Though unwelcome news, it comes as no surprise that Bank of America plans to charge customers a fee of $5 a month to use the bank’s debit cards. A recent debit-card reform law cut by nearly 50 percent the so-called swipe fees that banks charged to retailers for debit card purchases.

Banks now are scrambling to make up that lost revenue, estimated at $6 billion a year.

Consumers are not expected to gain from the reduced fees.

Beyond the swipe-fee cut, an earlier financial reform law changed some of the banking industry’s most egregious practices, such as hidden fees for overdrafts. This reform measure, while welcome and overdue, is expected to cost banks about $5 billion a year in fee income.

Beyond those cuts in fee income, many big banks, including Bank of America, are struggling with portfolios of troubled or toxic mortgages. In the case of Bank of America, the nation’s biggest bank, its situation is made worse by its 2008 purchase of Countrywide Financial, a leader in subprime and questionable mortgage lending.

Bank of America made news with its debit card fee announcement, but it is not alone in seeking new fee revenue. Other banks are charging similar, but smaller, fees for debit-card transactions. Some banks are now charging to mail paper statements, which is not unreasonable considering the cost savings available by going to electronic statements.

Bank customers should be on the lookout for more new fees.

On the plus side, now that these fees are being well-publicized in the news, impacted customers can begin to shop for banks that do not charge for debit-card purchases. Surely, some banks will try to attract more customers by not charging for debit-card purchases.

The reforms imposed on banks have reduced some of their most annoying and unwarranted fee practices. But they are now determined to make up the lost revenue with new fees. Bank customers must be aware.

CheerThe Water Authority of Adams Township, having given the OK to a waterline extension to solve 28 Sturbridge Lane residents’ water problems stemming from failing wells, deserves praise for its willingness to ensure good water for 72 additional customers.Those additional potential customers live along Callery Road from Myoma Road into Callery.The additional $600,000 expenditure, which would bring the total cost of the extension to $1 million, will require approval by the township supervisors.That approval is likely, considering that township officials worked on behalf of the Sturbridge extension.The new approval would extend the line 11,700 feet beyond the end point targeted for Sturbridge residents’ needs. The additional potential customers will be sent a survey in which they will be asked to indicate whether they are interested in public water.The water service, optional for each of the properties in the area that the project is intended to serve, will require payment of a tap-in fee of $2,350.Considering the reliability of public water service, the property owners in question, despite this financial outlay, should give serious thought to opting in. Failing wells could cost them much more in the long run, not only in repair costs but also in terms of inconvenience.The extension beyond Sturbridge Lane already is in the authority’s long-range plan. It’s just that it’s going to happen sooner than anticipated.The authority merits good marks for this proactive move after having been initially slow to respond to Sturbridge residents’ problem. Extension of public water and sewer service oftentimes encourages new development, and it is to be hoped that that will be a result of the authority’s new approval.

JeerIf government errs, it ought to be in favor of the public’s right to know. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case regarding a bill winding its way through the Pennsylvania General Assembly — a measure that would restrict the public’s ability to review death-related records.Former Gov. Ed Rendell vetoed a similar bill last year, stating that the public’s right to information overshadows other concerns. Hopefully, Gov. Tom Corbett will adhere to a similar stance, if the current measure reaches his desk.The bill currently under consideration would revise a provision of the County Code that requires coroners to deposit official records and papers for the preceding year in the county prothonotary’s office by the end of January for public inspection.As reported in an article in the Sept. 27 Butler Eagle, instead of being available for “the inspection of all persons” interested in them, the records would be available according to the Right-to-Know Law, which states autopsy records are not considered public records.Under the proposed law, coroners would not be required to disclose autopsy records, only the dead person’s name, cause of death and manner of death.The Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, which opposes the measure, is right in characterizing the issue as one of accountability.Because coroners are public servants paid with taxpayers’ money, the public has the right to understand how well a coroner is doing his or her job. The bill in question would make it harder for the public to make that determination.If there’s going to be a change, it should be in terms of making the Right-to-Know Law more consistent with the public’s right to know.As the situation currently stands, lawmakers are attempting to fix what shouldn’t be changed.