South Pasadena Water Rate Increase Will Take Effect in March Despite Public Opposition

South Pasadena residents packed City Hall Wednesday evening for a public hearing concerning the . After the hearing, the City Council voted 4-1 in favor of a tiered water rate model and a water rate increase, which takes effect in March and lasts through the end of the year. 

Prior to the public comment period, Finance Director Chu Thai noted that residents raised various concerns in the preceding weeks, including that tiered rates are unfair to large property owners, the city pushed rate increases through too fast and that fixed and variable costs are not charged property. However, Thai maintained these water rate increases are necessary to fund $60 million in water infrastructure repairs and pay back debt accumulated by the city overtime.

The City Clerk's office reported it received 275 qualified protest letters from property owners in South Pasadena as of Wednesday night. In order for residents to successfully veto a water rate hike, the city would have needed to receive at least 3,334 protests, or half of the parcels in South Pasadena.

"I don't like the fact that everyone who doesn't protest is considered by default in favor [of the rate increase]," said Brandy Guenveur, who attended the meeting.

Close to 30 residents voiced their opinions during this special hearing, which took place during a regularly scheduled City Council meeting. While several residents spoke in favor of the proposed water rate increase, the majority of public comments came from residents opposed to the rate hike. Some questioned the city's process behind implementing the rate hike, others noted concerns about the lack of knowledge on how to conserve water, and a few directly stated the financial repercussions they would face due to higher water bills.

"This is going to hit people a lot [harder] than it's being sold," said South Pasadena resident Steve Garcia, who is facing a 47 percent increase, including the utility tax.

Council member Philip Putnam pointed out a mistake in the water rate figures that were published on the city's official information pamphlet and distributed widely. While the brochure indicated the average resident with a 3/4-inch meter who consumes 31 units of water would see an increase from $83.86 to $103.04 in the year 2015, the correct numbers indicate the 2015 amount is actually higher at $167.43. 

Some long-time residents such as Tuncer Toprakci wondered why the city allowed its water infrastructure to fall into disrepair. "This could have been prevented," he said, and noted the city should have maintained the water system overtime.

The first speaker to take the podium, Marlene Hubbard, voiced concerns about the speed at which these rate increases were enacted, and the deterioration of the infrastructure. "This has taken decades of neglect," Hubbard said, adding, "you're charging too much too fast." She described the rate increase as "drastic," noting her rates would increase over 100 percent.

Others echoed her point, and voiced concerns about the financial impact of the rate increase. "There are many seniors living in this town on a fixed income," said Harold Mgrublian, a resident of South Pasadena for six decades. He noted his house is located on a hilly area, which requires greater water.

Some noted the impact on people living in multi-family residences. "This approach ignores the fact that a multi-family building serves more families," said Debbie Eller of the Wisteria Estates condominiums. "It's grossly unfair," she added, and also said multi-family property owners and condo residents would consider filing a class-action suit against the city.

Others did not strongly oppose the water rate increase, but had suggestions for the City Council on ways to make the rate hike and tiered system easier to digest. One resident suggested the city provide incentives to residents to reduce their meter size, and therefore save money.

"A much more gradual rate increase would seem more reasonable," said former South Pasadena Mayor Harry Knapp. He was also one of the only commenters to note the significant impact on restaurants, which could see even higher percentage increases than residents. "Restaurants are going to go out of business. You don't want that to happen," he said.

"Our residents need to know how to conserve," said Waynna Kato. "I suggest an educational program that starts immediately," she said.

Gretchen Robinette, Chair of Women Involved in South Pasadena Political Action (WISPPA), said she understood the need for a citywide reduction in water use. "In November 2009, California Senate Bill 7x7 was signed into law. This requires that California achieve a 20 percent reduction in statewide urban water use by the year 2020. This means our city."

Other supporters included the city's Water Council representatives Diana Mahmud, , and Kim Hughes. 

"The population of this region has grown tremendously," Kelly said, and added that 40 percent of the city's water is overdraft. "The cost of replacement water has gone up 176 percent," he said. "If we don't pass this tonight, we're going to be jeopardizing our system. It would be irresponsible," he said.

Hughes commented how the city would be unable to pay back its debts if the water rates did not increase. "If we in technical default [of our debts], that would affect us going forward."

Though South Pasadena's Finance Department proposed a five-year water rate increase plan, the council decided they would have to vote again to implement increases beyond this year.

While the rate increase will bring in 30 percent more revenue overall, it will affect residents differently. Some may see as large as 180 percent increase in their water bill, though the average amount is much lower.

Council members Michael Cacciotti and Dr. Richard Schneider, who advocated the water rate increase and tiered rate model, both noted ways residents can conserve water to save money.

"Most changes will be outdoor. The big savings comes from landscaping and gardening," Schneider said. 

Cacciotti explained that the water fund suffered at the expense of other city-sanctioned spending. "$5 million were taken out of the water fund between 1965 and 2005," Cacciotti said. This money was not replaced or returned to the water fund, he said.

He also encouraged people to consider drought-resistant plants and other measures to make landscaping less dependent on water. "We've gotta do this or our bonds are going to fall apart," he said.

Read our previous coverage of the South Pasadena water rate increase:

Feb. 6: 
Jan. 27: 
Dec. 16: 
Dec. 15: 
Nov. 30: