Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Oakridge Sewer topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Spring Garden hears CS Davidson on costly Oakridge 3M sewer plan
Summary
CS Davidson presented a DEP‑ordered Act 537 "3M" plan for the Oakridge area affecting 134 lots, estimating total project costs of $6.9M–$8.9M and potential per‑household front‑foot assessments of roughly $44,000–$70,000; the township will seek more time from DEP and hold a public hearing April 1.
CS Davidson engineer Chris Toms told Spring Garden Township commissioners that a DEP order requires an abbreviated Act 537 ("3M") sewage facilities plan for the Oakridge area and that the study shows the project would be expensive and complex. The plan covers roughly 134 residential lots, many of which have cesspools or holding tanks and soils or slopes that preclude new on‑lot systems, Toms said.
"This is going to be really expensive," Toms said, summarizing results of the abbreviated study and the available collection and conveyance options. He listed three basic approaches to collect sewage in the area—deeper in‑road sewers, shallow sewers that require private easements, or shallow sewers that would require grinder pumps on about 18 properties—and put the total package, including conveyance to an interceptor, in the ballpark of $6.9 million to $8.9 million.
Toms described the financing implications under the township's historical approach. If the township used a front‑foot assessment, per‑household costs would be roughly $44,000 to $70,000; alternatively, a 20‑year low‑interest loan in a special rate district would produce quarterly debt service of about $650 to more than $1,000 on top of existing sewer rates.
The consultant also explained conveyance constraints. One option would be to tie Oakridge flows into York Township's Tyler Run interceptor or to build a new interceptor toward the PA American Water/York City plant; York Township has said the existing interceptor has no spare capacity, so Toms recommended exploring a joint Act 537 plan with York Township to re‑examine five‑decade‑old intermunicipal agreements and potentially reduce conveyance costs.
Toms recommended asking DEP for additional time to work with neighboring municipalities and to prepare a fuller township‑wide Act 537 study. He said the plan has been circulated to the township and county planning commissions for their 60‑day reviews, that a public notice would go out in early March and that a public hearing is planned for April 1, with adoption of a resolution to amend the township Act 537 to follow if the board chooses.
On interim measures, Toms said converting failed on‑lot systems to holding tanks is a common stopgap: owners typically pay about $200 a month for pumping and alarms. He also reported the township has about 845 on‑lot systems overall; the abbreviated 3M module covers only the Oakridge study area, and a later township‑wide Act 537 would evaluate which additional areas should be extended to public sewer and whether mandatory connection ordinances should apply where sewer is available.
No formal action was taken at the workshop; the consultant and board agreed that if DEP grants the short extension, the township can hold the public hearing and consider adoption at the April meeting. The consultant said staff will provide plan copies and public‑notice language to meet DEP's time limit.
What’s next: the plan team will seek the DEP extension, finalize public‑notice materials, and post the draft for public review ahead of the April 1 hearing. Any formal adoption to amend the township Act 537 would require a board vote at a noticed meeting.
