Midway council debates water-bill relief options; staff proposes usage-based restructuring

Council members and staff on Tuesday reviewed several approaches to easing water bills for residents, focusing on legal risk and how to target assistance.

Unidentified Speaker 1 opened the discussion by saying the city’s initial constitutional analysis found no obvious barrier to senior discounts, but an Ombudsman opinion and state case law raised concerns that Utah law may require similarly situated properties to pay the same rates. "We found major cities that actually undertake this," the speaker said, but added the city could face a developer challenge because courts look at property ownership and equal treatment of similarly situated properties.

The council discussed specific eligibility ideas. Unidentified Speaker 2 proposed two criteria: residents 65 or older who opt into the program and whose meter has been connected to the system for 10 years, on the theory that long-tenured users have already contributed to system costs. "So those are the 2 criteria that we decide on to allow for relief from the water bill," Speaker 2 said. Several councilors questioned whether an age-only approach would be the best method and raised the alternative of income- or usage-based targeting.

Unidentified Speaker 8 argued that income or low fixed income should determine eligibility rather than age alone, noting the risk that a wealthy senior would receive the same break as a low‑income homeowner. The council considered administrative complexity — whether the city would verify incomes or instead rely on county eligibility for existing abatements — and the legal exposure if a whole class is excused from fees.

Staff offered a usage-based restructuring as a compromise. Unidentified Speaker 6 presented system data: roughly 2,700 water customers, about 2,600 within the lowest rate tier (under 10,000 gallons per month), and close to 1,000 customers using under 5,000 gallons. Speaker 6 outlined a sample rate redesign that would lower charges for the smallest users and reward conservation: "if we take those that use 5,000 or less...drop their rate down to $14...and drop that to $5 a month" for the very lowest tier, the speaker said, while noting additional fees (pumping, conversion) remain.

Councilors pressed for the fiscal effects. Unidentified Speaker 3 and staff estimated the example restructure would reduce revenue by about $500,000 — from roughly $1.5 million to about $1.0 million annually — leaving an approximate $1 million inflow to the water fund under the sample scenario. Staff said the water fund is currently healthy, and that different combinations of thresholds and rate levels could be modeled.

Rather than act immediately, the council directed staff to develop detailed options and return with a plan for the December meeting, using the usage-based proposal as a starting point and refining eligibility, implementation details, and legal analysis. "So could we direct staff then to kind of take a look at this and come back hopefully in our December meeting with a plan based basically using this as sort of the footprint?" Unidentified Speaker 3 asked. Councilors agreed to the approach and assigned data crunching to staff.