Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Sewer topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident raises long-running concerns about county sewer, city utility agreements and taxes during public comment
Summary
A resident used public comment time to question how county sewer extensions and city utility agreements have been paid for and to allege inconsistent treatment by local authorities; commissioners directed some questions to city officials and noted jurisdictional limits.
During the meeting’s public comment period, a resident who identified himself as Chad Ricketts raised a series of long-standing concerns about county sewer and water extensions, utility billing and the financial impacts on Logan city residents.
Ricketts described a history of projects he said extended Logan’s utilities into neighboring areas and said his property taxes have risen as a result. He asked the commissioners how decisions were made about extending city utilities and who pays for the costs. "How is it that 3 other areas outside of the city of Logan has been fixed up with the sewer and water in the city of Logan?" he asked, referencing projects that moved water and sewer service beyond city limits.
Commissioners responded that decisions by municipal councils—such as the Logan city council or village councils—govern whether the city accepts flows and establishes rates, and that the county is charged fees by the city for each thousand gallons delivered or processed. One commissioner noted, "That decision is made by the village council or city council... That can't be done without the city council approving it." Another said the county pays a fee to the city (noted in the meeting as a dollar per thousand gallons) for treatment of county system flows.
Ricketts also raised allegations he said involved favored treatment for private parties, questioned county land deals and said he had received enforcement action after raising questions in prior meetings. Commissioners told Ricketts those claims were outside the commission’s immediate purview and suggested he raise specific enforcement or law-enforcement grievances with the sheriff’s office or pursue them through the courts.
Other attendees used public comment time to ask about local road projects (including a question about Luke Road) and requested follow-up conversations with county staff. County officials offered to arrange follow-up phone calls or meetings to discuss township roadwork and related funding.
The board did not take action on the topics raised in public comment; commissioners reiterated that utility service acceptance and billing are determined by municipal authorities and that the county's role is limited to its own system and intergovernmental agreements.
