Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Rates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jackson City Council approves two-year water and wastewater rate increase after public comment
Summary
After extended public comment and council debate, the Jackson City Council approved a two-year water and wastewater rate resolution (Option 1) that staff described as a $5-per-month water increase and a $6-per-month wastewater increase for each of the next two fiscal years. Councilors and residents discussed billing frequency and protections for
Jackson City Council voted to approve a two-year water and wastewater rate resolution after public comment and council discussion.
Staff recommended “Option 1,” which the presenting staff member described as a $5-per-month increase to the city’s water bill and a $6-per-month increase to the wastewater bill; the council voted to adopt that option for the next two fiscal years. The ordinance and resolution language brought to the meeting did not change other billing structures; staff noted the subscription of meters and a longer transition to monthly billing remain projects in progress.
The issue drew extensive public comment. Laura Schlecky, a downtown property owner, criticized the size and fairness of recent increases and said the city had spent “over 500,000” on leadership programs while core services and road projects remain underfunded. Gerald Montgomery, a long-time resident, said senior citizens would be hurt by higher bills and urged monthly billing to match social security cycles. Kathy (Cathy) Moore and others urged council to consider monthly billing and community protections.
Council members asked staff to clarify the math behind the proposal. A staff speaker explained the recommendation and said the two-year approach helps planning and matching grant dollars, though annual adjustments are possible. The staff presentation said the proposed increases would move the city’s combined water/sewer rates from about 66.8% of the statewide average to about 78.4% under the consultants’ modeled scenario and that staff had pursued more than $36 million in grants over the prior five years to offset capital needs.
During debate councilors discussed alternatives, the city’s history of deferred maintenance, potential grant opportunities, and the desire to protect low-income and vulnerable residents. Several council members said the choice represented a difficult trade-off between raising revenue now to maintain and repair aging infrastructure and delaying action, which could increase future costs.
The clerk tallied and displayed the vote; the resolution was approved and the clerk’s recorded result was displayed at the meeting. No change to billing frequency was approved at the meeting; staff said monthly billing implementation is an ongoing administrative project tied to remote meter upgrades funded in part by federal ARPA and other allocations.
Councilors asked staff to continue work on consumer protections, potential phased plans, and options for monthly billing and to return with further analysis.
