May 19, 2008

Planning Commission Minutes

Present:  Randy Leiker, Mike Woods, Jim Cotter, Ken Zilisch, Greg Kippenhan, Andy Peters, Dan Garber, Sue Behm, Dave Tebo.

Greg Kippenhan made a motion to approve the April meeting minutes.  Mike Woods seconded the motion and it was carried.

Nick VandeHey reviewed Stormwater pollutant loads from a previous meeting.  The permit the Town now holds covers the urbanized part of Town.  This permit was received on December 15, 2006.   It includes gutters, ditches, channels, streets, catch basins, etc.  We needed to keep our eyes on this and treat it appropriately.  We needed to do a computer modeling (SLAMM) and achieve a 20% TSS (total suspended solids) reduction by December 15, 2008.  The farmers have a certain amount of loading to be responsible for, towns, industry, and wastewater treatment plants, etc. are also responsible for a certain amount of loading.   All of this gets added up together and this determines how much is coming down.  Each area needs to determine how much they need to reduce the loading.   The DOT takes care of State and County roads.  Those are taken out of the town portion.  The Airport was taken out of the Town portion.

Best management practices– swales help clean up and curb and gutter helps.  All the ponds help us get to the 40% reduction which is required by March 10, 2013.  The Lions Park pond was pulled out.  It will be added back in when it is built.    We currently meet our 2008 goal and we are 10% closer to our next goal set by the State.

Nick then presented some alternatives to help us reach the 40% reduction goal.

Alternative #1 – 40% TSS reduction. 
The Airport does not like to see wet ponds in the airport flight path area.  The airport area goes in a circle around the airport.  

Nick stated he usually starts with how we can reduce as cheaply as we can.  They evaluated 40 potential ponds and did a cost estimate.  The cost estimate Includes construction, contingencies, and land acquisition costs, etc.  They used $30,000 per acre for urban areas and used $50,000 per acre for commercial and industrial property.    Using 4 ponds will be the most cost effective.  In this alternative, the first pond would be at Jennerjohn Park.   This scored well because there is no land acquisition.  There are consequences to having a pond in a park.  The public may protest.  As you go down the list, the ponds get more expensive.  Jennerjohn is the cheapest.  The second one is the Ameritech pond by highways 76 & 15.  There is another one by the school property and Appletree Court.   

Generally they do not put a pond where there are wetlands.  This is only conceptual right now.  It would have to be thoroughly checked first.  There could be contaminated soils in any location.    Trees may need to be factored in to the social aspect of this.  Some people do not want to see the trees destroyed.   We need to look at the core developed areas for being cost effective.   

They typically have high acquisition costs.   There is a pond by the Business Park by Quality Drive and another one in that area called the Wisconsin Avenue pond.

The cost for alternative #1 in capital costs is $2,022,000. The operation & maintenance costs over 20 years for the 4 ponds are $2,050,022 using best management practices.  The annual total cost in $/lbs is $.54/lb.

Alternative #2  - This option lost the Wisconsin Avenue and Quality Drive ponds.  The Northeast pond is now in the mix.  The cost for this alternative is $2,007,000.  Operation & maintenance costs over 20 years are $2,150,726.  The annual total cost is .56/lb.

Alternative #3 – Jennerjohn and Ameritech are back in the mix and the Rickey Lane pond is added.  They tried to keep the airport flight path open with this alternative.  It does have a higher cost at $2,281,000.  The total operation & maintenance cost over 20 years is $2, 146,356.  The total annual cost is .60/lb for sediment removal. 

Alternative #4 – in this alternative, they threw some bio-filtration into mix along with the ponds.  A pond was added down by the Miller property.  They added a bio-filter at the Buss Electric site and two other sites.  A bio-filter site does not have open water.  They found this evaluation more expensive in cost versus benefit.  Route 15 presently has two bio-filters.    The cost on this alternative is 2,625,000.  Operation & maintenance costs over 20 years are $2,337.015 or .68/lb for the total annual cost.

Nick stated we can keep going down the list and assembling a plan that works. Bio-filters are more prone to clogging than ponds.

What is the practice for cleaning a pond?  The state is trying to address this as to what to do with the sediment.  With a business you could have spills.  You may have to sample sediment to see what is in there.  Residential areas could be high in phosphorus but may be low in metals.  The State does not have all the answers yet.  It is a perpetual changing thing. 

Now we need to decide what direction we are going in.  The next steps should be land acquisition.   If the land we want is not for sale, the pond site may no longer be valid.  Is there a wetland there?  Is there contaminated soil there?   We then need to get rid of those sites and move to the next area.  A pond could be overbuilt.  Then as development happens, they can be billed for part of the cost.

Jim Cotter made a motion to adjourn the meeting.  Mike Woods seconded the motion and it was carried and closed at 7:10.

Deborah Wagner,
Town Clerk