Last week, after sending in questions regarding the lake agreement, I was invited by three council members to attend the council meeting. It was my mistake to assume that these invitations would provide me a chance to ask any of these questions at a public meeting.
Staff presented a synopsis of the contract but did not answer all of my questions. As the mayor said, this is the centerpiece of our city.
What I heard from other council members is that we are taking control of our lake, we are the most qualified, and trust us. Despite Mr. Imker’s attempt to bring to council’s attention that citizens in attendance wanted to speak, council decided to vote without listening to its citizens, since the county may not approve this contract anyway.
Council felt only if the county does not ratify this contract should the citizens have their questions answered.
If council wants the citizens to trust them, then allow the citizens the chance to be heard. If council is in fact the most qualified, then any question I may have asked could be simply answered and dismissed and I would have been satisfied.
Council chose to vote without answering any questions. It seemed to this neophyte that this was an orchestrated end.
Therefore, please find below a list of my questions regarding the 18 months of negotiations.
1. Since the inception of the original contract in 1966, the county has had the obligation to maintain the lake. Since the last amendment in 1985, how much time or money has been spent by the city to verify that county has been living up to the agreement? It does not seem to me that any monitoring of this contract was ever executed until a problem was discovered.
2. What makes each of you think that the city, by taking control, can actually do a better job than the county, and why?
As with any negotiations, there will have to be some give and take. Based on my observation, the city is taking on added costs, responsibility and liability without getting an equitable return.
3. In exchange for the county getting the Loghouse well operational, the city will take this over to use and maintain. The county saves operational and maintenance costs and the city now must use, maintain, and operate this well. What will this cost the citizens?
4.The county will continue to operate the dam and spillway; however, in exchange of $2 million for a new spillway, the city agrees to accept all responsibility and liability for the dam, spillway, bottoms, and banks.
Will $2 million cover the entire cost to design, build, permit fees, and costs to monitor and document the construction? Will this same $2 million cover the costs to inspect and provide yearly maintenance to keep the warranty once constructed?
If the city was so unhappy with the county and their existing staff maintaining the spillway, who is going to pay the city to monitor the county’s work for the next 20 years?
5. The city has agreed to exercise its best efforts to take all reasonable measures to reduce the amount of silt being introduced into the lake? What is reasonable? $5,000, $10,000, $1 million a year? What does the city plan to do? Could this mean our stormwater fees will rise once again? What happens if the city fails to reduce silt intake?
6. The county is going to pay $40-80,000 to have a bathymetric survey done by Jan. 15, 2016. This survey only includes the areas in which they dredged this year. What were the original bottom depths throughout the lake? What is going to happen to Snake Island which saved the county money years ago and left us with nothing in return?
The contract states that PTC will pay half of the cost of the next bathymetric survey in 2030. Here is another $40,000 without inflation. What good is this survey if we only monitor every 15 years? Should a survey like this not take place every 2-3 years to monitor how much silt is actually entering our lake? How will anyone be able to tell how well the city is performing their silt remediation if we only survey every 15 years?
7. Dredging now takes place every 8-10 years. Our leaders negotiated and agreed to only one more dredge in the year 2030. How does this seem fair? We all know the costs for this year’s dredge was artificially low. Let’s use the next lowest bidder at $3.6 million. Without factoring in inflation, if we use this year’s numbers, we split the costs of the dredge with the county throwing in $1 million of our costs. $3.6 million divided by 2 equals $1.8 million minus $1 million equals $800,000 plus engineering costs, construction monitoring costs and splitting the costs to rebuild any roads or land destroyed by construction. Here’s another $1 million introduced in 15 years and we are receiving less dredging. How is that equitable?
8. The county is supplying $0 to assist the city in funding for the dam. The city claims it will cost $800,000 to $1 million to upgrade the dam to Category 1. Please explain why the county does not have to assist with any costs for this after council claims the county neglected this for years?
9. The dredging is limited to certain areas. If the water intake is located within 500 feet from the dam, would not the pull of water into this pipe cause silt to make a path toward this pipe as water is entering? Why is this not being surveyed or dredged?
10. Are these terms really the best you could negotiate?
This citizen wants to trust you, but how can you expect me to trust when you cannot or will not answer my questions?
Chip Glazier
Peachtree City, Ga.
