Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drainage Districts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Worth County supervisors approve engineer hire to study reclassification of three drainage districts
Summary
The Worth County Board of Supervisors voted to hire an engineering firm to study reclassification of drainage districts D D 1, 40 and 74 and to exclude D D 28 for now; Agrivaya was chosen over a higher‑priced bidder.
The Worth County Board of Supervisors voted to hire an engineering firm to study reclassification of drainage districts D D 1, 40 and 74 and to engage that firm to prepare an assessment map and associated work, the board decided during its meeting.
The vote came after supervisors discussed whether to include D D 28 in the reclassification effort. Supervisor 2 said D D 1 and 40 “are messed up” and that 74 likely drains into the same creek, while noting D D 28 runs along the southern boundary and might not need immediate action. Supervisor 4 recommended plotting the assessment schedules on a map before deciding whether to reclassify 28.
The board debated two engineering proposals. One came from Bolton & Menk (listed in the meeting as “Bolton and Mink” in the transcript) with a technician rate the board said was about $145 per hour; the other, Agrivaya, bid at $100 per hour. A supervisor said the lower rate and the county’s reluctance to spend more led to selecting Agrivaya.
After a motion to reclassify and engage an engineer for D D 1, 74 and 40 and to use Agrivaya was moved and seconded, the board held a roll-call vote. Supervisors Goldberg and Stone were recorded as voting aye; the motion carried.
The board left D D 28 off the immediate list to avoid creating extra assessments while local farm incomes are low, but several supervisors said the district could be examined later if local landowners move forward. The board also discussed that some drainage districts appeared to cover entire watersheds and that a quick map of assessment schedules could help determine whether a full reclassification is warranted.
Officials said landowners in some affected districts are still being contacted and that if they cannot reach the required sign-up threshold for a change, pursuing reclassification would be a waste of resources. No specific funding source for the engineer engagement or a project timeline beyond the immediate mapping and study was specified.
The board’s motion directed staff to contract with Agrivaya to begin the engineering study for D D 1, 40 and 74 and to return with mapping and recommendations. The board did not set a firm completion date during the meeting.
The reclassification discussion included debate about engineering costs, the geographic extent of the districts, and timing relative to farmers’ incomes and ongoing outreach to landowners. The board indicated it could reconsider D D 28 in the future if landowners pursue changes.
