Riverbend Homeowners Association
Riverbend Pond Owners Association
P.O. Box 213
Waterville, OH 43566
riverbendperrysburghoa@gmail.com
October 4, 2016
Board of County Commissioners
One Courthouse Square
Bowling Green, OH 43402
Wood County Engineer
One Courthouse Square
Bowling Green, OH 43402
Wood County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office
Attention: Linda Holmes
One Courthouse Square
Bowling Green, OH 43402
Trustees of Middleton Township
21745 N. Dixie Highway
Bowling Green, OH 43402
To Whom It May Concern:
The attached notice (Exhibit A) was received by some (but not all) homeowners in the Riverbend Sub-Division, in reference to an existing ditch situated in River Tract 51 and River Tract 52.
The notice stated that a petition had been filed by Gerald Moser to “recondition, reconstruct, deepen and widen an open ditch”. A “view” was scheduled on September 27, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.
A number of residents from Riverbend attended this initial meeting. The meeting was conducted by Ray Huber, the Wood County Engineer, and was attended by various other Wood County officials.
During his presentation, Mr. Huber stated the true purpose of the notice was to consider whether or not Wood County would assume control and maintenance of the afore-mentioned drainage ditch.
Based on information and belief, the drainage ditch originates on Five Point Road, on or near Mr. Moser’s property, and continues through private property owned by Mr. Moser, Louisville Title as Trustee, various Riverbend Sub-Division lot owners and property owned by Mr. Bernard, before draining into the Maumee River. Representatives of Wood County were unable to specify the segment of the drainage ditch which would be placed under County control. This is important, as the cost of any improvements and maintenance would, apparently, be allocated to the property owners affected by this change in control.
For instance, if the only segment of the drainage ditch placed under County control was on Mr. Moser’s property, he would apparently be responsible for the costs associated with maintenance or re-construction. If the ditch placed under control reached to John F. McCarthy Way, however, all homeowners in Plat 1 and Plat 2 of Riverbend would be affected as each home ultimately feeds into retention ponds which, in the case of overflow, feed into the drainage ditch.
All homeowners in Riverbend were not properly notified of the Petition.
Several comments:
– Approximately three years ago, plans were submitted to the Wood County Planning Commission that would have altered the location of the drainage ditch as part of the expansion of the Riverbend Sub-Division. At a meeting held to discuss these plans, representatives of the Wood County Planning Commission, the Wood County Engineer, Middleton Township, the Developer and the Riverbend HOA attended. As part of the discussion, the question was raised as to whether the County would assume control of the drainage ditch. The Wood County Engineer stated the County would not assume this responsibility.
– The original plans for Riverbend ((Exhibit B) included Mr. Moser’s property (including parcel numbers J38-100-522000051000 and J38-100-52200005000). If so, Mr. Moser likely planned to sell or develop his property at that time.
– As various segments of the drainage ditch are located on private property owned by Mr. Moser (Exhibit C), any re-development or re-construction of the drainage ditch would be at his own expense. Moreover, any damage or injury caused by such development or construction to the remainder of the ditch by Mr. Moser would likely render him (or any LLC or corporation holding title to his property) personally liable.
– A county, as a governmental unit, generally has sovereign immunity for its actions or inactions.
– A large segment of the drainage ditch is located on Mr. Moser’s property (Exhibit C).
– If the County gains control of the drainage ditch, we were told at the “view” that the cost of development and maintenance would be borne by the property owners who “use” the ditch.
– We were also told that these costs would be apportioned based on assessed valuation.
– As the segment of the ditch owned by Mr. Moser is located on farmland, the assessed valuation is minimal. Similarly the property owned by Louisville Title is assessed as undeveloped property. As a result, the property owners of Riverbend would be responsible for nearly all expenses (again, subject to where the County’s control of the drainage ditch would end) and receive little or no benefit. It was unclear what, if any, impact the proposed change in control would have on homes located on Five Point Road.
– Based on information and belief, no event has ever resulted in an interruption of the flow of water in the drainage ditch.
– Other property owners of West River Road (ISOH/Impact and Kings) also drain into the Riverbend pond.
Based on the foregoing, we have the following questions and requests:
– Please provide a copy of the original petition filed by Mr. Moser, plus any amendments.
– Given that this “notice” provided by the County was inaccurate and was not sent to all affected property owners, is this notice legally sufficient in the view of the Wood County Prosecuting Attorney?
– Why has Wood County changed its position on maintenance and control of the drainage ditch?
– What is the statutory authority claimed by the County to assume control and maintenance of a ditch located on private property?
– Has Mr. Moser submitted plans, or held discussions, with any County employee or representative on the sale or development of his property?
– Is there any empirical evidence that the drainage ditch is not effective in its current usage?
– Has the County consulted with state (Ohio EPA) or Federal regulatory authorities on any future construction or development of the drainage ditch?
– Is there any evidence that the drainage ditch has not been maintained?
– Assuming the County gains control of the drainage ditch, and an error/damage occurs because of their actions, who would bear the cost of remediation?
– Are we correct that the costs of maintenance is based on assessed valuation and, if so, how would these expenses be apportioned based on the various scenarios discussed during the visit (i.e. control would end prior to the overflow on the larger Riverbend pond, control would end at the culvert under John F. McCarthy Way, control would end at the beginning of Mr. Bernard’s property)?
Please provide us with your response as soon as possible.
Regards,
Riverbend Homeowners Association
Riverbend Pond Owners Association
Signatures on File:
Director
cc: William Bernard
25394 W. River Road
Perrysburg, OH 43551