Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities Rates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges commission to reject proposed water and sewer rate increases
Summary
At a public hearing on proposed water and sewer rate changes, a resident urged the San Juan City Commission to reject an ordinance that would raise residential rates 11% immediately and about 42.6% over four years; commissioners heard questions about grant eligibility, last rate changes and cost drivers before approving the ordinance's first reading by voice vote.
A resident told the San Juan City Commission the proposed water and sewer rate changes were ‘‘pretty outrageous,’’ saying the residential base rate would rise about 11% immediately and roughly 42.64% over four years and urging commissioners to ‘‘vote no.’' The comment framed the increases as a burden on already economically distressed households and warned commercial rate hikes could be passed to consumers.
City staff introduced the first reading of an ordinance to amend Chapter 13 (utilities) of the city code to modify water and sewer rates and said the packet contained highlighted changes. Commissioners pressed staff on the rationale behind the increases and when rates were last adjusted; staff said the city’s water rates were last raised in 2009 and that the city’s financial adviser had recommended action because San Juan was behind peer cities and low rates could jeopardize certain funding and grant eligibility.
Miss Lori Maldonado, the city purchasing agent who spoke during the meeting, agreed overall input costs have risen: ‘‘Everything has really gone up,’’ she said, noting chemicals and contracted services have increased over time. A financial adviser was referenced in the discussion as having advised the commission that raising rates would affect the city’s capacity to secure and demonstrate readiness for some grants that require evidence of adequate rate structures or matching funds.
Residents and at least one commissioner questioned that explanation: one speaker asked how grant eligibility equated to ‘‘paying back’’ grants, noting grants are not loans and that matching requirements should be distinguished from repayment obligations. Commissioners and staff discussed matches versus loans and reiterated that some grant programs require demonstrated local revenue capacity to support projects and repayment-like obligations tied to certain funding sources.
After public comment and discussion, the commission closed the hearing and approved the ordinance’s first reading by voice vote; the record shows commissioners answered in the affirmative and the chair declared ‘‘Motion carries.’' The transcript does not specify a full roll-call tally for the water ordinance first reading in all places of the record.
