Lock Haven council hears stormwater-fee study proposing ERU charge to fund decades of repairs

A consultant presented results of a year‑and‑a‑half study on Lock Haven's stormwater system and outlined options for a dedicated funding program based on an Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU).

The consultant said the city inventory includes roughly 45 miles of alleys and streets, about 26 miles of storm sewer, roughly 1,300 storm inlets and more than 300 manholes, with many components 50–75 years old and nearing the end of their useful life. The presentation framed the problem as primarily one of drainage: undersized or failing storm sewers, collapsed pipes and damage to curbs and pavement that push water into the levee system downstream.

To pay for system repairs and a multi‑decade renewal, the consultant described a 3‑prong program (replace undersized storm sewer, repair/construct curb and gutter to establish flow lines, and repair/reconstruct pavement and base where needed) and explained how a stormwater authority or department could collect revenue. The central billing unit in the study is the ERU, defined by impervious surface (roof, driveway, sidewalk); the consultant reported a typical ERU for the city of about 2,700–2,800 square feet and described how nonresidential parcels would be converted to ERU counts using GIS measurements.

The study included sample revenue scenarios: an ERU charge of approximately $27.29 per year was shown to generate about $200,000 annually; a $50 annual ERU would generate roughly $367,000; and a $100 ERU would generate roughly $750,000. The presenter emphasized that the city could pair an ERU charge with grant and loan programs (PENNVEST, federal infrastructure programs, ARP/CARES funding) to leverage outside funds for larger projects.

Council members asked how alleys would be treated (the consultant said alleys are typically addressed with narrower drainage and paving solutions and currently have no dedicated revenue source) and raised equity concerns because a significant portion of the city's land is tax‑exempt, meaning taxable properties would shoulder the burden without adjustments. The presenter noted credit programs (e.g., rain barrels, on‑site stormwater practices) could reduce fees by up to 50% for eligible property owners.

Council direction and next steps: staff asked council whether to continue pursuing the option and to compile questions for the consultant. Members asked staff to gather additional detail on ERU calculations, alley coverage, and how grants and PennDOT/PENNVEST programs might be paired with an ERU fee. The consultant and staff said they would return with more information and post answers to council's questions on the city website.

The council did not adopt a fee or ordinance at this meeting; the presentation concluded with an agreed plan to continue study and provide written follow‑up for council review.