Mahoning Township supervisors received a progress report on Carbon County's Packerton Yards from Carbon County Chairman Commissioner William O'Gurek along with the project's engineer Ron Tirpak. The two accepted the invitation of the officials to provide an update at this week's monthly meeting.

"We are here at your request for a progress report and wanted to let you know there are not any shortcuts in this project. We are dealing with everyone involved in the project from the township to the borough and municipal authorities, school districts and several state agencies like DEP, PennDOT and the EMA," said O'Gurek in his presentation to supervisors."We have before you subdivision plans [for the project] and we ask that you would look favorably on them." O'Gurek said this is the first time the county has worked on providing economic development with shovel-ready properties and he expects construction is about ready to begin in the spring on the highway improvements or the railroad crossing.O'Gurek told supervisors, "as we speak, the most challenging issue [so far in the project] has been obtaining the highway occupancy permit from PennDOT for the yards, but I think we are very close to being there; 2011 should be a construction year."He reminded supervisors that he expects the park to employ 300-350 people full-time once it is completed and fully developed and mentioned the site is actively being marketed by specialists acting as agents of the project."This will be a shot in the arm for not only the township, but the county, the school district and municipal authorities. As part of this we are planning to purchase 37 EDU's for $163,000 and then be a good customer of the authority. LIkewise we are purchasing water from Lehighton and adding an extra half mile of line to create a loop which will improve their system," he added.O'Gurek told the officials he is always open to questions and comments from the township.Chairman John Wieczorek said that one of the reasons the township requested the dialogue with the commissioners was because it seemed every PennDOT report they received in the county's work toward getting an HOP for the project seemed to develop more issues than were being resolved. "It became a concern for us as it appeared the project was taking one step forward and two steps back each time you submitted plans to PennDOT."Wieczorek also asked the reasons why Lehighton rejected Carbon Engineering's report and asked what that encompassed. He mentioned people seem to be going out of their way to voice their opposition to the project. "Sometimes it seems you are the only supportive of this project based on the people who talk to me," he said to O'Gurek. He said most of the people are concerned about traffic and safety."I'm not sure what you are seeing that everyone else is missing," he said to the top commissioner pointing out the concerns over the traffic feeding into an apparently already bloated traffic system.O'Gurek responded that he respects everyone's opinion and the protracted work with PennDOT to obtain a highway occupancy permit was an indication of satisfying the safety issues. "We believe we now have acceptable access to the park with sightlines that meet state standards."Tirpak said the county has also obtained an agreement with the Lehighton Water Authority for a land sale for enhancing the road as well as easements, an archaeological release on the property and are continuing to work on the highway design. They also have a PUC order for the crossing and permits for the DEP stream discharges. The issues that were resolved for the permit were to provide an acceptable grade for the highway and sightlines, both of which appear to be satisfactory now.He told the supervisors only two of the lots are in Lehighton, the other five are in Mahoning. Wieczorek asked if the project could proceed without Lehighton. Tirpak answered that two things were needed on the lots in Lehighton borough, access to the water line to create the loop near the railroad bridge and half the cul-de-sac lies in the borough. "We expect these issues to be resolved," he concluded.Wieczorek asked why the railroads would oppose the project which would benefit them the most. O'Gurek answered that the biggest issue with regard to the crossing was who would be ultimately responsible for it. Tirpak said the improved crossing would be gated and have lights and that it would be covered with a grant.Supervisor George Stawnyczyj asked if the HOP includes a light or a stop sign at the new intersection which would be staggered from the Packerton Dam Road. Tirpak said they would need to prove the warrants to have a light installed so initially it would just be stop signs. He added the conduits and infrastructure for the lights would be installed in anticipation that once the park is populated the light could be justified.Wieczorek said the mention of the grant introduces another concern for himself. He asked O'Gurek with the recent atmosphere in the legislature and the newly elected representatives what would happen if the money promised is no longer available.O'Gurek said the county had executed agreements and the grants comprising the $5.1 million funding is allocated already to the project, however if it is significantly delayed some of the moneys could be lost. "For example, the HOP must begin by July 1st, 2011 and the RCAP funding must be used in two years. Ron said the construction could be done in one season so we don't expect we will lose this money." He added the county has already begun drawing down on the funding for soft costs such as consulting and engineering fees.Wieczorek asked if a traffic impact study was available and Tirpak promised the one done for PennDOT could be forwarded to the township. He asked if the study was just for the intersection or the surrounding area. Tirpak answered the study was only mandated for the intersection in Packerton. The head supervisor responded that he felt 350 employees traveling in and out of the area would have an effect on more than just the intersection.Supervisor Linda Benner expressed concern about placing a light so close to the curve as well as people losing control around the turn and going over the bank. Tirpak pointed out the conditions she mentioned exist currently and have not been an issue to date. She just reiterated the increased traffic in her opinion will make it more likely something could happen. Wieczorek asked who would be responsible for the intersection and was told the county would retain ownership of the intersection and any traffic signals.Supervisor Travis Steigerwalt asked if the road would be widened and he was told there would be enough room on the curve and straightaway for three lanes and two shoulders.Planning Commission Vice Chairman Bruce Steigerwalt expressed concerns about having two intersections about 200 feet apart and was told by Tirpak that he had no problem with having the Packertown Dam Road feed into the county intersection. "We would like to see that plan you will send to PennDOT [showing this]," Steigerwalt said.One other issue Steigerwalt asked about was how the purchase of 37 EDU's which equate to 14,000 gallons of usage would handle the 20000 plus gallons that was approved by DEP. Tirpak said the approved volume by DEP for the development does not affect what is purchased initially from the authority and said that if more were needed later we would purchase them.Steigerwalt responded that there are more developments than this yard looking to receive municipal sewer service and what would happen if they weren't there when the county went to obtain the remaining EDU's. Tirpak said the 37 EDU figure was what they estimated would be needed for the planned development. Steigerwalt said if they were approved for the larger volume, it made sense to him to allocate it outright so that they don't run the risk of losing it later.Wieczorek thanked them for the dialogue and said he felt it was constructive and informative and asked that they continue to be kept in the loop as the project continues.