Vacaville holds public hearing on proposed water, sewer rate increases; council asks staff for Chromium‑6 cost analysis

Vacaville City Council held a public hearing May 13 on proposed bimonthly water and sewer rate increases that staff says are needed to pay for aging systems, regulatory compliance projects and rising operating costs.

The city’s utilities director and outside consultants told the council their five‑year plan would restore reserves, meet debt covenants and fund about $96 million in water and $58 million in sewer capital projects — including roughly $36.7 million in wellhead treatment work to meet California’s new hexavalent chromium (chromium‑6) maximum contaminant level. Utilities Director Justin Kohler said, “We have natural occurring hexavalent chromium in our groundwater that affects some of our groundwater wells,” and described state deadlines and treatment planning.

The issue matters because the city has not raised the water rate since Jan. 1, 2020, and sewer rates have not been adjusted since March 2014; consultants said operating costs and regulatory obligations have outpaced revenues.

Consultant Chris Fisher of Willdan Financial Services summarized the study and recommended a series of increases that would produce an immediate, larger first‑year jump to “catch up” the utilities’ revenues with expenses and fund required capital work. Fisher told the council the proposed schedule would restore reserves toward the city’s target and keep Vacaville’s projected five‑year average bill below the regional average as currently reported.

Public comments at the hearing were lengthy. Dozens of residents urged the council to soften the immediate impact on households on fixed incomes, urged more gradual increases, or asked the city to press the State Water Resources Control Board and other agencies for alternatives. Several speakers described the proposed increases as “too steep” and said many ratepayers had not received or understood the mailed notice. A number of residents raised concerns about the share of the increase tied to the chromium‑6 projects and asked whether litigation or negotiation with the state could lower the cost.

City staff and consultants said the chromium‑6 requirement — a state MCL of 10 parts per billion for hexavalent chromium adopted after the federal standard — accounts for roughly a third of the capital estimate; Fisher and staff noted the city is part of a statewide coalition pursuing legal and technical avenues. Kohler said the city is “working with the board and with a coalition” and confirmed “we are involved in a coalition that is involved in litigation.” He also said failure to secure regulatory accommodations or financing could expose the city to enforcement actions, including fines or restrictions on water sources.

Clerk’s tabulation: 1,110 written protests were received by the city clerk during the hearing period; staff said that number did not meet the majority protest threshold required under California Proposition 218 and the protest therefore failed.

Council deliberations focused on two tensions: (1) the need to avoid insolvent utility funds and preserve the city’s ability to operate and comply with regulatory permits, and (2) public concern about the size and timing of the first‑year increase, particularly the portion tied to chromium‑6 compliance imposed by a state board composed of governor‑appointed members.

Rather than adopt the rate schedule at the hearing, the council voted unanimously to ask staff to return with additional analysis that separates the chromium‑6 capital cost from the other utility needs and to show what a rate schedule would look like without the chrome projects. The motion — made by Council Member Stockton and seconded by Council Member Ritchie — set a target return to council on June 10. The clerk’s roll call on that motion was Stockton: yes; Ritchie: yes; Freeman: yes; Wiley: yes; Vice Mayor Chapman: yes; Mayor John Carley: yes.

What happens next: Staff will prepare the requested alternative analyses (including the option to exclude the chromium‑6 projects from the near‑term rate model), provide updated five‑year forecasts and return with legal and financing implications, including a summary of risks of noncompliance and likely timelines for regulatory actions. If the council ultimately adopts a rate schedule it would be subject to Proposition 218 notice, ballot and protest rules already discussed at the hearing.

Ending: The rate discussion is likely to return to council before the state compliance deadline for chromium‑6 that staff cited; residents and local agencies may also continue to press the state board and pursue coalition litigation as staff seeks financing options and federal/state funding sources.