Trumbull County sanitary engineers propose $12/1,000-gallon rate to cover rising bulk water costs; commissioners seek homestead discount details

Trumbull County sanitary engineering proposed raising water service rates to $12 per 1,000 gallons during the commissioners' March 25 workshop as officials grappled with steep increases in the county's bulk water costs and aging system needs.

The recommendation, presented by Gary Newbrow, Trumbull County sanitary engineer, is intended to recover rising purchase and operating costs and to stabilize the sanitary fund’s finances. Newbrow said the proposed $12 rate “provides us with 9 and a half,” a reference to the revenue target his office is using to close the current funding gap. He told commissioners the system serves about 11,000 customers and that the county had a $2.3 million unencumbered balance entering 2023 that has since shrunk amid higher bulk-water charges and other costs.

The rate increase proposal followed a multi-year review of district finances and a 2024 jump in bulk water costs that sanitary staff said produced a substantial deficit. Newbrow described steps taken to reduce costs — including delaying some capital work and spreading certain replacements over longer periods — but said additional revenue is needed to meet operating, maintenance and replacement obligations. He told the board the $12 proposal combines roughly $6.80 per 1,000 gallons to cover purchased bulk water and roughly $5.20 per 1,000 gallons to operate and maintain the county’s multiple water districts.

Commissioner John Malloy cautioned against a sudden, ‘‘shock’’ memo that would require all teleworking employees or others to return immediately; by analogy, Malloy also urged a gradual, clearly explained implementation if the board approves rate changes. Commissioner Bernard said he supported finding a long-term, defensible approach rather than a quick fix: “If I'm gonna take a bullet for this, I want a long-term solution,” he said.

Sanitary staff told the board they can implement a Homestead (discount) program for qualifying customers but that doing so would require raising the base rates for other users to offset the discount. Newbrow said the discount is feasible and that the office already has requested a list of homestead properties from the auditor to model impacts. Prosecutor Bill Danso reminded the board that each option has legal and budgetary trade-offs and that any policy change should be clearly documented.

Commissioners pressed staff for additional specifics before voting: a written homestead-discount plan, a detailed breakdown of the sanitary fund’s revenues and expenses (including bulk-water purchases and the 2024 cost spike), and a plan showing phased capital investments and timelines. Multiple commissioners said they were reluctant to approve a rate change without seeing how a homestead exemption would be structured and paid for.

No formal rate increase was voted on during the workshop. Sanitary staff said the alternative to acting would be to defer needed investment or risk a fiscal emergency for the sanitary system; they cautioned the board that declining to address the shortfall could prompt state oversight. The board directed staff to provide the requested analyses and to return with a revised recommendation.

Ending: Commissioners left the workshop seeking more documentation and options. Sanitary engineering will return with a written homestead discount model, a line-item cost review (including bulk-water supplier contracts), and scenarios that show revenue needs under different discount and phasing assumptions.