Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Sewer topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ferguson supervisors oppose special sewer exception for COG facilities, ask staff to send memo to planning groups
Summary
Ferguson Township supervisors on Sept. 10 declined to endorse an exception to the sewer-service and regional-growth-boundary process for Center Region Council of Governments (COG) facilities, citing cost and equity concerns, and directed staff to summarize the board’s consensus for planning committees.
Ferguson Township’s Board of Supervisors on Sept. 10 debated whether to allow a sewer service extension to serve the John Hass softball complex and whether to create a special exception for COG-owned facilities. After extended discussion about costs, fairness and process, the board directed staff to summarize its consensus and send a memo to the township’s representatives to regional planning bodies.
The board’s discussion centered on two main points: a reluctance to change the established process for expanding the regional growth boundary and sewer service area without a compelling reason, and concern about short-term budget impacts of constructing sewer infrastructure. One supervisor warned that building sewer pipe “is expensive” and said, “we’re likely talking in the millions,” arguing the township should not commit money without identified revenue.
Managers reminded the board that prior proposals included alternatives such as septic systems, field reconfiguration, or upgraded temporary restroom trailers (discussed earlier as roughly $600,000–$700,000 in prior forums). Several supervisors said temporary measures may be more appropriate now because a permanent sewer extension would take years to implement.
Several members also questioned whether allowing an exception solely for COG-owned facilities would be defensible and equitable. A supervisor asked why a municipality or other public owner that offered to pay for an expansion would be excluded, calling a single-entity carve-out a potential “slippery slope.” Other supervisors emphasized that the existing DRI (development review/expansion) process and the linkage between regional growth boundary and sewer service area exists to ensure consistent treatment.
Supervisor Patterson moved and Ms. Stevens seconded a directive that staff draft a memo summarizing the board’s consensus—chiefly, that the board does not favor changing the process absent a clear justification, and that it is not in favor of shouldering short-term costs for sewer expansion. The board agreed to review the memo at its next meeting before it is forwarded to the Center Region Planning Commission representative and other relevant committees.
Next steps: staff will prepare a memo capturing the two agreed bullets for review by the board ahead of distribution to planning bodies and committee representatives. The board did not take any immediate funding action at the Sept. 10 meeting.
