In an action described as contentious, the Environmental Protection Agency has served the Borough of Catasauqua with a non-compliance order. The borough, along with 125 other Pennsylvania municipalities, received the letter from the federal agency June 5 and addressed the implications at a June 30 council workshop.

According to Solicitor Jeffrey Dimmich, the EPA contends the borough did not comply with its requirements for storm water management.

"We did comply with all aspects of the requirements, but the difference is a semantic one," Dimmich said.

As he explained, the EPA delegated the responsibility for storm water management to the state Department of Environmental Protection. Subsequently, the EPA felt the DEP was not adequately enforcing existing regulations and pulled reports for an audit. In its review, the EPA determined that Catasauqua did not respond to the parameters as outlined in EPA regulations.

After receiving the EPA citation, Dimmich, in a private discussion with local officials, pointed out to EPA staff that all the required information was provided and submitted appropriately.

Although the EPA admitted that it missed the reports, no one at the EPA has the authority to withdraw the non-compliance order.

Dimmich suggested that the borough file a federal appeal to highlight the borough's grievances against the EPA.

"If we let a non-compliance order go through, even though it is wrong, the EPA still regards it as a bad mark," he said. "Any future problems carry a fine of $32,000 per day, because the EPA would consider the borough a repeat offender."

Dimmich expressed his concern that errors of this type cause unwarranted expenses to the borough that could be avoided if the federal agency was interested in protecting the environment rather than reverting to semantic differences on how a question was answered.

Also at the workshop, developers of the Mansion House, a business and apartment building on Front Street, asked the borough to forgive a series of fees. According to Councilwoman Deb Mellish, the developers were assessed with $15,000 in development fees.

"There was a woman who ran the place as a rooming house, but when she got older, she could no longer afford the fees for four separate rooms," explained Councilman Brian McKittrick. "She then asked the borough to revert to a single-family [dwelling classification]." With the single-family classification and no opportunity to revert to the old rooming house arrangement, changes to add four apartments upstairs and a business store front downstairs were assessed impact fees. The developers said there are no changes in the size of the property nor are there any additional units added. The fees were unexpected.

Mellish said she opposes assessing the fees.

"We are trying to get developers into the area, particularly on Front Street, and now they have these additional fees," she said. Dimmich indicated council could waive the fees. Borough Manager Eugene Goldfeder did not attend the meeting.

The council's general government committee, which can recommend action, was at a loss to determine the extent of its authority. The committee will take the matter under review and consult with the borough manager when he returns.

In other action, Dimmich explained the costs incurred by the borough as a result of the building collapse on Crane Street may not ever be recovered.

"We are looking for the owner," he said. "I got a call from the insurance company of the house next door and they are looking for the owner, as we are."

The property will be sold, but the price will not likely cover the costs incurred to demolish the structure.