Council to vote on water rate increase

Painesville City officials met recently to discuss a potential raise in the city’s water rates.

Water Plant Supervisor Danine Schultz spoke before council on Aug. 19 to highlight what they believe to be an acute necessity for the rate increase. She underscored that it was not the distribution of the 1.1 million gallons of water to their 11,000 customers, but the plant’s infrastructure that needed the financial boost.

One of the plant’s walls, which houses the plant’s chlorine supply, was constructed in 1896.

“That wall is crumbling,” Schultz informed council while providing photos that captured years of degradation.

Drawing council’s attention to another photograph, Schultz explained what they were looking

at.

“There’s a small door that’s literally just blocking a hole in the wall,” she said. “The paint is peeling off the walls. It’s a little sketchy down there.”

Another image captured the plant’s No. 6 filter which was taken offline in 2016 because it was in violation of Environmental Protection Agency laws due to leakage. The plant is now required to rebuild the filter in order to bring the facility to operating capacity.

The construction has a deadline completion date of February 2022 and will cost approximately $200,000. Another mandatory EPA expenditure comes in the form of a carbon feeder system in order to combat the growing threat of toxic algal blooms.

This project will cost $500,000.

Together, the projects total a $700,000 price tag that Schultz says “we don’t have any money to pay for.”

Painesville Finance Director Andy Unetic was on hand to explain how the department’s funds are utilized.

With 81 percent of the capital expenses going toward distribution to residents, the department is finding it increasingly difficult to keep up with road repairs.

The city’s ongoing roads project involves numerous waterline repairs which eat further at the water department’s resources.

“We’ve done a great job with the roads, now we have some issues with the plant,” he said at the meeting. Council was presented with two potential rate increase options.

Option one would increase rates five percent every year for five consecutive years. This would also see a one-time 50 percent increase to the water infrastructure fee. This would bring in an additional $1 million for water capital projects, according to Unetic.

Option two would see a similar five percent rate increase for five consecutive years.

In this version, the water infrastructure fee is also raised 50 percent, but sees an additional 6.25 percent increase for each of the following four years. This totals a 75 percent increase in five years time. Option two would yield more than $6 million for water capital projects at the end of five years, but at a higher cost to residents.

Unetic used an example of a family of three who use 85 gallons of water a day in order to break down how the rate increase would affect residents.

Currently, water rates cost a typical family $408 a year on average. Option one would see this total increase to $471.60 a year. Option two would see an increase closer to $500.

The water infrastructure fee, which is included as part of the water utility bill, would see an increase from $8 to $12 a month. Option two would see this fee increase to $14 a month.

Before council decided on an option, Unetic warned that without an increase the department would only have $350,000 for capital projects.

Due to the mandated nature of their repairs and other water main concerns, they would be forced to borrow from the city’s general fund for assets if need be. He intimated that this would subsequently hinder road paving projects. Councilwoman Lori DiNallo asked if there was a “middle road” between the two options. “I felt one was not enough and one was maybe more than our residents could bear.”

A middle road option was not offered. Later that meeting, council determined to move forward with option two which will see a five percent rate increase each year for five years and a 75 percent water infrastructure fee increase by the end of five years. Councilmember Tom Fitzgerald offered reasoning for selecting option two. “For the safety of our residents it’s important to get the higher level and get the work done. We all have seen what happened in Detroit and we don’t want anything like that around here.”

The proposed option two rate increase will now face three public readings at upcoming council meetings before councilmembers take a vote.

SUBMITTED Painesville Water Plant Supervisor Danine Schultz spoke to Council explaining the various infrastructure needs of the plant that necessitate rate increases.