Victoria workshop proposes 9% sewer increase, 8% stormwater rise; water rates unchanged

Victoria — City finance staff presented key elements of the City of Victoria’s proposed 2026 budget at a council workshop, asking for feedback on utility rate changes that would affect local households.

Assistant City Manager and Finance Director Trisha Pollock said staff are not proposing increases to water base or consumption rates for 2026 but highlighted two cost drivers for customers: an increase in the Minnesota Department of Health safe drinking water service connection fee (from about $9.72 to $15.22 per year) that the city will pass through on monthly bills, and a staff‑recommended 9% sewer rate increase to recover climbing Met Council charges. “We are proposing a 9% increase in sewer,” Pollock said, and showed example bill impacts of roughly $3.03 per month for an average household under the proposal.

Pollock also proposed changing the winter sewer averaging method to use six months of actual usage (November–April) for annualized billing during irrigation season, rather than the current January–March average. Staff showed sample accounts where one household would save about $9.42 per year under the new averaging and another would pay about $7.52 more, and argued the change would better align billing with actual usage and reduce customer confusion. “By using six months of actuals … I feel like we’re getting a truer picture of and a truer billing for the residents,” Pollock said.

On stormwater, staff recommended an 8% increase to continue building a fund balance for required maintenance and MS4 permit obligations; that would raise the monthly base from about $12.83 to $13.86. Pollock told the council the stormwater department has expanded over the past two years and more maintenance projects are planned, and that the increase supports a trajectory to pay cash for future work.

Council members questioned the pace of increases and tradeoffs with healthy fund balances. One council member noted the community is facing other tax pressures and asked whether a smaller, one‑year reduction (for example 4% instead of 8%) would be feasible. Pollock replied that a smaller increase would reduce the year’s contribution to the fund balance but was technically possible; she reiterated staff’s preference for smaller, incremental increases spread over multiple years rather than a single large adjustment.

Staff emphasized that the sewer hike is part of a multi‑year plan to catch up to rising regional charges, and that the MDH fee is a pass‑through the city cannot absorb. The workshop did not include any formal votes on rates; city staff will incorporate council feedback before finalizing levy and budget documents ahead of the truth and taxation hearing and certification.