MOUNT VERNON — A Nov. 4 hearing in the Knox cattle dam lawsuit revealed progress on several court-ordered actions. However, it highlighted different views about implementing interim risk reduction measures (IRRMs) to maintain the dam’s safety.
On Oct. 3, Knox County Common Pleas Judge Richard Wetzel appointed Jack Harris of Intercept Management Corp. receiver for the Landings Property Owners Association (POA).
Wetzel ordered Harris to do the following:
•Reinstate the POA’s articles of incorporation
•Apply to the City of Mount Vernon to encumber funds for dam repair
•Apply for public and/or private funds to bring the cattle dam into compliance
•Work with Mullins Bros. to complete formation of the homeowners association identified in the restrictions: Landings Common Area Association
•Work with residents to determine how that HOA will be governed
•Implement IRRMs
The state reinstated the articles of incorporation on Oct. 30. On Oct. 28, Mount Vernon City Council set aside the funds for dam repair and Harris’ expenses.
Council’s legislation authorized the city to identify and contract with a firm to provide engineering services related to the dam and a company to implement the IRRMs.
“Eventually, those IRRMs will be folded into what will be the end result and complete remediation and repair of the dam,” Aaron Firstenberger, legal counsel for Harris and Intercept Management Corp., said.
Harris said once the city and engineering firm decide on the final plans, they will get pricing. He will work with residents and the city to find the best financing solution.
Firstenberger noted that a loan program through the Clean Water Authority looks promising.
Mount Vernon Law Director Rob Broeren said the deadline for a construction contract is Dec. 31.
A different view
Stephen Chappelear, attorney for the group of homeowners collectively called the Long Defendants, said Harris’ focus is too narrow.
Chappelear said the goal is not to remediate and repair the existing dam but to bring it into compliance with dam safety laws.
“The city said it will advertise for bids about IRRMs, but no one has said anything about getting bids for any of the three alternatives the city said two years ago were alternatives,” he said. “We need to get bids on all three alternatives.”
Chappelear noted that if removing the dam and draining the lake is the best option, why spend money on IRRMs? He also said he has seen comments about the homeowners’ responsibilities to the dam but nothing about getting their input.
“The IRRMs are necessary and need to be done as soon as possible,” state’s attorney Joseph Wambaugh responded. “The dam is in bad shape right now, and the state is concerned there may be a problem.”
Firstenberger assured Chappelear that Harris has not decided on the end result and all alternatives remain on the table.
Judge Wetzel said Harris must work with the city to meet the Dec. 31 deadline.
“The next logical step going forward would include reaching out to the homeowners,” he said. “I recognize there will be a cost to the homeowners, and the receiver will do what he can to make sure they are not overly oppressive.”
Modification of IRRMs
The state initially filed a request to perform six risk reduction measures.
Stephen Samuels, city co-counsel, said the city must do all six to fulfill the lake’s role in the city’s stormwater system regardless of which final alternative the homeowners choose.
City Engineer Brian Ball noted that removing the dam does not comply with city stormwater regulations.
After discussion, Wetzel narrowed the scope to three immediate measures:
•Widen the spillway pipe
•Remove vegetation from the dam
•Reconstruct/improve the upstream stormwater pond
Ball estimates the cost of these three measures is around $200,000.
Chappelear said that in response to the court’s desire for consensus, the homeowners established a committee to represent them in talks with the receiver.
“I did not impose an order for consensus, but I think everyone believes seeking consensus is good,” Wetzel replied. “The court has the authority to order things be done in the case. I have been cautious about taking those steps.
“We need to get as much input as we can.”
What’s next?
Wetzel set another status conference for Monday, Dec. 2, at 1:30. At that time, he will review the status of the city’s RFQs for engineering and construction firms and homeowners’ input.
He did not rule on the state’s initial motion for the six interim risk reduction measures. The state expects to amend its motion to include just the top three measures.
On Nov. 5, Chappelear filed a response to the state’s motion, asking the court to reject all proposals and order the city to drain the lake immediately.
