Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council over proposed sewer fee hikes; consultants defend methodology
Summary
Dozens spoke during a long public hearing on proposed sewer service charge increases, pressing the council on mailing notices, the ballot chain of custody, and whether the engineering method apportions costs fairly; consultants said the increases reflect capital replacement and transport costs and are calculated as equivalent dwelling units.
The Lancaster City Council heard more than an hour of public testimony over proposed increases to sewer service charges and related Proposition 218 procedures. Residents raised multiple concerns: whether correction postcards were mailed widely enough; whether ballots had been stored and handled securely; whether the assessment apportionment was truly parcel‑specific as Prop 218 requires; and how seniors on fixed incomes would be affected.
A resident representing a methodological critique said the city's reliance on typical wastewater generation (equivalent dwelling units, EDUs) "does not apportion cost proportionally as Prop 218 requires," urging parcel‑specific measurements or clearer justification. Staff and the city's consultant, Chris Thomas of Harrison Associates, responded that the engineering analysis uses EDUs to estimate typical residential wastewater and to spread capital and transport costs across the district. "One of the largest reasons for that is the capital replacement or future replacement of these systems," Thomas said, arguing the existing $78 fee is inadequate for long‑term replacement needs.
City staff said tabulation of protest ballots will begin July 15, with final counting and council consideration at the Aug. 11 continued hearing. If a majority protest by parcels is found in a district, the council cannot impose the increase; if there is not a majority protest, the council may vote to adopt or reject the fee as presented.
Residents asked for more time and additional public workshops (including a workshop with Waste Management on solid‑waste fee increases). Staff committed to publish the engineer's reports and supporting materials and to make staff available to answer technical questions prior to Aug. 11.
