Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Rate Study topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City consultants propose rate redesign, recommend near‑term increase to fund water projects
Summary
Consultants told the Washington City Council a 2025–2032 financial plan needs added revenue to fund towers, wells and a Route 24 water main; they recommended a rate‑design change that keeps the technology fee intact but raises the infrastructure fee and volume charge so the first year’s headline adjustment is roughly 9%, with a typical residential bill rising about $3.58.
City consultants told the Washington City Council on April 7 that a multi‑year financing plan for water‑system capital work requires additional local revenue and recommended a rate‑design change to meet that need.
Tom Fratellis of Raftelis, who led the rate‑study presentation, said the plan covers 2025 through 2032 and aims to fund projects identified by CMT including Water Tower No. 3, Well No. 13 and a Route 24 water‑main relocation. Fratellis said the city would use Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) state‑revolving‑fund loans for the largest projects and revenue or general obligation bonds for others. “We are recommending a slightly different increase for the first year,” Fratellis said, explaining that the recommendation mixes an increase to the fixed infrastructure fee and the volume charge while keeping the technology fee unchanged.
Fratellis described the current three components of Washington’s bills: an infrastructure fee ($17.46/month), a technology fee ($3.85 for a single meter, $5.50 if there is an irrigation meter) and a volume charge ($5.47 per 1,000 gallons). Under the consultants’ proposal the technology charge would remain unchanged because it is repaying a prior upgrade loan; the infrastructure fee and volume charge would be adjusted so the first‑year ‘‘headline’’ increase reads as roughly 9% for those components. For a typical residential customer using about 4,000 gallons a month, Fratellis said the bill would rise from about $43.19 to $46.77 — roughly $3.58 per month.
To limit the burden on smaller residential customers, the consultants proposed meter‑size tiering for the infrastructure fee so larger meters — which represent greater capacity and readiness‑to‑serve costs — pay higher fixed charges. Fratellis said that shift would move roughly 2.5 percentage points of the needed revenue increase onto larger commercial meters and reduce a uniform increase across all customers.
Council members asked for more detail on comparisons to neighboring utilities, including Illinois American Water. Fratellis said Illinois American pays the city a retail rate for wholesale purchases and that including that customer reduced the city’s needed rate increase (he said without that revenue the initial increase would have been closer to 16% rather than 9%). Staff provided a meter‑count breakdown for Washington: two 6‑inch meters, four 4‑inch, seven 3‑inch, 35 2‑inch, 14 1.5‑inch, 52 1‑inch and the remainder residential.
Staff emphasized that a major driver is the Route 24 water‑main project and that negotiations with IDOT over whether the city can include the water main in a roadway reconstruction project are ongoing; that decision will alter the financing approach (IEPA loan vs. general obligation bond) and the final ordinance language. Councilmembers asked that staff draft an ordinance and discuss it at Committee of the Whole or at the next council meeting for more detailed review before any final vote.
Next steps: staff will draft ordinance language for council review; consultants and staff indicated the IEPA application for state revolving funds will be submitted this month. No rate ordinance was adopted at the April 7 meeting.
