Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utility Assistance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews proposed changes to utility discount code and BMAC screening contract
Summary
Staff proposed aligning College Place’s utility discount program with neighboring Walla Walla’s income-based approach and discussed a separate contract change with Blue Mountain Action Council (BMAC) to handle income screening; council raised cost concerns and asked staff to consider a limited-duration contract to gather local demand data.
City staff presented draft changes to the municipal utility discount code and a proposed contract to use Blue Mountain Action Council (BMAC) for income screening under a broader eligibility threshold.
What staff proposed - Utility discount code: staff proposed moving from a senior/disabled-limited discount (125% of federal poverty guidelines) to a broader income-based discount aligned with neighboring Walla Walla’s 150% threshold, but recommended keeping College Place’s eligibility at 125% to avoid removing currently enrolled recipients. - BMAC contract: the current BMAC arrangement charges the city roughly $30 per completed application; BMAC proposed moving to a fixed monthly charge of $500 to manage screening centrally. Staff said the change would simplify administration and keep sensitive income data off city files.
Why it matters: expanding eligibility increases program reach but also increases administrative cost. Staff and council discussed financial trade-offs: at $500 per month, the city would pay $6,000 annually regardless of actual application volume. Under the prior per-application fee, the city paid about $450 annually for current demand (15 active accounts under the senior/disabled program). Council members and staff flagged the uncertainty in projected uptake if eligibility is widened and questioned whether the fixed monthly cost is justified.
Council questions and staff responses - Program size and data: Council member Jessup asked how many additional accounts the change to 125% or 150% would yield; staff said the city lacks precise household-income data to estimate the volume and therefore could not provide a reliable count. - Contract structure: several council members suggested negotiating a limited-duration or pilot contract with BMAC to gather local data on demand before committing to a recurring $500 monthly charge. - Administrative burden: staff said centralizing screening with BMAC avoids the city collecting and storing sensitive income documentation and reduces front-counter workload, but acknowledged the new cost is significant compared with current spending.
Next steps Council directed staff to continue discussions with BMAC, explore limited-term pilot arrangements to collect local demand data, and return with clearer cost estimates and participation projections before any final code change or long-term contract execution.
Ending Council members supported expanding assistance in principle but asked staff to return with a short-term contract option or additional data to ensure the city’s fixed monthly payment aligns with actual demand.
