The Bakersfield City Council chose not to approve a proposed increase to the city’s sewer rates Wednesday, asking that staff bring additional information to the next meeting.
After hearing from public speakers who universally opposed the rate increase, council members approved a motion to have staff return May 27 with additional analysis of alternative funding proposals.
Wednesday was the second mandated public hearing required under California’s Proposition 218, which obligates jurisdictions to notify impacted residents of a fee change and allow opportunities to submit opposition.
Council members were set to vote on approving the increase, but after sitting through yet another hearing with universal opposition, the matter was continued.
“We cannot afford to pay this huge increase. We can’t,” said Tammy McClellan, a resident who spoke in opposition to the increase, expressing a sentiment widely echoed by other speakers.
“Seniors are having problems, and a lot of people are losing their jobs. They are struggling to keep their homes. Everything is going up; (Pacific Gas and Electric) is horrible. The water rates have gone astronomical.”
The city’s proposal would increase the average annual rate for a single-family home by $100 each year over the next four years, raising the annual cost from $475 to $875 over that time.
City officials have said the increase is necessary to pay for roughly $1.3 billion in upgrades and expansion to the city’s wastewater system, but opponents have said the increase is too burdensome for local residents, many of whom are low-income.
“These are typically 20-year facilities and we’re operating well beyond its expected life cycle,” said City Manager Christian Clegg, referring to the city’s aging treatment plants.
Operating expenses for the facilities have increased, as well as regulatory compliance imposed by the state, Clegg said, noting the city’s current rates don’t even cover the sewer system’s current operating expenses.
Among the opponents to the city’s increase was Kern County, which retained the services of HansonBridgett to represent the county in the matter. One of the speakers during public comment was attorney Claire Collins, who urged the council to reconsider additional bonding to pay for the upgrades.
“I know that your council has historically shied away from bond financing, but if there is ever a time to do it, this is that time,” Collins said.
“You can be heroes in terms of ensuring more rate affordability by having a more modest 20 to 36% rate increase and still achieve your infrastructure goals.”
Collins presented the council with a letter detailing three rate scenarios the city could adopt that would increase the amount bonded, and the debt that comes with it, but would allow for lower rates for property owners.
The first scenario called for issuing revenue bonds in 2027, 2030 and 2033 and raising rates to $336 annually.
Ward 2 Councilman Andrae Gonzales made a motion to continue the item, asking city staff to study the county’s proposal and others, bringing more information to the council’s next meeting, on May 27.
Even as they acknowledged the need for the increase, council members expressed frustration at how the process had been handled.
“Why weren’t we notified when this was happening?” Ward 3 Councilman Ken Weir asked city staff. “That we were going to have problems, that we don’t have the money.”
Ward 5 Councilman Larry Koman also said he was frustrated that past councils hadn’t made tough decisions, and that now the city is considering bonding hundreds of millions of dollars.
Koman said he supported continuing the item, but wanted to consider more than just the ideas submitted by the county.
“I’m very disturbed that the county has come to us at the 11th hour of the proposal,” Koman said.
“To come here at the 11th hour with this proposal, concerns me a lot. That they’ve chosen to insert themselves in this process. Not only that, they sent an attorney here, so that in itself bothers me a lot.”
Several members also said they’d like to hear the issue again at a meeting at which more council members are present. Councilmen Bob Smith and Zack Bashirtash were absent, and Ward 7 member and Vice Mayor Manpreet Kaur left during the meeting to attend a televised debate for her state Senate campaign.
Before leaving, Kaur said she was opposed to the increase and made a motion to reject the proposal.
“I want to just voice my strong opposition to this rate increase, and my motion stands, and so I look forward to seeing how my colleagues vote,” she said.
The council members present voted on the motion to continue the item 3-1, with only Weir voting against.