Route 56 residents, former councilor continue calls to abandon Potsdam water/sewer project

May 20—POTSDAM — Once more, public scrutiny was directed toward the town's project to build a water and sewer district on Route 56.

A few residing within the district, alongside a former member of the town board, brought up the matter during the town board's meeting on Tuesday night, addressing current board members and Supervisor Marty Miller.

At the outset of the meeting, Miller reiterated his request for patience from the district's residents as he endeavored to address concerns about the perceived excessive costs and financial strain on the residents.

A primary point of contention remains the uncertainty surrounding the true cost of the project until the design phase is finalized and the town can solicit bids for the actual construction. Moreover, the anticipated expenses continue to escalate, surpassing initial estimations.

Last year's estimates pegged the sewer project at approximately $8,109,500 and the water district project at $6,665,000. The town has already allocated around $1 million for design work to Canton-based firm C2ae, funded upfront from a $2.5 million bond secured by the town for this purpose, with hopes of offsetting these costs through subsequent grant funding.

Although $7 million in grant money has been secured for the project, additional funding is being pursued. However, reimbursement through grant funds won't materialize until construction commences.

Given the persistent delays in the project's commencement and the higher-than-anticipated costs, the project will necessitate another vote by district residents once bids are obtained.

However, several homeowners residing in the area are urging the town to abandon the project immediately, fearing that the projected expenses will ultimately deplete their finances.

Town officials, on the other hand, advocate for perseverance, suggesting proceeding with soliciting bids and subsequently holding a public vote. During the meeting, Miller mentioned that USDA Rural Development, one of the entities offering a reimbursement grant for the project, recently confirmed that the town isn't required to secure all necessary property easements for water and sewer lines before initiating the bidding process, addressing a concern raised by the public in recent weeks.

As the situation stands, if the town withdraws from the project as proposed by several Route 56 residents and former town board member Judy Rich, the district's residents will be responsible for repaying the debt incurred from the design work, amounting to just over $1 million.

This would occur without receiving any water or sewer services and without access to the grant funds intended for reimbursement.

Even if the district's residents later vote against the projects, they would still be obligated to repay the $1 million debt without any grant assistance.

Nevertheless, several residents remain staunchly opposed to the projects. During the May 16 meeting, the small group of district residents in attendance, along with Rich, a longstanding critic of the water and sewer district project from her time on the board several years ago, outlined their concerns regarding the districts.

"I just became aware walking in here, that there have been talks between you and the village. Are you going to talk about that now? Because I think that would be very useful for people to understand that," Rich said.

There has been public comment at past meetings asking why the town doesn't try to lower its project costs by trying to work out some kind of arrangement with the village to secure water service for the Route 56 district from a nearby village water line, instead of investing in the potentially expensive construction of a water reservoir to supply the district instead. Apparently there has been some discussion on the matter between the two municipalities.

"Judy... I understand that. But I cannot comment on this," Miller said. "Yes, there's been a little bit, but, you know, I'm working on it... It's very early."

"It just bothers me that we're forging ahead on the town's project and there might be light at the end of the tunnel."

"Well you still have to forge ahead even if there might be light at the end of the tunnel," Miller said.

"But forging ahead is costing money," Rich said.

"No, it's not costing us any money right now Judy," Miller said. "We're not spending any more money. Right now we're at where we're at. We're waiting. We have to wait for the bid process to happen. The money's already been borrowed. Whatever wasn't used is still sitting there in the account. If the projects go under, then that money goes back."

"But with interest. It's not just sitting there. It's with interest," Rich said.

"It's not public comment. It's not public comment Judy," said Town Clerk Cindy Goliber.

"As far as what you brought up (talks with the village), I'm not going to put that out there in public. There is work. Like I said, let me do my job. Okay, and I'm working it okay. That's all I ask," Miller said.

"Give me the opportunity. Give this board the opportunity to do what needs to be done," Miller said. "And if at the end of the day it doesn't work out, I've done everything, we've done everything that we can do. No stone is going to go unturned."

"You think, do you really think Judy, that I'm going to sleep good at night knowing these people are going to be stuck with a bill for 30-something years with nothing in the ground? Really?" Miller said.

"Then why didn't you quit when Roger (Linden, the village's bond attorney for the projects) said to quit?" Rich said.

"Roger said to quit?" Miller said. Linden last November had urged the town to drop the sewer district project due to higher than expected cost projections.

"End it now. End it now and hand back that money you said was still in the account. Because you do not need to do this at all," interjected Tom Maroney.

"All right, we are done with this," Miller said.

"And you know it," said Maroney.

Later, during the public comment segment towards the end of the meeting, Rich explained why she has not supported the Route 56 districts.

"Frank (Cappello, town's municipal attorney) and Cindy (Goliber, town clerk) can attest to the fact that from day one when this project came on I had lots of qualms about it and I asked lots of questions," Rich said. "One of the questions I asked is why just the people in Route 56 have to pay for this, why not the whole town? I was told that it was state law. Lie number one. It wasn't state law. I didn't know that for years."

"The second thing was, once we started in with [C2AE] that was going to do, you know, the plans and stuff, I said 'How much is this going to cost?' And they said, you know the powers that be on the board, they said 'Forty thousand dollars.' I said well I can live with that. Of course now we are at one million six."

Rich mentioned that throughout her tenure on the board, there wasn't a single meeting where she didn't inquire about the project's cost and its impact on Route 56 residents.

"And I was constantly given a runaround. Now sometimes when you get a runaround, it's for several reasons, or one. It could be total ignorance. The people answering you don't know what's what. Number two it could be graft and corruption. Number three it could be pride. And I think when it comes to this particular board it's pride."

Rich asserted that both Miller and Roger Linden, the project bond attorney, are aware "this is a bad idea financially for the individuals." She insisted it was time for someone to demonstrate "leadership," acknowledge the project's mistake, and apologize for the incurred debt.

"But that's not what happened, you all forged ahead," she said. Rich mentioned that even if the project unfolded as the town desired, it would still impose an excessive financial burden on the residents.

"I'm ashamed to have been a member of the board that pushed this along," she said.

Kinga Snell, a property owner residing in the district, also addressed the meeting, detailing the costs incurred thus far on the project, including design and preliminary legal work, totaling a little over a million dollars. She questioned the town's decision to borrow a $2.5 million bond to cover that expense in 2021, which accrued approximately $59,000 in interest.

James Snell, who has been vocal against the districts in recent board meetings, also criticized the project.

Rich and others also expressed criticism of how the first vote in January 2021, held during the COVID pandemic, on setting up the districts was handled as a special election without the option for absentee voting.

The vote resulted in 19 in favor and 10 against, out of nearly 80 possible votes on the issue.

Goliber asserted that the special election was conducted properly according to state election law and that allowing absentee ballot voting would have required every resident of the district to register to vote at the town offices prior to the special election.

During the discussion, Miller reiterated the town's need to establish infrastructure to facilitate future development, noting that businesses and companies seek to relocate out of the village centers into the town to avoid additional village taxes. However, he acknowledged that the lack of infrastructure hampers this attraction.

The public comment period gradually evolved into a conversation punctuated by interruptions and attempts to provide explanations.

In the earlier part of the meeting, Miller announced that town councilors Allyssa Hardiman and David Sanford had compiled a fact sheet addressing numerous questions raised by district residents about the project during the last two meetings.

The town plans to send out this fact sheet to district residents in the coming days.

Additionally, district residents will receive notification about an upcoming special public hearing concerning the project, providing them with an opportunity to ask questions and provide further input. Miller mentioned that the date for the hearing will likely be confirmed sometime next week.