Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Drainage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Drainage Authority directs engineering and bids for County Ditch 86A after Houston Engineering report
Summary
After reviewing a Houston Engineering technical memorandum that identified seven problem areas and 27 alternatives for County Ditch 86A, the Nicollet County Drainage Authority unanimously directed staff to negotiate contracts and develop specifications for prioritized repairs, including abandoning an overflow pipe, replacing a large slide gate and addressing outlet erosion.
The Nicollet County Drainage Authority on Sept. 24 reviewed a Houston Engineering technical memorandum on County Ditch 86A that identified seven problem areas and recommended repairs and operational changes. After extended public comment and technical discussion, the authority unanimously directed staff to work with Houston Engineering to develop plans, specifications and procurement documents for prioritized items.
Houston Engineering (Chris Otterness) presented seven primary items: (1) modification of the box culvert grate (already done), (2) abandonment or removal of the overflow pipe (engineers recommended removal), (3) replacement of the 84-inch slide gate with an electrically actuated unit (engineer estimate ~$110,000), (4) pulling pumps on a regular maintenance cycle (engineers recommended annual pulls to reduce freeze risk), (5) constructing a post-frame building surrounding the control building, (6) repairing erosion under the outlet pipes, and (7) adjusting pump start/stop levels and cycling protocols to recommended parameters.
A key debate focused on the overflow pipe: engineers recommended removal and capping (estimated at about $20,000) because the existing pipe has settled and could fail if left in place. Several landowners urged lower-cost capping alternatives; engineers warned temporary capping may fail and increase long-term costs. On the slide gate, engineers estimated about $110,000 to install a fully covering electrical gate; commissioners asked whether grouting around the existing pipe might be an acceptable interim remedy.
The authority also discussed pump strategy. Engineers said annual pulling allows full maintenance and reduces freeze-damage risk, but commissioners and landowners raised concerns about the difficulty of reinstalling pumps in wet springs and the availability of crane access; alternatives such as localized heating, aeration, or tractor-pump backups were discussed. Engineers said the cost of pulling is dominated by crane mobilization and recommended weighing risk versus long-term cost.
Motion and procurement: the authority moved, seconded and amended a motion to direct staff to negotiate a contract with Houston Engineering to develop specifications and procure work (quotes or bids) for selected items (prioritized fall items and specified building work). The motion, including an amendment to add certain building items to the package, carried unanimously. The authority additionally requested a more detailed risk-benefit analysis comparing heating/aeration options versus annual pump pulling.
What’s next: staff and Houston Engineering will prepare plans and spec packages, break work into appropriate bid/quote packages, and return with additional analysis to inform a decision on pump removal frequency and heating/anti-freeze alternatives.
