City of Jurupa Valley staff told the Public Works Advisory Committee on Jan. 9 that a 20-foot drainage channel near Galena Street is located inside private lots created when the La Bonita Tract map was filed with Riverside County in 1974, and that the county did not accept a drainage easement, leaving maintenance responsibility with property owners.

The presentation said the committee would not take action at the Jan. 9 meeting but should consider two options: continue the status quo, where property owners maintain the channel; or have the city assume maintenance, funded from the general fund. Staff said there is no other identified funding source for city maintenance and that a financial-impact analysis and liability assessment will be presented at the next meeting.

Why this matters: staff said the issue affects other locations across the city where drainage channels sit entirely or partly on private property. If the city adopts a policy to assume maintenance in these circumstances, the presentation said that policy would be applied citywide to similar situations and would require council approval before implementation.

Committee members asked for materials in advance; staff answered they will include a report with pros and cons and the financial analysis with the next meeting agenda. Staff also said, if the committee recommends city maintenance, staff would seek petitions signed by affected residents before taking a recommendation to the City Council.

Staff emphasized the need to evaluate channels on a case-by-case basis where access or built improvements (fences, structures) make maintenance or inspection difficult. Paul (staff member) and other presenters said some channels are enclosed inside backyards and owners have assumed private responsibility. Committee members raised concerns about properties where channels are inaccessible and about the ripple effects if the city assumes responsibility for one location and not others.

Clarifying details from staff: the La Bonita Tract map was filed in 1974; the drainage channel occupies parcels identified in the presentation as lots within the tract (presenters referenced lots 158–161 and later said five parcels are involved in this specific instance). The county previously accepted the track map but did not accept the drainage easement, leaving maintenance with property owners. Staff said the city currently has no right to enter the private parcels for maintenance without owner permission.

Next steps: staff will return with a financial-impact analysis to show what assuming maintenance would cost the general fund, an assessment of potential liabilities, and petition language for affected property owners. Any committee recommendation to assume maintenance would be forwarded to the City Council for approval.

Ending: The committee did not vote on the matter Jan. 9; staff will prepare a written report and recommendation options for the next meeting for the committee to consider and then, if directed, send to council.