City outlines utility budgets; staff proposes 8% water, 5% sewer increases and tap fee rises

Greeley utility staff on Wednesday presented a 10‑year operating and capital plan and recommended rate changes to support required investments and regulatory obligations. Staff recommended an 8% water rate increase and a 5% sewer increase for 2026, plus a proposed plant‑investment (tap) fee increase — 13% for water taps and 5% for sewer taps — to reflect infrastructure replacement and expansion costs. Why it matters: staff said the utility funds are enterprise funds that must be self‑supporting and that the city faces significant capital drivers: long‑term raw‑water acquisitions, lead‑service‑line work, regionally driven nutrient controls and replacement of aging distribution lines, particularly vintage backyard mains. Staff estimated roughly $70 million of near‑term unplanned investment driven by regulatory requirements and aging infrastructure. Key details from staff: Sean Chambers and Virgil Pierce reviewed operational and capital drivers, noting per‑capita water use has declined 30–35% over decades and growth has been below earlier forecasts, reducing rate‑base expansion. Chambers said a 10‑year CIP includes major scheduled items such as Bellevue intake expansion, a potential 2034 treatment‑plant expansion and replacement programs for water and sewer mains. Staff recommended postponing a large F‑Street campus project from 2027 to 2029 to reduce the immediate rate impact and said that postponement could lower the proposed 2026 water increase from 8% to roughly 5.5%. Plant investment fees and customer impacts: staff proposed a 13% increase in water plant investment fees (tap fees) and a 5% increase in sewer plant investment fees; combined across tap sizes this was shown as ~10% aggregate. For a typical residential account staff showed a monthly bill rising by about $11.77 (7.8% overall) under the proposed combined utility and stormwater scenarios presented at the meeting, with water up about $5.11 and sewer about $2. Affordability and assistance: staff noted the water board and sewer board wrestled with the customer impacts and that the city has existing rebate/assistance programs for low‑income households; staff said they are evaluating operational cuts, inventory reductions and postponement of non‑critical projects to temper rate increases. Council reaction and next steps: council members asked about growth assumptions, water‑rights and raw‑water dedication policy, the effect of conservation, and timing of expensive capital items. Staff said more savings were identified and that the board requested staff explore additional cuts. Chambers and Pierce said the recommended 2026 rates were the city manager’s recommended starting point for the budget; council will consider rates during upcoming budget work sessions and could refine the package before adoption.