How the city of Ironton would continue to pay for an unfunded government mandate is under debate.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency mandate focuses on separating the city’s storm water system from the sewer system.

The five-phase project has strict deadlines by the EPA with each phase costing more. Even though this is a mandated project, the city has to pay for it entirely.

The first phase is complete, the second phase is nearly finished and the city is getting ready for the third phase. The total project is expected to be complete by 2028.

“It’s a difficult situation when you’re mandated to do something and there’s no or very little funds available,” Mayor Rich Blankenship said. “I don’t want to see the city fined for not meeting deadlines and there’s no other funding available for this type of project. It’s a hard situation that I wish we didn’t have.”

The ordinance to make the storm water fee $2 for every 1,000 gallons used was implemented in 2006, but prior to that, an original ordinance was based on square footage of the properties.

Ironton resident Robert Beasley would like to go back to this method for the storm water fee, as he suggested to the council, using curb units that measure the square footage of properties where storm water runs off.

“I asked them to revisit the storm water fee and maybe come up with a better method rather than the consumption of water,” he said. “It should be that we get charged for storm water running off the property. Consumption of water has nothing to do with that.”

Ironton resident Bill Nenni was on the council when the old ordinance was used and said that with a storm water fee based on square footage, businesses with bigger properties would complain that it would cost them more.

An average house on an average lot was around $14 based on square footage, Nenni said. One of the reasons a new ordinance was created was because it was thought to be a better option for residents at the time.

Blankenship as well as the council will look into all options regarding the storm water fee.

“I’m going to think about it. I think the square footage was much higher than tying it to water consumption, but I will revisit the idea,” Blankenship said. “There’s not an easy answer. That’s why we have these meetings to come to a reasonable conclusion, but it’s up to the city council to make a decision.”

This will continue to be discussed at the next meeting.