This text was obtained via automated optical character recognition.
It has not been edited and may therefore contain several errors.

---

2A • THURSDAY, JANUARY 8, 2004
THE SEA COAST ECHO
Bay council faces potential battles over drainage woes, historic preservation plan
BY MARY G. SEILEY Staff Writer
Bay St. Louis leaders appear to be bracing for rough legal and political rides in the weeks ahead.
Two big-ticket items on City Council's agenda include multiple sinkholes in a $3.5 million drainage upgrade program, and the final enactment of a historic preservation ordinance.
Both matters have council members at odds, and represent political hot potatoes.
Council went into executive session Tuesday night, at the advice of city attorney John Scafide, to discuss "possible litigation" over warranties covering the drainage program. In the meanwhile, council agreed to call a 5:05 p.m workshop Monday with the engineer for the project at issue, James J. Chiniche.
"What's he going to tell us?" asked Ward 1 council member Doug Seal, repeatedly. Seal contends the city should have an independent assessment of problems with the drainage project, and skip the step of after-he-fact dialog with the engineer.
Ward 2 council member Tim Thriffiley, however, wants the engineer and
public works officials on hand to discuss the several drainage system breaks that have occurred in recent months.
Officials say five or six sinkholes have appeared in town, in spots where connections of drainage pipes have failed. The failures were among more than 500 joints that were sealed with grout - a process which was used under a special warranty to the city.
While only a handful of failures have occurred, officials are worried that the problem is widespread and will manifest itself fully after the warranty expires this	fall. Colom
Construction Co., which built the system, offered to repair the problems immediately, said Public Works director Ron Vanney.
But, Vanney said, city officials backed off from that offer out of concerns over the looming warranty issue. Vanney told council that his office is compiling the paperwork trail surrounding the situation.
Who's to blame for the failures, and who's to pay for repairs, is very much at issue.
Council president Bill Taylor said Tuesday that he is reluctant for council to
deal with those matters directly, suggesting it's an administrative issue to resolve.
"Well, I think if we spend the money, we need to find out what's going on," responded Ward 2 council member Jim Thriffiley.
Seal, who wants an independent assessment of the problem, balked at the notion of meeting with Chiniche at this point. He said council should tackle the problem.	"It's	our
responsibility. We spent $3.5 million on something that's broke ... We have a failure here now." Seal warned that the city is "dragging" its feet by discussing the issue with the engineer who designed the system.
"We're going to drag this out ... and keep dragging and dragging." The system, he said, "it's failing. And we don't know why: the pipe, the grout, the ground?" Seal fears that warranties covering the failures will lapse while the discussion proceeds, leaving the city alone to pay for costly repairs.
Council financed a city wide drainage system upgrade with a $5.5 million general obligation bond issue several years ago. The, portion that's having trou-
bles was the largest of three separate contracts for the work.
In the preservation matter, council agreed wait three more weeks before a possible ordinance enactment. That will give Scafide time to make sure the proposed regulations meet state guidelines.
The ordinance - in the making for years - would establish a commission to oversee alterations or demolitions of properties in historic districts that would be created in the future. It would also provide for protections of "landmark" sites or properties outside specific districts. Negative actions by the commission could be appealed to council for reversal.
Seal continued Tuesday to warn council members that the ordinance amounts
to a vast set of new regulations over property owners' rights. "We're creating a monster," he said. Among other objections, Seal balks at the provision which gives the commission say-so over the appearance and size of new construction in a historic district.
Thriffiley, meanwhile, is insistent that the ordinance will boost property values in the historic city and that its protections are wanted by the majority of historic property owners. The new-construction provision, he said, "encourages people to build something aesthetically pleasing" in historic areas.
He cited construction of a huge metal shed amid historic homes on St. George Street as an example of incompatible building in hi§ own district.
Taylor said he'd like to see an opinion poll on the proposal's popularity among those property owners directly affected. But there's no definition yet of who'll be under the new rules, since districts can't be established before the ordinance is enacted.
The proposal is expected to be on the agenda for action at council's Jan. 27th meeting.