Columbus water bills could increase in January. Here’s why that might be delayed.
The Columbus Water Works board is scheduled to consider a 3.75% rate increase when it meets this month, but one commissioner has vowed to vote against the proposal — and to try to have the vote postponed, citing the financial struggle some residents have due to the coronavirus pandemic.
Mayor Skip Henderson, by virtue of his office, is one of the five commissioners on the CWW board, representing approximately 65,000 accounts in Muscogee County and Fort Benning. He said he will try to delay the vote.
The other four board members are appointed to four-year terms by the Columbus Council: Chairman Reynolds Bickerstaff, chief experience officer of Bickerstaff Parham Real Estate; Vice Chairman Sanders Griffith, retired general counsel of TSYS; Rodney Close, CEO of Boys & Girls Clubs of Chattahoochee Valley, and Becky Rumer, retired chief administrative officer of Synovus.
During the Oct. 27 Columbus Council meeting, CWW President Steve Davis and staff members presented a plan to raise the rate beginning in January.
“Seven or eight” of the council’s 10 members have contacted Henderson about the proposal, he told the Ledger-Enquirer. They object to the timing of it and asked for the rate increase to be delayed, the mayor said.
Here’s how the proposed rate increase would affect the average residential customer:
▪ $1.29 for 3,000 gallons.
▪ $1.82 for 4,500 gallons.
▪ $2.21 for 6,000 gallons.
The typical residential customer uses 3,000 gallons per month, currently amounting to $34.22, CWW Senior Vice President Vic Burchfield told the L-E.
To offset the rate increase, CWW has proposed a larger discount for low-income customers, raising the monthly credit of $7.50 by $1.
“As mayor of this community,” Henderson said, “when there’s unanimity in the council that they think it should be postponed, that’s going to impact how I vote on the rate increase.”
Henderson said he will try to convince CWW to change the timing of the rate increase.
“If it comes up for a vote on the 16th, I’ll vote no,” he said. “I’ll have a conversation with the leadership to get a better feel for what their needs are and talk to them about some options that could involve a number of different things to include a delay.”
Burchfield said the leadership welcomes feedback.
“The staff is always open to discussions with any of our board members,” he said. “… The board certainly can decide on a different direction, but at this point the staff already has made the recommendation.”
Bickerstaff, the water board chairman, told the L-E he supports the proposal.
“The benefits of the rate increase are revenue stability and consistent annual rate adjustments lead to longer-term rates,” he said. “… The model has always projected a slightly higher rate, but we’ve always proposed a lower rate than what was recommended by the financial model.”
Board member Close took a stance between Henderson and Bickerstaff when he told the L-E he would vote for the rate increase but is willing to consider a delay.
“It possibly makes a lot of sense to kind of look at maybe deferring it,” he said. “… If that’s something the group embraces, I would be for it, considering where we are, but I also would say we have to support the infrastructure because we need it.”
The other two water board commissioners could not be reached for comment.
CWW leaders also presented their proposal during two virtual public forums Oct. 21 and Nov. 4. They are available for replay on the CWW YouTube channel.
The proposed rate increase would generate an extra $2.2 million in annual revenue, Burchfield said, based on predicted consumption.
CWW’s operating expenses have increased by an average of 1.04% the past five years, from $32.73 million in 2015 to $34.11 million in 2019. That’s compared with a 2.2% increase calculated by a national standard called the Municipal Cost Index, according to CWW.
The proposal
Among the reasons CWW lists for the rate increase:
▪ Properly functioning pipes, pumps and plants are needed to deliver clean and reliable drinking water and to convey wastewater for treatments to protect streams and the Chattahoochee River.
▪ Failing infrastructure puts public health and environmental health at higher risks.
▪ CWW is responsible for meeting state and federal regulatory requirements.
▪ Cost of replacing failed infrastructure in an emergency can be 3-5 times higher than planned replacement.
▪ Minimum annual rate increases sustain the consistency of planning, financing, designing, constructing and operating the systems that are essential for safe water.
This would be the ninth straight year for CWW to assess a rate increase. The increases have averaged 3.52%, with a high of 4.95% in 2013 and a low of 2.35% in 2020. The national average rate increase between 2016 and 2018 was 7.2%, according to the American Water Works Association.
A regional comparison shows CWW rates favorably.
According to CWW, for a residential customer using approximately 3,000 gallons per month, the bills for October were $25.29 in Phenix City; $27.00 for low-income Columbus customers if the proposed $1 increase to the $7.50 credit is approved; $35.50 for regular Columbus customers; $37.21 in Macon; $40.14 in Savannah; $52.95 in Augusta, and $69.66 in Atlanta.
The reaction
Henderson praised CWW’s approach to rate increases though the years but emphasized special circumstances this year require rethinking.
“I certainly understand what their philosophy has been, and it’s been a good one,” he said. “They’ve programmed small, manageable rate increases, so we wouldn’t have a large, sudden movement in the rates that might be a lot higher.
“But I also understand what the council is saying. This year, with so many people that have struggled, whether it be unemployment or making sure their utility bills are paid, they feel like they should try to forgo the rate increase this year.”
Bickerstaff noted the CWW staff offers options to help residents having trouble paying their bill.
“Pandemic or not, the Water Works is always committed to working with customers so they always have access to clean water,” he said. “… We don’t see any indication that starting a rate increase the first of the year would impact our customers in a significant way.”
CWW officials told the council they have waived cutoffs and delinquent fees and offered customers struggling to pay their bills extended payment plans during the pandemic.
During the CWW’s presentation, councilors Walker Garrett of District 8, Charmaine Crabb of District 5, Jerry “Pops” Barnes of District 1, Bruce Huff of District 3, Glenn Davis of District 2, citywide representative Judy Thomas and Evelyn “Mimi” Woodson of District 7 spoke about the proposed rate increase — and none expressed support. Citywide representative John House also spoke against the proposal in an interview with the L-E, suggesting a six-month delay.
Although they appreciate the CWW’s service to the community and the need for more revenue, the councilors said, a rate increase during the pandemic and the recession hurts economically vulnerable residents. They noted the city has delayed expenditures and postponed the vote on a Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax for that reason.
“Please, please consider going back to the drawing board,” Huff asked the CWW officials.
Davis, the CWW president, told the councilors he will convey to the water board their concerns and their request for a delay.
Burchfield said the CWW staff has been compiling public comments about the proposal from the forums, the council meeting and social media and will summarize them for the board to consider along with the recommendation during the Nov. 16 meeting.
According to its presentation, CWW averages infrastructure reinvestment of $2.3 million for wastewater collection, $2.2 million for water distribution and $27 million on capital investment per year. Without that ongoing spending, CWW estimates it would cost $2.5 billion to replace the water and sewer systems.
