Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Utilities Water topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee forwards 9% water rate increase to full council

3790094 · June 13, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Salem City’s Committee of the Whole recommended sending a proposed 9% water rate increase for fiscal year 2026 to the full City Council with a positive recommendation after staff said the change aligns rates with a prior rate study and shifts costs so the water fund is more self-sufficient.

Salem City’s Committee of the Whole recommended that the full City Council consider a 9% increase in water rates for fiscal year 2026 after staff said the change follows a rate study conducted two years ago and is intended to better match the water fund’s expenses.

Staff member said the proposed increase “is reflective of the water sewer rate study that was done 2 years ago” and that the sewer fund has been subsidizing the water fund; the 9% adjustment is intended to make the water fund more self-sufficient. Residential and nonresidential unit rates were listed in the proposal as $4.82 and $6.53, and the minimum quarterly charge for metered residential water was listed as $44.20 per 1,000 cubic feet.

Councilor Cohen moved that the committee refer the water-rate ordinance to the full council with a positive recommendation; the motion was seconded by Councilor Jerslow and carried on a 5-0 roll call. The item will return to the full council for final consideration and any formal adoption.

The staff presentation noted the proposal is “the exact same proposal as last year” and that the rate study’s recommended adjustments are being implemented now so rates reflect the water fund’s expenses rather than being subsidized by sewer. No ordinance adoption occurred at the committee meeting; the committee’s action was a referral with a positive recommendation only.

The committee did not specify additional changes to the rate structure beyond the percentages and dollar figures provided during the presentation. The staff member flagged that the increase mirrors last year’s referral and that the committee should review any future implications tied to underlying assumptions in the rate study when they are updated.