Alma Medina, assistant to the city manager, told the South Pasadena City Council on Nov. 19 that delinquent water and sewer charges had risen from about $1.6 million when the report was written to roughly $1.7 million currently and that the total included both active and inactive accounts across commercial and residential customers.

That presentation framed the meeting’s core question: how aggressively should the city pursue collections? Medina said the city’s rates follow the limitations of Proposition 218 and described existing assistance: a low‑income rate reduction that can cut eligible water bills by up to 40% and payment‑plan options. She said staff could reinstate shutoffs consistent with SB 998, but sought council direction on timing, outreach and equitable phasing.

Council members pressed staff on the composition of arrears. Staff said a relatively small number of commercial accounts account for a large share of the balance and that inactive accounts (customers who have left the city) are much harder to collect and are likely candidates for partial write-offs or sale to collection agencies. Medina said staff’s data indicated roughly $1,200,000 in one category of aging balances and about $500,000 in the other (together approximately the $1.7M total) and that more granular, parcel‑level detail would be provided on follow‑up reports.

Councilors asked for context. Staff said annual water revenue is about $13,000,000 and that the delinquency number exceeds 10% of that figure, making it a material cash‑flow issue for the enterprise fund.

On policy, staff recommended a phased approach: prioritize commercial accounts for collection, follow with residential accounts while expanding outreach and enrollment in the income‑based program, and consider targeted use of shutoffs as the last resort. Council members generally endorsed that direction: they asked staff to begin public education, start sending delinquency notices to customers and property owners, and return with a full policy and implementation plan early next year. Several council members suggested a firm deadline for active accounts to cure balances if the city is to trigger more assertive collection steps; staff and council discussed using Jan. 31 as an operational target for initial notices and outreach.

Public commenters during the study session urged the council to factor infrastructure issues into delinquency reviews. Yvonne LaRose asked the city to examine whether arrearages were related to chronic pressure and leaks tied to the Western Reservoir, citing case law that could hold public entities liable when a condition is not reasonably discoverable by a user. On Zoom, Steven Lawrence and others praised staff for prioritizing outreach and for avoiding immediate shutoffs without notice.

The council did not adopt a final ordinance at the meeting. Instead it provided staff with direction to: (1) prepare and return with a detailed collections and outreach plan that ensures SB 998 compliance, (2) analyze write‑off and collection‑sale options for inactive accounts, and (3) present a timeline and communication materials (including a proposed deadline) at the December or early‑January meeting.