[0:05] stands one nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice
[0:11] for all.
>> Amen.
[0:17] » Good morning and welcome to our regular
meeting today, Tuesday, September 1st,
[0:22] 2026.
[0:25] Um, I know that there's one change to
pull uh item six off of the consent
[0:30] agenda and just remove it completely.
Are there other changes by the
[0:36] commission?
[0:39] If not, can I get a motion to approve
our agenda?
[0:45] » Thank you. I got a motion from
Commissioner Autton. Is there a second?
[0:48] » Second.
>> Motion from [laughter] a second from
[0:51] Commissioner Arens. If there's no
further discussion, Alicia, will you
[0:54] call the role?
>> Commissioner Putnham,
[0:57] » yes.
>> Arens,
[0:58] » yes.
>> Here.
[0:59] » Lendine,
>> yes. Motion carries. Next, uh, move on
[1:03] to our consent agenda agenda minus that
item six. Can I get a motion to approve
[1:09] our consent agenda?
>> So moved.
[1:12] » Got a motion from Commissioner Erenss.
Is there a second?
[1:17] » Second.
>> Got a second from Commissioner Aten. If
[1:20] there's no further discussion, Alicia,
we call the role. Commissioner Putnham,
[1:26] » yes.
>> Arens,
[1:28] » yes.
>> Hi.
[1:29] » Lendine,
>> yes. Motion carries. Uh, next we have
[1:33] our public hearing on the 2027 Lincoln
County budget
[1:40] and our commission office um provided us
with an updated copy, paper copy this
[1:47] morning
[1:53] and it was also attached to the agenda
online.
[2:06] So,
[2:11] what changes, if any, do the
commissioners want to make to the agenda
[2:15] budget?
>> Just for clarification, for public
[2:17] knowledge, um the changes that were made
were with the pay study that was
[2:22] implemented. Then we went through and
changed all the personnel throughout the
[2:26] agenda. Also um we had talked about
moving uh
[2:32] 101417242600
[2:35] which is the HR budget from 12,000 to
4,000. I didn't do it when I origin
[2:41] originally published the provisional so
it's in there now. And the other change
[2:45] was revenue in the emergency management.
Herald had confirmed that the state
[2:50] would be do a 40% match. Other than that
those are the only changes that were
[2:53] done from the time of publication till
today. Okay, thank you. Um, first, are
[2:59] there any department heads that want to
come up and speak to their budget as
[3:03] presented in our um, budget that we have
now?
[3:11] Nobody. All right.
[3:17] All right. Commissioners, what do you
want to do?
[3:22] All
[3:35] right. Is there anyone from the public
who would like to come up and speak to
[3:38] the budget as presented?
[3:42] » You want to bring up one change, Madam
Chair?
[3:44] » Oh, okay. Go ahead, Commissioner.
>> So, [clears throat]
[3:50] thank you, Madam Chair. So, as I
mentioned before, uh I do support trying
[3:54] to put something together for some
funding for the Linux ambulance issue
[3:59] that is going on. Uh Paul
was having out those sheets.
[4:06] » He stepped out.
>> I see that.
[4:10] Can Can you do that, Sherry? Thank you.
Hand one out commissioners. So, what
[4:16] I've done is
worked through and around things a
[4:20] little bit and not taking any money out
of cash reserves.
[4:27] I kind of
asked the department, do you want to
[4:30] speak into your microphone a little bit
better?
[4:32] » Yep. So, what I did is kind of asked the
department heads to see if there was a
[4:37] little they could give each way uh to
help meet the number of uh 60,000 that
[4:45] I'm recommending for the Lincoln County
portion.
[4:50] Let me hand those sheets out. Everybody
can see what each one of those are.
[5:00] And this is going to be my proposal.
[5:06] There's the sheen talking
>> and I'll go through them once you have
[5:10] them.
[5:20] » And I'd like to say thank you to all the
department heads that were willing to
[5:22] give a little bit in their budget to to
make this happen. So I really appreciate
[5:26] your effort in doing so.
So my proposal is from the treasurer's
[5:34] budget to take a th000 from supplies and
motor vehicle for a total of two 4 a,000
[5:40] from travel and supplies for 2,000
sheriff 2,000 minor equipment register
[5:46] of deeds $500 auditor 2,000
EMS could cut 2,000 from emergency
[5:55] service lines building and grounds I
don't remember what line item that is
[6:00] $2,000
HR $3,000 I believe that was out of
[6:05] travel I believe and then $10,000 out of
the commission's travel budget that was
[6:08] at 21,000 that will bring that down to
11 which the second sheet reflects the
[6:14] new numbers on that. [sighs and gasps]
When it comes to other economic assist
[6:18] um assistance,
my proposal is to not give them a
[6:23] budgetary increase from last year to
basically keep them at 2026 levels.
[6:31] Children's in would stay at 15
and drop of 135 is what it proposed. The
[6:39] help center uh stays at 9473.
Solless stays at 45. Inner lake stays at
[6:47] 6903.
Linux enrichment stays at five. Can
[6:51] transition stays at 15. Code ababilities
4320 and Lifscapes 53 52332
[7:01] which brings the total of all of those
up to my request of 60,078.
[7:08] Not adding any new dollars to the
budget, trying to find them within the
[7:12] existing budget. So
that is my proposal to add that to the
[7:17] budget for that. And as you all know, uh
they're still working on the operating
[7:21] agreement. I think people have seen a uh
draft. I know Drew has um been looking
[7:27] through one because we need to obviously
get the legal on that. So
[7:32] » So if we if we got or reduced these
items by the amount that you're
[7:37] suggesting and move that to what line
item would that go to? Do you know? I
[7:42] have no idea.
>> I would I would probably take it out of
[7:45] other economic assistance. Just add it
into that line item.
[7:50] » Add it to other economic assistance as
an ambulance line item.
[7:53] » Yep. I'd have I'm going to have to
double check and see how the accounting
[7:56] would go on it. But at this time, I
would just say add it to there.
[8:00] » Okay. [clears throat]
[8:03] It would be added to the general fund
though.
[8:05] » Okay.
Nathan is here from the city of Linux.
[8:10] if there was any pertinent questions
about what's going on. Not about this,
[8:16] but
>> yeah. Commissioners have any questions
[8:21] uh for Commissioner Auton?
[8:28] » So, we're automatically giving the
children's in for sure 28,000 next year.
[8:34] And
>> no, the recommendation was to leave it
[8:37] at 2026 levels. you'll see those lines.
So, they're actually reductions that
[8:43] commission
>> No, I understand that. But we've um have
[8:47] we talked about given to children's in
and
[8:51] lifecape and everything
>> every year.
[8:53] » Every year. Okay.
>> There has not been any discussion as to
[8:56] what you want to cut out of the budget.
You guys, you have not had any
[9:01] discussion other than what Commissioner
Aton is presenting. So, if you want to
[9:04] cut all of it, you can cut all of it.
He's just saying to keep it level to
[9:09] take it out of these items.
>> Yes. My proposal is to keep them static
[9:16] » from 26 to 27.
>> Doesn't mean that you somebody couldn't
[9:20] make a decision to cut more or cut them
out entirely. That's not my proposal.
[9:25] What was the process used to ascertain
or determine
[9:30] how and why each of the line items under
other economic assistance would be
[9:37] raised?
>> Yeah.
[9:38] » So, for example,
uh the 2026 children's in uh budget is
[9:48] 15
and in 2027 the proposal is 285. Yeah,
[9:54] Paul Anderson, Link County Commission
administrative assistant. Um, kind of
[9:57] followed the same program, the same
pattern we have since I came in. So that
[10:02] was 2024
uh for the 25 budget year. Uh, we sent
[10:07] out applications to the to the outside
agencies um asked them to uh submit
[10:15] their budget proposal, uh, financial
audit documents,
[10:19] uh, any justifications. Uh, this year we
we changed it up a little bit. that we
[10:23] had them submit um
uh onepage funding explanation
[10:29] justification documents make it a little
bit easier. Uh those are sent uh to the
[10:33] board. Um I include them in the budget
line for other economic assistance as uh
[10:40] an out uh as an outside agency request
and then leave it up to the board to uh
[10:45] determine whether or not they would like
to fund that. And they have uh you
[10:50] should have the packets in the email. If
you don't have a handy, I can resend
[10:53] you. Um, but that that that explains
their audit situ or their financial
[10:58] situations, their budget requests, and
their budget justification.
[11:02] » Thank you, Paul.
>> Yeah, I just want to note here. So, in
[11:07] 2024, Children's in was 8,000.
Then it almost doubled the next year, so
[11:15] 2x.
and then it's doubled again for 2027 to
[11:20] 285.
Uh, Helpline Center has stayed flat for
[11:26] the last 3 years. That's now jumped up
to 12,000.
[11:31] Solless has gone up uh
almost 4x
[11:39] uh was in 2024 it was 9473
and then 45k and 45k and 50.
[11:49] Interlakes
started at 6785 in 2024.
[11:55] That's kind of had some modest
increases. Linux enrichment has stayed
[11:59] flat for the last four years. Canton
transit
[12:04] has gone up well literally doubled in
the last four years.
[12:09] Uh decodabilities is statutoily
required.
[12:14] Uh so that
number presumably is decided based upon
[12:19] the statute.
Then lifecaped has almost doubled as
[12:24] well over the last four years.
[12:29] And so, Commissioner Putnham, just to
answer your question, it uh
[12:35] these numbers have moved up pretty
rapidly over the last few years.
[12:44] Yeah. Um I,
you know, in a uh $12 million shortfall,
[12:52] I guess this all looks kind of saddened.
Um, some of this stuff I don't have no
[12:59] clue. Like for instance, um, Linux
enrichment. How how how do we need to be
[13:06] enriching them?
[13:11] Well, my other concern is here
that and I appreciate Commissioner
[13:19] Attton going to the department heads. Uh
went to the treasurer, the 4, the
[13:24] sheriff, the register of deeds, the
auditor, the EMS, the buildings and
[13:27] grounds, the HR, and then the
commission.
[13:32] And they cut out approximately
[13:38] what? Yeah. Yeah. What does that add up
to?
[13:42] » I think 15
>> 15,000. Well, that's 15,000 of spending.
[13:47] Yeah.$ 155. That should have never been
there in the first place because if they
[13:51] can give it up for this should have
never [clears throat] been budgeted in
[13:55] the first place.
So,
[14:00] » go ahead, Commissioner.
>> I don't know if I necessarily agree with
[14:03] that assessment that the fact that it
should have been there in the first
[14:06] place. I think they were doing me a
favor.
[14:11] to move this proposal along.
>> I get No, I appreciate that. Thank you
[14:15] for saying that in public.
>> So, what is the reason that we need to
[14:19] give um 60,000 to the ambulance
in Lennox? What was the reasoning behind
[14:27] that?
>> Well, we're supposed to have a meeting
[14:30] with Turner County to ascertain whether
or not there's interest in uh having an
[14:37] ambulance district. That would be a
taxation district and I've talked to the
[14:43] Turner County folks about that. They're
interested in having that meeting. I
[14:48] thought we were interested in having
that meeting. And what that would do is
[14:53] if the ambulance district was approved
is that would place a levy or a tax on
[15:02] the people who would actually use the
ambulance service themselves as opposed
[15:07] to coming out of the general fund that
comes from all taxpayers across the
[15:11] county. So, I think that we should have
that meeting with Turner County uh
[15:19] before we spend any taxpayer money here
on the ambulance district cuz I thought
[15:25] there was
motivation to want to at least I'm being
[15:30] told on the part of Turner County,
they're interested in setting up an
[15:34] ambulance district and I think uh we
ought to sit down and talk with them
[15:40] about doing the same thing. Now, would
that be on um
[15:46] certain townships with around
surrounding Lennox then?
[15:54] » Yep. Go ahead, Commissioner.
>> It would be for the Lennox ambulance
[15:57] service territory.
>> Well, what's the territory?
[16:00] » Which which includes like the city of T
and Delipree Township. They have they
[16:05] have all committed. I think there's an
email out there just said the last few
[16:09] days that breaks down which of the uh
entities have decided to
[16:15] get on board and the dollar mouse input
on there. So yes, it includes townships,
[16:20] but this is not intended to pay for the
township's portions because this would
[16:24] not cover that.
>> Um what are we giving?
[16:27] » I'm just I'm going to address
Commissioner Arens. Okay.
[16:32] » Do you think I I understand what you're
saying about the ambulance district and
[16:35] what by putting a line item and moving
this money doesn't necessarily mean that
[16:39] the county is approving
the expense itself. I'm assuming there's
[16:45] going to have to be more discussions and
a vote. Would you agree?
[16:51] » Sounds to me like
we give budget authority and it that
[16:56] makes it happen.
I don't know that that's necessarily
[16:59] true. Um,
>> seems like it works out.
[17:02] » Legal is shaking their head. So, I don't
I don't think we're we're actually
[17:06] approving the expenditure.
>> There would have to be a joint agreement
[17:09] between all the entities and that's
still in the in its infancy.
[17:14] » Yeah. And I I think the joint agreement
was sent around. Is that the email
[17:19] you're referring to, Commissioner? Hot?
>> Yes.
[17:22] » Uh, there were no according to the one
I've seen, there were no numbers
[17:25] attached to it. There was supposed to be
an exhibit attached to it that put all
[17:31] of the respective entities breakdowns
and uh nobody's provided that to me.
[17:37] Commissioner Putnham, you've been
provided that?
[17:40] » No, I haven't.
Um my question being is we're going to
[17:46] give one ambulance district money or
proposing here, but what about the other
[17:53] ambulance districts? We we're going to
what are we going to do for them?
[17:59] » Go ahead, Commissioner.
>> So, uh to address Commissioner Har's
[18:04] concerns, this is not to the uh spend
the money. This is the money to put the
[18:10] line item in the budget.
>> All right. Sorry. So, this is not to
[18:17] spend the money. This is to get a line
item in the budget to have the funds
[18:21] there if needed. uh is the in the intent
of this otherwise we all realize if we
[18:27] need the money next year that we're
going to have to come and take it out of
[18:30] the budget or out of out of reserves to
have something done and there did not
[18:35] seem to be any appetite to do that the
last time I brought this up uh
[18:40] Commissioner Putnham as the other
ambulance services they haven't been
[18:43] here to ask
and I guess if they do we'll deal with
[18:48] that at that moment but they haven't
come up here so I I'm not concerned
[18:52] about that at this moment.
>> Well, yeah. And and I think the reason
[18:59] they haven't asked is because they're
able to fund their operations on their
[19:03] own without assistance from the county
commission.
[19:07] » Um that's why and they run less overhead
than Linux. Linux has higher overhead
[19:15] and um that's choice that that they've
made. that's a level of service um above
[19:24] and beyond the others that they want to
provide.
[19:28] And
um I just keep going back to this issue
[19:34] of we should collaborate with Turner
County. I've called township
[19:40] supervisors, didn't reach all of them,
but talked to a lot of them about this
[19:46] issue and how they view the taxation of
an ambulance district. And look, nobody
[19:54] likes the idea of a tax increase,
[clears throat]
[19:59] especially when they're concerned about
spending.
[20:05] It makes it really difficult to do tax
increases when there's no fiscal
[20:11] discipline.
However, in the township supervisors
[20:16] that I've spoken with,
they're all fairly conservative folks
[20:22] and they all understand the importance
of having an ambulance service to come
[20:30] when it's called. and so they're willing
to come to the table to talk about
[20:37] uh forming an ambulance district.
Um
[20:42] but what I think they're concerned about
is this issue of potential double
[20:48] taxation.
You get taxed on your property taxes.
[20:53] You get taxed as a township. You give
the money to the township. You give the
[20:57] money to the to the county commit or to
the county.
[21:02] Then the county sends one check out the
door in this instance proposed for
[21:07] 60,000 and then the township send money
out the door for whatever dollar amounts
[21:12] they would decide to support the
ambulance district. Well, the issue's
[21:16] been brought up to me and I I you know
am sympathetic to this as well is well
[21:23] why are we doing why do we have this
taxation system that we do if we're
[21:27] going to send these checks out instead
why don't we just form the ambulance
[21:33] district and they would apply the tax to
the affected people and then those
[21:43] persons would have to pay for the
service as opposed to county taxpayers
[21:48] from around the whole county paying for
it. Um, and then the other issue comes
[21:54] in is this agreement.
Um, as I understand it, this is not just
[22:03] a proposal to
uh give $60,000 to the Lennox Ambulance
[22:09] District. There has also been a request
made of us to participate
[22:14] in this group of like 20 different
entities
[22:20] all the affected townships, the city of
Linux,
[22:24] Turner County. I mean there is a whole
host of them and there would be this
[22:28] committee of like 20 people as I
understand it. Um, I may not be
[22:37] precisely correct on that number of
entities, but I'm just reaching for that
[22:41] right now. It's it's all these entities
and they would be a partner to this
[22:46] contract
where the city of Linux would provide
[22:50] the service and then all these other
entities would come together and just
[22:54] pay for that service.
Um, what I'm concerned about though is
[23:01] that those entities,
even though they're paying the fee,
[23:06] they don't have governance authority
over the ambulance system.
[23:13] They pay the money, but they don't
control the system. In fact, I think the
[23:18] contract specifically says, Commissioner
Utten, that Linux would control that.
[23:26] So really, you're relying upon
whoever in the city of Lennox to make
[23:32] the policies and the procedures
as well as the oversight.
[23:38] But all the other participants, the
donor entities,
[23:43] they don't have any oversight over the
taxpayer money that leaves the taxpayer.
[23:50] So they would just we I am concerned
about setting up that kind of system
[23:59] where there is no end toend control from
where the money goes out of the taxpayer
[24:05] pocket to where it gets spent.
And I think the more effective approach,
[24:13] but also the one that ensures there is
taxpayer
[24:17] oversight,
is the ambulance district itself.
[24:24] » Uh, go ahead, Commissioner Aten.
>> So, you guys were dealing with this way
[24:28] before I showed up here two months ago,
and I'm under the impression that a
[24:32] taxing district was decided against
because it went fly. So, it just seems
[24:37] like it's a red herring thrown out there
on this issue. Uh, as did the governance
[24:43] of the board.
I'm pretty confident that some of these
[24:51] people contributing and being part of
this don't want to be running the
[24:55] amlets.
That's my information from one of the
[24:58] cities that they're not interested in
having a spot on a board or be in charge
[25:02] of running the amlets. Linux has done it
for a long time and have done a fine job
[25:06] of it.
>> And we're not voting on an ambulance.
[25:08] We're not making any decisions on an
ambulance. This is simply um reducing
[25:13] these budgetary amounts and then
allotting $60,000 for future discussions
[25:19] um regarding ambulance services. So, if
we could get move that off of the dime
[25:23] since we're not actually debating what
we're going to do um to get our budget
[25:29] uh finalized. And just to say when it
comes to the townships or the other
[25:33] entities, that's for Linux to deal with
them as to how that works out. I don't
[25:38] believe that's for us to make the
decisions for the townships of how the
[25:42] board is set up for them and what kind
of representation they have. They're
[25:45] contributing. That's something that they
can negotiate themselves. I'm focusing
[25:48] on Lincoln County's contribution.
>> Commissioner Schmidt, did you want to
[25:52] say something?
>> Well, yes, I do.
[25:56] » And I will afterwards if I can. Thank
you. Um
[26:01] we're up against the deadline here up
until the 31st of December and then that
[26:08] ambulance uh uh is cut off and remains
in the city of Lennox. So I mean it's a
[26:14] life or death issue in some some areas.
I congratulate Commissioner Utton for
[26:19] his endeavor to do this and what the
idea was that you tried to distribute
[26:26] this so it's equal so everybody pays
something. I mean I I I we had a meeting
[26:33] uh on an ambulance district earlier in
the year a couple years ago and that was
[26:39] the most one of the most inflammatory
meetings I think we've had on opposition
[26:44] to that. Now, maybe the temperature has
changed, but we're coming up with a sum
[26:49] of money that was talked about as
possible. Uh, county portion, that's
[26:55] all. And Commissioner Autton has found a
way in which to have that funds be
[27:01] available. Doesn't mean we're going to
spend it. Doesn't mean anything. It just
[27:05] means that we now have sequestered the
funds if we decided to go ahead with
[27:11] that proposal. So I think uh I don't see
anything wrong with putting that aside
[27:16] and saying that these funds are and and
I look at our staff for willingness to
[27:23] try and cut their own budget to get this
sum available. So I think we have a lot
[27:30] of goodness, a lot of wins right here.
So I don't have a problem with just
[27:34] passing this thing saying we got the
60,000 should we want it? if we got it.
[27:39] If we don't, we can we don't have to use
it. So, do you need a motion, Madam
[27:44] Chair?
>> I'd like to speak.
[27:46] » Oh, excuse me. I'm gonna Commissioner
>> Commissioner Putnham, go ahead. You have
[27:49] the floor.
>> Okay. I've just got to thank Herman for
[27:53] uh lowering the budget. He just helped
the 27 budget here by lowering it and I
[28:00] appreciate that.
And um I'm not
[28:07] I'm not a proponent at this time for
this. So
[28:15] » do you want us to take these peace meal
um
[28:20] for the record?
>> Any changes that you make to the budget,
[28:23] you'll have to do a motion on each item.
>> So for instance, treasurer reducing
[28:28] supplies.
>> No, you can do this in one.
[28:30] » Okay.
>> Yeah. So, should I do the reductions and
[28:33] then if we do if somebody wants to make
a motion on moving 60,000 to the
[28:37] ambulance do that separately
[28:44] have to do?
>> Does that make sense?
[28:48] » Well, give me a minute to think about
this. Okay.
[28:53] » Well, what's wrong with making a motion
on this handout? Just say make this
[28:58] handout a
>> Yeah,
[29:00] » that's my question. Incorporate that
into the budget.
[29:03] » That's my question.
>> In writing. Yeah.
[29:05] » Well, and then I I will I'll have it in
the minutes like this. So,
[29:08] » Sure. Okay. Well, if we're going to do
one felt swoop on this, um, then I would
[29:14] take public input on what Commissioner
Atten has presented.
[29:23] Is there public input on what
Commissioner Aten presented?
[29:29] If not, is there a motion?
>> I would so move, Madam Chair.
[29:34] » Thank you. Is there a second?
>> I will second.
[29:38] And so just to clarify the motion, it's
to reduce
[29:42] uh what's on the sheet by the amounts
indicated, leave all the other economic
[29:47] assistance at the 2026 levels and then
move that savings to an ambulance uh
[29:54] line item that would be under other
economic assistance
[29:58] » or wherever I need to put it within the
general budget
[30:00] » or wherever Sherry needs to put it to be
in compliance with what she needs to do.
[30:06] Is that your motion, Commissioner Atten?
>> Yes, that's my second.
[30:10] » Or that's your second. So, Commissioner
Schmidt, is that your motion?
[30:13] » Yes.
>> Commissioner Atten, that's your second.
[30:15] Y
>> um Alicia, will you call the role?
[30:19] » Commissioner Putnham,
>> I guess I don't quite understand it all.
[30:24] Are we voting on this to give it to them
or what are we doing?
[30:28] » Voting to put it in the budget.
>> I restated the motion. So, that is the
[30:32] motion. Do you need it restated,
Commissioner Putnham?
[30:35] » Well, just restate it then. What did I
just ask? Okay. So, the motion, as I
[30:40] understand it, is to reduce the
departments by the amounts listed on the
[30:45] sheet that Commissioner Atten gave us,
to leave the other economic assistance
[30:50] levels at the 2026 levels,
and to move or add a 60,000 line item
[30:59] for ambulance, services, other under
other economic assistance, or whatever
[31:04] line item uh our auditor feels is
necessary to remain in compliance.
[31:11] That's the motion.
[31:16] » And then you're going to do public
comment.
[31:18] » I I did ask for public comment.
>> Yep.
[31:23] » Commissioner Putnham.
>> Well, I don't like the idea of moving
[31:27] 60,000 over there that isn't even
budgeted yet. So, no.
[31:33] » Schmidt,
>> yes.
[31:34] » Arenss,
>> yes.
[31:36] » Uton,
>> hi.
[31:37] » Landing. Yes. Motion carries.
All right. Any other commissioners on
[31:41] any other budgeted items on changes that
they want to make?
[31:46] Is it appropriate, Madam Chair, to talk
about before we begin how our staff has
[31:53] worked very hard on reducing the budget?
>> You you can certainly say whatever you
[32:00] would like to say. I' I've offered to
have department heads come up and
[32:03] address their budget and explain that,
but sure. Go ahead. Um, but I would like
[32:08] to stay focused on what we're doing
here, which is um, pro approving our
[32:12] budget or not approving.
>> Talking about changes from the original
[32:16] budget that various uh, departments have
made. For example, the sheriff's
[32:22] part-time wages have gone down. Uh, the
jail overtime wages have gone down and
[32:28] jail health insurance has gone down. Our
PNZ has gone down. Uh we have had many
[32:35] different changes and when I added all
them up that came to over $200,000 worth
[32:41] of actual cuts that our uh staff has
made in their operation and their
[32:47] departments and I think that shouldn't
go unnoticed. So I would commend them
[32:53] for what they've done. So I just like to
make that statement. The other one is I
[32:58] want to talk before we get into the
budgets
[33:01] uh before so everybody can understand
that this budget process just didn't
[33:07] happen by accident. So when the budget
begins back in February 3rd, there has
[33:14] been 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13
meetings of the budget committee that
[33:24] every budget that is presented by a
department head has gone over has been
[33:30] has been uh looked at not only by
themselves but by the other department
[33:35] heads. So there's a lot of internal
things when this budget is finally
[33:40] prepared. There are a lot of questions
that were asked by department heads of
[33:45] each other as to the relevance of the
money that they were asking for. So I
[33:50] mean it just isn't that uh they come out
of this thing with a wish list. It's a
[33:55] very serious thing. I commend each
department head and I commend our
[33:59] auditor for how well this thing is has
been gleaned through. So when you see
[34:05] these numbers that are in front of us
this morning, they have been looked at
[34:10] and relooked at and they're real. So
whatever we decide or the commission
[34:16] decides to do with them is another
thing. But I just want to commend our
[34:20] audit committee and our auditor for hard
work in putting this thing together.
[34:25] Thank you.
On July 15th, there was a budget
[34:30] published.
And then on July 30th, there was another
[34:34] budget published.
And if you look at
[34:40] this is dated now, August 18th.
You heard the auditor say what the only
[34:46] changes were. There was a reduction in
the HR and then one other line item. And
[34:52] then there's been the ones we've made
today, but
[34:58] there may have been some minor
reductions in
[35:02] line items contained within the budget,
but here's what the numbers state.
[35:11] These are the largest departmental
increases in order for the top five from
[35:17] July 15th to July 30th.
Sheriff's Office started out at 4.8
[35:23] million and on July 30th it went to 5.5
million. That's an overall increase in
[35:32] 621,000.
[35:35] On July 15th, the state's attorney's
office started out at 3.2.
[35:41] July 30th, 3.4 139,000. Planning and
zoning 445
[35:48] to 566 that's 120,000.
Jail increased by 120,000.
[35:56] Auditor increased by 57,000.
[36:01] Now what drives some of that? Uh some of
that is being driven by the wage study
[36:10] we did. that was that was an input that
was not available to us back on uh July
[36:19] 15th
that was feathered in later on. So
[36:24] you've got person this personnel
category 41
[36:29] got salaries overtime part-time wages
OASI retirement workers comp and health
[36:35] insurance
um and so uh yes
[36:43] some of the department heads
made cuts
[36:48] but overall
the at least for those five departments
[36:53] they are an overall increase.
And just for those five departments
[37:00] alone,
that's a general fund increase of uh if
[37:06] I'm doing my math right, about $1.2
million increase
[37:12] on that personnel, excuse me, for all
departments. For the personnel, excuse
[37:16] me, for all departments.
[sighs]
[37:19] So,
um any
[37:24] any um statements that would suggest
that the budget is being cut,
[37:32] uh
you have to take into consideration
[37:38] that there's almost a 6.3%
increase of money coming out of the
[37:45] general fund.
uh and going towards these expenditures.
[37:52] So I would just caution
that we be careful about making any
[37:59] assertions that the overall budget is
going down. The overall budget is going
[38:03] up, not down.
And then additionally, and what I have
[38:09] concern about is we have we're using $11
million out of our reserve fund to help
[38:17] balance our budget
and most families don't do that
[38:24] and most businesses don't do that.
We're using a lot of money, $11 million
[38:34] to fund. Some of that is for ongoing
expenses
[38:39] and some of that is for one-time
expenditures.
[38:43] And my concern about the overall
sustainability of a budget in which
[38:49] reserves need to be used to pay for
ongoing expenditures.
[38:54] You wouldn't run a business like that.
You definitely wouldn't run your family
[38:58] budget like that.
>> And so
[39:01] » what changes what changes do you want to
make to the budget, Commissioner Erands?
[39:05] » I've made I've tried to make budgets for
changes for the last seven years and
[39:09] they get shot down.
>> Well, let's hear them.
[39:12] » So,
okay,
[39:14] » let's go.
>> Let's Let's do this. Um, I just want to
[39:19] let you know this probably take about an
hour or two.
[39:22] » That's fine.
>> Okay.
[39:23] » Got time.
[39:29] » [snorts]
>> Start on page one, August 18th. It's
[39:33] page one of 61
[39:38] under that's the general fund revenues.
[39:44] Page two is the
just a continuation of that. Page three,
[39:51] Board of Commissioners Personnel
Services
[39:57] Salaries and wages
for next year are scheduled to go up
[40:03] 6.53%.
[40:08] I don't know of anybody
in society today who's getting a 6.53%
[40:16] increase.
[40:21] I don't even know why that was proposed
or who put that in here. That is so out
[40:27] of step with what's going on with family
budgets today. Why elected county
[40:33] commissioners
need to have a 6.53%
[40:37] pay raise.
>> Commissioner Erenss, you also have
[40:40] Paul's wages in there.
>> Okay. But I'm looking at Yeah, I'm
[40:44] looking at personnel services.
What page are you on? And wages are all
[40:51] part of that.
>> So why are his ser Why are why is his
[40:56] line item with our line item then?
>> Because he's under your budget.
[41:01] » Okay.
>> And that's wages.
[41:03] » Well, I don't think any county employee
should be getting a 6.53%.
[41:10] » No offense, Paul.
>> He would be getting a It would be
[41:12] budgeted. All county wages were budgeted
for 3% cola and 2.5% step.
[41:18] » Yeah. And it rounds up, it says 6.53%
here. That's five. There's a com there's
[41:26] a increase for commissioner wages
because what we've historically done is
[41:31] we take the commissioners or elected
officials and we give them the 5.5%
[41:36] for budgeting
um increase to match the what we are
[41:41] budgeting for the employees.
>> Well the county you asked for the
[41:47] changes and thank you for the
clarification.
[41:49] » What is the change commissioners? Well,
the county commissioner should be
[41:53] flatlined and not receive any increase.
[42:04] Are you going to make a motion on each
page that you're going through? And I
[42:07] think that's probably what we're going
to want to do if these are going to be
[42:10] extensive. So, and I'm writing them down
as we go. So,
[42:13] » I move to flatline the commissioner
salary for next year.
[42:19] Well, typically before we take motions,
we hear public comment.
[42:26] Is there public comment on what
Commissioner Erands proposes?
[42:34] » Lendon Montgomery, Fairview, South
Dakota. I think that is a very prudent
[42:39] suggestion and I'd like to see it
passed.
[42:43] So, you are
um any other public comment?
[42:52] » I appreciate too looking at I'm sorry,
Beth Quail, Harrisburg. Um appreciate
[42:56] looking at the budget and try to cut
some items. I would also wonder why we
[43:00] can't see the budget. understand it's
online, but here as a meeting and we're
[43:05] the um taxpayers, why don't we have a
copy of the budget on the screen that we
[43:10] can see what's going on? Thank you.
>> Make that happen.
[43:17] » All right. So, any other public comment?
All right,
[43:22] » Madam Chair, I have a question.
>> What's your question?
[43:25] » Well, are we going to vote on every
change that Commissioner Eron wants? I
[43:30] would rather have him go through his
entire changes to the overall budget and
[43:36] then react to that rather than going uh
change by change by change.
[43:42] » I think the way that we should do it is
by each um department number and then we
[43:48] can do it page by page, but
>> I don't I think it's too much to keep
[43:52] track of to talk about it overall.
>> Yeah.
[43:55] » Okay.
>> There's some stuff that you may not want
[43:57] to do. Commissioner Erenss, you were
making a motion. Is that your only
[44:00] motion under the board of commissioners
is to uh leave that flat?
[44:06] » Um
>> I second
[44:08] » as the 2026 amount.
>> That's the only one on that line item.
[44:14] » Okay. Well, what other changes do you
want to make to that on page three?
[44:18] » Well, I'm making that motion the way it
is.
[44:21] » All right. So, there has been a motion
made. Is there a second?
[44:25] » I second it. Got a motion and a second.
Alicia, you'll call the role.
[44:29] » Commissioner Putnham,
>> yes.
[44:31] » Schmidt,
>> no.
[44:32] » Arens,
>> yes.
[44:34] » Hi.
>> Landing?
[44:35] » Yes. Motion carries.
Other changes that you'd like to make on
[44:41] the board of commissioners department.
>> Go down to the bottom.
[44:47] I see all of these subscriptions on
there to the Canton Chamber of Commerce,
[44:54] the Sou Falls Development Foundation,
the Beersford Chamber, the Harrisburg
[44:59] Chamber, the Lennox Chamber, the Tea
Chamber, the Sou Falls Chamber,
[45:04] and then the South Dakota Association of
Counties and Niko Dues.
[45:13] And really the question I bring up more
of a rhetorical question is
[45:19] why do we just spend money with chambers
of commerce?
[45:25] There's other organizations. There's the
Lions Club. There's the Rotary. I could
[45:29] go on. There seems to be this belief
somehow that government needs to be
[45:35] embedded with the Chamber of Commerce.
And I just don't believe
[45:42] that we should be spending government
money
[45:45] to these organizations.
There's all kinds of organizations we
[45:49] could be involved in, but I want to this
thing here, the South Dakota Association
[45:54] of Counties
and Niko Dues, $15,000.
[46:02] And then we send property taxpayer money
to the association of counties
[46:08] and then they go up there and they lobby
for the things that their board of
[46:12] directors says we should do.
But sometimes it's against the interest
[46:17] of taxpayers.
So we're using taxpayer money to lobby
[46:21] against taxpayers.
Even Ronald Reagan was against taxpayer
[46:26] funded lobbying back in the 80s as
president of the United States. Well,
[46:31] it's a good example to follow. So, my
motion is to remove spending
[46:39] for all of those organizations on there.
>> Is there a second?
[46:46] » I second it.
>> Got a motion and a second. Any
[46:50] discussion,
>> Madam Chair?
[46:53] » Go ahead. So can somebody explain to me
then exactly the
[46:59] SDACCC and the NAO dues how that is
utilized for the benefit of Lincoln
[47:06] County.
>> Commissioner Schmidt, would you like to
[47:09] address that?
>> The county association is your voice of
[47:14] county government. It looks out for all
of the different things that the state
[47:18] tries to put un unfended mandates that
are re that counties have to pay for. I
[47:24] think it's extremely nearsighted not to
be a part of that. And the reason your
[47:29] sum is there is because it's based on a
per capita basis and because Lincoln
[47:34] County is the third largest county, one
would expect that our dues would be
[47:38] there. As far as the national
association, the counties are concerned.
[47:42] They are the ones that look out for us
on a national level. They are the ones
[47:47] that put money aside for counties to do
all kinds of things. For example, you
[47:53] got it may not affect us, but they have
a PILT thing which affects the counties
[47:58] in the West River. It may not affect
Lincoln County, but overall that one
[48:03] there is the one that provides us with a
voice on a national level. So, if you're
[48:09] going to be a participant, you're going
to be a county, you're going to be an
[48:12] isolated island by yourself. And as far
as lobbying against each uh something of
[48:18] the taxpayers, I don't think so. I think
if you look at this association and the
[48:24] things that they've lobbied against and
prevented from happening, it would have
[48:28] cost the taxpayers if we'd have been
sitting out there on an island by
[48:32] ourselves. And they said, I'm not
arguing about chambers of commerce.
[48:36] That's uh philosophical. But when it
comes to belonging to your state
[48:40] organization and your national
organization, I don't know of any other
[48:44] organization that does not want to
participate. So I think this is
[48:48] extremely nearsighted on our part. Um,
Commissioner Aten, for example,
[48:54] um, indigent legal services. The
Association of County Commissioners
[48:59] lobbyed
pretty hard to get the state to take
[49:03] back on um handling some of those
appeals so that it the counties weren't
[49:08] having to pay for those appeals. And
that was successful. And there is um
[49:13] there is now an indigent services that
the state is paying for which was an
[49:18] assistance to the counties and so it did
save the taxpayers money and so it is it
[49:25] is definitely a benefit uh to the
counties to belong to that. Um, as far
[49:31] as the board making a decision, the
board um votes on resolutions and things
[49:38] of that nature to move forward to the
entire
[49:43] um congregation of counties when we go
and have our meetings and then we sit in
[49:49] an auditorium and we vote and make
amendments on different resolutions. So
[49:54] to say that the uh board of directors
makes all these decisions, that's not
[50:00] true. Um, and I agree with Commissioner
Schmidt, the chamber. I mean, that is
[50:07] philosophical. I do support spending
those those monies um to be part of
[50:13] those things. However, if that's the way
this, you know, board wants to go, I'm
[50:18] fine with that. But I can't support
removing the association of county
[50:22] commissioners and the uh and the NAO
dues.
[50:26] » One other thing I neglected, if you
looked at our road and bridge fund, the
[50:30] amount of money that are that we've
received from counties have been through
[50:34] lobbying the state legislature
continually. And not only that, but our
[50:40] townships have appreciated our efforts
as well. So there's any number of
[50:45] things. I mean, I didn't we didn't come
prepared to find out all of the
[50:49] different things that come through our
lobbying effort or through our joint
[50:53] relationship with the association. So,
>> madam chair.
[50:58] » Yep. Go ahead, Commissioner.
>> All right. So, that was I was a little
[51:01] aware of most of that information. A lot
of that was um for the other
[51:05] commissioners and the audience of what
they do. I think being the only one that
[51:09] has served in Pier, um I do know the
worth and the value of what they do
[51:14] bring to the state capital and
advocating for counties. Um they've
[51:18] advocated for my bills and they've
killed my bills. So, uh they do pretty
[51:22] good work up there. I will not be
supporting this motion.
[51:27] » Thank you. If there's no further
discussion, Alicia, we call the
[51:31] » I I would like to weigh in on this.
>> Go ahead, Commissioner.
[51:35] » Have time here. Um,
I concur somewhat with Commissioner
[51:43] Smith on this deal, but
[51:48] is this something that we can take off
and then
[51:53] next year we can talk about it
>> we have a new commission?
[51:58] » We're h we're having our budget
discussion and setting the budget for
[52:02] the next commission right now.
Well, I guess I would be
[52:09] to taken everything off except maybe
that then.
[52:14] » Okay. Well, we're just voting on the
motion that Commissioner Arens made and
[52:18] that you seconded.
>> Okay. I second it then. We take it all
[52:22] off.
>> He I mean he can make a motion to amend
[52:25] the main motion and that's what it
sounds like you were trying to do.
[52:29] » There you go. You're so smart.
>> So, you'd like to make a motion to amend
[52:36] and take off all the chambers and then
leave the SDACC and NO dues on there.
[52:41] » Seven.
>> Yep. If they're if they're doing us a
[52:45] good job.
>> Now, Commissioner Smith did say that
[52:50] they lobbyed for the bridges,
roads and bridges, the state, but that
[52:57] actually to me shouldn't be nothing need
to be lobbied on. That should be a given
[53:02] that we have to take care of our roads
and our bridges and the state should be
[53:07] [clears throat] taken care of us.
>> Is there a second to the motion?
[53:10] » Second.
>> I got a motion to amend and a second.
[53:15] Alicia, we call the role on the
amendment.
[53:18] » Commissioner Putnham.
>> Yes.
[53:20] » Schmidt.
>> And the motion calls for
[53:23] » keeping
>> keeping on the association.
[53:27] Get rid of the rest.
>> Yes.
[53:30] Erands,
>> yes.
[53:32] » Aton,
>> nay.
[53:34] » Landing.
[53:40] » No. Motion carries.
[53:45] So, as amended,
[53:50] we need to vote.
[53:56] Alicia, we call the roll.
>> Commissioner Putnham.
[54:00] I guess. Yes.
>> Schmidt.
[54:02] » Yes.
>> Arens.
[54:03] » Yes.
>> Uton.
[54:05] » Hi.
>> Lending.
[54:06] » Yes.
>> Motion carries.
[54:23] » Oh Jesus.
>> My apologies. We'll do that moving
[54:27] forward.
All right. All right, Joel, go ahead.
[54:30] » Have it now.
[54:36] » What's the What page are we on now?
>> Well, that's up to Commissioner Erands.
[54:42] He's going through the changes that he
wants to make.
[54:47] » Now, the other changes I'm concerned
about here are by department.
[54:54] So can just for simplicity for me if you
want to change it by department can we
[54:59] do it if you don't want to do it by
page can we do it by maybe personnel and
[55:06] then other and then capital improvement
by
[55:08] » I think yeah I understand what you're
saying so for instance we made changes
[55:13] when I look at the department category
411 board of commissioners and we made
[55:17] those changes
>> so
[55:21] now I'm asking what is the next
department. So, for example, on
[55:24] » next department of states attorney.
>> What page is that on?
[55:28] » Page nine.
>> All right. So, then everybody go to page
[55:31] nine.
>> Okay. Gotcha.
[55:33] » And that's department 4151.
>> Yep. Okay.
[55:37] » Go ahead, Commissioner Erenss.
[55:41] » There was an increase between July 15th
and July 30th of 139,000.
[55:49] Now, their original budget increase to
that 3 point,
[55:54] excuse me, use the wrong one. And what
I'm concerned about is the adding of F
[56:01] new FTEES
into the county. And that's going to be
[56:06] my concern with most of these
departments. Well, just two, sheriff's
[56:10] department, state's attorney. What I'm
concerned about is adding in too many
[56:14] new FTEEs.
And so for right now, I want to roll
[56:19] back all those FTEES in the state's
attorney's office. We can look at it
[56:24] next year, but my motion is no new FTEEs
in state's attorney's office.
[56:32] » Well,
okay. So, is there some monetary amount
[56:37] that we can associate with that? Drew,
are there FTEEs built?
[56:42] » And thank you for bringing that up,
Commissioner Erenss. I actually had a
[56:45] discussion with commissioner was that
yesterday that Tom was reviewing whether
[56:49] those actually were a need and so he was
possibly going to be coming before the
[56:53] commission and asking to cut those out.
Um if I may if we could obviously you
[56:59] don't have to pass the budget uh but if
we could have some time for us to review
[57:03] our case load and uh come back to the
commission and possibly cut those out at
[57:07] a later meeting.
>> Okay, good. Uh, next to the sheriff's
[57:14] department.
>> Page.
[57:17] » Page number.
>> Yep. One second, please.
[57:36] 20.
Thank you.
[57:42] I did not have page 20.
>> Yeah, I see it.
[57:49] Went too far.
[57:53] Concerned about the FTEES here as well.
I'd like to have a discussion about
[57:58] that. It's a pretty big increase.
I can understand
[58:05] increasing deputies, but there's been,
if I recall correctly in my notes here,
[58:11] there's also an increase in corrections
officers. Is that correct?
[58:17] We call them COS.
>> Page 20.
[58:21] » Page 20.
>> 20. Okay.
[58:24] » Good morning, Sheriff.
>> Good morning, Steve Spencson, Lincoln
[58:26] County Sheriff. Okay. So, CO would not
be in the sheriff's budget. They'd be in
[58:30] the jail budget.
>> Okay. in the jail budget. And how many
[58:34] new COs are contemplated in your budget?
>> Two.
[58:40] » Okay.
[58:43] Now, our jail numbers have stayed
relatively flat over the course of the
[58:47] last year, if not have probably gone
down over the last two years. Right.
[58:52] » Commissioner Ers, are you moving to a
different item? Right now, we're on the
[58:55] sheriff's budget.
>> My apologies. I'm on the issue of
[58:59] corrections officers, which I was just
informed fall under the jail budget. So,
[59:05] we got to turn actually to page
[59:14] 22.
Page 22.
[59:25] So we're under department 4212 right
now.
[59:33] So just personnel services alone in the
jail from last year to this year
[59:40] um are increasing by 64%.
They're going from 862,000
[59:49] to 1.4 4 million
[59:53] and essentially so that's a 64%
increase. I understand the reason for
[59:59] the increase for some of that is current
personnel will be receiving
[1:00:05] um increase in salary wages and
benefits. I get that part and that's
[1:00:11] fine. But what I'm concerned about is
adding new FTEES.
[1:00:16] And so, um,
we've decreased our jail numbers or
[1:00:22] they've stayed relatively flat, but now
we're adding more correctional officers.
[1:00:29] Um, I'd like to get a better
understanding of that.
[1:00:34] » Okay. It's it's it's fairly simple. With
the new courthouse being built, uh we're
[1:00:38] going to be covering more courtrooms,
triple the courtrooms, and we have now a
[1:00:44] control room that we have to uh staff
during business hours, which will take
[1:00:49] up to two people. We have front
security. And then we move remove the
[1:00:55] redundancy that my office is the
sheriff's office people will be
[1:01:00] separated from the jail people. So, we
don't have the the backup with the
[1:01:04] people in the current office. So, I
honestly think two is going to be a
[1:01:09] stretch to be able to cover all this,
but that's our ask is two FTEEs to help
[1:01:15] cover the additional courtrooms, the
control room, uh, and the other
[1:01:21] functions that we do. We also have the
the, uh, sex offender registration, uh,
[1:01:26] fingerprinting, pistol permits.
They do a a gamut of things, but adding
[1:01:32] two to to
uh cover that new building is probably
[1:01:37] not enough.
>> Now, just mechanically in terms of the
[1:01:41] actual flow that
undergirds the premise of needing more
[1:01:47] people, what you're saying is the judges
are actually going to be processing more
[1:01:55] criminal defendants than what they do
now.
[1:01:59] because that's not the case. I mean, the
case load is the case load uh the case
[1:02:05] load today or the case load on on the
first week in November is going to be
[1:02:10] relatively the same as the case load on
the third week in November when we're
[1:02:15] moved into the courthouse.
So, in terms of the there won't be an
[1:02:21] increase in the number of criminal
defendants that have to be moved around,
[1:02:25] will there?
No, but the Well, no and yes. Depends on
[1:02:30] if who they keep in jail and don't keep
in jail. Those numbers traditionally go
[1:02:34] up. For whatever reason, we've we've
stayed flat or even gone down. However,
[1:02:40] the the court cases,
[1:02:44] the the courts here, magistrate, circuit
court, uh divorce court, those cases
[1:02:50] continually go up and we still have to
cover those courtrooms for security. uh
[1:02:55] the the but people in jail and the the
increase in court doesn't correlate with
[1:03:01] the people in jail.
So if I if I come here to contest a
[1:03:05] speeding ticket, we have a deputy in
there for security uh sentencing, etc.
[1:03:11] So if there we've increased the
courtrooms, uh I'm assuming we're going
[1:03:14] to have to cover those. So the the
number of people in jail does not
[1:03:19] correlate with the increase in cases
because there is an increase in cases
[1:03:22] and it increases annually.
>> I think there is an overall increase in
[1:03:28] the number of cases.
That just goes without saying. Um, my
[1:03:35] concern here is that the request is not
commensurate with the way that we're
[1:03:41] going to be moving people through the
courthouse over there cuz essentially
[1:03:45] we're going to be moving people through
the courthouse over there in terms of
[1:03:50] numbers the same way that we've moved
them through this courthouse. Not true.
[1:03:55] We have we have a uh we have a control
room now that all all movement from for
[1:04:00] inmates through the court court system
and back into the to the holding area
[1:04:05] for the thing is is secured and has to
be um monitored by the control room
[1:04:13] doors opened elevators uh allowed to
operate. So that is a is a new task that
[1:04:18] we that's been put on us which is going
to take a is going to take a person.
[1:04:23] [snorts]
No, I get that, Sheriff, and I
[1:04:25] appreciate that. But that's the
schematics and the layout, but the
[1:04:30] number of people won't be increasing.
>> I mean, you're going to see general
[1:04:35] annual increases,
>> right?
[1:04:38] » But, but you're just cuz we're moving to
a new building doesn't mean we have more
[1:04:43] defendants coming to see us.
>> Correct. So, so, so we don't have a
[1:04:48] control room in this building,
>> right? So we don't have to man that.
[1:04:53] There is a control room in the new
building. We will have to man that.
[1:04:58] » And who and who is that being manned by?
>> I would call him a court or a
[1:05:04] corrections officer, courtroom security
officer. And we call them cos.
[1:05:08] » And are we taking that out of Hyde or is
that a new FTE position as well?
[1:05:13] » That would be one of the positions that
I need.
[1:05:16] » Okay. in addition to what I have. We're
underst staffed in that area currently
[1:05:21] now.
>> Yeah. So, we hire one new correctional
[1:05:25] officer for the control room. I get that
part. But the current existing
[1:05:31] correctional officers that are used to
handle defendants in this building will
[1:05:36] now just instead report to a different
building. Right.
[1:05:40] » Correct. And so their numbers would we
we is that why you're why do you need
[1:05:48] the second correctional officer though?
[1:05:53] Okay. There's going to be some
redundancies
[1:05:55] if this if this control room co is sick
vacation it has to be manned. I mean,
[1:06:03] I'm I'm trying to simplify it to to but
but I and plus we have an additional
[1:06:10] what is there four courtrooms an
additional four courtrooms. So if
[1:06:15] clearly the judges are anticipating the
courts being busier. So if if now we
[1:06:20] have two courts in session versus
typically the one or or two but now we
[1:06:24] have two or three.
Again each courtroom requires security.
[1:06:32] So essentially because of this new
control room concept, in order to make
[1:06:38] this thing work, because of that
building design over there, we're stuck
[1:06:43] with having to hire two new correctional
officers. Is that what I'm hearing?
[1:06:48] » That's what you're hearing.
>> Okay.
[1:06:54] And I thought this $54 million building
was going to help solve problems.
[1:07:00] Now it's just creating more more. It's
actually creating more spending. I think
[1:07:05] it does help with some problems. Don't
get me wrong.
[1:07:09] » It it's going to be a much safer
building than we currently have.
[1:07:13] » So the control room is a big part of
that.
[1:07:15] » Any other cuts or questions that you
want on the jail budget? Commissioner
[1:07:19] Ers.
>> Oh, that was the two that was that was
[1:07:22] the issue.
>> Okay.
[1:07:23] » That was the correctional officer issue.
I guess I got the answers. I obviously
[1:07:27] don't like them, but I understand it
now. Thank you.
[1:07:30] » No, and I appreciate that.
>> Next department.
[1:07:35] » Well, we got the sheriff's office up
there, so let's just keep going with the
[1:07:39] sheriff.
>> All right, so we're going to backtrack
[1:07:42] to page
20.
[1:07:49] » Okay,
[1:07:52] » so pretty big. How many new FTEEs are
you asking in the sheriff's office and
[1:07:58] what kind are they?
>> We're asking for two deputy positions
[1:08:02] and a administrative assistant. The
reasoning for the administrative
[1:08:06] assistant is because we're losing an
administrative assistant to the new
[1:08:10] building who who takes care all the jail
admin
[1:08:15] paperwork. Uh which is going to create
us not having
[1:08:21] staff to cover the front desk.
Now, we can cover that front desk with a
[1:08:27] deputy at lunch or if we have a uh
our our administrative assistant is out
[1:08:34] on leave, we can we can cover it with a
with with a uniform person. It's not
[1:08:39] ideal. Um
[1:08:44] » Commissioner Erenss, when you're looking
at um Sheriff Swinson's budget for the
[1:08:49] the biggest part of the salary increase
is going to be the pay study. Yeah, I I
[1:08:54] get it. I I And like I said, I
understand that part. That's been
[1:08:59] resolved. What I'm talk, you know,
when you have a family, you talk about
[1:09:06] the mouths you're going to feed before
you talk about the new ones.
[1:09:10] And I want to talk about the new ones.
Um
[1:09:15] the administrative assistant. So,
walk me through how this administrative
[1:09:22] assistant needs to be used over in this
new courthouse.
[1:09:27] So, so they do all the morning bookings,
uh, uh, the billing for Mia County, the,
[1:09:34] uh, 24/7,
uh, accounting, the, uh,
[1:09:39] electronic monitor accounting,
uh, reconcile accounts.
[1:09:45] in in the age of like computers and the
internet and all of that people working
[1:09:51] remotely can't this person just do their
current functions that they serve over
[1:09:57] here
you know in term with the exception of
[1:10:01] an you know somebody walking up to the
front door with the exception of that
[1:10:06] which is a you know you got to be there
physically they can continue to do all
[1:10:11] the same things they're doing here with
the exception of greeting people over in
[1:10:15] a different location, right?
>> Are if you're asking if the jail
[1:10:21] administrator could stay in this
building and and cover the front,
[1:10:25] » they could do it from the new building,
right?
[1:10:28] » That's what we're doing.
>> But then why do you need a new one? Why
[1:10:32] do you need another administrative
assistant?
[1:10:35] » Because of the the foot traffic we get
into the sheriff's office. Uh they do
[1:10:41] so the administrative assistant for the
sheriff's office does all the
[1:10:44] bookkeeping, paying bills, uh answering
phones. So and and I'm okay with not not
[1:10:51] adding a second one if it's if it's a a
budget critical item. However, it is
[1:10:57] going to have to be backfilled by
someone which will be a unformed member
[1:11:00] of the sheriff's office.
When you say back filled,
[1:11:06] you mean eight hours a day?
[1:11:11] There's going to it's on a day-to-day
basis, it would not be 8 hours a day.
[1:11:15] » Okay.
>> But it's going to be a few hours a day
[1:11:17] because there's no way one
administrative assistant can handle all
[1:11:19] the traffic that comes into this office
uh by by themselves.
[1:11:24] » Yeah. I don't like the idea of uniform
personnel who ostensibly are going to be
[1:11:29] Well, is that uniform person conducting
patrol?
[1:11:34] » Very well could be.
>> Okay. So, it's a it's a sheriff's
[1:11:40] deputy,
>> correct?
[1:11:42] » Back fill it.
>> Okay.
[1:11:45] [sighs] I just I've got concern that the
new building is not resolving some of
[1:11:51] these financial challenges.
Um, and then there's a request for what?
[1:11:56] Two new patrol deputies.
>> Correct.
[1:11:59] » Okay. And what's the rationale behind
that?
[1:12:02] » Just the the continued increase in calls
for service, population growth.
[1:12:11] » Well, my motion would be to reduce a a
uh
[1:12:17] administrative assistant for now. Let's
see how it works out. give it a few
[1:12:22] months with the transition to the new
building and we can always come back to
[1:12:26] it.
[1:12:33] » Do you want to address that?
>> And I'm okay with that. It's I I think
[1:12:37] it's going to be glaring glaringly
obvious, but I'm I'm okay with that. I
[1:12:41] mean, we we're moving in before the end
of the year. Um, I I have no issue
[1:12:46] coming back after we give it a couple
months
[1:12:50] or not coming back. Maybe it works out
great.
[1:12:56] » Other commissioners have questions for
our sheriff.
[1:13:04] » Right. Any other items on uh under
department 4211? Commissioner Erenss?
[1:13:09] » Nope. That's it.
>> Okay. Anybody else?
[1:13:12] All right. Any public input on the 4211
budget?
[1:13:19] » Do we have a second?
>> Well, I usually take public
[1:13:24] motions.
>> Okay.
[1:13:27] » All right. If not, um, is there a
motion?
[1:13:30] » Motion is to remove the administrative
assistant from the sheriff's budget.
[1:13:34] » We need a dollar amount. No. Okay.
>> I second.
[1:13:38] » Got a motion and a second. Any further
discussion? Madam Chair,
[1:13:43] » go ahead, Commissioner.
>> So, I am I'm probably not going to
[1:13:46] support this one either. I'm a little
concerned with what uh the sheriff had
[1:13:51] to how he had described that this is
going to be handled and by taking a law
[1:13:55] enforcement officer off of the streets.
I don't know if that uh really benefits
[1:14:00] Lincoln County at all, especially when
we're adding two new deputies because of
[1:14:04] the need. So, um
I'm not going to support it.
[1:14:10] Other discussion?
I agree with you, Commissioner Aten. Um,
[1:14:16] our sheriff has done a lot to bring in
different revenues
[1:14:22] um to his department. He has taken cuts
when he if he doesn't need something, he
[1:14:28] gets rid of it. But when he needs
something, I really truly believe that
[1:14:31] he's telling us he needs it. And so, I'm
not going to support removing that from
[1:14:35] his budget.
Madam Chair, we all remember when all
[1:14:41] department heads came in and gave their
report on their department and what they
[1:14:47] were doing. And for anybody that was
listening to our sheriff and what he has
[1:14:52] accomplished in the past year since he's
taken over has been remarkable. I've
[1:14:58] never known him to ask for anything more
than what he ever needed. and as to
[1:15:03] support your statement, Madame Chair, if
he doesn't need it, he doesn't ask for
[1:15:07] it. So, I will not be supporting that at
all.
[1:15:12] » Alicia, will you call the role?
>> No, I'd like to speak then to
[1:15:16] » Go ahead.
>> Okay.
[1:15:18] Um,
I believe that if we wait for just a
[1:15:23] little bit and like he said, maybe it'll
work, maybe it won't, but
[1:15:29] um, let's just
try to make things work for a little
[1:15:34] bit.
So, I'm I'm I would support it.
[1:15:39] » Alicia, will you call the role?
>> Commissioner Putnham,
[1:15:43] » yes.
>> Schmidt,
[1:15:45] » no.
>> Arens,
[1:15:46] » yes. Autton.
>> Nay.
[1:15:48] » Lindy.
>> No. Motion fails.
[1:15:51] Next items you'd like to discuss if you
can go by department. Commissioner
[1:15:55] Arens.
>> There's uh
[1:15:58] there's a department
run by planning and zoning, but it's not
[1:16:03] in the planning and zoning budget.
I believe that it's uh run by the uh we
[1:16:11] had the presentation from the gentleman
who runs our GIS department
[1:16:17] » and what was contained in there was a
>> you want to find that for us?
[1:16:24] » Yeah.
[1:16:32] 17
>> 17
[1:16:35] » page 17.
>> Oh, sorry.
[1:16:42] » Do you want flood plane management or
GIS? Commissioner,
[1:16:45] » it's a flood plane management.
>> That's page 25.
[1:16:50] » What is
>> that's department 4223
[1:16:53] » and in flood plane 25. Page 25.
>> Okay. All right,
[1:16:58] » I'll let you get there.
[1:17:03] » Gotcha. Just let me know when you get
there.
[1:17:05] » All right, good to go.
>> Cuz I think one of my pages was in here
[1:17:10] backwards, too.
In flood plane management,
[1:17:17] there's a $100,000 line item in there.
And when our GIS flood plane manager was
[1:17:24] in here, um
I asked him, "What's that $100,000 for?"
[1:17:31] [clears throat]
And his his belief was that there is no
[1:17:36] specific
uh flood plane management project under
[1:17:41] consideration.
He didn't have any ideas um uh at the
[1:17:48] present for where that would be used.
and he's also new to the department. So
[1:17:53] he said that was a holdover from last
year. As you can see, there wasund
[1:17:58] $100,000 put into fees and contracts in
2026. None of it was used. It's now been
[1:18:06] requested for 2027,
but there's no identified project. And
[1:18:11] so I think at this time until and unless
there is an identified project
[1:18:17] uh for flood plane management we should
remove that from the budget. So my
[1:18:23] motion is now of course allow for
>> Commissioner Erons. Do you
[1:18:29] » I think those numbers are typically in
there for like
[1:18:33] I don't know when they do their
programming updates and stuff but if we
[1:18:38] don't I does anybody know the answer to
that? No.
[1:18:43] » It wasn't used last year.
>> Right. I see that. and uh and our flood
[1:18:49] plane manager
stated that there is no identified
[1:18:53] project. There's no use for the money.
>> So uh is any other questions that other
[1:19:00] commissioners have right now? I would uh
concur on this the fact that um
[1:19:08] my thoughts is if there is a problem
they come to commission and just ask for
[1:19:15] some money you know at a later date in
27
[1:19:19] » so they don't need to be in here.
>> Is there any public input? Is that the
[1:19:23] only one on this department?
>> Yes.
[1:19:26] » Okay. Any public input on the item?
[1:19:31] If not, is there a motion?
>> Motion is to remove the 100,000.
[1:19:36] » I second it.
>> All right, I've got a motion and a
[1:19:41] second. Any further discussion?
[1:19:45] If not, Alicia, we call the role.
>> Commissioner Putnham,
[1:19:49] » yes.
>> Schmidt,
[1:19:51] » yes.
>> Arens,
[1:19:52] » yes.
>> Auton. Hi.
[1:19:53] » Landing.
>> Yes. Motion carries.
[1:19:57] » [clears throat]
>> Next department, Commissioner Erenss,
[1:20:00] that you want to go through.
>> Planning and zoning.
[1:20:02] » Got a page number.
>> That was 36.
[1:20:07] » Yeah.
>> Is that 17? I
[1:20:09] » think it's 36. 37. 36. 36.
>> 36.
[1:20:16] » Okay.
[1:20:21] » Go ahead.
We are in department 4711.
[1:20:31] » Now again goes back to this issue of I
think there's some increase in here
[1:20:36] because of
[1:20:40] uh
salaries and wages and I don't know is
[1:20:45] there anybody from planning and zoning
here right now?
[1:20:48] » I guess
>> what is it you needed to know?
[1:20:50] » Not currently. What what is the issue
that you want to look at? Well, the
[1:20:52] issue is there's almost $120,000
increase from July 15th to July 30th.
[1:20:58] And I want to know why.
>> Commissioner, um I did just get a
[1:21:02] message. He might be on the phone, but
uh director uh Toby Brown said that he's
[1:21:07] not requesting an FTE. So, the increase
on the August 19th report is 19,000.
[1:21:14] » Okay.
>> So, he took out that FTE request. And
[1:21:17] has that been ref and I assume but I
better ask is that reflected in the
[1:21:21] August 18 in the version we have in
front of us now.
[1:21:25] » It looks like it because it looks like
the increase is 19,211
[1:21:29] » cuz and I guess
when [clears throat]
[1:21:34] earlier when the auditor was speaking
she said the only and I mean I get it
[1:21:38] there's lots of moving parts. The only
difference between the published version
[1:21:43] and this was something for uh reduction
in the HR and one other thing,
[1:21:50] » but I'm going to assume that uh Toby
removed that request then
[1:21:56] » there is there's currently no request
for a full-time employee.
[1:22:00] » Okay. There was previously though.
Right. Well, I I don't have one listed,
[1:22:04] but the problem with the personnel is we
if you're going from the 15th to the
[1:22:10] 30th to the day, there was calculation
errors and then we came in, we did the
[1:22:15] uh wage study and then so the personnel
is kind of a harder one to nail down to
[1:22:21] what it is. But I have not shown uh
requests for personnel and planning
[1:22:28] zone.
But Drew, you're saying that Toby
[1:22:31] removed that though.
>> And I just got again, he must be in a
[1:22:35] meeting. He's messaging me. Uh he said
there was never request. It must have
[1:22:38] been a calculation error of some kind
that was corrected.
[1:22:41] » Okay. Well, that's good then. $120,000
increase taken care of there.
[1:22:48] » All right. Any other thing under
planning and zoning, Commissioner, that
[1:22:52] you want to talk about?
>> Yeah, in the auditor's office, there was
[1:22:55] this increase of $57,000. I'm just
looking at planning and zoning. Anything
[1:22:59] there?
>> Nothing further in planning and zoning.
[1:23:01] » Okay. So, now you want to move to
auditor.
[1:23:03] » Yep.
>> Okay.
[1:23:05] » What number? What page number?
>> We got to go backwards.
[1:23:09] » Got to go towards the front.
>> Way back.
[1:23:21] » So, are you talking elections or are you
talking auditor?
[1:23:26] Well, talking the auditor, not the
elections. Seven.
[1:23:31] » Page seven.
>> Page seven.
[1:23:34] » Now, we have the auditor here. Maybe she
can answer this. This increase from the
[1:23:38] 15th to the 30th.
>> So, we're in department 4141.
[1:23:42] » Yeah. Um,
>> page number is
[1:23:45] » page seven.
>> And again, goes to the same question.
[1:23:49] There's this increase from the 15th to
the 30th of 57,000.
[1:23:54] Is that all attributed to the uh pay
increase the the wage study?
[1:23:59] » Yep. No, no employees.
>> Okay. Thank you. That answers that
[1:24:03] question. Thank you. Appreciate it.
[1:24:08] Next issue. Road and bridge fund
[1:24:13] page 39.
[1:24:21] » [cough]
>> I think we need to remove those two
[1:24:24] projects, the roundabout plan for
Western and uh remove the project down
[1:24:31] south there by Hudson on the curve.
That's my motion.
[1:24:36] » Can you give me the dollar amounts for
those?
[1:24:38] » I do not have the dollar amounts.
I think it may be subsumed within the
[1:24:45] line item of road projects,
but I can't confirm that. I'm just I
[1:24:52] have the same same line item as you in
front of you
[1:24:55] » for that one not being a employee that I
can remove. I would need to know what
[1:25:00] the dollar amount is you'd like to
remove,
[1:25:03] please.
>> Well, seemed like they talked like a
[1:25:08] million bucks. Well, we we need to come
back for our state's attorney on
[1:25:11] something. So, if we need to circle back
on roads and bridges to get those
[1:25:14] numbers,
um that might be the more prudent thing
[1:25:18] to do today.
>> Terry, Madam Chair,
[1:25:22] » Terry, do you want to come up?
[1:25:27] T flight highway superintendent.
[clears throat]
[1:25:31] Uh the Hudson project will be 1.1
[1:25:37] and the uh Western Avenue is 2.5.
>> Thank you. Terry
[1:25:42] » Terry was there.
>> Now also in if you're going to remove
[1:25:45] the Western one, you'll be removing 1.5
out of my revenue side.
[1:25:50] » Okay. Cuz that's a cost share, right?
Yes.
[1:25:55] » So, can you repeat those? 1.1 was for
which one, Terry?
[1:25:58] » That's for the Hudson project.
>> Okay.
[1:26:01] » Say Terry, was that to pull out both
sides of the curves or just one side?
[1:26:06] » Both sides. It's making it a straight T
intersection.
[1:26:10] » And then the 2.5 was Western Avenue.
>> Correct.
[1:26:13] » So, Western Avenue actually when you
take your revenue out, it's about a
[1:26:19] million dollars.
>> Correct. Okay.
[1:26:26] » [sighs]
[1:26:30] » Thank you.
>> I would um
[1:26:34] I guess if I'll maybe I'll wait well
I'll wait to see if you uh vote to cut
[1:26:37] that before I make another request.
Madam Chair, Terry,
[1:26:43] so to revisit the Hudson interchange
down there. I know I talked to you about
[1:26:47] this a little bit too and uh you had
mentioned about doing this and then a
[1:26:55] continuation of the highway and rebuild
that at some point in time. Can you tie
[1:27:00] that together?
>> Yeah. So, so initially we wanted to do a
[1:27:05] a full rebuild on that 3 and 1/2 mile
stretch which would include that north
[1:27:10] intersection going all the way down past
the ethanol plant um and then connecting
[1:27:15] to Highway 46. That would be that was
you know and this has been in our
[1:27:20] fiveyear for five years. Six years we've
been planning to do this as as a whole
[1:27:26] project. Um, initially when we started
this project on that, we were looking at
[1:27:32] about $5.5 million to rebuild uh that
three and a half mile stretch. Well, the
[1:27:39] further we get into it, costs are
raising. We're looking this is more that
[1:27:43] whole that whole stretch 3 and a half
mile rebuild on that is going to be
[1:27:47] probably closer to eight 8 to$9 million
now. So, this here would probably be
[1:27:53] phase one of that. Um, and again, if it
doesn't happen, then it gets pushed off
[1:27:59] and maybe and again, I don't
maybe it doesn't happen. Um, I know the
[1:28:06] the the the mainline stretch uh between
that intersection and the south
[1:28:10] intersection. Again, we had uh probably
about six or seven years ago, um, we had
[1:28:16] core samples done and and the reason our
asphalt isn't lasting down there is
[1:28:21] there's nothing underneath for base
under that. So, uh, we figure a full
[1:28:26] rebuild is the best we can do,
especially with all the heavy trucks
[1:28:29] down there. Um, so, you know, eventually
it would be nice to do do a project down
[1:28:36] there. Again, you know, this this would
be phase one. Uh, maybe be a couple more
[1:28:40] years before we could do phase two,
which would maybe be doing from the
[1:28:44] intersection down to the ethanol plant.
And then phase three would be from the
[1:28:49] ethanol plant to 46 or something. um
just to spread it out over the years. Um
[1:28:57] but again, it all depends, you know, and
and if it doesn't happen, it doesn't
[1:29:01] happen. Like I said, one of one of the
big reasons that this this project got
[1:29:06] moved up is we we we saw that we could
use it as phase one in this overall
[1:29:11] project, but also uh just the complaints
or not the complaints, but just the the
[1:29:16] the
uh the public comments we got on our
[1:29:21] safety plan uh with that intersection.
and and being that, you know, in my
[1:29:26] eyes, you know, if we want to if we want
to say we're going to move towards being
[1:29:31] building safer roads, then we need to to
be doing something with that instead of
[1:29:36] just having this nice beautiful plan and
just putting it on a shelf and not doing
[1:29:41] anything with it. So,
>> so
[1:29:45] the direction what
from what direction does the heaviest
[1:29:51] amount of traffic come from? Does it go
through that intersection or is that
[1:29:55] coming up south?
>> I think most of it uh I don't know. I
[1:30:00] would have to look at counts, but my
guess it's going to be coming from the
[1:30:03] Hudson area going south would be the
heaviest counts.
[1:30:09] » So,
>> but but but the last three years, you
[1:30:14] know, that that's all up in the because
we we have so much traffic coming from
[1:30:17] the west as well uh because 46 is
closed. But
[1:30:22] » so five years ago that project was
estimated at 5.5 million. Just so I got
[1:30:30] my numbers right. Today it would
>> Yes. The whole thing would be 5.5. Today
[1:30:34] we're looking at eight.
>> Probably closer to that. Yeah. And maybe
[1:30:37] even more for a full rebuild on three
and a half miles.
[1:30:42] » Okay. And that's my
>> and that would include that intersection
[1:30:46] doing mainline and then that would
include the south curve um south of the
[1:30:50] ethanol plant where it curves back to to
go back to the west. So
[1:30:56] » I'll save the rest of it for comments to
the motion.
[1:31:01] » All right. Uh first if there's no other
questions from commissioners for staff,
[1:31:06] is there any public input
on the road and bridge um fund
[1:31:13] department 4311?
[1:31:17] All right. If not, is there a motion? My
motion is to remove the $1.1 million for
[1:31:23] the Hudson project and the $2.5 million
for the Western Avenue project and
[1:31:32] subsequently remove the 1.5
in revenue because comes from a cost
[1:31:38] share with the Western project.
>> All right. Is there a second?
[1:31:43] » I'll second.
>> Got a motion and a second. further
[1:31:47] discussion from the commission.
>> I've had a number of people from down
[1:31:51] south come and talk to me about this.
They've talked about how it's been down
[1:31:55] there for 70 years. Uh after looking
into the safety issues, what were uh I I
[1:32:02] asked the question and never got an
answer to this is was it operator error
[1:32:07] or was it
road design?
[1:32:11] And in particular, if there was a
fatality or a crash there, was it a
[1:32:16] result of drunk driving?
And I've just had local people tell me
[1:32:23] that they believe it was a result of
operator error, i.e. drunk driving.
[1:32:30] We don't redesign roads because people
are inebriated or intoxicated. We have
[1:32:36] to take those people off the road. We
have to make it very painful to be a
[1:32:42] drunk driver.
That is not something this commission
[1:32:46] can do. All we can do is advocate
[clears throat] that the legislature
[1:32:50] makes it more difficult to drink and
drive. And I've talked to our state's
[1:32:55] attorney about this issue as far as the
intoxicated driving goes. Now, with
[1:33:00] regard to the road design, there's no
data showing that the road design
[1:33:07] is making it more unsafe.
And then that combined with locals down
[1:33:14] there, one of them is on serves on our
planning and zoning board telling me
[1:33:19] that that is not the issue down there.
There's an issue with increased traffic
[1:33:25] coming from from the Iowa side of the
border. And so
[1:33:30] the locals down there understand it.
They get it. They've made comments to me
[1:33:36] and they've asked me to carry this for
them. So that's what I'm doing.
[1:33:43] » Other commission
>> I would
[1:33:46] » discussion
>> say something here when I can
[1:33:49] » go ahead.
>> Okay. The when you're heading north and
[1:33:54] you're uh curving off to the right, I
can see that that's no problem
[1:34:01] whatsoever. It's the curving off to the
left
[1:34:05] which would be maybe if anything a
problem and that would be the only thing
[1:34:11] that could be looked at future but not
nowad
[1:34:18] » uh commissioner go ahead. So
I think my first conversation of the
[1:34:25] price increase of that over the last
five years is part of the dilemma of how
[1:34:30] how far we push a road project or any
project off due to the rising cost to
[1:34:36] complete the project later. I've been
down there and also looked at it and I
[1:34:40] would agree with Commissioner Putnham
that if you're heading north, the right
[1:34:44] hand turn is probably less dangerous
than the left. I mean, when you got corn
[1:34:49] up there, it's there's not a lot of
visibility and it has nothing to do with
[1:34:52] drunk drivers and and ultimately it
doesn't matter if the traffic is coming
[1:34:55] from Iowa, South Dakota, Minnesota, or
New York. Traffic's still on a Lincoln
[1:35:00] County road. So, um,
I could support
[1:35:07] not doing the roundabout, but I don't
think I can support not start working on
[1:35:12] that road down there because it's not
going to get any better. And if you go
[1:35:15] down past poet and stuff down there,
there might be an opportunity to work
[1:35:18] with them on on that. But at some point
in time, you you have to bite the bullet
[1:35:23] and you have to do the repairs. The
road's going to go sooner or later. So,
[1:35:28] um [snorts]
I will not support the main motion. If a
[1:35:32] follow up follow motion comes up with
the roundabout,
[1:35:36] » I would support that.
>> I withdraw the motion. Make a new
[1:35:40] motion. Commissioner Putnham, will you
withdraw your second? Yes, I will.
[1:35:45] » New motion is to just remove the
roundabout project and any associated
[1:35:50] cost and revenue that come with it.
So, $2.5 million expense from the
[1:35:56] roundabout and then 1.5 in revenue and I
move to remove that from the budget.
[1:36:02] » I've got a motion. Is there a second?
>> I'll second that, I guess.
[1:36:07] » Motion and second. Any discussion,
>> Madam Chair? Go ahead.
[1:36:14] » Well,
when this first became public about that
[1:36:19] we were not going to participate in this
roundabout,
[1:36:24] there are about 11,000 cars a day that
go through there. And I don't know, but
[1:36:30] I've had
I can't tell you how many phone calls
[1:36:34] from people who are very upset because,
you know, sitting in traffic all of the
[1:36:39] time. This is a joint project, a nice
joint project between the city and a
[1:36:45] limited amount from Harrisburg and from
the county. And when you look at the
[1:36:49] future, I know we've had an attempt at a
previous time to figure out how many
[1:36:56] people are going to use the Veterans
Highway. We have no quantifiable
[1:37:00] evidence as to how many of those 11,000
cars a day are suddenly going to be on
[1:37:06] the Veterans Highway. There will be
some. But on the other hand, when you
[1:37:11] look at the future of that area, when
you look at that corridor on 106, and
[1:37:17] you don't think that there's going to be
an everinccreasing number of people out
[1:37:22] there, our cars because of growth from
commercial development, from uh uh
[1:37:29] housing development that comes out
there, and look at that, and we're going
[1:37:33] to have a four-way stop sign. I mean,
how long of of a line do we want to
[1:37:39] have? It's a very efficient one. It's a
good way to move traffic. It's a safe
[1:37:44] way. And I think again, we're not
looking at the future at all about what
[1:37:51] how this will affect the growth,
economic development, and safety. So,
[1:37:56] I'm not in support of not building that.
>> And I would agree with you, Commissioner
[1:38:01] Schmidt. when you do the net and you
take the revenue off, the cost of this
[1:38:06] project right now is essentially $1
million. That intersection is a mess
[1:38:11] down there.
>> Um because coming off of Veterans to get
[1:38:16] on to 106. Um the lane changes are
confusing to say the least. The corner
[1:38:23] keeps getting what I'll say washed out.
I don't
[1:38:27] » I don't It's just a mess. when I go down
there in my opinion
[1:38:30] » I don't know how many times they've
replaced
[1:38:32] » so I think for a million dollars and
seeing that the city of Sou Falls isn't
[1:38:35] going to be doing anything there um for
what I recall was the foreseeable 20
[1:38:40] years um I think we would be remissed to
not do that project
[1:38:45] » so I'm not going to support the motion
either
[1:38:48] » I've traveled Can may I speak
>> you may
[1:38:52] » yeah go ahead
>> okay I've traveled that road many times
[1:38:55] I'm not that far from it and it's
amazing how well
[1:39:00] that they get through that stop sign.
It's very very coordinated.
[1:39:06] Uh people move pretty fast. Now, the
only other thing I could say is taking
[1:39:11] the stop signs away in the east and west
and leave the one to the north and the
[1:39:17] south. And somebody said, "Well, you
never get on it." Well, I've been backed
[1:39:23] up
on the west side going when I was going
[1:39:27] east past the
Oh, the roundabout. No. Well, not the
[1:39:34] roundabout, but you go up there and you
see all the storage units. I've been
[1:39:38] backed up to where I was behind the
storage units. And it took me about
[1:39:45] probably I'd say less than a couple
three minutes, four minutes to be up to
[1:39:50] the stop sign and moving,
you know. Um
[1:39:58] I just
[1:40:03] you know what's the
what is the speed limit there? It's 45.
[1:40:09] Is that correct? Yeah. See? And that's
not bad. If they put the stop sign there
[1:40:17] or took took the two stop line signs
out, people would move more
[1:40:24] freely, better. And I believe the people
coming off the Parkway or the Veterans
[1:40:30] Parkway will be able to get on. And
besides that, once the Veterans Parkway
[1:40:35] is done, then we don't have that issue.
And we don't need the stop sign going
[1:40:41] east and west.
[1:40:46] » Madam Chair,
>> any further discussion?
[1:40:48] » Madam Chair, we you bring up a good
point. We have an opportunity to put a a
[1:40:53] roundabout first class roundabout in for
$1 million. Now I can only rem how much
[1:41:00] we come back to revisit this thing how
much it would cost because we were we
[1:41:06] had did have roundabouts that we could
have put in several years ago but we got
[1:41:12] a vote and they were 800,000 bucks a
piece. So delaying something doesn't
[1:41:19] really being the wisest steward of
money. So I just think it's a million
[1:41:24] dollars a good investment. Jerry,
[clears throat]
[1:41:28] » just to address your your comments,
Commissioner Pum, many years ago that
[1:41:34] was just a two-way stop. There was no
four-way stop there. So, the 270 first
[1:41:39] went through. Um, the reason that it got
put to be a four-way stop is when that
[1:41:45] new school to the north there um got put
in, uh, traffic was not able to get on
[1:41:51] 271st from Western Avenue. So, that's
the reason that it went to a four-way
[1:41:56] stop because if you take those out now
with the amount of traffic that's
[1:42:00] running there, we will never get people
turning off a western and then and then
[1:42:05] you're going to have vehicles coming up
uh somebody going eastbound, they're
[1:42:10] going to want to make a left-hand turn
and they're going to sit there and wait
[1:42:12] and wait and wait and then people behind
them aren't going to see it and they're
[1:42:16] going to be we'll have we'll have
additional crashes there. If we're not
[1:42:19] paying attention, they're going to run
into the rear. So, so at this point,
[1:42:23] four-way is better than a two-way. And
again, you don't want to go backwards on
[1:42:28] this again just because of the amount of
traffic that's there.
[1:42:31] » Uh once the parkway is done, how will
that alleviate that?
[1:42:36] » So, if you read the studies about uh so
if you read our master transportation
[1:42:41] plan, this was completed 2018 2019. It
states in there there'll be a 50%
[1:42:48] reduction when MA when when Veterans
Parkway or S3 100 gets done. Well, when
[1:42:55] we did our our uh corridor study in
2022,
[1:43:00] that changed. It didn't say it was going
to be cut in half. It said it will be it
[1:43:04] will drop significantly, but dependent
on the amount of development that occurs
[1:43:11] adjacent to County Road 106. So the the
key the key here is going to be the
[1:43:17] amount of development and how quickly
that develops
[1:43:21] uh adjacent to 106
um even even after Veterans is open. If
[1:43:27] that if that starts developing
um then then then we're we're going to
[1:43:31] be in the same boat.
>> And I can believe that when it starts to
[1:43:35] develop. Yes. and and with with the
sewer project that's coming along uh on
[1:43:41] along there on for Sou Falls that uh
sewer basin project um that's that's
[1:43:46] going to be starting well it's starting
this fall here and then next year um
[1:43:51] once that gets completed then then
that'll be serviceable by the city of
[1:43:54] Sou Falls and then it could be whenever
so
[1:43:59] » and that Allora I think it's called that
big development down there is that
[1:44:05] » yeah so currently right now between
between Louise Avenue and Western
[1:44:09] Avenue. Um at the Allure development, uh
it's a half a section um south on the
[1:44:16] south side of uh 271st.
Um they'll be they'll be starting here
[1:44:21] very soon uh uh developing or or
building in there. Uh, also, uh, we I
[1:44:28] just got a traffic study, um, from a
developer in Sou Falls, the northwest
[1:44:34] corner of Western Avenue and 106. So,
where we're going to put this
[1:44:38] intersection where we want to, there's
going to be a huge uh, multi-
[1:44:44] multifamily housing development. It's a
big apartment complex that's going in
[1:44:48] there
>> just south of the school then.
[1:44:50] » Correct.
>> Okay.
[1:44:51] » On that corner? Yes. when
>> um potentially starting possibly next
[1:44:57] year. Again, I got the traffic study
about 3 months ago um from them and
[1:45:05] they've already completed that. So, so
with the URE development, uh there were
[1:45:09] there were three or four other
developments that went in on a traffic
[1:45:13] study and again these were mainly routed
through the city of Harrisburg. So,
[1:45:18] there is another development uh from
Western and 106 to the south going to
[1:45:22] south about a mile. I believe there's
another development that's going to be
[1:45:26] be starting up here down there as well.
>> When is the po proposed
[1:45:32] uh completion of the Veterans Highway?
[snorts]
[1:45:35] » Well, that that that's a DOT or city of
Sou Falls question. And I it keeps
[1:45:39] getting pushed off and and really um the
last I heard is the last segment which
[1:45:45] will be western to 220 or the 29. Um
that is starting they'll start
[1:45:51] construction on that in 28.
You
[1:45:55] » mean that the rest of that is in 28?
>> Yes. So from the segment from Western
[1:46:01] Avenue to 29,
>> they're they're tenatively looking at
[1:46:05] 2028 starting.
>> Um
[1:46:08] » so so as a part of that, Louise Avenue
will be closed for a while. So any any
[1:46:14] that that north south corridor will will
not be functional um because they'll
[1:46:19] have it closed for this veterans project
uh at that intersection of Veterans and
[1:46:24] Louise to the north of our roundabout
that is currently there. So,
[1:46:28] » city of Sou Falls
uh
[1:46:33] uh contacted you on
uh us possibly not and doing going to do
[1:46:40] this. Have they reached out to you?
>> Not doing
[1:46:45] the
>> not doing the roundabout one.
[1:46:48] » Have they uh have they reached out to
you?
[1:46:52] » I've been in conversation with them
about this.
[1:46:54] » Yeah. Did they
seem a little distraught about that?
[1:47:00] » Um, I never I never really heard any I I
don't get that feeling because it
[1:47:05] because it's not theirs. Um because it's
our it's our road. So I to them I guess
[1:47:12] you know because because at the end of
the day I guess uh when calls start
[1:47:16] coming in it's going to come into us and
not them. But now the city of Sou Falls
[1:47:22] and we we ended up with the jurisdiction
basically
[1:47:28] the the north half is they have control
and um so I just didn't know if they
[1:47:38] were
>> No. No. So I was the one that contacted
[1:47:43] them about this about doing
[clears throat] this project initially.
[1:47:46] Um, and again it was either late last
year, I think it was. Um, they didn't
[1:47:51] contact me. I contacted them because I
seen the need up there. I was I would
[1:47:56] been through that intersection at peak
hours and and sit in line there for four
[1:48:00] or five minutes or 6 minutes. Um, and I
just it's like this needs something
[1:48:06] needs to happen here. Um, and I've
gotten I've gotten several phone calls,
[1:48:11] not not that many, but a few, uh, from
individuals that that want to know if
[1:48:15] something's going to happen there.
[1:48:20] » All right. Any other commissioner
discussion?
[1:48:23] » I recognize that uh there's been some
phone calls asking for some something to
[1:48:29] be done at that intersection. There's
also been uh
[1:48:33] a tsunami of communication
about getting the budget under control
[1:48:39] as well. So, you got to balance the two.
Can't have it all. Can't have your cake
[1:48:45] and eat it too.
[1:48:50] Um, so we have a motion um to do the
Hudson project and remove the Western
[1:48:55] Avenue project as well as remove the
revenue. If there's no further
[1:49:00] discussion, Alicia, will you call the
role on that motion?
[1:49:05] » We've already taken public comment.
>> I don't think so.
[1:49:09] » We did because the motion was made and
seconded. One motion was withdrawn. I
[1:49:14] took public comment prior to that.
Nobody show you call the role.
[1:49:17] » Nobody talked.
>> There was no You didn't take any public
[1:49:22] comment.
>> I offered public comment and nobody got
[1:49:26] up.
>> Are you in a hurry to go somewhere?
[1:49:28] » I'm asking Alicia to call the role.
>> Well, I'm asking you to just allow
[1:49:32] people to speak.
>> Is there anybody want to talk about it?
[1:49:35] » Yeah. See, there's people nodding their
heads. What What What is the harm?
[1:49:41] » I'm running this meeting. I asked for
public comment. Nobody got up. Alicia,
[1:49:46] call the role, please. Commissioner
Putnham.
[1:49:50] » I'd like to hear people talk.
>> Schmidt,
[1:49:56] » uh, no.
>> Errens,
[1:49:59] » yes.
>> Hi.
[1:50:01] » Landine.
>> No. The motion fails.
[1:50:07] » Is there another
>> I would I would vote yes, but I wanted
[1:50:12] somebody to talk.
Well, poor way to run a business.
[1:50:16] » What's your vote, Doug?
>> Yes, I I'm going to go along with it.
[1:50:20] » Okay.
>> Well, I make the same motion,
[1:50:22] » Commissioner. Let me take that vote.
[1:50:28] » So, yeah, motion passes. We'll have a
better one here later.
[1:50:31] » The motion passes.
>> You guys will be able to talk more than
[1:50:34] » Yeah.
>> All right. Next item, Commissioner
[1:50:37] Erons, that you want to discuss,
>> Madam Chair. Where we at with this? It
[1:50:43] failed. 22.
>> It was 22 because Commissioner Putinham
[1:50:46] did not vote when the motion was called.
>> I said I'll vote yes.
[1:50:52] » So
>> technically it failed, but then he
[1:50:54] turned around and said yes. So if that's
his vote, then it would pass.
[1:50:59] Commissioner Arens made it basically the
same motion.
[1:51:03] » So if we want to run back through the
vote to make sure it's clear, we can
[1:51:07] » dysfunctional. And I guess we'll just
keep it dysfunctional. How's that sound?
[1:51:11] » Yeah. E everybody can have their
commissioners and the public, everybody
[1:51:17] can have their opinion,
but government works best when we hear
[1:51:24] everybody's opinion.
>> Commissioner Erenss, would you like to
[1:51:28] discuss the next um department?
>> Well, we need to clean this up. So, I'm
[1:51:34] making a motion. Same motion. cut the
funding, the 2.5 million and the $1.5
[1:51:41] million in revenue
uh for the Western Roundabout project.
[1:51:49] » Is there a second?
>> And I will second it.
[1:51:51] » I've got a motion and a second. Will you
call the role, please?
[1:51:55] » Asking for public comment on public
comment.
[1:52:00] » Make public comment.
>> Alicia, call the role, please.
[1:52:03] » Where's the public comment? Commissioner
Putnham.
[1:52:07] » Jesus,
>> this is so dysfunctional. You don't have
[1:52:10] the floor.
>> Thank God we'll have it better here
[1:52:13] pretty quick.
>> Just let the public speak.
[1:52:15] » You don't have the floor. Alicia, will
you call the role?
[1:52:19] » Commissioner Butner,
>> yes.
[1:52:21] » Schmidt,
>> no.
[1:52:23] » Arens,
>> yes.
[1:52:25] » Hi.
>> Landing.
[1:52:27] » No. Motion passes.
[1:52:33] Next issue, other economic assistance,
[snorts] page 26.
[1:52:43] » I've written that in there.
>> Yep.
[1:52:46] » Yep.
[1:52:50] Page 26.
Other economic assistance.
[1:52:55] » It's department 4410
on page 26. Go ahead, Commissioner
[1:53:01] Aaron. these organizations that are
listed for economic assistance.
[1:53:07] » Page 26.
>> Page 26. Commissioner
[1:53:12] » page 26.
>> Commissioners, as a reminder, this uh
[1:53:17] you passed a motion earlier, so it will
reflect the 2026 in this document.
[1:53:25] » Yeah. And any motion I make is going to
incorporate what was already decided
[1:53:29] there earlier.
[1:53:32] So um we have a list of organizations
children's in helpline solless
[1:53:40] interlakes
lennox enrichment canton transit and
[1:53:45] lifescapes
decodabilities is statutoily required
[1:53:50] that means that there is a law in South
Dakota that says we have to give the
[1:53:56] county has to give x amount of money to
that kind of organization. But the law
[1:54:01] does not require us to spend money on
any of these other organizations.
[1:54:05] All good organizations in some form or
fashion, nonprofits
[1:54:11] that are out there attempting to help
people in various forms of assistance
[1:54:16] that they need.
Um,
[1:54:20] when we have an 11 million budget
shortfall,
[1:54:25] sometimes we need to, and this time we
need to revisit where we're spending
[1:54:31] public money.
Just generally speaking, these are
[1:54:35] nonprofit charities, and I would prefer
to see that the public
[1:54:41] give their charitable aid. Uh, the
public cannot give charitable aid.
[1:54:48] uh through the government. It's
compelled. It's forced from them through
[1:54:52] their taxes. But also another concern
that I have is when this money leaves
[1:54:57] the public coffers, it also loses public
oversight.
[1:55:05] I can't I've never been invited to one
of these organizations to a board
[1:55:08] meeting to speak. Probably wouldn't even
let me in. Uh never. They take they take
[1:55:15] the public money
and the public accountability in the
[1:55:19] oversight is gone. And that's my big
concern here. Public oversight of public
[1:55:26] money is gone when we give the money to
these nonprofits. Has nothing to do, you
[1:55:33] know, one of them came in last year and
said, "Oh, you're such a big meanie.
[1:55:36] You're a bad person because you want to
take the money away from us." Look, I
[1:55:42] get it. they they have their opinion.
My view though is based and grounded on
[1:55:48] the budget realities that we face today.
And so, uh, maybe in an effort here to,
[1:55:56] uh, achieve a compromise,
I would propose,
[1:56:02] uh, and this incorporates in the deal
that, uh, Commissioner Autton made.
[1:56:09] [snorts] Uh, but I propose that we move
uh, if I had it my way, we' we'd zero
[1:56:16] all this out given the budget reality.
But maybe I want to achieve a compromise
[1:56:21] here today. And I would move that we
reduce all of these
[1:56:27] uh nonprofit other economic assistance
numbers back to their 20124 numbers.
[1:56:41] I haven't asked for a motion, but I will
take public comment unless there's other
[1:56:45] uh questions or input from the
commission.
[1:56:50] Is there public comment
on this item?
[1:56:57] Thank you, Madam Chair. Linda
Montgomery, Fairview, South Dakota. I
[1:57:01] think with our
deficit that we have this year, I think
[1:57:06] this is a prudent decision. I know it's
not going to be popular, but I've done
[1:57:13] budgets for myself and my profession and
for my personnel personal self. I
[1:57:22] believe that sometimes you just have to
bite the bullet and uh say we can't this
[1:57:29] year but we can next look at this again.
Thank you.
[1:57:36] » Other public input.
[1:57:43] » Morning commissioners. Thank you. Sarah
Stever 46850 276th Street. Um, I think
[1:57:50] the all of these budget requests I think
were very well thought out. Um, and
[1:57:56] they're all worthy, but we just don't
have the money. And so, it's hard for me
[1:58:01] not to compare it to what most people
would do in their own personal lives
[1:58:04] when they don't have the money. It's
just to figure out what they have to
[1:58:08] cut. But we also have codified law in
South Dakota that caps what we can do.
[1:58:14] Uh, so I guess I'm I have a question for
you um about what we've got for a a
[1:58:20] qualified fund balance that we're
actually adding into the amount of money
[1:58:25] that we are going to take in in order to
hit the 95% mark on what we can actually
[1:58:31] have for expenditures. So that's my
question. What is the beginning fund
[1:58:36] balance that we're going to add to the
amount that we want to spend? Um, and
[1:58:41] does that follow within South Dakota
codified law? Thank you.
[1:58:46] » Thank you.
Other public input.
[1:58:54] All right. Sherry, is that anything you
want to address?
[1:58:58] » I'd have to look up the SDCL. I don't
know what we're talking about.
[1:59:01] » All right.
>> I think it was
[1:59:06] » You think it was repealed?
>> I'm not sure because I don't Off the top
[1:59:11] of my head, I don't know which one we're
referring to.
[1:59:13] » Okay. Sorry, I didn't mean to put you on
the spot.
[1:59:19] » All right. Any other public input?
[1:59:24] If not, is there a motion?
>> Um,
[1:59:28] we the commissioners don't speak then or
we're supposed to or
[1:59:34] » I've asked for a motion. So, if there's
a motion and a second, then there will
[1:59:37] be further discussion. That's how it
usually works.
[1:59:40] » Making a motion. Got to turn the
microphone on. Making a motion to drop
[1:59:46] down other economic assistance
to the
[1:59:53] 2024 levels.
>> And what were those levels,
[1:59:57] Commissioner?
Um,
[2:00:00] Children's in 8,000,
Helpline Center 9,473,
[2:00:08] Soloulless 9,473,
[2:00:13] Interlakes
6785,
[2:00:17] Lennox Enrichment 5,000,
Canton Transit
[2:00:23] 12,000,
Decodabilities,
[2:00:27] which says statutoily required
and then but uh that would be in the
[2:00:34] amount of 4,320
[2:00:38] and lifecapes to 35,520.
[2:00:46] All right. Is there a second to the
motion?
[2:00:50] » I'll second the motion.
>> There's been a motion and a second. Any
[2:00:54] further discussion?
>> Madam Chair,
[2:00:56] » go ahead. Commissioner Aten.
>> So my question with the with the budget
[2:01:01] request from these different entities,
have they been here in the last 6 months
[2:01:06] or
>> whenever to present their
[2:01:10] » they do they do come in, they fill out
applications
[2:01:15] um and they have brought in
presentations. actually our commission
[2:01:19] office assistant Paul can probably come
up and and talk further about that
[2:01:25] process that we go through.
>> Yeah. So um previously in 24 25 and 20
[2:01:32] 24 and 25 for the budgets for 25 and 26
the outside agencies submitted a written
[2:01:38] request and attended the the the
meetings to talk about it. Um, my idea
[2:01:45] was for 27 since when they came in and
presented, they didn't really talk about
[2:01:49] their budget requests and they kind of
just talked about how great they were.
[2:01:52] What I did this year was have them
submit a one-page document um that uh
[2:01:58] outlined their budget justification that
was sent to the commission. I can resend
[2:02:01] it to you guys all if you want to look
at it again.
[2:02:03] » You go through it right now, Paul. Uh
yeah, I can uh if you give me I mean or
[2:02:09] we can I can put it together so it's in
a more readable form cuz when we come
[2:02:12] back for the state's attorney's office
too, I can put it together so it's in a
[2:02:16] readable form cuz a lot of what they
submit is a bunch of financial audit
[2:02:20] information which is available to
anyone. It just kind of clutters up and
[2:02:23] and um uh and does it. But if you if you
give me
[2:02:27] » I don't know if it is available to
everyone.
[2:02:29] » Okay. Uh well, I'll double check that.
A lot of that are um
[2:02:34] » yeah, I'll double check, but um the
their audits they that they submit as
[2:02:39] part of their 990, their federal 990 tax
forms um that are required that you can
[2:02:44] find online. I'll double check on that,
too. But um I can either put it together
[2:02:48] now or we have to come back for the
state's attorney's office um later as
[2:02:52] well. I can put together, repackage it
in a readable form with uh things and
[2:02:59] » attach it to the agenda and we can um if
you have specific stuff you want to ask
[2:03:04] of any of them, I can get them here as
well. Again,
[2:03:07] » well, I think you should extend that
invitation. I think that's a good idea
[2:03:10] to move it since we're bringing back our
state's attorney to talk about his
[2:03:14] budget.
I can I'll so I'll get I'll get stuff
[2:03:17] resent and I'll get make sure it's a
I'll add it back to this so it's
[2:03:21] available for everyone um that we've
talked about I'll add it to this agenda
[2:03:25] and then we'll have it on next agenda
>> and um we I'll extend the invitation to
[2:03:30] those people again
if that works for everyone otherwise I
[2:03:35] can try and put something together real
quick but um personally I'd rather make
[2:03:39] sure it's right then do it quickly
>> I I think that makes sense and these are
[2:03:45] I mean these I guess facilities or um
programs they are serving um the less
[2:03:54] fortunate people in our county and I I
do want them to have an opportunity to
[2:03:58] come in and address their budget
request.
[2:04:00] » Yeah, I'll make that invitation to them
and I'll I'll package it together and
[2:04:03] get that to you guys as soon as I can.
>> And Paul, would you ask those
[2:04:07] organizations to send their chief
executive officer to attend?
[2:04:11] » I would can certainly make that request.
In past years, we've had people come in
[2:04:15] who are their public relations person
and they don't I ask questions about
[2:04:19] their budget and they really don't have
the best indication
[2:04:24] as to why they're asking for the ask
that they've made. For example, one of
[2:04:30] these organizations pays their CEO
a minimum of 350 grand a year.
[2:04:36] » I think it was 375 plus a being
charitable. But if they're going to pay
[2:04:43] their CEO 375 grand and they want to
come ask for property taxpayer money
[2:04:49] when we have a property taxpayer revolt
going on, they should come here and make
[2:04:54] the ask themselves as the chief
executive officer instead of sending uh
[2:05:00] public relations person to come.
>> I will certainly make that request to
[2:05:04] them.
>> Thank you.
[2:05:05] » Thank you.
>> Thank you all.
[2:05:07] » Next item or department that you want to
talk about. We have a We have a motion
[2:05:12] pending that needs to be voted on.
>> Can we We're not done with comments yet.
[2:05:17] » Oh, of course. Yeah.
>> Um
[2:05:19] » should take comment.
>> I'm not opposed commissioner to do some
[2:05:25] modification,
but
[2:05:29] it's easier to sit here in Canton and
make all kinds of wonderful statements
[2:05:34] about that. And you wonder for example
the helpline center now what do they do?
[2:05:41] What is what are they good at are they?
Well they do they do a lot of wonderful
[2:05:45] things and I think suicide prevention is
one is just one issue along with many
[2:05:51] others which are very critical. I know
you have a very difficult time with the
[2:05:56] children's home society because you do
mention them all the time. Children's
[2:06:00] Home Society is a very large
organization but in relationship to the
[2:06:06] Children's Inn which was just re uh
redesigned and supposed to be
[2:06:12] accommodating well into 28 and 29 rights
now is running at full capacity and when
[2:06:19] you see some of the charact individuals
of parents or single moms with kids that
[2:06:24] come there um I may be called Mr. tender
heart. But boy, I have a tough time
[2:06:30] saying that that money is is not spent
correctly. Interlakes Community Action
[2:06:35] on the other hand, they they're okay.
They get their government funding. They
[2:06:39] do all kinds of weatherization. They do
Head Start. They do many good things for
[2:06:44] kids to get them. And on the on Rock
situation, I I don't have any idea on
[2:06:50] that. I don't know why we're paying
them. I I have a tough time with that
[2:06:54] organization, period. If it wasn't that
they provided some form of
[2:06:58] transportation, I wouldn't give them a
dime. But anyway, just to let you know
[2:07:02] that we do have
>> talking about
[2:07:04] » this rocks outfit. That's an IAP agency
that we are
[2:07:08] » Rock.
I see Canton Transit.
[2:07:11] » Yeah, this is Well, Rocks is supposed to
be able to provide public transportation
[2:07:17] because we are under that IAP agency.
There's an ICAP agency out of Madison
[2:07:24] and there's an IAP agency out of uh
Wagner, isn't it? Or
[2:07:30] » Yeah. And IAP has been down here. I
don't know the uh Iraq has been here
[2:07:36] maybe once, but I'm not going to debate
all of this commissioners. And the other
[2:07:40] thing when you talk about nonprofits,
nonprofits, you mean you can say what
[2:07:44] you want to them about them. And if you
don't have control of them, well, that's
[2:07:50] too they have a board of directors. They
have guidelines. You have to have your
[2:07:55] audit available to the public. I mean,
whatever monies that you get, you're
[2:08:00] always have to be able to show where it
went, how it was spent. So I think that
[2:08:06] nonprofits go the extra mile today
because they are looking at dollars.
[2:08:12] They are hardpressed try to find those
services that are provided and
[2:08:17] government's not going to provide it. So
if government doesn't provide it,
[2:08:21] nonprofits do. So okay fine. Well then
if government doesn't have it should be
[2:08:27] the public pays for it all. I mean, I
think that government has some
[2:08:31] obligation to kind of support these
kinds of activities which help poor
[2:08:36] people and kids, and that's what these
are all about.
[2:08:40] » Now that [clears throat] you're
elaborating, tell me about LifeScape.
[2:08:44] I'm not 100% up on Livescape. I'd like
to hear a little more about that. Well,
[2:08:49] LifeScape takes care of all of the
unfortunate handicapped children that
[2:08:54] are running around and they if you want
a calling from God, you go work with
[2:09:00] those handicapped kids who are uh from
severely handicapped from not being able
[2:09:07] to have any taking care of any of their
body functions. They cannot talk, they
[2:09:11] cannot walk and they have to 24-hour a
day care. This is a a situation that for
[2:09:19] those parents that have those children
that go there. And the better part about
[2:09:24] it is LifeScape also helps train some of
the trainable ones which are severely
[2:09:31] mentally handicapped by giving them
enough skills so that in some cases
[2:09:38] they're able to sustain themselves.
they're able to take care of themselves
[2:09:42] from the standpoint of having
independent living or they have a small
[2:09:47] minute job. So, you know, a lifescape
when you look at the money we spend
[2:09:52] here, okay, so we spend $55,000 or
$50,000,
[2:09:57] but if you can take a kid that would
take off of government roles and make
[2:10:03] them independent and it's a nonprofit
that's doing that, what's wrong with
[2:10:07] that? To me, that's a good investment.
And most of all, I would say that it
[2:10:13] would serve all commissioners well to go
there and sit with them. Not just take
[2:10:18] the tour of the building and saying in
this building we have here, go actually
[2:10:23] go to the feeding room when you have to
feed these kids or when you have to
[2:10:27] change their diapers or when you have
all kinds of situation. Then tell me
[2:10:32] that our money is not well spent.
Commission, can I make a comment? Um, at
[2:10:40] the beginning of the budget process, we
had scheduled a calendar on how we were
[2:10:45] going to do the budget. Um, we had
requested the commission to give us
[2:10:49] direction on how to get the other
economic assistance, whether they wanted
[2:10:53] to see them or whether they did not.
There was no desire for them to come in
[2:10:57] and talk. they wanted to do the
application process or at least I do not
[2:11:01] I'm not aware of any desire to have them
come in and talk since we are at the 3
[2:11:05] weeks out from the budget being passed.
Um I would I I think
[2:11:12] or whatever that if we want to drop it
back to the 2024 request then do that
[2:11:19] but then I think you need to give your
commission assistant direction for the
[2:11:22] next budget year on how you want to
proceed with this. Uh we do only have
[2:11:26] two meetings left. I don't know how he's
going to round these people up to come
[2:11:30] in and speak on their request at this
point.
[2:11:34] » Thank you.
>> I feel that we just go ahead and do the
[2:11:39] 2024 and and we'll go from there and
we'll deal with it next year if we want
[2:11:44] to change anything else.
[2:11:49] Paul, you'll put that together that list
for us and we'll address it when we
[2:11:54] address state's attorney.
>> Sure. Whatever you guys want.
[2:11:58] » Okay.
So, we had a motion. We had a second.
[2:12:04] Alicia, we call the role.
>> Commissioner Putnham.
[2:12:08] » Now, this is on going back to 24, right?
>> Yes.
[2:12:11] » Okay. Yes.
>> Schmidt?
[2:12:13] » No.
>> Arens?
[2:12:15] » Yes.
>> Aton?
[2:12:27] nay
>> landing.
[2:12:30] » No.
[2:12:34] » Motion fails.
>> Commissioner Erenss, do you want to keep
[2:12:38] going?
>> Next is buildings and grounds.
[2:12:42] And
>> you got a page number for us?
[2:12:44] » I am looking for that.
[2:13:01] Page 11.
General government building
[2:13:08] up here.
[2:13:12] Great. That's department 4161.
[2:13:18] Go ahead, Commissioner Erin.
>> Thank you. Got a line item in here for 2
[2:13:25] three 2.03 million under buildings and
structures.
[2:13:32] But what we don't have is we have not
yet identified a way forward or any kind
[2:13:38] of consensus
as to what the improvements to the old
[2:13:43] courthouse will cost,
what improvements, if anybody, if any,
[2:13:49] will be made. Um, it's being worked on.
Um, and I've talked to Mr. Rambo about
[2:13:56] that. But uh until we have uh more
definite understanding of what we're
[2:14:06] going to move forward with,
how we're going to move forward with it.
[2:14:12] I'm proposing to remove that $2 million
of budget authority out of there. Do you
[2:14:17] want and I and I don't know the best way
to do this because originally that was
[2:14:22] an auditor decision because of was was
that the legislative but wasn't it the
[2:14:27] legislative audit that you had to assign
the money to something?
[2:14:30] » That's a different thing.
>> That's different. That's not this one.
[2:14:35] » Okay, perfect. Thank you.
[2:14:42] » So that is that your motion?
Well, I'm not taking a motion right now.
[2:14:47] He's just that's what he's wanting to
do. And I wanted clarification that that
[2:14:51] wasn't just the unassigned
light [clears throat] item that you had
[2:14:54] to assign. Okay. If that's not the case,
then are there any other questions from
[2:14:58] the commission?
>> Madam Chair,
[2:15:00] » go ahead, Commissioner.
>> So, Commissioner Erands,
[2:15:04] um, it's not a motion, but restate your
attention from which line item.
[2:15:09] » Yes, sir. which I believe is building
instructions
[2:15:12] and the exact dollar amount that you're
looking to remove.
[2:15:16] » Yeah. So, if you go down one, two, three
paragraphs to it's called EXP category
[2:15:23] 43 capital outlay.
>> Mhm.
[2:15:26] » And then right underneath that there is
a line item called buildings and
[2:15:31] structures.
>> Yep, I'm there.
[2:15:33] » And the proposal for 2027 is $2.038 038
million.
[2:15:39] » Yep.
>> So, you're proposing to eliminate the
[2:15:44] whole
>> proposing to eliminate remove that
[2:15:48] » the whole dollar amount.
>> Yes.
[2:15:50] » Okay.
>> And and Mr. Rambo's here. He he can
[2:15:54] clarify whether
I believe the entire two Well, let me
[2:16:01] ask it as a question.
Um, of that 2.03 038 million.
[2:16:08] [clears throat]
How much in your mind, John, was
[2:16:12] aortioned
for potential courthouse versus other
[2:16:19] types of structures here in the county,
just regular maintenance, you know, that
[2:16:23] has to be done.
So, when we started this and I met with
[2:16:28] the budget committee, um I had an ask or
I had a want to do improvements to both
[2:16:35] this building and all of our buildings
and start moving forward if we're going
[2:16:39] to save the old courthouse with some
expenditures to do improvements there
[2:16:44] like i.e. paint it. Um, and we all know
that ultimately if we're going to do
[2:16:50] anything with the old courthouse, we
have to either do some kind of a
[2:16:53] structural improvement to the rooftop,
which could be very expensive.
[2:16:57] So, I was concerned cuz I from watching
and sitting in these meetings, it seems
[2:17:02] like there should be budget authority
before we move forward with any money
[2:17:05] spent.
And that's where the conversation kind
[2:17:09] of came up that we do have this $2
million set in
[2:17:13] uh reserve for capital improvements.
So it looked like if you know we could
[2:17:21] move forward and do $200 or $300,000
worth of projects next year or we could
[2:17:26] do the whole roof improvement you know
which could be close to $1.5 million or
[2:17:31] more. So then it was like, well, do we
put that money into the budget? So it's
[2:17:36] got the budget authority already in
place to do those projects next year.
[2:17:41] And that's kind of where we landed with
it. Um I, you know, so I could go back.
[2:17:46] I I I got the $38,700
is what if you take the $2 million
[2:17:52] completely away from doing anything with
the old building,
[2:17:56] then I would still need 38. Well, I
shouldn't say cuz I took the $3,000 out
[2:18:01] for the um ambulance thing, but so I'd
land like about 30 35700. 35,700 is what
[2:18:08] I would need in my capital or buildings
and structures line item, which is 101,
[2:18:14] 41,61, and 432.
But again, that doesn't give us any
[2:18:18] budget authority to do anything to the
old courthouse then. no improvements to
[2:18:24] the drainage issues, no improvements to
painting it, no improvements to crack uh
[2:18:29] ceiling. Um, so that's that was my
dilemma. I came into this budget process
[2:18:35] with that dilemma is until we really
know where we absolutely are going to
[2:18:40] land with it, I don't know what to do.
But that puts no money in the 2027
[2:18:45] budgets to do anything.
[2:18:49] » Thank you, John. And my belief is that
um
[2:18:55] uh that's your no fault of your own. You
need some guidance from this commission
[2:19:00] as to what to be done. And so I
appreciate your work. Um
[2:19:07] uh but you could live with the 38,000 or
35,700
[2:19:13] for buildings and structures for next
year.
[2:19:17] » Correct. But that will accomplish
nothing but projects that I want to do
[2:19:21] in this building and for HS and stuff
like that.
[2:19:25] » Okay. Do you need uh Okay, understood.
>> Thank you.
[2:19:34] » So that commissioners have other
questions.
[2:19:36] » Can I add one more thing?
>> Something else to say there. Just one
[2:19:39] more thing is is what that also takes
away because that was included in the 2
[2:19:43] million is what we can do for renovating
this structure to make it more usable by
[2:19:50] staff staying in this building.
So, you know, if we need to add if we're
[2:19:56] moving one department to another section
and we need to add some sort of wall or
[2:20:00] something, I would have no money in my
budget to do that.
[2:20:03] John, when you first brought your budget
to the budget committee, didn't you have
[2:20:06] about $800,000 in there for
improvements?
[2:20:10] » Um,
[gasps] I don't know if it was $800,000.
[2:20:14] Um,
[2:20:21] I mean, no, I didn't have that high of a
number. It's probably closer to
[2:20:24] $200,000.
[2:20:31] » Okay.
[2:20:35] additional monies that again we
transferred. We basically figured would
[2:20:40] be absorbed by the $2 million.
>> Last year you had $299,000
[2:20:46] for buildings and structures.
>> That's our budget this year.
[2:20:50] » Excuse me.
>> Yeah.
[2:20:51] » And it's the 171 is what's been spent
through August.
[2:20:59] Madam Chair,
>> go ahead. Commissioner,
[2:21:02] » so
I'm, you know, taking the roughly $2
[2:21:07] million out for the courthouse is
kicking the can down the road, which the
[2:21:11] commission has done a good job for many
years doing that. Decision is going to
[2:21:14] have to be made sooner or later whether
we fix it or tear it down. But with that
[2:21:18] said,
[clears throat]
[2:21:20] if we leave 200 35,700
in there, that will take care of your
[2:21:28] needs. I don't want to hamstring you
here. If you need a couple dollars more,
[2:21:32] then let's make it that if that's your
number.
[2:21:36] » Well, the the overall dilemma is where
do I start? You know, I I I will have a
[2:21:43] very tough time spending $60,000 to do
uh a cocking project if we really truly
[2:21:50] don't know if we're doing the roofing
project. We know the roofing project is
[2:21:54] going to be very expensive to fix the
rafters and the roof is going to be very
[2:21:58] expensive. That's where we were landing.
You know, that could be $1.5 million.
[2:22:03] you know,
um the discussion was is the demolition
[2:22:07] that if we demolished the old
courthouse, that could have been one
[2:22:10] $1.5 million. We don't have those fine
numbers. We could we talked and we're
[2:22:15] trying to put together a um RFP to get
an architect on board to finally uh
[2:22:22] start ironing all this out. Um that by
itself is going to be expensive, you
[2:22:27] know, and so we jump on board as you as
the commission vote to do that. I I
[2:22:32] don't know what that number could be,
but that could be I don't know. I I
[2:22:36] could easily see that approaching
$100,000 to get that done.
[2:22:41] » Madam Chair,
>> John, I have a question. Instead of
[2:22:44] concentrating where the $200,000 goes on
the old building,
[2:22:50] » shouldn't we be looking at what
modifications that need to be made in
[2:22:54] this building? If we put in a uh
different departments, if we put in a
[2:22:59] public defender's office, if we need to
remodel for our uh director of
[2:23:04] equalization because she's cramped in
there, you know, like bookends in there,
[2:23:09] shouldn't we be looking at monies that
should go here because we can use this
[2:23:14] space? We need this. This is staff
development. This is good government
[2:23:18] over there. Uh what are you going to do
with it? I mean, you can look at it, but
[2:23:23] it has no functional value for us right
now. So, when you talk about the
[2:23:28] 200,000, I'm saying I'd like to see you
spend that here. I'm going to agree with
[2:23:33] Commissioner Erenss if he wants to cut
$2 million out until a later date. I'm
[2:23:37] going to second his motion. So, I think
that's where we should be.
[2:23:43] » So, do you have a realistic number that
you think you actually need in that line
[2:23:49] item? So what I
>> originally had said 357
[2:23:53] and then you said 200,000. So what is
the number that you need?
[2:23:58] » And we did agree to the we did tell them
the RFP
[2:24:02] » without
right we did do that but without regard
[2:24:07] » give me the money for that
>> anything actually being done
[2:24:11] » right
>> on the old courthouse. So,
[2:24:15] in the nine years I've been here, I've
put I've subdivided and subdivided many
[2:24:19] different spaces.
Any of those subdivided spaces typically
[2:24:24] cost about 10 grand.
Um, I really don't know where we're
[2:24:28] going to land with how to we're we're
trying to figure out where the
[2:24:32] department equalization is going to
spread out to. If we're an example, if
[2:24:37] we want to maybe subdivide some of the
space in what's currently the state's
[2:24:40] attorney's office, which will be
vacated, you know, I'll have to put up a
[2:24:44] wall or structure. Well, that could at
this point in time, I could see what I
[2:24:48] would envision doing there would be a
$20,000 project
[2:24:52] » and then you just have to come in and
ask for supplements on when the
[2:24:56] decisions were being made,
>> right? That would be the next option.
[2:24:59] And that's part of the conversation we
had with the building the budget
[2:25:02] committee was do we do I just not put
any number in there and then choose to
[2:25:07] try to get supplemented
uh as the need and as numbers come in or
[2:25:13] do we put budget authority there now and
you guys still ultimately
[2:25:20] authorize whether I spend it out of that
budget authority. It's not like I go out
[2:25:23] to spend money that's in the budget just
because it's there,
[2:25:27] » right?
That's the whole thing with the $2
[2:25:31] million. It's a huge number, but it was
just to establish the budget authority
[2:25:36] to give the five commissioners that will
be here January 1st the ability to spend
[2:25:41] it.
>> Okay.
[2:25:44] » All right.
>> So,
[2:25:45] » other questions from the commission?
>> Just discussion maybe.
[2:25:50] » Okay. Um, any public input on uh this
part of the budget?
[2:26:00] Thank you, Terry.
>> John,
[2:26:04] the wrong one.
>> Committee grounds highway
[2:26:07] » other Terry [laughter]
>> Linda Montgomery Fever, South Dakota. Um
[2:26:13] to Commissioner Schmidt, if I may, Madam
Chair, the functional value that you
[2:26:19] were talking about putting into this
building, I think that until we I do not
[2:26:24] see that
I still see that old building as having
[2:26:29] functional value.
And um and I I really don't um I know
[2:26:36] that there's a push to get rid of that
old courthouse, but I think [snorts]
[2:26:41] um there is functional value. Now, how
much that will cost to make it up to,
[2:26:47] you know, we've talked about that, but I
think at this point, I would like to see
[2:26:52] us
doing what you would do with your own
[2:26:55] homes
instead of adding, you know, you're
[2:26:59] going to tear down a room, but that room
might be able to be used for something
[2:27:04] else with minimal repairs. You know,
that's what I'm talking about. the um as
[2:27:10] far as as taking out that whole budget,
I understand that he needs um a budget
[2:27:19] to to make improvements wherever you
need and then to supplement as the year
[2:27:25] goes on next year. I would like to, you
know, [clears throat]
[2:27:31] he he needs some working things, some
cap capital to work with. And I would
[2:27:35] say I I wouldn't even mind a h 100,000
that he has in that budget to be used
[2:27:41] prudently and for the um the updates
that needs to be done with this
[2:27:46] building. And then if we can see the
value in that old building that I do,
[2:27:53] it's my suggestion.
>> Thank you. Other public input
[2:28:04] Good morning, commission. Morning.
>> Chad Skyles of Canton. Um, and I also
[2:28:10] served on the old courthouse committee,
advisory committee. Um,
[2:28:16] what I'm going to say is this. If you
cut the $2 million, you cut the $2
[2:28:20] million.
But, and I guess this is some rhetorical
[2:28:25] questions,
we cannot, like Commissioner Utan said,
[2:28:30] we cannot continue to kick this can down
the road. It's been ignored way too
[2:28:36] long. I agree with the previous speaker.
There's value in that old building.
[2:28:44] Yes, sentimental value, but also
practical value.
[2:28:48] And lastly, I guess it's just going to
be an open-ended question, and that is
[2:28:53] is that whatever amount you take out
for um the whatifs on how to uh maintain
[2:29:02] the old courthouse, that is is that if
you take out all the money today, if
[2:29:08] January 5th of 2027, we decide that
something is going to be done, but there
[2:29:14] was no money budgeted in John's budget
and he comes back,
[2:29:20] I sure hope that it's a five to zero
vote supporting supplementing his budget
[2:29:25] to continue that process. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Other public input.
[2:29:35] » Hi, Sarah Stever from Lennox. Um, I just
wanted to point out that codified law
[2:29:40] 7-21-11
is still on the books and that's the one
[2:29:44] that limits you to 95%. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[2:29:52] Other public input.
[2:29:57] » All right. If not, is there a motion?
>> Yes.
[2:30:01] » Yeah. Go ahead, Commissioner.
>> This is this is the motion I was going
[2:30:04] to make. So my motion was to under
category 43 capital A capital outlay
[2:30:12] line item 101-4161-432000
[2:30:15] buildings and structures that we reduce
that 2,ion38,700
[2:30:22] down to 335,700.
>> Second.
[2:30:29] » Had a motion and a second. Any
discussion?
[2:30:33] Well, that was going to be my motion,
too.
[2:30:37] » And um
I I think here's where we're at. Um
[2:30:44] Mr. Degro sent me an RFP for my review.
I need to turn that around to him.
[2:30:51] My
guesstimate is the RFP will probably go
[2:30:56] out the door in the next 30 days
and the RFP could be responded to within
[2:31:02] the next
60. So that puts us 90 and then for the
[2:31:10] B depending upon the scope of work and
who responds to the RFP
[2:31:15] that maybe puts us out about six months.
So I foresee that we do we will have
[2:31:23] some kind of response in
uh end of Q2 beginning of Q3. Uh so
[2:31:29] basically July of 27 is is my take on
this and then that gives enough time to
[2:31:37] bring all the stakeholders to the table
to develop a game plan for FY 2028.
[2:31:46] So that's why I second this.
>> All right, I got a motion and a second.
[2:31:51] Is there any other discussion before the
vote?
[2:31:54] » So, Commissioner Rotten, this calls for
a reduction in our budget of how much
[2:32:01] money?
>> 1.7
[2:32:06] » I think it's 1.7
>> 1.7.
[2:32:10] » Speak into the mic.
>> How much?
[2:32:12] » One 1.7.
>> Okay. 1.7. All right.
[2:32:16] » 1.703.
>> Okay.
[2:32:21] » Thank you.
>> My comments on that motion is is after
[2:32:25] talking to John, that's the number that
should be able to get him by that he
[2:32:30] needs. So, I'm not interested in
hamstringing him in any shape or form.
[2:32:34] So, and Commissioner Erns is I agree
with him on uh when those numbers will
[2:32:40] start coming in and we'll start looking
at it then and then hard decisions going
[2:32:43] to have to be made.
All right, we got a motion, a second.
[2:32:47] » Okay, now I'd like to clarify this
because I couldn't hear much of anything
[2:32:51] that was happening there
>> speaking to the mic. But anyhow, so
[2:32:57] we're going to take 1 how much?
>> Seven.
[2:33:01] » Seven.
>> We're going to reduce the 2,387.
[2:33:05] You see where that's at?
>> To the one point.
[2:33:08] » We're going to reduce it down to 3357.
So, it's going to be an overall
[2:33:14] reduction of 1.703
[2:33:19] million.
>> Okay.
[2:33:22] » Okay.
>> All right. Any other questions or
[2:33:24] discussion?
If not, Alicia, should we call the role?
[2:33:28] » Commissioner Putnham,
>> yes.
[2:33:30] » Schmidt,
>> yes.
[2:33:31] » Arens,
>> yes.
[2:33:32] » Hi.
>> Lendine,
[2:33:34] » yes. Motion carries.
[2:33:39] All right.
other departments. Commissioner Erenss,
[2:33:46] » that's all I have for right now.
>> That's all I have for right now.
[2:33:50] » All right.
>> I have a couple questions on if I can
[2:33:53] ask.
>> Uh, go ahead, Commissioner Putnham.
[2:33:56] » Uh, does the budget include another step
or wage increase for the 20 for 27 in
[2:34:03] addition to the 3%
increase approved for 26?
[2:34:12] I'm not sure I understand your question.
I mean, we put in the pay study
[2:34:20] with the budget numbers. There is a 3%
COLA adjustment and a 2.5%
[2:34:26] cost or step increase.
>> Are the adjustice
[2:34:32] center operating and staffing costs
fully reflected in that?
[2:34:39] the if John has a building and grounds
person included in his budget then yes
[2:34:46] I don't know what other staffing there
would be the sheriff's included his
[2:34:51] um yes all requested
new employees are in those numbers
[2:34:57] » then I'd like one other thing I'd like
to back up to on lifecape if I can just
[2:35:03] so it's on the record and everybody
knows it.
[2:35:08] Okay. The CEO of Lifescape, Steve
Watkins,
[2:35:14] takes in 400 and 400,377
[2:35:21] and with another 65,000
which brings him at a total of 400
[2:35:29] 464972.
[2:35:34] Kimberly Marsh CO
[2:35:39] is 270,623
[2:35:44] with a stipen of $29,868
[2:35:48] for 300,000. Steve Wilson's a CFO. I
didn't know. I don't know what that is,
[2:35:55] but he takes in three or $234,559
[2:36:03] with a $35,874
[2:36:07] stifen for a total of $270,433.
[2:36:13] Then there's Jason. He's a VP of HR
and with his stipen and everything, he's
[2:36:21] taken in $18,68.
[2:36:25] Now, this I got from a taxpayer
of Lincoln County.
[2:36:33] Now, the 55,000 that we're going to give
them is just like peeing on a fire,
[2:36:38] isn't it?
Excuse the pun.
[2:36:43] That was a good waste of time on that
cash.
[2:36:47] And of course, I don't know what the
other ones are. That's just a start.
[2:36:53] » Thank you.
>> All right. Any other changes that the
[2:36:56] commission wants to make to our budget
today?
[2:36:58] » Uh potential. Uh this bleeds into agenda
item number two, but they're all the
[2:37:04] same. Is this uh I want to go to the 911
page
[2:37:08] » um category here. So, we'll go ahead and
move on to item two on our agenda then
[2:37:18] » because this issue is going to have
budgetary impact.
[2:37:22] » Commissioner uh or commissioner Sheriff
Swansson, this is your item. Do you want
[2:37:28] to come up?
[2:37:33] All right. Swson, Lincoln County
Sheriff. Uh, so I was contacted by
[2:37:40] by uh um
assistant fire chief Graham with the
[2:37:48] who oversees Metro Communications and he
he's kind of my understanding is he
[2:37:52] spearheaded this which I think is long
overdue is they want to they've gotten
[2:37:57] all SCS wanted all 27 PAPs to be on
board with and county commissioner or
[2:38:04] governing boards to be on board with
moving uh dispatchers from a class A
[2:38:09] retirement system to the class B
retirement system. And what that
[2:38:12] entailed for for Lincoln County was I've
reached out to all of our employees in
[2:38:18] 911 that would qualify, which all of our
employees would as a dispatcher.
[2:38:24] Um it it's not retroactive, but it would
move them from the A system to the B
[2:38:29] system, which reduces 10 years off their
service. Now, if anybody knows what a
[2:38:33] dispatcher does, you know, it's a high
stress u uh there's there's ups and
[2:38:38] downs through their career just like law
enforcement or anybody else. Maybe not
[2:38:43] the same as far as the you're in danger,
but it's definitely the high stress uh
[2:38:48] position. So what uh they had asked me
to do is present at the this commission
[2:38:53] and I 100% agree that this should happen
is that we would uh support
[2:38:59] it's a resolution in support of the
South Dakota Retirement System
[2:39:02] reclassifying of the 911
telecommunication operators. So all 27
[2:39:09] uh PAPs are on board with this. I think
we're the last one that is presenting.
[2:39:13] Um what I'm asking is that we support
this. It will be a cost and all the
[2:39:18] dispatchers agreed to the 2% extra that
will come out of their paycheck so that
[2:39:23] they have skin in the game as well. But
it would increase uh 911
[2:39:28] employee county contributions by I
believe it was $21,000
[2:39:33] annually.
>> Thank you. Questions for our sheriff?
[2:39:40] » The
they would retire early then.
[2:39:46] » Right. So, so this will be no different
than uh I'm trying to use a good
[2:39:50] example. If I was a dispatcher for 5
years and then I became a police
[2:39:53] officer, you just switch from an A to a
B. It's not going to do a lot of of B.
[2:39:58] It's not going to be a big benefit to
80% of my dispatchers because 90% of
[2:40:03] their their time's already in the A
system and it it doesn't go backwards.
[2:40:08] So those dispatchers would go from a
from the class A which would be what
[2:40:12] they would qualify for retirement up
till say uh director Baldwin. Uh then he
[2:40:19] would move to the B and he it would
reduce the service by a little bit but a
[2:40:23] new dispatcher starting out instead of
having to go 30 years they could retire
[2:40:27] in 20 years.
[2:40:31] Can we make this applicable to just new
hires after anyone hired after the date
[2:40:37] of this resolution?
>> Well, we're just doing the resolution.
[2:40:40] It's by state statute if I'm not
mistaken. I mean, the legislature would
[2:40:44] have to pass this to move that
classification.
[2:40:48] » Correct.
>> Yeah, I get that.
[2:40:50] » I think SDRs has to first approve it.
>> Yeah.
[2:40:53] » Right. because I know prosecutors tried
doing it along many many years ago the
[2:40:57] same process and it didn't I mean it
didn't apply
[2:41:00] » I I get the fact we're this is just a
resolution that they can package up and
[2:41:04] send to the legislature and say hey
everybody did this I get that part I'm
[2:41:09] trying to have some discussion about you
know maybe some adding some nuance into
[2:41:15] this you know for example
um
[2:41:19] having this apply to new hires
Um, but it wouldn't apply to people who
[2:41:25] are presently hired inside the old
system or maybe if you just got hired
[2:41:31] within the last two years, three years,
four years or something like that. Um,
[2:41:37] so there's that. Number two, when it
comes to PAT, because I'll support the
[2:41:41] resolution. That's not the issue for me.
The other issue though that I think is a
[2:41:47] bigger issue is the number of PAPs that
we have in this state.
[2:41:52] Governor Jenkllo,
bless his soul, 30 years ago identified
[2:41:58] the number of PAPs that we have as being
problematic. He wanted to reduce the
[2:42:03] number of PAPs. Could never get it done
because there were too many county
[2:42:07] commissions that uh that were defending
their turf and they didn't want to, you
[2:42:12] know, upset the apple basket. And so
we're stuck. You know, it's like the
[2:42:18] sheriff said, we got 27 PAPs out there
right now. Question becomes is can we
[2:42:23] reduce that and see efficiencies through
reduction? And there's a study out now.
[2:42:29] There's an there's a study that was done
this uh you know cost six figures to do
[2:42:35] the study and it came out what a couple
years ago
[2:42:38] and it it it said to do what Governor
Jenklo said to do 30 years ago is you've
[2:42:44] got to continue to consolidate your
PAPs. Now
[2:42:49] we sheriff and I we went through this. I
said a couple years ago, sheriff, we
[2:42:55] should consolidate with Sou Falls or we
should look into it. What the sheriff
[2:42:59] did instead is he went out and uh found
other customers to maintain the Lincoln
[2:43:08] County PAP because there would have been
issues and this is important for the
[2:43:12] public to understand. Maybe this is
important for commissioners to
[2:43:15] understand if you yourselves don't don't
know this. you got to invest in all
[2:43:20] these different CAD systems and if you
if you change your paps up and all that.
[2:43:25] So there would have been all kinds of uh
retrofitting expenses that made it cost
[2:43:30] prohibitive to consolidate the pap.
Now
[2:43:37] we're I think that Lincoln County has
taken on this position of basically
[2:43:42] saying um it's cost prohibitive to join
with Metro Communications. So instead,
[2:43:48] we're going to go out there and we're
going to take on Harrisburg and Lennox.
[2:43:51] And
>> can you keep this? Can you just I I
[2:43:53] understand what you want to speak on,
but can you keep it to the resolution
[2:43:57] that we're looking at?
>> This is part of the resolution. Okay.
[2:43:59] » And here's why.
>> If the cost to the county is going to
[2:44:06] increase by adopting the resolution,
we then as responsible stewards of
[2:44:11] taxpayer money have to look for other
offsets. So if you want to increase the
[2:44:16] amount of money through moving these
people to S to a different SDRs
[2:44:21] category,
you have to look for ways to make that
[2:44:24] revenue neutral. And that's why any kind
of discussion about moving these people
[2:44:28] from retirement categories has to
necessarily requires us to talk about
[2:44:34] the number of PAPs. And I get it.
There's people who don't want to talk
[2:44:37] about that. There's people who like the
status quo, the current system. But
[2:44:41] here's the thing. we send this
resolution up and everybody's going to
[2:44:44] be like, see, see, everybody's for
increasing the SDRs category. That's
[2:44:49] personnel expense. But then if you're a
legislator, you might be saying to
[2:44:53] yourself, well, hold on a minute here.
Where's the savings?
[2:44:58] Why is it always just more cost and more
cost? Why don't we think about
[2:45:02] institutional reform? So, I want my
comments on the record here as part of
[2:45:06] my support for this to also reflect the
fact we got a study out there and we've
[2:45:11] got governors, we got legislators who
all understand that these PAPs need to
[2:45:15] be reformed as well.
[2:45:20] » Thank you. Other commissioners?
>> Yes. I would like to comment on this.
[2:45:25] » Go ahead. [clears throat] the going from
6% to 8% is going to cost
[2:45:32] um the county [snorts and clears throat]
about another $20,000
[2:45:37] a year per person.
Um
[2:45:43] just to put it on the record there just
so that they understand it. Joel.
[2:45:49] Um,
[2:45:55] you know, I guess that's part of what
Joel would be talking about. So, just so
[2:46:00] that it's understood that that what what
the cost is going to be.
[2:46:09] Sheriff, did you have any other
>> Well, I I would say that uh making it
[2:46:13] for new employees and not old employees,
I I don't think there would be any buy
[2:46:18] in for that to be honest with you. If if
I've got two years in a PAP and the
[2:46:22] person, they just all quit. That's what
I'd do anyway. Go work for a PAP that
[2:46:26] did pay the the 8% uh reduce your your
your working years by 10 years. So, but
[2:46:33] I get I get the the we're looking at
cost savings and I'm just going to throw
[2:46:37] it out there. We we just re re uh
negotiated with Turner County uh which
[2:46:42] was an increase of $35,000 for next year
in revenue. Uh so I guess we've we're
[2:46:48] cost neutral.
>> Thank you, Sheriff.
[2:46:51] » And I am saying that I'm I'm going to go
along with what you're doing. I just
[2:46:56] wanted to reflect the fact of what it's
going to cost for each person.
[2:47:00] » There's a resolution in front of us. Is
there any public input on the
[2:47:03] resolution?
[snorts]
[2:47:12] Sorry. [laughter]
[2:47:15] » Good morning again, Commissioner Chad
Sky from Canton.
[2:47:19] um being an old 911 dispatcher way back
in the day and a former 911 director for
[2:47:25] Lincoln County who saw the uh the
onboarding of Turner County and and the
[2:47:31] importance of regionalized 911 and what
it can do for the smaller counties in
[2:47:36] South Dakota.
I just want to say on record that I
[2:47:40] support this resolution 100%. I do not
support the idea of not including the
[2:47:46] current dispatching staff. And the
reason for that is is that if you look
[2:47:52] at Lincoln County 911's current
dispatching staff,
[2:47:57] easily half of that of that staff of
those personnel have 20 to 35
[2:48:06] years of service to Lincoln County.
And if you look at other 911 PAPs around
[2:48:14] the state, including one the biggest one
just north of us, the turnover there is
[2:48:21] [snorts] in general way higher than it
is here in Lincoln County. And and to
[2:48:26] panalyze the uh years of service of
those current dispatchers, I think is a
[2:48:31] travesty. And uh uh I would certainly
hope that the commission would not
[2:48:36] support that part of it. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Any
[2:48:44] other public input?
If not, is there a motion?
[2:48:51] Motion to uh move uh on sheriff's
recommendation of reclassification of a
[2:48:58] 91 911 telecomation
to class B.
[2:49:07] » All right. Is there a second?
[2:49:13] Second.
>> Thank you. I've got a motion and a
[2:49:16] second. Any further discussion?
>> Yeah, I've got um I guess I would like
[2:49:22] to see it
go the people that are on there right
[2:49:27] now get it right away. That would be the
only thing because if they're going to
[2:49:32] do it, they just well do it.
And I'm going to support the resolution
[2:49:37] simply because
um I think that our dispatchers and 911
[2:49:43] operators are probably have one of the
most stressful jobs
[2:49:49] um
providing that service to our taxpayers.
[2:49:54] And so I'm going to provide it for the
same reasons that law enforcement
[2:49:58] officers are class B um public safety
members.
[2:50:05] If there's no further discussion,
Alicia, will you call the role?
[2:50:09] » Commissioner Putnham,
>> yes.
[2:50:11] » Schmidt,
>> yes.
[2:50:12] » Arens,
>> yes.
[2:50:14] » Hi.
>> Landine,
[2:50:15] » yes. Motion carries.
>> Then we have board discussion on Lincoln
[2:50:20] County Justice Center. Commissioner
Putnham,
[2:50:22] » I'm going to hold that off till next
week. I got a couple other things to
[2:50:26] say, too.
>> All right. Then we have our opportunity
[2:50:29] for public comment for items not on our
agenda.
[2:50:33] Any
[2:50:36] public comment?
[2:50:42] » If not, are there any commission
reports?
[2:50:44] » No, it was it was it wasn't pulled for
regular. It was just removed.
[2:50:51] » Paul, do you have a report?
[2:51:00] Uh just briefly um on last week the um
Turner Lincoln account or Lincoln Clay
[2:51:08] Water District presented um that um I
just was saying I'm working with them to
[2:51:13] get updated language. Uh part of their
discussion was to have the board
[2:51:18] consider becoming a sponsor. Um, so just
a heads up that you will see some draft
[2:51:23] language and an item on either next week
or the following week's agenda for the
[2:51:27] board to consider being a sponsor. Um,
just thought I'd give you guys an update
[2:51:30] on that. Um, and that's all I have for
right now.
[2:51:35] » Thank you. Any commission reports?
>> [music]
[2:51:39] » After last week's meeting, I received a
tremendous amount of positive feedback
[2:51:46] on the uh motion for a moratorum on data
centers. I just after that meeting and
[2:51:53] the amount of publicity uh probably 35
36 37 people uh sent me emails probably
[2:52:03] received about a dozen phone calls on
the issue and who knows how many text
[2:52:08] messages but uh there seems to be
tremendous support for wanting to rein
[2:52:14] in take a timeout or a pause on data
centers. There was uh people are very
[2:52:22] happy that we're going to have a uh
discussion with the city of Sou Falls.
[2:52:28] Um there is a lot of people who want to
give their input who don't like the
[2:52:34] status quo and uh they were very
pleasantly surprised that there was
[2:52:40] support for holding another joint
meeting with the city of Sou Falls.
[2:52:44] That's going to be the last Tuesday in
October at 7:00 p.m. And uh I'm just
[2:52:49] reporting back uh feedback I'm getting
on that.
[2:52:54] » Commissioner Erns, do you know cuz that
meeting will be in Sou Falls, correct?
[2:52:59] » The rotation that we follow is we do
every other meeting and so if we follow
[2:53:05] the tradition and custom that means that
the meeting would be up in Sou Falls cuz
[2:53:10] we held this one in Canton. So, I'm
guessing that that'll be a lengthy
[2:53:14] meeting. So, that would normally be our
night meeting if I'm not mistaken.
[2:53:19] So, are we going to move that night
meeting to the morning?
[2:53:25] » I think we I don't know. Let's discuss
it. Let's talk about it. Let's pull our
[2:53:30] calendars out and look at them.
>> Do you want to do that now or do you
[2:53:35] want to work with the commission office
on doing that? Well, I think we should
[2:53:38] work with the commission office first
instead of doing it on the fly here this
[2:53:42] morning.
>> All right. Any other commissioner
[2:53:45] reports
>> because we're also going to have to move
[2:53:48] the uh we have not taken formal action
yet on also moving our November
[2:53:54] election as well. So, we're going to
have to take action on that, too.
[2:53:59] » We just need to probably figure it out
sooner rather than later for public
[2:54:02] hearings and those things.
>> Agreed. Commissioner Erons, we did move
[2:54:07] the November 3rd meeting to November
5th.
[2:54:10] » We did both of those at the beginning of
the year.
[2:54:13] » There you go. We did it. Done.
>> So, we just need to look at the in the
[2:54:16] last day of October or the last
>> Okay.
[2:54:20] » Okay. Any other commission reports?
If not, Drew, any executive session? No
[2:54:26] executive session. Motion to adjurnn,
please.
[2:54:31] » So move.
>> Motion. Is there a second?
[2:54:35] So moved.
>> Thank you. All in favor signify by
[2:54:38] saying I. I.
>> I.
[2:54:40] » Any oppose? Same sign. Hearing none. We
are adjourned.