Commissioners approve bridge‑project easements and sanitary‑sewer acceptances

At the same meeting the Lucas County Board of Commissioners voted to accept easements for a county bridge replacement and accepted several sanitary sewer easements and a water line for developer infrastructure.

The board approved acceptance of two easements needed for the Gibb Road Bridge No. 5 replacement project (agenda item 2). A motion to approve was made and the clerk called the roll; the recorded votes in the meeting transcript were yes from the commissioners present. The easements will give the county permanent rights on either side of the bridge to perform the replacement work; staff reported a right of entry had previously been obtained and that negotiations on the easements had just been completed.

The sanitary engineer presented three additional items (agenda items 3–5): an amendment to a previously accepted 25‑year easement for sanitary sewer 844 at Quarry Road and Veil Avenue in Sylvania Township (a budget entry was changed by $1 to correct bookkeeping), acceptance of sanitary sewer number 919 at Maumee Western Road, and acceptance of a sanitary sewer and water supply line for Waterside, Sylvania Plat 11. The sanitary engineer noted the budget impact for the easement renewal was revised from $0 to $1 to ensure the record is correct.

A single motion to approve the sanitary items was made; the clerk called the roll and commissioners recorded “yes” votes. The clerk closed the agenda and confirmed the board will next meet on Feb. 11.

Actions and outcomes

- Approve and accept two easements for Gibb Road Bridge No. 5 replacement (approved). - Amendment to acceptance of renewal of easement (sanitary sewer 844, Quarry Road/Veil Avenue) — budget correction of $1 (approved). - Acceptance of sanitary sewer 919 (Maumee Western Road) (approved). - Acceptance of sanitary sewer and water supply line for Waterside, Sylvania Plat 11 (approved).

Votes: The meeting record shows the clerk called the roll for the easement and sanitary items and recorded affirmative votes for the commissioners present. The transcript records the roll calls as follows (verbatim from the meeting record): “Commissioner Gherkin. Yes.” “Commissioner Lopez. Yes.” “Commissioner Cebecchi. Yes.” and on the later roll call for items 3–5: “Commissioner Cabecki? Yes. Commissioner Gerken? Yes. Commissioner Lopez? Yes.” The transcript contains inconsistent spellings of some commissioner names; vote tallies as recorded in the meeting transcript were unanimous yes among commissioners present for each roll call.

No additional discussion or public comment was recorded on these items in the transcript. The items were recorded as accepted and the board moved on to close the hearing.