(Red Oak, Iowa) – The Montgomery County Board of Supervisors, during their meeting this (Tuesday) morning in Red Oak, passed a resolution accepting a bid of $1,216,352.24 from Western Engineering Company, for a Widening and Hot Melt Asphalt (HMA) overlay project. There were three bids for the project, with Western Engineering coming in with the lowest bid. The project is for work on H-34, from a bridge over Red Oak Creek, east for about two-miles. In related action, the Board passed a resolution to execute the contracts connected to the project, and other matters.

Montgomery County Engineer Karen Albert provided the Board with the weekly Secondary Roads report. She said they have been cold patching roads, including those used by riders on the RAGBRAI route into Red Oak, later next month. And, she discussed the aforementioned HMA project in a little more detail.

The Board received comments from four Montgomery County residents, with regard to a proposed ordinance regulating carbon capture pipelines, in light of Summit Carbon Solution’s proposed Midwest Express CO2 pipeline project.

The first to comment was Maggie McQuown, from Garfield Township, who addressed recent Board meetings where tempers had flown over perceptions the Supervisors’ were set in their ways, and unwilling to find a compromise, while the Iowa Utility Board’s case is being heard in court. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule on appeals filed by Shelby and Story counties against a federal judges’ ruling last December that local pipeline ordinances cannot be enforced.

The Board also heard from Steve Hayes, whose family farm is in West Township in Montgomery County. His land sits in the middle of the proposed pipeline route. He expressed his concerns about conservation work they’ve made over the past 70-years to develop it, make it fertile, and the water is saved, with little run-off.

He said also, he is an opponent to Eminent Domain, which is a possibility, if the court rules against landowners whose property is part of the pipeline route.

The Montgomery County Supervisors also hear comments from James and Jan Norris (You can read their statements below). In other business, the Board passed resolutions naming 2024-25 Depositories, and Appropriations for FY25. They set July 16th as the date for a budget planning work session, and agreed to add a closed session to their meeting on July 2nd, to discuss possible litigation. For that reason the session is allowed under the Code of Iowa.

Prepared comments from West Township resident Jan Norris:

“In February Crawford County held an hour-long pipeline discussion where the newspaper quoted their attorney, Colin Johnson. When asked if you had to have an ordinance in place ahead of the ruling, Johnson’s reply was “If the IUB were to issue a permit for Summit to build, it would likely be too late to enact an ordinance,” I phoned the Crawford County Attorney to verify the accuracy of the report and if anything had changed. After making it clear he was not giving me legal advice and stated Montgomery County needs to talk to their attorney, Johnson said, “based on my discussions with other attorneys & my understanding of the IUB process, I continue to stand by my statement, – I haven’t changed by mind” And went on to say, “it won’t apply after an IUB permit is issued is what other attorneys are believing.” He mentioned Palo Alto’s stay provision until the Shelby case is settled. 

Dickinson County may be the most recent to pass an ordinance. I phoned their Zoning Administrator, Megan Kardell to see if Summit has sued them. She said she expected to be filed on instantaneously, passing their ordinance on May 9, but has not been served. In response to why, it’s her opinion because Summit can work with their ordinance. She noted Navigator had been approachable, but Summit has just objected to the whole thing. She said their county attorney also advised to get it on the books before the IUB ruling. When asked about Road Crossing Permits, Megan said they passed an ordinance requiring a million dollar bond.

To fail to discuss these issues looks like bias to the citizens of Montgomery County. It appears you heard what you wanted months ago, and now refuse to hear anything else.  At least do something and make a couple calls. Please don’t just talk to someone you know, call the the people in nine counties who have done the work – Dickinson, Emmet, Kossuth, Butler, Bremer, Adair, Story, Shelby or Palo Alto.”

Prepared comments from Steve Norris, also from West Township:

“We all want the same thing – to best serve the citizens of this county. What we want is for the 5 of you – to discuss things ONLY Montgomery County can decide. No input by Summit is needed. Other counties are passing a resolution officially objecting to the Utilities Board’s ability to determine eminent domain. Last week Floyd County held meaningful discussion with State Rep Charley Thomson. It was refreshing to hear the chair invite landowners to speak. No time limit, no attitude, just genuinely seeking to hear their side of things. You submitted an objection to eminent domain early on. It would be good to pursue this.

Road crossing permit policies need to be reviewed. We should be reevaluating our procedures and fee structures and the best way to make it apply to companies, not landowners. It can be done. Does Montgomery County want an ordinance to establish fees & create a setback buffer between our residents and the pipeline? – not can we pass one, not what will happen if we do, not even how – just DOES THIS BOARD THINK IT IS IMPORTANT?

A public forum with Summit sounds reasonable, but maybe unnecessary before you can put discussion on the agenda. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. Please discuss it!”