Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Wastewater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Temple proposes utility rate increases as multi‑year wastewater capital plan emphasizes sewer overflow fixes
Summary
Staff presented proposed water and wastewater rate increases and a six‑year capital improvement plan that prioritizes sanitary‑sewer‑overflow work, an aquifer storage and recovery pilot and membrane‑plant expansion.
City finance and utility staff told the Temple City Council workshop that proposed water and wastewater rate adjustments would fund ongoing operations and a multi‑year capital plan focused heavily on sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) reduction and plant capacity.
Proposed changes and rationale Tracy (finance staff) outlined recommended rate adjustments the council would consider for an October effective date: the water minimum would move from $12.75 to $13.39 and volumetric charges are adjusted; wastewater base and volumetric charges would also rise (staff presented a sample residential monthly bill increase, from roughly $88.85 to $97.64 under the proposal). Staff said most water/wastewater revenue comes from user fees and that the funds must cover both capital projects and ongoing operations.
Why this matters: staff said aging collection infrastructure and infiltration/inflow issues are driving most capital spending. The wastewater program would include roughly $223.4 million in projects over the six‑year planning window, while water projects total about $94.1 million; combined the utility CIP totals about $317 million.
Major capital items described - Sanitary‑sewer‑overflow (SSO) and infiltration/inflow programs, including trunk‑sewer replacements, manhole and pipe rehabilitation and basin‑by‑basin repairs. - Boggy Creek trunk sewer and associated lift‑station and force‑main projects. - An aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) pilot (phase one surface‑water capture and storage) and a membrane treatment plant expansion to allow additional treatment capacity to meet peak needs.
Staff emphasized the difference between capital funding mechanisms: impact fees (one‑time charges tied to new development) were not used broadly by Temple; reinvestment‑zone funds have paid for several water/wastewater projects, but any gap in coverage must be resolved through rates or bonds.
Operational costs and customer impacts Staff noted rising costs for chemicals, power, and generator maintenance; they also described planned workforce increases tied to maintenance and collection demands. Staff advised the council that cutting operations to avoid rate increases would lead to deferred maintenance and likely higher long‑term costs.
Council questions Councilmembers asked how Temple’s rates compare to peers and staff distributed benchmarking tables. Tracy said the presented peer data used each city’s most recently available published rates and that comparisons vary by method (per‑capita revenue, impact‑fee policy, network size and system age). Council members asked for more detailed peer comparisons and timing for notices if the council approves an October 1 rate change.
Ending Staff will finalize a proposed ordinance and rate schedule for council consideration and return with peer comparisons and customer bill impacts; the city manager and finance staff said they will publicize the rate proposal as required if council signals support.
