Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Parents and residents press council on water/sewer rate proposals, consultant fees for manifold project
Loading...
Summary
Public commenters urged the West Sacramento City Council to delay or rethink proposed water and sewer rate increases and questioned nearly $1 million in additional consultant fees for a manifold project; staff said it would follow up with parents and the school district on related park-fencing and program issues.
Several members of the public used the Feb. 18 West Sacramento council meeting to press the council on proposed utility rate changes and related consultant spending.
An attendee speaking during public comment referenced the item 6 agenda entry and read percentages from the consultant report, saying proposed increases would raise residential water consumption charges by 37%, commercial rates by 48% and water-meter charges for residents by 100%. The commenter also cited a proposed April 1 sewer increase of 82% for single-family units and large multi-year increases, and questioned consultant assumptions that higher water consumption translates directly to higher wastewater volume. The speaker urged the council to apply fiscal prudence and to delay or more thoroughly review the measures before approving more consultant fees for the "high service manifold project." The public speaker said the council previously rejected bids when they were high and cautioned against repeating that outcome.
Kay Davila, who identified herself during public comment, echoed concerns about equity for single-family homeowners and described the proposal as unaffordable for residents on fixed incomes. Davila noted a line item in the consultant report for a $10,000,000 manifold project that she said has not been approved and questioned why the figure was included.
Miguel (public commenter) and others asked the council to add the topic to a parks meeting and to work with the school district on solutions such as temporary fencing to protect students during PE if the adjoining city field is used.
Council members and staff acknowledged the concerns. The mayor and other council members said staff would follow up with the superintendent and with the parents; staff noted prior communications with the district that included temporary-fencing arrangements used at other schools. The city manager also summarized later in the meeting that the consultant-driven rate and budget items will come back to council with required reports and, for personnel-related items, an oral report consistent with Government Code 54953(c)(3).
No final council decision on the utility-rate schedule was taken during the public-comment portion; however, the consent agenda (which included items 4–9) was approved later in the meeting after the public commenters were heard.
