Y’town, burbs must find a solution to water clash

The 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.