EPHRATA SEWER

As someone with no current stake in the Ephrata septic-sewer

talks, I do find it very interesting that the city administrator

and some councilmen seem to imply that it is improper to "ask all

residents to pay for a small population to gain proximity lines,"

but then turn around and state that "all resident should share in

the city's cost of maintaining its utility system 'whether using it

or not.'"

As someone with no current stake in the Ephrata septic-sewer talks, I do find it very interesting that the city administrator and some councilmen seem to imply that it is improper to "ask all residents to pay for a small population to gain proximity lines," but then turn around and state that "all resident should share in the city's cost of maintaining its utility system 'whether using it or not.'"

Sounds like political double-speak to me.

Why should these current residents have to suffer any repercussions and substantial expense due to the city's own faulted decisions from years ago?

The very fact that this situation was allowed to occur in the first place makes me wonder if there was some kind of influence peddling going on in the past.

My opinion: if the city continues to pursue its desire of 100 percent compliance of its whim of the day, the city should make this right and equitable by extending the lines to all of the affected properties and waive all hook up fees associated with the compliance at the city's own expense, regardless of their so-called budget. Otherwise, go away.

Ken McLeod

Ephrata