Nobody likes paying more for the same thing, especially when it comes to utilities services like electricity, water and sewer.

Oftentimes we take these things for granted — only stopping to notice when the lights go out, the water doesn’t turn on, or the toilet backs up.

So when it was proposed that the Niles City Council increase rates for these three vital services, some people were upset.

Two residents were so concerned that they voiced their opinions at Monday’s council meeting, urging city officials to reconsider raising the electricity rate by 3.2 percent, the water rate by 10 percent and the sewer (or wastewater) rate by 10 percent.

It was easy to see where they were coming from, especially in light of a similar increase in January and the temporary surcharge associated with the Pucker Street Dam project. Both citizens said raising rates might make it difficult for people to afford to live in Niles, possibly leading to a drop in population.

No one wants to see that happen.

But the cold, hard truth is the council did not have a choice in the matter.

Studies performed on the city’s utilities divisions determined that increases were needed in order to keep up with the rising cost of maintaining and operating each system.

Council member Scott Clark might have put it best when he said that raising rates wasn’t a want-to thing, it was a “have-to” thing.

Not raising the rates now would have amounted to nothing more than “kicking the can” down the road until things really got bad, requiring an even bigger increase in rates.

Imagine how much concern people would have then?

With that said, we urge city leaders to move cautiously going forward and carefully consider the impact future increases will have on citizens, many of whom are senior citizens on very fixed incomes. Although the city offers very competitive rates when compared with other communities, we hope leaders will continue to look at ways for these individual departments to work within their current budgets and keep costs as low as possible.

Exchanging a small increase now for a larger one later wasn’t the answer and we are glad the council saw that, even in the face of criticism.

 

Opinions expressed are those of the editorial board consisting of Publisher Michael Caldwell and editors Ambrosia Neldon, Craig Haupert, Ted Yoakum and Scott Novak.