Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

for invocation and Pledge of Allegiance.

Maria, I think you were... Almighty Father, creator of all things, pure and eternal light and goodness, be present with us today, here and everywhere, now and always. Look kindly and mercifully upon all of us, our family and friends, our neighborhoods, and all who work the land and make life good in Madison County. Help us in our trials, our struggles, our sorrows, and in our comings and goings. Thank you for the joys and the beauty and goodness we experience every day. All these good things originate in you. Create in our hearts a freshness, a newness of spirit that has the power to transform the ordinary into the extraordinary, from strife into harmony, from disdain into respect. Reach down into the center of our hearts and teach us how to love one another, inspiring all of us a lovely way to think and speak and live among one another. Train up our thoughts to align with the divine. Keep us safe within your kingdom. Help us to navigate the difficulties in our lives and in our community. Have mercy on us. Amen.

Thank you. All right. We'll go ahead and do a roll call.

Supervisor Sampson?

Here.

Supervisor Fitch? Here. Supervisor Ha?

Here. All right. We'll go ahead and review the agenda. Any amendments to the agenda or an disclosure of conflict of interest?

I have just a chair will not be here. And I was omitted from the agenda. So I would like to be added if possible. Okay. Under department heads.

So Michelle and the secretary. All right, so anything else? No, I'm up to approve as I believe. Okay, do I have a second? Second. All in favor, please vote aye. Aye. Aye, all opposed? Motion carries. The next one is a consent agenda, approval agenda, minutes and claims, or receiving file items. Is there any questions on this? Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion. I do have a question on... We received invoices from the auditor's office regarding the last, is this the final, final bill, Michelle? Do we expect any more? For the audit? For the fiscal 23 and fiscal 24 audit.

My understanding is it says on the invoice that it says, I thought, final?

Yeah, it doesn't say final. It just says billing for audit services performed. It said something, something. Was it the email?

I wouldn't have printed it.

All I have is the clean form and the bill.

It is my understanding this is the final bill. Okay, okay. Because we closed out and they published the funding.

Okay, okay. So my question, though, is the average cost per hour on these bills differ significantly from the bills we got in June for the same audits. Do we know why? This bill is 40% for the fiscal 23 is 40% higher hourly rate. And for the fiscal 24, it's 23% higher than the hourly rate that we paid last year for the same audit services.

So the only thing I could guess is that the services we're being billed for are in present day, the additional work that was done during the exit conference, but I can confirm that.

It's up to you. Is there any way we can get a more detailed invoice? Because right now it just has the hours and the cost and the expense. Is there a way we can delineate, you know, because this has been over a year, this has been ongoing. Is there a way we can delineate what they were doing in those hours and kind of break it down, what it was last year, what the charges were this year.

That's really reasonable to have a broke out invoice.

Can we get a more detailed invoice? I'm a little uncomfortable with the higher rate when it's the same audit. So if we could get a detailed invoice, and I'd like us to review that.

So you're accepting that bill and not paying it the same?

If we could get that before June 30th, Because I know we're going to have to approve some stuff on June 30th. Could we maybe get a more detailed bill by then so we can approve it then?

I just need you to make a motion to do that. So I'll make a motion that we'll approve the consent agenda, everything under it, except we'll just wait.

You're accepting out the chip and the claims payable to the state of Iowa. We're going to hold off on that until we get a share.

Until they pay all the other ones. Yes. Is that what you mean? Yes. That's what I mean. Okay. Second that. Second that. Okay. All right. All in favor of approving the consent agenda with the exception of the bills through the state auditor until we get a more detailed bill, please vote aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Okay. Because when we do pay it, I'd still like to get it in our fiscal year, so if we can get that before June 30th, that would be great. Okay, the next one is department head reports. Mike, you are first.

good morning everyone my name is mike hackett i'm the madison county secretary of the engineer i'll do another brief report believe it or not kind of kind of what's going on and some resolutions i'm bringing to the board today um these are pretty standard action items these are roads that have been closed for maintenance or repair or a storm event that we've gone back out into at home kind of Highlight a little bit of that coming forward. The others are pay adjustments that were not represented for the total pay adjustments for the next fiscal year that we did, I believe, in the end of May. These were not employees yet, so they weren't on that list. So this is a cleanup for that. There also you need contract employees. Those are the things on that list. On a larger project scale, I've talked about the Rustic Avenue Bridge project. It looks like we will have a deck core week after the 4th, so it's on schedule. We've talked about a couple upcoming future lettings. That's to go. I'm taking questions on that right now. That's the Park Road, what we call the overflow bridge or the bridge at the park. That's a July 21st Iowa DOT letting. Grants, I have some good news there. I think the last time I was here, the last time I talked about submitting CHPP grants, I'm pleased to let you know that we made the first cut. So there were 143 of those that were submitted in the state of Iowa, and they narrowed down to 28. That's the first cut. The letter that I received from the DOT and the Service Bureau in regards to that is they still have to do some fine tuning. But it's good news, bad news.

What would the grant entail?

Total bridge replacement. 1.2 million for a bridge. The cost share has to be negotiated out through Federal Highway. We're seeking an 80-20. That's pretty common.

So they're 80 or 20?

Yep. That's money we would normally not get yet. This bridge is located on Clanton. It is, we refer to it as Rattlesnake. It is a timber structure that we have been repairing for all of my time here, plus it would be a good one to get replaced.

How old is the bridge?

What part of it? It's a wooden strayer truss with multiple piling. for a long time, they just go out and they just cobble and cobble and cobble. If we get this, this is great. This is a funding source that we would normally not get. It helps with our infrastructure repair that we have going. The Hollowell Covenant Bridge, I have not heard back yet. They did tell, I did receive an email at the end of last week that they were looking at Monday, which was yesterday. I haven't heard, but we also submitted that two years ago, or we submitted again sometimes. The federal people work at a little different pace. Office administration, it's driveway season. We have a lot of those going on. We're closing out our end year, close out for this fiscal year. all stock material closeouts. So just kind of a brief there. All our signs, lumber, culverts, sand, salt, calcium chloride, fuel under the ground, anything that is a stockpiled material has to be accounted for for the fiscal year. So we go through a process of an audit. So when we are asked for an audit, we have it.

So it's like an inventory.

We do that every year. It takes a little bit of time to count the signs. Anything that's in place has a separate audit. Anything that has materials that are stored for projects is audited. So that'll be this week and a little bit of next week at least for the office staff. We have ongoing engineering going on, of course, which I'm gonna kinda cross this over. We had an event here in the county that I wanna share a little bit about. It was 6-11, I believe it was a Thursday. And we had a lot of rain in a very short period of time. And I got a hold of the National Weather Service to find out what it was. We had three inches of rain in 15 minutes. So to put that in perspective, in the engineering world, when we size up culverts and bridges, there is a relationship to inches per hour. a 12 inch rain per an hour, whether it comes in a minute or an hour, is considered somewhere around a 100 year event. So if you think about what happened there in a short period of time, we saw a 100 year event on a road system that is designed for, well some of it was never designed, but typically, at least through what modern engineering came on, the rural roads, 10 to 25 year cycle for culverts, ditches and capacity. bridge is a little bigger so we have a lot of areas that washed washed washed washed over the road and washed out all kinds of stuff and we've been working on that pretty much non-stop in between the rains so there's been a lot of a lot of busyness at least on the maintenance end of the department with trying to get things at least patched back up um we had water over the st charles road that i've only seen once in 30 years A lot of what we're seeing on the road system right now, we are just trying to get the path open, even still now. And I don't know if we're going to get back to some of that brush and logs, just because there's so much of it. So I wanted to at least bring you up to date on that. Ongoing projects, still replacing signs. And that's about all I have. See, it's pretty short. That's great. No presentation.

Yeah. All that real erosion on the gravel roads.

Yeah, it's just not meant for that. It's tough. So, you know, and that's, again, each one of those zones have about 88 miles. We're busy. That's okay. That's what we do. So, appreciate your time. Thanks very much.

All right. So, Michelle, did you want to go next or do you want Kylie to go next? I like the go.

Michelle Brant, Madison County Auditor. I do have a handout today. Excuse me. Follow along and then I can send a soft copy. I think you can put it on there. Thanks. You bet. Okay, so the budget process update, the last stage of the budget has commenced. There are several resolutions on the agenda today that once signed by the BOS, we will commence entering the fiscal year 23 salary and wage changes into solutions. The 60 cent annual difference noted in your memo, Supervisor Stenzel has been corrected on the sheriff's salary. The salaries for the treasurer's office is in order. That's been double checked. I know there's a few other mentions from the sheriff's amendment and EMS and I don't know what you've decided. We can pen and ink that, that's not a problem.

well that way we can get it done today yeah Brady said he's on vacation I don't know when he comes back and he said he would look at it when he comes back and I told him I said well if we need to push this to 6 30 to do a resolution then to make sure their numbers are right we can do that or I mean we're just talking about pennies pennies um but um and then some of that's even just rounding

Well, I'll defer to the board on that if we want to just do that and we can always do a corrective amendment.

absolutely if sarah when we go through that one i'd go ahead and pen and ink be submitted is that what we're suggesting if the board is i would move it with a correction let's approve well we don't know the question yet brady needs to look it over and he's on vacation but she i want they do their work to get stuff in so if you want to take your same table all the brady's until he gets back Well, we can always just put it in as is, and if Brady says, oh, we need to make a correction, we can always do a corrective resolution on our next meeting.

I would be good with that. I mean, that makes sense. So we can not slow you all down for putting everything in there. Yeah.

Because it could be correct. Right. It's just, it was an anomaly between the union agreement and what he had. So I just want to make sure it's accurate.

So we'll approve it in the middle of the corrections. Okay.

But we can do the sheriff's, Lynn, and Clayton Deputy. Pen and ink those, based on that 60 cents. Okay, so the tax process has started with the audit of the files, the parcel maintenance. We're checking, making sure that all the credits and the exemptions have been applied correctly. And I'm coordinating with the assessor's office. And then I wanted to get back to you regarding the inter-fund transfers. I've researched this. What we were speaking of was in 2019, when the TIF was initially set up for the wind turbines, it was a loan from Rule Basic at $11,000. 11,000 is the fund. Sorry, allergies have me. That's the fund number. That's the fund, exactly. And they were used to establish two new funds, 13,000 and 18,000. One is a TIF fund for revenue and one is URA, Urban Renewal Area, for expensing.

And that was until we had the funds coming in from TIF, it was kind of carrying us through, is that what that was?

That was exactly, that was exactly right. So this would be back in two installments, 2021, 2022, and that was with board direction and attorney review. We can only use, if we were to do something similar in these funds, we could only use the money for projects within that URA.

If you said you're gonna go that route It's not Because I thought we added that because you were we were talking about I've got the documents here I thought that was there was a predated me. That's correct.

And I and that's why I did some research It is not qualified But that doesn't mean to say It's not a good idea, it's just that without having accurate fund balances, I mean outside of general basic and such, I would advise against that approach to fund resolutions today. I think you can approve them, but we need to find out, I mean it's about $61,000. and some change. So the budget appropriations? No, that has nothing to do with appropriating the budget today. This is the expenses that are going to be generated with the roofing and the HVAC. And then that doesn't include whatever the remodel or restoration is. So I want to give you also a summary of the budget worksheet from the courthouse annex and elderly services. I lump those together as far as those are all under 441 building repairs and maintenance. We are okay for fiscal year 26 because you can see left for mold remediation is $16,000. I think the bid came in Jess at 13. Is that right? I think it's about $13,000. So we're good there and that, you know, that was kind of a sigh of, oop, yeah, we're good. And that does also take into account the outstanding invoice on the annex doors, like I've demonstrated. So we may just be needing to go back to the original idea of a bridge loan.

for the restoration piece.

Yeah and again whatever that $61,000 plus restoration because I will say also what's in the budget next year for the old ambulance garage is only $30,000 so either it's going to be a budget amendment or a bridge loan. Does that make sense?

You are correct, the mold radiation is 13,598,690.

And then that gives us a little bit of money for the $800 to retest. That's in there. So and then the other thing I just provided you, just a couple pictures of those stands.

Where do these have to be?

What?

Where do they have to be?

Outside.

Like on the courthouse yard?

Well, I don't know. I was just going to look for your direction. I would like it to be up as close to the entrance as possible. But to your point, Diane, people take pictures. However, I do think this will be hidden by your columns. But again, I think when they arrive, we can do a little, I don't know, banner white thing and see what you guys are comfortable with.

Well, we can walk it and decide what we want, where we want it. I mean, doesn't that story happen in the center? Well, most people take pictures from the South, right?

Right, but that's also where the handicap to accommodate the most people that would be to be on that southern exposure. Okay, okay. So, fair enough. Okay, and that's really short. It's sweet, and I figured you'll probably be tapping into me a little bit later. Perfect.

So we need to talk about the election deputy salary then?

Oh yes, so one of the other things on there was the election deputy salary. Currently, and maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I thought we, in order to give her an increase because of the 75% limitation advised by the attorney, we were gonna move her to the first deputy so she could be able to get 80% of Michelle's salary. And on the wage resolution, it was giving her a 30% increase, which will put her over the 75% recommended limitation from the hours. So I didn't know if I'm remembering our discussion wrong. So I kind of want to know what you guys think on that.

My position is she doesn't fall under second deputy and is left to our discretion. in Anne's memo. And so this gets us to actually less than if

um if she takes an 80 percent uh first deputy salary well based on what you said to us they'll be if there's no if there's overtime it could be another eight eight hundred to a thousand dollars so for the year so ann recommended um that we we stick within the 75 percent she recommended that to us and that's that she can she can get an increase but there'd be no they've been there I mean, I'd rather have an increase. It gives her more freedom. It gives her, you know, and it'll give the elections deputy an increase. But if we, it's either that or take the attorney's advice. So, I'll refer to the board on that. To me, it doesn't, you know, I'd rather not go against what we were advised by

Well, that's just, I mean, that was, but we have the option to keep her just as a unique position, which she is. Right. Just like a clerk, too.

But that's not the advice that Alice gave us on that email I sent. I read the email, and she left it up to us. Well, yes, it's up to us, but she advised to stick with that. I originally thought that we were going to move her, so that's why I was kind of surprised when I saw the wage resolution. And, you know, I don't care either way. We can keep her, but she has to stay at 75%, or give her her raise by moving her to the first deputy. Different title.

I think if that works for, if the auditor is saying she wants her moved to the first deputy.

No, I'm not. I'm saying she needs her moved. and give her a 3% raise and ignore the advice from Howard. I don't think she's ignoring it. Well, it wouldn't be her. We would have to. It's our decision on whether or not to take the advice. I think if that's what she needs and she wants to retain her, I'm okay with it. I'm not comfortable going against legal advice, and I'd rather give her a raise. She's going to be getting a raise. Providing we go against the advice of the district, yes. I don't know if you remember, but back when Terry wanted to give her a raise, and then we got this advice from Allers, so she had to back out from that resolution to give her a bigger raise because we were given the advice to stay within the 75% cap on that. So that was the advice we went on. It resets when I took office. Well, no, because the advice is given to the board. The decision that Terry made resets when I took office. We ultimately, though, that was the advice that Allers gave to the board. So I shared that with Terry.

If it doesn't matter, it sounds like you're arguing quite a bit about it.

Well, it doesn't matter. I would rather have her the first deputy because that would give her a raise. But I don't, I'm not comfortable going against the advice. And it minimizes our risk for Anna's email, right? Yes. She's got the title to back it up. Yes. And it minimizes the risk. Yes. So. But I just want to make sure that I was remembering correctly because that's what I thought you were doing based on the email we got with the savings you provided us a few months ago.

It's still, that's what's been approved in the budget is what I gave to you on the resolution.

And I thought that she was going to the first deputy . No, this is actually less.

So this would say this one.

So when we get to the resolution, If you guys think about it, when we get to the resolution, we can talk about it. Okay, thank you, Michelle. All right, so next one is Kylie. You want anything? You said report? Michelle, do you want to just, would you prefer that we just have all these reports as standings on here for future? Just have it just on here or no?

I like interacting with the folks, just checking to see if they have something.

Okay. Well, I just didn't know if you wanted us to be a standing and then if she says she doesn't have anything, so we don't forget. I didn't know if you wanted that, if you prefer that, or are you just doing that talk?

No, I'll defer to our board clerk.

Okay. Public hearings. All right. So we do have two public hearings. First one is for Hog Heaven Estates, then the other one is for Park Haven, so we're gonna go ahead. I'll entertain a motion to go into public hearing for Hog Heaven Estates subdivision at 9.58 a.m. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carried. We are now in public hearing for Hog Heaven. We'll first start with Ryan. I'm assuming everything has been published as required. Any written comments or feedback? No. Okay, all right, take it away.

Okay, so we've got Two Lot Miner Subdivision, Hog Heaven Estates. Applicant property owner is David Nickel. It's in section 18 of Scott Township. Property is currently zoned agricultural, primary agricultural for future land use plan. Is the understanding of staff with the Two Lot proposed subdivision or lot two of the proposed subdivision will be offered for sale on the open market as a residential building lot. I also understand that lot one of the proposed subdivision will remain under the same ownership of David Nichol. The property being proposed for division contains a single family dwelling that was constructed in 1998. There's also a detached garage that was constructed in 98. During the platting process of this subdivision, there was a survey. The surveyor noticed that the detached garage did encroach on the side yard setback 2.6 feet between the address of 2217 and 2219, 245th Lane. The applicant has then requested a variance from the Board of Adjustment that was granted April 1st of 25. The area consisting of lot two, the proposed division does not have any structures located on it and is currently in a production. So we have some history here. By a brief search of the reporter's documents, the warranty deed was reported on April 21st of 97. transferring 28.695 acres of which included the track to be proposed, which includes the track to be proposed for division. It was sold to David Nickel from Gregory and Deborah McDonald for the amount of $50,000. Warranty to deed was recorded April 22nd of 98, adding Kathy D. Nickel to the deed. A court officer deed was then recorded in April 29th of 2014, transferring property back solely to David Nickel. A quick bang deed was recorded transferring property into David Nickel's revocable trust in 2017. The property in question was then sold on contract to Ross David Nickel, which is the son of David, and the amount of $369,825 and then on November 12, 2025 a forfeiture of real estate contract was filed transferring the property back to David Nichols Revocable Trust. This tract does not have anything within the FEMA flood zone CSR 2 has been determined to be 53.98. The subdivision plat request is located within two miles of the City of Winterset and therefore is subject to extraterritorial review. The City of Winterset has yet to provide a resolution of which is required to be within the accompanying documents of the subdivision recording. The subdivision plat shall not be recorded until the resolution from the city has been received and approved with said plat. Each lot within the proposed subdivision has an approved entrance location, which was reviewed and approved by the Madison County Engineer's Office. Those permits are 25-006 and 25-007. Both lots abut on to 245th Lane The proposed lot one shares an entrance with parcel G, which is also 2219, 245th, and that is also owned by David Nichol.

Ryan, will lot one, could it be split more? Because it is the same. the 17 acres could it be split more not without going through the process but if they go through they can split this again potentially um and we can't really approve this and take out the resolution we can approve it pending the resolution that's that's what i have recommended um

I'd like a conditional approval. If we receive the resolution and it's favorable acceptance from the city of Winterset and I have that, that's the last document that I need to record it.

So we'll add that to the resolution should the board approve it conditionally? Yes. Okay. All right. and your staff recommendation is to approve it commissionally. Okay, all right, thank you. All right, so now is the time for public hearing, for the public to come and make any statements or questions or anything like that regarding this proposed subdivision, Hog Heaven. If you wish to make a comment, please come up to the microphone, state your name and where you're from. You technically have 10 minutes. And then once we're done here, we'll move to the phone for the folks on the phone. Hearing none, is there anybody on the phone that wishes to comment regarding the subdivision? If so, hit star six to unmute your phone and you have 10 minutes. All right, hearing none, I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing for Hog Heaven State subdivision at 10.04 a.m. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor, please vote aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Okay, that brings us to the public hearing for Buckhaven West Subdivision. I will entertain a motion to go into public hearing for Buckhaven West Subdivision at 10.04 a.m. So moved. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. We are in the public hearing. Ryan, I'm assuming it was published as required. It was. Any written comment?

No.

Okay.

And I have provided, I failed to mention on the last one, there are two flats there for each of the subdivisions that I've provided you guys for your review. Okay so this one is a three lot subdivision of 223.7 acres. The applicant is Buckhaven Estates LLC. Property owner is also Buckhaven Estates LLC. This is taking place in section 30 and 31 of Lee Township. This property is currently zoned agricultural and the primary or the future land use map is primary agriculture. is the understanding of staff that the three property owners within the previously plotted and approved Buckhaven Estates each wish to acquire one of the proposed outlaws of Buckhaven West. The tract of land being proposed for division cannot be improved upon as it is within a perpetual conservation easement wetland reserve program agreement number 66-61148-8-7229. this specific this is specifically why uh staff has required these lots to be labeled as outlaws because they are unimprovable and they can't be built they cannot be built it's a it was a buyout from the government it is a perpetual lifetime easement forever forever It is staff's understanding that these lots are being purchased by these three individuals for recreational hunting ground. As stated, this lane has been enrolled in the Wetland Reserve Program since July 29, 1998. The purpose under 10 of this easement has been to restore, protect, manage, maintain, and enhance the functional value of wetlands and other lands and for the conservation of natural values including fish and wildlife habitat, water quality improvement, flood water retention, groundwater recharge, open space, aesthetic values, and environmental education. The landowners of this land reserve the right of title, quiet enjoyment, controlment of access and recreational uses per the warranty easement fee. By a brief search of the documents recorded within the Madison County Recorder's Office, a warranty easement deed was reported as stated July 29, 1998, made by and between the Hitch Land and Paddle Company and the United States of America by and through the Commodity Credit Corporation in the amount of $282,650. The corporate warranty deed was then recorded July 29, 1998, and the amount of $500,000 contained the tract being proposed for division along with additional land from the Hitch Land and Cattle Company, which was an Oklahoma corporation, to Mallard Flats, L.C. Over the years, there have been a number of transfers that have been made internally by Mallard Flats LLC, Mallard Flats LLC, and Mallard Flats II LLC, all of which were of no consideration and stated just internal movement between partners. In February of 2021, Buckhaven LLC purchased this tract of land and the track of land that is now known as Buckhaven stage, which is the nine-lot subdivision to the northeast of this track from Mallard Flats LLC for $775,000. All But approximately 14 acres in the northeast corner of this tract lies within a 100-year flood zone defined by FEMA. Staff has determined the CSR2 rating of this tract to be 40.47. The plot is not within two miles of any incorporated city and therefore is not subject to extraterritorial review. The Engineer's Office has reviewed the proposal and proposed plan and has stated the following. Proposal Outlaws 1, 2, and 3 are situated within a low-lying area that is subject to reoccurring flooding and the accumulation of standing water. As a result, the establishment and continued maintenance of reliable access from both 155th Street and Cumming Road present substantial and ongoing challenges. Given that documented difficulty in maintaining roadway infrastructure within the flood-prone area, it has been determined that no new driveways or field entrances shall be permitted to serve the outlots from either Cumming Road or 155th. So they'll have to come in through their private subdivision to access this. Staff findings, with the perpetual conservation easement in place on the entire track being proposed for division and the inability for any landowner to do anything to modify, disturb, or disrupt the land within the track because of the perpetual easement, staff sees no reason to deny the subdivision request. Is staff's opinion that this request aligns with the zoning ordinance and subdivision rights?

i also don't believe it conflicts with our with our newly adopted comprehensive plan so staff recommends approval as proposed for this original plot so no matter how much this is sold the easement it stays with the land the easement goes with the land and not the landowners that's correct and it is a perpetual uh it was a federal easement

but ultimately this would allow them use but you know for hunting and recreational yeah i think there's not much else you could do on it it needs to stay wet

It has to.

It has to. It has to. I used to live by there, so I know. It doesn't flood anymore, does it? Does it still come all over? Yeah. Yeah.

I've driven through it. It's kind of, yeah.

Thank you very much. All right, so we're now in the public statement portion of the public hearing. If you wish to make a comment on Buckhaven or the subdivision, please come up to the microphone, state your name and where you're from. You have up to 10 minutes to speak. And once we finish with folks here in the room, we'll move to the phone. So anyone wish to speak? Okay, hearing none, we'll go ahead and move to the phone. Folks on the phone, if you wish to speak regarding Buckhaven West subdivision, please unmute your phone by hitting star six, state your name and where you're from, and you have up to 10 minutes to speak. Alright, hearing none, I'll go ahead and entertain a motion to close the public hearing for Buckhaven West subdivision at 10.13 a.m. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Aye. All opposed? motion carries okay we're going to go ahead next on the agenda is public comment um and we'll go ahead and have folks come up please if you wish to make a public comment you need to come up to the microphone state your name and the town you're from and you have up to three minutes

Marisa Schneider, Winterset. Our state auditor, Sam, finally released the findings for the 23-24 audits of Madison County, months past due. These audits cost the taxpayers thousands of dollars to complete, yet Sam's office was only able to provide a qualified audit. The state auditor was unable to identify what Madison County is doing incorrectly to keep our books balanced. It's apparently too complicated or convoluted for them to determine where we have problems. This causes me concern. Either the state auditor is using this as a political maneuver or Madison County's fiscal problems are beyond the state's ability to determine. Where have we gone wrong and how can we fix this? An independent forensic audit from the outside entity with no political agenda is the only way our county will be able to identify and address our fiscal failings. It's obvious auditor Sand and the state office were unable to help with their recently published audit in Madison County. Their qualified report does nothing to address the issues. We need facts, not qualified reports from the auditor who is two years late. Let's address the issue head on and request a forensic audit and find out exactly where our county has failed and get guidance on how to fix it and make our county better. It's what the taxpayers want and deserve. Thank you.

Alright, anyone else wish to comment, please come up and state your name and wear your phone and you have up to three minutes.

I want to thank you board for lowering our taxes again. We never get over that. It's very important. And I would like to strongly also support the RFP for full forensic audits. The timeline surrounding the fiscal year 23 and 24 audits raises significant concerns that deserve an independent and comprehensive review. According to information presented by the board, the fiscal year 23 audit will be signed by former board chair, former auditor, and former treasurer. on December 17, 2024, yet the audit was not released for another 18 months. We are now learning that a critical signature page allegedly went missing and was not located until November 2025. Both county officials and the public repeatedly sought answers about the delays. Throughout that time, the board was reportedly never informed of the missing document. These delays matter when audit findings are not issued in a timely manner, corrective actions cannot be implemented promptly, and findings are allowed to carry forward year after year. I need to know why these audits weren't reportedly ready for completion. Why were they delayed so long after county was told the state auditor's office had everything it needed to finish the work? And after final notices, invoices had been submitted for payment. We must have an incompetent state auditor, so why would we continue to use them? He cannot perform the duties of his office. This is equally concerning our questions regarding fiscal 24 findings that reportedly reference fiscal year 25 matters and issues unrelated to county finances. Whether those finances are appropriate or not, the public deserves confidence that audit reports are focused on statutory responsibilities and objective financial oversight. So let us obtain a full forensic audit that will focus on statutory responsibility and objective financial oversight. A forensic audit is not about politics or assigning blame. It's about transparency, accountability, and restoring public trust. An independent forensic review can determine what happened, identify any weaknesses, and internal controls. Verify the accuracy of financial reporting and provide citizens with confidence that county finances are being managed properly. Let's set things straight going forward. Let's eliminate waste and correct our processes. The mainstream media has largely focused on the audit findings themselves, but paid little attention to the extraordinary delays, the missing signature page, the lack of communication, and the unanswered questions surrounding the audit process. Those issues alone justify a close-up look. I encourage the Lord to move forward with forensic audit RFP and ensure the review is conducted by an independent court. Thank you. Thank you very much for your time.

Let's not waste our taxpayer money anymore. All right, who would like to speak next? Please come up, state your name and where you're from, and you can read it.

The year was 1995. It was a better time, really. People agreed on more stuff. It's probably the last time this board agreed on anything three to zero. Alanis Morissette, a former Canadian child actress, was tearing up. The radio is, was our hit single, Ironic, which is, it all ties back. It's kind of funny, the one thing you guys have agreed on, that I've ever seen, besides just, nobody takes it long, was you agreed that we need a more detailed bill from the state auditor, because dang it, this bill isn't detailed enough, and we will not pay that bill until we get a detailed bill. Why that's important is that someone's been asking for detailed bills from your private outside attorney, But that's just a bridge too far. It's a little bit ironic, don't you think?

Isaac Kestner, Earlham. Question for the board. If you can use a bridge loan to build an ambulance building, can you use an ambulance loan to build a bridge? I'm just curious. Not to add any more confusion. I did want to speak about the audit as well. I appreciate every single person that works for this county, department heads, elected officials, employees. It sounds like, from looking at it, I've read the auditing poll, but there's years of not being able to balance the books. When those small things happen, it snowballs, it's understandable, these are mistakes. Any accusations that anybody did anything on port, I don't think there's any founding to that. It could be true, but I don't think there's any reason to believe that. There is one common theme, though. For years and years, we've had multiple different auditors, multiple different treasurers from different sides of the factions that we know exist, there's one common theme, and that's the state auditor's office. They haven't caught or helped us with any of this stuff. And I don't know the difference between a forensic audit and a typical audit. I'm not sophisticated enough in that area to know. But I can tell you that if any private contractor would have conducted themselves the way the state auditor has conducted themselves in reviewing this county, um for the last many years they would be deemed irresponsible to bid on any upcoming project and i know that as somebody who deals in government contracts and i begged the board of supervisors i'm not going to give an opinion on forensic audit i don't know enough but when this goes back out to rfp it is obvious to me that this Rob Sands office has been irresponsible and should be deemed irresponsible and their bids should not be accepted. Rob Sands office has used school districts and local municipalities as political tools. The story broke with Iowa City Schools just, I think, recently that they're $10 million unaccounted for. And Governor Reynolds said it well, and I'm paraphrasing, I don't want to misquote her. But pursuant to Iowa City Schools, she said Iowa City Schools didn't get an auditor, they got a candidate. And I think it would be really irresponsible for this county to continue down the path it has been with the state auditor's office. They're the common thread. They have politicized so much of what they've done. And I don't want to see this county get drugged down into statewide politics and be used as a political football. Thank you for your time.

Kylie Barber, I'm grumpy today. So you're not going to see the positive part of me. Michelle noticed that right off the bat. I did. I just want to say, when you guys are talking to state auditors, all you people out there, all of us, all of our county members, whatever, have any of you ever come and talked to the treasurer? Have any of you ever come and talked to the auditor? Do you know anything? Do you know how it works?

Is that a rhetorical question?

I mean, sometimes, sometimes, sometimes I just get a little tired of it.

Kylie, I apologize for the interruption.

It's fine. You have a floor. I'm talking. You have a floor. I'm talking. I'm just, sometimes I feel like people know what goes on and people don't. And I mean that in the most respectful way when I say that. I really, truly do. I mean, but you don't. You don't know how long it takes. You don't know the work behind it. You don't know the stories, everything behind it. You don't. And not, no, nobody has come into my office and asked me anything. I don't know if anyone's come to your office. You know, here's the thing is I just want to ask, like, again, you know, Randy, myself, the auditor, elected heads for some reason were hated this year because we get the 0% raise. I mean, we get negative. You guys realize that? I get negative because of insurance. I'm doing more work in sorting out this mess than I can explain to you what the auditors, what they mean by that. If you come to my office, I'll explain it. But I get negative But because I love Madison County, I'm gonna do it. Because I truly love this county. But I'm tired of people assuming things. I'm tired of people thinking that they know things when they don't. So come in and ask. Talk to the right people. Stop looking at all the media. Stop looking at Facebook, rants and raves. Actually go to the people that might actually know something.

please come up, state your name, and you have three minutes.

Otherwise, we will move to the phone. Okay, we'll go with that.

Is he going to put music on?

It's too loud.

Nicholas Scarr, Earlham, Iowa. Diane, I have a reason to believe you have recorded closed session meetings, including client attorney privilege information. Is that true? Who have you shared them with? Was it the auditor's office that asked you to do this? Was it the county attorney's office that asked you to do this? Michelle, if you were up here, I'd ask you the same question. You also knew there was a recorder and had it recorded. Never mind. I don't need any of your responses.

Take a picture, Steve. That's violating my rights. Do you want to claim it on me? I'll do the same thing. And I'm a liar. And I filed a complaint. Oh, my. And I'm the liar. Oh, my gosh. This is about you, isn't it?

You're the one that filed it.

Yes, you're kind of a liar. Well, you're in good company in there, then. Well, I'm just going to be there now.

So I have to come back in a minute. They kicked you off?

Out? No, I said I need to recuse myself because it's about him. I don't want to sit in there listening to a liar on you. You shouldn't. They're going to vote for you. I haven't talked to you about it. What are they going to do? They're not going to be on the streets. They're not going to be so they don't have to. I'm just watching probably the wrong thing because you're going to get it. See, you have been here many times.

Being born and raised in Madison County, the eye-opening I received in the last three weeks, I am appalled for the lack of concern, blatant disregard to process, decorum, and broken laws. Who is really responsible for the problems behind the scenes in Madison County?

I'm sure we're at two minutes and 43 seconds. Okay, go ahead. Time's up, time's up. No, no, it started when he started speaking.

And he's got time.

Please, please, please, Nick, Nick, as the chair you need. How many more seconds do you have? I don't know, we just took about 20 there, just jacking around. Okay. Go ahead.

And before anyone says I was not part of this conversation, I was invited to the break room by our very own Michelle Auditor. I was part of the conversation. I will not continue to be threatened, intimidated, retaliated against, or be silenced. Diane, do you always donate and endorse your words to who you call an idiot for public office? Thank you.

All right. Oh, yeah.

Oh, yeah. We're going to talk about that.

Joel Welch of Winterset, Iowa.

Never ceases to amaze me the number of morons in this world.

You need to address the board.

Yes, I am addressing the board. That's part of the morons. Rob Sand wouldn't even be having to do anything if the public officials in this county had been doing their job honestly and effectively for the last five years. And this board is supposed to oversight those people. This was a problem inflicted by individuals working for this county who are unethical and didn't give a rat's crap about the citizens. This problem started with county officials and lack of oversight if we'd done if they had done their job that we were supposed to we wouldn't be the laughing stock in the state of iowa otherwise we'll go ahead and move to the following

OK. All right, folks on the phone, it's now your turn. Hit star 6 to unmute your phone. Please state your name and where you're from. And you have three minutes. Thank you. Go ahead. Again, if you wish to speak, hit star 6. Otherwise, we'll move on. All right, we'll go ahead and move on. Presentation, Executive Director Ryan Marquardt. Ryan, are you here? No problem.

There you go. There you go.

Want the record? Of course.

Ryan Marquardt, Madison County Development Group. So we'll just gun down that list real quick in front of you. So we have a team, we work with the strategic plan with the University of Northern Iowa for the Madison County Development Group. So that has, you know, that's the strategic plan set out in a different set of goals, including scaling up our site recruitment work in the county and documentation of those sites, including looking at the organization itself. building the organization up to increase our impact and to also increase our funding system that will be in the long run. We continue to work with seven businesses in the county, although we have seen where high commercial construction costs have generally been detrimental to those projects. Some of those projects have been shelved at delay because of high commercial construction costs. So we continue to remain in touch with those businesses, but at least two of those have scaled back for the time being or are shelved. We have had good conversations with the developer on a potential RFP that we submitted for the potential early industrial site, so we continue to follow up on that project. We've also had some early conversations with a project in the Patterson area, so we continue to monitor that situation. We have been working with the City of Winterset to figure out how to deal with legislative changes. Local governments are essentially fixed at 2% budget growth for the foreseeable future outside of new development, but the way the legislature wrote the legislation, a statement, TIF properties are not, they just fall on the wrong side of that 2%. They don't count as new evaluation, essentially, when they roll off, so that creates a situation where those are no longer attractive tools, especially like housing or anything like that. So TIF is not an attractive tool? It is... at least for now, and I would expect that the legislature will likely change that because it essentially makes us as a state rarely, rather uncompetitive compared to our neighbors, the fact that it disincentivizes its use. It actually, in a lot of ways, it could hurt the county The way they changed TIF, West Des Moines doesn't see as much of an incentive to let those, typically, the data centers up in the northern part of the county are in West Des Moines TIF districts. Typically, West Des Moines would let those TIFs roll off as soon as an obligated debt was dealt with. There's less incentive to do that now because those TIFs are better than anything you can build now, and they actually get penalized when it goes off. they will probably keep those for the full duration. There's really no incentive. Not unless the legislature changes the rules.

So break the tip out.

You would probably drag it out.

So probably 20 years, we're not going to see any tax.

You will not, probably, unless the legislature changes things, goes back and amends some of that so that you can actually count that valuation as it rolls out, you know, as the abatement subsides. You should count that valuation against your, you know, on the side of the new side of the 2%, not the existing side of the 2%.

Can you clarify that there's some perpetual TIF districts too? Yes.

So perpetual TIF districts have no terminations rated. They all predate 1990-something. There's a date in there. As of the end of the year, you will only be able to borrow 60% of them. There was a cap. The cap was basically you could borrow just the full valuation in it. That drops to 60% at the end of the year. So the United Kingdom borrowed against a perpetual deficit will go down.

Do you think there's still a movement to eventually eliminate TIF?

I think TIP is still a very useful tool. Really, the problem, I think, is just the oversight that the legislature has. And some people have given it a bad name, and it can be used for things that are probably, some people might consider a little sketchy. But typically, if it's used to pay for infrastructure, public infrastructure, that's ideally what it should be used for. But really, the challenge there is that the fact that when that valuation falls out of the TIP district, it counts as an existing is new valuation because of it. So that's my thing. So we're looking at with LMI dollars, with modern income dollars, so how can we get into the housing space and put the city in the mindset. So there's some early discussions there. Some of that's from earlier development agreements. But can we, because if we put LMI into a project for housing, let's say, then that doesn't get hit by any of this abatement or TIF stuff. So that valuation counts as new valuation. so we're looking at how to live in this space that the legislature has set for us so we are continuing to work with our rlf we have uh we have our active loans we had a couple that we're looking at as prospective revolving loan from the rlf sorry uh as prospective loans uh Most of those have fallen away because of construction costs on the commercial side, although we have one larger one in Earlham that we're continuing to pursue, and I think that will probably go ahead. So we're in conversations to pull that together and have the business do a significant expansion project there. Other than that, really good foundation. Grant season is behind me, thank goodness. And mostly we're doing some cleanup work on the grant side of things. You guys have any questions? Awesome.

Appreciate it. Turn that air up.

The air up?

No, make the temperature up.

The temperature up. It's too cold.

We thought it would be warmer because of all the clothes, but it's still kind of cold.

I will make some adjustments.

Can you raise that microphone so you don't have to stoop over? Oh, you can probably do it. Just for future reference, I hate to have you having to stoop over.

There we go. That's max height, though.

Oh, okay.

That's so much for you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ryan.

No problem.

all right so we'll go ahead and move into resolutions so um we talked about the ems wages i know there just says longevity but it's optional the wage as well for fiscal 27. so it sounds like to me the board was okay moving forward with these and then if brady comes back and says hey we need to do some some adjustments we'll make corrections okay okay so um I if there's no opposition, I would entertain a motion to maybe approve all those resolutions in one.

Yeah, just do the EMF is one group a through F. Yeah, the board opposed to make a motion to approve a through F pending.

All the numbers are correct. We're ready to get back.

Second, second, any further discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed, motion carries. The next one is the Sheriff's Office, wage and longevity. So, Michelle, were you going to just give us an updated resolution to sign, or how do you want to handle that? Talk about handwriting the correctness.

I'll grab it. Okay. Okay. So I'll move to approve SO-062326A with the adjustments and the corrections.

Do I have a second? I'll second. And the adjustments and corrections were the sheriff was shorted 60 cents and that adjusted, that would readjust the chief deputy who increased his, well, again, just a few cents. And then, but the other thing too is that the sheriff's clerk the amount was under, so we're gonna correct that as well. So. And thank you for getting that all sorted. So we wanna make sure things are accurate, because that's how things snowball and whatnot. So if any further discussion, I'll go ahead and all in favor, please vote aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. All right, the next one is approving the fiscal 27 budget appropriations. This was something that where even though we approved the budget, I'm also required to do a resolution to approve the actual appropriations for each of the departments. So this is just a formality that the state auditor pointed out that we haven't been doing for a while, I guess. But anyway, so we're gonna start that going forward, doing it right. So do I have a motion to approve? Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Okay, the next one is the elected officials salaries. That one is corrected, so we'll be signing that. That has the share of adjustment on there. 60 cents. Yeah. Do I have a motion to approve? So moved. Do I have a second? Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Okay, the next one is our union and non-union wage agreement. A great wage adjustment. This is for the increases for the union. scale and also for non-union the only question that i had on here other than you know the we mentioned earlier is how what the board wants to do regarding the elections deputy if we keep her as elections deputy she'll be capped at the 75 percent per our attorney dollars advice unless the board wants to go against that advice or we can move her create a first deputy elections which we have power to do and move her to the 80% so so it would be first deputy of elections and not it would be first deputy elections deputy she will not be the first deputy auditor i have one of those right

So, but it would be first deputy of elections would be a way to make the title. Right.

Like first deputy treasurer, first deputy auto in the treasurer's office and kind of similar to that.

That's where I wanted that clarification. Is that okay with you, Michelle? That if she's just first deputy of elections.

I would, I would like to, I would like her to remain as a And not a second deputy, not a first deputy, but a special full-time elections deputy without reference to a first or second and at the 3% increase. So that was my request, and that's the reason.

And that would be cheaper than a first deputy, isn't it? Yes. Not if we know, because we've got to be paid overtime.

Whereas if you are a regular deputy, there's no overtime. And my budget number included 50 hours of overtime in there for the year, because during election periods. And that was for fairness. Again, like we spoke about so many positions, you don't get an opportunity to take any time off, even if you wanted to, because there's always something new, especially since elections deputy is also working on the trustee, the township trustees. So sometimes she needs to meet with those folks after hours. It's not wasteful. I don't know if that's where we're concerned about. No, I don't think it's that. But it's a fairness to that position. It's very unique.

I don't think it's that. I agree it's unique. The concern that was shared by the attorney.

It's somehow big enough county to, yeah, if the, pardon me, I've felt, what I read from Ann is, should we ever be challenged by the unions But I think we cross that bridge when we come to it. I mean, we're clearly creating a unique position, just like we have for other departments and other offices, so.

Well, is that fair, though, to the other deputies in other offices that are under the union agreement? And that was the position that Anne had, too, is the provision of fairness, that's why it would be challenged, because it would be seen as unfair, where we have We have second deputies in the treasurer's office and then perhaps someday in the recorder's office, again, who are tied to the union agreement at the 75% cap.

And a workaround that we all discussed and agreed on was the title changes to warrant to the election deputy. So it would be a special title, a unique title, to warrant her.

And to warrant it, then you could do it. And I wouldn't say it's a horse around, it's just a fair amount. It's a unique title. Well, no, a separate job. I think we're misunderstanding you, Jess. Are you saying you want to do the 3% and avoid the cap, or you want to move her to change the title to first deputy election? I'm saying that she needs a different title to justify above the cap. That's fine. I agree. Thank you for that. Okay, so that means that changes this wave, so she doesn't get the 3%. We change the... No, she does.

Oh, so you want to give her the 3%? Okay, yeah.

And you're okay with it? Yeah.

We need to adjust the title to not be bound by that 7580.

Right. But if we change it to first deputy and then we're bumping into code, that's the problem. We're not changing it. We're not changing it. She's just going to have a unique position for her.

Okay. Or title. Thank you. Title. Okay. Yes. Okay. All right. I think that would suffice. Okay. It should be, hopefully, at the risk of Go ahead.

I'm sorry. So how would you change the title? Because right now it's Elections Deputy.

That's exactly right. So it would not change. Elections Deputy exists in its own universe right now. It's not a second deputy. It's not a first deputy. Therefore... I mean, there's no really any reason to do anything right now other than just... Because it's not a union position.

It's not a union position. It's a very unique, its own position.

So the only hesitancy I have is the advice we got from the attorney.

That's my hesitancy. And I've read it, and it was not a demonstrant against it at all. It's not.

It was advice to align with it, though. Should I read it? Sure.

Okay.

Okay. I'm going to find your email.

Unless you have it handy.

I'm looking for it.

Okay. But I think I hear a decision.

Are you trying to talk anybody out of that decision? Well, I just want to make sure that I'm just testing.

I know what email you're referring to, I believe. And she said there is a risk. The union can have a problem with it.

And if they do, they can communicate with it. So you're okay with the risk? Yes. I don't think the union will have a problem with it. Okay. We'll move forward.

Alright, so do I have a motion to approve the union and non-union wage adjustment? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. All right, the next one is approving the workman's hump and ICAP renewal. This was lower. I thought it was like $9,700 higher.

The workman's hump was actually lower.

Yes, but the other one was higher, wasn't it?

Which I think we have one more year before those costly claims that fall. I think there's one year. Is that your recollection?

Mine is two. Two years.

Does that include last year, though? It would include last year, yeah. But there was another very costly claim several years ago that's closer to dropping off than last year. That might be the one.

So this one I show, both of them together, it was negligible, $9,700 increase, which is not bad. All insurances. Yeah, it's all going up. So that's not bad. So I think once that thing falls off, anybody else just... And you did see the additional...

just want to point out the additional do you want additional cyber security for another six thousand dollars or just to leave it as it is so yeah and thank you for reminding us to bring it up um so that's a good question what do you guys think about that do we want to add that i mean technically it's not on the budget no we would actually uh do an amendment as we've got quite a few things we're going to be i've got two items in 52

So right at the gate in July, we're gonna be doing an event there?

Yeah, that, and then we received some funding, some grants for conservation. We need to recognize those. Okay. So again, it's not that we could have predicted.

Okay. So what do you guys think? This was put before us last year. We opted not to do that. Do we want to do it this year?

So cybersecurity, if somebody holds you hostage, does that pay for it?

Up to $1 million. So what we talked about last year, if you recall, it's kind of a double-edged sword. If they know we have the policy, it increases the chance of . If we don't have the policy, are we as attractive? So it's kind of like you're darned if you do and you're darned if you don't. So what do you guys think?

You want to weigh in, John?

But again, this could be a line at some place, just like Heather said, the first thing they want to know is which limits, if there's a clinic or something like that. And it's about $4,200 extra.

Oh, it would have been, I apologize, I misread that one.

Okay, that's a good news then. So 4,200 more to go up to a million.

From where, from 250,000?

Yeah.

It kind of puts a target on us, because they're going to search for people who are rich. Right.

And I know, Diane, you like staying under the radar.

So I don't think you should put a bullet sign in your bank account.

Has anybody spoken to Solutions about this and their thoughts about it? Well, their system, well there's stuff on their system and there's stuff on our system. So the ransomware would actually be on our servers. So probably the data would probably still be okay because it's backed up with them, but it would still, again, it all depends on the sophistication of the person that's doing it.

So they wouldn't be able to, a hacker wouldn't be able to get into the solution side. They might, hackers can get in. Well, I know, but there's two layers there. So even if we had a cyber attack, It should, by rights, be backed up by Solutions. Potentially. Unless we're both hit. It all depends on how experienced the black hat is. Which they could very well target both entities knowing.

Because accessing, now Solution is a very robust cyber security with them right now because they do so many counties. But to Diane's point, I don't want to target on our back either.

Could you go back to something obsolete and back everything up on a CD and put it in a bank like they used to? Can you do that? And they couldn't. I don't think they could do that. Massive amount. You'd need like a, like what, an external hard drive or something with an enormous amount of storage.

Because you can't pack into, like, analog. I mean, some of that. We'd have to do it daily, and right now, I don't think that, I mean, everyone's moving to the cloud, so.

I know. There's security in obsolescence, but unfortunately that, I think that should be clear.

So what do you guys think? I'm going to say no. That's not safe. And not make ourselves a target? Is that what you guys are going to do? They're going to target bigger fish for more money. If they know they're only going to get a quarter million out of us, they might choose, they might keep moving. I can regret those words, I don't know, but that was what I thought through last year. Bad guys are gonna be bad guys no matter what you do. So just move forward on this.

So we have the board and all three of us in agreement, which has happened many, many times since I took office, just to make clear.

We just saw the decline then on this. Just the decline on that, and then we'll move forward on the rest. I mean, it's a gamble, but... So is the other direction too, so. Okay, so I will make the motion to move forward, but without the... No extra cyber security.

Okay, do I have a second? Second. All in favor, please vote aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Okay, that brings us to the elderly services, roofing replacement, and then the furnace replacement. Jess, did you want to speak to these? Sure.

So let's go back to, I know we need to talk about We've got the mitigation covered through the fund transfers. Thanks for working through that information, Michelle, on where we're at and what we can move. So we've got the mitigation covered. We've got the retest from Alliance. We do not need, they don't need a signature. They'll just take an email. It's very minimal. It's $881, I think, something like that. So if I'm hearing correctly and I'm understanding all the financial pieces, we can approve those too today. Correct. then we're going to have to talk about what this looks like for the HVAC system replacement, the roofing replacement, as well as the restoration piece, the remodel, when it's all said and done. So those we can table for now. I am working on a scope. for the remodel. But I want to do another walkthrough to make sure I've got everything. The remodel would include adding handicap accessibility to the bathroom. But we need to figure out, obviously, what we would do for if it's a bridge loan. I think that's really our main option at this point, isn't it, for those additional funds to fill that building?

We can do a bridge loan, but we'll probably have to do that and we have to reach out to the bank. And normally, I think the last one we did involved, I forget which firm it was offhand. But Steve, do you know which firm we used for the conservation? Steve Pearson, did you know which? Which attorneys we used for the conservation bridge loan? We used Aylers. Was it Aylers? Okay, okay. So we can use them and then we get a bridge loan for these things. That'll take some time, but you're working on?

I'm working on it. So the question would be what order of operation we're going to do here. So if I have, I know we talked earlier about, I think you mentioned meeting on the 30th. So we need to set that for next Tuesday, and then I can have the scope defined, put together, we can issue, we can get quotes, and we discussed previously, and I want to make sure the board is okay with contacting our local providers, people we've already done business with, to get bids on the restoration piece.

So you want to table everything except the mold mitigation until you get things more in place? Is that what you're saying? Well, mitigation and the retesting. Right. Well, the mitigation's already passed. We've already approved that. We've already approved that. So it's just the retesting. This would be the retesting. Okay. And that was fine.

The only other thing was what was requested from the responders from the walkthrough is they're like, hey, what happens if we get in, we start tearing stuff out, we find some additional needs? that's why i have this resolution in here for approval up to five thousand dollars if they find further issues so we don't slow down the mitigation waiting for two weeks for a board meeting to get approval so that expense increase that would allow you to say yes would be just for this moment for this just for the mitigation i'm for the i'm okay with um That's going to put us over this $16,000 threshold for funds that have already been moved and where we're at now. okay i'm sorry can you say that one more time so what we're talking about is right yeah we were talking about we have 13 and then 800 more spb 062326g approving jay hobbs authorization to approve uh expense increase that's specific to the mitigation sure per the request of the vendors but um so so that would put us over

But more broad, remember, we're only concerned about the department's total. I know you guys are focused on the 441, which is the building repairs and maintenance, even if we do have room, if you were to go over that $5,000. But I bet you that bill won't come in until after the fiscal year.

Really good point. It certainly wouldn't.

And we have $30,000 built into fiscal year 2020.

So that will be covered there, and then we can true this up.

Even the HDAC, because that was my concern about you causing on that, because, and then I just wanted, when we get there, I did have one observation on the quotes when we get there.

So let's true this up then. So then today we could approve, we've already approved the mitigation and awarded that to Rainbow. We could approve the alliance retest. The $5,000 additional authorization, if needed, only if needed. And then the HVAC, we should be covered then.

Fiscal year 27. And that's because you got $30,000 after the reset of the year.

Why don't we wait on the HVAC until we... We need to do it at the same time.

And so the mitigation company, when they're cleaning all the duct work and such, it makes sense to coordinate those efforts to pull that furnace out. The mitigation company doesn't need to clean the existing furnace if we're replacing it.

And that bill won't come in to your point until fiscal 27 so that we don't have to...

Chances are that maybe the work won't even be done until fiscal year 27 so I don't have to accrue it. It likely will.

Yeah, yeah.

What else is there for you to follow? Yeah, and so I could just request they don't start until next week.

You could.

I mean, it definitely won't hit us, you know, the invoices won't hit until then. And then in the meantime, then we would work on the bridge loan for the remodel, putting it back together, and the roof, right? For the roof to, yeah.

So today we're going to exceed. Anything we have set up for that building. Okay.

So that would be it. And so we have the hard numbers for the roof. Yeah, 4780. We could make a decision on that today, but knowing that we're going to pause.

We could write in there pending financing before proceeding.

i don't want to do that let's wait so you don't want to just wait and bring it in yeah well i mean we could put it move it to tuesday the 30th if we're going to need that we would maybe have original information by then well one of the things the bank asked for is the amount yeah so So then the problem is the remodel piece of it and getting those numbers. I can see how quickly we can get them back. If I can have the scope defined and you ladies are okay with it Tuesday, I think we can turn it around pretty quickly.

Okay, because then we can, once we have a number, we can go to the bank and then I can talk to Allers about the bridge loan and start that process because what's going on with the mediation, that's going to take a while for that to get done. And then we're getting any quotes for the remodel. So I think all these piece parts going along at the same time, I think we can kind of time it correctly.

I think the litigation, I think, will move pretty quickly. So I'll move on getting that scope defined for the remodel so we are ready on Tuesday.

So you're going to make, we're making a motion to table the roofing Harness.

No, the furnace we're going to go today.

Well, I thought you wanted to wait until 30.

No, because we want to make sure that we're doing that in sync with the rest of the mitigation. Because there's some overlap there with cleaning the ductwork.

And then we want to make sure it gets started at the same time. Yeah.

So today we would be approving SPBO 62326 F, G, and H. F, G, and H. And we're tabling E.

Yes.

Okay. Did we cover what you were going to talk about?

No, I was just noticing on the second bid, I don't see any, I don't see replacement only, so I just didn't see where they called out ductwork. That was all. Okay, just notes. Yeah. As I was comparing, I'm like, uh. So I just wanted to make sure. That was on the Jensen quote? That was on Jensen's quote. Oh. I mean, it's

and could be but i and really there i don't think that was the most the business going to be in my opinion anyway that's not what i'm going to recommend based on the bins anyway so thank you

Regarding the roofing, some of the, one of the, I can't remember which bidder it was, but I had a hard time figuring out what the total was because they had two separate sections. So I didn't know if they were bidding two different things.

I don't know why, but if they split, from my interpretation, we can confirm with Jeff who engaged with those firms, but if they split up in what they're calling the old ambulance garage versus elderly services, there's I don't know why they treated them differently.

So I think what we need to do for clarification on that is to make sure that the amounts we have are correct. So we're comparing apples to apples. So would you be willing to go back to Chip?

We're going to table it anyway. We're going to table it. Did you get one in the spreadsheet?

Which one? I've got a lady in the house.

I know, right? It was actually kind of like what was in here today. It broke down on the font tag.

And these were the totals. The totals, yeah. I mean, you guys, I saw it had that. It's the total for the building. Yeah, for the building. It doesn't make any sense.

But I don't know what my question is for you from the budgeting perspective. i mean elderly services does need to be treated differently or excuse me accounted for separately right because there's a separate budget wouldn't everything be on theirs no um just the operations within the budget i don't have a building in grounds budget for the elderly services it's not split out currently because we own the whole building okay okay so we can keep so we just need to add the two they have to split them on everything close to cover the whole so if you can get a copy and all comprehensive total for each of them for tuesday on the 30th so we can discuss that let me know if you want me to resend it yeah i i can find that i'll i'll make a note michelle that you would

Did you send that to the board? I did. Okay.

Yeah, so I can combine that, and then I have a little summary of evaluation of the quotes that I can send to you all. My notes, my summary, evaluating the quotes.

I took it out, but it was here.

And I also have that on the HVAC side, but the HVAC one, in my opinion, was pretty darn straightforward. We really don't need that one. So the roofing, I'll work on that. And then the scope will be the big one.

So we have an amount for when to go to the banquet.

And we'll target the 30th. What I ask for is if there's any mercy from you, Michelle, on that 4 o'clock deadline on Thursday. I don't know if I can have it all to you by then. So I have a little bit of wiggle room.

All we're really doing...

is we're building this the what we need what we need we know we need to have so and it shouldn't be as complex because it's an off off week meeting if we're doing this so there's a plan to meet at 9 30 with the regular time on the 30th you okay with that okay yeah june 30th

It's 9.30, okay, guys? It's a Tuesday, isn't it?

It's okay with me. We're just waiting to make sure it's okay with Diane.

And then who was going to follow up on the bridge loan piece of that?

Well, I kind of have, it's kind of in a holding pattern until I have an amount. Yeah. And then, because I've already talked to the bank and how that would work. And so then I have to go to hours and start that process once I have an amount. So you have to do that after Tuesday. Okay. Okay. And Michelle, there's, just to confirm, there's no Are those funds that you showed us, those are the only ones that we can do inter-fund loans between? No, but we don't have balances on any of them.

Oh, that's right.

I'm not criticizing, I'm just saying I wouldn't be comfortable saying, oh, yeah, we have it here.

That's for right now, and as you said... We take a fresh look after July 1 anyway. Depending on the funds.

But no, I concur with that. If we don't know what each fund has, it's kind of hard to do a loan against it. So I'll just move forward with the bridge loan. And if we are pleasantly surprised, we don't necessarily have to move forward with that. And we can do an inter-fund loan. But we'll probably know more in July. Okay, so I'll make a motion to... So we're tabling the roofing replacement.

We can't lump them together because the furnace replacement, we need to award that and select someone.

Right, so we're tabling the roofing replacement. I'll entertain a motion to table SPV 062326E. I'll entertain a motion for that. Second. Any discussion? All in favor of tabling the roofing replacement, Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Okay, the next one is approving L&D Services' first furnace replacement. Jess, did you have a recommendation?

Yeah, I recommend we award it to Accel, current contractor, most competitive, and I'm most comfortable with their bid. And we'll use Accel for everything, don't we? Yeah, so I would make a motion that we approve SBDO 62326F and award to Accel Mechanical. In the amount of? Oh, I don't have that.

$4,250. How much? $4,250.

you got that updated one they just had a copy plate paste error where it referenced courthouse or a different building it was from another quote when did that come so i think i sent an updated one to you last week let's make sure we check on the amount so well it's in the it's the amount it's in the packet all right is there a second any discussion all in favor please vote aye aye all opposed motion carries All right, the next one is approving Jessica Hobbs as authorization to approve expense increases for the mobile application up to $5,000. Do I have a motion to approve? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion?

Can't you second it?

Can I second it? Do you have to come in? I don't think it matters. You want to second it? I'll second it. Any discussion? All in favor please vote aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. All right the next one is approving Alliance Environmental to retest after the mold remediation is done. Do I have a motion to approve? So moved. Second. Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Okay, the next one is approving letting a security camera server upgrade RFQ. You guys... I'm sorry.

Excuse me. Can we just pause just so I can make sure I'm clear? So I'll be reaching out to, and I'll be coordinating with Rainbow. I'll be coordinating with Alliance for the retest, and I'll get them the information they need on that, correct? Correct. Okay, I just want to make sure. Thank you.

Okay, uh... You both have the RFQ I sent you. The only real change I made was I added dates to it. It was not included in the packet for security reasons. I also sent you the list of the channel, major channel partners provided to me by Digital Watchdog. I will not be putting this on for a public bid for the same reasons why it's not in the packet. I'll entertain a motion to approve the letting a security camera server create RFQ. So moved. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion?

Yeah, there's a typo on your email address reference. Oh. There's an extra, I think, two in county. I'm finding it here. And actually that applies to either RFP2. It must be a system default error.

Well, we'll send it out with the corrections.

I'll check. So both of them. Yeah.

Okay.

Thanks for catching that.

I would have figured it out as soon as I sent you an email.

So, okay. All right. So there's a first and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. All right, the next one is approving letting the RFP for the fiscal 25 annual audit, forensic audit, financial reconstruction, and internal control services. This is different than the other one because, one, we have the 23 and 24 audits available. It also gives the person the option to bid just the... physical 25 audit, the forensic audit for both. So they don't have to pick all three or they can pick one or the other. And the email on there, the link, they can look and pull down those. Cause I was thinking the attachment and I remember each of those audits are over a hundred pages long. So I just put the link in there. So does anybody have any questions on that? Okay. I'll entertain a motion to approve that. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion? All in favor please vote aye. Aye. All opposed? Nay. Motion carries. Okay, moving on to approving Madison County procurement policy. This one you guys had, we talked about it last meeting.

Yeah, the only change I requested was just to put kind of a cap in there.

And the cap was added. The $5,000, I think, is what we agreed to for that. And of course, the language is that those in elected offices, they don't This is a recommendation for them, but for those that report to us that underneath us, under our authority of oversight, that could apply to them.

So the other department heads can still make their decision? The elected officials, yes.

That's in there. What this is for is to make sure that everyone's on the same page of expectations for procurement, RFPs, RFQs, RFIs. So there's no misunderstanding. And also that we have something to move forward with for bids. Because I think we need to put things out to bid from often than we have been in the past to leverage savings. I'll make a motion to approve. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Aye. All opposed? So I'm going to vote nay. Motion carries. All right, the next ones are all, let's see, secondary roads. Mike, can we approve all these at once or do you need individual?

The pay adjustment may need to be separate. Oh, yes, let's just do them quickly.

The road closures together, I would recommend that you do the pay adjustment separate.

Okay, so the clean out, the replacement, the temporary closing, the culvert repair, we can do all those at once. Okay, so I'll attend to the motion for secondary roads A, B, C, D. A, B, C, D, all approved as once. Do I have a motion to approve? So moved. Motion to approve. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Next one is secondary roads 062326E, approving pay adjustment for R. Dyer. Do I have a motion to approve? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. The next one is approving the pay adjustment for R. Cunningham. Do I have a motion to approve? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. The next one is approving pay adjustment for E. Luke. Do I have a motion to approve? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. The next one is approving the Hogheaven State Subdivision. This is where we had a public hearing on this. Do I have a motion to approve? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Aye. All opposed? motion carries um the next one is the final resolution is the approving the buckhaven west subdivision that also we have public hearing on today do i have a motion to approve wait a minute which one was contingent on her side that one okay let's go back that one this one buckhaven

oh the previous one yeah we have oh i'll make a motion to approve yes uh kevin that's recent i will be sent my other time okay and i'll make a motion to approve contingent upon the city of winters that uh resolution and approval thanks for remembering thank you for remembering yeah does that need to be noted on the resolution yes yes yes it needs to be noted that it's contingent on their approval isn't that what you want right yes

Next time we miss something, Ryan, just jump right in and tell us. Just say, hey. Okay, so we have a motion and a second. Any discussion on that? Okay, all in favor of approving Hog Heaven Estates subdivision contingent on the approval of the City of Winterset, please vote aye. Aye. All opposed? motion carries okay the next one is approving the buckhaven west subdivision um do i have a motion to approve do i have a second second any discussion all in favor please vote aye aye opposed motion carries all right the next one is other business board report um i um i have a special meeting um

Pretty often at Farmer's Market, it's usually Michelle or I come into the courthouse, and we play games with children and do history, and we have kids from all over the United States, and that's done on Flag Day and Fourth of July, and it's a really fun time. I attended Currida with another special meeting. I had agent resources and opioid task force, so I attended all those meetings.

Well, as we talked about, I worked on stuff for the elderly services building and got that all identified. I'm getting close to getting all the stuff that needs to be thrown out done. I'm kind of doing it in batches so I don't fill up their dumpsters all at once. I've also attended the Declaration of Independence reading event last Friday, which was awesome. That was really a cool event. There's also, I find it ironic, really ironic, regarding this detailed bill given that our county attorney provides no data to citizens when they request open records or plus so that's ironic to me but attorney client privilege is covered and that's why there's no detail provided in there so just so you know other than that i'll continue working on on the elderly services building and get the scope defined and continue to move forward on that so we can be coordinated and efficient okay

All right, so what I did is I also attended the Declaration of Independence reading as well. That was pretty cool. And we had lots of members of the public watching, so they thought that was cool too. We had a special session that I attended. And then just to give you guys an update regarding the courthouse inspection, I've had conversations with the inspector and with ours So right now, what is being requested is that we get a bid from the inspector on what it would take to fix, correct the issues they found with the ramp. You've got your surety bond, remember? I understand, but then we need a bid for costs. So I'm just telling you what ours is. They want to get a bid for how much it would cost to check and see if there's an issue at all, if there's water standing there. So they have to do a drill, my understanding is they have to drill now. Would you share all that information with us? Oh no, when I get the bid, I'm going to send it to you.

But the correspondence, I think would be nice. Sure, good. I'll send that to you. And the architect correspondence.

Yes, OPM. So anyway, so the update with that is that that's the final thing is that they're going to look at that and then they're going to talk to it because that's what Michael's OPM asked.

A bit from the inspector or from... To get an idea of what the cost would be to look at that ramp. It's going to take more than what's already been done in the inspection. That was kind of a high-level inspection.

We need to know how much it would cost to look at it and see if one of the concerns that the inspector had is actually going on.

So you have an H-year surety bond on there for now. Not on the concrete of the lawn.

This is the walls. So that's different. I'm not sure it's not concrete. But even so, we still need to know what's going on. I get that. I'm just saying, that eight years is huge ass. I'm not following what... Yeah, because if there's damage, then that surgery bond would cover it. But we need to know if there's damage now. I don't want to wait until it's falling apart.

I think you're kind of saying the same thing, aren't you?

Yeah, I don't want to wait until it's falling apart. But you don't want to wait. You want to do it so many months.

We talked about this. Because how does ailerons, do they have the benefit of breathing and possessing this sugar design? Right, yes. Because I do not want to avoid it. They actually wrote it. I know, but I don't want to avoid that by touching or penetrating. I was a board clerk and I haven't felt it. So that's my only concern is I just want to make sure that eye-to-eye conversation happens. We do not want to avoid that surety bond.

Yeah, they have all that information. Okay. But I will circle back with them and reconfirm. And reconfirm. Because there's not going to be any penetration when we have all that. This is just, I'm just updating you if we're going to get some kind of inspection bid, find out what that cost is, what it is to check and see if the concerns of the inspector is actually going on and what we need to do. If so, what we need to do is mitigate it. If it's not, then great.

But let's say there's, we don't want to fix it with four years into the charity bond. We want it to, if it's not falling apart, wait until six years.

We don't. You want to be proactive. Yes.

But I don't want to fix it until it's, don't wait. But if we know there's a problem, wouldn't you want to fix it now? No, I'd want to break it out as long as I could, I think, until the bond is, why not?

Why would you tear it up and you had four years left on the bond? Because I want it fixed. Well, I'm trying to drive it out so you don't, if it's not, it's still constructively, you can use it.

Yeah, but if it's in a situation to where the longer you wait, the damage gets worse, if we can stop the damage, then we won't need to use the security box.

We'll know more after that inspection, that detail.

Because that eight-year security box is...

Yeah, but that surety bond also has a limit on amount. So we can potentially use a surety bond to do the fix now. I don't care.

I think we're all in agreement. We need to check it out. We need to continue to pursue, get further data and further clarification and then we can talk about timelines and in order of operations later as we get more data. Is that fair?

Yes, that's just where we're at right now. I wanted to update you guys on where we're at right now. It took a while for OPN and White Holes to get together and talk about stuff. So that's where we're at right now. So it looks like we're moving along. The ramp is the, obviously there are other issues that the inspection brought up, but the ramp has been my main thing because that's the most expensive part of the project. And the most, what it would take to fix.

What heated ramps do you have issues that would be really researched because of the heating authority and the

But I think the inspector's issues was the was the moisture penetration that they were seeing up the walls. So we're all in agreement to get paid. So anyway, so that's just your update on that. I'll know once we know more, I'll keep you guys appraised. I will forward you all the email conversations we've had on that and that's kind of it for my reports. There's nothing listed for old business or new business and 2025, we should probably change that to 2026 priorities. Sarah can do that. Ordinance review and update. Do we have any other priorities we want to add to that? Do you have any updates on the ordinances, Ryan?

Oh, we're still working on subdivisions. Subdivision ordinance.

So you're still plugging away.

Can you talk about the balance of the bill and the product that was delivered versus the product that was bid from NBC?

I haven't gotten a call back, so I'll follow up.

Thank you for the reminder. And I don't really ask this auditor, I ask this citizen.

I will follow up, so thank you for reminding that. Okay, so if there's nothing else, I'll go ahead and entertain a motion to adjourn. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor, please vote aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, everybody. Okay, Sarah, bring it on.

All right, exactly two hours. Yeah, I know, right?