Water costs rising again

Committee agrees to recommend rate increase

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

— Members of the Gentry water and sewer committee agreed Thursday evening to recommend a rate increase to the city council to cover increased costs in rates from the Benton/Washington Regional Public Water Authority and continue the efforts to build up a reserve for future updates and repairs.

With BWRPWA raising wholesale water rates charged to the city by 4.9 percent on Jan. 1, 2013, and with a $1.50 BWRPWA monthly meter charge already being absorbed by the city to continue, the committee will recommend to the council a 5 percent increase on its water and sewer bills, beginning with bills due in January. The $1.50-per-month charge would also be passed on to water customers.

The increase will make it possible for the city to provide water and sewer services without operating at a loss, as long as no major repairs or upgrades are needed in the systems.

According to David Mc-Nair, the city’s public works supervisor, passing along the $1.50 charge and raising retail rates for water and sewer by 5 percent will cover the 4.9 percent wholesale increase in water prices and will allow the city to continue to set aside a small percentage of incoming revenue for future repairs and upgrades. The city had been raising water andsewer rates by about 3 percent each year to cover increasing costs and to begin building a reserve fund for repairs and upgrades.

The increase will cost most city water users less than $3 per month, according to materials distributed by McNair and Robert Stichka, Gentry water department employee.

Even with the recommended increase, Gentry’s water rates were far lower than any city which depends 100 percent on water from BWRPWA, McNair said, providing a rate comparison sheet with base published rates from May showing Gentry’s in-city rates for 5,000 gallons at $28.82 and Gravette’s at $48.65. Decatur’s were $20.68, but Decatur provides a significant amount of water from its own wells.

Unlike bond payments for Phase A (extension of the city’s water system to the west) which began immediately, bond payments on Phase B (the Springtown Water Project) were deferred for 10 years. Stichka estimated water revenues from Phase A would cover the bond payments for Phase B, which begin in six years.

According to McNair, the city’s wastewater treatment facility recently received a new five-year permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. He also said he envisioned the possibility of another renewal in five years if growth in city population remains slow. Thereason the city has been able to be approved for continued operation with its older treatment facility is due, McNair said, to how well the plant is kept up and maintained.

McNair said he anticipated the day was coming - especially if the economy recovers and the region begins to grow again - when the city would haveto consider other options for wastewater treatment.

Options mentioned include major renovations or a new city sewer plant, a regional plant or sending wastewater to another city plant such as Decatur’s.

Should the city’s population increase significantly, McNair said, a new water tower would be needed to keep up with demand at peak times because pipeline capacity from the BWRPWA tanks to the city’s water system would not be sufficient to supplyadequate water to the city system at such peak times without an additional water tank holding reserve supplies.

Committee members suggested the city needed to be looking at future needs and planning for them by setting aside money, studying options and acquiring land in a suitable location for another water tower. A high point along Peterson Road was mentioned as a desirable location for a city water tower.

News, Pages 1 on 10/24/2012