Commissioners spent an extended portion of the session debating proposed fence rules for unincorporated residential areas, focusing on whether to require a fence permit (no fee if compliant), how to treat electric and barbed-wire fences, and whether farm-exempt uses should be left entirely outside the county’s regulation.

Planning staff described the proposed approach: create a simple “fence permit” (no fee if the fence complies) so residents know setback and height rules, can confirm property lines and avoid disputes, and have a contact at the planning office. Staff said the permit is intended primarily for R-1 residential districts and that farm-exempt uses (agricultural operations) would remain exempt from county fence regulation.

Commissioners raised several concerns. Some questioned whether the county should regulate fences that are primarily an aesthetic matter; others emphasized practical enforcement problems and the relatively low number of fence complaints and permits staff currently processes. Township trustees and Iowa’s partition-fence statute were identified as dispute-resolution paths for some boundary fences, and the county engineer’s rules and state law on obstructions in the public right-of-way were cited as separate enforcement authorities.

The meeting included discussion about electric fences and barbed wire. Several commissioners and staff said the county cannot regulate farm-exempt uses, including farm fences that may be electrified or barbed, and proposed limiting the county’s fence rules to nonagricultural districts. One option staff offered was to remove language about electrical and barbed-wire restrictions from the general residential section and limit any prohibition to non-agricultural areas to reduce legal risk.

At one point a motion was made to remove the permanent section of the fence rules (“section 13” as discussed at the meeting). Commissioners recorded ayes and nays; discussion thereafter focused on parliamentary procedure. The chair explained a tie vote does not carry under Robert’s Rules of Order and that the chair may vote when necessary; the transcript records a split vote but does not record a formal final outcome on the motion in the meeting minutes.

Anecdotal concerns were raised about hazards when fences encroach into the right-of-way: one speaker recounted a past local dispute in which a neighbor’s fence encroached into a road right-of-way and contributed to manure crossing the roadway and livestock losses. Commissioners said that experience argues for clearer regulations and engineer review of fences near rights-of-way.

Commissioners and staff also discussed practical implementation: staff said they have issued only a small number of fence-related permits in the past year (two permits recalled by staff), and that requiring a no-fee permit could increase compliance by making the rules easier to follow. Concerns remain about enforcement resources and the balance between county regulation and township or state duties.

There was no final ordinance-level determination recorded at the meeting; staff will adjust draft language based on the discussion, consult with the county attorney and the Board of Adjustment as needed, and include any changes in the clean draft for the Sept. 15 public hearing.