Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Rates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Provo officials weigh 6% water rate proposal amid aging pipes, corrosion and options to bond
Summary
City staff briefed the council on a proposed 6% water rate increase to accelerate pipe replacement in a corrosive soil environment. Council members pressed for Provo-specific cost-benefit and cash-flow comparisons of bonding versus pay-as-you-go, and asked staff to return with project-priority lists and benchmarking against comparable jurisdictions.
Tanner Taguchi, Provo's council policy analyst, told the council on Wednesday that the water division is proposing a 6% rate increase for the coming fiscal year to help fund replacement of aging and corrosion-prone conveyance infrastructure.
Taguchi said Provo's system is largely ductile iron, and USDA soil-survey corrosivity data show much of Provo sits in more corrosive zones than some neighboring cities. That combination, he said, helps explain the city's elevated leak and break rates. Staff presented household-level examples of the proposed rate change, showing sample annual bill increases of roughly $41 to $52 under stated usage assumptions.
Council members asked for more detail on three main points: (1) whether the consultant assumptions and the 6% figure still reflect recent changes in construction costs and demand; (2) a cash-flow comparison of bonding versus pay-as-you-go approaches that includes net-present-value and expected interest costs; and (3) improved benchmarking with comparable jurisdictions that face similar soil and material conditions. Taguchi said staff are assembling a detailed project list and will model scenarios if the council requests it.
Questions from council and public-works staff focused on how the city prioritizes replacements (age, break history, slope/slide risk), contractor capacity (staff said crews could replace several cul-de-sacs per year and contractors might do 10 to 20 miles in a year), and the tradeoffs of a large bond (which may lock in revenue requirements for years) versus steady, smaller increases. Staff emphasized that any additional capital would be directed to pipe replacement and that operations and emergency repairs would continue regardless.
Council also discussed enterprise fund transfers to the general fund and whether increased utility revenue ultimately reduces funds available for capital. Taguchi confirmed the city currently transfers a portion of enterprise revenues and agreed to run numbers showing the net capital benefit of a rate increase given those transfers.
Council directed staff to return with: a Provo-specific cost and project-prioritization list; a cash-flow analysis comparing bonding and pay-as-you-go (including NPV); and benchmarking data from comparable cities with similar soil and pipe composition. No rate change was adopted at the meeting.
