00:00:17,000 S1: God, we love you and thank you for your many gifts you have given us. Come to us. Remain with us and enlighten our hearts. Give us light and strength to know your will, to make it our own. And to live it in our lives. Guide us by your wisdom. Support us by your power for you, our God. You desire justice for all. Enable us to uphold the rights of others. Do not allow us to be misled by ignorance or corrupted by fear or favour. Unite us to yourself in the bond of love, and keep us faithful to all that is true. May you guide all our decisions so that they may be pleasing to you, and earn the reward you promise to good and faithful servants. We make our prayers through Christ our Lord. Amen. 00:01:07,567 S1: 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. 00:01:21,267 S2: Thank you Tony. I appreciate that. 00:01:30,567 S2: I called the January 20th meeting of the Berkeley County Commission to order. First item is roll call of members. 00:01:36,667 S3: Commissioner bacon here. Commissioner. Schwab. Commissioner Woodcock here. Commissioner. Munson. Chairman. Bitner. Here. 00:01:44,901 S2: Next is the approval of the agenda. Commissioner. Someone who move a couple things around to start with. There's under number 15 where it's under my name for update purchase policy for Highway Department. I want to remove that from the agenda because we're going to talk about that under the subject that's under 15 B and I want to move 15 B up to or basically eliminate it because we're talking about the same exact thing under ten B, which is the accounting RFP is that accounting RFP, um, essentially involves both of those under 15. And then I want to point out that, um, under the abatements on the consent agenda, um, I see my name on there for my Marine Corps, um, service connected disabilities, and that's at a 60%. And there's also paperwork that jumps it up to 80%. And so I want to not be involved in the vote on that abatement commissioners. Um, and then I want to add an agenda item in place of 15 That, I think. Commissioners, you all received an informational email regarding the Garrison Diversion District meeting recently held. So I'd like to have a brief discussion on that. I don't, um, I don't think we need to take very much time with that, but I want to add that in place of the other things under 15. Anybody else have anything on the agenda? 00:03:34,100 S4: Um, other under other business. I'd like to add, uh, a brief little discussion update, um, on the 250th anniversary for the United States. 00:03:48,667 S2: Okay. 00:03:53,100 S2: Anybody else have any changes or deletions? Is there a motion. 00:03:58,801 S4: Move to approve the new agenda. 00:04:03,167 S2: A motion, a second? Any further discussion? Call the roll. 00:04:07,100 S3: Commissioner Bakken. Yes. Commissioner Schwab. Yes. Commissioner Woodcock. Yes. Chairman. Bittner. 00:04:12,267 S2: Yes. Motion carries. Consideration of the January 5th, 2026 meeting minutes and the bills. Commissioners. 00:04:19,501 S4: I reviewed the bills, and I would move to approve them. And the minutes. 00:04:27,300 S2: Second, a motion and a second to approve the meeting. Minutes and bills for January 5th. Any further discussion? Call the. 00:04:33,100 S3: Roll. Commissioner Schwab. Yes. Commissioner Woodcock. Yes. Commissioner Barkin. Yes, Mr. chairman Minter. 00:04:38,200 S2: Yes. Motion carries. Number five is public comment. Um, does anybody wish to approach for public comment? This is restricted to Burleigh County residents and landowners. Um, and obviously, if things are on the agenda, that wouldn't be under this subject. This is a public comment, period. Does anybody wish to approach. 00:05:01,100 S2: Third and final call. This is a public comment period. Anybody wish to speak? Seeing none, I'll close the public comment period, and we'll move on to the consent agenda. And I'll just remind you that I don't want to vote on the abatements. 00:05:15,667 S4: Did you want to just turn item number six over to me then? Yes. Okay. Item number six consent agenda. Um, a abatements b special event permits c check replacement d social media policy. Uh, does anybody want to pull any of those off for discussion? 00:05:34,367 S4: Um, I'm going to call for a roll call. Vote on, uh, 6BC and d, uh, and then we'll do a separately, uh, because I'm assuming there will be an abstention from Chair Bitner. So, uh, with that, I would entertain a motion for six B, C, and D. 00:05:55,000 S2: Motion to approve. 00:05:57,567 S3: Second. 00:05:58,467 S4: Motion and second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Call the roll, please. 00:06:02,200 S3: Commissioner Woodcock. Yes. Chairman Bittner. Yes. Commissioner Schwab. Yes. Vice chair Barkin. 00:06:07,400 S4: Yes. With that item. Number six consent agenda A abatements. Anyone on to have a discussion on those? I would entertain a motion to approve them then. 00:06:21,767 S4: So move second motion and second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Call the roll, please. 00:06:27,667 S3: Commissioner Schwab. Yes. Commissioner Woodcock. Yes. Vice chair. Bacon. 00:06:31,267 S4: Yes. Motion carried. 00:06:35,501 S4: Um, do you want to actually do you want to have an abstention on the record for that or. I do. Yeah. Yeah. So can you amend that for an abstention to Chair Bittner, please? Yeah. All right. Thank you. Item number seven. Chair. Good. 00:06:51,000 S2: Um, this is a commission. Uh, commission continued discussion. Um, regarding a public administrator, um, I know that, um, I believe Aaron Burst is in the room, and I think we probably have somebody. We may have somebody from Guardian and Protective Services. Um, we want we wanted some additional information. So if Guardian and Protective Services is here, would you come up, please, and identify yourself for the record, please? 00:07:27,167 S5: Sure. Commissioner, this is Scott Bernstein. I'm the executive director of Guardian and Protective Services. 00:07:37,767 S5: And I believe your pen is dead. 00:07:39,367 S2: Is your microphone turned on there? Yep. Okay. 00:07:46,567 S6: We got once. 00:07:51,667 S5: Again, Scott Bernstein from Guardian and Protective Services. 00:08:12,467 S5: I understand you have had some questions as to the role of the public administrator, and Aaron Burst would probably be better to give you the long term history. Um, Guardian and Protective Services has served in this role, as I can tell, since the 2000, 2001. Then it's been appointed by the court, succeeding various periods of time. Um, it comes through the judicial judicial district is where those appointments are made. How we landed in that particular position, I think, is probably because under the century code, there are requirements to fill as it relates to guardians, conservators, And one of the other lesser known elements that takes place under this particular public administrator role is dealing with unattended deaths. So we'll get a call from hospitals or from the medical examiner, sometimes from a funeral home where a body has been transported. Excuse me. And then we have to step in and figure out who this person is possibly identified with. See if we can discover any other heirs, relatives, whatever. Um, do they have any property? Is that property located? Do we have bank accounts? Is how do we find those? Um, that is kind of a mysterious process as it relates to it's many times basically the name. Sometimes they've got something in their wallet. Um, predominantly men. Um, and then we take it from there. So whenever there's, like a Suicide. Those types of things, we get called into. One of the other places. However, that is lesser obvious is that if there is somebody who has a will and the executor in that estate is no longer capable or competent, or may have died and cannot fulfill that responsibility, then we are called upon to step in and start to process that estate. Um, some of those are pretty straightforward. Some of them are really complicated and messy. We had one not too long ago that we completed here the house in Bismarck. Essentially, it turned into a meth house. Um, and they had disconnected all the electricity, tore out the wiring and the plumbing of the house. There were eight heirs who thought this property had great value to it. Um. Long story. Took hours and hours and hours of work to be able to start to resolve that situation. I can say gratefully that ultimately that house was brought back into a sellable condition, and it's now on the tax records and restored in the neighborhood that was dramatically impacted by that house. So we have this kind of fingers out in the pie. Um, this came about, I think, because I had submitted earlier a agreement that we would have with Burleigh County to provide these services. And so it got handed around, I think, a few times and went to various places. And so that's, I think, how it arrived here. 00:11:35,000 S5: What questions would you have other than that? We're on 24 over seven, 365 days a year or so. 00:11:43,868 S2: Well, I think the biggest question, if I'm not mistaken, had to do with the budget. Um, you know, we we don't have a budget for any of those services through your office. Um, and I think what I saw was, uh, was that an invoice, um, that we saw or. 00:12:07,667 S5: It was kind of a contract agreement type of thing that had been done the previous year. And then I was told to submit it in June for the new budget cycle, which I did. And I think there's been confusion where that landed or whatever. 00:12:22,467 S2: Okay. To the best of my knowledge, at this point, that was not approved and there is no budget for that. And so I think the reason that we invited Aaron is to give us some information on the funding that pays for your services or the things that you do, as I think there's a disconnect. My understanding is that there was legislation, and the reason that we didn't budget for it is because there's Legislation that provides reimbursement for those services. 00:12:54,367 S5: There is past funding, and that's under guardianship. There was a new office, and we have Rachel Sinas, who's the director of the Office of Conservative Guardianship and Conservatorship as well. That was not necessarily wrapped into that bill last year. Um, that's maybe where some of the confusion lies. 00:13:19,300 S2: I think that's possible. Yeah. So I think at this point, we probably want to hear from North Dakota Association of Counties Director Aaron Burst. 00:13:27,767 S5: Thank you. 00:13:28,567 S2: Thank you. 00:13:32,100 S2: Hopefully you can kind of help us sort this out. 00:13:34,667 S7: Well, I will try. Chairman Bitner. Uh, good morning or good afternoon or evening. Time flies when you're having fun. Uh, Aaron Burr, Association County is also a Burleigh County resident. Uh, I've been with the Association of Counties now for 20 years. And it's interesting, as we're talking about public administrators, this is one of the first projects I started with at the Association County's Benton County government. Now for 25 years, um, public administrators is what we're talking about today. And public administrators play a critical function in county government. Since the founding of counties, counties have relied on public administrators. And I look at them as kind of the Fix-It office for the founding of the state. Uh, counties had staff people who served in public administrator roles, which was to do a lot of the things no other office really had the technical expertise to do. As Scott mentioned, that could be attending unattended desks, getting the the things in order. Or it could be the guardianship process for people who have no money to hire somebody to do the guardianship. So public administrators have a critical, important role, and we totally support it at the Association of Counties. And I'm trying to be respectful of everybody's time. I know you have a full agenda. I'll give you the the snapshot of why I'm even here, why we're talking about this in 2000, in about nine, then Chief Justice Vandewalle was concerned with how the guardianship process was in North Dakota, and not just for public guardians, which are handled by public administrators, but also guardianships in general. For people who have the court appoint someone to make decisions for them. But the Supreme Court became involved in the North Dakota Association of Counties became involved because we looked at it as a property tax measure that counties were being responsible for having to pay for public administrative services, which are appointed by the court, which still is true today. And there seemed to be a breakdown that the counties kept getting bills from the court, services from public administrators who are private service providers. And there was a breakdown. So we suggested to the legislature in 2013, in the process leading up to 2013, that the state should really take over that process, not just funding, but all around oversight of the process. So in 2013, the North Dakota Legislature created the Public Administrator Support Program, which is administered by the Association of Counties. At that time, it was $1.6 million, 800,000 came from county governments, and 800,000 then would be matched by the state government. And that was in 2013. Thankfully, nowadays it is $8.1 million that is into that program in the counties have had to pay for nothing on the public administrator's side in terms of the guardianship portion of what a public administrator does. Now, again, I totally agree. Public administrators do more than the guardianship portion, but it is a significant part of why they are. County government. This is an old code. If you want to look, it's an 1120 101, uh, which makes this a county responsibility. But we have largely shifted a lot of money over to the state side to pay for some of those services. Um, I was coincidentally watching the meeting, and I saw Mr. Bernstein, uh, speak to you about this, and I was on some, uh, email correspondence also. And again, I can't say he's wrong because, of course, there are certain things that they are doing. Um, but in the large play that the Association of Counties has been trying to do over the last few years is to remove this responsibility from county government. Now, technically it has not been removed from county government. So there is some obligation, I admit that, but in large part the public public administrator guardianship side has been paid for at least what the legislature thought they could come up with. Um, so that again, that's a real long history. In, in the 1970s and before this was an elected position, an elected county position that has changed, and now it has gone to a private service provider model. So there is no county that has an employee that serves as the public administrator. Um, Ward County was the last and I think about 2015, uh, that employee retired and they went to a public service provider also. So we have a number of great public service providers, including Gaps, that is now serving as the public administrator for numerous counties. Um, and so that's a bit of the history lesson. Uh, so the county has not been paying for this. I'm not aware that Burleigh County has been paying for this over this time, that we've been paying at the association for this program. But again, there are some other things that they certainly do. How that's quantified, I don't know. But I can tell you. Long term, the Association of Counties is committed to, um, looking at how we can address property taxes and shifting things that are not truly based on property tax over to a different funding mechanism. And this is one that happens to be there. At the same time, we completely support the the stuff they do. Uh, critically important. It really is the Lord's work. Um, so I'm not, um, what this commission wants to do with that is is up to you. 00:19:09,267 S2: So what would your recommendation be? Because. Is that something that just fell through the cracks or is it was was it just it picked up extra work outside of the normal? What. 00:19:21,667 S7: Mr. chairman, and I've worked with Gaps for the last 20 years on this program. I was unaware that there was requests to counties outside of the guardianship portion of the public administrator. Um, I don't think Burleigh County was funding that. Um, so if if you want to that's certainly within your right. Um, but it seems to me that, uh, and again, I don't know what happened, but it seems to me that had to be in your budget, um, going forward. And maybe it should be in the next budget. And again, depending on what happens in the legislative session coming up, um, maybe there's a way that that could all be blended together too, but I don't know how you'd do it. 00:20:05,367 S2: Right. Hang on, Commissioner. So the funding that was provided by the state and you're the passed through for it. Was it intended? Are you aware that any of that was supposed to cover, like, the whole the whole picture? Is that because we seem to have gotten mixed messages? 00:20:20,467 S7: Right, Mr. chairman, what I can tell you is that the funding, uh, at least originally envisioned, would would pay for what public administrators do so counties don't have to pay for it anymore on property tax. How the dollars were calculated was based on how much people got paid individually for Guardianships per day. So the guardianship portion became the threshold of what the dollar is, because we never asked the legislature to also then give us whatever $10 a day for closing estates and those kind of things. It was just blended in with everything else. So I can't say the legislature intended it to be 100% covered, but that's how the original plan was supposed to be. It was no longer going to be a county function in terms of the dollars and cents. 00:21:16,367 S2: That's that's what we were operating under that, that framework that that was being paid for by the state commissioner. But. 00:21:23,100 S4: Um, Aaron, you mentioned this next legislative session. Are you foreseeing some changes to the program or are you seeing some some evolution in the program? What? 00:21:33,467 S7: Yeah. Mr. chairman, Commissioner bacon. Um. 1120 101 the public administrator section needs to be rewritten along with a number of others. Um, but in my opinion, um, counties, once the state went to state consolidated courts, um, it seemed to me the public administrator was the the orphan that really didn't have a home. It was still a county funded position. I would have liked to seen it all go. 00:22:04,701 S4: Kind of stuck between judicial and county. 00:22:07,267 S7: Correct. And I'll tell you this, um, originally proposed way back in 2013, I suggested this should all be state controlled. State run. They run their own public administrator. They're the ones appointing the people to do the work. Um, and that was shot down because the court said, rightfully so. Probably they have a conflict of interest if they're appointing people and also having to oversee them. Department of Human Services at that time. Now its d h. S Department of Human Services says well we're running a similar program for the DD population and so they didn't want to mess with theirs. And so ultimately that's where the association of counties came in. We stepped in and we said, hey, we can run the program short term and tried to take the fiscal responsibility off the counties and eventually move it to the state. Now, again, I'm not sure if we have an ultimate goal when that would happen. Now, I will say, as Robin is here, we did create an office of Guardianships so that portion will be moved. But again, whether the county still has some legal responsibility for the other portions of that job. Um, I guess that's why we're here today. Uh, ultimately, it would be my goal to to just say this is no longer a county function, but who knows what the legislature would do. 00:23:27,267 S2: Commissioner Woodcock. 00:23:28,501 S3: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 00:23:29,801 S1: Um, way. 00:23:30,801 S8: Back in the. You talked about the year 2000. Uh, they were they rented space from the county at the Provident Life Building, and we paid $25,000. In other words, we paid $25,000 to have them rent free at our facility. In other words, we've budgeted for 25. And we paid Provident, Provident Life building the 25,000. That continued on for a long time until we decided to remodel the building and they decided they were going to. They'd have to look for some other space which which we I think we told them to start looking and they did. They moved up north there in the north side of town and a great space. But back then I was more heavily involved in and they do a great service. They did a great service for us when, when I was involved in taking the cases that that were a problem case and we, we couldn't we didn't have the staff to handle them. And and so they did it and all we did was pay the rent. And so that's some of the history of uh, previous. Now, I don't know whether it's budgeted for this year or not. That's not not it was $25,000 before, so. 00:24:35,667 S2: I think I think that's the amount that's in question. 00:24:38,400 S7: Is it in Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Woodcock, I completely agree. You were you were actually counties were getting a good deal on the services they were receiving. So again, I'm not here to to cast out on any of that. Um, what I would say is that was part of where the Chief Justice was having issues with this as counties were doing everything different. Um, Cass County, for example, wasn't even paying for guardianship services. They were receiving public administrator help, but it was offset by private clients. And CAS was basically not paying. And so there wanted to be some. There was a desire to be some uniformity that counties would pay or the legislature would pay for the guardianship portion. But like I say, the public administrator does a number of things. Um, I do think, as we're in particular in the age of caps, we're going to have to redesign some county functions. And maybe there's time now to say public administrator shouldn't be a county function. Some of those fixed things maybe could fall in a different office. Of course, any time I say that than the other offices get a little upset. But I do think it's time some of the traditional historical things that counties have done should be evaluated now in light of caps. 00:25:54,267 S2: Are you aware of any other counties, by any chance, that pay for anything along these lines over and above what funding is provided by the state? 00:26:04,701 S7: Mr. chairman, I am not, but that would be a good question for Scott. All I can tell you is what what the association of counties with state dollars pays to these private service providers. I do think if if those payments become so large, there is nothing stopping the county for staffing a public administrator again, just like the old days, and applying for those dollars. But again, that would have to be a decision. All of you would have to make. As of right now, the Association of Counties passes that $8.1 million through to the private service providers for the guardianship services. We take no money, by the way. Got to clarify that. We just simply ask OMB for the money that appropriated from state dollars. We created a computer program and then sent it out to the private service providers. So that's how that works. 00:26:58,200 S2: So it's safe to say the assumption was that all services were being covered. Is that. 00:27:05,100 S7: Mr. Chairman, it's safe to say that if you if you pumped up the guardianship portion enough that that would take care of some of the other the other, um, non paid things. That said, there was never any grand plan of how it would all work out. It was. The grand plan was eventually just the state takes all the all the services, and the county doesn't have to worry about it anymore. 00:27:34,200 S2: Okay, what I'm struggling with is his comments about the 25,000 originally being rent, and somehow we morphed into, you know, I don't know if it's mission creep or morphed it into something else. And I'm wondering if if the services in other counties are the same as what's happening here. 00:27:55,367 S7: Mr. chairman, I will ask the counties if they're paying outside of what the past is paying. 00:28:00,601 S2: Okay, I'd appreciate it. 00:28:01,767 S7: Yeah, I certainly will. What I would say is the in my experience, the large counties, uh, pick up the largest demand of these cases because the Bismarck's, the Fargo's, the Jamestown are aware of a lot of these services are. And so you can make the argument that you are picking up your fair share. Um, on those services. Um, again, it's critically important to have public administrators. Uh, it saves taxpayer dollars. It really does. If you can get somebody out of a hospital bed. Um, it's it's hard to make that connection in terms of the Excel spreadsheet, but it does. If you can make somebody, uh, um, get a least restrictive care, that's a good thing. Uh, what? What the county has to pay for it or the state pay for it. Um, we can debate, I guess. 00:28:54,400 S4: Okay. 00:28:55,667 S2: Great. Any other any other questions for Mister Burst? 00:29:01,300 S2: If you wouldn't mind. Hang around. 00:29:03,000 S7: Absolutely. Thank you, Mister Chairman. Thank you. 00:29:05,167 S2: Thank you. 00:29:05,868 S3: Appreciate it. 00:29:09,367 S2: Um. 00:29:12,167 S2: Do you want to add anything more to to what was was said? 00:29:21,501 S2: See I'm struggling with. How did we get to doing services that weren't included in what the state was funding? 00:29:28,000 S5: Right. And I think Aaron has done a great job of breaking that out, because the focus was on guardianship and conservatorship. And that's where the predominant focus has been, and that is well taken care of. Um, what has happened over time, from what I can see in the records and I'm not like ancient history with gaps, is that the calls that were coming towards us are way beyond guardianship and conservatorship at that point, and those aren't things that were included in the budget. 00:30:01,701 S2: Okay, I understand what you just said, but, um, I guess my question for the state's attorney and I think we're going to need more information on that, is, is that something that the law anticipates us to cover? 00:30:16,901 S9: You know. 00:30:20,767 S10: I would have to look at everything that's included. But yes, we are required to cover like burial expenses for someone who's indigent and things like that. And so it sounds like the service that's being provided kind of goes in line with that, taking care of the estate of those people that don't have, um, things set up or the means to do that and that fall into that category, I'd have to look at the statute to see what's all required for that. But there are things that we are required to do. 00:30:47,567 S2: And and so how did we get from the state paying for that until, you know, to where we don't have the budget for it because we thought the state was paying for all of it? 00:31:00,868 S10: Well, I don't have the history of that. I think it sounds like the county was paying for that at some point, and I don't know. I don't know. 00:31:10,100 S2: Commissioner Woodcock said that we were paying rent, and I wonder if that was just what was assuming that was covering it, or if it was just pardon me. 00:31:19,801 S8: The rent figure of $25,000 was approximately what we thought we were obligated to, and we just and they get donations and that type of thing. So it's not just strictly funded by the county or the state. So we we agreed that was before my time, but we agreed that the guardianship would not pay any rent. And that was our donation, so to speak, to covering the the services that they provided and the services they provided were very extensive back then. I'm sure they're the same, if not more now. 00:31:52,901 S2: Okay. But the rent situation has gone away. 00:31:55,868 S8: That was our donor. I shouldn't say donation, but they they didn't pass any rent. We actually sent they sent us, we sent them a check for 25,000 and they paid rent accordingly. Whatever. That rent may have gone up over the years, but that's what we paid towards their operation, intended to pay for the rent. 00:32:13,767 S2: So it was just voluntary. Do you recall if that was basic? It was always century code or. 00:32:17,868 S8: It was a I don't remember the before my time. I don't remember, but, um, that's what we did. I know that. 00:32:29,968 S2: Okay. I don't think we have enough information to. 00:32:32,567 S8: I don't think it's very clear that we need to find out what is our responsibility. Are we supposed to be? That's where I was supposed to be paying anything. Or, uh, I don't know. I have to go back and find that out. 00:32:46,300 S2: Okay. I think that we don't have the ability to make a decision on this at this point, because you're apparently. So. What are you asking for? 00:32:55,901 S5: The same $25,000 that historically has been there? 00:33:02,067 S2: Okay. So that we've established now that that was originally for rent. 00:33:05,901 S5: Yeah, it was, in my understanding, looking back in the records, it was these swaps, so to speak, where it was like, this is what we'll give towards you doing this until the building was no longer available for us to rent. So. 00:33:20,400 S8: But but they did move. They did move to the new location, and we continued to pay $25,000 towards that rent. 00:33:30,400 S2: That kind of went should have gone away with the legislation that covers those. 00:33:34,801 S8: I'm not sure about the legislation and what their intent was or whether how much progress they made on it. I really don't know. 00:33:43,000 S2: Aaron, do you know if if rent for the organization was is part of the funding for now? 00:33:51,367 S7: Mr. chairman Aaron burst again Association of counties. No. All we were doing is giving a per client per day price, which is now $20 a day per client. 00:34:02,567 S2: So it's reasonable to think then that that per day per client price would include the operational part of the, of the group. Right. 00:34:10,968 S7: The concept was if you could get up to $20 a day, that would take care of the service. I'm not saying whether it did or didn't, but that was the concept. 00:34:19,801 S2: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. Um. 00:34:26,367 S2: Well, obviously we're going to need the state's attorney to help us with this. 00:34:31,667 S8: Find out what our obligations are, if any. 00:34:38,601 S2: Okay. We're going to move on. Thank you. Um, thank you, everybody, for being here for that. I appreciate the input on everybody's part. 00:34:48,067 S9: Um. 00:34:51,868 S2: Senior assistant county engineer. Casey. Um, Elk creek road bridge and Lincoln road bridge. 00:35:03,067 S2: Welcome. 00:35:04,000 S11: Thank you. Good evening, chairman and commissioners. The first item. Thanks. I don't see them too often. First item is looking for authorization to seek consultant engineering firm to perform construction engineering services for the removal of an existing structure on Apple Creek Road. 00:35:28,100 S11: Approximately half a mile east of 80th Street. Southeast. It would be replaced with a new structure. It would be a box culvert, triple 14 by 14 box culvert on Apple Creek Road in the same location. We'd also be looking at a removal of existing structure on 102nd Avenue Southeast, half mile east of US highway 83, in Burleigh County. 00:35:54,267 S11: In 2026. The Burley County construction program includes work in those areas, and it would be a federally funded project. Project will be left on will be let on the February 27th bid by the state and construction will be funded under an 8020 federal local split. The use of consultant firms. 00:36:17,701 S11: Can be beneficial in completing projects that require certain capabilities that we do not have in-house, or require faster action than our current staffing can provide. The project will require us to follow the federal construction process, a process that we currently are not certified to complete. We propose using a consultant firm to perform this function. Interested engineering consulting firms will submit a written proposal addressing staff experience and technical capabilities. Current workload, understanding of project scope, fee, schedule, etc.. After a review of the proposals, we will select the most qualified consultant and the North Dakota Dot and County will work with them to develop the scope and timeline for the project. Once the details of the project have been worked out, we will apply their fee schedule and come up with a total cost. This then will be brought back to the board for your consideration. The construction engineering services for this project will be performed and funded under an 8020 federal local split. Our recommendation is for the Berkeley County Board to adopt the attached proposed resolution, and I'm available for any questions. 00:37:18,467 S2: Commissioners. Any questions? Commissioner Buchan. 00:37:20,601 S4: So as far as the timing for these two projects, are they going to be offset a little bit? Is that kind of the thought process? Because I know out in this area connectivity can be an issue at times. So are these going to be concurrent projects or are they going to offset a little bit. 00:37:34,601 S11: For the Apple Creek Road project once that would all be connected, once the removal starts, there will be be a detour. We have had public input with Apple Creek Township and many others. I have been in contact with Apple Creek Township chairman numerous times to make sure we're continue to explain how everything's going to go forward on those items once the bridge is removed. We would start the box culvert construction immediately and try and get that done as soon as possible so we can get the roadway open again. 100 seconds on the north side of Long Lake. They may. The contractor hasn't been selected yet, so they may choose to do that one. And then Apple Creek or Apple Creek Road, then that one, the 100 seconds. Much easier that one can be removed. And we're going to replace that with the 18 inch equalizer culvert. So that one will be much faster, probably be maybe two weeks at the most. 00:38:26,667 S4: I'm just concerned about the timing with, you know, trying to get around one place to another when it comes to agriculture out there. So um, that can be an issue at times. So thank you. 00:38:40,100 S2: Commissioners, you have a proposed resolution before you. What are your wishes? 00:38:43,100 S4: I would move to approve second motion. 00:38:46,000 S2: Second to approve the resolution. Any further discussion? Call the roll. 00:38:50,000 S3: Commissioner Woodcock. Yes, Commissioner. Baskin. Yes, Commissioner. Schwab. Yes. Chairman. Bittner. 00:38:54,868 S2: Yes. Motion carries. That was a correct. 00:38:59,567 S9: Correct. Okay. 00:39:02,067 S12: All right. 00:39:06,968 S11: Next one is an authorization to seek a consultant engineering firm to design the reconstruction of Apple Creek Bridge, located on Lincoln Road, approximately one half mile west of 52nd Street by the city of Lincoln. The action requested is to allow us to go forward and seek out the design services. The North Dakota Department of Transportation has been accepting applications from the North Dakota Flex Fund Bridge Replacement Program. Burleigh County submitted an application for the following structure that was selected for North Dakota Flex funds at the location that was previously mentioned. The North Dakota Bridge Flex Fund recipient announcement for awarding funds was made on January 9th by the North Dakota D.O.T.. Burleigh County was awarded funds for the previously referenced bridge on Lincoln Road, west of the city of Lincoln. In order to take advantage of these funds, the Highway Department is requesting to start the advertising process to seek engineering design services. By receiving these funds, the county would be responsible for all preliminary design engineering costs. That includes permitting, environmental clearances, public involvement, hydraulic analysis, utility locations and conflicts, design specifications and estimates. The construction cost and construction engineering costs will all be covered under the grant at 100% of the cost. Because of the importance in moving this project along the highway, Department recommends the hiring of a consulting firm to perform the required preliminary engineering design services. The use of design consultants can be beneficial in completing projects that require certain capabilities that we don't have in-house. We propose that any interested engineering consulting firm submit a written proposal addressing the same items we mentioned before with staff experience, technical capabilities, workload, understanding of the project, and fee schedule. Once we've reviewed all the proposals, we will select the most qualified consultant and work with them to develop the scope and timeline for the project. Once the details of the project have been worked out, we will apply their fee schedule and come up with the total cost. This will then be brought back to the board for your consideration. It is our recommendation that the Burnley County Board adopt the attached proposed resolution, and I am available for any questions. 00:41:10,400 S2: Commissioners. Any questions? Commissioner Buchan. 00:41:12,667 S4: Um, Casey. Kind of same question. Morris. In conjunction with the Apple Creek Road project. As far as the alignment of these two projects, the Apple Creek Road Bridge and then the Lincoln Bridge. Um, again, my concern is about connectivity there. So are we going to be okay with with offsetting the timing of those projects? 00:41:33,467 S11: Yes. The Apple Creek Road bridge at Apple Creek, since we haven't said Apple Creek enough yet that that one will be done in 2026. The one where it's located on Lincoln Road. We're looking at 2027 just by the time you get all the design and permitting, because you got to get everything through the core and all that fun stuff. 00:41:51,100 S4: So I figured that was going to be a little bit further out. So, yeah, um, we. 00:41:54,000 S11: Would look at bidding that project probably in February of 2027 for construction at. 00:41:58,667 S4: 21. Other question then, as far as because fairly sizable project, is there anything else? Uh, seeing as how we're going to have a section of that road shut down. Anything else we need to to address that? I, I would rather close something once and get everything done. And is there any opportunity to conserve some time and projects? 00:42:22,300 S11: Yes there is. So part of the flex fund for bridges, they will fund only the portion that's the bridge and your tie ins. If you want to do any of the roadway that's beyond that. That would have to be at 100% of county cost to redo any parts of the road. We can through the process of public involvement. And and your input, of course, is looking at do we want to go from where we ended the project west of the roundabout on 52nd, where the South 40 is located, and then get that over to where the city of Bismarck has annexed, in where that drainage channel comes from the airport on the southeast corner, and we can get those tie ins done, but that would be at county cost going through there. And we that could be. 00:43:03,400 S4: Getting the equipment out there is the big cost. So if we're there's some conservation and doing it all at once. So yeah of course. Okay. That was my only concern. 00:43:12,400 S9: So Mr. Chairman. 00:43:13,901 S8: Commissioner Woodcock is that is that bridge in either the city of Lincoln or the city of Bismarcks, or is it out in the middle of the two? 00:43:22,801 S11: It's in between the two, right in Burleigh County area. 00:43:26,000 S8: Nobody. Neither one of those who wants to annex that so they can pay for it, right? 00:43:30,167 S11: I haven't heard of any plans. 00:43:31,767 S8: Anytime I've beaten your door down or not yet. 00:43:34,567 S9: Okay, so. 00:43:35,767 S8: No one needs to be done. 00:43:36,701 S2: So just because of the condition of the bridge or just the age. 00:43:41,367 S11: Yep. Due to the age of the bridge. Um, back in 2009, when we had the ice jam, I remember going out there with Rodney and crawling underneath the abutments. And there's actually a triple abutment. There's old bridge beams that have been salvaged and placed on it. It's just getting to the end of its life over time, and it's a good way to have it funded, to be able to be replaced at this time. 00:44:03,767 S9: Okay. Thank you. Yep. 00:44:05,868 S4: Move to approve. 00:44:07,167 S8: Second. 00:44:07,801 S2: Motion and a second to approve the proposed resolution. Any further discussion? 00:44:12,567 S3: Commissioner Baskin. Yes. Commissioner. Schwab. Yes. Commissioner Woodcock. Yes. Chairman. Bittner. 00:44:16,868 S2: Yes. Motion carries. 00:44:18,100 S9: Thank you. Commissioners. 00:44:23,767 S2: County planning director. Flanagan. 00:44:27,868 S2: Final subdivision. I don't know how to pronounce the name, so I don't want to offend anybody. 00:44:32,367 S5: Good evening, commissioners. Mr. chair. 00:44:35,167 S7: It's recommendations from the December 10th meeting of to approve the Hughes final subdivision plat. You may recall there was a 8 to 0 recommended approval from the Planning Commission at. 00:44:49,267 S5: December. 00:44:49,767 S7: 10th. This was presented on the 5th of January to this commission. The question was whether to consider the covenants as part of this plat approval. It was recommended to table tonight to determine that through an opinion by the state's attorney. 00:45:09,667 S9: Okay. 00:45:10,467 S2: I think at this point, then we'd want to hear the opinion of the state's attorney. 00:45:16,567 S10: My understanding of the issue was deciding how any restrictive covenants put on the plat, because it's part of a subdivision, would be affected by vacating this plat and then replanting the three lots as one lot. That was my understanding of the question, and really, that's beyond the scope of what this board does. Um, we in my research, we don't get involved in restrictive covenants. That's not anything that we consider when somebody is putting in for a permit for a building, we look at what our planning and zoning laws are, and we determine whether or not it's appropriate to issue a permit that way. And then if the person is in violation of any restrictive covenants on the land, that's an issue that they have with the individuals they enter that covenant with. Um, and so really, for you to make the decision regarding the agenda item, that's a non issue, because that's not anything that you are by law, required to consider when determining whether or not you're going to vacate a plat or plat, um, the land. So that's the advice that I have for you today. I do have um, I did send out an email kind of outlining that and then also indicating that I know there there may be issues with individuals if there is a restrictive covenant and somebody coming in and wants to get a permit to build a building that's in violation of those restrictive covenants. Um, my understanding is people can come in. Of course, during the public hearing and bring that to the board's attention. But maybe you want to, as part of the application process, have them, you know, check a box saying there aren't any restrictive covenants that say they can't build the building or do what they want to do with their land that's on the land. And if there are restrictive covenants, maybe have them include a copy of that with their permit application so that the Planning and Zoning Commission and this commission has all of the information in front of them when deciding whether to grant that permit. But for the planning of this, the vacating of this plat, that's not an issue before the board today. 00:47:21,000 S2: Okay. Thank you. Steve. Strangler. Um, Commissioner Bacon. 00:47:24,501 S4: Um, so that brings up another question. This is aside from this, but going back to what we need to have as far for for covering the county and planning, when should we look at having some modifications made moving forward to what our paperwork process looks like, then. 00:47:47,767 S9: I. 00:47:48,267 S10: Would suggest that just so that you have all that information again, um, the process is that individuals come in. They, you know, they put down what they, they want to build on their level. 00:47:58,667 S4: And we have to go off and then in good faith of what they say. 00:48:01,100 S10: Correct. But then it's what whether or not it complies with the planning and zoning ordinances and then whether or not it's, you know, basically for the good of Burleigh County, whether it fits into the plan for the county. So it's not the commission isn't just a rubber stamp that if you're a, you know, if you're going by the ordinances, it gets approved. Um, there is still some discretion within the Commission as to whether or not they're going to approve the permit. And one of those things you can take into account is whether or not there are restrictive covenants that prevent that, you know, that item from being built or that structure from being added on to the land. Because, again, if somebody's going to put some building on it, we give them a permit to put a building on the land that violates a restrictive covenant that may mean down the road litigation for those individuals because there's a violation of the restrictive covenant, and that's something you can take into consideration. But again, we don't enforce covenants, and we're not in the practice of ensuring that if we're granting a permit, there aren't any restrictive covenants that are in place. That's up to the permit applicant to determine whether or not what they're doing is in line. 00:49:07,767 S4: Correct. So more so to cover our planning and zoning commission rather than this commission, because it would fall there first. 00:49:14,667 S9: Correct. 00:49:15,267 S4: So, Mitch, is that something you could work with? Uh, state's attorney lawyer on and just I it sounds like it's probably a simple line or two, and you're check this box and and it's covered. 00:49:27,501 S7: Right. Commissioner. Mister chair, the. We could include it in the actual permit and have them check it off going forward. Okay. Yeah. The question is that the that comes after the plat approval though. 00:49:39,567 S4: Okay. 00:49:40,067 S7: So it's yeah it's we do come into covenants a lot. We've had problems earlier or last year with covenants on a permit that we issued it. That did create some problems for that neighborhood. Okay. 00:49:52,901 S4: So yeah, if you guys could work together on that and down the road. So. Right. 00:49:57,767 S9: Thank you. 00:49:58,267 S2: I should point out that. 00:50:02,701 S2: Building permits do not come before this board or the planning commission. That's a it's just a staff function, you know. Um. 00:50:14,901 S2: Not not that it's here or there. It just doesn't come before these boards to make a decision on. So I just kind of struggle with adding a checkbox or changing the language on a permit. If it's something we have nothing to do with to begin with. 00:50:27,367 S4: Well, I think it covers. 00:50:28,167 S9: Our. 00:50:29,167 S4: Butts a little bit from an administrative perspective and whether something goes forward or not. Down the road, we're clean on that. It's just one little piece of clarification for us. So because I know how the process works, somebody walks in and goes, oh, hey, you know, here's your permit, blah, blah, blah. And it's assumed that it's a rubber stamp from the county that I can do whatever I want on this land. Well, in some cases, if you go back far enough, people don't know what, especially if you're looking at third or fourth, fifth time a property is changed hands. They don't necessarily have that paperwork or know all the constraints that may go along with a piece of piece of property. They should. Yeah, but they don't always do it. 00:51:21,267 S9: Yeah. 00:51:22,367 S2: I see what you're saying. But typically if you bought property, you would do some due diligence and have a, um, you know, a title company involved and stuff like that. And everyone I've ever seen, they show you that, you know, there's covenants existing because they're recorded. 00:51:37,968 S9: In. 00:51:38,167 S2: Recorded. 00:51:38,901 S4: I've seen those fall through the cracks too. So yeah. Because we on the city side, we had that happen quite a bit. So just I think it just covers the county a little bit and gives a little bit more protection for and clarification for our, our staff. 00:51:56,801 S2: Is that some heavy lift to do that added line or something like that. 00:52:00,501 S7: No. We just put it on the permit application. But we do ask. We do almost 99% of the permits. We asked, have you got covenants on this? Have you looked at your covenants? Have you talked to your town, your homeowner's association about these projects? And we've even looked for the covenants in in the recorder's office just to to back up what they're saying. Okay. And so it's and the problem we had earlier last year was the they said they have the covenants and they're not recorded. And we couldn't find anything. And then in the meantime we're in the middle of some problems with the neighbors up there, and we got blamed for this. 00:52:40,167 S2: So then the function of having them essentially initial a box or whatever would confirm that, or. 00:52:48,367 S7: It would make them think about it for sure. They'll check whatever they're going to check and whether or not they have them or not. We don't know. I mean, we could ask them to bring copies of it. We have asked in the past, but it's you know, it's really covenants are very hard to track down if they're not recorded. And it's even if they're effective, do they have a homeowner's association that's still effective? I mean, they expire so many years after the plats approved. Um, so. 00:53:19,100 S2: So if we don't do any enforcing on it, we have nothing to do with them at all. Essentially. 00:53:24,767 S7: We have no enforcement capability for covenants. 00:53:28,000 S9: Right. 00:53:28,267 S7: That is an agreement between property owners, a civil right. 00:53:32,267 S2: So then. 00:53:36,901 S2: I don't really feel that we need to be in the middle of it, since it doesn't involve us to begin with. So I guess there's some slick lawyer wanted to get the county and, you know, but there's there's historically we've just never done anything with them. 00:53:52,300 S7: I think it's the fact that it's a good idea to make this applicant think about these covenants. And we've and to ask them the question, have you looked at their you have a copy of them. That's I think it's I mean we're trying to the best we can help with any kind of future problems preventing them anyway. 00:54:11,367 S9: Good. That's fair. 00:54:12,267 S2: Yeah, I appreciate it. 00:54:13,167 S9: Okay. 00:54:16,367 S4: Just another layer of protection for. 00:54:18,767 S9: Yeah. 00:54:19,467 S2: I don't see a problem with it. I just think that it's not really checking any real boxes. But the question is then. 00:54:28,267 S9: That's. 00:54:28,501 S4: Got nothing to do with item number nine. That's just a little side note. 00:54:32,100 S9: So. 00:54:32,667 S4: That we kind of got off on, but just hopefully it'll prevent future problems in some way, shape or form. 00:54:39,667 S9: Sure. 00:54:41,601 S2: So before us is the Hughes final subdivision. Um. 00:54:49,000 S2: Plat commissioners, what are your wishes? 00:54:53,367 S4: Um, I wouldn't mind hearing from any parties that might be here. As far as what they may have to say about this, because I know where we left it two weeks ago. I don't know if the parties were having discussions, but if there's anybody here, I'd like to hear from them. 00:55:11,601 S9: Okay. That's fair. 00:55:13,868 S2: Is there anybody that wishes to appear on this, um, huge subdivision, final plat? Come forward and state your name for the record. 00:55:22,801 S9: Yeah. 00:55:23,501 S13: Commissioner Dan Anderson, legacy law firm. I represent Mariner Construction Inc.. I'm just going to put. 00:55:33,167 S13: Try to make this situation a little simpler to understand. So this this lot right here has covenants. I have a copy of the covenants for the commission that did like them. 00:55:47,100 S8: Can you can you speak in the microphone, please? 00:55:49,100 S9: I'm sorry. 00:55:50,701 S13: This lot right here has covenants on him. And I have a copy of the protective covenants if you need them. This lot does not have covenants. And so they're what the landowners are asking to do is to make this a subdivision with part of it with covenants, part of it without covenants. However, their street address is on the covenants to get to their house. And so what we're asking the landowner to do is to, in which we can do and work with them, is to have the covenants redrafted so it covers their new subdivision, because if they have a new subdivision, and I've never seen this in ten years of practicing law that you have covenants on one acre, not on ten. So if they ever subdivide this into lots, who's going to follow what covenants? The other issue I have is the zoning. This is kind of hard to do with this microphone. This is zoned residential. This is zoned agriculture. And so is this subdivision going to be split between agriculture and residential. And where is the line for that or is it just that lot line. I guess the main thing is I don't think everyone's got everything in order yet to approve a plat. Also, to vacate a plat, you're going to need the signatures of the landowners within that subdivision to vacate a plant. Just same way you do with covenants or easements, encumbrances. You need the landowners to change the covenants. You can't just vacate. I don't think this commission has the power. And I believe the state's attorney said that to vacate a plat on your own. And so I know the landowner has mentioned that they have signatures. I have not been given those signatures. They need to be notarized, and they need to be recorded with the county recorder to vacate a plat. That's the only way you can vacate a plat. You can't just get signatures and tell the commission that you have them. It needs to be recorded with the recorder to vacate a plat and then you can replant it. It's not your guys's responsibility to vacate and replant property. If this was all their property and there's no plats, this subdivision would go through easily. But with these issues, we have my client's own property all around this, and this could drastically affect the value of their property if they decide to if they don't follow the covenants. Because then you can have if there are no covenants and you are in ag land, you can pretty much do almost anything you want And there's houses being built all around here. They plan on developing all around here. And so we don't want garbage and trash sitting on one property that has a new subdivision just because they came to you guys and asked. And so we recommend to the commission that you don't accept this version of the subdivision. And I think my clients and the landowners can probably come up with an agreement to see if, if we can have these covenants run with that land, this would be a non-issue. And so that's something that we haven't had discussions with with this landowner. But that is kind of the ultimate goal for us. 00:59:09,767 S13: And I'm open to any questions to you guys. 00:59:12,100 S2: Commissioners. Any questions for Dan? 00:59:16,901 S2: Okay. I'm not seeing any. I'm sure we'll hear from the landowner. 00:59:22,100 S13: Thank you commissioners. 00:59:31,767 S4: I'm Corey Hughes. 00:59:32,868 S2: I'm one of the two landowners. 00:59:34,567 S4: You guys heard from my wife last time. 00:59:44,167 S5: So. 00:59:45,167 S14: Um, as was mentioned, basically, our intention is not to violate the covenants of the first acre. As you can see on the drawing, that or the overlay. Our property, we put our outdoor riding arena basically right on the property line. My intention is to build the arena on the back side of our house in part of that original AG, and I'm not even sure that first acre is zoned residential, because when you go to the tax, the property tax, um, information on the parcel, you know, the GIS website, it actually is taxed as commercial, So I'm not sure at all what the zoning is on that first property. Um. 01:00:30,601 S14: I have not been approached by anyone from the other party about redrafting this. We've just met opposition. Um, but like I said, it was never our intention to violate the covenants of the first acre, and I. You're right. It is not notarized. But I did receive signatures from a good portion of our neighbors where I explained to them the process of the subdivision because it wasn't clear to them they thought subdivision, meaning I was splitting the land, which I wasn't. Once I explained that it was all being combined for the purposes of building a horse arena, and where not a single person objected that I talked to, not everyone is available to talk to. When I did go around. Um, one of our neighbors is here if you want to hear from him. So essentially, you know, according to the, state's attorney. This isn't. Covenants aren't the concern. I mean, I'm legally liable if I violate them. The question is, is, is this within the ability of this council to perform the re plot? 01:01:39,467 S9: So. 01:01:47,467 S2: Okay. Anything else you want to add? Have you got any interest in working with the other party. Can you guys get together and. 01:01:54,100 S9: I have. 01:01:54,801 S2: Not. 01:01:55,067 S9: I have a. 01:01:55,300 S2: Number. What are you guys just oppositional or what's the deal? 01:01:58,100 S14: I've never been avoiding them. They've not reached out. They have come here to all these meetings 01:02:06,067 S14: objecting. And it sounds like it's more than just the covenants. Now they're talking about trash and things like that. I mean, we're good neighbors. We treat people nicely. We help clean the roads with our equipment when there are snowy, and I've cleaned driveways when people are out of town and it gets built up during those bad winters. 01:02:28,901 S9: Do you. 01:02:29,701 S2: Want some time to work with them or what's your what's. 01:02:32,667 S9: What is. 01:02:33,100 S14: It? Is it needed? That's that's my question. 01:02:35,501 S9: Well, no. 01:02:36,501 S2: Actually, I don't think it's needed. I think, you know, we don't want to have bad neighbors. You know, the the guys that you're dealing with surround you, right? I mean. 01:02:46,300 S9: Well. 01:02:46,467 S14: They owned ag land that one day they probably do intend to develop. 01:02:50,367 S2: Right. And so your neighbors. Right. So our goal is always to try to reduce conflict between neighbors. Um, I don't know how you feel about that. 01:03:00,701 S14: I'm not against discussing it with them. Um, but at the same time, this process has already been put and tabled and delayed. And so I just I want clarification. 01:03:13,000 S9: Right. 01:03:13,501 S2: Are you building anything right now? 01:03:16,567 S14: I was hoping to start in the spring, but not right now. 01:03:20,767 S9: No. Okay. 01:03:25,167 S2: Um. 01:03:28,167 S2: You know, we the path is we got we got a couple of options. Obviously, the path would be to approve it as as as it is. Um, because there's no reason not to. Really. My understanding of the law, our our job has nothing to do. And this is difficult to say, but our job has nothing to do with the concerns about covenants. Um, that's the one path is to approve it as presented. The other is to give the two parties a chance to get together and put it on the next agenda. And if they can't come to some kind of agreement, I guess, don't worry about it then. Otherwise those are the options. 01:04:11,567 S14: I would say the only problem I've run into is I've also tried to obtain legal representation and on short notice, and due to various conflicts of interest. It's been a process. It's been difficult. 01:04:22,667 S2: I can imagine that. And it doesn't seem to me that it's a lawyer question. It's a kind of a. 01:04:31,467 S9: Well, I mean. 01:04:32,868 S14: I don't, you know, honestly. 01:04:34,000 S9: I don't I hate I hate. 01:04:35,000 S2: To see people having used lawyers for neighbourly. 01:04:37,367 S14: I understand and honestly, I don't understand why there's talk of trash and affecting future development. I mean, we've not put trash anywhere. Yes, we have a trailer, a couple trailers, and we have stuff, but that's not trash. We we're just trying to own our horses and use our property for the way we were told we could, because the majority of it has no covenants. 01:05:02,267 S9: Right? 01:05:05,467 S10: If I may, Commissioner. Yes, it sounds like we might be combining things. We should probably keep separate. The first action is to vacate the plat, and then you can replant the new, because it sounds like we're vacating a portion of the plot and then accepting or approving a new plot with the three lots put together. So the first step is, has the plot been vacated? And in order to do that, I sent you as the statute in that email that I sent that if the lots have been sold, which in this case they have a plat or any part of the plat may be vacated by all owners of the lots in the plat joining in the signing of an instrument declaring the vacation. 01:05:39,868 S2: The keyword there all. 01:05:41,000 S10: Yes, all. And then that has to be filed with the recorder's office. However, since the lots have been sold, what your issue is regarding vacation of the plat is that if there are streets or public rates, they can't be vacated without endorsement of the governing body. So basically, if the plat is vacated, then you need to endorse vacating the the public streets and the. 01:06:03,767 S9: Public. 01:06:04,801 S10: Rights. 01:06:05,267 S2: On the road. Right. There is a road that's part of that plat. 01:06:09,300 S10: Right. And that couldn't be vacated without an endorsement from this board. So that's that's the first step, is the vacation of that first plat before we can join and create a new plat. So and I think what this proposal is doing is to try to combine those two things, declaring it vacated and then approving the new plat. And so the first step has the first step and met. Have we vacated that initial plat. And so I think they should actually be separated, um, for students to vacate the plat and then approve a new one if it is vacated. And so have have all the owners of the lots in the plat joined in signing an instrument, declaring the lot or the plat vacated? That's that's the first step. 01:06:50,868 S2: Okay, I can ask that question. 01:06:52,467 S9: I have. 01:06:52,868 S2: Not. 01:06:53,100 S9: Heard. 01:06:53,300 S14: The question to all the owners. 01:06:54,467 S9: Know all. 01:06:55,667 S2: The owners is. 01:06:57,067 S9: Okay. 01:06:58,267 S14: I can do that. 01:06:59,300 S9: Okay. 01:07:01,000 S2: Um, does that need notarized or is that just. 01:07:03,467 S9: A. 01:07:03,667 S10: It doesn't say. And that's going to be, I suppose, up to the recorder as to what the recorder would accept for that document, because of course, again, that has to be recorded with the county recorder. It just says, um, all owners signing of the instrument, declaring the vacation. It doesn't say what those signatures entail. 01:07:21,000 S9: Okay. 01:07:21,400 S2: So I would recommend to you that you're going to get signatures as able, um, and I strongly recommend contacting the county recorder to find out if she would have a requirement for whether that be notarized or not. I kind of doubt it, but I would I would think that prudence. 01:07:40,367 S9: Would. 01:07:41,267 S2: Dictate you do that. And then, um, when you have assuming you get those signatures, then I would say contact us to get back on the agenda. And, and because we, we on the advice of the state's attorney, we're not going to move forward with that in the absence of that action under the law. 01:08:03,467 S9: Okay, okay. 01:08:06,767 S2: All right. You have any questions for us? 01:08:11,267 S2: Okay. The ball's in your court, right? Um. 01:08:15,100 S14: So all owners of the subdivision that have the covenants, because I think there's a couple lots that pre-existent or predate the subdivision. 01:08:23,400 S9: Not that my. 01:08:23,901 S2: Understanding from what she said is all owners of the subdivision, because we don't know anything about the covenants. Right. To vacate a plat. 01:08:32,267 S14: Well, one doesn't actually have a house on it. That's my only concern. It has a pole barn. 01:08:36,801 S10: I'll just read you the law. If lots have been sold, a plat or any part of a plat may be vacated by all owners of the lots in the plat. Joining in the signing of the instrument, declaring the vacation vacation of streets and public rights is not effective without endorsement by the governing body that has the power to approve the plat, the endorsement must indicate the public rights to be vacated. Okay, that's what it says. 01:09:02,767 S2: Just repeat the keyword. There is all okay. Doesn't matter whether there's a house on it or not. Or whatever. So the owners of all of the lots in that initial subdivision, that isn't that question. 01:09:16,000 S9: Okay. 01:09:16,968 S4: Then the best resource for that would be the recorder to make sure that everything is. 01:09:21,267 S9: Yeah, okay. Okay. Okay. 01:09:24,567 S2: Thank you. 01:09:25,501 S9: Um, and. 01:09:26,567 S2: We'll wait to hear from you. 01:09:30,100 S4: I do have a commissioner. So, Mitch, is there or is there not an issue with a new subdivision that has mixed use? And I'm assuming there's not as far as residential and agriculture, because that's what that would be. 01:09:47,901 S7: Is there a problem of having AG next to residential? 01:09:51,367 S4: Well, so in a new subdivision, because typically it would be as things were developed and it would come out of AG into. 01:09:58,367 S7: Yeah. The opposite. Yeah. Yeah. But this because it's. 01:10:02,000 S4: So there's no issue with that part. 01:10:03,868 S7: Shouldn't be I mean it was 13 acres. It meets agricultural zoning, so it's not like it's creating anything new except for island taking that one lot out of the residential area. 01:10:14,300 S9: Okay. 01:10:15,567 S2: Anybody else? Any other questions? Okay. We're going to move on. 01:10:18,701 S4: I would move to table this until, um, is two weeks enough or do you want to contact Mitch and get back on the agenda? 01:10:29,100 S9: Or two weeks should be enough depending on whether. 01:10:33,200 S4: Okay. 01:10:34,467 S2: We'll continue to do so. 01:10:36,400 S4: Yeah. So I would move to continue this to our next commission meeting. 01:10:40,601 S9: Then if for. 01:10:41,701 S14: Some reason. 01:10:42,167 S9: People are. 01:10:43,167 S14: Unable to get a hold. 01:10:44,100 S9: Of them. 01:10:44,467 S2: Okay, well, we'll just bump it. 01:10:46,000 S9: Yeah, we. 01:10:46,300 S2: Can bump. 01:10:46,667 S9: It. 01:10:47,167 S2: We'll save you a place. Make it. 01:10:48,367 S9: Easy. 01:10:48,667 S4: Let Mitch know we got a placeholder for you and let Mitch know. And if we need to bump it back again, then we will. 01:10:55,868 S2: Okay. There's a motion. Is there a second? Second motion and a second to do that. Um. The motion is clear. Tom. Okay. Call the roll. 01:11:07,400 S3: Commissioner Schwab. Yes. Commissioner Woodcock. Yes. Commissioner bacon. Yes. Chairman. Bittner. 01:11:11,968 S2: Yes. 01:11:12,400 S7: Thank you. 01:11:12,767 S3: Commissioners. 01:11:14,167 S2: Thank you. Um, it went a long way to around the barn on that. Um, number ten, hr director binder. We got county administrator position discussion, accounting, RFP. Welcome, Pam. Um, I was going to ask you. Maybe I should ask you off, uh, off microphone. But are we going to have a discussion about the treasurer position and the county engineer position today. 01:11:49,767 S15: Or is up to you guys as the board if you want to have that. 01:11:55,100 S2: Okay. We don't have it on the. 01:11:56,467 S15: It is not on the agenda for either one. 01:11:59,000 S2: I think what we'll do, What I think we should do is either consider a special meeting for that particular discussion, or put it on the agenda for the next meeting. What are your thoughts? 01:12:13,200 S15: I think we should probably put it on the agenda for the next meeting. 01:12:16,200 S2: Okay, so we don't forget. Let's put an agenda item on for the next regular county commission meeting for um, treasurer position discussion and county engineer position discussion. 01:12:31,467 S8: How about the. 01:12:32,667 S2: Pardon me. 01:12:33,467 S8: The county administrator? 01:12:35,868 S2: Um, we're going to we're going to talk about the county administrator, because I think that that's a whole separate thing. But, um, there. 01:12:46,100 S2: We just had interviews for both the county treasurer position and the county engineer position and the the split. Just so you guys know, they're both sitting here in suits and they really wanted to. Here they are. So even that you couldn't have gotten any more even. Um, both cases, I think the the conversation with the treasurer and the whatnot. Um, we have to have additional discussions, um, on both positions, and we're we're not prepared to make an announcement for who, um, for who gets the position at this point. That's why I think we may want to have a special meeting, because it's kind of involved, um, about how and it's actual how we're going to move forward as the county. 01:13:45,267 S4: So it's involved. 01:13:46,868 S2: Yeah. There's a there's there's some options. Um, I don't, I don't, I don't think it's really since it's not on the agenda that we need to go into those details tonight and if, if we don't resolve it between them, we'll have it on the agenda for the next meeting anyway. Okay, Pam. Go ahead. 01:14:02,567 S15: Okay. Um, my first item is actually my second item on my budget memo or my board memo, and that's the county administrator job description. Um, Commissioner Woodcock had asked about the county administrator where we were at with that. And last year, we had a special meeting, went over what we wanted in a county administrator. Um, you kind of gave me some ideas. The commission and I put it together and sent it out, and that's where it kind of got dropped. So I put together, brought it back up the the presentation from that special meeting and also the draft of the county administrator job description. And I included that in the packet. Um, so are there any questions on the county administrator job description first? 01:14:56,167 S2: Commissioners. Any questions? 01:15:00,067 S2: I'm not seeing any. 01:15:01,100 S15: Okay. So my recommendation on that would be, um, to have the commission approve the draft county administrator job description and provide guidance to the HR director on how to proceed with this position for the recruitment. 01:15:18,000 S4: I would move to approve the draft. 01:15:21,100 S8: Second. 01:15:22,067 S2: Okay. Motion. And second, to approve the draft. That's half the question. Okay. Any further discussion? Call the roll. 01:15:30,467 S3: Commissioner Bakken. Yes, Commissioner. Schwab. Yes. Commissioner. Woodcock. Yes. Chairman. Bittner. 01:15:35,000 S2: Yes. Motion carries. Okay, so then the second half of the question, do you want to clarify that again? 01:15:42,000 S15: Yes. Proceed with the recruitment plan. What? I need guidance from the commission on. How do you want to recruit for this position? 01:15:51,000 S4: Okay. 01:15:52,300 S2: My thoughts is that we should start moving ahead for it. We have it in the budget. 01:15:56,767 S8: Yep. 01:15:57,300 S2: And I believe that I honestly believe commissioners that were at the point where I think that's a necessary and necessary thing for the future of Burley County. Um, I know everybody is dealing a lot with their portfolios, but I can tell you that this last week alone has been pretty much all county stuff for me. 01:16:20,267 S8: A zoo. 01:16:21,567 S2: That's a good way to put it. But, um, so, um, that's my thinking on it. Commissioner bacon. Yes. 01:16:30,100 S4: So I think part of the discussion with this is we're looking at re-envisioning to a great degree what Burley County looks like moving forward, the mechanisms, all the mechanics, how the process works, how administration works, um, how this commission works and how that trickles down through staff. So I would be in favor of while we're having that conversation, which plays into re-envisioning the treasurer and the county engineering staff, we fold all this together. I'm in favor of the county administrator, but the pieces all fit together, and I think it's a bigger picture that we should have as as part of a special meeting moving forward, because I think getting everybody on the same page and what that vision looks like with an administrative piece, with the treasurer, with our finance director forward, with the county engineering staff and what that entire department looks like and how other departments may fit into that, I think is a bigger discussion. And we should have those all together. 01:17:47,167 S2: Okay. So are you Are you asking for a special, special meeting? Like a workshop? 01:17:54,868 S4: Yeah, I would. 01:17:55,767 S2: I would make sense. 01:17:56,767 S4: I would want a special meeting with bringing staff in, bringing Pam in. And we need to flesh out some moving parts here. And then timing is going to make a difference in this as well. Because for me, the big trigger for moving forward with the county administrator is the Provident Building coming on board. And I would like to have a county administrator in place before that provident building comes to fruition, so that they're involved with the final product and what that is going to move forward for the benefit of the county residents. So, yeah, more of a workshop atmosphere where we can just lay all these moving parts on the table and then figure out the timeline and what these what the county is going to look like moving forward, because we're re-envisioning county government right now. That's what we're doing. And I think that needs all of us at the table at a special meeting to flesh all that out. 01:18:55,267 S2: Okay. Um, and as part of that discussion, um, it's been in the back of my mind that we need to have a discussion regarding a stipend for the project manager on the Providence building. She's working way more hours in time than really fits into her job description. And, um, I have had some conversations with Pam about that, but I think we need to discuss that at the same time. So if we're going to have because obviously a special meeting, we can only discuss what's on that agenda. Yeah. So I think are you clear with what we're talking about having on the agenda and then. 01:19:34,367 S4: Well, and part of the stipend discussion again is that project manager wouldn't be in that position if we had a county administrator. Exactly. So all the pieces fit together. We just have to sit down as a commission in that special meeting and flesh out what the timeline is on those pieces, right. 01:19:54,367 S2: Okay. So that's that's the rough outline of the agenda. And if we need to add anything between now and then, we want to work with staff on that. Um, I would say the next step would be for staff to work with commissioners on. When is a good time for that special meeting. 01:20:13,467 S8: ASAP. 01:20:14,501 S2: ASAP. 01:20:15,501 S4: Yeah, well, and we have to be cognizant of the fact that, uh, Commissioner Munson needs to be at that table. 01:20:22,067 S2: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, that's that's the whole point in, in in staff working with the commissioners to schedule that. 01:20:27,701 S8: Commissioner Woodcock, have we settled the VSO veteran service position? 01:20:32,601 S15: Yeah. The VSO position is is filled. We are. 01:20:37,100 S8: It is. 01:20:37,567 S15: Filling. The deputy VSO position is what we're recruiting for now. 01:20:41,567 S3: Okay. 01:20:42,000 S2: Um, so we're recruiting for that. That is not closed. 01:20:45,767 S15: It may have closed last week. 01:20:48,601 S2: Okay. Um, commissioners, in that regard, on that position, maybe we should add that to that agenda too, because honestly, I'm not I'm not aware of the workload there that would justify adding additional staff. So but it's not my portfolio. So, um, I think we'd want to add that, Tom. 01:21:09,167 S16: Um, did you want the treasurer and. Yeah, engineer discussion as part of. 01:21:13,567 S2: Yes, yes, because that's it's all interconnected. 01:21:19,167 S4: Do we want to add in the finance director office and deputy with that as well? 01:21:24,467 S2: Well, sure. You know, so you know. 01:21:26,968 S15: Um, yes. We're going for all. 01:21:28,667 S4: All of it. All of it. Yeah. Because we're, I, we are re-envisioning county government. And when we talk about being efficient and being cognizant of it's not our money and taxpayers dollars. That's. That's what this is intended to do, is streamline county government and make it efficient and cost effective for our taxpayers. So. Right. 01:21:54,601 S2: And just so the audience knows, we do have some plans and procedures and directions that we're heading. But the thing of it is we have to have that conversation in an open public meeting, not between individual commissioners. And so we stalled out on having those conversations simply because of the open meetings laws. So we're going to have that discussion and have those things in an open public meeting so that everybody here's what it is that that like we've been talking about with senior staff and the whole thing. Okay. 01:22:32,767 S4: Okay. 01:22:33,901 S2: Um, the accounting RFP is the next. So this addresses. 01:22:39,067 S15: Do you want to hold to hold with approval on the county administrator. Was that voted on already? 01:22:45,868 S2: That was not voted on. Um, I think that we're moving towards having a county administrator. So I think we need to start the process for. 01:22:57,267 S4: Yeah, we need to vote on the draft on. 01:23:02,868 S4: Right. Pam. 01:23:04,167 S2: We did vote on the. 01:23:05,767 S4: Yeah, we had the motions, but we didn't call. Roll on the. 01:23:08,701 S8: Draft motion a second. 01:23:10,067 S4: Yeah, there was a motion and a second. 01:23:11,367 S2: Oh, we didn't. 01:23:11,767 S4: Vote on it. We didn't vote on the on the draft. So. Yeah. Because we're. Yeah. Because the second half of that question is what led us into the special meeting. Okay. 01:23:21,701 S2: So I thought we voted on that. Okay, call the roll. 01:23:26,100 S3: Commissioner Schwab. Yes. Commissioner Woodcock. Yes. Commissioner Botkin. Yes. Chairman. Bitner. 01:23:31,267 S2: Yes. Motion carries. Okay, then. 01:23:34,667 S3: Right. 01:23:39,000 S2: So the question is start the hiring process. Okay. That's something. You know, I think that's a consensus of the board. And I don't know that that needs a motion unless you're more comfortable with that. 01:23:51,567 S15: Now we can start the hiring process. 01:23:53,467 S2: That's going to take a while. Yes. And then staff's going to work with this. Okay. So we're good to move on to the accounting RFP. Yes. Okay. Let's do that. 01:24:05,400 S15: Okay. Um, the board had requested that I put together a request for proposal on accounting services. Um, you're in accounting projects. Assistance and financial accounting policies and procedures development. And I worked with deputy finance director Taylor Schmidt to get this layout together. Um, state's Attorney Julie Lawyer has looked at it for legality, and she didn't find any revisions that needed to be made. So I'm basically just looking for approval or what revisions the commission thinks they need made before we can release it for bids. 01:24:46,000 S2: Commissioners at. At the interview. During. After the interview process for the Treasurer's position. Um, basically as part of that and information was provided to me, and I want to thank Pam and Taylor for working so quickly on putting together this RFP. They they really got right on it. And so did the state's attorney as far as reviewing it. Um, my recommendation would be to approve the request for proposal. 01:25:15,267 S4: Move to approve second. 01:25:17,767 S2: Motion and a second to approve the request for proposal. Any further discussion. Commissioner Swann, and yes, if you're going to ask whether the highway Department funding thing and whatnot, that's part of the draft. Okay. But I just want to make a comment. 01:25:32,767 S4: You know this, uh. 01:25:36,767 S2: Commissioner Barkan is talking about a vision for the future that includes streamlining the government. And it is not easy. But right now we are doing it. And you know, I don't want people to get confused in what's going on here. It was time to streamline government and it's full steam ahead on that. Yes. Thank you. Any further discussion? 01:26:10,300 S3: Commissioner Woodcock? Yes. Commissioner. Baskin. Yes. Commissioner. Schwab. Yes. Chairman. Bitner. 01:26:14,667 S2: Yes. Motion carries. Thank you. 01:26:16,467 S4: Thank you. 01:26:16,701 S2: Thank you both for all the hard work. Okay. Emergency manager. Singer. We got some provident building items that we talked about a little bit at the last meeting. She's going to get into that for us. 01:26:32,501 S2: Welcome. 01:26:34,400 S10: Chair and commissioners, I have some updates on the Providence Building. Our original RFP included some elevator rehab. It only included resurfacing the cabinets inside from a soft surface to a hard surface. We do need extra work on both elevators to modernize them. We have had assessments done by three companies. My request is we remove what was in the RFP for the Cab upgrade, take that out, and then RFP for the elevator modernization. That wouldn't be until 2027. We want that at the end of our remodel. So it's not getting beat up. Yeah. Um, so we would have to a remove it from the current RFP, take that credit, apply it toward the RFP process in 2027, but we have to put it in during the 2026 budget for the Provident building. 01:27:44,601 S2: Commissioners, after much discussion on that particular subject, I would recommend that as the. 01:27:50,267 S4: Move to approve as presented. 01:27:54,667 S2: Second motion and second to approve as presented any further discussion. Call the roll. 01:28:00,367 S3: Commissioner. Bacon. Yes. Commissioner. Schwab. Yes. Commissioner Woodcock. Yes. Chairman. Bittner. 01:28:04,767 S2: Yes. Motion carries. Next. 01:28:07,467 S10: Second item is the rough. Um, when we did our RFP, we listed the roof replacement as an alternate. That came in at about $1 million. We chose not to do it at that time. Um, we continue to have issues off and on with the rough, but, um, part of the issue is what they're working around with the rough. So first, a they don't know what they're working with because there's so many layers on there. If we want to properly RFP the roof replacement, we need to do some core samples in different areas around the roof. So they have an idea of what are they really replacing. The second obstacle is the Verizon Tower. We had issues with the Verizon Tower and the 5G and turning down the 5G when we want to go up on the roof and do some work. We're doing some extensive work with items in the penthouse for this project. Um, my request would be the Verizon Tower lease and the end of October of 2027. I would like the county to consider not renewing that lease and giving them notice that we choose not to renew um upon non-renewal. They have to remove all their items off the roof, out of the building, and repair the building back to original state instead of having them repair it. Take those monies toward a new roof and do the roof replacement in 2027 as well. 01:29:40,968 S4: Chairman. Commissioner Mary, there's some other structures up there as well. Don't they have a shed? 01:29:50,868 S10: Yeah. So there's a facility, a building up there and then there. Tower. 01:29:55,267 S4: Okay. So the shed would go away too. Or is that. 01:30:01,367 S10: I don't know what they all have in that facility. So we would have to negotiate that with Verizon. 01:30:08,767 S4: And then what is the notification timeline for not renewing that lease. Is it 90 days 90 to 120 days, 9090 days. 01:30:19,100 S10: But I would like to give more. 01:30:20,968 S4: Work with them ahead. Yeah, I think I. 01:30:23,267 S2: Think we should give them as much advance. That's possible because they're going to have to find someplace else. 01:30:28,300 S4: Because if we move forward with that tonight, then I would say we notify them right away with that deadline, because 90 days from moving that kind of equipment is, is a handy job, especially when they have to identify another location as well. 01:30:42,000 S10: So and I don't want to put a new roof on in the winter. 01:30:45,100 S4: No. Right. 01:30:46,701 S10: So there's a lot of things to negotiate with Verizon as far. 01:30:50,000 S4: As. 01:30:50,567 S10: Removing all their equipment, including their generator or any other venting and all their rooftop structures. 01:30:57,400 S2: I think that would be good to give them a lot of advance notice. Yeah. 01:31:01,567 S4: So I would move with that recommendation to not renew the Verizon lease as presented with the addendum that we give them as much notice as possible if you want to reach out to them. Um, right after this commission meeting, if that's what the commission wishes are. Okay. 01:31:26,601 S2: Emotions are a second. 01:31:34,767 S2: Emotion is there a second motion and a second to notify Verizon about the lease? Chairman. Commissioner Woodcock. 01:31:43,100 S8: Is there such a thing as they've been a good renter and that's a good income, which we don't have anything to do with it. So I hate to lose that, but is there anything that would would work out that after we put the new roof on, they could put their facility back in? 01:31:58,167 S10: I would recommend not putting rooftop rooftop structures on that we don't need, whether it's a siren or the tower. There's just always been issues with rooftop structures. 01:32:09,567 S8: What are we doing? What are we doing with the blinker or the beacon? 01:32:14,167 S10: Beacon stays has to stay by historical society standards. 01:32:19,000 S8: And this provident life on the west side that comes down. 01:32:22,968 S2: Down. 01:32:23,467 S8: Yep. Just coming down. That's it. Right. 01:32:25,667 S10: All the provident life signs have to come down because they're rusted in the back. 01:32:29,968 S8: Okay. 01:32:31,000 S2: They're dangerous. Um. 01:32:35,567 S2: And I believe along and along those lines, we haven't gotten any clarification or information. However, there is some concern about the health and safety, um, regarding the high frequency, uh, radiation coming from 5G radio towers. My, my original training and background in the Marine Corps was high frequency radio transmission. Um, and quite frankly, I would not want to be working on the upper couple floors of that building myself with that, with that facility up on the roof. Commissioner Woodcock. 01:33:12,968 S8: That would include the the backup generator they've got in the lower storage area. Right. Okay. 01:33:19,467 S2: Yes it does. 01:33:21,367 S4: And, um. Mary. Did Commissioner Munson actually review those signs to as far as their condition as well? So he's well versed in the fact that they need to come down. Yeah. 01:33:32,701 S2: Okay, call the roll. 01:33:35,667 S3: Commissioner Schwab. Yes. Commissioner Woodcock. Yes. Commissioner Botkin. Yes. Chairman. Bittner. 01:33:40,167 S2: Yes. Motion carries. Anything else? 01:33:42,467 S10: So that was a two parter. Okay. The second part is putting the roof replacement in the 2026 budget for 2027. 01:33:53,767 S2: I think we have to. 01:33:55,367 S4: Yeah, I would move. I would make that motion. 01:34:00,167 S2: Second, a motion a second to add the rooftop replacement. Um, certainly to the budget. Yeah, to the movement. Yeah. Further discussion. Commissioner Woodcock. 01:34:11,467 S8: Is that an additional fee or. We're just updating it from one year to the another? 01:34:17,968 S10: We did not approve the roof replacement as part of the RFP process. We put it in as an alternate, just to kind of get a feel for what the cost would be. 01:34:27,667 S8: So is this part of this motion is to approve the 1 million, one, approximately 1 million? 01:34:33,367 S2: No, it's to put it in the budget. 01:34:35,400 S8: For. 01:34:36,167 S4: We still have to pass the budget on. 01:34:37,367 S8: It 2027. Yeah. 01:34:39,601 S2: Right. Because we may not be able to fund it all in one year either. I mean, you know, we're not going to lock ourselves into that amount is going to be chiseled in there. 01:34:47,667 S4: Well, and the other part of that too, is, you know, the negotiation with repairing the roof back to its original condition, where there's going to be some timing and some dollar amounts that we're going to find out later about that as well. 01:35:01,767 S10: So and we don't want to repair it. We just want to use the repair money toward replacement and do it all at once. 01:35:08,667 S2: Right. So that was a motion and a second. Yes. It's getting harder to keep up here. Any other discussion? 01:35:16,400 S4: Um, yeah, actually, one other thing. So part of that would be though, is I, I'm going to guess there's going to be some minor repairs just to make sure that it's watertight after they remove their equipment, before we actually do the roof or what's that timing look like? 01:35:34,467 S2: That's their responsibility. 01:35:35,667 S4: Though, right? So that might end into a little bit of that, the whole restoration that they have to do. 01:35:43,000 S10: Right. And that's something Jacob and I can work on as well with, with Verizon and just the logistics and timing of it all. 01:35:50,467 S4: Okay. Thank you. 01:35:52,367 S2: Call the roll. 01:35:53,400 S3: Commissioner Woodcock. Yes, Commissioner. Bacon. Yes. Commissioner. Schwab. Yes. Chairman. Bittner. 01:35:57,901 S2: Yes. Motion carries. Mr. chairman, thank you very quick. 01:36:01,667 S8: Mary. Can I get a yes? Give an update on what we're doing on the on the the banner or the mural on the south side. Uh, I visited with our person who was running the whole project, and he is visited with the general contractor, and the general contractor is going to do research on how those placards or how those are supposed to be put on there, so there won't be any problems. So he has not heard back from them yet. As soon as we hear something there, I'll bring it back to the board and present it. 01:36:32,701 S2: Thanks for the update. Thank you. Mayor. 01:36:37,267 S2: Sheriff Leven. Long time no see. 01:36:40,567 S12: Yes, yes. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Commissioners. Um. Quick update. Quarterly jail report. The average daily population last month. Um, as you can see by the information in your packet, uh, we reached, uh, we're reaching new highs. 360 was the average daily population for December of 2025. As I've reported to you. Good news on the building. Um, 2025. We ended the year billing, uh, prisoner contracts 5,270,748. 01:37:19,667 S12: Last year was our best year. Prior to that, that was roughly just a little under 2.6 million. So significant improvement from that. If you go back in 23, we were 1.9 million and change. And then, you know, during the Covid we saw a drop. So I think this will be the new normal. Uh, absent any big changes in the court system for Burleigh County. But that is good news. Obviously we have increased the budget, but overall, the cost of the jail is going down for Burleigh and Morton County residents. Um, the other thing that's kind of interesting with this is as we've watched the ebb and flow of the jail population, one of the areas I've come and talked to you about is booking. That's, you know, the first place an inmate comes in to our facility. It's the most labor intensive. The first 24 hours of a prisoner being in our facility puts a big demand on services and our staff. And so that's been a number we've watched as these numbers have ebbed and flowed over the last, you know, or I should say over the last, the life cycle of this jail, which we opened it in June of 17. So we're almost coming up on nine years of that jail being open. Um, the good thing is, when I looked at the numbers at the end of 2025 01:38:55,701 S12: compared to 24, we were actually for the first time, we were 100 inmates higher than we were in 2024. At the same time. But for the first time since we've opened that jail, the bookings have stabilized and actually dropped. This is a message I'm sharing with our staff in the aspect of the more long term prisoners we put in as jail contract prisoners are the less transient population of that jail. So it's having a an unintended benefit in the aspect of we are by increasing our population, we're in turn reducing some of the stress on our staff, because once we've got inmates in the facility and they've been there, they're stabilized. Um, for the most part, the demands aren't as intense as that first 24 hours. Uh, continuing on, if you have questions, just let me know. But alternatives to jail, currently 232 participants. That's the alcohol and drug testing programs. I've talked to you about, um, this is. These numbers seem to be coming down. I don't think there's any long term implications. I think just what's going on in the court system. On a side note, one thing I would make you aware of is last legislative session. Um, we didn't have it here, but it started in Cass County. Some of the other areas where the courts have waived the cost for people to participate in these programs. So basically what happens is they get let out of jail. They're ordered to these programs, which when the programs were established by then Attorney General Senjem, there was a cost. And that cost was put on the participant, not the taxpayers. Well, over time, that has slowly started morphing. And so I worked with the Cass County sheriff to try and fix that legislatively. But ultimately that was ended up vetoed by the governor. And there was some question on Constitution. Uh, legalities. Um, you know, so that's something we're monitoring. I have worked with the courts here to make them aware that it's our position that that should not be on the back of taxpayers. And so we're staying on top of that. We the two I think we've had two cases to date very minor, but it is something we're watching. Um, so I wanted to make you aware of that. Um, more good news. The staffing. We ended 2025 fully staffed. Um, currently, right now, the the best thing we got going is our employees are recruiting their future coworkers, which is great. It it's a positive thing for us. It tells us we're in a good position. And so, um, As you remember going into this budget 2026, we actually added detention staff for positions, and we came into the year with those positions filled because, as you recall, I can hire some unfunded backfill to manage the vacancies. And so we are sitting very, very good on staffing. Knock on wood. Um, last big thing really is the Docker contract. Um, as you recall, we approved that at the Joint Commission meeting with Morton County. Um, it's a staged progression to reach that full contract. The contracts for 120 beds guaranteed at $105 per day per prisoner. Uh, basically, how we're going to transition into this is starting this week. We will take prisoners that are currently in our facility that we're housing them for Docker, but they will move into that pod that will be rented entirely by Docker. Then over the next several weeks, we'll slowly transition the remaining number of inmates to get to that 120 beds. Our goal is to have this in place by March 1st of 2026, at which time we'll start building for that full pod usage. This is a truly a work in progress. This has never been done before. And so as I spoke to you before, it's going to be good for Burley and Morton County, also good for the state of North Dakota. But we're going to have to monitor this as we go forward, because there is a lot of things we don't know as we go forward. I think we've done very good planning on this. We have a good insight on how it's going to work, but ultimately we got to make some concessions because a prisoner in a jail has less freedom of movement and less opportunities than a prisoner sitting in the North Dakota State Prison. Um, so sometimes what we have to contend with is prisoners understand if they're a problem in our facility, eventually they can get transferred back to the prison. So I would I would compare it to a child throwing a tantrum and get in their way. Um, so we're working to manage that both with our staff and doctor, um, and making some concessions in our facility, which we typically wouldn't do with our other prisoners in there, but they're going to be long term prisoners. Um, so it is a win win for us. 01:44:51,100 S2: Commissioner bucket. 01:44:52,000 S3: As. 01:44:52,200 S4: Your sheriff. Um, as far as programming. Have you worked fully through the the programming side? Because, like you said, there's a bunch of different programming that's going to be over at the state prison that we're not going to be privy to. Are they making accommodations to bring some of those services over to our detention center, to meet the needs of the inmates that are theirs? 01:45:14,701 S12: Mr. chairman, commissioners, and actually, thanks for asking that question. So basically, the whole purpose of this is to start programming. That was the problem doctor had is with these prisoners sitting in county jails across the state. They weren't getting the programming that they needed prior to release. So what we're ultimately going to have is prisoners that are basically in their last, just say, roughly a year in custody. And so doctor is bringing the programming to us. I think this is going to be a huge opportunity. We're going to learn some things we don't know. Working with them on the programs they have in the long term ability to hopefully turn offenders around. The other thing, I think they're going to get a chance to see how the county jails work more directly because as it stands right now, by law, doctor, overseas, I shouldn't say they oversee, they they inspect and and set the rules for county jails. Um, as you probably can recall, there was some times over the last decade where the relationship wasn't good between county jails and doctor. I think it's at an all time high and I only see it getting better. Um, our relationship right now with the OCR is, is unbelievable. And so it's going to be good. They're bringing case managers with them. Uh, they will. So they're going to be going through all of their programming inside of our facility. 01:46:59,400 S2: Mr. chairman. 01:47:00,167 S8: Commissioner Woodcock. Are they or is the state paying for transportation back and forth for all these state prisons? I assume they are. 01:47:07,567 S12: Mr. chairman, commissioners. Yes. So one of the things we did have to negotiate in the contract, and this is going to be something we'll have to watch very closely on the sheriff side. The only transportation we will be on the hook for is basically emergency transportation. So if an inmate, if a doctor inmate has a doctor's appointment, doctor will arrange that transportation. We typically would still do court, which that falls on the county's right now. The only other time we would do transportation is like an emergency situation. Inmate falls down the steps in that cell block, or there's a fight in that cell block and somebody has to go to the E.R.. We have it in the contract time frame that we would be responsible for the emergency transport. The good thing is we can build for that. Um, that's something I'm going to be talking with you, Commissioner Woodcock. Um, at budget time, but also the entire board. Uh, we do track the revenue we are generating. Uh, based on these transports for US marshals, Ice prisoners, and now these state prisoners. Uh, which adds up to a significant amount of money in addition to the other money we generate at the jail. 01:48:37,267 S3: Good. 01:48:38,467 S12: Last thing I got, um, is the bmd c paint lawsuit, as you're aware. Uh, we did reach that settlement with three of the four parties to the lawsuit. Uh, that one check has come. We're still waiting on another one. That was one thing we didn't discuss in those joint meetings is what to do with the check. Um, what I did is I worked with Taylor. I felt that that check could be just one. Get it off my desk based on the amount of it. But also, um, I we can talk about it. Uh, I think right now it's taken care of, but that check was deposited into the capital improvement fund for the Burley Morton Detention Center. Ultimately, that's what I'd recommend to both commissions where it should go anyways, so that's where we put it. 01:49:34,167 S2: I don't have a problem with that, Commissioner. 01:49:37,767 S4: Um, one other item Kelly, is. I heard some sad news, but congratulations. So, uh, um, you're not running for sheriff again, so you're retiring. So I want to thank you for your service. You've done a great job. Moving the needle in Burleigh County, especially with the detention center. It's just, you know, Sheriff Heinrich took it here. You took it here. And I'm some big shoes to fill with your replacement, whoever that may be, to take it to the next step. But thank you very much for for all your hard work and everything you put into Burley County. 01:50:15,667 S2: Are you gonna be okay? 01:50:16,868 S4: Well, he's not leaving tomorrow, but. But just for those that don't know, he's he's retiring, so congratulations. 01:50:25,667 S12: Well thank you, Commissioner. I said it's kind of a weird situation. You say you're going to be done and then you stick around for a year or so. But thank you very much. It's, uh. It definitely wasn't an easy decision. And, uh, um. 01:50:43,167 S4: Well, I know your commitment to the county, so. Yeah, I must have been a very difficult decision. So thank you, though. 01:50:48,167 S12: Thank you. 01:50:49,667 S8: Maybe you should be a county commissioner. 01:50:52,667 S12: I think that concludes my remarks. 01:50:56,367 S2: I'd rather go fishing, you know. 01:51:00,567 S2: Great. Thanks, Kelly. 01:51:01,467 S11: Thank you. 01:51:07,868 S2: Okay. Interim treasurer, deputy finance director Schmidt. We got taxes and specials on county properties. Welcome, Taylor. 01:51:16,167 S17: Good evening, chair Bender and commissioners. So in the packet were the six property tax statements on Berkeley County owned property. One of them was our professional parking lot. And that we've had taxes on going back as far as I can see. And I did talk to our tax director. And he said the city assesses it based on the value of the spots we rent. So that's all we're paying taxes on. There is just that, and I don't know exactly the number that we have. Off the top of my head. But that's what we're paying on there. Um, and then there were five properties that had specials. So the two, the Provident Building and the courthouse downtown. I know they did that street work, so they charged us for that. And there were three properties out at the uh, Missouri Valley Complex. Those all had specials on them as well. And that's a total of $171,000 in specials and taxes now. And I don't know where or how it happened, why it didn't get in there. In the budget for 26, we only have $8,500 for taxes and specials, 85,500. 01:52:08,100 S2: So 70. 01:52:09,267 S17: So we're quite a bit short. Um, I didn't get the budget amendment in the packet, so we can push this to the next meeting if you want. But I do have handouts because we'll need to amend that budget so we can pay those specials. 01:52:21,100 S8: Mr. chairman. 01:52:21,868 S2: Commissioner. 01:52:22,501 S8: Is that an annual 181,000? 01:52:25,100 S17: That's the pay off because that's the county. 01:52:26,868 S8: If we were to pay them off of their. 01:52:28,167 S17: That's been our historical practice because we can make more, you know, we pay a higher rate in interest on it every year than if we just pay it off now. 01:52:37,868 S2: Did you look into any any particular budgets? I just got the end of December financial information. You did look at any of those budgets. 01:52:46,000 S17: So those three that are the Missouri Valley complex. Historically, we've had specials on there a few times. And we, you know, we paid out of that fund. And so I mean, in that case, you know, they did have I just wrote down $807,000 of interest. I know historically we've that's kind of when there's stuff that comes up. That's where we kind of take it out of that pot, you know, of the interest revenues that would more than cover the Missouri Valley Complex specials were 95,000, so that 117 interest would more than cover that, you know, that that special. And then the the provenance gets a little complicated. So the provident when it was for rent, we had its own, it had its own fund so that we could track all the revenue. We put some expenses in there and kind of netted it to zero. Well, I know our previous finance director now that we have been renting it and we're going to hopefully be moving in soon, we close that fun because you you don't really have funds for individual county buildings. It's just a general fund building. So we did close that fund down. We had a budget. I had the number, um, we did budget a transfer into the general fund because that's what we do when we close the fund. We transfer any remaining dollars in that fund into the general fund. I believe the transfer was 500,005 50. It's going to be closer to 750. So there is kind of that extra where we didn't spend some expenses and had a little extra interest revenue than we budgeted for. So that transferred that extra money, so to speak, would also more than cover the 76,000 of the general fund, because that would be the Provident Building in the courthouse. 01:54:04,968 S2: Okay. Um, so rather than take it all out of the courthouse, I mean, out of the Provident, is there money in the courthouse fund at all that there's nothing. 01:54:11,868 S17: It would just be general fund reserves at that point. 01:54:14,567 S2: Okay. Um, commissioners, I wouldn't have any problem with making those payments out of those two funds. The Missouri Valley complex and the provident leftover. 01:54:27,667 S4: I would move to make those payments and pay off those special assessments out of those two funds. 01:54:33,167 S2: So second motion to second to pay those. Any further discussion? Call the roll. 01:54:38,968 S3: Commissioner. Bakken. Yes. Commissioner. Schwab. Yes. Commissioner. Woodcock. Yes. Chairman. Bednar. 01:54:43,667 S2: Yes. Motion carries. Um. 01:54:45,667 S4: Did you have the handout? 01:54:46,868 S17: Oh, yeah. I do have a handout. 01:54:47,667 S4: For you guys. Yeah. I would like to. 01:54:49,467 S2: See that, but, um, you're going to stick around because we're going to talk about that garrison. Okay. Okay. Thank you. 01:54:59,267 S2: Um, County auditor on auxiliary board applications. I think this is a carryover from the last meeting. 01:55:10,767 S3: Yes, chairman and commissioners. Um, we still have some applications for some auxiliary board positions, uh, namely the ones on the water resource district. Uh, we have a Garrett Brian. And then also Brian May, I know that Commissioner Woodcock wanted to review those applications. And so if you want to take this one at a time, we certainly can do it that way. Okay. 01:55:33,100 S2: Commissioner Woodcock. 01:55:33,968 S8: Mr. chairman. Um, I did meet with Brian. I might pronounce that wrong. It's Major Mayer, I think. Yes. And I met with him last week at our water board meeting. He attended the meeting and a nice young gentleman. He's got several degrees that are associated with water, and I would certainly recommend that we that we appoint Brian Baker to that position. 01:55:56,167 S2: Is that a motion? 01:55:57,000 S8: Yes. 01:55:57,667 S2: Okay. A motion. 01:55:59,467 S4: Second. 01:56:00,267 S2: Motion and a second for that appointment. Any further discussion? Call the roll. 01:56:04,501 S3: Commissioner Schwab. Yes. Commissioner Wilcox. Yes. Commissioner Botkin. Yes. Chairman. Benner. 01:56:08,667 S2: Yes. 01:56:09,000 S8: Mr. chairman. Commissioner. Would he be filling in for Kathleen Jones, who retired as a on that board for several years? And I would like to thank her for her participation because she was a very good member and was always attentive and I knew what she was talking about. So I want to thank her for her service. 01:56:27,367 S3: Good. 01:56:28,667 S2: Thanks for that. 01:56:29,667 S3: And then the next one here is the school district or your organizational board. Do you want to discuss that at all? 01:56:35,601 S8: Commissioner, I visited with our superintendent of schools last week and he still has not located anybody that that would be willing to serve. So I'll just wait until that happens and I'll continue to talk to him and see what's going on. So good. 01:56:51,901 S4: Uh, Mark, would you run through the scope of what that position entails just in case somebody out there is watching and and may have some interest in that? 01:57:01,767 S3: Um, well, on, uh, Commissioner Woodcock may be able to expound upon this as well, but the school district or the organizational board basically reviews any requests for people to who want to move out of one school district into another. So be a an amendment to the map. Um, and then if there's any other things that come up of that sort, that's basically what this group would meet for. It's probably only once, maybe twice a year. Um, it's not too often, but that's my understanding of the board. Do you agree? 01:57:32,501 S8: Commissioner, you're exactly right. Uh, some areas and want to move into a certain school district, and maybe they want to move into none or move into the Apple Creek Township or their their area, and that's the one they meet. So they don't meet once a year, maybe, maybe not even have any. We've had some movement in the last 2 or 3 years where some of these new developments were getting a lot of a lot of developments out in the county so that they probably will meet, but not that often. But they have to be interested in schools. And so and they will deserve so. We'll keep you abreast as to what. 01:58:08,467 S4: Anybody interested that or may have an appetite for that position. We are looking for for somebody to join. 01:58:17,100 S8: Apply through the auditor's office. There's an applications there and. 01:58:21,167 S2: They're available online as well. I should point that out. 01:58:25,767 S3: Thank you. 01:58:27,167 S2: Thank you. 01:58:30,868 S2: Um, I guess that's down to this little garrison diversion conversation. Um, first of all, I had a couple of questions. We, I think everybody was emailed the the meeting video and the. Did you get it? So did you have an opportunity? 01:58:50,367 S8: A heck of a time to open it up. But I finally got it open and. 01:58:53,167 S2: You were able to. 01:58:53,701 S8: Listen. I had to advance the tape because it was like a two hour meeting and they were near the end, so I did finally got to it. Yes. 01:59:01,667 S2: Okay. Um. 01:59:06,601 S2: Just a second. So you haven't you haven't seen I think, um, there is, uh. Well never mind. 01:59:16,067 S8: They're going to have a they're going to call for a public hearing. 01:59:18,868 S2: Uh, that's part of what this discussion is about. Right. Um, and, uh, was there any indication, do you recall of where the location that meeting might be or anything? Okay. Um, Commissioner Barkan, go ahead. 01:59:33,300 S4: Um, So Mr. Munson myself have attended meetings with the Garretson Diversion Conservancy. Um, and we're following this very closely. Um, um, I would be a little reserved on going too far down the road with the discussions on this without Commissioner Munson here as well, because him and I have been kind of riding this horse. So, um, I think it would just be remiss if he wasn't involved in the conversations because, uh, we've both been following this very closely and what this looks like moving forward for Burleigh County. And and we're in concurrence. Um, and just like I, I believe the rest of this board is, but I, I think Commissioner Munson should be part of this conversation as well. 02:00:25,100 S2: No problem with that. So just. 02:00:26,767 S4: Before we. 02:00:27,100 S2: Get into there wasn't supposed to be any big decision here. This was more of an informational kind of put it together thing, because I think there's a, um, an AI, um, what do you call it, a transcript floating around that you probably haven't seen that if, um. Um, I tell you, what I'll do is I will send that I was in receipt of that, and I will send it to commissioners. Um, keep in mind, it's an AI type of thing that. 02:00:59,701 S4: Uh, summary. 02:01:00,901 S2: Yeah, it's a summary. It's not it's not really what you would expect. Meeting minutes. And, um, it's a caption. 02:01:07,100 S4: Yeah. It's not the full meeting minutes. It's a summary of the pertinent information for Burleigh County. 02:01:12,667 S12: I think they had the. 02:01:14,567 S2: It's the same thing. 02:01:15,567 S12: The owls do. 02:01:18,100 S4: Yeah. 02:01:18,968 S2: It, uh. 02:01:20,467 S12: Records. 02:01:21,100 S2: The meeting plus makes a transcript of it. Okay. But the way the meeting is held and the position of the owl isn't the best, but we can get the idea. Okay, I'm trying to find it here yet because I want to. I want to send that. While we're on the subject, make sure everybody has that. 02:01:46,167 S2: Just give me a minute. It's only about a thousand of these things. 02:01:53,567 S2: Okay, here's the transcript. Yeah. 02:02:01,868 S2: So now my internet connection. 02:02:08,767 S2: Forward to. 02:02:36,000 S2: Oh, yeah. 02:02:39,667 S2: Steve Schwab. Okay, commissioners. You should. You should all have that. 02:02:48,300 S2: Um, and I would suggest maybe the Bismarck Tribune wants to get Ahold of some of that copy. And so you see what, um. See what we're talking about? 02:02:59,767 S4: And Bismarck, for being did do an article after that meeting. Uh, it was kind of light. Yeah, but. 02:03:06,667 S2: Okay. All right. That that's that's suitable enough as far as discussion on that. Um, there was a question, though, that Commissioner Schwab asked me about two of the counties. There was one where a Binford town goes by Binford, which is way up in between. It's kind of like equidistant between Devils Lake and Cooperstown, but it's about the same distance from Bismarck as the crow flies. Um, and and I looked it up and I looked it up on the thing to see what their mill levy was, because we've been talking about mill levies and how much we pay in. So the Griggs County paid in in 2024 because that's the most recent information available through the state. Um, something on the order of a little over $23,000, but they got a substantial, um, grant from the recreation committee of the Garrison Diversion Committee, um, um, kind of way in excess of what they, they put in. And so the question was, are they a member? And so I looked that up. Yes. And Commissioner Schwab. Uh, Griggs County is one of the 28 members of the silicone or the Garrison Division Conservancy District, as is Ramsey County. Because I know in the past at this table, we talked a little bit about this recreation building that they built up in Devils Lake in Ramsey County. Well, apparently the Garrison Diversion Recreation Committee provided money to that project as well. And maybe you can see water from there or something wherever that building is built. But, um, I just wanted to point out that their mill levy at the time was, um, a little over 73,000. I think they are a member as well. Um, and however, there was comment and I think it's important that hopefully we'll talk about that with Commissioner Munson, but so far we haven't made application towards this $3 million project on the river down here. But that 50 um, the current thing was 50,000. And at this meeting, they upped that. Well, they're shifting money around, I think, so that they don't look like they have so much money in the bank and moving it to these different funds or something, but they increase that amount available to the grants to 100,000, which really wouldn't put a drop in our bucket. And I want you to pay particular attention in those videos about the comments about how Burleigh County wouldn't fund that project even if they donated a million or something. And I think we probably all understand that that project is being considered because of the agreement with the Corps of Engineers, and I don't really think we have much choice on that. When the time comes, I think it's going to be a big deal. But I wanted to point out that based on our contribution to the garrison diversion, that's 700 and roughly $760,000 a year that we send to them. That would only be it would only take us four years to pay off that $3 million job if we weren't sending that money to Garrison Diversions, just so you know. And then the other question was, have we sent any money to, um, to the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District. And so I called Taylor after hours on the weekend. And I appreciate him. I appreciate him taking the call. Um, and he said yes, that we, uh, sent payment to the Garrison Division district on Friday, and he was going to provide us with some information on that. And that's because, Commissioner Schwab, you asked the question. Taylor. 02:06:45,467 S17: Hello again. Um, so as far as the garrison diversions concerned, our office, we treated just like we do all of our political subdivisions. So by law, we're required to send them their money by the 10th business day. And it's based on the previous month's collection. So everybody that paid their taxes, however much of each person's bill was for the garrison division. We add all that up for December. And then by the 10th business day in January, we have to send that off to them. And so it's every month we do that. So every month whatever gets paid. Obviously it's heavier in these first few months because people want to pay by the discount and then it's going to be less and less most likely, maybe a little bump in October and then. 02:07:17,367 S2: Right. So the question was what was the amount that. 02:07:19,901 S17: The amount was $105,000 so far. And that was for December collections. 02:07:27,968 S8: So that's a portion of the total $707,000, right? 02:07:32,200 S17: Yeah. Because that would that would imply that, you know, about the seventh, the people that paid their taxes or, you know, so it's more people pay. They'll have more money that we send. Okay. 02:07:41,701 S2: Okay. That's pretty much all I had. Thank you for sharing that information. And I also want to point out my appreciation for taking the call after hours. It's not a not a 9 to 5 all the time. Commissioners. Anybody else have anything on it? Commissioner Schwab. 02:07:58,100 S18: Uh, you know, in this whole garrison division, things started. Uh, the more you look at it, we need number one to get legal opinion of this meeting. 02:08:20,367 S18: January 9th and what they were going to do with funds. They suggested a fire sale of grants, which we know it's just going to be a problem. Uh, moving money from one account to another. And they're concerned about being. 02:08:42,100 S18: In tough shape in front of the legislature. I would like to see that we discontinue sending them money until these legal questions are done in the state. Better get to it also and check this out. They laid out a clear blueprint what they're going to do. And it is not good. I think it's illegal. I got another word for it, but I'm not going to use it yet. But also on the meeting. I don't think it's in the best interest of, of, uh, Burleigh County knowing what we knew. Know now what they want to do with this pool of money, which they admit is surplus more than they're collecting, more than what they need. Uh, I think that that, uh, we need we need to get a legal get a legal opinion and not meet with them. Because I got this sneaky feeling this is going to go to court. And I think meeting with them is a mistake because they've already outlined what they want to do. They want to come down here and, and, uh, maybe pack the, the building with, uh, supporters from wherever and try to get this commission to Overrule that later. We sent them. They need to do their job, and they got 60 days to get that letter to get the vote so we can move on. And I fully suspect this is going to go to to court. And if what I think is going to happen happens, we need to sue them for $9 million. They owe us. And I am not going to fool around with these guys. They'd be a little. They'd be little Burley County. Well, okay. Fine. They know Burley County's finances. There are a bunch of smart asses. And the same thing with that guy up there at Ward County who come right out and said, hey, we're not going to let him get out. These people on this board really need to be investigated. And I'm hoping, uh, uh, Julie lawyer can kind of direct us on this. I don't think we should be associating them or financing this atrocity that they're setting up. And I'm very, very, very vehement about this. 02:11:30,868 S19: I understand that, but we don't have the authority to withhold the tax we've collected for. 02:11:35,601 S18: That cause because we're aiding and abetting. 02:11:38,200 S19: We don't have legal authority to withhold the tax we're collecting for them. It's not our tax. They, under the statute, assess their own budget and then they give it to us, and then we collect it for them, just like we do for the city. And we don't have the authority to tell the city, we don't like how much they're collecting, and we're not going to give them money either. So there isn't a way to withhold those funds from them. 02:12:01,000 S18: We are we going to go to jail for that? No. I mean, if they're going to use it illegally and have this fire sale and they're dumping money that we've paid in. I think that's cause for us to say, hey, wait a minute. We better withhold until we get a legal opinion here, but we can't. 02:12:24,901 S8: Mr. chairman. Mr. Woodcock, um, I happened last week. I happened to go up to the the water resource pumping station up on the river, and I learned a lot. I mean, you'd be surprised. I was really surprised at what they do statewide and where the money goes and and what they've done for Burnet County. And there's a when they have this public hearing, I don't think it'll be here. It's their public hearing, not ours. So they might have it at the Capitol or they might facility someplace, but which we will certainly be at. Um, but we'll learn a lot there, because they do a lot for Bernie County that we were not aware of. I certainly wasn't aware, and I'm not going to go into it now because it'll come out in the public hearing. They're going to present their case and and we'll see what what happens. I know one thing. I probably shouldn't say anything, but they're they're planning on an expansion, a new a new treatment facility up here at our Verde County Water resource district right next to where they're at now. And it's going to be a multi-million dollar operation. I don't know the exact numbers, and they have not gotten that far yet, but they're within the next two years, they're supposed to have another treatment plant, and they will rely upon Garrison Division to give them a grant, which they've done before. They've done several times over the years, and it'll be substantial. It won't be 100,000. It's going to be in the millions, millions of dollars that they will hopefully get from garrison diversion. That doesn't mean they're going to, but that will be a key as to whether or not they will be able to build that new facility. 02:14:00,767 S2: Yeah, I think everything I've read, Commissioner, that there are passed through agency for federal grant dollars. This is not a situation that they would be getting a grant from the garrison diversion. The grant would be from the. 02:14:14,367 S8: He indicated that it was a grant from Garrison Division. So because they would have they would apply the garrison diversion. 02:14:20,400 S2: I took pictures of their literature that they have available online just yesterday, and they made it very clear in there that they are a pass through. 02:14:31,167 S8: Well, we're getting passthrough money from for the Provident too. Are we supposed to ignore that and say that's not federal money. That's not fair. 02:14:39,367 S2: No, I'm just clarifying for you that garrison version is not providing the money. 02:14:45,767 S8: Well, I'll I'll debate that. Not not now at a public hearing. It'll come up. They'll be able to tell us exactly what they do. They've got several other programs that I didn't realize that that they do for Verde County. Uh, they're substantial too. One of them is is when new when new residents, if they build a new house out in the county, This is all out in the county too. It's not in the city of Bismarck. Uh, they can apply for a grant of $10,000 to put to hook up to water from Bertie County water. And they've done the, I think, 900 of them or something like that. And so a lot of these new developments, I'm not sure about Audrey, whether they're under city water or under county water, but the development north of there, the Boulder Ridge, I think it is. I'm not sure of the name. There's going to be several hundred homes in there. They will all be connected to to birdie water, and they will all be applying for a $10,000 grant. It's not a loan. It's a grant to hook up to to their water. So it's it's it's amazing what they do compared to what I thought, because I thought they were all they were doing with these $50,000 grants to the city, which is perfect for the county. So there will be a lot of new, uh, new information. 02:16:01,467 S18: Well, you know, speaking of grants. We give them money and they accuse us of not. 02:16:11,901 S18: How would we say it? Join with ventures with them to get grant money back. It's all our fault when they're out here giving our money to other counties. And they say right in there. 02:16:26,567 S8: Oh, that's a that's their mission. 02:16:28,767 S18: That is not their mission. Their mission. It's their mission. If you really would listen to them, you would think that they control the water flow out of the Garrison Dam. They do flood control. No they don't. The Bureau of Reclamation does. This is the fluff that I'm telling you about. 02:16:45,701 S4: I their mission was garrison diversion, and they've never finished the project. 02:16:50,167 S2: Well, here. So let me let me read to you the what they actually do. And this is directly from the Garrison diversion website, the focus areas. Reliable and high quality water can mean the difference between success and failure for small towns and family farms. Garrison diversion works to ensure North Dakota's North Dakotans have access to reliable and high quality water through the mini program. That's the municipal, rural and industrial program, which is what you were referring to for those individual homes. Okay, so Garrison Diversion is the fiscal agent, and along with the State Water Commission, is responsible for administering the state mini program. This program has $400 million authorized in federal funding to help water systems deliver quality water to homes, businesses and farmers. So that's what I was talking about, Commissioner. They're a fiscal agent. They're not, um, they don't provide the grants and the funding. 02:18:00,968 S8: Well they do. They go. They lobby. Washington. And they lobby. Lobby the state to get that funding. So that's. And if we didn't have that funding, Burley water wouldn't exist. If we didn't have that funding. They wouldn't be there. Commissioner, which is a huge benefit to the to the rural areas of Bismarck, the rural commissioner. 02:18:21,868 S4: The point is, and I've said this all along, there's value in garrison diversion authority, but the value is for the state and the federal dollars they bring into the state of North Dakota. 28 counties are paying for the state of North Dakota. We're paying the administrative costs for them to facilitate federal dollars coming into the state. And those dollars don't necessarily go back to the member counties. They go statewide. That's the. 02:18:52,167 S3: Problem. 02:18:52,467 S8: They go to. They're supposed to go to the just the counties that are members. And I asked that question. They said they do not do anything other than for members of that association. 02:19:01,701 S4: And the MRI program is a separate program. That's a federal program. That's not. 02:19:06,801 S2: Yeah. That's that's. 02:19:09,000 S3: Well, where there's. 02:19:09,467 S4: A lot of co-mingling where a lot of. 02:19:11,601 S8: Yes. 02:19:11,767 S11: There is. 02:19:12,067 S2: Well, for example, the last thing I researched this weekend that involved that program, you're talking about where they'll provide assistance to somebody that wants to hook up water to their home. The number that I found for the year that I was looking at, they provided $30,000, roughly $30,000. Now we're talking about Burleigh County citizens paying 760,000 into a program. And about all I can come up with is like maybe 50, 80. Let's be generous and say maybe $100,000 a year in return to Burleigh County. So I think that's why we're talking about it. I mean, you know, because it looks to me like it looks to me like we're subsidizing all these little, little places, you know, like Binford, North Dakota, with a population of 40 people and a and a tax base in that whole county of $23,000 going to that program, I think there's something wrong. So, um. 02:20:10,667 S8: Well, I know. 02:20:11,868 S2: There's no decision need needs to be made on this. 02:20:14,367 S8: I know for a fact that this plant that they're planning on building would not, will not exist unless they get federal. They just get funding from garrison diversion. No. So if we drop out. 02:20:25,367 S2: No. Because the. 02:20:26,267 S3: State. 02:20:26,567 S12: The state. 02:20:27,000 S2: Water commission, you're being fed. You're being fed. Information Commissioner. 02:20:31,767 S8: If we drop out of garrison diversion, garrison is not going to give that burley water resource any kind of money at all to build a new plant. 02:20:40,100 S18: They don't give us. 02:20:40,701 S2: They don't get the money. 02:20:41,667 S18: It's a state federal money that passes through them and they get their administrative fee. These guys are a bunch of thieves. Period. 02:20:51,467 S2: Well, well, the thing of it is. See, there is a. 02:20:54,067 S8: Federal program that if it's a federal program, or should we deny us, Bernie County citizens, of getting some of that? 02:20:59,901 S2: I don't think it'd be tonight, Commissioner. We don't know that just because they're because they work in conjunction with the State Water Commission. And this is really where this thing needs to be. This thing has suffered mission creep ever since its creation because it never completed its original mission. There's all these other things. Now, all of a sudden, they're in the recreation business building, a community hall in some town that's not even close to any water. And so they recognize that in that video. 02:21:28,901 S8: We built the field on our ball diamond. I didn't agree with that either. It was a recreational grant of $50,000 that the Bismarck Park District applied to garrison diversion, and they got the grant. And that's where most of our money we received 50,000 grants has been grants through Bismarck Parks and Rec. Sure. 02:21:45,801 S2: I think we had information that over this entire period, you get this little bit of little bit of money that we got back Now, when we need a big chunk, we need 3 million for a water project in Burley County, and we're begging to get somewhere between 50 and 100,000. And they may or may not approve it. 02:22:06,801 S8: You're talking about different programs entirely, talking about a recreational grant, and you're talking about a grant to build a water treatment plant. 02:22:13,601 S2: I'm not talking about that. You were. I was saying. 02:22:16,067 S8: That. 02:22:17,067 S2: They provide such little value to Berkeley County, that I think it's worthwhile to have the conversation because it's the citizens of Berkeley County. They're paying for it, and they're not getting a return on investment commissioner, that's all. 02:22:27,601 S8: I don't agree with that at all. I mean. 02:22:29,767 S2: I see that that's your well, you're welcome to your opinion and I don't I'm not that's not meant for an argument, Commissioner. That's why I'm looking forward. 02:22:36,100 S8: To a public hearing. Because the public hearing will be held by them. And it'll be anybody who wants to come and testify will come and testify. And I certainly am going to be there. I'm sure you guys will do so. 02:22:47,367 S2: Uh, I don't know that I would. I'm kind of a busy guy. So anyway, we've pretty well had that conversation. There was no decisions needed, and that was just for conversation. Um, any other business? Um, I have a note here for 250th anniversary under other business, I think, Commissioner Bacon. 02:23:04,501 S4: Yeah. Um, just Commissioner Woodcock, uh, kind of update a little bit earlier, but, uh, um, I was wondering if you had an opportunity to reach out or have a conversation with, uh, Mr. Bollinger, with the fanatics and the larks. Um, they have been tasked by the city and working with the state on the 250th anniversary. So? So, um, uh, he'd requested either you having a conversation with them or would like an opportunity to come to, uh, the county commission and present what they're working on so far. And then if there's an opportunity for Burleigh County to be involved with that as well. So I will give you his number if you want to reach out to him this week. And I would say it'd be very worthwhile to get him here for a presentation at the commission. 02:24:00,801 S16: No problem. 02:24:02,167 S2: Okay. Thank you for that. Any other business? For the good of the county. Thank you. Commissioners. We are adjourned.