| Description | THURSDAY, MAY 26, 2005 SESSION | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | 5/26/2005 | Location | |
| Time | Speaker | Note | |
| 9:01:24 AM | Call Meeting to Order Pledge of Allegiance Opening Prayer Roll Call Attendance Approve Minutes of May 23, 2005 |
Commissioner Barnaby made motion to approve Seconded by Commissioner Graf. Motion carried unanimously | |
| 9:02:23 AM | Resolution 2005-300 Approve Payment of Bills |
Commissioner Genter made motion to approve Seconded by Commissioner Graf. Motion carried unanimously | |
| 9:02:56 AM | Ziad Musallam, Sanitary Engineer Discuss Road 6-2 Sanitary Sewer Line and Henry County Water Supply Request |
Ziad Musallum, Sanitary Engineer, Nancy Yackee, Auditor, Sandy Barber, Recorder, Jerry Enyart, Auditor's Office, were present to discuss if Lot six is annexed into the Village of Delta. Sandy Barber explained that there is a problem with the plat. Sandy explained that she looks for proper title, signatures from the village, etc. when it gets to the Recorders Office and these areas are complete it is assumed to be correct. It has been determined in the last few days that this plat is not correct. Can not take a lot from a subdivision and make it part of another. Sandy suggested to the attorneys that they review ORC 711-17 to 19 regarding altering a lot. The second plat was presented without lot six included in the annexed area, but part of the Meets and Bounds description . Legal does not refer to lot six. Need to know if it is section 7 or section 11. Surveyors were working off of original plat and questioned the Recorders Office. This should have been taken care of before the annexation became an issue. One suggestion was that the Village of Delta needs to vacate lot six - this is a legal question that would need to be addressed. If they would have vacated the lot before the annexation, it would have required a two week notice in the newspaper, etc. per ORC 722-17 through 19 and it would have been taken care of. Sandy depends on legal council of Village officials to have examined this prior to being brought to the Recorders Office. It was discussed that the Meets and Bounds includes lot six but it is not in the description. Sandy needs an official legal document. The Village needs to tell the Recorder that lot six is part of the annexation. Documentation needs to be corrected by the Village. This still leaves the Sanitary Engineer's problem. The Village of Delta will need to submit another plat. Sandy explained that it is not in section 11 and the mortgage could not be filed by the Attorney. If we receive the correct documentation, there are other problems with the Sanitary Engineer - if subdiivision is not in the Village it is a County Sewer System and not the Village. Lot six is annexed, but corrected language needs to be received by the Recorder. A new plat will need to be filed with Lot six in as annexed once the corrected documents are filed. Ziad explained that if we go along 6-2 it will be in public right-of-way. Sandy explained that the Meets and Bounds description was used when property was sold off. Deed reflects the incorrect Meets and Bounds description which will also need to be corrected. Jerry Enyart expressed that the Village of Delta's legal council will need to correct the issue with the plat. Dean suggested to put Road 6-2 Sanitary Sewer Line on hold until the situation is resolved through the Village of Delta. Vond Hall, Administrator, suggested that a letter be sent to the Village of Delta outlining the deficientcies - can not proceed without this corrected. Steve Brown suggested a training session with the Villages on the correct procedures of annexing and what is needed on the plat, etc. The lot should have been vacated in the beginning and then lot six could have been annexed according to ORC 711-17 through 19. Jack asked if Sandy thought that the Village would have to vacate because it is a different use? Sandy explained that yes, it is her understanding, it is no longer a lot it is a street. Sandy asked that the Village review the ORC and determine what needs to be done. Vond and Ziad to prepare a letter to the Village of Delta and copy it to the Health Dept. Ziad reviewed the drainage issue - and said that it was flat and could go either direction. Ziad reviewed the cost estimate optionsand reviewed Alternate 1,2 & 3. Discussed who would benefit from the line and who would pay for the line. Ziad discussed the Henry County Water Supply request and updated the Commissioners since the March 17, 2005 meetings were held with Henry County and the City of Wauseon. Options discussed - Henry County's need 200,000 gallons per day to be used by district. Major user - dairy farm - south of county line. Infrastructure in Fulton County - tap in fee would go to Henry County and go toward their cost to Fulton County. Ziad reviewed options that they would like to see. They would like to maximize potential users and go with that option. No petition has been received. Health Dept. has indicated a spotty problem with water. But at this time there is no problem area. There is a third option which is not Henry County's desire. Bret Kolb expressed that this is the first they have heard about it. All options involve Twp. roads. Twp. would like to be directly involved with what goes on. Ziad needs the City to respond to utilities issue - if they could be added to the City's easement. This would be a County line with the City's water. Henry County would pick up the cost of an 8" line. Question if 8" would be large enough with the dairy. City of Wauseon will satisfy their needs prior to the City of Napoleon. Bret is concerned with the 8" not large enough. Once residents tap on, and if 8" is not large enough, there will be problems for Fulton Co.- Twp. residents. Suggest a 12" line. If there is not enough usage it could effect the quality of the water for both Fulton and Henry County. Dean suggest working with the Twp. on a preferred route. It is Fulton County's water project. Leonard Richer, Twp. Trustee, would rather have waterline than semi trucks tearing up the road with hauling water for the dairy farm. Bret explained that he would like to be involved with this for the Twp. residents best interest. At 10:00 a.m. Jack asked if the meeting could break and come back after the hearing to continue the discussion. Ziad to talk to the Twp. Trustees for the prefered route and we will come back to discuss. | |
| 10:02:38 AM | 2 nd Public Hearing CDBG Formula Program |
Lisa, MVPO, Jack opened the hearing, request for Elmira - Burlington, Jack will not be participating. Jan Burkhard opened the Public Hearing, 2nd Hearing. Chesterfield Twp. - Request for $150,000 Community Center Project Total cost $250,000 Village of Fayette request $60,000 for Sanitary Sewer Sep. Project - total $522,000 project cost Village of Lyons Storm Sewer/Street Resurfacing $38,300 request - $48,300 total project cost. City of Wauseon - $32,500 Waterline Replacement request - $49,000 total project cost Elmira/Burlington Sanitary Sewer Planning $100,000 request $1,537,465 total project cost Total $380,800.00 requested for proposed projects costing$2,467,065 Mr. Burkhard advised that these projects all have to meet certain LMI qualifications and criteria. Commissioner Genter closed the public hearing and said that the board of commissioners have up to 30 days to decide what projects will be covered. | |
| 10:14:13 AM | Continued discussion on Henry County Water Supply Request - Mr. Musallam | Mr. Musallam said that in discussion with Clinton Township, they are not opposed to the option. Their concern is if the mega-farm continues to expand there could be a ground water issue with neighborhood wells. They do prefer to go down Road AC with the waterline. Mr. Musallam stressed there would be tap restrictions no matter what option they decide on. Acquiring right-of-way will be a big issue. Mr. Musallam needs a decision from the board of commissioners. If the county says no, they will work directly with the city to get the water. Commissioner Graf stressed that the board does not have a petition from any county residents. Commissioner Genter agreed that maybe they should just let them go through the city. Commissioner Barnaby felt that they should take care of the request. Mr. Musallam said that he has only received calls from two citizens inquiring about tapping. Commissioner Genter would like to see a resolution from the Clinton Twp. Trustees. | |
| 10:33:02 AM | Public Hearing - Vacation of Right of Way in Clinton Township Resolution 2005-304 |
Commissioner Graf opened the hearing. He referred to the request from the Clinton Twp Trustees to vacate this 5 feet of right-of-way. Mr. Leonard Richer, trustee, said it needs to be cleaned up due to the fact there are some burials partially in this right-of-way. Commissioner Graf stated that there is no letter from the County Engineer, which does not affect this vacation request. Commissioner Graf closed the hearing at 10:39 Commissioner Barnaby moved to approve the vacation. Commissioner Genter seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. | |
| 10:41:01 AM | Resolutions: Resolution 2005-301 Approve Personnel Action for Fulton County Senior Center |
Commissioner Genter made motion to approve Seconded by Commissioner Graf. Motion carried unanimously | |
| 10:41:30 AM | Resolution 2005-302 Increase Estimated Revenues and Increase Appropriations for Ditch Fund 4315 |
Commissioner Genter made motion to approve Seconded by Commissioner Graf. Motion carried unanimously | |
| 10:42:23 AM | Resolution 2005-303 Approve Purchase Orders and Travel Requests |
Commissioner Barnaby made motion to approve Seconded by Commissioner Genter. Motion carried unanimously. | |
| 11:00:07 AM | Rod Creager, Chief Deputy Engineer - Final Hearing Ditch 2098 (Strayer) |
Commissioner Graf opened the hearing and gave a brief review of what the process has been so far and what would transpire today. Mr. Creager presented his report as follows: ENGINEER'S REPORT Ditch No. 2098 Branch 4 Blue Creek March 10, 2005 May 26, 2005 11:00 a.m. PROJECT INITIATION This drainage improvement was initiated through a single county drainage petition filed by Daniel Strayer and others on August 28, 2003. The work petitioned for includes removing sediment from the Branch 4 of Blue Creek channel that obstructs drain tile flow. The original petition was written to commence approximately four hundred twenty-five (425) feet north of the Southeast corner of Section 2 T-6-N, R-8-E in Swancreek Township and then continue in a south southeasterly direction through the Northeast quarter of Section 11 T-6-N, R-8-E to Blue Creek Main and there to terminate. The petition asked that excavated spoils be leveled and the any brush along the channel be removed as required. The petition stated that the work plan was to include erosion control measures including seeding disturbed ditch banks and berms. Mr. And Mrs. Kirk Wylie filled an extension of the original Strayer petition on September 30, 2003. The extension called for the project to be continued upstream to include that portion of Branchto the north along the west side of Township Road 2 then west to the Maumee State Forest property. The Wylies further amended the route and course of the extension to include that portion of the open ditch extending through the Maumee State Forest to a point where it reaches either a covered area or to a ditch that is currently on a maintenance program. In their letter of amendment, the Wylies stated that they felt that if they are expected to help pay for drainage improvements they would only benefit if the project was extended through the forest, allowing water to flow freely through the ditch to reduce the mosquito population in their area and to eliminate the risk of waterway contamination due to flooded septic systems in the neighborhood. The intent of the Wylie extension would be accomplished by extending the project to retrace the route course and termini of the 1927 petition known as Ditch No 1377. Ditch No. 1377 was the last improvement of the entire length of Branch 4 of Blue Creek open channel. A copy of the Wylie letter and the plat of Ditch 1377 are included in the appendix of this report. Branch 4 Blue Creek was partially cleaned through petition in 1953. Since 1953 the ditch has been maintained privately. Another petition was considered and dismissed in 1980's after the majority of the agricultural landowners agreed to dip out the ditch privately again. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The ditch improvement proposed in the petition will benefit approximately 384 acres of agricultural, rural residential and state forestland in Swancreek Township. The objectives of the petition and the extension are to provide a well-maintained open channel for improved agricultural and residential drainage and to protect the public health by reducing the frequency and duration of standing water conditions that contribute to the unhealthy proliferation of mosquitoes and the saturation of septic systems. PROBLEMS OBSERVED Problems observed at the viewing were typical of open ditches in 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 under sediment. Water stands in the open ditch and in adjacent yards as well as the nearby state forestland. Township Road 2 crossovers were under water and were not properly draining. The Snyder farm downstream from County Road B is tile drained directly to Blue Creek Main instead of Branch 4. Snyder has installed parallel header tiles that drain to the main creek and they were both observed, on a follow up inspection, to be flowing with freeboard. Moderate brush lines the ditch bank along Road 2 across the state forest property. Heavy brush lines the channel once it enters the state forest property at the upper end of the extended improvement. There was no evidence of excessive erosion on channel turns or at points where surface water enters the ditch. Algae were evident in several channel sections suggesting little or no flow. Aerial photos suggest that water stands behind the homes in front of the state forestland at the upper end of the proposed project on the west side of Road 2. There was some evidence offered that cleaning the first 400 feet of the ditch entering the state forestland west of Road 2 would create better flow in that area. The water standing in the ditch made it difficult to see, but one or more of the existing culverts may need to be adjusted to grade to improve channel flow. While not a drainage defect, the close proximity of the channel to the edge of Township Road 2 suggests that relocating or closing the ditch should be considered. There was some interest several years ago in relocating or closing the open ditch along Road 2. A preliminary plan of improvement was proposed but never completed. WORK PROPOSED Approximately two 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. Seeded fifteen (15) foot berms will be established where none exist. Seeding disturbed filter strips will be included in the work plan. Nuisance brush will be removed from both channel banks. Good single trunk trees standing near the top of the bank can be left standing or trimmed to facilitate construction activity. All brush cut will be piled for disposal by the adjacent landowner. 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. Little rock channel protection is proposed. It is anticipated that the only rock work required will be at the outlet of the Road 2 crossovers and at the inlet and outlet of culverts that are replaced or relocated. Closing the ditch along existing residential lots and the relocation of the ditch along Road 2 has been included in the work plan. This work will require acquisition of additional right-of-way along the west side of Road 2. CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE The attached construction estimates were based on information that was obtained through drainage project records, aerial photos, field observations, and engineering surveys. Estimated costs for the open ditch reconstruction as extended according to the Wylie request, including administrative costs, would total $45,935.97. The estimate to install 18-inch and 24-inch tile across the residential frontage along Road 2 is $98,444.60. The final detailed construction estimate was used to determine the estimated assessments for each parcel. 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 improvements will be due to the removal of excess storm water and to improved drainage capacity. Sediment removal will facilitate tile washing to enable fields and septic systems to drain. Upland owners 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 will be a consideration. Special assessments for brush removal and the establishment of grass berms were levied against the individual parcels receiving the direct benefit. In addition, as mentioned in the work plan section of this report, brush removed from the channel 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 nearly $104,000.00 and will exceed the estimated project costs. Assessments for the project will range from $12.00 to $356.00 per acre. Parcels receiving special assessments for brush removal and berm seeding 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 and forestland. 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 petition and extension is feasible and can be economically completed through the drainage improvement petition process. After a time for questions about the work plan, Commissioner Graf swore everyone in that would desire to make testimony. There were several letters read into the record by Commissioner Graf: Andrea & Jason Bock questioning liability to pay for something they are not direct beneficiaries of, Swancreek Township Trustees in favor of the project, Ehrhardt Gunther asking the ditch along road 2 be covered, State of Ohio (Maumee Forest) believe portion of their assessments exceed the benefits. Sally Wylie - for the project also would like to see the speed limit adjusted. Mr. Schmenk, Maumee State Forest - not against the project, are issues there and drainage needs to be improved, but see no reason to go into the upper end. 4 parcels assessed and if project goes forward would like to take care of the special assessment work themselves, the letter received questions benefit to the forest but are not against the project. Dan Strayer - explained the work he petitioned for and estimated what could be saved by doing the work private (after seeing the work proposed and assessments). He is against a portion of the project but not all. John Slee - not against cleaning the ditch because it really needs it, but the cost is ridiculous. Paul Bostelman - is everyone paying the same for the improvements. Mr. Creager responded by saying that runoff is considered as well as location on the channel and land area benefitted. Mr. Bostelman would like to have someone come out and explain it to him. Dan Strayer - would like to have his woods property assessment changed. Mr. Creager said that an adjustment was made to the state forest and that Mr. Strayer is saying he would like the same adjustment for the non-tillable acreage. Commissioner Graf closed the hearing at 12:07 p.m. He explained that now the commissioners would need to decide whether or not to proceed with the project and how it would be paid. Commissioner Graf asked if everyone understood the special assessments and that they could take care of those themselves. He also explained how the estimate for the assessment is done and if the total cost of the project were to come in less, the assessments would be lowered. If they were to be higher another hearing would have to be held. RESOLUTION 2005-305 Commissioner Barnaby moved that the project move forward and set for 5 years on the tax duplicate. Commissioner Genter seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. | |
| 12:18:04 PM | Meeting Adjourned | ||
| 12:18:10 PM | ___________________________ Jack Graf ___________________________ Dean Genter ___________________________ Paul Barnaby ATTEST: |
||
| 12:18:53 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