By Abby Luby //
Town board members voted to approve the formation of the Scotts Corners Water District on June 11. The vote was 4-1, with town board member Dan Paschkes voting against the resolution.
The town has strongly endorsed the creation of the water district, a status required to receive a state Water Infrastructure Improvement Act grant whose application deadline was June 14. If the grant is awarded it will help pay around 70% of the proposed project to install a drinking water distribution system. The urgency to create the district is not only the timely application for the state grant but to mitigate drinking water contaminated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS, and other substances such as tetrachloroethylene and methyl tert-butyl ether that has been found in private wells of the commercial and residential units.
The project would involve purchasing treated drinking water from the Aquarion Water Company and would cost an estimated $10.8 million. If awarded, the state grant would be for $7.5 million. The water would be piped to the 39 businesses and residential units in the downtown business area.
The town board vote was taken after the required public hearing where a packed room of Pound Ridge residents and Scotts Corners business owners aired their views for over two hours. Those favoring the resolution stressed the importance of ridding contaminated water from Scotts Corners business and residential private wells. Recent tests of those wells showed contaminants including two PFAS chemicals, perfluorooctanesulfonic acid and perfluorooctanoic acid that were above the state regulated acceptable level of 10 ppt. The current federal maximum contaminant limit for PFOA and PFOS set by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency is 4 ppt.
Joe DiPietro, owner of Chubby’s Hardware store spoke in favor of creating the water district. “We’ve been here for 40 years and my well has been contaminated from the Shell spill. My septic dates back to the 1940s. This town has never looked better and the business district is vital. The water district project will keep it that way.”
Also supporting the water district was Barnwell Center owner, Mark Gjelaj, who has owned the downtown center since 2006. Gjelaj told of how his well backed up in 2021 and the PFAS reading was above the acceptable level of 10 ppt. “Many landowners are supporting this to move forward and to quickly get this problem solved,” Gjelaj said.
Fred Albano, the owner of Albano Appliance, said when his father ran the business, water quality was also an issue and he supported forming the water district. “We’ve come this far. This could be a missed opportunity if we don’t aggressively pursue this. I own a business downtown and I am fully invested in the community. If the water issue causes us to shut down we lose our business, we lose everything.”
Those pushing back on the project cited possible tax hikes on residents living outside the water district and voiced fears that private home wells could become contaminated with PFAS.
John McCown referenced a report on costs and disputed estimated costs to operate the new drinking water system for downtown property owners. “I’ve compared the annual user fees of $247,000 to what the first year costs will actually be,” McCown told the board. “My conclusion is they will be at least twice as much as the report shows. That is the result even if the project comes in at $10.8 million with 70% paid by a grant. The $247,000 lowballs the real costs. That is not fair to the business district folks. They need a realistic estimate of the full cost, as the user fees cover less than half.”
Twenty-four-year Pound Ridge resident, Cheryl Schacht, noted that many were concerned with how to deal with their own wells, some of which are already contaminated with PFAS. Referring to the number of downtown parcels that would benefit from the proposed treatment project, she asked “Have my needs and the needs of the residents been taken into account? Can’t we do more studies? Are we taking a bad situation from one part of the town and changing it to put it into another part of the town? I don’t want to lose my house, my health and safety.”
Norman Bernstein also questioned if the water treatment system for the downtown would impact neighbors. He advocated for waiting for more data to come in and for new technology to be developed. “A sensible course is to simply do nothing now and allow time to get additional data on how serious the problem really is. Then, where needed, compel independent property owners to install filters on incoming water from the wells on their property if there is a health issue.”
Throughout the meeting many town residents brought up concerns about aging septic systems that could be contaminating their wells. When asked about the town’s wastewater treatment plan they were told the plan had to be postponed in lieu of
creating the Scotts Corners Water District.
Others spoke of local realtors asking about possible contamination in wells of properties and how that would impact future property sales and marketability. Board member Paschkes asked the board not to vote on the resolution but rather hold a permissive referendum where business owners could vote, thereby having their voices heard.
“There’s a right way to do this and a wrong way,” Paschkes said. “I understand the importance of the funding but for it to pass by a referendum is the proper way. I personally made promises to people assuring them the resolution wouldn’t be imposed
by town board fiat. It’s a bait and switch and it’s not right.”
According to town attorney, William Harrington, a permissive referendum for those in the proposed Scotts Corners water district would require two petition signatures, or 5% of eligible voters in the district to hold a vote.
Don Rhodes of the Laberge Group, the town’s engineering firm planning the Scotts Corners water district, said putting the issue up for a permissive referendum vote would mean taking additional time to schedule an election and would be costly to the town. “We don’t like to do projects that are not supported but we believe the path the town is on is a good one and it is a good process,” Rhodes said.
Board member Alison Boak, who is also the chairwoman of the Pound Ridge Water and Wastewater Task Force, countered Paschkes’ comments by saying he was misinformed and his statements were inaccurate. “How the district is formed has been on the website for more than a year and our task force has had numerous meetings with the business owners you are hearing today. The way we are going about this is the more collaborative way with the business district as a partner.”
One business owner at Scotts Corners who wasn’t in favor of forming the water district was Donna Simons, owner of Pound Ridge Organics. “I’m in favor of having my own personal filtration system,” she said. “I’m a very tiny landowner and business. Am I required to tap in? No one has ever approached me about this issue.”
Homeowners were concerned with the proposed bond needed to pay for the project, fearing residents outside the water district would be charged. Harrington explained that if one of the 39 parcels do not pay the water district tax a lien would be enforced on their property and, if there is a default the town would bring legal action.
“There is a well-established mechanism in place,” Harrington said. “The property owner would have to pay in full the interest and penalties or lose the property, which would be sold at auction. We do that now for homeowners that fall behind.”
Pound Ridge Supervisor Kevin Hansan noted that the formation of the water district paved the way to apply for state funds for the project. He also said other grant opportunities were being looked into. “This is a unique opportunity to go out and have a valid chance of getting funds. If we wait another year, we fall behind more municipalities looking for funds to help deal with their own PFAS issues.”
Hansan acknowledged that all public water systems have some level of PFAS. “They are all being forced to mitigate that but when it’s a centralized source it’s easier to treat.”
Comments