Citizen Portal
Sign In

Board unanimously recommends Santa Rosa FY 2026–27 water/wastewater/stormwater budgets to City Council

Board of Public Utilities, City of Santa Rosa · April 3, 2026

Loading...

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

The Board of Public Utilities voted unanimously to recommend the FY 2026–27 water, local wastewater, stormwater & creeks and regional system operations, capital and debt-service appropriation requests and cost allocations to City Council; the presentation outlined key assumptions, revenue/expenditure projections and the schedule to council.

Kevin Buchanan, fiscal manager for Santa Rosa Water, presented the board with the FY 2026–27 operating, O&M, CIP and debt service budget recommendation and assumptions. Buchanan said the budget materials assume a 1.1% increase in water deliveries and flat wastewater demand because of sewer caps; staff also budgeted for salary increases tied to city MOUs and higher electricity costs driven by regional enterprise factors including CHP engine maintenance and higher UV disinfection dosing.

Buchanan walked through revenue and expenditure projections, noting total department expenditures just over $170 million, planned capital delivery of about $32.4 million, a proposed water enterprise request of roughly $49 million (about a 6.8% increase over the current year), and proposed CIP allocations of $16 million for water, $14.7 million for local wastewater and $13 million for regional operations. He said wholesale water price assumptions included a Sonoma Water wholesale rate that increased the wholesale price to about $1,515 per acre-foot and projected wholesale demand of about 15,600 acre-feet for a budgeted wholesale cost around $23.7 million.

Buchanan described remaining steps in the budget schedule (City Council preliminary regional budget approval planned for April 21; council study sessions in May; June 17 budget adoption). The board considered the recommendation and then, by resolution, voted to recommend City Council approve the FY 2026–27 appropriation requests and cost allocations. The roll-call vote was recorded as unanimous among those present; the record noted one board member was absent.

The presentation included many specific figures. One figure stated in the transcript about planned rate increases was unclear in context, so the record here reports the schedule and the board recommendation rather than an independent verification of any single percentage point.