Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Grace, we'll get the meeting called to order. We'll go ahead and make a motion to approve the agenda.

I'll finish.

Is it fair?

Aye.

Minutes? We have a production of minutes. Action on the start of the phase. Those in favor? Aye. Public hearing regarding the final flat for Hill subdivision. I'll move to open the public hearing. I'll second. Those in favor? Aye. Any written or verbal comments? Do you have anything, Brandon?

No. Okay. This is a two-lot subdivision down off of Highway 16 just north of Eldon. It is going to be a two-lot subdivision. One of the lots is proposed to be built on. It's going to be a new company that wants to relocate along Highway 16. It is currently zoned commercial, so it would meet the requirements for zoning. And I've had no comments from the public for or against.

And the zoning commission is recommending approval.

Chad, any comments? Motion to close public hearing. I'll second. Motion to clear. I approve resolution 36-2026 regarding a final flat for Hill subdivision. I'll move to approve. I'll second. Those in favor? Aye. Public hearing for vacation of a portion of 14th Street, sections 31 and 32, T71NR12, Washington Township. Motion to open public hearing. I'll move to open public hearing. I'll second. Those in favor? Aye. Any written or verbal comments?

The written comment this morning, um, from Tim Albert that he does not support the vacation of 14th Street.

You're not speaking into my phone.

Oh, sorry. I received a text message this morning from Tim Albert that he does not support the vacation of 14th Street.

So we are talking about that. Okay, sure. segment of road that we're looking at is currently a level C road, which is closed to the public, maintained by the owners, adjacent property owners. And level C essentially retains the ability of the county to go in without acquiring a new right of way if the new road is desired to be opened up. So at this point, it's not open to the public. And the majority property owner along the segment here had requested the closure to make that essentially permanently not open to the public. We did receive a phone call from Thomas Durflinger and had an extended conversation with him and talked through the the issues. He was aware of that and had other thoughts how he would do it, but he was understanding of the ways he did end up with the limits of the vacation that were proposed. Other than that, we did not have any feedback. We did work with some of the adjacent property owners actually quite a bit to adjust the limits of the So it's mutually beneficial.

Okay.

I know I did have one phone call to you from Derek Clark, adjacent property owner. He was just looking at his map upside down. So once we got that figured out, he was good with it. Johnny, anything? So the same property owners on each side of this section of the road, this road, just connects us to properties. This has been dated off for years. How long this has been dated off?

I don't, I, yeah, I know it's been probably about eight, nine years.

Eight or nine years.

I'm not sure what the individual that had an objection, what his concerns were. I don't,

He has property to the north of it, I think. East, west, somewhere around there. Up the niche road, right? Yeah.

Because he lives on the niche. You mentioned Tom Durfinger, too, but he lives on the end of the road.

Yeah, he lives up the niche gravel. Okay.

based on what we know about it. Generally speaking, as far as operationally, if the adjacent property owners keep the gates closed, they're padlocked and they're not available to the public for use. So there really isn't a benefit that I can think of to other property owners unless they have permission to pass through there.

My understanding that there's something to do with the cemetery out there. Can somebody explain that to me?

Hitler Cemetery.

It's in here.

Well, that's just... I don't remember when you bought the property, John. It's been five years, you know?

Long story short, I own almost half of Hitler Cemetery. I'm paying taxes on dead people buried in there, so it's...

Yeah, it was. I'm trading you the cemetery for this road vacation.

And has that been done yet?

That's part of this. Okay. So, you know, trading that acre of cemetery so he doesn't have to mow around the tombstones. It was supposed to have been done, I think, years ago and it wasn't surveyed off and it wasn't taken off of his deed.

but that's in here now. This is being completely done all in the same closet.

Well, I provided you with a draft of the survey that would be able to accomplish that parcel associated with the cemetery. It's actually a fairly complicated survey because it's somewhat remote and we had to do some work to reestablish some corners.

And the township is aware of all this taking place?

Township trustees was initiated.

Yeah, I apologize. I don't have the answer. So Steve tells us we're working on the technical aspects of the vacation and the new survey.

Yeah, so actually I started last year. The township called me out to the cemetery to check it out.

That's a lot of time.

You have a comment for me?

Just based on all that, there's no reason to postpone this, is there?

Yeah, no reason to postpone it. Thank you. No more comments? We'll motion to close it over here.

Second.

Resolution 38-2026, today's date, portion 14, street section 3132, R12, Washington Township. I'll move to approve.

I'll second.

Those in favor? Aye. Peer maintenance agreement.

I'm going to make a motion to approve.

I'll second. Those in favor? Aye. Comment back with detain for emergency. I don't know anything about that.

This contract for the evening EMR?

Yes.

So with the ACH, Advanced Correctional Healthcare coming in there, this is the contract for electronic healthcare records for the inmates within the jail. They brought this to us after approval was done with We need to have electronic health records because there's going to be so much storage if we have to store them paper-wise. So this would be paid out of commissary.

approved.

Okay. Vacation accrual discussion.

Steve, this has been taken care of. We're waiting on a promotion from Yeah.

We're waiting on a way to get it done.

It has been submitted.

Him and you didn't wrap it up. Yeah. That's the email I just read. That's going back from real time to just a demo.

Yes.

Well, no action on that. No action on that. Next up is a Samuels Group contract.

This is a contract for Samuels Group for the marketing piece. Maybe it should be after number nine, but, you know, if... a marking piece that they bring to it up to $35,000. They will assist us with the website as well as Facebook and then monitoring those things throughout the process of informing the public.

Is there any discussion on the open-ended contract or how to pay for it? You can't use tax dollars.

I guess my understanding is you can use tax dollars because we're not asking them to vote yes or no. It's an educational process. We're not asking the public to vote yes or no. We're asking them to be educated on the

This is anywhere from zero to 35,000.

It's a time and material. Sorry, Chase came in with the same as proof. It's a time and materials. Time and materials not to exceed amount of 35,000. And the one item that Don mentioned is that includes up to 12 meetings in person, whether that be held at a town hall. general public so that they can make an informed decision.

Does this include mails?

It does not.

So...

Right, the postage I know is extra.

Correct. Let me ask you this. In the letter from the attorney, it says that we have to deal with mailings. like the certain timeframe before the election, did those mailings be combined into one mailing?

Can you be, I guess, explain that a little bit for us?

It's in the attorney's comments. I don't think that we see, he didn't see the attorney's comments.

Yeah, sorry about that. I haven't seen those.

Do you remember, Brian, how long before that happened? That notification has to be sound before the vote. I don't remember it. Yeah, just a second.

Here it is. It's pretty short. In addition, the commission of elections must mail to each registered voter in accounting a notice of the election, which includes the full text of the public measure to be voted upon. This mailing must be not less than 10 or more than 20 days before the day of the election.

Yeah, so included in this proposal for the communication services, and I think I actually sent an example over to Don yesterday, but we would include like an introduction letter that would be sent out to the general public, essentially informing them that, yes, there's a vote coming up on November 3rd, I believe it is, and just outlining a little bit of what the need is and how they can stay informed. So the answer to your

You could do that, but I sent a sample to you guys yesterday. I don't know if you saw it, but in that letter, you know, that he's, it has the 12 meeting locations or whatever meeting locations there is in that letter. So you wouldn't want to send that out with this piece that you're talking about, Brian, because they, you know, it'd be past some of those meetings, you know, and, So I think that this is something that would have to be sent out. We'd send out fairly early so we can have those median locations identified so the public can come and be educated.

Yeah, we're about two or three weeks out from getting that intro letter out. I'm outlining those dates.

And now it costs another $10,000 to $15,000 postage. Then we'll have to do that again. Yeah. My biggest issue with this contract is the open-ended. It can be anywhere from $1 to $35,000. I'd rather have stuff spelled out exactly the cost and what it's doing. My opinion.

I know this is the I can tell you that, you know, what will be used for the tangibles, the resources in our time, I mean, that'll be tracked and we can get that over to you. But I don't know that that answers your question right here right now, but that's essentially the structure that we'll push forward.

Yeah, I understand that. I know you'll send it, but like Brian asked in the last meeting, if there was stuff we've seen prices on that we could take out that we didn't want to do or pay for.

And that was you asking last time. Yes, that's correct. And just, you know, my position might be in something like this. I'd like to see this not get close to $35,000. If it was in the range of $15,000 to $20,000, that's a little more comfortable. But also, I had a discussion with Don Phillips about this, and And my question to him was, can we take the money for this out of his budget, the sheriff's budget, with the idea that, and he can do whatever he wants to, if he wants to take it out of that, the income account that he has, that's fine. But my thought was that if he does that, then I understand that when we get to next June, we might have to do a budget amendment, but at least initially it comes out of his budget. So I might consider, making that as the motion. I'm just throwing that out for discussion at this point.

You know, I definitely think you guys have some valid concerns, but I think I look at this as we're looking at a large project and I think it's important to publicly educate as to why we're asking them to consider this. And I think this is a way that we can get that information out there. You know, social media is a big piece you know, the Samuels group's done this all over the Midwest, and I don't think that's anything where they're taking advantage of us in this process, I don't think. So, you know, I think that, you know, when we're asking the public to consider a $45 million project to, and they're asking us to spend $35,000 to help educate the public, I don't think that's Outrageous amount.

You know, you guys talked about not doing the mailing, but a lot of people don't use the social media or have access to internet.

Yeah. What's your subscription rate is? No, I don't. That's been a task for years is trying to figure out how to reach the public.

That's why we're attempting many different avenues and not just relying on one. But I know I don't have all the time to monitor the website, the Facebooks, the social medias, and getting that stuff out there. So I think that it's important that the county move forward with this contract to help educate the public on this.

And I know we've talked embedded in that website that allows, you know, the general public to understand what the true cost is going to be to them, to the exact penny, but also the boots on the ground. I think in this contract, we have up to 12 meetings, whether it be at town halls, like I said. The way we have this structured is structured on, you know, in a way that we've seen success in the past. if there was a certain amount that you guys felt more comfortable with. I mean, we're kind of in the final hour here in terms of the engagement. Potentially have a talk with the rest of my team regarding an amendment to this contract for that set amount that you guys are more comfortable with, but then you're changing the strategy that we've seen work and be successful in the past. So that would be my hesitation in that regard. When you say up to $35,000, do you stop when you reach $35,000, or that's all you're going to charge?

And you'll continue the work that you've laid out when you go past that?

So what we've laid out will, should get us to that point based on our historical, what we've done historically. But we'll be open line of communication with the board but we will not exceed that amount without prior written approval from the board.

So how many times have you done this?

We've been in business doing this for about 20 years. Who asked that question?

I do.

So we've done this across the state of Iowa, state of Wisconsin. We've been I mean, we have a master agreement with the state here. So we've been in all 99 counties, but specific to the communication services, we've been in five counties.

And- So how many times?

Up to a handful of times here in the state of Iowa.

And- If anybody has- What was- Would you come up to the microphone? I'm sorry. I don't know if I gave you the name, but- Yeah. K-N-A-P-P. So- Put him on there, Ken.

You've done this a handful of times. You don't know the exact amount? Here in the state of Iowa. You don't know the exact amount?

I know we've been in five counties. We just ran one of these in Webster and Page County back in, well, about, I want to say 2023, 2024.

So Webster County. That was all similar size.

Before my time.

Okay.

Correct, yeah.

But you should have the cost of what you did in each of those, correct?

Correct. And that's what this proposal is based on is those historical costs that we've done elsewhere.

So you can get a closer amount to let these guys know how much it would cost, right?

I mean, we could in theory. We've just structured in this way that we've seen a benefit in the past because it's actually more advantageous to the county to track our actual time and materials and half on the limit that the county would spend rather than um you know getting it down to say the penny that was used two or three years years ago and prices have changed labor costs have changed material costs have changed and then um you know to your point of uh you know we can't finish out our actual services that we had outlined or we have to come back to the county and structure actually protects everybody involved. That was our thought process.

Anything else, Doug?

Well, number one, I don't even know who they are.

A Samuels group. So they're like a contract manager for building the jail.

Oh, building. So you're part of that. Yes. Not just a PR.

No, no, no, no. We are a full service construction manager. We have an office in West Des Moines, Iowa. We've been in the state of Iowa for 15 years. We've been in business for about 21 to be exact. Have an office up in Wausau, Wisconsin. And we actually came down here to make an introduction to the board, I believe dating back to last July or August. So these conversations have been evolving over the past, I guess, 15, 16 months. We've been working on this study and assessment that we proposed or I guess outlined here dating back to last fall, I want to say October. So it's been a pretty comprehensive process.

Okay. I was just curious about the cost to get it closer to a number if you've done it in the past because I've been involved in many project management and you can take an idea of how much it cost before to give these guys a closer estimate than zero to $35,000.

Yeah, I can tell you.

If they've seen all the figures from the other campaigns, have they?

They have not. I can tell you we're not just throwing a dart at the bull. That $35,000, it's based on historical data that we've done in the past.

just a wide range there.

All right, that's it. Thank you.

Anybody else have a question?

I would like to make a proposed Okay. And there's some detail in this motion. So it's not just an up or down motion. It's just some conditions. So to start off with this, we'll approve it. And these are some of the conditions that we would want progress statements. And I don't want to say time frame here. We're almost probably going to say weekly of how much that money is spent from now until November 1st. we would take it out of the sheriff's budget. That'd be up to Don to decide what part of that budget. But for now, we take it out of the sheriff budget. We would want to be informed of a date when the mailing would take place so we can make the final decision on the mailing. But we wouldn't make the decision to spend that today because that actually has a price tag to us that is not part of this before the mailing has taken place, and that before you proceed, and this is sooner than later, that you give to us a more detailed estimate of the breakdown of how the $35,000, if you go up to that amount, would be spent. So that's not saying it's a contractual part of this. It's just saying an estimate of how the specific component amount assigned to those components. So we don't need to really do the motion until you can understand that and perhaps agree to it, and then we could proceed.

Yeah, we can certainly. We have a communications team or marketing team that will point on this to be fully transparent. I'll stay involved as well as Sid, but I'll reach out. Her name's Shelly. I can reach out to her and find out, um, you know, if she can give us some of this historical more, I guess you could say accurate, um, itemized maybe, maybe by website development or social media versus, you know, uh, so that you guys can have an idea of that. Um, did you, my only concern is just being in the final hour with some of this, um, and us being about two or three weeks out. So, um,

rolling in the background um that would be my only concern but i did not make that a condition okay i just was clarifying yeah yeah and if you want me to i could could put this into writing or for you because i'm proposing it being part of the motion but it's still i could give you a little more detail too whatever makes you guys feel most comfortable i mean we're here to work with you So you're saying you want a weekly progress report on what's happening in the dollar amount that's being spent each week? Yeah. It's not that it was like, what, eight weeks and we're there. So it's not that many.

Lori, would you happen to know what mailings cost?

I mean, are you guys going through a mailing company? Or are you fixing the stamps yourself? How's it work? How are you doing? Because if you go through a mailing company, you'll get like maybe three cents off the stamp price, which is what? 78 cents.

I think I've budgeted 10 to 12,000 for my assessment roll mailings this year that go out to everyone.

Yeah, that's what we were guessing, be 10 to 15. Okay.

I think on tax statements, we usually spend like six or seven miles. That's just for the postage part of it. If that's what you're asking.

Any other comment?

I don't. I do not. And I would be okay with that. part of those conditions in the food market yes okay well i'll make it formally with the understanding we're going to get congress reports deeply with the dollar amount coming out of the sheriff's budget from the dated mailing the final approving movement on the mailing list

components of it. Okay.

And when you say mailing, is that specific to the letter that you're referring to based on the comments from the attorney?

No.

No. That would be any mailing in general. That would be the mailing that you initiate. Okay. Because there's several items that we put together. For example, informational fact sheets, the introductory letters. So there may be several mailings that go out. But obviously, to your point, you guys won't find Correct.

To bind those several mailings into one mailing?

Yes, I would prefer that. Where's the cost of the mailings come from? Well, we haven't approved the mailing.

We haven't approved the mailing yet.

I guess we'll get inside that later.

The only thought I have on that aspect of it is if you're

timing might be.

Well, if we're going to charge you and you guys, the county is going to pay for us to design some of these informational assets to educate the general public, I think it would probably make sense for you guys to make a decision as to whether or not you intend to mail those out in the first place, if that makes sense. So if you have no intention to send those out in the first place, then why would we charge you to design them? That's my only thought on that.

And that's a good thought, but my responsibility content of the mailing should be the same or similar content to the website and the social media. So it shouldn't be a whole lot different. And we can get this mailing decided perhaps at our next meeting. When do you anticipate the mailing going out?

Typically that introductory letter, I don't know, did you get, were you guys able to put eyes on that, that Don sent over maybe? Okay, so typically we would get that out The wholesale would be within the next two or three weeks. And yes, you're correct. Some of the information in these mailers is similar to what's on the website. But to Carrie's point earlier, not everybody is operating on social media or the internet. So it's really about making touches through several different channels. Yeah.

Yeah.

And that just, well, I prefer limiting it to one.

We only got, like, say, eight, nine weeks. But I think that part of that is your advertising dates, locations. Correct, yeah.

Just working on the front and center in front of the public and help, you know, allow individuals to have their questions answered.

When do you anticipate the first public meeting would be done?

I don't know. Should we go back with you on that one? Are we having a one-half conversation about any of that stuff? Yeah, so we'll have a kickoff meeting if you guys get this approved. We'll have a kickoff meeting, I would think, next week with Don and his team and whoever, I guess, that individual in contact would be with the county because we will need to work with you guys to gather contact data distribution lists if and when those mailers are sent out. So, You guys will stay looped in.

I'd still say I'd prefer the deal with the mailing be handled later and that could be at our next regular supervisor's meeting.

And so I guess why not just have them draw what up to the mailing? I mean, I know there's some costs to it, but they draw up the letter and we can bring it back before you. This is what it is and what we want to send out. You guys can make a decision if you want to mail it out or not then.

Yeah, I'd like the cost of the mailing. I've already seen one amount, have a good amount. You guys seen them out. They're like all over the place. So if we can get a cost of the mailing, that would be great.

We can do that. Yeah, and just to clarify, we will be designing, the county will be essentially designing distributing, so the mail service postage. So I don't know if that would be your audit or who that contact would be that we would work with.

I guess another important question, the mailing, is that just going out to registered voters?

Or who's it going to? I guess we could probably set it up how we want to. I don't know if we want it to go to every residence in the county, I think would be typically that's the best option available, not just to registered voters.

Because the attorney's mention of the mailing is only to the registered voters. That is correct. So this could be a different list. I believe we stand in both ways.

Let's see if I can get some numbers on the mailing. Yes. I'll just ask the number of registered voters. Is that correct? How many is that and what that cost is? And we can ask about every household in Wappel County and how much that is and how many that is. And we kind of have an understanding to maybe bring back before you two weeks from now.

Correct. So my motion would be what I said with the main component being what you just repeat. Yeah, for everybody. That there'd be information reports on the progress data sites in this area. The mailing would be determined later as far as the allocation and expanse and where the money comes from for the mailing. And that could be the next regular board meeting with the supervisors and that there would be a detailed estimate to break down the components of the price that they're quoting us. And That should be easy to do and should be available for us, I think, in just a couple of days, this week or the first next week. And so that's the motion to proceed with those conditions.

I'm going to second that motion.

Mr. Fair? Aye. Resolution 3920.6 calling special election on issuance of not to exceed $45 million general obligation bonds for capital loan loans. That what's the stuff that he trying to. You're going.

I don't have a question about it.

Yes, I would. Well, I would. The resolution is on page two of the documents.

I asked, I just...

But it was interesting to put in here. There could be no public official comment. Yay or nay for it. A lot of paperwork there. So any questions for the public on this? bond going to the voters. No matter our position on the jail, the one thing we all agreed on is the public would have the right to say. All of us are put here by the public. One important aspect would be it would be a 20-year note Talking of financial, Lady at Spears maybe. Maybe $3.4 million a year payback on 19 and a half years. That's the way she described it to me is we do interest payments in December and then the principal and the dean. Motion to approve. I'll second. Those in favor? All right. Levy rates for taxes April, July 1st, 26-27. Questions on the taxable levy rates. Make a motion to approve the levy rates as provided. Request for Salary Approval of New Ohio Veterans Affairs. Can I actually get one? Yes.

I'm gonna make a motion to approve.

Yes, I can. All those in favor? Aye. I put Salary Approval of New Ohio County. That's the new clerk. I'll make a motion to approve. All those in favor? Aye. Any other business report? I know we've got a couple people who want to give a two-minute presentation. I might have an update on EMS.

Okay. Yeah, go ahead. um last wednesday the fire chief the council of the city of the tunnel was going to present to us some information and decided not to concerning the ems the ambulance service in waffle county and we went ahead and had a public meeting anyway which people were going to plan to attend since the notice came very late in the day that he canceled and so we had a public discussion it went very well We passed the deadline on doing any text on that for this deduction. So that's passed us. But what we're working on right now is kind of interesting. We've got two things going that we'd like to proceed with. And this, in part, came out of that public meeting that Ben put in our entry for us. The two things would be, just for your information, would be getting the ambulance that's at the city fire station in service as quickly as we could. And we might be coming back for some discussion on that. And then the second thing that we were feeling, and this is consistent with the EMS Advisory Board too, that we started doing some serious discussion on combining dispatch at the city and county level and included in that emergency medical dispatch. So that's just an update of what happened based on last week's activities. Thank you.

And to you there, I think the hospital bought three new ambulances.

They bought two new ambulances and one used one.

So they got two brand new, one used. That is correct. And so they really I think they're stuck with 1.5 million in that time. Yes, new vehicles. It's really helped to take the pressure off the short term.

Gentlemen.

Mr. Chairman and members of the board, thank you for giving me the chance to address you this morning. My name is Alan T. Sager. I am a member in good standing of the bars at Illinois and Missouri, although inactive. This I point out not because I am providing legal advice, but only to establish my qualification to do legal research. My interest in traffic regulation dates back over 40 years. Although my background is in the law, I am familiar with the field of traffic engineering. I am here to address your passage of resolution 33-2026. This resolution was intended to keep the 55 mile per hour speed limit. I contend it is not enforceable. First, I will code section 321.2854, your authority to engage in speed zoning, which you cite for its justification, does not include the authority to set a countywide speed limit. Even if I am mistaken about this, the section requires the determination to be made after the receipt of a traffic engineering study and not before. Vague assertions regarding design and sign placement do not fulfill this requirement. My written submission addresses both contentions in detail. I respectfully ask you to repeal Resolution 33-2026, and recognized a speed limit increase five miles per hour, July 1, 2026. Please know years of traffic engineering research has found the resulting increase in how fast people will actually drive will be a fraction of this number. The most comprehensive study found an increase of 0.03 miles per hour. Your concerns seem overblown in light of this fact. You are not required to post the new speed limit. Just take down or cover up the existing signs. Meanwhile, it is entirely reasonable for your engineer to conduct studies. Thank you again for your time and consideration. Any questions?

I did give you a copy that you gave me to the engineer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Wow, I turned it on. My name is Christian Schrock. I live at 225 West Keota. I just want to give you a little timeline here. On April 14th, I submitted a site plan for my new house online. Sometime prior to that, I don't know exactly the date, I submitted an application for a driveway entrance permit in person at the secondary roads office and got a flag to mark where I wanted the driveway. A few days later, a representative from the county, I believe his name was Mark, called me and told me that he had done a site visit and since the driveway was not touching the county road, I would not need a driveway permit and that the county didn't have any interest in where I cut my fence on my property. Fast forward to July 30th. I showed Jeff Heyman the final plans for the house in the office and then submitted them online that same day. He called the next day and said there was a glitch in the system and I need to upload the documents again, which I did. Just an aside, Jeff's been great to work with all along the way during this process. But He mentioned on that phone call that Miranda had stated that I needed to get an easement from my neighbor for my driveway. I was kind of surprised at that because I had already been told that the county didn't have any interest in the driveway because it was beyond the end of the county road. I did contact my neighbor, however, and they were not excited about the idea of doing an easement. On August 4th, I called Miranda and let her know that information, and then I had a couple other ideas of how to make the situation work. The engineer happened to be there as well, and in the course of the conversation, he told me that an easement might be what I wanted, but it wasn't what the county wanted, which was very odd because it was the county that told me to get an easement. He did agree to come look at the property with me that afternoon. I met with him at the property, and he came up with a plan to extend the road 100 feet, and then I could apply for a driveway permit. He told me to give Miranda a copy of my survey or legal description of the property to get the ball rolling for that extension. I took that copy to the office the next day. I just called Miranda yesterday, and so understand that I took the copy on August 5th. I called Miranda yesterday, and she had no knowledge of what the engineer had even decided, and she was initially unaware that I had even brought the document into the office, so she quickly found it. According to Google, it takes three to 10 business days to get a building permit in Iowa. My unneeded driveway permit has now delayed my building permit for over three weeks. And I can't get a timeline of when I can get the driveway permit to get the building permit. And I need to get started on it so we can get it in before or the foundation in before freeze happens. I've only received excuses as to why I was told that I didn't need one months ago and suddenly now need one. I just want my building permit so I can start my house. But I'd really like to see, like, it just feels like there's no accountability. It's just a lot of finger pointing. And I just, you know, we've had four months at least to be working on a driveway permit

It's just not happening.

We got any more questions?

There's a lot more detail.

Morten, happy to meet with him today. As he mentioned, I did visit the site and met with himself and the adjacent owner to look at the situation. three weeks ago, approximately. Three weeks ago today. And the reason that there was an issue with the driveway as he'd been using it was it went off the end of a dedicated public road through the neighboring property and then around to his building site and his ownership. And As long as the neighbor was willing to allow that through an easement, so it was documented, we as the secondary roads did not have an issue with it. The neighbor, once they learned that there would be an official easement, had some concerns. I'm not sure what they were. After learning of that, we were able to fairly quickly arrange a meeting so I could go out on site with the property owners. As we look at it, we came up with a specific approach to the problem, which was an extension of the road 100 foot, which got us to the high point in the road, which would eliminate a driveway pipe. Because otherwise the geometry of the property was such that a driveway would be either expensive or difficult for them to develop the property the way they wanted to. So it was extending the road right away, 100 feet, just simplified everything. More than happy to do that. It's been communicated within our department that that's what we're able to do, but we needed a copy of their deed, I believe, so we could use that to extend the right-of-way, and I think we have a draft of that internally. Since we're It hasn't been that long since we initiated the process for that particular step. Nothing happened in three weeks.

Literally nothing happened. Well, I guess my contention, though, is this. The road, he says that I've been driving on my neighbor's property. Both of us have been driving on each other's property. The road was vacated as far as we can tell in the 30s. All of the property owners over almost a hundred years have been doing the exact same thing. And all of a sudden, now that I am trying to build a house, I have to get an easement from my neighbor. If I have to get an easement from my neighbor, my neighbor has to get an easement for me because they're driving on my property. But nobody said anything about that when they bought the house. So it's just, and I was told, well, it's improper. to drive off the end of the road. You mean like it's been done for the last almost 100 years? So I just, again, nothing's been done in three weeks. It takes three to 10 business days. And we've had, again, I was told that I didn't need anything by a county representative. The engineer didn't even know that I had submitted a driveway application in the first place when I met with him three weeks ago. He said, oh, now you can apply. I've already applied at least four months ago. I'm sure it was before that, but I already got rid of the paperwork because I didn't need it. Because I was told, well, you don't need it. And now I need it. And it's just, that's just frustrating.

I will get with you and those two after the meeting and we'll fix that. Thanks. Thanks, Brian. Anybody else?

Good morning.

I'm going to be asked for a little bit of grace this morning for my two minutes because they may run a little bit longer, but I'll try to be as concise as I can.

My name is Marshall Diaz. And I want to talk here a few minutes about the six flock safety cameras operating here in Wapolo County. First, this is not an attack on Sheriff Phillips or his deputies. I respect the job that they do. And I understand why law enforcement sees value in the technology that can help them locate a stolen vehicle, find a missing person, or develop a lead in a much more serious crime. I'm not going to spend my time talking about the Fourth Amendment argument, the ACLU. It will be much better to do that than I. But my question is much more basic. Knowing what we know today, does Wampanoag County really want to continue to participate in the flock safety system? Because this isn't just a handful of privacy advocates complaining about cameras anymore. There's a growing national backlash. At least 56 communities have rejected or canceled flock contracts in 2026 alone. And we don't have to look across the country. On August 14th, Waukee announced it would not renew its flock contracts, specifically citing concerns about privacy and data retention and saying Iowa should establish clearer statewide standards first. Three days later, Indianola deactivated all eight of its cameras and said it plans to reconsider the program after the Iowa's next legislative session. Both departments acknowledged that flock had legitimate law enforcement value. They still decided to end their flock safety contracts. I think this is important. A technology can be useful, and still not be worth the larger cost to public's trust. And we're seeing that loss of trust nationally. We've seen organized anti-flock protests, petitions, communities demanding cameras be removed, and unfortunately, widespread vandalism. Now, I want to be absolutely clear. I don't support vandalism of any kind. I don't support cutting them down. I don't support shooting at them. It's illegal, dangerous, and simply wrong. But we don't have to look across the country to see that anger anymore. It's already happening right here in Wapello County. Four of our flock cameras were recently destroyed by gunfire. One of those shot on July 4th and three more were shot two days later. Again, that was illegal, dangerous, and wrong. It has reached Wapello County. And I think that deserves more than simply replacing the equipment and moving on. When four cameras in one county are deliberately destroyed Within a matter of days, that should tell us that there is a level of anger and distrust surrounding this technology that elected officials need to pay attention to. The vandalism should not dictate public policy, but it should inform public policy. And that's the responsibility of this board. It's also a financial question. How many times do taxpayers have to replace them? If they're replaced and damaged again, do we just continue to buy new ones and again and again and again? At some point, we're spending taxpayer money defending a technology that itself became a source of public conflict. And that brings me to Flock Safety as a company. Flock is a private for-profit corporation. Today, it's valued at $8.3 billion and is roughly has 120,000 cameras nationwide and recently reported saying its technology is used by approximately 7,000 law enforcement agencies. the financial growth has been remarkable in march of 2025 flock announced that it surpassed 300 million dollars in revenue reoccurring revenue and is roughly growing 60 70 percent year over year this year flock says it's crossed the 500 million dollar mark in annual reoccurring revenue that's a reoccurring revenue rate of more than 41 million dollars every single month and remember what reoccurring revenue means those They're not just simply one-time camera purchases. They're subscriptions. Cities, counties, police departments, sheriff's offices, they all pay those subscriptions year after year. Now, Flock also has private customers. One example is Lowe's. Some Lowe's locations use slot cameras at parking lot entrances to capture vehicle information tied to suspected retail theft, shoppers' patterns, and so on. In one case, Flock itself highlighted suspects allegedly stole merchandise from a Lowe's, left the property in return later. The vehicle information captured by the store's Flock cameras helped law enforcement identify the suspects. That matters because it shows this network is not limited to government-owned cameras. Private businesses can collect vehicle data too, use it to track repeat incidents, and then provide that information to law enforcement. I'm going to try and skip ahead so I don't take much more of your time. I think to put it in plain English, we pay the subscription fees, our community generates the images, and some of those images help Flock's technology. And Flock owns that technology. Then the improved product is sold to the next city, the next county, police department, or private company. Flock says its data is the owner of the contract holder. But in the current terms of Flock, Flock indicates that it has royalty free, irrevocable, perpetual license to use customer data, both to provide the service and to support and improve the products and services. Now, I'm a capitalist and I don't drudge a company for making money. But when taxpayers have every right to ask whether we're simply purchasing a public safety tool or helping finance and improve a privately owned national surveillance system. And that raises another question I think we should ask. We keep hearing the phrase public safety, but public safety is bigger than just criminal activity. Public safety is flooded highways, ice on the roads, tornadoes moving through our county, a major traffic backup, or even a blockaded bridge. Those are all public safeties too, but that's not the primary use of what the flock system is designed to do. How much of this system actually serves the public generally and how much of it exist to collect information about the public. Flock has indicated that they are continuing to develop their technology. They're developing a system called Flock OS. They're tying in multiple different systems, gunfire detection, 911 call records, and so forth, to create a central platform used to collect and analyze public data. So the question isn't just about our six cameras anymore. It really is. It's six points of connection into a much larger system. Block safety has recently changed. Their policies due to public outlash they decrease the data retention period from 30 days to seven they've implemented some additional platform. Changes to ensure safety of access of data, but I think it's important to recognize that clearly flock safety is still developing a product that the public is contributing to the development of and. It isn't just about the cameras. It's not about the law enforcement agencies. It really is about the infrastructure. And it's the use of that infrastructure and the cost that the taxpayers are at the whim of. So my request today is to simply ask that we deactivate those cameras, like other communities within our state have already done, following Waukee's and Indianola's lead, and look for further direction from the state. Not because it's not a good law enforcement tool, not because it's not a good safety and criminal tool to use, but at what expense do we, the taxpayers, and we, the public, contribute to a private network? Any questions?

I did try to call you a couple times, though.

I think I spoke with you. And I spoke with Sheriff Phillips as well. So I appreciate your time and appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Anybody else? All right, then.

All right, then.

All right, then. All right, then.