Fresno water rates face first hike in a decade — and a councilmember says SEDA is why

Fresno City Council is weighing the city’s first water-rate change in ten years and first sewer-rate change in sixteen years. Mayor Jerry Dyer says aging pipes and rising costs require it. Councilmember Miguel Arias says the real driver is the Southeast Development Area.

A typical residential water bill would rise $1.77 a month in year one under the proposed five-year plan. Sewer bills would drop $0.95 a month. The council votes soon on whether to advance the proposal to a public hearing in early December.

Dyer cited aging infrastructure, higher operating costs for energy and treatment chemicals, staffing, and regulatory compliance. City documents say the revised rates would cover replacing water mains, constructing wells, and building reserve funds for emergencies.

Arias tied the proposal directly to SEDA, a large development on Fresno’s southeast side. “They have money set aside for yet-to-be-defined capital projects,” he said. “That’s code for SEDA.”

One financing plan under consideration would tap utility reserve funds — or, if those run dry, add surcharges to residents’ utility bills — to back an $86 million bond for SEDA’s first sewer pipe.

Arias also objected to the process. He called it “bananas” that the item was placed on the consent agenda, which can approve measures without discussion. He said residents deserve more meetings before the city locks in a new rate structure.

Dyer’s office denied any link between the utility proposal and SEDA. Dyer said the city’s $233 million settlement with Shell and Dow over drinking-water contamination can only be used on certain city wells. He said the state’s nearly $300 million for downtown and Chinatown infrastructure is limited to a small number of neighborhoods. He also said the sewer changes are meant to stop residents from “subsidizing commercial or industrial” customers.

Critics questioned where the money from those two nine-figure cash infusions went.

The Breakdown

• First water-rate change in ten years, first sewer-rate change in sixteen years
• Typical residential water bill: up $1.77/month in year one; sewer bill: down $0.95/month
• Five-year plan covers replacing water mains, constructing wells, building emergency reserves
• One financing option: tap utility reserves or add surcharges to bills to back an $86 million bond for SEDA’s first sewer pipe
• Council votes soon on advancing the proposal; public hearing scheduled for early December if it moves forward

What This Means for You

You’re being asked to pay more for water while the city taps utility money — possibly your utility bills directly — to build infrastructure for a development area. Dyer says the rate hike covers aging pipes and rising costs. Arias says it’s financing SEDA’s sewer pipe. Both can’t be the whole story.

The council you elected decides whether this moves forward, and whether you get a real public hearing or a consent-agenda rubberstamp. If the SEDA bond drains the reserves, the surcharge on your bill isn’t hypothetical — it’s the stated backup plan.

What You Can Do

The council votes soon on whether to advance this proposal. A public hearing is scheduled for early December if the measure moves forward. Contact your councilmember before the vote if you want a say in whether utility money backs SEDA’s infrastructure or whether this gets a real hearing instead of a consent-agenda approval.

What to Watch

Dyer says the city has $233 million from Shell and Dow for contaminated wells and nearly $300 million from the state for downtown and Chinatown. Arias and other critics are asking where that money went and why utility ratepayers are being tapped instead. The material doesn’t answer that — no breakdown of how much of either fund has been spent, on what, or how much remains. The city’s budget records would show it.

The $86 million SEDA sewer bond is described as one financing plan “under consideration,” but the material doesn’t say what the other options are, who benefits from building SEDA’s infrastructure now rather than later, or whether the development’s own financing is covering any of it. If this is infrastructure for private development, why is the city’s utility system financing it at all? The financing plan itself and the development agreement would answer that.

Dyer says stopping residents from “subsidizing commercial or industrial” customers justifies the sewer changes, but the material gives no figure for how much that subsidy currently costs or how the rate change fixes it. A subsidy running the other direction — utility ratepayers subsidizing a development — is exactly what Arias is alleging. The rate study and the SEDA financing terms would settle which claim holds up.

Arias called the consent-agenda placement “bananas.” He’s right that a rate structure affecting every household in the city doesn’t belong on a no-discussion approval track. Whether the council yanks it off consent or lets it slide through tells you how seriously your elected officials take public input when real money is on the line.