O’Brien County drainage district #5 cleanout public hearing raises many questions

By

Loren G. Flaugh

Part I

            “I don’t think we’ve ever dealt with an issue like this,” speculated supervisor Tom Farn sworth, prior to the opening of the public hearing on the O’Brien County Drainage District (DD) #5 Cleanout Project in Hartley and Lincoln Townships.  Farnsworth is the Board’s longest serving supervisor with his early 1990’s election. 

            DD #5 encompasses about 3,371 acres in north central O’Brien County northwest of Hartley.  The county auditor’s office mailed out public notices to 61 affected landowners in only DD #5.

            Perhaps 25 landowners and others with an interest in this complicated matter attended the hearing held in the Court House Assembly Room.  Most landowners present were from O’Brien County.  However, several southern Osceola County landowners sat in on the hearing. 

They have a potential stake because land in as many as 6 Osceola County sections, including the City of Melvin, could be involuntarily annexed into DD # 5 at a much later date.  One recently elected Osceola County supervisor, Jerry Helmers, sat in on the hearing and asked many pertinent questions.  Helmers lives a half mile south of Melvin. 

O’Brien County supervisor and current Board Chair Nancy McDowell called the hearing to order at 10:00.  McDowell introduced the two individuals set to present a considerable amount of relevant information on DD matters.  Jim Hudson, a Pocahontas attorney with the Hudson Law Firm, has DD insights going back to 1953 on Iowa Code Chapter 468, how DDs work, DD procedures and other related requirements.  Hudson’s presentation of legal information was extensive.

Jacobson-Westergard & Associates PE Richard Hopper reviewed his preliminary engineering report on the DD #5 cleanout project his firm had compiled.  At this time, only the DD #5 cleanout project is the primary issue where decisions are required, Hudson would repeatedly advise.

Part II of this three-part feature story from the public hearing will look much closer at the many legal and engineering factors entangled in this convoluted DD repair project.  The Q & A session after Hudson and Hopper’s presentation was lengthier though most informative.  Part III will examine some of the more interesting and controversial questions asked and the resulting answers. 

One hour and 50 minutes into the hearing, Hudson moved on to ask the county auditor for the written objections that the auditor’s office had received.  Three hand-written objections were received opposing the DD #5 repair project.  One more objection was received at the close of the hearing for a total of four.  Only DD #5 landowners had standing to file an objection.  Hudson said that tenants don’t really have the same standing that a landowner does.

Hudson then read through the objections and addressed the reasons and concerns for their objection.  In one well-written letter, the writer expressed concern that once the silt and vegetation is removed from the 95-year old ditch, then storm water flows would run faster and heavier down to the outlet into Waterman Creek a mile northwest of Hartley.  The writer expressed the view that this would cause more topsoil to eventually end up in the Gulf of Mexico. 

“This is contrary to our goals,” the writer insisted.  The writer also wanted greater participation in Conservation Reserve Programs. 

“In Iowa, we get 10% more rain water and snow than what we need.  So, we need to get rid of our excess water.  The only way we have of doing it is through the interconnecting DD facilities and stream the flow into the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers and ultimately the Gulf of Mexico,” Hudson pointed out. 

“The hypoxia that you hear about is generally because of too much nitrogen in the water.  Iowa and Illinois cast off most of the nitrogen and phosphorous.  I don’t know anybody here in this room that puts on too much anhydrous every year just to let it leach out and flow into the DD facilities.  So, we try to be good stewards when we’re doing this.  We encourage buffer strips and other things next to our ditches like cover crops that clean the surface water that comes in,” Hudson explained.

Over 2 hours into the hearing, Hudson asked the auditor and the Board to consider two things pertaining to this DD #5 issue today.  One was the establishment of an interest rate for this project.  “I don’t know as if you have any yet, but I recommend 5% per annum,” said Hudson.

Seeking clarification, county auditor Barb Rohwer replied, “So, what you are saying is 5% for the stamp warrants and also for the installment levied onto property taxes to pay the DD costs.”

“Yes,” replied Hudson.  “The next thing you want to consider is if want nto allow these installment payments over time.  This is a smallish project and there won’t be many.  You are limited to no less than 10 years or more than 20 years for the re-payment of DD costs.  Then if you make a decision today, the landowners will know where they stand with the financing on this.”

After a brief discussion on the interest rate motion wording, supervisor Dan Friedrichsen offered the motion saying, “I would make the motion then to set the interest rate at 5% per annum and have a 10-year minimum assessment and a 20-year maximum.”

“I’ll second that motion,” said supervisor Farnsworth.   The motion won unanimous approval.

“I would also be appropriate to determine whether or not to approve what Richard Hopper did regarding the recommendation for the DD #5 repair.  Unless, the Board feels that there needs to be more investigation, study or input into the engineer’s report that needs to be done,” Hudson advised.

“So, what we’re looking for is a motion to accept the engineer’s preliminary report,” Rohwer requested.

“I’ll make the motion to accept the engineer’s report,” said Friedrichsen.

“I’ll second that motion,” said supervisor John Steensma.  That motion also passed with unanimous approval.

Hopper said he would now move on to prepare his final engineering report and project designs in the next few weeks.  He would then come back to the Board for final approval. 

“Ideally, this would be good to bid on this repair project sometime in January.  Contractors are looking for spring work.  I’d like to look at possible date for the bid letting, but come back with a specific date based on the schedule of the supervisor,” Hopper replied. 

In responding to a reporter’s question about the number of contractors that might bid on the roughly $200,000 project like this and how competitive the bids might be, Hopper replied, “The bids from contractors are typically very competitive.  I feel like we’ll get better prices than what I have used in this report, especially looking at a January bid letting.

We’ll give them next season to do the work because then we’ll be looking at the annexation after that’s done.  All this helps to give you the best price.

We like to get at least 3 or 4 bids from contractors and we have gotten as many as 10 bids on some of these projects.  This is considered as a relatively small DD repair project with this amount of silt to be removed.  I used to consider a $300,000 project as enormous, but now 20 years later, it’s rather commonplace.  If we can get the cost down to $20 per acre, which is the right thing to do, that all helps.”

Hopper’s preliminary engineering report indicated a per acre cost of $57.00 per acre.