Rio Vista committee reviews proposed sewer rate increases, connection fees and seeks SRF clarity

The Rio Vista Municipal Rates and Utilities Committee on June 27 reviewed a consultant presentation proposing steep near‑term increases to sewer rates, a revised multifamily billing approach and one‑time connection fees, and asked staff for more detail on interfund loan accounting and the State Revolving Fund (SRF) process before forwarding any recommendation to the city council.

Jeremy, the consultant presenting the wastewater rate study, told the committee the draft five‑year plan separates Northwest and Beach plant budgets and assumes consolidation after the five‑year period. "The adjusted system cost basis for those new users is a little bit over $88,000,000 over the course of the next 20 years," he said, and reported connection‑fee estimates of about $14,840 per EDU for Northwest and $18,360 per EDU for Beach, based on projected EDUs and assumed external funding.

The study updates budgets and capital improvement timing since an October 2023 presentation and keeps the same rate‑structure approach while producing different results because of revised O&M, CIP and debt assumptions. Jeremy said the proposed schedule sets ceilings under the Prop 218 process and can be adjusted downward by the city council in any given year.

Finance Director Jen explained how interfund loan repayments are shown in the materials. "The interfund repayment is for — we did a repayment schedule in 2016, and we divided the interfund loan by 10 and separated into 10 years," she said, noting the budget displays cash‑basis transfers and that accounting presentations differ between budgeted and actual columns.

Committee members repeatedly asked for clearer reconciliation between audited historical actuals and the 23/24 budget figures, noting large swings in capital reserve balances between audited years and the budget that need explanation. Vice Chair Chris Armbrust urged more public transparency on rates and related materials: "I think my recommendation was to go ahead and post it now," he said, arguing that posting sooner yields earlier public comment rather than waiting until after ballots or notices are mailed.

Members also focused on the SRF, which several described as a likely source of external funding. One committee member summarized their understanding that the SRF functions as a reimbursement program that requires local jurisdictions to front project costs and then seek reimbursement, and asked the staff to confirm the process and timeline so the committee can decide whether to build cash reserves or defer capital projects.

The presentation also recommended changing multifamily billing from a per‑account minimum to a per‑EDU charge to make costs more equitable; staff agreed to add clearer footnotes and examples for multifamily customers on the public materials and to fix table formatting to avoid confusing volumetric and per‑unit measures.

Committee members and consultants agreed on next steps: staff will provide reconciled actuals vs. budget figures, detailed descriptions and locations for CIP projects called out in the presentation, clarification of interfund transfer treatment in the rate model, and a SRF process briefing (staff said they will invite a knowledgeable SRF representative or provide a staff expert at a future meeting). The committee did not forward the rates to council at the June 27 meeting.

Procedural actions: the committee moved, seconded and unanimously approved the minutes from the May 23, 2024 meeting. The session ended with members scheduling plant tours and asking staff to publish meeting notes and updated slides for public review.

Next steps: staff will return with the requested reconciliation and SRF details; the committee signaled it will wait for those answers before recommending any rate increases to the council.