Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

November 5, 2003

Ohio EPA DSW
Public Hearing comments and questions:

Dear DSW staff:

Please respond to the following comments, questions and documentation in writing.

The reason I am presenting comments and questions at this hearing can be summarized in the following way, I am interested in cost effective, efficient use of community resources to provide services for current and future development in this area. I would also like these infrastructure needs to cause the least damage to the environment we live in, and I believe this can be achieved by careful, detailed planning of such services, exploring their capacities and limitations. To maintain a high quality of life in our community, it is essential that the delivery of these services do not waste taxpayer dollars or unnecessarily damage the environment. The current expansion plan does not meet these interests.

I am a stakeholder in this plant expansion in the following manner, I am an Ohio Taxpayer, and the city proposes using tax backed dollars to fund this expansion and the associated purchase of Hickory Lakes. I am a Fairfield County Utilities customer. The city is engaging in scavenging of the Fairfield County utilities service areas, running duplicate lines to serve lands where service is already available and promising service to lands outside their service area in Fairfield County and Canal Winchester service areas. This may cause my cost for services as a customer of Fairfield County to increase and it may harm the revenue stream needed to maintain the County facilities in a proper manner. Additionally, the County has OEPA state backed loans to pay for this infrastructure and they programmed the revenue in their service areas to pay back these loans.

The proposed expansion of the Pickerington WWTP includes planning and has been in the works for ten years according to city officials. But a review of this planning and the parameters considered by the professionals who did such work reveals several areas that are lacking or insufficient. Additionally, the delivery of current and proposed sewer services by the city is riddled with duplication of service areas which is a waste of taxpayer money and could possibly harm the environment by overloading the Sycamore Creek watershed which is nearing its waste assimilation capacity.

part two

I submit to you the following issues which I have uncovered in an extensive review of public records. I believe these issues need to be resolved BEFORE any PTI is issued for a plant expansion. For the sake of brevity during the hearing, I will outline the issues briefly, but I am submitting attachments numbering 70 double sided pages to back up my assertions. These attachments include: My letter to the city about the WWTP expansion, the reply from the city to my questions and comments from Fairfield County Utilities Director, Kerry Hogan, regarding the inaccuracy of the statements the city made in the reply, copies of pre annexation agreements promising services and reducing or abating capacity fees for lands outside the city service areas. They include sworn testimony from the City manager and utilities director at annexation hearings where they over inflate the capabilities of the city sewer system to serve lands in our community. Also included are copies of letters from the former mayor to the Village of Canal Winchester, which show disregard and violation of the parameters of the water and sewer agreement with this village, and a letter canceling the water and sewer agreement. Newspaper articles reporting on the results of environmental studies establishing a connection of the city water well field at Diley Road where the level of water draw the city pumps would damage the aquifer supplying the surface water for the Pickerington Ponds Wildlife Refuge. Copies of contracts and purchase orders executed by the city to produce the Pickerington Communicator newsletter using sewer and water funds to pay for this publication and mailing of such publication to residents of the city. The Communicator does not talk about water or sewer issues in any detail in much of its contents.

1. The city has a track record of a pattern of duplication of services and has shown intent to continue this duplication. On SR 256 there are city waterlines on the West Side of the road and County water lines on the east side. The county lines were in place and operational well before the city installed duplicate lines. The city constructed an expensive sanitary force main to serve lands on the West Side of SR 256 called the Cross Creek sewer, even though service was available to these lands from Fairfield County lines right across the street and on the Western Corner of SR 256 and Refugee Road as the County serves the Big Bear Plaza. The city has entered into preannexation agreements promising service to areas outside the service area they are presenting to you in the expansion plan. These contractual agreements obligate the city to abate or reduce many millions of dollars of capacity fees and provide free installation of service the annexing landowners, even though their land is in the Fairfield County or Canal Winchester service areas. When asked to provide a reason for these agreements and their intent to serve these lands outside the service area the city states they are not going to serve these lands. When questioned as to why they executed these agreements and gave the inducements if they had no intention of serving this area, and to provide written cancellation or other information regarding these agreements, none has been presented thus far by any city official or their representatives. See original letter to city attachment A and also Attachments B and C.

part three


2. The rated capacity of the plant is 1.8 million gallons per day; currently it is stated that the plant has an operational capacity of 1.2 million gallons per day. Part of the plant is not being used. It has been estimated that it would cost one million dollars to bring this unused part of the plant up to standards and for it to be operational. Why doesn't the city investigate upgrading this part of the plant for the .6 million gallon per day increase it would provide under the current permit, until the public and new government can determine if in fact this 3.5 million gallon expansion is needed and if in fact the current residents can afford to support the infrastructure needs of the 4000 new homes required to fund the expansion.


3. The city does not have agreements with other sewerage providers promoting non duplicity of services. The agreement that they do have with Canal Winchester has been breached in several cases. They state publicly that they are in talks with Fairfield County about these issues when in fact the County says such talks are not ongoing and broke off nearly one year ago. Area wide planning has not been completed nor does it include Fairfield County in any written agreements with the city. See Fairfield County response to City/Zande letter attachment A

4. The OEPA is aware that the city has allowed developers to extend city sewer lines in developments which will require service capacities far and above the current and new requested limits of the WWTP without EPA approval. The OEPA estimates that the line extensions could account for 4.5 million gallons per day of discharge to the city plant. The city acknowledges the plant can only expand to 3.5 million gallons per day on this watershed. The extension of these lines with out OEPA approval or constructed capacity to serve these lands on the city system should not be a reason to allow the expansion. This would reward the city?’s blatant disregard for proper capacity planning and service allocation. The City manager and utilities director submitted sworn testimony in an annexation hearing that the city has the sewer capacity to serve lands outside of the now ?“infill type?” service area they have submitted to the OEPA for this project. (see attachment B) The fact appears to be that even with this expansion; the city will not have the capacity to serve these areas. Why do the city manager and service director promise service to many lands when the capability to do such is not and will not be there? How can they operate the current plant efficiently if they do not know what the capabilities of the plant are as evidenced by this sworn testimony?

part 4


5. The study done by RG Zande used an average of 250 building permits per year to determine the maximum capacity needed for the plant expansion. I believe this data is flawed even if it is an average given the proposed cost of the expansion and present city actions. The city has processed over 600 building permits in 2003. There appears to be no control or planning on how many sewer hook ups they allow per year, given the current plant capacity which they claim is nearing full capacity. Despite the city?’s public and private claims of an effective growth management plan being in place, this plan does not exist as evidenced by the uncontrolled issuance of these permits in 2003.

7. Can the city meet the stringent De Minimus Standards required by this permit and how will the OEPA ensure these standards are met? The water quality of Sycamore Creek is poor now; any reduction of the possible increase in pollution by a smaller plant or no expansion would benefit the environment.

8. The plant capacity at 3.5 million gallons per day will require water well field pumping capacity to provide this amount of servicing water to flow through the plant. In the Spring of 2001, the city in conjunction with Metro Parks conducted a study to determine if the city well field on Diley Road was connected to the aquifer of the Pickerington Ponds and if in fact that pumping at this level would lower the water level in the aquifer that feeds the ponds. The results from two different engineering studies were reported publicly that the ?“engineers agreed?” that the maximum that should be pumped at the Diley Road wells is 2.2 million gallons per day in order not to negatively impact the water levels at the Pickerington Ponds Wildlife Refuge. R.D Zande conducted the city study of this issue and Burgess and Niple was retained by Metro Parks. R.D Zande now states that that this testing did not show that the well field on Diley Road has any effect on the Pickerington Ponds water level and the underlying aquifer contrary to what was reported to the public. Why the different assessment of this issue now from R.D Zande? Does the city plan to harm the Pickerington Ponds aquifer by pumping 3.5 million gallons per day from the Diley well field in order to support this increased sewer capacity and future development? I do not think the city should engage in any practice which will harm one of the last ?“green islands?” of nature in our sprawling area in order to support any future development and should investigate establishment of a water well field to serve their needs which is not connected to the Pickerington Ponds aquifer. See attachment G.



9. If the PTI is issued by your agency, how long is it good for? Could the same PTI be used to construct a plant expansion that is smaller? What is the rush to get the permit and begin construction by January 1st especially given the election results and the possible will of the residents not to expand the plant in this manner? Could the city apply for funding of a reduced expansion from the OEPA at a different time?