A rate study doesn't invent new costs. It tests whether we're recovering real costs fairly. I pushed for affordability analysis and multifamily review to be part of the scope so the results are actually useful.
A utility rate study sounds 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 models different ways to recover those costs across customer classes. They're not creating new costs out of thin air. They're testing whether the current structure makes sense.
A rate study doesn't make water cheaper to produce or infrastructure cheaper to maintain. It shows whether the current structure is fair, defensible, and lines up with the outcomes the city says it wants.
What I've pushed to include is affordability analysis: modeling options such as a lower-cost first tier for baseline household use, and reviewing whether multifamily accounts should keep being 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 see that before any vote on rates.
Related: see the priority on lower water bills, read the water and utility bill FAQ, or send a question about the rate study.
I pushed for the rate study to do more than validate the status quo: asking for affordability analysis to be included up front, keeping the focus on who pays what and why, and making clear the consultant's output should inform a public policy conversation, not disappear into a technical memo. This isn't about denying the city's real infrastructure costs. It's about separating technical necessity from policy choice and making the tradeoffs visible.
Reach out directly or keep reading the council updates for the bigger picture.