By ROBERT SCOTT

This letter is in follow-up to my remarks made during the village of Fredonia’s public meeting on Feb. 20 in regard to a water rate increase. I stated I could not honestly argue against the $2 increase per 1,000 gallons proposed but the trustees needed to share their studies to substantiate the second $2 increase that was suggested as being necessary. Later in the meeting, a trustee offered a breakdown of the cost of the seven components in the proposed water rate which I will now attempt to verify.

In simple terms, the expenses (item A) divided by the billed metered water (item B) should equal the water rate (item C). The trustee only provided item C leaving me to make assumptions of items A and B. I used the figures in the village budget to establish the expenses (item A) and the average annual billed metered water figure from table 17 on page 14 of the Labella report to establish the metered water (item B).

The village treasurer may have used actual figures accrued to date — that I am not privy to — or a combination of the actual and budgeted figures but I feel that the results should somewhat mirror each other.

I will list the seven components with the per 1,000 gallon rate stated by the trustee first followed by the rate I was able to determine. They are: (1) General government expense, 53 cents and 48 cents; (2) Administration, 21 cents and 19 cents; (3) Water distribution, $1.50 and $1.25; (4) Debt service, 92 cents and 83 cents; (5) Fringe benefits – $1.46 and $1.32; (6) Purification – $2.93 and $2.66, and; (7) Capital – $1.27 and cents. The total rate as stated by the trustee is $8.82 and the total for my calculations is $7.56 — or a difference of $1.26 per 1,000 gallons.

The next step I took was to try to establish the reason for the difference between the two computations. Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 all had an approximate difference of 10.5%, which made sense to me as they were items that should not vary greatly from the adopted budget. Item 3 (water distribution) revealed a difference of 20%, which could be due to the number of unanticipated repairs on the lines that we are all aware of. Item 6 (Purification) only showed a 10% increase even after all of talk of the price increases in chemicals unless less was used. Finally item 7 (Capital) revealed a difference of 53% which can probably be explained by all of the expenditures for scatter meters, drum scales, security fencing, tree removal, etc. that has been undertaken lately to try to stay in compliance. In every instance I was able to explain the difference, but did not feel confident in my results.

I went back to the simple formula and divided the expense (item A) by the water rate (item C) of each of the seven components hoping to find billed water (item B) similar in both studies. What I found was the average annual billed metered water per 1,000 gallons in the village study for the seven components worked out to be approximately 228,400 units whereas I had used 251,240 units per the Labella report.

The difference is 10% which is approximately the same figure for the five relatively stable components of the seven listed above. So, is the reason for the $1.26 per 1,000 gallon difference the reduced billed meter water usage? I needed more proof to feel comfortable in my assumption. In looking at table 14 on page 11 of the Labella report I noticed the WCA Home is no longer using almost 784 units of billable water a year and I believe a car wash is no longer in operation for a loss of 755 units a year. But the two examples only amount to 1,539 units of a 22,840 unit difference, so I was still uncomfortable disclosing my findings publicly.

That feeling changed with the information presented at the Monday Village Trustee meeting.

The treasurer’s report for January stated that the water fund lost $439,131 and the sewer fund lost $348,521. There has been no discussion of unforeseen expenses or problems with the sewer system, so why the loss? Is there one common item in play for both funds? Yes and that is the revenue generated in each fund is based on the billed meter water (item B) and less billed water means less revenue and a loss. Of course, only determining what the village study used for billed metered water (item B) could verify that assumption, but now I feel comfortable disclosing my findings.

In conclusion, it appears 63% of the second $2 increase will go to make up lost revenue and not to cover expenses.

Robert Scott is a Fredonia resident.