Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drainage Nuisance Washburn topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors direct cleanup plan and bids for Washburn-area nuisance properties and drainage district
Summary
After extended discussion the Black Hawk County Board directed staff to prepare a scope, obtain contractor quotes, and pursue enforcement steps for nuisance properties near Washburn and to repair and maintain a local drainage district, with engineers’ preliminary vegetation-removal estimates of roughly $30,000–$40,000.
Black Hawk County supervisors on June 23 instructed county staff to move forward with bids and enforcement steps to address nuisance properties and to clear vegetation and maintain a drainage district near Washburn.
The board voted to have county engineers produce a one- to two-page scope of work, flag the areas to be cleared, and solicit quotes from contractors for vegetation removal and related maintenance. “We will send one final notice with a little more teeth … 14 more [days] and then we’re going to go in and begin the actual work of removing his property from our property,” the facilities director said when describing a Sunnyside property where sheds, a porta-potty and a deck built on county land remain.
County staff and legal counsel reviewed options for the Third Street property, where a contractor (Mills Construction) had expressed interest but had not yet provided a signed contract with a scope and timeline. Staff said they plan a final 30-day notice followed by initiation of the code 657A action if the owner does not prove serious rehabilitation efforts. Rory, a county staff member, said he had asked the contractor to “provide us a contract with a scope of the work … along with the timeline.”
The board then turned to the drainage district that serves the Washburn area. Mike, a county staff attorney, summarized the statutory framework in Iowa Code chapter 468 and said levies for repairs that exceed $50,000 trigger formal notice and a hearing, while smaller maintenance assessments can proceed without that advertising requirement. “If it’s below notice and a hearing, the board can move forward without advertising for a hearing,” he said, adding that the board could still choose to hold a hearing to give affected property owners extra notice.
Kathy Nicholas, county engineer, said staff’s earlier rough estimate for vegetation maintenance on the drainage facility was about $30,000–$40,000 and that annual maintenance might be in the low thousands. She told the board it would take about 60 days to produce drawings, survey the area, and collect contractor quotes. Supervisors emphasized the importance of showing property owners what an assessment would mean to them; Tim Jameson, the auditor’s real-estate tax systems manager, said he could run parcel-level illustrations so residents could see individual assessments under different levy scenarios.
Board members sought a public engagement step before levying assessments. Several supervisors favored an informational town-hall-style meeting for district residents to review options and to present sample assessment numbers before any formal hearing. The board approved a motion directing the engineer to prepare the scope and begin soliciting three or four contractor quotes, with staff to return with cost estimates and recommended next steps.
The board also discussed nuisance enforcement tools for rural areas, including possible ordinances targeted to clusters of homes, administrative fees for habitual violators and using township volunteers for interim mowing in some cases. The board did not adopt a new ordinance at the meeting but approved staff action to pursue bids and the approach summarized above.
Next steps: county staff will survey and prepare a project packet for contractor bids (estimated two months to get quotes, staff said), prepare illustrative assessment numbers for residents, and return to the board with recommended levy and notice options.
