The Township Council weighed concerns from about 20 Penn Lyle Road and Village Road West residents who do not have water and sewer hook-ups — some of whom want the public sewers and some of whom do not. Most do not want to be financially burdened either way.
The residents approached the council during the September 14 meeting after they had filled out a survey sent to them by the township asking whether they wanted to share the costs of having public sewers installed as the township proceeds with an upcoming resurfacing of Penn Lyle Road.
Although a majority of the responses the township received were votes against the installation of the sewers, some residents argued there were gray areas the survey failed to address, most namely that residents who are opposed to the sewers are against it because they would have to pay into the costs. Some residents argued that if a deal could be worked out where the financial detriment to the residents were not as severe, a majority of the residents would be in favor of the sewers.
Penn Lyle Road resident Sharon Gladwin urged the council to consider an exception to its long-standing policy not to pay for neighborhood sewer projects using taxpayer money.
She said that the 20 houses that are in the proposed area are owned by families who have occupied the homes for multiple generations. She said she is the third generation in her family to own her ranch home, which was built in 1965. She said the group of homes were individual houses that were built throughout the 1950s and ’60s and are not part of any development. Some of the homeowners already had to replace their septic system, “and other will have to do the same in the future,” Gladwin said.
Wes Mostello, who also lives on Penn Lyle Road said he had voted against installing public sewers because he spent $20,000 to replace his septic system in the mid-1980s and was sure that his system would never fail. He said he does not want to pay for a sewer project that will not benefit him. However, he agreed with what other residents and officials were saying during the meeting — that while the road is under construction, this may be the best and last opportunity to install sewers for the residents of this area.
Because he paid for a septic system when he bought his home in 1962 and because he already replaced it once, he said he feels he should not have to pay a third time. He urged the township to look for grant money to cover the cost of the project or make some adjustment in the township’s budgeted expenses to cover the costs of the sewer project.
“This inequity had come about as a result of constant neglect or mismanagement,” he said. “It should have been done.” Mostello added that “there be some kind of equitable solution to everyone.”
When there is a development that does not have sewer and water service, the township’s policy is strictly “not to spend capital dollars doing that,” explained Business Administrator Robert Hary.
The township’s policy regarding public sewer installation is that it, and subsequently, its taxpayers, will not foot the bill for sewer installation in any development. Rather, township officials wait until developers come in with site plans and can pay for the installation of public sewers in areas in and around their developments, meaning that neighbors to those developments would only have to pay hook-up fees and other permitting costs associated with tying into the newly developed sewers.
In other cases, the township has paid the up-front costs for sewer projects and has had the residents who will benefit from the sewer installation pay back the costs over a 10-year period, officials explained during the meeting.
Hary said there is a procedure for residents to ask for public sewers, and in order for a sewer project to come to fruition, the township must get a majority of residents to agree before it puts forth the up-front costs.
Hary said the concerns from residents came after the township was awarded grant money from the Department of Transportation for repairing the road. The project includes roadway improvements to Penn Lyle Road between Clarksville Road and New Village Road, which will include improved drainage, striping, signage, sidewalk, curb, and pedestrian facilities.
While the road project is underway, and the road is disturbed, Hary said the township has given the residents the opportunity to get sewers installed. So, the township sent out the same survey it has to other developments (currently, a similar sewer project is underway at the Heatherfield development), and the response was that a majority of residents were not in favor of replacing the sewers. Hary said that about three of the residents had just upgraded their septic systems — which could cost upwards of $20,000 — and did not want to spend more money collectively to get the sewers.
The cost of the sewer project would be approximately $250,000, said Hary. If the majority did want sewers, all of the residents in the area would split the cost. There would also be additional costs for each individual homeowner to then hook into the system.
So if a majority of the homeowners did want public sewer service and everyone collectively split the cost, each homeowner would have to pay the costs for running the sewer line from their homes to connect into the sewer, the costs for abandoning wells, and the permit fees associated with the sewer hook-up. A homeowner who is not interested in the sewer would still split the cost, since it runs in front of his or her home, but would not be required to hook into it.
Hary acknowledged that a resident had brought it to his attention that there were some problems with the surveys sent back to township officials and suggested that township officials meet with the residents.
Earlier in the meeting, Julie Chiang, of Village Road West, who is one of the homeowners in that area who also does not have sewer service, said she also spent $20,000 already in replacing her septic system, but said that she did her own research and found that many of the surveyed residents want sewer and water but just do not want to pay the cost. She said if more of them understood the issues and talked to township officials, there could be some kind of resolution to the problem. She urged township officials to meet with residents before making any final decisions.
Another Village Road West resident said he, too, was a 49-year township resident and said that of the 22 people who responded to the survey, he was also one of the people who voted against the project. “It’s not that I don’t want it,” he said. “I’m retired. We’re in a recession. The stock market is lousy.” The primary factor is money, something that is an important issue to a lot of the township’s residents, he added.
Councilman Charles Morgan, who said he was approached by the residents before the meeting, said that because the number of homeowners in this island of land is so small, splitting the $250,000 cost would translate into an extremely high price for each homeowner to pay. He asked whether there was any special consideration that could be taken for the development.
“First of all, you’re opening up the road — it’s insane not to do it now,” Morgan said. He said the fact is that in the future, there is the possibility that many of these septic systems will fail and will have to be replaced. “I think these are real health issues, and we need to work the policy hard.”
He urged the council to negotiate a solution and questioned whether the residents in this area could be considered a special exception given their circumstances.
Herbert said that extending the payback period to more than 10 years might be doable, but making an exception to the policy may carry legal consequences. In addition, using taxpayer money could cause an uproar with owners in other residential developments that have had to pay for sewer installation. But the most crucial point is that if the township did decide to cover the costs, “I don’t think we can. It’s too much money.”
Hary agreed, saying that “the capital costs associated with it are not something we could support.”
Complicating the issue is that township officials wanted to have the issue resolved within a few weeks to avoid having to go back to the DOT and ask for a deadline extension for the grant money. They need to take action no later than Tuesday, October 13.
In addition, Herbert explained that the law does not allow the municipality to divvy up the costs from the project based on the assessed value of each home. Rather, it must be divided equally among all the benefiting residents.
Residents seemed to be on board with the suggestion that officials meet with residents to find a solution that was fair to everyone. If the sewer project is not done now, “you will basically lock the coffin” on getting sewers installed there, said Gladwin. “We understand the policy, and we understand why it’s in place,” she said. She urged that officials find a way to fund the project in a way everyone can afford. “This is the last chance to provide these services” for this part of the community, she said.
