Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Maintenance Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Surveyor outlines drain maintenance fee schedule and options for county pond outlet; board to review rates and limit hearings
Summary
At the Aug. 21 meeting the DeKalb County surveyor's office presented a proposed, objective maintenance-rate schedule based on reconstruction estimates and recommended procedures for collections, reconstruction funding and hearings; the board discussed county pond outlet elevations and asked staff for further cost and elevation data.
Get email alerts on the Maintenance Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The DeKalb County surveyor's office on Aug. 21 presented a proposed framework for establishing maintenance collections and reconstruction funding that, staff said, would make rate-setting more objective and help build maintenance reserves before major reconstructions.
Under the proposal staff said reconstruction cost-per-foot estimates (labor and material, excluding stone) would be the basis for a "max collect" maintenance account for each regulated drain. Staff described key rules: the maintenance "max collect" would be 60% of the reconstruction cost estimate; the annual assessment (what landowners would be billed) would be one-quarter of that max collect amount and would be collected once per year for four years to reach the target; after a reconstruction is completed the office would not collect additional maintenance revenue from that drain for five years to allow owners to amortize reconstruction costs. Staff also described that invested reserve interest could be used for maintenance activity without drawing principal from the reconstruction reserve, and said program parameters could be adjusted for small watersheds where per-acre burdens would otherwise be higher.
Staff illustrated the approach with the recently approved Erwin Selkie example: the office's estimate for 3,686 feet of 8-inch tile using the new table yielded an annual figure close to the amount the board approved for that watershed (staff presented the comparison and noted a roughly $180 difference). The office said it will build software to extract drain-segment data and apply the rates automatically to watershed inventories.
Other policy details discussed included differential rates by land-use class (agricultural, residential, commercial) to reflect impervious-surface differences; options to phase or "ramp up" maintenance collections after reconstruction (for example, collecting half the rate for several years); and special-case review for laterals or drains spanning county lines or with unusual account histories.
Separately, staff reported on a county pond along State Road 69: elevation shots showed the current southwest outlet sits about 1.4 feet below a northerly inlet. Staff described options to raise the southwest outlet to an earlier elevation for aesthetic or value reasons, but warned raising the outlet above the inlet could back water into the county field and swamp; staff said it could bring elevation shots and drawings back to the next meeting for a decision.
Board members suggested limiting the first round of maintenance hearings to two drains while staff pilots the new system. Staff also noted upcoming outreach items including Drainage School (training) and that landowners had raised concerns about benefit apportionment, per-acre charges and possible contribution from agribusiness stakeholders.

