ShareThis Page

Hampton receives $500K grant for sewage facility improvements

Madasyn Czebiniak
| Tuesday, Jan. 2, 2018, 6:12 p.m.
Hampton received a $500,000 grant to upgrade its sewage treatment facility, state Rep. Hal English, R-Hampton announced Tuesday, Jan. 2, 2018.
Hampton received a $500,000 grant to upgrade its sewage treatment facility, state Rep. Hal English, R-Hampton announced Tuesday, Jan. 2, 2018.

Hampton received a $500,000 grant to upgrade its sewage treatment facility, according to state Rep. Hal English, R-Hampton.

English worked with township officials to secure the Gaming Economic Development Fund grant, which will assist the township with its Glannon Watershed Improvement Project.

Administered by the Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County, such grants are intended to provide financial assistance to facilitate economic development projects in the county.

English said in a statement that the funding will help “ensure the well-being of residents and wildlife alike.

The grant, approved in 2017, will offset the cost of the Pennsylvania Sewage Facilities Act 537 Plan and an associated rate study, English said. The funds will also be applied to the $1.2 million cost of sewer lining to reduce infiltration and inflow at the Glannon pump station.

“I was happy to assist in obtaining this grant for precious front-end dollars to properly analyze the scope of the sewer system needs or upgrades as well as environmental requirements,” English said.

Madasyn Czebiniak is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach her at 724-226-4702, or via Twitter @maddyczebstrib.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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 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.

click me