[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:11] Good
[0:17] morning and welcome to our regular meeting today, Tuesday, September 1, 2026.
[0:25] I know that there's
[0:26] one change to pull item six off of the consent agenda and just remove it completely.
[0:34] Are there other
[0:35] changes by the commission?
[0:39] If not, can I get a motion to approve our agenda?
[0:45] Thank you. I got a motion
[0:46] motion from Commissioner Otton. Is there a second motion from a second from Commissioner
[0:51] Aaron's. There's no further discussion. Alicia will be a call the roll. Commissioner Putnam.
[0:57] Yes.
[0:57] Aaron's. Yes.
[0:58] On.
[0:59] Here.
[0:59] Lending. Yes. Motion carries. Next move on to our consent agenda. Agenda minus that item
[1:06] six. Can I get a motion to approve our consent agenda?
[1:11] So moved.
[1:11] I've got a motion from Commissioner Aaron's, is there a second?
[1:17] Second.
[1:17] Good.
[1:18] A second from Commissioner Atten.
[1:20] If there's no further discussion, Alicia will you call the roll?
[1:23] Commissioner Putnam.
[1:26] Yes.
[1:27] And?
[1:27] Yes.
[1:28] Atten.
[1:28] Night.
[1:29] Lending.
[1:30] Yes.
[1:31] Motion carries.
[1:32] Next we have our public hearing on the 2027 Lincoln County budget.
[1:40] And our commission office provided us with an updated copy, paper copy this morning.
[1:53] And it was also attached to the agenda online.
[2:10] What changes, if any, do the commissioners want to make to the agenda?
[2:14] Just for clarification, for public knowledge.
[2:17] The changes that were made were with the pay study that was implemented, then we went
[2:23] through and changed all the personnel throughout the agenda.
[2:26] Also, we had talked about moving 1-0-1-4-1-7-2-4-2-6-0-0-0, which is the HR budget from 12,000 to 4,000.
[2:38] I didn't do it when I originally published the provisional, so it's in there now.
[2:44] And the other change was revenue and emergency management.
[2:48] Heritage confirmed that the state would be doing a 40% match.
[2:52] Other than that, those are the only changes that were done from the time of publication until today.
[2:56] Okay. Okay. Thank you. First, are there any department heads that want to come up and speak to their budget as presented in our budget that we have now?
[3:11] Nobody? All right.
[3:16] All right, commissioners. What do you want to do?
[3:35] All right. Is there anyone from the public who would like to come up and speak to the budget as presented?
[3:44] Oh, okay. Go ahead, commissioners.
[3:46] So, thank
[3:50] you Madam Chair.
[3:51] So, as I mentioned before, I do support trying
[3:54] to put something together for some funding
[3:57] for the Linux ambulance issue that is going on.
[4:02] Paul, I'm going to add out those sheets.
[4:06] Step down, I see that.
[4:10] Good, can you do that, Sherry?
[4:12] Thank you, hand one out to the commissioners.
[4:15] So, what I've done is worked through
[4:19] around things a little bit and not taking any money out of cash reserves, I kind of ask
[4:29] the department.
[4:29] Do you want to speak into your microphone a little bit better?
[4:32] Yep.
[4:33] So what I did is kind of ask the department has to see if there is a little they could give
[4:39] each way to help meet the number of 60,000 that I'm recommending for the Lincoln County
[4:50] portion, hand those sheets out, everybody can see what each one of those are.
[5:00] And this
[5:00] is going to be my proposal.
[5:09] And I'll go through them once you have them.
[5:20] And I'd like to
[5:20] say thank you to all the department heads that were willing to give a little bit in their
[5:23] budget to make this happen. So I really appreciate your effort in doing so.
[5:29] So my proposal is from the Treasurer's budget to take 1,000 from supplies and motor vehicle
[5:37] for a total of 2,000, 4,000 from travel and supplies for 2,000, the share of 2,000
[5:44] minor equipment, register of deeds, $500, auditor, 2,000 EMS, could cut 2,000 from emergency service
[5:55] lines, building in grounds. I don't remember what line item that is, $2,000. HR, $3,000. I believe
[6:03] that was out of travel. I believe. And then $10,000 out of the commission's travel budget. That
[6:08] was at $21,000. That will bring that down to $11, which the second sheet reflects the new numbers on
[6:14] that. When it comes to other economic assistance, my proposal is to not give them a budgetary
[6:23] increase from last year to basically keep them at 2026 levels.
[6:31] Children's in would
[6:32] stay at 15 and drop of 13.5 is what it proposed to help center.
[6:40] Stays at 94.73. Solace stays at 45. Interlake stays at 69.03.
[6:54] Lennox
[6:55] $43.20 and life escapes $53.52, $332, which brings the total
[7:02] draw goes up to my request of $60,078.
[7:08] Not adding any new dollars to the budget trying to find them within the existing budget.
[7:13] So that is my proposal.
[7:17] I'll add that to the budget for that.
[7:18] And as you all know, they're still working on the operating agreement.
[7:22] I think people have seen a draft.
[7:25] I have to know Drew has been looking through on,
[7:28] because we need obviously to get the legal on that, so.
[7:32] So if we got or reduced these items by the amount
[7:37] that you're suggesting and move that to what line item
[7:40] would that go to, do you know?
[7:42] I have no idea.
[7:43] I would probably take it out of other economic assistance,
[7:46] just add it into that line item, add it
[7:50] to other economic assistance as an ambulance line item.
[7:54] I'm going to have to double check and see how the accounting would go in it.
[7:57] But at this time I would just say add it to there.
[8:00] Okay.
[8:03] It would be added to the general fund though.
[8:08] Nathan is here from the city of Linux.
[8:10] If there was any pertinent questions about what's going on.
[8:15] Not about this.
[8:17] Yeah, commissioners have any questions for commission around.
[8:22] So
[8:28] we're automatically giving the children's in for sure 28,000 next year and
[8:34] No, the recommendation was to leave it at 2026 levels, you'll see those lines.
[8:41] So they're actually reductions that understand that but we've
[8:45] have we talked about giving the children's in and every year.
[8:51] Every year. Every year.
[8:54] There has not been any discussion as to what you want to cut out of the budget.
[8:59] You guys, you have not had any discussion other than what commissioner ought and is presenting.
[9:04] So if you wanted to cut all of it, you can cut all of it.
[9:06] He's just saying to keep it level, to take it out of these items.
[9:13] Yes, my proposal is to keep them static for 26 or 27.
[9:18] Does it mean that you, somebody can make a decision to cut more or cut them out?
[9:23] Okay, that's not my proposal.
[9:24] So what was the process used to ascertain or determine how and why each of the line items
[9:33] under other economic assistance would be raised?
[9:38] So for example, the 2026 children's in budget is 15 and in 2027 the proposal is 28.5.
[9:53] Paul Anderson, Lincoln County Commission Administrative Assistant, kind of followed
[9:58] the same pattern we have since I came in, so that was 2024 for the 25-budget year.
[10:07] We sent out applications to the outside agencies, asked them to submit their budget proposal,
[10:16] financial audit documents, any justifications.
[10:20] this year we changed it up a little bit. We have them submit one page funding
[10:28] explanation justification documents make it a little bit easier. Those are sent
[10:32] to the board. I include them in the budget bind for other economic
[10:38] assistance as an outside agency request and then leave it up to the board to
[10:46] determine whether or not they would like to fund that and they have you should
[10:50] of the packets in the email if you don't have a handy I can resend you it but that explains
[10:56] their audit situation or their financial situations their budget requests and their budget justification.
[11:02] Thank you Paul. Yeah I just want to note here so in 2024 children's in was 8,000
[11:11] Then it almost doubled the next year, so 2X, and then it doubled again for 2027 to 285.
[11:24] Helpline Center has stayed flat for the last three years. That's now jumped up to 12,000.
[11:31] Solus has gone up almost 4x, it was in 2024, it was 94, 73, and then 45k and 45k and 50.
[11:49] Interlakes started at 67, 85 in 2024, that's kind of had some modest increases.
[11:57] His Linux enrichment has stayed flat for the last four years.
[12:01] Canton Transit has gone up well, literally doubled in the last four years.
[12:10] Decodabilities is statutorily required, so that number presumably is decided based upon
[12:19] the statute, and then life-scape has almost doubled as well over the last four years.
[12:25] and
[12:29] so Commissioner Putnam just to answer your question it these numbers have
[12:36] moved up pretty rapidly over the last few years.
[12:44] Yeah I you know in a 12
[12:51] million dollar shortfall I guess this all looks kind of sad and some of this stuff
[12:58] I don't have no clue, like, for instance, Lennox Enrichment, how do we need to be enriching
[13:07] them?
[13:12] My other concern is here that, and I appreciate Commissioner Otton going to the department
[13:20] heads, went to the treasurer, the 4-H, the sheriff, the register of deeds, the auditor,
[13:32] the
[13:32] And they cut out approximately,
[13:39] yeah.
[13:40] Yeah, what does that add up to?
[13:43] 15,000.
[13:45] 15,000.
[13:45] Well, that's 15,000 is spending.
[13:47] Yeah, 15,000.
[13:49] That should have never been there in the first place,
[13:50] because if they can give it up for this,
[13:53] should have never been budgeted in the first place.
[13:59] So go ahead, Commissioner.
[14:01] I don't know if I can still agree with that assessment.
[14:04] I
[14:12] get no I appreciate that thank you for saying that in public so what is the
[14:18] reason that we need to give 60,000 to the ambulance in Linux what was the
[14:26] reasoning behind that well we're supposed to have a meeting with Turner County to
[14:32] ascertain whether or not there's interest in having an ambulance district that
[14:39] would be a taxation district. And I've talked to the Turner County folks about that. They're
[14:46] interested in having that meeting. I thought we were interested in having that meeting. And what
[14:51] that would do is if the ambulance district was approved, is that would place a...
[15:00] Levy or attacks on the people who would actually use the ambulance service themselves as opposed to coming out of the general fund that comes from all taxpayers across the county. So I think that we should have that meeting with Turner County before we spend any taxpayer money here on the ambulance district, because I thought there was motivation to want us at least
[15:29] least I'm being told on the part of Turner County, they're interested in setting up an ambulance
[15:35] district. And I think we ought to sit down and talk with them about doing the same thing.
[15:42] Now, would that be on certain townships with surrounding Linux then?
[15:54] Yep, go ahead, Commissioner.
[15:55] The one example is service territory.
[15:58] Well, what's the territory?
[15:59] Which includes like the city of T and Delta free township. They have they have all committed a think there's an email out there just in the last few days that breaks down which of the entities that have decided to get on board in the dollar.
[16:17] So yes, it includes townships, but this is not intended to pay for the township's portions because this would not cover that.
[16:25] Um, what are we giving? I'm just, I don't know, I'd ask Mr. Earns.
[16:30] Okay.
[16:30] Do you think I understand what you're saying about the ambulance district and what by putting a line item and moving this money doesn't necessarily mean that the county is approving the expanse itself.
[16:44] I'm assuming there's going to have to be more discussions on a vote. Would you agree?
[16:50] sounds to me like we give budget authority and that makes it happen. I don't
[16:58] know that that's necessarily true. It seems like it works out. Legal is shaking
[17:02] their head so I don't think we're actually approving the expenditure. There
[17:07] would have to be a joint agreement between all the entities and that's still in
[17:12] its infancy. Yeah and I think the joint agreement was sent around is that the
[17:18] email you're referring to Commissioner Odden.
[17:22] There were no, according to the one I've seen, there were no numbers attached to it.
[17:26] There were supposed to be an exhibit attached to it that put all of the respective entities
[17:33] breakdowns and nobody's provided that to me.
[17:37] Commissioner Putnam, you've been provided that?
[17:40] No, I haven't.
[17:43] My question being is we're going to give one ambulance district money or proposing here.
[17:51] But what about the other ambulance districts we we're going to what are we going to do for them?
[17:59] Go ahead, Commissioner Allen.
[18:00] So to address the management errors, this is not to money, this is the money to put the line item in.
[18:14] All right, sorry.
[18:16] So this is not to spend the money, this is to get a line item in the budget to have the funds there if needed.
[18:23] Is the intent of this? Otherwise, we all realize if we need the money next year,
[18:28] there were going to have to come and take it out of the budget or out of
[18:32] out of reserves to have something done and there did not seem to be any appetite to do that.
[18:37] The last time I brought this up, Commissioner Putnam, as are the other ambulance services,
[18:43] they haven't been here to ask. And I guess they do. We'll do with that at that moment,
[18:49] but they haven't come up here. So I'm not concerned about that at this moment.
[18:55] Well, yeah, and I think the reason they haven't asked is because they're able to fund their operations on their own without assistance from the county commission.
[19:07] That's why, and they run less overhead than Linux. Linux has higher overhead, and that's choice that they've made.
[19:20] That's a level of service above and beyond the others as they want to provide.
[19:30] And I just keep going back to this issue of we should collaborate with Turner County.
[19:37] I've called township supervisors, didn't reach all of them but talked to a lot of them about this issue
[19:46] and how they view the taxation of an ambulance district and look, nobody likes the idea of a tax increase especially when they're concerned about spending.
[20:04] It makes it really difficult to do tax increases when there's no fiscal discipline.
[20:12] However, in the township supervisors that I've spoken with, they're all fairly conservative
[20:21] folks, and they all understand the importance of having an ambulance service to come when
[20:30] it's called, and so they're willing to come to the table to talk about forming an ambulance
[20:38] district.
[20:42] But what I think they're concerned about is this issue of potential double taxation.
[20:50] You get taxed on your property taxes, you get taxed as a township, you give the money to the township,
[20:57] you give the money to the county or to the county. Then the county sends one check out the door
[21:05] in this instance proposed for $60,000 and then the township sent money out the door for
[21:10] whatever dollar amounts they would decide to support the ambulance district.
[21:15] While the issue has been brought up to me and sympathetic to this as well as why do we
[21:24] have this taxation system that we do if we're going to send these checks out instead why
[21:31] I don't we just form the ambulance district and they would apply the tax to the affected
[21:40] people and then those persons would have to pay for the service as opposed to county
[21:48] tax payers from around the whole county paying for it.
[21:52] And then the other issue comes in is this agreement.
[21:58] As I understand it, this is not just a proposal to give $60,000 to the Linux Ambulance
[22:09] District. There has also been a request made of us to participate in this group of like
[22:17] 20 different entities. All that affected townships, the City of Linux, Turner County. I mean,
[22:26] And there's a whole host of them, and there would be this committee of like 20 people
[22:31] as I understand it.
[22:35] I may not be precisely correct on that number of entities, but I'm just reaching for
[22:41] that right now.
[22:42] It's all these entities, and they would be a partner to this contract where the City of
[22:48] Lennox would provide the service, and then all these other entities would come together
[22:53] and just pay for that surface.
[22:59] What I'm concerned about though is that those entities, even though they're paying the
[23:05] fee, they don't have governance authority over the ambulance system.
[23:13] They pay the money, but they don't control the system.
[23:17] In fact, I think the contract specifically says Commissioner Rotten that Linux would control
[23:23] that.
[23:25] So, really, you're relying upon whoever in the city of Lennox to make the policies and
[23:33] the procedures as well as the oversight, but all the other participants, the donor entities,
[23:43] they don't have any oversight over the taxpayer money that leaves the taxpayer.
[23:49] So they were just, I am concerned about setting up that kind of system where there is no end-to-end
[24:01] control from where the money goes out of the taxpayer pocket to where it gets spent. And I think the
[24:10] more effective approach, but also the one that ensures there is taxpayer oversight is
[24:19] the ambulance district itself.
[24:24] Go ahead, Commissioner Anton.
[24:26] So you guys were dealing with this way before I showed up here two months ago, and I'm
[24:30] under the impression that a taxing district was decided against because of one flight.
[24:36] So it just seems like it's a red herring thrown out there on this issue.
[24:42] as the governance of the board, I'm pretty confident that some of these people contributing and being part of this don't want to be running the ambulance.
[24:56] That's my information from one of the cities that they're not interested in having a spot on a board or being in charge of running the ambulance. Linux has done it for a long time and they've done a fine job of it.
[25:06] And we're not voting on an ambulance, we're not making any decisions on an ambulance.
[25:10] This is simply reducing these budgetary amounts and then allotting $60,000 for future discussions regarding ambulance services.
[25:20] So if we could get, move that off of the dime, since we're not actually debating what we're going to do to get our budget finalized.
[25:30] just to say when it comes to the townships or the other entities that's for
[25:34] Linux to deal with them as how that works out I don't believe that's for us
[25:39] make the decisions for the townships of how the board has set up for them and
[25:43] what kind of representation they have they're contributing that's something that
[25:46] they can negotiate themselves I'm focusing on Lincoln County's
[25:50] contribution. Mr. Schmidt did you want to say something? Well yes I do and I
[25:57] I'll have to work again. Thank you. We're up against the deadline here up in the
[26:04] over the 31st of December and then that ambulance is cut off and remains in the
[26:11] city of Lennox. So I mean it's a life or death issue in some some areas. I can
[26:17] graduate Commissioner Otten for his endeavor to do this and what the idea was
[26:24] that you tried to distribute this so it's equal so everybody pays something. I mean, we had
[26:33] a meeting on an ambulance district earlier in the year, a couple years ago and that was the
[26:39] most, one of the most inflammatory meetings I think we've had on opposition to that. Now,
[26:45] maybe the temperature has changed but we're coming up with a sum of money that was talked about as
[26:51] possible county portion. That's all. And Commissioner
[26:56] Arton has found a way in which to have that funds be
[27:01] available. Does it mean we're going to spend it?
[27:03] Does it mean anything? It just means that we now have
[27:06] sequestered the funds if we decided to go ahead with
[27:11] that proposal. So I think I don't see anything wrong
[27:15] with putting that aside and saying that these funds are
[27:19] and I look at our staff for willingness to try and cut their own budget to get
[27:26] this some available. So I think we have a lot of goodness and a lot of wins
[27:32] right here. So I don't have a problem with just passing this same saying we got
[27:37] the 60,000 should we want it if we got it if we don't we don't have to use it.
[27:42] So do you need a motion madam chair? I'd like to speak. Oh excuse me.
[27:47] Commissioner Putnam, go ahead, you have the floor.
[27:50] Okay, I've just got a thank-herman for lowering the budget.
[27:55] He just helped a 27-budget here, it'll be by lowering it.
[27:59] And I appreciate that.
[28:03] And I'm not, I'm not a proponent at this time for this, so.
[28:15] Do you want us to take these piecemeal for the record?
[28:21] Any changes that you make to the budget, you'll have to do a motion on each item.
[28:26] So for instance, treasure reducing supplies, no, you can do this in one minute.
[28:30] Okay, so should I do the reductions and then if we do, if somebody wants to make a motion
[28:35] on moving 60,000 to the ambulance, do that separately,
[28:45] does that make sense?
[28:46] Well, give me a minute to think about this.
[28:50] Okay.
[28:53] Well, what's wrong with making a motion on this handout?
[28:57] Just say make this handout.
[28:59] Yeah.
[29:01] Incorporate that into the budget.
[29:02] That's my question.
[29:04] In writing.
[29:04] Yeah.
[29:05] Well, and then I'll have it in the minutes like this.
[29:08] Sure.
[29:09] Okay.
[29:09] Well, if we're going to do one felt swoop on this, then I would take public input on what Commissioner
[29:17] out and has prison and is
[29:24] there public input on what commissioner out and
[29:26] prison and if
[29:29] not is there a motion. I was so moved Madam Chair. Thank you
[29:34] is there a second and
[29:38] so just to clarify the motion it's to reduce what's on
[29:43] the sheet by the amounts indicated leave all the other economic assistance at
[29:48] the 2026 levels and then move that savings to an ambulance line item that would
[29:55] be under other economic assistance or wherever I need to put it within the
[29:59] I'm going to turn it over to the side of the head, and I'm going to turn it over to the side of the head.
[30:00] or budget, or wherever sharing needs to put it to be in compliance with what she needs to do. Is that your motion, commissioner, and yes, and my second, or that's your second. So commissioner,
[30:11] Schmidt, is that your motion? Yes, commissioner, and that's your second.
[30:16] Alicia, will you call the role? Commissioner Putnam?
[30:21] I guess I don't quite understand at all. Are we voting on this to give it to them? Or what are we doing?
[30:28] voting to put it in the budget.
[30:30] I restated the motion, so that is the motion.
[30:33] Do you need a restated Commissioner Putnam?
[30:35] Well, just restated them.
[30:37] What did I just ask?
[30:38] So the motion, as I understand it,
[30:41] is to reduce the departments by the amounts listed
[30:44] on the sheet that Commissioner Atten gave us
[30:47] to leave the other economic assistance levels
[30:51] at the 2026 levels and to move or add a 60,000
[30:58] in line item for ambulance, services, other, under other economic assistance, or whatever
[31:04] line item, our auditor feels as 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 did ask for public comment.
[31:21] Yep.
[31:23] Commissioner Putnam.
[31:25] Well, I don't like the idea of moving 60,000 over there that isn't even budgeted yet.
[31:30] So no.
[31:33] Yes.
[31:34] Yes.
[31:34] Aaron's?
[31:35] Yes.
[31:36] Otton?
[31:36] Aye.
[31:37] Landing.
[31:37] Yes.
[31:38] Motion carries.
[31:39] Any other commissioners on 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 worked very
[31:54] hard on reducing the budget?
[31:58] You can certainly say whatever you would like to say that I offered to have department heads
[32:03] come up and address their budget and explain that. But sure, go ahead. I would like to stay focused
[32:09] on what we're doing here, which is approving our budget or not. I was talking about changes from
[32:15] the original budget that various departments have made. For example, the sheriff's part-time wages
[32:23] have gone down. The jail overtime wages have gone down. The jail health insurance has gone down.
[32:30] our P&Z has gone down we have had many different changes and when I added all
[32:37] them up that came to on over two hundred thousand dollars worth of actual
[32:42] cuts that our staff has made in their operation and their departments and I
[32:49] think that shouldn't go unnoticed so I would commend them for what they've done
[32:54] so I just like to make that statement. The other one is I want to talk before we
[32:59] get into the budgets.
[33:02] Before so everybody can understand that this budget process just
[33:07] didn't 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, 13th, 13th meetings of the budget committee that
[33:24] But every budget that is presented by a department head has gone over, has been looked at not only
[33:32] by themselves, but by the other department heads.
[33:36] So there's a lot of internal things.
[33:38] When this budget is finally prepared, there are a lot of questions that were asked by department
[33:44] heads of each other as to the relevance of the money that they were asking for.
[33:49] So I mean it just isn't that they come out of this thing with a wish list. It's a very serious thing.
[33:57] I commend each department head and I commend our auditor for how well this thing has been
[34:02] greened through. So when you see these numbers that are in front of us this morning, they have
[34:09] been looked at and re-looked at and they're real. So whatever we decide or the commission decides
[34:16] to do with them is another thing but I just want to commend our audit committee
[34:21] and our auditor for hard work in putting this thing together. Thank you. On July
[34:27] 15th there was a budget published and then on July 30th there was another
[34:34] budget published and if you look at this is dated now August 18th you heard the
[34:45] auditors say what the only changes were. There was a reduction in the HR and then one
[34:51] other line item and then there's been the ones we've made today. But there may have
[34:58] been some minor reductions in line items contained within the budget but here's what the numbers
[35:08] state. These are the largest departmental increases in order for the top five
[35:16] from July 15 to July 30. Sheriff's Office started out at 4.8 million and on
[35:25] July 30 they went to 5.5 million. That's an overall increase in 621,000. On July
[35:36] On July 15th, the state's churny's office started out at 3.2 July 30th, 3.439,000, planning
[35:45] and zoning 445 to 566, that's 120,000, jail increased by 120,000, auditor increased
[35:57] by 57,000. Now, what drives some of that? Some of that is being driven by the wage study
[36:10] we did. That was an input that was not available to us back on July 15th that was feathered
[36:22] in later on. So you've got this personnel category 41, got salaries over time, part time
[36:32] wages, OASI, retirement workers' comp and health insurance. And so yes, some of the department
[36:44] and heads made cuts, but overall, at least for those five departments, they have an
[36:54] overall increase. And just for those five departments alone, that's a general fund
[37:03] increase of, if I'm doing my math right, about $1.2 million increase on that personnel
[37:13] but excuse me for all departments, for the personnel, excuse me, for all departments.
[37:20] So any statements that would suggest that the budget is being cut,
[37:34] you have to take
[37:36] into consideration that there's almost a 6.3% increase of money coming out of the general
[37:45] fund and going towards these expenditures. So I would just caution that we be careful
[37:57] about making any assertions that the overall budget is going down. The overall budget is
[38:03] going up, not down. And then additionally, and what I have concern about is we have, we're
[38:13] We're using $11 million out of our reserve fund to help balance our budget.
[38:21] And most families don't do that and most businesses don't do that.
[38:28] We're using a lot of money, $11 million to fund some of that is for ongoing expenses
[38:38] and some of that is for one time expenditures.
[38:42] measures. And my concern about the overall sustainability of a budget in which reserves
[38:49] need to be used to pay for ongoing expenditures. You wouldn't run a business like that.
[38:56] You definitely wouldn't run your family budget like that.
[39:00] What changes do you want to make to the budget commissioner errands?
[39:05] I've tried to make budgets for changes for the last seven years and they get shot down.
[39:10] Well, let's hear them.
[39:13] Okay, let's go.
[39:15] Let's do this.
[39:18] I just want to let you know this probably take about an hour or two.
[39:22] That's fine.
[39:23] Okay.
[39:23] Got time.
[39:30] Start on page one, August 18th.
[39:33] It's page one of 61.
[39:39] That's the general fund revenues.
[39:44] Page two is the just a continuation of that.
[39:49] Page 3, Board of Commissioners, Personnel Services,
[39:57] Salaries and Wages for next year are scheduled
[40:02] to go up 6.53%. I don't know of anybody in society today who's getting a 6.53% increase.
[40:21] I don't even know why that was proposed or who put that in here. That is so out of step
[40:27] with what's going on with family budgets today.
[40:31] Why elected county commissioners need to have a 6.53% pay raise.
[40:38] Commissioner Aaron, do you also have Paul's wages in there?
[40:41] Okay, but I'm looking at, yeah, I'm looking at personnel services.
[40:48] What pay to you on?
[40:50] I'm on page three.
[40:51] part of that. So, why is his line item with our line item, man? Because he's under
[41:00] your budget. Okay. And that's wages? Well, I don't think any county employee should
[41:07] be getting a 6.53%. No offense, Paul. He would be getting a, it would be budgeted. All
[41:13] county wages were budgeted for a 3% coal and 2.5% step. Yeah. And it rounds up.
[41:21] But it says 6.53% here, that's five.
[41:25] There's an increase for Commissioner Wages, because what we have historically done is we take the commissioners or elected officials and we give them the 5.5% for budgeting increase to match what we are budgeting for the employees.
[41:44] Well, the county you asked for the changes and thank you for the clerk to change commissions.
[41:51] Well, the county commissioners should be flat-lined and not receive any increase.
[42:04] Are you going to make a motion on each page that you're going through?
[42:06] And I think that's probably what we're going to want to do if these are going to be extensive.
[42:11] So, and I'm writing them down as we go, so.
[42:13] I move to flat-line the commissioner salary for next year.
[42:18] here. Well, typically before we take motions, we hear public comment.
[42:26] Is there public comment
[42:27] on what commissioners proposes?
[42:34] Lending Montgomery, Fairview, South Dakota. I think that is
[42:37] a very prudent suggestion. I'd like to see it passed.
[42:43] So you are any
[42:47] other public comment.
[42:52] I appreciate to look in at I'm sorry, Beth Coil, Harrisburg. Appreciate looking at the budget
[42:57] and try to cut some items. I would also wonder why we can't see the budget.
[43:01] Understand it's online but here as a meeting and we're at the taxpayers, why don't we have
[43:08] a copy of the budget on the screen that we can see what's going on. Thank you.
[43:17] All right, so any other public comment?
[43:21] All right. Madam Chair, I have a question.
[43:23] What's your question? Well, are we going to vote on every change that Commissioner Aaron
[43:29] once I would rather have him go through his entire changes through the overall budget and then
[43:36] react to that rather than going change by change by change. I think the way that we should do it
[43:44] is by each department number and then we can do it page by page but I don't I think it's too much
[43:51] to keep track of to talk about it overall. There's some stuff that you may not want to do. Commissioner
[43:58] Mr. Aaron, your making a motion is that your only motion under the Board of Commissioners
[44:02] is to leave that flat as the 2026 amount that's the only one on that line item.
[44:14] Okay.
[44:14] 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.
[44:22] So, there has been a motion made, is there a second?
[44:25] I second it.
[44:26] Got a motion in a second. Alicia, you'll call the roll.
[44:29] Commissioner Patna. Yes. Schmidt. No. Aaron's. Yes.
[44:34] Oton. Hi. Lending. Yes.
[44:36] Motion carries.
[44:38] Other changes that you'd like to make on the board of commissioners department.
[44:43] Go down to the bottom.
[44:47] I see all of these subscriptions on there. To the Canton Chamber of Commerce.
[44:53] The Sioux Falls Development Foundation, the Beersford Chamber, the Hearstburg Chamber.
[45:00] The Lennox Chamber, the T Chamber, the Sioux Falls Chamber, and then the South Dakota Association of Counties and NACO dues.
[45:13] And really the question I bring up more of a rhetorical question is. Why do we just spend money with chambers of commerce?
[45:24] There's other organizations, there's the Lions Club, there's the Rotary, I could go on. There seems to be this belief somehow that
[45:33] government needs to be embedded with the Chamber of Commerce.
[45:39] And I just don't believe that we should be spending government money to these organizations.
[45:47] There's all kinds of organizations we can be involved in.
[45:50] But I want to, this thing here, the South Dakota Association of Counties and NACO dues,
[45:58] $15,000, and then we send property taxpayer money to the Association of Counties, and then
[46:08] they go up there and they lobby for the things that their Board of Directors says we should
[46:13] do. But sometimes it's against the interest of taxpayers, so we're using taxpayer money
[46:21] to lobby against taxpayers. Even Ronald Reagan was against taxpayer-funded lobbying back
[46:27] in the 80s as President of the United States. Well, it's a good example to follow. So my
[46:35] motion is to remove spending for all of those organizations on there.
[46:44] Is there a second?
[46:46] I second it. Got a motion in a second. Any discussion? Madam Chair. Go ahead. So can somebody
[46:55] explained to me that exactly the SDACC and the NACO doves, how that is utilized for
[47:05] the benefit of Lincoln County.
[47:07] Commissioner Schmidt, would you like to address that?
[47:11] The County Association is your voice of county government.
[47:15] It looks out for all of the different things that the state tries to put on unfedded mandates
[47:20] that counties have to pay for.
[47:23] I think it's extremely nearsighted not to be a part of that and the reason you're some
[47:29] is there is because it's based on a per capita basis and because Lincoln County is the
[47:35] third largest county one would expect that our dues would be there.
[47:38] As far as the national association the counties are concerned, they are the ones that look
[47:44] out for us on a national level, they are the ones that put money aside for counties to
[47:50] to do all kinds of things. For example, it may not affect us, but they have a pilt thing
[47:57] which affects the counties in the West River. It may not affect Lincoln County. But overall
[48:03] that one 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 isolated
[48:13] island by yourself. And as far as lobbying against each something of the taxpayers, I don't
[48:20] think so. I think if you look at this association and the things that they
[48:24] will be against and prevent it from happening, it would have cost the tax
[48:29] bearers if we'd been sitting out there on an island by ourselves. And I say, I'm
[48:34] not arguing about chambers of commerce. That's philosophical. But when it comes to
[48:39] belonging to your state organization and your national organization, I don't know
[48:43] of any other organization that does not want to participate. So I think this is
[48:48] extremely excited on our part. Commissioner Atten, for example, indigent legal services.
[48:56] The Association of County Commissioners lobbied pretty hard to get the state to take back
[49:04] on handling some of those appeals so that the counties weren't having to pay for those
[49:10] appeals and that was successful and there is now an indigent services that the state is
[49:16] paying for which was an assistance to the counties and so it did save the tax payers
[49:22] money and so it is definitely a benefit to the counties to belong to that as far as
[49:31] the board making a decision, the board votes on resolutions and things of that nature
[49:38] to move forward to the entire congregation of counties when we go and have our meetings
[49:48] and then we sit in an auditorium and we vote and make amendments on different resolutions.
[49:53] So to say that the Board of Directors makes all these decisions, that's not true.
[50:01] And I agree with Commissioner Schmidt, the Chamber, I mean, that is philosophical.
[50:08] I do support spending those monies to be part of those things.
[50:14] However, if that's the way this board wants to go, I'm fine with that.
[50:19] But I can't support removing the Association of County Commissioners and the NACO dues.
[50:25] One other thing I neglected if you looked at our road and bridge fund the amount of money
[50:31] that are that we've received from counties have been through lobbying out the state legislature
[50:36] continually and not only that but our townships have appreciated our efforts as well.
[50:43] So there's any number of things I mean I didn't we didn't come prepared to find out all
[50:49] of the different things that come through our lobbying effort or through our joint relationship
[50:54] with associations. So, manager.
[50:58] Yep, go ahead, Commissioner Rotten.
[51:00] So, that was, I was a little aware of most of that information.
[51:03] A lot of that was for the other commissioners
[51:06] and the audience of what they do.
[51:07] I think being the only one that has served in peer,
[51:10] I do know the worth and the value of what they do bring
[51:14] to the state capital and advocating for counties.
[51:18] They've advocated for my bills and they've killed my bills.
[51:21] So, they do pretty good work up there.
[51:23] I will not be supporting this motion.
[51:27] Thank you.
[51:28] There's no further discussion.
[51:29] At least, shall we follow up?
[51:30] I would like to weigh in on this.
[51:33] Go ahead, commissioner.
[51:35] I have time here.
[51:38] I concur somewhat with Commissioner Smith on this deal, but is
[51:49] this something that we can
[51:50] take off and then next year we can talk about it?
[51:58] We're having our budget discussion and setting the budget for the next commission right now.
[52:06] Well, I guess I would be to take in everything off except maybe that then.
[52:14] Okay. Well, we're just voting on the motion that Commissioner Aaron made and that you seconded.
[52:20] Okay. I seconded them. We take it all off.
[52:23] I mean, he can make a motion to amend the main motion and so it sounds like you were
[52:28] trying to do.
[52:29] There you go.
[52:30] You're so smart.
[52:31] We'd like to make a motion to amend and take off all the chambers and then leave the
[52:38] SDACC and NACO dues on there.
[52:43] If they're doing us a good job, but now Commissioner Smith did say that they lobbied for the
[52:52] bridges, the roads and bridges, the state, but that actually, to me,
[52:59] shouldn't be nothing need to be lobbied on. That should be a given that we have
[53:02] to take care of our roads and our bridges and the state should be taking care of
[53:08] us. Is there a second to the motion? Second. I've got a motion to amend and a
[53:13] second. At least, should we call the role on the amendment?
[53:17] All right.
[53:17] Commissioner Putnam.
[53:19] Yes.
[53:19] Schmidt.
[53:20] And the motion calls for keeping, keeping on these issues and they don't give her to the
[53:28] rest.
[53:28] Yes.
[53:30] Anne?
[53:31] Yes.
[53:32] Otton.
[53:32] Nay.
[53:34] Landy.
[53:41] Motion carries.
[53:45] So as amended,
[53:50] we need to vote.
[53:56] At least should we call the wrong.
[53:58] Commissioner Putnam?
[53:59] I guess not.
[54:00] Yes.
[54:00] Yes.
[54:02] Yes.
[54:03] Aaron?
[54:03] Yes.
[54:04] Otton.
[54:05] All right.
[54:06] Landing.
[54:06] Yes.
[54:08] Motion carries.
[54:25] My apologies.
[54:26] We'll do that moving forward.
[54:28] All right.
[54:29] Hurry Joel.
[54:30] Go ahead.
[54:35] What's that?
[54:37] What page are we on now?
[54:39] Well, that's up to Commissioner Aaron.
[54:42] He's going through the chat.
[54:43] changes that he wants to make.
[54:47] Now the other changes I'm concerned about here
[54:51] are by department.
[54:54] So just for simplicity for me,
[54:57] if you want to change it by department, can we do it?
[54:59] If you don't want to do it by page, can we do it
[55:03] by maybe personnel and then other
[55:06] and then capital improvement by, I think.
[55:09] Yeah, I understand what you're saying.
[55:11] So for instance, we've made changes
[55:13] when I look at the department category
[55:15] 3, 4, 1, 1 board of commissioners and we made those changes.
[55:20] So now I'm asking what is the next department?
[55:23] So for example, next department is state's turning.
[55:26] What page is that on?
[55:28] Page 9.
[55:29] All right.
[55:29] So then everybody go to page 9.
[55:31] Oh, okay.
[55:32] Got you.
[55:33] And that's department 4151.
[55:36] Yep.
[55:36] Okay.
[55:37] Go ahead, commissioners.
[55:41] There was an increase between July 15th and July 30th of 139,000.
[55:46] now
[55:49] their original budget increase to that three point excuse me use the wrong
[55:56] one and what I'm concerned about is the adding of F new FTEs into the
[56:03] county and that's going to be my concern with most of these departments well
[56:09] just two shares department states attorney what I'm concerned about is adding in
[56:14] and too many new FTEs, and so right now I want to roll back all those FTEs in the state's
[56:22] attorney's office. We can look at it next year, but my motion is no new FTEs in the state's
[56:29] attorney's office.
[56:32] Well, okay, so is there some monetary amount that we can associate with that? Drew, are there
[56:40] FTEs built?
[56:41] And thank you for bringing that up Commissioner Aaron's. I actually had a discussion with Commissioner Notten was at yesterday that Tom was reviewing whether those actually were in need and so he was possibly going to be coming before the commission and asking to cut those out.
[56:56] If I may, if we could obviously don't have to pass the budget, but if we could have some time for us to review our caseload and come back to the commission and possibly cut those out at a later meeting.
[57:10] Okay. Good. Next to the Sheriff's Department. Page. Page. Number. Yep. One second, please.
[57:38] Thank you.
[57:42] Page 20.
[57:45] Do I see it?
[57:49] Went too far.
[57:53] Concerned about the FTEs here as well.
[57:56] I'd like to have a discussion about that. It's a pretty big increase. I can understand
[58:03] And increasing deputies, but there's been, if I recall correctly in my notes here, there's also an increase in corrections officers.
[58:14] Is that correct?
[58:17] We call them CEOs.
[58:19] Page 20.
[58:21] Page 20.
[58:23] Okay.
[58:24] Good morning, Sheriff.
[58:25] Good morning, Steve Swanson, like you're kind of sure.
[58:27] Okay, so CEOs would not be in the sheriff's budget to be in the jail budget.
[58:31] in the jail budget. And how many new CEOs are contemplated in your budget?
[58:38] Two.
[58:40] Okay.
[58:43] Now, our jail numbers have stayed relatively flat over the course of the last year.
[58:48] If not, have probably gone down over the last two years.
[58:52] Commissioner Earns, are you moving to a different item right now?
[58:54] We're on the sheriff's budget.
[58:56] My apologies. I'm on the issue of corrections officers,
[59:00] which I was just informed to fall under the jail budget so we got a term
[59:06] actually to page 22.
[59:16] Page 22.
[59:24] So we're under department 4212 right now.
[59:33] So just
[59:33] personnel services alone in the jail from last year to this year are increasing
[59:41] by 64 percent. They're going from 862,000 to 1.4 million.
[59:53] And essentially, so that's
[59:55] a 64 percent increase. I understand the reason for
[1:00:00] The increase for some of that is current personnel will be receiving increase in salary, wages and benefits. I get that part. And that's fine. But what I'm concerned about is adding new FTEs. And so we've decreased our jail numbers, or they've stayed relatively flat, but now we're adding more correctional officers.
[1:00:29] I'd like to get a better understanding of that.
[1:00:34] Okay, it's fairly simple.
[1:00:36] Look, the new courthouse being built, we're going to be covering more courtrooms, triple the courtrooms,
[1:00:42] and we have now a control room that we have to staff during business hours,
[1:00:48] which will take up to two people.
[1:00:51] We have front security, and then we remove the redundancy that my office
[1:00:58] the sheriff's office people will be separated from the jail people so we don't have the back
[1:01:03] up with the people in the current office so I honestly think two is going to be a stretch
[1:01:09] to be able to cover all this but that's our ask is two FDA's to help cover the additional
[1:01:16] courtrooms, the control room and the other functions that we do we also have the sex offender
[1:01:24] registration, fingerprinting, pistol permits, they do have gamut of things, but adding
[1:01:31] to it to cover that new building is probably not enough.
[1:01:39] Now just mechanically in terms of the actual flow that undergoods the premise of needing
[1:01:47] more 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 because that's not the case. I mean, the
[1:02:02] case load is the case load today or the case load on the first week in November is
[1:02:10] going to be 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 increase in the number
[1:02:22] of criminal defendants that have to be moved around? Will there?
[1:02:27] No, but no, and yes, depends on who they keep in jail and don't keep in jail. Those
[1:02:32] numbers traditionally go up for whatever reason we've stayed flat or even gone down. However,
[1:02:40] the court cases,
[1:02:43] the courts here, magistrate, circuit court, divorce court, those cases continually
[1:02:50] go up and we still have to cover those courtrooms for security. But people in jail, the increase
[1:02:59] in court doesn't correlate with the people in jail. So if I come here to contest a speeding
[1:03:05] ticket, we have a deputy in their first security, sentencing, et cetera. So if we've increased
[1:03:12] the courtrooms, I'm assuming we're going to have to cover those. So the number of people
[1:03:18] in jail does not correlate with the increase in cases because there is an increase in cases.
[1:03:23] And it increases annually.
[1:03:25] I think there is an overall increase in the number of cases that just goes without saying.
[1:03:34] My concern here is that the request is not commensurate with the way that we're going to be moving
[1:03:41] people through the courthouse over there because essentially we're going to be moving people
[1:03:46] through the courthouse over there in terms of numbers, the same way that we've moved
[1:03:52] them through this courthouse.
[1:03:54] Not true.
[1:03:55] We have a control room now that all movement for inmates through the courth system and
[1:04:03] back into the holding area for the thing is secured and has to be monitored by the control
[1:04:12] room.
[1:04:12] and doors opened, elevators allowed to operate.
[1:04:16] So that is a new task that has been put on us,
[1:04:20] which is gonna take a person.
[1:04:23] No, I get that, Sheriff, and I appreciate that,
[1:04:26] but that's the schematics and the layout,
[1:04:30] but the number of people won't be increasing.
[1:04:34] I mean, you're gonna see general annual increases.
[1:04:38] Right, but just because we're moving to a new building
[1:04:42] doesn't mean we have more defendants coming to see us correct so so we don't have a control room
[1:04:49] in this building right so we don't have to man that there is a control room in the new building
[1:04:55] we will have to man that and who and who is that being manned by I would call them a court
[1:05:03] or a corrections officer a courtroom security officer and we call them CEOs and are we taking
[1:05:09] that out of height 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.
[1:05:17] In addition to what I have, we're understaffed in that area currently now.
[1:05:21] Yeah.
[1:05:22] So, we hire one new correctional officer for the control room, I get that part.
[1:05:30] But the current existing correctional officers that are used to handle defendants in this building
[1:05:35] will now just instead report to a different building, right?
[1:05:40] Correct.
[1:05:41] And so their numbers would, is that why do you need the second correctional officer though?
[1:05:52] Okay, there's going to be some redundancies.
[1:05:55] If this controlling CR is sick, vacation, it has to be manned.
[1:06:02] I mean, I'm trying to simplify it to, but I must, and plus we have an additional, what
[1:06:10] is a ferrocute rooms, initial, ferrocute rooms, so if a clear judge is anticipating the
[1:06:17] court's being busier, so if now we have two courts in session versus typically the
[1:06:22] run or two but now have two or three, again each courtroom requires a security.
[1:06:31] So essentially because of this new control room concept in order to make this thing work
[1:06:40] because of that building design over there, we're stuck with having to hire two new
[1:06:45] correctional officers is that what I'm hearing. That's what you're hearing. Okay.
[1:06:54] And I thought
[1:06:55] this 54 million dollar building was going to help solve problems. And that's just creating more,
[1:07:02] more, it's actually creating more spending. I think it does help with some problems. Don't get me wrong.
[1:07:09] It's going to be a much safer building than we currently have. So the control room is a big part of
[1:07:15] that. Any other cuts or questions that you want on the jail budget Commissioner Aaron?
[1:07:20] That was the issue. That was the correctional officer issue. I guess I got the answers. I obviously don't like them, but I understand it now. Thank you.
[1:07:30] No, I appreciate that.
[1:07:32] Next apartment. Well, we got the sheriff's office up there, so let's just keep going with the sheriff.
[1:07:39] All right, so we're in a backtrack to page 20.
[1:07:52] So pretty big, how many new FTEs are you asking in the Sheriff's Office and what kind
[1:07:58] are they?
[1:07:59] We're asking for two deputy positions and an administrative assistant.
[1:08:05] The reason we're for the administrative assistant is because we're losing administrative assistant
[1:08:09] to the new building who takes care of the jail admin paperwork, which is going to create
[1:08:18] us not having staff to cover the front desk.
[1:08:24] Now we can cover that front desk with deputy at lunch, or if we have our administrative
[1:08:33] system is out on the leave, we can cover it with a uniform person, it's not ideal.
[1:08:44] Commissioner Aaron's when you're looking at Sheriff Swenson's budget for the biggest part
[1:08:50] of the salary increase is going to be the pay study. Yeah I get it and like I said I understand
[1:08:58] that part that's been resolved what I'm talking you know when you have a family you talk about
[1:09:06] the mouth you're going to feed before you talk about the new ones and I want to talk about the new
[1:09:12] ones.
[1:09:15] The administrative assistant, so walk me through how this administrative assistant
[1:09:23] needs to be used over in this new courthouse.
[1:09:27] So they do all the morning bookings.
[1:09:29] the Boeing company, the 24-7 accounting, the electronic monitor accounting,
[1:09:42] the reconcile accounts.
[1:09:45] In the age of like computers and the internet and all of that,
[1:09:50] people working remotely, can't this person just do their current functions that they serve over here?
[1:09:59] You know, in turn, with the exception of ants, you know, somebody walking up to the front door with the exception of that, which is a, you know, you got to be there physically.
[1:10:09] They can continue to do all the same things they're doing here with the exception of greeting people over in a different location, right?
[1:10:20] If you're asking if the jail minister could stay in this building and
[1:10:24] uncover the fact that they could do it from the new building, right?
[1:10:27] That's what we're doing.
[1:10:29] But then why do you need a new one?
[1:10:31] Why do you need another administrative assistant?
[1:10:35] Because of the foot traffic we're getting in the sheriff's office.
[1:10:38] They do, so the administrative assistant for the sheriff's office does
[1:10:44] are the bookkeeping, the paying bills, answering phones, and I'm okay with not adding a
[1:10:51] second one if it's a budget critical item. However, it is going to have to be backfilled
[1:10:58] by someone, which will be a uniformed member of the Sheriff's Office.
[1:11:02] When you say backfilled, you mean eight hours a day?
[1:11:12] On a day-to-day basis, it would not be eight hours a day, but it's going to be a few
[1:11:16] three hours a day because there's no way one administrative
[1:11:18] assistant can handle all the traffic that comes into this
[1:11:21] office by themselves.
[1:11:24] Yeah, I don't like the idea of uniform personnel who
[1:11:27] ostensibly are going to be, well, is that uniform person
[1:11:32] conducting patrol very well could be.
[1:11:37] Okay. So it's a it's a sheriff's deputy.
[1:11:41] correct backfell it okay I just I've got concern that the new building is
[1:11:49] not resolving some of these financial challenges and then there's a request
[1:11:56] for what two new patrol deputies correct okay and what's the rationale
[1:12:00] behind that just the continued increase in cost for service population growth well
[1:12:11] Well, my motion would be to reduce an administrative assistant for now.
[1:12:20] Let's see how it works out.
[1:12:21] Give it a few months with the transition to the new building.
[1:12:25] We can always come back to it.
[1:12:33] If you want to address that.
[1:12:35] And I'm okay with that.
[1:12:36] I think it's going to be glaringly obvious, but I'm okay with that.
[1:12:41] I mean, we're moving in before the end of the year.
[1:12:44] I have no issue coming back after we give it a couple months.
[1:12:47] We're not coming back. Maybe it works out great.
[1:12:55] Other commissioners have questions for a share?
[1:13:05] Items under department 4211 commissioners.
[1:13:09] Hope that's it.
[1:13:10] Okay, anybody else?
[1:13:12] Any public input on the 4211 budget?
[1:13:21] Well, I usually take public comment before the motions.
[1:13:27] If not, is there a motion?
[1:13:29] motion. Motion is to remove the Ministry of Assistant from the chair's budget.
[1:13:34] We need a dollar amount. No? Okay. I second.
[1:13:38] Got a motion in a second. Any further discussion?
[1:13:42] Madam Chair. Go ahead, Commissioner Allen.
[1:13:44] So I am, I'm probably not going to support this one either. I'm a little concerned with
[1:13:49] what the sheriff had. Well, you have described that this is going to be handled and by
[1:13:54] taken law enforcement officer off of the streets. I don't know if that really benefits Lincoln County at all special
[1:14:02] we're adding two new deputies because of the need. So I'm not going to support it.
[1:14:11] Other discussion.
[1:14:14] I agree with you Commissioner Atten. Our sheriff has done a lot to bring in different revenues to his
[1:14:22] department, he has taken cuts when he doesn't need something, he gets rid of it, but when
[1:14:29] he needs something, I really truly believe that he's telling us he needs it.
[1:14:33] And so I'm not going to risk the court removing that from his budget.
[1:14:38] And I'm sure we all remember when all department heads came in and gave their report on their
[1:14:45] department and what they were doing.
[1:14:47] and for anybody that was listening to our sheriff and what he has accomplished in the past
[1:14:54] years since he's taken over has been remarkable. I've never known him to ask for any
[1:15:00] Anything more than what he ever needed, and as to support your statement, Madam Chair, if he doesn't need it, he doesn't ask for it. So I will not be supporting that at all.
[1:15:12] At least, shall we call the roll? I'd like to speak them too. Okay. I believe that if we wait for just a little bit, and like he said, maybe it'll work, maybe it won't, but let's just try to
[1:15:33] make things work for a little bit.
[1:15:36] So I'm, I'm, I would support it.
[1:15:39] At least we call the wrong commissioner button.
[1:15:44] Yes, no.
[1:15:45] And yes, yes,
[1:15:47] Aughton. Hey, Wendy, no, motion fails.
[1:15:51] Next items you'd like to discuss, you can go by department.
[1:15:56] There's, uh,
[1:15:58] there's a department run by planning and zoning,
[1:16:03] but it's not in the planning and zoning budget. I believe that it's run by the we had the
[1:16:11] presentation from the gentleman who runs our GIS department. And what was contained in there
[1:16:20] was a... You want to find that for us? Yeah.
[1:16:34] 17.
[1:16:42] You want floodplain management or GIS
[1:16:44] I ask commissioners flood plain management that's page 25 what is it's department 4223 and in flood plain 25 page 25
[1:16:57] Get there just
[1:17:04] let me know when you get there. All right, good to go
[1:17:07] I think one of my pages was in here backwards too in flood plain management
[1:17:17] There's a hundred thousand dollar line item in there and
[1:17:19] And when our GIS floodplain manager was in here, I asked him what's that $100,000 for,
[1:17:31] and his belief was that there is no specific floodplain management project under consideration.
[1:17:42] He didn't have any ideas at the present for where that would be used, and he's also
[1:17:52] new to the department, so he said that was a holdover from last year.
[1:17:56] As you can see, there was $100,000 put into fees and contracts in 2026.
[1:18:03] None of it was used.
[1:18:05] It's now been requested for 2027, but there's no identified project.
[1:18:11] And so I think at this time, until and unless there's an identified project for flood plane management, we should remove that from the budget.
[1:18:22] So my motion is now, of course, the blue.
[1:18:26] Commissioner Aaron, do you do?
[1:18:29] I think those numbers are typically in there for like, I don't know when they do their programming updates and stuff, but if we don't,
[1:18:39] Does anybody know the answer to that? No.
[1:18:43] It wasn't used last year.
[1:18:45] Right, I see that.
[1:18:46] And our floodplain manager stated that there is no identified project, no use for the
[1:18:55] money.
[1:18:56] So is any other questions that other commissioners have right now?
[1:19:01] I would concur on this the fact that my thoughts is if there is a problem, they come to commission
[1:19:13] and just ask for some money, you know, at a later date in 27, so we don't need to be
[1:19:20] in here.
[1:19:21] Is there any public input?
[1:19:23] Is that the only one on this department?
[1:19:25] Yes.
[1:19:26] Okay.
[1:19:26] Any public input on the item?
[1:19:28] If not, is there a motion? Motion is to remove the 100,000. I second it.
[1:19:39] All right, I've got a motion in a second. Any further discussion?
[1:19:45] If not, at least you'll recall the role. Commissioner Putton? Yes. Schmidt? Yes. And? Yes.
[1:19:53] Yes.
[1:19:54] Yes.
[1:19:55] Motion carries.
[1:19:58] Next.
[1:19:59] Commissions that you want to go
[1:20:01] through planning and zoning.
[1:20:02] Got a page number.
[1:20:08] Yeah.
[1:20:08] That's 17.
[1:20:09] Next.
[1:20:09] 36.
[1:20:10] 37.
[1:20:11] 36.
[1:20:13] 36.
[1:20:15] 36.
[1:20:16] Okay.
[1:20:21] Go ahead.
[1:20:24] We are in department 4711.
[1:20:31] Now again goes back to this issue of I think there's some increase in here because
[1:20:36] of salaries and wages. And I don't know, is there anybody from planning and zoning here right now?
[1:20:48] What does it you need to know? Not currently. What is the issue that you want to look at?
[1:20:52] Well, the issue is there's almost $120,000 increase from July 15th to July 30th, and I want to know why.
[1:21:01] Commissioner, I did just get a message. He might be on the phone, but director Toby Brown said that he's not requesting an FTE,
[1:21:08] So the increase on August 19th report is 19,000, so he took out that FTE request.
[1:21:17] And has that been, and I assume, but I better ask, is that reflected in the August 18th
[1:21:22] 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] Because, and I guess when earlier when the auditor was speaking, she said the only,
[1:21:37] And I mean, I get it, there's lots of moving parts.
[1:21:40] The only difference between the published version and this was something for reduction
[1:21:46] in the HR and one other thing.
[1:21:49] But I'm going to assume that Toby removed that request then.
[1:21:59] Okay.
[1:22:00] There was previously though.
[1:22:02] Well,
[1:22:05] with the personnel, if you're going to the 15th of the 30th in a day, there's calculation errors.
[1:22:13] And then we came in, we did the wage day.
[1:22:16] And so the personnel is kind of a harder one to nail down to what it is.
[1:22:22] But I have not shown request for personnel in planning.
[1:22:29] But Drew, you're saying that Toby removed that though?
[1:22:32] And I just got nothing again. He must be in a meeting. He's messaging me. He said there is never a request. It must have been a calculation error of some kind that was corrected. Okay. Well, that's good.
[1:22:45] 120,000 dollar increase, taking care of there.
[1:22:48] All right. Any other thing under planning and zoning commissioners that you want to talk about?
[1:22:53] Yeah. And the auditor's office. There was this increase of $57,000.
[1:22:57] I'm just looking at planning and zoning.
[1:22:59] Oh, no. Nothing further in planning and zoning.
[1:23:01] Okay, so now you want to move to auditor.
[1:23:03] Yep.
[1:23:04] Okay.
[1:23:05] What number?
[1:23:06] Inpatient.
[1:23:09] You have to go towards the front.
[1:23:10] Way back.
[1:23:21] So are you talking elections?
[1:23:22] Are you talking auditor?
[1:23:26] Well, talking the auditor, not the elections.
[1:23:29] Okay.
[1:23:30] Page seven.
[1:23:32] Page seven.
[1:23:33] Now, we have the auditor here.
[1:23:35] Maybe she can answer this.
[1:23:37] This increase from the 15th to the 30th.
[1:23:40] So we're in department 4141.
[1:23:42] Yeah.
[1:23:42] age number is page seven and again goes the same question there's this increase
[1:23:49] from the 15th to the 30th of 57,000 is that all attributed to the pay increase
[1:23:57] the wage study yep no no in place okay thank you that answers that question
[1:24:03] thank you appreciate it
[1:24:08] next issue road and bridge fund page 39 I
[1:24:22] think we need
[1:24:23] to remove those two projects, the roundabout plan for Western and remove the project down
[1:24:31] south there by Hudson on the curves. 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.
[1:24:42] I think it may be subsumed within the line item of road
[1:24:46] projects,
[1:24:49] but I can't confirm that. I have the same line item as you in front of you.
[1:24:55] That would not be an employee that I can remove.
[1:24:59] I would need to know what the dollar amount is you'd like to remove.
[1:25:03] Please.
[1:25:05] Well, same like they talked like a Mayan box.
[1:25:08] Well, we, we need to come back for a state's attorney on something.
[1:25:11] So if we need to circle back on roads and bridges to get those numbers,
[1:25:16] that might be the more prudent thing to do today.
[1:25:20] Oh, Terry.
[1:25:21] About Jerry.
[1:25:22] Terry, do you want to come on?
[1:25:28] Thank you.
[1:25:30] Thank you.
[1:25:31] The Hudson Project will be 1.1
[1:25:36] and the Western Avenue is 2.5.
[1:25:41] Thank you, Terry.
[1:25:42] Terry was there.
[1:25:43] Now, also, and if you're going to remove the Western one, you'll be ruling 1.5 out
[1:25:49] of my revenue side because that's a cost share, right?
[1:25:54] Yes.
[1:25:55] So, can you repeat those 1.1 was for which one, Terry?
[1:25:58] for the Hudson Project. Okay.
[1:26:01] Say Terry was that to pull out both sides of the curves or just one side both sides it's making it a straight-to-earth
[1:26:08] intercession. And then the 2.5 was Western Avenue. Correct. So Western Avenue actually when you take your revenue out
[1:26:18] it's about a million dollars. Correct. Okay.
[1:26:30] Thank you. I would
[1:26:32] I guess maybe I'll wait to see if you vote to cut that before I make another request.
[1:26:40] Madam Chair, so the Revisit, the Hudson interchange down there, I know I talked to you about
[1:26:47] this a little bit too and you had mentioned about doing this in a continuation of the highway
[1:26:56] and rebuild that at some point in time.
[1:26:59] Can you tie that together?
[1:27:01] Yeah, so initially we wanted to do a full rebuild
[1:27:06] on that three and a half mile stretch,
[1:27:08] which would include that north intersection,
[1:27:11] going all the way down past the ethanol plant
[1:27:14] and then connecting to highway 46.
[1:27:17] That would be, that was, you know,
[1:27:18] and this has been in our five year for five years,
[1:27:22] six years we've been planning to do this,
[1:27:24] as a whole project. Initially when we started this project on that we were
[1:27:31] looking at about five and a half million dollars to rebuild that three and a
[1:27:36] half mile stretch. Well the further we get into it costs are raising. We're
[1:27:42] looking this is more of that whole that whole stretch three and a half mile
[1:27:45] rebuild on that is going to be probably closer to eight eight to nine million
[1:27:49] dollars now. So this year would probably be phase one of that and again if it
[1:27:57] doesn't happen then it gets pushed off and maybe and again I don't maybe it
[1:28:02] doesn't happen. I know the the the main line stretch between that intersection and
[1:28:10] the south intersection. Again we had probably about six to seven years ago we had
[1:28:16] course samples done and the reason our asphalt isn't lasting down there, there's nothing
[1:28:21] underneath for base under that. So we figure a full rebuild is the best we can do, especially
[1:28:27] with all the heavy trucks down there.
[1:28:31] So, you know, eventually it would be nice to do a
[1:28:35] project down there. Again, you know, this would be phase one. Maybe be a couple more years before
[1:28:41] we could do phase two, which would maybe be doing from the intersection down to the ethanol
[1:28:45] plant and then phase 3 would be from the ethanol plant to 46 or something just to spread
[1:28:54] it out over the years. But again, it all depends, you know, and if it doesn't happen, it
[1:29:01] doesn't happen. Like I said, one of the big reasons that this project got moved up is we
[1:29:08] saw that we could use it as phase 1 in this overall project, but also just the complaints
[1:29:15] are not the complaints but just the public comments we've got on our safety plan with
[1:29:22] that intersection. And being in my eyes, if we want to say we're going to move towards
[1:29:30] being building safer roads, then we need to be doing something with that instead of just
[1:29:37] having this nice, beautiful plan and just putting it on a shelf and not doing anything with
[1:29:44] So the direction from what direction does the heaviest amount of traffic come from does it go through that intersection or is that coming up soft?
[1:29:57] I think most of it I don't know.
[1:30:00] I would have to look at counts, but my guess it's going to be coming from the Hudson area going south would be the heaviest counts.
[1:30:10] But, but, but the last three years, you know, that that's all up in there because we have so much traffic coming from the west as well, because 46 is closed, but. So. Five years ago, that project was estimated at 5.5 million. Just right up in numbers. Right.
[1:30:31] today it would yes the whole thing would be 5.5 today we're looking at eight probably closer to
[1:30:36] that yeah and maybe even more for a full rebuild on three and a half miles and that would include
[1:30:44] that intersection doing mainline and then that would include the south curve south of the ethanol
[1:30:51] plant where it curves back to to go back to the west
[1:30:56] I'll save the rest of it for comments to the
[1:30:59] motion. All right. First if there's no other questions from commissioners for staff.
[1:31:06] Is there any public input on the road and bridge? Fun department 4 3 1 1.
[1:31:17] All right.
[1:31:18] 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.
[1:31:30] and subsequently remove the 1.5 in revenue because it comes from a cost share with the Western Project.
[1:31:41] All right, is there a second?
[1:31:43] I'll second.
[1:31:44] Got a motion and a second. Further discussion from the commission?
[1:31:50] I've had a number of people from down south come and talk to me about this.
[1:31:53] They've talked about how it's been down there for 70 years.
[1:31:57] after looking into the safety issues, I asked the question and never got an answer to this,
[1:32:05] was it operator error or was it road design?
[1:32:10] And in particular, if there was a fatality or a crash there, was it a result of drunk driving?
[1:32:19] And I've just had local people tell me that they believe it was a result of operator error
[1:32:26] i.e. drunk driving. We don't redesign roads because people are inebriated or intoxicated.
[1:32:36] We have to take those people off the road. We have to make it very painful to be a drunk
[1:32:42] driver. That is not something this commission can do. All we can do is advocate that the
[1:32:49] legislature makes it more difficult to drink and drive. And I've talked to our state's
[1:32:55] turning about this issue as far as the intoxicated driving goes.
[1:33:00] Now with regard to the road design, there's no data showing that the road design is making
[1:33:08] it more unsafe.
[1:33:11] And then that combined with locals down there, one of them serves in our planning and zoning
[1:33:17] board, telling me that that is not the issue down there.
[1:33:22] there's an issue with increased traffic 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 and they've
[1:33:36] asked me to carry this for them so that's what I'm doing.
[1:33:44] Commission I would say something here
[1:33:47] when I can. Go ahead. Okay. When you're heading north and you're
[1:33:56] uh, curving off to the right, I can see that that's no problem whatsoever. It's
[1:34:02] a curving off to the left which would be maybe if anything a problem and that
[1:34:10] would be the only thing that could be looked at future but not now.
[1:34:21] So I think my first conversation of the price increase of that over the last five years
[1:34:27] part of the lump of all how far we push a road project or any project off due to the
[1:34:34] rising cost to complete the project later I've been down there and also looked at it and
[1:34:40] I would agree with Commissioner Putnam that if you're heading north the right hand turn
[1:34:45] is probably less dangerous than the left. I mean, when you get corn up there, there's not a lot of visibility
[1:34:51] and there's nothing to do with drunk drivers and ultimately it doesn't matter if the traffic's coming
[1:34:55] from Iowa, South Dakota, Minnesota, or New York. Traffic's still on a Lincoln County road. So, I could support
[1:35:07] not doing the roundabout, but I don't think I can support not start working on that road down there
[1:35:13] because it's not going to get any better.
[1:35:14] And if you go down past Poets, stuff down there,
[1:35:17] there might be an opportunity to work with them on that.
[1:35:20] But at some point in time, you have to bite the bullet
[1:35:23] and you have to do the repairs.
[1:35:25] The road's going to go sooner or later.
[1:35:27] So I will not support the main motion.
[1:35:32] The follow-up.
[1:35:33] Follow-up motion comes up, but they're out about.
[1:35:36] I would support that.
[1:35:38] I would draw the motion, make a new motion.
[1:35:40] and Commissioner Putnam will you withdraw your second?
[1:35:43] Yes, I will.
[1:35:45] New motion is to just remove the roundabout project
[1:35:48] and any associated cost and revenue that come with it.
[1:35:53] So $2.5 million expense from the roundabout
[1:35:57] and then $1.5 in revenue.
[1:35:59] And I move to remove that from the budget.
[1:36:02] I've got a motion, is there a second?
[1:36:04] I'll second that, I guess.
[1:36:06] Yes. Motion in second. Any discussion? Madam Chair. Go ahead. Well, when this first
[1:36:17] became public about that we were not going to participate in this roundabout, there
[1:36:24] are about 11,000 cars a day that go through there. And I don't know, but I've had, I can't
[1:36:32] tell you how many phone calls from people who are very upset because, you know, sitting
[1:36:38] in traffic all of the time, this is a joint project, a nice joint project between the city
[1:36:44] and a limited amount from Harrisburg and from the county.
[1:36:48] And when you look at the future, I know we've had an attempt at a previous time to figure
[1:36:55] out how many people are going to use the veterans highway.
[1:36:58] We have no quantifiable evidence as to how many of those 11,000 cars a day are suddenly
[1:37:05] going to be on the Veterans Highway.
[1:37:08] There will be some.
[1:37:10] But on the other hand, when you look at the future of that area, when you look at that corridor
[1:37:15] on 106 and you don't think that there's going to be an ever increasing number of people
[1:37:21] out there are cars because of growth from commercial development from housing development
[1:37:30] that comes out there and look at that and we're going to have a four-way stop sign.
[1:37:36] I mean how long of a line do we want to have?
[1:37:40] It's a very efficient one.
[1:37:41] It's a good way to move traffic.
[1:37:43] It's a safe way and I think again we're not looking at the future at all about how this
[1:37:51] This will affect the gross economic development and safety.
[1:37:56] So I'm not in support of not building that.
[1:37:59] And I would agree with you, Commissioner Schmidt.
[1:38:02] When you do the net and you take the revenue off, the cost of this project right now is essentially
[1:38:07] $1 million.
[1:38:09] That intersection is a mess down there because coming off of veterans to get on to 106,
[1:38:18] the lane changes are confusing to say the least, the corner keeps getting what
[1:38:24] I'll say washed out. 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. So I think for a million dollars and
[1:38:33] seeing that the city of Sioux Falls isn't going to be doing anything there for what
[1:38:38] I recall was the foreseeable 20 years. I think we would be remiss to not do that
[1:38:44] project so I'm not gonna support the motion either. I've traveled it can't
[1:38:50] may I speak? You may. Okay I've traveled that road many times I'm not that far
[1:38:56] from it and it's amazing how well that they get through that stop sign is
[1:39:03] very very coordinated. People move pretty fast. Now the only other thing I could
[1:39:10] say is taking the stop signs away in the east and west and leave the one to the north
[1:39:16] and the south and somebody said, well, you never get on it. Well, I've been backed up on
[1:39:25] the west side when I was going east past all the, no, well, not the roundabout, but you
[1:39:36] go up there and you see all the storage units.
[1:39:38] I've been backed up to where I was behind the storage units.
[1:39:43] And it took me about probably, I'd say, less
[1:39:46] in a couple of three minutes, four minutes
[1:39:49] to be up to the stop sign and move it.
[1:39:52] You know, I
[1:39:59] just,
[1:40:03] you know, what's the speed limit there?
[1:40:08] It's 45, is that correct?
[1:40:10] you know see and that's not bad if they put the stop sign there or took took the two stop
[1:40:19] line signs out people would move more freely better and I believe the people coming off
[1:40:27] Parkway or the Veterans 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 to stop sign going east and west.
[1:40:46] Madam Chair.
[1:40:48] Madam Chair, you bring up a good point. We have an opportunity to put a roundabout,
[1:40:54] a first class roundabout in for $1 million. Now I can only remember how much we come back
[1:41:01] to revisit this thing, how much it would cost. Because we were, we had,
[1:41:06] did them roundabouts that we could have put in several years ago, but we had to get
[1:41:12] a vote that they were 800,000 bucks a piece. So delaying something doesn't nearly
[1:41:19] being the wisest steward of a money. So I just think it's a million dollars of good investment,
[1:41:25] Terry.
[1:41:28] Just to address your comments, Commissioner Patum, many years ago that was just a two-way stop.
[1:41:35] There was no for-way stop there, so the two-seventy-first went through.
[1:41:40] The reason that it got put to be a for-way stop is when that new school to the north there got put in.
[1:41:49] Traffic was not able to get on two-seventy-first from Western Avenue.
[1:41:54] So that's the reason that it went to a for-way stop because if you take those out now with the amount of traffic that's running there,
[1:42:01] We will never get people turning off a Western and then you're going to have vehicles coming up.
[1:42:08] Somebody going eastbound, they're going to want to make a left hand turn and they're going to sit there and wait and wait and wait and then people behind them are going to see it and they're going to be, we'll have, we'll have additional crashes there. We're not paying attention.
[1:42:20] They're going to run into the rear of them. So so at this point, four ways better than a two way and again, you don't want to go backwards on this again.
[1:42:28] going to be just because of the amount of traffic that's there.
[1:42:31] Oh, once the parkway is done, how will that alleviate that?
[1:42:36] So if you read the studies about, so if you read our master
[1:42:40] transportation plan, this was completed 2018, 2019.
[1:42:45] It states in there, there'll be a 50% reduction when
[1:42:50] Veterans Parkway or SC100 gets done.
[1:42:54] Well, when we did our corridor study in 2022, that changed.
[1:43:01] It didn't say it was going to be cut in half.
[1:43:04] It said it will drop significantly, but dependent on the amount of development that occurs adjacent to county road 106.
[1:43:13] So, the key here is going to be the amount of development and how quickly that develops
[1:43:20] adjacent to 106, even after veterans is open.
[1:43:27] If that starts developing then we're going to be in the same boat.
[1:43:32] And I can believe that when it starts to develop, yes.
[1:43:37] And with the sewer project that's coming along for Sioux Falls
[1:43:45] That's going to be starting while starting this fall here, and then next year, once that
[1:43:51] gets completed, then that'll be serviceable by the City of Sioux Falls, and then it
[1:43:56] could be whenever.
[1:43:58] So.
[1:43:58] And that allora, I think it's called allora, that big development down there, is that?
[1:44:05] Yeah.
[1:44:05] So currently right now between Louise Avenue and Western Avenue, the allora development
[1:44:12] element. It's a half a section on the south side of 271st. They'll be starting here
[1:44:21] very soon, developing or building in there. Also, I just got a traffic study from a developer
[1:44:32] in Sioux Falls, the northwest corner of Western Avenue in 106. So we're going to put this
[1:44:38] intersection where we want to. There's going to be a huge multi-family housing
[1:44:45] development. It's a big apartment complex that's going in there. Just south of
[1:44:49] the school and correct. Okay. On that corner, yes. When potentially starting
[1:44:56] possibly next year. Again, I got the
[1:45:00] Traffic study about three months ago, from them, and they've already completed that. So with the allure development, there were three or four other developments that went in on a traffic study. And again, these were mainly routed through the city of Harrisburg. So there is another development from Western 106 to the South, going to South about a mile. I believe there's another development that's going to be starting up here down there as well.
[1:45:29] As the Pope proposed completion of the Veterans Highway.
[1:45:36] That's a DOT or City of Sioux Falls question.
[1:45:39] It keeps getting pushed off.
[1:45:40] And really, the last I heard is the last segment,
[1:45:44] which will be western to the 29.
[1:45:48] That is starting the start construction on that in 28.
[1:45:55] I mean, the rest of that is in 28.
[1:45:58] Yes, so from the segment from Western Avenue to 29, they're tentatively looking at 2028 starting.
[1:46:08] So, as a part of that, Louise Avenue will be closed for a while, so that North South corridor
[1:46:16] will not be functional because they'll have a close for this Veterans Project at that
[1:46:23] intersection of Veterans and Louise to the north of our roundabout that is currently there.
[1:46:27] So the city of Sioux Falls contacted you on us possibly not and going to do this if they reached out to you.
[1:46:42] Not doing the roundabout.
[1:46:47] The last thing they have they reached out to you.
[1:46:52] I've been in conversation with them about this.
[1:46:54] Did they seem a little distraught about that?
[1:47:01] I never really heard anything.
[1:47:03] I don't get that feeling because it's not theirs,
[1:47:08] because it's our road.
[1:47:11] To them, I guess, because at the end of the day,
[1:47:14] I guess when calls start coming in,
[1:47:16] it's going to come into us and not them.
[1:47:18] But now the city of Sioux Falls, and we ended up with the jurisdiction basically,
[1:47:29] the
[1:47:30] north half is, they have control, and so I just didn't know if they were.
[1:47:40] No, no.
[1:47:41] So I was the one that contacted them about this, about doing this project initially, and
[1:47:47] it was either late last year, I think it was. They didn't contact me. I contacted them because I
[1:47:54] seen the need up there. I was I would been through that intersection at peak hours and sit in
[1:47:59] line there for four or five minutes or six minutes. It's like this needs something needs to happen here
[1:48:08] and I've gotten several phone calls, not that many, but a few from individuals that want to know
[1:48:15] or if something's going to happen there.
[1:48:16] All
[1:48:20] right, any other commissioner discussion?
[1:48:22] I recognize that there's been some phone calls asking
[1:48:26] for something to be done at that intersection.
[1:48:30] There's also been a tsunami of communication
[1:48:36] about getting the budget under control as well.
[1:48:40] So you got to balance the two.
[1:48:42] Can't have it all.
[1:48:44] Can't have your cake need it to.
[1:48:45] Thank you.
[1:48:50] So we have a motion to do the Hudson project and remove the Western Avenue project as well
[1:48:57] as remove the revenue.
[1:48:59] If there's no further discussion, Alicia, will you call the role on that motion?
[1:49:04] We've already taken public comment.
[1:49:07] I don't think so.
[1:49:09] We did because the motion was made and seconded.
[1:49:12] One motion was withdrawn.
[1:49:13] I took public comment prior to that.
[1:49:16] Alicia, will you call the role?
[1:49:17] Nobody talk.
[1:49:18] there was no you didn't take any public comment I offered public comment and
[1:49:25] nobody got up are you in a hurry to go somewhere I'm asking Alicia to call
[1:49:30] the roll well I'm asking you to just allow people to speak there anybody want to
[1:49:34] talk about it yeah see people nodding their heads what what what is the harm I'm
[1:49:42] running this meeting I asked for public comment nobody got up Alicia call the roll
[1:49:47] please. Can I share a button? I'd like to hear people talk.
[1:49:54] Sure. No. Yes.
[1:50:00] I'm. All right.
[1:50:01] Andy. No. Motion fails.
[1:50:07] There's another.
[1:50:08] I would. I would vote. Yes, but I want somebody to talk.
[1:50:14] Well, my four way to run a business. What's your vote, Doug?
[1:50:18] Yes, I'm going to go along with it. Okay.
[1:50:20] Well, I make the same motion.
[1:50:22] Commissioner, we'll take that vote.
[1:50:28] So motion passes.
[1:50:29] I will have better when we're late.
[1:50:31] The motion passes.
[1:50:32] You guys will be able to talk more of them.
[1:50:34] All right.
[1:50:36] Next item, Commissioner Irons, that you want to discuss.
[1:50:40] I'm sure where we have it is.
[1:50:42] They failed to, too.
[1:50:44] It was to, too, because Commissioner Putnam did not vote when the motion was called.
[1:50:49] I said I'll vote, yeah.
[1:50:51] So technically it failed but then he turned around and said yes, so if that's his vote then it would pass
[1:50:59] Commissioner Aaron's 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 do that
[1:51:07] And I guess we'll just keep it dysfunctional. How's that? So yeah, everybody can have their
[1:51:14] commissioners and the public
[1:51:16] everybody can have their opinion
[1:51:18] But government works best when we hear everybody's opinion.
[1:51:26] Commissioner Arons, would you like to discuss the next department?
[1:51:30] Well, we need to clean this up.
[1:51:33] So I'm making a motion, same motion.
[1:51:37] Cut the funding.
[1:51:39] $2.5 million in the $1.5 million in revenue.
[1:51:44] for the Western roundabout project.
[1:51:49] Is there a second and I will second. I've got
[1:51:52] a motion in a second. Will you call the role please? Yes. Asking for public
[1:51:56] comment on the motion. Take public comment. Take public comment. Alicia, call the role please.
[1:52:03] Where's the public comment? Commissioner Putnam.
[1:52:07] Jesus. This is so dysfunctional. You don't have the floor. Thank God we'll have it better here.
[1:52:13] pretty quick. Just let the public speak. You don't have the floor. At least you know you call
[1:52:18] the wrong commission. Yes.
[1:52:24] Yes. Okay. Landing. No. Motion passes.
[1:52:32] Next issue.
[1:52:52] Other economic
[1:52:54] Economic Assistance Department 41410 on page 26 these organizations that are listed
[1:53:04] for economic assistance page 26 Commissioner page 26 Commissioner says
[1:53:16] reminder this you passed a motion earlier so it will reflect the 2026 in this
[1:53:23] document. Yeah, in any motion I make is going to incorporate what was already
[1:53:28] decided there earlier.
[1:53:32] So we have a list of organizations, children's in,
[1:53:38] helpline, solace, interlakes, Lennox enrichment, Canton Transit, and life
[1:53:45] escapes. Decodabilities are statutorily required. That means that there's a law in
[1:53:53] South Dakota that says we have to give the county has to give X amount of money to that
[1:53:59] kind of organization, but the law does not require us to spend money on any of these
[1:54:03] other organizations. All good organizations in some form or fashion, nonprofits that
[1:54:11] are out there attempting to help people in various forms of assistance that they need.
[1:54:19] When we have an $11 million budget shortfall, sometimes we need to, and this time, we need
[1:54:29] to revisit where we're spending public money.
[1:54:33] Just generally speaking, these are nonprofit charities, and I would prefer to see that
[1:54:39] the public give their charitable aid. The public cannot give charitable aid through the government.
[1:54:50] It's compelled. It's forced from them through their taxes. But also another concern that I have
[1:54:55] is when this money leaves the public coffers, it also loses public oversight.
[1:55:05] I've never been
[1:55:06] invited to one of these organizations to a board meeting to speak, probably wouldn't
[1:55:10] even let me in, never, they take the public money and the public accountability in the
[1:55:19] oversight is gone.
[1:55:22] And that's my big concern here.
[1:55:24] Public oversight of public money is gone when we give the money to these nonprofits.
[1:55:30] Has nothing to do, you know, one of them came in last year and said, oh, you're such
[1:55:35] big meaning, your bad person because you want to take the money away from us. Look, I get it,
[1:55:42] they have their opinion. My view though is based and grounded on the budget realities that we face
[1:55:50] today. And so maybe in an effort here to achieve a compromise, I would propose and this incorporates
[1:56:04] in the deal that Commissioner
[1:56:07] Oton made, but I propose that we
[1:56:12] move, if I had my way, we'd zero
[1:56:16] all this out even the budget
[1:56:18] reality, but maybe I want to
[1:56:20] achieve a compromise here today, and
[1:56:22] I would move that we reduce all
[1:56:25] of these nonprofit, other economic
[1:56:29] assistance numbers back to their
[1:56:31] or 2024 numbers.
[1:56:33] I
[1:56:41] haven't asked for a motion,
[1:56:42] but I will take public comment
[1:56:44] unless there's other questions or input from the commission.
[1:56:50] Is there public comment on this item?
[1:56:57] Thank you, Madam Chair,
[1:56:58] Linda Montgomery for the soft Dakota.
[1:57:00] I think with our deficit that we have this year,
[1:57:05] I think this is a proven decision.
[1:57:08] I know it's not going to be popular,
[1:57:10] but I've done budgets for myself and my profession and for my personnel, person itself.
[1:57:21] I believe that sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and say we can't this year,
[1:57:30] but we can next.
[1:57:32] Look at this again.
[1:57:34] Thank you.
[1:57:36] Other public info?
[1:57:49] I think all of these budget requests I think were very well thought out and they're all worthy. But we just don't have the money.
[1:58:00] So it's hard for me not to compare it to what most people would do in their own personal lives when they don't have the money.
[1:58:05] is just to figure out what they have cut.
[1:58:08] But we also have codified law in South Dakota
[1:58:11] that caps what we can do.
[1:58:14] So I guess I have a question for you
[1:58:17] about what we've got for a qualified fund balance
[1:58:23] that we're actually adding into the amount of money
[1:58:25] that we are going to take in in order
[1:58:28] to hit the 95% mark on what we can actually have for expenditures.
[1:58:33] So that's my question.
[1:58:34] What is the beginning fund balance that we're going to add to the amount that we want to spend and does that follow within such a codified law? Thank you.
[1:58:45] Thank you. Other public input?
[1:58:55] Sherry, is there anything you want to withdraw?
[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.
[1:59:06] You think it was a repeal?
[1:59:08] I'm not sure.
[1:59:13] Okay.
[1:59:14] Sorry.
[1:59:15] I didn't mean to put ends.
[1:59:16] All
[1:59:19] right.
[1:59:20] Any other public input, if
[1:59:24] not, is there a motion?
[1:59:26] Um, 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 in a second, then there will be further discussion.
[1:59:39] That's how it usually works.
[1:59:40] I'm going to turn the microphone on.
[1:59:44] making a motion to drop down other economic assistance to the
[1:59:52] 2,024 levels and what were those levels commissioner?
[2:00:00] Children's in, 8,000. Helpline Center, 9,473. Solus, 9,473. Interlakes, 67,85. Lennox Enrichment, 5,000.
[2:00:20] Canton Transit, 12,000, decodabilities which says statutorily required, and then that
[2:00:33] would be in the amount of 4,320.
[2:00:38] And lifescapes to 35,520.
[2:00:46] All right.
[2:00:46] Is there a second to the motion?
[2:00:50] A second to motion.
[2:00:52] There's been a motion in a second, any further discussion?
[2:00:56] Madam Chair.
[2:00:56] Go ahead, Commissioner Atten.
[2:00:58] So my question with the budget request from these different entities, have they been
[2:01:04] here in the last six months or whenever to present their request?
[2:01:11] They do come in.
[2:01:12] They fill out applications.
[2:01:15] And they have brought in presentations.
[2:01:17] Actually our commission office assistant Paul can probably come up and talk further about that process that we go through.
[2:01:27] Yeah, so previously in 24 or 25 and 24 and 25 for the budgets for 25 and 26.
[2:01:36] The outside agencies submitted a written request and attended the meetings to talk about it.
[2:01:44] My idea was for 27 since when they came in and presented they didn't really talk about 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 that outlined their budget justification that was sent to the commission.
[2:02:01] I can resend it to you guys all if you want to look at it again.
[2:02:03] Can we go through it right now Paul?
[2:02:05] Yeah, I can, if you give me, I mean, or we can, I can put it together so it's in a more readable form.
[2:02:12] When we come back for the State's Attorney's Office, two, I can put it together so it's in a readable form
[2:02:16] because a lot of what they submit is a bunch of financial audit information, which is available to anyone.
[2:02:22] It just kind of clutters up and does it.
[2:02:26] But if you give me a little bit...
[2:02:27] I don't know if it is available to everyone.
[2:02:33] Yeah, I'll double check, but they're audits that they submit as part of their $9.90.
[2:02:40] They're federal $9.90 tax forms that are required that you can find online.
[2:02:45] I'll double check on that too, but I can either put it together now or we have to come back
[2:02:49] for the State's Attorney's Office later, because while I can put together re-package it in
[2:02:55] readable form with things and attach to the agenda and we can if you have specific stuff
[2:03:03] you want to ask of any of them I can get them here as well.
[2:03:07] I think you should extend that invitation and I think that's a good idea to move it since
[2:03:11] we're bringing back our state's attorney to talk about his budget.
[2:03:16] I can I'll get I'll get stuff recent and I'll get make sure it's a bit I'll add it back
[2:03:20] to this so it's available for everyone.
[2:03:22] that way you've talked about, I'll add it to this agenda, and then we'll have it on next agenda,
[2:03:27] and we all extend the invitation those people again.
[2:03:33] If that works for everyone, otherwise I can try and put something together real quick,
[2:03:37] but personally, I'd rather make sure it's right than do it quickly.
[2:03:42] I think that makes sense, and these are, I mean, these, I guess, facilities or programs,
[2:03:51] They are serving the less fortunate people in our county, and I do want them to have an opportunity to come in and address their budget requests.
[2:04:00] I'll make that invitation to them, and I'll package it together, and get that to you guys as soon as I can.
[2:04:05] Paul, would you ask those organizations to send their chief executive officer to attend?
[2:04:11] I would certainly make that request.
[2:04:12] In past years we've had people come in who are their public relations person and they don't I ask questions about their budget and they really don't have the best indication as to why they're asking for the ask that they've made.
[2:04:29] For example, one of these organizations pays their CEO a minimum of 350 grand a year.
[2:04:36] I think it was 375 plus a G's being charitable but if they're going to pay their CEO 375 grand and they
[2:04:45] want to come ask for property taxpayer money when we have a property taxpayer revolt going on
[2:04:52] they should come here and make the ask themselves is the chief executive officer instead of sending
[2:05:00] public relations person to come. I will certainly make that request to them. Thank you. Thank you.
[2:05:06] Thank you all.
[2:05:07] Next item or department that you want to talk about?
[2:05:10] We have a motion pending that needs to be voted on.
[2:05:14] Can we, we're not done with comments yet?
[2:05:17] Of course, yeah.
[2:05:18] Should they comment?
[2:05:21] I'm not opposed, Commissioner Nierrens, to do some modification, but it's easier to sit here
[2:05:31] in Canton and make all kinds of wonderful statements about that.
[2:05:36] And you wonder, for example, the helpline center, now, what do they do?
[2:05:41] What are they good at?
[2:05:43] Well, they do a lot of wonderful things, and I think suicide prevention is one issue along
[2:05:50] with many others, which are very critical.
[2:05:53] I know you have a very difficult time with the children's home society because you do
[2:05:59] mention them all the time.
[2:06:00] Children's home society is a very large organization, but in relationship to the children's
[2:06:06] in, which was just redesigned and supposed to be accommodating well into 28 and 29, right
[2:06:16] now is running at full capacity.
[2:06:18] And when you see some of the individual of parents or single moms with kids that come there,
[2:06:26] I may be called Mr. Tenderhart, but boy, I have a tough time saying that that money is not spent correctly.
[2:06:33] Interlace community action, on the other hand, they're okay.
[2:06:37] They get their government funding. They do all kinds of weatherization.
[2:06:41] They start. They do many good things for kids to get them.
[2:06:46] And on that rock situation, I don't have any idea on that.
[2:06:50] I don't know why we're paying them. I have a tough time with that organization period.
[2:06:56] If it wasn't that they provided some form of transportation, I wouldn't give them a dime.
[2:07:01] But anyway, just to let you know that we do have this rocks outfit. That's an eye cap
[2:07:06] agency that we are. And the rock, I say, can't transit.
[2:07:11] Now this is, well, rocks is supposed to be able to provide public transportation because
[2:07:17] is we are under that ICAP agency.
[2:07:22] There's an ICAP agency out of Madison,
[2:07:24] and there's an ICAP agency out of Wagner, isn't it?
[2:07:29] Or yeah, and ICAP has been down here.
[2:07:33] I don't know what Iraq's has been here maybe once.
[2:07:37] But I'm not going to debate all of this commissioners.
[2:07:40] And the other thing when you talk about nonprofits,
[2:07:42] nonprofits, you mean you can say what you want to them
[2:07:45] about them, and if you don't have control of them, well, they have a board of directors.
[2:07:52] They have guidelines, you have to have your audit available to the public.
[2:07:58] I mean, whatever monies that you get, you always have to be able to show where it went,
[2:08:03] how it was spent.
[2:08:05] So I think that nonprofits go the extra mile today because they are looking at dollars.
[2:08:12] They are hard-pressed, trying to find those services that are provided, and government's
[2:08:17] not going to provide it.
[2:08:19] So if government doesn't provide it, nonprofits do, so okay, fine.
[2:08:24] Well, then if government doesn't have, it should be the public pays for it at all.
[2:08:29] I mean, I think that government has some obligation to kind of support these kinds of activities
[2:08:35] which help poor people and kids, and that's what these are all about.
[2:08:39] Now that you're elaborating, tell me about life-scape, I'm not 100% up on life-scape.
[2:08:47] I'd like to hear a little more about that.
[2:08:49] Well life-scape takes care of all of the unfortunate handicapped children that are running around.
[2:08:56] And they, if you want to call in from God, you go work with those handicapped kids who are
[2:09:03] from severely handicapped from not being able to have any taking care of any
[2:09:09] of their body functions they cannot talk, they cannot walk, and they have 24
[2:09:14] hour a day care. This is a situation that for those parents that have those
[2:09:21] children that go there, and the better part about it is, life-scape also helps
[2:09:26] train some of the trainable ones which are severely mentally handicapped by giving them
[2:09:34] enough skills so that in some cases they're able to sustain themselves. They're able
[2:09:41] to take care of themselves from the standpoint of having independent living or they have a
[2:09:46] small minute job. So you know, a life scape when you look at the money we spend here, okay,
[2:09:53] So we spend $55,000 or $50,000, but if you can take a kid that would take off of government
[2:10:02] roles and make them independent and it's an on-profit that's doing that, what's wrong
[2:10:07] with that?
[2:10:08] To me, that's a good investment.
[2:10:10] And most of all, I would say that it would serve all commissioners well to go there and
[2:10:16] sit with them, not just take the tour of the building and saying, in this building we
[2:10:21] have here.
[2:10:21] We'll actually go to the feeding room when you have to feed these kids or when you have
[2:10:27] to change their diapers or when you have all kinds of situation, then tell me that our
[2:10:33] money is not well spent.
[2:10:36] Commission, can I make a comment?
[2:10:39] At the beginning of the budget process, we had scheduled a calendar on how we were going
[2:10:45] to do the budget.
[2:10:46] But we had requested the commission to give us direction on how to get the other economic
[2:10:52] assistance, whether they wanted to see them or whether they did not.
[2:10:55] There was no desire for them to come in and talk.
[2:10:58] They wanted to do the application process.
[2:11:00] Or at least I do not, I'm not aware of any desire to have them come in and talk since we
[2:11:04] are at the three weeks out from the budget being passed.
[2:11:08] I would, I think, or whatever, that if we want to drop it back to the 2024 request,
[2:11:17] then do that.
[2:11:19] But then I think you need to give your commission assistant direction for the next budget
[2:11:23] year on how you want to proceed with this.
[2:11:25] We do only have two meetings left.
[2:11:28] I don't know how he's going to round these people up to come in and speak on their request at this point.
[2:11:34] Thank you.
[2:11:36] I feel that we just go ahead and do the 2024 and we'll go from there and we'll
[2:11:42] deal with it next year if we want to change anything else.
[2:11:49] Paul, you'll put that
[2:11:50] together that list for us and we'll address it when we address states attorney.
[2:11:58] Okay,
[2:12:01] so we had a motion, we had a second. At least we call the role.
[2:12:06] Commissioner Putnam. Now this is on going back to 24, right? Yes. Okay, yes.
[2:12:11] Yes.
[2:12:12] Schmidt?
[2:12:13] No.
[2:12:14] Aaron?
[2:12:15] Yes.
[2:12:15] On.
[2:12:27] Naive.
[2:12:29] Landy.
[2:12:29] No.
[2:12:34] Motion fails.
[2:12:36] Commissioner Aaron's.
[2:12:37] Do you want to keep going?
[2:12:38] Next is buildings and grounds.
[2:12:41] You got a page number for us.
[2:12:44] I am looking for that.
[2:13:01] Page 11.
[2:13:02] General government building.
[2:13:12] That's department 4161.
[2:13:17] Go ahead, Commissioner Aaron.
[2:13:19] Thank you. We've got a line item in here for 2.03 million dollars under buildings
[2:13:29] and structures. But what we don't have is we have not yet identified a way forward
[2:13:37] or any kind of consensus as to what the improvements to the old courthouse will cost, what improvements
[2:13:47] if anybody if any will be made it's being worked on and I've talked to
[2:13:55] Mr. Rambo about that but until we have more definite understanding of what
[2:14:06] we're going to move forward with how we're going to move forward with it I'm
[2:14:12] proposing to remove that two million dollars of budget authority out of there.
[2:14:16] Do you want, and I don't know the best way to do this because originally that was an
[2:14:22] auditor decision because was that the legislative, wasn't it the legislative audit that you
[2:14:28] had to assign the money to something? That's different. That's not this one. Okay. Perfect.
[2:14:37] Thank you.
[2:14:42] So is that your motion? Well, I'm not taking a motion right now that he's just,
[2:14:47] That's what he's wanting to do and I wanted clarification that that wasn't just the unassigned
[2:14:53] light item that you had to assign.
[2:14:55] Okay, if that's not the case then are there any other questions from the commission?
[2:15:00] Go ahead, commissioner.
[2:15:04] It's not a motion, but re-stature attention from which line item, yes, which I believe is building instructors and the exact dollar amount that you're looking to remove. Yeah, so if you go down one, two, three paragraphs to, it's called EXP category 43 capital outlay. And then right underneath that, there is a line item.
[2:15:29] called buildings and structures, and the proposal for 2027 is 2.038 million dollars.
[2:15:39] So you're proposing to eliminate, proposing to eliminate and remove that?
[2:15:48] The whole dollar amount.
[2:15:49] Yes.
[2:15:50] And Mr. Rambo is here.
[2:15:53] He can clarify whether I believe the entire two,
[2:15:59] Well, let me ask it as a question of that 2.038 million.
[2:16:09] How much in your mind John was apportioned for potential courthouse versus other types
[2:16:19] of structures here in the county, just regular maintenance, you know, that has to be done.
[2:16:26] So when we started this and I met with the Budget Committee, I had an asker, I had a want to do improvements to both this building and all of our buildings and start moving forward if we're going to save the old courthouse with some expenditures to do improvements there, like i.e. paint it.
[2:16:46] and we all know that ultimately if we're going to do anything with the old
[2:16:50] courthouse, we have to either do some kind of a structural improvement to the
[2:16:54] rooftop, which could be very expensive. So I was concerned because I from
[2:17:00] Watson and sitting in these meetings, it seems like there should be budget
[2:17:03] authority before we move forward with any money spent and that's where the
[2:17:08] conversation kind of came up that we do have this $2 million set in reserve
[2:17:14] for capital improvements. So it looked like if you know we could move forward and do two
[2:17:23] to three hundred thousand dollars in the project section or we could do the whole roof improvement
[2:17:28] in which could be close to one and a half million dollars or more. So then it was like well
[2:17:33] do we put that money into the budget so it's got the budget authority already in place to
[2:17:39] do those projects next year and that's kind of where we landed with it.
[2:17:44] I, you know, so I could go back, 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, then I would still need $38,
[2:17:58] well I should say, because I took the $3,000 out for the ambulance thing.
[2:18:03] but so I'd land like about thirty five seven hundred thirty five thousand seven hundred
[2:18:08] is what I would need in my capital our buildings and structures line item which is one
[2:18:13] oh one forty one sixty one and four thirty two but again that doesn't give us any budget
[2:18:19] authority to do anything to the old court house that no improvements to the drainage issues
[2:18:25] no improvements to painting it no improvements to crack ceiling so that's that was my
[2:18:33] I came into this budget process with that dilemma is until we really know where we're absolutely going to land with it, I don't know what to do, but that puts no money in the 2027 budgets to do anything.
[2:18:49] Thank you, John. And my belief is that that's your no fault of your own. You need some guidance from this commission as to what to be done.
[2:19:02] and so I appreciate your work.
[2:19:08] But you could live with the $38,000 or $35,700 for buildings and structures for next year.
[2:19:17] Correct, but that will accomplish nothing but projects that I want to do in this building in 4H.gov and stuff like that.
[2:19:25] Okay. Do you need, uh, okay, understood. Thank you. So that.
[2:19:34] Questions have other questions. Can I have one more thing to say there?
[2:19:38] Just one more thing is what that also takes away because that was included in the 2 million
[2:19:43] 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 moving one department to
[2:19:57] another section and we need to add some sort of wall or something I would have no money in my
[2:20:01] budget to do that. 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] I don't know if it was $800,000.
[2:20:21] I mean no I didn't have
[2:20:22] That high of a number is probably closer to $200,000.
[2:20:30] Okay,
[2:20:35] additional monies that, again, we transferred, we basically figured it would be absorbed by the $2 million.
[2:20:43] Last year, you had 299,000 for buildings and structures.
[2:20:48] That's our budget this year.
[2:20:50] Excuse me.
[2:20:51] Yeah.
[2:20:51] And it's the 171 is what's been spent through August.
[2:20:59] Madam Chair.
[2:20:59] here. Go ahead, Commissioner. So I'm, you know, taking the roughly two million dollars
[2:21:08] off for the court, I was kicking the can down the road, which the commissioner has done
[2:21:12] a good job for many years doing that. As soon as going to have to be made sooner or later
[2:21:15] whether we fix it or turn it down, but with that said, if we leave 200, 35,700 in there,
[2:21:25] that will take care of your needs. I don't want to hamstring you here if you need a couple
[2:21:31] dollars more than let's make it that if that's your number.
[2:21:36] Well the overall dilemma is where do I
[2:21:39] start? You know, I will have a very tough time spending 60,000 hours to do a caulking project if
[2:21:49] we really truly don't know if we're being 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 expensive. That's
[2:21:59] where we were landing. You know, that could be one and a half million dollars, you know. The
[2:22:05] discussion was the demolition that if we demolished the old courthouse, that would have been one and a half
[2:22:11] million dollars. We don't have those fine numbers. We could we talking we're trying to put together a
[2:22:17] RFP to get an architect on board to finally start ironing all this out.
[2:22:24] That by itself is going to be expensive, you know, and so we jumped one board as you as the commission vote to do that
[2:22:32] I don't know what that number could be, but that could be
[2:22:35] I don't know I could easily see that approaching $100,000 to get that done
[2:22:40] Madam chair
[2:22:42] John, I have a question instead of concentrating
[2:22:46] Where the $200,000 goes on the old building?
[2:22:49] Shouldn't we be looking at what modifications that need to be made in this building?
[2:22:54] If we put in a different departments, if we put in a public defender's office, if we
[2:23:01] need to remodel for our Director of Equalization, because she's cramped in there, you know, like
[2:23:08] bookends in there, shouldn't we be looking at monies that should go here because we can
[2:23:13] use this place.
[2:23:14] We need this. This is staff development. This is good government. Over there, what are you going to do with it?
[2:23:22] I mean, you can look at it, but it has no functional value for us right now.
[2:23:26] So when you talk about the 200,000, I'm saying I'd like to see you spend that here.
[2:23:32] I'm going to agree with Commissioner Aaron's if he wants to cut two million dollars out until later date.
[2:23:37] I'm going to second his motion. So I think that's where we should be.
[2:23:41] So
[2:23:44] do you have a realistic number that you think you actually need in that line item?
[2:23:49] So originally had said 35, 7, and then you said 200,000, so what is the number that you need?
[2:23:58] What? And we did agree to that. We did tell them the RRP.
[2:24:04] Right, we did do that, but without regard to anything actually being done.
[2:24:10] right on the old courthouse. So in the nine years I've been here I've put I've
[2:24:17] subdivided and subdivided many different spaces. Any of those subdivided spaces
[2:24:23] typically cost about 10 grand.
[2:24:27] I really don't know where we're going to land
[2:24:29] with how to we're trying to figure out where the property equalization is going to
[2:24:34] spread out to. If we're an example if we want to maybe subdivide some of the
[2:24:38] based on what's currently the state's attorney's office, which will be vacated, you know,
[2:24:43] I'll have to put up a war structure. Well, that could, at this point in time, I could
[2:24:47] see what I would envision doing there would be a $20,000 project.
[2:24:51] And then you just have to come in and ask for supplements on when the decisions were being
[2:24:57] made.
[2:24:58] Right. That would be the next option. And that's part of the conversation we had with the
[2:25:01] building, the budget committee was, do we, do I just not put any number in there and then
[2:25:07] and choose to try to get supplemented as the need
[2:25:11] and as numbers come in.
[2:25:13] Or do we put budget authority there now?
[2:25:16] And you guys still ultimately authorize
[2:25:20] whether I spread it out of that budget authority.
[2:25:22] It's not like I go out to spend money that's in the budget
[2:25:25] just because it's there.
[2:25:29] That's the whole thing with the $2 million.
[2:25:32] It's a huge number.
[2:25:33] But it was just established the budget authority
[2:25:35] to give the five commissions that will be here January 1st, the ability to spend it.
[2:25:41] Okay.
[2:25:45] Other questions from the commission?
[2:25:50] Okay. Any public input on this part of the budget?
[2:26:00] Thank you, Terry.
[2:26:03] John, sorry. I'm sorry. I'm on one committee.
[2:26:06] He'll leave your arms, highway, other territory.
[2:26:10] Let him on gallery for every such quote up to Commissioner Schmidt if I may, Madam Chair,
[2:26:17] the functional value that you were talking about putting into this building.
[2:26:21] I think that until we, I do not see that, I still see that old building as having functional
[2:26:32] and I really don't, I know that there's a push to get rid of that old courthouse but
[2:26:40] I think there is functional value. Now how much that will cost to make it up, you know,
[2:26:47] we've talked about that but I think at this point I would like to see us doing what you
[2:26:54] would do with your own homes.
[2:26:57] Instead of adding, you're going to tear down a room,
[2:27:00] but that room might be able to be used for something else
[2:27:04] with minimal repairs.
[2:27:06] That's what I'm talking about.
[2:27:10] As far as taking out that whole budget,
[2:27:14] I understand that he needs a budget to make improvements
[2:27:20] wherever you need and then to supplement
[2:27:22] and as the year goes on next year, I would like to, you know, he needs some working things,
[2:27:33] some capital to work with and I would say I wouldn't even mind 100,000 that he has in
[2:27:39] that budget to be used prudently and for the updates that means to be done with this building
[2:27:47] and then if we can see the value in that old building that I do, it's my suggestion.
[2:27:55] Thank you, other public input.
[2:28:04] Good morning, commission.
[2:28:06] Chad Skiles of Canton, and I also served on the old courthouse advisory committee.
[2:28:15] What I'm going to say is this, you cut the $2 million to cut the $2 million.
[2:28:20] dollars. But, and I guess this is some rhetorical questions,
[2:28:28] we cannot, like Commissioner
[2:28:30] Otton said, we cannot continue to kick this can down the road. It's been ignored way
[2:28:36] too long. I agree with the previous speaker, there's value in that old building. Yes, sentimental
[2:28:45] value, but also practical value. And lastly, I guess I was just going to be an open-ended
[2:28:51] question and that is is that whatever amount you take out for the what ifs on
[2:28:59] how to maintain the old courthouse that is is that if you take out all the money
[2:29:06] today if January 5th the 2027 we decide that something is going to be done but
[2:29:14] there was no money budgeted and John's budget and he comes back I sure hope that
[2:29:21] there's a five to zero vote supporting supplementing his budget to continue
[2:29:25] that process. Thank you. Thank you. Other public input?
[2:29:35] Hi, Sarah Steber from Lennox. I just wanted to point out that codified law
[2:29:40] seven dash 21, dash 11 is still on the books and that's the one that limits you
[2:29:45] to 95%. Thank you. Thank you.
[2:29:52] Other public input?
[2:29:53] but
[2:29:57] if not, is there a motion?
[2:30:00] Yes. Go ahead, commissioner. This is this is the motion I was going to make. So my motion was to under category 43 capital A capital outlay line item 101-4161-432000 buildings and structures that we reduce that two million thirty eight thousand seven hundred down to three hundred and thirty five thousand seven hundred. Second,
[2:30:28] had a motion in a second. Any discussion?
[2:30:33] Well, that was going to be my motion, too, and I think here's where we're at.
[2:30:44] Mr. DeGroates sent me an RFP. For my review, I need to turn that around to him.
[2:30:52] My guesstimate is the RFP will probably go out the door in the next 30 days,
[2:30:58] is, and the RFP could be responded to within the next 60, so that puts us 90. And then
[2:31:08] for the, depending upon the scope of work and who responds to the RFP, that maybe puts
[2:31:15] us out about it six months. So I foresee that we do, we will have some kind of response
[2:31:33] and then that gives enough time to 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.
[2:31:48] All right, I got a motion on a second.
[2:31:51] Is there any other discussion before the vote?
[2:31:54] So, Commissioner Ratton, this calls for a reduction in our budget of how much money?
[2:32:02] 1.7 is it 1.7, 1.7, 3 into the mic.
[2:32:12] How much?
[2:32:12] 1.7.
[2:32:14] Okay, 1.7.
[2:32:16] All right.
[2:32:16] one point one and all three. Okay.
[2:32:21] Thank you. My comments on that motion is after talking to John,
[2:32:26] that's the number that should be able to get him by that he needs. So I'm not interested in
[2:32:32] answering an imminent shape or form. So and Commissioner Aaron's is I agree with him on when those
[2:32:39] numbers will start coming in and we'll start looking at it down. That hard decision is going to have to be made.
[2:32:43] All right. We got a motion in a second.
[2:32:47] Okay. Now I like to clarify this because I couldn't hear much of anything that was happening there.
[2:32:53] Speaking to the mic. But anyhow, so we're going to take one point how much?
[2:33:00] Seven. We're going to reduce the 2,837.
[2:33:05] You see where that's at?
[2:33:07] To the one point.
[2:33:08] We're going to reduce it down to 3357, so it's going to be an overall reduction of 1.703 million.
[2:33:20] Okay.
[2:33:21] Okay.
[2:33:22] All right.
[2:33:23] Any other questions or discussion?
[2:33:26] If not, at least should we call the roll?
[2:33:28] Commissioner Putnam?
[2:33:29] Yes.
[2:33:30] Schmidt?
[2:33:30] Yes.
[2:33:31] Aaron?
[2:33:31] Yes.
[2:33:42] I have a couple of questions on if I can ask go ahead Commissioner Patnam does
[2:33:57] Does the budget include another step or wage increase for the 27 in addition to the 3% increase approved for 26?
[2:34:12] I'm not sure I understand your question.
[2:34:14] I mean we put in the pay study with
[2:34:21] the budget numbers.
[2:34:22] There is a 3% COLA adjustment in a 2.5% or a step increase.
[2:34:27] Are there just a center operating and staffing costs fully reflected in that?
[2:34:39] 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.
[2:34:48] The sheriff's included his, yes, all requested new employees are in those numbers.
[2:34:56] then I'd like one other thing I'd like to back up to on life'scape if I can just
[2:35:03] so it's on the record and everybody knows it okay the CEO of life'scape Steve
[2:35:11] Watkins takes in 400 and 400,377 and with another 65,000 which brings him
[2:35:27] at a total of 464,972. Kimberly Marsh, she's C-O-O, is $270,623 with a stifon of $29,868
[2:35:48] for $300,000, Steve Wilson's a CFO, I don't know what that is, but he takes in
[2:35:56] $3 or $234,559 with a $35,874
[2:36:06] dollars Diffin for a total of $270,433. Then there's Jason, he's a VP of HR. And with
[2:36:19] his Diffin and everything, he's taken in $188,608. Now this I got from a taxpayer of Lincoln
[2:36:31] County. Now the 55,000 that we're going to give them is just like P&N on the fire, isn't it?
[2:36:40] Excuse the pun. That was a good waste of time on that cash.
[2:36:47] And of course, I don't know what the
[2:36:49] 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? Potential. This bleeds into agenda item number two,
[2:37:03] but they're all the same is this I want to go to the 9-11 category here so we'll go ahead
[2:37:12] and move on to item 2 on our agenda them
[2:37:18] because this issue is going to have budgetary impact.
[2:37:22] Commissioner or commissioner Sheriff's lunch and this is your item do you want to come up?
[2:37:28] All
[2:37:33] right, he's once in Lincoln gun chef
[2:37:36] So I was contacted by
[2:37:43] assistant fire chief Graham went with the
[2:37:48] Who oversees metro communications and he kind of my understanding is he spearheaded this which I think it's long overdue is
[2:37:55] they want to
[2:37:56] They've done all SLS one at all 27 peace apps to be on board with and county commission and our governing board to be on board with
[2:38:05] moving dispatchers from a class A retirement system to the class B retirement system.
[2:38:12] And what that entailed for Lincoln County was, I've reached out to all of our employees in 911
[2:38:18] that would clarify which all of our employees would as a dispatcher.
[2:38:25] It's not retroactive, but it would move them from the A system to the B system,
[2:38:29] which reduces 10 years off their service.
[2:38:32] Now, if anybody knows what a dispatcher does, you know it's a high stress, there's ups and
[2:38:38] downs through their careers just like law enforcement or anybody else, maybe not the same
[2:38:43] as far as you're in danger, but it's definitely the high stress position.
[2:38:49] So what they'd ask me to do is present at this commission and I 100% agree that this should
[2:38:55] what happened is that we would support the resolution in support of the South Dakota
[2:39:01] retirement system reclassifying of the 911 telecommunication operators.
[2:39:07] So all 27 peace apps are on border-fist.
[2:39:11] I think we're the last one that is presenting.
[2:39:14] What I'm asking is that we support this.
[2:39:17] It will be a cost and all the dispatchers agreed to the 2% extra that will come out of their
[2:39:21] paycheck so that they have skin in the game as well.
[2:39:24] But it would increase 901 employee county contributions by I believe it was $21,000 annually.
[2:39:35] Thank you questions for us here.
[2:39:42] They would retire early then.
[2:39:46] Right, so this would be no different than 20s of your example.
[2:39:50] If I was a dispatcher for five years and then I became a police officer, you just switch
[2:39:54] from an aid would be, it's not going to do a lot of, it's going to be a big benefit
[2:39:59] to 80% of my dispatchers because 90% of their time is already in the A system and it doesn't
[2:40:07] go backwards. So those dispatchers would go from a class A which would be what they
[2:40:13] would qualify for retirement up to say a Dracoballon. Then he would move to the B and it would reduce
[2:40:21] the service by a little bit but a more dispatcher is starting out and still after about 30 years
[2:40:26] They could retire in 20 years.
[2:40:31] Can we make this applicable to just new hires after anyone hired after the date of this
[2:40:37] resolution?
[2:40:38] Well, and we're just doing the resolution.
[2:40:40] It's by state statute, if I'm not mistaken, I mean that legislature would have to pass
[2:40:45] this to move the classification.
[2:40:48] Correct.
[2:40:49] I think that's the RIS has to first approve it.
[2:40:52] Yes.
[2:40:53] I know prosecutors tried doing it along many, many years ago.
[2:40:59] I get the fact that this is just a resolution that they can package up and send to the legislature and say, hey, everybody did this. I get that part.
[2:41:08] I'm trying to have some discussion about maybe adding some nuance into this. For example, having this applied to new hires, but it wouldn't apply to people who are presently hired inside.
[2:41:26] the old system, or maybe if you just got hired within the last two years, three years,
[2:41:33] four years, or something like that.
[2:41:36] So there's that. Number two, when it comes to peace set,
[2:41:40] because I'll support the resolution, that's not the issue for me. The other issue, though,
[2:41:46] that I think is a bigger issue is the number of peace apps that we have in this state.
[2:41:52] Governor Janklow bless his soul 30 years ago identified the number of peace
[2:41:59] apps that we have as being problematic he wanted to reduce the number of
[2:42:03] peace apps could never get it done because there were too many county commissions
[2:42:07] that that were defending their turf and they didn't want to you know upset the
[2:42:14] apple basket and so we're stuck you know it's like the sheriff said we got 27
[2:42:19] seven peace apps out there right now.
[2:42:21] Question becomes is can we reduce that
[2:42:24] and see efficiencies through reduction?
[2:42:27] And there's a study out now.
[2:42:29] There's a study that was done.
[2:42:31] This costs six figures to do the study
[2:42:35] and it came out what a couple of years ago.
[2:42:38] And it said to do what Governor Janclow said
[2:42:42] to do 30 years ago is you've got to continue
[2:42:45] to consolidate your peace apps.
[2:42:47] Now, Sheriff and I, we went through this.
[2:42:52] I said, a couple of years ago, Sheriff, we should consolidate with Sioux Falls or we should look into it.
[2:42:59] What Sheriff did instead is he went out and found other customers to maintain the Lincoln County Peace app.
[2:43:10] Because there would have been issues and this is important for the public to understand.
[2:43:13] Maybe this is important for commissioners to understand if you yourself don't know this.
[2:43:18] You got to invest in all these different CAD systems, and if you change your PSAPs up
[2:43:24] and all that.
[2:43:25] So there would have been all kinds of retrofitting expenses that made it cost prohibitive
[2:43:31] to consolidate the PSAP.
[2:43:36] Now, I think that Lincoln County has taken on this position of basically saying it's
[2:43:44] cost prohibitive to join with metro communications.
[2:43:48] So instead, we're going to go out there and we're going to take on Harrisburg and Lenekson.
[2:43:51] Can you keep this?
[2:43:53] I understand what you want to speak on, but can you keep it to the resolution that we're
[2:43:57] looking at?
[2:43:58] This is part of the resolution.
[2:43:59] Okay.
[2:43:59] and here's why.
[2:44:02] If the cost to the county is going to increase by adopting the resolution,
[2:44:09] we then, as responsible stewards of taxpayer money, have to look for other offsets.
[2:44:15] So if you want to increase the amount of money through moving these people to a different SDRS
[2:44:21] category, you have to look for ways to make that revenue neutral. And that's why any kind of discussion
[2:44:27] about moving these people from retirement categories has to necessarily require us to talk about
[2:44:34] the number of peace apps. Now get it. There's people who don't want to talk about that. There's
[2:44:37] people who like the status quo of the current system. But here's the thing. We send this resolution
[2:44:43] up and everybody's going to be like, see, see, everybody's for increasing the SDRS category. That's
[2:44:48] personnel expense. But then if you're a legislator, you might be saying to yourself, we'll hold on
[2:44:55] minute here. Where's the savings? Why is it always just more cost?
[2:45:00] Cost and more cost. Why don't we think about institutional reform? So I want my comments on the record here as part of my support for this to also reflect the fact we got a study out there and we've got governors, we got legislators who all understand that these peace apps need to be reformed as well.
[2:45:20] Thank you, other commissioners? Yes, I would like to comment on this. The going from 6% to 8% is going to cost.
[2:45:33] the county about another $20,000 a year per person just to put it on the record
[2:45:44] there just so that they understand it. Joel, I
[2:45:56] guess that's part of what Joel
[2:45:58] would be talking about so just so that it's understood that what the cost is
[2:46:04] going to be.
[2:46:08] Sure, did you have any other comments? I would say that making a for new employees
[2:46:14] and not old employees, I don't think there would be any buy-in for that to be honest with you.
[2:46:19] If I've got two years in a peace app and the person, they just all quit. That's what I do anyway.
[2:46:25] Go work for a peace app that did pay the 8% reduce your working years by 10 years.
[2:46:32] But I get the, we're looking at cost savings and I'm just going to throw it out there.
[2:46:38] We just read, we negotiated with Turner County, which was an increase of $35,000 for next
[2:46:44] year in revenue, so I guess we've, we're cost neutral.
[2:46:49] Thank you, Sheriff.
[2:46:51] And I am saying that I'm, I'm going to go along with what you're doing.
[2:46:55] I just wanted to reflect the fact of what it's going to cost for each person.
[2:46:59] There's a resolution in front of us.
[2:47:02] Is there any public input on the resolution?
[2:47:15] Good morning again, Commission Chad Skiles from Canton.
[2:47:19] Being an old 911 dispatcher way back in the day
[2:47:23] and a former 911 director for Lincoln County,
[2:47:26] who saw the onboarding of Turner County and the importance
[2:47:32] of regionalized 911 and what it can do
[2:47:34] for the smaller counties in South Dakota.
[2:47:36] I just want to say on record that I support this resolution 100%, I do not support the idea of not including the current dispatching staff.
[2:47:49] And the reason for that is that if you look at Lincoln County 911's current dispatching staff,
[2:47:58] of that staff, of those personnel, have 20 to 35 years of service to Lincoln County.
[2:48:11] And if you look at other 911 piece apps around the state, including one, the biggest one
[2:48:17] just north of us, the turnover there is in general way higher than it is here in Lincoln
[2:48:25] and county and to penalize the years of service of those current dispatchers I think is a
[2:48:31] travesty and I would certainly hope that the commission would not support that part of it.
[2:48:38] Thank you. Thank you.
[2:48:43] Any other public input? If not, is there a motion?
[2:48:51] Motion to move on. Sheriff's recommendation of a reclassification of a 91-91 telecommunication
[2:49:01] to class B.
[2:49:07] All right, is there a second?
[2:49:15] Thank you, I've got a motion in a second.
[2:49:16] Any further discussion?
[2:49:18] Yeah, I've got, I guess I would like to see it go the people
[2:49:25] that are on there right now and get it right away.
[2:49:29] That would be the only thing.
[2:49:31] Because if they're going to do it, they just will do it.
[2:49:36] And I'm going to support the resolution simply because I think
[2:49:41] that our dispatchers and 9-1-1 operators are probably have one of the most
[2:49:46] stressful jobs providing that service to our tax payers. And so I'm going to
[2:49:55] provide it for the same reasons that law enforcement officers are class B public
[2:50:01] safety members.
[2:50:05] If there's no further discussion I'll show you color roll.
[2:50:22] I'm going to hold that off until next week. I've got a couple other things to say too.
[2:50:28] All right. Then we have our opportunity for public comment for items not on our agenda.
[2:50:36] Any public comment?
[2:50:42] If not, are there any commission reports?
[2:50:44] No, it wasn't, it wasn't, it wasn't pulled for regular, it was just removed.
[2:50:51] Paul, do you have a report?
[2:51:01] Just briefly, last week, the Turner Lincoln County, or Lincoln play, Water District presented, that I just was saying I'm working with them to get updated language part of their discussion was to have the board consider becoming a sponsor.
[2:51:19] So just to heads up that you will see some draft language and an item on either next week or the following week's agenda for the board to consider being a sponsor.
[2:51:29] So I give you guys an update on that and that's all I have for right now.
[2:51:35] Thank you. Any commission reports?
[2:51:39] After last week's meeting, I received a tremendous amount of positive feedback on the motion
[2:51:48] for a moratorium on data centers. I just after that meeting and the amount of publicity,
[2:51:56] probably 35, 36, 37 people sent me emails, properly received about a dozen phone calls on the issue
[2:52:06] and who knows how many text messages, but there seems to be tremendous support for wanting to
[2:52:14] rein in, take a time out or pause on data centers. There was people are very happy that we're going to have a
[2:52:24] discussion with the City Asu Falls. There is a lot of people who want to give their input, who don't
[2:52:33] like the status quo and they were very pleasantly surprised that there was support for holding
[2:52:41] another joint meeting with the city of Sioux Falls that's going to be the last Tuesday
[2:52:45] in October at 7 p.m. and just reporting back feedback I'm getting on that.
[2:52:53] Commissioner Ernst, do you know because that meeting will be in Sioux Falls, correct?
[2:52:58] the rotation that we follow is we do every other meeting and so if we follow the
[2:53:06] tradition and custom that means that the meeting would be up in Sioux Falls
[2:53:09] because we held this one in camp. 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 so are
[2:53:20] we going to move that night meeting to the morning?
[2:53:25] I think we I don't know let's
[2:53:27] discuss it. Let's talk about it. Let's pull our calendars out and look at them. Do you want
[2:53:34] to do that now or do you want to work with the commission office on doing that? Well, I think we
[2:53:38] should work with the commission office first instead of doing it on the fly here this morning.
[2:53:43] All right. Any other commissioner reports? Because we're also going to have to move the we have not
[2:53:49] taken formal action yet on also moving our November election as well. So we're going to have to take
[2:53:57] action on that too. We just seem to probably figure it out sooner rather than later for public hearings and those things.
[2:54:05] I can read Commissioner Aaron's we did move the November 3rd meeting to November 5th.
[2:54:11] Oh there you go. Those at the beginning of the year. There you go. We did it.
[2:54:14] We need to look at the last day of our last.
[2:54:19] Okay. Okay. Any other commission and reports? If not drew any executive session, no executive session. Motion to adjourn, please.
[2:54:31] So moved. Motion is our second. So moved. Thank you. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Same sign. Hearing none, we are adjourned.