Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Worth County supervisors discuss DD 20 wetland maintenance report and potential contracting; county cautioned it is not the landowner
Summary
Board members reviewed a report on Drainage District 20’s wetland areas and discussed whether Worth County should perform discing, spraying, seeding and mowing. Officials said the land is not county property, that the district or landowners are responsible, and that hiring the county would be costly and time-consuming.
The Worth County Board of Supervisors discussed a report about Drainage District (DD) 20 wetlands and whether the county should be asked to perform discing, spraying, seeding and mowing on the areas highlighted in the report.
A district map and a report from Bolton (report name given in the meeting) showed multiple small, irregular purple polygons the district expects to be maintained. A county speaker told the board that the land in question is not Worth County property and that, historically, the drainage district and the landowners bear responsibility for upkeep. The county representative said the district could hire outside contractors but noted that properly servicing the many odd-shaped polygons would be labor-intensive and expensive.
County staff said maintenance would need to be priced by hour and by acre and that multiple-year contracts might be necessary because treated spots require follow-up visits. One county attendee warned that outside contractors may charge custom rates and that local landowners often have equipment with guidance technology that makes the work more efficient; county crews lack that equipment.
Board members discussed looking for local contractors within a 30–40 mile radius and issuing requests for proposals (RFPs) or price estimates for hourly and seeding work. The board asked county staff (identified in the meeting as Val) to assemble a short list of local contractors and to help draft solicitation language for bids. The board agreed the county would be a “last resort” option if no contractor could be found, and that any county-provided service would be costly to the district.
Justin Faber, named during the discussion as someone with relevant equipment, was identified as a possible local resource for mowing if needed. County extension staff were also mentioned as having a role; Melissa from the extension office said Dennis would host an upcoming forum and that extension staff would assist where appropriate.
No formal agreement or contract award was made at the meeting. The board directed staff to seek proposals and return with recommended contract language and cost estimates for the board’s consideration.
