“You Are Fighting For Your View of the Creek. I Am Fighting For A Place to Put My Head At Night"

Upper Providence resident Patricia Stiefel’s comment, above, captures the essence of the dispute between Upper Providence and Lower Providence Townships over the regional sewer authority’s (LPVRSA’s) plans to place a middle interceptor along the Perkiomen creek, which I and others have written about at length previously.  At the end of the day, what’s more important: someone’s view from their kitchen window, or the very existence of a home that’s been in someone’s family for well over half a century and which they’ve personally owned for over 25 years? 

Last Thursday (9/12/13) another routine regional sewer authority (LPVRSA) meeting was on the calendar; I wasn’t going to attend since I had other plans. However, when I discovered that Frank and Patricia Stiefel – the Upper Providence residents whose home would be directly affected if the middle interceptor is placed on that side of the Perkiomen creek – would be attending, I knew I had to be there.

Since the Stiefel’s – and their home’s - very existence has been denied by some on the LP side of the issue, and their opinion of the project and the impact it will have on them grossly misrepresented or ignored by the same LP contingent, I’ve been trying to get the Stiefels to speak publicly about their position for months. As they are very private people who just want to be left alone, the Steifels were reluctant to wade into the fray.  Finally, they realized that with all the misrepresentations and smears being perpetrated by their counterparts across the creek, they needed to come forward before it’s too late.

It’s especially necessary given that LP hired a public relations firm some months ago to help move the needle on the issue for LP, so those neighbors, including mouthpiece Cathy Beyers, who has written numerous emotion-laden but fact-light missives relating the purported impact to her and her neighbors,   have that working in their favor. Upper Providence does not spend tax dollars on lobbyists for special interests in Harrisburg, so the Stiefels recognized that this too works against them and forced their hand to, forgive the pun, ‘pipe up’.

The last public LPVRSA meeting resulted in LP Democrat Supervisor candidate Jim Donohue disrupting the meeting by attempting to bully and start a physical fight with UP representative Bob Fieo, spouting obscenities in the process (video, here). Conspicuous by their absence, Donohue, Beyers and their usual contingent were not present Thursday night.

LPVRSA solicitor Bob Brandt began the meeting by addressing what happened at the July 11, 2013 meeting in which Donohue got out of hand. He mentioned that there is a difference between ‘public meetings’ and ‘public hearings’ and that ‘public meetings’ are not intended to be a forum for people to interrogate and harass Board members. He stated that the Board should never have allowed it to get to that point and Donohue should have been tossed for going after a Board member. Board chairman Terri Stagliano apologized to Bob Fieo for not doing more to prevent such an altercation and for not having Donohue removed for his actions once it occurred. She indicated that she has tried to give residents such as Beyer and Donohue a lot of leeway since the middle interceptor project affects them directly, but clearly that is being taken advantage of, and will not be the Board policy going forward.

Upper Providence Township supervisor Lisa Mossie was present and in the ‘public comment’ portion of the meeting, introduced the Stiefels to the Board and indicated that in light of the many misleading and outright false statements being made by Cathy Beyers and others in the local press and at local meetings about them and their position, they wanted the Board to hear from them, in person. Ms. Mossie also handed out a packet of a selection of the misleading and false statements that have appeared in various electronic and print media formats, most of which were authored by Beyer and with which the Stiefels specifically take issue.

The Stiefels addressed the Board directly, giving their address as 248 Cider Mill Road.  Frank Stiefel said that the sewer lateral already goes through their property and is presently about 40’ from their house. This time, to install the interceptor will ‘take their house’, and that this isn’t the case with any other affected property owner. He said ‘I’m a veteran (Marines)…I fought for my country so other people could stay in their properties. I wish you people would do the same for me”.

The LP folks are pushing for the option 3A, which will necessitate construction easements coming within 5 feet of the Stiefel house and at least six months of sewage bypass pumping, with a pump on their property.  While the pipe will not go directly through their house, the construction on the steep slope next to the Steifel home will destabilize an already eroding bank.  Given the huge fluctuations in rise and fall of the creek during heavy rain events, one can certainly understand the Steifel’s trepidation regarding construction so close to their little toehold on the Perkiomen.  

Stiefel's house is between Cider Mill Rd and the creek, above, and is next to steep slopes. Homes on the LP side don't come nearly as close to a proposed new trench.

Patricia Stiefel said that when LPVRSA wanted property from them they accepted their offer and gave it to them although ‘Fair Market Value’ of $264 for a ¼ acre of land was ‘a joke…elsewhere in Upper Providence an acre goes for $55,000 or more”.  She also said that this so-called ‘driveway’ the LP folks claim the Stiefels may get out of the project is neither needed nor wanted as they already have two entrances and exits out of their property.  Also, the new interceptor will not benefit the Stiefels as they have a well. Mrs. Stiefel  said that "We do not hook up to the existing sewer system and will not be able to hook up to the new one once installed, so while it may benefit ‘the public’, there is absolutely no benefit to us”. For the Stiefels, placement of the interceptor on the Upper Providence side of the creek is all downside.

Mr. Stiefel said it’s a shame that ‘some people have to say crap’ in order to try to make their case, and Mrs. Steifel said (referring to Cathy Beyer and her family specifically) “We were friends for a long time, but we no longer speak to any of them” as a result of the dispute and the things that have been said about them.

Even if you factor in claimed environmental impacts and consider alleged artifact finds of dubious value, issues which encompass both sides of the creek, all things being equal, what’s more important? Someone’s view or someone’s home?

As we exited the building, Mary Kaczor, one of the LP residents involved (and sister to Cathy Beyers), who’d arrived late to the meeting and missed most of the public comment portion of the meeting, ran up to the Stiefels and confronted them on their way to their car.  Clearly caught flat-footed, having never anticipated that the Stiefels would get involved, Kaczor feigned ignorance about any of the online comments – several of which she has actually responded to online herself -  and told the Steifels in front of Ms. Mossie and myself that she ‘had no idea that this was going to ruin their property’. In a dizzying display of sheer CYA, Kaczor’s comments ran the gamut from claiming she’s ‘an expert because she’s been to every meeting and thus knows all about this issue’ to claiming she didn’t know anything at all when presented with facts that opposed her views, including that she ‘didn’t have any idea that the pipe was coming through the Stiefel’s property’ AND that she ‘thought they were on board with the pipe going through their property’. 

When none of these arguments gained traction with the Steifels, Kaczor, apparently assuming that the Steifels were completely ignorant about the middle interceptor construction project, tried to lure them to her side by saying that they should all push LPVRSA for a pump station.  “Where are they going to put that, Mary?” asked an incredulous Frank Steifel, who knows that the pump station would be placed right on his front lawn and would necessitate a condemnation of his entire property.  Those of you who have been following along at home will remember that up until this past January, this pump station option was the preferred option of Lower Providence Township and the LP folks.

Out of options and desperate at this point, Kaczor pulled out her final ace in the hole:  The board members on the LPVRSA are all “evil” and all of the folks on the creek should band together and “just stop” this project.  The pipe could just go “somewhere else,” suggested this self-proclaimed “expert” on the project.

Indeed, for a self-proclaimed ‘expert’ Kaczor didn’t even know who Lisa Mossie, a party to the dispute, was when she was standing right in front of her and claimed to have never seen a plan that had lateral going anywhere near the Stiefel’s home (see plans, above). I wish I had taped the encounter, because it was utterly ludicrous. I’ve never seen someone vacillate so rapidly between two extremes - claiming to know everything and claiming to know nothing – in such a short period of time as I saw from Kaczor that night. Clearly Kaczor and her ilk aren’t used to a dialogue; they are used to having the soapbox to themselves, conjuring their own facts and controlling the narrative.

Kaczor complained that the Steifels ‘should have come to them’ if they had problems with the project;  the Stiefels feel the time for talking has long passed since Beyer & Co. represented them and their position without their knowledge or consent. 

As the sky opened up and torrents of rain poured down on both parties who make their home on the water, we all cut the talk short and departed. Apparently, though, Kaczor wouldn’t let it go, because she showed up unannounced at the Stiefel’s house later that evening, trying to do damage control and convince them to meet with ‘the engineer’ Fred Walker. Mr. Walker may be AN engineer, but he’s not THE LPVRSA engineer; he is LP’s representative on LPVRSA.

Aside from the central issue at hand – where the interceptor will be placed – the saddest part is this: two families that have known each other for decades and grew up together –Frank Stiefel reminisced about how Cathy and Mary would run through the sewer pipes when they were kids in the 70’s – have been torn apart because one of the parties has been so utterly consumed by this cause that they discarded all of that in favor of their own interests. Ultimately, the cost of this interceptor will be higher than just dollars, turtles and artifacts; it may cost someone’s home in addition to the long-standing friendship.

The Stiefels may be late in gearing up for war, but they are nonetheless determined to fight the smear campaign being waged against them, LPVRSA and their municipality. As Mrs. Steifel told Kaczor, “You are fighting for your view of the creek. I am fighting for a place to put my head at night. We haven’t said anything up til now, but I will fight you with my last dying breath”.

 

 

Tidbits and Updates

There are a lot of things going on, none of which I have time to write a full article about – and it IS summer, so I’d much rather be outside hiking, horseback riding, gardening or down the Shore than inside researching and writing.  In that vein, this mashup of bits & pieces will have to do for now:

·         I am told that the Methacton School Board is ready to move forward with hiring a new superintendent and that it is highly likely the announcement will come this Tuesday night, August 20 at the regularly scheduled school board meeting.  There’s a bit of drama surrounding the pick, so it might be worth your while to come out and get a feel for the reasoning behind the Board’s selection and what went into finding and interviewing him (or her).

 

·         Speaking of Methacton, recently departed superintendent Dr. Timothy Quinn and paramour Diane Barrie have both found gainful employment elsewhere. Quinn landed as an Area Partnership Manager for Provo, Utah-based Imagine Learning, a language and literacy software solution provider, and Barrie is the new curriculum coordinator for Kutztown Area School District. Best wishes to both in their new endeavors, and thanks to both for their educational contributions at Methacton.

·         As feared and predicted, Montgomery County did have to shut down the Arcola Road Bridge this past Friday afternoon and, as residents feared, they didn’t necessarily know about it until they were on their way home from work and stuck in traffic. However, I give our elected officials credit for doing a great job of notifying everyone as soon as possible. I heard from Rep. Mike Vereb within 15 minutes after the decision was made, and the County and municipalities of Lower Providence and Upper Providence were very quick to get phone and email blasts out within the hour.

·         Regarding the bridge, the meeting this past Monday was widely reported upon, so I don’t have much to add (and I already wrote back in July about what was likely to happen, here). I do know that as I floated among the Q & A groups, the primary beef residents had was with the detour routes and the length of time it will take to get the bridge built and reopened.  What wasn’t made exactly clear, judging from comments I’ve seen and heard, is that people don’t understand the bridge will be closed for approximately 3 YEARS. 15-18 months are needed  to get through design, easement acquisition and bidding the work, but it’s also going to take another 15-18 months to actually build the thing.  I think people heard the ’15-18 months’ thing twice but didn’t understand it applied to two DIFFERENT things, things that run consecutively, not concurrently. Bottom line, plan extra time accordingly when traveling between Upper Providence, Collegeville and Lower Providence.

·   *      In an odd bit of ill-timed and misguided political sideshow, the LP Dems decided to politicize the bridge meeting/issue, presumably to elevate their candidate for supervisor, Jim Donahue. The weekend before they had gone through several neighborhoods, dropping literature on residents’  mailboxes posing  questions that seemed to lead one to believe they thought closing the bridge was a bad idea, and posting signs near the bridge that were clearly against closing it (they also handed out fundraiser flyers in the literature bags and at the meeting itself).  I’m sure Democrat County Commissioners Josh Shapiro and Leslie Richards were utterly thrilled that their own party members were flaming up residents over something that is already a bit of a PR headache for them.  (And, not to be bitchy, but it IS illegal to place anything in or on mailboxes that is not actual US Mail...the fines for doing so can be substantial...get your message out by all means, but follow the law).

        Not only that, but really, Mr. Donahue, you are making being AGAINST  transportation safety improvements and the safety of our residents part of your platform? I bet that if the bridge had remained open and someone were injured or killed, you would be leading the charge to sue the County for wrongful death. Nice.

·         Regarding the same Mr. Donahue, there’s a fun bit of video out on YouTube where he’s attending a regional sewer authority meeting (LPVRSA) and calls out authority member Bob Fieo to ‘take it outside’ and presumably brawl over their disagreement on an issue. Donohue is clearly the instigator, yet the caption under the video posting attempts to make it appear as though Donohue were the victim and Fieo the instigator. Again, curious, since a picture is worth a thousand words. Watch it here at about 6 minutes in. Do we really want to elect a guy to the position of supervisor whose problem resolution skills rise to the level of a common bully??  

·     Regarding the ‘censored’ videotape I wrote about previously – I appealed LP’s denial of my Right to Know Request, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania agreed with my position (here). After asking for an extension of time to thoroughly research the issue, they ruled in my favor and ordered LP to release the unedited version of the video. I have a copy and in the deleted sections, Mr. Baird made some accusations about corruption, criminal activity and collusion. My opinion is that very likely, several individuals have grounds on which to sue for defamation if they so choose; evidently BOS was trying to protect him and themselves from any fallout resulting from Baird’s statements.

·         At the July 18, 2013 Board of Supervisors meeting, Colleen Eckman mentioned that she wanted to revisit the issue of a proposed ordinance for rental property inspections and fees, last discussed in late 2012 (here). Several options regarding frequency and fees have been discussed, and an annual inspection versus just an inspection at the time a property is resold or rerented has been considered. 

 

        Supervisor Don Thomas, who earlier this year was an applicant before the Zoning Hearing Board attempting to get approval to build rental apartments behind his home (see here),  weighed in that he was fine with whatever was decided upon, as long as “the focus was on the health and welfare of the community, and not revenue generation”.  Given that he and his family are landlords of numerous rental units in LP, is this an issue that Don should even be able to vote on? Is his concern really anti-revenue generation, or is it really about keeping it less expensive for him and his family to do business? Seems like a conflict of interest to me since he and his family would directly be impacted by costs of paying for such rental inspections on properties he and his family hold, including the apartments Don is building right behind his house.

Enjoy these last few weeks of summer!

 

 

No Middle Ground: Setting The Record Straight On the Interceptor

A long-awaited voice has weighed in at last. As a result, perhaps some of the he-said, she-said nonsense surrounding the interceptor project will die down.

Last week the six members of the Lower Perkiomen Valley Regional Sewer Authority (LPVRSA) members voted 4-2 to move forward with plans to place the middle interceptor on the Lower Providence (LP) side of the Perkiomen, but not without a lot of last-minute hysteria, noise, and shell games, played out in the local press, from the usual suspects on the LP side.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not unsympathetic to LP’s plight and I respect them for trying to have a voice in the outcome. However, the thing has to go somewhere, and when the line is crossed into misleading the public because your logic and arguments are defective ("LP Contradicts Its Own Case Against Middle Intercepto Placement"), it's a problem.

Allow me to shed light on several blatant attempts to mislead readers into supporting LP’s position:

·        A letter from a Fred Kaczor which appeared on April 11, 2013 in both in the print and online versions of the Times Herald (here), and online at LP Patch (here), was particularly interesting. It attempted to portray Mr. Kaczor as an independent, unbiased engineer with no political agenda weighing in on the project and how, in his opinion, the interceptor should be on the UP side of the creek. And, in case you didn’t arrive at that conclusion on your own, a very helpful comment from Cathy Beyer, (she of the hand-wringing, harp-accompanied PowerPoint dog & pony show trotted around to every member municipality ad nauseam about how the interceptor just had to go on the LP side to ‘save the environment’, as if there were no similar environment on the other side of the creek) told you so: “finally an engineer perspective with no political objective, just concern for the environment. Just pure common sense”, she gushed in an online Patch post April 10.

In reality, Mr. Kaczor is anything but unbiased. He is an affected party with land along the LP side of the creek and is the sister-in-law of Cathy Beyer. Together both (with their spouses) were appellant plaintiffs in litigation against LPVRSA (which they lost... http://statecasefiles.justia.com/documents/pennsylvania/commonwealth-court/2681-c-d-2010.pdf?ts=1323908994)

 

No political agenda? Hardly.

·        The LP players hung their hats on their claim that the Army Corps of Engineers sided with them in their belief that the lateral must go on the UP side. Indeed, LP township manager Richard Gestrich, in a March 12, 2013 Letter to the Editor which appeared in the Times Herald (print and online versions, here) stated, in part:

 

“The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps of Engineers”) indicated that it is not opposed to location of the disputed portion of the new Middle Interceptor in the same right-of-way and same trench as the existing 42” line that it replaces. Not only that, the Corps of Engineers indicated that the location of the new Middle Interceptor line in the same trench as the old line is actually the preferred location for the line…”.  and that “Furthermore, installation in the existing right-of-way and same trench [on the Upper Providence side] will lead to only temporary interference with the creek, a course which the Corps of Engineers recognized as being preferable to the permanent installation of major stream crossings”.  “With that issue resolved…”(emphasis added).

No, Mr. Gestrich, that issue has not been ‘resolved’ by the Army Corps of Engineers. On the contrary, they appear leery of being dragged into the middle of the dispute. An email dated April 15, 2013, from a Mr. Brian Bellacima, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, Regulatory Branch to all the principal municipalities, legislators, and to LPVRSA contradicts Mr. Gestrich’s assertions. It read, simply:

 

To whom it may concern, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, Regulatory Branch has made no permit decision on any of the alternatives associated with the project known as The Lower Perkiomen Valley Regional Sewer Authority, middle interceptor.

They could have used the same letter to offer a preference or officially take a position one way or the other, but chose not to.

I wonder when we can expect to see Mr. Gestrich issue a retraction of, or to at least attempt to walk back, the statements in his March 12 letter? If nothing else, Beyer and friends should be furious with Gestrich for appearing to have intentionally misled them on the USACE’s position, as they all now have egg on their faces.  

·        "How could LPVRSA do this when the solution is so obvious?" wailed a faux-confused Ms. Beyer in a post-decision comment on Patch.  Yes, I suppose the solution IS obvious when you are only hearing one side of the story.  If you don’t read the Times Herald, you are only getting one side of the story because Patch, particularly the LP version, has been engaged in some odd goings-on regarding the middle interceptor story.   

Online article comments submitted that did not support LP’s position have inexplicably never seen the light of day despite numerous attempts and several calls to their editor. A Letter to the Editor by UP supervisor Lisa Mossie about the project and why it should not be placed on the UP side of the creek was buried on LP Patch’s “More Blogs” page instead of on their landing page, as Ms. Beyer’s numerous letters and editorials are.   The fact that LPVRSA articles originally posted on LP Patch never made it to PV Patch is also concerning. Normally all these ‘Patches’ in a given locale share stories.

I get it that the Patch model is intended to be community-specific on issues, but if Patch is going to wade hip-deep into a regional dispute, they should be prepared to represent the views of all the affected communities so their readers can arrive at their own informed conclusions instead of being misled that there is only one ‘obvious’ answer.

 

Now that the Army Corps of Engineers actually has weighed in with their non-position, it will be interesting to see if the LP Board of Supervisors (and LP taxpayers) continue to engage in time and money-wasting tactics (legal fees!) to punish the other communities and LPVRSA for not siding with them. Watch for the claims that the Indian artifacts extend beyond where they originally said they did.

In addition, all the woes from the LP camp about alleged raw sewage leaking into the creek are undocumented and unproven; they are most likely untrue but have been used in order to create a sense of urgency to get LPVRSA to make a quick decision in LP’s favor, and/or to convince members of the public of same. Thus, it will be interesting to see how LP squares the circle of the "urgency" of stopping this supposed flow of raw sewage into the creek with any delays they try to impose.

Besides, if it were true, If they care so much about the creek, wouldn’t you think they’d want to ‘take one for the team’??

Be My Guest

I've never permitted a guest writer on this blog, but as they say, there’s a first time for everything.  Lower Providence, meet Lisa Mossie.

While I’ve researched and written about our regional sewer authority and LP’s participation in it extensively over the past couple of years (here and here), and particularly the disagreements over the placement of the middle portion of the sewer interceptor project (can we all agree, at least, that we have to have SEWERS??)  I have long felt like the only person paying attention to - and reporting - ALL sides of the dispute.

That is, until Lisa, a supervisor in Upper Providence, the other primary municipality involved in the dispute, was elected in 2011. She quickly developed an understanding of this complex project of many moving parts and political layers and has been a welcome voice of reason. In a recent piece in the Times Herald, ("Lower Providence Contradicts Its Own Arguments",) she frames the status of the project and the disputes well.

With Ms. Mossie’s permission, below I am posting her original unedited piece, containing more details about LP's obviously hypocritical arguments, which were omitted from the Times Herald piece for brevity.  It's an excellent recap of the dispute and, more specifically, how LP officials’ changing positions  just  don’t hold water (pun intended) and don't work for all LP residents, the environment, or the larger community.

                   *     *      *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

The Lower Perkiomen Valley Regional Sewer Authority needs to construct a new sewer line known as the “middle interceptor” along the Perkiomen Creek in order to serve the needs of its six member municipalities, Trappe Borough, Collegeville Borough, Skippack Township, Perkiomen Township, Lower Providence Township and Upper Providence Township.  A dispute has arisen between the LPVRSA and Lower Providence Township as to which side of the creek an approximately 3,000 linear foot segment of the middle interceptor should be located.

Upper Providence has historically not engaged in media campaigns to achieve political ends.  For the last year, our Board of Supervisors has chosen to remain on the sidelines of the dispute, while the various options were explored.  We remained confident that the decision would ultimately reflect the best possible alternative for all concerned.  Five of the six member municipalities agree that the middle interceptor’s best location is on the Lower Providence Township side of the creek, where it can be constructed as a simple gravity line.  This route is known as Arcola 1. 

Last month, we were informed that Lower Providence Township endorsed a gravity option for the middle interceptor to be placed on the Upper Providence side of the creek.  This route is known as Arcola 3.  Because so much precious time has been wasted in the political and legal maneuvering surrounding this issue, and because time is now of the essence with this project, and because more years of legal wrangling is promised from Lower Providence if their preferred option is not chosen by LPVRSA, as a member of the Upper Providence Board of Supervisors, I wish to provide my thoughts about the proposed interceptor’s location. 

The Arcola 1 route on the Lower Providence side of the creek is clearly the optimal path for the middle interceptor.  Engineering analyses have determined that, due to very steep topography, it would cost at least $2 million more to construct the middle interceptor on the Upper Providence side of the creek than on the Lower Providence side, even taking into account the costs to recover American Indian artifacts on the Lower Providence side.  These additional costs would, of course, be passed on to all of the LPVRSA’s customers, including those living in Lower Providence Township. Constructing the interceptor on the Upper Providence side would also mean that the LPVRSA would lose the additional capacity already provided by the existing interceptor.  This could require another sewer expansion project in the not too distant future, also at the expense of the LPVRSA’s customers.

Lower Providence and a small interest group of residents has waged a coordinated political and media campaign on ever-shifting grounds in an attempt to box in the LPVRSA’s viable options under the presumption that nobody is paying attention to the inconsistencies in their arguments.  It is my opinion that, by endorsing the Arcola 3 route on the Upper Providence side of the creek, Lower Providence effectively contradicts every previous public argument that it has been making for the last several years, in an effort to stall this project. 

At different times during the middle interceptor conflict, Lower Providence and its special interests have raised the following spurious objections:

·         The project is unnecessary.  As part of this process, the LPVRSA conducted an Act 537 study of the region’s sewer needs.  The study reflects the current flows of the six member municipalities and, based upon zoning and other considerations, anticipates future flows for the next 10 years.  This study clearly indicates that the middle interceptor is necessary, and that Lower Providence’s assertions otherwise are false.  Furthermore, Lower Providence’s endorsement of the Arcola 3 route tacitly acknowledges that they also believe the middle interceptor is necessary.

·         Pump station alternatives are better.  The LPVRSA examined several pump station alternatives to the Arcola 1 option.  None were feasible due to monetary and operating concerns related to the construction and ongoing maintenance of these pump stations.  Lower Providence’s endorsement of the Arcola 3 gravity option effectively acknowledges that Lower Providence agrees that a gravity option is the best solution.

·         No residences will be impacted by construction on the Upper Providence side of the creek.  (refer to comments by Catherine Beyer:  http://lowerprovidence.patch.com/articles/lpvrsa-releases-official-position-on-sewer-interceptor).  The map depicting the Arcola 3 route clearly shows that it will impact one residence on the Upper Providence side.  Furthermore, the impact of construction on that residence would be exponentially greater than the impact on any of the residences on the Lower Providence side.  The Upper Providence residence is on a very narrow lot, and the construction easements would have to come within 5 to 10 feet from his home.  Construction on the Upper Providence side will also necessitate 6 months of sewage bypass pumping with a pump placed on this resident’s property.  The lots along the Arcola 1c route on the Lower Providence side are all very deep, with construction activities taking place farther away from the homes. 

·         Placing the middle interceptor on the Lower Providence side of the creek would result in catastrophic damage to the environment.  All parties involved agree that there will be some temporary environmental impact due to the interceptor’s construction.  Everyone also agrees that measures need to be taken to ensure that these environmental impacts are minimized to the degree that they can be.  This has been the strongest and most persistent claim coming from both Lower Providence Township and its residents.  In fact, on May 18, 2012, Lower Providence Township Manager Richard Gestrich sent an urgent e-mail to the other member municipalities, stating that previous interceptor construction “resulted in very harsh environmental consequences” and that “[y]ou should be aware of all the adverse environmental impacts to the creek, before you reach a decision on the [resolution to undertake updated Act 537 planning].”  Yet, despite all of this concern, the environmental impacts resulting from construction on steep slopes on the Upper Providence side of the creek will be far greater than if the interceptor was constructed on the Lower Providence side.  If Lower Providence Township is truly concerned about the wildlife and the health of the Perkiomen Creek, why would they endorse a plan that is so much more impactful on the environment?

·         The DEP never approved the placement of the middle interceptor on the Lower Providence side of the creek.  This is basis upon which many of the legal battles have been fought and the reason for the member municipalities’ requirement to undertake updated Act 537 planning.  In the original Act 537 plan, the path for the middle interceptor was drawn as a thick blue line down the middle of the Perkiomen Creek, and the intended location was described as “parallel” to the existing interceptor, which is on the Upper Providence side of the creek.  Lower Providence’s attempts to delay member municipalities’ commencement of the Act 537 update was yet another effective stall tactic.  Because DEP determined that there was “wiggle room” in the definition of “parallel,” at the recommendation of LPVRSA and DEP, all member municipalities, with the exception of Lower Providence, have undertaken the project to update their Act 537 plans, and they have shouldered the costs associated with that project.

·         The existence of historical artifacts precludes placement on the Lower Providence side of the creek.  The existence of artifacts from ancient Indians is not in dispute.  However, the commissioned Archeological study of the site indicates that “the archeological deposits are significant only for their informational value and do not warrant preservation in place.”  The cost of excavating these artifacts has been built in to the cost of the Arcola 1 option, and is estimated at $66,000.  Furthermore, Lower Providence has not indicated what the status of these valuable artifacts will be if LPVRSA does not undertake the archeological excavation.  Will they be recovered for posterity to enjoy and learn from, or will they remain in the ground, of no value to anyone?

·         Additionally, Upper Providence Township and the LVPRSA proposed the Arcola 1c option, which would run the middle interceptor further down the Upper Providence side of the creek to avoid the historical area.  In an email dated May 25, 2012, the Chairman of the Lower Providence Board of Supervisors, Rick Brown, responded that this proposal “[w]ould mean extending the sewer upstream along the Perkiomen Creek in Upper Providence Township from the former Proffit property (+- 500 feet) to a new point where we cross the stream into Lower Providence.  The route requires more extensive earth work.  According to my sources the Army Corp of Engineers would not approve this plan.”  In other words, locating the middle interceptor on the Upper Providence side of the creek , even for a mere additional 500 feet, is not feasible because of the impact to the environment.

 

The LPVRSA has satisfactorily and comprehensively addressed all of the objections raised by Lower Providence Township and its special interest group of residents.  I believe that the best all-around alternative remains the original Arcola 1 or 1c option, as it has all along.  The numerous stall tactics and delays undertaken by Lower Providence have effectively made time a critical issue in reaching a solution on the middle interceptor, and the LPVRSA is now looking for Upper Providence to assess to the Arcola 3 option in an effort to keep the project moving forward.

We have all been hit by increased sewer rates as a direct result of the years of legal wrangling over this issue.  The residents of Lower Providence have been hit doubly-hard, since they are also funding the lawsuits that have caused the rate increases.  While I have absolutely no wish to unnecessarily expend further taxpayer dollars on this project, nor do I wish to further delay this project more than it has already been by this media and legal circus, I can’t help but conclude that there is absolutely no reason not to place the interceptor in the Arcola 1 area on the Lower Providence side of the creek where LPVRSA has always recommended, except to avoid further lawsuits and delays from Lower Providence.  These lawsuits would only benefit a small handful of residents, would result in greater environmental impacts to the Perkiomen Creek, would leave valuable historical artifacts unrecovered, would result in a vastly greater impact on one of our residents and would cost every resident in the member municipalities more money in increased sewer fees.

It is not too late to purge the bad blood that has been accumulated during this protracted and sometimes ugly process.  It is my hope that the residents of all six member municipalities will join me in calling on Lower Providence officials to look beyond the immediate political considerations, and in calling on our state elected officials, John Rafferty and Mike Vereb, to do what is in the best interests of all parties concerned: end this senseless legal and political maneuvering and agree to let the middle interceptor be installed where the impact on the health of the Perkiomen can be minimized: on the Lower Providence side of the creek.

Call these state elected officials and let them know that enough time has been wasted on the middle interceptor battle:

John Rafferty Ph: (610)-831-8830

Mike Vereb Ph: (610) 409-2615

 

 

Something Stinks

Every great story has two critical elements:  the hero and the villain.  Our culture has become such that figuring out whom to root for in our modern tales barely requires breaking a sweat:  you always root for the underdog over the privileged elite, the poor over the rich, the nerd over the jock, and always, ALWAYS the environment over the developer.  In the story where the environment is in jeopardy, you always root for the environment.

Except when the environment isn’t really in jeopardy.  And the ones who are championing it may have motives that are more self-serving than altruistic.  When the Perkiomen Creek is the point of contention, environmentalism can be a convenient cover for NIMBYs and political gamesmanship.

 The story of the Lower Perkiomen Middle Interceptor may be such a story.  Up until recently, you’ve heard one side; the easy side: The side of the tireless champions of the environment fighting the nefarious forces of development, the romantic tale of the little guy standing fearlessly in front of the bulldozer.  A story where the heroes and villains are so obvious couldn’t possibly have another side, could it?

 Well, maybe.  Most of the articles published in local papers or online to date appear to have taken some individuals’ assertions at face value without researching them; I’ve found numerous documents that contradict those assertions. I leave it to you to decide whether there are good guys and bad guys in this story, or just differences of opinion and conflicting interests.

The middle portion of the sewer interceptor is part of a larger regional sewer upgrade project planned ten years ago by the Lower Perkiomen Valley Regional Sewer Authority (LPVRSA) (which I’ve written about previously, here).  The plans are slowly moving forward, but not without all the attendant mess and drama that comes with removing a stubborn blockage from a sewage pipe.

After the PA DEP approved the location of the middle interceptor on the LP side of the creek in 2004, the design plans were begun, although the Executive Summary of the original Act 537 plan* approved in February 2004 contained language indicating that the interceptor paralleling was to occur in “previously disturbed areas” – something that is not physically possible for any of the interceptor sections. The map included as part of the Act 537 plan showed a bold blue line indicating that the interceptor could be on either side of the creek. 
 

The issue has been heating up (backing up?) over the summer, with LP on the offensive in the press. You may have seen many of the articles and posts on Patch and in the Times Herald giving their perspective. As always, however, there are two sides to every story, and recently, LPVRSA (see their Fact sheet, here) and the other five individual member municipalities began to fight back to address the lopsided story being told by Lower Providence.  Two of the six member municipalities recently sent letters to their rate payers blaming Lower Providence for a rise in rates.

(Rate raise article  in Patch:  http://perkiomenvalley.patch.com/articles/pv-municipalities-sewer-rates-rising-blame-lower-providence)

My interest in the subject at this time is driven by one thing: why hasn’t the press gone looking for other sides of the story? If I had questions that were going unasked and unanswered, surely others must be, too.  It’s a long story, with a lot of moving parts, but your public dollars are being spent and rates are going up accordingly. 

You decide if that expenditure is worth it or an exercise in vanity.

History of LPVRSA

LP has a contentious history as a member of LPVRSA. The regional authority as we know it today was created in 1986 as a replacement for the municipalities’ collaboration with the Montgomery County Sewer Authority. When LPVRSA was formed, Montgomery County was to stay involved until 2006, then exit and hand over control of the sewer system to LPVRSA. The system was already in a state of disrepair back then and in dire need of additional capacity. In order to get EDUs needed to expand the plant to serve the growing member communities, Upper Providence took the lead in getting the other members to cooperate in an effort to get the County to exit sooner – and the County wanted out as well.  Montgomery County turned the system over to LPVRSA completely in 2002.
 

To boil a very complex issue down to its simplest elements (the details of that conflict would require an entirely separate post), a conflict arose over allocation of EDUs between each member community and the valuation of each. At the very last meeting, where the signing to transfer power from the County to LPVRSA was to take place, Upper Providence and Lower Providence were the last two member communities to sign, and as it turned out, neither wanted to sign due to the EDU dispute. While a solution was negotiated at the time that got the two to sign, it is still a sore point with LP that carries over into the present time and is why, along with a dispute over how the Sewer Services Agreement is interpreted, LP has escrowed a portion of their payments for sewer treatment charges invoiced by LPVRSA since 2004 – representing the difference between what LP and LPVRSA believe they owe -- to the tune of approximately $300,000 a year, or $3 million to date, instead of paying that to LPVRSA.

In addition, more recently LP has locked horns with LPVRSA with struggles over Right To Know requests – in 2010 LP was sued by LPVRSA over their refusal to turn over relevant documents, and lost in court in a 2011 decision – and placement of the middle interceptor on the Lower Providence side along the creek.

Lower Providence Board of Supervisors joins forces with the Special Interests

LP’s Board of Supervisors intervened in the current middle interceptor dispute a couple of years ago, in April 2010, at the behest of a special interest group populated by some members of the Indianhead Watershed Association who live on the LP side of the creek. Arcola Road resident Cathy Beyer has been their unofficial spokesperson (the Association itself has taken a neutral stance since it has members on both sides of the creek) for several years in front of our BOS and in January 2012 was appointed to LP’s Sewer Authority.  

 
Ironically a few years back (2007-2008), Mrs. Beyer made a pitch to LP’s Parks & Recreation Board, asking for permission to operate a commercial business at the nearby bucolic creekside setting of Hoy Park. LP shot down her request because she didn’t want to assume setup costs nor pay LP Township anything. She apparently wasn’t averse to making money off a public property by bringing tourists and the noise and trash they bring with them to the same peaceful, beautiful environment whose disruption she is now so loudly protesting.

LP Township is advocating against the interceptor's placement on the LP side of the creek, which LPVRSA documents indicate is arguably the least expensive and disruptive option, in favor of placing it on the Upper Providence side.  Anything other than the first option below, using gravity, will require at least one pumping station. The most recent options and alternatives are listed below; LPVRSA is now soliciting updated construction cost estimates for each from two contractors for each option, several of which are newer ones:

• Arcola 1 (East) -  The current gravity design which is routed through Lower Providence residents’ backyards for this section. This alternative involves 3,200 feet of 54” of sewer and 600 feet of inverted siphon stream crossings. This option is the least expensive.
• Arcola 2 (West) – 3,600 feet of 54” gravity sewer on the Upper Providence side of the Perkiomen Creek, offset 30 feet from existing 42” interceptor.  This option costs considerably more because the 30’ offset requires cutting into the steep slope immediately next to the existing interceptor.

For both Arcola 1 and 2, LPVRSA will also examine the potential of using smaller pipes through simultaneous use of the existing 42” interceptor (slip-lined), moving the connection location of the Doe Run interceptor, or a combination of both (a 7^th option). 

·         Arcola 3 (West) - 3,550 feet of gravity sewer installed in the same trench as the existing 42” sewer.

·         Arcola 4 (West) – Using the existing interceptor (slip-lined), and building a pump station located on the Upper Providence side of the Perkiomen, immediately downstream of the Arcola Road bridge.

·         Arcola 4e (East) – Using the existing interceptor (slip-lined), and building a 16 mgd pump station located on the Lower Providence side of the Perkiomen, immediately downstream of the Arcola Road bridge.

·         Arcola 5 (East) – Installing approximately 5,400 feet of 18” sewer in order to change the location where Upper Providence’s Doe Run Interceptor connects to the Perkiomen Creek Interceptor between manholes P52 and PN38. This alternative does not provide a complete solution for the provision of sewage conveyance but may serve to reduce the flows within the Perkiomen Creek Interceptor and allow use of smaller pipe sizes for the other alternatives.
 

They expect to issue a report in mid-November indicating the costs for each. Some will be more expensive due to anticipated construction difficulties such as placing new pipe in steep slope areas, and some will be less; slip-lining options don’t allow for additional needed capacity and are at best short-term solutions.

LPVRSA was going to use an independent engineer (rather than its own engineer) to analyze options and to solicit bid proposals, something DEP suggested, and LP supported, until LP Chairman Rick Brown flatly rejected all options which would involve anything going on the LP side of the creek, so it would be a waste of money for an independent engineer to study a set of alternatives that did not include LP options.

LP has been waging war in the press for months, throwing anything and everything possible at the issue in attempts to block or delay the construction, including:

·         Alleging that the wording in the original Act 537 plan means that the interceptor must be placed on the Upper Providence side of the river, when in actuality the wording is vague enough to be construed either way. An accompanying map shows a broad blue line traversing both sides of the creek, and plans agreed upon by all member communities as early as November 2004 have shown LP as the proposed location;

·         Threatening to sue LPVRSA for a declaratory judgment (which, although the Times Herald  has reported it has already been filed, it still has not been initiated by LP)

·         claiming an allegedly significant archeological find on the proposed site, which supposedly triggers a detailed study and excavation of the site, and signaled intent to petition to have the location added to the National Register of Historic Places; LP also claims that they would not have granted easements for the project had they known about the archeological finds sooner, but LPVRSA records indicate that LP was regularly updated on such developments between 2005 and 2009; the easements were granted in 2009.

·         threatening to try to have the easements granted to date vacated on the grounds that LP allegedly wasn’t informed about said archeological artifacts; and

·         dragging their feet on documentation required by state and federal officials. 
 

LPVRSA’s position

Robert Feio, LPVRSA chairman and former supervisor in Upper Providence Township, says that they are “a cooperative, working board. We implement requirements we are told to implement. We are responsible for supporting economic development of the region and environmental protection of the region.”  He estimated that approximately 35% of the 65,000 rate paying customers across the 6 member municipalities are from LP.

LPVRSA takes issue with LP’s proclivity to ‘sue first and ask questions later’ and for having an ‘our way or the highway’ attitude toward the other members. Given the various ways LP has tried to derail the project, that attitude apparently also includes a ‘pay for the interceptor the way we want it done, or pay dearly in legal fees” mentality.

Earlier this year, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) indicated that it wants all of the member townships of LPVRSA – Lower Providence, Upper Providence, Skippack, Trappe, Collegeville and Perkiomenville -- to update their 537* plans, in part to clear up any confusion as to the placement of the middle interceptor. My understanding of the update process is that it also includes each municipality’s engineer collecting the flow numbers based on current zoning and submits them to LPVRSA, who gathers the data from the member municipalities and analyzes it for inclusion in the overall plan.

While LP continues to request that LPVRSA explore other options, LPVRSA says that they have, not once, but twice (the second review at a cost of over $6,500 to LPVRSA) and have arrived at a consensus with the other five members as to which alternative is least costly and ensures the safe operation and stability of the system well into the future.

LPVRSA’s analysis makes it clear that what they call the "gravity option" (ie placement of the interceptor on the LP side of the river without a pump station) is cheaper than the plan LP originally preferred, the "LP Arcola Road alternative" and it includes $100,000 earmarked for a site archeological excavation which, by the way, would proceed at the same time as the middle interceptor project. They can go around the existing wall on the site (or under it). The pump station is noisy, disruptive and more expensive to build and operate. LPVRSA estimates the cost of the LP-preferred option would cost an additional $7.5 million in construction costs and approximately $150,000 more in annual operating costs. Without giving a specific percentage, it expected ratepayer bills to “significantly increase” as a result of the additional costs if that option were to move forward.

Among the alternatives looked at in the second review of options were the placement of four pump station options, and two additional gravity options on the UP side of the creek. The study concluded that pump station options would add anywhere from $8M to $33M to construction costs (to be passed on to ratepayers via their monthly bills)  and gravity options would add between $3M to $4M to the middle interceptor project costs, which is why they selected the gravity option on the LP side.  The placement of any pump station would be on the Upper Providence side of the creek and impact at least one resident directly. That resident, Frank and Patricia Stiefel, already have pipeline on their property and the addition of a pump station and main may require the condemnation of this resident’s home, built in 1930 and handed down through family. Officials in Upper Providence are aware that the Stiefels are vehemently opposed to this option; calls to their residence to speak to them were unreturned.

 

LPVRSA maintains that it actually makes more environmental and archeological sense to go with the gravity option, too, as the impact along the creek is less than with the other options. They indicated that they would time construction so as not to interfere with prime recreational periods when the waterway is in use.  

I'm told the “LP Arcola Road alternative” option was the previous option of choice for LP, which involved TWO creek crossings and a pump station on the LP side of the creek.

LP claims DEP has recommended this option, whereas LPVRSA stated in its “FAQs on the Perkiomen Interceptor” that DEP walked the site and approved the location of the middle interceptor as it was designed by LPVRSA’s engineer back in 2004 but has not endorsed any particular option. LP is hanging its hat on the original plan (with the vague language and broad blue line on the map)  which DEP was asked to approve  before LPVRSA spent considerable money to design it. 

LPVRSA feels that if they’re going to do a pump station (something no engineer so far has come out in support of), it may as well go on the UP side and run it next to the County bike trail, which would be less expensive and less environmentally invasive than the Arcola Road option. I believe that LP knows this, of course, which is why offering the Arcola Road alternative as an option is disingenuous, at best. 

Earlier this year, Upper Providence proposed coming down their side of the creek an extra 200 feet to avoid an alleged sacred Indian artifacts site, but LP’s response was that the Army Corp of Engineers wouldn’t go for it because of the steep slope. UP’s response was ‘let’s find out’. If the Indian site can be bypassed, there should be no objection, right? Suddenly tactics were switched again and LP comes up with a ‘bog turtle defense’.   

Incidently, the same tactic – an alleged bog turtle sighting - was attempted by opponents of the construction of the pharmaceutical plants in Upper Providence a few years back. They were proven false as the habitat was not one required by that species. My understanding is that this is commonly attempted as turtles are easy to catch and don’t go far once relocated. I’m not saying Ms. Beyer would do that – at least, I hope not – but on this issue, in that area, we’ve more or less ‘been there, done that’. 

In July Skippack proposed that LPVRSA provide $1 million in funds to mitigate the land disturbance in LP caused by the installation of the interceptor across the back yards of the 15 LP residents who’d be affected. So far, LP has not indicated if they are receptive to that offer.

Unable to sustain support for a pump station, the Arcola Road pump station option seems to have fallen out of the favor of LP.  They now favor a “gravity option” called the “Doe Run” option which LPVRSA insists would not only still require a pump station but would not provide the necessary increase in capacity, thereby kicking the can down the road for about 5 years.   

Where are we now? The Three-pronged Assault

The Legal Assault 

A big part of the current impasse appears to be the wording of the original Act 537 plan which has been interpreted by five of the six member municipalities to mean the interceptor will go on the Lower Providence side of the Perkiomen Creek, but which LP has interpreted to mean it will run alongside the existing interceptor, on the Upper Providence side. However, that option is physically impossible due to the steep slopes on the Upper Providence side – LPVRSA insists there is literally no room to place another pipe there alongside the existing one.

The DEP, rumored to be under pressure from Senator John Rafferty (in turn under pressure from his neighbors in the Cathy Beyer contingent), recognized a loophole that calls for adequate time for public comment on any 537 planning.  Given the dispute on placement of the middle interceptor and given that LP planned on exploiting the public comment provision to block construction of the interceptor, the DEP recommended that 537 planning be updated, thereby allowing for adequate time for public comment.  

For the sake of efficiency of time and expense, LPVRSA volunteered to take the lead in updating the 537; if each agreed, the supervisors or council of each member municipality had to vote to permit that via resolution. To date, each of the members has – except Lower Providence.  

Lower Providence did not want the municipalities to authorize LPVRSA to do this; they wanted each of the 6 member townships to plan on their own. While this arguably makes no economic or logistical sense, for Lower Providence, it would appear to really be about trying to retain some control over the process, because they are at odds with the rest of the members over where the interceptor should go.  

I'm guessing that for LP, the motive for slowing down the 537 plan update and opposing LPVRSA-led planning it that is removes one avenue for potential lawsuit – a lawsuit which they’ve already threatened—which lies in the allegedly "unclear" verbiage in the existing plan about the interceptor running "parallel" to an existing line---they know that LPVRSA will update the plan to make this verbiage as specific as it needs to be.

The Emotional Assault

Enter Cathy Beyer. In May this year, she and several of her family members attended a Board of Supervisors meeting in Upper Providence; on the UP agenda was the vote to authorize the LPVRSA to take the lead in coordinating  the aforementioned DEP recommended 537 planning.  Desperate to delay by any means necessary, Beyer resorted to tears, hinting conspiracy by telling the UP Board that there were alternatives to LPVRSA’s recommended interceptor that they had not been made aware of and would they please delay the vote until they attended a special meeting about the interceptor hosted by Lower Providence?  The Upper Providence board agreed to put off the vote, but only until their next meeting two weeks later. 

At that meeting, I’m told that Lower Providence Board of Supervisors' chairman, Rick Brown, trotted out standard strong-arm tactics - the 'iron fist in velvet gloves' approach - to try to force a favorable decision for LP. While I can respect them trying to get their own way, his tactics left something to be desired; Brown apparently thought the other members were all so ignorant of the process and the issues that LP could just BS their way through it. Needless to say, this attitude and tactics were ineffective at best and went over like a lead balloon. 

At a July DEP meeting, LP tried to get State Rep. Mike Vereb and State Senator John Rafferty involved to help move the stalemate toward resolution, but in early August, LPVRSA asked them to ‘butt out’.  

 

The Historical Assault

Seeing the handwriting on the wall and preemptively looking for another roadblock, Brown, a mere two days after Beyer's sobfest in Upper Providence, signaled intent to put Operation Priceless Indian Artifacts into action by proposing that the area where allegedly (and, conveniently) some arrowheads were found along LP's side of the riverbed be submitted for consideration to be added to the National Register of Historic Places.

If there isn't such a thing as "historical terrorism', perhaps there should be. People have been turning up Indian arrowheads for years on both sides of the Perkiomen Creek; I'm told they were found when the original interceptor was installed.  The Phase II archeological study/Phase II work plan for the site recommended recovery of the artifacts for ultimate public display, NOT to preserve the site on which they were found.  My understanding from the study recommendations is that there is no value in preserving the artifacts intact where they are.  

LP claims that they would never have granted the easements they did for this project had they known that artifacts had been discovered, yet LPVRSA claims that LP’s representative on LPVRSA was aware of  the Archaeological Survey Reports dated June 23, 2005, February 2009 and July 2009 and presumably their contents. LP granted the easements on August 24, 2009. Current LP Board chair Rick Brown made the motion to authorize signing the easements over.  

 

Where do we go from here?

At this juncture, LP holds almost all the cards and there is no incentive for them to play nicely. There is no deadline to complete the 537, and if LP doesn’t update theirs on their own or allow LPVRSA to do it for them, all that will happen is that DEP will cap new hookups to the sewer system below a certain point – a point that will affect all LPVRSA members except for LP (because 80% of the flow enters below the point where LP hooks into the system) and stop all future development in those communities.

LP could elect to exit LPVRSA and just be a paying customer, but that would make no sense, because then they’d have no voice on a board that can have an impact on their community.  

Selecting one of the more costly options, and/or stopping the addition of new residents and businesses to the system by the other 5 member communities, will certainly result in increased rates for all 65,000 ratepayers.  

Of course, not acting is an option too, but not without consequence. If nothing is done and the hydraulics go beyond capacity and overload (there are already problems with infiltration due to the age of the system), DEP will issue a “Corrective Action Plan” (CAP) and a “Corrective Management Plan” (CMP) whereby LPVRSA would have to enter into a consent agreement with DEP and they then take responsibility for selecting and driving a solution…and that may be one that LP likes even less. 

 

While the LP Board of Supervisors has waged their battle against the middle interceptor within the confines of their political power in both the courtroom and the media, Cathy Beyer has led an all-out assault on the integrity of LPVRSA and the character of the LPVRSA Board members in traditional and social media.  Using blatant emotional appeals, heavy-handed syrupy online slide shows and shameless character smears, Cathy Beyer implies that construction of the middle interceptor is motivated by the evil intentions of the LPVRSA board who would love nothing more than to assault the environment for their own personal pleasure.

Is it possible that Lower Providence Township and Cathy Beyer, et al just care about the environment so much that they will resort to anything to win?  Is it possible that LPVRSA and those that work for it are as evil as they have been portrayed? 

Or is it more possible that the LP Board found a relatively easy issue to champion as “defender of the environment”, via a resident willing to play useful pawn, that would earn them the undying love and political support from a certain constituency even beyond those that live on the creek while providing them a nice opaque cover for gaining political payback against enemies of the past?  

Is it possible that the emotional histrionics on display are motivated more by a “not in my backyard” mentality of someone who once wanted to capitalize on that bucolic asset for her own personal monetary gain?   

Is it possible that these people may be motivated by something other than a pure love of the environment or a reverence for history? 

Is it possible that the men and women of the LPVRSA are not evil mustachioed enviro-pirates, but ordinary people looking for the best solutions to a thorny problem?  

 

Is it possible that the only winners in this battle have been the lawyers for both sides, whose legal fees SO FAR have been placed somewhere in the tens of thousands of dollars?

I leave it to you to decide whether we live in a storyland---or the real world. 

EPILOGUE

The emotional assault continued this past Thursday evening, Oct. 18, in yet another pitch which appeared to be staged and facilitated by LP for the cameras taping the meeting for broadcast to LP residents in LP’s and/or Beyer’s continuing apparent quest to win in the court of public opinion. Ms. Beyer and her sister, Mary Kaczor, again appeared before our Board of Supervisors to give their propaganda version of the timeline and history of events in this matter as depicted on a PowerPoint presentation replete with harp music playing in the background. 

Also in attendance at the meeting were two of Upper Providence Township’s three supervisors, and their engineer, as well as a handful of residents from Upper Providence.  

While an online article by the LP Patch about this meeting appeared to ‘walk back’ the severity of some of these comments, the fact is that many bold accusations were made and character assassinations tossed around, some of which may be actionable by those individuals Ms. Beyer and her sister, Mary Kaczor, negatively spoke about.  

Among the assertions were that the Attorney General should investigate LPVRSA; however, LP Township minutes of July 1, 2010 contain a statement by Ms. Beyer that “The residents in opposition have contacted the Attorney General’s Office, who is investigating this matter”. Since nothing has ever come to light about such an investigation, I can only conclude without  looking into it further that either nothing of note was found, or the AG’s office declined to investigate.

Also asserted at the Oct. 18 presentation were that Beyer and Kaczor lost their legal fight against the condemnation of their property due to a technicality instead of the merits of the case.   Ms. Beyer stated her belief in a possible conspiracy between her attorney, whom she maintains is a former associate of LPVRSA’s counsel, and LPVRSA. However a review of the docket in those cases revealed that they were not ruled in their favor in two separate 2010 decisions (merged for appellate review) because, “…in light of Condemnees’ failure to provide the trial court with any legal authority to support their apparent contention that the Declarations [of condemnation] must comport with either a current or proposed Act 537 Plan, the undersigned is not persuaded of any adverse impact which such a Plan might have upon the validity of the Condemnor’s Declarations” and “As demonstrated, the Authority [LPVRSA] fulfilled its statutory obligations and any contention by the Condemnees that the Declarations do not comport with current Act 537 Plan is insufficient to negate the legality of those Declarations.” The decision and order of the trial court was affirmed on appeal in 2011.  In other words, she lost on the merits. If she should have plead anything else in her filings, she did not despite ample opportunity to amend her pleadings.

Ms. Beyer also made note of the fact that she’d received her condemnation notice two days before Christmas, 2009, which is true. LPVRSA admits on reflection that the timing of the notices was not ideal, but Ms. Beyer had been contacted several times prior to the condemnation notice, and plans for the middle interceptor were public knowledge to the residents since approximately June 2005 when a letter was sent to affected residents on Arcola Road, including Beyer, indicating that the proposed interceptor was being planned and that it “may not be on the same side of the creek as the existing interceptor.” 

One prior notice, a Notice of Intent to Enter Property (for surveying and studies to be conducted), was sent by LPVRSA on December 2, 2008 via certified mail and signed for by Ms. Beyer on 12/3/08. She did not respond.

A second notice requesting easements for the middle interceptor and offering a fixed amount of compensation for the easement was mailed to Ms. Beyer (and other affected residents) in July  2009. The letter indicated if the resident had questions, to please call, and I’m told Ms. Beyer did. At her request a meeting was set up and LPVRSA representatives met with her on August 29, 2009. They walked the property, and Ms. Beyer indicated her concern about a possibly historically significant wall and LPVRSA maintains they told her they could avoid it by going around it; however that would require an additional easement. According to LPVRSA, Ms. Beyer then indicated she would want additional compensation, so LPVRSA told her to get an appraisal for the additional easement so they could determine a fair amount. LPVRSA never heard from her after that, so the December “Christmas condemnation letter” followed.  

Additionally, a letter to the editor of the Times Herald appeared last week from Ms. Beyer about this issue. She signed it as though she were representing the Perkiomen Watershed Conservancy; however, someone affiliated with that group who wanted to remain anonymous told me that they were “not happy about the letter, and steps will be taken to assure that it is clear that she does not represent them” and this individual also presumed that she would be hearing from their attorney. Soon afterward a disclaimer from them appeared under the online version of the letter.  I’m not authorized to speak for them either, but my impression is that the Conservancy would not take a position opposing the sewer line because in the larger picture it will improve water quality by eliminating sources of untreated sewage entering the watershed. 

In summary, it would appear that Beyer and LP are engaging in a “kitchen sink offense” … throwing anything and everything at the issue to create confusion, sympathy, anger, etc, and I personally believe most of it is pure BS on the part of yet another NIMBY faction whose legal concerns LP is only too happy to take up. Remember that when tough budget cuts are being made and/or your taxes are increased in a few weeks when LP's 2013 budget is finalized.

 

In Ms. Beyer’s own words, words with which I couldn’t agree more: something stinks, and it’s not necessarily sewage.

 

 

 

*The Act 537 Program
On January 24, 1966, the Pennsylvania Sewage Facilities Act (Act 537, as amended) was enacted to correct existing sewage disposal problems and prevent future problems. To meet this objective, the Act requires proper planning in all types of sewage disposal situations. Local municipalities are largely responsible for administering the Act 537 sewage facilities program. To assist local municipalities in fulfilling this responsibility, the DEP provides technical assistance, financial assistance, and oversight.

The Planning Process Municipalities are required to develop and implement comprehensive official plans that provide for the resolution of existing sewage disposal problems, provide for the future sewage disposal needs of new land development; and provide for future sewage disposal needs of the municipality. This official plan is sometimes called the "base" plan or the "Act 537 plan." When a new land development project is proposed, municipalities are required to revise their official plan (unless the project is exempt from planning).