Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.

Clinton County drainage board adopts reconstruction of regulated drain after landowner objections

Clinton County Drainage Board · December 17, 2025

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Clinton County Drainage Board approved reconstruction of regulated drain ID 1195 on Nov. 3, 2025, adopting an amended project report and assessment schedule after staff reduced several assessments following a landowner objection; the motion passed 3-0.

The Clinton County Drainage Board voted 3-0 on Nov. 3, 2025, to adopt a reconstruction report and amended assessment schedule for regulated drain ID 1195 in Michigan Township, moving the project into the bidding and notice phase.

The vote follows a surveyor’s presentation of the plan to straighten and replace aging drain tile with 36- and 30-inch perforated pipe to reduce surface erosion, lower maintenance costs and improve crop drainage. The surveyor said the estimated reconstruction cost is $416,749.85 and estimated benefits to landowners total $1,474,472, yielding a cost‑benefit ratio of about 4.02 to 1. He also stated, “The damages are calculated at $300 per acre.”

Why it matters: the project affects multiple parcels in the watershed and triggers assessments to property owners. One written objection from the Lillian Jean Rule Living Trust was read into the record by Janet Vaughn, who said the reconstruction would “do nothing for our property” and could increase erosion and crop damage on her family’s 40-acre parcel. After meetings with staff and landowners, the surveyor presented a revised assessment schedule that significantly reduced the charge for the trust and lowered rates in the lower watershed.

Board action and next steps: after discussion of the technical design, expected downstream improvements, and revised assessments, the board approved a motion to adopt the reconstruction report and the amended schedule of assessments (mover: Surveyor, second: recorded; vote 3-0). The board directed the surveyor to publish notice in the newspaper under the IC code cited on the record and to send notices of the hearing findings to affected owners; staff also noted that the reconstruction estimate may come in lower than the exhibit figure during bidding.

Numbers and clarifications: the record includes the surveyor’s figures (estimated cost $416,749.85; estimated benefits $1,474,472; damages $300/acre; periodic maintenance estimate $2,000). During discussion, a board member referenced an alternative benefit figure of about $1,600,000 when calculating a revised ratio; the record therefore contains two benefit figures attributed to different speakers. The assessment for the Lillian Jean Rule Living Trust was changed on the record from $9,800 to $3,298.89; the board described separate upper- and lower-watershed assessment rates of roughly $241.67 per acre (upper) and $82.54 per acre (lower).

Public comment: Janet Vaughn, reading a letter submitted on behalf of her family, urged the board to reconsider the allocation of costs and described on-farm bridges, past private tile projects and timbered acres removed from production. The surveyor and board members answered technical questions about whether a properly designed tile upgrade would ‘‘act as a sponge’’ to reduce peak water tables and about potential increased flow speeds in the open ditch.

The meeting record shows the board adopted the report and amended schedule and moved the project forward to publication and bidding. The surveyor will publish the statutorily required notice and circulate the hearing findings to property owners as stated in the record.