Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Willard residents press board over proposed water and sewer surcharges; board to model alternatives
Summary
Dozens of residents at a Willard Board of Aldermen public hearing urged the board to reconsider a proposed rate structure that would charge customers outside city limits substantially more, calling the surcharge coercive and asking for clearer data and alternatives. Board members agreed to run alternative rate scenarios and consider stepped increases.
A standing-room audience told the Willard Board of Aldermen on Tuesday evening that a proposed water and sewer rate change that would impose a steep surcharge on customers outside city limits feels unfair and, some said, coercive.
Residents who live in the Meadows and other unincorporated areas said they accept the need for higher utility revenue to cover years of deferred maintenance, but they disputed the consultant’s proposal to charge non-city customers a substantially higher rate. “This isn’t the first time I’ve heard this — it feels like a stick to get us to annex,” said a resident who asked that her remark be recorded as opposition to the surcharge.
David O’Connor, a former Willard public works director who said he served from 2016 to 2019, told the board he was not opposing rate increases in principle but challenged the data used to justify a roughly 50% surcharge for out-of-city customers. O’Connor asked the board to show the basis for the differential, including actual cost-to-serve figures for the Meadows distribution and the city system. “There’s no data here showing the additional cost to serve outside the city,” he said.
Board members and staff said deferred capital needs and specific projects drive the recommendation. City staff noted the system-wide capital plan covers necessary repairs and an upsized force main to Springfield; the project was described during the hearing as a roughly $3.2 million construction effort, with speakers characterizing most of the cost as expected to be covered by external funding sources. A staff member also cited rising wastewater-treatment expenses (figures discussed in the meeting included an annual treatment cost in the range of several hundred thousand dollars).
Several speakers described the Meadows system as a passive lagoon arrangement that requires less frequent treatment but does need targeted capital work (lift-station repairs and pipeline replacement). Others raised questions about whether the city had sufficient capacity at certain lift stations to accept additional sewer hookups and about the timing and cost of connecting to Springfield for treatment.
Jacob Long, a disabled veteran on a fixed income, said the increases would be unaffordable for many neighbors and called for a fairer distribution of costs. Angie Wilson, a city resident, urged the board to provide clearer public-facing materials — including a report card showing what any new revenue would pay for and a timeline for work — before approving large, immediate increases.
Several residents asked that the consultant who prepared the rate study not be paid to return for a second public presentation; they urged the board to ask staff to model alternative numbers instead. Board members said the consultant’s proprietary spreadsheet limits the city’s ability to run ad hoc scenarios without contractor assistance, but they agreed staff could prepare alternative models and show scenarios with smaller differentials between in-city and out-of-city rates.
The board discussed possible next steps: model-based scenarios to test smaller out-of-city differentials (members discussed options in the 10–15% range), consider stepped or incremental increases rather than a single sharp jump, and produce simple public materials explaining where rate revenue would be spent. The board indicated a revised ordinance and a new public hearing would be required if the numbers change; staff agreed to return with modeling and to explore communication options (website updates, bill inserts or robocalls) to improve outreach.
No final vote on the ordinance occurred at the meeting; the first reading of a separate social-media policy ordinance was postponed to the next public hearing to keep the session focused on the rates. The board adjourned after agreeing to continue the discussion at a future meeting where staff will present alternative rate scenarios.
What’s next: staff will prepare alternative rate models and public-facing materials; the board is expected to place revised rate numbers on a future agenda and, if those numbers change substantially from tonight’s notice, to schedule a new public hearing with proper public notice.
