- By Dan Veaner
- News
Print 
The heart of the controversy is that residents on Algerine Road who can least afford new fees have good, working wells. Those on Lansing Station Road, where some wells have failed health Department inspections, are better able to pay the fees. The district must include both, because water must run from the existing water main on 34B down the hill along Algerine Road to Lansing Station Road, which parallels the Cayuga lake front.
Some Algerine Road residents have told the Board they would lose their homes if saddled with fees, which do not include hookup or water usage. Fees are estimated to be an annual $574 per household, based on a 5% loan from the State. Town officials have submitted a "hardship determination application" that could yield lower or no interest rates that could reduce the fees to as low as $277 per year.
As in past meetings residents for water sat on one side of the Town Hall while those against sat on the other side. Noting that there was no way to make all the effected residents happy, Board members explained what led them to vote for or against the proposal.
During the public hearing part of the meeting Sherry Norman, who with her husband owns a mobile home park on Algerine Road, read a statement saying they want their property to be excluded from the district if it is formed. "We are licensed water system operators and we do not need public water," she said. "Should the Board include our property in the district we expect a detailed analysis and explanation of the benefit to our property under these circumstances." She also said that because of the high cost approval by the State Comptroller will certainly be required, and noted seven procedural problems that she thinks can be legally challenged. She asked the Board to save residents and themselves legal costs by voting against forming the district.
Asked by Councilman Marty Christopher whether the Board had committed procedural errors, Town Attorney Guy Krogh replied that he did not think so based on the articles of State procedure the Board has chosen to follow. He promised to review Mrs. Norman's list to double check that procedures had been followed correctly. "If there's a hole," he said, "we'll plug the hole."
Board members expressed their distress to those assembled at having to vote on a situation that could disenfranchise some residents. It's what we get elected for, to make these decisions," said Councilman Bud Shattuck. "Some of you are going to be happy, and some are not." (See below for the full text of Board members' statements and how they voted).
With the Board's determination that the district extension should be formed, the next step is a permissive referendum and the Comptroller's approval. A permissive referendum means that if residents initiate a referendum, those effected by the formation of the district will vote on it. If there is no referendum within 30 days, or if there is and the vote is "yes" the proposal goes to the State Comptroller for approval. If approved the Board will adopt the final resolution so that construction may begin. If not the Board will adopt a resolution closing out the procedure.
|
 Bud Shattuck: YesI appreciated that both sides came and spoke to us. Some people thought we dragged our feet, for some people way too fast. And at least one person feels we haven't followed exact procedure. I think we have been fair in presenting what the water district is. This isn't the first iteration of it that's come to the Board two other times before. We have our Town Engineer who has done all the drawings and mappings and has been involved in all of the expedited parts of the financials throughout. We have had the same legal council, Thaler and Thaler, involved throughout. So I think those parts we've done the right way. I'm somewhat stymied about how I should vote. I didn't just want to say yea or nay without being able to at least express my dismay over the way this is happening. I'm not happy that we on the Board have to decide between one group of people getting something or one group of people not getting something, or some having to pay for something that they don't think they need. And quite possibly they don't. At the same time we don't have a legal obligation as a town to provide that service, though I know that people that spoke out said we do, we don't as a town. Villages and cities do have to provide it, but towns are not legally obligated to provide it. We do have health considerations and I'm cognizant of those. I understand that our lake deteriorates every day, and what we have going into our bedrock and flowing down into the lake. Water and public sewer protects and prevents those things from happening. It bothers me that the whole process has ended up that if we adopt this it will force the people who don't want it, who are probably the least likely to be able to pay for it, to foot all those costs. On the other hand if we go the other way then we ask the whole town to foot the cost for a benefit district and I think that is probably even less fair. I just wanted to explain those parts of it. It's what we get elected for, to make these decisions. I don't think there's an easy way. Some of you are going to be happy, and some are not. I'm sure you all knew that when you came here. As a Town Board member I have not gotten one single call. I've been on the Board for ten years and I assume that means that everyone is happy with the process as it goes. My number is on the Town Web site, my cell phone is strapped to my belt all day long and I never shut it off. I've never turned it off in the four years that I've had it. I expected that if there was a lot of dissent or a lot of pro movement toward this that people would call me, and that hasn't happened. I think that I've felt worse about how this goes than other people other than their personal indignities that happened over cost or lack of water. |
 Marty Christopher: YesLet me explain a little bit about how I feel about it. Believe me, I don't think any of us up here find this an easy decision, especially when we look out and see the "fors" and "againsts" sitting on either side here. However there is one thing that I think some of you may not be aware of. The fact that we adopt the consolidated district tonight isn't, as I think some of you feel, going to mean that this is concrete, this is the way it's going to be, that it's going to happen right away. This is still just part of the process. I think there's a misunderstanding about that. So when you hear our votes tonight, realize that this hasn't been an easy decision for any of us. I want to make sure you realize, too, that we haven't just come to our decisions (snapping fingers) like that. |
 Connie Wilcox: NoUnlike Bud, I have had calls. Lots of calls. I live in that area. I am not in the water district. I understand fully the need for the water down on Lansing Station Road. I understand you folks have had problems with water for years. That's not my issue. My issue is the cost of the water and what it's going to cost the people who can't really afford it. They may end up having to sell their homes that they've worked hard for, what little bit they are, because they aren't going to be able to afford it. I think that we need to explore the option of some kind of funding for this. (addressing at the "pro water" side of the room) Nine hundred and some dollars per year, I can understand that you can well afford it. I understand that and I feel bad that you don't get water and I understand your situation. But you've got somebody else who can't afford it. I think if you people would just sit back and take a look... if it was the other way around. If they needed the water and you had the water you probably would feel the same way that they do. I'm not against the water district at all. I'm not. I'm against the cost of it and what it's going to do to a lot of people that are my neighbors. I cannot in good conscience, I would not be doing my job as a Town Board Member being fair to everyone in the Town if I voted yes. |
 Doug McEver: NoI've lived in Lansing for eleven years now. Prior to Lansing I lived in Van Etten. We had no municipal water. We had lousy water. It ruined our clothes, it ruined our materials. Special soaps, special cleaners, special systems to try to keep things going... I hated it. So I understand what's going on on this side of the board. I would love to see that water district in. But in the last three or four months I started seeing the other side. People who are just barely making it like I used to twenty years ago. Trying to figure out where that extra nickel was. I finally did find a way, but we as a board have to look at whether we are displacing people in the process of voting. That's where my final decision came up about a half hour ago in my mind. I went back and forth, back and forth. I couldn't figure out which way I wanted to go with this. But I see five or six families that are going to have to leave that area. Then when i heard that the (mobile home) park wants to be exempt from it... that's going to add even more expense to individuals if they win that case in court, or if the (State) Comptroller says yes. Are we really going to put people out on the street? I feel bad for the people who don't have clean water or good water. For years I had to make do. So my vote is going to keep people from having to move their homes. That's why I'm voting no tonight. |
 Steve Farkas: YesI've been involved in this water district since 1988 and each time that it's come forward there were not sufficient numbers to say "yes." Creating the district takes fifty percent plus one. That's what it takes. I feel that I, Steve Farkas, am honor bound by the fact that I said "if you come with the numbers than I would have to support moving forward to support the district. I have to be able to state to everyone that this is what I said. I said come with the numbers. And I need to stay there, and I need to state that. |
v1i23