Price tag for Claremont’s failed attempt to take over water system keeps rising (January 14, 2017)
CLAREMONT >> The city’s price tag for the so-far unsuccessful battle to take over the local but private water system is nearing $14 million.
In an unprecedented move, Claremont tried to acquire the rights to run the local water pipes via eminent domain, or a government taking that includes compensation. The process is often used to buy land to build public projects, such as highways.
A Los Angeles Superior Court judge’s final decision in December sided with Golden State Water Co., a private concern out of San Dimas.
If the decision stands, Claremont could end up on the hook for the entire bill, including $7.54 million racked up by Golden State Water’s legal defense. Claremont has already spent $6 million on its own legal expenses.
Claremont’s financial obligation will hinge on the outcome of a special City Council meeting to discuss the failed lawsuit scheduled for Jan. 31. Staff and legal counsel will provide information on status of the eminent domain case and the future of the city’s acquisition efforts.
There’s some tough decisions that we have to make ahead, Mayor Sam Pedroza said by phone Friday.
These big decisions cost a lot of money.
The special meeting will address the worst-case-scenario, such as how it would pay back the fees. The city currently has $7,761,000 in its general reserve fund.
The city has identified several options for funding these expenses that would not impact city services, city spokeswoman Bevin Handel wrote in an email last week.
In November 2014, voters overwhelmingly backed a bond known as Measure W, allowing the city to borrow as much as $135 million to acquire the system, which serves more than 11,000 customers.
A month later, Claremont filed the eminent domain lawsuit, seeking to appropriate ownership of Golden State’s system for itself.
These (legal) costs may be reimbursed through the revenue bond if the city wins the case on appeal, Handel said in the email.
But if the city loses, its bill keeps growing.
Should the city appeal the Superior Court’s decision and lose, the financial losses for Claremont taxpayers will increase, as the city will remain obligated to pay all of its own future legal expenses for the appeal, as well as those incurred by Golden State (plus interest), Denise Kruger, senior vice president of Regulated Utilities for Golden State said in a statement.
Handel said Claremont has a financial consultant reviewing these expenses for accuracy and will file objections with the court over any disputed expenses.
Pedroza said he wasn’t surprised by the amount of Golden State’s legal fees.
Both sides had top-notch attorneys, and there’s a price to pay for that, he said.
Based on what he has heard from those in the legal profession, Pedroza said he’s a bit optimistic. Many have told him the appellate process isn’t nearly as costly as the trial court.
The special meeting is an opportunity for residents to share their opinions with the council, Handel said.
If the council doesn’t move forward, Pedroza said the city will have to accept the decision and
figure out how to pay the legal costs and how we proceed with a relationship with Golden State.
Kruger said water company officials are looking forward to put the case behind them.
As we have stated from the beginning, Golden State Water is committed to the Claremont community and focused on providing reliable, quality water service, and we would hope that the city would choose to move forward collaboratively instead of continuing a costly legal conflict of which the outcome is clear, Kruger said.
Since the ruling, Pedroza said the public sentiment and support has remained the same.
The same people who have opposed the water issue have been louder but not newer, he said.
That’s not to say the ruling hasn’t raised some eyebrows in the city.
‘Oh wow,’ he said recounting some reactions.
It’s riskier — now we’re talking about real numbers.
The special meeting will be at 6 p.m. Jan. 31, 207 Harvard Ave.
Source: Liset Márquez, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
Files related to Claremont
- 20150308 Acquiring AVRWC is right move for Apple Valley
- 20150314 Expense of possible AVRWC acquisition difficult to gauge
- 20150514 Claremont Water System — Supplement to 2012 Appraisal Report
- 20150905 Letter: Lawyers, water, and money (O’Neil)
- 20150918 TOAV fires back at Coupal
- 20150923 Editorial: Water, takeovers, and the people
- 20151015 Cities and private equity firms fight over ownership of water systems
- 20160712 Public records request (Manning)
- 20160721 Conflict of interest (Manning)
- 20160904 Letter: Peter Allen supporting Measure V (Nassif)
- 20161012 Claremont Set To Raise Rates For Utilities
- 20161018 Will Apple Valley become California’s Flint, MI?
- 20161110 Statement of tentative decision (Claremont v. Golden State Water)
- 20161110 Judge issues tentative decision against city in water system acquisition trial (Claremont v. Golden State Water)
- 20161114 Measures V and W
- 20161115 Polls and votes
- 20161116 Another false narrative
- 20161116 Liberty sees Claremont’s eminent-domain loss as sign of things to come in Apple Valley
- 20161121 Voters show they want a say in water takeover issue (Hanson)
- 20161215 Another costly day for Apple Valley
- 20161218 Time to pay attention: An open letter to Larry Cusack
- 20170111 Claremont city manager getting a $21,000 bonus
- 20170114 Price tag for Claremont’s failed attempt to take over water system keeps rising
- 20170115 Our View: Time for foes to sit down and talk
- Time for the Town Council to listen for a change
- Response to Thomas Lecoq (Carloni)
- Time for a second opinion? (Carloni)
- 20170209 Avoiding the Claremont disaster (video)
- 20170213 Valley Voices: Apple Valley would be wise to work with Liberty Utilities (Wright)
- 20170216 James Belna on the Claremont eminent domain disaster (video)
- 20170220 Claremont resident talks [about] avoiding ‘disaster’ in Apple Valley
- 20170220 Conflict of interest
- 20170220 Letter: Response to Thomas Rice (Belna)
- 20170226 Letter: James Belna’s visit (Hanson)
- 20170226 Letter: Rice rebuttal (Trozpek)
- Claremont public records request
- Truth not tricks (Carloni)
- Comments to the Town Council opposing the ballot measure
- 20170314 Town Council meeting (McCarthy)
- 20170322 Skewing the facts (Hanson)
- 20170323 Letter: Sit down and settle (Henard)
- 20170406 Guest commentary: Government takeovers of water systems don’t deliver results — study
- Who pays?
- Responding to claims made on Facebook
- 20170508 Liberty Utilities radio ad — Claremont (audio)
- Not paying attention
- 20171010 Claremont reaches $4.8 million settlement agreement with Golden State Water
- 20171017 Claremont settlement reignites Apple Valley water war
- 20171026 Claremont cuts ties with its city attorney, law firm