WHEREAS, the City sought bids for a contract for the demolition of a structure

located at 500 Verity Parkway, Middletown, Ohio, known as the Orman Building; and

WHEREAS, eight bids were submitted ranging from $597,000.00 to $996,000.00;

and

WHEREAS, City Council hereby determines that the bid of O’Rourke Wrecking in the amount of $597,000.00 is the lowest and best bid

The City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into a contract with O’Rourke

Wrecking for demolition of the Orman Building in accordance with its bid therefor

FINANCIAL IMPACTS This is not a budgeted expense for 2013

"THIS IS NOT A BUDGETED EXPENSE FOR 2013". THEY WILL USE THE WELLFIELD PROTECTION FUND TO PAY FOR THIS. THEN WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING TO COME FROM TO RESUPPLY THE WELLFIELD PROTECTION PORTION OF THE BUDGET AS IT PERTAINS TO THE AERONCA SITE? HOW WILL THEY ACCOUNT FOR THIS NON-BUDGETED EXPENSE? IS THIS BUILDING IN THE WELLFIELD PROTECTION ZONE AS IS THE AERONCA SITE? IF THEY SPEND THE WELLFIELD MONEY ON THIS, DO THEY HAVE ENOUGH FOR THE CITY'S PORTION OF THE AERONCA SITE?

This is not an Emergency item.

BUT THE AERONCA SITE IS AN EMERGENCY, AS IT SITS IN THE PROTECTION ZONE, RIGHT? SO WHICH GETS THE PRIORITY HERE?

Codified Ordinance O95-105, 
Passed 10-03-1995

§ 1042.07  WELL FIELD PROTECTION FEE states that

(a)  It is hereby declared necessary and conducive to the protection of the 
public health, safety and welfare and the convenience of the City to levy and 
collect a fee or charge upon all lots, lands or premises served by having a 
connection with the City water supply. The proceeds from such fees or charges 
so derived shall be for the establishment and operation of a well field protection
program in the City, with the purposes of protecting said fields from any event 
leading to their impurification and thereby protecting all users of said system 
from the harmful effects of such impurification.

(b)  For the purposes provided in division (a) hereof, there is hereby levied 
and assessed upon all lots, lands or premises served by or having a connection 
with the City water system a fee or charge as follows:



(1)  Upon all single-family water connections:  fifty cents ($.50)per month.



(2)  Upon all industrial, commercial and multifamily water connections: 5% 
of all monthly charges.



(c)  Senior citizens who qualify for reduced water rates under the 

provisions of § 1042.05, and disabled persons who qualify for reduced water 
rates under the provisions of § 1042.06, shall be assessed a fee or charge 
of one-half of that imposed under division (b)(1) hereof.

(d)  For the purposes of this section, there is hereby established the Well Field Protection Fund, into which all funds collected pursuant to this section are to be deposited.

(e)  The fees or charges imposed hereby are in addition to all other fees or charges imposed by law and
shall apply to water customers with connections within and without the City.


 

Ohio: Middletown - Implementation of Multi-faceted Wellhead Protection Plan Background

The City of Middletown in Butler County, Ohio, has a population of 55,000, and its water system serves approximately 60,000 customers. Middletown's 13 active production wells tap the Great Miami Buried Valley Aquifer at depths ranging from 40 to 120 feet and have a total production capacity of approximately 25 million gallons per day (mgd). The water treatment plant is currently rated to treat 13.5 million gallons per day, but a filtration rate study is almost completed which increases the treatment rate to 20 mgd. There are a wide variety of land uses in the area, including residential, light industrial, commercial, and heavy industrial. Several large industrial sites are located in the vicinity of the city’s wellfield, including a steel mill and a paper manufacturer.

Middletown was prompted to begin its source water protection effort in 1991 by two events. The first development was the discovery of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the city’s ground water sources. Second, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency initiated a requirement that water suppliers in vulnerable areas undertake wellhead protection to gain approval for system improvements.

Priority Contamination Threat

Middletown’s priority contamination threat is from volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the town's ground water sources.

Local Involvement and Developing the Protection Plan

In 1993, Middletown was awarded a grant by the U.S. EPA to develop an educational public outreach program that addressed source water protection. Two components of the outreach program were created to reach a wide segment of the population more effectively. The first component included development of educational materials geared for adults and high school students, which were presented at schools, rotary group meetings, and other events. The other component targeted development of educational resources and activities geared for students at the fourth grade level. These materials were provided to elementary schools in the city.

In addition, the city convened a ground water protection committee to develop a management plan for the Middletown Wellhead Protection Program (WHPP). The committee included residents of Middletown, city staff, and representatives from the Sorg Paper Company and other local businesses. This committee directed the development of all elements of the management plan, including recommendations on zoning issues and development of a hazardous waste collection program. During the initial consideration of a zoning overlay (discussed below), the city held several meetings with local companies for input and feedback.

Management Measures

Office of Water (4606M) 816F10037 January 2010

Implementation of management measures to control priority potential contaminant sources (PCSs) is a State of Ohio requirement. The city identified one confirmed source of contamination that resulted in development of a plume of contamination within the one- to five-year time-of-travel (TOT) zone to the wellfield. TOT is the distance from the production well through which it would take contamination in the ground water one to five years to flow. The city also identified a total of 23 high- priority and 61 medium- priority potential sources of contamination in the vicinity of the water supply.

Middletown's Wellhead Protection Plan, approved by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency in 1997, includes delineation of a wellfield protection area, public outreach methods, and a management plan for the city’s water resources. The Wellhead Protection Plan formed the basis for Middletown’s Source Water Protection Plan required under the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. The management plan laid out several techniques to reduce the risk to the aquifer by the identified potential sources of contamination. These methods included preparation of zoning overlays to aid in city planning, annual inspections of PCSs by the health and/or fire department, prohibitions to keep trains and trucks away from the wellfield, review of building permits, underground storage tank reporting and upgrades, implementation of a hazardous waste collection program, notification signs marking the five-year TOT, and closing of dry wells in locations where storm sewers were available. These activities are being implemented gradually.

Regulations that will apply within a zoning overlay district are in early stages of development, but it is anticipated that the overlay district will correspond to the wellfield protection area delineated by the WHPP. It is proposed that existing businesses and industries within the one-year time-of-travel to the wellfield will be subject to the provisions of the management plan, such as annual or biannual inspection of PCSs and compliance with Best Management Practices (BMPs). It is possible that in the future, certain types of businesses may be prohibited from the area within the zoning overlay district; however, the city would prefer to work cooperatively with existing and potential businesses to reach a mutually acceptable arrangement through the implementation of BMPs that would provide first-rate protection to the city's sources of drinking water.

Contingency Planning

As part of the management plan, a contingency plan has been developed for use in the event that the city’s water supply is threatened or compromised. The plan will be activated if certain contaminant concentrations are detected above Preventive Action Limits (PALs) in monitoring wells or production wells during routine monitoring. Preventive Action Limits are set percentages (determined by the Ohio EPA) of the federal Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for each contaminant. With this system, problems can be identified and addressed before contamination reaches unhealthy levels. The plan will also be activated in the event of an emergency within the wellhead protection area that threatens water quality. If a PAL is exceeded during routine monitoring, the water supplier will retest the water. If the water sample exceeds the PAL in the retest, the water supplier will notify the EPA and begin an investigation to locate the source of contamination so that prompt action can be taken to avoid a public health threat.

Office of Water (4606M) 816F10037 January 2010

In the event that there is a hazardous materials spill in the vicinity of the city’s wellfield, the Middletown Fire Department will respond. The fire department is trained to use cleaning methods that will prevent the contamination from being washed into the soil and subsequently into the aquifer. For example, within the wellfield protection area, the fire department would not use liquids in a cleanup effort.

Measuring Program Effectiveness

In addition to the required federal and state regimen of water quality analyses performed on production wells, Middletown conducts routine monitoring of ground water quality at several monitoring wells twice a year. When the monitoring wells indicate that the plume of contamination discovered in the 1990s has migrated, a new monitoring well will be installed to track the change in position. This policy will help monitor the progress in the cleanup of the existing plume and identify the future path of the contamination in time for preventative measures to be taken. Middletown's closed landfill also has its own network of monitoring wells that are sampled on a regular schedule. Sampling results from the landfill wells are submitted to the water system to provide additional information on the ground water in the city’s aquifer.

For further information, contact:

David J. Duritsch Jr., PE, CPM
Engineering & Environmental Services Director
City of Middletown
(513) 425-7960
daved@ci.middletown.oh.us
Office of Water (4606M) 816F10037 January 2010

Minutes from August 7, 2012
City Council Meeting

MANAGER REPORTS
Orman Building – Ms. Gilleland reported that several years ago the City purchased the Orman Building on Verity Parkway for $1 and sadly it is deteriorating. She was recently notified that the roof collapsed and walls are bulging, causing issues with the railroad. There will be emergency legislation added to the agenda tonight to stabilize the Orman Building.

EMERGENCY LEGISLATION
Ordinance No. O2012‐32, an ordinance establishing a procedure for and authoring a contract Vickers Wrecking with Vickers Wrecking, Inc. for the stabilization of the Orman Building and declaring an emergency. Mr. Landen explained that a copy of the emergency legislation had been placed before council as required by the Charter.

Mr. Picard moved for the adoption of O2012-32. Mr. Smith seconded and the motion carried.

Mr. Adkins explained that on or about July 27th, the Chief Building Official was notified of a partial roof collapse at the Orman Building. The inspection revealed that the center of the roof collapsed and the outer walls are bulging from the weight. Bricks and other debris fell and are obstructing the railroad tracks. Those tracks are an active spur used by one of Middletown’s major employers who are expecting a shipment in August. Delays in the arrival of that shipment could cost the city money. Vickers can have a crew onsite and have the building stabilized prior to the arrival of that shipment. Staff requests that the bidding process be waived for this emergency stabilization.

Mr. Smith asked if we stabilize this do we still have to take the building down.

Ms. Gilleland responded that is the plan, the building needs to be demolished.

Mr. Adkins further explained this is a stop gap measure. It is not on a demolition plan.

Ms. Gilleland said this could ultimately knock out one of our last funds used for projects, the Downtown Fund. There may be a grant out there, but it’s doubtful. If it were anywhere else, we would let it fall down. But it’s five feet from the railroad tracks and right on Verity Parkway.

Mr. Adkins said this is a band aid and they are exploring all options for demolition.
Motion Carried Ayes: Scott Jones, Laubach, Mort, J. Mulligan, Picard, Smith and L. Mulligan.

From the Manager's Report.....

"Mr. Smith asked if we stabilize this do we still have to take the building down."

THREE MORE QUESTIONS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED BY SOMEONE.....ANYONE ON COUNCIL THAT DAY....

1. IF THE ORMAN BUILDING IS DEMOLISHED, IS THERE A CONCERN WITH ASBESTOS AND WHAT IS THE LIABILITY FOR THE CITY IF THE REMOVAL IS NOT DONE PRIOR TO THE DEMO? CAN THE CITY INCUR A LAWSUIT FROM THE EPA FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE PROPER PROCEDURES FOR OLD STRUCTURES?

2. IS THIS THE PROPER FUND TO TAKE MONEY OUT OF TO DO THIS TYPE OF WORK?

3. IS VICKERS WRECKING THE LOWEST BIDDER FOR THE JOB (ASSUMING THE JOB WAS BID OUT) OR.....DID THEY NOT CONSIDER GETTING BIDS BECAUSE OF THE EMERGENCY SITUATION CONCERNING THE BLOCKAGE OF THE TRACKS?

APPARENTLY, NOT ONE QUESTION WAS ASKED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SMITH. WHY? COUNCIL THEME- LISTEN TO THE PRESENTATION. BELIEVE IT AS GOSPEL. RUBBER STAMP THE AGREEMENT WITH THE PRESENTATION WITH NO QUESTIONS ASKED. MOVE ON TO THE NEXT CRISIS. WHY? YA KNOW, APPARENTLY THINKING ON YOUR OWN AND ASKING QUESTIONS IS NOT A REQUIREMENT TO SIT BEHIND THE COUNCIL DESK NOWADAYS. INCREDIBLE.

WESTECH ENVIRONENTAL SOLUTIONS
♦ Phase I & II Environmental Site Assessments

♦ Asbestos & Lead Surveys

♦ Brownfield Assessments

♦ Indoor Air Quality Assessments

November 16, 2012

Mr. Kyle Fuchs

HUD Program Administrator

City of Middletown - Community Revitalization Department

One Donham Plaza, 4th Floor

Middletown, Ohio 45042

Subject: Possible Asbestos Release Threat to the City Of Middletown’s Well Field

Dear Kyle:

I have reviewed the information you provided me regarding the city of Middletown’s municipal well field, the city’s well field protection areas, and current site conditions at the Orman Building property with regard to the existing asbestos fiber release episode.

Since damaged friable asbestos-containing materials are currently present in the debris of the collapsed portion of the Orman Building, I believe that asbestos fibers have been and are being released into environment at this site. Wind-borne asbestos fibers are likely being transported offsite as well.

Given that an ongoing and uncontrolled asbestos fiber release is occurring at the Orman Building property, that the property is situated over the Great Miami Aquifer and within the “5-year time of travel” (for contaminated groundwater to reach a municipal well) to this well field, and that the underlying aquifer is this area consists of permeable sand and gravel, I believe asbestos fibers that would impact the groundwater beneath this property could eventually migrate to a nearby municipal water well. Accordingly, I believe the existence of the asbestos fiber release at this property could pose a threat to groundwater within the well field.

Additional site-specific and aquifer-specific information would be needed to provide a more certain conclusion of probable contaminant impact to the well field.

If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact me.

Sincerely,

WESTECH Environmental Solutions

Michael J. Westerfield, CPG

Project Director

OFFICE 7601 Cheviot Road, Cincinnati, OH 45247 PHONE (513) 353-0700 FAX (513) 353-1701

 

 

It is clear to me that the only contamination to the Orman Building site has been caused by the City of Middletown by not removing the asbestos before the demo and leaving the contaminated asbestos debris open to the elements for the past 5 months.

THE SHELL GAME IN ACTION
   I decided to make all of these documents public so you could see the shell game in action and get a better understanding of how funds are removed from DECATED and ENTERPISE FUNDS.
    This is the answer to our question of “WHERE DID ALL THE MONEY GO”.  I also want to help you better understand why it so difficult to trace the total cost of a project.
    The Orman Building Demo is now being paid from 3 different funds, the Downtown Fund, the Wellfield Protection Fund and the Nuisance Fund.
    The records of the Orman Building Demo are now being handled by 2 different department, Community Revitalization and Economic Development.
   

January 11, 2013
Friday

City of Middletown Council Members


Subject: Orman Building Demolition

ORDINANCE NO 02007-25
Passed 3-20-2007

§ 1042.07  WELL FIELD PROTECTION FEE 

(a)  It is hereby declared necessary and conducive to the protection of the public health, safety and welfare and the convenience of the City to levy and collect a fee or charge upon all lots, lands or premises served by having a connection with the City water supply. The proceeds from such fees or charges so derived shall be for the establishment and operation of a well field protection program in the City, with the purposes of protecting said fields from any event leading to their impurification and thereby protecting all users of said system from the harmful effects of such impurification.
vcm: Since you did no testing at the site you have no proof that the well field has been contaminated or affected in any way or will be in the future.
If this is the legal standard that you want to use for the demo of the Orman Building and to remove $597,000 from the Well Field Protection Fund, then every old building in the downtown area would qualify to be demolished using this same standard. City Hall is well aware of the condition of the roof at Rose Furniture, another city owned property ready to collapse. Will City Hall wait for that roof to collapse also? Will Rose Furniture be the next building to be demolished using Well Field Protection Funds?

(b)  For the purposes provided in division (a) hereof, there is hereby levied and assessed upon all lots, lands 
or premises served by or having a connection with the City water system a fee or charge as follows:
(1)  Upon all single-family water connections:  fifty cents ($.50) per month.
(2)  Upon all industrial, commercial and multifamily water connections: 5% of all monthly charges.
(c)  Senior citizens who qualify for reduced water rates under the provisions of § 1042.05, and disabled 
persons who qualify for reduced water rates under the provisions of § 1042.06, shall be assessed a fee 
or charge of one-half of that imposed under division (b)(1) hereof.
(d)  For the purposes of this section, there is hereby established the Well Field Protection Fund, into which
all funds collected pursuant to this section are to be deposited.


(e)  The fees or charges imposed hereby are in addition to all other fees or charges imposed by law and shall
apply to water customers with connections within and without the City. 
(Ord. 095-105, passes 10-03-1995)

 

Edited by Vivian Moon - Jan 11 2013 at 11:42pm

HERE IS THE LINK TO THE ENTIRE STORY

http://www.petaluma360.com/article/20120127/COMMUNITY/120129563/1425/COMMUNITY0110?p=2& ;tc=pg

Former councilman's lawsuit threatens funding for projects

By Jamie Hansen
ARGUS-COURIER STAFF

Published: Friday, January 27, 2012 at 8:13 a.m.
Last Modified: Friday, January 27, 2012 at 8:13 a.m.

A former Petaluma city councilman who initiated two unsuccessful ballot measures to roll back sewer rates in 2008 and 2010 appears to have scored a victory, of sorts, by prompting the city to stop spending wastewater funds on certain activities which he claims are an illegal use of the money.

Bryant Moynihan, after recently making good on his promise to sue the city over alleged misuse of the ratepayers' sewer funds, seemed confident this week about his chances of prevailing in the case.

Moynihan has long railed against what he says is the city's excessive spending on the $114 million wastewater treatment plant that went into operation three years ago. His suit claims the city wrongly spent $4.7 million in wastewater funds on non-wastewater activities related to storm drain maintenance, without getting ratepayer approval.

Moynihan maintains that such activity is prohibited under Proposition 218, which passed in 1996. He wants the city to stop using the funds on prohibited activities, and return the money to the wastewater enterprise fund, which he says could possibly result in a lowering of rates for city residents and businesses.

My goal was to get them to sit down at the table, stop these illegal acts, and start reimbursing the ratepayers,” Moynihan said.

His disagreement with the city boils down to whether a variety of activities charged to the wastewater fund were actually related to wastewater, which Proposition 218 requires.

The city believes that some stormwater projects —like ones that reduce strain on the wastewater treatment plant by keeping stormwater out of it — are appropriate.

But the city seems to have conceded some points to Moynihan in its approval of water and wastewater rates this December. In that rate plan, which took effect this month, the city discontinued using wastewater enterprise money to fund activities it had previously been charging to that fund. According to City Councilman Mike Healy, about $500,000 worth of projects have lost funding this year as a result. Those projects include floodplain mapping that could affect flood insurance for residents of the Payran neighborhood and elsewhere, as well as environmental work that enables dredge spoils from the Petaluma River to be placed in the interior of Shollenberger Park.

The cash-strapped city must now try to find other ways to pay for these projects. The latter project is scheduled for approval at the Feb. 6 council meeting, though it's not yet clear how the city will propose paying for the work.

Both City Manager John Brown and Councilmember Mike Healy, a lawyer, said Moynihan seemed to be partially right, on what Brown described as “a technicality” around what applies as an appropriate charge to the wastewater fund.

In addition to the $4.7 million he claims was misappropriated, Moynihan says there are additional millions he thinks have been used inappropriately. Moynihan says addressing those funds could take three separate lawsuits, though he hopes the city will return them without additional litigation.

The City Council will most likely discuss how to address the lawsuit in an upcoming closed session council meeting, though no date for that discussion had been scheduled as of Wednesday morning.

(Contact Jamie Hansen at jamie.hansen@argus courier.com)