|
Public Hearing
(Continued)
The continuation of the public hearing held on Tuesday, July 17,
2007 of the Doylestown Township Board of Supervisors was held at
7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 7, 2007, at the Central Bucks South
High School, 1100 Folly Road, Doylestown, PA. Members of the
Board of Supervisors in attendance included Barbara Lyons,
Chairperson, E. Thomas Scarborough, Jr., Vice Chairman, Walter
C. Berry, Barbara E. Eisenhardt and Cynthia Philo. Others in
attendance included Jeffrey Garton, Township Solicitor, Chief
Stephen White, Police Chief, Mario L. Canales, Township Engineer
and Stephanie Mason, Township Manager.
Others in attendance: Andrew Schaffer, Bucks County Health
Department, John Garges, P.G., Conestoga Rovers, John Swenson,
Russell Dunleavy, Carroll Engineering, David Blois and Ed
Harvey, Doylestown Township Public Water & Sewer Advisory Board
Pledge to the Flag: The meeting opened with a
pledge to the flag.
Central Bucks South: Ms. Lyons thanked Central
Bucks South for the use of its facility for this meeting.
Taping of the Meeting: Ms. Lyons explained that
Ms. Eisenhardt will be audio taping the meeting and Philly Burbs
will be video taping the meeting.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Township Sewering Project – Proposed Ordinance Amendment:
Ms. Lyons explained that two presentations were scheduled; one
by representatives of the Doylestown Township Public Water and
Sewer Advisory Committee and one by representatives of Conestoga
Rover. She explained that this was an open meeting wherein
questions would be taken after the presentations and forwarded
to the Sewer Advisory Committee for additional study. Further,
she said there would be no vote taken at this meeting by the
Board of Supervisors.
Presentation by Doylestown Township Public Water & Sewer
Advisory Board. Mr. David Blois gave a power point
presentation in which he answered various questions from the
residents of the Township as follows:
·
Public water is not included in this project;
·
Cost estimates were calculated based on the
9/13/06 Feasibility Study Report, the system type has not been
specified and engineering and design work will begin after
approval of the project is received from the Board of
Supervisors;
·
Public costs include: sewer lines in the street;
pavement restoration; pumping stations and treatment plant
upgrades;
·
Private costs include; grinder pump; gravity
lateral; excavation; abandonment of current system and site
specific costs;
·
Average cost per dwelling unit for each study area
includes public cost plus cost of estimated mix of gravity
laterals and grinder pumps divided by the number of dwelling
units in study area;
·
Tapping fee will be $4,700 and will be paid by all
residents who connect;
·
Average cost per dwelling unit for Study Area I:
Cost per dwelling unit $22,340
Tapping fee $ 4,700
$27,040
·
Average cost per dwelling unit for Study Area II:
Cost per dwelling unit $23,590
Tapping fee $ 4,700
$28,290
·
Average cost per dwelling unit for Study Area III
Average cost estimated to be similar to Study Area I
·
Homeowner is not required to connect to the public
sewer line in the street until the property is sold or the OLDS
fails;
·
Although connection is not mandatory homeowner is
still responsible for the public cost estimates
Study Area I $20,880
Study Area II $22,120
Study Area III $20,880
·
BCW&SA will need to expand some treatment plants
and the costs associated with the expansion are included in the
public costs
·
Work completion estimate – 46 months from Board of
Supervisors approval of ordinance although some areas may be
completed sooner
·
Funding sources will be identified through State
Representatives; PW&SAC discussions with banks; Pennvest
discussion and bond possibilities
·
The Township is investigating ways to finance some
of the project and also to link the cost to the property rather
than homeowner and will review legitimate hardship situations on
a case by case basis
·
The Board of Health will deal with failing systems
for on-lot system malfunctions and ascertain the most effective
and least expensive repair costs until connection to the public
sewer system is possible
·
Any property that elects not to connect to the
public sewer system will be managed by the Septage Management
Program in existence and the Township will encourage periodic
well water testing
·
After connecting to the public sewer system the
OLDS must be closed down; tanks crushed in place; removed and
filled. Piping and sand mounds may stay
·
The proposed study areas are delineated on the map
completed in connection with this study
·
The Feasibility Study did not specify a type of
system for sewer collection and the system type can be specified
by the Township and on the website.
Mr.
Blois explained that the Committee’s conclusion was that there
is an immediate need for sewers in these areas of the Township
and recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve the
proposed Ordinance to begin work on the public sewer system. He
explained further that the current problem will not resolve
itself and the costs will not go down and to do nothing is not
an option.
A
copy of the Doylestown Township Public Water & Sewer Advisory
Board power point presentation can be reviewed at the Township
Presentation by Conestoga Rover: Mr. John Garges
outlined the illicit discharge detection and elimination
program.
He
explained the purpose of his report would include, facts
concerning pollution of water, the Clean Water Act established
in 1977, the EPA Stormwater Program; EPA Phase II requirements;
defined illicit discharge; explained Doylestown’s IDD&E program;
reviewed the Township Ordinance requirements for septic
management; public education program; described Best Management
Practices; explained IDD&E monitoring, the IDD&E parameters,
described fecal coliform bacteria and the sources where it is
found; Area I, II and III inspection findings; source
investigations; other sampling parameters; conclusions;
recommendations; causes of septic system problems; homeowner
responsibility and Township responsibility. A copy of the power
point presentation can be reviewed at the Township Building.
Public Comment and Questions:
Question: What alternative form of financing will be available
for the residents? He requested that prior to enacting this
Ordinance the financing issue be addressed as well as a report
from Bucks County Water & Sewer Co.
Response: There will be many more meetings scheduled prior to a
vote on the Ordinance and information will be presented
concerning financing. A representative from BCW&SA is in
attendance to answer questions.
Question: Bobbie Boyce asked why the Board of Health does not
require failing systems to be repaired and if the homeowner
cannot afford to repair the system then the Board of Health
should repair it and put a lien for payment on the homeowner’s
property.
He
also explained that in New York where he lived previously the
community issued a bond so that the cost could be paid for
through taxes and not be paid for solely by the individuals.
Response: The Board of Health goes to individual homeowners in
an effort to educate the public on how to resolve the problem
with failing systems and how to maintain the systems. However,
Mr. Schaffer explained that some individuals are not forthcoming
about the true condition of their systems. He explained further
that the existing systems cannot handle all of the discharge so
they discharge other water illegally. He said that the Board of
Health inspects individual systems; however, some systems are
35+ years old and the configuration of some lots make
remediation impossible. If there is no room on a lot for a new
system then the resident must go to a pump and haul solution.
He said that it is not inexpensive to replace an existing septic
system which costs $20,000 to $25,000 for a basic system with
costs as high as $35,000. The Board of Health has cited people
for failing systems but that does not solve the issue.
Mr.
Garton explained that the Township cannot issue a bond to pay
for this sewer project because half of the Township already has
sewers and those homeowners have paid for them and the general
population does not benefit from this sewer project.
Comment: Mr. Boyce commented that the logical conclusion to
this analogy is that since his children are no longer in school
he should no longer pay school taxes.
Question/Comment: The Septic Management System has been in
place and as an Ordinance it is the law. Laws are enforceable.
We all suffer if laws are not enforced. He asked if the Board
of Supervisors decides on the passage of this Ordinance or do
the residents decide.
Response: Ms. Mason explained that the Township is enforcing
the Ordinances. The Township’s information shows that that the
percentage of systems with observed conditions is low and most
people are complying. However the Septic Management plan is
only one factor that the Committee used to determine its
recommendation with regard to this project.
Ms.
Lyons commented that it is the responsibility of the Board of
Supervisors to make this decision as they represent the entire
Township. She said the health and welfare of the residents is a
primary concern and this issue cannot be put to a public vote.
Question/Comment: Ms. Carol Shelly said that based on the
information given at this meeting all required tests were not
completed so definitive results cannot be measured. There was
no data supplied giving the number of failing systems in the
past compared to the number at present. She said that septic
systems work well if they are well maintained. She asked for
hard data to support the conclusion that public sewers are
required before each household spends $30,000.
Response: There was no Septic Management Plan in the Township
until 2001. There is no prior data concerning the number of
wells that were polluting and the number of failing systems
prior to the enactment of the Septic Management Plan.
Question/Comment: A resident from Short Road explained that his
home is 950’ from the street. He asked if a home was more than
150’from the street will the resident be required to connect
into the public sewer system.
Response: Ms. Mason explained that if a home is situated more
than 150’ from the road you would not be required to connect.
Ms.
Eisenhardt explained that Ordinance No. 287 was changed in 2001
and now requires that homes that are 150 from the road and have
a functioning system do not need to connect until you sell your
home providing your system continues to function. She explained
that she is working to change the Ordinance to provide that you
do not need to connect to public sewers if your septic system is
functioning.
Question/Comment: With respect to the threat to the public
health caused by failing systems, how many cases of Chlora have
been detected by the Board of Health?
Response: In 2007 the emphasis is on education so that no cases
are discovered. To date none have been reported.
Question/Comment: Then where is the public health hazard?
Question/Comment: Norman Mellon commented that he believes the
analysis given in the reports is flimsy. He asked that all the
information be available on the Township’s website to better
inform the residents. He explained that his concern with the
water flow from the discharge system is inadequate. How will
the water go into the aquifer if a system is installed? This
project will cost each homeowner approximately $50,000 of earned
income to pay for connecting to the public sewer system. He
said he believes some of the problems associated with failing
systems can be resolved.
Response: Ms. Eisenhardt explained that there are two types of
sewers in Doylestown Township; gravity systems which use a large
pipe and are usually found in new developments and low pressure
sewer systems which use 1 ½” pipe and are found in older
developments.
Question/Comment: A resident said that he believes a couple of
problems have not been addressed. He suggested a reevaluation
be done to determine if the pipes can handle the water flow from
the sewers to the aquifer. Additionally, he would like to see
the current laws enforced and this project be put on hold until
some of the questions are answered satisfactorily.
Question/Comment: Mr. McLaughlin said he remembers what the
Pebble Hill area looked like 41 years ago and the change in
water life is significant during that period of time. He said
he believes that the Board of Supervisors must deal with the
pollution that has destroyed various types of fish, tadpoles,
etc. He said that a new sewer system is vital for the
environment.
Question/Comment: Mr. Frank Lewis expressed his opinion that
the pollution comes from geese droppings and no one is allowed
to shoot the geese to correct the problem. He suggested that
the septic systems be evaluated on a case by case basis.
Question/Comment: A resident suggested that certain tax parcels
are identified incorrectly as having a failing sewer system and
believes that a visual inspection is not accurate. While the
proposed Ordinance identifies all the properties in the area to
be sewered, it does not identify failing systems.
Question/Comment: Mr. Vince Watson commented that consistency
is the problem and urged the Board of Supervisors to vote no on
the proposed Ordinance as he does not want to pay for sewers.
Question/Comment: A resident said he does not believe all
sources of funding have been explored and believes the proposed
costs match the conclusions of the study. He said that at some
point residents will have to connect to the sewer lines. He
said by his calculations it will cost him over $48,000 to
connect to the public sewer. He said that his system is working
properly and is only 7 years old. Further, he commented that
summer is the wrong time to hold meetings such as this one as
one-third of the residents in his neighborhood are on vacation
and he contacted 110 homes who are opposed to this proposal.
Response: Mr. David Blois explained that the Board of Health
has the responsibility of determining what septic systems are
failing.
Question/Comment: Ms. Sue Weeder asked what the Board will do
to ensure there are no overruns that will increase the cost of
the project.
Response: Ms Lyons explained that the Township monitors all
public works projects. Mr. Garton explained that projects such
as this go out to bid and the contractor who is awarded the
contract must post a bond.
Question/Comment: Mr. Joe Paternostra stated that the total
costs will be at 6% interest which will equate to $63,000 after
tax. He said he believes it will be approximately $100,000
before the project is completed. He said it would be cheaper to
install a new septic system if one is failing. He said that he
believes the Board should be providing realistic figures per
household for the project.
Question/Comment: A resident asked if the cost estimates
include inflation or if the figures are in today’s figures. He
explained that he believes the residents need all costs
specified including installation and hookup. He asked if the
homes within Doylestown Township would be reassessed because of
this project. He said he believes that the Septic Management
Plan should be given ample time to determine its effectiveness.
He expressed concern about the impact of this project on
residents who have installed a new septic system recently.
Response: Mr. Swenson explained that the only way the true cost
of the project will be determined is at its completion. He said
the costs will include the topography and design studies. He
explained that when the design phase of the project is completed
a more valid cost estimate will be provided.
Mr.
Garton explained that the County Board of Assessment is one
agency responsible for all tax assessment and that he believes
there is no guarantee concerning future assessments. He will
get information concerning any potential reassessment and report
back to the Board.
Question/Comment: A resident explained that he is a new
property owner in the Township and when he recently applied for
a permit to install a new septic system he was not told of this
pending legislation.
Response: Mr. Blois indicated that the Committee met with a
representative from Penn Vest who explained that the critical
areas are: (1) health and welfare of the residents and (2) the
economic impact. He explained further that an application for
Penn Vest cannot be made until there is an executed contract.
Question/Comment: A resident from Almshouse Road asked that old
maps be supplied to the residents.
Response: Ms. Lyons said that that information would be
supplied.
Question/Comment: A resident asked if any one knew for certain
of a failed system and said he believes that public sewers are
not needed. He also commented that the Township needs to look
for creative funding for this project.
Question/Comment: Mr. Peter Shield asked the Board to identify
failing systems and help those residents with remediation. He
said that he is requesting the Township officials to go door to
door to conduct a survey to determine the number of
failing/marginal functioning systems.
Response: Mr. Schaeffer, BCHD, explained that a door to door
survey would cost a lot in overtime hours as most people work
during the day.
Question/Comment: Mr. Paul Kiberwood said it seems that there
are only 4% to 5% of systems that a failing. He said that it
seems to him that 90% of the problem is the stormwater runoff
and that problem exists because of over development which has
been allowed by the Board of Supervisors. Installing a sewer
system, he said, will not solve all of the problems.
Questions/Comments: A resident asked how many meetings have
been conducted regarding this issue.
Response: Ms. Lyons explained that meetings have been held on
this issue. In addition she explained that more details about
the public sewer system must be obtained before financing can be
obtained. She said that many people have told her their systems
are failing and/or marginally working.
Questions/Comments: A resident explained that she has lived in
her house for 2 years and this project seems very costly to
her. Why cannot the Township require pumping the systems more
often than every 2 years to avoid failing/marginally operating
septic systems?
Response: Ms. Lyons explained that the Ordinance requires
pumping every two years but residents can pump more often if
they desire.
Question/Comments: A resident from Buck Road said he was
surprised that there is no education concerning the care of the
septic systems including the type of toilet paper that is
designed for a septic system. If homeowners take care of their
septic systems they will not fail. He also asked how many sand
mounds have been documented to be systems. He said in order to
connect to the public sewers he will have to dig up his driveway
for a total of 250’. He asked how many homes will be required
to connect when there is no failing system.
Response: Mr. Schaeffer explained that BCHD make available
educational programs for residents designed to explain the best
procedures for maintenances of septic systems.
Question/Comment: Mr. Charlie Donason asked Mr. Blois for his
educational background and if he did a survey concerning how
many homeowners do not want public sewers. He said that the
homeowners are being penalized for 3% of the homeowners having
failing systems. He said that when he purchased his property
included in the price was his working septic system.
Response: Mr. Blois explained that the Water & Sewer Advisory
Board is made up of volunteers and the concern of the committee
is for the health, welfare and safety of the residents of
Doylestown Township.
Question/Comment: Mr. Drew Barrington discussed question No. 14
on the “responses to resident questions” dated August 3, 2007
and asked why low pressure systems were not being considered.
He asked for a cost breakdown between the gravity and low
pressure system.
Response: Low pressure systems for certain areas of the
Township were considered but they are not appropriate for all
areas due to the topography and rock. He commented that the
calculation of the cost estimate is conservative.
Question/Comment: Is the engineering fee a flat fee?
Response: The engineering fee is not tied to construction
costs.
Question: A resident asked that the feasibility study be posted
on the web site. She asked for an explanation of the cost and
numbers of gravity vs. low pressure systems and the amount of
water needed. She commented that she did not understand why
residents should pay for something they already have.
Response: Mr. Swenson went into a detailed explanation and
explained that the total flow of water from BCW&SA would be
estimated to be ½ million gallons per day. He explained that
there is a capital cost to provide the treatment. He said that
the I and I component was not included in the feasibility
study. The cost of the system includes the cost to build the
system to accommodate the additional capacity that will be
needed as well as paying for existing capacity. He explained
that residents will not have to pay for the connection to the
system until they actually connect.
Question/Comment: A resident said that he does not believe that
the numbers jive with the failures and believes that this matter
was given a rubber stamp of approval two weeks before this
meeting.
Response: Mr. Scarborough said that nothing has been decided by
the Board and believes that there are many questions and
concerns that need to be addressed before proceeding with a vote
on the proposed Ordinance. He said that the Board needs to
investigate the costs associated with this project and be
fiscally responsible. He said that he has not come to a
decision concerning this project.
Question/Comment: Ms. Dorothy Graham said she and her family
have lived in the Township for 60 years. She said that 5
homeowners on her street are retired and will be forced from
their homes if this project is commenced. She said she feels as
though the decision has already been made to go forward with the
project. She asked why so many feasibility studies were being
conducted and said it would cost approximately $60,000 for the
studies alone.
Question/Comment: A resident commented that between 6% and 11%
of wells have detected fecal coliform in the project area. He
asked why the Board of Health has not enforced the current
Ordinance to protect the public health and if there was 100%
compliance with the Ordinance would that not solve the problem?
He also asked if homeowners were going to be allowed to be out
of compliance for the next 3 to 5 years until construction of
the system has been finalized.
Response: Mr. Blois explained that there are contaminated wells
which contribute to the problem.
Mr.
Swenson explained that depending on the situation, if the
problem with the septic is fixed, because of the aquifer the
quality of the water may not be acceptable. He said that BCW&SA
will assess each failing system but in order to know the water
quality a different test must be applied.
Question/Comment: Will the Board consider this matter as a
referendum vote?
Response: The Board agreed to consider this possibility.
Question/Comment: Mr. David Rappaport commented that he
believes the feasibility study does not take into account (1) if
repairs to the failing system would correct the problem; and (2)
how development has affected the water runoff. He told the
public to “wake up and smell the sewers”. He said he believes
this is simply a political matter; look at the Board members who
are in favor of this project and then vote this Board out of
office. He said he was offended that Mr. Scarborough is in
favor of this project. Mr. Rappaport questioned Mr. Garton’s
role as solicitor to the BCW&A and solicitor to the Township.
Response: Mr. Scarborough explained that he has never said he
was in favor of this project. He said it is not a
Republican/Democrat issue as there is a Democrat sitting next to
me who supports this project.
Mr.
Garton explained that while he was solicitor to the BCW&A and
solicitor to the Township he did not represent the BCW&SA on any
matters involving the Township.
Question/Comment: Mr. Jim Gomaz asked how any cost overruns
would be handled by the Township. He commented that the Board
should look at what is best for all homeowners and it appears to
him that all options have not been thoroughly explored. He said
it is the fiduciary responsibility of the Board to explore all
options.
Question/Comment: A resident suggested if another public
meeting is scheduled that a time limit be imposed. She also
said that many questions have not been answered – residents that
need help have not been identified; financing/bond has not been
identified; the extent of the needed expansion has not been
determined; the actual cost assessment is unknown; some
residents will be forced out of their homes because of the cost
associated with the project and current laws are not being
enforced.
Question/Comment: Mr. Kennedy, who has resided in the Township
for only one month asked if this project will be charged on a
lot by lot basis as he owns 2 lots but only has one house on the
property and he believes it will cost him over $100,000 for both
lots. He told the Board that the current laws must be enforced
and the exact cost of the project must be determined before he
hand them his checkbook. He said that the homeowners are all
paying for a few failing systems and asked that the cost for
testing and enforcement be ascertained and if it is less than
the sewer system project then to go ahead with the testing and
enforcement procedures.
Question/Comment: A resident asked for clarification of the
different costs per dwelling estimates in Study Area I and Study
Area II.
Response: BCW&SA is a public municipal authority and the cost
is for the infrastructure to be built along each property.
Question/Comment: Mr. Tom Prue said “if it ain’t broken, don’t
fix it”.
Question/Comment: Mr. Floyd Glenn explained to the Board that
he has tried for years to get his septic system working. It is
not failing but it is marginally working. The only option is a
new system. He said there are many people with marginally
working systems.
Question/Comment: A resident from Pebble Hill Drive said he
believes that since this project involves the infrastructure it
should not be paid for only by users of the system. He said
developers are responsible for this situation and a one time tax
on developers should be instituted and the main cost for sewers
must be borne by federal, state and local government, not the
residents. He told the Board that if this cost is paid for by
the residents then the current members of the Board will not
continue to be members of the Board of Supervisors.
Question/Comment: A resident who works as a health care
professional said she believes this project must be looked at in
a proactive manner; as a necessity vs. beneficial. She said she
is involved in infectious control and is concerned about fear
and threats concerning a real health issue. She said she is
frustrated that enforcement of failing systems has not been done
simply because it would upset residents to disturb their
landscaping to assess their systems rather than be concerned
about a real health issue.
Question/Comment: Ms. Jeff Cannon said he would pay $10,000 not
to be in one of the Board of Supervisor’s chairs. He asked for
more data to be gathered to support the claim of bacteria
contamination.
Question/Comment: A resident noted that the BCW&SA test for
contamination should include more information and she believes
that it is not as valid as it could be and should be. She asked
for the criteria used to determine a failed system.
Response: Mr. Schaeffer said that among other criteria the main
test included: backup; pump out; subsurface infrastructure;
underground contamination; and/or wet spots.
Ms.
Lyons explained that there is a reporting system included in the
Septic Management Plan and at this point in time lending
institutions are more stringent in their requirements for
potential mortgage customers.
Question/Comment: Ms. Debbie Harrison said that the system in
place works well and asked for the names of the lending
institutions that are refusing to pass current septic systems
when a potential buyer is applying for a mortgage. She
suggested that perhaps some of the residents have corrected
their failing systems and have not reported the correction. She
asked if the locations and the reasons are known for the failing
systems. She said that 75 out of 2,000 systems is not reason
enough to proceed with this project. All options should be
explored including correction of the 75 failing systems rather
than installing sewer systems for the entire Township. She
urged the Board to vote this proposed Ordinance down and study
the matter in more detail.
Question/Comment: Mr. Vince Swan challenged the Board to look
at what it would take to make the one line system work as well
as a solution for the water problem and make a good, educated
decision.
Question/Comment: Mr. John Murphy asked if this project
encompasses the entire Township as his property in not
included. He said he believes there should be an engineering
study for the entire Township and not have any property
excluded. He said he believes there can be no guarantee that
there cannot be contamination elsewhere in the Township.
Response: The current project includes only Phase I and II.
Question/Comment: A resident said that he believes there is
some controversy regarding there being a health issue. He said
that he does not believe providing sewers to the Township and
sending waste water to the sewer plants will solve the pollution
problem.
Question/Comment: Mr. John Sterling said it appears the map
shows that there are pockets where fecal chloroform bacteria has
been found and those areas are mostly near streams. Since it
has not been determined whether this pollution comes from human
or animal waste more testing is required. He also expressed
concern about whether he would have the same volume of water
with public sewers that he has currently.
Response: Mr. Swenson said that most wells are deep enough that
there should be no problem with water volume but there is no
guarantee and shallow wells will lose more capacity. He said
that without septic systems the quality of the water will
improve.
Question/Comment: Mr. Wade Keever asked if the value of the
projected assessment will be worth the value of the system.
Response: The Ordinance proposes a per EDU assessment.
Question/Comment.: A resident commented that the Green Street
Sewer Plan and empties into the Country Club Creek and the
chloroform levels are higher along this creek. He said that the
main problem is that the effluent discharge goes into the
stream.
Question/Comment: Rich Paine asked if the study of stormwater
drainage because of development will continue if public sewers
are installed and how do the 3 study areas compare to those
areas with existing sewers. He asked the Board to challenge the
statistics given by BCW&SA and suggested that this proposal has
some property owners paying for others which is not right.
Response: Mr. Schaeffer explained that in the study area
between 6% and 11% of the properties have chloroform in their
wells.
Question/Comment: A resident explained that he has a failing
system and he has pumped his system once a year for the past 4
or 5 years. He said when you have a water problem you also have
a sewer problem. One solution is to pray for rain.
Question/Comment: A resident commented on the chloroform
bacteria problem in detail and cited EPA regulations. He
explained that the EPA Clean Water Act states that there cannot
be any chloroform bacteria in the water.
Question/Comment: A resident said he was an advocate of
floating a 30 year bond for this project. He said it would save
approximately $8,000 per property because sewer tax can be
deducted.
Question/Comment: A resident explained that the ramifications
of a lien are complicated and one negative is that if you need a
loan for college or some other expense and there is a lien on
your home you will not qualify for a home equity loan. She
requested that an assessment be made as a sewer tax.
Response: Mr. Garton explained that the Board has begun work on
a vehicle in the form of an Assessment Anticipation Bond but
that the investigation is in the early stages so no information
is available at this time.
Question/Comment: Mr. Chuck Lee from Plumstead Township
explained that Plumstead Township has recently settled a law
suit with BCW&SA regarding the installation of sewers in the
Township. He asked if a Water Impact Study had been done in
Doylestown Township and if not that such a study be conducted
prior to moving forward with this proposed Ordinance.
Response: Mr. Blois said that the Committee did not complete
such a study.
Ms.
Lyons commented that all information gathered to date would be
forwarded to the Water & Sewer Advisory Board which will meet
next on September 20, 2007 at 6:00 p.m.
Mr.
Scarborough commented that the Ordinance should be amended to
delineate all the tax map parcels that have failing systems so
that it will not penalize homeowners trying to sell their
property if their system is in good working order.
Mr.
Scarborough made a motion to defeat the proposed Ordinance, but
it failed for a lack of a second.
Mr.
Garton confirmed that the advertising for this Ordinance is only
valid for 60 days after which time the Ordinance with or without
any changes must be re-advertised for a public meeting.
After further discussion, on motion of Mr. Berry, seconded by
Ms. Eisenhardt, the Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to
table, indefinitely, the public meeting regarding the Township
Sewering Project – Proposed Ordinance Amendments. This motion
passed by a vote of 5 to 0.
Announcements:
The next meeting of the Doylestown Township Public Water and
Sewer Advisory Committee will be held on Thursday, September 20,
2007 at 6:00 p.m. at the Township Building.
The next meeting of the Board of Supervisors will be held on
Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 7:00 pm at the Township Building.
Adjournment:
On motion of Mr. Berry, seconded by Ms. Eisenhardt, the Board of
Supervisors public hearing was adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
|
Authored by Development Solutions