Hocking County commissioners require inspection for Whitehorse/Bradford sewer project; payment arrangement left unspecified

Hocking County commissioners voted July 3 to require an engineering inspection of a privately built sewer line serving the Whitehorse/Bradford Drive project, following remarks from a property owner and the county engineer that an inspection is advisable.

The issue arose after a resident who described having worked with county engineer Bill Shaw and local contractors urged the commissioners to confirm the line meets county standards and to authorize an inspection before further work proceeds. "It's either you pay now or pay later," the resident said, urging the commission to ensure the work meets code so the system could later be converted to a public utility.

The motion to require engineer sign-off and an inspection was moved and seconded during general business and carried on a roll call in which Andrew Davidson, Justin Umbrell and Michael (last name not specified in the transcript) voted yes. The transcript does not clearly identify who moved or seconded the motion in the record or name the official text of the motion.

Speakers described the first sewer line as meeting code and as having been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, and recommended the same standard for the new line. The resident noted conversations with Bill Shaw and a contractor, and said he had engaged a designer from Stemel Construction and a draftsman named Mr. Biter to prepare paperwork for the engineer's file. The resident told commissioners he had asked local utility staff whether an inspection by county personnel would be required; the county engineer had indicated he might be asked to perform an inspection.

Commissioners discussed whether the inspection cost should be borne by the private owner or another party. One commissioner stated that because the system is currently private and would remain private unless later accepted by the county, the inspection should be paid for by the private owner; the record of that recommendation appears in the transcript but the final motion record does not unambiguously state a payer. At the meeting's roll call the motion to require inspection and engineer sign-off was approved.

The discussion also included the resident's aim to present a fully code-compliant system so the county could later choose to accept the utility if it wished. No effective date, inspection vendor, estimated inspection cost or written contract amendment was recorded in the transcript.