PORT ANGELES — City Council members wrestled over water rate hikes Wednesday evening, and after two motions intended to reach a compromise failed, the council voted 4-3 to enact an 8.5 percent increase in January.
On average, the increase will cost each Port Angeles household $3.17 per month next year.
Those voting no were Council members Cherie Kidd, Dan Di Guilio and Betsy Wharton. All three advocated either chipping away at the increase but they could not come to an agreement over how much.
Because of a lack of a consensus among them over how much of a rate hike would be acceptable, one motion to reduce the increase to 6.35 percent made by Council member Don Perry failed to gain an endorsement from a second council member, and a vote to bring the increase down to 6 percent advocated by Wharton failed in a 2-5 vote, with support from herself and Perry.
Kidd, who wanted the increase brought as close to zero as possible, said, “8.5 percent is not appropriate in this economic climate in this city.
“I don’t believe citizens need this big of an increase right now.”
Di Guilio proposed that the city use up to $240,000 in its water utility reserve fund to cut the rate increase in half.
“I’m not willing to support any cuts in capital projects,” he said.
“I’m willing to suggest that we take a closer look at operating costs.”
Lower figure
The full increase was approved even though city Public Works and Utilities Director Glenn Cutler told the council that, with updated cost estimates, a 7.46 percent increase would cover the city’s needs.
None of the council members explained during the meeting why the 8.5 percent increase, which was recommended by staff in September, was endorsed rather than the new, lower figure.
A 4 percent wastewater rate hike that was approved by the City Council on Oct. 20 will add another $4.60 on average to monthly utility bills in January.
All combined, utility fee increases next year will be, on average, $7.77 higher for each Port Angeles household.
Also, a 4.5 percent increase in transfer station fees next year was also approved at the Oct. 20 meeting.
The council was scheduled to approve the water rate increase at that meeting, but chose to push it to Tuesday night to see if it could be reduced.
Needed to cover costs
Cutler said the water rate increase is needed to cover the costs of running a new water treatment plant next year, the water utility’s share of an automated metering system — which will be installed in 2010 — and to limit the amount of infrastructure maintenance that would be deferred to 2011 or later.
The council members who supported the full increase — Karen Rogers, Larry Williams, Gary Braun and Perry — said they agreed that the city could not afford to make further cuts in its water utility and that they didn’t think reserves should be used to lower the rate increase.
Reducing the increase would mean double-digit increases in the future, they concluded.
“It seems like a logical decision versus a political decision to me,” Williams said.
Rogers appeared frustrated with the council’s discussion.
“It seems like we are picking on Public Works continually,” she said.
Rogers encouraged Kidd to get her questions resolved by staff regarding utility expenses outside of the meeting.
“I’m confident that they will be able to explain it to you,” she said.
Perry said he was trying to come to a consensus with his motion to lower the increase but that he fully supported the 8.5 percent hike and added that he has faith in the staff’s proposal.
“It’s time to move forward and give them the support they need and let them do the jobs we as a city have hired them to do,” he said.
Options offered
Prior to the vote, Cutler provided the council with several options on how to decrease the rate hike.
They included eliminating repairs, contributions to the economic development fund, eliminating travel and training costs, and further delaying the replacement of old water pipes.
For 2010, Cutler said staff are already proposing to reduce the amount spent on replacing water lines from $340,000 to $170,000 to lower expenses.
“I would think that I brought a realistic budget to the council members and the city to begin with,” he told the City Council.
“What I’m going to tell you is I think it becomes a matter of risk of taking money out of the budget.”
Cutler cited three water main breaks in the last four years as examples of why he thinks the rate hike is needed.
________
Reporter Tom Callis can be reached at 360-417-3532 or at tom.callis@peninsuladailynews.com.