A utility rate study sounds highly technical, but the core question is simple: are we charging the right people the right amount to cover the cost of running the system?
The consultant looks at debt service, operations, maintenance, reserves, and projected capital needs. Then they model different ways to recover those costs across customer classes. They are not creating new costs out of thin air. They are testing whether the current structure makes sense.
A rate study does not magically make water cheaper to produce or infrastructure cheaper to maintain. It shows whether the current structure is fair, defensible, and aligned with the outcomes the city says it wants.
What I have pushed to include is affordability analysis. That means modeling options such as a lower-cost first tier for baseline household use and reviewing whether multifamily accounts should continue to be treated as they are today.
Once the study comes back, the next step is a public conversation about the scenarios, the tradeoffs, and who wins or loses under each option. Residents should be able to see that before any vote on rates.
I pushed for the rate study to do more than validate the status quo. That means asking for affordability analysis to be included up front, keeping the focus on who pays what and why, and making clear that a consultant's output should inform a public policy conversation rather than disappear into a technical memo. The point is not to deny the city's actual infrastructure costs. It is to separate technical necessity from policy choice and make the tradeoffs visible.