HEGINS — If estimates provided by a Pottsville engineering firm Hegins Township hired to re-examine its joint Act 537 plan hold true, the sewer plan could cost at least $12 million more than anticipated. The engineering report also notes the property where the treatment plant is proposed is partially within a 100-year flood plain; and the results may indicate an alternative means for providing sewer service should be considered.
Meanwhile, Hegins Township Supervisor Chairman Gary Harner said he just received the engineering report at 2:30 p.m. Tuesday, and could not comment, due to ongoing litigation on the plan.
Harner was going to drop the report off to township secretary Cathy Moyer this afternoon so it could be distributed to all the supervisors.
Harner, Vice Chairwoman Sandra McCullough and Supervisor Bruce Klouser approved seeking Entech Engineering’s services at their Jan. 4 meeting on the probable cost for “Alternative No. 6,” which is the selected alternative in the Hegins-Hubley Joint Act 537 Plan. Supervisors Brad Carl and Mike Begis had both opposed seeking Entech’s opinion on the matter.
“Nobody in the township’s seen it,” Carl said Tuesday morning of the report. “We did not get a bill yet, either,” he said in regard to Entech’s fees. Begis confirmed Tuesday afternoon that he also had not seen the engineering report.
The Entech Engineering report, from project manager Donald M. Cuff, is dated Feb. 18 and was addressed to the township’s attorney on the Act 537 matter, John G. Dean, Wilkes-Barre. Solicitor Donald G. Karpowich, Drums, represents the township on other legal matters. Karpowich also represents Concerned Citizens, who has launched an appeal on the joint Act 537 plan.
The appeal hearing is slated to begin 10 a.m. April 19, before presiding Judge Richard P. Mather Sr., in Room 1 at the Environmental Hearing Board offices, second floor, Rachel Carson State Office Building, 400 Market St., Harrisburg.
Appellants in the case are citizens, Roger Wetzel, William Wolfgang, Randy Shadle, Kenneth W. Richter, Kenneth Graham and Harry Mausser.
According to the Feb. 18 Entech Engineering report, estimated total project costs are $38,605,325, compared to $26,356,011 projected in the joint plan.
“Our estimate was prepared using recent bid prices from comparable projects, vendor quotes, and operation and maintenance information for wastewater systems that include facilities similar to those proposed in the above referenced plan,” the report said.
The report also addresses the potential for flooding. According to FEMA flood mapping provided in the plan, the property where the treatment plant is proposed to be located is partially within the 100-year flood plain. Depending on site conditions and the layout of the plant, additional costs could be incurred to protect the facilities from flooding. According to Republican-Herald archives, the plan includes the construction of a 600,000 gallon-per-day wastewater treatment plant located along Fearnot Road in Hubley Township.
The Entech report states that anticipated user costs could be 71 percent higher than the $858 annual Equivalent Dwelling Unit cost contained in the plan, based on 30-year state Infrastructure Investment Authority financing, and 1 percent loan option without a grant.
The range of costs per EDU, according to the report, are: Hegins and Valley View, $9,493; Sacramento, $15,748; Spring Glen, $20,983; Lamberson, $22,762; and Fearnot, $36,696.
“Although these variations are to be expected to some degree based upon the density of development within the service area, it can also be an indicator that either an alternative means for providing sewer service should be considered or an on-lot or community system solution should be investigated,” the report said.
Further comparisons, listing Entech’s opinion first, followed by the joint plan, are: 2014 total construction, $28,596,537 versus $21,603,287; contingency, $5,719,307 versus $2,160,329; soft costs, such as engineering, legal, construction services, financial and administrative, $4,289,481 versus $2,592,395.
Some of the reasons the project estimate is significantly higher — 46 percent — than the amounts shown in the plan are also provided in the report. They include:
• A 33 percent difference in the linear foot cost of gravity sewer line proposed in roadways ($75/ft. versus $100/ft.) is due to paving restoration costs being included in each estimate. In addition, there is a 9 percent difference in the cost of gravity sewer line proposed for off-road to account for restoration costs
• Entech’s estimated cost for the seven pump stations is $1.89 million in comparison to the $1.2 million in the plan. Entech included the cost for emergency generators at the larger pump stations that it recommends, but may not be included in the original estimate. Property acquisition costs of $15,000 for each pump station are also included in the estimate
• The Hegins Township portion of the wastewater treatment plant influent pump station force main was not accounted for in the cost summary. This cost — $276,390 — has been included in the estimate
• Construction costs of 5 percent for mobilization, demobilization, bonds and insurances total $1,296,895
• Costs for a tertiary filtration system and building ($336,000) are included in Entech’s estimate. This system could also aid in complying with the Chesapeake Bay nutrient criteria, but it is likely that credits may need to be purchased as well
• Yard piping ($200,000) at the treatment plant site is included
• Electrical/SCADA ($882,000) and HVAC ($176,000) contract costs are included, since those costs are in addition to the general/mechanical costs. There was no mention of these costs identified within the plan
• $100,000 is estimated for the purchase of treatment plant property
• 20 percent construction contingency and 15 percent soft costs are included
Other findings which could affect costs are:
• Three-phase electrical service to the seven pump stations and the treatment plant is the most economical and efficient means of operating these facilities. If three-phase service is not readily available to the locations for these facilities, the cost of extending service can be significant
• The costs for acquiring easements and properties can escalate, depending upon the steps needed to be taken to make the properties available for the project
• The impact of non-residential flow is not discussed in detail in the plan, but could impact the design, sizing and costs of collection conveyance and treatment facilities. Commercial properties in Hubley Township are mentioned in the Existing Sewage Facilities and Needs section of the plan, but the same information is not provided in the Hegins Township narrative. Also, the impact of the Tri-Valley School District facilities and the Tri-Valley Industrial Park are not quantified in regards to flows or loadings
The next Hegins Township supervisors meeting is 7 p.m. March 2.