| Description |
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2006 SESSION |
| Date |
2/16/2006 |
Location |
Commissioners |
| |
| Time |
Speaker |
Note |
|
9:00:19 AM |
Call Meeting to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Opening Prayer
Roll Call Attendance - All Present
Approve Minutes of February 13, 2006
|
Commissioner Barnaby made motion to approve
Seconded by Commissioner Genter. Motion carried 2 to with
Commissioner Graf abstaining due to his absence. |
|
9:02:07 AM |
OLD BUSINESS
Resolution 2006-130 Approve Payment of Bills
|
Commissioner Barnaby made motion to approve
Seconded by Commissioner Genter. Motion carried unanimously |
|
9:02:33 AM |
Shawn Ferguson, Economic Development Director -
Department Update
Resolution 2006-137 |
Mr. Ferguson first discussed the formation of a
P-16 Council as requested by Dr. Betty Young of Northwest State
Community College. This council would take a look at pre-school
through high school education to look for areas needing
improvement. A grant is being sought to allow this council to
have some resources. Mr. Ferguson stated he had talked with the
school superintendents of the county and they are all on board.
Support from the Commissioners is requested in order to move
forward. The grant would be for $20,000 but would also require
matching funds, which Mr. Ferguson feels would all be covered
mostly from Northwest State and CIC. Economic
Development/Workforce Development would be the lead agency.
Northwest State and Four County Career Center would also be
involved. Mr. Hall asked if Fulton County would be the only
county since Four County would involve other counties. Mr.
Ferguson said this would be Fulton County specific. He is
looking today for a letter of commitment to participate in this
program. Commissioner Graf recommended that at least several
outside people be considered for this council. Technology driven
input as well as data driven input will be a big part. A letter
of support will be prepared as they are needed by March 16. Mr.
Hall asked what would happen if the funding doesn't happen. Mr.
Ferguson feels that the program will still move forward because
of the level of response that he has gotten.
To support this program and move it forward with Shawn Ferguson
and Melanie Gilders as representatives from the County
Commissioner Barnaby made motion to approve
Seconded by Commissioner Graf. Motion carried unanimously.
Leggett and Platt - Workforce Development continues working with
these people and are making great strides. Mr. Ferguson said the
building has not been listed with a realtor yet.
Regional Growth Partnership has contacted Mr. Ferguson and Mr.
Steve Wethers, the new CEO, would like to come in and meet with
the Commissioners. The next date for Mr. Ferguson's department
update will be looked at for him to come in. Mr. Hall said he
would like to set down with Mr. Wethers and Mr. Ferguson at some
point after that meeting for further discussions. |
|
9:35:16 AM |
Resolution 2006-123 Approve Then and Now
Purchase Orders and Payments
|
Commissioner Barnaby made motion to approve
Seconded by Commissioner Genter. Motion carried unanimously |
|
9:37:25 AM |
Review Permissive Sales Tax
|
|
|
9:37:52 AM |
Review Four County Joint Solid Waste District Fourth Quarter
2005 Report
|
|
|
9:38:23 AM |
Discuss Credit Card Expirations
|
The Commissioners discussed a credit card issued
for a six month term that has since expired. The card was issued
on a temporary basis due to the director of the Board of
Elections retiring and the time necessary for a new director to
be appointed. A request for an extension for this card has come
forward. The Commissioners did not think it was necessary since
the newly-appointed director of the Board of Elections now has a
card. |
|
9:40:48 AM |
Review Notification of Public Meeting from A.R.S. Refuse
Service, Inc.
|
|
|
9:42:32 AM |
Review Correspondence from OhioEPA regarding the Landfill
Leachate Hauling
|
|
|
9:42:53 AM |
Discuss Final Airport WWTP Discharge Permit
Discuss Final Pleasant View WWTP Discharge Permit
|
|
|
9:44:19 AM |
NEW BUSINESS
Review Invitation to COBRA Review Sky at Work Seminar Series
|
|
|
9:44:54 AM |
Review Correspondence from OhioEPA regarding State Water
Quality Management (WQM) Plan
|
|
|
9:45:32 AM |
Resolutions:
Resolution 2006-131 Approve Requests for Pay - FY04 HOME
CHIP and Housing Program Income
|
Commissioner Genter made motion to approve
Seconded by Commissioner Graf. Motion carried unanimously |
|
9:46:22 AM |
Resolution 2006-132 Authorize President to
Execute Satisfaction of Mortgage
|
Commissioner Barnaby made motion to approve
Seconded by Commissioner Genter. Motion carried unanimously |
|
9:47:15 AM |
Resolution 2006-133 Approve Request for Pay -
Housing Program Income Fund
|
Commissioner Barnaby made motion to approve
Seconded by Commissioner Genter. Motion carried unanimously |
|
9:48:02 AM |
Resolution 2006-134 Approve Draw Down of Funds
#167 for FY04 CHIP
|
Commissioner Barnaby made motion to approve
Seconded by Commissioner Genter. Motion carried unanimously |
|
9:49:59 AM |
Resolution 2006-135 Authorize President to
Enter into Issue II Agreements
|
Commissioner Genter made motion to approve
Seconded by Commissioner Barnaby. Motion carried unanimously |
|
9:51:04 AM |
Resolution 2006-136 Approve Purchase Orders
and Travel Requests
|
Commissioner Barnaby made motion to approve
Seconded by Commissioner Genter. Motion carried unanimously |
|
9:52:14 AM |
Recess until 10:00 ditch hearing |
|
|
10:01:03 AM |
Final Hearing - Ditch 2100 (Chambers) |
Commissioner Graf opened the hearing and gave a
brief update of the petition and happenings to date. He
explained how the hearing would work and that it would start
with Mr. Creager. Questions will follow and then there will be a
time for testimony either for or against the project.
Mr. Creager gave his report on Ditch 2100 Branch 6 Blue Creek:
PROJECT INITIATION
This drainage improvement was initiated through a single
county drainage petition filed by Mr. Daniel Chambers and others
on August 23, 2004. The work petitioned for includes removing
the nuisance brush and sediment from the Branch 6 of Blue Creek
channel that obstructs drain tile flow. The petition commences
on the Chambers-Budy property line approximately nine hundred
ninety (990) feet east and one thousand nine hundred thirty
(1930) feet north of the southwest corner of Section 11, TR-8-E
in Swancreek Township and continues in a northwesterly then
northeasterly direction to Blue Creek Main and there to
terminate. The petition also asks that erosion control measures
including the seeding disturbed ditch banks and berms be
included in the work plan. The commissioners conducted a viewing
of this improvement on October 14, 2004 and the First Hearing
was held on December 9 of 2004.
Branch 6 of Blue Creek was last cleaned through a formal county
petition in 1905. Since 1905 the ditch has been maintained
privately. In 1905 eight (8) parcels were assessed. Today there
are twenty-seven (27) parcels in the watershed.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The ditch improvement proposed in the petition will benefit
approximately 127 acres of agricultural and rural residential
property in the southeast corner of Swancreek Township. The
objective of the petition is to provide a well-maintained open
channel for improved agricultural and residential drainage.
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 at or under the
level of accumulated sediment. The inlet and outlet of the
510-foot enclosed middle reach of the drain is completely
covered by sediment. Sediment 8-inches in depth has filled the
15-inch glazed tile used through the enclosed reach. Water
stands in the open ditch.
Brush lines nearly all of the open ditch banks throughout the
length of the proposed improvement.
There was some evidence of erosion at the outlets of drain tiles
pipe and culverts.
The enclosed reach of the drain does not have any openings on
line through which to properly monitor or maintain the tile
line.
WORK PROPOSED
Approximately one and one half to 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.
Seeding disturbed filter strips and pasture areas will be
included in the work plan. It appears that the channel has been
widened over the years since 1905 and existing cross sections
compared favorably to our current minimum cross-section standard
of three (3) feet in bottom width and side slopes recommended by
soil type. Through fine sands, a one to one (1:1) side slope is
acceptable. The new ditch bottom gradient in the upper reach
will be -0.12% and the last clean out grade of -0.30% will be
maintained in the lower reach to within 300 feet of Blue Creek
main where the grade will change to -0.65%.
To answer the prayer of the petition, the work plan for the
upper reach of this project calls for cleaning and brush
cleaning Branch 6 of Blue Creek. The work begins at the outlet
of a new 8-inch tile at the Chambers-Budy property line and
continues down the open channel across the Budy property to an
existing 15-inch vitrified tile crossing the Day and Williams
properties. Work in this reach includes removing nuisance brush
and trees from the channel banks and berms to facilitate
sediment removal and to improve stream flow. The brush will be
piled along the ditch for convenient disposal by the land owner.
One and one-half to two feet of sediment will then be excavated
from the channel to open blocked drainage tiles. Excavated
sediment will be leveled along the north side of the channel
improvement. All disturbed areas will be restored.
The 15-inch vitrified pipe, which is the second reach of the
improvement, is to be reconditioned across the Day and Williams
properties to its outlet in the open ditch by power washing to
flush sediment out of the tile line. A three (3) foot square
catch basin will be constructed on the existing tile line where
it strikes the Road 3 right-of-way to provide an access point
for cleaning and flow monitoring. Disturbed lawn areas will be
repaired as required by seeding and mulching.
Reach three (3) of Branch 6 will be cleaned and brush cleaned
from the outlet of the 15tile and a 24-inch cross over on the
east side of Road 3 across the Williams lawn and the Roth and
Day properties to the Roth-Conner property line. A 40 foot long,
24diameter culvert will be installed at the corner of the Roth
house near the ditch in order to eliminate sloughing of the
ditch bank near the house.
The lower reach, Reach 4, will be cleaned across the Conner
property to Blue Creek. An existing culvert near the property
line will be replaced and a 30 foot culvert, 24-inches in
diameter, will be installed at Blue Creek along with several
tons of rock to protect against erosion at Blue Creek.
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.
One-half of the 65 tons of rock proposed will be used at Blue
Creek. The other half will be used around culverts.
CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE
The attached construction estimates are 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 and tile rehabilitation
total $43,484.68 including administrative and engineering costs
as well as the cost of first year maintenance.
This 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 sediment that threatens to block
the drainage tiles that enable fields, roads and septic systems
to drain. Owners of developed residential property will also
benefit from the downstream control of their storm water runoff
through the open ditch. 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 are based on the
benefits received from the drainage improvements. The type and
quantity of drainage runoff contributed by each owner was a
consideration. The location of a parcel relative to the location
of the work was also considered.
Special assessments for brush removal, tile repairs and culvert
adjustments are proposed to be levied against the individual
parcels receiving the direct benefit. The cost of reseeding
existing filter strips and pasture areas was not specially
assessed to the adjacent owners. In addition, as mentioned in
the work plan, 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 $85,200.00 and will exceed the
estimated project costs by a ratio of 1.96 : 1.00. Assessments
for the project will range from $83.00 to $550.00 per acre.
Parcels receiving special assessments for brush removal, tile or
culverts were 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. Lawn areas adjacent to the work area will be disrupted.
PROJECT FEASIBILITY
The project proposed in the petition is feasible and can be
economically completed through the drainage improvement petition
process.
Mr. Creager presented estimates for Reach 1 - $7,959.91; Reach 2
- $2,717.09; Reach 3 - $9,776.50; Reach 4 - $3,465.18;
Engineer's and Clerk's - $6,415.00. He also explained how these
reaches were established or set up and also specials on the
project. He also explained how the assessments were determined
and that any person wishing to do part of the work should get it
done in a timely manner.
A question was asked about assessments for brush removal if
there was no ditch on their property. Mr. Creager explained that
this assessment would be for sediment removal. A question was
asked by Mr. Young then about where the sentiment would be
disposed of. He was told that his property was not going to have
any work done on it so there would be no sediment. Mr. Creager
did say that brush along the fields would be put in reasonable
piles that would make it easier for citizens to dispose of.
Question - are any trees going to be taken down. Mr. Creager
said they would be trimmed as much as would be necessary unless
they were in an open channel. Another question was asked how
their water would make it to the tile. Mr. Creager explained how
this drainage would occur. A question was asked why the ditch on
Rd. A couldn't be used instead. Mr. Creager said there are trees
standing in the ditch and that the petitioned ditch looks clean
compared to the ditch on Rd. A. A resident stated she was under
the impression that her property was in Henry County but north
of A. Mr. Creager said that maybe there was a misunderstanding
because Henry County takes care of the maintenance on Road A.
Testimony:
Commissioner Graf swore the people wishing to offer testimony
for or against the project or testimony as to their assessments
in. Commissioner Graf read a letter into the record - letter for
damages to property from Donna Jean Day. Also another letter
from Rebecca Williams for any damages to her property.
Commissioner Graf stated that any damages would have to be
restored.
Daniel Chambers: history of property as always being wet and
difficult to farm. Other considerations for drainage were
considered but would have been too expensive. Adequate drainage
would be sought by going to the north on the Budy property. Maps
were gotten from the Engineer's office. There is 3 feet of fall
on the Budy property so he thought perhaps a tile through that
property would parallel the open ditch and would give him an
adequate outlet. He requested this of Mr. Budy and was told that
he would think about it. He later said that it was a private
ditch. Mr. Chambers explained this was his only alternative
since Mr. Budy declined to let him put a tile through his
property. He said he is still willing to do that because it
would give him adequate drainage. He would privately pay for
this to the Day property closed tile. Mr. Chambers was asked why
he would want to put a tile underground as opposed to the open
ditch. Mr. Chambers said it would be less disruptive to Mr.
Budy's property.
Commissioner Graf brought up the issue if Mr. Chambers were to
put in this tile, it would be a private tile and no one else
could use this unless he would allow it. The open ditch route
would still be public water course.
Mr. Chambers asked if this tile were put in privately, would it
reduce the maintenance cost. Commissioner Graf said that at some
point in the future the ditch would have to be cleaned and that
it would then be put on maintenance.
A question was asked how this would affect water supply. Mr.
Creager said that it would not be deep enough to lower the water
table for wells or septic systems. Sand point wells were
questioned...Mr. Creager said that most sand points would be 18
to 20 feet down.
A question was asked why Mr. Budy didn't want this on his
property. Commissioner Graf said that he could not speak for
him. He stressed the benefits of getting this public water
course taken care of.
Another question was asked why they were paying when there was
not a ditch on their property. Mr. Creager explained their water
drains to this watershed.
Sherry Bowling: was not pleased the way it was conducted (the
first hearing). She indicated that it was said that the people
that did not show up were for it. They have not all been
informed properly and in her opinion she thinks the thing should
be tabled until all have been informed in writing what is
proposed and what will have to be paid. She also thinks the
engineering should be bid. Bottom line - there is not enough
information. She added that money talks but it is not always
ethical. The opportunity should be allowed for an evening
hearing where more people could attend. Commissioner Graf said
that the Statute has been followed to the letter. Ms. Bowling
again stated she thinks it should be tabled. Commissioner
Barnaby said that no bids have been taken as of yet - the
engineer was just asked to do a proposal. Ms. Bowling said they
are being asked to pay for a pig in a poke - and it should be
tabled. Commissioner Graf asked if she knows what her assessment
is to be - does she understand the scope of the work. What part
does she feel she does not have enough information. She said
hers is working fine and does not feel they should have to pay
and the potential for sanitary sewer in the future. Commissioner
Graf explained surface water is different than sanitary sewer.
Ms. Bowling referred to a time when their wells were tested and
that their wells were condemned - she feels that they are being
took once again. Commissioner Graf said this is why they are
taking testimony - the Statute says if you are part of the
watershed you must help pay for this drainage. He also explained
the soils as part of the Black Swamp. He added that the
Commissioners have to look at the benefits as a whole. Ms.
Bowling asked about a comment by Commissioner Barnaby that this
is agricultural. Commissioner Graf said that he understands Mr.
Chambers desires to continue farming the land. Ms. Bowling asked
about something that comes in that is undesirable. Commissioner
Graf said this area is zoned for that purpose. He added that her
testimony has been given. Ms. Bowling again said she wishes this
to be tabled until all their vote could be counted. Commissioner
Graf said their vote does not count but her testimony has been
heard.
Mr. Creager explained how the process works for notification.
Publication in local papers has also been done as well as
certified mail. Those mailings that were undeliverable would be
returned and notification to those people would be published in
the paper. Mr. Creager also touched on septic systems.
Steve Kachmarik also offered testimony that they are being
assessed for something that is benefiting Mr. Chambers when
their drainage is working fine. He also said there are a lot of
residents that have not been notified. Commissioner Graf asked
if he had gotten his letter of assessement and Mr. Kachmarik
said he had. Commissioner Graf asked Mr. Kachmarik if he felt
the Commissioners should maintain the drainage system so that it
can continue working. Mr. Kachmarik said he understands what he
is saying. Commissioner Graf explained what he sees to be the
future if this is not maintained properly and this is the issue
they must decide.
Ardis Bauman - questioned if maintenance is prepaid, what
happens if they sell their property before the 7 years is up.
Mr. Creager explained that if their assessment is put on their
taxes, they will get the benefit of it staying with the parcel
and they are just paying a prorated amount.
Tyler Young - testified of owning a home and a local farmer said
the ditch needed to be cleaned. It was. The farmer then proposed
a zoning change. This house now is surrounded by $300,000 homes.
He feels that the Village of Waterville had an ulterior motive
with nothing but money on his mind. Mr. Young said that no
matter what they say, this too will get done. The residents now
should sell their houses and relocate. Commissioner Barnaby said
that he has a ditch that goes through his property and he too
was faced with a scenario such as this. He also told wht his
assessment was and then what it was once he removed some of the
brush himself. Mr. Young said he is just afraid of future
development as are the rest present today. He said he does not
really know what Mr. Chambers' motive really is but that
everybody just wants to hold on to what they've got.
Commissioner Graf said he is talking about a two-edged sword -
where Mr. Young lives was once farmland also. Mr. Young
mentioned that perhaps the sediment removed could be sold to
people in the area that are looking for topsoil. Mr. Creager
said that there is probably not that kind of value in this
sediment but if there would be, the contractor that gets the
award would figure this out. Commissioner Graf added this would
cheapen up the project.
Paul Brooks - while he feels bad that the property looks the way
it does, he does not see how it affects him other than just
needing the money from his assessments. He does not feel that he
has had it explained well enough to him how he would benefit.
There are things he does not like about his property but there
is no way that he would make other people pay for something that
would benefit him. He also stated that he took the day off for
the final hearing only to find out that it was rescheduled and
had to take another day off. He thinks the project should be
shelved.
Sherry Kachmarik - feels that Mr. Chambers or Mr. budy should
take care of his own. Commissioner Graf said there are those
landowners that do. Ms. Kachmarik asked about the zoning
commission going to someone doing something they shouldn't be
doing they are told to get it taken care of - why can't this be
taken care of in this way. Commissioner Graf said they cannot
use that zoning tool - it is not available to them.
Tyler Young - water assessments from Road 2...why are the people
on road 2 not being charged for some of this work as well.
Commissioner Graf said because they are not part of this
watershed. Commissioner Genter and Commissioner Graf both
stressed that the Road 2 assessments were for water.
Jim Gombash - Drought more of an issue than drainage.
Ms. Bowling - again wants to have the project tabled until
later. Commissioner Genter and Commissioner Graf said that the
residents do not get to vote - the Statute is being followed.
Jim Gombash - any pictures being taken during the time when it
is not wet. Normally there is not water in this ditch. Mr.
Creager said the pictures taken were taken in April. Mr. Gombash
said that even if the ditch were perfect, there would still be a
problem with surface water. He added that he does not feel he
should have to pay for something that would only benefit one
farmer. Commissioner Graf mentioned that Mr. Chambers did give
testimony that he wanted to do the project himself but that Mr.
Budy said no.
Commissioner Graf closed the hearing at 12:13 p.m.
|
|
12:14:07 PM |
Commissioner Graf - decision
Resolution 2006-138 |
Commissioner Graf said that the Commissioners
have the option to spread the assessments out over 5 years and
asked Donna Day if that would be agreeable. She said yes, or
longer would be even better. Rebecca Williams was also asked and
she said 5 years. Mr. Chambers agreed with 5 years.
Commissioner Barnaby made the motion to move ahead with the
petitioned project with 5 years to pay assessments. Commissioner
Genter seconded the motion. Mr. Chambers asked if he could still
get with Mr. Budy and Commissioner Graf said no. Commissioner
Graf said his concern is with closing the ditch because it is a
pubic course - the people to the south would have no option.
Roll call vote - the motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Graf explained the process with the project going
to bid. If the bids come in less, the assessments will be drop
to match that figure - it will never be more.
|
|
12:19:51 PM |
Meeting Adjourned |
|
|
12:20:53 PM |
___________________________
Jack Graf
___________________________
Dean Genter
___________________________
Paul Barnaby
ATTEST:
___________________________
Rhonda J. Borton, Clerk
|
|
|
12:22:37 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 |
|
