The reason that both lines are not included in the contract is because the city did not budget enough money to do both with the quote given by Colclasure. The city budgeted $277,000 which was satisfied only by the bids of Twin Construction and Rupe Construction. The council, however, did not want to select either of those firms.

Many people besides Alderman Barth think that the sanitary sewer is the more important of the two. However, Alderman Bill Koos pushed for the storm sewer instead. And, as usual, the council decided to back him instead of Barth.

The design of the storm water system by the city's engineering consultant, The Farnsworth Group, raises some questions. Farnsworth specified an 18 inch tile to drain the storm water from First and Chestnut. This tile will run north and then east through town to be drained in a field. Alderman Barth questioned Farnsworth if this tile was big enough. The Farnsworth engineer replied that the tile was big enough for the designed project, which is to drain the storm water from First and Chestnut. However, what about the other streets in town? Can the system handle storm water from Fourth or Fifth Street as it runs north? El Paso just had a new storm water system with a 4 foot tile!

Shouldn't a new storm water sewer system take into account future expansion needs? A former city councilman told me that the city should consider running a deep tile down the alley behind Oak Street so as to avoid tearing up downtown. The storm water could drain into a lagoon or retention pond near the sewage plant. This water could be pumped into a tower and held as reclaimed water.

This is the type of forward planning I would expect to hear from Farnsworth. All reports indicate that water is going to become a precious commodity in the future. The capture and use of storm water goes beyond just eliminating the pond at First and Chestnut. People have questioned the advice given by Farnsworth. I think it may behoove the city to get another opinion on these long range projects that have important implications. Is Farnsworth giving the city advice that is based on what's best in the long run for the city and not on the need to generate future projects for Farnsworth?

I also feel that Farnsworth was wrong in advising the city to put Well #4 in the Westside Park. They completely ignored community standards in their advice and appears that they made the decision on cost factors only.

I know that Farnsworth is not inexpensive. They gave a $12,000 quote to do the blue prints for the proposed Westside Park pavilion while a firm in Peoria got the bid for $4000. They also charged the city $11,000 for monitoring the project to get rid of the bacteria in Well #3 last year. I wonder if the city has kept track of how much has been spent on fees for Farnsworth? Maybe it is time for the city to shop around for another firm whose fees may be more realistic for a small community. Sometimes a long term commitment to a firm can result in that firm not being as aggressive as they could be in their service.

It is my opinion that the city is not getting its money's worth from the Farnsworth Group. The Minonk City Council should investigate other engineering firms to get a new and fresh perspective on engineering matters for the city.