Angels Camp reviews proposed water, wastewater rate increases and UWPA pass-through language ahead of Feb. 4 hearing

Angels Camp City Council on Jan. 29 held a special workshop on proposed water and wastewater rate adjustments and related capital projects, reviewing a five‑year rate study and discussing language that would allow automatic pass‑through increases tied to wholesale water costs from Utica Water & Power Authority (UWPA). The public hearing on the proposed rates is scheduled for Feb. 4.

The discussion matters because the study sets the maximum annual increases the council may adopt without new notice: staff and consultant Bartle Wells Associates presented a recommendation of up to 3% for water rates, up to 2% for wastewater rates and a 6.22% increase passed through to customers for UWPA charges. The council and staff emphasized those are “up to” amounts and that the council can adopt smaller increases or none in any given year.

Consultant Michael DeGroot of Bartle Wells detailed the Prop. 218 public‑notice process the city followed (45‑day notice mailed Dec. 20), the cost‑of‑service methodology and the capital improvement projects the study anticipates funding. Staff described water projects that the study lists for years 0–5 including a transmission main replacement (identified in discussion as about $2,100,000), a resident neighborhood looping project (about $680,000), capacity upgrades along Murphy’s Grade Road (about $2,300,000), a pressure‑relief valve program (cost estimate shown as $980,000) and an automated meter‑reader rollout. Wastewater 0–5 year projects include replacement and rehabilitation segments identified as Booster/Vallecito/East Angels (the larger combined project was presented as $2,900,000, with a FEMA award of $790,000 noted), a Main Street sewer replacement (about $700,000), and Murphy’s Grade Road sewer rehabilitation.

Staff and the consultant said the city plans to fund the listed 0–5 year projects largely with pay‑go reserves rather than borrowing; speakers repeatedly referenced existing reserves while using varying figures in the discussion. The presentations described earlier rate increases and reserve buildup that the city can draw on to help fund projects and soften rate impacts.

Council members and citizens focused substantial attention on the proposed UWPA pass‑through clause in the draft notice and rate study. Multiple speakers, and four of six written protests the city had received as of the meeting, flagged language that would allow the city to “automatically recalculate” rates to pass along UWPA costs without conducting a new Prop. 218 hearing. Staff and the city attorney, Will Krieger, said state law (Government Code provisions discussed at the meeting) allows pass‑through adjustments for wholesale charges and that the city has options: keep the pass‑through language as drafted, remove pass‑through wording entirely, or revise the language so any UWPA increase would be implemented only after council approval (staff recommended bringing a resolution or explicit council direction if the council wants to require council action before applying a pass‑through).

Michelle (staff presenter) and Joel Metzger (Utica representative) explained UWPA’s revenue volatility tied to year‑to‑year hydrology. Metzger described the “water year” classification system used by UWPA and partners (a multi‑level scale where a “2.5” year is an average the study used for budgeting), and staff said the 6.22% UWPA pass‑through in the study smooths out projected ups and downs over the five‑year horizon while preserving a portion of reserves. Staff said the city’s UWPA reserve balance is roughly in the low‑hundred‑thousands (staff cited approximately $426,000 in discussion) and that the city can choose to use reserves to blunt short‑term UWPA spikes rather than immediately passing full costs to customers.

Presenters noted the city received six written protests from about 1,800 customers notified; staff said most of those protests (reported as four of the six) centered on the UWPA pass‑through language rather than the proposed percentage increases. Staff outlined three procedural options the council could take at the Feb. 4 hearing: proceed as noticed and decide whether to adopt the proposed maxima; postpone the hearing to allow more outreach and education (a short extension of the public notice window was suggested); or cancel and reissue a new 45‑day notice (staff estimated new mailings would cost about $2,000) if the council wants materially different notice language before the hearing.

Council members asked for clearer drafting to show whether a UWPA pass‑through would require council action; multiple members said they expected any decision to pass on wholesale cost increases to be reviewed by the council rather than implemented automatically by staff. Staff said it would bring draft language and a resolution or motion options to the Feb. 4 hearing so the council could adopt preferred process language along with or instead of the rate maxima.

The workshop also reviewed customer impacts shown in the study. Using a typical single‑family 5/8‑inch meter and an average winter consumption used in the study, staff presented an example monthly bill that increased from about $187.38 currently to an estimated $192.37 in year one under the study’s worst‑case (maximum) scenario — about $4.99 in the first year — and showed cumulative increases through year five if the council adopted the study maxima each year. Staff emphasized the “up to” nature of the maxima and said the council will set actual annual rates as part of its budget review in each subsequent year.

No final rate decision or ordinance was adopted at the workshop. The meeting closed with staff reminding the public that the draft study, notice and related materials were posted on the city website and that the Feb. 4 public hearing will be the formal opportunity for decisions and for the council to consider whether to adopt final rates and any pass‑through language requirement.

Ending: The city scheduled the Prop. 218 public hearing for 6 p.m. Feb. 4 at Angels Camp City Hall; materials and the meeting video will be posted to the city website before the hearing, staff said.