Friday, October 24, 2014

BOC answers community questions on SPLOST

2013-10-15

By

or the first-time in Fayette County’s history, the Board of Commissioners made a public request to all citizens asking for anyone with Core Infrastructure SPLOST questions to attend the October 10 board meeting to have their questions recorded and logged into the official record. In keeping with their promise of openness and transparency, the commissioners have answered all questions in writing and
submitted them to the news media as well as posting them on the county web site
(www.fayettecountyga.gov).
All questions related to the proposed Core Infrastructure SPLOST have been answered with county staff providing citizens full access to data and staff for any questions. Those questions and answers have been sent to both local newspapers.
“We have been truly accountable, soliciting questions and recording them in our minutes for accountability,” said Commissioner David Barlow. “The answers will be presented for all to see.”
Communication between the Board of Commissioners and the citizens on the issue reached new heights with three stormwater town hall meetings and a special email address, stormwaterinput@fayettecountyga.gov, for citizens to ask questions or make comments.
In addition to creating opportunities for more citizen input, the county produced Core Infrastructure SPLOST books with project descriptions, project costs on display at all libraries and government administrative buildings as well as the county web site. The list is comprised
of maintenance and repair for existing county infrastructure in the ground.
Local environmentalist Dennis Chase refused to offer any questions on the public record at the October 10 Board of Commissioners meeting.
“The fact that Mr. Chase didn’t offer to ask SPLOST questions on the record was disconcerting because it was his accusation of our not answering his questions that caused us to take the extraordinary measure of requesting citizens to read their inquiries into the minutes so we could prove we had nothing to hide,” said Chairman Steve Brown.
County staff took the time to research Mr. Chase’s past questions to the county regarding the stormwater issue, adding those queries along with the answers from the October 10 meeting.
“There should be no doubt at this point that we are answering all the questions we receive,” said Commissioner Randy Ognio.
The Board of Commissioners have pointed out that there is no funding in the county budget to make the needed stormwater repairs, resulting from decades of inaction.
Questions
1. Which projects in “The Plan” will “help private property owners with issues on their property”?
Indirectly all Fayette county property owners receive benefit by having safe county infrastructure. Property owners who are downstream of infrastructure improvements may or may not receive immediate benefit. The largest visible benefits to neighboring properties will
typically be associated with the Core Infrastructure SPLOST Category 1 projects.
2. The commission appears to have accepted these sob stories (number of private property owners are experiencing “flooding” issues) but also to have rejected all opinions and suggestions offered by the only scientist (Mr. Dennis Chase) to have appeared before the Commission. (Other scientists who have presented data to the board of commissioners include Vanessa Birrell, Virginia and Georgia Certified Professional Geologist, Certified Floodplain Manager - B.S. Geology; M.S. Hydrogeology and Petroleum Geology; Bryan Keller, B.S. Environmental Economics and Management; Phil Mallon, Georgia Certified Professional Engineer - B.S. and M.S. Civil Engineering; Martin Waldon, B.S. in Engineering, first Certified Engineer of Record for Civil, Hydrology and Hydraulics by Georgia Safe Dams Program; Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., specializing in stormwater and water environmental engineering.) How do you justify that?
The board of commissioners agrees with Mr. Chase that detailed watershed planning studies and water quality monitoring are needed. If the Core Infrastructure SPLOST is approved each improvement will include a more detailed watershed evaluation prior to implementing the rehabilitation. We have conducted numerous meetings with Mr. Chase explaining our current program and program goals, including our permit requirements and inventory procedures. We have repeatedly asked for input via the stormwater town hall meetings and press releases to help define our procedures. Mr. Chase
has not offered any specific suggestions to refining current practices and working with current resources.
3. Of the projects in the Plan that will help private property owners in any way with issues on their property, for which ones will the property owner be expected to pay for at least part of the cost?
For all projects, all property owners will be asked to donate, to the county, easements or right of entry onto property. Direct project costs, however, will be paid by the county since work is only proposed for two types of projects: 1) those needed to upgrade, repair and/or protect county infrastructure; and 2) those needed to mitigate downstream damage caused, at least in part, by “public” stormwater (i.e., water from roads or other public land).
4. Of the projects that will help private property owners in any way with issues on their property, which ones does the county plan or expect to pay the property owner for easements or rights of
way?
As the question implies, each of the 181 projects falls into one of three situations: 1) projects that do not require additional land for implementation; 2) projects that would benefit (i.e., easier construction and/or a better finished product) having additional land but could be constructed within existing right of way; and 3) projects that require additional land for implementation. The question addresses type 2 situations. For these, Fayette County would only expect to pay for an easement or right of way if the “benefit” was exclusive to Fayette County and/or if the cost for the land could be justified by reduced construction or future maintenance costs. An example is paying a property owner to use a portion of their land for access and temporary staging in order to minimize disruptions to traffic and improve construction zone safety.
In the past, Fayette County has successfully improved the grading and drainage across an owner’s road frontage in exchange for donated right of way or easements. We expect that type of
negotiation will be made for several of the projects.
5. The county’s 26 July 2013 press release of stormwater questions and answers says, “Work outside the right-of-way is typically restricted to situations in which it is needed in order to
provide an appropriate ‘fix’ to the problem.” What does that mean?
Fayette County typically assesses a pipe system from upstream end of pipe to downstream, i.e. the entire connected
system regardless of property lines. Often, at least one end of the pipe extends outside the right-away. In this context, “fixing” a problem is typically one of two items: 1) infrastructure repair, or 2) downstream mitigation.
• Infrastructure repair includes unclogging pipes, upgrading pipe or inlet capacity if
undersized, stabilizing eroding areas, replacing failed materials, etc. The location of
the fix may be on private property but it is needed to protect the County’s road or
other infrastructure.
• Downstream mitigation addresses situations where “public” stormwater (e.g., water from County roadways) is causing damage to downstream receiving properties. Mitigation activities include backfilling eroded areas, removal of sedimentation, installation of energy dissipaters, and other stormwater Best Management Practices.
Both of the above items are situations where Fayette County may obtain access to work outside the right-of-way. Although the needed “fix” is situation specific, the justifying logic is either that the work is needed to protect (or repair) County assets or to stop (and/or correct) damage caused by uncontrolled runoff of “public” stormwater.
6. Who determines whether work on private property is “appropriate,” and what are the criteria by which that decision is made (staff follows the EOC/LOC [EOS/LOS] Policy approved by the board of commissioners on 8-14-2008)? Which projects in the plan fall into this category?
For stormwater structures not part of the MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM the County’s Level of Service is reduced to administering Inspection and Maintenance Agreements, where applicable. Under certain conditions the Environmental Management Department may expand the MS4 on a case-by-case basis where:
• The structure(s) (e.g. pipe, headwalls, and junction boxes) are directly connected
to existing MS4;
• The existing conditions pose a significant and real threat to human health,
property (including County infrastructure), or the environment;
• Water draining from the MS4 contributes a significant amount to the total flow
draining through the structure(s);
• The source of the problem is not attributable to negligence of a particular
property owner; and,
• Appropriate easements for drainage and maintenance are provided by the
property owners to the county.
The Environmental Management Department evaluates all requests for a Level of Service expansion. A cost estimate is also prepared and the project is prioritized against others. Projects will be implemented by the Fayette County Road Department as time and resources allow. Large projects that require funding beyond that available in the Road Department’s annual budget are presented to the Board of Commissioners for review and approval as a Capital Improvement Project.
Stormwater systems on office, institutional, commercial or industrial properties are not eligible to be included in the county’s MS4. At this time all projects in the Core Infrastructure SPLOST list, Categories I and II that contain estimates for right-of way purchase are anticipated to require an expanded extent of service.
7. Which projects will not be done on county rights of way?
Please see Answer No. 6 above.
8. How have stormwater management functions been funded in the past, and how will they be funded in the future? Since 1974, staff responsible for these functions has been funded from the General Fund, and will continue to be funded from the General Fund since the majority of their duties are not associated with stormwater maintenance, repair and replacement functions. To date, most repair and maintenance projects have not been performed which is why the Core Infrastructure SPLOST is critical.
9. How will you ensure that the costs for these functions will not be paid by taxpayers (in effect, being a double tax) in the incorporated cities that already have stormwater utilities?
The Core Infrastructure SPLOST is distributed to all five jurisdictions within the county based on population. (See answer No. 36.) Each jurisdiction has chosen their core infrastructure projects to list on the Core Infrastructure SPLOST. The county is only using the unincorporated share of the Core Infrastructure SPLOST for stormwater rehabilitation functions in the unincorporated county.
10. When did the county first file a Notice of Intent for their National Pollutant Discharge Illumination System permit?
On December 8, 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published the Phase II Storm Water Final Rule in the Federal Register. On March 14, 2002, the
Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division notified Fayette County that we must comply with the Phase II Storm Water Rules and apply for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Phase II Storm Water Permit no later than March 10, 2003. This Rule required that the county develop, implement and enforce a Storm Water
Management Program for that portion of the county contained within the urbanized area as defined in the 2000 Census.
On December 9, 2002, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division issued National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Phase II Storm Water Permit
No. GAG610000 authorizing the discharge from Fayette County’s Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System. The first annual report to cover stormwater management program activities from inception was due December 9, 2004.
11. How long has there been a “stormwater management” function in county government?
The Subdivision Regulation of 1974 contained the following: Stormwater Drainage. The subdivider shall provide adequate storm water drainage in accordance with these regulations and applicable county specifications. The subdivider shall also provide for adequate drainage
for springs or ground water. The Development Regulations, Section 3-11, of 1986 contain Drainage System specifications for developments.
To date, most repair and maintenance projects have not been performed which is why the Core Infrastructure SPLOST is critical.
12. What is the relationship between this “program” and the Stormwater Master Plan that is in development? Early requirements for stormwater management focused on a calculated peak
discharge from select design storms. Over time requirements have increased to address volume, channel protection and water quality. The proposed Watershed Master Plan is a comprehensive document that ties together these goals along with the inventory and assessment data of the County’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System.
13. When may we expect to see the completed plan?
Availability of funding and staff are critical components in determining when the plan can be completed. It is estimated that the plan can be completed within six months if the Core Infrastructure SPLOST does pass and two years if it does not pass.
14. Is the county developing a Drainage Master Plan that would lead to a logical set of plans for each watershed?
Staff has informed the public that a stormwater drainage plan (currently titled a Watershed Master Plan) is ongoing, it will include the following elements in some form (the first nine are the USEPAs watershed planning criteria):
1. Identification of impairments and causes
2. Estimates of Load Reductions from management practices
3. Management Practices needed for implementation
4. Technical and Financial Assistance needed for implementation
5. Outreach and Education
6. Schedule for Implementation
7. Milestones for determining if implementation is occurring
8. Criteria to determine if plan goals are being reached
9. Monitoring needed to determine long-term effect of implementation.
10. Organizational Structure for stormwater management
11. Policies and Procedures
12. Total maximum daily loads within the county and their associated implantation plans
13. Summaries of Environmental Regulations (both federal, state and local)
14. Future Planning Strategies (including capital projects and operation and maintenance).
An assessment of drainage areas will be incorporated in the Watershed Master Plan under the Future Planning Strategies element as funding and staff availability permits.
15. If so, when will it be completed? Please see answer No. 14.
16. If not, why not?
NA
17. What is the status of the state’s approval of the county’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit that was in draft in July of this year?
Environmental Protection Division approved Fayette County’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
on September 17, 2013.
18. Work on the Longview Dam is contingent on the upstream lake being deeded to the county for use as a park or environmentally protected area. Has that occurred?
Fayette County has had preliminary discussions with the property owner to confirm that this is a viable option but
details have not been discussed nor has an agreement been drafted. Also, as a point of
clarification, work on the dam is not contingent on the lake being deeded – it is just one option we feel deserves consideration.
19. If not, what is the timeline for its occurrence?
Fayette County will further evaluate the options for bringing the dam into compliance with the Safe Dams Program as soon as the outcome of the Core Infrastructure SPLOST vote is needed. Any option, including a breach with
permanent road closure, requires a substantial amount of money that is not currently budgeted. Regardless of the Core Infrastructure SPLOST vote outcome, county staff will plan to present options in the first quarter of 2014 with a recommendation to the board of commissioners as required in order to satisfy state mandated requirements.
20. If it does not occur, what would be the county’s responsibility for the dam? The dam is owned by Fayette County (it is within Longview Road right-of-way) and we have four options for bringing the dam into compliance, although only options one and two are considered feasible for
the Longview Dam:
1. Upgrade the dam;
2. Breach the dam;
3. Modify the dam to remove the downstream flood risks; or
4. Remove or modify the downstream structures at risk.
21. What would the cost of satisfying that responsibility be?
Staff expects the cost to range from
several hundred thousand for a dam breach and road closure option (which has the greatest impact) to nearly $1,410,000 for a dam upgrade option.
For purposes of the Core Infrastructure SPLOST resolution, staff hired a third party engineer to prepare an order of
magnitude cost estimate to satisfy the state-mandated requirement to breach or repair the dam. This represents the upper cap for what is the least impactful but most expensive option.
22. Part of the Core Infrastructure SPLOST funds will be used to purchase a “Jet trailer” to clear debris from stormwater structures. Where is the documentation of the results of the study of the cost effectiveness of purchasing and maintaining this truck, plus the cost of operators, versus contracting that work from commercial companies on an as-needed basis?
While staff has not prepared a study comparing life-cycle costs of owning versus contracting a jet-vacuum system, the purchase option is shown on the Core Infrastructure SPLOST list because this
option would ultimately be the most cost efficient and effective for Fayette County given our existing field crews and the significant repairs required in the next two to three years.
If the Core Infrastructure SPLOST passes, a cost/benefit analysis will be prepared comparing the two options and this information will be presented to the board of commissioners for a decision.
23. Are there any plans to assess the churches for their contribution to runoff, or to require them to pay their fair share?
All developed properties in the unincorporated county, including churches and schools, were accessed a stormwater utility fee based on the amount of impervious area and billed for this amount in 2012.
24. Why or why not?
Under a user fee system, properties are billed based on the amount of impervious (paved areas, roofs, driveways, etc,) area on their property. Impervious area is
related to the amount of demand each property puts on the county’s drainage system. A user fee was deemed as flexible and intuitively fair, in that those who impact the system the most pay the most. Credits are issued for detention ponds, open space, landscaped areas and other
best management practices, thus stimulating sound development and maintenance.
25. For which projects in the Plan was slip-lining (or other options) considered?
Slip-lining, concrete lining and other rehabilitation will be looked at for each system. Cost effectiveness is determined based on several factors, including but not limited to, pipe size, depth of pipe and
alternative route options. Projects recently evaluated include 115 Heritage Way, two 72-inch culverts on Flat Creek Trail; and Dogwood Trail at Flat Creek.
26. Why were slip-lining options rejected (for each project?) Where is the documentation of the cost-benefit analysis?
These options have not been officially rejected but for purposes of preliminary cost estimates a traditional replacement option was used. Alternative options will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as projects are implemented, especially for the larger diameter pipes. If a cheaper and/or better option is available, it’ll be used. As noted in the document below, one of the biggest advantages of slip-lining pipes is the minimal disruption to traffic on major roads.
April 1, 2013
Subject: Paragon Pipeline Meeting Notes
On Friday, March 29, 2013 several people from Fayette County met with Paul Johnson of Paragon Pipeline, Inc. to learn about pipe rehabilitation technology. Paragon has significant experience in South Carolina, particularly Charleston. We visited two curb & gutter subdivisions, twin culverts on Flat Creek Trail and the large twin culverts on Dogwood Trail.
Below are comments I gathered from the meeting.
1. Paul typically sliplines pipes with a steel casing (7/16th inch thickness typical). The casing are typically 20-ft in length and the segments are welded together.
2. Grouting around the annular space between the pipes is critical to prevent pipe
“float” and water bypassing the culvert.
3. Access to the system is needed from one-side of the cross-drain with clear area at least 25-ft from the end of pipe. Excavator is normal equipment.
4. Paul believes sliplining with steel casing is similar cost to open cut and replacement. Cost for steel pipe (large diameter, ~96 inch) is around $800 per lf.
5. Paragon typically targets projects with pipe diameter > 48”. Technology is effective on smaller diameter but he can’t compete from a cost perspective with other
contractors on the small pipes.
6. Sliplining is not cost-effective in c&g subdivision b/c of work needed to clear pit for installation.
7. Of the sites looked-at, Dogwood Trail is best fit for sliplining, although twin pipes
on Flat Creek is also option.
8. Paul to provide concept-level cost estimates to Stormwater. County to prepare RFP or ITB if cost are comparable to other options.
9. Paul suggested county prepare site (clear trees, utilities, erosion control, etc.) to greatest extent possible. County must also identify minimum slip diameter.
Several inches of annular space is needed to account for bends in existing pipe.
Paragon is a contractor, not a designer!
10. Despite being based in Newnan, Paragon has done very little, if any, sliplining work in Atlanta region. Not cost-effective?
For the file, please add/correct any additional comments you heard.
Subject: Follow-up to Paragon Pipeline Meeting
Date: Friday, April 19, 2013
Paul called to give us estimates on both the Dogwood Trail and Flat Creek pipe rehabilitations with steel casing.
He stated we could estimate for the 72-96 in. diameters from $1150 to $1200/linear ft depending on diameter we decide. That includes the casing, grout of annular space and installation. The advantage is not having to close the road. Steel is a metal and still chemically reacts with water over time.
60 linear ft x 2 pipes = $144,000 plus poured in place headwalls ($30,000). Total for only pipe and
headwalls is $174,000.
Although he indicated he would send me some RFPs he has responded to I have yet to receive them. I will stay in touch with him to get that information. We can consider this option when we evaluate this for the Core Infrastructure SPLOST list. Please remember that although pipe diameter is not significantly decreasing, it is decreasing.
27. Which projects involve replacing pipe merely because of age?
The condition of pipes identified in the project list varies significantly. Not all projects are cited for immediate replacement with the implementation ranging from urgent to five years out. Pipes were evaluated individually and determined appropriate for replacement based on the following criteria:
1) The pipe is in poor condition and requires replacement in the near future to avoid damage to county infrastructure;
2) the pipe is undersized and contributes to localized flooding issues; the pipe is too short and presents a safety issue to vehicles in terms of a steep drop-off;
3) the pipe is corrugated metal pipe, under a collector or arterial and on a stream and is exhibiting signs of exterior and/or structural deterioration; and/or,
4) the pipe is in “fair” condition today but structural deterioration has been documented.
28. What’s the cost and how will it be paid?
Cost estimates are detailed by each project found in the Core Infrastructure SPLOST list that details 181 projects and is available for review on the Fayette County website www.fayettecountyga.gov and at all county libraries and city and
town hall offices.
29. Stormwater fees of $426,570 of the anticipated $643,000 in stormwater fees had been collected as of 20 February 2013. Where is this money?
The net billing for the Stormwater Utility totaled $612,851 of which $449,058 has been collected as of June 30, 2013. A receivable of $163,793 remains to be collected. This revenue is being accounted for in a separate Stormwater Utility Fund and the moneys collected are invested with Wells Fargo. By state law, these funds are restricted for use only on stormwater management projects.
30. Has it been refunded? No
31. If not, do you intend to refund it, and when? No
32. If not, have you collected the remaining stormwater fees? An additional $49,195 has been collected since July 1, 2013 leaving a net receivable of $114,598 at this time.
33. If you do intend to collect the remaining money, will those people who did not make timely payments be subject to a penalty? Yes
34. Do you still intend to not collect stormwater utility fees from residents of the unincorporated county for the next four years if the Core Infrastructure SPLOST passes?
Utility fees would not be charged for the next four years (two years while the Core Infrastructure SPLOST is implemented and the following two years).
35. If the Core Infrastructure SPLOST fails, will you reinstitute these fees, including those that were due this year? Yes, since this work needs to be funded regardless of whether the Core
Infrastructure SPLOST passes or fails. The repair and maintenance list in the Core
Infrastructure SPLOST is directed toward “existing projects” already in the ground. We will ultimately have to perform repairs and maintenance at some point in the short-term, and we do not have the funding to accomplish this.
36. The county estimated $16.8 million was reduced by $3.6 million - how do you justify or explain the vacillation? The final proposed projects are estimated to cost $16,802,091.13 based upon
our consultant’s estimates. The original estimate was based on rough estimates. Since the 181 projects cost resulted in a lower amount than what our population allocation share would yield – the $2,106,885 difference is allocated to the other cities’ share. See detail below.
37. A “special tax district” for “stormwater” was proposed constituting the unincorporated county to fund stormwater management through property taxes - is this still on the table? Yes.
38. It is proposed by the county, to move stormwater employees back into the county’s general
fund budget - Has this been done?
Yes, effective July 1, 2013. This was done based on citizen input during the Stormwater Town Hall Meetings.
39. How many people are involved and what is the cost (salary, benefits, overhead?)
Five Full Time Equivalent employees with a total budget of $334,443.
40. If this has been (or will be) done, how does this not constitute double-taxation for people in the
incorporated cities that already have a stormwater utility?
County Staff responsible for these
functions is funded from the General Fund and the majority of their duties are not associated only with stormwater maintenance, repair and replacement. We are in the process of revising the current stormwater ordinance to reflect these functions. Only stormwater infrastructure
repair and maintenance is proposed in the Core Infrastructure SPLOST. If it does not pass, Stormwater Utility Fees will be utilized in a similar manner. The cities and towns in the county are proposing core infrastructure projects based on their particular needs.
41. Regarding the Emerald Lake Dam – what did we pay for this “guess,” and how can such a guess be so precise as the two dollars in the lowest order digit?
The Order of Magnitude Opinion of
Cost was prepared by Walden, Ashworth & Associates, Inc. for $2,500. The scope and accuracy of the cost estimate was limited by time and county budget. As the name implies, it is an Order of Magnitude estimate. A decision was made early in the project list development process not to round numbers but leave them as calculated from estimated quantities and unit rates.
42. How much did we pay for this guess, and how can a guess be as precise as $2 in the lowest order
digit?
Please see answer No. 41.
43. What portion (dollars and percentage) of sales taxes collected in Fayette County are paid by people who do not live in Fayette County?
Large shopping centers and restaurants across Fayette County are shopping destinations for surrounding counties. It is impossible to precisely quantify the sales tax generated from out-of-county residents. Actual sales tax data by consumer county-of-origin is not tracked by Georgia’s Department of Revenue. However, a
workforce of 22,011 commutes from other counties within Georgia to Fayette County for work. Added to the census population of Fayette County and given an equal spending pattern, the 22,011 could be said to represent 17 percent sales tax paid in Fayette County by outside county residents. Fayette County is paid $20 million in sales tax each year which 17 percent equates to $3.4 million.
Most likely the 17 percent is on the high side, but a range of 10-12percent would be $2 million - $2.4 million which
appears to be reasonable.
44. What is the (verifiable) source of that data?
The source of data for commuting patterns in Fayette County is the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
45. How much money in sales taxes do Fayette County residents pay to other counties?
It is impossible to precisely quantify the amount of sales tax generated from Fayette County residents in other counties.
46. What is the (verifiable) source of that data?
Please see answer No. 45.
47. Can you show that this isn’t just “a wash” (no pun intended), and that it’s specious to say that outsiders will help pay the tax?
We know that residents from other counties shop and dine in Fayette County, but there is no reliable method to quantify this activity. Every dollar in sales tax paid by an out-of-county resident is a dollar our citizens do not have to pay.
48. What does the Commission understand to be the relationship between “stormwater management” and the quality of water delivered by the Fayette County Water System?
The Environmental Management Department performs stormwater management and is an entirely different department than the Fayette County Water System. Environmental Management is responsible for maintaining stormwater quality and quantity through implementation and enforcement of nine development regulations (adopted by the board of
commissioners) and management of stormwater systems and facilities developed over many years. Environmental management is directly responsible for the cumulative effects on stream flow and geometry, habitat degradation and water-quality impacts from development.
49. How many auto junk yards are there on Roberts Road?
Two are located on Roberts Road, there are four total in the county.
50. How many of them have National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits with the correct Standard Industrial Classification code?
Three of the four auto salvage yards have the permit. The fourth auto salvage yard, located on Roberts Road, is in the process of filing a new Industrial Notice of Intent after recently completing installation of three stormwater management ponds that meet the Georgia unified stormwater sizing criteria.
51. Does the county have copies of those permits?
No, we verify compliance through the state on the Georgia Environmental Protection Division’s website.
52. If not, do you plan to obtain them? Please see answer No. 51.
53. If not, why not?
Fayette County does not have jurisdiction to enforce compliance of the Industrial National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, only the state does.
54. Will you make available the records of the inspections by the county stormwater staff of these properties and their stormwater discharge?
Please see answer No. 53.
55. Given these (and other similar statements in meetings and the press), do you deny the use of scare tactics to influence voters?
We do not believe it is a scare tactic to inform the general public when infrastructure fails. The county takes very seriously its primary mission to protect human health and safety and considers the potential for stormwater pipes to fail under roads life-threatening. The county and the news media reported facts relating to recent failed pipes under Kirkley, Mask, Morris, Brandon Mill Circle, Falcons Ridge and Merrydale Roads.
56. Given these (and other similar statements in meetings and the press, as well as the stories related by homeowners in commission meetings), do you deny that your approach is based anecdotes and, potentially, apocrypha?
Several homeowners have come to meetings to tell the commissioners and the public about their serious stormwater problems affecting their property and safety. Most of the homeowners brought their own photographs illustrating
property damage.
Questions from Terrence K. Williamson:
1. Who constructed the original Kozisek Dam, the county or a private owner? According to state’s Safe Dams Program and county records the dam was constructed in 1960. Records do not reflect who designer and owner at the time of construction.
2. Who currently owns the Kozisek Dam?
The Safe Dams Program determined Mr. Darrell Kozisek and the Fayette County Board of Commissioners as owners of the dam. The Safe Dams Program asserts a portion of the dam’s downstream slope and its drainage pipes are within
the county’s Neely Road right-of-way.
3. What makes Kozisek Dam on a private lake a public responsibility?
Please see answer No. 2.
4. If it is legally a county responsibility, would it not be more cost effective to breech the dam, drain the lakes and be done with it rather than ongoing maintenance?
It is Fayette County’s responsibility to perform the necessary evaluation, design, permitting and construction of Neely Road to ensure it safely passes design flows. The county, through this process, intends to remove any future liability/ownership associated with Kozisek Dam.
5. Finally, what element of the county government is responsible for budgeting for these repairs, has any element been held accountable and what steps have been taken to insure future funding - aside from Core Infrastructure SPLOST proceeds which should be temporary?
Ultimately, the board of commissioners is responsible for developing the priorities within the budgeting process. We now have a board of commissioners who are committed

 

Other Local News

Oddos\' Redwine Road property back on Fville council agenda

Peachtree City to vote on pay raises

Troubling recent trend of dogs found burned

 

 

Website design, maintenance and hosting by Sunbelt Web Solutions