Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities Water Rates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears proposed tiered water rates and debates size of near‑term increase
Summary
Provo staff presented a proposed switch from seasonal to tiered water rates and a multi‑year rate plan; councilors and residents raised concerns about how the changes would affect household bills and asked for wider public outreach and additional scenarios.
City water department staff and public works officials presented a proposal on Feb. 11 to move Provo from a seasonal (winter/summer) rate structure to a tiered residential rate structure and to increase rates under a multi‑year plan. The work session included a technical explanation of peak‑demand costs, staff rationale for tiers, and a lengthy council discussion about affordability and public outreach.
Public works director Gordon Haidt and a system analyst (Keith) explained that water distribution and treatment costs spike with summer demand—Provo’s water system sees much higher peak flows and corollary infrastructure and power costs during irrigation season. Staff argued that tiered “increasing block” rates better align price signals with the incremental cost to serve high summer demand and would be more equitable than the current seasonal system.
Staff presented example tier breaks and described an analysis that adjusts tiers by meter size to account for lot size and differing demand patterns. The proposed three‑tier structure was framed so about 10% of customers would fall into the highest tier; staff said many Utah jurisdictions use 3–4 tiers and that the legislature is considering strengthening tier provisions for secondary water systems.
Council members and staff noted options: adopt the tier structure without raising overall revenue (revenue neutral), adopt the tiers and an immediate rate increase (staff had an illustrative 12% first‑year increase in the packet), or phase increases more gradually. Several councilors asked staff to model alternative rate paths; one councilor said sample household calculators he ran showed a wide range of effects—some households would see increases of 15%–60% or more depending on usage. Councilors asked for more public outreach and clearer bill calculators before a formal vote.
Staff also reviewed nonresidential/commercial meter groupings and explained how the tiers would be scaled across meter sizes. Questions focused on fairness for large lots, renters vs. homeowners, timing of any increases, and the legislative environment.
No final vote was taken; staff agreed to provide additional outreach materials, bill‑calculator scenarios for representative households and businesses, and to continue public education before the matter is scheduled for adoption.
