Board of Supervisors Agenda and Minutes - Regular Meeting

Mr. Roszak, we should have bought Caterpillar to John Deere.

We did, congratulations.

Our daughter works with John Deere. That's even better.

Our daughter, one of us is fighting.

No, I, I, excuse me. I didn't say borrow money, which I should have borrowed.

No, you're not.

Like I said, I have to engage this. That's a lot.

Do you want to be added to that? About my brother and my sister, my youngest daughter. Okay, well, I mean, I could add to the things. Good morning. Good morning. We are going to call to order the Dallas County Board of Supervisors meeting for June 9th, 2026.

I don't have any changes to the agenda unless any other board member does, so I'll ask for an approval.

Move to approve the agenda. Second.

Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

We'll move down to item five, consent agenda.

Move to approve the consent agenda. Second.

Any discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye, motion carries. Oh, I'm sorry, thank you. I skipped over open forum, I apologize. Item four, open forum. Is there anyone here to speak in open forum? Okay, we'll move then down to item six, Supervisors, minutes from 6-2 of 26.

Move approval. Second.

Any discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Motion carries. Item 7, human resources, payroll change notices. Beth.

Good morning. First, we have an end of employment in the auditor's office. Then we have a requisition. changing the GIS real estate supervisor position into a senior elections clerk in our auditor's office. Then we have our 7-1 payroll change forms. First, we have the auditor and elections departments. Then we have the attorney's office. We had a couple job descriptions which were updated, which affected the ratings. One position The administrative manager slash paralegal, we did that during the budgeting session, so that is in the attorney's budget for next fiscal year. We updated the legal secretary job descriptions, which would affect one legal secretary, which is about a $2,100 budgetary impact for next fiscal year. That will be budget neutral, as he will have an open position for at least one or two pay periods next fiscal year. Then we have the payroll change, 7-1 payroll change forms for the sheriff's office. We updated the dispatcher supervisor job description, which also affected their gradings. That's about a $7,500 budgetary impact to his budget for next fiscal year. I believe the sheriff reached out and gave additional information on that. Then we have finance and operations. Then we have a salary exception for a position in secondary roads. It's our roadside biologist position. If that is approved, we have the payroll change form for the employee moving into that roadside biologist position. Then finally, we have two payroll change forms for next fiscal year. There are step increases for secondary roads per the paid plan policy.

So for the week, Commissioner, it was actually reduction. Am I reading that correctly?

The roadside biology.

Yes, I'm sorry, roadside biology.

Yes, so it's actually this fiscal year will be budgetarily neutral. It's only one pay period. And then next fiscal year, it's actually $11,000 less than what was initially budgeted.

Questions for Beth?

I am going to want to look at a proposed job description for the senior elections clerk before I authorize myself, vote to authorize the request to create that position.

Sure. I can send that to you.

We haven't had any discussion, Todd, about this. I'm not aware what you're wanting to do, how Mary's responsibilities will be filled, which impacts this board, as you know as well. So I just want to make sure my questions are all answered before I approve that. Sure.

That's not a new position, Todd.

OK, so why is there a requisition then to fill this position? You have someone in the position now?

That's under my current job descriptions, I guess. So he's changing that position into a senior elections position, where Todd already has somebody in a senior elections position. We already have a created job description.

So we need two seniors? Does that position pick up Mary's responsibilities in that job description?

Not as it's currently written, no.

Okay.

I agree with Kim. I think it would be nice to see who's doing what because I know we have a drain issue coming up in the next two weeks. I know we have some mapping issues with combining parcels for our EMS building. So I mean, we have to take action on the first item, but we don't have to take action on the request, my understanding. We have to accept the change, but we don't have to accept this until the requisition. So is there action on the other side, or do you have a comment?

I'm gonna move to approve the payroll change notices as presented with the exception of the request to create the senior, not to create, but to hire another senior election clerk.

Second.

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

Aye.

Aye, motion carries. Okay, we'll move down now to the pay plan review. We've been talking about this, and we had a clean version. Yep.

I sent you an updated version based off of our conversation last week. I did some more research. I cannot pull the employment cost index by region. You can get it by region for private industry, but you can't get it by region for the public sector. So I can get the CPI by region, but I can't get the ECI for the government and local.

That doesn't really help us then.

No. That does not accomplish what you had wanted it to, so.

But you can get the CPI by region? I can. And is it like Midwest or, I mean?

Yeah, there's a conglomerate, a group of states in that region. And I don't know off the top of my head. I think it's like. Five to seven, maybe.

Correct. So what do we want to do?

I think go to the CPI.

Yeah, I agree. OK, I will make that update. I'll bring it back next week, hopefully the last time. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

OK, let's go down to item Eight, capital projects, courthouse renovation project. Good morning.

Good morning. Christopher Orth with Farnsworth Group. We have change order number five for the courthouse renovations project. This is for the additional structural steel renovations work to support the fourth floor courtroom due to the fact that our design FOR A THIRD FLOOR COURTROOM, REMOVED SEVERAL LOAD-BEARING WALLS, SO TWO COLUMNS AND 10, 11, 12 SECTIONS OF BEAM ARE BEING ADDED, STEEL BEAMS AND STEEL COLUMNS ARE BEING ADDED TO SUPPORT THAT FOURTH FLOOR COURTROOM ABOVE. And the total additional cost is $206,941. It will add 88 days to the schedule. And so substantial completion is scheduled for October 2. I think with occupancy by the fifth judicial toward the end of October.

Yeah, middle-ish.

Middle to end of October. October 23rd, yes.

Christopher, talk to us a little bit about if this change order is denied, what does that mean for this project?

It would be near impossible to do the third floor courtroom as it's currently conceived. We would have to redesign that third floor. It would be a significant effort to reconsider how to utilize that space given the bearing walls that are there.

Did we anticipate this problem going into this renovation?

We did not. We did not have existing structural drawings of that space. So we were unaware that there, and the ceilings were hard lid ceilings in most of that third floor area, so we were unable to see the structure before we moved forward with the beginning of renovations and demolition. It was brought to our attention during the demolition phase that it appeared those were bearing walls.

Do you have any questions?

No. I went up there and looked. And I didn't know what we did when we had to shore up the floors, whatever that was, 15 years, whatever it was. I didn't know if that's what was put in then to help do that. To maximize that building out, I don't see how we can't. It seems like we have to do it.

Move to approve the courthouse renovation change order number five as presented by Turner Construction. And authorized to your sign.

Second.

Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Move down to auditor's office renovations.

Last week, proposals were received for the abatement work at 100 Nile-Kinnick Drive North. The building's approximately 11,000 square feet. Originally, the building was constructed in 1954. Abatement is required of some asbestos-containing floor tile in the basement area, and all of the gypsum board and joint compound will be removed. The joint compound has asbestos-containing fibers in it. And so they will be removing all of that. Steve from Hawkeye Environmental had anticipated the cost to be somewhere between $140,000 and $150,000. Earth Services and Abatement LLC submitted a base bid of $107,000. We had an alternate for a longer duration and as you can see the other bidder had some cost savings for that longer duration but we recommend accepting the base bid for Earth Services because their cost was the same and we would prefer to get that work accomplished sooner than later because then we can complete our design work for that space. There's things we need to see and we need to know how much impact that abatement work has had before we issue our final bid documents to Turner. So we recommend accepting the Earth Services and Abatement LLC base bid of $107,000 with a completion date of July 24, 2026, and contracts will be generated and brought forth. So this is an award, not an approval, I apologize.

So they're going to take all the gypsum board off and everything, so it'll be basically down to the studs?

Correct.

So it's a major demolition?

Correct.

So when you get in there, then you'll be able to go to the next step?

Correct.

Okay.

The good news is, of the three buildings we tested, this was the only building that had asbestos-containing materials. So 902 Court has no asbestos-containing materials found, and the 210 North 10th Street had no asbestos-containing materials found. So this was, I mean, it could be worse, I suppose. So that part was a positive.

So you're going to present a contract at a later date?

Correct. We'll bring the contract forward hopefully next week, but we were anticipating an award to the apparent low bidder services and abatement LLC.

Would we typically do that without reviewing the contract? Award first?

Yeah. I think it's been pretty standard. Yeah, we've done that in the past, I think. We can wait, and I think there's some notifications that they need to give to the DNR, and the award would help move that along. It's a two-week waiting period before they can start their abatement work, and this would start the clock for that.

Legal.

I think it's appropriate to do how it's been done previously. And so to the extent that these have been previously approved without reviewing the contract, it's proper. I don't love not reviewing the contract. That's me personally.

But we will still get a contract and still go through that review process.

Correct. Correct. So the contract is in your hands, Ben, for review and hoping to get that back from you today. Okay. So we'll then forward that on to them. They'll get their bonds and insurance in order and have all of that prepared for next week.

Okay. So they're not going to get too involved in this project before there is a contract?

Correct. Yeah. The only involvement is they can give the DNR to their two-week notice.

All right. Well, with legal advice, I will go ahead and move to award the asbestos abatement project agreement. Let's see. Award to Earth Services and Abatement LLC for $107,000. for the completion date of July 24th, 2026. Second.

Any further discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Motion carries. And then last would be the Turner Construction CMAR agreement.

Two weeks ago, we presented the recommendation of the selection committee to select Turner Construction for the auditor office renovations project. And so this is the standard form of agreement between owner and construction manager as constructor, where the basis of payment for the cost of the work is plus a fee with a guaranteed maximum price. So we have prepared the contract. Legal team has reviewed it. and Turner has signed the contract, and so we recommend approval. This is the beginning step. They'll bring forward a pre-construction services amendment, and then they'll bring forward a construction amendment in the future. This includes their insurance requirements and the general conditions of the contract, similar to what we've done in the past with the agreements with Turner on the other projects that you have approved.

Second. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you.

We'll go down to Item 9, Wetland Dam Repair Quote.

Good morning. Jim Uthe with County Conservation. is in regards to wetland mitigation constructed for the Van Meter Bridge and the R-16 project south of the interstate to Van Meter. It was a mitigation constructed in 2007. After that, there was a mitigation for the Dawson Bridge in 2009, and then the creation of the mitigation bank in 2011. Several years ago, it was noticed that There's extensive rodent damage to the berms of all of these wetlands. We were able to hire a contractor to install rodent barrier in the majority of the berms. This wetland had a smaller berm constructed for it. It was back in that day in 2007, the specs weren't for as large of berms. So we were unable to get a trencher safely on it to install the rodent barrier. We do have a contractor available to widen this berm and then trench in the rodent barrier. And that's what we are asking with this project.

Was that barrier working on the other ones?

So far, so good. You bet. I have not noticed any leaks.

Was this for the mitigation bank, or it's just water mitigation? How would this be paid for? Is it directly out of your budget?

It'd be out of the wetland bank fund.

OK.

That material has already been purchased. Okay. And I believe that came out of the Wetland Bank Fund when everything else was repaired a few years ago.

Okay. Okay. Jim, is there a contract coming with this contractor as well?

It's an estimate. It's Gano Construction. He does a lot of work for County Roads. Pretty much works off of time and materials. I think at times he provides estimates beforehand. I do not believe there's a contract associated with it.

Is there some inspection of some kind that somebody has to do when this work is completed to know that it's up to the standards of the weapon ?

The Army Corps does periodic inspections on mitigations. I mean, if they came to inspect it now, they would see that it's not currently functioning and would make us do something. We're going to bring it up to current NRCS specs, so we will go out there and make sure it's at least a six-foot wide berm. Originally, the NRCS specs were a three-foot wide berm, which they've increased their specs probably because they've had so many issues with rodents, so.

And then that wire will, that wire mesh to keep the musket?

We're going to put in a steel barrier trench and a steel wall, basically, corrugated steel. And that's already been purchased. We might need to spend a few hundred dollars more to get some extra steel. But I believe all the steel's already purchased.

Jim, I understand this is a reputable company. But have you had others show interest in this kind of a project? Are we limited on who does this kind of work? Why just the one estimate here?

Just contractor availability, I believe.

So the materials have already been purchased. This is just labor and equipment?

Yes, ma'am. Like I said, there might be another $200, $300 for more steel. I'm thinking there's going to be enough, but...

I'll offer an approval of the request for funding for this project to reconstruct the dam, a wetland bank dam that's presented here today from Ganoe Excavating Incorporated of Stewart, Iowa.

I'll second the motion.

Any further discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Motion carries.

Thank you.

Okay, and it's 928, which is perfect. Dave, did you want to start your presentation, and then we'll open the public hearing at 930? Item 10 is discussion action, public hearing, first reading of ordinance 2026-0012, Lauterbach Rezone.

Okay, great. Yeah, this is a pretty straightforward rezoning request. Going from A1 to RE1 to allow the subdivision of property to create a three acre lot for a family member on a larger parcel. The RE1 does allow that minimum three acre. So we'll have to come back and follow up with a plat at a later date. As you can see on the screen there, look at soil types again. It's the bottom screen there highlighted in the black bold there. Most of the property is substandard soils with some recommended no-build areas just due to slope and as we get into the river beyond. We'll get a concept plan to follow at a later date. That will, again, be reviewed by the city of Van Meter because it is within their two mile territorial review. This was recommended approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission last month.

OK. So this is the time and place for the public hearing on this matter. And have we received any communication from the public?

I have not.

No. Okay. Is there anyone to speak in public hearing about this topic? Please go to the podium and state your name.

Michael Otterbaugh, owner. We're just, there's an old farmhouse there, and my son is living in that house, and we just want to get it surveyed off so we can get that into his ownership. So, should have been done a long time ago, I guess, but. So like I said, we'd probably just do the minimum three acres off of that corner, and we own everything around it, so it doesn't really affect anyone else.

Any questions? Anybody? Thank you. Anyone else to speak in public hearing?

I'm sorry. This does take the three readings unless you wave, so.

Move to close the public hearing.

Second. Any discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Motion carries.

Move to approve the first reading of Ordinance 2026-0012 and waive the second and third readings. Second.

Any discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. So now we will move down to item 14 is the second reading of the ordinance 2026-0015 proposed changes to chapter 45 zoning ordinance regarding home-based businesses.

I just wanted to note the change from last week's meeting. We did just strike out the references to the a solid fence, and just said, shall be screened from view, and that will allow the owners a variety of methods to screen their outdoor operations.

And that was an E and F?

Yes, E and F highlighted on the screen there. It's as big a spot as I can make it.

It's okay, I've got it. We've got it right here. Is there any questions for Dave on this one? I'M SORRY. I'M ZONED OUT THERE. PARDON ME. IS THERE ANYONE TO SPEAK? IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? DID WE GET ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC?

NO.

I MOVE THEN TO APPROVE THE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE 2026-0015, WAVE THIRD READING.

SECOND.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE.

AYE. MOTION CARRIES. Okay, we'll go down to item 15. We need to set time and date for public hearings on Zoll Preventative Maintenance Agreement through the Ambulance Service.

Jim 23rd, 9.30 a.m.

And we're doing the public hearing because it crosses fiscal?

OK. Three years.

I move to set time and date for public hearings for the Zoll Preventive Maintenance Agreement and the Stryker Preventive Maintenance Agreement, June 23, 9.30 AM, here in the Sherman.

Second.

Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Item 16 is an abatement of mobile home taxes from the treasurer's office. I don't see anyone from that department here, but talks about that the mobile homes have been removed from the county.

Move to adopt Resolution 2026-0075. Second.

Discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye, motion carries. Okay, we'll drop down to operations administration. Item 17, we have operating transfers.

So we've got two for you today. Both are budgeted. $150,000 to the bike trail fund for projects discussed by the conservation department during the budgeting process. And then the final $2 million into the capital fund from the general basic fund. Next week I'll have two more and those should be the last ones. It'll be the final transfers to secondary roads.

I'll move resolution 2026-0077 and resolution 2026-0078. Second. Is there any discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye, motion carries. And then 17B, you wanted to talk about current furnishings at 100 Nile Kinnick Drive.

Yeah, so for the item discussed earlier by Christopher was the abatement. We need to remove the building of the furnishings that's in there. The current remodel is not planning to use any of those furnishings. So the decision really is, what do we want to do with them? They need to get out of the building. Do we want to hold onto them, store them for potential use in the future? Do we want to try to sell them or just dispose of them?

So you're talking the old furniture from the bank, because the auditor will take their furniture over when they move. Correct.

Correct. So this would be left over. So it's what was ever left behind from Wells Fargo when they vacated.

Do you have an inventory?

No, we've walked through it. I don't have, there's office desks, there's some lounge chairs.

Conference tables?

I believe there was a smaller one in one of those small conference rooms.

Has the auditor gone through to see, and they say they don't want anything. They don't want the conference tables, they don't want, he's left the office.

Yeah, he just left. But yeah, they're not anticipating to use any of them, any of it.

EMS, do you have any needs?

I mean, for the new building.

I said, look, we'd be happy to go and see them right now.

I know we would need a larger table, but.

Ron is right behind you. He'd be happy to take you through there.

Feel free.

Yeah, we can, I can walk through and see.

Well, let's let Kristen go and see if there's a need there and any other department that may have a need.

We can certainly offer it up to whoever, departmental-wise, internally. Is that something you'd put on Purple Wave? That is an option.

But we need to get it out of the, yes.

We need to get it out of the building.

So do we have a place to store it in between?

The early start date, if I remember right, for the abatement work was June 24th. So just a couple weeks. Could be a late start date in mid-July. So we have two weeks at a minimum anyway.

When's the sheriff's storage facility going to be ready?

The new one? End of July.

Well, Ron, do we have any other space to store this furniture at this time?

The only space big enough for that is the current evidence building for the sheriffs out there in the fairgrounds. But I would have to go through the sheriff to see if we can store all that in there.

I guess I defer. If you don't think we're going to be able to get anything for it and we don't really have capacity to store it, I would more be happy to store like if Kristen needs a table.

Sure.

I can't remember what that furniture will look like.

Yeah.

Or if the attorney's office decided they needed something from there, where we've got people moving into buildings. But I definitely think you should open up to all departments so they can look through.

Well, there is a room in 902 court.

Is there room? Yeah, to store it.

To store it in the IT department? The old IT department?

Right now, probably. It's also going to be under construction.

It would have to be short-term. We'd have to get it on purple wave as quickly as possible, if there's even anything worth putting on purple wave.

How about we go through it and take pictures of everything and have that for you next week, put it on the agenda again next week. In the meantime, Kristen can go walk through there, take a look at it, and see if she has anything.

I think that's perfect timing. Yeah.

Happy to do it.

Yeah, he's not going to be here. You're right, exactly.

Oh, you're going to be gone?

Yes. Well, along with that, others that may want to go look. Sure. Yeah, definitely.

Most of it is like office furniture, like a desk, which I don't really think there's going to be much of a need for that stuff.

Are there chairs?

There are even, what kind of chairs?

Office chairs. Did they leave their office chairs there? Do you know, Ron? I don't know.

Oh, you took them already? Yes.

They're taken, right? There's a place in Rubino called Business Furniture Warehouse that will sell on consignment.

Yeah. I would like to liquidate it if we can, but let departments have first grab at it.

So we'll offer it up internally to see if there's anybody interested in anything. We'll have pictures taken. We can bring that next week. Yep. A couple of divers left.

Okay, anything else on that topic? I mean, do you know how much, I mean, is it a ton? Is it every office full of stuff?

Yeah, I think so. If I remember right. They didn't.

And is that table upstairs or downstairs? So we have to haul it. We have to haul everything out of there anyway, right?

Okay. Okay. Okay.

THANK YOU. SO WE'LL GO BACK UP TO ITEM 11. 945 IS OUR NEXT PUBLIC HEARING, AND IT'S THE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE 2026-0013, MORGAN REZONE.

YES. CAN WE GO AHEAD? YES. OKAY. YES, THIS IS ANOTHER REZONING REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY KIND OF NORTH EAST OF DALLAS CENTER, KIND OF AT THE BOTTOM OF THE IMAGE THERE, HIGHLIGHTED IN RED. THE APPLICANTS ARE SEEKING TO REZONE TO ALLOW FOR A SPLIT OF PROPERTY DOWN TO TWO 5-ACRE LOTS. THE RE1 DISTRICT ALLOWS MINIMUM 3-ACRE LOTS. THIS LAND, KIND OF A LOT GOING ON THERE, BUT IT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN RED ON THE BOTTOM SCREEN. It's not going to work today. Highlighted there on the red, as you can see, it's kind of hard to see on the screen with the colors, but it's fairly 70-plus CSR ratings. The applicant has intended to, again, subdivide. There's an existing house on the north side. He'd like to build his new house on the south side. He owns the adjacent 30 acres to the east. When we were looking at the zoning of the A1, he could come in there and parcel off two 10-acre lots as a right with the existing zoning. but he didn't want to necessarily rezone, or I'm sorry, he didn't really necessarily want to put two lots, two larger lots, two 10-acre lots into that larger piece. So he's requesting the rezoning. It's really kind of getting the same objective, the two lots for the houses, but not having to eat into the balance of the farmland. His biggest concern is won't own it forever. And then if I had to sell it, I'd sell 10 acres rather than having to sell a five acre lot. So it's really the same amount of density. He just wants to compact it, again, to not have to parcel off as much of the remaining farmland. This was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission last month, and they did recommend approval.

OK.

I did not receive any comments.

OK. So this is the time and place for the public hearing on this topic as advertised. And have we received anything?

No.

OK. And so if there's anyone to speak on this topic, please go to the podium now and state your name. Board members, do you have any questions?

I do not.

I do not. Okay, well, one more time, we'll call for the public. Anyone from the public wanting to speak on this topic? And again, this is the first reading.

Move to close public hearing.

Second.

Is there any discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Motion carries.

I move to approve the first reading of ordinance 2026-0013, second and third readings.

Second.

Is there any discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Motion carries. OK, we will continue our agenda. We have the Canvas, which the auditor's office is not here. We have a closed session that I would like to wait for that towards the end. So other business, is there other business to come before the board today? We have a department head meeting on the 18th, which is next week. economic development event, so I will not be attending, so I wanted to open it up. I know you're gone, Kim, so it's Brad. If you would like to attend that, you are welcome to.

I'm not saying you have to, I'm just saying I will not be there, so it won't cause a conflict.

It's one o'clock on Thursday the 18th, correct, Beth, that's our? Yeah. Okay. I just wanted to let you know that I would not be able to attend that one. Any other business to come before the board? Now, we'll be in recess until 10 o'clock.

I don't think you should even do that, but.

Who's that?

I mean, it's not my day for vacation. I'm getting some drinking going on there. That's unlimited. I feel like we need to get a, I'm going to take responsibility here. But nobody's driving probably, right? No, it's all resorts. Yeah. Let's see. And we got money. It's better than living with them than living out of state or something. Yeah. They're going to get it for years. Yeah. in the way we've ever been to. We've been to five countries in the Caribbean, but on the sandals and things. It's all you can eat now. It's fun because it takes care of you. It's fun coming home, too. What are we doing? I know I've got about five days, six days. We're going to go to Canada, of course. Isn't it the minute we can take the answer? Don't go to the...

We're going to reconvene the meeting. It is now 10 o'clock. And open up item 12, which is our discussion action public hearing for the first reading of ordinance 2026-0014, the Thorpe Rezone.

This is a request to rezone property just north of Adel from current C1 to I1 light industrial. The current C1 is incredibly limited in uses. It only allows for general retail uses. And there's very little of that in the unincorporated area. And it doesn't match how the area is currently used out there. This is directly adjacent to other I-1 zone property, including a property immediately east that the property owner also owns. The site was historically zoned industrial. As you can see in the 1974 zoning map, that area was industrial, and in 85 it was industrial, but then starting in the 1995 zoning map, it was classed as industrial. I could not find any legislation on that change. I'm not sure what triggered that change, but they are now requesting to rezone that back to I-1 light industrial.

How do I advance?

This shows the current proposal for it. He's proposing a small building and a fence lot for the use of that property. This is consistent with the comprehensive plan. It's not agricultural land. It's contiguous to other light industrial. The comprehensive plan supports that. This was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and they recommended approval.

Samuel, be a little more specific on the location.

North of Adel. This is on Nantucket Road out to the Island Park. Yes.

This is the time and place of our public hearing as advertised for this matter. Have we received any comments on this?

We have not.

We have not, okay. Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak on this topic? Please go to the podium and state your name. Board members, did you have any other questions?

What's this location right next to?

Is it between the buildings and the field? This would be the far north property on those row of businesses there. It would be the old quarry to the north and east of there.

The old barn?

Yep.

The barn sets? No? No.

I'm sorry, what was it the barn the white barn the white barn is further north I'm not remembering exactly This would be the far north property on that ring string of business This is the island road here And then this is the lane that goes back into the old quarry with 169 here.

Is there any other public comment?

What's the zoning of the buildings to the south?

The property immediately south is C2, and the remainder is C1.

Will there be plans, do you think, Dave, in the future to change those all to industrial?

I think we get the comprehensive plan done and take a hard look then at those recommendations and then start looking at the entire zoning map for the entire county, take them township by township, and make those corrections that we can find. But today is not that action, but that's a definitely add to the list. step to get things caught back up. So it's coming, but comp plan first.

And we don't know why, in your research, why it was changed from industrial.

I couldn't find anything. I don't know if it was a map error at some point then or if I couldn't find any evidence of it. I just saw that around that time it changed.

You had the lumber yard in existence at that time, too. That's retail.

And then over the years, the ordinance has changed and the uses have changed, and so none of those businesses in there really match the current zoning. So as Dave mentioned, that's something to look at after we get the new comp plan in place.

I don't have any other questions.

Brad. No, Brad. And then is there one final, is there anything, anyone from the public that would like to speak?

Move to close public hearing. Second.

Is there any discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Motion carries.

Move to adopt. the first reading of the Ordinance 2026-0014 and waive the second and third reading. Second.

Is there any discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Motion carries.

Thank you.

And the board will be in recess until 1015. Can I, before you do that? Oh, yep, hold on, yep, sure.

We'll go back to that furnishings question. Sure. Discussion item. I was just thinking, how about this? We give department heads the opportunity, say, through this week to go in and identify anything that they want and take out of the building. Anything that remains after the end of this week, We would reach out to this business warehouse place that Mr. Farrell referenced to see if they can come and just take a look at it. I guess they come and they actually take whatever they want to bring back to their warehouse to sell. So we could just go that route, try to sell whatever. And then whatever they don't want, I can bring that back to you, or you can choose to just figure out a Tell me how to dispose of it or what you would like to do.

I just use the county disposal policy at that time.

Yeah.

I'm good with that. Are you okay, Brian?

Yeah.

Because they'll know what will sell and won't sell.

Yeah, exactly.

Okay. Now the board is in recess until 10.15.

I wish you the same. Trying to make house. No I've not heard that It's a crazy world we live in.

It seems like we've had a bunch of those just lately. Is it because school got out?

When the weather gets nice, like, everybody comes out of the woodwork. I know, right?

1600 block of Pleasant Street.

I didn't even know about it until...

Okay, we will reconvene the board meeting. It is now 1015. We'll take up item number 13, public hearing first reading of ordinance 2026-0016 proposed changes to chapter 47 regarding radon mitigation systems in new homes.

Okay, today we're actually going to be ahead of the code changes a little bit, as opposed to playing catch-up. House File 2297, just adopted this year, and will be signed into law, well, it's signed into law, but it'll go effective July 1st. So this allows us to do our three readings, publish in the paper, so this thing hits our code basically when it goes into effect at the state level on July 1st. So this is going to be passive radon systems will be required in all new single and two-family homes. This will apply to slabs, crawl space, and basement homes. So it basically applies to any home type of construction. This amendment proposed will align us with state code. Whoops, I gotta go like this. THIS IS AS SIMPLE A CODE AMENDMENT AS I CAN MAKE. IN 2006, THE SUPERVISOR SPECIFICALLY DELETED OUT THE RADON REQUIREMENT AND NOW THE STATE IS BASICALLY REQUIRING US AGAIN TO PUT IT RIGHT BACK IN AND REFERENCE TO THE 2021 IRC. SO THIS APPENDIX IN IRC. SO DELETE, BASICALLY JUST CHANGING IT FROM DELETED TO REQUIRED ENFORCEMENT. LIKE I SAID, ABOUT AS SIMPLE AS A CODE AMENDMENT AS WE CAN MAKE. BIG DISCUSSIONS RIGHT NOW ARE JUST INCREASED COST. SO THE DIRECT COST TO THE RESIDENTS, IF THEY'RE BUILDING A NEW HOME, WILL BE TO INSTALL THE PASSIVE RAID ON THE SYSTEM. YOU'RE LOOKING AT AROUND $300 TO $500 FOR MOST BUILDERS BECAUSE THEY ALREADY USE THE CORRECT ROCK. THEY DO THE VAPOR BARRIER ANYWAYS BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY the best way to do it. Some builders don't use this cleaner rock. They're going to have to find a better source of rock. So that could increase some of those builders' costs up to about $1,000. Again, that's just to meet the state mandate. Matt and I have been kicking around, can we do it as part of the general permit? But it's really going to be anywhere from one to two visits in addition to what we're already doing. So there's a direct cost to the county in terms of the mileage out and back, potentially four times. It might be a little more of that initially just because getting the builders up to speed on it. So we're kind of kicking around the idea of just doing a radon fee of $80 to match the other trade fees that we do. And again, that's just really to cover Matt's mileage out and back to do that inspection. If we can find that we can do it more efficiently or the builders get more efficient, we might be able to get it done in one inspection, but that's going to take some training. Then hopefully that fee can maybe be eliminated and brought back into the general permit fee. But initially, we're probably looking at doing that $80 radon inspection fee. Egg exemption still applies. Well, egg exemption does not apply. This is mandated by the state code. So even if they don't have to get a billing permit through us because they're egg exempt on a home, They're still required to do it correctly, but there won't be any inspections on that. So again, hopefully we can encourage our builders to make sure they're following state code, even though they're locally exempt. This also applies to change of use. So if we have a pole building out there, and they wanted to come in and convert it, they would have to meet the rate on. That would be very difficult, because most of those places aren't going to have the right rock or right vapor barrier. It's going to be very, very expensive for those folks to create a radon mitigation system for existing home, or sorry, existing buildings being converted or change of use into a home. Very, very difficult. There are probably some ways around it, but we'll have to work through those when and if they do come up. Again, it's a state requirement, so we're just kind of all in the state's lead. We do need all the readings, and once the ordinance is published, we'll basically be live with the state on July 1st. and I've not received any questions or comments about it.

We are in public hearing. This is the time and place for the public hearing. As advertised, have we gotten any comments from the public?

No.

No. So if anyone would like to speak to this topic, please go to the podium. Board members? Comments?

Maybe a general question, and it's not specific to anything, We create a liability of sorts by being the inspector of the system that's adequate to do what it's supposed to do. But if somebody claims they get cancer from radon, is the county then a target for part of the lawsuit if they're going to blame somebody?

I think it would be similar to the county's liability, for example, for an electrical inspection and then later on the electrical system causes a house fire. You could analogize it to that. All that being said, if somebody's gonna sue, they're gonna sue. And, you know, that would be, something the county would have to deal with, but I don't think it necessarily creates any additional liability above and beyond whatever liability is created by inspecting the other systems in a house.

And I should have added, and I failed to mention it, the code adopted did require, or the code section they're referencing does require testing and that testing to be sent to the county for our records, or for the building department for our records, and that's a third party inspection service, so that's another cost to the builder. They're gonna have to provide that to us. Now we've been told that'll be struck out next year, but it is in the code that the state adopted, so we do have to follow that, require that testing certificate. Next year they may unwind that aspect of it, but they didn't, so we're gonna enforce the code they gave us. So we do get that additional safety net, I guess, of a third-party inspector as well, saying it meets the requirements. On the testing side, that's the final. They cap it, and they look for the airflow, the passive airflow through it, so it's like a pressure type of test to make sure it's sealed properly.

Again, in public hearing, is there anyone else? Anyone from the public that would like to speak? Any other board comments?

Move to close public hearing. Second.

Is there any discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Motion carries.

I'd move to approve the first reading of Ordinance 2026-0016 and waive the second and third. We can't.

If we could, keep the second and third, please.

We can't. So, my motion is to approve the first reading of this particular ordinance. Second.

Is there any discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. A LOT OF WORK KEEPING US COMPLIANT. OKAY, WE'LL MOVE DOWN TO ITEM 18 IS RESOLUTION 2026-0076 CAMPUS PRIMARY ELECTION. Hello, Emily.

Good morning. How are you?

Good.

Okay.

So did you guys have any issues, any problems you want to talk about? Everything went great. What's your response?

It's election day. There's always a surprise or two. If there ever isn't, I will be the happiest person in the world, but I feel like it was a really great day. We had all our results all done to the Secretary of State's office at 929 at night, which felt really, really good. As you guys know, Dallas County is pretty large. So to get all those results in in that time frame was awesome. I was really proud of the poll workers, the teams, the TM runners. It takes an army to do one of these elections. So it was really great that everybody worked together really well. I have the documents for you guys, if you would like me to bring those up for you. Please. are the requested reports. And then I have three copies of the abstract and three copies of the canvas that all just need to be signed by each of you. I don't know if you each want to copy for right now as we go through things. But each one will need to be signed, please.

So does this show the breakout from absentee and election day?

There is absentee and election day there.

morning okay show me the breakout though where's Edie and where's a where's the breakout so on Josh Turk so this is just the whole okay and then this one is election day okay okay

Kim has the final total.

I just wanted her to bring these reports so then we could cherry pick some precincts just so the public knows that we're going through and everything came through great and things that were reported to the state were appropriate. It's nothing against your office. It's just to show that your office did a great job. Yeah, 100%. And it's the board's canvas. So I thought we would feel. And so when I read the tapes, we'll have to look at election day. That's what we can check here. And then you can say absentee. And then you'll have to maybe calculate.

So would you like me to read the names first? Or would you like to do a little math first?

I just thought, what does the board want to do? Do you want to just cherry pick some precincts? And we'll pull the tape out. We'll read the tape. And you'll kind of have to follow along. And we'll do maybe some Republican, some Democrat, or whatever. What does the board, where would we like to start? I would like to cherry pick.

I think that's a good suggestion.

I don't think we necessarily have to go through them all. Sure. If you would like, 8L2 was what was picked for the post-election audit, so we did do the post-election audit on that. You didn't have, everything came out okay? Everything came out perfect, yep, that was awesome, so.

Perfect, and you'll give us that report at some point, just so we can receive and file it.

I'll give you that, and when I give you guys the Canvas and the abstract to receive and file, I'll just do all that at once for the packet, yep. And again, that's so the public can see what we're doing, because not everybody comes to your post-election audit. No one's come yet, and I keep posting it.

I know, it's a lot of work, it's a lot of work. Okay. Let's do a little alphabetical. How about Clive 6? Can everybody find Clive 6 results? Is it by precinct here on these? So how would we check Clive 6 off these reports?

They're not by precinct, are they? No, they're just all election day. So how would I check the tape with the report? I provided what you had asked for, so I guess maybe I need to make a difference on how you would like to do that. Check the tapes. I mean, you could always select one race to check on each one.

I guess I would... ask you then, how would we check any of these numbers? What would be the best way to do that?

I would select erase and then add it all up with all your tapes. Okay, what do you guys want to do? If you would like, I can get you a different report if you would like.

Every tape?

at a race and then we'd have to add them all up. I guess when I talked to, I apologize, I wasn't specific. What I was trying to say is if we wanted to check a precinct, I wanted a precinct breakdown. So we could just gravitate, look at all the results on that precinct and check absentee and then add their election day to make sure it all added up. But we can't do that with these reports. Those are all by race. How hard would it be for you to run that report?

To write off the OVCS? Yeah. Yep. I don't think it would be terribly hard. Just need to recess for a minute to run back and get those.

Would you want to do that? I don't want to add up. I don't want to open every one of these and add them all up unless you guys do.

Let's get the different report and maybe we'll go into the closed session.

Okay. We'll do our closed session and then have you guys come back. Okay. How does that sound?

Okay.

Is that okay if Sarah just notifies me when you go after that then?

Yeah. Or I'll text you or call you or whatever. Okay.

Are you okay keeping that information for now? If you're okay with us keeping it, yeah. There's cameras in here, right?

Yeah, we're good.

We're not going to touch anything.

How long do you think it'll take you to run the report?

15 minutes. Okay. We'll probably be longer than that anyway. Okay. Okay. Sorry about that.

Nope, that's okay. We will get this down eventually, right? Yep.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, so we'll move to Item 19, possible closed session pursuant to Iowa Code Section 21.51C.