City Council Memorandum
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: October 20, 2026 FROM: CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE WARDS: ALL
SUBJECT: APPROVE A LEGAL BUDGET IN the AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $130,000, FOR SPECIALIZED LEGAL ASSISTANCE ISSUE:
Approve a legal budget for the law firm of Jarvis Fay in amount not to exceed $130,000 to defend the City in the California Supreme Court case entitled Regents of the University of California v. City of Riverside, an appeal to a writ of mandate action challenging the City’s sewer capacity fees, in which the City prevailed RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council
Approve a legal budget for the law firm of Jarvis Fay in amounts not to exceed $130,000, to defend the City in the California Supreme Court case entitled Regents of the University of California v. City of Riverside, an appeal to a writ of mandate action challenging the City’s sewer capacity fees, in which the City prevailed; and Authorize the City Attorney to execute an Engagement Letter to retain Jarvis Fay to defend the City in the California Supreme Court case entitled Regents of the University of California v. City of Riverside.
BACKGROUND:
On May 13, 2014, the City adopted resolution number 22682 establishing capacity fees for users of the public sewer system seeking to make new connections. Through the Riverside campus, the Regents of the University of California (UCR) seek to connect a 429 unit apartment building, called the North District Development Phase 2 (Project), to the City’s public sewer system. UCR has challenged the application of the sewer capacity fee to its Project and filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Riverside Superior Court seeking a Court order compelling the City to issue a permit necessary for the construction and connection of the Project to the public sewer system without payment of a sewer capacity fee.
In general, UCR argues that state law, Government Code section 54999 et seq. limits the City’s ability charge UCR for sewer capacity fees and that the City cannot apply its sewer capacity fees to UCR’s Project. On May 5, 2025, the Court entered judgment in favor of the City and against UCR finding that UCR’s case was barred by the statute of limitations. UCR filed an appeal with the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District on May 30, 2025. On August 20, 2026, the Court of Appeal ruled in the City’s favor upholding the trial court judgment.
On September 29, 2026, UCR filed a Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court.
DISCUSSION:
City Charter section 702, “Eligibility, powers and duties of City Attorney,” provides, in part, that “the City Council shall have control of all legal business and proceedings and may employ other attorneys to take charge of any litigation or matter or to assist the City Attorney therein.” The law firm of Jarvis Fay provides specialized legal services in litigating and advising clients on local taxes, fees, and assessments, including issues arising under Propositions 13, 26, 62, and 218. Jarvis Fay has litigated property tax allocations, business license taxes, transient occupancy taxes, utility user taxes, parcel taxes, development impact fees, user fees, regulatory fees, fees for services, and special assessments. Jarvis Fay’s experience includes extensive appellate and California Supreme Court practice. Jarvis Fay has defended the City in this matter at both the trial court and the Court of Appeal. The proposed budget is intended to cover the entire case should the Supreme Court grant UCR’s petition for review, which has not yet been granted.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The approval of a legal budget for the law firm of Jarvis Fay is in an amount not to exceed $130,000 to defend the City in the California Supreme Court case filed by UCR and is for specialized legal assistance. Sufficient funds are available in the Sewer Fund, Outside Legal Services Account No. 4125000-421100.
Prepared by: James Johnson, City Attorney
Certified as to
availability of funds: Julie Nemes, Finance Director
2