Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Rates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kanosh staff proposes steep water-rate restructuring to build reserves; council asks for data before deciding
Summary
Staff presented an aggressive multi‑tier, per‑gallon water‑rate model (illustrative changes: base monthly fee increase $21→$25; base included gallons from 10,000→8,000; example per‑gallon rate 0.003125) to generate more revenue for aging infrastructure. Council members requested the underlying rural‑water study and per‑user consumption data before making policy or ordinance changes.
Town staff presented an illustrative, revenue‑focused overhaul of Kanosh’s water rate schedule intended to generate more operating revenue and create a sinking fund for system maintenance. The proposal included raising the monthly base from $21 to $25 and reducing the base included volume from 10,000 gallons to 8,000, then charging per‑gallon rates across successive tiers; staff provided example per‑gallon figures and cumulative monthly totals to illustrate the model.
Council members debated tradeoffs: some supported a modest base increase to start building reserves, while others cautioned that cutting the base allowance to 8,000 gallons would hit many households and low‑income residents. Speakers asked staff to retrieve a rural‑water study and the detailed per‑customer consumption dataset used in modeling so the council could simulate revenue targets (for example, an additional $50,000 per year) and craft a less‑punitive tier structure.
Why it matters: The town’s water system is aging and faces future capital needs (tank and distribution main replacements). Council members said increasing revenue is necessary to avoid crises and repeated grant chasing, but emphasized the need to balance revenue goals with fairness to fixed‑income households.
Details: Staff said the town brings in roughly $150,000 per year in water revenue and that minor maintenance/new hookups averaged about $53,000 per year over a recent 26‑month span. The motion to pursue changes would be by ordinance; council requested the modeling tool and asked staff to obtain the rural‑water (Bridal) study and to return with concrete options, including simpler three‑tier alternatives and less aggressive highest‑tier triggers.
