Members Present: Sally Holewa, State Court Administrator and Committee Chair; Jerome
Gruenberg, Ward County Commissioner, representing counties with populations of 7,500 or more;
Randi Suckut, Wells County Commissioner, representing counties with populations under 7,500;
William E. Kretschmar, State Representative; and Charles DeMakis, State Bar Association
representative.
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Tom Trenbeath, Chief Deputy Attorney General Louie Hentzen, Assistant State Court Administrator Williams County Representatives: Commissioner Dan Kalil; Architect Jeffrey Morrau Cass County Representatives: Commissioner Scott Wagner, County Administrator Bonnie Johnson;
County Engineer Keith Berndt; County Sheriff Paul Laney; Judge Stephen McCullough Stutsman County Representatives: County Maintenance engineer Jim Fettig; Sandy Eckelberg,
Auditor’s Office
Chair Holewa called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. for purposes of reviewing the seventh
round of requests for court facilities improvement and maintenance grants. She welcomed Charles
DeMakis, a new member appointed by the State Bar Association’s Board of Governors as the
Association’s representative on the Committee. She also welcomed those present to offer comments
in support and explanation of grant applications submitted by Cass County and Stutsman County.
Request for Attorney General’s Opinion
Chair Holewa drew attention to the letter requesting an Attorney General’s opinion which
is included in the meeting material. She said the purpose of the request was to obtain, to the extent
possible, guidance regarding the scope of the Committee’s grant-awarding authority. Particularly,
she said, there has been a long-standing question regarding whether, under the statutory criteria of
“improvement to court facilities”, the Committee may award grant funds for the construction of
entirely new courthouse facilities. She send the opinion request is currently being reviewed to
determine whether, or how, the Attorney General may respond. She then welcomed Deputy Attorney
General Tom Trenbeath for an initial assessment of the opinion request.
Mr. Trenbeath emphasized that the scope of the Attorney General’s authority to provide an
opinion is generally limited to an analysis of legal issues and, therefore, matters that are essentially
factual in nature are not usually addressed in an opinion. Consequently, he said, his comments
regarding the Committee’s authority would be based on an interpretation the statutes governing that
authority and the legislative history surrounding the enactment of those statutes would be the primary
resource. He said the facilities improvement fund was not established to recognize a legal obligation
of the state to support facilities, but to recognize in part the impact of lost revenues on the counties
and their ability to maintain courthouse facilities. He said the statute still reflects the basic obligation
of counties to provide courthouses and court-related facilities. Generally, he said the purpose of the
fund, as reflected in the legislative discussion, was understood as providing assistance for the
maintenance and repair of facilities that are deteriorating or in need of improvement. Issues related
to “maintenance” and “repair” or similar concepts, he said, are factual questions to be determined
by the Committee.
In further explanation, Mr. Trenbeath said testimony submitted during legislative hearings
regarding the fund by Ted Gladden, then State Court Administrator, indicated that the purpose of the
funds would be to “provide grants to counties for court facilities improvement and maintenance
projects. If this bill is passed, anticipated funding will certainly not address major construction and
remodeling.” Additionally, he said, representatives of the Association of Counties described the fund
as providing assistance for facilities “maintenance and improvement”.
In sum, he said, in light of the clear language of the statute and the general legislative history,
it would be the opinion of the Attorney General that grant funds would not be available to defray
partially or entirely the cost of new structures and that new construction was not intended to be
covered by grant funds.
Staff noted that the Committee has discussed at length situations in which there is an existing
facility, but a project for which grant funds are requested requires substantial demolition and
construction work and, perhaps, construction of entirely new portions of the facility. The question,
he said, is whether such a project would be considered “new” construction or whether it would fall
under the broad category of “remodel” or “maintenance” notwithstanding that the project may be
very substantial in scope.
Mr. Trenbeath said such a project would likely be considered new construction. He said the
challenge for the Committee in applying the statutory language is to determine how far from a
narrow interpretation of the language the Committee is willing to go before deciding that the project
is beyond the intended scope and purpose of the fund. He said it is important to keep in mind that
counties are required by state law to provide a courthouse and court-related facilities.
Charles DeMakis noted the references to “improvement” and “maintenance” and asked how
“improvement” might be defined. Staff noted that unless a particular statutory definition is provided,
the usual recourse is to the dictionary definition of the word. Mr. Trenbeath observed that the
concept of “improvement” infers that there is an existing facility.
Chair Holewa thanked Mr. Trenbeath for his comments and assessment of the opinion
request.
Barnes County Grant Award - Update
Chair Holewa drew attention to the email from the Barnes County clerk summarizing the
status of the project for which grant funds were awarded in 2010 - replacement of courthouse
windows. She said the normal expectation is that the project will be started withing six months of
receiving the grant award. She said the email explains that there has been some delay in the project
as the county commission considered a grant from another source to assist with the project. She said
the basic question is whether the grant award from the Committee will be available later into 2011,
with the likelihood that the project would be undertaken in the spring of 2011. She noted that in the
past the Committee has agreed to allow grant funds to carry over to a new year as long as the county
is attempting to move forward with the project.
After further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Suckut, seconded by Rep.
Kretschmar, and carried unanimously that the grant award carry over through 2011.
Eddy County Grant Award - Unanticipated Costs
Chair Holewa next drew attention to the letter from the Eddy County Auditor regarding the
6th Round grant award for remodeling the meeting room for attorneys and clients. The letter indicates
that when floor removal started as part of the remodel it was discovered that structural timbers were
rotting and needed to be replaced. This substantially increased the cost of work associated with the
grant award project. The county has asked whether additional grant funds could be applied for to
handle the increased cost.
Chair Holewa said her initial response was that the Committee had previously decided not
to establish an “emergency” grant process or increase a previous grant award to respond to
unanticipated increases in project costs or related emergency repairs. She asked that the Committee
review the issue so that final direction could be provided.
In response to a question from Rep. Kretschmar, Chair Holewa said the county could submit
an application for grant funds in a future round.
Commissioner Gruenberg said the Committee should not keep the original grant award open
for purposes of supplementing the amount awarded. He said the county should reapply for new grant
funds in the future.
Commissioner Suckut agreed. Additionally, he noted that the county would have to complete
the original project and the related additional work. A subsequent grant application, he said, would
be seeking grant funds for a project already completed. He said the Committee’s general approach
has been not to award grant funds for projects that have already been completed. Sally Holewa
agreed.
After further discussion, Committee consensus was that there should be no change to the
Committee approach described in the Chair’s response letter.
Williams County - Update on 5th Round Grant Award Project
Chair Holewa next welcomed Williams County Commissioner Dan Kalil and Jeff Morrau,
project architect, for an update on the Phase I courthouse renovation project for which 5th Round
grant funds were awarded.
Mr. Morrau distributed and summarized a report regarding the current status of the project
and a timeline for completion . A copy of the report is on file with the Committee. Mr. Morrau said
that barring any unforseen complications the project is expected to be completed by July or August
2011. He said Phase II of the project will be undertaken in a year or so depending on funding
sources.
Commissioner Kalil thanked Committee members for the 5th round grant, which, he said, was
instrumental in moving the renovation project forward. He said the Phase I project to remodel the
3rd floor courtroom is essentially the latest in a series of projects that began with the renovation of
the 1st and 2nd floors, which was required because of water damage caused by an jail inmate,
construction of a new jail and new juvenile court offices.
Chair Holewa thanked Commissioner Kalil and Mr. Morrau for their comments and update
on the status of the project.
Stutsman County Applications - Information Presentation
Chair Holewa then welcomed Jim Fettig, Stutsman County Maintenance Engineer, and Sandy
Eckelberg, County Auditor’s Office, for comments concerning the county’s applications for grant
funds. The county submitted two applications: Application #1 to remodel the juvenile court area, and
Application #2 for a wireless security system for the courthouse and adjoining law enforcement
center.
With respect to the wireless security system project (Application #2), Mr. Fettig explained
that the 2nd floor of the courthouse is used exclusively by the courts. He said county offices and
employees occupy the 1st floor, but that entry points for the 1st floor would be the first points of
detection for a security threat. He said the basement level is shared by the juvenile court offices and
the state’s attorney. He said the security system would also be installed in the law enforcement
center. He said the county is requesting an 80/20 split on the project, with the county assuming 80%
of the cost.
Sally Holewa explained that the Committee is limited to granting funds for projects that are
directly related to court activities and areas of the courthouse used by the courts. She asked for a
better description of the areas of the courthouse. Sandy Eckelberg said the 2nd floor is used
exclusively by the courts, the main floor is entirely county offices, and the lower floor is used for the
most part by the state’s attorney. For example, she said, of the 11 eleven security buttons that would
be installed in the lower level, three would be related to juvenile court offices.
Chair Holewa said grant funds could not be awarded for parts of the project related to the
Law Enforcement Center because the area is not directly related to the courts and court services. She
said the Committee would review the application further and reach a decision regarding any grant
awards.
Cass County Application - Information Presentation
Chair Holewa next welcomed representatives submitting information concerning the
application submitted by Cass County. The application requests grant funds of $600,000 for partial
funding of an Alternative #1 component of a multi-phase courthouse construction project. The
application requests less than what would be the normal 25% county contribution.
Bonnie Johnson, County Administrator, provided a brief overview of the county’s ongoing
remodeling and construction efforts regarding the courthouse which began in 2000. She said the
planned additions to the courthouse will allow the county to maintain court facilities and services
in the 1903 courthouse. She explained that the county had maintained a dedicated building fund to
support work on the latest addition, but county found it necessary to draw money from the fund to
respond to the effects of chronic flooding. She said that draw-down of funds left the county without
sufficient funding to go forward with the with the entire project. She said the Alternative #1
component of the project, which is the court component, is estimated to cost approximately $1.2
million. She noted that the project includes several improvements that are unique to the court space
and were requested by the judges.
Cass County Commissioner Scott Wagner provided additional information regarding the
county’s efforts to secure funding for the multiple construction projects related to the courthouse.
Additionally, he explained that the $1.2 million project cost is directed at finishing the court space
in the new addition to the courthouse. He said the shell of the addition will be built with existing
funding, but finishing of the court space within the shell cannot be accomplished without the funds
sought in the grant request.
Rick Hoganson, architect for the courthouse project, provided an overview and explanation
of the budget for the project.
Paul Laney, Cass County Sheriff, explained security issues involved in the Alternative #1
project component. He said the remodel is necessary to ensure proper safety for members of the
public seeking court services.
Judge Steven McCullough, East Central Judicial District, underscored the need to proceed
with the project to ensure adequate court services are provided in the county. He noted that the new
addition, for which grant funds would support interior finishing, will house a dedicated criminal
court.
Chair Holewa recalled Mr. Trenbeath’s earlier remarks regarding the scope and application
of the statute governing the grant award process and noted earlier Committee discussions indicating
that grants should be awarded for remodeling or improvement of “existing” an existing facility. She
asked Judge McCullough if he had any comments regarding the scope of the Committee’s grant
awarding authority. Judge McCullough responded that “improvement”, as used in this context, might
be regarded as something of a word of art. He said the term in general usage likely has a broader
meaning than earlier discussed and, therefore, the legislative history may be insufficient to overcome
what might be regarded as the plain meaning of the term. He noted that under the statute
“improvement” of a facility is an alternative basis for awarding grant funds, with maintenance or
remodeling being the other alternative basis for grant awards.
Chair Holewa thanked the Cass County representatives for taking the time to provide
information to the Committee about the county’s project.
Traill County Application
Because of the significant grant amount requested, Chair Holewa requested that Committee
members review the grant application submitted by Traill County, which requests $424,828.81 for
replace the current “lift” in the courthouse with an elevator to be located on the outside of the
courthouse.
Staff noted that the project description indicates that the elevator would be installed primarily
to satisfy requirements imposed under the Americans with Disabilities Act. He noted the
Committee’s very early decision, reflected in the application form, that grant funds would not be
awarded for ADA-related improvement or maintenance projects because of the county’s federal
statutory obligation to comply with ADA requirements.
It was moved by Charles DeMakis, seconded by Rep. Kretschmar, and carried
unanimously that grant funds not be awarded for the project.
Stutsman County Applications - Cont’d
Chair Holewa then asked that Committee members review the Stutsman County applications,
beginning with Application #1 - remodel juvenile court area (construct wall for secure entry); heat
pump and duct work to accommodate new wall construction; related electrical work. Grant request:
$11,775.
It was moved by Rep. Kretschmar, seconded by Commissioner Suckut, and carried
unanimously that the project is dedicated to facilities improvement/maintenance; the affected
facilities are used for chambers, courts, or court-related services; the project is a necessary
improvement to the facility; and the amount of the award is $11,775.
Committee members then considered Application #2 - wireless security system for the
courthouse and the adjoining law enforcement center. Grant request; $10,888.18. It was noted that
the statute and the Committee’s rules of operation and procedure would disallow grant funds for
those parts of the project that are not directly related to the courts or the delivery of court-related
services.
Staff said the project estimate provides detailed information that may allow segregating parts
of the project that are closely related to the courts.
Following discussion, Committee members identified the following portions of the project
for which grant funds could be awarded: eight panic buttons on the second floor; three panic buttons
on the lower floor, a portion of the labor costs for electrical work, and the cost related to system
operation. The resulting revised project cost: $4,314.26, with a grant amount of $3,235.70.
It was moved by Commissioner Gruenberg, seconded by Charles DeMakis, and carried
unanimously that the project, modified as indicated, is dedicated to facilities
improvement/maintenance; the affected facilities are used for chambers, courts, or court-related services; the project is a necessary improvement to the facility; and the amount of the
award is $3,235.70.
Charles DeMakis suggested that since the grant award is considerably less than the county
requested, the award letter should request confirmation from the county that the grant is accepted.
Committee members agreed.
Cass County Application - Cont’d
Committee members then reviewed the application submitted by Cass County in light of the
supplemental information presented by county representatives.
Commissioner Suckut observed that the Committee’s past grant award practice has been
limited to projects involving the actual remodel or maintenance and repair of an existing facility and
not projects related to a new facility. He noted that Mr. Trenbeath identified maintenance and repair
for deteriorating conditions in an existing facility as permissible projects under the governing statute
and suggested that construction of new facilities are likely not addressed by the statute.
Commissioner Suckut said the west addition contemplated as the Alternative #1 court component
in the county’s application is an entirely new structure.
Louie Hentzen observed that the description of the project is that it is a remodeling of the
current facility, when it seems more like an expansion.
Commissioner Gruenberg said the bid included in the grant application is for “finishing” the
court-related area once the addition is up. The addition, he said, is a separate bid and will be built
by a different contractor. Consequently, he said, when the addition is constructed it will be an
existing facility to which improvements in the form of “finishing” will be made. Charles DeMakis
agreed and said the project involves improvement to a court facility. The fact that the facility has not
yet been constructed, he said, is immaterial.
Rep. Kretschmar said there appears to be little real difference between the Williams County
project for which grant funds were awarded and the Cass County project.
It was moved by Rep. Kretschmar and seconded by Charles DeMakis that the project
is dedicated to facilities improvement; the affected facilities are to be used for chambers,
courts, or court-related services; the project is a necessary improvement to the facility; and the
amount of the award is $600,000.
Commissioner Suckut said the project does not seem to meet the criteria mentioned in the
Deputy Attorney General’s comments. He said the improvement contemplated by the statute should
be to something that actually exists.
After further discussion, the motion carried. (Sally Holewa, Commissioner Gruenberg,
Charles DeMakis, Rep. Kretschmar - yes. Commissioner Suckut - no).
Committee members then turned to consideration of the remaining grant applications
submitted by counties with populations of 7,500 or more (projects briefly described).
Remaining Grant Applications - Population 7,500 and Over Counties
Burleigh County
Project: Updates to judge’s chambers and courtroom hallway (replace carpet, remove and
replace wallpaper, ceiling tiles). Grant request: $7,252.50.
It was moved by Commissioner Gruenberg, seconded by Commissioner Suckut, and
carried unanimously that the project is dedicated to facilities improvement/maintenance; the
affected facilities are used for chambers, courts, or court-related services; the project is a
necessary improvement to the facility; and the amount of the award is $7,252.50.
Grand Forks County
Project: Fire alarm installation for 2nd and 3rd floors of courthouse (to ensure tie-in to central
alarm system). Grant request: $15,412.50.
In response to a question from Commissioner Gruenberg regarding use of the space related
to the fire alarm system, Louie Hentzen said there is some space, approximately 25%, used by the
State’s Attorney and staff.
Committee members agreed grant funds could not be awarded for improvements related to
space used by the state’s attorney and staff.
It was moved by Commissioner Gruenberg, seconded by Charles DeMakis, and carried
unanimously that the amount of the grant request be reduced proportionately to reflect 25%
occupancy by the state’s attorney and staff and that the project, as modified, is dedicated to
facilities improvement/maintenance; the affected facilities are used for chambers, courts, or
court-related services; the project is a necessary improvement to the facility; that the amount
of the award is $11,559.30; and that the County be requested to respond upon notification
regarding acceptance of the modified grant amount.
Mercer County
Project: Plasma HDTV for courtroom use; scanner (with warranty) for Odyssey system.
Grant request: $1,643.25.
It was moved by Rep. Kretschmar, seconded by Commissioner Gruenberg, and carried
unanimously that the project is dedicated to facilities improvement/maintenance; the affected
facilities are used for chambers, courts, or court-related services; the project is a necessary
improvement to the facility; and the amount of the award is $1,643.25.
Pembina County
Project: Ductless air conditioning and window coverings for rooms attached to court
facilities. Grant request: $26,124.
It was moved by Commissioner Suckut, seconded by Rep. Kretschmar, and carried
unanimously that the project is dedicated to facilities improvement/maintenance; the affected
facilities are used for chambers, courts, or court-related services; the project is a necessary
improvement to the facility; and the amount of the award is $26,124.
Ramsey County
Project: Refurbish courtroom seating (24 chairs). Grant request: $9,000.
Staff noted that the cost of refurbishing the chairs is reflected as $12,000 in the estimate, but
the actual costs of Grade C refurbishing for 24 chairs is shown as $10,332. He said if the latter
amount is accepted as the actual cost of the refurbishing project, then the grant request would be
$7,749.
It was moved by Commissioner Gruenberg, seconded by Rep. Kretschmar, and carried
unanimously that the project, modified to reflect the $10,332 cost figure, is dedicated to
facilities improvement/maintenance; the affected facilities are used for chambers, courts, or
court-related services; the project is a necessary improvement to the facility; and the amount
of the award is $7,749.
Stark County
Project: Update district court and clerk offices (paint, texturing, carpeting, window
coverings); chairs (clerk’s office, bailiffs); computer and scanner. Grant request: $12,342.22.
In response to a question from Commissioner Gruenberg regarding purchase of the computer
and scanner, Sally Holewa said that since the clerk and staff are state employees the judicial system
would purchase the computer and scanner.
Staff said excluding the computer and scanner would change the project cost to $14,312.30
with a resulting possible grant award of $10,734.23
It was moved by Charles DeMakis, seconded by Commissioner Suckut, and carried
unanimously that the project, modified to exclude the computer and scanner, is dedicated to
facilities improvement/maintenance; the affected facilities are used for chambers, courts, or
court-related services; the project is a necessary improvement to the facility; and the amount
of the award is $10,734.23.
Walsh County
Project: Paint clerk of court office, hallway walls and ceiling; cabinets and counter for jury
room. Grant request: $5,388.
It was moved by Commissioner Suckut, seconded by Rep. Kretschmar, and carried
unanimously that the project is dedicated to facilities improvement/maintenance; the affected
facilities are used for chambers, courts, or court-related services; the project is a necessary
improvement to the facility; and the amount of the award is $5,388.
Ward County
Project: Clerk’s office renovation (air ventilation improvement, electrical work, remove and
replace interior wall, dividers, fire exit, office equipment and furniture, clerk counter chairs). Grant
request: $64,072.87.
It was moved by Rep. Kretschmar, seconded by Commissioner Suckut, and carried
unanimously that the project is dedicated to facilities improvement/maintenance; the affected
facilities are used for chambers, courts, or court-related services; the project is a necessary
improvement to the facility; and the amount of the award is $64,072.87.
Committee members then considered remaining grant applications submitted by counties
with populations of less than 7,500 (projects briefly described).
Remaining Grant Applications - Population Under 7,500 Counties
Adams County
Project: Carpet and flooring (courtroom, chambers, judge’s office, clerk’s office); 4 chairs
for attorneys; painting (3rd floor bathrooms and chamber offices); window coverings (judge’s
chambers, office, restroom); chair mats; refrigerator (jury room); shredder, label printer, bulletin
board, easel, brochure holder for clerk’s office). Grant request: $19,083.75.
It was moved by Commissioner Gruenberg, seconded by Rep. Kretschmar, and carried
unanimously that the project is dedicated to facilities improvement/maintenance; the affected
facilities are used for chambers, courts, or court-related services; the project is a necessary
improvement to the facility; and the amount of the award is $19,083.75.
Benson County
Project: Six counsel chairs; chair for clerk’s desk; refinish counsel tables; courtroom
podium. Grant request: $ 2,460.
It was moved by Commissioner Suckut, seconded by Rep. Kretschmar, and carried
unanimously that the project is dedicated to facilities improvement/maintenance; the affected
facilities are used for chambers, courts, or court-related services; the project is a necessary
improvement to the facility; and the amount of the award is $2,460.
Bottineau County
Project: Renovate and expand bench, clerk’s desk and table, electronic recorder’s desk,
witness station (to accommodate equipment for Odyssey system). Grant request: $5,607.
It was moved by Rep. Kretschmar, seconded by Charles DeMakis, and carried
unanimously that the project is dedicated to facilities improvement/maintenance; the affected
facilities are used for chambers, courts, or court-related services; the project is a necessary
improvement to the facility; and the amount of the award is $5,607.
Bowman County
Project: Scanner for new Odyssey system. Grant request: $618.75.
It was moved by Rep. Kretschmar, seconded by Charles DeMakis, and carried
unanimously that the project is dedicated to facilities improvement/maintenance; the affected
facilities are used for chambers, courts, or court-related services; the project is a necessary
improvement to the facility; and the amount of the award is $618.75.
Burke County
Project: Electrical outlets in courtroom; cable management and wiring for microphones;
permanent air conditioning unit in courtroom; carpeting for courtroom; replace judge’s chair. Grant
request: $26,629.25
It was moved by Commissioner Gruenberg, seconded by Commissioner Suckut, and
carried unanimously that the project is dedicated to facilities improvement/maintenance; the
affected facilities are used for chambers, courts, or court-related services; the project is a
necessary improvement to the facility; and the amount of the award is $26,629.25.
Cavalier County
Project: Reupholster chair’s (judge, jury, attorneys, and courtroom gallery). Grant request:
$12,105.
It was moved by Commissioner Suckut, seconded by Rep. Kretschmar, and carried
unanimously that the project is dedicated to facilities improvement/maintenance; the affected
facilities are used for chambers, courts, or court-related services; the project is a necessary
improvement to the facility; and the amount of the award is $12,105.
Dunn County
Project: Furnishings etc. for new court facility (clerk work station, courtroom cabinet, chairs,
judge’s work table, file shelving, clerk desk and storage unit); Odyssey-related scanner and printer.
Grant request: $12,397.50.
It was moved by Rep. Kretschmar, seconded by Charles DeMakis, and carried
unanimously that the project is dedicated to facilities improvement/maintenance; the affected
facilities are used for chambers, courts, or court-related services; the project is a necessary
improvement to the facility; and the amount of the award is $12,397.50.
Emmons County
Project: Scanner plus warranty; printer; computer; shredder (enhancements to accommodate
Odyssey system). Grant request: $2,459.33.
It was moved by Rep. Kretschmar, seconded by Commissioner Gruenberg, and carried
unanimously that the project is dedicated to facilities improvement/maintenance; the affected
facilities are used for chambers, courts, or court-related services; the project is a necessary
improvement to the facility; and the amount of the award is $2,459.33.
Foster County
Project: Enhancements to added court space (office furniture [tables, chairs, desk, bookcase,
cabinets]; air conditioner units/heat pumps; wiring for phones, fax, and data jacks; replacement of
windows . Grant request: $44,471.81.
It was moved by Commissioner Gruenberg, seconded by Commissioner Suckut, and
carried unanimously that the project is dedicated to facilities improvement/maintenance; the
affected facilities are used for chambers, courts, or court-related services; the project is a
necessary improvement to the facility; and the amount of the award is $44,471.81.
Golden Valley County
Project: Clerk work station, hutch, and computer table. Grant request: $2,336.25
It was moved by Commissioner Suckut, seconded by Rep. Kretschmar, and carried
unanimously that the project is dedicated to facilities improvement/maintenance; the affected
facilities are used for chambers, courts, or court-related services; the project is a necessary
improvement to the facility; and the amount of the award is $2,336.25.
Grant County
Project: Sink, counter top, cabinets for jury room; scanner for Odyssey system. Grant request:
$3,993.75.
Staff noted that the grant request does not include $144 for the scanner warranty, which has
been included in scanner requests from other counties. He said if the warranty were included the
project cost would be $5,469, and the grant request after the 25% county contribution would be
$4,101.75.
It was moved by Charles DeMakis, seconded by Commissioner Gruenberg, and carried
unanimously that the scanner warranty be included in the project and that the project is
dedicated to facilities improvement/maintenance; the affected facilities are used for chambers,
courts, or court-related services; the project is a necessary improvement to the facility; and the
amount of the award is $ 4,101.75.
Griggs County
Project: Clerk’s desk; scanner for Odyssey system and related labor. Grant request: $1,837.49
It was moved by Commissioner Gruenberg, seconded by Rep. Kretschmar, and carried
unanimously that the project is dedicated to facilities improvement/maintenance; the affected
facilities are used for chambers, courts, or court-related services; the project is a necessary
improvement to the facility; and the amount of the award is $ 1,837.49.
Hettinger County
Project: Two counsel tables; 12 juror chairs. Grant request: $7,759.93 (revised amount to
correct application error regarding County’s 25% cost share).
It was moved by Rep. Kretschmar, seconded by Commissioner Suckut, and carried
unanimously that funds not be awarded for a new mural, and that the project, as modified,
is dedicated to facilities improvement/maintenance; the affected facilities are used for
chambers, courts, or court-related services; the project is a necessary improvement to the
facility; and the amount of the award is $7,759.93.
Kidder County
Project: Scanner for Odyssey system, with optional warranty. Grant request: $618.75
Staff noted that if the optional warranty were included the project cost would be $969and the
grant request would be $726.75 after the County’s 25% cost share.
It was moved by Commissioner Suckut, seconded by Rep. Kretschmar, and carried
unanimously that the scanner warranty be included in the project and that the project, as
modified, is dedicated to facilities improvement/maintenance; the affected facilities are used
for chambers, courts, or court-related services; the project is a necessary improvement to the
facility; and the amount of the award is $ 726.75.
LaMoure County
Project: Air conditioning in judge’s offices and clerk’s offices. Grant request: $22,837.50.
Staff noted the limited project estimate provided with the application which does not reflect
specific vendor estimates. He said attempts to obtain more detailed information from the County had
been unsuccessful.
Charles DeMakis asked whether the Committee could award grant funds conditioned on
submission by the County of detailed vendor estimates within a specified time. Sally Holewa
observed that a problem may arise regarding the grant amount if the estimates come back different
from the general costs reflected in the application.