Members Present Ted Gladden, Chair Foster Co. Commissioner Dwayne Erickson Jim Hill, State Bar Association Sen. Stan Lyson Cass Co. Commissioner Scott Wagner
Members Absent None
Chair Gladden called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m. for purposes of reviewing the second round of requests for court facilities improvement and maintenance grants. He said there were
several issues for discussion before the Committee turned to consideration of the grant requests from
counties.
Preliminary Issues
Staff drew attention to the Information Sheet contained in the meeting material. He noted
initially that the Committee has approximately $339,822 available for grant awards, while a total of
$868,622 in grant requests have been received. Of the amount available for awards, he said, 25%,
or $84,955, is earmarked by statute for counties with a population of less than 7,500. He said the
remainder, $254,866, is available for awards to counties with a population of 7,500 or more. More
important, he said, is the issue of the amount of funds that will be available for future grants. He
explained that under the governing statute, NDCC 29-26-22, the first $750,000 derived from the
mandatory administration fee assessed in most criminal cases must be deposited in the indigent
defense administration fund. Given current collection rates, he said, that target would likely be
reached sometime in February or March of 2006. At that point, he said, fee revenue, up to $460,000,
would begin to flow into the court facilities improvement and maintenance fund. In essence, he said,
there likely will be very little in the fund for grant awards until mid- to late-2006. The related
question, he said, is whether the Committee should modify the frequency of the grant award process
in light of the lack of future available funding.
Commissioner Wagner observed that if there are no funds available for grants, then bids
included in any grant requests that may be submitted will likely go stale. It may be reasonable, he
said, to consider an annual grant award process. Ted Gladden suggested some kind of general notice
to counties advising them that grant applications will not be solicited. Jim Hill said the Committee's
Rules of Operation and Procedure seem broad enough to allow the solicitation of grant requests
whenever adequate funds permit.He said it is important that counties be advised of when requests
can be submitted so they can take that into account when preparing their budgets. He suggested a
letter of explanation be sent to counties advising of the situation and explaining that a notice about
the next grant award cycle would be sent when adequate funds become available. Committee
members agreed an advisory letter as described should be sent to the counties.
Chair Gladden then drew attention to the number of requests for reimbursement that have
been received with respect to grants awarded in the first round. He said very few requests for
reimbursement have been received, which is particularly puzzling with respect to those counties that
received grants awards for low dollar amounts. He said the counties were instructed to provide
regular progress reports and some have been submitted. Nevertheless, he said, few requests for
reimbursement have been submitted, which raises questions concerning whether the projects have
been completed or even initiated. Most significant, he said, is the Committee's first round grant of
$60,000 to Sioux Countyfor courthouse expansion and remodeling. He said he recently visited with
the Sioux County State's Attorney and it was noted that the county still has not found funding to
support its share of the project cost. He asked whether stronger language should be included in the
grant awards advising counties that if a project is not started within a certain time, the award will be
reviewed by the Committee and perhaps withdrawn. In any event, he said he would contact those
counties that have not submitted reimbursement requests to determine the status of the projects. The
more pressing issue, he said, is with respect to the larger awards, such as that given to Sioux County.
Sen. Lyson noted that other grant committees on which he serves have imposed a date certain
by which work is to begin. He suggested the Committee should consider doing likewise and if the
project is not started and a justifiable reason not given, then the award should be withdrawn.
Commissioner Wagner wondered whether the issue is one of the project not being started or
of the county not yet having secured its portion of the funding to support the project. He said he had
assumed that when the county submits its grant request and identifies its 25% contribution, the
county would have secured that level of funding for the project.
It was moved by Jim Hill, seconded by Sen. Lyson, and carried unanimously that the
Committee Chair contact Sioux County officials and request a date certain by which the
project is to commence and absent such a date certain advise the County that the grant award
will be withdrawn.
Commissioner Wagner asked whether the Committee should establish a certain timeframe
by which all counties must be advised to begin project work as a condition of receiving the award.
Sen. Lyson suggested there is likely a need for more time to begin projects when grant awards are
made in January or February. Winter weather, he said, may impede the start of a project. He
suggested that for January/February grant awards, counties should be instructed that the project must
be started by June 1. Commissioner Wagner suggested starting the project within six months if
awards are granted on an annual basis and starting the project within three months if awards are
granted on a semi-annual basis. Ted Gladden suggested simply requiring that the project be started
within 120 days of notification of the grant award.
It was moved by Sen. Lyson, seconded by Commissioner Erickson, and carried
unanimously that grant award notifications include the condition that the project must, absent
good cause, be commenced within 120 days of the notification and that the Rules of Operation
and Procedure be amended to include the specific requirement.
Chair Gladden next drew attention to a request submitted by Ward County. He explained
that the Committee had awarded the county $71,250 in the first round of grant awards for facility
remodeling. He said it appears the actual cost of the project will come in under the amount projected.
The county, he said, has requested authorization to use the remainder of the award for a different
remodeling project that was not identified in the county's original grant application. As a general
matter, he said he had received a similar request from another county and did not approve it because
it was not consistent with the Committee's action in approving the original grant request. He said
the general question is whether such requested modifications, within the award amount, should be
approved either by him as Chair or by the Committee, and the narrower question is how to respond
to the Ward County request.
Jim Hill said the first round grant award was made based on the project that was described
at that time. He noted that the grants are not open-ended, i.e., dollars awarded for the county to use
for projects other than those for which funds were requested. Commissioner Erickson observed that
project costs may be estimated at the high end and eventually actually cost less. The lower actual
project cost, he said, is positive but the higher initial estimate, upon which grant awards are based,
makes it more difficult for other counties to receive grant dollars. Commissioner Wagner asked how
the money saved by Ward County on the lower actual cost would figure into the 75/25 allocation of
grant awards, i.e., the amount that could be attributed to grant dollars and the amount that could be
attributed to the county's 25% contribution.
Following further discussion, Committee members agreed to defer consideration of the Ward
County request until review of second round applications is completed.
With respect to the second round grant applications, Chair Gladden noted that several
applications request funds for metal detectors or technology related equipment such as sound
systems. He explained that while the judiciary may not have sufficient appropriated funds to grant
every county request, there is an established process by which the Supreme Court will consider 50/50
cost-sharing on security equipment, such as metal detectors, and a judicial system policy provides
for the purchase of sound systems by the district courts. Consequently, he said it may be possible to
trim some of these requested items from grant applications and reduce the amounts requested.
Second Round Grant Applications - Review
Commissioner Erickson noted the total amount of second round requests, which greatly
exceeds the funds available for grants. In light of that imbalance, he recommended that grants not
be awarded to counties that received a grant in the first round. Commissioner Wagner observed that
among all the grant applications submitted there is one request for a considerable amount - Burleigh
County. He suggested applications submitted by counties that received grants in the first round be
set aside temporarily until the Committee determines the amount of funds left after considering the
remaining applications. Sen. Lyson agreed. With respect to the Burleigh County application, Ted
Gladden noted that the cost of furniture was included. He explained that under Policy 506, the
judiciary will purchase certain work area furniture used in the district courts. He cautioned that
money had not been appropriated for that specific purpose, but it may be possible to subtract costs
associated with furniture from the Burleigh County application.
Committee members then turned to a review of the applications for grant funds (2nd round
applications only), beginning with applications submitted by counties with a population of less than
7,500. > Benson County
Project: Painting courtroom/chambers, refinishing chamber floors, removing carpet and
refinishing conference room floor; FAX line wiring. was not approved as it is an expense ordinarily
covered by the judiciary. Grant request: $1,125.
Ted Gladden explained that the cost of FAX wiring is an expense ordinarily covered by the
judiciary.
It was moved by Jim Hill, seconded by Commissioner Erickson, and carried
unanimously that funds not be awarded for the FAX wiring and that 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 $750.
Bottineau County
Project: Key-in-lock/door handles; metal detector. Grant request: $5,752.49.
Ted Gladden said that the purchase of metal detectors for court facilities have ordinarily been
eligible for 50/50 cost-sharing with the judiciary.
It was moved by Commissioner Erickson, seconded by Commissioner Wagner, and
carried unanimously that funds not be awarded for the metal detector and that 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 $ 2003.
Bowman County
Project: Moving the judge's bench and witness stand; building a raised floor; replacing carpet
in the courtroom, jury room, judge's chambers; vertical blinds for the courtroom; chairs and
conference tables; electrical outlets; flag; clock; new speaker system. Grant request: $17,623.38 Commissioner Wagner noted the lack of detail concerning project cost estimates. He
recommended additional cost information be obtained from the county before any further action is
taken on the application. Committee members agreed.
Ted Gladden suggested that the Committee defer any awards for sound systems until
technology needs in the various counties are assessed in accordance with the judicial system's
technology plans. He reiterated that under current judicial system policy sound systems may be
purchased by the judicial system.
It was moved by Jim Hill, seconded by Commissioner Wagner, and carried
unanimously that funds not be awarded for the new sound system, and that 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, contingent on the County's submission of detailed vendor estimates, the amount
of the award is $ 11,731.
Eddy County
Project: Air conditioning for courtroom and offices, courtroom subfloor, carpeting for
courtroom and offices, paint and repair walls, shades for courtroom; sound system; sound system.
Grant request: $27,875.65.
It was moved by Jim Hill, seconded by Commissioner Wagner, and carried
unanimously that funds not be awarded for installation of a sound system 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 $ 20,100.
Emmons County
Project: Repair and paint courtroom; floor tile for recorder/clerk offices; central air; light
fixtures in clerk/recorder offices, jury room, judge's chambers; ceiling in judge's chambers; new jury
chairs, metal detector and freight costs; task chairs, arm chairs, stools, and associated freight costs.
Grant request: $28,109.60.
Committee members agreed funding requested for floor tile and light fixtures in the
recorder/clerk offices should be reduced by 1/3 each to reflect shared office arrangement.
Commissioner Erickson suggested, and Committee members agreed, funding for the metal detector
should not be awarded for previously stated reasons. Ted Gladden explained that under current
policy the judicial system normally purchases chairs for court staff and, therefore, funds for the task
chairs, arm chairs, stools and associated freight should not be approved..
It was moved by Commissioner Erickson, seconded by Sen. Lyson, and carried
unanimously that funds not be awarded for the identified items and that 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 $ 21,615.
Kidder County
Project: Renovate public restroom; courtroom and jury room air conditioning; courtroom
benches; conference table, chairs, and floor covering for jury room; counsel table and chairs; witness
chairs; upholster jury chairs; public address system. Grant request: $24,000.
It was moved by Jim Hill, seconded by Commissioner Wagner, and carried
unanimously that funds not be awarded for the public address system and that 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 $ 18,000.
LaMoure County
Project: Air conditioning for courtroom and judge's chambers. Grant request: $5,492.
It was moved by Jim Hill, seconded by Commissioner Wagner, and carried
unanimously that 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 $ 5,492.
Renville County
Project: Repair and paint courtroom walls; security wands. Grant request: $1,470.
It was moved by Jim Hill, seconded by Commissioner Wagner, and carried
unanimously that funds not be awarded for security wands 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 $ 1,125.
Wells County
Project: Air conditioning for jury room, which is also used by juvenile staff and attorneys;
computer and related ports, set-up wiring and outlets; file cabinet and chairs. Grant request:
$5,678.38.
Ted Gladden said the clerk's office will be contacted by technology staff in the Office of State
Court Administrator's office regarding computer and equipment (CITRIX boxes rather than Pentium)
supplied by the judiciary. He noted also that current judicial system policy provides for the purchase
of certain kinds of furniture for the courtroom.
It was moved by Jim Hill, seconded by Sen. Lyson, and carried unanimously that funds
not be awarded for the computer and related work and for the file cabinet and chairs, 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 $ 1,125.
Committee members having completed review of second round-only applications from
counties under 7,500 in population, staff noted there was approximately $15,000 remaining in funds
available for awards in the category.
Nelson County
Committee members then reviewed the application from Nelson County, which had received
a grant in the 1st round. Committee members agreed the grant request was small enough to be
considered for the remaining funds.
Project: Replace the courtroom windows; sound system. Grant request: $ 10,410.
It was moved by Jim Hill, seconded by Commissioner Wagner, and carried
unanimously that funds not be awarded for the sound system 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 $ 3,210.
Committee members next reviewed grant applications submitted by counties with a
population of 7,500 or more, excluding, initially, those counties that were awarded grants in the 1st
round.
Burleigh County
Project: Substantial courtroom remodeling - public access space, clerk of court office,
juvenile court space, district court administration space. Grant request: $325,777.50.
Sen. Lyson suggested an award should be limited to the actual construction costs, with no
funds for furniture. Jim Hill agreed. Ted Gladden noted that there is some sentiment that the county
would likely move forward with the project if the county received about 50% of the amount
requested.
Jim Hill observed that the project submitted by Burleigh County is well-considered but it is
very ambitious. He said the county would likely need 50% of the project cost to proceed.
Commissioner Wagner observed that the grant application explains that because of the need
to move several departments, the project cannot be broken into discrete phases and will need to be
completed as a single project. He noted that grant applications from other counties were generally
itemized and could be broken apart if the Committee could not award funds for entire projects. He
said fairness to all counties suggests the need to look closely at the amount being requested. It may
be, he said, that the request is too ambitious for the limited amount of funds available.
Ted Gladden observed that when the idea for this granting process was first being developed
there was a realization that it would be very difficult to address large construction projects with the
amount of funds that was likely to be generated.
Sen. Lyson suggested a preferable approach to maximizing the goal of courthouse
improvement may be to consider awarding grant dollars for a large project during each grant cycle.
Commissioner Wagner said he had advocated an incremental approach to his fellow commissioners
with respect to pursuing projects for which grant dollars are requested. That, he said, guards against
large projects consuming most of the available funds.
In response to a question from Commissioner Wagner, Ted Gladden said 7 judges and 2
judicial referees are located in Burleigh County.
Commissioner Wagner stressed the need to consider the needs of both large and small
counties. Consequently, he said, he has encouraged his county to take an incremental approach with
respect to project development and requests for grant funds. He said that approach allows the county
to move forward with portions of projects and ensures that there are funds available for other
counties. He said the Committee should arrive at a clear position concerning the scope of projects
to be considered and should make clear whether it intends, as a general approach, to seriously
consider requests for large construction projects.
Sen. Lyson observed that the objective of the fund is to improve the condition of court
facilities. He said addressing courthouse improvements in a piecemeal fashion will likely not
achieve any significant improvements. One approach, he said, may be that a grant for a very large
project could, perhaps, be awarded with the understanding that the county will not receive another
grant for the foreseeable future. Jim Hill said the Committee will likely continue to receive requests
for substantial grants, particularly from counties that have the highest caseloads and the most
courthouse activity.
Commissioner Wagner stressed the importance of arriving at a consistent approach to
consideration of grant applications so that counties that may apply for grants have some assurance
regarding how projects will be assessed.
Following further discussion, it was moved by Jim Hill and seconded by Sen. Lyson that
the Committee award a grant to Burleigh County in the amount of $165,232 (actual
construction costs [$220,310] x 75%).
With respect to whether Burleigh County will accept a grant award in the described amount,
Jim Hill suggested the county be required to notify the Committee within a specific time concerning
whether the award is accepted or rejected. Commissioner Wagner suggested the county should
provide notification by October 1, which would follow the county budgeting cycle.
In response to a question from Commissioner Wagner, staff said available funds would be
short by approximately $80,000 if Burleigh County is awarded the identified amount and all 7,500+
counties that received grants in the 1st round are not considered for grants in this round.
Commissioner Wagner emphasized the difficulty in balancing the limited available funds and
assisting as many counties as possible against requests for funds to support very large projects. He
said he had considered the grant process to be focused primarily on smaller, more basic kinds of
courthouse improvements.
Commissioner Erickson wondered whether it is possible to defer voting on the motion until
requests from other counties are considered. Sen. Lyson said he would support delaying a vote on
the motion, with the understanding that a major project should be approved.
With the consent of the second, the motion was withdrawn.
Committee members then reviewed the remaining applications from counties that did not
submit a grant request in the 1st round.
Grand Forks
Project: Deadbolt locks in judge chamber doors, video surveillance cameras; intercom in each
courtroom; intercom, video camera for courthouse security deputy. Grant request: $15,375.
It was moved by Jim Hill, seconded by Commissioner Erickson, and carried
unanimously that funds not be awarded for the project as all components are security-related.
McLean
Project: New lighting system in the courtroom, painting the courtroom; replacing courtroom
carpet. Grant request: $10,725.
It was moved by Commissioner Erickson, seconded by Jim Hill, and carried
unanimously that 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 $ 10,725.
Mercer
Project: Walk-through scanner, security window in courtroom, key locks, roof hatch lock,
Tasers, jury room chairs, change courthouse door for handicap accessibility, electrical work, and
signs. Grant request: $13, 518.58.
It was moved by Jim Hill, seconded by Sen. Lyson, and carried unanimously that funds
not be awarded for the metal detector, roof hatch lock, Tasers, and ADA-related door
modifications, 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 $ 3,879.
Richland
Project: New air conditioner, new lighting for courtroom, safety glass window in clerk's
office. Grant request: $37,694.
It was moved by Commissioner Erickson, seconded by Sen. Lyson, and carried
unanimously that 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 $ 37,694.
Rolette
Project: Remodel courtroom (move jury box, paint walls), air conditioner for judge's
chambers; sound system; metal detector. Grant request: $24,073.50.
It was moved by Jim Hill, seconded by Commissioner Erickson, and carried
unanimously that funds not be awarded for the sound system and metal detector, 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 $ 12,561.
Traill
Project: Remodel judge's chamber and jury deliberation room restrooms; courtroom
carpeting; replace gate at witness stand; replace juror chairs; new courtroom lighting; courtroom
sound system; railing for 2nd floor balcony; enlarge gate opening (gallery to courtroom - wheelchair
accessibility. Grant request: $45,525.
Committee members questioned the general nature ("probable cost") of the project estimates
and the large grant request. Jim Hill noted that restroom modifications constitute a significant
portion of the total project. Sen. Lyson suggested the application should be rejected; the county will
have the opportunity to submit a more detailed application in the next round.
It was moved by Sen.Lyson, seconded by Jim Hill, and carried unanimously that the
application not be approved.
Walsh
Project: Carpet for courtroom, electrical connections; chair mats; refurbish juror chairs;
carpet for judge's chambers; window blinds; paint library, jury room, and judge's chambers; ELMO.
Grant request: $18,769.09.
Jim Hill questioned the need to purchase an ELMO for the courtroom. Commissioner
Wagner observed that the project estimates lack some detail, but contractors are identified. In light
of the relatively small amount requested, he suggested it may be worthwhile to request that the
county submit additional information.
Staff noted that the grant request amount for Walsh County, if the ELMO is deleted, would
be $14,744.
It was moved by Jim Hill, seconded by Commissioner Erickson, and carried
unanimously that Walsh County be requested to supply additional cost estimate information
on all project components except the ELMO, and that the project, without the ELMO, 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,
contingent on submission of the additional information, the amount of the award is $ 14,744.
Burleigh County, cont'd
It was moved by Sen. Lyson and seconded by Jim Hill that the project satisfies the
award criteria, that a grant award to Burleigh County be approved for $165,232 (75% of
actual construction costs), and that the County be requested to notify the Committee within
120 days of the grant award regarding whether the award is accepted and the source of
funding for the county share.
Commissioner Wagner stressed the importance of fairness to all counties with respect to
access to grant dollars. He noted that if the approach in the future is to approve one-time large
project requests, then the Committee will almost certainly receive more such requests. That, he said,
will have a noticeable impact on the amount of funds available to other counties that submit
applications.
Sen. Lyson said if any of the larger counties submits a well-documented request for necessary
improvements, he would support awarding a large grant during each grant cycle.
Commissioner Wagner said his basic concern is that if counties can submit applications for
large construction projects, it may chill any inclination towards taking an incremental approach to
undertaking projects and applying for grant funds. He said the large-scale project approach seems
to be a departure from the Committee's earlier approach.
Commissioner Erickson suggested that counties that received grants in the 1st and 2nd rounds
should be eligible for grants in the 3rd round. Jim Hill agreed and requested that staff prepare a chart
indicating the counties that have received awards in each of the rounds. Additionally, he said it is
clear that larger counties with more court activity will have a greater impact on the process. He said
he would prefer the enhancement and improvement of the entire facility in a larger county rather than
a smaller, incremental approach to improvements.
Following further discussion, the motion carried.
Staff noted that the grants awarded by the Committee and the tentative earmarking of awards
for Bowman and Walsh counties would result in approximately $10,000 remaining in the
improvement and maintenance fund.
With respect to the adequacy of applications, staff inquired whether applications, when
initially received, should be returned for supplementation if there is inadequate detail regarding
estimates or project description. Commissioner Wagner suggested examples of properly supported
applications be provided to counties so there would be a general understanding of what is expected.
Ted Gladden suggested the possibility of working with the Association of Counties to distribute
information and perhaps have information included in training programs. Committee members
agreed the Association should be contacted.
With respect to grant requests for metal detectors, sound systems, and other technology
equipment, Ted Gladden said he or technology staff in the Office of State Court Administrator would
contact the respective counties regarding submissions for cost sharing on security-related equipment
and regarding technology-related equipment that would be supplied by the judiciary.
Ward County cont'd
Committee members then returned to discussion of the request submitted by Ward County. Staff noted the memorandum in the material from Roger Kluck, Ward County
Engineer/Superintendent, which sets out the grant share and county share of the project.
Jim Hill said he is inclined to recommend that the portion of the grant Ward County would
not use because its project came in under budget should be retained in the fund, rather than permit
the county to expend the balance on an additional project. Commissioner Erickson observed that the
county did well in obtaining project services at a lower cost than anticipated, although it may be that
the original estimate was high. He said if the county can complete a project at lower cost and within
the grant amount, perhaps the Committee should recognize that effort and allow use of the remaining
grant funds for the other project. Commission Wagner suggested the possibility of retaining the
unused portion of the grant in the grant fund, with the county being able to then apply for an award
to complete the additional project. He encouraged some way of recognizing situations in which
counties have been good stewards of grant monies. Staff noted that if the unused portion of the grant
is not expended then it would be retained in the fund and the affected county would then compete
against other counties for an award from the fund.
Following further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Erickson and seconded for
purposes of discussion by Jim Hill that the request submitted by Ward County be approved.
Commissioner Wagner said he would vote against the motion. He said he appreciated the
county's effort in securing lower costs for the initial project but if there are savings, those savings
should be retained in the grant fund so that more counties have the opportunity to obtain facility
improvement dollars. The motion failed (Sen. Lyson, Jim Hill, Commissioner Wagner - no).
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m.
____________________________________ Jim Ganje, Staff