The following materials relate to attempts to require PECO to bury overhead utilities in Spring City, PA, and to efforts to develop an alley and parking along the old Schuylkill Canal in Spring City, PA.

1. In the summer of 1986, Spring City Business Association (now dissolved) began an unsuccessful effort to bury wires on Main Street (Bridge to Chestnut). I enclose a copy of the 1989 petition to the Small Business Advocate, who was not interested in helping us. As SCBA has been dissolved, I wanted to be sure that the Borough (as well as SCRF and SFCC) had key SCBA information relative to this project, in case anyone is interested in pursuing this matter, which is one of the prerequisites for establishing a strong commercial tax base in Spring City.

Then, as now, PECo Energy opposed spending its funds on this project. Most recently, PECo Energy referred me to PUC Tariff 10.8 regarding relocation of facilities by third parties (e.g., relocation by developer or municipality). The problem seems to be the difficulty that PECo Energy may have in recovering these costs over PECo Energy's entire rate paying area. SCBA explored the possibility of securing state legislation to cure the problem and determined that the legislative effort was not likely to succeed. Obtaining grants to complete the job, or producing some incentive for PECo Energy to do the project, are the only ways I can imagine to move this project forward.

The Borough can contact Chuck Lowrie (610-380-2441) if it wants to begin the process of getting a rough estimate of the current cost of this project. He would put the Borough in touch with Mike Fabian, who does the "walk-through" estimate. If the borough decided, after hearing the estimate, to push the project, the procedure, according to PECo Energy, would be as follows:

1. Borough researches grants, expected PECo/Bell contributions, possible business contributions, and other funding sources available to pay for the project;

I do not know whether any of the legal mechanisms mentioned in the enclosed petition will provide any leverage in negotiations with PECo, nor do I understand the effect of electric provider competition on the matter. While I do not personally intend to retain PECo as my electric provider if PECo's facilities are not buried in the future, I do not know if a boycott of PECo by Spring City businesses and residents would have any effect.

2. Canal Alley. The borough should explore the possibility of securing Tax Parcel 14-5-398.1 and 14-5-398.2 if still owned by the Flag Company or the current developer of the Flag Company lot. Extensive private efforts to develop Canal Alley parking have continued without success partly due to the absence of a common access alley.