The Fredonia Board of Trustees voted 4-1 Monday to approve a review of joining the North County Water District.

The Fredonia Board of Trustees has approved a State Environmental Quality Review of joining the North County Water District.

The resolution specified that the village is not formally committing to joining the district. Instead, the SEQR is supposed to be a look at “alternative 2” from the LaBella engineering firm’s recent study of the village water system.

“Alternative 1” would keep Fredonia’s water system independent. However, LaBella’s study suggested “alternative 2” as the preferred option. Both alternatives would cost tens of millions of dollars as Fredonia faces the reality of an antiquated water system that got dinged for numerous state violations in 2024.

The trustees approved the SEQR by a 4-1 count. Trustee Michelle Twichell, a vocal advocate of Fredonian water independence, was the “no” vote.

During a workshop held before Monday’s meeting, Twichell sought to table the SEQR resolution until three things were added to it. She wanted the measure to state the cost of LaBella’s SEQR review and where the funding comes from. She wanted Fredonia formally designated the lead agent for reviewing LaBella’s SEQR. Finally, Twichell sought a statement specifying that LaBella’s SEQR review of alternative 2 includes the environmental impact of closing the reservoir.

Her motion was essentially ignored — dying due to a lack of a “second,” the four other trustees completely silent during Mayor Michael Ferguson’s request for it.

Later on, Trustee Jon Espersen stated “our attorneys (the Webster Szanyi law firm) prepared the SEQR in conjunction with LaBella.” Mark Guglielmi of Webster Szanyi was available via Zoom to answer questions.

“I’m confident that you do not have to do a SEQR on options that are not recommended or not feasible,” Guglielmi said.

“It would really be an uncapped cost if you did an SEQR on every imaginable option … you could think of all kinds of things that don’t make sense and there’s no reason to do a SEQR on any of those,” he added. “You have professionals that you have hired — not the county — that you have hired, and you can rely on their professional opinion.”

Twichell said, “I don’t think I trust them too much.” Guglielmi appeared in court with LaBella and “they weren’t correct on many issues,” she said.

“I don’t know what they are,” Guglielmi replied.

“Well, you lost,” Twichell retorted. It was a reference to the village’s defeat in a lawsuit filed against a 2023 resolution stating that Fredonia should seek to buy water from Dunkirk. Fredonia lost that lawsuit in part because it did not file a SEQR associated with that resolution.

Twichell wondered again about the cost and the lead agency for the latest SEQR. Guglielmi said a June 18 letter from LaBella set the cost at $15,000 and that Fredonia is the lead agency, though LaBella “would essentially organize it.”

“I just don’t think you’re right in any of your answers,” Twichell said to Guglielmi.

Espersen said sarcastically, “Yeah, let’s not trust the attorney.”

“Well, he lost, didn’t he?” Twichell repeated. “I really don’t think he knows what he’s talking about, I’m sorry.”

Twichell and Espersen bickered about grants, with Trustee Nicole Siracuse chiming in, “They would not approve grants for maintenance. They’re approving grants for new projects.”

“I don’t agree with you,” Twichell said.

“OK, so grant experts are also wrong,” Siracuse snapped. “Glad to know you know better than every expert in their field. Wild.”

“You are a grant expert now, I see,” Twichell sniped.

Trustee Paul Wandel commented soon after, “I just want to reiterate the time sensitivity associated with this SEQR. There are grants available, with deadlines associated with the grants,” naming two possible grants. “We’re talking about millions of dollars here.”

Sam Drayo commented from the audience that Chautauqua County should pay the $15,000 for the SEQR, as the county paid for the LaBella study that came out last month. He and Andrew Ludwig had spoken out against the SEQR resolution earlier in the meeting during the public comment portion.