The Only Constant in Life is Change

While no longer a trustee, I intend to resume posting entries here pertaining to the upcoming budgeting process, but as a private citizen. Even while the Board and the public continue to wait on a number of salient data points, such as fund balances and accurate end-of-year budget reports, we can use available open-access data to, for example, follow year-to-year trends in salaries and  “fringe” benefits that together make up the bulk of village expenses, as well as trends in property tax rates, especially as it relates to this March’s revaluation of property values.

But first: how or why am I no longer a village trustee?  I fully expected to complete my term when I ran for office in 2021 as my husband planned to retire from Clarkson University only in 2027. Unfortunately, a major re-organization at Clarkson eliminated the School of Arts and Sciences and with that my husband accepted an early retirement offer. It then became obvious that we needed to downsize: it makes no sense for 2 people to occupy a house with 5 bedrooms, a large yard and an increasingly long driveway (it seems). 

As we began to re-home numerous belongings no longer used or required, Marie Kondo style, I hoped to simultaneously continue analyzing village budget reports to prepare for this year’s budget negotiations. But as village staff have been unusually busy with the very successful pursuit of federal and state funding for various high-profile projects, it became apparent that my efforts to obtain the minutiae of past and current expenses and revenues were placing excessive strain on staff. In time, perhaps, accurate and complete end-of-year budget reports will be released to the Board, the public and New York’s Office of the State Comptroller, or perhaps staff will wait for a future external audit firm to supply those numbers, but either way, I will have too little time for the nitty-gritty analyses that could have helped in the design of the next budget. And therefore I retired from my position a bit early.  

As stated in NCN, it has been an unparalleled honor and privilege to serve as your elected representative on the village board! I will treasure that experience for the rest of my life: learning the brilliant design of representative democracy with its innate self-regulation of checks and balances. So too, I learned to treasure New York’s generous open access laws and the amazing, effective support for elected officials from NYCOM and NYOSC.  To those who might also seek public office, know that as a new, “green” representative, you will receive as much assistance and support as you could possibly hope for: online classes, in-person meetings, free-access manuals, CPAs and legal counsel available 8-5 every weekday via NYCOM and NYOSC and much, much more. Please consider running for the two empty trustee positions next November, and bring your energy to bear on the direction the village moves!

Till next time, your friend,

Monique

Missing Financial Data

As citizens of the village and their elected representatives continue to wait for the release of  the FY23-24 (June 1, 2023 – May 31, 2024) annual budget report to learn the sizes of the village budgets’ surpluses or deficits, I will at least highlight a couple of items from the previous year’s FY22-23 budget report. With particular interest about how the village accrues excess dollars, I scanned the FY22-23 annual budget report for larger-than-expected revenue items as well as smaller-than-anticipated expense items. Three items (out of about 900 items) in particular jumped out.

The Board budgeted $10,000 in revenue from Interest & Earnings. However, as interest rates hovered near 5% and the village’s investment portfolio was sizable, the FY22-23 budget report shows that the village earned $247,192 in Interest & Earnings, not $10,000.  In other words, the village’s revenue in this category exceeded expectations by $237,192.

Sales Tax revenue was budgeted to bring in $1,550,000 but instead our municipality received $1,781,490. In other words, the village received $231,490 more sales tax revenues in FY22-23 than expected and budgeted for. (Sales Tax revenues often exceed expectations, as the State Comptroller wisely encourages municipalities to make conservative revenue-estimates to protect against downturns in spending.)

Finally, the 5 Contingency line items (to cover unexpected expenses in the General, Water, Sewer, Hydro and Recreation Funds) were funded by the Board for $327,285 at the beginning of the fiscal year.  At the end of the fiscal year (i.e. by May 31, 2023), the budget report shows that $114,909 were spent by these 5 contingency items. That means that the village received $212,376 more in (tax) revenue than it spent on its Contingency line items.

Together these 3 items resulted in a net profit to the village of $681,058.  To put that in perspective, that amount of money could have been delivered by $2.95 per thousand dollars of village property value.  It is very nice to have a big buffer in savings to shield against misfortune, but should the village operate with such profits?

The Board has yet to see the budget report for fiscal year FY23-24 that ended 6 months ago, on May 31, 2024. The Board budgeted $12 million towards operations: how many of those dollars were not necessary? Hopefully the people and their representatives will soon see that annual budget report, with actual end-of-year expenses and revenues, both on the village website as well as an excel version for Trustees to analyze. Without financial data, the Board can not deliver oversight and accountability. I encourage everyone to peruse these documents, or request them from the village Clerk, to gain familiarity with the where and hows of village operations, revenues and expenses.

Riddle me this, St Lawrence County

Thanks to Jeff Chudzinksi’s helpful overview of the proposed 2025 St. Lawrence County budget in the Nov 29 – Dec 5, 2025 issue of North Country Now (“County hikes tax levy, cuts rate; budget adds 10 jobs”), we learn the following:

The year-to-year county tax rate will decrease 2.5%, from $7.15 to $6.97 per thousand dollars in property value, compared to 2024…

At the same time, the county-wide tax levy (or take) will increase from $54,051,752 to $56,545,493; an increase of $2.5 million or 4.6%. How to reconcile that the levy goes up, yet the tax rate comes down?

A bit of math determines how much total, county-wide property-value is required to raise $54,051,752 with a tax rate of $7.15: 

$54,051,752 = $7.15 * Total Property Value/1000  gives that the total assessed value of the County last year was $7,559,685,594 or $7.56 billion.

While for 2025: 

$56,545,493 = $6.97 * Total Property Value/1000 gives that the current total assessed value for the County is $8,112,696,269 or $8.11 billion.

Bottom line: the total property value of the County rose by $553,010,675 or $553 million, a whopping 7.3%.

If the 7.3% increase in total assessed value is due to the addition of new businesses like bitcoin mining in Massena, that’s great for everyone (else). If instead the increase is due to an increase of the assessed values of existing properties (as  done in the city of Ogdensburg), then we may all end up paying more in county taxes, even though the tax rate went down! (The added tax burden on property owners in Ogdensburg due to increased assessments gets somewhat averaged over the entire County via the county-wide equalization rates.)

As always, caveat emptor, or buyer beware. Or perhaps, voter beware?

Squaring the Budget?

The village of Potsdam is currently in the middle of its 193rd fiscal year! Yes you read that correctly: our village was incorporated in 1831 so we have nearly 200 budgets under our belt!

Village budgets start anew every June 1, so our current fiscal year ends May 31, 2025. Before looking at the design of next year’s budget, which will itemize where all our municipal dollars are spent, first a brief overview on how many tax dollars businesses and residents contribute to maintain village operations.

Property owners in the village paid $17.48 per thousand dollars in property value in 2024. For example, if the Assessor listed a residential home’s assessed value at $100,000, then that owner owed $1,748.00 in village taxes.  If a property’s assessed value is twice that, or $200,000, then the owner paid twice as much, or nearly $3,500 in village property-taxes.

It is worth keeping in mind that commercial enterprises, including apartment owners, pay exactly the same village property-tax rate as residential (“R1”) owners. This is significant since businesses are always assessed at much higher valuations: For example, my neighbor’s $150,000 home sits on 0.9 acres of land and contributes $2600 in taxes (rounding a bit).  The new Stewart’s Shop on Market St. sits on a smaller 0.7 acres, but it has a market value of nearly $1,000,000 and so pays closer to $17,000 in village taxes.  Germaine to the current discussion: If this business, with the same assessed value, had been located in neighboring Canton, it would have paid $10.75 per thousand, or around $10,000 in Canton village taxes.  The difference, of around $7,000 is “real” money, being equivalent to nearly 500 NY minimum-wage hours of labor. (Note, interestingly, that when businesses shutter for whatever reason, the owner continues to pay the same amount of village taxes lest the County assumes ownership of that property.) 

As the current and following blog posts will follow the development of the next village budget, we need to ask whether the village property-tax is all the tax that residents pay towards village government? No! Residents also pay a fee for water and sewer services. How much? That depends on how much water customers use (there is one water meter per customer), but let’s assume that a customer uses 120 gallons per day. (This amount of water consumption is referred to as 1 EDU or Equivalent Dwelling Unit).  A one-family home then would pay $742.85 annually towards municipal water and sewer services. Businesses that use a lot  of water, whether a car wash or a laundromat or a college dormitory, may pay 10 or 100 times this amount. (Yes, non-profits also pay water and sewer fees.)

So for example, if my $150,000 home uses about 120 gallons of water per day, I must pay the village nearly $3,400 in village combined taxes. Next I will try to summarize what operations and services these dollars enable, before posing the question: would it make sense to activate a different tax rate for commercial vs non-commercial enterprises?

Surplus Moneys

The village administration’s financial goal? To ensure that none of the village’s budgets operate with deficits: The net revenues received each year must cover both the anticipated and surprise expenses for that year (surprise expenses are covered by so-called “contingency” lines in the budgets). And so the Treasurer, with help from the Administrator, carefully records and monitors every single payment to ensure that the board-approved budget holds.  

But every budget is designed with unknowns: We make best guesses as to how much sales tax revenue we will receive this year compared to last, for example.  Such guesses are likely to be off, resulting either in a reduction or an increase in anticipated revenues. Expense estimates are also likely to be off: Prices may rise significantly, for example, for chemicals like salt and sand for de-icing roads or there may be an increase or decrease in the cost of gasoline that leads to over- or under-spending certain line items. In spite of the uncertainties, department heads make conservative expense lists and the Treasurer carefully monitors and reports to the board whenever any line item begins to be overspent, requiring transfers from other line-items that are expected to be underspent. The board approves all such transfers and adjustments during the open board meetings.

In all, this strategy of operating without budget deficits has served the village well: it is now 10 years since any of our 3 main budgets (for the water, the sewer & the general funds) has been in the red:  The village’s various budgets have operated with surpluses for all that time. How much surplus? Well, 10 years ago the village inadvertently eliminated its general, sewer and hydro fund balances, wiping out all its holdings in those funds. This emergency required a sudden $500,000 loan in order to pay employees. The emergency also drew the attention of the Office of the New York State Comptroller, who drafted a “how to avoid going into fiscal stress” manual for the Village of Potsdam, linked below. And today, far from being in the red, we currently hold a cumulative $7m in “the bank”, seemingly amounting to an average surplus of $700,000 per year…or is it?

Surprisingly, I have not been able to ascertain how and where most of these surplus dollars arose: the sources of the annual surpluses remain unclear in both the published, board-approved budgets as well as in the monthly budget reports. Are surpluses caused by one or more funds requesting more funding than necessary to cover their actual costs? Were there unplanned infusions of federal or state funds?  Or are most of the “surpluses” actually not surpluses at all, but money already committed to pay for services or parts not yet delivered? This information might be included in annual board-approved budgets and/or in monthly budget reports, but it is not. Instead, this information has been provided to Trustees by external annual audit reports: independent CPA firms that pour over every aspect of our municipal financials in order to confirm that everything is correct. The external, independent auditors create voluminous annual Financial Statement reports that summarizes all aspects of village expenses and revenues; from health benefit costs for current and former employees and their dependents to total debt payments on current and future debts, to any red flags that indicate caution required. Unfortunately, the external audit reports have either been missing or provided too late to aid in budget preparation the last few years.  This very unfortunate development provides our Treasurer’s office with a great opportunity to include these data in our in-house data reports: both in the monthly budget reports as well as in the annual board-approved budgets, to aid Trustees to develope future budgets.

Without knowing the so-called “unrestricted” amount of savings in each fund at the end of each fiscal year, the board cannot design the best budgets. Best budgets are made when Trustees see why, and by how much, revenues and expenses fluctuate every year, and adjust the tax rates accordingly.  We most definitely do not want to go into the red in any fund, but neither do we have permission to operate any fund at a profit: If tax payers can pay all the bills with a 15% reduction in tax rates, then they have the right to know that, or the board needs to justify why the rates need to remain inflated.  Caution dictates that we should invest every resource available to obtain the annual fund-balance numbers in-house and not wait a moment longer for external auditors to report on the annual unrestricted fund balance for each fund.

References:

https://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/31231/20160310/how-did-potsdam-become-the-most-fiscally-stressed-village-in-the-state

https://www.osc.ny.gov/local-government/audits/village/2017/05/26/village-potsdam-financial-condition-2017m-61

What’s New this Week on the Village Board

• This week Potsdam’s new Economic Developer, David Thurlow, has invited Village Board members to a Visioning Exercise “to brainstorm and explore key elements of our community’s collective identity and vision for the future of the village”. This meeting will be held in the Civic Center Meeting room after the regular Board meeting on Monday 21 October. Curious to hear each board member’s hopes for future Potsdam? This may provide that opportunity.

• The Director of Potsdam Village’s Recreation Department, Trey Smutz, has developed flyers advertising activities available via our Rec Department – and they look great: Whether to reserve a spot for a Pine Street Arena Ice Skating Birthday Party; or to kayak & paddleboard in summer; or to ice-skate, hockey & snowshoe in winter; or to enjoy pickleball, all the information will soon be available and posted on the village website and FB page.

• Potsdam’s skatepark project moved forward!  Economic Developer Fred Hanss  released  two “Statements of Qualifications” from two firms able and willing to design a skatepark for Potsdam. The statements will be studied by the Skatepark Committee who will deliberate which of the two firms would make the best design. The Board likely will follow the recommendation of the Skatepark Committee and hire that firm for design plans. Once drawn, the design plans will be used by a yet-to-be-determined construction firm to build the skatepark. Funding for all this from NYS DRI. 

• A number of home owners who have endured too many flood events has invited members from the 3 overlapping municipalities of the village, town and school to assemble in one space to discuss the growing frequency and intensity of  rain storms. What might we, collectively, do to mitigate the damage of more frequent and intense rainstorms, snow melts and wind storms? The meeting will be held on Monday 28 October at 7:00 pm in the Town Office’s Community Room.

• The ElectroScan lead detectors are still surveying the village’s water lines for  lead contaminants.

• SUNY Potsdam hosted a one-day Local Government Conference geared to Assessors, Clerks, Board/Finance members, Code/Planning members and DPW crews.  I attended the DPW sessions on the growing concern around PFAs or forever chemicals in our environment. More on PFAS in future.

• Climate Smart Community co-organizer Sue Powers has requested the village administration’s involvement in efforts to examine options for free or low cost composting drop-off sites for residents. Efforts to introduce food scrap recycling at CPH hospital and PCS schools are on-going.

That’s all for this week’s continuing developments on the village board…

What’s in the Pipeline for the Village?

The village is currently involved with numerous projects in various places in the pipeline from conception to engineering & environmental reports to execution.  Projects still in the early, planning stages can be adjusted and affected by public input/ideas/suggestions/concerns: these can be shared directly with staff and board members during board meetings or communicated via emails and/or letters to the editor.

Here is a partial list of projects, in random order & filtered thru my limited grasp of  particulars:

Downtown StreetScape Enhancement  A re-design of sidewalks & crosswalks in the downtown area, to improve overall appearance and appeal. Design and funding complete; awaiting actual construction. Funded by NYS grant program (DRI)

Riverwalk Trail  An attempt to create an inviting, continuous riverfront walking trail along the Sandstone Dr overpass to Garner Park and Raymond St, on to Market St and Maple St, and so back to Sandstone Dr.  This project fits in naturally with the Munter Trail and will hopefully blend in with an eventual Garner Park to Fall Island Footbridge, described below. Design specifications and funding complete, awaiting actual construction. Funded by a NYS grant program (DRI)

Garner Park to Fall Island Footbridge  An effort to replace an exposed and vulnerable cross-river sewer line with a secure line beneath a footbridge linking Garner Park to Fall Island. Preliminary designs complete, and efforts to secure funding for the engineering & environmental reports underway.

Skatepark An effort to site an in-ground skatepark on Fall Island at 19 Maple St. Funding by NYS DRI approved, but environmental remediation required, as this spot was once occupied by a gas station. This site may also face higher scrutiny due to its proximity to the river as well as sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places (Trinity Church as well as 17 Maple St)

Brooks St  A new short roadway to link Depot St and Raymond St alongside the Potsdam Mall.  Funded separately from the DRI projects mentioned above, this new roadway is an integral part for improved car and foot traffic behind the downtown portion of Market St. This project has obtained its requisite Environmental Impact Report and its design specifications are being finalized before construction can begin. Funding for the engineering & design specifications came from a Federal grant (NBRC).

Toilet for Ives Park  This idea appeared in the 2013-2023 Potsdam Village Comprehensive Plan. Project nearly complete. Funding for construction came from the Federal American Rescue Plan (ARPA)

Boathouse for Ives Park  Another concept being discussed is the construction of a boathouse on Ives Park. Boating enthusiasts would be able rent space to store their boats and non-boat owners could rent kayaks to paddle the Raquett, taking advantage of the handy boat launch already installed.  The boathouse committee consists of 2 trustees and 3 residents who all enjoy paddling. This project is still in its early planning phase and welcomes comments from the public.

Lead Lateral Identification and Replacement Currently on-going, a federally as well as state mandated effort to identify and eliminate every trace of lead in our water pipes. Testing to ID all water lateral lines contaminated with lead is funded by a NYS grant (EFC)

Airport Improvement Efforts to lengthen and improve our runway and fencing around the municipal airport to permit larger carriers, including UPS and possibly commercial airlines, to land and take-off here. Design complete and construction due to start in summer of 2025.  90% of funding from Federal grants (FAA), the remainder (about $20,000 as I recall) from local property taxes

Safe Streets and Roads for All This addition to the village’s project list is an effort to obtain funding to improve roadways throughout the village. Part of this effort is in conjunction with the Town of Potsdam.  Likely included in this effort would be redesigns of Rtes 11, 11b and 56 to improve both safety and visibility for pedestrian and bicycling usage.  This project is still in its initial planning stage: funding is sought for an overall study.

Stormwater Drainage Improvement: An urgent new addition to the village’s ToDo list: An effort to identify funding opportunities for the design of large holding basins (small lakes essentially) upstream from downtown, to lessen the volume of stormwater into the downtown region during massive rain events. Two preliminary studies ID-ed locations for possibly 3 holding basins to protect low lying areas along the eastern shores of the Raquette river. New engineering report required; funding sources have recently been ID-ed but applications not yet written.

Pine St Flooding Engineering Reports to study and address flood risks on the western shore of the Raquette River have not yet been undertaken. A recent significant flood event on Pine St. occurred not due to heavy rains, but due to a beaver dam break. Multiple beaver dams exist on private land and present a danger to village- and private-landowner properties downhill. A redesign of flood waters flowing past properties along Pine St and to the Raquette River is needed, but not yet in the pipeline.

Inflow and Infiltration into Sewer Lines  The sewer plant experiences significant threat of overflows during heavy rain events due to persistent inflow and infiltration of rain water into sewer lines during rain events. In addition to the threat of overflows at the sewer plant, I&I leads to the eruption of untreated sewage onto village properties when sewer manhole covers erupt during rain events. An Engineering Report describing the I&I problem facing Potsdam’s sewer lines was completed in 2022 and remedies suggested, but no action was taken and no further work on this in the pipeline.

Comprehensive Plan  Every municipality is strongly encouraged by funding agencies as well as the Office of the State Comptroller to have a comprehensive 10-year plan delineating its visions for the future. This document not only protects the municipality from legal challenges of ad hoc or capricious taxation, it also provides strong support for funding from agencies: If two municipalities submit equally compelling funding requests, the funding is likely to go to the one with an up-to-date comprehensive plan.  Potsdam’s comprehensive plan expired in 2023 and while funding has been requested to have an outside agency oversee the generation of a new plan, no committee has been named to work with the Planning and Zoning committees to tackle the many preliminary tasks involved.  Resident involvement here especially vital.

Sale of Municipal Hydrodams  Potsdam’s return on investment on the hydroelectric facilities has been negative since 2008. To date, village tax payers have been required to cover the cost of a 20 year, $5 million loan for the west dam, as well as a 20 year $3 million loan on the east dam. The west dam is inoperative, after 5 years of service. The east dam works at close to optimal efficiency and generated $136,000 in credit last year while the total annual operating costs (including debt payments) of both hydrodams amounted to $490,000. Local property taxes paid for the difference. The sale of the hydrodam(s) is on hold: no discussions around this critical matter are occurring.


Pine St Arena The arena at Pine St is in bad shape and needs a complete overhaul.  Funding requests for an Engineering Report have been submitted.

Other matters brought up during board meetings include: Reducing the village’s carbon footprint by making municipal buildings more energy efficient; Studying food waste recycling efforts; Filling empty storefronts downtown and on outer Market St; Isolating water use on the three campuses (SUNY, CU & CPH) so the village does not pay for water losses on those campuses; Rebuilding the retaining wall on Fall Island, among others. Public input welcomed on all matters, including new members for the village, zoning and planning boards as well as the eventual comprehensive plan committee…

Mixed Blessings

St Lawrence County is big: it has 2,680 square miles! It is one and a half times bigger than the next biggest county, Essex, and it is more than three times the size of the average county-size of 820 square miles.  Is this a blessing? 

Consider that St Lawrence County (SLC) maintains 573 miles of county roads, as opposed to a smaller county like Westchester which maintains only 160 miles of roadway.  Meanwhile the primary revenue source for county road maintenance are county property taxes: the more property value per county, the lower and the more reasonable the tax rates.  The total property value in SLC is $7 billion according to the 2023 NYS Office of the State Comptroller’s office, while Westchester’s is $210 billion.  So while SLC has 3.5 times more roads to maintain than Westchester, we have have 30 times lower property value, which seems unfair.

Meanwhile, the net revenue of most institutions is closely tied to population density.  Shopkeepers rely on customers to make financial ends meet.  Nonprofits likewise rely on net usage to either charge or receive funding to continue operations.  Here too, SLC is at a disadvantage, as it has the sixth lowest population density (40 people per square mile) compared to, say, Westchester, with a population nearly 60 times bigger. Nonprofits like ReachOut of SLC or Hospice of SLC face the daunting task of providing services over hundreds of miles, from Massena to Gouverneur to Star Lake every day, with minimal employees as state funding decreases with number of people served.  K-12 schools and emergency first responders face similar battles for survival in SLC.

Certainly I consider it a blessing that we can drive our kayaks to remote isolated lakes and waterways and hike pristine mountain passes. But I would feel better were the population of St Lawrence County increasing rather than decreasing, and were the pool of people ready to assist the many essential services in our county bigger.

The Role of Village Trustees?

While the Potsdam Village Board of Trustees busied itself with Ives Park projects and parking matters, I wondered what the village’s department heads considered high priority projects? Thanks to “Village Department Head Surveys” completed last year as part of the 2023-2033 Comprehensive Planning Process, residents can learn which tasks our department heads consider vital for the village. I report here primarily on the most cost-heavy items.

The head of the Hydro Plant lists as the first item:  Sell the west dam. The west hydrodam was meant to cost $3.5m and to begin operations in 2009 for 30 years. Instead it required $5.5m in loans, began operations in 2015, and ran for merely 5 years. The two municipal hydrodams together require around $120,000/year to operate and maintain. In addition, there are the debt payments: the West dam debt payment is $265,000 annually, until 2029. The East dam debt payment is $115,000 annually, until 2046.  The operating east dam meanwhile generated $136,201 in credit last fiscal year, leaving an annual deficit of $455,544 that continues to be paid from the tax-payer’s General Fund. 

The head of the Water Treatment Plant (WTP) lists 13 capital projects and equipment needs required to ensure the continued operation of the WTP, to the rising purification standards set by State and federal laws…and to prevent the roof from leaking (The water treatment plant on Raymond St dates from 1983 so is over 40 years old). I understand that this update/upgrade will be as expensive as the sewer plant update of 2020.

The head of Planning & Development states “Village infrastructure will be the single largest challenge for the next decade and beyond. Water and sewer lines, the cross town canal, underwater sewer lines and new federal standards for drinking water/waste water will only add to the cost and complexity of the Village’s systems…The Village needs to focus its efforts on infrastructure, preparing engineering studies so that it is prepared to annually apply for funding…An engineering study for the tail race wall at Evans & White needs to be commissioned. The wall is in poor condition and may be undermined given water bubbling up under pressure from Evan’s parking lot…”

The head of the Recreation Department writes that the expansion and remodeling of Pine Street Arena is a high priority goal.

The head of the Sewer Department (aka the Waste Water Treatment Plant or WWTP) does not report urgent needs at that plant thanks to the complete recent rebuild of the WWTP, a rebuild that required a $12m loan that will be paid off in 2051. (While there are no operation issues here, the head of the WWTP points to the fact that one high-expense item at any waste water treatment plant is power consumption, and that technology exists to extract energy from the heat and gasses generated during waste water treatment.  Incorporating such technology at our WWTP would reduce expenses and waste.)

Between the water treatment plant on Raymond St. and the sewer plant on Lower Cherry St. run about 30 miles of underground water and sewer piping as well as the various ditches and channels that constitute our storm-drain system, all of which is purview of the Department of Public Works or DPW.  While maintaining streets, picking up brush, clearing fallen trees and snow etc, DPW also monitors the operation of all sewer and water mains as well as the cross town canal. DPW  also deals with random challenges and crises, from beaver-dam breaks that inundate properties on the western shores of the Raquette river, to tiled fields to the east that direct massive inflows of stormwater into our cross town canal drainage system. In addition, two cross-river sewer lines “have reached the end of their useful lives and need to be replaced” according to a 2022 Engineering Report  entitled Inflow and Infiltration Study prepared for the Village of Potsdam by the firm EDR. This report additionally details  how and where leaks enter  the sewer lines during rainstorms, and quantifies which below-ground pipes must be lined. The challenges DPW is tasked to resolve, in other words, are many, diverse and complex, and may not have obvious resolutions in some cases.

The heads of other departments (Police; Clerk/Registrar; Treasurer/Administrator; Fire; Safety/Code Enforcement; Museum) either had not yet filed survey reports or did not report urgent and high-cost Capital Outlay/Equipment needs.

Infrastructure repairs and construction bear high costs:  The EDR Inflow and Infiltration Report, for example, quoted a cost of $9.3m to replace the aging cross-river sewer pipes and to line all leaking underground sewer pipes.  For context, the current tax rate in the village is $17.48 per thousand dollars of property value.  If the Board had been tasked to raise an additional $1m from property taxes this fiscal year, we would have had to raise the tax rate to $21.97 per thousand dollars of property value. For a home worth $150,000, that would have represented an increase from $2,622 to $3,296, an additional 673 dollars.  

Department heads run their respective departments efficiently and effectively. They will continue to work with the Administration to ensure the continued operation of every aspect of infrastructure and services, and will resolve each issue/crisis as it arises.  Getting Trustees up to speed on the many gnarly issues that each department faces would benefit everyone-so that realistic budgets for the next budget year as well as upcoming budget years may be developed.  But reports such as these Department Head Surveys are not generally distributed to Trustees: it took weeks, if not months of repeated requests to obtain copies of these reports. Likewise, it was by chance that this Trustee obtained a copy of the 2022 EDR Engineering Report that provides hugely helpful insights into the why, where and how costly is the  inflow/infiltration problem facing the sewer lines, a report that should have been front and center in the hands of every Trustee. 

Why is it so difficult to share information? Is it unwise for residents to be aware that the wall abutting Evans & White is crumbling and may give way? Why should Trustees not read a village-funded EDR Engineering Report-while we were yes asked to approve a seemingly competing “Raquette River Utility Crossing Project”?  It is deeply frustrating that the Village Board of Trustees are informed of developments only after all groundwork is complete, all pertinent decisions have been made, and all boundary conditions laid down – Trustees are requested to approve only the final budgeting. The frustration arises as many questions appear not to be asked and many angles appear not to be considered, increasing the likelihood of unproductive and costly dead-ends, like the West Dam.  Does the administration believe that questions and open discussions imperil rather than strengthen the chances of a projects’s success?

What Happened with Water and Sewer Billing?

Water and sewer rates have been adjusted to reward water conservation: If you currently use less than 40 gallons per day (gpd)  you will pay less than previous years while if you use more than 40 gpd you will pay more. (40 gpd translates to 1,200 gallons per month or 4,000 gallons per quarter)

I use around 6,000 gallons/quarter so I pay a bit more than last year. 

While the rate change encourages water conservation and gives people some control over expenses,  it’s likely to create a financial crunch for the village: Most of the water and sewer departments expenses are not tied to water use, but to salaries and debt payments not tied to water use.  Expect W/S rates to be adjusted annually as we continue to try to balance the financial constraints of households and businesses against the expense of operating state-of-the-art water and sewer plants.