Our View: Sewer fees: Heed lessons from rate increase outcry

Yahoo

04-05-2025

Public outrage over Bakersfield City's ham-fisted approach to raising the city sewer fee 300% in July — from $239 to $950 a year — prompted City Council members last week to abruptly withdraw the proposal. But city officials now must ask: How can we:
• Finance Bakersfield's sewer and water system improvements, without suddenly sticking the tab squarely onto the shoulders of residents?
• Convince residents that we are good stewards of the city's tax dollars?
• Create a way to anticipate infrastructure needs by setting aside more appropriate budget reserves?
Council members and city officials have a lot of explaining to do. How were critically important systems allowed to deteriorate, without sufficient money set aside to improve or replace them?
During their March 26 meeting, enough City Council members voted to send property owners notices that the annual sewer fee would increase from $239 to $950 and the monthly water fee would increase 50.8% in phases — jumping 34% on July 1, 2025; 6% in fiscal year 2026-27; and 2.4% in 2027-28 and 2028-29. The monthly residential bills would rise from $43.46 to $54.94 this year and eventually to $64.72 by the final year.
To be fair, not every council member voted to send the notices, and the vote on sending the sewer notice was not the same as for the water notice.
Proposition 218, a California law voters passed in 1996, requires the city to notify residents of potential rate increases. If more than 50% oppose, the increases fail. Even if sufficiently supported, the final rate decision rests with the City Council.
Because the public outrage over the sewer fee hike was so quick and loud, council members at last week's meeting directed staff to withdraw the proposal. A formal vote is expected at the council's May 14 meeting. However, there was no mention of the water rate increase. It is unclear if that rate increase also will be withdrawn.
In a recent Californian Community Voices article, Councilman Andrae Gonzales explained Bakersfield eventually must significantly upgrade or replace — at a cost of more than $500 million — its 70-year-old Sewer Treatment Plant 2. Sewer Treatment Plant 3 will operate at capacity by the early 2030s. South Bakersfield development may require yet another sewer treatment plant.
The city's sewer system is funded through an 'enterprise fund,' not general tax dollars. The fund, which is supported by business and residential fees, is separate from the city's general fund and cannot be used for other city purposes.
According to city officials, the proposed water rate increases are needed to fund a $72-million, 10-year infrastructure maintenance and expansion program.
'Bakersfield continues to grow, and our infrastructure is a permanent obligation,' wrote Gonzales. 'Over the last 30 years, the city chose to keep rates low and make the most of limited resources. But patch jobs only last so long. Eventually, you reach a point where delaying investment costs more than making it.'
In his Community Voices article, Gonzales suggested a good alternative three-part strategy:
• Modestly increase Bakersfield's sewer rates over the next five years, rather than increasing them to $950 in July. Align Bakersfield's rates with the lower ones charged in neighboring cities.
• Allow the city time to seek additional professional opinions on how to grow reserves, and explore cost-saving options for improving or replacing Sewer Treatment Plant 2.
• Use bonds to help cover improvement or replacement costs, but at a level that will not jeopardize other capital projects. A more modest sewer rate would require some bonding to fund capital expenses. The enterprise fund now includes two revenue bonds issued in 2007 to help finance Treatment Plant 3 improvements. The issuance of new bonds could be timed with the payoff of existing bonds in 2033.
And as the furor over the recently proposed massive rate increase demonstrated, Bakersfield city officials also must work collaboratively with the community.