Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montclair council member says he will oppose IEUA wastewater rate increases amid missing study
Summary
Council members pressed the Inland Empire Utilities Agency proposal for two years of wastewater and recycled-water increases (about 9% each year, ~18% total) and called out a missing rate study; the council policy committee representative said he planned to oppose the IEUA board recommendation without adequate justification.
Get email alerts on the Utilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montclair councilmembers spent a substantial portion of Monday night’s meeting debating proposed wastewater and recycled-water rate increases from the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA).
A council representative on the sewage policy committee told the council IEUA is proposing 9% increases for wastewater operations and recycled water for the next two years — roughly an 18% increase across two years — and said staff have not provided the rate study that would justify those increases. "We don't have a copy of that at that meeting. And as of today, we don't still don't have a copy of it," the presenter said, adding he planned to oppose the recommendation to the IEUA board if the committee could not be shown a convincing justification.
The presenter described several specific concerns: the timing of the IEUA board vote scheduled for April 15; the creation of 28 new full-time positions (28 FTEs) tied to a wastewater treatment facility expansion; and uncertainty about how costly capital projects such as the Chino Basin advanced treatment plant would be allocated across member cities. "We don't know. We can't get an answer. What percentage?" he said of the capital cost allocation.
Councilmember Ben Lopez asked that presentation materials be made visible to the public during meetings and to appear in the recorded video so viewers can follow along. Referring to a bar graph shown in the presentation, Lopez summarized the apparent per-residence impact: "It looks like based upon the bar graph, the IEUA portion is approximately $25, and then the Montclair portion is additional 10. It puts us about 35." He said he wanted confirmation of that calculation.
Council members repeatedly emphasized the impact on residents. Councilmember Mendez thanked the presenter for standing up for residents and said IEUA "need[s] to prove to us, you know, why an 18% increase over 2 years is acceptable." Councilmember Roux echoed those concerns and asked staff to provide detailed documentation so elected officials can make an "informed decision."
Mayor Dutra described the city's role as a billing agent — the city mails bills and collects funds that are then remitted to IEUA — and said that history and interlocal agreements make Montclair particularly vested in understanding IEUA cost drivers. He noted that the policy committee is a recommending body and does not have veto power over the IEUA board.
Next steps: the policy committee is scheduled to meet again on April 3 ahead of the IEUA board vote on April 15. The council representative said he will oppose the IEUA recommendation to the board unless staff can justify the increases and provide the missing rate study and clearer detail on new positions and capital-cost allocation.
The council did not take a final formal action on the rates during Monday’s meeting; the discussion was a request for more information and a statement of intent from the committee representative.

