Snoqualmie council pauses proposed 2025–2030 utility rate ordinance, sends study back to committee

SNOQUALMIE, Wash. — The Snoqualmie City Council on Jan. 13 voted to send the proposed 2025–2030 utility rate ordinance (Ordinance 1303) back to the Parks and Public Works Committee after a public hearing and extended council discussion about large first‑year increases and the city’s mix of debt and pay‑as‑you‑go funding.

The move came after two members of the public — Jim Mayhew and James Rimmer of Snoqualmie Mill Ventures — told the council the draft increases, particularly a roughly 54% jump in stormwater charges in early years, would impose severe economic strain on residents and businesses. Councilors raised questions about whether the city could borrow more, postpone projects or otherwise change the spending schedule to reduce near‑term rate pressure.

Councilors decided unanimously to return the ordinance for additional review, including a committee-level re‑examination of project timing, bonding options and staffing levels before returning a revised proposal to full council.

Why it matters

The ordinance would set city utility rates — water, sewer and stormwater — for 2025–2030 based on a rate study by FCS Group. The study identified a capital investment program and slower growth as primary drivers of a multiyear revenue shortfall; councilors and presenters discussed tradeoffs between borrowing to smooth rate impacts and preserving reserve and debt‑coverage policies that support the city’s credit standing.

What speakers said

Resident Jim Mayhew told council members the rate‑setting process feels “out of our depth” and urged staff and council to publish the draft rate study and underlying project list so the public can give meaningful input. “Please go back and reconsider timing of spending, level of stormwater spending, please maximize debt to bring down from double digit rate increases, and please publish the rate study and hold another public hearing so that the community can help solve this,” Mayhew said.

James Rimmer, president of Snoqualmie Mill Ventures, said his undeveloped site currently incurs nearly $40,000 in monthly stormwater charges (1,209 equivalent service units). Rimmer said the site has paid about $3.9 million in surface water fees since annexation and warned that projected increases (to roughly $53,000 per month by 2030, he said) threaten the feasibility of development on the mill site.

CIP manager Dylan Gamble and a consultant identified in the presentation as Sergei (FCS Group) described the rate‑setting process, phases of cost‑of‑service adjustments and scenarios that use different mixes of debt and cash to fund capital projects. Sergei said a scenario that borrows roughly $700,000 more for sewer in the six‑year forecast would reduce the single‑year residential bill increase to a target below 10% for 2025 but would push the sewer utility’s total debt‑service coverage below the city’s internal 1.50 policy threshold to about 1.39, and would draw capital balances for the sewer utility to near zero in 2026 unless additional borrowing or other measures were taken.

Council discussion and direction

Council members repeatedly characterized the choice as balancing who pays now versus later. Several councilors urged exploring more debt to smooth near‑term increases; others warned that borrowing that materially lowers the city’s debt‑coverage ratio could affect credit ratings and limit future borrowing capacity. Councilor Johnson, who moved to return the ordinance to committee, said the group needed to probe whether projects could be delayed and whether staffing levels and other items could be adjusted to reduce the 2025 spike.

Councilor Wotton, Cotton, Vinson, Benson and Christensen all voiced concern for local small businesses and residents already facing cost pressures; they supported returning the item to committee for a deeper analysis of alternatives.

Action taken

- Motion: Move ordinance AB 25‑003 (first reading of Ordinance 1303, 2025–2030 utility rate adjustments) back to Parks and Public Works Committee for additional review and analysis. - Moved by: Councilor Oscar Johnson. Second: Councilor Wotton. - Vote: Unanimous (8–0 in favor: Council members Benson, Wotton, Holloway, Washington, Cotton, Christensen, Johnson, Vinson; Mayor Ross present and voting). - Outcome: Tabled for committee review (no ordinance adoption at this meeting).

Key clarifying details from the meeting

- Stormwater: The rate study as discussed would produce a 54% increase in stormwater charges in early years; public commenters and councilors described that as a large, near‑term increase requiring rebalancing or delayed projects (source: Jim Mayhew; James Rimmer; Dylan Gamble). - Snoqualmie Mill Ventures: Company reported roughly $40,000 monthly stormwater charges for 1,209 ESUs, about $3.9 million paid since annexation, and a projected $53,000 monthly charge by 2030 under the proposed increases (source: James Rimmer). - ESU rate example: Presentation displayed an equivalent service unit (ESU) rate rising from about $28.57 to $30.71 under the proposed code change (source: Dylan Gamble/slide excerpts). - Debt scenario: An option to increase sewer borrowing by roughly $700,000 would reduce the first‑year residential bill to below 10% but would lower sewer total debt‑coverage to ~1.39 and deplete sewer capital balances to near zero by 2026 unless mitigated (source: FCS Group/Sergei presentation).

Next steps

Council directed staff to return the ordinance to the Parks and Public Works Committee for additional analysis of project timing, debt sizing, and any feasible cost reductions (staffing, project phasing) and to provide more public materials (including the draft rate study and CIP project list) to allow community input. The committee will present options and a recommended approach at a future council meeting.

Ending

Councilors stressed the urgency of getting the technical and outreach work right: delaying the ordinance protects residents and businesses from an immediate rate increase but also delays revenue that funds necessary capital work. Staff said a delay will reduce near‑term revenue by an estimated $150,000 per month across utilities, a factor the committee will account for in modeling alternatives.