PROSPECT — There are a number of questions that borough residents have about a $3.2 million proposal to provide public water to Moraine State Park, which runs on an outdated water system.

Under the plan, the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) would contribute $800,000 to the project, and Pennsylvania American Water would fund the remaining $2.4 million.

This project would require the borough to pass an ordinance mandating 205 borough property owners to tap-in to the water system provided by Pennsylvania American.

Those 205 properties are those within 150 feet of the water main proposed by Pennsylvania American, leading through Prospect and north to the park.

Here are some issues about the project.

Who initiated the project?

Because Pennsylvania American had infrastructure closest to the park, DCNR talked the company, according to Terry Brady, press secretary for DCNR.

“A meeting was then set up between PA American Water and the Bureau of State Parks to begin discussion of the feasibility of supplying the park with water,” Brady said. “These discussions eventually led to PA American Water developing the current proposal.”

What does this mean for the park?

The park is trying to prevent replacing its current water system by hooking into a public water system, said park manager Dustin Drew.

However, this project will only supply about half of the park, the park’s South Shore. The aging water system still will be used on the North Shore until an opportunity to connect from the north arises, Drew said.

Why is this the funding plan?

Many residents have suggested that if DCNR pays more, then Pennsylvania American wouldn’t have to pay as much. This could then take the burden off the residents to tap-in to the new water system, they’ve said.

“The (DCNR) contribution of $800,000 was a negotiated price between DCNR and PA American Water,” Brady said.

“This figure was based on the length and size of line that would be needed at a minimum to provide the amount of water that DCNR was requesting, based on historical park usage. DCNR feels that this contribution is a fiscally responsible amount to establish a connection to the park and secure access to safe drinking water for the park into the future.

“To increase the contribution would be beyond the scope of the mission of the Bureau of State Parks.”

What are the affected properties?

The borough has released a map on its website, prospectborough.com, showing the affected streets.

A list of specific addresses is not available, according to Judy Marzullo, borough secretary.

How were the properties chosen?

Prospect Mayor James Butler said that Pennsylvania American determined how the company would reach the park.

“The borough didn’t have anything to do with the routing,” he said.

For Bob Boice, borough council member, the route may be a way to maximize new customers.

“(Pennsylvania) American Water decided how they wanted to get to the park,” Boice said. “They wanted to get the most houses to help pay for it.”

Gary Lobaugh, external affairs manager at Pennsylvania American, said the company worked with the council and park to determine the route.

“Pennsylvania American Water has met with the borough four times between Sept. 22, 2015, and Dec. 16, 2015, regarding the scope and route of this extension,” he wrote in an e-mail.

“The proposed route was based on requests by council and DCNR to provide access to public water to the borough and Moraine State Park, respectively.”

Why is the entire borough not covered by the extension?

Boice said that if public water is brought to Prospect, it would be better for it to be accessible to everyone, but that is not a realistic option for Pennsylvania American, from his understanding.

Council member Glen Gitzen agreed, saying he understood it would not be “cost-feasible” for Pennsylvania American to outfit the entire borough with public water.

But Gitzen added he believes this public water supply would eventually be expanded.

What involvement does the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission have?

Not much, according to Nils Hagen-Frederiksen, the press secretary for the PUC, which is the state agency that governs utility companies.

Before Pennsylvania American can begin this project, the company will file an application with the PUC, which will review it, testing for “technical and financial fitness,” Hagen-Frederiksen said.

This means the PUC will test Pennsylvania American’s ability to provide the service to customers and ensure there’s no “detrimental impact” to customers.

Other than that, the PUC has no involvement with local ordinances.

Many residents have voiced concern about council pushing the ordinance through quickly. They ask: ‘What’s the rush?’

A timeline presented by Gabage hoped to have the ordinance passed by council by the end of the first quarter of 2016. That is not possible because the borough would have to advertise the ordinance for 30 days before taking a vote on the ordinance itself.

Drew said there are no other projects that are necessitating this happen immediately, but that both the DCNR and Pennsylvania American want to act on the plans.

“The availability of funding through DCNR is a primary driver behind the timeline,” said Lobaugh of Pennsylvania American.

Brady with the DCNR said the timeline takes into account how much time the project will take and how quickly the park’s water system is failing.

“The Bureau (of State Parks) needs to determine the direction it will be taking with the water system improvements at Moraine State Park so that design and construction can be properly carried out, which can still take significant time.” Brady said.

“The deteriorating water plant and distribution system is what is driving the time frame, the current system is in peril and the risk of a disruption or inability to provide public drinking water at the park grows more real as time passes.”

“We do not, however, want to delay for multiple months or longer, only to find that the current proposal will not be executed and then have to begin planning other options.”

Residents question if the mandatory hook up is legal.

According to borough solicitor Anthony Colangelo, this type of ordinance is permitted under the borough code, Section 2461 of Title 8.

This allows council to mandate that a property’s owners connect to a public water supply if the property has no safe-for-consumption water supply existing or if the property is within 150 feet from the water main.

“This has been in the borough code for years,” he said.

How do members of the borough council stand on this issue?

President Bill Marciniak has been adamant council has not yet made a decision and is still looking at the facts.

Butler said he is against mandating residents to connect, although he is in favor of bringing public water into the borough.

Similarly, Boice does not like the mandatory aspect of the proposed ordinance.

“(Pennsylvania American and Moraine State Park) need the people in the borough, but I don’t like telling anybody what to do,” he said.

Boice has not made up his mind but he is leaning against making tap-ins mandatory.

Gitzen agreed, saying public water would benefit Prospect but not if people are mandated to pay for it.

Councilman Mary Harmon declined to comment until the ordinance is discussed at the next council meeting at 7 p.m. Monday at the borough office, 159 Monroe St.