WILLIAMS, CA (MPG) — The Williams City Council postponed a decision on proposed water and sewer rate increases after a lengthy and emotional Proposition 218 hearing Wednesday, Nov. 20, citing unresolved billing problems and complaints about the public notice process.
The proposed five-year schedule would raise the city’s base water rate by 13.8 percent in the first year, followed by increases of 8.8 percent and 9.2 percent in later years, with similar adjustments for sewer service, Finance Director Rex Greenbaum told the council. He said the changes are needed to keep the city’s water and wastewater enterprise funds solvent.
“The increase is necessary due to the financial need of the water and sewer enterprise funds,” Greenbaum said. “The current revenue is insufficient to fund operations and capital needs.”
Under Prop. 218, one written protest is allowed per parcel. Williams has 1,654 affected parcels, so 828 protests, or just over 50 percent, would be needed to block the rate adjustment. As of the hearing, staff reported receiving about 170 protests, a turnout Greenbaum and the city attorney described as higher than in past processes.
Many residents focused less on the rate study and more on what they described as unaffordable bills, especially for seniors and low-income households. Several speakers shared stories of struggling to pay monthly water and sewer charges that already top $200.
One Williams resident described limiting household water use to short showers, yet still facing high bills. Staff invited him to meet at City Hall to review his usage in detail.
“We can give you very detailed analysis,” Greenbaum said, adding that staff can print usage information without revealing private data from other accounts.
Others questioned the cost of sewer service in particular.
“Everyone is talking about the water, but what about the sewer? Nobody talks about the sewer,” one resident said, asking why sewer charges run so high. Greenbaum replied that the city operates a tertiary wastewater treatment plant that “is an expensive plant,” with construction costs of more than $170 million, partly offset by about $21 million in state and federal grants over recent years.
Residents also pressed the city on notice. Several people said they never received the Prop. 218 mailer, even though they check their post office boxes daily.
“How is that fair if nobody received one?” asked a Williams resident, who urged the council to schedule “another meeting” so more people could participate.
Greenbaum said the city mailed 2,250 notices to every PO box holder in Williams, plus 650 notices to out-of-town parcel owners, exceeding the legal requirement to mail only to the 1,654 parcel owners. He estimated that fewer than 10 notices were returned by the post office.
“We put the information out there to the post office,” he said, noting that the notices, rate studies and rate tables also appear on the city’s website for the Prop. 218 process.
City Attorney Andreas Booher explained that, under Prop. 218, mailing is considered effective when the city delivers the envelopes to the post office, not when they are placed in individual boxes. Sending certified or return-receipt mail would be “wildly more expensive” and is not required or standard practice for these hearings, he said.
Council members acknowledged the financial pressures on both the city and its residents.
“I’m one that’s pretty conservative, but I’ll tell you, the situation that we have now, regretfully, against my own principle, if you will, it needs to happen because we need to keep the water going and the sewer,” council member John Troughton Jr. said.
Mayor Belmontes-Leiva said she does not want to raise rates but sees no alternative to keep the water and wastewater system functioning.
At the same time, she sharply criticized past billing practices. Citing specific residents by name, the mayor said it was “absolutely ridiculous” for one resident to be billed with no meter and no water, and “not okay” for others to be told to pay thousands of dollars for a meter or to pay usage charges while their homes sat vacant.
“That’s on us and shame on us,” she said. “Needs to be rectified.”
The mayor asked the interim city manager to begin providing monthly reports on how many water and sewer billing complaints the city receives and how many are resolved.
“We need resolution to these issues that have continued for months and for years,” she said.
Council members also discussed, in general terms, exploring options such as selling unused city property, reorganizing staff and looking for other ways to reduce pressure on rates. Any direct subsidy program for low-income customers, staff said, would require recalculating rates so that other users cover the cost of reduced bills.
Late in the hearing, after hours of testimony, mayor Belmontes-Leiva said the volume of unresolved complaints and the number of residents who said they never received notice convinced her that the city was “not ready” to move ahead.
“We don’t have our house in order,” Belmontes-Leiva said. “Too many complaints, too many unresolved issues. Too many wrongs.”
She moved to continue the Prop. 218 hearing instead of adopting the rate schedule. On the city attorney’s advice, the council amended the motion to continue the hearing to Jan. 21 at 6 p.m. The motion passed on a 4-0 vote, with one abstention.
Andreas said the continuation does not restart the Prop. 218 process because the proposed rates remain unchanged. The new schedule means the earliest the increase could take effect would be in February, if the council ultimately approves it.
For Williams residents, that means several concrete steps in the weeks ahead. One written protest per parcel may still be submitted to the city clerk until the hearing closes on Jan. 21, and staff said protests already filed will remain valid and do not need to be resubmitted. The full rate study, notice and rate tables are available on the city’s website under “Community” and “City News” in the Prop. 218 section. Residents who believe their bills are inaccurate, or who have long-standing billing complaints, are encouraged to contact City Hall before the January hearing so staff can review individual accounts.
City officials said they plan to publish the continued hearing date through the newspaper, the city website, social media and word of mouth, and urged residents who attended this week’s meeting to return in January.
“We have a problem and it’s our job to fix it,” Belmontes-Leiva said. “And it’s your job to come to the meetings and make us aware of them.”