00:00:12,100	It’s 5 o’clock, uh, chaplain. Please. He’s a chaplain. I, I apologize, the sheriff was talking to me, he when the sheriff talks, you have to listen. Is this Mike on? There we go. Now you can hear me. Let’s pray.

00:00:39,330	Heavenly Father, I want to thank you so much for the privilege and the honor that we have to be in this room tonight and To stand here and just to give you thanks. Thank you for life. Thank you for your blessings. Thank you for wisdom. Thank you for everything that you do for us, God.

00:00:57,530	Thank you for the calling that you placed upon these men and women here in this room today to serve this county. I pray God that you’ll give them wisdom today. I pray that you’ll give them a spirit of unity and a bond of peace as they go through the agenda.

00:01:17,230	And Father, I also pray for our county workers and our county first responders, uh, each and every one of them, God continued to protect them, watch over them, bless them in all that they do and bless their families, and we pray this. in the name of Jesus. Amen. Let’s stand and do the pledge.

00:01:40,870	I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Here I’m going to call the June 2nd, 2025 meeting of the Burley County Commission to order. First item is roll call of members. Comm Woodcock, Comm Munsen. Comm Bakken here, Comm Schwab. Heerner. Here.

00:02:10,070	Next is approval of the agenda, uh, Comm Munsen requested that we remove item 8A. And um Under me and finance Director Jacobs, I think we have the same Sort of That would be 9e under me and 7 C. Or 7A, so I think we can scratch 8A. And 9 E from the agenda. Anybody else have any other changes? hope to approve the amended agenda.

00:02:42,130	Second, Motion to second any further discussion? Seeing no. Perunen. Comm Bakken. Yes. Comm Schwab. Yes. Comm Woodcock, Chair. Yes. Motion carries. Consideration of the May 15th and 21st special meeting minutes in May 19, 2025. Meeting minutes and bills, Commissioners, Mr.

00:03:11,000	Chair, I had the opportunity to read the uh bills this morning and approved them, and I would recommend that we, um, approved the minutes of the May 15th and 21st special meetings on May 19th and the bills. Second, motion a second to. Approve any further discussion. I’ve seen none Col. Comm Bakken. Comm Schwab. Yes. Mr. Woodcox? Yes. Comm Munsen? Yes. Chair. Yes, motion carries. Next is consent agenda.

00:03:34,930	Commissioners may want to pull anything off the consent agenda for further discussion. Otherwise, What are your wishes? Moved to approve the consent agenda in its entirety. a second. Motion is second to approve any further discussion, noncultural. Kher Schwab. Yes. Woo. Chris Munsen. Christian Bakke. Yes. Chaitner.

00:04:02,270	Yes, motion carries item number 6, Comm Woodcock’s reconsideration of the Sandford Bond. Mr. Chair, uh, we had an opportunity to review a bond application at our last meeting and we had several questions which I felt were not answered completely or not properly and so I would like to reconsider that bond bond application.

00:04:22,030	And I did visit with uh Sanford, and they have a representative here that’s uh we’ve dealt with before, but he would like to make a presentation and keep us up to date, open up for any questions that we might have and uh bring it off the table for. Consideration It’s a new one on me as far as, uh, is that a motion or is reconsideration. OK.

00:04:43,970	Second, motion of second to reconsider the Sanford Bond any further discussion? So unable. Woods. Comm Munsen. Yes. Bakke? Yes. Fisher Schwab. Yes. Yes. Motion carries. Um, I see. OK. Both. You’re on first? OK. Come on up and give your name for the record, please. For the record, my name is Todd Schaffer.

00:05:13,800	I am the president CEO of Stanford Health here in Bismarck. With me, I have Brian Ritter, who is our head of market affairs. He is handing out an FAQ sheet uh that uh we’ll go into further detail in terms of the bond issue that was brought before you uh two weeks ago.

00:05:30,330	Uh, first and foremost, I just want to start off by apologizing to the commission for not being here in person that evening, uh, not understanding what questions that you would have had, we should have been more prepared and I should have been in attendance for that.

00:05:48,000	So I do appreciate the opportunity to come back and explain, uh, what the issuance of the bonds are for, uh, what this means and um and really what this means for the county, uh, when you look at uh the, the motion that was in front of you on that night. Uh, this is an IRS requirement.

00:06:07,200	Uh, so sorry, Stanford Health is looking to issue bonds for capital projects throughout its footprint and uh we’re not specifically asking for bonding, uh, from, uh, the Comm. itself, uh, we are going through, uh, the South Dakota Health and Education Facilities Authority because we’re not able to issue bonds directly, uh, so as part of these, uh, bonds that are being issued, uh, they, uh, the IRS does have a section in their code that requires us to

00:06:28,530	appear, uh, first of all, in the paper, and then a first reading and then uh they motion that was uh uh made and then ultimately defeated two weeks ago, uh, which is basically what you’re doing is certifying.

00:06:47,300	that we have projects in your jurisdiction that we’re using capital funds for, uh, so there’s no liability to the county. This is nothing else other than certifying that we do have those in, in your jurisdiction. Just as an example, you’ll see that on the sheets that we handed out and some of the projects that we’ve done, uh, first and foremost to Southridge, uh, clinic, which is our new walk-in clinic.

00:07:03,430	Uh, we have family medicine ultrasound down, uh, in the Southridge Center on the south part of town are a legacy bed edition, which is a 36. beds that were adding to our facility, uh, first set of 12 beds go live on June 9th, uh, which is just next Monday, uh, and then you look at, uh, 2 weeks from there and then 3

00:07:19,800	weeks from there, the full 36 will uh beds will be online, but we’ve got the outpatient surgery center, which is on the corner of Main Street and 7th, uh, which doubles our, uh, outpatient surgery capacity, um, the UND building where we built out the 3rd floor which has allergy immunology, and, uh, as

00:07:38,000	well as, um, ear, nose, and throat, 4th floor, which is our oncology and infusion services, and I could go on and on. There’s a lot of projects that we’ve, we’ve uh done throughout the years, uh, in this, uh, in this community, uh, which, uh, total over $360 million.

00:07:57,500	Currently we have about $72 million that were projects that are in flight currently right now. Now you look at it and go, well, it’s asking for $2.1 billion and that’s not for this jurisdiction. That’s all throughout Sanford, and this is, uh, bonding that we would be able to leverage up to that amount.

00:08:13,770	Just gives us the opportunity to be able to bond these out and to do additional capital projects with, um, and again, at the end of the day, uh, this is basically, I think it’s very important that we stress that it’s an IRS requirement that allows us to be able to to issue these bonds, to be able to continue to invest in the community that

00:08:28,800	we’ve, uh, we’ve uh been investing quite a bit. So with that, I will stand for any questions that the commission might have. any question? Mr. Chair, did you give us an estimate of what was going to be spent in Burley County or Martin County.

00:08:52,470	Did you give us a number there? Uh, Chair Bittner and Commercial Woodcocks at this point in time, uh, the current projects that are in flight total about 72 million. Uh, we do have, um, strategic capital asks in for addition with a, you know, heart Ho, a heart tower, uh, which is about $500 million as well as uh Aetna building which we own, we’re waiting to build

00:09:11,470	that out, um, and then, uh, other properties that we have that we’re just waiting for capital funds to be. able to complete those projects, which, um, when you look at uh just from a Bismarck region, uh, isn’t that 500 to $550 million dollar range. Thank you. Thank you. Comm Schwab. I uh Understand what he’s saying.

00:09:37,470	But if there’s one thing I don’t like. is when Something is put before me one minute before. We have to make a decision and it’s not included in the agenda. Number 2 is, I don’t know why we’re getting involved in financing.

00:10:07,100	Period I think In my opinion, Every time I see something like this and they say, well, they approved, they approved. Everybody’s for it. We know somebody like that. Did you want to find out if they’re here? Is there a representation from some carbon Solutions here? So I can’t support it. Comm. Todd, once again, this is just Again, IRS. Compliance, um.

00:10:40,470	Bonded out of South Dakota for the benefit of Burley County residents and in our community here. That, that is correct, uh, you, I’m sorry, uh, Chair Bittner, Comm Bakke, you’re absolutely correct.

00:10:57,070	Uh, if you look in the last paragraph on the back side of the page, it’s, it even lists the, you know, subsection of the IRS code, uh, and really it, you know, to answer a Comm Swababs Schwab’s statements, you know, we’re not asking for, you know, permission, uh, in terms of, uh, saying that, you know, we want you to say we can bond this or that we can do these projects. This is basically acknowledging the projects that we have in flight.

00:11:14,130	Um, and, and it had we had this information, I apologize, we should have got that to you sooner than right before the meeting. Uh, but again, this is just an Irish requirement that says that we are bonding and these are the projects that are happening in your jurisdiction and then the idea is those

00:11:29,600	capital funds will be spent back in Burleig County for additional projects as we uh as we’re able to secure that those bonds, and this is no different than if you were going to a venture group or a big bank, just.

00:11:47,930	That’s the mechanism out of South Dakota that you’re getting the funding for for doing these capital projects, same as if I go to my banker and get a home improvement loan. So, Chair Bittner and, uh, Comm Walken, you, you’re absolutely right, uh, other than the fact that Sanford Health is not able as a not for profit entity to bond on our own.

00:12:07,470	So, so that’s why we are, um, uh, partnering with that agency, the bond agency that we have that helps. It’s a mechanism for us to be able to do that and, and by issuance of these bonds, it allows to be able to achieve these capital projects without having to, you know, basically take, you know, other things, other investments that we would

00:12:21,470	otherwise make in and use those for capital projects. Comm any additional questions? I don’t see moved your proof. About public uh input which is required. Well, I have a motion in a second. Does anybody wish to speak on this item? Thank you. Oh, boy. Charles Tuttle.

00:13:05,300	I live on the Rosser, um, I, I think that the reconsider, we have to go through the same processes you have, uh, the IRS requires us to have public notice in the paper. And then you have a public notified and they can speak on it. I’m still curious as to why this has been why we’ve been pressured to reconsider this.

00:13:26,000	Who pressured the commissioners to reconsider it, and my question to the commissioners are, didn’t they know what they were voting on? We’ve had for how many months we’ve had this, uh, we have an auditor doesn’t know what he’s doing, and now all of a sudden, I’m seeing commissioners that don’t don’t seem to know what they’re doing, and you either

00:13:44,370	voted there was a, what was the reason you voted the way you voted, and now, we, we should have the public should have an explanation why you’re changing your votes, why this is going to be rubber stamped through, and I still wanna know from Stanford. I’m gonna ask him right here.

00:14:03,400	Why did you oppose Me for uh uh uh it was a initiative by the people for, you. We’re, we’re here talking about a bond issue. I’m, I’m not gonna ask you to, to go off topic like that. Well, that’s not off topic. They don’t pay taxes.

00:14:24,730	Now they want us to give them a tax break when they’re lobbying against us to have tax breaks. That’s very your point is well taken, and that’s here. And they need to answer for that because that’s a definite HIPAA Comm Woodcox? I think I brought this up again because we, at the time we voted on this two weeks ago.

00:14:41,270	Oh, there I got my mic on. When we voted on this two weeks ago, we did have several questions that were not answered in full. Uh, we didn’t know, uh, how much was going to be spent in Bertie County.

00:14:55,830	We, we had, I, I was under the assumption since it was South Dakota related, it was all going to be in South Dakota and, and I didn’t approve that. I didn’t like that. We knew that, no. Well, you knew that, that you were just asking. You were just asking why, why we voted it down. That’s why we voted not the only reason, but that’s one.

00:15:12,870	And when we That information, further information that we should have had and that, and he, he was right and that they should have been here to present this, then I reconsidered and I brought it up to the to the group and we are uh we’re aware of what’s going on, and that’s why I brought it up to reconsider it.

00:15:26,800	I don’t think you guys are aware of what’s going on. We are the mountains coming from? Who’s the bondholder? Nobody knows this stuff. OK, I’ve been researching it.

00:15:43,270	But, but we were told when, when you guys approved or you guys denied this, you were told that the bonds were coming out of South Dakota and it was gonna be renovation and stuff for both. The, the reason they came here is because it’s gonna be here. It’s gonna be invested in here. We knew that.

00:15:58,100	So when you say you didn’t know that, I’m wondering why you didn’t, did not, I don’t argue with it, but we did not know where it was going to be spent. We, in fact, I asked the question, how much is going to be spent in Bernie County. And the, the person who was representing Sanford, uh, Didn’t have the accurate question. She didn’t give us an adequate answer and that’s why we voted no. OK.

00:16:14,200	Well, I’m just telling you, under the IRS requirements that I’ve read, you, you’re, you’re actually starting all over. You can’t reconsider. You need to have a notice in the paper, have public input, and redo it all over if that’s what you wanna do. Thank you.

00:16:35,630	In case anybody else wish to speak on this? OK, it’s not a public hearing, so don’t need to close that. Uh, we have a motion in a second to approve for my, for my purposes, um, I did want more information at the time, like you said.

00:16:57,470	And um, I felt it was appropriate that a, a local person was here, and I appreciate that effort and I certainly appreciate the apologies that he gave for not being here. And, um, I consider that to have met my um My concerns, so. Any further discussion. Seeing non, Comm Munsen. Yes, Comm Bakken. Yes, Comm Schwab, Comm Woodox? Yes. Chainner. Yes, motion carries. Thank you. OK. Finance Director Jacobs, we got 3 things, funding options for providen building renovation.

00:17:34,800	BND infrastructure revolving loan fund and reimbursement resolution. Thank you, Chair Bitner Commissioners, um, you know, upon. Rereading the agenda, I probably really have one thing. It’s kind of all kind of mixed together, um, that’s so good.

00:18:00,470	But, well, I, I think we’ll, we’ll deal with it in, in turn here, uh, so I had a request, uh, from a, a Comm to present some funding options for the provident uh building, um. That’s not to say that we didn’t know how it was gonna be funded, we. Have adequate funds on hand to um.

00:18:22,930	For the project, we have, you know, 6 million in ARPA funding to for, for one example, but there are options and um certainly with, you know, when we started talking about this, that was before the, you know, before the legislative session and the passage of the um. Of HB 1176, which caps property taxes is gonna impact this. Uh, the, the the remodel, um. So that’s.

00:18:52,770	That that’s something that it’s just unavoidable that I just think we have to, we have to talk about that, um, so in your packet, there’s a 6 or so different funding options for the Provident building, uh. Not to overcomplicate it, they’re really the options are presenting some variation of cash and debt because that’s really the options we have.

00:19:12,730	We can use cash on hand or we can use debt, um, and so the options presented, it, it looks like a lot, but it’s really just. It’s really just two things. It’s like a recipe in different amounts.

00:19:28,700	So on the one hand we have uh the option to use a 100% cash, and this would most likely come from 6 million of ARPA funding and 10.5 million of reserves. Uh, the ARPA cash is no longer restricted by the grant. It’s not subject to any further reporting or or obligation. So it’s. We’re, we’re not, um. stuck with that.

00:19:53,930	2026 date that the ARPA grant carries it under the ARPA grant, you have to actually spend the money by 2026. We’ve totally complied with what we need to do with this, this 6 million bucks, so that deadline does not exist for us, um, currently that money is in the county’s capital improvement fund per Commission action at a special meeting on December 23, 2024. So on the, so that’s cash.

00:20:16,600	On the other end of the spectrum is debt. Uh, and so if we fund with debt, that would ideally come in the form of $5 million from the BND infrastructure revolving loan fund and 11.5 million from the issuance of bonds. Now that’s contingent on the county qualifying for the loan with BND.

00:20:37,870	The reason I say ideally is because the, the, the BND infrastructure revolving loan fund is 2% interest rate, so that’s quite a bit lower than we would get in the market issuing bonds, but It is capped at 5 million, so that’s, that’s the reason for the 5 million. So she’s on that topic, um.

00:20:58,830	Since I’m kind of collapsing all these items into one, there’s a, the, there’s an a application window open right now. It closes June 20th, and so the reason I originally put this on the agenda was to ask the commission for, I, I think a consensus would be sufficient, um.

00:21:25,400	For the finance department to go ahead and apply for this loan through BND, uh, before the deadline, obviously, um, You know, if, if it’s offered, we would need to come back to the commission. You know, to accept it because at that point, we’d be obligating the county. OK, I’m going to have you hang on right there, Lee.

00:21:44,070	Um, We should discuss that right now because I think Um That’s one of the best options that we have at this point because of the If, if we qualify for the loan, and I don’t see why we wouldn’t. Um, capturing that 2%.

00:22:05,470	Interest is You know, is it just the smartest thing to do, especially since we’re We’re, we’re getting a return on investment of higher interest than that already, so. Comm Schwab Lee, If uh I agree with what uh Chair Bittner said, but My question is, with these bonds and stuff, CDs, I know you can. Uh If the interest rate that we would be getting say drops to 1%.

00:22:34,370	Are we able to Go a different route and pay the thing off. I think we could, we, uh, uh, we would talk to our, to our bond guys, but I, I think you normally have a, um, Sort of like an early repayment date or whatever. It’s a certain point in the future, so that, you know, the bond purchasers have some.

00:22:54,900	Yeah, and so I, so I think we could work that into the, the deal. In fact, the um, The 2020 bonds that we refinance had a 2025, um, early, you know, repayment date.

00:23:14,370	So it’s definitely a, a thing, and I, I think they would normally want to have a couple of years between issuance and the early repayment just so the people purchasing the bonds get some return would be my, my guess, but yeah, I think we should do that exactly as you described.

00:23:34,070	OK So, um, I don’t know if if the Commission wants that in the form of a motion or just a consensus, but I do think we should, at the very least direct at the finance department. Start the application process for that revolving loan fund through Bank of North Dakota. I’m going to make that a motion. I think we should vote on that. Second. OK, and motion to second any further discussion. Comm Woodcock.

00:23:55,070	Chair, you’re looking at option 2 then primarily, is that correct? I’m, I’m just kind of separating. I know we’re doing the $5 million application to the Bank of North Dakota. I agree with that, but Because down at the bottom it says Bank of North Dakota loan. And then bonds of 11.5%. We’re not considering that. I don’t think so, no. No. We’re considering using reserves Bank in North Dakota and ARPA.

00:24:12,700	Yes, that’s OK. Kind of where I’m at, Comm Chair with this motion to. apply for the loan. Right. Personally, I would say we would then table the discussion or the decision on exactly what package. We would want to do until we hear back on the loan. We don’t need to decide today how we’re gonna finance it.

00:24:33,500	We might as well make sure we know what we’re getting if we’re getting the long. Right. Yeah. And then. Because there’s a deadline, yeah. Yeah. Since there’s a deadline on that application. Period. Yep. And I think we should direct that he moves forward with. I would agree. Mr. Bakke. Lee.

00:24:55,800	Any timeline or or indication of once that window closes for applications, how long before we find out? I don’t recall, um, you know, they sent out an email notifying, you know, counties and political subdivisions about it. I don’t recall. How soon after the close of the deadline we would hear. I, I don’t recall. Probably depend on a number of applications. They grade them.

00:25:17,700	There’s a point system. Yeah, I think there’s a. Um is a prioritization, I’m sure, you know. So From the perspective of tabling the remainder of this. Um Probably until we hear from Lee on, on SAC application. I would Be supportive of OK. We’ll, we’ll talk about that in a second.

00:25:46,270	I think that’s just fine, but we have a motion in a second on directing that, uh, finance department. pursues the application for the Bank of North Dakota. Any further discussion. Caro. Comm Bakke. Yes. Comm Schwab? Yes. Mr. Woodcock? Yes. Comm Munsen. Yes. Chair. Yes, motion carries.

00:26:11,200	OK, now we can have a conversation about, um, Lee, are you, are you OK with, um, waiting on, on kind of making a decision on this. Oh, yeah. Yeah, I don’t think so. So, my only question is, Do we need to kind of start the ball rolling with the, the bond process if we decide to go that way. Is there some? Something more we can.

00:26:28,230	Well, yes, that, that’s actually, I’m glad you mentioned that, because that is item 7C, um, now if you’re, if you’re referring to issuing tax exempt bonds, and my understanding that correctly then. We would need to do a reimbursement resolution.

00:26:54,870	And that is uh another IRS talking about IRS, uh, stuff tonight, another IRS rule that um how I, I don’t think I need to read it here. Um, actually, it’s a treasury regulation, I guess, but Basically, um, it, uh I’ll just read it.

00:27:15,230	It restricts the use, this regulation restricts the use of tax-exempt bond proceeds to reimburse the county for project expenditures made by the county prior to the date of issuance of such bonds. The regulations generally request that the county declare its official intent to reimburse itself for prior expenditures from the proceeds of a subsequent issue of tax exempt bonds, but no later than 60 days after I’ll just, you know, it’s exactly what we do with the um. Specials.

00:27:33,930	So we do this every time we have specials. We come in and we declare that we’re gonna reimburse ourselves with tax exempt bonds, um, for the work that we’re About to do or just did.

00:27:49,470	I think you have like 18 months, but that’s something that we would, so the reason that I put it on the on the list here is that is something that was recommended by Colliers that we start that process that our bond guys and then um they recommend that we would work with our, our bond council, Scott Wagner in drafting that. He does all of these for us.

00:28:09,600	So I guess maybe that’s another consensus or motion that we would want to see that in a motion, I believe, because it seems to me that it’s a long process and it should start whether we’re, we’re gonna take a specific amount or or whatever, at least keep that avenue open at the earliest opportunity, because we always have the option of

00:28:25,830	just saying no, we don’t wanna do it, right? I think so, yeah. Mr Comm, what are your thoughts on that? We’d moved to start the process, um, Pending verification, there’s not a penalty for starting the process and, and then saying no, we, we don’t want to go through this, um.

00:28:51,370	Because you’re, I believe so. I, I got a question for that. So as long as there’s not A penalty involved, then I would say, uh, make a motion to start the process. Second, motion a second like you said. I’m in agreement with that. Any further discussion? So call room. Mr. Schwab. Yes. Comm Woodcocks? No. Comm Munsen? Yes.

00:29:13,030	Comm Bakken? Yes, Chair Bitner. Yes. Motion carries. Uh, so, so we’re, we’re talking about debt here and um, you know, our, our options for, for debt are basically BND and then issuing bonds now.

00:29:39,900	When we’re talking about this, what, We need to consider the implications of, of HB 1176, which, as I said, caps property taxes at 3%. Um, so the, the bill restricts the increase in property taxes levied in dollars to 3%. Of a somewhat complicated calculation, but it’s, it’s essentially 3% of the highest previous 3 years. So you pick your max year out of the last 3 years.

00:30:05,470	Um, and that is you can do 3% of that. There’s a couple other things in there, but that’s basically the gist of it. So as we’re moving on to a new funding formula with sales taxes our property taxes levied in dollars. will be relatively low. So we’re gonna be restricted to 3% of a relatively low number.

00:30:27,330	And then on the other hand, we have sales tax collections, historically, sales taxes have increased by 2%. This is since 2015 when we started the 0 cent sales tax, so that’s Burley County sales taxes. Uh, however, there are years where sales tax collections decline.

00:30:51,330	And in the current year, we’re forecasting a 5% decline in sales tax collections, you know, the trend, as I said, is, is up 2%, but it goes down, it goes up, um, so the result of this. Of this bill and then the volatility and sales taxes is that we do not have a reliable source of revenue for budgeting. Or for building reserves.

00:31:11,630	And so given this 3 year look back, uh, this. Specific issue won’t hit the county until fiscal year 2029, so we have a few years. Um, and then there is another, it’s, it’s sort of a, I guess a, a wild card if you wanna call it that, if your levy is at 0.

00:31:35,070	So I’ll use the example of, of some of the oil producing counties they’re, they levies at zero in some cases because they get oil money and so if your levy is at 0, then. You may increase it anywhere from 0 to the max.

00:31:57,700	So if, for example, the county’s general fund levy is at 0% because of sales taxes, then you would have that option, uh, one year to go from 0 up to. You know, something, uh, certainly not the max, but, but something, so that might give us another year if we’re at 0 in 2029 in the general fund, we might have another year, but basically it’s, it’s 3 years.

00:32:15,830	And so I, I did consider some of the pros and cons of debt, cash versus debt financing in light of Uh, this, this bill, um. You know, certainly there’s, there’s benefits to, to both, uh, as far as cash, some of the pros that I could think of would certainly avoidance of debt, um, the interest rate on the debt is, is likely gonna be

00:32:40,200	higher than our investment returns, and so, um, using cash to avoid debt is if you’re measuring strictly and return on investment, that’s probably a better move, um, and it, it does not, by, by using cash, we are not increasing the tax burden. Um, on the citizens, so that’s. That’s certainly a good thing.

00:33:02,700	I mean, we’ve, you know, with, with passenger sales tax and and whatnot, we’ve made an effort to do that. Um, cons are, you know, lost opportunity, um, for other uses of the cash. The reserves are kind of our budget stabilization fund. I mean, it’s not official, but that’s, that’s kind of how they’re used.

00:33:22,430	They’re also sort of our emergency fund, um, unofficially. And, uh, and then reserves will be harder to grow, I think, in the future with this, with this bill, the way that it’s written, so if we use them now, may be a challenge to build them up, um, we might have some budgeting volatility under HB 1176, so that budget stabilization, uh, you know,

00:33:47,030	fund of our reserve that is our reserves, um. Would be helpful. Well, we sort of navigate this new landscape, um. Another Khan, and this is kind of. Maybe a little esoteric, but, but if you’re, if you pay the cost of construction out of existing funds. That’s basically burdening past.

00:34:14,730	Taxpayers with the full cost of the project that’s gonna have a future benefit. If, if that makes sense versus if you bond it out, then it’s future taxpayers that are paying uh for a project that has future benefit because the, you know, the county’s operating out of there, so certainly there’s a benefit to the citizens, uh, for that building, um.

00:34:37,730	And I did, I did mention I have another K here, which relates to sales tax. I did mention that, you know, we’ve got this volatility and uh You know, going forward in the future, we may have a year where we have to cut because sales taxes go down, it’s just the reality of it, and so if we

00:34:53,330	have to cut in a year and we’ve used a bunch of reserves now, uh, that could be challenging, um. And so as far as the use of debt.

00:35:11,330	You know, pro is the of course the BND, it’s a low cost of debt at 2% that would assume, of course, that we are approved, um, and as I just mentioned, you know, conversely, Um, bonding spreads the cost of construction over future years. So that’s a pro on the. Debt side, uh, a con on the cash side.

00:35:35,470	Um, and then similarly with these issues with sales tax and HB 1176, it’s a con on the cash side, it’s a pro on the debt side, if you follow me, um, because the Debt, bonded debt is not subject to the limitation. Under HB 1176 and so we can, we can bond and, and levy it and that’s allowable, so we’re not going to have that issue, um.

00:35:59,000	Of course, the Khan of using debt is it increases the tax burden when we have cash on hand on hand to pay for the project, um. And then another con is that the interest rate on debt issued by the county is higher than the investment returns, so it’s, you know, pro on the cash side, on the debt side, so they’re really kind of opposite, um,

00:36:21,730	opposites here. So I, I didn’t want to get into this bill, I honestly right now because we just started looking at it about a week or two ago, and we had a lot of conversations, well, 2, but they were long with the association of counties about it, um, about the implications of this bill

00:36:41,100	and especially with our unique situation with sales taxes. And so it’s just so, and I understand it’s there’s. My, what, what, what I was told is that there’s like 16 different versions of it. I, I don’t know if that’s true or not, but, uh, but everybody’s struggling with.

00:37:00,400	Trying to understand the bill as it’s written, let alone you add our sales tax issue into it and it’s just super complicated, but I felt that we needed to start talking about it because of um the implications that, uh, that it has on the Provident building on on the. Finding of it. So that’s what I have.

00:37:21,530	I, I’ll be happy to answer any questions. OK, Commissioners, any questions? I think it’s a good idea to keep This subject on the agenda for the next meeting. And I also think it’s a good idea for Commissioners to continue asking questions and trying to to You know Get answers as we can.

00:37:43,830	I personally am going to talk to some legislators and see if I can get some. Insight on what the possible, uh, you know, future actions could be because. Although I did talk to legislators ahead of time, um, it didn’t, I don’t, I don’t think it, it.

00:38:02,900	Was sufficient, you know, or in enough time, you know. So I’ll be doing that and hopefully other commissioners will too, so I think we’ll keep this on the agenda. And I want to thank you, Lee, for putting together a really good uh presentation on that. You Thank you. OK, under 8B, um.

00:38:33,830	I have Mary Singer provided a Burleigh County, a proposed Burley County change order item, and this would be under you. Um, I don’t know if you’ve seen it. Nope. OK. One of the, if you want to look, um, one of the Big concerns.

00:38:55,100	Um, first off with the Provinent building project, there’s a, a kind of a an amount built in for uh Contingency possible changes in the contingency and whatnot, but Um, the question really should be, What would An authorized amount for a change order B. Without having to come back to the Commission for full approval. Um Well, that’s the question. What we, what have we allowed for contingency? Any idea? Total? I don’t, I don’t remember. OK. too much water under that bridge. Well, Mr.

00:39:23,230	Chair, that’s, that was exactly my concern. You know, the, the commission approved. The, the construction amount of 16,587. I’m personally in a project where change orders are coming at me every day.

00:39:48,400	So You are going to be in that hot seat where change orders are coming at you, and so rather than everything coming in front of this board every time, what is our procedure, what is the limits? It’s how do we move forward without having a special meeting every other week to discuss something as opposed, you know, as well as at this meeting and so I just wanted it out front. I wanted everybody to visit about it.

00:40:05,730	Do we need to make a decision today? No, but I think we need to have a. instance or emotion. To give you the authority that you need. So that we’re not discussing it at every meeting.

00:40:24,130	OK, well, what I think we should do is because this, this is the first time I’ve seen it in actual form, uh, printed form. So I think what I’d like to do is put that on the agenda for our next meeting. And we’ll have time to think about it and um we’ll, we’ll use this as a Um Part of the agenda packet so everybody can read it and Comm Woodcock, Mr.

00:40:46,070	Chair, um, I happen to be the construction manager when we remodeled the courthouse, and I think that was like a 6 to $7 million dollar total cost, and, and I was authorized to spend up to 25,000 on that project without coming back to the board. Anything more than that, we had to do that, had to come back.

00:41:02,670	And that was easy because uh they, they might be some lights that they need to change and that type of the historic implications over. There too that we had had to address and, uh, that worked fine. OK. OK Mr.

00:41:27,200	Buck, Comm Woodcock, was that, uh, piece of the project or total? No, we had like a, I think $400,000 contingency, I just wanted to clarify that for the record. Yeah. Yeah. So it was, but a project, uh, for a change order up to 2, we had one major one that was like 150,000 or something, and we came back to the board and approved that.

00:41:44,270	There’s a couple of old light pictures we wanted to save and There were $10,000 or something to do that and it was, it was easy. But we had a we had a contractor in, in, uh, at risk in that project, which we don’t have here. So the contractor did a lot of that.

00:42:06,130	How long ago was that? Julie, how long ago was that?????? 89 years? No, it wasn’t that long because it? It was 8 years on the bond. Um So it had to be more like 6 or 7. That sounds. About that. Were you, did you find yourself bumping up to that, uh, that number at all or? No. Other than just that one thing.

00:42:21,700	One, I think it was one big one that we, we moved some walls and things and, and her area, I think that was the most substantial cause we had to move an elevator and things like that. OK, well, the only reason I, I mentioned moving it to the next thing, it’s just because this is the first I, but.

00:42:39,200	Well, but I think also knowing what our contingency dollars are, you know, would be good for all of us to know as well as have a good chance to look at this document. OK. Yeah. Thank you.

00:42:56,370	I think we, we had a 400,000, which sounds a lot, but that building is built on what, 18 different levels and we were very concerned about going up and down, up and down all over the place, and we did have some run-ins there, but I think that in a historic building which we don’t have, well, the prominent building. Yeah, yeah. We have to be careful there, so. Right OK, so we’ll move that to the agenda for the next meeting and uh.

00:43:16,070	Uh I’ll hand that off to the The The auditor’s office for the Agenda packet. OK, 9. The determined public hearing dates for resolution. And plan for separating elective office of Burley County Auditor Treasurer to elective office of auditor and appoint of office of treasurer. Um Commissioners, I don’t have any recommendations on that.

00:43:49,430	Do you have any thoughts on that? That’s about all I would say is probably schedule that for. The next regular for the County Commission meeting. We’re going to do that during a meeting, correct? Yes. OK. That would be my thought. Any other fine to me.

00:44:13,200	To And what, uh, we have public hearings in connection with one of the next two regular meetings. I have emotion, do I have a second? motion is 2. And the motion was for public hearings at the next 2. Regular meetings. Regular meetings. Any further discussion? rule. Here’s your Woodcocks. Yes. Comm Munsen? No. Comm Bakke? Yes. Comm Schwab? Yes. Sure. Yes. Motion carries.

00:44:50,230	Um, update on petition to the North Dakota governor for removal of the Burleigh County Auditor. I only have a very little bit of update myself, maybe the state’s attorney does. I saw that that was submitted to the Attorney General’s office. On Tuesday after the Memorial Day holiday. And, um The I I did get an email that had the link.

00:45:18,470	To what all was submitted. I don’t know if that’s been provided to commissioners or not, but um. Uh It’s under one of the state’s attorney lawyers, she’s got her non-disclosure thing on there. So I didn’t want to forward it to anybody with that link, I think that was being also put on the website.

00:45:39,600	Under Uh, Mary, you can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think it’s under um Home Rule charter. On the website under government under government home rule charter, and then that information should be there, but that Be right shaking her head, yes.

00:46:00,270	Yes, I think if you go to the Verle County website, there’s a banner at the very top that talks about that if you click on that banner, there’s a whole bunch of documents in that petition as part of that. On that website, so it’s that link from the front page. Perfect. That’s even better. That’s easier to get to than what I was describing.

00:46:15,670	Another reason I was mentioning that is because I was kind of looking for that information myself because a citizen asked me. Where it was because they couldn’t find it and so we wanted to make that a little more prominent. So that information is available to the public. Right, on Burleigh County website. Thank you, State’s Attorney. Um, Burle County Commission Public comment policy, page 214 and 215.

00:46:41,830	Commissioners, any comments on that? Mr. Chair, is, is it your Thought to have it at the beginning of each meeting. I didn’t have a thought on it. OK. I don’t. Matter of fact, it didn’t take time to even read it yet.

00:47:09,930	Sorry Um, must be pertinent to Burleigh County, may not interfere with the orderly conduct of their regular meeting. may not be defamatory abuse or harassment or unlawful. May be prohibited if an alternative procedure exists, to bring that particular type of public comment before the entity, public comment includes confidential or exempt information or the public comment is otherwise prohibited by law.

00:47:30,300	And there is a question here about time limit per speaker or session. Um You know, it does say um I kind of skipped over one Burley County welcomes public comment at our regularly scheduled meetings. Don’t say that here, but I think we always have. For the most part.

00:47:56,500	A public comment period will be provided before the consent agenda and regular agenda to discuss items not listed on the agenda. That’s kind of important to me because I think public comment for an agenda item should be in that agenda item. Because otherwise kind of no real point for it. And it also says public comment is available during each agenda items, that’s not necessarily the case. Um You know We don’t always allow public comment.

00:48:28,370	During each agenda item. Mr. Chair. Commission Munsen, if I can, I like the fact that we would have it at the beginning of the meeting, um, it allows all residents to address their concerns, whether it is an agenda item or not, but I think when we allow it during the meeting at The agenda item.

00:48:54,530	Sometimes we do and sometimes we don’t, so to me that’s unfair. We either allow it on all or we don’t allow it, but if we give them the opportunity to speak at the beginning of the meeting. Then we can, can conduct our meeting. Orderly. If we just allow them to do it at the beginning.

00:49:14,930	Would be my opinion. So you think strike that last sentence and that. Mr. Chair, sorry, go ahead, uh, on time limit, I think, uh, uh, 5 minutes is sufficient for one person to speak. I think we’ve got to put a limit on it, or we can get Out of whack, so to speak.

00:49:35,300	I think the city has the same thing. Am I correct? 5 minutes? Yes. Well, I just penciled in 5 minutes right there. Um, Kind of the caveat I used with that was, Redundancy, and it depends on what the topic is and. If Cause I, I’m not a fan of time limits.

00:50:02,900	If somebody shows up and wants to speak and they’re adding something to the conversation. Feel free. That’s what we’re here for, um, the caveat I always had with that was as long as it’s not redundant and you’re adding something to the conversation, so if that takes 15 minutes sometimes, so be it, but that was my rule.

00:50:26,100	But that’s I, I, I think we can leave that to the chairman’s discretion. I don’t think you ever, you know, I don’t think you ever cut anybody off in 5 minutes from all in one. I never did and I fought with their attorney a lot over there.

00:50:38,600	Not that we would have to do that or could do that, but I, I, I think that’s something that could be left to the Chairman’s discretion. Time limit for sure. Yeah, because that that was my Personally, that was my, as long as it’s not getting redundant and you’re getting a whole bunch of people coming up saying the same thing and just grandstanding. That does eat up valuable time when.

00:50:58,070	You have something to add to a conversation and maybe it can’t be conveyed in 5 minutes, and, and you know what, let’s sit here and listen to it. So as long as it’s something new to the conversation. But again, I, I, I would be very comfortable leaving that to the chairman’s discretion.

00:51:15,630	Well, I think since we’re setting a basically setting a policy, we should have something in here that refers to that, like you laid it out. I wonder if you’d, uh, um, kind of work with Mary a little bit on the language to, to add that because that seems like something that we probably should add.

00:51:32,630	But I don’t believe that public comment needs to be available during each agenda items because sometimes. We we have meetings where That’s just not, and unless it’s a public hearing, then Yeah, at, at the beginning. Works best.

00:51:56,530	And chair if I may, the yes, the policy as it’s written says a public comment period will be provided before the consent agenda and regular agenda to discuss items not listed on the agenda, so take that not listed on the agenda part out as well.

00:52:10,500	If you’re not allowing, if you’re going to take out public comment as each item is available, they should be allowed to talk about agenda items at the beginning then, so I would suggest taking out the, um, not listed on the agenda portion of that sentence as well. Thank you. Well, that makes sense too, yeah. Mary. OK. Comm, public comment. Yeah, come on. I think public comments about this is one of those times where you do get here. Welcome. Thank you.

00:52:32,500	Name for the Ren Wangler, um, I just have a, a comment, um, being able to comment on something that you are dealing with at the time rather than before that item takes place, gives the public a chance to actually respond if there’s an item listed and we’re not sure exactly what all it entails, and there’s a discovery. by what you disclose or discuss.

00:52:56,430	That brings up an issue for the public. Shouldn’t we be able to ask questions or respond to that. It’s just a thought. Yeah, well, I can answer that for you. Um. If that were the case, I know I would allow it.

00:53:14,730	If there was, you know, you know, new information you’re doing now just by letting me step forward with a a concern, but if you say that all of the comments have to take place before the consent is we get out of line too that just says uh at the discretion of the discretion, because I, I have not seen any Chair that I’m aware of over

00:53:33,830	the years to Um, there are lots of committees and lots of these meetings that we attend where there is a set time for public comment and that’s all you get. So that’s why I’m, I’m asking if you intending to do something similar. By removing that I think I think we’ll just add a line.

00:53:55,670	You know I appreciate you bringing it up. Appreciate it. Thank you. Mhm. Yeah, because there’s, there are occasions when a topic comes up and then The reason having it put at the front of the meeting. So it one is an orderly fashion, and we’re not.

00:54:18,630	Jumping around a little bit or you get in the weeds of things, conservation of some time, but There are an opportunity for us that the public might trigger a question that we want to ask as well, so the ability to bring somebody back. Um, leaving that with the discretion of the chair. That’s, that’s why that’s important.

00:54:40,470	So because if somebody brings up something that raises a question for me or another Comm then they should be able to go review that and, and ask that question of that, the public, so. Um Mary OK, so we’re going to make some changes, Mr. Chair, again, my only concern there is.

00:55:04,170	If we allow some, we have to allow all, so I don’t want us to be pigeonholed one way or the other, you know, at the discretion of the chair makes sense, but I know we’ve told some people they can’t talk and that concerns me if we’ve allowed some and we’re saying no to somebody else. As long as we’re aware of that concern. I don’t want us to be.

00:55:23,830	In the middle of a lawsuit because we didn’t let somebody speak. Um. If you have it at the beginning. Yeah. Then everybody’s covered. I appreciate what she said, you know, but. We got to be careful when we tell someone no. Mhm Would we address that in language.

00:55:52,070	Well, I just wanted to bring it up as a point of conversation, but I don’t know. So that’s why the public comment at the beginning. And then the ability, if it raises some other issues when we get to that agenda item. for us to call them back. You don’t add you’re you’re not you’re adding you’re you’re not adding.

00:56:13,400	You’re just reviewing something that somebody already spoke to because that addresses that situation. I like that. Discretion of the Chair has a lot to do with it. Yeah, it does. It just means the Chair is, is paying better attention to the meeting, which I think we’ve all, in our terms have done, so.

00:56:36,600	OK It was a good conversation, so we’ll, we’ll look for some changes and we’ll have that on the agenda for the next meeting, bless you. Missouri Valley Complex P purchase inquiry update.

00:57:02,100	OK, this was a carryover from Um, previous meeting, is there any additional information on that? Uh, I reached out to the, uh, individual who, uh, presented the question, uh, right after the last meeting, uh, he said that he would try to compile some things together, um, then I reached out to him prior to this meeting as well, and they said that they don’t have anything ready yet. Um, he says he’s working on it still but nothing at this time.

00:57:17,070	OK, so we’ll give them a chance, uh, we’ll just move that forward to the next, uh, regular meeting agenda, and we’ll give them a chance to Update us if they desire. If, if they don’t have anything to present, don’t put it on the agenda. That would be a fair, yeah, yeah. OK. So Cut that part. OK.

00:57:40,330	Well, it gets us to the end of the regular agenda, um. Any other business for the good of Burley County. OK. Go ahead. Go ahead, Miss. Who’s on first? Uh, We’re having problems down there in that bridge with these barricades being moved. Marcus, you want to come up and help me out here in this, Yeah. We’re thinking to take these.

00:58:07,130	Concrete dividers down there and block it off. The Commissioners, the only thing I wanted to add is, uh, he’s correct, uh, those are the typical barriers that we use on a lot of projects and, and a lot of times in the case of a bridge project, the bridge is out so it’s, it’s.

00:58:25,270	now finality, you know, you can’t go beyond there cause the ridge is out. But in this particular case, we have a bridge that doesn’t really meet our standards, and we’re concerned about the safety of the public. People are just moving the barricades. So the suggestion we had was blow the bridge, yeah.

00:58:42,300	There was a thought there, but But then we’re concerned about people going through the side and not seeing the bridges out without contractor having equipment around and stuff like that. Um, what we’re thinking about doing is putting, uh, concrete jersey barriers across it a little more something substantial to keep residents out of that, and we just wanted to let the board know that

00:58:58,430	that’s our intent on that location. So, and answer any questions you may have. Yeah, uh, right away I have a question. How are you gonna um address that when the contractor arrives, so that, because I don’t know that he’s got the. Yeah, that’s a great question. That’s something we’ll coordinate with him, so.

00:59:14,270	OK. Mr. Chair, Comm I have a question, a quick question. We have several years ago we put a, a walking bicycle trail along Pioneer Park all the way up by double ditching up to, I forget where, who’s in charge of, did we accept the maintenance on that? Do you remember? I remember getting the contract

00:59:37,870	from one of our senators and they, they would put it in with federal money, but I thought we put to our maintenance of Commissioners, I’m gonna have to do some investigation on that.

00:59:55,530	The only way we would have accepted it is that maintenances would have been kicking and screaming, but we may have done it, but I don’t think I don’t. I think that was the trail. Yeah, Lewis and Clark trail. The city may have had some input on that, I believe.

01:00:14,670	Well, there’s an area up there where The Bernie County Water Resource has a Burk Creek flood control system and around to the side to the south, uh, there’s an area where they’re going along the bike path, which is not vehicle, no vehicles at all. Crossing over there and going down and, uh, having Drinking parties or whatever right near the Water Resour district project, and I didn’t know who was responsible.

01:00:34,970	We’re, I’m looking at trying to put a gate across that, that, uh, Bike path so that vehicles can’t go across it just bicycles and it says non non-motorized vehicles. So whatever that might be Commissioners, let me do some investigation on that. And we’ll talk a little bit more in detail about that location. So. OK. Right Thanks. Mr. Schwab, you said they’re drinking down there? Amongst other things, I’ve heard other.

01:00:57,530	You mean Wayne’s going to have to change his route. Yes. And it. I’m not, I’m not being any more comments. Anything else for the good of Burley County? Yes. Comm Bakke. Um, so once again, anybody from Summit Carbon Solutions here? No? OK.

01:01:26,170	Um, As per a previous conversation at the city, um, their last commission meeting, uh, ETA discussion came up. Uh, we have our Bismarck Burleigh County. Joint meeting this week, and that’s something I would like to discuss. One of the things I would like to broach with that because there’s some misinformation taking place, um, on some commissioners.

01:01:49,430	I don’t think the full expanse of the uh, Bismarck City Commission understands the full situation with the ETA. One of the things I would like to have a discussion about is possibly some public Input meetings and I would like to do that in the form of that venue, but. I don’t think anything’s going to get solved unless we’re all part of that.

01:02:10,530	So I would like to. Broach that the full Burleigh County Commission and the full Bismarck City Commission are part of those public input meetings, so that’s what I’d like to bring up at that meeting, and I just wanted, uh, consensus that we would make time to make sure that that took place. I would agree with that.

01:02:36,170	Um, I think I heard a comment that Um, something about the county commission didn’t want to change something or something I did too, and that was, uh I was really shocked by that. Yeah, well, and, and you know best that this goes back to myself and another.

01:02:59,200	Comm on the city side when I was mayor, and you and another Comm, Comm Woodcock, Comm, um, Peluso at the time, uh, we had those discussions and um there’s a lot. There, but it’s worth having discussion and if we’re not all sitting at the table at the same time, I don’t think there’s a potential for a positive outcome.

01:03:22,170	I’ve had some long conversations with the city administrator, and we think we’re Getting in a direction that we might be able to bring some things to the table that could at least alleviate some of the issues, if not start getting in the right direction for fixing some problems with it.

01:03:37,000	So, um, I just wanted input from the rest of the commission to Get rid of the misinformation, all the information that’s not there. I, I’ve, it was my understanding one city Comm said that either party could opt out of that agreement, which isn’t the case. Um, so we need to kind of clear the air for that as well, so.

01:03:57,870	You know, I, I, um, I would have no problem with us requesting a joint meeting of the city and county commissions. For that purpose prior to a public input meeting. You know, maybe a You know, may possibly a special meeting at some, at some point, hopefully in an evening or something rather than during the day, Comm, Mr.

01:04:21,930	Chair, I’d like at that time to review how we, how we establish the exterior boundary because it’s like this all over around the county, depending upon the 3 mile limit, but how do we change that and when do we change that? Because like, the big development we got going up Northwest.

01:04:37,970	Are they going to annexit into the city right away and then they get all the, the benefits of we do all the work and get all the laid out and then they take over. That doesn’t make sense to me, so I’d like to look at that, how we, uh, attack the edge of the ETA.

01:04:51,800	Well, that was one of the things too is when I was mayor was I hate the map of City of Bismarck. I mean, it’s the most gerrymandered thing and it’s it’s confusing to citizens and, and, um, we ran into an election issue where a bunch of people who were recently brought in the city in the northeast, got the wrong

01:05:10,500	ballots. Um, just one of the many issues when it comes to the ETA. And when somebody’s disenfranchised as a voter, I think that’s a big deal. So I don’t think a motion is required, but I do think that everybody’s available, you know, available, yeah. OK. I’m available and I think that.

01:05:34,630	I think that would be important because, see, I, I can tell you that there’s nobody on the city commission at this point that knows the backstory. No. And we’ve been, I know, Comm Woodcoxx and I have been here a long time, and you, you were involved in a substantially. And I’ll forward you some texts where I took pictures of.

01:05:55,900	Uh, the paperwork that you and I were familiar with, and there, there’s some stuff that was provided by the highway department. Um, Marcus and went through old records, um, there’s over 3 pages of individual projects that Burlee County has had to pay for in the extraterritorial area because of actions with the uh subdivision approvals and I’m

01:06:20,530	not, if I’m not mistaken, we’re talking in the millions of dollars’ worth of projects and, and they provided a real comprehensive list, so. I did provide that to Comm Connelly, and I asked him to get that to the city commissioners, but like I said, none of those commissioners are even aware that those things have happened

01:06:37,670	in the past. Those are the kind of things that we certainly need to be looking at and I think it starts with Like you said, as a meeting between us before the public comment where here’s the full backstory, and here’s the history of these are the issues that we’re running into and then let’s start

01:06:53,170	trying to figure out how to solve. Sure. And another example of an issue as long as we’re on that subject is somebody that lives out in the ETA wants to get a building permit to add on to their garage, let’s see.

01:07:12,270	Well, they have to go to the city to get a, a, a building permit and pay money, but then. You know, it’s like the Boston Tea Party, if that’s making sense, you know. Yeah, it’s a form of that, and that, that’s one of the issues, certainly, that I, I mentioned that to a couple of commissioners in the past. Difference in cause, yeah, there’s, there’s a lot there’s bless.

01:07:34,800	And so if, if even something as simple as a citizen in the ETA. Can just simply choose who they want to get a permit from and because actually I think the city permit in some cases may be cheaper than the county permit? Yes, it is.

01:07:53,430	So it’s, it’s not necessarily that it’s a, you know, a financial benefit so much as The citizens’ right to choose who, who are they. Um, dealing with. I think one of the big places that needs to be cleaned up as well is a great example is The county and the city have worked very hard to make sure that they’re zoning is in pretty much lockstep because that’s for the future

01:08:13,770	growth of our community. No, no. Where there’s a failing is the building codes. between what you’re doing in the city, the ETA versus out. So if somebody wants to put up a pole bar and not pour concrete right away for cold storage. Can’t do that in the ETA.

01:08:32,300	You can do that in the county. ET is not in the county or in the city. It’s in the county. So things like that and uh a lot of the building codes, I think it’s a lot of the places where We can look at and benefit the citizens.

01:08:51,100	I don’t, I don’t know that that particular thing is a building code issue. Now I think maybe more of a policy or an ordinance issue. City policy for somebody who lives in the county. So we have a lot to discuss. Yeah, we would, we would be enforcing state building code as well, you know.

01:09:08,530	So anyway, there’s a lot of things to discuss, and I think we should move ahead with doing an invitation for them to meet. Any other discussion. Comm One more point to bring up. I believe it’s Stone in Kansas. Uh People went out to get Manure for their gardens. And they couldn’t get any because it’s being pumped underground at $85. Manure? A ton.

01:09:42,670	So just keep that in mind. I haven’t had a lot of time to research on this. But we better be ready for it. I mean, it seems like right now, uh, The game is. pollute the underground. But I mean, this is what it’s coming to now it’s ammonia, um, Methane.

01:10:08,330	Um, And so you cannot buy Minerve from some of them feedlots down there. They got, Slurry pump Sa as Summit. So you might want to kind of be aware of that. That’s interesting. Thanks for that information. Anything for credit. Yeah. OK. Any, anything