Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

My two cents

Ohio EPA hearing
August 29th 2002

Pickerington?’s needs vs. Pickerington?’s wants:

Currently the Pickerington Sewer plant is approved for 1.8 MGF per day. Is there a real need to expand this plant to 3.5 MGF per day?

Given the facts that much of the growth in the Pickerington community is occurring in it?’s southern boundaries, areas currently served via prior contractual agreements and proposed agreements with other utility providers why is this doubling of capacity being requested?

The Sycamore Creek Subdivision will have 700+ homes. The Diley Farm will have 520+ new homes. Both of these development projects will be serviced by the Canal Winchester?’s sewer plant. This is stated in an agreement signed in March of 1996 between the two entities. In addition, it is my understanding that this also covers the Viola Park development of 275+ homes on Pickerington Road. . Further the city has stated they are on the verge of an additional agreement with Fairfield County utilities to provide sewer to the recently annexed 316 acres south of Busey Road. Including 25 acres of this land per the 2001 Comprehensive Land Use Plan of Pickerington containing apartments and condominiums.

So if we combine the above mentioned projects you can see that Pickerington has no need for plant capacity growth of these service areas that already have utility agencies with capacity and utility services in place. Both Canal Winchester & Fairfield County have already been before the Ohio EPA, they have the capacity and were or are contractually obligated to provide services.

- or are we looking at duplication of services ?–

The City of Pickerington has had a love hate relationship with its neighbors. They try to suck their neighbors in to providing sewer services only to later cancel the very same contract. In March of 1996 Pickerington signed a water and sewer agreement with the Village of Canal Winchester only to have the Pickerington Law Director, Robert Mapes, declared it null and void in November of 2001. This is after Canal Winchester had installed the lines and it was providing service to the Sycamore Creek sub-division. Does the same subterfuge exist in the proposed Fairfield County ?– Pickerington ?“partnership?”? Eight days ago Pickerington broke off what had been previously reported to our citizens as a next to completed deal with Fairfield County.

Can the Ohio EPA trust what Pickerington signs their names too? Can the Ohio EPA approve this plant enlargement request only to support the potential of service duplications and the wasting of millions of dollars of regional taxpayers dollars?

More OHIO EPA nonsense

Pickerington?’s past performance in regard to the Clean Water Act:

It appears that Pickerington has had multiply failures in its operation of the current Sewer plant. This is outlined in a report recently submitted to the Fairfield County Commissioners during an annexation hearing by John Garner P.E. on April 22, 2002. I believe a copy of that report will be filed here today. I want to point out page 9 of this report the author refers to reviewing past sworn Service Director affidavits and records from the Ohio EPA. It basically states that the Pickerington Service Director lied in these sworn statements about the TRUE flow rates of the current Pickerington Sewer plant. Additionally, it notes numerous Clean Water Act violations by the Pickerington Utilities. How can you trust what they say and swear to it?

Pickerington?’s financial support of its sewer facilities:

In June of 2000 the Pickerington City Council passed an ordinance 2000-40 changing the sewer regulations. In their Codified Code section 1058.05 it stated the following: ?“The moneys received by the Municipality from the sewage capacity charge levied under the provisions of this charter shall be paid by the Manager into the General Fund and used as directed by law and council.?” When I ask them about the section of the regulations they quickly passed a new ordinance 2002-79 to amend the sewer regulations.
The City Auditor told me that these funds didn?’t go into the General Fund. They went into a special fund for capital improvements. So for two years they were operating under these regulations only to find out they weren?’t correct. So what was Pickerington doing with its sewer and water moneys during this two-year period? Why wasn?’t the City following their own regulations? So how can the Ohio EPA believe what Pickerington is doing? Is it important to have these funds adequately accounted for with an independent audit for the security of the thousands of Pickerington utility system users? The City certainly isn?’t following their own regulations. If they had been this discrepancy would have been resolved long ago.

Pickerington?’s ability to finance this new plant:

The Ohio EPA doesn?’t want to get involved in local disputes. WHY? It has a direct bearing on how well the area can control pollution of the waterways of this state. Why do these local governments need your approval? If they are overlapping each others sewer lines and duplicating services isn?’t this a waste of the taxpayer?’s money? Doesn?’t this also affect the quality of the water because money wasted here could have upgraded facilities somewhere else?

Pickerington is currently $18 million plus in debt. I understand that the new sewer plant upgrade will cost over $4 million. The water plant upgrade will cost $3.9 million. Pickerington wants to widen Diley Road and that will cost $2 million. Multiple other municipal projects loom to a total of over $30 million dollars of debt. The very same taxpayers in this city are now faced with yet another schools bond issue and operating levy this fall. In addition to increased debt in the near future this city has given developers incentives of up to $3 million dollars. The bulk of the incentives are reduction

OPEA protecting your water

in tap fees. How does the City of Pickerington plan to pay for this? If you approve this expansion then the Ohio EPA will be the responsible for the potential collapse of the sewer fund and the pollution that will surely find its way to Sycamore Creek.

In conclusion:

I believe, by the Ohio EPA?’s approval of his plant doubling request, Pickerington plans to cross into other providers service areas as they have done in the past. In so doing the Ohio EPA will provide the vehicle to waste millions of user fees dollars and drive this community further into the financial hole.

I would ask that the Ohio EPA send the City of Pickerington back to the drawing board. I would also request that you require the City of Pickerington to present their agreements with Canal Winchester and Fairfield County and map out their service areas. I would request that the Ohio EPA hold Pickerington to these agreements as a condition to operate their sewer plant. I would also ask that the Ohio EPA do a thorough inspection of the current Pickerington Sewer Plant, system and lines and their operation. Additionally, it is important that the finances of the utility district be reviewed to make sure that adequate funding exists to maintain appropriate levels of compliance rather than gifts and preferential fees to developers. It is beyond sensibility that current users be charged higher tap fees to provide preferential financing to some future customers. I would also request that the Ohio EPA inspect the records of Pickerington as to the number and amounts of raw sewage backups into current user?’s homes. Clearly, if the Ohio EPA is concerned about the fish and wild life in Sycamore Creek you certainly should show some concern for the numerous sewer users in Pickerington. Many of, which have had raw sewage backups into their basements and the potential that these users should be asked to, subsidize other users.


Ted Hackworth

Why 3 DMAs?

I guess I had the audacity to suggest at the public hearing that the OEPA reject the expansion to 3.5mgd and to suggest they turn operation of the municipal sewer/water system over to Fairfield County Utilities. The County is in a far better position to act as a regional DMA for our area. The issues of debtload and maintenance backlog could be handled in the same manner that South Central Power used when it assumed the Belmont rural electric co-op.