At a May 13 joint meeting of Osceola and O'Brien County supervisors, the joint drainage board discussed landowner input and technical findings related to a pending reclassification and scheduled hearing. After debate, the board voted to direct the consulting engineer to complete a final engineer's report but to pause any further work for two weeks while the petitioning landowner is contacted about withdrawing the petition.

Spencer, the ISG engineer, summarized landowner correspondence and said the meeting would guide whether the board proceeds with a full final report for an improvement. He told the board that field televising had identified a tile problem; Osceola County Secondary Roads staff investigated and found a buried rural water line had been bored through a tile and restricted flow. Mike O'Connor of Osceola County Secondary Roads reported the repair: "We replaced 50 feet of that 14 inch with 15 inch and... it is taking water better now." (Mike O'Connor).

Board members and landowners raised cost concerns. Spencer said draft levy summaries prepared for the board include two levies tied to the project (for Branch 152 and Branch 152178) that would apply only to Osceola County and a third levy covering the main open ditch that would apply across the entire district and both counties. He estimated that some line-item uncertainties could vary by "tens of thousands of dollars" on an overall assessment he described as about $2,000,000. Spencer also noted that levy calculations did not yet incorporate potential damages withheld from final payment because the final completion hearing has not occurred.

The board discussed repair versus improvement classification. Spencer and board counsel said cleaning the downstream outlet or ditch could be considered a repair; constructing a surface waterway or channel would be considered an improvement and would activate the formal improvement/hearing process under the drainage code. Several supervisors asked the engineer to include lower-cost options in the final report, including a surface-channel option, preconstruction reclassification estimates so landowners can see per-parcel costs for each option, and an assessment of outlet capacity and culvert sizing.

Supervisor Frederickson moved, and Supervisor Schulte seconded, a motion to accept the preliminary engineer's work and to direct the engineer to proceed with a final engineer's report that includes lower-cost alternatives and an evaluation of outlet/crossing capacity, provided ISG pauses further work for two weeks while a county official or supervisors contact the petitioning landowner about withdrawal. The motion passed with affirmative votes from both counties. Board members also agreed that if the petitioner withdraws, the existing preliminary work would be retained for possible future use and resumed without repeating initial work.

Board members raised a separate legal and maintenance question about tile located in county right of way. Spencer said normally tile within a county right of way is the secondary roads' responsibility, but he recommended seeking legal counsel because a long length of tile draining many acres may not be appropriately treated as wholly the county roads' obligation.

The board instructed staff to: (1) have supervisors Helmers and another supervisor attempt contact with the petitioner; (2) have ISG complete a final report if the petition is not withdrawn after two weeks; and (3) include lower-cost surface-channel options, preconstruction reclassification cost estimates, an outlet-capacity evaluation, and culvert-sizing recommendations in that final report. The board voted to conditionally proceed and placed a two-week hold on further engineering work while petitioner contact is attempted.