Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drainage Dd5 Lat 34 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Winnebago County supervisors table petition to replace DD5 lateral 34 after landowner cites roughly $110,000 estimate
Summary
A landowner petition to replace an aging drainage tile at DD5 Lateral 34 drew discussion about cost, Conservation Reserve Program timing and whether work should be private or included in the drainage district. The board voted to table the petition pending further bids and landowner decisions.
Winnebago County supervisors on an unspecified date tabled a petition to replace drainage tile identified as DD5 Lateral 34 after the landowner and staff discussed repair options and costs.
The petition was initiated by a landowner identified in the meeting as Chad, who said the tile has been in Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) cover for many years and the installation is “all bad.” He told supervisors, “it's probably gonna be about a $110,000 all said and done. Did get an estimate from the HAR for a hundred and 5 5,” indicating both a roughly $110,000 all‑in estimate and a contractor estimate voiced during the meeting.
The discussion focused on options: (1) the district performs the full repair and follows the usual bidding/engineering process; (2) the landowner procures materials and/or installs the tile privately and records maintenance agreements; or (3) the landowner installs the tile privately and later petitions the district to accept the tile as part of DD 34. County staff described tradeoffs, including the district’s preference that any tile crossing under a county road be part of the drainage district to simplify future repairs and assessments.
County staff and secondary‑roads representatives advised that work under the road typically requires coordination with the county road department, and the county offers a cost‑share program for private crossings (the program pays half up to $5,000 by standard practice, with the board able to approve a higher amount). Staff also said the project, as described, is under the county’s engineer threshold and therefore an engineer would not be required for a pure replacement (as opposed to an improvement that increases capacity or raises the pipe elevation).
The petitioner asked whether he could buy pipe and do all or part of the work privately; staff said landowners may install private tile but should document maintenance agreements and record them on deeds to avoid future disputes. Staff described prior examples where privately installed pipe was later brought into a district after recording and inspection.
After questions and clarification, Supervisor Smith moved to table the petition for DD5 Lateral 34; Supervisor Derby seconded. The board voted unanimously to table the petition, leaving the filing on the district docket while the petitioner seeks additional bids and resolves whether to proceed privately or as a district project.
Next steps identified in the meeting included: the petitioner seeking additional contractor bids, discussing private purchase/installation options with neighbors who may share cost, verifying cost details (material vs. labor), and consulting secondary roads where the tile crosses the county road.
The matter was tabled for further information and to allow the landowner to confer with neighbors and obtain additional cost estimates.
