At an unscheduled Pine Grove special town meeting on April 23 the council voted to decline the United States Environmental Protection Agency grant they had been offered last year for roughly $724,000 to repair their municipal sewer lines and extend sewer service to Galmish and Barker.
At previous meetings opponents from Barker, Galmish, and Piney had presented petitions stating their reasoning to not be included in the $721,680 EPA earmarked funds which would enable improvements to service for 220 existing sewer customers and add 95 new households in the outlying areas. Content with their own private septic systems, the opponents felt they had never been contacted to support the project and therefore should not be compelled to hook up to the service.
The Department of Environmental Protection who had advised on the necessity of the sewer project and was to approve designs, and Belomar, who made the grant application on behalf of the town, held the position that the project had been in progress since 2001 and the public had been given ample time to raise objections in at least six public meetings. The design for some of the project has already been completed and a Small Cities Block Grant of $200,000 was also accessed to make emergency repairs and pay for some aspects of the project.
At the April 10 meeting the council had voted to take no action on returning the grant, which in effect allowed the work on the sewer line extension to continue. Citizens expressed uncertainty as to whether the project was in limbo, postponed, or going forth full speed. In an effort to resolve the controversy once and for all, the special April 23 meeting was announced by a sign on the Byrd Center door.
At the most recent meeting Councilman John Johnston moved to drop the sewer extension project, but the motion died for lack of a second. After more discussion, Councilman Roy Justice moved to continue the extension project, which was seconded by Councilman Tom Dulaney. Councilmen Bobby Adams and Dave Williams did not attend the April 23 meeting. According to Justice’s account of what transpired, during discussion those in opposition to the extension were extremely upset and loudly voiced their opinion. When Mayor Dave Barr called for a vote on Justice’s motion, Dulaney changed his support by voting “no”—to not continue the sewer extension project. Johnston also voted no, with Justice casting the only yes vote in favor of keeping the grant money and continuing with the grant project. Therefore the motion to continue the project failed and reportedly the opposition group rejoiced.
Recorder Kim Bates had no comment on the vote, but Mayor Barr said there was little else that could be done since so many people were against it.
Councilman Justice was very disheartened, saying, “It’s a shame. Council was elected by the town to serve the people. This does not serve the best in6terests of the whole town. . .There is no doubt it will hurt the town.”
Several members of the community expressed their opinions regarding the halting of the project. Retiring president of the Wetzel County Commission and Pine Grove resident Barbara King said when she heard the news, “I was disappointed. It may cause problems in the future for the town.” Like Justice, she expressed concern this would prejudice any future grant applications against the town.
Piney resident and frequent outspoken opponent of the sewer extension project, Sandy Fortney, was pleased at the outcome, “I think it was fair. There was a greater percentage that didn’t want it. It was being forced on us. Many Piney people are on fixed incomes and couldn’t afford it.”
Belomar’s grant writer Scott Hicks, who has worked on this project since 2000, made a short comment regarding the grant refusal, “Considering all the opposition to this project, any future project will have to be mandated.” Hicks stated that he had never before experienced an entity declining a grant award; since the funds were awarded but had not actually been accessed yet, declining the money and halting the project is a matter of formal paperwork, signatures, and the minutes of the April 23 meeting being approved when the next town council convenes on May 8.
DEP engineer Mike Warwick who had attended the March 31 sewer extension public meeting offered this statement regarding the vote to not use the EPA funds, “The town’s decision to return the EPA grant dollars was most likely a decision based on the public opposition to the sewer extensions to Barker and Galmish. The need for providing public sewer service to these areas was based primarily on a letter from the Wetzel County Health Department that referenced septic tank failures and complaints and supported the project.”
Warwick continued with advice to Pine Grove, “DEP believes the town should work with the Regional Council and Cerrone and Associates (the sewer design engineers) to seek EPA approval for amending the scope of work to make additional improvements to the treatment plant and add needed improvements to the existing vacuum collection system. DEP’s Office of Environmental Enforcement has issued a Notice of Violation to Pine Grove in March 2008 which would serve as a basis for the revised scope of work. The town may have to obtain loan dollars to match the EPA grant, depending on whether SCBG (Small Cities Block Grant) funding could be obtained for a project that did not include the sewer extensions.”
Until the next scheduled Pine Grove council meeting on May 8, the sewer extension project dispute may be allowed to rest. Only the passage of time will tell whether any funds may be used for major repairs to the city’s ailing sewer system or reveal the sequence of events for government mandates requiring citizens to connect to a public sewer.