Engineering report recommends tying Fredonia to North Chautauqua County Water District over rebuilding reservoir

La Bella Associates recommended that the Village of Fredonia decommission its water treatment plant, draw down the village reservoir and interconnect the village distribution system with the North Chautauqua County Water District, La Bella engineers told the village board and a public meeting May 27.

The recommendation — what La Bella called Alternative 2 — follows an engineering evaluation and hydraulic modeling of Fredonia’s treatment plant, reservoir, dam/spillway and distribution system carried out in 2023–2024. “Our recommendation is alternative 2, which includes decommissioning the village water plant, drawing down the reservoir, and tying in with North Chautauqua County Water District,” said Matt Higgins, a water/wastewater engineer with La Bella Associates. Higgins told the board the recommendation weighed both capital and lifecycle costs and “meaningful nonmonetary factors.”

Why it matters: the decision affects drinking water supply, fire protection capacity, the village’s capital budget and long‑term liability for a dam that La Bella said regulators have found in poor condition. The firm presented two principal options: upgrade and retain the village plant, reservoir, dam and distribution system (Alternative 1), or decommission the plant and rely on interconnections with the North Chautauqua County Water District (Alternative 2). La Bella estimated Alternative 1’s construction cost at just under $35 million and Alternative 2 at about $20.7 million; the firm emphasized those figures exclude any grant funding and noted life‑cycle cost differences and operating tradeoffs.

Most important details: La Bella described major deficiencies at the water plant (process upgrades, an additional clarifier, HVAC, electrical, SCADA and streambank stabilization for a constrained site adjacent to the stream), vulnerability of the reservoir to drought, and a county/DEC assessment that the dam and spillway are in unsound condition and require improvements. To maintain pressure across the village’s varying topography, the consultants said the distribution system would be split into two pressure zones under either alternative and that a new 150,000‑gallon potable storage tank would be required for storage and fire protection under the village‑owned option.

If the village ties into North Chautauqua County Water District, La Bella described three interconnection locations: one near the intersection of Route 20 and Route 60 (near Wendy’s and Rite Aid), one on West Main Street near the village boundary, and one on Water Street at the village boundary. Those interconnection sites would include pressure‑reducing and control valves and chemical injection facilities to preserve distribution water quality; La Bella said those structures would require easements or land acquisition.

On costs and lifecycle assumptions, Higgins said La Bella modeled 30 years of operating, maintenance and debt service costs and provided a simple annual average for the water‑purchasing component if the village buys from NCCWD at the current rate of $6.50 per 1,000 gallons. “It’s very in the weeds,” Higgins said, noting the $4.7 million figure discussed in the presentation is a 30‑year average rather than a single‑year bill. The report also presents estimated annual cost per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) under scenarios with and without grant funding.

Nonmonetary factors and risks: La Bella stressed nonmonetary considerations in its recommendation. Higgins and Oliver Sugarman, also a water/wastewater engineer with La Bella, pointed to the reservoir’s historical susceptibility to drought and to documented regulatory concerns about the dam and spillway. Higgins said stabilizing and maintaining the current plant site would require significant stream bank work because the building sits very close to the stream. He said those site constraints and increasing climate extremes made reliance on a nearby, larger system appealing for long‑term reliability.

Dredging and missing data: La Bella excluded dredging from the preliminary cost estimate because up‑to‑date bathymetric and sediment survey documents were not yet available. Higgins said the firm is working with the Chautauqua County Department of Health and SUNY to obtain field data and will incorporate dredging analysis if and when that data arrives. “Consideration of that is still pending,” he said.

Funding and next steps: Jen Vaughn, a civil engineer with La Bella participating remotely, laid out likely grant and financing paths. She said La Bella would submit the preliminary engineering report to the New York State Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) to seek 0% hardship financing and advised pursuing the State’s Water Infrastructure Improvement Act and the intermunicipal grant program (through the New York State Environmental Facilities Corp.). Vaughn described two grant‑application approaches: the village applying alone (eligible for higher percent grants in some programs up to program caps) or partnering with NCCWD under a binding intermunicipal agreement that can change grant eligibility or caps. Vaughn also described Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) opportunities that would require an income survey to qualify for programs targeted to low‑ and moderate‑income areas.

Phasing and scheduling: La Bella suggested a possible phased approach for Alternative 2: complete distribution interconnections and most distribution work in a Phase 1 (La Bella’s presentation estimated about $17.5 million for a Phase 1 excluding dam and reservoir work), then address reservoir/dam work in Phase 2. Higgins noted sequencing is necessary because the reservoir cannot be removed until a new source is established. He also recommended listing the project on the DWSRF intended‑use plan (IUP) before the funding agency’s Friday deadline to ensure the project is scored and eligible for programs.

Public and county input: The presentation drew substantial public comment and technical questions ranging from the adequacy of existing interconnections and past county commitments to the details of pumping, gravity feed, pipe relining, loss of outside water‑sales revenue, and the village’s debt capacity. La Bella repeatedly emphasized that some costs and eligibility for funding depend on unresolved items (dredging volumes, final tank siting and elevations, and confirmed intermunicipal agreements). Natalie Whiteman of the Chautauqua County Health Department said the county will need to redact portions of the report for safety and security before public posting and later described how grantor agencies review managerial capacity and shared responsibilities spelled out in intermunicipal agreements.

What was not decided: The board did not vote on any course of action at the meeting. Mayor Mike Ferguson reminded attendees that the session was for fact gathering and that “this is not the decision night” and that a formal vote would occur at a future meeting after further review and grant‑application work.

What to watch: La Bella and village staff said next steps include submitting the preliminary engineering report to the DWSRF and preparing environmental review materials, potential income surveys if pursuing CDBG, negotiating any intermunicipal agreements with North Chautauqua County Water District, and incorporating bathymetric/sediment data for dredging estimates when that information becomes available.