|
| Description |
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2006 SESSION |
| Date |
11/20/2006 |
Location |
COMMISSION10XP |
| |
| Time |
Speaker |
Note |
|
9:00:05 AM |
Call Meeting to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Opening Prayer
Roll Call Attendance - All Present
Resolution 2006-824 Approve Minutes of November
16, 2006 |
Commissioner Genter made the motion and Commissioner Barnaby
seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously |
|
9:02:47 AM |
Resolution 2006-832 Executive Session - to
consider the appointment, employment, dismissal, discipline,
promotion, demotion, or compensation of a public employee or
official |
Commissioner Genter made the motion and
Commissioner Graf seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously |
|
9:12:46 AM |
OLD BUSINESS
Review Permissive Sales Tax Figures
|
|
|
9:13:52 AM |
Resolution 2006-833
Discuss 2007 Salary Line Items
|
Mr. Hall led the discussion and prepared a
resolution for the 2007 wage plan for employees. CPI for elected
officials is 1.7%. Mr. Hall has budgeted for a 3% increase for
employees effective January 6, 2007.
Commissioner Graf made the motion and Commissioner Genter
seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously |
|
9:17:25 AM |
Review Invitation to Senior Design Project Presentations
from University of Toledo Department of Civil Engineering |
Ziad Musallam explained. He had presented a
project for the students to assist in the planning -
Elmira/Burlington was his recommendation. December 6th is the
date that these projects would be presented once certified. The
students do get the credit for the design work. |
|
9:24:09 AM |
NEW BUSINESS
Resolutions:
Resolution 2006-825 Establish County Sewer Rates for
2007 and Authorize Collection of Same
|
Commissioner Barnaby made the motion and Commissioner Genter
seconded the motion. Mr. Musallam explained the rates. Motion
carried unanimously |
|
9:29:00 AM |
Resolution 2006-826 Approve Then and Now
Purchase Orders and Payments
|
Commissioner Barnaby made the motion and
Commissioner Genter seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously |
|
9:29:23 AM |
Resolution 2006-827 Transfer Funds from Public
Children Service to Public Assistance Fund
|
Commissioner Barnaby made the motion and
Commissioner Genter seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously |
|
9:29:55 AM |
Resolution 2006-828 Increase and/or Transfer
Appropriations for Various Departments
|
Commissioner Genter made the motion and
Commissioner Graf seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously |
|
9:30:59 AM |
Resolution 2006-829 Transfer Unclaimed Funds
to the Child Support Fund
|
Commissioner Barnaby made the motion and
Commissioner Genter seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously |
|
9:31:29 AM |
Resolution 2006-830 Establish Revenue Line
Item for Workforce Services
|
Commissioner Barnaby made the motion and
Commissioner Genter seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously |
|
9:33:27 AM |
Resolution 2006-831 Approve Purchase Orders
and Travel Requests
|
Commissioner Genter made the motion and
Commissioner Graf seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously |
|
9:34:11 AM |
Recess until Ditch Hearing |
|
|
10:00:06 AM |
Rod Creager, Chief Deputy Engineer - Final Hearing Ditch
2101 Grieser
Resolution 2006-834 |
Commissioner Graf opened the hearing on Ditch
2101 and informed those present of the procedure that will be
followed. Rod Creager proceeded to present an overview of the
project. Testimonies will follow at the conclusion of the
Engineer's report.
Mr. Creager's report is as follows:
ENGINEER'S REPORT
Ditch No. 2101
Branch 7 Brush Creek
Revised September 28, 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 T-7-N, R-5-E in German Township.
The commissioners conducted a viewing of this improvement on
January 12, 2006. They conducted the first hearing on February
23, 2006.
This section of Branch 7 of Brush Creek was last cleaned through
a formal county petition in 1952. Since then this ditch has been
maintained privately. In 1952 ninety-four (94) parcels were
assessed for the improvement. Today there are one hundred
fifty-three (159) parcels in the watershed.
Since the lower reach of Branch 7 was cleaned in 1952, the upper
reach of the main channel and a major branch have been cleaned
and drained into this lower channel reach currently being
considered for improvement. In 1962 the upper 2.25 miles of the
main channel was petitioned and cleaned. 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 3200 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. The engineering survey completed for this
project indicates there is one (1) to one and one(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.
Evidence offered at the first hearing pointed out that
additional brush removal was needed down stream if the
improvements proposed in the petition were to fully effective.
Based upon the evidence offered, the project scope was extended
to include brush removal and surface water erosion control work
from the lower terminus of the original petition downstream to
Road D.
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 1952, 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 1952. Existing cross sections
were 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 was
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, field observations, and an engineering survey of
the project. Estimated costs for the open ditch reconstruction
and specials, as extended at the first hearing, and including
administrative costs is $155.899.81.
The final detailed 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 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 were 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, 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 $442,630.75 and exceed the
estimated project costs. Drainage assessments for the project,
not including specials, will range from $4.00 to $71.00 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 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. Erosion control measures along the open ditch will reduce
erosion and protect the open channel from further deterioration.
4. Property values will be improved or protected.
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.
After Mr. Creager's report, a time was offered for questions and
comments. 11:13 AM - questions and comments continue. At 11:15
Mr. Creager started to detail favorable and unfavorable factors
and concluded by saying that he feels the project is feasible
and can be completed economically. Several more questions about
the project came up.
11:19 AM
Commissioner Graf swore in all who desires to give testimony.
Testimonies for and against the project:
Mike Sauder : asked for clarification of Mr. Grieser of
what the prayer of the original petition was.
Mr. Grieser explained his petition and recalled that it was
somewhere about 4 years ago. He also stated that only those that
don't take care of maintaining their ditches will be charged for
the cleanup. He added that the landowners in this county are
fortunate to have the SWCD behind them with the opportunities
they provide. He said that he did not know what all was involved
when he started the petition process. Mr. Creager told him at
that time that it is cheaper to take care of the cleanup
themselves. He asked forgiveness for incurring the added expense
for others but did not regret starting the petition because of
the need.
Charles Lantz : wants to be a part and do whatever is
necessary. Also commented that his neighbor keeps his ditch
maintained and that his main problem is washouts. He doesn't
believe that this process will eliminate those or even take care
of all of them. Mr. Creager referred him to the SWCD for some
options.
Lori Metcalf : if the petition process started 4 years
ago she was never notified of the project as she has only owned
the property 3 years. She asked if the length of time could be
extended past the 5 years. Commissioner Graf said they have the
option of going 8 years.
Darrell Garmenn : representing his son...with the
February cutoff he does not see how anyone can take care of
their own in that period of time. Mr. Creager explained how that
could work.
Mike Sauder : he has talked about the SWCD and was told to
wait and see if the project goes through and then go talk to
them. He explained what his problems are and cannot take care of
them in the time period talked about.
Larry Wyse: the additional portion to the petition - what
would the time period for the extended portion.
Commissioner Genter asked if an option would be for a private
project for the extended portion. Mr. Creager said yes.
Commissioner Genter then asked if they could be thrown back in
to the project for maintenance. Mr. Creager said get it on
maintenance, brush will be maintained anyway but not dipping.
Commissioner Graf asked how they could get it on total
maintenance. Mr. Creager said the project would have to be
extended. Commissioner Graf said if they get an approved SWCD
plan, would that qualify them to go on total maintenance. Mr.
Burkhard said they will want that ditch to be on maintenance. He
said the maintenance portion of the resolution can address
that...it will not have to be specified. Commissioner Graf asked
for further clarification...he wants to be able to insure these
people.
Mr. Wyse spoke about private work...he can do it cheaper than
the county can. He is not concerned about getting his ditch put
on maintenance. He does not have a problem with the Engineer's
office informing him of a problem and a timeline given at that
time, then he can do the work or have it done as a maintenance.
Commissioner Graf said that as long as Mr. Wyse would remain the
property owner, then there would not be a problem but if the
property changed hands there could be an issue. In the end
run... if we can get it on full maintenance the better off it
will be. Mr. Wyse asked if maintenance is performed by him, then
there will never be any charged to him. Yes.
Sam Blosser : one question is there any consideration
that there was even a time frame to get the work done themselves
- he has checked and can save probably 2/3 of the cost.
Commissioner Graf said it is possible but not probable - you
cannot force your neighbor to go along with a private project.
Mr. Blosser said if there is work not done then the county could
bill those people but if the county would extend their time to
get it done, everybody could save money. Commissioner Graf added
that a private project does not go on maintenance without an
approved plan.
Jan Cobb-Nofziger : asked about the maintenance fee...do
they have the option of saying no....do they have to go on
maintenance. Commissioner Graf said yes.
Judy Blosser : what do they have to do to get a 2-year
extension.
Charles Nafziger : how are we going to work together to
get this going. Mr. Creager detailed how the coordination would
work but basically the county would have to be informed of the
SWCD plan. He still has a problem of not knowing about this
project sooner.
Dave Printke : does not feel his 6 acres drains
completely in that creek. Mr. Creager explained that the
watershed is how that is determined.
Mike Sauder: does not know how the maintenance program
works. Commissioner Graf explained that process and how that
fund gets started. No more monies are collected until more work
is needed and the collected funds are gone.
Larry Wyse : needs clarification on the maintenance
fee...is it just for what his maintenance is or the whole
watershed. Commissioner Graf said that it is based on the total
watershed. Mr. Wyse asked of future petitions downstream...will
everyone on this watershed have to pay again. Commissioner Graf
said yes it is conceivable.
Brent Winzeler : representing Mr. Lantz...checked the
Statute and summarized that - yes there is a need and it has
gotten people's attention. His comment with regard to the
tesitmonies, is the Commissioners need to decide if it is
necessary. If the petition is denied then that would give the
property owners necessary time to complete their own work.
Richard Grieser: heard from the testimonies that most are
interested in more time and lower assessments.
Larry Wyse : according to the paperwork he has...he noted
that all property owners are to be notified of all hearings etc.
He stated he had not received any information prior to this last
mailing.
Mr. Nafziger asked if any of his mailings had been returned. Mr.
Burkhard said they did not.
Commissioner Graf informed those present of several
options...and based on testimonies given:
Continue final hearing to September 10, 2007 at 10:00 AM in
order to allow ample time for performance of their own work.
Commissioner Graf made the motion and Commissioner Genter
seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously |
|
11:19:38 AM |
|
|
|
11:58:50 AM |
|
|
|
2:33:01 PM |
Meeting adjourned at 12:15 PM |
|
|
2:33:49 PM |
_____________________________
Jack Graf
_____________________________
Dean Genter
_____________________________
Paul Barnaby
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Rhonda J. Borton, Clerk
|
|
|
2:34:44 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, OH 43567-3309 |
|
|
