that's good then. $120,000 increase taken care of there.

[1:22:48] » All right. Any other thing under planning and zoning, Commissioner, that

[1:22:52] you want to talk about? >> Yeah, in the auditor's office, there was

[1:22:55] this increase of $57,000. I'm just looking at planning and zoning. Anything

[1:22:59] there? >> Nothing further in planning and zoning.

[1:23:01] » Okay. So, now you want to move to auditor.

[1:23:03] » Yep. >> Okay.

[1:23:05] » What number? What page number? >> We got to go backwards.

[1:23:09] » Got to go towards the front. >> Way back.

[1:23:21] » So, are you talking elections or are you talking auditor?

[1:23:26] Well, talking the auditor, not the elections. Seven.

[1:23:31] » Page seven. >> Page seven.

[1:23:34] » Now, we have the auditor here. Maybe she can answer this. This increase from the

[1:23:38] 15th to the 30th. >> So, we're in department 4141.

[1:23:42] » Yeah. Um, >> page number is

[1:23:45] » page seven. >> And again, goes to the same question.

[1:23:49] There's this increase from the 15th to the 30th of 57,000.

[1:23:54] Is that all attributed to the uh pay increase the the wage study?

[1:23:59] » Yep. No, no employees. >> Okay. Thank you. That answers that

[1:24:03] question. Thank you. Appreciate it.

[1:24:08] Next issue. Road and bridge fund

[1:24:13] page 39.

[1:24:21] » [cough] >> I think we need to remove those two

[1:24:24] projects, the roundabout plan for Western and uh remove the project down

[1:24:31] south there by Hudson on the curve. That's my motion.

[1:24:36] » Can you give me the dollar amounts for those?

[1:24:38] » I do not have the dollar amounts. I think it may be subsumed within the

[1:24:45] line item of road projects, but I can't confirm that. I'm just I

[1:24:52] have the same same line item as you in front of you

[1:24:55] » for that one not being a employee that I can remove. I would need to know what

[1:25:00] the dollar amount is you'd like to remove,

[1:25:03] please. >> Well, seemed like they talked like a

[1:25:08] million bucks. Well, we we need to come back for our state's attorney on

[1:25:11] something. So, if we need to circle back on roads and bridges to get those

[1:25:14] numbers, um that might be the more prudent thing

[1:25:18] to do today. >> Terry, Madam Chair,

[1:25:22] » Terry, do you want to come up?

[1:25:27] T flight highway superintendent. [clears throat]

[1:25:31] Uh the Hudson project will be 1.1

[1:25:37] and the uh Western Avenue is 2.5. >> Thank you. Terry

[1:25:42] » Terry was there. >> Now also in if you're going to remove

[1:25:45] the Western one, you'll be removing 1.5 out of my revenue side.

[1:25:50] » Okay. Cuz that's a cost share, right? Yes.

[1:25:55] » So, can you repeat those? 1.1 was for which one, Terry?

[1:25:58] » That's for the Hudson project. >> Okay.

[1:26:01] » Say Terry, was that to pull out both sides of the curves or just one side?

[1:26:06] » Both sides. It's making it a straight T intersection.

[1:26:10] » And then the 2.5 was Western Avenue. >> Correct.

[1:26:13] » So, Western Avenue actually when you take your revenue out, it's about a

[1:26:19] million dollars. >> Correct. Okay.

[1:26:26] » [sighs]

[1:26:30] » Thank you. >> I would um

[1:26:34] I guess if I'll maybe I'll wait well I'll wait to see if you uh vote to cut

[1:26:37] that before I make another request. Madam Chair, Terry,

[1:26:43] so to revisit the Hudson interchange down there. I know I talked to you about

[1:26:47] this a little bit too and uh you had mentioned about doing this and then a

[1:26:55] continuation of the highway and rebuild that at some point in time. Can you tie

[1:27:00] that together? >> Yeah. So, so initially we wanted to do a

[1:27:05] a full rebuild on that 3 and 1/2 mile stretch which would include that north

[1:27:10] intersection going all the way down past the ethanol plant um and then connecting

[1:27:15] to Highway 46. That would be that was you know and this has been in our

[1:27:20] fiveyear for five years. Six years we've been planning to do this as as a whole

[1:27:26] project. Um, initially when we started this project on that, we were looking at

[1:27:32] about $5.5 million to rebuild uh that three and a half mile stretch. Well, the

[1:27:39] further we get into it, costs are raising. We're looking this is more that

[1:27:43] whole that whole stretch 3 and a half mile rebuild on that is going to be

[1:27:47] probably closer to eight 8 to$9 million now. So, this here would probably be

[1:27:53] phase one of that. Um, and again, if it doesn't happen, then it gets pushed off

[1:27:59] and maybe and again, I don't maybe it doesn't happen. Um, I know the

[1:28:06] the the the mainline stretch uh between that intersection and the south

[1:28:10] intersection. Again, we had uh probably about six or seven years ago, um, we had

[1:28:16] core samples done and and the reason our asphalt isn't lasting down there is

[1:28:21] there's nothing underneath for base under that. So, uh, we figure a full

[1:28:26] rebuild is the best we can do, especially with all the heavy trucks

[1:28:29] down there. Um, so, you know, eventually it would be nice to do do a project down

[1:28:36] there. Again, you know, this this would be phase one. Uh, maybe be a couple more

[1:28:40] years before we could do phase two, which would maybe be doing from the

[1:28:44] intersection down to the ethanol plant. And then phase three would be from the

[1:28:49] ethanol plant to 46 or something. um just to spread it out over the years. Um

[1:28:57] but again, it all depends, you know, and and if it doesn't happen, it doesn't

[1:29:01] happen. Like I said, one of one of the big reasons that this this project got

[1:29:06] moved up is we we we saw that we could use it as phase one in this overall

[1:29:11] project, but also uh just the complaints or not the complaints, but just the the

[1:29:16] the uh the public comments we got on our

[1:29:21] safety plan uh with that intersection. and and being that, you know, in my

[1:29:26] eyes, you know, if we want to if we want to say we're going to move towards being

[1:29:31] building safer roads, then we need to to be doing something with that instead of

[1:29:36] just having this nice beautiful plan and just putting it on a shelf and not doing

[1:29:41] anything with it. So, >> so

[1:29:45] the direction what from what direction does the heaviest

[1:29:51] amount of traffic come from? Does it go through that intersection or is that

[1:29:55] coming up south? >> I think most of it uh I don't know. I

[1:30:00] would have to look at counts, but my guess it's going to be coming from the

[1:30:03] Hudson area going south would be the heaviest counts.

[1:30:09] » So, >> but but but the last three years, you

[1:30:14] know, that that's all up in the because we we have so much traffic coming from

[1:30:17] the west as well uh because 46 is closed. But

[1:30:22] » so five years ago that project was estimated at 5.5 million. Just so I got

[1:30:30] my numbers right. Today it would >> Yes. The whole thing would be 5.5. Today

[1:30:34] we're looking at eight. >> Probably closer to that. Yeah. And maybe

[1:30:37] even more for a full rebuild on three and a half miles.

[1:30:42] » Okay. And that's my >> and that would include that intersection

[1:30:46] doing mainline and then that would include the south curve um south of the

[1:30:50] ethanol plant where it curves back to to go back to the west. So

[1:30:56] » I'll save the rest of it for comments to the motion.

[1:31:01] » All right. Uh first if there's no other questions from commissioners for staff,

[1:31:06] is there any public input on the road and bridge um fund

[1:31:13] department 4311?

[1:31:17] All right. If not, is there a motion? My motion is to remove the $1.1 million for

[1:31:23] the Hudson project and the $2.5 million for the Western Avenue project and

[1:31:32] subsequently remove the 1.5 in revenue because comes from a cost

[1:31:38] share with the Western project. >> All right. Is there a second?

[1:31:43] » I'll second. >> Got a motion and a second. further

[1:31:47] discussion from the commission. >> I've had a number of people from down

[1:31:51] south come and talk to me about this. They've talked about how it's been down

[1:31:55] there for 70 years. Uh after looking into the safety issues, what were uh I I

[1:32:02] asked the question and never got an answer to this is was it operator error

[1:32:07] or was it road design?

[1:32:11] And in particular, if there was a fatality or a crash there, was it a

[1:32:16] result of drunk driving? And I've just had local people tell me

[1:32:23] that they believe it was a result of operator error, i.e. drunk driving.

[1:32:30] We don't redesign roads because people are inebriated or intoxicated. We have

[1:32:36] to take those people off the road. We have to make it very painful to be a

[1:32:42] drunk driver. That is not something this commission

[1:32:46] can do. All we can do is advocate [clears throat] that the legislature

[1:32:50] makes it more difficult to drink and drive. And I've talked to our state's

[1:32:55] attorney about this issue as far as the intoxicated driving goes. Now, with

[1:33:00] regard to the road design, there's no data showing that the road design

[1:33:07] is making it more unsafe. And then that combined with locals down

[1:33:14] there, one of them is on serves on our planning and zoning board telling me

[1:33:19] that that is not the issue down there. There's an issue with increased traffic

[1:33:25] coming from from the Iowa side of the border. And so

[1:33:30] the locals down there understand it. They get it. They've made comments to me

[1:33:36] and they've asked me to carry this for them. So that's what I'm doing.

[1:33:43] » Other commission >> I would

[1:33:46] » discussion >> say something here when I can

[1:33:49] » go ahead. >> Okay. The when you're heading north and

[1:33:54] you're uh curving off to the right, I can see that that's no problem

[1:34:01] whatsoever. It's the curving off to the left

[1:34:05] which would be maybe if anything a problem and that would be the only thing

[1:34:11] that could be looked at future but not nowad

[1:34:18] » uh commissioner go ahead. So I think my first conversation of the

[1:34:25] price increase of that over the last five years is part of the dilemma of how

[1:34:30] how far we push a road project or any project off due to the rising cost to

[1:34:36] complete the project later. I've been down there and also looked at it and I

[1:34:40] would agree with Commissioner Putnham that if you're heading north, the right

[1:34:44] hand turn is probably less dangerous than the left. I mean, when you got corn

[1:34:49] up there, it's there's not a lot of visibility and it has nothing to do with

[1:34:52] drunk drivers and and ultimately it doesn't matter if the traffic is coming

[1:34:55] from Iowa, South Dakota, Minnesota, or New York. Traffic's still on a Lincoln

[1:35:00] County road. So, um, I could support

[1:35:07] not doing the roundabout, but I don't think I can support not start working on

[1:35:12] that road down there because it's not going to get any better. And if you go

[1:35:15] down past poet and stuff down there, there might be an opportunity to work

[1:35:18] with them on on that. But at some point in time, you you have to bite the bullet

[1:35:23] and you have to do the repairs. The road's going to go sooner or later. So,

[1:35:28] um [snorts] I will not support the main motion. If a

[1:35:32] follow up follow motion comes up with the roundabout,

[1:35:36] » I would support that. >> I withdraw the motion. Make a new

[1:35:40] motion. Commissioner Putnham, will you withdraw your second? Yes, I will.

[1:35:45] » New motion is to just remove the roundabout project and any associated

[1:35:50] cost and revenue that come with it. So, $2.5 million expense from the

[1:35:56] roundabout and then 1.5 in revenue and I move to remove that from the budget.

[1:36:02] » I've got a motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second that, I guess.

[1:36:07] » Motion and second. Any discussion, >> Madam Chair? Go ahead.

[1:36:14] » Well, when this first became public about that

[1:36:19] we were not going to participate in this roundabout,

[1:36:24] there are about 11,000 cars a day that go through there. And I don't know, but

[1:36:30] I've had I can't tell you how many phone calls

[1:36:34] from people who are very upset because, you know, sitting in traffic all of the

[1:36:39] time. This is a joint project, a nice joint project between the city and a

[1:36:45] limited amount from Harrisburg and from the county. And when you look at the

[1:36:49] future, I know we've had an attempt at a previous time to figure out how many

[1:36:56] people are going to use the Veterans Highway. We have no quantifiable

[1:37:00] evidence as to how many of those 11,000 cars a day are suddenly going to be on

[1:37:06] the Veterans Highway. There will be some. But on the other hand, when you

[1:37:11] look at the future of that area, when you look at that corridor on 106, and

[1:37:17] you don't think that there's going to be an everinccreasing number of people out

[1:37:22] there, our cars because of growth from commercial development, from uh uh

[1:37:29] housing development that comes out there, and look at that, and we're going

[1:37:33] to have a four-way stop sign. I mean, how long of of a line do we want to

[1:37:39] have? It's a very efficient one. It's a good way to move traffic. It's a safe

[1:37:44] way. And I think again, we're not looking at the future at all about what

[1:37:51] how this will affect the growth, economic development, and safety. So,

[1:37:56] I'm not in support of not building that. >> And I would agree with you, Commissioner

[1:38:01] Schmidt. when you do the net and you take the revenue off, the cost of this

[1:38:06] project right now is essentially $1 million. That intersection is a mess

[1:38:11] down there. >> Um because coming off of Veterans to get

[1:38:16] on to 106. Um the lane changes are confusing to say the least. The corner

[1:38:23] keeps getting what I'll say washed out. I don't

[1:38:27] » I don't It's just a mess. when I go down there in my opinion

[1:38:30] » I don't know how many times they've replaced

[1:38:32] » so I think for a million dollars and seeing that the city of Sou Falls isn't

[1:38:35] going to be doing anything there um for what I recall was the foreseeable 20

[1:38:40] years um I think we would be remissed to not do that project

[1:38:45] » so I'm not going to support the motion either

[1:38:48] » I've traveled Can may I speak >> you may

[1:38:52] » yeah go ahead >> okay I've traveled that road many times

[1:38:55] I'm not that far from it and it's amazing how well

[1:39:00] that they get through that stop sign. It's very very coordinated.

[1:39:06] Uh people move pretty fast. Now, the only other thing I could say is taking

[1:39:11] the stop signs away in the east and west and leave the one to the north and the

[1:39:17] south. And somebody said, "Well, you never get on it." Well, I've been backed

[1:39:23] up on the west side going when I was going

[1:39:27] east past the Oh, the roundabout. No. Well, not the

[1:39:34] roundabout, but you go up there and you see all the storage units. I've been

[1:39:38] backed up to where I was behind the storage units. And it took me about

[1:39:45] probably I'd say less than a couple three minutes, four minutes to be up to

[1:39:50] the stop sign and moving, you know. Um

[1:39:58] I just

[1:40:03] you know what's the what is the speed limit there? It's 45.

[1:40:09] Is that correct? Yeah. See? And that's not bad. If they put the stop sign there

[1:40:17] or took took the two stop line signs out, people would move more

[1:40:24] freely, better. And I believe the people coming off the Parkway or the Veterans

[1:40:30] Parkway will be able to get on. And besides that, once the Veterans Parkway

[1:40:35] is done, then we don't have that issue. And we don't need the stop sign going

[1:40:41] east and west.

[1:40:46] » Madam Chair, >> any further discussion?

[1:40:48] » Madam Chair, we you bring up a good point. We have an opportunity to put a a

[1:40:53] roundabout first class roundabout in for $1 million. Now I can only rem how much

[1:41:00] we come back to revisit this thing how much it would cost because we were we

[1:41:06] had did have roundabouts that we could have put in several years ago but we got

[1:41:12] a vote and they were 800,000 bucks a piece. So delaying something doesn't

[1:41:19] really being the wisest steward of money. So I just think it's a million

[1:41:24] dollars a good investment. Jerry, [clears throat]

[1:41:28] » just to address your your comments, Commissioner Pum, many years ago that

[1:41:34] was just a two-way stop. There was no four-way stop there. So, the 270 first

[1:41:39] went through. Um, the reason that it got put to be a four-way stop is when that

[1:41:45] new school to the north there um got put in, uh, traffic was not able to get on

[1:41:51] 271st from Western Avenue. So, that's the reason that it went to a four-way

[1:41:56] stop because if you take those out now with the amount of traffic that's

[1:42:00] running there, we will never get people turning off a western and then and then

[1:42:05] you're going to have vehicles coming up uh somebody going eastbound, they're

[1:42:10] going to want to make a left-hand turn and they're going to sit there and wait

[1:42:12] and wait and wait and then people behind them aren't going to see it and they're

[1:42:16] going to be we'll have we'll have additional crashes there. If we're not

[1:42:19] paying attention, they're going to run into the rear. So, so at this point,

[1:42:23] four-way is better than a two-way. And again, you don't want to go backwards on

[1:42:28] this again just because of the amount of traffic that's there.

[1:42:31] » Uh once the parkway is done, how will that alleviate that?

[1:42:36] » So, if you read the studies about uh so if you read our master transportation

[1:42:41] plan, this was completed 2018 2019. It states in there there'll be a 50%

[1:42:48] reduction when MA when when Veterans Parkway or S3 100 gets done. Well, when

[1:42:55] we did our our uh corridor study in 2022,

[1:43:00] that changed. It didn't say it was going to be cut in half. It said it will be it

[1:43:04] will drop significantly, but dependent on the amount of development that occurs

[1:43:11] adjacent to County Road 106. So the the key the key here is going to be the

[1:43:17] amount of development and how quickly that develops

[1:43:21] uh adjacent to 106 um even even after Veterans is open. If

[1:43:27] that if that starts developing um then then then we're we're going to

[1:43:31] be in the same boat. >> And I can believe that when it starts to

[1:43:35] develop. Yes. and and with with the sewer project that's coming along uh on

[1:43:41] along there on for Sou Falls that uh sewer basin project um that's that's

[1:43:46] going to be starting well it's starting this fall here and then next year um

[1:43:51] once that gets completed then then that'll be serviceable by the city of

[1:43:54] Sou Falls and then it could be whenever so

[1:43:59] » and that Allora I think it's called that big development down there is that

[1:44:05] » yeah so currently right now between between Louise Avenue and Western

[1:44:09] Avenue. Um at the Allure development, uh it's a half a section um south on the

[1:44:16] south side of uh 271st. Um they'll be they'll be starting here

[1:44:21] very soon uh uh developing or or building in there. Uh, also, uh, we I

[1:44:28] just got a traffic study, um, from a developer in Sou Falls, the northwest

[1:44:34] corner of Western Avenue and 106. So, where we're going to put this

[1:44:38] intersection where we want to, there's going to be a huge uh, multi-

[1:44:44] multifamily housing development. It's a big apartment complex that's going in

[1:44:48] there >> just south of the school then.

[1:44:50] » Correct. >> Okay.

[1:44:51] » On that corner? Yes. when >> um potentially starting possibly next

[1:44:57] year. Again, I got the traffic study about 3 months ago um from them and

[1:45:05] they've already completed that. So, so with the URE development, uh there were

[1:45:09] there were three or four other developments that went in on a traffic

[1:45:13] study and again these were mainly routed through the city of Harrisburg. So,

[1:45:18] there is another development uh from Western and 106 to the south going to

[1:45:22] south about a mile. I believe there's another development that's going to be

[1:45:26] be starting up here down there as well. >> When is the po proposed

[1:45:32] uh completion of the Veterans Highway? [snorts]

[1:45:35] » Well, that that that's a DOT or city of Sou Falls question. And I it keeps

[1:45:39] getting pushed off and and really um the last I heard is the last segment which

[1:45:45] will be western to 220 or the 29. Um that is starting they'll start

[1:45:51] construction on that in 28. You

[1:45:55] » mean that the rest of that is in 28? >> Yes. So from the segment from Western

[1:46:01] Avenue to 29, >> they're they're tenatively looking at

[1:46:05] 2028 starting. >> Um

[1:46:08] » so so as a part of that, Louise Avenue will be closed for a while. So any any

[1:46:14] that that north south corridor will will not be functional um because they'll

[1:46:19] have it closed for this veterans project uh at that intersection of Veterans and

[1:46:24] Louise to the north of our roundabout that is currently there. So,

[1:46:28] » city of Sou Falls uh

[1:46:33] uh contacted you on uh us possibly not and doing going to do

[1:46:40] this. Have they reached out to you? >> Not doing

[1:46:45] the >> not doing the roundabout one.

[1:46:48] » Have they uh have they reached out to you?

[1:46:52] » I've been in conversation with them about this.

[1:46:54] » Yeah. Did they seem a little distraught about that?

[1:47:00] » Um, I never I never really heard any I I don't get that feeling because it

[1:47:05] because it's not theirs. Um because it's our it's our road. So I to them I guess

[1:47:12] you know because because at the end of the day I guess uh when calls start

[1:47:16] coming in it's going to come into us and not them. But now the city of Sou Falls

[1:47:22] and we we ended up with the jurisdiction basically

[1:47:28] the the north half is they have control and um so I just didn't know if they

[1:47:38] were >> No. No. So I was the one that contacted

[1:47:43] them about this about doing [clears throat] this project initially.

[1:47:46] Um, and again it was either late last year, I think it was. Um, they didn't

[1:47:51] contact me. I contacted them because I seen the need up there. I was I would

[1:47:56] been through that intersection at peak hours and and sit in line there for four

[1:48:00] or five minutes or 6 minutes. Um, and I just it's like this needs something

[1:48:06] needs to happen here. Um, and I've gotten I've gotten several phone calls,

[1:48:11] not not that many, but a few, uh, from individuals that that want to know if

[1:48:15] something's going to happen there.

[1:48:20] » All right. Any other commissioner discussion?

[1:48:23] » I recognize that uh there's been some phone calls asking for some something to

[1:48:29] be done at that intersection. There's also been uh

[1:48:33] a tsunami of communication about getting the budget under control

[1:48:39] as well. So, you got to balance the two. Can't have it all. Can't have your cake

[1:48:45] and eat it too.

[1:48:50] Um, so we have a motion um to do the Hudson project and remove the Western

[1:48:55] Avenue project as well as remove the revenue. If there's no further

[1:49:00] discussion, Alicia, will you call the role on that motion?

[1:49:05] » We've already taken public comment. >> I don't think so.

[1:49:09] » We did because the motion was made and seconded. One motion was withdrawn. I

[1:49:14] took public comment prior to that. Nobody show you call the role.

[1:49:17] » Nobody talked. >> There was no You didn't take any public

[1:49:22] comment. >> I offered public comment and nobody got

[1:49:26] up. >> Are you in a hurry to go somewhere?

[1:49:28] » I'm asking Alicia to call the role. >> Well, I'm asking you to just allow

[1:49:32] people to speak. >> Is there anybody want to talk about it?

[1:49:35] » Yeah. See, there's people nodding their heads. What What What is the harm?

[1:49:41] » I'm running this meeting. I asked for public comment. Nobody got up. Alicia,

[1:49:46] call the role, please. Commissioner Putnham.

[1:49:50] » I'd like to hear people talk. >> Schmidt,

[1:49:56] » uh, no. >> Errens,

[1:49:59] » yes. >> Hi.

[1:50:01] » Landine. >> No. The motion fails.

[1:50:07] » Is there another >> I would I would vote yes, but I wanted

[1:50:12] somebody to talk. Well, poor way to run a business.

[1:50:16] » What's your vote, Doug? >> Yes, I I'm going to go along with it.

[1:50:20] » Okay. >> Well, I make the same motion,

[1:50:22] » Commissioner. Let me take that vote.

[1:50:28] » So, yeah, motion passes. We'll have a better one here later.

[1:50:31] » The motion passes. >> You guys will be able to talk more than

[1:50:34] » Yeah. >> All right. Next item, Commissioner

[1:50:37] Erons, that you want to discuss, >> Madam Chair. Where we at with this? It

[1:50:43] failed. 22. >> It was 22 because Commissioner Putinham

[1:50:46] did not vote when the motion was called. >> I said I'll vote yes.

[1:50:52] » So >> technically it failed, but then he

[1:50:54] turned around and said yes. So if that's his vote, then it would pass.

[1:50:59] Commissioner Arens made it basically the same motion.

[1:51:03] » So if we want to run back through the vote to make sure it's clear, we can

[1:51:07] » dysfunctional. And I guess we'll just keep it dysfunctional. How's that sound?

[1:51:11] » Yeah. E everybody can have their commissioners and the public, everybody

[1:51:17] can have their opinion, but government works best when we hear

[1:51:24] everybody's opinion. >> Commissioner Erenss, would you like to

[1:51:28] discuss the next um department? >> Well, we need to clean this up. So, I'm

[1:51:34] making a motion. Same motion. cut the funding, the 2.5 million and the $1.5

[1:51:41] million in revenue uh for the Western Roundabout project.

[1:51:49] » Is there a second? >> And I will second it.

[1:51:51] » I've got a motion and a second. Will you call the role, please?

[1:51:55] » Asking for public comment on public comment.

[1:52:00] » Make public comment. >> Alicia, call the role, please.

[1:52:03] » Where's the public comment? Commissioner Putnham.

[1:52:07] » Jesus, >> this is so dysfunctional. You don't have

[1:52:10] the floor. >> Thank God we'll have it better here

[1:52:13] pretty quick. >> Just let the public speak.

[1:52:15] » You don't have the floor. Alicia, will you call the role?

[1:52:19] » Commissioner Butner, >> yes.

[1:52:21] » Schmidt, >> no.

[1:52:23] » Arens, >> yes.

[1:52:25] » Hi. >> Landing.

[1:52:27] » No. Motion passes.

[1:52:33] Next issue, other economic assistance, [snorts] page 26.

[1:52:43] » I've written that in there. >> Yep.

[1:52:46] » Yep.

[1:52:50] Page 26. Other economic assistance.

[1:52:55] » It's department 4410 on page 26. Go ahead, Commissioner

[1:53:01] Aaron. these organizations that are listed for economic assistance.

[1:53:07] » Page 26. >> Page 26. Commissioner

[1:53:12] » page 26. >> Commissioners, as a reminder, this uh

[1:53:17] you passed a motion earlier, so it will reflect the 2026 in this document.

[1:53:25] » Yeah. And any motion I make is going to incorporate what was already decided

[1:53:29] there earlier.

[1:53:32] So um we have a list of organizations children's in helpline solless

[1:53:40] interlakes lennox enrichment canton transit and

[1:53:45] lifescapes decodabilities is statutoily required

[1:53:50] that means that there is a law in South Dakota that says we have to give the

[1:53:56] county has to give x amount of money to that kind of organization. But the law

[1:54:01] does not require us to spend money on any of these other organizations.

[1:54:05] All good organizations in some form or fashion, nonprofits

[1:54:11] that are out there attempting to help people in various forms of assistance

[1:54:16] that they need. Um,

[1:54:20] when we have an 11 million budget shortfall,

[1:54:25] sometimes we need to, and this time we need to revisit where we're spending

[1:54:31] public money. Just generally speaking, these are

[1:54:35] nonprofit charities, and I would prefer to see that the public

[1:54:41] give their charitable aid. Uh, the public cannot give charitable aid.

[1:54:48] uh through the government. It's compelled. It's forced from them through

[1:54:52] their taxes. But also another concern that I have is when this money leaves

[1:54:57] the public coffers, it also loses public oversight.

[1:55:05] I can't I've never been invited to one of these organizations to a board

[1:55:08] meeting to speak. Probably wouldn't even let me in. Uh never. They take they take

[1:55:15] the public money and the public accountability in the

[1:55:19] oversight is gone. And that's my big concern here. Public oversight of public

[1:55:26] money is gone when we give the money to these nonprofits. Has nothing to do, you

[1:55:33] know, one of them came in last year and said, "Oh, you're such a big meanie.

[1:55:36] You're a bad person because you want to take the money away from us." Look, I

[1:55:42] get it. they they have their opinion. My view though is based and grounded on

[1:55:48] the budget realities that we face today. And so, uh, maybe in an effort here to,

[1:55:56] uh, achieve a compromise, I would propose,

[1:56:02] uh, and this incorporates in the deal that, uh, Commissioner Autton made.

[1:56:09] [snorts] Uh, but I propose that we move uh, if I had it my way, we' we'd zero

[1:56:16] all this out given the budget reality. But maybe I want to achieve a compromise

[1:56:21] here today. And I would move that we reduce all of these

[1:56:27] uh nonprofit other economic assistance numbers back to their 20124 numbers.

[1:56:41] I haven't asked for a motion, but I will take public comment unless there's other

[1:56:45] uh questions or input from the commission.

[1:56:50] Is there public comment on this item?

[1:56:57] Thank you, Madam Chair. Linda Montgomery, Fairview, South Dakota. I

[1:57:01] think with our deficit that we have this year, I think

[1:57:06] this is a prudent decision. I know it's not going to be popular, but I've done

[1:57:13] budgets for myself and my profession and for my personnel personal self. I

[1:57:22] believe that sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and uh say we can't this

[1:57:29] year but we can next look at this again. Thank you.

[1:57:36] » Other public input.

[1:57:43] » Morning commissioners. Thank you. Sarah Stever 46850 276th Street. Um, I think

[1:57:50] the all of these budget requests I think were very well thought out. Um, and

[1:57:56] they're all worthy, but we just don't have the money. And so, it's hard for me

[1:58:01] not to compare it to what most people would do in their own personal lives

[1:58:04] when they don't have the money. It's just to figure out what they have to

[1:58:08] cut. But we also have codified law in South Dakota that caps what we can do.

[1:58:14] Uh, so I guess I'm I have a question for you um about what we've got for a a

[1:58:20] qualified fund balance that we're actually adding into the amount of money

[1:58:25] that we are going to take in in order to hit the 95% mark on what we can actually

[1:58:31] have for expenditures. So that's my question. What is the beginning fund

[1:58:36] balance that we're going to add to the amount that we want to spend? Um, and

[1:58:41] does that follow within South Dakota codified law? Thank you.

[1:58:46] » Thank you. Other public input.

[1:58:54] All right. Sherry, is that anything you want to address?

[1:58:58] » I'd have to look up the SDCL. I don't know what we're talking about.

[1:59:01] » All right. >> I think it was

[1:59:06] » You think it was repealed? >> I'm not sure because I don't Off the top

[1:59:11] of my head, I don't know which one we're referring to.

[1:59:13] » Okay. Sorry, I didn't mean to put you on the spot.

[1:59:19] » All right. Any other public input?

[1:59:24] If not, is there a motion? >> Um,

[1:59:28] we the commissioners don't speak then or we're supposed to or

[1:59:34] » I've asked for a motion. So, if there's a motion and a second, then there will

[1:59:37] be further discussion. That's how it usually works.

[1:59:40] » Making a motion. Got to turn the microphone on. Making a motion to drop

[1:59:46] down other economic assistance to the

[1:59:53] 2024 levels. >> And what were those levels,

[1:59:57] Commissioner? Um,

[2:00:00] Children's in 8,000, Helpline Center 9,473,

[2:00:08] Soloulless 9,473,

[2:00:13] Interlakes 6785,

[2:00:17] Lennox Enrichment 5,000, Canton Transit

[2:00:23] 12,000, Decodabilities,

[2:00:27] which says statutoily required and then but uh that would be in the

[2:00:34] amount of 4,320

[2:00:38] and lifecapes to 35,520.

[2:00:46] All right. Is there a second to the motion?

[2:00:50] » I'll second the motion. >> There's been a motion and a second. Any

[2:00:54] further discussion? >> Madam Chair,

[2:00:56] » go ahead. Commissioner Aten. >> So my question with the with the budget

[2:01:01] request from these different entities, have they been here in the last 6 months

[2:01:06] or >> whenever to present their

[2:01:10] » they do they do come in, they fill out applications

[2:01:15] um and they have brought in presentations. actually our commission

[2:01:19] office assistant Paul can probably come up and and talk further about that

[2:01:25] process that we go through. >> Yeah. So um previously in 24 25 and 20

[2:01:32] 24 and 25 for the budgets for 25 and 26 the outside agencies submitted a written

[2:01:38] request and attended the the the meetings to talk about it. Um, my idea

[2:01:45] was for 27 since when they came in and presented, they didn't really talk about

[2:01:49] their budget requests and they kind of just talked about how great they were.

[2:01:52] What I did this year was have them submit a one-page document um that uh

[2:01:58] outlined their budget justification that was sent to the commission. I can resend

[2:02:01] it to you guys all if you want to look at it again.

[2:02:03] » You go through it right now, Paul. Uh yeah, I can uh if you give me I mean or

[2:02:09] we can I can put it together so it's in a more readable form cuz when we come

[2:02:12] back for the state's attorney's office too, I can put it together so it's in a

[2:02:16] readable form cuz a lot of what they submit is a bunch of financial audit

[2:02:20] information which is available to anyone. It just kind of clutters up and

[2:02:23] and um uh and does it. But if you if you give me

[2:02:27] » I don't know if it is available to everyone.

[2:02:29] » Okay. Uh well, I'll double check that. A lot of that are um

[2:02:34] » yeah, I'll double check, but um the their audits they that they submit as

[2:02:39] part of their 990, their federal 990 tax forms um that are required that you can

[2:02:44] find online. I'll double check on that, too. But um I can either put it together

[2:02:48] now or we have to come back for the state's attorney's office um later as

[2:02:52] well. I can put together, repackage it in a readable form with uh things and

[2:02:59] » attach it to the agenda and we can um if you have specific stuff you want to ask

[2:03:04] of any of them, I can get them here as well. Again,

[2:03:07] » well, I think you should extend that invitation. I think that's a good idea

[2:03:10] to move it since we're bringing back our state's attorney to talk about his

[2:03:14] budget. I can I'll so I'll get I'll get stuff

[2:03:17] resent and I'll get make sure it's a I'll add it back to this so it's

[2:03:21] available for everyone um that we've talked about I'll add it to this agenda

[2:03:25] and then we'll have it on next agenda >> and um we I'll extend the invitation to

[2:03:30] those people again if that works for everyone otherwise I

[2:03:35] can try and put something together real quick but um personally I'd rather make

[2:03:39] sure it's right then do it quickly >> I I think that makes sense and these are

[2:03:45] I mean these I guess facilities or um programs they are serving um the less

[2:03:54] fortunate people in our county and I I do want them to have an opportunity to

[2:03:58] come in and address their budget request.

[2:04:00] » Yeah, I'll make that invitation to them and I'll I'll package it together and

[2:04:03] get that to you guys as soon as I can. >> And Paul, would you ask those

[2:04:07] organizations to send their chief executive officer to attend?

[2:04:11] » I would can certainly make that request. In past years, we've had people come in

[2:04:15] who are their public relations person and they don't I ask questions about

[2:04:19] their budget and they really don't have the best indication

[2:04:24] as to why they're asking for the ask that they've made. For example, one of

[2:04:30] these organizations pays their CEO a minimum of 350 grand a year.

[2:04:36] » I think it was 375 plus a being charitable. But if they're going to pay

[2:04:43] their CEO 375 grand and they want to come ask for property taxpayer money

[2:04:49] when we have a property taxpayer revolt going on, they should come here and make

[2:04:54] the ask themselves as the chief executive officer instead of sending uh

[2:05:00] public relations person to come. >> I will certainly make that request to

[2:05:04] them. >> Thank you.

[2:05:05] » Thank you. >> Thank you all.

[2:05:07] » Next item or department that you want to talk about. We have a We have a motion

[2:05:12] pending that needs to be voted on. >> Can we We're not done with comments yet.

[2:05:17] » Oh, of course. Yeah. >> Um

[2:05:19] » should take comment. >> I'm not opposed commissioner to do some

[2:05:25] modification, but

[2:05:29] it's easier to sit here in Canton and make all kinds of wonderful statements

[2:05:34] about that. And you wonder for example the helpline center now what do they do?

[2:05:41] What is what are they good at are they? Well they do they do a lot of wonderful

[2:05:45] things and I think suicide prevention is one is just one issue along with many

[2:05:51] others which are very critical. I know you have a very difficult time with the

[2:05:56] children's home society because you do mention them all the time. Children's

[2:06:00] Home Society is a very large organization but in relationship to the

[2:06:06] Children's Inn which was just re uh redesigned and supposed to be

[2:06:12] accommodating well into 28 and 29 rights now is running at full capacity and when

[2:06:19] you see some of the charact individuals of parents or single moms with kids that

[2:06:24] come there um I may be called Mr. tender heart. But boy, I have a tough time

[2:06:30] saying that that money is is not spent correctly. Interlakes Community Action

[2:06:35] on the other hand, they they're okay. They get their government funding. They

[2:06:39] do all kinds of weatherization. They do Head Start. They do many good things for

[2:06:44] kids to get them. And on the on Rock situation, I I don't have any idea on

[2:06:50] that. I don't know why we're paying them. I I have a tough time with that

[2:06:54] organization, period. If it wasn't that they provided some form of

[2:06:58] transportation, I wouldn't give them a dime. But anyway, just to let you know

[2:07:02] that we do have >> talking about

[2:07:04] » this rocks outfit. That's an IAP agency that we are

[2:07:08] » Rock. I see Canton Transit.

[2:07:11] » Yeah, this is Well, Rocks is supposed to be able to provide public transportation

[2:07:17] because we are under that IAP agency. There's an ICAP agency out of Madison

[2:07:24] and there's an IAP agency out of uh Wagner, isn't it? Or

[2:07:30] » Yeah. And IAP has been down here. I don't know the uh Iraq has been here

[2:07:36] maybe once, but I'm not going to debate all of this commissioners. And the other

[2:07:40] thing when you talk about nonprofits, nonprofits, you mean you can say what

[2:07:44] you want to them about them. And if you don't have control of them, well, that's

[2:07:50] too they have a board of directors. They have guidelines. You have to have your

[2:07:55] audit available to the public. I mean, whatever monies that you get, you're

[2:08:00] always have to be able to show where it went, how it was spent. So I think that

[2:08:06] nonprofits go the extra mile today because they are looking at dollars.

[2:08:12] They are hardpressed try to find those services that are provided and

[2:08:17] government's not going to provide it. So if government doesn't provide it,

[2:08:21] nonprofits do. So okay fine. Well then if government doesn't have it should be

[2:08:27] the public pays for it all. I mean, I think that government has some

[2:08:31] obligation to kind of support these kinds of activities which help poor

[2:08:36] people and kids, and that's what these are all about.

[2:08:40] » Now that [clears throat] you're elaborating, tell me about LifeScape.

[2:08:44] I'm not 100% up on Livescape. I'd like to hear a little more about that. Well,

[2:08:49] LifeScape takes care of all of the unfortunate handicapped children that

[2:08:54] are running around and they if you want a calling from God, you go work with

[2:09:00] those handicapped kids who are uh from severely handicapped from not being able

[2:09:07] to have any taking care of any of their body functions. They cannot talk, they

[2:09:11] cannot walk and they have to 24-hour a day care. This is a a situation that for

[2:09:19] those parents that have those children that go there. And the better part about

[2:09:24] it is LifeScape also helps train some of the trainable ones which are severely

[2:09:31] mentally handicapped by giving them enough skills so that in some cases

[2:09:38] they're able to sustain themselves. they're able to take care of themselves

[2:09:42] from the standpoint of having independent living or they have a small

[2:09:47] minute job. So, you know, a lifescape when you look at the money we spend

[2:09:52] here, okay, so we spend $55,000 or $50,000,

[2:09:57] but if you can take a kid that would take off of government roles and make

[2:10:03] them independent and it's a nonprofit that's doing that, what's wrong with

[2:10:07] that? To me, that's a good investment. And most of all, I would say that it

[2:10:13] would serve all commissioners well to go there and sit with them. Not just take

[2:10:18] the tour of the building and saying in this building we have here, go actually

[2:10:23] go to the feeding room when you have to feed these kids or when you have to

[2:10:27] change their diapers or when you have all kinds of situation. Then tell me

[2:10:32] that our money is not well spent. Commission, can I make a comment? Um, at

[2:10:40] the beginning of the budget process, we had scheduled a calendar on how we were

[2:10:45] going to do the budget. Um, we had requested the commission to give us

[2:10:49] direction on how to get the other economic assistance, whether they wanted

[2:10:53] to see them or whether they did not. There was no desire for them to come in

[2:10:57] and talk. they wanted to do the application process or at least I do not

[2:11:01] I'm not aware of any desire to have them come in and talk since we are at the 3

[2:11:05] weeks out from the budget being passed. Um I would I I think

[2:11:12] or whatever that if we want to drop it back to the 2024 request then do that

[2:11:19] but then I think you need to give your commission assistant direction for the

[2:11:22] next budget year on how you want to proceed with this. Uh we do only have

[2:11:26] two meetings left. I don't know how he's going to round these people up to come

[2:11:30] in and speak on their request at this point.

[2:11:34] » Thank you. >> I feel that we just go ahead and do the

[2:11:39] 2024 and and we'll go from there and we'll deal with it next year if we want

[2:11:44] to change anything else.

[2:11:49] Paul, you'll put that together that list for us and we'll address it when we

[2:11:54] address state's attorney. >> Sure. Whatever you guys want.

[2:11:58] » Okay. So, we had a motion. We had a second.

[2:12:04] Alicia, we call the role. >> Commissioner Putnham.

[2:12:08] » Now, this is on going back to 24, right? >> Yes.

[2:12:11] » Okay. Yes. >> Schmidt?

[2:12:13] » No. >> Arens?

[2:12:15] » Yes. >> Aton?

[2:12:27] nay >> landing.

[2:12:30] » No.

[2:12:34] » Motion fails. >> Commissioner Erenss, do you want to keep

[2:12:38] going? >> Next is buildings and grounds.

[2:12:42] And >> you got a page number for us?

[2:12:44] » I am looking for that.

[2:13:01] Page 11. General government building

[2:13:08] up here.

[2:13:12] Great. That's department 4161.

[2:13:18] Go ahead, Commissioner Erin. >> Thank you. Got a line item in here for 2

[2:13:25] three 2.03 million under buildings and structures.

[2:13:32] But what we don't have is we have not yet identified a way forward or any kind

[2:13:38] of consensus as to what the improvements to the old

[2:13:43] courthouse will cost, what improvements, if anybody, if any,

[2:13:49] will be made. Um, it's being worked on. Um, and I've talked to Mr. Rambo about

[2:13:56] that. But uh until we have uh more definite understanding of what we're

[2:14:06] going to move forward with, how we're going to move forward with it.

[2:14:12] I'm proposing to remove that $2 million of budget authority out of there. Do you

[2:14:17] want and I and I don't know the best way to do this because originally that was

[2:14:22] an auditor decision because of was was that the legislative but wasn't it the

[2:14:27] legislative audit that you had to assign the money to something?

[2:14:30] » That's a different thing. >> That's different. That's not this one.

[2:14:35] » Okay, perfect. Thank you.

[2:14:42] » So that is that your motion? Well, I'm not taking a motion right now.

[2:14:47] He's just that's what he's wanting to do. And I wanted clarification that that

[2:14:51] wasn't just the unassigned light [clears throat] item that you had

[2:14:54] to assign. Okay. If that's not the case, then are there any other questions from

[2:14:58] the commission? >> Madam Chair,

[2:15:00] » go ahead, Commissioner. >> So, Commissioner Erands,

[2:15:04] um, it's not a motion, but restate your attention from which line item.

[2:15:09] » Yes, sir. which I believe is building instructions

[2:15:12] and the exact dollar amount that you're looking to remove.

[2:15:16] » Yeah. So, if you go down one, two, three paragraphs to it's called EXP category

[2:15:23] 43 capital outlay. >> Mhm.

[2:15:26] » And then right underneath that there is a line item called buildings and

[2:15:31] structures. >> Yep, I'm there.

[2:15:33] » And the proposal for 2027 is $2.038 038 million.

[2:15:39] » Yep. >> So, you're proposing to eliminate the

[2:15:44] whole >> proposing to eliminate remove that

[2:15:48] » the whole dollar amount. >> Yes.

[2:15:50] » Okay. >> And and Mr. Rambo's here. He he can

[2:15:54] clarify whether I believe the entire two Well, let me

[2:16:01] ask it as a question. Um, of that 2.03 038 million.

[2:16:08] [clears throat] How much in your mind, John, was

[2:16:12] aortioned for potential courthouse versus other

[2:16:19] types of structures here in the county, just regular maintenance, you know, that

[2:16:23] has to be done. So, when we started this and I met with

[2:16:28] the budget committee, um I had an ask or I had a want to do improvements to both

[2:16:35] this building and all of our buildings and start moving forward if we're going

[2:16:39] to save the old courthouse with some expenditures to do improvements there

[2:16:44] like i.e. paint it. Um, and we all know that ultimately if we're going to do

[2:16:50] anything with the old courthouse, we have to either do some kind of a

[2:16:53] structural improvement to the rooftop, which could be very expensive.

[2:16:57] So, I was concerned cuz I from watching and sitting in these meetings, it seems

[2:17:02] like there should be budget authority before we move forward with any money

[2:17:05] spent. And that's where the conversation kind

[2:17:09] of came up that we do have this $2 million set in

[2:17:13] uh reserve for capital improvements. So it looked like if you know we could

[2:17:21] move forward and do $200 or $300,000 worth of projects next year or we could

[2:17:26] do the whole roof improvement you know which could be close to $1.5 million or

[2:17:31] more. So then it was like, well, do we put that money into the budget? So it's

[2:17:36] got the budget authority already in place to do those projects next year.

[2:17:41] And that's kind of where we landed with it. Um I, you know, so I could go back.

[2:17:46] I I I got the $38,700 is what if you take the $2 million

[2:17:52] completely away from doing anything with the old building,

[2:17:56] then I would still need 38. Well, I shouldn't say cuz I took the $3,000 out

[2:18:01] for the um ambulance thing, but so I'd land like about 30 35700. 35,700 is what

[2:18:08] I would need in my capital or buildings and structures line item, which is 101,

[2:18:14] 41,61, and 432. But again, that doesn't give us any

[2:18:18] budget authority to do anything to the old courthouse then. no improvements to

[2:18:24] the drainage issues, no improvements to painting it, no improvements to crack uh

[2:18:29] ceiling. Um, so that's that was my dilemma. I came into this budget process

[2:18:35] with that dilemma is until we really know where we absolutely are going to

[2:18:40] land with it, I don't know what to do. But that puts no money in the 2027

[2:18:45] budgets to do anything.

[2:18:49] » Thank you, John. And my belief is that um

[2:18:55] uh that's your no fault of your own. You need some guidance from this commission

[2:19:00] as to what to be done. And so I appreciate your work. Um

[2:19:07] uh but you could live with the 38,000 or 35,700

[2:19:13] for buildings and structures for next year.

[2:19:17] » Correct. But that will accomplish nothing but projects that I want to do

[2:19:21] in this building and for HS and stuff like that.

[2:19:25] » Okay. Do you need uh Okay, understood. >> Thank you.

[2:19:34] » So that commissioners have other questions.

[2:19:36] » Can I add one more thing? >> Something else to say there. Just one

[2:19:39] more thing is is what that also takes away because that was included in the 2

[2:19:43] million is what we can do for renovating this structure to make it more usable by

[2:19:50] staff staying in this building. So, you know, if we need to add if we're

[2:19:56] moving one department to another section and we need to add some sort of wall or

[2:20:00] something, I would have no money in my budget to do that.

[2:20:03] John, when you first brought your budget to the budget committee, didn't you have

[2:20:06] about $800,000 in there for improvements?

[2:20:10] » Um, [gasps] I don't know if it was $800,000.

[2:20:14] Um,

[2:20:21] I mean, no, I didn't have that high of a number. It's probably closer to

[2:20:24] $200,000.

[2:20:31] » Okay.

[2:20:35] additional monies that again we transferred. We basically figured would

[2:20:40] be absorbed by the $2 million. >> Last year you had $299,000

[2:20:46] for buildings and structures. >> That's our budget this year.

[2:20:50] » Excuse me. >> Yeah.

[2:20:51] » And it's the 171 is what's been spent through August.

[2:20:59] Madam Chair, >> go ahead. Commissioner,

[2:21:02] » so I'm, you know, taking the roughly $2

[2:21:07] million out for the courthouse is kicking the can down the road, which the

[2:21:11] commission has done a good job for many years doing that. Decision is going to

[2:21:14] have to be made sooner or later whether we fix it or tear it down. But with that

[2:21:18] said, [clears throat]

[2:21:20] if we leave 200 35,700 in there, that will take care of your

[2:21:28] needs. I don't want to hamstring you here. If you need a couple dollars more,

[2:21:32] then let's make it that if that's your number.

[2:21:36] » Well, the the overall dilemma is where do I start? You know, I I I will have a

[2:21:43] very tough time spending $60,000 to do uh a cocking project if we really truly

[2:21:50] don't know if we're doing the roofing project. We know the roofing project is

[2:21:54] going to be very expensive to fix the rafters and the roof is going to be very

[2:21:58] expensive. That's where we were landing. You know, that could be $1.5 million.

[2:22:03] you know, um the discussion was is the demolition

[2:22:07] that if we demolished the old courthouse, that could have been one

[2:22:10] $1.5 million. We don't have those fine numbers. We could we talked and we're

[2:22:15] trying to put together a um RFP to get an architect on board to finally uh

[2:22:22] start ironing all this out. Um that by itself is going to be expensive, you

[2:22:27] know, and so we jump on board as you as the commission vote to do that. I I

[2:22:32] don't know what that number could be, but that could be I don't know. I I

[2:22:36] could easily see that approaching $100,000 to get that done.

[2:22:41] » Madam Chair, >> John, I have a question. Instead of

[2:22:44] concentrating where the $200,000 goes on the old building,

[2:22:50] » shouldn't we be looking at what modifications that need to be made in

[2:22:54] this building? If we put in a uh different departments, if we put in a

[2:22:59] public defender's office, if we need to remodel for our uh director of

[2:23:04] equalization because she's cramped in there, you know, like bookends in there,

[2:23:09] shouldn't we be looking at monies that should go here because we can use this

[2:23:14] space? We need this. This is staff development. This is good government

[2:23:18] over there. Uh what are you going to do with it? I mean, you can look at it, but

[2:23:23] it has no functional value for us right now. So, when you talk about the

[2:23:28] 200,000, I'm saying I'd like to see you spend that here. I'm going to agree with

[2:23:33] Commissioner Erenss if he wants to cut $2 million out until a later date. I'm

[2:23:37] going to second his motion. So, I think that's where we should be.

[2:23:43] » So, do you have a realistic number that you think you actually need in that line

[2:23:49] item? So what I >> originally had said 357

[2:23:53] and then you said 200,000. So what is the number that you need?

[2:23:58] » And we did agree to the we did tell them the RFP

[2:24:02] » without right we did do that but without regard

[2:24:07] » give me the money for that >> anything actually being done

[2:24:11] » right >> on the old courthouse. So,

[2:24:15] in the nine years I've been here, I've put I've subdivided and subdivided many

[2:24:19] different spaces. Any of those subdivided spaces typically

[2:24:24] cost about 10 grand. Um, I really don't know where we're

[2:24:28] going to land with how to we're we're trying to figure out where the

[2:24:32] department equalization is going to spread out to. If we're an example, if

[2:24:37] we want to maybe subdivide some of the space in what's currently the state's

[2:24:40] attorney's office, which will be vacated, you know, I'll have to put up a

[2:24:44] wall or structure. Well, that could at this point in time, I could see what I

[2:24:48] would envision doing there would be a $20,000 project

[2:24:52] » and then you just have to come in and ask for supplements on when the

[2:24:56] decisions were being made, >> right? That would be the next option.

[2:24:59] And that's part of the conversation we had with the building the budget

[2:25:02] committee was do we do I just not put any number in there and then choose to

[2:25:07] try to get supplemented uh as the need and as numbers come in or

[2:25:13] do we put budget authority there now and you guys still ultimately

[2:25:20] authorize whether I spend it out of that budget authority. It's not like I go out

[2:25:23] to spend money that's in the budget just because it's there,

[2:25:27] » right? That's the whole thing with the $2

[2:25:31] million. It's a huge number, but it was just to establish the budget authority

[2:25:36] to give the five commissioners that will be here January 1st the ability to spend

[2:25:41] it. >> Okay.

[2:25:44] » All right. >> So,

[2:25:45] » other questions from the commission? >> Just discussion maybe.

[2:25:50] » Okay. Um, any public input on uh this part of the budget?

[2:26:00] Thank you, Terry. >> John,

[2:26:04] the wrong one. >> Committee grounds highway

[2:26:07] » other Terry [laughter] >> Linda Montgomery Fever, South Dakota. Um

[2:26:13] to Commissioner Schmidt, if I may, Madam Chair, the functional value that you

[2:26:19] were talking about putting into this building, I think that until we I do not

[2:26:24] see that I still see that old building as having

[2:26:29] functional value. And um and I I really don't um I know

[2:26:36] that there's a push to get rid of that old courthouse, but I think [snorts]

[2:26:41] um there is functional value. Now, how much that will cost to make it up to,

[2:26:47] you know, we've talked about that, but I think at this point, I would like to see

[2:26:52] us doing what you would do with your own

[2:26:55] homes instead of adding, you know, you're

[2:26:59] going to tear down a room, but that room might be able to be used for something

[2:27:04] else with minimal repairs. You know, that's what I'm talking about. the um as

[2:27:10] far as as taking out that whole budget, I understand that he needs um a budget

[2:27:19] to to make improvements wherever you need and then to supplement as the year

[2:27:25] goes on next year. I would like to, you know, [clears throat]

[2:27:31] he he needs some working things, some cap capital to work with. And I would

[2:27:35] say I I wouldn't even mind a h 100,000 that he has in that budget to be used

[2:27:41] prudently and for the um the updates that needs to be done with this

[2:27:46] building. And then if we can see the value in that old building that I do,

[2:27:53] it's my suggestion. >> Thank you. Other public input

[2:28:04] Good morning, commission. Morning. >> Chad Skyles of Canton. Um, and I also

[2:28:10] served on the old courthouse committee, advisory committee. Um,

[2:28:16] what I'm going to say is this. If you cut the $2 million, you cut the $2

[2:28:20] million. But, and I guess this is some rhetorical

[2:28:25] questions, we cannot, like Commissioner Utan said,

[2:28:30] we cannot continue to kick this can down the road. It's been ignored way too

[2:28:36] long. I agree with the previous speaker. There's value in that old building.

[2:28:44] Yes, sentimental value, but also practical value.

[2:28:48] And lastly, I guess it's just going to be an open-ended question, and that is

[2:28:53] is that whatever amount you take out for um the whatifs on how to uh maintain

[2:29:02] the old courthouse, that is is that if you take out all the money today, if

[2:29:08] January 5th of 2027, we decide that something is going to be done, but there

[2:29:14] was no money budgeted in John's budget and he comes back,

[2:29:20] I sure hope that it's a five to zero vote supporting supplementing his budget

[2:29:25] to continue that process. Thank you. >> Thank you. Other public input.

[2:29:35] » Hi, Sarah Stever from Lennox. Um, I just wanted to point out that codified law

[2:29:40] 7-21-11 is still on the books and that's the one

[2:29:44] that limits you to 95%. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[2:29:52] Other public input.

[2:29:57] » All right. If not, is there a motion? >> Yes.

[2:30:01] » Yeah. Go ahead, Commissioner. >> This is this is the motion I was going

[2:30:04] to make. So my motion was to under category 43 capital A capital outlay

[2:30:12] line item 101-4161-432000

[2:30:15] buildings and structures that we reduce that 2,ion38,700

[2:30:22] down to 335,700. >> Second.

[2:30:29] » Had a motion and a second. Any discussion?

[2:30:33] Well, that was going to be my motion, too.

[2:30:37] » And um I I think here's where we're at. Um

[2:30:44] Mr. Degro sent me an RFP for my review. I need to turn that around to him.

[2:30:51] My guesstimate is the RFP will probably go

[2:30:56] out the door in the next 30 days and the RFP could be responded to within

[2:31:02] the next 60. So that puts us 90 and then for the

[2:31:10] B depending upon the scope of work and who responds to the RFP

[2:31:15] that maybe puts us out about six months. So I foresee that we do we will have

[2:31:23] some kind of response in uh end of Q2 beginning of Q3. Uh so

[2:31:29] basically July of 27 is is my take on this and then that gives enough time to

[2:31:37] bring all the stakeholders to the table to develop a game plan for FY 2028.

[2:31:46] So that's why I second this. >> All right, I got a motion and a second.

[2:31:51] Is there any other discussion before the vote?

[2:31:54] » So, Commissioner Rotten, this calls for a reduction in our budget of how much

[2:32:01] money? >> 1.7

[2:32:06] » I think it's 1.7 >> 1.7.

[2:32:10] » Speak into the mic. >> How much?

[2:32:12] » One 1.7. >> Okay. 1.7. All right.

[2:32:16] » 1.703. >> Okay.

[2:32:21] » Thank you. >> My comments on that motion is is after

[2:32:25] talking to John, that's the number that should be able to get him by that he

[2:32:30] needs. So, I'm not interested in hamstringing him in any shape or form.

[2:32:34] So, and Commissioner Erns is I agree with him on uh when those numbers will

[2:32:40] start coming in and we'll start looking at it then and then hard decisions going

[2:32:43] to have to be made. All right, we got a motion, a second.

[2:32:47] » Okay, now I'd like to clarify this because I couldn't hear much of anything

[2:32:51] that was happening there >> speaking to the mic. But anyhow, so

[2:32:57] we're going to take 1 how much? >> Seven.

[2:33:01] » Seven. >> We're going to reduce the 2,387.

[2:33:05] You see where that's at? >> To the one point.

[2:33:08] » We're going to reduce it down to 3357. So, it's going to be an overall

[2:33:14] reduction of 1.703

[2:33:19] million. >> Okay.

[2:33:22] » Okay. >> All right. Any other questions or

[2:33:24] discussion? If not, Alicia, should we call the role?

[2:33:28] » Commissioner Putnham, >> yes.

[2:33:30] » Schmidt, >> yes.

[2:33:31] » Arens, >> yes.

[2:33:32] » Hi. >> Lendine,

[2:33:34] » yes. Motion carries.

[2:33:39] All right. other departments. Commissioner Erenss,

[2:33:46] » that's all I have for right now. >> That's all I have for right now.

[2:33:50] » All right. >> I have a couple questions on if I can

[2:33:53] ask. >> Uh, go ahead, Commissioner Putnham.

[2:33:56] » Uh, does the budget include another step or wage increase for the 20 for 27 in

[2:34:03] addition to the 3% increase approved for 26?

[2:34:12] I'm not sure I understand your question. I mean, we put in the pay study

[2:34:20] with the budget numbers. There is a 3% COLA adjustment and a 2.5%

[2:34:26] cost or step increase. >> Are the adjustice

[2:34:32] center operating and staffing costs fully reflected in that?

[2:34:39] the if John has a building and grounds person included in his budget then yes

[2:34:46] I don't know what other staffing there would be the sheriff's included his

[2:34:51] um yes all requested new employees are in those numbers

[2:34:57] » then I'd like one other thing I'd like to back up to on lifecape if I can just

[2:35:03] so it's on the record and everybody knows it.

[2:35:08] Okay. The CEO of Lifescape, Steve Watkins,

[2:35:14] takes in 400 and 400,377

[2:35:21] and with another 65,000 which brings him at a total of 400

[2:35:29] 464972.

[2:35:34] Kimberly Marsh CO

[2:35:39] is 270,623

[2:35:44] with a stipen of $29,868

[2:35:48] for 300,000. Steve Wilson's a CFO. I didn't know. I don't know what that is,

[2:35:55] but he takes in three or $234,559

[2:36:03] with a $35,874

[2:36:07] stifen for a total of $270,433.

[2:36:13] Then there's Jason. He's a VP of HR and with his stipen and everything, he's

[2:36:21] taken in $18,68.

[2:36:25] Now, this I got from a taxpayer of Lincoln County.

[2:36:33] Now, the 55,000 that we're going to give them is just like peeing on a fire,

[2:36:38] isn't it? Excuse the pun.

[2:36:43] That was a good waste of time on that cash.

[2:36:47] And of course, I don't know what the other ones are. That's just a start.

[2:36:53] » Thank you. >> All right. Any other changes that the

[2:36:56] commission wants to make to our budget today?

[2:36:58] » Uh potential. Uh this bleeds into agenda item number two, but they're all the

[2:37:04] same. Is this uh I want to go to the 911 page

[2:37:08] » um category here. So, we'll go ahead and move on to item two on our agenda then

[2:37:18] » because this issue is going to have budgetary impact.

[2:37:22] » Commissioner uh or commissioner Sheriff Swansson, this is your item. Do you want

[2:37:28] to come up?

[2:37:33] All right. Swson, Lincoln County Sheriff. Uh, so I was contacted by

[2:37:40] by uh um assistant fire chief Graham with the

[2:37:48] who oversees Metro Communications and he he's kind of my understanding is he

[2:37:52] spearheaded this which I think is long overdue is they want to they've gotten

[2:37:57] all SCS wanted all 27 PAPs to be on board with and county commissioner or

[2:38:04] governing boards to be on board with moving uh dispatchers from a class A

[2:38:09] retirement system to the class B retirement system. And what that

[2:38:12] entailed for for Lincoln County was I've reached out to all of our employees in

[2:38:18] 911 that would qualify, which all of our employees would as a dispatcher.

[2:38:24] Um it it's not retroactive, but it would move them from the A system to the B

[2:38:29] system, which reduces 10 years off their service. Now, if anybody knows what a

[2:38:33] dispatcher does, you know, it's a high stress u uh there's there's ups and

[2:38:38] downs through their career just like law enforcement or anybody else. Maybe not

[2:38:43] the same as far as the you're in danger, but it's definitely the high stress uh

[2:38:48] position. So what uh they had asked me to do is present at the this commission

[2:38:53] and I 100% agree that this should happen is that we would uh support

[2:38:59] it's a resolution in support of the South Dakota Retirement System

[2:39:02] reclassifying of the 911 telecommunication operators. So all 27

[2:39:09] uh PAPs are on board with this. I think we're the last one that is presenting.

[2:39:13] Um what I'm asking is that we support this. It will be a cost and all the

[2:39:18] dispatchers agreed to the 2% extra that will come out of their paycheck so that

[2:39:23] they have skin in the game as well. But it would increase uh 911

[2:39:28] employee county contributions by I believe it was $21,000

[2:39:33] annually. >> Thank you. Questions for our sheriff?

[2:39:40] » The they would retire early then.

[2:39:46] » Right. So, so this will be no different than uh I'm trying to use a good

[2:39:50] example. If I was a dispatcher for 5 years and then I became a police

[2:39:53] officer, you just switch from an A to a B. It's not going to do a lot of of B.

[2:39:58] It's not going to be a big benefit to 80% of my dispatchers because 90% of

[2:40:03] their their time's already in the A system and it it doesn't go backwards.

[2:40:08] So those dispatchers would go from a from the class A which would be what

[2:40:12] they would qualify for retirement up till say uh director Baldwin. Uh then he

[2:40:19] would move to the B and he it would reduce the service by a little bit but a

[2:40:23] new dispatcher starting out instead of having to go 30 years they could retire

[2:40:27] in 20 years.

[2:40:31] Can we make this applicable to just new hires after anyone hired after the date

[2:40:37] of this resolution? >> Well, we're just doing the resolution.

[2:40:40] It's by state statute if I'm not mistaken. I mean, the legislature would

[2:40:44] have to pass this to move that classification.

[2:40:48] » Correct. >> Yeah, I get that.

[2:40:50] » I think SDRs has to first approve it. >> Yeah.

[2:40:53] » Right. because I know prosecutors tried doing it along many many years ago the

[2:40:57] same process and it didn't I mean it didn't apply

[2:41:00] » I I get the fact we're this is just a resolution that they can package up and

[2:41:04] send to the legislature and say hey everybody did this I get that part I'm

[2:41:09] trying to have some discussion about you know maybe some adding some nuance into

[2:41:15] this you know for example um

[2:41:19] having this apply to new hires Um, but it wouldn't apply to people who

[2:41:25] are presently hired inside the old system or maybe if you just got hired

[2:41:31] within the last two years, three years, four years or something like that. Um,

[2:41:37] so there's that. Number two, when it comes to PAT, because I'll support the

[2:41:41] resolution. That's not the issue for me. The other issue though that I think is a

[2:41:47] bigger issue is the number of PAPs that we have in this state.

[2:41:52] Governor Jenkllo, bless his soul, 30 years ago identified

[2:41:58] the number of PAPs that we have as being problematic. He wanted to reduce the

[2:42:03] number of PAPs. Could never get it done because there were too many county

[2:42:07] commissions that uh that were defending their turf and they didn't want to, you

[2:42:12] know, upset the apple basket. And so we're stuck. You know, it's like the

[2:42:18] sheriff said, we got 27 PAPs out there right now. Question becomes is can we

[2:42:23] reduce that and see efficiencies through reduction? And there's a study out now.

[2:42:29] There's an there's a study that was done this uh you know cost six figures to do

[2:42:35] the study and it came out what a couple years ago

[2:42:38] and it it it said to do what Governor Jenklo said to do 30 years ago is you've

[2:42:44] got to continue to consolidate your PAPs. Now

[2:42:49] we sheriff and I we went through this. I said a couple years ago, sheriff, we

[2:42:55] should consolidate with Sou Falls or we should look into it. What the sheriff

[2:42:59] did instead is he went out and uh found other customers to maintain the Lincoln

[2:43:08] County PAP because there would have been issues and this is important for the

[2:43:12] public to understand. Maybe this is important for commissioners to

[2:43:15] understand if you yourselves don't don't know this. you got to invest in all

[2:43:20] these different CAD systems and if you if you change your paps up and all that.

[2:43:25] So there would have been all kinds of uh retrofitting expenses that made it cost

[2:43:30] prohibitive to consolidate the pap. Now

[2:43:37] we're I think that Lincoln County has taken on this position of basically

[2:43:42] saying um it's cost prohibitive to join with Metro Communications. So instead,

[2:43:48] we're going to go out there and we're going to take on Harrisburg and Lennox.

[2:43:51] And >> can you keep this? Can you just I I

[2:43:53] understand what you want to speak on, but can you keep it to the resolution

[2:43:57] that we're looking at? >> This is part of the resolution. Okay.

[2:43:59] » And here's why. >> If the cost to the county is going to

[2:44:06] increase by adopting the resolution, we then as responsible stewards of

[2:44:11] taxpayer money have to look for other offsets. So if you want to increase the

[2:44:16] amount of money through moving these people to S to a different SDRs

[2:44:21] category, you have to look for ways to make that

[2:44:24] revenue neutral. And that's why any kind of discussion about moving these people

[2:44:28] from retirement categories has to necessarily requires us to talk about

[2:44:34] the number of PAPs. And I get it. There's people who don't want to talk

[2:44:37] about that. There's people who like the status quo, the current system. But

[2:44:41] here's the thing. we send this resolution up and everybody's going to

[2:44:44] be like, see, see, everybody's for increasing the SDRs category. That's

[2:44:49] personnel expense. But then if you're a legislator, you might be saying to

[2:44:53] yourself, well, hold on a minute here. Where's the savings?

[2:44:58] Why is it always just more cost and more cost? Why don't we think about

[2:45:02] institutional reform? So, I want my comments on the record here as part of

[2:45:06] my support for this to also reflect the fact we got a study out there and we've

[2:45:11] got governors, we got legislators who all understand that these PAPs need to

[2:45:15] be reformed as well.

[2:45:20] » Thank you. Other commissioners? >> Yes. I would like to comment on this.

[2:45:25] » Go ahead. [clears throat] the going from 6% to 8% is going to cost

[2:45:32] um the county [snorts and clears throat] about another $20,000

[2:45:37] a year per person. Um

[2:45:43] just to put it on the record there just so that they understand it. Joel.

[2:45:49] Um,

[2:45:55] you know, I guess that's part of what Joel would be talking about. So, just so

[2:46:00] that it's understood that that what what the cost is going to be.

[2:46:09] Sheriff, did you have any other >> Well, I I would say that uh making it

[2:46:13] for new employees and not old employees, I I don't think there would be any buy

[2:46:18] in for that to be honest with you. If if I've got two years in a PAP and the

[2:46:22] person, they just all quit. That's what I'd do anyway. Go work for a PAP that

[2:46:26] did pay the the 8% uh reduce your your your working years by 10 years. So, but

[2:46:33] I get I get the the we're looking at cost savings and I'm just going to throw

[2:46:37] it out there. We we just re re uh negotiated with Turner County uh which

[2:46:42] was an increase of $35,000 for next year in revenue. Uh so I guess we've we're

[2:46:48] cost neutral. >> Thank you, Sheriff.

[2:46:51] » And I am saying that I'm I'm going to go along with what you're doing. I just

[2:46:56] wanted to reflect the fact of what it's going to cost for each person.

[2:47:00] » There's a resolution in front of us. Is there any public input on the

[2:47:03] resolution? [snorts]

[2:47:12] Sorry. [laughter]

[2:47:15] » Good morning again, Commissioner Chad Sky from Canton.

[2:47:19] um being an old 911 dispatcher way back in the day and a former 911 director for

[2:47:25] Lincoln County who saw the uh the onboarding of Turner County and and the

[2:47:31] importance of regionalized 911 and what it can do for the smaller counties in

[2:47:36] South Dakota. I just want to say on record that I

[2:47:40] support this resolution 100%. I do not support the idea of not including the

[2:47:46] current dispatching staff. And the reason for that is is that if you look

[2:47:52] at Lincoln County 911's current dispatching staff,

[2:47:57] easily half of that of that staff of those personnel have 20 to 35

[2:48:06] years of service to Lincoln County. And if you look at other 911 PAPs around

[2:48:14] the state, including one the biggest one just north of us, the turnover there is

[2:48:21] [snorts] in general way higher than it is here in Lincoln County. And and to

[2:48:26] panalyze the uh years of service of those current dispatchers, I think is a

[2:48:31] travesty. And uh uh I would certainly hope that the commission would not

[2:48:36] support that part of it. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any

[2:48:44] other public input? If not, is there a motion?

[2:48:51] Motion to uh move uh on sheriff's recommendation of reclassification of a

[2:48:58] 91 911 telecomation to class B.

[2:49:07] » All right. Is there a second?

[2:49:13] Second. >> Thank you. I've got a motion and a

[2:49:16] second. Any further discussion? >> Yeah, I've got um I guess I would like

[2:49:22] to see it go the people that are on there right

[2:49:27] now get it right away. That would be the only thing because if they're going to

[2:49:32] do it, they just well do it. And I'm going to support the resolution

[2:49:37] simply because um I think that our dispatchers and 911

[2:49:43] operators are probably have one of the most stressful jobs

[2:49:49] um providing that service to our taxpayers.

[2:49:54] And so I'm going to provide it for the same reasons that law enforcement

[2:49:58] officers are class B um public safety members.

[2:50:05] If there's no further discussion, Alicia, will you call the role?

[2:50:09] » Commissioner Putnham, >> yes.

[2:50:11] » Schmidt, >> yes.

[2:50:12] » Arens, >> yes.

[2:50:14] » Hi. >> Landine,

[2:50:15] » yes. Motion carries. >> Then we have board discussion on Lincoln

[2:50:20] County Justice Center. Commissioner Putnham,

[2:50:22] » I'm going to hold that off till next week. I got a couple other things to

[2:50:26] say, too. >> All right. Then we have our opportunity

[2:50:29] for public comment for items not on our agenda.

[2:50:33] Any

[2:50:36] public comment?

[2:50:42] » If not, are there any commission reports?

[2:50:44] » No, it was it was it wasn't pulled for regular. It was just removed.

[2:50:51] » Paul, do you have a report?

[2:51:00] Uh just briefly um on last week the um Turner Lincoln account or Lincoln Clay

[2:51:08] Water District presented um that um I just was saying I'm working with them to

[2:51:13] get updated language. Uh part of their discussion was to have the board

[2:51:18] consider becoming a sponsor. Um, so just a heads up that you will see some draft

[2:51:23] language and an item on either next week or the following week's agenda for the

[2:51:27] board to consider being a sponsor. Um, just thought I'd give you guys an update

[2:51:30] on that. Um, and that's all I have for right now.

[2:51:35] » Thank you. Any commission reports? >> [music]

[2:51:39] » After last week's meeting, I received a tremendous amount of positive feedback

[2:51:46] on the uh motion for a moratorum on data centers. I just after that meeting and

[2:51:53] the amount of publicity uh probably 35 36 37 people uh sent me emails probably

[2:52:03] received about a dozen phone calls on the issue and who knows how many text

[2:52:08] messages but uh there seems to be tremendous support for wanting to rein

[2:52:14] in take a timeout or a pause on data centers. There was uh people are very

[2:52:22] happy that we're going to have a uh discussion with the city of Sou Falls.

[2:52:28] Um there is a lot of people who want to give their input who don't like the

[2:52:34] status quo and uh they were very pleasantly surprised that there was

[2:52:40] support for holding another joint meeting with the city of Sou Falls.

[2:52:44] That's going to be the last Tuesday in October at 7:00 p.m. And uh I'm just

[2:52:49] reporting back uh feedback I'm getting on that.

[2:52:54] » Commissioner Erns, do you know cuz that meeting will be in Sou Falls, correct?

[2:52:59] » The rotation that we follow is we do every other meeting and so if we follow

[2:53:05] the tradition and custom that means that the meeting would be up in Sou Falls cuz

[2:53:10] we held this one in Canton. So, I'm guessing that that'll be a lengthy

[2:53:14] meeting. So, that would normally be our night meeting if I'm not mistaken.

[2:53:19] So, are we going to move that night meeting to the morning?

[2:53:25] » I think we I don't know. Let's discuss it. Let's talk about it. Let's pull our

[2:53:30] calendars out and look at them. >> Do you want to do that now or do you

[2:53:35] want to work with the commission office on doing that? Well, I think we should

[2:53:38] work with the commission office first instead of doing it on the fly here this

[2:53:42] morning. >> All right. Any other commissioner

[2:53:45] reports >> because we're also going to have to move

[2:53:48] the uh we have not taken formal action yet on also moving our November

[2:53:54] election as well. So, we're going to have to take action on that, too.

[2:53:59] » We just need to probably figure it out sooner rather than later for public

[2:54:02] hearings and those things. >> Agreed. Commissioner Erons, we did move

[2:54:07] the November 3rd meeting to November 5th.

[2:54:10] » We did both of those at the beginning of the year.

[2:54:13] » There you go. We did it. Done. >> So, we just need to look at the in the

[2:54:16] last day of October or the last >> Okay.

[2:54:20] » Okay. Any other commission reports? If not, Drew, any executive session? No

[2:54:26] executive session. Motion to adjurnn, please.

[2:54:31] » So move. >> Motion. Is there a second?

[2:54:35] So moved. >> Thank you. All in favor signify by

[2:54:38] saying I. I. >> I.

[2:54:40] » Any oppose? Same sign. Hearing none. We are adjourned.

Board of Commission Meeting

Agenda

Transcript