Council directs staff to pursue modest rate path after stormwater plan update; plan recommends staffing and $7.8M of 10‑year projects

City staff and consultants presented an updated stormwater management plan to the Sedro‑Woolley City Council on Aug. 27, outlining system needs, recommended capital projects, staffing requirements and three funding scenarios; the council directed staff to pursue the midpoint funding scenario (scenario 2).

Kyle Anderson, assistant city engineer, introduced the presentation and said the plan is the city’s first comprehensive update since 1997. Stacy Clear, a principal with consultant Gray & Osborne (presentation name transcribed in the meeting as a similar firm), described the system inventory: four major drainage basins, miles of pipes and ditches and regulatory obligations under the city’s stormwater permit (referred to at the meeting as the "m p d s phase 2 permit"). Clear identified key problems: corroded pipes, locations where culverts are too small for fish passage as identified by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and older neighborhoods without water‑quality treatment.

The plan lists 19 projects across the city and proposes eight of those be completed in the next 10 years at an estimated capital cost of about $7.8 million. Clear said the plan also recommends bringing the utility’s staffing to about five full‑time equivalents (the city currently has staff equivalent to about three FTEs) and adding roughly 1.5 FTEs for permitting and administration tasks tied to regulatory compliance and documentation.

Karen Johnson, the financial consultant on the project, presented three funding scenarios the consultants prepared: - Scenario 1 (grant‑heavy): about 8% rate increases per year from 2026 through 2030, then ~4% thereafter; assumed grant funding for several projects and smaller debt issuance. - Scenario 2 (mid path): a slightly lower first‑year increase (6.5%), then somewhat higher subsequent increases to smooth the impact; still assumes pursuing grants and loans. - Scenario 3 (conservative/no grants): higher near‑term increases (about 9.75% through 2030) and larger debt issuance if grants are not available.

Johnson said Scenario 1 would raise the typical monthly bill (including utility tax) from the current $14.91 to about $25.62 by the end of the 10‑year period; Scenario 2 produced a similar decade‑end total with a slightly smoother first year; Scenario 3 would be most expensive and rely on larger debt issuance if grants failed to materialize. She warned stormwater grants are competitive and not guaranteed; staff noted Ecology and fish‑passage grants tend to favor projects with a clear water‑quality or fish nexus.

Council members pressed on safety and affordability. Councilman Lavaca and others underscored the need to prevent deferred maintenance; Councilman Henderson said he preferred lower near‑term impacts to residents. After discussion, council members expressed a preference for Scenario 2. Councilman Burns stated, "I'd say option 2," and council members coalesced around the mid path; the transcript records a 6–1 preference for Scenario 2 among council members present.

Why it matters: the plan addresses aging infrastructure, environmental compliance and flood risk across the city and ties future capital projects to explicit staffing and funding proposals that will affect household monthly bills.

Next steps: staff will finalize the financial chapter, continue to pursue grant opportunities, produce a cost‑to‑complete estimate for the recommended projects and return with a draft plan in October and adoption considerations in November. Council direction was to proceed with Scenario 2 (the smoother, mid path) while pursuing grants when possible.

Ending: council gave staff direction rather than a formal ordinance vote; staff will return with a final financial chapter and ordinance language for rate adjustments and program staffing as part of the plan adoption process.