County says spreading service‑area debt 'not feasible'; water/wastewater rate options draw resident concern

County staff presented four advertised options for balancing water and wastewater enterprise funds and the proposed FY2026 rates for about 18 service areas, then told the commissioners that the option that would have spread existing debts and deficits equally across all equivalent dwelling units (EDUs)—previously advertised as “option 3”—is not technically feasible.

Weston Young explained the enterprise funds include one solid‑waste fund and 11 water/wastewater service areas; the total enterprise budgets rely heavily on charges for services. He described four scenarios: a do‑nothing option with no rate changes; an option where each service area charges what it needs to be self‑supporting (which would produce very large quarterly bills for some small service areas); “option 3,” advertised earlier, that assumed spreading existing service‑area debt and deficits equally…