[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[13:13] We'll call the Board of Supervisors in the session for our August 5, 2024, regularly scheduled
[13:18] meeting. Let's go welcome everybody to the meeting today. We have quite a few people in chambers
[13:23] and online. So we'll start with public comments. At this time, anyone may address the Board
[13:29] on matters of which are on the agenda. Please go to the podium, state your name and home
[13:33] address. Individuals wishing to comment on a public hearing will be given the opportunity
[13:38] during that respective hearing. Individual remarks are limited to three minutes. Do
[13:42] If anyone in chamber is wishing to address the board.
[13:57] My name is Roseanne Schroemann.
[13:59] I live on Cyple Road, 1570 Cyple.
[14:02] I've been there 48 years.
[14:07] I'm concerned about the missing $500,000.
[14:12] And watching what happened to the head of the Secret Service
[14:18] when she couldn't come up with any good answers
[14:22] because heads needed to roll. I'm wondering what's going on in Dubuque. We
[14:30] haven't heard who's responsible for it. All we've heard is somebody pushed the
[14:35] wrong button.
[14:38] I have a small business and they're all warned do not download
[14:42] anything, do not push buttons, nothing. So I'm very concerned that this isn't
[14:49] going anywhere. And some people are hoping it'll just get forgotten, but nobody's forgetting it.
[15:00] And most people won't come down here and say much, because it does take a little guts to get up, which I have plenty of.
[15:11] So I don't know if heads need to roll, but there's been no names, no nothing. It just sits.
[15:19] And if you can find some of it, like $24,000, why can't you go down that same rabbit hole and get the 500?
[15:29] That's not my expertise, but that's what we pay people for.
[15:34] Thank you.
[15:35] Anyone
[15:39] else in chambers wishing to address the part?
[15:42] Yes, ma'am.
[15:49] I think we can note that there's an update from the sheriff on today's agenda.
[15:53] If you all want to stay, listen, right?
[15:58] My name is Jane Schmidt.
[16:00] My address is 1377 Wood Street.
[16:03] Your silence in this matter is really speaking volumes.
[16:08] Thank you.
[16:09] Anyone
[16:14] else wishing to address the board?
[16:17] Ellen?
[16:18] I
[16:21] forgot my glasses so I can't see my notes very well,
[16:24] but my name is Devon Welty.
[16:26] I'm from Piazza, Iowa.
[16:29] I see that you have a work session today scheduled
[16:32] for a meeting on the missing ARPA money.
[16:36] I was hoping that this would be an open discussion today
[16:39] so that the public could be informed
[16:40] about how this has all transpired,
[16:43] what protocols are missing to allow this to happen and what has been initiated
[16:49] to prevent this from happening again. I know that the $524,000 is not a lot of
[16:55] money and the whole picture of what the county budget is but now we are looking
[17:00] at potentially a million dollars to replace it and whether it comes from a
[17:07] different line item or from insurance the taxpayers are still footing the
[17:11] bill. This is because we know that even if insurance does cover it, premiums will
[17:17] go up. The public, the taxpayer body, needs to have all the information on
[17:23] everything you have uncovered in this huge error and where the investigation
[17:28] is at every point. Is it still the investigation? Is it still active or just
[17:34] being held open? Is there exploration of the banks or the involved people's
[17:41] accounts to see any connection to anyone involved. If it is a scam, how did the
[17:49] scammer know this money was coming due to Dyersville? At such a critical point in
[17:54] time. Without facts, we can only speculate on theories, conspiracies, so it
[18:01] is imperative that transparency from the auditor's office would help us
[18:06] understand how this could happen. If this was in the private sector, somebody would be held accountable.
[18:14] But it seems that this is just being swept under the rug in hopes it goes away. The buck stops
[18:21] with the auditor's office.
[18:26] Anyone else wishing to address the board?
[18:35] John Derra, 17121
[18:37] Chickery Street in Dubuque. I won't repeat everything that's been said, just a couple of
[18:42] other things. I did review through a FOIA request the the email chain that went
[18:48] through regarding the and asking for the funds to be sent to Dyersville. There
[18:57] were there was an ACH deposit request for a bank in Georgia the name of which
[19:04] most Dubuque County residents wouldn't even recognize which showed a
[19:08] Dyersville branch, which doesn't exist.
[19:11] Just asking if there'd be an admission to the public.
[19:13] It's a simple case.
[19:14] Auditor's office failing to notice
[19:16] numerous red flags in the communication,
[19:20] and particularly failing to verify directly
[19:22] with a known source in Dyersville
[19:24] that the account directions were legitimate.
[19:28] I think the criminal investigation
[19:29] is an entirely separate issue,
[19:32] and there's no disrespect to the people conducting that,
[19:34] to the sheriff or anyone else,
[19:36] but that money is gone.
[19:37] When it's once it's gone, it's gone. Yes, there should be an investigation, but it doesn't prevent the admission and accountability to the public of what actually happened, and that should not delay the explanation.
[19:51] I'm not asking for identities of persons or who failed to make the appropriate verification,
[20:01] but I think the question of the omission is an important one.
[20:07] Auditor's office taking responsibility for that.
[20:10] That auditor position is open for election this year, so then the voters could make
[20:14] a decision as to accountability.
[20:17] Thank you.
[20:19] Do we have anyone else wishing to address the part
[20:25] saying no one in chambers. Do we have anyone online? We
[20:34] do not. Thank you.
[20:37] Move on to the approval of the minutes of the meetings of July 15, 2024 and July 29, 2024. These changes are corrections needed.
[20:48] Make a motion to approve.
[20:51] Second.
[20:51] They have a motion and a second to approve the minutes of July 15, 2024 and July 29,
[20:58] 2024. All in favor signify by aye. Aye. Aye. We'll go to consent items. We have a special
[21:06] class C retail alcohol license for the Mid-Mart Incorporated recommendation from the county
[21:11] assessor regarding the 2024 credit and exemption allowances recommendation from the city assessor
[21:18] regarding the 2024 credit and exemption allowances, and a special event permit from Unidos,
[21:26] Latinx, Fiesta for September 28th, 2024, and that is at the smokestack and the parking lot
[21:34] behind the courthouse here and their certificate of liability is attached.
[21:39] Motion to approve the consent items.
[21:42] Second.
[21:42] We have a motion and a second to approve the consent items. All in favor signify by aye.
[21:48] Next, we have procurement procedures. We have the receipt of bids for the 2024 bridge deck
[21:55] overlays on Bankston Park Road and Farley Road. Kevin.
[22:01] Good morning. We have five bids this morning.
[22:06] And the first is from Jasper Construction Services out of Newton, Iowa, where
[22:16] bid bond is
[22:17] complete.
[22:27] And the first bid amount is $306,757.40. That's $306,757.40. Next
[22:45] up is PCI Roads out
[22:47] of St. Michael, Minnesota.
[22:54] And their bid bond paperwork is complete. And their bid amount
[22:58] is 307,415 dollars and 47 cents.
[23:04] That's 307,415 dollars and 47 cents.
[23:20] Older contracting out of Grundy Center, Iowa.
[23:23] Their
[23:31] bid bond paperwork is complete.
[23:33] And their bid amount is 217,062 dollars and 15 cents.
[23:39] That's 217,062 dollars and 15 cents.
[23:43] If
[23:53] we have Kramer and Associates out of Grimes, Iowa,
[24:04] their bid bond paperwork is complete.
[24:15] That bid amount is $238,091 and 0 cents.
[24:21] That's $238,091 and 0 cents.
[24:32] The final bid for the day is from Taylor Construction out of New Vienna, and their
[24:38] bid bond paperwork is complete, and
[24:46] that bid amount is $281,549.20.
[24:51] That's $281,549.20, and that does complete the bids.
[24:58] I'm
[25:02] going to receive the bids and forward them to the county engineer for advice.
[25:07] Second.
[25:09] I have a motion and a second to accept the bids and forward to the county engineer for
[25:14] recommendation, all in favor signify by aye.
[25:16] Aye.
[25:17] Aye.
[25:18] Aye.
[25:19] Next we go to the public hearings.
[25:22] We have a proof of publication of public hearing.
[25:24] That was published July 15th and also for today.
[25:32] Yes, it was published in the newspapers on the 3rd and the 15th.
[25:35] 3rd and 15th, okay.
[25:37] Make a motion to approve the publications.
[25:41] I'll make it.
[25:41] I'll second the notice of proof of publication.
[25:44] I have a motion and a second to approve the proof of publication.
[25:48] All in favor signify by aye.
[25:49] Aye.
[25:50] Aye.
[25:51] Aye.
[25:51] Next, there's a notice of public hearing for amendments to the zoning ordinance, and that
[25:55] is set for August 19th at 9 a.m.
[25:58] Motion to approve.
[26:00] Second.
[26:01] A motion and a second to approve the notice of public hearing for the amendments to the
[26:05] zoning ordinance for August 19th at 9 a.m., all in favor signify by aye.
[26:09] Aye.
[26:09] Aye.
[26:10] Aye.
[26:11] Next, we have a public hearing for the vacation of Platt of Survey.
[26:18] Dylan?
[26:18] And this is a relatively new process for Dubuque County, but not for the rest of the state.
[26:23] This is, in this instance, I have our GIS and mapping expert on this in the room as
[26:28] well to answer questions if there are any, Jill Kloppenberg.
[26:31] However, this is effectively vacating a plat.
[26:35] It'll be absorbed into another plat.
[26:37] Is that fair?
[26:39] Yeah.
[26:40] Come on up.
[26:41] Come on.
[26:47] It'll basically...
[26:48] Say your name, please.
[26:49] My name's Jill Kloppenberg, GIS mapping.
[26:52] It'll basically revert back to what it was before the plat was two quarter quarters.
[27:01] And so this was published twice.
[27:04] So there were two opportunities for the public to be notified.
[27:07] Correct. And that's a code requirement.
[27:09] I understand, but it's unusual. Most times we only publish once.
[27:12] The code requires that we do twice, at least 14 days apart.
[27:16] And I saw that you did that with the auditor's help of clarification over the weekend.
[27:19] So, thank you.
[27:21] Is there a map associated with this?
[27:26] First there.
[27:27] No, it's a legal description that's basically being changed with the plat.
[27:32] I do have copies of the actual land, not for everybody, but I don't
[27:45] have any other questions.
[27:48] I do have a copy of the plat that's actually being dated to
[28:02] views of it.
[28:03] with one of the whole section, entire section, and others just zoomed into the.
[28:11] I see.
[28:15] What's the reason for the vacation?
[28:16] Citizen request?
[28:23] That was included in the packet.
[28:47] Open to public hearing regarding the vacation of Platt of Survey.
[28:50] Do we have anyone in chambers wishing to address the board?
[28:58] Me too.
[28:59] Hi.
[28:59] I'm Jennifer Clemens-Konlin.
[29:00] I'm with Clemens-Walter's-Konlin running in Hyatt LLP.
[29:03] I worked with Gary and Sharon Weber towards the vacation of the Platt, and I thought
[29:07] it might help you guys just to understand what happened.
[29:09] Again, we had two-quarter sections.
[29:11] The property owners had contemplated moving the property line and transferring some property
[29:15] over to change the size of each of their lots.
[29:18] Ultimately was concluded that wasn't going to happen.
[29:21] This was all within the last, I don't know, six months or a year.
[29:24] So all they're trying to do is unravel that plat.
[29:26] There was some disagreement between the parties as to the conditions under which it had
[29:32] gotten signed, but ultimately they both agreed to just back away from it and
[29:36] unravel it.
[29:36] And so all we're doing is putting us back to where we were at about six to six months
[29:41] ago and going back to the quarter sections.
[29:44] If you have any questions about what brought us here, I'm more than happy to explain it,
[29:47] but I thought that might help a little bit.
[29:50] Thank you.
[29:51] Thank you.
[29:52] Thank you.
[29:53] Thank you.
[29:54] Thank you, Jennifer.
[29:58] Anyone else wishing to address the board?
[30:00] Regarding the vacation of Platt. No one in chambers do we have anyone online? We do not.
[30:08] I will close the public hearing.
[30:15] Motion to approve the vacation of Platt survey. Second.
[30:22] I have a motion and a second to approve the resolution to vacate the Platt of Survey.
[30:29] All
[30:31] We will go to the action items, resolution to approve the hiring of deputies, assistants
[30:36] and clerks.
[30:38] There are 10 positions for Sonny Crest, one position for the county attorney's office,
[30:42] one position for the sheriff's office and one position for human resources department.
[30:49] Motion to approve the resolution.
[30:52] Second.
[30:53] Motion is second to approve the hiring of deputies, assistants and clerks.
[30:57] All in favor signify by aye.
[30:59] Hi.
[31:01] Next we have a resolution to approve the temporary delayed travel restrictions of county roads
[31:06] on August 25th for the fifth annual research for the kids UTV ride.
[31:12] That's from noon to six and I'm going to read off all the roads involved in that for
[31:18] the public here.
[31:28] Roads affected will be Old Highway Road, Gun Club Road, Bankston Park Road, Asbury
[31:33] Road, Five Points Road.
[31:35] Cedar Ridge Road, Hales Mills Road, Burton Furnace Road, Durango Road, Sherrill Road, Mudlake Road,
[31:42] Gulflake Road, Circle Ridge Road, Balltown Road, Ridge Road, Northview and Vista Road,
[31:48] Tolgate Road, and Holy Cross Road from noon to six on the 25th.
[31:58] Second.
[31:59] We have a motion and a second to approve the temporary delayed travel restrictions
[32:03] on the roads from noon to six on August 25th for the annual research for the kids
[32:10] UTV ride. All in favor signify by aye.
[32:15] Next we have a resolution to approve the
[32:17] delegate for signing necessary documents with Taylor Construction
[32:20] Incorporated for the bid replacement on Benefield Road project BROS-C031
[32:28] parentheses 119-5F-31, and that is just to allow Russell to sign paperwork that is a
[32:38] state-aided project.
[32:41] Motion to approve the resolution.
[32:43] Second.
[32:44] We have a motion and a second to approve the delegate for signing for the bridge replacement
[32:51] on benefit.
[32:52] All in favor signify?
[32:53] Aye.
[32:54] Aye.
[32:54] Aye.
[32:55] Next, we have a resolution to approve the necessary contract documents with Jim Schrader
[33:00] construction for the bridge culvert replacements on English Mill Road and Claren Road project
[33:05] L-B24, parentheses 03-73-31, and that contract is an amount of $997,901.45.
[33:20] Motion to approve the resolution.
[33:22] Second.
[33:23] I have a motion and a second to approve the necessary contract documents with Jim Schrader,
[33:28] construction for the bridge and culver replacements, all in favor signify by aye.
[33:33] Aye.
[33:34] Aye.
[33:36] Aye.
[33:37] Excuse me.
[33:39] Next, we have resolution to approve the final progress voucher for the bridge replacement
[33:43] on Fishbond Road. Project BROS-C031, parentheses 116-8J-31. I believe the final
[33:55] progress voucher is for 10,755.36 and that's to retain each correct
[34:02] one.
[34:09] Second. Motion and a second to approve the final progress voucher for
[34:13] the bridge replacement on Fishbond Road. All in favor signify but aye.
[34:18] Next, we have a resolution to approve the RCTP agreement with the City of Upworth for
[34:24] the East Main Street Curb and Gutter Project, and that is in the amount of 25,000 from
[34:29] Neural County Transportation.
[34:32] Motion to approve.
[34:34] Second.
[34:34] We have a motion and a second to approve the RCTP agreement with Upworth for the
[34:39] Main Street Curb and Gutter Project.
[34:41] All in favor signify.
[34:43] Aye.
[34:44] Aye.
[34:44] Aye.
[34:46] Next, we have a resolution to approve the necessary documents with Bolden-Steiner implement for the purchase of one new 2024 John Deere 6136130M cab tractor.
[34:58] That is for $114126 and they're trading in the 1997 tractor with $7000.
[35:10] Motion to approve the resolution.
[35:12] second with just a question that is what was the budget you know what the budget
[35:17] amount was on that by chance budget
[35:24] directors in the room no Brian another
[35:26] meeting this morning he said I'm assuming it was within budget
[35:49] motion in a
[35:50] second to approve the necessary documents with bolden-steiner for the
[35:54] track to purchase all in favor signify by I high high next we have resolution to
[36:00] approve the necessary documents with Martin equipment for the purchase of one
[36:04] 2024 John Deere 772 G motor grader, trading in the 2003 with $9,179, little
[36:15] The total price is $338,620.
[36:19] To approve.
[36:21] What was the total on that? Pardon?
[36:24] Pardon.
[36:24] What was the total on that?
[36:27] $338,620.
[36:43] What's the resolution saying?
[36:48] It was $412,500, and then the trade-in,
[36:52] less the trade-in.
[36:55] Resolution is $388,000.
[36:58] Yes.
[36:59] $388,620.
[37:00] bottom line. My mistake 388,000, 338,000.
[37:11] It reflects the price, it reflects the
[37:12] trade-ins. I've made a motion to approve the results. I
[37:18] was just going to ask the
[37:20] same question whether it fell within the budgeted amount. Mary
[37:30] Ann Knapp did send
[37:30] me a chat message saying that $150,000 was budgeted for the mower
[37:35] tractor with mower. The mower price is not set yet.
[37:45] She answered the one regarding the motor grader also.
[37:51] No, but she is on Zoom as well, if she's able to unmute.
[37:54] Perhaps she could answer a question.
[38:03] The motor grader was budgeted for 410,000.
[38:10] That's 100 budget. Seconded.
[38:14] Have motion and second approved the necessary documents with Martin Equipment
[38:18] for the purchase of the John Deere 772 motor grader. All in
[38:22] favor signify by aye.
[38:23] Aye.
[38:24] Aye.
[38:24] Aye.
[38:25] Next we have resolution authorizing Dubuque County Conservation to utilize Dubuque County
[38:31] UEEI number unique entity identifier for the purpose of filing the FEMA related documents
[38:37] and that's for the reimbursement from FEMA for the flood related damage this spring.
[38:44] To
[38:47] approve.
[38:48] Second.
[38:49] A motion and a second to authorize Dubuque County Conservation to utilize the UEEI
[38:55] Number four filing the FEMA documents all in favor signify by. Hi. Hi. Hi
[39:02] Next we have a resolution for the approval of the swap contract for 25,000
[39:08] for Dubuque County EMS Association and that was for recruitment. I believe we
[39:15] had set it aside ARP funds to assist with that and that was changed over to
[39:24] They are moving forward with getting some filming done to assist in recruitment volunteers for the fire departments.
[39:40] Motion to approve the resolution.
[39:42] Second.
[39:43] Motion and a second to approve the swap contract for 25,000 with Dubuque County EMS.
[39:51] All in favor signify.
[39:54] I'd like to just take a moment to thank Kevin Schmidt.
[39:58] I've worked with him on this matter for several years, and he's been persistent in making
[40:03] sure that we do something about the recruitment for FIRE EMS.
[40:07] So in my conversation with him, he said this is exactly what his original goal was.
[40:12] So he's pleased to see this moving forward.
[40:16] Thank you.
[40:18] We'll move to communications.
[40:20] We have Iowa Agricultural Economic Contribution Study, the Compensation Board Communication,
[40:28] Opposition to Renewable Energy Facilities, and Chelsea Green HR Update.
[40:34] I had a question about the HR update.
[40:37] It's kind of minor.
[40:38] Chelsea probably can answer.
[40:40] Is she in the room?
[40:43] Okay.
[40:44] Motion to receive and file.
[40:46] No action.
[40:47] What's that?
[40:48] No action.
[40:51] We never seem to do that, do we?
[40:56] We'll move on to appointments, open vacancies for information only.
[41:02] We'll
[41:12] move on to the supervisors, boards, and commissions updates.
[41:18] Wayne, you go first.
[41:20] I attended a workforce development meeting last week as well as Greater Dubuque Development Corporation.
[41:26] One question I did have kind of an open item, I'll say, is a while back we had talked about a
[41:38] ARPA status update, and I believe that Kevin was going to provide us with that.
[41:46] ARPA updates would come from Stella Rondi. She oversees that entire program.
[41:54] Yes, that's not what I heard in the meeting, but we'll get it however we need to.
[41:59] We were talking about the fact that the funds need to be allocated.
[42:03] The remaining funds need to be allocated by the end of 2024.
[42:06] Correct.
[42:07] And the projects need to be completed by 2026.
[42:13] $10 million of it was swap money and I get that whole part but we were hoping to have
[42:19] a discussion regarding, you know, the remaining ARPA funds so we weren't crunched down to
[42:29] the last wire.
[42:31] Yeah, the ARPA portion has been always managed by the budget department, not the auditor's
[42:37] office.
[42:37] Right.
[42:37] So, a few weeks ago, in June, this is Ed Raver, I had, in working with Amy Johnson,
[42:47] we put together some historical look, because I think at least one of you, I think all of
[42:53] you were interested in seeing, in the purchase of service program, like, how has that gone
[42:57] the last few years, where has those resources gone, and Stella, it's Monday, I can hardly
[43:04] I remember her name Stella, and I also did that for the ARPA and SWAP program, didn't
[43:12] do it for the mental health fund 10 stuff, but that was all kind of during that time.
[43:16] So provided one sheet there, we can do that again.
[43:21] Somehow between the three of us, we can pull that back out, look at what's been spent
[43:26] again on the SWAP site, which is defederalized, essentially ARPA funds as well as the
[43:32] ARPA funds.
[43:32] And we've been trying to make sure that we're kind of keeping those updated as we kind of
[43:37] as time clicks along here, just about the deadlines or the milestones that you've pointed
[43:43] out there, Supervisor.
[43:45] So probably we can do that again.
[43:47] But I would refer you back if you wanted to know today, it was in your packet, I think
[43:52] the first or second meeting in June.
[43:54] There was some information that was just a tabular, it wasn't a discussion point,
[43:58] it was just some background information.
[44:01] Good.
[44:01] So,
[44:13] again, which is typical, we are out and about together frequently, and so the public
[44:20] might think we're never anywhere, but we don't report as many things because you both know
[44:26] we were at the mayor's meeting.
[44:28] Harley, you know that we were at the Disabilities Expo, you know we were at Upwork Town and
[44:34] country, Worthington, the fair, the opening of the fair.
[44:40] So, I mean, we're out and we're everywhere, and I see you both.
[44:44] Certainly, I see you hardly.
[44:46] I also attended a Juneau Detention Center meeting.
[44:50] I also attended my first training
[44:53] from the NACO national leadership.
[44:57] I attended the East Central Regional Governing Board
[44:59] meeting.
[45:00] And also, there will be a meeting this afternoon with the ECR subcommittee to be addressing our
[45:08] application to become the ASO. I saw Wayne, you had a TV blip about the new maps, and it
[45:17] was in the paper as well. Another article yesterday about the region to the south. So, but we're
[45:24] We're already on that this afternoon, working to make sure that by stepping forward as the
[45:31] essential region and applying to be the ASO, we're hoping that there'll be no loss in
[45:37] services to our citizens, that there'll be the continuity of the changing of the programming.
[45:44] We're hoping that by putting all our energy forward, we can hopefully not have anyone
[45:49] and go without services through to some kind of administrative fault.
[45:56] So I think that's all I have.
[45:58] Do we have a, I guess, DMATS this week, or the RTAs this week, Wayne?
[46:03] Are we meeting the RTA?
[46:04] Wednesday.
[46:05] Wednesday.
[46:05] Okay.
[46:06] I know you would share that board.
[46:07] So very good.
[46:09] That's what I have.
[46:12] That's several meetings with both here, obviously, the annual meeting for the Greater
[46:17] Dubuque Development Corporation. On the 18th, we had a PSAP design meeting. The conceptual
[46:24] design is pretty well completed. Things are moving forward with that. The mayor's meeting that night
[46:33] had a Dubuque Metropolitan Solid Waste Agency meeting on the 19th and on the 30th.
[46:40] Things approved for the improvements out there. The scale project is pretty much completed,
[46:46] and they're going to start the customer convenience center. Planning is ongoing. That'll be moving
[46:54] forward. The DRA meeting on the 23rd, there is grant recipients notified or 57 awards for 1.2
[47:04] million that went out to city and county surrounding states.
[47:13] A lot of good things happening there.
[47:16] construction started on a new hotel.
[47:24] Roads on the 23rd, 30th was a second landfill meeting
[47:30] and the Disabilities Council Expo out at NICC, which was a very good event. They had the
[47:38] action chairs out there for the disabled, for people that could use them to go out
[47:46] on trails in the county, which a lot of happy kids
[47:51] that were riding it that generally can't get around.
[47:54] So I had co-ed meeting on the first community organizations
[48:02] active in disaster.
[48:06] That was good.
[48:07] And that is about it, I believe.
[48:11] I had a comment. So, the action tracks were phenomenal, of course, in Caitlyn Moeller
[48:18] from Conservation does a phenomenal job. Just a wonderful job. I've seen your presentation
[48:23] on that twice now. And I know we have our disabilities coordinator in the room. So,
[48:27] great job with the expo, Samantha, and thank the committee when I was there. But
[48:32] thank you again. I just saw in the directorial commercial that the fair had bacon buddies.
[48:37] have you seen that and they they might that might be a place for the action
[48:44] tracks to go next year you know because there'd be terrain issues mobility
[48:48] issues and that's something new that's been begun by I don't remember the
[48:54] organization but it was out at the fair so that's a possible time to move
[48:59] literally move people better with mobility issues move
[49:07] on to public
[49:08] comments for non-agenda items. At this time anyone may address the board on
[49:12] matters of which are of concern to that person and not in which are not
[49:17] agenda items. Please go to the podium, state your name and home address. Please
[49:21] be aware that the board is limited in their ability to respond to such
[49:25] inquiries and I will co-tribute the board from deliberating or acting on
[49:29] items not appearing on the agenda. Individual remarks are limited to
[49:32] three minutes. Do they have anyone in chambers wishing to address the board?
[49:36] day
[49:46] polls, 20331 Hawk Rang Road. We were in here a couple months ago with 11 out
[49:52] of 13 people because some of them couldn't take off work. We're addressing
[49:56] the gravel road issue, the dust that's unhealthy, and we may even call the EPA
[50:02] and then see what they say. But we were wondering if the county even considered
[50:07] it, you know, helping, you know, just for the people on Hawk Rang Road, you
[50:11] know, nothing else. But we pay taxes all these years and it seemed like
[50:15] there's nothing done but spend money on the expensive road graders to grade out
[50:20] the washboard road and washouts when it rains so we're just wondering if it was
[50:24] anything ever discussed about it since we've been here. That's all. Thank you
[50:31] Dave.
[50:34] Anyone else in chambers wishing to address the board? Yes ma'am.
[50:42] Thank you
[50:42] for allowing me to speak. My name is Jeannie Maybanks and I'm from Cedar
[50:46] Rapids 1916 Hughes Circle Cedar Rapids Iowa. I'm the director of the
[50:50] Iowa Solar Energy Trade Association, and I just wanted to show up as a human being here
[50:56] in front of you all and offer to answer any questions you have about solar development
[51:01] in the county.
[51:03] Okay.
[51:04] Thank you.
[51:05] Thank you.
[51:08] Do you have anyone else wishing to address the board?
[51:13] Seeing no one in chambers, do we have anyone online, Kevin?
[51:20] We do not.
[51:23] Board, need a break, or do you want to go into work session?
[51:26] Oh, we can start work session as far as I'm concerned, but we can start work
[51:29] sessions.
[51:30] Yeah.
[51:30] Okay. We'll go into our work sessions. First work session is discussion on Supervisors
[51:36] Keneker's request to have the Dubuque County Facilities Department report to the Human
[51:41] Resources Director. Wayne.
[51:45] Sure. So my reason for bringing this forward was prior to our
[51:51] last HR director facilities reported directly, reported to the board of supervisors via the
[52:06] human resource director. When that human resource director resigned, many of the functions were
[52:18] were transitioned to the auditor's department about a year ago, there was a decision by
[52:29] the board to move the zoning department back to reporting to the board of supervisors.
[52:39] And I think one of the things we get caught up in sometimes is multiple layers of reporting.
[52:51] And I think we've got, you know, a facilities director, and I believe that department is
[53:00] made up of three people, and that particular position was part of the compensation study.
[53:06] It was evaluated, there was actually an appeal filed and the pay grade was bumped up one.
[53:17] But I guess my point there is we have a very capable facilities director and department
[53:27] and I don't know of a good reason that we would not return the organizational structure
[53:35] to what it was prior to our last human resource director leaving.
[53:42] I think direct communication is effective and I just don't think we need one more layer and
[53:50] obviously that's the way it has operated. I know that's perhaps that was communicated
[53:58] differently at our last meeting that that facilities director always reported to the
[54:05] custody or the custodian of the courthouse, but I don't think that's an accurate statement.
[54:12] So I would like to see that facility's department and again, you know, section, chapter 331.502
[54:32] describes the auditor's duties and it does in fact say the the have general
[54:40] custody of the courthouse but then there's a comma and it says subject to the
[54:47] direction of the board and I think we need to you know sometimes code language
[54:57] is a little bit vague I think that's pretty pretty clear and I think we
[55:04] should return to that organizational structure as far as the facilities
[55:10] department is concerned just like we did with the zoning department about a year
[55:16] ago.
[55:19] Yes I was here when previous human resources director had taken on a lot of
[55:25] things and it created problems to the point that she couldn't take it and
[55:32] quit. I think her plate was overloaded and I think when we hired our new human
[55:38] resources director we decided to take some of the stuff off of her plate that
[55:44] we didn't run into the same situation.
[55:49] My personal belief is the human
[55:51] resources department oversees all of the county not individual pieces and
[56:03] see
[56:05] why we'd want to move it back,
[56:10] plugging up that system again?
[56:14] Well, I think part of it was, and I guess that was part of what I've learned over the last of a while,
[56:19] was there was a particular reason for some of that, you know, and I'm not going to get into, you know,
[56:28] performance or whatever issues. It's to me, it's part of the story, but it's not all of the story.
[56:34] I'm not asking the – asking for the facilities director to report to the human resource director.
[56:45] I'm asking to restore it, just like the IT director reports directly to the board.
[56:53] I'm asking for that position to be the same.
[56:55] So there can be that direct communication without interference from another level that
[57:01] that when the facilities group has issues, they can come directly to us.
[57:06] They don't have to be filtered through the auditor in this case.
[57:11] Those communications can happen directly.
[57:15] Right now, I don't think that's the case.
[57:17] We've obviously bumped into that with the HVAC system, and I would like to avoid that.
[57:22] I'd like to make the best decision possible, and I believe our facilities director has
[57:27] the knowledge has the ability to work through that situation with us as the board versus
[57:35] having another layer in there to interfere with those conversations.
[57:40] I don't know that there is any interference process.
[57:47] I was on those emails, all he asked for was the paperwork to add on to the agenda.
[57:58] I would know what's going on and Supervisor McDonough would know what's going on.
[58:02] That's why I asked, there's no response from you.
[58:06] That's why I asked for it to be an agenda item so we could sit here in a public meeting and discuss this.
[58:11] I understand that, but that whole situation was, you said you didn't have the paperwork.
[58:20] Well, that'd be fine, but you didn't tell anybody you didn't have the paperwork.
[58:27] I'm not trying to take sides here, I just, I don't understand.
[58:31] And, you know, if you had the paperwork, it should have been on the agenda that we
[58:37] could see it.
[58:37] Anybody else could see it.
[58:38] And you didn't reply to the e-mail.
[58:42] So it wasn't on the agenda.
[58:43] And you're kind of blaming the auditor for not putting it on when all he wants to do
[58:47] is make sure that the procurement procedure was followed.
[58:50] Bottom line, I guess where I see this as a foundation, we have a very capable facilities
[58:55] director.
[58:57] And I don't think-
[58:58] Nobody said he was not capable.
[59:00] We don't need multiple layers here to deal with facility issues.
[59:06] That is, to me, an inefficiency that's not necessary.
[59:18] Again, I'll do it as a motion at this time.
[59:22] I would make a motion that the facility, and I'll state it again before,
[59:28] it was no different than what happened with the zoning department about a year ago.
[59:33] So I seconded a motion to take the zoning department back under the supervisors directly
[59:43] and that's what I'm asking to have done now.
[59:46] So I will make a motion to restore the facilities director reporting directly to the board
[59:53] of supervisors and leave the human resource director out of it.
[59:58] I mean, work session.
[1:00:01] It says they have a report to human resources director. I'm just saying what it says on the agenda.
[1:00:10] So am I unable to change the motion?
[1:00:12] That doesn't say anything about action on it.
[1:00:16] Well, it's another issue. It seems like when there's an issue that we want on the agenda, if someone is in disagreement with it, we start working through the process just like we did with the HVAC.
[1:00:28] And this is another example of what's happening here.
[1:00:33] We request something to be on the agenda when we get these little innuendos that keep happening
[1:00:39] to prevent action from being taken.
[1:00:42] Actually, Mr. Kinnaker, what happens is we look for consensus, and you don't have consensus
[1:00:47] in this issue.
[1:00:48] And you asked for a discussion in an email to me, and I placed it on the agenda verbatim.
[1:00:52] Right.
[1:00:52] So I don't understand what the issue with that is.
[1:00:55] We do sometimes reach consensus through discussion and it's a great tool and I think we usually
[1:00:59] use it quite well. So we could go back to the, again, referencing what happened with the zoning
[1:01:04] department. It was the same exact thing. I have the benefit of many more years in this and I think
[1:01:12] that the facilities director has never, that department has never run better, never run
[1:01:18] better, and I do credit that both to the director who is present, a relatively new director,
[1:01:25] and the work of the auditor doing the management, the supervision, and the mentoring, such as
[1:01:30] is necessary. This is an ancient building, and it has never been better, and we've never
[1:01:35] saved, saved more money by letting our own folks do the work as best they can. And Mr.
[1:01:42] Biker's nodding his head. So this I believe is unnecessary. I don't join in consensus to this in any way
[1:01:49] This is not the only building that is considered facilities. No as we said all mansplaining
[1:02:05] So what did you want to say nothing at this point?
[1:02:14] Okay?
[1:02:16] We have a present or we
[1:02:18] We have a presentation from Michelle Turner, the new Executive Director of Limestone Bluffs.
[1:02:24] Oh,
[1:02:28] my name's Michelle Turner.
[1:02:30] I'm the new Director of the Limestone Bluffs, R-C-N-D.
[1:02:33] I came on board about six months ago and my first job is to say thank you for your support
[1:02:38] and hopefully your future support.
[1:02:40] And if Ed is still in the room, hi, Ed, nice to meet you in person.
[1:02:45] I took this job about six months ago.
[1:02:47] I was working with the Soil and Water Conservation District and NRCS for the past 20 years.
[1:02:51] years. I worked mostly in Jackson County but also in Dubuque and Anamosa County. I worked
[1:02:57] as the executive director of the Farmers Creek in Tadymore Watersheds. I wrote the grants
[1:03:02] over almost $2 million. And both of those streams were taken off the 303D list. So
[1:03:09] I come to you with quite a good record as far as grants and getting water quality
[1:03:14] accomplished. I didn't apply for this job. I was approached for it.
[1:03:20] So anyway, what we're doing right now, you know, I'm starting to get my wheels turning and exploring all of our options.
[1:03:28] I've started working with Rural Development and they said to me, you know, we are so short staffed as is NRCS, as is the Soil-A-Water Conservation District.
[1:03:38] So we pick up the slack where the other agencies cannot and hopefully join with other non-profits
[1:03:49] and organizations that don't have their nonprofit status so we can write the grants for them.
[1:03:56] So if anybody knows of any organizations that need some grants written or need simply
[1:04:02] some support, please see our C&D.
[1:04:05] So, other things that we're working with, the historical societies. Jackson County has
[1:04:11] a civil war reenactment coming up. We've been working with them. They've been revamping
[1:04:17] the limestone kilns. We did some work with them. DAR, the Daughters of American Revolutions,
[1:04:24] they are in Jackson, Dubuque, and Clinton counties, and they're getting geared up
[1:04:32] for the 250th anniversary of the United States, so there's a lot of good things coming down
[1:04:37] the pipe with that. Clinton has the Sawmill Museum, and if you haven't been there, it's
[1:04:43] a very, very good museum, and so now they are looking into doing some things, hopefully
[1:04:48] some water quality initiative, urban practices, and, you know, we talk a lot about Dubuque,
[1:04:54] we talk a lot about Makoka, but there are so many smaller communities out there
[1:05:00] that really need water quality initiative money, but they don't have the staff to actually
[1:05:06] implement it where they don't have the partners.
[1:05:09] For example, Enslow in Anamosa or in Jones County, just put in a splash pad for kids.
[1:05:15] And it's like, wow, what a neat thing to do for a tiny community.
[1:05:20] And water quality initiative, especially the urban money, has to be visible.
[1:05:24] visible. So we can't piggyback with NRCS and do farmers fields because even though we're
[1:05:31] doing lots of cover crops and lots of buffers, you guys don't see them because you are not
[1:05:36] on the farms. So we need to get more visible practices in the smaller towns. So that's
[1:05:43] another goal. Conservation tours is another area that we'd like to ramp up. We recently
[1:05:49] We had the Wildlife Refuge anniversary here, and it was at the Mississippi River Museum,
[1:05:55] and I attended that.
[1:05:57] And then the next day, the directors, the national directors of Isaac Walton League asked if
[1:06:02] they could have a tour.
[1:06:04] So I gave them a tour of mainly the Tateymore area, which would be Dubuque and Jackson
[1:06:10] County, and pointed out all of the really wonderful conservation efforts that go on
[1:06:16] in these two counties.
[1:06:19] frail maps are something that a limestone and bluffs had about eight or nine years ago.
[1:06:26] Those maps work with the Economic Development Council and the tourism boards, but they are
[1:06:32] outdated. A lot of the things aren't there anymore, so that's another project we'd
[1:06:37] like to re-initiate. NRCS, both in Dubuque and Jackson County, are looking for RCPP funds,
[1:06:46] which is basically equip your environmental quality improvement program and they are looking to get
[1:06:51] something going with food, local foods grown, improving the farmers markets, getting food directly
[1:07:01] to the schools and mainly if there is ever another epidemic or a food chain issue we have some local
[1:07:09] options.
[1:07:11] I previously was a vocational agriculture teacher, so I could talk for hours. So I think
[1:07:18] I will just say thank you very much. Nice to meet you all and just keep Limestone Bluffs
[1:07:24] R-C-N-D in mind. Thank you.
[1:07:27] Thank you.
[1:07:27] Oh, do you have any questions?
[1:07:28] Thank you, Michelle.
[1:07:29] Any questions?
[1:07:29] No?
[1:07:31] Okay, thank you.
[1:07:32] Thank you, Michelle.
[1:07:32] Yeah,
[1:07:36] our next work session is with
[1:07:40] Sheriff Kennedy regarding the active investigations
[1:07:45] update.
[1:07:50] Good morning.
[1:07:53] So all the supervisors have been given a full brief on the progress of the investigation.
[1:08:02] It's important for people to keep in mind that no different than homicide investigation,
[1:08:08] The status of these updates is in general terms, and we have to protect the integrity and investigation
[1:08:20] just like we would any other crime.
[1:08:23] As of today, we are still actively sending out subpoenas to these companies.
[1:08:31] companies. The money has been tracked to different types of cryptocurrencies. One's Bitcoin and
[1:08:42] one's Ethereum.
[1:08:49] So we're navigating our way through that. The issues that you have when
[1:08:56] you're dealing with these companies is, like their name, crypto, they're encrypted entities,
[1:09:05] so trying to work our way into where the money is actually located inside these cryptocurrency
[1:09:15] wallets is difficult. I think part of the issue with cryptocurrency
[1:09:21] currency is that they have different regulations than your banks and things like that.
[1:09:28] But we have had some cooperation with the companies.
[1:09:34] The biggest issue as far as actually getting the money back, it's going to be almost impossible
[1:09:42] for us to actually get the money back because in the cryptocurrency world, we would have
[1:09:49] to prove that if we found money in a cryptocurrency wallet, we would have to prove that that money
[1:09:58] was Dubuque County's money, which would be extremely difficult to do.
[1:10:03] But we are still actively pursuing all leads.
[1:10:09] It appears at this time that the cryptocurrency wallets that we're discussing or where
[1:10:17] Some of the money passed through, at least, are associated with people who there was like
[1:10:25] two in Nigeria and one in South Africa, I believe.
[1:10:31] So we're talking about overseas actors.
[1:10:34] At this time, it does not appear that anyone local had anything to do with anything that
[1:10:43] happened.
[1:10:44] And so much like we assume from the get-go.
[1:10:50] But yes, we are still actively following leads in that case.
[1:10:58] Do you have any questions?
[1:11:02] OK.
[1:11:03] And just real quick, because I know we got the TH here,
[1:11:07] and I know that there's people in the public that
[1:11:10] have questioned how long the investigation has taken.
[1:11:15] You've all been briefed. Does anyone on the Board of Supervisors have any question or any thought that the Sheriff's Office is not working as diligently as possible to try to conclude this case?
[1:11:37] I think it's important for the public to understand that there's two pieces of the investigation that are going on.
[1:11:41] and the criminal investigation that you've just updated us on and have updated as prior
[1:11:45] to this, but also the other side of the investigation regarding the risk management group as well
[1:11:55] as the insurance companies.
[1:11:57] Yeah, that one's outside of my...
[1:11:59] Exactly.
[1:11:59] I just, again, I think that's where part of the frustration is coming in.
[1:12:04] I think your investigation, your part of the investigation has been handled as it
[1:12:11] needed to be.
[1:12:11] Okay. I appreciate that. I know there's been allegations of political things at play and
[1:12:19] I just want the public to know that there's nothing political involved in our investigation.
[1:12:25] These things take time. What people don't understand is this is all paperwork stuff
[1:12:30] type investigation. We send subpoenas out to these companies. They respond to them
[1:12:40] When they respond to them, we can't – none of them are based here in Iowa.
[1:12:46] We can't force them to respond any faster than what they do.
[1:12:50] So when we get information back, then we have to use that information, and we have
[1:12:54] to usually send out more subpoenas, and that's just the way these cases work.
[1:12:59] So they're time-consuming.
[1:13:04] So anything else?
[1:13:06] I have nothing.
[1:13:07] Thanks, Joe.
[1:13:07] All right.
[1:13:07] Thank you.
[1:13:08] Thank you.
[1:13:12] Okay.
[1:13:13] Our next work session and presentation discussion and possible action regarding conduit and
[1:13:17] DIG-1's updates by Nathan Gilmour, the IT director.
[1:13:21] Nathan.
[1:13:22] Good morning, Nathan.
[1:13:23] Good morning, supervisors.
[1:13:25] Happy Monday.
[1:13:26] As a pretty much total coincidence, it's been about two years almost to the day since
[1:13:32] we last had a conversation about DIG-1's and conduit and vision and strategic planning
[1:13:39] for it.
[1:13:42] So, Kevin, can I have the mouse, or can you move it?
[1:13:45] Can
[1:13:50] you recap briefly?
[1:13:52] So, I sent you a tremendous amount of documentation,
[1:13:55] and most of that is stuff that you have already had over the last several years.
[1:14:01] The first couple slides is really just what I want to talk about.
[1:14:04] So, from a historical standpoint, I first brought this to the board in 2017,
[1:14:10] and there's the irony of elections is none of you were here and this is my third
[1:14:18] board in the last nine ten years here so in 2017 I brought up that we need to
[1:14:25] start planning we need to start figuring out a conduit and fiber strategy for our
[1:14:31] main locations and we have had good success with that original concept from
[1:14:41] By the end of 2025, we'll have most of our main campuses on fiber that we can control and operate.
[1:14:50] So we've had a lot of success, and I'm very pleased with that.
[1:14:56] In 2022, ARPA, well 2021 was an ARPA was passed.
[1:15:00] Since 2022 is when I pitched multiple projects to the supervisors. And one of them was a dig
[1:15:06] once vision strategy. That make up of the board did not approve funding or any sort of policy
[1:15:17] generation for that. And then in July 22, I did a last proposal, which was a scale down
[1:15:25] version of it, and that also was not approved.
[1:15:35] So this was the 2017 slide from that budget.
[1:15:40] This is aspirational. This was an idea to give an visual of what a fiber ring would look like.
[1:15:49] This actually goes all the way down to Sirius Farley Nature Center,
[1:15:53] and there's two going up to Sunnycrest. This was the idea.
[1:16:00] And by the end of 2025,
[1:16:01] five we will have something similar to this. So I want to be clear we have had a lot of
[1:16:07] success and we have had good progress on achieving that. The red line is going up to Sunny Crest
[1:16:15] and I am actively working on getting a second fiber line up there in a dissimilar path,
[1:16:23] you know, and took me nine years to get that one. So I'm starting now. It might
[1:16:28] take me nine years to get a second one. This goes down to Key West and then back down to
[1:16:34] the courthouse. So it does not hit Nature Center, but this is still a massive win for the county.
[1:16:39] So by the end of 2025, we should have something similar to this.
[1:16:50] So I wanted to bring up
[1:16:51] a conversation about Dig Once because two, three weeks ago, maybe a little bit longer,
[1:16:57] there was an opportunity and we were unable to move swiftly enough to take advantage
[1:17:03] of that. So, in this instance, I wanted to adjust that work session to revisit DigOnce.
[1:17:11] So we've had two opportunities in the last few months. One was the one on Old Highway
[1:17:17] Road. That conduit was installed about a week after my work session with you.
[1:17:31] So that
[1:17:32] I guess advertising that out to my friends
[1:17:36] and fellow stakeholders and partners of those contexts
[1:17:40] that I have made in the last few years
[1:17:42] as I've worked on this, there were others
[1:17:44] that were able to take advantage of that dig.
[1:17:47] So it wasn't just that.
[1:17:50] We were not able to, but there were others
[1:17:52] that were able to, which is that's a win.
[1:17:54] That's a good win for right of way
[1:17:56] and keeping it healthy.
[1:18:00] There was another one that had a tremendous amount of county roads, Sundown Road, North
[1:18:05] Cage, Cascade, Monastery, had several good conversations with the contractor.
[1:18:11] But in the end, they chose not to work with the county to have us join their build.
[1:18:21] And that's fully their right.
[1:18:24] They chose not to.
[1:18:25] and I'm not going to ask him more. That's not my business. So Old Highway Road, this is what was
[1:18:32] installed approximately. There is more to it going to the east along Cyple, but this was the part
[1:18:38] that I was focused on.
[1:18:44] The other one was this. It was tremendous amounts of county roads. I was
[1:18:50] focused on Sundown and North Cascade, not all of it. We have to, there has to be a reason
[1:18:57] on what we can focus on, but they chose not to partner with us on this.
[1:19:08] So we
[1:19:12] are following the current policies and procedures.
[1:19:15] We don't have a dig once policy in place.
[1:19:18] We don't have a process in place.
[1:19:22] We don't have incentives.
[1:19:24] We don't have carrots or sticks.
[1:19:25] So this is how it is currently.
[1:19:31] And what I would like to have a conversation, since we will be starting budgets in the next
[1:19:36] few months, and it's been two years since we had an open conversation about dig-once
[1:19:42] and philosophies, and do we want to do that sort of initiative?
[1:19:49] I'm asking the board, do we want to develop a dig-once policy?
[1:19:55] Do we want to start developing that, funding it, and coming up with a version of that?
[1:20:05] The city of Dubuque has been a leader on this for 20 years.
[1:20:11] We don't need to reinvent the wheel.
[1:20:13] There are municipalities that do this successfully every day.
[1:20:17] But this is not something that, you know, you can say do this and I'll come back
[1:20:21] in a week.
[1:20:21] This will take time.
[1:20:22] this will take several months to figure out what makes sense from a county perspective
[1:20:30] with secondary roads, zoning, getting feedback from stakeholders. Is this something we want to
[1:20:37] develop? And if so, great. We'll add it to the project list and we'll keep you apprised and
[1:20:45] keep you updated and if not then that's okay that's you know I wanted to bring it
[1:20:53] back around since it's been about two years.
[1:20:58] What is the cost of doing a dig
[1:21:00] once policy?
[1:21:05] It depends I don't know to be clear when I did the ARPA proposal I
[1:21:11] had a really large number in that and the idea behind that was the vast
[1:21:17] majority of it would pre-fund conduit, and then a portion of that would be legal services
[1:21:25] to develop it.
[1:21:27] To develop it and actually implement it, I don't believe we're talking a lot of money.
[1:21:33] A lot of it will be GDDC assistance, it will be internal staff developing it,
[1:21:40] county attorney
[1:21:40] Nelson will need to be involved to help us with some of it.
[1:21:43] But I'm not looking at a big number, but it's more of a question of if I'm going to get other
[1:21:50] county employees involved and I'm going to get other stakeholders involved, use up their
[1:21:56] time, GDDC.
[1:21:58] It's a big initiative.
[1:21:59] It's a big endeavor to develop these documents and then get it in place.
[1:22:04] So I guess a
[1:22:09] lot of times you're not too big of a number, is a big number to me.
[1:22:14] So that's why I got to ask the question. Of course.
[1:22:22] I guess I have
[1:22:24] supervisor Kenneker had brought up that there were several
[1:22:30] Projects that were in the hopper that haven't been completed yet. Mm-hmm
[1:22:34] Right one with six hundred some thousand line a total of six hundred and thirty three thousand
[1:22:39] You know where I come up number I came up with
[1:22:43] Okay, where do they stand at?
[1:22:45] Well, not all of that is conduit and fiber.
[1:22:48] There are certain ones that I have targeted that I believe we will get over the finish
[1:22:54] line on the Heritage Trail.
[1:22:56] It's premature.
[1:22:58] We're at the finish line on one or two.
[1:23:00] I want to make certain that we get there before I got to keep my powder dry.
[1:23:07] My focus primarily has been Heritage Trail.
[1:23:10] We own it.
[1:23:11] We operate it.
[1:23:12] It's near a lot of our assets.
[1:23:14] it goes very close to several other radio towers. It makes a lot of sense. That is
[1:23:22] not necessarily a dig once initiative because we own it and we're doing things
[1:23:28] with others along it. Now the stage three doing 15 or highly three is where
[1:23:33] that project comes in between Drango and Play Hill. There are other yeah
[1:23:37] there's there's lots of things at play and a larger dig wants conversation and
[1:23:44] if it's a question of coming back in a month with a idea of what it would cost
[1:23:49] time and money to develop it great I will absolutely I will welcome that
[1:23:54] conversation what's the benefit of us owning the conduit can't we just
[1:24:03] at least align in the conduit?
[1:24:08] It would probably be a blend.
[1:24:11] There are certain locations where it makes sense for us to own the fiber,
[1:24:17] even if for me maybe not owning the conduit, owning the fiber.
[1:24:21] There are some locations that it probably would not make sense for.
[1:24:25] It needs to be done on a strategic vision target.
[1:24:31] So, you know, West Campus is a very obvious one.
[1:24:34] We want to own whatever we're connecting out there.
[1:24:41] Probably new wine, I mean, in a great,
[1:24:44] it would be awesome if we could, but realistically, no.
[1:24:47] We'd probably lease connectivity out to new wine
[1:24:49] for a very long time until something came about.
[1:24:52] So in my mind, it is not an all or nothing.
[1:24:56] It is on a case by case for the location in question.
[1:25:01] We have a lot of locations
[1:25:03] and a lot of them are near the hairs of trail.
[1:25:06] a lot of them are near old highway.
[1:25:09] There are runs that would make sense.
[1:25:16] I also look at it as two paths.
[1:25:20] One, it's safer and less maintenance on technology
[1:25:27] on my side if we own and operate the fiber,
[1:25:30] if we're not going through somebody else's network,
[1:25:33] if we're not leasing another connection.
[1:25:35] And then I look at this over 50, 60, 70 years.
[1:25:40] When you take stuff out 70 years, that ROI tends to be easier to swallow.
[1:25:51] So I think that this conversation gets to this point and then it fizzles away.
[1:25:57] Because we start talking about, hypothetically this money, hypothetically this money,
[1:26:01] big costs, big numbers, we don't know, we don't know, we don't know.
[1:26:04] It's like trying to explain electricity before electricity came to your house.
[1:26:09] It was unknown and I don't know if my great grandparents embraced it or not.
[1:26:14] Maybe they didn't do it until all the neighbors had it and they relaxed, which is what's
[1:26:18] happening to us in technology.
[1:26:21] Everybody's doing it, but we're not because we don't have all of our information.
[1:26:25] I would just really ask Nathan that we need to have this, the most simplest conversation
[1:26:32] about what is DigOnce and that should be a two-sentence answer and why do we need
[1:26:40] it? Right now people are using our right-of-way for their own corporate gain
[1:26:47] and not giving space to us. There's no reason they have to come and ask us. They
[1:26:53] use my right-of-way, our right-of-way, but we get no advantage from that and
[1:26:58] And that's what I understand big ones is to even that playing field when you want to go forward into View County, we are a necessary partner.
[1:27:09] So can you tell me what big ones is and why do I need to vote for it?
[1:27:22] I would second, I would second everything you said.
[1:27:25] And I would then also add that.
[1:27:29] it helps keep the right-of-way healthy. It minimizes returning to the right-of-way to
[1:27:38] install additional infrastructure. So let's pick on old highways since that's fresh. We
[1:27:44] have assets. We have a radio tower very close to where that path was. We have a Farley
[1:27:51] shop, not that much farther down Old Highway. There will be conduits to nowhere at the start
[1:28:00] of this. There's no way I can get around that. ARPA was my idea to leapfrog some of this and
[1:28:08] catch up from 20 years of not doing this. That didn't happen. Fine. We still have to
[1:28:14] start somewhere. So in the short term, we are strategic, we are targeted, we
[1:28:21] obviously can't do every single county road, like I get that. But there are
[1:28:26] certain county roads that are either of high value and high traffic because of
[1:28:33] what they are and what they connect and where they are near our assets, our
[1:28:40] county assets or anchor institutions, so county libraries, clinics, anything that is a community
[1:28:50] anchor institution. So the simplest explanation would dig once is someone needs to dig up or
[1:28:58] or trench along the county right-of-way. As part of that permitting process, the county
[1:29:04] installs some kind of seven-way conduit.
[1:29:09] And then realistically that right of way should not need to be dug up again in the near future
[1:29:16] because the cost for somebody else to return and do that will be significantly higher and
[1:29:25] significantly longer in design and engineering versus going to the county and leasing one
[1:29:33] of the remaining ducts. Why would that cost be different if somebody goes back and does
[1:29:38] it the second time? Because this is already in there. There is a duct. They can just blow
[1:29:45] their fiber through. Fiber is cheap.
[1:29:48] I thought you said if somebody had to go back and dig again. I get if you're pulling
[1:29:52] fiber through an existing conduit. I thought I heard you say that if someone had to
[1:29:58] go back and dig.
[1:30:00] I'm glad to be in there again. Hence the day one process. Why would the second time the contractor went back in to dig or put an additional conduit in? Would it be more, that much more expensive as you expressed?
[1:30:11] It would be more, it would be more expensive than them just leasing a dock. Because they're the infrastructures in place. They would not, when you're purchasing the materials, you're purchasing the engineering, you're purchasing.
[1:30:24] I misunderstood you. I thought you said if the contractor went in and dug one year and put conduit in it would be a little
[1:30:30] They came back the second year or two years later and another contractor or another entity put
[1:30:36] Conduit in again, it would be significantly more expensive
[1:30:39] It would not be significantly it would be more expensive just because of inflation
[1:30:43] But also because there's more stuff in it the more stuff in the right-of-way that the harder you need to
[1:30:48] Locates and avoid other people's things. So it would be a little more expensive down the road
[1:30:52] but no, I'm talking comparing them doing it versus us.
[1:30:58] And again, this is not a moneymaker.
[1:30:59] This is not intended for the county to make money.
[1:31:03] It is intended to preserve the right of way,
[1:31:06] speed up fiber deployments throughout the county.
[1:31:11] And yes, make a little bit about,
[1:31:14] put it in an enterprise fund,
[1:31:16] do something to where it pays
[1:31:19] for the maintenance itself over time. A lot of counties and cities do this and we have
[1:31:28] not gotten to a point where we're ready to do that yet. So we had two recent missed opportunities
[1:31:35] that would have had value to the county and would have had value for future people coming
[1:31:42] down here.
[1:31:43] So, might be interesting to understand the increase in operational cost if it's owned by us, okay?
[1:31:51] Because of the Iowa underground locator situation, is that a per mile per call?
[1:32:02] How does that assessed when an entity has underground facilities?
[1:32:09] I will find that out in follow-up.
[1:32:11] I don't know the answer to that from a it may be a minuscule cost or maybe it's something worth talking about. I think you'll be surprised
[1:32:17] Okay, yeah, I'll find that out
[1:32:19] Nathan for us to agree to develop a one a big ones policy
[1:32:24] Does that cost money for us to agree to you to do the next steps?
[1:32:29] For the next next steps no
[1:32:32] For us to actually develop something of where you could put and make it a policy
[1:32:38] I do think there will be some cost to that.
[1:32:42] I mean, we're going to need some legal advice.
[1:32:44] We're going to need somebody to help us check ourselves
[1:32:49] to make certain that we're following the code properly.
[1:32:53] Again, we don't need to reinvent the wheel.
[1:32:55] Like a lot of municipalities do this,
[1:32:58] but I don't want to make it sound
[1:32:59] like it's just employee time.
[1:33:01] There's going to be something here
[1:33:03] that's going to cost money.
[1:33:04] Maybe it's five grand, 10 grand.
[1:33:05] I don't know.
[1:33:06] but I can try to get a nest of it on that if there is consensus to at least take the next step.
[1:33:12] Your vision of dig once policy is going to allow you to move forward with opportunities without
[1:33:24] coming back to the board every time, because I heard you say funding. So I'm assuming you're
[1:33:29] looking to create this bucket, which is somewhat started because of that 633,000,
[1:33:36] I believe 315,000 of it is associated with fiber paths and other fiber related things.
[1:33:44] One thing we've skipped over and I know you and I have had individual conversations and
[1:33:49] I think some of those had great value.
[1:33:53] And again, I realize this is not the same board that this conversation started with
[1:33:58] and I realize we're probably not all on the same page.
[1:34:04] I guess I look at it as a return on investment and we talked about that and I was actually
[1:34:08] hoping that that might be part of today's benefit, you know. We talked about what is not a lot of
[1:34:14] money and what other people might think is a lot of money. It was very nice to see an adjusted
[1:34:22] map of what the vision was a couple of years ago that you mentioned versus is where it looks like
[1:34:30] it's going now, I'd like to see something that we're talking about the overall, you know,
[1:34:40] there has to be an end to a project, right? You know, it might be 10, it might be 15,
[1:34:45] it might be 20 years down the road. It might also have a number associated with it, which
[1:34:50] obviously is, you know, 20 years out, it's pretty soft from right now. But I'd also
[1:34:57] like to be able to say, what is the benefit? I know connecting facilities has some value.
[1:35:07] You mentioned Dewine Park. You mentioned the Farley shop. How does that benefit the operations
[1:35:14] that exist today? There has to be a reason that we're doing that, not just because
[1:35:18] This technology is a great term these days and that we don't want to be the last one.
[1:35:28] What are the operational benefits in this fiber effort as a whole?
[1:35:38] You know, does putting fiber at the
[1:35:46] Farley shop, the Holy Cross shop, the Fillmore shop,
[1:35:52] how is that going to benefit us?
[1:35:55] I know I've heard the word security cameras.
[1:36:01] Security, there's a cost to security.
[1:36:03] If there's a reason for security, I get it.
[1:36:05] It's always nice to be able to sleep better at night.
[1:36:08] But I see us spending a tremendous amount of money here.
[1:36:12] When you said not much, you were talking about a specific piece or segment of this project.
[1:36:19] I think we need to capture, and this is again where there's a difference between, as you said, previous boards and present boards.
[1:36:29] And I think we need to,
[1:36:33] maybe it's because I've only been here a little over a year and a half,
[1:36:36] but I don't think that should put me in a situation where I just breeze by some of this
[1:36:43] information before making a decision. This is a lot of money. What is it going to do for us?
[1:36:48] Technology in the background can be a very expensive operating cost. And if there's no benefit
[1:36:55] to it, other than the fact that we own fiber, is it going to make us better? Is it going to
[1:37:00] allow us to prevent hiring new resources as things change? Is it going to allow as people
[1:37:08] retire to reduce workforce? Why are we doing it other than the fact that, hey, we got technology?
[1:37:17] I'd like to know what's going on. Okay. I don't think Wayne's mic's working.
[1:37:22] I don't know. I think it's lit green, but he's very, very faint for me. He turns off in
[1:37:31] I'll work on that, I'm sure.
[1:37:36] I guess the cost to put in the conduit and stuff is very high.
[1:37:41] Yes.
[1:37:42] I look at leasing fiber from somebody else
[1:37:46] and I can lease for a hell of a long time
[1:37:50] compared to what it costs to put it in.
[1:37:52] Yes.
[1:37:54] And as Wayne said, going out to the Farley shop,
[1:37:59] what is the benefit to going there?
[1:38:03] I mean, okay, we have workers there, but they sign in, they go to work.
[1:38:10] I mean, they're not there on the computer all day.
[1:38:14] You know what I mean?
[1:38:14] I guess I don't understand the benefits to some of it.
[1:38:18] I don't have any problem with dig once.
[1:38:21] I think my take on it was that if you have to dig once policy that if somebody is coming
[1:38:29] in, they have to notify us that they're doing it, right?
[1:38:32] So you can do it a couple of different ways, and some of this we'll go back to bucket of money.
[1:38:39] Cart before the horse. We need a policy in place that allows us the time to evaluate
[1:38:50] is there value in us putting conduit in along a certain stretch that someone has requested a permit for.
[1:39:00] currently we don't have that opportunity. They request the permit. Secondary
[1:39:05] Rhodes says, yep, you're good and sends it on. A lot of them I don't even know
[1:39:09] about. Sometimes Russell will let me know if he thinks, but they already have the
[1:39:14] signed permit, like the horse has left the barn. Who signed the permit? That
[1:39:19] would be county engineer. So if we had big ones, anybody looking to use the
[1:39:25] right away to do this would need to notify IT. It would be a natural flow to your system.
[1:39:30] It would be direct. It would be a process within an internal process.
[1:39:35] And it doesn't cost money just because we have a dig once policy. I understand getting
[1:39:41] a dig once policy. There's some cost. Yes.
[1:39:43] Time in experts, I get that. But the idea that we would do a dig once policy doesn't
[1:39:50] start churning out costs. It begins the conversation so we can evaluate what opportunities we're
[1:39:57] missing, what opportunities are occurring, what are we being given as options. I don't
[1:40:02] see you here asking for the ring like you were during ARPA, which was us being the
[1:40:08] nearly the contractor, doing the work, laying the line, putting the fiber in. What I understand
[1:40:15] you to be asking is the simple conversation. Dubuque County needs to have a big one's policy.
[1:40:23] The costs are not in the policy. The costs will come as projects are identified. But if we don't
[1:40:30] believe in the first step of having a policy discussion, this is going to be eight more
[1:40:37] boards. We're going to be years down the road on this. Generations. I understand the policy
[1:40:43] part of it? Well, to me it's a matter of communication. We have a permit process right now. Call it process, call it policy, whatever you want to call it.
[1:40:53] I believe the step that we're looking for is that all in case there's something, it's no different than a rezoning. You know, it goes through many hands to make sure other departments
[1:41:08] are affected by it or can see some advantage in it. So I see this as, hey, when a permit
[1:41:17] comes in, because it's in our right-of-way, what other departments need to be signing off
[1:41:24] on it as well, right? We have a process for zoning. It goes through the different signatures.
[1:41:30] That's what I'm hearing happening here. Does it need to go through the county
[1:41:34] attorney doesn't need to go through zoning? Probably not. If you want to call it a policy,
[1:41:39] your name has a little, the name of this effort, dig once, already puts us into the digging part
[1:41:46] of it. If you're talking about a, you know, communication part of it, so you get made aware
[1:41:53] some contractor is going to be digging for water, sewer, fiber, electric, whatever,
[1:42:00] in Dubuque County's right-of-way, because that's really the only time that permitting
[1:42:05] issue is focused through the county,
[1:42:10] what more is a, this policy, are you looking forward
[1:42:16] to do? Is it a policy? Is it a procedure? You want to know about digging in County
[1:42:21] right-of-way, so if there's something that we can be advantaged by doing that,
[1:42:26] we do it right yes what I am looking for is do we want to develop and yes we can
[1:42:36] change the name if we want to I don't care what we call it but right now there
[1:42:41] is no process either incentive carrot stick there there's nothing to require
[1:42:54] somebody to work with us. So the second example, I mean I reached out to them, I
[1:43:01] had several good conversations with them. Forget the funding piece, it didn't even
[1:43:06] reach the question. Are you saying then we're issuing permits and contractors
[1:43:13] are denying us access to go in the ditch with them and we want to change
[1:43:17] that. That is what I would like to explore as a change in county vision and policy because yes,
[1:43:26] that is the second example I gave is that they chose not to allow us to work with them to go
[1:43:33] into the ditch with them on that project because we don't have a dig once policy in place. There
[1:43:40] There is nothing for us to incentivize or carrot or stick or deny.
[1:43:46] There's nothing there.
[1:43:48] As long as they meet the permit, they get the permit and they offer the races.
[1:43:52] That is not the spirit of dig once.
[1:43:54] The spirit of dig once is somebody's going to do a project.
[1:43:58] They're either going to dig or they're going to bore.
[1:44:01] Who else wants to join in?
[1:44:05] It doesn't not also have to be the county.
[1:44:07] Part of dig once is having an advertisement something so others can join that go one of the goals is to stop disrupting the right of way.
[1:44:19] You are you familiar with other government entities that have this in place.
[1:44:26] Yes, I have several examples.
[1:44:29] So, they can prevent a vendor or a contractor slash utility from going in a excavation of
[1:44:40] whatever type.
[1:44:42] The county can prevent them from doing that unless they allow the county to go in with
[1:44:47] them.
[1:44:48] For Iowa, it's harder.
[1:44:50] The code is not quite as strong, so we put it.
[1:44:56] So, like I said, it's not as simple as...
[1:45:00] We're going to change our policy. I am asking, do we want to work towards developing a sophisticated
[1:45:10] and manageable, dig-once policy? This is going to take us a couple months. This is not going
[1:45:18] to be quick because whatever we develop, we need to make certain that we're following the
[1:45:23] code and that we're not burdening our private sector partners. But if you look out decades,
[1:45:35] which is what this helps, the lens you should be looking at is decades, this pays off over
[1:45:43] time because of decisions that we make now as the ground is dug up.
[1:45:49] Technology changes over time. Ten years from now, fiber might not be the greatest
[1:45:54] it will. And I don't make many declarative statements in this room. I'm from St. Louis.
[1:46:00] When I was doing research two, three years ago for ARPA, we have the Harris's Trail is
[1:46:06] a gem. Okay, we are unique that we have the Harris's Trail. I was trying to find other
[1:46:13] Harris's Trail type examples. As ironically, I found it in St. Louis. I remember we have
[1:46:19] the Katie Trail. There was a news article from like 1988. The City Council was paving
[1:46:26] the Katie Trail. AT&T showed up at the City Council meeting and said, we're going to give
[1:46:34] you $40,000 if you delay paving this for three weeks so we can put conduit under
[1:46:43] the trail before you do that. City Council was like, cool, we can delay it three weeks that
[1:46:49] even the penalty for the contractor is like five grand, whatever the article said. That conduit,
[1:46:55] not only the conduit, but the fiber that was put in 1988 is still in use today.
[1:47:02] Fiber does not have an upper limit. The equipment on the ends is what you change.
[1:47:08] The fiber that you put in today started at 100 megabit, 10 megabit back in 88, then it went to 100, then it went to 1000, then it went to 10, 40, 100.
[1:47:20] You can do 200 if you really want to cut the check, but you're cutting the check for the equipment on the ends.
[1:47:27] The stuff that lives in here, like I said, I don't make many declarative statements in here, but I'm going to make a declarative statement on this.
[1:47:35] Nothing is replacing modern fiber. It's not. You want to put fiber in properly. You're good.
[1:47:47] I mean, this has seven channels. Even if you happen to run out of fiber, you put more fiber in.
[1:47:56] Well, as a comparison, you mentioned having this run to all of our facilities and we would
[1:48:03] own it.
[1:48:04] Yes.
[1:48:04] These parts of it we would own.
[1:48:06] I mean, it would be like saying, okay, we want to run our own electricity and we want
[1:48:10] to run it to all these facilities.
[1:48:12] It's something that can be compared very easily.
[1:48:19] Again, what is that return on investment for the county?
[1:48:24] You know, some things we do, we're not interested in the return on investment because one, it
[1:48:29] can't, we may not be able to be measured to.
[1:48:32] Sometimes it just doesn't matter.
[1:48:33] It's the right thing to do.
[1:48:35] In this case, you know, we keep talking about the fiber, but we don't talk about what it's
[1:48:41] going to do for us.
[1:48:43] Not even that.
[1:48:44] That's some of my takeaways.
[1:48:45] I will work on the ROI for you.
[1:48:47] Okay.
[1:48:50] Well, I'd like to know if we're going to have consensus on the idea at this
[1:48:54] time to explore a Dig One's policy. Do we have that? Yes, I think we need to have a
[1:49:01] Dig One's policy. That's very minimal to
[1:49:08] give the county at least the opportunity to.
[1:49:11] I don't know as though we can legally force facilities or vendors or whatever to allow
[1:49:18] us to go into the ditch. I think we have an opportunity already where we know when
[1:49:24] there's a permit being issued that we include the IT department to say, hey, is there a
[1:49:32] benefit or is there a reason for us to get in?
[1:49:36] Well, I guess that would be the big one's policy that when a permit comes in that the
[1:49:42] IT is going to fight everything.
[1:49:44] Well, I can see that as a potential policy, so it's known ahead of time, not just
[1:49:49] when you submit the permit, if that's what it, you know, it needs to be, if that's where
[1:49:54] we're headed on this.
[1:49:55] That's not saying we're moving forward at anything, but that at least gives us the
[1:49:58] policy.
[1:49:59] There we go.
[1:49:59] That's what concerns me sometimes, is once in a while we get to the point where, you
[1:50:04] know, it gets thrown back at us that, hey, we already had consensus we're already
[1:50:08] moving forward with this, but you're saying it doesn't matter.
[1:50:11] And I don't-
[1:50:12] This is just for the dig one's policy.
[1:50:14] This isn't saying that we're going to approve any fiber.
[1:50:18] but at least you would get notified and have the opportunity to present to us to show us
[1:50:24] what the benefit is. Yes?
[1:50:29] We are doing extensive technology trainings, little pieces that your department is sending out.
[1:50:35] And I've learned a lot about fishing and other words that I can't remember right now.
[1:50:40] Nathan, so bear with me, okay?
[1:50:42] The technology training for cybersecurity has been tremendous.
[1:50:45] So thank you to the auditor and to you and and and are there little lessons like that?
[1:50:51] Can I go to dig one school where you can show me the pieces I see Dave Lyons nodding his head
[1:50:58] Give me some tutorial pieces right that so that we can further understand dig once because I
[1:51:05] Still think we're we're struggling with getting our arms around dig once for fear of
[1:51:10] Authorizing you to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and we're not doing that
[1:51:14] it. Can I ask Dave Lines to come to them? I asked him to join, so yes. Would you mind?
[1:51:22] I have sent you numerous links for funding opportunities, but you had said to turn down
[1:51:30] on some of them, but... First of all, a Dig One's policy can take a lot of different forms,
[1:51:38] so that's one of the things Nathan will be bringing back to you, is different forms
[1:51:42] a Dig One's can take. For example, in Minnesota, Wisconsin, a couple of others, they have sticks,
[1:51:49] which is basically saying, if you don't have a good reason why we can't be in the ditch with you,
[1:51:54] then we'll be in the ditch with you. That's not really what's happening in Iowa. What's
[1:52:00] happening in Iowa is the carrot approach, which is a Dig One's polly that says you need to
[1:52:07] inform us, and then we as the governmental entity will take the appropriate action. Sometimes
[1:52:14] that's sharing costs, which we do quite often. So you go to the entity that's putting it
[1:52:20] in and you say, look, so how much more would it cost to put in a seven way for the city
[1:52:27] or the county? And then that becomes a financial ROI issue for you. Does that or does that
[1:52:34] not make sense. There's also the potential where there are some entities in Iowa that
[1:52:41] would just as soon not have any agreements with government. In that case, what you have
[1:52:46] is a big one's policy that then you approach the contractor. The companies don't normally
[1:52:51] put these in themselves. You approach the contractor and you say, so what would it
[1:52:56] cost the city or the county to go ahead and put have you while you're on site
[1:53:02] so there's no deployment costs, there's no additional dig costs, put in additional
[1:53:07] conduit. So there's no one Dig One's policy. You're probably going to get a
[1:53:15] range of Dig One's policies. If you're like most Iowa communities, you're
[1:53:21] probably going to start on the fairly conservative side, which is simply
[1:53:25] having a process which requests of contractors and requests of entities to
[1:53:32] do a joint build unless they have a reason not to. Very few in Iowa actually
[1:53:38] prohibit you from going in to the right away. There's one exception to that. I
[1:53:44] don't think the county has any of those but there are places in Iowa where
[1:53:48] there's so little right-of-way left that if it's taken up by a private entity, then the
[1:53:58] county actually or the city actually has to purchase additional right-of-way from somebody
[1:54:03] else. So that's farther down the road, but there are nuances to one policy that gets
[1:54:10] you some return on investment, preserving limited right-of-way. The other issue is
[1:54:17] is that with cybersecurity and communication technology, it's a little different than the
[1:54:24] electric company. Electric companies have a franchise where they come in and they basically
[1:54:30] say, in return for a monopoly, I will promise to serve everybody, have these minimum requirements
[1:54:38] for shutoffs, et cetera. Fiber and broadband is like the only utility. People think of
[1:54:45] that is a utility, but it's not,
[1:54:47] because it does not have those protections.
[1:54:49] So the other issue that comes in
[1:54:51] for return on investment is servicing my areas,
[1:54:56] my taking the county from being a lessor
[1:54:59] to an owner of infrastructure,
[1:55:01] and creating a monetization for the conduits that you have.
[1:55:06] But it's also putting in place infrastructure
[1:55:09] that makes it cheaper for people
[1:55:10] to reach hard to reach areas,
[1:55:13] new neighborhoods, et cetera.
[1:55:15] I know you've got a great relationship
[1:55:17] with Macocana Valley.
[1:55:19] They're collaborating out there.
[1:55:20] I think that would just continue.
[1:55:22] A one big policy that you would choose
[1:55:26] probably needs to fit what you see as your primary need,
[1:55:31] whether that is preserving right-of-way,
[1:55:34] servicing unserved entities,
[1:55:37] giving you the ability to avoid leases
[1:55:40] that you're paying now
[1:55:41] and we'll pay in the future, and then over time defining that with members. The one thing
[1:55:50] that you'll have a wrestling with is the issue of timing, and that is once one big policy is in
[1:56:00] place, there's always a second question, and that is can government move as quickly as the
[1:56:11] opportunities. In other cases, you would be able to pre-approve under a Dig One's policy
[1:56:18] certain authorities that would be able to allow this county to commit.
[1:56:25] As Nathan knows,
[1:56:28] we have designed it in a way that at the city level, we can kind of fly fighter cover
[1:56:34] for the county. We can see areas that are going outside the county. We can develop
[1:56:40] those, we would really look forward to working with the county and basically saying this is
[1:56:47] what we've learned, this is how we operate. There will also be times where the county comes into
[1:56:52] the city that we would probably collaborate on. But again, the one dig policy is a range of
[1:57:02] selections. And that's probably the first thing that needs to come back to you is that
[1:57:06] range of selections that others have used and examples with that and then I think it's easier
[1:57:12] for you to do the ROI selection. It's actually a possibility not necessarily in Dubuque County but
[1:57:21] where a public entity has to buy additional right-of-way because it's too full to become the
[1:57:28] player of the future, I would have to buy right-of-way. Is that a hypothetical possibility?
[1:57:37] It is. Probably the best example, not Dubuque that I've worked with. In the community of West
[1:57:44] Des Moines, at the intersections of 80 and 35 and the intersections of major expansion areas,
[1:57:52] they were getting to the point where 90 plus percent of right-of-way had already been used
[1:57:56] And the city was actually having to go out and buy additional right away.
[1:58:00] You may still have to do that for sewer and water for other issues, et cetera.
[1:58:06] But one of the items that they put in place was to identify all of the areas that were
[1:58:11] going to be limited.
[1:58:13] And the city there proactively did a bond, put in conduit itself throughout the community,
[1:58:20] and then lease it ahead of time to the private carriers
[1:58:26] and then their lease payments pay off the bond.
[1:58:29] I don't think there's much of that kind of a pinch point
[1:58:33] here in Dubuque County.
[1:58:36] In the city of Dubuque, however,
[1:58:38] there are very old infrastructure, things like the bridges.
[1:58:43] We had to enter into some collaborative agreements
[1:58:47] to be able to put conduit on both of the bridges,
[1:58:49] issues, not only because it's a public safety issue, to be able to get cameras on the bridges,
[1:58:55] et cetera.
[1:58:55] But it's good for the economy and competitions that there is an open highway, so to speak,
[1:59:01] underneath the bridge, so carriers can lease space versus having to spend between $400,
[1:59:06] $800,000 to be on the bridge.
[1:59:09] So those are the types of issues that may make sense in the future.
[1:59:13] But again, it's a range of selections you'd have.
[1:59:16] That's what made the Heritage Trail so unique, Nathan, in a previous presentation or two.
[1:59:22] That is a beautiful place to run conduit, and then there'd be folks who'd want a lease
[1:59:29] from us.
[1:59:32] Yes, and I'm very close to an agreement.
[1:59:38] I don't want to step on toes there with that.
[1:59:41] I appreciate the clarity that you both bring.
[1:59:44] I'll yield obviously to my colleagues if you have more questions, but I guess it's not
[1:59:48] a surprise that I would like to see you go further with this and support the concept
[1:59:54] to be developed.
[1:59:56] I believe there's consensus on the day one policy, correct?
[2:00:00] To look at it. Right. Yeah, this next step is yes, let's start getting pen to paper and start
[2:00:08] reviewing it. I don't like to engage, I'm not going to use the term waste time, but use up other
[2:00:15] stakeholders' times to develop a work product if it's not going to go any further.
[2:00:29] So this is
[2:00:29] to hopefully give us a more sophisticated model.
[2:00:36] Give us a policy to put in place.
[2:00:38] Yes.
[2:00:39] Okay.
[2:00:41] All right.
[2:00:43] Thank you.
[2:00:43] And Nathan?
[2:00:45] I'll take a motion to recess for five minutes.
[2:00:48] If you'll make it 10, I'll agree.
[2:00:51] 10 it is.
[2:00:52] 10 it is.
[2:00:53] Second.
[2:00:54] Motion and second to recess for 10 minutes.
[2:00:56] All in favor signify by aye.
[2:00:58] Aye.
[2:00:58] Aye.
[2:00:59] Hi, we are in recess for 10 minutes.
[2:01:03] I'll
[2:10:56] board the supervisors back in the session.
[2:10:59] We'll move on to our last work session.
[2:11:04] This is with Chelsea Green, our Human Resources Director.
[2:11:11] First thing is discussion and possible action on results of patient advocate time study
[2:11:15] and recommendations from Human Resources Director.
[2:11:18] Chelsea.
[2:11:19] Good morning, Board of Supervisors. It is still morning.
[2:11:25] I put together a recommendation that was based on our recent engagement with HR consultant
[2:11:32] and business owner of HRBC Plus to assist in the evaluation of the FTE for the patient
[2:11:37] advocate per the request.
[2:11:40] Chelsea, I'm sorry. I have to ask you to speak louder. Those microphones just
[2:11:44] don't work.
[2:11:46] I can't hear unless you really yell in the microphone sadly.
[2:11:51] Okay,
[2:11:54] so I'm just referencing the memo that is up there in regards to the recent assessment
[2:12:01] that was done of the position for the PACE and advocate and making a recommendation at
[2:12:05] this time that it remains at the 29-hour 0.66 FTE part-time and be re-evaluated following
[2:12:12] the restructure of July 1st, 2025 of the Eastern Central Region.
[2:12:16] In
[2:12:22] addition, I'm requesting permission from the board to accept the Patient Advocate
[2:12:26] Job Description and allow HR to move forward with the acknowledgement of the newly drafted
[2:12:30] job description and mandating compliance with the safety assurance process for the
[2:12:36] Eastern Central Region questions.
[2:12:43] Any questions, Ann?
[2:12:47] I don't want this matter to be unresolved until July 1st of 2025.
[2:12:53] We have an obligation to be certain that the patient advocate is performing to the MOU
[2:13:01] that we have signed with the region.
[2:13:04] And so I'm not sure what the recommendation is from the HR director with regard to that.
[2:13:11] That's also in this opinion letter.
[2:13:14] I think the July 1st of 2025 it would be re-evaluated for hours of my understanding
[2:13:22] on that.
[2:13:23] So what are we doing between today and July 1st of 2025 with regard to the undone work?
[2:13:33] It would stay at the $29 is the first topic until it would be reevaluated on July 1st of
[2:13:39] 2025.
[2:13:41] So what else is HR going to do?
[2:13:44] What other recommendations are we going to do?
[2:13:46] What's the next steps?
[2:13:48] It's to approve that portion of it, that it's 29 hours through July 1st of 2025 per
[2:13:57] Lori Stewart's evaluation and the second part of it is the updated, I don't know that
[2:14:10] the job description had been approved as of yet, correct?
[2:14:15] Yeah, they don't normally go through an approval process, but I just wanted to make sure that
[2:14:19] there was consensus and we were good with the job description that I could move forward
[2:14:22] with providing that finalized copy.
[2:14:26] And then also with the MOU, I'm asking for permission to assist the board to move forward
[2:14:34] with mandating that quality assurance piece for the ECR.
[2:14:38] So do you see the quality assurance as being the implementation of the MOU?
[2:14:43] Is that the same thing? And I just don't understand that.
[2:14:47] Correct. That's the quality process of the eastern central region.
[2:14:52] Okay.
[2:14:54] Motion to approve the recommendation.
[2:15:01] I will second discussion.
[2:15:05] Yeah, I'll make a statement here. I think it's really
[2:15:10] unfortunate when we have the need for mental health services in the committal
[2:15:15] process and we have a qualified person to provide those services and even in the
[2:15:23] administrative code 44.1-25-10529 where it talks about the county's
[2:15:38] responsibilities and you know as far as the performance part of this which was
[2:15:43] brought up which really to me is not part of evaluating a position has
[2:15:50] has nothing to do with performance. The MOU is not part of the code. One of the responsibilities,
[2:15:57] county's responsibilities from the section I just mentioned, as an employer of the advocate,
[2:16:03] the county shall provide qualified staff to support and facilitate the provisions of
[2:16:10] the quality advocate services. So right there, and that's what has been done in
[2:16:16] past, certainly prior to me being here, the makeup of the mental health system was different.
[2:16:23] There was a full-time person that supported the mental health folks.
[2:16:29] That has changed.
[2:16:32] The hours of the advocate position have been reduced, and the services that are needed
[2:16:36] are not being fulfilled.
[2:16:38] We're talking about performance, we're talking about, I'm going to say, a very small percentage
[2:16:43] of the time that to me is support and that is the county's responsibility to
[2:16:50] provide that support and we're not only not providing that support we're
[2:16:56] limiting this position the
[2:17:02] only reason it's being limited is perhaps because of
[2:17:07] a performance issue over a controversial issue so I'll leave it at that I
[2:17:14] I disagree with the fact that this position is going to be limited at 29 hours when the
[2:17:18] services that that position provides is more than 29 hours.
[2:17:24] I think it's important to state again the context that change in hours predates everyone
[2:17:32] sitting on the board of supervisors, all of us.
[2:17:35] It isn't that something happened just immediately before you arrived.
[2:17:38] right. This has been something that has been a long term, whatever long is, many years,
[2:17:46] several years, more than my term, that the hours have been 29 hours. And there isn't
[2:17:54] a way to separate one from the other. And so that's why I support the recommendation
[2:17:59] so that the citizens of the county and that the county becomes compliant with the
[2:18:04] code and the administrative code. So, on to the next steps.
[2:18:08] Well, I'll make one more statement before we're on to the next steps.
[2:18:11] You know, I believe that, yes, it was done prior to us being here,
[2:18:16] but I believe our compensation study not only for this position,
[2:18:19] but for the other positions that we did compensation study were based
[2:18:23] on the position, not performance. Okay.
[2:18:28] This whole MOU was brought into existence in 2023.
[2:18:34] And that's what the focus of this evaluation was, and it was part of the recommendation
[2:18:42] statement from the contract we hired.
[2:18:45] We were to evaluate the position because we're going to have the duty to fill that
[2:18:52] position at some point in time.
[2:18:53] Maybe it's not us, but it will be another board of supervisors to fill that position.
[2:18:57] position, we also are entering into a time where within less than a year, you know, that
[2:19:03] position is housed in a facility that will may or may not go away.
[2:19:11] We don't know how the advocate position is even going to be filled.
[2:19:15] What we do know is the amount of services that are needed and that we're not meeting
[2:19:19] that need.
[2:19:20] And we've heard that from the public as well.
[2:19:23] And to me, that's the important part of this.
[2:19:26] When their service is needed, they're not being filled and we're quabbling over a small percentage of documentation.
[2:19:34] It'd be like having a super mechanic that you took your car to, but he can only work 29 hours a week because he's not getting his paperwork done.
[2:19:44] That's a waste of talent.
[2:19:48] It's not a way to respond to that without being in closed session.
[2:19:55] The reason we went with the consultant was to take all the political things out from the past or whatever
[2:20:05] to get a third party to evaluate it was my recommendation.
[2:20:14] Third party, talk to me, talk to you.
[2:20:17] I believe talk to Ann, talk to the patient advocate, talk to the, she didn't talk to you.
[2:20:23] I think she did, but we're not discussing that, sorry, we're not discussing that, and
[2:20:28] talked to May, and I don't know who else, and made the determination.
[2:20:33] I had nothing to do with it, you had nothing to do with it, you know, she made the determination
[2:20:38] on her own, so.
[2:20:42] But again, performance is part of that recommendation letter.
[2:20:50] It's figured in, it's figured in, but we're not getting into performance stuff and open
[2:20:55] session.
[2:20:56] Good.
[2:20:56] I've made my position clear.
[2:21:00] There's a motion and a second to approve the patient advocate
[2:21:05] time-studying recommendations from human resources.
[2:21:08] All in favor signify by aye.
[2:21:10] Aye.
[2:21:10] Aye.
[2:21:11] All opposed, nay.
[2:21:12] Nay.
[2:21:15] We have discussion and possible action
[2:21:17] on the post-project appeals findings
[2:21:19] from Carlson Dentman consulting
[2:21:20] for the six positions remaining.
[2:21:33] This item has been brought back a couple of times.
[2:21:35] And so, if you have any questions, I'm here to answer those.
[2:21:41] No questions, Wayne.
[2:21:47] Questions on this?
[2:21:53] As far as, I guess, the information, I guess I don't have questions on,
[2:22:01] the way the resolution
[2:22:02] is written, it
[2:22:06] appears as though we're going to evaluate this group of six positions as
[2:22:12] one.
[2:22:12] Is that correct?
[2:22:13] I think it's just to approve the pay grade staying the same.
[2:22:21] The resolution is dated. It's an old date. It would have to be updated.
[2:22:24] But I do have some points I want to make about two of the positions for certain.
[2:22:29] Right? So these are my comments to my colleagues.
[2:22:36] First, I'd like to touch on the CEO of the region.
[2:22:41] I don't believe the process that was laid out was followed.
[2:22:45] I don't know by who or by why or by how, but the process for the evaluation of the CEO of the region was not followed as it was set forth by human resources.
[2:22:58] I don't know that that changes anything with anybody's mind. I don't even know what I want because of that.
[2:23:04] But I think it's important to note that there wasn't an interview with the CEO and that
[2:23:12] because she reports to different people as part of the regional enterprise, that was
[2:23:19] a misstep by whomever.
[2:23:22] That process didn't happen the way we had all hoped it would have.
[2:23:25] I will take responsibility for that.
[2:23:28] Chelsea had talked to me and asked me if I wanted to be on the hearings.
[2:23:33] Yes.
[2:23:33] I took it that she was referring to all of the appeals and I said, no, I did not want to be involved where she wasn't referring to that.
[2:23:42] It was on me. I should have clarified. So I didn't sit on any of them.
[2:23:46] And so I don't think there's any value to going down the who did the what what.
[2:23:50] I'm not afraid to take responsibility for what I did and I misunderstood her and I wasn't on it, but I did talk to Chelsea.
[2:23:58] Right.
[2:23:58] I've talked to everybody on here.
[2:24:00] So the other one I would like to also address and ask be removed from this
[2:24:06] resolution is the county engineer and I want to talk about that differently
[2:24:12] because when we began this entire process we have had this mantra there'll be no
[2:24:18] harm there'll be no harm and I've been told well he's getting a raise that the
[2:24:23] position is increasing. What I want to talk about is the fairness to the
[2:24:28] county engineer that you and I hired and that we interviewed and we recruited and encouraged
[2:24:37] to take on all of the additional responsibilities that being the county engineer is.
[2:24:43] This and even in his appeal, Carlson Deppman says that the issue he raises that he was
[2:24:50] so close to his next step, Carlson Deppman says, that's something you might want
[2:24:56] to take up with the Board of Supervisors.
[2:24:57] And so here we are talking about what's fair to that position, and you can certainly make a change to one without upsetting the apple part of all.
[2:25:08] So he was within, I believe, two weeks of his next step pay increase as our engineer.
[2:25:17] And this sets him off that. It doesn't have that next step occur.
[2:25:22] And that's what I'm asking you to look at in fairness to the county engineer and all of the ever-increasing
[2:25:29] things that we ask the current county engineer to do to look at that.
[2:25:35] We have seen that Clinton County has had to hire their engineer at 20% more than what we pay our engineer.
[2:25:45] So you can't just look and say, oh, other engineers make less, other engineers make more.
[2:25:51] County engineers are hard to find, which is why we recruited him to do what we needed to be done.
[2:25:57] So there's only one other person who's going to be able to evaluate this in terms of a fairness.
[2:26:04] And that's you, Harley. That's it.
[2:26:07] So I have always maintained that the position of the county engineer can be appealed, can be singled out,
[2:26:14] and we still have the opportunity as supervisors to be fair to our original commitments,
[2:26:19] whether they're in writing or they're not in writing there's the spirit and he
[2:26:23] was within two weeks of his next step and what we've done is remove that from
[2:26:28] him so I think that bears we can have Chelsea come back with what that pay
[2:26:33] detail looks like and what the pay detail should be but I do think that
[2:26:37] that should be removed from this resolution and I would support it if
[2:26:41] we remove the county engineer.
[2:26:46] Sure so I guess we're I don't know if we're
[2:26:51] taking this one at a time, but I'm going to back up to the point of the CEO of the mental
[2:26:56] health region.
[2:27:00] One, that particular salary, and again, if I'm wrong because of dates or raises effective
[2:27:08] July 1st, certainly feel free to correct me, but it appears as though that salary
[2:27:15] is $144,000, roughly $144,000, which is above the 75th percentile. Our goal was 75th percent.
[2:27:28] And so for us to make adjustments to that, to me, we've hit our target, we've hit our goal. Go ahead.
[2:27:37] I have talked to May regarding this, and she is fine staying where that's at, so that's not
[2:27:44] She's writing, she's writing the application literally this afternoon to begin the process
[2:27:49] to become, she would be the CEO of a region, it is two-thirds of the population of the
[2:27:55] state.
[2:27:56] And at that time it would be reevaluated.
[2:27:59] It would be reevaluated.
[2:27:59] It's a different thing.
[2:27:59] That's happening.
[2:28:01] The work in the drafting is happening now.
[2:28:03] I'm not asking that we make any modification on her way.
[2:28:07] I'm not.
[2:28:08] I'm simply stating the engineer.
[2:28:10] Sounds good.
[2:28:10] She was mentioned. That's why I was following up on it. I'm hearing, you know, that position
[2:28:17] is going away effective July 1st of 2025. That will no longer be the position that it is today.
[2:28:24] I'm also hearing you say she's okay staying where she's at. She just received a 4% increase.
[2:28:30] She's okay staying where she's at. So I would be re-evaluated.
[2:28:36] In October, there's going to be a whole restructuring under our county compensation plan.
[2:28:42] We can look in October if enough things had realigned that we can be looking at a potential
[2:28:48] increase in re-evaluation then.
[2:28:50] What we're talking about today.
[2:28:51] I agree.
[2:28:52] I agree.
[2:28:53] I'm just trying to make sure that we're not.
[2:28:55] So is that particular position then, just so I'm understanding, that position will
[2:29:00] stay on the resolution?
[2:29:02] Okay.
[2:29:02] Okay. So then, to follow up on the county engineer, that particular salary is $164,000.
[2:29:11] It's the highest beyond elected officials. It's the highest paid classification here.
[2:29:17] It has been evaluated. It has come back to us twice with the same recommendation from
[2:29:26] Now, for some reason, some of our consultants, people want to hug and say they are doing
[2:29:34] a great job, and for whatever other reason, maybe it's because we don't necessarily agree
[2:29:38] with it, some people will say, doing a poor job.
[2:29:43] But we hired consultants, just like we did to evaluate the patient-advocate thing.
[2:29:49] if we're going to pay the money and adhere to recommendations from outside
[2:29:55] entities then we have our recommendation here that
[2:30:00] These six positions stay where they're at. If I'm wrong in saying this, but I believe all
[2:30:08] six of those positions are above the 75 percentile.
[2:30:15] So we've hit that target. We have 24 people that
[2:30:19] are below step one. The whole effort in the compensation study was to focus on wages and
[2:30:30] benefits to be able to recruit and retain good county employees. So we're talking about
[2:30:37] a group of six people here that have come with recommendations twice from an outside
[2:30:45] firm that we've paid over $20,000. They're telling us this is where they belong.
[2:30:52] I think Ian's thing was just about the roads engineer moving to the next step because he was so close
[2:31:04] The next step and then that's it. It goes back to you two weeks from
[2:31:11] Correct, yes, what step is our county engineer on do we know that offhand? I know that's
[2:31:15] In the spot, but I believe they're there in the open range
[2:31:19] This point he's on a step program
[2:31:24] He is, yes. Everybody is on a step, but he's probably on step two, maybe going to step three.
[2:31:33] No, that wage is over 75% of the industry standard. What he is going to be making is more than 75%.
[2:31:43] So he's actually above all the steps.
[2:31:45] So he was hired on the five-step program of a wage scale that began on July 16th of 2022.
[2:31:52] That's what we're talking about, Harley.
[2:31:54] It's the agreement that we made as a county with him.
[2:31:58] It isn't about what 75% of what Carlson Detman is saying and doing.
[2:32:03] It's about honoring in fairness and need for our county engineer.
[2:32:10] That's what we're talking about.
[2:32:11] And it's a fair, nobody should be harmed, he is.
[2:32:16] That's my understanding that his performance was going to be evaluated after a period of time when he was transferred from the assistant to the county engineer.
[2:32:28] Has that evaluation been done?
[2:32:30] I mean, that was a commitment that was, that I believe both of you perhaps were involved with.
[2:32:39] Probably did.
[2:32:41] Never done any reviews of anybody.
[2:32:43] Anybody.
[2:32:43] Great.
[2:32:44] All right.
[2:32:45] I think where part of the problem is is I think you have in your department Anthony Delaware
[2:32:53] County was paying 30% of Anthony's wages and when we hired Russ, I think we only cut
[2:33:02] him back 20% from the total of what we were getting from Delaware County, where he should
[2:33:12] have been cut back to 30%.
[2:33:13] The way the information has been presented is that the county engineer salary will be
[2:33:22] 164,000, which is more than 75% of the industry standard.
[2:33:28] He's in that open range.
[2:33:30] They're also going to develop a performance-based range that could take him to well beyond
[2:33:41] whatever was agreed upon when he was hired.
[2:33:45] We have a pay structure.
[2:33:48] He is already going to receive a 4% increase this year.
[2:33:53] He has the ability to get to 90% of the industry standard based on performance.
[2:34:01] We've had two recommendations by a reputable firm that these six positions stay where they're at.
[2:34:09] I will make a motion to approve the resolution with recommendation from Carlson Detman to
[2:34:21] leave these six positions as originally presented to us.
[2:34:27] I
[2:34:30] will second that.
[2:34:33] I have a motion and a second to accept the Carlson Detman consulting terminations for
[2:34:41] for the six positions referenced. Any discussion?
[2:34:47] All in favor, signify by aye.
[2:34:49] Aye. Aye. All opposed, nay.
[2:34:54] Thank you.
[2:34:56] Anything
[2:34:59] further? Motion to adjourn.
[2:35:03] Second. Not a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor, signify by aye. Aye. Aye.
[2:35:08] All right.
[2:35:09] At least stand adjourned.
[2:35:10] Thank you, everyone.