Kanosh residents challenge proposed water rate hike; meters, well project and affordability top concerns

KANOSH, Utah — Residents turned out Aug. 13 for a public meeting on a proposed adjustment to Kanosh's water rates, pressing town officials for clearer numbers on how much the town expects to raise, why meter reads and installations are delayed, and when a long‑planned well and chlorination system will come online.

Supporters of some increase and many opponents alike said they understood the town is running a deficit on the water fund but said the proposed pace and scale of increases — including options that would raise the base charge by as much as about 50% and sharply increase per‑thousand‑gallon rates in higher tiers — would be hard for some residents to absorb.

Town staff presented three modeled rate options. At the current billing rate the town projects it will "lose $62,960," staff said. An "orange" option was presented as one that would roughly break even and net about $17,000 by year end; a larger proposal (described at the meeting as the option that had been publicized before the hearing) would net about $50,000 if expenses do not increase. Staff said those projections factor in an expected loan payment tied to the town's well project.

Residents raised several recurring concerns.

Meter reads and installations: Multiple residents said meter reads arrived late or were not done on schedule and asked why installations paid for years earlier had not been completed. Town staff acknowledged staffing limits: "We have one full‑time employee" who reads meters and can be pulled off duty to respond to repairs or other emergencies, and the town treasurer was on vacation the month some reads were submitted late. Staff said meters are read monthly (meters are averaged in winter when meters may be buried by snow) and estimated the town was behind roughly "four meters" on installations. One resident said a property has been billed on a single meter for two parcels for years because a second meter was not installed; staff said that situation had been discussed with owners and had infrastructure and pavement routing complications.

High users and rate structure: Town staff said about two‑thirds of connections fall within the base tier, while "5% of users use 25% of the water." Several commenters urged the council to raise the base charge modestly and use tiered rates to allocate costs to the largest users. One attendee, who said their recent water bill was $113, said under the smaller (orange) proposal it would rise to about $225, and under the larger proposal to about $273, and called those outcomes "not sustainable." Another participant suggested gradual annual increases rather than a single large jump so households could plan.

Well project status and costs: Officials said the new well is drilled and "waiting." The town has a bid process open to complete the chlorination plant, install the pump and finish associated work; staff said those bids will be opened and reviewed this month. Council/staff said early project spending included about $212,000 of town funds and that drilling and associated costs later ran into roughly another reported sum (described in public comments as "about 800,000-ish" for drilling work), a consequence attendees said was partly due to COVID delays and the time needed to legally redefine the town's water right. Staff said the town is now seeking loans or grants to finish the work; one participant cited a roughly $500,000 loan figure and an annual loan payment in the $35,000'$38,000 range as the added recurring cost factored into the rate study.

Other operational points: Staff said current spring flow is about 315 gallons per minute and that the town has not seen overflow for more than two months, which they described as a slow drawdown of storage. County crews have taken town water for road work in the past; staff said those uses are sometimes not metered and that the town could bill the county for water if appropriate. Several commenters recommended stricter new‑development landscaping standards (xeriscaping) and limits on turf for new annexations to reduce culinary water demand.

Public information and next steps: Residents asked for a detailed, itemized breakdown of projected water expenditures and for the backup materials staff used to compile the rate options. Staff said a more detailed budget and the consultant rural water study are available and that the current meeting was intended to present worst‑case scenarios to gather public feedback. Several council members publicly said they were not committed to the largest proposal and that the base rate increase to about $31 (about $1 per day) was more acceptable to some on the council.

No council vote or formal action on rates took place at the public meeting; officials said the matter will be discussed at the upcoming council meeting and that any adjustments to the published proposals would be made in public and, if materially changed, subject to further public process. The meeting closed and the body moved into its regular town council session.

Ending: Town staff said they will continue the bid review for the well project and noted the rate study includes the loan payment; residents requested clearer, itemized projections and asked the council to consider phased increases and protections for low‑income and fixed‑income households before adopting final rates.