Committee weighs four stormwater rate options, including a plan to build a 15% reserve

Scott Gerhart, speaking for the stormwater division, recapped four fee scenarios the committee reviewed at a recent work session: keep current rates (option 1), raise rates to make the fund self‑sustaining (option 2), a phased increase that still requires some general‑fund support (option 3), and a higher‑rate option designed to build a 15% fund balance for unexpected projects (option 4).

Gerhart told the committee that the proposed rates incorporate equipment replacement costs (he cited a planning figure of about $450,000–$500,000 a year) and said staff is exploring a Jan. 1, 2027 effective date. "We're exploring a January 1st, 2027 effective date for these rates," he said.

Committee reaction split. Several members said they favor option 4 because a cushion would allow the stormwater fund to respond to unexpected expenses and projects. Other members argued the proposed increases would function as an indirect tax and favored option 3 to phase increases and give residents time to adapt; one member described the rate rise as a substantial percentage jump for some customers and urged caution.

Staff responded to specific technical questions: they identified capital outliers in the fund (noting past capital projects and recent purchases such as a vacuum truck and a new street sweeper), explained how equipment replacement is folded into the rate model, and said they had considered indexing but generally did not recommend it because most stormwater costs are personnel related.

No formal rate decision occurred; the committee’s discussion will inform staff recommendations ahead of the FY‑27 budget adoption process.