Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utility Rates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Belton staff outline FY26 utility-rate proposal that would cut minimum residential bill by about $3.38
Summary
City staff presented a FY26 proposal that would lower the combined debt-service charge and reduce the city’s minimum residential utility bill from $61.39 to $58.01, while absorbing contract increases from reserves for one year; council asked questions about fund balance, outside-city service and billing timing but took no formal vote.
City staff presented a proposed FY26 utility-rate package at a Belton City Council workshop that would lower the combined debt-service portion of water and wastewater bills to $5.80 and reduce the city’s minimum residential utility bill from $61.39 to $58.01, a savings of $3.38 per household before taxes.
The proposal would leave water and sewer volumetric charges unchanged, align residential trash charges to the amount the city pays the contractor, and apply a lower combined debt-service line item split evenly between water and wastewater. Staff said the change would be carried forward in an ordinance if the council chooses to proceed.
City staff framed the package as short-term relief paid from enterprise fund balances rather than passing on an anticipated roughly 5% increase from the regional sewer provider and other contract cost increases to ratepayers this year. “We’re not passing on any increase in Little Blue or any increase from Kansas City; we would essentially absorb it for this year, utilizing fund balance to cover,” a staff member said.
Council members pressed staff for details. A council member asked whether the FY26 assumptions that produced the $58.01 minimum included anticipated budget impacts; staff confirmed they did. Council members also asked how many customers live outside city limits: staff said there are about 85 sewer-only customers outside the city and about 12 commercial water-only accounts outside the city limits. One council member raised annexation as a possible long-term approach for some outside customers.
Council members and staff discussed operational and capital implications. Staff said operational budgets for water and sewer would be in the black even after lowering the debt-service charge, but that the city would use fund balance primarily to fund capital projects rather than ongoing operations if needed. Staff estimated end-of-FY26 fund balances of roughly 96% for wastewater and 65% for water (as reported in the presentation). The council discussed the tradeoffs of using fund balances to smooth rates and of paying down debt early to reduce long-term costs.
Members also raised customer-service and billing questions. Council members asked about the utility shutoff process and online payments; staff said the current billing system generates the shutoff list based on payments received by 5:00 p.m. on the due date and that staff will pursue a software change during the year to align electronic-payment cutoffs with customer expectations. Staff estimated some implementation changes would occur within the calendar year.
No ordinance or final vote on rates was taken at the meeting; staff said the proposal would be presented as an ordinance in a future meeting for formal action.
The discussion also reviewed previously approved trash changes: staff reminded the council that a contract increase from the trash contractor (GFL) already approved by council will be implemented and that future annual adjustments are expected under that contract.
