Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Okay, we're all set. Can I get a roll call for attendance, please?

McIntyre? Here. Erickson?

Here. Cook? Here. DeWitt? Here. Arnold? Here. We kindly rise for our Pledge of Allegiance. And to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Great.

Agenda deletions. Item F under the consent agenda was approving a new hire for general assistance. Is that correct, Julie? We take that off? Okay. Got it. Other than that, item number one is the consent agenda. All items listed under the consent agenda will be enacted by one motion. We had claims in the amount of $533,515.58. Item B, minutes to approve. February 17th, 2026 board meeting. February 17th, 2026 work session. February 24th, 2026 special meeting was to canvas the election in West Des Moines. February 24th, 2026, work session. Item C, approved payroll removal, Chad Elliott, equipment operator two, secondary roads effective February 18th, 2026. Approved new hire. Vincenzo Caducin, jailer, sheriff's office, effective 2-13-26. Approved new hire, Haley Berry, jailer, sheriff's office, effective February 15th, 2026. Item F was removed from the agenda. Item G, approve six month pay increase. Emily Widerholt, zoning administrative assistant effective. 219, 2026. Item H, approve job reclassification for Veronica McKay. Community Navigator Thrive Initiative for Health Services, 2-28-2026. Item I, approve senior administrative officer job description. Item J, set public hearing for five-year construction program for March 31st, 2026 at 9.40 a.m. And... That's all we have for consent agenda.

I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda as read.

Second. Roll call, please.

McIntyre? Aye. Erickson? Aye.

McCook? Aye. DeWitt? Aye. Arnold? Aye. Motion passes. Item number two. I'll make a public hearing for Tony Maxey for the rezoning of land from our two single family residential district to A1 Agricultural District.

I'll make a motion to go into public hearing.

Second. Roll call.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. We are now in public hearing.

Hi, good morning. Tony the applicant, oh, I'm sorry, I'm Elizabeth Cramblett from the Zoning Office. Tony the applicant is asking to rezone this parcel from R2, single family residential, to AG, Agricultural District. The idea is that he would like to rezone it because he's going to get some cows and he would like to have more land for them to graze on. This proposal actually went to the go back to the time this application to rezone from r2 to ag went to the zoning commission back on june 10th of 2025 and to the board of supervisors to your board on july 1st 2025 at that time there was a 10 acre minimum for agricultural land and the board voted to table this application until the minimum for the agricultural district was reduced to two acres Effective January 1st of this year, our new ordinance has a minimum lot size of two acres for the agricultural district. So now we're bringing this back to you for your review as it now meets the minimum size requirements for the zone district. Zoning has not received any communication from neighbors regarding this application. Zoning has two parcels currently that are already zoned agricultural south of the site. Zoning recommends approval to rezone the parcel from R2 to Ag. I also have the facts of findings. Would you like me to go through the facts of findings? or the application?

I don't think so. We did hear this once, and I'm familiar with it. I remember when it came to us, so I think we could probably not do that.

Okay, well, based on the, I'm sorry, the findings, yeah, findings of fact, based on the findings of fact, staff would recommend approval for the rezone. I'm here for any questions.

Thank you. Do we have any comment from the public at this time? or online or anything? Do we have anyone online? Okay, I'm not seeing any public hearing comment, so. I'll make a motion to exit public hearing.

Motion. Second.

Roll call, please.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. We are now out of public hearing. Any discussion on the rezoning of the parcel here? I think it was pretty straightforward. He just didn't have 10 acres before, so I remember when he came in.

I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve the rezoning for Tony Maxey of land from R2 Single Family Residential District to A1 Agricultural District.

Second. Motion and second. A roll call?

McIntyre? Aye. Beresford? Aye.

Cook? Aye. DeWitt? Aye. Arnold? Aye. Motion carries. Item number three for us this morning is a public hearing for a zoning fee schedules. Our zoning department has been working with a consultant. We've been developing some new fees.

I'll make a motion to go into the public hearing. Second. Roll call. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

We're now in public hearing. Sorry about that, Brian.

Yeah, no, good. You're fine, totally fine.

Good morning.

Good morning.

The new Warren County zoning ordinance became effective January 1, 2026, and we need to set the new fee schedule to align with our new zoning ordinance for the applications. Several of the Board of Supervisors had requested that our office lower the zoning fees, and I had met with you guys in a work session on January 27, 2026 to get a feel for how you would like to see those fees set at. MSA had done some research, our consultants, and felt our fees were higher than other counties, and they sent us their proposal, which I had discussed with you at that work session. However, I didn't agree that our fees should be lowered. Warren County is the second fastest growing county in Iowa, only behind Dallas County. These fees are not stopping current landowners and future landowners from doing business in our county. considering the Board of Supervisors' suggestion to lower our costs, my zoning administrator and I had sat down to kind of figure out maybe what would be reasonable to kind of meet your requests and still consider the cost and the time that our office puts into these applications. And so I had put together a proposal and presented this in a hearing to the Zoning Commission on February 23rd, 2026. and no members of the public were present at that hearing. The zoning commission members were surprised that we were wanting to lower our fees and they did not agree with that. One of the zoning commission members mentioned that Warren County has one of the highest, if not the highest reconstitutions in the state of Iowa. It is growing rapidly. The zoning commission did not feel like it made sense to lower the costs in our office. They kind of asked my opinion and so I had agreed with that. So they made motions to change the fees back that we had proposed that evening. back down to where they currently are. The only ones that did not go back were the sign permit, because we did feel that was high at 500. And I had proposed 50, but they felt like 150 would be fair, which that is still a substantial drop from the 500 and seems reasonable as well. So after further review, there were some suggestions after the meeting with the Zoning Commission that I had noticed that they hadn't changed, that I didn't really bring to their attention. The minor subdivision plot is currently 2,000. They did recommend 1,000 based on what I had told them, because we were still kind of meeting in the middle with things. But I do go back and forth on this. They are creating less lots than major subdivisions, but I don't feel that 2,000, which is what we currently charge, is out of line for a minor subdivision. The landowners are selling these lots off, making money off it, and so it's not been stopping them from doing it, and we still have some applications coming in currently for that. I also didn't feel like an accessory dwelling unit, an ADU, should be lower than the single family dwelling unit, which is what they brought up to 500. So I felt like those definitely should be the same as what we charge for a single family dwelling unit for a building permit. And then the accessory structure I feel like should be a minimum of at least 250 said not five hundred five hundred what we currently have so i would definitely not go less than two fifty if you did want to lower it back uh... so my recommendation was two fifty two five hundred and i guess it my final thoughts are overall economically costs do not typically go down by not raising the fees like bill is a big win for the public alone so i did uh... include those charts for you to kind of see that but that kind of just summarize what we felt with that. So did you have any questions?

I got a couple. What was the special exception application? That's a new application.

Yeah, it's a new application. So if someone comes into our office, we are able to give a 35% administrative variance. We draft up a letter for the neighbor that it would be affecting. And so we send that letter to them and they have to sign off on it. We do all of that now for no cost. So that is basically just adding that application and we're charging a fee to now do that process for someone. Okay.

Thank you. And does the new zoning, this is a fee question, so pardon that it's not on topic, but do we have data centers in our new ordinance? Does it address those at all?

It does address that, the data centers, but we don't, we've not had any interest in that yet.

Oh, great. I got an email. Someone says we should put that in the zoning ordinance, but I'm pretty sure it was already.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, great.

I guess my struggle is with the especially like the accessory structure detached garage or anything you know we're not going out and doing inspections or anything it's it's paperwork office or office paperwork and we chatted during our work session about how much time is involved with you doing that and I wanted you to be sure that you were being covered like that by that but I guess the 250 to 500 for something that, I mean, if somebody's building a garage, how much labor do you have in office time to approve that? I mean, you're checking setbacks, you're checking heights and stuff like that.

It's the same amount as a building permit. I mean, we're checking all of the same things. We're looking at the floor plans. We're looking at the site plan. We're checking the setbacks. So it's the exact same process. I felt 50 was way too low. So that's why I recommended no less than 250 if you wanted to make it a little less.

I'm generally fine with 250. I did have a question on the accessory dwelling units.

Yes.

I mean, I think that that should be no less than a regular, I mean, it should be the 500 period. You're going to build another house on your property. It shouldn't be tremendously less, but 500 for that one's fine. And I was at 250 on the structure because there's barns and other things. It's not... I get it, if you're looking at a one-car detached garage or something, it seems like a little hot. I don't know that those are getting built a lot. It's usually barns. Right, it's mostly pole buildings. The board wants to do something else on it and whatever, but it's usually going to be a pole building.

I agree with Aaron. I think during the work session, we had chatted about the single-family dwelling and the accessory dwelling unit being the same.

They should be the same.

I think we just have some discrepancy on where each one of us wants to be. And I guess the 500, that seems fine to me. I feel with a house or an accessory dwelling unit, there's a lot to check and a lot of time to be spent on that.

Exactly, if not more to check. Mm-hmm.

And Aaron mentioned a big pole barn or something. I guess when you say accessory structure, detached garage or something, I'm not necessarily thinking of a building in a sense. So I guess if you're including the pole barns and stuff and that, then yeah, I can see the $250 for that. Because there could be some extravagant extra time spent there too. I'm torn on the sign permit, as you know I would be. But I don't think that that's incredibly, I think that's a pretty good meeting point. I'm happy with that.

Becky, you're proposing a $200 single-family dwelling unit fee for the building permit and accessory dwelling at $200 or $250? Now scroll down just a little bit.

So, yep, the ADU accessory dwelling I'm proposing at $500.

Scroll down just a little bit. Why do I got it highlighted at 200 on the screen?

Oh, yeah, if you go down to the next one, that's what we took to the board or the zoning commission. Scroll down. Let's go to the right. There's another one.

Go to the right one. I'm looking at the wrong thing.

Yep, thank you. It is a little confusing. So this is, yeah, their recommendation. And then I highlighted my recommendation in green.

I would just change the accessory dwelling unit to the same as a single family dwelling unit.

Mm-hmm.

I don't think we're gonna get a lot of accessory dwelling units in the county, to be honest. I mean, there might be a handful, but I know that that's something that MSA is very concerned about and people are worried about density, but I just think it's a very difficult proposition to build a couple, three, four, $500,000 house, and then also put an additional house on the back of it. I mean, it'll happen, there'll be some, but now if you think about that logically, When you go to sell that property, you've got two homes. And so the buyer pool for a two separate home property, one, it's going to be expensive. So not everyone's going to be able to get finance for it. And two, not everyone's looking to buy two homes when they might just need one home. So I'm guessing there's not gonna be that many of them, but I would certainly have it the same as a single family dwelling unit cost. So I'm good with a 500.

And it looks like that was Becky's recommendation.

Becky's recommendation as well. Yeah, that makes sense. Can you clarify one thing for me? Yeah. I know we went over this, but can the accessory dwelling unit be built before the house.

Yeah, the state did not clarify which. So if you want to build your primary second, you can take your primary currently and make that the ADU, as long as they double it.

So that makes even more sense that we would keep those permits the same, because if somebody built a dwelling unit, and then... Yeah, it could be massive.

And I'm actually getting a lot of those that people are wanting to make their current one, the ADU, and they're going to double the size.

And then maybe perhaps they don't build the regular house later. Yeah.

Well, they have a $250 permit versus a $500 permit for their main structure. Yes. Make them the same, please. I don't see anything. The minor subdivision, major subdivision, I don't know that I would keep them the same because I feel like a major is going to have a lot more work involved. So I mean, the minor, I don't disagree with raising it because I believe there's a lot of work involved with that one too. But maybe doing 1,500, I guess some kind of a stage there. Not to, I guess, I'm gonna take your word for it. I guess I just see it.

stage break there somewhere somehow there's a lot of there's a lot of work in a final plot and if you're doing a minor sub how many homes are in a minor subdivision general a minor is going to be up to four lots five or more is a major and then the major could be 20 yes I'm okay with leaving it, but 1,500 or 1,750 or two, one of those is fine.

Would it make more sense on a major to do, and I know we talked a lot about this in the work session, but would it make more sense in a major to keep it at the 2,000 up to, say, 10, and then doing a per lot after that? You could.

Yeah, I mean, you could. Okay.

I think that would make more sense for a major. Maybe doing the minor at 2,000, the major at 2,000, up to a certain amount of homes, and then after a certain amount of homes, it's per lot, or I guess a certain amount of lots.

10. Sounds like a round number. Yeah, I like that. The minor was five, right? Minor was five. Yeah, up to four is a minor.

Five or more is a major.

So you could still pay the same fee up to, say, 10. And then it would make sense to me. I don't know what the additional fee would be.

Yeah. I don't know if, I think I've seen 100 or maybe.

I would say 100 to 150 per lot after X amount.

Uh-huh.

That's fine.

100 is a round number. I like round number. Generally, I mean, this is the recommendation of the zoning commission. Generally, I was in favor of reducing the fees, but they, they look like they went, I mean, all of these lower fees were developed and this was part of a, kind of a, fee survey that the consulting did. So I think in large, in general, I was okay with the fees that they came up with. But the new ones, I would point out There's still a lot of lower fees in even the recommended from the zoning commission fee schedule because you've lowered the fees in many instances for certain types of structures, especially in the building permit section building permit fee before was just $500, regardless of what you were building. So there is a lot of lowering fees there, like in the accessory structure and the addition to the building, or the addition to the commercial buildings, they're all lower. So there is some lower fees there involved. I guess my only thing is I would like to see the rezoning fee lowered to $750 like it was before, but that might be in the minority there.

Well, and I think the rezoning, I think we said that that would be somewhat, refundable if it didn't pass?

I talked to MSA about that and that's not possible because all of our fees are non-refundable and it's not possible to make that happen they said.

Well and I appreciate MSA but I don't know that they set our policies as far as if we want to do that but if that's not something that you want to do I understand. I don't know that it's up to MSA to make our policies as far as refunds.

Kelly's saying something back there. Okay.

I'm also good with not changing that and it's just a logistical nightmare because now you've got to keep tabs on what passed, what didn't pass, what had a setback dispute with a neighbor and then didn't go and then it's going to make a lot more. So I'd rather set reasonable fees and make them non-refundable than and play the game of let's go back and figure out refunds. Right. That's probably why it was that way.

Would you be on board with the $750,000 or the $1,000,000 then, Aaron? Either is fine.

there's a lot i mean there's a my take is there's a lot of work involved in a rezoning there's there can be but a lot of times there can be there sometimes they're sometimes they're pretty perfunctory yeah but it i'd probably it was a thousand before yeah i'd probably i probably would keep it so some of the things came down a little bit as brian mentioned but i'd probably leave that the same so then on the second page where the

the one Michaela has brought up right now. So we would do single family at 500, accessory dwelling at 500, the accessory structure at 250, and then all the others stay the same besides, do you wanna look a little closer at the minor and major, or are you good with where they're at?

So the minor, we said $2,000, and then the major was $2,000 up to $10,000, and after that, it'd be $100 per additional lot. Is that correct? What you guys had discussed? Yeah, I think that sounds good. I like that. Yeah, I do.

So we can't necessarily approve that right now, but we could table this. for a quick revision and bring it back the next time or? I think you can approve it as amended. Yeah.

Yeah, absolutely. You can make in your motion. That's what the zoning commission did. You can make your motion of what changes you want.

Yes, absolutely. Yes. Okay.

All right.

probably a good time to do that anyhow. Anyone from the public that wants to speak on the proposed new zoning and building fees? It looks like by and large the zoning fees are remaining the same and then lowering some of the actual building permit fees. Some of them, some of them.

With the exception of the major subdivision, Final Platte, where if you're building more than 10 homes, then that would go up a little bit. But also if you're building 10 homes, then there's a cost to doing business.

Yes. Before we pass or make our resolution, can we just walk through each one to make sure that we have a clear understanding with Becky that that's where we want to be? Sure.

Sure.

So the single family dwelling would be 500. The accessory dwelling would be 500. The accessory structure would be 250. Addition to dwelling including adding a garage accessory structure, commercial building, industrial building would be 250. Commercial building would be 500. Industrial building would be 500. Tower utility would be 1,000. sign permit would be 150 home-based business permit would be a hundred variance would be 500 special exception would be 100 preliminary plat would be a thousand dollar flat fee final plat would be minor subdivision at two thousand that would be up to four homes or four lots And then a major subdivision would be five to 10 would be 2,000, and anything after 10 would be $100 per lot. And then plot of survey would be 250. Auditor's plat would be the actual cost of survey, platting, and recording as determined under Iowa Code 354.13. And then looks like extension request fee under approved procedures would be $50. Oh, I skipped one. Resubmittal of revision fee would be 50% of original application fee depending on significance.

Let's just walk through the planned. You started down at building permit. Let's just make sure that we're good on these on the planned community development. I'll let you do that.

You did such a nice job there. The planned community development would be $1,000. Rezoning official zoning map amendment would be 1,000. Zoning ordinance text amendment would be 1,000. Comprehensive land use plan amendment would be 1,000. Conditional use permit would be 500. Interim use permit would be 500.

Thank you. Any other ones, Becky, that we should clarify?

Are we okay on the up to four houses and then five and over? Was that how it was before? I guess it was the minor and major subdivision?

Was up to five lots was the minor one though? Up to four and then from five to 10 would be 2,000 plus anything over 10 would be $100 per lot. Great.

Anyone from the public then?

No one? I'll make a motion to exit public hearing.

Second. Roll call please. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

and then I'll go ahead and make a motion to amend, let's see, zoning fee schedule as read.

Second. Yeah, I think so. It's on the record. Second. It's on the record, yeah. Roll call.

McIntyre? Aye. Erickson?

Aye.

Cook? Aye. Witt? Aye. Great. Thanks, Becky. Thank you. Item number four, consider the proposal from Viking Fire Protection Group for a new fire alarm system in the administration building.

Good morning. Good morning. Zach Wheeler, facilities manager. I'm recommending that we replace the fire panel and devices at the administration building. Fire panel's over 25 years old. Manufacturer does not make parts for the panel anymore. There is money in the maintenance budget to cover this. We got three quotes to replace the panel, and I recommend we move forward with Viking fire protection at a price of $42,518. I know we kind of talked about this at the work session, but do you guys got any questions?

Do you have the amounts of the other bids in front of you?

Yes. We got Baker Group. Their price was $54,473. We got Midwest Alarm at $54,895.

I don't have any questions, but thank you for the diligence on it, getting multiple quotes. I've seen it too many times where on larger projects, and larger, I mean anything more than $5,000, $10,000, $15,000. I love seeing more than one quote because there can be such a variance as there was here. I mean, 42 to 54, that's $12,000 that we're not just haphazardly spending. The fire panel's super old, needs to be replaced. I'm supportive of doing it.

Exactly. Do they have any timeline? Is there gonna be much interruption to

business here as far as timeline installing it uh i think they said it'd probably take about a week to get in and obviously the panel would be down for a short amount of time and they'd have to go around and replace devices but i think there'd be minimal disruption to business services we provide yeah yep okay sounds good i'll make a motion to approve the viking fire protection group proposal

Second.

Roll call, please.

McIntyre? Aye.

Erickson?

Aye. Cook?

Aye. DeWitt? Aye. Arnold? Aye. Motion passes. Thank you. Item number five, consider Elevate's intensive residential service homes acknowledgement for use of fifth bed resolution with possible action. Good morning, Kelly. Good morning, Kelly.

That's my cue. Okay, so this issue's come before you in work sessions, I think twice now. And we paused and wanted to first look at what the requirements were under the administrative regulations. And then we also wanted to gather information from public health about the need for mental health beds, mental health services, providers, et cetera. So we did get that information back from public health and we do not have an over concentration of supported community living units in Warren County. And when I took a look at the administrative code, your role is very narrow in making a factual finding only, which is, is there an over concentration? And since the data shows out that there is not an over concentration, that is the issue before you today, is just stating that there is not an over concentration, and that the quality of services and affordable renting housing is currently insufficient to meet the need, and the need is mental health services, mental health beds. So this isn't you recommending that Elevate add an additional fifth bed, it's just making a factual finding that we don't have an over concentration of those services. So that's the issue before you.

Should we go ahead and read the resolution aloud? Sure.

The Warren County Board of Supervisors hereby confirms that there is not an over concentration of supported community living units in Warren County, Iowa, and that the quality of services and affordable rental housing is currently insufficient to meet the need.

Simple as that. Short and sweet.

Short and sweet.

Appreciate your work on that, Kelly. Thank you. And just to clarify, this was originally brought to the board as us approving the facility for a fifth bed, which we are definitely not doing. And where does this letter go to, Kelly? I'm sorry, I had a question.

Elevate had brought forth a document that they had prepared originally, and that was back in January. And so you're just making that resolution. We can provide the resolution to them of your finding. And then what they decide to move forward with is on them in the city of Indianola.

through like their zoning or is it done at the state or zoning that the actual letter will end up in the?

I don't know. No, I think it's just your resolution and it can be provided to Elevate and then they can use that to make application to the state to add the the bed because before they can add the bed they have to get approval from the state agency and the state agency says they have to have a finding a factual finding from the board of supervisors before they can go ahead and do that that makes sense

Right, so if there's people who are not in favor of the fifth bed, there would be another opportunity for them to probably speak before another board or entity.

I think that would fall to the city of Indianola about what they have for their zoning and such. And I'm not familiar with those requirements.

Gotcha, thank you. Kelly, one last question. When Elevate goes to the state, whoever we're giving this to, who makes that approval on that?

The agency? I believe it's DHS.

DHS, okay.

I believe so.

I see we have a gentleman here, so I just want to make sure that we're directing him to the right place.

So Elevate would use this in their application to show proof that they've satisfied the requirement of the administrative regulation.

Okay.

Which is this.

Is that it? Great, thank you. Thank you.

I'll make a motion to approve the resolution for Elevate's Intensive Residential Service Homes Acknowledgement.

Second. Roll call, please.

McIntyre? Aye. Erickson? No.

McCook?

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Thank you. Motion carries.

Thank you, Kelly, for your work on that.

Item number six, set the property tax levy hearing for March 31st, 2026 at 9.30 a.m. with possible action.

Good morning. Good morning. So all you need to do right now is to set the... hearing date and time. Just for your knowledge, where I have the levies at are for the general basic 3.203, general supplemental 1.72513, debt 0.71846, rural basic 1.51097, rural supplemental 1.2241. Um, so I actually have our tax notice already, um, prepared. Um, I'll submit it to the papers next week and then they will go, it'll go in the papers the following week. Um, and so in order to do all that, we just need to have the hearing set.

You got it Megan. Can you, can you roll through for the public's benefit what the current general basic and debt and whichever other one came down just so the public knows and then so we can see what the difference is for the public's benefit.

Yeah, thank you, Aaron. That was also my, a lot of the- Those numbers might not make a whole lot of sense just off the- Yeah, a lot of them are going down, so we like to promote that too here.

So the current general basic levy right now is 3.2 9909. It'll go down 10 cents to 3.203. The debt levy is 0.81845. That'll go down about 10 cents. to 0.71846. And then for rural basic, it's currently 1.5563 and will go down to 1.51097. So what that looks like for the total countywide levy that's paid by all will go down 20 cents. And then the rural levies will go down, did I say 10 cents? The countywide levies will go down 20 cents, and then the rural levy will go down 24 cents approximately.

And then while this isn't exactly our deal, some of us do sit on the conference board. The assessor, I think, is off, was it four or five cents?

Four cents down, yep.

Wow.

Okay.

Good. Thank you. Thank you, Megan. Thank you. I'll make a motion to set the property tax levy hearing for March 31st at 9.30. Second. Second. Roll call.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you. Item number seven. Consider approval of federal aid agreement for county highway bridge program project. And I'm not gonna read the project number, that's a lot. Would the Iowa Department of Transportation and authorized board chair to sign with possible action?

Thank you, Tim. How are you this morning? Good. How are you? Tell us about the federal aid agreement. This is the standard form federal aid agreement we get every time we have a CHPP project or any project that uses federal money through the DOT. It just lays out. This project specifically is a bridge replacement on 20th Avenue over Painter Creek. It's north of Pierce Street. It's included in our five-year plan. It's going to be let within the next year or two. It's under development now. It says we have to let it within three years to the DOT and lays out how we have to do the project. We've got to do everything through the DOT. We can be audited and audited again. Standard form stuff. So it's just one of the things we've got to do in order to use the federal money.

Which we do. And we appreciate that. That lets us do a lot more projects than we would be able to otherwise.

I have another one that'll be coming at one of the next board meetings. So these things, the DOT gives it to us. We have to have a board sign it and follow their rules, which is what we do.

Is it your opinion that the velocity of bridge fixes in the county are on an uptrend at this point?

It seems like we're fixing a lot. They're doing two currently now.

Years ago, we'd maybe do one every once in a while and

we try to do two or three a year through the dot then we repair a couple or replace some with box culverts we try to do five a year there was a couple years the last couple years we it is uptick from the last two but also trying to pull that money to do the big roadway projects that are costing three to five million so it's You've got to accumulate your funds to spend them on a big project. But we have gotten more federal money the last few years. Still going to try to apply for more, but you never know what comes.

So maybe some in the past weren't necessarily on the radar. They were just done.

No. In the eight years I've been here, we're held pretty steady. I didn't get as many projects done the last two years, because we were trying to accumulate the funds for G76 overlay and S23, which are getting indesigned. So we're constantly moving towards them. The years we didn't bring them to you, we were replacing little bridges with box culverts through the local funds. So we're always moving.

Since you're up here and you mentioned G76, can we give an update on where that is in the process?

We haven't had a pre-con meeting for it yet, so when I talk to them on the phone, they're thinking later in this year they're going to be doing it, so probably fall construction schedule, but that's not set in stone yet. It will get done this year, but as they... when you let something through the DOT, they get such a big construction window so they can get all the projects and kind of schedule things together. So asphalt, you do it when it's warm, so they're still compiling their schedules right now. But it will get done this year. Nice.

I will make a motion to approve the Federal Aid Agreement for County Highway Bridge Program Project Number BROS-C091-1448J91. with the Iowa Department of Transportation, and authorized Board Chair to sign.

Second. Roll call. McIntyre? Aye. Erickson? Aye. Cook? Aye. Witt? Aye. Arnold? Aye. And Tim, thank you for staying on top of that, and all the available funds and grants and everything you're bringing in, it's appreciated.

Thank you. Thanks Tim.

Item number eight, consider the public health director's request to post the senior administrative officer position with possible action. Good morning Joelle.

Good morning. This is a request for your approval to post the senior administrative officer position. It's a replacement position that has a revised job description. Great. Any questions for me?

Did someone leave or did they went to the different?

They're transferring to the auditor's office. Oh, gotcha. Currently the position is written as a data administrator position, but the current employee is working under it as this job description that's been approved by the Board of Health, but it has not had the opportunity yet to come to the Board of Supervisors, which is why I'm bringing it to you now.

Okay, great.

Yep.

Yeah, I didn't know if they were going to one of the other positions within, like newly created, but in a different office.

Okay. Yeah, no. It's a job position transferred to the auditors. Gotcha. Yep.

Budgeted or any budget impact?

Yes, and it's been accounted for. It's actually in the fiscal year 27 budget that you have approved already. Maybe not officially, but in the process of approving. Fingers crossed.

Must three of us vote no with the budget.

That's right. Exactly. I always recommend it. It's a terrible idea. Please don't. Consequences. Anything else?

I'll make a motion to approve the senior administrative officer position. Second. Roll call, please.

Thank you. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carries. Item number nine, receive and file reports from A, Veterans Affairs.

I'll make a motion to receive and file a report from Veterans Affairs.

Second. Second.

Roll call.

McIntyre? Aye.

Erickson? Aye. Cook? Aye. Witt? Aye. Arnold? Aye. Item number 10, supervisor's report. Anyone with report today?

I'd like to share some general thoughts on budget. OK, I thought you might. Good.

We like those. We like those. Good.

Well, I think it's important. It is. I don't know if people listen or not, but if you do, please tune in or watch the video. Our budget, again, as Megan, our budget director, indicated, are coming down. A lot of that's from state legislation, but 10 cents, 10 cents, 5 cents, 4 cents on another one. All of those things... Levy rates coming down is meaning that the taxable valuation of your property tax bill as the county accounts for it Those are going they're trending down. So the other big thing to keep in mind about this and this is why I think this is really important because I'm not trying to point fingers elsewhere or shift blame but I on your tax statement, it says Warren County, like Warren County Treasurer, send the money into here. So anytime someone's property tax bill increases, stays flat, does whatever, we frequently are the ones that hear from you because it impacts it. But it's very important to understand that the county itself makes up either about 20% if you live inside of a town or a city and maybe 35% if you live in the country. our levy rates are coming down a lot of that's because of the legislature but it matters so if you're if your city for example is staying flat and if your school district is staying flat on their levy rates and your valuation went up and so your tax bill goes up a little bit do a little more cursory dive in there than just immediately being upset at the Warren County treasurer or your board of supervisors and look at the breakdown. Is the county spending more or less the same? Is your percentage of taxes going up or down from the county's perspective? We can control what we can control. and things that are outside of our ability to impact have a real big impact. So schools and city, your school board and your city council, those elections matter. Those are in off-year elections and the turnout, I'm not blasting you Warren County, I love you, but Norwalk just had a race for city council and I think our turnout was about 7.4%. that city council's making up a good chunk of your tax bill. If the school board's at 7% and they're at 50 or 55 or 63% if you live in the country, if that's where the dollars are flowing, you gotta show up for those races and our races too. So if we're doing things that you're like, geez, I wish the county would have lowered the levy rate even more and I think that the board's doing a bad job, then get out there and vote. or find someone that's supportive of your thoughts. But it's difficult to hear upset folks on property taxes if you're sitting in school or staying flat and your property tax bill ticks up a little bit. You gotta influence what you can influence. So I'm really proud of the board again. for taking our budget very, very seriously. It's not always glamorous work, and I understand that there's a balance between services and people and the taxpayer. So we try to find that balance. that right balance for you from the county. And I understand that it's very difficult to make everyone happy from all sides, but I am proud of the work that was done. I will also tell you, I think it's a little bit indicative that our budget meetings, they're pretty sparsely attended, pretty sparsely attended. And I'm not saying that that means we're doing a perfect job or there aren't things that we could improve upon, but I'm not hearing from folks as we're moving through and towards the conclusion of this budget season. I'm inclined to think that the lowering of the levy rates, probably coupled with the state rollback came in pretty strong at about 44. So that's going to be helpful for taxpayers too. I think it was 46 or 47 before. So less of your property's valuation will be taxable. That's what you'd glean the levy rates off of.

So other things I wanted to point out.

That debt levy, that debt levy, it is a big deal as that debt levy comes down. I know that 10 cents doesn't seem like that much, but you've got to imagine that that has the courthouse or the justice center on it. It still has our 901 towers on it. And it is trending in the right direction. We try not to add more debt unless really necessary or it fiscally makes a lot of sense and prudent to add debt. But the debt rate, the debt levy is coming down too. So hopefully you feel a little bit of that. And hopefully you'll see it on the actual county portion as the numbers get worked out through your city and school and county. So I would just encourage everyone as you're looking at the property tax bill statements, look at where the county's at, what we're doing, and I think that they've done a good job. I'll be pleased to vote yes on the upcoming budget.

So those are my thoughts. Thank you. I would also just like to kind of add to that a bit that the budget process this year was it's always you know difficult I think we had maybe a combined 13 meetings during the month of February as a board as this board not all budget related but other things but also I just wanted to give our kudos to our department heads who made the process and actually smooth i think they were by and large you know doing um what they could do to to manage the spending and everything else as well so it uh it's a lot easier as us for supervisors when you have cooperation from your department heads and elected officials so that's all i wanted to add i think aaron pretty much explained everything he's pretty much our resident Financer and human percentage calculator and everything else over there during the budget So we appreciate him and the rest of the board for for being here and putting in the time and You know doing doing what we need to do for our citizens Any other report

I'll just add a little bit to each one of their statements. I'm super, super proud of all of our departments, and I'm super proud of this board, and I'm super proud to sit on this board. I think we've done a lot of good work, and I think we've done a lot of really good work for the citizens of Warren County. Unfortunately, there's some people in the State House that may not necessarily agree with what all counties are doing, and they're wanting to strip some local control out of the hands of the County Board of Supervisors. So kind of leading on to what Aaron said about the 7.6% voter turnout, we need to be paying attention to what's going on in the statehouse right now. Because like I said, they're wanting to take more control of what we do and how we do it. I understand there's some counties that may not be in the situation that Warren County is. Definitely don't want to be told from the state what we here locally can do and can't do. So just pay attention to what's going on in the statehouse right now. Thank you, Travis.

Anything else?

Anyone?

OK. Item number 11 is public input. Comments will be limited to three minutes per individual. The board will not take any action on the comments due to the requirements of the open meetings law, but may do so in the future. No public input will be allowed for any of today's agenda items. Anyone from public that wishes to speak? This is your chance.

Marilyn, you don't want to say anything? Bring up a point, something that happened at the Palmyra Cemetery. Well, she's coming down.

Let's see.

If she could mention and chat about that a little bit.

I think it'd be okay to bring public awareness to your situation. Yes.

Well, I think it's all over Facebook. I've had enough phone calls about it. We discovered that the poll was missing. The flag pole for our Memorial Veterans Memorial and the only flag pole in the cemetery that flies our American and POW flag. And it had been cut. It was aluminum. And the blessing is that our memorial was not damaged, our benches, nor the kneeling soldier. none of the monuments were damaged, so we feel very blessed that way. But the community has come forward with money to replace the pole, and I've had an offer to set it, and that is about half of the cost of a pole. Now I have other questions, and I will ask Supervisor DeWitt, following the meeting, has some questions on protocol and height of poles. But they are very, very thankful for the community and the outpouring. And we're very humbled by it. So thank you.

Thank you. She's a lot more diplomatic than I would have been. Somebody stole their flagpole, so I'm just going to stay for the record.

It was sawed off. It was like at first, you know, there's a question, did it fall? No, it was sawed off, but could that be something we add to our next work session, I assume next Tuesday, to have maybe Marilyn and I don't know if any of the other trustees want to come, but to talk about the replacement of that.

Sure. I think that'd be fine.

I don't have no problem with that. Does that work for you next Tuesday, Marilyn?

Yes, it will work for me.

Both of my addresses work, and I'll see if they can be available.

Okay. Yeah.

Yeah. Thank you, yes.

Well, and if we could possibly adjust the work session time, if it works out for them at a certain time, we could adjust our work session a little bit to accommodate.

Okay, sounds good. Thank you, Marilyn. Any other public input at this time? Seeing none, I would then move to item 12, which is our next meeting date will be March 17th, 2026 at 4 p.m.

I'll make a motion to adjourn.

Second. Roll call, please.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. We are adjourned.