Otter Tail County Drainage Authority County Drainage (Ditch) System - - PDF document

Otter Tail County Drainage Authority County Drainage (Ditch) System 5 County Drainage (Ditch) System 36 County Drainage (Ditch) System 68 Redetermination of Benefits and Consolidation Public Hearing Minutes Henning Community Center – 607 2nd Street, Henning, MN Monday, January 25, 2016 The Otter Tail County Board of Commissioners convened as the Otter Tail County Drainage Authority at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, January 25, 2016 at the Community Center in Henning, MN for the purpose of discussing and considering the preliminary Ditch Viewers’ Report of Re- determined Benefits and for the purpose of considering the possible consolidation of County Ditch System 5, County Ditch System 36 and County Ditch System 68. Leland R. Rogness, Chair called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed the following persons from the public (drainage area) who were in attendance: Mike Benedict Seth Bercier Bernal Cichy Craig Cordes Roger Deckert Ken Doll Melany Doll Eric Evavold Tom Grasswick Jaynie Greenwood Lloyd Greenwood David Heard James Heinze Delwyn Helmbrecht Eugene Hollatz Frieda Hollatz Vernon Hollatz Dale Koski Brennan LaVan Makayla LaVan John Lindberg Gary Loser Bill Pedrow Rick Rehm Steve Smith Gerald (Jerry) Swartz John Swartz Robert Shaw Steven Wark Sharon Wark Cynthia Wimer Jerry Wimer Please note – the above list contains 32 names of persons in attendance that were not representatives of Otter Tail County. It should also be noted that the attendance sheets contained 35 signatures. Three of those signatures represented county appointed ditch viewers and two of the signatures were not readable, which means that at least two individuals in attendance did not sign the attendance sheets. Kevin Fellbaum, Otter Tail County Ditch Inspector, stated that the order for tonight’s public hearing would be as follows:

• 1. Comments from Leland R. Rogness, Chair- Otter Tail County Drainage Authority.
• 2. Introductions.
• 3. Kevin Fellbaum, Ditch Inspector’s presentation, which would address the following:
• a. a brief review of ditch proceedings,
• b. the reasons for the public hearing (redetermination and consolidation),
• c. a brief history of County Ditch System 5, County Ditch System 36 and County

Ditch System 68,

• d. a map outlining the location of County Ditch System 5, County Ditch System 36

and County Ditch System 68,

• e. a map outlining the benefited area of County Ditch System 5, County Ditch

System 36 and County Ditch System 68, as originally determined and as re- determined,

• f. a general background on ditch viewing, which includes describing land types

before and after the establishment and maintenance of the drainage system, as well as lake lot land descriptions,

• g. a general overview of the Ditch Viewers’ Preliminary Report of Re-determined

Benefits and how to read the report, and

• h. the noting for the record letters that had been received by email prior to the

scheduled hearing.

• i. Note – an email from Eric Evavold was noted. A copy has been included

as a part of the minutes.

• ii. Note – an email/letter from Kevin D. Wendt was noted. A copy has been

included as a part of the minutes.

• 4. Comments from David Hauser, Otter Tail County Attorney.
• 5. An opportunity for comments and questions from those in attendance regarding the

redetermination and the possible consolidation of these three systems.

• 6. Recess of this public hearing to a date certain to allow the ditch viewers to reexamine

properties requesting a second review. LeLand R. Rogness, Chair, requested during the public comments and questions section of the public hearing that individuals desiring to speak follow these general principles:

• 1. State your first and last name for the record.
• 2. Speak as loud and clear as possible so that all those in attendance can hear your

comments and/or questions.

• 3. Address your comments and/or questions to the Board.
• 4. Limit your comments and/or questions to two minutes so that all those in attendance have

an opportunity to speak.

• 5. Be respectful of the comments and questions shared by others whose opinion may differ

from yours.

• 6. Once everyone in attendance that desires to speak has had an opportunity to speak you

may address the Board again with additional comments and/or questions. The following individuals were in attendance and represented the County Drainage Authority and County Staff: Wayne Johnson - Second District Commissioner John Lindquist – Third District Commissioner Roger Froemming – Fourth District Commissioner LeLand R. Rogness – Chair - Fifth District Commissioner David Hauser – County Attorney Rick West – Public Works Director/County Highway Engineer Kevin Fellbaum – County Ditch Inspector Ditch Viewer (for this project) – Richard Bergquist Ditch Viewer (for this project) – Dennis Tigges Ditch Viewer – Jeff Wiebe Wayne Stein – Secretary - County Auditor-Treasurer At this time, Kevin Fellbaum, County Ditch Inspector, proceeded with his presentation. Mr. Fellbaum noted that two of the three ditch viewers were in attendance and available to answer

• questions. Mr. Fellbaum’s presentation is detailed in the attached document, which has been

incorporated as an official part of the minutes. Mr. Fellbaum’s PowerPoint presentation will also be posted to the County’s official website. Mr. Fellbaum stated that at the end of the meeting he would record the names and property locations of those individuals in attendance requesting additional review by the ditch viewers of the benefits as currently re-determined and assigned to their property. Mr. Fellbaum also stated at the end of his presentation that he would accept requests for additional review through the end of the week (Friday, January 29th, 2016).

This extension would allow those in attendance that might not have understood the preliminary Ditch Viewers’ report prior to tonight’s public hearing or who did not have access to the report an opportunity to review the report in greater detail and to discuss the reports with others in the drainage area to determine if they have a need to request additional review. Upon completion of Mr. Fellbaum’s presentation, the attached letters noted above, which were received by email prior to the public hearing were note for the record and incorporated as an

• fficial part of the minutes.

LeLand R. Rogness, Chair, called upon David Hauser, County Attorney, for comments. Mr. Hauser noted that Mr. Fellbaum’s presentation addressed nicely the issues for consideration at the public hearing. Mr. Hauser asked if there were any questions and indicated his availability during the remainder of this evenings public hearing to help answer questions and provide information as it relates to drainage laws. LeLand R. Rogness, Chair, opened the public hearing to those in attendance for comments and/or questions with the following individuals addressing the Drainage Authority: Bernal Cichy Roger Deckert Dale Koski John Lindberg Glen Olson Bill Pedrow Robert Shaw Steve Smith Jerry Swartz John Swartz Cynthia Wimer Jerry Wimer Note – that those in attendance were encouraged to focus their comments and/or questions on the Ditch Viewers’ Preliminary Report of Benefits as Re-determined for County Ditch 8, County Ditch 36 and for County Ditch 68, and on the proposed consolidation of County Ditch 36 and for County Ditch 68. At times it was difficult for the secretary to clearly hear the comments being shared. The following is the secretary’s summary of the public input shared by those individuals that choose to address the Board at the public hearing: 1. The following question was raised: How was the drainage area determined? It was noted that the ditch viewers start with the catchment area as identified by the Department of Natural Resources. The ditch viewers than use onsite visits and additional technology (LIDAR, Topography Maps etc.) to fine tune the area benefited by the drainage systems. 2. An individual indicated that the property owner’s report he had received was not a complete letter. He assumed there was a printing error. After the meeting the secretary informed this individual that a complete letter would be sent. 3. Concern was expressed about blockages within the drainage system. 4. A number of individuals in attendance requested additional review of their property/properties and the benefits that had been assigned. These individuals were encouraged to leave there names with Kevin at the conclusion of the public hearing. 5. Some individuals expressed an interest in retaining the water on their property as it currently exists. The process of impounding water within a drainage system was noted. 6. There was a question regarding the establishment of buffer strips and how they are

• measured. Kevin Fellbaum explained how they are established and measured.

7. It was noted that property owned by the State of Minnesota within the drainage area is also assigned benefits and contributes financially to the costs associated with repair and maintenance of the systems.

8. It was also noted that when systems are repaired and/or maintained the drainage authority works very closely with the Department of Natural Resources and they are very cooperative. 9. Wetlands and how drainage systems impact these areas were briefly discussed. 10. There was a very brief and general discussion regarding the assessment process to cover the costs associated with the benefit redetermination and future repairs. 11. One individual suggested that the entire system needs to be cleaned/repaired. 12. There was concern with the costs associated with a complete cleanout project. Ditch 41/65 was noted as an example as to how the maintenance would be completed. 13. There was a brief discussion regarding the original depths of the systems. 14. It was noted that any repairs or maintenance to the systems cannot exceed how the systems were originally designed. 15. There was a general question regarding the map presented in the presentation and the

• ne displayed on the table for public inspection.

16. An individual questioned who was pushing for the redetermination, for the maintenance/repair and why it is being done at this time. It was noted that drainage law requires the drainage authority to keep drainage systems functional. The benefits for these systems are the original benefits from when the systems were established. Many factors have changed since the benefits were originally determined (land value, technology, ownership etc.) making it necessary to re-determine benefits. It was also noted that the County is in the process of re-determining benefits for all of the County’s drainage systems. 17. Re-determining benefits is also an issue of fairness for the proper distribution of the costs associated with the maintenance of the systems. 18. Consolidation of the three systems was discussed very briefly. It was noted that these three systems are actually one system and share existing channels. There was no

• pposition expressed to the proposal to combine the three systems. It was also noted

that combination made sense for administration. 19. Abandonment of the systems was discussed very briefly. 20. One individual noted that this is a bad time to be moving forward with this process as people do not trust government. Had general concerns with County, State and Federal Government. 21. There was a brief discussion regarding historical elevations and the availability of

• riginal design documents.
• Mr. Fellbaum stated again that any individual that wants the ditch viewers to reexamine the

benefits as re-determined and as assigned by the ditch viewers must submit their request to Kevin by the end of the week (Friday, January 29th, 2016). Once this list is compiled, the ditch viewers will reexamine the properties requesting review, amend their report if necessary, and submit their amended report to the Drainage Authority. The Drainage Authority will issue an

• rder accepting the report, which will then establish an appeal time.

Hearing no additional comments, suggestions and/or questions from those in attendance, LeLand

• R. Rogness Chair, recessed the public hearing for Otter Tail County Ditch System 5, Otter Tail

County Ditch System 36 and Otter Tail County Ditch System No. 68 at 7:20 p.m. until 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, March 22, 2016. Respectfully submitted, Wayne Stein Wayne Stein – Secretary County Auditor/Treasurer

Eric Evavold Letter Received by Email

Dear Ottertail County, Wayne Stein or Kevin Fellman, This letter is in regards to the letter that I received about the county ditch proceedings of 5,68,36. I may not be able to attend the meeting on Jan 25, 2016, so I am emailing/mailing a written statement so it can be on

• record. I want to point out that none of these ditches come close or are on my property and the closest one would be

#36 which connects to the north end of a private lake with no public access called Stoney lake and me and 4 other land owners pay higher property taxes for having this body of water on our property. Therefore any digging/cleaning out of ditch 36 would do the exact opposite of benefit us as it would drain the water level down on this ‘lake’ which does have fish in it and they absolutely need the water level where it is to stay alive. Also as a side note the DNR has never been involved with this body of water for keeping it at any sort of level since I have owned the land. I understand my land is considered AG land which is due because I have CRP on the property and we also plant one small field for feed for father in laws cattle and due to the sandy/rocky soil it needs as much water to remain on the ground as possible. So please take the time to redetermine the “benefit” of my property and others around ditch #36 as there is really no farmland close and we would like to see the water level remain where it is and not have to pay for something that is going to be the exact opposite of a “Benefit”. Sincerely, Eric Evavold Section 6 Elmo Twnshp 82 acres #23000070042000

Kevin Wendt Letter Received by Email

Dear County Drainage Authority and related persons, Please let it be recorded that as a property owner that has been listed as a beneficiary on the proposed redetermination, that I oppose the action. If this is truly to integrate the ditches for maintaining and draining the watershed, it would be a huge mistake. As I understand, the original ill-conceived intention for digging the ditches was to drain the once existing shallow Inman lake to create additional fertile farmland. This may have been successful in a few localized areas, but the majority

• f the areas were still unproductive and since have slowly been evolving back to a natural state. As most of the

surrounding marginal areas have never been in or have been taken out of agricultural production decades ago, they have been used for, or purchased for recreational and environmental purposes. The state has purchased many of these directly affected properties and created a valuable and successful waterfowl production area. Many people, like myself, have purchased adjacent properties primarily for recreational use and for waterfowl hunting. I cannot see that it would be in the interest of the DNR or the many recreational owners to drain the wetland and it would honestly be a detriment to my use, value, and marketability. My property is opposite the outlet with the state land (WPA) between, any effects or so called “benefits” to our property would have to be the result of altering the state land too. Since benefits are not being assessed for the public land requiring federal or state permits to actually do work, I doubt there is intent or likelihood to actually do work in them. There would be a large amount of political backlash from various agencies and organizations preventing it, and if permits were actually granted that it would be a monumental task costing 10 of millions of

• dollars. I do not see this being a credible reason, intention, or the true purpose behind the redetermination, besides

being an unfair assessment. If the ditch has not been redetermined for over 100 years, why is it being brought up now? Shouldn’t they have been abandoned like a road that has not been maintained for 100 years? Portions of the noted ditches have completely overgrown do not even exist any longer. This leads me believe it is primarily for additional tax revenue for the county and simply job justification. As a recreational land owner, we already pay a higher tax rate for the property. I feel we taxpayers are already paying a high burden, and that it is difficult to even pay the tax to keep land we own. Then to get additional liabilities forced

• nto many to pay for what feels like the railroaded agenda of a few is not acceptable. This is not necessary! This is

not a “benefit” to our land! This will create a hardship for many and make our land less desirable. Again I am not in favor of the proposed actions, and sincerely request the termination of the process, or at a minimum an extended public review and education period resulting with a vote from all affected parties. Respectfully, Kevin D Wendt Property Owner 25 Jan 2016

Kevin Fellbaum’s Presentation

Slide 1

BENEFIT BENEFIT RE-DETERMIN RE-DETERMINATION TION HE HEARING: ARING: COUNTY COUNTY DIT DITCHES HES # #5/# /#68/#36

PRESEN T ED: BY OT T ER TAI L COU N T Y DI TCH I N SPECTOR K EV I N FELLBAU M J AN UARY /2 5 /2 0 1 6

Slide 2

RE-DETERMIN RE-DETERMINATION TION PRESENT PRESENTATION TION

• Drainage Authority Chair Comments
• Introductions
• Ditch Proceedings
• Reason for Hearing
• Benefit of Combination
• History
• Background on Ditch Viewing
• Viewer’s Report
• Recap
• Questions and Comments

Slide 3

DRAIN DRAINAGE A GE AUTHORIT THORITY CHAIR COMMENT CHAIR COMMENTS

*Use microphone when you speak, Please speak Loud and Clear *Please state your first and last name *Be respectful to others *2 minute time limit per opportunity to speak *One opportunity to speak until all others have had a chance to speak

Slide 4

INTR INTRODU ODUCTION ONS

Slide 5

DIT DITCH P H PROCE OCEEDINGS DINGS

*County Ditches are owned by all Benefitted Property Owners within that given Ditch System *County Ditches are controlled by the Drainage Authority (County Board) *County Ditches are inspected by the County Ditch Inspector (who reports information and issues of the Ditches to the Drainage Authority) *Right of Entry: According to MN Statute 103E.061- the engineer, the engineer’s assistants, the viewers, and viewer’s assistants may enter any property to make a survey, locate a drain, examine the property, or estimate damages and benefits. *Ditch Viewers are appointed by the Drainage Authority to view and report how and which properties are affected by the in place Ditch System *Any costs associated with the Ditch system are the responsibility of All the Benefitted Property Owners. * Buffer Strips: According to MN Statute 103E.021- A 16.5 foot permanent strip of perennial vegetation approved by the drainage authority be established on each side of the ditch.

Slide 6

DIT DITCH PR H PROCEE OCEEDINGS DINGS

*According to MN Statute 103E.735 Maintenance funds are to be established on County Ditches so that Maintenance activities can take place when they are needed. Maintenance funds can be built up to a value

• f $100,000 or 20% of the total valuation of the assessed benefitted area,

whichever is the greater amount. *Otter Tail County is currently working with the County wide plan of only needing to build the Maintenance Fund to a valuation of $50,000. *Once the fund is built to that $50,000 bench mark over several years, the yearly Maintenance assessments will stop if no repair work is being done. If repair work is being done and the fund falls below that benchmark, the Maintenance assessment will resume to bring the fund back up to that mark.

Slide 7

REASON FOR REASON FOR HEARING HEARING

A Re-Determination of Benefits has been completed, this Re-determination shows what properties and how those properties are benefitted by having a County Ditch in place Discussion on why and how certain properties are viewed differently(Opportunity to ask Viewers how they viewed properties) Land owners may request that Ditch Viewers review their property if they feel their property was wrongly valued and have sufficient reasoning for this review (This is the only time that these Benefit percentages can be changed until the next time a Re-determination is done) At the end of the meeting I will collect all properties that are requesting a review of their benefits

• Name, Address, Phone number, Parcel ID #

Maintenance Assessments are based off of the percentages derived in the Viewer’s Report (You need to know your %) Discussion on why a Combination of systems is good idea for these three separate systems

Slide 8

RE-DETERMINATION/ COMBINATION

According to MN State Statute 103E. 351 Sub-division 1, A Re-determination shall take place if the Drainage Authority determines that the Original Benefits do not reflect reasonable present day values or if the Drainage area has changed. Ditches #5, #68, and #36 serve the same Drainage Area and are good candidates to be Combined into one Drainage System Re-determinations have not taken place on Ditches #5, #68, and #36 since they were created. Benefit Values have changed in the past 100 years, properties have split, and viewing techniques have changed. Also in order for a Combination to take place, Benefits need to be comparable, thus having these Ditches Re-determined at the same time would get us comparable values. All County Ditches will be going through a Re-determination in the coming

• years. Countywide Process

Slide 9

COMBINATION

By Minnesota State Statute 103E.801

• Subdivision 1: Authority to Consolidate or Divide
• After the Benefitted Area of a Drainage system has been determined, the

Drainage Authority may consolidate two or more systems in order to provide more efficient administration of the system consistent with the determined benefitted area.

• Subdivision 2: Initiation of Action
• The consolidation may be initiated by the Drainage Authority on its own

motion or by any party affected by the Drainage System by filing a petition with the County Auditor.

• Subdivision 3: Hearing
• When the Drainage Authority directs by resolution or a petition is filed

with the County Auditor, the Drainage Authority will set a time and location for a public hearing. The Drainage Authority may consolidate Ditch Systems if they determine

• 1) it would be consistent with the re-determination of the benefitted

area of the drainage system

• 2) it would provide for the efficient administration of the drainage

system

• 3) it would be fair and equitable

Slide 10

HISTORY

Ditch #5 Established: June 8, 1903 Purpose: To drain away the overflow waters that by remaining upon the meadow and farming lands greatly lessen the farm products and also seriously endanger the public health

(From Original Petition for Ditch- May 10, 1902 )

Original Cost: $12,516.55 Original Benefit: $23,953.98 Events: 1985 a meeting was held on the possibility of reverting the land back into a lake as it was in 1900. Sept/29/2014- Public Informational Meeting held in Henning to discuss need for upcoming Re-determination Currently: Ditch 5 is an open channel Ditch. The Ditch is operational, but could use some maintenance to restore proper flow, including the removal of beaver dams, cleaning of culverts and the cleanout of sediment that has fallen into the

• channel. Currently for Ditch 5, the maintenance fund is at a value of $9,559.22

Slide 11

HISTORY

Ditch #36 Established: January 10,1908 Purpose: So that large tracts of land would thereby be made productive and suitable for cultivation, and to remove stagnant water which endangers public health. (From Original Petition for Ditch- May 24, 1907) Original Cost: $2,227.91 Original Benefit: $3,126.00 Events: 1985 a meeting was held on the possibility of reverting the land back into a lake as it was in 1900 Sept/29/2014- Public Informational Meeting held in Henning to discuss need for upcoming Re-determination Currently: Ditch 36 is an open channel Ditch. The Ditch is semi-operational, but could use some maintenance. Currently for Ditch 36, the maintenance fund is at a value of -$4,732.55

Slide 12

HISTORY

Ditch #68 Established: December 30,1919 Purpose: To drain away the overflow waters that by remaining upon the meadow and farming lands greatly lessen the farm products and also seriously endanger the public health

(From Original Petition for Ditch- November 25, 1919)

Original Cost: $43,497.42 Original Benefit: $60,413.00 Events: 1985 a meeting was held on the possibility of reverting the land back into a lake as it was in 1900 Sept/29/2014- Public Informational Meeting held in Henning to discuss need for upcoming Re-determination Currently: Ditch 68 is an open channel Ditch. The Ditch is operational, but could use some maintenance to restore proper flow, including the removal of beaver dams, cleaning of culverts and the cleanout of sediment that has fallen into the

• channel. Currently for Ditch 68, the maintenance fund is at a value of -$7,660.28

Slide 13

PHOTOS

Slide 14

ORIGINAL DITCH MAP

Slide 15

MAP

Slide 16

BENEFITTED AREA

Slide 17

BENEFITTED AREA

Slide 18

BACK CKGR GROUND ON OUND ON DIT DITCH VIE VIEWING ING

Ditch Viewing Quick Facts:

• Ditch Viewing categorizes properties into two different land types (Agriculture

and Lake Shore) (A,B,C,D Designation or Lake %)

• Note: Some Parcels are represented in both land types
• Ditch Viewing is done by looking at properties using the Highest and Best Use

Technique

• Note: The current use of a parcel is the Property Owners decision but it

may not be viewed as that parcels Highest and Best Use

• Ditch Viewing is done using a snap shot in time approach
• Note: For agricultural properties, commodity input/sales prices are taken

at the point when the Viewers begin the Re-determination Process

• Benefits for each parcel are determined individually, then all those amounts

are added together to give you the Total Benefit amount of that Drainage System

• Note: A parcel’s benefit amount is then divided by the Total Drainage

System Amount to come up with that particular parcels Ditch Percentage

Slide 19

BACK CKGR GROUND ON OUND ON DIT DITCH VIE VIEWING ING

Land Descriptions

* Before Ditch is in Place

• A Land: Standing Water or Cattails
• B Land: Seasonally Flooded/Pasture Land
• C Land: Generally farmable land with moderate crop potential
• D Land: Upland areas not specifically needing artificial drainage, with

medium to high crop potential

*After Ditch is in Place

A Land: Drained Slough area with low to medium crop potential B Land: Well drained ground with medium to high crop potential C Land: Well drained ground with highest crop potential D Land: Upland area with highest crop potential with improved farm-ability

Slide 20

BACK CKGR GROUND ON OUND ON DIT DITCH VIE VIEWING ING

Lake Lots are described as a percentage. The higher the percentage, needs the Ditch in place to prevent flooding on their property. While the lower percentage does not need the Ditch for flooding but is receiving benefit from the Ditch because it is handling the runoff from that property(Contribution). This percentage is then applied to the Land Value for that Parcel. EX: Land Value (200,000) X Ditch Percentage (50%) = Benefit for Parcel (100,000)

Slide 21

VIEWER’S REPORT

Ditch 5/68/36 Benefits

A Land Acres: 214.13 Benefit per Acre: $791.00 A Land Irrigated Acres: 0.09 Benefit per Acre: $3,230.00 B Land Acres: 486.39 Benefit per Acre: $316.00 B Land Irrigated Acres: 22.80 Benefit per Acre: $1,503.00 C Land Acres: 1,015.20 Benefit per Acre: $198.00 C Land Irrigated Acres: 94.89 Benefit per Acre: $841.00 D Land Acres: 3,939.41 Benefit per Acre: $82.00 D Land Irrigated Acres: 417.76 Benefit per Acre: $255.00 Building Site Acres: 659.95 Benefit per Acre: $75.00 Tree Acres: 5,302.19 Benefit per Acre: $20.00 Grass Acres: 1354.38 Benefit per Acre: $30.00 Lakeshore Benefit: $00.00 x (Lakeshore %’s) : $00.00

• Area’s total Benefit (2016):

$1,390,872.18

• Ditch 5 Benefit (1903):

$23,953.98

• Ditch 68 Benefit(1919):

$60,413.00 Total: $87,492.98

• Ditch 36 Benefit(1908):

$3,126.00

Slide 22

READING THE VIEWERS REPORT

Slide 23

RECAP:

WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED

• Ditch Proceedings: How County Ditches Work
• Re-determination/Combination: State Statute, Ditches are serving some of the same
• verlapping areas, more efficient for administration
• Reason for Hearing: Why are we here, Why was a Re-determination done
• History: When and Why were these systems created
• Background on Ditch Viewing: How are properties viewed and looked at
• Viewer’s Report: How to read the Viewer’s Report

****Reading of any written comments****

• Main Item: This is the only time that these Benefit percentages

can be changed until the next time a Re-determination is done,

• A Maintenance Assessment will be based off of your Benefit

Percentage

• * Legal Discussion from the County Attorney David Hauser

Slide 24

QUESTI QUESTIONS AND NS AND COM COMMENTS ENTS