| Description | MONDAY, MARCh 21, 2005 SESSION | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | 3/21/2005 | Location | Commissioners |
| Time | Speaker | Note | |
| 9:00:11 AM | Call Meeting To Order Pledge of Allegiance Opening Prayer Roll Call Attendance - Commissioner Genter absent Approve Minutes of March 17, 2005 |
Commissioner Barnaby made motion to approve Seconded by Commissioner Graf. Motion carried unanimously | |
| 9:02:17 AM | OLD BUSINESS Weekly Dog Warden Report Week of March 13, 2005 to March 19, 2005 |
||
| 9:03:21 AM | Review letter to Henry County Auditor Re: Health Insurance | ||
| 9:05:05 AM | NEW BUSINESS Resolutions: Resolution 2005-174 Advertise for Bid City of Wauseon ADA Ramp and Sidewalk Improvement Project (FY03 Formula) |
Commissioner Barnaby made motion to approve Seconded by Commissioner Graf. Motion carried unanimously. | |
| 9:06:17 AM | Resolution 2005-175 Advertise for Bid Open Door of Delta Restroom Improvement Project (FY04 Formula) | Commissioner Barnaby made motion to approve Seconded by Commissioner Graf. Motion carried unanimously | |
| 9:07:12 AM | Resolution 2005-176 Cancel Purchase Orders for Various Departments |
Commissioner Graf made motion to approve Seconded by Commissioner Barnaby. Motion carried unanimously | |
| 9:08:17 AM | Resolution 2005-177 Transfer Funds for CSEA to Public Assistance Shared Costs |
Commissioner Graf made motion to approve Seconded by Commissioner Barnaby. Motion carried unanimously | |
| 9:08:56 AM | Resolution 2005-178 Transfer `Funds from County General to Children Services Fund |
Commissioner Graf made motion to approve Seconded by Commissioner Barnaby. Motion carried unanimously | |
| 9:10:00 AM | Resolution 2005-179 Approve Purchase Orders and Travel Requests |
Commissioner Barnaby made motion to approve Seconded by Commissioner Graf. Motion carried unanimously | |
| 9:10:16 AM | Recess | ||
| 11:00:09 AM | Rod Creager, Chief Deputy Engineer - Final Hearing on Ditch 2099 (Fraker) |
Commissioner Graf opened the hearing and gave a brief overview of what will take place in the hearing. He made introductions and then turned the hearing over to Mr. Creager. Mr. Creager reviewed the preliminary work that has been done to date. Slides were shown of the viewing which showed portions of the ditch where the work proposed will take place as well as evidence of the problems that prompted the petitioned work. At the end of the hearing the Commissioners will make their decision on whether to proceed with the work that has been petitioned (the original petition has been extended to include the upper terminus of the open ditch on the Hidden Ridge property west of Road 5-2 at the south edge of the Delta Industrial Park). The Engineer's Report in its entirety will follow: ENGINEER'S REPORT Ditch No. 2099 Branch 6 Fewless Creek January 13, 2005 March 21, 2005 Final Hearing PROJECT INITIATION This drainage improvement was initiated through a single county drainage petition filed by Mr. Tim Fraker and others on February 26, 2004. The original petition course began on the Fraker property about four hundred twenty-five (425) feet south and four hundred seventy (470) the center of Section 17, T-7-N, R-8-E in Swancreek Township and continued in a southeasterly direction, crossing Road 5 then through the Northwest quarter of Section 16 T-7-N, R-8-E to Fewless Creek Main and there it was to terminate. The work petitioned for included removing the nuisance brush and sediment that obstructs drain tile flow in the Branch 6 of Fewless Creek channel. The petition also asked that erosion control measures including seeding disturbed ditch banks and berms be included in the work plan. At the viewing of this improvement conducted by the commissioners on April 12, 2004, it was decided to extend the project to the upper terminus of the open ditch on the Hidden Ridge property west of Road 5-2 at the south edge of the Delta Industrial Park. The decision to extend the petition was based upon the commissioner's observations and the testimony of Mr. Gerald Snyder. Branch 6 of Fewless Creek was last cleaned through petition in 1953. Since 1953 the ditch has been maintained privately. In 1953 eighteen (18) parcels were assessed. Today there are thirty-eight (38) parcels in the watershed including several parcels in the Delta Industrial Park. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The ditch improvement proposed in the petition will benefit approximately 462 acres of agricultural, rural residential and industrial property in the northwest corner of Swancreek Township. The objectives of the petition and the extension are to provide a well-maintained open channel for improved agricultural, residential and industrial drainage. PROBLEMS OBSERVED Problems observed at the viewing were typical of open ditches in loam and sandy soils that have not been consistently maintained. Sediment has filled the ditch bottom to the point that tile outlets draining into the channel are at or under accumulated sediment. Water stands in the open ditch. Moderate brush lines the ditch bank through the Hidden Ridge property and along one side of the wooded areas downstream from Road 5. Brush removal through Hidden Ridge will be made more difficult by the close proximity of several of the community's new homes. There was some evidence of erosion on channel turns and at points where surface water enters the ditch. A washed out culvert at near the lower terminus will have to be removed from the channel. While not necessarily a drainage defect, the close proximity of the channel to the edge of Township Road 5-2 suggests that relocating or closing the ditch should be considered. WORK PROPOSED One foot to one and one half feet of sediment will be removed from the channel and spread in adjacent fields. Sediment removed along lawns will be hauled to adjacent fields and spread there. Disturbed banks and berms will be seeded. Seeding disturbed filter strips will be included in the work plan as well as the creation of new fifteen (15) foot grass berms along both sides of the channel throughout its length. The channel will be constructed with a three (3) foot bottom width with side slopes no steeper than 1½: 1 as constructed in the last petition. The upper reach will have a grade of 3 inches per hundred feet and the lower reaches will have a grade of 2½ inches per hundred feet. Through the loam soils at the upper end a two to one (2:1) side slope is recommended. Through the fine sandy loam and loamy fine sands in the lower reaches the one and one half to one (1 ½:1) side slope is acceptable. Nuisance brush will be removed from both channel banks. All brush along farm fields will be cut and piled for disposal by the adjacent landowner. Brush cut through lawn areas will be disposed of through the ditch construction contract. Owners who have kept brush under control will have less brush to clean up and will experience less disruption to the area adjacent to the channel. Rock channel protection will be placed where active channel erosion is occurring and where cleaning operations are expected to improve flow to the point that erosion may take place. In addition, at points where surface water has caused washouts to occur, bank repairs will be made with rock and landowners will be specially assessed unless they elect to repair eroded banks themselves or through the Fulton SWCD. Relocation of the ditch along Township Road 5-2 was considered. This work will require acquisition of additional right-of-way along the east side of Township Road 5-2 as well as the extension of the county's culvert. CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE The attached construction estimate was based on information that was obtained through drainage project records, aerial photos, field observations and our engineering survey. Estimated costs for the open ditch reconstruction as extended according to the Mr. Snyder's request would total $100,717.01 including specials, contingencies, engineering and administrative costs. The construction estimate was used to determine the estimated assessments for each parcel. Assessments will be considered at the final hearing on this proposed improvement. Upon completion of the project work plan, final assessments will be prorated to reflect the actual final cost of the work completed. PROJECT BENEFITS AND ESTIMATED ASSESSMENTS Benefits resulting from the proposed open ditch improvement will be due to the removal of sediment that threatens to block drainage tile that enable fields, roads and septic systems to drain. Upland owners of developed industrial and residential property will also benefit from the downstream control of their storm water runoff through the open ditch and extension. Their participation will fulfill their obligation to control runoff from their property. Rural residential properties will benefit from improved drainage by increasing or maintaining their property values. According to local real estate sources, as a general rule, properties suffering from standing water throughout their entire yards are often judged to be devalued as much as 20% to 30%. Properties with some standing water could be devalued as much as 10% to 20%. Areas that suffer even the stigma of standing water could be devalued by 5% to 10%. Assessments for the proposed improvement were based on the benefits received from the drainage improvements. The type and quantity of drainage runoff contributed by each owner was a consideration. Special assessments for brush removal, new berm seeding, surface water erosion control structures, and culvert removal were levied against the individual parcels receiving the direct benefit. In addition, as mentioned in the work plan section of this report, brush removed but not disposed of through lawn areas will be left piled in adjacent fields for later disposal by the landowner at the landowner's expense. It is expected that the benefits derived from the proposed improvement over 20will total $145,297.80 and will exceed the estimated project costs. Assessments for the project will range from $22.72 to $96.57 per acre for farmland. Parcels receiving special assessments for brush removal, rock or culverts will be assessed more. Owners can eliminate special assessments by performing the specially assessed work items themselves. MAINTENANCE The Ohio Revised Code requires that all ditch improvement projects are to be placed on a permanent maintenance program. The code provides for the right of access to open ditches to perform maintenance activities. The maintenance access easement for this improvement will be twenty-five feet along both banks measured from the top of the banks. APPARENT FAVORABLE FACTORS 1.Drainage capacity of the open ditch will be restored. 2.Obstructed drains can be properly cleaned and maintained. 3.Property values will be improved or protected. 4.Erosion control measures along the open ditch will reduce erosion and protect the open channel from further deterioration. 5.Having the open ditch placed on permanent maintenance will insure that the channel can be kept clean and free flowing and will protect the investment in this proposed improvement. APPARENT UNFAVORABLE FACTORS 1.Temporary production loss can be expected on cropland adjacent to the project during construction and some reduced yields can be expected for a year or two after construction. 2.Periodic production loss and inconvenience may result from future maintenance activity. 3.Relocating the open ditch will require the purchase of additional right-of-way and thereby will result in the permanent loss of some farmland. 4.Lawn areas adjacent to the work area will be disrupted. 5.Local traffic patterns will be temporarily disrupted during construction. PROJECT FEASIBILITY The project proposed in the extended petition is feasible and can be economically completed through the drainage improvement petition process. Commissioner Graf asked if there were questions regarding the scope of the work and also explained the importance of the 15 foot filter strips along the ditches. There are programs that can assist in the cost to the landowner available through the Soil & Water office. Sam Witt questioned the benefit percentage used in the determination for the assessments. Mr. Creager explained the runoff rates. Mr. Witt stated he felt that he and some of the other business owners in the watershed were bearing a large percentage of the project. Mr. Creager said that it is a use factor. Mr. Witt said it is a lot of money and added that he doesn't see a need to clean the upper end. Mr. Creager asked if they had discussed closing the upper end. Mr. Witt asked about doing work themselves. Mr. Creager stressed that it would need to be a formal mutual agreement and a maintenance program would need to be established. Commissioner Graf explained further about a mutual agreement and that the scope of the work as outlined by the engineer or Soil & Water would have to be followed in order to have a maintenance program. Jan Burkhard added that also the cost of the work would have to be paid cash up front. Gary Brehm asked if the ditch had been cleaned in 1953, when had it been cleaned since then. Mr. Fraker said he had paperwork showing that it had been cleaned in 1985. It was a private project and was cleaned all the way. Commissioner Graf swore in all who desired to give testimonies. Tom Parker requested the opportunity to try to coordinate a private project that would meet with the county's approval. Sam Witt said that he would agree with Mr Parker. He said they would take care of their own brush. He added that he didn't think that their end needed dipped. Kim Allen also added his agreement to Mr. Parker's testimony. Rod Kuntz questioned if the plan for the private project would take care of the whole thing. Mr. Kuntz asked about the date for cleaning if it were to be a private project because it needs to be done for farming purposes this season. Mr. Witt said that he did not see a reason that the project could not be done within 90 days. Tim Fraker said that he didn't have a problem with doing it privately if they could all agree and that it be done soon according to the scope of work proposed. Brinda Miller asked if a mutual agreement would establish it on maintenance. Mr. Creager said that he would recommend it and added that it would need the Commissioners' approval. Ms. Miller also asked if 90 days would be enough time to complete the work. Mr. Creager outlined the time process as far as if the project were to be done by the county and that 90 days would not be enough to follow the ditch process as required by the ORC. He also advised that a private project would need to consider getting on the property, such as disturbing crops etc. Jan Burkhard also said that all the money would need to be paid up front for the private project before a contractor can start the work. Commissioner Graf stressed that if someone does not want to participate they cannot be forced and that is the problem with doing a private project. He said he is not against a private project but wants everyone to be aware of what is involved. The general consensus of the group was to generate a private project. Mr. Kuntz asked who ultimately would say that the work would be satisfactory. Commissioner Graf said that it would be up to Mr. Creager and the Engineer's Office. He added that he would not be opposed to continuing this hearing in order to give them time to put something together. The question was asked if this would require new assessments and additional time for a mutual project. Commissioner Graf said that the work would still be approved by the Engineers Office and that any costs incurred to this point would still have to be assessed. Mr. Parker asked if all the specs were complete at this point. Commissioner Graf asked if they would have to get the permission of the Swancreek township Trustees to move the ditch. Mr. Creager said yes, but that portion could be made the project. Commissioner Graf asked about a timeline for continuing the hearing. 45 days was decided to be ample and Mr. Parker will take charge of trying to accomplish a private project. Commissioner Graf will continue the hearing for the purpose of allowing affected landowners to study the feasability of a mutual agreement project on May 12, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. Commissioner Barnaby made the motion and Commissioner Graf seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Graf recessed the hearing at 12:04. He stressed the contact people would be Mr. Creager and Mr. burkhard. | |
| 12:06:20 PM | Meeting Adjourned | ||
| 12:11:25 PM | ___________________________ Jack Graf ___________________________ Dean Genter ___________________________ Paul Barnaby ATTEST: |
||
| 12:12:22 PM | Signed Copies of the minutes, or an audio recording of the meeting, in its entirety, are available for review in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, 152 S. Fulton St., Suite 270; Wauseon, Ohio 43567-3309 | ||
Produced by FTR Log Notes™
www.ftrgold.com