Bakersfield council adopts sewer rate increase after Prop 218 process; council asks staff to design one‑time assistance for low‑income households

Bakersfield’s City Council voted May 27 to adopt a phased increase in sewer user rates after staff presented a multi‑year plan to address aging infrastructure, regulatory obligations and anticipated capital needs.

City Manager Click summarized years of engineering reviews, community outreach and third‑party validation (AECOM) that produced a range of rate scenarios. He said city staff searched for ways to reduce near‑term impacts — including limited bonding and phasing capital work — but concluded that rates must rise to cover operations, build reserves and fund plant rehabilitation.

Key points and findings - Why the increase: Staff said decades of underfunding and deferred maintenance have left the wastewater enterprise with large capital and operational needs; without a rate increase the city risks spending down reserves to levels that might threaten reliable service. - Protest count: The city clerk reported 1,403 protests were received and 1,186 were validated; the Prop 218 protest threshold to defeat the rate was 53,212, so the protest process did not block the council vote. - Bonding and scenarios: The council debated alternatives presented by county staff that included more aggressive bonding (which would lower near‑term rates but increase long‑term interest costs). Finance staff warned that very large bonds (hundreds of millions) would increase interest and long‑term debt service and require multi‑decade rate commitments.

Council action and votes Council Member Arias moved to deny the proposed rate increase; that motion failed. Council Member Smith then moved to adopt the staff recommendation. The motion carried; Vice Mayor Core and Council Member Weir voted no. Other council members supporting the resolution said the vote, while difficult for ratepayers, was necessary to protect public health and avoid worse service or emergency failures later.

Council requests to staff Several council members asked staff to return with a plan to help the most financially vulnerable residents. City staff said they had evaluated assistance models used in other cities (including Sacramento) and that any program would require a dedicated funding appropriation; staff suggested a one‑time assistance allocation would need council direction and a budget appropriation so it could be in place before the first tax‑assessment bills are mailed in the fall.

Context and quantities Staff described a multi‑decade capital need for plant rehabilitation and possible plant expansion; earlier, an initial scenario of roughly $950 per account was revised downward by phasing work and considering limited bonding. The adopted scenario was intended to begin rebuilding reserves and fund prioritized capital projects while moderating near‑term increases.

What residents said: Dozens of residents testified at council hearings and submitted written protests, many citing affordability concerns and urging alternatives such as bonds, use of Measure N funds, or slower phase‑ins. Staff and council members repeatedly emphasized the difference between reserve dollars (set aside for emergencies or to support credit for borrowing) and surplus funds that were previously available but largely committed to prior capital needs.

Next steps: Staff will return with details on implementation, billing schedules and a plan to propose a one‑time assistance program for qualified low‑income/fixed‑income households pending a council appropriation later this summer or in the fall budget cycle.