Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ditch Assessments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident challenges Ditch No. 7 assessments; county to provide redetermination materials and consult counsel on remedies
Summary
A public commenter asked the Benton County Ditch Authority to reassess benefit allocations on Ditch No. 7, saying two parcels were incorrectly charged; commissioners offered to provide the redetermination packet and affidavit of published notices and directed staff to consult the ditch attorney about available remedies and timelines.
A Benton County landowner raised a formal dispute about assessments for County Ditch No. 7 during the ditch-authority open forum on Nov. 18, saying the amounts charged to two parcels do not reflect the actual drainage benefits and requesting reassessment and reimbursement.
The resident, who addressed the board during the added open forum, cited parcel numbers and specific assessment amounts, and asked for a fresh review of the redetermination of benefits. "I'm getting assessed approximately $600 on a ditch that does not be on my property and my water does not benefit from them that way," he said, asking that the ditch authority walk the property and verify flows rather than relying only on mapping.
Commissioners and staff explained how ditch law governs the redetermination and appeal process, noting a 30-day appeal window under state ditch statutes and that many redeterminations are now past that window. Staff offered to provide the commenter with a copy of the redetermination-of-benefits packet and affidavits showing published notices so he can see how the benefit calculations were made. The board said it will ask county drainage staff (Adam and Chris) to follow up and provide the documents and, where appropriate, consult with the county’s ditch attorney about potential next steps.
Separately in the ditch-authority meeting, Maywood Township officials asked for options to pay invoices of about $93,000 related to repairs on CD 9 and CD 14. Township supervisors presented cash-flow materials showing a large short-term deficit and requested guidance on whether a multi-year payment plan or borrowing mechanism is legally allowable; staff directed that the county consult with legal counsel and report back. Commissioners also directed staff to seek maintenance quotes, planned follow-up inspections, and to address small beaver-dam activity reported on Ditch 10.
No change to assessments or formal redetermination was made at the meeting; the board’s immediate action was to provide documents and seek legal guidance. Staff will return with recommendations on what remedies, if any, are available given statutory timelines and prior redetermination actions.
