Riverside’s Sewer Fund could pay up to $130,000 for lawyers because the city is defending its sewer capacity fee in a case that the Regents of the University of California (UCR) have asked the California Supreme Court to review. The Council was asked on October 20 to approve the legal budget, but the documents posted so far do not show the vote.
What the city is deciding
The proposed budget would retain Jarvis Fay for up to $130,000 and authorize the City Attorney to sign an engagement letter. The firm has defended Riverside in this case at the trial court and Court of Appeal. The money would come from the Sewer Fund’s Outside Legal Services Account.
Where and who it affects
The agenda identifies all Riverside wards. The dispute concerns UCR’s planned 429 unit North District Development Phase 2 apartment building and its proposed connection to the city’s public sewer system. UCR sought permission to build and connect the project without paying a sewer capacity fee.
What it could mean for your property
A sewer capacity fee is a one time charge for a new building connecting to Riverside’s public sewer system. The documents do not give the fee amount for UCR’s project.
For an owner or buyer planning construction, the direct property question is whether the work requires a new sewer connection. The item does not identify any change to existing sewer charges. It would use Sewer Fund money to pay the city’s legal costs. The Sewer Fund is the same fund behind the five year sewer rate plan the Council received in September.
The trial court ruled for Riverside in May 2025 because UCR filed its case too late. The Court of Appeal upheld that judgment in August 2026. UCR then asked the California Supreme Court to review the case.
Questions to ask before you buy or build
- Does the planned construction require a new connection to Riverside’s public sewer system?
- What sewer capacity fee applies to that connection?
- What permit is required for the building and sewer connection?
- Has the California Supreme Court agreed to review the case?
What happens next
The California Supreme Court had not granted UCR’s petition when the memorandum was prepared. The proposed budget was intended to cover the entire case if review is granted. The posted documents do not show the Council’s October 20 decision.