Members of the Ironton City Council bagged a plan to increase garbage rates on Thursday.

The plan, the latest in several attempts to increase city revenues, was defeated in a 5-2 vote, after council members voted to suspend the rules and hear the second and third readings of the ordinance. Councilmen Jim Tordiff and Chuck O'Leary voted for the ordinance.

"I guess I've still been holding out some thread of hope that there would be some kind of change of heart on the $10 municipal fee," Tordiff said, referring to a plan previously considered by the council. "If the $10 fee is a dead issue, which it seems to be, I think we need to address the sanitation fund."

The sanitation fee changes would have affected both residential and commercial rates. The rate for a single-family home would have increased by $2.50.

City leaders have been working to make up a shortfall of $500,000 between city revenues and city expenses for this budget year.

"I ran for this seat on council because I thought we had too many fees," said Councilman Bob Isaac. "Somebody said the $10 fee is just a pizza. It may be for some of us. For others it might be their prescription drugs or it might be food for a couple of days."

Isaac said he agreed that the city needed to increase revenues but suggested they seek different avenues.

"The city ought to look toward establishing our own cable company," he said. "We may look at riverboat gambling. It may not be popular, but somebody is going to do it in the area. If we don't, we're going to say, 'why didn't we do that?'"

Council amended a proposed three-tiered revenue-generating ordinance Thursday by dropping a portion that would have increased water rates. The proposed ordinance calls for a $3 municipal fee and a 50-percent reciprocity reduction for city income tax for city residents who work in other municipalities with at least a 1 percent income tax. If passed, those employees would have to pay half of Ironton's municipal income tax, currently levied at 1 percent of total income.

Councilman Jesse Robert said the change was due to recent repairs to a water tank. With the leaks repaired, exactly how much the city will save is still uncertain, he said. Because of council removed the water rate increases.

"I do think we'll have to address a water-rate increase," Roberts said. "But hopefully it will be less (than what was originally proposed)."

The amended proposal must still have additional readings before council can opt to vote on it.

Tordiff said he understands the public's frustration with the council's disagreement on how to cover the budget shortfall.

"I know this is extreme and it might be childish," he said. "It's my estimation that the public is as frustrated as we are Š One thing that I'm hearing more often is that there should be a recall."

O'Leary, following the meeting, agreed with Tordiff.

"I feel the same way," he said. "If I'm part of the problem, I'll be the first to sign it."

Councilman Brent Pyles, following the meeting, said he felt talk of a recall might be premature.

"If the people want a recall, it's their prerogative," he said. "I can't see where personally this issue has grown to the point of a recall. It almost seems as if it's become more of a personal issue than a public one."

Pyles said he feels the council will do something soon to help cover the $500,000 shortfall in the budget, but that rushing into a plan isn't smart.

"It gives us an opportunity to look at the problems in ways other than just throwing money at it," he said. "It's a fluid thing - one of the proposals changed tonight."