[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_25":26},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5},"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","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_27":28,"_29":30},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[31,74,86],{"_32":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":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},"mediaId",6587428,"mediaKeyId","5600485-3621ba7a2b49359277a358a342e7945e","parentId",5600485,"title","Votes at a glance: supervisors approve liquor licenses, tax‑sale assignment, lease termination and other routine business","audioSeconds",168,"startMs",55000,"endMs",223000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5600485-3621ba7a2b49359277a358a342e7945e&start=55&end=223","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5600485-3621ba7a2b49359277a358a342e7945e/thumbnail_55000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6587428/Kossuth-County/Iowa/Votes-at-a-glance-supervisors-approve-liquor-licenses-taxsale-assignment-lease-termination-and-other-routine-business","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6587428-5723486d307ca5e123d82f471bd77154/orig.mp4?Expires=1769943427&Signature=PKcqy3mDhXJxhyqMafnEK8jk2dOydEde0f~ieL2wM9IfNAcdL9gFM79X36vfVlXkwt7pgGELydWyemwZ~TwXQVcQF3-0kidDYVZfeqakDJf8z4jDA1TTUq-U1VulUxNE6LNGqVpUY~ea4ucLYauW1HOC0n2wsYXYe9LonRcVZ6ZUeAtYvxijd1SdkkWGKVle74lxdJQeY9lOEnA52~5iZV5BVEMS-Ub~0EcOZGd26Z6fIR3CRSBMLPy~cecVrnoWrXbLNiLPj7ErDv74HC~EbGfIfFZg8FkHZzKPaWeIXsPo3wn5pqHEtmqZhhQStH3DY3AHWswqc8NMauWNqLkJ1Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Kossuth County","date","2025-08-19T20:46:22Z","article","Kossuth County supervisors handled a range of routine business items during the meeting, recording motions and votes on licenses, tax matters, a dissolution agreement, and a gravel‑pit lease termination. The board recorded motions, named movers and seconders where available, and in a few cases took roll‑call votes.

Votes and formal actions recorded in the meeting record:

- Approve agenda and minutes (August 12) — Motion to approve the agenda and minutes with a change to the tax‑sale assignment language was made, moved and seconded. The board approved the agenda and minutes; the chair announced \"Motion carries.\" (no roll call recorded in transcript).

- Approve claims and conservation claims — Motion to approve claims was moved and seconded. One supervisor said, \"Not just that I will abstain.\" The board approved claims with one abstention and the chair summarized: \"4 ayes, 1 abstention.\"

- Liquor license: Columbia Hall Association of Algona — Motion made and seconded (second by Stecker). The motion carried; the chair announced \"Motion carries.\" (no roll call recorded).

- Liquor license: S and B Farmstead LLC / SMB — Motion by Stecker, second by Wachter; question about location followed by brief discussion. Motion carried; the chair announced \"Motion carries.\" (no roll call recorded).

- Assignment of county tax‑sale certificate (Larson/Smithed parcel in Lakota) — A pair of nearby residents requested assignment of a tax‑sale certificate for a parcel adjacent to their home. Specter moved to assign the tax‑sale certificate with the exception that drainage taxes would not be abated; Wagner seconded. The board approved the assignment; the chair recorded \"All in favor... Aye. Any opposed?\" and the applicants were thanked.

- Tax abatement for conservation board land (parcel 1510300009, 2.71 acres) — Drainage/abatement request by conservation board to correct an omitted 2.71‑acre corner from a prior abatement. Motion carried (mover/second recorded in the minutes and the board voted \"Aye\").

- Dissolution agreement — Care Connections in North Iowa (effective 02/1980): Motion by Garvin to approve dissolution, second by Lachter. The board took a roll‑call vote: \"Hans: Yes. Garvin: Yes. Stecker: Yes. Wechter: Yes. Matt: Yes.\" Motion carried (unanimous roll call recorded in transcript).

- Gravel pit lease termination (tenant: Shane Coebler) — Motion by Wechter to terminate the lease; second by Jarman. Motion carried (chair announced \"Motion carries\"). The county attorney prepared termination documents; staff will obtain signatures.

- Tile/drainage request handling by supervisors — Motion (by Wachter, second by Haas) directing supervisors to handle a specific drainage request; the motion carried.

Why it matters: These votes complete county business that affects local businesses, property owners and service providers. The dissolution and drainage items involve subsequent administrative steps; the tax‑sale assignment and abatement affect final property ownership and taxes.

Ending: Board adjourned at 12:05 p.m. for this session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Kossuth County Board of Supervisors Meeting August 19, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Kossuth County supervisors handled a range of routine business items, including liquor licenses, a tax‑sale assignment, a tax abatement, a dissolution agreement and a gravel‑pit lease termination.","taxTitle","Kossuth County, Iowa","taxId",69823,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_32":75,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":76,"_40":77,"_42":78,"_44":79,"_46":80,"_48":81,"_50":82,"_52":83,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":84,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":85,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6587432,"Supervisors prepare for Drainage District 4 public hearing after auditor’s review of FEMA reimbursements and warrants",355,8775000,9130000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5600485-3621ba7a2b49359277a358a342e7945e&start=8775&end=9130","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5600485-3621ba7a2b49359277a358a342e7945e/thumbnail_8775000.jpg","/articles/6587432/Kossuth-County/Iowa/Supervisors-prepare-for-Drainage-District-4-public-hearing-after-auditors-review-of-FEMA-reimbursements-and-warrants","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6587432-5e745aebe89872ee97c110822896861f/orig.mp4?Expires=1769943427&Signature=kCzcyOlXGOANt-lUmm~F7D31~n8eFL0NaTKXlbV4unLGOgNjI3m6-9XKO~TcjvuIynThz2GtI42NeOjUa8EYcO96zmaWYU3jyNx5YlZ10ZtfpN7dsjusLEIc0gD6T1qqn5lrimRszrBXsdBChkDTUk69S7uw3NP6noUczwHxrizTyHIM3JJG9wRK04tZrpvtUl~MTkeiPvHLTq3gVBhyJaZb7g8Cptjm33Do3nfwlaRu35f4wEVRdb2gxxLzkFUScC3Y~uayvs4lR1nCQtwVLafEQLOyNomDlnCVQdSKaBB1SszC66qzSd7mWhRZbRs75-rh~SWYr9~ChSr43fsIYQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Kossuth County staff briefed supervisors on accounting for Drainage District 4 as the board prepares for a public hearing next week on a citizen petition seeking details about FEMA reimbursements and recent assessments.

Tammy, the county auditor who prepared the spreadsheets, told the board she compiled year‑by‑year data to show warrants issued, warrants outstanding, amounts redeemed and what had been assessed. \"What I did starting back in 2011... the first column is warrants issued. Second column's warrants outstanding. Third, warrants redeemed, interest paid, and then the assessed value,\" Tammy said as she walked supervisors through the worksheet.

Why it matters: Drainage district work after recent storm events generated invoices, FEMA reimbursement requests and warrants. Landowners are asking why the board recently assessed them for $300,000 and $700,000 and whether FEMA funds have covered parts of the projects. The auditor’s spreadsheet is intended to show how warrants, assessments and FEMA dollars interact.

Key points from the discussion:
- Auditor’s accounting: Tammy showed the board a summary that, in her words, indicated \"total warrants issued 3.8 [million], only assessed 2.6 [million], which is a difference of about $1.15 million.\" She also noted the treasurer’s current report showing \"total outstanding warrants on the books is $404,143.77.\" The auditor told supervisors these worksheets were accurate through the end of fiscal year 2025 and did not include July and August transactions.
- FEMA reimbursements and timing: Board members and staff discussed how FEMA reimbursements and state grants have paid some older warrants, reducing the principal that would otherwise have been on assessment rolls. The auditor said that if all remaining FEMA funds and waivers come in as anticipated, the district could show a positive balance and the board would later decide how to handle any surplus (for example, retain as a positive cash balance or issue refunds to landowners depending on statute and precedent).
- Public hearing logistics: Staff agreed to print copies of the auditor’s spreadsheets and the citizen petition for distribution at the hearing. The board discussed how far back an independent review should reach if landowners request it; supervisors said they can consider larger historical reviews but that outside expert reviews would be an additional expense for petitioners or the district.

Quotes and context: Tammy told the supervisors, \"So the money that's been received has been based on reimbursement requests or invoices that have been sent to FEMA from work that's happening before. The other ones have not had reimbursement.\" Supervisor Kyle argued the board should show comparisons of time periods to clarify why the 2022 and 2023 assessments were necessary; the auditor agreed and retained her multi‑year worksheet for the hearing.

Next steps: The board directed staff to prepare printed copies of the spreadsheets and petition for the public meeting next week and noted that questions about historical assessment decisions may require deeper review or a requester‑paid independent audit. Supervisors said they would present the auditor’s material as the official accounting at the hearing.

Ending: The meeting produced no formal action beyond scheduling and packet preparation; the board and staff emphasized transparency and that more detailed follow‑up may be necessary if petitioners request independent verification.","Auditor and staff ran board through spreadsheets showing warrants issued, FEMA reimbursements and assessments for Drainage District 4; board readied materials and copies for a public hearing next week and discussed potential refunds or positive cash balance if remaining FEMA funds arrive.",{"_32":87,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":88,"_40":89,"_42":90,"_44":91,"_46":92,"_48":93,"_50":94,"_52":95,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":96,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":97,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6587437,"Kossuth County reviews draft solar ordinance; board and outside counsel debate administration, setbacks and decommissioning",1366,4134000,5500000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5600485-3621ba7a2b49359277a358a342e7945e&start=4134&end=5500","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5600485-3621ba7a2b49359277a358a342e7945e/thumbnail_4134000.jpg","/articles/6587437/Kossuth-County/Iowa/Kossuth-County-reviews-draft-solar-ordinance-board-and-outside-counsel-debate-administration-setbacks-and-decommissioning","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6587437-684e5375cc6d824adb5f7779ad1aa198/orig.mp4?Expires=1769943427&Signature=nIG2JDtbsMl3iA5lEiRJIwTXKfmLQBEUE053kW81nTQ4R6AknZacGC5rcDhk~XmqlYRMurHB0Svkbov9dwvunLvEPyfkeMf4UvitnJgQFiaqOeeDF-1gBMWN6KamAWdnjMm8c0uYtK~7CGxmBTXIRYZemv4aTl6AGMGm2~1gH0a4GxSu29gJ1eFShjFGVUO0YgAOQzmB26zN~6zFNixdNCLvaP1W~ivxjMzJcwVU-L1eZeD2W-Jg3~zKuA-cLQ1qqPs3DETewCNOnNb~wN4Cee4OVIqvAqyBe-XRntO7P1Ev~u6Y6dFyNjlIG49Plbem~iPVa9QJgj-ir12S7q2sJQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Kossuth County supervisors and outside counsel spent more than an hour reviewing a draft county solar ordinance and the board’s options for administration, technical review and decommissioning oversight. The discussion centered on whether to administer solar siting and technical standards as a standalone business-development ordinance (like the county’s wind rules) or fold detailed site controls into the zoning code.

The board’s outside counsel, identified in the meeting as Maria, said the supervisors had previously expressed a priority on decommissioning: \"I think the main objective of the board in decommissioning was that we would not be liable or responsible for any part of the decommissioning process, and that would all fall back on the company.\" That principle underpinned most of the follow-up questions about how the county verifies a developer’s decommissioning plan and financial assurance.

Why it matters: The board is weighing how prescriptive the ordinance should be and who should check technical plans. The choice affects how much technical review the county must fund or require the developer to pay for, and it determines whether decisions are handled by the Planning and Zoning office, the Board of Adjustment or the Board of Supervisors.

Key points from the meeting:
- Administration and review: Maria and board members discussed two routes. One would place design and siding standards into zoning and have the zoning administrator and board of adjustment administer them; the other would create a standalone ordinance (like the wind ordinance) run by the Board of Supervisors. \"If the board's intention is to regulate the siding of structures in the zoning district,\" Maria said, \"the ordinance needs to be structured as a zoning ordinance, which would be administered by the zoning administrator and board of adjustment rather than the board of supervisors.\" Several supervisors and staff said they prefer the standalone, business-style model used for wind projects so siting, road use and construction agreements can be managed by the board.
- Technical and engineering review: County Engineer Doug Miller noted the county’s road and drainage concerns and the need for engineer review of grading, drainage and landscaping plans. Board members and counsel agreed that developers should generally pay review costs. Maria summarized options: the developer could submit certified plans and have the county accept them, or the county could hire a reviewer and bill the developer. Doug said an engineer with drainage and slope expertise would be most useful; the board discussed appointing a third‑party reviewer on a per-project basis and making the developer reimburse the county for actual costs.
- Decommissioning and financial assurance: The draft calls for a decommissioning plan and financial assurance (bond, cash, letter of credit or other instrument). The board debated enforcement mechanisms and whether the ordinance should spell out permit revocation for noncompliance. Maria and supervisors indicated they want clear language ensuring the county is not financially liable if a developer fails to decommission.
- Setbacks, nuisance concerns and waivers: The draft uses setbacks similar to the county’s wind rules, including a 500-foot buffer from occupied residences, with the option for neighboring landowners to sign waivers. Board members discussed the origin of the 500-foot figure and accepted that it was a negotiated compromise; Maria advised that the county should document the rationale in the record to reduce legal risk.
- Landscaping, glare and safety: The draft asks for landscaping plans and screening. Maria and Doug said landscaping plans should be prepared or certified by a qualified designer or engineer and reviewed before permit approval; developers would normally bear those costs.
- Ancillary agreements: The draft includes references to county road‑use and repair agreements and drainage protection agreements. Supervisors indicated these would remain required and separate from the ordinance’s siting rules.

Next steps and timing: The board asked counsel to circulate a revised draft and to solicit specific input from agencies the board wanted to consult, including the county engineer and conservation staff. Supervisors scheduled a follow‑up review with counsel for September 2 (start around 8:15 a.m.) to continue drafting and to gather feedback from affected county departments.

Ending: County leaders framed the meeting as a focused policy review rather than a vote. Board members said they want developers to shoulder review costs and to include enforceable decommissioning and financial‑assurance provisions before the county adopts any final ordinance.","County supervisors met with outside counsel on a draft solar ordinance, discussing whether to administer it like the wind ordinance, who should review engineering and landscaping plans, requirements for decommissioning bonds and financial assurances, and next steps for formal review.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: supervisors approve liquor licenses, tax‑sale assignment, lease termination and other routine business

Supervisors prepare for Drainage District 4 public hearing after auditor’s review of FEMA reimbursements and warrants

Kossuth County reviews draft solar ordinance; board and outside counsel debate administration, setbacks and decommissioning