Trending
EAST LIVERPOOL -- A resolution to increase the city's water rate by $2.50 per 1,000 gallons stalled during Monday's city council meeting when two members opposed waiving the three-reading rule which would have allowed the resolution to pass by emergency measure on the first reading.
The resolution if passed designates 40 cents of the $2.50 will be allocated to miscellaneous expenses, 60 cents to capital improvements, 25 cents to the meter fund program, 50 cents to the fund for the future raw water line replacement project and 75 cents to capital improvements that will be used for matching funds for future projects.
The city water's rates have not increased since 2017.
Safety/Service Director David Dawson addressed the council and said that he knows that any type of increase is a burden on people, but as they all know an increase is vital for the city to move forward with the water department and that the city has been in violation since 2013 with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for issues that have not been addressed.
"Just so you are aware the EPA knows the mandates of the city's water and wastewater plants, so they tell you what needs to be done," Dawson said. "If you don't follow their regulations they move to other steps in the city, more or less making the city do certain things and I think all the gentlemen (council members) understand, to forward we really need an increase."
He also said that the city needs to develop a well implemented water management program that over time would extend the useful life of drinking water and infrastructural wide improvements for reliability and structural costs that would protect public health, noting that the water was a public health issue.
Some of the city's water issues stem from the water intake that was hit seven years ago by a barge. Dawson also noted that the city was out repairing lines every day that were breaking, and the city has to move forward with this increase.
Dawson commented that the city received funding for a major paving project on a road that hasn't been done in 20 years and he just hopes a waterline doesn't break since the city doesn't have the $1 million that it would cost to replace the water lines along that section of road.
The EPA wants a plan in place showing an increase that will set aside funds to take care of the city's water intake and showing that in five years the city will have the funding to move forward with it.
"If we don't move forward the EPA moves forward on their own and there is nothing you can do about it," Dawson said. "You can't stop it; they are mandating us to move forward with these projects that have not been done for a decade plus. "
Council Member Fred Rayl noted that if the city doesn't move forward, the EPA can fine them.
Dawson responded, "They will do more than levy fines. They will come in and make you do things honestly you don't want to do. They will, because they have that power."
He also said the rate increase should be about $4-plus to cover all the projects that need done and he spoke with Council Member Brian Kerr about a $2 increase after Kerr suggested $1.75.
Dawson noted the rates should be higher but he started them at a minimum and when the Board of Public Utilities is in place, those members will have to look at rates and projects and determine what needs done.
"Some of you are a little remorse on saying maybe you don't know why we have to back the safety service director on this," Dawson said. "You know what I composed the $2.50, you do what you want."
The majority of the council voiced their opinions in saying they don't want the rate increase, but they know it needs to be done.
Dawson told the council members that as safety/service director it is his responsibility to do this and that he is willing to do it with or without council's support because it is needed and that he thinks they would want to be united and working together on this like they have everything else.
Council member John Mercer noted that the council had one figure ($1.75) on one day and then got the figure of $2.50 the day of the meeting and are now being asked to suspend the three reading rule following a committee meeting where it was requested to go through three readings and feels he needs more time to look at it.
"Everything you said is true and it is on your shoulders to do that; it's your responsibility, not ours," Mercer told Dawson. "You want a resolution saying we support it. I don't think it's not that people here don't support it; I just think the process was rushed into a two-week period when it should have been dealt with three or four years. "
Dawson told the council members they were given the letter from the EPA at the previous month's council meeting.
Mercer asked Dawson to clarify that the EPA was not requiring a resolution from council, but only to have an increase put in place.
Dawson said he wasn't requiring the council to pass the resolution but requesting the council to pass it.
Council member Robert Nizer said that the numbers Dawson was presenting probably sound correct and that if not tonight everyone on council would probably eventually agree on the rate increase, but for him personally to do his due diligence as a council member he would need more time to review it since the increase changed from $1.75 to $2.50.
"I'm not saying you are rushing us through it and I understand your rush because you know it all and I totally respect that, but, for me I'm just saying now and between when we vote I'm not giving myself fair enough time to do due diligence," Nizer said. "We came to an earlier meeting with a number we had and today find out it has jumped, and having five minutes to make that decision, I don't feel is adequate enough time."
The resolution received an all-in favor vote for consideration by council and an all-in favor vote for first reading but failed on the vote to suspend the three-reading rule by two votes. Mercer and Nizer voted against it.
When asked if he planned to move forward and implement the rate increase on his own, Dawson refused comment.
Kgarabrandt@mojonews.com