Augusta Utilities asks commissioners to consider 6.5% rate increase, meter and tap‑fee hikes to cover rising costs and capital needs

Director Wes Bynes told the commission during the second fiscal 2026 budget hearing that Augusta Utilities faces a squeeze of rising operating and materials costs, unfilled positions and large planned capital projects that together create pressure on rates.

Bynes said operating costs are up by about $1.6 million to roughly $20,498,100 and that supply costs have risen from $15 million to nearly $21 million, driven in part by a $3.8 million purchase of metering components to complete a transition from AMR to cellular read (AMI) meters. The capital budget, he said, has risen from $8.7 million to roughly $12 million, citing plant generators, vehicles, roofs and building repairs.

Bynes described interfund transfers and accounting adjustments used to align multiple spreadsheets in the formal budget and said the department’s cash position will depend on how much capital is actually expended: a modest positive position without capital but a projected negative position once full capital spending is included. He identified roughly 50 vacant positions across the utility and said some vacancies temporarily reduce personnel expense but are not by design.

Why it matters: the department is juggling long‑term plant repairs, an ambitious meter‑replacement program and emergency repairs stemming from last year’s hurricane while operating in a rising‑cost market. Bynes said the commission’s decision on rates and fees will determine whether planned work proceeds as scheduled.

Major projects and funding Bynes listed a series of maintenance and capital items he described as required or under consent‑order review at Augusta’s wastewater facilities: primary clarifiers (preliminary estimate $4.5 million), repairs to digesters that recently suffered structural failures, a headworks replacement estimated at roughly $20 million (design ~2 years), upgrades to aeration basins and ongoing inflow & infiltration (I&I) reduction work. A canal embankment repair package submitted to the Army Corps and under evaluation was described as an extensive request (Bynes cited a previously prepared $55 million package) and a more immediate embankment repair estimate of about $19 million is under review for possible FEMA eligibility.

On grants and loans, Bynes said the utility has pursued multiple sources: an EDA grant of about $1.3 million for corporate park water/sewer work, two congressionally directed earmarks pending final release, a $450,000 grant for lead and copper service‑line inventory and a mixed loan/grant for lead service line replacement that also allows replacement of galvanized services. He emphasized Augusta does not believe it has lead service lines but that the federal program permits inventory and some replacement work that dovetails with the meter replacement program. Bynes said a subsidized, 20‑year loan for AMI meter replacement is a candidate; the department expects the meter program to be “revenue neutral” as more frequent reads should reduce erroneous or stuck meter bills and improve leak detection.

Rates, fees and customer impact Bynes asked the commission to consider a 6.5% rate increase for the coming year while acknowledging the difficulty of asking for higher utility bills. He said each percentage point of increase generates about $1 million in revenue; a 6.5% increase would therefore raise roughly $6.5 million and would increase the typical residential bill (3,000 gallons/month) by about $4.06, from a current average monthly bill of $62.41.

He also proposed a set of tap fee increases to better align charges with current material and labor costs (examples cited in the presentation): roughly doubling or more some historical fees that had not been materially updated since the 1980s–1990s. Bynes compared Augusta’s proposed schedule with neighboring jurisdictions and said differences reflect installation complexity, lanes crossed and whether in‑house crews or contractors perform the work. He proposed higher after‑hours cut‑on/cut‑off deposits, increased fees for sidewalk and road cuts, and a meter damage fee (first incident waived; subsequent incidents $300 plus meter/HERT cost) to deter repetitive damage.

Cost drivers and procurement pressures Officials described wide increases in pipe and asphalt prices (asphalt cited as ~40% higher than two years ago), energy (~10%), and chemical costs (~8%), as well as longer lead times and tariff‑driven price pressure for filter components (Highland Avenue filter upgrades cited at ~$2.3 million apiece). Bynes said these trends are inflating planned capital work beyond earlier assumptions.

Accountability and metrics Bynes proposed improving the department’s reporting and accountability if the commission approves rate or fee changes: monthly operating reports, CityWorks work‑order and fleet‑tracking dashboards, and a biannual review to report back to the commission on metrics and performance. He noted the department self‑performs much work (e.g., lab testing, vacuum trucks, motor rewinds) and cited recent in‑house savings of about a quarter‑million dollars from self‑performed repairs.

What the commission did not decide No formal action was taken at the hearing. Commissioners asked questions about FEMA and bond funding, the timeline for grants and loans, whether tap fees would include impact fees (Bynes said the city does not charge impact fees by policy and has historically recovered infrastructure costs through rates), and whether flood projects separate from water/sewer capital would be funded elsewhere.

Sources: Remarks by Director Wes Bynes and subsequent commissioner questions and administrator comments during the second fiscal 2026 budget hearing.

Ending note: The utility asked the commission to weigh short‑term customer affordability against longer‑term capital sustainability; the department proposed specific rate and fee adjustments and pledged enhanced reporting if the commission acts.