Sewer billing changes, alley closure, legal matter among topics at county commissioners meeting

Highland County commissioners Terry Britton and Brad Roades voted to implement additional changes to the county’s sewer billing and to vacate an alley in Boston, while they also met with county prosecutors to discuss a pending legal issue, during their Wednesday, Nov. 1 meeting.

Commissioner David Daniels was absent, due to a death in the family, according to Britton.

Commissioners announced another sewer payment change, as the Lakeside and Rolling Acres systems will now be switched to monthly billing, effective in 2024.

As previously reported, the commission voted in June 2021 to approve revised sewer use rules for all Highland County sanitary sewers for the first time in 25 years. In addition to needing to modernize the sewer use rules, commissioners named other issues, including hundreds of thousands of dollars in outstanding debt, increased operational costs and stress on the system due to people using “banned substances” and tapping into the system without prior approval.

Daniels said that the county was planning to implement “a new billing system so that we can do a better job of keeping track of who’s delinquent and who’s not,” as the Rocky Fork Lake system switched from a tax assessment to monthly billing.

“Our goal was to have all the sewer districts that we deal with into the same process,” Britton said Wednesday. “Right now, the Lakeside and Rolling Acres are being put on the tax bill the way that Rocky Fork was. At the beginning of 2024, we are rolling out a monthly billing process for those two sewer plants, so there will be letters going out very soon to all the property owners to let them know what's going on with that.

“This is basically to help on the cash flow. Those things are always in arrears, because of the way that the money was coming in, and we basically had to keep putting money in there to to run those systems. We’ve got to get it to where the cash flow is workable.”

As previously reported, commissioners voted in November 2022 to approve what Daniels described as “substantial” rate increases for the Rolling Acres and Lakeside sewer systems, including a 38-percent increase for Rolling Acres, to $50 per month, and a 20-percent increase for Lakeside, to $48 per month. The county is also working on multimillion-dollar upgrade plans for both systems.

After explaining the new process, commissioners voted 2-0 to implement that change.

In other business:

• Commissioners agreed via resolution to vacate an alley in Boston, located on U.S. Route 50, Paint Township, Highland County, after holding a public hearing and considering comments from several interested parties.

On Oct. 11, commissioners attended a viewing of the alley, as Paint Township Trustees previously filed a petition to vacate approximately 130 feet of the alley in the area. No action was taken, as commission clerk Ashleigh Willey told The Highland County Press that “adjoining property owners are still trying to come to an agreement, and we must talk to the Highland County Water Department about a water main and easement.”

Present for the hearing Nov. 1 were property owners Gerold and Debra Wilkin; Brian Waller of the Highland County Water Department; Paint Township Trustee Corey Miller; and Highland County Engineer Chris Fauber.

“A few weeks ago, we went out and visited the site with the county engineer,” Britton said. “We found that there were some situations that may or may not be warranted to close this out. That’s why we're here today. This was the date for the final review, and so we've asked all the parties involved to come in. We'll listen to them, and then we'll see what we’re going to do here.”

Britton added that the petition was filed by township trustees, at the Wilkins’ request, but “things came up” at the alley viewing.

Waller shared a map with commissioners and explained that “we didn’t know this alley was here,” but now that they do, they realized they would have “access” to a water main “without tearing up anybody’s yards.” He said the water company has a “blanket easement” that allows them property access, but the water company is responsible for repairing any damage to yards when they are repairing leaks.

“If we had that access, then we wouldn't have to go across anybody's yard, evidently,” Waller said. “[An adjoining property owner] asked me to come on his behalf to see if we could keep it open and clear it out so we could use that and not tear up his property if we didn't have to.

“We do have a right of way back there, but we don't want to tear up people’s yards unless we absolutely have to.”

In response to a question from Roades, Waller said they have a “20-foot easement — 10 feet on each side of the pipe,” and there is “a 14-inch water main that goes through there.”

Miller said he was “filling in” for Paint Township Trustee Randy Mustard and said they were unaware of the water main when they filed the petition.

“What’s the intent here if we do not close this?” Britton asked Miller.

“I didn’t know it even existed,” Miller said.

Britton asked if the township would assume responsibility for maintaining the alley if it is not vacated.

“I don’t know,” Miller said. “Nothing was even discussed about it.”

Roades pointed out that if they keep it open for “access” for the water company, “it needs to be something maintained so it can be used,” and that would fall back on the township.

“I'm not here to fight with anybody or argue,” Waller said. “I’m just here to try to make it easier on everybody and save us money on landscaping in the future.”

Britton asked Fauber if he had any input.

“The alley gets some access to the property, but it doesn't really get you access to your easement,” Fauber said.

Britton agreed that it “appears” that the alley is “a pretty good distance from” the water company’s right-of-way.

“Right,” Waller said. “Well, we have a blanket easement, so we could go anywhere on the property we want. That's probably why the main’s in the back of those houses. We have a blanket easement, we can do anything we want, but we try to stay on our 20-foot right-of-way.”

Fauber asked if the Wilkins could work out an agreement with the water company to allow access in the “two or three times in the next 50 years it might have to” be repaired.

“We’ve been there once in the 15 years I’ve worked there, but we can’t control when water leaks happen,” Waller said.

Gerold Wilkin, who said he has lived at his property since 1978, told the group that the alleys were installed “for the houses” in Boston and “never intended for any access” by the public.

“There’s been a number of alleys that have been closed,” Wilkin said.

Wilkin added that “the water line doesn’t come close to my property” and that he does not “use the county water.”

“Our intent, since we found out that there was an alley on the property as it was, was to go ahead and close it to keep from any controversy from whatever, because the property, I own on both sides of it,” Wilkin said. “I assume that commissioners in past have awarded alley that's directly to the east of mine to be shut down, and I know that once you closed the one across the east side of Boston there on the north, that closed any access from those properties, as it were, so it even landlocked some property in there.

“Now, I'm not trying to create a problem for the water company, but it seems rather obvious that once the community was notified that we was changing the alley, that you found that one alley that's left that hasn't been closed important to get into your water line.”

Waller again repeated that he’s “not trying to create any problems.”

“I’m not saying you were, but I'm saying the water company, or whether the landowner there was the ones that brought that up, or whether it was you guys or whatever, but apparently you oppose closing that alley,” Wilkin said. “So whatever your determination is, I don't have a clue.”

Wilkin asked commissioners to follow county precedent and close to alley, since they “tried to go through the proper channels in order to handle this.
 
“I had no idea that a water line that’s more than 20 feet behind my property is going to be a problem,” he said.

Britton asked Fauber for his “recommendation,” and the county engineer said that he “didn’t want to make it difficult for the water company, but I don't see a reason why it can't be vacated.” Britton said he was in agreement.

Roades asked if there could be issues with any future property owners and land access if the alley is vacated. Waller said that any future landowners would have to enter into an easement agreement granting access to the water main.

Roades said he would agree to the closure “as long as the water company” had access, and Waller said they could “still go the same route we’re going” with the current easement.

“I’ll join the party, too,” Roades said, and made the motion to vacate the alley, which passed 2-0.

“Thank you all for coming,” Britton told the group. “We appreciate your input.”

• Shortly after 11 a.m., commissioners returned to open session with Highland County Prosecutor Anneka Collins, and assistant prosecutors Molly Bolek and Adam King, to discuss retaining counsel for a pending legal case.

Collins told commissioners that allegations have been made against herself and Bolek as part of a civil lawsuit, and when Collins sought to retain an attorney from the County Commissioners Association of Ohio’s County Risk Sharing Authority Wednesday morning, she was told that was “outside of their contractual obligation.”

According to Collins, the civil lawsuit, Philip and Carleta Weyrich vs. Brannon Farms, LLC was filed in Highland County Common Pleas Court in December 2022. The lawsuit is a “complaint to quiet title,” regarding concerns over Kelley Lane and any potential “attempts to vacate” the road in Jackson Township.

In February 2023, commissioners passed a resolution in which they “agreed not to take any action regarding the vacation of Kelley Lane located in Jackson Township, Highland County, Ohio,” at Collins’ recommendation.

In a subsequent answer in the civil case, the defendant (who is also an attorney, representing himself) names Collins and Bolek as “basically conspiring with [commissioners] and everybody to violate his rights,” Collins said.

“An answer has been filed in that case, and basically, they allege some really unethical things about Molly and I,” Collins told commissioners. “They are coming to depose us on November 17. I called CORSA [County Risk Sharing Authority], and said, ‘Hey, we might need an attorney with us when they depose us.’ CORSA promptly said, basically, ‘well, the county is not named in the lawsuit, so we're not representing you.’ I said, ‘Well, the only reason we're not named in a lawsuit is because I gave the commissioners sound legal advice, so that we wouldn't get dragged into this lawsuit.’

“They said that is outside of their contractual obligation to represent the county and suggested that we come to you guys about seeking someone to represent us at the deposition.”

Britton asked, “Who can we get?”

“I have no idea,” Collins said. “I truly expected CORSA to send someone. I truly did.”

Britton and Collins agreed that if they “had proceeded with that closure,” the county “would have been” named in the lawsuit.

“Now that that’s happened, good job, Anneka, you kept the county out of a lawsuit and you’re on your own,” Collins said.

Britton suggested that they reach out to one of the legal firms used by the county — Bricker & Eckler, which has been used for legal representation on solar projects and federal funding, or Clemans, Nelson & Associations, whom the county retains for union negotiations and personnel matters.

“Maybe Clemans, Nelson,” Collins said. “I’m not concerned — I know that Molly and I did nothing wrong. There’s no question. I have notes, we remember exactly dates, I have the emails. I'm not concerned with that at all. I just want to make sure that somebody's there for us.

“I intend to ask for sanctions against this attorney that alleges these things about us, because it's absolutely frivolous, but we just would like to have somebody there.”

Britton pointed out that the county is already “in a contract with [Clemans, Nelson] anyway,” and he told Collins that she could reach out to them.

• At 10 a.m., commissioners held a work session with representatives of Highland County Community Action, Highland County Job and Family Services and the Area Agency on Aging District 7 to discuss the county’s Healthy Aging Grant and “how to distribute that,” Britton said.

• Commissioners met with Highland County Emergency Management Agency Director David Bushelman and Rob Guentter of RFG Associates to discuss the county’s revised five-year hazard mitigation plan. Read more at: https://highlandcountypress.com/commissioners-review-updated-county-haz….

• Commissioners issued a proclamation in honor of Small Business Saturday and met with Highland County Chamber of Commerce representatives to discuss their newest campaign Wednesday, Nov. 1. See the story and photos at: https://highlandcountypress.com/small-business-saturday-moose-loose-cam….

• Commissioners noted that the county is seeking bids for snow removal for county properties.

In other approvals:

• Commissioners voted 2-0 to accept a quote from Cruea Construction for repairs to the floor at the Highland County Probation office in the amount of $7,508.

• Commissioners also accepted a $752 quote from Wilkin Heating and Air to replace a blower motor for the heating system at the former Highland County Dog Pound, which Britton said is “still being used for vicious dogs and quarantine situations.”

Commissioners also approved:

• A revised contract agreement with Canon Solutions America, Inc. for the Laserfiche Cloud software for the records storage department, to reflect a price reduction;

• A partial payment estimate for Reed Mechanical Construction LLC, and a related change order for the Village of Greenfield’s Sycamore Circle drainage improvement project;

• A change order to the county engineer’s New Market Road reconstruction and resurfacing project;

• An Ohio Water Development Authority contractor’s estimate for the Rainsboro sanitary sewer force main done by Unger Construction; and

• An amended scope of work and budget for the Marriott Hotel project to be submitted to the Office of Community Development.

“They had to change the issuing dates on that, had to move it out, because of all the time it’s taken to get that thing going,” Britton said.

• A resolution to rescind Resolution No 23-204 (approved at their previous meeting) authorizing an additional appropriation within CDBG PY22. Also requested is a budget modification within CDBG – PY22 fund in the amount of $2,000.

• A budget modification within Solar Road Repair 2200 in the amount of $100,000.

• A budget modification within County General (1000) in the amount of $2,000.

• A budget modification within the County General (1000) in the amount of $6,000.