EPHRATA - The Ephrata City Council tabled a proposed ordinance affecting septic systems in city limits, leaving current requirements in place.

Homeowners in the city are still required to connect to the city's sewer system if the sewer line comes within 200-feet of the a property owner's property within 90 days and pay $29 a month in sewer fees.

The decision came after public testimony on a proposed ordinance, which would have exempted existing septic systems within the 200-foot limit until the systems failed or the property was transferred.

The proposal also required property owners to have their systems pumped and inspected every 10 years and pay a $15 sewer fee.

Ephrata resident Jo Maedke questioned the sewer fee. Referencing a comment made by Councilmember Ben Davis during a previous meeting, she said the fee isn't comparable to items such as streets or schools.

"Those are things that we can choose to use," she said. "My family can go to the hospital or drive on the streets, but we cannot connect to the sewer."

Maedke said she wanted to connect to the sewer system, and was willing to if it came to her house.

"My concern is if you charge, even if it's partial payments, it kind of removes some of the inspiration of bringing that line out to us," she said. 

Ephrata resident Jerry Baker echoed her comments, questioning whether it was legal to charge someone for a service they don't receive.

"I don't know whether to call it a fee or a tax because it doesn't fit either one of those categories, but apparently you're going to go ahead with something on that," he said.

Baker continued, saying he would be in favor of paying $29 a month if the city agrees to provide him the service within a reasonable amount of time.

"I think reasonable in this case is within two years," he said. "In other words, I'll pay you $29 a month if you can guarantee that I'll have the service within two years."

If the city agreed to bring the sewer pipe near his home, he wanted to deal with his septic system then. For now, Baker plans to pump the tank when necessary, saying the city number is arbitrary.

He also criticized the council for trying to write an ordinance and create a standard for everyone. 

"Your mandate is to inspect and pump existing septic tanks (on a) periodic basis. I think it should be changed to inspect and pump if necessary," he said.

Councilmembers Kathleen Allstot and Stephanie Knitter continued to disagree with the charge. Knitter asked how long it would take to bring sewer service to the people with septic systems.

"The way the system is designed, it's not designed to recoup the costs in order to put in new sewer lines," City Administrator Wes Crago said. "The expectation is the developer will put those in and the city retains the utility and provides the service of sewer treatment for the entire town."

When the houses affected by the ordinance were built, the council didn't require the developer to build a sewer line, Crago said.

Mayor Chris Jacobson said if the council approved the proposal, and the city put sewer pipe on the street, people wouldn't connect to the sewer, because the system hadn't paid for itself.

"So no matter what you do, somebody is going to have an argument against this ordinance," he said. "I think at the last meeting, I challenged the council and staff to run the sewer up there ... They said they would hook up to the sewer ... It'd cost the city maybe $10,000 and start charging them the $29.50 because they all agreed they would have a problem with the charge if the sewer is in the street. That eliminates a lot of problems."

Jacobson also said the council is only hearing from two people as if they were the only ones with an opinion on the ordinance.

"I agree with Mr. Baker. We're trying to write an ordinance that fits everybody, which is what government does," he said. "I think we ought to run a sewer line up that street."

Crago said Jacobson was correct, but the city has two issues with the putting the sewer pipe on the road. The first is the city doesn't have the money to place it.

"The water (and) sewer fund is a combined utility and its excess goes into the construction fund, which is currently devoted to water lines and street repair as part of our project," he said. "So excess revenues aren't there for that."

The second problem Crago had was Baker and Maedke feel it would be an acceptable solution, while a number of other people might not.

"We're trying to correct what our forefathers did, and they thought they were doing the right thing by benefiting that developer," Jacobson said.

Crago said it might not be good to estimate the cost.

Councilmember Heidi Schultheis said the city has the option of tabling the ordinance until city officials can determine how they would bring sewer service to the homes without it.

"This, along with sidewalks, is one more example where it's indicative of a general philosophy we have here at the city of not being proactive about our schedules we have, our fees, so that we have a set of funds to be able to build the sewer out," she said. "So, I think that's something we should look very seriously at."

Crago said the city hasn't done a rate study since 2002, when the water study was done. The city doesn't raise its rates with the rate of inflation.

Councilmember Bruce Reim pointed out if the council tabled the proposal, some people would be forced to connect to sewer service.

"Some people have already begun that process of hooking up that are within 200 feet," Crago said. 

Public Works Director Bill Sangster said there are people within the 200-foot limit wanting to hook up and the incentive was waiving the city's $750 connection fee.

The council agreed it wanted to bring back an ordinance waiving the fee for people connecting to the sewer.

City Attorney Katherine Kenison also suggested tabling the proposal, and if the councilmembers wanted to add a provision to the code allowing Sangster to waive the connection fee, they can draft another proposal allowing that.

The council decided unanimously to table the proposal.