LOCK HAVEN — Work towards a Joint Municipal Authority could come to a halt — though members of Lock Haven City Council hope it can still continue.

Talks of forming a joint authority — particularly between the city, Suburban Water Authority, the Lock Haven City Authority and the Central Clinton County Water Filtration Authority — began in January 2024. The move was due to the costs associated with maintaining the city’s water system — including DEP required upgrades to the city’s two reservoirs, Keller and Ohl — and Suburban Water’s own lines would be difficult to maintain individually.

After just over a year of representatives from each entity having met, there’s the potential that forming a joint authority could be off the table.

Lock Haven City Council reviewed letters from Suburban Water Authority Manager Greg Mayes, who said continued discussions may not be worthwhile if the city was unwilling to turn over ownership of its assets — including the reservoirs — to the joint authority.

The city currently offered to lease the assets until the joint authority was well established.

Two letters from Mayes were included in the council’s packet on Monday night — one dated Jan. 21, 2025 and another March 10, 2025.

In the January letter, Mayes said he was writing in regards to a letter to the CCCWFA from Dec. 30, 2024.

“The letter addresses concerns raised by CCCWFA with regards to the formation of a combined authority and outlines what terms LH City Council finds acceptable,” Mayes wrote.

Mayes said the terms were discussed at Suburban Water’s January meeting.

“The letter, among other things, states the city would retain ownership of their assets and would prefer a potential lease agreement of some kind,” Mayes wrote. “That being said, when the subcommittee meetings were being held the consensus was to form a combined municipal authority. The four entities, at the appropriate time, would turn over all assets and liabilities to the newly formed authority expecting nothing in return.”

Mayes’s letter stated Suburban’s board “feels ownership, not a lease, is the best path forward for the customers of Suburban Water.”

Mayes’ letter from March 10 was similar in its subject matter.

“As stated previously, the only thing we would be interested in is owned regionalization in the form of a new, combined authority,” the letter reads. “If the City of Lock Haven plans on retaining ownership of the reservoirs, the ground surrounding the reservoirs or any city water infrastructure, Suburban Water Authority is not interested.”

He further noted that, if “the city (is) set on leasing assets to the new authority, there seems to be little point in restarting subcommittee meetings.”

“If you agree there is no path forward, we would like to formally put this matter to rest,” he concluded.

Mayes’s letter requested the city offer a response prior to Suburban Water’s meeting on April 16.

Council Member Barbara Masorti questioned Mayes’s comment regarding turning over the reservoirs and “the ground surrounding the reservoirs” and if that meant Zindel Park.

Council Member Rick Conklin said he believed it just included roughly 100 yards around the Keller Reservoir and not all of the forested area in the park, based on discussions at the subcommittee meetings.

“Maybe the answer is talking about it instead of interpreting what people are saying,” Mayor Joel Long suggested.

Council Member Tami Brannan was in agreement, noting that — although the letter suggests there was no need to communicate if there wasn’t a resolution — the city was still willing to discuss the topic.

“We could say we do see a path forward, let’s meet to have that conversation,” Brannan said. “Maybe it will all fall apart but it doesn’t hurt to have another conversation.”

Council Member Steve Stevenson noted, if that does become the case, the city would need to continue to look at options. He pointed out the Public Utilities Commission discussion regarding water rates would be coming up again in another year — which can cost the city about $300,000 to apply through.

The absolute last resort, he said, could be to lease water rights to other entities if necessary.

“That’s an avenue that we can explore again,” he said.

Council Member Jeff Brinker said he felt the joint authority discussion hadn’t been “thoroughly discussed” in regards to what would be turned over to the authority versus a lease.

Masorti, who served on the authority subcommittee, said that wasn’t accurate.

“We had the attorneys in and we went through the whole business on how to deal with the water company, the water system, to lease it and do that,” she said. “We had a lengthy executive session about that. That’s where we decided as a council what we wanted to do.”

Masorti continued, saying the city and the other entities held “countless meetings” about the topic as well.

Brinker asked if Suburban Water was also aware of these.

“They know. When they got our original proposal it said very clearly that our goal was to at least start to lease the system until we made sure everything was going to fall into place and work how we hoped,” Masorti answered. “And that Suburban was welcome to lease their system.”

Brannan noted, when talks first began between the entities, it was put on the city to draft a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

“They said ‘let the city start it and we’ll copy it’ essentially,” she said. “They asked us to do all that front work, to meet up with our lawyers, to write up these things and then when they got it, instead of initiating the conversation they said ‘this isn’t what we want.'”

Wilson reaffirmed Brannan’s statement.

“The city paid, itself, for all the legal work up to that point,” he said, adding both Suburban Water and the filtration authority’s solicitors acknowledge the city’s solicitor had the knowledge and background to complete the work.

“Which meant the city paid all those bills for legal service, not Suburban and not the filtration authority,” he said. “But they are not fans of the city’s proposal at this point.”

Wilson further noted meetings of the Lock Haven Authority included representatives from all the entities involved in the joint municipal authority discussions, where issues could have been potentially raised about the MOU.

Masorti concluded the conversation, saying she felt there was still the opportunity for talks to continue.

“We had a really good meeting at our last one. We had a line of communication that is open and I think there are a lot of opportunities to continue a conversation forward,” she said.