EPHRATA - Ephrata councilmembers remain split on the size of a sewer rate increase following the first of two public hearings.

The council is considering two possible increases for the city's sewer rate. The first increases the rate by $6.50 per equivalent residential unit. The second increases the rate by $10.25 per equivalent residential unit. An equivalent residential unit is a standard based on the water used during the winter.

The $6.50 option would increase a residence's monthly bill to about $36, according to city reports. An example 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.

The $10.25 option would increase a residence's monthly bill to about $40, according to city reports. An example small business with five or six employees would increase to about $57. The example restaurant would increase to $214 and an example school would go up to $259. The option replenishes the fund's reserves within 2.5 years.

 Don Guillemette was the one resident to speak at the hearing. He supported the $10.25 increase, saying it might hurt more in the short term, but would mean projects would get done sooner.

"If I'm going to put my money out, I want to see where it's going," he said. "I don't want it to be drawn out and drawn out and drawn out ... If you did it any other way. If you did a small increase this year, a small increase next year and a small increase the year after you're still at the same place."

Councilmembers William Coe, Bruce Reim and Valli Millard supported the larger increase. Coe pointed out the increase was less than if the city had increased the rate along with inflation.

Reim pointed out everyone is on a fixed income, since most people aren't receiving raises.

"I can understand that, however if we had been doing the right thing from the very beginning we wouldn't have had to worry about this," he said. "I have sympathy for people who call and say, 'I'm on a fixed income please go with (a lower option) or don't change it at all.' I'd love not to change it. I think that would be great, but that's not going to happen."

If the city went with the $6.50 option it would take four years to rebuild the reserves, and do anything with the money, Reim said. The $10.25 option allows the city to start working sooner.

"I would support (the larger increase) with the caveat that maybe next year we don't start cost of living (increases) until the year after that," he said. "Rather than come at them in May and say, 'Oh by the way, we're cranking her up to $39.25 you residents, and, heads up, in January, we're cranking it up again."

Councilmembers Mark Wanke and Stephanie Knitter supported the $6.50 increase, saying some senior citizens brought concerns about not receiving cost of living adjustments to him.

"I just feel for a lot of people out there right now because things are tight, they don't have jobs, (and) they're just trying to make ends meet," he said.

Knitter pointed out the city could add other increases later, recommending the city start slowly because of people on fixed incomes.

Councilmember Kathleen Allstot was undecided on which option she wanted. She pointed out the staff seemed to want the larger increase, but she would personally like the smaller increase.

Mayor Chris Jacobson supported the $10.25 increase, saying construction costs would rise quickly when the economy recovered.

"If you wait four years, the cost of construction is going to be ... 25 percent, 30 percent higher and it's going to go up," he said. "You're going to write a bigger check sooner."

A second public hearing is scheduled for 7 p.m. on May 16 at city hall, located at 121 Alder St. SW.