Lewiston water system needs multimillion-dollar projects; council weighs rate design options

Lewiston City Council members on May 30 received a broad overview of the city’s water utility challenges and several rate options from Public Works Director Dustin Johnson.

Johnson said the city faces a multi‑million‑dollar list of projects — including recoating two steel reservoirs, upgrading the water treatment plant intake, and replacing a transmission line — while carrying limited reserves. He said the city has used consultant FCS to model rate scenarios and that the council must decide how to split future revenue between the base (meter) charge and the consumption charge.

The nut of the issue: the water enterprise is “tight,” Johnson said, and staff estimate the budget plan that applies a modest overall revenue increase will still draw down operations reserves by about $420,000 per year; at that rate the reserves are sustainable for roughly two more years. Johnson said, “We cannot spend water enterprise funds on anything other than the water enterprise,” to explain constraints on moving money between funds.

Rate design options presented: Johnson said staff modeled multiple scenarios — freezing the base meter charge and raising consumption rates, or more uniform increases — and used a budget illustration that assumes a 5% overall revenue increase. He said consumption makes up approximately 56% of water revenue while the base meter charge (the fixed monthly fee) accounts for about 44%. Under the staff‑built budget, a 5% overall revenue increase still permits a modest draw on reserves; increasing the consumption rate 10% while freezing the meter fee would yield roughly the same net revenue as a smaller, across‑the‑board increase.

Capital and grants: Johnson described a previously studied intake project that had appeared in the city’s FCS model with recommended 35% rate increases in 2025 and 2026 to fund the intake; after removing the intake from that projection FCS recommended more modest options (10% increases for three years then 5%). He said some work on the treatment plant will proceed with state DEQ grant funding to remove an underutilized well. Johnson said larger projects remain unfunded and that grant opportunities are uncertain.

Council reactions: Councilors debated tradeoffs between equity and conservation (high fixed fees blunt per‑unit conservation incentives), the timing of possible increases and the aim to avoid a future steep spike in rates. One councilor summarized a preference heard during the meeting for keeping meter fees stable while increasing consumption charges; other councilors favored smaller increases across the board. Johnson asked councilors for direction and said staff will present a formal rate resolution at a public hearing in July.

Ending: Staff will refine the proposal for the July public hearing; the council’s forthcoming direction will determine whether the budget moves forward with a meter‑freeze/consumption‑rise split (example: freeze meter fee, increase consumption 10%) or another distribution.