‘What’s your real objection to this thing?’: Plan commission denies recommendation of Mill Creek water tower

QUINCY — It was a packed house in the Quincy City Council chambers Tuesday night for the Quincy Plan Commission meeting — and a roundabout wasn’t even on the agenda.

The commission denied Mill Creek Water District’s request for a special permit to build a 120-foot tall, 250,000 gallon water tank in a residentially-zoned area.

Mill Creek purchased and acquired three lots totaling 3.65 acres within Ellington Township, located just outside of Quincy’s city limits to the northeast, last year. A report by Jason Parrott, the commission’s secretary and the city’s community development planner, stated Mill Creek chose that specific location “because of its geographic location to the district’s existing infrastructure and the elevation of the ground.”

The request was first made to the committee in February, when, despite a recommendation for approval from the planning and development office, the commission denied it. The request never made it to the Quincy City Council, as it was withdrawn following the commission’s decision. The office recommended approval again on Tuesday, but once more, the commission denied the request.

“I will not be supporting this,” commissioner Greg Fletcher said prior to the roll call vote, which resulted in seven votes to deny commission recommendation and four to approve.

“I just think there’s other options… I personally think they bought this piece of ground before they had permission, and they’re pushing it hard to get to use it.”

Robert Rhinberger sold the property, which included a residence on the acreage at 706 N. 64^th, to Mill Creek Water District of Quincy for $250,000 on March 29, 2023. Rhinberger, 86, was a long-time employee of the Water District.

“He’s got a passion for the water district,” said Barney Bier, an attorney representing Mill Creek. “Among the reasons he was willing to sell the price that he did and also donated is because he believed in this project so much … The opportunity presented itself. (The district) did look elsewhere before, they did look elsewhere after.”

Letters of support for the water tower were submitted by the townships of Burton, Fall Creek, Gilmer & Melrose, accompanied by over 800 signatures from residents. According to Mill Creek, the new tank would “provide local recipients with better water quality, higher water pressure and increased emergency storage.”

Ellington Township submitted a letter in opposition to the tower, with nearly 100 signatures from residents. The township’s letter indicated that it was the estimated size of the tower that deemed it undesirable to the area. In a 218-word petition presented to signees, the size of the tower was referenced at least four times incorrectly; the estimated height was presented as 870 feet — a height “almost equivalent to the length of three football fields” — but the actual estimated height is 120 feet, plus another 15 feet for radio communication equipment — less than half of a single football field.

The number 870 came from Parrott’s report from when the request was initially submitted in February and was in reference to the elevation above sea level, not in reference to the total height of the tower. While this error was corrected on Ellington Township’s letter to the commission, it is unclear if residents were aware of the discrepancy when signing the petition.

The level of elevation is crucial when determining where to build a water tower, and if it isn’t just right, the pressure could be greatly impacted.

Water in the tank must reach the same elevation level of 854 feet above sea level as two of the district’s other water towers, located on Broadway and Columbus Rd., to maintain the current level of pressure. The towers work in tandem with one another to provide a balanced pressure zone that serves two-thirds of the district.

Barbara O’Dear, a 40-year resident of Ellington Township who does not utilize Mill Creek’s services but who lives within 250 feet of the proposed tower, represented those opposed to the tower in an hour-long back-and-forth discussion on the matter between the commission, members of the public and an attorney representing Mill Creek Water District, Barney Bier. One of her primary concerns about the tower was in regard to the water pressure becoming too strong.

“(Mill Creek has) already admitted on record that the point of the new water tower was to improve water pressures,” O’Dear said. “A lot of the properties in this area were built in 1950. Some of them have upgraded pipes with what is called ‘thin wall plastic’ … they blow out, costing the immediate neighbors to upgrade their piping.”

O’Dear received a quote for $750 from Keck Plumbing to replace such piping. She also raised concerns about flood insurance “if pipes should spring leaks or pressure valve equipment fails,” stating she’d received a bid from her personal insurance consultant that included a $10,000 deductible.

“Do you have previous examples of water towers discharging in a heavier load (that would result in blown out pipes) or flooding?”commissioner Jason Traeder asked.

“No, I talked with plumbers,” O’Dear said.

“Did you discuss your concerns about pressure with the engineering (consultants)? Did you get any kind of PSI increase or decrease? … Do you have any engineering answers to those questions?” Traeder pressed.

“Only engineers said that it wouldn’t be a problem,” O’Dear said.

“You have reason to not believe that?” Traeder continued.

“I talk with plumbers,” O’Dear said.

O’Dear’s argument didn’t convince Traeder to vote against the tower; he was one of four commissioners who voted to approve the recommendation. Another was commissioner Rick Smith.

“What’s your real objection to this thing? I mean, your neighbors didn’t come to you and say they’re all worried about their water pressure and their pipes bursting. What is the real complaint here?” Smith asked.

The commissioner suggested the heart of the issue was that residents didn’t want to have to look at a water tower in their backyard, but O’Dear remained consistent that water pressure and pipes bursting were the genuine driving forces behind her argument against the tower.

The petition presented to residents by Ellington Township, which was authored by O’Dear, did not include the words “pressure,” “pipes” or “flooding,” nor did the letter of opposition from the township to the commission.

O’Dear stated that many of her neighbors “didn’t have any knowledge” of the concerns she’d raised to the commission until she brought them to their attention. She also stated that she acquired the signatures of residents who had already signed the petition for approval after she informed them “that pressure is going to be improved and could cause them trouble.”

“So the objection is largely a result of your advocacy,” Smith stated. The sentiment was met with disapproving groans and “nos” from a handful of attendees.

Dennis Dempsey, clerk of Ellington Township, spoke briefly on behalf of residents opposed to the tower. He stated that the roads in the area would not be able to support heavy traffic throughout the tower’s construction.

“Is your primary opposition damage to roads?” Traeder asked.

“That, and our residents came to us and said they’re opposed to it. We’re here representing them,” Dempsey said.

Both O’Dear and Bier each requested those in attendance who signed each of their respective petitions to stand, and the numbers were about half-and-half. Following the commission’s vote, commissioner Dave Bellis — who voted against the approval of the water tower — requested that those in attendance who both lived in Ellington Township and approved of the tower to stand.

No one stood up.

“Although there may be more people in favor of the tower, the people MOST affected by it oppose it strongly,” said commissioner Jim Citro, who voted against the approval.

“The most compelling case lies with those most affected. It’s a difficult situation, because (Mill Creek) makes a valid point that their assessment says this is the best location. It doesn’t seem to me that it’s the only location.”

The water tower issue still heads to the Quincy City Council for a final decision on Dec. 2. With the exception of the water tower, all other agenda items were approved for recommendation to the Quincy City Council by the commission Tuesday night.

A special permit for Transitions of Western Illinois to construct an off-street parking lot adjacent to its current facility at 2015 Chestnut St. was approved for recommendation to the council. Since the area is in a residentially-zoned area, a 15-foot buffer zone with fencing and landscaping will be required to shield the lot from residential view.

The commission also approved a special permit request from Illinois PV Adams 2A, LLC & Illinois PV Adams 2B, LLC to construct two solar farms at 2915 Ellington Rd., each with 2 MWac capacity. The amount of power generated by solar farms is communicated in megawatts (MW), which is equivalent to one-million watts;  the “ac” stands for “alternating current,” which is the type of electricity that can be used by homes and businesses. Together, the two solar farms will generate 4 MW, or 4,000,000 watts, of electricity, which will be sent to the Ameren grid.

A request from Four Points Land Surveying & Engineering to subdivide a property at 508 Rim Rd. and a request for a special permit to allow for short and long-term customer storage of large vehicles, household furnishings and other items 121 N. 20th St. were also approved for recommendation to the council.