Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

My comments at the OEPA hearing

I appreciate Ms. Ross taking the time to give you her very detailed and in-depth view of the sewer & water situation in our area. As she is, the untrue statements that local officials espouse perturb me. I?’m aware that it is difficult to report on such issues without taking up a great deal of space in a newspaper, however I believe this issue is worth the ink & paper.

At the Aug. 29th hearing there were few speakers and NO public statements from Pickerington City Officials. The City?’s Service Director was in attendance, but passed twice on making any comments that others in attendance could hear. Earlier information indicated that this hearing would allow question and answer, though that was not the case.

So that you may know the complete areas covered in my public statements and the sources of the facts that I presented on the 29th I?’ll post my comments below. Much more additional data will be posted in the near future. In this manner you have access to the complete story. As always the facts on file that PATA has on this and other issues are available to you to study completely.

--------------------------------------

Ohio EPA hearing 8-29-02

Again, for the second time this year, we meet regarding the issue of Pickerington?’s request to nearly double their wastewater treatment (sewage) capacity.

In the interim there have been partial answers to questions brought up during the January 10, 2002 public hearing and numerous other issues that require the consideration of the Ohio EPA before any action is taken.

I submit before you tonight the following facts that have come to light since January.

1. A report given during recent annexation hearings by John Garner, P.E. regarding the 3-year research of sanitary sewer overflows by Pickerington utilities. Millions of gallons of untreated or partially treated sewage from this utility system has been allowed to flow into this states waterways with no consequences to the provider. Where is the OEPA?’s commitment to the Clean Water Act? These sanitary sewer overflow conditions existed for years and with Pickerington ?“purportedly?” being below their plants capacity. Additionally within this report factual information documents where false affidavits have come from City of Pickerington officials. This same type of violation in Columbus has been documented and impacted a decision by that utility provider to commit to almost ?½ a billion dollars in remedies.

2. A partial listing of damages and costs to repair those damages from sewage back-ups. POs #ing (17) 26501, 28182, 27491, 273117, 28978, 28995, 28923, 28359, 28364, 28584, 28712, 29130, 29131, 29132, 29190, 26587, 26501, -- funds used from this municipalities Sewer fund to repair damages caused to homeowners exceeding $40,000.00 In a memorandum dated 12/01/00 rather than repair / replace the sewer jet to the estimate of $14,000.00 it was suggested to hire the work outside.


3. A partial listing of Pickerington?’s usage of funds from water & sewer accounts to annexing individuals POs #ing (6) 27206, 27216, 28004, 28170, 29495, 28174 to the estimate of $98,500.00 for preferential pricing of free or reduced taps of sewer & water.

4. A partial listing of easement payments to provide sewer to the ?“Parade of Homes?” site POs #ing (3) 29072, 29073, 30194 to the estimated costs of $6,400.00 from the sewer funds paid by users.


5. A partial listing of sewer & water fund dollars paid to attorneys for legal opinions and other issues. POs #ing (5) 26626, 26626, 27069, 28071, 26444 to an estimate of $82,000.00 from the sewer and water funds.

Summarizing ?– that amounts to an estimated $226,900.00 in costs of free or reduced tap fees, legal bills, damages correcting raw sewage in basements and easement agreements to add more homes rather than a $14,000.00 bill to upkeep equipment.

(continued)

OEPA hearing comments -continued

It is well documented in the records of recent annexation hearings and court issues in Fairfield County that City of Pickerington official have entered into contractual agreements to annex additional lands zoning yet more houses with an estimated cost of lost revenue between $2 ?– 3 million dollars in tap fees. Many of these agreements will cost enormous sums of lost revenue to existing utility systems and their users throughout this region that have adequate capacity.

This is exactly the type of taxpayer waste that the newly revised 201/208 plans were supposed to prevent. However, we find ourselves here tonight with Pickerington utilities begging for additional capacity all the while Pickerington City officials hurry through every plat plan and zoning request possible. These same officials are all to well aware that the residents of this community have initiatives coming to this falls ballot to curb these excesses.

Does the Ohio EPA intend to condone and encourage the systems abuses of the Pickerington utility system with their clear violations of the Clean Water Act?

Does the Ohio EPA encourage the duplication of services that already exists in part of our area and will surely metastasize if Pickerington officials have their way clearly in opposition to he Director?’s statements contained within the revised 201/208 plans? I am including with my comments a copy of the maps delineating one of the other (Designated Management Agencies) DMA?’s service areas for this region.

Does the Ohio EPA believe that the Pickerington Utility system can possible follow the more stringent emissions criteria of this proposed permit request when it has failed to meet the Clean Water Act guidelines to date?

Would a PTI (permit to install) be required to meet these more stringent limits?

Lastly, does the Ohio EPA actions of this evenings hearing, the press releases and comments of the last few months by OEPA and Pickerington officials in requesting / granting this application for the requested discharge permit in a facility that can?’t possibly accommodate these volumes mentioned predetermine the outcome of said PTI before any hearing has taken place on that issue?


Bob Harding
Contact Person
Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance (PATA)

Who provides sewer/water service

Getting to the truth

Page 2 Pickerington Times-Sun 9-4-02 Has City Manager, Joyce Bushman, claiming that duplication of services was not true....

For the folks that don?’t want to read too much ?– please just drive along Route 256 between about Big Bear and Cross Creeks. You?’ll see fire hydrants on both sides of the road. The ones to the east are Fairfield County water lines ?– the ones to the west are City of Pickerington water lines. The County lines were established much earlier. So there is the simple version of dismissing Ms. Bushman?’s statement.

Now the more detailed information -

Excerpts from John Garner?’s testimony about ability to provide sewer & water services to lands Pickerington is attempting to annex. So that the readers are aware one of the conditions of annexation is the ability to provide services (not just limited to sewer & water).

Sections of the John Garner report given during testimony of recent annexation hearings. Mr. Garner has a B.S. and M.S. from the Case Institute and over 40 years of experience in the field of water pollution control and water system supply in both the public and private sectors. His full report is some 18+ pages. The information contained in this report is based on records and information provided by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA), Fairfield County and the Township as a part of these annexation proceedings.

pg ?– 4 ?– section 4. The proposed annexation area is presently served by Fairfield County water pollution control and water supply systems.

pg ?–2- # 8. OEPA has approved the County's existing sanitary sewer system serving the proposed annexation areas, but has not approved the City's system to do so.

pg ?–8- The County?’s sanitary sewers within the proposed annexation area were constructed in accordance with detailed construction plans approved by the OEPA, which indicates OEPA approval of the County serving this area with sanitary sewer.

pg. ?–12- OEPA has not been able to provide any City sanitary sewer master plans that would indicate that the proposed annexation area was ever intended to be served by the City?’s sanitary sewer system.

Ms. Bushman also states on pg ?–1- of the same paper that the request to expand the sewer plant is an ?“orderly planned expansion?” as well as it?’s part of the city?’s growth management plan.

Did she just forget to advise the OEPA of this plan so that Mr. Garner could have reviewed these documents also? Could it be that the City didn?’t feel it was important to involve the OEPA in its future plans ahead of time?

Back to page 2.. another gem of an assertion from Ms. Bushman. Pickerington should not be responsible for others ?“speculative plants?”. Was Canal Winchester ?“speculative?” when then entered into a contractual obligation with Pickerington for cooperative efforts to provide sewer & water in some sections of our region, upsize there plant for this cooperative effort ?– only to have Pickerington Law Director, Bob Mapes, write a letter voiding said agreement? How speculative was it for the County to add capacity, line, plants to areas Pickerington attempted to seize through annexations by offering sewer & water tap deals before the city built their plants?

Costly duplication of services

Getting to the truth

More John Garner report material.

The City has entered into various Pre-annexation Agreements, containing a wide variety of zoning and financial conditions including the reduction or waving of tap fees, with many of the proposed annexation property owners that include the following: -pg. 4


Bates and Evans 5.657 acres 1. City will provide water service to Evans home at its sole cost and expense. 2. City will waive tap/connection fee.

Next parcels comprise the 362 acres Northern annexation

Virginia Homes Ltd. 48.128 acres 2. City will provide water/sewer service. 3. City will charge Virginia Homes water/sewer tap fees of $1,900/$2,460 (this is less than current rates). 4. Tap fees will increase no more than 3 percent a year per tap after January 1, 2003.
Dominion Homes 2. City agrees that County can continue to provide water and sewer, but at the election of Dominion the City will provide water and sewer. 3. If the City takes over portion of County water and sewer lines Dominion will receive the benefit of whichever rate is cheaper.
Ebright 8.66 acres 1. City will reimburse Ebright for the cost of one residential water and ewer tap for each of the 4 parcels on the property.
Gillilan Family Limited Partnership 6.5 acres 1. City will reimburse Gillilan for one new water tap up to a 2-inch line and a like sanitary sewer tap to the Gillilan property, as well as the cost of running any necessary line to bring sanitary sewer to Gillilan?’s property line to a maximum of $70,000.00
pg. 5

316 acre Southern annexation

8185 Farms 222 acres 1. City will furnish water service. 2. City will reduce tap/connection fee by $1,000 per tap for connection of all homes to the City?’s water system.
Craig and Smith 68 acres 1. City will reimburse for the cost of 3 water and sanitary sewer tap/capacity fees. 3. City will reimburse for 1 residential water and sanitary sewer tap/capacity fee to the home.
Donley 73.8 acres 1. City will provide water service. 2. City will reduce tap/capacity fees by $1,000 per tap for 310 residential water taps; such taps will be capped at the 2001 rate of $2,687.81 and shall not be increased. 3. Should Donley be unable to use such tap on the annexed property Donley may use any or all such residential water taps on such other property as Donley may control within the City ?– such water taps shall be assignable by Donley at their election.

The considerable financial relief to the sanitary sewer and water supply fees summarized above will necessarily be at the expense of other property owners ?– or current and / or future water pollution control and water supply customers. Assuming that existing rates and fees are fair, reasonable and necessary, because they were established through a public governmental process someone will have to assume the burden caused by the above multitude of financial fee reductions.
pgs 4-5

Now the Summary section page ?–2-

5. It would be a waste of limited taxpayers' monies for the City to duplicate the existing County water pollution control and water supply facilities in the proposed annexation area. County records indicate that this duplication would cost the County $ 5,200,000 in tap fees and $570,000 in annual revenues for only the 316 acre duplication and $ 12,300,000/ $ 1,340,000 for the total 684 acres currently proposed to be annexed. Since State monies are not involved, the OEPA cannot be relied on to act in a reasonable and responsible manner in assuring that there is not a duplication of facilities.