SHELBY – In a split vote, Shelby City Council rejected a resolution Monday that would symbolically direct the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District to discontinue the city’s proposed flood reduction project.
A pin drop could’ve echoed through council chambers after a 3-2 vote determined council was not in support of the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District (MWCD) ending current studies or analysis mitigating flooding in Shelby.
Council members Nathan Martin, Garland Gates and Derrin Roberts voted against the resolution directing the MWCD to close out the flood reduction project. Steve McLaughlin and Charlie Roub voted in favor.
Despite the failed resolution, the vote has little impact. Mayor Steve Schag said the MWCD has already closed the door on the Shelby flood mitigation project.
Schag said on June 18 the MWCD “presently sees little or no reason to invest their energies any longer in a flood mitigation strategy that includes retention basins,” acknowledging the solution “appears to lack the level of support necessary for the conservancy board to move forward with an affirmative vote.”
The three council members voting against the resolution also voted to remove language stating that the passage of the resolution would be in the interest “of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare” of the citizens of of Shelby. Gates called the language “patently untrue.”
“The health, safety, morals and general welfare of the city of Shelby would still be jeopardized,” Gates said.
Martin and Roberts expressed that what was most against the city of Shelby’s best interest was the lack of due process. Martin said his dissenting vote had nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the proposed flooding solutions, but rather a lack of information and lack of faith in the process from city residents.
“They are being denied the ability to see a complete plan proposal with financing and to weigh in on a final project,” Martin said. “This may have been the intention of those who would have been opposed to this project regardless of the merits, facts, or finances. If they wanted to kill this project in its cradle, they have.”
Roberts said many of his constituents expected to have the opportunity to attend a town hall where all facts would have been presented and been given an opportunity to voice their opinion.
“I represent a group of people that when the waters come up, there’s an issue,” Roberts said. “Those people elected me, and for a long time – since 1987 that I can remember – people have been saying we need to do something about flooding. So finally someone forged ahead with that.”
Schag also expressed disappointment possible flood solutions were once again brought to a halt in Shelby, calling the night “bittersweet.” He noted the MWCD invested thousands of hours and $1.5 million in finding a flooding solution for Shelby.
“My main regret this evening is that we could’ve held off a little while longer to get a finished product on the table for debate,” Schag echoed. “What we have on the table is a skeletal presentation of what could have been. I would have liked to have had this proposed solution on the table to discuss it on its merits.”
Some of those merits included hundreds of thousands of dollars of easement amounts distributed to property owners, full impacts upon the agricultural community and Shelby businesses, and flood insurance status changes brought about by changes to the floodplain zones.
“I’m grateful that now at least we have some proposed solutions for future generations to consider, if they would take them up for refinement in the years to come,” Schag said.
The earlier MWCD announcement came just shy of a week after Richland County Commissioners penned a letter asking the conservancy district to eliminate the implementation of any and all retention basins, or dry dams, from the Black Fork Subdistrict’s present flooding mitigation plan.
Eliminating dry dams from the flood mitigation playbook would’ve required additional studies and analysis from MWCD before another flood solution plan could move forward. The district, and the Black Fork Advisory Committee (BFAC), ultimately concluded a hydraulics-only plan was untenable due to a negative cost/benefit ratio and the continued threat of flooding.
“Further studies would have been needed and the county engineer and our own engineer have stated that hydraulics-only plans don’t work for flood prevention, only detention and retention does,” said Martin, a member of the BFAC.
“We were faced with a choice of a plan at an estimated $18 million which would be us terrorizing downstream with negligent cost/benefit ratios or putting us back where we started at the beginning of this whole thing,” he said. “So back to where we start is what we recommended.”
Closing this chapter of Shelby’s flooding mitigation journey brought some relief to opponents of the project, including Roub.
“There wasn’t a day that went by that I didn’t walk down the street and a citizen from the city of Shelby didn’t ask me about the flood project and tell me that they disagreed with it or that they weren’t interested in it,” Roub said. “I think it’s time for this, and I think it’s time for this project to just go away.”
Shelby residents also expressed thanks to members of council at the beginning of the meeting for listening to their concerns. Shelby resident Tom Clabaugh said he was pleased with the resolution on the table that evening.
“I think we should be glad we escaped,” he said.
Councilman Nathan Martin shared tentative numbers from two of the leading scenarios from the proposed flooding mitigation plan at the July 2 meeting of Shelby City Council simply “for the sake of education” since the plan is no longer moving forward:
Cost Benefit Analysis
Findings overviewed a 50-year calculation of benefits versus project costs, with flood damage reduction to homes, businesses, agriculture and vehicles taken into consideration, as well as emergency response recovery, property value enhancement, general economic benefits and environmental benefits.
80 percent of the benefits would have been assigned to those within city limits of Shelby, meaning in the direct and indirect benefits Shelby would have bore 80 percent of the cost of this project.
Dry Dam Scenario
• No homes would have been impacted by the plan
• Total cost benefit: $51.6 million compared to cost of $37.9 million for a cost/benefit ratio of 1.4
• Estimated general economic benefits between $20 and $25 million
Hydraulics-Only Scenario
• Total cost benefit: $27.2 million compared to cost of $18.3 million for a cost/benefit ratio of 1.5
Assessments
The city of Shelby and townships would have been directly assessed for the general economic benefits to the region, distributed 80 percent to the city and 20 percent to the remainder of the Black Fork Subdistrict. Assessments would have been collected via property tax based on property value.
Assessments for flood damage reduction benefits would have been assessed only to property owners with property in the floodplain. Assessments for indirect benefits would have applied to all property owners within the subdistrict.
The following monthly cost estimates are based on $100,000 property values and would have been before any additional financial assistance from the federal government:
Single-family property owners not within the existing floodplain:
• Dry dam scenario: $13 per month
• Hydraulics scenario: $6 per month
Rural parcels in townships not within the existing floodplain:
• Dry dam scenario: $6 per month
• Hydraulics scenario: $4 per month
Single-family property owners in townships not within the existing floodplain:
• Dry dam scenario: $4 per month
• Hydraulics scenario: $2 per month
Small business in Shelby not within the existing floodplain:
• Dry dam scenario: $76 per month
• Hydraulics scenario: $39 per month
Small business in Shelby with flood reduction benefits:
• Dry dam scenario: $246 per month
• Hydraulics scenario: $114 per month
