-
The City Council discussed changes at the reservior at its recent meeting.
Reservoir restrooms and a long awaited pedestrian bridge were big topics at a recent city council meeting.
The restrooms, which are scheduled to be installed at the Lake Zwerner boating ramp this year, were intended to be a joint project between the city and county, with the county reimbursing the city for 46 percent of the cost.
However, financial director Allison Martin informed the council that they were mistaken.
“Staff was directed to draft an IGA [intergovernmental agreement] and send it to legal review under the impression that the county was going to be able to contribute, based upon the reservoir agreement, 46 percent of the cost of the project,” she said. “They had asked for that restroom to be located in that area. We have since learned that was indeed not the case. The county is only willing to do maintenance.”
The restrooms were originally planned to go to the Wimpy Mill Picnic Area, which opened earlier this year, and is owned solely by the city. The reservoir, on the other hand, is city and county property.
Without the county’s contribution, Martin asked for direction on whether they should continue with the boat ramp idea or take it back to the original location.
“We need to make a decision, the facility has been ordered and before it is delivered we will need to know where it's going to be ready so we can have the site with utility connections ready,” she said.
Interim city manager Bill Lewis chimed in with his opinion on the matter.
“[City engineer Mark Buchanan] advised me that the cost for water and sewer will be $14,000, at Wimpy Mill Park it’s about $12,000, so a $2,000 difference there. My feeling is that the restroom can get a whole lot more use from the community and more benefit at the boat ramp,” he said.
The building itself will cost a reported $105,410.
RESTROOM RELOCATION?
The council mostly agreed with the sentiment. Council member Ron Larson, however, believed Wimpy Mill should come first.
“I tend to think we should stay the course and finish developing our Wimpy Mill Picnic Area and make it the best that it can be,” he said.
Council member Ross Shirley supported the idea that the restrooms would get more use at the boat ramp.
“I’m with the city manager on the location of it,” he said. “I went to the area last night and looked around, there were probably 30 people by the boat ramp. There were some boats there and the trail that they used. I noticed at Wimpy Mill… It just doesn’t get quite the activity the way the boat ramp does. So for a community improvement opportunity it seems like it should go down there.”
Council member Roman Gaddis said that the boat ramp location would mean the county would be responsible for cleaning.
“If we put it at Wimpy Mill Park we have to clean it, if we put it at the dock they have to clean it, so I say let them clean it up,” he said.
Meanwhile council member Johnny Ariemma wondered why the County wouldn’t want to support the project.
“I just don’t understand how they don't see the value of those bathrooms going in over there,” he said.
“They do recognize the value, that’s one of the reasons that the country initially asked for the restroom to be moved there…they just feel like they cannot contribute dollars to this project,” Martin said.
Taylor agreed that the boat ramp bathrooms were a good idea.
“I agree with the viewpoint that this is the best thing for our community,” she said. “It certainly will enhance that area of our community and hopefully will survive lots of public use."
Gaddis suggested putting up signage that made the agreement clear on the restrooms.
“Can we put a sign up that says provided by the City of Dahlonega, maintained by Lumpkin County?”
“I would strongly advise that; you need to get credit for that,” Lewis said.
COUNTY RESPONSE
Lumpkin County Board of Commissioners Chairman Chris Dockery later explained the county’s side to The Nugget.
“We never agreed to that, it was a misunderstanding,” he said. “The city had already ordered the facility…we asked that they consider putting it near the boat launch because there’s more people down there. They wanted us to contribute to the cost of it…we did tell them we would keep it supplied and maintain it, but we never agreed to the cost of it.”
After speaking with Taylor, however, he said that the county had decided to help with site preparation.
“The county would be able to contribute the site work because we can do that in house,” he said. “So, the county is going to contribute to the restroom being there by doing the site work. We’re going to do the upkeep and maintenance and they’re going to furnish the facility. So everybody’s working together.”
The council did not take a vote on the matter as it was a work session and Martin was simply looking for guidance on next steps.
BRIDGE TO THE FUTURE
Meanwhile the future of the pedestrian bridge and reservoir sidewalk was also discussed later in the meeting.
“The city engineer put together a comprehensive report about what’s going on that will require changes in the design of the bridge foundation,” Taylor said.
The proposed bridge is a public safety measure. Currently, those walking around the reservoir are forced to walk onto Morrison Moore Parkway in order to complete the circle.
The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) had some directives for the council that included a second bridge foundation investigation and cost saving recommendations. Some of the investigation costs will be covered by grants.
According to the agenda memo, there are some upcoming items that will require changes to the contract made with Wood Engineering, which is handling the bridge, one of which is the aforementioned foundation investigation.
“The City had hoped to use a document created during design of the vehicular bridge across the reservoir. GDOT has indicated that that report will not be accepted and a new one is required,” it said.
The cost of the second investigation was estimated to be at most $60,000. But, with grant funding the city could be reimbursed up to $48,000.
The second change concerned the cost saving recommendations.
“Cost saving recommendations have been made regarding the transition of the currently proposed urban-style sidewalk with curb and gutter to a more rural style concrete trail near the bridge. The construction savings will far outweigh the design cost, estimated to be $20-30,000,” it said.
With grant funding, the city could be reimbursed between $16,000 and $24,000.
“The good news is it's progressing, the bad news is it's progressing more slowly than probably any of us would like, but with a bridge of this nature it’s very complex engineering,” Taylor said.