EPHRATA - Ephrata is raising its sewer rates by $6.50 following a split decision by the city council.

The decision came after several discussions on the size of the increase. Council members had the choice between increasing it by either $6.50 per equivalent residential unit, or $10.25 per equivalent residential unit. An equivalent residential unit is a standard based on the amount of water used during the winter.

City officials started looking at the increase after about 10 years of no increases, City Administrator Wes Crago said. The lack of an increase, combined with increasing construction costs and an aging system has drained the reserves in the city's sewer fund.

"Our reserves have fallen to the level that by next year they will be unacceptable," he said. "This rate change, as proposed, will generate about $217,000 a year. It will take us approximately four years to build the reserves back up. Then we can start doing some of the projects."

The $6.50 option increases a residence's monthly bill to about $36, according to city reports. As an example: a small business with five or six employees would increase to about $52. The example restaurant would increase to $193 and an example school would increase to $218. The option replenishes the fund's reserves in four years.

Three of the seven council members, along with one Ephrata resident continued to support the $10.25 increase, pointing to the fact it would bring up reserves faster and allow the city to start working on projects sooner.

Don Guillemette, an Ephrata resident, supported the $10.25 increase, saying he expected the city would need an another increase sooner if they went with the $6.50 option.

"I know it's a burden on a lot of people, but ... I think you're going to be back here again in four years asking for another bigger increase," he said. "I think if you went with the bigger increase now, though it's a burden on me and a lot of other people, in two years you're not going to be asking for more money again."

Council member William Coe echoed Guillemette, saying he doesn't like to pay higher taxes, but the larger increase is the right move for the city.

"I think the lesser (increase) is kicking the can down the road," Council member Bruce Reim said. "We're going to get there anyway. We have two options. The difference between those two options for residential (customers) is $3, and that $3 difference kicks up our ability to begin projects almost a year and a half earlier."

If the city pursued an annual increase based on the Consumer Price Index, Reim supported delaying it for a year if the city went with the larger initial increase, he said.

Council member Valli Millard said the delay would likely result in higher construction costs when the projects are done.

Four council members supported the lower increases, saying it is already going to cause a burden on people, and the larger increase would be harder for people.

Council member Stephanie Knitter said the council needs to think about people living on fixed incomes. She did want the lower increase combined with annual increases.

"That would be more helpful than a big whammy all at once," she said.

Council member Kathleen Allstot called Reim's argument persuasive, but continued to support the $6.50 option. She pointed out costs are going up, but incomes aren't.

"Three dollars doesn't sound like a lot of money, but when they're down to their last $60 and they have to go buy groceries and that kind of stuff, it does really make a big difference," Councilmember Tony Mora said. "We're going to raise it $6.50 so the $3 adds up."