City staff presented a cost‑of‑service study and proposed amendments to Chapter 27 of the city code that would change Columbia’s water rates and fee structure and increase water revenues. The study recommended a 12% revenue increase for fiscal year 2026 (about $3.6 million), an additional 10% in FY27 and annual adjustments thereafter unless otherwise modified; staff also proposed replacing summer/non‑summer tiers with a year‑round three‑tier structure that resets Tier 1 to 100% of each customer’s winter average consumption.

Nut graf: The proposed changes are intended to stabilize utility finances, better allocate the costs of peak day and peak hour demand to high‑usage customers, and update connection and appurtenance fees that have not been raised since 2014; council agreed to hold a formal vote Aug. 18 to allow additional public input and staff follow‑up on bond project status and other clarifications.

Erin Keyes, Utilities Director, presented the study and said without the revenue increases the water operating fund cash balance would fall below the city’s reserve target; under the suggested multi‑year increases the fund balance remains above the target and gives the utility flexibility for capital. Key proposals included: a $0.25 increase to base monthly charges (most residential meters are 5/8" or 3/4"), conversion to year‑round tiered usage with Tier 1 equal to each customer’s winter average (to reduce penalties for consistent year‑round usage), and revised system‑equity (connection) fees to align with the calculated cost of service.

The proposed year‑round tiering is expected to reduce bills for many consistent residential users: staff said about 65% of households would see a monthly decrease because Tier 1 will match winter average usage, while irrigators, pool owners and customers on separate irrigation meters are likely to see increases because higher tiers are designed to recover peak supply and capacity costs.

The public hearing drew several comments: David Switzer, a member of the Water & Light Advisory Board, supported the proposal and said it advances affordability metrics used by leading utilities; by contrast, Julie Ryan of the Como Civic Water Coalition criticized project delivery under the 2018 water bond and urged more transparent completion of bond projects before asking ratepayers for additional revenue. Rhonda Carlson, president of a condominium association, said large meters for sprinkler systems and pools have produced dramatic cost increases for some associations and asked staff to consider special treatment or carve‑outs for multifamily associations with irrigation and pools.

Councilmembers asked for additional, specific information before voting. They requested an updated status report on projects funded by the 2018 water bond, more detail on how the connection fees were calculated and whether phasing is appropriate, and clarification of how year‑round tiers would affect multifamily and commercial customers with larger meters. Staff said they will bring the requested supplemental material and an updated project list to the next council meeting and that the formal vote on the ordinance will be held Aug. 18.

Ending: The proposed changes reflect a typical utility cost‑of‑service approach — raising revenue to match projected operations, capital and debt coverage needs while shifting more peak‑cost recovery onto high‑usage tiers — but the council asked staff to provide additional project status and impact detail before making a final decision to balance long‑term system health with affordability concerns.