MANSFIELD — The price of water is not going up for City of Mansfield water consumers. But access to that water is going to cost more going forward.
City Council on Tuesday night — after four months of discussions about potential rate increases to repair and improve an aging delivery system — voted 7-1 to approve a “readiness to serve” charge that will add a minimum of $10.93 per month to water bills across the city.
At-large Councilwoman Stephanie Zader cast the lone dissenting vote on the move, projected to raise an additional $2.7 million annually for the city’s water fund.
The exact amount of the increase depends on the size of the water meter. Most residents with a 1-inch or less meter will pay the $10.93. That jumps up to $21.83 for 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 inches, $43.65 for a 2-inch meter, and more for larger consumers.
Like the city’s water rates, those “readiness” charges will also increase each year under the legislation approved Tuesday, subject to review every two years by council.
It wasn’t immediately clear when the new charge will be on consumer bills. Legislation approved as an emergency takes effect when signed by the mayor.
Annual water rate increases were approved by council in 2020, taking initial effect in January 2021. Those rates will rise each year through January 2026 and are scheduled to increase 3 percent annually after that.
Based on lengthy public discussions and thrice-delayed votes, City Council members clearly struggled with the latest decision.
Mayor Tim Theaker’s administration, led by city engineer Bob Bianchi, had told local lawmakers since discussions began in October that the city’s aging water system, including some small lines more than a century old, cannot meet current and future needs.
Bianchi has said increased revenues are needed to fund an annual water main replacement program around the city and other capital improvements needed to ensure water flow.
Without the increase, Bianchi told council on Dec. 6 there is no water infrastructure capital budget.
“I have the capital improvements (list) we hope to have done. It’s not a wish list, it’s a need. So I would say that if you plan on not passing this or you plan on reducing it, I would like council to look at this and tell us what we’re not gonna fund,” he said in December.
“Yes, this is a very difficult decision. But at the same time, we have got to say, if these rates don’t increase, there’s certain things that will not happen. And I think the public needs to know that.”
The original proposal had also sought water rate increases, which would have generated another $680,000 each year. Council amended the legislation in January and dropped that portion, a move sought by 1st Ward Councilwoman Laura Burns, chair of the public utilities committee.
Prior to the vote, most council members expressed a final opinion. Here are the highlights:
5th Ward Councilman Aurelio Diaz
“I think we’re all prepared for the criticism we’re going to get. And I don’t think that’s really important. Take away all the grandstanding you’ve been hearing all these past few months. This is about infrastructure and health and safety. We need to quit blaming the mayor. We need to quit blaming people who used to work here. And ‘We should have done this. We should have done that.’ Well, we know that, but we need to get past that. We’re always accusing people and fighting in-house, but we have (fire) hydrants that aren’t working properly. You can’t mess around with water and his health and safety.”
At-large Councilwoman Stephanie Zader
“Obviously we’re all well aware that I’ve been an outspoken opponent of this bill. I still stand by that. I understand that safety is important and I don’t want to ever see anyone lose their life because we can’t provide enough water for a fire to be fought. I do think that this is still reactive. I don’t think that we’ve taken a proactive look at this entire bill or this entire ordinance and updated it. I think that we’re leaving money on the table by not updating the tap rates. And we’ve talked about it a lot in here, but I’ve talked to the developers that are actually building here and they’re not opposed to the tap rates being raised. So I don’t understand the pushback on that. And I am concerned about the fact that there are six (tax) levies on the May 2 ballot.”
2nd Ward Councilwoman Cheryl Meier
“If this passes tonight, I feel like we need to have someone who’s watching over this a a little more closely and reporting back to us so that we aren’t in this situation again. We’re two years into a three-year rate hike and we’re now coming back to the citizens and saying, ‘We messed up. That wasn’t enough.’ I feel like we need to have some checks and balances, somebody with some more accountability coming to us so that we know where we stand. And we aren’t being reactive versus proactive.”
4th Ward Councilman Alomar Davenport
“If this fails, I’m hoping, whether it’s this administration or the next administration, that we look at this again. If we are in a situation where we are needing those dollars, bring it back to us. It’s not a situation that if it fails, that we can never do it. I want to make that clear to the administration that I would be open to looking at this again when we have more data, when we have more information (on) whether or not these increases are actually needed.”
3rd Ward Councilman Rev. El Akuchie
“We have looked at it over and over and over again. I talked with Bob (Bianchi) and the increase has to be reviewed every two years, which means that checks and balances (exist). Considering what has happened in the past, I don’t know, because I wasn’t on council then. I don’t know why people did not make that decision or why it did not come up. But now it’s up to us. And for me, I think if I have to wait until something happens, it will be reactionary. But now, I want to take a proactive step to make sure that if we have problems with water or anything, somebody is going to be there to do something about it.”
6th Ward Councilwoman Kimberly Moton
“I think that when I look at the overall picture here, and the fact that we’re really trying to be proactive, it really leads me to consider what’s been presented. I think Mr. Bianchi has done a great job at presenting information to us, as well as (Finance Director Linn) Steward in laying out the forecast that she gave us at at the last council meeting. With that being said, this is more of a proactive focus.”
At-large Councilman Phil Scott
“When I first ran for president of council some 15 years ago, I made the comment that we’ve got very aging infrastructure in this town that we need to address. And at the time I was probably looked at like, ‘What are you talking about?’ But I think it’s come to fruition that it is something that we need to look at. We can keep kicking the can down the road, waiting. (But) I think we’ll be back here in a year, needing to vote for the increase in water. I look at this as a safety issue. If the fire department can’t put out fires, if they’ve got to go halfway down the street or farther to hook up to a hydrant that works … I just think it’s a necessity that we pass this. I know it’s going to be hard for some people. I feel sorry for some of the people that are on fixed incomes. But I think it’s something we need to bite the bullet and do.”
