Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drainage And Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dickinson County Board votes to shift proposed open ditch onto existing easement to limit pipeline liability, accepting higher cost estimate
Summary
After a continued public hearing on drainage improvements, the board approved moving the proposed open ditch onto an existing easement (option six/amendment five) to avoid signing a pipeline crossing agreement; the change raises the engineer’s estimate by roughly $56,000 to $576,000 and will change parcel assessments.
The Dickinson County Board voted to proceed with a revised open-ditch plan for the joint Drainage District — approving the engineer’s amendment to move the ditch into the preexisting drainage easement (referred to in the hearing as option six/amendment five) rather than placing the ditch adjacent to 230th Street and signing a pipeline crossing agreement.
County engineer (Colin) explained the change is intended to avoid a pipeline crossing agreement that, as drafted by the pipeline operator, would have the drainage district accept ongoing liability for damage to the natural gas pipeline. Colin said legal counsel (Bob Goodwin) advised that operating within the district’s older easement would, in his opinion, reduce the need to sign that crossing agreement, though the pipeline operator might object and liability cannot be fully eliminated.
Colin presented updated cost workups showing the option-six estimate at about $576,000, up roughly $56,000 from the previously discussed $520,000 estimate. He and commenters noted much of the additional cost reflects diminished property value on parcels where the ditch would cross and some higher construction costs; parcel-by-parcel pre-classification maps in the packet show a range of owner assessments (many in low hundreds to a few hundred dollars depending on lot size). The engineer advised that the cost estimate includes construction, right-of-way acquisition, legal fees, publications and typical non-construction items, and that engineering expenses already incurred (roughly $60,000) would be owed even if the project were terminated now.
Owners and supervisors debated whether the reduced-scope project delivers immediate drainage benefits for all parcels and discussed installment payment options for assessments (owners with assessments over $500 may choose 10–20 year installments at a board-set interest rate). Several supervisors argued that the additional $56,000 is a worthwhile insurance-like cost to reduce potential future litigation exposure tied to the pipeline.
When the hearing closed, a motion — amended to direct that the county engineer prepare a letter to the pipeline operator, reviewed by the county attorney — was carried on roll-call. The board directed staff to proceed with right-of-way acquisition steps as appropriate; the engineer noted some right-of-way can be acquired voluntarily but appraisal and hearings will be required for involuntary takings.
The board did not quantify final per-parcel assessment amounts beyond the pre-classification maps; supervisors and the engineer acknowledged that exact owner payments will depend on the final project cost and the formal assessment process that follows right-of-way acquisition.
