Pleasant Grove consultants propose phased or immediate increases to utility rates; council seeks usage data for equity review

Pleasant Grove City Council members on Feb. 17 got a first look at a consultant analysis recommending increased rates across the city’s five utility funds — secondary (irrigation) water, culinary water, sanitary sewer, storm drain and the transportation utility.

Consultant Keith Larson, a civil engineer who said he has led similar studies for communities along the Wasatch Front, told the council that three forces drive the need for new revenue: aging infrastructure, new regulatory requirements and construction-cost inflation that has outpaced general consumer-price inflation. “We are seeing double-digit increases in terms of percent increases for every community we’re working with right now,” Larson said, adding that Pleasant Grove is in relatively better fiscal shape than many peers.

Larson presented two approaches to closing projected funding gaps. Option 1 would raise rates immediately to the level needed to fully fund capital plans and ongoing costs — the consultant described this as a “rip the band-aid off” approach. Option 2 phases increases over several years to soften the short-term impact on households. For median users under Larson’s sample calculations, adopting the phased Option 2 across all five utilities would raise the combined monthly bill by about $23, from roughly $163 to about $186.88.

Per-utility examples cited by Larson (all figures presented by the consultant): secondary (irrigation) water would see about a $4.45 median-bill jump in 2027 under the immediate option, while a phased approach would spread smaller adjustments over time; culinary water was shown as roughly $18 per month under the immediate scenario versus about $6 per month under a softer landing; sanitary sewer increases were illustrated at about $8 versus $6.52; storm drain option figures were about $14 versus $4; and the transportation utility fee — originally calculated in 2018 at about $8.45 and recommended, with inflation, to be near $13.86 — was contrasted with the currently adopted $6.76 fee.

Larson also walked the council through changes to rate structure. He said two recent Utah house bills require metering of secondary systems and the adoption of tiered conservation rates for secondaries; his proposal for Pleasant Grove would establish four secondary tiers tied to meter size and historical use. Under the recommended approach, smaller users and low-volume customers would generally pay less, while high-volume customers would pay increasingly higher volume charges in upper tiers.

Council members focused their questions on two practical and equity points: whether residents can change (downsize) meter sizes if they do not need high-capacity service, and how many and which households would be most affected. Staff and Larson said meter swaps are possible (one free swap was mentioned) and that the city recently installed about 7,500 secondary meters. Larson acknowledged the tradeoff: reducing base charges to ease costs for large-meter residents shifts revenue to volumetric charges, which raises prices for heavy users.

Several council members raised concerns about residents in rural parts of the city who installed larger service lines for historic agricultural use and who may face substantial base-rate increases despite modest actual water use in many months. One councilor characterized the situation as “untenable” for some longtime households; another urged staff and consultants to explore options that would soften base-rate impacts for those residents while preserving conservation incentives.

Council feedback emphasized moving more of the revenue burden to usage (volumetric) tiers rather than fixed base charges so that residents who conserve pay less. Larson and staff said the revenue requirement is a fixed target — if the council lowers base fees for large-capacity meters, that revenue must be recovered elsewhere, typically via higher volumetric prices or adjustments in other rate components.

Staff committed to provide the council with the presentation slides and the underlying spreadsheet with usage-by-meter-size, lot-size and historical-consumption data so members can model alternatives. Council members asked for additional breakdowns by pipe (meter) size and lot size to assess impacts on agricultural or large-lot households.

No formal rate decisions were made at the work session. The meeting adjourned after the council voted by voice. The next steps are staff delivery of the data and follow-up deliberations once councilors have time to review model outputs and propose structural adjustments.

Sources: consultant presentation and council discussion at the Pleasant Grove City Council work session, Feb. 17, 2026. Direct quotations and numbers are attributed to consultant Keith Larson and staff remarks captured in the meeting transcript.