[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6612394,"mediaKeyId","2891510-d846a6f8a2b2891ba4fdf59765162561","parentId",2891510,"title","Votes at a glance: Wright County board actions and contracts, April meeting","audioSeconds",133,"startMs",1026285,"endMs",1160000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2891510-d846a6f8a2b2891ba4fdf59765162561&start=1026&end=1160","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2891510-d846a6f8a2b2891ba4fdf59765162561/thumbnail_1026285.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6612394/Wright-County/Iowa/Votes-at-a-glance-Wright-County-board-actions-and-contracts-April-meeting","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6612394-663a244eeeaa4f2c431b0e3f9a305d14/orig.mp4?Expires=1770726855&Signature=T4kNvjuPlOdkTZMENdmEW4paMUuKlxM0WBiMMFZYH1n7b~X~BCF1bgpfrLiGXYSVVGoTfAYqkDBD2Tmcvgwka~lwMQgzzVxNyK0sQ0xXJyMOmb0qDLw3c8n5vIwcLu2yyt1~y-J6ak3D3OIKhlxN0Nbv2gF2x4weAF~2xmVsyGYBOC4wK19lILx5gnRnAQTPVvfXaj2m9O~ybVBd-MSoDB5eSvGWzgG1T156O1ED065HxLz0PTWNJGBKD~rDyAP08WZGrFR2KwItgUi9XjZa5gD9NyL9fMFbFrrMQe0in8InacPcM10FK9psnRzN9xBnnnRDdEWxi866ZzUPWrdejQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Wright County","date","2025-04-07T20:04:11.317Z","article","Below are the formal actions recorded during the Wright County Board meeting and related trustee sessions. Where the transcript recorded a voice vote of \"All Aye,\" the meeting minutes also list the five supervisors present (Cloos, Bosch, Rasmussen, Lukes, Ellis).

1) Memorandum of Understanding (Humboldt County and Wright County)
- Action: Motion to approve memorandum of understanding concerning joint drainage districts (up to $15,000 each side).
- Motion: made by Wright County trustee (unnamed in transcript); second by Humboldt trustee (unnamed in transcript).
- Vote: Wright County supervisors present voted in favor; Humboldt County trustees also voted in favor.
- Outcome: Approved.

2) Drainage work order: DD136 (Lake Township)
- Action: Motion to approve a work order to televise an underground tile on DD136 to investigate a possible plug; investigation requested by landowner Jacob Weiss.
- Motion: made by drainage trustee (unnamed); seconded.
- Vote: All ayes in trustee session.
- Outcome: Approved; televising scheduled.

3) Award contract: Project BROS C O 99... (Bridge north of Rowan)
- Action: Resolution 2025-16 awarding contract to Peterson Contractors in the amount of $186,029.75 for a bridge/box culvert project.
- Motion: by county staff (as recorded in minutes); seconded.
- Vote: Supervisors recorded as \"All ayes.\"
- Outcome: Approved; contract award to Peterson Contractors.

4) Secondary roads five-year program (FY 2026\u00002030)
- Action: Motion to approve the Secondary Roads five-year program and IUDT budget (as presented).
- Motion: seconded.
- Vote: All ayes.
- Outcome: Approved; engineering to proceed with design and bid letting.

5) Union contract: Sheriff Deputies and Jailers
- Action: Motion to approve negotiated union contract effective July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2029 (includes post-retirement health language and participation options).
- Motion: made and seconded.
- Vote: All ayes.
- Outcome: Approved pending signatures and final execution by union representative and county signatories.

6) Proclamation: Child Abuse Prevention Month
- Action: Motion to proclaim April as Child Abuse Prevention Month in Wright County (proclamation read by Angela Westlake of Parent Connection).
- Motion: seconded.
- Vote: All ayes.
- Outcome: Proclamation adopted; signature to be obtained.

7) Budget hearing date
- Action: Motion to hold the Wright County budget hearing on April 28 at 9:30 a.m. for FY 2025-26.
- Motion: seconded.
- Vote: All ayes.
- Outcome: Date set for publication and hearing.

8) Communications director full-time hire (rescind/replace language)
- Action: Board rescinded a prior motion and then approved a revised motion to hire a communications director as a full-time position with salary adjustments language replacing the phrase \"cost of living.\" The approved hire included staged pay increases described in the personnel paperwork.
- Motion(s): rescind previous motion; motion to approve revised hire language.
- Vote: All ayes.
- Outcome: Revised personnel action recorded; HR to manage signatures and final paperwork.

Notes on vote tallies: the transcript and meeting minutes record voice votes and \"all ayes\" on multiple items. The board roll as recorded in the meeting minutes for this session lists five supervisors (Cloos, Bosch, Rasmussen, Lukes, Ellis). Where roll-call was not explicitly recorded in the transcript, the summary above notes the unanimous voice vote as reported in the record.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Wright County Iowa Board of Supervisors April 7, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","This roundup lists formal motions recorded at the Wright County Board meeting, including drainage and intercounty agreements, a contract award, union contract approval, a proclamation, and the five-year roads program.","taxTitle","Wright County, Iowa","taxId",47114,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6612396,"Wright County approves 5-year secondary roads program; engineers outline bridge and paving projects and estimated costs",575,2744640,3320000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2891510-d846a6f8a2b2891ba4fdf59765162561&start=2744&end=3320","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2891510-d846a6f8a2b2891ba4fdf59765162561/thumbnail_2744640.jpg","/articles/6612396/Wright-County/Iowa/Wright-County-approves-5-year-secondary-roads-program-engineers-outline-bridge-and-paving-projects-and-estimated-costs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6612396-212dcaf1e2c629366cdc8748c36062c6/orig.mp4?Expires=1770726855&Signature=j3m0fIuECat3U2NJ5ADy~~5QPBukZ9yUeLs-x2xyO7lJ3HBezgWH-trJp7nY5gPHeCDnJO0dKnQCAFicEeguRwiz~ZCwhR5I8BFq8oK2ksz-u5~fUoEKXFEiaSrjwMQrjK3owEAbk5HC0ENpoknHmlxR63WhJ4y9w6JTGyvoHUkFS4Ndcah0JX4w-Cct89PntiBNpbKaRyTxLV6cOlAsks~HDY1t1ZbeJmfNsbingcTkOuR5ZBBmLJQ0KLAmVsXOI2D75hAhqFSwAA-I6mRgf6COeurmkXN4aCVxd4WNL~RQ8MHbYw2lmr5mAs0ni6EpH3DvUhm2l69qNKzcM73waQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Wright County Board of Supervisors voted to approve the county\u0000s secondary roads five-year program for fiscal years 2026 through 2030, a planning document that identifies major paving and bridge projects, estimated costs and funding sources.

County engineers reviewed the program and highlighted major projects by fiscal year. For FY 2026 they listed two projects (C25 and R45 around the lake) estimated at $2,250,000, paid with FM (farm-to-market) dollars; Bridge 175 (the Four Corners bridge) is under design with a federal aid agreement and potential to expand a double box culvert to a triple box culvert depending on design needs. For FY 2027 engineers identified Bridge 52 (east of Galt) at about $300,000 and Bridge 155A (north of Belmond, remote curve structure) estimated at $950,000. Later-year projects include county road K (R38) south of Clarion ($2,500,000 FM), Bridge 49 (south of Rowan) and a local Bridge 173 in Norway Township ($540,000), and Bridge 124 on Lake Blacktop (estimated $2,100,000). A shared project with Franklin County was listed at $500,000 (Wright County share estimated at 50% per agreement).

Engineers noted rising construction costs compared with five years earlier, partially offset by increased road-use revenue and successful grant awards, including a CITVR grant and a federal RAISE grant referenced for previous bridge work. The program document provided a funding breakdown by source (FA = federal aid, FM = farm-to-market, local, SWAP/BR funds) and indicated several projects will be let for bids in early 2026.

The board approved the five-year program by motion and voice vote. Supervisors agreed to sign the final documents so the engineer could proceed with design and bid letting.

Why this matters: the five-year plan sets priorities and spending expectations for roads and bridges that affect travel, farm-to-market access and county costs; several large bridge projects will require design work and potential mitigation credits for stream impacts.","The Wright County Board approved the secondary roads five-year program covering FY 2026\u00002030, listing repaving, bridge replacements and structure upgrades with estimated costs and funding sources (federal aid, farm-to-market/FM, local).",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6612401,"Wright County supervisors debate seismic testing setbacks, monitoring and liability",501,3687880,4189000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2891510-d846a6f8a2b2891ba4fdf59765162561&start=3687&end=4189","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2891510-d846a6f8a2b2891ba4fdf59765162561/thumbnail_3687880.jpg","/articles/6612401/Wright-County/Iowa/Wright-County-supervisors-debate-seismic-testing-setbacks-monitoring-and-liability","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6612401-1bcd88a6f65fdaac78a3287d188b897b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770726855&Signature=JsiQRF4fo4QZJF0F8ICi0bS79G13nGCi9jSrIYH5wqnb8i~6IDRC8xADRrN3RheT~Vzm2bag6lk5y7Qmj995jx-Us3Deb3eU~6HnwZ8qYtnmGyJ778cL-oR3wcHRayBbBMkl9gIG-xCs6~Dmz6oaNA93nOeqQhtF77Mn8VYJ1EYP~XjXCbrEtsTf-JM6CeWEbU0x7DgpGhkjD30a1e07kski0B3VUkwDyUKVQpIrNihArEEjPESpjnf~0EMNybDsxq6i~tF51SnHzd5K1hW4qtCfbC8Um2lm3Fw~9BtU6XS1ebkKB6o9aaRzzNl20xSBN~~z40QuT5JQtozGC~5gDg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Wright County supervisors and county engineers discussed whether to alter the county\u0000s road use agreement that governs seismic testing on county roads and rights-of-way. Twin Rivers Exploration asked for relaxed setback rules in combination with continuous monitoring, but county officials raised concerns about risk and long-term liability.

County engineering staff presented a risk analysis prepared by an independent engineering firm (Allender/Budeke) that used peak particle velocity (PPV) thresholds to model the chance of tile or structure damage from seismic testing. The engineers reported a PPV threshold of 0.5 (units: peak particle velocity) as a point where risk of deformation rises if testing occurs within 50 feet of a subsurface tile or structure. The county currently has a 250-foot setback in its road use agreement.

Twin Rivers Exploration representatives proposed \"walk-along\" monitoring: a technician on site continuously monitoring PPV and stopping operations if readings approach the 0.5 threshold. County staff acknowledged the company\u0000s offer but outlined concerns about whether the county should accept the liability and monitoring burden on its public roads.

Several supervisors said the county should not assume extra risk for private exploration. One supervisor said, \"I don't see why the county should take on that risk. . . If you can't do it with that, then go talk to the landowner and proceed that way.\" County staff added the existing agreement includes a 10-year callback provision to recover county costs if testing causes damage.

County engineers reported other county engineers in the region were also uncomfortable with reducing setbacks and had similar liability concerns. The county will communicate its position to Twin Rivers Exploration and indicated it will require either compliance with the current 250-foot setback or direct agreements with private landowners for closer testing.

Why this matters: seismic testing can be a preliminary step toward resource development; supervisors balanced potential long-term economic benefits against the risk of damage to drainage tile and county infrastructure and the difficulty of enforcing continuous monitoring on public roads.","County engineers and supervisors discussed proposals from Twin Rivers Exploration to use closer setbacks with live monitoring for seismic testing; supervisors expressed concern about liability to the county and favored maintaining a 250-foot setback in the county road use agreement.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6612406,"Wright County supervisors hear public concerns about confusing property tax notices; board votes to oppose the county—notice as framed",875,30510,905745,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2891510-d846a6f8a2b2891ba4fdf59765162561&start=30&end=905","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2891510-d846a6f8a2b2891ba4fdf59765162561/thumbnail_30510.jpg","/articles/6612406/Wright-County/Iowa/Wright-County-supervisors-hear-public-concerns-about-confusing-property-tax-notices-board-votes-to-oppose-the-countynotice-as-framed","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6612406-340404a9cf648e8f45e072c1662ae883/orig.mp4?Expires=1770726855&Signature=ZR0DA97Vq0vNfwVGBfK6qN-twBqacZS732mTAeXmO4gjaTKgiJ1v7S8DSGp6MmRBOUDGtUXhMVgh68WPuAc7q1OPQ6qgeRvm3h5eqGtszDCt9Nk4yIDJrFi5yYxw6Hq3DXFYjvonnlVjVBlodq4EfPEpM1M~jkrcjBn855~r8wkRAZ9wO-X8crU3TKeLK~cCQxZiSGF1LgOJ-~gqvO3g55pBt5df9nyhUcJLVXjn~kR9NojEjrXDgZEpg4ytTGwPbAXtv5bjDvS3I~U9e1yU6pc1xSm936TWbZ9m1GhSEH7RuQCFN1p3~IXGUvqSvnqjFoeLnrHLAMFEerNrtJrFzA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Wright County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on the proposed county property tax levy for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2026, and received remarks from residents and county staff about confusing informational mailings required under House File 72.

County staff and the county auditor said the statements mailed to property owners are difficult for residents to interpret. An unidentified county official told residents the summary front page of the mailing is the most useful information and that the back page includes examples that have repeatedly prompted questions from taxpayers. The official said the mailings were generated under requirements of House File 72 and that statewide groups including the Iowa State Association of Counties (ISAC) and local auditors have raised concerns about the materials.

The hearing drew several public questions about how valuations and levy rates interact. Resident Mike Tennier said he thought his taxes would rise sharply after seeing a figure he described as \"11.45\" on the statement; county staff clarified that the figure represented dollars and cents of levy rate per $1,000 of valuation (\"$11.45 per $1,000\"), not an 11.45 percent increase. County staff and the assessor explained that valuation classification changes (for example, a parcel moving from agricultural to residential classification) can cause large single-year tax increases and that assessment notices from the prior April show the valuation baseline used for current tax calculations.

The hearing record shows trustees and supervisors discussed the clarity and cost of mailing the statements. Multiple officials said they were urging legislators and auditors to revise the statement before next year; one official reported a comparison to a Minnesota form that appeared clearer and said county leaders were pursuing changes with legislators and ISAC.

After public comment, a supervisor moved to \"oppose the public hearings for Wright County property tax levy, proposed Wright County property tax levy,\" the motion was seconded, and the board recorded the vote as in favor. The transcript reflects an affirmative voice vote; the meeting minutes for the session list routine procedural actions but do not provide a roll-call tally for this specific motion.

Why this matters: property tax notices are the principal way the public learns about levy changes and valuation shifts. Misunderstanding the mailed statement can lead to confusion and concern about sudden tax changes, particularly among owners whose parcels change classification.

The record shows no change to the county's proposed levy amounts at the hearing; the board's action recorded in the minutes relates to opposition to the form of the public notice as presented. The assessor and auditor advised residents to consult their April assessment notices to see current valuations used for taxes and to contact county offices with questions about classification or valuation.","At a public hearing on the proposed Wright County property tax levy for the year ending June 30, 2026, residents and county staff said statewide-mandated mailings required by House File 72 are confusing. The board later approved a motion described in the minutes as opposing the public hearings notice as published.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Wright County board actions and contracts, April meeting

Wright County approves 5-year secondary roads program; engineers outline bridge and paving projects and estimated costs

Wright County supervisors debate seismic testing setbacks, monitoring and liability

Wright County supervisors hear public concerns about confusing property tax notices; board votes to oppose the county—notice as framed