PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE
MINUTES
JULY 18,
2006
The meeting was called to
order by Chairman Fogt at 7:00
p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Dan Fogt, Mark
Reams, Ed Pleasant
OTHERS PRESENT: Mayor Kruse, Phil Roush, Tracie Davies,
Allen Shaw, Ray Fleming, Sherry Fleming, Paul Isaacs, Dot DeMuth, Jim Wing, Kevin Kern, Joel
Allen
AGENDA:
·
Shepherd’s Landing Water
and Sewer
Mr. Ray Fleming acted as
the spokesperson for the neighborhood.
He read through a list of events.
1995 – Sketch Plan for Shepherd’s Landing was for cluster housing. Did not have
subdivided lots initially.
At that time, inspections of water and sewer lines were made and approved
by the City and paid for by developer Paul Isaacs. Two homes were built under that concept,
Kevin Kerns and Dot DeMuth.
1999 – Mr. Isaacs changed from the cluster-home concept and requested a
PUD at which time the lots were subdivided. A request was made of the City to accept
the development. The requestors on
the final plat were shown as Mr. Kern, Mrs. DeMuth,
Mr. Isaacs and the general developer of Green Pastures, Phillip Connolly, with
acceptance by Director of Administration Ken Kraus and Engineer Joel Allen.
The approved plat specifies
that City accept streets. No mention of water and sewer lines was specifically
made, which has caused confusion.
Approvals for other subdivision plans do not appear to specifically say
streets, water or sewer lines – just that the City
accept the subdivision defined by named streets or other means. City Administration has said the specific
mention of streets leaves them unsure of the intent.
Mr. Fleming has talked to
Mr. Isaacs, Mr. Kern, Mrs. Demuth, Mr. Kraus and Mr. Allen about their
understanding of the intent at that time.
All say the intent was for streets, water and sewer lines to be dedicated
to the City. Mr. Kern & Mrs.
Demuth assumed now that they own a house and lot with city-owned utilities. Each of the homeowners who have
subsequently bought lots or homes in Green Pastures were told they had City utilities. Each homeowner who built, paid inspection and tap-in fees to the City to have
water and sewer installed at their individual homes. During all these proceedings over a
five-year period, no mention was made that water and sewer lines might not be
City owned. Mr. Kern recalled
seeing City employees flushing water lines next to the house, which led him to
believe they belonged to the City.
Feb. 2, 2005, Mr. Allen Shaw called the city to check for problems in the
line. Was told by
a Water Department employee that the City had no responsibility for the lines
since they are not part of the City network. He then checked with neighbors and none
were aware of the situation. During
subsequent discussions, City Administration told residents if they wished for
the City to take over the water and sewer lines, they would have to pay for
upgrades to the water lines to bring them up to City code before they could be
accepted. This was to include a
temporary loop of the two stubbed water lines in the current phase. This temporary loop would be removed
whenever the next phase began. The
state of concern at that time, although City tests on individual hydrants showed
good pressure, is that if there were a fire and it was necessary to draw upon
more than one of the hydrants in the subdivision, they might pump dry since they
are not looped. He recently asked
Planning and Zoning employees about other stubs in the City. They confirmed these have existed for
years in Greenwood Colony and currently exist in
Following that, various
homeowners and builder Jim Wing, who owns five lots in Shepherd’s Landing and is prepared to build that phase out, contacted
Administration and some Councilmen and told them he did not find either of these
options acceptable. Homeowners
should not have to bear the burden for any errors made in the past, and the City
should accept the water and sewer lines with no
restrictions.
Mr. Shaw went to see Fire
Chief Johnson and was given a letter dated June 11th from the ISO
with protection classification to the City. Statement indicates Marysville had
received a classification 4. Mr.
Shaw recalled Mr. Johnson saying that if his home was within 1,000 of the
approved fire hydrant, the city would have to take care of
it.
In
the fall of 2005, residents attended a City Council meeting to plead their
case. This was referred to
committee. A meeting was held
including Mr. Wing, Mr. Shaw, his attorney’s representative, Mrs. DeMuth, Mrs. Frost, Mr. Gore and Mayor Kruse. Mayor Kruse said the City could
conditionally accept the water and sewer lines if in the agreement there was a
disclaimer that in case of fire, the City would not be responsible if the
hydrants failed. Homeowners and lot
owners said this is not acceptable because it would make it hard to sell lots or
home in the PUD.
Mr. Fleming followed up
with the Fire Department about the 1,000 ft. guideline. A fireman said that was not specifically
mentioned in the Ohio Fire Code, but it was more of an insurance guideline. Mr. Fleming called an insurance agent
Jeff Wilson, who gave him a copy of the ISO manual which stated “if the risk
address is within 1,000 feet of an approved water source, then the PPC to be
assigned is the lower number” or rating.
This means that insurance companies consider houses within 1,000 feet of
a hydrant a risk. Mr. Wilson would have to write coverage in this situation. Mr.
Fleming measured the distance from City hydrants on
Mr. Fleming wrote a letter
to Administration and Council asking them to consider another solution to
unconditionally accept the water and sewer lines and agree not to use fire
hydrants in the PUD until the time that Phase II of Shepherd’s Landing would circle around and connect
Mayor Kruse wrote a letter
dated May 3, 2006 reiterating the three options that had been recommended by
Administration, detailed the tests, updates and costs needed to make them
acceptable to the City, and stated this is Administration’s position but that
Council could disregard these recommendations if they so desired. Further discussion with City Council
members ensued and this meeting resulted as a means to hopefully resolve the
issue.
Residents feel the original
intent of the dedication of streets to include water and sewer lines was very
clear. If the wording is unclear,
it’s unfortunate, but homeowners should be the last parties who should be
responsible for it or in any way punished by it. They asked the committee to intercede on
their behalf and have these water and sewer lines dedicated unconditionally to
the City.
Mayor Kruse stated the huge
concern is if the fire hydrants fail.
Without them being looped, that possibility exists. He agreed there are fire hydrants within
500 feet of that. The problem is,
you’ve got a fire hydrant there and it’s assumed it functions. What happens at some point if some
firemen hook into these hydrants not understanding what the problem is as
opposed to hooking to the ones on
Mr. Wing asked if the issue
of pumping the lines dry has ever happened? Mayor Kruse stated it has never happened
because in most cases, the lines are looped. City’s best technical advice is that
it’s a real possibility that it could happen.
Mr. Fogt asked if the hydrants could be painted a different
color in order to let the Fire Department know they are inoperable. Mr. Reams stated that would not help the
mutual aid from another fire district.
It would be impossible to be sure to let everyone know about those
specific hydrants. Mr. Fogt asked about putting locks on the hydrants to be
unlocked only by the Water Department.
Mr. Roush stated those hydrants are already painted a different color,
and the reason for that is because they were considered private hydrants by the
Water Department from day one. That
was one of the issues that came up when research was done; long-time city
employees who were around when this area developed recalled it being privately
done.
Mr. Reams asked if the
water line was built to the same standards as the rest, except for being looped? Mr.
Roush stated they are 8” lines except they are in the front yards instead of the
street. This is one of the very few
places water lines are not in the street right-of-way.
Mayor Kruse said the City
is not in a position to sort this thing out aside from looking at the paperwork
that’s available, and it says what it says. The City’s position is simply what has
been stated. Administration feels
the City should not have to accept that responsibility. City should not have that liability
hanging out there. Mr. Fleming
stated the problem is that the outshoot of that is that it is our
responsibility. Everybody that
converted this to a PUD says exactly the same thing about what the intent
was. Mr. Roush stated “everybody
doesn’t.” Mr. Reams stated he was
involved in this back then and he doesn’t ever remember a discussion on the
intent or any discussion of accepting the water line. Mr. Fleming stated the intent came up
because of the language saying streets, which led the residents to talk to Mr.
Isaacs, Mr. Kern and Mrs. Demuth who were part of the requesting entity. He also talked to Mr. Kraus and Mr.
Allen and asked them what their intent was, was it to include the water and
sewer lines, and they said “yes, it was our understanding.” Mr. Roush stated that’s not what Joel
told us. The plat for the streets
does indicate there will be a homeowner’s association formed and when the
streets are dedicated, that plat does call for homeowner’s association to be
formed. Mr. Fleming said I’d have
to see that. It mentions an
association and mentions Mr. Kern and Mrs. Demuth specifically, but it says they
are requesting; it doesn’t say they are going to be forming. Mr. Isaacs said the purpose of a
homeowners association is the desire that everyone, if they would choose, would
put it together and someone would handle mowing the grass, etc.. Regarding the
issue addressed earlier about the color of the hydrants, when it was changed,
this conversation would not be taking place if when the PUD was done, those fire
hydrants were repainted. That was
the only issue because it never would have come up.
Mr. Roush stated, no it isn’t.”
Ms. Davies stated she is in charge of the Water Division and the Water
Division has no records of those being transferred. We would not have automatically thrown
paint on those. Mr. Isaacs said
when we did the PUD, we sat down and asked what is it
that we need to do, what needs to be done on this to transfer everything to
them. They told us what
needed to be on it and that’s what we put on it. You can only put on what somebody
says. Mr. Roush asked who is “they?” Ms.
Davies said the Water Department was never involved. Mr. Isaacs said the City Department, Mr.
Kraus and Joel Allen. For common
sense, who would keep something when you put the whole thing into the PUD. Mr. Roush
stated the position from that time was that they were private water and sewer
lines. Our research has indicated
that from long-time employees that were here when that happened.
Mr. Fleming said somebody
had the responsibility to tell us that when we bought those homes.
Mayor Kruse stated he
didn’t want to start an argument, but the person you bought it from should have
told you.
Mr. Roush stated the City
has other condominiums areas, and they have private water and sewer lines. They also have private
streets.
Mr. Isaacs said absolutely, and when it
changed to a PUD, it changed; otherwise, why do it?
Mr. Roush stated most PUD’s don’t have public streets; they have privately-owned
streets.
Mr. Reams stated the reason
why it changed was because they weren’t selling lots and houses. Mr. Isaacs came before us and requested
this change, he said “look, I just don’t think people in Marysville understand
or accept the concept of building a house and owning a house and not the lot, so
we would like to change from this condo to a PUD-type plan. That was the intent of the change. Mr. Isaacs agreed. Mr. Roush stated when the City accepted
the streets, they accepted a right-of-way that is narrower than our standard
right-of-way; it’s not a 60’ right-of-way, and the pavement, while it may be the
same thickness as the City streets, is narrower than a standard
Mr. Kern asked if the City
Water Dept. never accepted this as private, why did they come out in the summer
of 2000 and flush those hydrants.
Ms. Davies stated they flush hydrants when people have problems as a
courtesy. Mr. Kern stated there was
a problem before that. Ms. Davies will check the records to see why the hydrants
were flushed. Mr. Kern said he
knows that, because there was a problem that occurred and Danny Daum came out and dug up the hydrant and made a big mess in
the yard and said sorry, we flushed the system today and it caused a problem. So
the City incurred the costs that day.
I have record of that.
Mayor Kruse stated the City
was being a good neighbor and trying to be responsible to make sure that people
got quality water. That’s a little
different than what you’re asking at this point. The City will continue to flush those
hydrants to ensure that people have quality water and don’t get sick. That’s a totally different issue from
the issue with regard to the water hydrants. When you take that approach, what you’re
saying is that the City shouldn’t do good deeds. Mr. Kern said on that day if his water
heater had gotten messed up, who would have paid? Mayor Kruse stated “probably
we would, when I say we, all of us in this room would have paid for it because
that’s who you’d be looking to.”
That’s what we’re trying to say now, aside from the tragedy involved if a
fireman would die for lack of adequate water, whose going to pay for all the
liability that’s incurred with that.
If one of the resident’s houses burned down in Shepherd’s Landing because
of inadequate water supply, who are you going to be looking to to pay it, who is your insurance company going to be looking
to to pay for that. For the City to
knowingly put themselves in a position that their taking on that potential
liability is probably irresponsible. He doesn’t know what else he could add
to this, Council may or residents may, but City has tried to make their
reasoning clear and have recommended to Council not to accept those lines for
those reasons. Council can make a
decision from this point on. There
is nothing more for the City to add.
This is a serious issue.
Mr. Reams asked what the
options were: Response was as
follows:
·
Do the work and the testing
to get the lines up to spec including the loop
·
Form an association to keep
it private
·
Agree w/City to accept them
unconditionally with the statement in there that the City would not be
responsible if there was a fire.
For the record, Mr. Fleming
stated when you are talking about fire hydrants, the
Fire Department does have a record saying they are not to use those
hydrants.
Mayor Kruse stated he’s
sure they do at this point, but there is a future here. What happens if we’re out on a run and
we have mutual aid come in from another area? Mr. Reams stated that happens quite
often.
Mr. Fleming stated he has
no problem following the Mayor’s logic about the situation. He fully understands that. The problem the residents have is they
end up holding the bag. It’s their
responsibility to come up with a solution and they don’t feel that’s fair.
Mayor Kruse stated
ultimately that will be developed back there and that loop will be put in. Mrs. DeMuth
said in the meantime, they can’t sell their houses. Jim Wing has all these lots and can’t
sell them. He has to divulge to
prospective buyers whatever is put in the agreement, and it will be a deterrent
for somebody to buy a lot.
Mr. Shaw stated one house
has been for sale for approximately one year. There is very little activity. It’s on the listing sheet what the
situation is and when people see that, it turns them off.
Mr. Fogt asked Mr. Allen what he remembers to be the intent when
the streets were accepted by the City, but the sewer and water lines were not
addressed. Mr. Allen stated he
knows that the street was accepted because of the legislation. It would have been normal to accept the
water and sewer at the same time.
He wonders why it can’t be done.
He knows that the water line is not in the easement; it’s not in the
street right-of-way. Sewage is in
the opposite direction. If the
residents or Paul Isaacs does a survey that’s a legal document and creates an
easement that’s acceptable to the City, he thinks at this point in time, the
City could accept both the water and sanitary sewer. When plans were done, the specifications
for the water line were to city specifications, as well as the sanitary
sewer. The developer, Mr. Isaacs,
paid the developer fee for the city to inspect it. There are inspections records. Everything has been done to City
specifications. The two long lanes
are the City’s maximum for a cul-desac. If there is a
roundabout back there and this had gone in at that point in time, the city
probably would have accepted it.
The hydrants are within the city specifications, within the jurisdiction
of the fire department. Except for
the fact that the water lines are not in an easement, I would think the City
would accept it. You want to have
an easement for public access.
Mr. Reams stated this
development started over ten years ago and Phase I has not been completed, which
makes him question Phase II. Is
there any kind of bond or anything to complete some of these things? Mr. Roush stated no. The bond was only good for a year after
the initial construction is completed.
Mr. Allen stated the bond would have been used to correct malfunctions,
etc. Mr. Roush stated
there are two street lights that were never put in from the original phase. Mr.
Allen stated there was a master plan for Shepherd’s Landing showing all three phases. Mr. Isaacs said that is the final piece
of Green Pastures. Mr. Connolly
owns the property now.
Mr. Reams asked what’s
involved in a temporary loop. Mr.
Roush stated they had not done a price on it and could not recall what it cost
for others. Mr. Wing stated
$40,000.
Mr. Isaacs stated Mr.
Connolly has to loop it no matter what he does; if he builds one house, it has
to be looped.
Mr. Fogt would like to see a compromise. He is hearing the
intent was to accept the water and sewer lines. Mr. Allen stated when Mr. Isaacs came in
to accept the streets, it should have been spelled out
clearly to accept the sewer and water lines. Ms. Davies asked why the easements
weren’t done at that time. Mr.
Allen could not answer that. The
document says streets only. He
doesn’t see why at some point in time the City couldn’t accept it with whatever
procedures. Easements are
needed. If this stays the way it
is, he’s not sure a looping is needed for this Y street. If it
does indeed develop per the original plan to do something, these streets would
be extended along with the water line to create their own loop and come back out
onto Emmaus.
Mr. Roush stated the
preliminary layout for all three phases showed the looped system through
there. The Water Division is very
concerned about this issue. Mr.
Fleming stated the residents assumed the same thing when told they were
responsible for that loop. They
don’t know where else the loop would go except between the ends of those two
lines.
Mr. Wing asked when you do
a cul de sac, do they dead-end this similar
thing? Mr. Roush responded
yes. Mr. Wing asked if they could
possibly be pumping those dry? Mr. Roush responded yes. Mr. Allen said those hydrants are dry
hydrants. Mr. Roush said they don’t
do that in a cul-de-sac anymore because EPA requirements; they won’t let
them. Cul-de-sacs have to be looped
somehow.
The difference between this
area as opposed to other similar areas in the City is
the lines are not in public easements.
This area is developed differently from the rest of
them.
Mr. Pleasant asked Mr. Shaw
if the flushing of the lines has taken care of his problems?
Response was yes. The water
is fine.
Mr. Roush stated if you
want to mark a hydrant non-usable, you should bag it and mark it “out of
service.”
Mayor Kruse stated, “I will
never believe this discussion did not come up and the whole issue of dedicating
this came about, and I cannot go back, because I wasn’t there, and reconstruct
that, but logic tells me that this wasn’t dedicated for the same reasons we
don’t want to do it now and I bet on that.” Mr. Isaacs agreed that the subject would
have come up, but come up for different reasons only from the standpoint of why
it isn’t being done. The reason the
subject didn’t come up is that was the procedure at that point in time in the
City to handle it. When it was
done, that was the way it was done.
Mr. Roush asked why weren’t
there easements showing the plat for the utilities? Mr. Isaacs said he can only tell you
that they did and what the procedures were at that time that requested us to do
and we did that. How can we go back
and change something because of, as you said you weren’t there. Mr. Reams said he didn’t believe we’ve
ever accepted a water line without an easement. He asked Mr. Allen if he had ever
accepted a water line without an easement.
Mr. Allen responded not unless it’s in the
right-of-way.
Mayor Kruse said he had
been through these issues in the 80’s and 90’s, and we had the same water supt.
then as we do now and he had fits over not looping these lines because of the
potential flow and quality problems.
He is convinced that when an attempt was made to dedicate this line,
there was that kind of discussion at that point and he bets that it didn’t get
dedicated for the reasons we’re discussing right now.
Mr. Isaacs said he
respected his right to do that, but the Mayor was not there. If we’re going to deal with logic, he
asked for one reason why the sewer and the water would not be dedicated.
Mr. Allen stated the
question is what can we do now to make these City
utilities. As far as the water line
is concerned, easements are needed.
These are both 8” lines and that’s all that are needed for this type of
development. Eventually when it’s
worked out, you’ll have the 12” feeding the 8”, which is common for a small
subdivision in Marysville.
With the new rules and
regulations as far as testing is concerned, this is a new issue. Maybe a hydrant needs to be at the end
of both of these so it can be flushed.
If that’s not acceptable, you may have to put the temporary loop in. That’s not his way of doing it, but if
that’s what it takes for the City to accept it, so that you’ve got an 8” loop in
it. Mr. Roush stated that would
take $40,000.
Mayor Kruse doesn’t feel
the residents have an issue with the City on this, but an issue with Mr.
Isaacs. Mr. Isaacs asked why he
said that?
The residents bought the property from Mr. Isaacs.
Mr. Fleming said that if he
were to say who in the final analysis was responsible for crossing all the T’s
and doting all the I’s when something like this is
done, that would be the City.
Mayor Kruse said maybe they
did and maybe the reason this isn’t dedicated at this point is because someone
made the determination that all the I’s weren’t dotted
and the T’s weren’t crossed and until they were, the City wasn’t going to accept
dedication of it. That is very
possibly where it could have been.
Mr. Fleming said it’s kind
of stretch with all these signatures on it. Mr. Reams said not without the easements
though. Mr. Roush stated we didn’t
accept easements for the water and sewer lines. The water and sewer lines in your front
yard we have no right in your yard to maintain the water line, because we can’t
have a public line on private property.
If they were intended to be public, there should have been easements to
access those lines. Mr. Allen said
those signatures were approving private water and sewer, but they were built to
city specifications and inspected to City standards. Mrs. Demuth asked why the residents had
to pay $10,000 to hook up to them.
Mr. Roush responded because anybody that hooks up anywhere pays the same
rate as the Shepherd’s Landing
resident.
Mr. Shaw said when they
paid the $10,000, that would have been a good time for
the City of
Mayor Kruse said it would
seem to be the responsibility of the seller to tell the buyer what they’re
getting. Mr. Isaacs agreed to
accept that responsibility, but the issue here is by definition of following the
Mayor’s logic. There are three people that have acknowledged they did that with
the intent as discussed, and those three people have lied; I lied, Ken Kraus
lied and Joel Allen lied. Mr.
Isaacs told the Mayor he should not say that Ken Kraus and Joel Allen lied. They did not lie. They served the City and did what they
thought was the way to do it.
Getting back to trying to
solve the problem, Mr. Allen asked if the City is willing to accept the water
and sewer and what would it take for these people here to make it happen? Mr. Pleasant stated it seems to him that
the Mayor is willing to do that.
The three hydrants in question having liability, if
they were there, the removal of those three with the mechanisms at the end of
the stub to do the flushing and not a hydrant, appears to be a realistic
solution. That appears to be
the area of focus. $40,000 is not
realistic for everyone.
Mr. Fogt asked if easements are obtained for the water line,
fire hydrants are removed and a valve installed at two ends in order to be able
to flush, would this be acceptable to Administration. Mayor Kruse stated as long as the
quality of the water is okay. He
said that would resolve the issue as far as he was concerned. Mr. Reams added that when this is further
developed, the developer would pay to reinstall the hydrants and loop the
system. Mr. Reams asked who would
pay for the legal work for the survey.
Mr. Roush said the developer, but in this case the owners/developer as
far as preparing the survey descriptions and doing the actual work in removing
the hydrants.
Mr. Reams asked if the City
workers could remove the hydrants.
Mayor Kruse said the City would be willing to do that. Mr. Isaacs said he would pay for the
easements if these issues can be resolved and we can go back to being a
community.
Two pieces of legislation
will be needed, one accepting the easements with surveys attached and one
accepting the dedication of the line.
The issue will be
considered resolved when the above work is done.
·
Ms. Davies stated the
blacktop is completed with new ties.
If it is decided to reopen the crossing, it will have to be widened. At
that time, City will consider laying concrete at that
time.
Mr. Roush explained the
PUCO’s position paper where they accepted the House
Bill done by the State legislature approving up to $5,000 for any local
authority to fund safety enhancements on their right-of-way, such as rumble
strips, vegetation removal, improved signage and illumination at pending warning
device projects and passively warned grade crossings.
Mr. Reams questioned the
concern for line-of-sight at the railroad crossing. He suggested as part of the traffic
study, looking at making
Mr. Fogt asked if the $5,000 would cover lights like on
Regarding the traffic
study, Mr. Roush stated the consultant has asked for the traffic crash
information at Five Points, so the Police Chief is getting that information
together for the past 3-1/2 years.
They want more detailed information for those crashes. Mr. Roush said the average is 13 crashes
per year at Five Points. He noted
we’ve had eight so far this year.
Mayor Kruse stated we need
to look at our traffic problems globally, not just one area. If we do that, we are fixing one area
and creating problems in another area.
We’re just spending money and spinning our wheels. The Mayor has asked Mr. Roush to look
at, as part of this traffic study,
sides of those businesses. Mayor Kruse feels we should look at what
needs to be done, then look at how we’re going to find
the money.
Mayor Kruse suggested going
through the trailer court and another one going up along the side of the
building that he owns through Marysville Steel. It would appear the best way would be to
go through Marysville Steel, take them by eminent domain. It would be nice to clean that up
anyway. These options are going to
be incorporated into the traffic study.
Mr. Roush stated the
consultants doing the traffic study should be meeting with Administration within
the next couple of weeks. They will
go through their preliminary plans so that the City can see what their ideas
are. This will help formulate their
final report to Council. Mayor
Kruse stated public meetings should then be held for public input.
Mr. Fogt mentioned a letter that he received from the PUCO. It states that Administration did not
want to put money into that crossing.
Mr. Roush stated that is not the case.
Mayor Kruse confirmed that
he closed the crossing because of the increase in traffic and concern for
safety. It was not the condition of
it. He said he never had intention
of saying it would never open again.
If we’re going to put $200,000 into something, he wants it to be more
usable than it was before. Mr.
Fogt will contact the PUCO to tell them that they
misunderstood Administration. Mayor
Kruse said they had no intention of closing it permanently unless the City gets
something for it.
Mr. Fogt asked that while CSX is fixing
·
Impact
Fees
Mr. Fogt talked with Mayor Kruse to discuss impact fees. The Mayor feels we should wait until a
City Planner is on board and possibly do a comprehensive
impact fee study
Public Services Committee
Minutes
July 18,
2006
Page
13
to include streets, police
and fire, and possibly parks. Mr.
Fogt talked with Wardell
Wilcox and asked how to proceed now.
He said he could take the data from 1999 and figure the increase in
population and try to figure the estimated traffic flow and go with that. He suggested talking to our Law Director
to make sure the estimated numbers would stand up in court if challenged. Mr. Aslaner
was not comfortable accepting estimated numbers.
It
was agreed to do the SOQ ahead of time.
Mr. Reams stated since a good part of the the
traffic study is done, why not just update that then roll that into the
rest. Mr. Roush said that could be
done. That will be considered when
doing the SOQ. Ms. Davies stated
they have several priority projects they are currently working on, and asked if
they could wait until the end of August to do the SOQ. Administration will do research to see
if one firm can do the study for everything.
·
Water and sewer
projects
Ms. Davies said bids were
open for the Water Reclamation Facility and Affluent Line last week. They came in roughly at $60M, which is
$8m over budget. The apparent low
bidder at this time is Kokosing. Administration will sit down with Kokosing on August 14th to hammer out
details. The $60M is just for the
6mgd option. To do the 8mgd is
$3.8M. If there is way we can do
that, they would like to. If we don’t, we’re going to have to turn right around
and start again.
Also, there is a wetlands
issue, .03 acres of wetlands or 1200 sq. ft. at the affluent line where it goes
into the creek. They will work with
Kokosing on this issue. The trunk sewer is on hold until
easements are resolved. Easements
should be filed this week.
Mr. Reams mentioned the
issue of the wetlands at the reservoir.
Ms. Davies said yes, but a different category. Difference is that going into the
reservoir project, City knew they would have to go permitting through the Army
Corp and the Ohio EPA (401 permit).
For this project, City thought Army Corps was going to be the only
process, but EPA came in and classified this wetland as a Class 3 instead of a
Class 2, which was the classification from Army Corp.
Mr. Reams commented that on
the reservoir instead of having a reservoir that is somewhat squared off, we
have to go around. It would appear
to be less expensive to build this here and not build these walls around this
way then just mitigate the wetland because of the capacity of this
reservoir. Ms. Davies said it is a
significant amount of water. The Mayor noted the City only has 60 days to award
the bid until it has to be rebid, unless the contract
is extended. Regarding the wetland
issue, if the City wants to mitigate it, which they are willing to do, there is
a public hearing process which could take as long as 180 days. Ms. Davies noted that with a
Classification 3, they have a right to reject the project. To do the 401 application, it will take
a minimum of 70 days.
Mr.Reams wants to know the volume
of water that we can gain by doing this and what is the cost for the volume is
compared to having to build another reservoir at some point, the cost for volume
there. It doesn’t seem cheaper to
build a single wall instead of three and just mitigate a wetland in a useful
place. Mr. Roush said you would
only be building two. Mr. Fogt asked if we could put it down in
Mayor Kruse talked with his
contacts from Honda. They said when
and if the City has exhausted their efforts, they would be happy to talk with
their EPA contacts.
Ms. Davies stated the
reservoir is discussed on a monthly basis.
It is moving up on the priority list. Hope is to bid it out prior to the end
of the year.
Mayor Kruse stated
Meeting
adjourned.