Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mountlake Terrace unveils multi‑million utilities plan and warns rate impacts are likely
Summary
City staff laid out a six‑year utilities capital plan that includes $4.1 million for a westside water main replacement, a $5 million stormwater project and seismic work on a 2.5‑million‑gallon tank; officials said a September rate study will show possible rate scenarios and timing.
Mountlake Terrace city staff presented a detailed utilities capital improvement program on June 18, laying out projects for water, wastewater and stormwater and warning residents the work will drive higher utility rates unless grants or bonding offset costs.
Gary, the city’s utilities lead, told the council the presentation was an early look at priorities for the 2027–2032 period, the analyses that will feed a rate study due in September, and the outreach the city plans before rate recommendations. “It’s a cost‑of‑service model,” he said. “We do not make a profit; the rates cover 100% of the cost of the service.”
Why it matters: the program identifies several high‑cost items that would be timed and financed differently depending on policy choices made by the council. Among the projects highlighted were a Westside Water Main replacement (Phase 2) with an approved construction contract and an approved budget of $4,100,000; a Main Street Phase 2 package that combines water and storm improvements; a 2.5‑million‑gallon water reservoir that failed a recent seismic analysis (staff estimated a seismic retrofit at roughly $6,000,000 and a full replacement at $14–16 million); and a possible $15,000,000 (±100%) program to relocate water mains that currently hang under I‑5.
Council members pressed staff on timing, financing and who pays. Council member Sonmore asked whether some projects could be delayed; Gary said the staff is using an asset‑management approach to prioritize work “just in time” to avoid either premature replacement or emergency failures. Council member Murray asked officials to identify which projects are driven by growth versus aging infrastructure; Gary said the forthcoming modeling will be able to break projects into three drivers: aging, capacity for growth or a mix of both.
On wastewater, staff noted a possible large regulatory cost if Department of Ecology nutrient rules apply to the regional treatment plant. Gary said the city’s share could be about $3,000,000 – part of a roughly $12,000,000 regional package – and cautioned the council that if such requirements advance, some other sewer projects would likely be deferred.
Staff also described options for the Wildermere lift station, including rebuilding the station for an estimated $1–2 million or routing flows via gravity to another regional facility. “We’re in deep conversations with Alderwood and King County,” Gary said; by August he expected further clarity on whether abandoning the lift station is feasible.
Next steps: staff said a public outreach phase will begin ahead of a September 10 presentation of draft rate scenarios; in August the city will prepare a rate package and in September will present findings so the council can choose a preferred rate path and adopt rates before finalizing the comp plans.
The council did not take a final vote on any of the major projects during the meeting. Gary said staff will return with more detailed cost‑reliability tradeoffs, grant prospects and options for bonding to spread costs across multiple years.
