Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trumbull County officials confront mounting water fund shortfall and possible rate increases
Summary
Sanitary staff warned that multi-year bulk-water price increases have left the county's water fund operating at a loss; commissioners debated whether to raise rates, consolidate districts or seek capital projects to reduce dependence on expensive suppliers.
Sanitary engineering staff told Trumbull County commissioners that the county's water fund is rapidly losing ground after years of wholesale (bulk) price increases from supplier cities, and presented options that include modest immediate rate increases, longer-term capital projects to shift supply sources and tighter expenditure controls.
The county's sanitary director said the biggest driver is water the county buys from nearby municipalities and private suppliers, and that pass-through increases to customers were not enacted consistently over the last decade. "The change in our bulk water costs from 2015 to 2024 is roughly $1.8 million," the sanitary engineer said, adding that some supplier rate schedules extend for five to 20 years and are outside the county's control.
Commissioners and staff spent more than an hour debating remedies. Commissioner Bernard argued the board should first see deeper expense reductions before approving any rate increase. "I don't want to raise anything until you show me you've squeezed every dime and nickel," he said. Others said the county has little choice if the fund becomes unable to pay monthly bills.
County legal and finance staff cautioned that some remedies are constrained by law and prior agreements. County Prosecutor Phil Danzo reminded the board of a 2016 Attorney General opinion that explained options available when smaller water districts are insolvent: consolidate districts, raise rates, or appropriate general-fund money to cover shortfalls. "Consolidation and careful contracting are among the options; ultimately rate-setting is a board decision anchored in statutory authority," Danzo said.
Sanitary staff also described capital projects the department is pursuing to reduce reliance on the most expensive suppliers, including pipeline and pump-station work that would allow the county to buy higher volumes from lower-cost providers. Those projects have funding implications: some are eligible for grants and principal-forgiveness loans, while others would be repaid through capital charges to affected customers.
Public-policy and human-resources staff urged the board to include a short —- and 5-year plan in the next presentation: what expenses can be cut, which contracts can be renegotiated with supplier cities, and what operational or collection improvements are practical. "We need quantitative scenarios that show what happens to customers in different neighborhoods and what the legal and financial risks are if we delay action," one staffer said.
The board did not vote on new rates at the meeting. Commissioners asked sanitary staff to return with a clear five-year cash-flow projection, a list of deferred maintenance and capital risks, and options for negotiating bulk-supply contracts and phasing any customer-rate changes.
Next steps: staff will provide a follow-up briefing with detailed projections and options; the board said hearings and additional public outreach will precede any rate action.
