Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Good morning everybody. It is Tuesday, April 28th, 2026. I'm going to go ahead and call the Jackson County Board of Supervisors meeting to order. My name is Don Schwanker, supervisor. To my left, Mike Steinus and Flegel, supervisor. Bejorn from IT, Lisa from the auditors. Britney is on Zoom for the press. And first up, we have visitors and citizens. Is there anybody who would like to address the board today not listed on the agenda? Josh Bolt. Hey Josh Bolt. How are we doing? Uh well thank you. Just checking on status of um dispatch agreement if if that is moving forward. We're still working on it. L our attorneys and your attorneys were talking and doing stuff. We

you guys haven't had a work session yet. We have not had a work session since then. I far far as I know they're working on it and Okay. I thought the status went back went back to you guys to confirm that um employment can be Yeah, Maria, our attorney is working. Okay. I just checked if you had a work session yet. We have not. October will be here before we know it for budgets and u I'm going to the hospital at noon. Okay. Board meeting. So, okay. Yeah. No doubt. We will let you know. That's all I got. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Have a great day. Is there anybody else in the gallery or online? If you're online, please introduce yourself if you'd like to address the board.

Hearing none, we'll move on to Beth Gerlock, Jackson County Treasurer. Come on up. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning, sir.

I have an request for a mobile home that's building on lease land that had been removed in September of 2023. in Lamont. Um the assessor's office has asked me to request this because they don't have any assessed value of it since then and there are some delinquent taxes. They're wanting to delete the parcel, but we can't do that when there's taxes that are not going to be elected. Um mobile building on lease land does not go to tax sale. Per Iowa code, it can't. So, there isn't really any way for us to probably collect from this person anymore. Um, we had another one. I think Caleb B was the same situation. He moved it out of there. There was delinquent.

That's where the new house went up though. Is that in the same general? I don't really know where it's at specifically, but So, the trailer's gone. Person's gone. Trailer's been gone for years. Okay. Person's gone. There's some delinquent taxes they probably still owe, but being able to collect those, we really don't have a way to do that. So, I would make a motion to abate the real estate tax resolution as presented.

I would second that. Got a motion by Mike, second by N to approve resolution 1177-04-28-2026, the abadement of tax request um on the parcel listed in the lot. Is that resolution number 1177-04-28-2026? Yeah. Okay. Any other discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Huh? We don't um the resolutions have not been put on resolution paper yet until um they're passed today.

All right. Next up, we got Becca from the zoning. Come on up. We have lots to talk about. Good morning. We do. Good morning. Uh the item is a preliminary plat for Jackson estate a proposed 15 lot major subdivision located in section 12 township 86 North Green Fort East. The property is zoned A1 agriculture. The zoning want to pull that.

The zoning commission held a public hearing on April 20th, 2026 and voted to recommend approval of the preliminary plan to the voting supervisors subject to commissions. Today's action is for the preliminary plat approval only. This establishes the overall layout and final engineering utilities and compliance items will be addressed prior to final plat. The main items identified during review included roadway, storm water and drainage, private road design and maintenance, utilities, and covenant and fencing provisions. Storm water and drainage were reviewed through the city of Belle's extr territorial review process. Revisions were made to meet the city's requirements. The subdivision ordinance establishes a maximum roadway gradient of 7%. The proposed design exceeds that standard. The applicant has requested a modification and the county engineer has recommended a maximum of 12%. That issue remains for board consideration as part of this approval. The zoning commission also requested additional clarity regarding fencing and cabinet provisions, particularly addressing responsibility for existing and future fencing, and those items have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. The recommendation before you is approval of the preliminary plan subject to the conditions attached as exhibit A. One of the main items for the board's consideration today is the roadway grade. The subdivision ordinance establishes a maximum roadway grade of gradient of 7%. The proposed preliminary plat includes private roadway grades above that standard. The county engineer recommended a maximum roadway grade of 12% and the zoning commission recommended approval of the 18% roadway grade shown in the submitted plan. Because the proposed grade exceeds the ordinance standard, this is a modification issue for the board to address as part of the preliminary plat approval. If the board is comfortable

with the zoning commission's recommendation, the resolution should reflect approval of the preliminary plat subject to the attached conditions, including the roadway grade modification. If approved, the applicant will have 12 months to submit a final plat and all required improvements must either be completed or secured by shity shity bonds prior to the final plat. Therefore, the recommendation before the board is to approve the Jackson Estates's preliminary plat by resolution subject to the conditions attached as exhibit A. Those conditions include the zoning commission's recommendation regarding the 18% roadway grade and the fence agreement language discussed at the public hearing.

So, is the final road grade 12% or 18%. The zoning commission recommended to go with the plan, the preliminary plan of 18%. Um, county engineer Jaden recommended 12%. Okay. We have the final authority and our our our ordinance is 7%. Correct. It's 18%. That's 18. That's So, can you tell me what the grade is of up to Hil?

Yes. So, uh, that is Oh, I pulled my letter. It's like 11.2 or something. It's in the 11 percentage. It was in the paperwork and also the grade to the Mickel subdivision. Uh that one I did not check. I think it was in there. Um it was Yeah, three I checked. I know where uh there's two county roads and one city. You did?

The the two county ones were 407th Avenue that goes up to we all refer to as Dill that was right at like 11 maybe right at 11% even. Um there's a road it's by it's a gravel road behind the Belleview golf course. I'm drawing a blank on the road number. Um but the steepest gradient that road had is like right around the 15% range. And then uh the city of Belleview Paple Hill which I think is called uh River Ridge Drive was right around 11% as well.

So those are the three I measured. I guess I did not measure that. I think it was addressed in there. I read it. WHKS provided that at um 18.3 to 18.6 for the private drive and there's yeah there's several residences up there also that's up on top of the hill the other looking that is if you go up seven streets then keep going straight up the hill and actually come pretty close to bordering seed

ridge if you get up to the back side of it like the subdivision ordance of 7% given our terrain esecally especially around this area of the county is I mean pretty tough to get but I just compared it to local what some local roads that we have are around that area I guess but correct I did not do the medical subdivision but that one is steep as well which obviously don't be a private drive it's not going to be county maintained

correct that is yes or that's what's being proposed or recommended is it be a privately maintained road not a countymaintained one so there is that to consider as well. Does anybody have any comment, cause and concern? Procon. There's a lot of people online. One gentleman in the gallery. I mean, 18% grade is challenging, but uh yes, this is Eric Tat from WHKS. I can add a little um to it.

So, we were just looking at several streets. So the the the 12% max comes from the Iowa design manual for the maximum steepest grade for local streets. And it's a good it's a good recommendation for local streets of 25 mph, you know, in town type type street. Um what we're dealing with here is a private drive. It's a little bit different. Um just out of curiosity, we went through Deuke and picked up a couple of the streets up there and I think there was about 10 of them that were over 18. And those are 25 mph public streets with cars parked along both sides. Um, but for our situation, I think it it should be allowed because, you know, it's a private drive. It's not a through street. It's not going to be open to the public driving through there, cars zipping past. You know, it's only going to be the people that live there on those those lots and they'll be used to it and they'll know how to address the snow issues in the winter time. And being the the Mikkels subdivision there is is a perfect example. It's a basically identical to what we're dealing with here. Um it's a county subdivision right on the edge of city limits. Same similar grade. So be similar situation.

Thoughts, comments from the board? not knowing the area. I guess maybe I referred to maybe Mike knows it better. Does it flatten out or does it come down at that 18% all the way down to the like existing roadway or Yeah, the the 18 is just going up through the bluff areas. It does flatten out for a long distance right before we meet the city street. Mhm. So, Becca, the uh examining board or the zoning board recommended the 18. Was there a reason behind that or logic behind that or um what was the thought process there?

Um due to the steep terrain of the area instead of being a private private that would be my recommendation or to say the only reason I would agree to that because it is private. We have no we have no liability on it. And I mean that was kind of my concern with if it flattens out, you know, that it isn't going to be washing out or causing, you know, like an accident if we're sliding through an intersection. That

also, if I remember correctly, I wasn't here at that time when the subdivision was put in. I believe I was on the fire department and we actually um tested that drive or that grade with equipment to go up there um at that time for safety reasons and and before they I think before they approved it. I can't I don't hold me to that, but I remember I think I was probably on the fire department at that time and I think the fire department had agreed that they could get their equipment up there. Um that was

I guess with not really being able to see the property and it's a private and just thinking as long as they understand the road conditions that makes you know allowances for drainage and stuff. Um you know the the part that I I really appreciate on this was the the basically double engineering if I understand it right uh through the city and two private. So, the big thing to me was water retention cuz it's come up before in some other places. And from what I looked at the plaque, there's seven retention ponds and and drainage uh retention water tens drainage. So, that was 67.

Yeah, it was uh you know because actually all that water's coming down there now with no retention. So, it's probably it probably be a good thing. So uh I guess so one more question. So when when you say preliminary plat it can go back to who for changes. Um nobody for changes. So you're recommending the preliminary plan um be approved be approved. Yeah. Um the only thing they need to then are just fine-tune the covenants the roadway agreement. Um yeah and I believe I read the covenants that also addressed the fencing issue. Ka

correct. Um the zoning commission wanted that clarified though and so we have put that down as a condition um that the and they wanted it recorded which we have one other subdivision with fencing issues. Yes.

So um in the covenants it's already recorded. Um we will have it also recorded. Fence agreement. Um, it will address existing and proposed boundary fencing and shall assign fence maintenance responsibility to adjoining land owner and the HOA or other subdivisionwide respons responsible entity rather than individual lot owners. It'll just clean up that process a little bit.

Thought of the board. I would make a motion to approve resolution 11780428-2026 uh preliminary plat of Jackson County Estates Jackson County uh Jackson Estates uh subdivision in Jackson County. I would second that. We got a motion by Mike second by N to approve resolution 1178-04-28-2026. A resolution to approve the preliminary plat of the Jackson Estates, a major subdivision in Jackson County. Any other discussion online or in the gallant? Hearing none. All those in favor say I.

I. I. Opposed. Motion carries. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. I know it was processing. Have a good day. Appreciate it. Thank the zoning board too, will you? I will. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. All right, moving on. We have Jaden Shekele from the county engineers office. Good morning.

Good morning. Good morning. Uh, first item is discussion about an entrance culvert at the address of 8802 267th Street. Uh, and the property owner Adam is here as well in attendance. So, couple weeks ago, he contacted our office about a culvert issue, his driveway culvert that's having issues. Uh, it's deteriorating on the bottom. It's creating scowls at the top of the driveway. Um I met with him last week and looked at it. Um and it is a large culvert is of a larger size compared to your typical driveways that say 18 to 24 in. This one is a 60-in culvert. Um it's in a rather deep fill area. Um but regardless, I looked at it with him. Um fortunate for him, I guess, is that it the culvert is outside the ride ofway. Um and then our insurance policy does state that any maintenance to driveways including a drainage structure is our responsibility of the land owner. I just said that you know my recommendation is the county um has no responsibility for it for any repair or maintenance of it. Um but you know as far as the land perspective I'll let Adam speak for that. You know it is

it's probably what 100 feet long. It's just right. It's a little over 60 feet long. Sorry, Adam Bashon, property owner. It's a little over 60 feet long. Like Jaden says, diameter size is 60 inch considering most are 18 24 in. Um I do have some pictures I can provide if you guys care to look at them quick. Should we? Yeah, we got some pictures from Jaden. Yeah, he

these are They're all the same. Um I I'm full aware of the policy where it's outside of the rightway property owners responsibility stuff and which I did contact the county approximately six years ago before this was policy took effect according to Whitney and Jaden came up with. Um, as you can tell in the pictures, if the covert possibly were any closer to the road, the rain water that comes down would be washing away the road bank at the time. And on the upper side of the driveway, it is a fairly good size retention area, but out of the eight years that I've lived at this residence, water has been over my driveway twice with that size of pipe already. So, as I met with Jaden, I'm not asking or demanding the county to replace it for me. I'm simply asking for help from the county and replacing it since it is a rather larger size, pretty expensive, and you know, it's more cost than average homeowner would have to endure themselves, which if it was a normal size, I would gladly do it myself. But I'm simply either asking a few different things. Either I guess go back one second. Um Jaden told me one reason the policy was implemented into place was because um too many pipes were getting replaced by the county that it was kind of taking up too much time for the the workers to be maintaining roads or doing other stuff that they needed to focus on more which I appreciate. But one of my things I'd recommend is either the county supply me with the pipe and I will put it in on my time, my dollar that way or I buy the pipe, county by the back fill

or I buy the pipes, county puts it in, but county put it in then you're cutting in your manh hours, your time and stuff like that. So So do we maintain uh the rightway out there? Uh again the 33 ft is outside of look like the main water flow. Yeah and Adam is correct. The reason why it is so far out is because if it were closer the road is I don't know if the picture there you have

yeah I mean it's just such a deep embankment that if it were closer be home you have like you said down vertical drop off. So that's part of the reason why it's been out that way. and a double culvert. Where's the other culvert go too?

So on the lower side of the driveway there is one culbert coming across from the south side of the road to the north side of the road where this mine um where my water exit is out of the der double collars coming across the road are a little farther to the west of my driveway. Would this have been a a sizing issue back when this was put in where maybe it was undersized compared to the water flow issue?

Uh I don't think there's anything no issues regarding size of the call alert. Um and I could actually I have not but I could run hydraulic calcs on it to see what size would be recommended. Could be for better. going to be my question question for you. Is it the right size culprit for what's what's going on? According to Jaden, what he came up with was there's approximately 180 acres that drain down through this ditch. Yeah. And it's all primarily from the south side to your left.

Yep. A little more. Keep going. So, right right below your mouth there, like below that tree, there's two 60inch culberts that come across the road from the south side of the road. And then the water flows to the north side and then comes down to the east down across my sinkle. So there's two 16inch culberts that dump into that ditch and that goes under his driveway. Yeah. Which I doubt the tube is 120 in which

and I know it may seem like why is there why is the road have two 60 in but the driveway is one? That's honestly not uncommon just because for roadway guidelines, any cross road tubes are supposed to be designed for the 50-year storm and then residential entrances or any entrance uh drainage structures are supposed generally can be designed for down to the 10-year storm. Not to say they can't be sized also for the 50-year storm, but that may mean other driveways get large tubes and uh just follow DOT guidelines. But that's kind of the reason why the roadway crossroad tubes are larger than the driveway tubes because ultimately water backs up it's going to over top the driveway and we don't want the chances of over topping our roadway. I'm stating that correctly. We just want less of a chance of over topping the roadway as opposed to safe drivingways.

But like I said, I mean I'm not demanding or asking the county to fully replace it at all. I'm just simply asking for some help for the sheer size of the diameter that I have versus a normal person.

So, here's what I'm here's my thoughts. Just because of the slope of the of the what do you call the force slope? Is that what you call the force slope? The force slope looks so steep and that that's why that that waterway is back so far. Somehow I feel that it's some part of our responsibility. And then the other side of it is I understand our policy which is not our responsibility again but then once you open the can of worms then we're opening a can of worms. But

again I'm somewhat sympathetic to the fact that uh there's a lot of water coming from down there with the 260 in going under there. I also have, like I said, I also have a letter here from back in 2020 when I first approached the county about the situation and I believe that was before the policy I mean was fully implemented. That was from our previous engineer. You attached that with your correct. Yep. That's that letter. Yep.

So, I just wanted to bring it forward. Adam and I had a civil convers. if we were to help, what would you what would you recommend? Because honestly, I think a hydraulic study would look at it because, you know, we can say, you know, we the roadways are braced for a 50-year flood and, you know, the driveways are braced for, you know, average rainfall kind of stuff, but 50-year floods are like every other year anymore, it seems like. I mean, where we're getting four, three to five, six, seven inches dumped in a night. Um, so if you got 120 inches draining across the street and you got water coming down the ditch, if it meets uh, how big is it probably? 18 in or

right now it's a 60 in. Yeah. So see, you know, it's a constriction point and it's going to start undermining the floor slope a little bit. I would just like to see on aaa case by case basis a little bit. Yeah, that's what I was going to say. How we how we how it's actually undermined. You can see with that owner mind the bottom of it already. I mean what we did do something. What if we dug it and the rest if we were to do anything? I guess on you I would propose that we have our st our labor basically labor and equipment to dig it and Adam or the property owner provides the the pipe.

Okay. So that was my next question. Are we capable of installing that side of pipe? Yes. Okay. I mean, that would be my thing if we're again, I hate to go away from what our policy is, but

and that's why I kind of brought this forward just because, you know, it understand it's from a property owner's perspective. I mean, it's it's a big task and we have our policy, but that's why I just want to bring it here. we together jointly want to bring it to you three for discussion or what you three thought are is the proper way to go about this. But again, like I said, I would if I was going to propose something, I would propose that we supply the manpower with our equipment to dig it. Any back fill piping would be on you, right? So then we're not actually, you know, we're in a way following our policy, we're not incurring any outside expense

to cover. Yes, we're occurring the labor hours and quotequote wear and tear on our equipment, but I guess one thing I would like to see is make sure we do a study so it works because what I don't want is to have a solution what we think and then it not work and then there's a big fe I, you know, I don't know your abilities. I don't know what you do. You know, so many times I hear, well, let me do get me in the greater. I can I'll put a crown on the road. I've been doing this. You've been working. You know, they've never had experience. I don't know what you got for knowing how to lay a pipe. I work the estimation.

Okay. You know, so it just I don't want the average person just trying to put a pipe in and say, "Well, this didn't work. You guys made me love." I would like to make sure it's at least under some kind of standards that it's it's agreed upon. This is an appropriate solution and then we can come up with what digging what out, you know. Um that's my only thing is um this water flow you're showing here is that recently like two inch rain. Yeah, just when we had the rain a couple weeks ago. Okay. I think it was like a Friday night we had a fairly heavy downpour rain and then we had like a two-hour break and then all of a sudden we had another one right after that. Just so like you say it's it's sufficient for what it's supposed to do. Yeah.

Yeah. And that's why that's why part of our entrance permit, you know, we want driveways to have that low spot because say in the scenario because yeah, culverts are not designed for the 100red-year storm. Otherwise, they'd be outrageously sized. But if you have that low point, it gives a chance for that water if it were to build up where the culver can't handle that flow. As the water builds up, it allows a relief, if you will, for that water as opposed to draining over top our roadway. Yeah. You have any idea the age of this current? I have no idea. I older than us. Older than you. older than me probably. Older than me.

So, is is this something that on on the uh agenda? You have a resolution to amend the secondary. Is it more of a variance to the or policy or is this a is this a resolution? No. Well, that's that's a different one. Okay. So, so basically looking for us to say, "Yeah, work somehow. Yeah. Or yes. So I basically wanted so that way it's not or how do I want to learn that basically want it on you. You want it on us. Yeah. There you go. But I mean I just I understand I understand both scenarios but just we felt like the proper ways to bring it forward. No, I I to see both sides

under the I would say there's some special circumstances that that are in in play here that we can cooperate and come up with a feasible solution and uh make sure we get it taken care of because again if it starts backing or stuff like that, it can actually affect the roadway a little bit more than so is it is it left that you're going to do maybe a hydraulic study to see and then see if it's sufficient and then maybe come back with another recommendation or how do you want to do it? I mean, I'll do a hydraulic study um and see what it would carry or what the based on the 10-year design storm, what is the size proper size of pipe that would have to be. I would Can I make a motion? I don't think it's an action item.

No, but I would say just pro just proceed with this. So, depending on the hydraulic study, it could possibly need a bigger one. You're saying type two or what? Good. possibly or two or there could be some if say if it does require to be larger than box cover depending storm I'd like to I'd like to believe it wouldn't require to be bigger but say in the event it would um maybe that's just something that say it would require to be a 72 or maybe let's say 66 in um maybe would property own fine with the 60 inch knowing that there's a better chance that

water may over top that it may and if water over tops there's a chance it could wash out the top of the driveway. But how often does that happen? Who knows? But like to your point I guess I guess I would like to say if we're going to help and assist Mhm. we come up with what you do a study and your recommendation if there's deviation from that here in final this is the one solution that we we helped we did. You're on your own because if we recommend a 66 and you probably like no I want a 60 and all that and it washes out again. And it's like, well, I'm going to say that adage, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me, kind of thing comes into play. So, you know, that's where

that that's that'd be the one thing is, you know, and I I would think a 60 because I mean that water back up those pictures. I mean, but it's never Yeah, that ain't half full. I just feel like based once twice in eight years it's been over the driveway. But I mean, just based on recent events, I feel like it's properly sized. It's just like maybe it wasn't seated correctly cuz the way it's back eating back around and coming up on the you know well once the water's once it's deteriorated starts under or water gets path underneath and starts and continues and continues. So that's probably what's causing it. Yeah. Whether that needs some rip wrap or whatever but one bad apple makes another bad apple.

No, I would I would say move forward with a solution. You guys are logical and if you need to bring it back for approval of some kind. Yeah, I can. We'll see if we can I can bring it forward on the agenda next. It won't take me this week to get it. We'll assist in some some way. I appreciate your time. You bet. Reach out to me or something. Yeah. Do you have an email by chance? I can write down. Okay. Yep. All right, Jaden. Thank you guys.

Uh next up is a fiscal year or a revision to the fiscal year 27 5-year program. So from our recent grants that have been awarded, one being uh our CHBP grant regarding the 578th Avenue bridge and then also the city of Monmouth's bridge uh on West Street or what is considered 12th Avenue. From those grants, it changes the project numbers need to change from how they're programmed. So I'm talking with the DOT it even though it says changing the project number it does take a revision. There's no change to funding nothing get moved around as far as year it's simply just changing the project number to match the appropriate funding that is getting allocated to it from the grants. So that's what this revision or resolution or program revision is. Good.

I'd make a motion to approve. I would second. Got a motion by N, second by Mike to approve resolution 1179-04-28-2026, a resolution to amend the secondary road construction program. Any other discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I. Opposed. Motion carries.

Last but not least is item from that carried over from last week, entrance permit for Roland. It's a residential entrance on 261st Avenue, Gary Township, section 14. Uh we our department has done the site distance checks. Everything's good there. It does require a 24inch culver that is noted on there. Um so pretty straightforward. So our department recommends approval. So move. I would second that. Got a motion by Mike, second by N to approve the entrance, residential entrance permit for Bert Rowan Prairie Township, section 14 on 261st Street. Any other discussion? All those in favor say I. I.

I. Opposed? Motion carries. Um give an update on the Z15 bridge because Channelorth bridge is kind of in a standstill with the river levels fluctuating here at higher than normal. It's hard for them to continue here. Uh but Z15 the I think last week I remember right I believe the pier and casements were poured for the south pier last week. Well this in the last week they've driven the pier for the south abutman and are getting ready to pour that south abutment either today or tomorrow. So moving along real well on that. I looked at it looks good. I hear no complaints. So again not yet. With game comes a little.

Well, they're moving. Time goes. They're moving along. I couldn't be happy. Could be happier with the progress that's being made there. Yeah.

Oh, and I did have a precon last week from for our Bernard Road overlay that is scheduled to start uh June 1st. Um they'll first do we we're putting in longitudinal subdrains a 4inch sub drain on each ed end of the road each side of the road through the project length. So that'll be done first. They estimate about a week for that. So sometime that whether it be the first full week in June or the second week in June. Sometime there is actually when the paving will start. So um looking forward to that. We're going to be busy real fast.

So that road will never be closed closed and it be passable. Is that correct or no? It'll be closed closed for the sections they pour because they're going to pour or pave it full width include both lanes at the pave shoulder all in one shot. Okay. I'm assuming they're going to start from the Crabtown Bridge and work their way towards south to the south since the plant is being set up in Rockdale. So it only makes sense to work towards the plant. So property owners they are aware of all that. So they

they will be and luckily there's a couple businesses. Yeah, they'll be so as part of the any plan with pay like the contractor has to provide temporary access. So basically our uh shouldn't say temporary access but means to get out. So they'll uh provide like and I know in the past contractors have provided golf carts to the residents to live along. They're drive along the edge of the new slab to get to the where the road closure limits are because as paving moves on, you know, they'll open up the say the first day they pour. It may be only be the next day or two days later they'll open that up and pay the next stretch to a wait limit restriction you have to no the cure okay the cure time is I thought you said it was seven days

no with overlay it's actually going to be less because the opening strength required for concrete overlays is less than new pavements on grade and I think that's due to there's an existing base underneath their flexural strength whereas a new pavement it's got a rock subbase underneath so there's more room for it to flex up but by DOT spec it'll It's a less flexal strength needed for opening. So there's a chance it could be the next day to get on it. We don't want another side. No, you don't be dry.

Yeah. And it depends on how it cures, weather conditions, all that. But they'll have probes in the pavement for maturity to check um to validate on there's a maturity curve for it that they'll put the probes in. It'll give them a certain reading and they'll base it on that chart to see where they're at for strength. So, I mean, there's all numbers to back it up, but ultimately, no, it will not be 7 days. It they should be able to get on the slab within two days. I mean, on a normal day, there's a lot of activity close to that bridge, I would say. Yeah. What's that? There's a lot of activity that's close to that bridge. So, they better be well aware.

Yeah. And we'll talk with that property owner cuz actually the true overlay will actually not go all the way to the bridge cuz when that crabtown bridge and that triple box cover that's there was that's only been 20 years ago. So, that existing pavement is only 20 years old. It's not that bad a shape. So, we're going to tie in where it where that new pavement at that time tied in. We're going to do some patching on those. We have active corey in there yet, too. Mhm. Yep. So, but yeah, that property to the right there by the bridge should have better access than everybody else on the road just due to where our paving limits will tie into. Just make sure that they're aware. Yep. But yeah, so that's coming up soon. So, it'll be

awesome. Anything else for us? I have we appreciate it. Thank you. Just a generic question for you. Like so this uh driveway permit that we approved has a culvert in it. We do check that if a ditch needs dug out. Correct. Yeah. That we're doing that before versus them laying the culvert and then we come back in three years from now and go, "Oh, the ditch needs dug out." Yeah, because you know as part of that if they need to if it does need ditching for that tube to better fit or to drain properly. Yes, I know in the past we have done that and we still do our that is our duty yet to do that to this day. So I just want to make sure that so that yeah the culbert isn't placed basically where

where the ditch is now and that's all silted in and then we're saying it's their responsibility to redo it again, you know, type deals. Yep. All right. Awesome. Thank you very much, Jim. Thank you. Good. Have a good day. Yep. Thank you. You the three as well. Last up is the auditor. Good morning. This morning, I need a motion to approve the April 22nd, 2026 meeting minutes as written by Auditor Smith and authorized publication of the official newspapers. Make that motion. Second.

Got a motion by n second by Mike to approve the minutes of the April 21st, 2026 meeting as written by Auditor Smith and authorized publication official newspapers. Any other discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Motion carries.

Um I can tell you that the next item that happened is an alcohol license was applied for to the Zingle Recreation Association back in March. And I received a phone call yesterday and wanted to know why we haven't approved it. And I said because we haven't received it. She said when she's gotten a letter from the state of Iowa that says that they sent it to you back in March and why haven't you approved it? And I said because we don't have it. So in looking at the application, it was actually sent to the city of Zingo instead of to Jackson County. So I called the state last night. They need this license approved. Um and it's been sitting not with Jackson County but with the city of Zwingo. So I called the state last night. They still haven't sent it to me for approval. But today, I am going to ask for a motion to approve the renewal of the special class C retail alcohol license with outdoor service to the Zingle Recreation Association at 28 361 194th Avenue Zooingle effective May 3rd, 2026 through May 2nd, 2027.

Can we retro it back to previous date or no? Well, I mean their license is expiring. Okay. On May 3rd, yes. So that's it's actually expiring May 2nd of 2026. I believe they probably have an activity. Yeah. This is this in the city limits or is this No. Okay. So that's why I think that there was an air at the state. They told me when I talked to them last night that they were going to get it taken care of. Well, it still isn't, but we need to get this. Do they still have then they have a new mayor, but do they still have city perk that gets set or who? Well, I think they've had some turnover and I'm not really sure how that happened, but I know that when I receive stuff, I right away tell the state that we are not the authorized person. So,

I would move to approve. Thank you. I would second that. Got a motion by Mike, second by N to approve the renewal of a special class C retail alcohol license with outdoor service to Zango Recreation Association at 28361 194th Avenue Zangle effective May 3rd, 2026 through May 2nd, 2027. Any other discussion? All those in favor say I. I.

I. Those opposed? Motion carries. Um, this next item is a little bit I'd like to tell you more. Unfortunately, I don't. We received an email from Elizabeth Kemp at ECIA. Um, I'm being told that this needs to be done every five years that it has to do with Eastern Iowa Regional Housing Authority and them being able to access some funds and to do projects. I saw in some of the email it was Bill Preston Miles, I believe, 200 pages. Yeah,

exactly. So, I mean, we did it back um in 2020, I believe, and I believe, in my opinion, it's appropriate that we pass a resolution today. Um I did contact Elizabeth. She unfortunately is out of the office. I briefly spoke with Matt Speck from ECIA. And so today, what I'm asking for is to approve resolution number 1180-04-28-2026. authorizing Jackson County to accept responsibility for Eastern Iowa Regional Housing Authority environmental review record. I don't really know what that means, but I know that we did it five years ago.

I'll second that. Got a motion by Mike, second by N to re approve resolution 1180-04-28-2026 authorizing Jackson County to accept a responsibility for the Eastern Iowa Regional Housing Authority Environmental Review. Any other discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I.

Opposed? Motion carries. And then because you've just passed this resolution, I just need a motion to approve an authorized chair signature on the HUD capital funds program, Eastern Iowa Regional Housing Authority Certification Form. And this is something that I will be there this motion and the next. I will be emailing all of these to Elizabeth. So it is on file. I'd make that motion. I would second. Got a motion by N. Second by Mike to approve chair signature on the HUD CFP EIR HA public housing certification port. Any other discussion? All those in favor say I. I opposed. Motion carries.

And the final motion is to approve and authorize chair signature on the Eastern Iowa Regional Housing Authority Environmental Review record form. I'll move. Second that. Got a motion by Mike, second by N to approve chair signature on the HUD CRP capital fund program. Is it CFP or CRP? It is C. Oh, it should be CFP. CFP Eastern Iowa Regional Housing Authority Environmental Review record. Any other discussion? Is this the money they use to kind of fix up rental properties and install? I think so. the lead painting. I think so. Yeah. All those in favor say I.

I. Opposed. Motion carries. That's all that I have for the board today. Thank you. All right. Anybody else have any committees or anything for the board?

Um, early childhood, we met yesterday. We are looking at possibly, as we know, our our director is resigning. As of yet, they haven't gotten any applications for a new director. We're entertaining the motion of possibly, and this is kind of what the state is wanting. And as an organization as a whole, there's several different organizations that are looking at doing little kind of small either submerging or um kind of a mutual agreement where maybe you have one authority that handles the money, but yet you still have your separate board. So like Clinton Jackson would still have their separate board. We're looking at neighboring county. So whether it would be Cedar and Jones who are also an ECI area or if we'd go with Debuke and have them be our fiscal agent for this. But we're entertaining the motions as far as what would what would work for a partnership to since a lot of us use the same contracting agents to get the funds out that it might be a worthwhile look at doing. So that is that's a big thing with them. Um, we were notified that the state hasn't moved forward with obviously totally taking it over. It's another reason why we're looking at it because it's like if this comes up in a year, do you hire somebody for a year, you know, type of deal. So, um, and they're keeping the same funding. So,

so it's not forced consolidation, but it's kind of forced consolidation in a way. Yeah. But at least we're kind of maybe getting to pick what you know because one of our concerns is when you go with the big territory like mental health did and you have a lot of major cities in them territories. It's a lot easier to see person see clients in the cities as we all know than in the rural communities and y

funds can get ate up really quick by they can see 20 people by putting all the money here in the city versus in the rural community where you know you'll maybe only get to see five with the same amount of money being spent. So, we're trying to in a way keep it so that the rural communities are still having access to these things that are needed because it's definitely a major need to make sure that the children of Clinton and Jackson County are taken care of.

Okay. Uh the WMA we did meet and uh well, since we met last, you know, we're advertising for a replacement for our director. We have got one application and so we're pretty stoked at the quality of the application but we're still waiting a couple more weeks to see. So things are progressing so we should be able to do something transfer station to get an update. I just asked for one so I don't have nothing at this point.

Also Iris met last week. Um, one of their big things is we're not necessarily f following the contract agreement that was signed back in I don't remember before Jackson County is not meeting the contract agreement that was signed before my time sitting on this board. How? Um, in the agreement it states that a delinquent bill

delinquent bill would be as they bring it back for the tax asking to be placed they want the citizens of Jackson County to pay someone's delinquent sewer bill. So that's what the that's what the agreement states. That's what the agreement says. We've we've fought this for years

because some of these bills unfortunately we have no control over. Jackson County has no control over any of that. And um they are asking Jackson County when we bring these resolutions forward with all of these delinquent payments. um they want you and the citizens of Jackson County to approve that and then we would have to budget money and send it to ECIA/IRS for that delinquent bill. We went through this several times. So, you know, they initiated the whole project. They took care of it. They um so we said, you know, it's your responsibility. So,

yeah, I I don't feel the taxpayers of Jackson County need to subsidize without potential. You know, you can open a can of worms as you want, but if we're going to pay delinquent taxes, then we should own it. You know, type of thing because it's point to expedite sheriff sale. I we we tried to do that also. Um the thing that makes this unique is that if you look in a very parallel, we had the water situation over at Spruce Creek.

That's easy. You don't pay your water bill, they shut your water off. You can't do that with a septic system. So this is very unique and I don't know because this may be was this the first what I would call not a public system where it you know connects into a public like a city you I know that there are some cities that there's some cities our system this is like a standalone system so to speak if that's a way to put that I'm not really sure so this is very unique and I'm not sure if they thought about the potential here honestly I think it should go back on the association the Leisure Lake Association versus uh the citizens of Jackson County. I mean,

just moving forward because my one recommendation in looking back, so you know, I kind of dug into it a little bit in looking back at some of the delinquencies that are out there. There's a few residents, it's the same people time after time, and they wait until the point that it's ready to go to sheriff sale, and then we come in that week before we pay it off and we move forward. Well, Iris was also charging a very minimal fee for their late fees. So, our meeting got very heated up because I propose if you know times of just the paperwork that is needed to track all this, you know, I think they were charging a $10 or $15 late fee. Well, the paperwork for the PE person to track all this, they're getting paid more than that,

you know. So, it's actually passed that all delinquent bills coming from Iris now will have a $50 late fee charge on them. I will tell you that Shel is in the process of mailing out letters to everybody that has these delinquents and we're letting them know that this will be put on tax sale. So, I Shel and I ran over the weekend. we were working and she showed me the letter and I approved it. So I mean we're letting people know you don't pay this bill, we will be sending it will be on the tax sale, right? So

I mean there's some there unfortunately there are some situations that I argued right from the beginning there was no way that we would ever have to pay this because they were assessing someone that had passed away and we had we had some issues with a couple of them. So I mean that's kind of my two cents is that I think that this resolution this agreement was passed many years ago and that it wasn't really thoroughly in my opinion it was not brought forth to you supervisors to I think it was at that time when it was any kind of a project you know and obviously it was a needed project out there the the waste was going into the lake for god's sake so right um

the point is you know whether USDA whether it be IRS rather Whoever wasn't originated like it should have nothing or delinquent. That's what you call it. I think it's all going to work out. We've been through it before and yeah. Cool. Anything else for the good? That's all. If there's no further business, I'd make a motion we adjourn. Second that. Motion by Mike, second by n to adjurnn. Any other discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I. post. Have a great day everybody.