September 9, 2004

Council to use green funds to pay for detention basin

By Robert Mihalek

Village Council approved on Tuesday a motion to use most of the Village green space fund to build a detention basin on the Glass Farm to manage stormwater in the northern and western ends of Yellow Springs. Council members also said that they would ask the community how to replenish the fund as part of the Council effort to create a five-year financial plan for the Village.

In addition, two Council members, Jocelyn Hardman and George Pitstick, made it plain that they support selling parts of the Glass Farm, which the Village owns and currently rents to a local farmer, once the Village sets aside space for a detention pond.

Council took action at its Sept. 7 meeting with two votes, both of which passed by a rare 4-1 margin. Council member Mary J. Alexander dissented on both votes. Voting in favor of both actions were Council president Tony Arnett and Council members Hardman, Pitstick and Denise Swinger, who lives on King Street, near the Glass Farm.

This is one of the few times this Council has not made a decision unanimously.

Council’s plan centers on a proposal from Arnett to use Village green space funds to build a two-acre detention pond on the Glass Farm, in an effort to control flooding that occurs in the north end of town, especially in the Fair Acres neighborhood. Some residents in that neighborhood, who are downstream of the creek, have complained that their yards flood after heavy rains and they have lobbied Council to fix the problem.

A study by Jones & Henry Engineers of Cincinnati proposed that the Village build the pond on both sides of the creek that runs through the Glass Farm, near King Street. Council agreed to pay for the $14,760 study after it approved the 2004 Village budget.

Jones & Henry has estimated that it would cost $150,000 to build the detention basin. The green space fund currently has $154,000 in it.

Earlier this year, Council members said that they support the detention basin project, and the only question at the time was how to pay for it.

Last month, Arnett came up with a way, pointing to a 1983 ordinance, the “Green – Open Space Capital Project Fund,” whose assets are “intended for acquisition of real estate, either by deed or conservation easement; [or] development of lands acquired for conservation or recreation purposes.”

The Village solicitor, John Chambers, told Council in a memo that the Village could use green space funds to pay for the detention pond. He also indicated that Council would not have to set aside part of the farm as conservation or recreation land since the Village acquired the Glass Farm as open space.

After intense lobbying from people in Tuesday’s audience, who urged Council not to kill off the green space fund, Council agreed to gauge community support for maintaining the fund. Council members said they would include questions about the fund in a survey Council plans to distribute as part of its five-year sustainable financial plan. Council hopes to use a survey to measure public opinion about Village services, including how to pay for them.

Before Council approved the detention basin project Tuesday night, there was a lengthy debate on the merits of Arnett’s proposal.

Explaining her opposition to the proposal, Alexander said that she was “not in favor of using green space funds for something other than” acquiring new green space. Noting that she supports the construction of the detention pond, Alexander also said that she believes the Village could secure other funding for the project.

Other Council members said that the Village needs to address the drainage problem on the north end of town, and they said that the detention basin is part of a larger plan to control stormwater in that part of Yellow Springs. They have also said that future development in that part of town, such as the commerce park slated to be built at Dayton-Yellow Springs and East Enon Roads, will exacerbate the flooding issue.

“We do need to step up and handle the stormwater problem,” Pitstick said.

Several Council members noted that the Village is facing a budget situation in coming years marked by flat revenues and rising expenses as well as more than $10 million in identified capital improvement needs. Swinger said that Council should be open to creative ideas to complete projects.

Earlier this decade, a previous Council built up the green space fund, which was drained in 1999 for the Whitehall Farm auction, with estate tax money the Village received. Pointing to that decision, Arnett said that the current green space funds were “not raised” for protecting open space.

Arnett, who was on that Council, also said that “if I had known then what I know now” of the Village’s capital improvement needs, decrease in population and loss of jobs, “I would not have voted to put money” into the green space fund.

Of the Council members who voted in favor of the drainage project, Pitstick was the strongest proponent of preserving the green space fund. He said that Yellow Springs should maintain a buffer between the village and Fairborn and the Jacoby Creek area must be protected. “I’ve always had a commitment to protect the environs of Yellow Springs,” he said.

Noting that portions of the Glass Farm could be sold and developed, Pitstick said that proceeds from the sale of farmland should be used to replenish the green space fund.

As she did last month, Hardman again called on Council to “divest ourselves” of portions of the Glass Farm. The Village should not hold on to assets that are not making money, she said. The Village, however, does receive some rent for the use of the Glass Farm.

Hardman issued what amounted to a challenge for others to cite additional uses for the green space fund. She said that if the Village has other priorities for the green space fund, Council should list them and ask Yellow Springers “how much of their paychecks” would they be willing to divert into the green space fund. Hardman called the green space fund a “dead fund.”

Several people in the audience at Council’s meeting urged Council to maintain the green space fund or replenish it if Council used the existing green space monies to build the detention pond.

Krista Magaw, the executive director of the Tecumseh Land Trust, encouraged Council to keep money in the green space fund, noting that TLT has “always worked with jurisdictions” to conserve open space in Greene and Clark Counties. She also said that TLT only has about $14,000 available to acquire land.

George Bieri, the TLT stewardship monitor, called the green space fund “an important chip you can play.” He added, “If you have the chip, you can play.”

Gordon Cowperthwaite, another member of TLT, said that how Council uses the green space funds is a “matter of integrity.” Noting that the green space fund is “intended to benefit the entire community,” he questioned Council’s plan to use the money “just to benefit a few people.”

Jean Payne said that Council is in a Catch-22 because it wants to support development but it cannot move on development plans “without fixing the drainage problem.”

Anita Kohler questioned why Council was giving the detention project such high priority. Arnett noted that he matched the project with available funds from the green space fund. But he admitted, “Am I saying this is the top capital project on our list? Not by any means.”

Suzanne Clauser suggested at the meeting, as she did in a letter to the editor in the Aug. 26 News, that Council pay for the detention basin by selling five or six lots on the farm for housing development.