Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Greenville Council moves forward with $21M solids-handling plan and water tower bids, authorizes loan steps
Summary
Council approved steps to finance and seek bids for major water projects: a WPCLF loan basis for a $21.13M solids-handling project (3.22% over 30 years) and authorization to solicit bids and apply for a WSRLA loan for a new water tower (engineer estimate ~ $8.5M). Councilors debated long-term debt and rate impacts.
The Greenville City Council authorized administration to proceed with financing and procurement steps for two major water projects, moving the city toward construction while prompting debate about long-term debt.
Safety service staff told the council the loan application from the Ohio Water Pollution Control Loan Fund (WPCLF) for the solids-handling project was returned at 3.22% over a 30-year term, with semiannual payments. The administration said the project estimate including a 9% contingency is about $21,133,028 (engineer’s base bid reported at roughly $17.79 million), producing approximate annual payments of $551,930.
Staff also outlined plans for a new water tower. The engineer’s estimate is about $8.5 million (contingency not included). Officials said the design has been downsized from a planned 2 million-gallon tank to 1.5 million gallons to cut costs and described a monolithic poured concrete design with a polyethylene tank top as the most economical option. Staff said bids will likely come from three to five specialized, often out-of-state, contractors.
On motions: council unanimously approved a resolution authorizing staff to solicit bids for the water tower and separately approved a resolution authorizing the city to apply for a Water Supply Revolving Loan Account (WSRLA) agreement with the Ohio EPA for water facilities. The council also advanced the solids-handling project financing steps tied to the WPCLF loan offer.
Several council members pressed for clarity about repayment timelines and fiscal impact. One councilor asked whether the city should prefer a 20-year vs. a 30-year repayment schedule, noting a 20-year plan would raise annual payments (staff estimated roughly $600,000/year for a 20-year term vs. about $450,000/year for 30-year terms at the same assumed rate). Administration reported roughly $10 million of interest exposure across the two major enterprise loans while stressing that both projects are enterprise-funded (water and sewer rates), that reserves have been reviewed, and that gradual rate adjustments remain a management option.
The mayor and several council members framed the work as necessary to avoid infrastructure failure and higher emergency replacement costs, citing prior engineering reports and recent pump failures at the sewer facility. Staff said the expected useful life of the facilities will likely exceed the loan terms and that construction timelines include further bidding and council approval of final contractor selections.
The council’s actions authorize loan application and solicitation steps; final acceptance of bids and formal loan execution will return to council for approval before funds are committed.
