Apr 25, 2004 By The 5 min read

Local officials are asking area voters to support Gov. Ed Rendell’s plan for the state to take out a $250 million bond issue to help fund improvements to water and sewer systems. However, some are concerned about Rendell’s proposal to limit the use of the funding solely to water and sewer projects that are tied to economic development.

The one-sentence ballot question simply asks if the voter favors the state’s incurring of the multimillion-dollar debt, which, if approved, would be used as grants and loans and designated to municipalities and authorities to construct, expand and improve water and wastewater infrastructure.

The state General Assembly will decide after the election how the funding, whether through loans or grants, will be distributed.

Fayette County Commissioner Vincent A. Vicites said the referendum could be helpful to Fayette County, where numerous infrastructure projects are pending. “Fayette County will never fully reach its potential for growth if we don’t have the infrastructure,” Vicites said. “Infrastructure is the key to development.”

Vicites said a project being pursued in Menallen Township will provide water and sewerage to the Fayette County Business Park and will open an additional 3,000 acres for development.

Andrew French, assistant executive director of the Fayette County Redevelopment Authority, said the authority’s focus is to provide adequate water and sewer service to existing residents.

However, French said that in many of the projects the authority implements, economic benefit serves as a secondary priority.

According to French, the priority list changes each year because other funding sometimes becomes identified for the projects. “Obviously, one of the things that helps spur future economic development in the county is the provision of water and sewer lines,” he said.

James E. Sampson, chairman of the Greater Uniontown Joint Sewage Plant Authority, hopes voters support the referendum, because having sewage and water infrastructure is the best way to attract business and industry to the county.

“I think that people should vote for it, because to expand and get any industry in Fayette County you need sewerage,” Sampson said. “That’s the only way you’re going to attract commercial business to Fayette County. You have to have infrastructure.”

The bond issue referendum is a couple years too late to help the authority with its ongoing massive $17.6 million plant expansion project. In 2002, the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority (PENNVEST) approved low-interest, 30-year loans to finance the entire project, which is scheduled for completion in January.

While he called the loans “cheap money,” Sampson said grants are an even better deal, because they are not paid back and help reduce project costs, which are passed on to residents through user rates.

“Grant money keeps costs down. When you have to borrow the money, your costs go up,” he said.

The Brownsville Municipal Authority is planning and constructing a $7.5 million sewage plant, with improvements to the collection system. Although the new plant is being mandated by the state Department of Environmental Protection to get the plant out of the flood plain, authority Chairman Fred Provance said it should also be a boost to the local economy.

“Any time anything wants to come into an area, they want to know if there’s sewerage available, whether they are building homes or businesses,” Provance said.

Provance said that while he still needs more information about how funds from a bond issue for water and sewer projects would be distributed, he supports the referendum on the bond issue that is on Tuesday’s ballot.

“If it makes money available to projects like ours, it’s beneficial to everyone in the community. It’s the community that ends up paying for the projects,” Provance said.

Bob Softcheck, general manger for the North Fayette County Municipal Authority, said that while he supports the referendum, voters are more likely to strike it down because of Rendell’s proposal to limit it to projects tied to economic development and the fact that it’s a bond issue. “It’s a debt, and taxpayers will have to pay it back,” said Softcheck.

Another downfall of the referendum, he said, is that it doesn’t reveal any guidelines or details of how the funding would be distributed. While Softcheck said the referendum is a good proposal, he said the funding should be available to all water and sewerage providers and not just those associated with economic development projects.

Ann Bargerstock, director of the Greene County Department of Planning and Development, said she’s not sure how voters will feel about a $250 million debt, especially when it’s not clear where the money will go and how it will be paid back.

“We all think of things like these in terms of money and how the money will be paid back,” Bargerstock said. “Will the repayment be project or tax driven? Those things leave the issue up in the air. These questions have not been answered.”

She said that while she remains “cautiously optimistic” that her projects and other local municipal projects will benefit from the bond money, she is a little “skeptical” about the benefits to the local municipalities as opposed to bigger projects tied to economic development because state officials have not outlined how the money will be distributed if the referendum is passed.

“I’m cautiously optimistic it will benefit the local municipalities. In our area, everyday people are screaming for better water sources. In rural counties it’s easy to say we need it (money) for residential areas. The need is there, and for some, it’s a matter of having water, period,” she said.

—

Editor’s note: Herald-Standard reporters Steve Ferris, Christine Haines, Joyce Koballa, Patty Shultz and April Straughters contributed to this story.