On November 21, 2022, a number of North Dakota residents gathered during the Burleigh County Commissioners‘ meeting to discuss their concerns with Summit Carbon Solutions‘ “ruthless” business tactics, the government’s inability to protect the people properly and create more issues for the future.
One of the main themes throughout the meeting was lack of transparency and unethical business practices by Summit Carbon Solutions and a group of elected officials in the state of North Dakota who are working more for Summit Carbon Solutions’ interests over the private property owners.
Eminent Domain, public health, carbon issues, private property rights, long-term unintended consequences, carpetbaggers and decreased property taxes are just some of the topics discussed.
Burleigh County Commission Meetings are held twice a month, usually, on the first and third Monday at 5:00 PM and follow a formal agenda. The public is invited to attend these meetings held in the Tom Baker Meeting Room of the City\County Office Building, 221 N 5th St, Bismarck ND. County Commission meetings are televised live and repeated during the week on Government Access, Cable Channel 2 and High Definition Channel 602. Video coverage provided by Dakota Media Access:
00:00:01:00 – 00:00:12:02
Speaker 1
We they’re predicting a population increase.
00:00:12:02 – 00:00:12:21
Speaker 2
Over a thousand.
00:00:12:21 – 00:00:20:13
Speaker 1
Residents each year in this area, making this problem more serious by the day.
00:00:20:19 – 00:00:23:05
Speaker 2
This picture was taken today. Here’s a perfect example.
00:00:23:05 – 00:00:30:17
Speaker 1
43rd Avenue. There is Silver Boulevard. There is a new elementary school to your left. New subdivision to your right.
00:00:31:13 – 00:00:33:04
Speaker 2
There is a crosswalk installed.
00:00:33:14 – 00:00:34:01
Speaker 1
This is.
00:00:34:01 – 00:00:37:04
Speaker 2
Used by kindergarten through fifth graders to cross the.
00:00:37:04 – 00:00:40:08
Speaker 1
Road along the same paths.
00:00:40:08 – 00:00:41:10
Speaker 2
Of Ohv and.
00:00:41:10 – 00:00:42:09
Speaker 1
Snowmobilers.
00:00:42:22 – 00:00:45:16
Speaker 2
On both sides. You can see the tracks from the winter snow.
00:00:47:04 – 00:00:48:08
Speaker 1
This is looking west.
00:00:48:08 – 00:00:57:18
Speaker 2
On 43rd Avenue. Bramley and New Dunn Road. No motor vehicles. Nice bike path. You can see the snowmobiles, of course, in the snow. It’s easy to see are still.
00:00:57:18 – 00:01:00:19
Speaker 1
Traversing the trees, the little seedlings.
00:01:00:19 – 00:01:07:16
Speaker 2
There. If you drive in that area, somebody actually plowed over that whole row of trees with the snowmobile.
00:01:09:10 – 00:01:12:06
Speaker 1
And this here is if it was summertime.
00:01:12:23 – 00:01:22:23
Speaker 2
This here is exactly what it looks like on that same stretch of road between the two elementary schools. This is what it looks like without snow on the ground. That is.
00:01:22:23 – 00:01:23:16
Speaker 1
Roosevelt.
00:01:24:08 – 00:01:33:11
Speaker 2
That is the main road used by the elementary school that families turn and use. And it gets very busy and congested.
00:01:34:20 – 00:01:39:04
Speaker 1
That brings us to today. The election has concluded.
00:01:39:14 – 00:01:40:21
Speaker 2
The residents have voted.
00:01:41:13 – 00:01:43:02
Speaker 1
We’re once again asking the commission.
00:01:43:02 – 00:01:47:16
Speaker 2
To address this issue that has plagued the county for over 20 years.
00:01:48:11 – 00:01:51:21
Speaker 1
The Citizens and Commission have been granted the authority to do so.
00:01:52:08 – 00:01:53:22
Speaker 2
So today, tonight.
00:01:54:09 – 00:01:55:11
Speaker 1
Whenever we can, it’s.
00:01:55:11 – 00:01:57:00
Speaker 2
Just time to act, to keep.
00:01:57:00 – 00:01:57:23
Speaker 1
Moving forward on this.
00:01:59:11 – 00:02:02:01
Speaker 2
And if there’s any questions, there’s there’s.
00:02:02:07 – 00:02:04:05
Speaker 1
I’m sure those was. But there a group in the audience.
00:02:04:05 – 00:02:13:01
Speaker 2
Or myself, I could answer a question, but I think this is beneficial to everybody. Thank you. Any questions?
00:02:13:22 – 00:02:17:16
Speaker 1
No, it’s pretty clear.
00:02:17:16 – 00:02:28:10
Speaker 2
I’m still not clear what you’re asking us to do, though, tonight. Yeah, there’s. If you could, I would say shut them down tonight. Eliminate them from the ditches, allow them.
00:02:28:10 – 00:02:39:00
Speaker 1
On the roads all they want. You know, that’s the big issue here, though, I want to make clear is those ditches are not designed for the kind of off highway traffic. With the kind of traffic on those roads.
00:02:39:06 – 00:02:40:05
Speaker 2
If all of this off.
00:02:40:05 – 00:02:41:17
Speaker 1
Highway traffic was on the.
00:02:41:17 – 00:02:48:24
Speaker 2
Roads where you have striping, where they have to stay in between, where you have stop signs, where you have speed limits, where you have.
00:02:48:24 – 00:02:51:14
Speaker 1
Enforcement. That is where they belong.
00:02:51:21 – 00:03:02:19
Speaker 2
The ditches were designed to hold snow and to prevent environmental issues and runoff, not to handle that kind of off highway traffic.
00:03:02:19 – 00:03:37:09
Speaker 3
I think it’s pretty safe to say that that we should be asking staff to start drafting applicable ordinances. I think we’re going to want several departments to work together on that, notably, you know, the planning department, the sheriff’s department and possibly state’s attorney’s office and highway department. Yeah, for sure. Because it is a process going to take some time to put together the things that we know we have to do to address law enforcement issues and whatnot.
00:03:37:09 – 00:03:55:23
Speaker 3
And I don’t think anybody’s under any any misconception that that’s going to happen overnight, but it’s clearly an issue that the citizens feel strongly about. And so my recommendation is that by consensus, we just basically direct staff to start putting this together.
00:03:56:11 – 00:04:06:04
Speaker 2
Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else have concerns about anything? I guess.
00:04:10:20 – 00:05:05:08
Speaker 4
Good evening, commissioners. My name is John Wofford. I live in Bismarck and I own a ranch property in northeast Bismarck in. Not in township. I’m here to request and to to bring my story with regard to my experience with the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline Company. And I’d like to request this commission to look into the logistics, the process to get it on the radar screen so that if it is deemed a worthy on the part of the commission that you consider creating an ordinance that would prevent eminent domain taking a property and the associated issues with the pipeline company.
00:05:06:00 – 00:05:09:10
Speaker 4
And if I may speak, are you okay with me speaking?
00:05:09:12 – 00:05:17:19
Speaker 2
Yeah, we’re okay with that. We did pass a resolution several months back that all five of the commissioners had opposed.
00:05:18:23 – 00:05:19:03
Speaker 3
The.
00:05:19:11 – 00:05:25:17
Speaker 2
Use of eminent domain. And at that time, we were we were told that that’s as far as we can go.
00:05:25:21 – 00:05:28:18
Speaker 1
But it was basically window dressing, correct?
00:05:28:20 – 00:05:31:18
Speaker 4
Right. It was. Okay. Is there an ordinance or is it.
00:05:32:01 – 00:05:38:01
Speaker 2
That there’s no ordinance because we hadn’t we don’t have that authority until now to create an ordinance.
00:05:38:05 – 00:05:41:09
Speaker 4
That’s why I’m here tonight, because I think, you know, it’s pretty monumental.
00:05:41:09 – 00:05:43:16
Speaker 2
Just so you know, where the commission’s absolutely right.
00:05:43:16 – 00:06:15:21
Speaker 4
The whole world charter. So what I’m what I’m suggesting is just bringing information to you so that you could begin the process of creating an ordinance. Because I know you did. And thank you for passing the main thing. So I first received a letter in September of 21 was a generic letter from some carbon solutions, really. They indicated that the property that I owned, north and east of Bismarck, that it is would be located where this pipeline is going to go.
00:06:16:17 – 00:06:48:02
Speaker 4
So I called the engineer on the 800 number and said, I’m not interested in having this pipeline on my property. And nothing happened until April of this year. April 2nd I received communication from Summit Carbon Pipeline. They indicated to me that they wanted to have an easement to go through the property to put a half mile pipeline. They wanted to have a 50 foot setback on each side and they wanted me to sign this easement.
00:06:48:02 – 00:07:16:20
Speaker 4
They offered money to do this. This is across a a pristine pastureland with native grass on it. It’s never been broken. And I choose to keep it that way. And I did not want to have it scarred up by pipeline. I said no. They had landowners representatives get in touch with me last summer and the, the, the change went from a half mile request up to a mile request on my property.
00:07:17:12 – 00:07:38:21
Speaker 4
I’d like to receive a, read a letter to you that I got. I’ll just read one line from it that I received from Summit Carbon on July 11th, 2022. This this letter was wanting to have access to the property and they wanted to have an easement. And I’m going to read the last of the last line of the second paragraph.
00:07:39:08 – 00:08:11:10
Speaker 4
It’s from the right of way manager of North Dakota. This line said, If we have not received an executed permission form or other response from you within ten days, Summit will be forced to explore alternative means for accessing your property. I thought that was a threat to me, a threat of maybe using him, and it’ll mean taking my property or at least trespassing on the property.
00:08:11:10 – 00:08:16:16
Speaker 4
If I might continue to talk a little bit about Summit Carbon, with your permission German police.
00:08:16:16 – 00:08:16:21
Speaker 1
Are.
00:08:18:00 – 00:08:49:23
Speaker 4
Someone covered pipelines is a company. They began as an agricultural company in Iowa. And I want to indicate that this is a private company that is threatening me as a landowner. This is not a public and entity summit. Carbon Solutions has never done a carbon pipeline before. This is their first their first pipeline. I’m concerned about unintended consequences that take place from a first time in doing things.
00:08:49:23 – 00:09:23:16
Speaker 4
It’s a $5.4 billion pipeline. They intend on spending $81 million in Berlin County, putting this pipeline in. They will get $1,000,000,000 of profits each year. They come from government subsidies. In other words, our tax dollars are paying for their profits. They plan on sequestering, injecting in the ground over in Oliver and Mercer County after this pipeline crosses the river, comes through Bertie County, between 12 million and up to 20 million tons of CO2 year.
00:09:23:16 – 00:09:52:15
Speaker 4
They’re injecting into the soil are they’re going to be some unintended consequences over there? I’m I’m sure they have never done a 24 inch pipeline before all through Birley County is a 24 inch pipeline with extreme pressures. German Peluso So this is a 2000 mile long pipeline starting in Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota through North Dakota, crossing the river and going over into Oliver and Mercer County.
00:09:53:04 – 00:10:31:08
Speaker 4
They have paid out so far $200 million to landowners. I’m concerned, if I may continue with three things. I’ll try to be as quick as possible, but I was asked to be maybe a spokesperson on B on on on behalf of my property, which is not in township. We had a township meeting and 100% of the non township residents do not want to have this pipeline going through non township safety, the taking of property and I think of the negative effect on the expansion of Bismarck and Bertie County.
00:10:32:08 – 00:10:54:18
Speaker 4
I’d like to talk just briefly about the safety carbon pipe. Carbon pipelines are different than oil pipelines. If an oil pipeline has a leak, it leaks out over the ground. It hurts the environment. If a CO2 pipeline has a leak, the liquid becomes a gas. CO2 gas in small amounts. It’s in soda pop. It’s good for you. Large amounts of this.
00:10:54:24 – 00:11:21:14
Speaker 4
It’s an asphyxiate. It means it displaces the oxygen in your lungs. And if you’re exposed to a CO2 leak from a pipeline, you die or you’ll be maimed or you’ll be very sick. There is a history that this has actually taken place. If you can look it up on the Internet. Happened in Mississippi 2020. Over 200 people were sickened, double digits.
00:11:21:14 – 00:11:51:22
Speaker 4
People died from a pipeline. Ask you to maybe Google, you can take a look. You can Google a pipeline burst and you can see this huge geyser coming out from the pipeline. CO2 is heavier than air and so it goes along the land and it disperses throughout the land. So we need to be concerned about the safety of of leaks.
00:11:52:16 – 00:12:20:24
Speaker 4
Someone carbon says that they are going to have a series of valves, they’re going to have a series of pressure gauges, and they’re going to have someone monitoring a a computer screen down in Ames, Iowa, that’s going to monitor 2000 miles of pipeline in case that there is a leak. So it’s not if, but when there’s going to be a leak out in Berkeley County of a 24 inch carbon pipeline.
00:12:20:24 – 00:12:51:12
Speaker 4
If it goes down, if we do not have an ordinance. So how fast can they turn it off? There be computer glitches. Before I you know, I submit to you that there are a lot of unintended consequences if you do the math on this gas coming out of the pipeline in if we have a 30 mile an hour wind in one minute, that gas will go a half mile in 2 minutes, it’ll go a mile in 6 minutes.
00:12:51:15 – 00:13:13:15
Speaker 4
It’ll go three miles. My property is less than a mile from not in school. This is a functioning school. The Bismarck Public Schools, there are between 30 and 40 kids go there. Three of my grandchildren go there within one or 2 minutes of a pipeline breach on my property. This gas could go there if it’s a south wind up to that school.
00:13:14:05 – 00:13:43:10
Speaker 4
Silver Ranch is about three elementary schools, Silver Ranch, all mariners properties, all of these properties that could be affected by the the cloud of CO2. Gas is within a few miles of the pipeline. We’re talking about emergency responses. You know, how you know, how is someone going to respond to the emergency? Is rural fire going to need to go out there?
00:13:43:18 – 00:14:10:04
Speaker 4
They can’t patch it. So essentially a a an emergency response is going to go out there and pick up victims, take them to the hospital or take them to the morgue. So I think that the emergency response plan of the summit is to I hope it misses if there’s a leak. I hope it misses the people or I hope it just disperses without any anything.
00:14:11:12 – 00:14:38:22
Speaker 4
The you know, I’m not talking about I’ll be brief, not talking about crossing the Missouri River or the first time that this has ever been done taking of property. You’ve addressed that issue before. I’ll be brief again, but I think that it’s, you know, un-American that a private company should take take my property, put a pipeline on there, scar my land, and decrease the value of the land.
00:14:39:06 – 00:15:06:00
Speaker 4
What people don’t realize, the other rural residents that are maybe in the room here is that it’s just not the people on the pipeline that are going to be affected. It’s the rural residents and the C02 gas from a leak. So Miles around this pipeline are going to be affected. Finally, I think that it would affect the the the long term economic development of the city of Bismarck and in Briley County.
00:15:06:03 – 00:15:30:21
Speaker 4
This pipeline is way too close. Chairman Pollute so it’s way too close to the city of Bismarck. It’s about a mile outside of the EPA, and it will, in my opinion, affect the economic development, the future. A previous speaker talked about 2045. It’s not even I don’t think anybody even, you know, looking into that there are unintended consequences with having it.
00:15:30:21 – 00:15:53:15
Speaker 4
I think that if the pipeline goes in and there’s not an ordinance keeping it out or why not putting put it out where it’s not going to affect any citizens? I think that there will be like a no builds zone on on either side of it. What about the insurance, you know, for the homes that are there and, you know, I think it’s basically would be a danger zone.
00:15:54:06 – 00:16:17:19
Speaker 4
So in conclusion, you know what? What’s really the benefit of having this pipeline? We need to have an ordinance to protect the citizens that are going to be affected. What is the benefit? Well, they say in there they have some, you know, very glossy brochures that go out that were all we’re all sent. They say that they’re going to create 11,000 jobs.
00:16:17:19 – 00:16:42:21
Speaker 4
Well, those jobs are to build the pipeline. What happens, you know, when the pipeline is built, maybe a few, few jobs for the ethanol plants. What about the proper increase in property taxes? They say in the brochure that there would be $400,000 of property taxes brought into Burley County. I submit that that pales in comparison to the decrease in the value of properties in the city of Bismarck.
00:16:44:01 – 00:17:07:20
Speaker 4
So in closing, you know what? What is the benefit? Why do we need to have an ordinance and why should we begin that process for the for the ordinance? The benefit of this pipeline is for 31 ethanol plants that are in Iowa, Minnesota and South Dakota. There are 31 ethanol plants and one in North Dakota. Gary three, Olson’s plant just in Castleton.
00:17:08:02 – 00:17:39:21
Speaker 4
So there are 32 ethanol plants that will benefit by being able to create green ethanol. This green ethanol then will be sold to California and and the proposals to California and Oregon, the silliness of it all is the California legislature just passed legislation saying that after 2035, they’re banning internal combustion engine cars. It’s all electric after that. So, I mean, it seems, you know, rather ridiculous.
00:17:39:21 – 00:18:07:11
Speaker 4
The the the benefit would be to summit carbon. They make $1,000,000,000 a year from our tax dollars. It just does not seem to make sense. The green ethanol, all of the it’s the same ethanol. It’s just that they get I mean, it’s the same ethanol they sell. But it but it’s green because they send the carbon the carbon dioxide through this pipeline through North Dakota with really no benefit to North Dakotans.
00:18:07:19 – 00:18:45:09
Speaker 4
Certainly no benefit to anybody in Berkeley County, so that corn farmers in Iowa and the ethanol plants can make more money and someone can make money from this. I’m opposed to it. I think I’m being wronged as a citizen in Berkeley County. Are very respectfully ask this commission and I know we’re in a transition and between this commission and another commission, but if the process could be started here and then transition to the next commission so that attorney lawyer can, you know, come up with a suitable type of ordinance to protect me and my fellow citizens.
00:18:45:13 – 00:19:13:22
Speaker 4
I very much appreciate it. Thank you very much. If there anybody in the and I’d like to thank my fellow non township members to be here with everybody in this room that is opposed to this pipeline. Please stand up. Okay.
00:19:13:22 – 00:19:18:16
Speaker 1
All commissioners.
00:19:18:16 – 00:19:22:04
Speaker 4
Commissioners, we need to have an ordinance. German police.
00:19:22:04 – 00:19:38:10
Speaker 2
So thank you very much. Well-put. Eloquently spoken. I think it’s a dumb idea from the beginning to bury CO2. I mean, I don’t get it if I’m correct. Doesn’t need CO2 to live, to grow, to prosper.
00:19:38:10 – 00:19:38:14
Speaker 1
In.
00:19:38:18 – 00:19:39:06
Speaker 3
Everything and.
00:19:39:18 – 00:19:52:17
Speaker 2
Everything. But corn, I think, is one of the biggest users of CO2. Yeah. Another another question I wonder is, is how did they ever get this far to begin with? I mean.
00:19:53:01 – 00:19:53:15
Speaker 4
Well, they have.
00:19:53:16 – 00:19:56:13
Speaker 2
No we’re the last county on the on the line. Yeah.
00:19:56:13 – 00:20:23:20
Speaker 4
We’re resisting other other than across the river and then it’s injected into the soil, you know. Great question, Chairman Peluso and members of the commission this is huge money. This is we’re talking this they’re backed by Jp morgan Continental oil. They’ve got this, you know, a $50 per ton subsidy that the US government or there’s even talk of $85 a ton.
00:20:24:09 – 00:20:52:02
Speaker 4
And you know, it does not benefit North Dakota and it is all so that we can say or somebody can say in North Dakota that we are doing it. We’re sequestering carbon, we’re doing carbon collection, and we’re going to be carbon neutral in North Dakota by whatever, whatever. And this just does not seem to make any sense that we in Berlin County should have this 24 inch line by a private company that’s never done it before.
00:20:52:20 – 00:21:09:16
Speaker 4
With all of the risks, you know, think of the rural residents out there. This leak comes out, the wind blows. I mean, what are these people thinking? So how did it get this far? It’s money. It’s money they’re chasing that federal subsidy to get $2 billion.
00:21:09:16 – 00:21:31:00
Speaker 2
So to me, there’s got to be another there’s there’s got to be another end game somewhere. There’s something we don’t know that somebody is going to do something with that sequesters CO2. They’re just not going to leave that in the ground forever. I can’t I can’t see it there. There’s got to be money at the end of it somewhere.
00:21:31:00 – 00:21:35:01
Speaker 2
Somehow. And I guess that remains to be seen.
00:21:35:13 – 00:21:57:00
Speaker 4
I think they have a requirement that they have to leave it in the ground. My point is, is unintended consequences. I know it’s going to leak if you put all the you put it over 100 million tons of CO2 in the land. First of all, I mean, this is North Dakota. What are they thinking? What you know, why would we want to do that to our state to take 100 million tons of CO2?
00:21:57:00 – 00:21:57:15
Speaker 4
First of all.
00:21:58:02 – 00:21:59:07
Speaker 1
Commissioner, Business Commission.
00:21:59:16 – 00:22:16:01
Speaker 3
Chairman, I got to tell you one, the one of the concerns that I’ve had, that that is what I think is a real big deal. I don’t know about the science and what what the actual company is going to do, but I’ve heard that what they want to do is they want to bury this pipeline about four feet deep and then have approximately three feet of cover over it.
00:22:16:11 – 00:22:37:23
Speaker 3
I got news for you folks. Our foundations, when we do construction, you know, I’m a contractor. We put foundations deeper than that in the ground so that we override the freeze thaw cycle. Any farm kid in North Dakota can tell you that the winter and the freeze thaw brings rocks to the surface. Now, if you put in a pipeline that’s only three or four feet in the ground, I’ve got a real concern with that.
00:22:38:16 – 00:22:40:13
Speaker 3
And I think that would be part of this ordinance. And.
00:22:41:04 – 00:22:52:13
Speaker 4
Peluso You know, Mr. Bittner, I’ve had a water pipe out of my farm from 6 to 8 feet down. Freeze.
00:22:52:13 – 00:23:23:22
Speaker 5
Sure. So we add once we do have carbon sequestration is already in the state, but it is from an ethanol plant straight below it to be held. So it’s North Dakota waste straight below without a pipe or very small piping. It’s right in the same site. I’m not saying I’m against all carbon sequestration or carbon capture, but I do have like you to grave concerns about taking waste from other states.
00:23:24:15 – 00:23:46:02
Speaker 5
I’m from Mercer County. I grew up in Hazen and putting it in my hometown county through the county I reside in now. So I hold your concerns. I just want to make sure that you know that there are different ways of doing this that may be more agreeable to some people than others. But concerns about piping it that far is is very concerning to me.
00:23:46:02 – 00:24:13:03
Speaker 4
Sir John Peluso. Mr. MATTHEWS. Yes, for sure. In speaking with our federal delegation, which I have spoken with them, they indicated that this subsidy was not designed for summit carp. It was for exactly what you said for the small ethanol plants, short lines, eight inch lines in rural areas where it’s not around houses and threatening people and helping our coal industry.
00:24:13:13 – 00:24:34:21
Speaker 4
That’s what it was designed for. And these people now have done a about shift. It’s basically a shell game. It’s a shell game to take this carbon to help the ethanol plants in Iowa and the corn farmers and I we’re not we’re not talking mom and pop farmers down there. We’re talking ten, 20, 30, 40,000 acres of of corn.
00:24:35:04 – 00:24:43:10
Speaker 4
They’re going to benefit, not our farmers. The farmers in Berlin County, we have family farms here. We’re not these big, huge corn firms.
00:24:45:03 – 00:25:08:20
Speaker 5
One other thing, Chairman, close. So if I can continue and Julie, you might need to back me up on this. So I’ll if it is my understanding for any ordinance and this isn’t just this issue, but any ordinance, we cannot supersede a higher entity such as if the state has an ordinance for speeding, we can’t say we can charge more or the state has a certain law we can’t.
00:25:08:20 – 00:25:37:03
Speaker 5
So we do still have restrictions from higher entities or higher governance is about making ordinances, is that correct? That is correct. Thank you. So I don’t mean to put I don’t want to put. But I’m just saying, you that’s why Julie, our state’s attorney, is involved to help guide us and making those attorney, those decisions and what is within our authority with the ordinances.
00:25:37:13 – 00:26:04:03
Speaker 2
I think some of the immediate decisions we could make is are they are they passed under our county roads? I think we can deny second approach permits and third approach permits that where they’re asking for them. I mean, there’s there’s things that we can do to deter what they’re trying to do. I don’t I don’t know if they want to go under four feet under our roads or not, but that that wouldn’t be acceptable.
00:26:04:08 – 00:26:06:15
Speaker 1
You know? Thank you.
00:26:07:04 – 00:26:29:18
Speaker 3
You know, you know what I think we should do? I think I think we should open up kind of a period of time here where where we’re collecting that information from all associated parties. You know, if you’re if you’re a landowner in Burley County and you have a concern, we should set up one person that’s going to be like the clearinghouse for information, because somebody, I’m sure, has sent to all of us a copy of an ordinance from Shelby County, Iowa.
00:26:30:20 – 00:27:06:00
Speaker 3
You know, we’re going to rubber stamp somebody else’s ordinance because, quite frankly, I reviewed it and some of it just doesn’t apply, you know, but if we could set up a clearinghouse like our planning department to where we can get this information together, whether it’s from the highway department, the effect on the roads or whether it’s from citizens and what have you that we can start, or if somebody has suggest suggestions for specific part of an ordinance, you know, we’ve heard that there’s obviously a lot of concerns, whether it’s the depth, whether it’s the eminent domain, whether it’s whatever.
00:27:06:00 – 00:27:18:20
Speaker 3
But I think if the sooner we had information all compiled that we can sift through and start to form the ordinance that would relate to really kind of the better off we would be if.
00:27:18:20 – 00:27:49:02
Speaker 6
I mean, Mr. Chairman, the other issue here is the Missouri River and that’s not overseen by the state or by the county. You’ve got many federal organizations that you have to get permission from. It’s just like the I’m sure you’ve all read the article about the railroad bridge in the Navy finally said yes, and that Missouri River is the largest supply of water the state has, and we’re now taking it to the eastern part of the state.
00:27:49:17 – 00:28:06:18
Speaker 6
It will eventually end up in the Fargo area within the next ten years. So that, too, is another concern. A four foot pipe under the Missouri River, four foot deep pipe under the Missouri River is not going to make it.
00:28:07:08 – 00:28:14:10
Speaker 3
You know, had that pipeline been in existence during the 2011 football recall, it would have a scouring was way deeper than that.
00:28:14:10 – 00:28:17:14
Speaker 6
So I believe is down to 40 feet in points.
00:28:17:16 – 00:28:22:10
Speaker 2
So where does the state stand on all this? Have they approved it? Have they.
00:28:23:07 – 00:28:25:20
Speaker 5
Given it? It’s filed with the PSC.
00:28:25:20 – 00:28:27:03
Speaker 2
I believe it’s your file.
00:28:27:16 – 00:28:55:14
Speaker 4
You’re most of the time and I’m not totally knowledgeable on it, but they have filed with the PSC for a permit to do it. The other ploy, I think they filed two different routes so to speak, and they’re asking for a permit from the PSC. They’re also asking for what is I understand what’s called common carrier status, which allows them to be treated as an oil pipeline even though they’re private.
00:28:55:20 – 00:29:17:14
Speaker 4
But they would be then be treated as an oil pipeline, as a common carrier, and then they can use eminent domain. One of the public service commissioners has recused herself from this already as she is a participating landowner or their family is. There’s a second initiative as well in the legislature. But, you know, time is of the essence.
00:29:18:06 – 00:29:38:10
Speaker 4
There is talk about a representative from Hazelton to introduce in the North Dakota legislature in January when it convenes a an eminent domain law for carbon pipelines specific to carbon pipelines. Good carbon pipelines are different than oil pipelines.
00:29:40:01 – 00:29:47:21
Speaker 2
Thank you. Anybody else want to speak up or have anything to say?
00:29:47:21 – 00:30:16:15
Speaker 1
I just want to add one thing that was in this gentleman’s presentation that that he did not mention is North Dakota centric Code 56, dash one. I think it’s 56, dash one seven No, 56, dash zero six, dash 17.1. There will be no taxes on a CO2 pipeline for ten years of the first ten years of operation. So it’s in North Dakota centric code, so go ahead and look it up so that $410,000, don’t worry about it because you’re not getting it.
00:30:16:15 – 00:30:17:04
Speaker 2
Appreciate it.
00:30:18:11 – 00:30:23:00
Speaker 1
Yeah. Okay.
00:30:23:02 – 00:30:29:09
Speaker 3
So what do you think would be the the most logical place to consolidate this information when the.
00:30:29:10 – 00:30:34:24
Speaker 6
Planning and zoning would be the most long into the cold place? To get a good recap.
00:30:35:07 – 00:30:55:18
Speaker 5
And I thank you for that suggestion. Yeah, Commissioner Bittner because there’s a lot of information coming in to us privately, to others, would be nice to have information of what’s affecting landowners, what’s affecting our county in one spot so we can call or have that all in one central place for us making decisions. Thank you for that suggestion.
00:30:55:22 – 00:31:00:03
Speaker 3
Commissioner Peluso and I both share that portfolio. So I guess Mitch.
00:31:00:03 – 00:31:00:09
Speaker 1
I think.
00:31:01:00 – 00:31:03:11
Speaker 3
You’re on.
00:31:06:09 – 00:31:10:02
Speaker 7
Thank you, Commissioner and Commissioners. Chairman.
00:31:10:18 – 00:31:12:12
Speaker 2
I name blues.
00:31:12:18 – 00:31:38:12
Speaker 7
My name is Galen Doering. I’ve resided out in Apple Creek Township for some over 50 years now. I have a small farm that I operate out of. I was approached by Carbon Summit several times over the past summer. Originally with a knock on the door and wanted to talk to me about this. And I said I wasn’t prepared.
00:31:38:12 – 00:31:59:13
Speaker 7
I hadn’t studied it or anything, so I didn’t want to talk to him. So I sent him on his way. Then I get it in the mail, an easement and then a call to sign the easement. Which of course, I said, no, I wasn’t even signing easement. So then I got another about a week later, another easement with improved dollars, which I ignored.
00:32:00:02 – 00:32:33:12
Speaker 7
So then I got a third one, which was improved dollars for my easement, which I ignored, and then I started asking some questions about routing and so on. They originally were going to go directly through my native pasture and we said, No, you’re not going to do that for sure. So they changed the route. They then told this and moved it over to the edge of the pasture right along Township Road.
00:32:34:13 – 00:33:16:05
Speaker 7
And I said, No, I still was not interested in talking to them. So finally they got to the point that I wasn’t going to be very cooperative. So they moved over up another mile, which put it right on the edge between Apple Creek Township and Boyd Township. And the funny part is it follows that section line north for a ways and then juts back to the right back east, and then before it goes north and then at an angle through several of the some developments that are already north Bismarck, not to mention future ones.
00:33:17:07 – 00:33:51:23
Speaker 7
But so I started studying this a little bit. I’m no expert on it. I’m not an attorney. I’m an accountant. But I do have some experience in some of the financial side of power plants and transmission lines and all this. I do know that the state of North Dakota and other entities do, I think, have requirements that when you build a power plant at the time you build it, you have to start putting money away as you operate it for the possible decommissioning of that power plant.
00:33:52:11 – 00:34:20:13
Speaker 7
So that’s available. No such requirement is being put on summit so they can lease a 24 inch pipeline under our ground. And if for any reason they decided not to operate that any longer, it’s no longer feasible. The laws change, whatever they go broke, they just walk away. And that 24 inch pipeline is still on the farmers and other people’s properties.
00:34:21:05 – 00:34:54:00
Speaker 7
What happens if, like that’s been pointed out here very rightly, the freezing and flying of North Dakota, that pipe ruptures sometime. There’s still some poison in it. And then some regulators from the EPA or health departments or whoever comes out and says that pipeline’s going to be removed. Who’s going to pay for that? Is that going to be up to the responsibility of the landowner whose land was taken from them through eminent domain without any concern?
00:34:54:05 – 00:35:27:16
Speaker 7
Or somebody’s going to step forward and tell Summit? No, you have to start putting money away as you build and operate this so that you can remove it. When the time comes, it’s no longer wanted. Nobody’s even thought of that. There’s been some discussion here today about what authority the county has to make, resolutions and so on. That and the statements have been made that we can’t preempt something, that the state has done or the federal government and so on.
00:35:28:06 – 00:35:59:15
Speaker 7
Well, this has been addressed from what I’m able to find out, and I’m certainly no lawyer, but from what I understand, the safety regulations on this have been given to the federal government to make safety regulations, and the state and local authorities cannot pass ones that are less stringent. They can because of certain local areas and so on, and schools and churches.
00:36:00:00 – 00:36:48:12
Speaker 7
They can pass safety regulations that are more stringent than what the federal government has in place. The other thing that’s very important is the federal government, from what I’m able to read, cannot preempt states or local authorities for such rules and regulations as setbacks, zoning situations and routing. Federal government has no say in that. So we as a township or as a county or as a city or as a state, can exercise those without any concern about whether or not we’re preempting state or federal regulations because we do have the authority.
00:36:48:22 – 00:37:30:08
Speaker 7
Now, Summit is challenging that and I think it’s maybe the county that the commissioner there talked about has been challenged by summit in court. And that decision has come down and the court ruled in favor of the county. So Summit took it. You know, they lost on that case. Now there is and as I understand, the amounts of what they stand to realize in tax benefits has been increased in recently.
00:37:30:08 – 00:37:59:10
Speaker 7
And some of the new legislation that has passed recently, that amount has been increased where summit now stands to to gain approximately $1.5 billion per year. And that’s not just a one time that’s per year. So we’re looking at a big battle against big money at 1.5 billion per year. But I think it’s a battle that’s worth fighting.
00:38:00:01 – 00:38:28:07
Speaker 7
This county did win in court. Some horse with that much money at stake is going to appeal, I’m sure, and try to get it overturned. But there’s other townships, there’s other counties, there’s other states that are now realizing that this might not be such a good idea. It originally looked like a real good idea in North Dakota, and the powers to be were approached here in North Dakota.
00:38:28:07 – 00:39:06:22
Speaker 7
And we did put some more North Dakota money down. The legislature passed to put and I don’t remember the amounts. I don’t remember I intended to say it’s $50 million that legislature approved. But the reason for that is there were several ethanol plants in North Dakota that were going to benefit from this. And those ethanol plants lobbied for the approval of this because they thought it was going to give them a big heads up over the ethanol plants in other states such as Iowa.
00:39:06:22 – 00:39:31:03
Speaker 7
And so on, to get into the California ethanol market, which is a big deal. So that’s why they were in favor of it. One summit came forth with what their real intention were is to bring in these other ethanol plants from other states and all the ethanol plants in North Dakota, with the exception of one, as we stated, have all withdrawn.
00:39:31:23 – 00:40:00:04
Speaker 7
So North Dakota ethanol plants, for the most part, are no longer in favor of this because they will not benefit. So there is going to be legislation introduced, and that resolution will basically say that that somewhat because or any carbon capture pipeline would not be eligible for eminent domain because it’s not a public utility and so on. Okay.
00:40:00:16 – 00:40:26:13
Speaker 7
So I think that’s something that your legal staff and your committee have set up. And so on need to investigate. Another thing I want to talk about a little bit is the safety issue. As was mentioned before, there was a spill on a carbon dioxide pipeline that was in Mississippi and that was a six inch pipeline. The one through North Dakota is going to be a 24 inch pipeline.
00:40:26:13 – 00:40:51:00
Speaker 7
And from what I’m told, there has never been a foot of 24 inch carbon capture pipeline placed anywhere in the United States. So this is a first of the thing. Summit is very proud to tell you that they’re going to follow all safety regulations and so on to see that this is safe, that’s easy for them to say.
00:40:51:00 – 00:41:18:10
Speaker 7
That’s a half truth like most people get from them. Yes. But the reason they’re able to say that is because the federal government for years has been in charge of writing the safety regulations and there has never been a paragraph of safety regulations on a carbon dioxide 24 inch pipeline ever written anywhere. So they have federal government has not written any safety, so there is none.
00:41:18:18 – 00:41:51:14
Speaker 7
So when Summit says they’re going to follow all safety regulations, sure not apply, but I would call it a far cry from the truth. The other thing is that when that spill did happen down in Mississippi and you bring that up to summit, their answer is and answer. And that is nobody has ever been killed by a spill from a carbon dioxide pipeline spill.
00:41:52:00 – 00:42:21:06
Speaker 7
Okay. I don’t know. That could be honest to. But it’s not the truth because they have never studied if any of those people affected down in Mississippi. The number I’ve heard is 200 people were taken to emergency rooms and so on. I don’t know how many people of those people have died since, but I know that the studies have shown that there are many of them that suffered lung capacity issues and so on.
00:42:21:16 – 00:42:46:08
Speaker 7
And the other thing that they don’t want to answer is how many livestock, household pets and how many plants were destroyed in this process. And this was a very small leak on a very small pipeline. It’s not what they’re talking about here. So they just are not coming forth with all the statistics. And so on that they should be giving us.
00:42:47:17 – 00:42:57:21
Speaker 2
So do we have any opposition to this in North Dakota? I mean, are there landowners that have signed up? Does anybody know the percentage of them are okay?
00:42:58:15 – 00:43:30:15
Speaker 7
All I know is that when you asked Carbon or Summit about that question, they are very quick to tell that there are a number of people that have signed voluntary easements. Okay. I don’t know. There’s a lot of property being crossed. There are large tracts and small tracts. I know nobody that owns a large tract of property that has signed any easements.
00:43:30:15 – 00:43:52:24
Speaker 7
There may be some other people and there’s people in all kinds of different situations, some people are in financial straits and need the box and someone comes and starts throwing money at them and so on. But I do know that the route currently is through residential areas of north north, not in Bismarck, but just north of Bismarck in Burley County.
00:43:53:13 – 00:44:01:19
Speaker 7
And it’s a bad idea. Some of their original routing was within 500 feet of occupied dwellings.
00:44:02:24 – 00:44:07:23
Speaker 3
And this is true. I don’t mean to interrupt you.
00:44:07:23 – 00:44:09:14
Speaker 7
No, that’s fine. Look at it.
00:44:10:01 – 00:44:35:10
Speaker 3
I got a request of you because you said that you were approached with easements and you turned it down. Then there was different dollar amounts and you turned it down in different amounts. You turned it down. One of the things we don’t have is an understanding of what’s proposed in these easements, because if you sign an easement, then I believe you also probably had a confidentiality clause that had you signed the easement, you wouldn’t be able to disclose that information, correct?
00:44:35:10 – 00:44:43:03
Speaker 7
I I’m sorry, Commissioner. I can’t really even answer that because I did not take the time to read it off very thoroughly.
00:44:43:03 – 00:44:44:10
Speaker 1
Well, that’s typically what.
00:44:44:19 – 00:44:45:08
Speaker 7
I would say.
00:44:45:21 – 00:44:46:21
Speaker 1
My understanding that.
00:44:47:04 – 00:44:50:14
Speaker 7
We had a shortage of shaman or whatever. Yeah.
00:44:52:01 – 00:44:53:21
Speaker 1
Well, okay, my my understanding.
00:44:54:21 – 00:45:14:15
Speaker 3
Was pretty funny. My understanding is that if you sign an easement, you have a confidentiality clause. And so I think it would be helpful to us to understand what the company is proposing to county residents in these easements. And if you wouldn’t mind sharing that through the county planning department. Well.
00:45:15:00 – 00:45:17:05
Speaker 7
If I can come up with somewhere along the.
00:45:17:12 – 00:46:00:09
Speaker 3
Along the lines of what he’s talking about on North Bismarck, you know, I’ve been involved in the planning and zoning with Bismarck and Earley County now for about 15 years, maybe a little more, 14 years on this commission. But I was on the City Planning Commission before becoming a county commissioner. Placing a pipeline like this in the most direct, close path of the growth of Bismarck would be a huge issue to both the city and the county with respect to not only safety, which is huge, but the resulting property value, but I think that we would take would be unbelievable in that kind of location.
00:46:00:09 – 00:46:06:00
Speaker 3
Any map I’ve seen is just way too close for from my comfort. Just want to point that out. Thank you.
00:46:06:18 – 00:46:33:23
Speaker 7
I’m sure. Commissioner Bittner the amounts we would lose in property value in property things would far surpass anything that we’re going to end up getting from summit in their entirety. Tax issues and posterity said earlier too. I have also seen where there is no property taxes can be paid on this for a period of ten years, so it wouldn’t be any coming out.
00:46:34:04 – 00:47:09:23
Speaker 7
The other thing is somebody asked what what use this is. Normally if you give somebody eminent domain, they’re they’re either mining or pumping oil or creating electric city of one location and transmitting that through facility that has required some eminent domain to be done. And when it gets to the other end, it is used for the betterment of mankind, you know, utilities, fuel, oil, whatever it is.
00:47:10:10 – 00:47:55:01
Speaker 7
This, as has been stated before, has to be put underground. And there are people that talk in German blue. So you brought up the idea of of enhanced oil recovery being mentioned as a possible use of this in the bills. From what I understand in the bills that have been passed in Congress authorizing this $1.5 billion to go to summit because they build this pipeline or regulation saying that the carbon that is sequestered and buried underground in western North Dakota can never and that means a lot of years.
00:47:55:11 – 00:48:04:00
Speaker 7
Forever’s a long time. It can never be removed for any purpose for for oil enhanced.
00:48:04:00 – 00:48:05:13
Speaker 2
Kind of like our legacy fund.
00:48:05:19 – 00:48:11:18
Speaker 1
Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Well, so.
00:48:11:21 – 00:48:29:20
Speaker 3
So you think that that do you think that would be a violation of the 1999 year limit on non easements in North Dakota. You know, we have constitutional prohibition on that. So if that if that CO2 was sequestered underground forever would not violate the easements.
00:48:29:22 – 00:48:30:02
Speaker 1
Of.
00:48:31:16 – 00:48:49:13
Speaker 7
I don’t know what some of those agreements are with, with the people that are going to allow them to sequester the carbon on their their property or what’s what they probably are going to go or try to go around it somehow beyond.
00:48:50:04 – 00:48:50:18
Speaker 1
Granting.
00:48:50:18 – 00:49:00:19
Speaker 7
Easements to those people to maybe try to acquire the property and not have any easement on the property that it’s sequestered in or something. I don’t know what.
00:49:00:24 – 00:49:22:16
Speaker 3
I can speak to that a little bit. Okay. Because there’s been a lease that’s been proposed to my family and we own land up up in Beulah, right across the road from the coal gasification plant in Antelope Valley Station. Matter of fact, that a lot of that whole thing is built on my family, what used to be my family’s land.
00:49:23:00 – 00:49:56:20
Speaker 3
And we still own the land right across the road. So the easement proposes to pay something on the order of $6,000 a year for 15 years. And then once the project is completed, once they get a certificate of completion, then the CO2 becomes the property of the state and apparently easement payments go away. There is a provision to pay a proportional share of like a dollar or something per so many tons that gets dispersed to the landowners.
00:49:57:18 – 00:50:19:02
Speaker 3
I think that the law that’s allowing this to happen up in Beulah pretty much negates the interest of private landowners because all of the majority of the land surrounds are our land. And we have we’ve turned it down. Our family has turned it down. So I don’t think I have any conflict of interest in that because we’re not accepting any payment for it.
00:50:19:02 – 00:50:51:06
Speaker 3
But the majority of the land that’s all around us, well, all the land that’s that’s bordering us is owned by either the base or cattle mine. And so they reached the threshold of the 60% ownership that can sign onto the project for the sequestration without having to have the private landowners involved. So you just we’re just going to take it and then I guess it’s permanent and they’re stopping at 7000 feet and I could see more than 7000 feet from the door of my shop.
00:50:51:06 – 00:50:54:23
Speaker 3
I don’t think that’s very deep. You know.
00:50:54:23 – 00:51:47:03
Speaker 7
So I’ve been told and have seen it a little bit that that the law that authorized the $1.5 billion stipulates that it can never be removed or the tax credits earned have to be returned. And I don’t see some coming around and returning $1.5 billion over ten years. So there’s a lot of money, but nobody is stepping forward, putting forth money to be set aside in a trust or whatever for the removal of the pipelines and all that and is something that should certainly be talked about because somebody is going to get stuck with a big bill when someone comes around and says, you’ve got to digging up these 24 inch pipelines and disposing of
00:51:47:03 – 00:51:56:04
Speaker 7
the pipe in a safe manner. One is plumb for the hazardous material. I don’t think the Bismarck City dump is going to let us put it out there.
00:51:57:00 – 00:52:03:00
Speaker 2
So as that pipeline been started, as anybody know, I mean, is there a pipe in the ground? Is there I.
00:52:03:12 – 00:52:05:06
Speaker 7
Know they have gotten.
00:52:05:06 – 00:52:06:06
Speaker 2
Dug a hole anywhere.
00:52:06:07 – 00:52:10:03
Speaker 7
They’ve gotten further along in Iowa or anywhere else.
00:52:10:08 – 00:52:11:04
Speaker 2
That’s what I mean.
00:52:11:07 – 00:52:32:14
Speaker 7
But no, there’s no there’s no pipe in the ground or anything like that. But they’ve gotten some some approvals and permits and stuff and so on. There. There was and I don’t know how it’s turned out. There was a huge battle in the Iowa Public Utility Commission or Public Service Commission, whatever they call that over there on eminent domain.
00:52:33:22 – 00:53:00:15
Speaker 7
And I don’t know if they ever made a decision on that or not, but but there’s so much money and it’s it’s not money for from the project. It’s not even money from the ethanol plants. It’s almost completely money being put forward through tax credits. And that’s just you and me paying for them for some to build their pipeline.
00:53:00:19 – 00:53:07:01
Speaker 2
So it does appear we have a little bit of time. I mean, we could get an ordinance going.
00:53:08:04 – 00:53:09:00
Speaker 7
I think maybe may.
00:53:09:06 – 00:53:10:18
Speaker 2
Where the ground is.
00:53:10:18 – 00:53:11:20
Speaker 7
Yeah, I think it’s something.
00:53:11:20 – 00:53:11:23
Speaker 2
That.
00:53:12:07 – 00:53:13:15
Speaker 7
You have some time with.
00:53:14:13 – 00:53:18:12
Speaker 2
So but we would we would start tonight. I mean, seriously, you.
00:53:18:12 – 00:53:41:01
Speaker 7
Know, because I think it’s it’s such a big issue. I mean, the gentleman was up here. I was kind of thinking his his talk about the dirt bike issue and all that is not to be pushed aside. That’s very, very important. But this is a matter of life and death to a lot of people.
00:53:41:07 – 00:54:02:16
Speaker 2
In the county. I just I just keep thinking of the opposition. We’re going to have opposition to the to the other ordinance that we’re trying to put together. We’re going to have the snowmobilers, we’re going to have the kids on. There’s opposition out there. And that’s why I’m wondering about how many percentage of people have signed a lease deal in North Dakota?
00:54:02:23 – 00:54:06:09
Speaker 7
There is there are a few from what I’ve been told, there are a few.
00:54:06:15 – 00:54:07:03
Speaker 2
People.
00:54:07:03 – 00:54:08:17
Speaker 7
In in Burlington.
00:54:08:24 – 00:54:09:09
Speaker 2
County.
00:54:09:12 – 00:54:40:22
Speaker 7
That have signed easements. Some now regret it. Others are still, you know, waffling. I think you would find in the state legislature when the bill comes up in this next session to outlaw eminent domain for it summit, I think you’re going to find a lot of legislators that voted in favor of putting in some money that are suddenly going to realize that might not have been such a good idea and may change their vote.
00:54:41:05 – 00:54:47:07
Speaker 7
I don’t know. But as far as how many easements have been signed, I don’t know. But I think there are some things.
00:54:47:15 – 00:54:54:01
Speaker 1
Mr. Chairman. Yeah.
00:54:54:10 – 00:54:56:18
Speaker 7
Thank you so much for your time. I appreciate it.
00:54:57:00 – 00:55:03:12
Speaker 2
Thank you. Thank you.
00:55:03:12 – 00:55:05:10
Speaker 8
My name is Larry Smith. I’m a professional.
00:55:05:10 – 00:55:10:05
Speaker 1
Surveyor here in North Dakota, and I live in Burley County. And I did some.
00:55:10:05 – 00:55:12:05
Speaker 8
Research late this morning.
00:55:12:05 – 00:55:16:08
Speaker 1
There are 32 easements signed in Burley County for this.
00:55:16:20 – 00:55:17:24
Speaker 8
I don’t know how many.
00:55:17:24 – 00:55:26:16
Speaker 1
Total there are and all those easements are blanket easements. I like another word to refer to the northeast quarter of a section or.
00:55:26:16 – 00:55:26:24
Speaker 2
The.
00:55:27:19 – 00:55:30:10
Speaker 8
Southwest corner of the southeast quarter of the northwest.
00:55:30:10 – 00:55:33:03
Speaker 1
Quarter and with good parts down to ten acres.
00:55:33:24 – 00:55:45:03
Speaker 2
So and there could be some landowners who don’t even live. Yes, absentee landowners. Yeah. Yeah. And some probably larger landowners.
00:55:45:03 – 00:55:45:12
Speaker 1
But there’s.
00:55:45:12 – 00:55:46:00
Speaker 8
30 to.
00:55:46:02 – 00:55:46:20
Speaker 2
32.
00:55:48:15 – 00:55:49:01
Speaker 1
Commissioners.
00:55:49:03 – 00:55:54:08
Speaker 3
You don’t get some additional information. Yes, go ahead. No, I would just ask.
00:55:54:22 – 00:55:55:05
Speaker 8
Mr..
00:55:55:05 – 00:55:58:05
Speaker 1
Chairman myself and Greg Johnson out here, we’re.
00:55:58:05 – 00:55:58:17
Speaker 2
Both.
00:55:59:23 – 00:56:02:03
Speaker 8
Surveyors and we’re.
00:56:02:03 – 00:56:03:03
Speaker 2
Not retired, but we’ve.
00:56:03:04 – 00:56:03:15
Speaker 8
Been doing.
00:56:03:15 – 00:56:15:12
Speaker 1
It for almost 50 years. And Greg has put some notes together that you’d like to share with the commission and anyone else that’s here. So Greg Johnson.
00:56:15:12 – 00:56:47:23
Speaker 8
Commissioner Peluso and the commission members. My name is Greg Johnson. I’m a licensed professional and surveyor, have been for 45 years and retired, like Larry says. But this business, you can’t fully retire. Somebody is always needing to have a fence line staked or something done or property merged. But you’re. Mr. Warford did an excellent presentation. He has the stuff down.
00:56:49:00 – 00:57:25:13
Speaker 8
And this gentleman here, I think those are your to collecting points for information to get something going here he because being an auditor but our main concern as surveyors is the business of blanket easements and strip easements and a blanket easement is not warm and fuzzy, I can tell you that. And what it does, it commits an eloquent part of a section for 99 years to your kids and your kids as kids.
00:57:26:16 – 00:58:09:05
Speaker 8
Once that easement is signed, I haven’t seen any provisions for them to extinguish the easement. And it’s troubling. And when we do title searches for a property for clients, that blanket easement is a stick in the eye because you cannot do any development unless the original owner signs off on it. And I don’t think the landowners know when they sign an easement for the northeast corner of a section that’s, the whole northeast quarter, even though the pipeline comes down to 100 feet wide, the easement, the legal description for the easement is the whole corridor section.
00:58:09:05 – 00:58:43:15
Speaker 8
And we’ve seen them a half a section and we’ve seen them full sections. So that person, whoever did that, must hate his kids because they’re never going to be able to build a house on the farm next to Dad. That’s the sad part of it. Now we have North Dakota century codes that indicate how these easements are to be put on the ground and surveyed the state of North Dakota and the Department of Land Trust.
00:58:44:02 – 00:59:20:14
Speaker 8
They have examples. They don’t allow blanket easements on state federal land. Even the federal government has a long list of checks that you have to go through to put a pipeline across federal ground. That’s BLM or Forest Service, any one of those. And our state of North Dakota has the same or similar provisions. We, Larry, did a little research and found out that summit has some applications in for easements across state school lands, but they haven’t been approved yet.
00:59:21:09 – 00:59:42:09
Speaker 8
They’re just an application. But the state of North Dakota requires that they be surveyed and tied to the public land system so that they’re traceable, so that have Larry or I or any other surveyor goes out there. We know where that pipeline is, that it’s tied down rather than just saying it’s up there in the northeast corner of the section.
00:59:43:24 – 01:00:07:09
Speaker 8
That’s not the way to do work. Blanket easements should be thrown out and strip easements similar to what the state and the federal government has adopted put into play. And I don’t know how you do that and I don’t know the difference between an ordinance or a resolution. Can resolutions be served by this commission? They did in Emmons County.
01:00:08:01 – 01:00:08:17
Speaker 2
That’s what we did.
01:00:08:18 – 01:00:10:12
Speaker 3
Well, that’s what we did before.
01:00:10:23 – 01:00:40:21
Speaker 8
And there was a simple process. They had over 40 landowners that came in, signed, said that they didn’t want this pipeline. And Emmons County and the commission took a vote of the five zero vote. They eliminated it. And so Emmons County came out on top and the chairman down there told the salmon’s people, you might as well leave this meeting because we’re not going to move on this.
01:00:41:21 – 01:01:09:21
Speaker 8
That’s I’m not saying that’s the way to do business. You guys know what you got to do to get things done legally and properly. But that’s the stand they took and it stood. They have a resolution and I think there are a couple of other counties down toward Richland County. I think they’ve had similar resolutions. Let me see if I got a copy of how they worded it.
01:01:09:21 – 01:01:13:06
Speaker 1
They need to.
01:01:13:06 – 01:01:13:11
Speaker 2
Yeah.
01:01:13:23 – 01:01:15:14
Speaker 7
This commission voted five zero.
01:01:15:24 – 01:01:16:23
Speaker 3
Yeah, we did the resolution.
01:01:16:23 – 01:01:22:08
Speaker 8
So does that have the same effect as an ordinance or not? I guess. I don’t know. You know.
01:01:22:08 – 01:01:24:15
Speaker 2
I don’t know. But got away with it. I’d like to know.
01:01:24:21 – 01:01:28:05
Speaker 8
But it is a message to the Public Service Commission.
01:01:28:13 – 01:01:28:24
Speaker 2
Right.
01:01:28:24 – 01:01:29:19
Speaker 8
That you’re against.
01:01:29:19 – 01:01:30:19
Speaker 2
It. That’s why we did.
01:01:30:21 – 01:01:31:05
Speaker 3
Why we did.
01:01:31:05 – 01:01:32:10
Speaker 1
It. Perfect.
01:01:32:10 – 01:02:06:21
Speaker 8
Because that’s our next battle. Public Service Commission. Right. We’ve seen that summit has got an application in to be considered a utility hauler of fluids and that sort of thing. And it hasn’t been accepted yet. But if it is, then the idea of eminent domain goes to their favor. So two issues blanket easements and eminent domain does not sit well with how we do our job and protecting landowner rights.
01:02:07:21 – 01:02:34:03
Speaker 8
And believe it or not, surveyors is a mission in life is to protect the private property and landowners rights. That’s that’s our mission. I had a little dog and pony show I was going to start out with here. But it’s important to retrace the footsteps of the original surveyors, which we do when we come out and tie to a section corner and so forth.
01:02:34:21 – 01:03:12:02
Speaker 8
And three of those former presidents down there in Mount Rushmore, they were all surveyors. So that tells you that the public way back then had a little bit of importance to them. We’ve been here since the 1800s. Surveyors divided this state from Dakota territory to North and South Dakota, and we’ve been doing that ever since. Every legal description, every warranty, deed, every lot description that you own comes from these public lands system corners that we establish and maintain.
01:03:13:06 – 01:03:44:01
Speaker 8
And that’s our job, and we can’t do it. When somebody comes out and says, I got a blanket easement, I just feel so sorry for them because they’re their own worst enemies. By signing something like that, they should request a strip easement similar to the state of North Dakota. We have codes for it. Now, here’s the problem. Landowners were ask them, do you have a surveyor doing this pipeline survey?
01:03:45:05 – 01:04:18:21
Speaker 8
And they say, Yeah, is he a licensed land surveyor? You don’t know most of these guys. Larry and I have four digit registration numbers. These guys have six and seven digits in their registration numbers. And we’ve been around since 1980 licensed by the state to do our job. Some of these guys were just incorporated in the last half a year to work for this company and do things if they’re licensed or not that’s not my knowledge and it’s not my job to teach them.
01:04:18:21 – 01:04:44:01
Speaker 8
They know what the laws are. We have I’m the chairman of the Manual of Practice for Land Surveying in North Dakota that’s been adopted by our state border registration and other agencies. And so they know what the rules are. And I can tell you, once they start this construction, Larry and I will be out there making sure that those corners are filed in the courthouse, because that’s that’s the that’s the state law.
01:04:44:09 – 01:05:11:18
Speaker 8
If I recover a section coroner or establish it with landowner testimony, it’s my job to get it in the courthouse so that every other surveyor in the state knows that that corner’s there. And what is there for? We take take that responsibility pretty hard. We’ve got a code of ethics. We got a fault. We’ve got the same amount of education as a doctor or lawyer going to have eight years to take the land surveyors exam.
01:05:13:00 – 01:05:17:10
Speaker 8
So that’ll tell you, we just didn’t get that out of the bubble gum machine.
01:05:20:21 – 01:05:23:18
Speaker 1
I’ve been using with standards to that.
01:05:24:01 – 01:05:59:16
Speaker 8
Yeah, we have the easement standards are in the books. All you have to do if you’re a licensed surveyor, you have to follow that. But if you’re a surveyor that don’t have the license or border registration, has no authority to come and do bad things to you, there’s a civil penalties that they could enforce. I was involved. I was in state investigator for the border registration for about ten years, and we had some issues in the oil industry where people were cutting across corners and all those sorts of things.
01:06:00:08 – 01:06:19:07
Speaker 8
And we took them to court, but they landed with their Learjet and three or four attorneys and you know, they got deep pockets. And so it didn’t turn out to the best for us, but we put them on notice that we’re going to be watching and next time we’ll be better prepared. What else we got? Larry.
01:06:19:17 – 01:06:21:21
Speaker 1
I think just that we and here in.
01:06:21:21 – 01:06:24:06
Speaker 2
North Dakota, we have rules and regulations for.
01:06:24:06 – 01:06:24:24
Speaker 1
Easements.
01:06:25:13 – 01:06:28:04
Speaker 2
That are that are done in order to be done in North.
01:06:28:04 – 01:06:28:18
Speaker 1
Dakota.
01:06:29:08 – 01:06:32:20
Speaker 2
And those are rules that Greg and I need to follow.
01:06:32:20 – 01:06:35:12
Speaker 8
So if anybody else is doing it, they.
01:06:35:12 – 01:06:42:09
Speaker 2
Should follow those same regulations. If you guys don’t follow them, who’s the enforcement on you?
01:06:42:09 – 01:06:43:03
Speaker 8
Our state border.
01:06:43:03 – 01:06:47:04
Speaker 2
Registration. Would they be the same with our state?
01:06:47:04 – 01:06:48:09
Speaker 8
Their license, if they’re.
01:06:48:17 – 01:06:50:05
Speaker 2
Just licensed in North Dakota?
01:06:50:09 – 01:07:14:00
Speaker 8
Yeah. If they’re not licensed, there’s no there’s no regulation. It’s just like if you are out there taking somebody’s appendix out and you don’t have a doctor’s license, the medical board can’t do anything to you because they don’t control you. They don’t they don’t have that say. It’s beyond their authority. And that’s how we think that’s how it is in North Dakota for land surveyors.
01:07:14:00 – 01:07:19:09
Speaker 8
If you’re not licensed to survey, there’s nothing that that board can do. They could do a civil.
01:07:19:23 – 01:07:26:07
Speaker 2
Well, then their blanket easements are null and void. If they’re not licensed.
01:07:26:07 – 01:07:28:02
Speaker 8
I would like to say that. Yes, yes.
01:07:28:17 – 01:07:30:07
Speaker 1
The interpretation is.
01:07:30:24 – 01:07:31:23
Speaker 2
Let’s say we have the.
01:07:31:23 – 01:07:32:23
Speaker 8
Northeast corner of.
01:07:33:03 – 01:07:33:15
Speaker 2
Section.
01:07:33:15 – 01:07:35:14
Speaker 1
16. Well, the minimum.
01:07:35:14 – 01:07:41:11
Speaker 2
Corners you’d have to have would be three in there, the north quarter corner, the north east section.
01:07:41:11 – 01:07:44:19
Speaker 8
Corner, and this quarter corner. Some people say the.
01:07:44:19 – 01:07:46:08
Speaker 2
Center section not have to.
01:07:46:08 – 01:07:47:12
Speaker 1
Be south, but you’d need.
01:07:47:12 – 01:07:48:06
Speaker 2
The west.
01:07:49:06 – 01:07:50:11
Speaker 8
Quarter corner in the south.
01:07:51:01 – 01:07:52:03
Speaker 2
And those would have to be.
01:07:52:03 – 01:07:54:06
Speaker 8
Recorded. Some of us are.
01:07:54:15 – 01:08:06:18
Speaker 2
In all four of those on that quarter, what monuments would have to be set and that map signed by a surveyor. So otherwise you could have anybody go out there and start ponying iron. Right?
01:08:07:02 – 01:08:08:19
Speaker 1
Right. Or but the other.
01:08:09:09 – 01:08:19:20
Speaker 2
Lever that’s out there is the company that’s doing that work has to be licensed by the board of registration in this state. So they the.
01:08:19:20 – 01:08:20:16
Speaker 8
Board could visit.
01:08:20:16 – 01:08:28:17
Speaker 2
With that company, too, if some irregularities are found. There’s another question. Yes. Yes.
01:08:29:13 – 01:09:04:13
Speaker 8
We have one other item. Is the attorney general’s opinion in 2017, it’s called 20 7-l-03, dated May 12th of 2017. And that states that North Dakota Century Code 4319 naught one Dash 30 makes it unlawful for county recorder to file or record any map plat survey or other document within the definition of land surveying. And that includes 30 items, the definition of land surveyor.
01:09:04:13 – 01:09:27:07
Speaker 8
And I’m not going to go through that with you, but I have it if you want it. If the document does not include the personal signature and seal overages third land surveyor who prepared it, even if the Map Plat survey or other document is filed or recorded as an exhibit or an attachment to another document being filed or recorded.
01:09:28:00 – 01:09:31:07
Speaker 8
So we’re seeing Larry said there was four how many in Gurnee County?
01:09:31:12 – 01:09:33:23
Speaker 2
32.
01:09:33:23 – 01:10:02:06
Speaker 8
None of them have that signature and stamped by a license surveyor. So they’re in violation of attorney general’s opinion in the record or should not be recording those. And they know that. I spoke at the County Recorder’s Association meeting in Grand Forks in, June I and two other land surveyors, and we went through all this with them and they were unaware that that attorney general’s opinion was there.
01:10:02:06 – 01:10:10:02
Speaker 8
So there were some on the books already filed. Now, this forest is to prevent any further filings of those eloquent parts.
01:10:11:01 – 01:10:13:20
Speaker 3
You said there was 27 dash elders through three.
01:10:13:24 – 01:10:22:07
Speaker 8
It’s 20 7-l-03. And it was by Wayne Stenehjem in May 12th of 2017.
01:10:22:07 – 01:10:25:07
Speaker 3
Thank you. I’ll follow up on that with the recorders office.
01:10:26:04 – 01:10:31:14
Speaker 2
I think everybody in the room is on the same page. I mean, we know where this is going to go.
01:10:31:14 – 01:10:32:15
Speaker 1
And I asked this gentleman.
01:10:32:15 – 01:10:33:09
Speaker 2
Question, sure.
01:10:34:09 – 01:10:35:00
Speaker 7
Do you need the.
01:10:35:00 – 01:10:38:10
Speaker 1
Landowners approval before you go into the property to.
01:10:38:10 – 01:10:59:08
Speaker 8
Do your surveying? If I stay on the section within 33 feet, I have the right to ingress and egress along that section line. But all these pipelines would go to a Northwest Direction. So they’re cutting the cross quarter lines, which I have no authority to, Larry. And I would both have to have landowner permission to do something like that.
01:10:59:09 – 01:10:59:14
Speaker 8
Well.
01:10:59:21 – 01:11:26:20
Speaker 7
There’s a pending trial right now of somebody putting surveyors out on a gentleman’s property, and he asked them to leave, not come back. Well, they did leave, but they did come back. And he called the sheriff as the sheriff pulled up four of these. So called surveyors, jumped in their pickups and took off. So they must have known they were doing something illegal.
01:11:27:06 – 01:11:44:17
Speaker 7
The fifth one wasn’t quite as quick and the sheriff caught him. He was charged and his trial will be coming up now in January. Just to give you another idea of how some of his operating, the people they have out there are not legal surveyors and don’t even pretend to be.
01:11:45:16 – 01:11:48:16
Speaker 8
Yeah, I think you two guys should run that collection committee for.
01:11:48:16 – 01:11:49:12
Speaker 1
This work.
01:11:50:22 – 01:12:05:23
Speaker 8
Because you did an excellent job, Mr. Work. An excellent job. You’ve covered all the bases and you had the stuff down to I guess I’m open. Or if the commission has any questions.
01:12:05:23 – 01:12:08:15
Speaker 2
Oh, I think we’ve beat it up pretty good. Yeah. Like I said.
01:12:10:12 – 01:12:17:01
Speaker 8
By the way, it’s good to see you healthy again. Thanks, Larry. Any questions or we’re done?
01:12:17:01 – 01:12:18:01
Speaker 1
Thank you for your time.
01:12:18:01 – 01:12:19:06
Speaker 2
We greatly appreciate it.
01:12:19:10 – 01:12:20:00
Speaker 1
Thank you.
01:12:20:05 – 01:12:28:10
Speaker 2
I don’t mind if there are any questions. Greg and I.
01:12:28:10 – 01:12:31:11
Speaker 8
Have both said this and another cohort of our skin has said.
01:12:31:11 – 01:12:33:24
Speaker 1
If you have any questions, we’re here to do.
01:12:33:24 – 01:12:34:10
Speaker 8
What we can.
01:12:34:10 – 01:12:34:21
Speaker 2
For you.
01:12:35:12 – 01:12:55:21
Speaker 8
So there must have been a lot of those letters sent out in July about seeing an attorney. But but you talk about because I’ve got some from down in Emmons County that are delayed due to July also. So they must have sat down and just put a plethora of those things out. But I just I’m not real happy with the guy that’s handling this.
01:12:55:23 – 01:13:32:21
Speaker 8
I don’t know if you bring that up in a meeting or not, but he’s got a firm here in town. He’s highly regarded. He’s probably a very good, excellent attorney. He was he was a chairman. He was legal counsel for the North Dakota Land Trust. He was legal counsel for the Minerals and Resources and the PSC. So I think he’s got some conflict in there because the PSC shouldn’t be having the hired gun to do whatever they do out there.
01:13:32:21 – 01:13:37:11
Speaker 8
But I’m not real happy with this guy. They got offices in Mexico and China.
01:13:38:16 – 01:13:40:24
Speaker 6
Good old China.
01:13:40:24 – 01:13:49:23
Speaker 2
I think it’s going to be real important that we get to a lot of our legislators in the meantime before they have their session and express our concerns as.
01:13:49:23 – 01:14:11:17
Speaker 8
Well, and we’ll be on Capitol Hill, too. You’re up there every year because we have little things that need to be taken care of and we’ve got some buttons that we can push and see if we can get things going our way. But we’re looking out for the landowner, but that’s pretty.
01:14:11:17 – 01:14:32:03
Speaker 2
That’s why I thought it was important. Yeah, I guess at this point we’re where do we go? We’re going to do everything we can do to. We already did a resolution. We can look at an ordinance. We can get the information and see how it could be worded. So if it’s legal, all that and go from there.
01:14:32:15 – 01:15:04:23
Speaker 5
There’s two points. One, we cannot pass an answer to January 1st. So even if we did wish to do anything tonight, I am one of the two. I’m with Commissioner Bittner that will be sitting here in January with three newly elected commissioners. And I take ordinances very seriously. If it’s something you want or don’t want that this isn’t something that we make on the fly at one meeting, that we make sure our state’s attorney does their research, that we get our information from the sheriff.
01:15:05:07 – 01:15:28:22
Speaker 5
And even after January 1st, Commissioner Bittner may feel differently or something may come up. That’s different, but it’s not going to be something. I’m going to feel real comfortable hearing something and passing an ordinance that night that we really need a lot of information gathering to make the right decision for for the constituents, because I would hate to make a decision another way and need to retract.
01:15:28:22 – 01:15:44:21
Speaker 5
So we need all that information together. And I think this is a great time to, as you said, Chairman, please sit and talk to our legislation, because I’m very concerned about Berkeley County. But as our state as a whole for a pipeline and for our land owners throughout the state.
01:15:45:14 – 01:16:08:16
Speaker 3
Mr. Massachusetts. I know, I know Neil wants to say, but I think it’s to just reiterate that the point of contact is going to be no, no offense to John or Galen, but it’s going to be Mitch at the Berkeley. Right. Planning and zoning department, because we have to have it. It’s something that’s going to be developed by the county and it needs to involve county staff.
01:16:08:16 – 01:16:12:20
Speaker 3
So if we just everybody’s aware. Okay.
01:16:13:15 – 01:16:16:20
Speaker 2
Go ahead, Neil.
01:16:16:20 – 01:16:48:09
Speaker 1
Thank you. Commission Chairman Peluso. My name is Neil Efforts. And just with regard to information, I want everybody both on the commission and here to fully understand the difference between a six inch pipeline that ruptured in Mississippi and a 24 inch pipeline. A 24 inch pipeline holds 32 times more gas at same amount of pressure as a six inch pipeline.
01:16:48:23 – 01:17:19:17
Speaker 1
That pipeline released 30,000 barrels of CO2 when. It ruptured 30,000 barrels. Take that times 32. That’s what if there was a rupture. That’s the kind of significance. And so, you know, maybe 50 or 100 people or a few hundred people got sick this. Pipeline has the capability of doing a lot more. Should it rupture here in Berkeley County.
01:17:20:19 – 01:17:23:20
Speaker 2
They can deal with, well.
01:17:25:05 – 01:17:29:11
Speaker 3
Certainly 900,000 people, thousand.
01:17:29:14 – 01:18:13:05
Speaker 1
Barrels, Chevron, Peluso, other members. Hi, my name is Carl Rocco. I live well. I used to be in the country and I’m in the suburbs. Think I’m we’re burned. Highway 83 Burnt Creek goes to my property and this proposed pipeline will run about the last route 500 foot south of my property line cross burn. Correct in other areas we talked about and that’s one thing this is a letter from one of the largest property and casualty companies in the country.
01:18:14:06 – 01:18:49:12
Speaker 1
And it was stating, thank you for your liability inquiry on the CO2 pipeline expected to run through your property. And again, this was from point is coverage liability does not cover bodily injury or property damage arising from the actual alleged or threatened presence. Discharged your special separates migration or release of any contaminants. Further, it says as time passes, nearby landowners may change hands.
01:18:49:12 – 01:19:22:17
Speaker 1
The pipeline owners and operators may change. Future technology may render the pipeline useless or ineffective. All of these factors, among others, increase the potential that you may be held personally liable for a future cleanup, removal and other activities that could cause damage as a result of this pipeline being installed. In summary, having a pipeline running through or by your property carrying CO2 subject you to substantial uninsurable exposure.
01:19:23:06 – 01:19:44:24
Speaker 1
So getting back to some of the comments that were made of what if they leave and we all carry insurance umbrella policies and all of that? And I think this is again another reason that it shouldn’t be going through barely county. It shouldn’t be going anywhere at all. I don’t think there’s enough, but I just wanted to make that a point.
01:19:44:24 – 01:19:58:15
Speaker 1
And this is I think if you look at your policies, if it’s going through your property, that you check as you’ll be liable, as could be future owners.
01:19:58:15 – 01:19:59:21
Speaker 2
Thank you. Thank you.
01:20:00:10 – 01:20:00:16
Speaker 6
For.
01:20:02:19 – 01:20:22:21
Speaker 5
Chairman. So Carl, could we if you’re comfortable have that go to metal or something to that effect a copy of that. So we have again, this is information that, you know, I love hearing that from you, but I think it’s important we have that so we can refer to that. So thank you.
01:20:23:00 – 01:20:28:08
Speaker 1
Yeah, I will. And I just didn’t mention the company name, but it’s one of the largest in the country. Yes. So it’s not.
01:20:29:09 – 01:20:39:05
Speaker 5
So I appreciate it just gives us, again, more data to make that decision and have backing for that. So I appreciate that.
01:20:39:05 – 01:20:49:13
Speaker 2
And anybody else. If not, we’ll continue our meeting. You guys can sure stick around and listen to the rest of this morning.
01:20:49:13 – 01:20:52:01
Speaker 5
Jim, hello. So can I request a quick break?
01:20:52:02 – 01:20:59:12
Speaker 2
Thank you. Thank you. We’ll break for 2 minutes. 3 minutes.
01:20:59:12 – 01:21:00:12
Speaker 6
Okay. We’re ready.
01:21:00:16 – 01:21:00:21
Speaker 3
Now.
01:21:00:21 – 01:21:34:19
Speaker 1
We’re on a committee meeting. We’re missionaries. Mr. Chair, this item is for a public hearing for a approval of a plat modification. Earlier this year, Land and nine, Mueller approached really county to modify a lot line in country hills second subdivision. The owners want to shift their interior lot line from one lot to another two to allow a difference of 5000 similar and 75 square feet.
01:21:35:20 – 01:21:41:16
Speaker 1
Basically, it’s just straightening out a lot line. You could see it on exhibit number 1.2.
01:21:43:16 – 01:22:16:05
Speaker 1
The proposed changes to this subdivision do not involve any exterior boundaries of, the lots or the subdivision, any roadways or easements. It’s just this single outline. It’s a little different this time for our plat modifications. The recorder is asked us to to approve this by resolution. They don’t have apparently don’t have a any kind of recording device to allow for a lot modification.
01:22:16:05 – 01:22:33:00
Speaker 1
So the resolution is under exhibit 1.1 and that’s how she wants this done from now. Even though our ordinances have been in place for six years, they’ve just decided to change that. So all of.
01:22:33:05 – 01:22:34:21
Speaker 2
But this is a public hearing.
01:22:35:07 – 01:22:46:09
Speaker 1
It is a public hearing just approved. We have to approve the lot modification by a public hearing. Right. But we we need to approve it by resolution.
01:22:46:09 – 01:22:48:00
Speaker 3
This public hearing is closed.
01:22:48:21 – 01:22:57:18
Speaker 2
Is there anybody here to speak for or against this resolution?
01:22:57:18 – 01:23:18:03
Speaker 1
Geralyn And I’m a response. And Hagan Engineering are representing the applicant here. Yeah, this was just to to tackle a fence line situation. The property owners own two lots. When they built their friends, they built it over the the property line. At some point they would like to sell one of their lots off. So we have just realign their interior lot line to to line up with the fence line rather than having it cross.
01:23:18:22 – 01:23:20:12
Speaker 1
I can answer any questions if you have them.
01:23:21:16 – 01:23:27:11
Speaker 2
More questions. Questions, commissioners, thank you. Straightforward. Thank you.
01:23:27:23 – 01:23:37:23
Speaker 1
One of the things they the owner they owned both lots these two people they owned the yeah so question of ownership approval.
01:23:37:23 – 01:23:39:09
Speaker 3
Of the resolution there’s.
01:23:39:10 – 01:23:39:15
Speaker 2
Still.
01:23:40:16 – 01:23:44:11
Speaker 3
Oh they didn’t close it.
01:23:44:11 – 01:23:48:21
Speaker 2
The public hearings anybody else to speak seeing nobody will close the public hearing.
01:23:49:18 – 01:23:51:12
Speaker 3
Go from move proposed resolution.
01:23:51:15 – 01:23:52:04
Speaker 6
Second.
01:23:52:21 – 01:23:58:16
Speaker 2
Motion in a second to approve any further discussion hearing none all those in favor.
01:23:58:20 – 01:23:59:10
Speaker 6
I.
01:23:59:17 – 01:24:01:09
Speaker 2
Oppose motion carries.
01:24:02:05 – 01:24:09:09
Speaker 3
I’m not real on the reason for doing this though. I mean, the the requirement of a resolution now versus what we’ve done in the past.
01:24:09:21 – 01:24:37:04
Speaker 1
Yeah. They apparently they don’t have any kind of in century code the spells out of plat modification or law modification approval against a platted subdivision. So they asked either ordinance or a resolution. Okay, it’s, you know what they’ve asked for. So I don’t, I for the last six years it’s been okay but now you know.
01:24:37:05 – 01:24:39:03
Speaker 2
Well suppose we’re us three are leaving.
01:24:39:08 – 01:25:10:03
Speaker 1
Yeah. Right, but it is what they requested and so item five on your agenda has requested that be pulled the the Glenview Township is not prepared to speak to the county board yet. I think they would prefer to speak to the planning commission, but it’s they’re not ready to come up and discuss this at this time.
01:25:11:09 – 01:25:12:14
Speaker 2
Mr. Commissioner.
01:25:12:14 – 01:25:56:00
Speaker 3
But thank you, Mr. Chairman. He had mentioned sent me an email that the township wants to go before the County Planning Commission. I need to point out that the County Planning Commission has zero authority on this question. I sent a reply back, said What useful purpose would this serve? And essentially none the taking this request off of a county commission agenda and moving it to a county planning commission agenda would be fruitless because they have no authority to to hear that or to even give us a recommendation on that, because that’s not their wheelhouse.
01:25:56:00 – 01:26:04:18
Speaker 2
Well, I read all the opinions on that, and it seems like it’s possible to do with what the Joint Powers Agreement with the county for.
01:26:04:21 – 01:26:12:05
Speaker 3
It is. Chairman and I want to talk a little bit about this because of what I already know about what what’s been requested of which.
01:26:12:22 – 01:26:13:05
Speaker 1
To.
01:26:14:08 – 01:26:40:24
Speaker 3
What they have asked for is to get their zoning authority back so that they can change the zoning in that township. And I want to point out to you that that township has been under Burley County zoning since 1971. So anybody that’s bought property in, that township since 1971 has the property rights that are conferred by county zoning ordinance.
01:26:41:16 – 01:26:52:01
Speaker 3
And so that particular township had an issue with some subdivision that we passed or some land change. And not too long ago, within a year or two or I believe.
01:26:52:13 – 01:26:53:05
Speaker 1
21.
01:26:53:05 – 01:27:21:00
Speaker 3
21. Okay. And so they had an issue with the amount of acres under our zoned our zoning ordinances, they were able to do a thing where they could do a five acre plot. And we ended up having to do a, I don’t know, 11 or 13 or something in order to essentially satisfy the township. Well, those citizens should have been protected by the property rights contained within those zoning ordinances.
01:27:21:15 – 01:27:46:19
Speaker 3
Now, this township seeks to now, from what they told Mitch, they’re looking to change that. And so any property owner in the existing township would would lose a substantial amount of property rights that they have. And that’s that would be an issue that I have with that moving forward.
01:27:46:19 – 01:27:55:12
Speaker 1
Yeah, Steve Cranston’s is here. I mean we pulled the item. I don’t know if he’s ready to talk, but well.
01:27:55:13 – 01:27:59:15
Speaker 3
I think that he’ll have a chance to talk in the future.
01:27:59:22 – 01:28:00:06
Speaker 1
Yeah.
01:28:00:15 – 01:28:09:22
Speaker 3
But unless he is here to dispute what I just said, because I’m only repeating what you told me. Right. And I trusted you so.
01:28:10:02 – 01:28:11:15
Speaker 1
And I told you the same thing.
01:28:11:15 – 01:28:12:19
Speaker 2
I’ll give you 2 minutes.
01:28:13:20 – 01:28:33:22
Speaker 1
I can keep it quick. We did not request a meeting tonight with the County Commission. And what Mitch knows is very little about what this issue is about. We just are trying to find a way to work with the county commission as well as the planning and zoning to come together and do this together. We’re not trying to change necessarily or reverse anything that’s happened in the past.
01:28:34:14 – 01:28:58:23
Speaker 1
We’re trying to maintain local control and try to take this on ourselves. Whatever our agreements were back in 71, we’re probably on the same page. We may be fairly close together. We think we can handle it from the zoning, but Mitch does not have all the facts on this. So whatever you’ve heard from Mitch is not necessarily the facts.
01:28:58:23 – 01:28:59:09
Speaker 1
Okay.
01:29:00:15 – 01:29:04:21
Speaker 3
What’s been working with Mitch a long time and he’s never been short on facts.
01:29:05:24 – 01:29:24:03
Speaker 1
Yeah, in our conversation was a one line email and their ideas that they would like to have it in front of the Planning Commission as a public forum to kind of work with the Planning Commission to decide, see if something can be brought to the in front of the county commission. But you’re right, the Planning Commission is just a quasi judiciary community.
01:29:24:03 – 01:29:27:04
Speaker 1
They do not make any decisions. They make recommendations only.
01:29:27:12 – 01:29:31:14
Speaker 3
So there’s no in it being before the planning commission.
01:29:31:14 – 01:29:35:12
Speaker 1
Right, exactly. So maybe they’ll get ready.
01:29:35:16 – 01:29:38:03
Speaker 2
So bring it bring it to the county commission.
01:29:38:03 – 01:29:39:06
Speaker 6
Bring it to the county commission.
01:29:39:06 – 01:29:42:02
Speaker 2
Okay. Good luck. Well, actually, what we’d like to do is work.
01:29:42:02 – 01:30:01:17
Speaker 1
Together on this and provide the documents and information we put together. This was decided at our April 20, 22 township meeting. For the last few months, we’ve been working together, trying to figure out what we needed for zoning, what we needed for planning and. We wanted to work together in concert with the county, not separate or independently.
01:30:01:17 – 01:30:11:03
Speaker 2
And I think that’s what what the recommendation from the opinions were is that there needed to be a Joint Powers Agreement with the County Commission and your zoning board.
01:30:11:14 – 01:30:12:16
Speaker 1
And how would we do that?
01:30:13:05 – 01:30:18:20
Speaker 2
Bring it to the county commission. Okay. And ask and, you know, have the have the facts.
01:30:19:02 – 01:30:29:18
Speaker 3
Okay. Yeah. And it’s going to have to be rock solid, but it does not cost existing property owners any of their property rights. Right. Burley County Zoning Ordinance.
01:30:29:23 – 01:30:30:05
Speaker 1
Right.
01:30:30:18 – 01:30:32:09
Speaker 3
So the only thing that I would consider.
01:30:32:09 – 01:30:33:17
Speaker 2
It with that would be.
01:30:33:17 – 01:30:35:21
Speaker 3
Those county zoning ordinances.
01:30:36:03 – 01:30:38:19
Speaker 2
Right Gotcha.
01:30:39:01 – 01:30:43:05
Speaker 6
Mm.
01:30:43:05 – 01:30:55:10
Speaker 1
Just wanted to point out this would not affect any plat approval that would still come through the county if it, if the zoning was handed to them. So thank you, Commissioners.
01:30:55:18 – 01:31:05:20
Speaker 2
Thanks, Mitch Provident Building Geology Survey Approval.
01:31:05:20 – 01:31:45:24
Speaker 1
Geology is here. Chairman, please. So if they are not here, go ahead. But that’s pretty simple. Yeah, it is. Let’s see. Eric, with geology had indicated the last meeting that they were probably going to dig up the road and they tried to get that utilities at that time. But it’s not happening. Therefore, the road is not going to be dug up, so therefore they will need to do some design survey work and they’re requesting authorization of that survey that Swenson Hagan has submitted as chairman.
01:31:45:24 – 01:32:08:15
Speaker 3
I’m I understand the point in doing the survey, the work with the pipeline, we were concerned that that was going to happen, that they were going to turn the road up this year yet. And if it’s going to happen, it’s going to be in the next year. I reviewed North Dakota dot bid lettings coming up and there’s a a project for up around this area that’s going to be up for bid for the next year.
01:32:09:03 – 01:32:16:01
Speaker 3
So that’s not an issue right now. But I would move approval of the survey of the property for second probably the.
01:32:16:16 – 01:32:17:04
Speaker 1
Second.
01:32:17:04 – 01:32:42:16
Speaker 2
Motion in a second to approve the survey and a further discussion hearing on all those in favor. I oppose motion carries and issue extension update. Sorry to keep you guys so long. My figures. Either you or them.
01:32:42:16 – 01:32:43:00
Speaker 1
Thank you.
01:32:43:15 – 01:33:02:19
Speaker 5
Good evening. Commissioners of Kelsey’s passing I with some handouts for you, but I’m going to get started. I’m Annette Broyles. I am with Briley County Extension. I am the French Youth of Development Agent and I’ve been in that position about a year. And we just want to update you tonight on some of the exciting things that we’re doing here in Brawley County.
01:33:03:07 – 01:33:29:13
Speaker 5
So, again, for age, as always, for ages five through 18, you don’t have to live in the country. It is for everyone. And one of the things I’m giving you is a copy of the news latest newsletter so that you can, at your leisure, take a look through it and see some of the wonderful things we do. A newsletter is sent out to all the families every month, and so that they know what is going on, both at the county as well as some of the state activities.
01:33:29:13 – 01:33:48:11
Speaker 5
And then we showcase also some of the clubs and what they’re doing. You can see in there we had our fun night, which was our awards night, and then we had a photo booth and and all the families got involved in that. We have 17 clubs right now. 15 of those are regular clubs. There are two specialty clubs.
01:33:48:18 – 01:34:10:06
Speaker 5
One of the clubs ball masters, which is now maxed out at 60 members. We just had three new instructors trained over the weekend and so it’s up and running. We’ve had to close that club down because they can’t handle anymore in the in the facilities that we have in the time. And they’re already running three shifts of of kids through on Sunday.
01:34:10:06 – 01:34:29:15
Speaker 5
The other club that is specialty is hip biology, the study of horses. And that’s a little smaller club. But it is for those kids that maybe don’t own a horse but want to be involved in learning more about horses in addition to the clubs they meet once a month. I also have project nights at building once a month.
01:34:29:15 – 01:34:48:22
Speaker 5
We’re going to be doing the STEM Challenge tomorrow night and we’re working on diving in and exploring into the Deep, which is about an ocean glider. So kind of fun things for each is a lot different than when I grew up in it and so it’s always exciting to explore some of those things in addition to forage things there.
01:34:48:22 – 01:35:14:22
Speaker 5
Also, I’ve gone to try to do some promotions to Bismark IT. We’ve done parades, TSC has Clover Days, we’ve done some things in the afterschool programs, the cooking clubs and the summer months. So a wide variety of things. The second document that I gave you shows a little bit about of our achievement days. We have four different activities going on there, the Horse Day, the Livestock Day, small animal and our static.
01:35:15:00 – 01:35:34:14
Speaker 5
And you can see some of the statistics we had over 791 exhibits in our static and this year we are enrollment is still going and we are going even stronger than last year. Our enrollment is up for volunteers, clover buds and for our members. So it looks like a good for each year coming up. Thank you.
01:35:35:10 – 01:35:36:18
Speaker 1
Thank you.
01:35:36:18 – 01:36:02:10
Speaker 9
And good evening to chairman, fellow commissioners. I will step back here. So my name is Tyler Kroll, Chuck. I’m the AG and Natural Resources agent. So if you wanted alive or dead, usually I’m kind of one of the guys you talk to. So one of the major things that I deal with is pesticide training every year. This last year, we had 65 ghost guys go through the program are individuals and we’re slated at about 81 this upcoming year.
01:36:02:10 – 01:36:19:14
Speaker 9
So I’ve got a training tomorrow night actually, in fact up in Wilton. So if you have somebody needs to recertify, give me a call. So that’s one of the major programs that I work with throughout the year. One of the things that I did include was some of the services that we do provide, you know, this year. Boy, it’s a difference from last year.
01:36:19:21 – 01:36:39:01
Speaker 9
It was a lot less stress just from the sake of we actually got some moisture this year, at least before July 10th. It made things significantly easier for most of the producers that I work with. Most of the effort that I spent was doing a lot of things with weeds, you know, right around Memorial we had a huge influx of of leafy spurge.
01:36:39:01 – 01:37:08:06
Speaker 9
So making some chemical recommendations to folks, controlling that as well as wormwood and then working with obviously our weed officer. I’m excited for when we get that one back into place so we can continue on with a little bit that we’re going to do called Weed Watch. So when they get on, we’ll get that continued. In addition to that, always doing water quality testing as a group with the fellow agents in the state, we actually won a national award in our AG Association, so that was a great thing.
01:37:08:19 – 01:37:18:21
Speaker 9
Saving cows and grazing readiness is always something we do. And then again, weed and bug eyed. So it’s never a dull moment in the ag world. Thanks, guys.
01:37:20:07 – 01:37:23:17
Speaker 2
Thanks, Tyler.
01:37:23:17 – 01:37:54:09
Speaker 5
They keep the short is for last I think I’m Kelsey Ducat. I’m the horticultural agent here in Burley and Morgan County. So again, I serve both counties. I just provide to you guys on your sheet basically some program activities different, I guess kind of the statistics on direct outreach that I have as long as well as indirect and so that indirect includes a newsletter, TV shows, monthly news articles that I do along with the noon show that all of us agents take a rotation on.
01:37:54:09 – 01:38:19:12
Speaker 5
But I want to highlight for you guys one of the programs that I guess I have a lot of pride in from this year that I did. It was in partnership with both Burley and Morgan County Soil Conservation Districts, and it’s a partnership that we look forward to moving into next year and building off this program. So just to give you a little bit of background, that gardening 101 it’s an educational series that was geared towards beginner gardeners.
01:38:19:20 – 01:38:51:04
Speaker 5
We learned through Colvera and even just in recent years that there’s a lot of people who want to grow their own food, know where their food gets, comes from and start gardens. And so this was actually a suggestion from our advisory council to have a program for beginner gardeners. So we had four sessions throughout the year. Our first session we talked about kind of gardening, so our topics were starting seeds, no, till gardening and then recommended vegetable varieties for North Dakota and.
01:38:51:04 – 01:39:18:01
Speaker 5
Each participant that night went home with seed starting trays and seeds so they could actually get started prior to the season. Our second session, which was in May, we’ve talked about garden improvement, so the topics were attracting pollinators, safe and natural insecticides, Nordic potatoes and tips and tricks be successful with gardening. And so participants at this one did receive potatoes to go home and plant mid-summer.
01:39:18:01 – 01:39:39:03
Speaker 5
We went and we toured some gardens within Burley in Morton County. We did two here in Burley and two in Morton. So it was just a great way for gardeners to see some different adaptive methods that we have. One of our gentleman’s life. Kind of threw a curve ball and he ended up in a wheelchair, so it was good to see how he’s adapted gardening to his current lifestyle.
01:39:39:15 – 01:40:06:14
Speaker 5
Finally We wrapped up the growing season at an open farm on August 25th. We talked about preservation, cover crop in your garden and then a fall wrap up. And so with this partnership up, we were able to get some grant funding to provide transportation to those that were in this program for the garden tours. And on this last session, we also had incentives for those who attended more one or more sessions, kind of as a door prize system.
01:40:06:14 – 01:40:17:07
Speaker 5
So very well received. Like I said, there’s some stats on the back just for you guys to see how many participants and what they all said about it. But if you have any questions, I will entertain those.
01:40:18:18 – 01:40:20:01
Speaker 6
Thank you for a job.
01:40:21:00 – 01:40:21:23
Speaker 5
Yes, thank you.
01:40:22:08 – 01:40:25:21
Speaker 1
Good work.
01:40:25:21 – 01:41:04:08
Speaker 2
I think maybe this is the appropriate time to read this. It’s a from the desk of ani zent. It’s this memo is to convey my highest commendation to Commissioner Cathleen Jones for the work and effort she has put forth in managing the portfolio for Backstop Junction and the surrounding county land. In that area. I’ve had the opportunity to process hay while where possible on that parcel of land and I am so impressed with the way this area is kept up from the community gardens to the way Bismark Parks and Recreation personnel work to keep that location clean and inviting for the for the public’s enjoyment.
01:41:04:22 – 01:41:32:22
Speaker 2
This fall, when I was processing hay on those grounds, I witnessed people enjoying the area. Some people were playing fetch with their dogs while for a while the father was teaching their young son how to operate a child’s electric jeep. And others were just out walking in nature, perhaps birdwatching or, enjoying local wildlife. The beauty of the mowed grass, along with the leaves and the breathtaking colors falling from the trees, light up this area, no doubt draw people to just enjoy the outdoors.
01:41:32:22 – 01:41:55:05
Speaker 2
I cannot help but wonder about other portfolios that Commissioner Jones manages with the same attention as Buxton Junction. I hope a replacement on this portfolio will maintain the area the same way, keeping the area clean and inviting for people to enjoy well into the future. On behalf of this burly county resident and taxpayer, please commend Ms.. Jones for her efforts and job well done.
01:41:55:19 – 01:41:57:15
Speaker 2
Thank you, Commissioner Jones.
01:41:58:11 – 01:41:59:23
Speaker 6
Well, thank you.
01:42:00:11 – 01:42:03:13
Speaker 2
All. I need you also wanted me to present the letter to you.
01:42:04:14 – 01:42:22:04
Speaker 6
Well, thank you very much. And I want to thank the people of Burley County for giving me the opportunity and a few challenges the way. But hopefully things will stay on track. And I wish you all well. And who knows, I might take a long vacation and come back.
01:42:22:04 – 01:42:24:03
Speaker 2
I don’t know how I go through that with all my cheaters.
01:42:24:17 – 01:42:25:13
Speaker 1
I don’t need either.
01:42:25:22 – 01:42:26:11
Speaker 2
That was tough.
01:42:26:18 – 01:42:30:02
Speaker 6
Thank you. He’s a wonderful guy. He does a good job out there.
01:42:30:21 – 01:42:38:00
Speaker 2
Okay. Okay. Where we at? Oh, we go to number eight. No, we’re going to have table number eight. Go ahead.
01:42:38:00 – 01:43:07:00
Speaker 1
If I could. Just a couple of things before that. Geez, my timing is impeccable. This particular application is for carbon solutions. Lay down area in county. So the intent was to have it tabled and I do recommend that we table this item. Originally I was having a table so that the applicants could come before the board and explain why they wanted to versus three access points.
01:43:07:17 – 01:43:40:08
Speaker 1
But after we’ve just had the discussion, we’ve had may be other reasons to table this until the board has had an opportunity to make a decision on how to proceed. I did also want to let the board know that the Highway Department has been approached by summit on obtaining permits, crossing our roadways throughout the county. We have stated certain criteria that we would minimally have to have, but we’ve also stated that we are not going to issue any permits until the County Board gives us direction on doing so.
01:43:40:08 – 01:43:50:04
Speaker 1
At this point they had asked the question of us and we’ve basically stated we’re waiting for direction from the county board before we proceed. So happy to answer your questions that.
01:43:52:19 – 01:43:56:21
Speaker 3
What sort of minimum standards?
01:43:58:08 – 01:44:19:23
Speaker 1
Great question. The four feet was something that was talked about. We were really opposed to that. We feel that it should be deeper underneath our roadways. In addition to that, all pressure lines within Burley County are case. We require that casing for any kind of storm, not stormwater, but water lines, any kind of pressurized gas, any kind of.
01:44:20:07 – 01:44:38:21
Speaker 1
And that is something that’s not being done on in any other county or any other state. And so they’re fairly grumpy with us right now that we are requiring that. But we feel it’s a pressurized line and it has to be encased under our roadway. So Those are the two big things that we’re working with them on.
01:44:39:08 – 01:44:42:08
Speaker 2
So there you go, Commissioners.
01:44:43:23 – 01:44:45:14
Speaker 1
Thank tabling at the.
01:44:45:23 – 01:44:55:03
Speaker 2
Table until whenever. Yep corrections to the 2023 Burley County Commission meeting schedule.
01:44:55:24 – 01:44:56:21
Speaker 1
Chairman Puzo.
01:44:56:21 – 01:44:57:07
Speaker 2
Yes.
01:44:57:16 – 01:45:10:05
Speaker 1
When we drafted up the one that you guys had approved in the prior meeting, we overlook the fact that January 2nd is when we recognize New Year’s Day for the county. And so we were not open.
01:45:10:14 – 01:45:10:24
Speaker 2
Right.
01:45:11:07 – 01:45:12:07
Speaker 1
And so we.
01:45:12:22 – 01:45:13:21
Speaker 2
Moved that to Wednesday.
01:45:14:05 – 01:45:15:01
Speaker 1
If we could.
01:45:16:17 – 01:45:27:09
Speaker 2
As good with the commission Finance Department discussion.
01:45:27:09 – 01:46:00:12
Speaker 3
I think Pam is here to kind of help with this. Just a little update. I’ll let her go ahead. She’s just in general before she gets started, we’re we’re very happy that the highway department made available just to give us a hand. And I’m also very happy that Clyde Thompson, our former finance director, has able to come back and offer some assistance in the meantime.
01:46:00:21 – 01:46:06:12
Speaker 3
And that’s what some of this is about.
01:46:06:12 – 01:46:30:03
Speaker 6
Okay. I was asked by Commissioner Bittner to put together a deputy finance job description. So I did that. In doing that, I ended up kind of updating the finance director position as well. I do this position reporting to the finance director position, but we don’t have a finance director at this point either.
01:46:30:15 – 01:46:48:24
Speaker 3
So that’s happening now real quick, because we have a finance director, it’s not appropriate to have the assistant or the deputy deputy finance director report. I think so. In the meantime, we should be having that position reporting to the auditor’s office.
01:46:48:24 – 01:46:49:06
Speaker 2
Yeah.
01:46:49:20 – 01:46:57:03
Speaker 3
Yeah, sure. Because we we have to keep this continuity and we do it’s very, very important that everybody’s on the same team right now. Okay.
01:46:57:03 – 01:47:05:13
Speaker 2
So before we get started, we had opened up the finance director job. And I understand this has got zero applicants.
01:47:05:22 – 01:47:06:20
Speaker 6
It is currently.
01:47:07:09 – 01:47:07:13
Speaker 1
It’s.
01:47:07:13 – 01:47:08:02
Speaker 2
Currently all.
01:47:08:02 – 01:47:11:19
Speaker 6
But currently posted. We do not have any applicants at this time.
01:47:12:03 – 01:47:13:03
Speaker 2
So long does this go?
01:47:13:16 – 01:47:39:15
Speaker 6
It was a two week posting and we posted I think last Monday. So it should go through the end of this week. Okay. Are we doing it on a regional type search on this? Can we have it? Spread it out to everywhere we have it. We we bought an advertisement with the North Dakota CPA Association National Boards of CPA.
01:47:40:17 – 01:48:11:22
Speaker 6
We’ve had it spit it out on indeed all of the job boards that we can through through h.r. Which is our applicant tracking system. We’ve shared it on linkedin and also on facebook. Thank you. So basically I put together the job description. We are a unique department only because we are auditor is also our treasurer. So our front end is the Treasurer.
01:48:11:22 – 01:48:23:24
Speaker 6
The money takers are under the auditor as well. And that’s why this position was under your selves as commissioners, because we had to have dual control, so we still have to maintain dual control.
01:48:25:01 – 01:48:49:23
Speaker 3
Right. I think I should make it clear that I had a conversation with Justin in a meeting that that I would anticipate being totally informed on whatever was going on with that position. But I think your regular day to day operation needs to be coordinated through the auditor, you know, because I’m just simply not there. And neither of any of us.
01:48:52:04 – 01:49:00:09
Speaker 6
At this position is approved. It does have to be posted. We can do an internal post three days, but it does have to be posted right now.
01:49:00:10 – 01:49:10:12
Speaker 3
And I think we should posted internally because that follows the requirements permanently in real heavy. I’m the guy that’s doing it now.
01:49:10:12 – 01:49:15:03
Speaker 6
I believe you do because this is adding a position. This is an unbudgeted position at this point.
01:49:15:19 – 01:49:16:02
Speaker 1
Right?
01:49:16:09 – 01:49:21:15
Speaker 3
I’ll make the motion that we advertise for a deputy finance director second.
01:49:22:11 – 01:49:27:18
Speaker 2
Motion and a second to advertise for Deputy Finance Director. Any further discussions.
01:49:27:18 – 01:50:00:05
Speaker 5
I do. I did. I did talk to Pam about this, just looking not just at the finance department, but as that whole area with auditor with tax equalization. Are we looking at needing to kind of look at everything right now as our county has grown, how everything’s working together? Yes. Yeah. So after talking to her, she said she had done that.
01:50:00:12 – 01:50:24:04
Speaker 5
Makes me feel much more comfortable instead of just saying, oh, now we’ve lost someone, now we have a new job. I feel much more comfortable and being transparent with everyone that this is something that has been needed probably a long time with the amount of taxes mills finances that our county is now seeing. I don’t want the taxpayers to feel like we’re just creating a new position, but with the amount of work we’re need, this is much needed.
01:50:24:04 – 01:50:46:02
Speaker 3
I should elaborate a little bit. Thanks for bringing it up. But we’ve we’ve run into some real clear indications that we need some additional staff here and there. We don’t we don’t have the ability at this point for anybody to even cross-train into different departments within the department. And right about now that that really caused us some issues.
01:50:46:16 – 01:51:08:01
Speaker 3
And so moving forward, we’re going to have to look at the additional positions to meet the workload and get to where we’re doing cross training within the departments. And it’s going to require additional staff. And as you know, we haven’t done that and we’re going to have to. So those positions have to be able to pinch hit if someone is out on vacation or, you know.
01:51:08:16 – 01:51:15:18
Speaker 3
So that’s ultimately what we’re moving towards is more of a just a better team.
01:51:16:16 – 01:51:16:24
Speaker 6
I.
01:51:17:09 – 01:51:38:22
Speaker 5
I, that was what I got from, and I think we’re both on the same page. Can Commissioner Bittner that I think both of us want to keep the bottom line tight, but we also need to get the work done and also need to have people like if someone goes get hit by a bus tomorrow, we have to have people being able to do the work in the office without, you know, that right now.
01:51:38:24 – 01:52:02:20
Speaker 5
Yeah. And so we need to have that. So I think we’re all on the same page. So that was that. I just wanted discussion of, you know, we’ve been things have been in the news. We kind of had I want people to know why we’re making the decisions regarding their tax dollars and and growing a department. So that’s the only discussion I wanted just to fully be have everyone informed, moving.
01:52:04:05 – 01:52:07:08
Speaker 2
Any further discussion, hearing on the role, please?
01:52:08:04 – 01:52:13:12
Speaker 1
Commissioner Bittner. Yes. Commissioner Mathews. Yes. Commissioner Jones. Yes, Commissioner Armstrong. Yes.
01:52:13:12 – 01:52:23:16
Speaker 2
Chairman Peluso. Yes, thank you, Pam Homer. I’ll turn to recap. You can skip that one.
01:52:23:18 – 01:52:23:24
Speaker 1
Yeah.
01:52:25:02 – 01:52:28:21
Speaker 2
County election manager you got. You missed all 11.
01:52:28:21 – 01:52:29:22
Speaker 3
Yeah.
01:52:29:22 – 01:52:42:09
Speaker 2
County Highway accountant Schulze EPA, RPA Audit Report. Sorry forgot you and your first big move here.
01:52:42:09 – 01:52:46:15
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioners, I’ve been working with Auditor Vetter, and we just wanted to.
01:52:46:15 – 01:52:54:06
Speaker 3
Give you a quick update on the ten recommendations that were on the recently completed 2021 audit from the State Auditors Department.
01:52:55:02 – 01:53:01:19
Speaker 1
Four of them items one, two, four and six were very straightforward items that have been completed and implemented.
01:53:02:03 – 01:53:02:15
Speaker 3
So.
01:53:03:17 – 01:53:05:09
Speaker 1
You know, we just the reporting for our.
01:53:05:09 – 01:53:08:07
Speaker 3
Budget is we need to stay on top of it. But those are.
01:53:08:07 – 01:53:13:16
Speaker 1
Very easy fixes, really. The Remainder of them fall under different policies.
01:53:13:16 – 01:53:18:19
Speaker 3
That the state auditor’s office says we should have an association with spending federal.
01:53:18:19 – 01:53:27:03
Speaker 1
Money. What one under veteran I are working on and we’ll bring those to you as they get finalized, are, you know, procurement policies.
01:53:27:03 – 01:53:28:24
Speaker 3
Capital asset policies that the.
01:53:29:08 – 01:53:30:18
Speaker 1
County departments following.
01:53:30:18 – 01:53:33:10
Speaker 3
We just don’t have them in a formal policy.
01:53:33:23 – 01:53:35:14
Speaker 1
So we’re working to draft those and.
01:53:35:14 – 01:53:46:18
Speaker 3
Develop a finance manual so that it’s clear for everybody what the guidelines are and what needs to be followed. In reference to the federal dollars and the finance department in general. Any questions?
01:53:47:01 – 01:53:50:00
Speaker 2
No. Clear as mud.
01:53:50:00 – 01:53:50:06
Speaker 1
All right.
01:53:50:06 – 01:54:03:15
Speaker 3
Thank you. Well, if if it needs clarification that the federal government is asking that things be in print and that that’s something nobody had. And so we’re moving ahead and fixing it.
01:54:04:06 – 01:54:06:18
Speaker 2
Cool. All right. Thank you. Thank you.
01:54:07:06 – 01:54:10:02
Speaker 3
Thanks.
01:54:10:02 – 01:54:12:16
Speaker 2
Now we can get to county election manager White.
01:54:13:24 – 01:54:17:07
Speaker 1
Erica was unable to make it. Is she here?
01:54:17:15 – 01:54:20:01
Speaker 2
She left us a yeah.
01:54:20:19 – 01:54:21:14
Speaker 1
She was.
01:54:22:11 – 01:54:22:18
Speaker 6
Just.
01:54:22:24 – 01:54:30:08
Speaker 1
She had another engagement. But what she did, you should all have a hand out there now. And has it all spelled out.
01:54:30:21 – 01:54:56:06
Speaker 6
And I was on the canvasing board today and I believe we had 29 added votes. Several of them were disqualified because of mailing dates, because of lack of signatures, etc.. So these are the figures that we come up with this morning after the canvass board and I believe them to be true and honest.
01:54:56:06 – 01:55:05:06
Speaker 2
I was surprised at the lower vote, low of low voter turnout, 49% of the eligible voters in Berkeley. That means I only had to listen to half the complaints we got.
01:55:06:17 – 01:55:09:05
Speaker 1
About 42% in particular.
01:55:09:18 – 01:55:10:11
Speaker 2
Yeah, really?
01:55:10:23 – 01:55:13:07
Speaker 3
I mean, that’s just like 15% lower than a lot.
01:55:13:07 – 01:55:14:06
Speaker 2
Yeah, unreal.
01:55:15:08 – 01:55:53:21
Speaker 3
You know, I had some concerns that came up with the election, but I think that we should probably talk about those. When Eric was here. But I did have a conversation with a citizen that has requested some public records information from Eric regarding election results and September 19th, when the request was originally made. And then there was a follow up email and I asked her to send me those emails and she did and what she had said was that she was waiting for information back from the state’s attorney.
01:55:53:21 – 01:56:07:15
Speaker 3
And so I’m just curious if if that if we have a timeframe when we’re supposed to get this public records request information to a citizen or if we can pick.
01:56:07:15 – 01:56:17:03
Speaker 6
Julie So we’re supposed to get it done as soon as possible? Okay. I don’t recall what that one was about, but if they’re looking for.
01:56:17:10 – 01:56:17:16
Speaker 1
Right.
01:56:17:16 – 01:56:44:16
Speaker 3
I can explain it so that I can explain it so that everybody’s on the page there. Her question was, I guess, I could go to the email, but I think I can paraphrase it. She wanted to know the the the total number of votes in link and the number of absentee ballots and mail in ballots for Lincoln. And then she wanted to know the voter list and.
01:56:44:16 – 01:57:05:18
Speaker 3
Then she wanted to know when the absentee or mail in ballots were opened and by whom. And that was the hang up was Eric was that she didn’t know that she felt comfortable giving out all these names and whatnot for it. I think she was okay with the voter list because that, I guess is a public list that I didn’t know about.
01:57:06:11 – 01:57:37:11
Speaker 3
But the question was, should she be giving out the names of the poll workers who were opening those ballots and counting them? And that was essentially the only question that I’m aware of. And so we’re waiting on that information. My point is, if if the citizen is listening, these things take time. And that’s why I asked the question about, you know, how much time we have because we can only get to it when we can.
01:57:37:19 – 01:57:41:03
Speaker 6
She must have a request for the primary election.
01:57:41:03 – 01:57:41:15
Speaker 1
Yes.
01:57:42:10 – 01:57:57:01
Speaker 3
Who was I? Ask her to forward the email to me.
01:57:57:01 – 01:57:58:16
Speaker 2
Any other question of.
01:57:58:18 – 01:58:07:10
Speaker 3
Forwarded it to you Julie? Right now.
01:58:07:10 – 01:58:25:03
Speaker 1
Chairman Paul So Eric Hall also wanted me to relay to everyone that the responses from the voters with the express voting machine was very favorable. They enjoyed them and there were some little bit of privacy concerns which she is trying to address. Right.
01:58:25:13 – 01:58:39:07
Speaker 2
I Talked to her about that earlier. I did vote on those and I thought they were very well received, very easy to vote on. And I had the same concern and I thought it was just me but when we walked up, my wife said the same thing to me.
01:58:39:07 – 01:58:42:08
Speaker 3
So I called Neal about that the next morning.
01:58:42:08 – 01:58:50:11
Speaker 2
Yeah, maybe. Maybe we, you know, maybe back against the wall or something where it’s not out in front of everybody. Right.
01:58:51:21 – 01:59:06:00
Speaker 5
I did sit on the four deciding precincts and seeing that Cass County has some issues with really long lines at the end. We did have a little bit of a line when I talked to Eric at the event center at the end of the night. But I think it was like 15 or 20 minutes. It was pretty quick.
01:59:06:09 – 01:59:24:02
Speaker 5
And we they were able to shut the doors at 7:00 and had everyone through. So I think overall, good management of the precincts able to handle people coming in to vote that election day and and meeting being timely with people’s time which I think is really important.
01:59:24:03 – 01:59:38:21
Speaker 1
The election went very well and I did jump in and Erika showed up later that afternoon and yeah, there was a crowd, but we got them all through and just before seven the line emptied and all went well.
01:59:39:15 – 01:59:52:17
Speaker 2
You know, just to just to reiterate that I had several calls on voting day, where do I vote or do I vote? And I’m telling you, we got to seriously look at voting centers. And with those machines, I think it’s possible.
01:59:52:18 – 01:59:57:12
Speaker 5
All the events and or anyone could vote there otherwise. Yes, yes, and.
01:59:57:18 – 01:59:58:08
Speaker 2
Otherwise.
01:59:58:08 – 01:59:59:01
Speaker 5
Change.
01:59:59:01 – 02:00:15:03
Speaker 2
You know, if you just had voting precincts around town and there’s a sign that says vote here, anybody could go vote there, and how simple. And maybe, maybe that 49% would be, you know, 59%, because I know people that didn’t vote.
02:00:15:12 – 02:00:22:19
Speaker 3
I had somebody call me, ask where the precinct was, where it was. It says down that that’s there. I mean, it’s not a Roseville school anymore. No.
02:00:22:22 – 02:00:26:18
Speaker 2
Right. They so I’m not going down. Yeah, exactly. Exactly.
02:00:26:19 – 02:01:00:00
Speaker 3
I was a little bit concerned with the there was a little hiccup in between the closing of the polls on, early voting versus Election Day. And there was an update to some sort of an update that the vendor fixed initiated and then fixed after they realized that. But those machines see the problem came in that those machines were set up and tested and all ready to go and already set out to the to the polling locations.
02:01:00:10 – 02:01:22:06
Speaker 3
And then the vendor came along and did some sort of an upgrade in mid-stream without, without even testing the equipment which led to that delay. Then the next morning at the precincts that I think that was an embarrassing and I don’t think that we should allow the vendor to put us in that sort of a situation again in the future.
02:01:22:06 – 02:01:23:22
Speaker 2
Anything else for the good of Berlusconi?
02:01:25:09 – 02:01:27:00
Speaker 6
Happy Thanksgiving to you all.
02:01:27:12 – 02:01:36:03
Speaker 2
And meeting adjourned.
