Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities Wastewater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Moses Lake council directs staff to pursue full cost-of-service wastewater rate model
Summary
After months of study, the council voted to direct staff to return with wastewater rates based on a full cost-of-service model that would reallocate charges so residential rates fall and nonresidential rates rise over five years; two council members expressed preference for a less steep option.
The Moses Lake City Council on Aug. 26 directed city staff to prepare wastewater rate proposals based on the FCS Group—ull cost-of-service recovery option, asking staff to include a five-year schedule that would equalize cost recovery across customer classes by 2030.
City Manager Carl Lindsey told the council the consultant presented four options, ranging from across-the-board increases to a full cost-of-service shift. "What we're looking for this evening is for guidance from you on which direction you'd like us to move forward with on those four options that were presented," he said.
Why it matters: The full cost-of-service option would reduce rates for single-family and duplex residential customers while increasing commercial, industrial and multifamily user rates to align each class—loser to its measured share of system costs. Council members framed the debate around fairness for residential customers, competitiveness for business, and long-term system sustainability.
Council discussion focused on the scale and timing of increases. Council member Skoggs said, "That is not a tax. That is a pay for service," arguing nonresidential users should not be subsidized by homeowners. Council member Myers said she favored a more moderate approach, noting the sharp increases under the full-recovery plan could be difficult for local businesses to absorb and that surrounding-city comparisons matter for economic development.
After discussion, a majority of councilmembers voiced support for the full cost-of-service option (referred to as "Option 4" in the materials) and asked staff to return with draft rates and a fee schedule amendment reflecting that scenario. Council members Martinez and Myers favored Option 3, a compromise that would limit increases for single-family and duplex customers while raising rates for nonresidential classes.
What happens next: Staff will prepare the detailed rate schedule, including modeled monthly bill impacts for representative residential and industrial customers, and bring the fee schedule and budget amendments back to council for adoption.
Details from the consultant and staff presentation included: Option 1 n across-the-board series of increases (5% for two years then 3% for three years); Option 2 plan to hold or minimize residential increases while raising others; Option 3 focused increase on nonresidential users at roughly double the residential percentage in early years; and Option 4 —ull cost-of-service equalization by year five. Lindsey said Option 4 would "get us equalized for all user classes by 2030."
