Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drainage Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wright County trustees appoint commissioners, receive engineer report and delay hearing on JDD 46‑92 annexation
Summary
Wright County trustees and Webster County agreed to appoint local commissioners for a proposed voluntary annexation into Joint Drainage District 46‑92, received an engineer's classification report on the annexation and tabled scheduling a public hearing while engineers follow up on tile, boring and cost questions.
Get email alerts on the Drainage Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wright County drainage trustees, on a conference call with Webster County supervisors, moved to appoint local commissioners to consider a voluntary annexation into Joint Drainage District (JDD) 46‑92 and accepted an engineer's classification report on the proposed annexation, but postponed setting a date for the public hearing.
The trustees said they would appoint one commissioner from Wright County and one from Webster County to serve on a commission to determine benefits and classifications for landowners petitioning to join JDD 46‑92. The trustees recorded an affirmative vote from both counties to appoint the commissioners; Wright County supervisors present voted “aye,” and Webster County supervisors indicated “all aye.”
The classification and annexation engineer’s report described four parcels totaling about 80.03 acres offered for voluntary annexation in Section 28 of Troy Township. The parcels were listed in the report as: 2.5 acres in the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter, 0.2 acres in the west half of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter, 38.66 acres in the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter, and 24.67 acres in the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter. The report noted about 14 acres in the southeast corner of the northwest‑northeast quarter that naturally drain away from the open ditch.
Engineers on the call reported finding existing 7‑inch and 8‑inch tiles draining toward the JDD 46‑92 open ditch in the northeast portion of Section 28. Trustees and engineers discussed whether undersized tile and a 24‑inch tile under a road would require boring that could create costs for secondary roads. The Wright County administrator relayed that tenant Daryl Hay told the engineers he believed secondary roads would pay for the work; trustees asked staff to confirm landowner willingness to contribute to any boring costs rather than require a single landowner to shoulder an expense not demanded of other property owners.
Wright County moved and Webster County seconded a motion to receive the engineer’s report; the motion carried. Trustees then voted to postpone setting the public‑hearing date until the classification report and further cost information were available; that motion also carried.
Trustees asked the engineer to contact the tenant and landowner to clarify whether the landowner would contribute toward boring costs and to provide a cost comparison for different tile sizes at the next joint meeting.
The joint board scheduled a follow‑up conference call for Monday, May 19, 2025, to appoint commissioners formally and to continue the annexation process once outstanding technical and cost questions are resolved.

