-
Login
-
Digital Edition
-
Print Edition
- Most Commented
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- Most Emailed
- Popular
- Popular
« News Home
Y’town, burbs must find a solution to water clash
TweetThe latest flare-up on the part of Austintown Township trustees over drinking water supplied by the city of Youngstown was predictable — given the Dec. 31 announcement by the city that residential and commercial water rates would increase by 8.75 percent a year for the next five years. The start date: Feb. 1.
A couple of weeks ago, Austintown Township Administrator Michael Dockry sent a letter to the city seeking information on four issues: reasons or justification for the rate increase; any strategic plan to replace, repair or maintain the water infrastructure; details of expenditures for the past three years of surcharge revenue from non-city customers; details of all grants sought in the past three years for replacement, repair or maintenance of water-system infrastructure.
On the face it, a justifiable inquiry. After all, the suburban customers who receive city water and pay a 40 percent surcharge have as much right to information about the operation of the water department as users in Youngstown.
But things are never as straightforward as they might appear when it comes to the clash between the city and its suburban customers.
On Monday, Austintown Trustee Lisa Oles revealed that the township had received a letter from Youngstown Law Director Dan Fribich that said “no public record exists that meets the request” for information about the surcharge.
The law director also wrote that the city had not applied for grants or federal funding to help pay for the water-infrastructure replacement.
Talk about giving trustees a slow pitch to hit out of the park.
Oles, who has been one of the more vocal critics of the water-rate surcharge levied by the city, said she was not surprised by Fribich’s response.
“I was always under the assumption that surcharge money was spent to maintain the waterlines ... The city can’t account for what they’ve done with that money,” she said.
Aware that the letter from his law director could prompt a flood of complaints not only from Austintown, but Boardman and Canfield, Mayor Jay Williams sought to clarify things.
Incomplete response
Williams, who has locked horns with trustees in Austintown and Boardman over his proposal to use city water as a bargaining chip for economic development initiatives, says the response from the law director was incomplete.
The city will provide detailed information about the rate increase, infrastructure improvements and grant funding, he said.
In the end, however, this is about the larger point of contention between Youngstown and its neighbors. Trustees believe their residents are being treated unfairly and that the surcharge is nothing more than a money grab. The city has long argued that supplying water to other communities is a costly proposition.
It is not a new fight. Indeed, Austintown, in particular, has long threatened to find another source of drinking water, but such a move has been shown to be cost prohibitive.
Austintown, Boardman and Canfield have formed a water district to deal with such problems as flooding, but trustees are also exploring alternate sources of drinking water.
However, what they will find, as trustees before them have found, is that the relationship with Youngstown is, in the end, a good one. The drinking water is of high quality and even with the surcharge, the cost is not excessive.
What needs to occur is a meeting of the minds. Youngstown has the water, but its customer base is shrinking. The suburbs need water, have a good, reliable source, but they don’t want to pay the surcharge.
Mayor Williams has been pushing for the creation of joint economic development districts in Austintown and Boardman where water would be used to lure companies. Austintown Trustee David Ditzler has long talked about the creation of a regional water district.
Those two positions do provide the basis for serious discussions.
Comments
I disagree that the relationship between the city and the suburbs is a good one. Years ago, it was sound, but today, the suburbs view the city as a money pit, where everything goes in and nothing comes back out, at least for the suburbs.
Youngstown has more water than it knows what to do with. According to the laws of supply and demand, the price should be coming down. What every suburbanite suspects is that the 40% surcharge, along with the higher-than-necessary water and accompanying sewer rates, are what is, pardon the pun, keeping Youngstown afloat. Without the revenue the suburbs pay to the city, suburbanites say, Youngstown would be out of money very quickly.
Forming a water district for drinking water will be good for the suburbs.
It is time to Annex Austintown and Boardman
Maybe after "ABC" all incorporate, they'll annex Youngstown.
NoBS - talk about throwing good money after bad.
There is no logical reason whatsoever for Austintown or Boardman to become part of Youngstown. If Youngstown raised the water surcharge to 1,000% it would still be better to not join Youngstown.
It sure is time to annex the suburbs. Think of how much revenue could be raised to pay for MORE welfare babies and people who refuse to work, yet make as much money in handouts as those who work. Right!
I love the thought of paying more so 14 year olds can have more babies with no consequences.
The water & wastewater system is a good symbol of the historic relationship between Youngstown & its too-independent suburbs . ABC take the clean living water from Youngstown & send their filthy waste back in return .
ABC may have used Youngstown's water , figuratively speaking to "wash their hands" of it's problems , but they only succeeded in worsening the blight problem . There are inexpensive ways ABC could be working with Youngstown along its borders to mutual benefit , but Trustees don't because they don't want to risk being seen by some of their voters as spending one dime that might be for Youngstown's benefit .
paulb,
You should read this.....
http://www.ssd.com/publications/detai...
The Mahoning County Prosecuter already has issued an opinion that the waterlines belong to Youngstown. It is up to Atown and boardman to prove otherwise. Here is what should happen, have a meeting with the trustees, put a JEDD agreement and an Anexation agreement on the table and tell them "you have to sign one of them"....
Ianecek, are you suggesting that the suburbs have made a significant difference in the blight in the city?
And mcluvin, the mayor isn't so naive as to purposely gain himself a population equal to the city, who vote in far greater percentages than the city residents, who are completely ticked off, and who hold HIM personally responsible for their greatly increased tax burden and significantly reduced services.
Also, nobody's fooling anyone - the city needs the 40% surcharge to keep itself funded, and that would go away with annexation. That's why Williams wants any JEDD he proposes to be greatly one-sided favoring the city - to make up for the loss of income the city would suffer from the termination or reduction of that surcharge. A realistic, honest agreement such as a 50/50 split would probably be agreeable to the suburbanites. Williams wants at least 90/10 in favor of the city. Nuts to that!
He just got re-elected. He is termed out. He really don't need thier votes. The JEDD is win win. Under the plan that the suburbs turned down without fully understanding they get about a million in extra revenue per year and Youngstown doesnt have to maintain thier infrastructure other then waterlines. In an anexation they have to maintain all roads including SRs and County Routes. In an anexation, the suburbs would have a vote for mayor and council. That would be the prefered avenue for them. Think about it.
A fair, equal JEDD might be win-win, but the "you make all the sacrifices, and we'll take all the money" deal Williams wanted is hardly a winner for the suburbs. Especially the part he wanted where the city would glom onto existing businesses and extract tax money from an already tenuous bottom line. What right does the city have to tax money from existing suburban businesses that happen to be located in areas that would fall under the new authority of a JEDD? Did the city give any abatements? Did they sweeten anybody's deal to help persuade the business to locate where it did? No, in fact they did the opposite - they imposed a ridiculous 40% surcharge - a penalty, by another name - on the water the business uses.
The suburbs would have gotten about $900K out of Williams' proposed JEDD. The city would have gotten 10 times that amount, plus.
Williams might be a lame duck, but he has higher political aspirations, AND he filled some long-vacant plum jobs at City Hall with friends and cronies of his. An active electorate of angry suburbanites would spell the end of a lot of the city's 'good old boy network.' City government would be in complete upheaval for a decade or so. Can you imagine the current boards of trustees in Austintown and Boardman agreeing to send the Gillams on their annual junket to attend an annual convention geared especially for the benefit of black politicians? Can you imagine (God forbid!!) Kathy Miller on the City Council?
The suburbs understand just fine - they want left alone. The suburbs themselves are struggling - the confiscation of what little money they do have by the city wouldn't do anybody any good. The businesses would either go belly up or they'd relocate. There were business owners on the TV News a few years ago when the JEDD was the hot topic, saying they'd do just that - relocate to where they DIDN'T have to pay unnecessarily high taxes.
Strictly speaking a "lame duck" is actually defined as an incumbent that has been defeated serving out the remainder of their term. I get it they turned down the JEDD, now in the second term annexation comes and EVERYONE will pay not just those in the JEDD.