MOUNT VERNON — Mount Vernon City Council members were left wondering how the city was going to pay for several infrastructure projects after the Sept. 12 meeting.
Monday’s council meeting brought some clarification, but also a bit of confusion.
The city has three primary projects in the works:
• Installing sanitary and replacing water lines on Stump Street/Northview Drive.
• Water line, culvert, and stormwater work on Mansfield Avenue.
• Replacement of lime storage silos.
The Stump/Northview project’s estimated cost is $1.151 million. The city received a $604,000 CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) for the project.
Of the $604,000, $65,000 is reserved for administrative fees and tap-in fees for low- to moderate-income residents, leaving $539,000. Here is the payment breakdown:
• $539,000 CDBG grant (received August 2022).
• $99,600 already paid.
• $150,000 OPWC grant (Ohio Public Works Commission).
• $65,000 Clinton Township (road resurfacing).
• $247,400 water utility (2023 budget).
• $50,000 wastewater utility (2023 budget).
Council passed on its third reading a resolution authorizing the city to apply for the $150,000 OPWC grant. City Engineer Brian Ball said that once the city knows it will receive the money, he will order the water lines. Administration will then come back to council next year for authorization to bid for and construct the project.
Council member Tammy Woods, chair of the Utilities Committee, said the breakdown “gave me much more confidence that we know how it’s going to be funded.”
Mansfield Avenue
The projected cost for the Mansfield Avenue improvement is $1,327,290. Ball said the entire amount was in the 2022 budget.
However, the city held off on the project to free up funds for repairs needed at the water treatment plant. Here is the current payment plan:
• $150,000 2022 budget.
• $483,125 water utility 2023-24.
• $526,117 stormwater utility 2023.
• $168,048 roads & bridges 2023-24.
The timeline calls for water line delivery in June 2023 and bidding the project in January 2023.
“We feel going out to bid when contractors are looking for work is very important,” Ball said, adding that the city will get a better price during the winter.
Additionally, he said excitement surrounding Intel will have died down and contractors who do not get Intel work will be interested in the project.
Water work is anticipated to be completed in the spring and the stormwater work in late summer. Ball said if the contractor cannot complete construction in time for the county fair, work will not start until after the fair.
The city is using the project as its dollar-for-dollar match for federal aid for the planned Northside redevelopment project.
A resolution authorizing the city to bid and contract for the project was up for a third reading during council’s legislative session. Council member Woods said she had concerns about approving contracting for the project without first getting a bid and knowing the cost.
Ball said contractors are unlikely to provide numbers without the city having the ability to enter into a contract, adding that it was risky and “not good business.”
“The contractors are not going to show their cards without us having the ability to sign a contract,” he said.
Council amended the resolution, withdrawing approval to contract for the project, and then passed the resolution allowing the city to seek bids.
Lime silos
Also up for a third reading was legislation authorizing the city to buy Integrity Municipal Systems quicklime storage silo and slaker system for the water treatment plant.
The city received two proposals. Initial confusion stemmed from whether Integrity’s was for one or two silos. After council received a revised proposal during the committee meeting, Integrity’s quote came in at nearly $1.5 million for two silos. Chemco Systems’ quote was nearly $1.8 million for one silo replacement.
Public Utilities Director Tom Marshall said the difference in pricing is due to Integrity’s equipment being an updated version of the current equipment. Chemco’s equipment is a different manufacturer.
“Nobody seems to be able to answer the question ‘how are we going to pay for this?’” Woods said. “The comfort level up here [on council] is if we don’t know how we are going to pay for it, why are we passing it?”
She also questioned why the city is not putting the system out for bid. Marshall responded that only two vendors make the equipment, and the city has both quotes, so going out to bid makes no sense.
Council ultimately postponed the third reading until the next council meeting on Oct. 12. Woods requested that the administration clear up confusion between the two quotes and tell council how the city will pay for the silo replacements.
