Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drainage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stevens County accepts petition for new drainage improvement, appoints engineer for ‘County Ditch 9’
Summary
The Stevens County Board voted to accept a petition and bond to start proceedings for a proposed drainage improvement labeled County Ditch 9, appointed Moore Engineering’s Jacob Rischmiller as the engineer and prescribed a preliminary survey; commissioners emphasized that statutory processes and engineering studies, not conclusions drawn in letters, should determine liability or impacts.
The Stevens County Board of Commissioners voted on a roll call to accept a petition and surety bond to begin proceedings for a proposed drainage improvement the county will call “County Ditch 9,” and to appoint Jacob Rischmiller of Moore Engineering to perform the preliminary engineering and survey work.
The petitioners were identified in the packet as Maurice Holsland, Mark Holsland and Paul Holsland (trustees of the Bridal Holsland Trust) and JK Family Farms. County staff told commissioners one petitioner must file a surety bond to cover expenses until the project is let; staff recommended more than the statutory $10,000 minimum and indicated a $25,000 bond was requested to better cover preliminary costs.
“Once we go out for bids and it gets accepted as a project, then at that time, the county then it’s part of the county,” a staff presenter said while explaining how costs and assessments are handled following petition acceptance.
Why it matters: the board also considered a recent letter from Traverse County alleging downstream impacts from county projects. County staff and legal counsel said those allegations require engineering and legal review through the statutory drainage process and warned against drawing conclusions before feasibility and investigatory steps occur.
Legal and procedural context: County legal counsel joined staff in explaining that the board functions as the drainage authority and that landowners have statutory rights to petition for improvements or redeterminations. The response letter prepared for the board said the county does not agree that any proposed improvement has caused or will cause the impacts described in the Traverse County May 21 letter and reserves any position on causation pending further factual engineering and legal review.
Board action: a motion to approve the findings and order accepting the petition and bond, appoint an engineer and prescribe a preliminary survey carried on a roll call. The clerk recorded affirmative responses including “Commissioner Staples: Aye,” “Aye” by the chair, “Commissioner Kavitsky: Aye,” and “Commissioner Annan: Aye.”
What’s next: with the petition accepted and an engineer appointed, staff said the county will begin the preliminary work and then proceed to a feasibility study and, if appropriate, out for bids. Any assessment of impacts, costs, or liability will depend on those technical and legal reviews.
Documents and authority: the board’s actions referenced state drainage statutes and an attorney-reviewed petition and bond in the meeting packet.
