Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rate Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
RWQC drafts work plan asking Wastewater Division for more transparent, early engagement on rates and capital choices
Summary
The Regional Water Quality Committee on Sept. 3 reviewed a draft motion asking the Wastewater Treatment Division to implement a work plan for earlier and more transparent engagement on rate assumptions, capital prioritization and alternative project analysis.
The Regional Water Quality Committee reviewed a draft motion and attached work plan on Sept. 3 that would direct the King County Wastewater Treatment Division (WTD) to expand early, structured engagement with stakeholders about rate drivers, capital prioritization and alternative project analyses.
Jenny Giambattista, council staff, summarized the proposal and said the motion (in the meeting packet) asks WTD to implement several tasks intended to improve transparency and predictability: host regular meetings with MUPAC (and its subcommittee) to review the 10‑year capital improvement program and project prioritization; include multiple rate scenarios in the 2027 rate proposal, with capital portfolio options and details; identify model details that should be shared with MUPAC’s rate-model subcommittee; develop a process to allow MUPAC members to observe WTD capital-portfolio meetings without disrupting staff work; and create a process for MUPAC and RWQC to review alternative analyses for selected large capital projects before the division finalizes recommended alternatives.
The draft also asks the division to prepare a proposal, coordinated with MUPAC’s executive board, for a third-party review of the capital program and large projects and to continue work with regional partners to plan a regional utility affordability summit. The motion requests status briefings on implementation in January and July 2026.
Why this matters: Committee members said they sought more predictability and clearer policy trade-offs in the rate-setting process. Several members suggested clarifying how projects would be "selected" for review and discussed whether a dollar threshold should automatically trigger committee review. Mayor Rossman and other members asked that the summit include clearer deliverables and that next steps following the summit be resourced. Councilmember Balducci said the committee would continue to iterate the motion language and expected to vote on a final proposal at the Oct. 1 meeting.
No formal vote was taken on the motion Sept. 3; staff requested committee direction on edits and asked members to submit suggested language prior to the October meeting.
