Roberts City Council hears resident concerns about proposed fee increases in Resolution 2024-0827

Roberts City Council President Edidt Sanchez opened a Sept. 10 public hearing on Resolution 2024-0827, a proposed update to the city fee schedule that would add, repeal or raise fees above a 3% threshold.

The hearing drew several residents who said the change would be difficult for fixed-income households. "I am the only person that lives at my home and I don't use that much sewer or water. I am on Medicare," said Ursula Benkenstien, a resident who identified her address during testimony. President Sanchez acknowledged the concern, saying the council "recognizes that the increase is significant and the decision to increase the sewer and water rates was not taken lightly. The council understands that the increase may be a strain on residents."

Other residents linked the proposed increases to operational costs. "I know that the prices of taking care of the water has gone up because you've hired somebody new," said Dale Bums, adding that he opposed the increases because of broader financial pressures on households. Sally Lounsbury asked whether the city could "take money from city funds until Ron is certified" and suggested the council "don't renew contract with Mountain West," pressing the council to consider alternatives to immediate rate increases.

The council heard a summary of staffing and licensing constraints that affect utility costs: the transcript records that licensing requirements have increased; that completing the required training for certification could take about 8 to 12 years for an individual; federal requirements for a level-three facility may require multiple certified operators (the record cites up to six); and an average annual operator salary was cited at about $90,000. Those constraints were presented in the discussion as part of the rationale for contracting services and the related fee adjustments.

Attendee Gale Scrivner asked Gregg Rodrick about the term of the services contract; Rodrick said the contract is written as a yearly agreement with an annual review and was structured to allow small adjustments (for example, to account for inflation) in the coming year. No oral testimony was offered in favor of or in opposition to the resolution beyond the speakers who addressed the council; the clerk then read submitted written comments.

The hearing closed at approximately 6:56 p.m. The council did not vote on the resolution during the hearing; next steps, including any council vote on adopting the fee schedule or the exact effective date listed in the notice, were not specified on the record. The meeting record contains a printed effective-date line that is garbled in the transcript and was not clarified in the hearing.