[0:00] Ready. [clears throat]
[0:06] » Good morning. Like to call this meeting
to order for the Blackhawk County Board
[0:10] of Supervisors regular session for
September 1, 2026. Roll call, please.
[0:14] Mr. Jameson.
>> Brand here. Hall
[0:17] » here.
>> Curtainbot
[0:18] » here. Schwarz
>> here.
[0:20] » Leilen
>> here. Would everyone please join us for
[0:23] a moment of silence to reflect on our
actions this morning?
[0:28] in the flags or something.
[0:33] » Yeah.
>> It's a moment of silence.
[0:41] » Thank you. Would you please join us for
the pledge of allegiance?
[0:46] » I aliance to the flag of the United
States of America and to the republic
[0:52] for which it stands. One nation under
God, indivisible, with liberty and
[0:57] justice for all.
[clears throat]
[1:03] » Item one is the agenda received as
proposed or amended. And I would like to
[1:06] amend the agenda to just um rearrange I
guess the last two items item 9D and 9E.
[1:12] Just reversing those. So if anyone that
needs to um leave after the discussion
[1:17] of the control ordinance um can leave.
>> So move as change. Seconded.
[1:23] » All in favor say I.
>> I.
[1:25] » I.
>> I.
[1:26] » Oppos. Same sign. Agenda is received.
Item two is public comments. Is there
[1:30] anyone in the room today that would like
to speak on comments that not on today's
[1:34] agenda?
[1:38] Anyone [snorts] online?
[1:41] And seeing none, we'll move [snorts] on
to years of service awards to employees
[1:44] with 20 or more years of service.
>> Uh we have two today. The first one is
[1:50] County Attorney Brian Williams with 20
years of service.
[1:56] » Mr. WILLIAMS, [applause]
[2:06] [snorts]
[clears throat]
[2:10] » want to say a few words?
>> Uh, you know, it's been 20 years. I
[2:12] can't believe it. Um, if there's any
reflection, I have two employees here,
[2:16] so that means I have great support. No,
>> they're busy. I know. [laughter] I know.
[2:22] » What about me?
>> Oh, I know. Mike Mike's here, too.
[2:27] » Mike had to be here, though. Mike Mike's
a captive audience, but you know,
[2:30] [laughter]
>> I can't believe it's been 20 years, but
[2:32] it's been great. So,
>> appreciate it. Thank you.
[2:35] » Thank you. Thanks for your service.
>> And the next one we have is conservation
[2:40] director Mike Hendrickson with 35 years.
[2:48] » [applause]
[2:52] » Thanks guys.
[laughter]
[3:01] » No. Would you like to say a few words?
>> Oh, I've got one word to say. [laughter]
[3:06] » So anyway, you know, when you stay 35
years with an organization, it it's
[3:11] normally one of two things. Either you
had to for whatever reason or you wanted
[3:14] to. And for me, it's because I wanted
to. And if I had to pick out, you know,
[3:19] all the great things that I can say
about Blackhawk County and this career,
[3:22] probably the one thing that I'll say
that kept me here that always made me
[3:26] want to stay here is just the people
that you work with every day. Um, this
[3:29] is a great organization. It's run very
smoothly, um, very effectively, and the
[3:34] people you work with, and I'm not just
talking about my our conservation
[3:36] people. I'm talking about from this
boardroom through all the departments.
[3:40] Um, great people to work with. when you
ask for help or you need something,
[3:43] somebody's always standing in line to
help you. So, that'll keep you here. And
[3:47] so, thank you very much for the
opportunity. I very much appreciate it.
[3:52] [applause]
[3:59] » Moving on to item four, claims and
payments. This is a resolution that the
[4:03] board of supervisors approve
expenditures and that the [snorts]
[4:05] county auditor be authorized and
directed to issue payments against the
[4:09] various settlement of such claims as
allowed.
[4:11] » So moved.
>> Second.
[4:13] » Good morning board. Our total bill
payment today is $523,226.18
[4:21] and out of that payments from the 6040
fund are $3,1621.
[4:28] We had a couple of larger expenses this
week. Um, the road department is paying
[4:34] for their John Deere loader for
$132,594.440.
[4:41] They're also paying for a John Deere
mower um from for $48,000
[4:48] and
paying for steel from local option fund
[4:54] for $71,232.96.
[4:59] And also we are paying for a new
trailblazer to replace one that was
[5:04] totaled in an [clears throat] accident.
Um, so $26,71
[5:09] and then we're starting to pay some of
the claims on the hail damage vehicles.
[5:14] That appears to be everything and I
believe it's in order today. Any
[5:18] questions for me?
[5:23] » Thank you. This is a resolution. Please
answer your name is called.
[5:26] » Grant,
>> yes.
[5:27] » Hall, yes.
>> Curtainbot,
[5:29] » yes.
>> Schwarz,
[5:31] » yes.
>> Leila,
[5:32] » yes. Item five, receive project updates
from department heads and elected
[5:36] officials.
>> Good morning, board. Kathy Nicholas,
[5:40] engineer. I'll give you a brief update
on the crane. [clears throat] We have uh
[5:44] received. We have had the crane looked
at by some technicians out of Cedar
[5:49] Rapids Equipment Company. They've um
kind of verified that it probably was a
[5:54] lightning strike. We are that damaged
the crane. We are working with Lori to
[5:58] see if it's eligible for any type of
insurance reimbursement. Uh, in the
[6:03] meantime, we've I believe we brought it
back to Longfellow now and we are
[6:08] working with Emerson Crane Company to
get our beam set on Hoff Road. It the
[6:13] that is ready for the beams to be set.
We are scheduled weather dependent to
[6:18] set those beams on Thursday. If you if
you'd like to see that, um, that'd be
[6:23] great. Let us know. I'd encourage you to
go out and see that. Again, that's
[6:26] weather dependent. We don't need their
crane getting struck by lightning. Uh so
[6:32] uh moving on to uh some other work that
the bridge crew is doing. They are still
[6:37] working on uh the bridge on Axley and
hopefully if our crane is repaired in
[6:42] time, we will be able to work on that
that small structure that bridge
[6:47] replacement later this yet this year.
And then for our contract bridge work,
[6:53] Taylor Construction, they are still
working up on Windslow. They have um
[6:58] poured the enc casements around the two
peers and I believe they their next
[7:02] order of work is to move to the um
either the east or the west abutman and
[7:08] finish that and then they will be
working on the deck portion of the
[7:13] project. Can I answer any questions at
this time?
[7:16] » Kathy got a call. Apparently we've got
crews out working getting gravel roads
[7:20] ready for winter ready.
>> We are we are still placing mile rock.
[7:26] We
technically we're not preparing roads
[7:30] for winter until October 1st.
And that's when I say that, that's when
[7:36] I mean that's when we're blading through
desk controls and preparing the roads
[7:39] for winter. But at this time, we're just
still we have two or three districts
[7:43] that have not gotten their the mile rock
yet that they will be receiving. So
[7:48] that's primarily what we're doing.
>> I'll get with you then afterwards.
[7:52] I got a call.
>> Okay.
[7:54] » I'll get with you. That's okay. Thank
you,
[7:56] » Kathy. I was going to ask, would you um
be willing to do a an update, I guess,
[8:00] on the new building for us next week or
>> Yes. Yep. I will certainly do that.
[8:03] We're getting close to wanting to issue
the RFP, so I can give you an update on
[8:08] that next week.
>> Okay. Thank you.
[8:10] » Thank you.
[8:17] » Morning board. A manifes HR director. Um
just a quick update for uh next week.
[8:22] So, uh, policy review committee. I sent
out an email about pretty much just
[8:27] cancelling or holding off on that
meeting as, uh, we've got the, uh,
[8:31] training going on, um, for the, uh,
[clears throat] supervisors with the
[8:34] review and practice on accountability
and one-on- ones. I also was asked if we
[8:38] should do department head meeting. Um,
so I was just going to let you know that
[8:41] may also be cancelled just depending on
the number of attendees that are
[8:44] attending the other training at
conservation. Um, and then a couple
[8:48] things. I'll be out next Thursday and
Friday with Anna attending training, but
[8:52] our office will still be open. Cherry
will be here. Um, but we got kind of a
[8:56] busy September. So, our office is kind
of like, you know, if you see signs on
[9:01] the door, it's usually because one of us
is in the, you know, the RAP training or
[9:04] at other training. So, September,
[clears throat] just [snorts] Yeah, an
[9:07] FYI on that. Any questions at all for me
on um policy review or department head
[9:13] or anything with the ongoing training
for leadership university?
[9:19] All right. That all kicked off last week
and it's been going really well. So,
[9:22] » I thought so, too.
>> Yeah. All right. Thank you.
[9:25] » Thank you. [snorts]
[9:30] » Good morning again. Mike Hendrickson,
director with Black County Conservation.
[9:34] Um, just kind of a late summer report
with the last major holiday right in
[9:39] front of us. Just wanted to let you
know, I'll find some wood to knock on.
[9:42] At this point, every park is open. The
Cedar River is well within its banks. s
[9:47] the WS Penne well within its banks. So,
we think we're going to have be able to
[9:51] run uh all of our parks and our
campground systems and so that will be
[9:54] great. Attendance will be large. Um
looks like a nice weekend in front of
[9:58] us. So, we're getting ready for that.
One event that will take place this
[10:01] weekend is something new. We've been
working with Gallagher Blue Dorne uh
[10:04] since about last April on this. They do
a what they call a block party uh
[10:09] throughout the summer in different
locations uh in Cedar Falls, Waterlue or
[10:12] the Cedar Valley. um they get local
bands to come and and perform and so
[10:17] they wanted to do one in our parks and
we luckily chose not to do it over
[10:21] Memorial Day. We were thinking about
that and we did go underwater and close
[10:25] the park so we would have lost. So it's
going to be Saturday um September the
[10:28] 5th out Blackhawk Park from 7 to 9. Uh
one of the local bands I believe is Dry
[10:33] Run Creek will be playing. Um uh we're
preparing for a pretty large crowd
[10:37] because they have a pretty good
following. So we're looking forward to
[10:39] that. It'll be a great event out in
Blackhawk Park. Um, School of the Wild
[10:43] is ready to kick off over at the Nature
Center. Um, just a just a huge event for
[10:47] us that will run through uh all of
September and all of October. Um, lots
[10:53] and lots and lots of kids and and
speakers and that. It's just a great
[10:56] program. And so that will be kicking
off. Our fall fundraisers, we're well
[11:00] underway with those. Uh, getting those
ready. Under the Harvest Moon will uh be
[11:05] October the 30th. That's on a Friday
night. So, watch for ticket sales for
[11:09] that. um that's always well attended.
And then our holiday light show, we are
[11:13] going uh uh getting that all set up.
We're getting sponsors and and
[11:18] businesses already kicking in and and
wanting to to put up a display. So,
[11:22] that's going to go really well, I think,
again, too. And then one one last
[11:25] reminder, about a year ago, um the river
did work us over pretty good in
[11:30] Blackhawk Park and we lost the culvert
going into the campground. Uh we put a
[11:33] band-aid fix on it and it's held up
really, really well. But in the
[11:36] meantime, we did go through uh RFP and
we've got a contractor and so that work
[11:41] is going to start uh the first week of
October. That being said, and the reason
[11:46] I bring it up is because we will be
closing those campgrounds uh right in
[11:50] the first month of October. October can
be a great camping month and so you may
[11:54] get phone calls, but it's about a 30-day
job and they'll be out of there. So, um
[11:58] had to be had to be done and hopefully
it will last for the next 50 to 75
[12:03] years. So, any questions you have for
conservation at all?
[12:13] » Is there anyone online that would like
to [snorts] give an update?
[12:17] » Morning board. This is Caitlyn Emmerick,
public health director. I have a quick
[12:20] update for you. Um, [snorts] I just
wanted to give a quick situational
[12:25] update on measles activity in the state
of Iowa. Um over the August 17th weekend
[12:33] um there were cases identified in
southern Iowa and uh as a result over
[12:38] the last couple of weeks cases have
continued to increase in Iowa. As of
[12:43] today there are 19 cases of measles in
Iowa. In Iowa um across
[12:49] um four health and human service
districts we do not have any cases in
[12:55] HHS district 7 where Blackhawk County um
is, but we do have cases in neighboring
[13:01] districts. Um, so Iowa HHS has requested
local public health agencies across the
[13:07] state to begin planning to support
counties in their service area for the
[13:11] possibility of cases. Um, and so we have
done that in our agency. Um, we've had
[13:17] some internal meeting planning meetings
and are starting to receive requests
[13:22] from um, counties in our service area
for assistance. Um, so I just wanted to
[13:29] let you know that we are working with
our neighbors to provide assistance to
[13:32] them as they respond to cases of measles
in their counties. Are there any
[13:37] questions for me?
[13:41] » Doesn't look like so. Thank you very
much, Caitlyn.
[13:44] » Thank you, [clears throat]
>> Mr. U.
[13:47] » Morning board. Alu, IT director. Just
want to give you a quick update. CEC
[13:51] will be back on site Thursday to finish
the programming of the basement
[13:55] conference room. Uh, so just want to let
you know the should only take about a
[13:59] half a day, but we did book the room for
the entire day just in case. Can I
[14:02] answer any questions for you guys?
>> Some of our staff will be with them as
[14:08] when they [clears throat] get that.
Great.
[14:10] » Look forward to it. Thank you.
[14:16] » Looks like we're moving on. Item six,
minutes approved for August 25th, 2026.
[14:21] [clears throat]
>> So moved. Second.
[14:24] » All in favor say I. Hi. Hi.
>> Both same sign. Minutes are approved.
[14:29] Item seven, the consent agenda. The
following items are acted upon by a
[14:32] single resolution unless someone would
like to remove something for discussion.
[14:36] » So moved.
>> Second.
[14:38] » Roll call vote. Please answer as your
name is called. [clears throat]
[14:41] » Hall.
>> Yes.
[14:42] » Curtenbod.
>> Yes.
[14:43] » Schwarz.
>> Yes.
[14:45] » Grant.
>> Yes.
[14:46] » Leilen?
>> Yes.
[14:47] » Item eight, contracts and agreements.
Resolution to accept the notice of
[14:51] termination of the coordinated
contractors [clears throat]
[14:53] indemnity 28e agreement dated June 25th
1995 between Blackhawk County and
[14:59] Intercog effective November 30, 2026.
>> So moved.
[15:04] » Second. It's a resolution. I think
everybody got the email and also the old
[15:09] indemnity agreement. It's no longer
needed.
[15:12] » Right. Thank you. This resolution please
answer your name as calls.
[15:15] » Curtainbot.
>> Yes.
[15:17] » Fors.
>> Yes. Brandt,
[15:19] » yes.
>> Paul,
[15:20] » yes.
>> Leilen,
[15:21] » yes.
>> Item number B, resolution that the
[15:25] agreement received from Origin Design
Debuke, Iowa for professional services,
[15:29] including bridge load ratings on
[clears throat] three bridges in
[15:32] Blackhawk County with a cost of $7,000
be approved and for the chair to sign as
[15:37] recommended by Katherine Nicholas,
county engineer.
[15:40] » So, second,
>> uh, good morning again, Bore. As I told
[15:43] you in email, we do have uh three new
structures that need to be have the load
[15:49] ratings completed by the end of this
calendar year, December 31st, to be in
[15:54] compliance with national bridge
inspection standards and federal highway
[15:57] policies. Uh we
we h we do budget every year to do load
[16:04] ratings on some of our bridges. It's
just an ongoing uh thing we need to do.
[16:09] So, we did uh budget some money in FY27
professional services and this money,
[16:13] the $7,000 would come out of that fund.
Can I answer any questions on this?
[16:18] » Kathy, do you foresee these inspections
leading to reductions in loads on any of
[16:24] these bridges?
>> Uh, not necessarily. The National Bridge
[16:28] Inspection Standards are
[16:33] sometimes just keeping up with
[clears throat] having a load rating for
[16:37] a structure in the file, the electronic
file. And the Iowa DOT and Federal
[16:44] Highway Administration work on complete
perform audits of that system, the
[16:51] system that we use. and they they
completed an audit and found that we did
[16:56] not have proper load ratings on
a particular structure for example and
[17:03] by load ratings that means many
different um legal loads that we have to
[17:10] rate different configurations that we
are rating for. It's just it's not just
[17:14] one rating per structure.
all different load configurations that
[17:18] we need to have the bridge rated for to
be in compliance with uh these
[17:23] standards. So, no, it does not mean
necessarily that something is going to
[17:28] be posted.
>> I I will keep you posted on that if that
[17:33] does happen.
>> Okay. Thank you.
[17:35] » Thank you.
[17:38] » This is a resolution. Please answer as
your name is called.
[17:40] » Schwarz,
>> yes.
[17:42] » Grant,
>> yes.
[17:43] » Hall,
>> yes.
[17:44] » Curtenbach,
>> yes. Leland.
[17:46] » Yes. [clears throat]
>> Item nine, other business. This is a
[17:50] resolution to authorize the county
auditor to dispose of the following
[17:53] records that have met or exceeded their
applicable retention period. election
[17:57] records subject to the six-month and
22-month retention periods, including
[18:02] records from the 6424
primary, the 11524
[18:09] general, the January 28-25 board of
supervisors election to fill vacancy,
[18:15] and the March 4, 2025 Denver and
Gladbrook Ryan schools districts
[18:21] election county auction transfer records
for tax sale acquired. ired properties
[18:28] 1950 to 2011.
Payment invoices from 2020 2021 and 22
[18:35] with pay dates from July 1st, 2020
through June 30, 2022.
[18:41] Accounts payable cash receipts from
fiscal year 14 to fiscal year 17 to
[18:47] accounts payable board lists,
warrant lists, and warrant registers
[18:52] from 1970 to 2012.
board certified copies of minutes and
[18:57] payroll records including employees W2s
as recommended by Karen Shoalter, County
[19:02] [clears throat] Auditor. So moved.
>> Second.
[19:06] » This is a resolution. Please answer as
your name is called and Karen owes me
[19:10] for just reading through that.
[laughter]
[19:13] » That's why she's not here today.
>> It's like payback time.
[19:18] » Thank you.
>> Uh Bran,
[19:20] » yes.
>> Paul,
[19:21] » yes.
>> Curtenbach,
[19:22] » yes.
>> Schwarz,
[19:24] » yes. Leilen.
>> Yes. Item B, resolution that the change
[19:28] order 007 received from Peter's
Construction for the Pinerest renovation
[19:32] project located at 1407 Independence
Avenue in the amount of 227,388
[19:39] be approved and for the chair to sign
for same as recommended by Rory Giving,
[19:43] facilities director.
>> So move second.
[19:47] » Good morning board. Rory Giving,
facilities director. Uh as you
[19:50] mentioned, this is change order seven.
Uh the bulk of this change order uh is
[19:55] for the uh southern entryways of the
building uh that we had spoke on
[20:00] earlier. Um the portion is uh $200,738
uh going towards those entryways. Uh the
[20:11] remaining portions of the change order
uh have to do with uh um some additional
[20:18] attic insulation that we had to uh
place. um due to deterioration over the
[20:25] years and then also it had some of it
had gotten knocked down um as we were
[20:30] installing some new equipment up there.
Uh so we felt it was in our best
[20:33] interest to get that replenished. Um
and then also some additional uh drywall
[20:40] work primarily in the uh clinic area and
that's primarily bulkheads for some
[20:46] additional piping that was put into that
area. Any questions on that? Rory, I was
[20:51] under impression we already approved
some work like this. Is this additional
[20:54] work that from
>> um in change order number five? We did
[20:58] some additional wall uh they uh some
openings uh we did some additional uh
[21:04] cutins for the clinic area. So we had to
do some additional drywall work for
[21:09] that. Um this is actually more for the
bulkheads for the piping, the hydronic
[21:14] system.
>> And there was one for entryways for the
[21:18] stoops and stuff as well. Uh the
entryway that was more of a uh I brought
[21:22] that in front of the board because it
was such a large dollar amount uh before
[21:26] we gave them approval. Uh this is just
to have it formally put in as a change
[21:32] order. Uh so just to get it uh uh
documented under the project. Uh so
[21:38] yeah, we did discuss that one uh pretty
extensively earlier on. I was wondering
[21:43] if that wasn't part of this, but
[clears throat]
[21:45] » it Yeah, it's this is more just a
formality to get it under a change order
[21:49] just to to uh get it locked into the
project.
[21:53] » Okay.
>> Thank you.
[21:56] » Thank you. This is a resolution. Please
answer as your name is called.
[22:00] » Hall,
>> yes.
[22:01] » Curtainbot,
>> yes.
[22:02] » Schwarz,
>> yes.
[22:04] » Grant,
>> yes.
[22:05] » Leilen,
>> yes. [clears throat] Item C, resolution
[22:08] to approve the Blackhawk County Digital
Accessibility Plan, which establishes
[22:12] scope, priorities, and deliverables
necessary to achieve WCAG 2.1 level
[22:18] doubleA compliance by the April 26 27
deadline as recommended by the
[22:24] accessibility team.
>> Yes. Hi, Gabby Det, marketing
[22:28] coordinator, ALU, IT director. Just here
to answer any questions. Um, we're also
[22:33] representing Micah Kibble and Lorie
Wormers are also on our committee. Um,
[22:37] but also we have engaged about 66 staff
members that work on our county website,
[22:45] social media, and procurement that have
already started um, training. This is
[22:50] just kind of a formalized road map of
how we plan to get to that compliance
[22:55] and also just a culture of accessibility
in Blackhawk County. Um, it is a living
[23:00] document. will kind of eb and flow as as
we make progress uh through the
[23:04] checklist that we have. We've been
working with vendor Accessiblau and this
[23:08] has been the plan has been vetted um by
them as well.
[23:19] » Questions, I'm sure.
[23:23] » Yeah, I provided um I provided the plan
in full but also kind of a two-page
[23:29] cheat sheet that um our committee
created just to kind of give the
[23:33] highlights. Yeah.
Yeah. And then I also whenever you want
[23:37] have this really big binder anyone can
read. [laughter]
[23:42] » Make copies for us.
>> Yeah, sure. On your on your on your
[23:45] dime. [laughter]
>> Gabby, with all your research and stuff,
[23:49] do you see where we're going to see
additional costs or significant costs
[23:53] and doing some of this yet?
>> Possibly. Um
[23:57] so first it's the nice thing about the
plan is it kind of creates
[24:04] instead of having a policy it shows kind
our our due diligence and the fact that
[24:08] we're going to this is a process right
so we might not be at compliance by
[24:14] April 2027 but we may have some
recommendations especially going into
[24:18] budget um when it comes to captioning
one of the big things is having captions
[24:23] that are 90% accurate it. Um, we did get
guidance from Accessiblau that that's
[24:29] not necessarily a threshold for live
meetings, but for those uh those
[24:33] recordings that we post and that would
require a person to go sit and go
[24:39] through those captionings, but we might
there might be some type of um
[24:45] subscription or vendor or something that
can help with that. Uh, so that's stuff
[24:49] that is on our list, but yes, there
there could be um we're we are of the
[24:55] mindset and Jeff from Accessiblue is of
the mindset that this is more of a
[25:01] building accessible culture in our in
our workplace versus kind of throwing
[25:06] money at a lot of different vendor
solutions that really are just kind of a
[25:11] band-aid fix and not really a uh systems
fix. So the plan really focuses on
[25:18] fixing forward because it doesn't do any
good to to remediate old documents if
[25:25] you are currently making new documents
that are out of compliance. So um yes
[25:30] there may be some cost but um really the
plan is more about educating and kind of
[25:36] just having that accessibility mindset.
[25:43] » Are we on track to be done by April 27?
No. Um, we won't be done. Um,
[25:48] [clears throat]
we will have some of the biggies and and
[25:51] we will be doing a prioritization so
that like the big things are are tackled
[25:56] by April of 2027, but we have [sighs]
hundreds of PDFs on our website right
[26:01] now. We're working through those to see
which even don't even need to be there.
[26:06] And then then we'll prioritize the ones
that are being hit most often to get
[26:11] them updated first and then work through
the others. So it's a it is a path to
[26:16] compliance and having that plan shows
that we are um doing our we are making
[26:23] that progress and we we have a plan for
completion even if it's not completed by
[26:28] April of 2027.
>> Is there a deadline for that
[26:31] » when that work has to be completed?
>> No that April 26 2027 deadline is the
[26:37] deadline for communities greater than
50,000 and so that is
[26:41] » but that's effectively to have the plan.
Well, that's no, that is the deadline,
[26:45] but the guidance we've gotten from
Accessiblue is that it's going to be
[26:50] very hard for people to be 100%
compliant by that deadline. So, showing
[26:56] how you're getting there is part of that
process. And so, if we were to get a
[27:00] legal claim, I'm looking at you, Mike.
If we were to get a legal claim um about
[27:06] say an old PDF that somebody wanted and
they said that they couldn't access it
[27:12] because it wasn't a remediated document.
We could show our path to prioritization
[27:18] through PDFs and that would be showing
that we are we are in process and if we
[27:24] then provide the document remediated it
should um keep us from having legal
[27:30] problems. That makes sense. Um, so
basically what you're saying is they
[27:36] will, you know, say, "Hey, look, this is
not a uh this is not a compliant
[27:41] document." We'll say, "Well, you know,
under our prioritization, that wasn't
[27:45] considered one that was likely to come
up, but here we'll we'll expedite the
[27:49] review of this and we'll remediate it
now."
[27:52] » Yes, exactly.
>> Just wondering, is there an anticipated
[27:56] date? I know you said there's hundreds
of those PDFs that you would
[28:01] » Well, we're going to try to get as close
to that April deadline as possible. I I
[28:05] suspect um there's quite a few of those
PDFs that we really just don't need to
[28:10] have on our website anymore. So, that
will be the first first thing. And we'll
[28:14] work with departments whose the PDFs are
linked in their area to see which ones
[28:19] we need. Some of those PDFs can be
changed to a like a a web page that
[28:25] makes them compliant. So the goal is to
have as le few PDFs on the website as
[28:31] possible and then start remediating
those.
[28:34] [clears throat]
[28:37] But that's a culture shift because you
know we are a PDF mindset
[28:43] » and we can track every PDF how often
it's been checked or clicked on. We'll
[28:48] have a um a tracking document for all
the PDFs to show like the decision
[28:54] matrix and um what has been decided for
all of those. Yeah.
[28:58] » Okay.
[29:02] » Thank you for all your work on this.
Nice to have a team working on it.
[29:06] » Yes. [laughter]
>> Any other questions?
[29:10] » That's the resolution. Please answer
your name.
[29:12] » I'm sorry. We don't have a resolution
yet.
[29:14] » So moved.
>> Second.
[29:16] » Just jump right in. You catch him.
>> I guess I did. Yes.
[29:21] » I'm so excited about it. [laughter]
[29:24] » Curtainbot,
>> yes.
[29:26] » Schwarz,
>> yes.
[29:28] » Brandt,
>> yes.
[29:29] » Hall,
>> yes.
[29:30] » Leilen,
>> yes. [clears throat]
[29:32] » Thank you.
>> Great. Moving on to item D. This will be
[29:36] a discussion possible board action
concerning proposed animal control
[29:40] ordinance.
>> All right. I'll go ahead and start on
[29:44] this if that's all right. [laughter]
>> Thank you. bit. So, um, as the board and
[29:49] I think others are aware, um, week ago,
Friday,
[29:54] I, uh, pushed out another draft and if
you've been keeping count this, I think
[30:00] you might notice I switched from three
to five. That was because I had an a
[30:04] draft for myself in between. Uh but
anyway, first of all, these are the the
[30:10] kind of highlevel changes and then I'll
get into some of the more detailed
[30:14] aspects in a second here. But uh first
of all, we made it uh title 19 under our
[30:21] uh county court code of ordinances. And
the reason for that is uh while there
[30:25] were a number of titles between the
existing titles that were termed as
[30:32] reserved,
uh technically reserved is supposed to
[30:35] have a meeting meaning. And so the last
title that was listed was 18. So the
[30:40] next logical one is 19. And that kind of
acts as our uh as our you know chapter
[30:48] number so to speak. Now uh on section
19.02
[30:55] uh subsection 19 we have added a
definition for repeat offense. Uh this
[31:03] was in response to u a concern that was
brought up when we last discussed this
[31:08] which is uh what about offenses as they
go on? Can we make them worse? And yes,
[31:14] we are making the penalties worse. But
as a result, we are defining under this
[31:19] uh subsection, we are defining a uh what
a second offense, third offense, etc.
[31:25] are.
Um
[31:29] next, we actually add uh sections or
subsections 19.04, sub6 and sub7, which
[31:38] provide for what our civil penalties
are. Now, a board only has authority to
[31:47] uh to enforce civil penalties or civil
fines against violators.
[31:52] And uh and so what I've done, we have a
maximum penalty under law for a first
[31:59] offense of $750 and a maximum penalty
for subsequent offenses of a,000. And so
[32:05] what I set up here was a was a, you
know, kind of a tiered offense or a
[32:12] tiered uh civil penalty range. I
assigned $500 for the first offense,
[32:19] $750 for the second and 1,000 for
subsequent offenses. I would hope we
[32:24] would not be getting into fourth and
fifth and beyond that, but uh 1,000 is
[32:29] the most we can charge. Uh in addition
to uh those penalties, violators would
[32:37] be responsible for animal related costs
as are uh deter indicated under section
[32:46] 19.05
subsection 9. And so that is mentioned
[32:52] in 1904
subsection 9.
[32:57] Um, [clears throat]
but it uh
[33:03] it is it is stated again, this gets
confusing because they're both
[33:05] subsection 9, but it is actually uh
they're actually laid out as to uh what
[33:11] those costs are in 19.05 sub9.
Um,
[33:19] moving on.
>> I have a question before we move on. Do
[33:21] we need to have three tiers or is that
was just a
[33:25] » that we don't need to. We could have two
tiers if we wanted. We could have 500 to
[33:29] a,000. We could have 750 to a,000. Uh,
it's okay to have 750 as a first level.
[33:35] Um, I thought three tiers made sense.
Uh, that was simply why I put that in
[33:41] there, but the board can decide
otherwise.
[33:43] » Okay. I was just thinking I kind of like
the I hate to say it, three strikes,
[33:46] you're out, but if kind of like you've
had a dog bite another dog twice, I
[33:49] guess I don't want to wait for the third
time.
[33:51] » Yeah.
>> Half a person or either one. I just kind
[33:54] of thought you've been warned. you've
had an offense and a charge and now
[33:58] we've escalated that charge or fee and
that we're done with it at that point.
[34:03] But
>> that is certainly doable provided that
[34:06] the board understands that
>> first offense cannot be higher than 750
[34:11] and subsequent offenses cannot be higher
than a,000. So you could make that
[34:16] second offense a th000 if you want
regardless of what you make the first
[34:20] offense. So, are you thinking just
scrapping that that $500 initial
[34:25] offense,
go straight to 750?
[34:28] » Well, that'd be fine with me. I really
didn't care. But I just thought, yeah, I
[34:32] like it both. I like the escalating side
of it that it goes up high enough that
[34:35] it's like, okay, should have got your
attention, but it didn't. But
[34:41] » I don't know. I
>> I think 500 I'm good with. I like that.
[34:46] Sometimes things happen that you can't
control. And then after that it it's
[34:51] reckless or habitual or and then it I
think it's more deserving of a stiffer
[34:57] fine
>> rather than just jumping straight to
[35:00] 750.
>> So a five and a thousand kind of a one
[35:04] and two.
>> Yes. kind of what I was thinking as
[35:06] well, knowing since having dogs when I
was growing up, there was always those
[35:11] situations that could be a surprise,
but making sure it doesn't happen again
[35:18] the second time's
>> Yeah.
[35:23] So maybe look at 500 for the first,000
for the second. That's kind of what I'm
[35:28] hearing. And of course this can be
changed when we're ready to tee this up
[35:32] for
>> for publication eventually.
[35:36] » Thank you.
>> Um
[35:38] so again um uh 19.05
subsection 9
[35:46] uh defines what animal related costs
are.
[35:52] And I'll just go ahead and read from
this. Animal related costs incurred as a
[35:58] result of violation of this title,
including costs of empoundment,
[36:01] boarding, veterinary examination or
treatment, vaccination, transportation,
[36:07] medication, and other necessary animal
care [clears throat]
[36:11] shall be the responsibility of the
person found to have committed the
[36:15] violation in addition to any civil
penalty, court costs, and other costs or
[36:20] relief authorized by law. Basically,
what this does is it sets out that, you
[36:25] know, if we got to take care of an
animal that's been impounded,
[36:29] um, those costs are going to be added to
the system. [cough]
[36:34] [clears throat] Um, and that is I I'm
believe that was where we wanted to go
[36:39] on that. So, that makes sense. Now, um
this we had talked last time about
[36:48] authorizing uh the county without a
court order in certain instances
[36:55] to order the uh destruction of an
animal.
[37:00] And
this has been set up in here and I will
[37:08] first of all it's in uh 19.05 5 and it
begins uh with
[37:15] subsection 10.
Um I had an in indention error there but
[37:22] that uh that's easily fixed. Uh
subsection 10 sets up an animal
[37:28] disposition review committee. And that
is because [snorts]
[37:33] uh later on if you look specifically at
subsection 12 it states uh before an
[37:41] animal is euthanized and that's
subsection 11 sets forth that
[37:47] um except as provided in subsection 13
which deals with emergency euthanasia of
[37:54] an animal. Um, the animal disposition
review committee shall review the
[38:00] circumstances and make the final county
disposition decision whether euthanasia
[38:07] is authorized.
And subsection 13 talks about an
[38:11] emergency situation where it's got to be
decided more quickly or in an e
[38:16] circumstance.
Subsection 14
[38:20] uh talks about what the committee can
consider.
[38:24] Subsection 15 requires that their
determination be in writing. And
[38:29] subsection 16 is a bit of a savings
clause which says that nothing uh shall
[38:34] be construed to authorize disposition of
an animal in a manner or in a
[38:40] circumstance prohibited by state law.
Now, as I want to back up here to
[38:48] subsection 10, which designates people
to be involved on this committee. Um, as
[38:54] the board is aware, there's been some
correspondence with the director of
[38:57] public health, uh, who has some concerns
with being involved in that capacity.
[39:04] This
leaves, you know, kind of an opening
[39:08] since I think ideally you want three or
five on this. Um, odd numbers are nice
[39:14] on these. And uh so I do think that this
certainly isn't a required duty of the
[39:23] director of health. So I absent uh the
[clears throat] board of health imposing
[39:27] that duty upon her, it can't be imposed
by this board. Um but not only uh but
[39:34] for that reason, I I'm sensitive to
those concerns. Um, I don't think
[39:39] there's anything that prevents her from
doing it, but at the same time, if uh if
[39:43] there's concerns on their end with that
on on public health's end, I think we
[39:48] should be sensitive to that. And so, we
should come up with somebody else and we
[39:52] can talk about this in a little bit if
you want or the board can think about it
[39:56] and come back in our next discussion.
Um, we've got the sheriff on here. We've
[40:01] got the board of supervisors chair on
here. In either circumstance, that
[40:05] individual can designate someone else. I
[clears throat] am curious what the
[40:09] sheriff thinks about it. I uh this is a
a law enforcement matter, so I think it
[40:15] makes sense to have somebody uh from the
sheriff's office on here.
[40:19] » My only concern, I actually had a note
on that is if that's making kind of
[40:22] making it's going to be my deputies
doing this, does it kind of make me
[40:26] judge, jury, and executioner on it?
>> It
[40:31] can. Um there is an appeal process
however unless you're in an emergency
[40:37] situation.
So it can uh but at the same time the
[40:42] the nice thing about having a committee
and and so it doesn't require that you
[40:46] be that individual. The nice thing about
having a committee is there's a an
[40:50] opportunity for discussion and for
different viewpoints to be heard.
[40:54] » I'm fine being on I just kind of wanted
to make sure from a legal standpoint.
[40:59] Well, it's, you know, we're we're doing
this all within the uh likely within
[41:05] county government unless we want to set
up where we have to designate a
[41:08] committee that includes people outside
of government. And I think it gets very
[41:12] complicated at that point because
number one, um you want to have this
[41:18] committee be standing so that they can
consider things on short notice. Uh
[41:23] having somebody outside of government
means we would have to appoint that
[41:26] committee. We would have to update that
committee every year, every couple of
[41:30] years, or however, you know, it's just
one more committee we have to staff.
[41:34] Yes.
>> Can we have two board members?
[41:39] » I I don't see anything that would
prevent that. So, we could have two
[41:42] board members.
>> I just think with the peeling board,
[41:45] too, like what if it's our ordinance,
why not just put it on our shoulders?
[41:49] » And you can.
>> That just makes I'm with Caitlyn. She's
[41:53] got enough on her plate and her team
does anyway. like they don't need
[41:56] anything else extra.
>> Well, and I am not asking that this
[41:59] remain that she remain on.
>> I know. I know.
[42:02] » That's the same page I'm on. I like the
idea of just having us be the appeal
[42:06] board and I think two members from the
board supervisors on that review
[42:11] committee takes care of it.
>> Let me uh think about that a little more
[42:17] just in case I have anything come up
before our next discussion, but off the
[42:20] top of my head, I don't see any problem
with that. And so uh two would be the
[42:25] limit though unless you want to convene
a meeting of the board of supervisors
[42:29] every time. So
um we can decide too whether we want
[42:36] those two to be designated say at the
beginning of the year when we have our
[42:41] organizational meeting. I think that
probably makes the most sense.
[42:44] Otherwise, you would have to designate
at the time of the uh of the violation
[42:51] or of the you know uh calling to
[snorts]
[42:55] to meet the uh animal disposition review
committee. So I I think it probably
[43:01] makes sense to designate the chair and
somebody else or two somebody else's on
[43:06] the board uh to to serve on this
committee maybe at the beginning of each
[43:11] year when we have the organizational
meeting.
[43:14] Um, moving right along.
Um,
[43:21] » sorry, Mike. When when a complaint does
come and and
[43:27] » will you or someone from legal
be in those meetings?
[43:33] » I certainly can.
>> I certainly can. And I
[43:36] » I guess that would that would so
>> or a member
[43:39] » or a member of the committee which would
probably I think be the
[43:42] » well and and technically I could be a
member of the committee. I think it
[43:46] » is probably better for me to be there to
advise the committee
[43:50] » and have the committee be other people
but
[43:53] » but tech to answer your question it
could be
[43:57] » put up that way.
>> Yeah. I think from a legal standpoint,
[44:00] we'd want that.
>> Now, the uh the other change I made was
[44:05] I just eliminated the policy concerns
that I previously had listed at the end
[44:10] because I think we fleshed through those
pretty well last meeting. Um if anybody
[44:14] has any concerns about any of those,
feel free to refer back to draft three
[44:20] or or ask me for it. I can provide that
if you wanted to review those again. But
[44:24] we did have an additional concern arise
uh yesterday also uh from public health
[44:31] that I did not uh I did not address at
this time because I was not aware of it
[44:38] uh until then. And that is the the right
to appeal. Now, and this is kind of
[44:43] where uh Sheriff Nef's comment about
judge, jury, and executioner here uh
[44:49] comes into play because ultimately the
sheriff is the first avenue of appeal of
[44:55] any decision that is made to site for a
violation that could be made by you know
[45:01] law enforcement officer in this case.
But
[45:06] then uh there can be an appeal to it. It
was set to an additional appeal board.
[45:13] Now we had set that up initially or I
had set that up initially as the board
[45:18] of health. Um there are some concerns
that have been raised about the board of
[45:23] health serving in that capacity and it
is not a specified duty of the board of
[45:28] health under chapter 137 of the Iowa
code. Uh it also is not a prohibited
[45:34] role at the board of health because the
board of health is a an independent
[45:38] board or an autonomous board. Uh while
they are appointed by the board of
[45:42] supervisors, they don't take their
marching orders from the board of
[45:45] supervisors. So they would have to
approve that role. Uh but it's been
[45:49] suggested that they perhaps should not
serve uh that role. So now we we need to
[45:55] have some kind or we could have some
kind of a role for an appeal board
[46:00] unless we decided that once the sheriff
decides they can go to court. Uh that
[46:06] would be the other option. It's not to
have an appeal board on here as I had
[46:09] initially set up. Now that appeal board
could be potentially the board of
[46:14] supervisors.
Uh it could be some other board that the
[46:19] board sets up um that may or may not
include one or more supervisors.
[46:25] Um it I don't I can't think of another
board that it would logically
[46:32] that would logically serve as [cough]
capacity, you know, like VA commission
[46:37] or conservation or civil service. I
didn't think they as logically fit into
[46:42] that and we would have some of the same
potential concerns raised as to well
[46:48] these are not under our uh they're not
statutoily specified duties of those
[46:54] boards then the boards would have to
approve that but you know that would be
[46:58] a possibility though to use one of those
other boards. I had mentioned in my last
[47:03] email to the board last evening and I
realized this is pretty late in the
[47:07] game. I think it was five or so last
night. Uh but I mentioned the
[47:11] possibility of the board of supervisors
serving in this capacity. I don't see
[47:14] any legal impediment to that. Uh but the
board
[47:19] to decide on this issue, I think you
have to decide two things. Number one,
[47:24] you have to you have to want that board
to begin with. And I think it makes
[47:28] sense to have it uh because it it might
eliminate unnecessary
[47:35] court involvement of the county on these
issues. Uh but number two, you have to
[47:41] decide who you want on it. And so that
is another change that I think needs to
[47:47] be made. Um I don't I think there was
you know it was a valid concern that was
[47:52] raised concerning the board of health
and for that reason and while again
[47:57] they're not legally prohibited from
doing this in my opinion I uh I'm
[48:01] sensitive to their concerns and I I
think the board should be as well
[48:05] especially since they'll have to approve
that role themselves. So I think it
[48:10] probably makes sense to designate a
different appeal board. That's the one
[48:14] I'm us.
>> What's that?
[48:17] » Like that's where I was referring to us.
We are the appeal board.
[48:19] » Yeah. You ask.
>> I mean it not us I think us not being it
[48:23] is a cowardous way to put another group
of people in front of us
[48:28] » out of fear we might not get votes.
>> You know what I mean? Like over upset
[48:32] some people. Uh we're going to find
they're going to appeal their case.
[48:36] They're going to come to us and then
we're going to find them guilty. We come
[48:39] up with the ordinance. We adopt it. we
get to be responsible for the appeals. I
[48:44] think
>> that's the simplest way to get through
[48:47] this.
>> That's certainly one way to do it. If we
[48:49] do it, it makes uh makes my job easier
cuz it's a it's a simple replacement in
[48:55] the document. Um I just want, you know,
it's got to be a board decision.
[49:01] » I'm comfortable with with us as the
appeal board. I think if we do that, it
[49:06] probably makes most sense for us to not
have two supervisors on that initial
[49:10] board. Otherwise,
>> that's where it's going.
[49:12] » Once that decisions made, you're
effectively
[49:16] » if there's a euthanasia decision.
>> Correct.
[49:19] » Yeah.
Do you think this would be a
[49:22] conversation that we could have with
Cedar Bend, who we already have a
[49:25] contract with for animal control to see
I understand your hesitance for an out a
[49:33] non-county government uh person on that
board, but we do have a relationship
[49:38] with an entity that does provide some of
the services to these animals. Um that
[49:46] would
likely prevent
[49:50] it would probably be the full scope I
would suspect
[49:55] » of input in whatever deliberation that
is
[49:58] » and maybe what we could do is you make
the
[50:02] you know the president or the executive
or how however that person is titled I
[50:08] don't remember off the top of my head um
be one of those people and then put it
[50:12] as a condition or put it as part of our
contract with them. One of my concerns
[50:17] that I have with setting up a committee
that involves volunteer members is that
[50:23] well, first of all, if we decide that
we're going to assemble that committee
[50:26] only at the time that we realize we need
that committee, well then are we going
[50:31] to be able to assemble that committee
quickly enough? That's one concern.
[50:36] Secondly, if we have, you know, if we
designate that committee right away, we
[50:42] get our volunteers and everything, well,
we may go hopefully years without having
[50:47] to worry about this. I like to think
that anyway.
[50:51] » Yeah. But if we get all of a sudden to a
point where, you know, six, 10, whatever
[50:56] years down the road, we realize, oh,
we've got to do this and we somehow that
[51:02] committee was not actively,
for lack of a better term, maintained
[51:08] [laughter] by the board over the years,
and this happens sometimes where we have
[51:11] committees kind of fall dormant because
of [clears throat]
[51:14] uh because of lack of activity.
then trying to assemble that committee
[51:20] could be difficult on the spot there.
So, it makes sense to do what you're
[51:26] saying where you say, "Okay, well,
whatever our contract organization that
[51:31] that organization's director or the
director's design would serve on that
[51:36] committee along with the sheriff and one
member of the board of supervisors,
[51:40] chair of the board of supervisors." Does
that make sense?
[51:43] » Hey, I think we're making progress here.
>> I don't think we're going to get any
[51:46] volunteers. for this [laughter] car. Uh,
this this isn't a fun one.
[51:51] » It would probably be a very thankless
job. Be a depressing circumstance, I'm
[51:56] sure.
>> Everybody's head is down. It's like
[51:59] church and the plates's coming around.
>> Yeah. No, nobody [laughter] likes nobody
[52:03] likes to think about this. I mean, most
people [clears throat] have a pet or
[52:06] have had one at some point
>> until it's their pet that was attacked.
[52:10] » Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, it's a uh So, it seems like
[52:15] let me uh let me work up some language.
And is it how does the rest of the board
[52:21] feel about Supervisor Hall's suggestion
here?
[52:27] Instead of two supervisors and the
sheriff, do one one supervisor be
[52:33] designated as the chair designate and
then uh and then the director of our
[52:39] contract animal care organization
and the sheriff who would be on here. Of
[52:47] course, that assumes we've got a
contract in place.
[52:49] » Got it.
>> Yeah,
[52:51] » I think that that works.
>> Yeah.
[52:53] » Okay.
>> And you've got your three that way, too.
[52:55] » Yeah.
Well, that's that is good progress then.
[53:00] » All right. So, if I understand u my
marching orders at this point correctly
[53:06] and this is not a lengthy change to have
to make and document [snorts] it can be
[53:11] done fairly efficiently and I should be
able to have something back to you by
[53:16] tomorrow sometime. Then what I will do
is I will make it um [snorts]
[53:22] uh the
board chair of the board of supervisors
[53:27] or designate the sheriff or designate
and then instead of the health director
[53:33] we would do director
of the contract animal and I'll look up
[53:41] the correct terms for this. We're
talking about Cedar Ben.
[53:44] » Cedar Ben. Yeah, that's
>> We should probably reach out to Cedar
[53:47] Ben.
>> Oh, I thought about them looking at this
[53:49] anyway before we
>> Yeah.
[53:50] » went too far, too. Just
>> and and I was going to say we may want
[53:53] to run the whole word and inspire them
to see what concerns they have as well.
[53:57] So, yeah.
>> So, that for first that'll be 19.05
[54:04] subsection 10. And then as far as
um 19.14
[54:11] which deals with appeals
um I'll change the
[54:17] the final county appeal board to be the
board of supervisors
[54:25] and we'll go from there. So would they
bring that appeal to the board office
[54:31] and for filing?
>> Um
[54:36] yes they would have to I think and I
will I will go ahead and right now it
[54:41] says under 19.14
sub 10 [snorts] it says the appeal to
[54:47] the board of health shall be in writing
and shall identify the sheriff's
[54:51] decision being appealed in the grounds
for the appeal. So what I could do there
[54:56] is well obviously we change health to
supervisors [clears throat]
[55:01] but we could also uh maybe specify that
the it has to be delivered in writing to
[55:08] the board of supervisors office at
>> okay
[55:22] » Dan I was going to say you had
opportunity to read through and and um
[55:26] were there anything questions you might
have or [snorts]
[55:31] » the only thing I would say is there has
not been any policy in the county for
[55:36] dangerous dogs.
So, I know the sheriff or the deputies
[55:42] investigate all these claims and that's
where some of the frustration came is
[55:46] they've got owners that tell them well
you can't do anything basically because
[55:51] it's county.
I think if the deputies when they
[55:57] investigate these stock owners that
haven't been responsible with the test,
[56:02] let them know there's new ordinance, you
might want to check it out,
[56:07] future problems. And I think that might
get the word out which makes things
[56:12] everybody's job a little easier
less responses less in
[56:19] » and in addition to that perhaps
[clears throat] if we can advise them
[56:23] they can also enforce certain state
statutes too which do make some of these
[56:28] I believe actual crimes. I'd have to go
look back at those. But yeah,
[56:33] so they do, you know, sheriff's deputies
have that authority as law enforcement
[56:38] officers as well. In the event that
there is
[56:44] there's documented issues with a
particular dog, right?
[56:51] Will they if we go 500 and a,000 if
that's the scale? If we've already got
[56:57] that documentation,
we're still that there's still that
[57:02] first once this is passed
now it's enforced. It's it's not
[57:08] retroactive or is it?
>> It is not retroactive. You can't do
[57:13] that. Um but and I I apologize for not
mentioning the first offense subsequent
[57:19] offense change as well. I'll make that
change as well to it. We won't have a a
[57:25] separate section for a uh
>> be wrong, but I was thinking you
[57:30] couldn't go to a thousand until a third
offense. I might be wrong.
[57:33] » I will triple check that. I believe that
you could do as a second offense, but if
[57:39] [snorts] not,
>> um I will leave it the way it is set up
[57:43] and I'll explain it to the board when I
when I send out the new draft.
[57:47] » Thank you for that though.
So Mike is a new ordinance then do we
[57:53] have timelines [snorts] in between that
we I think it's three readings we have
[57:57] to go through. Is there a timeline that
we have to wait for each reading?
[58:00] » There is I had meant to be have that all
specified out in front of you today. I
[58:06] do not have that information off the top
of my head but I'll get that in the
[58:10] email as well.
>> I I was understanding it couldn't be
[58:13] three weeks in a row. It had to be there
some timeline between
[58:16] » Yeah. I'm I'm going to double check
that. I can't answer that off the top of
[58:20] my head, but I will get you that answer.
>> Okay.
[58:26] » So, then we maybe want to have something
on next week's agenda you're thinking
[58:30] for setting that hearing process.
>> Yep.
[58:36] [clears throat]
>> All right. Anything else on that?
[58:39] » Outstanding work, Mike. Thank you.
>> Y we're we're moving in the right
[58:42] direction and thank you for
>> uh I got one for a question for Sheriff
[58:45] Nef. Yep. As far as you know, since the
last two and a half months we've been
[58:50] working on this, have there been any
similar complaints out there in the
[58:54] county about dogs biting people that
you're aware of? I know of one
[59:00] individual that didn't come through my
office, just through personally where uh
[59:03] his dog got a hold of the the mail
delivery person and uh he ended up
[59:09] paying for the vet bills and stuff
outside of that. But as far as calls
[59:12] coming in, I'm not familiar with any.
>> Okay. So then
[59:19] » it's not a big thing that we do. I mean
we get complaints on dogs. the dog
[59:23] attacks aren't the dogs running loose in
the county are. Um, and yeah, as said,
[59:28] we get called out and we say, "Sorry,
there's no ordinance for your dog
[59:32] running loose. I'm le and until that dog
starts getting into the chickens or
[59:37] whatever else, which this will that
>> I'm just wondering how quickly we can
[59:41] get this adopted and then can we make
amendments to it if it just doesn't
[59:45] cover everything later? How difficult is
that to make any changes to it?" So, the
[59:50] I'm going to get you the the passage
process and I'll let you know if there
[59:54] are any shortcuts that you can employ. I
believe there are ways to wave the
[59:58] second, third readings on that or to
only have one reading or only have two
[1:00:02] readings. Um, but I'll try and specify
all of that for you. Uh, number two,
[1:00:07] when you pass an amendment to an
ordinance, it has to pass via the same
[1:00:11] procedure that you pass an ordinance.
So, it's it's like passing the ordinance
[1:00:16] all over again.
>> Okay? and and that's that's not a
[1:00:20] terribly ownorous process, but it's
because when you change the law, you're
[1:00:23] effectively creating a new law
>> and it helps with getting word out the
[1:00:28] more times you have it
>> it's read. [clears throat]
[1:00:32] » I I thought initially it was my gut that
this one was maybe one you want to go
[1:00:38] through the three readings on, but
that's that ultimately is up to the
[1:00:42] board.
>> Can you can do two though? You could
[1:00:44] wave one of the
>> Yep. can still do
[1:00:46] » I believe so and I'll I'll specify that.
>> Okay.
[1:00:52] » Thanks. Great.
>> You bet.
[1:00:53] » Thanks very much.
>> You bet.
[1:00:54] » That was a lot more extensive than what
we thought initially how easy to do
[1:00:58] this. So,
>> it's kind of amazing all the things that
[1:01:02] come up when you start digging in on
something like this. So, yeah. All
[1:01:07] right. Well, let me know if there are
any other questions. You know how to get
[1:01:09] a hold of me. And and my one thing to
point out though is for like the
[1:01:13] mistreatment cases and stuff those are
still going straight to me outside the
[1:01:17] scope of this ordinance like you know
he's correct there's no dangerous dog
[1:01:21] it's pretty limited but in terms of the
mistreatment parts that's coming to us
[1:01:25] anyway and the forfeite [clears throat]
of animals also coming to us so outside
[1:01:29] the scope of this.
>> Yep. So there there's still crimes under
[1:01:33] state law and otherwise. So yeah or at
least under state law. And Nate, this do
[1:01:37] you feel this answers the questions for
your department? I guess since they were
[1:01:40] the ones always called and [snorts]
>> Oh, yeah. This definitely this
[1:01:43] » clears it up far more than than in more
detail than what I was expecting, but it
[1:01:48] definitely helps it out. And kind of to
Brian's point, too, we've got uh one now
[1:01:51] where we've got we did an investigation
on a animal euthanized and suspicious
[1:01:57] terms anyway, and he's got his office
has that. So yeah, there's a lot of the
[1:02:01] criminal stuff that we still look at in
that realm, but uh but this will clear
[1:02:06] up a lot of the more than I can most of
the smaller stuff, but uh and obviously
[1:02:10] once we get into euthanization stuff,
obviously there is bigger things at hand
[1:02:13] there, too. So thank you.
[1:02:18] » All right.
All right. Moving on to item 9E,
[1:02:23] discussion and possible board action on
additional budget authorization policy.
[1:02:29] Shall we
Yeah, I wasn't sure we'd get to this
[1:02:34] part. I didn't know if you were going to
do a power, not a PowerPoint, but I had
[1:02:37] them on
>> screen or not.
[1:02:42] » And [clears throat] if you give me just
a second here to get organized.
[1:02:57] I've now taken the um just briefly I've
taken the conversations we've had and
[1:03:03] created
a document that would work more as a
[1:03:08] policy
based on what we keep talking about. So
[1:03:17] [snorts]
[1:03:23] wild this way.
[1:03:38] Okay, Elf, you want to hit the button
for us? That would be nice.
[1:03:48] So, I've tried to address different
reasons that a department might be
[1:03:55] requesting a budget amendment. You've
got one-time use of carryover. Now,
[1:04:02] there are two ways to look at that.
There are some issues that a department
[1:04:08] for whatever reason didn't get budget
that was allocated to them in a prior
[1:04:12] year. They didn't get it use it. So
there's that request. But there's also a
[1:04:19] way just to request to use
reserves basically. And this really only
[1:04:25] applies to
the general fund departments. Other
[1:04:29] departments are already free to use
their restricted fund balance, right?
[1:04:35] So, this would allow the board to
allow departments to request to use
[1:04:43] reserves and it's really intended to be
more for something unexpected that comes
[1:04:49] up during the year that they
might want to do. Trying to just draw
[1:04:55] some
guidelines around it. I tried to suggest
[1:05:00] we might just
you might just want to limit that to
[1:05:04] whatever that unassigned fund balance
grew. And I'm kind of saying two years
[1:05:11] prior because I I think it needs to be
the audited numbers. Like for example,
[1:05:14] for now, [clears throat] I really
[snorts] don't have final numbers yet
[1:05:17] for fiscal 26. We're just we're still
paying bills that go back to 26. You see
[1:05:22] those on the bill payment list every
week. we we've not recorded, you know,
[1:05:27] some of the entries that are going to
change our fund balance. So, I think it
[1:05:32] works better just to use the mo
basically the most recent audited fund
[1:05:36] balance that people could request it
for.
[1:05:40] » Now, those are the SP you're talking
about the special not the carryovers,
[1:05:43] but the that would be more of a special
request. Well, I personally
[1:05:48] would probably want you to review it
based in the context for both of those
[1:05:53] because, you know, we are it's hard to
imagine it right now because we are in
[1:05:59] such a different position. But if you if
the board were in a position where
[1:06:05] maybe fund balance is too low for
whatever reason, however we get there,
[1:06:10] you I think you might want the ability
to say, you know, we we appreciate there
[1:06:16] was a reason you didn't get it done, but
because you didn't, we now don't think
[1:06:20] it's possible at this time or advisable
at this time. Um, I just trying to give
[1:06:26] you the most, you know, the most
flexibility.
[1:06:32] » Go ahead.
>> Just thinking through this if it's the
[1:06:35] last, so be going after off of FY25
right now.
[1:06:42] » Could we It would probably still make
sense to also look at FY26 even if we're
[1:06:48] talking about 25, but just to make sure
if it was x amount from 25 but there was
[1:06:56] also
never mind
[1:07:00] » I would like to do that I can't figure
out how to give you something that's
[1:07:04] meaningful
>> I mean I can give you you know what
[1:07:07] we're done through today but then
>> in December you're all going to look at
[1:07:10] me and go
>> sure
[1:07:11] » what these numbers don't relate to each
other because sometimes they don't we
[1:07:15] make you know there's some large
adjustments that get made through this
[1:07:20] process so that's that was my
frustration with how to do that and not
[1:07:25] have it [clears throat] be such an old
number.
[1:07:27] » Michelle, was there a timeline you'd see
this being used more than another then?
[1:07:31] I mean, we had the one in July. It was
right after and actually one came up in
[1:07:36] June, but when is there a timeline that
should be placed on this as well?
[1:07:42] » Well, I did not. I was trying to be
flexible. I mean, for one thing, I would
[1:07:47] prefer
that instead of like some of those that
[1:07:53] it would be for something unexpected. So
then I would think you're you may not
[1:07:57] know what that is yet. So I don't I
don't want to corral into, you know, by
[1:08:03] July you're going to decide how much
you're giving out and give it all away.
[1:08:07] On the other hand, departments
[clears throat] do need time
[1:08:10] to execute whatever,
you know, requests they have. So it's I
[1:08:17] I did not draw boundaries around that
because it
[1:08:21] » I guess [clears throat] it's maybe
unanticipated and
[1:08:25] » I'm trying to think of the situations
where you got five I mean you've got
[1:08:29] your fiveyear plans and some of those
kinds of things in place. So you
[1:08:33] planning accordingly that way. Obviously
those are fluid so they could change.
[1:08:37] But if you budgeted for something, I
guess in in this the current year,
[1:08:42] » and you um weren't able to get that
expended for whatever reason, vendor or
[1:08:47] something with your schedule or steel
didn't come in or whatever that kind of
[1:08:51] thing is,
>> that makes sense to me that those kind
[1:08:55] of carryovers would just be something
you'd take a look at. Same as a budget
[1:08:59] amendment, but you'd look at those. the
the new items though, I'm struggling
[1:09:06] with what those would be because they'd
be in your plans or why they weren't in
[1:09:10] your [clears throat] why they weren't in
this [snorts] budget year or why you're
[1:09:12] not waiting till the next budget year.
>> Well, the biggest reason I don't like
[1:09:17] that is I don't want to penalize the
people who are doing what they told you
[1:09:22] they would do. So, we have departments
that spent their budgets on what they
[1:09:29] told you they would spend it on. So
maybe they don't have much carryover,
[1:09:32] but if you're not going to allow them to
request carryover for some different
[1:09:36] initiative and that the whole point is
we don't know what those are. Things
[1:09:40] happen, things break,
>> somebody decides not to support
[1:09:45] software. I mean, just things happen
that we didn't foresee when we did that
[1:09:50] planning ahead of time. So, I I want
people to be able to, you know, to
[1:09:56] request those dollars even though they
did complete their budgets as expected.
[1:10:01] But, haven't we done that with budget
amendments? Typically,
[1:10:05] » um sometimes
[1:10:09] you have because I mean like emergencies
and things like that, we always have to
[1:10:13] do them anyway. I mean,
>> correct. We have never been in a
[1:10:17] position where
>> we couldn't I I guess that's just my
[1:10:19] whole thing of trying to figure out what
types of things you're really
[1:10:22] [clears throat] kind of expanding
[snorts]
[1:10:24] ideas for additional
>> not within you know budget requests.
[1:10:29] » Yeah. I mean the probably the most
obvious one is all the strategic
[1:10:33] planning dollars honestly that we've
that we've spent.
[1:10:39] Oh, on the consultant or
>> Yeah. And the trainings and just all the
[1:10:45] different there's quite there's been
quite a few things and you know we
[1:10:49] wouldn't I don't think we want to forego
that opportunity
[1:10:52] just because we we didn't really know
when we set the budget exactly
[1:10:59] what we wanted to do with that later.
Mhm.
[1:11:01] » So I I and [clears throat] I know that's
a little bit different because that's a
[1:11:04] board activity, but it's just kind of an
obvious example to me of something that
[1:11:08] we've been doing the last couple of
years. I'm sure there are others if I
[1:11:12] think about it for a minute, but
>> Well, I that's what I was trying
[1:11:16] projects and [clears throat] didn't
think of actually projects or how we
[1:11:18] were using [snorts] that, but planning
being very different for us the last
[1:11:22] couple years period. But
>> Right. Yeah. Sure.
[1:11:30] I know
[1:11:34] » none of this is, you know, a guaranteed.
So no matter what people request it for,
[1:11:40] » it it still lies with the board to
choose whether you think now is the
[1:11:45] right time or not
>> or not. Yeah.
[1:11:48] » Yeah. So
if there was that opportunity to our to
[1:11:53] people currently and they thought, "Oh,
here's this great opportunity
[1:11:58] and so they bring it to the board." They
have to bring it to the board anyway.
[1:12:01] » Yep.
>> We make the same decision on whether or
[1:12:03] not we think we should do it, not do it,
use reserves, whatever.
[1:12:08] » Going to say today, I feel like we don't
really talk about the budget
[1:12:11] [clears throat] or the source of funding
when sometimes when people bring those
[1:12:15] things. So this would also kind of
formalize that we do need to talk about
[1:12:19] how we're going to pay for something
when it
[1:12:23] » other than strategic planning. Have we
had some that come to mind that that
[1:12:27] we've been doing that without being
budgeted or I mean for the most part I
[1:12:33] mean there's sometimes going to be maybe
something that was over budget.
[1:12:36] » Right.
>> Right. That's the thing.
[1:12:38] » Yeah. There are there are those are
pretty minor.
[1:12:42] » Yeah. There are things that
[clears throat] happen that come up.
[1:12:45] Yeah. Um, so the board but the board
still does the approval of I mean like
[1:12:50] like you said the mics when we did that
we really kind of should have looked at
[1:12:55] where we were with reserves and we knew
we had some reserves there so we haven't
[1:12:59] maybe like scrutinized it to that end to
>> or I just thought it would say sorry we
[1:13:04] can't do it this year
>> right and especially for capital items
[1:13:08] we have
some other sources of funding besides
[1:13:13] general reserves that looked at. You
know, we we've approved transfers to
[1:13:18] fund 351
or equipment primarily,
[1:13:22] but sometimes
the equipment comes in at a different
[1:13:26] cost, right? So, there are there are
some other pools of money that can be
[1:13:32] looked at, particularly more for capital
items than for what I'm going to call
[1:13:37] programming, I guess, for lack of a
better term.
[1:13:40] So rather than
[clears throat] I know we don't know
[1:13:44] where reserves are going to be or where
caps are going to be and that type of
[1:13:47] thing. So we've kind of planned
accordingly for that.
[1:13:52] But the spendown type of is kind of what
we're allowing people to come up with
[1:13:57] things other than a budget cycle to say
hey what about this and not just like
[1:14:00] things that we think are going to be
making improvements to what we're doing
[1:14:05] and that type of thing. And honestly,
sometimes
[1:14:08] this is where it's it's a difficult
process. Sometimes a department will
[1:14:12] have something like that that's new and
they know they didn't really budget for
[1:14:15] it last year, so they want to come do
something new,
[1:14:19] » but it turns out for whatever reason
they've still underspent their budget.
[1:14:23] If you wait till the end of the year,
they still may not use their whole
[1:14:27] budget. So it's
[sighs] yeah it's
[1:14:32] it's a it's not an easy thing to decide
when
[1:14:37] » if I remember correctly this room that
>> this that's my strategic plan.
[1:14:42] [clears throat]
>> Yeah. Well but but Gabby didn't use all
[1:14:46] of her budget if I if I'm remembering
correctly. I could be misremembering but
[1:14:50] » no I believe you're correct
>> for some things there I do wonder if
[1:14:54] there's
>> is there any merit to capping the expend
[1:14:59] capping the request the dollar amount
request
[1:15:04] » let me
>> this is Chris I was just going to say
[1:15:08] you know the key thing I'm thinking
about here is just the flexibility that
[1:15:15] um future boards are going to need in
the coming years as uh the dynamics are
[1:15:22] going to rapidly change um with with
these new state codes and it's going to
[1:15:28] compound every year. And so I think that
it's I mean it's good to consider, you
[1:15:33] know, and look at, you know, what has
come up in the past and whatever, but I
[1:15:37] think for me I'm more thinking about
just giving as many tools in the tool
[1:15:42] box um so that the county can weather
the storm that the state has created
[1:15:47] that's going to be impacting local
governments all across the state.
[1:15:57] I think that's kind of what we're all
probably thinking a little [laughter]
[1:15:59] bit
>> and we're in a
[1:16:04] » probably
minority position of other entities
[1:16:09] across the [clears throat] state and
that we're we do have significant
[1:16:14] reserves that we need to commit um and
get spent down. We've
[1:16:23] I anticipated using quite a bit more
general fund reserves to complete the
[1:16:28] ARPA projects for example and I have
already for the last two years been
[1:16:33] assigning that fund balance and I I
don't [clears throat] anticipate today
[1:16:37] that we're going to need as much as
we've set aside which is going to
[1:16:41] release more to unassign. So we
[1:16:46] we we need to
we do need to try to use
[1:16:54] So I think overall though what we
started with just the carryover kind of
[1:16:57] helping us for that you're trying to at
least add some additional areas and
[1:17:03] basically have three different
>> reasons if you will why you might be
[1:17:09] suggesting it. One might be for projects
that you weren't able to do for one
[1:17:13] reason or another. The second one is for
new types. And when I use the term
[1:17:18] projects, that's really primarily
more operating
[1:17:22] dollar projects, program projects than
it is capital type projects. There is a
[1:17:28] third on here [clears throat] for those
as well.
[1:17:33] » The nonbonded capital
>> y
[1:17:35] » request.
>> Yes.
[1:17:37] that I think
>> same procedure you're thinking really
[1:17:41] for the most part
>> pretty much comes to the board and
[1:17:45] » Yep.
[1:17:49] » So when people So does that change
anything like when people like you said
[1:17:52] have overages in their budgets then and
have done all the things that they said
[1:17:56] they do in the year or got their
projects completed or will have.
[1:18:02] » Are you talking about within that year
or wanting to access it? I'm thinking
[1:18:05] even in the same year like if someone
>> Yeah. No, I you know we there's
[1:18:09] » over pretty much
your department's
[1:18:14] managed you know they're operating in
the current year
[1:18:17] » to their best ability. So if they
[clears throat]
[1:18:21] if they've typically had 10,000 in their
budget for something and it's not going
[1:18:26] to happen this year,
we have historically allowed them to use
[1:18:31] that $10,000 for something else. I mean,
if there's a contract, then they're not
[1:18:35] an elected official, they would still
need to bring the contract for approval.
[1:18:39] I believe the way the things state
today,
[1:18:42] » but yes, if it's within the same year
and they're going to cover it with their
[1:18:45] same budgeted,
I don't even think [snorts] that's a
[1:18:48] conversation. This is for when they
[clears throat]
[1:18:52] don't have the money in their current
year.
[1:18:55] » Okay?
>> Or they don't think they do anyway
[1:18:58] because sometimes we find that's not the
case by the end of the year.
[1:19:03] Yeah.
[snorts]
[1:19:06] » Of the three categories.
>> Mhm.
[1:19:09] » Right. The
operating request [snorts] for
[1:19:12] subsequent year funding
not completing in that year,
[1:19:17] other operating requests and then the
non-bonded capital requests.
[1:19:22] [clears throat]
[1:19:26] Are is there a level of agreement on
one, two, or all three?
[1:19:34] » Yeah, just amongst the board like a
>> where is everyone's gut check at on
[1:19:40] this?
[1:19:44] » Attending the um department head
meeting. I've I don't know we've had
[1:19:49] much had discussion on this. So I'm
would like to go through one round with
[1:19:54] that and ask them for more input for
going further with it. I mean I think
[1:19:59] that get more input from the department
heads would make sense too giving us
[1:20:04] some more direction.
>> Well, I think we talked about that the
[1:20:06] last time this came up [clears throat]
too of having input from others. But I
[1:20:08] did think to anybody that actually,
which is every county department and the
[1:20:14] elected officials as well, it almost
should have an opportunity to look and
[1:20:18] see what their issues or concerns or
questions might be
[1:20:24] [clears throat]
um or at least to consider because like
[1:20:27] I said, ultimately we'd be making a
decision for everyone's budgets
[1:20:31] in the process
[1:20:37] and I'm pretty much ready to support it,
but I do want to give that opportunity
[1:20:42] for
just to hear from all the departments.
[1:20:47] » Yeah, it's kind of a blanket like I said
or kind of a generic kind of form
[1:20:52] shell's put together for us for doing
it. So, just like to see what questions
[1:20:56] or concerns that the people who work
with those budgets, you know, work
[1:21:00] within those.
>> Tips, what were you asking? Just if
[1:21:05] there's if there there's three
categories.
[1:21:07] » Yeah.
>> Right.
[1:21:09] » If there's general support amongst the
board for two of them,
[1:21:14] » do we amend the polic? Right. Just just
trying to get to how do we get to an
[1:21:18] action point? And and if that means we
wait for two weeks, 3 weeks, whatever,
[1:21:22] that's that's fine. I'm just just trying
to figure out in my own head of
[1:21:26] » what's the path forward on any or all of
this. I'm I'm in agreement with Chris.
[1:21:31] Um, I'm comfortable with all I'm I'm
comfortable with all three. Um, but I'm
[1:21:36] also comfortable with,
>> you know, I I I think it's it would be
[1:21:41] ideal if the full board can get in this
versus a three to two or like I that
[1:21:48] that's not as productive, I don't think.
Well, I think in having it addressing it
[1:21:53] once, I mean to just my thought on it,
too. And having all three in there
[1:21:56] whether we'd ever use one of those or
not, it still puts it in there for us.
[1:22:00] And I suppose and ultimately the
decision is made by the board if you
[1:22:03] want to say no
>> at that point anyway.
[1:22:06] » It's a framework.
>> It's Yeah, that's all I see it as.
[1:22:09] » And just knowing that we've had pastes
that [clears throat] were rigid no these
[1:22:14] came up. This is a huge
>> change. Yeah.
[1:22:17] » Well, you can still always be the rigid
no
[1:22:20] » is what I mean. You have the voice in
it, but it still puts a process in
[1:22:24] place.
[1:22:28] » Yeah. And honestly,
because of the state law,
[1:22:36] right now,
the rigid no is not going to serve us
[1:22:41] well as a county. There may be a time
when that comes back because there are
[1:22:45] reasons that sometimes you need to have
that. We just are not at that place
[1:22:52] right now today.
And we've seen we've seen some of this
[1:22:56] pop up where I think some of that
historical shadow has impacted decisions
[1:23:03] that probably
if we had a framework in place would
[1:23:09] have demonstrated that the board's a bit
more adaptable now to at least having a
[1:23:14] conversation hearing it out and
[clears throat] folks don't have to uh
[1:23:18] rush decisions and get to it.
in particular since we've chosen to do
[1:23:23] [clears throat] some oneoffs. It it
seems
[1:23:27] like it might be a good idea to have all
your departments kind of understand
[1:23:33] » that that has changed. Yeah, because I
did the, [clears throat]
[1:23:37] » you know, ask
>> when you had in the carryover one having
[1:23:41] the departments with results that were
better than expected in the budget cycle
[1:23:45] that I wasn't sure that I really like
that in the carryover one so much
[1:23:50] because it's like you budgeted for it,
we agreed to it, said you needed it,
[1:23:54] approved it, and now we're going to say,
well, we'd like to see it be two cycles
[1:23:59] of good reporting before you could get
that. that one I didn't see so much in
[1:24:03] that as much as I did new like if it's
going to be a new request and you're
[1:24:07] thinking
[1:24:12] » I don't want to but I mean there are
some reasons why there you need to be
[1:24:18] cautious I guess with that
>> I know I'm being cautious but I just
[1:24:20] meant [clears throat] to yeah at the end
of a year like
[1:24:23] » just assuming just assuming that
carryover should be available is that's
[1:24:28] something that would concern me
>> I'd expect that carryover be available.
[1:24:32] You mean their their project hasn't been
spent, so that carryover would be
[1:24:36] available
>> as long as
[1:24:38] » it's just as long as they haven't for
it.
[1:24:40] » No, as long as they haven't spent it on
something else.
[1:24:44] » I mean, things happen and the the budget
documents don't always catch up to
[1:24:49] reality for a little bit. So, I think I
just think there's odd circumstances
[1:24:55] that could affect things like that.
That's all I'm saying suggesting. I'm
[1:24:59] going to And honestly, You are correct.
Some departments have had to go over
[1:25:05] budget for whatever reasons. So in in my
mind that all feeds into a large pool
[1:25:11] that we are a team. We're not, you know,
15 different businesses under one roof,
[1:25:19] which so that's why
I don't know that it's a good idea to
[1:25:24] just automatically promise carryover
that kind of because you have one
[1:25:28] department that through no fault of
their own really
[1:25:32] has used all their budget or you know, I
don't I just don't think it's right to
[1:25:38] penalize those because someone else has.
Well, I don't mean to penalize,
[1:25:41] [clears throat]
>> but that's kind of what happens when you
[1:25:43] do an automated automatic carryover for
people that didn't spend it. You're kind
[1:25:48] of in effect penalizing those that got
theirs done. And I So, I kind of wanted
[1:25:53] to stay away from that.
>> That like I said, it's not a penalty,
[1:25:55] but I do think it's just like there are
that comes up. So,
[1:25:59] » yes. And that's why I think I worded
this to say that that could be
[1:26:02] considered if they had carryover because
I think it should be considered. I just
[1:26:06] don't know that you want to make it
automatic. That's that was
[1:26:10] » No, I don't I don't see making anything
automatic. It comes for us for a vote
[1:26:14] anyway. So,
>> yes.
[1:26:15] » Okay.
>> That gets us to overt taxation pretty
[1:26:19] quick,
>> right? If
[1:26:23] » yes,
>> yes, [laughter] the
[1:26:25] » short answer to that is yes.
[1:26:30] » So, are we all comfortable with three? I
mean, just to think it.
[1:26:34] » Yeah. I just for now it's still like
another step to go through others
[1:26:37] [clears throat] to see it and we and
review it but still start.
[1:26:40] » Yeah, cuz I wanted to take it to the
department heads and the policy review
[1:26:48] after this but because it was new I saw
in this like you had on here guidelines
[1:26:53] would it make any sense to just make
them guidelines and not a policy?
[1:26:58] I think that's [laughter]
yes
[1:27:00] » or I just meant so that we but know that
we all live by them but just curious
[1:27:04] policies seem
>> we have a hard time changing those lots
[1:27:09] of hearings and things [laughter]
[1:27:16] so next step is we're okay with I mean
for the most part with at least this
[1:27:22] version and going to the department
heads or anybody with a budget that are
[1:27:27] proven for.
>> Yes. And and
[1:27:30] » okay,
>> if you're a department head, please
[1:27:32] speak freely about your input
[clears throat] on that if that'll
[1:27:35] matter.
>> Yeah.
[1:27:38] » Help us help you.
>> The ones that can attend and maybe if we
[1:27:40] send it out before so that they all get
a chance
[1:27:44] [clears throat]
maybe if I don't get interrupted. But
[1:27:48] » yeah, this is not it's not if I don't
get interrupted.
[1:27:53] [laughter]
>> Stuff stuff happens. Yeah, I mean it was
[1:27:56] always there's no purpose in having this
if it's
[1:28:01] » without department heads feedback and
that they think they can use it.
[1:28:04] » This kind of goes back to Amanda's
question about changing the date. I'm
[1:28:08] wonder if we shouldn't still have
department head policy being following
[1:28:12] week instead and next week.
[cough and clears throat]
[1:28:17] » And we could do a work session on this
obviously too. Informal work session if
[1:28:21] we wanted to.
>> Yeah. This
[1:28:23] » Yeah. Separate from those
Yeah, maybe that works better. This
[1:28:28] would be the only topic maybe.
>> Yeah. And have it just be for this. But
[1:28:32] yeah,
>> I don't know. Department heads kind of
[1:28:36] Yeah,
I'm fine for letting the department
[1:28:41] heads and policy skip a month. But
[snorts]
[1:28:47] a lot of things going on with TED and
the university and couple of other
[1:28:51] things that we were at the rap sessions
or whatever too.
[1:28:55] But yeah, we what what do you think?
Like a a work session, an informal work
[1:29:00] session or just let everybody see what
we get back and let them all review it
[1:29:04] and comments and go from there or
department and had
[1:29:09] » kind of like have the discussion
department head meeting first and then
[1:29:12] work session.
>> Well, I meant like a work session with
[1:29:14] the department head. I didn't mean just
with us, but I meant everybody that's
[1:29:18] got some have something like that too. I
don't know.
[1:29:25] Whatever's easiest and fastest.
[laughter] Is that an option or not?
[1:29:31] » A good option.
>> The government.
[1:29:33] » Yeah.
>> The government was not designed to work
[1:29:36] fast. [laughter]
>> We can do what you just said.
[1:29:41] » That doesn't work that way.
>> I'm [clears throat] I'm with Linda on
[1:29:45] the the work session idea. I think that
would be the easiest and fastest to get
[1:29:50] everybody, you know, in the same meeting
at the same time and then we don't have
[1:29:54] to relay what was fed back in this
meeting to the to the work session. So,
[1:29:59] let's just have a a work session and get
all the department heads there.
[1:30:04] » Let's test out the maybe basement.
>> Yeah, room test out the tech
[1:30:09] » l around the corner.
>> But that that feels like a more
[1:30:14] conversational informal
Yeah. Okay. [clears throat] And we'll
[1:30:18] we'll take a look then at TED's schedule
and department heads and make sure
[1:30:22] everybody could be able to attend or
something as close as we can get to
[1:30:25] that. [snorts]
>> Okay.
[1:30:27] So, anything particular you want us to
address on it now, Michelle, or does
[1:30:32] that
>> I think if you have consensus
[1:30:35] [clears throat]
to just leave it as is to mail out at
[1:30:38] least to have that discussion with the
department heads and elected officials.
[1:30:44] » I I think that's good. involved.
>> Great.
[1:30:47] » All right.
>> Looks like we've got it and Chris was in
[1:30:49] agreement too. So, okay.
>> So, without interruptions today, you'll
[1:30:54] get that out to all of them for review
and work session date to be determined.
[1:30:58] » Okay. Thank you.
So, we move on to item 10, reports or
[1:31:04] information from the board.
>> I want to again thank all the department
[1:31:08] heads [clears throat] that took part uh
last week's township town hall. We had
[1:31:13] 12 of the 17 townships present for the
presentation. There was approximately 60
[1:31:18] people in attendance and uh many kudos
to the staff and the information they
[1:31:24] presented. Uh I had one individual I
didn't think he was ever going to let me
[1:31:28] go. He just kept saying like I can't
believe I learned this much. I couldn't.
[1:31:31] So um very very good content and
appreciate all the work that they've
[1:31:36] done. So Joseph as well and questions
hit right on the nail. couple of them.
[1:31:42] So,
>> yeah,
[1:31:46] » I just wanted to bring the uh next week
um Dave Dver with Cedar Valley Tech
[1:31:53] Works. Um been working with him and and
some members of staff on potential
[1:32:00] opportunity for a partnership with Tech
Works. And so, um, you'll get an email
[1:32:06] with
some of that information that they've
[1:32:10] outlined with me and and bring that for
the full board to discuss next week and
[1:32:16] just sort of
>> he's going to be attend the September
[1:32:18] 8th one.
>> Plan on him.
[1:32:21] » Okay. Super. Thank you.
>> I just have a question. Rory reminded me
[1:32:26] of the food truck thing on county
property.
[1:32:29] » This is the most important issue that we
missed today.
[1:32:32] Do we need to have multiple work
sessions in a congressional hearing to
[1:32:36] have a food truck or can we make it
simple?
[1:32:39] » Nate Nate offered and I don't know it
was between them to see if it worked. I
[1:32:43] thought kind of a thing. I thought Nate
offered his front yard. Right.
[1:32:46] » Absolutely. Yes. And then as it happened
I actually uh my buddy that owns that
[1:32:50] barbecue place we were talking about I
ran into him at a gas station outside of
[1:32:53] Marshall Town and he's all in. So
>> So
[1:32:58] that was kind of where I thought it was
left. It was if it worked for you and
[1:33:02] Yeah, we'll make it work.
>> So, do you need to get dates or what do
[1:33:05] you suggest, Rory? I was going to say
just to figure out what the dates are
[1:33:08] and what the has to be done or said to
have board approval for it or whatever.
[1:33:12] » Um, yeah. I think the only thing that uh
following policy if it's on county
[1:33:18] property, we just have to have the
grounds use form filled out and that's
[1:33:22] primarily just to make sure they got the
insurance and proper information like
[1:33:26] that. Um, I did make a suggestion about
possibly using uh the fifth street side
[1:33:32] of the courthouse just because we do
have quite a a wide sidewalk there and
[1:33:37] then you have the uh the approach to
those uh set of doors there and then you
[1:33:41] have the plaza the plaza area. Um and I
I did reach out to the city. We just
[1:33:48] haven't connected yet um uh to see if
there was a way that we could block off
[1:33:53] maybe a section of that road. I just
thought that that would have the least
[1:33:57] amount of impact. Um, you know, I know
Nate, you said your parking lot, but you
[1:34:02] have quite a bit of traffic coming in
and out of there also. So, I just
[1:34:05] thought that this might be a a way that
could serve both the city, uh, county
[1:34:11] staff and whoever else. So,
>> so do you think we need to follow up
[1:34:16] with them on
>> I I think the next step in order to go
[1:34:20] that route uh we just need to see if
that is a possibility to block off those
[1:34:25] parking spots and then how do we attract
people? You know, is it
[1:34:29] » the smell of food? [laughter]
Well, I mean like the vendors, you know,
[1:34:33] do you put something out saying, "Hey,
you know, on this day we have we have
[1:34:38] this spot open or, you know, maybe come
on coming up with some sort of uh
[1:34:43] practice there just to to get the
vendors or we just maybe follow suit
[1:34:48] with the health department and how they
do it and um maybe they they go to
[1:34:52] Pinerest one day and they come over here
uh a day." Um but no, that was my
[1:34:58] thought was just to to have the least
amount of impact on the parking
[1:35:01] situation that's already uh kind of an
issue here. Um out there there's very
[1:35:06] rarely ever any vehicles parked there
and it just seems to make sense.
[1:35:10] » So they might be open to multiple events
then to we not just see it for one time
[1:35:15] and one and done but do it. Yeah, that
sounds good. I mean some
[1:35:20] » I think
>> I mean it's pretty common in you know
[1:35:22] bigger cities they have you know they
it's pretty common to have food trucks
[1:35:26] right off the side of the road. So if
that uh if that works then I think that
[1:35:30] would be a great location.
>> Probably better do some soon before the
[1:35:33] weather changes. [laughter]
>> Yeah.
[1:35:37] » Yeah. So okay. Do you want to follow up
with us kind of on that
[1:35:41] » or is
>> Well, I think for for [laughter]
[1:35:43] for me the next step is just to see if
that is a possibility and I need to work
[1:35:48] through the city of Waterlue um and
their parking enforcement uh
[1:35:52] [clears throat] program just to see if
that is a section that we could block
[1:35:55] off
>> if for whatever reason there is an issue
[1:35:58] there.
I understand we've got limited parking
[1:36:03] certainly in this side lot here
>> occupying one parking stall for one day
[1:36:10] I
>> I think we would I think we would all
[1:36:14] survive
>> um and potentially we could even work
[1:36:17] with the vendor that whoever typically
parks there could be
[1:36:21] » paid off with a pulled pork sandwich
[laughter]
[1:36:24] » yeah and and and that's fine just again
just to to follow the policy just the
[1:36:29] ground use form for insurance and if we
can get through that hurdle then yeah I
[1:36:34] don't see any
>> the term paid off
[1:36:36] » yeah [laughter]
>> thank you so much
[1:36:40] » all right thank you
>> all right super well about ready to
[1:36:45] adjourn everybody have a safe and I say
good weekend long weekend and happy
[1:36:50] Labor Day thank you is there a motion
for adjournment so move second
[1:36:54] » all in favor say I
>> I
[1:36:58] mean ajourned.