Bowie council reviews $24.8 million water and sewer budget, weighing debt and rate options

Bowie — City staff presented a $24.8 million FY27 budget for the combined water and sewer enterprise fund, outlining large capital needs and several financing options as the council weighed how to pay for years of deferred maintenance.

Mr. Miller, a city staff presenter, told the council the FY27 total is $24,800,000, an increase of roughly $5.4 million, driven principally by a $4 million rise in the wastewater division and additional water-division capital. "The total budget increased almost 28%," Miller said during the presentation.

Why it matters: staff and the council framed the budget as an attempt to catch up on decades of deferred work on a system many speakers described as aging. An, Bowie’s public works director, said the system is more than 60 years old and that the city has completed roughly 9.6 miles of water-main rehabilitation to date but still faces tens of miles of work ahead. "At current investment levels there is about $130 million in remaining water-main work," An said, adding that the sewer side carries similar long-term costs.

What staff proposed and highlighted - Capital plan: staff showed proposed FY27 capital spending of about $13.4 million and a six-year total request of roughly $64.1 million for water and sewer projects, including plant work, tank maintenance, trunk-line work and system recapitalization. - Funding mix: renewal/replacement fees (~$738,000, unchanged), increased water sales and sewage surcharges, a smaller minimum charge, increased grant revenue, and significantly more borrowing (borrowing as a share of FY27 was presented as about 54%). - Borrowing examples: staff ran illustrative debt scenarios for $15M, $20M and $25M issuances amortized over 20 years at a 5% rate. For example, a $15M issuance produced an illustrative level annual debt service of about $1.2M under the assumptions presented.

Council concerns and options discussed Council members pressed staff on the balance between capital and operating spending, the risk of sanitary sewer overflows and regulatory fines, and how to make the debt affordable without overly burdening residents. Daniel Meares, acting city manager, noted the city has used bond proceeds from a prior issuance (about $8 million) to fund FY27 work but must find sustainable revenue sources for future years.

Council discussed several options: (1) increase the existing flat "recapitalization" fee (currently presented at about $738,000 annually), (2) adopt a rate increase (staff said a 10% rate increase was included in the draft budget), (3) pursue additional borrowing in staged issuances with careful rate modeling, or (4) use supplemental appropriations later in the year to phase in changes. Meares cautioned that any debt plan must be supported by a rate structure demonstrably capable of paying debt service.

Operational and technical points An described the city’s approach to rehab work (neighborhood-based projects to minimize mobilization costs) and said the city is expanding inspections of force mains and other critical assets; staff reported approximately 12 miles of force mains and six pumping stations. Council members asked about lining versus full replacement and about the operational tradeoffs of increased hydrant flushing to address customer complaints about discolored water.

What happens next Council members asked staff for detailed, written analyses before the next budget decision date, including a rate-impact analysis, more precise borrowing illustrations, grant-seeking status, and operational staffing and scheduling implications. Staff said it will return materials ahead of the council’s scheduled budget consideration later this month.

This account is based solely on the budget work session presentation and council Q&A; no final borrowing authorization or fee change was approved during the session.