Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Enterprise Funds topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears stark projections for water, sewer funds; staff proposes reassigning positions and meter upgrades
Summary
City staff told the Junction City City Council that water and sewer enterprise funds are projected to dip below minimum balances and could be depleted in coming years; staff proposed discontinuing the projects crew and one water operator position, repurposing three FTEs, upgrading aging meters, and returning with alternatives including modest rate options by February.
City staff told the Junction City City Council on Dec. 16 that updated enterprise-fund forecasts for water and sewer show balances falling below recommended minimums and eventually depleting under current assumptions. "I can see in both of those that the funds over the next couple of fiscal years start to dip below the minimum fund balance and eventually end up depleting the funds in its entirety," a staff presenter said, framing the package of options the council asked staff to prepare.
Staff emphasized it was not seeking immediate, final decisions. Instead, the presentation listed short-term recommendations to stabilize projections without immediate broad rate increases: discontinue the projects crew and one water operator position, repurpose roughly three existing FTEs toward maintenance and parts work, and redirect some internal billing so public works positions are partly funded by user departments. The presenter said upgrading widely aged water meters is another priority because many meters were installed 15–20 years ago and are failing; meter modernization would reduce long-term labor for reads and repairs.
Councilors reacted sharply to the forecast and the staffing proposal. Councilor Thomas said, "when there's no more money in the cookie jar, there's no more money in the cookie jar," urging the council to weigh options carefully. Several councilors urged staff to present a middle path between immediate layoffs and a large, single rate increase — options included phased rate adjustments tied to inflation or a sliding scale, delaying hiring to take advantage of upcoming retirements, and better prioritization of in‑house work versus contracting.
Staff committed to produce a personnel services breakdown and a revenue-sufficiency analysis and to return with more detailed alternatives no later than February. The council directed staff to explore alternatives that could preserve operations while minimizing rate shock and to identify the projects that the projects crew had been assigned so members could evaluate which tasks could be retained in house.
