By John Estridge
Still in the planning stages, the proposed $2.1 million Liberty water project dominated the more than one hour Liberty Town Council meeting Monday night, March 1.
Water mains are proposed to be replaced in three separate areas, which are currently using Liberty water. They are: 1. Eaton Street; 2. Lane Street, both in Liberty; and 3. Hoffman Road, Duffy Lane, Parkhill Drive and Avondale Court west of Liberty off Indiana 44 West.
The entire project was discussed in depth one month prior to the March 1 meeting on February 1. LTC members hope to score an Office of Community and Rural Affairs (OCRA) grant of $700,000 to offset the $2.1 million estimated price tag.
Discussed in depth at the March 1 meeting were a proposed water rate increase and the town incurring engineering fees before it finds out if the town receives the OCRA grant.
Adam Sitka, an engineer from Wessler Engineering, talked about what he deemed necessary preliminary work and the ensuing price tag to the town.
Sitka spoke to the council members about what the engineering company needs to do now and in the near future to get the project moving. This included survey, engineering and design (developing drawings), permitting, developing specifications, advertising bids for the project and answering prospective bidders’ questions. He had an agreement for the council members to sign so his company could get started.
“Getting you right up to the beginning of construction,” Sitka explained.
After questioning by LTC President Matt Barnhizer concerning when the services need to be rendered and when the money is paid for those services, Sitka gave the prices for those services at $124,000. He said an additional $40,000 had been set aside for easements, but there does not need to be any easements purchased since the project will be within the town’s existing easements.
Sitka also gave timelines on when the services will occur in two different timelines: if the town wants them to begin now or wait until after council sees if the town is awarded the OCRA grant. If the company begins the process immediately, it should have bids in hand for the project by the end of the year with a construction start in 2022.
“In order to hit that, we’d like to get started on that right away,” Sitka said. “We have our survey teams ready to begin. That way the timing of the design process, take our time and go slow now so we can go fast later so we don’t rush through the design, survey.”
Barnhizer said what he got out of the February meeting, was those process and ensuing expense could wait until the town receives word on the grant. According to the February meeting, the town should find out if it was awarded the grant by sometime in August. Grant applications are due June 25.
According to Sitka, if the engineering company waits, it would have to put out bids before the permitting process is complete. Then, if — through the permitting phase — the project would have to be changed in some way to receive permits from the various federal and state regulatory departments, then there would be a need for change orders to remedy the permitting process.
“My preference would be to start out sooner than later,” Sitka said. “That way we’re not rushing design or rush the permit phase.”
Barnhizer then asked how much time the town has to complete the project once the OCRA grant is approved. Sitka said the OCRA grants are 18-month grants with the clock beginning to tick on June 25. There are then five months to advertise the project then the town has three months to secure the financing, leaving 10 months for construction.
Again, Barnhizer said he did not like the idea of spending money on the project before the town finds out if it is awarded the contract or not. He said he believes there would be sufficient time to get everything done once the town finds out about the grant application’s results.
Clerk-Treasurer Melissa Shepler said the town would not have to pay all of the engineering costs at one time but would pay them as the work is completed.
It was agreed to have more research on the subject done, come back at the Monday, March 15 meeting and discuss it again at that time.
Regarding the rates, council member Keith Bias initiated the conversation by suggesting if the town has to increase water rates to help pay for the project, it consider lowering sewer rates by the same amount in order to not increase overall utility bills for constituents.
Bias said many residents do not understand repairs and maintenance to the water system have to be paid out of the Water Fund while repairs and maintenance to the sewage system have to be paid out of the Sewer Fund. Thus, the Sewer Fund could be reduced as there does not seem to be any sewer system projects on the horizon.
According to Barnhizer, the sewer rates are at their current rate for a reason. It is not to create a surplus in that fund.
Utilities and Street Manager Matt Reuss said while there are no sewage system projects on the book now, the present sewer plant is 14 years old and the life span of a plant is right around 20 years so there will have to be some upgrades, replacements and sewage-related projects in the next three to five years, and Barnhizer agreed with Reuss.
Shepler said one thing she and Reuss have discussed is replacing about 177 meters, which are the old-style meters. Reuss cannot find parts for the meters when something goes wrong with them. Those need to be replaced, and they are not cheap.
Barnhizer suggested readjusting the payment’s per gallon rate of the sewage part of the bill and see if that would even out the bill. But he did not know if the town could even do that without putting the Sewage Fund at risk.
Bias said he does not care what type of means are used to lower one side of the bill, but would just like to see one reduced while the other is increased. Bias then said after the proposed water project is paid off and a sewer project started, maybe the town could then reduce the water rate while increasing the sewage rate.
It will also be further discussed at a later meeting.
