A contentious committee meeting was followed by a unanimous vote from the Waterloo City Council last Tuesday to hire a contractor for operation of the soon-to-be-completed new $30 million water plant. 

Certop Inc., a contract water and wastewater operating company based out of Clinton County, was awarded a seven-month contract by the City of Waterloo for “operation, maintenance and management of the city’s water supply, treatment and storage facility,” as the motion was stated.

The contract terms with Certop are for $9,500 per month from Oct. 1, 2024 through April 30, 2025.

Prior to the regular council meeting, a the city’s Water and Sewer Committee convened in the second floor of City Hall to vote on whether to recommend this action to the full council.

Waterloo Mayor Stan Darter read the following statement at the start of the committee meeting:

“During negotiations, the city offered a contract that included a new water lead position to operate the new water plant when it comes online. AFSCME union members voted unanimously to reject that contract offer. The city responded with a contract offer that excluded city employees from operating the new water plant. AFSCME union members overwhelmingly voted to accept that contract offer, and the contract was signed off by AFSCME representatives and the city on June 13, 2024. On Aug. 15, 2024, two months after their three-year contract was signed, AFSCME filed a grievance with the city over the water plant operations. With this grievance, AFSCME also submitted a proposal to run the water plant. This was nine months after contract negotiations began with AFSCME. With water initially expected to be running through the plant later this month, the city has no option except to contract the plant out with Certop, which has assured the city it can operate the plant. The city is open to re-evaluating our position as we approach the end of the seven-month contract with Certop. We’re not married to Certop forever. This is a seven-month contract.”

City of Waterloo employee Jason Goff, who serves as union president for AFSCME Local 39 and briefly served as a Waterloo alderman before resigning that position to maintain his city job, offered a response to Darter’s statement at the committee meeting.

“During the negotiation, we were presented with a contract that did fit needs of the water division,” Goff said. “But when the city chose to remove those, we voted the contract down unanimously because of the cost of living that was offered to the union. It had nothing to do with the water plant. There’s nothing in the current contract, or the previous contract, that states anything about a water plant or water operations. We informed the city at the time that we would not negotiate over the scope of work or the duties of the water plant, as that can fall under the cause of contracting out.”

Goff continued to stress that “at no point” was the union contract voted down due to water plant operations.

“As a matter of fact, the first three meetings of contract negotiations, we established how the water plant would run, how it would be staffed, and everything was pretty much set in stone,” Goff said. “If the city would have offered us the cost of living that the union was asking for, it would’ve been a done deal. But we did not take what they offered… they got mad and went this route.”

Jordan Riley, who attended the committee meeting, asked that out of the two statements, “which one was lying?”

Waterloo City Attorney Anthony Gilbreth, who along with Darter and Goff  was present during these union negotiations, stressed that this meeting “wasn’t a debate forum.” 

Riley then asked what the actual cost savings to the city and its taxpayers are should the city contract out water plant operations. 

Gilbreth replied that these savings would be $50,000-$60,000 annually.

“On a $30 million project? That’s it?” Riley asked.

“If you want to pay it out of pocket, you’re free to do so,” Gilbreth countered.

“I don’t like your attitude,” Riley replied.

Riley further asked for a cost breakdown for using Certop, to which Gilbreth explained that the $9,500 per month does not count extra services – those are $90-$100 per hour based on who is performing those services. 

“So, if we were to have the city’s own employees run this, how much would it cost to have the city having however many people it needs to run this plant?” Riley asked. 

Gilbreth answered that “at one employee, you’re looking at the ballpark of $160,000 to $180,000 per year.”

Riley then said that if the City of Waterloo used existing staff – not hiring anyone – analysis he received indicates the cost would be just more than $10,000 per year, which is just slightly more than the monthly fee for Certop. 

“Why are we not using existing staff, then?” Riley asked.

Gilbreth then issued this lengthy answer:

“The underground department said for seven months, in no uncertain terms, that it did not have adequate staffing to even perform routine tasks that are supposed to be performed now. So they don’t do them. Then, after they approved the contract, then they decided to tell the city, ‘No, you know what? We can operate a plant with everybody we have.’ Those two things are incongruous, and the city can’t be in a position with water running through the plant in three weeks to try and take a guess as to which one is true and which one is not.”

Riley then asked how Certop was vetted, to which Gilbreth replied the company followed the process outlined in the request for proposal. 

“I think what’s going on here just doesn’t make sense,” Riley concluded.

Goff questioned the experience of Certop with what has been branded as a state-of-the-art water plant like Waterloo is building. He said that the city currently has two employees in-house with prior water plant experience that could save the city a “minimum $95,000 per year” rather than use a “contractor no more qualified than we are.”

Gilbreth replied by saying “I think it’s irresponsible for the city to decide that the underground department is now telling the truth that it can do the work when it wasn’t telling the truth before.”

Goff took umbrage with that remark.

“We are required to tell the truth,” Darter interjected. “And you can go back through our minutes and see them.”

Goff concluded by asking what happens with water plant operations after Certop’s seven-month contract is over.

“If we aren’t viable options now, what makes us a viable option in seven months?” Goff asked.

“Don’t know,” Gilbreth replied. “I don’t have a crystal ball today.”

Once completed in October, the plant will be able to accommodate 3.2 million gallons of water per day. Waterloo uses about one million gallons per day at present, meaning future growth is accounted for.

Waterloo announced plans in February 2019 to build its own facility and leave Illinois American Water, its current provider, at the end of an existing contract that expires in October.

Waterloo Public Works Director Tim Birk, who is retiring later this year, said there is still much work to do but the water plant – located near Valmeyer – should be substantially complete by the end of October.

“It seems to be coming together,” he said.