ShareThis Page

Harmar Water Authority seeks alternative to $1.38M PennVEST loan

| Monday, Sept. 5, 2016, 10:39 p.m.

The Harmar Water Authority has put a $1.38 million PennVEST loan on hold.

The authority last week voted to accept the loan, but it did not make a commitment to receive the money.

Instead, the authority will continue to pursue other options, such as a grant for less than $500,000 from the Commonwealth Financing Authority.

Members said if they get the 20-year loan, rates would have to go up for the nearly 1,000 water customers.

“We just have too many issues right now,” board member Evie Perrett said. “We'd have to have quite a few meetings before we'd go ahead with (the loan).”

First on the priority list is a deteriorating 150,000-gallon storage tank that needs to be replaced.

An obsolete ozone system also needs to be replaced.

Officials said the PennVEST loan approval, first announced by state Sen. Randy Vulakovich in July, can be shelved for about 18 months before the authority would have to accept the money.

The authority also can scale down the amount accepted, which officials said would be a Plan B in the event none of the grants comes through.

Engineer Tom Thompson said the new tank also would be 150,000 gallons.

George Guido is a freelance writer.

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