[10:12] No, they're right. Yeah, that's weird.

[10:20] Gas testing.

[10:24] Gas testing. That's one.

[10:26] There's still breadcrumbs. Yeah, that's weird.

[10:29] Call the Board of Supervisors in the session for our November 17th regularly scheduled meeting.

[10:35] We'll go into public comments. At this time, anyone may address the Board on matters of which are on the agenda.

[10:40] Please go to the podium, state your name and home address.

[10:43] Individuals wishing to comment on public hearing will be given the opportunity during that respective hearing.

[10:47] and individual remarks are limited to three minutes.

[10:50] Do we have anyone in chambers wishing to address the board?

[10:55] Seeing no one

[11:02] come up to this.

[11:04] If it's on the agenda.

[11:10] So before we move on, can I have a?

[11:13] Yeah, go ahead.

[11:14] Well, you've got, just go through the public comments

[11:16] and then I'll make my motion.

[11:17] There we go.

[11:18] Phil.

[11:18] We have anyone online, Keith.

[11:20] Yeah, Phil Krankovic.

[11:21] Go ahead, Phil.

[11:24] Good morning.

[11:25] Philip Krankovic, 15476,

[11:28] Briarwood Drive, Vernon Township.

[11:29] The Sheriff's Department is to be commended for bringing forward a plan for replacing

[11:34] the 40 to 50-year-old boilers in the law enforcement center.

[11:37] What started out as a boiler replacement appears to have morphed into a major upgrade

[11:41] of the structure's HVA system.

[11:46] A modern budgetary quote in the Sheriff's February 4th work session packet was a good

[11:51] starting point for the proposed boiler replacement project and includes a reasonably detailed

[11:57] scope of work to replace the five existing hot water boilers and the two existing domestic

[12:02] water heaters. Commercial and institutional heating systems usually have three separate

[12:06] distinct components. A heat conversion system to heat the circulating water. Distribution

[12:12] system that transfers the heat to the distribution points in the building. And air handles and

[12:16] radiators that transfer the heat to the ambient air within the building. The Sheriff's

[12:21] presentation at the 4th at the February 3rd supervision meeting proposed obtaining retaining

[12:28] Johnson controls to oversee the project using the Omnia procurement process. When implemented the

[12:34] engineering design and project management portions may not have been subject to the

[12:39] competitive bidding process. For goods like office supplies and police

[12:45] brewers, this appears to be a cost-effective process. However, for services like removal

[12:51] and installation of boiler, the skill and experience of the contractor can have a major impact

[12:56] on the final cost of the project. At today's work session, the sheriff may put forward

[13:01] two options replacing this in hot water boilers from Johnson Controls. Based on the text

[13:07] of the HVAC proposals that appears that JCA was paid $75,000 for a quote 50% DD

[13:15] pre-tab and additional discovery work that is not included in the project list above.

[13:20] The text indicates that this project is in accordance with the JCI source well agreement.

[13:26] Concerns. First, the project was not put out for public bid even though the JCA

[13:31] a proposal referenced 25.09.09 Dubuque County Sheriff's Office Boiler Replacement Set.PDF,

[13:44] a reference to a file that does not appear to be available on the county's website.

[13:48] Second, if the omni procurement process is so effective, why was it not used for the generator

[13:54] project? Third, the description of the work in the text of the proposal only gives a general

[13:59] description of the work to be completed. A detailed description, possibly with blueprints,

[14:03] is usually needed to enforce compliance with the contract. Fourth, the quotation includes

[14:09] three and a quarter pages of small print legalese. Johnson controls standard terms and conditions

[14:16] that controls the contract. As with any contract, the contract author has an incentive for the

[14:21] contract's two terms to favor the offer. Example, in section 10, the states that the law

[14:27] Delaware shall apply and the venue for litigation arbitration is Milwaukee,

[14:31] Wisconsin. If the work schedule was not included the prices stated the proposal

[14:36] are only valid through December 12th. From a human comfort standpoint the best

[14:42] time to replace the heating system is in the summer when its use is not

[14:46] required. Six Johnson Controls software licensing terms are included by

[14:52] reference but not included in the package. Prior to my retirement in April

[14:56] of 2020 for doing part to.

[15:00] Jumps control software contract terms. My former employer had significant difficulty making minor

[15:07] changes to the control settings for a major process refrigeration system that was critical

[15:13] to this facility's safe operation. Last, each department and office should not have to reinvent

[15:19] the wheel for each project. A project management system should be implemented by the contact

[15:25] for more efficient completion of projects. Thank you.

[15:31] Anyone else online? Keith?

[15:34] No one online.

[15:36] Yes, I'd like to make a motion regarding the agenda and if the chair would allow at this time.

[15:44] My motion is to remove the work session that is the last item on the agenda.

[15:57] That's the Roberts Rules.

[15:59] Rules.

[16:01] Is that correct?

[16:02] Or the last work session?

[16:04] Okay.

[16:04] That's one you're referring to?

[16:05] Or the-

[16:06] The last work session only.

[16:07] The possible.

[16:07] And I believe it is a closed session.

[16:09] Okay.

[16:10] Possible closed session.

[16:20] Well, that's my, my motion is to remove that work session from the agenda.

[16:32] Talk to HR before removing them.

[16:35] I'm sorry.

[16:35] There's

[16:42] no second to that.

[16:43] We will move forward.

[16:48] We'll go to the approval of the minutes of the November 3rd meeting.

[16:51] One

[16:58] correction made.

[17:00] One correction up at the top here.

[17:02] It says absent.

[17:04] Supervisor McDonough was here.

[17:06] She just abstained from one vote.

[17:08] I believe that was it.

[17:10] That's not historically what we have done, which is

[17:13] absent and who's not absent.

[17:15] But all the same, that is a significant clerical.

[17:18] We're going to update that.

[17:20] I'd make a motion to approve as corrected.

[17:23] Second.

[17:24] I'll motion a second to approve the minutes as amended.

[17:26] All in favor signify by aye.

[17:29] Aye.

[17:30] Aye.

[17:32] Go to the consent items.

[17:34] We have a special class C, native retail wine license for barrel head winery.

[17:38] Motion to approve.

[17:39] Second.

[17:40] A motion and a second to approve the special class C, native retail wine license for barrel

[17:46] head winery.

[17:47] All in favor signify by aye.

[17:48] Aye.

[17:49] Aye.

[17:50] Go to public hearings.

[17:52] We have the proof of public hearing for today.

[17:54] Okay, proof of publication for the hearings.

[17:57] Motion to approve.

[17:58] Second.

[17:59] Motion and a second to approve the proof of publications.

[18:01] All in favor signify by aye.

[18:03] Aye.

[18:04] Aye.

[18:05] We'll go to the public hearing on the fiscal year 26 and budget amendment number two, we'll

[18:10] go to Stella and then we'll go to public comment after that.

[18:17] Should be on Stella.

[18:19] No.

[18:20] Here you go.

[18:21] Try talking.

[18:23] Can you?

[18:23] Oh, there we go.

[18:24] Yeah.

[18:24] The light's not on.

[18:25] Okay.

[18:25] Good morning, everyone. I am Stella Rundy. I'm the Dubuque County Budget Director.

[18:28] We have on the agenda today and presented on the screen the second amendment for our fiscal year 26

[18:36] budget. The main purpose for this amendment is to carry forward capital projects from fiscal year 25 that were in process.

[18:45] We had a work session a month or two ago, I guess at this point,

[18:49] going through

[18:51] most of those capital projects the board had a chance to look through all of

[18:56] those and so that's the large part of what this amendment is for. Any

[19:05] questions

[19:05] in? No.

[19:09] I'll open the public hearing reference of fiscal year 26 budget

[19:12] amendment number two. If anyone wishing to address the board no

[19:19] one in

[19:19] chambers we have anyone online Keith? No one online.

[19:24] We'll close the public

[19:25] hearing no for the adoption of the fiscal year 26 budget amendment number two

[19:32] second have a motion and a second to adopt the fiscal year 26 a budget amendment number two all

[19:38] in favor signify by aye aye aye we have resolution to approve the fiscal year 26 appropriations

[19:45] amendment number two motion to approve the resolution second have a motion and a second

[19:50] to approve the fiscal year 26 appropriations amendment number two all in favor signify by hi

[19:57] hi hi next we have zoning case hashtag one zero dash two two dash two zero two five

[20:06] Randy and Lynn record and Travis record a one agricultural to a two agricultural residential

[20:12] Good morning, Ben Cober, Dubuque County Zoning Administrator.

[20:17] So we've got ZC number 10-22-25 on behalf of Randy and Lynn Raker and Travis Raker rezoning

[20:27] some A-1 agricultural land to A-2 agricultural residential.

[20:31] They're requesting to rezone three acres to allow their son Travis to build a new

[20:36] home in a shed on the farm so he can continue to help with the farming operations.

[20:41] applications. Mostly A1 agricultural zoning for the surrounding land uses. There's some

[20:48] A2 agricultural to the northwest, R1 rural residential to the southwest, B2 highway business

[20:54] to the north, and two heavy industrial to the north.

[20:58] So there are previous zoning cases

[21:00] associated with those outlined in the staff report that has been provided. No previous

[21:06] Maybe a zoning case is attached to this property, no special use permits.

[21:09] Six notification letters were sent out to surrounding property owners along with the

[21:15] city of Dyersville being notified.

[21:18] Just to go through the current zoning designation of A1, that zoning designation is appropriate.

[21:25] Land has been used for agricultural uses for many years.

[21:29] About 70 acres of contiguous ownership, about 35 acres is currently used for crop

[21:35] production with another 30 acres for actively managed timber, pond, and open space.

[21:41] The land is currently agricultural and rural in character.

[21:44] So that's the current designation of A1.

[21:48] For the proposed reclassification of three acres to A2 agricultural residential district,

[21:56] that can also be considered appropriate.

[21:58] The area to be rezoned will more than meet the minimum lot size requirements for a single

[22:02] family home.

[22:03] Once a new PLATF survey is approved, applicants are locating the proposed development in an area that should minimize the impact of existing agricultural uses.

[22:14] Do we have a site plan for that on the civic packet? I'm just wondering if we could scroll down a little bit to show that I do believe we had something submitted.

[22:26] I do have those files if we need to look at those.

[22:30] So Ben, why does it need to be three acres?

[22:32] It doesn't necessarily need to be three acres.

[22:35] The required minimum is one acre.

[22:37] The site plan, as indicated by the surveyor,

[22:42] shows space for a shed house.

[22:46] I don't know.

[22:46] Some people call them different things,

[22:48] but basically it's going to be mostly an accessory structure

[22:52] with some living quarters attached.

[22:53] Then there would be another detached shed.

[22:56] So I have a site plan.

[22:58] If you would like to see that,

[23:00] I can pass that around unless it is on the I'd like to see it. Okay, so there's gonna be this on their home place

[23:05] Mm-hmm. It's gonna be a shower right the the main dwelling structure, and then it's the main building

[23:11] That's the residents age 37 there.

[23:16] There it is right there, so

[23:21] That is towards the back of one of their fields there they'll have a proposed access that follows a ridge

[23:28] so going from

[23:30] West to east, that ridge decreases in elevation, and then where their proposed building site,

[23:36] the proposed rezoning area of three acres is kind of at the end of that ridge.

[23:42] And then to the north, it slopes off toward some kind of open space with some trees towards

[23:50] the pond to the north.

[23:51] And then to the south and east, there's more of a, you know, a drainage of a ravine drainage area.

[23:59] And then the property line to the west there.

[24:02] So if you can kind of see physically what that looks like locating it on the southeast corner of that undivided 40 acre aliquot part.

[24:13] So, the survey itself will only need to be a simple division. There hasn't been any previous subdivisions that have occurred in that quarter-quarter.

[24:24] So, that is the currently existing farmhouse as we consider the agricultural exemption.

[24:31] This exists right now.

[24:32] Yes, yes, so there

[24:35] That is on the undivided 40 as it exists and then the new

[24:40] Plata survey and the proposed rezoning area that will be

[24:44] Accomplished by a simple division, but it will be rezoned or

[24:49] Proposed rezoning to a to agricultural residential for that area

[24:55] We want to preserve as much ag land as we can so does this accomplish that?

[25:02] I think that it is taking some agricultural land out of production, looking at the topography of the area.

[25:13] There is that steeper slope going south off the property. It's currently in production.

[25:22] but yeah I mean there is some agricultural ground I'd say close to two

[25:27] acre and a half, two acres that kind of encompasses that proposed rezoning site

[25:33] that's currently used for agriculture. So that is yeah we're taking some

[25:45] production out of or we're taking some land out of production. And that's the

[25:50] balance, of course, in making the A2 is to preserve as much ag land as we can, but also

[25:56] create a dwelling for someone to live on the property if they're going to continue with

[26:01] the farming operation.

[26:03] I think, yeah, it strikes a balance between trying to preserve some of that ag land

[26:09] and also acknowledging, like, to a limited degree with private property rights, wanting

[26:15] to keep, you know, family in the area to help, you know, kind of maintain that, that

[26:20] agricultural use, that role character. I don't know what due diligence they went through

[26:25] to look at all the potentially desirable spots for residential development, but this

[26:33] is what they've settled on and our zoning commission recommended approval of this.

[26:38] The request conformed to A2 guidelines?

[26:41] The request itself, just I think if you look at the description of the A2

[26:50] Agricultural Residential District, so the purpose is to allow for a new home on

[26:58] a small lot if it is needed to continue or promote farming operations in the

[27:02] area. So, you know, that statement is open to interpretation. We can go by what

[27:09] an applicant puts on on their application their expressed desire or purpose in doing this so

[27:16] you know it is in the family so we can hopefully trust that Travis will continue with some

[27:25] agricultural operation and property maintenance out there. So the the house that's at the top there

[27:32] yes what's included in that just one building looks like they've got if the

[27:40] the parcel lines are accurate looks like it might be so that's the proposed site

[27:47] so that's nowhere near their existing house it's great and talking about the

[27:50] one that's sitting there right there yeah so that is where Randy and Lynn

[27:57] currently reside. So with it being zoned A1, them having over 40 acres in some

[28:04] kind of agricultural production or actively managed timber that qualifies as

[28:12] our farmhouse per our own methods of recognizing the farm exemption per

[28:17] IOCode chapter 335.2 so so the whole lot there is just 40 acres so there

[28:27] be houses on that 40 acre lot they will once this is rezoned so I can it's as a

[28:32] floating zone it can you can have the multiple zoning districts on one legal

[28:37] description so if the rezoning is approved you'll have a map amendment

[28:42] and that will change once the the notice of your decision is published. That

[28:49] takes into effect and that small you know that three acre area will be zoned A2

[28:55] and then after the zoning's been approved then the simple division the

[29:02] plata survey can be submitted and that'll be approved administratively and

[29:07] and the map will show, the zoning map will show that parcel is being zoned A2 whenever

[29:12] that is finally recorded.

[29:15] Okay.

[29:19] No other questions?

[29:20] I'd like to hear from the public.

[29:22] I'd like to hear from the public.

[29:23] Yeah.

[29:24] We've got one person here.

[29:25] Open public hearing regarding zoning case, hashtag 1-0-2-2-0-2-5, Randy and Lynn

[29:33] record and Travis record, do we have anyone in chambers wishing to address the

[29:36] board?

[29:39] saying no one in chambers do have anyone online.

[29:42] We've got a Schneider.

[29:44] If you can unmute yourself, there you go.

[29:46] Yes, this is Dave Schneider.

[29:48] Schneider Landsurfing 906, First Street North, Farley, Iowa.

[29:53] Good morning all.

[29:55] Basically working with the Rakers to get his son established out there

[29:59] and kind of prepared.

[30:03] We've got about two acres of crop ground associated with this building lot, and then the rest is

[30:10] just kind of the, I guess, the wooded fence line on the east side of where this proposed

[30:15] house is going to be, and then it goes into kind of a wet ditch on the south side kind

[30:19] of down a steeper slope. And whenever I do meet people out there and do these acreages,

[30:26] I always, especially when it's in the family, I always tell them, I'm going to, if I set the

[30:31] pins out in the middle of the field, it doesn't do me any good to set them on the surface because

[30:34] they'll get plowed out anyway. And in a lot of cases, nobody wants to mow all this ground. So

[30:40] if it's in the family, they're just going to plant whatever they're not utilizing for their

[30:45] acreage is fairly consistent with what I see on these. But anyway, yeah, just kind of trying

[30:50] to work with him, get in a layout that works for him and for Travis and his wife and basically

[30:58] in the location that they were requesting, so if you have any questions I'd be happy

[31:02] to answer them.

[31:05] No questions.

[31:06] I don't have any questions.

[31:09] No questions.

[31:10] Thank you, Dave.

[31:12] Thank you.

[31:13] Do you have anyone else online wishing to address the board?

[31:16] No one else online.

[31:17] I will close the public hearing. I make a motion to approve the rezoning.

[31:22] I'll second with discussion.

[31:25] I'll motion in a second with discussion. Go ahead.

[31:29] So what we balance in Dubuque County is the need to keep another generation on the farm.

[31:36] But what we have happening is creating Dubuque County into large acreage subdivisions.

[31:44] So that's the balance. The land that's needed for this is what should be used.

[31:50] And if three acres is that number, that's fine. And I'm mostly speaking with you, Ben, right?

[31:56] But that's my rationale, that we don't have any way to make this person remain on that farm or stay there.

[32:04] And now they have a three-acre parcel that they could sell to some other person who might want to live in, just like we did during the pandemic.

[32:12] clinic. Folks wanted to live rural. So that's the balance. And Dave Schneider knows this.

[32:18] This is not a new thing that I raise. It is always a balance between what the property

[32:24] owner wishes to do and what it takes to move a young person to stay on the farm to completely

[32:29] understand that. And I'm not even arguing about one acre, one way or the other. But

[32:34] it simply is that that needs to be a discussion point. Why do we need to take land out

[32:40] of farm crop usage.

[32:42] Because if we don't ask that question, there's no other person to ask that.

[32:46] That's us.

[32:47] I don't doubt your zoning board may or may not have had that discussion, but as you

[32:51] lead them through this, that's what I would like to encourage you to do, to say it needs

[32:56] to be the appropriate size, not for resale, not for enjoyment, but to preserve as much

[33:03] ag land as we can.

[33:05] So that's the reason for the discussion and the hesitation.

[33:08] I believe my colleagues feel the same.

[33:12] I believe we're following A2 and to add subjectivity into that, I think, is, you know, we have to understand that there's an ordinance there.

[33:27] We follow the ordinance and we take these situations as they come to us.

[33:39] See, a lot of these come through and I generally don't have issues with them.

[33:43] And I don't have an issue with this one.

[33:46] But I see some wording that's very common in all of these that I think may be misleading

[33:52] a lot of times about to assist in the farming operation when it really doesn't appear that

[34:00] there's any farming operation going on there other than they own a bunch of ground.

[34:06] You know, I don't know if they rent the ground out or if they farm it.

[34:09] Whatever.

[34:09] It doesn't make any difference.

[34:10] But the thing being, it seems like that is into all of these to assist in the farming operation.

[34:16] And I don't know that that's really the truth in a lot of them, but that's not ours to delve into.

[34:24] But it is ours to discuss, which is what we're doing here.

[34:27] There's no vote being cast right now.

[34:29] And so it's the discussion that helps form the discussion that's going to happen when you meet with landowners as well.

[34:36] It is intended to increase agricultural vibrancy, which is an economic reason we sit here, right?

[34:46] So that is part of this, and I don't want to lose sight of that.

[34:51] Then I have heard previous boards have the same conversation.

[34:56] Darryl Klein led this discussion every two weeks about it could be smaller, it could be less.

[35:02] We're preserving crop ground.

[35:03] it being planted right now, then why were we taking it out?

[35:07] So that's the focus.

[35:09] And whether or not it's in the language of the ordinance,

[35:12] it is ours to look at to ask citizens

[35:15] to participate in that, the preservation

[35:18] of agricultural land, right?

[35:21] So we also know that if we're going to have growth,

[35:24] we are going to lose some agricultural land.

[35:26] Agreed, agreed.

[35:27] So I think it's also important to note

[35:29] that we are working on our unified development code,

[35:32] which is going to address this issue, which we also have new legislation that is passed

[35:37] and became effective as of July and it's called accessory dwelling units.

[35:43] And so whether it's, you know, agricultural land, residential land, whatever the case

[35:48] may be, you know, legislation has passed that accessory dwellings can be built on

[35:55] properties.

[35:56] So that's already in place.

[36:01] You know, maybe we start, instead of hearing A2 cases,

[36:05] we start hearing accessory dwelling situations and we move on.

[36:10] I'm not saying I disregard, you know, the need to look at agricultural land as a whole in Dubuque County,

[36:17] but I think we have to follow what we have in front of us.

[36:21] And, you know, sometimes it doesn't match up with our opinions,

[36:24] But sometimes we have to follow the legislation that we have in front of us.

[36:31] You know, I'll just add, like, you know, if we go on our county website,

[36:36] someone inquiring about what they need to do to build a house in Dubuque County,

[36:40] in rural Dubuque County, you know, there's a kind of a step-by-step process

[36:45] about recognizing what's going to be considered farm exempt.

[36:49] and that first step is 40 acres in contiguous agricultural production. Here

[36:57] the acreage probably isn't 40 acres total in terms of pure what you would

[37:01] think of pure agricultural activity you know corn, beans, whatever it has been in

[37:05] the past but that section of state code, Iowa Code 335 acknowledges not just

[37:12] agricultural activity, but actively manage timber. I think if there's a discussion argument to be had,

[37:21] it's about maybe we need to change how we look at legitimate farm operations versus just

[37:31] what somebody has is maybe in production and rented by someone else, and their name's just

[37:38] on the title and that's a as a can of worms as far as the farm exemption goes that you know is

[37:47] has been in state code since we've enabled zoning in Iowa so I think just having A2 it's a way to

[37:57] kind of you know balance like you said that agriculture but also the interests of the

[38:00] property owner but also a way for us to I guess allow development a limited development

[38:06] to occur in areas that aren't designated by our regional comprehensive plan as

[38:12] you know potential for residential development like residential subdivisions

[38:17] around you know Dubuque, Asbury you know it extends for four or five miles out

[38:22] you have this R1 rural residential zone R2 even for a lot of it to

[38:26] accommodate density out in these other areas our comprehensive plan doesn't

[38:31] really show anything for any kind of residential development.

[38:37] So I think case by case, we can look at does that A2 really conflict with what our comprehensive

[38:46] plan identifies and look at it case by case to say hopefully the intentions of the applicant

[38:53] are to live in this area, maintain their source of generational wealth.

[38:57] wealth. A lot of that generational wealth comes from the land that they own. It's one

[39:03] of the more limited resources that a lot of people don't acknowledge. Land is one of the

[39:08] more limited resources we have in terms of what somebody has versus have nots. People

[39:14] have that. That's getting closer and closer to being all you have.

[39:20] I think noting that

[39:24] there needs to be a balance like I think you're right so you know but case by

[39:28] case we'll try to look at it and have that balance in mind. Thank you Ben. You're

[39:33] welcome. We have a motion in a second to approve the rezoning all in favor

[39:37] signify by aye. One more comment up here from Shairana. Between the board. Okay

[39:41] let's check them. Thanks. The public hearing is closed. All right.

[39:52] The motion is

[39:53] Second.

[39:53] I.

[39:55] I.

[39:56] I

[40:00] have a motion to second.

[40:01] It is approved.

[40:02] All in favor, aye.

[40:03] I.

[40:04] I make a motion to suspend the requirements that the amendment be considered and voted

[40:08] on for passage of two prior meetings.

[40:10] Second.

[40:11] I have a motion and a second to suspend the requirements.

[40:14] All in favor, signify by aye.

[40:15] Aye.

[40:16] Aye.

[40:17] I make a motion that the amendment be adopted and that the zoning administrator

[40:22] be directed to enter the appropriate changes on the official zoning map and that

[40:27] the order to be directed to arrange for the publication of the amendment and the portion

[40:31] of the official zoning map as amended in the official county newspapers as required

[40:36] by law.

[40:37] Second.

[40:37] The motion and the second that the amendment be adopted, all in favor signify by ayes.

[40:42] All right.

[40:42] Hi.

[40:43] Hi.

[40:44] Gary, thank you, Ben.

[40:46] Welcome.

[40:48] To go to the approval of Platt, we have a resolution to approve the final Platt

[40:51] of Mallory estates number three, Ben.

[40:54] Okay, so Platt of Survey of Lot 1 through Lot 12 of Melloray Estates number three.

[41:00] This is located in Vernon Township, Dubuque County.

[41:05] It's basically a replat of an existing survey.

[41:08] So this subdivision was lots of 1 through 11 of Melloray Estates number two, and then

[41:14] there was an additional lot two of the southeast quarter.

[41:18] The southeast quarter is now going to be called Lot 12, or Lot 12, excuse me.

[41:23] So

[41:24] yeah, that longer parcel on the

[41:28] The east side there technically was not part of the subdivision the owner is I believe looking to build a house

[41:36] So there's actually if you look at the zoning designation. It's got a one on top then are two

[41:43] Or a one in the middle and then our two arts some are two around that maybe I'm wrong

[41:49] So he's getting an entrance off of Abbey Circle, and I think in order to do that, they just said you're going to become part of our subdivision now.

[41:57] All parties are agreeable on this, but full disclosure, we're missing just one sign off from a mortgage holder for one of the lots.

[42:08] I'm not sure which one.

[42:08] State Code 354, which governs how subdivisions are surveyed and recorded and, you know, considered

[42:17] for approval by the governing body.

[42:19] When a Plata Survey is submitted, our governing body, all it says is our governing body, in

[42:27] our case the Board of Supervisors, has 60 days to take action on approval, denial.

[42:32] So this has been a lot longer than 60 days.

[42:38] What we've done as a policy is waited until we have all the signatures from

[42:42] county staff and then any interested parties.

[42:47] So it hasn't been prepared with the owner's consent, any lead holders

[42:51] consent, need an attorney's opinion, and so on and so on.

[42:55] Basically these plots just kind of sit in our office.

[42:58] I've sat in the zoning office for weeks or months

[43:02] just waiting for these signatures. And our action kind of falls outside of those requirements

[43:09] for state code. But it's one of those things where maybe we just wait until, I think it's

[43:15] prudent to wait until everything's submitted before we bring it forward. But in this case,

[43:18] the applicants requested that we put this on your agenda and have a resolution for

[43:26] approval considered. So I think in this case, if we get a motion to approve, it'll go with

[43:34] the file but we'll still be waiting on a signature. So what needs to be determined is when those

[43:39] folks get that signature, are they coming here or are they coming back? Do we take this

[43:43] back to the zoning office and wait for them to give it there and then bring it back?

[43:48] So just to let you know, us approving a resolution doesn't conflict with any part

[43:54] of state code or our own ordinances. I think it's just kind of been a policy for us to wait

[44:00] for all the attachments to be completed before we bring it forward to the supervisors and then

[44:06] eventually auditors and recorders attest and get it recorded after that. So,

[44:13] but yeah I think it's pretty straightforward. No additional lots are being created for

[44:18] development but because there was a previous survey having occurred it does need to go

[44:23] through the subdivision approval process.

[44:26] So what's the best process?

[44:27] I mean, that's what you're really describing,

[44:28] is that we've done it this way.

[44:31] Yeah.

[44:31] And are you beginning a new process?

[44:34] No.

[44:35] It just, I think the proprietors requested that we move forward

[44:42] and we'll just continue waiting for this one lender

[44:45] to get their stuff together.

[44:47] How long have we been waiting?

[44:49] When's the last time?

[44:50] This was some...

[44:50] I checked with them.

[44:51] This signature or the Plata survey was signed on March 24th this year, so it's approaching a

[45:02] I'm thinking in April at the top of my head. April 15th, the commission voted 7-0 to approve

[45:09] the plait. Since Arizona commission has acted, it's been waiting for those bank signatures.

[45:16] Because each bank might have a different lender, or each lot, they might have the same lender,

[45:21] but each lot needs a separate sign-off. So, yeah, we're just waiting on one more lender

[45:29] to sign for one of those lots before this can be recorded.

[45:35] But I'm not understanding why you're bringing it to us with a recommendation that we approve

[45:40] this when it hasn't completed the process.

[45:43] Right. I think just because there's nothing in state code or our own ordinance that

[45:50] That limits us from moving on to this step because it's going to, you're going to take

[45:57] it to the, let's say we get the resolution of approval.

[46:00] We take it to the recorder's office and they're going to see, well, lots, I don't know which

[46:05] lot it is.

[46:06] It's one of the lots.

[46:07] I'd have to flip through and find it, but like, we're missing a, we're missing the

[46:11] bank signature for lot five, let's say, and it's just not going to get recorded,

[46:16] but we still got the resolution.

[46:18] It's off of our, you know, our zoning commission, you know, list of tasks or our zoning department's list of tasks to try and do, you know.

[46:27] So it was at the proprietor's request.

[46:29] So, you know, I guess it's your prerogative if you do or don't want to move forward with it, but I don't think it.

[46:37] So we discussed this at a couple of meetings before you were here, Ben.

[46:39] And with all of that said, and where we're at right now, I would make a motion to approve

[46:45] the resolution to approve the final plot of Mallory Estates, number three.

[46:52] I will second that, time to keep it moving forward, hopefully, and get things moving.

[46:58] If I might, though, what's going to happen is you're going to hope that the recorder

[47:02] catches this, or you're going to have a title opinion problem going forward in

[47:05] the future.

[47:06] So that's why I'm asking, is it a process?

[47:09] Is it a change to a process or is it just because somebody asked for an exception?

[47:13] All good answers, but I think finding the way that everyone can duplicate and go forward

[47:18] because that's how we do it is the best process.

[47:21] Iowa has title opinions that keep our land records exceptionally clean compared to any

[47:27] other state in the country.

[47:29] I know that from what I practice law.

[47:31] So saying it's a muckety muck, we should go ahead because we want it off our plate

[47:35] because you want it off your plate.

[47:37] I don't know that that's a good rationale.

[47:39] I think it goes to the auditor first, doesn't it?

[47:42] A plate of survey.

[47:45] After you guys approve it.

[47:49] You figure out what you might need to sign in.

[47:51] Right.

[47:54] And then it would go to the recorder.

[47:58] So eventually we have to be deciding who's going to hold it up,

[48:04] or who's going to make sure that the process is completed with the tiniest of details

[48:09] because we're talking about land records as well.

[48:12] So that will be the basis for my vote, no.

[48:15] Okay.

[48:16] I think our auditor is aware of what's going on.

[48:19] He would make sure it's completed before it would go to the...

[48:23] Yeah.

[48:24] And I think I wanted to make it clear that that's why this is coming forward.

[48:28] If they hadn't called to ask us to get that resolution, it would have still been

[48:33] sitting on our shelves.

[48:33] And so I think with subdivision plots that the Board of Supervisors approves or denies

[48:43] for whatever reason, you can also extend by agreement that period of approval or that

[48:49] period of consideration.

[48:50] So if there's a subdivision that we're looking at and folks are having second thoughts

[48:57] or the board has concerned and we're coming up to that 60-day action period, that's something

[49:06] that the board of supervisors can kind of hold in their pocket and say, we've got some concerns,

[49:10] things aren't being addressed, we'd like to extend this action period and come to

[49:16] that agreement with a developer or an owner and hopefully they are agreeable because

[49:22] if they're not, you can just say, well, our concerns aren't being addressed so

[49:25] So we'll just recommend denial in that case.

[49:28] I'm not saying that's what should happen here.

[49:30] It's just something that the proprietors requested.

[49:34] And I'm like, okay, we'll see what the supervisors say.

[49:36] But because we're all aware of it now,

[49:38] I think, and it's not in anybody's interest

[49:42] to just put this on the agenda

[49:43] and trust that somebody down the line

[49:46] or at the end of the line is gonna catch

[49:49] something that's missing.

[49:51] But I guess we're aware

[49:54] And we just want to do, you know, provide that service to the applicant when they want to try to move forward in every instance, because it could be they get the signature tomorrow, but we're waiting another, you know, two weeks for the next supervisors meeting.

[50:11] So what's another two weeks compared to eight months though.

[50:14] So, there's another perspective, I think, so.

[50:19] I haven't seen one this far behind since I've been here, which is five years, I think it's

[50:24] very, it doesn't happen very often, let's put it that way.

[50:29] And I think, yeah, you're usually thinking about land divisions where you're going to

[50:33] have, for a subdivision, you're going to have, the acreage hasn't been split technically,

[50:37] so you've only had to deal with one lender versus 12 different ones, so the complications

[50:44] is a bit understandable, but it would be nice to see all their ducks in a row, but so this

[50:49] was at their request.

[50:50] Okay.

[50:52] I have a motion and a second to approve the final plow out of Mallory Estates, number three.

[50:57] All in favor signify by aye.

[50:59] Aye.

[51:00] Aye.

[51:01] All opposed, nay.

[51:02] Nay.

[51:04] Good.

[51:04] Thanks, ma'am.

[51:05] Thank you.

[51:07] I'll go on to our action items, the resolution to approve the hiring of deputies, assistants

[51:11] and clerks.

[51:12] I believe there was secondary roads, full-time maintenance person, Sunnycrest, full-time LPN,

[51:22] IT, permanent full-time operations manager, and chair, full-time correction officer.

[51:28] Motion to approve the hiring of deputies, assistants, and clerks.

[51:33] Second.

[51:34] Motion and a second to approve the hiring of deputies, assistants, and clerks.

[51:38] All in favor signify by aye.

[51:39] Aye.

[51:40] Aye.

[51:41] Aye.

[51:41] Next, we have a resolution to approve the 2080 sharing agreement with Clinton County for the county engineering services.

[51:48] Discussion.

[51:49] Good.

[51:51] Does anyone know if the county attorney has reviewed this? In our minutes, we say in our minutes that we, as was accurately asked, that the county attorney reviewed this.

[52:14] It just stays red.

[52:16] Okay.

[52:17] Nope. Get it one more time.

[52:19] Who is not?

[52:20] No, I should be.

[52:21] Chelsea Green, HR director.

[52:23] The county attorney has not reviewed the 28E agreement.

[52:26] If there's any specific legal questions, he will review those questions.

[52:31] To

[52:37] approve the resolution of the 28E agreement with Clinton County for the county engineer

[52:44] services.

[52:49] I will second that with discussion.

[52:52] The 28E that we have with Clinton County is similar to the one that we had with

[52:55] Delaware county, correct?

[52:59] Russ?

[53:00] It's...

[53:06] So we're asking our county engineer to give us a legal opinion.

[53:09] Is it similar enough?

[53:11] I haven't reviewed them side by side.

[53:15] I know we had two with Anthony.

[53:18] One was an hourly rate as is interim,

[53:21] and then a different one as is shared.

[53:24] And many of these agreements are like templated agreements

[53:28] that each county kind of uses and slices and dices

[53:32] to make their own.

[53:33] So, this one's no different than, but very similar.

[53:39] You're comfortable with it.

[53:41] Oh, yeah, I recommend this, approving this one.

[53:44] Is it because we have no choice? Is that why you're comfortable with it?

[53:49] It's a good 28e agreement and it's our best path forward.

[53:54] Because otherwise we're going to be violating the law come December 1st.

[53:59] Yeah, it's it's we needed a county engineer in place by December 2nd and I think further no

[54:07] Have a motion in a second to approve the 28e sharing agreement with Clinton County for the county

[54:13] engineering services all in favor signify by I

[54:19] I'll oppose and that day thank you rough

[54:25] I have resolution to authorize the chairperson to sign the meth camp award notice

[54:30] That's for the task force.

[54:32] Motion to approve.

[54:34] A motion and a second to authorize the chair to sign the meth camp award notice.

[54:38] All in favor signify by aye.

[54:40] Aye.

[54:41] Aye.

[54:42] Next we have a resolution to authorize the chairperson to sign the anti-heroine grant award notice.

[54:46] Motion to approve.

[54:48] Second.

[54:48] A motion and a second to authorize the chair to sign the anti-heroine grant award notice.

[54:53] All in favor signify by aye.

[54:54] Aye.

[54:55] Aye.

[54:56] Aye.

[54:56] Next we have Resolution to approve entering into a contract with Managed Solutions Group

[55:00] for the Dubuque County Teams Phone Project.

[55:03] I have a question, who submitted the resolution?

[55:06] Who is this from?

[55:07] IT?

[55:08] It's from Jared, our IT director, and we didn't make any changes.

[55:11] This is exactly what he's submitted.

[55:14] Motion to approve.

[55:16] Second.

[55:16] The motion is second to approve entering into a contract with Managed Solutions

[55:20] Group for the Dubuque County Teams Phone Project.

[55:22] All in favor signify.

[55:24] Hi.

[55:25] Hi.

[55:25] Hi. Next we have Resolution Approving Amendment Number Two for the City of Piazza Swap Agreement

[55:31] 31-23-POS-SWAP-Piazza. That's for an extension for the swap.

[55:40] Right. And I have historically been difficult about extensions for swap because that money

[55:47] was from the Biden administration to do emergency assistance to communities after the pandemic.

[55:57] And this was a very large grant to Piazza from those funds, very large. And we're just simply

[56:07] at 5,000, I believe. Yeah, that's a huge amount of money. That was the last award that was given.

[56:13] I mean, I wouldn't mind having them come in and tell us about it.

[56:17] What the progress is, what the holdup is, I mean, certainly I've given SILT difficulty

[56:22] on Sustainable Iowa Land Trust, something that I completely and totally agree with.

[56:27] But I think there's oversight here, and I know Ed's going to come and tell us that

[56:32] he's talked to them and everything's fine, but honestly, they should be here asking

[56:36] us for this extension.

[56:38] I had talked to Russ. He had contacted me. I assume that he had contacted my colleagues

[56:44] also.

[56:47] Good morning, Ed Raver, Planning and Development

[56:51] Director. The city staff at the city of Piazza had contacted me a couple of weeks ago about

[56:58] this. As we worked through this, the city council in Piazza was taking some efforts

[57:04] and based on how that outcome they were, if they decided to, that they wanted to move forward

[57:09] with their pavilion, it came in over budget and so they've had to spend some time this summer

[57:17] reevaluating that, doing some value engineering and kind of rethinking the project itself

[57:23] and doing some fundraising to make sure that they were going to be able to

[57:26] match whatever that was. So this is their request. The mayor has a different day job

[57:32] and was not able to be here. But, you know, if you would like them to come in and give

[57:39] you something else, I guess that's fine. It's been a project. I've said this before.

[57:47] It's not a project that's particularly lingered. They've continued to submit things throughout

[57:51] this fiscal year, calendar year. And it's just this last bit, trying to get this

[57:58] across the line has taken them.

[58:00] they build us and take in this money already, the project exceeds the value of the grant

[58:04] we gave them?

[58:06] It does.

[58:08] Why haven't they closed this?

[58:09] The reason that they haven't closed it is that the way that their proposal came in and

[58:14] the way their agreement is stated, we are only paying off, paying a portion.

[58:21] I think it's 49 percent of their grant.

[58:23] So although they have done hundreds of thousands of dollars project it's authorized we only

[58:31] were reimbursed them for 49 percent so not all the agreements are written the same this is the way

[58:36] that theirs was as a sort of a cost-sharing they're paying some we're paying some of each of the

[58:41] invoices so that's excellent question supervisor mcdonough but that's the reason right but

[58:46] you don't have a vote in this matter Ed and so when the city contacts you in the chair

[58:52] then I have no information.

[58:54] Well, the information is in the packet

[58:56] if you would like some more.

[58:57] I'd like to have them be here and explain.

[58:59] Any calling on the phone.

[59:00] So very large right, for which we take practice.

[59:04] So the mayor, Russ Fahm, provided us with information

[59:10] and it's included in the packet here.

[59:17] It's not asking to go outside of what we've done before

[59:20] and, you know, I don't know any reason to scrutinize this particular request.

[59:30] They're not asking for additional funds, they're simply saying that, you know, things didn't

[59:35] work out exactly as they planned and they need to extend or would like to extend this.

[59:42] So I don't know, unless there's anything else, I'll make a motion to approve the

[59:48] resolution to amend number two for city of Piazza swap agreement so I do have

[59:54] something else which is that I have been consistent on these requests I'm

[1:00:00] I'm sure you would agree on that, and that I have been consistent on the request for extensions

[1:00:06] that money was intended to be spent on urgent matter, and the city of Piazza told us they

[1:00:12] could get this done. So, that's a persistent concern that I have that we haven't been spending

[1:00:19] the funding. We've been holding it for many people while they try to get their things

[1:00:24] arranged that's counter to what that agreement was with the Biden administration. So if we're

[1:00:30] going to take this vote, I just think I need to know I'm not singling anyone out. I have been

[1:00:35] consistent about that request. I believe if I'm not mistaken Ed that the ARPA funds were intended

[1:00:40] to be allocated by the end of 24 and the projects had to be completed by the end of 26.

[1:00:46] I also understand that this is part of the 10 million dollars that was swapped over or call

[1:00:52] it whatever to the county and did not necessarily have to file all the all the requirements so

[1:00:56] you know there's probably hundreds of thousands of dollars that are still not spent but following

[1:01:04] the guidelines that were put forward by the Biden administration so if this was after 2026

[1:01:14] we might need to rethink this a little bit but we're within the guidelines you know we

[1:01:19] don't rewrite the guidelines every time one of these things come up because we have opinions.

[1:01:26] So my motion stands.

[1:01:29] So my opinions matter, right?

[1:01:32] So when we keep talking about opinions and opinions, I'm a decider.

[1:01:37] I'm a person who makes the decision.

[1:01:39] I'm one of the folks at this board, you are not, who made the decision to make this

[1:01:44] award to them.

[1:01:45] So what was said and to whom that conversation went is different than you will ever know because you weren't here at this time

[1:01:52] I believe I attended the comedians for three years before I became a supervisor. So I probably listened to it

[1:01:58] So that's my concern and they are concerned not opinions

[1:02:02] But I will be joining on this. I don't have a problem with this

[1:02:06] But I have been consistent and I don't like to have that be minimized

[1:02:11] And I understand that I am going to second

[1:02:15] The motion to approve the amendment for Piazza because obviously

[1:02:21] Things came in over budget they re-engineered it

[1:02:24] They're getting it down to where they can get it done for the cost that they had initially put in for

[1:02:30] So they're working to do it right and it just takes time. I understand so

[1:02:35] In motion in a second to approve amendment number two for the city of Piazza swap agreement all in favor signify but hi. Hi

[1:02:44] Then we have a resolution to approve ending the subsidy of the annual dues to ECIA for

[1:02:49] the 21 incorporated cities in Dubuque County for fiscal year 27, and that has been something

[1:02:54] we've talked about for quite a while, and it's finally just going to be in resolution,

[1:02:59] right?

[1:03:00] Yeah.

[1:03:00] So, Ed Raver again, among your staff team at your last meeting, I think Supervisor

[1:03:09] Jennifer Kinnecker had made a comment that you guys had some consensus about not doing

[1:03:16] that in the past. Working with the auditor staff, we kind of reviewed some tape and tried

[1:03:21] to figure that out. And it seems as we've talked to a couple of you that maybe you do

[1:03:28] all have that. We weren't really sure that we could exactly find that. And we've,

[1:03:33] in talking with Harley just a little bit, it seemed like maybe having a resolution

[1:03:37] that actually said that would be helpful, not just to you, but to those cities as they

[1:03:43] prepare their budgets. We've been in communication with ECIA as well, just to make sure that

[1:03:50] that includes Megan Bonner, who does a lot of interaction with the small cities in preparing

[1:03:54] their budgets. So, really appreciate Megan's input on pulling that together. Again,

[1:04:00] I don't think that anyone was intending that this is a poke at ECIA. In fact,

[1:04:07] the resolution sort of reflects that we value them, but the reason for the subsidy is probably

[1:04:13] eclipsed some time ago, and we're encouraging all those cities to continue to do that, and

[1:04:19] this would be just simply revenue neutral to the organization ECIA.

[1:04:24] But would help say this is when we decided to do that.

[1:04:29] Motion to approve?

[1:04:33] I'll second.

[1:04:34] I have a motion and a second to approve ending the subsidy of the annual dues to

[1:04:38] for the 21 Incorporated Cities in Dubuque County for fiscal year 27.

[1:04:43] All in favor signify by aye.

[1:04:46] Aye.

[1:04:47] Aye.

[1:04:48] Opposed, nay.

[1:04:49] Nay.

[1:04:51] That's why you didn't find it, Ed.

[1:04:56] It was always just discussion.

[1:04:58] Right.

[1:04:59] And so this, thank you for hoping, whatever you wanted to do,

[1:05:03] it was fine with us, but we just wanted to, like,

[1:05:05] go to communications.

[1:05:10] We have a notification of the AP AI program award that went to our county secondary roads

[1:05:17] department.

[1:05:20] Awards recognized quality paving done in the state of Iowa and congratulates our secondary

[1:05:27] roads and our engineer for that.

[1:05:29] And I would like to personally congratulate him myself.

[1:05:32] So thank you, Russ.

[1:05:36] We have a fairly consolidated industrial commercial urban renewal areas amendment

[1:05:41] Center for Rural Affairs, Renewable Energy Development, Representative from Senator Grassley's

[1:05:47] office visiting the courthouse.

[1:05:49] Thank you, Motion. I'd like to pull A out, which is a notification of an APAI program

[1:05:56] award. I don't believe that's the same as some of these other routine communications.

[1:06:02] This is an award to our engineering department, and I would ask that Russell come to the

[1:06:09] podium if the chair is familiar, okay with that. And then talk about the award.

[1:06:17] I don't

[1:06:17] believe you're going to be able to go to Des Moines to receive it because you will no

[1:06:20] longer be in the employee of the county.

[1:06:24] Yeah, so we just got notification on the

[1:06:26] 12th of December that we received the county engineer department of the year award, which

[1:06:33] is a good win for our department. Things they've evaluated as quality and quantity

[1:06:41] of work and consistency, and we fit that criteria.

[1:06:47] We were also contractor nominated.

[1:06:49] Some departments filled this application out themselves.

[1:06:54] We did not.

[1:06:54] We were nominated by our contractor

[1:06:56] so that I think that speaks volumes as well.

[1:06:59] So very proud of this and I wanted to make you all aware.

[1:07:03] Yes, it's on December 11th.

[1:07:05] Hopefully we're gonna send some staff down.

[1:07:07] Unfortunately, I won't be able to attend, but yeah.

[1:07:10] Yeah, we did receive this award once before in 2016, so it's nice to bring it back to

[1:07:17] the new county.

[1:07:18] So if you have any other questions, be happy to answer them.

[1:07:20] I just want to congratulate you and I admire very much how you always share with your whole

[1:07:27] team and the work that you receive.

[1:07:29] I understand it's for the engineering department, but you always have done that and you will

[1:07:34] be greatly missed, Russell.

[1:07:35] This is the last meeting that you will be here as our county engineer.

[1:07:39] So thank you, and I think it's very fitting that the state recognizes and all of your colleagues

[1:07:45] in your professional network recognize the great job that you've done for Dubuque counties.

[1:07:51] So thank you.

[1:07:52] Thank you.

[1:07:53] Congratulations.

[1:07:54] Thank you.

[1:07:59] Okay.

[1:07:59] We'll go to your appointments or open vacancies for information.

[1:08:03] One point, Communication D, the representative of Senator Grassley's office visiting the

[1:08:10] courthouse.

[1:08:12] It's pretty tough to have someone like that here and not discuss county business.

[1:08:20] So will that just be-

[1:08:23] It's just staff that comes.

[1:08:26] It's for sure.

[1:08:26] Yeah.

[1:08:27] I'm not, yeah, I'm not talking about who's coming.

[1:08:31] I mean, I didn't anticipate Grassley to be in here.

[1:08:33] I anticipated someone being here

[1:08:35] that would be talking about county issues.

[1:08:39] And we've recently had that discussion.

[1:08:42] Our concerns were brought forward

[1:08:45] regarding open meeting rules laws.

[1:08:47] And I was just curious whether we all three

[1:08:51] were going to be here and have discussions

[1:08:53] about county and is that appropriate?

[1:08:58] We can all three be here,

[1:08:59] but we cannot discuss county issues among ourselves. I mean if you want to discuss it with Rochelle.

[1:09:06] That's good. As long as we're not, and that's consistent with other meetings that we go through

[1:09:10] as well. Sounds good. I think members of the public as well, if there are members of the public

[1:09:13] who wish to have opportunity to speak with a representative of Senator Grassley's office,

[1:09:20] they might have some things that they would like to share about whether or not

[1:09:23] Senator Grassley understands the Constitution, for instance, which I have raised privately

[1:09:28] with Rachelle. That is on December 1st from 3 to 4 3rd. We'll be in our next

[1:09:37] meeting. The afternoon of our next meeting. Thank you for drawing everyone's

[1:09:42] attention to that.

[1:09:45] Supervisors, boards and commissions updates. Ann, you start. I

[1:09:50] think I've attended all the same meetings you all have. I think I've

[1:09:54] done anything that at least one of you hasn't been present except probably the

[1:09:58] ports, the ports of eastern Iowa have, I attend that, I think you're at DMADS, right?

[1:10:09] Yeah, you're at the DMADS meeting, which was mostly city of Dubuque issues.

[1:10:14] It was just us watching the city of Dubuque put together their information for their long-term

[1:10:18] strategies. Good information for sure. The ports authority, there's going to be

[1:10:25] big news breaking about national and international conference that's going to feature the

[1:10:31] Hopefully that will come and we can actually talk about it.

[1:10:34] But that's the new issue that we're going to be working on, is getting ready for this opportunity.

[1:10:42] I'm trying to have them include Dubuque and include the field of dreams,

[1:10:46] but it looks like it's going to be probably Quad Cities focused,

[1:10:50] and they've been in touch with those tourism resources instead of travel Dubuque.

[1:10:59] So anything I get to do to drive that, the City of Dubuque, I sit on this because I'm a supervisor,

[1:11:07] but the real work is between the City of Dubuque and the City of Dan and Port.

[1:11:12] So did you understand what I'm saying?

[1:11:14] Right, so that's one of those boards that I'm on, but it's really the City of Dubuque focus I would say for the Port.

[1:11:24] But so that's an interesting board to be part of.

[1:11:29] That's the only, of course, the Board of Health meeting is this week.

[1:11:37] Not sure I have anything else to report that you wouldn't already know about.

[1:11:41] What?

[1:11:42] I have nothing to add.

[1:11:44] And the fifth, I went to the Farley City Council meeting with the sheriff, they awarded their

[1:11:52] chief, gave their chief an award for assisting the sheriff's office with the ATM jackpotting

[1:12:00] incident where they arrested some people, Farley assisted with that.

[1:12:05] It's great that everybody can work together and get things done like that.

[1:12:08] But did the ribbon cutting for the 9-1-1 center on the 6th?

[1:12:13] Thank you for doing that.

[1:12:14] Thank you for doing that.

[1:12:16] I appreciate you being there.

[1:12:17] Great event.

[1:12:18] A lot of people there.

[1:12:20] It was good.

[1:12:22] The center should be up and running in probably a couple of weeks, Joe, two to three weeks.

[1:12:30] December 3rd?

[1:12:32] Well, that's awesome.

[1:12:34] Well, also the night of the 6th, I did the Veterans' Dinner at Steeple Square.

[1:12:41] Other than that, just a lot of meetings that either want to use were on also.

[1:12:45] So that's really about all I have.

[1:12:50] So we'll go to public comments, non-agenda items.

[1:12:53] At this time, anyone may address the board on matters of which are concerned to that person

[1:12:57] and which are not agenda items.

[1:12:59] Please go to the podium, state your name and home address.

[1:13:01] Please be aware the board is limited in their ability

[1:13:04] to respond to such inquiries and I will co-privilege support from

[1:13:07] deliberating or acting on items not appearing on the agenda.

[1:13:10] Individual remarks are limited to three minutes. Do we have anyone in chambers

[1:13:14] wishing to address the board?

[1:13:25] Hi my name is John Schiltz, live on Kinkalane is 21562

[1:13:32] Kinkalane.

[1:13:35] Schiltz has spelled S-C-H-I-E-L-T-E-Z.

[1:13:42] The board the reason

[1:13:43] why I'm here today is to address on Kinkal Lane. There is a bridge that needs to be replaced.

[1:13:53] It's deteriorated over the years with the weather conditions and how we had trenchable rainfall.

[1:14:01] It's very difficult to get in and from the residents. There's new residents to live on

[1:14:08] I've been in contact with the Dubuque County Engineer's Office addressing issues.

[1:14:17] I was just seeing if there was anything that was on the books from your guys' standpoint

[1:14:23] of view that is being in the same alignment with Dubuque County Engineer person that

[1:14:32] that is address it with me,

[1:14:34] just if you guys are aware of the issue at hand.

[1:14:38] Dewey County Engineer Office has been very good with me

[1:14:41] on the phone, conversation, dialogue.

[1:14:44] I was just seeing if anything's been addressed

[1:14:46] to you guys going forward on the replacement of the bridge.

[1:14:52] So we can come to and from our residents

[1:14:56] and that is anybody,

[1:14:57] any other public transportation that would.

[1:15:00] Go on that. It's just not for myself or if anybody else, emergency personnel would have to get there, so everybody's safe coming and going from the residents. Thank you.

[1:15:12] Thank you. Thank you. Do we have anyone else? I guess I do have a follow-up question maybe for Russell with the situation at hand.

[1:15:21] It's public comment. It's not on the end.

[1:15:23] I believe you address questions as they come as well on past issues.

[1:15:29] Discussion about something.

[1:15:31] This is the last opportunity that we probably have to talk about something that a concern was brought up.

[1:15:38] You know, it's a matter of asking if there's a list of outstanding projects out there,

[1:15:43] or do they just fall off the desk and now that the desk is changing,

[1:15:48] Do those just go away?

[1:15:50] I think the public deserves better than them just falling into the circular file, and that's

[1:15:57] my reason for that.

[1:15:58] The consensus that there would be a transfer of ongoing projects and concerns that was

[1:16:04] discussed when he gave his resignation, that there would be a forthcoming course

[1:16:11] and beyond a five-year program.

[1:16:15] And I've been told that the five-year project

[1:16:17] is for IDOT projects.

[1:16:20] It's for IDOT projects.

[1:16:22] We didn't necessarily see on our county website

[1:16:25] a five-year plan for anything beyond IDOT.

[1:16:29] So this location specifically,

[1:16:31] I've been in contact with John, he's well aware.

[1:16:34] I think John just wants to make sure you're all aware.

[1:16:36] So it's not dropped off, which I respect totally.

[1:16:39] This is not a bridge. It is a drainage structure in a floodplain that has been deteriorated over the years and something that needs to be addressed.

[1:16:50] You will not find this on the five-year program simply because it is not a project. It is maintenance, and it would fall in line with our maintenance, miscellaneous maintenance culverts that you've seen throughout the years.

[1:17:06] this would just be another one to it.

[1:17:08] And then I explained to John that's how I see it going forward,

[1:17:13] being part of a group of other culverts that need to be replaced

[1:17:17] in preparation of the five-year program or anything else that needs immediate attention.

[1:17:23] So there's maintenance projects that we need money for continuous maintenance of our roads

[1:17:29] and structures as well as the five-year program which is a construction program

[1:17:34] and that's why they're different. I guess I was thinking it was a bridge but it's

[1:17:40] not a bridge. So it takes a lot of water I mean you could probably throw a

[1:17:44] bridge in there. So how will these things be transitioned you know from you

[1:17:49] to now that we've there's there's a lot of things actively going on. I said

[1:17:55] No, it actually is a work session.

[1:18:00] We're just trying to clarify what's happening.

[1:18:03] We had John bring up the point. Russ is leaving.

[1:18:07] I would assume that...

[1:18:09] The work session today?

[1:18:11] No, I'm saying you've now turned public comments into a work session.

[1:18:15] We are getting a little deep in the weeds for the public comments.

[1:18:18] But as long as we know that it's going to be forwarded to the incoming engineer,

[1:18:23] that's really, I guess, what we need to do.

[1:18:24] I'll do everything in my power raised by the incoming engineer who will now be the engineer for three counties

[1:18:32] How will he be an engineer for three counties?

[1:18:37] We don't have an interim engineer

[1:18:39] Other than the one we just appointed and how will that person be an engineer for three counties?

[1:18:45] Is the 20th agreement not shared with Jackson Clinton and just Clinton just Clinton so two counties you and Clinton

[1:18:55] You're aware of it. Thanks. I'm aware of it. I'll get as much in front of them

[1:19:00] It's a lot. I mean, it's ongoing. So most of it, you will know what I understand. If not,

[1:19:06] we have good staff. They're well aware of the situations going forward. They can bring them

[1:19:12] up to speed as well. So between myself, the staff, prior knowledge, we'll get a lot of that taken

[1:19:18] care of. Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else in chambers wishing to address the board?

[1:19:25] Dave

[1:19:37] Poles, 20331 Heartcrime Road, Sheryl, Iowa.

[1:19:40] The last meeting there was a subject brought up about health, about the weeds being on the

[1:19:46] rural areas and the ditches that they have to make them people cut them because it was

[1:19:50] a health problem.

[1:19:52] I think that the big health problem like is on Grale Road is dust.

[1:19:56] That's every day we have to deal with that.

[1:19:59] And it seems like there's no concern about that.

[1:20:01] So we've had people that travel the road complain about it to me and because they know I come to these meetings and

[1:20:08] Unfortunately, and they're really concerned about that. You know, let's do something with the dust. You're worried about a weed

[1:20:14] You know, it's probably a bigger hazard than a weed

[1:20:17] And another thing was people were this weekend were telling me in last weekend about the

[1:20:21] 100,000 for the airport coming from the taxpayers. They're like why didn't the businesses supply that you know

[1:20:27] Why should us taxpayers have to why do they always come up with money?

[1:20:31] They can take out their pocket for a hundred thousand here two hundred thousand there five hundred thousand here

[1:20:36] You know, it's just like it shouldn't voted on is what they said being that was you know something for taxpayers

[1:20:43] So that's kind of the concern that people have and they're not real happy with it. So just want to let you know. Thanks

[1:20:50] Do you have anyone else in chambers wishing to address the bar?

[1:20:55] Seeing no one in chambers, do we have anyone online, Keith?

[1:20:58] No one online.

[1:21:03] Let's recess for 10 minutes.

[1:21:07] I'd make a motion to recess until 1020.

[1:21:12] Second.

[1:21:13] A motion and a second to recess till 1020.

[1:21:15] All in favor signify by aye.

[1:21:17] Aye.

[1:21:18] Aye.

[1:21:19] We are in recess until 1020.

[1:21:21] Thank you.

[1:30:09] Call the Board of Supervisors back into session. We'll go into our work sessions. We have discussion

[1:30:15] and possible action with Sheriff Kennedy regarding the Boyle order replacement project. Sheriff Kennedy.

[1:30:24] Morning. Thank you. As talked about during budget time, we had a issue with our boilers for several

[1:30:31] years. We've kind of been putting the project off, trying to extend the life of the current

[1:30:34] boilers. It's gotten to the point where they need to be replaced. So we have been working

[1:30:40] with Johnson Controls and the bids we were originally I think we were supposed to be

[1:30:46] getting these bids back in like September I know I was on a little bit late so I

[1:30:53] know somebody commented on you know the timing of doing the project you know I

[1:31:00] think the bids were supposed to be back a couple months ago so that's why it

[1:31:04] pushed into the winter. But anyway, we have the two different options that were provided

[1:31:12] to us. One was a five boiler system and one was a two boiler system. In speaking with

[1:31:21] the folks from Johnson Controls and asking what they thought using, obviously, I'm a

[1:31:28] cop. I'm not a boiler expert. So using their experience, what they thought was the better

[1:31:36] option. They actually said that the two boiler system, which was slightly cheaper, I think

[1:31:41] it's about $1300 cheaper, is the better option of the two. So we were just coming to the

[1:31:50] board to let you know where that project was at. And I know we already have money

[1:31:55] budgeted for it. I think there's like $750,000 budgeted for that. And so we, with the bids,

[1:32:05] we intend on moving forward with it. I know originally we had kind of talked about also

[1:32:11] taking a look at upgrading the internal airflow systems within the Sheriff's Office at the

[1:32:20] same time because this portion of the building, it was the original building that was built

[1:32:25] back in 74, a lot of the dampers and stuff are all pneumatic and definitely beyond their

[1:32:32] life cycle. However, with the recent development with the city going out to look at potentially

[1:32:42] doing an expansion off that building for the police department, we decided to hold

[1:32:47] off on that extra thing just to see if that's something, if they intend to do

[1:32:53] or if that's a project that we can wrap into the larger project,

[1:32:57] or if it would make more sense to do that at the time.

[1:33:00] So that's why you're not seeing anything on that right now.

[1:33:03] The boiler project be something that should also be wrapped into that larger project?

[1:33:10] We kind of talked to him about that.

[1:33:12] But it sounded like if, I guess, Jay, our technical operations superintendent, Jay Gonzalez

[1:33:22] is right here, so I'll let him talk more about that.

[1:33:27] Thank you for being here, Jay.

[1:33:29] Yes.

[1:33:29] So, Jay Gonzalez, as Joe said, the technical operations superintendent, we talked with

[1:33:33] Johnson Controls and they basically recommended option two as far as the expansion goes

[1:33:38] if they wanted to use that mechanical space for the other facility or the other

[1:33:43] building potentially. I mean obviously I have no idea what's going to go on in

[1:33:46] the future but that's why option two was recommended. It's not only just two

[1:33:50] boilers it's also two smaller boilers it's the whole hot water system. So are

[1:33:55] they are the the two new boilers where are they going to be located? In the

[1:34:00] existing boiler room in the basement of the 770 Iowa building. Okay so there's

[1:34:05] nothing in the 880 Central. Yeah, we have in the 880 we've got a series of

[1:34:11] GeoWell pumps in there they were just replaced in 2018 2019. So with that

[1:34:19] system upgrade I think the GeoWell pumps I think they're about a 15 year

[1:34:24] rotation for replacement. The boilers obviously these I think are the

[1:34:29] original boilers so that they did pretty well getting 51 years out of

[1:34:33] them. So that's obviously something that is pretty infrequent to, well, things aren't

[1:34:41] made these days the way they used to be. But, you know, we'd hope that they'd be able to

[1:34:47] get 25, 30 years out of them. And so, and like Jay said, with the, with the boy room

[1:34:54] project, any thoughts on building expansion, they think that there's enough room in

[1:35:00] that current space where if they had to add something to take care of that, that's a

[1:35:07] possibility.

[1:35:08] How do I get those large of boilers down there?

[1:35:14] Harkinlot, you know, there's that graded area, there's that pit that some cadenets

[1:35:20] are units in and that's how I would get in through that doorway.

[1:35:24] The city expected to contribute anything to this?

[1:35:27] Yes.

[1:35:28] Yes, this is a, because this is a joint building project, the city does reimburse us approximately 30%.

[1:35:34] Right.

[1:35:35] So they're doing a broad look at what they might possibly do with the police side.

[1:35:42] Yes.

[1:35:43] And we've discussed with them and done our due diligence, I'm expecting Jay and Sheriff Kennedy, that this is a major improvement that has to happen.

[1:35:54] and that's going to be sufficient for whatever their purpose is.

[1:35:59] You were talking about the boiler.

[1:36:02] This before us now. Not inexpensive.

[1:36:06] Yeah. I don't know that this system would be able to...

[1:36:12] I don't know how much extra load it would be able to take on as far as their space.

[1:36:17] Obviously, it wasn't designed originally for...

[1:36:20] For it was designed to replace what we had and to take care of our existing space

[1:36:25] the only thing that we can say is that if there is some sort of

[1:36:31] Expansion upon that building that

[1:36:34] There's they believe that there's enough space in that room where we wouldn't have to create like a separate

[1:36:41] Boiler room or anything in the new facility that it would be able to still function as that and take care of that

[1:36:47] What's the city's timeline for?

[1:36:50] I'm sure they're hiring a consultant and so on.

[1:36:54] The only thing I can tell you about that is I think they have a consultant that is coming

[1:36:59] in around the first of the year or something like that.

[1:37:02] And then, obviously, they would have to develop architectural design or whatever.

[1:37:11] And, you know, so I guess I don't know exactly when, you know, if they have to

[1:37:17] or bond or whatever, I don't know if they're planning on trying to get something like that on next year's election or that's outside of me.

[1:37:26] But we're making a major improvement and we don't sound like we know what they're doing. They're going to reimburse us regardless.

[1:37:34] Yes.

[1:37:36] And we have to complete this project.

[1:37:39] I mean, our boilers are at a point where, yeah, I mean, it's our hot water and our heating system for the building.

[1:37:47] Or the jail.

[1:37:48] Yeah.

[1:37:49] I

[1:37:52] don't have anything.

[1:37:53] Is there any thoughts, Harley?

[1:37:55] Good.

[1:37:56] Is there anything we can do to beat it?

[1:37:59] Well, the city, it allotted 100,000 for the study.

[1:38:03] That doesn't mean they're going to do anything.

[1:38:05] So we have no choice.

[1:38:06] we have to get this done and if they have to add to it, if they do decide to add to the building,

[1:38:16] have to deal with it when it happens. But yeah, and I guess this piece, we're in charge of making

[1:38:24] this decision and this infrastructure improvement is solely our responsibility. It's led by us,

[1:38:31] Yes. And we pay the upfront cost. We get reimbursed. But not to interrupt you, but just to touch on

[1:38:42] Harley's point, I think it is a valid point. Like the city, they recognize that they have a need for

[1:38:48] more space for their PD. They're doing this study, but nothing is guaranteed. And we have to,

[1:38:56] although it's always good to look into the future and plan for the future,

[1:39:00] We also have to look at, you know, we have an immediate need and because they are there's kind of a toss up on what they're doing.

[1:39:07] I don't know that we can really, really look at that as a.

[1:39:13] I just want to make sure we have clear communication that they are anticipating this bill coming.

[1:39:19] Yes, yes, they are definitely anticipating it coming. Yes.

[1:39:23] And they have indicated in no respect through leadership that we should forestall this improvement.

[1:39:29] It must happen now.

[1:39:31] No one has ever said anything to the contrary.

[1:39:37] I don't have any other questions.

[1:39:40] Sorry.

[1:39:41] I don't have any other questions.

[1:39:42] Okay.

[1:39:43] So do you need us to take some action today, Joe?

[1:39:46] No, I don't believe so.

[1:39:47] We've already got the money budgeted for it.

[1:39:49] We just wanted to give an update on where the project was at and let you guys know.

[1:39:54] Right.

[1:39:55] One of the questions this morning was that they couldn't find a blueprint. Do you have jail blueprints typically on the website?

[1:40:02] I don't know that we have blueprints on the website.

[1:40:06] I don't know why we would have our jail blueprints on the website.

[1:40:09] I think that would be a security...

[1:40:10] The jail blueprints are available to the general public.

[1:40:14] No, I think they're... I mean, I think that's kind of a confidential thing for security purposes.

[1:40:19] So, yep, thank you.

[1:40:23] Thank you, Joe. Thank you, Jay.

[1:40:28] Next work session discussion and possible action regarding the compensation board as it can occurs request.

[1:40:35] So based on conversations that we've had in the past and observations over the last three years and changes again from a legislative standpoint that allows us to function.

[1:40:51] differently as far as compensation boards. I guess cut to the chase. You know, my thought

[1:40:59] process is,

[1:41:03] you know, and we had this discussion last year, but I believe, you know, we as

[1:41:09] a board can, we have the final decision as far as compensation is concerned, and I

[1:41:18] believe that it makes sense to to do this with without a compensation board

[1:41:24] going forward. I've talked to several county leaders, county supervisors that

[1:41:29] have done away with their compensation board. They did not have any you know

[1:41:36] significant issues dealing with things that way. In fact some of them said it

[1:41:42] It made it much more streamlined and worked better for them.

[1:41:50] So my thought process is that Dubuque County doesn't necessarily need a compensation board

[1:41:55] to recommend elected officials' salaries.

[1:42:00] Well, the compensation board does the comparisons.

[1:42:04] They get all the paperwork together for what they need to compare.

[1:42:08] I believe Ed does that work for them.

[1:42:10] They meet once a year and review the information that Ed provides them so

[1:42:17] And by Ed you mean me and Chelsea and maybe stellar or some other staff, but as a team we pull that information together

[1:42:25] I probably lead that if you were to not do that a question. I would have back for the board is do you want that information?

[1:42:34] That's what I see fit I use I use that information anyway and most typically a town

[1:42:38] I just wanted to make sure that you were clear that the direction back to us.

[1:42:42] So whatever you decide, make sure you give direction back to us and what you want to receive.

[1:42:46] Yeah. It seems like somewhat of a layer that is there because it's always been there.

[1:42:53] You know, again, it boils down to a conversation that we have as a board of three to make a final decision on what those are.

[1:43:02] And I think we have the ability, we have the information to review and make that decision

[1:43:11] without, you know, one more step in the process.

[1:43:16] It's a public input step.

[1:43:20] I don't see a reason to change it.

[1:43:22] I mean, this is – those folks have a purpose.

[1:43:25] And I don't know that in this community there is a great interest in compensation

[1:43:30] and what the compensation board recommends and what they review. So I don't know why we would remove that

[1:43:37] as part of the process. It's optional for us. And this is the same conversation we had last year

[1:43:44] and decided to keep the process in place so that citizens could inform us of their thoughts.

[1:43:50] Sure. You know, the process is that each elected official appoints their own representative.

[1:43:57] Supervisors of point two.

[1:43:59] Right. The supervisors, at least I have always used that differently.

[1:44:03] I have asked citizens for their input.

[1:44:07] So it's not a lobbying position from the supervisor's perspective.

[1:44:12] So how an elected official may choose to use that is between them and their person.

[1:44:21] But I don't have a reason to make a change.

[1:44:25] So that's my yeah, we can shorten the conversation

[1:44:27] I mean I I believe that compensation board is is unnecessary if if you know

[1:44:33] The two of you don't believe that then we move on to the next agenda item. No, I like to have it there because

[1:44:42] They are the public. They are all taxpayers and they're making recommendations. We have left. We have the final say

[1:44:50] But I look at it as they're all property taxpayers that are recommending

[1:44:55] the races. It's not, you know, us saying...

[1:45:00] I want this much or whatever. It's the general public. The people paying the property tax that

[1:45:06] are recommended and raises. So I like to get their opinion on it. Like I said, we have the

[1:45:11] final say so. So we can keep it in place for now.

[1:45:16] Sounds good. Thank you.

[1:45:18] I have one more spray remark, which is the compensation board last year sets its date

[1:45:24] in time, and that is December 1st at 3 o'clock, which is the same time that Rachelle Fuller

[1:45:31] from Senator Grassley's office will be here. The compensation board is scheduled to be

[1:45:35] at the West Campus, so just as an FYI.

[1:45:41] Thanks, Ed. Any discussion and possible action on an ISAC request for support? I don't

[1:45:48] know if everybody got the request. That was just sent to me. I think they're

[1:45:53] looking for was it $500 Keith for yeah

[1:46:02] it's $500 down this paragraph here it's

[1:46:05] a deal with Shelby in Story counties basically

[1:46:11] they're fighting the

[1:46:15] liquid

[1:46:16] pipeline yeah

[1:46:22] we got a total cost of $25,000 they're asking for $500 here

[1:46:26] up

[1:46:31] for discussion with my colleagues your

[1:46:39] thoughts and it's

[1:46:45] a litigation type

[1:46:46] thing I don't know that doesn't

[1:46:51] affect us I mean I understand we're

[1:46:53] part of ISAC, but it will affect us.

[1:47:02] So, yeah, just a discussion among my colleagues.

[1:47:07] Sure. So, I think where this is headed, it may not affect us directly right now because

[1:47:13] the, I'll just call it liquid hazardous or carbon pipeline that is being discussed

[1:47:25] for portions of Iowa comes very close. The proposal comes very close. And the

[1:47:32] idea of continuing to use eminent domain for something of this nature is not what we want

[1:47:39] to be faced with.

[1:47:40] So we may not be faced with it immediately.

[1:47:46] This may fend off future expansions and I think our opinion should matter even though we're

[1:47:58] being asked for it.

[1:47:59] You know, to this point, you know, we haven't, you know, jumped on the bus, but at this point

[1:48:07] we are being asked, and I realize that that may be tied to some financial things.

[1:48:11] But I think my personal opinion is that we should join in this effort and support them

[1:48:17] with $500.

[1:48:21] Ian?

[1:48:23] I don't mislead an opinion on this.

[1:48:27] No matter what citizens seem to do with regard to the carbon pipelines, the lobbyists and

[1:48:36] this is a runaway issue that people do not want this to happen and the governor signs

[1:48:41] it anyway.

[1:48:43] It doesn't matter.

[1:48:44] So if you want to spend $500 for an opinion or concern or whatever you want to call that,

[1:48:49] that's fine.

[1:48:50] I'm not going to vote no.

[1:48:51] I've done my own work on this issue.

[1:48:54] I also have my own feelings about ISAC, so if that's how you wish to spend $500, I won't vote no.

[1:49:01] I'm not making the motion.

[1:49:04] I think it gets down more into the eminent domain issue is where it's at,

[1:49:10] where I believe they want to push for 90% of the people agreeing to it

[1:49:18] before an eminent domain can even be used.

[1:49:21] So I do agree that

[1:49:28] it's a good investment.

[1:49:30] I think the majority of the people do have concerns about the carbon pipelines and the use of eminent domain to get things done.

[1:49:40] So I guess I would be in favor of giving them the $500.

[1:49:47] In that case, I'll make a motion to support the ISAC's request for $500.

[1:49:56] I will second a motion and a second to approve the allocation of $500 to ISAC for the purpose

[1:50:03] of the donation.

[1:50:05] Pardon?

[1:50:05] Is it to contribute to the lawsuit?

[1:50:07] Is it to contribute to lobbying?

[1:50:09] Does it matter?

[1:50:11] We're just doing our-

[1:50:11] Coming to the cost of the amicus brief, which has total cost of $25,000.

[1:50:16] So it's illegal filing?

[1:50:18] Right.

[1:50:18] I

[1:50:24] have a motion and a second for the ISAC request for $500 all-in-favor signify by aye.

[1:50:32] Aye.

[1:50:33] Aye.

[1:50:36] Okay, we have discussion and possible action on Bernard Rescue Unit's building.

[1:50:41] Who wants to leave that for us or Bernard or...?

[1:50:45] It

[1:50:54] probably should begin with a summary of where we think we are after our last

[1:50:57] meeting, right?

[1:51:00] So, there was discussion that you were not here for, but I think we should probably try

[1:51:05] to lay out what it is we think we've decided, and then I would value the input very much

[1:51:11] from Bernard, be very helpful.

[1:51:15] Okay.

[1:51:16] So, we had a work session last meeting on the third, and we just kind of ran through

[1:51:22] the timeline.

[1:51:23] mine. I think Mr. Gassman listened to that meeting, but given all the information in front

[1:51:31] of us, my recommendation was to just facilitate out of Key West, given the information we had

[1:51:40] at the time. So that's, I know there's a lot of content behind that, but more or less

[1:51:45] the summary. If you want me to be more expansive, I'm happy to do so. I know I got some

[1:51:50] notes in front of me but did we take a formal vote that we did not so we had

[1:51:56] consensus based upon what we knew that we would be able to run all of our

[1:52:00] operation out of the Key West facility for this winter yeah it was more of an

[1:52:05] informative like here's all the information that's transpired through the

[1:52:09] process and like I said given the information in front of us the

[1:52:14] direction of the our department was just to facilitate out of Key West

[1:52:18] Do either of you have any other understanding of what we did at our meeting last time?

[1:52:23] Is this thank you?

[1:52:23] We had discussed it and we had gotten another letter from Mr. Gosman.

[1:52:28] Supervisor Kennecker has to have it on the agenda here.

[1:52:30] Yeah, he provided us with three options on what steps to take and answering an email.

[1:52:39] My request was to have a representative here and have additional discussion.

[1:52:44] Do you have any other input from us for us, Russell?

[1:52:50] Not at this time, but I'll be here to answer or help facilitate in any way I can.

[1:52:56] Okay.

[1:53:02] Mike Gassman with the Bernard Rescue Unit, 547 Rolls Street, G-A-S-S-M-A-N if you're

[1:53:08] wondering I'm not into it.

[1:53:10] So basically we're here today to kind of follow up.

[1:53:13] Obviously, you guys are well aware of some of the miss dealings back in the day with

[1:53:19] not getting proper documentation signed.

[1:53:23] So we're here today to figure out what the official next step for the supervisors, the

[1:53:29] road department is, to either proceed with continuing to work out of the Bernard shop,

[1:53:35] as you guys call it, or is it something that, as the building is being constructed,

[1:53:41] is that something where you guys are looking to move differently. We're just kind of trying to get

[1:53:46] everything put to rest to figure out what the next steps are. Yes, we did send an email in proposing

[1:53:54] you know to do a lease agreement. We would still like for the department or for the road

[1:54:00] department to continue to work out of Bernard. Not only as for the community of Bernard but

[1:54:06] also for the Bernard route but you know we'd asked in the email you know kind of

[1:54:13] where things are at so I guess we're kind of just trying to get some

[1:54:15] clarification as the building is being reconstructed you know how far what do we

[1:54:21] need to do what do we not need to do so that way we know so that we're not

[1:54:27] overspending money that we don't need to spend or yes we do need to spend

[1:54:30] money for XYZ reasons so I guess that's why we're here today to answer

[1:54:35] your guys's questions and see what we want to do going forward here okay Mike a lot of the

[1:54:42] obviously I thought that first discussion with you everything was going along pretty good the

[1:54:49] thousand dollars a month pretty much close the door on it not gonna lie about that I think

[1:54:57] that is way out of line on that.

[1:55:00] We rent a place up at Holy Cross for $1,000,

[1:55:06] but that person owns the building.

[1:55:09] He pays property tax on the building.

[1:55:11] We didn't pay for any of the building.

[1:55:14] It's a little different in Bernard

[1:55:15] because we pretty much gave you the ground.

[1:55:19] We paid for our portion of the building

[1:55:21] for the lifetime lease, my understanding.

[1:55:24] Then you went the same route that that just doesn't compute very well with me. I'm sorry

[1:55:29] Well when we asked in our second meeting that you were unavailable attend to we asked

[1:55:35] Russell what the building up in Holy Cross was

[1:55:39] He said it was a $400 and it was a $500 depending on the time of the year

[1:55:43] We asked what the size of the building was and he couldn't he didn't have the exact dimensions, which was perfectly fine

[1:55:51] So the way we kind of looked at it was, if there's one piece of equipment up there

[1:55:55] and you're spending 500 bucks a month, 400 bucks, whatever it was, the building in

[1:55:59] Bernard is a two-stall building with concrete floor, heated, insulated,

[1:56:02] bathroom. You know, we took that number and just doubled it and went to a

[1:56:06] thousand dollars as a starting point to go move forward with. So that's where

[1:56:12] we came up with that number. And yes, the ground was sold to the Vernaugrask unit for

[1:56:19] a dollar because the ground was going back to the county due to some non-paid taxes at

[1:56:26] that point in time back in 1995, 96, 97 or whatever year that was. So, yes, we did get

[1:56:35] the ground at a severely reduced price, but at the same time, up until the windstorm

[1:56:41] come through and blew the building over, nobody had the exact knowledge of how it was operated,

[1:56:50] how it was written up, which was a handshake agreement that we're digging back into people's

[1:56:56] memories from 27 years ago, trying to figure that out. There's a lot of documentation up to

[1:57:03] the point where the county gave the 41,000 for the lifetime lease, which basically paid for

[1:57:10] that portion of the building correct and then after that everything just goes

[1:57:13] blue yeah because the notes that watching the previous means the this is the

[1:57:19] notebook that we had all of the from the our secretary at the time that took in

[1:57:23] regards to you know was discussed at each meeting and there's notes in there

[1:57:27] that says that you know what they met with x y and z but once the board started

[1:57:32] getting put up that's one like hardly references of the notes kind of stop

[1:57:36] at that point in time? Well it sounds like the intent was the county again gave the property

[1:57:46] and $41,000 to build a lifetime arrangement with Bernard Rescue. Now again, that lifetime doesn't

[1:57:59] factor in, winds, storms, things of that nature, but you had an insurable interest

[1:58:03] in the entire building. So I'm not sure what caused the gift of the land and the contribution of $41,000 in exchange for a lifetime lease.

[1:58:20] Who's lifetime? What stopped? I don't get what stopped here.

[1:58:24] From what I understand from I checked with our lawyer and I said, you know

[1:58:29] How does this work?

[1:58:32] He's like well the lifetime lease is on what type of paper and I showed him that he's like well

[1:58:36] There's no if there's no official documentation

[1:58:40] There's really no official lifetime lease agreement. But is that the is that is that the working relationship that?

[1:58:47] We've never had a working relationship with the county because there's never been an issue with with anything

[1:58:53] So, it's kind of like, everything that happened how many years ago happened and now we're

[1:59:01] back to square one trying to figure out how do we move forward.

[1:59:05] That's actually the position that I have taken, which is we were not involved in creating

[1:59:12] this situation of who owned what or how and it wasn't documented and may or may not

[1:59:17] have been executed appropriately, right?

[1:59:19] So we're not going to find help from that and as much as I'm a taxpayer too and

[1:59:26] Need to be cautious with how we spend taxpayer dollars

[1:59:29] This is a community that has allowed us to have a shop there and has allowed us to run and operate out of that and

[1:59:39] This it's it isn't as though it's for anything other than

[1:59:43] than fire and EMS, right? That's what we're talking about. We're talking about people who are responding.

[1:59:52] We need these folks so very much. And I don't want to be in a situation where it seems that we're hostile

[1:59:59] it

[2:00:00] Any way for things that happened before or not done correctly.

[2:00:04] So I think we're trying to come up with what a fair agreement is.

[2:00:07] How we operate a shop out of Bernard is difficult because of a gentleman who's retiring and

[2:00:15] trying to find someone who's going to operate out of that shop.

[2:00:18] And if someone starts their job there, will they drive to Bernard?

[2:00:22] There's just logistics.

[2:00:24] There's different things that are changing.

[2:00:26] So, being a supervisor that's in a partnership with you, we have to find the dollar amount that makes the most sense today.

[2:00:37] And you say whether that's good enough or close enough, if we enter into an agreement with you for any sum,

[2:00:44] will this require some of your equipment to remain outdoors?

[2:00:50] it has Bernard decided this is the best situation for all of your assets.

[2:00:57] Currently we have a lease agreement with the City of Bernard for the old

[2:01:00] firehouse which is abroad a block away where we keep a couple we keep two

[2:01:04] pieces of equipment over there along with additional supplies. So as we've

[2:01:09] stated in the email you know depending what happens going forward

[2:01:12] whether we enter a lease agreement whether the county moves on whatever

[2:01:19] happens the rescue unit is going to take the building back over and we're going

[2:01:24] to house all of our equipment in one building instead of having two separate

[2:01:28] buildings because there are times where for example a grass fire we have our

[2:01:34] brush truck in a different building we have to depend on somebody to like oh you

[2:01:38] know make sure they grab that or they stopped at the truck up drive over get

[2:01:42] get get dressed and then we head out from there that's just one example so

[2:01:47] having everything under one roof would be nice. I'm not going to lie about that. And also with

[2:01:52] the additional space that allows us for that in that other building, we can go ahead and we can

[2:01:57] do training year-round. So, you know, whether it's rain and snow and whatever, we've got an

[2:02:04] opportunity to train, so we're not depending on standing out in the rain, getting soaked for

[2:02:07] two hours for the train where we can do it inside. So our plan is then not to, depending

[2:02:13] what the supervisor decided to do, what the road department decides to do, we're not going

[2:02:19] to go turn around and put a lease sign in the backyard to lease that out or rent that

[2:02:24] out to somebody else.

[2:02:26] There was a discussion of purchasing that land back.

[2:02:31] As a board, we decided against that because we are landlocked at that point in time.

[2:02:36] So, if the next fire truck that we get is twice the size or something, we can't do anything.

[2:02:44] We're looking at elsewhere to house that equipment, or we have to figure out a way to make stuff

[2:02:50] smaller, which we all know that that isn't happening.

[2:02:55] We're not one bit against, and we've said that in the emails.

[2:02:59] We're invested in doing a five or a 10-year in negotiating a price.

[2:03:06] We have nothing against that. We have absolutely nothing against that. You know,

[2:03:12] you talk about the public safety. Yes, the public safety is big. You know, my wife

[2:03:17] works in the butte, we all got to get around and go somewhere. Whether it's

[2:03:21] at two in the afternoon or two in the morning if it's a blizzard out. Yes, we

[2:03:25] depend on the road crew to get there, but at the same time at two in the

[2:03:28] morning when we get paged out it is tough for us to get to the fire

[2:03:34] house let alone have you know the new the new guy that's driving the snow plow

[2:03:38] leave his house at two in the morning whether he's leaving from Key West or

[2:03:43] Upworth or you know 10 miles on the other side of Bernard you know it takes time

[2:03:48] for everybody to get moving so sometimes you know we're leaving with the

[2:03:53] equipment we don't know what the roads are gonna be like until we get on the

[2:03:57] road. So there's some value in what you just said you know with having the

[2:04:03] secondary roads department close and working with the fire and EMS I would

[2:04:13] think again you know I'm going to go back to this and I know it's you know

[2:04:16] probably a fairly pointed issue is that in 1997 I believe from the

[2:04:25] information that I've received is when this agreement was put in place and

[2:04:28] And there was a reason for that.

[2:04:30] There became a partnership between Dubuque County and Bernard, Bernard Rescue, the city

[2:04:37] of Bernard, the community of Bernard, right?

[2:04:40] And so, you know, property was virtually given and 41,000 was given for a lifetime lease.

[2:04:47] I don't get why we're not there, why we're not going to continue.

[2:04:51] you, you had the building insured, the building is being rebuilt, why Dubuque County, if it's

[2:05:01] that partnership that was established, why wouldn't we continue that partnership and

[2:05:06] not do it over leasing it back to us?

[2:05:12] We didn't ask for the property back, we didn't ask for the 41,000 back, but yet we're being

[2:05:20] ask for more money. Why don't we continue that relationship as it was? You know, we pay the

[2:05:27] utilities, we pay the operational cost of it. If it's that beneficial and that meaningful to

[2:05:35] the community, why don't we continue on with the way we were before July 11th,

[2:05:42] when the wind blew that building down?

[2:05:47] Well, as going forward for starters,

[2:05:48] our insurance premiums are definitely going to be going up because of the claim, more than likely.

[2:05:53] I would guess to say that's going to be the case. Second of all, the Bernard Rescue Unit,

[2:05:59] that building is completely, not completely, almost completely, maintained off of donations

[2:06:05] and fundraising. Because that building is owned by the Bernard Rescue Unit, which has no ties to

[2:06:11] the city. It has no ties to the county. The Bernard Fire Association, they lease two stalls

[2:06:18] in our building from us or from the rescue unit to house their equipment.

[2:06:23] So there's no taxation money coming in.

[2:06:26] It is 100 percent, or a donation, I should say 100 percent.

[2:06:31] It is predominantly funded through donations and fundraising that we do.

[2:06:36] Yes, we do receive money from the fire board for their lease agreement, which they've

[2:06:41] had since day one.

[2:06:42] And yes, we do receive monies from our ambulance billing, which we only run 40-50 calls a year

[2:06:49] and all those 40-50 calls a year that we can actually bill for, we're not making a whole

[2:06:54] lot of money when it comes down to it on that end of it.

[2:06:58] Was it the same in 1997 when this partnership was established?

[2:07:02] For the fire board, at least.

[2:07:05] Yeah.

[2:07:05] Or, you know, as far as the things that you just mentioned, you know, that this

[2:07:09] is funded, how it's funded, and things like that.

[2:07:12] Yes, the building was completely put up on donated dollars.

[2:07:15] And the fire board was paying a lease that was reviewed here within the last five years,

[2:07:21] and that number has also changed.

[2:07:25] So this may just, this is just another piece of information that I would know, Shelley,

[2:07:31] you can check the number if you know, but New Vienna had, you know, that original

[2:07:37] fire station that they had underneath their community hall. They weren't buying

[2:07:42] the equipment that didn't fit in there anymore. They couldn't actually

[2:07:45] upgrade their fire equipment because they couldn't put it anywhere. So they made

[2:07:51] the transition to build their new community hall and their fire department.

[2:07:55] The Tom Hancock grant was written in such a way. I think it was $50,000

[2:07:59] that the Tom Hancock grant gave to New Vienna to put toward that new

[2:08:04] building. The Tom Hancock grant is of course taxpayer funding in which we've

[2:08:09] received that over the years and it's been a great a great thing. But what I'm

[2:08:14] trying to just so we all know that the county has been a partner before in new

[2:08:20] buildings and in trying to recognize the need for you to have property to run

[2:08:27] out of as you said you don't want to be landlocked you need to be able to

[2:08:30] build the building that's the size that's you're going to need to put

[2:08:35] I value that a great deal. So if we could find the number for the lease,

[2:08:45] the no answer becomes obvious to me because the roads department issue is going to always be separate.

[2:08:52] So I'm not going to make that decision about where roads is going to operate out of.

[2:08:59] I want you to have what you need as a fire and rescue department. Do you see my point?

[2:09:04] That's what I really want you to have and if what we are is the shop is there to offset

[2:09:09] the cost of the building, then I think that's what we need to say, right?

[2:09:15] That's what the truth is.

[2:09:16] Well, I mean, at the same time, I mean, there's, you can look at multiple different ways

[2:09:22] on it.

[2:09:22] I mean, if they want

[2:09:28] to put this without who's in sight here, but no, I mean,

[2:09:33] Get better later.

[2:09:35] No, I'm just we're just looking at okay

[2:09:38] Why if the building is owned the ground is owned by us, I mean that's not going to change

[2:09:44] Right. I mean the lifetime once that building blew in that lifetime

[2:09:49] Handshake agreement pretty much went away. You know, we're looking at okay

[2:09:54] How many other I don't understand that there's other

[2:09:57] Like holy cross. I mean why

[2:10:02] I mean it's going to take how many years for that building to get built

[2:10:04] I guess we're on the other side of what we're looking at you know

[2:10:07] What's the financial side of the benefit up for the county to stay there for a couple years to get

[2:10:12] To get up and going if far fifth film orders ultimately the location that ends up getting relocated to I don't I don't know

[2:10:18] I don't have an answer on that but but Mike if there's value in the roads department being there, right?

[2:10:25] What's the value for the roads department not to be there?

[2:10:30] I guess I look at it as it's been a partnership. Yeah, you know whether it's law enforcement and Bernard

[2:10:35] Bernard, I was in law enforcement, but Bernard, we went to a lot of calls together, it's a

[2:10:41] great partnership.

[2:10:42] It's a great partnership with the roads.

[2:10:44] I love to keep the roads there because it's a public safety issue.

[2:10:48] You get that two o'clock in the morning.

[2:10:50] There is an employee for the secondary roads that is on your department, correct?

[2:10:55] He has, he retired a month or two ago.

[2:10:59] But he still lives in the area, correct?

[2:11:01] He's closer to Key West of Territory, yes.

[2:11:03] But he would be able to still get a road plowed that we could get a fire truck or whatever needed

[2:11:10] So

[2:11:14] I guess I understand where Wayne's coming from because I'm kind of the same way, you know

[2:11:18] We pretty much gave you everything for it

[2:11:20] And a thousand dollars just don't seem right. I understand that your insurance is probably going to go up

[2:11:25] You know no issue on that at all

[2:11:28] Also understand them supposedly we were paying interest their insurance on the building to and found out that it wasn't ours

[2:11:35] So, well, it goes back to he said, he said, and there's no documentation.

[2:11:40] Well, but that issue is resolved, correct?

[2:11:43] The insurance companies issued their decision on who owns that property.

[2:11:47] That's been determined.

[2:11:48] Right, right.

[2:11:49] So, I mean, I'll start the discussion here.

[2:11:53] You know, I would be comfortable with like 250 a month.

[2:11:56] I think, you know, your insurance goes up, I get that.

[2:11:59] But there's benefits to both sides.

[2:12:02] I'm not disagreeing there.

[2:12:03] But, I mean, that's, I don't know where Russ is at, or Wayne, or...

[2:12:08] Is it $250 plus utilities, or what are we talking about here?

[2:12:12] Is it $250 a month plus the utilities?

[2:12:15] Is it metered separately?

[2:12:16] Yeah, it would be 100% metered separately.

[2:12:19] They have their own gas tank.

[2:12:20] Just like it was, right.

[2:12:22] I think the only utility you guys would have to add would be internet at that point in time,

[2:12:26] because we had worked a deal out.

[2:12:28] Did you say internet?

[2:12:32] So, I mean, that'd be an additional added to it.

[2:12:35] but so we'd have to decide whether there's a need for internet so you know

[2:12:42] what the other thing is we're bringing on a new engineer eventually could we

[2:12:48] enter into a short-term lease to operate out of Bernard so just so you

[2:12:53] guys know where it's at as of this morning we should hopefully should have

[2:12:58] the outside of the building all steeled so the roof is on the walls

[2:13:03] should be all steeled the general was gone out of town for the last week so I

[2:13:09] don't have a clear picture of where he's actually at like what his timeline is to

[2:13:14] finish do you have an estimate on what it is going to cost to rebuild I do and

[2:13:21] it was very similar what you guys were given so I'm from your insurance

[2:13:26] company on that end of it I haven't seen those numbers so I guess I'm

[2:13:30] I'm just asking what the cost was and what the coverage was, you know, is where I'm headed

[2:13:37] with this.

[2:13:37] I guess we're being...

[2:13:38] You're set whole, right, Mike?

[2:13:40] I mean, you're not going to have any additional...

[2:13:41] Your building is going to be rebuilt by the insurance proceeds and you'll have no cost

[2:13:45] to that, correct?

[2:13:46] Yes.

[2:13:47] Okay.

[2:13:49] I'm not sure how the value of us for the community being there doesn't offset everything

[2:13:57] except for utilities of that building.

[2:13:59] I guess, you know, that was the agreement that was made, perhaps it wasn't documented.

[2:14:03] I mean, I don't know as though any of us in this room were necessarily a part of that,

[2:14:08] but I think we know what the intent was. And I think going forward, we pay the utilities,

[2:14:14] we go back to where we were, if in fact we are going back to Bernard. Right now, our

[2:14:20] short time solution, the equipment and manpower has already been moved to Key West.

[2:14:25] you know I don't know why we would go back and you know I get it your

[2:14:33] insurance is going up but you know everything is so and that's like I

[2:14:39] said that's where you know we're open negotiation on that end of it I mean I

[2:14:44] don't know if that's a supervised means that's where that's handled at majority

[2:14:47] time you know obviously we have to take it back to our board if that is a

[2:14:52] number that is being discussed and see what they want to say in terms of the lease.

[2:15:00] You know, stuff along those lines, so.

[2:15:02] Just to make it.

[2:15:05] This is not a good conversation to have because of what these gentlemen do for their community, right?

[2:15:11] I understand what they do. We're just trying to come up with a solution here.

[2:15:16] But understand if this was truly arms length, we wouldn't be renting there and it would be done and we wouldn't ever shop in Bernard.

[2:15:22] But there's a public safety issue that brings us back to this again and again and again.

[2:15:26] So I think we need to find that solution for the Bernard community.

[2:15:30] We're not discussing how they operate or how we operate.

[2:15:34] But we are trying to create a financial situation, a financial partnership with them that benefits a small community and fills a need for the county with an engineer that is yet to be determined, right?

[2:15:50] but the the company benefits some obviously from being there it's good

[2:15:57] location but if we're taking maintainers and trucks from Key West all the way

[2:16:02] down to Bernard to run a route that they could be starting in Bernard you're

[2:16:07] putting a lot of extra hours on the maintainer running that far it's it's

[2:16:12] got to have some value to it okay trucks the same way so I mean I'm

[2:16:18] willing to, like I said, $250 I think is fair. It's a benefit for both of us. But again,

[2:16:26] it's discussion. You okay with the other gentleman? I can maybe

[2:16:29] slide up because he had something to add. Yes, I just wanted to kind of say with Harley

[2:16:34] or Jeremy English. Jeremy English, Bernard Fire, 547 Roller Street. I was going to agree

[2:16:40] with Harley that it's going to benefit you guys because the equipment's starting there.

[2:16:47] But if you guys hire a guy out of Epworth to come and run the truck

[2:16:53] It's not gonna be as beneficial

[2:16:55] To get something open in a hurry as a as it would be today

[2:17:00] So I guess that's one of my opinions on it. Yeah, thank you Jeremy. Thank you

[2:17:06] Russ, I don't know as though this decision needs to be made today. Obviously, you know Russell has already

[2:17:15] made taking steps to do be able to operate out of Key West is it is an ideal I

[2:17:22] don't know but that's the step that has already been taken the buildings not

[2:17:26] even built yet I'm assuming that it would maybe be ready for by the end of

[2:17:31] the year most to be in completed right I mean is if everything keeps in its

[2:17:35] target states it could be a January 1 it could be a February 1 I mean I don't

[2:17:39] have that magic but it makes it as close to being yeah yeah um there's no overhead doors on it or

[2:17:46] they're ordered and they are scheduled to be installed so is it wired or no that's because

[2:17:52] when we go to the wire it right we're not going to wire it for a separate service

[2:17:56] to be on the building means we've already got our service inside the building we can just

[2:18:00] poke a hole through the wall sure you know and save on the financial end I need to know what we

[2:18:04] want to do that they can move forward. Yeah, I mean I think by you know in all

[2:18:09] fairness I mean we can make that decision right now or we can actually step

[2:18:14] back and think about it for the next two weeks and on December 1st we could make

[2:18:17] a make a decision. I mean and that's you know that's a decision that obviously

[2:18:23] we're not going to make we're just looking for a decision you know to move

[2:18:27] forward and on the flip side of it you know we understand no matter what

[2:18:31] What happened when this building got started?

[2:18:34] I think when Steve Maggers provided the quotes, he's like, hey, the earliest I got anybody

[2:18:39] that can get there would be October.

[2:18:41] We started the building pretty much at the end of October with our contractor.

[2:18:45] So this winner was going to be doomed from day one unless there was a clear definition

[2:18:54] of who owned the building when that building blew over that great Friday night.

[2:19:00] So, like I said, going forward, me personally, I understand as a community, the roads department,

[2:19:08] are they going to be as good as they have been the last 25 years with Dan Larkin running

[2:19:11] the road, you know, running that equipment over the hard surface roads?

[2:19:15] Probably not because there's just the complexity of things changing, things moving.

[2:19:22] So, we're hoping that we can get an answer so that way come April 1, you guys look at

[2:19:29] your books and everything happens and all of a sudden it's like, you know what, that

[2:19:33] would have been a great deal to officially say, hey, let's go with 250, go with 500,

[2:19:40] go with something to get back in that building and then we've already wired it and made

[2:19:45] changes to the building that's going to be, you know.

[2:19:48] Totally understand that.

[2:19:49] You need an answer that you know how to perceive.

[2:19:51] So then the other question we have is you know the salt sheds in in there yet is at the firehouse yet

[2:19:56] Or in the county's shop there. I know Russ said that you guys are planning on running a hundred percent out of Key West

[2:20:02] So what is the plan for?

[2:20:05] for that salt shed is that

[2:20:07] No, is that our responsive ability to remove it if you guys decide not to come back is it your guys's responsibility?

[2:20:14] I mean we've you know, I've been the email has said hey

[2:20:17] you know, what's the decision, you know, if you guys want to park an escalator, a backhoe there,

[2:20:21] a loader tractor to utilize that salt shed, because I don't know how many loads it takes

[2:20:28] to do that route, you know, is it cost effective to let a backhoe in Bernard to use that salt

[2:20:37] shed for the winter, just to cut down on, you know, from the end of the route, I'll

[2:20:42] go back to Key West and come back out again, how much, you know, on the timing of that,

[2:20:45] I understand that, you know, everybody only works X amount of hours a day, but can that

[2:20:51] be at least shortened down?

[2:20:54] That would be a rough question on the salt shed, that ours theirs, what is it rough sir?

[2:21:00] That salt shed is ours, it stays there, but we have not received any information on the

[2:21:09] cost or lease or agreement on utilizing it, so we haven't evaluated it because we

[2:21:15] don't have information. What would your opinion be on lanes at zero? I'm up to

[2:21:21] 250 in that range. Would that work for the county roads? I'm more aligned with

[2:21:28] the zero dollars and continuing what we had. But if there comes a number

[2:21:36] whatever it may be happy to take a look at it and evaluate it with the next

[2:21:43] person or staff accordingly and but the salt shed would be a benefit to us to

[2:21:54] operate out of or to have material on you know in that territory but like I

[2:22:01] mentioned we have not received any number on what that would take or what

[2:22:06] kind of agreement that is so we can we can remove it right now if it's in

[2:22:12] their way and they wish for it not to be there, but it is ours and we plan on

[2:22:17] removing it. It's just we didn't do it yet based on we don't know if we're gonna

[2:22:23] utilize it yet this winter or we're gonna just remove it. And what time?

[2:22:27] Mike, do you have enough information to go back to your board and see if you can

[2:22:32] come up with something and come back for the first?

[2:22:37] I'm sure we got enough information we can take it back and go back to the board and see

[2:22:44] what they want to say.

[2:22:46] Let's see what the board says, come back on December 1st and we can hopefully make a decision

[2:22:50] at that point that you know where you're at.

[2:22:52] The only thing would be at this point, time for the salt shed.

[2:22:55] We've got nothing against it being used.

[2:22:58] One bit at all.

[2:22:59] There's enough room back there for the salt sheds out of the way of the doors.

[2:23:04] There's plenty enough room there to put a backhoe there to load out

[2:23:08] But there's no power to that the pole that you could at least plug into so it's a matter of

[2:23:13] you know

[2:23:15] If you guys want to you truly want to utilize that whether it's five bucks a month or no cost whatever

[2:23:20] I mean, that's something we get figured out. I mean

[2:23:23] We're not gonna be in a hurry to run power to that pole because on the rescue in the side

[2:23:29] But we don't have a need to put power out there unless it's needed there, right?

[2:23:34] Well, we want to obviously move forward that you know where you're at

[2:23:38] I mean, I understand where you're at. You don't know which way to turn either. Correct. So we got it

[2:23:43] We have to come up with something so you go to your board come up with you know

[2:23:48] You know where my recommendation is you know where Wayne's at

[2:23:51] Russ everybody and you come back December 1st. Hopefully we can make a decision at that point

[2:23:56] You know where you're at. We know where we're at

[2:24:00] Okay, yeah to sum first I don't know if we'll have personnel here on hand

[2:24:04] because obviously we're you know everybody's taking time off to be in here

[2:24:08] so we might have to. I understand if you want to if you can send a letter out you

[2:24:12] know just saying what the board said so going forward being Russ's last day is

[2:24:18] the first second do I just continue to email that information to three of you

[2:24:24] yeah that's fine not that be at that point in time and obviously we'll put

[2:24:28] Russell on there just in case his email gets forward on however that works that

[2:24:33] you know that's not your next board meeting what's your next board meeting

[2:24:37] our official next board meeting to the third Monday of January but I'm sure we

[2:24:42] can hold something prior to that to discuss that so it would be good for

[2:24:47] me to know what your insurance cost will be and you I think you could get a

[2:24:51] quote certainly from your insurance agent the building size they mean it's

[2:24:55] it's known. Yeah. Right. And you're not going to budget more than what you're getting from the

[2:25:00] insurance company. It's fair. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, obviously, that's all part of stuff going forward.

[2:25:06] So I obviously do not want to leave the citizens of Bernard in a bad space.

[2:25:12] No. And yeah, I mean, I lived two miles from the firehouse. Yeah, I appreciate the roads

[2:25:16] getting cleaned off and but we're just trying to make this from day one, I guess we can call

[2:25:22] it now, going forward. And I know there's been discussion of going to film or going

[2:25:29] here, going there, but it's just a matter of where, who, what, when, where, why.

[2:25:36] Well, hindsight being 20-20, there'll probably be better documentation this time than there

[2:25:40] was last night.

[2:25:41] Just the Scotia better. God bless a notebook that was found at four in the morning.

[2:25:46] Yeah.

[2:25:46] Okay.

[2:25:47] All right. That's all we got.

[2:25:48] Thank you, Mike.

[2:25:49] Thanks, guys.

[2:25:49] Thank you, Mike.

[2:25:53] One last note, Mike, do you know what Bernard Fire Department pays

[2:26:00] in rent for their two stalls?

[2:26:02] Yeah, I'm not going to release that here at all.

[2:26:04] That might be good information and all,

[2:26:06] and whether utilities are included in that going forward.

[2:26:10] And I know we had insurance on that building as well.

[2:26:13] So we got a quote.

[2:26:16] It was like 190, some thousand stuff.

[2:26:20] Yeah, so 190 some thousand. So our insurance was was there prepared to replace it until things unfolded and you're all aware of that as well. So thank you, Russell.

[2:26:32] Yep. Thanks, Russ.

[2:26:34] Okay, next work session discussion and possible action Hillcrest RCF transition.

[2:26:40] Thanks,

[2:26:49] Junior.

[2:26:50] Thanks.

[2:26:50] Good morning, supervisors, and thank you for having us here today.

[2:26:56] For the record, my name is Mike Fidgen, President and CEO of Hillcrest Family Services, and my

[2:27:01] business address is 2005, Asbury Road, Dubuque.

[2:27:05] With me today is John Bellini, our Vice President of Residential Operations, Shauna Williams,

[2:27:10] Program Manager for our five-person adult group homes, and Jean Whitney, Hillcrest

[2:27:14] Director of Compliance and Quality Improvement.

[2:27:17] Hillcrest currently operates a 75-bed residential care facility and PMI program at 13034 Cyple

[2:27:26] Road.

[2:27:28] Over the past several months, we've been in ongoing discussions with Iowa Medicaid,

[2:27:33] the Division of Disability and Aging Services, and DHS leadership prior to Director Garcia's

[2:27:39] last day as director on October 31st.

[2:27:42] We request a rate improvement to make a large facility sustainable.

[2:27:46] that request was not approved. At the same time, the state reaffirmed its

[2:27:51] direction towards smaller home and community-based services homes

[2:27:55] where individuals receive more individualized support. Once that

[2:27:59] direction was clear, Hillcrest moved quickly and proactively to build a

[2:28:03] solution that works for the state, for our residents, for our staff, and for

[2:28:07] the greater Dubuque region. It's important to note that Cyple Road

[2:28:10] programs have never operated in isolation. For years, they have worked

[2:28:14] hand-in-hand with our four existing five-person adult group homes in Dubuque, creating a true

[2:28:20] ecosystem of care. Residents step down into smaller homes when they are ready and step back up

[2:28:26] to more structured support when they need stabilization. Under the transition, we're

[2:28:31] proposing the 75-bed facility at Cyple Road will be restructured into a 15-person HCBS home

[2:28:40] and a five-person PMI home for individuals with higher acuity or longer term ties to Hillcrest.

[2:28:48] At the same time, Hillcrest will open six new five-person HCBS homes throughout the Buick,

[2:28:54] centrally located on bus lines, near parks and shopping, and close to our therapist, prescribers,

[2:29:00] and our walk-in crisis center, a new-day clinic, which is opposite Flora Park.

[2:29:04] work. These homes will improve rapid access to services, reduce transportation barriers,

[2:29:10] and strengthen community integration, and provide the dignity and independence that

[2:29:14] reflect best practices in brain health, mental health, and behavioral healthcare. This transition

[2:29:20] is also directly supported supporting the greater Dubuque region. Smaller HCBS homes

[2:29:28] consistently result in fewer elopements, fewer law enforcement calls, fewer emergency

[2:29:33] transports and fewer unnecessary hospitalizations.

[2:29:37] Our board includes the police chief, the county sheriff, and leaders from Mercy and Unity Point

[2:29:41] Finlay, all of whom support this plan because they see every day the stabilizing impact

[2:29:47] of this community care system design.

[2:29:50] Finally, this redesign is financially responsible and aligns Hillcrest with Iowa's long-term

[2:29:55] system strategy.

[2:29:56] What we are asking today is a straightforward and required

[2:30:00] under Iowa code 135C.6C. County verification of no over-concentration, county support of the

[2:30:09] program, and county confirmation of needs so the state can approve the homes. The draft

[2:30:15] letters in your packet fulfills those requirements. And with that, I'd like to turn things over

[2:30:20] to John Blaney, who will walk through the home locations, statutory details, and contents

[2:30:26] of the letters.

[2:30:28] Mike, just a question. The current Julian Care facility, you said it's 75 beds, right?

[2:30:35] Between the two programs, yes.

[2:30:37] And it's getting cut down to 30?

[2:30:39] Correct. So, I can explain more in...

[2:30:42] Okay.

[2:30:42] Yeah, I mean, it is so...

[2:30:45] So, Janet, my question that I'd like to have you answer is about how this is not over-concentration.

[2:30:50] All of the buildings you're proposing are within a block.

[2:30:53] So, the over-concentration in the state of Iowa is not defined, and it's not defined.

[2:30:58] The only state that defines it is California.

[2:31:01] So there is no, and in your area, ultimately, we have, you have three criteria, which doesn't

[2:31:08] address the over-concentration.

[2:31:10] So we're asking for a letter that talks about the quantity of services currently

[2:31:14] available in the county is insufficient to meet the need, B, the quantity of affordable

[2:31:20] rental housing in the county is imposition.

[2:31:22] see the implementation of the program will cause a reduction in the size or quantity of a large congregate program.

[2:31:29] So for the letter, I put all three in there to meet the Department of Health and Human Services Code.

[2:31:34] You just got to address one of them. So we believe the reduction of the 66 bed is a major need

[2:31:41] and it's a need statewide trying to reduce institutions.

[2:31:44] For us, the reduction to your question, we believe would allow us to serve an acute population

[2:31:55] and do it within the HCBS settings, which is home and community-based services, and allow

[2:32:00] those people more community integration than a larger facility would.

[2:32:05] It's a laudable goal for sure, but you're not asking us to say that this doesn't result

[2:32:10] in over-concentration.

[2:32:11] The code just asked one of the three of the following that I described earlier.

[2:32:16] Again, I can tell you that the over-concentration is not defined in our research with the department.

[2:32:22] That's fine. I just don't want to be certifying that it is, that it is not over-concentrated

[2:32:27] because of the geographical relation to each other.

[2:32:30] Correct.

[2:32:30] But we won't base it upon that. We'll base it upon something.

[2:32:32] And the letter that I have drafted to you doesn't talk about over-concentration.

[2:32:36] Great.

[2:32:36] What happens to the, I guess, the rest of the beds that are at Julian care facility?

[2:32:41] I mean, so far, it's half of the building.

[2:32:44] Now, the five bed is a separate going to be utilized fully.

[2:32:48] It was licensed for nine. We're going to ask the state reduce it to five.

[2:32:52] So that that wing will be utilized.

[2:32:54] We would look at potential day habilitation services in the other wing, Harley,

[2:33:00] that will allow us to bring clients out in the community and have activities and move there.

[2:33:04] So we would be applying for home and community-based services on a dehabilitation waiver, and then

[2:33:09] one smaller wing would probably be unoccupied.

[2:33:16] So for us, ultimately, if there's no questions on the code, I can move from that.

[2:33:24] Ultimately, the code currently says we just need a letter of support.

[2:33:28] For us, it is really moving with the state's interest in mind to provide better services

[2:33:35] for our clients.

[2:33:36] It's ultimately where we believe in the HCBS settings

[2:33:39] that we can do that.

[2:33:41] We can be more integrated in the community.

[2:33:43] We're very proud that the services

[2:33:45] would be, again, more integrated,

[2:33:48] I think better for the clients that we serve.

[2:33:50] The other thing that we're proud of,

[2:33:52] it would be an expansion oftentimes in our world

[2:33:55] where reducing workforce, we're laying off people,

[2:33:58] we're looking at this or that

[2:34:00] with budget constraints at the state level.

[2:34:02] We're going to increase the workforce,

[2:34:04] increase programs. So for us, even though the big number goes down, the increase of

[2:34:10] staff and people for the positions will increase. So I think that's a positive

[2:34:15] for the community as well. I know that I know some kids that are in housing units

[2:34:21] such as you're talking about going to and they do excel. They definitely do

[2:34:27] better in smaller group settings like that like four or five whatever than

[2:34:32] they do in large savings?

[2:34:33] So it definitely is good for our community.

[2:34:37] The question is that is it and it's not my question.

[2:34:41] It is my concern for you that you are well aware of,

[2:34:44] which is financial viability of how you make these numbers run

[2:34:48] based on the reimbursement rate, based on your heavy staffing

[2:34:51] needs, all those other concerns that there's nothing

[2:34:56] that anyone in this room gets to do about.

[2:34:58] That's being decided by people who are not here.

[2:35:01] So I also applaud that it will be smaller concentrations of folks.

[2:35:07] I don't know how we can best advocate for you other than responding to your request for a letter of support.

[2:35:13] I'm assuming you're in the controls, you know where you're headed, you need a letter of support.

[2:35:17] I think we're happy to do that.

[2:35:20] Thank you. Mike had a comment.

[2:35:21] Yeah, I appreciate the question and as mentioned we went to Kelly and DHS for a rate increase

[2:35:31] was the original plan that we had and as you're aware with the change to the ASO we were two

[2:35:37] months three months into this budget year we had a preliminary approved budget from our board

[2:35:44] requesting us to re-forecast for the second half of the year this was one of our dilemmas

[2:35:51] The Diane Breck's RCF is a similar type of situation with an RCF,

[2:35:58] and the state was not going to improve the overall rate as we move

[2:36:03] into these five person adult group homes while we'll ultimately serve fewer people compared

[2:36:10] to the capacity at the RCF right now, even moving 30 of those into the person adult group homes.

[2:36:18] the HCBS rates are improved, and if we can also get the 15 and the 5 at the

[2:36:26] location out at Cyple, then we've crunched the numbers that that will work for us

[2:36:32] and be a better, more cost-effective, sustainable plan.

[2:36:37] But a lot of things have to happen for all those to come together.

[2:36:39] You led on that facility years ago with Julie Hidershite creating a necessary resource,

[2:36:46] And the state also undercut your legs then, too, and said that the compensation for that was insufficient to offset the day-to-day costs.

[2:36:56] So we're all in this new world, certainly improvements are being made.

[2:37:01] I'm hearing good things about what I call the ASO, but I understand.

[2:37:07] I probably don't understand, but I'm concerned about the financial dilemmas you face.

[2:37:11] Yeah, I would just add to that in going in my sixth year here and understanding some

[2:37:18] of the history from some of my predecessors in my role, one of the situations that I inherited

[2:37:27] when I came in in the middle of COVID was a fair amount of unused and underused space

[2:37:33] across Hillcrest's footprint, and that was especially true here in Dubuque.

[2:37:39] the school building being probably the most costly at one point in time and we've been

[2:37:47] fortunate to provide services through our crisis walk and center there.

[2:37:51] This is actually going to address some of our underused and unused properties in a good

[2:37:57] way because we'll be able to transfer some of that cost under those contracts and under

[2:38:04] those GLs.

[2:38:05] Good.

[2:38:06] Thank you.

[2:38:07] I

[2:38:10] can make a motion to authorize the chair to sign the letter of support that was received

[2:38:22] from Hillcraft.

[2:38:23] What I'll do, if it's all right, I'll send you the contact.

[2:38:27] So I left those pieces open, but the meat of the letter would be the same.

[2:38:31] So I'll send you the Medicaid contact in an e-mail to you, Harlan.

[2:38:35] Unless you want to send it to Keith.

[2:38:36] Send it to Keith and he'll forward to me for a docu-sign.

[2:38:40] I'll second the motion.

[2:38:42] I'll have a motion and a second to support Neil Kratz family services request all in favor, signify by aye.

[2:38:53] Aye.

[2:38:54] Aye.

[2:38:55] Thanks, Mike.

[2:38:56] Thanks, John.

[2:38:58] Next we have a work session discussion on Robert's Rules of Order.

[2:39:02] Blaine, you put that on?

[2:39:04] I did.

[2:39:04] It's something that has been discussed and it was kind of, I'll say dampened, but it

[2:39:13] was brought to my attention again by some supervisors in neighboring counties and also

[2:39:18] some supervisors far and wide regarding our practice of putting work sessions with possible

[2:39:29] action on the agenda. And I've questioned that for some time myself, but after, you

[2:39:37] know, other discussions, I kind of just left it alone. But when somebody else brought it

[2:39:41] to my attention, I think it's worth discussing. And I think, you know, a work session obviously,

[2:39:47] you know, has a definition. And the purpose of a work session is to gather information,

[2:39:54] information, discuss information, and basically preparation, but not officially make decisions.

[2:40:05] And I think if we have an issue that is ready to have action or following a discussion have

[2:40:17] action, I think it should in fact be an action item because I think it changes the dynamics

[2:40:23] of those conversations.

[2:40:25] It doesn't.

[2:40:27] Generally, the work sessions are, should be, I mean, we've made motions today, but should be,

[2:40:33] consensus, and then it should come back in a resolution on the next meeting.

[2:40:39] And if that's the case, I don't disagree with it happening that way.

[2:40:43] That's the way it is.

[2:40:43] But we've also, and I know we've done it today, but again, you have to have this conversation

[2:40:49] at some point in time, and it would have really kind of made the rest of the meeting

[2:40:53] being difficult to have it at the beginning of the meeting and then make those changes.

[2:40:59] So I really think that, you know, a work session is to have discussion and yes, we may have

[2:41:09] reached consensus, but I don't think it should be labeled as possible action.

[2:41:17] I think we're looking for consensus to put it on the next meeting as a resolution.

[2:41:23] I agree with that and I hope we can clear that because the number of work sessions where

[2:41:29] we discuss and, you know, a lot of times perhaps one or two of the supervisors may have some

[2:41:39] of that information and it may be new to a third supervisor and we're taking that

[2:41:46] action. And I really think that's where we need to make that minor adjustment. Instead

[2:41:51] of saying work session with possible action, it's just a work session. And any action

[2:41:58] would be taken at the next meeting.

[2:41:59] That's come from years past. I mean, something that just started, it's been, but it should

[2:42:05] be for consensus. And then the next meeting, you'd have the resolution regarding your

[2:42:11] work session.

[2:42:11] I'm great with that. I think that makes a lot of good sense and and put structure as as it would be beneficial, so

[2:42:20] Yeah, I mean I think you we can decide whatever we want it differs to the chair always to the chair and

[2:42:29] We're looking for consensus. I mean, oh, but the point is today. We violated the very thing that you're gonna make hard fast

[2:42:36] These meetings don't intentionally run so that things happen quickly

[2:42:40] When I was at the chair

[2:42:42] Work sessions were never meant to approve any funding of any kind because the citizens never had a chance to even weigh in on how we were spending their money.

[2:42:53] It had to be some kind of an emergency purpose to do that.

[2:42:57] Now, we talked about the airlines several times and then it came up as a work session with possible action.

[2:43:05] That possible action just means that if there's a need to take action, it doesn't have to be financial. It can happen.

[2:43:13] But the four years, the two years I was on the board and you were nine, we didn't have possible action, possible action.

[2:43:21] When Dawn Sherman made this agenda, it didn't have possible action in every work session.

[2:43:25] Not everyone, no.

[2:43:26] Right, but it is now.

[2:43:29] Because we don't know what we're not sure, clear what the goal is.

[2:43:33] So, I mean, it's all good, but we don't have any formal adoption of any kind of rules.

[2:43:39] And I've asked about that time and time again too, and it's like, well, we do we do because we let the chair

[2:43:44] We try to govern by consensus and let the chair make the calls, right? That's how this runs

[2:43:50] It's fine. If you don't want to have

[2:43:53] Financial things in an emergency type situation for funding or whatever. It's all good

[2:43:58] I don't think we need to have a discussion about it. That's what yeah, that's what emergency means

[2:44:03] Robert's rules or orders are

[2:44:06] guidelines do not law, you know, this is not how we talk to, but when county has

[2:44:12] educational sessions and work sessions and public input sessions, they're full

[2:44:18] time paid what 160 a year. So every county has their own way of going about

[2:44:24] this. Well it almost sounded for a minute like we agreed. We simply

[2:44:30] we want to do away with the possible action.

[2:44:33] That's best we can.

[2:44:34] That's perfect.

[2:44:35] That's best we can.

[2:44:36] There are some.

[2:44:38] We're exactly where we started.

[2:44:40] I don't feel that way.

[2:44:41] I think we've made an adjustment

[2:44:43] that we can at least go into a work session

[2:44:46] without the idea that there's going to be an action there.

[2:44:51] So I'm good with it.

[2:44:53] I think we're good with it.

[2:44:54] I think if you put something on the agenda,

[2:44:56] Yeah, if, you know, if it is a...

[2:45:01] It's an emergency type situation. You put work session with possible action, otherwise it's

[2:45:07] just work session. If it's something that has to be, you know, is time sensitive, we don't

[2:45:13] have time, a lot of times. So, I just want to add that I'm also putting

[2:45:19] stuff on the agenda. So, if there needs to be a change, I would like it consistent

[2:45:25] and me notified as well.

[2:45:28] It would be nice from a supervisor,

[2:45:32] not a chair or not a vice chair,

[2:45:36] to know what is an acceptable way to submit

[2:45:40] and who to submit requests to meetings to.

[2:45:44] You should submit them to the auditor,

[2:45:46] is who I'd like to submit them to.

[2:45:49] Right.

[2:45:49] Correct, that's what I'm getting at.

[2:45:50] So, you know, can I submit something without submitting it to you?

[2:45:57] Yeah?

[2:45:57] Yeah.

[2:45:58] Okay.

[2:45:59] So I've always submitted it to Keith as the auditor, and then it goes to Amy.

[2:46:05] I mean, I...

[2:46:08] Hello.

[2:46:09] There we go.

[2:46:09] Yeah, it makes sense.

[2:46:11] Amy typically does put everything on there.

[2:46:13] Sometimes we get it from another people and put their own on.

[2:46:16] I would think it makes sense to copy both of us in case something happens and just

[2:46:21] copy both.

[2:46:22] I'll be the first one to admit, I generally just send it to you and assume that you guys

[2:46:29] work together.

[2:46:30] So I never know what's on the agenda since we've had a new auditor.

[2:46:35] I've never known what's on the agenda until you push publish.

[2:46:39] And so sometimes I get, I know what's on the agenda at Friday, sometimes I know Thursday.

[2:46:46] So I don't know.

[2:46:48] What the week will bring, we get emails at Sunday night.

[2:46:54] It all is just a big surprise, which I don't think is the way to govern, but that's how we do it.

[2:47:01] What we do is every time an agenda item is added, you would send an email to supervisors saying,

[2:47:07] hey, don't reply all, but you know what?

[2:47:09] I just added this to the agenda.

[2:47:12] Who would be perfect?

[2:47:13] At least I'd know what's coming.

[2:47:16] I think it's posted on Thursday because there may be Friday morning.

[2:47:20] Yeah, sometimes there's been an adjustment afterward.

[2:47:23] And if something else.

[2:47:24] And it's usually something minor.

[2:47:26] Or if we wanted to add a document that it would help to have it in here.

[2:47:30] Yeah.

[2:47:30] The tentative agenda is what's required 24 hours before.

[2:47:34] Yeah.

[2:47:34] But yeah, we've worked with folks countywide on that just saying,

[2:47:38] hey, it's great to have this stuff.

[2:47:39] And other people put stuff on the agenda that have access to it.

[2:47:42] I know HR and zoning they had a lot of stuff there too, but yeah

[2:47:48] We said typically we'd like it, you know great if you can have it by Wednesday

[2:47:51] So we can publish we're planning to publish on Thursday afternoon. That's where we're at is is it acceptable

[2:47:56] Is it acceptable for me and if others want to do the same?

[2:48:02] But to send an email to Amy and CC you on it. Absolutely. Okay

[2:48:08] Yeah, for both, it'd be better for both on it. So we're on the same page. Hey, did you because oftentimes did you miss something?

[2:48:15] I've got one more thing that just came in and that way we both are on the same page.

[2:48:18] And I appreciate clearing up the fact that it doesn't have to be approved by you to go on the agenda. I think that just makes things a little better.

[2:48:26] Never said it had to be approved by me.

[2:48:29] Like I said, I've always sent it to you for stuff I wanted on. I guess I just assume that you guys.

[2:48:35] And if you want to include a memo like we have on these here, that's up to you.

[2:48:40] I just added these in just so if someone's reviewing it to have an idea what it is.

[2:48:43] So Hillcrest reached out to me last week and asked that this be on the agenda and I said

[2:48:48] you should probably call it the Keith Lucy or Wayne Kennecker because I don't always

[2:48:52] get my stuff on the agenda.

[2:48:54] I asked for repeated communication about the recorder and those things are not always

[2:48:59] on the agenda.

[2:49:00] So the agenda is always a surprise regardless of what you ask for.

[2:49:04] There's not a we do not have a process in this county for the creation of the agenda in a transparent way. We do now

[2:49:13] We just resolved that on the agenda until it's published

[2:49:18] I don't yeah

[2:49:19] Especially when I was chair the agenda was published the agenda was prepared and the chair knew always

[2:49:26] So I don't know what what your that's the way I did I get it it but it's all good

[2:49:31] We're getting here and things are happening. Yeah, if there's anything that's not being put on that you request to have on by all means

[2:49:37] Let let me know

[2:49:41] Excuse me. Would that be in chat? I think we've resolved that I'll make a motion to recess until

[2:49:47] 11. I don't think we'll have to just hold on a little bit. Huh?

[2:49:51] Hold on with that.

[2:49:54] Do all the supervisors which proceed with the last section? I'll renew my motion

[2:50:01] which is to remove the work session from the agenda.

[2:50:06] Okay, if all three are not on board, I'll just take a motion to adjourn.

[2:50:12] Motion to adjourn?

[2:50:14] I will second.

[2:50:16] I don't even understand what's happening.

[2:50:19] Motion before you is a motion to adjourn.

[2:50:22] Let's back up just a second.

[2:50:24] I think there's some clarification here for what's actually happening.

[2:50:27] Not all three supervisors are ready to move forward with this, without all three on board.

[2:50:33] I'm not going to move forward with it.

[2:50:35] And that's the end of the discussion.

[2:50:37] I thought consensus was two.

[2:50:41] So all three supervisors being.

[2:50:45] We have people that have traveled here.

[2:50:48] I guess I'm confused as to why.

[2:50:50] We don't even have a website.

[2:50:52] You call the question on the motion to adjourn.

[2:50:55] Call the question.

[2:50:56] We have a motion to second on adjournment.

[2:51:01] The motion is second to adjourn. All in favor signify by aye.

[2:51:05] Aye.

[2:51:06] Aye.

[2:51:06] We are adjourned. Thank you, everyone.

Board of Supervisors Meeting

Transcript