Metro Water trustees brief Sandy council on district history, sources, capital projects and planned rate increases

Tom Godfrey, a Metro Water trustee, and Metro staff gave Sandy City Council members a presentation and plant tour briefing on the Metropolitan Water District’s history, water sources, capital projects and projected costs. The presentation took place at a Metro Water facility; no meeting date was specified in the presentation.

Council members were shown historical background on the district, the reasons Sandy petitioned to join Metro and the district’s current mix of surface and groundwater supplies, staff said. Speakers outlined ongoing and planned capital projects, projected water-rate increases and the end dates for a pair of existing payment obligations that will lower Sandy’s future contributions if they remain on schedule.

Why it matters: Metro officials said much of the treatment and delivery infrastructure dates to the mid-20th century and will need multi‑year rebuilds and pipeline replacements. Officials said those projects are the drivers of planned water-rate increases and proposed future property‑tax adjustments that will appear in the district’s long‑range cash flow.

Metro staff summarized the district’s origins, noting the Metropolitan Water District Act (1935) and early investments such as shares in the Provo River Water Users Association and construction of the Salt Lake Aqueduct and Deer Creek projects. Presenters said Sandy petitioned for annexation in the late 1980s because city leaders expected local supplies would not meet long‑term demand; Sandy’s annexation required specified payments and interlocal agreements addressing capital capacity and governance.

Presenters identified current and future water supplies available to Sandy, including shares in the Provo River system, Little Cottonwood Creek supplies treated at the Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant, Central Utah Project (Strawberry/Utah Lake system) water and a block of water tied to an Ontario Drain Tunnel assessment. Metro staff also described a contractual arrangement under which some surface water can be “shepherded” to the Great Salt Lake and said Metro expects the Great Salt Lake Trust agreement to provide payment back to the district if the dedication proceeds as planned.

On capital projects and timing, Metro staff listed: completion of the Cottonwoods Connection pipeline (Salt Lake Aqueduct Reach 1, described as the Cottonwoods Connection) — expected within about a year from the presentation; replacement or slip‑lining work on other Salt Lake Aqueduct reaches; a rebuild of the Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant (currently in the basis‑of‑design phase, with engineering study work expected to finish in June 2026); and a raw‑water conduit replacement to reduce reliance on a pipeline owned by Murray City. Staff stressed they do not want multiple treatment plants to be offline at the same time and said project timing is being coordinated across regional providers.

Metro staff also discussed the district’s capital financing and near‑term revenue forecasts. They said Sandy’s historical annexation into Metro included one‑time payments — the presentation cited a $6,400,000 investment tied to Parleys Water Treatment Plant expansion and a roughly $2,000,000 prepayment related to leaving Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District — and listed other past capital contributions. Staff gave a range for the debt service on a recently acquired block of water (discussed in the presentation as approximately $13.5 million to $15.5 million) and noted two existing assessments that staff expect to end in February 2031 and February 2036, which will reduce recurring charges when those obligations end.

For future revenues, Metro staff said the district’s cash flow includes a proposed increase to the certified property‑tax rate in fiscal year 2028 (with another tax review scheduled every three years), and projected water‑rate increases of about 6% in fiscal years 2027 and 2028 and about 7% in fiscal year 2029. Staff attributed the increases primarily to large capital projects and to replacing aging infrastructure.

Council members asked about project sequencing and coordination with neighboring providers. Metro staff said their rebuild is scheduled to be completed before the 2028 Olympic timeframe so canyon access and canyon events are not disrupted, and that Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District has postponed its own rebuild work so two major plants are not down at once. Staff also described the district’s practice of selling or shepherding certain water blocks to other districts and how that can provide both system flexibility and, in some years, revenue return to member cities.

No formal votes or motions were taken during the presentation. The meeting ended with Metro staff inviting council members to a facility tour.