Angels Camp council votes to proceed with public hearing on proposed water and wastewater rate changes, schedules Feb. 4

The City of Angels City Council on Jan. 21 voted to proceed with a Proposition 218 public hearing on proposed water and wastewater rate changes and scheduled that hearing for Feb. 4, 2025.

Council members and staff said the action follows months of study, a public workshop and eight written protests the city received during the required notice period. ‘‘We mailed out the notification letters on December 20, which gives us 45 days from the time they were mailed until the public hearing today,’’ said Steve Williams, interim city manager and administrator. Williams told the council the city has about 1,800 water and wastewater customers and that ‘‘50% plus 1 protests … is 901’’ customers required to stop the proposal under the protest rules; the city had received eight protest letters to date.

The vote sends the proposal back to the public for formal comment under the Proposition 218 process. That law requires a mailed notice and a protest period before a jurisdiction can adopt rates for water and sewer services; staff and the city attorney advised the council that, in their view, the notice and procedural requirements were met.

Why it matters: The proposed changes are part of a five‑year rate study meant to fund capital improvements and operations for the water and wastewater systems. Staff and the consultant said the study prioritizes a limited set of capital projects that the city expects it can complete in five years, while postponing others to avoid charging ratepayers now for projects the city does not plan to fund immediately.

What staff presented: Michelle Gonzales, the city finance director, summarized the study and the council’s direction to reduce the consultant’s initial recommendation. ‘‘The initial recommendation from the consultant was a 5% increase in water and a 5% increase in wastewater, and the council directed staff to go back and whittle it down as much as possible,’’ Gonzales said. She described the current proposal as a multi‑year framework in which the percentages quoted in the study are the maximum that could be applied in any single year, and reiterated that any actual increase would require a separate council decision each year as part of the budget process: ‘‘These are maximum potential increases. It cannot go above that, and it's not an automatic thing.’’

Consultant and wholesale pass‑through concerns: Michael De Groot, the city’s water rate consultant with Bartle Wells (participating remotely), and staff addressed community concern about an automatic pass‑through tied to the wholesale supplier (referred to in the meeting as UWPA or Utica). Williams said the draft resolution clarifies that if the wholesale supplier raises rates, ‘‘staff can’t just trigger that rate increase to our rate payers automatically. It still has to come back to council, and council would have to approve that.’’ The council added that clarification in response to public letters.

Scale and projects: Staff presented a list of capital improvement projects the city expects to pursue in the next five years, including water transmission main replacement work and several wastewater projects (Booster Way — already completed as the first piece of a three‑part project — Ballicito and East Angels). The documents shown to the council estimated roughly $7 million of water work and about $4.6 million of wastewater work that staff believes is realistic to accomplish within five years; staff said additional projects remain on a 6–10 year list and were deferred to reduce near‑term rate impacts.

Household impacts and assistance: Staff showed a current average residential bill of about $187.38 (water $62.52; UWPA component $13.91; wastewater $107.95). The study also presented a ‘‘worst case’’ scenario in which, if the council adopted the maximum allowed increase every year for five years, the average bill could rise toward $213 by year five. The city offers a customer assistance program (CAP) for qualifying low‑income customers (PG&E CARES qualification): a $20 monthly credit for water and $25 for wastewater paid from non‑rate revenue.

Public comment highlights: Several residents asked questions and offered opinions during the hearing. Resident Sharon Ciccone said rate increases have been painful and urged the council to adopt smaller, incremental increases in future years: ‘‘Please…small increments. I don't care if it's once every year. Small increments.’’ Resident Francisco Dela Cruz asked about non‑revenue water; staff replied that Angels Camp’s non‑revenue water loss is reported at less than 10%.

Legal and procedural context: Staff said the notice letters were postmarked Dec. 20 and that the council had three options under the draft resolution: proceed with today’s public hearing and take action as scheduled; postpone the public hearing for another 45 days to allow additional outreach; or cancel the current 45‑day process and start a new 45‑day process using alternative language under a statutory change the staff cited (as referenced in the meeting transcript as "22 57"). City attorneys and the consultant advised the council that the city’s process complied with Proposition 218 procedural and substantive requirements.

What the council decided: After public comment and discussion, a majority of council members indicated they were satisfied the city had worked to address public concerns and were ready to proceed to the scheduled public hearing on Feb. 4. The motion to receive the public hearing as scheduled passed unanimously (roll call recorded below). The matter will return to the council after the Feb. 4 public hearing for a formal decision.

Votes at a glance: The council approved a motion to receive/hold the Proposition 218 public hearing as scheduled on Feb. 4, 2025 (motion passed by roll call): B. Hill — Aye; Sherrado — Aye; Chimente — Aye; Omkata — Aye; Barolio — Aye.

What’s next: The public hearing set for Feb. 4, 2025 will be the formal opportunity for customers to comment on the proposed rate schedule and for the council to take a subsequent vote. Under the protest rules described by staff, 901 valid written protests (50% plus one of roughly 1,800 customers) would be required to block the rate action; staff said eight protests had been filed as of the meeting. The council and staff also flagged follow‑up items including refined project cost estimates, continued outreach on the UWPA/Utica pass‑through language and presentation of the proposed rates as part of the FY budget discussion in May.

Sources and attribution: Quotes and attributions come from speakers at the City of Angels City Council meeting as noted in the transcript: Steve Williams (interim city manager/administrator), Michelle Gonzales (finance director), Michael De Groot (water rate consultant, Bartle Wells), and public commenters identified in the transcript.

Ending: The council’s action only advances the process to the required public hearing; no rate decision was adopted at the Jan. 21 meeting. The Feb. 4 hearing will close the protest period and allow the council to take whatever action it deems appropriate based on public input and procedural requirements.