WARREN Even with increase in rates, water office still has a need

A committee meeting is set for Thursday.
By DENISE DICK
VINDICATOR TRUMBULL STAFF
WARREN -- Even after passing a 76-cent sewer rate increase last week, council still must appropriate more money to get the water pollution control department through year's end, the auditor says.
Auditor David Griffing said the department still needs about $347,000 to meet its expenses through this year. The 76-cent increase, which will be seen on customers' bills in early December, will generate about $2.4 million in 2004, Griffing said.
Another ordinance included an appropriation of $346,700 from the general fund for water pollution control, but Councilman John Homlitas, D-3rd, the legislation's sponsor, removed that section before the ordinance received the first reading at last week's council meeting.
Mayor Hank Angelo said he and members of the water pollution control department are working on the problem.
He said he's ordered a stop to all department spending except for payroll and other essential items. The department may close down parts of the building and temporarily shut down equipment to save money.
"My main focus is to meet payroll," Angelo said.
He said he understands Griffing's concerns, adding, "We're not out of hot water yet," but said they'll make it work.
About $535,000 in another water pollution control department account also must be appropriated to department expenses, Griffing said.
Aside from the money needed for the remainder of this year, Griffing said an $800,000 loan payment must be made to the state by Jan. 1. That means that money will likely have to be appropriated too.
Appropriation
Homlitas said the appropriation issue is among items to be discussed at a water pollution control committee meeting Thursday.
"I don't believe that general fund money should be used to supplement for the enterprise funds, and in talking with my colleagues I've found that many of them feel the same way," Homlitas said.
Councilman Gary Fonce, D-at large, wants to know, if the money were transferred from the general fund, would it ever be repaid.
"We're not allowed to take money from the enterprise funds and put it into the general fund," he said. "Is it a loan? If we appropriate the [general fund] money and then never see it again, I have a problem with that."
Fonce also questions why, if there was $347,000 available in the general fund, council members were told no money was available to tear down condemned houses.
"It just seems that when council wants to appropriate general fund money to do something, we're told the money isn't there, but when the administration needs it, all of a sudden, the money is available," Fonce said.
Decreasing revenue
The councilman also isn't sure it's a good idea to take money from the general fund when the city is facing decreasing revenue with company shutdowns and layoffs pending.
"Just because the money is there doesn't mean we have to spend it," Fonce said.
Councilman Robert A. Marchese, D-at large, also opposes appropriation from the general fund.
"The city should not transfer general fund money to an enterprise fund, and there are workers in wastewater who belong in data processing," Marchese said. "No way will I support it."
denise.dick@vindy.com