Description THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2006 SESSION Date 2/23/2006 Location Commissioners   Time Speaker Note 9:02:21 AM Call Meeting to Order Pledge of Allegiance Opening Prayer Roll Call Attendance - All Present Approve Minutes of February 21, 2006   Commissioner Barnaby made motion to approve Seconded by Commissioner Graf. Motion carried unanimously 9:02:55 AM OLD BUSINESS Resolution 2006-147 Approve Payment of Bills   Commissioner Genter made motion to approve Seconded by Commissioner Graf. Motion carried unanimously 9:03:25 AM NEW BUSINESS Resolutions: Resolution 2006-148 Approve Personnel Actions for Job and Family Services   Commissioner Barnaby made motion to approve Seconded by Commissioner Graf. Motion carried unanimously 9:04:53 AM Resolution 2006-149 Approve Purchase Orders and Travel Requests   Commissioner Genter made motion to approve Seconded by Commissioner Graf. Motion carried unanimously 9:06:26 AM Recess until 9:30 appointment   9:30:08 AM Melanie Gilders - Workforce Development Update Anita Smith was also present for the update. Ms. Gilders thanked the Commissioners for their resolution of support for the P-16 Council establishment. She indicated that she will be a part of working for this endeavor. Some discussion was held on possible representation suggestions for this council. Ms. Gilders reported the computer lab has been booming. She also gave an update on where Young Spring & Wire was at in their layoff process. Tomorrow is a date scheduled for the next layoffs and March 17 is the next. Meetings informing them of their benefit application are planned. Technical assistance dollars are being received for the benefit of the one-stops and the department will be working towards expending those dollars. The summer youth program is being looked at and how it might be improved or changed over last year's program. Using the second year students to mentor the first year students the first two weeks was one suggestion. More team building activities are being planned. Commissioner Genter suggested getting them involved in 4-H with a 4-H project. Commissioner Graf said that one county started their own 4-H club with their program kids. Public speaking ability is one area of importance for these kids and one that is not covered much in school curriculums today. 10:04:37 AM Recess until 10:15 hearing   10:15:38 AM Joint Public Hearing with York Township - Ohio Agricultural Security Area Applications   The York Township Trustees were present for the hearing. Steve Brown, Fulton County Regional Planning Director gave a brief overview of the program and the applications. OHIO AGRICULTURAL SECURITY AREA PROGRAM Program Description The Ohio Agricultural Security Area (ASA) Program, effective May 18, 2005, authorizes one or more landowners of at least 500 acres of contiguous farmland to request from the boards of township trustees and county commissioners to enroll into an ASA for a ten-year period. ASAs promote agricultural retention by creating certain benefits to farmers, including protection from nonagricultural development, a critical mass of land to help keep farming viable, and possible tax abatement on new real property. Application Information ·the primary contact for the farm proposed for enrollment in the ASA. The Applicant must have legal interest in the farm proposed for enrollment in the ASA. All other legal landowners must sign the application to verify their agreement with the conditions of the program. ·If the entire proposed ASA is comprised of a single farm owned by the same legal entity, a single Applicant must complete Parts I and II of the ASA Application on behalf of the farm. ·If the proposed ASA is comprised of multiple farms owned by different legal entities, Part I of the Application should be completed for the entire proposed ASA. Separate Applicants representing each of the farms in the proposed ASA must complete separate copies of Part II of the ASA Application. ·A separate copy of the entire application packet must be submitted to all boards of township trustees and county commissioners for each township and county in which the proposed ASA is located. ·Questions regarding the application submittal process and related schedule of fees should be referred to the specific board of township trustees and county commissions in which the proposed ASA is located. For More Information ·regarding the Ohio ASA Program should be referred to the Ohio Department of Agriculture, Office of Farmland Preservations, 8995 East Main Street, Reynoldsburg, Ohio, 43068; or telephone 614-728-6210 ·To view House Bill 414, the ASA enabling legislation, go to the 126th Ohio General Assembly's web posting for this bill: www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=125_HB_414 Mr. Brown did present a 20-point checklist of all points that have been met on these applications. Commissioner Graf questioned if in the future water or sewer should need to put in, would they have the authority to run it through this. Mr. Brown said yes. Commissioner Genter noted a similar issue in Union County farmland preservation area and the issue is going to court. Mr. Brown said his take on it is that if it is an EPA order then those lines can go through as long as farmland is not impacted. Dennis Wyse asked if he was saying that it would have to go through the road right-of-way. Mr. Brown said yes. Commissioner Graf asked if he was sure. Mr. Brown checked his paperwork and confirmed that if it did not impact the farmland requirements but cannot provide connections to any land in the program. Commissioner Graf asked what the procedure would be when this expired in 10 years. Mr. Brown said the whole process would have to be gone through again and reapplied for. Brinda Miller asked if the famland could be put in this program as well as the Farmland Preservation program. Mr. Brown said yes. Dennis Wyse noted that Road 8 could be added to the road improvement portion. Resolution from York Township: can be done today but the trustees did not have their agenda posted 24 hours in advance. Their clerk will prepare that resolution for the trustees to pass. Upon the completion of that step, the Commissioners will pass their resolution approving the applications.   10:30:11 AM Commissioner Graf closed the hearing.   11:00:09 AM First Hearing Ditch 2101 (Grieser) Commissioner Graf opened the hearing and explained the process for those present. Rod Creager, Chief Deputy Engineer presented the following report: PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT Ditch No. 2101 Branch 7 Brush Creek February 23, 2006 PROJECT INITIATION This drainage improvement was initiated through a single county drainage petition filed by Mr. Richard Grieser and others on November 28, 2005. The work petitioned for includes removing nuisance brush and sediment from the Branch 7 of Brush Creek. The petition also calls for the stabilization and repair of eroded ditch banks and establishing filter strips along both channel banks to protect the open ditch from unnecessary sedimentation. The petition commences about 1400 feet south of County Road F on the west side of County Road 19 on the Blosser property in the Northwest quarter of Section 24, TR-5-E in German Township. From there it continues downstream in a southwesterly direction, approximately 2.25 miles to Brush Creek Main, just downstream from German Township Road 20-3 on the Sauder property in Section 26 T7-N, R-5-E in German Township. The commissioners conducted a viewing of this improvement on January 12, 2006. This section of Branch 7 of Brush Creek was last cleaned through a formal county petition in 1936. Since then this ditch has been maintained privately. In 1936 eighty-four (84) parcels were assessed for the improvement. Today there are one hundred fifty-three (153) parcels in the watershed. Since the lower reach of Branch 7 was cleaned in 1936, the upper reach of the main channel and a major branch have been cleaned and drained into this lower channel reach. In 1962 the upper 2.25 mile of the main were petitioned and cleaned and have been maintained to outlet into the section under consideration in this petition. Ten years after the upper reach of the main was reconstructed, 2.6 miles of Branch 7b were improved to drain though lower Branch 7. Both channels were placed on county maintenance and have been dipped several times since their more recent reconstruction. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The ditch improvement proposed in this petition will benefit approximately 2900 acres of agricultural and rural residential property in Clinton and German Townships. The objective of this petition is to provide a well-maintained open channel for the improved upstream agricultural and residential drainage. PROBLEMS OBSERVED Problems observed at the viewing were typical of open ditches that have not been consistently maintained. Sediment has filled the ditch bottom to the point that several tile outlets draining into the channel are at or under the level of accumulated sediment. Measurements taken at bridges and culverts along the line of the proposed improvement indicate there is one (1) to one and one-half (11/2) feet of sediment in the channel. Brush lines sections of the of the open ditch banks, primarily in the middle reaches of the proposed improvement. This nuisance brush reduces channel flow and causes higher flows to be diverted into adjacent ditch banks causing channel erosion. Several small log jams and accumulations of drift and debris are evident through the brush choked channel sections. There is evidence of considerable erosion at channel turns, at points where surface water enters the ditch and at the outlets of drain tiles pipe and culverts. Some owners have installed erosion control structures but more are needed. In some cases, owners have tried to repair banks with rock and rubble but a more consistent effort is required. WORK PROPOSED Approximately 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. Repair seeding of disturbed filter strips and grassy areas will be included in the work plan. In 1936, the ditch was reconstructed with a one and one-half (1 ½) foot to three (3) foot bottom and one and one half to one (1 ½:1) side slopes. It appears that the channel has been widened over the years since 1936. Existing cross sections will be compared to our current minimum cross section standards of three (3) foot bottom width and side slopes recommended by soil type. Minimum one and one half to one (1 ½:1) side slopes will be maintained where possible. However, where the final work plan dictates, excavated banks will be reconstructed at a slope of two to one (2:1). Nuisance brush will be removed from both channel banks. All brush cut along the farmland will be piled for disposal by the adjacent landowner. Brush removed from lawn areas will be disposed of through the project contract at the owner's expense. Cut surfaces will be treated to prevent regrowth. 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. Filter strips, fifteen feet in width, will be installed as part of the work plan. The cost of the filter strip installation will be specially assessed to the adjacent land owner. To avoid this special assessment, owners are encouraged to contact the Fulton SWCD for assistance in establishing cost shared filter strips through the Conservation Reserve Program. CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE The attached preliminary construction estimate is based on information that was obtained through drainage project records, aerial photos and field observations. If the project goes forward, a more detailed final construction estimated will be prepared based upon an actual engineering survey of the project. Estimated costs for the open ditch reconstruction total $86,846.37 not including administrative costs. The final detailed construction estimate will be 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 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 previously drained and currently maintained upper reaches and more recently 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 will be based on the benefits received from the drainage improvements. The type and quantity of drainage runoff contributed by each owner will be a consideration. The location of a parcel relative to the location of the work will also be considered. Special assessments for brush removal, surface water erosion control structures, and old bridge removal will be levied against the individual parcels receiving the direct benefit. The cost of reseeding existing filter strips will not be specially assessed to the adjacent owner. 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 $710,000.00 and will exceed the estimated project costs. Assessments for the project will range from $8.00 to $81.00 per acre. Parcels receiving special assessments for brush removal, rock or bridge removal 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. 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 provided a time for questions. When would be the soonest the project would start - November 2006. Is the project necessary - yes, due to the numerous washouts and brush problems observed. Cleaning this ditch creating more problems for ditches in the area (financial) and also creating more flooding - should not increase water significantly. Washouts fixed per standards of FCSWD - acceptable. Anything fixed privately landowners will not be assessed for. Kim Bowles, Soil & Water Director gave a brief overview of what programs are available for assistance to the landowners. Testimony: Commissioner Graf offered a time for anyone wishing to offer testimony either for or against the project. Mike Sauder - against the project at this time. Doesn't feel there is a water flooding problem. Has spoken with others that intend on taking care of some of the problems on their property. Guy Schroeder - in favor of delaying this project until more opportunity allowed for landowners to understand the cost and duration of project and also to seek assistance through Soil & Water. Lori Metcalf - against the project due to her large assessment, which is mostly special Judy Blosser - would like to see the project put off. Commissioner Graf clarified that most of the requests to delay the project were to seek assistance through Soil & Water. He indicated that the Commissioners have to make a decision today whether to proceed with the project as petitioned or to toss it out. However, the timeline could be such to allow landowners these opportunities. Mr. Creager explained the cost of the specials he has noted in his report that could be reduced by the landowners taking care of this work themselves.   12:21:44 PM Commissioner Graf closed the hearing. Resolution 2006-150 Commissioner Barnaby said the project needs to be moved forward. Commissioner Genter said he would like to see the project move forward but also extend the project to include Brush Creek Main. Mr. Creager said at the time of his Engineer's Report they could make recommendation to extend and include. Move forward and provide supplemental information with further studies as an alternative plan going west of Road 21 to Sparks Wyse's land (to include Brush Creek Main). Commissioner Genter made motion to approve and set Engineer's Report for July 27, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. Seconded by Commissioner Barnaby. Roll call vote was unanimous. 12:29:21 PM Meeting adjourned.   3:20:44 PM __________________________ Jack Graf __________________________ Dean Genter __________________________ Paul Barnaby ATTEST: ___________________________ Rhonda J. Borton, Clerk     3:21:40 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