Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Drainage topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Douglas County board votes to abandon further repairs on portion of County Ditch 21

Douglas County Board of Commissioners · April 8, 2026
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

After debate over levy impacts and which landowners would benefit, the county board approved a motion to abandon further public repairs on part of County Ditch 21 and directed staff to consult legal counsel to formalize the abandonment.

The Douglas County Board of Commissioners voted to abandon further public repairs on part of County Ditch 21 after commissioners argued the next phase would place an outsized levy burden on properties that would not benefit. Commissioner Tim Collina moved to abandon the ditch at the end of the 2024 repair and require landowners to complete any additional work; a fellow commissioner seconded the motion.

The board’s discussion focused on funding fairness. Collina said the proposed repair would add about $40,000 on top of roughly $70,000 already owed and that, with a 200% levy, the additional charge was not feasible for most property owners. He argued the work “doesn’t benefit anybody but two landowners” and recommended the county “abandon that ditch” and let the landowners assume responsibility. Other commissioners raised questions about the ditch’s historical status and whether abandonment was legally permissible.

Public Works staff described the request as a 600‑foot repair of a 12‑inch dual tile and noted it was a continuation of work started in 2024. Commissioners asked staff to consult the county’s retained counsel to ensure proper legal steps for abandoning a drainage authority item; the mover amended the motion to include seeking legal counsel and the amendment remained in the motion.

The motion was seconded and carried on a roll‑call vote. Votes recorded during roll call included a mix of yes and no responses; the motion passed and staff said they would do follow‑up research and return any required documentation to the board before formalizing the change.

The board did not adopt a detailed timeline for implementation during the meeting; staff said they would consult counsel and return with a formal process and any required legal instruments.