|
|
Why did the city vote to have a new sewer plant designed for a mere $800,000.00? Not construction, just design. And with this new plant will Hickory Lakes come with it? No.
What's wrong with the design we have paid for alredy? The mayor demanded to have it value engineered to the tune of $50,000.00 to bring costs down. Is this a case of contract steering?
I'm doing research now. Look for Part 2 soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Get your facts straight first
The design of the plant that started in 2001 was out of date before the first shovel of dirt was ever dug.
Second the sewer users did not have a way to pay for it in 2004 let alone 2006 that would have made the waste water utility become insolvent.
Hickory Lakes was lost before Shaver took over as Mayor. The EPA pulled the funding in late 2003.
Not only didn't Parker and Wright not figure out how to pay for the sewer plant in 2003 they had not given any thought to paying for the operations of Hickory Lakes.
I understand that the Service Committee did pass an ordinance to accept the company of DLZ to design a new plant. I believe the costs of that design contract will be around $800,000. Also remember that the city extended the operation of the existing plant by 400,000 gallons per day in 2005. The new design will incorporate newer and more efficient technology.
The only way the city could have paid for the 2003 plant was to sell over 325 residential building permits per year. This year the number of residential building permits will come well below the 100 mark and the city sewer service would have been bankrupt. Since most of the funding for sewer plant bonds are General Obligation that would meant the taxpayers homes would have been used for security and the county auditor would have simply added the appropriate amount of millage onto your taxes to pay the existing sewer debts.
So Doug,if you want more information I will gladly provide the facts.
|
|
|
You took the bait
First, I am not who you claim I am.
I will continue to sign anonymous as long as you do. And let's talk facts, not you beliefs.
It is obvious who you are through your scare tactics of ''bankrupt'' and ''adding taxes''. These have become your signature.
It is not true that the plant was out of design as you state. Again, your ''it's not that tactic,but the result'' way of doing business will not work here. If what you say is true, provide documentation rather than your deception.
The EPA did not pull the funding. Shaver and Riggs both voted against it. That killed the funding and you know it. The minutes reflect it and you know it.
The number of permits needed was 218 per year. Your number is a pie in the sky, scare the public guess.
You are simply responding to the stern letter the EPA sent you. You know it. I ask the webmaster to please post it. It's public record.
More truth to come later. I'm still doing research. Thanks for the quick defensive response.
By Thanks for responding
|
|
|
More facts
Doug give it up.
Even if Shaver and Riggs did vote against it in 2003 that would not have killed the project. Don't we have 7 people on council and 4 is a majority?
The spread sheets that I saw all indicated that the sewer fund would be insolvent guess when? In the year of our lord 2007.
The fact is that Shaver wanted to build the original plant and members of council rejected the idea because of funding issues.
Another fact is that the sewer fund reserves this year were below $400,000 and that created the need to raise the sewer rates.
Doug you are trying to blow smoke over an issue that was poorly though out and you got caught. If you look at the sewer districts around Pickerington MOST of the residential growth is occurring in areas served by either Canal Winchester and the County sewer. So on the number of building permits of 218 that is bogus because the official spread sheet indicated the number of housing starts per year in increments of 25. Then came the two lots per acre ordinance and that killed any additional residential plats within the city's current sewer district. Then don't forget the 208 plan. which was negotiated away with that 1996 sewer water plan. So the moral of the story is that even at 218 lots per year you still could not have sustained the debt service on a $11 Million project without a massive plan to annex and build houses to the east of Pickerington. The new plant is sized to service within the borders of Pickerington. In the next decade that will be mostly commercial property if we keep the current thinkers in office.
Coming off of a binder of living on tap fees and building permits fees takes a time to adjust to the realities of slower growth. What was not said was that the proposed plant in 2003 would have been larger than advertised. They were gearing up to use that 24 inch sewer line under route 256 out east. We know it and I am sure you know it.
|
