×

Waves of cooperation

By SAM DRAYO Jr.

This letter is in response to your editorial (July 14) headlined “How a village uses a town” in which it was stated the Fredonia Village Board “sticks it to its neighbor,” the town of Pomfret, in selling water.

This editorial is unfair to the village, does not present the facts correctly. It detracts from the many years of cooperation between the village and town. Some history would be helpful in understanding the relationship between the town and village concerning water and sewer services.

Before water districts were established, residents who purchased homes outside of the village purchased their homes knowing there was no public or municipal water available. Although there is no obligation for the village to provide water outside of its jurisdiction, over the years the village has served six water districts within the town of Pomfret.

The village could have taken a position that the village is saving all its water exclusively for future village use. Instead, the village board chose to share its supply of water with its neighbors as long as the village was assured its supply of water to its village residents would not be rendered insufficient. Such a finding is required by village law before the village can sell water outside its territory. The village always needs to be sure it has sufficient water for it residents and businesses and college and for future water use.

About three years ago, before the closing of Carriage House, the village approved a water supply contract with Pomfret for a very large water district known as the Pomfret North End Water District.

The water mains in the new Pomfret North End Water District have now been installed by the town. Approximately 250 Pomfret residents within the North End Pomfret Water District (a specifically described area) are now receiving Fredonia water. To Pomfret’s credit, Pomfret shared equally with the village in the costs incurred by the village to hire an engineer of the village’s own choosing to assure the village that it has an adequate supply of water to sell to Pomfret without causing any problems for the village.

There are two other residential Pomfret water districts. The Berry Road Water District, a large district, which was established in 1958 and now has 101 customers and the Chestnut Road Water District with 28 customers. Both Districts have been receiving village water for many years. There are two other small commercial water districts. The village also supplies water to businesses in Pomfret on the east side of Route 60 across from McDonald’s, Tim Hortons, Lucky Lanes, etc., which are in the village.

The purpose of the above is to show that Fredonia has an excellent record of sharing its water services with Pomfret.

Regarding the costs to Pomfret, most villages and cities charge outside water customers more than inside of village customers. There is nothing wrong or unusual in charging outside water customers more than inside village water customers.

The town of Pomfret has not paid the costs incurred by the village over many years to construct, maintain and update the village water treatment plant, dam, reservoir and distribution system prior to Pomfret’s connection to the village water system. Fredonia has a substantial amount invested in its water system. The law allows the village to take into consideration the value of its property used in production of water over and above its operation and maintenance costs. To have a town water district connect to the village water system at the same cost charged to inside of village customers would not be fair to the village.

The right for the village to charge an outside of village water district is set forth in the Bill of Rights of Local Governments – part of the state Constitution – which authorizes the village to receive from Pomfret water districts what is referred to in the law as a “fair return” on the village’s investment. The rate or fair return is set forth in agreements between the town and village.

The village water system is a constant, but necessary expense. The village is now performing engineering studies to improve its water supply which will be costly, but necessary to keep in compliance the state regulations.

Contracts between the town and the village also provide that when there is an increase in water charges to village residents, there is also an automatic increase to the town.

To compare the differences in water charges between the town and the village the example provided below by the village Administrator Rick St. George, is helpful and shows the rate per 1,000 gallons.

Example:

A household using 60,000 gallons annually. Village resident annual cost: 60 x $3.52 = $211.20 + $100 base rate = $311.20 – Yields an effective rate of $5.19 per 1,000 gallons

Town resident annual cost: 60 X $5.98 (1.7 X $3.52) = $358.80 + no base rate = $358.80 – Yields an effective rate of $5.98 per 1,000 gallons

This town household would pay 79 cents per 1,000 gallons more than a village household or about $4 per month more than this village household.

Another example:

A town household using 70,000 gallons annually would have an effective rate of $5.98 vs. the village household effective rate of $4.95 or $1.03 per 1,000 gallons more or about $6 per month more than the village household.

So the rates are reasonable and not substantially different for a village household vs. a town household.

Regarding commercial rates, when former Mayor Lou Mancuso was Fredonia’s mayor, businesses on the east side of Route 60 (Pizza Hut, Patton’s, etc.) unanimously petitioned the village and town to be annexed to the village. By becoming part of the village, these businesses would have received water, sewer and fire and police protection without any special charge. There would be a village tax, but the businesses still felt they were better off to be part of the village and pay a village tax rather than spending more for municipal services as an outside customer and being dependent on water wells and septic systems.

The Village Board had no objection to the annexation. The town would still receive a town tax from the businesses if they became part of the village, although somewhat smaller than before annexation. The town was informed by the village that the charge to the businesses, since they were profit making ventures, would be three times the village rate without annexation. The town turned down the annexation petition, which it had the right to do, and the premium rate was then established by the village for businesses.

Because the village does not have an unlimited supply of water, use of village water in town water districts is limited to residential use, except for the existing businesses on Route 60 in Pomfret and where prior written permission is granted by the village board. There are other restrictions in the village-town water contracts to ensure that village water is not sold to the town beyond certain limits which would impair water service to village residents.

Regarding sewer services, it should be noted that the village of Fredonia shares its wastewater treatment plant, at a reasonable cost determined by formula, with the Chautauqua County PPD Sewer District which comprises parts of the towns of Pomfret, Portland and Dunkirk. Almost all the area served by Fredonia is between Lake Erie and Route 5. The village’s wastewater treatment plant is located in the town of Dunkirk.

Approximately 500 customers outside of the village and in the PPD Sewer District are now served by Fredonia. Previous to the construction of the village sewage treatment plant in 1979, this area had serious sanitation problems with septic systems, and in some places the odor was terrible. In many places along the lake homes and cottages were difficult to sell and market values were poor. Because of many small lots within the sewer district and poor soil conditions, new septic systems would be very expensive and in many cases would not correct the problem.

The village, in sharing its sewage treatment plant facility with its neighbors, corrected serious sanitary sewer problems within the townships and increased the marketability and value of the homes.

In conclusion, the village has an excellent record of sharing its services with Pomfret and others at a reasonable cost. I doubt there is a municipality the size of Fredonia in Western New York that has been as cooperative as Fredonia in sharing its municipal services with its neighbors. Pomfret and Fredonia have worked cooperatively over many years.

The OBSERVER’s editorial statement that Fredonia “uses Pomfret” and is “sticking it to them” is uncalled for. By sharing its water and sewer services with Pomfret over the years, Fredonia has helped to promote residential development in Pomfret thus increasing the taxable valuation of Pomfret, improved the quality of life for many residents outside of the village who had no public water or sewer, and improved the marketability and market value of the properties served.

Sam Drayo Jr. is the Fredonia attorney.

Newsletter

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *
   

Starting at $4.62/week.

Subscribe Today