Town supervisor Carol Neidzialkowski said that over the years plans to improve the system have lost momentum, but that the town board, which also acts as the board of water commissioners, decided to look into the possibility of doing a big project.

"Nothing has been decided so far. I don't want anyone to feel we're pushing a project through without input from you, the water customers," she said.

"I often come to these meetings to put a gun to your head because of a violation of the health department or federal rules, but that's not the case here and that's good," said Roger France of the New York State Department of Health in Oneonta. "We're not telling you it's something you have to do."

The town board, he said, had taken the right steps in making preliminary funding applications and has an idea of the cost to be able to present a comprehensive package.

The town's engineer Wayne Bunn, who grew up in Hartwick and has worked with the water district for more than 25 years, presented a brief overview of the 100-year-old system's history and it current condition.

"From my experience," he said, "people want to know two things: what are you going to do in front of my home and what it is going to cost me?"

Bunn detailed the proposed improvements to the system which inlcude a new well, 150,000 gallon storage reservoir, 8-inch water mains, replacement of service lines when necessary, rehabilitation of the creamery well building, an emergency generator and for the first time, meters to recorded each customer's usage.

Funding for the proposal would come from a mix of federal and state loans and grants. The bulk of the money will be a $1.37 million, no-interest loan from the New York Sate Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development Agency will provide a $116,000 grant and $100,000 loan at 4.5 percent interest.

The water district currently has no debt and repaying the loans would add $200 a year to all water customers bills. The cost of the proposed plan would bring the annual charge to residential customers to approximately $369, including the debt service.

Customers are now paying $150 for water.

The $369 dollar annual cost for water is conmparable to other small rural communities and as set by the USDA's rule of thumb which says people can afford to pay one-and-a-half percent of the median income level for the community. According to 1990 census figures, the median income in Hartwick is $24,604, but people at the meeting expressed the belief that it sounded high.

If the median income was less, it could cut the annual cost, but a survey of district residents would have to be conducted to establish the figure.

"Taxes never go down, rarely stay the same and always go up," said Hartwick resident Bill Claudy, who expressed worries that costs will continue to rise in the future. "I'm very concerned that in the years to come, I will say I should have said no and put in my own well."

Bunn explained that costs should go down in the future - particularly because the the district is now budgeting $20,000 a year on repairs and upgrades to the system should alleviate the need for some of those expenditures.

Water district residents questioned the need for meters after 100 years without them and were told by Bunn that it was a more fair and equitable way to charge. People are billed for what they use, he said, comparing it to a monthly electric bill.

Once usage is metered, he said, the district will work on a rate schedule that will allow people an average amount of water for a flat fee and charge and additional fee based on usage above the average amount.

"We may have to go through a couple billing cycles to adjust that," he said.

"I think we're headed for catostrophic failure with what we've got. We need to do something before it gets to that point. I don't think we will beat those prices," said Bob Murdock, who said his grandfathers helped to put in those original mains.

Murdock's comments were meant with applause, but countered by Donald Irving, who owns rental property.

"I don't think anyone argues there's water problems. I don't think just because there are waer problems we should spend $1.6 million. You can buy a lot of repairs for $1.6 million." he said.

Irving said he is against the project and suggested that instead of doing it all at one time, the board should consider tackling the problems in stages.

"Look at the MOSA project. It wasn't supposed to cost anything and all of a sudden, we're getting a bill. This project is outlandish for Hartwick. We are in Hartwick, not Cooperstown," he added.

Mary Balcom, a member of the town board and board of water commissioners, said if the district does one section at a time, it would not be able to get the no-interest loan.

"Doing it piecemeal won't reduce repair costs," added board member Dave Butler. "You can't do it piecemeal. The system is only as good as its weakest link."

As the meeting was drawing to a close and residents were beginning to leave, someone called for a straw vote. Supervisor Niedzialkowski complied and called for a show of hands which indicated a roughly three-to-one margin in favor of the project.

Niedzialkowski said after the meeting that she was "encouraged" and that the board would review the meeting and decide what the next step will be.

She said earlier that it is likely there will be more than one informational meeting for the public to learn more about the project.

If the board chooses to proceed with the project, it will will have to pass a bonding resolution which is subject to permissive referendum. Following the vote, residents would have 30 days to file a petition with the appropriate signatures to place the issue on the ballot for the next general election. If no petition is filed, the board would proceed with the project.