August 25, 2005
by Jaime Bumbarger
Mo Valley Bureau Chief
Reproduced with permission.

Circulation Manager:
Cindy Aughenbaugh
Phone: 814-765-5581
Fax: 814-765-5165

Call our Clearfield office at 814-765-5581 to see how you can become a regular subscriber of The Progress!

PHILIPSBURG -- Rush Township Supervisors want to meet with Centre County officials to determine, what if anything, can be done to make a plan for a proposed interchange to access a proposed landfill consistent with county plans but have established a 30-day window to do so.

Last week, the Centre County Planning Commission voted 4-1 (Jack Shannon, Moshannon Valley representative and Rush Township Board of Supervisors chairman, cast the lone dissenting vote) to find the proposed interchange and landfill inconsistent with the county's long-term plans. The CCPC was asked by the Federal Highway Administration to review the plans and determine whether or not they were consistent with the county's comprehensive plan and long-range transportation plan. The county Metropolitan Planning Commission is currently conducting its review and could make its determination on consistency with the LRTP next month.

The finding does not mean the privately-funded interchange is a dead issue. Herb Flosdorf, executive vice president of Resource Recovery LLC, the developer, said RRLLC would still submit its Point of Access study seeking an interchange, but it would also consider the use of local roads, in this case state Route 53, as an option, if supervisors would amend its host municipality agreement.

Last night's special meeting of the board of supervisors was to gather input from Rush Township residents regarding the interchange and a possible amendment, Mr. Shannon said. He attempted to limit public input to Rush residents but could not prevent individuals from neighboring municipalities from providing their input. Residents of Cooper and Snow Shoe townships expressed concern over truck traffic, the environment and health and public safety. "I'd rather be proud and enjoy the scenic beauty than have a million dollars in my pocket," said Dan Mottin, Snow Shoe Township.

Several Rush Township residents also spoke up and asked the supervisors to look beyond its boundaries because the proposal will have a regional impact. "As supervisors, your job is to look out for the best interests of Rush and the surrounding areas. There's a lot of people that will be affected," said Don Welker, Rush Township. "It benefits no one."

Several others questioned why supervisors, after signing a host municipality agreement with RRLLC requiring the use of Interstate 80 as the only ingress and egress routes, would attempt to amend the agreement.

John Mandel, a 49-year resident of Rush, called the agreement a "bad deal." "Now we made a mistake, and I think its time to correct it," he said.

At least nine Rush residents voiced their opposition to the proposal. Another, Shawn Bartlett, said he is not opposed to the landfill but is opposed to the use of local roads. In the midst of several people talking, one person could be heard saying residents were being asked to "pick their poison," by choosing an interchange or local roads as access sites.

Only one person, Rush Township resident Vernon Wilks, expressed his support for the concept and township supervisors. "They're not a bunch of homicidal maniacs out to destroy Snow Shoe Township," he said, as he was met with boos.

Mr. Shannon said he believes others support the idea but did not speak publicly. He said he knows there were some Rush Township families who attended and are not in favor of the landfill or interchange. "But I also know I saw four individuals who are in favor and did not speak up because they did not want to subject themselves to that."

He suggested a resolution that would delay action on any amendment to the agreement for 30 days so that the township, RRLLC and the county could try to resolve inconsistencies with the county's plan.

But Bob Jacobs, planning director, said he was willing to sit down and discuss it but other parties would have to be made part of the process. "Any discussions must involve Snow Shoe Township and even Clearfield County," he said. "We respect municipal rights, but this goes beyond one municipality."

Supervisors have mixed feelings on who should be involved, though. Joan Cowher said she is open to other municipalities' involvement. Mr. Shannon said he would like to see where talks go before inviting others to join. Supervisor Pat Couturiaux, who cast the only dissenting vote against the resolution, said he is opposed to the talks, in general. Reading from a prepared statement, he said, "I do not wish to delay action on anything that holds this interchange up any longer. Rush Township has been very patient with Centre County for more than a year now, only to have Centre County stonewall this interchange."

He continued to say that he did not think 30 days would make a difference. "We are still the township from over the mountain."

After the meeting, Mr. Couturiaux was still adamant that talks would be futile, but said he would sit down with anyone to discuss the matter.

Centre County Commissioner Scott Conklin said he was hopeful something could be worked out but opposed the idea of a time constraint. "This is a major project. Not necessarily a major building project, but a major project emotionally and lifestyle wise," he said.

"We need to make sure this is done properly without a time line. The county's comprehensive plan is in direct conflict, and it takes time. I don't think the county is dragging its feet. We have 36 municipalities we're responsible for."

As a county commissioner, he said he is limited in what he can do because it is a township right, not a county one. But speaking personally as a Rush Township resident, he said he does not agree with the project and was emphatic that local roadways are not a viable option.

Mr. Shannon said he would open dialogue with the county commissioners then Mr. Jacobs this morning and propose two dates to meet as a starting point. He said he would be opposed to delaying action beyond the 30 days allotted.

"If both entities are truly committed to working towards this, it can be done in a week," he said. "I don't think it's insurmountable."

This site contains PDF file downloads. If you do not have Adobe Acrobat Reader, you may download a free version here.

©2005 People Protecting Communities • last updated Nov 6, 2005
This site has been developed, designed and maintained with 100% volunteer work. No funds are used.
Please report problems to our volunteer WebHead, TechieR