Lincoln residents unaware of utility rate changes speak out at City Council

Some residents of Lincoln reported they were unaware of the city's utility rate increases until hearing about the Aug. 8 Lincoln City Council meeting via social media. Many of those residents attended the Aug. 22 city council meeting to share their thoughts regarding the increases to water, sewer and wastewater utilities. Starting Oct. 1, residents will see a significant increase in utility rates ranging from 50 to 70 percent, according to a previous Gold Mountain News article. Rates will increase substantially immediately, then gradually increase by about 3 percent per utility over five years. At the previous meeting, the rates were approved in a 4-1 vote, with councilmember Bill Lauritsen voting "no." The adoption of the new utility rates was scheduled as part of the Aug. 22 meeting's consent calendar initially, which is a list of typically routine matters approved in one motion, according to the staff report. However, Lauritsen asked it to be moved to align with his previous "no" vote from the Aug. 8 meeting. "I'm really not happy with the way this was handled. I'm not happy with the fact that it exists at all and why it was allowed to happen, and I'd like more discussion of it," Lauritsen said. Since many residents said they were unaware of the utilities until this meeting, many attended the Aug. 22 meeting to share their thoughts. A resident who identified herself as Melanie said, "I want to say thank you to councilmember Lauritsen for his stance on this. I too understand that costs increase and utility costs increase, but the way this has been handled in the last three to four to six years, and Paul Joiner certainly, in your 14-year term, one cannot imagine how you did not see this coming. … The last-minute action that this council is taking to double or triple the water rates is a disservice to this community here in Lincoln." Residents also addressed a recent letter received in their mail regarding an error the city made. According to City Attorney Kristine Mollenkopf, Finance Director Nita Wracker realized after the Aug. 8 meeting the city failed to alert the public of its right to dispute the rate increases once implemented, therefore not complying with government code. The statute says that 120 days from the Aug. 22 meeting, residents have the right to dispute their rate increases. Mollenkopf also said the city has received numerous comments that the city has violated due process, however, she said the city determined it was in no violation of due process to residents. Regarding the letter's language, resident Doug Berngert said, "I don't think the letter gives a very good impression to citizens. It was extremely curt, actually offensive to citizens, almost combative. I think the city can do a lot better and leave a better impression to its citizens. In the future, just a little cleanup on letters." Mayor Paul Joiner responded, "It does sound like it could have been handled better." Mollenkopf said the letter appears insensitive to residents because they copied and pasted language directly from the statute. Joiner suggested they could have included an introduction paragraph. According to resident Joyce Melvin, some residents were unaware of the notices sent out regarding the rate increases, saying, "I, for one, never received, nor had a say in the proposal of this exuberant water increase, and I don't feel like I'm alone because I've spoken to quite a few people and they were totally unaware of this." She attributed this to residents possibly discarding the mail as what they deemed "supplemental garbage." Two-year resident Kimberly Adams said, "I'm very disappointed with the communication in regards to the water and utility increase. I think it's a disservice for the newer homeowners as well as the older homeowners to find out that it was happening and not a lot of communication was made for this. I just feel like our voices, as a city, need to be heard, and I feel like this is trying to be swept under the rug." A resident who only identified herself as Olga made the observation that the majority of people at the Aug. 22 meeting discovered the rate increases via social media. While she acknowledged her "responsibility as a resident to know what's going on," she also said, "I think a lot of people would probably not have such a bad taste in their mouth," if "communication and outreach" were improved. City Manager Sean Scully replied to comments, saying, "We tried to do everything that we could reasonably do to interact as much as possible and communicate the severity of this situation." Scully said he interacted with residents at many public outreach and city council meetings and responded to personal calls and emails. Resident Nick Olivera agreed on the need for an increase in utility rates but said it's "just too much. … I certainly don't know everybody in Lincoln, but everybody that I talk to, there has never been one person that said, 'Oh my God, this is great. I can't wait to pay 50 or 60 percent more on my water bill.' " All council members chuckled before Joiner pitched in, "There's not a single council member that's thinking that either." Many residents echoed similar concerns from the Aug. 8 meeting, such as the rate being too high, too sudden, and the lack of smaller increases over four to six years. However, Scully said if the city were to not officially adopt the increases at the Aug. 22 meeting and conduct an additional poll of residents opposed or in favor of the increase, the four-to-six-month process they just completed would need to start over. "This is just my personal opinion and perspective, having done this for some time, I can guarantee everybody in this room that if we were to do that, we would receive more protests for sure, but we would also receive the exact same types of comments at the end of that 45-day period about lack of notice," Scully said. Scully continued, highlighting the "severity" of the situation, "In order for us to keep those funds (utilities) active and liquid, we would essentially have to subsidize those funds from the General Fund, which, from a finance position, is about the worst position you could find yourself in because practically what that means is if these funds go bankrupt, we will not be able to afford our current staffing within the fire department, police department, and the other two major functions that are funded out of the General Fund are our recreation and library services. … This is a position that nobody is happy about, not the staff, not the council." Council member Holly Andreatta reiterated, "This is not something that we (the council) take lightly. We have listened to every single comment, every single concern, and if you heard me last time, you know I share those with you, we have to pay these rate increases as well. It would be really easy to say, 'Yeah, I'm not going to vote for this and be the hero,' … but when I got elected the first time, my philosophy is I cannot be so worried about making people mad that I'm not doing my job." Council member Dan Karleskint highlighted the danger of postponing the rate increase, saying, "A no vote on this, as far as I'm concerned, all of our primary services that exist to provide, which is water, sewer, solid waste, fire, putting all of those at risk because if we don't attack and pay the penalty of this first huge increase, we're continuing the risk of kicking the can down the road and the staving off the bankruptcy for maybe a few months. But, we'll still end up in the place of having to reduce our services so that they don't satisfy the needs of the community." Said Lauritsen, "I think, as an elected member of the council, we need to listen to the residents. The residents have spoken. I believe, one, this never should have been allowed to happen. Why we're having 70-, 80-percent increases in our water rates, that's just beyond the pale." He also indirectly replied to Karleskint and Andreatta, "We shouldn't scare the residents by saying we're going to lay off all the police or all the fire, or we're going to go bankrupt, that's just not going to happen." Council member Ben Brown emotionally shared, "I absolutely have no idea how I'm going to pay these rates." A member of the public scoffed at his comment, to which he responded, "I mean, it's the truth. If you want to open up my finances, I can show you, I'm an open book for that." Brown continued, "If I could see any other way around it, personally, I wanted to vote no. I hear everything you're saying. … I really wish there was a better way … but based on the information I've received, it's not possible." Joiner concluded, "Each and every one of us has spent months looking at these numbers, looking for a better alternative, looking for something less impactful. Sean and his team have dug deep. They gave us an alternative that would stretch things out a little bit, give you a little less impact, but in the end, some of those funds would go insolvent, even with a smaller increase." The raised utility rates were adopted in a 4-1 vote, with Lauritsen standing firm on his "no" vote.