Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Utility Rates topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Stantec study: rate scenarios would raise typical household utility bills substantially by 2031

Hollywood City Commission · October 23, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Consultants presented a recommended five‑year rate plan to support a 30‑year septic‑to‑sewer rollout that would produce a cumulative ~71% increase in a typical combined water and sewer bill by 2031; faster acceleration requires materially larger near‑term increases.

Stantec presented the utility rate analysis framing for the septic‑to‑sewer program and asked the commission to indicate a preferred construction pace.

Eric Grau, principal at Stantec, said the firm's 10‑year financial forecast (focusing on fiscal years 2027–2036) and a recommended five‑year near‑term plan assume annual water increases of about 9% and sewer increases of about 12.5% in the early years to fund a 30‑year conversion schedule. "The 10.75% for 5 years cumulatively by 2031 represents about a 71% increase compared to today's bill," Grau said, citing a typical single‑family residential customer example.

The consultant also modeled acceleration alternatives: compressing the conversion to 15 or 10 years would require higher annual adders to sewer (examples presented included adders rising to 6% or more), producing cumulative bill increases in the double‑digits beyond the 71% baseline. Grau urged commissioners that any adopted rate plan can be revisited by a future commission.

Staff and consultants outlined an optional 'sewer admin fee' concept that would levy a modest monthly charge on water‑only (unsewered) accounts (example: $3.50 starting year 1, escalating with sewer rate increases) to spread cost and create an escrow to offset on‑site abandonment costs for homeowners. Consultants stressed the concept is illustrative and does not change the primary rate model results shown.

Commissioners expressed concern about near‑term bill shock and suggested exploring different funding mixes (varying debt/cash ratios), alternative rate structures and potential ballot measures to secure broader public buy‑in before adopting significant rate changes. Staff were asked to return with rate scenarios aligned to commission preference and additional outreach materials.