[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.

Black Hawk County Board of Supervisors Meeting - 09-01-2026

Transcript