Humboldt County supervisors on a voice vote approved plans and specifications for three farm-to-market paving projects—FMCO 46, Perrin 92 and Perrin 93—authorizing the county to lead design and field inspection while Pocahontas County covers plant inspection.

The board’s county engineer, identified in the transcript as Unidentified Speaker 5, told supervisors the projects will be bid with an alternate comparing "4 inch cold in place with a 3 inch asphalt overlay versus 5 inches of concrete" and that preliminary cost estimates were close between options. "Pocahontas is already approved," the engineer said, adding, "We're the controlling agency on this…we'll take the lead on the design." The board approved the motion to accept the plans by voice vote.

Why it matters: The projects affect key farm-to-market corridors, with potential impacts on traffic during construction and on long-term durability depending on chosen surfacing. The board also approved a county–city funding agreement with Gilmore City so the county pays using farm-to-market funds while the city reimburses the county for city-side items such as sidewalks and urban gutter.

Supervisor discussion and approvals
Supervisors asked whether asphalt overlays would rut under heavy truck loads and whether a concrete crossing would be more permanent; the engineer noted heavy loads "will end up rutting again" with lighter overlays and described options for adding a concrete crossing as an extra work order if needed. He said construction closures could range from about 2–3 days for normal traffic to up to seven days for fully loaded trucks, depending on curing requirements for concrete. The board voted to accept the plans, then approved the county–city reimbursement agreement by voice vote.

The board also approved final vouchers and a certificate of completion for related pavement-widening projects—work at the bottom of Baldurine Hill, a curve south of Rutland, and the top of Avery's Hill—after staff confirmed retainage procedures and that no claims or liquidated damages were outstanding. As the engineer explained, state practice holds retainage for 30 days before final payment to allow any creditor claims.

Building permits: fee and enforcement review
Supervisors used the meeting to advance an administrative next step on building permits. Several members said the current $100 flat building-permit fee is too low and unevenly applied (the fee applies regardless of job scale), and they asked staff to draft options that scale fees by value or square footage and clarify penalties when permits are obtained after work begins. Unidentified Speaker 1 summarized the concern: "We need to come up with something better for building permits." The engineer noted the current penalty mechanism in practice is to "double the permit"—turning a $100 fee into a $200 fee—when a permit is obtained late.

The board agreed to schedule a work session with staff (referred to as Ben in the transcript) and the county’s incoming colleague to draft proposed changes and determine which body sets permit fees (supervisors versus planning and zoning). Members asked staff to circulate surrounding counties’ approaches and to explore whether unpaid fees could be added to the tax roll as an enforcement option.

Other items
Supervisors received routine project updates (contractor schedules, ditch cleanup, and an Iowa Avenue project that may open pending equipment moves). A board member asked staff to collect surrounding-county wind ordinances for review. Members also noted a rumor of a Verizon cell-tower interest near existing US Cellular infrastructure but said no formal filing had been made.

Votes at a glance
- Accept plans and specifications for FMCO 46, Perrin 92 and Perrin 93 (motion approved by voice vote). (Topic provenance: introduced SEG 034, motion and vote SEG 177–193)
- Approve county–city funding agreement with Gilmore City for the same project (motion approved by voice vote). (Topic provenance: introduced SEG 196, motion and vote SEG 242–252)
- Approve final voucher (retainage release) for pavement widening projects (motion approved by voice vote). (Topic provenance: introduced SEG 253, motion and vote SEG 282–294)
- Approve certificate of completion and final acceptance of TSEP project (motion approved by voice vote). (Topic provenance: introduced SEG 295, motion and vote SEG 311–319)

What’s next
The board asked staff to schedule a work session to draft updated building-permit fees and enforcement options and to circulate comparative ordinances from neighboring counties before the next meeting.

Direct quotes used in this article are attributed to speakers as labeled in the meeting transcript. The meeting record did not include roll-call vote tallies; approvals were recorded by voice votes.