News

Pleasanton council presses pause on water rate increase vote

Staff will conduct more analysis, work on better informing residents ahead of hearing in November

Water flows out of a household tap in Pleasanton. (File photo by Chuck Deckert)

The Pleasanton City Council voted to delay the decision about implementing 62% in increases over three years for water rates after dozens of residents packed the meeting room on Tuesday to ask the council to slow down so that staff can conduct more analysis on the topic.

That work, the council concurred, should include evaluating comments from the public, responding to resident questions and figuring out any possible alternatives to the three-year water rate hikes. Afterward, staff will present their next recommendation for the rates during the Nov. 7 council meeting.

"We've been talking about this subject, since I don't even know when ... We've talked about a lot of different things and our staff has addressed a lot of those things," Councilmember Valerie Arkin said. "But if there is new information or additional information our staff wants to provide, I think that will be great based on public input."

"Increasing rates is not something I take lightly. We are all residents here too ... I have a pool, I have a garden, I get it," Arkin added after addressing Pleasanton resident Vicki LaBarge's concerns about paying more money for her own pool and garden. "A suggestion of just not doing the rate is not what I'm talking about. We need to fix the problem, and that's what we're going to need to do and that's a responsibility of the city. But we need questions answered, I completely agree."

City officials have been looking at raising water rates since 2019, but the water rate study was paused due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Since then, city officials have said that three years of no rate increases have put the city in a difficult position of having to raise the rates so that the city's water enterprise fund doesn't go bankrupt in the next three years.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

"We certainly needed to do more in terms of proactively planning for the needs of the system," City Manager Gerry Beaudin said Tuesday. "We have the water rate program that essentially resets the enterprise fund ... This is a fund that is on its way to becoming insolvent in the next two years, as in not enough money to do the work that needs to be done."

He said that the rate increase would help in the long run with possibly funding efforts to address the city's issues with PFAS, otherwise known as forever chemicals, in the city's groundwater and other aging water infrastructure issues.

"For as much as we could say tonight that we don't know what we're up against. We know that when we haven't done a citywide master plan in 30 years for our water system. And when we have PFAS contamination and we're trying to get 3,500 acre-feet out of the ground, we know we have tens of millions of dollars on the horizon to address those needs," Beaudin said.

The proposed rate structure from staff would have seen rates increase by 30% beginning Nov. 1, followed by another 20% increase beginning Jan. 1, 2025 and a 12% increase the following year.

According to the staff presentation, the first proposed rate increase would raise the average homeowner's bimonthly bill by $33, which equates to an approximately 30% increase in the total water portion of the utility bill, or about a 13% increase to the overall utility bill.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

This would also mark the first rate structure overhaul since 2011 -- water rates have only been adjusted for inflation since 2011, except for 2017, 2020, 2021 and 2022 when there weren't any increases at all, according to staff.

That all led to the water fund becoming unsustainable, which needs to be addressed in order to move forward with future water-related projects and operations in the city, according to Beaudin.

The council voted 4-1 in July, with Vice Mayor Jack Balch in dissent, to initiate the public notification process ahead of final rate increase consideration Tuesday night. However, Balch had initially asked the city to push pause and to actually wait until November so that more analysis could be done and so that more residents could weigh in on the discussion.

"This is welcome news, because on July 18, that's exactly what I asked for to happen, so I appreciate the willingness by the council to do it," Balch said.

He also said that back then, he had wanted a pause because when Raftelis, a water and utility consulting company, conducted a report to determine the water rates, it did not take into account variables on the assumptions it made regarding "debt, interest rates, how much capital projects will cost, when they will be done and a variety of other factors."

"What I asked for in July, was a sensitivity analysis to understand if we altered those variables, how it would change the ultimate rate we would be producing as a result of that report and that work," Balch said.

But while many residents had issues with not understanding how the rate increases would affect them and where the money generated from the increases would go toward, city officials held on to their claims that some type of increases will be necessary in order to help accomplish several water related goals.

Those goals, according to city officials, include executing immediate city infrastructure system upgrades, increasing funding for the water supply alternative project design work, increasing funding to purchase water from the Zone 7 Water Agency for the next couple of years, increasing staffing to help implement solutions for the water distribution system and restoring the water enterprise fund.

Beaudin also said that the rate increases, along with the city's water supply alternatives study which the council discussed Tuesday night as well, are both part of a more comprehensive effort to reboot the city's water program.

However, many of the residents who spoke during Tuesday's meeting continued to say that the city has not done enough due diligence in informing residents on the specifics of the rate increases.

Mayor Karla Brown at one point had to call for a recess during the public comment period as many residents were going over time to ask back-and-forth nuanced questions, which many said proved their point that the information is not clear.

"Many of the messages you've heard here tonight, if you've been truly listening to people, should indicate to you that you haven't been clear enough," Pleasanton resident Dean Wallace told the council. "It isn't a matter of you repeating yourselves. It's a matter of actually making yourselves clearer than you have been up to this point, engaging with the community the right way, being fully transparent, with straightforward and clear language."

Even though the city only received 202 validated written protests against the increases as of Tuesday night -- in order to table the recommended rate increases the city would have had to receive 11,243 protests, or a majority of property owners in the city -- the council remained unanimous in delaying the decision so that staff could appropriately respond to resident concerns. Councilmember Julie Testa was absent for the decision, having to leave at the beginning of the discussion due to a family emergency.

A front row seat to local high school sports.

Check out our new newsletter, the Playbook.

Christian Trujano
 
Christian Trujano, a Bay Area native and San Jose State alum, joined Embarcadero Media in May 2022 following his graduation. He is an award-winning student journalist who has covered stories in San Jose ranging from crime to higher education. Read more >>

Follow PleasantonWeekly.com and the Pleasanton Weekly on Twitter @pleasantonnews, Facebook and on Instagram @pleasantonweekly for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Your support is vital to us continuing to bring you city government news. Become a member today.

Pleasanton council presses pause on water rate increase vote

Staff will conduct more analysis, work on better informing residents ahead of hearing in November

by / Pleasanton Weekly

Uploaded: Wed, Sep 20, 2023, 2:02 pm
Updated: Tue, Sep 26, 2023, 10:18 am

The Pleasanton City Council voted to delay the decision about implementing 62% in increases over three years for water rates after dozens of residents packed the meeting room on Tuesday to ask the council to slow down so that staff can conduct more analysis on the topic.

That work, the council concurred, should include evaluating comments from the public, responding to resident questions and figuring out any possible alternatives to the three-year water rate hikes. Afterward, staff will present their next recommendation for the rates during the Nov. 7 council meeting.

"We've been talking about this subject, since I don't even know when ... We've talked about a lot of different things and our staff has addressed a lot of those things," Councilmember Valerie Arkin said. "But if there is new information or additional information our staff wants to provide, I think that will be great based on public input."

"Increasing rates is not something I take lightly. We are all residents here too ... I have a pool, I have a garden, I get it," Arkin added after addressing Pleasanton resident Vicki LaBarge's concerns about paying more money for her own pool and garden. "A suggestion of just not doing the rate is not what I'm talking about. We need to fix the problem, and that's what we're going to need to do and that's a responsibility of the city. But we need questions answered, I completely agree."

City officials have been looking at raising water rates since 2019, but the water rate study was paused due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Since then, city officials have said that three years of no rate increases have put the city in a difficult position of having to raise the rates so that the city's water enterprise fund doesn't go bankrupt in the next three years.

"We certainly needed to do more in terms of proactively planning for the needs of the system," City Manager Gerry Beaudin said Tuesday. "We have the water rate program that essentially resets the enterprise fund ... This is a fund that is on its way to becoming insolvent in the next two years, as in not enough money to do the work that needs to be done."

He said that the rate increase would help in the long run with possibly funding efforts to address the city's issues with PFAS, otherwise known as forever chemicals, in the city's groundwater and other aging water infrastructure issues.

"For as much as we could say tonight that we don't know what we're up against. We know that when we haven't done a citywide master plan in 30 years for our water system. And when we have PFAS contamination and we're trying to get 3,500 acre-feet out of the ground, we know we have tens of millions of dollars on the horizon to address those needs," Beaudin said.

The proposed rate structure from staff would have seen rates increase by 30% beginning Nov. 1, followed by another 20% increase beginning Jan. 1, 2025 and a 12% increase the following year.

According to the staff presentation, the first proposed rate increase would raise the average homeowner's bimonthly bill by $33, which equates to an approximately 30% increase in the total water portion of the utility bill, or about a 13% increase to the overall utility bill.

This would also mark the first rate structure overhaul since 2011 -- water rates have only been adjusted for inflation since 2011, except for 2017, 2020, 2021 and 2022 when there weren't any increases at all, according to staff.

That all led to the water fund becoming unsustainable, which needs to be addressed in order to move forward with future water-related projects and operations in the city, according to Beaudin.

The council voted 4-1 in July, with Vice Mayor Jack Balch in dissent, to initiate the public notification process ahead of final rate increase consideration Tuesday night. However, Balch had initially asked the city to push pause and to actually wait until November so that more analysis could be done and so that more residents could weigh in on the discussion.

"This is welcome news, because on July 18, that's exactly what I asked for to happen, so I appreciate the willingness by the council to do it," Balch said.

He also said that back then, he had wanted a pause because when Raftelis, a water and utility consulting company, conducted a report to determine the water rates, it did not take into account variables on the assumptions it made regarding "debt, interest rates, how much capital projects will cost, when they will be done and a variety of other factors."

"What I asked for in July, was a sensitivity analysis to understand if we altered those variables, how it would change the ultimate rate we would be producing as a result of that report and that work," Balch said.

But while many residents had issues with not understanding how the rate increases would affect them and where the money generated from the increases would go toward, city officials held on to their claims that some type of increases will be necessary in order to help accomplish several water related goals.

Those goals, according to city officials, include executing immediate city infrastructure system upgrades, increasing funding for the water supply alternative project design work, increasing funding to purchase water from the Zone 7 Water Agency for the next couple of years, increasing staffing to help implement solutions for the water distribution system and restoring the water enterprise fund.

Beaudin also said that the rate increases, along with the city's water supply alternatives study which the council discussed Tuesday night as well, are both part of a more comprehensive effort to reboot the city's water program.

However, many of the residents who spoke during Tuesday's meeting continued to say that the city has not done enough due diligence in informing residents on the specifics of the rate increases.

Mayor Karla Brown at one point had to call for a recess during the public comment period as many residents were going over time to ask back-and-forth nuanced questions, which many said proved their point that the information is not clear.

"Many of the messages you've heard here tonight, if you've been truly listening to people, should indicate to you that you haven't been clear enough," Pleasanton resident Dean Wallace told the council. "It isn't a matter of you repeating yourselves. It's a matter of actually making yourselves clearer than you have been up to this point, engaging with the community the right way, being fully transparent, with straightforward and clear language."

Even though the city only received 202 validated written protests against the increases as of Tuesday night -- in order to table the recommended rate increases the city would have had to receive 11,243 protests, or a majority of property owners in the city -- the council remained unanimous in delaying the decision so that staff could appropriately respond to resident concerns. Councilmember Julie Testa was absent for the decision, having to leave at the beginning of the discussion due to a family emergency.

Comments

MsVic
Registered user
Mission Park
on Sep 20, 2023 at 6:58 pm
MsVic, Mission Park
Registered user
on Sep 20, 2023 at 6:58 pm

Valerie Arkin was clearly not listening when she said she didn’t hear residents offer alternatives or suggestions. She said no increase is not an alternative. Interesting comment since no one said no increase was the answer, residents agree increases are necessary but not the outrageous ones suggested. Many residents had suggestions, apparently she is still tone deaf to the residents. The biggest suggestion was to calculate what it will mean to enterprise fund when 22000+ people start to pay for their 1-20 unit usage, which has been free up to now. Do the math, it’s a staggering amount of money.


PtownRes
Registered user
Birdland
on Sep 20, 2023 at 9:02 pm
PtownRes, Birdland
Registered user
on Sep 20, 2023 at 9:02 pm

SimpleArkin proves again that she does not have the competence nor the intelligence to understand the issues and alternatives. Pleasanton and our water supply will be better when she is voted out in 2024.


Fact Checker
Registered user
Downtown
on Sep 21, 2023 at 9:28 am
Fact Checker, Downtown
Registered user
on Sep 21, 2023 at 9:28 am

I guess we left out the part when Mayor Brown called to have two uniformed police officers stand at the back of the room.

Note to Council…residents are allowed to state their opinion during public comment and your job is to say thank you for your comment, not give a rebuttal.


S.R.
Registered user
Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 21, 2023 at 9:28 am
S.R., Another Pleasanton neighborhood
Registered user
on Sep 21, 2023 at 9:28 am

Yes, I'm confused. Are the 20% and 12% increases on the original paid amount? If so it is a 62% increase. If they are increasing the new amount you pay after the 30% percent increase by 20% and then that amount by 12% this is in no way a 62% increase. Do the math. If this is what they are doing it shoots their "transparency" to bits.


125
Registered user
Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Sep 21, 2023 at 11:47 am
125, Vintage Hills Elementary School
Registered user
on Sep 21, 2023 at 11:47 am

Way to go City Council, follow in your predecessor's footsteps and kick the can down the road. Our water transport system and PFAs levels can wait until you figure out how to communicate what the right amount of rate increase will be and what it will be used for. In the meantime, residents will keep their lawns lush whilst we continue to suck our ever dwindling water supply dry.


PtownRes
Registered user
Birdland
on Sep 21, 2023 at 12:44 pm
PtownRes, Birdland
Registered user
on Sep 21, 2023 at 12:44 pm

"Increasing rates is not something I take lightly. We are all residents here too ... I have a pool, I have a garden, I get it," says Arkin.

How elitist and out of touch can you get? There are people and families who are struggling to make ends meet where a substantial increase in water rates could mean serious trade offs of affording basic needs. Her impact is that her water bill will increase by refilling her pool and then she has to fly coach to Europe next time.


keeknlinda
Registered user
Vintage Hills
on Sep 22, 2023 at 9:15 pm
keeknlinda, Vintage Hills
Registered user
on Sep 22, 2023 at 9:15 pm

Sorry, 125, but that can needs to be kicked a little further this time. The council has not been presented with enough accurate data to accept an increase of this magnitude, and enough people told them so they really had to take a step back. As to how we're using water, consumption in Pleasanton has decreased steadily since mandatory reductions from 2020 use. We're actually good until 2035 reductions are put into place. According to city staff, 18% in 2023. That's because many folks are using high efficiency laundry equipment, dishwashers, low-flush toilets, and getting rebates from both the city and Zone 7 for smart controllers for their landscaping. And new construction rules require low water/drought tolerant landscaping, so there is really no huge increase anticipated.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.