Englebeck Ditch Petition Project #113 Final Hearing Presented by: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Englebeck Ditch Petition Project #113 Final Hearing Presented by: Daniel B. Toris Jr., P.E., P.S. Ottawa County Deputy Drainage Engineer

Englebeck Ditch Petition • Filed by Denton S. Glovinsky with the Ottawa County Commissioners • Intent to maintain and install a water control device on the Fulton Street outlet of the Englebeck Ditch storm sewer conveyance system located in Portage Township.

Approval of Petition (Factors to consider per ORC 6131) • Cost of location and construction • Compensation for land to be taken • Effect on land along the route of improvement • Effect on land below improvement • Sufficiency of outlet • Benefit to public welfare • Benefit to land, public corporations and state • Any other proper matter as deemed pertinent by Commissioners

Proposed Improvements • Purchase and installation of a new heavy-duty flap gate for the outlet of the Englebeck Ditch culvert at Fulton Street. The flap gate will be installed as part of the Fulton Street culvert o replacement project at a later date.

Proposed Plan

Proposed Improvements Cost HEAVY-DUTY FLAP GATE EST. UNIT ITEM QUANTITY UNITS DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST 611 1 Each Special - Backflow Preventer, Drainage Gate $ 15,500.00 $ 15,500.00 $ 15,500.00

Preliminary Report • Cost Estimate (10 year project life) Cost of Flap Gate $ 15,500 o • Ancillary Costs o Engineering $ 5,000 o Advertising/Mailings/Administration $ 5,000 o Contingency $ 1,550 o 1 st Year Maintenance $ 1,550 Total = $ 28,600

Final Report • Cost Estimate (10 year project life) Cost of Flap Gate $ 15,500 o • Ancillary Costs o Engineering $ 5,000 o Advertising/Mailings/Administration $ 5,000 o Contingency $ 1,550 o 1 st Year Maintenance $ 2,736 Total = $ 29,786

Benefits “Benefit” as defined in ORC 6131.01 (F) Advantages to land and land owners…public entities…resulting from drainage, conservation, control and management of water,… and environmental improvements. 1. Factors relevant to advantages a) The watershed or entire land area drained or affected by the improvement b) Total volume of water draining into improvement and amount contributed by each land owner c) The use to be made by each land owner 2. Benefit(s) include a) Elimination or reduction of damage from flooding b) Removal of water conditions that jeopardize health, safety, or welfare c) Increase land value due to improvement d) Use of water for irrigation, storage…or other incidental purpose e) Providing an outlet for the accelerated runoff…from uplands that have been removed from their natural state…by human methods, shall be considered to be benefited…

Drainage Area

Flooding Red shading • indicates EL. 575.0 Roughly 64 acres • of agricultural land becomes affected

Flooding Green shading • indicates EL. 574.0 Temporary • flooding relief

Wonnell Ditch State Route 2 • construction in 1965 re-routed and added ditch breaks Northerly roadside • ditch break is at an elevation of 574.0

Benefit Analysis • Extremely Challenging and time consuming • Each property has different benefits • Property owners have different opinions • Properties serve different purposes • Properties have different values

Additional Information to Consider • Wetland development in the Area • Roughly 28 acres

Benefit / Cost Analysis • Agricultural Benefits Based on 10 year project life o The Ohio State University Study, 1983 o • Improved Drainage Monetary Benefit = $160 per Ac. 2009 Analysis from The Ohio State University – Wood County Data o • Corn - Increased Production Benefit o 25 Bushel/Ac. X $3.90/Bushel = $97.50/Ac. per year • Soybeans – Increased Production Benefit o 11 Bushel/Ac. X $9.00/Bushel = $99.00/Ac. per year Using $98/Ac. per year Benefit o • Depreciate Yearly Benefit 10% per year over 10 year project life o Monetary Benefit Realized over Life of Project = $574/Ac. • Total Agricultural Benefit over Life of Project $574/Ac. x 64 Ac. = $36,736 *wetlands removed* $574/Ac. x 36 Ac. = $20,664

Benefit / Cost Analysis (cont’d) • Residential Benefits Septic System Operations o Crawlspace/Basement Flooding Minimization/Relief o Sump Pump Maintenance/Replacement Costs o Estimated 10 year Benefit per Residential Parcel = $500 o • Based on average benefit of $50 per year Total Residential Benefit over Life of Project o 152 Parcels X $500/Parcel = $76,000 *watershed 112 Parcels X $500/Parcel = $56,000 correction*

Benefit / Cost Analysis (cont’d) Final Benefit / Cost Ratio (Ag. & Res. Benefit): • Heavy-Duty Flap Gate: • o ($36,736+$76,000) / $28,600 = 3.94 o ($20,664+$56,000) / $29,786 = 2.57 Final Benefit / Cost Ratio (Ag. Benefit only): • Heavy-Duty Flap Gate: • o $36,736 / $28,600 = 1.28 o $20,664 / $29,786 = 0.69 Therefore, the benefit associated with the heavy- • duty flap gate is 0.69 times the projected cost of the project.

Assessments Assessments to parcels are calculated according to the following guidelines as listed in ORC 6131.15 Potential increase in productivity resulting from • improvement (land value) Quantity of drainage contributed (acers benefited) • Location of property to the project (flood factor) • Amount of project each parcel uses (use factor) • Basically, the greater your land value, the more land you have, the more of the project you use, and the closer you are to the flood prone area, the more you are assessed.

Summary • Flooding and property damage in the drainage area demonstrates a need for improved drainage. • Routine maintenance of the flap gate will required but costs should minimal. • Benefit/Cost analysis results in a 0.69:1 ratio for the flap gate.

Conclusion Based on data gathered to date, there is a financial benefit to • prevent the backward flow of water during times of flood or high tide of the Sandusky Bay, however it directly benefits productive agricultural acres only for the duration of time it takes for Lake water to backflow from Wonnell Ditch. Due to an agricultural benefit/cost ratio of less than 1, from our • typical financial calculations the benefits do not outweigh the cost of the project. Because of this fact we do not recommend this project as it stands. However, we feel that it is imperative that the property owners directly affected by the lake backflow be given the chance to weigh in on their own personal impacts prior to the Board making their final decision.

Questions