Water Department

Commercial meter testing

Town Board 10-13-2020

As a follow up to the law passed in June that created a penalty for the owners of commercial meters who did not test the accuracy of their meters, Water Superintendent Ken Rundel advised the board that his department had sent out about 20-25 letters (out of 350 commercial accounts) before the project was halted due to covid.  After receivnig the letters, he said that about half a dozen accounts claimed a hardship and that four or five meters were replaced.

As stated by Supervisor Slater, the issue was one of balance: the need to make sure that the meters were accurately reading the amount of water that was being consumed versus the cost to businesses during the pandemic that has created problems for businesss.  Although the board favored not pushing commercial users, Supervisor Slater did ask Mr. Rundle to send out 50 more letters and to report back on the response. 

Mr. Rundle also advised the board that some condos had commercial accounts and that the requirement to either test or replace an old meter could be a financial burden on residents with fixed incomes.

After Mr. Rundle explained that it wasn’t cost effective to test and repair a 20 year old meter, Councilman Diana suggested that the town buy the meters and lease them back to the commercial users with an annual charge. 

The board opened the public hearing on the proposed amendments and the town attorney and Water Superintendent Ken Rundle explained the reason for the amendments which” put teeth” in the existing code that requires the owners of commercial meters ( meters 1.5” or larger) to test the accuracy of their meters every three years. Susan Siegel, the person writing this summary, spoke in support of the amendments, thanked the board for the amendments and urged the Water Department to act expeditiously to enforce the code’s testing requirement. The hearing was closed and the board adopted the amendments.

While it was agreed that there were no Planning Board issues involved in the proposed legislation, Mr. LaScala took issue with the statement the water superintendent made at a Town Board meeting that there had been no testing of commercial meters for 30 years.  Calling the statement a “fabrication,” he said he gets a letter from the Water Department every year about the need to test the water supply in his commercial building and that he even pays the town a $95 fee for the testing.  Councilman Lachterman, the Town Board’s liaison to the Planning Board, explained to Mr. LaScala that he was likely confusing the required annual back flow testing with testing the accuracy of the meter that measures the amount of water used by the building.

Town Board 3-10-2020

Smart meters

(Scroll below for background on the meter replacement issue.) Water Superintendent Ken Rundle and Sensus representatives explained the multiple benefits to both the town and residents of continuing the installation of the digital meter monitoring system that the town started in 2011 but which has stalled. Only about half of the water district’s 9,755 residential customers and one quarter of the larger commercial customers are connected to the system.  Mr. Rundle advised the board that in 2019 the town lost about $627,000 in revenue from water usage that was not metered, e.g., water used for fire fighting or water main breaks, or not accurately metered because of the age of the meters. A good part of that lost revenue could be captured, he said, with the installation of the new smart meters. He estimated that replacing all the existing old meters would cost about $2.5 M and that the town was exploring the possibility of applying for a grant to cover the cost.

No decisions were made.

Commercial meter testing

(See 2-11-2020 below.) The town attorney had prepared language amending the Water Code to include a fine for non compliance but as the board had not seen the proposed changes, the decision to schedule a public hearing on the proposed amendment was put off until next week when the board would have a chance to review the proposed amendment.

Mr. Rundle explained that since parts were no longer available for commercial meters installed prior to the year 2000, commercial customers would be better off replacing their meter, at a cost of about $1,300, rather than having their existing meter tested

Water Superintendent Rundle advised the board that the town has not enforced the provision in the Water Code that requires commercial customers (anyone with a water line larger than 1.5”) to test their meters for accuracy every three years and that as meters age, they slow down, resulting in a loss of revenue.  Before his department sends out letters advising the 350-400 commercial customers to test their meters, he explained that the Code had to be amended to include a penalty for non compliance.  The board agreed and asked Mr. Rundle to work with the town attorney to draft the necessary amendment, similar t what other towns inclue in their water code.

Mr. Rundle explained that the test could cost $12,000-$15,000, and that given the age of some of the meters, and the likelihood that replacement parts were no longer available for meters that date back to the 1980s, it might be less expensive for some customers to replace their meters rather than have them tested.

Councilman Diana suggested that the town consider amending the time period for testing to something less than every three years.

In a power point presentation, Water Distribution Superintendent Ken Rundle explained the work of the department, the need for millions of dollars for infrastructure upgrades and the rational for the proposed $0.90/1,000 gallons increase that he said would cost the average household about $69 more a year.  (The presentation is available on the town’s web site, www.yorktownny.org.)  Mr. Rundle said that the rate increase would bring in an additional $650,000 a year and would only be a temporary stop gap measure.

No one disagreed with the need for the increase, although Mr. Grasso noted that the increase would be a hardship to the town’s seniors.  In response to a suggestion from Highway Superintendent Paganelli that the local law that sets the rate include some type of automatic increase so that the law wouldn’t need to be amended every time expenses went up and the rate needed to be increased, it was ultimately decided that there was no feasible way to include such a provision and that the best way to deal with the need for future increases would be during the annual budget hearing.

The board closed the hearing and voted to adopt the new law that raised the rate to $7.15/1,000 gallons, lower than the Cortlandt rate of $7.83 but higher than the Somers rate of $6.38.

Water Superintendent Ken Rundle brought up two issues: the need to proceed with the delayed cement lining project and also the replacement of old water meters with the new computer read system. He said he wanted feedback from the board on how to proceed with both projects. He estimated the relining would cost about $2.5 million and suggested that if the board decided to proceed with the project, it could be done in phases. The issue was where the money would come from as the comptroller advised the board that only $1.2 M was available in the water district’s fund balance. She added that additional funds would be available after two years when the bond anticipation note that financed Yorktown’s share of a water tank replacement at Joint Water Works was paid off.

In response to Councilman Lachterman’s question about the life span of the cast iron pipes in question, Mr. Rundle said that they could last 50 or more years and that there were many variables; many cast iron pipes in the Mohegan area installed in the 1930s are still serviceable. He added that the cement lining was good for about 25 years.

Councilwoman Roker said the town had to be proactive and that the issue was not if but when.

On water meters, Mr. Rundle talked about the benefits of the computer read technology that was installed in about 2,000 houses in circa 2011. Since the previous board put a hold on adding the meters to the rest of the district’s customers, and instead said that new meters would only be installed when a house was sold (seller or buyer bearing the cost), only 100-125 meters a year have been installed.  He said that instead of replacing the existing meter, there might be a less expensive alternative (Note:  this point was not completely clear.)  

In a separate discussion, he said that the town’s water loss (water used but which wasn’t metered and paid for) 

Leak Detection Program

Citing a 25% water loss (water the town purchases from the Northern Westchester Joint Water Works but doesn’t bill customers for) Water Superintendent Ken Rundle explained the value of the town’s yearly leak detection program. In addition to having an annual contract with an outside vendor for $20,000 who does a yearly leak detection survey, the department recently bought its own leak detection equipment. Mr. Rundle said he wanted to spend an additional $6,000 this year that would pay overtime to town staff to use its own equipment in the evening hours to do additional leak tests.  Eventually, he said, it may not be necessary to continue the services of the outside vendor and the cost would pay for itself.  He added that there would always be a certain amount of water loss but that the leak detection equipment was another tool the department could use to reduce the loss. The board gave him the okay to proceed.

Public hearing on bond authorization

Supervisor Grace explained that Yorktown’s share of the cost of the new storage tank at the joint Water Works would be $1.1 million. He did not say what the total cost would be but explained that since the new tank will be larger than the one being replaced in order to provide more capacity for Montrose Water District and Cortlandt, those two communities would be paying for the extra capacity.  He noted that the cost of the new tank is actually less than what it would have cost to maintain and paint the existing tank.

Ed Ciffone and Susan Siegel (the person writing this summary) questioned why the resolution was to bond “up to a maximum of $3 million” when the town’s share would only be $1.1 million. In response, Supervisor Grace said that the town would only be borrowing $1.1 million. When Comptroller Pat Caporale explained that the $3 million figure was based on an initial estimate and that the town only received the $1.1 million figure on Monday, she said the resolution only needed to be for $1.1 million. Supervisor Grace continued to argue for the $3 million resolution, saying he was only planning to borrow $1.1 million. But when Ciffone and Siegel continued to ask why then was the resolution for $3 million, the supervisor eventually  agreed to modify the resolution so that it would be for only $1.1. million.

Water Superintendent Rambo advised the board that after the water department discovered in 2011 that some BOCES buildings built in the 1980s did not have water meters, meters and required backflow devices were installed. The outstanding issue was how to charge BOCES for the unmetered water that had not been paid for. Using different water rates covering the unbilled period, Mr. Rambo, working with the town attorney, developed a formula that resulted in a bill of $25,947. 

Mr. Rambo advised the board that in a phone conversation with BOCES, the latter said it would pay half that amount and said it was Yorktown’s fault that meters had not been installed.   (Who, why and how meters were not installed in the 1980s remains a mystery.) After an inaudible exchange between Supervisor Grace and the town attorney that appeared to deal with issue of whether the town could legally charge for water dating back to the  1980s, the board directed the attorney to send a letter to BOCES.

The board voted to advertise a public hearing for May 3 that will deal with financing Yorktown’s 49% share of the new storage tank at the Joint Water Work’s Catskill facility. The resolution said the estimated cost of the project was a maximum of $3 million. (Note: the exact cost of the project will not be known until at least later this week when the Joint Water Works is expected to open bids for the project.) The resolution did not specify how Yorktown would pay for its share; Supervisor Grace said it could be a bond, or, if the cost came in lower than anticipated, the town may have the cash on hand.

Supervisor Grace opened the hearing on the proposed increase in water usage charges by explaining that the rates hadn’t been increased since 2006, despite the fact that the Northern Westchester Joint Water Works has increased the cost of the water it sells Yorktown.  He noted that our rates were one of the lowest in Westchester, with other rates ranging from $8-$12/1,000 gallons.

Steve Meltz said he had no problem paying the higher rate but asked that as a measure of fairness, the water meter replacement project be completed so that all residents, and not just the 2,500 who have the new meters, pay for the water they use. When Supervisor Grace explained the plan to gradually phase in the new meters by requiring that the new meters be installed when houses are sold, Mr. Meltz noted that this could take a long time. 

The water meter project was also brought up by Susan Siegel, the person writing this summary, who noted that the project would generate approximately $500,000 in new revenue and reduce expenses by about $150.000.

Supervisor Grace repeated his belief that the $2.25 million cost to complete the project would not result in sufficient additional revenue, or reduce the district’s water loss, and did not justify the expense.

Councilman Patel supported the project, noting that it was approved unanimously by a previous board.

Ms. Siegel said she supported  the increase but was concerned about what she called the mismanagement of the district’s finances over the past four years. Using a series of charts, she called attention to the district’s operating deficits and the need to use $2.2 million of fund balance to balance the district’s books for 2012-2014, with more fund balance likely needed to balance the 2015 books.

Supervisor Grace defended  cut in the district’s tax rate (a point brought up by Ms. Siegel) and  “giving back” the fund balance to taxpayers, saying that it was the taxpayers’ money and the town shouldn’t hold on to it; if we kept the money, he said, we’d spend it on things we don’t need.  He added that now that the fund balance was in equilibrium, the district could take care of the capital projects on its agenda.

William LaSacla, owner of the shopping center in Jefferson Valley, asked if the rate increase could be phased in for some of his tenants who have large water bills. In response Ms. Siegel asked the Board to enforce the provision in the town code that requirescommercial meters to be tested for accuracy every three years, something that hasn’t been done for many years, she said.

The hearing was closed and the Board approved the amendments to the local law that increased the user charge to $6.25/1,000 and automatically increases the rate to reflect the increased cost of the water purchased from the Joint Water Works.

Attending this special work sessn devoted exclusively to the Water Department were Water Superintendent David Rambo, Assistant Water Superintendent Kenneth Rundle and Human Resources Specialist Margaret Gspurning.

As with last week’s special work session with the Parks & Recreation District staff, Supervisor Grace explained that this meeting was to give the board an overview of the department’s activities and long range goals.

In addition, he advised those present that later in the evening Catherine Paget, Business Director and Matthew Geho, Operations Director of the Northern Westchester Joint Water Works (NWJWW) would join the meeting to discuss an emergency capital project. (See below for this discussion and its financial implications.)

The following were some of the long term issues that were discussed.

Increase in water rates: The board agreed to a proposed local law raising the rate by $1.25/1,000 gallons to $6.25 (two options for smaller rate increases were rejected)  and set a March 1 public hearing.  The New York City pass through charge is in addition to the $6.25/1,000. (See discussion below about NWJWW emergency capital project.)

The increase will generate approximately $1.25 million. Basedon the average customer using 90,000 gallons a year. . For homeowners who pay the minimum bill of $45/bill, the new bill will be $56.25, plus the NYC pass through.

It was noted that Cortlandt adjusts its water rates annually, by resolution, based on increases in what the NWJWW charges; there have been four increases in the past five years.  Yorktown has not increased its rates in 10 years. Cortlandt currently charges just under $8.00/1,000. (The rate includes the NYC pass through.)

Mr. Geho noted that over the past five years, there has been an average percentage increase of 5.67% in what the NWJWW charges its member components. The NWJWW has  added on a 20 cents/1,000 surcharge onto the wholesale rate it charges its members to finance capital projects.

Distribution lines: The need to eliminate what the department calls “spaghetti lines,”  narrow lines put in many years ago that typically serve only a single house. These should all be connected to the district’s main distribution line in the street.

Water loss: The district loses the revenue from about 800,000 gallons a year due to water loss, i.e., water that is consumed but does not go through a meter. The loss is attributed to leaks, malfunctioning meters, breaks, and hydrants. Mr.Rundle noted that even a large water main break accounts for a small portion of the loss.  The department spends about $20,000 a year for an outside vendor to test for leaks in the entire system; based on the repairs made as a result of the findings, the department estimates it saves $50,000 a year.  The department would like to purchase a $30,000 piece of equipment that will help it locate leaks on an ongoing basis. Mr. Rundle explained that sometimes, because the source of the leak is not where the water appears, it takes department staff additional time to find the source of the leak. The board appeared to agree that the equipment was cost effective and gave Mr. Rambo the go ahead to prepared bid specs.

Meters: The department is continuing to use in house staff to install the new meters in meter pits. A total of 2,800 new meters have been installed. (The district has 10,000 accounts.) Mr. Rambo will meet with the town attorney next week to go over the legislation suggested by Supervisor Grace last year to require the new meters be installed when houses are sold. (See below 8/11/2015.)The board also directed Mr. Rambo to test the meters used to provide water to out of district users.

GIS Mapping. There was a continued discussion of the department’s need for a new GIS vendor and Supervisor Grace’s concern that there should be some consolidation or interaction between the GIS systems used by other departments. He said he hoped to get this issue resolved in 60-90 days.

Storage tanks: The existing tanks have been inspected and are all in acceptable condition. However, preventative maintenance is needed. One vendor has proposed a five year, $2 million contract to paint all six tanks, and, after that, for $410,000 a year, inspect and monitor the tanks.  There was no follow up discussion on if and when some of the tanks would need to be painted. (See discussion below about emergency storage tank replacement at NWJWW.)

Coordination with other departments: Mr. Rundle explained that the department had no problem assisting the highway department for snow plowing (by law, the district only plows within the water district) but that if a water main break occurs while department staff is plowing, the department’s first priority is fixing the break.  Also, the department has no problem sharing its specialized vactor truck with highway for cleaning out catch basins, but it wants a water department employee to work with highway on the task.  

Roof project: The future of the small building at  the department’s Shrub Oak location remained undecided. The issue was whether the cost of replacing the roof (and removing the asbestos shingles) is worth the expense; the first bids were rejected because of the cost, and the second bids came in higher than the first, with the lowest bid at $95,000. Mr. Rambo explained that the building is used for storage and as a rest/sleep location for highway department staff during snow plowing events.  In response to a previous suggestion that highway department staff could do the roofing job, Mr. Rambo said he preferred to have the work one by a regular outside vendor. No decision was made.

Northern Westchester Joint Water Works Emergency Project

Mr. Geho and Ms. Paget explained that based on recent inspections a storage tank at the Catskill facility is failing and needs to be replaced by May/June at the latest.  (The tank passed inspection in 1987 and for reasons not known, it was not inspected on a regular basis after that date.)  Mr. Keho estimated that a new tank will cost $1.7-$1.9 million, plus the added cost for demolishing the existing tank and site work.  Depending on the site work cost, the total project could cost between $2.5-$3 million.

Yorktown will be responsible for 49% of the cost.  

Bids are due back later in February and the NWJWW board will have to make a decision at its March meeting in order to move the project forward. The new tank needs to be installed by June in order to accommodate the higher summer usage.  Because by law the NWJWW is not allowed to bond, and the NWJWW fund balance cannot absorb the cost, the component members of the NWJWW will have to make the funds available this year. Cortlandt has already approved a resolution to bond its 35% share and Somers will use its water district fund balance to fund its 6% share. Supervisor Grace put off any discussion of how Yorktown will pay its 49% share, although he did float an idea about some type of loan that was not fully explained.

Note: The board went back into executive session to discuss district personnel issues. The CIY observer left the meeting at this point.

Citing the fact that the town’s water rate of $5.00/1,000 gallons  hasn’t been changed since 2006, and that it’s “significantly” lower than rates in other towns, Supervisor  Grace is proposing to raise the rate by $1.25 to $6.25/1,000 gallons.  The town attorney was directed to draw up the appropriate local law so that the board can set up a public hearing.  The supervisor said it was his “mistake” that the rates should have been increased incrementally over the past several years but weren’t..

In response to a comment by Councilman Patel that not all water consumed goes into the sewer system, e.g., filling a pool or watering a lawn, Supervisor Grace said he would look into the issue of whether the increase would also be passed on to taxpayers who also pay a separate “sewer”  charge based on their water consumption. 

As part of the discussion, the board was advised that one of the storage tanks at the Joint Water Works will have to be replaced. Because the Joint Water Works cannot bond to pay for the project, Supervisor Grace said the project will have to be paid for either by each participating municipality paying its pro rated share of the expense, or passing along the expense as a charge on the water bills .

When Councilman Patel raised the issue of the administrative fee that district pays to the General Fund, Supervisor Grace responded that issue has been vetted  before and he defended the 6% fee.

After approving  2015 budget transfers totaling $150,000 to cover the higher than budgeted cost of purchasing water, Supervisor Grace announced that the town would be increasing water rates sometime in 2016.  

 (Note: This was the second budget transfer to cover a shortage in the water purchase budget line item; the board okayed a $450,000 transfer to the budget line item on December 15, 2015.)

The board approved a transfer of $450,000 from an unused capital projects budget line to cover the deficit in the budget line item for the purchase of water from the Northern Westchester Joint Water Works. Supervisor Grace indicated that water rates may need to be raised next year.  

Cement lining. Water Superintendent Rambo explained that an additional segment of unlined pipe was identified on Front Street and that this will be added to the three mile project, estimated to cost $1.6 million. The Strawberry Road and Baldwin Rd relining will be done next summer.

Backhoe: When the board previously authorized the department to purchase a new backhoe e, using funds in its 2015 budget, the suggestion was made that the existing backhoe be “sold” to the Parks Department. Mr. Rambo advised the board, however, that the Parks Department has said it did not have the $16,000-$$20,000 in its budget to purchase the backhoe and that given the backhoe’s 25 year history, it might be a financial drain in terms of ongoing repair costs. (Because the two departments are financed by different budget funds, the water district has to be made whole for any sale of equipment to another  budget fund. ) Instead, Mr. Rambo suggested auctioning off the backhoe.  Supervisor Grace said he still felt that the Parks Department could use the backhoe but agreed to put the equipment up for auction to see how much it might fetch.

Part time cleaner: Mr. Rambo requested permission to use some of seasonal/part time money in his budget to hire a person for 16 hours/week to clean the department’s offices.  The work is currently being done by the department’s labor staff but Mr. Rambo felt the work wasn’t being done properly as the men were more used to doing outside work.  Supervisor Grace opposed the idea and advised Mr. Rambo to direct his men to do a better cleaning job.  

What started out as a routine budget transfer vote, turned into a broader discussion about usage rates, taxes, meters and the use of fund balance.

Water Superintendent Rambo explained that the amount left in the budget line for the purchase of water from the Northern Westchester Joint Water Works (NWJWW)  was not sufficient to pay the November and December bills that were expected to  total about $400,000. He explained that the reason for the shortfall was that the town had not increased what it charges customers per 1,000 gallons used even though the NWJWW had increased  what it charges its members. Supervisor Grace then explained the difference between the water bills that were based on consumption and the water tax that was based on the property’s assessed value and which paid for the district’s infrastructure

This led to Supervisor Grace to state that the water rates should be raised so that customers pay for what they use and to additional comments about how to fund  infrastructure projects that should be paid through the water tax as distinct from water purchases.  Town attorney Koster said that in the past, water rates have been raised by local law although she seemed to think that this could also be done by resolution.

In response, I agreed that infrastructure costs should be paid for separately and suggested the board have a meeting in January at which time there could be a discussion about capital projects and how to fund them, i.e., from fund balance or bonding.  I also said that if the issue was customers paying for the water they used, then that was justification for proceeding with the water meter project.  As he has done in the past, Supervisor Grace said saw no value to continuing with the meter project and that discussion, like the capital projects discussion, was put off from a future meeting.

The board approved transferring $500,000 for the district’s fund balance to cover a shortfall in the $3,525,940 budget line for water purchase with the understanding that if there was any remaining money left in the line at the end of the year, it would be returned to fund balance.

Miscellaneous issues (see also fluoride)

 Cement lining. Mr. Rambo said he was ready to go out to bid on the three mile cement lining project.

Telemetry project.  Mr. Rambo said he was requesting authorization to spend about $4,000 for some electronic equipment that would monitor water volumes in the system’s storage tanks.

Water line insurance. Mr. Rambo informed the board that a company has been leaving flyers in mailboxes about purchasing insurance against water line breaks on their property. The insurance cost $5/month.  He said he wasn’t encouraging or endorsing any such product, adding that the chances of a leak were very slim.

Disputed water bills. Four property owners are disputing their water bills. One involves a timing issue and needs a modification in the town code: although the bill was paid in a timely fashion, because of a date requirement in the town code, it was considered late, added on to the property’s town tax bill and charged a late fee.  The other three disputed bills involved spikes in usage that resulted in higher bills, one of which might have been the result of a leaking toilet; no leaks were detected in the other two properties.   The consumption at one property jumped from an average of 30,000 gallons to 290,000 gallons, resulting in a $2,000 water bill.

When Councilman Bianco suggested that installing the new meters would alert the property owner to the spike in usage, Supervisor Grace said that property owners don’t want the new meters because they would more accurately report usage, explaining that as the meters age, they slow down so that any inaccuracy is in the consumer’s favor.

A discussion followed whether the town code could be amended to allow paying off excessive bills in installments.

When Councilman Bianco raised the issue of fairness and that some people pay their entire bills on time, Town Attorney Koster said she would look into installment options  but that such an arrangement would involve charging interest.

The Board covered a variety of issues with Water Superintendent Rambo.

a. Okayed transfer of $40,000 from capital projects line to purchase water maintenance materials.

b. Okayed purchase of 2 Ford vehicles off the county bid as there was no response to the town’s bid; Mr. Rambo reported that local vendors said they could not beat the county bid price. Funds for the purchase are in the district’s 2013 budget. Two older vehicles will be “sold” to other town departments.

c. Okayed going to bid to replace a 1975 boiler

d. Meter project. See below

Town Board, 12-8-2020

(For background on the water meter project, scroll down to Water Meter billing and meter replacement program.)  The board heard a presentation from a consortium of three companies to complete the water meter project begun in 2011 but stalled beginning in 2013.  The company would install ultrasonic meters which they say are better than the mechanical meters that are currently being used. The meters would be owned and maintained by the company and the town would pay a fee of about $5.30/meter/per month to the company as part of a 25 year agreement. The town has about 10,000 meters. The company estimated that the new meters would save town approximately $728,000 a year in O&M costs and generate about $824,000 in additional revenue because the meters would be more accurate.

Supervisor Slater, who had met with representatives of the company before the presentation to the board, explained the benefits of the proposal: more revenue and no up-front cost to the town.

Water superintendent Rundle advised the board that if the town went ahead with the project, it would not result in any decrease in water district staff as he would reassign the four people currently working in the meter department.

As part of the discussion, the board also discussed whether the company could handle water billing, and if the billing could be done more frequently.  The board also wanted to know if the company could provide meters for commercial customers.

If the board decides to go ahead with the project, the first step would be for the company to do a “propagation” study (it did not explain what this entailed). Based on the study, it would then make a more definitive proposal to the town which could lead to a 25 year agreement.  The town could terminate the agreement at any time, without a fee, and arrange to buy the installed meters based on their remaining life.

Supervisor Grace and Water Superintendent David Rambo explained the provisions of the new law. Mr. Rambo said that if a meter was less than 10 years old, only the device that allows for remote readings would have to be installed. For meters older than 10 years, both a new meter and a remote reader will be installed. He estimated that the estimated 350 final meter readings each year would generate between $82,000-$96,000 in revenue, which prompted Supervisor Grace to note that this would save the water district about $60,000 a year since the district would not have to pay for the new meters. He repeated his earlier comments that  having the district install the new meters for the district’s remaining 6,0000 customers did not generate an acceptable return on investment.  When Councilman Patel reminded him that the 2010 vote to install the new meters in the entire district was unanimous, the supervisor responded that the initial project had not been properly vetted.

The board closed the hearing and adopted the local law.

Town Board, 3-8-2016

Town Attorney McDermott briefly reviewed with the board the text of a law that would require the building department to determine, at the time a residence is being sold, whether the existing water meter is adequate or should be replaced. If it needs to be replaced, the owner and buyer will decide who will pay the $275 fee. Supervisor Grace estimates that about 300 houses are sold each year; not all would necessarily require that a new meter be installed. A date for a public hearing was not set.

Supervisor Grace suggested that when a house is sold, the new owners be required to install the new meters. Town Board, 7-7-2015

Howard Frank again brought up the issue of the town’s water loss ratio and spoke in favor of completing the meter project. In response, Supervisor Grace said that the loss was due to leaks and that it made more sense to “harden” the water district’s infrastructure than replace existing meters. He noted that the installation of the first 2,500 new meters had not resulted in any reduction in the percentage of water loss.

In response to the supervisor’s comments, I explained that there were two related issues: the water loss ratio and the ongoing loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue to the water district because meters aren’t accurately recording the water that is being consumed. The lost revenue was based on the accuracy tests done on 1,693 old meters that were replaced. I explained that the additional revenue from usage charges would mean that the water district tax rate could be reduced. I also pointed out that the meters would save an additional $150,000 /year because the town could eliminate, by attrition, two meter reader positions.

Councilman Patel also spoke in favor of completing the meter project, noting that it would enable homeowners to monitor their usage and control their bills.  Councilman Diana said that completing the project would require the construction of a new tower to read the additional meters, a statement I refuted as being totally inaccurate.

Referring to the town’s 2014 Annual Water Report, which noted a 21% water loss, Howard Frank said that continuing with the installation of the new water maters would reduce the loss. Supervisor Grace disagreed and said that the money that would go to the meter project could be better used on other unspecifir3ed projects. I agreed with Mr. Frank noting that the town was losing money due to inaccurate meters that weren’t recording all the water some homeowners were using.  Calling the completion of the water meter project a “no brainer,” I said that the town could gain an estimated $500,000-$750,000 a year in additional revenue once new meters, that were guaranteed to be 99.9% accurate for 10- years. were installed.

Water Superintendent David Rambo and Catherine Paget, Business Director for the Northern Westchester Joint Water Works, made a presentation to the board on why the town should proceed with Phase II of the water meter project. Based on the tests that were done on the old meters replaced in Phase I (2,711 meters were replaced and 1,693 were tested)  Mr. Rambo told the board that the Water District is losing an estimated $750,000 a year in revenue because the average accuracy of the “old” meters was only 85%/  In addition, he said that once all 10,000 water accounts had the new “smart” meters, the District could save an additional $150,000 a year by eliminating two meter reader positions by attrition.

Supervisor Grace questioned whether replacing the remaining 7,500 meters that were installed beginning in 1998 would generate that much savings. He also questioned whether the money to install the new meters, that would come from fund balance, would be better spent on other projects which he did not identify.

Councilman Patel and I strongly supported moving ahead with the project. Financially, we saw it as a “no brainer” that was well worth the investment. We believed that homeowners would also benefit from the new technology which would save them money by the early identification of leaks. As explained by Mr. Rambo, when the computer operator who monitors the system sees a spike in usage, he contacts the homeowner and  leaks or running toilets can be remedied immediately. Under the current system, a leak may not be detected until the end of the four month billing cycle.

Councilmen Bernard and Diana did not express any opinion about the issue.

At the supervisor’s request, Mr. Rambo will gather more data and return to the board.

For copies of the information Mr. Rambo provided the Town Board, click here.

The Board asked Water Superintendent Rambo to work with the Joint Water Works to do a statistical analysis of the savings generated by the installation of the 2,000 new Flexnet meters. Supervisor Grace wanted to know if the additional revenue generated by the new, more accurate meters, was sufficient to offset the cost of the project.  The findings from the study will be used to decide if the town should proceed to install the meters in the remaining 8,000 water accounts. Mr. Rambo said that an analysis had been delayed due to software issues but that these have since been resolved.

As part of the discussion it was noted that 37 of the new meters had malfunctioned and that the department, along with the manufacturer, is investigating the reason for the failure. The meters did not record water usage.