Tumwater committee reviews $110 million utilities capital facilities plan, flags near‑term rate pressure

The City of Tumwater Public Works Committee on Oct. 9 reviewed the draft 2026–2031 Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) for the city’s drinking water, sanitary sewer and stormwater utilities, a six‑year program that staff said includes roughly 50 projects and about $110 million in proposed spending.

Dan Smith, a utilities presenter for the city, told the committee the CFP is a planning document, not a set of immediate financial commitments: “These are not, independent, financial commitments for the utilities. They're just part of a multiyear forecast,” he said, describing the CFP as a tool to prioritize projects and evaluate funding needs.

The nut graf: the CFP lists about 14 projects totaling just over $50 million for drinking water, 15 projects totaling about $28.7 million for sanitary sewer, and 21 stormwater projects totaling about $27.5 million. Staff said the plan shows shortfalls against the city’s reserve policy in the next two years and recommended modest rate adjustments this budget cycle while continuing to seek grants and other options to avoid large, sudden increases.

Most important details

Smith said the water fund’s projects include two additions this year: deep monitoring wells at the Bush Wellfield to strengthen wellhead protection, and improvements to the Zone 454 booster pump station (design work in 2027, construction mostly in 2028). The Bush monitoring effort would add two to four deeper wells to supplement existing shallow monitoring and test seasonal and deeper aquifer conditions; staff said engineering would begin in 2026 with drilling bids anticipated in early 2027.

The city also plans continued work on the Brewery Wellfield production wells, upgrades at Well 15 (the system’s second‑highest producer) for corrosion control and resilience, and a Southeast Reservoir and system extension (a 3,000,000‑gallon tank and accompanying mains along 90th/Third Avenue) intended to improve seismic resilience, system looping and support future growth.

On wastewater, the largest near‑term item is a sewer extension program tied to Prosper Road and the Beehive Industrial area. Smith said the city received a $5,250,000 loan from the Washington State Department of Ecology to address urban septic systems and extend sewer to industrial and adjacent areas, with design and permitting programmed for 2026 and construction in 2027. Staff estimated the extension could provide access to roughly 55 properties overall and an initial 20–25 early connections.

Smith recommended a 2026 engineering evaluation of the Hixson siphon — a transitional pipe on the city’s east side that conveys wastewater toward the regional interceptor — to confirm recent repairs, check automatic valves and investigate an odor concern. That work is planning/engineering only, not construction.

For stormwater, staff highlighted habitat restoration work at Pioneer Park/Deschutes properties and a Somerset Hill culvert replacement funded by a State Department of Transportation grant (design and permitting now; construction anticipated in 2028). Other stormwater items include outfall retrofits, flood mitigation projects at 54th and Kershaw and multiple basin and pond improvements.

Funding, rates and fees

Smith summarized the CFP revenue picture: the utilities primarily rely on user rates, connection fees (for water and sewer), state and federal grants, loans and bonds. He told the committee the city modeled the water fund under a 6% rate increase in the current year and a 5.5% increase in the next year as the baseline in the city budget and noted that a consultant’s stress test showed a much larger increase (about 19.5%) would be required later if all current projects moved forward without other adjustments.

Smith said staff view a 19.5% single‑year increase as “untenable” and that the CFP work focused on delaying or reprioritizing projects and pursuing grants to reduce the need for a dramatic rate jump. He recommended a modest half‑percentage shift this biennium to keep the fund on a healthier trajectory; staff said that change would alter the average monthly bill by roughly 20 cents to $1.75 in the modeled years, depending on the scenario.

On connection fees, staff reported a recommended increase tied to the CFP and updated fee model. Smith said the consultant calculated a target connection fee of about $47.50 per equivalent residential unit (ERU) and noted the fee schedule scales by meter size to reflect larger capital demands from larger meters and commercial users.

Equity and program design

Committee members asked whether the city could levy a special surcharge on extremely high‑volume users. Smith said the rate and connection‑fee calculations already differentiate by meter size and that larger meters carry higher costs; he added the city will examine rate design and potential program changes during the next budget cycle to address equity and high‑volume usage.

Committee members also asked about latecomer or special assessment mechanisms to recoup extension costs from future connections. Smith said the city can apply special assessments in perpetuity on future connections to recover a portion of extension costs and that the city may use latecomer agreements for private development (which typically expire after 20 years).

Capacity and next steps

Smith told the committee staff capacity is improving: he said four new hires (a deputy director, two operations/maintenance technicians and a water conservation professional) will start around Oct. 16 to support capital program delivery and water conservation work.

He said staff will brief the planning commission next week, followed by a public hearing and a council work session in late fall ahead of council adoption expected in early December.

Votes and formal actions

The committee approved two sets of minutes at the meeting. Councilmember Swartout moved to approve the Sept. 4 minutes with a correction to the stated adjournment time (showing 8:15 a.m. rather than 8:15 p.m.) and the Sept. 18 minutes as presented; the committee seconded and approved the motion by voice.

Why this matters

The CFP shapes where the city directs utility spending and how much residents and businesses pay in rates and fees. The plan highlights large, multi‑year projects with seismic and resilience components, regulatory and grant dependencies, and near‑term reserve pressures that will shape rate discussions in the next budget cycle.

Sources and attribution

Reporting is based on the Oct. 9, 2025 Public Works Committee meeting transcript and presentations. Direct quotes in this story are from Dan Smith, the city’s utilities presenter, and spoken remarks by committee members recorded during the meeting.

Ending

Staff will present the CFP to the planning commission next week, hold a public hearing and return to council for a work session and adoption this fall. The city is seeking grants and considering modest near‑term rate adjustments to meet reserve targets while limiting the risk of larger future increases.