Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears multi‑million‑dollar water plan and early rate impacts
Summary
City staff outlined a multi‑project water system plan—including a $4.3M water tower, a $4.5–7.7M Route 24 relocation, and a $1.5M new well—while warning the existing CPI adjustment will already raise bills and further financing could add roughly 3–4% more.
City staff presented a multi‑year plan to repair and upgrade Washington’s potable water system and summarized likely cost and rate implications.
Staff said the distribution system includes roughly 85 miles of piping, about 30% of which is at or over 100 years old, and serves roughly 5,400 customers. They recommended a suite of projects to improve reliability and fire‑flow capacity, with cost estimates as follows: Bonduran Street (replace ~700 ft of 4‑inch main with 8‑inch) about $375,000; Route 24 water‑main relocation (20,000 ft) estimated $7.7 million for full length or $4.5 million for the most critical segment; a new 500,000‑gallon elevated tower (Tower 3) estimated at $4.3 million plus ~$500,000 to upsize adjacent mains; Sunnyland redundancy (4,000 ft of 8‑inch main) about $875,000; southeast area replacements phased over decades (about 17,000 ft of mains); and Well 13 as a backup and capacity expansion estimated at $1.5 million.
Staff also clarified rate mechanics: a water/sewer/trash CPI adjustment of 5.2% is already scheduled to appear on June bills. The previously‑discussed 9% proposal incorporates that 5.2% and would add roughly 3.8% more to reach a total 9% increase; staff noted other design choices (infrastructure fees by meter size) could affect customer bills further. “That was 5.2% for 2024… the proposal discussed last month is a 9% increase and that includes that 5.2%,” staff said.
Council members treated the presentation as introductory for new members; staff said the projects are staged across 1–10 years (near‑term projects) and 5–20 years (longer projects), and that financing strategy and final project sequencing would be addressed in follow‑up meetings. Questions from council focused on how often specific mains have failed (staff to provide historical failure counts), whether projects could be phased, and how rate proposals would be structured for equity across meter sizes.
What happens next: staff will provide additional detail on project phasing, a financing plan, and specific failure histories for key mains; rate decisions will return to council in future agenda packets.
