Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Can I get the roll call for attendance, please? McIntyre?

Here. Erickson? Here. McCook? Here. Witt?

Here. Arnold? Here. We kindly, we're gonna rise for our Pledge of Allegiance. Very good. This morning, item number one is our consent agenda. All items listed under the consent agenda will be enacted by one motion. Item A is claims in the amount of $240,154.82. Item B is to approve the minutes from July 16th, I'm sorry, June 16th, June 23rd two on June 23rd and another on June 30th. Item C, approve payroll removal. Grant Hickson, equipment operator in Secondary Roads. Approve wage change for Jeffrey Quattaracci, security officer in the Sheriff's Office. Approve six month increase for Elizabeth Cramlett, zoning administrator. Approve new hire Madison Smith, intern, county attorney's office. Approve new hire Randy Thomas, assistant cook in nutrition. Receive in file new hire approved by Warren County Engineer Management Alicia Scott, EMA deputy coordinator. Pursuant to Iowa Code 427.9, approve suspension of property taxes for the 2025 tax year on the following parcels. There looks like there are one, two, three, four, five of them. Item J, pursuant to item Iowa Code 555B.8, approve abatement of taxes on the following mobile home parcels. with VIN numbers listed. Item K, approve two separate five-day Class C retail alcohol license for West Hill Brewing at the National Balloon Classic. Approve Class C retail alcohol license for a Pre's Bar Company LLC at the 65 located at 3408 Clark Street in Norwalk, approved retail tobacco license for mobile marketing solutions for Hinterland, 1207 G50 Highway in St. Charles.

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

Second.

Roll call, please.

McIntyre? Aye. Harrison? Aye.

Aye. DeWitt? Aye. Arnold? Aye. Item number two this morning, consider application for road closure for the 2026 National Balloon Classic with possible action. Good morning, Tim. Same road we closed typically every year.

Same road we closed, same plan. I don't have any issues with it. They're hard closing 150th like we have the last two years. While it's not the most popular for the people who live in the area, it's keeping the spectators from taking gravel when they leave, which is an issue we've had over the years with desk complaints before or after the event lets out coming into town. So we have no issue with it, and it seems to have worked good the last few years. Got you.

I'll make a motion to approve the road closure for the 2026 National Bloom Classic.

Second.

Roll call. McIntyre?

Aye.

Harrison?

Aye.

Cook? Aye. DeWitt? Aye. Arnold? Aye. Item number three, consider entrance variance application as submitted by William Bosch with possible action.

Do I get a second chance? I got a couple things, or should I present them all now?

Well, we're just here to address the entrance variance application, so if it's related to the entrance variance.

Yes.

I did send some photos, bacon photos. Did you guys get those along with my application? Michaela, did you send them these pictures? Anyway, I've got some and she can, can you put them up on the post now? Or else I can kinda go through it. I've got a couple extra copies, but you've read my opening statement, having a shared driveway would be a mess at both properties and would lower the value of both of them and it'd be harder for us to get in and out of the driveways. There's a 200 separation would conform to the majority of the properties along R57 that now exist and have been put in recently also. Under the new comprehensive plan, it states I'm in an opportunity corridor, city growth area, plus a two mile radius of Spring Hill, also an urban growth area, previous plan. And it also, you know, is now zoned residential, not agriculture. I don't know if that makes a big difference or not. I'm not up on it that much. But it does seem to go along with the new comprehensive plan. I did take some bacon photos that I thought got sent to you guys. Did you get any of these? Oh, okay, yeah, well, thank you. Yeah, the first one shows what the engineer's department sent me. And I was told it was a $200 separation. My realtor called. She was told it was $200. Becky, our... Elizabeth was kind of working on it, and she thought it was a 2200 separation. I didn't find out it wasn't until I went in after Tim had looked at it, and I also didn't apply for that thing. They just did that. But anyway, that shows where it can be done. I also show the separation to my north is less than 200 feet, and they put that in after mine. And then the Gear Street garage, they have two approaches, and they're less than 200. The next one is a... one four zero zero zero one seven oh five hundred that just went in and that's less than it looks like a hundred feet from one right next to it and then the next one uh shows Fulton Drive, yep. And there's one, two, three, four of them, you know, sitting there closer than 200 feet. The next drawing, this would be at, approximately 10801 R57, and this showing two approaches that are less than 200 feet. The next one, these are all newer homes. They've just been built and done, and there's one, two, three, four on one side that are less than 200 feet and then on the other other side there's two of them that are less than 200 feet and then on G24 and R57 there's a couple trucking firms type things going in there and a house, I mean. And that's probably close to 200 feet. I don't know how to measure that. And then if you go north of G-24 just a little ways, this shows a multitude of homes being in there less than 200 feet. And the ones to the east are real recent. They were just done. And then here again, I kind of forgot to send this one, but it shows right up the street from me. I'm not sure I've got the right address, but it shows the two that are less than 200 feet there. his application, and here again, I went in and talked to him about it. I did have an offer to buy. My realtor suggests I go ahead and sign the offer and she said I should drop it because he took, he wanted to take care of that stuff and I'd be stepping on his toes. So I called them or emailed them immediately and so I don't want it done. You can see I didn't sign it. I don't know why they proceeded just to mess me up, I think. But then on their information, that I think I sent you, it clearly shows my house and the 200 census separation and a wide enough place for somebody to put an approach in to that property. The next thing is a response mostly from an email that I sent you guys on 6-25-26, and it talked about comparing my property or R-57 to Highway 28 and 69 and 92 isn't even close. And, you know, that's where the 400 separation typically would set in. And here again, it kind of mentions, I took some pictures, but then it was a lot better just to go off of the bacon photos and show you that way. And then if you look, the thing I just gave you, Becky is basically responding to that letter I sent you. I'd like to kind of read through that and point out things. Bill, first I would like to address your comments in regards to MSA approving your plans. MSA is a consultant only to the county and have no authority to make decisions in the county. Technically, that's probably true, but why did we go through two and a half years of them studying this and coming up with what they thought it should be, and I thought we would adopt that after that period of time. The official determination, what is permitted, here again, excuse me, I haven't reread this a bunch of times, under the ordinances come with the Warren County Zoning Administrator by following what was written in the zoning ordinance. And I have questioned who wrote this ordinance. And here again, it's the last page. I'll probably wait to follow up on that so I don't get confused. Second, the approval of the rezoning is separate from the Platte survey review process. Rezoning from the agricultural AG to rural residential RR changed zoning designation of the property, but it did not finalize the new parcel. The proposed parcel still has to be reviewed, approved, the plat of survey process before it could be legally established, you provided a concept plan only during the rezoning hearing. The rezoning process does not require a plat survey because the county recognizes that preparing the survey is significant expense requiring the plat survey before rezoning could result in the applicant paying for surveying services on the proposal that may ultimately not be approved. For that reason, the rezoning process comes first. The rezoning process is completed first, and if the rezoning is approved, the plat survey then is submitted for review to ensure that the proposed parcels with the application and zoning are required. And if you read through, the preliminary report that I furnished you on the third page, it says that's not right. The preliminary plat stipulates everything. And then number three, the distribution for review upon the acceptance of the complete application and fee, the zoning administration shall transmit copies of the preliminary plat supporting documentations to the following entities for review and comment. County engineer.

Appropriate. I think that's correct in that when you were here last time, I made a point to to make that we were just approving the rezoning. We're not here to, and approving the plat. And today we're not here to approve a plat either. It's just, we're only considering an entrance. So if we could kind of limit it to just the information on the entrance that we're here, because we're also not here approving a plat today. It's just an entrance.

Right, but what I'm stating is the entrance, by, what was approved under subdivision regulations does state that the engineer should look at that. School district, local fire department, sheriff's office, county environmental health, and deemed appropriate by the, I mean, that should have been looked at along with it. So, I'm kind of throwing off now, but sorry, you kind of, okay, I'll just go on. The plant survey review process allows a zoning administrator to make sure that the land is being split compliant to the zoning ordinance and the proposed lot must comply with the applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance in the RRR district, compliance with, okay, yeah, yeah, this is leading up to what you're talking about. And the RRR, these requirements include, among other things, a minimum lot area of two acres and I went ahead and had my surveyor change that to be net two acres, compliance with applicable driveway and access standards. And this is still in the preliminary, so that answers what you brought up, you wanted to hear about. Upon review, the plan of the survey did meet the two net acres, okay, so we ought to just talk about that. And here again, I read through what it states, And the county engineer is not to make the final determination regarding the location of the approval of the driveway entrance as part of the rezoning process. The rezoning only considers whether the proposed zoning district is appropriate for the property. It does not establish approve or specific site improvements, the location and compliance of the driveway entrance and elevated and flat survey review process.

But that's what we considered last time was the rezoning and now we're not,

we're not considering the plant today it's nice to see the driveway an idea of what you have in mind when you bring a rezoning like some of the other properties that we've seen they bring in kind of just a mocked up version of what they want to do but when we consider the rezoning we're not concerned with the official plot we don't have anything to do with the official plot at that point

Yeah.

That's on the developer to get the property rezoned. And then once it's rezoned to start doing the official plat and get approval for everything.

That's not the way it reads in the preliminary plat. So you might want to just look through that. I would disagree that that should have been. looked at the location of the driveway entrance and elevation here again this is what they're saying it is but it doesn't read that way. Maybe like I say if you read through it again and I could it does state that they should look at it and give a determination if that could be done. Because they're also talking about trying to save money at the beginning to the person who's paying the survey fee. Well, if he pays a survey fee and then that comes up, that doesn't make sense. It just doesn't make sense. And it states that they should review it and look at it. I've read that to you. So anyway, the other thing that I came across, and this deals with driveway entrances. I got handed this by Tim's staff. The proposed amendment, Iowa Code Section 318 as amended, got approved on January 1st, 2026. Did this get discussed by anybody? I mean this is right in the middle of MSA and discussing all this and somehow there's all new codes on dry driveway entrances which I couldn't have known before because it went into effect January 1st of 2026. So you're saying somehow I should have anticipated these changes that they were made and I never heard anybody discuss about changes. I don't know how they got adopted. It seems to me like it's a power grab. You have to get approved by these guys before you can do anything. Anyway, I'm not trying to do it.

We're not the legislators here. We don't pass the code here. If it's Iowa code, it's state law.

This doesn't appear to be an Iowa code. If you look at that last page on the document that I just gave you, it shows driveway entrances, Warren County, transactional Iowa code section amended. He says amended as amended.

So the Iowa code three 18 Iowa code section three 18, 2025 as amended as amended January 1st, 2026 no it doesn't say that yes it does it says as amended requires the effective date but there at the bottom it says effective date is january 1st 2026 that was the ordinance the ordinance was effective january yes the zoning ordinance was effective january 1 the iowa code was amended at some point but yeah i mean yeah that's we didn't amend the iowa code that was what we're saying we can't amend the iowa code

but it does say as amended.

Well, it's amended by the legislator. We adopted our ordinance on January 1st, 2026.

Oh, all right. I'm new at this. You guys know what you're talking about.

Okay, Tim, can we get the meat and potatoes here? What is his sight distance to each direction? And that's classified as a major collector, which requires at 55 mile an hour, 400 feet of separation between driveways.

So you guys know that we do plat reviews now to avoid having to do variances. That's why we review plats before they're approved. I don't like to use examples of the past as I should be able to do this because those are examples of why we look at plat surveys so we don't run into issues that don't meet our ordinances. So likely a lot of those driveways were approved because somebody bought the land and it was approved by a different department and we're stuck with this. So how do we access the land? Now we want to make sure it's split in a manner that meets all of our ordinances. The solution to this parcel is a shared entrance, which is very common when it comes to parcels. I didn't say he can't split it and sell it. They just need to have a shared access, which is a very common thing that we deal with. So if you look at all these roads, the interstate, there's no accesses to. You look at Highway 5, there's no access. The busier the road is, the higher the classification is, the less access points for safety. Less access points is less areas of conflict, less potential for wrecks. so our major highways it's 400 feet offset i haven't budged on that for any reason other than there is no other spot on the parcel i can't make somebody put something on somebody else's parcel so that's why we review plats the local roads are shorter 200 feet heather heather didn't look at the ordinance she thought it might have been 200 feet that's why it says 200 feet on there nothing was ever approved He did apply for the entrance. We went out and we looked at it before he sent the email that said, I no longer wanna pursue this. And since it wasn't gonna be allowed, I said, let's send the letter letting him know this isn't gonna work because it's something that if we know it's not gonna work, I don't want it to proceed beyond and have somebody buy it and say, this isn't gonna work. I did receive a Plata survey around the same time we got this in. That's denied for the same reasons. So that's sitting in the zoning office, the Plata survey that says this doesn't meet our offset requirements, must be a shared entrance. So they do have a Plata survey that is denied, the entrance is denied. There has been no documents that has approved an entrance there. I've been consistent on all of them saying that this can be done if you share an entrance. So that's the safest thing for the traveling public and everybody now with the speed limits going up to 60 miles an hour. It's even more of a safety thing.

So with the where does that drop to 45 mile an hour just south of just south of the correct. would it be a possibility to extend up to say Fulton street, the 45 mile an hour? Cause there is quite a few houses in there. There are quite understood while it jumps up to 55 right in there anyway.

But I will caution on moving speed zones back for things that you can avoid. Because like I said, there is a solution here. And I will point out that he also wants to add another entrance between his one and the north, is what he told me at the last meeting, and split it off at another flag lot. So you're going to have another one come back in, an offset of like 100 feet, because it wants to be divided even more. those county highways should have limited access. And even though the speed's going down, if you have 4,000 cars a day driving down a road, you shouldn't have access points every 100 feet like you do in town. That's why even on the main thoroughfares through Indianola and Norwalk, you don't see the accesses every, they're mainly on the side streets. It's a safety thing.

No, I understand all that. Just trying to, I think back in the day shared entrances It might have been the previous board were kind of frowned upon because of emergency services. Is that correct?

Yeah.

Well, we share at the parcel. Like the way we try to do it is we try to get it parceled to where the driveway is at the parcel line so they go off on their own. They're not driving through people's property. It's right at the parcel line. And that would maximize just have to be a shared entrance where you don't have anything more than that. They'd have to make a private trail, which is typical. So like I said, there is a solution that meets all of our ordinances. It's just not a solution that he prefers.

So right now, to the south and to the north, what is his sight distance? Have you measured that?

Yeah, it's greater than 500 feet. I'm sorry. It meets the sight distance requirements. and no i think i i just have to look at it because we don't do a full a full look at it when it just when right off the bat you can tell it doesn't meet the ordinances so because there's no point in doing a full analysis if you know it doesn't meet the county orders i will point out that we recodified all of the county ordinances this year so it wasn't a special thing that we changed the ordinance In fact, we lowered the offset requirement for a major collector from 600 to 400 because the state of Iowa is getting really strict on their offset requirements on 92. They're 600 feet. Our road is classified one step below Highway 92. So we didn't feel like we needed the same offset requirements. So we went from 600 to 400. Any more questions?

Thank you, Tim. Thank you.

Thank you. Sure.

I'd like to note that he told me he'd been there for nine years and he's been in charge for a year and a half. And probably five of these properties that I've pointed out have been within a year and a half. And probably half of them have been, of course, nine years. So I don't know where he's coming from as far as he not doing this. And it is obvious that that's the best place for it. And I just go back to that. And two, you know, comparing... R57 to 2869 and 992 is bizarre. I can see why, well, I'm not gonna go there, but that would be best for me. I don't want a driveway coming across the front of my property. It would come across, and it would also match up with what's there now and what it has been. Thank you.

Sorry about that.

Any other discussion?

As far as Tim being there over the last nine years, can't those plots of survey, can't that be done years ago?

We haven't done anything there for the last three to five years. The closest ones to him. On the east side of the road is the subdivision, and those driveways are shared driveways for offset requirements. So, like I said, the reason some of them had been approved in the nine years I've been here was because they're an existing plat that there was no other options for that's exactly why we look at plat reviews and don't let something get split and sold before we know it works because that's why you guys have had a heck of a lot less variance applications in front of you because we deal with it on the front end so okay appreciate it well i guess the

ordinance was i remember having discussions and the kind of the thought process there was to have just one entrance rather than multiple um because we do have so many so i think that's kind of the direction and that what we're going in the county we don't get a lot of these entrance variances in front of us. I vaguely remember maybe one time there was one on like a gravel road at a dead end or something that we did adjust, but since I've been here. but um this isn't that this is a major you know county highway with you know the city of spring hill located here and the speed zone and everything else that was described is certainly not the situation that we addressed before board discussion on the variance applications the only thing that's really before us is yeah just driveway variants on driveway variants thoughts from the board That's my, those are my thoughts. I don't know if anyone else has any. Okay, one more thing.

Yeah, he had just stated that these were done five years ago and for the... diagrams I showed you have been done within the last three years. So I don't know.

When you say done, was it meant they were built in that period, or are you talking about when it was approved?

I would assume they were in that period because they put in one of them at 10801 R57, although that's probably not the... Parcel is 1-4-0-0-0-1-7-0-5-100. That he put in the driveway like a year or two ago, and then they built a house back on a core quarter section prop, probably going through the past zoning. And then on... here at 1-4-0-0-0-2-0-0-8-6-8. Those are brand new houses that were just built within the last two or three years. I'm just pointing out what he said isn't true. And then those trucking firms, that just got built like two or three years ago. And then here again, if you go north of G24, There's a whole housing development basically there and bang, bang, bang. But on the east side, they did just put in a driveway and they, I think, put in two dry driveways within the last three years. So that wasn't a correct statement that he made.

Any other discussion? We, well, without a, there was no motion or no second, so.

I see.

I will make a motion to deny the entrance variance application.

Second? Aye.

Erickson?

Aye.

Cook? Aye. Aye.

Aye. Okay. Next. Item number four. Consider Sheriff Joseph Carrico's updated notice of retirement with possible action. Looks like we received a... notice from the sheriff, looked like he was making his, we had already accepted and approved And a retirement for the sheriff that was to be sometime in January. And it looks like he's just changing the date to 1 p.m. on December 31st, 2026. So we got down to the hour there. It's actually effective 1 p.m. So it's just, I think, a week or two prior to when he gave us notice before.

Wow.

I'll make a motion to approve Sheriff Carrico's updated notice of retirement.

Second. Second. Nope. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Item number five. consider disposal of Warren County Vehicle 2012 Equinox with possible action. Morning.

Good morning, Zach. Looking at getting rid of the 2012 Equinox as a nutrition vehicle. The cost to repair it is more than what it's worth. Got a price to repair it at $4,300. I've talked to Putney Auction and they're willing to come pick it up and

sell that for us so just need approval that i can move forward with that sounds good what uh actually what if we donated that could we donate that to like on with life or something like that would anybody be i don't think our just equipment disposable policy we don't really have a

I don't know. I like the idea. I like where you're headed with that.

Exploring that policy change, maybe for the next one.

I think it's a great idea. I mean, what's it going to bring? A thousand bucks at the auction?

Yeah, I'm guessing a thousand bucks and they'll take 30%. We'll get five, six hundred bucks for it, is my guess. I do think I'll have to look at the new policy you guys passed on How to get rid of things. I think there is something in there about donating. I can look at that.

Definitely look into that if that's what we'd prefer to do. Can we table that until...

I like that. Because it could be cumbersome to the organization we give it to if it has a large expense, but I do like the idea of we could donate the money to a local organization.

That's a good idea.

Let's look into that, but yeah.

Okay. So we'd like to table that, I think.

We'll look into it more? Yes.

Okay.

Thank you. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Item number six.

Consider, hold on a sec. While we're selling that first one, I think everyone's heart's in the right place. And I agree. You can donate to Sheepgate and they can fix it up and make it usable or we can donate to whatever. And all of those things are phenomenal things. I like it all. But I would be probably more supportive of just getting the thing sold. And I mean, it's a county property. As much as we do some really good things and some of that's charitable in nature, depending on... what group like ga or or things it's not it's not i don't think it's exactly our place to say hey let's sell a county asset even if it's small and minor and i don't think six hundred dollars or a thousand dollars is a huge sum but i i would be supportive of saying hey taxpayers paid for it um return it to the the general fund and then then decide at budget season what you want to do with things is what i would do so i

No, and I get where you're saying, and I wouldn't suggest that if it was a six-year-old vehicle that was worth, you know, still $4,500, $5,500 at the auction. Scrap, pretty much. I get it.

Back when the courthouse, the items within it were being disposed of, I know there were many times when people wanted certain things and there was a process in which we had to go through. We could not just donate it to people because it is taxpayer dollars and that transparency needs to be there. So I would suggest Zach looking into that for us and getting back to us so that we can know going forward what that process is. So I'm not familiar with the new, with what we passed new. So I think it would be a good education for each of us to kind of learn what that new process is.

Would the board be in favor of on this one then, bringing that back real quick and go ahead and approving it for auction, and then we'll look into that for future?

Okay. Sounds good.

Thank you. I'll make a motion to send the nutrition Chevy Equinox to Putney Auction for disposal.

Second.

McIntyre? Aye. Erickson?

Aye. Cook? Aye. Wynn? Aye. Arnold? Aye. And just for the public's benefit, I promise I'm not Scrooge before the ghost visits him.

No.

I am charitable. I like it. I'm just a little bit cautious when it's taxpayer money and government saying, hey, we've determined what we want to do with your resources, right? And there's a difference there. But I...

Yeah, and I totally agree with everything you said. And I would also welcome the opportunity to explore because with this being unique is a vehicle. So a lot of organizations only take like cars or things like that, where if it's just regular equipment, that kind of stuff.

They fix them up and it gives people skills to learn how to fix vehicles and there's some better value for the vehicle. I mean, there's a lot of wins there. I'm not saying there isn't, but.

We can look at it for next time. Item number six, consider tax credits and reimbursements per Iowa Code 25B.7 and 426.7 for tax years 2025 payable 2026-27 on the following with possible action. So this would be approving all of the homestead applications, 65 plus exemptions, military exemptions, elderly disabled tax credits, as well as disabled veterans homestead tax credits that came to the office application through the assessor and then by way to the auditor and then to us.

So we're approving the entire year of applications for all of those listed. I'll make a motion to approve the tax credits and reimbursements under the Iowa Code sections listed.

Second. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Item number seven, consider Iowa Department of Transportation federal aid agreement for, looks like two projects listed with possible action. And Tim's back with us again.

so this is the official federal aid agreement for the competitive highway bridge program grant that we were awarded we talked about it a few different times we got 1.144 million dollars for the s23 bridge and 616 440th bridge this was through a 250 million dollar grant that the state like the u.s department of transportation put out there for states to bid on and we spent around twenty thousand dollars to be part of the grant package that the iowa dot put on it's a mixture of county bridges state bridges and city bridges so we got about two million dollars of 35 million that was awarded to the state of iowa and the way they do it is they bundle bridges together so our bridges are in the same bundle as one bridge for story county and we will approve a 2080 agreement to make us the bundle lead, which just means I'm the contract administrator for all three bridges, but they still sign off on their own stuff. But this is just the standard CLAD DOT agreement saying we're gonna have it let by a certain date and follow all the federal requirements. we would recommend approving it, and I will point out that we just got notice last week that we made one bridge for the final for the next year's CHBP bundle, so we might, we're now applying for another $1.1 million in grant for the next package, so the state keeps on putting these packages together, so we keep on participating if we're allowed.

Great, that sounds good, Tim. Appreciate the work you do there with the applications and the federal aid program.

I'll make a motion to approve.

Second. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Item number eight, consider establishing a vehicle weight limit on 80th Avenue slash Southwest 28th Street with possible action. Aye.

So there's a little stretch of asphalt slash milled asphalt that kind of gets rolled in north of Beardsley on 80th past that subdivision there. It goes back to a dead end that's 100% Des Moines. It's kind of a strange area because Norwalk has from the center of the road to the west this Warren County has from the center of the road to the east about 80 feet, and then all the houses and properties east of that right-of-way line is in the city of Des Moines. So we're just responsible for just the road. We don't get those taxes. So I'm working on actually trying to kind of tj that to city of des moines but in the meantime we're working with the other two entities to try to get that road chip sealed because it's in terrible shape we get a lot of complaints on it every two years and now there's uh dump trucks running up and down the road tearing it up even more so before we spend the eighteen thousand dollars to chip seal between all three entities We want to put a weight limit on it to protect it. Once that gets done, I'm going to try to get Warren County completely out of the road, but I don't want to get out of a road that's in shambles, so we're going to try to get it. livable, then work with the Iowa Economic Development Board to try to get it to the city of Des Moines. What are the dump trucks going up there for? There's a property to the east that they're dumping in, and I've been talking to the city of Norwalk, and they just passed this weight limit resolution for their side of the road, so we need to pass it for our side of the road. It's exempt for farm vehicles and exempt for trash services, but it should keep the trucks that don't need to be on the road off the road. Okay. And it has been reviewed by legal.

Well, it kind of makes sense if there's a weight limit on half the road that the other half of the road would have similar or the same weight limit to me in my book.

We took the resolution that Norwalk made, and it's pretty close to word for word. We just changed the Norwalk to Warren County and named our roads what we name them. So that way we know we have the same resolutions.

I'll make a motion to approve the weight limit on, is it 80th? Yes, 80th Avenue, Southwest 28th Street. Second.

Second.

item number nine discuss additional hires for secondary roles department with possible action so we've had some openings basically all year and people keep retiring and just lately we had somebody got married and he's moving away with his wife so we have another opening through resignation but i'm pretty sure i've already asked for two of them but right now we have three openings they're not additional spots they're just filling and fill in and we've been filling over time but you know we get applications we interview we hire one here hire one there so we're still working on it and i think we might have a couple more retirements coming so so yeah no additional employees just trying to backfill gotcha okay

I'll make a motion to approve the Secondary Roads new hires.

Second. McIntyre?

Aye. Harrison?

Aye. Cook? Aye. DeWitt? Aye.

Motion carries. Item number 10. Consider resolution designating the official physical posting location for public meetings and agendas. Pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 21 and House File 2490 with possible action. This was a work session item last time and basically is new legislation stating we have to post our notices of our meetings in a location that would be accessible to the public all of the time so apparently the posting of them inside the building wasn't um making the the new law it wasn't in in conjunction with each other yeah visible at all times so i i believe our discussion revolved around doing something right outside the front door of the administration building We did have some conversation whether that applied to all of the county, like our conservation board, other things, probably posting, but we'll coordinate that. But before us today is just designating the actual space where we want to do it.

So let's go ahead and read that official posting location there, Brian. Okay. the board hereby designates the following prominent conspicuous and publicly accessible location as the official physical site for posting of all public meeting notices and tentative agendas the bulletin board located outside of the east entrance at the administrative administration building located at 301 north buxton indiana visible and accessible to the public 24 hours a day and then also internet posting. All public notices and tentative agendas shall be posted and regularly maintained on the county's primary internet site at Warren County, Iowa, warrencountyia.gov.

So I know there was discussion for facilities. I don't know if it's out there yet, just to put that out there as well.

We've been looking at an expensive way of doing things that I have being a week or two ago and a lot of them are opting to just have a monitor at the vestibule there so the verbiage that says outside of the east entrance visible or visible visible from the outside yes where it would still be visible okay that's wonderful that way we don't have to worry about it

And just say located at the east entrance of the administration.

If we need to change verbiage, we can't do a resolution for this specific verbiage. We're going to have to table it until that resolution gets made up, correct?

Yeah, because that needs to be posted. Okay. Super.

Well, I would ask that we table it. We'll bring it back to the board. Good, okay.

Yeah, I think we can.

Just so people know, if we can do it inexpensively from inside but visible outside on the east side, that's the preference. I genuinely don't think, I would guess in a full 365 days, it'll be red.

By everybody.

A dozen times maybe. Maybe. Or people are just walking in and might see it, might read it. Like I highly doubt that anyone's coming to be like, I wonder what is on the agenda. Let me walk to the admin building and read your scrolling marquee when it's on your phone, it's on your computer. Right. If you want to email it to you, you can have it there. No one's hiding the ball on what the agenda, what's on our agenda, what's going to be before you. So again, it's another unfunded mandate. Hopefully we can do it for as little as possible. But if that's the rules, we will play by the rules. We will show you our agendas outside or whatever. But just know, you know, when you dislike paying property taxes, And then you have to spend money to do these things. That's where it comes from, folks. That's where it comes from. So, you know, choose well.

So did we need to pass the actual location then, or did we okay tabling that then too?

I'm fine making a motion to approve the location of the east side of the building visible from the outside to comply with the Iowa statute. and we can fill in the details from there.

Okay. That is my motion. That is your motion, okay.

Kelly, you don't see any issue with that, approving this resolution with edited verbiage later? We'll just change the resolution that you signed.

Okay. Okay.

Do we have a motion, do we have a second? I'll second that.

McIntyre? Aye. Erickson? Aye. Cook? Aye. DeWitt?

Aye. Arnold?

Aye.

Very good.

Item number 11. Consider collective bargaining agreement between Warren County and Teamster Local Union 238 as well as a Memorandum of Understanding and Secondary Memorandum of Understanding with possible action. Kelly, you gonna give us a update on this? It was also discussed in work session. Yeah, I didn't like the last one. Good morning.

Good morning.

So we finally got it done. The original contract itself addresses wages, COLA, et cetera. The first memorandum of understanding is to address the fact that the position of jail sergeant was created. And so we found that out after we had negotiated the contract. So that's what that MOU is about, to acknowledge that between the union. Is that new? It was new, yes. Was it posted? It was approved by you all. The sheriff brought it to you all, but it was not negotiated with the union. Okay. So we had to take it to the union. Then when we got that all wrapped up and we thought we were ready to go, we had addressed the fact that jailer shifts went from eight and a half hours or eight hours, I can't remember, to 12 hours. That was changed in the original contract.

Okay.

But the days in which they could get overtime didn't. So we needed to adjust that. So that's in the secondary, the second MOU. So that says jailers are going to be working a 12-hour shift. There's a graph in there, if you will, a chart of the days that they work. It's five on and then two on. And they can get overtime if they work more than 12 hours in a shift or if they work more than 80 hours in a two-week period. They are scheduled to work 84 hours in a two-week period, but they're required under the MOU to take off four hours so that they're right there at that 80 hours every two weeks. Make sense? Mm-hmm.

So they're working 12-hour shifts. Right. Equaling 84 hours, but they're taking off four hours?

So one shift in their two-week period, they're going to say, I'm taking this four hours off, so they're only going to be working eight hours. I'm sorry. Okay.

I skipped that part in my mind. Yep. I get it. All right.

the goal and just so everyone knows the goal is to not have um an over abundance of overtime that's time and a half pay right very good i mean i understand that everyone would prefer making 1.5 times their hourly rate but our goal um as steward of the purse is to um you know pay uh pay wages but but not incur additional overtime i think the mou satisfies um the potential for that regarding the jail staff so i'm supportive okay

I see John Wilber is here. Do you have any comments on this? Are you supportive of this? Okay. All right.

I'll make a motion to approve the collective bargaining agreement between Warren County and Teamster Union 238, as well as the memorandum of understanding and secondary memorandum of understanding.

Second. McIntyre?

Aye. Erickson? Aye. LeCoultre? Aye. DeWitt? Aye. Arnold? Aye.

This is very good for the overtime, very good.

Item number 12 would be to consider fiscal year 2026-2027 COLA wage adjustments for the following departments with possible action. Dispatch Sheriff. And I think probably the, if I'm not mistaken, the contract would be effective July 1st. So I guess this would be going then back to July 1st. We're not too far into July. July 7th, yeah. Not sure if any payroll was done already or anything like that for that period.

Okay.

So it's retroactive back to July 1st, 2026. The effective date of the contract. And is it the second draft?

I was mentioning to some of the other supervisors about the drone shows that I've seen during 4th of July celebrations, and man, the stuff they can do with those anymore is really, really exciting. Really cool.

The ones in Iowa are around 200, 250 rounds.

We're having 450. Nice. Rock and roll. Okay.

Good. We'll look forward to that.

And you have to set each one out individually. They don't just fly out of the trailer. You've got to place each one.

Very good.

All right. Aaron, remember to wear a cap so you don't get sunburned.

Any other public input? Yes?

Oh, wow. Very good.

Wonderful. We look forward to that this summer coming right up and any other public input out there. This will be the final call. Okay. Next meeting date will be July 21st, 2026 at 4 p.m. right here, same place, different time. I'll make a motion to adjourn.

Second.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. We are adjourned, thank you.

I can't. Hey Tim, question. Do you have an extra pair of like leather