Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drainage Right Of Way topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Drainage commission approves Scott Showers crossing plan but bars open cutting of county roads
Summary
After months of review, the Drainage Commission approved a plan for a crossing at a property associated with Scott (Sam) Showers with conditions that restrict open cutting of county roads and require compliance with county right-of-way rules.
The McPherson County Drainage Commission approved a crossing plan for a project associated with Sam (Scott) Showers but clarified the county will not allow open cuts through township roads and emphasized adherence to right-of-way rules.
Staff explained the revised plan calls for a solid (non‑perforated) line through the approach under the road and noted the design uses an 18‑inch line to avoid larger 24‑inch work. Glenn described field conditions, electrical line locations and measured offsets from the edge of the right-of-way; he told commissioners the marked electrical line was about 50 feet in from the right-of-way and that the practical installation would be “about 30 feet in from the edge of the road.”
The applicant described prior similar work nearby completed 10 years ago using dual-wall (double-cased) pipe and provided depth estimates of about 7 to 7.5 feet for the bore beneath the pavement. He said some bidders gave high prices for boring and that open-cutting the road had been inexpensive in prior examples, but county staff and commissioners warned that allowing one open cut would create a precedent. Commissioner Glenn (road staff) explained, “If we let 1 guy, then the next people coming through… they’re all gonna say, ‘well, we wanna open cut.’” The commission also noted long-standing county policy discouraging open cuts because of settlement and maintenance issues.
Commissioners discussed alternatives, contractor pricing uncertainty (one price estimate “pretty expensive”), the potential need for a bond or deposit, and whether the county could legally accept a deposit to cover future repairs. The board concluded it could not accept a customer deposit in lieu of following county procedures and that the cut‑through option was “off the table.”
A motion was made to approve the plan with the condition that no open cutting of county roads be permitted (motion language recorded in the transcript as removing “boring to 0,” i.e., disallowing open cuts); the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote. Commissioners instructed the applicant to follow county right-of-way rules and work with Glenn and staff on required permits and detailed construction plans. The transcript includes direction to refund an earlier $20,000 deposit (the board concluded it had been paid long ago and would be returned or accounted for), and staff said the applicant must comply with the county’s established process for roadway crossings and bores.
Commissioners also discussed the broader policy concern that allowing open cuts would lead other utilities and contractors to request the same, and reiterated the county’s preference for bored, encased lines in township roads to limit settlement and maintenance issues.
