Kern County moves to notify property owners of planned sewer fee increases after Bakersfield rate hike; board split 3–2

Kern County supervisors authorized staff to send Proposition 218 hearing notices to property owners in County Service Area 71 and its three subzones after a city rate plan increased the cost of sewer treatment billed to county customers.

Public Works Director Joshua Champlin told the board the City of Bakersfield approved a five-year rate plan that raises the city’s annual sewer fee that the county passes through for CSA 71 customers. Champlin said the city fee will rise from $247 to $475 on July 1 and reach $875 by the end of the five-year plan, producing multi-year shortfalls in county-conveyance budgets unless county rates are adjusted.

Staff presented a zone-by-zone approach. For example, staff proposed a county surcharge on top of the city pass-through for CSA 71 of roughly $74 in year one (rising modestly in subsequent years); other subzones had different recommended surcharges tied to localized operational costs (lift station maintenance and differing user counts). Without adjustments, staff said CSA budgets would run deficits and require general-fund support.

“The city has implemented a five‑year rate plan,” Public Works Director Joshua Champlin said. “If we do nothing, these CSA budgets will run into shortfalls.”

Why it matters: The board must choose whether to have affected property owners decide through the Proposition 218 process to accept higher rates or to absorb deficits in the county general fund. Proposition 218 requires mailed notice and a public hearing and permits the board to set rates up to the posted amount in the absence of a majority protest.

Board reaction split along fiscal and equity lines. Some supervisors argued that users in the affected CSAs should bear the increased costs rather than the county general fund. Others (including Supervisor Peters) objected to immediately passing along the city’s increase and urged further negotiation with the City of Bakersfield and exploration of alternative financing (for example, bonds to spread costs over time).

Supervisor Peters said he opposed sending the notices earlier in the year and warned that a year’s time could allow additional intergovernmental options. Several supervisors, while critical of the city’s pace, voted to authorize the Proposition 218 notices to let property owners register protests or approval at the scheduled hearing.

Voting and next steps: The board authorized mailing Proposition 218 notices and set a hearing on July 28. On each of the four related CSA items the board took separate votes; each measure passed by a 3–2 vote with Supervisors Perez and Peters recorded as the two opposing votes on the CSA approvals. Staff noted that a valid protest by more than 50% of affected parcels would block the proposed rate increases.

The county will continue outreach to the City of Bakersfield about alternative approaches, including potential alternative financing and reexamination of how contract and pass-through responsibilities are apportioned between city and county. If no majority protest occurs, the board could implement rates up to the mailed level after the July hearing.

Key details: Staff reported roughly 630 parcels in the combined CSA 71 area (about 575 residential, 55 commercial). Combined shortfalls across the four CSAs in the first year were presented as about $140,000 unless the proposed surcharges are adopted. The hearing process will allow property owners to file formal protests and will require final board action after the July hearing.