2026-05-05 Board of Supervisors Meeting

Ajouté : 2026-05-12

[00:00:04]To the flag of the United States of America to the standy for all.

[00:00:15]>> Please join me in a moment of silence.

[00:00:24]>> Thank you. You may be seated.

[00:00:28]First item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda and I would move it.

[00:00:33]>> Second motion by Nelson, seconded by Dietrich. Any discussion? All those in favor say I.

[00:00:40]>> I.

[00:00:40]>> I. Oppos. Same sign.

[00:00:43]>> Passes 40.

[00:00:45]Items through items two through four constitute a consent agenda of routine action items to be considered by one motion. Items passed unanimously unless a separate vote is requested by a board member. Item two is approval of the minutes of the April 28th, 2026 meeting.

[00:00:59]Item three is approval of claims. And item four from human resources, Melissa Thomas's approval of a memorandum of personal transactions. Um, we have a few things that we need to change within that memor memorandum personal transaction. So, I will move the consent agenda less item four.

[00:01:18]>> And Mr. Mr. Chair, I do have some questions on item three, but it's not a separate vote that I'm looking for.

[00:01:25]>> Okay. Just have a question.

[00:01:26]>> Yeah. So, I do have a question in looking at the claims. Um, and maybe somebody can enlighten me on this or um but uh I see some claims from some meetings which it's townships or whatever. And and I'm not saying that, you know, they're not accurate or anything like that, but what I am asking is because some of them go back to 2020 on these claims. Is there anything that we have that says that claims should be made in a timely manner or >> um to my knowledge? No. We do not um have anything specifically in a procedure that says we do not pay claims back to a certain time as far as that goes. Um, so when we receive these, usually depending on the amount, we'll check with our auditor to see if it's a significant amount or not and if we can just post them to the current fiscal year. So in this case, it wasn't a large amount. So that's what occurred. Um, I know Joshua reviewed a little bit about that as well. And historically, we have paid claims from past fiscal years to the township clerks. They kind of hold them for a while and then submit them.

[00:02:33]>> Yeah. And it just, you know, it just struck me as odd. I mean it goes clear back to 2020 which is six years ago basically. So I I mean and then you know one of the people that are you know in the claims passed away last year as well it looks like on one of the townships.

[00:02:50]So and again I'm not disputing the claims. I'm just wondering you know like say it was a big claim just like you said it would if it went back six years to me it's kind of a a but you know how do you budget for that I guess.

[00:03:04]Yeah, I understand that. Um, what we do when we look at the township claims also is we make sure that we have an agenda or minutes from a meeting that has occurred so that we do validate that claim and the um the amount that we paid to the clerk or to the township was set by the board.

[00:03:23]>> Okay. Yeah. I mean, that's what I say. I wasn't disputing any of it. I just I I think it I didn't know if it could be a discussion of maybe claims should be made within a timely manner like within a year of a meeting or something like that. So anyway, I'll second the uh concern.

[00:03:40]>> Yeah, sure has a comment there looks like.

[00:03:42]>> Okay.

[00:03:44]>> Do we know whether that resolution that set the amount that they are paid um speaks to the issue of when the claims or when they have to be submitted?

[00:03:58]I can research it and get back to you.

[00:04:02]>> Um because it I mean it would if we can set the amount that they're paid then we could probably also set parameters of when they'd have to be submitted by. And um I mean I I share Dave's concern that you get beyond a certain point and um you start to wonder whether they should be paid or not. Um but in the absence of a specific rule that we can point to that they um that says we disallow them, you know, then they don't have notice of that. But I think it's something that we could potentially address if we wanted to.

[00:04:43]find that resol resolution and um revisit that issue.

[00:04:49]>> Are all of these under the auditor's claims here?

[00:04:52]>> Is that all we're talking about?

[00:04:54]>> Yes.

[00:04:54]>> Okay. Um it just made me think of the payment issues we've had in the past with the medical examiner. Um we we flag those. The board office did.

[00:05:07]Um and then in some cases they were paid. in some cases. I don't I don't believe they were because they were outside of the timeline, but that was stipulated in the agreement. I do remember that. So, I I don't know if there is a time line set for these or not.

[00:05:28]>> And maybe it's something we we don't do.

[00:05:30]I mean, you know, having people that are, you know, in these townships and that want to do these positions is good and but um it just it struck me as odd when I looked at it. Perhaps we could um titrate the percentage over a period of time that says it gets later and later, maybe change the percentage on reimbursement, >> like vesting, like reverse vesting.

[00:05:55]I don't know about that.

[00:05:57]Um, so is this just discovered?

[00:06:02]>> No, these have been holding for quite a while. We h we've had them in the office for quite a while. And uh so then I just made the decision to go ahead and have them pay based on the amounts being not significant in our audit.

[00:06:18]Um, in regards to the medical examiner claims, um, those we do ask the chair to approve if it's outside of the three-month parameter, and I'm not aware of any that were denied. Um, it is possible that it has happened, but it's all up to the chair to approve those.

[00:06:37]>> Yeah. But again, that is addressed in the uh agreements.

[00:06:42]Well, I'm just curious why they weren't appro approved for payment earlier if they were being held. Is is that >> Well, we're talking recently held. It isn't that we've been holding them for years. It's just because we were researching it to determine if we should pay them and that's why we were waiting on on paying them.

[00:07:02]>> Okay.

[00:07:07]>> Okay.

[00:07:07]>> Yep. I'm good.

[00:07:09]>> All right. So I moved items two and three. I think you seconded Dave. Is that correct?

[00:07:14]>> Yep.

[00:07:15]>> Any discussion? All those in favor say I.

[00:07:19]>> I post same sign passes 40. Um item four, pro memorandum personnel transactions. I know we've got slight change between uh uh pay start date for HR director's raise and then start dates for temp workers for the auditor's office. Correct. Did I get that? Uh Melissa Thomas um HR director. So the first issue would be the effective date um for the HR raise. Now I I do know the agenda item said May 1st. Um past practice says it does raises do go back to the beginning of the pay period except for we have had a few outliers.

[00:07:57]So that would be um the board's decision of when that raise should go into effect and if I need to change that. And then also Pamela Bondstead will not be starting on the 6th. We'll move her start date up to the 13th. Okay. So that's when that will have to change. Is there any other changes there, Michelle?

[00:08:16]>> Yes. Uh Vicky Acriman also will be on the 13th, 513.

[00:08:24]And in regards to the past practice on the um the pay raises, I know in the past when the board has made action, I've often had conversations of how to word that. So the effective date is reflected correctly. Um in this case, we didn't have that conversation. It was noted in the homework, the date of 51.

[00:08:46]And so that's what action was in the minutes last week.

[00:08:54]What's the date?

[00:08:55]>> Uh, April 27th or May 1st >> is the discussion >> and April 27th is the first day of this pay period that >> so we'll open up for discussion on the start date of the of the uh increase whether we stick with April 27th as in the backup or May 1st which was the date that it was approved.

[00:09:21]Dave, you have a comment?

[00:09:24]>> Well, I mean, I guess um you know, kind of lack of knowledge of you know what what was it you said, Michelle, about the uh what's the um you know, normal? What do we do? I mean, or does it just up to >> um whenever there's an increase for a department head, it comes to the board if it's outside of the regular fiscal year changes.

[00:09:49]>> And in the past, board members have asked, you know, how does that affect payroll? Because if it's in the middle of the payroll, the way our software works is it applies it to the entire pay period. So, we do a manual process of adding the prior pay before the date um in order to to make that date work. And the board has said, "Well, what works good for you guys?" and so forth. And so, I kind of like have said, "Well, if you want it to start at the beginning of the pay period, use this date, which would be 427."

[00:10:20]The way it's worded right now, if I were to put it on 51, then we would prrate it. So, the JD director had an increase.

[00:10:28]We prrated that for the amounts before um the veterans affairs uh had an increase that was worded um effective as of the pay date which makes it effective of the start of the pay period. Um, I think the practice that Melissa is referring to is the attorneys who have anniversary dates and um, we've received PAS or in the HR memorandum that the effective date is the start of the pay period as opposed to their actual anniversary date and I think that maybe that's something that we need to look at moving forward.

[00:11:03]>> Yeah. So, in the past when we've approved raises, um, typically usually within the motion, we would say effective this date, and we didn't do that. And so, that's okay.

[00:11:13]>> That's probably largely on my fault. So, I would say we just move it to May 1st, which was the day that it was approved, and and then it's >> clean and clear to everybody.

[00:11:23]>> Good.

[00:11:25]>> Okay. So we have So then I would move item four with a change of the um HR director's salary starting on May 1st effective May 1st and then a change for Vicky Acriman and Pamela Bonstead to change their start dates to May 13th.

[00:11:42]Does that co >> Okay, >> sounds good. Thank you.

[00:11:46]>> Second motion by Nelson, seconded by Dietrich. Any discussion?

[00:11:50]All those in favor say I.

[00:11:52]>> I. I post same sign passes 40. Item five from emergency management Mike Montino is approval of resolution of regional hazard mitigation plan for FEMA. Mikey is not here but I have the resolution in the background.

[00:12:11]Um he just says that this allows them to pursue disaster grants for emergencies.

[00:12:18]says, "Whereas the 2026 regional hazard mitigation plan for Plymouth Cherokee item Manona Woodbury counties has been prepared in accordance with FEMA requirements and it sites code reference 44 C.F.R.201.6 six. And whereas Woodbury County participated in prep preparation of regional plan in the 2026 regional hazard mitigation plan. And whereas Woodbury County is a governing unit that has afforded its residents an opportunity to comment on and provide input in the plan and the actions in the plan. And whereas Woodbury County has reviewed the plan and affirms that the plan will be updated no less than every five years. Now for there be it resolved by the Woodbury County by the county Woodbury County. The Woodbury County Board of Supervisors adopts a 2026 regional hazard mitigation plan and resolves to execute the actions in the plan adopted May 5th, May 5, the day of the meeting of Woodbury County Board of Supervisors.

[00:13:12]>> Seems pretty clear. I would move it.

[00:13:15]>> Second.

[00:13:17]>> Motion by Nelson, seconded by Carper.

[00:13:19]Any discussion? All those in favor say I.

[00:13:22]>> I. Oppose. Same sign. Passes 40.

[00:13:27]Item six from secondary roads or receivers is approval of a temporary road embargo for the 220th street.

[00:13:36]Sergeant Bluff.

[00:13:40]>> Hello. Um so we'll take you back a little bit. Um the board has talked about this road before. In 2017 uh this road came up as a discussion and the issue was the same issue we have today. So unfortunately the issue is reoccurring every nine years and that is is that um a thin surface treatment was put on the road to handle the traffic volume that's on the road because it's uh quite a few almost residential home type area in um Woodbury County. But um it has come to a point where the road is to a point I feel that it needs a road embargo. In other words, a weight restriction on the road because um it just can't handle regular weight. Uh and we're seeing development going on and so that's bringing in um triple axle type trucks that are hauling in materials for that. Um you know, I think the latest is a home another home going down in the area. But um so this is 1.2 2 miles of a seal coat road that was put in in 2017.

[00:14:53]Um when the board uh and the engineer decided to do it that way, uh it was going to be that there was going to be another seal coat in five or seven years and then another seal coat in five or seven years, but none of that happened.

[00:15:08]Okay. So, we've been patching it. The patching started the very next year after it was put down.

[00:15:14]uh thin coat services I don't believe work in northwest Iowa and it's because I feel like you know we have soil we have traffic we have heavy traffic and so a a very thin surface on gravel road 2 in thick just won't survive. Um, so if you'd like to know a little bit about the maintenance that we're doing on it right now is when it's cold temperatures, we use cold mix and when it's warm temperatures, we're using uh patching for our AMZ machine. Um, that is done by our crews. Uh, it appears that we're probably spending about 30,000 in patching every year on this road alone.

[00:15:52]Um, so none of this is a good solution to the problem. Um, but I would appreciate an embargo for right now. Um, usually when I feel like Woodbury County has done embargos, it was pretty much for spring only. I don't know if we should put an end date on this. I think we should see how the seal coat handles warmer temperature, heals a little bit.

[00:16:16]We'll get some patching done on it. Uh, we may need to keep the uh, embargo on if the board is okay with that. If you want an end date, we can add that. But right now, the resolution you're going to hear does not have an end date. Do you have any questions before I read what our embargo would um stipulate?

[00:16:34]>> Yeah, I've been across that road, Laura, and obviously you have too, and it's it's not very good. But I guess one question is, I mean, it started out a gravel road. What's it take right now to put it back to just gravel? I mean, with that seal coat on it, >> right? We can do that. We can remove that seal coat with equipment we have or we can rent equipment if we need to, but we could do that ourselves and put it back to a gravel road.

[00:16:59]>> Okay. And it's not I mean I was just wondering I didn't know if it was a matter of just blading it up and and you know but Okay, that's my only question.

[00:17:10]>> Any other questions for Laura?

[00:17:13]>> All right, I'll go through the resolution. Um whereas the Woodbury County Board of Supervisors believe certain secondary roads in Woodbury County, Iowa, which are paved or unpaved, will be seriously damaged or destroyed unless the use of vehicles thereon is prohibited or permissible weight thereon reduced. And whereas chapter 321, section 471 of the code of Iowa gives the board the power to prohibit the operations of said vehicles on such roads and to impose restrictions as to the weight of vehicles on said roads. Now therefore, it be it resolved by the Woodbury County Board of Supervisors that where signs are erected on a highway, operations of vehicles weighing in excess of said weight limit are prohibited on said highway. So be it resolved that that said secondary roads subject to this resolution are more particularly described as 220th Street, County Road from K from County Road K29 east, one and a half miles to the end of the seal coat. The county engineer is instructed to remove said embargo if road conditions allow. So resolved this fifth day of May 2026.

[00:18:25]>> One more quick question.

[00:18:26]>> If it was to go back to gravel, you'd have an approximate how long it would take to do that to blade that up and then put gravel back down?

[00:18:35]>> I don't because I haven't done that before, but um I I think that again that we could handle it. I think that it could happen pretty soon.

[00:18:43]>> Okay. All right. I will move the resolution or the embargo.

[00:18:50]>> Second.

[00:18:53]>> Motion by Dietri, seconded by Nelson.

[00:18:55]Any other discussion?

[00:18:57]All those in favor say I.

[00:18:59]>> I.

[00:18:59]>> I. Oppose. Same sign. Passes 40. Thank you, Laura.

[00:19:10]All right. Item seven, reports on committee meetings.

[00:19:19]I think we got one that we're already signing up here. Laura, you just need one copy. You just need one copy. Okay.

[00:19:26]Can you have anything? Sure, >> Dave.

[00:19:30]I don't either. Item eight, citizen concerns.

[00:19:35]Don't hook it up once.

[00:19:40]Mark, I do have one. I just want to let everybody know that next week on the agenda, I will be putting on the CIP requests. So, any uh elected official or department head that has one, I just want to let them know that, you know, they should be prepared to discuss it.

[00:19:59]So, that's all I had.

[00:20:01]>> Thank you for that heads up and thanks for your work on that, Ryan. I look forward to next week.

[00:20:10]All right. Item nine, board concerns.

[00:20:14]Dave, I don't have any either. It's been pretty quiet.