Board of Supervisors Agenda and Minutes - Regular Meeting

Good morning.

Good morning

Good morning. It is 9 o'clock. We're going to call to order the Dallas County Board of Supervisors meeting. I will ask for an approval of the agenda.

Move to approve the agenda. Second.

Is there any discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Motion carries. I'd ask all to stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Is there anyone to speak in open forum? If you'd like to speak in open forum, please go to the podium and state your name. OK, we'll move on to the consent agenda.

Move approval. Second.

Is there any discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Motion carries. Supervisors, minutes from 4-21-26.

Move to approve the minutes from April 21-26. Second.

Is there any discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Motion carries. Payroll change notices. Beth. Good morning.

So we have a lot of requisitions in this group. And these are the new positions or the approved positions for fiscal year 27. So first, we have the promotional position out of the treasurer's office, the motor vehicle operations manager. Then the next two requisitions are for the attorney's office, the paralegal and the administrative coordinator. Then we have an end of employment for a work study intern in our attorney's office and the requisition to backfill that position. Then we have the new custodian in our facilities department, the public informational officer out of operations. Then we have three new IRVM interns starting in our secondary roads department. Then we have the requisition for the new HR coordinator and human resources. Then we have our receiving files. So the first are the two new county supervisors. We're putting this through as a receiving file so we have documentation of the creation of those two new positions per the voters. Then we have an end of employment for a part-time employee in conservation and the requisition to backfill that position.

So these requisitions come through. Are all department heads, do you know, are they wanting to start the search immediately? Most of them are, yes.

Okay. Yep. So once we get these approved, usually we try to start around May 1st to give eight weeks for the recruiting process.

Okay. Okay. Is there any questions?

Is there any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye.

Aye. Motion carries.

Second.

Is there any discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Motion carries. Okay, we'll move on to capital projects. Is there anything today for capital projects?

Nothing today.

Okay, thank you. Item 9 is the Adel Partners Farmers Market Update and Use of County Parking Areas Request. Aaron, can you go to the podium? Thanks. So we got a letter about this a couple weeks ago.

Yeah. So the Adel Farmer's Market has been out in the Dallas County Fairgrounds for the last several years. And we are in the process of relocating it to the downtown area, 1016 Main. and 10th and Main over by the Raccoon Valley Pavilion area. So as of right now, city has approved street closures here, items in red. So those would be temporarily closed on Tuesdays. So if you don't know, Farmer's Market is held Tuesdays beginning June 2nd. At 2 PM, we would plan to put cones and barricades in to move people off of the street. Businesses would still be open, but then the vendors would come in. The event begins at 4. It goes till 7. So we wanted to notify you of that planned change, see if there were any questions. We held a informational session last week. And we had a few attendees. So what we were hoping to request is kind of similar to how it's been with Sweetcorn for the areas that Dallas County has the admin space building and Wells Fargo for customer parking that You would be agreeable if we encourage them to park there, of course, along the street or any other areas. So that was really the, it was a notice to let you know what we're planning to change, what that would look like on Tuesdays, and then answer any questions or work through any other details that maybe we need to.

So you're just asking for the people coming to the farmer's market to, so allow them to use our parking lots here to the east?

Mm-hmm.

Okay. And how many vendors are you thinking?

So Gretchen Wilson is the market manager for Farmer's Market. I think she has around 35 or so. She does have entertainment planned for every Tuesday evening as well. And then they have a food vendor and a beverage vendor generally.

I don't need it.

I'm fine with it.

Okay. Sounds like you have a consensus, Erin. Thank you so much. Oh, yes. Yes? Can you go to the public?

Todd Halbert, Dallas County Auditor. I have no issues with the parking, you know, where they're requesting to be parked at, I guess, is Wells Fargo building and across the street. So we have a general election coming up during that period of time on November 3rd, and we start early voting on October 14th. So the only two Tuesdays that would be impactful, that could impact that area, along with county other employees because if I would as I Think that's about a hundred and some parking spots there. We're just to the north there So I know others will probably just part wherever not just in the admin building I'm just making it aware that for those two Tuesdays will be in person voting at the auditor's office and We're a little cramped there already. It could be impactful for others. I'm just making sure people are aware. Those two Tuesdays could be really heavy. Because from 2 to 4.30, there would still be voting going on. And then after that, we're okay. Yeah.

I'll respond. I'll put the mic on. I think that's fine. I think we can prioritize those two Tuesdays. And honestly, If the weather is not cooperative, I know Gretchen will either plan to keep it on the Tuesday, or she may cut it earlier. So it's kind of the seasonal dynamic there. We had just said she had been extending through October. Let's plan for what the most of it would be, and we'd be more than happy to adjust communication on those last two Tuesdays to support. Yeah, no, I appreciate it.

Thank you. Thank you. We got consensus from the board to utilize our parking lots. Wonderful.

We will come back to talk sweet corn and any other events later this year. But we really appreciate your guys' partnership and support of that. So thank you so much.

Good show last night.

OK. Item 10, Adel Historical Society display case use request. Is there anyone to speak on that? Yes.

I'm Aubrey Dunbar, and they had kind of requested that we do the Arlington Hotel, which used to set here. So you have pictures and articles and so forth that we can display nicely in whichever of the vignettes you'd like us to do it in. And whenever you'd like it, we have them ready that we can bring in. But again, these are out of the museum, so we could only let them go for two or three months. Then we won't need them back, so.

Aubrey, would you ever consider doing something also along the east part of this building where this building sits now? It used to be law enforcement, the Sheriff's Department. Do you have a history?

I don't know that we have that much on that, but we could look into it and see what else we can come up to switch things out that way.

That would be nice if you could do that.

Sure, yeah. We'll look into that. Thank you.

Does the board have any, you guys had talked about using the one in the vestibule. Was there an issue with that, or did we want to bring them further into the building? In speaking with Aubrey, he thought that half of that case inside the vestibule would be fine for their needs, if that works. Okay. Yeah. I don't have any problem with that.

No, I don't either.

All right. Great, okay. Consensus, thank you. ITEM 11 IS DISCUSSION ACTION OPIOID SETTLEMENT ADDITIONAL FUNDS.

GOOD MORNING. SUSANNE HECKERTY, DIRECTOR OF DALLAS COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND COORDINATOR OF THE DALLAS COUNTY OPIOID SETTLEMENT COMMITTEE. SO WE'VE TALKED ABOUT FUNDS BEFORE. ROB, I THINK WE HAVE CURRENTLY ABOUT $480,000 IN THE OPIOID SETTLEMENT FUND. CORRECT. is another sign on that the county is eligible to do. The total that comes out for our break out is around $7,000. Ben put together a memo talking about benefits and of signing on to additional settlements. Really, the only issue would be if we feel that somehow the money is not being spent correctly, that somebody would come and possibly claw it back. And I'll let him speak to more of that.

So regarding the opioid settlement funds, the big issue is that if some point there's an indication that the funds are not being used in accordance with the terms of the settlement there's very specific use guidelines then basically the state can come in conduct an audit and if it finds funds are not being used for the purposes of the settlement and in accordance with the memorandum of understanding with the state the state can force the county to immediately redirect funds to be used for appropriate purposes. So basically they can force the county to make up the money that was used improperly in the opioid fund from the general fund, which, you know, we can to some extent contract around those items, but you can't contract around bad actors in all cases. So the risk of accepting the $7,000 is very low, but overall the issue about the clawback and ensuring the funds are used for proper purposes is the overarching issue with these opioid settlement funds.

The committee did meet yesterday because we did have an application to go over for this quarter. Um, the consensus of the committee after reading Ben's memo was that the County, um, should sign on cause the risk is low and we feel like it's a benefit to the County.

And I should add that there is no designated timeframe that these funds have to be used for anything. The city can, or the County, I mean, can, you know, take its time and really make sure the plan for these funds will serve the purposes and do the most good. So as far as use it or lose it, there's nothing like that attached to these funds.

Are the terms of use of these dollars different than the use of any of the other dollars?

No, these are all the same.

And as far as I can tell, the reporting on these dollars is exactly the same reporting that we're already doing, which we did have a discussion about, is that a time burden? I know, Julia, you called me too. It takes me maybe half an hour annually. It's not a huge reporting issue. I didn't want it to be laborious. Yeah. As long as Rob can pull numbers for me, it's really easy.

As long as I have access to a computer, I can do that.

So then if we agree to tie into this, they will just go into that fund that already has the $480,000. And you've only gotten one applicant.

We got one applicant this quarter. It was a, I believe it was a $58,000 request. So it's not a tiny request. But we also had a discussion in our committee meeting yesterday and Adam and Kristen can speak to this too, about what we might be able to do to market it more, to get more people to sign on. Where there's money, there's always people enterprising. So there are out there now who have put together evidence-based school education programs, similar to what we funded with Waukee last quarter. And Waukee is the only school district that has applied, so we might market to other schools. see if they're interested. Adam is going to put information about the opioid settlement funds on his Facebook, because he has a few more followers than a lot of the rest of us. And so we are looking at those other options as well.

Ben, is this reference, or Suzanne, this reference number, the CL? 2024-43-2 reference to this particular settlement, or is that reference to Dallas County as a participant in this program?

Pull it back up to the top, please, Melinda. He's referring to that number.

My impression was that it was related to this settlement in general and not to Dallas County specifically, just to Dallas County as who it's addressed to, as the other counties would have also received a similar notice for this. But that's how I took it, and I don't know for sure if that is anything specific to Dallas County. It didn't seem like it.

I would agree with that. And what you have in front of you is everything we received from the settlement authorities.

I move that Dallas County participate in The opioid settlement reference number CL 2024-43-2. And if there is, is there a signature line for the chair?

I think it's just a sign-on that either Rob has done in the past or the county attorney's office has done in the past.

I think the county attorney does it.

OK.

Okay. I have done in the past, but I think we moved it to... To the county attorney's office.

Yeah.

All right. Well, the motion would include an authorized signator by whoever. It's county attorney's office or a finance department, whichever is the appropriate entity to do that.

Second. Is there any further discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you for your work on that and your committee.

See you in a couple weeks with the funding.

That would be great. That would be great. So item 12, got an email today specifically for the supplemental, if you want to look at your email. Item 12 is to create unemployment insurance fund.

So it's a request to create a new internal service fund to How's the money that we will receive from ICAP regarding the program that Beth discussed with you a few weeks ago, and I can have her go over it again if you're interested. But this is just for the request to create that new fund internally to manage it.

Because ISAC, they dissolved it. Correct. So we need to do this ourselves.

Yep. So we were part of ISAC's unemployment group. And they have dissolved it effective January 1. And we had been paying in dues to ISAC over the years, which was about, I don't know, $200,000, $250,000 or so. The balance of the fund. The balance of the fund. So they gave us 50% of that fund and will give us 50% next year after the run-out period. So we need to create a fund to access that. I've created an account with Iowa Workforce Development for Dallas County, so it's reimbursable, so essentially they'll just bill us for any claims that we have come through, and we will use this fund to manage those monies.

Do we need to amend the agenda?

That's what I'm wondering. There's a resolution attached to this email. That's not listed here on the agenda.

Let's go back to approval of the agenda. I will make a motion to amend the agenda to include resolution 20260054 under item 12.

Second.

Any discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Motion carries. And then, oh, go ahead.

I would move approval of resolution 2026-0054.

Second.

Any discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Motion carries. Item 13 is set time and date for public hearing for the MSA Comprehensive Plan vendor contract. Cliff, did you want to make any other comment about this?

Cliff?

Oh, no, I'm sorry. Not Cliff. David. Apologies.

Sorry.

No, I think it's pretty straightforward. This is just public hearing for May 12th to approve the contract with MSA for the comprehensive plan update.

May 12th at what time?

10.15 AM. 9.02?

Would you say May 12th at what time? 1015.

I move to set time and date for a public hearing on MSA comprehensive plan vendor contract for May 12th at 1015 a.m. here in the Board of Supervisors meeting room.

Second.

Is there any discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Motion carries. So item 14 is the ESEAN contract amendment.

Good morning. Kurt Cable, conservation. Just have you guys had a chance to go through the PSA amendment from ESEAN for the mitigation bank? To me, it's pretty cut and dry. I think it's pretty favorable as well. County Attorney's Office has reviewed it and has approved it as well. Be willing to answer any questions you have about it.

So you agree with all the numbers on item two, what's left to pay and work that has been done? Yes.

Yep, so we'd be expected to pay around 25,000 more, and that's for services from February up until this amendment.

Any comments from the county attorney's office?

No, Curt and I went through this, went back and forth with Eocene a few times and, you know, what Curt and I thought were favorable terms for the county to basically, you know, terminate this contract without incurring the additional expense for the mitigation bank that has been determined to be unfeasible, so.

I think the chair would sign this if you guys approve.

I move an approval of Amendment Number 1 to the Professional Services Agreement, EOC, that was originally made in February 7 of 23. I'm authorized, Chair, to sign if necessary.

Second.

Any discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Motion carries.

Thank you.

OK, we have a few minutes before our public hearing. So we'll jump down to item 17.

926 AM.

We discussed this a couple of times, the mileage reimbursement. So all departments would then be on the same mileage. And I worked with the county attorney to get this rewritten. So it would start July 1, and then it would adjust automatically as the federal rate changes. I talked to, if this is approved, then I asked Eric Weber to disseminate it throughout the county so all departments would have it. So do either of you have any questions about this?

I do not have any questions, I believe.

No questions.

Todd.

know this has been discussed Todd Halbert Dallas County Auditor I think it's been discussed for some time to change the mileage rate so but it can it will be impactful to our department specifically because of several precinct election officers that we hire 275 to almost 300 and I just want I know that we talked briefly in our department head meeting that this would be effective in July because we hadn't budgeted for this. But also going into the next budget cycle, obviously we weren't planning for a 10 cent increase in mileage. So I just want to make sure that when we amend or plan for the next budgeting cycle that we're aware of that. We did Somewhat of an analysis, just in the 2024 general election, by the time we paid $12,000, roughly $12,170 to our poll workers, our TM workers, we pay them to train back and forth, that equated to over 19,472 miles for one election. That's the general election of 2024. We have these elections coming up in 2026, in the 2028 election. I know other departments probably would be impacted, not as much as we are from an election standpoint. When we run general elections and primary elections, those costs are borne by the county. But also when we pass those along for city school, those are passed along to the cities.

So adding 10 cents to that would be 1,900 additional dollars. Yeah, about. So would you be able to do an analysis for the fall to see if you can absorb that, or you might have to amend your budget?

Yeah, I'm just pointing that out now. So like when we do amend it or if we amend it, we could adjust our budget. I'm just saying we're looking at things to mitigate that already. Whether or not it's some online training, I feel like that's been discussed in our department for elections prior. So maybe we don't have to have everybody here for training that we pay back and forth as well. Obviously at a poll location, you have to be physically there, right? but for training. So we can come up with ways. I just want to make sure when we're in our budget cycle next year that those are the impacts that we'll be talking about. So that's all I have to say on that adoption. Okay.

Is there action?

I have a question regarding timing and budgeting. You know, does it automatically change when federal rate changes? Does that coincide with our fiscal year and budgeting?

I believe it. occurs in January of each year, right? Yeah, so it would be at the beginning of our budgeting cycle.

Well, will we know in time to include it in our budgeting?

The federal rates become effective as of January 1st.

We would know.

I think we would know, or it would be really close.

We budget till February.

Yeah, we budget well beyond January, so changes occur. up until about the end of February. So I think we would know.

I move to approve resolution 2026-0052.

Second.

All in favor? Or I'm sorry, is there any discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Motion carries. So it's 930. We'll open up our public hearing. And just a reminder for our public hearings, if you have any questions or concerns about this specific topic, when, after David presents, you'll go to the podium and state your name and you'll have 10 minutes to tell us what your thoughts are on this topic only. Have we had, I'm gonna go ahead and let David present.

Thank you. Yes, this is a minor final plat for property, generally located west of S Avenue, north of 330th Way. It's just over 20 acres, highlighted, kind of hard to see with all the red there, but right there in the middle of the map there, approximately 20 acres. Currently zoned A1, agricultural. This split is being done, it's kind of in a By an old deed description, this property is actually on both sides of S Avenue there. It's kind of split by the road. So when you have these old deeds and you have the roads splitting the property, you have to kind of go through a little bit more formal process than just a plat of survey or an easy transfer of property. So that's the minor final plat. It is land use designated as agricultural on the comprehensive plan. The intent is right now to leave as is. Any additional subdivision of the property would require approval back to the Board of Supervisors after a Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation. Municipal review is required. It is within two miles of Van Meter. Their code's a little different. They explicitly say to wait until the county approves, and then they'll approve. A little opposite of what most jurisdictions do, but that's how their code reads. Look at the plot in a little more detail. Like I said, it's just a... Right along both road right-of-ways, 20 acres just over. There's an existing entrance on the site. That's not proposed to change. Had been run through conservation. They identified some potential wetland soils in the area on the west side of the property that would have to be mitigated if there is development in the future. The entrance permit only needed if they wanted to change the entrance, but there's no intent at this time. This does not go to the Planning and Zoning Commission, but it does meet all the requirements of the A1 zoning district, and we are recommending approval. And I have not received any correspondence from the public on this one.

OK, the board is not also. We have not also. Board have any questions? I do not. I do not, yeah.

Any public comment?

Yeah, that's what I was going to do next. Is there anyone in the public who would like to speak? Please state your name.

Good morning. I'm Joel Romi, Raccoonwood Valley Land Surveying. I'm the author of the plat. I'm here representing Paul Szczesinski. He's also in attendance. This is part of a much larger tract. It's divided by S Avenue. It's just a simple one-lot plat. It's going to remain the same. It was approved by Van Meter last night. The timing was a little different. I'm not sure how that happened, but it is approved by Van Meter, and they're going to give me a resolution today, supposedly. So if there's any questions, I'm happy to answer anything.

I don't have anything. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak? Yes, sir.

Good morning. Brent Haynes, my mother-in-law, Zelda Alcott, owns the ground to the north and to the west of that. And I guess we just have questions on if it's going to remain the same. The card we got was that it was for a subdivision. I guess I'm not sure what the plan is or how long before that would happen. I guess I would ask Paul. I do know that the ground, it was roughly the same size, just directly east of there, about a mile. That went kind of through the same thing it was roughly 20 acres and they when they did their subdivision they were only able to Divide that into into two plots So I guess our question would be if this was approved how many lots? Would that be in the in the future? As kind of what we are wondering, and kind of the time frame on what you would be looking at for that, Paul.

Paul has no intent on sub-dividing further at this time. And I know the Alcott family. I did Wildwood. So I know the area there real well.

But- Please, sorry. Sir, please go to the podium.

OK. No problem. It's going to remain farmland. He wants to farm it. He wants to improve the bins that are there. in the building and utilize those for farming purposes. And he has no intent on subdividing it any further at this time. Yeah, the only reason it's platted, I did a platter survey to divide this and I don't want to really go there. I think a subdivision plat is not necessary. If you read the rules of the code on the subdivision plat, This is part of a lot bigger tract of land that was described in rods. If that means anything to you, it means it's ancient. Nobody uses rods anymore. In fact, it was 208 rods wide, which means it's almost 2,000 feet wide. So I've been over this lots of times, and the only thing it did by doing a subdivision plant is that it gave it a name and a number instead of a parcel letter or parcel number now. That's the only thing it's provided. If it's re-subdivided, it'll be another subdivision. So that's my opinion alone, that it could have been done with a platter survey. The only advantage to a subdivision platter is the accompanying material that goes along with a subdivision platter. Anything else that cleared up for you?

And is there any other public comment? Any other public questions?

I was just going to add, just for the folks in attendance, if it was to be further subdivided, it is zone A1, so it is allowed to be subdivided into two parcels. Again, that's not the intent of this action. That would have to come back forward. There would be a public notice of that, and we'd be back here again. If they wanted to subdivide it even further into smaller lots, that has to go through rezoning and then another plat. So again, public notices would go out and there'd be ample time to speak on that if it was to be further subdivided. But tonight, it's just one lot.

Again, any other further public comments? Any other comments from the board?

Move to close the public hearing.

Is there any discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Motion carries. Move to adopt Resolution 2026-0051. Second.

Any further discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Motion carries. So we have five minutes before our next public hearing. We'll go down to Item 18, Resolution 2026-0053, Law Day. I don't know if you want to speak to this, Ben. It was given to us by the Attorney's Office. It's to designate May 1st as Law Day in the United States of America.

I have no comment other than what's in the proposed resolution.

So the Iowa Bar Association will provide us a flag to fly on that in recognition of Law Day and America's 250th anniversary.

I move to adopt Resolution 2026-0053. Second. Second.

Is there any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carries. Is there any other business to come before the Board today? Okay, the board will be in recess for the next few minutes before our next public hearing.

That's up to you.

Could you scan it to me?

There is, and we got other issues, right?

OK, it's 9.45. Let's reconvene the Board of Supervisors meeting. And we will open up a public hearing on the first reading of proposed changes to Chapter 45 zoning ordinance regarding family and group homes.

All right, yes, this is a public hearing regarding an amendment to Dallas County zoning code regarding family homes, group homes, elder homes. Back in 2025, the state adopted some new regulations regarding what cities and counties can regulate for these types of homes. And basically what it boils down to is you can't treat one of these types of homes any different than you would a single family home in a neighborhood. The Dallas County Code had some items in there that were prohibitive to these types of uses in single-family zoning districts, and essentially the state code voided most of those regulations, so this is just an update. Some of the big items, I know it's kind of hard to see here, is we essentially deleted all the existing definitions within our current code and replaced them with the state code definition of these uses, so it's clear-cut there. I'm not going to go through them verbatim, but they're much more concise definitions. And again, they do meet the state code. The other one was nondiscrimination clause within the state code. Counties and cities may not impose special conditions or spacing requirements on these types of homes that would be above and beyond what a traditional single family home would have. We had some of that in our existing code requiring 1,000 foot separation distances from each other. We don't require single-family homes to be separated that much, so we can't require family homes, group homes to be separated by that either. So we've struck the condition in our code from all those to comply with state code. Finally, it does allow it across numerous districts. These districts all allow single-family homes. So group homes, family homes, elder homes would all be allowed in those districts identified. Because the question comes up, private covenants and HOA, they cannot prohibit these by an association or by covenants. The state code specifically voids those sections of the covenants that do prohibit family homes in any neighborhood, even with private agreements. Planning and Zoning Commission did review this back in December, and they did recommend approval. And I have not received any correspondence or comments about this.

We are in public hearing. Anyone from the public would have any comment about this change? Any comments, questions from the board?

No. Good work on the amendment to the code here. It looks pretty cut and dry to me.

I mean, when state code tells you what to write, you write it.

Any further public comment?

Move to close the public hearing.

Any discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Public hearing is closed.

You could do either.

Mm-hmm. It is, he's just, he just inputted the new law, the new Iowa code into it.

No, you go ahead.

I would move to approve the first reading of the proposed changes to Chapter 45, Zoning Ordinance Regarding Family in Group Homes, and waive the second and third readings. Second.

Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carries. I'll again ask if there's any other business before the Board today.

I don't. Second.

Any discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. We are adjourned.

She's smiling.