Fresno Council Delays Water Rate Hike Vote Until After Election, Citing Ballot Measure Uncertainty

Fresno’s City Council voted 6-1 Thursday to delay a decision on proposed water and sewer rate increases until after next month’s election, citing uncertainty over two critical ballot measures that will determine the city’s financial future. The rate hike process won’t begin until the council’s Nov. 5 meeting — two days after voters decide the fate of Measure S, the countywide transportation plan, and Measure D, the city’s general tax measure.

The proposed increases would add $1.77 per month to a typical resident’s water bill, while sewage costs would decrease by about a dollar. Fresno’s utility rates haven’t changed in nearly a decade, and city staff warned that delaying further carries real financial risk.

“It’s really hard to make a decision today without knowing what our financial future looks like,” Councilmember Mike Karbassi said. Four councilmembers are currently campaigning for other offices on next month’s ballot.

Advertisement

Paul Amico, director of the Department of Public Utilities, told the council that the city could technically operate on current rates through the end of this fiscal year in June 2027. But he described using reserves or general fund money to cover a shortfall as financially imprudent and “counter to what’s done in the industry overall.” Such measures, he said, would come at “a huge expense to other city services and programs, in particular their bonding capacity.”

Council President Nelson Esparza was blunt: “I can’t believe we’re discussing using general fund money. I would advise this council, and any future council that comes after us not to do that. It’s a terrible, terrible idea.”

Councilmember Nick Richardson cast the lone dissenting vote, urging his colleagues to “rip the band-aid” since the increases are inevitable. “I don’t want to see us wait 16 years again because everyone wants to kick the can down the road, and all of a sudden we get a flashing bank notification,” Richardson said.

Councilmember Miguel Arias argued that the city has time: “There’s nothing today that provides substantial evidence that the department will run out of cash if this process begins in January.”

Any rate increase must follow Proposition 218 requirements, which mandate a 45-day public engagement period before a final vote.

The Breakdown

• The City Council delayed initiating the rate increase process until Nov. 5, two days after the November election.
• The proposed increase would cost a typical household an additional $1.77 per month on water, offset by about a $1 decrease in sewage costs — a net increase of roughly $0.77 per month.
• City utilities staff said they could operate on current rates through June 2027 but warned that dipping into reserves or general fund money to cover a shortfall would undermine bonding capacity and other city services.
• The council cited uncertainty over Measure S (the countywide transportation plan) and Measure D (the city’s general tax) as reasons to wait — both measures will determine the city’s financial position going forward.
• Proposition 218 requires a 45-day public engagement period before a decisive vote on any rate increase.

What This Means for You

This decision directly connects the water bill you pay to the vote you cast next month. The council is waiting to see whether voters approve Measure S and Measure D — two funding measures the council described as critical to understanding the city’s financial future — before deciding whether to raise your utility rates.

Four of the councilmembers who voted to delay are currently running for other offices. The vote you cast in November for Measure S and Measure D will directly shape what this same council decides on Nov. 5 about your water bill.

What You Can Do

The City Council will take up the rate increase decision again at its Nov. 5 meeting. Under Proposition 218, once the council initiates the rate increase process, a 45-day public comment period begins.

What to Watch

The council is treating this decision as though it hinges on the outcome of two ballot measures, but the material offers no breakdown of how Measure S or Measure D would actually change the city’s utility budget or bonding capacity — just the assertion that the council wants to “see how our financial future looks.” What’s the specific dollar impact of each measure on the utility department’s finances, and how much of a difference does it actually make to the rate-increase calculation? The staff report or budget analysis behind this vote would answer that, but it isn’t quoted here.

The city has operated on the same rates for nearly a decade, and the utility director warned that further delay is “counter to what’s done in the industry overall.” That raises a straightforward ROI question: what’s the cost to the city’s bonding capacity, credit rating, or ability to fund infrastructure if the council keeps kicking this down the road? Amico said using reserves or general fund money would come at “a huge expense,” but didn’t quantify it. The financial model or staff report that supports his recommendation would show the actual expense — both the immediate cost and the long-term cost to the city’s ability to borrow and invest.

Four councilmembers on this vote are running for other offices next month. The net increase to a typical household is roughly $0.77 per month after the water increase and sewer decrease. That’s $9.24 per year. Is the risk to the city’s financial position — its reserves, bonding capacity, and ability to maintain infrastructure — worth avoiding a $9-per-year ask, or is this delay a $9 political hedge that costs the city far more in the long run?