Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Budgets topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Boulder staff launch review of water‑budget policy ahead of 2026 rate study
Summary
City staff told the advisory board they will evaluate Boulder—s water‑budget policy, citing declining per‑capita use and administrative complexity—especially for commercial, institutional and industrial (CII) accounts. Staff said engagement is underway and any policy changes would be folded into the 2026 rate study, with implementation possible in
Boulder staff told the advisory board on Oct. 20 that they will review the city—s water‑budget policy and consider adjustments as part of a larger 2026 rate study.
Crystal Mori, senior water resources engineer, said the water budget "isn't a limit, but rather it helps determine the rates" that govern block pricing for consumption. Under the current policy, water budgets estimate a customer—s expected use; usage below a budget is billed at lower per‑unit rates and use above the budget is billed at progressively higher blocks, Mori said.
Why revisit the policy: staff said water use has fallen since the budgets were created after the region—s 2002 drought, so many budgets now exceed actual consumption and the price signal intended to encourage conservation is weak. Staff also flagged administrative costs and inconsistencies for CII customers, whose water use patterns are highly variable and whose budgets often require manual, year‑to‑year adjustments.
Mori described account‑type differences: single‑family budgets rely on household size and irrigable area; multifamily budgets are driven by unit counts; CII budgets are a mix of historical use or fixed allocations set at development; metered irrigation accounts are based on irrigable area. Staff noted that the CII class represents about 7% of accounts but roughly 20% of city water use, and that managing those accounts consumes a disproportionate share of IT and customer‑service time.
Board questions focused on how quickly budgets adjust when businesses change use, how often customers request adjustments, and whether geographic or seasonal factors could be handled more simply. Vanessa Bonner, utility billing supervisor, told the board fewer than 200 single‑family accounts have formal family‑size adjustments out of roughly 22,000 accounts, an indicator that requests occur but are not widespread.
Process and timeline: staff said a bilingual public survey opened Sept. 3 and that targeted CII and multifamily outreach is underway. Staff plans to develop alternatives based on data and community feedback, return to the board in early 2026 to summarize themes, and carry preferred alternatives into the 2026 rate study; depending on complexity, implementation of new rates could occur in 2027 or 2028.
Staff emphasized four lenses for evaluation: customer experience and equity; ease of administration; conservation signal strength; and financial performance. The advisory board asked staff to consider simplifying the CII approach, examining carryover or seasonal flexibility, and exploring targeted assistance for small or newly occupied businesses that may be disadvantaged by slow budget resets.
The discussion produced no formal motion or vote. Staff said they will return with analysis and proposed alternatives in 2026.
