~by Janice Harbaugh for GreeneCountyNewsOnline
All terrain vehicle (ATV) legislation was again a topic for discussion during the Jan. 31 meeting of the Greene County board of supervisors. County regulation of ATVs has been discussed by the board almost yearly over the past several years.
Recorder Deb McDonald told the board she receives inquiries from the public about Greene County not having an ordinance about the use of ATVs on rural highways.
“People ask why Greene County can’t have an ordinance (governing ATVs on roads and highways.) I just tell them to talk to the board of supervisors,” McDonald said.
Auditor Jane Heun said there is currently a bill in the Iowa House to allow the operation of ATVs and off-road utility vehicles on all county highways. If House File 800 eventually becomes law, counties would lose the ability to regulate ATVs and UTVs.
Heun said the Iowa State Association of County Supervisors has registered an opinion against the bill.
During discussion, board chair John Muir spoke personally as a rural property owner and said some ATV owners don’t respect boundaries (when off-roading.) Board discussion included problems with owners allowing children to drive the vehicles and confusion if every county enacts its own ordinances.
McDonald asked the board to enact an ordinance, but, after discussion, the board returned to their previous position that it does prefer regulation at the state level.
In other business, county attorney Thomas Laehn again reviewed sections of a 28E agreement with Central Iowa Community Services he believes conflict with each other and could cause problems, if the board of supervisors were to approve the agreement.
The sections Laehn identified at this meeting, and previous January meetings of the board, have to do with the procedure for adding counties to CICS. Laehn has stated these sections are not a legal reason to refuse to approve the agreement, but could cause controversy and confusion if new counties want to join.
“This is a policy decision of the board,” Laehn said, “not a legal matter.”
Laehn advised the board that the sections in question should be rewritten to be made clear before any new counties are added to the CICS region, even if the board does pass a resolution approving the agreement in its current form.
“And not everyone is looking at the same agreement,” Laehn said. “There are multiple agreements. They don’t agree with each other.”
At the Jan. 27 board meeting, Russell Wood, CEO of CICS, and Patti-Treibel-Leeds, administrator at CICS, attended electronically. Wood said the 28E agreement had been adjusted in response to Laehn’s objections. Wood also said the board of supervisors does not need to vote on the 28E.
“The CICs governing board will be considering it later today,” Wood said. “The governing board is not required to send the agreement to the member counties. Ratification by counties is not required.”
At the January 27 meeting, attorney Laehn agreed the revised agreement was “a legally valid instrument.”
A second 28E agreement approved by the governing board in October 2021 then became the focus for ambiguity in language.
At the January 27 meeting, Laehn recommended an amendment to the October agreement to clarify the procedure for CICs to add new counties. This agreement had already been approved by the CICs governing board. Laehn told the board they might or might not want to ratify it.
At the Jan. 31 meeting, Laehn said, “There is a question of validity here (about the agreement) but I won’t advise you not to accept it.”
Muir said, “On this train, we all want to go to the same place. We want to be in CICS, but confusion is not good.”
“We’re all in this together,” Laehn said. “We want to eliminate all possible risks to the county.”
Supervisor Dawn Rudolph reported attending the recent meeting of the governing board of CICS. Rudolph represents the board of supervisors in CICS matters.
“I would like this board to send our comments in (to the CICS governing board,)” Rudolph said. “I would hope other counties see this, too.”
Supervisor Pete Bardole said, “We’d like this cleaned up.”
GCNO asked if there would be any financial risk to the county if the 28E agreement were to be approved as written.
Laehn responded, “I don’t fully know the answer. If there is litigation with the Region (over a county’s valid membership) the costs could possibly by passed on to us.”
In the end, the board unanimously approved Resolution 2022-02: A Resolution Approving an Amended 28E Agreement for Central Iowa Community Services. The full resolution is contained in the board minutes.
Engineer Wade Weiss reported his department doing preliminary work for bridge inspections in the county which occur every two years. He also asked about the proposed carbon pipeline in the county and the status of decisions by the Iowa Utilities Board.
“We’re still in discussion about it. We haven’t made a decision,” Muir answered.
The board unanimously approved a letter of support for a grant application to Grow Greene County for a tractor-trailer water tanker to be used by the Jefferson Fire Department.
The board also unanimously approved a master services agreement and statement of work with Pratum for an incident response plan in the event of election security problems.
Auditor Heun said Pratum will be paid $3,540 for reviewing the county’s plan of election security and testing the current security measures through a “table-top exercise.” She said testing involves cyber-security, election equipment, and incidents such as a fire on election day.
“Pratum can tell us if improvement is needed in election security,” Heun said.
The board unanimously approved payment for bills from Jefferson Telecom for services ($483.92), WHKS for engineering services ($1,002.60), and $50,063.63 to Dixon Construction as the final payment for the FEMA- funded repair to the bike trail bridge over the Raccoon River.
