BY ADAM ATKINSONNorth Country This Week

POTSDAM — Residents continued to voice familiar concerns over the possible costs of the town’s Route 56 water and sewer districts project at an informational meeting last week, and answers provided by the town’s engineers didn’t seem to wash away the worries.

The town board held an informational meeting Thursday, June 20 to try to clear up any questions and concerns being voiced by residents of the districts at many of recent town meetings.

Some residents from the districts where the town plans to route extensive water and sewer infrastructure at a cost expected to pass $15 million are livid about what the cost of the project could end up at and want the plug pulled on the whole thing. To offset that expense, the town has secured about $7 million in grants and is looking for more.

Property owners of the district are also highly critical of annual water and sewer bills they will receive, some saying the bills will be as high as $1,800 each for water and sewer. 

Residents have also questioned the validity of a legal vote by district residents in January 2021 on the project. At that vote 19 district residents voted in favor of the project, 10 against, out of about 80 potential votes. 

However, the town would prefer to finish the small amount of design work left and put the project out to bid to get a better idea of what the final price, still unknown, will be.

The design work, done by engineering firm C2AE has run the town over a $1 million already and was paid for by money from a $2.5 million bond the town obtained to cover the upfront cost.

From the perspective of town officials, if the town pulls out now, district residents, by state law, will be obligated to pay off the design cost. The grants the town has secured that will reimburse the project later will not be able to be used to offset that debt. Residents in the district, about 80, will be forced to pay off more than $1 million without any grant offset.

However, a few residents in the district, and a few town residents living outside the district, think the whole thing should be scrapped now before any more money is spent, regardless of the long term consequence of being saddled with an unforgiven debt.

Jay Berkman, C2AE engineer, was on hand to answer some of the questions in the sometimes rambling meeting. However, the district residents critical of the project did not seem soothed by the answers.

Former town board member Judy Rich, who doesn't live in the districts but who has been an outspoken opponent of the districts, raised concerns over what she views as the costs of the water and sewer service to district residents, and over the cost of the design work on the districts thus far.

"At another time, I would like to know what your company did for over a million dollars with nothing built obviously," Rich said to Berkman.

"I think of myself as an intelligent person... but when I was listening to you talk, I bet there wasn't two people in this audience that understood what you were saying. It's all a musha musha musha musha musha and I could see things that made no sense just on a cursory reading," she said of the initial presentation on the project at the top of the meeting. "I have many, many questions. Anybody with half a brain would have questions about this."

Rich said district residents would have a difficult time selling their homes to potential buyers with an $1,800 a year water and sewer district bill to pay for in addition to the sale price.

"I just feel ashamed of the board that I was on, and ashamed of this board, for thinking that spending 1500 dollars, 1800 dollars a year is chicken feed to people who live along that route," she said.

Property owner Jim Snell thanked the board for setting up the meeting but said property owners may have been unaware of the financial burden the districts might incur for the residents and property owners there.

Snell said there was no mention on the referendum voted on by property owners in January 2021 of the $2.5 million bond the town took out to pay for the design and up-front costs.

"In other words, the referendum just stated, 'Let's establish a water sewer district.' If someone was going to vote on that and did not know the expenses involved ahead of time, then they didn't know what they were voting for. So I seriously wonder about that referendum being valid," Snell said.

He said communication with the property owners of the cost and other project details was insufficient.

Snell also questioned how the district service bills property owners have already received were calculated and further questioned if the engineering firm's equivalent dwelling unit numbers upon which usage rates are based were correct.

"The accountability and transparency has not been offered properly," Snell said.

Berkman pointed out that a public hearing was held before the vote detailing the cost, which is required by state law. He also said the EDU rates were set according to the legal process.

Berkman pointed out that Rich was on the board when the engineering contract with C2AE was signed and that the contract is a national engineering contract form and that the contract is open to the public. He said the firm presented the cost for each phase of the design to the town at public meetings and could provide the breakdown to those wanting a copy.

Berkman fielded other questions from those attending the meeting on rates, EDUs calculations, design costs and other concerns.

District resident Kinga Snell was highly critical of the numbers presented by the engineer on the project and asked Berkman for details on a timeline for expenses on the project over the years. She was also critical of how the vote was presented in the ballot.

"Apparently we went to different schools. They must have taught us math differently, I'm sorry," Kinga Snell said to Berkman.

Snell claimed the 2021 vote was not to simply allow the formation of a district as it turns out but said the vote in 2021 required the residents of the district to "underwrite" any money the town wanted to spend. "What we were asked to do was agree to this project but that's not the way the ballot was worded," she said.

Not all of those gathered were against the project though. Tennessee resident William H. Kenny, who owns the school house property on Route 56, spoke in favor of the project through Zoom.  

"For those of you who are looking at property value, I promise you that your value will increase greatly with public utilities on it," Kenny said, addressing naysayers.

Kenny said investors would not purchase commercial property unless it had public utilities.

"As an investor myself I can tell you I would never buy land on this corridor without public utilities," he said. "That goes for rental properties as well."

Kenny then addressed those who were questioning the openness and convenience of the vote on the district that was held initially. The property owner said he wanted his vote to count on the district and traveled from Tennessee to show up.

"Some of you have voiced your distrust in how some of the decisions were made in how the financing was handled," Kenny said. "But, I'm sure New York State and the USDA will have a very close eye on all financial aspects of this project."

Kenny said when the district residents voted initially in January 2021, it was clear from his reading of the resolution that the residents were voting to allow the town to obtain a bond of up to $10.3 million for the project when the referendum passed.

"We could spend two hours trying to armchair quarterback the decisions that were made but at the end of the day no one had any idea what effects COVID was going to have (on the cost) of this project. But spending hours questioning the validity of the vote is not going to get us anywhere," Kenny said.

"The money has been spent to get this project to bid. It will get to bid. So we can have that money argument at the next referendum meeting prior to the next vote," Kenny said.

"Any overall cost of this project is purely speculation, period," he said. He added that if the project goes to bid and it comes in under the original estimate, the project goes to construction and no additional vote will be required.

Kenny also pointed out that the people fighting easements, or refusing them, are in effect costing the other district property owners money ultimately by requiring extra design fees, legal wrangling and restitution costs.

Kenny did put C2AE on the spot, however. Kenny said that many of the concerns of the district residents and property owners of the district projects could have been better alleviated by better clarity and transparency about the project by the engineers and the town. He said a promised Q and A webpage on the town website hasn't been updated since 2021.