Trending
AUSTINTOWN -- A dispute between the township and a utility company threatened to delay a resident's progress on her new home, but the problem has since been resolved.
Debra Day and her husband are building a home on Fitch Boulevard, right behind Meijer. She said the job superintendent for her contractor, Koch Construction, told her earlier this week that while water and electricity were all set, Enbridge Gas Ohio had not installed her service line and it seemed as though they might not do it at all.
The problem arose from Enbridge's objections to new right-of-way permitting standards imposed by Austintown and several other local government entities. Day said she contacted Township Administrator Mark D'Apolito, who explained the rationale behind the township's decision.
"It was explained to me that Enbridge was refusing to pay permitting fees," Day said. "The township is trying to protect homeowners and I fully support that. I support my township asking for reasonable and equitable permit fees to ensure proper construction and installation of my utility lines, just like I expect them to charge reasonable fees to make sure my contractor built my house correctly."
The issue has since been resolved and Day's gas line will be installed in time for her to meet her targeted move-in date, which is around mid-September.
"Mr. D'Apolito was the first one to step up and gave me all the information I needed, and it's my understanding I will get into my house on time, and get into my house safely -- that's what's most important," Day said.
D'Apolito said the issue ultimately was not as contentious as it could have been.
"We realized we had the same desired outcomes and we found a way to make it work," he said.
D'Apolito said Enbridge began objecting when earlier this year the township increased its permit fee for service connections and new underground installations from $250 to $2,000 and required several additional documents to be submitted along with the application. Those include a certificate of liability insurance, with Austintown Township listed as the certificate holder, in the amount of $1 million; and a license-permit bond in the amount of $50,000 (minimum, depending on the scope of the project and/or number of active projects), in the name of the applicant.
The township also insisted on:
•A roadway plan, accurately depicting right-of-way locations, topographic features, drainage culverts, storm sewers and utilities.
•The Ohio Utility Protection Service One Call Ticket number on the cover sheet.
•The stamp and signature of the design engineer who prepared the plans (a professional engineer licensed in the State of Ohio), along with their contact information, on the cover sheet.
•Certification, along with the stamp and signature of the surveyor who prepared the base mapping (a professional surveyor licensed in the State of Ohio), provided within the permit plans.
D'Apolito said the increased permit fee and the surveying and planning regulations -- which required the company to incur additional costs -- led Enbridge to stop pulling permits altogether.
The township and company went back and forth for months over Enbridge's obligation to provide gas service and Austintown's seemingly oppressive fees and requirements for right-of-way access.
D'Apolito said it came down to the township understanding that service line connections running from existing mains to new homes or businesses did not require that degree of planning and surveying and did not carry the same risks as running lines along the road for great lengths.
"We were overly broad in what we were applying the increased fee to," he said. "We didn't need the review and the larger fee for straight service connections."
So the township dropped the fee to $1,000 and made that and the review and survey requirements applicable only to new underground longitudinal (along the road) installations.
"So, when the gas company needs to replace all the mains in a neighborhood, or a fiber company wants to run all new fiber lines, that's when we're going to require that fee and review requirement," he said. "But in service lines, it'll be either $25 or $250, depending on what's involved.
Austintown's permitting fee schedule, recently revised and approved by trustees, is as follows:
•$25 for work within the right-of-way not involving cutting of pavement.
•$25 for each underground bore beneath township roads.
•$250 for service connections that involve cutting of pavement (including curb,
gutter and paved shoulders).
D'Apolito said the fee and review requirements are not meant to be onerous for no reason, and certainly not punitive, but to ensure safety for residents and minimize damage to other utility companies' property.
"When companies are doing a longitudinal bore, we're trying to protect the public from a situation like they had in Girard," he said.
D'Apolito was referring to an April gas explosion that devastated a house on North State Street and left a family homeless.
The Enbridge gas line apparently was struck by a work crew contracted by Lumos, a fiber optic company, while they were boring underground. Girard has imposed a moratorium on all such utility work in the public right-of-way, pending the results of a report from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.
Girard Mayor Mark Zuppo said the report is mostly complete and is just awaiting final approval from the PUCO legal team.
The Enbridge dispute with Austintown appears to be resolved just as Lumos has filed a federal complaint against Mahoning County for what it calls prohibitive and costly right-of-way regulations.
On July 17, Lumos filed a petition for declaratory ruling with the Federal Communications Commission asking the board to preempt certain requirements imposed by Mahoning and Stark counties.
Lumos contends they constitute violations of Section 253 of the federal Communications Act, which prohibits state or local regulations that effectively prevent a telecommunications company from providing service.
In Mahoning County, Lumos disputes the requirement to obtain a professional survey of the public right-of-way before construction. The company says the survey is unnecessary, unusually burdensome, and adds substantial expense and potentially years of delay to its project.
In Stark County, Lumos challenged a broader range of requirements, including a professional survey, per-foot construction charges and inspection fees. Lumos claims the requirements would increase its projected costs by about 50%. It claims the survey alone would cost about $1.5 million, when it had already invested roughly $1.4 million in engineering and planning.
Lumos ultimately argues that the counties' restrictions forced it to abandon fiber expansion projects affecting roughly 200,000 households across the two counties. Lumos contends that the counties' rules cross the line from legitimate management of public rights-of-way into an effective barrier to market entry.