In a 6‑1 vote on Thursday, the Fresno City Council chose to table the next step in raising water rates until after the November 5 election. The proposed increase would add roughly $1.77 to a typical household’s monthly water bill, while sewage charges would likely drop by about one dollar.
Council members cite election uncertainty
Councilmember Mike Karbassi explained that “it’s really hard to make a decision today without knowing what our financial future looks like.” The council’s two‑hour hearing featured extensive debate, with most members echoing Karbassi’s caution.
Earlier in the week, Councilmember Miguel Arias linked the rate hike to the city’s Southeast Development Area plans, suggesting the two issues are at least tangentially related. However, staff briefings indicated that the city could continue operating on existing rates through the end of the fiscal year in June 2027, buying time for further analysis.
One dissenting voice urges action
Councilmember Nick Richardson was the sole dissenting vote, urging colleagues to “rip the band‑aid” and approve the increase now, warning against “kicking the can down the road” for another 16 years.
“If it’s the responsible thing to do, then it’s the responsible thing to do,” Richardson said. He warned that delaying could eventually force a larger, unexpected adjustment later.
Fiscal prudence amid a weak economy
Most council members argued that the timing is poor for additional burdens on residents. Arias noted, “There’s nothing today that provides substantial evidence that the department will run out of cash if this process begins in January.”
City utilities staff identified two alternatives: tapping reserve funds or using the general fund to cover any shortfall. Both options would strain other city services and reduce bonding capacity. “Utilizing reserves to further delay rate increases is not generally a financially prudent practice, and is pretty counter to what’s done in the industry overall,” said Paul Amico, director of the Fresno Department of Public Utilities.
Council President Nelson Esparza also warned against dipping into the general fund, calling it “a terrible, terrible idea.” He emphasized that the council will revisit the issue at its November 5 meeting, after voters have decided on Measure S (a countywide transportation tax) and Measure D (a city general tax).
Legal backdrop
The proposed rate increase must comply with Proposition 218, the 1996 voter‑approved measure that sets state standards for utility fees. Any council vote on a rate change triggers a mandatory 45‑day public engagement period before a final decision can be made.
By postponing the vote, the council is giving residents a chance to weigh the upcoming ballot measures and the broader fiscal picture before committing to higher utility costs. This approach aligns with the council’s responsibility to safeguard taxpayer dollars while ensuring essential services remain funded.
Original reporting: Fresnoland — read the source article.
