At last night's borough council meeting at Columbia No. 1 Fire Company, the issue of opting for Lancaster Area Sewer Authority (LASA) to handle borough sewer waste was discussed. Both sides were represented - with citizen comments evenly divided.
The LASA offer is appealing in several respects, in that some borough debt could be reduced, and the borough's responsibility for plant maintenance would be eliminated, but other aspects are troubling.
First, the borough will not have a seat on the LASA board without the unanimous vote of all seven municipalities. In essence, Columbia might not have a voice in the decisions affecting it. Also, the cost of representation is two million dollars, according to LASA executive director Mike Kyle. Such a sum would significantly reduce any potential cost savings from the deal.
Second, current borough sewer employees will not be guaranteed a job with LASA. Simply put, workers will lose their jobs.
Third, there are no real guarantees that opting for LASA will be a better deal in the long run for Columbia than if we keep and maintain the system we have.
At this point, LASA seems to be dictating all the terms. At the very least, the borough should demand some sort of representation on the board, as well as continued employment for the handful of current employees.
David Bush, who was hired by the borough to look at the figures, said costs would increase to a lesser degree under the LASA option due to economies of scale. He said, "The offer made by LASA is very fair."
Councilwoman Mary Barninger asked Mike Kyle what was in it for LASA. He replied that having more customers to share costs would help maintain stable rates and mitigate future rate increases.
Committee member Norm Meiskey said that even with upgrades to the current plant, it still would not continue to be in compliance. He said that if we go with LASA, the borough could get out of debt.
"Not to do it is a travesty," he added.
Mayor Leo Lutz said he had spoken to an employee of the plant who said the upgrades would keep us in compliance and wonders about the "not in compliance" comment.
Some other considerations:
* If Columbia keeps the plant, it will need to be continually maintained and upgraded.
* LASA doesn't handle storm water, which, according to the mayor, will be an issue in the future.
* It's not clear whether LASA's offer is "once and done" or if it will be offered again in the future if the borough does not opt for it this time.
* It was made clear, however, that a decision to go with LASA, once made, is irrevocable.
If regionalization is the wave of the future, then Columbia needs to get on board and accept LASA's offer. If, however, the financial benefits of doing so do not significantly outweigh the liabilities, we should hold on to the assets we already have. Since we cannot accurately project what our actions will engender in a generation or two, the decision is a difficult one that will ultimately have profound and far-reaching consequences for Columbia Borough.
