Council hears water and sewer rate study; typical combined bill would roughly double over five years under recommended plan

City finance and utility staff presented an informational water and wastewater rate study to the Buellton City Council on April 24, showing recommended multi‑year rate increases intended to fund capital improvements, restore cash reserves and maintain utility operations.

Willdan Financial consultant Chris Fisher told the council the utilities have not had a rate increase in nearly seven years while operating costs and capital needs have grown. Under the proposed five‑year plan the median combined water and sewer bill for a typical residential customer using 1,200 cubic feet per month would increase from about $101.72 to roughly $218 by the end of the five‑year period. “The total combined bill would go from $101 … to just over $200,” Fisher said when asked by council.

Staff emphasized the drivers: rising operating costs, the need to fund rehabilitation and capital projects (the five‑year capital list totals about $13 million for water and about $5.7 million for wastewater), and the goal of maintaining a best‑practice operating reserve (roughly 180 days of O&M). Under a “status quo” (no changes) projection, the consultant said the water fund would deplete reserves inside the five‑year horizon and the sewer fund would run a larger deficit. With the proposed adjustments, both utilities would generate revenues to cover operations and fund the planned capital program while preserving a minimum reserve by the end of the five‑year period.

Key rate elements shown in the presentation included increases to meter fixed charges and volumetric consumption rates for water and higher monthly service charges for sewer accounts (the consultant showed single-family sewer service rising from about $30.45 to $58.96 per month over the five‑year plan and explained volumetric billing for nonresidential customers). The consultant also reported that Buellton’s current combined rate sits below most neighboring cities; even after the proposed increases the city’s combined bill remains lower than many nearby jurisdictions used in the comparison.

Next steps and procedure: staff said no action was required at the April 24 meeting. Willdan will present the formal study and recommendations on May 8. If the council directs staff to proceed, the city would mail public-hearing notices (required by Proposition 218) to property owners and customers by May 22 for a proposed public hearing on July 10. The clerk will collect written protests; if a majority written protest by property triggers the Proposition 218 threshold, the council may not adopt the proposed rates. If there is not a majority protest, the council could adopt the rates; staff said adopted new rates would be implemented for billing on August 1.

Council members asked staff about the rationale for increases, program priorities and whether low-income discounts could be provided through utility rates. The consultant and finance staff said Proposition 218 requires rates to be based on cost of service and that rate-funded discounts are not permitted; any customer-assistance programs would need to be funded from the general fund or other non-utility sources.

Council direction: councilors gave general direction to proceed with the schedule presented and asked staff to return May 8 with the formal rate-study report and proposed hearing schedule.