Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Sewer Rates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Leon Valley town-hall survey prompts council to rehear water, sewer rate options
Summary
City officials reviewed results of a recent town-hall and online survey and spent more than an hour weighing several ways to raise water and sewer revenue, directing staff to return with an adjusted rate model that avoids a shortfall in the first two years.
Leon Valley city staff presented results of a recent town-hall and online survey on community priorities and followed with a council discussion of several water- and sewer-rate proposals that would raise revenue for aging infrastructure.
The presentation showed differing respondent profiles between in-person and online participants and highlighted recurring priorities — parks, public safety and water infrastructure — that city staff say will inform the capital-budget draft the council will review next. The council then considered multiple rate scenarios for the city’s water and sewer enterprise funds, including a steep 250% option that councilors dismissed and lower, multi-year increases tied to either the city’s existing usage tiers or San Antonio Water System (SAWS) tiers.
City staff emphasized that the city’s water system has aging infrastructure and that borrowing for a larger capital package (the staff example used a $10 million target) would produce better unit pricing than piecemeal projects. Council members repeatedly asked for scenarios that meet revenue targets while remaining affordable for residents: they asked staff to return with a SAWS-tier scenario adjusted so the city does not register a revenue decline in years 1–2.
Councilors debated three broad approaches: (1) keeping the city’s existing usage tiers and applying an annual 2% increase on meter and usage charges for five years; (2) matching SAWS’s tier structure and applying modest annual increases; or (3) keeping rates and adding a flat capital-improvement fee or a usage-based capital-improvement fee. Staff showed sample bills under each scenario and projected enterprise revenues rising from roughly $4.0 million now to about $4.7 million by year five under some scenarios, and said none of the scenarios presented would, by itself, cover the full $10 million borrowing target used as an example.
Council discussion highlighted three recurring concerns: fairness to customers who compare Leon Valley bills with neighboring SAWS bills; the need to build a reserve for future reconstruction rather than waiting for system failures; and the risk that conservation—if successful—reduces revenue tied to consumption-driven tiers. Several councilors said they preferred tying more of the revenue to usage rather than a large flat fee, while acknowledging possible unintended effects on low-volume customers.
Doctor Caldera, who presented the town-hall survey results, told the council that the in-person town hall and the online survey had different age skews and response counts and that one online question appeared to be affected by a small number of repeat responders; Caldera said the Mentimeter online tool used for the live session does not provide respondent IP addresses. Public Works Director Melinda Moritz presented the rate modeling and sample bills.
Council direction: by consensus, staff was asked to return with revised modeling that (a) applies SAWS-style tiers but adjusts rates so the city does not show a revenue reduction in year 1 or year 2 and (b) shows bill impacts for a range of borrowing scenarios (councilors discussed $5 million–$10 million packages). No formal rate ordinance or rate vote took place at the meeting; councilors set direction to refine the options and return at a later meeting.
City staff said the next steps will include: producing the adjusted SAWS-tier model requested by council, publishing a project list tied to any proposed borrowing so residents can see specific projects supported by higher rates, and including the capital portion of the budget in the next council meeting packet.
Context and process notes: this item combined a town-hall survey presentation (public-engagement input) and a subsequent staff rate proposal. The council explicitly rejected the 250% increase option as “absurd,” requested more refined modeling, and repeatedly emphasized affordability and transparency for residents. No formal rate ordinance was introduced or adopted at this meeting.
