Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everybody. It's Tuesday, June 30th, 2026. My name is Don Swiker. I will call the Jackson County Board of Supervisors to order. To my left, I have Mike Steinem. To my right, I have Ninh Flegel, Bjorn from IT, Lisa from the Auditors. A rare appearance from Brittany back in the press box. First up, we have visitors and citizens. Is there anybody online or in the gallery who would like to address the board today? Hearing none, we'll move on to Jeff Kilburg, Maine's supervisor, and Joe Benz. And talking about Jennifer, talking about the Senior Center.

Morning.

Morning, Joe. You there? I am, yes.

Can everyone hear me? Yes. I appreciate the possibility in letting me join virtually. Lisa said that would be okay for this conversation. And Jeff, I don't know if you want to

lead and give context or background and i'm happy to jump in with any questions but is that okay for flow um yeah that works so i mean for anybody that's not familiar we had the accident back in january at the senior centers and their insurance company i just call them and i had short for alliance nonprofits insurance um They're the people that were dealing with it. They had custard insurance adjusters originally do all the adjusting for it. It's a pretty long drawn out process. I mean, it took months to get. we want to talk about this or what all we want to talk about.

I know the board wants to just get this resolved. And so we can either, if I understand it right, please correct me if I'm wrong, Jennifer, Joe, we can either accept what they want to give and settle the claim that way. A couple of months ago, you guys gave us the advice that we should just accept it and proceed. But now the email I'm reading, are you saying we should file the whole claim through our insurance and then you guys go after it? or is it just for the depreciation? What is it?

Yeah, so the original intent was you guys are not at fault in this claim at all. And so the ideal state is that the at fault party's insurance company would be the one that pays the claim, ultimately pays the contractor to do the work to get you back up and running. The reality is they're applying so much depreciation to their settlement and to their claim adjustment that it puts you guys in a position that you have a significant amount of out-of-pocket expenditure. And to Lisa's point and those who have responded to the email, that seems wildly unfair based on you guys not being at fault in this claim. So because the... Depreciation being factored by this custard independent adjusting group is so high. I feel like we should submit this to ICAP now and have them adjust the claim. With ICAP, you guys have a replacement cost on your buildings. So what that means is that they will pay to get you to a full replacement of the damages. less your deductible, which is $25,000. And then it gives ICAP the opportunity. They're almost certainly going to subrogate the claim, meaning they're going to go after the at-fault party's insurance company behind the scenes after ICAP has paid it. And they're going to look to recover what the at-fault party is legally liable for, which there's no argument to be made here that they are not in this case. So as part of that subrogation demand, they would request the actual cash value amount, which is what Custard is legally obligated to pay. Plus they would request as part of that subrogation, what your deductible was or is for the county. So if this all plays out properly, which is, I would expect it to play out this way, contractor will be paid full amount for the replacement. The county would pay $25,000 that's your deductible and out-of-pocket expense. Post-subrogation, I feel like there's a good possibility you would recover a majority, if not all of that. And so in the end, what I think will end up happening is $25,000 from you There will be 34,000 that will show on your loss history for ICAP long-term because that's the depreciation that they're gonna be responsible for now paying. And then they will subrogate the rest of it. So long-term, hopefully at the end of this, you guys will not have out of pocket expense if that subrogation goes well. You'll have about a $35,000 claim on your loss history. And the reality is as underwriters look at that, they're going to recognize and acknowledge that it was a non at fault property claim for you all. But I think that puts you guys in a better position than me telling you that you need to spend tens of thousands of dollars out of the county's budget, just so we don't have a claim on your loss history. So that's obviously changed throughout time, but just based on what the at fault parties Carriers offering I just I don't think that that's a good deal for Jackson county. And so my recommendation would be that. We file it through. I kept make sure that it is a covered claim, make sure that it's adjusted accordingly and then see how it plays out with them handling it.

So that's the long. So, what would we have to if we decide to do that? What would we have to do? Can you guys just take the ball and run or is there. Paperwork we need to do. Because it's been six months, almost seven months. We had great momentum in the senior center, and it's pretty much taken all the wind out of the sails. They found other places to go. So we're trying to get this done as fast as possible. Could we get going? How fast, I guess?

Yeah, great question. We have all the documentation that's been – provided to us from the other party's adjuster. So all of that is over to ICAB. I talked to Lisa about the fact that I wanted your guys' full approval to officially submit it. So it would be a submitted claim with ICAB that they will adjust. If you guys give us that today, I'll instruct them to move forward. An adjuster would be in touch with Jeff. Based on the fact that we have so much information already, it would move very, very quickly would be what I would anticipate and I don't see any issues with. This being drug out longer, so I don't think it would add. Time to this process, I do think that there would be good financial benefit to the county if we did it this way.

So, if we did it this way, there was in a process of in an effort to try to get this going under our curtain trajectory. we had secured contractors as soon as we got to go ahead, could we still proceed with them or will we start the process over? That's kind of my concern.

Yeah. If that's the case, if they say, no, we need to put this back out for bid and go through this whole process again, then that would change our recommendation just based on the amount of time and resource that you would spend on it. But I don't anticipate that being the case. I think what they'll do is they'll look at the they'll look at the adjusted claim from the other party. They're just not going to factor in depreciation because you guys have full replacement costs on your buildings. So they'd review the information. I would assume want to utilize the same contractors. ICAPS adjuster is going to want to get this claim resolved, um, probably more quickly than the at-fault parties, frankly, once they receive and get the official approval to move forward with it. So I don't anticipate that being an issue. If they come back and say, we need to rebid the project, we need to go through another full scope of work, then we could get back on a call like this and say, Hey, uh, based on this, do you just want to take the settlement from the third party and move on and get this thing up and running and moving? But, um, I don't anticipate that being an issue.

Joe, this is Mike, and that's my concern, is that we still have the deductible $25,000, of course, and you anticipate, or everybody anticipates, your better judgment says we should move forward, which it makes like it sounds sense. I don't want that to come back and bite us, and now we're also obligated for the depreciation part of it. Do we have hidden costs? Is this a long-term effect on our rates? I don't You tell me that the underwriters are going to look at it and say, well, you guys weren't involved, so it shouldn't affect our rates. Well, I'm not guaranteed that, correct? I mean, somehow, I guess I appreciate your guidance to say I think you should move forward. That's a positive to me. But I'm still a little concerned about, hey, we still haven't ended up in the same spot. And what did we?

Yeah, that's a great question, Mike. And that was asked via an email. I'm not sure if it was Jeff or Lisa, but somebody asked a similar question is, hey, what's the impact of this? And I gave a response, which was basically ICAP evaluates claims and performance just like any other insurance company. But from what we've seen and we've worked with them consistently now through hard markets and soft markets, What they do is they look at their overall performance and their membership group, and they give kind of a range of, hey, this is the rate increase or decrease by line that our members are going to see based on the performance of the overall pool. And it can vary slightly from member to member, meaning if Jackson County has really bad loss history, could they charge you a 7% rate increase for property instead of a 5%, they certainly could, but it is within a range that all members see. So the reality is they're just not the carrier that says, hey, you had a loss last year, so we're going to surcharge you 50% just because we have the ability to, whereas another county out there that didn't have any losses is seeing a 0% increase. That's not the way that the pool works. So I give that as context to say, I do not think a $35,000 Non at fault claim is going to cost you significantly in future premiums. That's just not the way that this pool. Operates and we have good history with them to validate that.

I would say, yeah, under your professional, both of you recommendation that we do it that way. I'm perfectly fine with it. I just. So we have, like Don said, move forward here.

We have on here discussion of possible motion on action on the senior center insurance claim.

I have a question.

Yeah.

Joe, so my question then is based on if the board decides to go through ICAP, what do we do with the other? I do have an email from the senior claims examiner. for the insurance company, he wants to know what our decision is. Is our decision right now to do nothing with them and kind of let them wait and see? What's your recommendation? I'm in a hurry to message them back.

Or would it be in our best interest to say the board decided to file it against their own insurance and let their lawyers fight with your lawyers? You know, because sometimes that might be a bigger stick to say, because maybe they'll give your guys' ICAP lawyers a lot more credibility. I don't know.

So, basically, that, Don, would be my recommendation. I would just respond, Lisa, and say, based on the settlement amount offered, we've been given guidance to submit this to our property insurer. We highly anticipate they will look to subrogate the claim against your insurance company. But for now, we're pursuing the claim under our own policy. And... To your point, they'll probably think, oh, my gosh, we're going to get a subrogation letter and have to fight this. And they might be, you know, willing to offer more to ICAP. And thus your claim with ICAP might show twenty five thousand instead of thirty five thousand, depending on how that goes back and forth. But. That would be my recommendation. Again, you're gonna have 25,000 of out-of-pocket expense initially when the claim goes, because that is your property deductible, but that is less than 34,000, which is the recoverable depreciation that is being shown on Custard's adjusted claim. So we're already benefiting there. And then I do think that there's a high likelihood that when ICAP subrogates, There would be money given back to the county for your deductible when they recognize their full fault. I can't promise 25,000, but I think there's a high likelihood you would get it based on you having 0% contribution to this claim.

Well, there's some other claims that they just bills that they have just failed to acknowledge. Like the person that buttoned the building up in the beginning and things like that, they just haven't done anything with them. Those have been unpaid for six months. So I think it would be best we proceed this way because I have no faith in their abilities or what they're doing for their insurance company.

And I feel bad for the people that stepped up to the plate in the very beginning to help us out. I mean, what if we would have left this building set and wide open for six months? Then what would their claim be?

Right. I agree.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Thoughts of the board?

I would make a motion to proceed with the senior center insurance claim with ICAP as recommended. I would second that.

Is that motion good, Lisa?

Yeah.

We have a motion by Mike, second by Ninh to proceed with the senior center insurance claim through ICAP as presented. Any other discussion? If there's any changes or information, please get back to us. We'd appreciate it. All those in favor, say aye. Thanks, Joe. You have the power.

Thank you all for your time. I appreciate it. We'll be in touch with updates.

Thank you very much.

No, Joe and I will be in touch. We'll call you over the way. Stuff like we always do. You have your number, your register, all that good jazz. We've got so much of that documentation already. Thank you. Next up, we've got Jim Cracker, the Jackson County Chief Deputy Chair. Good morning, Jim. Good morning. Good day off, even. Yeah. A lot to fish, isn't it? Oh, I don't know about that. That's a good result.

Do they bite when it's this hot? You can always catch him. Yeah. Catch something.

Yeah. I helped Denny Weiss out with his commercial stuff, too. So he's out today. And right now it's a very good time for him.

Yes, sir.

Okay. So in... Just as the back story and as a reminder, we inherited a system at the Sheriff's Department to where we did not have law enforcement contracts with the smaller cities. We had presented in 2023 to you the format requiring where the state of Iowa through code requires these small cities to have a law enforcement plan or a contract with another entity, this one being us. You okayed that presentation going forward. We presented to all the small cities and they all agreed to enter into these contracts. That was a $25 per capita contract. Um, agreement that we, we, we went into with everybody with that, those monies going into the general fund, uh, in, in, in going into those agreements, uh, most of the cities agreed outright. Um, the city of Lamont did not agree to enter into a contract and ultimately the sheriff and I provided that documentation of that conversation. the sheriff did have the conversation with the mayor and they declined to enter into an agreement. There is precedent within the state in terms of case law of counties going and contacting get demanding adherence to that code. Um, and that's what I'd like to initiate talks on is how we would like to go forward. First of all, um, with the town of Lamont isolated, uh, if we want to ask for action by the County attorney, uh, regarding contact. And, um, I've, I've gone over this with John. Um, he has some ideas of how that would be done. Or in light of this, if, you know, a bigger picture, ultimately it's your contract with these towns through the Sheriff's Department. If you want to re-look at anything in terms of the per capita or the use of those funds, if there's any relation to increasing 911 funds in the future and whether this is a tool to get there, I don't know. So I just, ultimately the first question is, the city of Vermont.

I think we should still pursue it. I mean, everybody's playing along with this. If this was the most reasonable aspect, I mean, we just didn't go into it that way. This is statewide or countrywide or whatever it is. It's a state mandate, right?

Correct. It's state code.

I guess... What's the penalty for not... See, that's one thing that somebody said to me is, what happens if we don't?

Yep, and I think there is a course of action to talk about that, and I would ask John to explain what that may be.

There's a number of avenues. Of course, we're all on the same team. We all like to encourage people to follow the law, and then in the most pragmatic way possible. This has been done recently. It was done through, and upheld by the Supreme Court, it was done through what's called a mandamus action. Essentially, we as elected officials have duties under the code. If we don't do that duty, any one of our constituents has standing to file mandamus action, which is essentially compelling COUNTY COULD, AS OTHER COUNTIES HAVE, FILE BANDANAS ACTIONS IN THOSE EVENTS WHERE THOSE INCORPORATED CITIES AREN'T PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE. AND THAT WAS, I THINK, ACTUALLY PRECISELY THE CASE THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT THE OTHER DAY. SO THAT'S AN AVENUE. AND MAYBE IF PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF THAT, THAT THERE ARE INDIVIDUAL PENALTIES FOR US PERSONALLY IF WE DON'T FILE A LAW. That might be sort of a wake-up call for people to say, okay. And I think, you know, and this doesn't go to a legal point, but I think the share right now that's allocated to this unincorporated cities that don't have police forces doesn't appear to be on its face unreasonable.

No, I think it's our responsibility, to be honest, to treat everybody fairly here and everybody else who's playing along. Is it a case where We go to a city council meeting with the mayor and the council and explain, you know, this is where we're at, you know. Really, we don't want a lawsuit. We don't want to play hardball. Well, that's not a lot, but, you know, everybody's playing along here. We're trying to be fair to everybody.

Well, technically, to me, you should be able to argue the fact that it's a law they have to follow. The fact that they've knowingly and voluntarily decided not to follow the law is not the city of Lamont if somebody has a problem. let's say, and they don't have, there's something going on, they need legal support, and there's a delay in getting there because they don't have guidance. They are open for litigation because they are not providing the necessary things under the law. Are they not? To me, that's a you question, John. Are they leaving themselves open to litigation because they are not providing law enforcement as directed by Iowa Code?

That is a legal argument, right? I think what Jim and I are concerned with, of course, with those cities that don't provide that, that ultimately falls back to the county, if they call. It does, but response times vary. Oh, 100%. I think absolutely that leaves them open. I haven't spoken to anyone on the city council, but that would certainly be my concern if I were on Wilmot City Council, for sure. I'd be worried about that.

Well, there's your liability. I mean, again, you call, well, you do the paperwork, we're not responding. Okay, well, now we're in trouble, you know.

Yeah, and I don't believe that's our intent. No, I'm not saying that. I don't want to be that person. What I would be asking for is addressing the issue at all.

a person a person at council meeting or or a letter to i would like everything to be written because if they refuse it i don't want a verbal refuse i would like it to be written because that way it's a trackable traceable thing i don't i didn't talk to you on the phone i don't know what you're talking it's not what i said you know that's not what i meant either either again we need to get on their council meeting and be on their recording that way or

And I would surmise, just with the foundational case law regarding this specifically, they probably have not asked their counsel in terms of, hey, what is our legal obligation? And I think they need to be churched in that.

I think the letter is in order to the mayor and the counsel, if you will. That's the policy. that we'd like in writing if that's our wish.

Can we drop that up?

Absolutely. Good.

And I would, yeah, I would address it for all of them.

I will do so. It'll have the appropriate tone and tenor. And I can run it past you before we send it out.

Okay.

Yeah, and like you said, I think it should go to all of them. We appreciate, thank the ones that are compliant, if you will.

That letter would just go to Lamont, right? Correct.

Yeah, but I mean to the mayor and the council. Everyone involved in that.

The city government, for sure.

Everybody else has been good. We've asked for people to relook, or we've been asked to relook at per capita just from some of the smaller cities just because it is a budget hit for them in light of everything else. And We talked about that $25 per capita aspect of being very minimal, almost ceremonial at some level compared to some options. Right.

Yeah.

You would have to go and hire. Honestly, we try to be good neighbors, including the RTSDP funding that we give to the small cities that are under $6,000 or whatever it is. I mean, we are good neighbors. We need to continue to be. Right.

Yeah, and I think just publicly, we would never hang call response over anybody's hand after this. No.

That's not the intent.

That's an action item that we need to... That would be my question to Lisa. It's on here for discussion with possible action.

I would make a motion that John drafts a letter to send out to the...

Mayor and council.

Mayor and council and other people that need to for the city of Lamar law enforcement coverage.

I'll second.

Got a motion by Nen, second by Mike to draft a letter, attorney's office draft a letter to send to Lamar elected officials and workers in regards to the law enforcement issue. Any other discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

Anything else you need from the sheriff's department? Have a good day. No. Faith. Faith. Everybody had healthy? Yeah, you know, the rodeo, I'd just like to say I met with them prior. We gave some recommendations for some safety enhancements, one of them being portable light plants in the parking area to remove the cloak of secrecy for underage drinking in the parking area. You literally head into that wall of darkness. and it really made life easier for them and for us. So just really thank them for taking some, you know, some forward steps toward safety that helped. We had some assistance from State Patrol on the highways that weekend.

good note to the people no i appreciate you working with them you know and and suggesting things and then uh i appreciate them being proactive i've talked to several of the leaders or members out there and they said it went well and you guys responded well and yeah it was uh and they had who did the parking for them the ford legion or the war veterans from dubuque county or something said they just did an excellent job they parked them and they lined them up and yeah worked well and they

We have a circuit back today working on some some media posts for this change to 60 miles an hour and what how it affects our area and we were getting a lot of questions and we have a lot of unanswered. Yeah. Otherwise, it's a big I don't know.

Well, if I had my way, we would pass an ordinance to stay 55 because of the expenses that we will have to incur to change stopping distances, to change sign locations and all this stuff. This is one of those things that doesn't make any sense. Nobody really asked for. And they don't understand the consequences of the action that they took. And just, well, yeah, everybody goes 60 anyway, so we'll just increase it. You know, you talk turn radiuses and banking and road construction. You talk, like I say, signs, the rumble strip, all that spacing can have, might have to change. So we could be talking hundreds of thousands of dollars and just moving signs and this corner is too tight. So now we've got to put up a slow down sign, you know, reduce speed. It's, Doesn't make a lot of sense.

I would keep it the same for Geert alone.

Yeah, thank you very much. We need to get the engineer up here because they're pouring concrete. I'm sure he's anxious to get back out there. So we'll turn it over to Jayden Shackle with the County Engineer's Office. Thank you, gentlemen.

Thank you. Morning, James. Good morning.

us today too to go through your end stuff so it's a busy day let them do their thing uh first on the agenda which will make some of you or all of you very happy uh is an agreement pre-construction agreement with the iowa dot for their primary road project

for the resurfacing of highway 62 so next summer mike no here's my question i read it i didn't see it at all because it was lengthy but does there's a new fiscal year now starts 26 27 could it be done this year probably not it will be next summer they're doing it next

He's doing it, Mike.

Come on.

It's the worst hard surface road in Jackson County. I'm just saying. I wish they could keep that, too.

That title, anyway. So they, as part of the resurfacing from Andrew to Bellevue, typical with all the other, I shouldn't say all the other, but the south half of 62, and similar to how we do our secondary road rehab it's x amount of feedback and in the past county would go quite a ways further since then we've kind of brought them back a little bit closer with the main goal being to on those grab worlds that is to keep the motor graders from their nose or the front of the machine sticking out of the travel lanes of the pavement when trying to blade the intersection so by increasing that pavement back it allows for them to not have their nose in the traffic. So as part of the project, similar as they did on the south end, any work, any apron work beyond the 10 feet from edge of primary road pavement, from that point beyond, will be at our cost. Again, this is exactly the same as they did in the south end. But that's all been included in the agreement for it being nine side roads. And they had an estimated cost. And that's purely just an estimate based on, you know, just no different than what an approximate cost. The actual cost will be when it's installed at whatever contract price and they will do, the DOT will have to do their full inspection of things, but ultimately it'll be around that estimate amount.

This overlay they're doing includes a wider lane or a safety lane on the outside. Is there rumble strips on that then?

I haven't seen their plans yet. I would assume it's going to be exactly the same as the south side. Yeah. in it. It will be recycled just like they did on the summer.

My concern over the last project we've done was how these little 100 foot or 150 foot what do you call them? Aprons. That's an easy word. How they were going to hold up. I think they're fantastic. It takes away all the rumbling and all the washboards right by the stop sign like there always is. In the winter time when you have slick and ice build up there, they can clean them off, and they're melted off before, you know, I think they're fantastic guys.

They do help limit that too, yes, for the washboarding, because the reason why there's so much washboarding at intersections is because you have people decelerating and decelerating, and having pavement there, in lieu of gravel, keeps that from happening.

Can you tell me how long, the oldest one we have, is it the Z58? april what was the first one we put in with the aprons which road preston i don't know but how long has it's been it's been it's not been any second years yeah sure yeah and they've held up well correct yeah i i just think they're a no-brainer nope and then so with that you know we would uh

put that estimated amount in our, this wouldn't come due to us prior to around fiscal year 28. By the time they do their project, they have to go through their audit stuff and everything. And ultimately, this will come a year or two down the road. But nonetheless, we will include this cost when we go to do fiscal year 28 budget next, or this upcoming fall, so.

I would make a motion to approve the DOT pre-construction agreement for Highway 62 road project as presented.

I would second that.

I think that means to approve and authorize the chair and auditor signature. Yes, it does.

We've got a motion by Mike, second by Ninh to approve the Iowa DOT pre-construction agreement for the primary road project on Highway 62 with the chair and auditor signatures as required. Any other discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?

Motion carries. So following up with that next then is an Iowa DOT agreement for a detour. So a little bit of game can't come without some pain, I guess so. The whole scope of work with Highway 62 is the DOT will also be doing a full deck replacement on their bridge on Highway 62 over Brush Creek. the asphalt work at that time or in conjunction, what have you, but ultimately they will close that road. And so when they do that, the detour out is, will be on just north of Andrew on 250th, our 250th Avenue or Y61 going north to Cottonville and then east from Cottonville on Bellevue Cascade Road or D61 into Bellevue. That'll be the detour out. With that, the DOT Manchester office, they'll be serving as the resident construction engineer for their projects. So their resident construction engineer will meet with myself and we will do an on-site inspection of the detour route prior to it being in place. So that way we can document the existing condition of the road. So that way, say during the detour route, if something were to happen, prior to that detour.

I don't know if you have any crashing on that road now. There's a few spots that got some dips on it, like Wiggin' Jacket or... We usually can in both pavements.

Well, Y61's only, it's been freshly overlaid as of two years ago. Yeah, that's... And that's real good. I don't know when that was installed, but that concrete's in very good condition, so... It's been resurfaced in other places, too. So with that, that will be this detour as it relates to their bridge project, but this is an agreement for them to detour their primary roadway onto our local road for the duration of their project.

I'll make a motion to approve the detour agreement.

With signatures required. We got a motion by Ninh, second by Mike to approve the Iowa DOT agreement for detours of Highway 62 with the chairing auditor signatures as required. Any other discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Quick question though. This, weren't they initially thinking of maybe doing this as a concrete overlay, which gave you the idea of maybe to try a concrete overlay like we're doing here? And why did that change or am I mistaken?

So they were initially investigating the use of a concrete overlay. I don't know ultimately why they did not pursue it. I know we were investigating ours prior to that. But yeah, for whatever reason, I guess I don't know what they decided not to. I don't know if it came down to costs or... I honestly have no idea, but it was what they were initially investigating. Okay. But I guess that's no longer. Okay. That's all just a question. Perfect segue into quick update. Bernard Road overlay is occurring as we speak. But today is the first day of paving out there. They're planning to get about three quarters of a mile a day. So both lanes I'm hearing. Both lanes and the paved shoulder and everything. It's 28 foot wide from edge of paver to edge of paver inside a form of paver to paver. The tracks sit outside of that.

22, we got three extra foot on both sides. Is that what I'm figuring?

So yeah, 11 foot lanes, two foot paved shoulder, and then part of the paved face of concrete. It actually slopes out, so that's about a foot on each side, too. Road is fully closed. residents on there will be able to access their properties via like golf cart but we're expected with whether we're having two to have good uh the concrete should reach maturity very quickly so hopefully in the next by tomorrow hopefully by the ideal quicker it's a couple umbrellas on that paper hopefully by tomorrow they can at least be driving equipment on what they paved today but if not it'd definitely be the following day nice but it'll still be close to but at least the traffic or like people with golf course golf carts can maybe drive on the new slab but but we'll be doing that doing the paving obviously in phases but it has started today and how many miles is that roughly about three and a quarter and a quarter so five days six days or whatever yes they should be done hopefully middle of next week with actual paved they'll get shoulder work to do yeah it'll be granular shoulders and uh whatever that here we'll have to come back and do pavement side or the side road aprons too and come back and put those That will be either in the next week or two. I'd have to check it when it was. Yeah. All the other projects we've gone on. Z15, Springbrook Highway Bridge, they're placing riprap and doing the grading and doing all the prep work prior for paving next week. chenilworth they poured all the substructure is poured so sorry the only substructure left is the south pier they got to do the pier cap yet once the pier cap is done then they can start hopefully getting ready to start setting beams over the river so uh what else well there's one more i know 450 yeah yeah that deck was poured uh last week we're hopefully gonna

We were trying to get the $2 million for Moorhead Bridge. Did we ever? We did not. We did not get it?

I did not actually. I'm glad you brought that up because I actually asked the DOT that. It's probably been about a month and a half ago. We haven't heard anything. Usually we have, and they haven't released it yet, but they have informed us, no, we're not successful. There is some, we send you all an email later, but there is some, another grant for Moorhead Bridge. It'll be, I think it's a fiscal year, either 26 or 27, another competitive highway bridge program grant that Moorhead has made the semi-finalist round. Hopefully it makes the finalist round. But with that, it's a yesterday for that fiscal year 27, let's call it 27, competitive highway bridge program grant. It's going to be a quick turnaround applications are due in four weeks. So the company engineers association is having an emergency meeting tomorrow to figure out who was making the finalist round. So I'll know more this week on whether or not more had made the cut. And we also had another one make the semifinalist round to a bridge on 407th Avenue. Hopefully both of them can make it to the finalist, but I guess there's more details to come on that, so there is another chance for us to hopefully get that thing. And does that have any repercussions with proceeding with Ironbridge, or where are we at with Ironbridge? Ironbridge, so... The build grant was supposed to be announced no later than July, sorry, June 28th. They have not officially announced it. There has been some rumors going around of what was awarded and what wasn't. I verified the County Engineers Association, like, is this rumor true? And they're like, they have not been informed yet of anything. So I'm hopeful, but we don't have any proof yet or official notice of an award that

last day of June. That was just a topic of conversation being last week and I was down there running that with the adventure race people getting out of there and they're like, what do we do next year? And I'm like, we're going to do a short race. And it was really short. Holy crap, they were fast.

So next year will still be unaffected yet. It'll be the following year. Okay. Because next year we're doing a bridge. It's planned for this November landing over Brush Creek, which is near the DOT's detour out, which is So our bridge will be on 189th Street, just below the transfer station. That'll be our next summer's bridge. But with Iowa 62 work going to occur, that being closed, I'm going to do similar with Channel Works. I'll request the DOT to put in free winter work for the contractor to hopefully have our bridge replaced prior to the DOT beginning their 62 work. uh but iron bridge then is planned for it'll be latin fiscal year 27 but it will probably this it'll occur in the summer of uh it'll be fiscal year 28 when it actually is okay so your next year will still be that you still be good that's good to hear appreciate it sorry if there's a lot of there's a lot going on i guess well that's awesome

I get excited to think maybe when we get that 150th bridge right there by Esgate, when does that get on the list? The Canton Bridge, when does that start making the list?

Well, hopefully we get good word on some of these grants for as it relates to Iron Bridge and Moorhead Bridge because that only helps us look forward into the future of the other river bridge. I mean, we have other bridges more than just river bridges, but those are ones that take a huge amount of money to replace. Yeah. the hopefulness of being awarded some of those other grants. I will say this. We've done pretty good so far.

That's a good thing. Our bridges are really high.

We're fortunate to get that funding and to actually apply for it. Thank you for your

I guess we're doing everything in our power. Well, we got a lot of them.

Thank you.

Thank you much, sir. And next up we got Lisa. She has a plethora of things for us to talk about today.

Today is, as Jaden said, it is the end of our fiscal year today. This is where we need to close out fiscal year and start a new fiscal year. So this morning, I do need a motion to approve the minutes of the June 23rd, 2026 meeting as written by Auditor Smith and authorized publication in the official newspapers. I'd make that motion.

I would second.

Got a motion by Ninh, second by Mike to approve the minutes of the June 23rd, 2026 meeting as written by Auditor Smith and authorized publication in the official newspapers. Any other discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

And this is where we start with all of our fiscal year resolutions. So I just need a motion to approve resolution 1194-0-30-2026 for the fiscal year 26-27 appropriations by department.

So moved.

I would second that.

Got a motion by Mike, second by Ninh to approve resolution 1194-06-30-2026 for the fiscal year 26-27 appropriations by department. Any other discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

Motion to approve resolution number 1195-06-30-2026 naming county officers bank depositories for fiscal year 26-27 for the recorder and share of designated banks to deposit revenues held in their trust accounts.

make that motion i would second got a motion by then second by mike to approve resolution 1195-06-30-2026 naming county officers bank depositories for fiscal year 26 27 for the recorder and sheriff's designated banks to deposit revenues held within their trust accounts any other discussion all those in favor say aye aye opposed motion carries

Motion to approve resolution number 1196-06-30-2026, naming Jackson County Bank depositories for fiscal year 26-27, the financial institution to be depositories for funds collected in the county treasurer's office.

And they have not changed, correct? No. I would make that motion.

I would second that.

Got a motion by Mike, second by Ninh, to approve resolution 1196-06-30-2026, for fiscal year 26-27, the financial institutions to be the depository of funds collected in the county treasurer's office. Any other discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

Motion to approve resolution number 1197-06-30-2026. for designation of county bank for fiscal year 2627, designating Maquoketa State Bank for county warrants and payroll warrants. I'd make that motion.

I'll second.

Got a motion by Ninh, second by Mike, to approve resolution 1197-06-30-2026 for designation of county bank for fiscal year 2627, designated Maquoketa State Bank for county warrants and payroll warrants. Any other discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

I need a motion to approve resolution 1197-06-30-20. Nope. I need resolution number 1198-06-30-2026 for issuing county warrants and allowing the auditor to issue warrants without the prior approval of the board for payment on freight, postage, express, payrolls, water, lights, telephone, contractual services, witness fees, school of instruction, registration fees, and mileage. And I believe this should say in DFC grant expenditures.

And what is the limit on that, could I ask? Limit amount?

There is no limit. So we're just approving just these small, I mean, honestly, we don't do this very often.

No, that's what I'm saying. I'm trying to relate this to the public that we get all the bills before the claims, I should say, and review them before they're paid, basically.

Well, this resolution says the bills paid by the auditor without the approval of the Board of Supervisors shall be submitted to the Board for review and approval at the next meeting. When claims are paid, so we do do that. Yes. So, and so there is no. There is no limit and I would like to add to that motion and drug free coalition grant expenses.

And this is just to make sure we don't have any late fees and stuff on the water bill, the power bill, that kind of stuff.

Yes. Correct. I'd like that motion to approve.

I would as amended.

We've got a motion by then second by Mike to approve resolution 1198-06-30-2026 for issuing county warrants and allowing auditor to issue warrants without prior approval of the board for payment on freight, postage, express, payroll, water, lights, telephone, contractual services, witness fees, school of instruction, registration, as amended. Any other discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

Need a motion to approve resin dilution number 1199-06-30-2026. for Interfund Operating Transfers authorizing the auditor to periodically transfer sums from the General Basic and Rural Services Basic Funds to the Secondary Roads Fund during the 26-27 budget year.

So moved.

I would second that.

Got a motion by Mike Seckenbein to approve Resolution 1199-06-30-2026 for Interfund Operating Transfers authorizing the auditor to periodically transfer sums from the General Basic Funds to rural services basic funds, to secondary roads, secondary road fund during the 26-27 budget year. And those, when they actually get executed, we still approve them at that time. So it isn't like they happen. So we still check and balance.

And just to clarify, whatever that's in their budget already, I mean, they've been approved.

true any other discussion all those in favor say aye aye opposed motion carries so the next three resolutions have to do with how we pay people um it is the board's discretion as far as all of these fees so my next resolution is resolution 1200-06-30-2026 for township officials reimbursement with a compensation rate of $25 per meeting, and for clerks' book work of $25 per month, not to exceed $300 per year.

I move to approve.

I would second that.

Motion by Mike, seconded by Ninh, to approve Resolution 1200-06-30-2026 for township officials' reimbursement with a compensation rate of $25 per meeting, and for clerks' book work of $25 per month, not to exceed $300 per year. Any other discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

Motion to approve resolution number 1201-06-30-2026, setting the compensation of all election board members and other temporary election officials and the hours and mileage phrase.

I'd make that motion to approve.

I would second.

Got a motion by Ninh, second by Mike to approve resolution 1201- setting the compensation of all election board members and their temporary election officials and the hours and mileage rates. Any other discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

I need a motion to approve resolution number 1202-06-30-2026 for payroll for fiscal year 26-27, authorized publication in the official newspapers.

I would move to approve.

Wait a second, Bob.

Got a motion by Mike, second by Ninh to approve resolution 1202-06-30-2026 for payroll for fiscal year 26-27 and authorized publication of official newspapers. Any other discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Motion carries.

This next resolution is resolution number 1203-06-30-2026, designating the place at which notices of any meetings of the Jackson County Board of Supervisors shall be posted effective July 1st, 2026. And this is in regards to a bill that was passed and signed by the governor. I don't really know all of the background as far as why there was a change. I know that Bjorn has seen some chatter on what we call base count. how counties are going to do this. In reading the legislation and the law, it basically talks about the governmental bodies. And obviously, Board of Supervisors are the governmental body, but we also have, one of the big things that's happening, we're discussing our township trustee or township pledges. Right now, the law has written that we have to post those notices We post them here on our official board. But the question now is, do those township legends need to be posted in a prominent and conspicuous place And so I don't know how this is gonna play out. There was some discussion on this base camp that it's my understanding potentially that the state of Iowa is not going to be changing how they post their notices. But for right now, the way that the legislation is wrote, and you will see that I did post on the door this week, and there's some discussion because we will have to have zoning Conservation already does it on their door. Veterans Affairs is someone else. Board of Board of Health, Board of Adjustment. There are assessors office, so I don't know how all of these. Words and commissions that meet here at the courthouse 911 would be another one. We believe that they're under the umbrella of our governmental body. I'm not sure how this is going to play out. I know that there are some counties that our. exploring i think a digital way to do this so we worded our our resolution that we will be posting the notice in the east entrance door east entrance to the courthouse we didn't specifically say the door in case at some point we decided to do a digital notification but for right now our official posting will be the east entrance and that's what this resolution is for today Let me know that we are going to comply with the law we are yeah normally we would I always posted out in the board here. By the door here at the auditor's office, but the way that the laws written said that it has to be in a conspicuous and prominent place and must be visible at all times so and we did have a conversation.

Last week where we talked about a way to get easy access so people could get to the digital would maybe at some point we do a QR code that you can scan and that'll take you right to our website where they can be posted.

But again, we don't know if that's... And a lot of these notices are already being done. They're already being done on our website. So this is just, they're going to comply with the law. It's there. It's just, we're going to comply with the law and it may change. So.

I'd make the motion to approve.

I would second.

We got a motion by Dan, second by Mike to approve resolution 1203-06-2010. of any meetings of the Jackson County Board of Supervisors shall be posted effective July 1, 2026. Any other discussion?

Just to get a note is that we have received all of these resolutions prior. We have reviewed them all. Normally, it's most of the normal beginning of the year stuff, and they're all available to the public if they want to.

I post all of them to our website. All of the resolutions that you have passed I think I've gone back to 2000, so I know that I have 26, almost 26 years, 25 and a half years of all of these resolutions. So at any time, anybody, if they ever want to know about a resolution, it's very easy on our website how to search that. It is user-friendly.

I would say since the new format has been very friendly, and just so that they're all available to the public, and we just...

All right. Any other discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

That ends all of the resolutions that I have for today, but I have two other things that I would like to discuss. I did call Dr. Peterson. He is our medical examiner for Jackson County, and I would like to have a motion to approve. He has recommended a motion to approve the reappointment of Raymond Ackerman, Jordan Fullerton. Anne E. McGill-Hamilton, Lynn Meninger, Brett Pauls, and Jamie Stainer as the Jackson County Medical Examiner Investigators, effective July 1st, 2026, as recommended by Dr. Eric Peterson. I'd make that motion.

Is there an end date?

No.

Okay.

Dr. Peterson believes that these are an indefinite, if you go back out, and I've read the code, The code is very clear when it comes to the term of the medical examiner. To me, it does not say that these investigators have a term limit. Dr. Peterson's opinion is that they are indefinite.

Okay, so then one goes off, we got to get another one.

You know, if you go back and you look at the history of these medical examiners, I mean, at one point, we only had two people.

Yeah.

So these are all... Only certain people can do this.

We got a motion by Ninh, second by Mike to approve the reappointment of Raymond Ackerman, Jordan Fullerton, Anne McGill, Hamilton, Lynn Meetinger, Brent Pauls, Jamie Stainer at Jackson County Medical Examiner Investigators, excuse me, effective July 1st, 2026, as recommended by Dr. Eric Peterson. Any other discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

My final motion for today is to approve a fireworks permit to Cory Driscoll at 44-180 17th Street, Preston on July 4th, 2026 at dusk with a rain date of either July 11th or July 12th, 2026.

I'll move.

I'd second that.

Got a motion by Mike, second by Nan to approve a fireworks permit for Cory Driscoll at 44-180 17th Street, Preston. 2026 at dusk with a rain date of July 11th or 12th 2026 same time any other discussion all those in favor say aye aye opposed motion carries that's all that I have a lot of talk that was a lump anything else for the good of the meeting no really updates here for me I just wish

Again, be careful if you are doing some fireworks and such. Celebrating is have a good time. Again, 250 is a long time.

With the amount of heat we got this week, be safe. I'm glad we got the rain we did or it would be really dry. That would be a complicating factor with the fireworks. Just be safe, be diligent, watch for any air and sparks or something. Look forward to having a great 250.

I do want to let everybody know that The Brentwood-Saint Byways did approve a kiosk that will be going in down at the fairgrounds. They had another location that didn't meet the qualifications of where it should be. So if they were looking for an area in Jackson County, the fair board did agree that it would be OK with them. So just bringing it forward that that will be. something going up down at the fairgrounds. We're assuming somewhere around the Pearson building.

Any word on our food pantry?

I have had discussion with Black Hills Energy. I told them to put it on what I call the north side of the drop box and we'll put it in the grass in that area and I assume at some point we'll So it's easier to mow and trim and whatever.

I just assumed it would be here already because they were so adamant on wanting them to. Yeah, I mean. Yeah, I thought they would have been when I got it out of the truck.

I would have been surprised if it was done next time. But they were going to contact me so we could coordinate with Jeff or Bob to get this done. So I would think we'll see something shortly.

All right.

Anything else?

If there's no further business, I would make a motion to adjourn.

I would second that.

Got a motion by Mike Seckmeyer to adjourn. Any other discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Have a great happy 4th, everybody.