[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-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",[32,74,86,98],{"_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":56,"_68":69,"_70":56,"_71":72,"_73":72},"mediaId",6172234,"mediaKeyId","5390955-5b2cd60795b95e382692747e1a62bef1","parentId",5390955,"title","Risk-pool report recommends pollution liability and other coverage for county contractors; mock OSHA audit planned","audioSeconds",538,"startMs",1142000,"endMs",1680000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5390955-5b2cd60795b95e382692747e1a62bef1&start=1142&end=1680","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5390955-5b2cd60795b95e382692747e1a62bef1/thumbnail_1142000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6172234/Benton-County/Iowa/Risk-pool-report-recommends-pollution-liability-and-other-coverage-for-county-contractors-mock-OSHA-audit-planned","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6172234-44517e4d16819f2cf7ad83283cc86d49/orig.mp4?Expires=1771153301&Signature=I0UNlUBI~kA6A-ufNwhPlPS-5APxdDmfeHJGvPEWb4cjdZTvej3y6dSotYdNsfFPL2mCbDqCDWZpZfxKPSzcD-y1O~~k0sEWJGX9AaMmgZNF0LMQcfxtwe957X73iRYI0HoGL9FT51KBBkzePd2Nmuw2PRUKPlVCgGj79HaJkAKaYBojgoetcUC0JuE58ib4S2vZRgkD4Oz~nCIt8klt5T8RRI-YyPAKZJ-TR89-A9Z1hRduNKKgw0TY8qhMsuHyS1dIKyEleG018x0Xue1p2iijPG0~4S9bza1yrMcrePqaUkSRzHTlbC~gusNDvqcPshSgUoZp-Kpqma3Jtt8uKA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Benton County, Iowa","date","2025-07-15T04:07:13Z","article","County staff and a risk-pool representative reported to the Board of Supervisors that Benton County remains high among peers for workers’ compensation claims and recommended contract changes to reduce county exposure. The risk-pool presenter asked that standard contractor agreements include pollution and environmental liability coverage with a $1 million aggregate and professional liability coverage of $1 million per occurrence, and requested that county contracts name the county as an additional insured for general and auto liability.

Why it matters: Requiring additional insurance for contractors changes procurement terms, may increase contractor costs, and reduces county exposure to pollution cleanup and third-party claims resulting from contractor operations.

The risk-pool representative told the board the most common cause of auto claims involved deer collisions; secondary-roads and sheriff’s offices are often targeted for a mock OSHA audit based on loss runs. Staff said the pooled insurer has recommended that general-contractor contracts require pollution/environmental liability with a one-million-dollar aggregate and professional liability coverage; they also suggested auto liability and additional-insured language be standard when contractors do county work.

Supervisors asked whether the county should require these coverages immediately for the ISG contract (which the board also discussed elsewhere on the agenda). Staff said the risk-pool did not set a specific compliance deadline and that requirements would be coordinated with contract managers. Staff also noted a fall seminar and training calendar and said a mock OSHA audit will be unannounced and focused on departments with high loss history.

The presentation also reported that the county continues to receive a 10% premium discount because its mod rate remains low and that the safety committee program yields additional savings. Staff reminded supervisors the county reviewed courthouse coverage and found adequate limits including the new courthouse clock.

Ending: Staff will follow up with contract managers to identify which existing contracts should be amended to include the recommended coverages and will coordinate with the county’s legal counsel and procurement staff to align procurement documents with risk-pool recommendations.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","07/15/25 Board of Supervisors Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","County risk-pool representatives told supervisors Benton County remains near the top for claims and recommended adding pollution/environmental liability and professional liability to contractor agreements; staff also noted a planned mock OSHA audit and continued safety discounts tied to risk metrics.","taxTitle","taxId",45756,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":56,"_68":69,"_70":56,"_71":72,"_73":72},6172237,"Supervisors adopt EMS trust fund policy to standardize reimbursements, auditors and providers",65,676000,741000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5390955-5b2cd60795b95e382692747e1a62bef1&start=676&end=741","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5390955-5b2cd60795b95e382692747e1a62bef1/thumbnail_676000.jpg","/articles/6172237/Benton-County/Iowa/Supervisors-adopt-EMS-trust-fund-policy-to-standardize-reimbursements-auditors-and-providers","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6172237-1f4685983a0bb9c8e286c749549de18e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771153301&Signature=Pi6R0Gnl3I3lIju8a5rpQ2nPfolVbH38i68j16b2Y3IjZR0eCkVn81-3kh7IgPfVyyP4lO0HrGA4Gp7i3yCZ4WWFwu69LzKBrtlTu-i~J0kskrB4W4XbEWaJAeWe8EOQGPInPY4LWpN9DYxui6URCaKo8pQL~CLEOHyLVJ9b-6OEStwJFSlguHeu36l9ESNAnnE0Z0VZ7o~vInD5e33i-fx2AL2l2TNfT8Y71IG2T9chKAKXhz6ZHSRdQE6nyuccrwERXcJXx5eyDytA4U5jK-jk43lVV~FV3j7UnFY1-efF47gJgxMX49PSZYFi2GtNxIPnp4xMHIVleO832csbHw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Benton County Board of Supervisors voted to adopt an EMS trust fund policy intended to standardize how EMS providers request reimbursements and how the county audits and documents trust-fund expenditures. The board approved adopting the policy by motion and discussed attaching a resolution to memorialize the adoption.

Why it matters: County EMS trust funds often contain fees or local revenues earmarked for emergency medical services. The policy clarifies how reimbursements are requested, how the county auditor processes those requests, and what documentation EMS providers must submit.

County staff who drafted the policy described it as a practical procedure to fill gaps not currently addressed by state statutes and to create consistent direction for the board, the county auditor and EMS providers. One staff member told the board, \"I think it's good to have a policy in place given that this is something that we don't run into in government in our...small county,\" adding the policy will help avoid confusion about reimbursements and make the auditor's role clearer.

Supervisors discussed adopting the policy by resolution; staff noted a suggested resolution number (listed in the meeting as 2581) and said they would circulate a resolution form for signatures. The board motioned to adopt the EMS trust fund policy and the motion passed by voice vote.

Clarifications in the discussion included that the policy is intended to codify reimbursement procedures for EMS providers and that the auditor would receive documentation to process payments. Several supervisors said they appreciated attached exhibits in the packet that showed examples of allowable expenditures.

Ending: The board approved the policy and directed staff to attach a formal resolution and to circulate the signed document to relevant offices. Staff said they will continue to update the policy if state statutes change and will notify EMS providers of the required documentation and procedures.","The Benton County Board of Supervisors approved a county EMS trust fund policy to establish procedures for reimbursements, auditor review and provider requests. Staff said the policy anticipates future state guidance and aims to reduce confusion about eligible purchases and reimbursements.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":56,"_68":69,"_70":56,"_71":72,"_73":72},6172243,"Local chiropractor asks supervisors for retroactive tax relief; assessor and staff explain limits and board-of-review route",1426,1698000,3124000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5390955-5b2cd60795b95e382692747e1a62bef1&start=1698&end=3124","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5390955-5b2cd60795b95e382692747e1a62bef1/thumbnail_1698000.jpg","/articles/6172243/Benton-County/Iowa/Local-chiropractor-asks-supervisors-for-retroactive-tax-relief-assessor-and-staff-explain-limits-and-board-of-review-route","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6172243-df199b49d96d25691c48f4a0b9dbd0db/orig.mp4?Expires=1771153301&Signature=BrSNCabuHYWICVPiwXxSNLQyiHl6LuLRi8TGfDNhf3ZveJAhKIy6p2O~wVwaEv4NkHMR60kqY1uwwij~A42e9mlJNEXNIHfHcdRuCMvfRGFYvIXf97Usg0BTOMR1M65jO-cRkJgWhUrG~GyRTnCaE9ZlSDBE-EASl2htVTGtxM~f9y3Ra4g9T~OanQDsZir4NRTf4c6lu6IYV2wOMm7a4PGpsd9tK333s2lYxTq~qW85FmdXfPjulmPAsmu~iCcIHeDs7qGv98krjvNSA4Sps6xiXIpIR8Xx-Feisu0nos1bO0Xo2-LaCDfUCSZYX5O9ZEMqxGs9gGXHdGAsk9Wf1Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A Benton County resident and clinic owner told the Board of Supervisors he believes his commercial building was misclassified decades ago, leading to an estimated 33% higher tax assessment and roughly $48,000 in potential overpayment going back to 2012. The owner asked whether the board could provide retroactive relief.

Why it matters: Property classification affects assessed value, tax bills and appeals procedures. The discussion clarified which local bodies can correct classifications and the limited circumstances in which the county supervisors can act.

The owner (identified in the transcript as Matt) said he originally raised the classification issue with county staff last summer after a tax statement showed a jump. He told supervisors he recalculated a 33% reduction to historic bills and concluded the misclassification may date to February 2012. He asked whether supervisors could or should pursue retroactive corrections or other remedies.

County assessor Larry (first name only in transcript) explained the distinction between an objective clerical error and a subjective valuation or grading decision. Larry said he reviewed the building and Vanguard Appraisals' pricing guidelines and determined that some grading and obsolescence adjustments had been applied. He told the owner that many elements of valuation are discretionary and that his office made corrections for the current tax year but that legal remedies for earlier years are limited. \"The board of review could have corrected the '24; actually, the 20 threes were corrected to some degree,\" Larry said, adding that petitions generally must be filed within statutory deadlines.

Board members and county staff repeatedly recommended that the owner contact the Iowa Department of Revenue for clarification; the transcript records a state official by name: \"John Wolf,\" identified in the meeting as the acting property tax administrator. Staff also explained the role of the local board of review: it has delegated authority to reassess property and can hear petitions and determine actual value in certain statutory circumstances.

No vote or formal county remedy was approved at the meeting. Supervisors and staff advised the resident to pursue a petition to the board of review and to consult Department of Revenue staff about possible options and any precedent for retroactive adjustments. County staff said the board of supervisors does not routinely reopen many-year-old assessments and that, where corrections were possible, the assessor’s office already adjusted recent tax years as allowed by law.

Ending: The board offered to help the resident understand the appeals process and suggested staff provide contact information for the board of review and the Iowa Department of Revenue. The owner requested a meeting with the board of review and county staff agreed to follow up with guidance on next steps.","A Benton County property owner asked the board to pursue retroactive correction after he said his commercial property was misclassified. County assessor explained statutory limits and recommended the owner pursue a petition to the board of review or seek guidance from the Iowa Department of Revenue.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":56,"_68":69,"_70":56,"_71":72,"_73":72},6172247,"Benton County holds hearing on proposed Ordinance 80; public raises vaccinations, private-property and enforcement concerns",3992,3614000,7606000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5390955-5b2cd60795b95e382692747e1a62bef1&start=3614&end=7606","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5390955-5b2cd60795b95e382692747e1a62bef1/thumbnail_3614000.jpg","/articles/6172247/Benton-County/Iowa/Benton-County-holds-hearing-on-proposed-Ordinance-80-public-raises-vaccinations-private-property-and-enforcement-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6172247-537c9893f91a39ec1277fbe79db25f9f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771153301&Signature=eK1LRVSYVQFvKzqliAEXXQbPaymZubVnge1Gh4gPo~V~6KZ0FTGlPSP87fRTF5VOePPyO~pgIiTUMqIBMDu0UuO3MZoJkv11CYPFIOUQBl5plWKPPe1FP9zoj~wgxPNSy-WEJcC6~PFP6q1U9GWa49JPUNjNVqua0BFs~32IFqGpxyRmpqcAxz8cYEjHAEeWONhEDcaGOfVJf655G4U-C0gtdD~yGgwgWU7Kr7da~AFx~gbCbk1W0XnjmRPIvaTRp~7QRQ3E81WR4Gjgk1qy~1gihQs7eNkda~8Euo29UgD4oyuipypIyVp~6WxSfX8xgL~iznU8g58QtwFRy3BM0w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Benton County Board of Supervisors opened a public hearing on proposed Ordinance 80, intended to replace Ordinance 37 and revise the county's rules on dangerous and vicious animals. The board heard about 90 minutes of public comment and staff explanation that focused on which species would be listed, how “at-large” is defined, vaccination and quarantine procedures, and who would enforce the ordinance.

Why it matters: The draft ordinance changes definitions and procedural provisions that determine when law enforcement or a contracted animal-control provider can remove or confine an animal; the questions raised affect residents’ property rights, public-safety responses to dog bites and the county’s ability to enforce the law.

The hearing brought repeated concerns about the ordinance’s definitions. One speaker noted the draft lists many species among “dangerous animals” and asked how the rules would affect people who keep nontraditional domestic animals (\"How does this work for the people that raise it?\"), a point that drew follow-up questions from Supervisors and staff. County staff said the draft borrows language used elsewhere and that the list is intended to identify animals that are “dangerous per se,” but agreed to clarify items and exceptions for licensed breeders or state-licensed wild-game operations.

Another major topic was the difference between animals found \"at large\" on public property and animals on private property. Several residents asked whether a homeowner who posts warnings or uses fencing would be subject to penalty; one speaker said, \"Don't tell me what to do on my own private property,\" arguing the county should not regulate animals that do not leave a property. County staff and supervisors replied the draft aims to address animals off the owner’s premises and noted language will be clarified to reduce conflicts over property rights.

Health and rabies control drew sustained comment. The draft follows Iowa statutes on rabies vaccination; staff pointed to Iowa Code chapter 351.33, which requires dogs and cats older than six months to be vaccinated against rabies but contains a carve-out for animals “kept in kennels and not allowed to run at large.” Several speakers urged stronger language so victims of unvaccinated animal bites are advised to seek immediate medical care and so county officials can act quickly instead of waiting the ordinance’s existing quarantine period.

The hearing included a reading of the ordinance’s variance language; as read aloud, the draft states in part: “Under no circumstances shall a variance be granted after a dangerous or vicious animal has killed a domestic animal or attacked a person resulting in injury.” Speakers asked whether that sentence allows any discretion in cases of accidental or one-time livestock predation, and asked for additional discretion for businesses or licensed operations.

Law enforcement capacity and enforcement mechanisms were also discussed. Sheriff’s office representatives and others said the county does not currently employ a dedicated animal-control officer and that the sheriff’s office would prefer a contract with an outside provider rather than having deputies perform sustained animal-control duties. County staff said they will explore contracting with a humane-society or private animal-control service and will draft clearer enforcement procedures, including where a confined animal should be held during quarantine.

Board process: Supervisors did not vote on the ordinance at this hearing. Staff said they will revise the draft to address the questions raised—definitions of “at large,” the kennel exception, quarantine and variance procedures, and enforcement mechanisms—and return with a revised draft. The board agreed to keep the matter on next week’s agenda for further review; staff suggested posting a redlined draft that highlights proposed changes before the next public meeting.

The next scheduled reading was not finalized during the hearing; staff said they would publish revised language and consider extending the reading schedule to allow time for additional stakeholder input.

Ending note: County staff asked members of the public and interested organizations to submit written comments and requested that the board’s legal staff provide a redline of recommended edits before the next hearing so supervisors and the public can compare versions.","The Benton County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on proposed Ordinance 80 (to replace Ordinance 37), drawing extended public comment on definitions of \"dangerous\" animals, the role of private property, rabies vaccination requirements, quarantine procedures and enforcement capacity.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Risk-pool report recommends pollution liability and other coverage for county contractors; mock OSHA audit planned

Supervisors adopt EMS trust fund policy to standardize reimbursements, auditors and providers

Local chiropractor asks supervisors for retroactive tax relief; assessor and staff explain limits and board-of-review route

Benton County holds hearing on proposed Ordinance 80; public raises vaccinations, private-property and enforcement concerns