La Verne consultants outline proposed water and sewer rate increases; public hearing Nov. 3

Consultants hired by La Verne City on a water and sewer rate study presented phased rate increases and sample bill impacts at a virtual community session, and reminded residents how to object under California’s Proposition 218.

Matt Witern of consulting firm Raft Telus, the session’s lead presenter, said the study projects the water utility’s operating costs at about $13.9 million in 2026 and “more than $15 million” in 2027, driven in part by higher costs for treated water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District. He said about 76% of La Verne’s supply is imported and roughly 24% comes from local groundwater, and that the sewer system maintains 112 miles of mains and sends flows to the Los Angeles County Sanitation District for treatment.

The study shows how every dollar collected from water rates is allocated — roughly 51% for water production, about 26% for capital improvements, with smaller shares for transfers, customer service, transmission and administration and debt service — and highlights planned capital projects such as pipeline rehabilitation, well repair, treatment-plant upgrades and a citywide meter conversion program.

The consulting team presented sample household impacts. For single-family customers using 7,000, 14,000 and 20,000 gallons annually, the presentation listed current 2025 annual bills at about $78, $106 and $129 and proposed 2026 bills at about $113, $152 and $186 respectively. Consultants also showed combined water-and-sewer examples under the phased schedule, which would begin Jan. 1, 2026 and include annual adjustments through 2029 if the city council adopts the proposal.

On rate design, the presenters described fixed monthly charges by meter size (including accessory dwelling units), volumetric rates that vary by water-pressure zone to fairly allocate pumping costs, and new charges proposed for private fire protection connections that reserve capacity even when rarely used.

Responding to a public question about pass‑through mechanisms tied to supplier or energy price swings, Jeremy Tomargo, the study’s technical lead, said pass‑through was considered but the city opted to build expected supplier adjustments into the annual inflationary increases. “That was something that was considered, but the city felt that they had a pretty good idea of the proposed adjustments,” Tomargo said, adding the study used conservative assumptions about future imported-water costs.

City staff also noted CIP investments — including well improvements — are intended to reduce dependence on purchased water over time and could offset some future costs. Tomargo summarized the inflation assumptions presented in the report as roughly 12% increases for fiscal years 2026 and 2027 and about 10.5% for subsequent years used in the study’s projections.

The consultants emphasized residents’ formal protest rights under Proposition 218. Two formal steps were explained: filing an objection that asserts legal noncompliance (must be received by the city clerk by 4 p.m. Oct. 27, 2025) and submitting a signed written protest (one per property, including the owner’s name and property address) before the close of the Nov. 3, 2025 public hearing at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall. If a majority of property owners file valid protests, the council cannot adopt the rates.

The webinar closed with a reminder that the full rate-study report, FAQs, a bill calculator and recorded materials are available on the city website, and with an invitation to attend the Nov. 3 public hearing for formal comment and protest. No council action was taken during the webinar.