Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utility Rates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Concord staff propose water (6%) and wastewater (15%) increases, outline solid-waste pilot and bag options
Summary
City staff told the Finance Committee that water revenues and balances remain manageable but recommended a 6% water rate increase; wastewater needs large near-term increases (15% in FY27, larger in out-years) to fund capital and debt service. Solid-waste costs and an automated collection pilot will require further policy decisions on bag pricing and general-fund transfers.
Get email alerts on the Utility Rates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff presented proposed utility rate changes on June 1 as part of FY2027 budget work. For water, the manager and finance staff proposed a 6% rate increase for FY27, which staff estimated would raise the average household bill by roughly $1.65 per month (based on 8 CCF). For wastewater, staff proposed a 15% increase for FY27; they emphasized the hike reflects planned capital investments and rising debt service and warned that additional, larger increases are anticipated in the early out-years to maintain fund solvency.
The solid waste presentation noted a one-time FY26 revenue boost from the regional cooperative land sale (~$522,000) and described a new pilot for automated collection and pay-as-you-throw compliance monitoring that raises contracted costs for FY27. Staff told the committee the pilot is intended to support compliance with the purple-bag program and that closing multi‑hundred‑thousand‑dollar gaps in future years will require either a bag-price increase, larger general-fund transfers, or both. Councilor Brown asked for modeling of options; staff estimated a roughly 15% bag-price increase could capture a meaningful portion of the shortfall, but most of the FY27 gap would still require transfers.
Councilors asked how increases would affect residents with low income or manufactured housing; discussion centered on the difference between tax-based relief mechanisms and fee-based charges for utilities, which are not typically covered by property-tax relief programs. Staff agreed to model distributional impacts and alternatives for council review.

