Municipalities in the Pleasant Hills Authority work on service agreement
The contracting municipalities in the Pleasant Hills Authority are awaiting a service agreement to comply with a state consent decree.
Late last year, the municipalities — Pleasant Hills, Baldwin Borough, Whitehall and South Park Township — approved an extension until March for the agreement with the Pleasant Hills Authority. The municipalities are working to comply with the state Department of Environmental Protection's consent decree to reduce overflow issues.
Part of the consent decree is for the municipalities to approve a service agreement with the authority.
“We're almost there,” Baldwin Borough solicitor Stanley Lederman told council members earlier this month.
Lawyers and engineers from the municipalities have been working out details of the agreement.
Issues that still need to be addressed among the towns include: determining the criteria for a majority consent and setting fines if one of them didn't comply with regulations. Rules also were set regarding capital improvements for the authority.
In addition, the plan will include the creation of a map will to show where all of the lines and flow meters are in the communities.
Likewise, the Pleasant Hills Authority and Pleasant Hills are working through a new management agreement, said Councilman William Trimbath.
Laura Van Wert is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-388-5814 or at firstname.lastname@example.org. Stephanie Hacke is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-388-5818.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.