Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drainage Permitting Change topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County surveyor proposes permit step to ensure review fees and bonds paid before work begins
Summary
Johnson County surveyor Greg Cantwell proposed adding an internal permit step after drainage-board approval so fees, bonds and inspector contact are in place before contractors start work; legal counsel said the board could adopt such a procedure internally, and the board discussed but did not take formal action.
County surveyor Greg Cantwell proposed on Sept. 2 that the surveyor's office add an internal permit step after drainage-board approval so review fees and bonds are paid and contractors have a direct line to county inspectors before work begins.
Cantwell said the office's current process is to accept an application, collect fees and review, then present the petitioner to the board for a hearing. "What we would like to do is have that extra step, that actual permit to do that work, issued by the office," Cantwell said, adding that the permit would not be issued until review fees were paid and bonds approved so the office could maintain communication between contractor and inspector.
Why it matters: Cantwell framed the change as an operational fix intended to reduce late fee-collection problems and ensure bonds and inspection plans are in place after board approval. He said the change could prevent projects from "get[ting] lost" between municipal approvals and final permitting at the county level.
County counsel and others on the board discussed whether such a rule would be permitted under the board's rules. "I think it is," said Roger, a staff member who advised the board, after reviewing the rules of procedure. "...you could craft a rule or fashion a procedure that basically requires these things to be done prior to you placing the petition on the agenda for a hearing. Because it's you that put them on the agenda..."
What happened next: The conversation remained at the discussion level; the board did not adopt a formal rule during the meeting. Cantwell said he would consult further with staff and return with a proposed, documented process. The meeting record shows no vote or formal direction to adopt a new rule at this session.
Context and limits: Cantwell described the proposal as an internal process change rather than a change to state law or the drainage ordinance. Roger noted the board could not "pocket veto" petitions but could reasonably require certain items be completed before placing a petition on the agenda.
Ending note: Cantwell said he would work with staff to draft a proposed procedure and return at a future meeting with a presentation and possible written policy.
