Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Rates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alpine workshop weighs $4 base water‑rate increase to cover aging system
Summary
At a City of Alpine workshop, council members debated options to raise water fees to address a roughly $93,410 enterprise shortfall and decades‑old infrastructure; staff recommended a $4 base increase paired with a $1 per 1,000‑gallon usage increase while some council members argued for higher or phased increases.
City Manager Henry continued a workshop review of the draft 2025–26 master fee schedule on the city’s water rates, telling the council the municipality faces a notable shortfall in its water enterprise and rising labor costs that will not be covered without additional revenue.
“The cost drivers here to for the city is labor…we increased the labor cost by $500,000 without any increases to your revenue,” City Manager Henry said, noting the updated audit widened the funding gap for enterprise funds.
The consultant’s rate study presented council options for raising the base charge by between $1 and $5. Packet figures flagged current base‑rate revenue of about $295,000 and an operating gap of approximately $93,410. Staff and the consultant recommended pairing a $4 increase to the base charge with a $1 per 1,000‑gallon increase in the usage rate as a near‑term option to reduce the deficit while improving grant competitiveness.
Several council members said infrastructure age and deferred maintenance justify a larger one‑time adjustment. “We have a well going into the ground right now, and we have 15, 60‑year‑old wells next to it,” a council member said, arguing the system’s condition makes modest annual increases insufficient.
Others cautioned about affordability for low‑income and elderly residents and urged phased increases or targeted assistance. One council member said a $5 base hike would create the most robust position but recommended a phased rollout with customer support to manage hardship risks.
Operations staff and councilors also discussed capital investments that could change long‑term costs: Mike, a utilities operations staff member, said installing smart meters could free crews for repairs and reduce operating costs, but would be a significant capital expense—he estimated the project at about $1.8 million and noted debt service implications.
Council members asked for more precise fund‑balance and capital‑plan numbers before finalizing any rate change. Finance and administration told the council they are working to reconcile audit and budget data — the finance director recently resigned — and expected more complete figures in coming weeks.
No formal vote was taken. The mayor said the resolution on the draft fee schedule was not ready for passage and could be removed from the regular council agenda; council asked staff for updated financials, a clearer capital improvement plan and additional analysis of distributional effects before any final action.
