Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Rates Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Apache Junction water district proposes 5% base-rate increase, sets June 17 public hearing on budget
Summary
The Apache Junction Water Utilities Community Facilities District board reviewed a proposed fiscal year 2025–26 budget, voted unanimously to publish it for public comment and scheduled a final public hearing on June 17; staff proposed a 5% base-rate increase and modest fee changes to system connection and water-resource acquisition fees.
Get email alerts on the Budget Rates Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Board of Directors of the Apache Junction Water Utilities Community Facilities District reviewed a proposed fiscal year 2025–26 budget and unanimously approved a resolution on May 20 to publish the proposed budget and related rates, fees and charges for public comment. The board set a final public hearing for June 17, 2025, at 6 p.m. in the Apache Junction City Council Chambers.
Mike, a district staff member, presented the proposed budget and a suite of recommended changes. He described the staffing and revenue updates, saying the district had adjusted earlier projections after adding salaries to operating revenue calculations and that grant receipts were lower than anticipated: "We only received a million dollars in grants," he said, whereas the budget previously projected $5,000,000 in grants.
Staff proposed several rate and fee changes: a 5% increase to the district base rate (from $31.53 to $33.11), no change to the city consumption tiers or tier-level prices, and for county customers a 5% increase in base rate plus a 5% increase in consumption rates. Using an example of 7,500 gallons per month, staff said a typical city customer's bill would rise from $73.25 to about $75 (an increase of $1.75) while a county customer's bill would rise from $86.19 to $90.49 (an increase of $4.30).
The presentation also detailed capital and funding plans. Key figures cited by staff included operating expenses of roughly $5,800,000 and capital outlay of about $8,600,000. Major capital items discussed included a new office building budgeted at $2,750,000; installation of 12-inch water lines under U.S. Highway 60 at Goldfield (about $600,000) and at Idaho (about $800,000); purchase of a 2 million‑gallons‑per‑day treatment train (district to fund final 2 MGD of a 10 MGD buildout); booster pump station upgrades; drilling a well (moved to next fiscal year, estimated about $2,000,000); and continued work on a Salt River Project sedimentation mitigation project with additional change-order costs (about $180,000 per year for two more years).
Staff reported current reserves and fee balances: a system connection fee fund balance of roughly $5,500,000 and a water resource acquisition fee balance near $11,000,000. System connection fee revenue was reported as about $1,000,000 last year with a projected 1.65 million next year as development continues. Staff said the district would use a mix of reserves, grants (if received), connection fees and investments to balance the proposed budget.
The board also reviewed development impact fees and comparisons. Staff proposed a 1.8% increase in the residential system connection fee (from $7,760 to $7,900) and a water resource acquisition fee increase from $3,660 to $3,840. Staff outlined the one-time costs for establishing a new service: meter and radio $460, service installation $790 and system connection and resource acquisition fees totaling roughly $12,000–$13,000 for a single-family lot. Staff compared total water-and-wastewater impact fees with other jurisdictions: Phoenix (~$25,000), Gilbert (~$18,600), and the district’s current combined fee ($15,770) with the proposed total near $16,090.
Board members asked questions about specific line items and funding sources, including whether staff must seek board permission to pursue grants (staff answered that for certain dollar amounts the board must sign off), the reason for reduced grant projections (staff noted a large water-conservation grant and uncertainty around WIFA funding), and the district’s rationale for incremental rate increases to avoid sharp spikes similar to recent rate actions in Gilbert and Queen Creek.
During the public hearing the board opened the floor for comments, but no members of the public spoke. The board then moved and seconded resolution 2025-003, described in the motion as adopting a proposed budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2025, and directing staff to solicit comments from the City of Apache Junction; the motion also established the June 17, 2025, final public hearing at 6 p.m. at Apache Junction City Council Chambers. Roll call recorded unanimous approval.
The motion cited Arizona Revised Statutes 48-716 as the statutory authority for the district action. The board did not adopt the final budget at the May 20 meeting; it approved publication of the proposed budget and set the public hearing for final adoption.

