Petersburgh’s Water District Law Under Discussion

by Erin Hogan
On June 7 a public hearing at the Petersburgh Town Hall about the revisions to Local Law 2 of 1986 regarding the water district was held. Town Board Members Amy Manchester and Richard Snyder along with Town Supervisor Peter Schaaphok and Town Clerk Callie Crisp were in attendance.
The meeting began with Supervisor Schaaphok asking the public if there were any problems with the revisions to the local law. Pam Eggsware immediately brought Section Two, Letter E to the Board’s attention. It states, “If the cost of operation and maintenance increase or excessive repairs to the water system are required, the fees noted herein may be raised through a resolution by the Town Board.” Eggsware was alarmed by this because it seemed that it was too easy to raise the fees that she and her fellow townmates would be paying. Schaaphok said it was changed so that if an issue arose, the Board would be able to raise the fees without making an amendment to the law which is more difficult than having a resolution. He said they were trying to make the law “more flexible” and that it “isn’t a license to increase rates.” Schaaphok said that he would look at the phraseology of the section and change it.
The next issue Eggsware brought up was Section 4 which reads, “No water shall be removed from any fire hydrant within the Town Water District except by the Fire Department for its normal use and purposes.” She brought to the attention of the Board that this was not now the case and that some residences have used water from the hydrants to fill pools. She said as well that the County has used water from the fire hydrants to fill up the street sweepers. Schaaphok said that the law is clear and no one should be using the water. Eggsware said that a while back the Town gave an individual permission to fill his pool using a hydrant and as a result the townspeople had black water for a few days. This occurred before Schaaphok was Supervisor, and he showed much aggravation and anger about this saying that if this is the case, the Town was breaking its own laws.
Board Member Amy Manchester asked who the enforcer of this law would be so that this could be avoided in the future. It was said that Code Enforcement Officer Doug Hull would be responsible, even though his job is more about building issues. Eggsware asked if the Sheriff should get involved, and Schaaphok said that would have to be the next step.
Another issue raised was in Section 3, Letter C regarding water bills and late fees if the bill isn’t paid. Tammy Dunlop said that this section was confusing because it said that “…a final notice will be issued and if the bill is not paid before the 13th day after date of the final notice, the water may be shut off until the amount is settled….” This might be confusing to some because, Dunlop said, if you get a late fee for not paying your water bill, the water will not be turned off. Instead the bill goes to the County for collection. She advised the Board that this section be taken out to avoid further confusion.
It was asked if the $250 penalty imposed on those with non-working meters was included in the six-month $135 base fee for the meter or added to the base fee. This $250 fee is added to the base fee, Schaaphok said. Eggsware said that the Board should “make it painful for [those without a working meter].” Schaaphok agreed saying, “Its not fair to those who are doing it right. They’ll pay attention when we hit their wallets.”
Schaaphok said that the Board is listening to the ideas and objections of the water district patrons and continuing to rework the law. He said there will be another meeting. “It’s important that the law is right and the people are with it. It’s difficult to cover all the bases and every possible thing that happens.” He made it clear though that the Board would work with the people until the law was the way it should be.