Paul Connett made no pretense of scientific objectivity for his audience in the auditorium at Blue Ridge on August 16th. “Incineration does not make sense in the Twenty First Century,” read the message on the opening slide of his PowerPoint presentation. Waste incineration is “never a sensible idea,” he said. And he proceeded to explain his position and the “zero waste” solution he recommends.
Dr. Paul Connett and his audience at the Blue Ridge school auditorium
The program was sponsored by the Susquehanna County chapter of the League of Women Voters. The League’s Program Director, Julanne Skinner opened the event by stressing that the League of Women Voters does not take positions on controversial subjects, but aims only to inform the public on issues of public interest. “We’re here to learn. We’re going to be nice to each other,” said she.
Ms. Skinner then introduced Dr. Connett, professor emeritus of chemistry at St. Lawrence University in Canton, NY, who retains his natal, British accent. A graduate of Cambridge University, with a PhD in chemistry from Dartmouth College, Dr. Connett has been an outspoken critic on environmental issues for 3 decades, including opposition to the fluoridation of the public water supply. His American Environmental Health Studies Project focuses on waste, how to deal with it and how to minimize it.
Depending on how they are counted, there are more than 100 solid waste incinerators operating in the U.S. Of those, only 10 are commercial industrial waste incinerators, and, according to Dr. Connett, only one commercial industrial waste incinerator has been built in the United States since 1997, when the plant in East Liverpool, Ohio began operating, giving rise to major concerns that he said “essentially ended any notion of building any more.” A 1994 study put an end to thousands of hospital waste incinerators; Dr. Connett called this transforming medical waste into chemical waste. Yet a waste-to-energy project in Ontario, Canada recently came on-line, also amid considerable controversy. Will Tyler Corners be next? he asks.
Dr. Connett discussed in detail the many types of environmental problems that can result from the incineration of hazardous industrial waste. Bundle large amounts of undifferentiated materials and set them on fire and you produce ash, “fly ash,” and minute particles carrying dioxins and heavy metals such as lead and chromium that can invade animal and human tissue, persisting and accumulating, and which can result in a wide variety of illnesses, including neurological maladies and developmental problems in children; he said that these components tend to concentrate in fats, including milk fats. He calculates that 4 tons of trash fed to an incinerator can yield 1 ton of ash at the bottom of the facility, plus an unknown amount of “fly ash” that is carried away from the stacks of an incinerator plant to settle on surrounding communities. In response to a question, Dr. Connett said that the harmful byproducts drifting onto vegetation would be less of a problem to human consumers of, say, vegetables, than to livestock that consume large amounts of vegetation and concentrate the materials in their tissues and fats.
Beyond saying that such facilities should not operate within 50 kilometers of human communities or areas of food production, Dr. Connett preferred that waste incinerators not be built at all. In 2013 he published a book entitled “The Zero Waste Solution: Untrashing the Planet One Community at a Time.” He was even able to present a copy to Pope Francis during the latter’s visit to Philadelpha in April 2016. By “zero waste,” Dr. Connett means re-engineering the economy to eliminate waste almost entirely from the “linear” stream of extraction, manufacturing and consumption that now leads to waste disposal. The current linear approach also involves the consumption of large amounts of energy – including during the transportation links – that can also exacerbate global warming. He said that better incineration technology is not the solution. That approach requires regulation, monitoring and enforcement, and he is not confident that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is up to the task. In fact, he characterized the EPA as “corrupt,” and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) along with it.
Dr. Connett said that incinerators like the one proposed for New Milford Township require large inputs of trash over a period of 20-30 years to be economically viable, considering the enormous capital costs required to build them, fully half of which goes into the scrubbers and other technology that are supposed to clean the ash and other byproducts. Incinerators don’t create lots of jobs, and the jobs there might be/will be dangerous. After all, said he, if it was such a good deal, why aren’t other communities scrambling to get one? No, he said. The operators are “unscrupulous people” who are in it solely for the money. He said that the “real game” is to find communities “so depressed or so preoccupied that they don’t realize that they’re being tricked.” That Pennsylvania is the largest “importer” of trash “isn’t a reflection of good judgement; instead it is a reflection of corruption” in state government. He said that becoming a “dumping ground for other communities’ trash” will impair agriculture, tourism, property values and the community’s image. “Your economy will spiral downward,” said he.
Dr. Connett would prefer to shift from safety of waste disposal to sustainability, to convert the throwaway society to a sustainable society. He said that the community must work together to block this incinerator proposal, and suggested that neighbors gathering behind a cause could also be fun.
In response to a question about trucks hauling the waste to the incinerator, Dr. Connett described a situation in Europe where accidents near incinerators have cost host communities for cleanup and emergency services.
Another resident of the area near the proposed location of the facility worried about his shallow water well. Dr. Connett seemed surprised at a well only 10-12 feet deep, and less concerned about wells 100-300 feet deep, although “not a fan of fracking,” he did express some concern about the scale of the gas drilling industry in the area.
A Thompson resident complained of neighbors burning household trash in their backyards. Dr. Connett called this behavior “an abomination.”
In the end, Dr. Connett, a dynamic and convincing orator with lots of practice and a compelling message, told his audience that “the only ones who will look after you and your children … is you!”
The League of Women Voters sponsored this event at part of an “Incinerator Education Program Series.” The next presentation in the series is scheduled for October 8, 2016, also at the Blue Ridge auditorium, and will feature Dr. Michael McCawley of the School of Public Health of West Virginia University.
The August 17th meeting of the New Milford Township supervisors was held in the township's garage, as the previous month's crowd had exceeded the standard meeting space. The visitors that evening requested the supervisors to obtain a larger space in the future. The crowd assembled at the August meeting did not really warrant such a move, however, with less than fifty people present at the meeting's start.
Mr. Briechle related that the month prior they had entered into a resolution establishing rules of the meetings. This included a restriction that only township residents be allowed to speak during the public comment portion of the meeting. That evening these were altered to allow the press to speak, even if they were not township residents. “Press” was to be defined as news reporters, publishers, and broad casters, who were allowed to ask questions but were to be limited to the same three minute restrictions as the rest of the public.
Mr. Briechle then said that he thought it might be easier if, rather than responding to public questions, he give an overview of the changes during the previous month, and then the public could ask him questions following that report. He had suggested this to the supervisors. He proceeded to give the board an update of what had been done regarding the incinerator.
The review of the ordinance was proceeding, he said. They had dissected it into its various parts, and he felt that they could conclude that the ordinance, as presented, probably would not be passed in the form it had been originally submitted. He and the firm they had hired in Harrisburg had been communicating with Mr. Ewall, who drafted the initial ordinance, and had asked questions of him. The answers to their questions would determine if the ordinance as presented was workable, or a different ordinance would be drafted.
Mr. Briechle mentioned the Environmental Stewardship Concepts group, with which it had been suggested they contact, to establish acceptable health limits. He said that they may be interested in engaging that group, but recent events had put into question the township's ability to act.
Earlier that week the township had been provided with a letter from the governor's office, from June of 2013. He had submitted this letter to general counsel for the current state government, along with a copy of the proposed ordinance (and an indication that this might not be the document ultimately acted upon by the supervisors). In June of 2013, Governor Corbett had been in office, and as the governor was now Governor Wolf, they had requested general counsel to please respond to them. The letter in question, a copy of which was given to those present, was called an “interesting” letter by Mr. Briechle. He didn't have the facts as to why it was issued other than that it was sent to the Allentown city council. It seemed as though the council was anticipating enacting a clean air ordinance, and the governor's council felt this may be preempted by the satutes (by the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act). Going by the pure facts of what was in the letter, it seemed the Allentown case might be similar to what the township was facing. They were analyzing whether that opinion, if valid, would have some implication on how the ordinance would by enacted by the township, if one was in fact enacted.
The township also disseminated copies of a letter they had received from the regional director of DEP for the Northeast District. The director had written the letter in response to the township's request for a baseline air and water quality study. A similar letter had been received by the county. Mr. Briechle read it aloud. He said that based on the enclosures in the letter, it seemed it was based on a hazardous waste incinerator. While there were no permit applications currently pending before DEP for the project, the letter explained the process for permitting such a facility, and enclosed the manual for such. It stated that their request for baseline air and water quality studies would be considered and discussed during the pre-application process when details of the project were made available. DEP was scheduled to have a preliminary meeting with representatives of Tyler Corners, LP in September to discuss both the proposed project and the permitting and siting process, according to the letter. After the meeting, if appropriate, DEP would appoint a Siting Team and Team Leader, and the Team Leader would contact the township to begin discussions on the pre-application process. Finally, the letter made them aware of a Host Municipality Siting Review Grant. More information was available on the DEP website.
Mr. Briechle related having contacted two other townships who had passed ordinances. These were ordinances about crematoriums, not incinerators. In one, Peters Township, it wasn't a seperate clean air ordinance, it was folded into regulating it through a zoning ordinance. In both cases federal lawsuits had been filed against the townships after the ordinances were passed.
Mr. Conroy and Mr. Briechle had attended the previous evening's information session sponsored by the League of Women Voters. Mr. Briechle said he found the information interesting, but he didn't feel it was particularly pertinent to the legal concerns he had.
Mr. Briechle said that they found very unique provisions in the ordinances, and that they needed a lot of answers to vet out fourth amendment right issues and consent issues. They were continuing to review it, at the same time they had moved on to whether another attack on the issue was to draft another ordinance. They had been in the early stages of looking into this when they were given those two letters.
A visitor asked if both garage doors needed to be open, saying it was very loud. Ms. Graham replied that they did, due to insurance. Mr. Briechle jokingly asked if she wanted to wear his suit, as it was warm.
Mr. Briechle said that the DEP letter seemed to continuously reference hazardous waste. He didn't know if this was something they were assuming, as he had understood it was not a hazardous waste insinerator.
He also said he had done some research on the issue of preemption. There was an interesting case out of Elk county that talked about the idea of preemption. There was also a commonwealth court case out of Pittsburgh that talked tangentially about preemption. They weren't very on point with the issue the township was dealing with. They might have given some support or suggestions as to how the general counsel had formed opinions on preemption.
He said he would love to hear from the general council shortly to see if they still held that general opinion.
When Mr. Briechle finished his report there was some applause.
The floor was then opened to comments ofrom verified residents of the township who had signed up to speak. It was asked how many residents were in New Milford Township. Ms. Graham replied that there were 2046. Sue Pipitone thanked the supervisors for moving the meeting to the garage, saying that there weren't as many people that night but that they never knew when the community was available. She also thanked them for obtaining a microphone, and thanked Mr. Briechle and Mr. Conroy for attending the information session. She felt that one of the points which had been made was that that there had been a lot of proposals for incinerators, and it was the community banding together that fought it. They couldn't do it, she continued, without the supervisors' help. She thanked them for making the effort and making the changes to ensure that the communty was feeling a positive movement. Her words also brought applause.
Jim Hartman said he knew and was friends with all three supervisors. He knew there was usually nothing serious in this township that went on, and this was serious. Hopefully if they banded together as a communtiy they would have more of a voice heard. He offered any help he could give.
Paul Kelly said they answered most of his questions, but if New Milford Township could pass an air ordinance he felt they owed it to the residents and surrounding communities that they contract to work with Environmental Stewardship Concepts so they had someone on their side, aside from the lawyers that they hired.
Luke Updike said that he and his friend, Charlie had decided to come to the meeting, and that it was good to know they were putting everything together, trying to make it work. He and his friends had been told that they were young to be coming to such meetings. Whether their future was in the area or somewhere else, though, he knew there would be people in the area. The issue wasn't necessarily about them, it was about the next person. They were all working together to help one another.
Kevin Phillips wanted to thank everyone in the room, and the supervisors. He said they didn't see this coming any more than the public did, and it had to be a lot harder sitting on the supervisor's side than on the public side. He said that there was a lot of support out there; he had been at other meetings. He wanted them to give Mr. Briechle permission to share information with Mr. Ewall. He felt this would be a good idea. He also thanked Mr. Briechle for giving the report first; he felt it took the tension out of the room.
Joe Pipitone said that he wanted to give his time to attorney Ewall. Mr. Briechle said that only residents could speak, but that they had talked to Mr. Ewall and would talk to him.
A resident asked if there was anything they could do at that time to help. Mr. Briechle replied that there were mainly legal issues before them. The issues that they had were not only (legally) how the ordinance was set up and their desire to ensure that whatever ordinance they presented to the supervisors was something they fully understood, but that it would hold up against challenge after the fact. He anticipated that this could happen based on the history of the other ordinances he had researched. That was the main purpose.
There were some issues with enforcement and the cost of enforcement. Preliminary estimates of cost were not small- they were talking tens of tens of thousands of dollars. He had read a report on Peters Township, and their estimation was in the hundreds of thousands. Whether that was right was something to look at. He said if they had environmental engineers in their group that would be willing to take the time and energy to work through it with the township, they would love to hear it- to save time and money.
Mr. Briechle added that he thought they could probably say that the concept of just passing an ordinance on this situation was not necessarily going to prevent the facility from being created or challenged. He said that there were competing interests and competing theories. Mr. Conroy said that the biggest thing was getting the word out there.
Someone said this was a sizable burden for a relatively small township of around 2,046 people. There were a lot of things they could do, but also a lot of things they couldn't do. They were trying to encourage others to maybe follow the lead they would set.
A man asked if permits from New York were needed for this. It wasn't thought that they were.
A woman asked if there was any way to include the costs of enforcement in the ordinance. Mr. Briechle said that they were looking into it; there were concepts of taxation that could arise. They needed to do their best to make sure it was rationally based.
Mrs. Pipitone asked if they had communication with the commissioners. A lot of people had been going to the commissioner's meetings and talked about baseline testing. At the meeting the previous night, she continued, it was stated that getting baseline testing early was important. She wanted to know if they had thoughts on that. She was a member of SCAN, the Susquehanna Clean Air Network. She said they weren't against the incinerator per say, they were against any industry that would harm their health. With the gas the area had, they should be able to bring in good and healthy industry.
It was responded that the township had sent a letter to DEP requesting baseline air and water testing. The letter that Mr. Briechle read and passed around was the response. Mrs. Pipitone stated that DEP didn't have the best track record, and they were talking about one that the township could do on their own. Mr. Briechle responded that as their solicitor he would talk with the supervisors about the cost and about the evidentiary issues involved with doing this too early. He said he had litigated for eighteen years, they would look at it, but they had to be careful.
Another man asked if Eckert Seamans had ever worked with the environmental stewardship group. Mr. Briechle replied that he didn't know; he hadn't heard them speak of it. When asked if he could offer it up, Mr. Briechle responded in the affirmative.
A timer ended the first public comment period. The meeting then progressed on to the regular business of the township. As occurred the previous month, several people left. Some chatted in the building on the way out, and Mr. Briechle requested that if they were going to have conversations they please do it outside.
Some tree issues had been brought up the month prior. Mr. Conroy had said they would look into it, and they had some quotes. Old School Tree Service was awarded the bid, at the lowest price.
The bids for the garage renovation were opened next. There were two of them. A visitor asked what this involved. It was replied that they were enclosing the building, so the entire thing was out of the weather. Blue Ridge Better Builders won the bid. Mr. Shibley had a conflict, so Mr. Briechle said that under the Ethics Act he had to identify that it was a relationship issue and . Briechle had him execute a memorandum that he had a conflict.
There were no updates as of that month regarding Pentagon Gas, it was announced. The outfit was still awaiting highway occupancy permits within the state of Connecticut before proceeding with the permit process in PA.
DEP notified the township, it was said, that Bluestone Pipeline had applied for and been granted a GPA/GP-5 permit for DDP1a. There were also several items regarding Southwestern Energy. DEP granted permission to drill at RU 55 Conklin, wells 2H3H and 5H and at RU NR3 Cowell, wells 1H and 3H. The company had also applied to DEP for permsision to drill at RU22 TNT Limited, wells 3 H 4 H and 6 H. Finally, the company provided notice for consumptive use RU33 Innes and RU 27 Kelly, where peak consumptive water use would not exceed 4,999,000 gallons per day. Neither was yet approved by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
The county was changing over to a new vendor for the emergency notification system, Mr. Bondurant reported. He said he hoped those there had signed up for it; it was a free notification system which worked through text, cell phone, or email. Anything the county's 911 center thought the public should know was sent. The new system was called Code Red, and it could be accessed through the county website.
Mr. Briechle said that they had received from the commissioners' office a letter dated August 2016 that talked about a county comprehensive plan. The way he looked at it, he thought they were talking about enacting ordinances beyond land development. He was wondering if the township would like him to resopnd in some fashion. The supervisors asked his opinion. He replied that New Milford Township, like a couple others he represented, had always had a feeling of not having zoning, letting the county deal with subdivisions, etc. The flip side of that was that zoning did provide a level of control by the municipality, and they would have the ability to provide for certain advancement of industry, such as agricultural, etc. They could restrict and control how things were developed, but at the same time they took on the responsibility. The zoning ordinance in PA typically required that they would set up the entire township into districts, and for each district establish what could and couldn't be developed in those districts. People then applied, and if people wanted to do something that was acceptable they would submit fees. That required the administration in place to administer it. Typically there would be a zoning officer to enforce and a planning commission to review. It was a pretty intense process to get there.
The general feeling the township had was that people in the area didn't want zoning. He said it may be something for the county to handle. A woman asked what they were talking about. Mr. Briechle said that there was no county wide zoning, it was a land development ordinance. He said that, generally speaking, if a person wanted to develop their property to put a warehouse on it, it would have to go through the county. If they were looking to do a residential thing they didn't need to do all that, all they had to do was apply for a subdivision and setbacks. For that all that was needed was to go to the township. Unless the resident lived in the three boroughs that did have zoning, they were free overall to do what they wanted with their land.
A man asked if this would be a way to slow any possible advancement of an incinerator. Mr. Briechle replied that this wouldn't necessarily be the case, as part of the theory of zoning was that they had to allow for any type of possible entity to exist. So an incinerator could fall into an industrial zone. Zoning wouldn't automatically stop a certain industry from existing.
The supervisors decided that their response would be to draft a letter with the opinion that they would like to deal with matters on a case by case basis.
After the meeting closed Attorney Ewall approached this reporter to say that he could clarify some matters that were spoken of, though he was not allowed to speak at the meeting (not being a township resident). He said, for instance, that there was confusion regarding the preemption concept. As of this article's submission this clarification was not obtained, so it is not included in the report. This notation is included, however, to fairly present all sides.
The little office was crowded to overflowing for the Harford Township Supervisors’ August meeting on the 17th. There was some shouting, some angry and abusive language, accusations of conflict of interest, calls for resignations – and none of it was about an incinerator. The meeting went on for some 2 and a half hours, full of acrimony and dispute at just about every point in the agenda, with the audience participating throughout, some even offering motions, as if they had standing to move any action by their elected representatives from the floor.
(The meeting was a day later than usual – at the request of this writer. The change was advertised as required, but posting a notice on the office door was overlooked, to the consternation of some in attendance – just another thing to be angry about.)
The township’s solicitor, Jamie Hailstone, had been called in for an earlier executive session to discuss legal issues, presumably the litigation related to a dispute over maintenance on Tyler Lake Road. Expecting some contentious debate at the subsequent public session, he was asked to stay for the meeting. Mr. Hailstone got caught in the turmoil and simply became another topic for the assembled multitude to be angry about.
It started off with a special item on the agenda, the resignation letter of Supervisor Conrad Owens, and another letter rescinding said resignation. The resignation letter was dated August 4; the letter rescinding the resignation was dated August 8. The letter announcing Mr. Owens’s resignation charged his colleagues with acting “without ever asking my opinion,” and generally ignoring his participation. The remaining Supervisors, Doug Phelps and Sue Furney, seemed inclined to accept Mr. Owens’s resignation and ignore the rescission. Many of the observers seemed to prefer that the board acknowledge the withdrawal of the resignation. Mr. Owens himself did not attend the meeting.
Mr. Hailstone said that legal precedent did not require the Supervisors to accept the letter rescinding the resignation. In fact, he said that he was aware that Mr. Owens had a resignation letter prepared for some time, and that a follow-on letter dated only a few days later seemed a little specious. Some in the room were inclined to argue the law with Mr. Hailstone, citing references from what they called an “official” handbook for township Supervisors. They may have been referring to the Township Supervisor’s Handbook published by the Pennsylvania Department of Community & Economic Development, or to some other publication of the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors (PSATS), the non-governmental advocacy organization; Harford Township is a dues-paying member of PSATS.
Mr. Hailstone, however, claimed that the handbook is wrong on some points, and that the remaining 2 Supervisors may accept, or decline to accept the resignation, the rescission, or both. The Second Class Township Code is the governing law, along with legal precedent established in the courts. He said that, having researched the issue, he finds no precedent for requiring the Supervisors to accept the rescission of the resignation of an elected official. The legal requirements regarding employees is different, but Mr. Owens only resigned his elected office; as he is also a township employee (Assistant Roadmaster), he technically retains that position. He advised Mr. Phelps and Ms. Furney to accept the resignation and reject the rescission. The loudest of the observers seemed to think differently.
That debate went on for a while. In the end, Mr. Phelps accepted a suggestion from the floor and moved to ask the township’s attorney to study the issue further by consulting a judge and report back; the matter was tabled for consideration a month hence.
Curiously, some in attendance questioned the use of a “legal consultant” (the solicitor, Mr. Hailstone), and the fees the township incurs with Mr. Hailstone’s presence at the meeting. For his part, Mr. Hailstone displayed some anger at the attitude of some in the room, expressed occasionally in loud and abusive language. That, of course, simply served to stir up the indignation of the citizens further, inviting a challenge to the seat of power in the township on virtually every other item on the agenda.
During the “Road Report” provided by Roadmaster Jim Phelps, who did not attend in person, the Supervisors accepted the sole bid from Suit-Kote to provide asphalt-based oil for dust control at $1.08 per gallon. It was the next item, opening bids for ditching and filling, that occasioned an extended debate about the hiring of contractors.
Barhite Excavating has been doing a lot of work on township roads. The Supervisors accepted Barhite’s low bid of $2.75 per foot for ditching work in various locations. Aside from questions about the amounts paid to Barhite for work in the past, the use of a contractor from outside the township was called into question. Some would prefer that the Supervisors give priority consideration to local contractors in such decisions (Barhite is based in Clifford). Mr. Phelps told the meeting that the Supervisors must select the “lowest responsible bid” in such situations. And Mr. Hailstone said that preferring local contractors ahead of all other bidders could expose the township to legal action, which ensued a discussion of the meaning of the term “responsible.” It means, said Mr. Phelps, backed up by Mr. Hailstone, that a contractor’s prior work for the township and general reputation could be considered.
It got worse. It was charged that Mr. Phelps could be caught in a conflict of interest since Michael Barhite is president of the Mountain View school board, and Mr. Phelps is an employee of the Mountain View school district. This was only the first of several points where Mr. Phelps was asked to resign. Mr. Phelps graciously offered to relinquish his seat at the next election if someone else in attendance would like the job; no one seemed eager to take him up on the offer.
(Mike Barhite himself sat quietly through most of the meeting, offering only that receipts and documentation of all of his firm’s work is available for public scrutiny. “We’re not crooks,” said he.)
Reviewing the next set of bids, for filling ditches, and after consulting with Mr. Hailstone, Mr. Phelps wanted to table consideration for further clarification because, he said, he wasn’t comfortable with the large difference between the 2 bids: one, from Barhite, was for $24,950; the other, from Stafursky Paving, was for $59,775. He said that such a large difference may indicate that one or the other contractor may have missed something in the bid specifications. The proposal to table provoked still more angry debate in the room: why not just accept the low bid? Mr. Phelps in exasperation wondered that some questioned the township’s frequent use of Barhite, yet now wanted him to accept their bid simply because it was the lowest. In the end, he gave in, and he and Ms. Furney accepted Barhite’s low bid for filling.
It went on like that, with each agenda item called into question on one or another pretext. For example, there was considerable discussion of a project to repair the “apron” at the intersection of Stephens Road, Route 547 and U.S. Route 11 at Kingsley. All seemed to agree on the deplorable and unsafe condition of the intersection and the Supervisors awarded the contract to pave an area of 24 feet by 75 feet to ProSeal for the low bid of $15,100.
Roadmaster Jim Phelps asked for a total of $15,000 for flushing pipe for 2016. The Supervisors awarded the contract to Barna Trucking at $150 per hour, based in part on experience with the contractor and their staffing and equipment capabilities. There may be $8,000 remaining in that budget account; the Roadmaster will be responsible for selecting the pipes to be flushed until the funds are exhausted.
A project to replace some pipe on Wescott Road and Devil’s Elbow mercifully occasioned little debate. Dale Payne will do the excavation on Wescott; Rock Estabrook will do the digging at Devil’s Elbow. (The township will provide and place the pipes.) The motion set a limit of $1,500 for the digging at each location. (Interestingly, Mr. Barhite graciously provided the estimates that allowed the Supervisors to set the cap.)
The Supervisors agreed to pay the Conservation District $50 to prepare a permit application for a dry hydrant in Kingsley.
A dry hydrant in Kingsley was not a contentious issue. But when someone wondered at the Supervisors’ inaction on a proposal by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) to turn over State Route 2022 (aka the Owego Turnpike) to the township, the judgement of the Supervisors again came under scrutiny. After all, the state brings the road up to standards before the “turnback,” provides some funds, and the road then becomes eligible for “liquid fuel” subsidy. Mr. Phelps was not inclined to accept the offer, at least not yet. Ms. Furney, however, citing past experience with Pennay Hill and Stephens Roads, was determined to reject it. Instead of putting off the decision any longer, and almost resigned to the difficulty of debating anything this evening, they moved and voted to decline the turnback offer (“for the time being”).
The Supervisors decided to pay off the so-called “infrastructure loan” that has been on the books for some years. The township borrowed $500,000 interest free from the state to help bridge expenses related to repairing and replacing infrastructure following flooding. Most of the costs were eventually reimbursed from emergency management funds, but the township kept the loan on the books and on deposit, all this time collecting modest interest. The loan is due to be paid off in 2018, but shows up as debt when the township needs to borrow – for example, to upgrade the sewer system. So the Supervisors decided to pay off the note to simplify bookkeeping.
As if there hadn’t been public comment enough throughout the meeting, at the very end Mr. Phelps recognized a resident of the Cobb Road area who most vociferously, and at length, complained of the lack of maintenance on his road. The Supervisors listened respectfully to the decidedly coarse language, and pledged to have the situation examined by the Roadmaster.
And, a resident of the Tyler Lake area complained about lack of maintenance on his road. As a party to the lawsuit against the township, he said that he had been told that the township would not deal with Tyler Lake Road until the litigation was settled. Mr. Hailstone allowed that some minor maintenance could be considered, but that since maintenance of the road was at issue in the lawsuit, it should be limited to filling potholes and suppressing dust.
It seems the season to challenge one’s elected representatives. Predicting the atmosphere at such a meeting from month to month is also a challenge. For the Harford Township Supervisors, the next opportunity is scheduled for Tuesday, September 20, 2016, beginning at 7:00pm. Get there early to get a seat.
