Algoma council votes 4–3 to explore possible fire-protection (hydrant) user fee

The City of Algoma Common Council voted 4–3 on Dec. 17 to direct staff to explore the potential effect of a utility-collected fire-protection (hydrant) fee on end users, including meter-size breakdowns and preliminary cost estimates.

The motion, moved in the meeting by a council member (identified in discussion as Casey) and seconded by Wayne Schmidt, asks staff to collect data and return with loose estimates rather than to order a formal audit now. Clerk (speaker 3) recorded the roll-call outcome as 4 in favor, 3 opposed.

Why it matters: city staff said the fee would shift some of the roughly $500,000 currently budgeted for fire protection into a user charge collected on utility bills, which could reduce borrowing or property-tax pressures but would create a monthly cost for water customers. Staff emphasized the Council first needs data and a possible PSC audit before adopting any fee.

What staff said: a senior staff speaker (labeled in the transcript as the city staff member) explained how the Public Service Commission audit would apportion fire-protection costs and noted the city’s current practice of funding fire protection from the general fund. The staff speaker used $500,000 as an illustrative budget figure and said: “If we decide in the next… two months, I think the earliest it would take effect would be 01/01/2026,” and that an audit could cost “somewhere between $20 and $30,000.” The article uses the functional label “Staff member” for that speaker as the transcript presents the remarks as staff testimony rather than a named public official.

Customer impacts and uncertainty: staff gave a rough example that a standard residential 5/8-inch meter could see a new fee in the range of about $20 per month, and another council member estimated it might be closer to $30; both figures were presented as preliminary estimates the council should verify with an audit. Council members repeatedly asked that staff return with meter counts, a meter-size breakdown and clearer numbers before authorizing any audit or fee change.

Opposition and concerns: opponents raised concerns that adopting a user fee while also retaining general-fund revenues could amount to “double dipping,” and several council members asked for clarity on how any new revenue would affect borrowing, the tax levy and equity for residential versus large commercial users.

Next step: the council’s approved motion directs staff to gather the preliminary data and present loose estimates (by meter size and impact on the end user) at a future meeting; no formal audit or fee implementation was authorized at this session.

Quotes (selected): "If we decide in the next... two months, I think the earliest it would take effect would be 01/01/2026," said the staff member presenting the proposal. "We need some loose numbers at least to play with to have a better understanding and make a better decision," said a council member during the debate.

The council directed staff to return with the requested information; the motion to explore the fee passed 4–3.