City’s continued grant applications shows commitment to community

Published 9:58 am Thursday, August 27, 2015

This week, the Niles City Council approved another grant to help fund the removal of the Pucker Street Dam.

This particular grant totaled almost $100,000, which brings the grand total of grant funds for the project to more than $1.24 million.

The steps city officials have taken to ease the burden on their constituents’ utility rates are commendable, but with another $2.2 million expected to be needed to complete the project, there is still a lot more work to be done.

The city originally voted to tear down the dam, which hasn’t been working for several years, is beyond repair and therefore serves no purpose, in 2013. Since then, utility customers in the city have faced a number of rate increases, including an added electricity surcharge, in order to raise the funds necessary to remove the dam.

We do not dispute the fact that the dam needs to be removed; it serves no purpose, is falling down and could eventually provide environmental and safety hazards.

However, we understand citizens’ concerns over the expected cost (especially since the council found out the pricetag nearly doubled). We hope the city officials will continue to do everything possible to soften the blow for the residents who pay to live in the city limits.

With an added bond millage and a number of other taxes to pay for, it is becoming less and less affordable to live in the city, and it is not to anyone’s benefit to lose residents who cannot afford the city’s taxes.

With expected construction to begin as early as next spring, it is imperitive that our city leaders spend time researching and applying for other grant opportunities, and the sooner the better.

We think we can speak for the city’s residents when we say they appreciate the efforts already made by the leadership, but encourage them not to stop now.

Hopefully the situation becomes a win-win, with the dam removed and not too large a burden on the people who call Niles home.

 

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