 - The Riverton City Council approved 2.5 percent fee increases this month for the municipal water, sewer, and sanitation funds.){kind=link}
(Riverton, WY) – The Riverton City Council approved 2.5 percent fee increases this month for the municipal water, sewer, and sanitation funds.
City staff said the increase will help ensure that Riverton can continue to invest in ongoing capital improvements to those systems over the coming decades.
“The city continues to face significant capital demands across all three systems,” Administrative Services Director Mia Harris said during a council meeting May 5. “Much of our infrastructure is aging, undersized, and constructed with outdated materials, and several projects are either underway or planned in the next upcoming budget years. (So) while the enterprise funds remain stable for day-to-day operations, the ongoing capital pressures – particularly in water and wastewater – make continued, moderate rate increases necessary.”
A memo from staff listed some of those planned and ongoing investments, including:
- West Main Transmission Waterline replacement
- multiple water distribution line replacements
- fire hydrant and valve replacements
- replacement sewer jet
- sewer treatment plant upgrades
- scheduled replacement of sanitation trucks and equipment
Overall, the city has invested more than $8.4 million in its utility infrastructure since July of 2022, Harris said, and an additional $42 million in needs is anticipated through 2032.
Plus, she added, municipal “funding partners” have “consistently” indicated that “incremental rate adjustments are critical to remaining competitive for grant and loan opportunities.”
“Much of our infrastructure is covered through both grant and loan, and they’ve definitely stressed that we need to make sure that we’re being proactive and keeping our rates consistent to keep up with our facilities,” Harris said.
She also emphasized that the water, wastewater and sewer accounts operate as “enterprise funds,” meaning they are not supported by tax revenue.
“Instead, costs are funded through user fees, which must cover operations, maintenance, ongoing capital purchases, and also debt service coverage,” she noted.
The 2.5 percent fee increase will take effect with the May 2026 billing cycle, representing an extra $2.03 charge per month for the average utility customer and generating approximately $77,000 in the water fund, $67,000 in the wastewater fund, and $64,000 in the sanitation fund each year, according to Harris’ report to the council.
‘Unpopular opinion’
Councilmember Karen Johnson voted against all three rate increases this month, expressing her consideration for local residents who may be struggling financially.
“I’ll be the unpopular opinion up here tonight,” Johnson said. “I understand the need. I understand that we have miles of water line that need to be replaced. I understand that we have to have clean water to get to our citizens – (but) we’ve raised the rates for the last five years. … Sometimes I think people just need a break.”
In response, Councilmember Rebecca Brothers suggested an alternative idea: develop a municipal program to help local residents in need cover their utility bills.
“That would be what we need to do, instead of not fixing our water problem,” Brothers said.
The city already offers payment arrangements for utility customers who are behind on their bills, Harris noted, but staff members have also had internal discussions in the past about developing “some sort of a ‘round up’ program” that could accomplish what Brothers envisioned.
“We’re just still trying to work through the logistics about that and actually even having just the software capabilities of financially tracking that type of thing,” Harris explained.
In favor
Councilmember Kyle Larsen listed several reasons he voted in favor of the fee increases last week, beginning with the relationship between utility rates and funding opportunities from the state.
“Any time you have the ability to charge and you don’t, when you go to the legislature and ask them for help, you get turned down,” he said. “They tell you you’ve passed your opportunity up by being benevolent.”
He also noted that functioning water lines are critical for emergency fire response and have an impact on homeowners’ insurance rates.
“If we don’t maintain adequate delivery systems (or) adequate pumps – if we don’t take care of it – we’re doing a malfeasance, whether we give people a break or not,” Larsen said. “The unfortunate thing is (you’ve) got to put your big pants on and say this is what is needed. … You just have to gird up your loins and you’re going to have to do it.”
Councilmember Karla Borders agreed with Larsen that it isn’t easy to vote in favor of utility rate increases.
“I don’t think people realize how much we wrestle with this as council members,” she said. “The last thing I want to do is see rates rise – I mean, I’m a city water user, too. These rates affect me as well.”
Regardless, she said, the enterprise funds are meant to be self-sustaining, and “there are so many expenses” planned across all three systems in the coming years – so “to me, $2.03 for the average user is not a bad deal.”
“I know people are hurting, and I totally understand that,” Borders said. “But we have an obligation as council members to make sure this program remains solvent.”