TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

1.0 INTRODUCTION 6

1.1 Background 6

1.2 Previous Wastewater Planning 6

2.0 PHYSICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS 8

2.1 Planning Area 8

2.2 Physical Characteristics 8

2.3 Soils Analysis 8

2.4 Geologic Features 10

2.5 Topography 11

2.6 Potable Water Supplies 11

2.7 Wetlands/Floodplain 11

3.0 EXISTING SEWAGE FACILITIES 19

3.1 Existing Facilities 19

3.2 Proposed Facilities 19

3.3 Sewage Disposal Needs Identification 19

4.0 FUTURE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT 28

4.1 Municipal & County Planning Documents 28

4.2 Existing Development & Growth Areas 30

4.3 Zoning Regulations 31

4.4 Population Projection 33

4.5 Zoning & Subdivision Regulations 33

4.6 Projected Sewage Needs 34

5.0 IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES 38

5.1 Wastewater Disposal Alternatives 38

5.2 Wastewater Collection Alternatives 38

5.3 Identified Alternatives 38

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)

6.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 39

6.1 Alternative 1 – On-Lot Disposal Systems 39

6.2 Alternative 2 – Developers Private WWTP for Development 43

6.3 Alternative 3 – Township WWTP for Tylersport Area 43

6.4 Alternative 4 – Connection to Regional WWTP 43

6.5 Cost Analysis 44

7.0 INSTITUTIONAL EVALUATION 57

8.0 SELECTED ALTERNATIVE 58

8.1 Structural Alternative 58

8.2 Institutional Alternative 59

8.3 Consistency Evaluation 59

9.0 IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION 61

TABLES

Table 3-1 OLDS Survey Results Summary 21 - 25

Table 6-1A Capital Costs – Alternative 3, Option 1 49

Table 6-1B Capital Costs – Alternative 3, Option 2 50

Table 6-2A Capital Costs - Alternative 4, Option 1 51

Table 6-2B Capital Costs - Alternative 4, Option 2 52

Table 6-3 Operation and Maintenance Cost Summary 53

Table 6-4 Present Worth Cost Summary 54

Table 6-5 Development of Annual EDU Charges – Alternative 3 55

Table 6-6 Development of Annual EDU Charges – Alternative 4 56

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)

FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Location Map 7

Figure 2-1 Study Area Map 12

Figure 2-2 Hydrology 13

Figure 2-3 Soils Map 14

Figure 2-4 Hydric & Alluvial Soils Map 15

Figure 2-5 Agricultural Soils Map 16

Figure 2-6 Steep Slopes Map 17

Figure 2-7 Geology 18

Figure 3-1 Proposed Sewage Facilities 26

Figure 3-2 OLDS Survey Results Map 27

Figure 4-1 Indian Valley Regional Land Use Plan 35

Figure 4-2 Growth & Preservation Plan 36

Figure 4-3 Salford Township Zoning Map 37

Figure 6-1 Alternative 3, Option 1 Facilities Layout 47

Figure 6-2 Alternative 4, Option 1 Facilities Layout 48

Figure 9-1 Implementation Schedule 62

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A OLDS Survey Data Sheets

appendix B WWTP Design Data

appendix c Applicable Correspondence

Appendix d Planning Agency Comments And Municipal Response

Appendix e Proof of Publication of Public Notice

Appendix f Public Comments and Municipal Response

appendix g Resolution of Adoption by the Township

appendix h Checklist

APPENDIX I Franconia Township Component 3m

APPENDIX J Draft Grinder Pump Ordinance

APPENDIX K Draft Inter-Municipal Agreement

EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT 1 Developer Site & Off-site Plans

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

An Act 537 Special Study Plan has been developed for the Tylersport area of Salford Township, Montgomery County, in order to evaluate and recommend the most suitable alternative for providing sewage disposal and treatment facilities in the area.

The Plan was initiated following submission of plans by a developer to construct a residential development in the area, adjacent to Route 563 and the Northeast Extension of the PA Turnpike. The developer planned to serve the proposed homeowners with a sewage collection system and package treatment plant.

The Montgomery County Health Department has reported a history of problems with the on-lot disposal systems in Tylersport and a Needs Analysis prepared using preliminary site investigations and homeowner interviews, revealed a high rate of actual and suspected malfunctioning systems. Therefore, the Plan takes the opportunity to evaluate the option of constructing a central sewage collection system along Route 563 and Allentown Roads in Tylersport, transporting the waste to the developments treatment plant.

Following the required review of the past planning efforts in the area, the physical characteristics and soil properties, the Plan evaluates various options and then recommends the construction of a low pressure collection sewer system in Tylersport, including grinder pumps at each existing property. The sewage would be conveyed through gravity sewers to a pump station constructed by a developer on his site. The raw sewage will be pumped south on Allentown Road to connect into a new pumping station owned and operated by Franconia Township. From there it will be conveyed to the Telford WWTP for treatment and disposal

Financing for the Township portion of the project (collection system in Tylersport) will be funded by a low interest PENNVEST loan. The capital cost of all other facilities required will be borne by the developer. The estimated connection fee for each existing equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) will be $4,500. At the time of connection, $4,207 of this will be transferred to Franconia Township to purchase capacity in the Telford WWTP. An annual fee of $895 per EDU, to cover debt financing and operating costs, will be assessed to all users (both existing and new construction). Connection to the collection system and abandonment of existing on-lot disposal systems (at the property owners cost) will be mandatory, as defined in Township Ordinances to be developed following approval of the Plan.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Salford Township is a predominantly rural area located in northern Montgomery County, Pennsylvania as shown on the Location Map, Figure 1-1. The most heavily developed area is at the intersection of Allentown Road and Ridge Road (Route 563), known as Tylersport.

A developer has proposed to build a number of homes adjacent to Tylersport and is providing sewage facilities to meet the disposal needs of their property. Due to a history of complaints to the Montgomery County Health Department about the condition of the existing on-lot disposal systems in the Tylersport area, the developer offered the Township the chance to connect a central collection system into their facilities.

Prior to conducting a full Act 537 Plan for the entire Township, it was agreed with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), to prepare this Special Study for the Tylersport Area. A Scope of Work was submitted to PADEP on July 29, 2003 and subsequently approved on September 11, 2003.

1.2 Previous Wastewater Planning

There has been no specific wastewater planning conducted for Salford Township.

Salford Township adopted the Indian Valley System Comprehensive Plan in July 2005. Previously a 1997 Salford Township Comprehensive Plan update was prepared by The Montgomery County Planning Commission and adopted by Salford Township Board of Supervisors.

A Montgomery County Sewage Facilities Plan, dated 1972, prepared by the Montgomery County Planning Commission, in its discussion of the East Branch Perkiomen Creek Watershed, stated that “a new municipal package plant is recommended to serve the Tylersport area of Salford Township”. (See page VIII-13 and Figures viii-2 & x-1).

Figure 1-1 Location Map (See Hardcopy at Township Office)

2.0 PHYSICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

2.1 Planning Area

Figure 2-1 identifies the boundaries of Salford Township Tylersport Study Area. The current planning effort is designed to address the specific needs of the Tylersport area, both planned developments and existing developed properties along Allentown Road and Route 563. It is recognized that there are numerous flag lots and deep lots that are not included in the current study area.

2.2 Physical Characteristics/Hydrology

Physical characteristics such as streams, lakes, impoundments, and natural conveyance channels are shown on the “Hydrology Map” of the Comprehensive Plan Update, as shown on Figure 2-2. Salford Township has no major drainage basins within its borders and is almost evenly divided between two minor basins. These are the Ridge Valley Creek to the west and the East Branch Perkiomen Creek to the east. The Ridge Valley Creek basin splits into two smaller basins, one following Ridge Valley Creek and the other following the Unami Creek, which is located in Marlborough Township.

The Tylersport Study Area is almost equally divided between the Ridge Valley Creek Basin and the East Branch Perkiomen Creek. Ridge Road divides these two watersheds through the study area.

Tylersport contains a variety of residential dwelling types including single family detached, twin, duplex and apartment units. Tylersport is considered Salford Township’s town center. Tylersport also contains a convenient store, a bar, a gas station, a kennel and a few other small scale commercial uses. The only significant industrial use is the Indian Valley Bulk Carriers Trucking Company. The institutional uses in Salford are also located in Tylersport including several churches, the Township Building and the Township Fire House.

2.3 Soils

The soils of Salford Township are the result of the hydrology, and the weathering capacity of the underline geology. An understanding of the Township soils is important because the soils affect sewage disposal capability, agricultural productivity, ease of construction, wild life habitat, and many other important areas of planning.

A review of Salford soil and geology reveals that large areas of Township, particularly along the slopes on the eastern side of Ridge Road, have shallow depth to bedrock. This in defined as a soil depth of less than four feet before rock is encountered. Such shallow depth of soil presents difficulty for onsite soil disposal; it also makes the construction of sewer lines extremely costly. According the to the USDA Soil Conservation Service General Soil Map, which is shown on Figure 2-3, the major classifications of soil found in Salford Township are as follows:

1. Reaville-Penn-Klinesville association: Shallow to moderately deep, well-drained to somewhat poorly drained soils underlain by shale; soils on rolling uplands.

2. Lehigh-Brecknock-Croton association: Moderately deep and deep, poorly drained to well-drained soils underlain by metamorphosed shale; on uplands.

3. Neshaminy-Mount Lucas-Watchung association: Deep, well-drained to poorly drained soils underlain by diabase; on hills and ridges.

4. Abbottstown-Readington-Croton association: Deep, moderately well drained to poorly drained soils underlain by shale and sandstone; on undulating uplands.

The Comprehensive Plan identifies hydric and alluvial soils (Figure 2-4), which generally have a seasonally high water table, as defined and mapped by the USDA Soil Conservation Service in their Montgomery County soil survey. These soils are environmentally sensitive and may represent varying degrees of physical limitations of development. Figure 2-5 presents the agriculture soils within Salford Township. For agricultural suitability a new method of classification has been installed that rate soil suitability for agricultural as prime, important, and other. The soils that have been designated as primary and important are generally located in the eastern half of Salford Township. It is this area that should receive attention in regards to farmland preservation programs. Agricultural land and the practice of farming, define much of Salford’s characteristics as a community, and provide much of the Township’s open space and scenic beauty. Steep slopes in Salford Township are shown on Figure 2-6.

The soil series mapped in Pennsylvania by the US Soil Conservation Service have been placed in 15 groups, based on their limitations for subsurface disposal of effluent and the most probable percolation rates of those which are not eliminated from consideration from by flooding, seasonal water table, shallowness, or special pollution hazards.

Group 5 - Moderate Deep, Well Drained Soils with probable Percolation Rates on One Inch of Water in 15-30 Minutes. Brecknock Soils Group

Group 7 – Moderately Deep, Well Drain Soils with Probable Percolation Rates of One Inch of Water in 30 to 45 Minutes. Penn Soils

Group 8 – Deep, Well Drained Soils with Probable Percolation Rates of One Inch of Water in 45-60 Minutes. Neshaminy Soil

Group 12 – Well Drained Soils that are Shallow or Very Shallow to Bedrock.

Klinesville Soils

Group 14 – Moderately Well Drained Soils on Upland Sites. The soils have seasonally high water tables, which are the major limitation on use for subsurface disposal systems. Lehigh, Mount Lucas & Readington Soils

Group 15 – Some What Poorly, Poorly and Very Poorly Drained Soils on Upland Sites. These soils have high water tables and are unsuitable for subsurface disposal systems. Abbottstown, Croton, Reaville & Watchung Soils

2.4 Geologic Features

Montgomery County contains Sedimentary Igneous and Metamorphic Rocks. Among these are rocks that are nearly the oldest in the Country. The age of the rocks vary greatly, however, and in places the rocks make up the most recent formations. Figure 2-7 taken from the Salford Township Comprehensive Plan shows the location of the major kinds of bedrock in Salford Township.

Internal forces active during the Triassic Period of geologic time (150-180 million years ago) have manifested themselves in the present geologic formations in Salford Township. Elevations range from the highest points of 601 to 700 feet above sea level at various points in the Unami Hills along Salford’s western border, to the lowest elevation of 220 feet along Ridge Valley Creek and along Salford’s eastern border. This differential in elevation creates a contrast in the topography of the land and adds to the diversity of the Township of Salford. The subsurface rock formations of Salford Township include the Lockatong formation, Brunswick formation, and an igneous intrusion within the Brunswick called Diabase.

The Lockatong formation is found in two section of Salford. The first section runs in a north-south direction that parallels and straddles Route 563 or Ridge Road, and the second section parallels almost the full length of Salford, along the East Branch of Perkiomen Creek. The Lockatong formation consists of a dark gray or black, thick-bedded argillite, but it does contain an occasional zone of thin-bedded black shale or thin layers of calcareous shale. The rocks of this formation are particularly hard, and have a high resistance to weathering.

The Lockatong formation along Ridge Road lies very close to the surface, and is overlaid with a nearly impervious clay layer, contributing to extremely poor soil drainage.

The Lockatong formation is a poor aquifer because of its low porosity and permeability. Average well yields run from 4-40 gallons per minute and the water produced from these yields is moderately to highly mineralized and hard. In times of heavy precipitation, heavy runoff may occur because of the lower permeability of the thin soils atop this formation, and consequent inadequate absorption capacity.

The Brunswick formation is also found in two sections of Salford, on either side of the Lockatong formation paralleling Route 563. The Brunswick formation is the youngest of the sedimentary rocks found in Salford Township. This formation consists of red shale that is interbedded in some places with red or brown sandstone and calcareous shale. The Brunswick formation sustains moderate groundwater yields in most areas. Well yields average 100 gallons per minute at depths of more than 185 feet. The quality of water produced by these wells is moderately mineralized and hard, but it can be used for most purposes without undergoing water softening treatment.

In the western section of the township from Ridge Valley Creek to the western township border next to the Brunswick formation igneous intrusions in the form of diabase dikes and sills are found. Diabase is hard at subsurface levels but the upper part is highly weathered. It is a densely knit, intrusive igneous rock, with a very low secondary porosity and lower permeability rate and is very resistant to fracturing and faulting. Since fractures usually yield less than five gallons per minute, it is considered a poor source of groundwater. Because of the denseness and hardness of this rock formation, those areas underlain with diabase are generally not suited for extensive development. Most of the diabase area is steeply sloped, overlain with very thin clay soil, and very susceptible to erosion.

There is no data available indicating a potential Nitrate-Nitrogen Pollution.

2.5 Topography

Salford Township drains from the northeasterly direction to the southwesterly direction along the Ridge Valley Creek to the west and the East Branch Perkiomen Creek to the east. The Ridge Valley Creek Basin contains most of the steep slopes located in Salford Township. The balance of the township is gently rolling with generally flat areas currently used for farming. The steeply sloped areas, with slopes more than 15%, are shown on Figure 2-6.

2.6 Potable Water Supplies

All water needs within the Township are currently met by on-site wells. There is, of course, a direct correlation between potential on-site sewer problems and contaminated drinking water. It is important to note that simply “sewering” an area to remove contamination will not avoid the need for public water supply. Public water is often needed in a “sewered” area because all effluent will be transported and disposed of in areas other than where the water was withdrawn. If water is withdrawn from these areas and not allowed to recharge back into the underlying aquifers, the groundwater supply can be depleted.

The Township’s desire in the case of both water and sewer service is to enact sound plans for the provision of these facilities. The Township’s overall Plan will be driven by a respect for the natural features that so define the community. In the Tylersport Study Area, however, the many small lots and lack of suitable soil for remediation of failed systems, is sufficient to encourage the use of public water supply in the area, where it is both feasible and cost-effective.

2.7 Wetland

Figure 2-4 is a map showing hydric soils in Salford Township. Hydric soils are potential wetland areas.

Figure 2-1 Study Area Map (See Hardcopy at Township Office)

Figure 2-2 Hydrology (See Hardcopy at Township Office)

Figure 2-3 Soils Map (See Hardcopy at Township Office)

Figure 2-4 Hydric & Alluvial Soils Map (See Hardcopy at Township Office)

Figure 2-5 Agricultural Soils Map (See Hardcopy at Township Office)

Figure 2-6 Steep Slopes Map (See Hardcopy at Township Office)

Figure 2-7 Geology (See Hardcopy at Township Office)

3.0 EXISTING SEWAGE FACILITIES

This section documents and briefly describes the existing and proposed wastewater facilities located in or available to serve the Planning Area.

3.1 Existing Facilities

There are no existing public sewage facilities in the Tylersport area. All of the developed properties are served by individual on-lot disposal systems (OLDS). The type and condition of these units will be discussed in depth in Section 3.3

3.2 Proposed Facilities

The only facilities that are currently planned in the study area are a central collection system to serve two developments that have been proposed by WB Homes and pumping and conveyance facilities to transfer the flow to Franconia Township. Detailed plans for the utilities within the developments have been prepared, but not finalized yet. The current plan for the 171 unit Country View development is shown on a map prepared by Bohler Engineering, Inc., included as Figure 3-1 and at a larger scale as Exhibit 1. The 18 unit Country Crossing development is located adjacent to the east. Sewage service within the developments is planned to be by gravity pipeline discharging to a pumping station. The pump will discharge through a force main to and across the East Branch Perkiomen Creek, approximately 8,000 feet to the south east, into a new Franconia Township pumping station.

3.3 Sewage Disposal Needs Identification

3.3.1 Complaint History

The Montgomery County Health Department (MCHD) administers inspection and permitting of OLDS within Salford Township. At a preliminary meeting prior to the formal start of this project, representatives of the Department indicated that there was a significant level of concern regarding failed OLDS in the Tylersport area.

Subsequent visits to the Departments office in Pottstown to inspect the records, revealed a small number of outstanding issues along with a number of failures that had been repaired. A list of initial complaints was provided, as shown in the correspondence section, but no further information about each of the properties, or the results of any follow up, was available.

3.3.2 Needs Survey

A qualified inspection company, following the guidelines developed by PADEP, conducted a door-to-door survey of the properties in the Planning Area. The survey was conducted January 19, February 27, February 28 and March 6, 2004.

The PADEP guidance document sample survey sheet questionnaire, with a list of questions to be asked, was used during the survey.

A total of 92 properties with OLDS were counted in the study area, representing approximately 104 equivalent dwelling units (EDU’s). Of these properties 54 (59%) were surveyed. This exceeds the PADEP minimum sample size of 35 percent OLDS sampling required for a project area with 51 to 100 OLDS. Due to the high sampling percentage, the survey should be considered a very reliable indicator of the status of the OLDS in the project area.

In accordance with the PADEP guidance, the surveyed OLDS were placed into one of the following four categories: (1) confirmed malfunction, (2) suspected malfunction, (3) potential malfunction or, (4) no malfunction.

Of the 54 OLDS that were field surveyed, the systems were categorized as follows:

· Malfunctions - 29 properties or 54 %

· Suspected malfunctions – 10 properties or 19%

· Potential malfunctions - 12 or 22%

· No malfunctions - 3 or 5%

A summary of the results of the survey is shown on Table 3-1 and Figure 3-2. Those properties that were not field surveyed, but whose soils are mapped as unsuitable, are also noted on the map. The survey data sheets are included in Appendix A.

TABLE 3-1

SALFORD TOWNSHIP SEWAGE NEEDS EVALUATION

Location/

Site Use

No. Residents / Baths

Lot Size (Acres)

Type System

Age of System (years)

Last Pumping of System

Previous Repairs

System Condition*

Description of Malfunction

4 S. Allentown

Residential

2/3

1.2

In ground bed

30+

Jan. 2004

None

Gray water to storm drain/ not permitted/ poor soils

5 S. Allentown

Residential

In ground

Abandoned apartment building/ poor soils

9 S. Allentown

Residential

4/3

0.5

In ground bed

Fall 2003

line repaired (1985) - no permit

Gray water to ditch/ past repair/ poor soil/ not permitted

10 S. Allentown

Residential

In ground

Gray water to ditch/ poor soil

12 S. Allentown

Residential

4/2

0.33

In ground bed

20+

2003

None

Gray water to pit/ odors/ green grass/ poor soil

13 S. Allentown

Residential

2/3

0.29

In ground trench

Summer 2003

Poor soil/ sluggish drains

15 S. Allentown

Residential

7/5

Elevated sand mound (permitted)

Never

None

Poor soil/ surface water on lower part of ESM/ replaces cesspool

18 S. Allentown

Residential

In ground

Gray water to ditch/ poor soil

22 S. Allentown

Residential

In ground

Gray water to ditch/ poor soil

25 S. Allentown

Residential

In ground

Gray water to ditch/ poor soil

TABLE 3-1 (cont.)

28 S. Allentown

Residential

5/3

IRSIS

(permitted)

No malfunction

29 S. Allentown

Residential

(2 units)

In ground

Sewage draining to adjacent property

33 S. Allentown

Residential

(4 units)

In ground

Gray water drains to street/ Sewage drains to adjacent property

39 S. Allentown

Residential

3/2

Cess pool

1998

line repaired

(1998) - no permit

Gray water to ditch/ old, unpermitted system/ poor soil

44 S. Allentown

Residential

3/3

7.7

In ground trench (permitted)

2003

None

Gray & Black water discharge to surface/ poor soil/ ponding water, soggy areas, green grass

45 S. Allentown

Residential

4/2

1.125

Elevated sand mound (permitted)

2002

None

Effluent leaking from berm/ green grass/ spongy areas/ poor soil

51 S. Allentown

Residential

4/3

2.875

In ground trench

Summer 2003

None

Gray water discharge to surface/ poor soil/ old, unpermitted

52 S. Allentown

Residential

2/3

In ground bed

19+

2-28-04

None

Poor soil/ possibly unpermitted

N. Allentown

Church

Portable toilets

None

No permanent system/ potential pit system

3 N. Allentown

Residential/ Commercial

1/3

0.25

In ground bed

50+

2002

Tank repaired- not permitted

Poor soil/ unpermitted repair/ old system

7 N. Allentown

Residential

4/NA

Septic Tank

20+

None

Poor soil/ spongy areas/ poor drainage

8 N. Allentown

Residential

In ground

In ground system with poor soils

TABLE 3-1 (cont.)

11 N. Allentown

Residential

4/NA

0.33

In ground bed/trench

15+

2001

None

Green grass/ poor soil

13 N. Allentown

Residential

3/3

0.75

In ground trench

25+

Dec. 2003

Replaced line (2000) - not permitted

Green grass/ poor soil/ unpermitted repair

14 N. Allentown

Commercial

4/7

0.9

In ground trench

2003

Repaired line (2000) - not permitted

No baffles in tank/ poor soils/ green grass/ unpermitted repair

24 N. Allentown

Residential

1/2

0.33

Holding tank

Feb. 2004

None

Gray water pumped to surface/ poor soils

25 N. Allentown

Residential

4/3

0.2

In ground bed

50+

1994

None

Gray water drains to street/ poor soil

27 N. Allentown

Residential

5/NA

0.5

Septic Tank

2002

None

Pre-regulatory in ground/ poor soil

29 N. Allentown

Residential

3/NA

2.5

Septic Tank

2002

None

System leaks to surface/ poor soil

30 N. Allentown

Residential

2/3

7.4

In ground trench/ seepage pit

25+

2003

Replaced line (1996) - not permitted

Gray water seepage from front of house/ poor soil/ unpermitted repair/ spongy areas

40 N. Allentown

Residential

In ground

small lot with in ground system/ poor soils

43 N. Allentown

Residential (2 buildings)

3/4

Septic tank

#1 - 55

#2 - 45

1994

None

Sewage pumped to surface into open ditch/ poor soils/ grey water to ditch/ spongy areas

44 N. Allentown

Residential

2/4

1.7

In ground trench

2000

None

Gray water drains to yard/ poor soil/ old system/ green grass/ ponding water/ spongy areas

TABLE 3-1 (cont.)

54 N. Allentown

Residential

5/4

0.75

Elevated sand mound (permitted)

2002

None

Gray water drains to ditch/ poor soil

64 N. Allentown

3/3

0.9

Elevated sand mound (permitted)

2001

None

No malfunction

Box 221

Fire Company

Commercial

(200 - capacity)

Elevated sand mound (permitted)

Fall 2003

None

No malfunction

20 Ridge Rd.

Commercial

(1.6EDUs)

2.5

Elevated sand mound (permitted)

25+

2003

Repaired line (1990+)

Ponding water/ water backing into restaurant/ poor soils

33 Ridge Rd.

Residential

9/7

1.33

In ground bed/trench

30+

3-4-04

>D= box (2002) - not permitted

Surface discharge of effluent/green grass/ odor/ sluggish drains/ system overflow/ spongy areas/ water ponding

36 Ridge Rd.

Residential

3/4

Elevated sand mound (permitted)

2000

None

Sewage outbreak top of berm/ poor soil/ green grass/ odor/ spongy area

47 Ridge Rd.

Residential/ Commercial

(1.3EDUs)

In ground trench (2 systems)

kennel-26

house-NA

2003

None

Poor soils/ green grass/ spongy area

54 Ridge Rd.

Residential

2/4

In ground trench

None

Poor soils/ old system/ Gray water piped to field

67 Ridge Rd.

Residential

2/3

0.875

In ground trench

2002

None

Poor soils/ sewage to surface

74 Ridge Rd.

Residential/ Commercial

(2.15EDUs)

In ground trench

Fall 2003

None

Old, unpermitted system/ poor soil

TABLE 3-1 (cont.)

76 Ridge Rd.

Residential

NA/3

In ground trench

67+

Fall 2003

None

Gray water drains to ditch/ poor soil

78 Ridge Rd.

Residential

(2EDUs)

0.75

In ground trench

30+

Nov. 2003

None

Old, unpermitted system/ poor soil

86 Ridge Rd.

Residential

3/3

0.5

In ground trench

25+

2001

Replaced drain field (1994)-no permit

Ponding water over system/ poor soils/ gray water enters storm sewer

97 Ridge Rd.

Commercial

In ground

Effluent seepage within road right-of-way/ poor soils

112 Ridge Rd.

Commercial

(0.42EDUs)

In ground trench

2001

Replaced tank, line, drain field (2001)-permitted

No malfunction

117 Ridge Rd.

Residential

2/2

0.25

In ground trench

1999/ 2000

Replaced drain field/ Repaired tank (1994)

Surface discharge/ poor soil/ green grass

132 Ridge Rd.

Residential/ Commercial

1/NA

In ground trench

20+

2001

Repaired drain field (1985) permitted

Poor soil/ older system

146 Ridge Rd.

Residential

3/3

In ground trench/bed

2002

Effluent drains to road/ poor soil

158 Ridge Rd.

Residential

2/NA

1.33

In ground trench

30+

1999

Replaced tank, drain field (1989) permitted

Surface discharge/ poor soil/ green grass

181 Ridge Rd.

Commercial

(5EDUs)

In ground bed (permitted)

2001

Replaced tank, line, drain field (1984) permitted

Existing system is a replacement system/ poor soil/ driveway over system

* M - Confirmed malfunction; S - Suspected malfunction; P - Potential malfunction; C - No malfunction

Figure 3-1 Proposed Sewage Facilities (See Hardcopy at Township Office)

Figure 3-2 OLDS Survey Results Map (See Hardcopy at Township Office)

4.0 FUTURE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

4.1 Municipal & County Planning Documents

4.1.1. Salford Township Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Maps

The 1997 Salford Township Comprehensive Plan update was prepared by The Montgomery County Planning Commission and was adopted by Salford Township Board of Supervisors. This document originally served as the basis for this Act 537 plan. This plan completely updated Salford’s 1970 Comprehensive Plan, which was done jointly with Marlborough Township and Green Lane Borough. Since 1970, the Township’s population and amount of developed land have increased, yet the Township retains a rural and natural character.

Salford Township is a member of the Indian Valley Regional Planning Commission. The Montgomery County Planning Commission prepared the Indian Valley Regional Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted by the Township in July 2005. The Indian Valley is located in the north central section of Montgomery County. It includes the four townships of Franconia, Lower Salford, Salford, and Upper Salford and the two boroughs of Souderton and Telford. These six municipalities comprise a region nearly 49 square miles in size.

The Land Use chapter of this report is the cornerstone of the Indian Valley Regional Comprehensive Plan. This Land Use Plan will guide how the six municipalities implement land use policies. Understanding existing land use patterns, and properly integrating future land use as part of one unified plan will result in a more efficient land use pattern that preserves open space, revitalizes business centers and preserves the small town character that is so important to residents. The Land Use Plan designates appropriate areas for new growth and directs revitalization, new development and infrastructure improvements into those areas. Outside of the designated growth areas, the primary land use objective is preservation of the region’s rural landscape and its natural and cultural resources. Figure 4-1 is a copy of the Indian Valley Regional Comprehensive Plan, Land Use in the Tylersport Study Area.

The Montgomery County Planning Commission is in the process of preparing a Comprehensive Plan for Montgomery County. The September 2002 report titled “Vision Plan Shaping Out Future” is included by reference and Figure 4-2 is a copy of the DRAFT “Growth and Preservation Plan” for Salford Township.

4.1.2. Zoning and Subdivision Regulations

The Zoning Ordinance of Salford Township, identified as Ordinance #70, was adopted by the Salford Township Council on June 10, 1982. This ordinance is included by reference. The Zoning Ordinance of Salford Township establishes 11 separate districts within the boundaries of Salford Township. This ordinance controls the uses, heights of buildings, lot areas, yard setbacks, building coverages and impervious surfaces throughout the Township. The zoning is expected to be amended in 2006.

The current Subdivision and Land Development Regulations are known as the Salford Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance of 1978. This ordinance #61 was adopted August 24, 1978. The current ordinance was reprinted on March 2002. This ordinance is included by reference in this Act 537 report.

The Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances do not control lot size predicated on sewage disposal methods. Figure 4-4 is a draft copy of the proposed Salford Township Zoning Map in the Tylersport Area.

4.1.3. Floodplain Limitations

Article XII of the Salford Township Zoning Ordinance establishes the locations of floodplains, the uses permitted in a floodplain conservation district, the uses permitted by special exception, and the procedures required to obtain approval of uses by special exception. The Salford Township Floodplain was established based upon alluvial soils published by the US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and the National Flood Insurance Program prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, dated December 19, 1996.

Stormwater Management

The Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance of Salford Township contains the stormwater management criteria to be used for any subdivision or land development. Section 510 contains criteria for stormwater retention. The current criteria used in the Township for development requires stormwater retainage to provide for a 100 year storm emergency spillway. The detention basin must be designed to control the 50 year post development runoff to a 10 year predevelopment condition. Also during a 10 year post development storm, the maximum discharge is a 2 year predevelopment condition. The following is a portion of the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance dealing with stormwater management:

Section 510

E. Stormwater Retention

1. Stormwater retention facilities will be required if one of the following conditions are met:

a. Runoff from the development would exceed the capacity of downstream stormwater facilities.

b. Runoff from the development would increase the peak runoff from the existing conditions. One single family dwelling not requiring subdivision is exempt from this requirement.

c. Runoff from the proposed parking facility or building would increase the peak runoff from the existing condition.

2. The design criteria for the stormwater retention facility shall be agreed upon by the Township Engineer. Developers are encouraged to investigate all measures to reduce and retain water. All reasonable methods will be considered.

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)

As required by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Salford Township filed for a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES Permit) for its Municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4). In this application, Salford Township elected to use the protocol established by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Number 4 of the protocol requires construction site stormwater runoff control and Section 5 post construction stormwater management in new development and redevelopment. This will be an ongoing program monitored by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection issued Salford Township permit number PAG 130004 on December 16, 2003.

4.2 Existing Development & Growth Areas

A map of Salford Township was included as Figure 2-1. Shown on this map are the lots lines of all parcels within the boundaries of the Salford Township Tylersport Study Area.

Within the Salford Township/Tylersport Study Area there are approximately 95 to 105 equivalent dwelling units currently served by on site wastewater disposal. The proposed development within the study area is the Country View at Salford Land Development proposed by WB Homes (139 townhouses and 32 single family dwellings proposed on 45.774 acres of land) and the adjacent Country Crossings Development, also by WB Homes (18 units located to the east).

4.3 Zoning Regulations

This section discusses the residential and non-residential zoning designations.

A. Residential

The current Salford Township Zoning Ordinance (1982) includes six (6) residential districts. However, a draft Zoning Ordinance is expected to be adopted in 2006, with five (5) districts, summarized as follows:

RESIDENTIAL ZONING SUMMARY

District Primary Use Minimum Lot Size

RC Single family detached dwelling, natural open 2 Acres

space uses, game farm, agriculture activities (by (performance

special exception: single family detached dwelling zoning)

converted for multiple occupancy) (by conditional

use - day camp, kennel, parks and recreation, forestry)

RA Single family detached dwelling, natural open 2 Acres

space game farm, parks and recreation, agricultural (performance

(by special exception - single family detached dwelling zoning)

converted for multiple occupancy)

RR Single family detached agricultural (by special 2 Acres

exception - single family detached dwelling converted

for multiple occupancy, educational use,

municipal use, club, community center,

golf course, riding academy, fire station)

(conditional use: cemetery)

MF Parks, apartment house, townhouse, two 10 Acres

family homes, parking, agriculture

VR Single family detached dwelling, municipal use. 40,000 sq. ft.

B. Non-Residential

There are three (3) non-residential zoning districts discussed in the Draft Salford Township Zoning Ordinance, summarized as follows:

NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING SUMMARY

District Primary Use Minimum Lot Size

FPC – Floodplain District created to prevent excessive and Not

Conservation Unusual development in areas deemed applicable

(Overlay District) Undesirable for development due to inherent

Natural drainage conditions and topographical

Features.

SSC - Steep Slope District created to preserve and protect Not

Conservation those areas having steep slopes from applicable

(Overlay District) inappropriate development and excessive

grading as well as to permit and encourage

the use of said areas for open space purposes.

VCR - Village Single family detached dwelling, single 25,000 sq. ft.

Commercial/ family semi-detached dwelling, municipal

Residential use, home occupation, agriculture, professional office

personal services shop, small scale retail, (by conditional

use - conversion of a permitted residential or non -

residential use to a single family or multi-family

use, conversion of a residential use to

municipal use, office use, personal service shop,

small scale retail)

4.4 Population Projection

Salford Township population statistics and the number of housing units, based on the 2000 U.S. Census, are summarized as follows:

SALFORD TOWNSHIP POPULATION/HOUSING STATISTICS

YEAR POPULATION TOTAL HOUSING UNITS

1970 1,560 N/A

1980 1,995 N/A

1990 2,216 732

2000 2,363 821

Housing Unit increase 1990-2000: 89 units

The Montgomery County Planning Commission estimates the future population of Salford Township as follows:

Year Estimated Population

2005 2,510

2010 2,700

2015 2,890

2020 3,080

2025 3,240

Within the Salford Township/Tylersport Study Area there are approximately 95 to 105 equivalent dwelling units currently served by on site wastewater disposal. The proposed development within the Salford Township is the Country View at Salford (139 townhouses and 32 single family) and Country Crossings (18 single family) Land Developments proposed by WB Homes. These developments conservatively represent approximately 552 people, based on the 2.92 people per house recorded in the 2000 Census data. However, the townhouse occupancy rate is likely to be significantly lower than 2.92 people per unit, resulting in a population increase of closer to 450.

4.5 Zoning & Subdivision Regulations

Section 4.3, Land Use Designations, describes the residential and non-residential zoning districts within Salford Township. Included with this information are the minimum lot sizes for the various uses described. The Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance as well as the Zoning Ordinance do not control develop with respect to public ground/surface water supplies, recreation water use areas, ground water recharge areas, industrial water use or wetlands.

4.6 Projected Sewage Needs

With no historical water or sewer use data from which to project the sewage needs of these units, it is necessary to base the projection on a default design allowance. The standard number used, as shown in the PADEP Sewage Manual Design Guidelines, is 100 gallons per day per capita. The 2000 Census data reported 2.92 people per household for Salford Township, however, many of the existing homes in Tylersport are relatively small compared to the rest of the Township and are presumed to have less people per unit. Therefore, a design usage rate of 292 gpcd may be higher than necessary. Therefore, for each existing and proposed single family home, a design rate of 262.5 gpd will be used for planning purposes. A usage rate of 225 gpd will be used for the proposed townhomes.

Within the Tylersport Study Area, it is anticipated that the average daily flow (ADF) generated during the next five to ten years will be as shown below. The design hydraulic load at the plant is based on a maximum month flow (MMF) to average daily flow peaking factor of 1.25.

Projected Flow in Gallons Per Day

EDU’s ADF MMF

Existing developed properties 104 27,300 34,125

Townhouses (new) 139 31,275 39,094

Single-family (new) 32 8,400 10,500

Single-family (new) 18 4,725 5,906

Future Single-family 20 5,250 6,563

Total 313 76,950 96,188

The number of EDU’s associated with developed properties reflects an estimate of multiple EDU’s for some non-residential properties, such as the firehouse and a hotel. All residential properties are assigned one EDU.

The future allowance is recommended to account for the inevitable development of vacant lots and flag lots once the sewer line has been installed in the Tylersport area. Allowing for an additional 20 units, or approximately 20 percent of the existing EDU’s, brings the total ADF rate to 77,000 gpd.

Figure 4-1 Indian Valley Regional. Land Use Plan (See Hardcopy at Township Office)

Figure 4-2 Growth & Preservation Plan (See Hardcopy at Township Office)

Figure 4-3 Proposed Salford Township Zoning Map (See Hardcopy at Township Office)

5.0 IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES

5.1 Wastewater Disposal Alternatives

The most suitable available alternatives for disposal of wastewater in the Township are On-lot disposal, land application or stream discharge from a local or regional WWTP. Land application and stream discharge alternatives, both requiring collection systems and treatment facilities, are suitable for areas containing multiple homes or developed properties, while OLDS are best suited to individual homes.

OLDS and land application alternatives both require available areas of land with soil conditions suitable for disposal.

5.2 Wastewater Collection Alternatives

Traditional sewer collection systems use 8-inch or larger diameter pipelines installed so that wastewater flows by gravity. The pipes are laid in straight lines between manholes that provide access for cleaning the system as necessary.

When the topography in the area prevents the cost-effective use of gravity systems, requiring sewers to be unacceptably deep and/or requiring multiple pumping stations, low pressure or vacuum sewers can be used. These systems employ small diameter pipelines that can be laid at variable slopes and routed around obstacles such as trees. The most common system employed in this area of the country is low pressure sewers. Each property has a grinder pump installed forcing the sewage into a common force main that conveys the wastewater to the treatment facility. If the system is large enough traditional pumping stations may need to be used in conjunction with the low pressure system.

5.3 Identified Alternatives

Alternatives have been selected for further evaluation in the following section, representing the most practical available options for this Planning Area. The Alternatives include various treatment and collection methods for meeting the current and future sewage needs of the area.

6.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

6.1 Alternative 1 – On-Lot Disposal Systems or Land Application

The demonstrated failure rate of the existing OLDS in the Study Area, along with the type of soil prevalent in the area and the small lot size of many of the existing and proposed homes, is not conducive to the implementation of an On Lot Management Program designed to maintain the use of OLDS. Similarly, the type of soil and the density of population in the study area means that land application alternatives, such as spray or drip irrigation systems, are not practical for the Tylersport Study Area. However, they will be considered for open areas in the rest of the Township, in subsequent studies. Three On-lot disposal alternatives have been evaluated as follows:

a. Small Flow Treatment Facilities to serve Individual Homes or Clusters of Homes. The prevailing soil types present in much of the area, the small lot size of many of the properties with failing systems and the number of systems that would be involved makes this alternative impractical. The cost to install an individual treatment unit would be prohibitive to many homeowners and the legal and property easement issues involved with combining clusters of existing homes into one facility would be problematic. Desirability and re-sale value of a property with a private facility that would need maintenance would be less than one with central sewers. This option is not considered viable for the Tylersport area.

b. Repair, Replacement or Upgrade of Malfunctioning OLDS. The on-going problems with failing and/or poorly maintained OLDS in the Tylersport area shows the reluctance or inability of homeowners to install a new on-lot system until the problem is chronic. The soil conditions, the lot size and the cost of alternative systems mean that the only practical solution for most properties is to install a sand mound. These systems typically cost between $15,000 and $20,000. The cost and the visual detraction to property value make them unpopular and impractical on a large scale. The option of repairing systems is appealing to those residents that currently have a functioning system, but is not a realistic solution to a community problem where there are so many actual and potentially malfunctioning systems. The Township wants to provide a permanent solution to the historic problems of the area. This alternative does not provide a comprehensive and/or guaranteed solution.

c. Community Land Application Sewage Disposal Systems. This option was discussed in length at the December 8, 2005 public meeting, with a presentation by BCM Engineers. The slides and full text are included in Appendix F of the Plan. The following summarizes the information that was presented. The conclusion was that a spray irrigation system would be far more expensive than the proposed central sewage collection system. There would also undoubtedly be considerable opposition from land owners adjacent to any property(s) selected for spray irrigation and/or storage lagoons.

COMMUNITY LAND APPLICATION SYSTEMS

There are four primary components required in a typical land application (spray irrigation) system:

· Treatment Pond

· Storage Pond

· Spray Field(s)

· Mechanical Equipment

· (Piping, Spray heads, pumps, valves, meters, controls etc.)

The first three components require land to be purchased, cleared and maintained. The third component requires a large area of land with suitable soils and without steep slopes. All components require equipment purchase, installation, maintenance and operation.

Preliminary Sizing Requirements:

Component 1 - Treatment Pond

The system is required to provide treatment to at least secondary discharge standards. To operate effectively the treatment pond is required to hold at least 30-days of flow. For the Tylersport area only, total flow of 40,000 gpd, a 1,200,000 gallon treatment pond is required. At an average of 8 feet deep the pond would be about 0.5 acres.

If no land is available for a treatment pond a conventional package treatment plant could be installed. This would save on land costs but require higher ongoing operating costs.

Component 2 – Storage Pond

Wastewater cannot be applied to frozen ground. In this region that typically restricts spray operations to 9 months of the year. During the other 3 months the wastewater is put into a storage pond. For the Tylersport area only, total flow of 40,000 gpd, a 3,600,000 gallon treatment pond is required. At an average of 8 feet deep the pond would be about 1.5 acres.

Component 3 - Spray Fields

Depending on the suitability of the soil (if any is available), the allowable rate at which wastewater can be applied to the ground is typically between 1,000 and 4,000 gallons per day per acre (gpd/ac). Each spray field requires a buffer zone, typically 100 feet wide, around it. The acreage required for buffer zones will be more if the spray field cannot be placed on one contiguous piece of property. For the Tylersport area only, total flow of 40,000 gpd, the spray field would be between 10 and 40 acres, the buffer zone could be between 3 and 13 acres.

The total acreage required for a 40,000 gpd spray irrigation system, based on the previous estimates, is as follows:

Application Rate

(gallons/acre/day)

Component 1,000 4,000

Treatment Pond 0.5 0.5

Storage Lagoon 1.5 1.5

Spray Field(s) 40.0 10.0

Buffer Zones 13.0 3.0

Total Acres 55.0 ac 15.0 ac

Current Land Prices

2005 Real Estate Lot Comparables (Vacant Lots only)

(Data provided by Realty Executives, Skippack, PA)

Lot # Acres Price $/acre

1 3.24 211,000 65,123

2 5.50 300,000 54,545

3 3.89 250,000 64,267

4 1.45 140,000 96,552

5 2.63 159,000 60,456

6 2.85 66,631 23,379

7 2.44 171,250 70,184

8 2.18 171,250 78,555

9 2.50 171,250 68,000

10 3.76 185,000 49,202

11 3.02 245,000 81,126

12 13.67 280,000 20,483

Average 3.93 $61,031

Max. 13.67 $96,552

Min. 1.45 $20,483

Preliminary Capital Cost Estimates:

Collection system $1,442,625

(Identical for any treatment scenario, based on collection system alternatives)

Low Range High Range

15 ac @ $2,000 55 ac @ $60,000

Land Acquisition $300,000 $3,300,000

Piping - Collection System to Spray Fields 80,000 240,000

Treatment Facility (including ponds,

pump station, control building) 900,000 900,000

Clearing and Preparing Spray Fields 190,000 320,000

Valves, meters, pumps, controls etc. 200,000 300,000

Total Construction Cost $1,670,000 $5,060,000

Contingencies (20%) 274,000 352,000

Eng., Legal, Admin. & Financial (35%) 480,000 616,000

Total Project Cost (incl. Land) $2,424,000 $6,028,000

This option is far more costly than conventional conveyance and pumping to a WWTP. Combined with the lack of suitable land in the area these options are not considered viable alternatives.

6.2 Alternative 2 – Developers Private WWTP for Development

The WB Homes, Rosey Ridge Partnership has prepared plans for two developments in the southern portion of the Planning Area. The properties are adjacent to the PA Turnpike and connect from Ridge Road (Rte. 563) to Allentown Road. The latest development plans propose construction of 139 townhouses and 50 single family dwellings. A parcel of land could be set aside, with a 250 foot buffer zone, to site a package WWTP.

The plant would be sized to meet the needs of the current development only. It would remain a privately operated facility and there would be no initial cost to the Township. However, it must be recognized by any municipality that the operation, and eventual ownership, of a private plant will become the Townships responsibility if the developer or private operator defaults in their obligations.

6.3 Alternative 3 – Township WWTP for Tylersport Area

Given the demonstrated need for an alternative to on-lot disposal in the Tylersport area, a sanitary sewer collection system would be installed along Route 563 and Allentown Road within the Study Area. The sewage would be conveyed to a WWTP site in the WB Homes development. The size of the plant proposed in Alternative 2 would be increased sufficiently to provide capacity for the existing and potential development throughout the Planning Area. After a suitable warranty period, the plant will be dedicated to the Township who will then take responsibility for its operation and maintenance.

Collection system costs have been estimated for the Township portion of the system based on either the use of low pressure sewers for the entire system, or for a combination system using low pressure and conventional gravity sewers. The proposed location and sizes of pipelines for Options 1 are shown on Figure 6-1.

6.4 Alternative 4 – Connection to Regional WWTP

Tylersport, and Salford Township as a whole, is located in a very rural area and would not normally be considered close enough to economically connect to any communities that have a WWTP of sufficient size to accept sewage from the study area. However, Franconia Township needs to serve its Earlington area, where on-lot systems are failing at an unacceptable rate, and it has pre-purchased capacity in the Telford WWTP, that it is willing to make available to Salford Township. Combined with the willingness of the developer to build the necessary facilities to convey the sewage to and through Franconia, this option is considered viable.

The same two collection system Options for Tylersport that were described in Alternative 3 will apply to this Alternative. The proposed location and sizes of pipelines for Options 1 are shown on Figure 6-2.

6.5 Cost Analysis

6.5.1 Capital Costs

Alternatives 1 and 2, as described in Sections 6.1 and 6.2, do not require any capital expense from the Township. The estimated capital costs for each of the two collection and treatment options described in Section 6.3 are shown on Tables 6-1A, & 6-1B.

The specific plant process to be used would be confirmed during the design phase of the project, to ensure that a suitably efficient, reliable and cost-effective package treatment plant system is installed. Early plans anticipated that the package plant would be designed by Purestream ES LLC, using the BESST process. A Concept Report and Construction Cost Estimates, as provided by the developer’s engineer, are contained in Appendix B. However it is recognized that modifications to that design would be required in order to meet PADEP’s revised preliminary discharge standards that were generated after the Concept Report was prepared. No updated report or detailed cost estimate has been produced because the Franconia Option (see next section) was determined to be a more cost effective solution. The revised cost estimates that have been presented are based on the assumption that the plant would be built by the developer, at his cost, to serve the needs of the two planned developments, and that the Township would provide no more than the incremental cost to cover the expansion of the plant to serve the Tylersport area.

The estimated capital costs for each of the two collection and conveyance options described in Section 6.4 are shown on Tables 6-2A, & 6-2B. These costs assume that the developer will construct all conveyance facilities at his cost and that the Township will pay a tapping fee to Franconia Township for treatment capacity in the Telford WWTP.

6.5.2 Operations and Maintenance Costs

Initial operating and maintenance costs have been developed as shown on Table 6-3A, based on typical components required in any treatment plant, and on Table 6-3B based on typical pumping costs.

Estimated total Operating and Maintenance costs are preliminary, intended only to provide an order of magnitude. The actual cost will depend on many variables, including actual flow rates, staff available to share duties and local cost factors.

As discussed above, in Section 4.6, there is not expected to be any significant increase in the number of future EDU’s tributary to the sewer system. Therefore, future O&M costs have only been increased to include a suitable allowance for inflation.

6.5.3 Present Worth Analysis

The previously calculated capital cost and operating costs are combined to indicate the present worth of each alternative on Table 6-4. Given the level of accuracy in the preliminary cost estimates, it is clear that there is no obvious financial difference between the two collection system alternatives. However, the flexibility provided by the all low-pressure system in Option 1 provides significant advantages during construction and installation of the system. Therefore, the Analysis is based on Alternatives 3 and 4 with Option 1 in both cases.

6.5.4 Funding Alternatives

There are essentially three alternative sources of funding open to the Township, as listed below, which may be used individually or combined, depending upon availability. Financing terms, funds availability and project schedule may influence their selection. The following table provides the estimated interest rate and terms available:

Alternative Interest Rate Term

Bond Issue 5.5% 20 years

Bank Loan 6.0% 20 years

PENNVEST 1% to 4% 20 years

The selection of the funding source is not only driven by interest costs, but also by the financial objectives of the borrower. Given a choice, the Township may prefer the higher annual payment and a shorter loan term of a bank loan, as opposed to the lower annual payment under PENNVEST, with a longer loan period.

There are other factors that may play a role in the selection process, such as flexibility of the funding source with regard to the project schedule and financial application deadlines, as well as the availability of the funding itself.

Bond Issues and Bank Loans provide the greatest flexibility of the alternatives presented, in relation to project schedule and availability of funds. Once bonds have been issued, or a bank loan has been approved, funds are readily available to pay for project costs. On the other hand, funding from a State program, such as the PENNVEST program, can only be obtained after the conclusion of a financial assistance application process, and through project cost reimbursement requests. In addition, financial assistance applications may only be submitted to PENNVEST on specified dates during the year, which may not coincide with the overall project schedule, thereby causing unnecessary delays. As mentioned, during the construction phase of the project, funds are obtained through a cost reimbursement process; this sometimes causes the borrower to set up a line of credit to avoid cash flow problems due to delays in cost reimbursements. Finally, State funding programs allocate available monies among several applicants. Therefore, introducing a PENNVEST financial assistance application does not insure that funding will be obtained from the program.

Recognizing the above, it is recommended that