Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Stormwater Drainage topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Lorain County approves Coal Ditch extension in Pittsfield Township

2143106 · January 21, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Lorain County Board of Commissioners voted to add the Coal Ditch extension to the county stormwater maintenance plan and authorize construction, a project the county estimates will cost $219,842 and impose no special assessments on property owners.

The Lorain County Board of Commissioners voted Tuesday to add the Coal Ditch extension in Pittsfield Township to the county stormwater district's general maintenance plan and to proceed toward construction and maintenance of the ditch.

The action, moved and seconded during a public hearing, declares the Coal Ditch extension necessary for preservation and promotion of public health and welfare and specifies that no special assessments will be levied on property owners to pay for the work. Recorded votes were cast by Commissioner Moore and Commissioner Gallagher, each recorded as "Aye." The motion as adopted set in motion a five-day objection period before the county will solicit bids and, pending bids, award a construction contract.

Why it matters: County stormwater staff said the work will remove built-up sediment, woody debris and several obstructions from the ditch, improving drainage for nearby properties and extending the length of ditch under county maintenance. County staff estimated the project cost at $219,842 (about $88 per linear foot) and said the funding will come from the drainage district rather than assessments against property owners.

County staff and the consulting designer described the proposed work at the hearing. An engineer's office representative told the board, "We did submit a letter, about the culverts not being negatively affected, which is required under 6117 of the revised code. And you have that before you. And, otherwise we're in favor of this project." Don, a stormwater district staff member, said: "This is a continuation of a ditch that was previously placed on maintenance. We're extending it north and east about 2,500 lineal feet to the property line of the Notley farm. There are 4 obstructions that were identified by the survey team, to be removed. And there is a buildup of sediment..."

Staff said the project will affect three parcels for which the county "already received permission and easements to go on to the property and to do the improvement and to continue to maintain it." They said, after construction, roughly 8,100 lineal feet of ditch would be on county maintenance (combining existing and added segments) and that the county originally planned to use American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds for the work. The next steps described by staff were the five-day objection window, solicitation of bids, contract award if bids are acceptable, construction, and then placement of the ditch on county maintenance.

Local landowner Mark McConnell, introduced at the hearing as a Pittsfield Township trustee who volunteered earlier maintenance work, told the board he had spoken with an affected owner: "I actually talked with Mister Notley. He, he said he had no issues with the project going forward." McConnell said he had already cleaned about a mile of county main-line ditch to improve a drainage outlet for tile on his property.

The board also reviewed procedural notices: Resolution 24796 set the hearing date and certified letters and a public notice were distributed, staff said. The engineer's office returned a written letter about culvert impacts at the hearing.

Votes at a glance: The board adopted a resolution to add the Coal Ditch extension to county maintenance and to declare the project necessary. Recorded votes in the transcript show Commissioner Moore: Aye; Commissioner Gallagher: Aye. The motion was seconded; the transcript does not specify the mover's or seconder's full names.

The board closed the hearing after public testimony and the procedural motions required to proceed to the five-day objection period and the bidding process.