By District Two Councilman Ben Wong
The vote to adjust the Water & Sewer rates was difficult and never taken lightly.
Although I strongly believe this vote will be beneficial and cost effective to Seal Beach overall, I do understand those that disagree.
Here is a general summary of the more shared questions that I have received since Monday evening’s vote on 08/11/25 along with my responses:
Q1: Did you feel rushed to vote for the City staff proposed Option #1 due to an immediate pipeline risk and that there was not enough time to consider a less expensive “Option #3” as was being discussed by concerned residents?
A1: Negative, a lack of time to further discuss the resident-proposed Option #3 was not a factor.
The defeated motion for a potential Option #3 before the Council would have moved the evening vote from 08/11/25 to the following month in September. My decision was based not on the risk that one additional month might have on the City’s aging infrastructure, but on the risk involved with delaying the start and completion of the LCWA Water Main Lining Project in relation to the planned Los Cerritos Wetlands restoration.
The California Coastal Conservancy had recently granted $32M with construction set to start in September 2025 for the wetlands. It is important that the LCWA project starts in September and is completed in conjunction with the restoration of the wetlands. If we miss this opportunity, we will take on the added cost and risk of having to complete post-environmental studies, additional construction, and later seeking Coastal Commission permission.
Q2: Do you see your role as trusting City staff recommendations without active oversight by the Council?
A2: Negative, absolutely not.
In fact, it is the opposite.
Neither I nor my fellow Councilmembers intend to give City staff carte blanche without oversight from this Council.
I have shared this thought with others, and it bears repeating, but the matter of Water & Sewer is far from over.
We are just at the starting line and now actually ready to start this marathon.
There are projects with designs complete and shovel-ready where we can move forward and complete with on-going Council oversight. Moreover, I have every intention in looking for ways to tighten spending as we continue so that projects are finished within budget, and to reexamine their priority, e.g., Sunset Aquatics Center, Navy Reservoir, etc.
Q3: Did you vote for the Option #1 increase knowing that the cost would affect District 2 residents (Leisure World, College Park West, and the Rossmoor Shopping Center) less than other Seal Beach residents?
A3: Negative. This misconceived notion relates to the fact that College Park West’s sewer system is connected to Rossmoor and Leisure World residents do not pay for a fixed connection fee like single-family residents and therefore will be shielded from the full effect of any rate adjustment.
My thoughts and actions considered the greater good of Seal Beach as a whole; not just one area.
For example, Leisure World’s billing rate for water and sewer was, up until recently, based upon an “effective 6-inch” pipe.
The larger the pipe, the greater the cost.
Confusion existed as to Leisure World’s true pipe size.
To seek the truth and dispel the notion that “Leisure World does not pay its fair share,” I pushed to have the pipes re-measured and it was later shown that the billing rate should be based upon two (2) 12-inch pipes, thereby readjusting the billing rate.
If my sole focus were on just my district alone, then why would I have sought an answer that risked costing Leisure World residents more?
It is because it was the right thing to do for Seal Beach as a whole.
Also, I have spent much of my own personal time during both weeknights and weekends leading up to the 08/11/25 vote to repeatedly meet and discuss the Water & Sewer rate issues with residents and discussion groups outside of my own district.
Q4: Did you felt “bullied” into going along with Option #1 instead of seeking a cheaper alternative for residents?
A4: Negative, and an unfair assumption.
I “Browned Acted” with Councilwoman Patty Senecal for the topic of Water & Sewer earlier on, where only she and I could openly discuss our thoughts with each other on this matter and not with any other Councilmembers.
Outside of my exchanges with Councilwoman Senecal, the first time I heard any direct arguments on how each Councilmember felt about Options #1, #2, and the potential of an Option #3, was on the night of the vote, which came to have little bearing upon my own decision.
Moreover, those that assume I can be intimidated are not privy to prior Closed Session meetings held on other topics by the City Council.
Otherwise, one would be quick to realize that I cannot be bullied.
Q5: Was this a charade or were you pretending to be open to a potential “Option #3” while knowing all along what your vote would be?
A5: Negative, and untrue. Critics have labeled my vote as a charade, but my firm belief is to continue to “fact find” for the latest information before concluding on a decision.
As a reminder, two important distinctions between Options #1 versus #3 were the price per month to residents and the designated projects to move forward in completing.
For example, the calculated savings in Year 1 between Options #1 and the possibility of #3 were an average estimate of $20/month for single-family homes.
Yet, the five projects designated under Option #3 only included four water and one sewer project (Lampson, LCWA, Beverly Manor, Bolsa Chica well, and the sewer mainlines) without a true plan to service the debt coverage as well as replenish the operating and capital replacement reserves.
There were two glaring points that needed to be addressed before the possibility of moving forward with Option #3:
1) If an emergency arises, can we borrow against the General Fund since we will not have any reserves to draw upon from the Water & Sewer enterprise fund itself?
2) If we move forward with a different option, in this case Option #1, can we continually modify after the vote or are we locked in with an all-or-nothing? In other words, would we be committed to completing all the projects as listed out in Option #1?
For Question 1, Finance Manager Alayna Hoang commented during the Council session that yes, if an emergency pipeline break arose, we could technically borrow against the General Fund’s cash reserve.
Yet, the consequence of borrowing from the General Fund’s reserve would indicate to the debt market that the Water & Sewer enterprise fund is not self-sufficient based upon the current billing rates, and we would be at risk of the City’s “A” credit status being downgraded to a “B.”
This would mean borrowing money at a higher interest rate and be more costly to the City long-term.
The prospect of slashing City department budgets to buoy the General Fund would have no effective impact here, as Water & Sewer are a separate enterprise fund. In other words, only fees collected from water/sewer can be used for water/sewer.
Moreover, with Option #3 not funding anything else beyond the five projects, we would neither be able to repay the hypothetical emergency loan from our General Fund nor rebuild the capital reserves.
Once it was motioned that the debt funding be included in Option #3, then the average estimate in savings of $20/month between Option #1 versus #3 would have dwindled without any financial consideration to the reserves and future pipe breaks.
For Question 2, Public Works Director Iris Lee said that if Council were to approve Option #1, we could still later decide to remove projects as we went on.
I thought this was especially important in being able to retain the flexibility to eliminate projects and tighten spending as we moved forward without limiting the City’s ability to collect on the increased fees to fund the reserve, effectively service the debt, and to be better prepared to pay for emergency pipe breaks.
—
None of us want to have to pay more.
Yet, with rising construction costs, and the City’s well-documented aging infrastructure, this was a problem that I did not want to further risk “kicking down the road.”
Last week’s vote gives City staff the best opportunity to finally deal with our Water & Sewer infrastructure dilemma and avoid having to burden future generations with the same costly and on-going issues that have followed us to this day.
Thank you for your time in reading a few of my thoughts.
