Columbus Water Works proposes 4.95% rate increase, new regulatory compliance fee to fund long‑term upgrades

Columbus Water Works presented a proposed 2026 rate model to the City Council on Oct. 28 that would raise water and wastewater rates by 4.95% and add a new regulatory compliance fee to help fund regulatory mandates and infrastructure work, including eventual replacement of the city’s aging wastewater treatment plant.

The utility’s presenter, Jeremy, a Columbus Water Works official, said the recommended 4.95% increase would roughly match current industry inflation (about 4.2%) and would help the utility maintain service levels and pay for a $110 million master plan of water‑main and sewer‑rehab projects. Jeremy said the separate regulatory compliance fee — proposed at $5 for residential customers, $10 for small nonresidential accounts and $25 for large nonresidential accounts — would be used to begin financing larger future work, including compliance with forthcoming federal and state requirements for PFAS/PFOS treatment and to prepare for a new wastewater treatment facility the utility estimates could cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

“Right now, we are asking for a 4.95% rate increase,” Jeremy said during the presentation. “And then a $5 new regulatory compliance fee. And it’ll be $10 for small nonresidential customers and $25 for large nonresidential industry.”

Why the increase: the utility said it faces a combination of aging infrastructure, increasing regulatory requirements from the Georgia Environmental Protection Division and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, inflation for construction and chemicals, and a wastewater plant close to its permitted capacity. Staff said the South Columbus treatment plant is permitted at roughly 40 million gallons per day and that average flows have been 35–40 million gallons per day, leaving little spare capacity for new economic development without improvements.

The utility’s consultant, Joe Pria, described prior awards and operating strengths and said the utility has maintained historically lower rates than many peers while averaging about a 4% annual increase since 2010.

Exemptions and affordability: staff proposed that customers already enrolled in the city’s reduced‑rate trash program — currently about 288 households in the utility’s affordability program — would keep their $10.50 monthly credit and would be exempt from the new regulatory compliance fee. Jeremy told councilors the compliance fee would generate roughly $3–4 million in the first year under a worst‑case plan and that the utility will pursue federal and state assistance where available.

Timing and process: Jeremy said the presentation served as one of two public forums required by the utility’s charter; a public forum was held Oct. 16 and a water board vote is scheduled Nov. 10. Council members are not voting on the rate proposal at the Oct. 28 meeting; councilors used the presentation to ask questions and to provide feedback.

Council questions and responses: councilors pressed staff on debt timing and bond strategy for a projected new treatment plant (staff discussed phased financing to avoid paying interest on unused bond proceeds), the cumulative effect of annual increases, how funds would be applied if grants or federal funding were later available, cybersecurity protections for water systems, cash reserves (staff said roughly 120 days of operating expenses are on hand), and how schools and government accounts would be charged (schools/government accounts would pay a lower nonresidential compliance fee of $10 rather than $25). Staff described a five‑year conservative consumption forecast and said they work with Robinson Grimes for annual audits.

Customer impact: staff estimated the typical residential customer would see an average increase of $7–$9 per month, with $5 of that increase attributable to the new regulatory fee. The utility emphasized it will reassess annually; the 4.95% figure is the recommendation for the 2026 budget year and would be revisited in subsequent years.

Next steps: staff will take questions collected at the council meeting back to the water board for its Nov. 10 vote. The council did not take formal action on the proposal at the Oct. 28 meeting.

Why this matters: the proposal addresses long‑term environmental and capacity obligations — including nutrient permit limits and PFAS compliance — and flags a multi‑year financing challenge that could affect economic development, rates and capital planning in Columbus.