Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Rates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Emmitsburg commissioners debate stepping back from automatic 36% water-rate hikes; ask staff for alternatives
Summary
Commissioners sparred for nearly two hours over a standing ordinance that phases in a 36% water-rate increase; staff will model 0%, 10%, 15% and 20% scenarios and the break‑even percentage and present results at the May budget meetings.
The Emmitsburg Board of Commissioners spent the bulk of its April 7 meeting debating whether to implement an ordinance schedule that would increase water rates and whether any increase should instead be set by an annual council vote.
Commissioner Hoover urged the board "to not have an increase, period," saying the council should be required to review and vote on rates each year rather than allow an automatic multi‑year escalation. Miss Willets, the town manager, told commissioners that leaving rates unchanged under staff estimates would generate roughly $840,000 in water revenue next year, while following the ordinance’s 36% step would raise water revenue to about $1.1 million. "If you keep your 36% increase, your revenue for water is about $1,100,000," she said.
Mayor Davis pushed back on leaving the water fund in the red. "We can't approve a budget this year that says our water fund is gonna operate in the red," he said, arguing the town must protect day‑to‑day water operations and avoid starting the fiscal year with a deficit.
After extensive discussion about affordability for residents and the risk of underfunding the water system’s operations and capital needs, the board gave staff direction rather than a vote to change rates. Commissioners asked Miss Willets and finance staff to produce scenario modeling for several alternatives — including 0%, 10%, 15% and 20% increases — and to calculate the exact percentage that would produce a break‑even operating position (and a modest reserve cushion). The board requested those figures in time for the regular May 5 meeting and the May 12 budget session.
The debate centered on competing priorities: protecting low‑income residents from steep bills, avoiding prolonged underinvestment in aging water infrastructure, and meeting legal requirements to present a balanced budget. Staff repeatedly noted that operating‑level shortfalls and longer‑term capital needs (mainline replacements and other projects) are separate calculations; raising rates can close an operating gap but does not, by itself, fully fund deferred capital work.
Next steps: staff will return with the requested rate scenarios and a recommended approach to the council during the May budget meetings so commissioners can consider a specific percentage or ordinance change before the FY26 budget is finalized.
