Wednesday night, the Bakersfield City Council voted to continue discussing the proposed sewer rate increase at the next city council meeting. However, there will not be a public hearing on the topic again.
Community members addressed the council during the public comment, stating that the increase will add a significant burden to residents and that they would like to see the city find another way. Clair Collins, a rates attorney who has experience working with wastewater rates and represents Kern County, spoke at the meeting. She explained that while she is sympathetic to the city for needing to update infrastructure, the county is urging them to find another way as well.
“The city right now is proposing a 92% rate increase. My team of experts determined that we can probably achieve the same goals through only a 20% rate increase. And what’s the difference, you might say?” said Collins. “The answer is, as the city manager noted, in how we finance infrastructure. And I’ll say that it’s really the standard throughout the state of California that large-scale infrastructure, like wastewater treatment plans, is funded through what’s called a revenue bond. These are not GO bonds. These are revenue bonds that are secured by the revenue that will be coming in from the wastewater system.”
She added that the county is asking them to rescind the notice and that this is an opportunity for them to be “heroes” by ensuring rate affordability.
“So by taking a different approach, we would ask that you consider rescinding the notice, reconsider bonding, and as staff stated, this is a policy decision, and I know that your council has historically shied away from bond financing, but if there was ever a time to do it, this is the time,” said Collins.
Community member Olivia Naserson spoke about the impact the increase will have on senior citizens on fixed incomes, stating it would pose an “unreasonable financial burden” on residents. Debbie Busby spoke during public comment, also voicing frustration for those who are on a fixed income.
“I don’t think it’s fair, as most people here have stated, that the people who are on fixed income, elderly, are going to possibly lose their homes because of decisions that our city council, our city manager, we have not been prudent in the money that we’ve been getting. I applaud the county of Kern for sending somebody here that wants to work with the city to avoid this huge money grab that taxpayers are not confident that you’re even being used properly. I urge this council and the city manager to please partner with the county to find another alternative to abusing the city taxpayers,” said Busby
Abby Power from Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability spoke about the fees, stating that current customers will be paying for future growth, as opposed to just the services they are receiving.
“We continue to urge the city to create a low-income sewer rate assistance program. And we also still have concerns about the Proposition 218 analysis. As written, it appears that the expansion of wastewater treatment plant number three is intended to support future growth, but it does not clearly explain whether future customers will pay for those costs through connection fees or other funding sources. Under Proposition 218, sewer fees must reflect the actual cost of service and will not require current customers to pay for future growth. The city should revise the analysis to clearly separate costs for existing and future users and explain how growth-related infrastructure will be funded,” said Power.
Similarly, Kenya Luzon stated it was a ripoff that she should not have to pay extra because others will be getting new wastewater systems.
“This is just really a massive ripoff to the people of Kern County. It’s really pathetic, and it’s really sad. Because not only do you raise our rates on the water,” said Luzon. “You raise all these rates for us, and I’m not getting any brand new sewers in my neighborhood. And why should we have to pay for the brand new sewers with all these new builds and all these neighborhoods?”
After public comment, Vice Mayor Manpreet Kaur made a motion to deny the sewer rate increase, and Councilman Andrae Gonzales made a motion to have city staff conduct another analysis and present it again at the next meeting. Due to his motion coming second, they took priority in order of voting and passed. Councilmember Ken Weir voted no; Kaur had left early, Bob Smith, and Zack Bashirtash were absent. Council members Gonzales, Eric Arias, and Larry Koman voted yes.
Prior to the vote, Ken Weir asked at what point they needed to stop asking people for money and why, in the last five years, they did not know it was an imminent need. He stated that the current way of running the organization is not sustainable. City Manager Christian Clegg stated that they had known for three years that the need was there and were conducting the analysis before bringing it forward. Weir said they needed to be told right away.
“Because it is to me ludicrous that we keep coming out and telling everybody that we don’t have any money when these people out here tonight don’t have any money either. We can’t go on like that,” said Weir, adding that they need to know what’s going on instead of “chasing our behinds to catch up.
