Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Rates Prop218 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council delays vote on a proposed 3.5% annual water‑rate plan, asks staff for project spending detail
Summary
Staff recommended a 3.5% annual average water rate increase for five years and beginning a Proposition 218 protest process; council members expressed concern about recent surpluses and reserves and asked staff to return with a detailed list of capital projects and committed spending before moving forward.
Simi Valley — City staff recommended that the Waterworks District adopt an average annual water‑rate increase of 3.5% for five years and begin the Proposition 218 notice and protest process. Council members instead directed staff to return with a clearer accounting of current capital commitments and encumbrances before asking ratepayers for new increases.
Public Works staff told the board that the water enterprise maintains 357 miles of pipe, 22 pump stations and 43 storage reservoirs and serves roughly 26,000 connections. The department estimated about $51.8 million in capital needs across the next five years and said the 3.5% annual increase would help match revenues to forecasted operating and capital costs. Staff also described the Proposition 218 notice and hearing process and suggested a public hearing on Oct. 20, 2025.
Several council members pressed staff on whether the proposed increase was necessary now. Council member Vanessa Ayala said the district has produced multi‑year surpluses and noted a healthy replacement fund balance; she said she would support the city passing through any immediate wholesale cost increases (the Cayegas pass‑through noted in staff slides) but was not prepared to approve a multiyear increase while funds already appeared available. “To ask the residents to pay additional money at this point when I see there’s money in both the surplus and in the reserve… I don’t think I can support that,” Ayala said.
Council members also questioned project timelines and urged staff to accelerate deliveries where feasible. Staff replied that many water projects are technically complex—tanks, pump stations and hydraulic designs require longer engineering lead times than streets projects—but confirmed that a more up‑to‑date accounting of current encumbrances and projects could be provided.
After discussion, a motion to continue the item so staff could return to council with a detailed list of projects in process, committed expenditures and an updated spending timeline passed (council member Anthony Rhodes voted no). The council did not initiate the Proposition 218 notice at the Aug. 4 meeting.
Staff will provide the requested project‑level detail and an updated fiscal model before the council considers starting the Proposition 218 process.
