Kossuth County supervisors press for accounting of $700,000 in drainage assessments

Kossuth County supervisors spent a workshop session seeking a clear accounting of a roughly $700,000 figure tied to multiple drainage-district assessments and FEMA-related repairs, saying the breakdown must be explainable to affected landowners.

The $700,000 figure, board members were told during the June workshop, is not a single invoice but a target that combines prior unpaid principal, accrued interest and amounts not yet reflected in assessments; it excludes FEMA funds that are expected to be applied to some projects. Supervisors asked staff to produce the spreadsheet and supporting documentation used to calculate the figure and to separate the parts so the board can present a concise explanation at an upcoming public hearing.

Board members said the lack of a clear, common narrative was the workshop’s principal shortcoming. “I don’t know any different ways to explain it. I’ve gone over it hundreds of times,” said Kyle (chair), who requested the workshop. Supervisors repeatedly asked to see the underlying spreadsheet or audit trail showing warrants issued, amounts redeemed and how interest was calculated over time.

Why it matters: the assessments affect individual landowners in drainage districts—several supervisors said landowners have already been billed and have requested an accounting of how FEMA dollars and other payments were applied, and whether the district assessments correctly included interest, waivers and transfers among fund schedules.

Details from the workshop: - Composition of the $700,000: staff described the figure as a combination of outstanding principal balances from prior projects, accrued interest that was not assessed in earlier years, and additional items such as smaller repairs. FEMA reimbursements were treated separately; one recent FEMA project produced an initial 15% target assessment of $300,000 tied to a roughly $2,000,000 construction contract, staff said. - Calculation issues: supervisors and staff discussed how different calculation choices — for example, whether to measure interest from the assessment date or from the date warrants were redeemed — produce materially different totals. Staff explained that shortfalls in earlier assessments create ongoing compound-interest effects that can widen the balance over time. - Evidence and documentation requested: supervisors asked for the original spreadsheet used to compile the totals (referred to repeatedly during the session) or a copy to be placed in the auditor’s office so board members and landowners can “see the work” behind the number. - Project-specific notes: the board identified several drainage districts for additional review, including Drainage District 4 and multiple laterals and mains with waivers or reclassification history. For one large project (reclassification and construction discussed at the meeting), staff estimated final project costs near $3,000,000 after retainage and adjustments. - Assessment rounding and practice: the board discussed adopting a consistent rounding rule (the group discussed rounding assessments to the nearest $500) and agreed to prioritize completing straightforward accounts first so attention can be focused on the handful of complex or active projects.

Board directions and next steps: supervisors agreed the workshop did not produce a final explanation for landowners and asked staff to prepare a detailed, itemized accounting of: (a) the warrants and assessments issued by year; (b) interest calculations and the method used; (c) where FEMA funds have been applied; and (d) a copy of the spreadsheet or equivalent audit documentation. The board planned a follow-up meeting for Monday at 11:00 a.m. to continue finalizing assessments and prepare materials for public hearings; supervisors also left open the possibility of a special session if needed.

Several supervisors emphasized that active construction projects should be handled cautiously: the board directed staff to defer assessments for projects still under construction or with outstanding completion hearings so that waivers and final invoices can be reconciled first.

Ending: The auditors’ office staff and other county staff were assigned homework to locate the spreadsheet(s), confirm transfers among fund schedules, and prepare a concise packet for supervisors to use when explaining assessments to landowners at the public hearing. The board recessed and agreed to resume the work session at the scheduled follow-up.