Arlington approves Prop. 218 sewer-rate increase after public hearing

The Arlington City Council on Aug. 26 approved a Proposition 218 sewer-rate schedule intended to stabilize the city’s wastewater fund and provide limited capital funding, after a public hearing and questions from residents about notice and fairness.

Finance Director Jessica Bigby told the council consultants crafted a five‑year plan meant to right‑size rates for operating and near‑term repairs while leaving larger collection and infrastructure projects to separate funding efforts. "We have not had a rate increase for at least the last decade," Bigby said, and staff noted the Prop. 218 notice process produced six official written protests. Consultant testimony explained the proposed package includes a large initial step and smaller increases thereafter to move the utility toward financial stability.

Abigail Seaman, a utility finance consultant at RCAC, described the study’s rationale and the gap in capital needs. According to Seaman, Isleton faces multi‑million‑dollar capital needs (about $7.6 million by her estimate), and the council’s proposal would address roughly $300,000 of immediate projects while recommending continuing smaller annual adjustments to keep pace with inflation. Seaman said the approach was intended to put the system on a "somewhat good standing" over the near term.

Several residents at the hearing criticized the notice and the affordability index used in the packet. One commenter said the mailed notice was in very small print and that the affordability index’s median‑income assumption was unclear, asking how totals collected each year would change. Another urged the council to adopt clear multipliers (equivalent dwelling unit assumptions) for commercial customers so increases are tied to measured use rather than a flat, across‑the‑board rise.

Council members asked staff whether the rate curve could be restructured to soften the near‑term spike (often described in the packet as a roughly $20/month increase for many customers) and whether the city had complied with Prop. 218 noticing requirements. Staff said notices had been posted at three physical locations, on the city website and by flyer, and that the Prop. 218 notice had been authorized roughly 45 days earlier. Counsel confirmed the Prop. 218 process uses a negative‑vote (nonresponse) approach and that, as of the hearing, staff had recorded the stated number of protests.

The council moved to approve the rate schedule and adopted it by roll call vote. Staff will proceed with implementation and continue to pursue larger grant or capital funding sources for collection and infrastructure projects that the study did not address.

Next steps: staff will document any further written protests received in the statutory window (as allowed under Prop. 218) and proceed with the adopted schedule; the council and staff also signaled continued efforts to seek grants for major capital repairs.