Packet - West Goshen Township

February 15, 2022 Board Of Supervisors Meeting

AGENDA.PDFAIDANS HEART FOUNDATION AED DONATION TO WEST GOSHEN COMMUNITY PARK.PDFPRESENTATION FROM LORETTA COHEN OF WEST CHESTER COMMUNITIES THAT CARE.PDFFINAL SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 829 PAOLI PIKE.PDFDEED OF DEDICATION FOR A PORTION OF ARAM AVENUE.PDFRESOLUTION NO. 4-2022 AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN RECORDS OF WEST GOSHEN TOWNSHIP.PDFHRG INC PRP UPDATE PROPOSAL.PDFCARROLL ENGINEERING CORP STORMWATER TESTING PROPOSAL.PDFOPPOSITION TO LEGISLATION INCREASING TRUCK WEIGHT LIMITS ON PA ROADWAYS.PDFJANUARY 2022 MONTHLY REPORTS.PDFJANUARY 18 2022 MEETING MINUTES.PDFFEBRUARY 1 2022 MEETING MINUTES.PDFJANUARY 31 2022 TREASURERS REPORT.PDF

1.

Documents:

http://pa-westgoshentownship.civicplus.com/f4e4ce02-674f-4104-9017-3544a99e7c24

West Goshen Township Board of Supervisors

February 15, 2022

6:00 PM

Agenda

1. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

2. Chair’s announcement that this meeting may be audio and video recorded by 3rd parties.

3. Presentation from Aidan’s Heart Foundation for a donation of an Automatic External Defibrillator (AED) for use in West

Goshen Community Park.

4. Presentation from Loretta Cohen regarding a youth initiative partnership between West Goshen Township and West Chester Communities That Care.

5. Discussion and possible approval of a Final Subdivision/Land Development Plan for 829 Paoli Pike (Stanbery West Goshen, LLC) for a grocery store, restaurant, and mixed-use site.

6. Discussion and possible approval of the Deed of Dedication for the portion of Aram Avenue owned by the West Chester Area School District.

7. Discussion and possible approval of Resolution No. 4-2022, authorizing the destruction of certain records of West Goshen

Township pursuant to the Pennsylvania Municipal Records Manual.

8. Continued discussion and possible approval of a proposal from HRG, Inc. for amendments to West Goshen Township’s Pollutant Reduction Plan.

9. Discussion and possible approval of a proposal from Carroll Engineering Corporation to complete stormwater infiltration testing and analysis for the installation of a splash pad.

10. Discussion and possible approval of the issuance of a letter from West Goshen Township to PA Representatives Herrin and Sappey and PA Senator John Kane opposing legislation increasing the weight allowance for trucks on Pennsylvania roadways.

11. Reports for the month of January 2022:

Police Report presented Chief Michael Carroll.

12. Board of Supervisors’ announcements.

13. Township Manager’s announcements.

14. Township Engineer’s Stormwater announcements and Woodlands at Greystone update.

15. Zoning Officer’s announcements.

16. Approval of Board of Supervisors meeting minutes of January 18, 2022 and February 1, 2022.

17. Approval of Treasurer's Report dated January 31, 2022, for the General Fund, the Sewer Revenue Fund, the Waste and Recycling Fund, and the Capital Reserve Fund, and the bills to be paid from these funds.

18. Public Comment.

Adjourn

From the Office of the MEMORANDUM Township Manager

___________________________________________________________________ TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: CHRISTOPHER BASHORE RE: AIDAN’S HEART FOUNDATION – DONATION OF AUTOMATIC EXTERNAL

DEFIBRILLATOR (AED) FOR USE IN WEST GOSHEN COMMUNITY PARK DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2022

Before the Board of Supervisors this evening is Rita Stern, Executive Director for Aidan’s Heart Foundation. Aidan’s Heart Foundation is a 501(c)(3) organization headquartered in Thorndale, PA that was formed in 2010 with a mission to protect young hearts from Sudden Cardiac Arrest (SCA). The organization is dedicated to the memory of Aidan Joseph Silva, who died unexpectedly in 2010 of SCA at the age of 7. Prior to the holiday season, Ms. Stern contacted the Township and stated that Aidan’s Heart Foundation was awarded a grant from the Greater West Chester Sunrise Rotary Club to donate two (2) Automatic External Defibrillators in the West Chester community. They selected West Goshen Community Park as one of those sites and are before the Board this evening to present this donation to the Township. Representation before the Board this evening from both organizations is as follows:

• Aidan’s Heart Foundation o Rita Stern, Executive Director o Christa Glogowski, Vice-President

• Greater West Chester Sunrise Rotary Club o Janet Colliton, President of the Foundation Board o Robbe Healey, Secretary o Rick Stevenson, Treasurer o Dave Johnson, Board Member

In addition, Bob Cifone, Chair of the West Goshen Township Parks & Recreation Board, is also in attendance this evening.

Please let me know if you have questions. Thank you.

From: Loretta CohenTo: Loretta CohenSubject: Campaign to improve outcomes for youthDate: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 6:17:53 PM

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless yourecognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Township Leadership,We are thrilled to have so much community participation in our ad campaign designed to buildresilience in youth, including several local Townships. West Chester Communities That Care's4 part ad campaign targets areas identified in the statewide PA Youth Survey that will improveoutcomes for youth. We know that in order for important messages to "sink in", we need tosee them in a variety of places over time. We invite you to join us for round 2 in the fight toaddress mental health, underage substance use and violence impacting youth in ourcommunities.

Click here for the free download of our February ads in English and Spanish. Please choosethe one that fits your audience best and use the language below to accompany your socialmedia post or any print or e-news publication.

February 2022 Copy:By recognizing youth's effort, trusted adults can increase a child's sense of value, improve the emotional health of youth and expect better outcomes related to underage substance use. For professional tips for how you can best recognize effort in youth, visit wcctc.org/resilience-2 #wcyouthmatter

We are pleased to partner with West Chester Communities That Care to highlight this topic which is essential to youth development. West Chester Communities That Care uses an evidence-based coalition model to improve outcomes for youth, specifically around the areas of mental health, underage substance use and violence.

Loretta Cohen, MSWWest Chester Communities That [email protected] Today!

West Chester Communities that Care is a local non-profit and communitywide coalition, designed to improve outcomes for youth, helping them tolive substance-free, violence-free and emotionally healthy lives. Thenationally recognized Communities That Care model is proven to reducerisk behaviors among teens. Contact us to learn more about the sciencebehind our coalition and strategies.

mailto:[email protected]


https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSct_uY-xa1ZaF-zLF2RYOgTURHp8NcrLUSAWRuRChY5xMZOQw/viewform

http://wcctc.org/resilience-2


http://wcctc.org/

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=C39W2BBGQ52F2

http://www.wcctc.org/


February 2022 Copy: By recognizing youth's effort, trusted adults can increase a child's sense of value, improve the emotional health of youth and expect better outcomes related to underage substance use. For professional tips for how you can best recognize effort in youth, visit wcctc.org/resilience-2 #wcyouthmatter We are pleased to partner with West Chester Communities That Care to highlight this topic which is essential to youth development. West Chester Communities That Care uses an evidence-based coalition model to improve outcomes for youth, specifically around the areas of mental health, underage substance use and violence.

http://wcctc.org/resilience-2

2/11/2022

1

Pennsylvania Youth Survey

The PAYS allows us to track local trends and determine our community’s greatest areas of strength and weakness.

Mental Health Data• WCASD teens’ level of depression is 8% below the state average.

• Still 32% of WCASD teens feel sad or depressed most days.

ItPAYS to

KNOW

A guide for parents to prevent teen substance use and promote emotional

health

2/11/2022

2

2/11/2022

3

Community Campaigns…

…impact behavior&

create change.

2/11/2022

4

25% less likely to engage in delinquent behavior

Source: University of Washington, Social Development Research Group

$5.31

Return on

Invest‐ment

��

32% less likely to initiate alcohol use

The CTC model works when all sectors of society are included.• Business• Education/Schools• Faith • Healthcare• Government• Law Enforcement• Media• Parents• Youth

2/11/2022

5

Ways to help

1.Share the Campaigns• Social Media• eNewsletters• Yard Signs

Ways to help


2. Financial Support

Ways to help


2. Financial Support

3. Champions

Loretta Cohen, Community [email protected]

484‐354‐1504

THE COUNTY OF CHESTER COMMISSIONERS

Marian D. Moskowitz

Josh Maxwell

Michelle Kichline

Brian N. O’Leary, AICP

Executive Director

PLANNING COMMISSION

Government Services Center, Suite 270

601 Westtown Road

P. O. Box 2747

West Chester, PA 19380-0990

(610) 344-6285 Fax (610) 344-6515

email: [email protected] • website: www.chescoplanning.org

June 11, 2021

Casey LaLonde, Manager

West Goshen Township

1025 Paoli Pike

West Chester, PA 19380

Re: Preliminary/Final Subdivision and Land Development - Stanberry West Goshen, LLC

# West Goshen Township – SD-05-21-16741 and LD-05-21-16742

Dear Mr. LaLonde:

A Preliminary/Final Subdivision and Land Development Plan entitled "Stanberry West Goshen, LLC",

prepared by Dynamic Engineering Consultants PC, and dated April 30, 2021, was received by this office

on May 14, 2021. This plan is reviewed by the Chester County Planning Commission in accord with the

provisions of Section 502 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code. We offer the following

comments on the proposed subdivision and land development plan for your consideration.

PROJECT SUMMARY:

Location: north side of Paoli Pike, east and west side of Prospect Avenue

Site Acreage: 16.98

Lots/Units: 4 existing lots; 1 proposed lot

Non-Res. Square Footage: 26,396

Proposed Land Use: Three commercial buildings (a 20,442 square foot Aldi

Supermarket; a 2,454 restaurant with drive-through service; and

a 3,500 square foot retail/restaurant building)

New Parking Spaces: 167

Municipal Land Use Plan Designation: Existing Institutional Use; and Paoli Pike Corridor

Mixed-Use/Redevelopment Area

UPI#: 52-5F-22, 52-5F-23, 52-5F-24, 52-5F-33

PROPOSAL:

The applicant proposes the consolidation of four existing parcels totaling 16.98 acres into one parcel,

along with the construction of three commercial buildings totaling 26,396 square feet, and 167 parking

spaces. The project site, which will be served by public water and public sewer, is located in the C-2

Commercial Shopping Center zoning district. The plan indicates that the section of Prospect Drive north

of Paoli Pike will be vacated. A Transportation Impact Study, prepared by Traffic Planning and Design,

Inc., last revised April 30, 2021, was included with the plan submission. The recommendations set forth

in the study include working with PennDOT and the Township to provide for ADA compliant facilities

and associated traffic signal upgrades at the Paoli Pike/Turner Lane intersection.

RECOMMENDATION: The County Planning Commission recommends that the issues raised in this

letter should be addressed, particularly the access and circulation issues discussed in comments #3

through #6, and the design issues discussed in comment #7, and all Township issues should be resolved

before action is taken on this subdivision and land development plan.


Page: 2



COUNTY POLICY:

LANDSCAPES:

1. The project site is located within the Suburban Center Landscape and Natural Landscape

designations of Landscapes3, the 2018 County Comprehensive Plan, adjoining an Urban Center

Landscape designation. The vision for the Suburban Center Landscape is regional economic,

population and transportation centers with varying land uses, accommodating substantial future

growth of medium to high intensity. Repurposing obsolete structures and sites and encouraging

sustainable development will be critical as suburban centers grow, and transportation

infrastructure and amenities will need to expand to create an integrated multimodal network. As

an overlay of all other landscapes, the county’s Natural Landscapes consist of a network of

streams, wetlands, floodplains, and forests that are protected by regulations or should be subject

to limited disturbance. Conservation practices should protect and restore these natural resources.

The vision for the Urban Center Landscape is historic downtown and established

neighborhoods serving as civic, economic, and population centers with a traditional town

character, accommodating substantial future growth at a medium to high intensity. The proposed

plan submission is consistent with the objectives of the Suburban Center Landscape.

WATERSHEDS:

2. Watersheds, the water resources component of Landscapes3, indicates the proposed development

is located within the Goose Creek subbasin of the Chester Creek watershed. Watersheds’ highest

priority land use objectives within this watershed are: reduce stormwater runoff, restore water

quality of “impaired” streams, and protect vegetated riparian corridors. Watersheds can be

accessed at www.chesco.org/water.

https://www.chescoplanning.org/landscapes3/2-map.cfm

http://www.chesco.org/water

Page: 3



Site Plan Detail, Sheet 7: Stanberry West Goshen, LLC

PRIMARY ISSUES:

Access and Circulation:

3. While we acknowledge that sidewalks will be provided along Paoli Pike, and we acknowledge that

the transportation impact study states that the applicant will work with PennDOT to provide

pedestrian/ADA facilities along Paoli Pike, including both driveway entrances, a site plan note

indicates that the proposed sidewalk will only be four feet wide. We recommend that the sidewalks

be a minimum of five feet in width. Additionally, crosswalk areas should be provided on both

driveway entrances, and the proposed sidewalk network should be extended to provide direct

pedestrian access to the proposed buildings. Pedestrian connectivity between sidewalks and

buildings is an important component of a complete sidewalk system in the Suburban Center and

Urban Landscapes.

Page: 4



4. The Township’s emergency service providers should be requested to review the plan to ensure

that they can safely navigate the proposed development when completed. We note that a vehicle

circulation plan for fire trucks is provided on Sheet 21. Additionally, vehicle circulation plans

for refuse trucks and interstate semi-trailers are provided on Sheet 20 and Sheet 22, respectively.

5. There is an existing bus stop at the Paoli Pike/Prospect Avenue intersection. We recommend that

the applicant and Township, in consultation with SEPTA, consider providing a bus shelter at this

location. Additional information on this topic is provided in the County Planning Commission's

Multimodal Circulation Handbook (2016 Update), which is available online at:

www.chesco.org/documentcenter/view/27031.

6. The project site is situated within the Paoli Pike Corridor Mixed-Use/Redevelopment Area, as shown

on Map 12 in the Township’s 2019 Comprehensive Plan. The Township should ensure that the

design of this proposal is generally consistent with the recommendations set forth in the Township’s

Comprehensive Plan for this area of the Township. We note that the Comprehensive Plan

recommends that a bike lane be provided for westbound Paoli Pike in this area of the Township.

Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan recommends that parking areas be located to the side and/or

the rear of buildings fronting on this segment of the Paoli Pike.

Design Issues:

7. We recommend that the applicant and Township consider incorporating the design elements depicted

on page 5 into its design of the project site. These design elements include the following: reduce the

front setback of the proposed restaurant and restaurant/retail buildings; reconfigure the parking layout

to better define the circulation pattern with the development; orient the loading dock for the Aldi

grocery store to the rear of the building; and connect to adjacent properties to improve existing and

future circulation patterns.

8. The Township should verify that the design of the proposed outdoor lighting plan (Sheet 16)

conforms to Township ordinance requirements. The illumination should be directed inward from the

periphery of the site and be oriented to reduce glare and visual impact on the adjoining roadways and

land uses.

9. We suggest that the applicant and the Township consider incorporating walls and shrubs along

the property frontage to screen the view of the proposed parking from the public right-of-way.

We also suggest street trees be incorporated into the landscaping plan.

10. We suggest the applicant and the Township ensure the development has a cohesive identity by

applying similar building materials and architectural details.

Natural Features Protection:

11. The site contains land within the 100 year flood plain of Goose Creek. Although it does not

appear that any development activity will encroach into the floodplain, we note that the County

Planning Commission does not support development in the floodplain, and the Federal

Emergency Management Agency and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

regulate filling or development in the floodplain. Development within a floodplain can increase

the magnitude and frequency of normally minor floods, and present health and safety problems.

http://www.chesco.org/documentcenter/view/27031

Page: 5



FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY

Base drawing from “Site Plan”, Sheet 7 of 22, Dynamic Engineering, dated 4/30/2021

The intent of the above illustration is to express opportunities to:

A. Reduce the front setback of the proposed restaurant and restaurant/retail buildings to more

closely align with adjacent building setbacks and locate parking to the rear and side yards.

Reducing the restaurant building front setback also expands space for outdoor dining and

provides longer cueing lanes.

B. Reconfigure the parking layout to better define the circulation pattern within the

development. Improvements include landscaped islands, reoriented parking stalls for

improved pedestrian safety, and elimination of diagonal parking.

C. Provide pedestrian access to the proposed buildings from the sidewalk located along the

north side of Paoli Pike.

D. Orient the loading dock to the rear of the site so it is hidden from view from the public

right-of-way and the development’s main entrance.

E. Connect to adjacent properties to improve existing and future circulation patterns.

CCPC Site Plan Comments - Stanberry West Goshen, LLC

Page: 6



12. The plan and 2017 aerial photography indicate that a portion of the site is wooded, and we

acknowledge that the northern wooded portion of the site, which includes land within the 100-

year floodplain and wetland areas, will remain undeveloped. Mature trees and shrubs reduce the

volume and impacts of stormwater runoff by intercepting precipitation, increasing

evapotranspiration, and stabilizing soil through root growth. The removal of trees should be

limited to the minimum area needed for the building(s) and support facilities. The limits of tree

removal should be clearly shown on the plan and “limits of disturbance” should be delineated to

protect all trees that are intended to remain. Orange construction fencing should be placed at the

“limit of disturbance” to prevent unintended intrusion into woodland areas by construction

equipment. This fencing should be placed at the drip line of any trees that are intended to remain

to limit inadvertent impacts from construction equipment to root zones and long-term tree health.

Additional native trees and shrubs should be incorporated into the landscaping plans to replace

and mitigate the loss of removed trees.

13. The site contains delineated wetlands. Although it does not appear that any development activity

will encroach into the delineated wetland area, the applicant should be aware that placement of fill

in wetlands is regulated by the Corps of Engineers in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean

Water Act (1977) and the Department of Environmental Protection under Chapter 105 Rules and

Regulations for the Bureau of Dams and Waterway Management.

14. 2013 soils data indicates that the site contains areas of predominantly hydric (wet) soils (CpA

Cokesbury) which have limitations to development. These limitations include drainage problems

due to low permeability, low runoff rates and sub-surface saturation. When construction takes

place on these soils, it interferes with the natural drainage of the land. If construction occurs on

this site, on-site alterations to existing drainage patterns should be carefully inspected by the

Township Engineer to insure that off-site drainage conditions are not negatively affected.

ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES:

15. Land disturbance and land development activities that occur within Chester County must comply

with the County-wide Act 167 Stormwater Management Plan for Chester County, PA (July

2013) and the associated Act 167 stormwater management ordinance standards adopted by each

municipality.

16. The Waivers Requested Table on Sheet 3 indicates that the applicant is requesting two waivers from

the Development and Design Standards in Article V of the Township Subdivision and Land

Development Ordinance, along with a waiver from Section 301.1 of the Township Stormwater

Management Ordinance, pertaining to required wetland buffer areas (the Waivers Requested table

indicates a partial disturbance of the 100 foot wetlands buffer is proposed). Waiver requests should

only be granted following the determination that the proposed project either meets the purpose of

these requirements or does not create the impacts that these provisions are intended to manage.

17. The Variances Granted table on Sheet 3 indicates that variances from the minimum building

setback and side yard setback requirements has been granted. The date of the Zoning Hearing

Board’s decision, along with any conditions of approval, should be identified on the approved

plan.

Page: 7



18. The applicant should contact the office of the Chester County Conservation District (CCCD) for

information and clarification on erosion control measures. The provisions of the Commonwealth

Erosion Control Regulations may apply to the project and may require an Earth Disturbance

Permit or a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for discharge of stormwater

from construction activities.

19. A Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) permit is required for new or revised

access and should be identified on the final plan as required by Section 508(6) of the

Municipalities Planning Code.

20. A minimum of four (4) copies of the plan should be presented at the Chester County Planning

Commission for endorsement to permit recording of the final plan in accord with the procedures of

Act 247, the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, and to meet the requirements of the

Recorder of Deeds and the Assessment Office.

This report does not review the plan for compliance to all aspects of your ordinance, as this is more

appropriately done by agents of West Goshen Township. However, we appreciate the opportunity to review

and comment on this plan. The staff of the Chester County Planning Commission is available to you to

discuss this and other matters in more detail.

Sincerely,

Paul Farkas

Senior Review Planner

cc: Mark Pottschmidt

Stanberry Acquisitions LLC

Dynamic Engineering Consultants PC

Robert J. & Tina O’Toole

Clair Harold & Judith A. Brooks

West Chester Area School District, c/o Kevin Campbell

Anthony Antonelli, District Permits Manager, PennDOT

Francis J. Hanney, PennDOT

Chester County Conservation District

Mark E. Cassel, AICP, Director of Service Planning, SEPTA

LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTING ● PERMITTING ● GEOTECHNICAL ● ENVIRONMENTAL ● SURVEY ● PLANNING & ZONINGOffices conveniently located in:

Lake Como, New Jersey T: 732.974.0198 | Chester, New Jersey T: 908.879.9229 | Newark, New Jersey T: 973.755.7200 | Toms River, New Jersey T: 732.974.0198Allen, Texas T: 972.534.2100 | Austin, Texas T:512.646.2646 | Houston, Texas T: 281.789.6400

Newtown, Pennsylvania T: 267.685.0276 | Delray Beach, Florida T: 561.921.8570

826 Newtown Yardley Road, Suite 201Newtown, PA 18940

T: 267.685.0276F: 267.685.0361

www.dynamicec.com

ROBERT P. FREUDJUSTIN A. GEONNOTTI

ã


___________________________________________________________________ TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: CHRISTOPHER BASHORE RE: DEED OF DEDICATION FOR THE PORTION OF ARAM AVENUE OWNED BY THE

WEST CHESTER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2022

Before the Board of Supervisors this evening is consideration of the acceptance of a Deed of Dedication for a portion of Aram Avenue. At the February 1, 2022 meeting, the Board discussed the punchlist of correction items that was prepared by the Township Engineer and Public Works Director based on their completion of an inspection of Aram Avenue. Based on this discussion, it was determined not to proceed with dedication of the full road at this time; however, it was noted that the portion currently being maintained by the West Chester Area School District could be dedicated. This is due to the fact that several of the concerns on the remainder of the road are not present in this section. Furthermore, this would allow the Township to add the Wrangley Court cul-de-sac to the Township’s Liquid Fuels road register. A copy of the proposed Deed of Dedication is provided for the Board’s review. Please let me know if you have questions. Thank you.


___________________________________________________________________ TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: CHRISTOPHER BASHORE RE: RESOLUTION NO. 4-2022, AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN

RECORDS OF WEST GOSHEN TOWNSHIP DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2022

Before the Board of Supervisors this evening is proposed Resolution No. 4-2022. This resolution would authorize the destruction of certain records of West Goshen Township. A list of records outlined for destruction for both the Police and Finance Departments has been enclosed in accordance with the Municipal Records Manual. In accordance with Act 428 of 1968, a resolution from the Board of Supervisors is required prior to the destruction. Please let me know if you have questions. Thank you.


___________________________________________________________________ TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: CHRISTOPHER BASHORE RE: PROPOSAL FROM HRG, INC. FOR AMENDMENT TO WEST GOSHEN TOWNSHIP’S

POLLUTANT REDUCTION PLAN DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2022

Before the Board of Supervisors this evening is continued discussion of a proposal from HRG, Inc. to complete amendments to West Goshen Township’s Pollutant Reduction Plan (PRP). This was previously discussed at the February 1, 2022 meeting. Based on the discussion, it was determined that it was best to defer action on this proposal until a draft from HRG, Inc. was obtained for the other authorized work they are undertaking for the Township. As was discussed at the February 1, 2022 meeting, the Township’s PRP is outdated and does not match the sediment reduction requirements for the current MS4 permit. As such, an addendum would be drafted to the current PRP to update the portions that no longer align with the Township’s plans. The cost outlined in the proposal is $13,000.

Please let me know if you have questions. Thank you.

Page 1 of 11

January 13, 2022

Casey LaLonde


1025 Paoli Pike

West Chester, Pennsylvania 19380

Re: Pollutant Reduction Plan Amendments

West Goshen Township, Chester County

Dear Casey LaLonde:

Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc. (HRG) is pleased to submit the following AGREEMENT to provide

Engineering Services as a follow-up to our discussion on September 15th, 2021 regarding the

need to update the Pollution Reduction Plan (PRP).

GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION

West Goshen Township’s current PRP is outdated and does not match the anticipated project list

to meet the sediment reduction requirements for the current MS4 permit term. To meet your

needs, HRG proposes to draft an addendum to the current PRP to update the portions that no

longer aligns with the Township’s plans.

SCOPE OF SERVICES - Refer to Exhibit 1

COMPENSATION We propose to complete this work, identified in Exhibit 1, for a lump sum of $13,000 including reimbursables. The work will be subject to the attached General Conditions, Exhibit 2. Our policy is to render invoices monthly based on the percentage of completion.

COMPLETION

The CLIENT and HRG agree that they will endeavor to complete the outlined services within four

(4) months of receipt of your execution of this AGREEMENT.

AUTHORIZATION

We have developed this AGREEMENT specifically with your project needs in mind. To execute

this AGREEMENT and indicate your acceptance of these terms, and authorize the work to begin,

This AGREEMENT and all attachments constitute an offer to enter into a contract with you. By

having an authorized individual execute this AGREEMENT, you agree that you have read and

understand this proposed AGREEMENT and all of its attached Exhibits and that you agree to all

of the terms.


Pollutant Reduction Plan Amendments

January 13, 2022

Page 2 of 11

This AGREEMENT shall remain open and may be accepted by the CLIENT for thirty (30) days from

the above date. Acceptance of the AGREEMENT after the end of the 30-day period shall be

valid only if HRG elects, in writing, to reaffirm the AGREEMENT and waive its right to reevaluate

and resubmit the AGREEMENT.

If you have any questions concerning our AGREEMENT, including the attached exhibits, please

feel free to contact me to discuss them in greater detail. We appreciate the opportunity to

provide you with professional services in this capacity and look forward to working with you on

this project.

Very truly yours,

HERBERT, ROWLAND & GRUBIC, INC.

Shahjabin Alam (Juni), P.E.

Civil Group Manager

TME/SA/SEF/LB

R004194.0448 P:0041\004194_0448\Admin\Control\Proposal\West Goshen PRP Update-Proposal.docx

Enclosures

ACCEPTED BY:

CLIENT TITLE DATE

Proprietary Notice

This AGREEMENT contains proprietary information regarding Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc. and is a work

product containing business sensitive materials. This AGREEMENT was prepared in response to your request

for your specific project and no portion of this AGREEMENT may be shared with any other party.



January 13, 2022

Page 3 of 11

EXHIBIT 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES

In order to meet your needs as outlined above, HRG proposes the following scope of services:

1. Prepare an addendum to sections of the Township’s current PRP as they relate to the

Proposed Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP)s. The addendum will focus

on revising the current PRP project list by removing BMPs that no longer align with the

Township’s plans for sediment reduction, and by adding the following BMPs as

opportunities to reduced sediment loads, along with associated calculations for Total

Suspended Solids (TSS) removal:

a. Westtown Way Stream Restoration

b. Goose Creek Stream Restoration

c. Government Services Center Detention Basin Retrofit

d. Idlewilde Detention Basin Retrofits

2. Update of Proposed BMP Mapping to include the above listed projects.

3. Provide support for Public Comment processes throughout the PRP revision

notification period.

4. Attend up to two (2) Public Meetings.

5. Submission of PRP addendum to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental

Protection (PADEP).

6. Respond to PADEP and Public comments as they relate to the addendum and revise

as necessary. It is assumed no comments will be made addressing original PRP

methodology.



January 13, 2022

Page 4 of 11

EXHIBIT 2 GENERAL CONDITIONS

1. INTENT. These General Conditions set forth the terms and conditions of the contract to which they are attached.

These conditions are applicable to that contract and control absent language to the contrary in the contract.

2. LEGAL EFFECT. The terms of this AGREEMENT are legally binding and have legal consequences. Both HRG and

CLIENT have had legal counsel review this AGREEMENT or understand that they have the right to have legal counsel

review this AGREEMENT and have chosen not to do so. This AGREEMENT is fully integrated and no promises,

representations or other statements made by either Party prior to the date of this AGREEMENT are binding upon

either party or may be used for any purpose whatsoever.

3. PERFORMANCE OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. The services that HRG will provide on this Project are Professional

Services subject to the ordinary Standard of Care applicable to Professionals practicing in the project area at the

time these services are provided. There are no warranties or guarantees in any respect. CLIENT recognizes that

HRG’s Professional Services may be provided in part by Sub-consultants of HRG’s choice for whose Professional

Services HRG assumes the same responsibility as if those services were performed by HRG. CLIENT recognizes that

HRG may use or rely upon design elements and information ordinarily or customarily furnished by others, including,

but not limited to, specialty contractors, manufacturers, suppliers, and published technical standards.

4. NO DUTY TO SUPERVISE OR CONTROL CONSTRUCTION. If this AGREEMENT involves construction of a Project, the

construction of the Project shall be under the sole direction, supervision and control of the Prime Contractor(s) and

HRG shall have no duty or authority to assume direction, supervision or control of the work of any contractor. HRG

shall have no responsibility or liability for acts, omissions or errors of any Contractor, Subcontractor or Supplier.

5. ASSIGNMENT. Neither HRG nor CLIENT shall assign their respective duties nor responsibilities under this AGREEMENT

except by written supplement to this AGREEMENT or as either may be required to do so as a matter of law. Nothing

in this Article contradicts the provisions of Article 3 permitting subcontracting of services by HRG as is appropriate.

6. TIME OF PERFORMANCE. HRG will perform its services in a reasonably timely manner unless there is a specific time for

performance set forth in the AGREEMENT or Exhibit 1. If Construction Phase services are included in the scope,

Construction Administration Services begin on the date a Notice to Proceed to the contractor (or date of award,

depending on whether pre-construction services are included) is issued and terminates after the number of

Contract Days identified as the contract term in the Construction Contract. If the Construction Contract is a multiple

prime contract project, the time for HRG’s performance shall be the number of contract days in the General

Contract for Construction (alternately set forth the number of days). The compensation for HRG’s services have

been agreed to in anticipation of the orderly and continuous progression of the work. If the time of performance is

exceeded through no fault of HRG, the compensation shall be subject to equitable adjustment.

7. CLIENT RESPONSIBILITIES. CLIENT agrees to cooperate with HRG in providing timely information and documentation

as requested; access to the work site as necessary and prompt, complete and reasonable review of design or other

documents requiring review and approval. Any required approvals shall not be unreasonably delayed or withheld.

8. DELAYS. CLIENT and HRG agree that delays in the performance of HRG’s work which are caused by circumstances

beyond the control of HRG shall operate to extend the time for HRG’s performance. Unless CLIENT specifies, and

HRG agrees in writing, to a specific time for performance, CLIENT waives any claim against HRG for damages

caused or allegedly caused by delays in performance of this AGREEMENT by HRG.

9. PAPER DOCUMENTS. If the scope of services includes production of paper document deliverables, HRG will produce

paper document deliverables in printed form at each stage of CLIENT’s review solely for review and comment by

CLIENT. Final paper document deliverables in a number specified in the AGREEMENT will be produced by HRG.

10. INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE. All documents (hard copy or electronic) produced by HRG, at any stage of HRG’s work

under this AGREEMENT, are instruments of service and HRG retains the exclusive ownership of and copyright on

them. During bidding, construction, and commissioning and testing of the Project, CLIENT and CLIENT’s contractors

will have a limited license to use the Construction Documents to complete the Project. Upon completion of the

Project, CLIENT will retain a further license as necessary for the maintenance and repair of the Project.

CLIENT shall have no license at any time to use the Instruments of Service created for this Project for use on another

Project or for any purpose other than use in routine maintenance of the final Project. In the event that CLIENT wishes

to change, modify or add to the Project, HRG will grant in writing a limited license to CLIENT to use the Drawings

created for this Project for reference purposes only in the design of the changes, modifications or additions. That

limited license shall be subject to terms appropriate to protect HRG’s ownership and to protect and indemnify HRG

against any legal liability for the design and construction of any changes, modifications or additions.



January 13, 2022

Page 5 of 11

Any use of HRG’s Instruments of Service that is not authorized pursuant to this AGREEMENT or any addition or

modification to this AGREEMENT or any other unauthorized use, shall subject the CLIENT to liquidated damages in an

amount equal to the fee for design as set forth herein.

11. ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS. Electronic Documents include correspondence, computer program files (i.e. Word, Excel,

computer aided design and drafting CADD, etc.), documents, text data, drawings, information, graphics, or any

other item in electronic media or digital format. HRG will not provide copies of Electronic Documents to CLIENT or to

another entity except upon the written request of CLIENT and subject to the following conditions:

a. CLIENT and HRG may transmit, and shall accept, Project-related Electronic Documents in electronic media or

digital format, directly, or through access to a secure Project website. If the scope of services does not establish

an Electronic Documents Protocol for Electronic transmittal, then CLIENT and HRG shall jointly develop such

protocols.

b. CLIENT agrees the Electronic Documents are not certified documents. HRG, by delivering the Electronic

Documents to CLIENT, makes no express or implied guarantees or warranties as to the files’ accuracy, title, non-

infringement, and completeness, or merchantability and fitness for any purpose.

c. When transmitting items in Electronic Documents, the transmitting party makes no representations as to long-

term compatibility, usability, or readability of the items resulting from the recipient’s use of software application

packages, operating systems, or computer hardware differing from that used in the drafting or transmittal of

the items, or from these established in applicable transmittal protocols.

d. CLIENT shall waive all claims against the design professional arising from unauthorized changes to or use of the

Electronic Documents.

e. CLIENT acknowledges that differences may exist between the Electronic Documents and the signed and

sealed documents, and where such conflicts exist, the signed and sealed hard-copy control.

f. CLIENT and/or any other party to which CLIENT requests Electronic Documents be supplied agree to release

HRG from any liability for errors in the electronic documents or difference between the electronic documents

and the published and sealed printed Documents.

g. CLIENT and/or any other party to which CLIENT requests Electronic Documents be supplied agree to indemnify,

defend and hold HRG harmless from and against any claims by third parties against HRG based on or allegedly

based on (1) reliance on the electronic documents, or (2) arising from changes made to the CAD files by

anyone other than the design professional, or (3) the transfer or reuse of the CAD files by anyone without the

prior written consent of HRG.

h. CLIENT and/or any other party to which CLIENT requests Electronic Documents be supplied agree to remove

any signatures, seals and other identification of HRG or any employee, servant or agent of HRG from any paper

documents or electronic reproductions produced from the supplied electronic documents.

i. CLIENT and/or any other party to which CLIENT requests Electronic Documents be supplied stipulate that any

and all bids, takeoffs, estimates or other decisions made in the process of bidding, proposing and construction

of the process were made in reliance on the signed and sealed Construction Drawings and not in reliance on

any electronic documents.

12. INDEMNIFICATION. Each party agrees to indemnify the other, its agents, servants, employees, insurers, officers,

directors and any affiliated entities to the full extent allowed by law against any liability, loss, award, verdict or other

imposition of financial responsibility, including statutory interest which is incurred as the result of the others

negligence or intentional act, but only to the extent and in the percentage of liability determined by a legally

constituted finder of fact and embodied in a final judgment entered against the Indemnitor.

If either party is found to have liability to a third party to which the provisions of this clause may apply; then upon

written request by that party, the parties agree to mediation to determine whether and to what extent the other

party is responsible to indemnify it under this clause.

13. ADDITIONAL SERVICES. HRG shall be entitled to additional compensation if:

a. CLIENT requests that HRG perform additional services;

b. The Contract time is extended for any reason beyond the control of HRG;



January 13, 2022

Page 6 of 11

c. HRG is required to perform additional services for any reason other than its own negligent act or omission; or

d. The services are necessary to prevent delay to the Project, damage to the Project or other property or to

prevent death or injury to any persons.

The amount of such fee shall be as agreed to by the parties and pursuant to the fee schedule (Exhibit 4). If no such

agreement can be reached, HRG shall provide services and payment therefor shall be determined pursuant to the

Dispute Resolution terms set forth herein.

14. CONSTRUCTION COST AND OPINIONS OF COST. The construction cost of the entire Project (herein referred to as

"Construction Cost") means the total cost to CLIENT of those portions of the entire Project designed and specified by

HRG, but it will not include HRG's compensation and expenses, the cost of land, rights-of-way, or compensation for

or damages to, properties unless this AGREEMENT so specifies, nor will it include CLIENT's legal, accounting,

insurance counseling or auditing services, or interest and financing charges incurred in connection with the Project

or the cost of other services to be provided by others to CLIENT. Construction Cost is one of the items comprising

Total Project Costs.

Since HRG has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others, or over the

Contractor(s)' methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, HRG's opinions of

probable Total Project Costs and Construction Cost represent HRG's best judgment as an experienced and qualified

professional and familiarity with the construction industry. HRG cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids

or actual Total Project or Construction Costs will not vary from opinions of probable cost prepared by HRG. If prior to

the Bidding or Negotiating Phase CLIENT wishes greater assurance as to Total Project or Construction Costs, CLIENT

shall employ an independent cost estimator.

15. PAYMENTS. Invoices will be submitted by HRG on a monthly basis as the work proceeds. Payments will be due and

payable in full on receipt of an invoice by CLIENT without retainage, payment will not be contingent upon receipt of

funds from third parties or should not be held as an offset to any alleged dispute. If fees are not paid in full within 60

days of the date of the invoice, HRG reserves the right to pursue all remedies, including withdrawing certifications,

stopping work on three (3) days’ prior written notice, to withhold submission (to CLIENT or any third party,

municipality, or agency) of any plans or other documents and retaining all documents without recourse. If at any

time an invoice remains unpaid for a period in excess of 60 days, interest of the rate of 1.5% per month will be

charged on past-due accounts. CLIENT agrees to indemnify and hold harmless HRG from and against any and all

reasonable fees, expenses and costs incurred by HRG including, but not limited to, court costs, arbitrators and

attorneys’ fees and other claim related expenses incurred in the collection process.

All invoicing will be substantiated by HRG cost record sheets and work order system, all of which shall be made

available to CLIENT upon request and during regular working hours for inspection and audit. Time spent in additional

detailing of invoices is considered extra effort on the Project and will be invoiced as additional work along with any

related cost of making copies and reproductions. Any increase in HRG’s cost after the effective date of the

AGREEMENT resulting from state or federal legislation shall be reimbursed by the CLIENT.

Timely payment of invoices is a condition of this AGREEMENT. Failure to make payments in full within the time limits

stated above will be considered substantial noncompliance with the terms of this AGREEMENT and will be cause for

termination of the AGREEMENT if HRG so chooses.

16. CONTROLLING LAW AND VENUE. Any dispute arising out of this AGREEMENT shall be subject to interpretation under

the laws per the state of HRG’s office issuing this AGREEMENT and the venue shall be the county of HRG’s office

issuing this AGREEMENT unless otherwise set forth in the AGREEMENT.

17. INSURANCE. HRG shall provide insurance of the type and in the amount set forth in Exhibit 3 to this AGREEMENT. Each

party waives the right to subrogation against the other and its agents, servants, employees, insurers, officers,

directors and any affiliated entities to the full extent allowed by law, to the extent that such waiver neither defeats

nor diminishes the available coverage or agreement to provide a defense.

18. TERMINATION. Either party may terminate this AGREEMENT for cause if the other has substantially breached the terms

of the AGREEMENT. Termination for cause shall only be effected by giving written notice of the nature of the cause

to the other party. Such notice shall be of sufficient specificity for the other party to have notice of the nature,

cause and cure of such alleged breach. The party in breach shall have 7 days, unless a greater time is agreed to by

the parties, to cure the default. If no cure has been effected within the 7 day period, (or any extension thereof

agreed to) the party not in breach may terminate the AGREEMENT for cause.

If CLIENT terminates this AGREEMENT for cause, HRG shall be entitled to payment in full for all work performed up to

and including the day on which HRG was notified of the termination. If HRG terminates for cause, CLIENT is entitled

to no further performance by HRG.



January 13, 2022

Page 7 of 11

CLIENT may terminate this AGREEMENT for convenience upon fifteen (15) days written notice to HRG. In the event of

termination for convenience by CLIENT, HRG shall be entitled to payment in full for all work performed up to and

including the day on which HRG was notified of the termination plus any remaining unearned profit on the Project

as calculated in accordance with commonly accepted Accounting Standards.

19. SUSPENSION. If the CLIENT suspends the Project for any reason, HRG shall be entitled to payment for all fees and

costs billable as of the date of suspension and any other reasonable fees and costs necessary to protect CLIENT’s

interests related to the suspension. If the Project is reinstated, the terms of this AGREEMENT shall remain in effect with

the exception of the agreed upon fee to complete the work set forth herein. The parties agree to negotiate a new

fee for the completion of suspended work in accordance with HRG’s then applicable fee schedule.

20. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. The parties do not intend to create any third party beneficiaries to this AGREEMENT. No

individual or entity other than the parties is entitled to claim rights or privileges under this AGREEMENT nor to cite or

use this AGREEMENT or the terms thereof as evidence of rights, privileges or entitlement to damages or redress in any

forum. Both parties agree to cooperate with each other to defeat any such claim and to oppose any attempt by a

third party to seek third party beneficiary status under this AGREEMENT or to make any claim under it.

21. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. HRG’s liability to CLIENT shall be limited to direct damages only in the form of services and

the reasonable cost of repair or replacement of those portions of the Project in question made necessary by a

negligent act or failure to act of HRG.

HRG shall not be liable or responsible to CLIENT for special, consequential, incidental or other damages, attorney’s

fees or expert fees, loss of profit, loss of revenue, cost of rented or leased equipment or services, regulatory fines or

costs.

Under no circumstances shall HRG’s liability to CLIENT exceed either the total fee received by HRG for basic and

additional services on the Project or the amount of available Professional Liability Insurance at the time of the claim,

whichever is less.

22. HRG is not required to provide and does not have any responsibility for surety bonding or insurance-related advice,

recommendations, counseling, or research, or enforcement of construction insurance or surety bonding

requirements.

23. HRG’s services do not include providing legal advice or representation.

24. HRG’s services do not include (1) serving as a “municipal advisor” for purposes of the registration requirements of

Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (2010) or the municipal advisor

registration rules issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission, or (2) advising CLIENT, or any municipal entity or

other person or entity, regarding municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal securities, including

advice with respect to the structure, timing, terms, or other similar matters concerning such products or issuances.

25. If HRG encounters an undisclosed Constituent of Concern, then HRG shall notify CLIENT; and HRG may notify

appropriate governmental officials if HRG reasonably concludes that doing so is required by applicable Laws or

Regulations. If HRG or any other party encounters an undisclosed Constituent of Concern, or if investigative or

remedial action, or other professional services, are necessary with respect to disclosed or undisclosed Constituents

of Concern, then HRG may, at its option and without liability for consequential or any other damages, suspend

performance of services on the portion of the Project affected thereby until the CLIENT: (1) retains appropriate

specialist consultants or contractors to identify and, as appropriate, abate, remediate, or remove the Constituents

of Concern; and (2) warrants that the Site is in full compliance with applicable Laws and Regulations. CLIENT and

HRG acknowledge that HRG is performing professional services for CLIENT, and that HRG is not or shall not be

required to become an “owner,” “arranger,” “operator,” “generator,” or “transporter” of hazardous substances, as

defined in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended,

which are or may be encountered at or near the Site in connection with any of HRG’s or HRG’s activities or services

under this AGREEMENT. A Constituent of Concern is any substance, product, waste, or other material of any nature

whatsoever (including, but not limited to, Asbestos, Petroleum, Radioactive Material, and PCBs) which is or becomes

listed, regulated, or addressed pursuant to (a) the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and

Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. §§9601 et seq. (“CERCLA”); (b) the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. §§1801 et

seq.; (c) the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. §§6901 et seq. (“RCRA”); (d) the Toxic Substances

Control Act, 15 U.S.C. §§2601 et seq.; (e) the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§1251 et seq.; (f) the Clean Air Act, 42

U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq.; and (g) any other federal, state, or local statute, law, rule, regulation, ordinance, resolution,

code, order, or decree regulating, relating to, or imposing liability or standards of conduct concerning, any

hazardous, toxic, or dangerous waste, substance, or material.

26. MISCELLANEOUS



January 13, 2022

Page 8 of 11

a. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This AGREEMENT and any exhibits attached hereto constitute the entire AGREEMENT

between the parties on the Project. No prior or subsequent negotiations, discussions, verbal agreements or

representations are binding upon the parties making them unless hereafter reduced to writing and agreed to

by both parties in writing.

b. SEVERABILITY. Each portion of this AGREEMENT is severable. If any portion is found to be illegal or otherwise

unenforceable, that finding shall not affect any other portion of the AGREEMENT and the remainder of the

AGREEMENT shall be binding and enforceable in its entirety.

c. OTHER WORK. Nothing in this AGREEMENT is intended to nor shall limit HRG in any way from accepting and

performing services for any other entity. Unless agreed to in writing, any additional services on this Project or on

any other Project for which CLIENT contracts with HRG shall be subject to these same terms and conditions.

d. MARKETING/ADVERTISING. CLIENT grants HRG license to erect signage at the construction site with its name and

logo and language identifying it as the Engineer on the Project subject to any municipal or other legal

limitations on size and construction. In addition, CLIENT grants HRG an unlimited license to utilize photos,

drawings or other renderings and/or descriptions of the Project in HRG’s advertising or marketing.

e. AUTHORITY. The parties agree that the person or person’s executing and verifying or attesting those signatures

are authorized to execute this AGREEMENT and shall, upon request by the other party, provide proof of such

authorization. The parties waive their right to contest the execution of this AGREEMENT on their respective parts,

if such contest not raised within 10 days of the date of execution.

27. GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING. The parties agree to cooperate and provide timely information and responses as

requested by the other in fulfillment of the intent of this AGREEMENT. In the event of a dispute between the parties,

the parties agree to make reasonable attempts to resolve any such dispute prior to entering into litigation.



January 13, 2022

Page 9 of 11

EXHIBIT 3 INSURANCE

The insurance(s) as per General Conditions Paragraph 17 of this AGREEMENT are as follows:



January 13, 2022

Page 10 of 11

EXHIBIT 4 2022 FEE SCHEDULE FOR HOURLY COMPENSATION METHODS

OR IF ADDITIONAL SERVICES ARE REQUIRED



January 13, 2022

Page 11 of 11

EXHIBIT 5 CURRENT BILLABLE EXPENSES


___________________________________________________________________ TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: CHRISTOPHER BASHORE RE: PROPOSAL FROM CARROLL ENGINEERING CORPORATION TO COMPLETE

STORMWATER INFILTRATION TESTING AND ANALYSIS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A SPLASH PAD

DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2022

Before the Board of Supervisors this evening is a proposal from Carroll Engineering Corporation to undertake stormwater infiltration testing and analysis for the installation of a splash pad in West Goshen Community Park. This topic was previously discussed at the January 18, 2022 meeting of the Board. During that discussion, the Board authorized obtaining a proposal from Carroll Engineering Corporation to complete stormwater testing and design work for a splash pad. Subsequent to that meeting, I spoke with Christopher Peterson, P.E., regarding this matter. Mr. Peterson recommended first providing a proposal for the stormwater testing and then obtain a separate proposal for the design work once the testing is completed and analyzed. The reason for this is if the ground is not suitable for underground infiltration, it is going to change the project’s scope significantly and how the site work is designed. I think that this is the right course of action. The proposal before the Board this evening includes the cost for the infiltration testing and feasibility study. The total cost included is $6,450. The testing would be conducted within the existing basin in West Goshen Community Park in order to determine if the area is suitable to accept stormwater runoff from the splash pad. Please let me know if you have questions. Thank you.

Today’s Commitment to Tomorrow’s Challenges

Corporate Office: 630 Freedom Business Center 433 Lancaster Avenue 105 Raider Boulevard 949 Easton Road Third Floor Suite 200 Suite 206

Warrington, PA 18976 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Malvern, PA 19355 Hillsborough, NJ 08844 215.343.5700 610.572.7093 610.489.5100 908.874.7500

220068_WGT - Splash Pad Feasibility.doc www.carrollengineering.com

February 9, 2022 Chris Bashore, Township Manager West Goshen Township 1025 Paoli Pike West Chester, PA 19381 Subject: West Goshen Township Community Park Splash Pad Proposal For Investigative Infiltration Testing and Stormwater Feasibility Report Dear Chris: Carroll Engineering Corporation (CEC) is pleased to submit this proposal to provide professional engineering services to determine the feasibility of installing a splash pad at the West Goshen Township Community Park. As you may be aware, the proposed splash pad will result in the discharge of a substantial volume of water as a part of its regular operation. This water may not be discharged directly to sanitary sewer or to natural surface waters, and instead must be dissipated through a slow-release concept such as infiltration. As such, this feasibility study shall focus on the detention and infiltration capability of the site soils to determine if the park is suited for the installation of such a facility. SCOPE OF SERVICES Carroll Engineering proposes to perform the following services: 1. We will coordinate three (3) double-ring infiltrometer tests within the existing basin to the north and

two (2) tests adjacent to the proposed splash pad. This is the area directly to the southwest of the existing playground.

2. We will prepare a feasibility report which details the results of the infiltration testing and provide a discussion of what type of water management facility may be appropriate, approximate sizing, and any other design conditions. If a water management facility is determined to be feasible, our report shall provide an opinion of probable construction cost for use by the Township in determining the splash pad budget.

Chris Bashore, Township Manager West Goshen Township Page 2 February 9, 2022

220068_WGT - Splash Pad Feasibility.doc

BASIC FEES Our fees will be invoiced monthly on an hourly basis. An approximate breakdown of the estimated fee is as follows:

• Infiltration Testing ................................................................................................................. $3,700 • Feasibility Study & Cost Estimate ......................................................................................... $2,750

TOTAL ESTIMATED FEE FOR SERVICES ................................................................ $6,450

CONTRACT TERMS The fees stated herein are for professional services specifically described in the Scope of Services of this proposal. If additional services are required, these will be invoiced on the basis of our standard hourly rates following your authorization. Services are to be rendered in accordance with the services described above and in accordance with our Standard Consulting Contract Terms and Conditions. Any permit application fees for any governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the project are not included in the above fee. The following services are not included, but are available if required: public and/or regulatory agency meeting attendance, environmental assessments, providing assistance in resolving any hazardous environmental condition, and preparing to serve or serving as a consultant or witness for owner in any litigation, arbitration or other dispute resolution process related to the Project. This proposal and our Standard Consulting Contracting Terms and Conditions represent the entire understanding between you and this office in respect to this project and may only be modified in writing, signed by both of us. If this proposal satisfactorily sets forth your understanding of the arrangement between us, please execute the enclosed copy of this letter in the space provided and return same to this office. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at (215)-343-5700 x265. We look forward to working with the Township on this project. Very truly yours, CARROLL ENGINEERING CORPORATION

Christopher A. Peterson

Christopher A. Peterson, P.E. CAP:cam

Chris Bashore, Township Manager West Goshen Township Page 3 February 9, 2022

220068_WGT - Splash Pad Feasibility.doc

Accepted this 9th day of February 2022 for: Carroll Engineering Corporation , by: William N. Malin, P.E. Name (Print)

William N. Malin

Signature Vice President Title Accepted this day of , 20 for West Goshen Township , by: Company Name Name (Print) Signature Title


___________________________________________________________________ TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: CHRISTOPHER BASHORE RE: ISSUANCE OF A LETTER OPPOSING LEGISLATION INCREASING THE WEIGHT

ALLOWANCE FOR TRUCKS OF PENNSYLVANIA ROADWAYS DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2022

Before the Board of Supervisors this evening is information regarding legislation that would increase the weight allowances for trucks on Pennsylvania roadways. The Township has communicated to its state representation opposition to this type of legislation in the past. Recently, the Township was contacted by an organization named Coalition Against Bigger Trucks (CABT) regarding opposing legislation that would permit larger vehicle weights on roadways. From speaking with this organization, it is my understanding that two (2) bills are being consider at this time: HB 1232 and HB 1559. Copies of both bills have been enclosed. Additionally, please find enclosed a sample letter issued by the PA State Association of Township Supervisors (PSATS) opposing this type of legislation, as well as a document issued by CABT discussing this issue. Please let me know if you have questions. Thank you.

P E N N S Y L V A N I A S T A T E A S S O C I A T I O N O F T O W N S H I P S U P E R V I S O R S

4855 Woodland Drive ▐ Enola, PA ▐ 17025 ▐ www.psats.org PSATS ▐ Pennsylvania Township News ▐ Telephone (717) 763-0930 ▐ Fax: (717) 763-9732

Trustees Insurance Fund▐ Unemployment Compensation Group Trust▐ Telephone (800) 382-1268▐ Fax: (717) 730-0209

June 13, 2019

Dear Representative Keller:

The Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors (PSATS) is a non-partisan, non profit member service organization. Member townships represents 5.6 million Pennsylvanians —more residents than any other type of PA municipal government and cover 95 percent of the commonwealth’s land mass. PSATS is committed to preserving and strengthening township government by working with state and federal lawmakers, as well as providing education on issues that deeply affect our township officials here in the Commonwealth.

One issue of great importance to our members, especially as it relates to ensuring our communities remain an excellent place to live, work, and raise a family is protecting the integrity of our roads and infrastructure at the local level. For this reason, PSATS remains opposed, as we have been in the past, to federal proposals that would seek to put heavier and longer commercial trucks on our nation’s highways and local roads. The damage that would be inflicted to small townships is very clear. While proponents will argue that bigger iterations would be confined to Interstate Highways, we all know that large trucks frequently use local roads and streets for various reasons, whether it’s to avoid traffic, take a shortcut or access delivery and pickup points where using local roads are the only viable option.

At the request of Congress, the U.S. Department of Transportation concluded a three-year study in 2016 where they made the recommendation that no changes in truck weight or size should be made. This recommendation was based on a number of factors, including finding that billions of dollars worth of additional pavement damage and increased bridge stress would be caused by the weight and size increases. In addition, they concluded that factors like increased stopping distances (with longer trucks) and higher out-of-service violations would heighten an already uneasy road safety situation.

Many of our member townships struggle even with today’s permitted sizes and weights of trucks coming through towns on old and narrow streets, frequently unable to make turns, busting up sidewalks and knocking down traffic signals in many cases. With fewer and fewer resources for our townships in terms of street maintenance, this simply adds up to a bad situation for residents, motorists and taxpayers.

We expect to see some movement for these proposals again in the 116th Congress – I hope that you will join us and oppose legislation that would put even heavier and longer trucks on our roads.

Sincerely,

David M. Sanko Executive Director

Don’t Let Pennsylvania Get Run Over by Heavier Trucks Prepared by CABT, January 2022

Every year, new legislation is introduced in the Pennsylvania General Assembly that would allow heavier commercial trucks on state and local roads throughout the Commonwealth. Two examples of bills that have been introduced in the current session, HB 1232 and HB 1559, would allow heavier weights on trucks carrying agricultural liming material, fertilizer, seeds, as well as heavy machinery associated with animal husbandry. In previous sessions, many other exemptions were introduced allowing trucks up to 95,000 pounds, a seven and a half ton increase over the 80,000 pound standard trucks on the road today. Why Does This Matter? Heaviest trucks would shift to our local roads These massive trucks would be going through our local communities, the very places where our families live, work and play. If the bills pass, these heavier trucks could not operate on interstates because they would exceed the federal interstate weight limit, thereby forcing them onto state roads. The heavier trucks will endanger motorists in our local communities and tear up our roads and bridges.

The weight of heavier trucks will mean added dangers to our roads Study after study has shown that adding more weight to a truck makes it more dangerous. Safety concerns include: braking problems, more crashes and, when there is a crash, the crash is more severe, leading to more deaths and serious injuries.

• Dramatically higher crash rates: The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) found in its 2016 report to Congress that heavier trucks had anywhere from 47 percent to 400 percent higher crash rates in limited state testing.1 There were 6,823 large-truck crashes in Pennsylvania in 2019. Unfortunately, 132 people lost their lives in those crashes.2

• More severe crashes. The severity of a crash is determined by the velocity and mass of a vehicle. If its weight increases, so could the potential severity of a crash. Any increase in crash severity increases the likelihood of injuries becoming more serious or resulting in fatalities. Heavier trucks tend to have a higher center of gravity because the additional weight is oftentimes stacked vertically. Raising the center of gravity increases the risk of rollovers.3

• Increased wear and tear. Increasing the weight of trucks causes additional wear and tear on key safety components. The 2016 USDOT study found that trucks weighing over 80,000 pounds had higher overall out-of-service (OOS) rates and 18 percent higher brake violation rates compared to those at or below 80,000 pounds.4 This is especially important because a 2016 study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that trucks with any out-of-service violation are 362 percent more likely to be involved in a crash.5

1 USDOT; 2016. Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study, Final Report to Congress 2 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; 2019. Analysis & Information- Crash Statistics 3 USDOT; 2000. Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study 4 USDOT; 2016. Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study, Final Report to Congress 5 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety; 2016.Crash Risk Factors for Interstate Large Trucks in North Carolina

Heavier trucks would destroy our infrastructure Allowing operations of heavier trucks over 80,000 pounds will dramatically increase the damage to our bridges.

• USDOT found in its 2016 study that thousands of Interstate and other National Highway System bridges could not accommodate heavier trucks.6 These bridges would need to be reinforced or replaced, costing billions of dollars. USDOT estimates the 91,000-pound, six-axle configuration would negatively affect more than 4,800 bridges, costing $1.1 billion nationwide. State and local bridges are not built to the same standards and would be even more negatively affected.

• 15,473 of the 22,965 bridges in Pennsylvania are rated in fair or poor condition, representing 67% of the total bridge stock, fifth worst in the nation. 7

• Replacement of bridges rated as being in poor condition in Pennsylvania is projected to be nearly $1.5 billion currently.8

• A total of 51 percent of major roads in Pennsylvania are in poor or mediocre condition, and the effects of these deteriorated roads costs motorists $5.6 billion per year, the equivalent of $620 per motorist.9

• Pennsylvania taxpayers would have to pay for this additional infrastructure damage.

Trucks Should Pay for Damage They Cause to Highways Pennsylvania’s infrastructure funding needs far outpace is revenues. A September 2021 study conducted by PennDOT10 estimated current highway-related revenues of $6.9 billion per year and a funding need of $15 billion per year. Worse, this study forecasts that the highway-related funding gap will grow to $12.6 billion in the next 10 years. Studies have shown heavy trucks do the vast majority of road and bridge damage.11 At the same time they significantly underpay for that damage. An 80,000 pound, five axle truck pays for about 80 percent of the damage it causes A 97,000 pound, six axle trucks pays only about 50 percent.12

6 USDOT; 2016. Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study, Final Report to Congress 7 Federal Highway Administration; 2020. Bridge Condition by Highway System. 8 USDOT; 2019. Bridge Replacement Unit Costs 2020 9 TRIP; 2020. Key Facts about Pennsylvania’s Surface Transportation System 10 See Alternative Funding: Planning and Environmental Linkages Study, September 2021. https://www.penndot.gov/about-us/funding/Documents/PennDOT-Pathways_PEL-Study.pdf

11 USDOT; 1997. 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study: Final Report 12 USDOT; 2000. Addendum to the 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study Final Report

PRIOR PRINTER'S NO. 1297 PRINTER'S NO. 1712

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA

HOUSE BILL No. 1232 Session of

2021

INTRODUCED BY SILVIS, CAUSER, DUNBAR, JAMES, JONES, KEEFER, MILLARD, MOUL, ZIMMERMAN AND RADER, APRIL 20, 2021

AS REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AS AMENDED, JUNE 8, 2021

AN ACTAmending Title 75 (Vehicles) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated

Statutes, in general provisions, further providing for definitions; in fees, further providing for annual hauling permits; and, in size, weight and load, further providing for conditions of permits and security for damages and providing for permit for movement of agricultural liming material, agricultural seed or fertilizer.The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

hereby enacts as follows:Section 1. Section 102 of Title 75 of the Pennsylvania

Consolidated Statutes is amended by adding definitions to read:§ 102. Definitions.

Subject to additional definitions contained in subsequent provisions of this title which are applicable to specific provisions of this title, the following words and phrases when used in this title shall have, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the meanings given to them in this section:

* * *"Agricultural liming material." A product whose calcium and

magnesium compounds are capable of neutralizing soil acidity.

123456789

1011121314151617181920

"Agricultural seed." The term includes the seed of grass, forage, cereal, oil and fiber crops and any other kind of seed commonly recognized within this Commonwealth as agricultural seed and mixture of such seed.

* * *Section 2. Section 1943 of Title 75 is amended by adding a

subsection to read:§ 1943. Annual hauling permits.

* * *(q.2) Agricultural liming material, agricultural seed or

fertilizer.--The annual fee for the movement of agricultural liming material, agricultural seed or fertilizer as provided for in section 4979.7 (relating to permit for movement of agricultural liming material, agricultural seed or fertilizer) shall be $788.

* * *Section 3. Section 4962(f) of Title 75 is amended to read:

§ 4962. Conditions of permits and security for damages.* * *(f) When loads permitted.--Only vehicles and combinations

permitted or transporting vehicles permitted for movement under the following provisions shall be authorized to carry or haul loads while operating under the permit:

Section 4961(a)(2), (3) and (6) (relating to authority to issue permits).

Section 4965 (relating to single permits for multiple highway crossings).

Section 4968 (relating to permit for movement during course of manufacture).

Section 4974 (relating to permit for movement of

20210HB1232PN1712 - 2 -

<--

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

containerized cargo).Section 4975 (relating to permit for movement of special

mobile equipment).Section 4976 (relating to permit for movement of domestic

animal feed and whole or unprocessed grain).Section 4976.1 (relating to permit for movement of live

domestic animals).Section 4976.2 (relating to permit for movement of eggs).Section 4977 (relating to permit for movement of wooden

structures).Section 4978 (relating to permit for movement of building

structural components).Section 4979 (relating to permit for movement of

particleboard or fiberboard used in the manufacture of ready-to-assemble furniture).

Section 4979.1 (relating to permit for movement of bulk refined oil).

Section 4979.2 (relating to permit for movement of waste coal [and], beneficial combustion ash or limestone).

Section 4979.3 (relating to permit for movement of float glass or flat glass for use in construction and other end uses).

Section 4979.4 (relating to permit for movement of self-propelled cranes).

Section 4979.5 (relating to permit for movement of nonhazardous liquid glue).

Section 4979.6 (relating to permit for movement of waste tires).

Section 4979.7 (relating to permit for movement of agricultural liming material, agricultural seed or

20210HB1232PN1712 - 3 -

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

fertilizer).* * *Section 4. Title 75 is amended by adding a section to read:

§ 4979.7. Permit for movement of agricultural liming material, agricultural seed or fertilizer.

(a) Gross and nonsteering axle weights.--An annual permit may be issued for the movement on highways of agricultural liming material, agricultural seed or fertilizer, in bulk, which exceeds the maximum vehicle gross weight specified in Subchapter C (relating to maximum weights of vehicles). The weight of a COMBINATION vehicle permitted under this section may not exceed 95,000 pounds overall gross weight, and the weight on a nonsteering axle may not exceed 21,000 pounds.

(b) Limitations on use.--(1) A permit issued under this section shall only be

used from March through June.(2) No permit may be issued for this type of movement

upon an interstate highway.(3) THE VEHICLE MUST BE A SIX-AXLE COMBINATION - THREE-

AXLE TRUCK TRACTOR.(4) MOVEMENT UNDER THIS PERMIT IS NOT AUTHORIZED UPON A

BRIDGE POSTED UNDER SECTION 4902 (RELATING TO RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES).

(5) MOVEMENT UNDER THIS PERMIT IS NOT AUTHORIZED DURING INCLEMENT WEATHER, AS DEFINED IN DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS.(c) Definition.--As used in this section, the term

"fertilizer" shall mean a substance, containing one or more recognized plant nutrients which is used for its plant nutrient content and which is designed for use or claimed to have value in promoting plant growth, except unmanipulated animal manure

20210HB1232PN1712 - 4 -

<--

<--

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

and plant remains, agricultural liming materials, wood ashes and other materials exempted by regulation by the Department of Agriculture.

Section 5. This act shall take effect in 60 days.

20210HB1232PN1712 - 5 -

1234

PRINTER'S NO. 1691

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA

HOUSE BILL No. 1559 Session of

2021

INTRODUCED BY HERSHEY, ECKER, FEE, GLEIM, HICKERNELL, JAMES, MILLARD, OWLETT, PICKETT, ROWE, RYAN, STAMBAUGH AND ZIMMERMAN, JUNE 7, 2021

REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION, JUNE 7, 2021

AN ACTAmending Title 75 (Vehicles) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated

Statutes, in fees, further providing for annual hauling permits; and, in size, weight and load, further providing for conditions of permits and security for damages and providing for permit for movement of commercial implements of husbandry, implements of husbandry and farm equipment by manufacturers and dealers.The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

hereby enacts as follows:Section 1. Section 1943 of Title 75 of the Pennsylvania

Consolidated Statutes is amended by adding a subsection to read:§ 1943. Annual hauling permits.

* * *(q.3) Dealer and manufacturer hauling of commercial

implements of husbandry , implements of husbandry and farm equipment.--The annual permit for the hauling of commercial implements of husbandry, implements of husbandry and farm equipment as provided in section 4979.7 (relating to permit for movement of commercial implements of husbandry, implements of husbandry and farm equipment by manufacturers and dealers),

123456789

1011121314151617181920

shall be $450.Section 2. Section 4962(f) of Title 75 is amended to read:

§ 4962. Conditions of permits and security for damages.* * *(f) When loads permitted.--Only vehicles and combinations

permitted under the following provisions shall be authorized to carry or haul loads while operating under the permit:

Section 4961(a)(2), (3) and (6) (relating to authority to issue permits).

Section 4965 (relating to single permits for multiple highway crossings).

Section 4968 (relating to permit for movement during course of manufacture).

Section 4974 (relating to permit for movement of containerized cargo).

Section 4975 (relating to permit for movement of special mobile equipment).

Section 4976 (relating to permit for movement of domestic animal feed).

Section 4976.1 (relating to permit for movement of live domestic animals).

Section 4976.2 (relating to permit for movement of eggs).Section 4977 (relating to permit for movement of wooden

structures).Section 4978 (relating to permit for movement of building

structural components).Section 4979 (relating to permit for movement of

particleboard or fiberboard used in the manufacture of ready-to-assemble furniture).

Section 4979.1 (relating to permit for movement of bulk

20210HB1559PN1691 - 2 -

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

refined oil).Section 4979.2 (relating to permit for movement of waste

coal and beneficial combustion ash).Section 4979.3 (relating to permit for movement of float

glass or flat glass for use in construction and other end uses).

Section 4979.4 (relating to permit for movement of self-propelled cranes).

Section 4979.5 (relating to permit for movement of nonhazardous liquid glue).

Section 4979.6 (relating to permit for movement of waste tires).

Section 4979.7 (relating to permit for movement of commercial implements of husbandry, implements of husbandry and farm equipment by manufacturers and dealers).* * *Section 3. Title 75 is amended by adding a section to read:

§ 4979.7. Permit for movement of commercial implements of husbandry, implements of husbandry and farm equipment by manufacturers and dealers.

(a) Authorization.--An annual permit may be issued for the hauling on highways of commercial implements of husbandry, implements of husbandry and farm equipment by manufacturers and dealers that exceed the maximum width specified in Subchapter B (relating to width, height and length) and maximum vehicle gross weight specified in Subchapter C (relating to maximum weights of vehicles), subject to the conditions in subsection (b).

(b) Conditions.--An annual permit issued under subsection (a) shall be subject to the following conditions:

(1) The overall gross weight of the vehicle or

20210HB1559PN1691 - 3 -

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

combination transporting the commercial implement of husbandry, implement of husbandry or farm equipment may not exceed 95,000 pounds.

(2) The weight on any nonsteering axle of the vehicle or combination transporting the commercial implement of husbandry, implement of husbandry or farm equipment may not exceed 21,000 pounds.

(3) The overall width of the vehicle or combination transporting the commercial implement of husbandry, implement of husbandry or farm equipment, including the load, may not exceed 21 feet.

(4) The annual permit may only be issued to a manufacturer or dealer of commercial implements of husbandry, implements of husbandry and farm equipment.

(5) The annual permit shall only authorize the hauling of commercial implements of husbandry, implements of husbandry and farm equipment between locations within this Commonwealth from:

(i) a manufacturer to a dealer;(ii) a dealer to a dealer; and(iii) a manufacturer to a manufacturer.

(6) The annual permit shall be subject to section 4962 (relating to conditions of permits and security for damages).Section 4. This act shall take effect in 60 days.

20210HB1559PN1691 - 4 -

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324

WEST GOSHEN TOWNSHIP

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING JANUARY 18, 2022

Township Supervisors: Township Officials: Mr. Shaun Walsh, Chair Mr. Christopher Bashore, Township Manager Ms. Ashley Gagné, Vice-Chair Mr. Richard J. Craig, P.E., Township Engineer Mr. John Hellmann, Member Chief Michael Carroll, Chief of Police Ms. Tinamarie Smith, Member Mr. Tom Oeste, Township Solicitor Ms. Robin Stuntebeck, Member Mr. David Woodward, Director of Public Works The regular monthly meeting of the Board of Supervisors of West Goshen Township was called to order by Chair Shaun Walsh, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 18, 2022. This meeting was advertised in The Daily Local News on December 17, 2021. This meeting agenda was posted on the West Goshen Township website and at the Township Building on Friday, January 14, 2022. Mr. Walsh opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Mr. Walsh announced that all attendees must wear masks since Chester County remains an area of substantial transmission of COVID-19. Mr. Walsh announced that the meeting may be recorded by 3rd parties. Discussion of stormwater management concerns in the North Hills development. Mr. Walsh stated that residents of the North Hills development, specifically W. Penn Drive, contacted the Township regarding stormwater management concerns after Hurricane Ida. Mr. Walsh noted that the existing underground culverts were overwhelmed and flooding resulted. Mr. Walsh discussed a meeting that he attended in November with members of the community, as well as Mr. Hellmann and members of the Township staff. Mr. Craig stated that conditions have remained consistent during his tenure. Mr. Craig stated that the development does not have any stormwater facilities in the area and the only facilities owned by the Township are small, underground culverts. Mr. Craig noted that the concrete channel is in poor condition and not a desirable standard for stormwater designs. Mr. Craig discussed that a grass swale between the sidewalk and the road cartway existed in the original design, but this has been filled in over time. Mr. Craig stated that it was possible this system could be re-established in the future. Mr. Craig stated that North Hills is not unique in its lack of adequate stormwater facilities and noted that several older neighborhoods in the Township have similar issues. Mr. Craig stated that it would be better to look at the needs for the entire Township and prioritize the work accordingly. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any stormwater facilities further to north. Mr. Craig stated that there were not. Mr. Walsh asked if Mr. Craig had any next steps for the Board to consider at this time. Mr. Craig stated that if the Board were to consider a next step, it would involve an engineering feasibility study and attempt to develop some possible alternatives. Mr. Walsh asked if there was an idea on what the alternatives would be. Mr. Craig discussed work that could be done to re-establish and enhance the grass swale system. Mr. Craig discussed other options that could be considered. Ms. Smith asked if all the roads in the development were dedicated to the Township. Mr. Craig stated that they were. Ms. Smith reviewed the cost estimates that have been discussed for a feasibility study and asked if there

Board of Supervisors Meeting January 18, 2022 Page 2

was a cost estimate for the actual construction that would occur. Mr. Craig stated that construction costs could not be determined at this time. Ms. Gagné discussed the situation in her neighborhood and how it is similar to the situation that is occurring in the North Hills development. Ms. Gagné stated that she is not comfortable approving a feasibility study for one neighborhood and not the others who are facing the same issue. Ms. Gagné stated that she would only support spending money on a feasibility study if it is understood that the other neighborhoods in a similar situation will receive the same attention. Mr. Hellmann asked where the Township has legal liability in the North Hills development to address the stormwater issue. Mr. Craig stated that the only Township-owned facilities are those that exist in the public right-of-way. Ms. Smith stated that there is a stormwater issue in the Township and the issues should be handled together, noting that one neighborhood cannot be addressed without looking throughout the Township as a whole. Mr. Walsh asked about the number of neighborhoods in the Township who do not have stormwater facilities. Mr. Craig estimated that there were at least six (6) neighborhoods in the Township in a similar situation to the North Hills development. Mr. Walsh asked how the Township could examine the whole picture. Mr. Craig stated that an extensive engineering study would need to occur. Mr. Hellmann noted that this could be a template to use for other neighborhoods in a similar situation. Ms. Smith stated that if an engineering feasibility is to be completed, it should be done right. Mr. Walsh opened the floor to comments from the public. Nicholas Antolick discussed the history of the issue in the North Hills development and noted that he is currently the President of the North Hills Civic Association. Mr. Antolick stated that this is a voluntary association and he appreciates the support and discussion of the issue by the Township. Mr. Antolick stated that there is an underground system that was installed by the Township that is failing, which is impacting both individual neighbors and the neighborhood as a whole. Mr. Craig stated that he is not familiar with any facilities installed by the Township. Mr. Craig stated that the system in the public right-of-way is maintained by the Township. Mr. Craig stated that the culvert is undersized and water overtopping the road does not mean that it is failing. Ms. Gagné shared information from her neighborhood that showed a similar situation to the one being discussed in the North Hills development. James Ingram stated that this stormwater situation has been ongoing for approximately 20 years. Mr. Ingram stated that the residents of the North Hills development have previously discussed this issue with Mr. Craig and the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Ingram discussed the history of the issue. Ms. Gagné discussed the issue in her neighborhood and noted that the storm activity is impacting every taxpayer in the Township. Ms. Gagné stated that she does not believe that it is responsible is allocated taxpayer funds to address one (1) neighborhood when the issue is impacting multiple areas of the Township. Mr. Ingram stated that he would advise a property owner to have an attorney send a letter to the Township indicating that there is a public safety issue. Mr. Oeste stated that his office has not reviewed the issue in detail and was not prepared to discuss the potential liability of the Township. Mr. Oeste stated that he agreed with Mr. Craig regarding the responsibility of the Township for facilities in the public right-of-way. Mr. Oeste noted that these issues are occurring throughout the Commonwealth and Chester County, noting that none of the systems were designed to handle multiple 500-year storms. Mr. Ingram commended the responsiveness of the Township and discussed the work that had been done by the Township in the past. Mr. Ingram stated that the Township has done some of the work to concentrate stormwater. Mr. Ingram stated that the North Hills Civic Association was willing to financially participate in the


solution. Mr. Ingram discussed potential changes to the culvert that he believes may be beneficial to the situation. Mr. Walsh asked if the corrugated metal pipe identified by Mr. Ingram had been inspected recently. Mr. Craig stated that it has not been. Mr. Walsh asked about the condition of the pipe. Mr. Craig stated that is most likely in the same condition of the other corrugated metal pipe in the Township given its age. Mr. Craig stated that replacing the corrugated metal pipe is not a significant issue, but warned against increasing the capacity of the culvert, noting that it could create unanticipated problems. Ms. Gagné discussed the experiences of her neighbors dealing with stormwater issues and noted that she is invested in this issue. Margie Swart stated that she does not live in the North Hills development, but is invested in the stormwater issue. Ms. Swart asked if damage was occurring on the exterior or interior of properties. Mr. Walsh stated that it is both. Ms. Swart asked if these properties had sump pumps. Mr. Walsh stated that he was unsure. Ms. Swart asked if sump pumps would be beneficial. Mr. Craig stated that it depends and that a sump pump would help address this issue. Ms. Swart asked that if the Township could have the grass swales have been covered re-established. Mr. Craig stated that the grass swales were not designed as a stormwater system. Mr. Craig discussed the history. Ms. Swart discussed her observances of stormwater systems in other areas of Pennsylvania and the country. Ms. Smith recommended performing an overall study for the Township. Mr. Craig recommended conducting an initial study on the areas of the Township with no existing stormwater controls, noting that he would feel comfortable determining the areas of the Township that have no stormwater controls. Ms. Smith asked if this would be piecemealing the issue. Mr. Craig stated that it was, but noted that it would be addressing the most severe areas. Mr. Walsh stated that believed that it would beneficial to break this up into sections and it would be a way forward to do a larger evaluation of the Township. Margie Swart stated that if a study is done and it is determined that the grass swales should not have been covered, that cost should not be placed on the taxpayers. The Board authorized the Township Engineer and the Public Works Director to frame a scope of work and provide cost estimates for a feasibility study and report back to the Board. Discussion and possible approval of a Final Land Development Plan for a 15,394 square foot building addition at 1150 Delancy Place (Glen Acres Elementary School) for the West Chester Area School District. Mr. Craig stated that the plan before the Board has been reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Craig stated that the requirements for stormwater management and traffic circulation have been met by the applicant. Mark Groves, West Chester Area School District, stated that the project involves the construction of an expansion to the existing Glen Acres Elementary School. Mr. Groves stated that this expansion is needed in order to meet current School District specifications. Mr. Groves noted that this not for growth, but rather to meet elementary school education specifications. Mr. Groves reviewed the stormwater management requirements for the project. Mr. Walsh asked if the new stormwater system was only handling the stormwater from the new addition or if was designed to handle the entire school. Mr. Groves stated that it was designed to handle the combination of the new additions and the new parking areas. Mr. Groves noted that the design meets the requirements of PA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Ms. Smith asked if any comments were provided by DEP. Mr. Groves stated that comments were received and the design was approved by DEP. Mr. Craig noted that a plan will not bring a


plan to the Planning Commission without a Letter of Adequacy from the Chester County Conservation District. Mr. Craig described the system that is being proposed. Ms. Smith asked if the comments from the Chester County Planning Commission have been resolved. Mr. Craig stated that they have been, but noted that certain recommendations from the County either cannot be met or are not required by law. Ms. Smith asked if the applicant will obtain an NPDES permit. Mr. Groves stated that they will. Mr. Hellmann asked about the timeline for construction. Mr. Groves stated that construction is scheduled to being on June 1, 2022 and continue through summer 2024, with working being done in three (3) phases. Mr. Groves outlined the proposed sequence of construction. Ms. Smith asked about the stormwater discharge point. Mr. Craig stated that it is at the stream to the south of the site. Mr. Walsh asked about the change in the proposed dumpster location on the property. Mr. Groves stated that it was done to make it easier for the trash company. Mr. Hellmann made a motion to approve the Final Land Development Plan for a 15,394 square foot building addition at 1150 Delancy Place (Glen Acres Elementary School) for the West Chester Area School District. Ms. Gagné seconded the motion. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the Board on the proposed motion. No comments were noted. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the public on the proposed motion. Jamie Ingram asked about the impervious coverage and if it is legal for the Township to require that request for additional stormwater management when an applicant is seeking to expand an existing impervious area. Mr. Craig stated that the Township cannot. Mr. Ingram asked if the Township’s code could be amended to require an applicant to address the existing impervious coverage on the site. Mr. Craig stated that the Township cannot retroactively make an applicant upgrade something that has already been approved in the past. Mr. Hellmann noted that there was extensive conversation with the Chester County Conservation District regarding this project. There being no further discussion, the motion approving the Final Land Development Plan for 1150 Delancy Place passed by a vote of 5-0. Discussion and possible approval of Ordinance No. 1-2022, revising the sewer rates for West Goshen Township found in Chapter 66 of the West Goshen Township Code of Ordinances. Mr. Walsh stated that the proposed ordinance was authorized for advertisement at the January 3, 2022 meeting of the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Oeste summarized the exhibits for the ordinance before the Board. Ms. Smith made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 1-2022, revising the sewer rates for West Goshen Township found in Chapter 66 of the West Goshen Township Code of Ordinances. Ms. Stuntebeck seconded the motion. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the Board on the proposed motion. Mr. Hellmann asked where a restaurant would fall for billing purposes in the ordinance. Mr. Oeste stated that he believed that a restaurant would be billed under section “L” of the code. Mr. Hellmann noted that the rate


information section “L” of the current ordinance was different than what is outlined in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Oeste stated that the proposed ordinance should be amended to reflect a 14.29% increase to be consistent with the other sections of the ordinance. Ms. Smith amended her motion to set a minimum charge of $386.85 in section “L.” Ms. Stuntebeck seconded the amended motion. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the Board on the proposed motion. No comments were noted. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the public on the proposed motion. Margie Swart discussed an article regarding the Sewer Rental Act and Mr. Walsh’s response to her on December 22, 2021. Ms. Swart outlined her understanding of the Act as it pertains to reserve fund. Mr. Walsh outlined the operations of the Sewer Reserve Fund. Mr. Walsh noted that the Township Solicitor did not agree with Ms. Swart’s interpretation of the law. Ms. Swart discussed the provisions of the Act. Mr. Walsh reviewed the interpretation of the Township Solicitor. Ms. Swart stated that it is her understanding that the Sewer Authority should be setting the rates, not the Township. Ms. Smith stated that the Sewer Authority recommends a rate and the Board sets the rate. Ms. Swart stated that she did not understand why the Township’s rates were not regulated by the PA Public Utility Commission. Mr. Oeste stated that townships and municipal authorities are not regulated by the PA Public Utility Commission. Ms. Swart discussed the reserves in the General and Capital Reserve Funds and asked why those funds cannot be used for sewer upgrades. Mr. Bashore stated that the Sewer Fund is set up as an enterprise fund, which operates like a business. Mr. Bashore stated that the Sewer Fund is intended to be self-sustaining based on the fees being charged. There being no further discussion, the motion approving Ordinance No. 1-2022 passed by a vote of 4-0-1, with Ms. Gagné abstaining. Continued discussion and possible appointment of special labor counsel for collective bargaining negotiations with the West Goshen Township Police Officers Association. Mr. Bashore stated that he had the Township Solicitor review the terms of engagement related to waivers of conflict of interest. Mr. Bashore stated that any waiver of conflict of interest would need to be approved by the Board and that the Township Solicitor is in agreement with the terms and conditions outlined. Mr. Oeste stated that the motion should include an understanding that the terms of engagement are being amended according to the email dated January 8, 2022. Ms. Smith made a motion to appoint Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC as the special labor counsel for collective bargaining negotiations with the West Goshen Township Police Officers Association. Ms. Stuntebeck seconded the motion. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the Board on the proposed motion. No comments were noted. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the public on the proposed motion. No comments were noted. There being no further discussion, the motion appointing Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC as the special labor counsel for collective bargaining negotiations with the West Goshen Township Police Officers Association passed by a vote of 5-0.


Discussion and possible approval of Memorandum of Understanding between West Goshen Township and Code Inspections, Inc. for interim Zoning Officer services. Mr. Bashore stated that Memorandum of Understanding between West Goshen Township and Code Inspections, Inc. for interim Zoning Officer services. Mr. Bashore noted that the rate is $82.00 per hour, which is below their normal rate. Mr. Bashore noted that Code Inspections, Inc. worked with the Township previously and noted that there is some additional work included. Ms. Smith asked if “potentially ongoing” needed to be added to the terms of the agreement. Mr. Oeste discussed the terms and believed that they were clear. Mr. Walsh asked about the number of hours the Township would require the services. Mr. Bashore stated that it would depend on the volume, noting that it may be less during the winter months. Mr. Bashore stated that they are currently doing office hours three (3) days for week. Mr. Hellmann discussed the scope of services and asked who would be the chief point of contact would be. Mr. Bashore stated that it would be a combination of him and Mr. Craig. Mr. Hellmann asked who would review the invoices. Mr. Bashore stated that he would review them and verify the information with Mr. Craig. Ms. Gagné asked what would occur if the contract were in the middle of a renewal. Mr. Oeste stated that the contract may be terminated with a 30 days’ notice. Mr. Bashore stated that he would notify Code Inspections, Inc. when a new employee is hired, allow for a transition, and then terminate the contract accordingly. Mr. Hellmann made a motion to approve the Memorandum of Understanding between West Goshen Township and Code Inspections, Inc. Ms. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the Board on the proposed motion. No comments were noted. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the public on the proposed motion. Margie Swart asked about the need and discussed the positions in the minutes from Organizational Meeting, noting that the Township has two (2) Deputy Zoning Officers. Ms. Swart asked about the need for Fire Marshal services in the contract. Mr. Bashore stated that he was not going to discuss the need for Fire Marshal services since that is a personnel matter. Mr. Bashore noted that it is not feasible to have the Deputy Zoning Officers perform additional duties due to the Greystone project. Mr. Craig confirmed that this was accurate. There being no further discussion, the motion approving the Memorandum of Understanding between West Goshen Township and Code Inspections, Inc. passed by a vote of 5-0. Discussion and possible approval of the 2022 Fuel Bids, opened on January 13, 2022. Mr. Bashore stated that the Township issued a notice for the 2022 Fuel Bids. Bids were advertised in the December 23, 2021 edition of The Daily Local News. The bids were opened on January 13, 2022 at 10:15 am at the West Goshen Township Municipal Building. One (1) bid was received:

Vendor Unleaded Gasoline

(Fuel Island)

Bio Clear Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (Fuel Island)

Low Sulfur Heating Oil

Dyed Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel

Fuel (Generator)

Riggins, Inc. $2.398 $2.7183 $3.1325 $3.1187


Mr. Bashore reviewed the history of the delivery costs for the Township. Ms. Smith asked about taxes. Mr. Bashore noted that the Township is tax-exempt. Mr. Walsh asked about the number of years that the Township has only received one bid. Mr. Woodward reviewed the bid history, noting that the number of local suppliers has declined. Ms. Gagné asked how the costs would impact the budget. Mr. Bashore stated that a cost increase for fuel was factored into the 2022 budget. Mr. Woodward noted that the Township pays rack price plus delivery. Ms. Stuntebeck made a motion to award the 2022 Fuel Bid to Riggins, Inc. Ms. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the Board on the proposed motion. No comments were noted. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the public on the proposed motion. Margie Swart asked where the bids are advertised. Mr. Woodward stated that the bids are advertised in the Daily Local News. There being no further discussion, the motion awarding the 2022 Fuel Bid to Riggins, Inc. passed by a vote of 5-0. Discussion of pipeline communication plan. Mr. Walsh stated that the Township is in receipt of the after-action report from the Chester County Department of Emergency Services for the table top exercise conducted on September 30, 2021 that simulated an incident at the Boot Road Pump Station. Mr. Walsh reviewed the areas of improvement that were recommended in the report. Mr. Walsh stated that certain actions need to be done in coordination with Chester County and noted that Chester County is developing a specific pipeline emergency response plan. Ms. Smith stated that she is scheduling an internal meeting with Mr. Hellmann and Township staff in order review the items in the report, as well as the Townships other emergency operations documents. Ms. Smith noted that an annex to the Township’s Emergency Operations Plan pertaining to pipelines is also going to be discussed. Mr. Hellmann stated that the County is issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a hazards vulnerability plan and the Township intends to follow-up with the County on that plan to understand the actions they are taking. Ms. Smith noted that the County issued an RFP to assist the 12 municipalities with pipelines to develop annexes to their Emergency Operations Plans. Ms. Smith noted that those are due back by February 15, 2022. Mr. Hellmann discussed the noise concerns with the Boot Road Pump Station and it has dissipated over the past several months. Mr. Hellmann stated that the Township should schedule a visit with Energy Transfer. Mr. Walsh stated that he will contact Energy Transfer and invite the Board to the meeting. Ms. Gagné stated that she would like to volunteer to start working on the communications plan. The Board will continue discussing the necessary steps in this process and provide updates at a future meeting. No action was taken. Discussion and possible authorization to submit an application to Tree City USA. Ms. Gagné stated that she and Susan Charkes of the Sustainability Advisory Committee have been working on an application to Tree City USA. Ms. Gagné thanked the members of the Township staff who have been helpful in gathering the necessary information for the submission. Ms. Gagné reviewed in the information contained in


the application with the Board, noting that she has been listed as the point of contact and will work with the Township staff if additional information is needed. Mr. Walsh asked if the requirement for a tree board is satisfied by vesting this in the Sustainability Advisory Committee. Ms. Gagné stated that she believes it does. Mr. Bashore stated that it is his understanding that the Township only must have a body charged with overseeing trees in the municipality. Mr. Hellmann made a motion to authorize the submission of an application to Tree City USA to West Goshen Township. Ms. Stuntebeck seconded the motion. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the Board on the proposed motion. No comments were noted. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the public on the proposed motion. Margie Swart asked about the costs outlined in the application and if these were costs or funds already spent. Ms. Gagné stated that these are funds that have been previously spent. Doug White asked if there was any cost to submit the application. Ms. Gagné stated that there was no cost. Ms. Gagné noted that the Township will need to apply annually. There being no further discussion, the motion authorizing the submission of an application to Tree City USA passed by a vote of 5-0. Discussion and possible approval of Transit Shelter Construction/Maintenance Agreement between Stanbery West Goshen, LLC and West Goshen Township. Mr. Oeste stated that there are two (2) matters before the Board this evening for approval: an agreement with the PA Department of Transportation (PennDOT) to place the transit shelter and the agreement with Stanbery West Goshen, LLC for construction and maintenance. Mr. Oeste stated that PennDOT requires that the Township enter into an agreement for the shelter and the developer has agreed to take on the construction and maintenance responsibilities. Mr. Walsh asked about the agreement with Stanbery West Goshen, LLC and if there was language pertaining to the responsible of any successor to maintain the shelter. Mr. Oeste stated that paragraph 10 states that the agreement runs with the land and the terms would apply to a successor. Mr. Walsh asked if paragraph 19 and 22 of the PennDOT agreement should be referenced. Mr. Oeste reviewed the provisions of the agreement. Ms. Smith asked about advertising on the proposed shelter and the maintenance of that advertising. Lou Colagreco, Esq., attorney for Stanbery West Goshen, LLC, stated that maintenance would be between the Township and the advertising entity. Mr. Walsh asked about advertising on existing shelters and if this was permissible by the Township’s Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Woodward noted that the existing shelters have advertising on them. Ms. Smith asked about the language pertaining to PennDOT withholding funds from the Township and Stanbery West Goshen, LLC’s obligation to reimburse the Township for those lost funds. Mr. Colagreco stated that PennDOT would withhold Liquid Fuels Tax funds from the Township and Stanbery West Goshen, LLC is agreeing to reimburse the money to the Township, as well as any other damages that may be assessed. Ms. Gagné asked about insurance and liability for the Township and who would be liable if an accident were to occur. Mr. Colagreco noted that anyone involved would be named in a potential lawsuit, but Stanbery West Goshen, LLC has agreed to name the Township as an additionally insured on its coverage. Ms. Gagné discussed safety designs for the shelter. Mr. Colagreco stated that it is being modeled off of the shelter at Chester County Hospital and the standard safety specifications will be followed.


Ms. Smith made a motion to approve the agreement between the PA Department of Transportation and West Goshen Township for the installation of a bus shelter on state route 2014. Ms. Gagné seconded the motion. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the Board on the proposed motion. No comments were noted. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the public on the proposed motion. Doug White asked if the plan will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Bashore stated that this component would not, but the land development plan for the overall property will go to the Planning Commission for review. Mr. Craig stated that the plan does not a bus shelter to be included, but there are no details on the plan. Mr. Colagreco stated that the client will provide the specifications to PennDOT and the Township. Mr. Oeste reviewed the requirements contained in the agreement. Margie Swart asked about trash removal from the shelter. Mr. Woodward stated that trash cans are located at the existing bus stops in the Township and this would be added to the collection. There being no further discussion, the motion approving the agreement between the PA Department of Transportation and West Goshen Township for the installation of a bus shelter on state route 2014 passed by a vote of 5-0. Ms. Gagné made a motion to approve the Transit Shelter Construction/Maintenance Agreement between Stanbery West Goshen, LLC and West Goshen Township. Ms. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the Board on the proposed motion. No comments were noted. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the public on the proposed motion. No comments were noted. There being no further discussion, the motion approving the Transit Shelter Construction/Maintenance Agreement between Stanbery West Goshen, LLC and West Goshen Township passed by a vote of 5-0. Discussion and possible appointment of voting member to annual conference of the PA State Association of Township Supervisors. Ms. Gagné nominated Mr. Hellmann to be the Township’s voting member at the annual conference of the PA State Association of Township Supervisors. Mr. Hellmann recommended that an alternate member also be appointed. Mr. Walsh made a motion to appoint John Hellmann as the voting member for the annual conference of the PA State Association of Township Supervisors and Ashley Gagné as the alternate voting member. Ms. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the Board on the proposed motion. No comments were noted. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the public on the proposed motion. Doug White asked if this has always been the Township’s practice. Mr. Walsh explained the Township’s representation with the PA State Association of Township Supervisors.


There being no further discussion, the motion to appoint John Hellmann as the voting member for the annual conference of the PA State Association of Township Supervisors and Ashley Gagné as the alternate voting member passed by a vote of 5-0. Discussion of proposed splash pad project and possible grant application opportunities. Mr. Bashore reviewed the previous discussion regarding the proposed splash pad project and potential grant opportunities. Mr. Bashore discussed potential Chester County and Pennsylvania grant opportunities and the timelines for these applications. Mr. Bashore recommended that stormwater infiltration testing prior to complete the site design work. Ms. Smith reviewed the estimated cost information for the splash pad project and the unknown costs at this juncture. Mr. Bashore stated that the Township still needs to obtain updated cost information from General Recreation for the shade structure. Ms. Gagné asked if retrofitting the basin at West Goshen Community Park would contribute to meeting the Township’s MS4 permit requirements. Mr. Craig stated that he did not believe it would if the Township were only handling the stormwater from the splash pad, but if the basin were being improved for the overall facility, it may count. Mr. Craig stated that he would research this. Mr. Walsh stated that he would like to obtain grant funding due to the scale of this project. Mr. Bashore recommended obtaining a proposal from Carroll Engineering to complete the design work, including stormwater infiltration testing. The Board directed Mr. Bashore to obtain a cost estimate for design work, including stormwater infiltration testing and bring this the Board for consideration. Reports for the month of December 2021:

• Police Report presented Chief Michael Carroll. Chief Carroll summarized the activity of the West Goshen Township Police Department for the month of December 2021. Mr. Walsh asked about the increase in motor vehicle accidents in 2021 and if this indicated a reversion to the normal numbers. Chief Carroll stated that it was. Mr. Hellmann asked about the ambulance calls at 22 Turner Avenue. Chief Carroll stated that he believes that the previous issue has been resolved. Mr. Hellmann discussed his and Ms. Smith’s meeting with Chief Carroll. Chief Carroll discussed the upcoming meeting of the Police Advisory Group on January 20, 2022. Mr. Walsh asked how this is being advertised. Chief Carroll reviewed the advertising methods that have been utilized. Chief Carroll discussed the COVID-19 mitigation efforts that have been utilized by the Police Department. Chief Carroll discussed the impact that the closures of Jennersville and Brandywine Hospitals will have on the Police Department. The Board thanked Chief Carroll for his report.

Mr. Walsh discussed the reports from the Township’s fire/EMS providers. Kim Holman, Executive Director for Good Fellowship Ambulance Company, asked if the Board had seen the information provided by the Chester County EMS Council regarding the hospital closures. Mr. Walsh stated that the Board has seen a copy. Ms. Holman recommended sending this to the residents and other stakeholders. Ms. Holman outlined items being discussed to address these closures. Grant Everhart, Chief of Goshen Fire Company, reviewed the 2021 calls in West Goshen Township. Chief Everhart noted that EMS calls have returned to pre-COVID-19 levels. Mr. Hellmann asked if action was being taken to reduce the number of false alarm responses. Chief Everhart discussed the steps being taken, noting


that they attempt to work with property owners if there is a problem property and then taking enforcement action if the issue is not addressed. Stephen Pelna, Chief of the West Chester Fire Department, reviewed the 2021 calls in West Goshen Township. Chief Pelna introduced the Public Information Officer for the Department, David Marsh, and offered his services to the Township in initiatives. Chief Pelna reviewed a map for West Chester Borough for notification to elected officials for when incidents occur. Margie Swart asked what constitutes a good intent call. Chief Pelna explained this procedure. Ms. Swart asked about the false alarm calls. Chief Pelna stated that each call must be treated as an active fire call. The Board thanked the members of the Township’s fire/EMS providers for their reports and service. Board of Supervisors’ announcements. Ms. Smith discussed upcoming meetings to outline updates to the Township’s Emergency Operations Plan. Ms. Smith discussed her ongoing review of environmental data for the Stanbery West Goshen, LLC land development project. Ms. Smith stated that she has completed certain ICS training courses. Ms. Stuntebeck discussed her recent conversations with the Township’s Emergency Management Coordinator, Andrea Testa, regarding emergency preparedness. Ms. Stuntebeck stated that links to these documents will be made available to the community. Mr. Hellmann discussed his recent meeting with West Norriton Township regarding a possible Responsible Contractors Ordinance for West Goshen Township. Mr. Hellmann announced a virtual meeting with State Representative Sappey on January 19, 2022. Mr. Hellmann announced a Traffic Safety Committee meeting on January 20, 2022. Ms. Gagné announced that the Sustainability Advisory Committee will host workshops on January 24, 2022 and February 7, 2022 for businesses to understand the parameters of Ordinance No. 16-2021, which banned plastic bags and straws in the Township. Ms. Gagné discussed the establishment of a dedicated webpage for these regulations and to assist businesses in complying. Ms. Smith noted that other municipalities have contacted her regarding implementing their own ordinances similar to the Township’s. Mr. Walsh announced that the Board met in Executive Session on January 5, 2022 to discuss 2022 performance objectives with the Township Manager and on January 18, 2022 to discuss compensation policies for certain Township personnel. Mr. Walsh discussed the recent Liquid Fuels Audit completed by the PA Auditor General’s Office, noting that no issues were found. Mr. Walsh announced a program for low-income households who may be struggling to pay sewer and/or water bills and noted that a letter to potentially eligible households will be issued by the Township. Margie Swart asked about the Treasurer’s Report approved monthly by the Parks & Recreation Board and asked for clarification on this matter. Ms. Gagné stated that she will speak with the Parks & Recreation Board about this matter. Ms. Swart asked about the Executive Session pertaining to employee compensation. Mr. Oeste stated that it would fall under the personnel allowance. Mr. Walsh stated that there were no increases discussed and this pertained to funds already accounted for in the 2022 budget. Ms. Gagné asked if they needed to be approved, could that be done without disclosing the employee. Mr. Oeste stated that they could be assigned to positions within the Township’s organizational structure. Township Manager’s announcements.


Mr. Bashore announced vacancies on the Township’s volunteer boards and committees. Mr. Bashore announced that the Township’s January eNewsletter will be issued on January 21, 2022. Mr. Bashore announced that the Parks & Recreation Department is accepting applications for 2022 summer camp counselors. Mr. Bashore thanked the members of the Public Works Department for their work during the recent winter storms. Mr. Walsh asked about the timeline from HRG, Inc. for completing the work associated with potential implementation of a stormwater fee for the Township and completing the corrugated metal piping analysis. Mr. Bashore stated that he will speak with HRG, Inc. and provide an update to the Board. The Board thanked Mr. Bashore for his announcements. Township Engineer’s Stormwater announcements and Woodlands at Greystone update. Mr. Craig announced that the Sunset Hollow Road stormwater project has been completed. Mr. Craig stated that the Pine Valley Circle/Amelia Drive project is underway. Mr. Hellmann asked about the status of the driveways for the Pine Valley Circle/Amelia Drive project. Mr. Woodward stated that temporary patches have been installed and the final paving will be installed in the spring. Mr. Walsh asked about the status of the inspection of Aram Avenue. Mr. Craig stated that it should be completed on January 19, 2022. Margie Swart discussed her recent view of Sunset Hollow Road and noted a large amount of standing water on the road. Mr. Woodward stated that there are underground springs in the area and it is not an issue with the culvert that was installed. Mr. Woodward discussed the history of this issue. The Board thanked Mr. Craig for his announcements. Zoning Officer’s announcements. Mr. Bashore stated that the Zoning Hearing Board met on January 12, 2022 and issued decisions on the applications for 211 Garfield Avenue and 300 Snyder Avenue. Mr. Bashore stated that the requested relief for 211 Garfield Avenue was granted for the sheds requested for the property. Mr. Bashore stated that relief for certain signage and additional parking was granted for 300 Snyder Avenue, but the request for relief for additional freestanding signage was denied. Approval of Board of Supervisors meeting minutes of December 21, 2021 and January 3, 2022. Mr. Hellman made a motion to approve the minutes from the December 21, 2021 and January 3, 2022 meetings of the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the Board on the proposed motion. No comments were noted. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the public on the proposed motion. No comments were noted. There being further discussion, the motion approving the minutes from the December 21, 2021 and January 3, 2022 meetings of the Board of Supervisors passed by a vote of 5-0.


Approval of Treasurer's Report dated December 31, 2021, for the General Fund, the Sewer Revenue Fund, the Waste and Recycling Fund, and the Capital Reserve Fund, and the bills to be paid from these funds. Ms. Stuntebeck made a motion to approve the Treasurer's Report dated December 31, 2021, for the General Fund, the Sewer Revenue Fund, the Waste and Recycling Fund, and the Capital Reserve Fund, and the bills to be paid from these funds. Ms. Gagné seconded the motion. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the Board on the proposed motion. No comments were noted. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the public on the proposed motion. Margie Swart discussed the increase in Real Estate Transfer Tax revenue and asked if there was a large transaction that occurred in December. Mr. Walsh stated that he will speak with the Finance Director about this matter. Ms. Swart asked who reviews the Treasurer’s Report before it is presented to the Board. Mr. Bashore discussed the review process. Ms. Swart requested that the Board not approve the Treasurer’s Report that has been presented and discussed a transfer discrepancy. Mr. Walsh discussed the process. Ms. Swart discussed the Fraternal Order of Police dues and how these should not be paid by the taxpayer. There being further discussion, the motion approving the Treasurer's Report dated December 31, 2021, for the General Fund, the Sewer Revenue Fund, the Waste and Recycling Fund, and the Capital Reserve Fund, and the bills to be paid from these funds passed by a vote of 5-0. Public Comment. Mr. Walsh opened the floor to public comment for items not on the agenda. Margie Swart asked about virtual meetings. Mr. Bashore stated that he monitors the livestream for comments and no comments have been received. Mr. Walsh recommended highlighting this in the Township’s eNewsletter. Adjourn There being no further discussion, Ms. Gagné made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:14 p.m. Mr. Walsh seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the motion adjourning the meeting passed by a vote of 5-0. Please view this meeting’s video recording via YouTube with the link located at www.westgoshen.org. Respectfully submitted,

Christopher Bashore Township Secretary

WEST GOSHEN TOWNSHIP

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING FEBRUARY 1, 2022

Township Supervisors: Township Officials: Mr. Shaun Walsh, Chair Mr. Christopher Bashore, Township Manager Ms. Ashley Gagné, Vice-Chair Mr. Richard J. Craig, P.E., Township Engineer Mr. John Hellmann, Member Chief Michael Carroll, Chief of Police Ms. Tinamarie Smith, Member Ms. Kristin Camp, Esq., Township Solicitor Ms. Robin Stuntebeck, Member Mr. David Woodward, Director of Public Works The regular monthly meeting of the Board of Supervisors of West Goshen Township was called to order by Chair Shaun Walsh, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 1, 2022. This meeting was advertised in The Daily Local News on December 17, 2021. This meeting agenda was posted on the West Goshen Township website and at the Township Building on Friday, January 28, 2022. Mr. Walsh opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Mr. Walsh announced that all attendees must wear masks since Chester County remains an area of substantial transmission of COVID-19. Mr. Walsh announced that the meeting may be recorded by 3rd parties. Discussion and possible approval of a request from Chester County Hospital waiver of Land Development for the construction of a modular structure. Mr. Walsh stated that before the Board of Supervisors this evening is a request from Chester County Hospital for a waiver of land development in order to construct a modular structure to expand their existing emergency facilities. This is being pursued in order to address the influx of patients as a result of the closures of Jennersville and Brandywine Hospital, as well as the COVID-19 pandemic. Typically, this type of submission would go through the land development process and would involve multiple submissions and reviews at various levels. However, given the urgency of the situation, Chester County Hospital is requesting a waiver from the process outlined in the Township’s Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. Mr. Bashore described the project before the Board, noting that the proposed modular structure would be placed on existing impervious coverage and would be approximately 3,000 square feet. Mr. Bashore stated that the Township Solicitor, Township Engineer, and he met with representatives from Chester County Hospital to review the project and he is comfortable recommending this waiver, subject to conditions, based on the discussion and the nature of the situation. Daniel Rowley, Esq., counsel for Chester County Hospital, outlined the current situation facing Chester County Hospital, noting that the current hospital closures and the COVID-19 pandemic has placed strain on the Hospital. Mr. Rowley noted that this will expand emergency room capacity. Michael Duncan, President of Chester County Hospital, noted that Brandywine Hospital currently does not have a license to operate. Mr. Duncan stated that it would take over a year to have Brandywine Hospital operational again if there was a buyer. Mr. Duncan noted that the emergency room expansion project will be completed shortly and this would add ten (10) more beds to the emergency room. Mr. Duncan started that more emergency room spaces will be needed due to the hospital closures and the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that this modular structure will add 12 more beds.

Board of Supervisors Meeting February 1, 2022 Page 2

Ms. Smith asked if the NPDES permit would be impacted by this project. Mr. Craig stated that the proposed project would not require an NPDES permit due to the projected size of the disturbance. Ms. Smith discussed the processes in place and noted that skipping processes may create issues in the future and asked if it was possible to expedite the process. Mr. Craig stated that the expedited process would still take approximately three (3) months to complete. Ms. Camp stated that waiving land development would not normally be recommended, but noted that the issues that would normally be discussed during this process are being considered through other reviews. Ms. Camp stated that a suggested condition before the Board is to record a plan to document the approval. Mr. Rowley stated that these are extraordinary circumstances. Ms. Gagné noted her support for Chester County Hospital and the extrondinary circumstances. Ms. Gagné discussed her recent tour with Good Fellowship Ambulance Company. Mr. Hellmann asked about a timeline for construction. Mr. Rowley stated that a timeline is still being evaluated at this time. Mr. Hellmann asked if this would be a temporary structure. Brandon Sargent, architect for Chester County Hospital, provided an overview of the structure. Mr. Sargent stated that the Hospital will review the need and noted that the lifespan is 8 to 10 years. Mr. Sargent reviewed the construction specifics of the modular building. Mr. Walsh asked if the modular structure is brought in and assembled on-site. Mr. Sargent stated that it is assembled on-site and outlined the process. Mr. Walsh discussed the projected emergency room visit statistics and asked if additional modular structures would be needed in the future. Mr. Duncan stated that if more emergency room spaces were needed, they would look for an internal option. Mr. Walsh asked if more information will be known in the next 3 to 6 months regarding need. Mr. Duncan stated that this was a likely scenario. Mr. Hellmann made a motion to approve the request from Chester County Hospital waiver of Land Development for the construction of a modular structure subject to the following conditions:

1. The modular building is to be built in the location consistent with plans sent to Township.

2. Applicant must obtain a Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Permit prior to the issuance of a building permit.

3. The Township Engineer must confirm that no additional stormwater management facilities are

needed for the additional impervious cover to be constructed on the lot.

4. Applicant shall install sensor activated warning lights in the access driveway between the Hospital and the modular building prior to issuance of Use & Occupancy Permit.

5. Applicant shall confirm that no additional sewer capacity is required to be purchased for the

additional sewage flows to be generated from the modular building. If capacity is needed, Applicant shall acquire the same.

6. Applicant shall record a declaration that documents that the waiver of land development was

granted and has attached as an exhibit the plans for the modular building. Ms. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the Board on the proposed motion. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any other action required by the Board. Ms. Camp stated that there was not and noted that the remainder of the process would be addressed by Township staff.


Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the public on the proposed motion. Doug White noted that this request is significant and would like to see a justification for this action. Mr. White asked if the Hospital would have a hardship if they had to go through the land development process. Mr. Duncan stated that this is intended to prevent patients from having to wait several hours for service, noting that this occurring. Mr. Walsh asked about traffic circulation and safety of movement and if this is the best location. Mr. Sargent stated that the location was reviewed and it was determined that this is the best location. There being no further discussion, the motion approving the from Chester County Hospital waiver of Land Development for the construction of a modular structure subject to the conditions passed by a vote of 5-0. Discussion of a proposed Responsible Contractors Ordinance for West Goshen Township. Mr. Walsh stated that before the Board of Supervisors this evening is discussion regarding a proposed Responsible Contractors Ordinance for West Goshen Township. This type of ordinance would establish criteria for contractors who are awarded contracts for municipal projects. The Board would set a certain dollar threshold for when the requirements would need to be met. Mr. Walsh reviewed the materials provided to the Board. Mr. Hellmann noted that this is an ordinance that he believes in based on his professional experience. Mr. Hellmann stated that he contacted municipalities in the region with these types of ordinances in order to understand their experience with them. Mr. Hellmann reviewed the bid provisions outlined in Pennsylvania law. Mr. Hellmann reviewed provisions in the draft ordinance before the Board. Mr. Hellmann discussed the required apprenticeship program in the ordinance and his research into this topic, noting that these are available through union and non-union contractors. Mr. Hellmann noted that this requirement is contained in the ordinances in the region he has reviewed. Ms. Smith thanked Mr. Hellmann for his work on the proposed ordinance. Ms. Smith asked about the percentage of union compared to non-union apprenticeship program. Mr. Hellmann stated that there are more non-union apprenticeship programs, but there are probably more qualified union apprenticeship programs. Ms. Gagné noted that this topic was outlined in the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals case that was provided to the Board. Ms. Smith outlined her discussions with Township employees regarding the potential ramifications of adopting an ordinance of this type, noting that a concern was expressed that certain high-quality contractors would be eliminated from the process since they could not meet the criteria. Ms. Smith discussed the cost information in the Township’s most recent projects. Ms. Gagné asked about the total costs for these projects. Mr. Bashore reviewed the awarded costs for these projects. Ms. Gagné noted that the proposed ordinance would provide exemptions for emergency work. Mr. Woodward noted concerns that local contractors would be eliminated from bidding. Ms. Gagné stated that certain exemptions should be considered. Ms. Camp cautioned against making specific exemptions for contractors. Mr. Woodward stated that the recent awards were given to family businesses. Ms. Gagné asked about the difficulty in establishing an apprenticeship program. Mr. Woodward stated that he was unsure. Ms. Smith stated that she believes that this ordinance may work best for smaller projects. Mr. Woodward discussed the Township’s bidding process and noted that the institution of the PennDOT Pre-qualification provisions have assisted in eliminating contractors that may have presented issues. Mr. Woodward expressed concern over increasing the Township’s bid times. Ms. Gagné asked who would complete the review. Mr. Woodward stated that it would be completed by the Township’s appointed professionals. Mr. Walsh stated that he supports the general principles in the ordinance, but also wants to support the Township’s local contractors. Mr. Walsh stated that certain projects pertaining to building trade skill work may be more suited for this ordinance, while it may not be necessary for road and stormwater work. Mr. Walsh


asked if an ordinance could be established to accomplish both. Mr. Woodward reviewed the history of the Boot Road Re-Striping Project. Ms. Camp noted that the Township could adopt by resolution the bid specifications for each project, noting that it could include many of these provisions. Ms. Camp reviewed the criteria that could be included, noting that a fair amount are in the Township’s specifications for projects. Ms. Smith noted her support for the ordinance, but would like to find a balance. Mr. Hellmann stated that most ordinances he reviewed set a project threshold of $250,000 when these provisions would need to be met. Mr. Woodward recommended that a potential differentiator could be when a building permit is required for the work. Mr. Bashore recommended exempting any work in the public right-of-way or municipally-owned easement. Mr. Walsh asked about the experience of Chester County since they implemented a similar procedure. Ms. Camp stated that she was not certain, but would be happy to contact them. Mr. Walsh opened the floor to comments from the public. Doug White asked if this type has been discussed by prior elected officials and if there have been specific problems with contractors. Ms. Camp stated that she is not aware of this coming up before or any issues. Nancy Lauerback stated that she is very impressed with the Board and noted her appreciation of the Board for trying to find a rationale balance. Ms. Lauerback noted her support for the proposed ordinance, stating that she believes that it could reduce the risk of contract failure to the Township, provide better quality services, and reduce hidden costs to the taxpayer. Ms. Lauerback stated that it makes her more comfortable knowing that contractors working in the Township are properly trained. Thomas Delveccio stated that he supports the proposed ordinance. Thomas Edgcumbe stated that he supports the proposed ordinance as he believes that it will lead to safer, more qualified contractors working in the Township. Mr. Edgcumbe stated that he believes this would create a level field for bidders. Chris Pielli stated that he supports the proposed ordinance. Mr. Pielli stated that the health, safety, and welfare must be at the forefront of decisions. Mr. Pielli reviewed the case from the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, noting that some of the items discussed may present a misconception about the case. Mr. Pielli discussed apprenticeship programs and noted that this has historically been an issue for certain contractors because they choose not to spend money on these programs. Mr. Pielli stated that he does not believe that the fear of being sued is rationale and that this should not stop the Board from doing the right thing. Mr. Pielli urged the Board not to abandon pursuing this ordinance. Kevin McDevitt discussed the importance of apprenticeship programs and the benefits of these programs. Dennis Rushton stated that he supports the proposed ordinance. David Saunders stated that he supports the proposed ordinance because it will help protect the taxpayers from contractors who perform inferior work. The Board thanked the residents for their comments on the proposed ordinance. The Board directed the Township staff to work with Ms. Camp to determine appropriate language to include in the draft ordinance and criteria that could potentially separate different types of projects, such as work in the public right-of-way and more trade-oriented work, as well as contact Chester County regarding their experience with their regulations. Mr. Bashore stated that presenting the revised draft to the Board at the March 1, 2022 meeting would be appropriate. Mr. Walsh noted that the language and associated dollar threshold could be further discussed at this time. Ms. Gagné asked if it was a concern for smaller-scale projects being completed


by unqualified workers. Mr. Hellmann recommended considering a lower threshold since public right-of-way projects may be removed from these requirements in the final version. Mr. Walsh recommended looking at potential future projects in order to determine an appropriate dollar threshold to include. Ms. Camp stated that she believes that the dollar threshold is set at a higher level due to the potential administrative costs involved in the review. Mr. Walsh stated that he would like to understand what is involved in the review. No action was taken. Discussion regarding the dedication of Aram Avenue and the punchlist prepared by the Township Engineer and Director of Public Works. Mr. Walsh stated that the Township has previously been approached by the developer for the Woodlands at Greystone about accepting dedication of Aram Avenue prior to the completion of the home construction. Mr. Walsh stated that the Board requested that an inspection be completed by the Township Engineer and prepare a punchlist of items that would require correction prior to dedication. Mr. Walsh stated that the Township has also inquired if the Township was eligible to receive Liquid Fuels funding for the road if certain maintenance costs were being covered by the developer. Mr. Craig stated that he and Mr. Woodward have completed an inspection over several days. Mr. Craig stated that they identified 42 items that would require correction. Mr. Craig stated that certain items were minimal, while some were larger issues. Mr. Craig outlined the discussion with PennDOT regarding Liquid Fuels, noting that there is not latitude to have the contractor pay for anything once it is added to the Township’s Liquid Fuels road list. Mr. Craig noted a staff concern that several items on the punchlist have the potential to be ongoing while construction continues and that he is concerned about the Township being responsible for the road while construction is underway. Mr. Craig stated that he is opposed to the Township accepting dedication of the road until construction is completed. Ms. Smith asked if the punchlist items have been prioritized and if a timeframe has been established for completion. Mr. Craig stated that it has not, noting that all the items must be completed prior to dedication and that the developer must outline the timeframe for completion since they must determine how to make the repairs. Mr. Craig stated that there would need to be an evaluation period to determine that the corrections work as intended. Mr. Craig discussed the liability issues that could be presented to the Township. Ms. Gagné stated that it was her understanding that the Township would conduct its inspection and then dedication would be considered after the necessary repairs were made. Ms. Gagné asked if the concern was continued damage to the road while construction is continuing. Mr. Craig stated that this was correct and noted the potential timeline for construction. Ms. Gagné asked if there was any additional protection that the Township could have while construction is occurring. Ms. Camp stated that there could be, but that the reason dedication was being considered prior to completion of construction was due to the West Chester Area School District’s practice of not bringing school buses on private roads. Ms. Camp noted that this issue has appeared to resolve itself. Mr. Craig noted that there are buses along Aram Avenue. Ms. Gagné stated that if the West Chester Area School District is using Aram Avenue, then she does not believe that dedication is necessary at this time. Mr. Craig discussed the portion of Aram Avenue owned by the West Chester Area School District and he has no concerns dedicating this portion of the road. Mr. Walsh asked if there was any signage on this portion of Aram Avenue that was vulnerable to damage form construction vehicles. Mr. Craig stated that there is some signage, but this portion is wider than the remainder of the road. Ms. Gagné asked about the traffic study that was necessary for the 25-mph speed limit. Mr. Craig stated that he did not believe that this was necessary until the Township accepted dedication of the road. Ms. Gagné asked about the establishment of a school zone on Aram Avenue. Mr. Craig stated that the West Chester Area School District has not approached the Township about the establishment of a school zone.


Mr. Hellmann asked if the final wearing course would still be the responsibility of the developer if the West Chester Area School District portion is dedicated. Mr. Craig stated that it would be. Mr. Woodward stated they can require the developer to complete the overlay and still receive funding from Liquid Fuels. Ms. Gagné stated that she would support having the potential dedication of the West Chester Area School District portion of Aram Avenue on the February 15, 2022 meeting agenda. Mr. Walsh asked if there were items on the punchlist that were concerning and should be communicated to the developer soon. Mr. Craig stated that the list has been communicated to the developer and the Township can put items that may be a safety concern in writing to address sooner. Ms. Stuntebeck asked if there are issues of residents being stuck with the damage that has occurred on the roadway. Mr. Craig stated that the most significant issue is dirt on the roadway and noted that the roads the residents are living on are also not dedicated. Mr. Walsh opened the floor to comments from the public. Doug White asked if it has historically been the Township’s practice to not accept dedication of a road until construction is completed. Mr. Craig stated that this has been the Township’s practice. No action was taken. Discussion and possible approval of a proposal from HRG, Inc. for amendment to West Goshen Township’s Pollutant Reduction Plan. Mr. Bashore stated that before the Board of Supervisors this evening is a proposal from HRG, Inc. to complete amendments to West Goshen Township’s Pollutant Reduction Plan (PRP). It is noted that an update to the PRP was previously discussed. The proposal notes that the Township’s PRP is outdated and does not match the sediment reduction requirements for the current MS4 permit. As such, an addendum would be drafted to the current PRP to update the portions that no longer align with the Township’s plans. The cost outlined in the proposal is $13,000. Mr. Bashore reviewed the status of the other items HRG, Inc. is still working on for the Township. Mr. Walsh stated that he would prefer to defer action on this item in order for the current Board to see the work of HRG, Inc. in advance. Ms. Smith asks if the cost quoted included responding to comments that may be received from the PA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Mr. Craig stated that this is included in the proposal and noted that this could be a time-consuming process and it would not be unreasonable for the consultant to ask for a revision to the proposed scope of work. Ms. Gagné discussed her frustration with DEP and having to meet certain requirements when they are still operating remotely. Mr. Craig stated that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also has regulatory authority over this process. Mr. Craig noted that if the Township does a project without DEP approval as part of the Township’s PRP program, the Township may not get credit for the project. Ms. Smith discussed her experience working with DEP. Mr. Bashore discussed his experience with DEP and the completion timeline once the permit is issued. Mr. Walsh opened the floor to comments from the public. Margie Swart asked if this was for the 2018 to 2023 permit period. Mr. Craig stated that it is the 2019 to 2024 permit. Ms. Swart asked about the original HRG, Inc. contract from 2014 and if certain services have already been paid for. Mr. Craig stated that the contract Ms. Swart is referring to is related to the stormwater fee study


and is unrelated to the PRP plan. Mr. Craig stated that there is nothing outstanding from the previous contract. Ms. Swart discussed an article about the different definitions of what constitutes a municipal stormwater system between EPA and DEP. Mr. Craig discussed the responsibilities of the Township and DEP’s interpretation of where responsibility lies. Ms. Swart noted that this article warns municipalities about potentially overmapping their systems. Mr. Craig stated this was not the case in West Goshen Township. Ms. Swart and Mr. Craig discussed the parsing out of certain items and the Township street sweeping program. Ms. Swart asked if the dam remediation at the Woodlands at Greystone towards credit. Mr. Craig stated that this project could not count towards the PRP program. Ms. Swart asked about the project being eliminated from the PRP program. Mr. Craig stated that it was the Basin Road project. Ms. Swart discussed her conversations with DEP. Mr. Walsh stated that this proposal may be further considered at the February 15, 2022 Board meeting. No action was taken. Discussion and possible approval of the Township Manager’s residency pursuant to section 7-3 of the West Goshen Township Code of Ordinances. Mr. Bashore stated that before the Board of Supervisors this evening is consideration of approval of his current residency pursuant to section 7-3 of the West Goshen Township Code of Ordinances. Mr. Bashore reviewed the provisions of the ordinance. Ms. Stuntebeck made a motion to approve the Township Manager’s current residence outside of West Goshen Township pursuant to section 7-3 of the West Goshen Township Code of Ordinances. Mr. Hellmann seconded the motion. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the Board on the proposed motion. No comments were noted. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the public on the proposed motion. Margie Swart recommended an amendment to require residency in the West Chester Area School District region. Mr. Walsh noted that potential amendments have been discussed. There being no further discussion, the motion approving the Township Manager’s current residency outside of West Goshen Township pursuant to section 7-3 of the West Goshen Township Code of Ordinances passed by a vote of 5-0. Update on vehicle purchases for the West Goshen Township Police Department included in the Township’s 10-year Capital Improvement Plan. Mr. Walsh stated that the cost for the Tesla for the West Goshen Township Police Department has exceeded the budgeted price as reported by Chief Carroll. Mr. Walsh noted that $48,000 was allocated for this purchase and the current price is approximately $52,000, which exceeds the budget remaining for Police vehicle purchases. Mr. Walsh reviewed the remaining budget, but noted that this should not impact the overall Police Department budget. Mr. Walsh asked if the fit-out is being compromised due to the lower cost that was obtained for that portion. Chief Carroll stated that it would not. Ms. Stuntebeck made a motion to improve the increased cost for the Tesla included in the 2022 budget for the West Goshen Township Police Department. Ms. Gagné seconded the motion.


Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the Board on the proposed motion. No comments were noted. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the public on the proposed motion. Doug White asked about the model of the vehicle. Mr. Walsh stated that it was a Tesla 3. Mr. White asked about the specifications of the vehicle. Mr. Walsh reviewed his understanding of the specifications of the vehicle. Margie Swart asked about the funds received for the trade-in or sale of the Ford Explorer XLT. Mr. Walsh reviewed the process. Mr. Bashore discussed the current challenges that the Township is having ordering vehicles due to the supply chain issues. Ms. Swart asked if a budget adjustment was necessary. Mr. Walsh outlined the Township’s budget review process. There being no further discussion, the motion approving the increased cost for the Tesla included in the 2022 budget for the West Goshen Township Police Department passed by a vote of 5-0. Discuss arranging a meeting with all EMS and Fire Companies serving West Goshen Township to review how to increase the cost efficiency of service provided. Ms. Smith stated that she reviewed the September 2020 Chester County Fire and Emergency Services Strategic Plan prepared by Municipal Resource, Inc. Ms. Smith reviewed the history of this report and the items that it reviewed. Ms. Smith noted that it does not address cost reductions and it is clear that this is necessary. Ms. Smith discussed the recent meeting she and Ms. Stuntebeck had with Good Fellowship Ambulance Company. Ms. Smith stated that the financial situation needs to be properly evaluated. Ms. Smith recommended that the Board meet with the fire and EMS providers for the Township and undertake a financial study through a third-party. Ms. Smith outlined what this financial study could potentially involve. Mr. Walsh provided an overview of the service areas and providers servicing the community, noting that the Board members have had conversations with the providers. Mr. Walsh noted that the Board is aware there is an issue and believes that a good first step would be for certain members of the Board to have discussions with the providers about concerns and potential solutions. Mr. Walsh stated that establishing a dialogue would be a helpful step in the process. Ms. Gagné noted her concerns with only having certain Board members at meetings with the Township’s fire and EMS providers. Ms. Gagné stated that a better approach would be to invite the individual companies to a public meeting to present information to the entire Board. Ms. Gagné stated that she did not believe that spending money on a third-party company was necessary at this time. Mr. Hellmann recommended contacting the other fire and EMS providers in the Township and speaking with them about these issues. Mr. Hellmann recommended that other members of the Board do this as well. Mr. Walsh asked if the Board had a vision for providing the best service to the community or if it was too early to have that discussion. Mr. Hellmann stated that it was probably too early to have that discussion and a third-party may need to be involved. Mr. Walsh stated that his concern about completing a study specific for West Goshen Township since these entities serve other municipalities. Ms. Gagné discussed the history of financial requests and noted that the justification for funding is not always presented to the Board. Ms. Gagné discussed EMS coverage and that it may make sense to only have Good Fellowship Ambulance Company service the entire Township. Ms. Gagné expressed her continued support for Goshen Fire Company, but noted that she must lookout for the best interest of the Township’s taxpayers. Ms. Gagné discussed Good Fellowship Ambulance Company’s operations. Mr. Walsh asked how this would impact Goshen Fire Company’s ability to provide fire service to the Township. Ms. Gagné stated that she does not


believe that she can answer that question at this time, but noted that she believes that fire service was a separate issue. Mr. Walsh stated that he would be comfortable having two (2) members of the Board starting the discussions with the providers and reporting back to the Board. Ms. Stuntebeck stated that Good Fellowship Ambulance Company and Goshen Fire Company could potentially be partners. Ms. Stuntebeck stated that it is important to obtain as much information from the providers as possible so that the Board can best understand their positions. Mr. Walsh noted the importance of having members of their respective boards present and framing the goals of the Board. Mr. Walsh opened the floor to comments from the public. Margie Swart stated that she believes that this is a good issue for the West Chester Area COG to discuss. Ms. Swart discussed the local services tax collected by the Township and believes that this should be separated out and analyze how this is distributed. Mr. Walsh stated that the Board is not at this point yet. Ms. Gagné stated that this is a shared service and it was important to speak with neighboring municipalities. Doug White stated that it may be more efficient to have a model based on the number of calls for service. Kimberly Holman, Executive Director for Good Fellowship Ambulance Company, started that the providers did approach the West Chester Area COG about this issue previously. Ms. Holman noted that there is no side-by-side comparison that can be completed and each company is structured differently. Ms. Holman stated that the goal should be to have it operating efficiently without the need for a dedicated tax. Ms. Gagné and Ms. Smith volunteered to draft a position paper for the Board to review. Mr. Bashore recommended that the Board meet with Andrea Testa, Fire Marshal/Emergency Management Coordinator, prior to meeting with the providers. No action was taken. Discussion and possible appointment of Keith Smith to the West Goshen Township Historical Commission for a term to expire on January 1, 2025. Mr. Bashore stated that before the Borough of Supervisors this evening is consideration of the appointment of Keith Smith to the West Goshen Township Historical Commission. Mr. Smith has been a participant with the Historical Commission for a period of time, with minutes of the Historical Commission listing him as a member in 2019. Mr. Bashore stated that he has found no documentation in any of the Township’s records indicating that he was formally appointed by the Board. Mr. Bashore stated that it is his understanding that he has been a good participant with the Historical Commission. Mr. Bashore stated that he would recommend that Mr. Smith be appointed to complete a term ending January 2025, which would fill the current vacancy. Mr. Walsh asked about the number members currently appointed to the Historical Commission. Ms. Stuntebeck stated that there are currently 11 members. Ms. Stuntebeck discussed Mr. Smith’s involvement with the Historical Commission. Ms. Stuntebeck made a motion to appoint Keith Smith to the West Goshen Township Historical Commission for a term to expire in January 2025. Ms. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the Board on the proposed motion. No comments were noted.


Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the public on the proposed motion. No comments were noted. There being no further discussion, the motion appointing Keith Smith to the West Goshen Township Historical Commission passed by a vote of 5-0. Approval of the bills to be paid for the General Fund, the Sewer Revenue Fund, the Waste and Recycling Fund, and the Capital Reserve Fund. Mr. Walsh made a motion to approve the bills to be paid for the General Fund, the Sewer Revenue Fund, the Waste and Recycling Fund, and the Capital Reserve Fund as presented. Mr. Hellmann seconded the motion. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the Board on the proposed motion. No comments were noted. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the public on the proposed motion. No comments were noted. There being no further discussion, the motion approving the bills to be paid for the General Fund, the Sewer Revenue Fund, the Waste and Recycling Fund, and the Capital Reserve Fund as presented passed by a vote of 5-0. Discussion and possible approval to amend the February 1, 2022 meeting agenda for the West Goshen Township Board of Supervisors Ms. Stuntebeck made a motion to amend the agenda to add the discussion and possible approval of Declaration of Disaster Emergency for Winter Storm Kenan. Ms. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the Board on the proposed motion. No comments were noted. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the public on the proposed motion. No comments were noted. There being no further discussion, the motion amending the February 1, 2022 meeting agenda passed by a vote of 5-0. Discussion and possible approval of a Declaration of Disaster Emergency for Winter Storm Kenan. Mr. Bashore stated that before the Board of Supervisors is consideration of a Declaration of Disaster Emergency for Winter Storm Kenan. Mr. Woodward stated that this would normally be something that the Township would do in advance given the size of the storm, but they did not anticipate the size of the storm prior. Mr. Walsh asked if there were an extraordinary expenses. Mr. Woodward stated that there were not, but the Township used a considerable amount of salt and overtime. Mr. Walsh made a motion to approve a Declaration of Disaster Emergency for Winter Storm Kenan. Mr. Hellmann seconded the motion. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the Board on the proposed motion. No comments were noted. Mr. Walsh asked if there were any comments from the public on the proposed motion.


Margie Swart asked for an explanation of this process. Mr. Bashore explained that if Pennsylvania exceeds a certain threshold of damage costs, issuing this declaration would make the Township eligible to receive reimbursement. There being no further discussion, the motion approving a Declaration of Disaster Emergency for Winter Storm Kenan passed by a vote of 5-0. Public Comment. Mr. Walsh opened the floor to public comment on items not on the agenda. Margie Swart asked about the Public Works Department’s brine program and cooperative agreements with local municipalities indicated on the Township’s website. Mr. Woodward stated that this is outdated and the Township currently does not engage in this practice. Mr. Woodward explained the history of this program. Ms. Swart asked if there was any follow-up to her question on the December Treasurer’s Report. Mr. Walsh explained the process and noted that it will be reflected on the January Treasurer’s Report. Ms. Swart asked if there was any decision on the Fraternal Order of Police dues paid by the Township for certain Police Department employees. Mr. Walsh stated that no Board member raised taking any action on that matter. Steve Permanente recommend that the Board be cautious in their analysis of fire and EMS service for the Township. Adjourn There being no further discussion, Ms. Gagné made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 pm. Mr. Walsh seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the motion adjourning the meeting passed by a vote of 5-0. Please view this meeting’s video recording via YouTube with the link located at www.westgoshen.org. Respectfully submitted,

Christopher Bashore Township Secretary