| Description |
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2006 SESSION |
| Date |
9/21/2006 |
Location |
COMMISSION10XP |
| |
| Time |
Speaker |
Note |
|
9:00:23 AM |
Call Meeting to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Opening Prayer
Roll Call Attendance - All Present
Resolution 2006-640 Approve Minutes of
September18, 2006
|
Commissioner Barnaby made the motion and Commissioner Genter
seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously |
|
9:03:25 AM |
Resolution 2006-641 Executive Session
Preparing for, Conducting, or Reviewing Negotiations or
Bargaining Sessions with Public Employees concerning Their
Compensations or other Terms and Conditions of Their Employment
|
Commissioner Barnaby made the motion and
Commissioner Genter seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously.
Vond Hall, Andy Votava, Paul Goldberg and Sheriff Merillat were
all part of this executive session. |
|
9:55:29 AM |
OLD BUSINESS
Resolution 2006-642 Approve Payment of Bills
|
Commissioner Genter made the motion and Commissioner Barnaby
seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously |
|
9:56:02 AM |
Weekly Dog Warden Report Week of September 10, 2006 through
September 16, 2006
|
|
|
9:56:13 AM |
NEW BUSINESS
Resolutions:
Resolution 2006-643 Approve Pay Request No. 1 for
Diversified Road & Pipe County Road 14 Reconstruction
|
Commissioner Barnaby made the motion and Commissioner Graf
seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously |
|
9:56:56 AM |
Resolution 2006-644 Award Bid for Fulton
County Transfer Station Contractual Services
|
Commissioner Genter made the motion and
Commissioner Graf seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously |
|
9:57:43 AM |
Resolution 2006-645 Award Bid for Fulton
County Transfer Station Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Scrap Metal
|
Commissioner Graf made the motion and
Commissioner Genter seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously |
|
9:57:59 AM |
Resolution 2006-646 Transfer Appropriations
for Juvenile Probation
|
Commissioner Genter made the motion and
Commissioner Graf seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously |
|
9:58:19 AM |
Resolution 2006-647 Adopt Proposal for
Acquisition or Maintenance of Micrographic or Other Equipment or
for Contract Services for County Recorder
|
No resolution needed at this time
The proposal was reviewed and explained and a date to meet with
the Recorder will be set.
October 16 at 9:01 AM
Resolution 2006- 650
Commissioner Graf made the motion and Commissioner Genter
seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously |
|
10:00:26 AM |
Resolution 2006-648 Enter into Contract
2006-95 with IPC Command Systems, Inc. for 9-1-1 Wireless
Console Upgrade Project
|
Hold - Contract not back from the Prosecutor |
|
10:01:17 AM |
Resolution 2006-649 Approve Purchase Orders
and Travel Requests
|
Commissioner Genter made the motion and
Commissioner Graf seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously |
|
10:03:03 AM |
Rod Creager, Chief Deputy Engineer - Engineer's Report
Ditch 2101 Grieser |
Rod presented his report on this Brush Creek
ditch as follows:
ENGINEER'S REPORT
Ditch No. 2101
Branch 7 Brush Creek
September 21, 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, T R-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. The 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 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 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 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. The engineering survey completed for this
project indicates there is one (1) to one and one (1 1/2 ) 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 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
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 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
$97,302.90 not including administrative costs.
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 20 will 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 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.
Discussion on the brush cutting & removal. (10:18) Commissioner
Graf asked if the brush were removed from Brush Creek, does work
proposed on Branch 7 meet the prayer of the petition. Mr.
Creager said it's time to be cleaned but added this is not the
final decision. Commissioner Genter commented that private work
could be done. Commissioner Graf asked if the petition had to be
amended to go the rest of the way. Mr. Creager said based on the
evidence it is now part of the petition as was discussed at the
first hearing.
Should this go to final hearing? Mr. Creager had some questions
regarding costs, for example financing. Commissioner Genter
thought using a percentage would be best and Mr. Creager agreed.
Mr. Creager will adjust the figures accordingly.
Mr. Creager will continue his engineer's report next Thursday at
10:00 AM. |
|
10:29:21 AM |
Recess until 10:45 appointment. |
|
|
10:44:35 AM |
Jim Seney, Chairman, Road to Work Ohio - Discuss the
Future of the Ohio Turnpike |
Mr. Seney said he didn't know if the leasing of
the Turnpike was a good idea or a bad idea. Tax dollars would be
more the issue. Truck diversion, rate increases in tolls,
maintenance were items needing to be looked at too, according to
Mr. Seney. How the money will be spent requires specific
projects to be part of the legislation. A group to make sure
these interests are addressed should be utilized. A seat at the
table is what Mr. Seney is seeking.
Commissioner Graf asked where the money's coming from. Private
donors was Mr. Seney's response. Commissioner Graf then asked if
they were proponents of the leasing of the turnpike. Mr. Seney
indicated that they were. Commissioner Graf questioned why
anyone would want to mess with something that is working so
well. Mr. Seney said we are not going to make that decision but
by the legislators. Organization of communities will help give
voice.
Every county that the turnpike runs through should receive
benefit, Mr. Seney's opinion. Commissioner Graf referred to a
letter from Mr. Blackwell that made no mention whatsoever of
those counties. Commissioner Graf asked what would happen to the
Turnpike Commission. Mr. Seney said he understands they would
stay intact and oversee the contract. The contract is extremely
important in content.
Commissioner Graf asked what the reaction has been to Mr.
Seney's presentation. Mr. Seney said he finds that lots of
communities are benign. Many agree the state is not going to
walk away without looking at it before rejecting. Reactions do
vary though. He added that this is not going to go away
regardless of who gets elected governor.
We have to be a part of this and not sit on our hands and that
is what Mr. Seney is advocating. Commissioner Graf asked what he
is suggesting this board of commissioners do. Mr. Seney said the
forming of a coalition with communication on the issues would
need support from the commissioners. Nothing has to be done
right now. Commissioner Genter said he would like to promote NOT
leasing the turnpike. He thinks they (Columbus) are looking for
quick fixes.
Frank Onweller, Fulton County Engineer, said the important thing
in the whole thing is that we need to be a player - funding
needs to be directed to us because we are the ones who will be
financially impacted. Mr. Seney agreed there should be payments
made to every county the turnpike runs through.
Mr. Seney urged the Commissioners to give this some thought and
he will follow up with them in a week or so. He thanked the
board for their time. |
|
11:23:21 AM |
Meeting adjourned. |
|
|
11:23:27 AM |
______________________________
Jack Graf
______________________________
Dean Genter
______________________________
Paul Barnaby
ATTEST:
______________________________
Rhonda J. Borton, Clerk
|
|
|
11:24:22 AM |
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 |
|
