(PHOTO PROVIDED / THE VILLAGE REPORTER)
A WATERSHED MOMENT … The complete Swan Creek watershed area is visible in a map provided by the office of Lucas County Engineer Mike Pniewski.
By: Jesse Davis
THE VILLAGE REPORTER
jesse@thevillagereporter.com
Hundreds of people lined up inside, outside, and down the street at the Swanton Public Library last week to register their concerns with the Swan Creek Watershed improvement project.
Swanton Mayor Neil Toeppe was at the meeting, where he said as many as 500 people showed up, many stuck outside in over 80 degree temperatures, for the chance at two minutes to ask their questions.
He said the lack of clarity and communication surrounding the project led him and Whitehouse Mayor Richard Bingham to request the project – which affects residents in Fulton, Lucas, and Henry Counties – be temporarily put on hold.
“What I’m asking for, as well as the mayor of Whitehouse, is for this to be halted for a period of time while there’s more opportunity to look into other funding sources whether there are grants available from the state or federal government – or possibly engaging the corps of engineers – but to take some time to reflect on other funding sources,” Toeppe said.
“Also, for the Lucas County engineer to revisit how they’re sharing this information with the public, whether with community meetings other than this one-on-one nonsense, which doesn’t seem to be particularly efficient, or the county engineer could put out some video information on social media to be shared with the community to get a better understanding.”
According to the project petition, filed by a joint board of county commissioners from the three counties, the project seeks “an improvement in a manner deemed to be most conductive to the public welfare of the primary watercourses within the Swan Creek Watershed utilizing any, all, or a combination of methods provided in Ohio Revised Code Section 6131.01 (C) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) necessary for the disposal of surplus water.”
The strategy for accomplishing that goal involves cleanup of ditches to be funded by fees levied against property owners in the watershed area. It is those fees which have drawn the outcry from residents, who received cards in the mail indicating their proposed share of the costs.
The cards include four pieces of information for residents – their parcel ID, an estimated first year assessment, estimated damages, and “maintenance base and percent of total.”
Toeppe said a misunderstanding of that final portion seems to be the issue with most affected residents.
“People see the last number, which is a high number, and in some cases that number can be $100,000. But that, as I’m being told, indicates the percent of the project that you are contribuing to, not what you contribute,” he said.
However, Toeppe said he has heard from at least three people who claim the amount listed as their estimated first year assessment was $8,000, $10,000, and even $20,000.
“The county engineer has told me that is not likely because it’s based on $30 an acre, so I don’t know the accuracy of those numbers,” he said.
A frequently asked questions sheet on the project website seems to contradict that explanation, indicating residents could be charged the full amount in the final column.
“The Maintenance Base (MB) Cost for a parcel is the parcel’s percentage of the cost of all the required maintenance projects along all of the drainage segments included in the petition watershed calculated as described in Ohio Petition Law (ORC 6131),” the sheet reads.
“The MB cost is the maximum assessment that any property could theoretically incur for the petition, however this maximum will never be assessed in a single year because only a portion of the required total maintenance on all of the drainages will be completed each year. The MB percentage for each parcel serves as the basis on which the costs for yearly maintenance will be proportioned and assessed.”
Toeppe said it was explained to him that the estimated costs for each individual parcel were derived from five criteria.
“The distance you are from the mouth of the river or wherever the water eventually dumps – if you’re further away farther upstream, you’re going to get charged more than somebody closer.”
“If you’ve got sandy soil, you’re going to get charged less than if you have clay soil. If you’re at a higher eleveation, you’ll be charged less than at lower eleveation because more water will be absorbed into the ground.” He could not recall the other two criteria.
The frequently asked questions sheet shows the maintenance assessment cost is calculated based on the estimated property maintenance base cost divided by the total watershed maintenance base cost, then multiplied by the yearly maintenance cost.
A provided example with a $100,000 total maintenance base cost for the entire watershed, a $1,000 parcel maintenance base cost, and proposed yearly maintenance costs of $2,000 showed a resulting $20 annual assessment.
The sheet also says, however, that the Joint Board “can choose to collect an assessment for future maintenance in an amount up to 20% of the total maintenance base. The minimum assessment that can be collected per year is $4.”
Despite the level of ire raised among residents and Toeppe’s strong words against continuing until certain requests are met, he said the opposition he has heard is not against the project itself.
“I want to be clear – all the people that I’ve talked to understand and agree that the ditch maintenance is necessary and important,” Toeppe said. “The challenge is, or their concern is, the approach that has been taken, and that that needs to be revisited.”
The next public meeting on the project is being held from 4 to 8 p.m. on Tuesday, July 30 at Whitehouse Village Hall, located at 6925 Providence Street.
A final hearing is currently scheduled for 2 p.m. on Tuesday, August 6 at the hearing room of the Board of Lucas County Commissioners, located at One Government Center, 1st Floor, in Toledo.
However, Lucas County Engineer Mike Pniewski has recommended to the Joint Board of Commissioners to reschedule that hearing to May 20 of next year.
According to a press release, he is also recommending the board remove portions of Ai Creek, Swan Creek, and Fewless Creek within Fulton County from the project.
“I believe that it is necessary for additional time to provide public education and outreach on the nature of the project as well as to further develop and refine the scope of the project and work with the communities and stakeholders on the issues and needs that this project can address,” Pniewski said.
“I’m committed to work with the board as well as state and federal representatives to obtain additional funding to provide relief to our citizens who must remove dead trees and log jams as a result of the emerald ash borer.”
His recommendation will be considered by the joint board on August 6. For more information, visit https://www.lucascountyengineer.org/swancreek.html.
DITCHES IN THE SWAN CREEK WATERSHED
Each Creek or ditch is followed by the county(ies) it flows through
An asterisk (*) after a county name indicates that the segment of the ditch in that county is not included in the petition
1. Swan Creek: Lucas County, Fulton County
2. Ai Creek: Lucas County, Fulton County
3. Aumend Ditch: Lucas County, Henry County*
4. Baum Ditch: Lucas County, Fulton County*
5. Baumberger Ditch: Lucas County; Entire Length
6. Blair Ditch: Lucas County; Entire Length
7. Blue Creek: Lucas County, Fulton County*
8. Blystone Ditch: Lucas County; Entire Length
9. Butler Ditch: Lucas County; Entire Length
10. Cairl Ditch: Lucas County; Entire Length
11. Drennan Ditch: Lucas County; Entire Length
12. Dry Creek: Lucas County; Entire Length
13. E. Jeffers Ditch: Lucas County; Entire Length
14. Fewless Creek: Fulton County; Entire Length
15. Gale Run Ditch: Lucas County; Entire Length
16. Good Ditch; Lucas County; Entire Length
17. Hall Ditch: Lucas County; Entire Length
18. Harris DItch: Lucas County, Henry County*
19. Heilman Ditch: Lucas County; Entire Length
20. Keener Ditch: Lucas County; Entire Length
21. Kujawski Ditch: Lucas County; Entire Length
22. Marshall Ditch: Lucas County; Entire Length
23. Muntwiller Ditch: Lucas County; Entire Length
24. Murbach Ditch: Lucas County
25. N. Disher Ditch: Lucas County; Entire Length
26. Neis Ditch: Fulton County, Lucas County*
27. Prairie Ditch: Lucas County; Entire Length
28. Rakestraw Ditch: Lucas County; Entire Length
29. Scherer Ditch: Lucas County; Entire Length
30. S. Disher Ditch: Lucas County; Entire Length
31. Stone DItch: Lucas County; Entire Length
32. Wiregrass Ditch: Lucas County; Entire Length
33. Wolf Creek: Lucas County; Entire Length
